Bush Has It All Under Control

[Philip_P]

qmvsimp:

The specific case in Iraq is more like this:

Your neighbor on the next street hates you. He has told you so many times. He teaches his children and others around him that you are Satan. That killing you and your family is God’s will. That killing you and your family in a suicide attack will send them to heaven, where 72 virgins will await them.

Saddam was a secular Baathist, not an Islamic fundamentalist. I know it’s hard to keep track of all them foreign type folk, but the differences really are important.

Then they acquire arms through illegal means. They train in how to attack and kill you. You find out about it. Do you really just do nothing? Do you really wait until they attack you?

Prior to our invasion, 2/3 of Iraq was patrolled by U.S. and U.K. aircraft. Inspectors were on the ground checking for weapons (they didn’t find any and - lo and behold, several years later, the U.S. military hasn’t found any either).

At the very least, invading Iraq was premature. Conceivably there could have been a time when an invasion would have been justified, but certainly not at the time we did so. And had GWB possessed better foreign policy acumen, we probably could have avoided any invasion at all.

 

[qmvsimp]

Philip P:

Saddam was a secular Baathist, not an Islamic fundamentalist. I know it’s hard to keep track of all them foreign type folk, but the differences really are important.

Prior to our invasion, 2/3 of Iraq was patrolled by U.S. and U.K. aircraft. Inspectors were on the ground checking for weapons (they didn’t find any and - lo and behold, several years later, the U.S. military hasn’t found any either).

At the very least, invading Iraq was premature. Conceivably there could have been a time when an invasion would have been justified, but certainly not at the time we did so. And had GWB possessed better foreign policy acumen, we probably could have avoided any invasion at all.

There are two issues here: Why we invaded Iraq, and why Iraq is important now. The first is because we thought he had WMD, the second is what I was addressing. I am curious as to what you think about the issue with regards to Islamic Fundamentalists who want to die while killing our civilians in order to reach heaven.

The first issue which you addressed is a legitimate one. On both the Senate Intelligence Committee report and the 9/11 Committee report, they concluded that no one lied, that our intelligence community (as well as Russian, Israeli, British, Jordanian & Egyptian) had a massive intelligence failure regarding Iraq’s possession of WMD.

Of important note is that both committees had a 50/50 breakdown of Republicans and Democrats and both reports were signed unamimously by all members.

 

[trailblazer]

PhillipP: You wrote, “At the very least, invading Iraq was premature. Conceivably there could have been a time when an invasion would have been justified, but certainly not at the time we did so. And had GWB possessed better foreign policy acumen, we probably could have avoided any invasion at all.”

I respectfully disagree. GWB was following exactly what the information he and other leaders throughout the world were gathering from intellegence. I have not yet seen proof that Iraq was not engaged in developing weapons capable of harming the US and her allies. **President Bush’s decision was supported by not only the American public, but even the Democrat leadership. Hindsight is always great, but it does not take place until after. Below I have provided what our Democrat leaders were saying. These quotes were taken from **[http://www.prolifepresident.com/ (http://www.prolifepresident.com/)

DEMOCRAT LEADERS ON IRAQ:

• 2/4/98: “One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.” - **President Clinton **
• 2/17/98: “If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.” - President Clinton
• 2/18/98: “He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.” - **Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser **
• 10/9/98: “[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its** weapons of mass destruction programs**.” - **Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others **
• 12/5/2001: “There is no doubt that … Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles** that will threaten the United States and our allies.**” -**Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others **
• 9/19/2002: “We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.” - **Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI) **
• 9/23/2002: “Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.” -** Al Gore **
• 9/27/2002: “We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA)
• 10/9/2002: “I will be voting to give the President of the United States the** authority to use force**-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.” - **Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA) **

CONTINUED ON NEXT POST

 

[trailblazer]

CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST…RESPONDING TO PhillipP:

---

• 10/10/2002: “He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do” Rep. - Henry Waxman (D, CA)
• 10/10/2002: “In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.” - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY)
• 12/8/2002: “We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.” - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL)
• 1/23/2003: "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to Miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction… So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real - **Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA) **

**After reading what the Democrats were saying, are you still in agreement that they too were wrong. How would you propose they should have reacted to the threat and actions of Suddam? **

Bob

 

[Philip_P]

And your point that many Democrats were wrong is, what, exactly? If Al Gore had won in 2000 instead of Bush, and Al Gore did all the same things Bush did on foreign policy, it would STILL be wrong.

