Monday, August 02, 2004

Which party is God registered with? Do we still go with majority rule if He votes the other way? RETRACTED - TURNS OUT IT WAS A LINKING ERROR

I was reading a conservative blog that I usually enjoy very much ( and today's post was quite moving. It described the feelings of many of us when we read My War. I loved it. I disagree quite often with the author, ALa71, but she writes well and is open-minded and well-informed. I enjoy the debates.

Then I clicked a link that said "Pray for the Troops." Seemed like a good thing to do since I am a devout Christian and a veteran. Incredibly, it took me to "Blogs for Bush," a political website dedicated to re-electing the President and listing hundreds of the pro-Bush blogs as well as a running pro-Bush commentary.

That was one of the most disgusting things that I've seen for some time. "Pray for the Troops" = vote Bush? So Christians can't vote Kerry? So God is for Bush? God!?!

The German military had a belt-buckle that read "Got Mit Uns" - God is with us. The Confederacy claimed God was on their side too. I could list lots of unworthy causes that enlisted the help of God, including oh, I don't know, al queda. And lots of legitimate ones too. Anybody that thinks a vote for Bush is a vote to defend Jesus (I think He does ok on His own, and the last government He dealt with nailed Him to the cross) is a very, very scary person. Jesus said "Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's, and unto the Lord what is the Lord's." Thus the government is one thing, and God is another. Bush apparently believes Jesus would vote for him despite this. Is the election now about who is a better Christian? Are we electing the chief religion officer or the President? I know very worthy and moral Christians who serve as deacons at my church. Are they now qualified to be President?

And of course, you can't be "for the troops" and against Bush, because, you see, they are one and the same. To dare criticize the President is to spit on the troops. Even though they take an oath to the Constitution and not to a man, and they serve all of the people and no party. Is the Army now a political organization?

Imagine it! Me: "Mr. President, I think your tax cuts will harm us in the long run because of the huge deficit that resulted." Bush: "You must not love God or your Country, and you are disloyal to the troops." Me: "I see your point. I'll not question you again. You are right about everything."

George Washington, US Grant, our first Republican President Abraham Lincoln - they must be spinning in their graves. What was our Revolution about? Yes you should pray for the troops - and don't dare confuse that with voting. They are kind of different you see. One is a religious act and the other is political. Jefferson must be wondering if our Revolution will soon fail.

I like Kerry's line: "I don't want to claim that God is on our side. As Abraham Lincoln told us, I want to pray humbly that we are on God's side."

I thought it despicable when Bush wrapped himself in the flag - as Samual Johnson put it, "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."

It is even more offensive for Bush's campaign to claim that God supports a particular candidate. From my religious studies I'm convinced that God speaks quite clearly when He chooses to and from my history studies it seems that each time a government claims to be doing God's will we get questionable results at best.

I think more important than ever that we remove Bush from office and return to the path we started out on in 1776. Our religious freedom is threated as well.


leftyjones said...

Firstly, welcome to the of a couple hours ago, consider yourself linked on my site!

Secondly, Wow! I went and clicked that link thinking there must be something lost in the translation but no....its exactly as you say. I suppose I could be shocked but I learned to not be surprised by those kind of moves a long time ago. Revolted however?? You bet.

Then I got to thinking about this for a minute......
and I said to myself,
Self....what if this isn't an evil little pinhead move the likes of which could only come from the demon known as Rove?
What if this is a cry for help from God!?!
Perhaps God feels as though the Republicans have hijacked him and he, in his infinite power, posted this link to warn us all that we must pray for the troops because...............(follow link)........
they are in danger if we elect Bush for a second term!!
It's so clear now....this isn't just about voting for Kerry...this is a vote to save God!

Or maybe it's just a link that's in really bad taste.

ALa said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ALa said...

TWD: Sorry to disseminate the entire premise of this rant...but I have too. I added the 'Pray for the Troops' picture last night --it was just a picture with NO hyperlink. If you will take a peek back you will see that the "Blogs for Bush" is right above it... Not sure why that has taken over both spots --I guess it was a computer error -----though, now that I think about it, it could be divine intervention!...

DaveSplash said...

I thought God was a libertarian anyway.

justrose said...

Dude, it was a linking mistake! Take deep, cleansing breaths.

