Open-minded

Open-minded

: You have to give Bill Maher points — yes, you have to — when he shows an open-mindedness. Sometimes — when I disagree with him — he can drive me nuts; he makes a sport and a career of it. But sometimes, he swims against the liberal tide. On this week’s show, after having Richard Perle on — displaying his own balls for coming on this show, by the way — Maher says tells his panel that they have to acknowledge that a government has been formed in Iraq and progress has been made: “For all their bullshit and lying and f’ing it up, it still could work.” He then challenges his panel: “Come on, if in three years there are four democracies in the Middle East, you won’t give them that.” When Arianna Huffing complains about the deaths, Maher says, “7,000 died building the Panama Canal.”

72 responses to “Open-minded”

  1. Eric Deamer Avatar

    Bill Maher still has a show?

  2. tony Avatar

    it’s precisely those flashes of non-partisanship that make maher so good. and hes smart as hell. and his rules are great.
    arianna was good, but the rest of the panel was weak.
    i think people are afraid of him.

  3. scott Avatar

    Bill Maher is not telling the whole truth.
    He gets close, but let’s face facts.
    The Soviet Union is being reborn in America.
    The supposition of privacy is dead.
    Long live our masters. They ROCK.
    They take care of business!

  4. Alex Rowland Avatar

    The supposition of privacy was a creation of the supreme court… and it ain’t dead yet.

  5. Dan Herzlich Avatar
    Dan Herzlich

    JJ, looks what’s coming up. This summer will be notable for high gas prices, and might also be called the “last summer of freedom” because by the end of this year or early next, we’ll have the draft reinstated.
    Little Johnny and Missy, instead of looking for their next mp3 player, will need to check out the latest in body armor.
    Jeff, would you send your son off to fight for this flurry of democracies in the middle east?

  6. Josh Avatar

    If clinton or gore had been president when we started this war, the accusation of “f’ing it up” would have been stuck on the soldiers instead of the president.
    The left whinge has the hardest time of all political groups with realizing that the facts do not match their beliefs.
    “You know, when it comes to me leaving the Democratic Party, it’s kinda like how survivors of the Titantic rowed away from it as quickly as possible. When it comes to leaving the Democratic party, I DIDN’T WANT TO BE SUCKED DOWN WITH IT.”
    “Sucked” is exactly how I would describe it.

  7. Scott Avatar

    Oh, to be a neofascist “conservative”.
    Make shit up as you go along, and it’s never
    called LYING. You can pull entire fantasy scenarios out of ether and stand behind them with the psychopathic smugness of an O’Reilley or a Delay, ensured that this fiction is moral, sane and wholesome.
    Of course, Americans who disagree
    with this administration are enemies of the state
    so lying to defeat them is the moral thing to do. Ain’t that right?
    And it’s easier to pull off when GOD gets forced into the mix. Nevermind class. Close your history books and grab a beer and an FHM.

  8. rich Avatar

    Here’s a novel idea: instead of letting American/Western companies make all this American money in Iraq – why not award these contracts to IRAQI companies, so they can make money, so they can pay taxes to THEIR government?
    Oh I’m sorry, did I have a thought that might actually benefit the Iraqi’s?

  9. Dan Avatar

    Just because Maher’s legendary crassness and stupidity disappears for a moment doesn’t mean we have to cheer him. I find him unwatchable, regardless of his arguments or opinions.
    PS Scott, you forgot to take your meds.

  10. Jersey Exile Avatar

    The left whinge [sic] has the hardest time of all political groups with realizing that the facts do not match their beliefs.
    Wow. You can actually type that without your head exploding from the cognitive dissonance? It’s chutzpah like that that keep the conservatives in power. I wish we on the Left could pull shit out of our ass and call it cotton candy without batting an eye like you Righties are capable of.
    It’s an art, really.
    To be fair most serious war critics are NOT disputing the facts on the ground, but whether – even if the Iraqi affair ends up turning out not to be a disaster – it was still worth the blood and treasure. I suspect history will not be as kind as Bill Maher on rendering a verdict…
    (or, how many times do you hear about our “glorious” expedition to the Phillippines at the turn of the last century?)
    We dabbled in Middle Eastern politics and got burned by one of our “allies”, prompting a war, a 10-year siege, and an occupation that solved one problem by creating about a hundred others. If you want to stick an American flag in that and call it victory, be my guest. At best we cleaned up a mess of our own making.
    And at worst?

  11. Dennis Mosher Avatar
    Dennis Mosher

    The irony of this thread is killing me.
    Jeff titled his post “Open Minded,” and goes on to compliment Bill Maher — with whom Jeff often disagrees — for acknowledging that Bush may have been right about democracy in the Middle East vis a vis Iraq.
    What followed were ten posts of back and forth partisan sniping and name calling. Maher deserves praise for admitting he may have been wrong, and his political opponents may have been right.
    I predict we will soon be hearing similar confessions from conservatives on the Terri Schiavo issue.

  12. Typewriter King Avatar

    As abrasive and… politically eccentric as Bill is, I appreciate his humor, and I always have. luckily, he doesn’t appear much on the non-premium cable package, so I get him in small enough doses to digest :-)

  13. Jason Puckett Avatar
    Jason Puckett

    See, Jeff, your retorts against Oliver Willis that you’re a liberal ring hollow when you write posts like this. When Maher swims against the liberal tide, that’s when you agree with him?

  14. tony Avatar

    typewriter king,
    i feel the same way. i barely watched him when he was nightly, but weekly is just right. and his jokes are sharper.

  15. Patricia Avatar
    Patricia

    Looks like I dropped HBO too soon.
    Even if he’s not sincere, I bet it’s interesting watching him make the other side squirm for a change.

  16. kevinP Avatar

    Jeff:
    Why be open minded when you can be like Scott and show your subtle intelect by calling anyone who disagrees with Scott a “neo-fascist”.Fascism has replaced communism as the most common way to take dialouge into “Crossfire” style yelling and name calling. It makes Mahers show seem like a stodgy debate club in comparison.

  17. Dann Avatar

    Rich,
    That idea has already been beat to death.
    The fact is that much of the work being done in Iraq is very specialized and requires expertise that can only be found in larger western companies. Additionally, these large contractors are already sub-contracting to local (i.e. Iraqi, Kuwaiti, etc.) companies for services that they ARE capable of providing.
    So what you are advocating has already happened.
    Or is reading the word “Halliburton” still enough to send you into outer space?
    Regards,

  18. h0mi Avatar

    I predict we will soon be hearing similar confessions from conservatives on the Terri Schiavo issue.

    Not likely; I don’t think you’ll find many conservatives who opposed Congress’ action suddenly changing their minds. And the “pro feeding tube” side… I don’t know what it would take to change their minds.
    The autopsy results might change people who weren’t solidly on either side but we won’t know till they’re released.

  19. me Avatar

    ‘Of course, Americans who disagree
    with this administration are enemies of the state’
    ah yes, another paranoid who pretends to be an enemy of the state. does it make you feel cool or something? look at me, I disagree, shhhhhh, I’m an enemy of the state man, cooooooool. it is about time you take the kerry sticker off the car though, it just looks dumb.

  20. Cal Avatar

    “it is about time you take the kerry sticker off the car though, it just looks dumb.”
    LOL is totally overused and misused, but that’s exactly what I did when I read that. That was great. I see these cars every day on the roads and wonder why they keep them up. If he couldn’t beat Bush after all the hubbub, isn’t he the worst presidential candidate ever?

  21. Catherine Avatar
    Catherine

    First, I will say that I LOVE Bill Maher’s show, even though I don’t agree with him on everything. And I agree with you, Jeff, that he gets props for not being a partisan puppet only spouting the arguments that people expect him to make, being a liberal and all.
    As for the actual content of the argument, that’s a little fuzzier. First of all, call me an eyeore if you like, but I still think it’s too early to call this an overwhelming success. Let’s not get carried away. Yes, it was a good thing that people in Iraq got to vote and people who say otherwise do have problems. But I have ample reasons to be skeptical about a Bush administration foreign policy. How does he expect me to take him seriously about spreading freedom and democracy around the globe when his administration has not lived up to the standards they want to hold other regimes to?
    Everyone seems to forget that Bush ran for president in 2000 on an anti-nation building platform. Now all of a sudden he wants to be in the business of overthrowing dictators and building democracies from the ground up? I don’t understand why Bill Maher and others doesn’t understand why people wouldn’t trust Bush. He clearly has ulterior motives. Can anyone really argue with a straight face that he’s ONLY concerned with human rights? Obviously, people voting in Iraq was a good thing. No one can argue against that. But that’s something totally separate from whether I or others trust this president to live up to his rhetoric. He’s shown many times in the past that he won’t. Why in god’s name would I expect him to start now?

  22. EverKarl Avatar
    EverKarl

    I didn’t know it was a full moon. Who let the bats out?

  23. jj Avatar

    What happened on the Schiavo affair is that most of the moderates across the country, democrat or republican were opposed to the congressional intervention. Two polls, if you can believe any poll, clearly showed the moderate majority not interested in removing the responsibility from the husband. The hard left and the hard right are the farthest out of step in the US and a good moderate party would be nice. Republicans keep veering farther left and dems keep veering farther left.

