As Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton continues to assess a possible presidential candidacy and the contours of a Democratic nomination fight, she has taken another step away from her 2002 vote authorizing President Bush to attack Iraq by saying that she “wouldn’t have voted that way” if she knew everything she knows now.
. . . .
This morning on NBC’s “Today” show, Sen. Clinton was asked about her 2002 vote and offered a slightly evolved answer. “Obviously, if we knew then what we know now, there wouldn’t have been a vote,” she said in her usual refrain before adding, “and I certainly wouldn’t have voted that way.”…Sen. Clinton has long been viewed as potentially vulnerable on her left flank with regards to the war in a Democratic nomination fight where primary voters and caucus-goers tend to represent the more liberal wing of the party.
That’s good. Way to support the troops.
Well, I wouldn’t have had those last four beers at The Dubliner, and I would have stayed away from Joan, and I wouldn’t have tried to drive back from Iowa during that blizzard, and I wouldn’t have taken up smoking. Really, the list goes on and on.
Isn’t it a drag that most of us have to make decisions based on the best information available, and that we have to live with the consequences, and that as a general rule there aren’t many mulligans in life? I believe that on the basis of perfect information, many of us would make better choices.
Unfortunately, even perfect information would not perfect my decisions, because I would always be framing it in imperfect contexts, and making imperfect choices as a result.
What Hillary wants is to get credit for a principled willingness to stand by her decision, without having to pay any price for having made her decision, and there are many who will help enable her to do so. And there are consequences to us for placing in positions of trust those who are immune from consequences.
I wouldn’t have voted for her husband.
I wouldn’t have ordered the catfish at Sprayberry’s that one time, if I’d known I’d get a deep-fried assortment of petrified fish skin, bones and tails, instead of something edible. The moral of the story? When at a barbecue place, order barbecue. If you want catfish, go to a catfish place.
McGehee–when you generalize so cosmically, I think you pull us all off topic.
“Politician shirks responsibility shock! Film at eleven!”
Meanwhile, in other, (future), news…..
“Madame President, if you’d known Hezbollah was going to nuke New York, would you have bombed the shit out of Iran’s nuke facilities when you had the chance?”
TW act63 Well act, yeah. But 63. What the hell was going on in 63?
and now there’s a test mumble mumble, just before Christmas too, mumble mumble, and I haven’t done any revision mumble mumble bloody teachers mumble mumble mumble
Can’t wait to see her new book,
I Wouldn’t Have Voted Against the War, But if I Did, Here’s How I Did It.
And when you want smaller government, you should…
Um…
Me? I wouldn’t eat at any place called Sprayberry’s. Too evocative of the next morning after a long night of drinking too much wine.
(Oops, farther off topic.)
Somewhere in a Parallel Universe . . . where Saddam still rules Iraq.
Sen Clinton slams President Bush for not invading Iraq and not following through on the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998.
It’s the mad world of the therapeutic culture that Hilary inhabits, just like useful tool….
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/12/19/unwilling_to_forgive_or_forget/
It would appear Gary that Hillary is indeed saying that her husband’s 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act was a mistake.
Some loyalty has she. That’s Hillary alright, just like a feminist does; lie, lie lie, then used a bunch more lies hiding all the lies which emotionalize the masses to follow the lies.
Whoopee! The test’s been cancelled
TW It’s doing it again. March 77. How the hell am I supposed to remember March 77. I was rat-arsed at the time.
Really, and if Clinton had known that blue dress was going to turn-up one day with incriminating evidence squirted on it, I’m sure he would have insisted on having it dry cleaned himself.
And, if I had known what type of grade I was going to get in Accounting 201, I would have never taken the course. Or, at least attended the class with a bit of regularity.
This game is FUN!
Does anyone really believe the crap this bitch spews?
Retired Marine,
of course they do. Thats why she is a sen from nyyour55
Suggested music:
“If I Had To Do It All Over Again, I’d Do It All Over You”
What *specifically* do you know now that you didn’t know then, Senator?
As the sole representative of someone who might vote for her, I was curious what you have her say?
“Yes, the war is a disaster costing us almost 3000 men and women killed, tens of thousand injured, at least 30,000 Iraqis dead, 350 billion (and rising) dollars of our Treasury, the loss of the goodwill of our friends and allies so that we could find no weapons of mass destruction, create a new haven for terrorists, unlock a sectarian struggle which could engulf the entire region, and tie our hands militarily for at least 5 years after the 2003 invasion…..yeah, Matt, I’d call that a success story!”
See, in that instance, the 70% of the American people who oppose the war and the conduct of it would laugh her off the national stage.
Strange as it seems, saying “what I know” is supposed to inculcate one from the “I was wrong” that she is not ballsy enough to say. It is, ironically, straight from George “I can’t remember a mistake” Bush’s playbook. Never saying “I was wrong” got him re-elected (he’s resolute, ya know). Hillary’s going to give it a whirl.
In the spirit of the post, I would so have skipped the bad first marriage and gone back to school a lot sooner if I knew now what I knew then. Then again, unlike Mrs. Clinton, I have the solace of always thinking the invasion of Iraq was stupid…
If anyone has 100 million dollars they want to give me, I can challenge her in the Democratic primaries. Let me know.
I forgot to remind you guys, the subtext of her remark is clearly “I was lied to by the administration, that why I didn’t know what I was supposed to know”. That’s supposed to make all better to the Lamont crowd. Ain’t gonna happen, because they want some blood for her. Listen to Bob Sheer (Truthdig.com) sometime. He and the people like him aren’t gonna let her off with the “Bush lied” line.
EWxpect more dancing in the future as she tries to reconcile this with the lefties on one side and the moderates on the middle. She knows it won’t matter to guys, because none of you will believe “the crap that bitch spews.”
I’m tempted to parse out your entire statement, Timmy, but here’s something she could have said:
“Regime change in Iraq was and is a good idea. The world, and Iraq, are better off without Hussein in charge. My husband’s administration recognized this, even if he lacked the cojones to do anything about it. So I still believe my vote to go to war was the correct one.
However, I do believe that the war has been conducted poorly etc. etc. etc.” after which time she could offer some valid criticism of the war.
Do you know what the phrase “the perfect is the enemy of the good” means?
Personally, I would have avoided reading that post about the ‘dillo dancing in a drag bar. Or the followup post about the ‘dillo going on tour with the fellows. Or this post about Hillary, which oddly enough is every bit as disgusting as those.
Undefined as this always is, and always will be, the audience inserts its favorite “what,” and the speaker plays host to a BYO propaganda party. Any concession to the premiseâ€â€even only “imperfect information” talkâ€â€is a Party at Hillary’s. So if you’re trying to outflank by conceding, concede everything.
The Democrats who voted for the war would swallow any lie, however transparent, betray any principle, [insert any antiwar talking point / “what we know now” here]â€â€anything to kill thousands of “brown people” half a world away. Because that was the only thing everyone knew would happen.
Say it.
Timmy B
Just a point or two:
1) The WSM’s that started the whole thing are still unaccounted for by Iraq, the UN or anybody. I’d check the Bekaa Valley, but that’s just me.
2) As tough as it’s been, we could still have Saddam in power, killing his 100,000 or so citizens a year, searching for ways to bypass the sanctions either by stealing oil money or finally establishing at least a material relationship with al qaeda while he continued to operate foreign terrorist training camps like Salmon Pak while paying the Palistinian survivor families $10,000 to $30,000 per suicide bomber. We won’t even mention his stated desire in the catured documents and audio tapes torestart his nuclear program.
3) None of the Democrats who strutted like oversexed roosters in 1998 talking about how Saddam has to go (Kerry, Kennedy, Murtha, et al) would have actually had to step up and make a vote for that express purpose.
4) We could be continuing the effective Clinton doctrine of “treat them like criminals” which had been so effective in capturing and containing Islamic jihadists over the eight years of his illustrious presidency.
What should have been done differently?
1)More troops initially to secure the country and provide greater security.
2) Some segments of the Iraqi army collected and constituted from the non Republican Guard portion.
3) A far greater number of Iraq cultural experts in country with a plan to engage the tribal leaders more quickly into cooperation on security and local govenment building.
4) A strong commitment force wise to securing the borders with Iran and Syria, interdicting the majority (hopefully) of materials and manpower.
5) An early, coordinated effort to disarm the Shiite militias.
You see, Timmy B, while it is, I’m sure, quite exhilarating to be able to crow “I was always right,” those polling people in the 70% “Iraq is a horrible mistake” crowd were most the 75% of people who thought that it was a good idea back in 2003, along with the vast majority of politicians on both sides of the aisle. Things are not always as black and white as you would have them be, no matter how empowering it is to your ego. That’s why “hindsight” is so darn effective as an after action decision grader.
