Historic Anniversary - March 19th a Day of Infamy Issues Beyond Palo Alto, posted by Pearl, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Mar 19, 2012 at 10:27 am
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it - George Santayana, 1906
March 19, the invasion of Iraq, a country that did not attack the United States.
"Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof---the smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud." ---George W. Bush (10/7/02)
My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence." ---Colin Powell, United Nations Speech (2/5/03)
"My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators." ---Dick Cheney (3/16/03)
"[T]he area in the south and the west and the north that coalition forces control is substantial. It happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." ---Donald Rumsfeld (3/30/03)
Who said war never solved anything? ---Brendan Miniter, Assistant Editor, Wall St. Journal (4/8/03)
"Each morning, we sat reading our copy of The New York Times, The Washington Post or the Los Angeles Times and ruminated on their prophecies of doom and quagmire. Then we looked up to see, on television, correspondents actually embedded with our troops reporting quick advances, one-sided firefights, melting opposition and, finally, welcoming crowds." ---Dick Morris (4/15/03)
"The only people who think this wasn't a victory are Upper Westside liberals." ---Charles Krauthammer (4/19/03)
TED KOPPEL: [Y]ouíre not suggesting that the rebuilding of Iraq is going to be done for $1.7 billion?
ANDREW NATSIOS [Agency for International Development]: Well, in terms of the American taxpayer's contribution, I do. This is it for the US. ---Nightline (4/23/03)
[Liberals] can't deny that President Bush has won his two wars, and won them resoundingly. ---Paul Mirengoff, Powerline (4/26/03)
With the exception of General Powell - CHICKENHAWKS, one and all.
Never forget these crimes against our veterans, the brave men and women of the United States military. Today's current crop of politicians owe to our service men and women an explanation of their positions on war and the correct use of military power.
Posted by Gary, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Mar 19, 2012 at 2:51 pm
The Liberation of Iraq was, and is, the most existential event, thus far, in the 21st century. Saddam is GONE!!! That means DEAD! Saddam had WMD, and he used them on his own people. Germany was liberated from Hitler, and Japan from the Imperial militarists, and Iraq is liberated from Saddam, and the Soviet Union is now liberated from the socialist yoke of Marx and Lenin and Stalin. Thanks go to a variety of U.S. presidents, for all of the above, especially Roosevelt, Truman, Ike, Reagan, Bush I and Bush II.
Posted by Gary, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Mar 19, 2012 at 3:56 pm
I'm not going to re-argue the case for war against Iraq. It was fully justified, and it was a substantial success and, if Obama holds the line, it will be seen as an existential change in course, at the beginning of the 21st century.
A dead bin laden is a good thing, but it is not enough. Obama agrees with me...he surged in Afghanistan...gotta keep the sand box away from those who want to play in it to kill the West.
Iraq is an even more important issue: It was the beginning of the end of the Mid-East tough guys. American leaders, like Obama, need to step up to the plate, and take lessons from presidents like FDR, Truman, Ike, Reagan, Bush (I & II).
Posted by Gary, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Mar 19, 2012 at 4:17 pm
One has to wonder how Obama became so quiet, when the Green revolution was going on in Iran. This revolution would never have started, but for the defeat of Saddam in Iraq. When Obama had a magnificent chance to step into leadership, he decided to bow down to the mullahs in Iran. I doubt that Obama will be included in the pantheon of great U.S. Presidents, like Reagan and FDR. The previous President that he reminds me of is Carter.
Posted by Cedrick, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Mar 19, 2012 at 5:01 pm
Gary - answer Pearl's question and prove your claim from your first post instead of going off on another wild tangent. There was no WMD when we invaded - every inspector told the world there was no WMD.
Try doing so without boring us again about how you used to be a socialist or a commie or whatever.
Iran? as Pearl quoted: those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. Every one of those quotes was parroted by all the wacko righites - Rush, Hanity, Beck, etc.. They were all wrong. Why would anyone ever consider anything from a person who was so demonstrably WRONG?
Iraq was an unmitigated disaster for our great country.
Posted by Gary, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Mar 19, 2012 at 6:43 pm
"Gary - answer Pearl's question and prove your claim from your first post instead of going off on another wild tangent. There was no WMD when we invaded - every inspector told the world there was no WMD."