ALa said...

I expect a retraction by the author --and not on page 127 in fine print like the NYT does....kidding (kinda)...

vrangel said...

Its a conspiracy, I'm telling ya ;)

this we'll defend said...

Ok, it was a linking error by Ms. ALa71, and I retract. In all caps.

ALa71 - you get me all spun up, wheels turning steam coming off my head fingers typing manically fast in an effort to save the Republic - and it is an error in linking!?! Damn.

Unless... it wasn't a mistake after all but a plot to send me over the edge! You evil, scheming trickster.

But since I support Kerry I'll just claim later I knew it all along. Not flip, just flop.

vrangel said...


And a new twist on Kerry :

"To a great degree there is no Democratic party candidate John Kerry. There is an abstract "anti-Bush" candidate who has been compelled, in accordance with the US electoral system, to take on human form and assume a human name..."

ALa said...

Retraction Accepted.

MickeyMe said...

Let me say I appreciate Buggie's opinions and life experiences. You represent a lot of open minded intelligence. Thanks for listening to both sides.

Today I read this elsewhere:
(1) People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid
(2) Today's public figure's can no longer write their own speeches or book's, And there is some evidence that they can't read them either.
(3) Many wise word's are spoken in jest, but they don't compare with the number of stupid words spoken in ernest.

Each time I read or hear political diatribe I'll think of the above.

Peter V said...

Kerry believes life begins at conception but supports unrestricted abortion. I believe he had his first marriage annulled.

My perception is GWB is guided by a moral compass that points to a belief in a transcendent god. Kerry may believe in a transcendent god but his belief in the power of the federal government to solve all societal woes would be the antithesis to your Caesar to Caesar, god to god analogy.

Additionally, my perception is Kerry and his multilateralism would be a disaster for the Middle East. The reason we support Israel is not some Jewish conspiracy; Israel is the ONLY democracy in the Middle East.

Personally, I believe Jesus was a market capitalist, liberterain; little goverment kinda guy.

91ghost said...

Politics trumps principle on both sides.

I just read a book review about a book written by a guy in the CIA who says he is a registered democrat. He takes the Administration to task for Iraq yet says that Iran, Syria, North Korea, and company must be dealt with. In the big picture, he says the the war on terrorism will indeed be a "fight to the death" and that the U.S. must actually be much more "savage" in its execution of said war. Your thoughts?

this we'll defend said...

Peter V:
Kerry was divorced, as was Reagan, Newt Gingrich, and many others. If that made people ineligible for public office just as many Republicans as Democrats would have to leave office.

"My perception is GWB is guided by a moral compass that points to a belief in a transcendent god." Yes. Of course, Osama believes he is on God's side as well, as did the Taliban, etc. etc. Kerry believes the federal govt can solve ALL woes? Uhh, I never heard that. And if he does believe the govt can solve some problems - and if it can - then I say go for it. Accepting the status quo means we should never have left the cave or tried messing with that scary "fire." You lost me when you said that solving social problems would be antithetical to keeping religion and government separate from one another.

I never claimed there was a jewish conspiracy, and as I recall Mr. Clinton was quite engaged in the Arab-Israeli peace process which Mr. Bush abandoned when he took office. Post 9/11 he has been scrambling just to get back to where things stood before. I see that as pretty disastrous.

You believe Jesus was a market capitalist. I think maybe so - but not a laissez faire one. Remember the money-changers getting thrown out of the temple?

As for Him being a libertarian - He seemed pretty concerned with helping others, even those that "didn't deserve it." He even died on the cross for our sins, not His own. How does that fit in with Libertarian philosophy?

Little government kind of guy? I think you are right. He didn't have a good experience with the government His first time around.

91Ghost - I agree. The right-wing calls it an inconsistency that the same people who criticize Bush over Iraq also criticize him for not sending enough force into Afghanistan in Oct. 2001. I don't see any inconsistency at all.

We must defeat Al Queda. The bastards that attacked us on 9/11 are laughing at us! I want Al Queda and anyone who supports them to be dead. That we invaded Iraq with little justification or international support but didn't cross the Pakistani border in pursuit of those who attacked us just boggles my F'ing mind. We ignore sovereignty in the case of Iraq, but respect it when it means Osama gets away? WTF!?

