Are We Safer Now?
President Bush tells us that the war in Iraq has made us safer from terrorism because it lets us fight “the terrorists” “over there”.
But have we really bottled up al Qaeda in Iraq?
Decide for yourself:
- View “Safer Now?”
Jason A. Lefkowitz is a programmer and writer. For his sins, he lives in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. This is his "blog." (Kids, ask your parents.)
Odds ‘n Ends
Except where otherwise noted, all content on this Web site is provided under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0) license.
A web feed for this site is available, in Atom 1.0 format.
Fonts by TypeKit. For turbo nerds, a colophon is available here.
Comments
Just Curious
July 21, 2005
11:45 pm
Do you not prove that the opposing viewpoint is the reality by the very quotes of Bush you use?
“to defeat them abroad before they attack us at home.”
I’m anxious to hear from you when we were attacked at home by al Qaeda or Terrorists since the Iraq war began or 9-11.
Let me try to follow your logic here and please correct me if I’ve gotten this wrong….
You take what Bush said, quoted above, and other quotes in the “Are we Safer” bit and from that you deduce, believe and promote that Bush was referring to and responsible for protecting the entire planet from terrorists?! And then to continue your seemed rational thought you bolster the idea that Bush was asserting that everything is “bottled up” in Iraq??
I understand your frustration but words have meaning and as much as you want to spin them to fit your position, doing so removes your credibility, as most intelligent, logical people see the reality. You should try to understand the meaning of quotes and not let your anger/emotions effectively render your point meaningless.
I really am trying to understand your thought process so If I’ve strayed in my description of your point please let me know.
If your just going to insult me then please don’t respond as I will have no further use for you.
Just Curious
Jason Lefkowitz
July 22, 2005
1:57 am
OK, I’ll bite.
“I’m anxious to hear from you when we were attacked at home by al Qaeda or Terrorists since the Iraq war began or 9-11.”
My point is that just because al Qaeda has not struck again in the US (*yet*), it does not follow, as the President has repeatedly asserted, that invading Iraq has degraded their operational capacity.
As my illustration indicates, since the Iraq war began, al Qaeda has struck several times, killing and wounding a large number of people. Just because these attacks happened outside America and killed people other than Americans does not make them (a) less significant or (b) less tragic.
“You take what Bush said, quoted above, and other quotes in the “Are we Safer” bit and from that you deduce, believe and promote that Bush was referring to and responsible for protecting the entire planet from terrorists?! And then to continue your seemed rational thought you bolster the idea that Bush was asserting that everything is “bottled up” in Iraq??”
I am not the one promoting this idea. The President is. He is on record promoting the Iraq war as having been a good idea because it would turn Iraq into “flypaper” for terrorists. My illustration demonstrates how fallacious his thinking is; if the world’s terrorists were being sucked into the vortex of Iraq, why are they still consistently striking elsewhere around the world?
“I understand your frustration but words have meaning and as much as you want to spin them to fit your position, doing so removes your credibility, as most intelligent, logical people see the reality. You should try to understand the meaning of quotes and not let your anger/emotions effectively render your point meaningless.”
If it helps you to pigeonhole me as a “Bush hater” feel free. I was getting yelled at by liberals in 1998 for urging more direct action against bin Laden when he was blowing up our embassies in east Africa. Now that I’m criticizing your guy I guess it’s your turn to come after me. Whatever.
My point remains the same now as it was then: al Qaeda is a major threat requiring direct confrontation. Iraq has proven to be nothing more than an expensive diversion from that effort, just as I said it would be three years ago:
http://www.jasonlefkowitz.net/blog1archive/000059.html
Just Curious
July 22, 2005
8:18 am
We will have to agree to disagree on this.
I just cannot understand your acute logic here.
“As my illustration indicates, since the Iraq war began, al Qaeda has struck several times, killing and wounding a large number of people. Just because these attacks happened outside America and killed people other than Americans does not make them (a) less significant or (b) less tragic.”
Your illistration, although very interesting and deserving of accolades, does not illustrate or reflect any quotes that you use to support your claims of inaccuracies from Bush’s statements. And I could care less if your con or lib or libert, its your claims of support of your point, from Bush’s own words, that concerns me. I mean at least be honest with yourself here and don’t be so obvious with your bias. I agree with your point, noted above, but show me in your presentation of Bush’s words where you got the idea that people other than Americans are his responsibility? Less significant? No. Less tragic? No. But putting your own views in the way of the facts that you even point out is along the lines of Dan Rather action.
