In various sparring sessions over the war in Iraq, I notice that many Liberals flatly assert that Iraq is a distraction from the GWOT (that is, if they're generously acknowledging that the war against Islamists requires more than strict airport screening.) I've asserted that Iraq was simply the next stage in the GWOT, so the various arguments marshalled for taking this step are more persuasive collectively than they are individually.
But this article (here) by Stephen F. Hayes of The Weekly Standard is instructive on the issue of whether Iraq is a distraction from the purported common objective of effectively waging the GWOT. In fact, the connections between Saddam's Iraq and Jihadists (even Al Qaeda) is pretty clear.
Oh, and remember, disagreeing with a Liberal doesn't constitute a war crime.
Hello world!
7 years ago
25 comments:
Hayes falsely asserted that Zarqawi had a leg amputated and that Mohammed Atta met Saddams men in Prague. A relative no-name before the Iraq war, self-styled 'investigative journalist' Stephen Hayes has made quite a career for himself peddling war lies for his neocon publishing boss Bill Kristol.
Tortured logic based on testimony from a tortured detainee. You expect people to buy this crap?
Saddam saw Zarqawi and al Qaeda as rivals and threats. He had no use for Islamic radicals - the kind he had fought in Iraq for decades. Use your heads people. Think.
Yes, "use your heads people" and unless you're Paul Sperry from "antiwar.com" don't cut and paste other people's words.
And, first, I'd encourage you to read the actual article before googling the author's name.
But I think you Libs aren't giving enough credit to the effectiveness of torture. Intel obtained from a tortured person is confirmed, etc. just like other intel. And we're (you're) assuming that he was tortured just because it didn't happen in a NYC jail with an ACLU attorney, anyway.
Yes, use your heads indeed. Saddam (who was quoting Koranic scripture left and right up until the floor dropped) and Jihadists had one big thing in common . . . they both agreed that we were the Great Satan. Enemy of my enemy is my friend, at least until we get rid of my enemy. Makes sense to me--more sense than the bushating conspiracy theories y'all believe.
By the way, that Sperry op/ed probably merits a post . . . what drivel. His entire "debunking" of Hayes op/ed is based upon the fact that the Jihadist terrorist who received medicale care and safe harbor in Saddam's Iraq actually didn't get a prosthetic leg when he was there?
And it wouldn't quite be a Lefty website without a gratuitous sexual image thrown in there about someone like Sean Hannity.
This is a case in point. This is what I'm talking about regarding the pathological allegiances of conservatives like Ned Williams. He puts credibility in an author like Hayes writing for a biased publication like The Weekly Standard for an editor like Kristol ... yet refutes an award winning news organization - 'Frontline' with a 23 yr history of journalism excellence - as "losers trying to rewrite history".
Any rational person can judge the comparative credibility of these sources. How many Pulitzers, Duponts, Polks and Emmys has Stephen Hayes won? What a joke.
Sad to see desperate neocons pinning their war justifications to such foolish and biased sources ... not to mention the "tortured logic". It's both pathetic and pathological.
People can read the respective essays and reach their own conclusions--but, seriously, are you saying that Frontline doesn't come from a Liberal perspective?
And are you saying that facts from The Weekly Standard aren't facts?
Pam, you've got your logic backwards. When dealing with history, it's not safe to start with a thesis and then go looking for facts to prop it up. That's where Conspiracy theories are born.
AnD i aM nOt cRazy!!!!! Keep up the personal attacks and you'll be outta here, though.
Gosh, do I have to add the tagline, "disagreeing with a Liberal does not constitute insanity"?
Foremost in journalistic standards are truth and fairness. If you think The Weekly Standard comes from a position of unbiased fairness compared to Frontline, you are deluding yourself.
You're starting with the thesis that that Bush/Cheney did not mislead Americans, didn't manipulate intelligence despite the mountain of corroborating evidence.
If in fact Saddam met with members of al Qaeda as early as '93 as is asserted by those that cite the IIS, why had Saddam not been connected with any al Qaeda attacks? "Could have, maybe would have" ... sorry, not good enough of a reason to put us into this present quagmire. Give it up.
You will always search out apologists to defend and justify a war that was unjustified and poorly planned. Yes, when dealing with history, it's never safe to start with a thesis and try to prop it up by the likes of sources like Bill Kristol and co.
It is not a 'thesis' that Saddam fought the radical Iranian Muslims with support of the US. It is not a 'thesis' that the President's uncle 'Bucky' Bush profited $millions from the war via no bid contracts as well as other Bush cronies- Cheney (Halliburton), Richard Perle (Trireme), Goerge Shultz (Betchel), James Woolsey (Paladin).
Never said the Weekly Standard was unbiased . . . and you still haven't answered whether Frontline is. And is Dan Rather a journalist? One you trust?
Sure, RealPolitik (which you guys are advocating now--because it seems to make Dubya look bad) makes for some unsavory alliances at times. How does that disprove all the documented contacts between Saddam and Islamists?