Hans Blix also said that there was no nuclear program in Iraq. He was wrong, despite all the inspections. Saddam's own son-in-law defected, and told the truth. I think the Swedish inspector's own words were "I have eggs on my face" .
Saddam had WMD. He used them on his own people. The best intelligence, among the Western powers, and even Saddam's own generals was that he still had them, and intended to use them. There is little doubt that he still had his WMD program, and intended to ramp it up.
The world is immensely better off, now that Saddam is dead. Good job GWB!
The essential question is: Can Obama hold the line? Truman did. Ike did. Reagan did (and much more!...he won the cold war). Bush I& II did (and somewhat more).
Saddam is dead, and that is a great thing! The major domo thugs in that region were put on notice. Now, the dominoes are falling. Except for Iran and Syria, as Obama equivocates. He just does not understand the arc of history, like Reagan and FDR did.
Obama may not understand the future, but he is charged with holding the line of the history already accomplished.
Posted by Sharon, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Mar 19, 2012 at 7:10 pm
The invasion of Iraq was based upon forged documents from "Curve ball"
and others--the question is who paid them?
The same agencies are now beating the drums of war to invade Iran--which would be a disaster, ruin the world economy, kill innocent Iranians and potentially trigger a regional war involving China and Russia--a disaster.
The lobbyists beating the drums of war with Iran should be put in a box--and ignored.
Bush acted upon forged intelligence-
-he was conned and snowed by people who do not have fundamental American interests as their first priority
These lobbyists are trying the same con game again
American fundamental interests must come first
We share fundamental interests with Iran regarding the future of Afghanistan--Jaw, Jaw ,Jaw is better than War-War-War.
We need to curb alien nations lobbying in America until the conform to FARA
"The Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) was enacted in 1938.
FARA is a disclosure statute that requires persons acting as agents of foreign principals in a political or quasi-political capacity to make periodic public disclosure of their relationship with the foreign principal, as well as activities, receipts and disbursements in support of those activities.
Disclosure of the required information facilitates evaluation by the government and the American people of the statements and activities of such persons in light of their function as foreign agents.
The FARA Registration Unit of the Counterespionage Section (CES) in the National Security Division (NSD) is responsible for the administration and enforcement of the Act.
Posted by Gary, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Mar 19, 2012 at 7:27 pm
"The invasion of Iraq was based upon forged documents from "Curve ball""
No. It was based on the existense of Saddam. He needed to go.
WMD, while very important was not the central point. Saddam was the point. Now he is dead. That is a very good thing.
To argue that WMD was the big thing, is to argue that the V2 rocket was the big thing against Hitler. Of course the V2 was a big deal, and it made its point, but the major deal was Hitler, not his weapon systems. Saddam had to go. He did. Thanks to GWB.
We, and the world, are much better off for the Liberation of Iraq. President Obama needs to hold the line, there. No backsliding. No snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
Posted by Pearl, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Mar 20, 2012 at 9:59 am
Cedrick requested you back up your claim and prove it. You did not, just by making more unsubstantiated claims. Fabrications without proof, like you Hans Blix egg on face quote.
Then you changed your tune from WMD to Saddam for the justification. "The invasion of Iraq was based upon forged documents .... No. It was based on the existence of Saddam. He needed to go."
No, that wasn't the reason offered to the American people. Read the original post quotes above - smoking gun, etc...
However, since you think so highly of the inspector, Hans Blix did say, in 2008:
"They could not succeed in eliminating WMDs because they did not exist. Nor could they succeed in the declared aim to eliminate al-Qaida operators, because they were not in Iraq. They came later, attracted by the occupants. A third declared aim was to bring democracy to Iraq, hopefully becoming an example for the region. Let us hope for the future; but five years of occupation has clearly brought more anarchy than democracy."
Posted by No more wars, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Mar 21, 2012 at 10:14 am
To correct history Germany did not declare war on the U.S. Japan attacted Pearl Harbor and dragged the U.S. into WWII
However, history never taught Dick Cheney anything but he got a lot of government contracts for his friends at Halliburton. Viet Nam should have taught the Bush Administration something but it didn't.
Meanwhile, Afghanistan will end up like Viet Nam and the U.S. will be demonized by the rest of the world, including many of their NATO allies.
