TheAgitator.com
Selective Memory
Friday, February 27th, 2004There’s nothing more irritating than when a pro-war Republican counters criticisms of Bush’s foreign policy with “well what about Clinton’s preemptive wars?”
Or, “well Clinton thought there were WMDs, too.” Or, “Kofi Anan and John Kerry thought Saddam had WMDs.”
Um, so? Anan and Kerry were wrong, too. Clinton was wrong. Kosovo was wrong. Somalia was wrong. The Sudan was wrong. The sanctions and subsequent bombing of Iraq were wrong. Casting aspersions on Bill Clinton doesn’t do a damn thing for me. I couldn’t stand the man, and thought the Senate should have removed him from office (though I get more and more nostalgic for him the more I see of W).
Further, this effort to duck debate and question the allegiance of an opponent doesn’t even hold water. I’ve never claimed the left. And all the libertarians I know who oppose the war in Iraq were just as vocal about the war in Kosovo (though less noticeably so, given that Kosovo was an earlier Internet/pre-blog era).
I bring this up, because the Instaman used the ploy the other day in questioning where the anti-war folks were when we were bombing Kosovo.
And Jim Henley gives him an answer.
That’s how Republicans and Democrats stay in office…they spend all of their time bitching about what the other is doing instead of coming up with anything worthwhile themselves.
Radley, you’re right, except that libertarians don’t make up a large segment of Bush’s loudest critics. Most of them are loyal Democrats who stuck their heads in the sand for most of 1998 and 1999. And although I’m willing to ally with them to get rid of Bush this November, they deserve to be called hypocrites for their flip-flop on Iraq.
Anti-war libtarians practice deep thought:
Libertarians are anti-war so libertarians are anti-war.
That is their logical response.
Digamma, my personal view is that a typical politician will move like a flag in the wind. The country wanted war, the politicians all voted for war. If a democrat were to object back then, it would amount to un-American heresy.
The fact is that the majority of the public was BS’ed into this war and no politician had enough clout to question this whole crusade.
Now that the public is a bit more disillusioned and begins to ask questions, the politician defends his/her old position or mumbles something to the effect that ‘well, I wasn’t a very BIG supporter of the war’ etc, etc.
In a democracy, you get a leader you deserve. This has nothing to do with hypocrisy. It is about remaining ‘electable’.
If you look at what he said, it’s pretty clear that the purpose of the statement wasn’t a defense of Republican policies, it was to attack the hypocrisy of the Democrats, something about which he is dead on.
Radley and Jim Henley should realize that libertarians have “no dog in the fight”, as it were, on this issue. Don’t take offense when you’re not being attacked. This is something you’ve done a couple times before on the anti-war issue.
Joker, some politicians do vote on principle. Don’t act like libertarians have a monopoly on integrity.
Bush didn`t cause this war on terror, neither did Clinton or any other president.911 was caused by this democracy that we cherish so dearly and we should.The American lifestyle caused the war on terror. A lifestyle that is so hated by radical fundamentlists that they feel that it is their sacred duty to destroy it and its people. When Bush spoke at the memorial three days after 911 he told us that this was a different kind of war and he was right. What a lot of people fail to come to grips with is the fact that this thing is non negotiable. The radicals don`t delve in diplomacy. It is for this reason thai I believe if the next president has even the slightest anti-war sentiments we as a nation will suffer greatly. The Iraqi War has provided a battleground where the radicals are doing battle with our military and not with our civilian population in our cities and on our streets. I realize that this post will probably draw a lot of criticism and thats okay, because I hope and pray that I`m wrong about all of this.
Actually, there is at least one thing that’s more irritating: semi-thoughtful “commentators” who think that it’s somehow Bush’s fault that he believed the same intelligence everyone else did. Right behind that are the people who think that because the WMD aren’t there now, they were never there, Kurdish massacres and Iranian casualties be damned.
And then there are the people who make fun of Bush as stupid, but think he should none the less have been smarter than everyone else about Iraq. And the ones who read Kay’s report, and see the part about “can’t find the WMD now” but don’t bother to read the parts about “but had a well-developed program for re-establishing his stockpiles” and “best sources are being murdered day by day, apparently to cover up” and “very likely was a greater threat than we thought” and “Bush was justified.”
So that reduces your peeve to at least #5.
Send out for a grip.
