Al-Zarqawi Dead

[Gusterfell]

What's Bush's Waco?

Iraq. It's Waco a hundred times over.

I've never said I wasn't partisan. I'm a liberal, so of course I'm going to like Clinton better than Bush. However, I think for myself. There are issues on which I disagreed with Clinton, and there are even issues where I agree with Bush. If we were talking about issues where I feel Clinton deserves criticism, I would by all means do so. However, everything that has been brought up have been non-issues that the Republicans used to attack a president they felt was too strong on the issues. Look at the results: While fighting off partisan attacks, Clinton presided over a period of unpecedented growth and prosperity, while eliminating the national debt and directing a foreign policy that promoted peace,rather than war. Yes, he had his problems, but they pale in comparison to the mess Bush has made. Bush has endured many attacks from the left, but they are attacks on his handling of the issues, not personal problems dredged up by the opposition.

If you really believe Clinton was wagging the dog, how can you also believe Iraq was a legitimate threat? I don't see the logic there.

[damus]

Iraq. It's Waco a hundred times over.

I've never said I wasn't partisan. I'm a liberal, so of course I'm going to like Clinton better than Bush. However, I think for myself. There are issues on which I disagreed with Clinton, and there are even issues where I agree with Bush. If we were talking about issues where I feel Clinton deserves criticism, I would by all means do so. However, everything that has been brought up have been non-issues that the Republicans used to attack a president they felt was too strong on the issues to be vulnerable. Look at the results: Clinton presided over a period of unrecedented growth and prosperity, while eliminating the national debt and directing a foreign policy that proloted peace,rather than war. Yes, he had his problems, but they pale in comparison to the mess Bush has made.

If you really believe Clinton was wagging the dog, how can you also believe Iraq was a legitimante threat? I don't see the logic there.

Clinton also attacked Kosovo and Sudan, right? I honestly think that "wagging the dog" was factored in as a reason to order the airstrike, especially considering the timing.

How is Iraq Waco a thousand times over? Waco was the government murdering religious extremists because the government didn't feel that the 2nd amendment means anything anymore. Iraq involved the leader of a rouge nation, one whose leader ordered the assasination of a US President.

Chinagate involved Clinton appointees and his fund raisers being wired money from Chinese Intelligence, then wiring the money to Clinton's election fund. The Cox report (1999) found that the Chinese had "stolen" advanced nuclear weapon technology. Members of Clinton's staff were "aware" of the thefts in 1995, but Clinton was not "notified" until 1997. Somehow, this serious case of espionage was not immediately made public by our commander in chief. If it wasn't for this, China would not have the capability to strike the west coast, or go into space for that matter.

[dimebag1980]

Now please, let's get back to Al-Zarqawi.

Okay! He was a pitiful puke and a waste of human life. I'm glad we got him, but we've now got to get his "fearless leader."

[damus]

I think it's that they're too afraid of the voter's wrath... and the international community. Imagine the wrath if we did to Iraq what the allies did to postwar Germany?

[monsoon]

This is no longer a discussion on Al-Zarqawi.

His death is irrelevant in the scheme of things. Bush said yesterday that it won't make any difference at all in bringing the troops home from Iraq. That is the real test as if it made a difference over there and in a war that has no goals, no plans, and no endpoint, ie "war without end", they can kill them all and our government will still create reasons to fight war.

[hood]

When it comes to Al-Zarqawi, his death makes little or no difference, as with any terrorist leader there are many more waiting to take his place. His death will only martyrize him, making him a great war hero.

I think I've listed enough on Clinton. Please explain to me how Bush is more scandal ridden than this man.

I'm only going to make this one post regarding Bush scandals, because this is after all an Al-Zarqawi thread.

Here is a listing of some of the better known scandals, I'm sure that if the Dems take ahold of the house and get to investigate Bush (the way the GOP did Clinton) we will find much, much more.

Haliburton (Don't forget, Cheney was their CEO):

no-bid contracts in Iraq

overcharging military for fuel in Iraq

not properly documenting where government money went

no bid contracts in New Orleans after Katrina

Administration re-routed $700 million from the war in Afghanistan budget to prepare for an Iraq invasion without notifying congress.

Great Brittain and US eavesdropped on members of the UN before the vote on the Iraq War.

Tom Delay, scandals, scandals and more scandals.

Case for going to Iraq

Valerie Plame

Abu Ghraib

Guantanamo Bay

Medicare reform, various lies and such

Claim that Saddam tried to buy Uranium from Niger

I left out some scandals, such as Cheneys energy task force, the "mission accomplished" deal, the fact that GW went AWOL from the Guard and I of course left out that he used to be a cokehead and alchoholic, because thats personal business and is of no concern to me. I'm sure I missed some so if anyone has anything to add feel free.

[damus]

http://www.nbc4i.com/news/9351294/detail.html

An Iraqi man who was one of the first people on the scene after an airstrike that led to the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi told Associated Press Television News that he saw American troops beating a man who had a beard like the al-Qaida leader.

