OT: Bhutto Assassinated

[Archive]

Posted By: BlackSoxFan

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2007/news/benazir.bhutto/index.html

Regards,
Black Sox Fan

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

email me
The Black Sox Blog

edited per request...

[Archive]

Posted By: peter ullman

what awful news for all of the world.

pete in mn

[Archive]

Posted By: Bill

Though obviously off topic, very relavent to some on here.

Change your socks, drink water, and drive on.

[Archive]

Posted By: Rich Klein

Because whilst we would like to believe that the collecting of vintage cards is in its own little bubble -- many times either world affairs or economic affairs does affect how we buy/sell these trinkets.
This has obviously had an effect on the downward trend of the stock market today and I would not be surprised if that trend continued for a while. In addition, any time we have a major downward or upward trend in the market; that can have an impact on disposable income.
I, personally, just hope that this does not change the equation of America's relation with Pakistan or India. India and Pakistan don't get along and think about how many jobs are outsourced to India. In addition, Pakistan borders many important countries that we have an active presence in.
Do I know the actual long-term impact on the world from this event; no I don't -- but this certainly eliminates a voice for reason and that is never a good sign.

Regards
Rich Klein

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Peter, Bhutto's assassination was not just bad news for Pakistan, it is bad news for America as well.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

I assumed when she returned to Pakistan that her life would be in danger.

[Archive]

Posted By: peter ullman

sorry folks...i wasn't implying this news won't affect us here in the us...or that it is not a big deal...just that's it's OT...and should be named as such.

peter ullman

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve Murray

12/28/2007 7:17 am CST

[Archive]

Posted By: Jason L

-and I like The Benny Hill Show for not only its irreverent wit, but also the relevance of its socio-economic commentary as pertaining to the mating habits of the various lemur and chameleon species of Madagascar.

So what?

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

This is obviously very off topic but it is a fairly large world event. I don't think we have to be so stale as to not allow some off topic of this epic proportion. No need to worry...this won't be a daily news chat board....BTW, this could have some serious effects on the world economy which could trickle down into card valuations.......best regards

edited typo

[Archive]

Posted By: JimCrandell

Jeff,

While this is of course a great human tragedy, I think its far from clear that this is bad for America. Lets not forget that this is a nuclear dictatorship run by a small elite over a country it has little if any control over. Its an Islamic state that was likely and is likely to be prone to extremism.

The ray of hope is that this was seen as America's fight. Hopefully, this will make the Pakistani military take the radical Islamic threat more seriously and it will clamp down hard on violence. Its likely the U.S. saw the present civilian regime and a future Bhutto regime as unsustainable and was already in back channel discussions with the military.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Leon- like the deftness with which you connected an assassination of a world leader in Pakistan to our hobby. Couldn't have done it better myself.

[Archive]

Posted By: David Smith

Let's see. America went to war in Afghanistan to fight Al-Queda but then quickly moved to Iraq for no good reason. Al-Queda and the Taliban have become more powerful in Afghanistan the last couple of years and the violence and death there have increased.

America is staying in Iraq while the UN says there needs to be more troops in Afghanistan. No OTHER nations are stepping up to add these troops, so it looks like the United States is going to have to go back with more troops.

In 2005, there was a plan by the US to go into Pakistan and take out some of the high level Al-Queda leaders but the plan was cancelled while the troops were in the air, going to that mission. If it is found that these leaders were invloved in the assassination of Bhutto, which has caused chaos and which leaders from around the world have denounced because of the affect on Democracy in Pakistan, then Bush would be responsible for this because he called took United States tropps out of Afghanistan to go to Iraq and because he cancelled the mission to Pakistan in 2005.

In effect, Bush's actions will, again, have caused MORE terrorism violence and deaths to occur and a decrease in Democracy in the world. It will also mean more US troops will be killed and injured and that more money will have to be spent fighting the terrorists which SHOULD have been taken care of three or four years ago.

Fearful of a Draft which might ensnare my Niece and Nephews,

David

[Archive]

Posted By: Rob Dewolf

Wow.

