IRAQ, WHAT NEXT ?- THE SUNDAY COMMENTARY
As we enter the closing days of 2006 and begin 2007 The United States finds herself debating the future of actions in another part of the world and another country - Iraq. Unfortunately much of the debate is still focusing on the past and how we became involved. The left especially is attempting to fuel the fire of debate by rehashing the reasons that we went to Iraq in the first place with some in the now Democrat majority in Congress wanting to reinvestigate this once again. Those who believe that the President, "lied, " will continue to do so regardless of the evidence to the contrary. Those that support the reasons we fight in Iraq will continue to do so regardless of the opposition and those who are in the middle of this debate will not find their answers by reinvestigating the same evidence that has been scrutinized over and over again sparking the exact same conclusions each time. Why we are there and how we got involved is a moot point because we are there and rehashing this same argument finds no solutions and accomplishes nothing other than sparking more argument. So I will not spend time here showing evidence and making the case again to accomplish nothing. We are in Iraq and now must find a solution that will secure the country and insure that the freely elected Democracy can successfully continue as a sovereign nation. There are many ideas floating about ranging from pulling out to escalation and finding a happy medium that accomplishes the above stated goal will not be easy. One thing is certain a united front is necessary because the enemy that we fight sees indecision and timidity as weakness and uses it to their advantage on all fronts. The escalation of violence that has taken place just prior to and now after our election I believe is a direct result of the change in the Congress and the belief that with the Democrats in the majority there will be a push now for a quick pull out. I believe also that the recent moves by Syria to re-establish relations with Iraq and the meetings and offers of help by Iran too are no coincidence and are the result of a perceived weakness in American policy as a result of the election and the arguments about pulling out of Iraq. The majority of the American people though weary of the situation in Iraq are not in favor of pulling out of the country so continually presenting this as an option by those on the left in this country does nothing but embolden those fighting against a free Iraq. It also gives Syria and Iran the notion that they can now position themselves to control a country that they both have designs on. Additionally it is an option that the President will not back and as Commander in Chief he has the final word.
Iran and Syria - The first situation that presents itself in the , "what to do, " debate is the involvement by these two neighboring countries. It is well known that both have contributed to the insurgency with Iran especially directing much of it. Syria is in many ways a puppet to Iran but they too have their own design for Iraq and it patterns closely to the situation that they control in Lebanon. Iran not only wants to create a theocratic Islamic state much like their own but sees Iraq as part of a greater Iranian Middle East with Iran as the dominate power and leader of nothing but puppet nations in the region and the elimination of Israel in the process. Iran also sees Iraq as a negotiating tool with The United States over their nuclear program. If they are allowed to become involved as an accepted allied country they will use that status to, "swap, " help in Iraq for an unfettered nuclear program with a free hand to create nuclear weapons and hold the region and its resources as hostage with the bomb as leverage. Handling this situation is precarious at best but involving them as an active partner is worse. Closing the border between the two countries and Iraq to stop the flow of material' and fighters should at least be a first step quelling the current situation but with relations established between Iraq and Syria closing that border that is not likely now.
The terrorist element - Al Qaeda has stated repeatedly that it sees Iraq as the center of the battle of their Islamic Jihad and that they want the country as their base of operations in the same way as Afghanistan was. This continual stated goal has been largely ignored by those opposed to our involvement in Iraq and as such it has also quelled the illusion that this is not a part of the Global War on Terror and taken away from that war. This misconception and self deception is one of the key reasons that the country has become so split about Iraq. It is also a misconception that our involvement in Iraq creates terrorism. Those opposed to Iraq seem to forget that terrorist attacks and terrorism existed long before we entered Iraq and that we too were attacked before Iraq became a battlefield. As in any war situation more soldiers are deployed by an enemy as the fight continues. Our presence in Iraq does not , "create, " terrorists but it does deploy terrorists to the fight which is why more have been found in Iraq. They too see Iraq as a battlefield in their Jihad against western civilization and fight and man this fight accordingly. Our pulling out of Iraq will not end this involvement but rather allow terrorism a free hand to enslave Iraqi citizens and create chaos and anarchy. This threat also emphasizes the necessity of strengthening the Iraq Security Force to give the country the capability of dealing with this element when we are no longer there.