The argument “Clinton, Kerry, Anan, etc. believed there was WMD” is a direct (and legitimate) response to the claim “Bush deliberately misled us into war”. Bush believed something that everyone else had believed for years and something that Saddam’s actions were consistent with. For this, he is now daily labelled a liar.
The Clinton/Kosovo “gotcha” is a little tiresome, but bringing it up should at least force the anti war folks to admit “the UN isn’t on board” is not a sufficient reason in and of itself.
The fact that lots of people thought there were WMDs doesn’t serve to justify the war. Rather, it serves to counter the “Bush LIED!!!” meme.
Bush may have been wrong about the WMDs (as seems increasingly likely), but it was clearly not something he just invented from whole cloth.
I’ve said this before and will repeat it again. The “treaty” that ended GW1 required that the UN inspectors observe the destruction of the WMD that Saddam admittied he had. This never occurred, therefore one had to assume they still existed.
Radley–you have repeatedly referred to 911 as the worst failure of government–what evidence was in existence prior to 911 was more compelling than the evidence against Iraq? It’s really easy to find fault when you have no responsibility, but a little different when you have to really do something rather than rant and rave.
Bah, you people think that a WMD program is easy to hide. Nonsense. There isn’t a single intelligence service that is so inept as to not be able to state with certainty whether a large scale WMD program is active in a given country or not.
Those who think that Bush was fooled by faulty intel reports, please show me a single aerial photo showing a long range ICBM sitting in the middle of the Iraqi desert a la the Cuban missile crisis.
Besides, you don’t even realize the extent of communications monitoring that was brought to bear on Iraq before the war. Hussein had no secrets. Ever.
Atrocities committed during the Iran-Iraq war are tragic, but history.
The reason Iraq was attacked was that it supposedly had stockpiles of nerve gas, biological weapons and an active nuke program, and a means & desire to deliver them to downtown New York and/or London in 45 minutes. With his pathetic short range missiles
Kennedy got proof of WMD sitting in Cuba using 1960’s technology and paraded it before the world.
Bush got faulty intel - my ass. There was no intel at all.
The argument of Iraqi-9/11 terrorism link defies all logic even according to the Bush administration.
However, what a terrorism breading ground has Iraq become since then… yes Manuel, we might be paying for it for a while yet.
Bob-
“–you have repeatedly referred to 911 as the worst failure of government–what evidence was in existence prior to 911 was more compelling”
From a libertarian point of view, 9/11(nine-eleven, not nine-one-one you silly bastards) IS the worst failure of government. The government exists to protect US. That is the #1 priority of a federal govt.
“–what evidence was in existence prior to 911 was more compelling than the evidence against Iraq?”
EXACTLY! There was no real evidence before 9/11 or after that was different. Yes, Clinton was evil and didn’t get bin Laden when he had a chance, etc. But Clinton did not invade, he attacked specific targets his intelligence said were making weapons. Bush unilaterly invaded. There is a big difference. Same intel, different reactions, and as much as I don’t like Clinton, his reaction was better than Bush’s.
Richard, this is one of my pet peeves, so I have to point it out.
Dictionary.com says:
unilateral, adj. Performed or undertaken by only one side
Your definition seems to be:
unilateral, adj. Undertaken by over 30 allies, but not including the French, who are so morally superior and always so helpful in a war.
Sorry, I just can’t watch people blatantly lie like that.
The “Clinton believed it too” arguments put a big smile on my face, as they are often said by people who hated the Clinton administration and considered his every utterance a lie. Now they want to stand beside him? Help yourself, I say. And the next time they accuse the Dems of hypocrisy, I smile even more and nod my head in agreement. I figure I can be frustrated by fools or entertained, and the latter will probably help me live longer.
If Bush was interested honest intel, why did he allow the Office of Special Plans to exist?
But Clinton did not invade, he attacked specific targets his intelligence said were making weapons. Bush unilaterly invaded. There is a big difference.
Yes, Richard, there is a big difference — Bush acted DECISIVELY, instead of tolerating the continued presence of a family of brutal, gambling opportunists (with a history of persistent pursuit of WMD, and a history of supporting Islamofascist terrorism) at the controls of the Iraqi infrastructure.
Clinton’s actions were worse than doing nothing — it showed thugs like Saddam and Osama that we were a paper tiger, making them bolder and more resolute in their brutality. In the case of Osama, it gave him the green light for 911.
Same intel, different reactions, and as much as I don’t like Clinton, his reaction was better than Bush’s.