Iraq is a mess, but it’s a mess over there that we need to clean up. and, yes, there still is a compelling national security concern. That concern will continue to exist for many years whether or not we a slogging through Iraq. I do know that the Terrorist organizations have had to expend their resources and despite all of the “we’re creating terrorists” screams, no one can quantify whether or not we’ve killed or captured more than we’ve created.
Hindsight and criticsm is easy, as is doing nothing proactive. standing tall? Just a bit harder, at least for this generation.
G’day!
I, too, am tempted to fisk your comments, Timmy.
Sounds real cozy and snug in your happy place where you “have the solace of always thinking the invasion of Iraq was stupid…”
Can we conclude you think we should have just left Saddam alone? And “[A]s the sole representative of someone who might vote for her,” you didn’t have a problem with her husband’s administration saying, oh, how about the exact same fucking things about Saddam’s threat as the succeeding administration?
I don’t know if it’s sad or sick that the dimmi’s can look at the mass graves all over Iraq, Several of them filled through the use of ‘WMD’ and say we should not have attacked Iraq. Based on today’s dimmi’s we should not have fought back after Dec 7, 1941.
Sometimes I think I wasted 22 years in the military protecting the people of this country and I’m now wasting hundreds of hours annually ‘volunteering’ in a fire rescue unit.
Are the majority of the American people worth the effort it takes to save their lives? If you could pick and chose there is 50% of the population that aren’t worth rolling out of the bed at 3AM and risking my life to save theirs. Someone brand a big “T’ on their forehead so we’ll know not to waste our time.
Followup: sorry for the crappy editing.
The worst case scenario in this little drama is that we bail on Iraq prematurely and leaving it to widespread sectarian violence. This would be horrible and a terrible stain on our honor as a country.
However…
The dark, nasty side of my twisted intellect also knows that a widespread sectarian war between muslim sects is not the worst thing that could happen for our security.
It leaves a bad taste in my mouth, but I’ve said it. I know that there is some fallout associated with this concept but we could very possibly live with it.
Scrapiron; let not your heart be troubled. There are still people in this country who not only deserve your service, but appreciate it as well.
I think the left has forgotten how many troops we had surrounding Iraq since 1991. Today’s troops in Iraq don’t outnumber those involved all through Slick and the Weasel’s regime by that much, and todays troops are accomplishing something.
Forget people like Timmy, they will hide under the bed and pee their pants while someone slaughters their entire family.
That’s what we call the money quote. We may not have done it that well, but that’s not the fault of the boots-on-ground, that’s the policy and planning wonks (with Bush as chief caretaker of responsibility.) They haven’t lost a battle in Iraq yet and the whole concept of IED’s is a response to the enemy’s disasterously failed attempts to engage out troops head on (think Fallujah, 2005.)
As compared to:
Which, of course, is the entire description of the three year campaign. AP would be proud of you, Timmy.
Oh, look! I think I just saw al Sadr and Osama bin Laden french kissing on Al Jazeera. Hee, Hee, Osama, he’s got those roving hands…
Uh huh. I’m curious, though, since you’re one of many liberal/progressives who toss off this line, does it ever occur to you that some part of that fabled 70% are unhappy because it appears that the war isn’t being prosecuted strongly enough? That maybe, just maybe, what with the MSM determined to see W fail, some of that fabled 70% is pissed that the US is losing its will? Think it’s plausible?
Now, now, kelly, you know that when polls are taken the 70% opposition has to be opposed for the very same reasons that Timmy is.
Didn’t you get the memo?
“at least 30,000 Iraqis dead” and “create a new haven for terrorists” are two of my favorites from timmy (are you 5 years old or something?). Remember your ilk didn’t give a shit about the Iraqi civilians. Because if you did, you’d be appalled at what saddam was doing to those same Iraqi civilians befor the battle. But you weren’t, so excuse me if I tell you to screw yourself and stop being a hypocrite. The second line is funny too. A “haven”? You do know that a haven is a safe place, don’t you…timmy? They are dying en masse. That’s a good thing. Or does the thoughts of terrorists dying upset you?
Onto the “No WMD’s” line, now. Where are they? All he had to do was show how he got rid of them? That’s it. But I take it your more of a criminal’s advocate type of little boy, no? Your spot on about the monetary cost this battle is costing us, though. And maybe you care about what fickle, feckless “allies” really care about, but I don’t. They’ll be back in line begging for our help in no time. A good little democrat, though. Ride the polls.
Well, ain’t that a bitch. That muthafucker ran like a goddamned Porsche for three fucking years. And now it won’t go?
Shee-it.
I’m thinking that the follow up question should have been something on the order of—If you knew then what you know now, would you have married Bill Clinton? or would there have been a wedding?
Pablo:
Timmy’s sayin’ it but what he hasn’t said is that every Democratic candidate except for the sainted Obama has to eventually run on the “Bush Lied” premise in order to devalue their pro war vote and/or statements. This is a potentially dangerous balancing act between the wingnut left and the wary center. I’m not confident that Hillary can successfully walk that tightrope.
What I do know is that almost all mention of “faulty prewar intellegence” is going to be replaced with “manipulated pre war intellegence,” crafting the Bush war-for-oil-money-power scenario as a device to distance themselves not only from their own views/votes but also from the previous Democratic administration’s stated policies!
Welcome to Bizarro world, where Saddam really wasn’t a threat, we were just kidding about that…
Hey, Scrapiron! What’s the “T” stand for?
Tool? Tithead? Torqued? Toss? Talibanfodder?
Just askin’…
how does the left reconcile “manipulated us using faulty intelligence” with “Bush is stupid”?
how does Hillary
while vehemently criticizing Bush/Rummy for doing the same and demanding that they pay the price?
ehh … well never mind.
Already happening. I saw that very “Bush lied” variant presented as undeniable fact in a comment thread at Outside the Beltway.
I’m still working on my ark. The lumber was delivered yesterday. Anybody want to reserve a berth?
Me!!
No, Kelly, I will leave to the poll parsing, but the follow up question is do you favor getting out in 6 months and the 90+% of those people answer in the affirmative.
Strangely, I’m not sure how would I answer that. While I want our soldiers out of cities, I think we should stay in the giant bases we have built out in the middle of nowhere. Let Iraqis die for Iraq.
Some other responses: Saddam was not killing 100,000 Iraqis a year. Just a ridiculous number culled from Hannity.com or some such joke.
Containing Saddam was the right choice. There were no Al Queda in Iraq pre-invasion and I will direct to the number of US and international publications showing this.
The war against Al Queda was fought properly in Afghanistan up until late 2002 when George began removing Special Forces for Iraq. At Tora Bora, unfortunately, they let a political decision cloud their judgment. So, to answer your comment directly, Scarpiron, if I were President, we would have nailed bin Laden and the rest of Al Queda by now
BJ, I liked your post and agreed with just about all of your recitation of the mistakes that made the invasion harder (you congratulated on my recitation of facts, but no where did you note where any of them was wrong…hmmm). All I have to say about that was, and we all know this, war planning is not perfect. Something always goes wrong. This is why I was against. People don’t generally like it when you invade and occupy their country. Hell, the people in our country didn’t like it when from their supposed country occupied the US. When invited, go. Otherwise, Saddam was contained and wasn’t going anywhere (and for God’s sake drop the supposed concern you allegedly have for the Iraqi civilians. Where was that concern in 1988? Where was it for the Bosnians? The Kosovars? The Rwandans? The Somalis? Where is it in Gulf War I? Where is it now? Our bombs and shells and bullets kill them everyday? This shouldn’t have to be added, but I know someone will accuse me of saying it, but No, American soldiers do not target civilians. Nor are they callous to them. But in war innocent people die. That is why you have to make damn sure it’s necessary before you go about turning Fallujah into a dust pile).
Lastly, to bold typing Kelly, I could give a rat’s ass what law Congress passed and the President signed.” If that law had required ANY US action, it wouldn’t have passed. Similar resolutions have been passed regarding Castro. Do you see US occupation troops?
I find it entertaining to debate what is already a fait accompli, but you guys can keep fighting the last war (the 2004 re-election) all you want, because the American have spoken (the 2006 election) and, if there are combat troops getting blown up on worthless patrols come 2008, then you guys and gals should get used to a 1932-esque Dem sweep.
What Hillary sees, and most of the posters (BJ certainly excepted) here do not, is the question about the war’s “correctness” is already answered. The next fight is about who IS right now, because whoever can convince people of that wins the 2008 election.
