38 thoughts on “September 11”

  1. Professor Juan Cole of the University of Michigan has the “must-read” analysis on what Al Qaeda was hoping to achieve on September 11th 2001 and whether it has made any progress towards it’s goal, a goal which isn’t symbolic but strategic and geopolitical. Good food for thought even if you ultimately disagree with Professor Cole’s conclusions:

    http://www.juancole.com/2004_09_01_juancole_archive.html#109487993311862124

    An excerpt:
    :
    “Al-Qaeda wanted to build enthusiasm for the Islamic superstate among the Muslim populace, to convince ordinary Muslims that the US could be defeated and they did not have to accept the small, largely secular, and powerless Middle Eastern states erected in the wake of colonialism. Jordan’s population, e.g. is 5.6 million. Tunisia, a former French colony, is 10 million, less than Michigan. Most Muslims have been convinced of the naturalness of the nation-state model and are proud of their new nations, however small and weak. Bin Laden had to do a big demonstration project to convince them that another model is possible.

    Bin Laden hoped the US would timidly withdraw from the Middle East. But he appears to have been aware that an aggressive US response to 9/11 was entirely possible. In that case, he had a Plan B: al-Qaeda hoped to draw the US into a debilitating guerrilla war in Afghanistan and do to the US military what they had earlier done to the Soviets. Al-Zawahiri’s recent message shows that he still has faith in that strategy.

    The US cleverly outfoxed al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, using air power and local Afghan allies (the Northern Alliance) to destroy the Taliban without many American boots on the ground.

    Ironically, however, the Bush administration then went on to invade Iraq, where Americans faced the kind of wearing guerrilla war they had avoided in Afghanistan.

    Al-Qaeda has succeeded in several of its main goals. It had been trying to convince Muslims that the United States wanted to invade Muslim lands, humiliate Muslim men, and rape Muslim women. Most Muslims found this charge hard to accept. The Bush administration’s Iraq invasion, along with the Abu Ghuraib prison torture scandal, was perceived by many Muslims to validate Bin Laden’s wisdom and foresightedness.”

  2. Since Mr. Cole has such a clear insight into Osama bin-Laden’s plans, can I assume that he is working closely with the Department of Homeland Security to end bin-Laden’s ability to wreck havoc?

    Somehow, I don’t think that is happening.

    May I presume, Dean, that on the next Armistice Day (more commonly referred to as Veteran’s Day), or perhaps on the next June 6th, you will use that as a moment to condemn American intervention in what was clearly nothing more than a European problem?

  3. Dan, once again you are misrepresenting a valid and legitimate criticism into an attack on America. It can be legitimately argued that by attacking Iraq we have played into Bin Ladin’s plans by distracting attention and diverting resources from the fight against the real enemy – Al Qaeda. Meanwhile the continued killing of Iraqi civilians by the US military serves to further inflame the Islamic world against us while creating thousands of new recruits for Al Qaeda.

    Here are some examples of how the $144 billion spent in Iraq should have been better spent to protect us from Al Qaeda, but will not be:

    $7.5 billion to safeguard our ports. The Coast Guard estimates that $7.5 billion is needed over 10 years to implement the requirements of the 2002 Maritime Transportation Security Act, which aims to protect America’s ports and waterways from a terrorist attack. Since 9/11, the federal government has allocated less than $500 million to counter this threat.

    $4 billion to expedite upgrading the Coast Guard fleet. This investment over the next five years would cut in half the 20-year timetable for replacing and upgrading the Coast Guard’s fleet of cutters, patrol aircraft, and communications equipment.

    $2 billion to improve cargo security. This would help cover costs associated with the Cargo Security Initiative, which deploys customs inspectors to ports around the world to screen cargo before it goes to the United States.
    ______________________

    $10 billion to protect all U.S. commercial airliners from shoulder-fired missiles. These systems, based on existing military technology, would help reduce the danger from the estimated 100,000 shoulder-fired missiles circulating in the world’s black markets.

    $5 billion to purchase state-of-the-art baggage screening machines. This would fulfill the Congressional mandate to install in all commercial airports new systems that integrate baggage screening and baggage handling. Only eight of the nation’s 440 airports have the new machines, and the administration has requested only $250 million for equipment this year.

    $240 million to equip the airports with walk-through explosive detectors. According to the 9/11 commission, it’s still too easy for passengers with hidden explosives to make it through airport security.
    ______________________

    $7 billion to put 100,000 police officers the nation’s streets. $7 billion would fully fund for five years the 1996 Community Oriented Policing Services program, which was designed to put 100,000 new community police officers on America’s streets. The administration has cut the funding for the program to $97 million in the proposed FY05 budget.

    $2.5 billion to increase funding for fire departments. This would double the size of the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program for each of the next five years. President Bush requested only $500 million for FY05, a drop from $750 million in FY04. Money from the program goes for trucks, protective clothing, hoses, and other equipment.
    $350 million for integrating emergency radio systems nationwide. Equipment to patch together existing police, fire, and other public safety radio systems throughout the country would cost $350 million.

    $3 billion to secure major roads and rails. $3 billion would secure all the major roads and railways in the nation’s largest metropolitan areas. Improving surveillance, training railway workers, and developing new explosive detection equipment would increase passenger safety. The administration has focused its funding on aviation security, but has provided less than $200 million in last year’s budget.
    ______________________

    $30.5 billion to secure from theft the world’s nuclear weapons-grade material. Securing the world’s fissile material would enormously reduce the chance that lethal weapons-grade material could be made into nuclear and radiological weapons. A 10-year

    $30 billion program would ensure material security and weapon dismantlement in the former Soviet Union. Another $500 million would fund a “global cleanout program,” aimed at removing dangerous nuclear materials from the most vulnerable nuclear sites worldwide.

    $2.25 billion to expedite the work of the Nunn-Lugar Threat Reduction program. Doubling this program’s budget each year for the next five years would accelerate Nunn-Lugar, which has helped deactivate over 6,000 nuclear warheads in the former Soviet Union and the United States. The FY04 Defense budget provided only $450 million for the program.
    ______________________

    $24 billion to add two divisions to the Army. With commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. Army is increasingly stretched thin. Two additional divisions could be added to the Army over the next five years at a cost of $4.8 billion a year. A larger army would help take the pressure off America’s overtapped National Guardsmen and Reservists.