Was Clinton’s reaction really better, in the long term?
He did not SOLVE the problem of Saddam & Sons — and Bush did.
We may face other problems in Iraq and elsewhere — but we will not be facing Saddam & Sons as a viable opponent ever again (unless the world goes truly insane, and forces his release).
The Leftist-driven reliance upon diplomacy and containment, and disdain for the direct, decisive use of American force, not only has never deposed a dictator, it has compelled our leaders to deal with them as equals in the UN, and as proxies to play against threats we have faced.
Problem is, Richard, the Leftists like John Kerry who want us to be subordinated to the UN — do so because they have more fear of some rich guy who might shred paper …
… than of thugs who have shredded people.
Nimon — your charge cuts both ways … so your friends at the DNC want to claim Bush lied, even though their hero was saying the same things?
It’s not about standing next to Clinton (though I will give him his due when deserved) — it’s about applying the same standards to our leaders, regardless of which side of the aisle they come from.
joker-
“what a terrorism breeding ground iraq has become since then.”
yes, well, would you rather the terrorists come over here to the states, and we have to fight people who hate us in our own back yards? i personally would not. i do not understand the mentality of people who think the best thing to do is bury-head-in-the-sand, pretend we as a country are liked by everyone in the world and hope for the best. not to mention, it makes those of you who are whiney-cry-baby-why-do-we-have-to-fight-this-war-types sound completely ungrateful. there are men, and women, who are in foreign countries taking out bad guys that want every american dead in the name of “jihad” so that you can live your life in relative safety and have the freedom to do as you please. do you not feel even the slightest bit grateful for that? btw, there is no way we can leave iraq by june if we are to anticipate the iraqis having fair and somewhat peaceful elections. not a chance. so just get that little time table outta your head ’cause it ain’t happening. phew. gosh i’m bein’ a meanie today but hearing this kind of talk really gets my goat. michelle
“Nimon — your charge cuts both ways … so your friends at the DNC want to claim Bush lied, even though their hero was saying the same things?”
As I said, I nod my head in agreement. Neither party monopolizes hypocrisy. But that in no way lessens my amusement at Reps essentially saying, “We agreed with Clinton.”
They are not saying they agree with Clinton so much as they are saying that you (demos/leftists) agreed with Clinton, and yet now you disagree with Bush.
There are legitimate discussions about a government’s use of force. Should force be used to save people in another country? (Somalia and Bosnia) But neither Iraq nor Afghanistan fall into this realm. They were both wars waged in the interests of the United States.
I assume virtually everyone here agrees with me that Afghanistan was justified. As for Iraw, it was a combination of factors. We were at war with Iraq already. The terrorists that attacked us on 9-11 would have used WMD if they had had them. Iraq appeared to be developing them. They both hated the US. Other countries in the mideast (similar socieities, religions and ethnicities) hate the US and were also developing WMD.
If the US was to let Iraq get away with Kuwait and the known WMD development and use, what do you think Syria, Iran and Libya would have done? For damn sure Libya wouldn’t have given up their WMD programs. And for everyone that thinks “no blood for oil”, how about ” no blood for water” or “no blood for wheat” or no blood for sunlight.” In the modern world, access to energy suports our society, without it we would have a higher death rate.
Oil = modern society = life. Do you like living to 75+ years? Thank the technology based on a cheap energy supply. So yes, oil underlies the entire situation. Without oil Saddam wouldn’t have been a threat because he couldn’t have afforded any weapons. Without oil, the mid east would have had to develop functional societies instead up supporting dysfunctional people on their oil money. People become much more reasonable when they have to work for a living.
Byna
Byna, they can’t have their cake and eat it too. They’re pointing out the hypocrisy of the Dems by appealing to Clinton as an authority.
Michelle, it is the responsibility of our government to protect us, but that must be done in the long term as well as the short. Otherwise we’re just buying a little time until the next attack. My friends serving in Iraq receive my support through regular care packages, but if we do not address why people hate us, they’re killing people for nothing and, as you say, we’re just burying our heads in the sand. Do the terrorists hate me because I have wealth and freedom, or do they hate me because of my nation’s foreign policies for the better part of the last century? If the latter, am I any safer in the long run if we kill them but don’t reconsider our policies?
Nimon, when at any time you have ever ‘hated’ something or someone in your life, if ever, and that person whom you hated was able to change your mind about the way you felt? For me, ummm, never.
