GWB, the better terror fighter?

[varwoche]

If anything, the supposed imminent capture/kill of al Zawahiri is damning of administration policy. This re-enforces the notion that the transfer of military assets, and focus, from Afghanistan to Iraq was a strategic error. (To put it mildly.)

Only within recent weeks did the focus return to Afghanistan (redeployment of elite units, etc.) Had they never been diverted, it's reasonable to assume this (as yet unrealized) capture/kill would have happened sooner. And the same can be said when/if each subsequent victory in Afghanistan occurs.

Meanwhile, no WMDs. Even if the administration's relocated goal posts don't stand up:

- Because Iraq supported terrorism? Nowhere near to the extent of Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan.

- Because Saddam was in bed with al Queda? Really, this is almost a joke. y

- To free the Iraqi people? Bravo that Saddam is history. This is the only leg left to stand on.

If Kerry cedes the "strong on terrorism" high ground then he's an idiot.

 

[wjousts]

One can only imagine how Kerry would have handled the aftermath of 9/11. (shudder)

Does anybody seriously think that Bush did anything in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 that ANY president wouldn't have done? Do you really think that Gore wouldn't have visited ground zero and made a bunch of stirring speeches about how we're going to get the people responsible. Do you seriously think there wouldn't have been military action against Al-Queda?
The only thing Bush has done that in regards to the war on terror that anybody else might not have done is invading a completely unrelated country thereby completely lossing focus on the real target.

 

[corplinx]

The only thing Bush has done that in regards to the war on terror that anybody else might not have done is invading a completely unrelated country thereby completely lossing focus on the real target.

Have have we lost sight of the real target? Do you have any evidence to back up this claim?

Also, most experts agree that the reason the mideast is a hotbed of international terrorism is in part because of abject poverty in many places. How then does democratizing a nation as large as Iraq (and hopefully thereby putting on the country on a course to break out of the poverty cycle) not combat terrorism?

The leftist approach to fixing terrorism is massive aid to these countries. The Bush approach is to spread freedom to them.

Really, I could go on for hours about the strategic importance of Iraq in the war on terror but the demands of a normal sex life won't permit it.

I just don't see why so many people don't get the big picture.

 

[subgenius]

Does anybody seriously think that Bush did anything in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 that ANY president wouldn't have done? Do you really think that Gore wouldn't have visited ground zero and made a bunch of stirring speeches about how we're going to get the people responsible. Do you seriously think there wouldn't have been military action against Al-Queda?
The only thing Bush has done that in regards to the war on terror that anybody else might not have done is invading a completely unrelated country thereby completely lossing focus on the real target.

I've said that repeatedly. Its a slur against the patriotism of Kerry or whoever to suggest otherwise. But that's all they've got.
We could be far more secure at a fraction of the cost.

 

[clk]

Also, most experts agree that the reason the mideast is a hotbed of international terrorism is in part because of abject poverty in many places. How then does democratizing a nation as large as Iraq (and hopefully thereby putting on the country on a course to break out of the poverty cycle) not combat terrorism?

Because he's combatting terrorism indirectly, at best. You could also say that the war on drugs is combatting terrorism (you've heard of the 'link' between terrorism and drugs). Should Bush get credit for cracking down on terrorists because he is continuing the war on drugs, just like any other president?
Also, there was no link between OBL and Iraq, but there might be one now. I'm sure you've heard about the many bombings and such going on in Iraq, and many people believe foreign fighters have been carrying out these attacks. If Iraq becomes a hotbed of these types of terrorist attacks (like Israel), then I wouldn't consider freeing Iraq a success in the war on terror.

The Bush approach is to spread freedom to them.

Bush doesn't give a damn about the freedom of Iraqis. If Bush really wanted to spread freedom, then he would have taken out Cuba, first. How long do you think it would take to topel Fidel? A day or two, max? And how much would it cost? Only a fraction of the money Iraq is costing, I bet.