Sunni vs Shia - This long standing duel for control of Iraq is not a situation that can or will find an easy nor a quick solution. These two Islamic ideas differ little in their beliefs but greatly over which should be the controlling caliph. Iraqi citizens have expressed through their vote the willingness to allow contribution by both in the government and it is the responsibility of the leaders in the country to control the fighting factions and to work with one another for the full establishment of a free Iraq which is the will of the people. Most leaders have expressed a willingness to follow this direction while there are others who refuse. This is not a situation where dictation by any outside entity will find an answer. This problem existed long before Saddam Hussein and it is a problem that can only find its answer within the confines of the Iraqi people and the constant evolutionary process of their government. We can and should continue as a diplomatic go-between in this situation but the ultimate solution for this must come from Iraqi leaders and their involvement in controlling the passions that have and do feed this rivalry for control.
The answers for Iraq are not easy nor quick. Pulling out now though is not and cannot be an option because there is far to much at stake for the Iraq, the region and The United States. Our involvement and that of our coalition partners does prevent the utter chaos that would ensue were we not there. Whether the answer is more troops, less troops or keeping at current levels our military has accomplished great things in Iraq and they are what is keeping this fragile country in any resemblance of security and stability and offer the best capability of training and the full establishment of the necessary means for Iraq to one day protect herself.
Ken Taylor
Iran and Syria - The first situation that presents itself in the , "what to do, " debate is the involvement by these two neighboring countries. It is well known that both have contributed to the insurgency with Iran especially directing much of it. Syria is in many ways a puppet to Iran but they too have their own design for Iraq and it patterns closely to the situation that they control in Lebanon. Iran not only wants to create a theocratic Islamic state much like their own but sees Iraq as part of a greater Iranian Middle East with Iran as the dominate power and leader of nothing but puppet nations in the region and the elimination of Israel in the process. Iran also sees Iraq as a negotiating tool with The United States over their nuclear program. If they are allowed to become involved as an accepted allied country they will use that status to, "swap, " help in Iraq for an unfettered nuclear program with a free hand to create nuclear weapons and hold the region and its resources as hostage with the bomb as leverage. Handling this situation is precarious at best but involving them as an active partner is worse. Closing the border between the two countries and Iraq to stop the flow of material' and fighters should at least be a first step quelling the current situation but with relations established between Iraq and Syria closing that border that is not likely now.
The terrorist element - Al Qaeda has stated repeatedly that it sees Iraq as the center of the battle of their Islamic Jihad and that they want the country as their base of operations in the same way as Afghanistan was. This continual stated goal has been largely ignored by those opposed to our involvement in Iraq and as such it has also quelled the illusion that this is not a part of the Global War on Terror and taken away from that war. This misconception and self deception is one of the key reasons that the country has become so split about Iraq. It is also a misconception that our involvement in Iraq creates terrorism. Those opposed to Iraq seem to forget that terrorist attacks and terrorism existed long before we entered Iraq and that we too were attacked before Iraq became a battlefield. As in any war situation more soldiers are deployed by an enemy as the fight continues. Our presence in Iraq does not , "create, " terrorists but it does deploy terrorists to the fight which is why more have been found in Iraq. They too see Iraq as a battlefield in their Jihad against western civilization and fight and man this fight accordingly. Our pulling out of Iraq will not end this involvement but rather allow terrorism a free hand to enslave Iraqi citizens and create chaos and anarchy. This threat also emphasizes the necessity of strengthening the Iraq Security Force to give the country the capability of dealing with this element when we are no longer there.
