"Liberally use Rove's rules against Rove"

[Modem Butterfly]

http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/bookman/2005/063005.html

As you recall, it became clear pretty quickly that the perpetrators had been members of the al-Qaida terror group, led by Osama bin Laden. The subsequent decision to invade bin Laden's refuge in Afghanistan was embraced by Americans of every political bent. Congress passed a war resolution with only one dissenting vote, reflecting polls that found only minuscule public opposition — 5 percent to 7 percent. Interestingly, more than 60 percent of Americans said they would consider the invasion a failure if it failed to kill or capture bin Laden.

Already, though, President Bush, Rove and others had secretly decided to betray that consensus by withholding troops and resources from the assault on bin Laden. Their intention, unknown at the time to the rest of us, was to reserve those troops for a later invasion of Iraq, a nation that had played no role in the attacks of Sept. 11 and little role in international terrorism.

We will never know for sure whether things would have turned out differently had we invaded Afghanistan in force as we should have, instead of leaving the bulk of the fighting to local warlords hired for the purpose. But we do know that almost four years after those towers tumbled, bin Laden remains at large. That gnawing failure would be easier to accept if we could tell ourselves that at least we gave it our best shot. We didn't because our leaders had other goals.

SNIP

If someone really did want to get U.S. troops killed, or if you didn't particularly care one way or the other, you would start by getting us involved in an unnecessary war that diverted us from our real purpose. Then you would ignore the advice of military officers and force our troops to fight that war with insufficient manpower and equipment, under incompetent civilian leadership that paid little or no attention to the aftermath. That way, you could ensure that withdrawal from that war would become impossible and that it would slog on month after bloody month.

Of course, nobody would ever be foolish enough to start such a war. But if they did, you could probably get at least 1,700 Americans killed, don't you think?

[SomewhereOutThere424]

1. I see rove as

The emperor with no clothes. Everyone knows he's delusional and ugly, but no one dare says anything to him because he's like the emperor. I do hope that someone does speak up though as you'd mentioned, he, and bush, clearly deserve it. I just can't help but wonder if anyone really will.

[lvx35]

2. I was thinking about that this morning

Shrub found himself in a war against the oppresive religiously conservitive narco trafficking Taliban, and the left was supportive, even the peace protesters felt they had better wars to protest than war with the Taliban. Then it was like he looked around and realized that he might actually win this war, it wouldn't divide the country. So he had to find a secular leftist, even if he had nothing to do with OBL's cause. So he attacked Saddam, divided the country, and is in another unwinnable war. Genius!

[ComerPerro]

3. Saddam is a secular leftist?

[lvx35]

6. Yep.

Ba'ath party was both secular and leftist, in the same sense that Kim Jong Il is "leftist". He espoused a Marxist ideaology while holding a totalitarian state. We were attacked by religious fanatics and responded by attacking a secular state, that is the truth. (at least as I have seen it on the mainstream media! :shrug:

[ComerPerro]

13. Just like Stalin is a leftist.

So you are saying someone who is identified as a leftist by, well, whoever, even though they don't practice leftist philosophies.

Sorta like Bush being called a Christian.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

4. I think I'm down with most of this post except the "Saddam = leftist" part

falls into the "things that make you go HMMMM" category. :shrug:

[lvx35]

7. Maybe wrong.

It was one of the things I saw on the MSM, so I apologize if its wrong. But yes, I heard Ba'ath party was secular, and saddam espoused a Marxist philosophy.

[htuttle]

9. That's not really in question

The Iraqi Ba'ath party wasn't entirely secular. It used religion about the same way that George Bush does.

In fact, the more pressure Saddam felt, the more religious he tried to act. For example, during the first Gulf War, the Ba'ath party added the 'Allahu Akbar' script to the Iraqi flag to shore up support at home.

What is in question is your theory that people were against the war in Iraq because Saddam was a secular leftist. That's just utter bullshit.

[lvx35]

10. No, its true.

"What is in question is your theory that people were against the war in Iraq because Saddam was a secular leftist. That's just utter bullshit.
"

Yes, I was against the war in Iraq because Saddam was a secular leftist. I marched in protests to this end. If the country had been attacked by a secular leftist, I would have more likely been supportive of a war with a secular leftist, and been more opposed to a war with the Taliban. However the country was not attacked by secular leftists, it was attacked by Islamist ultra-conservative religious extremists, who were considered enemies of the secular leftist in question, therefore raising questions about the validity of the connection between 9-11 and Saddam.

