Mrs. Wakely

There's a spirited debate going on here: http://www.rightwinglunatic.com/2008/01/interrogator-invasion-surprised-saddam.html

 

And normally, I would just point you there, but because Mrs. Wakely has brought up several good points, I decided to copy and paste her, (I assume it's a her), posts as well as my rebuttals.  Also, I would like to thank Mrs. Wakely for standing up and saying what she believes in.  It's the Freedom Of Speech that we have that allows us to have such a spirited debate without fear of reprisals or fear of something happening to us or our families from the government because we disagree with a particular way of thinking.

 

Travis
We invade Iraq because:
1. He had WMD (he didn't)
2. He was an "imminent threat to our national security" (he wasn't)
3. He had "operational ties" to Al Queda and the 9/11 attacks" (he didn't)
What in this interview changes that? Seems to me it confirmed that all 3 were dead wrong. Is it enough that Piro said Hussein "would have liked to reconstitute his WMD program IF he could?" Is that really news? Does anybody opposing the war not agree that "if" he could, he would have? I don't think so. The bottom line is, Bush, at the very LEAST knew that a number of the claims he and his surrogates were making about Saddam and Iraq were sketchy at best, and some of it outright lies. The reason we haven't gotten control of the oil is because we haven't gotten control of the security situation, and probably won't. We are seen as, and in fact are, occupiers of a Muslim country. Whatever good intentions Bush and company may have had? They screwed the pooch. Bush will go down in history as the worst, dumbest, most incompetent President in American history, and the people who voted for him, not once, but twice (?!) are responsible for putting him there. I'd say it's time for you to take your medicine and admit you've been a very gullible, naive, fool, and nearly 4 thousand American troops, uncounted American and foreign contractors, and 100,000 to 500,000 (who really knows?) Iraqi citizens, some guilty, most innocent - "collateral damage" - are dead as a result. 3 million Iraqi's have fled the country, the infrastructure is a complete disaster, the entire region has been radicalized directly due to our presence there, the U.S.'s good name has been dragged through the mud around the world, and guys like you are STILL trying to wiggle your way out of what your boy King George the Moron, hath wrought. Shame on you.

# posted by MrsWakely : January 27, 2008 9:05 PM

He had WMD's, we've found over 500 of them that he was not allowed to have. Yes, they were older, however, that's not the point.
He continued to fire upon our aircraft patrolling the no fly zone - An act of war.
Whether or not he had "operational ties" to Al-Qaeda is up for debate, although I don't personally see the connection.
Everyone, and I mean EVERYONE thought Saddam was a threat, including me. Take a look at your leaders: Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, have all made statements saying that Saddam was a threat. He was personally paying the families of Palestinian suicide bombers out of Iraqi fund. That's a state sponsor of terrorism, a threat.
He made attempts to assassinate George Bush Sr., another act of war, and a terroristic act.
I don't know what kind of bullshit media reports you've been reading, but Iraq is far from the "quagmire" that you portray it out to be.
If you even agree that Saddam wanted to continue his WMD program, and he was firing upon our aircraft and making anti-American statements, are you going to just sit idly by while a threat grows until it is too late?
That's the same type of position that Bill Clinton took when it came to Osama Bin Laden, and we have all seen where that got us.
If the "entire region" has been radicalized, why are civilian's coming out in record numbers to report terrorist cells?
Why are there normal Iranian civilians protesting Ahmadinejad's fiery rhetoric and saying they want peace with the US?
Why are other Arab nations supporting the war to this day with things such as logistics and permission to fly over their airspace? (Qatar, Kuwait, Jordan, Saudi Arabia to name a few)
Face it, Saddam was a threat, you Democrats/liberals dropped the ball on it, and you're pissed that George Bush actually did something about it.
Did it go "according to plan"? No of course not, no war has ever done that. But it takes a person with a backbone to make tough decisions about threats against this nation that Democrats are sorely lacking.
Was I "gullible"? Perhaps I was/am. However, when every soldier I see coming home from Iraq is saying that the media is vastly distorting the picture of what's going on in Iraq, I tend to believe them over Keith Olbermann.
Ever wonder why the war in Iraq has dropped off the front page of the news lately? It's difficult to say Iraq is a "quagmire" that the US cannot win in, when you have cold, hard, facts showing you otherwise.
That being said, I do welcome your opinion. Healthy political debate is something that you enjoy in our country that Saddam didn't allow in his.
Travis

