Posted on 01/07/2007 12:28:49 AM PST by amchugh
When political leaders make drastic mistakes, accountability is delivered in the form of elections. That occurred in November when voters removed the party principally responsible for the war in Iraq. But the invasion would not have occurred had Americans not been persuaded of its wisdom and necessity, and leading that charge was a stable of pundits and media analysts who glorified President Bush’s policies and disseminated all sorts of false information and baseless assurances.
Yet there seems to be no accountability for these pro-war pundits.
(Excerpt) Read more at amconmag.com ...
I did not know Pat is so powerful.
If you say that Israel does not benefit from this War, do you care to explain why they are not better off with Saddam out of power?
Because he was a secularist who was the main obstacle to the spread of militant Islam. It is true that he was hostile and very annoying toward Israel, but those who will replace him will not be any friendlier. The Reagan policy to support Saddam Hussein was beneficial for Israel even if Israeli (and some American) Jews refused to see it.
Same was with the last little war of Israel against Hezbollah in southern Lebanon. It was very harmful for Israel although it satisfied emotions of anger and frustration among Israeli Jews.
Those on the right (or left) who wish ill to Israel should call for an attack on Iran. Read my tagline.
No. Not by the '90s he wasn't.
After the first Gulf War he made a big point reconciling Ba'athism with Islam. He was shown praying 5 times a day along with encouraging a resurgence of Islam in Iraq.
He, unlike the Old Right, knew which side his felafel was buttered on.
I know his hanging was a hard blow to take, but maybe if the paleocons and Pat B. take up a collection you can make up the $25,000 he paid to the shaheed who blew up jews.
It was for show only. All Islamists knew it and he knew that they knew.
$25,000 he paid to the shaheed who blew up jews.
True, he paid money to the suicide bombers families. Still, was it worth to pay $500 billion (and possibly trillion or more in future) 3,000 US lives (and more in future) to replace him with some Islamists?
Do you think that attack on Iran will serve US and Israel interests?
But his dollars and weapons flowed to them along with the show....
True, he paid money to the suicide bombers families. Still, was it worth to pay $500 billion (and possibly trillion or more in future) 3,000 US lives (and more in future) to replace him with some Islamists?
Yes. Yes it was. They aren't trying to kill us anymore.
Do you think that attack on Iran will serve US and Israel interests?
I'm an American. Israeli interests are tangential. There will be no attack on Iran. We don't have the will.
What if the people who say they want to kill you and pay people money to kill you actually want to kill you?
Hmmmm? What then?
What if it isn't just some kind of zionist conspiracy and the Iranians and Iraqis before them actually meant: "Death to America". What then?
$500 plus billion invested in technology and medical research or else would go a very long way to secure energy independence and save countless lives.
Saddam Hussein was not worth so much!
As soon as Saddam was hanged, the pundits instantly chimed in with opinions of various sorts, which mainly were irrelevant, and almost always critical of anyone whose name they could vaguely remember or almost spell. A pundit has to submit copy every day. So does a cub reporter. The difference is that the cub reporter better have his facts right or he will be reprimanded once or twice and then fired. The pundits don't have have the facts right. Every newspaper endeavors to pair each leftie with a rightie, and as long as they have one of each, they don't care about the truth or falsity of the columns, because the public doesn't read the editorial page anyway, they only read newspapers nowadays for the obituaries, and the ads, and maybe in the really small markets, the local news.
ca·nard (kə-närd') pronunciation
n.
1. An unfounded or false, deliberately misleading story.
Iraq was hardly a 'sovereign country'. Part of the deal after the Gulf War was that Iraq give up a large part of its sovereignty to the UN and suffer occupation by the air in the 'No Fly Zones'. Saddam served at our pleasure, we simply revoked his charter.
The thing that irks this 'Paleo' is that we still play footsie with our REAL enemies, the Saudis; rather than mucking about in Iraq or Afghanistan we should have looked at where the 9/11 hijackers, their ideology and a great deal of their funding came from.
You're not a Paleo-con: They did the Saudis, they are very-pro-arab now.
$500 Billion of government spending would pay for a commission to study 'energy independence'! I didn't know you were so in favor of big government spending crowding out private sector innovation.
Not a conservative idea....
Saddam Hussein was not worth so much!
We had already spent that in the previous 10 years occupying Iraq from the air enforcing the no-fly-zones.
Do you suggest we should have continued the no-fly-zones and sanctions starving Iraqis forever?
And besides, what do we do after we have spent $500 billion enforcing the no-fly-zones, losing pilots and enforcing the sanctions enriching France and Kofi Annan and at the end of it Saddam has nukes?
Yeah sure, spending half trillion dollars on replacing one tinpot dictator with another one is more conservative.
Yeah, 'cuz it might benefit Israel tangentially.
Aaaaaaand we're right back where we started folks....
I do not understand you.
1) Ad hominem, i.e. your post includes a quote by someone who once said something I found offensive therefore I refuse to entertain your entire argument.
2) The ever popular head-in-the-sand form of argument which usually goes like ... "Stopped reading at {insert word or phrase that poster couldn't take the time to comprehend}"
Don't forget also that Iraq had an assembled nuke by 1994. It only lacked the nuclear core. There was to be no test. Saddam wanted to drop the device on Israel without warning. I don't understand how people have gotten the idea in their heads that removing this devil from power was some kind of mistake. There is indeed a lack of clear thinking today.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.