Today on Blogcritics
Home » Saddam Captured! (and I don’t CARE!)

Saddam Captured! (and I don’t CARE!)

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Saddam Hussein Captured!

BAGHDAD, Iraq – Eight months after the fall of his government, Saddam Hussein has been captured by coalition forces in Iraq, the United States confirmed on Sunday. The arrest was a major victory for the coalition that has been battling an insurgency for months.

“Ladies and gentlemen, we got him,” L. Paul Bremer, the head of the U.S. administration in Iraq told a news conference.

Bremer described the arrest as a great day for Iraq. “The tyrant is a prisoner.” ….

You mean ONE of the tyrants is a prisoner… the other one is raping the US treasury… My favorite quote has to be this one:

British welcome
British Prime Minister Tony Blair hailed Saddam’s capture. “This is very good news for the people of Iraq. It removes the shadow that has been hanging over them for too long of the

nightmare of a return to the Saddam regime,” he said in a statement released by his office.

“This fear is now removed,” the statement continued. “It also gives an opportunity for Saddam to be tried in Iraqi courts for his crimes against the Iraqi people. We should try now to unite the whole of Iraq in rebuilding the country and offering it a new future.”

Um, glad the fear has been removed for the Iraqis. Well, maybe the Iraqi men. The women still have fear in Iraq since the US can’t seem to train the new Iraqi police or Army. Seems that I am one of the few Americans that remembers when the military was told to “secure an area” before declaring victory. The US has done a piss poor job on this front. But hey… they are only women, their fears are secondary.

Don’t even bother pointing out to me what happen to women under Saddam when it seems to me, in some aspects it’s gotten worse. One again: If you have not secured the safety of a city or it’s inhabitants, there is no victory.

But, let me take it away from the “pro-woman” rhetoric for a moment… Let’s dump that and look at the news once again:

  • Saddam has been captured.
  • The Iraqis are happy because the “terror” is gone.

Okay, let’s simplify this even more, shall we?

This “War on Terror” started because of something called 9/11. We even got some pretty scary video tapes from a bloke named, Osama bin Laden. He seemed like a walking desert Media Mogul, transmitting about how he was going to “huff and puff and blow the United States down”. The Bush administration replied by invading Afghanistan (which in my opinion, was justified and understandable).

But, golly gee-whiz… we never did catch that Osama fella, dead- or alive, did we?

I feel like we’ve stepped into this surreal “Where’s Waldo” picture… except this time the caption states “Where’s Osama”.

And today we hear that the Iraqi people feel safer.

But let me ask you this: Do the American people feel safer? Where’s Osama?

But Bush doesn’t seem to care where Osama is anymore… Instead the Bush Administration blows up children in Afghanistan buy using heavy artillery to attempt to catch one suspected Al Qaeda terrorist.

And then you wonder why people might not trust the United States… The United States military, the best in the world cannot seem to complete it’s missions due to poor instructions, poor communications, and poor leadership.

Well, we know where the poor leadership comes from. When the team is losing, fire the manager.

Mr. Bush, what happens when you win the battle, but are losing the war?

Mr. Bush, I still don’t feel safer when I fly to another country. I still don’t feel safer on my own soil. If anything, you have single-handedly fed on the fears of the American public. You’ve attempted to pass and have passed laws to infringe on our civil rights. You’ve spent, and spent, and spent with nothing much to show for it.

Then again… since we seem so fond of conspiracy theories- maybe Bush knows where Osama is. Maybe it’s a long term plan for 2004. If Bush looks to lose, then let’s whip out the Osama bogey-man to scare people to the polls. Osama hanging over the American public’s head like a bad cloud.

But who knows… stranger things have happened… I suspect that even more will happen before anyone really sees what is actually happening.

God Bless America. She’s going to need it before this is all over.

I pray that no one looses site of the bigger picture is all of this. The world may spin this way and that way, but like a dancer, if you can focus on one point, the bigger point, you’ll get through this with grace.

I couldn’t care less about Saddam… He was never scary to me.

Powered by

About Tek

  • http://www.filteringcraig.com Craig Lyndall

    This is fair, but relatively inappropriate at this point in my opinion. You can express this opinion with your next vote for President. I won’t go so far as to say it doesn’t matter whether you agreed with the war at this point or not, but I will say that the FACT is that we did go there. This rehashing of I hate the war bullshit seems unimportant to me. It’s been said, nobody is going to forget it. The overwhelming fact is that as far as dealing with the FACT that we went to war in Iraq, the capture of Saddam is a good thing whether YOU ever feared him or not. Getting our troops out of Iraq in the long haul depended on this and future steps that we will hopefully achieve in Iraq.

  • http://naproom.mu.nu Tom

    Hate Bush folks like you will never give Bush credit for ANYTHING he does. If he does catch Usama, you will still find something to bitch about.

    You hate Bush for some reason, I don’t know what it is. I guess it’s because he is smarter than you and proves everything you believe in to be bunk.

    First you thought he caused “the worst economy since Herbert Hoover”. But recent economic numbers have disproven those lies.

    Now we have a huge victory in Iraq. Not just for us, but for future stability in the whole middle east. You discount that.

    I suggest you take your “hate bush” liberalism elsewhere. It is sickening and tranparent.

  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    I love it when a blogcritic — whose “job” is to state opinions — is told his/her comments are inappropriate or that he/she should take his/her opinions elsewhere.

    Must be the Amur-cun way.

  • Jonathan

    What I don’t like is when people say the “War on terror” in Iraq is over.
    Somehow I doubt that, and we’ll still see stories of explosions in our newspapers, just the little text boxes will get smaller and smaller.

  • http://www.filteringcraig.com Craig Lyndall

    As a fellow blogcritic it is my job to point out sour grapes and partisan bullshit. As long as you are commenting on the commenters and not the story, let me refocus you. What about today’s events are not good?

  • http://www.tekwh0re.net Ms. Tek

    Excuse me? How is that partisan bullshit?

    The fact is Osama is still missing. Osama is behind the terrorist attacks in the US. Cathing Saddam is not going to stop terrorism one bit.

    Let the Bushites bang their drums, dance in the streets, and claim victory and sour grapes. Then tell them to take it to the next family that sees their son or daughter come home in a body bag next week because of not focusing on the issue.

    If you think the post was about the War in Iraq then you are mistaken. That post was actually about the “War on Iraq”.

    But trust the spin doctors to spin the words in whichever way suits their end purpose.

    Where is Osama? Remember… Osama? The one who was the reason why all this hell started in the first place?

    Oh, I forgot… we don’t care if we get him or not so long as we are “winning”.

    What are we winning?

    As for being told to post somewhere else because people don’t like what I say:

    Well I’ll pay about as much attention to that as I pay attention to the people who like to call me stupid just because I don’t agree with them.

    Remember… throw personal insults when you have nothing else better to say.

  • http://www.filteringcraig.com Craig Lyndall

    Victoria, we accomplished something today and all you can do is bring up all the same old arguments? You can post whatever you want here, and divert attention to the Osama thing all you want. You are probably right, but if that is your first reaction to the news today, then you are guilty of partisan bullshit.

  • http://www.tekwh0re.net Ms. Tek

    LMAO!!

    No, seriously…

    L.M.A.O.