I just don't see why so many people don't get the big picture.

In the end, it comes down to "do the ends justify the means?" There is just a fundamental disagreement here, IMO.

 

[Thanz]

Did anyone else see the Daily Show last night? They showed some unbelievable footage from Fox News that had a slit screen of a Cheney speech with the breaking news of the hotel bombing. Cheney is blathering on about how great a terror fighter Bush is and how he has made Iraq a better place, while on the other side of the screen Iraq is burning in a terrorist attack.

 

[corplinx]

Bush doesn't give a damn about the freedom of Iraqis. If Bush really wanted to spread freedom, then he would have taken out Cuba, first.

So, your evidence for the first assertion is that Bush hasn't toppled Castro?

I don't deny that the reason for spreading freedom to the mideast is self interest in some part. We want safety, security, and prosperity. A peaceful and free mideast helps us achieve that end. A more prosperous Iraq is an Iraq that will buy more US goods and services.

 

[clk]

So, your evidence for the first assertion is that Bush hasn't toppled Castro?

No, I'm saying that if this war were about freedom, then the first target wouldn't have been a country on the other side of the planet whose people aren't even as oppressed as people in other countries.

A more prosperous Iraq is an Iraq that will buy more US goods and services.

And export lots of cheap oil to its good friend and ally, the United States.

 

[gnome]

Just a word for the curious who noticed me calling out Rikzilla--we settled it, sort of, in another thread.

 

[subgenius]

Yeah, we invaded Iraq to create a democracy. I know this guy's just another liar.


FORMER WHITE HOUSE TERRORISM ADVISOR: BUSH ADMIN WAS DISCUSSING BOMBING IRAQ FOR 9/11 DESPITE KNOWING AL QAEDA WAS TO BLAME
Fri Mar 19 2004 17:49:30 ET

Former White House terrorism advisor Richard Clarke tells Lesley Stahl that on September 11, 2001 and the day after - when it was clear Al Qaeda had carried out the terrorist attacks - the Bush administration was considering bombing Iraq in retaliation. Clarke's exclusive interview will be broadcast on 60 MINUTES Sunday March 21 (7:00-8:00 PM, ET/PT) on the CBS Television Network.

Clarke was surprised that the attention of administration officials was turning toward Iraq when he expected the focus to be on Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. "They were talking about Iraq on 9/11. They were talking about it on 9/12," says Clarke.

The top counter-terrorism advisor, Clarke was briefing the highest government officials, including President Bush and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, in the aftermath of 9/11. "Rumsfeld was saying we needed to bomb Iraq....We all said, 'but no, no. Al Qaeda is in Afghanistan," recounts Clarke, "and Rumsfeld said, 'There aren't any good targets in Afghanistan and there are lots of good targets in Iraq.' I said, 'Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with [the 9/11 attacks],'" he tells Stahl.

http://drudgereport.com/flash60.htm

 

[subgenius]

NEWSWEEK: In the Months Before 9/11, Justice Department Curtailed Highly Classified Program to Monitor Al Qaeda Suspects in the U.S.
Sunday March 21, 10:51 am ET

NEW YORK, March 21 /PRNewswire/ -- Newsweek has learned that in the months before 9/11, the U.S. Justice Department curtailed a highly classified program called "Catcher's Mitt" to monitor Al Qaeda suspects in the United States, after a federal judge severely chastised the FBI for improperly seeking permission to wiretap terrorists. During the Bush administration's first few months in office, Attorney General John Ashcroft downgraded terrorism as a priority, choosing to place more emphasis on drug trafficking and gun violence, report Investigative Correspondent Michael Isikoff and Assistant Managing Editor Evan Thomas in the March 29 issue of Newsweek (on newsstands Monday, March 22).

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040321/nysu007a_1.html

 

[subgenius]

Warning: Do Not Read, its just liberal propaganda

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=39039