It seems to me that Hillary is betting that she’ll gain more lefties by verbalizing the opinion of a spineless noodle than she’ll lose moderates who have considered supporting her because she is (supposedly) strong on defense.
The woman doesn’t put on a pump without focus-grouping it first. Hill must rest assured, that those on the far left might rhetorically smack her around, but when she comes up for the election, they will be their usual stiletto-licking selves.
So why doesn’t she just start screaming “Do over, Do over?”
I say “What did she know, and when did she know it?”
If she was doing her job, instead of posturing and getting ready to decide to run for president, or not, she might have made a better decision. Does she, being so smart and all, expect me to believe that a retard like GWB conned her?
Yeah. Life’s not fair. My drill instructor said so.
In addition to the obvious problems we’ve had in Iraq, and all the lessons we’ve learned about the difficulty of establishing a (semi) free society in an Islamic country, “what we know now”—after invading Iraq—that we didn’t know before, includes the following:
1) That Saddam had effectively worked his way around the sanctions with the oil-for-food scam and that he was on the verge of getting the sanctions lifted.
2) That Saddam planned to rebuild his WMD program as soon as possible.
3) That A.Q. Khan had contacted Saddam about selling him nuclear technology in the late 1990s and was likely to have tried again once the sanctions were lifted.
4) That Khaddafi had an active program to build or acquire WMDs in Libya, a program he was willing to terminate after seeing what happened to Saddam.
It is easy to focus solely on the problems we’ve encountered—and ignore the potentially disastrous problems we likely prevented.
From the Duelfer Report’s “Key Findings”:
Is this the sort of containment you favor?
Let’s take it point by point, Timmy:
We could use s source on this one. I don’t think that 90% nof the people in this country would agree that the sky is blue!
Agreed, which is part of the plans now.
First of all, do I sound like a guy that goes to Hannity to get sources? how about here here here
Nobody really knows how many people were killed/disappeared between chemical weapans attacks, mass arrests and the genocide that was committed against the marsh Shiites. TRhe 100,000 number is not outragious.
There was an al qaeda understanding with Iraq that is mentioned in the 9/11 commision report detailed by Andrew McCarthy here
from the 9/11 commission report;
(emphasis mine)
I’m not arguing an active operational arrangement, but there were contacts and discussions despite bin laden’s stated contempt for Saddam.
Michael Smith already answered that one above.
Umm … no. I listed the reasons why I thought that your conclusions were wrong and added this:
Not exactly a ringing endorsement for your “facts.”
How do you square that up with this?
I have some concern for Iraqi civilians, but not as much as you would posit.
Are we killing anywhere near as many as the jihadist bastards who are delibrately mosques, marketplaces and recruitment centers. It ain’t all sectarian violence, my friend!
I’d say the large number of terrorist/insurgents/thugs killed in that campaign was worthwhile.
That’s enough for now. I have to go to a meeting tonight. I’ll followup later.
G’Day!
It never really gets old does it? I envy you that.
Containing Saddam was the right choice. There were no Al Queda in Iraq pre-invasion and I will direct to the number of US and international publications showing this.
One minor point. If I may. You’re certain Saddam had no intention of manufacturing WMDs and was not accumulating the means to do so. You know this?
Mine, a large Coldstream Guards Sergean Major with SAS wings on his shoulder and a Military Medal from the Jebel Akhdar campaign on his left tit, said
“If you can’t take a joke, you shouldn’t have joined. Sir.”
Do you think these two approaches symbolise in some way the differences between armies’ philosophies, or their similarities?
btw, Dan, your initial post is a model of crystal clarity. You should be a columnist.
Ah. A presence that doesn’t actually do anything. You are a UN fan, no?
Let’s assume, for a moment, that you are right. Absolutely no al Qaeda presence. So what? Let me direct your attention to the style of the conflict: Global War On Terror. Not Global War on al Qaeda. Certainly not Global War on Osama.
Organizations funded, sheltered and/or trained by Saddam Hussein: Abu Nidal Organization, Ansar al-Islam, Arab Liberation Front, Kurdistan Worker’s Party, Mujahedin-e-Khalq, Plaestine Liberation Front.
At a minimum, we know that Saddam Hussein’s government supported terrorism by paying “bonuses” of up to $25,000 to the families of Palestinian homicide bombers. “President Saddam Hussein has recently told the head of the Palestinian political office, Faroq al-Kaddoumi, his decision to raise the sum granted to each family of the martyrs of the Palestinian uprising to $25,000 instead of $10,000” Tariq Aziz, announced at a Baghdad meeting of Arab politicians and businessmen on March 11, 2002, Reuters reported the next day.
Saddam Hussein’s government provided diplomatic help to Islamic extremists. Abu Abbas, former secretary general of the Palestine Liberation Front. He masterminded the October 7-9, 1985 hijacking of an Italian cruise ship whose name, sadly, is now synonymous with terrorism. The Achille Lauro was on a voyage across the Mediterranean when four Palestinian terrorists seized it on the high seas. They held some 400 passengers hostage for 44 hours. Abbas, was captured but was allowed to leave custody on a plane to Iraq. Bettino Craxi, at that time, Italy’s prime minister. As Craxi explained in an October 14, 1985 UPI story: “Abu Abbas was the holder of an Iraqi diplomatic passport” The plane was on an official mission, considered covered by diplomatic immunity and extra-territorial status in the air and on the ground.” Abu Abbas finally ended up in Baghdad in 1994, where he lived comfortably as one of Saddam Hussein’s guests. U.S. soldiers caught Abbas in Iraq in April 2003. This time, he did not get away. He died last March 9, in American custody, reportedly of natural causes.
The Philippine government expelled Hisham al Hussein, the former second secretary at Iraq’s embassy in Manila, on February 13, 2003, just five weeks before the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Cell phone records indicate he had spoken with Abu Madja and Hamsiraji Sali, two leaders of Abu Sayyaf, al-Qaeda’s de facto franchise for the Philippines. The timing was particularly suspicious, as he had been in contact with the Abu Sayyaf terrorists just before and after they conducted an attack in Zamboanga City. Abu Sayyaf’s nail-filled bomb exploded on October 2, 2002, injuring 23 individuals and killing two Filipinos and one American. But that’s in the Philippines, not in Iraq.
Abu Nidal lived comfortably in Iraq between 1999 and August 2002. As the Associated Press reported on August 21, 2002, Nidal’s Beirut office said he entered Iraq “with the full knowledge and preparations of the Iraqi authorities.” Prior to his relocation, he ran the eponymous Abu Nidal Organization: a Palestinian terror network behind attacks in 20 countries, at least 407 confirmed murders, and some 788 other terror-related injuries. Among other savage acts, Nidal’s group used guns and grenades to attack a ticket counter at Rome’s Leonardo da Vinci airport on December 27, 1985. Another cell in Austria simultaneously assaulted Vienna’s airport, killing 19 people. If there is any justice here, perhaps it is the fact that Abu Nidal died in August 2002. Saddam Hussein’s government claimed that he committed suicide by shooting himself in the head… four times.
Abdul Rahman Yasin, Indiana-born, Iraqi-reared terrorist remains wanted by the FBI for his role in the February 26, 1993 World Trade Center attack. President Bill Clinton’s Justice Department indicted Yasin for mixing the chemicals in the bomb that exploded in the parking garage beneath the Twin Towers, killing six and injuring 1,042 people in New York. Soon after the smoke cleared, Yasin returned to Iraq. Coalition forces have discovered documents that show he enjoyed housing and a monthly government salary.
Oh, but wait…
Abu Musab al Zarqawi, after running an al-Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan, he found his way to Baathist Baghdad, where he reportedly checked into Olympic Hospital, an elite facility run by the late Uday Hussein, son of the captured tyrant. Zarqawi is believed to have received medical treatment for a leg injury sustained while dodging American GIs who toppled the Taliban. He convalesced in Baghdad for some two months. Once he was back on his foot, Zarqawi then opened an Ansar al-Islam terrorist training camp in northern Iraq. Zarqawi, working from Iraq, is thought to be behind the October 28, 2002 assassination Lawrence Foley, a U.S. diplomat in Amman, Jordan who worked on international development projects.
The Associated Press reports that Coalition forces shut down at least three terrorist training camps in Iraq. The most notorious of these was the base at Salman Pak, about 15 miles southeast of Baghdad. Before the war, numerous Iraqi defectors said the camp featured a passenger jet on which terrorists sharpened their air piracy skills. With a little looking you can find a satellite photo on the net that shows an urban assault training site, a three-car train for railway-attack instruction, and a commercial airliner sitting all by itself in the middle of the desert. Sabah Khodada is a former Iraqi army captain who once worked at Salman Pak. On October 14, 2001, Khodada granted an interview to PBS television program Frontline, stating, “This camp is specialized in exporting terrorism to the whole world.”
