Condoleeza Rice Takes On Obama

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
King Adullah: ‘we had information that he(Zaqawi) entered Iraq from a neighbouring country, where he lived and what he was doing. We informed the Iraqi authorities about all this detailed information but they didn’t respond.’
[/quote]

Cite?

Anyway, so King Abdullah “had information” that Z entered Iraq–a fact with which my evidence agrees–and absolutely no evidence that there was any official cooperation between Hussein and AQ.

Again: weak sources, innuendos, evidence-twisting, half-truths.[/quote]

Yes cite? Of the senate members of that intelligence committee only two left leaning Republicans endorsed it. No one made claims that Saddam offered any material support to Zaqawi. Nonetheless they let Zaqawi, the second most wanted terrorist in the world recuperate in a hospital and then set up training camps for suicide bombers in the Sunni triangle.
[/quote]

Except that you don’t have evidence that they let him do anything.

Now, cite this: Of the senate members of that intelligence committee only two left leaning Republicans endorsed it.[/quote]

Okay let’s assume that King Abdullah was lying and the Ba’athists didn’t know that he and two dozen followers were there. So what? They were there.[/quote]

So what–so another “fact” is, it turns out, not really a fact.

No. The fact was that Zarqawi and two dozen followers were in Iraq months before the invasion. The campaign was then waged against AQ and their allies just as it was in Afghanistan. The fact that Bush II may have chosen the theatre of operations doesn’t mean that it was an unnecessary campaign. AQ would have deployed its resources somewhere else had Iraq not been invaded. You could argue that they would have had an advantage in choosing the theatre of operations.

82

[quote]pushharder wrote:
One more thing, H-monster (and smh). When I wrote, “almost universally recognized” I wasn’t referring to “scholars and practitioners;” I was referring to the countries of the world.

So you tell me which countries around the world, and especially our allies, who have stated that Barack’s foreign policy is just plumb swell. And tell me how they compare this swell foreign policy that of, say…Bush the Younger, Clinton, Bush the Elder, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, Truman, Roosevelt, Hoover, Coolidge, Harding, Wilson, Taft, T. Roosevelt, McKinley, and hell clear back to oh say, Grover Cleveland…no…shit…take it clear back to William Henry Harrison if you want.[/quote]

I’m going to compare Obama with Bush II, and I’m going to use the only objective measure available, which is international opinion polling. I’m going to use data from Pew, which is a top-tier firm.

Confidence in the U.S. President

[Later, if I have free time, I’m going to average these. For now, I’m using 2007 for Bush–before the worldwide recession began in the 3rd Q of '08, but mainly because it’s the year with the most numbers and it’s well into his presidency. I’m using 2013 for Obama, for obvious reasons.]

Country Bush '07 Obama '13

Britain 24 72

France 14 83

Germany 19 88

Israel 57 61

Italy 30 76

Japan 35 70

Mexico 28 49

Spain 7 54

So, if you object, tell me why these data don’t matter, and offer me some actual data of your own.

83

A popularity contest eh? Obama’s foreign policy is measured by what the proletariat of a bunch of European socialists think now? Who gives a flying fuck what France, Germany or Japan thinks about anything? Maybe they should pay the US war reparations. Maybe they should be grateful they live under an umbrella of security provided by the the US.

84

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

No. The fact was that Zarqawi and two dozen followers were in Iraq months before the invasion.[/quote]

The invasion gave Z an opportunity to kill thousands of Iraqi civilians and to evade capture for another half-decade while the country was in the midst of a sectarian clusterfuck precipitated by OIF.

Saddam may have been looking for him himself. US intelligence indicated that he didn’t trust them at all.

Either way, this is not remotely close to a justification for the assfucking we took in Iraq. Do you think it’s wise to invade a country and undertake a decade of costly, bloody occupation in pursuit of a guy? Or do you think it’s better to do what Obama did with OBL?

More importantly, the goalposts–as they always do in these conversations–have shifted. At first it’s, “IT’S AN ESTABLISHED FACT THAT HUSSEIN SUCKED OBL’S DICK EVERY NIGHT THROUGHOUT ALL OF THE YEAR 2003!” Then it’s, “but this guy a 20 other people fled into Iraq, though I can’t prove they were being helped by Saddam (and, indeed, I can’t refute the suggestion that Saddam himself was probably looking for them).”