    ..divert attention to the Osama thing…

    The Osama thing killed thousands of people. The Osama thing is what is going to kill hundreds more.

    That’s not partisan bullshit.

    That logic backed in some facts.

    Perhaps you need to re-read up on what happened on 9-11 and who was the mastermind.

    Perhaps you should ask a few of the families of people who died in 9-11 how they feel about the Osama thing and chastise me on who is being partisan later.

  • http://www.filteringcraig.com Craig Lyndall

    None of that has anything to do with the fact that we got Saddam in Iraq. It is a good thing. You are right about Osama. I agree with you. I will not sit by as you present Saddam’s capture as a bad thing though. You can disagree with the president all you want, but the fact is that we ARE in Iraq. We have troops there. Capturing Saddam is a good thing given those facts. Nothing you can say about misdirected resources or your hatred for Bush takes that away.

  • Bill

    one of the new talking points for the twisted paranoids like this poster is “where is osama?” they have dropped “where is saddam?” for obvious reasons.

    more therapy and more pills, vick.

  • http://www.tekwh0re.net Ms. Tek

    I will not sit by as you present Saddam’s capture as a bad thing though.

    Interpetation on your part. I never said it was a bad thing. Not once.

    What I said, is don’t forget what the point of all of this really is. You are the one who is doing your damnest to try to re-spin what I stated there, clearly in black and white.

    As far as the saying once “where is Saddam”. I never, ever, wondered, nor cared where he was. I have always wanted to know why more wasn’t done in Iraq. That is the problem when you start to groupthink and catagorically lump issues and people together. I never once gave a rats ass about Saddam. He never was an immediate threat.

    As far as being paranoid about Osama? Personally? Nope… I don’t buy into that either. I just know what airlines to fly until someone takes care of the Osama issue.

    Blow and blow all you like… We have Saddam. So what? Boy and girls will be dying in the next week and the next.

    Where’s Osama?

  • dude

    Vic, why are you so negative? It’s good that Saddam is captured, finally! And all it took were over 400 dead U.S. soldiers; even more dead Iraqi soldiers; and even more dead innocent men, women and children from our bombings (the count has not be given, for some reason); as well as massive looting; billions of dollars which we don’t have; the rest of the world hating us; and a man-child president who seems really damn happy to ride in a military plane. Thank god the war is finally over. Now go back to your homes, people. Don’t mind the never-ending bloodshed. Nothing to see here…

  • http://www.unproductivity.com Tom Johnson

    But Bush doesn’t seem to care where Osama is anymore… Instead the Bush Administration blows up children in Afghanistan buy using heavy artillery to attempt to catch one suspected Al Qaeda terrorist.

    I love how everything is simplified with the anti-Bush crowd. “one . . . terrorist” – you do realize that when you capture someone you can get information from them on the whereabouts of others, right? And of coure, we really meant to kill children while we were at it.

    What I love most is that anti-Bushites will conveniently forget how the media moves on after the big news stops, so it appears to them, conveniently, that nothing is actually going on in Afghanistan. The fact is it’s an ongoing thing, small steps at a time. You also conveniently forget that we were told from the outset that this was going to be a long, drawn-out, dangerous, bloody struggle. That victory would not be immediate or even anytime soon. But that’s just not good enough. It has to be now, now, NOW for people like you. Nothing ever, ever happens like that. Especially when you’re talking about a group like Al Quaida who are known to spread out and hide. Does it surprise me we didn’t capture Osama yet? Not at all. It’s disappointing, but anyone who actually thought we were going to walk right up to him and slap the cuffs on him was a fool. This is like walking around the backyard with a can of Raid trying to kill all the ants. Sure, you can get a lot in one spray, but they spread out and tracking each and every one of them down is going to be nearly impossible.

    And I bet when the next attack on troops in Iraq happens you’ll be the first to say how we’ve failed because even after Saddam’s capture we can’t stop the pockets of resistance. I urge you to go check out a news site of your choice (if they aren’t all run by the government, of course) to see that they are warning us in advance that this is not the end. Please keep this in mind, so we don’t have to have this discussion again.

    Nothing is ever good enough for the anti-Bushites. We take a major step like we did today but all you can do is point out anything else that has yet to come to fruition. You make fools of yourselves, if you thought about it you’d know that just because we haven’t caught Saddam yet doesn’t mean we won’t. And it doesn’t mean that it won’t prevent him from staging something else like 9/11. The way you’d have it, Saddam would have been left alone and he’d likely have already struck again – and likely bigger this time. You can’t have everything both ways. But of course that undermines your simple arguments. Nothing is ever good for people like you.

  • Dude

    Oh, I can think of a couple of good things…

  • http://www.dirtgrain.com/weblog/archives/00000024.htm Jan Eggers

    Tough break on all the negative response, Victoria. As a despiser of Bush, I can still see some good in Saddam’s capture. Hopefully it will expedite the end of the US involvement in Iraq–the sooner the better (for our troops, for Iraqis and for the world). And he was clearly and evil dictator (although we previously liked him as an ally).

    But I can see some bad things, as well. It represents the ouster and probable execution of a leader by a country that is working virtually unilaterally without the clearest of justifications (White House lies, false link of Saddam to 9/11, the UN Inspector fiasco). Who is next?

    Another bad thing is just the juxtaposition of this attack on Iraq and Saddam, “one of Bush’s three evils,” with the alliances that we have with other “evil” dictators and countries. Why have we funded the Turks while they were using our money and weapons to slaughter thousands of Kurds? Isn’t this one of the most repeated lines about Saddam–that he used chemical weapons on his own people (Iraqi Kurds)? Why do we support Saudi Arabia (the country from which all but one of the 9/11 highjackers came)?

    It’s probably too late to rehash all of these inconsistencies–it does seem like Bush will gain political advantage, regardless. As for pulling out Osama in 2004, I wrote a related blog recently–just follow the link for my name. Will he be pulling out the color-coded terror alerts again, too?

  • http://macaronies.blogspot.com Mac Diva

    Victoria’s points ring true with me.

    I just don’t think Saddam Hussein’s capture will matter much in the long run. Does anyone care that Manuel Noriega, another former U.S. ally, was captured, convicted and imprisoned for some of his crimes, today? Twenty years from now, people will have forgotten Saddam, though the problem of more effective terrorism, both internal and external, will still be with us. The persons involved in 9/11 were not proteges of Saddam Hussein. Their leader is still very much at large.

  • http://fando.blogs.com Natalie Davis

    This topic makes me laugh out loud. And not because of MD’s position, which I agree with wholeheartedly. Should Saddam stand for his crimes against humanity? Absolutely. But so should Bush. And his capture does not justify the immoral invasion and occupation of Iraq or the lies sold to a gullible American public. Call it partisan bullshit if you will, but people are allowed to hold their own opinions, Craig, whether or not you like it.

  • Eric Olsen

    The sourness here makes me sad – oh well.

  • http://kevinholtsberry.com/blog.html Kevin Holtsberry

    “Should Saddam stand for his crimes against humanity? Absolutely. But so should Bush.”

    If you can compare Bush and Saddam without irony you are beyond help. You are further left than any of the Democratic candidates for President. I don’t believe a single one of them would make the statement you did. Do they want him to lose? Sure but they would never compare him to Saddam and imply he a war criminal. If you expect to be taken seriously don’t make those kind of statements.