And what about 9/11?
Then there is the interesting case of Ahmad Hikmat Shakir… an Iraqi VIP facilitator who worked at the international airport in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Citing “a foreign government service,” page 340 of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report on pre-Iraq-War intelligence indicates that, “Shakir claimed he got this job through Ra’ad al-Mudaris, an Iraqi Embassy employee” in Malaysia. On January 5, 2000, Shakir greeted Khalid al Midhar and Nawaz al Hamzi at Kuala Lampur’s airport. He then escorted them to a local hotel where these September 11 hijackers met with 9/11 conspirators Ramzi bin al Shibh and Tawfiz al Atash. Five days later, according to The Weekly Standard’s Stephen Hayes, Shakir disappeared. Khalid al Midhar and Nawaz al Hamzi subsequently spent the morning of September 11, 2001 flying American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon, killing 184 people. Shakir, the Iraqi airport greeter, was arrested in Qatar on September 17, 2001. On his person and in his apartment, authorities discovered documents connecting him to the 1993 WTC bomb plot and “Operation Bojinka,” al-Qaeda’s 1995 plan to blow up 12 jets simultaneously over the Pacific. Interestingly enough, as a May 27, 2004 Wall Street Journal editorial reported, Ahmed Hikmat Shakir’s name appears on three different rosters of the late Uday Hussein’s prestigious paramilitary group, the Saddam Fedayeen. A government source told the Journal that the papers identify Shakir as a lieutenant colonel in the Saddam Fedayeen.
Ask James Baker III.
Facts, bud, are your downfall. Not one troop, of any type, was moved from Afghanistan to Iraq. Not one troop, not one truck, not one rifle.
Since 2001, our committment in Afghanistan has done nothing but rise, form an initial 7,000 to 21,000 today.
If you were President you’d have directed your military to act against its advice, sacrificing effort, men and materiel in hunting down an individual who is not a treat any longer and thus ignoring actual immediate threats to the immediate population and beyond? That’s at least believable.
As for “the rest of al Qaeda,” if you have an al Qaeda detector, you’d better give over, man. We could be putting that to good use out here.
Kevin B:
9 March 1977: Three buildings in Washington, DC are seized by members of the militant African-American Muslim Hanafi sect and over 100 hostages taken. One bystander is shot and killed, and Washington city councilman Marion Barry is shot in the chest. After a two-day standoff all hostages are released from the District Building (city hall), B’nai B’rith headquarters, and the Islamic Center.
BJ, on the issue of your Number 2.
Whta portions of a hollow force would you have been willing ot hang on to? THe Army that existed, aside from the Republican Guard, were totally ineffective and had no NCO corps to speak of.
And of course, keeping any elements of the Republican Guard would certainly have been seen by the Sunni and Kurd populations as a harbinger of 1991 redux.
I don’t think there was a valid choice to make here.
Wow, Timmy got quite a spanking. That’s gotta sting.
What the Senator (and most of the media) conveniently forgets to mention is that they do not know would have occurred if Sadaam had been left in power.
Regardless of whether or not large stockpiles of WMD’s existed at the time of the invasion our actions were justified.
Sadaam routinely shot at our aircraft patrolling the No-fly zones in violation of the cease-fire agreement he agreed to at the end of the first Gulf war (I know it because I was there).
In the immortal words of Tina Turner in Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome “Bust a Deal Face the Wheel.
Robin: Folks like Timmy are immune to such things. Just watch, he’ll ignore everything and repeat more of the same.
Don’t tell that to the boys at Ansar al-Islam. They might behead you, infidel.
RTO Trainer,
Damn. When you put it like that…
Very nicely done.
Timmy you are right…..but, sadly, also wrong.
I know how you libs hate facts but…………
Shit, Melissa, you had me totally grossed out till I remembered that it was a kind of shoe.
TW: group57 . . .
If you say so.
RTO: Great job! I’m saving your comments for future study.
As far as reconstituting the Iraqi Army, I recognize that there would have been significant obstacles in doing this. My point was that it needed to be done immediately with whatever non-baathist elements could be scraped together. I agree that of my 5 points this one is the weakest.
Timmy, the overarching point here is that this whole concept of “I was right, there was no justification to invading Iraq.” is intellectual snobbery. You have been more gracious than most of the “Iraq Disaster!” crew who come here, blow a nya nya fanfare and run off shrieking. Too often the argument gets bogged down in the obvious and most of us are tired of the skreechers wanting to kill all debate about reporting and WMD’s and current terrorist situations unless we bow at the altar of “Iraq! Wrong! Wrong! Blood! Oil! Bushitler!” in order to gain some “credibility” first.
I’m not a military guy nor a scholar by any means but it doen’t mean that my brain is walled off from looking at the real issues that face our country over the next several years.
And timmy’s answer was …… <crickets>
Will they play Happy Days are Here Again at the inauguration?
Sorry, BJ, I was Christmas shopping, and then sleeping. I have, however, apparently composed a book:
Not sure what answer you want me to have to RTO, because it just doesn’t matter anymore what you guys say: Hillary and most voters and every sentient foreigner reject the invasion and the current occupation. Create your own reality where you guys care so much about the Iraqi civilians you’re willing to kill them to save them, it just doesn’t matter.
What does, and what was the point of my earlier posts, was what Mrs. Clinton is trying to do. She is trying to distance herself from that mistake without saying “yeah, I was wrong and I apologize.”
You’re going to hear the same thing from everyone running in 2008 (someone, somewhere has an interview where Mitt Romney cheers the invasion) and each person, except your despised McCain, will run away from the invasion and its aftermath.
Because, if they do not, you can take your “Invasion bungled, AP loses War” thesis to bed with you on Election night is 2008. It will be cold comfort as you think of 50 seat Dem majorities and a filibuster proof majority in the Senate.
So, cheerlead if you want for something that already happened, remember your desperate love for people you don’t mind killing now, believe WMD’s are just hanging around somewhere and Saddam was Condi’s mushroom cloud away from taking over the world, etc., write long responses trying to justify why a man who didn’t want the chance to lead you in Vietnam, sent you to Iraq 40years later and won’t even attend a freakin’ funeral for the slain for political reasons,
Believe it all and disparage me, but expect to see everyone give the response Mrs. Clinton did (except, as mentioned, McCain).
It often seems weird to me that there’s a segment of the population that accepts no fact, no election, no report, no revision because it believes! THE TRUTH, come and see it now. Known to only 30% of Americans and rejected by everyone else in the world! Come and see the TRUTH. It never changes!
The majority of posters to Dan’s post just believe. How quaint.
Patrick Chester your comment regarding Timmy is spot on the mark. Didn’t take long for him to prove it either.
What I find quaint, Timmy, is you finally devolving into the typical leftward keening that we’ve come to know so well.
What is quaint is your long affirmation of truthiness while you take absolutely no time to deal with the facts presented, most with sourcing.
What is quaint is you dismissing the entire enterprise because, heck, your position is supported by “every sentient foreigner” and the presenting of alternative arguments backed by information is “weird.”
What is quaint is hauling out the old Bush chestnut about his war service as if he were president then and was going to “lead” us in Vietnam.
What is quaint is then taking a shot at Bush not going to funerals even though he has met privatly with hundreds of families in a very personal way, more families than the FDNY families that Hillary never bothered to see.
Ultimately, what is not so quaint is your complete indifference to engaging in anything resembling a debate, ultimately falling back to the anti-war bromides that are “settled science” in your world, unworthy of scholarship but worthy of sanctimonious proclamations from on high, coupled with ttash talking for a “1930’s style Dem vistory.”
In fact, timmy, you have shown yourself to be not to be quaint or cute or even marginally useful. Perhaps there are better forums for you to “preach to the choir” without having to put up with those who quote facts but “accept(s) no fact, no election, no report, no revision.”
BTW: Considering the whining after 2000 & 2004 the “accept … no election…” line wins the blue ribbon for overwhelming irony. Congratulations!
You left out “every terrorist organization”.
Timmy: A lot of water is flowing under the bridge before it’s ‘cold comfort’ time in 2008. I hope you get an extra blanky for Christmas.
Somebody pretty much got “handled.”
It seems that Timmy’s kool aide doesn’t come in new “snappy comeback factberry.”