Simply, wow.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

Our friends the Pakistanis.......sure am glad they have the bomb.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe D.

David -

----
"then Bush would be responsible for this because he called took United States tropps out of Afghanistan to go to Iraq and because he cancelled the mission to Pakistan in 2005."
----


all I can say to that logic is ---- huh?!?


My one and only post here - I don't want to get involved in a political debate - but my brain hurt after trying to understand that logic.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

Well, since we are here, and there is almost no way around it, lets let there be politics talk in this thread ONLY......please keep it to this thread or it will be deleted...thanks ....moderator dude

[Archive]

Posted By: Randy Trierweiler

Joe, the logic is that its always George Bush's fault. No matter what happens, where it happens, how it happens, its George Bush's fault. If your mail is late today, that's George Bush's fault too. Hurts my brain too Joe.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

I think he's trying to say we should have taken care of business in Afghanistan instead of redirecting our efforts and resources to Iraq then maybe this assassination wouldn't have happened today. The assassination of Bhutto looks like it may have been done by Al Qaeda - the same guys who attacked America on 9/11 (Anyone remember them?)....of course there's no way to know for sure at the moment. Musharraf's guys could have done this as well. IIRC Bush called off the hit on the Al Qaeda in Pakistan because too many civilians would have been killed, so as far as that goes Bush IMO was in a no win situation.

[Archive]

Posted By: ernest reyes

Ya know.. it seems to me that whoever is President invariably gets the blame.. rightly or wrongly.. I remember Clinton receiving the same type of criticism when anything went wrong while he was in office.. same with Bush #41, Reagan, Carter, Ford, etc... it seems like par for the course to me

http://dodgersblueheaven.blogspot.com/
http://imageevent.com/ernestreyes
http://mywantlist.blogspot.com/

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

Whoever is in charge is where the buck stops and takes the blame....I know that feeling all too well....I think Bush means well (the guy has aged 40 yrs in the last 7) but has made some poor decisions in hindsight....I can't imagine how he feels when he is speaking with a parent that just lost a son or daughter in the war. Right or wrong, it must be aweful. I wouldn't want to be in his shoes.....

[Archive]

Posted By: Bill Stone

Whoever is responsible --in the words of Babu Bhatt " you bad
man! You very very bad man!

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob Pomilla

Pretty fair amount of sympathy for militant Islam in the Pakistani military. To fully what extent, we can't be sure. So, if we are "back-channeling" with them, there's still no guarantee that they will take aggressive steps against the radicals.



How much support do radical Islamists have within Pakistan's army?


Experts disagree. While Gannon says there is "a great deal of sympathy within the army for the radical religious right," Weinbaum doubts there is a large group "sympathetic to the most radical of groups." On the other hand, if even a small percentage is willing to block Musharraf's orders to crack down on militants, it can greatly undermine the army's effectiveness. Pakistani military officers have recently been arrested for alleged ties to al Qaeda, according to press reports. Disloyal army and intelligence officials can also provide information to militants to help Musharraf's assassins. Pakistani investigators, for example, suspect that the Christmas Day attackers may have had inside information about the president's route and schedule.

The above was excerpted from:

http://www.cfr.org/publication/7743/pakistan.html#14>

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

And Babu was Pakistani.

There are many ways to look at this tragic event but the fact is the world is a very dangerous place. It's sad that terrorists dictate so much of what goes on today. That they are gaining strength and still operating practically unchecked is one of the worst developments in the world today.

And that we are doing virtually nothing to defeat these terrorists (sorry, the Iraq war was misguided) is going to come back and haunt us dearly.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Jim, there are a hundred different ways to look at the situation but here is my simple take: Bhutto hated the jihadists and vowed to rout them and they hated her. She's dead. That's bad for people that hate the jihadists.

[Archive]

Posted By: Chris Counts

Bhutto's assination is clearly bad for America because it causes greater instability in a country that is a key ally in America's war on terror. Bhutto represented a far more reasonable and democratic alternative to either the existing military dictatorship and the religious extremists in Pakistan that spawned Al-Qaeda ...

