Dennis was so kind as to grace us with his opinion on this post, and since his comment is so freaking long, I have to respond here. Bear with me. You know the drill — his comments in bold italics.
First, I’m not suggesting Bush knew. Quite frankly, I’m suggesting the opposite. I would never, ever make the mistake of suggesting that Bush knew something… Anything, actually.
Careful, Dennis, your prejudice is showing.
I realize that the response was lacking under democratic administrations, but the democratic administrations have always focused on more domestic issues, so that’s a natural assumption.
I guess that makes it Ok that Carter and Clinton practiced appeasement for years upon years? No. It’s just precisely why we shouldn’t elect another Democrat until the terrorist threat has subsided… and even then one must wonder… if they can’t protect the nation, what the hell good are they?
As for blaming the president for natural disasters, no, because we can’t assume that the president knows how to stop an earthquake or hurricane.
Well, you certainly can’t expect him to know how to stop a terrorist attack that he didn’t know was coming, can you? So this is either the same story, or you’re admitting that you think “BUSH KNEW!!!” Which is it?
Even in this case, if we forgive Bush for not knowing that 9/11 was about to happen, we still have to look at the results.
The results, Dennis, have nothing to do with blaming him for 9/11. If you want to talk about Iraq, let’s talk about Iraq… but don’t turn this debate into a different one just because you think you’ve got a stronger argument. Since you exerted so much energy to change the topic, though, I suppose I’ll humor you. Though do understand that the following responses should not be interpreted to mean that I think these two debates are at all related.
I don’t disagree with removal of the taliban, but supporting al Queda, they were supporting a warring entity on the United States.
Actually, Dennis, so was Iraq. They harbored terrorists, the funded terrorists, and there was a strong link between Iraq and several terrorist entities. Not to mention the fact that the government itself practised terrorist tactics on it’s own citizenry. So you’ve pretty much validated the case for Iraq, but let’s continue anyhow, shall we?
However, what needs a closer scrutiny is how we pissed off former allies (save one) in order to go into a war in Iraq.
The opinion of pansy-ass terrorist appeasers and surrender-monkeys who had their hands in Saddam’s pockets is not one of my concerns. If it’s one of yours, you should re-think your priorities.
The big question we need to ask ourself is, “Do the ends Justify the Means” and the answer is no.
Bzzzt! Wrong. Try again. The correct answer is “Yes, in fact, they do.” Not only are the means wholly justified WITHOUT the ends, the ends are unequivocally more positive than negative. How about freedom in a land once ruled by a ruthless tyrant? How about stopping the flow of funds to Palestinian Terrorists? How about scaring the piss out of Libya and Syria?
The only nation that trusts our word is the United Kingdom, and if you read a little deeper into that, the citizenship over there isn’t exactly thrilled. I don’t have the numbers, so I could be barking up the wrong tree.
The other what, 17? 18? nations in the coalition might find your analysis to be a bit off. Australia? Poland? Spain? Others?
Implication wise though, the lies about the weapons of mass destructions and the invasion of Iraq, along with naming “the axis of exil” justifies certain nations being paraniod about us invating, and justifies them thinking that they may need to defend themselves.
The “lies” eh? Presidents have been telling those “lies” for years. Clinton and Gore most notably. At least Bush was up front about the fact that Iraq posed no immediate threat. The naming of the Axis of Evil was not only spot-on, but it was about damn time that someone said it. The nations of the AoE do need to think about defending themselves, if they continue to develop nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons or decided that terrorism is something they like to support. I have no problem with that. If you’re doing something wrong, you SHOULD be scared, especially if it’s in direct conflict with the security of the United States.
Specificly, I’m referring to North Korea in this instance. We’ve got a big set of balls to go on telling them not to have nukes when as far as they are concerned, it’s the only thing keeping an occupying force out of thier country.
Ummm… it’s called “national security.” Besides, with big guns comes the right to have a big set of balls. Do you support North Korea’s “right” to have nukes? If so, why?
I’m not suggesting what is right or wron and I’d be much happier if they didn’t have them, but putting myself in thier shoes, it seems like the best option.
Of course you’re not, because then your stance would be able to be refuted. I find it interesting that you’re able to put yourself in the shoes of a tyrannical, anti-american government. Have much practice in the area?
Also, coming from this arguement, if we did have a valid reason o invade another nation, citizens of the UN are going to look at our reasons with more and more skeptisism after the whole weapons of mass destruction arguement.
Look… Fuck the UN. They’re worthless. They should keep themselves out of the war business and go back to curing diseases. The security counsel is a joke, as is the human rights commission, and so, honestly, why should anyone in this country give a shit about the UN?
One shouldn’t treat our reputation in the international areana with such distain, there’s a reason why american’s have a reputation abroad, and that reputation is deserved and will hurt us one of these days. Militarty might is no reason to be arrogant.
First, there’s a difference between “treating something with disdain” and “not giving a shit.” We’re doing the latter, not the former, and I have no problem with it. Second, I’d love to know WHY you feel that one shouldn’t do that. Personally, I care about our reputation with nations of significance and with nations that deserve respect. Caring what every third-world nation and former-world-power thinks about the U.S. is what gets us terror-appeasing presidents like Jimmy Carter. If they don’t think we should be allowed to defend ourselves, maybe we should invade THEM too.
I do have to applaud you for not sticking to one topic long enough to say anything meaningful about it… but if you decide to post a rebuttal, how ’bout you
Dude, shorter posts man.
