Quotes of the day

posted at 10:33 pm on September 1, 2010 by Allahpundit

Detailing the close professional and personal relationship which developed between the two leaders in the wake of the 2001 terror attacks in the U.S. and during the build-up to the Iraq war in 2003, Blair writes that Bush was “very smart” while having “immense simplicity in how he saw the world.”

“Right or wrong, it led to decisive leadership… he sincerely believed in spreading freedom and democracy,” he writes in “A Journey;” which hit book stores in the UK on Wednesday…

“I was asked recently which of the political leaders I had met had most integrity. I listed George near the top. He had genuine integrity and as much political courage as any leader I ever met,” he writes.

***
“The problem with this war for, I think, many Americans is that the premise on which we justified going to war proved not to be valid — that is, Saddam (Hussein) having weapons of mass destruction,” Gates told reporters after meeting with troops at Camp Ramadi in al-Anbar province. “Even if the outcome (of the war) is a good one from the standpoint of the United States, it will always be clouded by how it began.”…

Asked later by a reporter if the Iraq war — which claimed some 4,400 American lives and possibly 100,000 Iraqis — was “worth it,” the secretary sought refuge in ambiguity.

***
Saddam was obsessed with Iran. Imagine the effect on the jolly Iraqi’s thinking come 2005 and the rise to stardom of Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, publicly mocking the West’s efforts to shut his nuclear program and threatening enemies with annihilation. That year Ahmadinejad broke the U.N. seals at the Isfahan uranium enrichment plant. In North Korea, Kim Jong Il was flouting the civilized world, conducting nuclear-weapon tests and test-firing missiles into the Sea of Japan. In such a world, Saddam would have aspired to play in the same league as Iran and NoKo. Would we have “contained” him?

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Iran and Saddam Hussein in Iraq simultaneously would have incentivized Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Sudan to enter the nuclear marketplace. Pakistan and India would be increasing their nuke-tinged tensions, not trying as now to ease them.

We ought to be a lot prouder of our troops coming home from Iraq than we are showing this week. They deserve a monument. That war wasn’t just about helping Iraq. It was about us. The march across the nuclear threshold by lunatic regimes is a clear and present danger.

***
Our long-term presence in Iraq, in fact, is likely to impede any ability to react militarily to genuine threats. Americans don’t have the appetite for it. So if the Islamic radical leadership of Iran — which many experts believe filled the vacuum left by toppling of Saddam Hussein — is, as many believe, an imminent nuclear threat, we are powerless to stop them.

And if every military action in defense of U.S. interests now comes with an obligatory 10-, 20- or 40-year Marshall Plan, you’ve made it even more politically unpalatable.

There are other questions that make the claim “we’re more secure” highly suspect. If we do leave, where is the evidence that Iraq (or Afghanistan, for that matter) will blossom into a secular democracy and ally in the war against Islamic radicalism?…

The question isn’t whether nation building can work. It probably can. The question is was it worth it.

***
He did not seek the office to change the tides of the world. He sought only to continue the country on its “unfolding American promise that everyone belongs, that everyone deserves a chance, that no insignificant person was ever born.”. Understanding “the stakes for America are never small,” he held steadfast to the belief that “America’s faith in freedom and democracy was a rock in a raging sea.”…

Though his words at times may have been jumbled, the eloquence of his heart spoke. His meaning was always clear. We knew who he was. His convictions were firm. And his belief in the promise of America, unwavering.

I salute Obama for calling his predecessor Tuesday, and for acknowledging Bush’s love of this country in the address. But the page cannot be turned until it has been read and its lessons understood. As we near the anniversary of 9/11 and continue to fight for the cause of a free people in Iraq and Afghanistan, I wish the conversation would continue.

***
[O]ne Bush adviser, granted anonymity to discuss private conversations with the former president, said he knew of just one “authentic conversation” between the two. It took place shortly before Mr. Obama’s inaugural, when his mother-in-law expressed unease at moving to Washington from Chicago.

“I think President Bush pulled her aside and said, ‘It’s very important for your granddaughters, I think you ought to do that, this is the kind of life you can have here,’ ” the aide said. “And I understand President Obama was very appreciative of that. But besides that, it really has not been any relationship.”