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

    Natalie, I wouldn’t call it “partisan bullshit” so much as wicked, cold hearted disregard for the suffering of other people that you display. A professed Christian who is supposed to love their neighbor as themselves might try cultivating just a smidgen of empathy for the millions of people who have suffered under Saddam’s yolk.

    You and Ms. Pitt certainly exhibit great blind hysterical and irrational hatred for President Bush, and no sympathy at all for the suffering of all the people that Hussein has killed and tortured over many long years, or their families living in fear.

    You can’t stand to be happy for them for even one day. I would have hoped that a descendent of slaves or a member of as many Officially Oppressed Groups as you would have some compassion, some rapport with the feelings of relief in the streets of Baghdad. You are filled with great outrage over the least hint of an American expressing personal disapproval of homosexuality- yet you display not the least bit of concern for real victims, such as survivors of the Hussein’s rape rooms.

    You don’t even begin to have just cause for the seething resentment that you mask as some kind of fake moral outrage against the president. Even if you don’t like the way he’s going about it, President Bush is obviously TRYING VERY HARD to protect the country from people actually trying to kill us all- including your ungrateful ass.

    I don’t particularly just love President Bush. I got beef. I didn’t vote for him, nor do I plan to again- but he’s not Satan.

    It is utterly willful dishonesty to equate George Bush, fighter of terrorism and liberator of millions with Saddam Hussein- murderer of a million to two million people. It takes a special choice of rational and moral blindness to equate Bush and Hussein as you wish to insist on.

    American forces have unavoidably hurt a relative handful of people in the process of trying to protect America from further unprovoked attacks and working to liberate 50 million Afghans and Iraqis from the yolk of tyranny. Saddam just flat out has murdered a million or more people and visited unspeakable tortures on many others simply in order to hold power- and often times apparently just because he could.

    Apparently you would rather have the people of Iraq suffer under the murderous regime of Hussein rather than see President Bush get the least ounce of credit for accomplishing even ONE good thing.

    Yes, you have a right to hold whatever opinions you wish- and you even have a right to insist on expressing dishonest positions or even to try to convince yourself of them in order to give your wicked resentments a facade of morality.

    And I have a right to say shame on you.

  • http://fando.blogs.com Natalie Davis

    “You are further left than any of the Democratic candidates for President. I don’t believe a single one of them would make the statement you did.”

    Well, of course, and I would not support any of them, save Kucinich. Character first, you know. I am most assuredly NOT a Democrat and I do not support the Democratic Party.

    This is sickening — people criticizing others for not being happy enough to suit them. Goodness. You’re happy about the news? Good for you. Some of us have other priorities, obviously. Some of us are more concerned with the deaths of innocents and with seeing *all* of the terrorists get justice. Yes, many innocents are dead because of Saddam, but the same is true of Bush. Why is it so wrong to say that?

    I am speaking rhetorically here. I have no desire to fight with you folks, but just think about that point for a bit. Why are you trying to silence us or insult/belittle us into silence? We disagree with you and don’t share YOUR celebratory mood, so something necessarily is *wrong* with us? We are called *sour*? I can only shake my head in disbelief.

  • http://fando.blogs.com Natalie Davis

    OK, I’ll give you this: I am happy that your boys did not murder Saddam. Good enough?

  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    I’m also glad that he was taken alive –the Iraqis wouldn’t believe he was dead no matter what, I don’t think. Plus he needs to be tried and sentenced for his crimes.

    I also think it’s a good day for the US soldiers over there who have been fighting/living/dieing in the Iraqi heat since March. And it’s a good day for the Iraqi people, at least those who actually think ill of Hussein. [But let’s not forget that the Iraqi people and their suffering had nothing to do with why we waged a war in the first place. We were pretty happy to let them suffer for 30 years under this guy.]

    Mr. Bush will reap the benefits [via public opinion polls, etc.] of the hard work our military has done. That’s just how it goes when you’re the president.

  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    Why are you trying to silence us or insult/belittle us into silence? We disagree with you and don’t share YOUR celebratory mood, so something necessarily is *wrong* with us? We are called *sour*? I can only shake my head in disbelief.

    Natalie, I don’t know why, but I’m *always* amazed at the personal attacks in the blogcritics comments. I see them all the time, yet for some reason, each and every time I’m as surprised as I was the first time.

    I guess we should be accustomed to the “love it or leave it” and “love it or shut up about it” attitudes by now. But I just still find them surprising in these comment threads.

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

    You’re really reaching with this one:

    I guess we should be accustomed to the “love it or leave it” and “love it or shut up about it” attitudes by now.

    No one throughout this comment thread has said anything resembling that- least of all the Bush defenders whom you seem to be intending to incriminate.

    Judging not some vague general impression of Blogcritics, but this specific column and comments, it appears to me that Natalie and Ms. Pitt have spoken in a maliciously spiteful manner. They’re being mean and hateful, and others of us have tried to respond in a calm and respectful, but carefully critical manner.

    However, as Dennis Miller would say, that’s just my opinion. I could be wrong.

    It seems to me that some of our Blogcritics commentary directly concerns actual public political type issues, while some of it concerns the process of civil discourse itself.

    This also is important: How do we discuss public issues without getting unnecessarily personal? When is it, however, necessary and appropriate to address personal issues in these debates? How do we address these issues in a constructive manner without being simply abusive and malicious?

    Enquiring minds want to know!

  • http://macaronies.blogspot.com Mac Diva

    A very balanced perspective, bhw.

    The assumption that those of us who oppose the war are infatuated with Saddam Hussein is unfounded, Barger. It is possible to disapprove of both Saddam’s regime and Bush’s regime. Nor do I believe the kind of ‘death report’ you are tossing out is ever the full story of evil. So-called benign neglect can thwart lives and kill people just as surely as torture or bombs. Under Right Wing regimes, the disadvantaged in American society are subjected to benign neglect in regard to education, health care and job security. The only system that ‘works’ in regard to them is the criminal justice system. There are parts of the United States where a black or Indian man’s life expectancy is shorter than a Bangladeshi’s, not to mention an Iraqi’s. That is why intelligent and caring people are not happy wiht the status quo.

    Will rule by Halliburton really be a boon to the Iraqi people? Nope, but its shareholders should do pretty well.

    Victoria, a quick technical note: Your blog freezes on the intro page when I try to access it in Safari.

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

    Diva, are you seriously suggesting that Bush is “killing” people by not spending enough government money on government welfare programs, or that this is even vaguely comparable to Hussein’s murder, rape and torture?

    Short life expectancies of Iraqis under Hussein was his fault, in that those statistics were reflected by him MURDERING big bunches of people, burying them in mass graves and such. Whereas on the other hand, the POTUS does not particularly bear responsibility for making everyone live a long, healthy life. That’s not his job, and nobody could really do that.

    I would argue that the main job of the president is to protect the people from physical attack so that they can have some peaceful opportunity to try to provide for themselves. Even if you’re not real thrilled with a lot of the president’s policies, I think you’d have to agree that he’s really TRYING to do that.

    Again, I’m not saying that everyone should just be happy as clams about everything in America, I’d just like a little bit of recognition that Dubya is not absolutely evil or equivalent to an utter monster like Hussein.

