In his most recent UN speech Barack Obama went the hopey-changey route instead of traveling down reality road.
Even as the U.S. expanded its most significant military operation since the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq a decade ago, Obama watered down his noble-America rhetoric. Instead, he promoted a more benign kind of American optimism likelier to be soothing to the ears of those on the world stage.
“I often tell young people in the United States that despite the headlines, this is the best time in human history to be born, for you are more likely than ever before to be literate, to be healthy, to be free to pursue your dreams,” Obama said, casting for positive trends amid a cascade of global crises. “For America, the choice is clear: We choose hope over fear.”
Obama’s effort to find notes of optimism on the global scene struck a contrast with the grim picture painted by U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, who decried “barrel bombs and beheadings” and bemoaned “a terrible year for the principles enshrined in the United Nations Charter.”
He cannot even bring himself to properly label the enemy:
“I called this meeting,” Obama explained, “because we must come together — as nations and an international community — to confront the real and growing threat of foreign terrorist fighters.”
At the Washington Times, Joseph Curl described Obama’s speech as “full of naiveté”:
President Obama on Wednesday delivered a speech at the United Nations filled with his usual soaring rhetoric of global collectivism and the importance of “international norms.” But the president also displayed a shocking naivete about global affairs, religion, Islam — a Pollyannaish interpretation on the state of the world and America’s role in it.
As he is so oft to do, Obama refused to pin blame on Islam for anything:
To Mr. Obama, there’s no global conflict of ideology, just “pervasive unease in our world.” To him, the strife is merely the “failure of our international system to keep pace with an interconnected world.” And to him, “it is one of the tasks of all great religions to accommodate devout faith with a modern, multicultural world.”
Then Obama goes on to outright lie:
So is this passage of his speech: ” … the United States is not and never will be at war with Islam. Islam teaches peace. Muslims the world over aspire to live with dignity and a sense of justice. And when it comes to America and Islam, there is no us and them, there is only us.”
But Islam and the holy Koran on which Muslim militant groups like al Qaeda and the Islamic State base their actions do call for the extermination of all who do not follow Islam, do demand that followers kill anyone who leaves the religion, do subjugate women. For the record, the Koran contains more than 100 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers.
Mr. Obama said in his speech that “all people of faith have a responsibility to lift up the value at the heart of all great religions: Do unto thy neighbor as you would do — you would have done unto yourself.” But that is not a cornerstone of Islam. Militant Muslims have a very different belief: “Fight in the name of your religion with those who disagree with you.” And that edict comes straight from their holiest book.
Most offensive was his likening of the white cops or Ferguson to the Islamic jihadists of ISIS:
“In a summer marked by instability in the Middle East and Eastern Europe, I know the world also took notice of the small American city of Ferguson, Missouri — where a young man was killed, and a community was divided,” Obama said in the speech. “So yes, we have our own racial and ethnic tensions.”
Dick Cheney noticed it, and rightly so:
Cheney said the comparison was unwarranted.
“In one case, you’ve got a police officer involved in a shooting, there may be questions about it to be sorted out by the legal process, but there’s no comparison to that with what ISIS is doing to thousands of people throughout the Middle East through bloody beheadings of anybody they come in contact with,” Cheney said. “To compare the two as though there’s moral equivalence there, I think, is outrageous.”
Barack Obama has made the protection of Islam his highest priority, but drawing a moral equivalence between ISIS and the white cops of Ferguson is offensive. One wonders when people in this country will take their blinders off. This time, at least, Obama bashed his own country IN his own country.
Exit question: How many world leaders have you ever seen address the UN and bash their own country?
DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education.
DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed.
Except for liberals being foolish.
@Smorgasbord: Uh, so you’ve been saying for years that anyone who doesn’t think Obama doesn’t hate all Americans is delusional?
At what point in history and for what reason did you arrive at that conclusion?
Who will Obama blame for this?
QuikTrip has no plans to rebuild in Ferguson, Missouri.
Kmart to leave Ferguson, Missouri.
These stores were looted during the August riots.
http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/kmart-to-close-store-near-florissant/article_4aa5f1ed-7296-58d1-8c1f-58025e984d8e.html
Isn’t it ironic that it was Holder who came up with the idea of treating corporations as people?
Maybe, if Michelle works real hard, Ferguson won’t become a ”food desert” because of her, her hubby’s and the DOJ’s meddling in affairs that are none of the federal government’s business.
@Ronald J. Ward: #51
I will only put one link in my reply, since I have posted them different times.
(1) He has no American birth certificate.
(2) He is using someone else’s Social Security number, and has NEVER denied it.
(3) He has a fake Selective Service registration.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/35983084@N07/12178804083/
(4) He has said many times he will defend the muslim religion. Name one other religion he said he will defend.
(5) He said he wants a civilian security force that is as strong as, and equally funded as the military. He can’t activate the National Guard. Why does he want a force that can defeat the military? Does this remind anyone of Hitler’s Brown Shirts?
(6) He is taking the steps most others took who became the ruler of their country:
(A) Take the citizen’s guns away so they can’t defend themselves.
(B) Give the citizens socialized medicine to control who get treated, and how.
(C) Spend the country into bankruptcy.
(E) Lead the citizens away from Christianity.
(F) Break up the family so Daddy is out of the picture.
(G) Increase the welfare so the citizens become dependent on the government.
There are many more steps to take over a country, and obama is following the steps many others took to become their ruler.
@Smorgasbord: To be honest, I didn’t realize you were quite that divorced from reality and that consumed by the Kool aid. I mean, you honestly grade that list as 100% accurate? Honestly?
If so, you bring the word delusional to a new level.
@Ronald J. Ward: Instead of hurling foolish insults, you cold be answering my question. Still afraid?
@Bill:
“I guess the question would be have YOU seen that video? What, exactly, is it supposed to show other than people reacting to rumors of what happened?”
They’re not reacting to rumors. They’re reacting to the shooting of an unarmed black man that they just witnessed with their own eyes from a distance of about 50 feet. They’re angry. They’re telling the cop what they just saw. That’s what made them angry.
@Ronald J. Ward: #54
Since I don’t belong to any political party, I look at ALL sides of a story, and decide for myself what to believe, not what a political party wants me to believe. That’s one of the great things about living in a free country. We can disagree with anybody we want, without having our heads cut off.
@Smorgasbord: You seem to be rather full of specious arguments that don’t make a great deal of sense. Manipulating reality to give you your desired bigoted conclusion isn’t something contengent on what, if any, political party you belong to. While that gem of defiance of reasoning disqualifies you of any credence, you actually get worse.
