[POL] Winning Hearts & Minds...

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

If you want to withdraw from the world stage and turn this country into Fortress America, I suggest you run for office on that platform. I actually think the right politician could win on that message.

But, if you think that the United States will have to have dealings with the rest of the world, then you'd be an idiot to think that we should approach our foreign policy in any other way other than "what best benefits the United States?"

Again, hindsight is 20/20. I'm sure we could have done things differently in post-Soviet Afghanistan. I'm sure we could have done things differently in Iran. And maybe ten years from now, we'll look at Pakistan and say "well, we should have done this instead of that". We're playing chess with 168 different opponents. Sometimes it's hard to look ahead and see what the board will look like in 20 or 30 turns.

What I'm suggesting is just this: we have some broad principles that we stand for. Let's take promotion of democracy as an example. In some cases in the past we have decided to compromise that principle for what looks like immediate necessity (overthrowing democratic governments that oppose us or our interests). This has sometimes come back to haunt us (Iran). I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't interact with the rest of the world, but maybe we should not be so quick to jettison our basic principles in pursuance of immediate benefits. Maybe we should consider why we hold those principles to be important in the first place and realize that there may be bad consequences for ignoring them. This could be applied to arming and supporting terrorists and religious extremists (School of Americas, Al Qaeda) or supporting dangerous dictators (Iraq) or to the use of torture, etc., etc. The question is not whether we should act on the international stage, but how we should act. Lofty principles generally attain their high status for very sensible reasons. We would do well to remember what those are. But neither would I suggest that we never make compromises, but just on a scale from perfect adherence to principle to complete abandonment, we've leaned a bit to far towards abandonment for my tastes.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that it's very easy for critics of this country to point out mistakes that were made in the past, but it's a very different thing to ask them for a plan for the future.

But if we want to look at the future ramifications of our actions, let me ask: what's your plan? What do you think we should be doing now that we're not?

To be fair to Cam, this is a reasonable point to make - and one the critics are apt to ignore. Geopolitics, by its very nature, is a field that lends itself to extreme hindsight - the usefulness of which is often more limited than it appears at first sight. Politics, as they say, makes for strange bedfellows sometimes.

My point (and it may have been in this or the Hamas thread - hard to tell in the last couple of days) is that's lets at least acknowledge the realpolitik for what it is, as opposed to bullshitting about a "moral imperative". What the administration tried to do in Iraq is change the rules of the game - the initial arguement was based almost primarily on WMD's, and then it came it full circle to the terrorism and "moral imperative" bit (I don't think these facts are disputable - and I'd be curious if you will try and make the case that WMD's were not the initial focus). What hindsight can tell us is that one ought to carefully evaluate the decisions made - and it appears as if there was some pressure on the CIA to produce certain answers - the right questions weren't being asked - rather, the right answers were being sought. Look, I believed Iraq had WMD's, and general evidence had suggested that most people (including, for the most part, the Europeans and even the Indians/Chinese/Russians) thought they had, or were gaining the capability. However, the means for making the decision (and the flat out ignorance of opposing evidence) is what is worrysome, and is open to criticism, above and beyond the decision itself.

Cam, doesn't it terrify you that the propoganda after the war started was such that 40% of Americans (and a significantly higher proportion of self-identified Republicans) thought that Sadaam was responsible for 9-11 ? If this is a war of ideas (one thing Bush is dead-on about), than does not one bear the responsibility to full portray those ideas, as opposed to hiding behind fig leaves (my primarily problem with the Dutch's of the world, as opposed to the JIMGA's) ?

[Dutch]

And to be clear, we did not find WMD's, we did not prove they did not exist or still exist.

[JPhillips]

Again, hindsight is 20/20. I'm sure we could have done things differently in post-Soviet Afghanistan. I'm sure we could have done things differently in Iran. And maybe ten years from now, we'll look at Pakistan and say "well, we should have done this instead of that". We're playing chess with 168 different opponents. Sometimes it's hard to look ahead and see what the board will look like in 20 or 30 turns.

That's not really the argument, Cam. I know we can't see everything in advance, but a lot of the people running this war have repeatedly made mistakes that they were warned about at the time. This isn't a case of nobody knew any different. Lots of people warned that what we're in the middle of was the most likely outcome and nobody in authority listened.

