- Joined
- Dec 8, 2006
- Messages
- 93,481
- Reaction score
- 68,200
- Location
- Colorado
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Left
My ignorance? What the hell are you talking about?
Blind hyper-partisanship.
My ignorance? What the hell are you talking about?
Is the left still pushing that corny fantasy that the US/CIA installed Saddam in power in Iraq?
It was not broken until we failed to leave a contingent of troops behind to guarantee the peace as we did in Germany and Japan. And again when Obama failed to stop ISIS in Syria.
Blind hyper-partisanship.
Well, not blind. And not hyper. But you keep making wrong assumptions, OK.
Blind and hyper both, yes. But you keep being blind to the world around you, OK.
Well, I can see the West stepping in to prevent any new holocaust for moral reasons but not intervene in the actual civil war. I would find that acceptable.
We helped the Ba'ath Party rise to power, out of which came Saddam. We also had a chance to stop Iraq's invasion of Kuwait with diplomacy, but political appointments left an idiot as ambassador to Iraq.
Maybe if we declare war, we can think about "leaving a contingent of troops behind", but also thinking that the cohesive populations of Germany and Japan can be likened to the fractured populations of ethnicities and religious sects in Iraq; then you are sorely mistaken.
Do you still feel the same now about our middle east involvement, given the recent events with ISIS and current status of Afghanistan, that you did before?
Think back to your opinion when Bush II first invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. Think back to when Obama withdrew from Iraq. Think about the current alleged wind down in Afghanistan. Doesn't really matter what your opinion was, just ask yourself if you feel the same now as you did then. And why do you feel the same or differently.
Please elaborate.
At the time, Clarke was attempting to hawk his book, so he sensationalized his interpretation of the facts. Condoleeza Rice quite ably corrected him and pointed out that nothing was set aside. And he was still holding a grudge against Rice.
CNN.com - Bush administration rejects*Clarke charges - Mar 23, 2004
Oh my! A terrorist group that is attempting to form a state the size of California...that beheads anyone who does not convert to Islam is not threat to us? I bet you thought Al Qeuda was no threat before 9/11/01.
Read anything by Richard Clarke on the subject. He talks in detail about his time as the head of the country's counter terrorism activities and how his efforts to focus on Bin Laden were shoved aside by the Bush administration in favor of a focus on Iraq.
Meanwhile, you have no reason to suspect that ISIS is some kind of threat to us. We agree that not every potential foe merits drastic action, and there seems to be no reason why this one does. I think we're done here.
Yes I've read about all that and also read most of Clarke's book. But the thing is that nobody else in GWB's White House will concur that Clarke is telling it like it is. There is always a lot of arm chair quarterbacking after the fact in these things. I am about as non-partisan as a poltically-minded person can get and have no problem acknowledging mistakes made by the Bush White House. But I am always suspicious of those who never say a word until AFTER the fact and after it is politically or financially profitable to do so. Clarke never said a word, never uttered a peep about any of this, until he was passed over for a high level Homeland Security appointment he coveted and then quit and became a disgruntled former employee. He never uttered a peep about any of this until his own self-serving book came out.
Things are not always as they seem, most especially when people have self-serving motives to exaggerate or distort the truth.
I like how every response to my question is about trying to vindicate Bush, rather than actually address why ISIS is somehow a threat to us here in the US.
I'm well aware of the Bush administration's attempts to discredit Clarke. Everyone who isn't a fanatical partisan knows that those attempts were lies. Other witnesses came forward and corroborated Clarke's claims shortly after the administration denied them. It was a very embarrassing situation for Rice and the rest of the administration. Again, everyone who knows anything about the situation and isn't a rabid partisan knows this.
A lot of people say a lot of things. Kim Jong Il threatened to nuke us. Other Jihadist groups have made similar threats against the US in the last decade. Why does this one frighten you so much more than the others?
I don't see anything in my post that vindicates Bush in any way. But if I'm going to verbally convict somebody, I rather insist that he or she is convicted for a crime they actually committed. You WANTING to believe Clarke over and above those who have openly said he didn't get it right is insufficient reason to convict Bush on that particular issue.
I like how every response to my question is about trying to vindicate Bush, rather than actually address why ISIS is somehow a threat to us here in the US.
You do know that the white house retracted its attacks on Clarke after numerous people came forth and corroborated his statements, don't you? Wanting has nothing to do with it. These are the facts.
Do name those numerous people. Let me guess....they are partisan democrats, right? And the Bush White House did not attack Clarke other then to point out that he was full of bull in his accusations. It was Clarke that attacked the Bush administration. It is corny that you look at self defense as an attack.
And I again return to my original question. The fearmongers have described ISIS as some kind of huge danger. Lindsey Graham is basically crapping his pants over them. Why should we be so afraid of them?
It's pretty much as I expected. Afghanistan has a new power sharing agreement in their democratic government and a democratic Iraq is fighting against genocide instead of a dictator committing it.
Yeah, he never did anything wrong.
:screwy
Is the left still pushing that corny fantasy that the US/CIA installed Saddam in power in Iraq?
It's difficult to teach someone who does not want to learn. I would start by asking if you agree that Al Queda was a threat before 9/11/01. Would you have laughed them off as well? They managed to kill over 3000 innocent people in the US in the space of just a few hours using 19 hijackers. ISIS is a much nastier off-shoot of Al Queda. Obama attempted to laugh them off and they now control more then half of Iraq. And they have already beheaded two innocent Americans.
This is absolutely true.i also have come to understand that we are doing Saudi Arabia's job for them, and we are doing it for free. also, we can't afford it, and we are unwilling to raise taxes to pay for it. not to mention that ****head Assad is actually benefiting from our involvement. there is no good side to take here.
The CIA was instrumental in putting the Baath party in power. Saddam clawed his way to head of the Baath power. In his day, when he was taking power, he was hailed by the US, and iconed here as a progressive, someone who would modernize Iraq. And at the time, their living standards WERE going up. Of course, no one REPORTED on his other doings...that didn't start till YEARS later, when we decided that we no longer liked him, because he outfitted his people with Russian gear. Then, in the early 90s, dessert storm erra, we gave him a scare, he got back in line, so we left him in power. The rest, as they say, is history.
And the crap he was doing, he HAD been doing for years. We were fine with it until he reniged on the deal.
This is absolutely true.
However, when we Americans see refugees on a mountain, multiple beheadings et al, we tend to want to kill the perpetrators.
ISIS seems to be a particularly nasty group and if we can undermine them, maybe--a big MAYBE here--the next gang will be less brutal.
As you say, not a lot of good choices.