Sunni vs Shia - This long standing duel for control of Iraq is not a situation that can or will find an easy nor a quick solution. These two Islamic ideas differ little in their beliefs but greatly over which should be the controlling caliph. Iraqi citizens have expressed through their vote the willingness to allow contribution by both in the government and it is the responsibility of the leaders in the country to control the fighting factions and to work with one another for the full establishment of a free Iraq which is the will of the people. Most leaders have expressed a willingness to follow this direction while there are others who refuse. This is not a situation where dictation by any outside entity will find an answer. This problem existed long before Saddam Hussein and it is a problem that can only find its answer within the confines of the Iraqi people and the constant evolutionary process of their government. We can and should continue as a diplomatic go-between in this situation but the ultimate solution for this must come from Iraqi leaders and their involvement in controlling the passions that have and do feed this rivalry for control.
The answers for Iraq are not easy nor quick. Pulling out now though is not and cannot be an option because there is far to much at stake for the Iraq, the region and The United States. Our involvement and that of our coalition partners does prevent the utter chaos that would ensue were we not there. Whether the answer is more troops, less troops or keeping at current levels our military has accomplished great things in Iraq and they are what is keeping this fragile country in any resemblance of security and stability and offer the best capability of training and the full establishment of the necessary means for Iraq to one day protect herself.
Ken Taylor
posted by The Liberal Lie The Conservative Truth | 9:15 AM
33 Comments:
I couldn't agree with you more.
Did you watch that video over at Wordsmiths? I started to, but it just makes my stomach churn. I know what we're up against, but many Americans don't. I wish we could get videos like that shown during prime time on every TV channel, but since the MSM is so against anything Bush tries to accomplish, we know it will never happen. If all this stuff the Islamofascists are ranting and raving about were known to all Americans, I don't believe we'd be having the problems that we've been encountering.
Historical revisionism at work.
Your argument:
1. Let's not revisit the reasons for invading Iraq because it will get us nowhere. We are there and since we are there, no matter how we got there we need to keep going - stay the course if you will.
- This is an almost tragicomical view of reality. What you are saying is, even if the American people was lied to, their economical future put in question due to the enormous cost of the war, soldiers put in harms way and dying in large numbers, the middle east destabilizing by the day, let's not find out how we got into this mess.
You are saying we should not learn from the horrible mistake that the Iraq war is. That no accountability should exist.
Take off your rose-colored ideological glasses and see things for what they are. The administration's approach to fighting terrorism was based on a lie and it is failing miserably. This deserves introspection and honesty, not coverups.
Your argument:
2. "Al Qada has stated repeatedly that it sees Iraq as the center of the battle of their Islamic Jihad and that they want the country as their base of operations in the same way as Afghanistan was".
- This is correct but they can say this only because the administration invaded Iraq and by doing so created a haven for them. Before the invasion, Al Qada had no presence in Iraq and Hussein, the SOB that he definitely was, don't get me wrong on that one, saw Al Qada as a threat, giving them no safe harbour.
If Al Qada did not have the safe haven created for them in Iraq they would be between a rock and a hard place, had the resources wasted in Iraq been put into afghanistan instead.
The administratation created a way out for Al Qada and helped fuel the jihadist cause.
Yes - Iraq under Hussein was horrendous but it was secular. The current situation in Iraq has fueled islamic fundamentalism like no other event. It has become an 'Alamo' for the islamic fundamentalists.
If the administration had not invaded Iraq we would probably be on our way to winning the war on terror. There was a golden opportunity to deal with Al Qada in Afghanistan, root them out and defeat them. Instead the invasion of Iraq created a rallying cry for the islamic fundamentalists, reinforcing the view of american imperialism. To say that the invasion of Iraq has not increased islamic fundamentalism is naive and dangerous since if no lessons are learned from it we stand to make the same mistake again.
Yes - we are in Iraq and we need to deal with it but to suggest that we not need to be introspective and not need to learn from the mistakes made is irresponsible and dangerous.
So Gayle, what's your good news about Iraq today? Please tell the class.
Right on post, Ken.