    $15.5 billion to double the number of active-duty troops in the Special Operations Forces. The United States has roughly 25,000 Special Operations Forces. These elite military fighting units played a critical role in Afghanistan and continue to be highly effective in tracking down terrorists. Doubling the 25,000 troops in the Special Operations Forces would cost $7 billion and an additional $8.5 billion would help maintain the new forces over the next five years.
    ______________________

    $8.6 billion to rebuild Afghanistan. The government of Afghanistan has said it needs $27.6 billion for reconstruction activities over the next seven years such as rebuilding infrastructure, education, health, and disarmament programs. The country has received to date only $2.9 billion of the $19 billion pledged by the international community. $8.6 billion over the next seven years would make up this shortfall and help Afghanistan from reverting to a haven for terrorists.

    $11 billion to buy Afghanistan’s opium crop. Afghanistan’s illicit opium drug trade brings in a profit of $2.3 billion each year, much of which goes to fund terrorist activities. A five-year program to buy Afghanistan’s opium crop would provide initial and continuing funding for farmers to permanently shift from growing opium to cultivating other crops or starting microenterprises.
    ______________________

    $10 billion to increase U.S. development assistance to the neediest countries. The current foreign assistance budget is

    $19.27 billion, including foreign military funding and the State Department’s operating budget. $13.8 billion goes to countries other than Israel, Egypt, Jordan, and Pakistan. Increasing the non-military development assistance budget by $10 billion over the next five years to countries other than Israel, Egypt, Jordan, and Pakistan, would help improve economic opportunities, health care, and education worldwide.

    $775 million to dramatically increase public diplomacy. $775 million would quadruple America’s public diplomacy efforts in the Arab and Muslim world, as well as triple funding for the National Endowment for Democracy, each year for the next five years. The United States could use this funding to build bridges in Arab and Muslim communities and nations.

    http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=171438

  4. The “progressive” site from which you draw your argument says this about partial birth abortions:

    ———-
    If this all sounds familiar, it should. The “Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003” was enacted in blatant defiance of the Supreme Court’s decision issued just three years before in Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (2000). It is the latest volley in the deceptive and unrelenting campaign to ban safe and legal pre-viability abortions under the guise of banning something called “partial-birth abortion.” This campaign has been dependent on two myths since its inception in the mid-1990s.

    The first is that the term “partial-birth abortion” — undoubtedly developed through the use of that wonderful invention called the “focus group” — refers to one specific procedure. In fact, the term has no medical meaning and has been defined in statutes, including this federal abortion ban, so broadly as to sweep within its net some of the safest procedures used.

    The second myth is that “partial-birth” has something to do with abortions taking place at birth, in other words, at full term or “late term.” But nothing in the statute limits its application to post-viability abortions and, in fact, it appears not to impact any post-viability abortions at all. Kopf even declined to rule on the statute’s constitutionality post-viability, because there was simply no evidence that any post-viability abortions are being performed in a way that would violate the statute and thus no way for him to evaluate whether those abortions were “necessary” to preserve a woman’s health.

    ———

    So much for credibility.

  5. With all due respect, you cannot entirely dismiss the points of any particular group just because they happen to hold erroneous opinions on certain things (such as PBA).

    If that were the case, I’d end up staying home in November because I find elements within each political party appalling and misinformed.

    I agreed with the Afghanistan venture, as there was a known link with 9/11. I also believe in pre-emptive action against terrorist groups (not nations!!!).

    We must be honest, however, and admit that the evidence for attacking Iraq for the reason that they posed an imminent threat was lacking, at best. Were there possibly other reasons for going in there, such as liberating a people from a tyrant, establishing a democracy in the Middle East, etc? Sure.
    This is not what they were trying to sell us, however.

  6. James, your point is true of course. I made it to point out that the ostensible conservatism of the piece is merely a smoke screen for what progressivm really stands for: a blame America first policy, appeasment of tyrants, the usual stands of the far left. I’m not really interested in rebutting his piece point by point simply because anyone with any sense of American cultural history already knows what progressivism represents.

    In case some readers missed it: the progressive defense of partial birth abortion is not truthful. Note how it tries to weasel out of the fact that babies abortion in PBA’s are near term. It’s standard fare. The kind of duplicity makes the entire enterprise suspect IMO, but James is correct that it doesn’t function as a rebuttal to the Iraq piece.

  7. Father Jacobse: Thank you for the link. I want to assure you those are NOT my views on the partial birth abortion issue. This procedure should be illegal except for extremely rare cases when the life of the mother is in peril and there are no other options available, such as a Cesarean section. It seems to me with medical technology advancing and able to save increasingly premature infants, there should be very little medical neccesity for partial birth abortion. My daughter was born a month early, and in the neonatal intensive care unit where she stayed briefly, we saw infants that were born as much as 4 months early.

    It is a terrible mistake for the Democratic party to draw a line in the sand over this issue. Forty-six percent of Democrats define themselves as pro-life, and I think the party alienates them unneccesarily with these doctrinaire, poorly-thought out positions. A consistent ethic of life does not allow for a cafeteria style selection of which issues of life we are going to defend and which ones we are going to neglect. I may not favor totally outlawing abortion, but I don’t accept abortion as just another form of birth control either. More should be done to reduce the number of abortion and if Democratic politicians were savvy they would be proposing initiatives to do just that.

  8. Dean, the Democratic party needs to free itself from the McGovernite wing that took control after Viet Nam. If the party returned to what it was under John F. Kennedy and earlier, the nation would be better served. This reform appears increasingly unlikely, but as the party continues to lose elections, perhaps a more centrist/conservative revolt would be successful.

  9. Kerry’s biggest failures are his inability to portray himself as someone who can viably lead the war on terror and his refusal to accept the ban on partial birth abortion.