  24. kevinP Avatar

    Catherine:
    There are plenty of aspects of Bush’s policy that can be attacked. The constant need of the left and the right to find ulterior motives usually sinks the cause that they are trying to promote. The dems did it with Reagan, the Republicans did it big time with Clinton and now the Dems are doing it with Bush. Whether or not Bush’s policy succeeds or no will be judged by history, now and in the future. You are right that he was a status qou, leave things as they are foreign policy type similar to his father. When the twin towers fell he looked at the situation and saw that that policy would not work anymore. The basic idea of leaving the middle east as it was for stability has been practiced by both Dems and repubs for the last 40 years. Whether he is handling it right is open to debate. But the need to make Bush into Hitler will be just as succesfull as the Rights attempt to make Clinton into the anti-christ. For the 20 to 30 per cent of the country that don’t follow politics as a hobby hear the evil Bush ramblings, lokk at him, and decide that they might not like Bush much but they are scared of the people who paint him as the coming of the plague and weave conspiracy theories and bad motives for every action that he takes. If you stick to the issues and the facts that are known, attack his actions , not what you think is going on in his mind, you will get better results. Study the political opposition to Reagan, Clinton, and Bush. The wilder the attacks got, the better they did.

  25. Linda Edwards Avatar
    Linda Edwards

    “When the twin towers fell he looked at the situation and saw that that policy would not work anymore.”
    Here we go again, another shameless attempt to link 9/11 to our invasion of Iraq.
    Guess what. Saddam Hussein didn’t attack us. Osama bin Laden did. Do you remember him? He’s the guy that we let escape at Tora Bora. He’s the guy that Bush was referring to when he said “I don’t know where bin Laden is. I don’t care” (don’t deny that, it was caught on tape). He’s the guy that’s running around God-knows-where and thumbing his nose at us. He’s the guy that has made the U.S. a laughing stock.
    I don’t hate conservatives. But I do despise Bush. I’ll never forgive him for deliberately letting bin Laden get away.

  26. Kat Avatar

    Well, Linda, Clinton was handed bin laden on a silver platter, and he said no thanks. Clinton also did nothing every time America was attacked–he was a terrorist asskisser. You liberals are such cowards you just look the other way and cover up for the stinking terrorists…like you did the TWA 800 flight and likely OKC. Don’t want to make terrorists look bad. Might piss off some muslim fanatic.
    * The first World Trade Center bombing on February 26, 1993, Clinton did nothing
    * 10 months later in Mogadishu, So-malia… an attack on American military forces who were in country to bring food to starving So-malis, eighteen American soldiers were killed and the body of one was dragged through the streets in a gesture designed to formally humiliate the worldís greatest super power. Clinton turned tail and ran.
    * In 1995, Ramzi Youssef was captured in the Philippines with plans to use commercial airliners to blow up CIA headquarters among other targets.Plans to tighten airport security were rejected by the Clinton White House on the grounds that they might be construed as “racial profiling.” Did not want to piss off CAIR and ACLU.
    * In 1996 in the Khobar Towers, 19 U.S. servicemen were killed but the Saudis refused to cooperate in tracking down the killers. The Clinton Administration did nothing.
    * In 1998, they blew up the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzaniañ 245 people were killed and 6,000 injured. Clintonís bombed an aspirin factory in the Sudan and an empty terrorist camp in Khost. And the terrorists laughed.
    * In October 2000, al-Qaeda attacked the U.S.S Cole, an American warship, killing 17 servicemen. Clinton did nothing.
    Doing nothing gets you more terror–they feel brave and strive for bigger and better. Clinton allowed bin Laden to plan 911, unhindered. Bin Laden expected the US to do nothing–just like Clinton.

  27. Linda Edwards Avatar
    Linda Edwards

    Kat, you’re losing your grip.
    You don’t seem to have a very good grip on current events. Are you honestly not aware that OKC was not attacked by Muslims? Does Timothy McVeigh ring a bell?
    Who looked the other way, and in fact, cut and ran in Lebanon when we were attacked in 1983. Reagan lost no time in pulling out our troops. Did he go after the terrorists? Hell no. A real nice signal to the world that it was ok to attack us and get away with it.
    So you didn’t like Som*lia. Then why did Bush 41 get us into that mess. You mean to tell me you didn’t know it was a Bush-made fiasco? Can you really be that ignorant, or are you just trying to revise history?
    Four men were arrested and convicted for the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. Did nothing? Please!
    It wasn’t until the spring of 2001, when it was now Bush as our President, that the CIA finally found out who attacked the Cole. So what did Bush do about it? Nothing.
    Who spent the entire summer of 2001 dragging their feet about setting up any kind of working policy to go after terrorists (in fact, since Jan 2001, no policy at all), in spite of the fact that they had been warned repeatedly of the increasing
    danger (Terrorist Determined to Attack within United States, remember?). The Bush White House. They completely dismissed the approaching danger. Why? Because Condi convinced them that the real danger would come from Russia and that Clinton spent too much time obsessed with bin Laden.
    What about al-Zarqawi? The CIA knew he had a terrorist camp in northern, Kurdish-controlled Iraq BEFORE we invaded. The CIA reported that the Bush White-house passed up a golden opportunity to send in the missles. Instead, they let al-Zarqawi off the hook. DIdn’t fit into their plans. Along with leaving all the ammo dumps in Iraq unguarded, our troops are still paying the price for that idiocy.
    Kat, it’s just more wild-eyed, foaming-at-the-mouth spewand spittle coming from your direction.
    And the laughing continues.

  28. kevinP Avatar

    Linda:
    I was responding to the accurate fact that Bush changed his idea’s on nation building. I in no way said that Iraq was involved in the 9-11 attack. I brought it up to state the obvious that 9-11 changed Bush’s idea’s on how to handle the middle east.He went from the decades old policy of both Republicans and Democrats to allow non democratic regimes to flourish in the middle east for the sake of stability to an aggressive policy of starting to remove some regimes, carrying out Clintons regime change policy for Iraq militarily, and using political pressures for others. One can say that it would have been better to leave Saddam in power or rely on the UN to remove him. And just to be clear are you saying that Bush’s intention was to not catch OBL. You can argue that his policy allowed him to get away but do you really think that Bush said, don’t catch him. If you are you are sliding into Clinton death list territory.

  29. Kat Avatar

    No, Linda, anyone with a brain wouldn’t like to see their soldiers dragged down a street in So-malia by a bunch of animals to whom they were bringing food. Are you implying you liked So-malia? Did it give you a thrill? Do you hope for dead Americans in Iraq so you can blame Bush? Do you march in those idiotic ANSWER parades spewing your anti-Americanism?
    If Bush had known what the Clinton Administration knew ñ that al-Qaeda had plans to use commercial airliners as bombs and fly them into buildings ñ specifically the CIA — yours would be a serious charge. But they did not know it, because the Clinton team never told them.
    Laugh all you want–laughing jackasses like you make many democrats look like the clowns you are. I hope you laughed heartily when Bush won the election. I did. Or did you foam at the mouth like you are doing now? Is there anything that is wrong in the world that you don’t blame on America and Bush? Like Darfur? I’m sure the terrorists love idiots like you.

  30. Linda Edwards Avatar
    Linda Edwards

    Kat, you do more damage to your credibility (as if you had any) by the moronic things you say. I couldn’t possibly make you look worse than you already do unto yourself.

  31. Linda Edwards Avatar
    Linda Edwards

    Kevin, what I’m saying is that Bush began his campaign against Iraq immediately after 9/11. I feel his obsession with getting Suddam Hussein was greater than his desire to catch bin Laden.
    After 9/11, we all (yes, even me) rallied around this President. When we went into Afghanistan, we only went in with only about 10,000 to 12,000 of our own troops. There were many of us who thought, huh? Wasn’t that a bit too low a number to make a serious attempt? But then Bush let us in on his plan, which was to use the Northern Alliance and disenfrancised Afghan war lords to do most of the ground fighting for us. We would provide air power, direct the war on the ground, we’d be calling the shots, we’d be in complete control of this thing. After all, Bush said, families wouldn’t like it when large numbers of American troops started coming back in body bags. That’s almost a direct quote.
    Well, I bought into that hook, line and sinker, and still gave my support to Bush. What I didn’t know until later was that the reason we sent in so few of our own troops was because Bush didn’t want to commit them in Afghanistan. He knew he was going to need those troops for an invasion of Iraq.
    Immediately after Tora Bora, Bush started making noise about Iraq’s (non-existant) WMDs, and making very deceptive statements about Iraq’s involvement in 9/11. Then we learned that bin Laden not only was still alive, his escape was assisted by the war lords that we had already paid off to help us kill him (BTW, great article in National Geographis recently about the culture in this part of the world. If we had any understanding about these people, we would have known why this part of the plan would never have worked).
    So what was Bush’s response? Was it to send in 130,000 troops to make a serious attempt to capture bin Laden, the man responsible for nearly 3000 lives lost on America’s soil, once and for all? No. It was at this time that Bush answered, when asked by reporters about bin Laden’s whereabouts, “I don’t know. I don’t care”.
    Honey, that’s when he lost me. We were deceived. And this willful lack of “follow-through” is what I mean by deliberate.
    And it’s sorta ironic, don’t you think, that Bush hasn’t placed as much importance on the fact that almost 1600 body bags have come back home from Iraq.

