Donald Rumsfeld likes to point his finger, but it never seems to point in quite the right direction.
When I was young, it was a sign of having old-fashioned values, even of having moral fiber, to not start blaming everyone else the moment something went wrong. It was considered a sign of virtue if in the course of a fight or an argument, you took a moment to think about any ways you might have contributed to the situation. Anyone who seemed to be part of a mess who’s first reaction was to say “It was your fault” and who then started to blame everyone but himself or herself was generally considered by any thoughtful person to be a scoundrel, a bully, or Joe McCarthy. Long ago, personal responsibility was considered one of the touchstones of being a conservative. Even the Bible seemed to agree, not that Theobertarians actually read it.…
Article comments
26 - Dave Nalle
I do think Suskind's take on Iraq was pretty accurate. "The US picked the dog it thought it could beat easily to make a point to the other dogs."
I think that's dead on. Iraq was a target of convenience. It has a prime geographic location, no one was going to cry for Saddam - not even other Arab leaders - and it was weakened after years of war and sanctions. Made perfect sense as a target in every way even if the red flag issues which made it easy to sell were a little weak.
The problem is that it's a high risk strategy if you miscalculate the dog's will to fight back. Thus while we're still fighting the dog we thought we'd subdue immediately and easily, it's emboldened the truly dangerous dogs who have now seen us struggle to put down a "weak" dog.
Except that we're not really fighting the dog, we're fighting the fleas that jumped off the body and infested the area where the dog died. To extend the analogy a bit farther. We absolutely beat Saddam and his government. Only a few of the groups we're fighting now are more than remotely connected to the old regime.
Dave
27 - Dave Nalle
Here's a chance to prove it by stating the evidence you have in a response.
If you have less than one piece of evidence, just apologize.
Give me a break, Dean. I didn't say Iraq was connected to 9/11, I said they were a state sponsor of terrorism. That's such an indisputed fact that it's ridiculous to challenge me on it. You ought to apologize just for attempting such a farcical tactic. I realize that the Baath party are your fellow travellers, but try to keep some grip on reality.
And if you want evidence, it's everywhere. Here's a link at the State Department which gives a quick summary of Iraq's support of the Abu Nidal Organization, , the Kurdistan Workers Party, the Palestinian Liberation Front and Mujahedin-e Khalq. Here's a good article on Saddam's financial support of terrorists, including a sample check written to the family of a suicide bomber, plus hard info on other groups who were financially supported by Iraq like Hamas and Ansar al Islam. It also has information on various terrorist leaders given safe haven in Iraq.
Do I need to go on?
Dave
28 - MCH
"The next time you see me write macho war-speak will be the first time."
- Dave Nalle, commenting ad nauseam on BC
"Except that we're not really fighting the dog, we're fighting the fleas that jumped off the body and infested the area where the dog died. To extend the analogy a bit farther. We absolutely beat Saddam and his government. Only a few of the groups we're fighting now are more than remotely connected to the old regime."
- Dave Nalle, #26
-----------------------------
I rest my case.
29 - Dean
Dave, the following is the State Department’s evidence for Iraq’s support of terror:
Supposedly, if terrorism justified invading Iraq, the following reasons justify the Iraq war and the deaths, to date, of 2,652 American soldiers and 10,782 wounded.
1. Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Cuba, North Korea, and Sudan continue to be the seven governments that the US Secretary of State has designated as state sponsors of international terrorism.
2. Iraq continued to provide safe haven and support to a variety of Palestinian rejectionist groups, as well as bases, weapons, and protection to the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK), an Iranian terrorist group that opposes the current Iranian regime.
3. Iraq planned and sponsored international terrorism in 2000. Although Baghdad focused on antidissident activity overseas, the regime continued to support various terrorist groups.
4. [There were] reports that the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) might retaliate against RFE/RL for broadcasts critical of the Iraqi regime.
5. To intimidate or silence Iraqi opponents of the regime living overseas, the IIS reportedly opened several new stations in foreign capitals during 2000.
6. Opposition leaders in London contended that the IIS had dispatched women agents to infiltrate their ranks and was targeting dissidents for assassination.
7. In Germany, an Iraqi opposition figure denounced the IIS for murdering his son, who had recently left Iraq to join him abroad.
8. Dr. Ayad `Allawi, Secretary General of the Iraqi National Accord, an opposition group, stated that relatives of dissidents living abroad are often arrested and jailed to intimidate activists overseas.
9. In northern Iraq, Iraqi agents reportedly killed a locally well-known religious personality who declined to echo the regime line.
10. The regional security director in As Sulaymaniyah stated that Iraqi operatives were responsible for the car-bomb explosion that injured a score of passersby.
11. Officials of the Iraqi Communist Party asserted that an attack on a provincial party headquarters had been thwarted when party security officers shot and wounded a terrorist employed by the IIS.
12. Baghdad continued to denounce and delegitimize UN personnel working in Iraq, particularly UN de-mining teams, in the wake of the killing in 1999 of an expatriate UN de-mining worker in northern Iraq under circumstances suggesting regime involvement.
13. An Iraqi who opened fire at the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) office in Baghdad, killing two persons and wounding six, was permitted to hold a heavily publicized press conference at which he contended that his action had been motivated by the harshness of UN sanctions, which the regime regularly excoriates.
14. The Iraqi regime rebuffed a request from Riyadh for the extradition of two Saudis who had hijacked a Saudi Arabian Airlines flight to Baghdad, but did return promptly the passengers and the aircraft.
15. Disregarding its obligations under international law, the regime granted political asylum to the hijackers and gave them ample opportunity to ventilate in the Iraqi Government-controlled and international media their criticisms of alleged abuses by the Saudi Arabian Government, echoing an Iraqi propaganda theme.
While the origins of the FAO attack and the hijacking were unclear, the Iraqi regime readily exploited these terrorist acts to further its policy objectives.
16, Several expatriate terrorist groups continued to maintain offices in Baghdad, including the Arab Liberation Front, the inactive 15 May Organization, the Palestine Liberation Front (PLF), and the Abu Nidal organization (ANO).
17. PLF leader Abu `Abbas appeared on state-controlled television in the fall to praise Iraq's leadership in rallying Arab opposition to Israeli violence against Palestinians.
18. The ANO threatened to attack Austrian interests unless several million dollars in a frozen ANO account in a Vienna bank were turned over to the group.
19. The Iraq-supported Iranian terrorist group, Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), regularly claimed responsibility for armed incursions into Iran that targeted police and military outposts, as well as for mortar and bomb attacks on security organization headquarters in various Iranian cities.
20. MEK publicists reported that in March group members killed an Iranian colonel having intelligence responsibilities.
21. An MEK claim to have wounded a general was denied by the Iranian Government. The Iraqi regime deployed MEK forces against its domestic opponents.
Dave. You may believe that the above justifies the deaths and wounding of so many Americans, and the expenditure of over $300 billion of taxpayer money, but most Americans have concluded that going to war for these reasons in nothing but bullshit.
Also, note that Iraq is not charged with any attack on the United States.