But its no surprise since a lot of these folks ignored the warnings about Afghanistan in the eighties. Read Charlie Wilson's war if you want a good history. We were warned not to back some of the extremist warlords that we supported and we ignored it. We could have allied ourselves with the resistance without pouring millions in cash and weapons to extremists that we assumed would turn against us. We were also warned to stop supporting the Mujahideen after the Soviet withdrawal, but we didn't and continued to give money and weapons to many of the guys we're either hunting or have already killed.

For all of the talk of putting the grown ups in charge, this has been a disaster not of intent but of planning, the very thing that the adults should have been doing.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Cam, doesn't it terrify you that the propoganda after the war started was such that 40% of Americans (and a significantly higher proportion of self-identified Republicans) thought that Sadaam was responsible for 9-11 ? If this is a war of ideas (one thing Bush is dead-on about), than does not one bear the responsibility to full portray those ideas, as opposed to hiding behind fig leaves (my primarily problem with the Dutch's of the world, as opposed to the JIMGA's) ?

Honestly (and i doubt you believe me), I don't remember any "propaganda" suggesting Hussein was behind 9/11. I just don't. Does it terrify me that 40% of Americans believed it? No. I'm more terrified that almost 50% of Americans believed John Kerry would be a better leader for this country.

[Solecismic]

And 45% believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old, speaking of statistics that just blow the mind.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Honestly (and i doubt you believe me), I don't remember any "propaganda" suggesting Hussein was behind 9/11. I just don't. Does it terrify me that 40% of Americans believed it? No. I'm more terrified that almost 50% of Americans believed John Kerry would be a better leader for this country.

It doesn't bother you that 40% of Americans (or wherabouts) believed in a demonstarted falsehood ? That's worrysome, IMO. If you have faith in your ideas as winners, than why aren't you bothered by the need to misguide in order to support it ?

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

And 45% believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old, speaking of statistics that just blow the mind.

You're kidding - right ? No way.

[CamEdwards]

In 1964, only 38% of Americans knew the Soviet Union wasn't a part of NATO.

In 1970 30% of Americans believed we didn't really go to the moon (Knight Newspapers poll). In 1993 a poll of Ivy League students showed half of them couldn't identify their U.S. Senators.

Polls in 2004, according to Jeff Jacoby with the Boston Globe, showed nearly 65% of Americans didn't know Congress had banned partial birth abortions.

So no, I'm not terrified by your statistic. I'm not even surprised by it.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

No. I'm more terrified that almost 50% of Americans believed John Kerry would be a better leader for this country.

I'm not a John Kerry fan, but it's hard for me to understand why it terrify you that 50% of the country thought he would be a better leader than George Bush. Both of them are pretty unappealing as far as leadership goes, IMO. George Bush certainly hasn't created any distinction from Kerry, in my mind.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

You're kidding - right ? No way.

I'm surprised that 45% number isn't even higher, just based on two different factors:

-Religion
-Lack of education

[Jesse_Ewiak]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

I'm not a John Kerry fan, but it's hard for me to understand why it terrify you that 50% of the country thought he would be a better leader than George Bush. Both of them are pretty unappealing as far as leadership goes, IMO. George Bush certainly hasn't created any distinction from Kerry, in my mind.

Because Kerry if he was President would personally take Cam's guns away from him.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

If you want to withdraw from the world stage and turn this country into Fortress America, I suggest you run for office on that platform.

As long as we get laser cannons, I'm on board!

Hope someone gets the reference...

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Jesse_Ewiak

Because Kerry if he was President would personally take Cam's guns away from him.

Actually, it's because people like you would be running the country. That's enough to give me the willies.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Honestly (and i doubt you believe me), I don't remember any "propaganda" suggesting Hussein was behind 9/11. I just don't. Does it terrify me that 40% of Americans believed it? No. I'm more terrified that almost 50% of Americans believed John Kerry would be a better leader for this country.

That's because it doesn't exist. It's just that GW is such a brilliant communicator that he has convinced us of this through some verbal (or is it mental) sleight of hand. I've long argued that the polls that show that are so unabashedly biased that they are worthless, but all I've gotten is response is classification as a Bushie Ostrich with my head in the sand, and some political insight from Flasch's house keeper.

On the Kerry bit. I'm pretty sure a good sized chunk of that nearly 50% that voted for Kerry were actually thinking that even Kerry would be better than Bush.