Peep this one folks. it’s exactly what I said, only from the mind of Newt http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/Gingrich3.htm
Timmy, give it up. Sources close to Gingrich? That is as lame a piece of sourcing as I have seen. Not to mention the fact that you are still short about 10 critical points to refute.
Not to mention the fact that it has nothing to do with either my or RTO’s post or others. Your just throwing Nerf darts now. Pathetic!
Give it up, Timmy, you are in over your head.
You’re not sure what answer I want you to have?
I don;t want you to have any particular answer. I would like you to respond to facts with counter facts, if you have any.
This is called a debate.
Instead you ignore what you can’t answer, regardless of it’s source, so that your opinions are preserved, unchallenged.
I understand what’s happening, I wonder if you do.
RTO;
We have a 3:00pm appointment at a local gym to bang our heads against the wall.
Perhaps we’ll bond…
I do have to say that I agree with Timmy. Clinton is trying to distance herself from this without admitting a mistake, basically trying to spin it to deflect the most damage. This is done by politicians on both sides on various issues. They avoid directly answering questions and employ spin doctors to tell them what and how to say things to get out of tight spots.
It’s just what politicians do, and a large majority of those running in 2008 will do the same.
Where I don’t agree with him is that it is acceptable for all issues. I do not see how it is acceptable behavior for any one who wants to run our country to put their political success in front of national security. By giving more hope to the terrorists of the world, by giving the Al Qaeda leaders something they can point to as their “success” – Clinton, and others like her who throw our President, our government and our people under the bus on this issue are hurting our national security.
That is where I draw the line.
Say what you want about abortion, about Bush not wanting gay marriage, about the deficit. Spin the economy not growing as fast as it was earlier, the slow housing market, the lack of social programs or excessive government spending. You can even blame the current administration for its handling of Katrina and other disasters.
But when politicians put their own selfish ambitions for power, above national security, above the security of me and my loved ones, and aid our enemy by continuously lifting their spirits with slams on Bush and our military and calls to cut and run… that is when I have a problem.
That is when I question whether you have the ethics and morality to run this country, regardless of political beliefs and ideologies.
I could get into details on the reasons your poll showing 70% believe the war was not handled perfectly are skewed, the fact that polls show even less people believe Democrats will handle it better, or the fact that when the decision to invade Iraq was made a majority of Americans polled supported it (79% in a November 2002 ABC poll, on the condition that Saddam doesn’t fully comply with the UN). The bottom line for me isn’t about whether you believe we should have gone to Iraq or whether you believed it at the time, it is about potential leaders making the best desisions right now to help our country. Setting a “drop-dead” timeline so that the terrorists have a goal to hold out for is not the way to go. Clinton’s insistance that Bush does that before she supports him is, in effect, throwing Bush under the bus.
RTO, I applaud your gleaning of outdated internet sources (what, no Mohammed Atta met with folks in Prague). What we have is the 9/11 Commission reprt and the Senate Intelligence report indicating no Al Queda involvement with Iraq, but you know better. Better than the Vice President and President who have said there was no significant connection. I have also, since this argument is moot, prepared a list of other places beset by terrorism you might need to invade: Ireland, Chechnya (let me know how things work out), Israel, and, if course, Saudi Arabia. The bit about Hussein funding sucide bombers was especially ironic, given the Sadis funding and our lack of invasion plans). We’ll start there and you let me know how that works out.
Attempt clarity, Mr. Hitchens, errr, RTO, the post is about Hillary, not whether it was a good idea to invade Iraq. The reason I haven’t responded in depth is because this post is about “what wouldn’t you do”. I can now amend my original answer to “and take the 15 minutes to read RTO’s post, which he worked hard on adn which still doesn’t convince any independent observer that Mrs. Clinton, like all 2008 Preidential candidates, will run from George’s war.
Thanks for your time. See if you can’t produice something just as readable about the Kennedy assassination.
PS. BJ, I don’t write for Insight magazine, but they are not exactly lefty. If they ran the story, it’s because Newt wanted them to.
So when you make a statement in support of your view of Hilary’s support/lack of support, any attempt to refute that statement will be judged off topic by you? I’m just trying ot clarify the ground rules here? While we’re at it you can also justify why you get to set the rules.
There are, to oversimplify, two kinds of countries–those we have a chance of productive talks with and those we don’t. Saudi Arabia, as one example, is one of the former, so there’s little need for a military response.
Ireland has been quiet terrorwise since 2001. The IRA and UFF took the hint. There was an attack this Nov. I consider it an embolening caused by the appearnace of breaking resolve in the GWOT.
You’ll never make a great military thinker. You never try to engage an enmy everywhere at once. That’s an invitation to defeat in detail. You prioritize, either on the basis of attacking percieved weakenesses or perceived strengths. In short, if HAMAS an Hezbollah think that htey are safe from the GWOT because they haven’t been specifically engaged yet, they are mistaken as you are.
Unless, of course, morally bankrupt politicians decide to end our efforts prematurely. Your position in this regard is clear.
Timmy, the more you write, the more you sound distracted, lazy and oh so full of yourself.
You’ll pardon us if we don’t accept your “argument is moot” proclamation as gospel. You took the road to “the Iraq invasion was a horrible mistake of epic proportions and all shall run from it with alacrity” and now complain that, when challenged, this was all settled by virtually all of the civilised world.
Absolutism, it’s what’s for dinner!
Of course you toss out nations suffering from terrorism like Hershey’s kisses who have no, none, zero security concerns for the US and then haughtily inquire as to our invasion plans. That level of discourse was most impressive, kind of an intellectual projectile vomiting exercise hoping that some of the smelly chunks will find purchase on the clueless conservatives.
Perhaps it reflects the depth of your ruminations on foreign policy that your analysis of the Iraq (liberation) invasion leads you to conclude that the only reason it happened was because hey, it was next! You bet, sunshine, just what I was thinking back in 2002, “Who’s next? Iraq! They’re close, Saddam sucks. Away we go, whee!” And just like that you ignore UN Resolutions, years of Saddam’s defiance and all of the other points meticulously made because you already know the answer!
Hail, Timmah! Yeesh
You dismiss our sourcing like so many sommeliers panning a domestic chardonnay with a wave of the hand yet you offer nothing other than a “sources say” link to Insight Magazine that allows you to say, in effect, “See? Newt thinks Bush sucks too!”
You make infantile arguments comparing Saudi Arabia to Iraq in a hopeless attempt to pooh-pooh the whole financing thing. The last time I checked we had up until recently troops in Saud and they weren’t running foreign terrorist training camps. There has been and continues to be a huge difference between the Saddam’s adventures in Terrorism and Rich Saudi’s funding madrassa schools and some front charities. Etiher way your argument is that we had no more good reason to invade Iraq than we would have had to invade the Kingdom of Saud?
Who is playing the shreiking ideologue here?
I’ll let RTO handle the balance of your spanking but dude, don’t quit your day job ‘cause you suck at blogging!
RTO; We need to consult AWACS and coordinate the airstrikes.
Timmah!!!!
TW:boy
How appropriate for the little boy timmy…
Just thought I would mention my brother in law made it back in one piece. I look forward to hearing his stories. I also read this a minute ago and, as always, a single man’s loyalty to his comrades is an impressive thing. Our professionals and their loyalty to each other speak to us.
While we marshall our petty arguments and what that means for the future or the past, his friends are still there and in danger. They do what we ask them and they do it well. And, yet, neither you nor I know how to bring them home.
Anyway, let’s not forget this guy
From the Indianapolis Star
An Indiana National Guardsman who died in a suicide bomb attack just weeks before he was to return home from Iraq will be awarded the Silver Star.
Gov. Mitch Daniels and Maj. Gen. R. Martin Umbarger, adjutant general of the Indiana National Guard, will present the medal to the family of Sgt. Joseph E. Proctor today at the Statehouse.
Proctor, 38, who lived in Indianapolis and grew up in the Johnson County town of Whiteland, was assigned to the National Guard’s 638th Aviation Battalion. He is the first Indiana National Guardsman to be awarded the Silver Star—the Army’s third-highest honor for bravery—since October 1969, Guard officials said.
Proctor was killed May 3 during an attack on a U.S. coalition compound in Tammin, near Ramadi, when he left cover to provide first aid to wounded soldiers and then faced down a dump truck loaded with explosives, the Guard said.
“Proctor immediately and aggressively stood his ground, engaging the vehicle with unwavering courage, fatally wounding the driver of the vehicle,” Guard officials said. “Due to Proctor’s courage, the vehicle did not penetrate the internal perimeter of the compound. He saved the lives of many coalition forces by his actions.”