Its okay to disagree with anyone but to point out quotes from someone and then to try to sell your own idea of what the person said lacks credibility.
All I’m saying is if you have a point use the correct facts to back them up.
“My point remains the same now as it was then: al Qaeda is a major threat requiring direct confrontation. Iraq has proven to be nothing more than an expensive diversion from that effort, just as I said it would be three years ago:”
In my opinin your view here could not be further from the reality. Big surprise right? What we are doing in Irag is ugly and we were not as prepared as we should have been. But you have to look at the big picture. It is a fact that democracies do not attack each other and helping the Iraq people to set up their own version of a “free state” is the only long term solution towards ending the terror mindset. Not that it it will ever be completely terminated but it can be kept “in a box” and promoting human liberty is the first step.
Just curiuos, do you prefer the appeasement strategy or are you a UN guy. Or maybe your one of the “anybody other than this administration” people?
If non of the above what is your method for helping freedom to survive? I mean other than bashing your president?
Just Curious
Just Curious
July 22, 2005
8:28 am
I forgot to address your .02 link at the bottom of your post. No time now but I’m sure you’ll be interested in my response…
I must say, although your thoughts are misguided at least you’re one of the few that is open to the facts if provided to you. I think there is still hope for you to understand the “big picture” and how the Iraq war fits into the war on terror.
More to follow.
Jason Lefkowitz
July 22, 2005
9:35 am
“show me in your presentation of Bush’s words where you got the idea that people other than Americans are his responsibility?”
Um, if he is going to argue that we have significantly degraded al Qaeda’s operational capability by invading Iraq, it strikes directly against his argument if al-Q has continued to mount operations around the world on a regular basis throughout the duration of our engagement there.
I’m not arguing metaphysics about his “responsibility”, I’m making a practical point. He says al Qaeda is less capable now than it was before we invaded. Nothing in their record of operations would indicate that.
“you have to look at the big picture. It is a fact that democracies do not attack each other”
Wrong. This “fact” is in truth highly dependent on how you define “democracy”.
See http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/demowar.htm
“helping the Iraq people to set up their own version of a “free state” is the only long term solution towards ending the terror mindset.”
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or al Qaeda. The only terror in Iraq was Saddam Hussein and that was a terror we had contained.
If you want to “end the terror mindset”, you need to address the regimes that really spawned it: Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt. Funny how these are all our allies.
“Just curiuos, do you prefer the appeasement strategy or are you a UN guy. Or maybe your one of the “anybody other than this administration” people?”
Stop beating on that straw man, it never did anything to you.
As I said above, I was arguing for unilateral action by the US against al Qaeda long before this issue probably ever crossed your radar screen. Once they bombed our embassies they, and any countries that harbored them, were wide open targets as far as I’m concerned.
My beef with this administration is how thoroughly and completely it has bungled this critical mission — and how they used it as cover to settle another unrelated score they had against Iraq, left over from Daddy’s War.
The result is that after three years of war, we are no safer than when we began — and the world’s best military has been stretched to the breaking point on a Mesopotamian wild goose chase.
It’s your right to defend their incompetence and mendacity all you want, of course. I just imagine you’d want to take a long shower afterwards.
That’s as much debate as I’m going to engage in with you unless you stop hiding under anonymity and post under your real name.
Jeff Pilgrim
July 22, 2005
11:27 am
Fair enough.
I think you’re splitting hairs on the democracy issue. The point is that promoting basic human freedom and liberty is the first step towards defeating terrorism. And this idea is contagiuos and desirable, as anyone would expect. I mean all humans are instinctively born with it. If we can continue to be successful in Iraq and complete the mission it will most likely make all “rouge” nations in the area nervous as freedom and liberty are hard to hide in the spotlight.
“Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or al Qaeda. The only terror in Iraq was Saddam Hussein and that was a terror we had contained.”
Now this quote is surprising to me given the enormous amount of facts out there to the contrary. We were having such a nice debate and now you’ve gone to complete illogical brainwash media garbage. Please tell me that this was just another case of your emotions getting the better of you and you want to retract that statement after realizing the immeasurable ineptitude and outright denial of the non-partisan stance on this. I will wait for your retraction before revealing the facts, which I assumed were readily available. Or if you prefer please provide me with facts to back up you assumption.
“Um, if he is going to argue that we have significantly degraded al Qaeda’s operational capability by invading Iraq, it strikes directly against his argument if al-Q has continued to mount operations around the world on a regular basis throughout the duration of our engagement there.”