    In the first case, it’s more of an image issue: despite his plans to “harden vulnerable targets, protect our borders and shores, track and stop terrorists and improve domestic readiness”, he has been portrayed by the Repubs as a terrorist “appeaser”. I don’t think this is accurate considering his agenda to beef up military spending for home and abroad.

    It’s his tendency to swing too far to the left regarding social causes, especially abortion, that will lose him votes. Meanwhile, George Bush has swung so far to the right that his own VP’s daughter was visibly “invisible” for the family photo-op for fear of embarrassing them on the gay issues, despite her many contributions to their campaign.

    Both candidates are becoming stereotypes of their own parties, which in the end will harm all of us.

    I’m hoping that this “culture war” eases to the point where we can all find a candidate who can lead this country without catering to the whims of the extremes within their respective parties.

  10. Note 3:

    Each of the activities itemized in this Note are worthwhile efforts at defense if considered in isolation. It is true that one could logically give priority to protecting nuclear plants, oil refineries and chemical plants, however, that protection does not change the fact we are dealing with people who are willing to seize a school building and murder children in cold blood. After we attend to the list provided by Dean in Note 3 we still have schools, hospitals, police stations, routine government buildings, shopping centers, major waterways, and on and on and on. The list is endless and therefore endlessly costly.

    No, as radical as it seems, I agree with the basic strategy of bringing the fight to the States and geographical regions that harbor terrorists. I would like that to be joined with a realistic wartime immigration policy that outlawed any further Muslim immigration. We do not have, in my opinion, a moral duty to admit anyone to our country when we are at war. Listless prosecution of this war will only prolong it and produce more casualties, something like slowly tearing off a band-aid.

    Muslim public opinion is a lost cause. Firstly, because the incidence of illiteracy is so high and secondly, because the press and opinion makers of the Middle East have had so long to perpetuate anti-American sentiment that we can’t even begin to combat it. This failure to wage the ideological or propaganda war is something that Clinton and Reagan administrations should be held accountable for.

    It is a shame that innocents will suffer, but, we are at war and the suffering of innocents will be minimized by vigorously prosecuting that war. As important as the goal of minimizing the suffering of innocents is, we must remember that we are defending an entire civilization, the civilization that gave birth to the idea of free intellectual inquiry. To fail to defend that civilization is to give into a Reign of Darkness unparalled in human history.

    We need regime change in Iran and Saudi Arabia. A large percentage of the Iranian population is ready to see the end of the mullahs. Saudi Arabia is a font of terror and there is no hope of reform from within. We have absorbed enough blows, I am not willing to suffer an irradiated city here or anywhere else.

  11. Missourian, not that I really want to get into it, but your comment about high illiteracy also illustrates the essential weakness of the Juan Cole piece. Cole treats Al-Queda as a political party out to change Muslim public opinion. He argues that the organization exists apart from nation-states yet asserts they function within the normal party framework one would see in free nation-states. It’s naive in my view; not really aware of that ideological fanaticism has no loyalties to any state or people.

  12. Note 12

    Father Jacobse:

    Commentators frequently refer to the “Arab street” or the “Arab press” without pointing out that the press in the ME is government controlled. We have been insufferable rubes in the case of Egypt. We have sent them billions a year as a bribe to refrain from war with Israel, while the Mubarrak government openly supports a controlled press that preaches virulent anti-Americanism. We should have withheld the bribes and allowed them to suffer defeat at the hands of Israel, if necessary, which might have been the shock they needed to give up their tacit approval and enablement of Jihadi activity against Israel and the rest of the world.

    All of the avenues open to use are harsh and involve the suffering of innocents, but, that is where we are right now. There was no way to stop Hitler or Hirohito without accepting the fact that some innocents would suffer in the process, but, Hitler and Hirohito had to be stopped.

  13. Missouri: I find the militaristic tone of your comments truly frightening. Perhaps “Four More Wars! Four More Wars!” really is the campaign slogan of the Bush administration and not just a satirical jibe.

    One thousand dead Americans and eight thousand wounded isn’t enough for you – you want even more blood. You have even found a way to rationalize the needless slaughter of over 11,000 Iraqi civilians. “We have to destroy the Iraqi village in order to save it.” Where have we heard that one before? Viet Nam.

    Furthermore, our military is already stretched thin, so are you proposing a new draft? You and your neo-conservative collegaues should have the honesty to tell the American people that. “Yes The Bush administration wants to take your sons and daughters and send them to be cannon fodder in the middle east. That is our plan.

    The key phrase of yours that sticks out for me is. “bringing the fight to the States and geographical regions that harbor terrorists.” It is this modern day Crusader-like mentality you promote that is that plays right into the propaganda of Bin Ladin, confirming his predictions, making ordinary Arabs feel threatened, discrediting Arab moderates and creating thousand of new recruits for Al Qaeda.

    We don’t need to further antagonize Iran and Syria, we need to win their cooperation, so that they will work with us to capture or kill the Al Qaeda operatives. After September 11th Syria actually approached the United States willing to do just that. Statements like yours, however, made by Bush administration officials and broadcast throughout the middle-east, have driven Arab public opinion sharply against America making it more difficult for their leaders to cooperate with us.

    Historians will look back at the Bush II years as the turning point where the United States began its fateful march towards a prolonged and debilitating conflict. America’s abandonment of it’s role as honest broker in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict followed by its unnecessary war of choice in Iraq, followed by it’s mismanagement of the post-war reconstruction and descent into a neo-colonial war of occupation will be the key events turning the Islamic world against us and provoking a long period of conflict.

    How long do you think the House of Saud can survive if we continue to insult and agitate the Arab world with Anti-Islamic propaganda, policies and actions. Once the House of Saud falls what happens to our oil supply and oil prices? What about Musharref in Pakistan? How long can he survive, as the ally of the enemy of Islam and what happens to Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal when he is assasinated or overthrown. Are we reaaly going to declare war on the entire Islamic world with its hundred million people?

    Our nation already has gigantic budget and trade deficits financed largely with foreign capital. Japan, China and Taiwan currently finance 75% of our annual budget deficir. How long do think our foreighn creditors are going to keep lending to the United States if we embark on a course of war that increases our military budget further while weakening our economy and its ability to generate revenue? Once they stop lending America is looking at double-digit interest rates and deep recession.