[Raiders Army]

VOTE JESSE_EWIAK

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

As long as we get laser cannons, I'm on board!

If I can get a Hovertank, I'm in as well.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Honestly (and i doubt you believe me), I don't remember any "propaganda" suggesting Hussein was behind 9/11. I just don't.

You're right. I don't believe you. How can you forget any of these gems?

Originally Posted by Bush's 2003 SOTU

With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress and the America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qaida. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.

Originally Posted by Powell's speech before the U.N. Security Council

But what I want to bring to your attention today is the potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the al-Qaida terrorist network, a nexus that combines classic terrorist organizations and modern methods of murder. Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi an associate and collaborator of Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida lieutenants. … But Baghdad has an agent in the most senior levels of the radical organization Ansar al-Islam that controls this corner of Iraq. In 2000, this agent offered al-Qaida safe haven in the region. We know members of both organizations met repeatedly and have met at least eight times at very senior levels since the early 1990s. In 1996, a foreign security service tells us that bin Laden met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official in Khartoum and later met the director of the Iraqi intelligence service. Saddam became more interested as he saw al-Qaida’s appalling attacks. A detained al-Qaida member tells us that Saddam was more willing to assist al-Qaida after the 1998 bombings of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Saddam was also impressed by al-Qaida’s attacks on the USS Cole in Yemen in October 2000.”

Originally Posted by Bush aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln

The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 — and still goes on. That terrible morning, 19 evil men — the shock troops of a hateful ideology — gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions. They imagined, in the words of one terrorist, that September the 11th would be the ‘beginning of the end of America.’ By seeking to turn our cities into killing fields, terrorists and their allies believed that they could destroy this nation’s resolve, and force our retreat from the world. They have failed.

Originally Posted by Bush's 3 May 2003 radio address

The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that still goes on. al-Qaida is wounded, not destroyed. The scattered cells of the terrorist networks still operate in many nations. And we know from daily intelligence that they continue to plot against free people. The proliferation of deadly weapons remains a serious danger. The enemies of freedom are not idle, and neither are we. Our government has taken unprecedented measures to defend our homeland and, more importantly, we will continue to hunt the enemy down before he can strike. No act of terrorists will change our purpose or weaken our resolve or alter their fate. Their cause is lost. Free nations will press on to victory.

Granted, no one in the administration came out and blamed Hussein for 11 September, but they used every opportunity they could get to link him to al-Qaida.

If (al-Qaida=11 September) and (Hussein=al-Qaida), then Hussein=11 September.

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

I'm more terrified that almost 50% of Americans believed John Kerry would be a better leader for this country.

And I'm appalled that over 50% felt that Bush was a better leader.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

That's because it doesn't exist. It's just that GW is such a brilliant communicator that he has convinced us of this through some verbal (or is it mental) sleight of hand. I've long argued that the polls that show that are so unabashedly biased that they are worthless, but all I've gotten is response is classification as a Bushie Ostrich with my head in the sand, and some political insight from Flasch's house keeper.

On the Kerry bit. I'm pretty sure a good sized chunk of that nearly 50% that voted for Kerry were actually thinking that even Kerry would be better than Bush.

Blen, most Americans don't distinguish between brown people. So when Bush et al say, "The terrorists attackes us first on 9/11, so we have to take out Saddam", that equates to linking the two. That's Propaganda 101, and this administration has a masters degree in it, so that type of association is amatuer hour to them. You are pretty well informed, so I suspect that you already see that, and just think that the ends justify the means, which is why you dismiss even the thought of it as ludicrous to keep the people that are really clueless from catching on.

[CamEdwards]

so... in order to prove the point that President Bush said Iraq was responsible for September 11th, you post a bunch of quotes that don't say that, and then you yourself say that he didn't say that.

Of course President Bush talked about links to Iraq. Hell, Bill Clinton's government talked about Iraq and al Queda's links. Look up Osama's 1998 indictment. It's fairly interesting.

And I'm sorry you're appalled at the results of the election. I sincerely hope your candidate in 2008 has a better message than your candidate in 2004 did. I'd love to be torn between who I'm going to vote for.

[Jesse_Ewiak]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Actually, it's because people like you would be running the country. That's enough to give me the willies.