If I were CinC in Oct 2001 I would have sent in the 75th, the 101st, 82nd, 10th Mtn, 1st MarDiv, 2nd MarDiv, 25th, 2ID(-), all special operations command troops, and followed up with the Army's heavy forces as soon as possible. I would have spent $50 - 100 billion in six to eight weeks. I would have NOT cared about borders, and I would have killed everybody in Afghanistan (or Pakistan) who looked at us funny. Any nations that complained would be told "we were attacked and we are going to kill those who did it so violently and with such force that anyone thinking of attacking us in the future will tremble in fear for letting the thought cross their mind." After destroying Al Queda I would have told the world "we got our bad guys - now help us rebuild." Given the goodwill that we enjoyed right after 9/11 we would have had lots of help rebuilding. Hell, even Khadaffi said that we were justified in going into Afghanistan. We would have been respected for it.

Rebuilding Afghanistan would have been SOOO unimportant to me compared to killing those that attacked us. I would let the world know that we didn't come there to help the Afghanis or rebuild that country but to destroy those that attacked us and the idiots who were foolish enough to give them sanctuary. I would say "unlike the Russians, who sought to transform Afghani society, we don't give a fuck. We are here to kill our enemies and then we want to go home. That we stay and help pick up the pieces is only because we are a generous people."

And, instead, we half-assed Afghanistan, Osama got away, the Taliban are still attacking our troops, and we invaded a nation that wasn't involved in 9/11, pissing off the entire world and super-charging terrorist recruiting, and we are spending lots more lives and a lot more than $100 billion (all borrowed from our kids so that the rich can get new yachts). We were penny-wise and pound foolish.

Buck Fush.

artbyruth said...

TWD- You seem to thnk that the "world" just loved us before we went to and liberated Iraq. Where did you get THAT idea??

Chirac and Saddam have been in bed together since the 70's. Chirac sold Hussein a nuclear reactor for crying out loud! Chirac was angry with Clinton for wanting to go after Iraq...and Milosevic as well.

Russia, Germany, and France were all in bed with Hussein and making tone of money off the oil-for-food scandal.

WMD's_ you need to read David Kay's speech to congress:

In it he stated:

"We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002."

ONE EXAMPLE: "Clandestine attempts between late-1999 and 2002 to obtain from North Korea technology related to 1,300 km range ballistic missiles --probably the No Dong -- 300 km range anti-ship cruise missiles, and other prohibited military equipment."

Yep, THAT North Korea.

From the 9/11 report:

In March 1998, after Bin Ladin’s public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin’s Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. (p.66)

Too bad CLinton didn't get Bin Laden then!

Also from the report...

That George Tenet provided the Senate Intelligence Committee this assessment in a closed session on September 17, 2002: “There is evidence that Iraq provided al Qaeda with various kinds of training--combat, bomb-making, [chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear] CBRN. Although Saddam did not endorse al Qaeda’s overall agenda and was suspicious of Islamist movements in general, he was apparently not averse, under certain circumstances, to enhancing bin Laden’s operational capabilities. As with much of the information on the overall relationship, details on training are [redacted] from sources of varying reliability.”
That according to a CIA report called Iraqi Support for Terrorism, “the general pattern that emerges is one of al Qaeda’s enduring interest in acquiring chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) expertise from Iraq.”
That the Iraqi regime ‘certainly’ had knowledge that Abu Musab al Zarqawi – described in Iraqi Support for Terrorism as “a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner” – was operating in Baghdad and northern Iraq.

Now, I ask you....with all the evidence by the previous adminstration (who also saw Hussein as a threat to the US) and the fact that we were brutally attacked by Bin Laden. How can you expect a sitting President to NOT react the way he did toward Al Queda AND Iraq??

as Bill Clinton said earlier this Summer:

On whether the Iraq War was justified (to TIME mag):

"You know, I have repeatedly defended President Bush against the left on Iraq, even though I think he should have waited until the UN inspections were over. I don't believe he went there for oil. We didn't go in there for imperialist or financial reasons. We went there because he bought the Wolfowitz-Cheney analysis that the Iraqis would be better off, we could shake up the authoritarian Arab regimes in the Middle East, and our leverage to make peace between the Palestinians and Israelis would increase.