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

YES. IT WAS WORTH IT.

picklesgap on September 1, 2010 at 10:43 PM

+100

When Sodam Insane got up in front of the world, and stated that he was so pleased with the 9 11 attacks, that he was doubling the reward he was paying to the families of suicide bombers, he gave us all the justification we ever really needed to invade and dispose him and his whole regime.

Slowburn on September 1, 2010 at 11:50 PM

Will Say this over and over again. Al Qaeda killed 3,000 Americans without a single WMD being used. (airplanes arent that).

And everyone wants to argue that WMDs is why we invaded Iraq. We invade Iraq becase they were enemies of the US and plotting to do us harm. Saddam was as much a threat to the US as Al Qaeda.

The ONLY reason that WMDs was used as a part of the reasoning behind the Invasion of Iraq was due to our ever reluctant Euro Allies. France and Germany were actively partnering with Saddam in bids to win his money. Russia too had its bear paws in Iraq as well.

The WMD argument only came up because Bush took it to the UN to get a international concensus. Bush wanted everyone onboard and made a huge effort at that. Our “Allies” Balked and litterally refused to budge until Saddam actually dropped a bomb.

IF Chirac in France and Schroeder in Germany hadnt been in power there would have never even been a need to involve the UN. and the WMD arguement would never have even been used.

Again will point out that since 1992 the US and Iraq were not at peace. There had been years of sniping by the Iraqis at the US. We only had a ceasefire with Iraq not a peace treaty.

That is why there will NEVER be a warcrimes trial for Bush. Not that America isnt accountible for its actions but rather there is no reason to make such a charge. There was no law violanted in the Invasion of Iraq and the left can never win that arguement. Because there always was a justification for the invasion even without the arguement of WMDs.

William Amos on September 1, 2010 at 11:52 PM

If we do leave, where is the evidence that Iraq (or Afghanistan, for that matter) will blossom into a secular democracy and ally in the war against Islamic radicalism?

Somewhere over the rainbow
Way up high
There’s a land that I heard of
Once in a lullaby

Cheshire Cat on September 1, 2010 at 11:52 PM

Los Ernestos son adiosed.
On to the next nutless troll.

OkieDoc on September 1, 2010 at 11:53 PM

Gett’n late,nitey nite Electrongod,and the reset of H/A!!:)

canopfor on September 1, 2010 at 11:53 PM

You may have missed some eminently quotable remarks by Douglas J. Feith on how ObaMao’s speech never addressed why Iraq matters.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/245430/asdfsadfas-douglas-j-feith

onlineanalyst on September 1, 2010 at 11:54 PM

Gett’n late,nitey nite Electrongod,and the reset of H/A!!:)

canopfor on September 1, 2010 at 11:53 PM

Take care, canopfor.

Electrongod on September 1, 2010 at 11:55 PM

When Sodam Insane got up in front of the world, and stated that he was so pleased with the 9 11 attacks, that he was doubling the reward he was paying to the families of suicide bombers, he gave us all the justification we ever really needed to invade and dispose him and his whole regime.
Slowburn on September 1, 2010 at 11:50 PM

Yknow what everyone forgets?
Is that preiraq, the world thought we were paper tigers. Sure we took Afghanistan but hey 9/11 was the excuse

But Iraq? Crap the world took notice. LIBYA GAVE UP HER NUKES. China backed off of Taiwan for a while. We got freaking Pakistan to give us war “assistance” (taliban lovers now but still), and Iran got real quiet and the weakness of the post iraq iran led to aminajads election in 05

picklesgap on September 1, 2010 at 11:56 PM

Ditto putting a lunatic in charge of a nuclear nation.

Maquis on September 1, 2010 at 10:46 PM

What do you think we have here in the USA right now?

either orr on September 1, 2010 at 11:36 PM

Exactly that.

Maquis on September 1, 2010 at 11:56 PM

Whether or not chemical weapons were found in Iraq is irrelevant because as long as Saddam was there, there was a weapon of mass destruction-it was Saddam!
We went into Iraq, found him and his vile spawn, and then eliminated 3 WMD’s.
That was easy.

annoyinglittletwerp on September 2, 2010 at 12:00 AM

Ack! Too many words in those long quotes o’ the day. My head hurts.