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Chris, I agree totally.

[Archive]

Posted By: JimCrandell

Jeff,

You may be right--just do not see it as black and white--just because Bhutto is a reasonable alternative does not mean thats what Pakistanis will select. It may be best if the country was a dictatorship and it is possible that this might push the country toward that outcome. The key is if the dictatorship is allied with us.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

Like Saddam in the 1980's? That worked out well.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob Pomilla

Leave us not forget the Shah.

[Archive]

Posted By: paulstratton

This assasination will never be linked to Musharraf. It's all Charlie Wilson's fault ctown, not Bush's.

[Archive]

Posted By: Fred C

Talk about OT...

My fear is probably the same as others in the US. When we start seeing acts of terrorism like these (suicide bombers)in the US then life as we know it pretty much ceases. The sad part is that some idiot in our government will interpret some document that will protect the people involved due to some stupid technicality. Hey, this could be driven by religion, wouldn't that be protected under the constitution as freedom of religious expression? Ok, that's a bit extreme.

Living in fear of something that isn't "yet" a reality is a loss of freedom, I just want to live my life without the fear of going somewhere public and then losing life or limb because I was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I'd start giving my views about the death penalty and the loss of a few freedoms but that's another OT thread that I wont start.

[Archive]

Posted By: David Smith

Joe D.

Who was behind the 9/11 attack on the US? Al Queda

Who is the leader of Al Queda? Osama Bin Ladin

Where was Osama Bin Laden supposed to have been located and where were the Al Queda training camps? Afghanistan

Where did Bush start a war and what did he say his objectives were? Afghanistan. To find and capture or kill those who were responsible for 9/11

Where did Bush pull the troops from, where did he send them to and how was that connected to 9/11? Afghanistan. Iraq. There was NO connection.

If Bush had done what he said he was going to do, which was go to Afghanistan and take care of the Taliban and Al Queda and capture Osama Bin Laden, then those groups wouldn't STILL be in existence and wouldn't be causing the deaths, violence and chaos that they currently are.

If you don't like hwat I have said or believe it, then go to CNN and look at what Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul told Wolf Blitzer about an hour ago.

After 9/11, the United States had the world's sympathy and foreigh leader's backing to do pretty much whatever we wanted to do, as far as going after Al Queda and Osama Bin Laden. Taking care of business in Afghanistan was the first thing to do and if the terrorists/extremists fled to Pakistan, then the US could have gone there and taken care of things. But, we didn't.

There was a plan to take out some of the extremist leaders in Pakistan in 2005 and troops were in the air to do just that but for some reason, Bush cancelled the military operation.

Since the US is supporting Musharef (the puppet leader of Pakistan) with economic and military aid, which totals billions of dollars a month, he should be able to take care of the extremists himself or the US should be allowed to go in and take care of things. But neither are happening and things just get worse for the United States.

So, to recap, Bush doesn't follow through on what he said he ws going to do. The terrorists/extremists regroup and regain strength and increase the violence and deaths in Afghanistan. The UN says there needs to be more troops there but because of Bush's mistakes and lack of trust from world leaders, nobody is stepping up. This means the US is going to have to send in troops and spend more money in a place that SHOULD have already been taken care of. But because it wasn't, Bhutto MAY have been killed because of it.

Hopefully you don't have any children or relatives who are young enough to be Drafted. Because if things continue to get worse and the world doesn't step up to help and with retention of soldiers and recruitment dropping, the Draft may be a reality in a few years.

David

Edited for typing errors and to add Ron Paul's name.

[Archive]

Posted By: David Smith

Fred C.

I don't live my life in fear becaus eI am not really scared of terrorists attacks. Not becuase Bush has done anything special, other than reduce our Civil Liberties and, increase our National Debt and made Big Brother an even greater presense in our lives.

No, I don't live in fear because look at what and where the attacks have occured.

1993 - New York and the World Trade Center

2001 - New York, the World Trade Center. Washington, D.C., the Pentagon. Pennsylvania (though the attack was probably aimed at the White House).

