A Warhawk Flies the Coop

Hour Eleven ^ | 27 January 2004 | Jonathan David Morris

[Lando Lincoln]

I am posting this with some misgivings but I believe the author has some important things to say. I suspect that this article will prompt some "passionate" responses - pro and con. As for me, I disagree with the drunken sailor spending ways of the administration. However, at the end of the day, I believe it is far better for this nation to have a Bush win in November than a Bush loss. A vote any other way will contribute to the democrats. I hope that I need not tell you that that would be potentially disastrous with respect to national security, SC appointments, circuit court appointments (yes, I know about the filibusters), etc. And, from a strictly political poin-of-view, I understand that some overtures must be made to people traditionally outside the party for the party to survive. The trick is maintaining your core values while doing it.

So, here it is. I plan to keep up with the author's folow-up articles. I'd be glad to ping anyone who would like to read them. FReepmail me accordingly.

Lando

[mystery-ak]

Maybe Jonathan Morris should have waited to write this op-ed until after Kay's testimony today.

[UCANSEE2]

The question should not be "did Saddam have WMD's", it should be "Did SADDAM want you (Americans,Christians,Non-Muslims,Infidels) DEAD, and was he prepared to make his desires into reality?"

The answer then becomes glaringly obvious.

Remember, 3000 people died in the WTC on 09/11 due to a razor blade less than 3 inches long. There's your WMD.

[EagleMamaMT]

Read later.

[gatorbait]

Lando, thanks for the article.Illuminating the Kerry strategy.The author is a jackass in a the Kerry tradition.

[mrsmith]

Either a very bright satirist or an idiot.

[Jumper]

This writer's comments about comparisions with Bush and then Kim Jong Il's North Korean girls crying was a sure clue that he is insincere or a closet solicist blind to the horrors of North Korea.

Where is the Gag alert or Barf alert!?

[Rocky Mountain High]

I'm with you...sort of. I'm probably going to register Libertarian unless things change. That's right, quite possibly leaving the GOP for many of the reasons you stated. I will still vote Bush in November, b/c despite his flaws, his adminstration is at least willing to crush our islamist enemies. A demo-rat president will insure we're hit again in a major terror attack.

However, I never really bought the WMD argument. It was a smoke screen for our overall Middle East strategy, which amounts to total change in the region. I don't have a problem with it. I'm glad we're doing what we're doing in Iraq. We're sending a strong message to the rest of the world that we're not playing around anymore.


I'm just at a loss with the President's spending, his stnace on immigration, his willingness to kill the islamists but his unwillingness to bully the dims. I appreciate and fully understand his tax cuts, but can't abide his position on the "assault weapons ban".

I like George Bush, but somethimes I don't understand him at all.

[Kirkwood]

"Remember, 3000 people died in the WTC on 09/11 due to a razor blade less than 3 inches long. There's your WMD."

Thanks for the reminder. I'm passing this around my emergency management network.

Unbelievably, one of the managers said in a meeting yesterday that there will never be another terrorist event in the US and it was a waste of money to plan and train for one. We're in one of the highest ranked areas in the US for an event. She was hooted at, but it goes to show you that some of the people in place to protect you have a biased viewpoint and a short memory.

[etcetera]

The only person to blame for Iraq War II is Saddam. If he had been open and forthright with the U.N. weapons inspectors, Hans Blix could have told us then what Dr. Kay is telling us now.

But no, Saddam had to tweak the tiger's tail. He kept everything secret, gave the inspectors a hard time. And intelligence services around the world believed he had the WMDs or was on the verge of getting them.

So now Saddam lives in jail in some undisclosed location. He gambled and he lost. Simple as that.

[cake_crumb]

Anyone who follows the news closely already knows the truth. Passion isnb;t a factor.

Did the UN weapons inspectors file highly detailed and complately bogis reports for 12 years? Was even Blixie's last official, written report a lie? Did you know the president has quoted those reports when "making the case for war in Iraq"? Why has nobody questioned the source? Did UN weapons inspectors perpetrate a successful, decade long racketeering scam against the best intelligence of every single developed country in the free world?

The answer is "no" that isn't possible. Oh the racketeering is. Every member of the administration intimated UN oil-for-food on the record at some point. However, they obviously KNEW, or they wouldn't have been saying it. A scam of the proportions we're talking about, perpetrated for this many years would have been detected by at least one intelligence agency from one Western country.