John the Libertarian on September 2, 2010 at 12:05 AM

Ernie

From the NYTimes in 2008

LOS ANGELES — Counties along the Mexican border from California to Texas are shortchanged millions of dollars a year in costs related to prosecuting and jailing illegal immigrants, according to a study released Wednesday.

The study was by the University of Arizona and San Diego State University on behalf of the United States/Mexico Border Counties Coalition, a group representing the 24 border counties.

Cumulatively, the counties spent $1.23 billion from 1999 to 2006 to process illegal immigrants in the justice system, the study found. Federal programs offset only a fraction of those costs, and often did not receive the maximum level of financing that they are authorized to receive, the study said.

Is that kind of cost at all disruptive?

CWforFreedom on September 2, 2010 at 12:06 AM

3 percent of our population is likely made of illegals while over 15 percent of our prison population is made up of illegals? I wonder do such realities cause our society to be unstable?

CWforFreedom on September 2, 2010 at 12:11 AM

Yknow what everyone forgets?
Is that preiraq, the world thought we were paper tigers. Sure we took Afghanistan but hey 9/11 was the excuse

But Iraq? Crap the world took notice. LIBYA GAVE UP HER NUKES. China backed off of Taiwan for a while. We got freaking Pakistan to give us war “assistance” (taliban lovers now but still), and Iran got real quiet and the weakness of the post iraq iran led to aminajads election in 05

picklesgap on September 1, 2010 at 11:56 PM

+100

Slowburn on September 2, 2010 at 12:17 AM

There is very little that is worth sacrificing over 4000 of our finest young men. Once the decision was made to invade Iraq I supported it and am glad the mission was somewhat successful. But I do think it was a big mistake. We should have simply assassinated Saddam and his sons. They were the enemies, not the Iraqi people, and they needed to be killed. But the rest of the war was unnecessary.

The Iraq war also cost the Republicans a majority in Congress, and subsequently led to the 40% increase in domestic sopending that is going to bankrupt America. Future generations will not be thankful that we created a semi-democracy in some shithole in the Middle East when they are shackled to huge taxes, a collapsed health care system, and a stagant economy.

rockmom on September 2, 2010 at 12:23 AM

Don’t forget it was Colin Powell who went on TV and made the convincing argument that there were WMD. His unquestioned (at that time ) credibility is what put that premise over the top. Is the Left ready to call Powell a liar ?

teacherman on September 1, 2010 at 10:41 PM

The Left formally charged Colon Blow with War Crimes at The Hague, but he endorsed O’bama, so the charges were probably dropped.

Del Dolemonte on September 2, 2010 at 12:26 AM

Though his words at times may have been jumbled, the eloquence of his heart spoke. His meaning was always clear. We knew who he was. His convictions were firm. And his belief in the promise of America, unwavering.

God Bless W! For keeping us safe. For never bowing to foreign leaders. For respect he gave the office of POTUS. Never calling out individuals by name when they were critical. Standing firm for America. For Honor of our Troops. For advancing Freedom to a world in much need.

TN Mom on September 2, 2010 at 12:27 AM

Don’t forget it was Colin Powell who went on TV and made the convincing argument that there were WMD. His unquestioned (at that time ) credibility is what put that premise over the top. Is the Left ready to call Powell a liar ?

teacherman on September 1, 2010 at 10:41 PM

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), Oct 10, 2002)

Tav on September 2, 2010 at 12:31 AM

Los Ernestos son adiosed.
On to the next nutless troll.

OkieDoc on September 1, 2010 at 11:53 PM

Banned? Or just gone beddie-byes for the night?

UltimateBob on September 2, 2010 at 12:34 AM

9/11 required a response; Afghanistan was that response. Iraq actually made responding to 9/11 more difficult. Our going into Iraq doesn’t make George Bush a villain, but it does make him reckless and misguided.

ernesto on September 1, 2010 at 11:08 PM

First of all, it was Bush’s predecessor Bill Clinton whose Justice Department formally charged bin Laden with being in cahoots with Iraq, in their 1998 Indictment. You should read that document some time.