# posted by Travis : January 27, 2008 10:02 PM

Look - the bottom line on all your excuses is, the U.S. Congress, had Bush gone to them and said, "We're not really sure Saddam has WMD, or whether he was in any way linked to Al Queda and 9/11, and we can't really make the case he is an imminent threat to our national security, (all things Bush KNEW to be true at the time), but I want you to give me the authority to invade anyway" (imagine THAT speech), would have resulted in him being laughed out of the Capital.
Any rational reading of ANY of the major, inside accounts of the period, will tell you that, in the immediate, post-9/11 environment, Bush and company made a calculated decision to invade Iraq because they knew they could take Saddam down like the Girl Scout troop he was ("if they do invade give me 2 weeks" he said to Piro we found out last night) and they expected to find enough WMD to justify the invasion, then set about the business of installing a pro-U.S. government that would play ball, and give us direct access to permanent bases to help control the region against Islamic Terrorism and, oh right, have a big 'ol taste of Iraq's oil. Why? Because our relationship with Saudi Arabia was beginning to sour in a big way, and our bases there were one of the main reasons Bin Laden attacked us in the first place. The problem was, Bush and his enablers knew little or nothing about the tribal and ethnic history of the country they were about to invade, they didn't anticipate an insurgency, and they certainly didn't anticipate that the whole thing would go belly up on them in a fairly short amount of time. "You don't know how wars will go" is a separate consideration from "you shouldn't present the public with a series of half-truths and outright lies justifying war in the first place." People tend not to look kindly on that, and I'd say you're way out of touch with the overwhelming majority of the American people and, oh yeah, the rest of the world. You can't invade a country based on false pretenses and expect it to go well - long term. You'd think he would have lerned from Vietnam (oops. he wasn't there. He ws doing blow in Alabama while campaigning for one of his Daddy's pals) that country's don't like being occupied. Especially Muslim ones. They tend to fight longer and harder than the occupiers, who tend to exhaust public support and eventually limp home (see: Soviet Union-Afghanistan, China/France/U.S.-Vietnam, Great Britain-India/Africa/Middle East. The list goes on...)
The military finished its job in Iraq years ago. When do you think invading and occupying a Muslim country under false pretenses is going ot suddenly become a good idea? I'd say you're on the wrong side of this one buddy. If you're not careful , you could end up one of those people still arguing that the South didn't really lose the Civil War. or that we really won in Vietnam, or that Building 7 was brought down by timed explosives and the Pentagon wasn't really hit by a plane. You know - crazy people.

# posted by MrsWakely : January 28, 2008 9:29 AM

Here's Murtha's post from today. I guess he's just another "surrender monkey" right? Only served 2 tours in 'nam as a Marine (while your boys, Bush and Cheney, were doing the chickenhawk shuffle) and remains one of the biggest military supporters in congress, who knows more about what the military inside dope is than you or I ever will. Why don't you take it up with him? Careful though - it would be embarrassing to get your ass kicked by an old man.
----------------------------
I make routine visits to our troops in the field and to those recovering at our military hospitals. I'm inspired by their service and dedication to this great country. But, the America they serve and protect today is far different than the America that existed prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
Email
Print
Comment
In just a few weeks, we will mark the fifth anniversary of the beginning of the war in Iraq. Five years later, the political and economic situation on the ground has changed little, while the rest of the world, including the United States, has changed significantly.
We are familiar with the visible costs associated with the war in Iraq and the sacrifices that our men and women in uniform and their families are making. We've lost nearly 4,000 troops, over 28,700 have been wounded and we have appropriated over $535 billion. But, we are less familiar with the hidden costs, and these will have long-term consequences. Every penny of the $535 billion we've appropriated thus far has been borrowed, meaning that the same Americans sacrificing in Iraq today will be paying for this borrowed war for the rest of their lives. It is estimated that the long-term costs of injuries alone will be at least a further $300 billion.
Since the war began, the international credibility and respect of the United States has plummeted while instability has grown throughout the region. We've seen a dramatic rise in the economic, military and global influence of both Russia and China. An emboldened Iran seeks to more aggressively assert influence in the region. Our NATO allies are unwilling or unable to provide an additional 3,000 troops for Afghanistan. And the price of oil has climbed from $27.18 per barrel before the war began to $92.82 today.
Here at home, we are borrowing $343 million every day to finance the war in Iraq while shortchanging our domestic needs. The American economy is slipping towards a recession as our housing market and financial sector are experiencing serious crises. Gas at the pump has increased from $1.76 per gallon before the war began to its current price of $3.07 per gallon. Our national debt has ballooned by $2.75 trillion, increasing by nearly $1 million per minute, while the value of the American dollar relative to other currencies has plummeted.
In the military, we have seen a deterioration of readiness, equipment and recruitment standards. We are not able to maintain the number of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan without breaking the military's own guidelines. Before the Iraq war, 80 percent of all Army units and almost 100 percent of active-duty combat units were rated at the highest level of military readiness. Just the opposite exists today. Virtually all of our active-duty combat units in the United States, and all of our guard units, are rated not combat-ready. This means that we can not sustain the current troop levels in Iraq and Afghanistan let alone provide a credible deterrent to other potential adversaries.
In order to meet recruitment goals, the Army is accepting a higher percentage of recruits who would previously have been disqualified from service because of the lack of a high school diploma, a previous criminal record, drug or alcohol problems or a health condition. Since the invasion of Iraq, the percentage of Army recruits with a high school diploma has decreased from 94 percent to 71 percent. Before the war began, 4.6 percent of Army recruits required a waiver for a criminal record; today that figure has risen to 11.2 percent.
As I've said before, our ground forces in the United States simply do not have their required equipment, and the equipment of our ground forces overseas is wearing out. It will take years and tens of billions of dollars to rehabilitate this equipment and to re-equip the force. The Air Force operates and maintains a fleet of aircraft with an average age of 24 years. When I left Vietnam in 1967, the average age of our aircraft was 8.5 years. The Navy's current shipbuilding request is grossly inadequate to meet the goal of a 313 ship fleet while maintaining our naval superiority.
I haven't even mentioned the fiscal challenges we face with health care, education, infrastructure, and the Medicare and Social Security programs.
These aren't Democratic problems or Republican problems. These are American problems.
Our next President and the American people must understand that it will require tremendous resources and strong bipartisan and international cooperation to begin to solve these problems. The future of our great country depends on it.