    People like you Missouri, with your recklesss comments and reckless, irresponsible hopes for war cause me to lie awake at night and worry about whether my daughter is going to have a decent life when she grows up, or a miserable life of war and recession. You play with fire and others get burned. You sow the wind and others reap the terrible whirlwind. I wish people like you would cease your hateful, irresponsible war-mongering talk, and give peace a chance while it still has one.

  14. Fr. Hans writes: “I made it to point out that the ostensible conservatism of the piece is merely a smoke screen for what progressivm really stands for: a blame America first policy, appeasment of tyrants, the usual stands of the far left.”

    Are you actually saying the huge number of falsehoods surrounding the invasion of Iraq simply don’t matter?

    Let’s say that in 2002 president Bush had given the following true speech [I know that’s difficult to imagine, but bear with me]:
    – – – – – – – – – –

    “My fellow Americans, good evening. I come before you tonight to report on the situation in Iraq. As Secretary Powell has noted on various occasions, the inspections and sanctions in Iraq have worked. There are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and Iraq poses no active threat either to us or to the countries in the region. Much of what you have heard about WMD in Iraq comes from Iraqis who are interested in getting us to invade, but we have found out that most of what they say is not true. The person with whom we have worked most closely, Mr. Ahmed Chalabi, is a convicted felon in Jordan, and thus we have decided to dismiss most of what he tells us.

    “Some have said that Iraq was behind the 9/11 attacks, but we know that is not true. We also know that Iraq has provided little or no material support for Al Qaeda, though Iraqi officials have probably met with Al Qaeda members.

    “Some have said that a war in Iraq would require perhaps only 130,000 troops. Of course, many of our own generals disagree with that figure, noting that an effective occupation of a country such as Iraq will take at least twice that. But even the smaller figure will virtually exhaust the resources of the U.S. military, and will require us both to retain military personnel long past their discharge dates and to have them serve multiple tours of duty both in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    “Some have said that the reconstruction of Iraq can be paid for by Iraqi oil revenues. But I have serious doubts that this is possible. In fact, in a postwar Iraq it may be difficult even to keep oil flowing. In fact, one official in my administration said that an occupation of Iraq would cost at least $100 to $200 billion the first two years, far more than many have estimated. Some have wanted me to fire this individual, but I find his analysis to be compelling, and have decided to keep him on. In any case, the defense of the homeland will be my top priority, and in a few weeks I will reveal a new budget that will include funds for the protection of our ports, tightening control over the borders, protecting our airliners and airports, and adding needed resources to the military.

    “Some have said that our troops will be welcomed with candy and flowers as liberators. I think this is highly unlikely, and that a more reasonable outcome is that we’ll have thousands or tens of thousands of soldiers killed and wounded during the course of an occupation. Of course, we don’t even know how long such an occupation would last or under what conditions we would even exit the country.

    “Some have said that we can turn Iraq into a model democracy in the Middle East. Personally, I think that is very unlikely. Instead, an invasion of Iraq will radicalize many Iraqis and will be a magnet for terrorists from all over the region, while at the same time giving bin Laden a propaganda tool that he can use to recruit new terrorists.

    “Some have said that we can easily pursue two wars at the same time – one in Afghanistan and one in Iraq. But the situation in Afghanistan is still highly unstable, and there is much yet to be done. The Taliban and Al Qaeda are still an active presence there. Thus we first need to focus time and resources on getting that situation under control, and I will not pull resources from that country at this time.

    “Finally, some have said that we can “go it alone” in Iraq. But the war on terror is a global war. Al Qaeda continues to operate in over 60 countries across the globe. In order to pursue the war on terror we need the assistance and cooperation of as many friends as we can get. And I refuse to squander all the international good will that has accrued to us in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks through a needless attack on another country.

    “I know that Saddam Hussein is a cruel tyrant. But there are many tyrants in the world, and for now Saddam has been effectively contained, and we must prioritize our actions in the world. Iran and North Korea may pose active nuclear threats in the near future, and we must guard our resources so as to be able to deal with any threat from them. I’m not afraid to go to war, but I don’t want to fight the wrong war at the wrong time.

    “Thus, at this time there will be no invasion of Iraq. We will continue to monitor the situation very closely, and if anything changes we will reevaluate our options. Good night, and God bless America.”
    – – – – – – – –

    Question: had George Bush given *that* speech, would you have considered him an appeaser of tyrants?

  15. Note 15 Redux:

    The use of the term “Crusader mentality” is a dead give away. This phrase is taken from the playbook of those who are teaching us to be dhimmis. To be a dhimmi is to be someone who is ashamed of the history of Western civilization. I’m not.

    The Crusades, with all their faults, were a response to a militaristic expansion by Islam. Perhaps Dean you are a little to selective in the “militarism” that you object to. Perhaps you should direct your objections to the Muslim world.

    Had the Crusades not occurred, had Christian warriors not fought back Europe would have been part of the Ottoman empire and undoubtedly would be as backward as all of the countries upon which the shadow of the Great Warlord Mohammed has fallen.

  16. Note 15:

    Cooperation from Iran and Syria?

    Iran and Syria are our enemies. They have actively supported terrorists for decades. They fund terrorism and are among the most repressive and brutal regimes in the world. The people of Iran groan under the heel of the mullahs.

    Where is your moral indignation? Do you want our country to associate itself with these butchers? The regimes in power will have to be defeated before the world will have any peace.

  17. Note 15:

    No one is more reckless than he who will not respond to a outright declaration of war against his country, his culture and his Faith.

    The war was declared long ago, Dean. OBL and others have broadcast it and put it in writing. They have launched a war to destroy the United States or to convert it to Islam. They are serious, proof of that seriousness is 9/11.

    You are truly delusional if you think that the Terror Masters of Syria and Iran will ever enter into a good faither agreement to stop terror. They are the font of terror.

    Unless we fight back your daugher will be wearing a burka.