On those dates, over 99.99% of the American public was safe and over 99.95% (or more) of New York City residents were safe. The terrorists target major public buildings or icons. Why? Because if they damage or destroy them, they take innocent lives and they get WORLD attention for what they have done and that helps them with recruits.

If terrorists targeted a farm house in Iowa and killed a family, that wouldn't get much attention world-wide. No, they want BIG targets that will gain them major publicity.

On 9/11, I was MORE afraid of the idiots on the road driving around trying to find gasoline than I was of being attacked by a terrorist. Today, I am still not worried about terrorists. I am MORE worried about the National debt and how the heck we are going to pay for it. Because like I said before, when the terrorists attacked, over 99.99% of the American public was safe but with Bush continuing to fight these wars and intruding on our Civil Liberties by using illegal spying techniques, 100% of our population is at risk.

David

[Archive]

Posted By: ernest reyes

Leon

I agree. The buck always stops with the president and ultimately he/she will get the blame at the end of the day. I guess my comment was meant to explain a phenomena that can be both frustrating and consoling. I'd call it a way to comment without taking sides- a classic cop-out on my part.

anyway, a part of me keeps saying we all should have known better. Afterall, the country was sold on the idea that this President wasn't some intellectual know-it-all. He was a straight talking, brush clearing, semi-literate cowboy who would not shame the office by having sex with the help. Heck, cable TV news boasted about how this guy was someone you could sit down and have a beer with. As if that's a reasonable reason to vote for a person. So, we really should have expected him to make a series of bad decisions when faced with a difficult and complex situation.

The one thing that frustrates me about the last 6 years is how apathetic our country really is. With all the scandal, graft, spying on Americans, torture, politicization of non-politic institutions, etc. we as a whole seem unwilling to get off our butts to scream, "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore!"



<a href="http://dodgersblueheaven.blogspot.com/</a" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://dodgersblueheaven.blogspot.com/</a&gt;
<a href="http://imageevent.com/ernestreyes</a" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://imageevent.com/ernestreyes</a&gt;
<a href="http://mywantlist.blogspot.com/</a" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://mywantlist.blogspot.com/</a&gt;

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

I am most worried about health care.

[Archive]

Posted By: John J. Grillo

Bhutto death was tragic, but let's face it, she was a crook! Some like to say it was only her husband, but both of them literally robbed Pakistan blind while she was PM. (see below). I will remind you what you read below was just the tip of the iceberg with this lady.

Bhutto was in tight with the US Republican Party and Bush and might have been a little more responsive than Musharraf in dealing with the Taliban and Al Queda in her country---again, might have!

Now the networks are trying to make her out to be some sort of Martyr? Give me a break, she probably ran out of $$$ and needed more, which is why she probably came back to Pakistan. She tried to bribe Musharraf into power sharing and when that didn't work, well the only alternative was to challenge his power directly.

I agree Musharraf could be doing more to secure his borders and do some cleaning up of any Al Queda or Taliban that may be lurking there; however, he is in a tight spot (it's just not that easy). Yes, I agree he is not the answer to Democracy in Pakistan, but Bhutto would've been more iron-fisted and crooked than he. From the international herald tribune.

"Swiss Want Bhutto Indicted in Pakistan for Money Laundering"

By ELIZABETH OLSON
Published: August 20, 1998

A Swiss investigating magistrate said today that he had amassed enough evidence, including the purchase of a diamond necklace, to indict Pakistan's former Prime Minister, Benazir Bhutto, on money-laundering charges tied to contracts with two Geneva-based companies.

The magistrate, Daniel Devaud, decided not to bring the charges against Ms. Bhutto in Switzerland, but rather to ask Pakistani authorities to indict her.

''She is not able to leave the country to defend herself, so I have asked Pakistan to bring the charges,'' Judge Devaud said. Ms. Bhutto was forced from office in November 1996 amid corruption charges and has since had her travels restricted by Pakistani Government authorities.

The Geneva magistrate has been conducting a wide-ranging inquiry seeking to account for more than $13.7 million frozen by Swiss authorities last fall. The money was allegedly stashed in Swiss banks by Ms. Bhutto and her husband, Asif Ali Zardari.