  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    I suggest you take your “hate bush” liberalism elsewhere. It is sickening and tranparent.

    That sounds like “leave it” and/or “shut up about it” to me, Al.

    How do we discuss public issues without getting unnecessarily personal? When is it, however, necessary and appropriate to address personal issues in these debates? How do we address these issues in a constructive manner without being simply abusive and malicious?

    Good questions, and fairly easy to answer: Address the poster’s words, not his/her person. It’s fair to address personal issues if the poster brought it up first; otherwise, stick to the facts and not your opinion of the person stating them. Avoid calling the poster names [“twisted paranoid”] and using derogatory adjectives to describe the person [“beyond help”] and suggesting that the poster “needs more therapy and more pills” and turning paternalistic and condescending [“shame on you”].

    Pointing out inconsistencies or holes in someone’s argument is fair game. Just disagree with what the poster says and how s/he says it without going on the personal attack. WHY is that so hard out here?

    My belief is that many people write things — in word or tone — on blogs that they’d never say to someone’s face, particularly someone who was nothing more than a casual acquaintance. Maybe trying to think of how you’d say it if you were looking at that person across the table would help.

    There are LOTS of VERY opinionated people on blogcritics, myself included. I know I have to watch my tone sometimes, too.

  • Eric Olsen

    Vic, you made a very strong statement at the most sensitive possible time – of course you are gong to get a strong reaction. That doesn’t typically bother you so I am not sure why it does this time. I am also suprised that anyone else would be offended by people being offended – that’s kind of the way it works.

    As to substance: of course it is a huge issue that we have not found bin Laden or evidence of his death. No one has said Saddam was behind 9/11, but those opposed to the war are ALWAYS going to define that war as narrowly as possible. I see Iraq, Afghanistan, and the ongoing fight against al Qaeda as all part of the same war. It’s that simple.

    Is that war worth the lives of the American soldiers, the Afghani and Iraqi civilians and the Taliban, al Qaeda, and Iraqi soldiers killed thus far? Hell yes. Are the lives lost precious? Hell yes if you’re talking about coalition soldiers and civilians, hell no, if you’re talking about enemy combatants.

    Think globally for a moment: this is a struggle for the future of the world and all the people on it. We are right – the terrorists, fascists and Islamists are wrong. Period – that’s how I see it, that’s the perspective I am going to approach all discussions from. I feel very strongly about it – I will express my opinion strongly – feel free to do likewise.

  • Eric Olsen

    One more thing about this particular topic: since we are a wild conflicting stew of varying opinions, I am guessing some of the intensity of reaction against those not joining in the celebration over the capture of Saddam, stems from an underlying hope to find common ground – at least once in a while – and this seemed like a topic that all non-Baathists could pretty much agree on for the day: the capture of Saddam was a good thing.

    But it was not to be, so that’s okay too.

  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    Eric, to me, strong opinions stated strongly are one thing, while personal attacks are another. Those attacks degrade the debate, I think.

    I agree with your recent Official Comment Policy: people should be free to say whatever they want. [Or as I say in my comments on BHW, don’t dish it out if you can’t take it.]

    Maybe I just wish for a kinder, gentler, on-topic debate.

  • http://www.tekwh0re.net Ms. Tek

    Eric, I’m not sure why you would think I was upset by the reaction? This is Blogcritics… Anytime I post here I get more negative than positive. In other outlets that has shown up, I have gotten more positive than negative. It all depends on where it is. I stated my opinion and if people don’t like it… tough! We all aren’t expected agree on things. I do my best to avoid flaming until you start with me. I don’t see one place in this thread where I have flamed, but simply restated my opinion and responded to the comments. I am not upset in the least… rather amused. Every place has it’s cast of characters and they will respond to the script as directed… ;) It gives good discussion… sorta.

    Mac Diva Thank you for telling me. Forgive my ignorance but, what is “Safari”? Is it a browser for the Mac?

    As for allegations of me being “mean”, “spiteful”, or “partisan”–

    PSHAW, I say! Hogwash and Shenanigans! The Bushites are only irritated because I peed in the celebratory punch. GOOD. Be upset, be outraged… but do keep an eye on what happens afterward.

    At one time the War on Terror was about getting Osama. Then it was about getting every terrorist in the world. Then it was about Weapons of Mass Destruction, then it was the outrage of how Saddam was treating his people (as if he only started that stuff last Saturday as opposed to decades ago… with the full knowledge of the United States…) When someone dared asked about “Well, what about that Osama feller… you know the one who likes to make videos?” The response from the administration became: We don’t care if we get him or not. That is not the point…

    Huh? Alright!

    Osama and Islamic fanatics… (notice… not all Muslims, nor Arabs) are the real threat to the United States, the Western World, The Third World, and every world in between. A petty dictator who had delusions of grandeur isn’t very important in the long run. I could bring up so many comparable examples in Africa, Asia, and even Europe… but already their names have faded with time to be irrelevant- or they are still in power but there is no “outrage” from the masses…

    Oh, and to rain on the parade some more…

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1107373,00.html

    Yeah… and they were screaming about Saddam… but more importantly… how many Iraqis are not going to be joining the ranks of Al Qeuda.

    Okay, now you may proceed to further browbeat me at random… Do be so kind as to give me a moment to grab a cup of Egg Nog- ‘Tis the season, ya know… =)

  • http://www.filteringcraig.com Craig Lyndall

    At what point has anyone claimed to be finished? Just because it doesn’t pop across your TV screen in that gahdfersaken crawl doesn’t mean nobody is doing or thinking about something. This is a long process with many steps, and Saddam was one of those steps. Osama is certainly another big step which we haven’t achieved.

    (In reference to Osama) “The response from the administration became: We don’t care if we get him or not. That is not the point…”

    Did I miss this press conference or did you just make this up completely? This is the kind of thing I am talking about. You pulled this out of thin air based on what?

  • http://www.tekwh0re.net Ms. Tek
  • http://www.filteringcraig.com Craig Lyndall

    “By contrast, Bush downplayed concern on the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden, saying the accused terrorist mastermind is on the run and “I truly am not that concerned about him.”

    Bush said that U.S. forces are “performing brilliantly” in rooting out bin Laden’s al Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan.”

    You misquoted pretty badly. He said he wasn’t concerned about him and that U.S. Forces are still working in “rooting out” bin Laden’s al Qaeda fighters. That is very different than “we don’t care if we get him or not.” Seriously, try and be honest. George doesn’t need any help making mistakes. He makes plenty on his own without you misquoting him.

  • http://www.tekwh0re.net Ms. Tek

    Actually, I didn’t quote him at all- I just summed up what he basaically said.

    When I direct quote, I’ll use links just to satify the need for blood.

    BTW “I truly am not that concerned about him” is just as damning…

    But maybe he should be that concerned. I mean, he was only associated with the Osama thing which was just that… a thing/

    No big whoop! =)

  • http://www.filteringcraig.com Craig Lyndall

    You summed it up so it would support what you wanted to say. You projected yourself into the quote and as a result inaccurately reflected what was said. The fact is that what you said was wrong. He isn’t concerned because they are still working on it. Not that he doesn’t care whether they get him or not. Just admit you were wrong.