After 9/11, let's be fair here, if you had been President, you'd think, Well, this fellow Bin Laden just turned these three airplanes full of fuel into weapons of mass destruction, right? ......Think about it that way. So, you're sitting there as President, you're reeling in the aftermath of this, oh yeah, you want to get Bin Laden and do Afghanistan and all that. But you also have to say, 'Well, my first responsibility now is to try everything possible to make sure that this terrorist network and other terrorist networks cannot reach chemical and biological weapons or small amounts of fissile material. I've got to do that.'

That's why I supported the Iraq thing [thing??] There was a lot of stuff unaccounted for. So I thought the President had an absolute responsibility to go to the UN and say, "Look guys, after 9/11, you have got to demand that Saddam Hussein lets us finish the inspection process" You couldn't responsibly ignore the possibility that a tyrant had these stocks. I never really thought he'd use them. What I was far more worried about was that he'd sell this stuff or give it away. Same thing I have always worried about North Korea's nuclear and missile capacity....the temptation to sell this stuff is overwhelming. So that's why I thought Bush did the right thing to go back. When you're President, and you're country has just been through what we had, you want everything accounted for."


That's why I am voting to keep Bush in office: because he did the responsible thing even though he KNEW it just might cost him his presidency.

Ego didn't matter....our safety is what mattered.

artbyruth said...

P.S. I didn't know you had a blog!! Cool.

Frater Bovious said...

Where are thy blog, artbyruth? You are half way there by setting up the artbyruth part.

~Jen~ said...

TWD - *curtsies* Thank you kind Sir, for watching my back. :)

alix said...

my silly little offering, keep in mind i'm from NM, okay?

bumper sticker on SuperSize-It SUV in GA:
GOP-God's Official Party

yep, it's THAT embarrassing.

artbyruth said...

Frater bovious-

I put in my profile stuff, but not sure I can set up a blog. I can only do this until the end of this month...then my school starts up. I am registered for 18 hours of classes PLUS working part time too PLUS doing an independent study (20 paintings) for an end of semester show.

I have a feeling I won't have time to comment much or blog!!

I will miss everyone, though. So, I'll keep posting as long as I can...but I will read many blogs everyday to keep up on things in Iraq.

Ihaveabraindoyou said...

This We'll Defend,
Do you really believe that Kerry did not rap himself in the flag at the Democratic Convention? You know, that big stripped thingy behind him. The one he kept talking about. There is no more blatant political prostitute than your buddy Lurch.

this we'll defend said...

Artbyruth - Iraq was a threat, as I have always said. But again, there is a wide range of actions between appeasement and invasion. Invasion was an extreme reaction to a very real threat, and it resulted in more harm than good.

If a spider crawls on your face when you are sleeping and I hit it with a sledgehammer, shattering your cheekbones, am I ok if I tell you that there was a spider and spiders can be dangerous? What, why are you defending spiders? Don't you know that they kill hundreds of people a year? You yourself told me you didn't like spiders, why are you changing your story now? Would you go "oh, ok then, it was the right thing to do. Thanks?" Of course not. There were lots of other options that could have prevented a spider bite without shattered cheekbones - even if the spider was a deadly black widow. Similarly we did NOT need to invade and occupy Iraq, especially when we are supposed to be hunting down and killing Al Queda and we need our military resources concentrating on that. Iraq didn't hit us, al queda did, and we had other effective options available.

And before I continue - you MUST blog until school starts. We all love your contribution.

I have repeatedly stated that I thought Saddam had lots of WMDs. That didn't justify invasion because the term "WMD" is a misnomer - the bogeyman. Nuclear weapons are truly WMDs. Our enemies must be prevented from having them if we can. He didn't have any. Chemical weapons should be better called "wide-area difficult to use hard to deploy usually ineffective terror weapons proven to be of little use but really frightening to the misinformed." Not so scary is it? But let's assume that he has, say, nerve agent. Because he did, and used it in the 1980s against Iran and against Kurds (and we didn't invade then, or roll to Baghdad the first time because nobody cared about his WMDs as long as they weren't nuclear). So what? He couldn't hit Tehran or Tel Aviv or Jedda, so why are WE concerned? And if he does have a 1,300 km missile with a chem weapon payload - how does that hit the United States? Notice, again, where that missile came from - a real and very scary threat called North Korea. We pulled out the 2nd Bde of the 2nd Infantry Division from South Korea this week - to go to Iraq. Does that make any sense? We are pissed that Iraq sells North Korean weapons to our enemies, but not when North Korea does?