And surely you see the irony in the fact that you're, on the one hand, defending the CIA's competence and thereby questioning Cheney's incredulity toward the CIA, and on the other hand simply saying that facts that were overlooked by US intel services aren't true because . . . US intel services never told us about them.
"Intel obtained from a tortured person is confirmed, etc. just like other intel."
Yup, we do an AWESOME job at that, don't we? By confirmation, do you mean showing it to Barney, and if he wags his tail it means the intel is solid?
Also, I know Saddam ran a strict country, but as authoritarian as he was, he wasn't able to control the actions of everyone at all times. I'm sure there was some Al Qaeda activity in Iraq, just as there has been in Germany, Canada, the US, England, etc...Maybe he knew something about it, maybe he didn't, I don't know for sure. Regardless, his ties weren't strong enough to justify an invasion on it's own.
Sean, I never said it was a strong enough justification, but it does indicate that the "G" in "GWOT" didn't exclude Iraq. It also demonstrates that Iraq was a problem that wouldn't go away just by creating unionized airport screeners.
And it makes my point for y'all to generally poo-poo intelligence. By the way, intel can be interpreted any number of ways, and--unless you assume that Iraq was not a problem that needed to be handled in regard to the GWOT, there is enough there to warrant Saddam's number being called.
By the way, have you even read the article?
Iraq could have been 'handled' far more effectively, far less belligerently, far more competently, and far less unilaterally.
What are these crooks trying to hide now? Don't they know how guilty this makes them look?
I don't know "anonymous," but since they're crooks, I'm sure it something illegal or nefarious.
And, dang, they really need to pay more attention to how things make them look, don't they?
Yea, especially when they have convicted felons like Abramoff, Safavian, and the like in and out of the White House hundreds of times and then the president says he doesn't know them.
D'oh! Read closely, it says "lobbyist contacts with Presidential aides"--is it now the Liberal/Democrat position that meeting with a Lobbyist is a crime?
Not meeting with a lobbyist meeting with a convicted felon.
Par for the course in the GOP culture of corruption where the administration's top procurement official, Safavian is a convicted felon, and Tom Delay - the guy who said he 'had Jesus on his side' after his mug shot was taken, has been a long time protector of promoter of slave labor, prostitution and abortion in a U.S. territory. Also, remember Claude Allen? Need I go further?
Yes, you need to go further (try beyond Jan. 2001).
And if my eyes are working correctly, you said meeting with "convicted felons . . . hundreds of times." And does it matter to you (I'm guessing "no") that they weren't convicted felons when they were lobbying the Administration?
But it is good to see that Dems are now on record as being opposed to crimes and ethical infractions. And that is significant, because there is no greater offense than hypocrisy to a Liberal.
So you think it's perfectly ok for the White House - for the first time in history - to close from the public records of White House visitation? Since this agreement with the Secret Service was signed at the height of the Abramoff scandal, can you see any other motivation for this other than to cover up a White House connection with a criminal? Please explain this one to us.
Something smells rotten in DC.
Well, I don't like the smell, but it appears that Republican lawyers might just be smarter than Democrat ones. Though Bill and Hillary fought for the same thing, it was just harder to convince anyone that visits from call-girls-in-essence was related at all to an Executive privilege.
Something does smell rotten in DC, and I confess that I don't look to George Miller or BigLabor for guidance on Liberty or ethics, but it isn't a Republican phenomenon--it is a politically powerful phenomenon. Hillary was and is involved in helping shield these garment tycoons here. I think the trouble is that criticism from compulsive non-constructive critics kind of becomes white noise. I feel a post coming on . . .
Oliver North, who has spent considerable time in Iraq recently said Bush is wrong to send more troops to Iraq.
Oliver North has published an opinion article at Human Events online entitled
MORE TROOPS = MORE TARGETS (1/5/07).
Is Ned going to call Oliver North a coward liberal?
Gee, Ned doesn't know.
Did North accuse Bush et al of being war criminals?
GW Bush, "I don't know Abramoff"
Jack and George photo here.
"The President does not know him, nor does the President recall ever meeting him," Scott McClellan, White House Press Secretary speaking of Abramoff.
Bush has sealed the White House visitation records to avoid being caught in this lie. Too late. What's another lie to Bush? Just a drop in the bucket. It's not the lies that hurt as much as the cover up. When will they ever learn?
Gee, Ned doesn't know . . . did North accuse Bush of being a war criminal?
But I'm guessing you aren't real familiar with how receiving line pix work for a President. And I'm guessing you believe that everyone who met with, knew or was photographed beside Abramoff knew he was involved in criminal activity . . . guys like Harry Reid, Tom Daschle, Patrick Kennedy, etc.?
Abramoff didn't have his 5 children photographed with Harry Reid, Tom Daschle, etc... he had them photographed several times with Bush.
Abramoff didn't raise $100,000 for Harry Reid, Tom Daschle, etc...
Gee, another first for Abramoff: the only person with 5 children to get a picture with Dubya! Did he have on his devil horns and tail for the pic?
And, of course, Reid, Kennedy, Daschle were as important and powerful and worthy of courting favor with as the President?
Post a Comment