Return to Is "Imperialism" Really the Right Word for What We're Doing in Iraq?
Re: Correct. Take the next step
(#32623)
by Marc "Adam Moshe" Bacharach on March 29, 2004 at 4:43 PM
by Marc "Adam Moshe" Bacharach on March 29, 2004 at 4:43 PM
1) “The administration has not tried to discredit Clarke, only to point out his contradictions in the new book.”
I would disagree with you, or at the very least argue that the media is spinning a different story. Thus far, virtually every article that refers to the administrations reaction to Clarke talks about the attempt to discredit him, including exposing him as the “inside source” some articles once referred to him as in the past, stressing his link to the Democrats, and declassifying certain portions of testimony that might be used against him (but not all of the testimony, as Clarke has requested). In any event, I am not saying that what the administration is doing is wrong or below the belt. I am saying that it does seem like a campaign to attack this mans credibility.
2) “Clarke has advocated many things the Dems decry: preemption on suspicion of WMDs, reinstatement of a pre-nineties CIA budget, changing the reaction to terrorism from Law Enforcement to Military. W, Condi and Rumsfeld agree with this approach.”
All the more evidence that he is not some partisan pawn. The fact that he is critical of many things the Democrats don’t like strengthens his claim of objectivity. This is a top level terrorist expert, not a liberal Democrat.
3) “What has become more incomprehensible as time passes is the morphing of Clarke into a partisan weapon for the Kerry campaign by implications of blame.”
If Clarke’s testimony is being used as a partisan weapon, it is not because of the Kerry campaign. Indeed, an article as late as 03/24 noted how Kerry remained silent on the whole issue, letting the 9/11 commission do its job. It was only on the 27th that he spoke out, not in favor of Clarke’s conclusions, but in lamentation of “character assassination.”
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/24/kerry.clarke.ap/index.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4615144/
In any event, I don’t know why any of this is incomprehensible. Clarke’s statements about Bush (much of which has been verified by others) is going to be used as a partisan weapon, as is any statement about any candidate. If Kerry’s looks (an administration official once said he looked French), and Kerry’s wealth (Bush and Cheney were both worth millions before they were in office) are going to be used as partisan weapons, I don’t see why a top-level expert’s opinion about the handling of the war on terror should be somehow ignored.
4) “As events thicken to history and the press frenzy consumes itself Clarke and the Dems will be left with nothing but their greed and passion. The energy spent on this orgy of vitriol will carry the same sad import as the vote-count tantrum in Florida. The legacy is hatred.”
You may be right that this will end for the Democrats the same way as the FAR more vicious (BY ANY MEASURE) impeachment of Clinton ended for the Republicans… with defeat. However, I think not. This president has taken us to war for reasons many people are still not sure about. Contrary to many conservatives, this is a big deal, regardless of what party you are in. Besides, I believe you overestimate the value of Clarke. Do you honestly believe that Clarke’s accusations (which again, and I cannot state enough, have been said by many others) and the administrations response constitutes a “orgy of vitriol” or are you referring to the 9/11 commission as a whole?
I would disagree with you, or at the very least argue that the media is spinning a different story. Thus far, virtually every article that refers to the administrations reaction to Clarke talks about the attempt to discredit him, including exposing him as the “inside source” some articles once referred to him as in the past, stressing his link to the Democrats, and declassifying certain portions of testimony that might be used against him (but not all of the testimony, as Clarke has requested). In any event, I am not saying that what the administration is doing is wrong or below the belt. I am saying that it does seem like a campaign to attack this mans credibility.
2) “Clarke has advocated many things the Dems decry: preemption on suspicion of WMDs, reinstatement of a pre-nineties CIA budget, changing the reaction to terrorism from Law Enforcement to Military. W, Condi and Rumsfeld agree with this approach.”
All the more evidence that he is not some partisan pawn. The fact that he is critical of many things the Democrats don’t like strengthens his claim of objectivity. This is a top level terrorist expert, not a liberal Democrat.
3) “What has become more incomprehensible as time passes is the morphing of Clarke into a partisan weapon for the Kerry campaign by implications of blame.”