Hate = irrational, there is no compromising, whether temporary or longterm.
You seem educated about our nation’s foreign policies, so please tell me what we are doing that is so bad or at least what we are doing that is being perceived as bad that it makes others want to KILL us.
If I’m not mistaken, we spend more money than ANY other country on this planet in humanitarian aid, food, drugs, medical supplies, medical services, etc… for other countries. Why then, are we still seen as the bad guys? I personally think it’s because we are not appeasers, and that pisses them off. They need to get over it.
There is no morality, just self interest, in international relations.
It would please me if we could grow up a bit and debate whether the war was in our best interests, rather than if it was “right”…
If we had attacked Saddam for shredding and gassing people:
a) we would be hypocrites, because his gassing and shredding activities were at their height when he was our friend.
b) we would be getting ready to invade Uzbekistan, where our current regional ally has shown a penchant for having his opponents boiled alive (we won’t because he’s our friend, for the moment)
Ms. Dani-
To be fair, the Arabs who hate us do have reasons beyond Bush’s silly line “They hate us because of our freedoms”. For example,
1)We support Israel, which many Arab countries don’t even acknowledge as a valid state.
2) We have a military base in Saudi Arabia, home of Mecca. Some fundamentalists see this as a huge insult, a Western military force right next to their holiest landmark.
3) We have supported with weapons and money many evil men in that region who keep their people poor and oppressed
4) In the Iraq War, Version 1.0, Bush Version 1.0 urged the Iraqi people to rise up against Saddam. The ones who did, and thought that U.S. troops would be coming shortly to help, were slaughtered instead.
Remember, bin Laden ruled out working with Saddam because he viewed Saddam as a secularist traitor to his people. Also, as far as your point about humanitarian aid, it is true that we spend more money than any other country, but we spend a smaller PERCENTAGE of our GDP than any other country that supplies humanitarian aid.
Ms Dani, I have reversed course on several strongly-held positions since my youth. It was usually not due to the arguments of someone who is opposing me in debate, but rather the research I do to support my own side of the debate that ends up changing my mind. However, that doesn’t really address your point, which, I assume, is that the terrorists won’t change their minds. I agree that few will, and in the end we need to kill or otherwise neutralize those that don’t. But simply killing terrorists does not get rid of the problem.
As an example, Stratfor recently reported that, while Israel’s agressive policy of assassination has reduced the number of Israeli civilians killed each year, the number of terrorist incidents has actually increased. This suggests that they’re killing the leadership and expertise of the terrorists, but creating more terrorists in the process. Rather than solving the problem, that pushes it into the future.
And we do the same; worry about the short term without enough consideration of the long term. That’s how we got a revolution in Iran, Mujahideen in Afghanistan, and Saddam in Iraq. As Richard pointed out, we’re still doing it. MEK is another example. Last I checked, the State Department lists them as a terrorist organization. Have we dropped the hammer on them in Iraq?
Why doesn’t our charity make people like us? Would you be happy if someone handed you a bag of rice while supporting an authoritarian regime that kept you from being free?
Nimon: “Would you be happy if someone handed you a bag of rice while supporting an authoritarian regime that kept you from being free?” Who do we support that does this?
Richard:
1)We support Israel, which many Arab countries don’t even acknowledge as a valid state
So?
2) We have a military base in Saudi Arabia, home of Mecca. Some fundamentalists see this as a huge insult, a Western military force right next to their holiest landmark.
I can see why they would hate us for this.
3) We have supported with weapons and money many evil men in that region who keep their people poor and oppressed
But it’s not the oppressed people who are hating us, it’s the OPPRESSOR who wants us dead.
4) In the Iraq War, Bush Version 1.0 urged the Iraqi people to rise up against Saddam. The ones who did, and thought that U.S. troops would be coming shortly to help, were slaughtered instead.
This too I can understand, BUT the people who were slaughtered are not the ones we are fighting against right now. It is the rebel factions, the irrational, the extremists. Why do THEY hate us so much?
Ms. Dani-
“This too I can understand, BUT the people who were slaughtered are not the ones we are fighting against right now.”
You’re right, we are fighting their children, who just might have some resentment to the U.S. if their dad/brother/uncle was killed in the previous Gulf War.
“But it’s not the oppressed people who are hating us, it’s the OPPRESSOR who wants us dead.”
What oppressor? As far as I know, Al Queda does not control any state, they are a fundamentalist organization that recognizes no state, and is made up of disenfranchised people, not powerful people.