  18. I would like to think that the Iraqi conflict involved more than the Bush’s administration need for a tangible “win” in a war against a shifting, nationless and widespread enemy where there were few noticeable “victories”.

    Did the administration have some info we mere mortals were not privy to? No. Saddam Hussein was a megalomaniac and a despot, but he acted to protect his cozy debauched life. He did not fit the profile of a suicide bomber: any CIA operative with any profiling background could have told you this. He had the opportunity to off himself when he was caught, and he did not even do that.

    -So it wasn’t because we were directly threatened.
    -It is unlikely we would have been threatened in the foreseeable future by Hussein’s WMDs (at least of the nuclear kind).
    -Even if terrorists were permitted access to his country, there was no evidence it was more widespread than other countries in the Middle East. There was no one to “hand over” as in the case of the Taliban and bin Laden.

    Given these, I must believe that Bush went into this for reasons other than what he told us.

    The goals may have been noble and some good may come of it yet, but a lie is still a lie.

    Lie about an intern and you get impeached. If the result of your lies ends up killing thousands of Americans, you’re hailed as a patriot. I don’t get it.

    Like it or not, I expect to see a draft coming no matter who is elected. Our resources are spent and we’re tying the hands of our guys over there. It will be a time of sacrifice for both sides of the aisle, and I hope that those who are keen on this conflict recognize that they will have to contribute as well.

  19. Missourian: Iraq previous to the invasion was a secular nation, and they did not live under sharia, as does Iran where discontent among the people is documented. Women held numerous positions within the media and medicine. Alcohol vendors could even make a living as well without fear of repercussions from Islamo-fascists.

  20. Note 22:

    The United States took on this responsibility. We need to concentrate our efforts on fulfilling that responsibility. We cannot withdraw prior to the establishment of some kind of stability. As a great nation, we do not have the luxury of fickleness, we must perservere. Actually, all we need to do is convince the world that we will persevere, that we are truly serious and we will prevail. Iraqis need to take up the cause of defending their own country, but they won’t don that unless they are confident that the United States will not pull the rug out from under them.

    Our conduct in Viet Nam was a disgrace and as a consequence of the policies advocated by the Left millions suffer under tyranny.
    As John Kerry so mistakenly said “We cannot fight Communism all over the world.” We could have and we should have. Someday Islam will suffer the fate of Communism. Islam is a political system that cannot co-exist with any other.

    As I said, war has been declared against our civilization and our Faith. This declaration of war means that innocents will suffer harm, we may be able to minimize the suffering of innocents but we will not be able to avoid it, such is the nature of war.

  21. Missourian: You’re correct in stating that we now have no choice but to see this situation through. Pulling out isn’t an option, and I don’t think anyone’s suggesting that.
    Neverthless, Bush needs to be held accountable for his errors which have and will cost this country greatly.

    I don’t think our enemy is “Islam” as a political system, and I’d strongly advise against waging a religious war.

    Who exactly is our enemy? Fringe groups throughout the world who use Islam as an excuse for their hatred for Israel and the US and who will stop at nothing to see Israel and America suffer. These groups exist everywhere.

    How do we fight this war?
    1) Increasing national security, wherever possible.
    2) Seeking out terrorist groups throughout the world and bringing them to justice, whether in the US, Europe or Africa.
    3) Encouraging other nations to assist us in this endeavor.
    4) Establishing better dialogue with the real moderates who do exist in the Middle East and who do desire peace so that we effective take the “wind out of the sails” of those who would use bad US policies as a recruiting tool.

  22. Jim, such a speech would never come from anyone on the left (it may have come paleoconservatives, however). The left has a history of appeasing tyranny, as Viet Nam and the Cold War proved. The modern left blames America for the ills of the world, and while that blame has found a new object (George Bush lied), the dynamic behind it (blame America first) remains the same. Remember this is the same group that thought the Viet Cong were liberators. The boat people showed us they were conquerers. They have never recanted from this error, which is why they remain untrustworthy today.

  23. James, the accountability for the intelligence errors rests with those who destablized American intelligence institutions in Congress and elsewhere. There was no deliberate plan to deceive the American public. If there was, the invasion of Iraq would not have received bipartisan support.

  24. Note 24:

    Islam is a political system and always has been. Itis imcompatible with any other system. A religious war has been declared upon us. Osama Ben Laden states that he will fight America until it becomes Islamic or until it is destroyed. Why is that so hard to understand? Islam declares itself daily, it shouts to the roof top. Surely a religious person should be able to recognize that people are motivated by religious teachings. I would expect the secularists to misunderstand Islam because they do not understand the religious impulse, but, surely a religious person understands the concepts of heresy and spiritual struggle.

    This is the same Jihad that Islam has waged against the rest of the world since its inception.

    Are our Christian pastors of all varieties motivated and capable of instruction their congregations about that with which we are dealing? I certainly hope so.

  25. The war received bipartisan support partly because we were told there was an imminent threat (which there wasn’t), partly because the Democrats were afraid of being labeled as “unpatriotic” (which they were called, anyhow).

    We can blame this all on the CIA I suppose, but at some point the President needs to take responsibility.

    “According to [Richard] Clark, in the initial discussions after September 11, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld called for bombing Iraq rather than Afghanistan, declaring that there were no good bombing targets in Afghanistan. Clarke wrote: “I realized with almost a sharp physical pain that Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were going to try to take advantage of this national tragedy to promote their agenda about Iraq.”’

    Of course the Repubs won’t believe this.

    This is another side effect of the “culture war”: any evidence, no matter how reliable the source, that disrupts each side’s agenda is immediately denounced as fiction. The truth is spun until the American people have no choice but to disbelieve absolutely everything.

    Kerry lied or embellished about his service record or occurrences in Vietnam? Impossible!!
    Bush has possibly misled us about Iraq or his own service record? Never!

  26. James writes: “Of course the Repubs won’t believe this.”

    The early focus of the administration on Iraq is attested to my more than one source. To Richard Clarke you would have to add Paul O’Neill who also expressed surprise that Iraq was the main topic at the first NSC meeting, and that the focus on Iraq seemed planned by several of the participants. In other words, people in high places in the administration were preoccupied by Iraq from the day the took office.