Judge Devaud, who indicted three others in the case in June, also asked Pakistan last month to indict Mr. Zardari on similar charges.

It is unclear if or how soon Pakistani investigators would act on the Swiss request, or even whether Ms. Bhutto could be tried for a breach of Swiss law in a Pakistani court.

The Swiss request -- which concerns a relatively small portion of the vast wealth the Bhuttos have amassed -- may be far down on the list of concerns for the Pakistani investigators. Only last week, they brought the first criminal charges against Ms. Bhutto in their efforts to track down what they estimate is $1.5 billion the couple received in bribes, kickbacks and commissions in a variety of enterprises.

Judge Devaud said that part of some 150 pages of evidence sent to Pakistan included documentation of the purchase of a $188,370 diamond necklace. That money, he emphasized, was only a small part of the funds his investigation has uncovered. He declined to give an exact figure, but said the amount was in excess of $10 million.

The money, investigators say, came from payments made by Societe Generale de Surveillance Holding S.A. and Cotecna Inspection S.A., two of the world's leading goods inspections companies, to a Bhutto family lawyer, who deposited them in offshore accounts.

Since freezing the Bhutto accounts last fall, Swiss authorities have cast a wide net for criminal wrongdoing. This spring, officials disclosed that they had been investigating whether any money in the Swiss accounts came from drug trafficking as well.

[Archive]

Posted By: JimCrandell

I am most worried about illegal immigration....and that Hillary might be elected and put through Government-controlled health care.

Hey--we agree Barry! We both are afraid of Hillary's health care

[Archive]

Posted By: Joann

David - ctown,

Your 6:00 post was perfect. Great job of distilling the logic and trail of thinking that many Americans have followed.

I only see two ways out - lose or draft - and neither good. I don't think it helps us to "lose" the Iraq war - meaning leave such that extremists can take over. The newest generation in my family is just now hitting draft age, and that scares me to death, plus I have a brother-in-law that will be there in the next few months.

I feel like I have two bad choices. One is to expose my family - children really, only 18 or so - to the draft and to danger in general with my bil on his way. The other is to protect them by having the US just leave and give Iraq and its people to the religious and political extremists, plus Afghanistan as well, and wind up far worse than we started.

Once we lose the war over there we will have to protect ourselves over here, and there is really only one way to protect ourselves here - that is further erosion of our civil liberties. We had one shot to get it right over there, and now it does appear to me that the only way to possibly, remotely salvage that opportunity is with the draft. Bush will, of course, stick the next president with that reality. He is a moron and a coward.

It grinds me to sawdust that this terrible polarity of choice is only because Bush screwed it all up so bad. It didn't need to come down to this. Bush's delusions of grandeur and arrogant insistence that we could conduct a "nimble and agile" war got us here. Period. And where is Eric Shenseki? Playing golf and watching kids get their asses shot up on CNN.

It doesn't matter what Bush does, how he characterizes his actions, how he mugs for the cameras and history books, and how he dumps the lose-or-draft decision on his successor. I am convinced that this country is smart enough to see through all that, and his legacy will be as the most incompetent and destructive president in history. I just hope I'm still around to see it being taught that way.

Joann

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

You know Jim- I'm a little afraid of Hillary too. In fact all the candidates frighten me!

But I do think the costs of healthcare are unconscionable and I am afraid that mess will never be fixed.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

And thank you Joann for that scathing attack on Bush. Why was this man ever elected-twice?

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

I tend to think the less we meddle with middle eastern politics the better off we will be. Someone above wrote that we should blame Charlie Wilson and not Dubya...part of that would be correct in that he got the money through congress to arm the Mujahadeen against the Soviets in Afghanistan...of course it seems everyone we ally with in that area of the world eventually turns into our enemy....The more we meddle the more extreme they become. Iran is the perfect place for democracy to take root, but it has to come from within and can not be forced upon them.

a good article on that subject is here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/13/AR2006031301761.html

[Archive]

Posted By: John J. Grillo

Kevin Costner said it best...the difference between a .250 hitter and a .300 hitter is about 25 extra base hits year...weak grounders, seeing-eye bloop hits, etc.