If Clarke’s testimony is being used as a partisan weapon, it is not because of the Kerry campaign. Indeed, an article as late as 03/24 noted how Kerry remained silent on the whole issue, letting the 9/11 commission do its job. It was only on the 27th that he spoke out, not in favor of Clarke’s conclusions, but in lamentation of “character assassination.”
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/24/kerry.clarke.ap/index.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4615144/
In any event, I don’t know why any of this is incomprehensible. Clarke’s statements about Bush (much of which has been verified by others) is going to be used as a partisan weapon, as is any statement about any candidate. If Kerry’s looks (an administration official once said he looked French), and Kerry’s wealth (Bush and Cheney were both worth millions before they were in office) are going to be used as partisan weapons, I don’t see why a top-level expert’s opinion about the handling of the war on terror should be somehow ignored.
4) “As events thicken to history and the press frenzy consumes itself Clarke and the Dems will be left with nothing but their greed and passion. The energy spent on this orgy of vitriol will carry the same sad import as the vote-count tantrum in Florida. The legacy is hatred.”
You may be right that this will end for the Democrats the same way as the FAR more vicious (BY ANY MEASURE) impeachment of Clinton ended for the Republicans… with defeat. However, I think not. This president has taken us to war for reasons many people are still not sure about. Contrary to many conservatives, this is a big deal, regardless of what party you are in. Besides, I believe you overestimate the value of Clarke. Do you honestly believe that Clarke’s accusations (which again, and I cannot state enough, have been said by many others) and the administrations response constitutes a “orgy of vitriol” or are you referring to the 9/11 commission as a whole?
Re: Correct. Take the next step
(#32643)
by Bill Heuisler on March 29, 2004 at 11:41 PM
by Bill Heuisler on March 29, 2004 at 11:41 PM
Adam,
You ask two questions.
Do you honestly believe that Clarke’s accusations (which again, and I cannot state enough, have been said by many others) and the administrations response constitutes a “orgy of vitriol” or are you referring to the 9/11 commission as a whole?
Yes I do. Clarke quite literally accuses the Bush Administration of knowing the danger and doing very little about the terror problem - being largely culpable for 9/11. He further accuses the President of asking him about Iraq's possible connections the day after 9/11 - in an intimidating way - and thus somehow promoting Bush's quixotic obsession at the expense of War on Terrorism.
Neither accusation was said by "many others". Both are false on their face. According to Clarke's press briefing Bush increased terror-spending five-fold and was in the process of instituting new policies based on a report he received on 9/10. Clinton did little for eight years. Clarke conveniently elides eight years to target eight months. Political? Looks like a diuck to me, Adam.
Second, according to history, Bush first ordered the invasion of Afganistan after meetings with Clarke et al. Therefore Clarke's "intimidation" becomes irrelevant except as a means to draw convenient conclusions. Iraq and Saddam were crucial to terrorism for many reasons already listed ad nauseaum and I'm a little tired of the assumption they were not. The evidence says they were.
Please step back and observe the facts as opposed to the words, disregard the personnel involved and become a jury.
Notice how the witness corrupts his own testimony, how all the so-called evidence is circumstantial and how the so-called crime better fits another suspect.
No. However I believe the 9/11 Commission would better serve the Republic by forgetting blame and concentrating on the real enemy.
Bill Heuisler
You ask two questions.
Do you honestly believe that Clarke’s accusations (which again, and I cannot state enough, have been said by many others) and the administrations response constitutes a “orgy of vitriol” or are you referring to the 9/11 commission as a whole?
Yes I do. Clarke quite literally accuses the Bush Administration of knowing the danger and doing very little about the terror problem - being largely culpable for 9/11. He further accuses the President of asking him about Iraq's possible connections the day after 9/11 - in an intimidating way - and thus somehow promoting Bush's quixotic obsession at the expense of War on Terrorism.
Neither accusation was said by "many others". Both are false on their face. According to Clarke's press briefing Bush increased terror-spending five-fold and was in the process of instituting new policies based on a report he received on 9/10. Clinton did little for eight years. Clarke conveniently elides eight years to target eight months. Political? Looks like a diuck to me, Adam.