The liberal POV here can only be based upon the fact that the left did not want us to overthrow Saddam to begin with. This can only mean, no matter what they say or deny, that they supported Saddam's mass murder, torture and religious persecution within the borders of his own country. Anyone who is honest re concern about others or about justice vs injustice supported our invasion and liberation of Iraq.
What gets me is that the left continues their mantra that Saddam and al-Qaeda "didn't like each other, and so had nothing to do with each other". Whenever I hear that, I think of the terrorist training compounds we know were in Iraq prior to Saddam's ousting, and about the training mock-up of one of the aircraft used by the terrorists on 9/11 found in post-invasion Iraq. Whether it is out of ignorance (terrorists and terrorism sponsors have demonstrated time and time again that they have no problem putting personal differences aside and working together against a common enemy -- in this case, Islam against the west) or simply the well known liberal trait of "believing" something for political expediency, denying facts does not make them go away.
As for the "No WMD" argument, well, the UN (go figure) gave the Husseins plenty of time to ditch most of their inventory and clear out their production facilities prior to the invasion. What evidence has been presented has been totally ignored by the MSM (again, go figure), as well as the observations of lesser publicized inspection teams working apart from Blind Man Blix.
That said, our forces are in Iraq, they are engaging terrorists there and our premature withdrawal will result in the same sort of bloodbath that occurred when we withdrew from Vietnam. That blood was as much on the hands of American liberals as it was on the communists'. If we pull out of Iraq before the insurgency has been quelled and Iraqi defense forces have been properly staffed, equipped and trained to see to their own security, there will be another bloodbath, and again, that blood will be on the hands of every single liberal in America.
But I digress, a problem of mine.
Our troops need to be permitted to finish the job. If they are not, and we cut and run, in addition to the resulting bloodshed, Syria, Iran and al-Qaeda will have themselves a sovereign terrorists' paradise, a Hole-In-The-Wall for Islamofascism that will endanger not only the rest of the region, but the rest of the world.
Anyone who doesn't believe we would be forced to return to Iraq to fight yet another war, one that would cost exponentially more American lives as the terrorist factions would be better armed, much larger in number and much more firmly entrenched, needs to think again.
"And this private war of profit is taking longer than WW2?!!!!!"
Nobody's profiting. You made that up.
Seth, you are quite good at creating strawmen but you should be careful in doing so:
Your argument:
"Anyone who is honest re concern about others or about justice vs injustice supported our invasion and liberation of Iraq."
If this was an actual argument as opposed to a strawman you should be proposing the American overthrow of at least 30+ oppressive governments by force, all over the world, not least in Africa.
If human suffering was somehow the 'noble cause' for the administration's invasion of Iraq, as you suggest, this administration should as soon as it took power (in 2000) have suggested the invasion and overthrow of at least 5 dictators in Africa that would make Hussein look like a amateur when it comes to oppression and cruelty.
I don't know if you are trying to convince yourself by this 'oh it was for the humanity' bs but it is quite transparent and if it was not so callouos and sad it would also be amusing.
Be honest to yourself, the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with liberation of the Iraqi people or the reduction of their suffering. If so, the protection of the Iraqi people and the rebuilding of the infrastructure would have been job 1 after the overthrow of Hussein.
IRAQ WHAT NEXT?
by (R)epublican Vet
Is critiqued by Snerd Gronk
at http://snerdgronk.blogspot.com/
RV's 'commitment' is not in question, but some of his arguments are. Unfortunately, RV has 'cut 'n run' to his own 'f(R)ee speech zone', so dialogue with him is not possible. However and by way of this indirect invitation, if he feels Snerd has missed a point, he himself is free to comment there …
Snerd
Anonymous:
If so, the protection of the Iraqi people and the rebuilding of the infrastructure would have been job 1 after the overthrow of Hussein.
They were and are "job 1", where've you been?
As far as the rest, the MSM and its liberal constituency only tended to hear what they wanted to hear. God forbid Bush be depicted as having any humanitarian qualities.