  32. kevinP Avatar

    Linda:
    Your second explanation, whether or not I agree with it, at least makes sense. When you use the word intentional it implies that he purposely let him go. If Kat criticized Clinton for not approving the bombing of OBL at the hunting lodge and instead of calling it a mistake said that he didn’t want to get rid of OBL then she would be stepping over the reality line. Bush should have lost the 04 election but there was so much overheated hyperbole on the left that Bush won. Instead of just concentrating on the facts and nailing Bush with them they went overboard with the conspiracy theories and freaked out the political moderates. When Sen. Jeffords stated the other day that Bush was going to invade Iran to get his brother into the White House I thought there they go again. Watch Hillary. She knows how to attack without sounding like a nutjob.

  33. Linda Edwards Avatar
    Linda Edwards

    Kevin, I agree with you that the Democrats have shown an incredible amount of ineptness(is that a word?). I think their leadership has really let them down.
    But I also think that the American public suffers from a collective ADD, and we are oh, so very easily distracted and confused. All the more inexplicable because getting the facts is so easy to do these day, the internet is available to almost everyone.
    But I still cannot abide by Bush. By not going after bin Laden, he let America down.

  34. jj Avatar

    Afghanistan is a medieval country with no discernable, direct, effect on the economy or politics of its neighbors much less the world. The impetus for war with that regime was the direct hosting and support by the Taliban for OBL and his crew – meaning we had traditional/conventional precedent for action. As a steppingstone in the path to draining swamps, the impact of democracy there is highly laudable on the emotional/humanitarian front (most certainly for the Afghanis themselves) but in the strategic sense cannot have near the impact that accomplishing the same in Iraq will provide. Rule of law, a vibrant economy based on agriculture, energy, and yes, intellectual exports, to the world at large will make the neighbors of Iraq starkly aware of the failure endemic in their societies, maybe even to the point that they may finally look within instead of at the existence of the joooooooos or the infidel as reasons they are living in Earth’s subbasement. Couple the example of a sovereign, free and progressive Iraq smack in the center of the swamp with an unquestioned certainty that U.S. force will be employed when and where we find Islamofascism existing or supported over the long term, and not just when politically expedient for whatever transitory political equation exists at home, and you have the impetus for strategic change.

  35. EverKarl Avatar
    EverKarl

    Yes, Americans are stupid and easily distracted. It must be true; after all John F. Kerry says so. And Bush deliberately let bin Laden get away. It must be true; John F. Kerry said so. This is proved because we “outsourced” operations in Afghanistan (which is where we went first, not Iraq, mind you) to the Northern Alliance. It must be true; John F. Kerry said so. Of course, the military commanders who werre there don’t agree with that assessment. And Kerry, who had access to the same intell, agreed with the approach at the time. But none of that matters if we “feel” — not think or have evidence — that the above is true. Or we might conclude that someone has their talking points ready to go, regardless of the situation.
    Did Bush start thinking about Iraq right after 9/11. Damn right he did. After 9/11, any President would have realized that there is a clock ticking, counting down to the day when a terror group gets its hands on WMDs. The most likely way this would happen would be through nations that support such groups.
    There are only a few nations that have (or were believed to have) that capability. Saddam Hussein was known to have had and used such weapons. He refused to submit to U.N. inspections for years and never accounted for known stockpiles, as he was required to do under the terms of the ceasefire that ended active warfare in ’91. A regime in violation of a ceasefire and multiple U.N. resolutions made for the easiest case. And while no stockpiles were ultimately found in Iraq (after the U.S. delayed for months with the U.N.) we now know that Saddam’s regime made plans to ship WMD-related technology out of the country and that Saddam’s regime did give WMD-related training to terror groups.
    Moreover, people who wonder about Iraq might want to look at a map or a globe. The Bush Administration obviously did, noting that toppling Saddam would help isolate most of the bad actors in the region — Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia, to name just three.
    Furthermore, those who think Iraq was or is a distraction also seem to have little to no grasp of military history. If we had to fight WWII in today’s political climate, these same people would probably be howling about how FDR’s decision to fight Vichy France in Morocco was a distraction and unrelated to the attack on Pearl Harbor. When fighting a war, the commander must consider strategy as well as tactics.
    As for OBL, how is he doing? I haven’t seen him lately. Again, if we had to fight WWII in this climate, there would be those bemoaning Truman’s failure to definitively prove it was Hitler in that bunker. And unlike Hitler, if we kill or capture OBL, it’s not like the terror threat would vanish.
    As for the 1,600 dead U.S. troops in Iraq, it’s tragic, though none of the soldiers or vets I know appreciates having Leftists hide behind their comrades’ corpses for political gain. Indeed, as Jeff noted in the main post, even someone as far to the Left as Bill Maher recognizes that this is a low number by historical standards. But apparently some people prefer to wallow in their own fuzzy feelings of moral superiority than attempt to understand how wars are fought.

  36. Linda Edwards Avatar
    Linda Edwards

    Yet, bin Laden runs free. To this day. Three and 1/2 years later. The strong message this sends to our enemies cannot be underestimated.
    Impractical and/or unsubstantiated ideology is dangerous. These movements have to happen from within, not as imposed. We’ve been down this road in the Middle East before. Often. Don’t fall into the trap of taking a few small snipets of favorable news and proclaim victory. We’ve got a long way to go yet.
    Bringing “democracy” to Iraq wasn’t the reason we invaded that country. We went because we were misled or deceived into thinking there were WMDs and links to al-Qaeda. Remember, Bush said we had proof there were WMDs. So even if Bush really did think WMDs existed, he still lied when he said he had proof. “Bringing democracy” to Iraq was only a secondary rationale used when Bush ran out of all other excuses. In fact, the election they just had in January was initially opposed by Bush. He wanted the constitution to be drafted by his own hand-picked cronies. Bush wasn’t interested in the Iraqis determining their own future. Al-Sistani shoved the elections down Bush’s throat, and Bush had no wiggle room, because without al-Sistani, there’s no doubt Iraq would have erupted into a civil war.
    Who are we to make the determination as to the kind government a sovereign nation should have. And just how “progressive” a nation do you think will result in Iraq. You only have to consider the new Prime Minister and his connections to Iran. Don’t kid yourself that there won’t be some heavy-duty influence coming up from the southeast. Was this really part of the plan, that we would expend so much of our blood and treasure for this result? Would we have risked so much just so that Iraqis could cast a vote? With absolutely no idea of the result, could even Bush have been so foolish?
    Progressive? I beg to differ. I saw a couple of groups of Iraqi women on the news. They were covered head to toe with burkas (or as Bill Maher puts it, bee-keeper suits), just like in Afghanistan. If the clerics get their way, women will be back to being second-class citizens. Progressive, yeah, just like in the rest of the “swamp”.
    All I want is for the violence to abate enough so that we can get a sufficient number of Iraqis trained, proclaim “victory” if we must, and bring our troops home.
    The fortunate result of all this mess is that it’ll be a long time before the American people will stand for such misadventures again.

  37. franky Avatar

    Kat,
    thanks for at least changing some of the words from the article from which you stole chunks of text and posted here
    http://texusa.com/ReadThis.htm

  38. Kat Avatar

    {Progressive? I beg to differ. I saw a couple of groups of Iraqi women on the news. They were covered head to toe with burkas (or as Bill Maher puts it, bee-keeper suits), just like in Afghanistan. If the clerics get their way, women will be back to being second-class citizens. Progressive, yeah, just like in the rest of the “swamp”.} That is one of the stupidest things I’ve read all day.
    Well, I saw some women in America dressed in bee keeper suits. One I saw on TV wants her licence picture in that garb and the ACLU agrees with her. Does that mean muslims oppress women in America? In Canada they are forcing muslim women to abide by sharia.
    Is Canada a ‘swamp’ for oppressed muslim women? Should America outlaw the headrag and potato saks?