Your above ranting list can each be dismissed as blatantly false or a non sequitur and irrelevent to the argument you proposed. If you put each in context for a rational conclusion to “I’ve been saying for years that Obama hates all Americans because. ……” you expose yourself as an argumentive fraud and that your festered hatred supercedes any rhyme or reason to your diatribe.
For example, “Obama hates all Americans because he doesn’t have a birth certificate”. Assuming the debunked birther issue had an iota of credence (which it doesn’t but that’s an asibe), that still fails the smell test of common sense. How or by what logic does his place of birth equate to a hatred of all Americans? The rest of your gibberish is profoundly false and you look like a total idiot to even make such claims. “Obama hates all Americans because”, uh, gun control? He hates them all becuase “socialized medicine”? He hates them and wants dads out of families? ?
If anything, you’ve only admitted your reluctance to admit the reason you hate Obama as otherwise you wouldn’t have to fabricate such utter nonsense.
The world is falling to crap and Obama re-invigorated the radicals in Ferguson.
In just the last few days a movement to wear bracelets saying ”I am Officer Wilson,” was stopped by order of the FPD chief.
That same chief of police apologized to the people of Ferguson for the shooting of Michael Brown and had his apology rejected.
Two burglary suspects, caught in the act, shot at a Ferguson police officer so they could get away.
He was hit in the arm.
K-Mart and Quik Mart are NOT going to rebuild after being repeatedly looted.
There is a move afoot for all of Ferguson’s police to quit.
Maybe, left to its own to either protect it or ruin it, Ferguson will see just how hard it is to govern itself.
@Jeff D:
I am well aware, Jeff, that there are many who only know what they glean from the left wing media that only feeds them what they want them to know, not what the facts actually are.
In the process of two autopsies, Jeff, it has been revealed that, despite EYE WITNESS REPORTS that Brown was shot in the back while surrendering, there were in fact NO wounds to the back. There are also EYE WITNESS REPORTS that, rather than raise his hands and surrender in a docile manner, Brown attacked the officer, tried to wrest his weapon from his holster and then charged him with is 6’4″, 300 lb body. So, as I said, there is nothing new and revealing in the video, such as some video of what actually happened.
No doubt you would discount the testimony of those that say Brown attacked Wilson just as I, based on proof that they are lying, totally discount the testimony of those that say Brown was shot in the back. So, until there is a trial and testimony and adjudication, the eyewitness reports cancel each other out.
Or is that too difficult to understand? Certainly Ronald can’t absorb it, since he cannot as yet see the problem with Obama, before the entire world, using Ferguson as an example of a problem with racial and social relationships in the United States. While it is an example of how the left manipulates facts to incite unrest and violence in order to further a social agenda, a better example of racial and social issues in the United States would be how the government and media completely ignores the black on black crime or black on white crime, which DOES expose a racist motive. But, he is not likely, knowing what we know about him, to discuss that, is he?
@Ronald J. Ward:
Sorry, Ronald. You do not answer questions or admit to being wrong so you get no answers. That’s how it’s going to work. We play by the same rules or we don’t get to play.
“”Too many young men of color feel targeted by law enforcement — guilty of walking while black or driving while black, judged by stereotypes that fuel fear and resentment and hopelessness,” said Obama, who has spoken of enduring similar treatment as a younger man.
He said significant racial disparities remain in the enforcement of law, from drug sentencing to application of the death penalty, and that a majority of Americans think the justice system treats people of different races unequally.”
This was Obama speaking to the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation’s annual dinner. Just more of Obama’s “all blacks good, all white cops bad” rhetoric continued since the days of his criticism of the Cambridge Police Department which resulted in a beer “summit.”
Of course, Obama didn’t mention that in Ferguson, Missouri, 50% of the residents are unwed mothers with children, or that the high school drop out rate in the primarily black high school is a disgrace, or that unemployment among black men in Ferguson is extremely high, or that drugs being openly sold on the streets of Ferguson by young black men has been a major problem. Nor did Obama talk about the extreme rise in black on white attacks, all in the name of the “Knock-out game”. How about talking about the problem of black converts to Islam that causes us to see a white woman beheaded in Oklahoma or the violence of black men against black women, as show to us by NFL players? Maybe he could have talked about all the absentee fathers in the black community, and how black men should be responsible for the children they help create.
And when, exactly, did Obama experience “walking while black/driving while black” during his youth? When he lived in Indonesia, he was too young to drive and when he lived in Hawaii, after the age of 10, he went to one of the most prestigious prep schools on the island in a state that had a high rate of not only minorities, but minority police officers, and hung out with the Choom Gang that was of mixed races.
No, this kind of trash talk from the President of the United States is not meant to unite us as a people, but to divide us and try to get out the black vote in November with the same stereotypical clap-trap that is pushed by the likes of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and all the other race baiting poverty pimps.
Sooner or later white Americans are going to get tired of being blamed for all the ills in the black community and with the rise in the Hispanic population, the black grievance industry is short lived.
Who in major media is covering the DRIVE-BY SHOOTING of Ferguson police?
Apparently three black males in a car shot many times at police.
All the shots missed but the police were hurt by the shattering glass that hit them.
Response in the town of Ferguson?
As word quickly spread of the first police officer shot, the Ferguson protesters recorded themselves as they cheered the news. Watch the video: “I hope that bitch die” … “We praying that he die”.
Local news picked up that first shooting:
http://fox2now.com/2014/09/28/st-louis-city-officer-shot-at-on-i-70/
Now what about that 2nd shooting?
The ambush shooting?
Where’s CNN?
MSNBC?
CBS?
@Nanny+G:
All the Ferguson officers should strike until the residents stop their violence. No more police protection. Let the rioters burn, loot and steal, along with shooting each other (which will happen) until the residents show there is some semblance of decency in that community. Let Jay Nixon send in the state troopers to deal with these cretins.
And where is all the “calm” that Eric Holder and his Scheme Team was supposed to have brought to Ferguson?
@Bill: Actually, my rather slow witted friend, my question has been answered. Considering how comprehending black and white text is so challenging for you, it’s understandable that reading between the lines would be near impossible. And, I don’t do pictures.
@Bill:
“I am well aware, Jeff, that there are many who only know what they glean from the left wing media that only feeds them what they want them to know, not what the facts actually are.”
What you’re relying on for facts is a right wing disinformation bubble. Distortion of reality is the norm. Their audiences routinely come to believe things even in the absence evidence.
Some facts:
An adult (18 year old) committed a theft, was confronted by law enforcement, attacked said enforcement officer and was killed, as was deserved and expected (don’t attack or run from cops; they’ll shoot you, dummy). Case closed.