Second, according to history, Bush first ordered the invasion of Afganistan after meetings with Clarke et al. Therefore Clarke's "intimidation" becomes irrelevant except as a means to draw convenient conclusions. Iraq and Saddam were crucial to terrorism for many reasons already listed ad nauseaum and I'm a little tired of the assumption they were not. The evidence says they were.
Please step back and observe the facts as opposed to the words, disregard the personnel involved and become a jury.
Notice how the witness corrupts his own testimony, how all the so-called evidence is circumstantial and how the so-called crime better fits another suspect.
No. However I believe the 9/11 Commission would better serve the Republic by forgetting blame and concentrating on the real enemy.
Bill Heuisler
Re: Correct. Take the next step
(#32679)
by Marc "Adam Moshe" Bacharach on March 30, 2004 at 4:23 PM
by Marc "Adam Moshe" Bacharach on March 30, 2004 at 4:23 PM
Do you honestly believe that Clarke’s accusations (which again, and I cannot state enough, have been said by many others) and the administrations response constitutes a “orgy of vitriol” or are you referring to the 9/11 commission as a whole?
1) “Clarke quite literally accuses the Bush Administration of knowing the danger and doing very little about the terror problem - being largely culpable for 9/11.”
Actually, Clarke said that for Bush, Terrorism was “an important issue but not an urgent issue" in the months before September 11. If he is lying, than so is acclaimed historian Bob Woodward, who wrote in his widely praised book, “Bush at War” the following:
“Until September 11, however, Bush” had not “pressed the issue of bin Laden. Though Rice and the others were developing a plan to eliminate al Qaeda, no formal recommendations had ever been presented to the president.”
“He [Bush] acknowledged that bin Laden was not his focus or that of his national security team.” Said President Bush, “I didn’t feel that sense of urgency, and my blood was not nearly as boiling.” (pg. 39)
“Bush, though quick to respond after September 11, did not pursue the bin Laden threat aggressively enough in his first eight months in office.” (pg. 318)
Furthermore, Clarke has been significantly more tame than conservative pundits have been on Clinton. Clarke never explicitely blames Bush for 9/11, only saying that Bush did not find it urgent and should have taken more actions to prevent it. Many conservatives, on the other hand, have laid total culpability on Bill Clinton, explicitly blaming him for the attacks.
2) “He further accuses the President of asking him about Iraq's possible connections the day after 9/11 - in an intimidating way - and thus somehow promoting Bush's quixotic obsession at the expense of War on Terrorism.”
Again, let us look at what we know. Clarke says that “they had an idée fixe, a plan from Day One that they wanted to do something about Iraq. And while the World Trade Center was still smoldering, while they were still digging bodies out, people in the White House were thinking, 'Ah, this gives us the opportunity we've been looking for to go after Iraq.'"
This is what Woodward said: “Rumsfeld raised the question of Iraq. Why shouldn’t we go after Iraq, not just al Qaeda? He asked… His Deputy, Paul E. Wolfowitz, was committed to a policy that would make Iraq a principles target of the first round in the war on terror.”
“Rumslfeld was raising the possibility that they could take advantage of the opportunity offered by the terrorist attacks to go after Saddam immediately.” (pg. 49)
Here is the former secretary treasury and member of the National Security Council O’Neil said: “From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go… From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime.”
Why would Woodward, O’Neil, and Clarke all tell such blatant (and consistent) lies? O’Neil and Clarke are registered Republicans, and Woodward was given unprecedented access to Bush and his inner workings (so much so, some Democrats wanted to investigate whether he was given confidential information shortly after the release of the book.)
3) “Neither accusation was said by "many others".
I believe I demonstrated that above.
4) “Both are false on their face.”
How so?
5) “Clinton did little for eight years. Clarke conveniently elides eight years to target eight months. Political? Looks like a diuck to me, Adam.”