We are not fighting their children.
We are fighting Baathist Party left-overs who want power and revenge.
We are fighting Islamic extremists who hate our secularism, our ideas of equal rights for ALL people including women and our support of the Jews whom they also hate FOR NO GOOD REASON.
What oppressor? Hussein. OBL. Al qaeda. Ghaddafi. Taliban. Does a group/person have to have control of a state to be an oppressor? Is that a prerequisite?
I don’t understand why we are the bad guys in all this?
A few observations:
> Why have we been in Saudi Arabia? To keep Saddam & Sons out of there, and Kuwait, and the entire western shore of the Persian Gulf. If that causes resentment on the Arab street, then shouldn’t we be thanking this President for removing the biggest problem that has kept us there? Or, should we have just left, and subjected the Kuwaitis, Saudis, and their neighbors to the benevolence of Saddam & Sons?
> You might ask, what about leaders like those in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan … if we are going to be consistent, shouldn’t we be invading them too? This argument is brought up as a distraction by those who don’t want to see ANY direct use of American force, anywhere. There are many ways to deal with oppressors — and while we must be ready to utilize decisive force to deal with the incorrigible, there are other ways to achieve our objectives. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have both become more cooperative … and we, at least for now, have avoided a bloodbath in those places as a result.
> Yes, in the past we have propped up authoritarian regeimes around the world … predominantly for two reasons, (1) because it was necessary to deal with the greather threat of that other superpower, and (2) because the Left sold many of us on the fallacy that the decisive, direct use of American force is NEVER justified … even when it would have removed tyrants. Our leaders then did the best they could, given this view.
> I agree that long-term thinking is called for … and we have been studying the effects of relying on diplomacy alone (without the presence of, and resolve to use, credible force to back it up) for a very long term. It has failed in decreasing the oppression … and the containment and appeasement that the diplomats prefer only push out the problem instead of solving it.
> The real problem is when you have corrupt men, in a society where there are no effective checks and balances against their corrupt behavior. The tipping point is when such men, in such societies, turn our trust/goodwill/good faith against us, using diplomacy as a lever to enhance their power.
> Rights-respecting, constitutionally-defined, representative governments in free-market societies do not sponsor terrorism, overtly or covertly — for their checks and balances prevent the corrupt from achieving the level of power and control necesssary to sustain such support. The Arab world needs to realize this, and emulate this … just as Europe did, centuries ago … and we are now too close as neighbors to tolerate when “safeties-off” societies like kleptocracies or theocracies get out of control.
> This is the real evil of people like Saddam and Osama — their refusal to submit themselves to such checks and balances, stemming from a refusal to recognize the rights of others. Read their statements, see who they have buddied up with in the past, see how they operate … what is driving all this is far, far more than resentment for alleged American malfesiance. They do not recognize our inalienable rights … and therefore demand that we bend to their will. What gives them the right to demand that?
One final thing … keep in mind that a lot of the opposition to this war is based on fear — a fear that views CEOs who might shred paper as a greater threat than thugs who do shred people. The ignorance of that view speaks for itself.
Very good points Rich, thanks. I do disagree with your final statement however, I do think there are many legit cases to be made agaist the war.
Ms. Dani-
“What oppressor? Hussein. OBL. Al qaeda. Ghaddafi. Taliban. Does a group/person have to have control of a state to be an oppressor? Is that a prerequisite?”
Yes, I think to oppress people, you need to have the power to do so. All of the people you mentioned except Al Queda were/are the heads of their state. And by the way, I don’t think WE are the bad guys, I just think it’s important to recognize where the enemy is coming from.
Richard:
I do acknowledge that there are people who do have principled opposition to the Bush Doctrine/War on Terror/ OP Iraqi Freedom (and I look forward to further elaboration of your opposition).
However, I still assert that the majority of the opposition is based upon an irrational and unjustified fear of those in this Administration, simply because they are, or are friends with, rich people.
It is an extension of what I call wealthist prejudice — the stereotyping of successful people as always building their success on the sore backs and butts of others.
We are so afraid that our leaders will act like greedy imperialists (because to the wealthist, they are “men of wealth” who “all look alike” in terms of greed), we ignore the very real threats dictators like Saddam & Sons pose when they have unfettered access to wealth and technology … and ignore the fact that we have avoided real imperialism for decades, despite an active foreign policy.