[htuttle]

12. Well that's just crazy talk, son.

You may have been the only person at the protest who was against the war because Saddam was a 'secular leftist'. As far as I could tell, the rest of us were against the war because it was illegal and just plain wrong-headed. I am against attacking Iran for the exact same reasons as I was against attacking Iraq, and they are not 'secular leftists'.

By the way, I rarely hear secular leftists use the term 'secular leftist'. Funny thing, that.

[lvx35]

14. You have me pegged.

I'm an infiltrator from free republic, here to confuse your official party line against the Iraq war. :lol:

Dude, there were three reasons that were stated for invasion of Iraq. 1) WMD proliferation 2) Liberation of Iraqis from mean regime. 3) Al Queda connection

1) Turned out to be false
2) Is the last leg its standing on
3) Violates common sense based on these political affilations, and this is WIDELY STATED. I did a google for:
Al Qaeda Saddam connection secular islamist
And went to the first link:
http://www.inthenationalinterest.com/Articles/November2004/November2004Leiken.html
Then go down to the part called "Common sense about the connection":

" Al Qaeda is the terrorist outgrowth of an Islamist revival movement. The Baath is an Arabist nationalist secular political party inspired by Fascism and Stalinism. The animosity between Islamism and secularism (in the form of Communism or Arab nationalism) for two generations bloodied campuses and cities across the Middle East, including those in Baathi Syria and Iraq."

Most people believe this invalidates Cheney's war validating claim that Iraq was where “the nexus between the terrorists on the one hand and the deadly technologies on the other could occur.”

[htuttle]

5. Saddam's politics and religion had nothing to do with it

That implies that those against the idiotic invasion of Iraq were supportive of Saddam, when IN FACT many of those old enough were also protesting against the US's support of Saddam during the Reagan and Bush Sr presidencies.

I was against the war because it was an illegal, immoral and blatant attempt to grab another countries resources. I wouldn't have cared what the government was like. You cannot start a war of aggression. We told the Nazis that very thing at the Nuremberg trial:

Our position is that whatever grievances a nation may have, however objectionable it finds the status quo, aggressive warfare is illegal means for settling those grievances or for altering those conditions.
-- Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, Chief US Prosecutor, Nuremberg Trials
http://www.courttv.com/archive/casefiles/nuremberg/jackson.html

[lvx35]

8. "Saddam's politics and religion had nothing to do with it"

I disagree with the title of your post. I think it is relevant that Saddams politics were adversly aligned with OBL's, if they were. I think it renders the case of him supporting OBL more unlikely.

[htuttle]

11. Wha?

Well, yes it's relevant when looking at the likelihood as to whether Saddam and OBL were 'working together'. But that's not what we were talking about.

It's this line from your post:
"So he had to find a secular leftist, even if he had nothing to do with OBL's cause. So he attacked Saddam, divided the country, and is in another unwinnable war."

The Neocons had decided to conquer Iraq way back in 1999, even before they took power. They were still set on attacking Iraq right after 9/11. They didn't decide to attack Iraq because it was run by 'secular leftists'. Hell, they'd supported those same 'secular leftists' back when most of the Bush administration was serving in Reagan/Bush Sr's administration.

They wanted Iraq's oil, they wanted a 'strategic outpost' in the Middle East, and they wanted to 'show' everyone in the Middle East that we could kick their ass.

Not a single one of those objectives is going to work out. We now get less oil from Iraq than we did before the war (we used to buy it from Saddam, you know), we will NOT be able to keep our bases in Iraq over the long term (bank on it!), and we are currently teaching the entire world how to defeat the US military, which is no small feat.

On those counts, Saddam and the Ba'ath party's economic and religious views are irrelevant.

[lvx35]

15. AGreed.

On some count's, but see my "you have me pegged" post above. I disagree about the irrelevance of that Saddam's politics, as far as being a valid reason to oppose the war.

On other accounts you may be right, my original post was intended to be a little more light hearted than it seems to be taken. I don't really think Bush attacked Saddam purely because he was leftist, but I think its valid thing to take into account regarding his alleged connection to 9-11.

[LightningFlash]

16. Rove's going down.....

There's a nice prison cell for you....At the end of this one beotch...