  39. EverKarl Avatar
    EverKarl

    OBL runs free? Really? Where’s the videotape? Where’s the audiotape? Where are the mocking public pronouncements? If he runs, it’s not because he’s free.
    What message does it send? Why not ask what message was sent by toppling Saddam? Better yet, look at Libya, which gave up its WMD programs. Or Lebanon, where Syria is deperately trying to cling to its occupation and Hezbollah faces the prospect of being squeezed out of its terror functions. Or on the fabled Arab street, which the media used to invoke when they thought it was uniformly hostile to the U.S., but which is largely ignored now that a concrete commitment by the U.S. to promote better government in the ME has encouraged democratic opposition not only in Lebanan, but in places like Egypt and Iran.
    Impractical and/or unsubstantiated ideology is dangerous, which is why I usually tend to avoid people making assertions without any factual or historical basis for them. For example, tripe about the U.S. being unable to “impose” democracy, which will come as news to Germany and Japan, where the U.S. imposed it, right down to Truman’s hand-picked cronies writing the Japanese constitution. And people following up that tripe with the internally contradictory complaint that what follows will not be sufficiently progressive. Assert that the U.S. cannot impose its culture and then blame the U.S. because the resulting Muslim culture is insufficiently progresive? Nice work if you can get it, but I see it for what it is. As for the plight of women in such cultures, I would note that women are better off in Afghanistan and Iraq than they are in many other nations in the region, precisely because of the U.S. military actions there.
    Reliance on unsubstantiated ideology rather than history also allows people to avoid the fact that establishing democracy in the ME was a stated goal of the Bush policy before the invasion of Iraq and part of the Congressional resolution on the matter. There are some who want to labor under the delusion that a polcy can only be justified by one goal which they get to pick, but that is a delusion.
    It’s similarly delusional to believe that capturing or killing OBL should have been or should be the primary object of the war on terror. Saddam is in custody, the insurgency continues — the same would be true in the case of OBL. Capturing or killing OBL today does not prevent Islamic Jihad or some other terror group from getting its hands on WMDs tomorrow.
    Of course, there’s one thing that’s even less useful than relying on ubsubstantiated ideology. That would be reliance on a blinding personal hatred of President Bush, which leaves one thrashing about pointlessly, except as primal scream therapy for Post Election Selection Trauma — therapy that is better conducted in private, where it’s not so embarrassing.

  40. franky Avatar

    What?
    I’m sorry, I thought that the events in Lebanon were triggered by Syria’s murder of a popular politician. I didn’t realise Bush was responsible (is this like instapundit’s jokes about KArl Rove being responsible for all the evil, Bush is responsible for everything we like?).
    Libya gave up its weapons functions, but it seems those talks had been going on for some time before the war in Iraq even started. Another victory i guess for a war that had yet to take place. Score one for Bush
    Exactly, how are women better off in Iraq (I’ll definitely agree on Afghanistan)?. Iraqi women were the most liberated in the region, with the probable exception of maronite women. Yet now they face the prospect of continual harrassment to live in accordance with the extreme factions of islam. Go read the accounts of how iraqi women walked around in jeans before, and now are being pressured in to wearing burkas. Once again, yet more evidence of how smart it was of us when fighting against fundamentalist islam to attack a secular state – score two for Bush.

  41. franky Avatar

    I’ve noticed that the same people who stress how the war in Iraq is nothing like the war in Vietnam, and basically hint that only a total ignoramus could see any similarity are perfectly at ease comparing Iraq to post-war Germany or post-war Japan. It’s the pick’n’mix approach to history I guess.

  42. EverKarl Avatar
    EverKarl

    franky,
    The events in Lebanon were triggered in part by Syria’s murder of a popular politician, but U.S. policy was also a factor. Walid Jumblatt, a leader of the opposition to Syrian occupation (and previously no fan of the U.S. in general and Bush in particular) was quoted in the Washington Post:
    “It’s strange for me to say it, but this process of change has started because of the American invasion of Iraq,” explains Jumblatt. “I was cynical about Iraq. But when I saw the Iraqi people voting three weeks ago, 8 million of them, it was the start of a new Arab world.” Jumblatt says this spark of democratic revolt is spreading. “The Syrian people, the Egyptian people, all say that something is changing. The Berlin Wall has fallen. We can see it.”
    As for whether Libya would have given up its WMD program absent the invasion of Iraq, I will paraphrase (and I know that you in particular will appeciate this) Al Capone: You can get much further with a smile and a gun than you can with just a smile.
    How are women better off in Iraq? They aren’t being ushered into Saddam’s rape rooms, are they? I’ve read the accounts you mentioned, but they aren’t policy. And for all of the doomsaying, it does not appear that Iraq is going to become a theocracy, either. I don’t weep for the passing of a secular regime that acted as Saddam’s did. But you already knew that.

  43. Linda Edwards Avatar
    Linda Edwards

    Let’s see now. We’re comparing the war with Japan and Germany, both of which declared war on the U.S., one of which actually attacked us, to Iraq, which posed no threat to us (except for what Bush concocted in own own little brain). Truly ridiculous.
    Where’s bin Laden’s videotape and audiotape, you ask? Have you been living in a cave for the past 3 years? And the only message we sent by invading Iraq was, “Those Americans are f**king nuts”.
    Bush’s ineptness and/or deception (take your pick, neither is flattering) has been exposed and confirmed by at least 3 different commissions. The credibility of our country has been severely and dangerously damaged. But what Bush exposed was his weaknesses. We’ve stretched our armed forces to the breaking point, which is one of the worst kept secrets out there. Heaven forbid we should be faced with a real crisis at home before we’re able to bring a good chunk of our troops back.
    We’ve botched it so badly that other countries just aren’t afraid of us anymore. Putin has thumbed his nose at us, rolling back democratic progress in Russia. Europe is seriously considering renewed arms sales to China, in spite of our vigorous objections. We have no teeth to negotiate from a position of strength with N Korea and Iran. Heck, we can’t even effectively intimidate Syria on our own (other than to shake our fist at them). We had to enlist the help of our “friends”, the French (gasp, no … not … the French!).
    Of course, capturing OBL now won’t solve much of the terrorist problem. No agruement there. The horse is already out of the barn. 3-1/2 years of seeing Bush fumble all over himself is more than ample time to inspire droves of would-be terrorists. But when Bush really had the chance, Bush blew it. Yes, you can be as delusional as you want. But the fact is, OBL got away because Bush made only a token attempt to go after him.
    The message is, yes, you can attack the U.S. in a terrible way and get away with it.

  44. franky Avatar

    Well the women may not being pushed in to rape rooms (without wishing to downplay the obvious suffering many underwent in Saddam’s regime, but I would be interested in seeing some sort of stats on how many of these rape rooms existed), but they’re certainly more likely to be dead following the invasion and the civil war that has erupted. And now they are being made to live in a way that is totally alien to the majority who grew up in a secular society.
    The quote of Jumblatt was interesting and I had not seen it before. However, I have not seen it echoed anywhere precisely because Lebanon already had the most advanced democracy outside of Israel in the region, so to see images of Iraqis voting wouldn’t have the same effect as it might in other countries. It seems to me that Jumblatt has taken the view that he views Syria as his main enemy and the enemy of his enemy might just be a good ally to talk up in the pages of the Washington Post.