And as far as whether Bush lied or made a mistake, I personally have never claimed it was one or the other. So fine, let’s say Bush didn’t lie. Ok, then he exhibited extremely poor judgment. You can quote as many people as you like who supported the war, the fact remains that there were also many qualified people who didn’t. Bush chose to ignore those opposed to the war and listen to those who supported it. That was a mistake. As to his motivations, I guess that’s between him and God.

 

[Philip_P]

qmvsimp:

I am curious as to what you think about the issue with regards to Islamic Fundamentalists who want to die while killing our civilians in order to reach heaven.

Obviously it’s a bad thing. I’m not a fan of anyone willing to turn other people into martyrs in behalf of their own cause, whatever that cause may be.

As far as what to do now in Iraq, well we’ve already messed things up pretty badly there. At some point the costs to the US will outweigh the benefits, and it looks that that point is coming far sooner rather than later (if indeed it hasn’t already passed). My larger concern is that we avoid such mistakes in the future. Iraq wasn’t the first, and it won’t be the last, foreign policy blunder we made. Critiquing the war is important not only for our current situation, but to help avoid similar mistakes in the future.

 

[Thekla]

qmvsimp:

I am curious as to what you think about the issue with regards to Islamic Fundamentalists who want to die while killing our civilians in order to reach heaven.

You may want to read the new book, “Dying to Win” by Robert Pape.

From the jacket…

"Suicide terrorism is rising around the world, but there is great confusion as to why. In this paradigm-shifting analysis, University of Chicago political scientist Robert Pape has collected groundbreaking evidence to explain the strategic, social, and individual factors responsible for this growing threat.

One of the world’s foremost authorities on the subject, Professor Pape has created the first comprehensive database of every suicide terrorist attack in the world from 1980 until today. With striking clarity and precision, Professor Pape uses this unprecedented research to debunk widely held misconceptions about the nature of suicide terrorism and provide a new lens that makes sense of the threat we face.

FACT: Suicide terrorism is not primarily a product of Islamic fundamentalism."

 

[qmvsimp]

Philip P:

And as far as whether Bush lied or made a mistake, I personally have never claimed it was one or the other. So fine, let’s say Bush didn’t lie. Ok, then he exhibited extremely poor judgment. You can quote as many people as you like who supported the war, the fact remains that there were also many qualified people who didn’t. Bush chose to ignore those opposed to the war and listen to those who supported it. That was a mistake. As to his motivations, I guess that’s between him and God.

This isn’t really a fair assessment of the information Bush received. In any intelligence situation, there will always be conflicting information. The President has to decide which one is accurate. The way you portray it is that there was a 50/50 chance based on equal amounts of evidence.

The overwhelming evidence (erroneous we now know) from US and foreign intelligence services was that Iraq had WMD. According to Bob Woodward, when Bush questioned the evidence, The CIA director told Bush the case for Iraq having WMD’s was a “slam dunk” case.

As a President, you have to go with the overwhelming evidence and what your CIA director says is a “slam dunk” case. Can you imagine if Bush had ignored that, and the US suffered an attack that was traced to Iraq? Bush would have been impeached!

 

[qmvsimp]

Philip P:

As far as what to do now in Iraq, well we’ve already messed things up pretty badly there. At some point the costs to the US will outweigh the benefits, and it looks that that point is coming far sooner rather than later (if indeed it hasn’t already passed). My larger concern is that we avoid such mistakes in the future. Iraq wasn’t the first, and it won’t be the last, foreign policy blunder we made. Critiquing the war is important not only for our current situation, but to help avoid similar mistakes in the future.

Good points. I can’t really disagree with anything here.

 

[qmvsimp]

Thekla:

You may want to read the new book, “Dying to Win” by Robert Pape.

From the jacket…

"Suicide terrorism is rising around the world, but there is great confusion as to why. In this paradigm-shifting analysis, University of Chicago political scientist Robert Pape has collected groundbreaking evidence to explain the strategic, social, and individual factors responsible for this growing threat.

One of the world’s foremost authorities on the subject, Professor Pape has created the first comprehensive database of every suicide terrorist attack in the world from 1980 until today. With striking clarity and precision, Professor Pape uses this unprecedented research to debunk widely held misconceptions about the nature of suicide terrorism and provide a new lens that makes sense of the threat we face.

FACT: Suicide terrorism is not primarily a product of Islamic fundamentalism."