1) Every reputable intelligence service (foreign and otherwise) on the face of this earth thought Saddam had chemical weapons.
2) Fact: Some older weapons consisting of mostly mustard and nerve gas were found. Although the more modern chem weapons weren't found, the infrastructure, labs were. He could have reconstituted his chemical program in days if he wanted to.
3) Terrorist training camps were found...terrorists were given safe haven in Iraq, albeit not Al Queda.

Bush's biggest mistake was listening to Rumsfeld's advice. Colin Powell wanted to go in with overwhelming force and if so, we probably wouldn't have lost so many lives. Also, we initially had the wrong generals (incompetent) running the show over there...they are now CNN analysts who, to save a little face, obviously find fault in everything Bush does.

We finally got a General (Petreaus) who can get the job done. Probably the world's foremost expert on counter-terrorism, we are slowly starting to see positive results of what competent leadership can provide, along with the men and women in uniform who believe in him as well.

If we would've went in there initially with the right leadership and more limited goals, Iraq would've been a cakewalk and people would be comparing Bush to Teddy Roosevelt today. There's a thin line between love and hate.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

Joann, hindsight is always 20-20. Tell me who was there actively opposing the Iraq campaign at the time? Do you really believe Bush allowed arrogance to trump his judgment based on what his intelligence was telling him, combined with Saddam's absolute intransigence in the face of sanctions, diplomatic pressure, etc.?

[Archive]

Posted By: DD

Bush compared to Teddy Roosevelt if a few more of his weak grounders went through the infield?

Bush should count his blessings his brother was governor of Florida in 2000, that John Kerry couldn't find his way out of a paper bag, much less lead this country, and that he passed on that Dick Cheney hunting trip awhile ago.

[Archive]

Posted By: ernest reyes

John:

I'm increasingly frustrated by the rhetoric justifying the attack on Iraq.

1) What does it matter that every intelligence operation in the world thought he had chemical weapons? He certainly didn't have the means to attack us. Afterall, ultimately, our foreign policy, at its core, should be based on our security only. He was in a box, as they say.

2) The older weapons found were weapons we are responsible for. Remember Saddam was our ally first, and we gave him chemical weapons. On top of that, those weapons are essentially useless now. BTW, we did not find any labs large enough to make chemical weapons in large enough supply to go to war with. They simply did not exist. You are wrong, they did not have the means to reconstitute this weapon program. That is a farce and the evidence gathered since Saddams fall bears that out. Sure, they had the technical know how to make the weapons, but so does half the countries on earth. Chemistry is not a secret.

3) The so called terrorist training camps where found in Northern Iraq under the protection of the Kurds. (BTW, they had this camp to fight Turkey who they commit terrorist attacks on) That is a fact. You have to remember that between the 1st and 2nd wars in Iraq, British and American planes where bombing the northern and southern part of Iraq (literally) on a daily basis. Saddam effectively had very little control of those areas, or control on any bases there. Remember the embargo. Remember how a bunch of people where complaining about how it was hurting more Iraqi children then acting as a vice grip on Saddam. Not only that, it makes no logical sense for Saddam, who was a egocentric dictator to welcome Al-Quada type terrorist in Iraq. Remember, Al Queda's goals is a pan-Islamic State which would mean overthrowing every monarchy and government in the Middle East. Iran, Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, etc. have no interest in losing their sovereignty.

The simple fact remains there is no logical reason why attacking Iraq would have advanced our desired goal of defeating terrorism. Afganistan and Pakistan (and it financial backers within the House of Saud) is where the real war is.

http://dodgersblueheaven.blogspot.com/
http://imageevent.com/ernestreyes
http://mywantlist.blogspot.com/

[Archive]

Posted By: Rob Dewolf

When I saw a follow-up report on CNN this morning about the tiger attack at the San Francisco zoo, I jokingly said that before that day was over, someone would blame the attack on the president not doing his part to make the zoos in this country safe enough. I haven't heard that yet, but I have faith that someone on this board will come through before the clock strikes midnight.