Not to me. Clarke was highly critical of Clinton for his failure to implement his policies as well. The only reasons conservatives are forgetting about this portion of his 9/11 testimony is because they are trying to make him look political and acknowledging his condemnation of Clinton would destroy that image. In any event, you are in fact, incorrect. Clinton did more to combat terrorism than any other president in history. By all means, blame him for not doing enough, but to suggest that he “did little for eight years” is simply ignoring his many public statements, legislative initiatives, and budget allocations.
6) “Iraq and Saddam were crucial to terrorism for many reasons already listed ad nauseaum and I'm a little tired of the assumption they were not. The evidence says they were.”
Bush has publicly admitted that Iraq had no connection to 9/11 and many analysts that work inside and outside the administration challenge much of the circumstantial evidence that conservatives keep recycling. In other words, the evidence does not say that there was a link. The evidence suggests that there could possibly be a link with nothing conclusive. Although even if ALL of the evidence is true (which I don’t believe so), there was never anything even the conservatives have produced to show that Iraq was “crucial to terrorism.”
7) “However I believe the 9/11 Commission would better serve the Republic by forgetting blame and concentrating on the real enemy.”
With respect, many of conservatives (at least the ones on AM radio) believe that the 9/11 Commission would better serve the Republic by blaming Clinton for all problems, absolving the Bush administration of everything, and ignoring why 9/11 happened or could have been prevented.
1) “Clarke quite literally accuses the Bush Administration of knowing the danger and doing very little about the terror problem - being largely culpable for 9/11.”
Actually, Clarke said that for Bush, Terrorism was “an important issue but not an urgent issue" in the months before September 11. If he is lying, than so is acclaimed historian Bob Woodward, who wrote in his widely praised book, “Bush at War” the following:
“Until September 11, however, Bush” had not “pressed the issue of bin Laden. Though Rice and the others were developing a plan to eliminate al Qaeda, no formal recommendations had ever been presented to the president.”
“He [Bush] acknowledged that bin Laden was not his focus or that of his national security team.” Said President Bush, “I didn’t feel that sense of urgency, and my blood was not nearly as boiling.” (pg. 39)
“Bush, though quick to respond after September 11, did not pursue the bin Laden threat aggressively enough in his first eight months in office.” (pg. 318)
Furthermore, Clarke has been significantly more tame than conservative pundits have been on Clinton. Clarke never explicitely blames Bush for 9/11, only saying that Bush did not find it urgent and should have taken more actions to prevent it. Many conservatives, on the other hand, have laid total culpability on Bill Clinton, explicitly blaming him for the attacks.
2) “He further accuses the President of asking him about Iraq's possible connections the day after 9/11 - in an intimidating way - and thus somehow promoting Bush's quixotic obsession at the expense of War on Terrorism.”
Again, let us look at what we know. Clarke says that “they had an idée fixe, a plan from Day One that they wanted to do something about Iraq. And while the World Trade Center was still smoldering, while they were still digging bodies out, people in the White House were thinking, 'Ah, this gives us the opportunity we've been looking for to go after Iraq.'"
This is what Woodward said: “Rumsfeld raised the question of Iraq. Why shouldn’t we go after Iraq, not just al Qaeda? He asked… His Deputy, Paul E. Wolfowitz, was committed to a policy that would make Iraq a principles target of the first round in the war on terror.”
“Rumslfeld was raising the possibility that they could take advantage of the opportunity offered by the terrorist attacks to go after Saddam immediately.” (pg. 49)
Here is the former secretary treasury and member of the National Security Council O’Neil said: “From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go… From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime.”
Why would Woodward, O’Neil, and Clarke all tell such blatant (and consistent) lies? O’Neil and Clarke are registered Republicans, and Woodward was given unprecedented access to Bush and his inner workings (so much so, some Democrats wanted to investigate whether he was given confidential information shortly after the release of the book.)
3) “Neither accusation was said by "many others".
I believe I demonstrated that above.
4) “Both are false on their face.”
How so?
5) “Clinton did little for eight years. Clarke conveniently elides eight years to target eight months. Political? Looks like a diuck to me, Adam.”