Professor Page has done a great job in his research, and his conclusions are very intelligent.

However, comments on what causes suicide terrorism are opinions, not facts.

What is important to us as Americans is that the suicide bombers that have targeted Americans (either civilian or military) have been almost exclusively Islamic extremists.

Non-islamic suicide bombers have not targeted Americans, so most of us Americans are not as concerned about them.

 

[didymus]

PiusXIII:

Bush does indeed have it under control. I am so sick and tired of people questioning how this war is being fought. It’s time for people to sit down, shut up and trust the President. He knows what he’s doing. I’m sick of people focusing on all the bad things like the killings and bombings in Iraq. What—would you rather have those people tortured by Saddam Hussein? I’m sick of all the Saddam lovers out there saying bad things about this war. I even heard someone say the other day that the only reason Bush got us into war was so he could get re-elected. Even if that were true, so what?! Is it so bad that it took a war for us to keep a great Christian pro-life President?

I wish the traitors in this country would shut up.

It is painfully obvious that Bush does NOT have it under control. His experiment in Iraq has proven one thing – that chaos is worse than tyranny. I am not a “Saddam lover” but the conditions of life for Iraqis was definitely better before the war. Yes there was repression and torture but there wasn’t occupation by a foreign power and a civil; war at the same time.

Besides all that Bush’s war fails the Church’s jsut war test.

 2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force    require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it    subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. **At one and the same    time**: 


 - the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of    nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

Saddam was not, strictly speaking, an aggressor. Bush’s supposed justification was that he possessed WMD’s which he had used in the past and that he had links to international terrorism.

• all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

I’ll give Bush that one since the UN is as useless as teats on a bull.

• there must be serious prospects of success;

I presume W can’t see the future so he may have thought so.

• the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

He gets a great big F-minus for that one.
2313 **Non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners must be respected and treated humanely. Actions deliberately contrary to the law of nations and to its universal principles are crimes, as are the orders that command such actions.** Blind obedience does not suffice to excuse those who carry them out.
Can you say “Geneva Convention”?

I certainly hope that the situation in Iraq can still be retrieved but I’m afraid that President Bush’s aren’t the way to go about it. The biggest problem seems to be that we totally destroyed Iraq’s infrastructure and dismantled the govenrnment going in and so everything has to be built up from scratch.

If you want to call me a traitor go right ahead. I don’t believe “sitting down and shutting up” are among my duties as a citizen.

 

[trailblazer]

2/4/98: “One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.” - **President Clinton **
2/17/98: “If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.” - President Clinton

 

[thestickman]

didymus:

• the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

He gets a great big F-minus for that one.

Nope, he doesn’t he get’s an A-. 25 million people no longer live under a tyrant and 8 million of those risked life and limb to vote freely for the 1st time in their lives. Iraq has moved from a butcherous dictatorship to a fledling democracy in just a short time. Excuse me, Bush gets an A for it all.

didymus:

f you want to call me a traitor go right ahead. I don’t believe “sitting down and shutting up” are among my duties as a citizen.

I don’t think you’re a traitor, just ignorant of the complete picture of what’s transpiring on the ground in Iraq. The GOOD and the bad. If you really do wanna know more about the good things happening in Iraq the MSM doesn’t bother with reporting, go here

 

[oat_soda]

Nope, he doesn’t he get’s an A-. 25 million people no longer live under a tyrant and 8 million of those risked life and limb to vote freely for the 1st time in their lives. Iraq has moved from a butcherous dictatorship to a fledling democracy in just a short time. Excuse me, Bush gets an A for it all.

there are definitively good things that have happened since the war ended. but at what cost? how many iraqis, many of them catholic, have died so they can have an american style democracy? the war was declared by pope b-16 and jpii as unjust.

in God’s eyes who is worse: a brutal dictator who kills innocent civilians; or a dictatorship of “tolerance” that allows the slaughter of 4,000 babies a day? about the amount killed during 911. i think you can see the hypocrisy of american imperialism.

just ignorant of the complete picture of what’s transpiring on the ground in Iraq. The GOOD and the bad.

the catechism states that a morally good act requires the goodness of its object, of its end, and of its circumstances together 1760. so you can’t separate the unjust intent of the war, that of preemption, from the good intent of freeing the people and the circumstances of all the suffering the war has caused. in fact, it would be hard to argue that a new iraqi democracy is inherently a good thing. look at us!? we allow contraception, pornography, homosexuality, and abortion because of “liberty and freedom”. so, i don’t think the war was just or good in any way. the only good we can do now is fix the problem and bring peace and order to the iraqis.