If you were opposed to our Iraq involvement from the outset, there is nothing I can do to change your mind about that. However,
Ken is totally correct in saying that we're there now, and what we do next is what matters, not recriminations for things that have already happened or mistakes made. That's one difference between conservatives and liberals. Liberals prefer to stay in place and recriminate, which is why I think "progressives" is a misnomer for liberals, while conservatives prefer to look forward and move ahead.
Be honest to yourself, the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with liberation of the Iraqi people or the reduction of their suffering. If so, the protection of the Iraqi people and the rebuilding of the infrastructure would have been job 1 after the overthrow of Hussein.
Anon, part of the case for going to war was based upon humanitarian reasons. It was part and parcel to several cases pushed forward for why we needed to remove Saddam from power. And make no mistake, the number one reason for going to war is to make America safer (whether or not that has been accomplished is not what I am arguing here). If it weren't, you are right in that there are any number of regimes that deserve removal, based upon human rights violations.
Saddam's violation of 17 or so UN Resolutions and the original cease-fire agreements is justification enough, imo. I certainly believe that he was a danger to the stability of the world; he certainly didn't do anything to help us think otherwise; if he and his sons were given the time to metasticize further, the death toll from the current struggle would pale in comparison than the one we'd face tomorrow.
You are saying we should not learn from the horrible mistake that the Iraq war is. That no accountability should exist.
What I believe Ken is saying, is that we are there now, and whether we should be there in the first place or not, the only course of action should be victory in Iraq. Not "cutting our losses" and shamefully abandoning the innocents in Iraq to more suffering and more violence; our leaving the job unfinished certainly won't bring about less suffering for them. We would once again be sending a message to our enemies that America is too soft to engage in warfare. Everything is overblown and every tragedy magnified. Liberals were already calling it a quagmire when we hit "500 soldiers dead". Why does every body count have to be a landmark? Because it's a way to demoralize and justify a cut-and-run policy. Normandy was an astronomical disaster for us, by today's standards. If we abandon Iraq now, then yes, the current 3000 body count would have been, in one sense, wasted lives.
Liberals prefer to stay in place and recriminate, which is why I think "progressives" is a misnomer for liberals, while conservatives prefer to look forward and move ahead.
Bingo. If going to Iraq was a mistake (and I don't think it was, but for the sake of this argument, I'll pretend...), leaving the job unfinished would also be a mistake, of incredible damage to the U.S., and to the Iraqis..the ones who do want a better life, of freedom and democracy.
This is what Honores referred to when he told reporters, "don't get stuck on stupid". He was ready to press on to take care of business at hand; they were still stuck in the mud, dwelling on yesterday's hurricane rather than preparing for the one brewing over the horizon.
Seth, you make me snicker, not laugh, but snicker.
Your argument:
"Liberals prefer to stay in place and recriminate, which is why I think "progressives" is a misnomer for liberals, while conservatives prefer to look forward and move ahead."
Now I am not a Clinton fan but reading what you said I kind of recall millions and millions of tax money being spent on Ken Starr's special investigation as to whether Clinton lied about having sex with Monica Levinsky. But perhaps that is your definition of 'look forward and move ahead'.
I'm not suggesting that two wrongs make a right, far from it, but if you are going to start throwing rocks you might want to make sure you are not in a crystal palace before doing so.
Oh yeah, since we are on the topic I can't help including this one:
"Clinton lied, no one died"
The best thing we ever did for the Iranians is invade Iraq. After taking out the Taliban, we removed the other threat to Iran (Saddam). Iran is Shia, the Taliban and Saddam are Sunni.
We had to take out the Taliban because of their direct involvement and relationship with bin Laden and 9/11. However, taking out Saddam was a choice (not a necessity).
Iran is not fueling the insurgency - the Sunnis are the "insurgents." Al Qaeda is Sunni, so Iran isn't fueling the foreign terrorists. Iran is trying to stabilize the Shia government because it is the best thing for them.
I do think that we need to investigate the reasons we went to war. I do think the hundreds of millions of American tax dollars that have been pilfered should be investigated. I do think the war profiteering that has taken place should be rooted out and those companies and individuals should be held responsible. Now that we will have Dems in charge of Congress at least Americans can get some answers and hold folks responsible.