Nah. I'm the first to admit that I'm to the left of even large parts of the Democratic Party. BTW, you do realize that according to the rules of how the world works, your kid is going to go to Berkeley and my future child's hero will be Reagan, right? :-)

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

so... in order to prove the point that President Bush said Iraq was responsible for September 11th, you post a bunch of quotes that don't say that, and then you yourself say that he didn't say that.

Of course President Bush talked about links to Iraq. Hell, Bill Clinton's government talked about Iraq and al Queda's links. Look up Osama's 1998 indictment. It's fairly interesting.

And I'm sorry you're appalled at the results of the election. I sincerely hope your candidate in 2008 has a better message than your candidate in 2004 did. I'd love to be torn between who I'm going to vote for.

Like I mentioned in the other thread, Bush is now stealing Kerry's ideas on foreign policy, ideas that he mocked during the election. So I'm curious what message you are looking for. Big talk that doesn't work in the real world, I guess.

BTW, is it possible for Bush and Clinton to both be wrong, or does agreement equate to being right? You trot out 'Clinton said it too' as if it's self-evident that that proves your point.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Jesse_Ewiak

Nah. I'm the first to admit that I'm to the left of even large parts of the Democratic Party. BTW, you do realize that according to the rules of how the world works, your kid is going to go to Berkeley and my future child's hero will be Reagan, right? :-)

Actually, considering how liberal my wife is, I'm guessing that most of my kids will be completely apolitical. My stepdaughter voted for Kerry last year, but I love her anyway.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Like I mentioned in the other thread, Bush is now stealing Kerry's ideas on foreign policy, ideas that he mocked during the election. So I'm curious what message you are looking for. Big talk that doesn't work in the real world, I guess.

BTW, is it possible for Bush and Clinton to both be wrong, or does agreement equate to being right? You trot out 'Clinton said it too' as if it's self-evident that that proves your point.

President Bush has declared that the Yazuka is the biggest threat to this country? Well, that's scary.

Of course it's possible for both President Bush and President Clinton, and their respective Justice Departments, and their respective CIA's, and their respective FBI's, and their respective NSA's, etc. etc. to be wrong.

It's also possible the 9/11 Commission was wrong. Yet you seem to be completely unwilling to accept that premise (or at least as unwilling as I am to accept that they're right).

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

President Bush has declared that the Yazuka is the biggest threat to this country? Well, that's scary.

I don't understand your right wing talking point. I don't even know what a Yazuka is.

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Of course it's possible for both President Bush and President Clinton, and their respective Justice Departments, and their respective CIA's, and their respective FBI's, and their respective NSA's, etc. etc. to be wrong.

Hmmm...every agency has said that there was no link between Al-Q and Saddam (except for the FBI, as far as know, because they don't really deal with foreign intelligence). Because there wasn't. So I'm curious as to why you say they were wrong.

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

It's also possible the 9/11 Commission was wrong. Yet you seem to be completely unwilling to accept that premise (or at least as unwilling as I am to accept that they're right).

It's possible they were wrong, but when you have zero evidence, it's kind of hard to be taken seriously, and even harder to start a war based on it.

[CamEdwards]

I'm going to provide you with a series of links. Yes, they are all from right wing publications, which will allow you to dismiss them out of hand. But considering your side of the political spectrum would never actually admit that there were connections, it's kind of difficult to find a Mother Jones article on the subject.

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=092503F

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...3/527uwabl.asp

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...3/033jgqyi.asp

http://www.spokesmanreview.com/natio...y.asp?ID=12798

Actually, that last one was from Knight-Ridder syndicate, so perhaps it will meet with your approval.

Again, I'm not suggesting that Iraq was responsible for 9/11.

Oh, one more: here's the 1998 indictment of bin Laden:

http://www.fas.org/irp/news/1998/11/98110602_nlt.html

Additionally, the indictment states that Al Qaeda reached an agreement
with Iraq not to work against the regime of Saddam Hussein and that
they would work cooperatively with Iraq, particularly in weapons
development.

That information could not have been determined without help from the CIA, NSA, etc., which is why I pointed out that the agencies believe there were connections.

[Glengoyne]

Hey I'm just happy that both Jessie and Giggles have both admitted that Bush never directly linked Saddam with the attacks on 9/11.

Now to bookmark this thread.

As for the ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq.