Proctor’s family was presented with a Purple Heart and Bronze Star during a memorial service in May.
He had been a National Guard member during the 1980s and later went into the Army on active duty, serving during the 1991 Gulf War. After 10 years out of the military, he re-enlisted in the Guard in 2002, prompted by the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
one last thing, bj, along the petty route: your assertion that the Saudis do not have terrorist caps belies the fact that they paid for the Afghan and Pakistan ones, they currently fund the Sunni insurgency (you the one killing our men and women), and they have never stopped paying Palestinian suicide bombers. Saudi Arabia is where Al Queda was born and bred and, if you want to “win” the “War on Terror” (whateve the hell that means), you need to modernize Saudi extremists.
Sorry you didn’t know that
Good news on your brother in law. Pass along the thanks of the vast majority of posters here for his service. It is possible to argue politics and policy while still giving all laud and appreciation to those who walk the line.
That guardsman story only amplifies the awe I feel towards our military folk. They are the best and the brightest.
Just so you know that we are not all about the politics check out the tribute posts to Major Megan McClung, the highest ranking woman killed in Iraq. Here Here
God bless them all and may we all be worthy of their sacrifices.
Timmy,
I am well aware of the Saudi connections to terrorist financing. My point was that they are entirely different from Saddam in that they never produced or actually used WMD’s, they never had multiple training camps actually functioning in country and they never made both covert and overt threats to our country and citizens. To compare invading Iraq to invading Saudi Arabia is just ludicrous.
That having been said, those out there who are touting the Saudi’s as our friends have their heads up their asses. The Saudi’s are the consummate line walkers. They try to treat their infidel cash cows with one perfumed hand while members of the royal family protect their keysters by funding madrassas and other terror connected organizations. They are being squeezed from both sides as Osama and the al qaeda ilk still have nothing but contempt for the Royals, they being apostates and all.
Your points on Saudi Arabia are valid, but not your comparisons to Iraq. Wishing something to be so doesn’t necessarily make it fact.
Allow me to translate:
I am not able to respond to RTO because he used facts and I didn’t, but that doesn’t matter because most or 90% of people don’t either. (Use any sweeping generalization here about how everyone is against the war here; NOTE: Do not provide any supporting links) Use all the facts you want about Iraqi civilians and use that to form your opinions, it just doesn’t matter as I don’t use facts and neither does Hillary,….who by the way politically represents 90% of Americans and foreiners.
john:
Thanks for the translation. The team has been diligently working at it but he appears to be speaking a relatively obscure dialect of Moonbattus.
Quite possibly Midwestern Academic… hmm …
Timmy, you got nothing.
RTO took you out to the shed for a sound factual thrashing, and you respond with 3×5 Card Lib Talking Points.
Thanks for the entertainment, and little else.
Thanks RTO and others for the facts, and little else required.
syn wrote:
You don’t have to be a psychic to predict that sort of behavior. Just a reasonably good memory.
Gah! you people and your “facts”! Can’t you see that Timmy B cares more than you do!? And what’s more lots and lots of people feel the same way! stupid, heartless facts! I hate you!
sorry, that’s just been brewing all day, and please watch it with the RTO praise, I’m not sure there’s room back here at home for that (potentially) inflated ego.
Ego deflation initiated………….RTO your an ass……..ego deflation complete.
Not sure why everyone’s so eager to suck RTO’s dick. His facts don’t really add up to shit. Certainly not anything that would jusfity the American lives lost.
So? How many US citizens have been killed by Palestinian suicide bombers? Surely all can agree that encouraging suicide bombings against Israel is insufficient justification for the United States to launch an invasion and subsequent occupation.
Surely all can agree that providing “diplomatic help” to hijackers of Italian cruise ships is is insufficient justification for the United States to launch an invasion and subsequent occupation.
A second secretary of an embassy had a conversation with an al-queada affiliate in the Phillipines? That doesn’t seem like sufficient justification for a costly war.
Abu Nidal lived comfortably in Iraq between 1999 and August 2002. As the Associated Press reported on August 21, 2002, Nidal’s Beirut office said he entered Iraq “with the full knowledge and preparations of the Iraqi authorities.â€Â
See above re: Abbas.
The Iraqi gov’timprisoned that guy in 1994. The only source for the housing/salary business is by lunatic hack Richard Miniter.
And by Northern Iraq, you mean Kurdistan; in the no-fly zone. Pretty weak stuff here as well.
Salman Pak, of which the DIA said “no credible reports that non-Iraqis were trained to conduct or support transnational terrorist operations at Salman Pak after 1991”? ThatSalman Pak? And aren’t these defectors Chalabi’s boys? I have a bridge to sell you, RTO.
A VIP facilitator (whatever the fuck that is) worked at an airport and drove some 9/11 conspirators to a meeting? Wow, that line goes right to Saddam!
None of it adds up to very much, but hey, it seems lengthy and impressive if you don’t think too hard, and that’s all that matters. So keep on believin’, dead-enders!
Fantastic: That strikes me as a whole lotta keyboarding for very little content.
You cherry picked nuggets from RTO’s contents, taking each one individually and proclaim haughtily, “Should we have invaded Iraq for this?”
Well, no, taken individually.
But if you take it all together (you know, fantastic, when you “connect the dots” like analysts or even amateurs with have a brain do)and add in all of the stuff that you don’t mention (lost WMD’s, UN resolutions ignored, numerous threats to our country and citizens, etc.) then you actually make a compelling case for not allowing Saddam to continue to threaten the world.
So while I’m sure that you thought it was oh, so clever to cherry pick RTO’s post it doesn’t add up to a compelling argument. Combine RTO’s (including those items which you ignored) with mine and Michael Smith’s posts (which you also ignored) and you haven’t even come close to championing the “settled science” that there was absolutely positively no justification for invading Iraq!
Well thank you for doing the same for Timmy B. I’m sure he has a little something for you, too!
Seems like that added up to reason enough for a majority of Americans and a majority of American leaders to think we needed to invade Iraq.
And regardless… it is irrelavent to argue about past events. Making the best decisions for our country right now and for the future is what matters. Pulling troops out and leaving Iraq to be divided up by Iranian and Syrian puppets is what you think is best for us? Seriously, is that the best option? Is that what you would have our leaders do?
And as far justifying the lives of our soldiers lost over there – how many tens of thousands of civilian lives would we have lost if we did not even attempt to put an end to terrorists and those who support it? How many Skyscrapers would have fallen?
Why? How many do you require? Why do you limit the attack method to suicide bombers? Also, are you really this ignorant of recent history?
Check the following list. You might learn some things about Italian cruise ships and such as well.