However, we are still left with the question of what to do. There are really two options. Stay indefinitely in the middle of a worsening civil war and allow our soldiers to die fighting for a corrupt government that is more aligned with Iran than the U.S. Or, set a timetable, redeploy our troops out of harm's way and leave. Take your pick.
There is not going to be a pro-American Jeffersonian democracy. That train has long left the station.
Seth notes "As for the "No WMD" argument, well, the UN (go figure) gave the Husseins plenty of time to ditch most of their inventory and clear out their production facilities prior to the invasion."
Ignoring the team of Dr. Blix as well as the difficulty of "ditching" CBR weaponry. Ask
USAMC and the folks at the following Army Depots/Chem demil
sites: Umatilla,OR Tooele, UT
Blue Grass, KY Aberdeen, MD
Anniston, AL Pine Bluff,AK
Newport, IN and Pueblo, CO...we've been trying to 'ditch' ours for
twenty years........
BB --
There was, as a single example, the satellite footage of truck convoys crossing the border into Syria and testimony that at those times the normal border guards were replaced by Saddam's finest. For "some reason", this has been kissed off by the MSM and libs in general as "nothing at all", because it doesn't fit on the "Bush lied, people died" bumper sticker.
Mr. Magoo -- oops, sorry, Hans Blix -- was continuously told by the Iraqis where he could inspect and when he could do so. That in itself was patently ludicrous, the inspectees telling the inspectors when and where they could inspect. Imagine police entering a drug dealer's home with a search warrant, and being told, "No, you can't search in that room yet, I need to go in there and do some things first, I'll tell you when you can search in there. In the meantime, go search the kitchen."
That was the story of Hans Blix in Iraq.
The Oil-For-Food scandal should have told you some things about the integrity of the U.N. re Iraq and Saddam Hussein. As far as "certain" European U.N. members are concerned, to name a few Russia, Germany and France, they had very large financial relationships with Saddam. The French, in fact, despite having signed off on the military materials embargo on Iraq, were selling the Iraqis rocket fuel on the sly, via a broker in China.
I won't even get into the centrifuge kerfuffle...
Anonymous --
A man who is unfaithful to his wife cannot be expected to be faithful to his country, and Bubba certainly proved that out. Trading our most advanced military technology to China in exchange for campaign contributions? C'mon!
Sorry, no crystal palace -- just a 7 room brick house.
Oh, yeah -- "Clinton lied, a hundred thousand or more Christian Serbs died".
bb and Seth, you watch too much Faux News. The Republican congressional committees have found no credible evidence to support your thoughts.
If you want to cry about the billion dollar Oil-for-Food scandal then you should also blame Shell and Exxon-Mobil because they participated through third party intermediaries. However, that billion dollars was over a 10 year period. Bremer lost $8.8 billion in U.S. taxpayer money in the first year because of poor oversight. That is what poor planning resulted in.
But, all of that is in the past. We are still left with two bad choices at this point in time - all thanks to our incompetent Commander-in-Chief.
"The best thing we ever did for the Iranians is invade Iraq. After taking out the Taliban, we removed the other threat to Iran (Saddam). Iran is Shia, the Taliban and Saddam are Sunni."
And vice versa. The differenc is a campaign in Iran would not require years of occupation as Iraq has. Iraq fell in 21 days and it would take us even less time to destroy Iran's capabilities.
"However, we are still left with the question of what to do. There are really two options. Stay indefinitely in the middle of a worsening civil war and allow our soldiers to die fighting for a corrupt government that is more aligned with Iran than the U.S. Or, set a timetable, redeploy our troops out of harm's way and leave. Take your pick."
Or a third option would be to stay until the job is done, instead of giving the terrorists of the world the victory they've hoped for. They have made it very clear they expect us to pull out if they can hold out long enough giving them the ability to continue their ridiculous Jyhad.