I know you don’t read so well, what with that southern education and all, but really, man, this wasn’t so long.
I know, I’m just bustin your chops, but pot calling the kettle black huh?
Nah… I got my EDUCATION in the north. I came to the south for my degree.
I don’t have the luxury of whatever posting mechanism you do, so I’ll have to assume that this copys properly. I’ve only addressed things pertaining to the original arguement, since length and focus were an issue. If you want to continue the other one, post and I’ll comment.
-Dennis
P: I guess that makes it Ok that Carter and Clinton practiced appeasement for years upon years? No. It’s just precisely why we shouldn’t elect another Democrat until the terrorist threat has subsided… and even then one must wonder… if they can’t protect the nation, what the hell good are they?
D: First, I’m going on my own observations on things, so I’m going to remove Carter from the debate. I don’t have a handle on everything that was going on then, only what has been written in history books. I’m speaking of the hear and now and my memory of events and politics.
Now, in terms of Clinton’s appeasement, as I recall, most of his energies were spent trying to tackle the source of the problem in the middle east and establish a peace between Palestine and Israel. If I recall, at the beginning of his term, Bush Jr. was also doing the same. In fact, While I love the “swatting flies” quote, Bush had no major buslic reaction until after 9/11.
P: Well, you certainly can’t expect him to know how to stop a terrorist attack that he didn’t know was coming, can you? So this is either the same story, or you’re admitting that you think “BUSH KNEW!!!” Which is it?
D: As I said, and will repeat sans sarcasm I doubt Bush Jr. actually knew what was coming. However, someone did know. If Bush didn’t know then someone failed to pass the information up to him. Who’s responsible for that person, and the person responsible for that person. I’ll return to the statement, “The Buck Stops Here”. Ultimately, someone has to claim responsibility. As I’ve said, I will concede that the Democratic administrations may not have done enough to prevent things, but I’m going to point out that the Republican administrations are just as guilty. I’m also going to restate that it’s from the 80s that birthed Saddam and Osama, a point you have yet to address. Basically what I’m suggesting is that you cannot hold one administration at any greater fault then the other, except –PERHAPS- the one whose watch it was on.
P: The results, Dennis, have nothing to do with blaming him for 9/11. If you want to talk about Iraq, let’s talk about Iraq… but don’t turn this debate into a different one just because you think you’ve got a stronger argument. Since you exerted so much energy to change the topic, though, I suppose I’ll humor you. Though do understand that the following responses should not be interpreted to mean that I think these two debates are at all related.
D: I’ll agree, I strayed from the subject a weee bit, but I wasn’t aware I was being graded, but since the cat’s out, let’s shave it shall we….
P: Actually, Dennis, so was Iraq. They harbored terrorists, the funded terrorists, and there was a strong link between Iraq and several terrorist entities. Not to mention the fact that the government itself practised terrorist tactics on it’s own citizenry. So you’ve pretty much validated the case for Iraq, but let’s continue anyhow, shall we?
D: Bush Jr’s arguments for attacking Iraq were specifically Al Queda as well as WMD. Ignoring the mess of WMDs since this is about terrorism, they later found no links to Al Queda. If we were to attack every country with ties to terrorists, Montana would be running Scared. As for your contention that Iraq funded terrorists I’m going to again point out where Iraq’s money came from, as well as Osama’s. We played with fire in the 80s, now witness the results.
Let me get straight to the point on “fault.” First of all, whose watch it was on is immaterial — that it happend while Bush was president is not a standard of proof of any sort. It badly fails without some sort of corroboration by other factors. (knowledge of the event, ability to stop it, other causation, etc…)
Second, I have yet to see any evidence that anyone KNEW it was coming. With the witch hunt the dems have been going on, I’m quite sure that this information would’ve come out and which ever party was NOT responsible for it would have made a HUGE deal out of it already. (And rightly so, might I add)
Furthermore, I think it’s hard to pass blame onto the intelligence services after Clinton gutted them during his 8 years in office. Does that make 9/11 Clinton’s fault? No, but I would suggest that if any president is to be “faulted” Bush should be the last one on the list. Seven months to repair 8 years of CIA gutting and then stop an attack, one that had probably been in the works for quite some time, is not enough.
As for the Saddam/al-Queda link… for one, I think that link exists. There’s a lot of circumstantial evidence that supports it. This article for example. The painting from one of Saddam’s mansions of him with the (flaming) WTC is yet another. Besides, the link (along with the WMDs) cannot be assumed to not exist just because we haven’t found them yet.
Furthermore, Bush named al-Queda but as an example, not a cause. To wit: “And [Iraq] has aided terrorists, including al-Qaida.” (Bush 3/17/03)
On a different issue, I see no compelling reason why we shouldn’t attack every country with ties to terrorism. In fact, I think that’s exactly what we SHOULD do.
Additionally, putting individuals in power does not make a group responsible for their actions 20+ years down the road. As some say in the south, “that dog won’t hunt.” Besides, over the last 20 years, I’d venture a guess that more money has come from the fleecing of the UN’s “oil for food” program than from the US.
Can I get a definition of Weapons of Mass Destruction? I would consider people with explosives strapped to themselves weapons of mass destruction. I would also consider plane hijackers who fly into buildings weapons of mass destruction. Oh wait but then I would be running on one of those silly assumptions that guns don’t kill people, people kill people. Damn my political ideals.