    Various Bush administration officials, especially Wolfowitz, had been talking for years about invading Iraq. This is all public knowledge. That the Bush administration set up a special intelligence office is also public knowledge, as is their reliance on Chalabi and the INC. It was also known in the CIA that the administration was particularly interested in intelligence that backed their case for a war in Iraq.

    Bush and others intentionally linked Iraq and the 9/11 attacks even in the absense of any evidence. They continued to do this even after it was publicly known that there was no connection. After no WMD were found, people in the Bush administation were still talking about WMD.

    What we have is an administration that has little respect for the facts or the truth. Of course, this means nothing to the right. The right wing, rightly embarrssed by the situation, compensates by becoming even more shrill in their ubiquitous denunciation of “the left,” as if that had anything at all to do with the fact that the highest levels of the government are populated by people with a contempt for the truth.

    Oh, but don’t worry — George Bush doesn’t like partial birth abortions, so that makes everything Ok.

  27. Note 29:

    The War against Saddam Hussein began in 1991, it continued until 2003. Between 1991 and 2003 the United States and Britain actively protected the Kurds through the use of very active military surveillance. Iraq shot at our planes which were flying over Kurdistan. Without our Air Forces, Saddam would have “invaded” Kurdistan and slaughtered the people there as was his general habit.

    How long were we supposed to continue this low level conflict with Saddam?

  28. Missourian: Perhaps the following questions will help you understand the reckless, dangerous nature of the Christian Jihad you are advocating.

    1) If we declare war on the Islamic world, as you propose, the United States will need a bigger military. Are you advocating a new military draft to supply the additional manpower needed? Shouldn’t the Bush administration be honest about that before the election?

    2) If we declare war on the Islamic world we will need a biggeer military budget. How are you proposing to pay for it? Should we repeal the tax cut for the wealthiest Americans, or just go deeper into debt.

    3) If we continue to insult, antagonize and inflame the Islamic world there is a strong possibility that the House of Saud will fall and be replaced with a more radical fundamentalist regime that will cut off our access to Saudi oil. How do you propose we replace that oil? What impact do you think $5 a gallon gasoline will have on the US economy.

    4) If we continue to insult, antagonize and inflame the Islamic world there is a strong possibility that Perviz Musharref the President of Pakistan, and our ally, could be assasinated or overthrown. If that happens, a more radical fundamentalist regime could take possesion of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal. Would you propose a preemptive nuclear first strike (the first since WWII) against Pakistan, or wait for them to attack first?

    5) The rising debt due to increased borrowing to pay for war, and a declining economic growth due to rising oil prices as result of war will undermine America’s credit worthiness as a borrower nation, and send the value of the dollar plumetting. If Japan China, and Taiwan refuse to continue purchasing three-quarters of the US budget deficit, what do you think is going to happen to interest rates in the United States? Do you remember what happened to our economy the last time we had double-digit interest rates?

    6) Why do you think public opinion in Turkey, the most Western-oriented and secular of the Islamic nations, has turned sharply against the United States?

    7) Bush administration officials like Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz predicted that US soliders would be welcomed with bouquets of flowers and that Iraqi oil would pay for all of the costs of our occupation. Is the situation in Iraq what you expected on the eve of our invasion? Were your assumptions correct or incorrect? Have you revised them?

    8)A US marine was quoted as saying that if a foreign army invaded his hometown, San Diego, and killed a lot of his neighbors and relatives, he would do the same thing the Iraqis are doing now: pick up a rifle and fight back. Does that make this US marine “a terrorist”, or would the occupying army killing a lot of his neighbors and relatives be to blame.

    9) How did you think the average Arab felt watching news film of the US Helicopter using its machine gun to fire into the crowd of unarmed Iraqi civilians gathered around the burned-out Bradley Fighting vehicle on a Baghdad Street last Sunday, killing and wounding dozens of them? Do you think such incidents help build support for the United States and its “values” in the Arab world?

  29. Note 31:

    Dean states:
    1) If we declare war on the Islamic world, as you propose, the United States will need a bigger military. Are you advocating a new military draft to supply the additional manpower needed? Shouldn’t the Bush administration be honest about that before the election?
    Missourian replies:
    There is a very distinct difference between pointing out the existence of a fact: that Osama Bin Laden has declared a religious war on the West and a proposal that the United States itself declare a religious war. The United States is fully within its legal and moral rights to control its borders to refrain from allowing the immigration of a class of persons who might well be dangerous to its continued existence.

    My point was that in order to craft effective policy we must recognize two things: a religious war has been declared and Islam is a political system which considers itself in competition with other political systems.

    I don’t have an opinion on military manpower. I am not very well informed on that point. We should do what it takes to defend our country and our civilization.

    Dean states:
    2) If we declare war on the Islamic world we will need a biggeer military budget. How are you proposing to pay for it? Should we repeal the tax cut for the wealthiest Americans, or just go deeper into debt.

    Missourian responds:
    I did not suggest that the United States DECLARE a religious war, I stated that we need to recognize that a religious war has been declared against the United States in order to properly devise effective strategy.

    If we don’t find the money needed to defend ourselves, then budget deficits will not mean much after our country has several cities irradiated. Do I have a magic solution to a budget shortfall? If I did I would run for office.

    Dean states:
    3) If we continue to insult, antagonize and inflame the Islamic world there is a strong possibility that the House of Saud will fall and be replaced with a more radical fundamentalist regime that will cut off our access to Saudi oil. How do you propose we replace that oil? What impact do you think $5 a gallon gasoline will have on the US economy.

    Islam has never tolerated or encouraged an open intellectual life. Criticism of Islam or its Big Bandit Mohammed will result in jail or a death sentence in many parts of the Muslim world.
    Therefore, it is critical that the rest of the world stop pandering to Muslim “sensitivities” and force them to deal with the truth. Islamic culture is a failure and has been for 700 years. Pul-leeez spare me the bogus rhapsodies about intellectual glories of Medieval Islam and its supposed tolerance. Even if true that expired 700 years ago. The United Nations recently did an inventory of the state of the Muslim world and it is dismal. Muslims need to learn how to operate in an open intellectual arena and to engage in constructive self-criticism.