I would also read the 2002 Authorization of Force in its entirety. You’ll find almost 20 different reasons we went into Iraq.

I’m sure you’re totally unaware that after we went into Iraq, a Clinton-appointed Federal Judge in downtown Manhattan-in the same court that Holder wants to try KSM and the others in-ruled in a lawsuit by 9/11 families that Iraq did play a role in the 9/11 attacks.

This ruling was widely ignored by your side of the aisle, because it did not fit the template. But I have yet to see any rulings by a Court of Law that Iraq was not involved in those attacks. If you can find such a ruling, I would love to see it.

And remember, the 9/11 “Commission” is not a Court of Law. One of their “Commissioners’ was placed on the panel by the Democrats solely so she could not be questioned under oath about her role in allowing the attacks to move forward.

Del Dolemonte on September 2, 2010 at 12:44 AM

O/T:

I got a Strike King crankbait painted in Firetiger with a warning on the back not to swallow as product contains lead and maybe harmful.

It has two big treble hooks on it, no crap it can be harmful if swallowed.

This is what our Republic has come to.

Holger on September 2, 2010 at 12:48 AM

Know what’s so sad? The President who refused to take out Saddam and refused to take out bin Laden-and then left Bush both problems-is now treated as a rock star here and abroad.

The latest poll has his approval rating at 66%. Bush’s is 21 points lower.

Del Dolemonte on September 2, 2010 at 12:49 AM

This is America

Tav on September 2, 2010 at 1:03 AM

So the US can act with impunity, no matter the cost in blood and treasure? Is that in any way righteous or honorable? To simply ignore an egregious error, and swing next at anyone who dears lay even an ounce of blame on a guilty party?

ernesto on September 1, 2010 at 10:53 PM

Yes!

Trample the weak, hurdle the dead!

FTW!

gary4205 on September 2, 2010 at 1:20 AM

You know, illegal immigration didn’t start a year or 2 ago. It’s been a fact of life our entire existence, and yet for most of that time no one’s insisted that the stability of the nation rested on keeping illegals out. Hell, your hero gave them amnesty. Did Reagan seriously jeopardize the stability of the nation?

ernesto on September 1, 2010 at 11:00 PM

In response to his ramblings about Reagan, I asked the laraza troll one simple question

Do you have brakes in your car ? Why ?

macncheez on September 1, 2010 at 11:08 PM

to see if he understands the concept of “applying the brakes” when the situation demands.
Repubs do everything wrong , but every demoncr@p wants to do what Reagan did for amnesty. Why ??

macncheez on September 2, 2010 at 1:27 AM

The Bush’s gave Barack a chance like a lot of people did, that whole, good will thing, seems pathetic at this point.

Reach out a hand, this President lunges to bite it off.

Speakup on September 2, 2010 at 1:31 AM

The latest poll has his approval rating at 66%. Bush’s is 21 points lower.

Del Dolemonte on September 2, 2010 at 12:49 AM

and the worst part is that GWB never blamed Bill Clinton for 9-11. Heck he didn’t even blame Clinton for the 1993 WTC bombing, or the US embassies bombing in Kenya and Nigeria, or even for USS Cole bombing. Clinton never gets blamed for his funky bombing abroad , when he was getting a Lewinsky at home. Then , GWB never bothered to prosecute Sandiburgler.
Clintons could have faded into history but GWB revived them by getting them into WH for some reason or another and then after BillC got onboard with Bush 41 for the tsunami relief , they got the toehold they were looking for.
Oh BTW, has anyone any idea what terrorists fund their “library” ?

macncheez on September 2, 2010 at 1:42 AM

Just in case nobody posted this yet:

Democrats in their own words

Shy Guy on September 2, 2010 at 3:50 AM

rockmom on September 2, 2010 at 12:23 AM

I agree with most of what you said; however, the Republicans were big, big spenders under Bush (the Medicare Prescription Drug coverage introduced by Bush costs us trillions). The fact that Democrats are even worse doesn’t let Republicans off the hook, and Bush’s refusal to require Iraq to pay for our presence (I presume he intended to fend off the stupid “blood for oil” charge) meant enormous costs that will be passed on to our children. Why anyone thinks that is morally superior to assassinating a tyrannical madman and his equally tyrannical and loony sons is beyond me. And, as you essentially pointed out, the Middle East is a cesspool that isn’t worth a scratch on a single American soldier, particularly in an effort to bring them ideals that they don’t seem interested in embracing.