“I’m not arguing metaphysics about his “responsibility”, I’m making a practical point. He says al Qaeda is less capable now than it was before we invaded. Nothing in their record of operations would indicate that.”
Those are great points and I would have to agree that we underestimated their resolve. I think by being in Iraq we have given al qaeda more to fight for and have emboldened their recruitment. However, because of the entire war on terror of which Iraq is the frontline I feel we are safer from catastrophic attack. As we have been successful at disrupting their organization abilities for leadership and financing. I could be wrong here but other than Bali I don’t believe there has been any larger scale attacks that differ much from what we’ve seen in Iraq. 17 here, 25 there even 56 in London is not anyhting to point to the continued strengthening of Al Qaeda. They are doing what they can to keep the appearance of strength by making small attacks in visible places. Meanwhile we continue to chip away at their abilities. Don’t misunderstand here I hate the fact that they still have the ability to kill innocent people but to claim that we are not safer due to these comparativley small attacks is ridiculous. I mean you make it sound like there would need to be zero attacks since the war to make Bush’s statements about being safer true. That is just not the real world and it appears to the casual reader that you let your emotions control over logical thinking. I have yet to hear any other plan for dealing with al qaeda other than what we are doing. I choose the positive outlook as opposed to the negative. Seeing as we have not been attacked again. Nor has their been any major attacks anywhere in the world like 9-11.
I’m getting away from my original point to your whole “are we safer now” scenario… You quoted Bush in you presentation but turned around and demonstrated that the point of your presentation had nothing to do with the quotes you provided in the same, but to the contrary you proved his statements to be true. I mean am I missing something here? Strictly looking at the info you provided to make your point you succeeded in exposing your emotional blindness. Provide relevant facts to a presentation, thats my point. The reader is mislead by your presentation to arrive at your viewpoint without any backup.
Jeff
Jeff
July 22, 2005
11:49 am
*CORRECTION*
I meant to include the Madrid attack above as well….190 killed.
Jason Lefkowitz
July 23, 2005
1:34 pm
“this idea [democracy] is contagiuos and desirable, as anyone would expect. I mean all humans are instinctively born with it.”
Have you ever been to the Middle East?
Just curious.
Democracy is not instinctive. There are lots of cultures that place other values (family/clan, for example) higher than individual liberty. The fact that there have been far more non-democracies throughout history than democracies should be instructive on just how rare a thing a true democracy is.
“Please tell me that this was just another case of your emotions getting the better of you and you want to retract that statement after realizing the immeasurable ineptitude and outright denial of the non-partisan stance on this.”
Before we go any further you should go read the final report of the 9/11 Commission. I don’t mean “read some talking head’s summary of the report” — I mean *read the report itself*. It’s a quick read and will enlighten you on many issues.
http://www.911commission.gov/
The report examines each incidence of alleged coordination between al Qaeda and Iraq and finds them unsupported by the facts.
Ironically, it does document a large amount of support provided by a state sponsor to al Qaeda in the preparation of the 9/11 attacks. That state sponsor, however, was *Iran*. Consult section 7.3 (the bit entitled “Assistance from Hezbollah and Iran to al Qaeda”) for details.
I suppose you are privy to some top-secret intelligence exonerating the Iranians and implicating Iraq that was unavailable to the 9/11 Commission?
“I think by being in Iraq we have given al qaeda more to fight for and have emboldened their recruitment.”
Yup.
“However, because of the entire war on terror of which Iraq is the frontline…”
Iraq wasn’t the “frontline” until we made it the frontline. It was a war of choice. The logic of the struggle in no way forced us to engage there.
“17 here, 25 there even 56 in London is not anyhting to point to the continued strengthening of Al Qaeda.”
This is what people were saying before 9/11. “Oh, a truck bomb in an embassy is nothing to worry about.” “Oh, a guy in a rubber boat killing a few sailors is nothing to worry about.”
In hindsight we recognize those attacks — Khobar Towers, the embassy bombings, the USS Cole, etc. — as a drumbeat warning us of the impending nightmare of September 11. A drumbeat that we all slept through because no individual attack was big enough to grab anyone’s attention.
Will we make that mistake again?
“I mean you make it sound like there would need to be zero attacks since the war to make Bush’s statements about being safer true. That is just not the real world…”
Why not?
Once upon a time the Red Army Faction terrorized Europe. Do Europeans live in fear of RAF bombings now? Had you even heard of the Red Army Faction before I mentioned them?