[Archive]

Posted By: Eric Brehm

Leon -- why have a rule for this forum, expressed so clearly and unequivocally, that politics is not allowed to be discussed, and then allow this. I realize friends need to have fun together, and they should. I guess I just don't quite fit in.

I live in Colorado and right now it is very wintry and I'm watching those people on the road who think they can drive 50mph on an icy road because they have "4 wheel drive." They are spinning out of control.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joann

Peter,

I know hindsight is 20/20, and all I can say is that I was genuinely opposed to going into Iraq before we went in. One February - must have been a few months before we went in - Bush came to GR and I took a late lunch and went downtown and stood in the snow on the side of Michigan St in GR to shout slogans against going into Iraq at the limo as it went by. It was really quite pathetic, actually. Although there was a fairly good turnout (especially considering that I basically live at Ground Zero of 'Neck Nation), it was basically 15 seconds of nothing. But I still thought it was important to go.

However, I will own up to mine being a case of right answer, wrong reason. I too thought Saddam had WMD. But I couldn't for the life of me figure out why this was suddenly an emergency. I kept thinking I was missing something, but as far as I could see he had been doing the tap dance for years - even decades. I sort of presumed that he had them and everyone knew he had them, so I thought that this suddenly being a disastrous situation meant that is was a pretense for something else.

My absolute opinion at the time, as it is now, is that we went into Iraq to create some action. We went into Afghanistan with a flourish, and made great strides immediately. But months had gone by, and no Osama, and no new news every day. I sensed that people were getting antsy for "something to happen". We were all so amped up on the whole 9/11 and getting Osama, that I really felt like it was getting to be boring to a lot of people. Heck, even I was losing interest.

But I kept in mind what Bush had said in his great speech to Congress or State of the Union - I forget which - shortly after 9/11 (which, by the way, I do and probably always will consider the most powerful speech of my time). He said we would have to be patient. He said it would take awhile and there would be long periods where it might appear that nothing was happening.

When we started rattling our sabres about Iraq, and suddenly the old chestnut of Saddam and the Inspectors became a call to arms, I felt like Bush abandoned his own (actually wise) advice. He didn't want to tell people to continue to be patient with Afghanistan and Osama. He felt like he had to make something happen. Do something so that the American people could keep that pumped up patriotism, to know that we were doing ... something.

He had it right to begin with and should have stayed focused on Afghanistan, Osama and Al Quaeda.

And a final clarification - my argument with him is not really just the whole pretense for going into Iraq although that's part of it. My bigger issue is that he and his staff completely ignored the advice of competent military professionals as to the size of the force needed.

Cheney and Rumsfeld - career politicians with no real experience in running a military campaign - had this political lollipop of the "agile war" all preconceived, and they laid waste to anyone that rained on their sunshiny parade. This was on the news, and was widely reported. The Gulf War was largely successful because we just flat out overwhelmed them with the sheer number bodies and people and technology. We hit them every which way from Tuesday and it was over before it started.

Bush ignored the advice to take a similar approach, and instead took the politically attractive advice of his inexperienced advisors. When it started clearly going wrong, he stubbornly refused to acknowledge the mistake and allowed the resistance to gain enough of a foothold so as to become equal to or even superior to our troops in influence and force.

And for that reason we are now faced with what amounts to a choice of lose or draft.

Joann

PS - and Leon - thanks for allowing the thread. I usually don't participate in the political kinds of threads, but it is nice that we can occasionally express those parts of ourselves that are not card-related.

And I think it's great that, at least so far (kind of holding my breath on this one though), this has been a fairly well-thought out and civil discourse on an extremely divisive topic.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bill

David,
Nevermind what a politician said. If you really believe that this organization would have been taken care if nailed in Afghanistan and possibly Pakistan, you are sorely mistaken. This group was already in multiple countries pre 9/11, and still is, around the world.

Change your socks, drink water, and drive on.