# posted by MrsWakely : January 28, 2008 9:41 AM

MrsWakely,
First off, you haven't addressed a single one of my points that I raised about Saddam. Personally, I don't care about Saudi Arabia's friendship. They've been fair weather friends at best, and continue to allow the teaching of hatred in their schools against Jews and Western nations.
Let me make one thing clear though: I do NOT care about the opinion of the rest of the world. When the world is in trouble, they look to America (1992 Gulf War, 2004 Tsunami, Earthquakes in Iran, Pakistan, and other areas, Genocide in Europe, etc.) And what do we get for our troubles? People pissed off at us. People were pissed at us LONG before the Iraq war.
Most of the rest of the world tends to look favorably upon us when we're there to help with money, food, and medical supplies. However, when we ask for something in return, we're given the cold shoulder. Yet, people like you seem to think that that's ok. America does horrible things all the time right?
So yes, maybe next time we invade a country, for whatever reason, we should just bomb the hell out of them, then leave right? That's basically what you're saying. We should leave Iraq as a smoldering crater with civilians having no food, water, or electricity. Sounds like a good idea to me.
Now tell me this, were we misled by Bush's "lies" or was he, and just about every other intelligence agency and politician in the world just simply wrong? There's a very large difference there. When did I ever say that invading ANY country under false pretenses was a good idea? I think you're reaching there for something that isn't there.
Also, I don't care where Bush was during his military service. However, if you are referring to the documents that Dan Rather told everyone about, those have been proven to be false without a shadow of a doubt.
As a side note, the South lost, you can debate Vietnam 50,000 of our dead vs. 2 million of their dead. But building 7 was brought down by falling debris and fires (I've seen the photos, the damage was significant), and the Pentagon was hit by a plane (hundreds of people saw it).
By the way, I did see Loose Change, and that story that they do tell is completely filled with holes and outright fabrications. Then, when they are shown that they are wrong, they change their story and make "Loose Change 2 - Electric Bologna"
For you see, I'm also a big science geek, and the "controlled explosions" theory has so many holes, I could write a book on where they are wrong.
Perhaps if you do a little bit of searching around on my site, you'll see I do make fun of conspiracy theorists such as Charlie Sheen and Rosie O'Donnell.
Also, if you'd like to take a look at the history books, we aided the Afghan rebels against the Soviet Union. Just Google "Charlie Wilson" and you'll get an idea of what I'm talking about. The Afghans would have been slaughtered if we hadn't had given them stinger anti-aircraft missiles to take down the Russian helicopters.
We were doing it to help the Afghans as well as pay back Russia for their support of the North Vietnamese during the Vietnam war.
A little history will give you a greater perspective on things that are going on to this day.
Travis

# posted by Travis : January 28, 2008 9:54 AM

MrsWakely
First off, my main problem that I have with John Murtha is that he has a tendency to backstab people. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with him calling fellow Marines "cold blooded murderers" when it was suspected that they had killed Iraqi civilians. Well they are in the process of having the charges dropped. (I haven't checked the status of the case lately, but they were dropping charges last I checked)
"My Boys", that you'd like to call them, aren't Bush and Cheney. Yes, I voted for them, twice, but I prefer Norman Schwartzkopf, Colin Powell, John McCain, and George Patton. Leaders who know right from wrong and made difficult decisions under intense pressure.
So tell me, who did you vote for for President? John Kerry? Is he "your boy" as you say? Or did you not vote at all?
I have NEVER disparaged someone's military service. In fact, when I disagree with someone that has a military background, the first thing I do is thank them for their service, then proceed to take up my point with them. Case in point, search for Jon Soltz on my site. He's an Iraq veteran that I disagree with passionately on a lot of issues, but when I do disagree with him, I thanked him for his service for our country.
So don't think that you can get away with implying that I'm some how a "chicken hawk" or that I try to dishonor those who've served. When you've sent care packages to soldiers in Iraq, set up video conferencing computers for loved ones back home for FREE for them to see and hear their husbands/wives over there, and made sure that things they couldn't do were taken care of, THEN you can talk, but until then, I suggest you learn about who you're speaking with before you imply falsehoods.
Travis

# posted by Travis : January 28, 2008 10:09 AM

As a side note, when Saddam was in custody before his execution, I noticed that NOT ONE PERSON on the Left advocated that we release Saddam and put him back into power.
I mean, if this war is "illegal", then that would be the right thing to do right? How come no one ever said that or brought it up?

# posted by Travis : January 28, 2008 10:10 AM