DrTorch Wrote:Schadenfreude Wrote:In a year or two, the United States will begin spending more on defense than every other nation in the world ... combined. No other nation's armies are in a position to challenge us in the seas and in the skies.
I don't think anyone would argue w/ you on that. But, that's not the type of attacks we have these days, is it?
The point on defense now is to stave off terrorist attacks. From any source: legitimate state, or an obscure entity.
However, to do that requires resources.
With the United States about to begin spending more on national defense than the rest of the human race *combined*, is the question really about resources?
If posing this question gives you the impression I am weak-kneed and dovish, so be it.
How much more should we be spending on national defense than the rest of human race, Torch?
Could it the problem be the *manner* in which we spend all these vast billions?
Could it be American patriots like John Kerry were right to vote against certain defense spending silliness -- such as V-22 Ospreys notorious for killing the Marines who try to fly them?
Quote:However, to do that requires resources. Because folks like YOU criticize Bush for focusing too much time on Iraq and "ignoring" al Qeida.
I fail to understand this paragraph.
Are you suggesting that people like me -- people convinced George W. Bush is a facile chickenhawk woefully underqualified for his job -- somehow drive national defense costs up?
Clue me in.
Quote:The more specific point is, you criticized Bush for being too concerned w/ Iraq, but you don't know how much of a threat Iraq really was.... You don't know how much of a threat Iraq was. None of us really do. But, your criticisms are illegitimate because you don't know, and because you don't consider other scenarios than your preferred hypothetical utopias.
Simplified, your position is: "Trust the president. He is smarter than we are."
George W. Bush is a ****ing idiot.
Iraq wasn't a threat to our national security. This ought to be a fact beyond dispute. The only reason it isn't is that our fraternity-brother-in-chief and his gang of cold war retreads never wanted to accept reality. Instead, they have used their bully pulpit to try to convince us (among other things) that a link exists between Saddam and al Qaeda -- despite virtually no evidence of that.
I can reach only two conclusions about Bush and his gang of chickenhawks: They either sincerely had almost no clue what they were doing leading us into war with Iraq -- or they had a hidden agenda for doing so.
Iraq as national security threat simply doesn't wash.
Quoting from the Richard Clarke 60 Minutes interview:
CLARKE: I blame the entire Bush leadership for continuing to work on the Cold War issues when they came back in power in 2001. It was as though they were preserved in amber from when they left office eight years earlier. They came back, they wanted to work on the same issues right away -- Iraq, Star Wars -- not the new issues, the new threats that had developed over the preceding eight years
STAHL (exp): {Clarke finally got his meeting to brief about al Qaeda in April, three months after his urgent request, but it wasn't with the president or the cabinet. It was with the number twos in each relevant department. For the Pentagon, it was Paul Wolfowitz.}
CLARKE: I began saying, 'We have to deal with bin Laden. We have to deal with al Qaeda.' Paul Wolfowitz the Deputy Sec'y of Defense said, 'No, no, no. We don't have to deal with al Qaeda. Why are we talking about that little guy? We have to talk about Iraqi terrorism against the United States.' And I said, 'Paul, there hasn't been any Iraqi terrorism against the Untied States in eight years,' and I turned to the Deputy Director of [the] CIA and said, 'Isn't that right?' and he said, 'Yeah, that's right. There is no Iraqi terrorism against the United States.'
STAHL: In eight years.
CLARKE: In eight years.
STAHL: Now explain that.
STAHL (exp): {He explained that there was no Iraqi terrorism against the US after 1993 when Saddam Hussein attempted to assassinate the first President Bush while he was visiting Kuwait.}
CLARKE: We responded to that by blowing up Iraqi intelligence headquarters and by sending a very clear message through diplomatic channels to the Iraqis, saying if you do any terrorism against the United States again, it won't just be Iraqi intelligence headquarters, it'll be your whole government. It was a very chilling message. And apparently it work because there's absolutely no evidence of Iraqi terrorism since that day until we invaded them. Now there's Iraqi terrorism against the United States.
STAHL: Was there any connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda?
CLARKE: Were they cooperating? No.
STAHL: Was Iraq supporting al Qaeda?
CLARKE: No. There's absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda. Ever.
STAHL: You call certain people in the administration and they'll say that's still open ...
CLARKE: Yeah, well ...
STAHL ... that's an open issue.
CLARKE: Well they'll say that until Hell freezes over.
...
VIDEOTAPE OF GW BUSH: You can't distinguish between Al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror.
STAHL: (exp): {Clarke contends that with statements like that, the President continually left an impression that Saddam had been involved in 9/11.}
[VIDEO WITH CLARKE]
CLARKE: The White House carefully manipulated public opinion, never quite lied, but gave the very strong impression that Iraq did it.
STAHL: But you're suggesting here that they knew better --
CLARKE: They did know better.
STAHL -- and it was deliberate.
CLARKE: They did know better. They did know better. We told them. The FBI told them. The CIA told them. They did know better. And the tragedy here is that Americans went to their deaths in Iraq thinking that they were avenging September 11 when Iraq had nothing to do with September 11. I think for a Commander in Chief and a Vice President to allow that to happen is unconscionable.
STAHL (exp): {And he thinks the President to this day misinterprets the nature and the scope of the terrorist threat.}
CLARKE: He asked us after 9/11 to give him cards with pictures of the major al Qaeda leaders and tell us when they were arrested or killed so he could draw X's through their pictures, and you know, I write in the book, I have this image of George Bush sitting by a warm fireplace in the White House drawing X's through al Qaeda leaders and thinking that he's got most of them and therefore he's taken care of the problem, and while George Bush thinks he's crossing them out one by one there are all these new al Qaeda people who are being recruited who hate the United States in large measure because of what Bush has done.
STAHL (exp): {He says that the war in Iraq has not only inflamed anti-Americanism in the Arab world, it drained resources away from the fight in Afghanistan and the push to eliminate Osama bin Laden.}