Posted on 07/03/2008 9:40:20 AM PDT by mondoreb
Thanks for the quotes. It is always good to be reminded why I shouldn’t vote for McInsane.
“Any sane person is anti-war.”
Do you know of another way to enforce the terms of our cease-fire agreement with Saddam without waging war against him?
“From your posts it would seem that you actually want war so you can engage in pseudo-patriotic puffery.”
Which statements of mine give you this conclusion?
“The battle in Iraq is not the WOT.”
Only if you don’t consider the capturing/killing of al-qaeda and Iranian backed terrorists to be part of the WOT.
“There are some that think it is the most important battle at this time, others disagree.”
al-Qaeda considers it the main battle front against the U.S.
“said Alito wore “conservatism on his sleeve””
This was an unsourced claim by Fund:
UPDATE: NRO’s Byron York got the chance to ask McCain about the quote. He reports:
I got a moment with John McCain, after an airport rally here in Orlando, to ask him about a report today by John Fund quoting some unnamed conservatives quoting McCain to the effect that, in Fund’s words, “[McCain] would be happy to appoint the likes of Chief Justice John Roberts to the Supreme Court. But he indicated he might draw the line on a Samuel Alito, because ‘he wore his conservatism on his sleeve.’”
“Let me just look you in the eye,” McCain told me. “I’ve said a thousand times on this campaign trail, I’ve said as often as I can, that I want to find clones of Alito and Roberts. I worked as hard as anybody to get them confirmed. I look you in the eye and tell you I’ve said a thousand times that I wanted Alito and Roberts. I have told anybody who will listen. I flat-out tell you I will have people as close to Roberts and Alito [as possible], and I am proud of my record of working to get them confirmed, and people who worked to get them confirmed will tell you how hard I worked.”
“I don’t get it,” McCain continued. “I have a clear record of that. All I can tell you is my record is clear: I’ve supported these guys. I went to the floor of the Senate and spoke in favor of them. It’s in the record, saying, ‘You’ve got to confirm these people.’”
I asked whether McCain had ever drawn any distinction between Roberts and Alito. “No, no, of course not,” McCain said.
I asked about the “wore his conservatism on his sleeve” line. “I’m proud of people who wear their conservatism on their sleeves, because they have to have a clear record of strict adherence to the Constitution,” McCain told me. “Remember, in all my remarks, I’ve said, look, we’re not going to take somebody’s word for it. You have to have a clear record of adherence to the Constitution, a strict interpretation of the Constitution. I have said that time after time after time.”
“And maybe as an aside, why would I say anything derogatory about somebody like that? What would be the point, after working so hard to get not only those two confirmed, but the Gang of 14 which I know is controversial but our record of getting those judges confirmed that the president nominated, I’m still proud of.”
http://volokh.com/posts/1201536693.shtml
Saddam is dead. We have not been waging war against him for years.
Only if you don’t consider the capturing/killing of al-qaeda and Iranian backed terrorists to be part of the WOT.
Never said it wasn't part of the war on terror, but it is just one part.
al-Qaeda considers it (Iraq) the main battle front against the U.S.
And just when did Osama tell you this? It seems like there are some in Afghanistan who might challenge this allegation. Personally, I'm not convinced the real front is not right here in the U.S.
“Saddam is dead. We have not been waging war against him for years.”
You had claimed that you are anti-war. Do you know of a way in which we could have enforced the cease fire agreement with Saddam without waging war?
“Never said it wasn’t part of the war on terror, but it is just one part.”
You had claimed that ‘the battle in Iraq is not the WOT.’
“And just when did Osama tell you this? It seems like there are some in Afghanistan who might challenge this allegation.”
Not according to a letter intercepted by coalition forces:
Al-Qaeda’s Strategy
Al-Qaeda leaders have proclaimed Iraq a major front in their global terrorist campaign. This was made clear in a July 9, 2005, letter from Osama bin Laden’s chief lieutenant, Ayman al-Zawahiri, to Abu Musab Zarqawi, who was then leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq. The letter was intercepted by coalition forces and subsequently published by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which expressed the “highest confidence” in its authenticity. In the letter, Zawahiri underscored the centrality of the war in Iraq for the global jihad:
I want to be the first to congratulate you for what God has blessed you with in terms of fighting battle in the heart of the Islamic world, which was formerly the field for major battles in Islam’s history, and what is now the place for the greatest battle of Islam in this era…
Zawahiri cautioned Zarqawi to avoid the mistake that the Taliban made in Afghanistan of alienating the Afghan people, who joined the opposition and cooperated with U.S. forces to overthrow the Taliban. He reminded Zarqawi that al-Qaeda needs some semblance of popular support to realize its plans for Iraq once American forces are driven out:
The first stage: Expel the Americans from Iraq.
