Posted by ( Wayne ) on October 16, 2007 at 9:55 am

It would be so nice to see all the Bush loving war cheerleaders join the fight.  If you are under 42 years of age you can get a 20,000 dollar bonus to join.  Too old?  Then why not go over there and open a business, teaching those Iraqis about capitalism and freedom?  Or are you war lovers more like Bush, Cheney, Rush, Hannity, et al, and basically cowards.  All for war as long as someone else will fight it?  That’s what I figured.

Posted by ( chris ) on October 29, 2007 at 3:22 pm

My apologies, I was unware that the right wing talking heads and the current administration used your “orginal thoughts” in an attempt to tell all of us why we went to war in Iraq. The funny thing is I have heard or read the exact same arguments from others in terms of “gaining a foothold, fighting them over there, etc” long before you educated me in this forum. So I have no choice but to equate your arguments with talking points as well. The difference, I believe, is that the talking points I use are based on fact. I challenge you to dispute any of them.

As for your assertion of no administration official indicating that we will never leave, I would summarily direct you to the “National Security Strategy” adopted by the current administration which calls for, in no uncertain terms, a long term presence in the middle east. That is their strategy, not your original thought.

Now then, I am assuming that you believe that the goal became to obtain a toehold in the middle east, immediately after 9-11. I would then assume that it is your belief, that we needed to start one war as bait (removing Saddam), so we could draw terrorists into the theater of the first war in order to engage in a second war with the people who actually attacked us. This isn’t what we were told. The President of the United States stood in front of us and declared that Iraq was a direct threat to our national security, they had WMD’s and we needed to remove him before we saw mushroom clouds over one of our cities.

Here is where we differ, Jody. I believe that once no WMD’s were found and we found ourselves involved in a protracted guerilla engagment the administration had to move quickly to change the rationale for attacking Iraq. The timeline of administration talking points shows that only after no WMD’s were found and combat deaths began to rise did it become a war to obtain a foothold in the middle east and the “fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here” mantra became popular. The reality is that only a small percentage of the people attacking us are Al Queda. It was and still is a majority of Sunni and Baath party fighters. All the while, Bin Laden sleeps in freedom. Therefore, you are wrong.

My assertion is not nullified. Being told that we have to fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here is the same line of crap that we were told during Vietnam. The majority of people who are killing our troops in Iraq are not the ones who attacked us on 9-11.  In any event, we disagree, you continue to support this president and this inane war based on lies. Because if your theory is true, then the Iraq war was in fact based on lies as we were never told that gaining a foothold was the real reason for going to Iraq. That is pretty sad and disrespectful to those who fought and died over there. They thought we were fighting to remove a brutal dictator bent on using WMD’s to attack us. Many thought that Iraq actually did participate in 9-11...hmmmmm...I wonder who gave them that idea? If that is o.k by you then fine, you are entitled to your opinion. I find it repulsive.

Posted by ( Jody Lee ) on November 01, 2007 at 9:32 pm

To clarify, my claim is that when we went to Iraq, both the administration and the military in charge KNEW from the beginning that we would never come out, but deemed it necessary anyway.  And yes, of course they lied to us - that’s my point - well, part of it anyway. 

If they had said “Look, we have to protect ourselves by going after terrorists so 9/11 doesn’t happen again, so we are going to start by giving Iran a shot at being a free nation.  Problem is we don’t know how the war is going to go, we have no idea how long it will take to stabilize or even if it will be possible at all, and once we’re there, chances are we’ll have to stay in that Hades-on-earth permanently”, do you think anyone would have supported it?  Of course not!  So they misled us.  Your whole third paragraph is stating what I already said originally.  I agree with you, silly! 

I disagree, though, when you say we should have just told folks what we planned from the start.  They never would have bought it.  The public as a whole wanted no part of the Middle East, and educating us all as to the geographic, military and security reasons as to why this was our best strategic move would have taken way too long, if it could have been done at all.  So they just did it - act first, answer questions later.  I don’t like it but I understand why they did it and unlike you, I believe the President and others involved were sincere in believing it had to be done.  And I agree with them.

I understand your fear of the Orwellian undertone here and that, to some, it will indeed sound as if I am merely rationalizing the whole thing.  But I truly believe that being where we are is necessary and is the best and only way to effectively fight terrorists and prevent them from attacking us again. 

Interestingly, regardless of what you keep claiming, I am not a big fan of Bush.  He was not my choice for the Republican nomination for President in 2000.  I disagree with Bush on more issues that I agree with him on, starting ( but not ending) with his refusal to deal with illegal immigration and our ridiculously open borders - a refusal, by the way, which may render all of our efforts to fight terrorism useless. 

And don’t even get me started on the fact that he spends like a liberal!  Argh!!

On the fight against terrorism, though, I believe Bush is doing what has to be done and that, although it may not be popular now, history will note redeem him.

As far as no WMDs being found, I cannot fathom why anyone would keep beating that drum.  One last time - we know Sadaam had them.  We gave him several months to move and/or dismantle them before we got there. So it is hardly a surprise that they were not found.  Doesn’t mean they were not there.  Instead of going back and forth, though, and rehashing the same old argument, let’s not bore folks and just get on to new ones.  Okay?

FInally, the difference - and I believe it to be a big one - between you being told that going to Viet Nam was necessary to prevent them from coming to our shores, and being told that going to the Middle East to fight terrorists is necessary to keep them from attacking us here is simple - the terrorists had already attacked us and killed thousands of innocent citizens.  There is a big difference between being told something may happen and KNOWING it will happen again if unchecked because it has ALREADY happened once.  And for me, once was enough.

Thanks for your comments as always, and by the way, a sincere thank-you for your service to our country.  My respect for your status as a Veteran is heartfelt.
Jody

Posted by ( chris ) on November 06, 2007 at 9:15 am

Jody,

Fair enough. we’ll never agree on the WMD’s thing, I accept that. I just believe the evidence on a whole supports my position. David Kay did too. Anyway, I still find it difficult to rationalize this war the way you have done. It’s almost as if you are saying that it is o.k. for an elected offical to lie to the public as long as they believe what they are doing is right for the common good. I mean, really, how do you explain to mother and father that their child was killed in an action based on a lie? Will it make a difference to them if they know that Bush had to lie to us to protect us? I don’t buy that.

I thank you for your kind comments. It seems that we rarely agree, but I appreciate your willingness to give people a forum for civil debate. I respect you for your adherence to your principled opinions......however wrong they may be (just a fun poke)