WMD is only one of many reasons we went to Iraq. It is the only one that liberals focus on, because they feel they have a foothold in that department. If anyone was honest they would remember quite clearly that there were 17 counts against Saddam, and the chief among these was the 14 Gulf War Ceasefire treaties.
Seth - We proped up Saddam during the Reagan Admin, and he was overthrown during W's regieme. Mission Accomplished, already. In the meantime, follow the money.
BTW - Saddam and Al Qaeda didn't "like each other." As if this were a popularity contest.
Highboy - you've lost every shred of credibility that you ever had by stating that no one is profiting off this war. The latest requested apropriation is $182 billion dollars! Follow the money. It certainly isn't going to the Iraqis! (Although, the insurgency is now self-supporting -but I'm sure you didn't know THAT either.)
Every truly informed source said that the WMDs were destroyed in the first gulf war. The rest was pure cherry picking...cherry picking to the point that the adminstration had to rely on 5 year old intel, from the Clinton administration, to justify the invasion of a so-called soverign nation that didn't attack us in the first place. That was so pathetic.
Fear mongering won't work anymore. Nor will sexual witch hunts (except for right on right.) You rightwingers are going to have to come up with something else.
*****
Leave it to Seth, with his obsession about sex, to disqualify Gulliani, and Gingrich, and so many other republicans from the '08 race in one fell swoop.
Obsession about sex? Where did that come from? If there is an obsession about sex anyplace in this dialogue, there should be a reference to Bush's unesteemed predecessor. When a Republican politician commits an imporpriety unbecoming a national political leader, he is removed. When a Democrat does so, then compounds the issue by lying to Congress, the Democrats fight tooth and nail to defend his indiscretions. But then, the once pro-American Democratic Party, now reduced to a vehicle for the extreme left, doesn't appear to place any value on dignity anymore. They have become the evil smelling distant relative who picks his nose at the dinner table.
I must say, the comment section here is living up to it's name: First we get the liberal lie, then we get the conservative truth. :-)
Don't even worry about it Seth, that's how mudkitty debates. She makes wild claims and steadfastly refuses to back them up. I'm still waiting for a source on the so called "profiteers."
Highboy, we are not going to invade Iran. We are locked down in Iraq and don't have the troops. On top of that, Iran is three times the size of Iraq and it is the #2 oil producer in OPEC. Bush is not going to knowingly push gas prices over $5/gallon for American consumers. He may be incompetent, but I don't think he is stupid.
As for Iraq - there is no "winning" any more assuming that you want to define winning as creating a pro-American Jeffersonian democracy.
Keeping troops in the middle of an Iraqi civil war indefinitely is foolish. But if you think supporting the troops, means letting them die in an endless conflict in order to prop up a corrupt Islamic theocracy government that is anti-American and pro-Iranian government, that is up to you.
Highboy --
Mudkitty comes off like a pre- or early adolescent. The amount of time she spends at various conservative blogs makes me wonder if she has any friends to play with.
Rob: I believe the point I made was that we don't have to invade Iran.
Seth: She claims she's a middle aged woman but I can't force myself to believe that a middle aged woman would blog in the childish fashion that she does.
Shows you both how wrong you can be. And that's just for starters!
Profiteers...? You seriously don't know that more money is going into the coffers of Kellog Brown and Root, Halliburton, etc. than to our military? That just goes to show. You seriously don't know the history of war economics do you?
Why are private companies doing for the military what the military used to do for themselves? Where has 230 billion dollars gone, because it certainly hasn't gone into the re-building of Iraq. And now Bush wants another 182 billion!
Do you seriously not know this stuff, which is the stuff of simple comman knowledge.
Oh right, you guys don't read read real news, only rightwing imitations.
Sorry Highboy, I did not understand your comment. However, we are still not going to BOMB Iran. My point about the price of gas still remains.
As for war profiteering, you can look at the billions of dollars that Halliburton has been found to mischarge in Iraq.