DrMagnolias on September 2, 2010 at 6:08 AM

So the US can act with impunity, no matter the cost in blood and treasure?

ernesto on September 1, 2010 at 10:53 PM

Flawed logic. (or you are just being dishonest)

The intel said he had the WMDs thus we did not act with impunity.

CWforFreedom on September 2, 2010 at 6:41 AM

DrMagnolias on September 2, 2010 at 6:08 AM

For starters, the Drug Prescription Plan you spoke of came in at 43% under budget and was a drop in the bucket compared to the kind of spending we have seen with Obama and company. The plan was very popular among seniors and if it had not been there, the Democrats would have undoubtedly won the support of many of those seniors for Obamacare by placing more costly legislation in their plan. No old folks would have been showing up at town halls screaming Leave my Medicare alone. Also, that plan was a compromise that was created so that conservatives could get initiatives like HSAs and Medicare Advantage passed. It was a private/public plan that the Democrats have changed in their most recent legislation to a public plan.People did not turn out in outrage when the program was passed years ago, they supported it and by and large they still do. And when Bush tried to reform social security, where were all these fiscally minded people?

As for asking the Iraqis to pay us for being in Iraq…that is crazy. We went in there under a UN mandate, how do we ask for payment? After WW2 and Korea, we left the places we were so much better off that over time we did actually benefited from their stability.

I remember after the invasion in Iraq, when they found the wmd programs..and the experts said that it would have taken 6 months to create the chemical stockpiles again, 2 years to recreate the biological weapons..well, Saddam was not hiding those programs because he had a sentimental attachment to them…he would have built those stockpiles back again as soon as he was allowed to do so..and btw, we do not really know what happened to the weapons he had before do we?

Bush was faced with certain challenges and I think he did what he thought was best, we can second guess that all we want, but the decisions still had to be made.

Terrye on September 2, 2010 at 6:51 AM

and the worst part is that GWB never blamed Bill Clinton for 9-11. Heck he didn’t even blame Clinton for the 1993 WTC bombing, or the US embassies bombing in Kenya and Nigeria, or even for USS Cole bombing. Clinton never gets blamed for his funky bombing abroad , when he was getting a Lewinsky at home. Then , GWB never bothered to prosecute Sandiburgler.
Clintons could have faded into history but GWB revived them by getting them into WH for some reason or another and then after BillC got onboard with Bush 41 for the tsunami relief , they got the toehold they were looking for.
Oh BTW, has anyone any idea what terrorists fund their “library” ?

macncheez on September 2, 2010 at 1:42 AM

What difference would it make if he blamed them? It is up to history to blame them..one of the reasons that Bush’s numbers have improved since he left office is that he has not run around shooting his mouth off, blaming other people, pointing fingers and in general acting like a vain pompous ex president who does not know when to shut up. If he had spent his time in office blaming Clinton for bad intel or 9/11 or the first attack on the WTC it would just have made him look like a whiner who was not up to the job…kind of like the guy we have in there right now.

Terrye on September 2, 2010 at 6:55 AM

There are many things on which I disagree with W, but clearly Blair understands him in a way that American left haters cannot. He is smart; he has a simple, black and white view of the world; and he has enormous personal integrity.

It’s as easy as 1, 2, 3.

Jaibones on September 2, 2010 at 6:56 AM

Then , GWB never bothered to prosecute Sandiburgler.

For one thing, Presidents do not prosecute people, that is not part of their job description..for another Burger was fined $50,000 for taking those documents.

Terrye on September 2, 2010 at 7:00 AM

There are many things on which I disagree with W, but clearly Blair understands him in a way that American left haters cannot. He is smart; he has a simple, black and white view of the world; and he has enormous personal integrity.