  45. Kat Avatar

    Saddam was a pussycat. He hade cute punishments like:
    * Medical experimentation
    * Beatings
    * Crucifixion
    * Hammering nails into the fingers and hands
    * Amputating sex organs or breasts with an electric carving knife
    * Spraying insecticides into a victim’s eyes
    * Branding with a hot iron
    * Committing rape while the victim’s spouse is forced to watch
    * Pouring boiling water into the victim’s rectum
    * Nailing the tongue to a wooden board
    * Extracting teeth with pliers
    * Using bees and scorpions to sting naked children in front of their parents
    And the terrorist’s pondscum:
    Sadistic Tales of Saddamís Sons
    By Sharon Waxman
    Washington Post | July 24, 2003
    Someday in the not too distant future, Iraqi parents will tuck their children into bed at night and, like Scheherazade, tell them tales of Uday and Qusay, the notorious sons of Saddam.
    This is how people talk about them even now.
    Uday, 39, was the loud, preening one. Qusay, 37, was the quiet, calculating one. Both were pampered sons of a murderous tyrant, handed the power to inflict pain and demand pleasure at will from an early age. What could anyone expect? They learned to abuse their power with pathological glee and unbridled egotism.
    Wouldnít anybody?
    Hereís a small example: When Uday built yet another massive palace in the middle of Baghdad, he was dissatisfied with the noise of fast-moving traffic passing beside the compound. So he had a single-lane overland bridge built nearby to divert the cars and slow them down. It created traffic jams in the city, but at least his yard was quiet.
    Both brothers had many palaces, exotic pets, women, jewelry and, in Udayís case, hundreds and hundreds of cars. Both had made untold millions trafficking in contraband under U.N. sanctions. Remember Qusay and his goons pulling up in front of the Iraqi central bank and withdrawing a billion dollars hours before the U.S. bombing began? Biggest bank heist in world history? Thatís the kind of thing weíre talking about.††
    The city of Baghdad cowered in the shadow of Husseinís sons, most especially Uday. People knew, more or less, how to avoid Saddam Husseinís wrath. But there was no predicting the fits of pique that might seize the filial bogeyman.
    Everybody knew that Uday, a party animal, would help himself to another manís wife ó usually just for a night or two ó if he felt like it, and share her with his entourage, if he felt like it. Sometimes he took the bride on her wedding night, in her gown. Sometimes the groom would be found dead later, a suicide. Sometimes the bride would be found dead later, too.
    Everybody knew that if someone got on Qusayís nerves, he would send a signed death warrant to his brother, who would carry it out without question. It wasnít that Qusay minded bloodying his hands, he didnít. He liked to shoot suspected traitors in the head.
    But he did mind getting his hands dirty; he had a phobic fear of germs and didnít want anyone, even his children, to touch him. Kissing is big in the Arab world, but not around Qusay Saddam Hussein.
    NO LOGIC TO BEHAVIOR
    Saddam Hussein had good reason for his paranoia. People were trying to kill him all the time. If he had food tasters and a special chef who traveled with him, it was because there were others trying to poison him. His bloodthirsty behavior usually had a purpose behind it, to terrorize his people into submission, and to intimidate his enemies.
    No such logic could explain the behavior of Uday Saddam Hussein. Indeed, few in history can top him for pathological jealousy. Perhaps psychologists will study him in the future and find a name for Udayís particular brand of irrationality: ìUday-pensation,î a very advanced form of pe-nis envy.
    Once Uday and his friends were at the Jadriyah hunting club in Baghdad, where the popular singer Kathem Saher was performing. Women had flocked around the handsome croonerís table, asking for autographs.
    Uday was enraged. He ordered Saher over to his table and said he wanted an autograph, too. Then he handed the singer his shoe, offering him a terrifying dilemma ó should he insult Uday by signing the lowly thing, or insult Uday by not signing it? The singer signed the shoe. Then he left the club and the country immediately, knowing heíd be dead if Uday ever saw him again.
    As the head of Iraqís Olympic committee, Uday was a sports buff. His method of motivating athletes was to threaten them with torture if they lost. But sometimes he tortured them if they won, too, if he thought a player was getting more attention from the fans than he.
    He tortured star members of the soccer team. He tortured members of the Olympic wrestling team. Sometimes he just beat them and threw them in a cell for several days. Other times he used one of his favorite medieval methods, called falaqa, hanging the victim upside down and beating him mercilessly on the soles of the feet. Uday used to like to torture his friends ó who needed enemies, really? ó for little infractions. If you were late for a meeting, for example, you might get beaten. Heíd beat the butler for having body odor. Heíd beat the maid for giggling out of turn. Heíd beat an official of the radio and television authority if there were grammatical mistakes made on the air.
    Doesnít anyone see a television movie in this?††
    Here was Udayís problem: Daddy didnít love him enough. Uday was too unstable even for Saddam Hussein.
    FALLING OUT OF FAVOR
    Uday liked television. He was in charge of the national media, which meant he controlled the airwaves. A movie buff, he would steal the satellite signal for films aimed at other countries, and broadcast first-run Hollywood movies free on Iraqi television. People in Baghdad have seen ìLord of the Ringsî and ìLord of the Rings: The Two Towers.î Theyíve seen ìThe Matrix.î They missed ìMatrix Reloadedî because Uday was busy running from the American invasion.
    Here was Udayís problem: Daddy didnít love him enough. Uday was too unstable even for Saddam Hussein (this is saying something), and the dictator had long before elevated the younger son to positions of real responsibility, naming Qusay head of the Republican Guard and putting him in charge of military intelligence and the special security forces. Qusay was a murderer you could count on.
    Uday, on the other hand, only got to control the state media, youth culture and sports. His title as head of the Fedayeen Saddam was a nominal one. Apparently, it wasnít enough.
    In 1996, Udayís enemies (former friends, perhaps) finally had had enough of his bullying behavior. Assailants attacked him in his car in the chic Mansour district, shooting into his entourage and nearly killing him. The attack left Uday with permanent damage, provoking a stroke and afflicting him with frequent seizures. Walking became difficult. Sex, according to the local gossip, became impossible.
    Guess what? It made Uday even more sadistic. Doctors in Baghdad tell of going to Udayís palaces to pick up unconscious women.
    Uday would go out to the cityís private clubs and ìinviteî a group of girls back to his house. Heíd get them drunk, and drug their drinks. But then when he couldnít perform sexually, heíd beat them. Doctors would be called to remove the victims.
    But the Iraqis deserved these animals, and how dare the USA interfere? They were Franky’s heroes.

  46. Linda Edwards Avatar
    Linda Edwards

    More from our buddies in Saudi Arabia
    http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/01/13/saudia9810.htm
    What? Israel? No way!
    http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/01/13/isrlpa9806.htm
    Well, Burma’s not our friend (are they?). Now we have an excuse to attack them.
    http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/01/13/burma9826.htm
    And who can forget the Sudan. If ever Bush needed a case to justify an invasion, this is it (yet, why does he sit on his hands?).
    http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/01/13/sudan9885.htm
    I like this one, because Bush looked deep into Putin’s eyes and said, Gee, what a nice guy! Or something like that. We’ll have the added benefit of restoring a democracy.
    http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/01/13/russia9867.htm
    Wha???
    http://hrw.org/doc/?t=usa&c=usint
    Couldn’t fit in all the countries on the list. But that shouldn’t stop us from immediately drawing up plans to invade each and every one of them. But we may have to resolve the logistical problems about how we invade ourselves.
    The fact is that no one gave a rats ass about the plight of the average Iraqi (least of all Bush) before we invaded, then ran out of all other excuses when we realized doh!. Pretending now that Bush only had the welfare of Iraqis in his heart (yet being responsible for the deaths of thousands upon thousand of innocents) is only slightly full of it.

  47. franky Avatar

    God, there’s nothing like self-rigtheous of the retarded. Kat, you don’t give a shit about the Iraqis and never have as is obvious by your repeated racist comments here about muslims. You were told to be outraged and outraged you became, too dumb to understand how much bad stuff goes on in the world – but until those who pull your strings need you to be angry about say the events in Colombia or the congo you’ll continue not to know or care.

  48. Kat Avatar

    Yeah, but more Iraqis died under Saddam than have died in the war. Remember that Saddam’s goons are the ones killing innocents these days, but anti war idiots cheer those actions. They care more about poor Saddam and his goons than innocent Iraqis. They hate Bush more than they want a chance at a better life for Iraqis.
    Where are all the leftist countries regarding Darfur? Are they swallowing the swill put forth by Koffi the Krook that there is no genocide? Where is Kanaduh, France, Germany, Russia–all those peace lovers? Yes, Sudan needs help–so why don’t these countries help? US is busy. Where are all the anti-war idiots marching against the Arab militias genociding in Darfur? Where oh where?

  49. Linda Edwards Avatar
    Linda Edwards

    Gee, Kat, even Blair admitted that the number of bodies found in Iraq was, well, only slightly overstated:
    http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,1263830,00.html
    Disclaimer: 5000 bodies is 5000 too many.
    On the other hand, our bombing created our own version of hell for the innocent Iraqi civilians:
    http://www.jhsph.edu/PublicHealthNews/Press_Releases/PR_2004/Burnham_Iraq.html
    Even that British commie rag, The Economist, found the statistical methodology used in this study to be sound:
    http://www.economist.com/science/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3352814
    I’ll agree that the way the world has dragged their feet with regards to addressing the genocides in Darfur AND the Congo is shameful. International action (not unilateral but a true coalition, otherwise, that’s a recipe for a big old mess – see Iraq) is required, and the UN needs to get it’s freaking act together to coordinate this. But to excuse Bush’s lack of involvement because … HE’S BUSY??? Are you really able to type that with a straight face?

  50. Kat Avatar

    (And who can forget the Sudan. If ever Bush needed a case to justify an invasion, this is it (yet, why does he sit on his hands?).) And you self righteous Bush hater have the nerve to suggest that no other damned country in the world, but the US should clean up the muslim murderers in Sudan? The USA is busy in Iraq–let all those countries who benefited in the oil for food scam use some of the dirty money and help fight the terrorist jangewid. You don’t like US involvement, fine, get off your fat ass and let your French cowards and Canadians get their armies to Sudan.

  51. Linda Edwards Avatar
    Linda Edwards

    My God, you are not only an idiot, but also you can’t read worth shit.
    Did I not say the world/UN needs to get more involved in resolving the crisis in Darfur? That doesn’t mean Bush is excused because he’s “too busy”. He certainly finds plenty of time to take a multitude of vacations in Crawford.
    You need to wipe the spittle off your chin.

  52. Kat Avatar

    No, idiot, you specifically said”If ever Bush needed a case to justify an invasion, this is it (yet, why does he sit on his hands?” You did not say the US, you said Bush. You’d like nothing better than to see the US get involved so you could blame Bush for involvement. Bush can’t get involved without UN approval. Isn’t that what you said about Iraq–we should have just let Saddam do whatever he wanted as long as there was no UN approval. Well, there is none in Sudan, so don’t blame Bush.
    But blame yourself–it is because of anti-war idiots as yourself that there was a genocide in Armenia, in Rwanda, and now in Darfur. While you hold your stupid peace marches hundreds of thousands die–because you don’t want anyone getting involved. Maybe you could call Jane Fonda and Michael Moore to help those poor people. You froth like a rabid dog and scream like a banshee about the US’s involvement in Iraq but have you and your kind held any marches to condemn the muslim murderers in Darfur? Even one itty bitty one? Or is your hatred only for Americans and not terrorists?