The evidence you cite has either been discredited (weapons training by Iraq for al queda never happened - Saddam saw Islamic fundamentalists as a threat and didn't train his enemies - they would likely have attacked him before us) or the evidence is overblown.

We have contacts with North Korea but that doesn't make them our allies. We had contacts with Saddam Hussein but that didn't make him our buddy. Saddam had contacts with al queda but that didn't mean he was their ally - he was probably trying to cut a deal so that they would stay the hell out of Iraq and not try and kill him since they despised him as an apostate.

In short - Iraq was a threat. So is North Korea. So is Iran. So is Pakistan, where an unstable nuclear-armed regime may fall from power. So are many countries. And so is Al Queda. We attacked Iraq and that weakened our defenses against all of the other real and potential threats we face as well as encouraging terrorist recruiting. We are decidely NOT safer for it. Justifications that rely on the threat Iraq posed don't answer the question of whether invasion was the right answer to that threat. They are only descriptions of the spider's venom. It still wasn't the right thing to use the sledgehammer. Yes, the spider in his spider-hole is now gone. But we are harmed ourselves, and weaker.

Ihaveabrainandyou: The title of Ann Coulter's book was "Treason." not "I disagree" or "you're wrong" or "Conservatives are better" but "treason." The Veep, the attorney general, and Rummy all said that questioning the president strengthens our enemies. Go to any hate-radio station or Fox News and you will hear repeatedly the theme that the left doesn't support the troops because they disagree with administration policies. That is wrapping oneself in a flag - not being proud to be an American and displaying the flag proudly, as Kerry did and which we should all do. I love waving the flag. I served under it and I still get choked up when the national anthem plays. But I don't use my patriotism to defend my actions. It is unpatriotic to do so.

Those who say "but we are at war and questioning helps our enemies" would cravenly give up their freedom for safety. I will not. And suggesting that different opinions and the electoral process weakens us in a time of war reveals how little some people understand democracy or it's inner strengths. We don't need a Caesar. The People are sovereign in our system, not any one man. That strengthens us, not weakens us. To suggest otherwise, as the right-wing pundits do when they say there should be no criticism in a time of war, is to not understand our Revolution.

Or maybe all those disgusting "I support the President AND our troops" bumper stickers are figments of my imagination? The troops don't need that kind of support - they don't serve any one party or political ideology, they serve the Constitution. To lump "President" in with "troops" is wrapping an ideology in the flag, casting opposition to the president as a lack of support for the troops. It is disgusting, unpatriotic, and wrong. George Washington would never have done it. How far we have fallen when those that display such garbage consider themselves more patriotic than others. History shows they are anything but.

artbyruth said...

You wrote: "Yes, the spider in his spider-hole is now gone. But we are harmed ourselves, and weaker."

The typical, "Yes, Saddam was an evil man, horrible dictator, disgusting tyrant and it is good that he is gone, BUT....."

As Tom Junod wrote in Esquire magazine this week...there is no BUT. But what???!!! It should be: Saddam is gone AND we got rid of him only because President Bush went after him AND it is a good thing that he is gone.

I wrote on Jen's blog about the same thing: Saddam is gone because America went into Iraq and got rid of him.

There is no "but..."

How do you think we should have gotten rid of him? Sanctions?? They were not working. He was using them to starve his people and make himself and his cronies richer.

Resolutions? Didn't work: he was going against them for more than a decade.

Offer him exile? Bush did give him and his sons an ultimatum to leave the country before the bombs fall....Hussein refused.

What is left?? Say "pretty please??"

Look, our country was just attacked, Bush was briefed on the threat of Hussein. He saw (he used his imagination as the 9/11 comission said we should...) that there was a slight possibility that this mad man could use WMD's against us or give them to Terrorists to use against us. He saw that a FREE Iraq is a good thing and could just cause democracy to take root in the Middle East unlike anything before.

It is called insight...and Bush has it.