The Democratic Party was the party of Jim Crow and segregation, morphing into the party of exploitation of the poor and uneducated (as defined by whatever parameters they deem fit).
80% or more of journalists, media professionals, and entertainers are left-leaning, so 80% of the information offered to people is left biased and even simply left-informed opinion. This has become a kind of unofficial cabal of propaganda, and an ideological cult (See Europe: 20th Century, and Argentina for reference). This cabal does not tolerate those who disagree, and quietly bars these undesirables from having a voice. This cabal opened up a business opportunity, since 80% of the people of the United States are not left-leaning (The majority of Americans are neither right or left). Enter Fox News.
Left-leaning citizens have been indoctrinated to believe Fox bias is somehow different than the 80% of media leaning left, all part of another propaganda device employed by those with money and power (Soros, et al): accuse your enemy of using the tactics you use every day, use on a greater scale. It’s masks your own conduct, while using said enemy as the focal point for your mob’s ire. After Obama spends hours on talk shows, doing photo ops, and being worshiped on the covers of pop culture magazines, he’s has the audacity to tell Fox they are misinforming people. No, Fox merely offers a different bias to the overwhelming bias of the left out there. Not on the same scale, and not in a way that counteracts the damage done by left-leaning media.
Mimetic Mirroring: you become what you claim to fight against. Tyranny, control, propaganda, fear — these all mark the reign of Barack Obama…all in the name of being everything but. After reading the weak posts from childish leftists here, you see that an open-minded, conscientious citizen is not contending with a rational movement. It’s a cult: it offers identity, and an enemy to hate. It is not love, compassion, fairness, justice . . . none of these things.
It’s ignorant hate. The left is now the party of ignorant hate, living in a world that doesn’t exist, and fighting for the domination of those they disagree with. They are everything they claimed to combat, and they want blood. They can’t see right from wrong, and are following a new religion.
The new leftist death cult: may they see they can’t bully the rest of us, as people of conscience and character rise meet the challenges of the 21st century, maintaining the US as a place of freedom, justice, and opportunity for all people who desire it.
@DrJohn:
This might make Greg feel a little better about it, though:
Obama Is Talking, Not Acting, Like George W. Bush
@Ronald+J.+Ward:
To which Bill says:
@Ronald+J.+Ward:
Hey Ronald. Bush critics constantly throw in this strawman: “……a country that did not attack us on 9/11….” when criticizing the decision to revisit Iraq with a ground invasion. Please find me the quote where President Bush ever claimed Iraq attacked us on 9/11. Thank you.
@Wordsmith:I never claimed that GWB made such statements. A given quote or lack of doesn’t disqualify my argument that Bush and/or his administration never “sold” Americans on the concept that Saddam and/or Iraq attacked us.
GWB did tell Congress on 3/20/03 that an Iraqi invasion was consistent with
While Bush did well at not actually making a verbatim quote, his innuendos and subtle connections along with the help of VP Dick Cheney helped around 45% of Americans to believe there was a direct Saddam/911 link as polls told us. Do I really need to Google the many press conferences and SOTUA where Saddam was mentioned numerously in context with 911? As Steven Kull, director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland said in 2003,
It wasn’t until well after the invasion did Bush finally come clean with a clear statement that Saddam had nothing to do with 911.
Regardless, finding some meaningless glitch does nothing to counter my argument of the difference in the Bush rhetoric and Obama rhetoric. Bush was at the wheel and his administration pushed hard to enter Iraq. To argue otherwise would make you appear dumber than a box full of Bills and Smorgasbords.
@Ronald J. Ward:
No, he who is too cowardly to admit the worthlessness of your ideology, you have not, for if you had you would have, as I suggested, cut and pasted you answer. Since all you have offered was a cut and pasted copy of the speech, you have provided no answer to my specific question. None. Nada. Zip.
So, I’ll take that as an admission of your failure and your support for a failure. THAT is my answer.
@Jeff D:
No, Jeff, what I am relying on is the FACT that very few facts have been determined. But, one that has is that those claiming to have seen Brown shot in the back were lying and their testimony is voided. Also voided is the testimony of Brown’s running buddy, Dorian Johnson, since he has a long history of stealing and lying.
Star prosecution witness has prior false police report and theft charge; NAACP doesn’t care
http://www.ijreview.com/2014/08/170048-star-witness-michael-brown-shooting-charged-theft-filing-false-police-report/
Meanwhile, there are witnesses that support the claim that Brown was killed because he was trying to kill Wilson.
Evidence that Brown was shot in self defense
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/08/20/missouri-cop-was-badly-beaten-before-shooting-michael-brown-says-source/
Over a dozen witnesses confirm police account
So, the fact of my point remains, that it was stupid and racist for Obama to use this particular situation as an example of racial or societal problems in the US since it could very well turn out that it was, as originally stated, a justified shooting and the only thing making it a crisis is the left whipping it into a racial conflict for their own purposes. This is what you are (possibly intentionally) missing and what Ronald doesn’t have the guts to admit.
@Ronald J. Ward: #68 The actual problem is that liberals like you, Ronald, are so stupid. Really stupid. Profoundly stupid. Oppressively stupid.
The attacks of 9/11 was the opening battle in the war on terror. Things changed on that day. The goal was not to simply go get bin Laden and bring him to justice; the goal was to defeat terror and restore our national security. Bush stated clearly that it would be a long conflict. The left poo-pooed that concept. Well, look at us now.
The intelligence evidence (with many, many citations showing that it was strongly supported by Democrats long before Bush took office) showed Iraq had WMD’s and Hussein had ties to terror groups, including al Qaeda, who perpetrated 9/11. THAT is the connection to 9/11 and that is all the connection there was or was implied. The concern with the threat of Iraqi WMD’s and the war in Iraq was but another front in the war on terror, not pursuit of justice for 9/11. It’s not that hard to understand and, but for the left’s overwhelming desire to find a misguided pursuit, no one would have promoted it. Yes, the possibility that Iraq was complicit was an early suspicion that was investigated, but it was just as quickly and definitively discounted.
Only a few of the hard-line idiots continue along that line of though. You are in rare company, Ronald.
@Ronald J. Ward:
Just as Obama now pushes, and has pushed, hard to enter Syria.
I agreed with Obama when he did not, at first, arm the rebels in Syria. While the American lapdog press ignored the dangers of doing that, the Brits had no problem reporting that even those we were calling “anti-Assad” were still, in the end, anti-American and that FSA rebels were deflecting to Al Qaeda and other radical off-shoots of AQ. What kind of confidence should we have in an Administration that when the Secretary of Defense, Chuckie Hagel, is asked who is the leader of the Syrian rebels, he could not give an answer and said they were “working on” vetting those “leaders”?