Not to me. Clarke was highly critical of Clinton for his failure to implement his policies as well. The only reasons conservatives are forgetting about this portion of his 9/11 testimony is because they are trying to make him look political and acknowledging his condemnation of Clinton would destroy that image. In any event, you are in fact, incorrect. Clinton did more to combat terrorism than any other president in history. By all means, blame him for not doing enough, but to suggest that he “did little for eight years” is simply ignoring his many public statements, legislative initiatives, and budget allocations.
6) “Iraq and Saddam were crucial to terrorism for many reasons already listed ad nauseaum and I'm a little tired of the assumption they were not. The evidence says they were.”
Bush has publicly admitted that Iraq had no connection to 9/11 and many analysts that work inside and outside the administration challenge much of the circumstantial evidence that conservatives keep recycling. In other words, the evidence does not say that there was a link. The evidence suggests that there could possibly be a link with nothing conclusive. Although even if ALL of the evidence is true (which I don’t believe so), there was never anything even the conservatives have produced to show that Iraq was “crucial to terrorism.”
7) “However I believe the 9/11 Commission would better serve the Republic by forgetting blame and concentrating on the real enemy.”
With respect, many of conservatives (at least the ones on AM radio) believe that the 9/11 Commission would better serve the Republic by blaming Clinton for all problems, absolving the Bush administration of everything, and ignoring why 9/11 happened or could have been prevented.
The artful dodger
(#32681)
by Bill Heuisler on March 30, 2004 at 5:59 PM
by Bill Heuisler on March 30, 2004 at 5:59 PM
Adam,
We are reaching impasse and you indulge in modulation to score debating points. Accusing a President of not being sufficiently focused after an atrocity like 9/11 calls his competence into question. You say, "Clarke never explicitely blames Bush for 9/11, only saying that Bush did not find it urgent and should have taken more actions to prevent it."
A distinction without a difference and you know it.
Republican? Clarke voted for McCain in 2000, but he only gives to Dem causes and candidates. Many Dems switched in that Va. primary to influence the General. Clarke himself artfully dodged the question when asked in an interview. Calling Clarke a Republican misses the partisan point and you know it.
President Bush did not publicly admit that Iraq had no connection to 9/11, in fact he said Al Qaeda had many connections to Iraq. He said there was no evidence Saddam was directly connected to 9/11. Look it up. A distinction with a huge difference, and you know that too.
What do you know about conservatives on AM radio? Do you listen often? If so, you must also be aware many of us also seriously fault Ronald Reagan for not responding to the Beirut bombing of the Marine barracks in '83.
Hauling out the disgruntled, the partisan and Bob Woodward to draw conclusions based on opinions might be good fun, but it's certainly not convincing. See the recent polls 3/29 & 3/30 - the American people have seen through this charade. I'm surprised you haven't. Or maybe you have and merely seek to amuse yourself.
Bill Heuisler
We are reaching impasse and you indulge in modulation to score debating points. Accusing a President of not being sufficiently focused after an atrocity like 9/11 calls his competence into question. You say, "Clarke never explicitely blames Bush for 9/11, only saying that Bush did not find it urgent and should have taken more actions to prevent it."
A distinction without a difference and you know it.
Republican? Clarke voted for McCain in 2000, but he only gives to Dem causes and candidates. Many Dems switched in that Va. primary to influence the General. Clarke himself artfully dodged the question when asked in an interview. Calling Clarke a Republican misses the partisan point and you know it.
President Bush did not publicly admit that Iraq had no connection to 9/11, in fact he said Al Qaeda had many connections to Iraq. He said there was no evidence Saddam was directly connected to 9/11. Look it up. A distinction with a huge difference, and you know that too.
What do you know about conservatives on AM radio? Do you listen often? If so, you must also be aware many of us also seriously fault Ronald Reagan for not responding to the Beirut bombing of the Marine barracks in '83.
Hauling out the disgruntled, the partisan and Bob Woodward to draw conclusions based on opinions might be good fun, but it's certainly not convincing. See the recent polls 3/29 & 3/30 - the American people have seen through this charade. I'm surprised you haven't. Or maybe you have and merely seek to amuse yourself.