Meanwhile, Mitt Romney has said he will bomb Iran if he's President, that's why I won't vote for him. What is so special about Iran having nuclear weapons when Pakistan,India has them and many other countries will within the next 20 years. Bombing Iran is a very short sighted answer to a long and worldwide problem.
Posted by Gary, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Mar 21, 2012 at 11:51 am
"What is so special about Iran having nuclear weapons when Pakistan,India has them and many other countries will within the next 20 years"
To ask that question suggests little understanding of context and history. The question could be asked: "What is wrong with Hitler having the A-Bomb? Or Al Qaeda?"
Iran is currently being run by mullahs who are willing and eager to accept martyrdom for themselves and their flock. Dangerous stuff.
There is also the geopolitical situation. If Iran (Persia) gets a bomb, the rest of the region will get theirs, too. Nice little arms race in the MidEast. If N. Korea gets its bomb perfected, Japan will follow in kind, overnight.
Maybe we are headed to a new arms race with atomic weapons. It would not surprise me. One way to stop it would be to prevent Iran and N. Korea from moving forward on their systems. Carrots don't seem to work with them, so that leaves sticks. I don't see the political leadership in the U.S., at this time, to use sticks....
Posted by Gary, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Mar 21, 2012 at 9:15 pm
"Attacking Iran is not in Americas fundamental interest-in fact it would be against American fundamental interests."
Is a nuclear Iran in America's fundmental interest?
Mutually Assured Destruction is not a scheme that works with religious fanatics. A nuclear MidEast does not inpire confidence, especially when a couple of them are shipped into New York Harbor.
If your argument is that we should wait until we get hit, then attack back, thus fulfilling the most ecstatic religious fantasies of the mullahs, then your argument is consistent, at least. I prefer to eliminate the threat, preemptively.
Obama is not a preemptive guy, so you need not be concerned, even if you are not safe, while he is in office.
However, we can, in the meantime, celebrate the Liberation of Iraq. Great, historical event...as long as Obama does not blow it.
Posted by Pearl, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Mar 21, 2012 at 9:26 pm
1. "Obama is not a preemptive guy," Ask Bin Ladin about that.
2. "the Liberation of Iraq. Great, historical event" Bull. Use all the flowery language you want - there was no WMD, your claims otherwise are false. It cost us a trillion dollars and 5,000 American lives. It also enabled Iran to be much stronger in the region than before.
Posted by Gary, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Mar 22, 2012 at 12:38 pm
The raid on bin laden was not preemptive. It was the end of a very long humt to kill him. I am very glad that Obama pulled the trigger on bin laden, however it is anything but preemptive. Bad example. Bill Clinton had a chance to do a preemptive raid on bin laden, but he blinked.
Saddam is dead! Time for a celebration! Thanks to GWB and the American Military.
Posted by Pearl, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Mar 22, 2012 at 12:52 pm
"It was the end of a very long humt to kill him." No. Bush quit the hunt for Bin Ladin by 2002. Candidate Obama promised to restart the hunt in 2008.
A hunt that Bush gave up on within a year of 9/11 - would you like the quote or the youtube link of Bush saying "I don't know and I don't care"?
A hunt that Mitt Romney would not have restarted: "Romney, the former Massachusetts governor who is one of the Republican front-runners, said U.S. troops "shouldn't be sent all over the world." He called Obama's comments "ill-timed" and "ill-considered."
Romney also said about going into Pakistan to get Bin Ladin: "I do not concur in the words of Barack Obama in a plan to enter an ally of ours... I don't think those kinds of comments help in this effort to draw more friends to our effort,"
Gary wants desperately to shift this thread away from the disastrous decision to invade Iraq and his lies about WMD that he refuses to address:
"Gary: Cedrick requested you back up your claim and prove it. You did not, just by making more unsubstantiated claims. Fabrications without proof, like you Hans Blix egg on face quote. Then you changed your tune from WMD to Saddam for the justification. "The invasion of Iraq was based upon forged documents .... No. It was based on the existence of Saddam. He needed to go."
Quit running Gary, fess up to your false claims, or offer proof with links.