6 June 1968–United States, American presidential candidate Robert Kennedy murdered by Palestinian terrorist, Sirhan Bishara Sirhan, in Los Angeles, United States. His killer was arrested and became the cause of further terrorist attacks, as Arab terrorist groups demanded his release. Palestine Liberation Organization
3 March 1973–Sudan, Black September Palestinian guerrillas execute American diplomats Cleo Noel Jr. and George Moore. The diplomats had been among many hostages taken by Black September from the Saudi Arabian embassy in Khartoum. The guerrillas have been demanding the release of Sirhan Sirhan (Bobby Kennedy’s killer), many Palestinians held in Jordan, all Arab women detained in Israel, as well as all members of the Baader-Meinhof Gang. Black September
1 March 1974–Sudan, Saudi Arabian embassy in Khartoum, Sudan, seized by Black September terrorists and a number of diplomats from Arab and western countries taken hostages. The terrorists murder two American and one Belgian diplomat. Black September
8 September 1974–United States, A bomb kills 88 aboard TWA flight 841. It took off from Ben Gurion International Airport, Tel Aviv en route to JFK International Airport, New York City. It was scheduled to land in Athens, followed by Rome, and then proceed to New York. After stopping for 68 minutes in Athens, it departed for Rome. However, 18 minutes after takeoff, the plane crashed into the Ionian Sea. All 79 passengers and 9 crew members were killed. Although the idea of terrorism was initially scoffed at, the National Transportation Safety Board determined later that the plane was destroyed by a bomb hidden in the cargo hold, which caused structural failure resulting in uncontrollable flight. A youth organization in Beirut claimed responsibility for the blast, and suspicion has fallen on Abu Nidal and his terror organization. Abu Nidal Organization
9 August 1982–France, Gunmen threw a grenade into a restaurant in Paris and then opened fire with automatic weapons, killing six people and wounding twenty-seven. Two of the dead and two of the wounded were Americans. Action Directe claimed, and then denied, responsibility. al Fatah
18 April 1983–Lebanon, Sixty three people, including the CIA’s Middle East Director, are killed and 120 injured in a 400 lb suicide truck bomb attack on the US Embassy in Beirut, Lebanon. The driver is killed. Responsibility is claimed by Islamic Jihad. Hezbollah
23 October 1983–Lebanon, Simultaneous suicide truck bombs on American and French compounds in Beirut, Lebanon. A 12,000 lb bomb destroys a US Marine Corps base killing two hundred and forty one Americans; another fifty eight Frenchmen are killed when a 400 lb device destroys one of their bases. Islamic Jihad claims responsibility. US and French aircraft strike suspected terrorist bases in the Baka’a valley in retaliation. Hezbollah
23 October 1983–Lebanon, Simultaneous suicide truck bombs on American and French compounds in Beirut, Lebanon. A 12,000 lb bomb destroys a US Marine Corps base killing two hundred and forty one Americans; another fifty eight Frenchmen are killed when a 400 lb device destroys one of their bases. Islamic Jihad claims responsibility. US and French aircraft strike suspected terrorist bases in the Baka’a valley in retaliation. Hezbollah
12 April 1984–Spain, Eighteen US servicemen killed and eighty three people injured in bomb attack on restaurant near USAF base in Torrejon, Spain. Responsibility claimed by Hezbollah as revenge for March bombing in Beirut. Hezbollah
20 September 1984–Lebanon, Suicide bomb attack on US Embassy in East Beirut kills twenty three people and injures twenty one others. The US and British ambassadors were slightly injured in the explosion which was attributed to the Iranian backed Hezbollah group. Hezbollah
16 March 1985–Lebanon, US journalist Terry Anderson is kidnapped in Beirut, Lebanon, by Iranian backed Islamic radicals. He is finally released in December 1991. Hezbollah
9 June 1985–Lebanon, US academic, Thomas Sutherland, at the American University, Beirut, Lebanon kidnapped by Islamic terrorists and held until 18 November 1991. Hezbollah
14 June 1985–Lebanon, A Trans-World Airlines flight was hijacked en route to Rome from Athens by two Lebanese Hizballah terrorists and forced to fly to Beirut. The eight crew members and 145 passengers were held for 17 days, during which one American hostage, a U.S. Navy sailor, was murdered. After being flown twice to Algiers, the aircraft was returned to Beirut after Israel released 435 Lebanese and Palestinian prisoners. Hezbollah
7 October 1985–Italy, Four Palestinian Liberation Front terrorists seize the Italian cruise liner, Achille Lauro, during a cruise in the eastern Mediterranean, taking more than seven hundred people hostage. One US passenger was murdered before the Egyptian Government offered the terrorists safe haven in return for the hostages’ freedom. US Navy fighters incepted the Egyptian aircraft flying the terrorists to safety in Tunis and forced it to land at the NATO airbase in Italy, where the terrorists were arrested. The Italian authorities however let two of the terrorists leaders escape on diplomatic passports. Palestinian Liberation Front
30 March 1986–Greece, A Palestinian splinter group detonated a bomb as TWA Flight 840 approached Athens Airport, killing four U.S. citizens. Palestine Liberation Organization
12 September 1986–Lebanon, US academic at the American University in Beirut Joseph Cicippio seized in Beirut by Iranian backed Islamic terrorists. He is eventually released on 1 December 1991. Hezbollah
21 October 1986–Lebanon, American businessman Edward Tracy kidnapped in the Lebanon by Islamic terrorists and held for almost five years until 11 August 1991. Hezbollah
24 January 1987–Lebanon, American citizens Jesse Turner and Alann Steen seized in Beirut by Islamic terrorists. Turner was held until 22 October 1991 and Steen is released on 3 December 1991. Hezbollah
17 February 1988–Lebanon, US Marine Corps Lieutenant Colonel W. Higgens, kidnapped and murdered by the Iranian backed Hezbollah while serving with the United Nations Truce Supervisory Organisation in southern Lebanon. Hezbollah
14 April 1988–Italy, The Organization of Jihad Brigades exploded a car bomb outside a USO Club in Naples, Italy, killing one U.S. sailor. Islamic Jihad
25 January 1993–United States, Mir Aimal Kansi, a Pakistani, fires an AK-47 assault rifle into cars waiting at a stoplight in front of the Central Intelligence Agency headquarters, killing two and injuring three others.
23 July 1994–West Bank, Two unknown Palestinians stabbed and seriously injured a US woman in the Arab quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem. The assailants escaped unharmed.
9 October 1994–Israel, Two Arabs armed with assault rifles and grenades attacked pedestrians in Jerusalem. The gunmen killed two persons and injured 14 others. Two US citizens were among the injured. HAMAS has claimed responsibility for the incident. Hamas
25 December 1994–Israel, An American was among 12 persons injured when a HAMAS supporter carrying a bag of explosives blew himself up at a West Jerusalem bus stop. Hamas
9 April 1995–Gaza, A suicide bomber crashed an explosive-rigged van into an Israeli bus, killing a US citizen and seven Israelis. Over 50 other persons, including two US citizens, were injured. The Palestine Islamic Jihad (PIJ)ûShaqaqi Faction claimed responsibility for the attack. Palestine Islamic jihad
21 August 1995–Israel, A bomb exploded on a bus in Jerusalem, killing six persons, including one US citizen, and wounding two other US citizens and over 100 others. The Izz al-Din al-Qassem Brigades, the military wing of the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS), claimed responsibility. Hamas
5 September 1995– West Bank, Unknown assailants stabbed to death an Israeli settler of British origin and wounded his US-born wife in the settlement of Ma’ale Mikmas, near Ram Allah. An anonymous caller claimed responsibility in the name of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP). The caller stated the attack was in retaliation for the arrest of three PFLP activists and the continued detention of a PFLP politburo member, imprisoned for three years. Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine
26 February 1996–Jerusalem, A suicide bomber blew up a bus, killing 26 persons, including three US citizens, and injuring some 80 persons, including three other US citizens. HAMAS’s Izz al-Din al-Qassem Battalion claimed responsibility for the bombing in retaliation for the Hebron massacre two years before, but later denied involvement. HAMAS also issued a leaflet assuming responsibility for the bombing signed by the Squads of the New Disciples of Martyr Yahya Ayyash, the Engineer, claiming the bombing was in retaliation for Ayyash’s death on 5 January 1996. Hamas
4 March 1996–Israel, A suicide bomber detonated an explosive device outside the Dizengoff Center, Tel Aviv’s largest shopping mall, killing 20 persons and injuring 75 others, including two US citizens. HAMAS and the Palestine Islamic Jihad (PIJ) both claimed responsibility for the bombing. Hezbollah / Hamas
13 May 1996–West Bank, Arab gunmen opened fire on a bus and a group of Yeshiva students near the Bet El settlement, killing a dual US/Israeli citizen and wounding three Israelis. No one claimed responsibility for the attack, but HAMAS is suspected. Hamas
9 June 1996–Israel, Unidentified gunmen opened fire on a car near Zekharya, killing a dual US/Israeli citizen and an Israeli. The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) is suspected. Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine
24 February 1997–United States, A Palestinian gunman opened fire on tourists at an observation deck atop the Empire State building in New York City, killing a Danish national and wounding visitors from the United States, Argentina, Switzerland, and France before turning the gun on himself. A handwritten note carried by the gunman claimed this was a punishment attack against the “enemies of Palestine.”,
30 July 1997–Israel, Two bombs detonated in the Mahane Yehuda market in Jerusalem, killing 15 persons, including two suspected suicide bombers, and wounding 168 others. A dual US-Israeli citizen was among the dead, and two US citizens were among the wounded. The Izz-el-Din al-Qassam Brigades, the military wing of the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS), claimed responsibility for the attack. Hamas
4 September 1997–Israel, Three suicide bombers detonated bombs in the Ben Yehuda shopping mall in Jerusalem, killing eight persons, including the bombers, and wounding nearly 200 others. A dual US-Israeli citizen was among the dead, and seven US citizens were wounded. The Izz-el-Din al-Qassam Brigades, the military wing of the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS), claimed responsibility for the attack. Hamas
15 October 2003–Gaza, A bomb is detonated by Palestinians against a US diplomatic convoy in the Gaza Strip, killing three Americans. Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade
fantastic, ain’t so fanatastic. As BJtexas said, all those “points” standing alone surely don’t mean much. But to people with a working brain, they have to be looked at in the whole. And RTO didn’t even list all the connections with KNOWN terrorists that there were, as well as the other crimes against humanity that saddam perpetrated. I’ll call you simple is as simple does and leave it at that.