You say things in Iraq are horrible and it was not worth it to liberate them.

Just do me a favor and go over to Iraqthemodel blog and tell Omar, "Hey love the blog, but just so you know I don't think it was worth it to liberate you people over there. You are just not worth it to me. Sorry."

Go ahead and be brave enough to tell them that.

You see, I believe and I know others believe that it is worth it to liberate a people. We learned our lesson in World War II because this country hesitated. Because we hesitated, millions of people were brutally murdered.

FDR did not want to go after Germany. In the books about the Battle of Bataan, those GI's wrote that they enlisted in the National Guard or Army because the draft was being issued and they wanted to sign up themselves. They wrote that they knew a war with JAPAN was imminent. None of them wrote that they heard that Germany was a threat.

No matter what Michael Moore says, it was Japan that bombed us and there were no German planes over Hawaii or the Philippine Islands in 1941.

Germany posed no threat to us. We attacked Japan because they attacked us. So, why did we go after Germany?? Churchill pretty much begged FDR to help him with Hitler. There isn't much evidence that FDR cared much about the plight of the European Jews.

So, because this nation hesitated and appeasements and threats were made to Hitler, millions of Jews died.

Just think of the legacy Clinton could have right now: He could be known as the President who captured Bin Laden after the attacks in 1993, 1996, and the USS Cole bombing. He could have been known as the President who stopped the genocide in Rwanda. He could have been known as the President who stopped Saddam Hussein's reign of terror.

But nooooooo.

He is known for Monica Lewisnky and impeachment always will be known for that.

So, Bush will be known as the President who captured Bin Laden (it will happen...) and toppled Hussein's regime. Because he didn't hesitate to use force when it was needed in order to protect this country.

Back to Iraq: so you think things there are horrible?? You need to read this blog: He has a 7 part (yes, 7 parts!!) series on Good News from Iraq and Afghanistan.

An excerpt:
Ahead of next year's elections, local administration and democracy grow: "Sixteen provincial councils have been established, along with 78 district councils, 192 city or sub-district councils, and 392 neighborhood councils." We should always remember the sacrifices that brave Iraqis made every day to build a better country:

" 'We still believe in democracy and freedom,' said Sheik Saud al-Shibley, a tribal leader and vice president of the national farmer's union, who has survived three assassination attempts. 'Everybody sees us and at anytime we can get hit ... (but) I don't care about these things, I carry on with life'."

Believe me, liberating a people is worth it.

I am a Christian, and liberating a people in bondage is what Christ was all about.

Isaiah 42:6-9
"I am the LORD, I have called you in righteousness, I have taken you by the hand and kept you; I have given you as a covenant to the people, a light to the nations,
to open the eyes that are blind, to bring out the prisoners from the dungeon, from the prison those who sit in darkness.
I am the LORD, that is my name; my glory I give to no other, nor my praise to graven images.
Behold, the former things have come to pass, and new things I now declare; before they spring forth I tell you of them."

This country and our military are not weaker so long as we still believe in them. If we keep telling them that they are weak and that they are losing the war....then they will become weak and they will lose.

I choose to empower them:

Psalm 27:1-3
The LORD is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? The LORD is the stronghold of my life; of whom shall I be afraid?
2 When evildoers assail me, uttering slanders against me, my adversaries and foes, they shall stumble and fall.
3 Though a host encamp against me, my heart shall not fear; though war arise against me, yet I will be confident.

artbyruth said...

TWD wrote: "And before I continue - you MUST blog until school starts. We all love your contribution."

I truly appreciate that!! Thanks.

artbyruth said...

TWD wrote: "Chemical weapons should be better called "wide-area difficult to use hard to deploy usually ineffective terror weapons proven to be of little use but really frightening to the misinformed." Not so scary is it?"

Well, what about this fact:

Sarin gas was used to kill innocent Japanese people on the subway in 1995. So easy, in fact, that Clinton said:

"It is important for every responsible government in the world to do everything that can possibly be done to not let big stores of chemical or biological weapons fall into the wrong hands, not to let irresponsible people develop the capacity to put them in warheads on missiles or put them in briefcases that could explode in small rooms. And I say this not to frighten you." Sacramento Nov. 1997

Pretty easy to deploy and rather effective to the Japanese.