Now we are immersed in Syria with no possible good outcome, and years from now, you’ll still be whining “but, but, Bush………”.
So here is the situation on the ground in Iraq, and Syria…………we are going to be fighting ISIS using our own troops on the ground because an air war cannot possible decimate AQI, now known as ISIS, while ISIS uses our own weapons against us. American soldiers will die, and Assad will be overthrown as we enter into another decades long war, and as we read how Christians, now protected by Assad, are being beheaded and their children crucified. Syria, due to Obama’s incompetence, will just be another Iraq and Libya. And then, what will you say RJW?
Bush understood this is a long war, not to end just because some glib JV politician who managed to get elected to the highest office in our nation says it will. The Islamists are in for the long haul and they have been fighting this war of jihad for 1,300 years. It is past time for you on the left to wake up to that reality.
@Bill:
“Evidence that Brown was shot in self defense”
Then why haven’t details and photos of his severe facial injuries been made public? That would have immediately demonstrated there were two sides to the story. Much trouble could have been avoided by making them public. No, it’s only another tall tale thrown out by FOX from an unnamed source. That’s standard operating procedure with FOX. And Twitter posts? Twitter posts claiming they heard something from some unnamed third party? That isn’t “evidence” of anything. It’s rumor. Possibly rumor from the first person to start it. The angry witnesses on the video who just saw the shooting don’t even seem to realize they’re being recorded. They’re responding spontaneously to what they just saw happen.
@Jeff D: You’re projecting. Liberal media bias is far more ubiquitous and damaging, which is why you care about the happenings in Ferguson.
Fox is best tool the liberals have, in my opinion, because it keeps the ill-informed angry and thus malleable. You don’t see the liberal bias because you agree with it, but the very, very small presence of Fox sends you into a tantrum.
Yeah, I think we’re done here. A robbery suspect attacked a cop and got shot while trying to kill the cop — case closed.
You desperately need there to be an issue, as your dem/lib/leftist masters require of you subconsciously . . . all while suppressing the very lunacy of your actions under the faux-rage of fox news.
Yeah. It’s a very old way of controlling a populace. Give them a enemy (Bush/Fox) and hammer it over and over and over and over…
The witless rabble will be too busy arguing on internet blogs to see the evil in the very causes they claim to follow (but really don’t — just a psychological crux for the immature and neurotic).
@Ronald J. Ward: #58
Please explain how someone who doesn’t automatically go along with the democratic or republican agenda is bigoted. I see them joining forces, and acting like one party. I also let people think the way they want. This is why I don’t usually carry on a conversation with someone when we disagree on something, and neither of us will change our mind on it. I would rather change the subject, and remain friends, than have me or them keep trying to convince the other they are wrong.
Please give an example of me “Manipulating reality”. If ANYBODY disagrees with you, are they “Manipulating reality”?
.
Please show me where I have shone any hate for anyone. Just because I disagree with someone, doesn’t mean I hate them. On the other hand, why is it when a conservative tries to have a calm conversation with a liberal, the liberal almost always goes into a rant, starts getting loud, and one even poked his finger in my chest at a Tea Party rally.
If you want to see anger, go to a liberal rally. Any of them. The only anger you will see at a Tea Party rally is against what our government is doing to WE THE PEOPLE.
The only people I can remember saying that I think obama hates is our military personnel. They stand in his way to overthrow our country, so they are his enemy. Can you show where I said he hates anybody else?
Have you noticed that when a liberal can’t get someone to change their mind about a person or thing, the liberal ALWAYS brings up the HATE issue? If the liberal can’t change the other person’s mind, then that person is full of hate.
Since I am not a church goer, do I hate all church goers?
Please show me where I ever said I hate obama. I fear him, and I HATE what he is doing to this country, although, let’s keep in mind that obama is just a marionette, and can’t do or say anything without his puppeteers pulling his strings.
@Ronald J. Ward:
Thanks for your comment.
You might not have said it; but it’s implied in your earlier comment which parrots a common talking point amongst those who think “Bush lied us into war.”
I wrote a blogpost a few years back that I think I did pretty good research on.
I ask a favor: That you read it with an open mind, setting aside your partisanship and preconception of what you know or think you know already regarding the War. It won’t change what you think of the war and of Bush; but I hope you will reconsider some of what you have believed about the case made for war against Iraq (it wasn’t just about wmd stockpiles).
Absolutely. And Saddam Hussein’s Iraq was an open state sponsor of terrorism. He made no secrets about it at all.
The GWoT was always about going after more than just one terror group. It’s a whole network and movement. Bush understood that early on. OBL’s 1998 fatwa wasn’t signed by just him, representing just his organization. (I do take into consideration that a couple of the signatories to that fatwa wanted their names stricken from it).
Covered in my blogpost. Please, please take the time to read it.
The link between Saddam and 9/11 is that in a post-9/11 world, it became dangerous to leave a wmd-loving state sponsor of terror in power. That’s the link. There was a real fear (and with good reason) that Saddam might use terrorists as a proxy to deliver a wmd attack against the U.S. “The enemy of my enemy is my friend”. And it is not true that a secular Saddam was not willing to do business and cooperate with religious fanatics. He would and he did. This is well documented and not just conspiracy or fabrication on the part of those who believe in the GWoT and supported the Iraq War. Postwar documents captured and translated also bears this out- that Saddam was steep deep in ties to Islamic terrorists.
Thank you so much for that money quote! Because it just reiterates my point about your earlier statement and the strawman that your side perpetuates- including the caveat whenever talking about Iraq that it was a “country that never attacked us on 9/11”- a statement which was never made. So of course Bush denies it in 2006. Had the same question been posed to him in 2003, he would have said something very similar- probably something along the lines of not having evidence of it and keeping the answer to the question open-ended (i.e., inconclusive and not known at the time). Like Saddam’s wmd status, it wasn’t fully known and conclusive yet (and if you look back at most of the administration statements regarding wmd, they were more cautionary, pointing out that it was the “not knowing” and the “uncertainty” which was just as much at issue- remember, the UNSCRs demanded that Saddam come clean and not be in materiel breach).
There’s absolutely no gotcha in this (let’s read it again):
People like you and probably the journalist who asked the question assume it’s Bush changing his tune. That’s not the case at all. He’s clarifying what’s always been the case.
