Finally Democrats calling it like they see it

Sen. Kennedy - There was no imminent threat. This was made up in Texas, announced in January to the Republican leadership that war was going to take place and was going to be good politically. This whole thing was a fraud.

While I’m not Kennedy’s biggest fan, I hope we start seeing more call outs about the war in Iraq and hopefully we’ll start seeing more grassroots reactions. Even if you support the war, I feel that at least you have to admit that our causus bellum (is that right? been a while since I cracked Latin) was tainted, even if you think the action itself was morally justified.

What difference will it make ?

Plus, those questions should have been asked before the war, don’t you agree ? Why the silence before, and the polemic after ? To undo what ? Shouldn’t you worry about what to do next instead ?

Just some questions, no accusations…

Well, if a CEO tells you he has this great plan to make a bazillion dollars, and he drives your company into near-bankruptcy instead, the first course of action is usually to fire him.,12956,916790,00.html

This is my casus belli. Agree or disagree, but there’s nothing tainted about it.

Guess what, Osama Bin Laden was not an “imminent” threat around say, 1997, either but had we done something about him 3,000+ Americans would be alive today.

It’s called preventative measure. Look into it. I know 'crats don’t like to think ahead too much cause it hurts.

So if it turns out that we get our asses beat like in Vietnam, it’d still have been a good preventive plan?

…the late Mr. Kelly might respectfully disagree with that assessment.

Alstarboard Bob, get in your time machine, got’t’future, tell us who will kill lotso’Americans, and then come aft and tell us whot’kill. Thanks!"

Yeah I guess Clinton appointees Sandy Berger and Richard Clarke weren’t “thinking ahead” when they repeatedly told the Bush Administration from January-April, 2001 that Bin Laden was an imminent threat, and that Al Qaeda would occupy the bulk of the incoming administration’s time?

I have no problem with the destruction of Saddam Hussein’s regime by US Forces…but where was the exit strategy? Where the HELL was the Powell Doctrine in all this? He’s the fucking Secretary of State, but you can tell that this was Rummy all the way by the simple fact that they completely ignored the key strategem that we learned from Vietnam: have an EXIT STRATEGY. Have a fucking plan! Have branching contingencies!

Iraq is now threatening to add a nasty Sunni-Shi’a civil war onto the heap of problems the US is already encountering (3 more soldiers dead today, btw…). To quote Ambassador Joe Wilson, “It’s a fucking mess.”

First off, this is a strikingly weak argument given what Kennedy’s quote says. Second, I don’t remember anyone asking for a side a cheesy asshole when they ordered the political debate blueplate special.

Bottom line is we can’t predict the future, so if Bin Laden was not an imminent threat, what are we supposed to do? Just take him out anyway? I may not be an imminent threat either at the moment, but give me a few months on some perscriptions with mood altering side effects and plenty of access to the internet and who know what I might do? So then should I be taken out?

Beyond that, while I don’t necessarily oppose the idea of getting rid of Saddam Hussein (the world seems extremely tolerant of mega dickheads for some reason), Kennedy was specifically talking about how it was done, and how it was done is dirty in a “bad touch” from the creepy Uncle sort of way. Personally, I hope that can somehow be Bush’s undoing (as I’ve mentioned, my personal biases are strongly against him), but it bothers me that the magnitude of deception that occurred doesn’t upset every single person in this country. We got used, plain and simple, and now kids are getting killed for that.

triggercut: Okay so what you’re saying is Osama only became an “imminent” threat once Bush came into office, so obviously Bush is to blame for not doing anything. But somehow, when Osama was responsible for the Cole bombing years before, he wasn’t an “imminent” threat then so Clinton bears no blame for not doing anything. Nice tard logic there, champ.

the rest of you: The key word here is “threat”. Was Osama a threat in the 90s? Yes. Was he an imminent threat? Who cares. He’s a threat. A President serving in the best interests of his people should do something about THREATS to his people. Osama was a threat long before 9/11 but we did nothing and 3000 people die.

Saddam was a threat, imminent or not. It is in our best interest to do something about him before he gains sufficient resources to act on that threat.


Bob Cherub

Osama was a threat long before 9/11 but we did nothing and 3000 people die.

Give me a break, we did all that was doable pretty much. What, Clinton should have invaded Afghanistan in 1999?

Oh so the Clinton administration did everything it could to stop Osama Bin Laden? Sounds more like they left the dirty laundry for the next administration. You think if Gore had been President he would have hunted Osama down in early 2001? If you do, you’re a complete fucktard.

You really think an invasion would have been required to hunt for him? He’s a criminal to the United States after the Cole bombing, which gives us every right to find him. I know you’re smarter than that Jason. Aren’t you?


Bob Cherub

North Korea is a threat. Should we invade them?
Syria is a possible threat. Should we invade them?
Pakistan is a possible threat. Should we invade them?
Heck, the reforming remnants of the Taliban in Afghanistan are a possible thread, and Bush isn’t doing squat about them.

You’re loony Bob, if you think that merely stating “HE’S A POSSIBLE THREAT AND MUST BE ELIMINATED” is going to pass any muster without going “how much of a threat is he?” and “do we have to eliminate him or are there other options?”

What does Osama have to do with Iraq? Yes, we should have taken him out prior to 9/11 if that was possible. Should we have invaded Afghanistan to do so before 9/11? I don’t think so. I don’t think the U.S. should consider itself to have carte blanche to determine that individuals are threats and use that as a reason to declare war. Taking out Osama might not have stopped 9/11 anyway.

A better response would have been better security prior to 9/11. I think it’s likely we could have prevented 9/11. Certainly, in retrospect, it’s clear we had access to enough evidence that something was up.

I also think that invading Iraq increases our risk in some ways. Not only might it foment more anti-American hostility, it’s costing us a hell of a lot of money and increasing our deficit. That’s dangerous too.

Getting rid of Saddam was a good thing, but he didn’t represent the threat that Bush said he was.

Yes, I agree there are degrees of threats. But something tells me Osama should have been high on that threat list given 1993 WTC and Cole bombing… and countless other bombings across the world. Nothing was done until it was too late. I hold the Clinton administration responsible AND the Bush administration responsible for not doing a damn thing.

So you expect prescience from your Presidents?

Alright, well, that makes more sense.

Do you feel that the Bush administration has made significant progress in finding and fixing the problems with the foreign and domestic intelligence agencies to prevent an intelligence failure like the one that led to 9/11?

Should we have invaded Afghanistan to do so before 9/11? I don’t think so. I don’t think the U.S. should consider itself to have carte blanche to determine that individuals are threats and use that as a reason to declare war.

That’s very interesting. I assume you don’t consider the catastrophic simultaneous bombings of the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania to have been an act of war.

I guess the ruins of those embassies were not enough to “determine that individuals are threats.”

Won’t it be tough for the current Administration to track down and prevent terrorism when senior White House officials are outing CIA Operatives in Robert Novak columns?