No wonder Clinton, Kerry, Edwards, Hillary, Daschle, and others all wanted Bush to go after and removed Saddam Hussein from power. They all wanted it too!!

"If you don't stop a horrific dictator before he gets started too far--that he can do untold damage. If the world had been firmer with Hitler earlier, then chances are that we might not have needed to send Americans to Europe during the Second World War." -Madeline Albright. Tennessee State Feb 19, 1998

Here, here.

artbyruth said...

TWD wrote: "Nuclear weapons are truly WMDs. Our enemies must be prevented from having them if we can. He didn't have any."

You wrote that we must prevent our enemies from having these weapons...yet that is what we are doing in Iraq.

Joe Wilson dropped the ball by lying about the Uranium from Africa claim. Iraq sought uranium there....400 tons of uranium in 1998.

Now, with Hussein gone, he has no chance of making nuclear weapons. Case closed.

And it didn't take appeasement, containment, inspections, or sanctions.

It took balls, frankly.


Lybian dictator Gadaffi (spelling??) saw Hussein being dragged out of a spider hole and willingly gave up his WMD's (which Hans Blix didn't even know he had...)without a shot being fired.

Pakistan is our ally

Pakistan and India have open discussions about nuclear capabilities

Iran students are openly protesting for democracy.

Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Turkey, all surround Iran which will give us alot of leverage should we need to impose force on Iran.

And North Korea knows we have a President who will strike before and not just after.

this we'll defend said...

ArtbyRuth, there is a "but" in the case of Iraq. Yes it is good that Iraq is no longer under the yoke of an evil dictator. Yes Saddam was bad. Yes yes yes.

The question is not, however, are the Iraqis better off, but are we? I say no. You say yes. Fine. But any argument as to how bad a man Saddam was to Iraqis isn't an argument that the US is better off, but only that the Iraqis are. And in the long run, perhaps even in the short run, they are better off. Are we, though? Telling me how bad Saddam was won't answer that question at all. Thus your entire premise that we had no other way to remove him from power begs the question "did we have to remove him from power?" That is the "but" in "Saddam was bad, but..." To ignore it means next stop Syria, China (they'll be pretty tough to occupy, seeing as there is a billion of them), Iran, North Korea (pretty tough as well), Sudan, and on and on and on. We would thus destroy ourselves in a misguided effort to save other people from bad leaders. It sounds great when you say democracy will take root in Iraq. But Iraqis aren't the ones a president is elected to serve. And I have no problem telling Mr. Omar that I care more about my countrymen than about his.

You say "This country and our military are not weaker so long as we still believe in them." That sounds great but it won't make more battalions available for deployment. Our military is over-extended because it was designed to fight and win short engagements with overwhelming force, not to serve long-term tours of occupation. Stealth bombers, aircraft carriers, all the expensive technology is great, but we need trained riflemen on the ground and there aren't enough to occupy Iraq and fight a war against Al Queda and fight another major engagement somewhere else too. Not without an extreme cost in lives, money, and combat effectiveness. Which is why we are weaker now than before. If you were Iran, for instance, would you want to face the US before we invaded Iraq, or after with 1/3rd of her Army tied down and another 1/3rd just returned and in need of refit or just preparing to go?

Your 1930s appeasement argument is similarly weak - Hitler was a threat because he strayed beyond his borders and presented a threat to the world, not because he mistreated his own people. How do I know that? Because we cooperated in the war with Stalin, who was almost if not just as brutal to his own people. And FDR went to war with Germany after Japan attacked us because 1) Germany and Japan were Axis partners, 2) we were threatened by Germany just as much as by Japan, 3) Germany declared war on us in Dec. 11, 1941, and 4) he did so without blaming Germany for Pearl Harbor. AND - listen closely - we beat the Japanese, instead of putting war with them on the back burner. A better analogy is that after Pearl Harbor FDR attacks Russia, which helps Hitler immensely, and FDR also fights only a limited action against the Japanese. Thank goodness Bush wasn't president in 1941.