This is how these things go. It’s a Gish Gallup: Start a hundred fallacy-fires and then force your opponent to put them out. Nonsense is offered–nonsense as in things that aren’t facts, and have in fact been debunked thoroughly–as though it’s plain fact, as though it’s “the sky is blue.” Then suddenly it’s up to me to go through and take the trouble to point out that, no, a panned, outdated book from 2004 whose relevant conclusions were dismantled and demolished by DOD documentation, official reports, and committee findings a hundred times over–this is not evidence of anything. And no, “he crossed the border!” is not “he was invited into the country.”

85

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
A popularity contest eh? [/quote]
Take a look at the claim I was refuting. I’m not going to go back and hold people’s hands through this shit.

86

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

Maybe they should be grateful they live under an umbrella of security provided by the the US.[/quote]

Yes, with this I most definitely agree. I have lived in Europe and experienced much bitter smugness from people whose very livelihoods depended upon American military dominance.

87

So, “almost universally recognized” refers neither to 1. Scholars and practitioners (which is whom it should be referring to) not to 2. International opinion. What, exactly, does it refer to? What hard data can buttress the claim?

88

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

had Gaddafi lynched

[/quote]

Didn’t Reagan drop a whole pile of bombs on his palace because he was a terrorist? [/quote]

Correct he bombed a nightclub in Germany that was built to entertain U.S. servicemen…killing many.

89

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

The invasion gave Z an opportunity to kill thousands of Iraqi civilians and to evade capture for another half-decade while the country was in the midst of a sectarian clusterfuck precipitated by OIF.

[\quote]

No it didn’t ‘give him an opportunity’. He was a dedicated jihadist who fled Afghanistan and sought refuge in Iraq. He then waged a sectarian war against the Shi’ites. You’re suggesting that had we not invaded Iraq, this guy would be peacefully living somewhere and not killing people?

[quote]

Saddam may have been looking for him himself. US intelligence indicated that he didn’t trust them at all.
[\quote]

There’s also evidence several of them were captured by Iraqi intelligence then released. It’s inconclusive. What is conclusive is that he was there.

[quote]
Either way, this is not remotely close to a justification for the assfucking we took in Iraq. Do you think it’s wise to invade a country and undertake a decade of costly, bloody occupation in pursuit of a guy? Or do you think it’s better to do what Obama did with OBL?
[\quote]

Bush did kill Zaqawi. And I’m not saying invasion and occupation was wise. I’m saying it was unavoidable. Zaqawi would have waged war against the US wherever he was. He happened to be in Iraq and we went in and killed him and thousands of other jihadists. We also removed Saddam. It happened. Get over it.

[quote]

More importantly, the goalposts–as they always do in these conversations–have shifted. At first it’s, “IT’S AN ESTABLISHED FACT THAT HUSSEIN SUCKED OBL’S DICK EVERY NIGHT THROUGHOUT ALL OF THE YEAR 2003!” Then it’s, “but this guy a 20 other people fled into Iraq, though I can’t prove they were being helped by Saddam (and, indeed, I can’t refute the suggestion that Saddam himself was probably looking for them).”

This is how these things go. It’s a Gish Gallup: Start a hundred fallacy-fires and then force your opponent to put them out. Nonsense is offered–nonsense as in things that aren’t facts, and have in fact been debunked thoroughly–as though it’s plain fact, as though it’s “the sky is blue.” Then suddenly it’s up to me to go through and take the trouble to point out that, no, a panned, outdated book from 2004 whose relevant conclusions were dismantled and demolished by DOD documentation, official reports, and committee findings a hundred times over–this is not evidence of anything. And no, “he crossed the border!” is not “he was invited into the country.”[/quote]

I never shifted the goalposts. Zaqawi fled Afganistan and sought refuge in Iraq. Remember 911? They drew us into Afghanistan and then either Bush II or Zaqawi chose a new theatre of operations.

90

This is utter twaddle. The invasion was unavoidable? That’s ridiculous.

Let’s try it out this way:

Wait…but that’s not what happened, is it? Because we don’t actually have to invade countries at a cost of thousands of American lives, precipitating sectarian wars at a cost of hundreds of thousands of civilian lives, burning trillions or dollars in the process, in order to kill a guy, or a guy and his cronies. As Obama has well demonstrated.

91

“Bush did kill al-Awlaki. And I’m not saying invasion and occupation was wise. I’m saying it was unavoidable. al-Awlaki would have waged war against the US wherever he was. He happened to be in Yemen and we went in and killed him and thousands of other jihadists.”

Remember the time we invaded Yemen?