If “victory” in the war on terror does not include a world free of attacks by al Qaeda and related organizations, let me ask you — how do *you* define victory? How will we know when we have won this war? Or is it a war that will never end?
“I choose the positive outlook as opposed to the negative. Seeing as we have not been attacked again.”
So as long as al Qaeda limits itself to killing foreigners, mission accomplished?
I would submit that we’re all in this together.
“Nor has their been any major attacks anywhere in the world like 9-11”
See my note above about “spectacular” attacks. Do we wait to take this problem seriously until they kill another 3,000 people somewhere?
“You quoted Bush in you presentation but turned around and demonstrated that the point of your presentation had nothing to do with the quotes you provided in the same, but to the contrary you proved his statements to be true.”
I did nothing of the sort.
Bush claims that invading Iraq has hindered al Qaeda’s ability to operate, by pinning terrorists down in Iraq (the “flypaper” theory).
I provided data showing that al Qaeda has continued to operate around the world throughout the duration of our engagement there.
This is clear proof that Bush’s Iraqi “flypaper” is not particularly sticky.
Jeff Pilgrim
July 24, 2005
3:24 pm
“this idea [democracy] is contagiuos and desirable, as anyone would expect. I mean all humans are instinctively born with it.”
“Democracy is not instinctive. There are lots of cultures that place other values (family/clan, for example) higher than individual liberty. The fact that there have been far more non-democracies throughout history than democracies should be instructive on just how rare a thing a true democracy is.”
You have missed my point completely on this. I was not describing Democracy as being “contagious and desirable”. As you pointed out previously, defining Democracy requires a wide brush. Promoting basic human freedom and liberty is the idea that is “contagious and desirable” and most definitely is instinctive. Humans are born free and then are introduced into culture and are molded by that culture and its community. I mean what do you think is behind people rising against oppression? So promoting freedom, being such a positive force of the basic human spirit, is fundamental towards defeating terrorism, that is my point. I think if you re-read my first attempt at making this point you will agree that you didn’t get it.
“Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or al Qaeda. The only terror in Iraq was Saddam Hussein and that was a terror we had contained.”
I am familiar with the 911 report and I’ll address that later. You may not respond after this thread as you are becoming transparent and I don’t believe you have been totally honest with me. So I’ll wait for a response before I debunk the portion of the report you refer to. First things first, I want to address the premise of your statement above. Correct me if I’m wrong here but the basis of your statement above is that {one of the administration’s main points to go to war, was Iraq’s association with Al Qaeda. And thus the threat of Saddam’s WMDs (which he was under the UN obligation to prove did not exist and never did), falling into terrorist hands. And that the claim that there was association between Iraq & Al Qaeda was proven wrong by the 911 commission. Not to mention Saddam was “contained”. So there was no reason to go into Iraq.}
Now I want you to honestly tell me that is not the premise of your statement.
Well, the only problem with your premise, other than many documented instances of 911 report staff dismissing evidence without cause, is the timeline. Your attempted argument, that there was proof that Iraq had no association with Al Qaeda so no need to go to war, loses credibility when you use the 911 report as your proof. The report was released on July 22 2004, more than a year after the war started. So the very evidence you claim that supports your obvious bias towards the war in Iraq would not and can not be accepted as backup for your argument.
I’m starting to see a pattern with you. The basis for most of your arguments show no relationship between the point and any viable backup, i.e. facts. It seems odd to me that you claim not to be a “Bush hater” yet you enlist the same techniques of a “cut and paste” mentality, i.e. spin. This is the same mentality that the political left employs to try to convince the American people, the ones that do not think logically, that they know what their talking about. So why can’t you seem to accept that you may be on the wrong side of history? I’m not trying to bash you as this has been an enjoyable debate for me. I’m just trying to show you that so far you have failed to prove that your basic stance on most that we have discussed is based on logical founded facts.
Now here is logical founded facts that back up my stance that not only is promoting freedom fundamental for the war on terror and our survival but if successful, the war in Iraq was absolutely necessary and the logic of the struggle did indeed force us to engage there.
http://www.leaderu.com/socialsciences/iraq_war.html
Here are a couple of excerpts from the above resolution, which by the way was pre-war…
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;
Whereas Iraq’s demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself
Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq’s ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;
Here is who voted Yea and Nay on this resolution….