Bill Heuisler
Re: The artful dodger
(#32686)
by Marc "Adam Moshe" Bacharach on March 30, 2004 at 6:45 PM
by Marc "Adam Moshe" Bacharach on March 30, 2004 at 6:45 PM
1) “Accusing a President of not being sufficiently focused after an atrocity like 9/11 calls his competence into question.”
I don’t disagree. However, this charge is not unique to Clarke, nor is the accusation directed solely towards Bush.
2) “You say, "Clarke never explicitely blames Bush for 9/11, only saying that Bush did not find it urgent and should have taken more actions to prevent it."
A distinction without a difference and you know it.”
Of course, there is little practical difference, but there is a great deal of difference in tone. Conservatives blame Clinton explicitly for 9/11 (as well as everything else). Clarke says Bush did not do enough. They may mean the same thing, but they have very different accusatory implications.
3) “Calling Clarke a Republican misses the partisan point and you know it.”
Accusing Clarke of only giving to Democrats (which is true) only attacks the character of the person and not his credentials or charges and you know it. What about Woodward and O’Neil? Making partisan charges in order to paint your opponent a political hack may often be successful, but is suffers from the same petty tactics so many in Washington like to accuse the other side of doing.
4) “President Bush did not publicly admit that Iraq had no connection to 9/11, in fact he said Al Qaeda had many connections to Iraq. He said there was no evidence Saddam was directly connected to 9/11. Look it up. A distinction with a huge difference, and you know that too.”
Actually, the distinction makes very little difference in this context. Bush has no evidence that Canada is harboring aliens from the planet Mars, but saying it like that implies that it might be (and indeed it might). Why is it when Bush tells America that Iraq definitely has WMD, and it turns out to be untrue, his critics are accused of arguing petty semantics, and yet when he says no evidence exists to tie Iraq to 9/11, conservatives attack anyone who says that it means Iraq had no ties?
For the sake of argument, you are right, the two do not mean the same thing since you cannot prove a negative (except the administration leading up to war). I would remind you in that case to make sure that future attacks on Clarke or anyone else be carefully written to read “evidence suggests” unless you have incontrovertible evidence.
5) “What do you know about conservatives on AM radio? Do you listen often? If so, you must also be aware many of us also seriously fault Ronald Reagan for not responding to the Beirut bombing of the Marine barracks in '83.”
Actually, I do listen often and I have never heard Reagan criticized, although I will not deny it has happened. Michael Savage is the only one I have heard ever criticize Bush (for not standing up to the “liberal vermin in this country”). The rest simply spend all day doing two things: Criticizing liberal for being liars, traitors, enemies of the military, causers of 9/11, lovers of Saddam Hussein, enemies to freedom… and secondly, lament how vitriolic the Democrats can be.
6) “Hauling out the disgruntled, the partisan and Bob Woodward to draw conclusions based on opinions might be good fun, but it's certainly not convincing.”
You are the first person I have ever heard call Bob Woodward partisan (at least, the only conservative calling him liberaly partisan), especially given how much praise Bush is given in his book and how high conservative radio hosts loved it when it came out. I suspect, with respect, that you simply designated him as such after hearing his charges rather than thoughtfully look at his record as a journalist, or better still, actually read the book. I would certainly like to know why the administration has not called him a liar for making up facts when he was given access to high level meetings and documents. Thus far, not a single person to my knowledge has leveled that charge to him.
7) “See the recent polls 3/29 & 3/30 - the American people have seen through this charade. I'm surprised you haven't. Or maybe you have and merely seek to amuse yourself.”
Of course, if public opinion polls are a record of a presidents performance, then you must accept the conclusion of your argument to mean that Bill Clinton was a wonderful president throughout his administration and even upon leaving office. When Bush’s numbers drop (as they have in the recent past), will you be so quick to credit it to an enlightened public?
I understand your tremendous partisanship, as this president is extremely polarizing. I have enjoyed our discussions very much and certainly hope that you have taken no offense to anything that I have said. Strong supporters of Bush are just as likely to blindly dismiss anyone who criticized the administration as strong critics are to embrace them. I am sure each of us thinks the other is ignoring the obvious, or blind to reality, or twisting the facts as they see fit. That is the beauty of democracy.