92

Yes jihadists from Pakistan are no longer a threat. The north west frontier provinces have been a threat for more than a century. The British were fighting jihadists there and in Sudan in the 19th century. The problem isn’t going to be solved by drone strikes.

93

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Yes jihadists from Pakistan are no longer a threat. The north west frontier provinces have been a threat for more than a century. The British were fighting jihadists there and in Sudan in the 19th century. The problem isn’t going to be solved by drone strikes. [/quote]

This is a non sequitur.

The point is that it is obviously nonsensical to argue that the Iraq War was unavoidable because Zarqawi was in Iraq, because that argument relies on the implication that a full-scale invasion of a country is the only way to deal with a bad guy living in that country, which was complete nonsense even before the advent of the drone and stealth helicopter.

If Bush had gone after Zarqawi as BHO went after OBL and every other terrorist he’s wanted to kill, we’d be much, much stronger and better off right now, and there would be a great many people, here and abroad, still living, and we’d have more money, and the war in Afghanistan–you know, the war we actually needed to fight–would have gone far better.

94

That simply isn’t so. OBL wasn’t active. He was hiding in a compound provided by the Pakistanis. Zaqawi [b]was[b] an active jihadist. The most active jihadist in the world at that time. Even so, after he was killed the sectarian violence he had helped spark did not diminish. You can’t compare the two. Sectarianism in Iraq was sparked by AQ and didn’t stop until we killed a lot of jihadists. The idea that The Iraq war could have been waged solely with drones is ridiculous.

95

By the way, I’m not trying to make things heated.

I have in fact been looking for an excuse to say “twaddle” for a few weeks now.

96

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
That simply isn’t so. OBL wasn’t active. He was hiding in a compound provided by the Pakistanis. Zaqawi [b]was[b] an active jihadist. The most active jihadist in the world at that time. Even so, after he was killed the sectarian violence he had helped spark did not diminish. You can’t compare the two. Sectarianism in Iraq was sparked by AQ and didn’t stop until we killed a lot of jihadists. The idea that The Iraq war could have been waged solely with drones is ridiculous.[/quote]

The idea is that it didn’t need to be waged at all, not that it could’ve been waged with drones.

The sectarian violence was sparked by the invasion.

And, again, active or not, there are about a thousand better ways to deal with a stateless terrorist–particularly when he may have been sought by the dictator whom we overthrew–that do not include invading an entire fucking country.

97

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
That simply isn’t so. OBL wasn’t active. He was hiding in a compound provided by the Pakistanis. Zaqawi was an active jihadist.[/quote]

In what way does this logically diminish the contention that people whom we want to kill can be killed without invading the countries they’re residing in? Without the clusterfuck of violence and confusion midwifed by OIF, we probably would have found Zarqawi years earlier. Awlaki was active and we got him. How many other active terrorists have we fucked up without invading countries, since 9/11? Do you know?

As I said, it is not logically valid to argue that the invasion was necessary on the grounds that a single guy and a group of his underlings were in the country, particularly in light of the fact that the dictator ousted in the invasion was probably not helping, and may have been seeking, the guy in question. The conclusion simply doesn’t follow from the premises, and the whole thing is ruined by the many, many examples to the contrary.

98

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

The idea is that it didn’t need to be waged at all, not that it could’ve been waged with drones.

The sectarian violence was sparked by the invasion.

[/quote]

It was sparked by Zaqawi. Had we not invaded he would have simply massacred Shi’ites. You’re ignoring cause and effect. We are responsible for removing Saddam and the Ba’athists. Zaqawi is responsible for the sectarian violence.

[quote]

And, again, active or not, there are about a thousand better ways to deal with a stateless terrorist–particularly when he may have been sought by the dictator whom we overthrew–that do not include invading an entire fucking country.[/quote]

Saddam was a lunatic dictator and we went in and lynched the bastard. It’s not Bush’s fault that AQ then waged an insurgency there.

100

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

The idea is that it didn’t need to be waged at all, not that it could’ve been waged with drones.

The sectarian violence was sparked by the invasion.

[/quote]

It was sparked by Zaqawi. Had we not invaded he would have simply massacred Shi’ites. You’re ignoring cause and effect. We are responsible for removing Saddam and the Ba’athists. Zaqawi is responsible for the sectarian violence…[/quote]

…which exploded in the wake of the invasion.

I am not ignoring cause and effect, you are ignoring a step in the chain.

A civil war that would have been Saddam’s problem–if it had even happened with Saddam and his (yes, lunatic) grip still in place–became ours.