I will concede that the Bush Administration probably did allow the media and the American people to draw a connection and not clarify how two statements juxtaposed together like “Saddam didn’t have anything to do with 9/11” and “there are clear links between Saddam and al Qaeda” are not in conflict. They, like any administration, needed to drum up popular support. However, I do not believe they “lied” us into war, as some would argue.
However, on Sept. 13, 2003 in which Bush also stated that Saddam was linked to al Qaeda but no evidence to tie him to the 9/11 attacks, Bush said:
@Jeff D:
I had thought you had the potential to be a rational person with whom to have a discussion about disagreements, but you are far too dependent upon the left wing sources which filter out the details that do not support the left wing narrative.
http://www.hngn.com/articles/39766/20140820/ferguson-officer-darren-wilson-suffered-serious-facial-injury.htm
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/crime/reports-say-officer-darren-wilson-suffered-orbital-blowout-fracture-scuffle-michael
Remember the outrage over the release of the video of a bullying Brown man-handling and robbing the store clerk? Perhaps the department does not release evidence prior to the grand jury hearings. What I would like to know is if there is evidence of Wilson’s service weapon being discharged in the vehicle, as some witnesses reported. But, we have to wait and should not assume racist motive and destroy a community based on rumor.
However, the point is not to debate whether Wilson or Brown is guilty or innocent; the point is that we ARE debating the difference because it has not yet been determined. That point is why it was stupid for Obama to use it as an example of any problem in American society when the actual problem is how easily and remorselessly the left will exploit such a tragedy (as with Trayvon Martin) to further their liberal agenda.
How do you respond to the “eye witnesses” that stated Brown was shot in the back when the autopsies clearly show this was not the case? Still rely solely on their accounts?
@Wordsmith:
It is utterly amazing to me that so many either cannot or will not understand that. I am sure at some point in time, I entertained the suspicion that Hussein and Iraq was involved in some way with 9/11 but I certainly cannot remember that thought lingering. Essentially, I don’t think I ever considered that the case, yet I, based on the intelligence the war was based on, realized what a danger that was.
Perhaps Ronald and others can remember the numerous reports on how porous out borders were (shocking, isn’t it?) and how easily it would be to utilize a shipping container as a WMD. This was a real concern and this was the reason for war in Iraq; not Bush’s daddy, not war profiteering for Cheney, not oil profits.
What it all boils down to is irrational Bush hatred and the need for a villain (even if a real one exists, the villain has to be a US conservative) and a nefarious motive. The left simply wants all problems resolved quickly and easily at the moment of their choosing (at least those that do not involve taxing the hell out of people who earn a living and using the cast to buy votes…. those can go on forever). The terrorists disagree.
@Bill:
Any administration that did not turn over that rock and examine thoroughly a possible operational connection would have been derelict in duty; and you’d have to ignore the previous decade of history with Saddam.
I forget the details now, but there were circumstantial evidence aplenty; and behavior right before and up to 9/11 that were suspicious in regards to Iraq. I’d have to dig back.
Offhand, after 9/11, Iraq was the only world government that did not offer condolences:
On October 18, 2001, he did express sympathy for one U.S. individual in an email reply to a letter sent from that person. But all other world leaders had publicly offered their condolences to Washington.
The 1998 Clinton-era indictment of OBL claimed:
After the Cease-Fire Agreement, Saddam still never stopped believing that he wasn’t at war with the U.S. It remained clear to him that there was no Peace Treaty signing. Iraq shot at U.S. and British jets daily over the no-fly zone.
One of the stated grievances by OBL against the U.S. is the suffering of the Iraqi people due to sanctions (not due to Saddam).
On the very day of 9/11, an Iraqi surface to air missile shot down a U.S. Predator (unarmed) flying in search of wmd.
Then there’s this post-invasion image:
But no. Because no evidence has tied to a direct collaborative link between Saddam and the events of 9/11 and that examination as a result never became part of the claim and official justification for removal of Saddam by the Bush Administration.
I edited my earlier comment to include a link to Bush earlier than the 2006 link provided by Ronald (Sept of 2003) saying the same thing: That there was no evidence of Saddam collaboration on 9/11; but there was evidence to his ties with al Qaeda.
Not a contradiction.
@Wordsmith: and Bill
I can’t think of a single person who I served with over there who thought we went to war because Saddam was implicated in 9/11. Surely those of us who went knew why were going. It’s just another made up story in leftist fantasy land.
Ray Robison did extensive research into this topic and posted it on his web site. An excellent, detailed read that dispels many a leftist myth.
http://rayrobison.typepad.com/ray_robison/2007/04/announcement_a_.html
@Bill:
“I had thought you had the potential to be a rational person with whom to have a discussion about disagreements, but you are far too dependent upon the left wing sources which filter out the details that do not support the left wing narrative.”
Are the 3 links right after that examples of reliable conservative sources? The first one backs up the unsourced rumor that the Ferguson cop had an eye socket injury with a file copy of a CT scan. They must think their readers all have double digit IQs. The other two look like collections of tabloid stories.
@another+vet:
The polling data is disconcerting. I believe it’s due to low information voters who can’t decipher “You can’t distinguish between Al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror” at face value and instead read into it that Bush must be claiming Iraq is responsible for 9/11. This and a mainstream media that also muddied the fountain of information, confusing people as much as anything the Bush Administration actually said in statements. Bush says one thing, and they hear something else. This really became crystal clear to me when I went back and read the actual transcripts of what Dick Cheney said in his Meet the Press interviews as opposed to what was reported (and purported) that he said. (Cheapless plug again).
Ray Robison (“Both in One Trench”), Scott Malensek (“former” author here), and Mark Eichenlaub (“Regime of Terror” site) have fantastic research and links in their articles and books.
@Jeff D: You don’t get it, do you, Jeff? You can’t get it, can you, Jeff?
While there is question about the severity of Wilson’s injuries, it is confirmed he took a beating. However, it is neither conclusive or definitive. AGAIN, that is PRECISELY the issue. Why would Obama make this his example? It is totally unclear, unverified and unproven that Wilson killed Brown for any racist reason whatsoever.
Wise up, Jeff, before it is too late.
@Bill:
“Why would Obama make this his example?”
Because the Ferguson shooting has been high-profile in other countries’ international news just like the Oscar Pistorius murder trial has been high-profile international news here. It was a good example because his audience knows about it. It’s an international current event. What don’t you get about that?
@Wordsmith: Propaganda is a very powerful tool. One of the things I fault Bush for was not going after the left a lot harder and countering the downright lies they were telling. I realize he wanted to stay above that and not politicalize the war but in the end it gave a false narrative of the war. As we discussed on another thread they are still talking about how no WMD was found in Iraq despite the fact that there was. And that includes pro war conservatives. It’s like a self fulfilling prophecy or something.