  • http://www.unproductivity.com Tom Johnson

    At one time the War on Terror was about getting Osama. Then it was about getting every terrorist in the world. Then it was about Weapons of Mass Destruction, then it was the outrage of how Saddam was treating his people (as if he only started that stuff last Saturday as opposed to decades ago… with the full knowledge of the United States…) When someone dared asked about “Well, what about that Osama feller… you know the one who likes to make videos?” The response from the administration became: We don’t care if we get him or not. That is not the point…

    The War on Terror was about terrorists, with one possible target being Osama. Not the other way around. It doesn’t really matter if they get Osama because as long as they get all his people, he can’t do anything alone. He can’t function if he doesn’t have a group behind him. I think Bush and everyone in general would be thrilled to nail him, but his main concern is the whole war, not one person.

  • http://www.tekwh0re.net Ms. Tek

    Now, why would I lie for you, Craig?

    I stand by my statement and I believe in it.

  • http://www.filteringcraig.com Craig Lyndall

    You stand by it? It was wrong. You misinterpreted it. You didn’t say “I think.” You said “they said.” You were either mistaken or you lied. Why is it that you won’t own up to that?

  • http://www.tekwh0re.net Ms. Tek

    I misinterpeted?

    Oh… I see…

    Because my interpretation does not agree with your interpretation?

    Interesting. Very interesting.

  • http://macaronies.blogspot.com Mac Diva

    Yes, Victoria, Safari is the browser produced for Mac OS X. The pros about it are it is fast and one can block pop-up ads. The con is that many Wintel users are not aware of it and have not included Safari access in the optimization of their sites. It works best with non-flash pages.

    Eric said:

    Think globally for a moment: this is a struggle for the future of the world and all the people on it. We are right – the terrorists, fascists and Islamists are wrong. Period – that’s how I see it, that’s the perspective I am going to approach all discussions from. I feel very strongly about it – I will express my opinion strongly – feel free to do likewise.

    I think that he has named where at least this progressive parts with the euphoria over the capture of Saddam, and what it symbolizes. To simplify in order to make things clearer, Eric believes America, and its Right Wing leaders at least, are good and that the leaders of countries defined as opposed to American interests at different times are bad. I don’t agree. The interests pursued by American leaders, for example access to oil at the cost of millions of blighted and destroyed lives, is just as wrong as anything Saddam Hussein ever thought of doing. The argument Eric is making, a kind of international Manifest Destiny, was wrong in regard to North America, and I believe it is wrong in regard to the rest of the world, too.

    Craig, as one of the more reasonable conservatives, perhaps you can explain to your brethren how someone can be skeptical of the government of the U.S. as well as the regime of Saddam Hussein.

  • http://macaronies.blogspot.com Mac Diva

    Oops, I left out Tom Johnson!

    I think he is right that capturing or killing one, two, three or more leaders of governments or movements that support international terrorism is not really the point. However, many Americans won’t get it. They will believe capturing Saddam is equivalent to ending terrorism. And, when it proves not to be, they will be bewildered. Many of our people are too used to being fed pabulum to have developed in moderately good reasoning skills. So, I believe those of us who understand that Saddam is mainly a symbolic figure need to say so over and over again.

  • Gerald Ball

    Victoria Pitt, you are right, our involvement in Iraq sucks. We have no interest and no stake over there. And Bush’s leadership in Iraq has been laughable.

    Why can’t he be like CLINTON, who attacked Kosovo? Kosovo was such a clear and present danger to American interests and security that he did it without UN support and with an even smaller coalition than ours in Iraq. And Clinton showed how to handle rogue states like North Korea … by giving them everything they want so that they will develop weapons of mass destruction just a little bit slower than they would have without our “cooperation.” And boy, Bill Clinton knew how to appropriately respond to terrorism. He responded to Saddam’s repeated breakings of U.N. sanctions with air strikes that threatened Saddam and his leadership in no way shape or form but killed innocent folks. He responded to the abuses of the Taliban in Afghanistan with air strikes that did nothing to hurt the Taliban but killed innocent folks. He responsed to the bombings of our African embassies with air strikes that took out an aspirin factory that was critical to the operation of Al Qaeda. And to really mess with the minds of the terrorists, psychological warfare it must have been, he responded to the bombings of the U.S.S. Cole by not only doing absolutely nothing at all but WITHDRAWING OUR MILITARY FROM THE REGION WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT AL QAEDA WANTED. Boy, Clinton really showed them!

    Bush hasn’t been able to find Usama bin Laden in 18 months? Well, we should have given Clinton another 8 years I suppose. After all, Clinton did an excellent job of letting those hi – jackers into the country and allowing them complete freedom while they were over here despite their being on every FBI, CIA, NSA, State Department, military, etc. list of known terrorists. I mean doing otherwise would have been FASCIST … boy aren’t we glad that the Patriot Act wasn’t in effect on September 11th.

    Come to think of it, not even the the FIRST World Trade Center bombing, the Branch Davidian episode, or the Oklahoma City bombings all taking place during the Clinton administration did Clinton allow himself to be convinced that homeland security was something to be taken seriously. None of those internal and external threats could shake his attention away from “it’s the economy, stupid.” Boy, that is what I call principle.

    But Clinton wasn’t an EXTREMIST about the economy or anything like that … he was nice enough to leave a full blown recession on his predecessor, with a stock market in free fall, the dot – com bubble burst, the California energy crisis, and all of those corporate scandals including Enron. Every last one of them happened during Clinton’s brilliant managing of the economy. I mean, who needed those hundreds of billions of dollars of venture capital lost to all of those dot com stocks that Clinton and the media spent eight years hyping? I get it … it was all part of Clinton’s master plan to punish the greedy. Oh well. You are right, things were so much better when we had a REAL LEADER in the White House.

  • http://www.tekwh0re.net Ms. Tek

    *rolls eyes*

    Let me ask you…

    Did Clinton cum on your clothes too and you didn’t get paid off so you are still pissed off? Holding a grudge against Clinton is akin to still being pissed off because Santa didn’t get you a pony when you were 8.

    Get over it. Clinton is gone. Clinton is never coming back.

    Or should I say “cumming?”

    If you would like to go in the past… then blame ALL of the past presidents about homeland security… ALL of them.

    *yawn*

    Next?

  • http://fando.blogs.com Natalie Davis

    Only problem with your statement, Gerald, is that it assumes progressives supported Clinton. Bad, horrid assumption. Some did, but not all. I see Clinton as a terrorist too – I am no fan of him or of Hillary. And I certainly did not vote for President Gore.

  • Gerald Ball

    Victoria Pitt:

    First off, “we” will leave Clinton alone when the left leaves McCarthy, Nixon, Reagan, and Bush I alone. Not only are those guys “gone” too, but several are some combination of disgraced and dead. It is hilarious that the very same people who put out two movies IN THE SAME MONTH blaming the AIDS epidemic on Reagan (rather than, say, on sexual behavior and drug use) are saying “let go of Clinton.” Is Maxine Waters still claiming that Reagan and Bush I put crack cocaine in the black community to ward off “the revolution”? I know a lot of progressives that I talk to still blame Nixon’s war in Viet Nam (ahem, actually started by Kennedy and LBJ but it’s only the truth right so who cares?) for the failure of the Great Society programs. In any event, since (unlike previous Presidents) Clinton still chooses to be a major political figure who makes no secret about wanting his wife in the White House so she can put him on the Supreme Court (here’s hoping that he and plenty of other Hillary judges get the Estrada/Owen/Brown/Kuhl/Pryor filibuster treatment), there is no pressing reason to “let him go.”