FYI, if you look at Halliburton's fiscal performance and stock price before and after the invasion you can see how handsomely they benefitted by the invasion. Prior to the invasion it was a company that lost about $1 billion per year. Last year, Halliburton had a profit (not revenues, but profit at the end of the day) of $2.3 billion.
Halliburton has been found to have overcharged U.S. taxpayers billions of dollars, so they are basically cheating our troops and American taxpayers. But, it helps to have Cheney in office to keep the no-bid contracts coming.
The increase in Halliburton stock allowed Dick Cheney to exercise his stock options at an average strike price of about $45/share. Prior to the invasion, Halliburton stock was stuck in the single digits and teens, making the options worthless. After the invasion the stock got into the 70s which would result in a $30/share gain for Cheney (options allowed Cheney to purchase shares at $45/share, even if the price is higher). Not bad when you are holding more than 400,000 such options. So basically, he had worthless options that became worth more than $12M because of the invasion. Now just look at how much all of the top executives of Halliburton have made and you will find hundreds of millions of dollars of war profiteering - at just one company alone.
Not going to debate.
Have a God Blessed Week.
Brown & Root, yay! Back in the late 1970s, I roughnecked aboard a couple of their offshore oil rigs. It was all about the oilllll, you see....
Mudkitty -- everything we do that involves anything other than twiddling our thumbs involves using products built by somebody, whether it's going to war or going to the supermarket.
If you drive a Chevy, do you accuse Chevrolet or Chevron of "profiteering" off your trip to the mall? If you are coloring in your favorite coloring book, do you accuse Crayola of "profiteering" off your love of coloring?
When you buy a bag of potatoes at the supermarket, are some evil entities in Idaho "profiteering" off your purchase?
Seth, your examples are completely foolish and irrelevant.
A profiteer is "one who makes what is considered an unreasonable profit especially on the sale of essential goods during times of emergency."
Your examples simply don't fit the definition of profiteering, which is why they are irrelevant. If there was a hurricane in Florida and Idaho farmers sent down some potatoes but charged $10/potato knowing that there was a food shortage - that would be profiteering.
Or, in the case of Halliburton, getting a no-bid contract and charging excessive prices for substandard and even non-existent work, which allows them to achieve record profits may very well be profiteering. Of course, now that we have Dems in charge of Congress we will get oversight and investigation to determine if there was profiteering.
Mukitty, are you going to post some sources to back up those claims or is this another case where you tell me its MY homework to prove your arguments for you?
Don't respond yet Rob. I know you have integrity and will back up your claims with sources whether I agree with them or not. I just want to see if mudkitty has any. Give her a chance to act like an adult.
Highboy, it's all part of the public record, and no, I'm not here to do your homework for you, nor am I surprised you're not informed. Nor have you ever backed up a single assertion you've made with a single credible source...because you can't. You can't even do your own homework.
Seth, there's a difference between profiting, and profiting off of a war that we were lied into in the first place.
We weren't lied into it. The left simply ignored the list of reasons, save for one, as Highboy indicated, that would provide a political foothold. You guys are great at doing that -- but then, socialists have always had a flair for propaganda and bald faced lies when the truth might pose an inconvenience.
It might also be noted that the folks on the left side of the aisle signed off on their belief that there were WMD in Iraq, even Clinton did while he was still relevant.
After we invaded, the left did the usual thing -- keep shouting "Bush Lied!!!!" until that was all anybody heard. Shouting it down seems to be a great way to smother the truth these days.
I understand, having bought into the lie, and after thousands have died, why you wouldn't want to admit how gullible you were.
I love it how rightwingers always resort to the Clinton 1998 intel on WMDs. But that's admiting that the Bushies were relying on 5 year old intel to make their case for war! Absolutly incredible!
BTW Seth - I doubt you can even define socialism. I doubt you know the difference between socialism and communism. Now run along and look it up, and get back to us.
Sure mudkitty. Except that anyone who reads my blog or comments view the links to sources I post while you simply regurgitate the same mudkitty talking points over and over again. You don't post sources because you have none.
Post a Comment
<< Home