The Sarin gas attacks in the Tokyo subway make my point about the WMD bogeyman. The terrorist nutjobs involved had spent millions of dollars and several years developing the technology to use Sarin in a terrorist attack - technology more advanced than that Saddam possessed. They expected tens of thousands to die. They placed the nerve agent on five railway carriages and over 6,000 people were exposed to the agent. Less than 500 required more than first aid, and only 17 needed intensive care. 12 died. Had the terrorists used conventional plastic explosive, TNT, or dynamite, they would have killed hundreds more. Even more frightening, had they spent those millions of dollars all on conventional explosive they could have killed tens of thousands. Instead, 12 died. 19 guys with boxcutters did a lot more damage on 9/11 with no "WMD" involved there either.

Your "joe wilson lied" charge is disputed by many, but let's assume that your point was that Saddam was seeking to acquire nuclear technology. In fact, he was. He wasn't succeeding, and we knew he wasn't succeeding, but he was always trying. "Seeking to acquire" isn't the same thing as "likely and imminent threat," especially when our response is justified because it will make us safer but instead does the opposite. Saddam wasn't nearly as close as Iran, or successful like Pakistan or North Korea. Thus that justification fails. Had he been close to acquiring one, however, then I would have supported an invasion. He wasn't and we now pretend that North Korea isn't a threat.

Libya was on the road to redemption before 9/11 even happened. Remember Khadaffi turning over the 2 guys for the Lockerbie trial? He was seeking to re-enter the world of the respectable, and instead of helping that along the invasion of Iraq almost wrecked those long-term efforts. But yes, after the invasion Libya turned over all of its WMD technology - as it had said it would do before 9/11. In fact, after 9/11 Khadaffi said the US was justified in invading Afghanistan. So did many other muslim nations. After Iraq those nations turned against us. We are just lucky Khadaffi continued on the course he was already on before 9/11.

The govt of Pakistan is our ally - but not the people. The govt is also not a democracy but a military dictatorship, which you are eager to support. Hmm....

With our Army tied down in Iraq we have less leverage over Iran, not more. They are laughing at us. And North Korea must be trembling in fear watching the 2nd brigade of the 2nd ID pack up and leave South Korea for Iraq, something they have been wishing for since the 1950s. We now have only one (1) brigade of combat troops left in South Korea. Yes, the North Koreans must be very concerned.

Finally, you note that "it took balls" for Bush to invade Iraq. I don't know how much bravery it takes to order others into danger. I also don't know how much bravery it takes to tell a nation that was enraged by 9/11 that we are going to war. I do know that starting a war with the wrong people didn't take "balls." Perhaps we should seek a president with brains instead. Or better yet, one with brains AND a combat record that suggests he also has balls. I think instead we have a president with his thumb up his ass, who ignored his military advisors and has led us into a situation where our national security is weakened and our attackers are still free.

so yes Iraq is better off, but... are we?

Wollybully said...


Wollybully said...

By the way, God is a conservative in the sense that He gave us a set of rules by which to live quite a while ago. His rules are literally etched in stone and are not open to interpretations as some living document.

Mr. Kerry made an interesting remark in regard to one of those rules. He said "Honor thy father and mother, one of the oldest of the 10 commandments". Maybe someone ought to inform Mr. Kerry that no one of the commandments is older than any other, having been created at the same time.

Libs shouldn't fret because God is conservative. You have Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny. Santa works one day a year, gives away stuff made by others and dresses in outrageous outfits. The Easter Bunny works only one day a year too, and hops around hiding pastel colored hard boiled eggs from children. Got to be Democrats!

Paul G. said...

The 'right' is conviced that God is a conservative, and of course by deduction Satan is a liberal.
God (You know the Christian one, Not the Jewish one),
gave up his only Son to torture, ridicule and death so that we could all Succeed in entry to heaven because we were all too lazy to keep the commandments... Looks like He came over to the liberal side to me.

Seriously though, as a progressive liberal, a veteran, and a lifelong student of history (I didn't just get interested in it like Shawn Hannity) I find the idea of tieing GOD to any political, government, or corperate entity repugnant. Nothing good has ever come from doing so.
This is not a Christian nation, and our record bears this out, ask Kim Fuk(she chose to live in Canada with her napalm scars), ask the Cherokee nation, ask the witches of Salem, the victims of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, the list could be almost endless but I have to include the 130,000 civilian dead(liberated?) in Iraq.
God is called on at every turn and far too often He is called on the loudest when we are doing our worst.