Based on the argument the admin was making, all that was required, in my opinion, was that the two had a dialogue. If they are willing to talk, and they both hate the United States, I'm willing to concede that the two of them might find a way to work together. The links that even the liberals will admit to seem to constitute a history of the two entities communicating.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Come on, now. Please tell my you guys are smarter than this.

Of course Bush never claimed Hussein ever had anything to do with 11 Sept (although Cheney has come close several times), because that's how politicians speak. They don't come out and say something directly. They let their words dance around the subject and let pundits make the connections for them. You know, that whole "liberal media" you guys are always complaining about. I don't recall hearing anyone in the Bush administration coming out before the war saying definitively that Iraq had nothing to do with 11 Sept.

Cam, go read those quotes I posted again and tell me that Bush and Powell don't imply a connection between Hussein and al-Qaida.

Based on the argument the admin was making, all that was required, in my opinion, was that the two had a dialogue. If they are willing to talk, and they both hate the United States, I'm willing to concede that the two of them might find a way to work together. The links that even the liberals will admit to seem to constitute a history of the two entities communicating.

Does this mean that every time two groups that hate America talk to each other that gives us an excuse to invade? If so, we had better get that draft going because there are a lot of countries out there that need to get that good 'ole 'Merican smack-down.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

I'm going to provide you with a series of links. Yes, they are all from right wing publications, which will allow you to dismiss them out of hand. But considering your side of the political spectrum would never actually admit that there were connections, it's kind of difficult to find a Mother Jones article on the subject.

It kind of says something about your argument when the only sources you can find are right wing rags, and not even a FoxNews story, not to even mention a reputable foriegn policy journal. But let's look at the content:

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...3/033jgqyi.asp

Big theory: "The CIA has confirmed, in interviews with detainees and informants it finds highly credible, that al Qaeda's Number 2, Ayman al-Zawahiri, met with Iraqi intelligence in Baghdad in 1992 and 1998."

Obvious logical inconsistency of the argument: Al Queda wasn't formed until later in 1998, after the supposed meeting.

Other problems: No evidence is presented in the article, beyond the nebulous 'Iraqi defectors', which were also the evidence that we used to say that Iraq was crawling with WMD's. Solid sources, no doubt.

Bonus wingnuttery:

Contrary to the claims of its critics, the Bush administration has consistently underplayed the connections between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. emphasis theirs

Yeah, that sounds like them.

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...3/527uwabl.asp

Big theory: The connection between a plant that turned out to be making aspirin and Iraq is from an ABC correspondent in 1998: "The U.S. had been suspicious for months, partly because of Osama bin Laden's financial ties, but also because of strong connections to Iraq. Sources say the U.S. had intercepted phone calls from the plant to a man in Iraq who runs that country's chemical weapons program."

Obvious logical problem: Iraq had no chemical weapons program, hence the person who runs it is a figment of someone's imagination.

Bonus wingnuttery:

But there is bound to be more discussion of al Shifa and Iraq-al Qaeda connections in the coming weeks. The Senate Intelligence Committee is nearing completion of its review of prewar intelligence. And although there is still no CIA team assigned to look at the links between Iraq and al Qaeda, investigators looking at documents from the fallen regime continue to uncover new information about those connections on a regular basis.

That's so accurate, it's nearly prophetic!

I don't know why the MSM isn't ALL OVER THIS!

Oh right, probably because it's just conspiracy theory.

[sterlingice]

It's so damning that some people don't take unabashedly biased news sources as truth

Originally Posted by wikipedia

Critics have claimed that the Weekly Standard lacks objectivity, citing an interview with senior Standard writer Matt Labash published by JournalismJobs.com in May 2003. Asked why conservative media outlets had enjoyed recent popularity, Labash responded "Because they feed the rage. We bring the pain to the liberal media. I say that mockingly, but it's true somewhat. We come with a strong point of view and people like point of view journalism. While all these hand-wringing Freedom Forum types talk about objectivity, the conservative media likes to rap the liberal media on the knuckles for not being objective. We've created this cottage industry in which it pays to be un-objective. It pays to be subjective as much as possible. It's a great way to have your cake and eat it too. Criticize other people for not being objective. Be as subjective as you want. It's a great little racket. I'm glad we found it actually." [1] (*Note: The White House also receives over 100 copies daily of the Wall Street Journal.)

SI