  53. EverKarl Avatar
    EverKarl

    As both franky and Linda Edwards don’t get my reference to Germany and Japan, I’ll try to explain it with small words.
    Earlier in the thread, it was suggested that the U.S. cannot “impose” democracy on another country. To quote Linda, “These movements have to happen from within, not as imposed.” Germany and Japan are examples where we did just that, thereby disproving Linda’s point. Linda’s response fails to address this, makes irrelevant comparisons and generally proves my earlier suggestion that her hatred of Bush blinds her to even obvious points.
    For example, Linda wrote:
    “The fact is that no one gave a rats ass about the plight of the average Iraqi (least of all Bush) before we invaded, then ran out of all other excuses when we realized doh!.
    “No one?” Sorry, Linda, you’re dead wrong. Jeff Jarvis gave a rat’s ass and said so at the time.
    Guess who else gave a rat’s ass about the plight of the average Iraqi before we invaded? President George W. Bush. In the linked speech, Bush mentions the threat posed by a regime that might be able to supply terror groups with WMDs, but then continues:
    “A liberated Iraq can show the power of freedom to transform this vital region by bringing hope and progress into the lives of millions. America’s interest in security and America’s belief in liberty both lead in the same direction, to a free and peaceful Iraq.
    The first to benefit from a free Iraq would be the Iraqi people themselves. Today they live in scarcity and fear, under a dictator who has brought them nothing but war and misery and torture. Their lives and their freedom matter little to Saddam Hussein, but Iraqi lives and freedom matter greatly to us.
    Bringing stability and unity to a free Iraq will not be easy, yet that is no excuse to leave the Iraqi regime’s torture chambers and poison labs in operation. Any future the Iraqi people choose for themselves will be better than the nightmare world that Saddam Hussein has chosen for them.”
    That’s a primetime speech from Feb. 23, 2003, before the invasion. I could produce others, but think I’ve embarrassed Linda enough already — provided she can separate herself from her hysterical anti-Bush ranting for a moment.
    franky makes a more interesting point vis a vis the comparison to Vietnam. I happen to think tht the insurgent situation is less serious in Iraq for several reasons. Unlike the NVA, the insurgents do not control any signiicant portion of the country. The insurgents also have less popular support than the NVA; the Sunni insurgents are trying to cut a back-channel deal with the new government even now. The insurgents may be getting some support from nations like Iran and Syria, perhaps even some money from Saudis — but it is undoubtedly a drop in the bucket compared to the support the NVA got from the USSR and PRC. Moreover, the US was reluctant to pursue certain strategies in Vietnam precisely to avoid conflict with the USSR or PRC. Furthermore, there’s decent evidence that Vietnamization worked pretty well until Congress cut off the funding, which I don’t expect to happen with Iraq.

  54. EverKarl Avatar
    EverKarl

    PS: franky, Walid Jumblatt has no motive to say something nice about Bush’s policies unless he means it. After all, the card Syria has (or had) been playing was that the Lebanese should not have foreign interests dictating the situation. Allying oneself with the U.S. would play into the Syrian strategy.

  55. franky Avatar

    Jumblatt has all the incentive to use the menace of the US against Syria, especially when the US went through a couple of months and it looked like Syria would be the next stop of Bush’s world tour of bombs of freedom and the liberty of death.
    So back to the original question – we have hundreds of thousands of people marching on the street for the murder of a politician. We have one quote intentionaly placed in the Washington Post. I think it’s pretty clear what caused the Lebanon uprising and it wasn’t Bush.
    And back to this nonsense about Germany and Japan. These were functioning civil societies that had had democracy, not competing tribal clans crushed together in artifical borders. A comparison between these disparate countries and Iraq is about as stupid as comparing Saddam to Hitler. Now if you weren’t comparing Japan, Germany and Iraq why bring it up in this thread?
    Regarding the humanitarian motivations for invading Iraq, I’m sure you’ll agree that we ought to begin preparations to invade the congo, so we can give Africans freedom and liberty. What there’s no oil there? Ok, cancel that one.

  56. Linda Edwards Avatar
    Linda Edwards

    Everkarl, you seem to be ignorant of the fact that the situation in Germany and Japan are as different as night and day than the situation in Iraq, so let me explain it to you.
    1. Germany was already a western-style democracy. Hitler was elected by the German people in 1932. We didn’t introduce any new idea.
    2. Unlike Iraq, Japan had attacked us. We had a right to defend ourselves, so we destroyed them. At the end of the war, Japan had no will, had no government, and its culture was decimated. It was very much a matter of working with a clean slate, which was why we were successful.
    3. Iraq, as we have learned, has been very willful. They have very clear ideas of their identity, and they don’t hesitate to “share their opinion” with us. They want to do it their way, not our way. As you will recall (or maybe not because it doesn’t suit your purpose), Bush initially didn’t even support the elections.
    What Bush intended to set up in Iraq (installing Chalibi), is not what’s he’s getting. Why? Al-Sistani grabbed Bush by the balls and said, “not so fast”. Franky’s point about al-Sistani is right on the mark. There’s no reason to believe that once al-Sistani is gone, that we’ll be so lucky that the next influential leading cleric will be as moderate. Just how much risk are we willing to take?
    4. The very few statements Bush made about freedom for the people in Iraq were always strenuously linked to now discredited claims of WMDs and links to al-Qaeda. Bush’s disingenuous excuse that he had concerns for the average Iraqi could never stand on its own. Bush’s alleged concern for the Iraqi people is as phony as a three-dollar bill. This is the man that didn’t hesitate to drop bombs that killed tens of thousands, if not a hundred thousand or more. As franky says, if freeing the oppressed people in the world was really what this was all about, why didn’t we invade the Congo, which has suffered a far worse fate than the people of Iraq. Why haven’t we invaded China, which has a horrendous human rights record. Shall we even talk about our buddies in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia? It goes on and on (see http://www.hrw.org). And I certainly hope your outrage about Abu Ghraib prison is as strong! Otherwise, you’d be quite the hypocrite. (DON’T even try to excuse Abu Ghraib by saying we had a right to treat terrorists that way. The Pentagon itself said that 70 to 80% of the inmates at Abu Ghraib at that time weren’t guilty of anything, they were people picked up in sweeps).
    So my dear Everkarl, the embarrassment in yours. Please brush up on your history.
    As for Kat, she will either soon be institutionalized, or her head will explode.

  57. franky Avatar

    Isn’t it funny how everyone who tries to speak with Kat ends up concluding she’s insane within three or four posts. I see people routinely called stupid, racist, evil etc, but the only person I’ve ever seen called insane here always happens to be Kat, and that has occurred more times than I can count (of course there’s an exception, the one commentator here who thinks Kat’s really, really smart and not a racist bigot at all). I guess such a blinding intellect is just too much for the rest of us to cope with.

  58. Kat Avatar

    A meeting of the leftist lunatics club–franky, the terrorist asskisser anti-America bigot, and linda–a perpetually menstruating whinebag,either believe as I do or it makes you stupid–isn’t that what Howard Dean says–all Republicans are stupid. You need to look in a mirror if you want to see insane.

  59. Linda Edwards Avatar
    Linda Edwards

    Amen, franky!

  60. franky Avatar

    Jeff at times complains that this red-blue state divisions are useless. Well in some sense he may be right, but then you take someone like kat and these divisions become more helpful. Kat has never once had an original thought in her life (as witnessed by her practice of copying comments from free republic and pasting in the comments section here) – any particular issue you prepared to debate with her, you would know exactly where she stood even before she uttered a word. Sex abuse in the church? gay conspiracy. Government censorship? media is a liiberal consipriacy to make all our children queer. etc. etc. Massacres in the congo? not really interested until the muslims turn up and then she can vent once again against that religion.
    So the point is that these divisions of red-blue help to describe the vast number of people who really are unable to think independently but are instead willing receptacles waiting for their opinions to be handed to them.
    But I’ve wasted enough time on the subject of kat and her delusions. life really is too short to teach a pig to read or debate with kat.