The Ferguson issue is not currently big news in most other countries. Period. ISIS; yes. Ebola; yes. The missing airliner; a little. The downed airliner; yes. The Scottish vote; maybe. Ferguson; no. Very few people around the world are following this rare non-Black on Black event. Some foreign media outlets may still be headlining it, but not many people are following the story (people in other countries have far more important things to worry about than what’s going on in some small US city).
Meanwhile, oMuslim is simply a racist who insists on fabricating a race based theory as to what actually happened in Ferguson while having no idea as to what the facts are. This might be understandable to some degree with everyday people. However, this kind of thing is unacceptable coming from a so-called intelligent and mature world leader. This is propaganda plain and pure.
I’ll also remind the 0Muslim rump hugging trolls in FA that ISIS has, so far this year, killed thousands of men, women, and children (often in the most barbaric ways) in the name of Islam while the police in the US have, right or wrong, killed how many citizens this year? 0Muslim is just interjecting the extremely rare “non-Black on Black event” in Ferguson into the barbaric and murderous actions of ISIS. There simply is no comparison between the two. And most of the world knows it (which is why they’re largely ignoring our lazy, racist, and immature President).
@Jeff D:
I don’t recall anyone from South Africa making the Pistorius murder (by the way, he was found not guilty, so this kind of proves my point… AGAIN) indicative of any problems in South African society…. do you?
Obama has a long and bad history of using poor examples to make his points; examples which eventually prove to be in no way what he presented them to be. In his first SOTU speech, to promote Obamacare, he used the example of a poor guy who died because his coverage was cancelled; turned out he had coverage, got care and eventually died of his disease 3 years later. He used a woman as a prop in the Rose Garden as a poor unemployed person worthy of his extension of unemployment benefits; turns out she was fired for falsifying insurance information. He lined up 12 people as gleaming examples of how easy it was to sign up for Obamacare; turned out only 3 of the 12 had signed up. His Rose Garden exhibition of the proud parents of Sgt. Bergdahl, whom he rescued from Taliban captivity by trading 5 hardened terrorist leaders; Bergdahl was a deserter. Just as he makes poor choices in personnel for his administration, so he makes poor choices in political show-boating examples.
Ferguson is another one. No reason to use that particular unproven example other than to incite racial tension here at home. Since then, he has gone on to make another race-baiting speech for no reason other than to create devisiveness and try and support the lagging support for his own party and ideology.
He even recently made a speech to the Congressional Black Caucus saying white policemen are racist.
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2014/09/28/president-obama-tells-congressional-black-caucus-white-police-officers-are-corroding-america/
Yet, he has no proof. He is only doing this to rally support to the Democrats to oppose something that does not exist. And, once again, mentioning the Ferguson shooting, which could very well turn out the opposite of how he characterized it, was a stupid thing to do… except in the context of domestic racial unrest and the good use he can make of it.
@Wordsmith: Forgive me for my lack of sources or specifics but I’m in a situation where the Internet connectivity is near to nothing and pages take forever to load if they don’t time out entirely. I do have your link saved to a page. I did at least want to respond as your rebuttal was civil and coherent, which I appreciate.
The summation of your argument seems to lead to a conclusion that people understood from the previous administration that Saddam Hussein was a terribly terrible person who did terribly terrible things (which I’m not arguing) so it stood to reason that such a terrible act as 911 could be associated with him despite the Bush admin constantly saying “no, no, no, that’s not the case so stop thinking that regardless of what that misleading media wants you to think”.
The arguments of the rationale for attacking Iraq will be long lived as will how it was sold to Congress and the electorate. There are compelling arguments to both side and because I have such, well, terribly terrible Internet service, I’ll just shoot from the hip so give me some leniency if you want to critique every aspect of it.
I do recall specifically a pre-Iraq invasion State Of The Union Address that struck me where Bush invoked “Saddam’s rape rooms” in context with including Iraq in the War on Terror. Those were some terribly terrible things to imagine that such a terribly terrible person could do right after such a terribly terrible ordeal as 911. So while I’m thinking that very likely 70% of the average TV viewer watching this couldn’t name the 3 branches of government, how many knew the difference in Iraq and Iran or Al Qaeda and Saddam. What was the precise nature of horrifying the nation of how brutal and disgusting Saddam was when it really had no connection with the 911 attack? And hell, that’s even assuming he didn’t do it!
But something even more disturbing struck me. At that same moment in history not too far distant in Darfur, the Janjaweed militia on camel back were openly raping women at will, even publicly pulling babies from screaming mother’s arm and tossing them in bonfires. At night, villagers would send women and girls out for firewood as they would “only” be raped(many as young as 6 yrs old) and their noses slashed (a scar of dishonor signifying the rape) if caught whereas the men or boys would have promptly been killed. Bush didn’t speak of the Sudan genocide for years, only later to state that it wasn’t a U.S. issue, that we had no business getting involved. So why did Saddam’s rape rooms gain SOTUA importance at a time of pushing for an Iraqi invasion when Darfur was never even worth mentioning in any event? Why did a few women for Saddam and his son’s pleasure matter when Darfur meant nothing?
Does that convict Bush of linking Saddam to 911? I suspect not. But when you toss in things like Saddam was to acquire uranium from Africa, aluminum tubes, finding biological laboratories, Collin Powell, Scott Mcclellan”s book, we’d be in and out in 6 months, it would only cost a couple billion or so, and there were no weapons of mass destruction, and so on and so on, it just somewhat makes a case that perhaps Bush wasn’t exactly all that up front with the American people after all.
I’ve heard people say that electricity takes the path of least resistance. That isn’t necessarily true as it takes every path. Did Bush use Saddam as a path to invade Iraq? He used every available path.
@another+vet:
One of the biggest mistakes on the PR front was in not defending the original justification for war after they did not find the wmd stockpiles that they assumed they would find. Instead, they moved on to talk about democracy and nation-building.
I think just as important is in pointing out that the original justification wasn’t just about wmd possession, but in intent and capability; in not coming into full compliance with the issued UNSCRs and original Cease-Fire Agreement. Saddam is the #1 guilty party when it came to leading the world on in the belief that he was a wmd threat to the world.
Aside from a few overstatements on the part of Administration officials, a lot of the rhetoric by Bush & Co. had to do with the uncertainty; in the not knowing of just what Saddam’s WMD status and current-at-the-time capabilities were. That if we waited until we knew for sure that he had wmd, then we would have waited too late.