It’s as easy as 1, 2, 3.

Jaibones on September 2, 2010 at 6:56 AM

It is not just the left, there are plenty of people on the right who make a point of not of even trying to understand him. Bush is a safe target for a lot of people and they need targets.

Terrye on September 2, 2010 at 7:02 AM

Yo Gates, that huge haul of yellow cake we found in Iraq and sent to Canada. What was that for? To give Saddam a hard-on?

Kafir on September 2, 2010 at 7:39 AM

test

cmsinaz on September 2, 2010 at 7:41 AM

Tav on September 2, 2010 at 12:31 AM

thank you! w had the same intelligence that everyone else had..cripe, a resolution was passed while clinton was in office re: saddam…

cmsinaz on September 2, 2010 at 7:42 AM

3 percent of our population is likely made of illegals while over 15 percent of our prison population is made up of illegals? I wonder do such realities cause our society to be unstable?

If you dig into the numbers and statistics, you’ll find among the primary causes of rising prison population are single parent households which result from illegitimacy. No. This is NOT a “slam” at single mothers, per se. But when children grow up without a father in the home, they are somewhere in the range of seven times more likely to end up in prison. Natural families are the bed-rock of a nation, and “The Government” can’t be anybodies Daddy, no matter how much Leftists wish “The Government” could be.

oldleprechaun on September 2, 2010 at 7:50 AM

It is not just the left, there are plenty of people on the right who make a point of not of even trying to understand him. Bush is a safe target for a lot of people and they need targets.

Terrye on September 2, 2010 at 7:02 AM

Nah. The right supported him completely in two elections. Approval polls showed that he lost support in his second term, but who knows what that means. Had he been running for election, the right half would have been with him.

Jaibones on September 2, 2010 at 8:36 AM

Though his words at times may have been jumbled, the eloquence of his heart spoke. His meaning was always clear. We knew who he was. His convictions were firm. And his belief in the promise of America, unwavering.

This is why I so admired him. I could relate to him. Thank you TB for this.

SoldiersMom on September 2, 2010 at 8:48 AM

It is not just the left, there are plenty of people on the right who make a point of not of even trying to understand him. Bush is a safe target for a lot of people and they need targets.

I’m becoming more and more convinced that people criticize Bush and now Palin because they think it’s “cool”. They really don’t balance their opinions with fact or reasoned deliberations on alternatives but join the media produced noise because they don’t want to look average, they want to seem “elite”. Interestingly, those that parrot the personal attacks formed by the media are doing exactly what they think they are not, they are sheep. They have no concept of the big picture, no facts at their disposal, no grasp of history. You see this with Palin and with Beck’s rally. All the criticism is directly from talking points from big media with big state fealty. Allahpundit is particularly susceptible.

Haunches on September 2, 2010 at 8:49 AM

Right or wrong, it led to decisive leadership… he sincerely believed in spreading freedom and democracy

Marx damn that George W. Bush for believing in freedom & democracy.

/Left.

The essence of why the Left hates W.

rbj on September 2, 2010 at 8:52 AM

There is one aspect of Obama’s mention of W in his speech the other that I haven’t seen mentioned. When Obama said that no one can doubt Bush’s love of country, he didn’t mean that in a good way.

Liberals consider love of country to be a major character flaw.

Jaynie59 on September 2, 2010 at 9:51 AM

Geopolitics is hard and stuff;)

The MSM kept bashing Bush, but he understood the Middle Eastern Neighborhood very well it turns out.

We were leaning forward under Bush to Show Strength – because in societies based on “Honor” that’s what they Respect.

We are now pulling back under Obama to pacify and appease (The International Community) Obama apologizes, and criticizes his own country to show what – we are withdrawing? Where is the HONOR? I have to ask, does Obama and his administration – the Democrats as a whole, understand the Middle East and the neighborhood? The Honor they base their culture on? Now we look WEAK, and our enemies are probing us for future attacks. Appeasement is a sign of WEAKNESS in the Middle East. Perhaps the Democrats think they are presenting something that resembles being (Reasonable) but that’s a western concept, and it’s not what people in that region of the world, make their decisions based on….but I am sure they are more than willing to manipulate the current Obama foreign policy to their own advantage. They even want to build bridges in return on the graveyard of our dead down in Ground Zero….