 

[trailblazer]

• 10/10/2002: “In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.” - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY)
• 12/8/2002: “We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.” - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL)
• 1/23/2003: "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to Miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction… So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real - **Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA) **

 

[oat_soda]

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY)

uhhh trailblazer, what is your point?? no one here is arguing that we’ve been at odds with iraq for over 15 years.

…and to think that we use to support saddam against iran.

 

[thestickman]

oat soda:

how many iraqis, many of them catholic, have died so they can have an american style democracy?

Not nearly as many as Americans who’ve died in the last 200 years to insure we and so many millions of others remain free.

oat soda:

the war was declared by pope b-16 and jpii as unjust.

Really? Got a link?

oat soda:

in God’s eyes who is worse: a brutal dictator who kills innocent civilians; or a dictatorship of “tolerance” that allows the slaughter of 4,000 babies a day? about the amount killed during 911. i think you can see the hypocrisy of american imperialism.

The ol’ apples and oranges argument. The horror of abortion has zip to do with 9/11 nor the topic at hand.

oat soda:

the catechism states that a morally good act requires the goodness of its object, of its end, and of its circumstances together 1760. so you can’t separate the unjust intent of the war, that of preemption, from the good intent of freeing the people and the circumstances of all the suffering the war has caused. in fact, it would be hard to argue that a new iraqi democracy is inherently a good thing.

LOL!!! You’ve got to be kidding me!?! What kind of democracy would you prefer the Iraqi’s have? The kind they have in China? Russia? The former USSR? Or would you rather they live under a socialist regime like much of Europe?

oat soda:

look at us!? we allow contraception, pornography, homosexuality, and abortion because of “liberty and freedom”. so, i don’t think the war was just or good in any way. the only good we can do now is fix the problem and bring peace and order to the iraqis.

Again, apples and oranges. Also, to follow your argument to it’s logical conclusion would have Saddam still in power, the Useless Nations proping him and his butchery up thru the oil-for-fruad program and the human shredding machines would still be in operation all they while the horror of abortion would still be legally committed in the US either way.

Didn’t the Pope make some comments regarding relativism?

 

[thestickman]

oat soda:

…and to think that we use to support saddam against iran.

Which has zip to do with anything. Saddam could have remained in power had he followed all the guidelines of the cease-fire agreement he signed after the end of GW1. He chose otherwise.

And to think the French supported us in the late 1700’s lol

 

[Thekla]

qmvsimp:

Professor Page has done a great job in his research, and his conclusions are very intelligent.

However, comments on what causes suicide terrorism are opinions, not facts.

What is important to us as Americans is that the suicide bombers that have targeted Americans (either civilian or military) have been almost exclusively Islamic extremists.

Non-islamic suicide bombers have not targeted Americans, so most of us Americans are not as concerned about them.

When you used the word “heaven” you added the religious component. He says that it’s not necessarily religious but territorial.

 

[oat_soda]

Not nearly as many as Americans who’ve died in the last 200 years to insure we and so many millions of others remain free

maybe for an exercise you should run every war the u.s. has been involved in through the just war doctrine outlined in the catechism. you might be surprised to find out how many unjust wars the u.s. instigated or was involved in. for instance, the mexican american war or wwi.

The ol’ apples and oranges argument. The horror of abortion has zip to do with 9/11 nor the topic at hand.

it has everything to do with it. a u.s. objective in iraq was to set up a democracy. look at our society and how evil it is. the circumstances involved in the war is morally wrong because the democracy set up there has the potential to legalize pornography, contraception, abortion, and homo-unions.

What kind of democracy would you prefer the Iraqi’s have? The kind they have in China? Russia? The former USSR? Or would you rather they live under a socialist regime like much of Europe?

i would like them to have a government which recognizes the natural law as being transendent. i certainly don’t want them to have our government. in fact, you can make a case that sadam was more just because he didn’t allow the murder of infants.

Again, apples and oranges. Also, to follow your argument to it’s logical conclusion would have Saddam still in power, the Useless Nations proping him and his butchery up thru the oil-for-fruad program and the human shredding machines

as opposed to saving 1,700 hundred american and over 13,000 iraqi lives!!!

plus untold suffering and devestation to the iraq people and our families here. but hey, we’re american and we’ll force our immoral culture of death government on you weather you like it or not.