    On to the substance of your retort (or lack thereof), the reason why you resorted to such tactics is because you know that I am right. Listen, I am no Rush Limbaugh ditto head. Quite the opposite. I grew up as a Democrat, and I cast my first vote when I was 18 years old was for Bill Clinton. I was a huge fan of his for six years when he was doing an outstanding job. I found his Republican opposition vile to the point of being evil at times. But all of that changed in 1998. Clinton did the impossible … ceded the moral high ground to the same people who shut down the government and targeted many of his appointees for defeat because of their race (going as far as urging that the Department of Energy be eliminated because it was headed by a black woman; a moderate big business executive no less) by claiming that following and enforcing the law is optional. Had Clinton told the truth from the beginning or had he resigned when caught lying, Al Gore would be President today. Think about that. Would we be in Iraq if Gore was President? Would we be in Afghanistan? Would September 11th have even happened? Or would those pro – life judges be on the bench (which we all knwo is the issue that you REALLY care about)? If Clinton tells the truth or resigns, Gore wins in a walk.

    And you know what else? During (and after) Monica, Clinton stopped governing. HE STOPPED GOVERNING. He figured that because of impeachment and the Newt Gingrich – John Ashcroft bills like welfare reform and the defense of marriage act that he put his signature on, his legacy was going to be the economy. So he didn’t do A THING that MIGHT hurt the economy. Despite the fact that there were REAL PROBLEMS developing with Al Qaeda and in the Middle East, that the dot coms had started going belly up and investment capital was drying up, that North Korea was breaking their agreements, that a full blown intifada was going on in Israel, that there was obviously some funny things happening on Wall Street, CLINTON DIDN’T DO A THING! Talk about fiddling while Rome was burning trying to run out the clock.

    Pretty much everything that has gone on in the Bush years is the result of Clinton’s inaction during his last two years so the stock market would stay up. Bush has done a @#$% job. The guy stinks. But that is the really bad part. Bush these three years has WANTED to govern but CAN’T. Clinton his last two years COULD have governed but DIDN’T. That is the part that should REALLY anger every Democrat, socialist, liberal, progressive, or whatever you want to call yourselves these says.

  • http://www.tekwh0re.net Ms. Tek

    ???????????????/

    I’m sorry, but I had nothing to do with that Regan movie. I’m sure you are upset and I can sympathies with your pain but you really need not project your feelings of anger at me about a movie that I had nothing to do with.

    I would personally never had made a movie about Ronnie because:

    a) he bores me
    b) I would rather use the money to make a good sci-fi flick.

    Is that all you guys can do? Live in the past?

    I’m very sorry for you. I don’t worry about what I cannot change because it has already happened… I choose to focus on the now and the future. I find that I get more results that way.

    If I could go back, I’d stop lots of things… but life doesn’t work that way. I do hope someday you are able to understand that living in the past will get you no where but forgotten.

  • http://www.makeyougohmm.com/ TDavid

    I’m glad that Saddam was caught and all our clients, friends and family I’ve discussed this with feel similarly.

    It’s only online, on the radio and TV that I read/hear people who find some negative slant to this news.

    Hey, it’s ok to hate on the guy (Bush) if that’s how you truly feel but I am totally missing where catching Saddam alive is not a very good thing.

    You “don’t CARE!”? Really, Victoria?

    I’d like to have at least some satisfaction for the absurd 87 billion dollar bill, don’t you?

  • http://www.tekwh0re.net Ms. Tek

    Sure I would like some satisfaction… But Saddam isn’t what is going to do it for me.

    I know exactly what I think is worth that expense… Saddam isn’t it.

    And I have no problem saying that I don’t give a hoot about Saddam. I don’t.

  • http://www.makeyougohmm.com/ TDavid

    I agree that it was too expensive, hence my use of the word “absurd” — but the point is that if you knew somebody, had family that was tortured by that madman, would you feel the same way? I doubt it. There are reports of humans in graves holding babies!

    That type of insane tyrant must be brought to justice by somebody and the way he tortured his own people … well, that wasn’t going to happen without some type of intervention.

    I’ve never been sold on the fact that we absolutely had to go there and get into this, but once we committed to do so, we damn sure better see some measurable results.

    Now are you going to post that if you knew somebody Saddam tortured you still wouldn’t care? How about a mother? Father? Brother? Sister? Spouse? Child?

    Think hard.

  • http://www.tekwh0re.net Ms. Tek

    *thinks hard*

    I know people who died on 9/11.

    *thinks hard*

    I know people in the US who are having a hard enough time.

    *thinks hard*

    I know some people who are having and EVEN HARDER time now that their wives and husbands are over in Iraq.

    *thinks hard*

    I read in the news about a man who shot his pregnate girlfriend in the stomach because she left him… That happened in the US… both mother and fetus died.

    *thinks hard*

    I know that in North Korea, entire families with children as young as eight are sent to work in camps if someone in family has been accused of conspiring against the goverment.

    *thinks hard*

    I know that some civil wars in Africa result in the genocide of whole groups of people because they are not part of the ruling faction at the time.

    Guess what?

    There is not one thing you can say to me that will make me think that the war in Iraq was justified at this point in time. That Saddam was an immediate threat to the United States at this point in time.

    Frankly, I just don’t care. When I see blacks and asians who are living under the same conditions, or even Americans being helped, I’ll care.

    Until then, bring me the head of Osama. After that, I want to hear the clamors of jihad die down. Then and only then, will I care.

    Crazy tyrants kill. Sucks to live there. The Iraqi people could have always if they ever wanted to cause a coup en masse. Its happenend in this world before. It will happend again.

    Until I see people do for themselves, I could care less about Iraq when I have more pressing matters at HOME.

    Bring me Osama’s head.

  • http://www.makeyougohmm.com/ TDavid

    Boy, I thought the question was simple, but obviously the answer was not.

    The title is just sensationalistic on your part because obviously you do care, Victoria.

    Maybe what you should have titled this was: “I Don’t Care About Saddam or the people in Iraq” not that you didn’t care about Saddam’s capture.

    There is not one thing you can say to me that will make me think that the war in Iraq was justified at this point in time.

    I’m not trying to convince you of anything except that maybe the title was misleading and not something you truly felt or wished to convey.

    The hook worked with me so go ahead and pat yourself on the back. But I’ll be less easily fooled next time.

    Have a good night.

  • http://www.filteringcraig.com Craig Lyndall

    Victoria on Osama bin Laden – “The response from the administration became: We don’t care if we get him or not. That is not the point…”

    I called you on it for misinterpreting the Bush quote. You were so smug in your “they don’t even care about bin Laden quote that you couldn’t admit you were flat out wrong.

    on CNN.com today…

      “Operation Avalanche,” involving between 2,000 and 11,500 troops, began two weeks ago and is the largest ground operation yet in Afghanistan, a military spokesman said.

    I guess you’re right. They haven’t been working on capturing bin Laden at all.

    Mac Diva says that a lot of the posters around here need to do a lot more research. I agree with her, but in this case the researchers need to read what they look up as well.