-- Adam
I don’t disagree. However, this charge is not unique to Clarke, nor is the accusation directed solely towards Bush.
2) “You say, "Clarke never explicitely blames Bush for 9/11, only saying that Bush did not find it urgent and should have taken more actions to prevent it."
A distinction without a difference and you know it.”
Of course, there is little practical difference, but there is a great deal of difference in tone. Conservatives blame Clinton explicitly for 9/11 (as well as everything else). Clarke says Bush did not do enough. They may mean the same thing, but they have very different accusatory implications.
3) “Calling Clarke a Republican misses the partisan point and you know it.”
Accusing Clarke of only giving to Democrats (which is true) only attacks the character of the person and not his credentials or charges and you know it. What about Woodward and O’Neil? Making partisan charges in order to paint your opponent a political hack may often be successful, but is suffers from the same petty tactics so many in Washington like to accuse the other side of doing.
4) “President Bush did not publicly admit that Iraq had no connection to 9/11, in fact he said Al Qaeda had many connections to Iraq. He said there was no evidence Saddam was directly connected to 9/11. Look it up. A distinction with a huge difference, and you know that too.”
Actually, the distinction makes very little difference in this context. Bush has no evidence that Canada is harboring aliens from the planet Mars, but saying it like that implies that it might be (and indeed it might). Why is it when Bush tells America that Iraq definitely has WMD, and it turns out to be untrue, his critics are accused of arguing petty semantics, and yet when he says no evidence exists to tie Iraq to 9/11, conservatives attack anyone who says that it means Iraq had no ties?
For the sake of argument, you are right, the two do not mean the same thing since you cannot prove a negative (except the administration leading up to war). I would remind you in that case to make sure that future attacks on Clarke or anyone else be carefully written to read “evidence suggests” unless you have incontrovertible evidence.
5) “What do you know about conservatives on AM radio? Do you listen often? If so, you must also be aware many of us also seriously fault Ronald Reagan for not responding to the Beirut bombing of the Marine barracks in '83.”
Actually, I do listen often and I have never heard Reagan criticized, although I will not deny it has happened. Michael Savage is the only one I have heard ever criticize Bush (for not standing up to the “liberal vermin in this country”). The rest simply spend all day doing two things: Criticizing liberal for being liars, traitors, enemies of the military, causers of 9/11, lovers of Saddam Hussein, enemies to freedom… and secondly, lament how vitriolic the Democrats can be.
6) “Hauling out the disgruntled, the partisan and Bob Woodward to draw conclusions based on opinions might be good fun, but it's certainly not convincing.”
You are the first person I have ever heard call Bob Woodward partisan (at least, the only conservative calling him liberaly partisan), especially given how much praise Bush is given in his book and how high conservative radio hosts loved it when it came out. I suspect, with respect, that you simply designated him as such after hearing his charges rather than thoughtfully look at his record as a journalist, or better still, actually read the book. I would certainly like to know why the administration has not called him a liar for making up facts when he was given access to high level meetings and documents. Thus far, not a single person to my knowledge has leveled that charge to him.
7) “See the recent polls 3/29 & 3/30 - the American people have seen through this charade. I'm surprised you haven't. Or maybe you have and merely seek to amuse yourself.”
Of course, if public opinion polls are a record of a presidents performance, then you must accept the conclusion of your argument to mean that Bill Clinton was a wonderful president throughout his administration and even upon leaving office. When Bush’s numbers drop (as they have in the recent past), will you be so quick to credit it to an enlightened public?
I understand your tremendous partisanship, as this president is extremely polarizing. I have enjoyed our discussions very much and certainly hope that you have taken no offense to anything that I have said. Strong supporters of Bush are just as likely to blindly dismiss anyone who criticized the administration as strong critics are to embrace them. I am sure each of us thinks the other is ignoring the obvious, or blind to reality, or twisting the facts as they see fit. That is the beauty of democracy.
-- Adam
Return to Is "Imperialism" Really the Right Word for What We're Doing in Iraq?
by Bill Heuisler on March 29, 2004 at 12:39 PM