  61. EverKarl Avatar
    EverKarl

    Linda will be in italics:
    “1. Germany was already a western-style democracy. Hitler was elected by the German people in 1932. We didn’t introduce any new idea.
    Hitler was not elected in 1932. In fact, he lost. He was appointed Chancellor in 1933. Those are things someone who wants to lecture me on history should know. And if George Bush had been President in 1945, the Linda Edwardses of that time would be arguing that the Marshall Plan would not work because the Germans had already shown that they were incapable or unwilling to run a stable democracy, and in fact had their own insurgents, known as “werewolves.”
    2. Unlike Iraq, Japan had attacked us. We had a right to defend ourselves, so we destroyed them. At the end of the war, Japan had no will, had no government, and its culture was decimated. It was very much a matter of working with a clean slate, which was why we were successful.
    Saddam Hussein routinely fired on U.S. aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones and violated the terms of the ceasefire in the Gulf War. At the end of WWII, Japan had no government? That would be news to the signatories of the peace treaty. Moreover, not only did Japan keep its Emperor, but the U.S. declined to try him as a war criminal. And the Japanese had plenty of will, even after LeMay’s firebombing of Tokyo; it took two nuclear bombs to obtain a surrender. If Linda is suggesting that the nuclear decimation of a culture is conducive to establishing a democracy in its place, then the U.S. should have waged nuclear war in Afghanistan and any place that supports terrorists or Islamic extremism to get a clean slate. But I’ll bet Linda would be opposed to that, as would I. But I do like the Orwellian doublespeak — Germany worked because it had been a democracy, Japan worked because we had a clean slate.
    By the way, six weeks ater we invaded, where was the Iraqi government? Where was the will of the Iraqi military? And the Left complained that the culture had been looted. So much for the differences with Japan.
    “3. Iraq, as we have learned, has been very willful. They have very clear ideas of their identity, and they don’t hesitate to “share their opinion” with us. They want to do it their way, not our way. As you will recall (or maybe not because it doesn’t suit your purpose), Bush initially didn’t even support the elections.
    What Bush intended to set up in Iraq (installing Chalibi), is not what’s he’s getting. Why? Al-Sistani grabbed Bush by the balls and said, “not so fast”. Franky’s point about al-Sistani is right on the mark. There’s no reason to believe that once al-Sistani is gone, that we’ll be so lucky that the next influential leading cleric will be as moderate. Just how much risk are we willing to take?”

    Actually, the U.S. did not oppose elections in Iraq. It did oppose al-Sistani’s calls for near-immediate elections for good reasons. First, the security situation. Second, al-Sistani’s call was an effort on his part to install a Shia government without the protections for minority rights upon which the U.S. insists. Might al-Sistani’s successor be worse? Possibly; anything is possible. What we know now is that every day until that successor shows up is a day that Saddam Hussein is not training terrorists and brutalizing his own people. And it is all time the U.S. can spend trying to choke off support for Islamic extremists.
    “4. The very few statements Bush made about freedom for the people in Iraq were always strenuously linked to now discredited claims of WMDs and links to al-Qaeda. Bush’s disingenuous excuse that he had concerns for the average Iraqi could never stand on its own. Bush’s alleged concern for the Iraqi people is as phony as a three-dollar bill. This is the man that didn’t hesitate to drop bombs that killed tens of thousands, if not a hundred thousand or more. As franky says, if freeing the oppressed people in the world was really what this was all about, why didn’t we invade the Congo, which has suffered a far worse fate than the people of Iraq. Why haven’t we invaded China, which has a horrendous human rights record. Shall we even talk about our buddies in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia? It goes on and on (see http://www.hrw.org). And I certainly hope your outrage about Abu Ghraib prison is as strong! Otherwise, you’d be quite the hypocrite. (DON’T even try to excuse Abu Ghraib by saying we had a right to treat terrorists that way. The Pentagon itself said that 70 to 80% of the inmates at Abu Ghraib at that time weren’t guilty of anything, they were people picked up in sweeps).
    You hate Bush; we all get it. And again with the reductive thinking that there can only be one reson to do something. Funny, the Left can come up with all sorts of reasons as to why the U.S. really invaded Iraq, but Bush is not allowed to rely on more than one reason himself. As I already noted, Bush pushed both rationales in the speech I linked, but Bush makes clear in the speech that a free Iraq ultimately enhances national security by choking off support for terrorism. And you might ask yourself how many democratic countries are state sponsors of terrorism (and since I know franky is going to claim the United States is, we can skip it, as we’ve already agreed to disagree on that one).
    Why didn’t we invade the Congo? Probably because the Congo didn’t have a track record of threatening to destabilize the world economy or training terrorists in the use of chemical and biological weapons, for starters. Why didn’t we invade China? Same reason. Pakistan? Because after 9/11 Musharraf has done everything he can (though undoubtedly hampered by his own ISI) to help. The Saudis? I would have given serious thought to taking it over, but there were stronger rationales for invading Iraq first (btw, how come the “no blood for oil” folk never ask why we chose Iraq over SA?). Indeed, as I noted earlier, establishing a democracy in Iraq helps isolate the Saudis.
    As for Abu Ghraib I am outraged to the extent that ordinary detainees were abused. I would be far less outraged in those cases where actual unlawful combatants were involved. However, if you are suggesting that liberating Iraq from Saddam was the wrong thing to do because some of our soldiers violated the UCMJ after the fact, we will have to agree to disagree.

  62. Franky Avatar

    Everkarl, please read through that article on werewolves and notice that the German central government, or the nucleus of it, still existed (the clue to that is that Hitler and Himmler are still there to award medals etc) – that is in no way similar to what is happening in Iraq. (a further point just to be clear, what are the actual figures of US soldiers killed by the werewolves following the collapse of the German government? “According to America’s Role in Nation-Building: From Germany to Iraq, a new study by former Ambassador James Dobbins, who had a lead role in the Som_alia, Haiti, Bosnia, and Kosovo reconstruction efforts, and a team of RAND Corporation researchers, the total number of post-conflict American combat casualties in Germanyóand Japan, Haiti, and the two Balkan casesówas zero.” http://slate.msn.com/id/2087768/
    The Germany analogies are just clapped out whichever way you look at them.
    And only in the mind of a flag-waver for the empire can someone really write that we were under threat because our airplanes were shot at as they flew over the airspace of another country (that we had recently invaded). Let’s see how long we let Chinese or Cuban planes fly over our country and then stand accused of aggression because we shot at them. I don’t demand you convert to my way of thinking or even that you change your views, but I would ask that you be consistent.
    “and since I know franky is going to claim the United States is, we can skip it, as we’ve already agreed to disagree on that one” – what exactly would you call the Nicaraguan contras, the mujahadeen, the Cuban exiles, etc.? This is not a difference of opinion, but rather an objective fact – the US has as a state sponsored international terrorism.
    “Indeed, as I noted earlier, establishing a democracy in Iraq helps isolate the Saudis.”
    So 15 of the 19 hijackers are Saudis, so obviously we need to isolate Saudi Arabia, but invade Iraq? You’re not even trying when you write such things.

  63. Kat Avatar

    Jeff at times complains that this red-blue state divisions are useless. Well in some sense he may be right, but then you take someone like franky and these divisions become more helpful. franky has never once had an original thought in his life (as witnessed by his practice of copying comments from al jazeera,and far left conspiracy theorists and pasting in the comments section here) – any particular issue you prepared to debate with him, you would know exactly where he stood even before he uttered a word. Sex abuse in the church? Massacres in the congo? Whatever it is, it’s George Bush’s fault or the fault of the USA.
    So the point is that these divisions of red-blue help to describe the vast number of people in the blue states who really are unable to think independently but are instead willing receptacles waiting for their opinions to be handed to them by conspiracy theorists or fat blobs like Michael Moore or leftwing thinking paid for by George Soros or MSM..
    But I’ve wasted enough time on the subject of franky and his delusions. You can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear no more than you can have an intelligent conversation with a leftist lunatic. If you disagree, they throw a temper tantrum. BTW, have you bought your KILL BUSH T-shirt yet–available from the leftist loons of the world. All moneys to be used to sponsor terrorism by friends of ANSWER and Franky.

  64. franky Avatar

    Kat, you see your copying of my words doesn’t work – because I don’t copy words whether it be from Fox News or Al Jazeera. Whereas you, I’ve demonstrated a number of times when you’ve simply copied and pasted from the comments section of Free Republic or Frontpage and not admitted you were passing off other’s work as your own. So you’ve once again been proved a liar – man it’s a good thing you have no sense of shame, otherwise you would have left this site months ago, and deprived us of the mirth your posts always inspire.

  65. Eileen Avatar

    O BS Franky. What the hell’s wrong with quoting now? Kat typically uses { }, haven’t you noticed? Give us a break.
    I am also extremely tired of your invective. Give it a rest, fer criminy!