Funny thing, though. With that being said, I still didn’t support the Iraq battle. IMO, they had saddam sufficiently quarantined and he was as impotent as your and Timmy’s posts. I wanted them to concentrate on Afghanistan and weed out the eastern edge as much as possible. But, the President and his people thought that nation building (read: Democracy building) in Iraq was a good idea. Why not? You get to dispose of one of the single biggest pieces of shit in the world(who did and would have cooperated with terrorists in the future if given the opportunity) and try to plant the seed of democracy. I just thought that there were too many of these 7th century mouth breathers to make it stick. The Muslims and Arabs who have joined the rest of us in modernity would be outnumbered and outflanked by the jihadists and the useful idiots of the West. Our military can kill all they want (and this is good, when they are killing the right people AND they are), but politically I couldn’t see the good guys (that’s the US btw) winning. I still can’t. I come here to gain some new understanding and frankly some optimism. But then I read incoherent crap from the likes of Tim Burns and you and realize what a group of disengenuous lying sacks of shit, the left is turning into.
Pardon the interruption.
Speaking of justification…..
<a href=”http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Dec1998/n12171998_9812172.html” target=”_blank”>
Anyone know what Hillary said about Billy sending in the thunder?
Clinton=Good. Bush=bad!!
1 March 1974 is an error. Also 23 October 1983 is mistakenly cited twice.
Well, the simple fact is that there is nowehre int eh world that democracy has really taken root, as in a strong practical working government in place with the means to defend itself, in less than 20 years.
Look at the US own history. It took from 1774 to 1794. Along that time we fought a war, went through three different governments, faced down two rebellions and an indegenous insurgency, squelched a potential military coup and were under nearly constant threat of invasion by the surrounding European forces. At one point, disaffected (but fortunately not particularly motivated) soldiers ran Congress out of Philadelphia.
The neareast cultural analogs are the Arab Mahgreb states of North Africa. It took 40 years for them to democratize–they also received no outside assistance–except Algeria where it was 60 years largely due to French intervention to prevent it.
We spent 80 years in the Philippines, 60 in Japan and Germany, and we’ve been working on Bosnia and Kosovo for 15. Haiti never got there, because we never stayed long enough.
Our presence can keep Iraq on the 20 year track. I don’t believe we can make it take less time, but we can prevent it taking more.
The problem here is you are seperating these wackos from the ones that flew two planes into the WTC buildings. Murdering Isrealis in the name of Allah and murdering 3500+ Americans in the name of Allah are the same thing you twit. GLOBAL war on terror……GLOBAL get it?
No, John, they’re not.
You and RTO are fighting a War Against Islam, and, as such, you are desperately and frighteningly out of the American mainstream. Dare I say, a policy rejected by this administration and the military?
This is why it is pointless to debate the topic you are trying to debate (Whether the invasion of Iraq was a good idea), because you take it as an article of faith that Americans had to kill Arabs somewhere in the world after 9/11 and Iraq, as a loathesome regime, was a good place to start. You think by using terms like Mahgreb and dhimmi, it means you understand Islam.
The fact is, you don’t. In fact, quite a few of you (RTO, for instance) just want to beat the living hell out of some Muslim somewhere. Meanwhile, ironies of ironies, the people who perpetrated the mass murder of Americans are safely holed in the territory of a US ALLY. Never a word about that…
Tell you what, RTO (why don’t you cut and paste something on this): the one thing I know about the current state of Iraq is there are a helluva a lot more people supporting terrorists now, than there were before. And, instead of dropping passengers over the side of a cruise ships, these nuts have killed 3000 of my countrymen and wounded thousands more. Looks like your idea to clear Iraq of “terrorists†was real damn successful.
In the end, you can always hope after we leave, the Saudis will jump on one side, the Iranians on the other and you can choose which side of crazies you want to kill. Maybe that will satisfy your bloodlust for Muslims?
Meanwhile, the implicit question of the post (how do politicians who want to be elected in 2008 handle the question about voting for the war) goes unanswered.
The hell you say! Show me.
To fantastic and Timmy “excellent” Burns:
Please note:
See, guys? ThePolishNizel is a regular here and he doesn’t agree with many of us about Iraq. What you will see lacking from his post is the smug, self serving, know-it-all attitude that the two of you brought with your rants. Also he can acknowledge contrary facts and sources but still elect to see things a different way.
As far as we know, he’s not even a “sentient foreigner,”, whatever that is.
Let me clarify my request: Show me the anti-muslim bias you wish to paint me and BJ with.
I have a blog, ongoing for two and half years, full of writings that began in the middle of my last deployment. Probably your best bet to find something.
I was also very active at one time on USENET. You can search there under “RTO Trainer” or under “Son of ATF” if you wish to go back even further.
So, post proof or retract.
I await your apology in the meantime.
You might then wish to examine your own mind. It is you that has equated “terrorism” with “Islamic” and you will never find a word of mine to indicate the same.
You’ve made the mistake of challenging someone who’s been studying terrorism, and been a near victim of it (OKC 1995) for 20 years. You’ve come, without so much as a knife, to a precision guided missile duel, but you couldn’t have known that.
BJTexas, I hate “sentient foreigners”! I did have one for breakfast, though. Tasty, with a warm glass of wassiel, to help wash it down. Mental note…add more cloves and less lemon next time.
Timmy brings up another straw man though. Is it A-rabs or Muslims that RTO wants to kill? Maybe RTO can help us out. I would like to kill as many islamonuts (read: Jihadists) as possible. Does that make me a murderous thug?
“Meanwhile, ironies of ironies, the people who perpetrated the mass murder of Americans are safely holed in the territory of a US ALLY.” No, actually they are dead. But the point is an interesting one as “what to do” with Saudi Arabia is a good question. Are you implying that we should have chosen that as the next battle in the overall war on islamo-fascism? If you just HAD to choose a country, Iraq was far more palatable for everyone.
I see this never-ending war with these nuts as a defensive one on our (The U.S.’s) part. Sure, we are going to kick some shit up from time to time, but I don’t see too many huge offensive battles in our future (like Iraq). I also don’t share your (our little boy Timmy’s) delusion that we can just wait them out and that Muslims have done and wil continue to do a swell job of self policing their nut cases. Maybe, you’re secular and just can’t for the life of you understand “religious” conviction. I don’t know. But the point is, that these freaks have been with us for 1,400 years and are NOT going anywhere, any time soon. They aren’t doing, what it is they’re doing, to bring wal mart and it’s low prices next to the nearest hookah bar. They are doing, whatever it is they are doing, because they are answering big mo’s call to them. HE is the key. The moderate Muslims, who I respect a great deal, that acknowledge Muhammed did the terrible things that his OWN early biographers say he did, see it as “that was just the way things were back then”. They have grown up with civilization. Unfortunately, a large and influential number of Muslims haven’t. They are the problem.
Being in Afghanistan, Arabs are a usual target, as they are outsiders. Very few, legitimate, reasons for Arabs to be here.
But I haven’t got anything in particular against Arabs either. And unlike our interpreters, I can’t recognize the differences by sight.
I do want to kill terrorists. If I could assist a terrorist to assume room temperature, I’d sleep warm the rest of my life. And, hey, I’m here doing just exactly that.
Mr. Burns:
Do you shudder with excitement at the sound of your own voice? Is the review and editing of your own words a quasi-religious experience for you? I have heard extreme pentacostal TV preachers show more connection with facts and less preaching on faith.
Because of the blessed “polls” and Mr. Burns says so. Take a minute and check out the CNN Exit Polls While dissatisfaction is apparent in many of the polling numbers they are not anywhere near the percentages (unattributed) that you’ve been throwing around. It’s the difference between siting a poll number you heard on your all news radio station and actually looking up a poll.
And, like RTO, although I don’t have the extensive background that he has, I’ll await your apology for being labeled a bigot. I have for the last three years been very much involved in learning about the history and current composition of Islamic Jihadists. I’ve even taught a couple of classes, albiet small and local and with no pretentions of in depth scholarship. However, I can, like RTO and the vast majority of posters at this site, tell the difference between an average Muslim and a batship crazy Jihadist. The fact that you think I just “hate Muslims” allows you to regurgitate CAIR talking points about “Islamaphobia” while ignoring the very things that you talked about in you own post.
Since you have eschewed from providing the bare modicum of sourcing and links to all of your pretentious opinions, let’s see you justify painting RTO, John and me as psychotic Islamic haters who;
Man, I hope that you’re not a therapist, because you suck at profiling personalities based upon blog postings.