The only way Barack Obama’s “Progressive” foreign policy works is if he is following in Teddy Roosevelt’s policy “Walk Softly And Carry A Big Stick”

Translation “If you can’t play with the Big Dogs, leave your puppy A$$ on the porch”

Dr Evil on September 2, 2010 at 10:23 AM

It comes down to Perception: WEAK VS STRONG.

Dr Evil on September 2, 2010 at 10:38 AM

Somebody needs to punch Gates right in the damned pie-hole.

One of 21 reasons for going to war as stated, not THE reason.

Yellowcake recovered in large amounts.

Over 50 tons of chemical weapons recovered (more destroyed), returned to the US, the UN even filed a complaint that we didn’t let *them* do it.

More WMDs, in unknown amounts, shipped to Syria early in the war (thanks Israel for blowing some of that up later!).

The chemical weapons that Saddam had ALREADY USED.

Every time some jackoff says there were “no WMDs” it is seriously baseball-bat time.

Gross public lying without penalty WILL destroy our society, because if we can’t come to some agreement on basic facts then people will resort to fighting over them.

Merovign on September 2, 2010 at 11:59 AM

One of the reasons I question the loyalty of lefty leadership is because of the positions they take almost always side with despotism

Israel has been jammed into a corner where the barbarism continuously directed at them is ignored, while any and every effort to protect themselves is critiqued,…..

From ivory towers out of range

I believe though primitive, our radical enemy isn’t dumb

it makes sense to me that they would take efforts to plan 9/11 from a place where armies go to die

that is until we hot there

point is is that there was quite a lot of lefty support to go to Afghanistan

The
problem is that It really wouldn’t change the reality of the current situation with Muslim radicals.

Now removing a continuing tyrant from an oil bearing nation which used it’s wealth much like most Islamic oil bearing nations for nefarious ends changes things

it removed great revenue from the most insidious and put it in the hands of hopefully responsible people which only is missed by lefty constituancy

it cracked the status quo of predictable squallor from the middle east and has added a taste for liberty

the left would have preferred that we bomb Afghanistan, kill some
e Taliban and al qaeda and go home with our pride sated though mo measurable change in the actual machine just as they gloat when they pidgeonhole Israel into making concessions to those who kill them

changing Iraq into the hands of Iraqis is a strategic victory and weakens despotism so it made all the sense in the world to me as I believe it does to lefty “leadership” for the opposite reasons

Sonosam on September 2, 2010 at 12:36 PM

Lesson to the jihadists: you take down two of our buildings, we’ll take down two of your governments.

Tres Angelas on September 2, 2010 at 12:36 PM

Terrye on September 2, 2010 at 6:51 AM

It is irrelevant whether any unconstitutional action is popular. Medicare, prescription drug coverage, Social Security, etc. are blatantly unconstitutional. The fact that Democrats would come up with something isn’t a permission slip for Republicans to do something “less bad.”

As far as Iraq paying its way, do you think it is impossible to demand a share of their oil sales? If they refused, we could certainly leave. You don’t have to like the idea, but it is hardly “crazy.” And WWII is so vastly different from this situation the two aren’t even comparable, particularly when you look at what we actually did–we did not allow Shintoism to remain enshrined as a necessary part of Japan’s post-war government, but we allowed the Iraqis to make sharia part of their constitution. Is that really what our troops were dying for, that the second we leave, women are still stuck? Such a thing was inevitable in any Islamic country, but we engaged in a giant game of “let’s pretend” when we said we would democratize the Middle East.

There are principled reasons to have opposed the Iraq invasion in the first place. There are principled reasons to oppose having done anything beyond invading and killing Saddam and his sons. It has nothing to do with second-guessing, but with a principled disagreement with what was done. There is no way to know, either way, what would have happened had we not invaded, but there are a good many of us–I included–who think the Middle East is a cesspool beyond saving, and instead must be unsentimentally contained and dealt with.

DrMagnolias on September 2, 2010 at 12:50 PM

Comment pages: 1 2