The AUMF for Iraq contained around 27 “whereas” clauses with about 7 that pertained to wmd. That dreadful neocon Douglas Feith believes the case against Saddam was strong enough without the wmd emphasis.
The CIA overestimated Saddam’s WMD status, due to no new intell after 1998 (kicked out weapons inspections); but they underestimated Saddam’s ties to Islamic terror/al Qaeda.
@Ronald+J.+Ward:
Thank you, Ronald. I understand. We also all have busy lives. And shoddy internet connections suck. For a brief period, I myself was on a library computer, trying to put up Sunday Funnies posts. That was hell.
Also, I seldom engage in long-drawn out debates anymore. But this topic has my interest.
Understood.
Because Saddam’s Iraq is part of the GWoT.
Let’s back up and revisit the 2002 SotU Address, post 9/11 and post-OEF success:
Afghanistan (and later Iraq) weren’t the only places we were hunting down terrorists and Islamist militants. We weren’t just fighting them on battlefields/ war theaters. By 2004, more than 3,000 al Qaeda operatives had been seized or slain in 102 countries since the 9/11 attacks.
In the GWoT, there are no sidelines. You’re either with us, or with the terrorists. We all have a mutual stake in this together- all civilized nations, whether you choose to have your heads in the sand or not.
The axis of evil:
The fear of Iraq wasn’t whether or not SCUD missiles could reach our shores; or of invading armies. The fear was that Saddam’s love for wmd and hatred of the U.S. would lead him to cooperate with Islamic terrorists to use as proxy to deliver a wmd attack against a mutual enemy (the United States).
To reiterate, the GWoT was from the very beginning, more than just going after one terror organization- al Qaeda- and those directly responsible for the events of 9/11. This wasn’t a law enforcement task, narrowly focused on OBL and his band of merry jihadis. It was answering the long war, started by the global jihad movement.
2003 SotU, setting the case to the American people for why regime change in Iraq- long overdue- should finally be enforced, as the regime was irredeemable and incapable and unwilling to come into full compliance of UNSCR 687 and subsequent 16 UNSCRs against it.
Great question!
The humanitarian and human rights argument which was part of the case against Iraq wasn’t the reason to go to war. Those were additional reasons to buttress and bolster the national security reasons. Our military should be used in military operations only when it is in our national security interests to do so. As much as our hearts may bleed for atrocities committed around the world, the lives of our military men and women should be used only when it serves to protect and defend national security interests.
Sudan has been on our terror watch list since around 1993, having harbored Islamic extremists (including OBL); but has also cooperated in the GWoT (including expelling OBL in 1996- I believe the government even seized assets of his).
Darfur never had a UNSCR issued against it, authorizing the use of force by Coalition partners for invading another country.
Darfur did not have a dictator who sought wmd capabilities and who spent a decade of deceit and defiance of 16 +1 UNSCRs issued against it.
In short, it did not pose a threat to the United States in a manner that Iraq posed a threat.
Nor is its resources of importance to the rest of the world, to secure from terrorists or rogue regimes.
As I responded previously to this (from you):
Although they have had Muslim extremists seek haven within the Sudan, either with or without the cooperation and knowledge of the Sudanese government.
Those infamous 16 words in his 2003 SotU address still holds water. I think we might have been down this road before.
I don’t recall the “in and out in 6 months” claim. Who said that? I never for once believed this would be anything but a long haul. His “Mission Accomplished” speech confirms that there was still a long road ahead.
I regret I have not read Scott McClellan’s book. A liberal friend of mine was kind enough to purchase Valerie Plame’s book for me. 🙂
If you have not read Douglas Feith’s “War and Decision”, it is actually a very good book for any serious scholar on the Iraq War. It’s not just a partisan book, though of course it relates Feith’s perspective. More importantly, it is rich with information from an insider and one of the architects.
But did he “fix” the intelligence? Was it manipulated? “Cherry-picked” by the neocons in the WH? What did the Silberman-Robb Report conclude on this? How about the SSCI Report on Iraq Prewar Intelligence? Scott Malensek, by the way, read this and the final Phase II report (not just journalist accounts, bullet points, or summaries), which he blogged about here.
@Wordsmith:
I think you’re zeroing in on the core of the argument. Are we debating justification of attacking Iraq or are we debating how it was sold? Believe it or not, I’ve never necessarily ruled out a need to take out Saddam. I think that argument has (or had) merit and worthy of conversation. However, I do think that was a decision of great consequences and came at a huge price. Obviously, your justification is much stronger than mine. But regardless of our opinions, in a free society of checks and balances, such a decision to attack a country that did not attack us deserved a more honest dialog than what the Bush admin provided.
Historians will beat those dead horses of demoted generals, the Downing Street Memo, Plame, and on and on and on or even how Bush and Cheney would be arrested in certain countries for war crimes for years so regardless of how you massage those issues, I’d say Bush will forever be labeled as misleading or manipulating or as I originally said “sold” Americans on the concept that wasn’t true.
You disappoint me in dismissing Bush’s SOTUA invoking Saddam’s rape rooms with a simple “Because Saddam’s Iraq is part of the GWoT”. But Saddam’s rape rooms isn’t what made Iraq part of the war on terror. So in reality, it was no more than yet another example of how the Bush admin led the nation to war on false premises. You actually flip flop on your very own argument that Americans took it upon themselves to deduce a Saddam/911 connection based on info from the Clinton years rather than Bush when GWB engages in such fear mongering. It undermines your insinuation that the Bush admin was telling the people all along that there was no connection. Obviously, “Saddam’s Iraq is part of the GWoT” wasn’t a strong enough case alone to convince the public as otherwise, such harsh realities of “rape rooms” wouldn’t have been planted in their minds.
I understand and actually agree that U.S. intervention in Darfur wasn’t warranted. That really wasn’t my point.
@Ronald J. Ward:
One thing the left either cannot comprehend or, for political purposes, refuses to acknowledge, is that the information on WMD’s in Iraq, Hussein’s hatred for the US and the presence and activities of terror groups in Iraq was very fresh after 9/11 and was a continuation of the war on terror. We were on the offensive in the war on terror and did not necessarily have to wait for an attack to identify a threat to our security… just as Obama has finally done in the thus far lame response to ISIS.
Another factor usually and repeatedly willfully overlooked is how many high ranking Democrats believed and supported the intelligence and action… long before Bush was President and 9/11. It is quite easy to, for political purposes, use hind sight and complain about how the intel was wrong, or even, for more political points, claim it was all based on lies. Much more accurate and honest is to admit we were in a war and we had credible information of impending attacks.