  • http://www.tekwh0re.net Ms. Tek

    Nope, not wrong…

    Imgagine if they sent all those troops and all that money into Afghanistan from day one? Where might we be now.

    What they have done in in Afghanistan for the past few weeks has been well known.

    Several children have died from the use of Warthogs to attempt to capture suspected terrorists.

    That is tantamount to sending a tank to blow up school because a murder accomplish had run in there for protection. Are you going to tell me now that most major metropolitan police chiefs have more sense than the Bush Administration? Well, hell then finally I guess you and I agree on something!

    When you spend that much more money on a country once again, had nothing to do with 9/11 after you rant and rave how you are gonna get Bin Laden a few days after it happens… then it becomes the “Ooooo Scary Saddam” show with Bin Laden as a support act, give me a break. Anyone with an ounce of intelligence knows a bait and switch when you see it.

    If they got Osama today… (which I highly doubt, I won’t change that a promise was made over two years ago to the American public and more importantly, those people who had families and friends die in 9/11. And you think that parading Saddam like a prize is going to make them happy?

    As I said… I don’t care. I don’t care about Saddam. I don’t care about Iraq. Small beans in aspect to the protection of the United States.

    Bring me the head of Saddam.

    But hey, if you are happy with the dog and pony show, and with fables to make you sleep better at night, with the Evil that turned your world upside down still walks somewhere unknown… be my guest. It is the exact reason why people like me are around… We keep watch because someone has to.

    Enjoy your cake… =)

  • http://www.tekwh0re.net Ms. Tek

    *correction*

    Bring me the head of Osama… We already did the “treat Saddam like an animal on TV.. Golly gee wiz, aren’t we superior!”

    What is even more interesting is that even the Catholics are condemning the way this is all going down. I knew I still had respect for Catholics for some reason! Not your daddy’s crusaders… So siree bob!

  • http://www.filteringcraig.com Craig Lyndall

    Victoria. You are wrong. You said that Bush said they didn’t care if they get him or not. YOU WERE WRONG. Not to be confused with, “I am now going to deflect this by saying they should have spent more money in Afghanistan.” You misinterpreted the quote and you can’t admit you were wrong. Did I mention you were wrong? I have no problems with debates over issues and things, but if you mispoke, misinterpreted, got over-zealous or in some other way said the wrong thing, it sure would be nice if you would admit it. You haven’t, I don’t suspect you will, and that is obnoxious.

  • http://www.tekwh0re.net Ms. Tek

    “By contrast, Bush downplayed concern on the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden, saying the accused terrorist mastermind is on the run and “I truly am not that concerned about him.”

    Whatever you say Craig…

    I think the facts speak loads… But as I said, enjoy your cake with my blessing. =)

  • http://www.makeyougohmm.com/ TDavid

    Craig – I think that you both are wrong if you believe this:

    Mac Diva says that a lot of the posters around here need to do a lot more research. I agree with her …

    My use of bold there, but I would question the term “A lot”?

    That’s quite a generalization, don’t you think? Generalizations get thrown around condemning groups of people participating at blogcritics somewhat often in my experience and it is factually problematic.

    Ok, maybe I’ll grant that “a lot” of people in certain posts like the Top 100 rock guitarist thread haven’t done their research (including Rolling Stone), but not “a lot” of people who regularly visit and participate at this site. Perhaps “a lot” of the people who just drop in … but I’d like to see some specifics when people make negative statements like this instead of such enigmatic, cowardly generalizations.

    The problems I’ve seen is when people logically question the factual accuracy or the use of words (like the flawed title of this post) from some of these research-intensive and passionate posters is that they either deflect telling questions or turn it into a name calling, “your stupid” defiant, obstinate, more often than not boorish response.

    So doing extended research for some (much better generalization) of these people that think they have already done vastly superior research can be just as much futile as it is frustrating.

    And then there is the hypocrisy and places where some people clearly contradict themselves like in this comment section (see details in #32)

    That went unanswered when these contradictions were brought to light, BTW, which sometimes with some people is a familiar occurence.

    So, for those that this applies to: learn how to admit you are wrong. It’s not a crime to learn from somebody else. I’ve learned some things at this site from some people’s posts and comments.

  • http://www.filteringcraig.com Craig Lyndall

    I retract my generalization. You are right. I probably exaggerated as a way to get at Victoria.

    My point was and is (and then I promise to stop) that just because it hasn’t been plastered all over the news, we haven’t stopped looking for Osama bin Laden and to think that the administration doesn’t care about him is ignorant and incorrect. I feel like I proved that by looking back at the quote that was used and it bothered me that it was twisted to back up some undeserved criticism. As I said previously, I think enough mistakes or perceived mistakes happen on their own, so there is no need to fabricate them.

  • http://www.makeyougohmm.com/ TDavid

    It’s cool, Craig, you are one of the regulars around here that doesn’t fall into the quicksand I described.

    Perhaps contrary to some people’s beliefs, I come to many of these posts and discussions with an open, flexible mind. It’s great that you do also.

  • http://www.tekwh0re.net Ms. Tek

    Hahaha,

    The “flawed” title of this post.

    I don’t care. I said exactly as I mean and I mean exactly as I say.

    I. Don’t. Care.

    So what.

    It doesn’t affect me in any way.

    What is so difficult for you to understand in the statement “I don’t care.”

    You guys can continue to discuss the meaning of “I don’t care” among yourselves. This is now old news. It happened a few days ago. Just like that Osama thing and that Clinton thing.

    And Craig, please don’t try so hard to get at me… That means you are taking things way too personally and that really isn’t good for your health. You can’t “get” at me as that in the grand scheme of the world, none of this really matters in the end. I have no problem admitting when I am wrong. In this case, I don’t believe I am. Sorry if my view doesn’t get on with yours… I can accept your opinion on the matter without taking it personally or resorting to attacks or getting nasty. The only people who seem to have gotten their blood pressure up over this is you.

    Tell ya what, if we ever cross paths, I’ll buy ya drink to make up for pissing on the parade. ;o)

  • http://www.makeyougohmm.com/ TDavid

    Victoria – just answer this question:

    Did you mean to say you didn’t care about Saddam’s capture — YES or NO?

    Simple question. Difficult apparently to answer.

  • http://www.makeyougohmm.com/ TDavid

    By the way, both my blood pressure and stress ring are showing “calm” :)

  • http://www.tekwh0re.net Ms. Tek

    *shakes head*

    Now, this is getting stupid.

    Define “is”?

    *rolls eyes*

  • http://www.makeyougohmm.com/ TDavid

    That’s the problem. You can’t even answer a simple yes or no question. I’m done with this. One can only ask a simple question so many times without getting an answer.

    You related to Clinton or something? Later.

  • http://www.tekwh0re.net Ms. Tek

    I am not going to play “paddycake”. If you can’t understand what I think from me repeating myself over and over in this topic, how is that my problem? It really isn’t too hard to sort out.

    And the Clinton insults get old as that they aren’t very insulting (I’m not Bill Clinton!!) nor have any bearing on the topic.

  • http://www.filteringcraig.com Craig Lyndall

    Your smugness is putrid.