  66. EverKarl Avatar
    EverKarl

    franky,
    The Slate piece you linked is by Daniel Benjamin, who Slate fails to mention was a Clinton NSA official.
    In contrast, Perry Biddiscombe, author of The Last Nazis and Werwolf!: The History of the National Soc**list Guerrilla Movement, 1944-1946, wrote in October 2000 (before 9/11, let alone the invasion of Iraq):
    “The Werewolves speciali[z]ed in ambushes and sniping, and took the lives of many Allied and Soviet soldiers and officers — perhaps even that of the first Soviet commandant of Berlin, General N.E. Berzarin, who was rumoured to have been waylaid in Charlottenburg during an incident in June 1945. Buildings housing Allied and Soviet staffs were favourite targets for Werewolf bombings; an explosion in the Bremen police headquarters, also in June 1945, killed five Americans and thirty-nine Germans. Techniques for harassing the occupiers were given widespread publicity through Werewolf leaflets and radio propaganda, and long after May 1945 the sabotage methods promoted by the Werewolves were still being used against the occupying powers.”
    There’s more summarizing from Pidicombe’s Werwolf! here, including that the Commander of the 3rd Armored Division, General Maurice Rose, was allegedly assassinated by Werewolf agents in Padeborn.
    Many Allied and Soviet soldiers and officers sounds like more than zero to me, but I’m not one of Bill Clinton’s flunkies, either.
    As for the Iraqi attacks on U.S. planes, Linda asserted that Iraq is different from Japan because we weren’t attacked by Iraq. My point was merely that this assertion completely ignores Iraq’s long history of violating the ceasefire, including firing on U.S. planes. Perhaps you can tell me how long someone has to completely flout a ceasefire before the other side can resume firing; I think a decade is more than sufficient.
    As for the Saudis, let me irritate you with another WWII analogy. The U.S. allied with the USSR, though we were certainly not fond of Stalin, who ultimately ended up murdering more people than Hitler. We did so on the basis of diplomatic and military strategy. So it is with the Saudis.
    Liberating Iraq helps isolate not only the Saudis, but also the Iranians and the Syrians. This is why, in my first post, I noted that some people need to look at a map or a globe. Iraq is centrally located and thus is a key piece of territory for the movement of men and materiel by terror groups. Moreover, Iraq is one of the more (and probably most) secular and educated nation in the region, which makes it the best test case for promoting democracy in the ME generally.
    In contrast, while there are members of the House of Saud providing financial support to terror groups, the current regime was not actively training terrorists or pursuing WMD capabilities. Occupying SA after the gov’t allowed us to base troops there would send a very bad message to any other country where we are based or where we would like permission to be based (e.g., Turkey). And occupying the home of Mecca probably would have stoked a larger insurgency, as it would have played into OBL’s primary complaint against the U.S.
    Furthermore, there is no al-Sistani in SA, so the alternative to the current SA regime is worse. franky, you cannot on the one hand carp that al-Sistani’s successor in Iraq might be worse and on the other hand not be concerned that the clerics who would be the most likely successors to the House of Saud are uniformly worse than the current regime.
    Nevertheless, I’m glad you took the bait about the U.S. supporting terrorism; that’s an argument that’s really going to win you converts.

  67. franky Avatar

    Eileen, of course someone such as yourself gets a break – so here it is again: No, Kat does not typically use parentheses when she’s passing other people’s posts off as her own – and that’s what I’ve called her out on numerous times (including individual commentator’s posts from Free Republic, which she obviously did nothing to verify). She’s a liar – and speaking of which, still waiting for that evidence of how I’m a racist – please post when convenient or post your apology. Thanks.

  68. franky Avatar

    Everkarl, well first let me say that that’s an interesting take on speaking of objective history: it won’t win me converts. Sorry, I thought we were speaking as adults, not trying to win over morons. I apologise and in subseuqent posts will try to remember that is the aim.
    I will give you this on the werewolves history you cited – lots of “allegedly” and “perhaps”.
    Ok, you said the magic words “clinton”, so therefore I’ll ask Jeff to erase my post. Sorry, I shouldn’t be snarky, but you’re dismissing the evidence of a third party, solely because the person who referenced the third party worked for Clinton? And then you say “Many Allied and Soviet soldiers and officers sounds like more than zero to me” well I count five US soldiers and some maybe soviets. that does not sound like many to me, considering that the Iraqis are killing that many in one go – but then I’m no historian.
    everkarl, we don’t agree but I hope we’re having a civilised discouse, but I have to admit that I have no idea what you’re talking about here: “As for the Saudis, let me irritate you with another WWII analogy. The U.S. allied with the USSR, though we were certainly not fond of Stalin, who ultimately ended up murdering more people than Hitler. We did so on the basis of diplomatic and military strategy. So it is with the Saudis.”
    Is your point that we allied with USSR in WWII in order to isolate them (and watch them perform their largest land-grab in their history)?
    Let me rephrase the wwII analogy in a way that may make more sense: Germany declares war on us, and we ally with Germany against Soviet Union.
    “In contrast, while there are members of the House of Saud providing financial support to terror groups, the current regime was not actively training terrorists or pursuing WMD capabilities”
    ok, let’s leave aside the dubious training terrorists and pursuing WMDs etc – Saudi Arabia providing finaical support to terror groups and making up the leaders and rank and file of these same terror groups WHO ARE BENT ON ATTACKING US. That’s the crucial difference between SA and Iraq.

  69. Kat Avatar

    Forget SA–there are many muslims in America hell bent on attacking us. Should we be breaking all ties with them and sending them packing? These founders of CAIR in Texas are terrorists. http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050413/ap_on_re_us/hamas_trial_1 There are admitted terrorists in Canada like those Khadr animals. And Canada pays them welfare so they can try hurt the US like they did that Ressam piece of garbage. Hell, Franky, even you are here, and you want the USA attacked. I have news for you,Franky–there is not likely a country on earth free of islamist terrorists. And Saddam paid hefty sums so the scum would hurt innocents by blowing up their fanatic little brains. If we took your advice, the west should have no dealings with any islamic country. And you may be right.

  70. Franky Avatar

    Feel free to provide links to Saddam paying terrorists to attack US. You can’t, because he wasn’t paying people to attack us. Or has our foreign policy now become totally devoted to attacking those who threaten Israel?

  71. EverKarl Avatar
    EverKarl

    franky,
    Organizations like Reuters refuse to label anyone as a terrorist because they think it’s too subjective. There’s also the old saw about how one person’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter (which I don’t think is universally true, but the point is how often it’s said). There are also those who have pointed out that Bush’s naming of the current situation a “war on terrorism” as fatuous, arguing that terror is a tactic and the U.S. is not waging a war on a tactic. It’s those sorts of considerations that lead me to conclude that whether the U.S. supported terrorists is a debatable opinion, not an objective fact.
    Peddicombe’s books have much more than allegedlys and perhapses in them, but they aren’t available online, so I made do with the links I had, which do counter Benjamin’s claim that the casualties were zero. Left to choose between a partisan non-historian as against the scholarship of a historian and author of books precisely about this subject, written well before 9/11, let alone before the subject of the werewolves was introduced into the Iraq debate, I’m picking the second one.
    BTW, since I think we are having a relatively civilized discourse, I would make a broader point at this juncture. I would like to clarify that I am not claiming that the situation in Iraq is exactly like that of postwar Germany (or Japan, for that matter). The reason to mention them was related to a point you made in response about Vietnam comparisons and “mix and match history.” When someone like Linda comes here and flatly asserts that democracy must always come from within a country, I’m going to point to the counter-example. Linda was then forced to start arguing the differences. While she didn’t do too well at that, you picked up the challenge, which is fine. But those examples moved the dialog forward from the casual, broadbrush partisan talking points to an examination and comparison of historical examples. Germany and Japan aren’t perfect analogs to Iraq (e.g., in Iraq, there was much more training and planning for the insurgency), but neither is Vietnam a perfect analog, for reasons I’ve already stated above. I would suggest that Iraq is somewhere between those poles, closer to Germany and Japan than to Vietnam, again for reasons suggested earlier.
    The USSR analogy is simply this: When you’re at war, you may have to ally yourself with regimes which you would otherwise oppose. Stalin did it (twice), FDR and Churchill did it, Bush is doing it with SA and Pakistan. Your analogy fails because not only was SA not directly supporting al-Qaida, it was also officially against al-Qaida. Some of the Saudi financial support to such groups represented an attempt to pay protection money, some not, as the House of Saud in particular has different factions. Moreover, as I noted above, imho, Iraq has characteristics that make it a better test case for democracy than SA. The U.S. simply could not occupy SA long enough to establish the conditions necessary, let alone sufficient, for success at this time. Indeed, I would hope that if Iraq does well, it will show the Saudi people that there is a better alternative to the House of Saud than Islamic extremism. But today, Iraq is better suited to be the example for reasons stated above (more secular, better educated, etc.)
    Setting aside Saddam’s track record as “dubious” is convenient, as it allows you to ignore a major rationale for giving Iraq a priority over SA. But if I am to believe –as the New York Times would have me do — that tons of WMD-related technology was sytematically removed from Iraq, I have to believe that it was in Iraq in the first place. If I am to belive the reports that there were no WMD stockpiles, I can hardly ignore the other findings in those reports about Saddam’s efforts to preserve WMD programs and to train terrorists. At least I would have to have some evidentiary basis for disbelieving them.
    I would imagine that this thread will shortly die a natural death, as the main post is about to drop off the main page of the blog. I’ll try to check back later, but in any event, I’m sure we’ll discuss this further in future threads.

  72. franky Avatar

    I think you’re right that this will soon die and as much as I’m enjoying it, I’m not sure it will be worth hunting around the archives for it – socratic we ain’t. But a couple of points – the study I referenced to was done by James Dobbins, who has worked for both demoract and republican administrations. Further, I think while Judith Miller continues to work at the NYT I’m inclined to ignore anything they say on WMDs. One final point, I think Linda was right to say that demoracy cannot be imposed on other nations. The Germans had experience with democracy before the reconstruction, and while I’m reasonably fluent with German history my Japanese history is almost nothing, I’m pretty sure they had something approaching democracy before WWII.
    But you’re right that this will continue in another thread. Pleasure speaking with you.