But, who can be surprised when the left acts in this way? Both Obama and Hillary have admitted that they opposed the surge that eventually provided victory in Iraq for purely political reasons. We see Obama repeatedly put his own politics before action to save lives or secure national interests. For 7 years of the Bush administration, every notable liberal put personal politics before our war on terror and national security. No reasonable person would expect the left to recognize a national security threat and put the national interests ahead of their own anytime soon.
Oh, and as long as you keep coming back, Ronald, I am still requiring my answer.
Obama – I wonder why except that his term is up soon and Holder stepped down……..he’s likened unto a roaring lion or a cage jaguar or a jackass that has gotten stuck in a well and grovelling and spinning his wheels and desperate to find a way to screw up as much shit as he possibly can before he steps down! I remember the lawns as a child I saw as a kid growing up and this particular neighborhood looked pristeen as my parents would drive through it and then it was taken over and the area went down the tubes and it’s still going down the tubes……….like fuck it up for the next person taking over…….leave it screwed up! I was taught that you leave it better than you found it, but Obama is so hell bent and set on the race ticket to get crap that isn’t really an issue stirred up that it isn’t even funny any longer………an employee like that in the everyday grind would be considered a troublemaker…………….and that is what I am labelling Obama as a troublemaker and in a position that is the highest office in the land…………in all of U.S.A. and even his wife Michelle and entourage are not welcome in China because they acted shitty to everyone in the hotel they stayed at………who does that?! No one needs this kind of reputation and they’ve totally screwed up our White House for probably decades…………it’s very upsetting and very depressing to say the least! Yeah, we really do miss you Ronald Regan………..and all the partial saline birth abortion survivor babies who are now grown miss you too…………….we need Ronald at the helm or someone of his caliper and Patton on the battlefield or someone of his caliper……………not this wishy washy garbage that we have now!
@DARLEEN: Ronald Reagan was actually pro abortion before he wasn’t. He also signed into law 10 major tax increased and bloated the size of government while giving amnesty to millions of illegal aliens. Reagan actually had the same mindset on pay equality as Obama and they share a lot on economic policy.
But I suppose that he and Nancy were nice at motels so I guess that’s ok.
@Ronald J. Ward:
Both? I’m addressing and expounding upon a point brought up by Bill.
When we look at justification, read the AUMF II. When looking at the salesmanship, do you feel lied to? I do not. I never got the arguments mixed up. I feel like I understood from the beginning what the war in Iraq was about, why it was necessary at this time in history (as opposed to 4 years earlier or 10 years later), why it was tied to the wake-up call of 9/11 and dealing with international terrorism; why the weakness of the UN and its inability lack of will to enforce its own UNSCRs increased the threat that Saddam posed (No, he was never a source of stability for the Middle East).
Unfortunately, we can’t relive pre-2003 OIF and see where that other road would have led us. I believe Saddam and his murderous sons who would have inherited his Iraq did pose a metastasizing danger to the world.
I just don’t see the dishonesty. Sure, the administration was driving support for the war, trying to build up the will for global support. But I do not believe they lied us into war or misled us. I personally do not feel misled.
I think Bush will ultimately be vindicated by the distance of history.
Popular/mainstream media has a way of pushing memes that aren’t true. Just look at how recently the NYTimes tried to get away with perpetuating the notion that Bush acted unilaterally. People believe Iraq was all about wmd and that nothing was found; that the whole case was about wmd possession and not that part of the justification involved the uncertainty because Saddam refused to come clean. That whenever he allowed for UN weapons inspectors (they were never meant to be weapons hunters), he played a game of cat-and-mouse with them.
Ronald, I wasn’t dismissing that casus belli- it was definitely part of the case put forth in the AUMF II. My point, which is lost on you, is that it alone is not enough to justify the use of military force. Otherwise as you asked, “why not Darfur?” Why not take down other atrocities, genocides, evil dictators around the world?
Okay, I’ve lost you somewhere along the way. Wha-? and Huh?!
The case against Saddam is built upon a decade of deceit and defiance that preceded the Bush years. He did not merely become a threat to global stability when George W. Bush came to office. There’s a history there. There’s continuity of government and official U.S. policy.
I think maybe you don’t get the point about how Saddam’s Iraq is tied in to 9/11 and the war on terror. So somehow, I am failing to see through your lenses; and failing to offer clarity for you to not agree with my perspective but to correctly understand it.
Um….yup. 🙂 And somehow you aren’t seeing that by way of you analogizing, I played along and analogized in kind to keep your line of reasoning in the same language.
My talking about Darfur wasn’t about Darfur.
@Wordsmith:
Excellent point. One of the individuals I deployed with on OIF 1 thought we wouldn’t find the WMD we thought we would. I told him I hoped he was right because it would mean not getting “slimed” when we invaded. It still didn’t change my mind about whether or not it was a good idea to remove Saddam. He had to go, WMD or not. And I still believe that in addition to what we did find, there was more that moved or buried before we got there. He most likely didn’t have as much WMD as we thought, but the bottom line is he wasn’t supposed to have ANY.
Exactly.
Another point many seem to not be able to comprehend. It was called a Global War on Terror because it was global. If it was confined to Afghanistan, it wouldn’t have been called a Global War on Terror.
I don’t recall it either. When my unit hit the mobilization site at Ft. Bragg in January 2003, we were told they already planning on a minimum of a 6-10 year operation. Accepting this argument means that no one one bothered to inform the military that we were only going to be there 6 months. Very absurd.
Thanks for your comment(s) and service, Another Vet. Glad you, Randy, and other OIF vets are here to share your perspectives and experiences.
@Wordsmith: Thanks much. Your support is greatly appreciated. You always have a very firm grasp of facts regardless of the subject. Your attention to details as evidenced yet again in this thread, is absolutely amazing.
@another+vet: Silly man. Why do you even respond to these demented and ignorant people. You have much more productive things to do like cleaning up the dog feces in your back yard.
@Randy: The only one I was responding to was Word by supporting his comments. He made excellent points backed up by facts. As for the lefties, just like I won’t deprive a 7 year old of his/her beliefs in Santa Clause or the Tooth Fairy, I won’t deprive the left of their beliefs either!
@another+vet: Conversations with Word actually provides thoughtful comments. I agree!
Word is always the voice of studied reason at F.A.
Sorry if my endorsement hurts your cred my friend .lol
@Richard Wheeler: Naw…..as a self-avowed conservative, I take full responsibility for my own behavior and actions affecting my conservative credentials in the estimation of my peers. 😉