    I consider Islam to be false and violent. I think that Islam should be declared to be such at every appropriate opportunity.
    I have to be prepared to defend the Christian faith. People make derogatory comments about the Christian faith on a daily basis and I have to withstand it. So should the Muslims they have no right to be coddled and sheltered from criticism from others.

    As to energy independence, I would not compromise my principles for the sake of oil. Are you suggesting that the United STates should support a despotic, misogynistic tribal government JUST so that we can use their oil, I would suggest that that is just as unprincipled as any supposed WAR FOR OIL. This would be called COMPROMISE OF PRINCIPLES FOR OIL. Not very appealing.

    We need to declare energy independence, it will be painful, the alternative is even more painful. If we lose Saudi Oil we can develop Canadian oil/shale fields. I would be willing to lose a few caribou rather than compromise my most important principles by continuing our drug-dealer addict relationship with Saudi Arabia. It can be done, but, given human nature we will not achieve energy independence unless we are forced to. You are merely recommending a holding pattern not a policy.

    4) If we continue to insult, antagonize and inflame the Islamic world there is a strong possibility that Perviz Musharref the President of Pakistan, and our ally, could be assasinated or overthrown. If that happens, a more radical fundamentalist regime could take possesion of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal. Would you propose a preemptive nuclear first strike (the first since WWII) against Pakistan, or wait for them to attack first?

    As to insulting and antagonizing the Islamic world. May I ask who has been flying planes into buildings and murdering children in cold blood. Should these actions be ignored? Should Muslims be worried that such activities, which they enable and make excuses for would “insult, antagonize and inflame” the Western world. Muslims respect and admire violence, remember the tape of
    Osama Bin Laden who stated that he would gain support among his brethern by displaying the power to inflict horrible violent death on innocents. Do you claim to know Muslims better than Osama?

    I agree with you that the situation in Pakistan, brought about by the neglect of our friends Clinton and to some extent Reagan, is very dangerous. Funny, when Westerners merely cower in the corner, afraid of offending Muslims,Muslims take this as permission to become more and more beligerent and more and more violent. I think it good that we have military installed in Afghanistan and Iraq because it makes the militant Pakistanis think twice about doing something crazy.

    I don’t have a complete strategy worked out to solve this, if I did I would volunteer with the Joints Chiefs of Staff. I will state that any viable policy must recognize that that an religious war has been declared against the United States and Western civilization and that Islam has always been a political system in competition with other political systems.

    5) The rising debt due to increased borrowing to pay for war, and a declining economic growth due to rising oil prices as result of war will undermine America’s credit worthiness as a borrower nation, and send the value of the dollar plumetting. If Japan China, and Taiwan refuse to continue purchasing three-quarters of the US budget deficit, what do you think is going to happen to interest rates in the United States? Do you remember what happened to our economy the last time we had double-digit interest rates?

    Budget deficits are a serious problem that need to be addressed. They existed before the Islamic world declared war on us and they will undoubtedly continue after. We need to adopt policies that restrain unnecessary government spending (Hurrah!!) and adopt policies that promote economic growth.

    6) Why do you think public opinion in Turkey, the most Western-oriented and secular of the Islamic nations, has turned sharply against the United States?

    The secular aspect of Turkish society is still a layer that tests on the top of its long-standing Islamic base. The Turks have never acknowledged the genocide of Armenian Christians and Hagia-Sophia remains desecrated.

    Islam has enjoyed a revival all over the MIddle East. STressing a return to Islam allows the middle easterners the luxury of believing that someone other than themselves and their stagnant, intellectually dead culture is the cause of their low standing in the world.

    People in Turkey are constantly fed distorted information from many Arab news sources which are corrupt.

    7) Bush administration officials like Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz predicted that US soliders would be welcomed with bouquets of flowers and that Iraqi oil would pay for all of the costs of our occupation. Is the situation in Iraq what you expected on the eve of our invasion? Were your assumptions correct or incorrect? Have you revised them?

    There are many Iraqi blogs which demonstrate that a large percentage of Iraqis welcomed American soldiers and still welcome American soldiers. IN addition, to the blogs there are Pew public opinion polls taken frequently which show that a plurality of Iraqis agree that the presence of American troops is welcome.

    The “insurgents” have been shown to be Baathists, Iranians and the usual assortment of Jihadis. The Baathists have no choide but to resist as they know that that are in line for a trial and severe punishment under any healhty Iraqi legal system.

    8)A US marine was quoted as saying that if a foreign army invaded his hometown, San Diego, and killed a lot of his neighbors and relatives, he would do the same thing the Iraqis are doing now: pick up a rifle and fight back. Does that make this US marine “a terrorist”, or would the occupying army killing a lot of his neighbors and relatives be to blame.

    Ah Dean, …..American made military history in the fastest and lowest casualty military campaign in history. Many thought the war would take months, it took weeks. Answer me this Dean,
    why did the war take such a short period of time. One reason was the military competency of our troops but the second was that NO ONE WANTED TO FIGHT FOR SADDAM.

    You know what a terrorist is Dean, don’t be disingenuous. A terrorist is someone who attacks civilians. It is Beslan. Don’t play silly little rhetorical games.

    9) How did you think the average Arab felt watching news film of the US Helicopter using its machine gun to fire into the crowd of unarmed Iraqi civilians gathered around the burned-out Bradley Fighting vehicle on a Baghdad Street last Sunday, killing and wounding dozens of them? Do you think such incidents help build support for the United States and its “values” in the Arab world?

    Think back to Fallujah. The armed guards protecting an aid shipment were killed, then roasted then hung up for all to see.
    Why should any Muslim claim to be offended when he or she sees violence? Why are Muslims suddenly not violent?

    Hint the civilians were not unarmed, they were armed and shooting at United States military personnel.

    AGAIN, WHATEVER GIVES YOU THE IDEA THAT MUSLIMS DISLIKE VIOLENCE? THEIR “PROPHET” WAS A WAR LORD. How can you claim that Muslims who danced in the street on 9/11 and roasted the bodies of aid workers in Fallujah are offended by violence?