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237
Here is an excerpt from The Select Committee on Intelligence – US Senate – Report on the US Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq…
A portion of Conclusion 9(full report below) – “While in the case of Iraq’s links to terrorism, the final analysis has proven, thus far, to have been accurate and not affected by a lack of relevant source or operational detail..”
http://intelligence.senate.gov/conclusions.pdf
“Once upon a time the Red Army Faction terrorized Europe. Do Europeans live in fear of RAF bombings now? Had you even heard of the Red Army Faction before I mentioned them?”
“If “victory” in the war on terror does not include a world free of attacks by al Qaeda and related organizations, let me ask you — how do *you* define victory? How will we know when we have won this war? Or is it a war that will never end?”
Your representation of the RAF as an example of a terrorist organization that no longer terrorizes, so the war on terror should be held to the same standard, is far from being relevant to our discussion. You are comparing raisins to watermelons here. The RAF, at its strongest, had less than 500 supporters not to mention only 20 or so extreme members. And it took three decades before they announced their disbanding. Also, I think it’s prudent to note, that the RAF became ineffective because they could not fill leadership roles within the organization due to a lack of supporters. This lack of support was due to the lack of acceptance of their motives, i.e. promoting communism. Which is exactly what promoting freedom in Iraq will eventually do to Al Qaeda and associated factions. Over time, after the seed of freedom has been planted in Iraq the ideology of radical Islam will hopefully lose its support as people of oppressive governments realize freedom is possible for them. At least that’s the theory. I think “Victory”, as you call it, is too hard to define in relation to fighting the war on terror. I prefer “success” as the fight will be fluid and will be a moving target for a long time. Success in promoting freedom is the overall goal. It took over 30 years for the RAF to become no more. You’ve only given Bush a few years and you expect him to have eliminated terrorism by the fact that he tells you they have reduced capabilities. So what, there’s no in between for you?
So once again, from your own words and supplied examples, the reader is led to believe that Bush’s statement about being safer is false because attacks are still occurring around the world.
I’m growing weary of your lack of intellectual honesty but I’m starting to wonder if you even realize that most of your arguments lack any kind of logical thought process towards supporting them.
Unless you start using your brain to actually think about the relationship of your arguments to the relevancy of the facts you use to support them, I’m going to have to leave your lovely blog here to yourself.
Thanks for entertaining me for a bit as it was fun until I realized you are not what you claim to be.
Your arguments are synonymous with the anti-war group and are about as credible.
You know what…I bet you even believe that humans are responsible for and can do something to prevent the appeared quickening of global warming over the past 50 years, don’t you? Wait please don’t answer that I as I cannot even begin to imagine the “proof” you will provide me.
Thanks again and good luck in discovering your common sense.
Jason Lefkowitz
July 25, 2005
11:21 pm
Wow, I’m only now realizing what a waste of time this discussion has been, Jeff.
Let me get this straight. You think that analyses from BEFORE the war — when we DIDN’T have access to the entire trove of Iraqi intelligence that fell into our hands during the invasion — would somehow be more accurate than analyses from AFTER we got all that intelligence?
And your best “proof” of this is citing THE RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING USE OF FORCE — which many of the Members who voted ‘Yea’ on will tell you that they would have voted ‘Nay’ if they knew then what they know now — and a report written by an obviously partisan congressional committee majority?
(Here’s the Democratic minority’s response, btw: http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/13jul20041400/www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/pdf/s108-301/rockefeller.pdf)
That’s some serious lack of insight, dude. But since you prefer to just call me a “Bush hater” rather than engage my points I guess I should expect that.
“I think “Victory”, as you call it, is too hard to define in relation to fighting the war on terror. I prefer “success” as the fight will be fluid and will be a moving target for a long time.”
Yeah, right, whatever. Call it whatever you want, “victory” or “success” or “happy sunshine chocolate day.” Do all the Clintonian word-parsing you want, if it makes you feel better about the fact that YOU CAN’T DEFINE THE OBJECTIVE THAT AMERICAN SOLDIERS ARE FIGHTING AND DYING FOR.
“Success in promoting freedom is the overall goal. ”
That’s pretty specific. I look forward, then, to our “promoting freedom” in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia and Egypt and Sudan and…
Wait, what was I thinking??? Never mind!
“Your arguments are synonymous with the anti-war group and are about as credible.”
Whatever — it’s a free country and there are no laws against ignorance, so you’re safe.
You might be happier at freerepublic.com, they appreciate your kind of up-is-downism there. Y’all can clap your hands over your eyes and chant to each other “we’ll win if we just believe… just believe… just believe…” Should be a good time.
jeff pilgrim
July 26, 2005
1:06 am
yikes!