  • Louis Gross

    Hello Victoria:

    I see that you oppose the war in Iraq. Did you oppose the war in Kosovo? Did the war in Kosovo make us safer? I would argue that it did not, yet we have Democrats treating Wesley Clark like he’s the guy with the best chance to beat Bush based on some war that no one remembers or knew why we fought. For whatever reason we were over there, it didn’t have anything to do with our interests or security. All it did was cost us a member of our Cabinet (Commerce Seceratary Ron Brown, remember him?) I didn’t support the Iraq invasion, it looks like I have plenty of company there. But I also didn’t support the Kosovo invasion (and occupation, we still have troops over there), so it would have been very helpful had “what does Saddam have to do with 9 – 11?” crowd asked “why are we going after Slobodan Milosevic when we should be going after Usama bin Laden?” way back then? I mean, MAYBE if we had gone after Usama and toppled the Taliban instead of bombing Kosovo back to the stone age (and then spending billions to rebuild it … I wonder why no one is asking questions about THOSE CONTRACTS) then PERHAPS September 11th wouldn’t have happened? Gee, no wonder Wesley Clark’s Presidential bid hasn’t taken off.

  • Louis Gross

    Oh yes, let me remind you that (unlike Milosevic) bin Laden was a known threat to our security back during the Kosovo crisis. And the same justification for going after Milosevic applied to Saddam (except that Milosevic was no threat to his neighbors and never used or attempted to acquire WMDs nor was he a terror collaborator). So actually, the war in Kosovo was FAR LESS JUSTIFIED than the war in Iraq. I think that everyone who said nothing about the Kosovo war because it was “your guy” in the White House should get off their high horses about Bush and Iraq because that horse has no leg to stand on.

  • http://www.tekwh0re.net Ms. Tek

    My guy?

    My guy?

    The best part of all of this is that you assume:

    I agree with all of Clinton’s tactics…
    I was able to vote then (or really cared about politics then).

    I’ll give you a hint tho-

    When Clinton was first elected I

    a) Just started college.
    b) Was a Republican through and through.
    c) Not old enough to vote.

    I think that is the best because not too long ago, I was accused of not voting in elections… I’ve voted in everyone since I was old enough to.

    Spare me the “my guy” routine. “My Guy” hasn’t even run yet.

    And to make things even more crystal clear:

    I don’t think there is one person in the run for 2004 who is qualified or the right PERSON for the job. All of screw ups in their own way.

    I’m counting on 2008 to see a real change. In the meantime, I just want as little crap between now and 2008 so there is something left worth saving.

  • Louis Gross

    Point taken. However, I would be curious to know who you believe would have made us safer and exactly how. Getting Usama at this point is really no big deal in terms of our future security. He has already pulled off his big score, and now he is too busy running to do anything else; getting Usama is a justice issue, not a security issue.

    So don’t think that we can say “OK, we got Usama, we are all safe now.” What can we do to prevent the NEXT USAMA from hitting us? And who is the person most likely to be able to know who the next Usama is and remove the threat? Listen, the guys who preceded Bush aren’t, because they failed to deal with the known threat. Everyone knew that Usama was out there and no attempt was made to stop him. Imagine had Usama been stopped before he and his buddies rolled into Afghanistan in the first place and got their hands on all that opium money. Imagine had that global network of terror financing had been shut down. And what was done to shut off the networks of other known terrorist groups like Hamas, PLO, Islamic Jihad, and FARC? This may not include you, but a lot of critics of Bush’s Iraq policy spent the years before 9 – 11 sympathizing with terrorists, not working to stop them, and I am therefore disinclined to believe that they would do a better job than the horrid one that Bush is doing now. At least what Bush is doing now has a slight chance of working if only by accident. Look at some of the arguments that his opponents are making. “It’s costing so much money.” Well too bad a little of that money wasn’t spent before 9 – 11 in Afghanistan. “We are drawing all of the world’s radicals to Iraq.” And that’s a bad thing? They are going to Iraq and getting wiped out … I suppose allowing them to roam around the globe attacking schoolbuses and synagogues is preferable. I have read that some of the terrorists who were recruited to go fight in Iraq are giving up and going home because they are getting so thoroughly wiped out.

    Bush has made the case that by toppling the REGIMES that support terror like the Taliban and Saddam we are made safer. You may agree or disagree, but that is still better than anything that was being done before Bush, and far superior to what critics of his current policy have put forth. If you were in office, what would you be doing right now to make us safer? Finding the guy who ALREADY HIT US and we basically have cornered and cut off somewhere on the Pakistani/Afghani border? Fine. What next? Don’t think that we can just capture Usama and then go back to focusing on abortion and universal healthcare, that’s all I’m saying. If you know of anyone who is saying anything more let me know, and also let me know what these people were saying about how to make us safe on 9 – 10.

  • OLADOSU RINRE MUFUTAU

    yes, yes , good . This is excellent job done by bush administration, whether you like it or not it is an improvement to stop terrorist. God that brought Saddam out will surely bring Osama out too. Bravo to bush. It is true that capture saddam can not bring torrorism to an end but it will surely reduce their plan against humanity. God bless Bush.

  • Eric Olsen

    I think you are wise Louis and Oladosu.

  • Mike M.

    Why is it that you anti-Bush people allow your hatred to overrun logic and reasoning?

    I haven’t read ALL the posts above, but I’d like to know what the anti-Bush people think was the real reason Bush attacked Iraq. To resolve the personal vendetta that Bush Sr. had against Saddam? for oil? what?

    Osama was the mastermind of 911. We went into Afghanistan and broke up Al-Qeida. No, we didn’t get Osama, but you can’t honestly say we didn’t try. We’ll get him, but the point I want to make is about going into Iraq.

    After 911 occurred and after the initial shock and the initial denial that Osama could have done it, the Arab world was showing enormous pride in what Osama accomplished. I remember seeing thousands of Muslims on tv praising Osama and fourth and fifth graders in Saudi Arabia saying how much they admired him. Whether or not we captured Osama back then or not wouldn’t have made any difference in the eyes of the Arab world. They still would have seen him as a hero. Remember, the Islam extremists hated us “before” 911 and they still hate us.

    I honestly believe this administration believed Saddam had WMD and I honestly believe we’ll find them soon now that Saddam is talking. It was only a matter of time before Al-Queida and Iraq joined forces to fight us, the common enemy. The Arab anti-US adrenalin was high a few months after 911. Saddam was one of the few countries that didn’t express sympathy for what happened to the US… and why should he… he hated the US. Later he praised the WTC collapse in one of his tape recordings. How much does it take to put 2 and 2 together? Why can’t you see beyond the fact that preventative maintenance doesn’t have a tangible end result? WOuld you rather we have not gone into Iraq and then see another catastrophy in the US before moving our troops in? Would you then have been “ok” with a war with Iraq?

    What really killed me were the anti-war demonstrators in San Francisco with signs saying “we just want peace”. Tell that to the enemy and see how far you get.

    And we didn’t “treat Saddam like an animal on TV” to show our superiority. It was the best way to prove to the Arab world that we got him and that he was being cooperative and not putting up a fight. That’s extremely important for the Arab world to know. Imagine that we killed Saddam and didn’t have the luxury of showing him alive to the world. That would have sparked so many stories that he wasn’t really captured and that the Americans faked the photo of him, blah blah blah. I think we did it right.