The second stage: Establish an Islamic authority or amirate, then develop it and support it until it achieves the level of a caliphate- over as much territory as you can to spread its power in Iraq, i.e., in Sunni areas, is in order to fill the void stemming from the departure of the Americans, immediately upon their exit and before un-Islamic forces attempt to fill this void, whether those whom the Americans will leave behind them, or those among the un-Islamic forces who will try to jump at taking power.
There is no doubt that this amirate will enter into a fierce struggle with the foreign infidel forces, and those supporting them among the local forces, to put it in a state of constant preoccupation with defending itself, to make it impossible for it to establish a stable state which could proclaim a caliphate, and to keep the Jihadist groups in a constant state of war, until these forces find a chance to annihilate them.
The third stage: Extend the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq.
The fourth stage: It may coincide with what came before: the clash with Israel, because Israel was established only to challenge any new Islamic entity.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Iraq/wm1210.cfm
You just don't get it. Every soldier involved in the invasion of Iraq and those who sent them were all anti-war.
You had claimed that ‘the battle in Iraq is not the WOT
Exactly
Not according to a letter intercepted by coalition forces:
Uh, you do realize that that letter was written three years ago.
“You just don’t get it. Every soldier involved in the invasion of Iraq and those who sent them were all anti-war.”
What is your interpretation of ‘anti-war’? Do you mean people who would rather use diplomacy, but understand that sometimes war is necessary? Or those who wanted continued appeasement of Saddam as a means of avoiding war? Also, you dodged my question twice. Do you know of any way of enforcing the terms of the cease-fire without waging war on Saddam?
“Exactly”
Your posts apparently contradict one another. First you claimed that ‘the battle in Iraq is not the WOT’, then you claimed that Iraq is part of the war on terror.
“Uh, you do realize that that letter was written three years ago.”
Zawahiri’s letter that was intercepted supports my previous claim. If anti-war kooks like Barr had their way, al-qaeda first goal, expelling Americans from Iraq, would have been successfully achieved, and achieved through the use of terrorism.
I don't like Monday morning quarterbacking but seeing as you insist, I believe that all of Saddam's military assets could have been taken out without an invasion of ground forces. Many more Iraqis likely would have died than during our initial invasion but that would have been acceptable to me. I, however, understand the reason for the initial invasion and do not denigrate President Bush for ordering it. I also would not have hesitated in chasing Osama and the Taliban into Pakistan and pounding them there regardless of the protests of Pakistan. Funny how some "hard core" Iraq war supporters become squeamish at the thought of this.
“I don’t like Monday morning quarterbacking but seeing as you insist, I believe that all of Saddam’s military assets could have been taken out without an invasion of ground forces.”
This alone would not have enforced full complaince of the cease fire agreement.
We had the capability of destroying anything that even looked like a military asset WMD or otherwise. We could have flattened Saddam and his military capabilities. Bloody? Yes, but it would not be American blood. Lots of civilian casualties? Yes, but it would not have cost hundreds of billions. Make some people hate us? Sure, but so has our "limited war" approach. I just don't care that much about the Iraqis for the huge costs to America. Would Iran have intervened? So what we had the capability of pounding them too. And maybe Syria if they didn't cooperate. Ground forces are for holding territory. Their is no territory in the whole ME worth one U.S. life. "Nation building" is a fools errand.
“We had the capability of destroying anything that even looked like a military asset WMD or otherwise.”
This alone would not have achieved the objectives within the legislation that authorized Operation Iraqi Freedom, nor would it have enforced full compliance with the armistice agreement.
I trust Novak on this issue. I certainly do not trust McCain.
Do you have a link?
That's the whole point, to have pounded Saddam and his forces so that Operation Iraqi Freedom would not have been necessary. Nation building would not have been part of the plan. The "armistice agreement" would have been moot if Saddam and his military capabilities would have been destroyed.
“The “armistice agreement” would have been moot”
No, the violations of the agreement was determined to be a national security threat to the U.S. by both Congress and the White House. Even with a massive bombing campaign, these violations would still exist.
Ridiculous. No matter what a piece of paper says, dead terrorists and destroyed weapons are not a threat. If we would have done what I suggested that is all that would be left.
“No matter what a piece of paper says, dead terrorists and destroyed weapons are not a threat. If we would have done what I suggested...”
Massive bombing campaigns that indiscriminately kill millions of Iraqis is not realistic, nor would it have had any support in congress or abroad. It’s pure fantasy.
yawn and welcome to FR
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.