Posted by Gary, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Mar 22, 2012 at 1:44 pm
"A hunt that Bush gave up on within a year of 9/11 "
GWB allowed water boarding. Leon Panetta, head of the CIA, said that WB was part of the solution to kill bin laden. GWB was not going to chase every rumor; if he knew where obl was, he would have killed him, period. GWB was on to more important things, like the Liberation of Iraq, a truly existential change in that part of the world.
Saddam not only had WMD, he USED them! Get a grip. The question in the run-up to the Iraq invasion was not only whether he had stores of them, but did he have the capability and intention to have them. The answer to the latter is yes; the answer to the former, thus far, is no...but there are many places to hide such stores, including Syria. Hitler was not allowed to have an air force in 1933, but he had the initenion to have one, and he built it very quickly.
Regarding Hans Blix, I remember him in an interview saying that he/we had egg on his/our face (regarding the defection of Saddam's son-in-law,and the information gleaned from that defection). Blix is a reflexive disarmament guy, no matter the risks. He is consistent in his beliefs, but why should anybody base a foreign policy on his information and bias?
Preemptive war is the war of the future...before one-sided peace breaks out, and kills us all!
Posted by Pearl, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Mar 22, 2012 at 2:10 pm
Nice try, Gary. Do you lie to everyone, or mostly just to yourself?
You have yet to document a single claim.
Bush gave up on Bin Ladin - March 2002, less than a year after 9/11 "And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him." It's in the white House transcripts Web Link
And then Bush disbanded the CIA unit tasked with hunting Bin Ladin.
Iraq did NOT have WMD and hadn't used any for years before our invasion. You have no facts to support your claim of WMD in Iraq, you admit you only have vague memories that you can't substantiate.
Memories without factual basis like those you describe as your WMD and Blix 'memories' are often referred to, by normal people, as 'fantasies'.
Beware facts. Keep your blinders on, Gary. They hide the reality that you apparently can't handle. You should talk with a professional.
Posted by Pearl, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Mar 22, 2012 at 4:00 pm
"Saddam had WMD"
He did NOT have WMD when we invaded. Evade that all you want, you can NOT prove otherwise, so you must fluster and blubber about.
We wasted the lives of 5,000 American heroes and a trillion dollars to have at least 100,000 Iraqis killed (lots more according to estimates), have a secular Islamic government replace a non-secular government, and strengthen Iraq's ties to Iran where none previously existed.
5,000 Americans + $1 Trillion + a stronger Iran = a dead Saddam (who didn't attack us and didn't have WMD)
Posted by Gary, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Mar 22, 2012 at 4:27 pm
"We wasted the lives of 5,000 American heroes..."
Absurdly wrong, and disrespectful to those dead American soldiers. 100k (plus) Iraquis dead, mostly by their own hand. Iraq now has a chance at freedom. The U.S. spent over 500k dead in the Civil War, to unify the country, not to mention the freeing of the slaves.
Iraq was a relatively low cost war, in terms of blood and treasure. Yet, so much was accomplished. GWB will be seen as among the great U.S. presidents. Not Reagan, not FDR, but pretty close. As long as Obama holds the line, and does not blow it.
Can we at least agree to celebrate Iraqui freedom from Saddam?
Posted by Gary, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Mar 22, 2012 at 7:55 pm
"Nice to see that the weekly continues to provide a forum for ShaRon and her anti-israel screeds."
I think that various "anti" screeds are allowed, is a good thing. It is called freedom of speech. Anti-Israel screeds provide the room for an anti-Islam screed; an anti-capitalist screed provides the room for an anti-socialist screed, etc.
Posted by Pearl, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Mar 23, 2012 at 8:57 am
"The overthrow of Saddam is in our interest. "
How so? Did not have WMD. Did not attack us. No AQ presence prior to invasion. Saddam was on Bin Ladin's hit list (UBL detested the secular leader.) Removing Saddam played into Iran's hand, enhancing their power within the region.
5,000 Americans + $1 Trillion + a stronger Iran = a dead Saddam (who didn't attack us and didn't have WMD)
Posted by Criag Laughtin, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, on Mar 23, 2012 at 10:32 am
Gary and Sharon repeat the same thing over and over again on this and other threads. When asked for proof or substantiation of their claims, they ignore those requests and continue with their spewing of factoids and misinformation. They should be put in a box and ignored.