  30. Dean

    You should remember that devout Muslims consider you UNCLEAN, in the same category as PORK.

    You should remember that although Christians consider the Hebrew Scriptures to be HOLY, Muslims consider the Hebrew and Christian scriptures to be TWISTED LIES. Most Muslims will not even touch a Bible.

    Mohammed taught his followers that lying is morally acceptable if it advances the Muslim cause.

    Mohammed also taught his followers that they were “the best people.” Muslims are frustrated because they were taught by their WARLORD PROPHET that they will destined to rule THIS WORLD. Why aren’t they ruling this world? Why are the brining up the bottom of the economic, cultural and political rank?
    They have fallen farther and father behind starting in the Middle Ages. Colonialism doesn’t account for their decline from 1100 to 1750?

  31. Dean:

    Sometimes it seems that there is no evil that you are not willing to ascribe to Americans. You must think us very evil.

    Senator Patrick Moynihan, a Democrat from New York, once described Jimmie Carter as a person who had adopted the viewpoint of the enemies of his country.

    Dean, I am fully prepared to criticize Bush. I have plenty of disagreement with his policies. I have no illusions about government. Government officials must be held accountable to their duties, they need to be watched like hawks.

    Dean, you seem to be willing to ascribe only the loftiest motives to countries other than the United States. There is considerable evidence being collected by bi-partisan Congressional investigators prove the United Nations and powerful actors inside France and Germany were bought out by Saddam’s oil money. Yet, you never seem ready to criticize Europeans. Europeans always operate from the loftiest of principles with the good of all mankind in mind.
    Sure.

    Again, I am fully prepared to criticize our government and the Republican administration, however, you seem willing to believe that the Republican administration is positively demonic and devoid of all concern for the well-being of America, or the world. Trust me, Halliburton can make money without risking their
    employees lives in Iraq.

    You are willing to believe the worst about not only our government but our soldiers who are our neighbors and friends. The test of a society is not whether every member is perfect but whether wrong-doers are brought to justice. The Abu Ghraib perpretrators are facing military and civilian trials. Several have been convicted. No one has convicted the Baathists, or the Stalinists for that matter.

  32. Dean Note 15

    You stated that we don’t need to further antagonize Syria and Iran, we need to seek their cooperation.

    Please note that AP is reporting the Syria test chemical weapons on helpless Sudanese.

    http://uk.news.yahoo.com/040914/323/f2lmw.html

    Are these the people that you want the United States to give legitimacy to? Syria and Iran are despicable dictatorships.
    You want us to co-operate with thugs? If so, your supposedly loftly foreign policy is nothing more than a COMPROMISE OF PRINCIPLES FOR OIL.

  33. Missourian writes: “How long were we supposed to continue this low level conflict with Saddam?”

    As long as it took. Saddam was contained, largely defanged, our costs were minimal, and we weren’t sending young people home in body bags. Heck, we had over twenty military bases and support centers in the Middle East anyway. We’ve replaced the low-level conflict with high-level conflict, turned the country into a magnet for and manufacturer of radicals and terrorists, created a financial black hole for the U.S., exhausted our own military, alienated world opinion, and handed bin Laden a terrific propaganda tool in the process. And when the dust settles it’s quite possible that we will have helped to replace Hussein with an Islamic regime.

  34. Note 36:

    Tommy Franks described what he found in Iraq as the equivalent of a “dismantled gun sitting on a table next to a pile of bullets.” There have also been reputable reports that Iraq was within months of acquiring nuclear weaponry from rogue Pakistani scientists.

    Saddam provided a haven for selected terrorists when it suited him. He was seeking nuclear weapons.

    If you read Belmont Club you will see that the military strategy used by the Marines in Fallujah, before the political operatives interfered, was working. We can and have militarily beaten the “insurgents.” We captured a Zahquawi (spelling?) memo which indicated that the “insurgents” were experiencing extreme pressure. Although the U.S. military does not publicize the figues the fact is that we have neutralized 10 insurgents for every American casualty. Ugly things to think about, but the Twin Towers matter was a tad ugly too. This is the world we live in.

    Muslims, like everybody else, if not more so, will go with the demonstrated strong man. We need a firm and consistent response to violencein Iraq.

    After the Twin Towers we have basically two broad strategic choices. The first was to attempt to protect our assets, a defensive posture. A cursory review of the scope of targets in America shows that this is impossible. Remember our enemy won’t stop at murdering children in cold blood and recording it on tape for the world to see. The second was to change regimes that fostered terror. Unfortunately, as a result of long-standing neglect by several administrations, the cancer of terrorism has taken deep root in the Middle East.

    There are no good, easy and safe alternatives. This War has been going on since 1979 and we have been taking hit after hit after hit. Too bad they are so thoroughly entrenched.

  35. Thought Experiment:

    Device an effective defensive strategy to defend America from Muslim terrorists:

    What to protect:

    A) Airports, airplanes, commercial, private; avition schools
    B) Ports more than 15 major ports.
    C) Nuclear plants
    D) Chemical plants
    E) Petro-chemical refineries
    F) Major hydro-electrical plants
    G) Monitor sales of fertilizer and ordinary compounds that can be used to make bombs
    H) Major bridges in the largest cities
    I) Skyscapers in Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, Pittsburgh,
    Philadelphia, Houston, Denver, Kansas City, Minneapolis….
    J) Monitor international students in sensitive scientific studies
    K) Monitor millions of people crossing our Canadian and Mexican
    border

    What to protect against:
    A) Airplanes used as missiles
    B) Chemical attacks 15 different varieties
    C) Dirty bomb attacks
    D) Standard thermo-nuclear explosions
    E) Biological attacks: contagious diseases
    F) Attacks on water supply
    G) Attacks on food supply
    H) Highjacked trucks
    I) Highjacked school buses
    J) Rampages in schools
    K) Rampages in hospitals
    L) Attacks against metropolitan transit systems
    M) Attacks against national monumnets
    N) Attacks against Congress and the White House and the
    Supreme Court

    Have I left anything out?

Comments are closed.