I gave you way too much credit when this started.
I thought you at least supported our troops, man. Now I realize that you are just as anti-war as can be and want us to pull out of Iraq because you think you have undeniable evidence that one of the administration’s reasons to be there was incorrect.
Am I right here?
I have been mislead by your one of your earlier statements where you said that you agreed with going after Al Qaeda, even unilaterally. So I obviously assumed you were in agreement with Iraq. Especially since you agreed that the war in Iraq is the frontline of the war on terror….but wait how can you have it both ways?
See now I’m confused as to what you agree with and what you don’t…..when you used the 911 report as your proof of no linkage I assumed that you agreed with us being in Iraq, from your previous statements, and therefore I could not understand how you could expect Bush to make a decision about going to war with any information other than what was present at the time.
Now your trying to tell me that because of the accuracy of your proof, after the war has begun, we need to pullout and put our troops somewhere else? Or do you want to pull out completely and bring everyone home then wait until they really start attacking us on our homeland on a regular basis? There’s your good time.
Please tell me what your stance is because your all over the map Jason. Or how about coming down from the fence and stop bashing the war and offer some support.
Cripes! Its a damn good thing that people like yourself are in the minority.
Anyway your only 30 so don’t sweat it. Alot of good conservatives were very liberal in their early days. Your at a critcal age though so maybe you should move out to the country for a while and gain some clear perspective. Your insight is clouded by living so close to a politcal hotbed.
Peace.
Jason Lefkowitz
July 26, 2005
6:58 am
I’m not sure why I bother… you’re arguing with yourself.
“I thought you at least supported our troops, man.”
Oh, for Pete’s sake.
“I have been mislead by your one of your earlier statements where you said that you agreed with going after Al Qaeda, even unilaterally. So I obviously assumed you were in agreement with Iraq.”
That’s quite an assumption, since my whole point has been that IRAQ HAD NO SUBSTANTIVE TIES TO AL QAEDA.
See, this is where people like you get it wrong. You think there were only two options:
1) Invade Iraq
2) Do nothing
What I’ve been trying to get across to you is that we had many more options than that. We HAD many more options — most of those have dissolved into thin air now, because our Army is tied down fighting a war in Iraq that has nothing to do with stopping al Qaeda (and in fact has boosted their recruitment and given them sympathy across the Arab world).
“Now your trying to tell me that because of the accuracy of your proof, after the war has begun, we need to pullout and put our troops somewhere else? Or do you want to pull out completely and bring everyone home then wait until they really start attacking us on our homeland on a regular basis? There’s your good time.”
Yeah, President Bush has really gotten us into a pickle, hasn’t he?
“Please tell me what your stance is because your all over the map Jason. Or how about coming down from the fence and stop bashing the war and offer some support.”
I’ve been going on the record about my “stance” on terrorism and the war in Iraq on this blog for three years. Feel free to read up.
* http://www.jasonlefkowitz.net/blog1archive/cat_terrorism_security_and_defense_reform.html
* http://www.jasonlefkowitz.net/blog1archive/cat_iraq_the_present_crisis.html
What’s your “stance” other than just blindly agreeing with whatever dumb ideas Dear Leader comes up with next?
“Your insight is clouded by living so close to a politcal hotbed.”
Yeah, or maybe it’s living so close to Walter Reed, where the kids come after they lose a leg to an IED.
“Peace.”
Here’s hoping.
jeff.pilgrim
July 26, 2005
11:52 am
oookay.
Let me ask you a question. Keep in mind that you being President is the only hypothetical part of the equation.
You are president of the US and Saddam has refused to comply with multiple UN resolutions. Which includes requirements to show that his existing WMD have been dismantled or destroyed. He does not comply. He is ambiguous at best.You give him many chances to comply but to no avail. You receive intel from around the world that Al Qaeda has had previous and ongoing association with Saddam’s administration. This intel is deemed credible by the majority of the US Senate after extensive investigation. Oh and there is still a smoldering hole and 3000 people dead in Manhattan thanks to the same Al Qaeda. Common sense tells you that since Saddam will not comply with the international community by not explaining the status of his WMDs, combined with the evidence of association with terrorists, he poses a clear and present danger to the American People. So bottom line is you have a tyrant with a history of WMD use and no accountability of their status combined with credible evidence of association with known terrorist organizations.
What is your plan? Oh and one other thing, you can’t use your secret crystal ball to see future reports to base your decision on.