[dagnabbit]

I'm pretty much on record at FR as a "Bush-basher" (Immigration, Saudi-coddling).

That said, sweeping the Saddam regime from the table, I believe, was a necessary step in any War on Terror, and I therefore continue to support this war.

The WMD problem is one of the administration's own making. They just plain hyped that argument too much, and got ahead of the facts.

[PFC]

The question should not be "did Saddam have WMD's", it should be "Did SADDAM want you (Americans,Christians,Non-Muslims,Infidels) DEAD, and was he prepared to make his desires into reality?"

Uh, huh. The question is why the administration kept insisting the weapons were there. Either they were lying or our intelligence totally sucks - and we need to know which for the safety of this country.

[snopercod]

You have a lot of guts for posting this article. My hat's off to you.

When those buildings went down, my heart said, "Give the government free reign." No longer. The CIA failed to stop 9/11. They've failed to find whoever sent anthrax, and the war that I supported because of that anthrax was built on yet more bad intelligence. Now we're supposed to let men in publicly subsidized uniforms break into our homes to "protect" us?

FReepers may not like to hear talk like this, but I'm telling you all in a loud voice: "THIS IS WHAT THE PEOPLE ON THE STREETS ARE SAYING WHERE I LIVE!"

I live in a depressed area, and people are wondering how it is that we can spend billions on "rebuilding Iraq" but not a dime to rebuild America's industrial base.

They thought they were voting for fiscal responsibility, but Bush has outdone clinton as a big spender, as well as a Constitution violator, nation builder and a secret database keeper.

I'm not voting for him again. Fool me once...

[Argus]

This writer has the mentality of a child.

As I watched the WTC towers collapse in flames the morning of 9/11/01 and clips of Palestinians and the rest of them celebrating said atrocity, I wanted every one of them dead. Every bastard who might even remotely be responsible for this, or dance in the streets over it, or even say, with a wink and a nudge, that we had it coming. So - Osama, dead...the Taliban, dead...Arafat, dead...Saddam Hussein, dead...et cetera. I did not then, nor do I now, give a rat's ass whether we have OJ Simpson type proof of WMD's in Saddam's garage or whatever. I am willing to be patient - I didn't expect them all dead in a week, or a year, or even three years. Just dead, for sure, at some point. We didn't invade Iraq to uphold UN resolutions or any of that diplomatic BS. We did it, frankly, because the Arabs, and the scumbags of the rest of the world, need to be taught that they can't pull something like this and get away with it. If Bush hadn't slapped that proof down on the table, I would have wanted him impeached. He did it, and he gives every sign he means to keep on doing it, so I don't care what else he does or doesn't do. He has my vote for that alone.

[cake_crumb]

There has only been one Gulf war. It started in 1991. US/British allies have been over there ever since Saddam signed the terms of his surrender...and of course, are there now, ending it. Finally.

[pgkdan]

I detest W's spendthrift habits, CFR and his blind spot toward illegal immigration. That said, I couldn't possibly bring myself to vote for anyone else in November. I don't think anyone else running would continue the War on Terror and this is a war that we'll be fighting for a long time.

I don't think WMD's are in Iraq. I can live with that. Ousting Saddam was a necessary step in the War on Terror and that alone justifies the Iraq war for me. A democratic Iraq will completely shake up the middle east and make several unstable rogue regimes start minding their manners. We're seeing that on Libya now and we'll see it in Iran and Syria soon.

[Do Be]

The question should not be "did Saddam have WMD's", it should be "Did SADDAM want you (Americans,Christians,Non-Muslims,Infidels) DEAD, and was he prepared to make his desires into reality?"

The answer then becomes glaringly obvious.

Remember, 3000 people died in the WTC on 09/11 due to a razor blade less than 3 inches long. There's your WMD.

I really like the way you think. You're one of my favorite freepers.

Good to hear your voice again.

[pgkdan]

That said, sweeping the Saddam regime from the table, I believe, was a necessary step in any War on Terror, and I therefore continue to support this war.

Damn right!

[cake_crumb]

"Uh, huh. The question is why the administration kept insisting the weapons were there"

All the admnistrations of every single country in the free world insisted they were there, including nations that fought vehemently against regime change like Germany and France. I remind you that THEIR investigations of Saddam were independant. It was in their interest, financially speaking, to conclude Saddam was clean. They did't. Why would they lie?