The witness said he saw the man lying on the ground, badly wounded but still alive. He said U.S. troops arriving on the scene wrapped the man's head in an Arab robe and began beating him. His account cannot be independently verified.

The spokesman for the U.S.-led forces in Iraq says troops tried to provide medical attention after they saw that al-Zarqawi was alive but he recognized them as American troops and tried to get away.

I thought that probably happened. I'm happy. The best justice for him would've been for US forces to catch him and cut off his head with a dull knife with a webcam broadcasting it to the world, but that wouldn't have made the UN too happy...

[PghUSA]

Amazing how dismissive some on the left are of the significance of this. Of course this won't end the war, anyone have any answer to that?

It is a major victory, just watch the tape again of how the Iraqi people and their arab neighbors reacted to the news he would never terrorize them again. Tell me that is not the textbook definition of "success", they partied more then Steelers fans did after 26 years of Super Bowl drought. If Pittsburgh can take pride in hoisting a sports trophy, we all can take much pride in winning a "real life" victory.

[damus]

When it comes to Al-Zarqawi, his death makes little or no difference, as with any terrorist leader there are many more waiting to take his place. His death will only martyrize him, making him a great war hero.

I'm only going to make this one post regarding Bush scandals, because this is after all an Al-Zarqawi thread.

Here is a listing of some of the better known scandals, I'm sure that if the Dems take ahold of the house and get to investigate Bush (the way the GOP did Clinton) we will find much, much more.

A lot of those are non-scandals, though some do have some merit and do not add up to the level that Clinton's did. Halliburton is the leader in what they do and there really aren't that many companies with the experience they have, though I guess I can kinda see how it's shady since he still owns the stock. How was "mission accomplished" a scandal, it was more of a screwup. The case for going to Iraq is not a scandal. Prove that there weren't WMDs, but the Niger thing does count as a scandal. What does Tom DeLay's scandal have to do with Bush? If we were going to attack parties I could have gone into the Kennedys. What about senate minority leader Reid's recent scandal?

Medicare reform isn't a scandal, it's bad policy. Eavesdropping on members of the U.N.... That's the way the government has worked since J. Edgar Hoover's FBI. Re-routing the $700 million, not too scandelous in my opinion.. Guantomino Bay is a scandal cooked up by the media and people on the left. They are not citizens of the USA and are not guaranteed due process as prisoners of war.

The plame affair... a scandal. I think this one was more of a silly gossip thing than anything, but yeah it was wrong. What was the one where Bush classified something than talked about it (thus declassifying it, he can do that) to people who would not have been "in the know". I think it was this one, but I'm not sure.

While you're on the subject of military service, didn't Clinton dodge the draft? It seems like the left has been looking for scandals to bring down the Bush administration, Clinton definately had shadier stuff going on around him... Having said that, I'm going to try and ignore politically loaded posts from now on and try to avoid these pointless arguments that go nowhere.

[dimebag1980]

Amazing how dismissive some on the left are of the significance of this. Of course this won't end the war, anyone have any answer to that?

That's been my thought all along. Who in their right mind would actually think this would end the war? Come on now...

And it's a huge victory but we still have a long way to go. No one knows how long the war will last, just as with every other war in history. That's the thing about war: it's absolutley unpredictable.

[monsoon]

Amazing how dismissive some on the left are of the significance of this. Of course this won't end the war, anyone have any answer to that?

Because we are not fighting a war in Iraq. A war is between govenments and the war was over when we conquered Saddam's regime. Lest we forget this bit of chest beating along with plates piled high of Freedom Fries.

This was replaced by the "war on terror", a war on an emotrion. LOL It's just a platitude that allows the Bush administration to do as it pleases. Why not a war on Terrorists? Because the success or failure of that, based on some set goals, can be measured and that is the last thing this administration wants. i.e how many terrorists did you kill today, how many terrorist plots did you stop, and so forth.

So instead, we have, 120,000 troops sitting in Iraq getting shot at, $240,000,000 going up in smoke everyday, and hundreds of innocent people getting killed each day. The bigger deal are the several dozen innocent Iraqs that are under our care, that have been killed in Iraq after Al-Zarquai's death.

Tell me how the death of Al Zarquawi is significant in the face of this continuing human and economic disaster put for by the idiot running this country.

[PghUSA]

First, the Iraqis aren't "under our care" they are under their own care, we aren't the British or French empires.

You make some very good points metro, but I have to ask, then we should not have gone after Al Zarquawi? What is the alternative approach? Even leading Dems contend that they would not STOP fighting but fight it differently. Still the millions up in smoke, still the innocents dying, still the terror bombings.

[Gusterfell]

First, the Iraqis aren't "under our care" they are under their own care, we aren't the British or French empires.

Right, we're the American Empire. A few years ago, a senior Bush advisor said as much:

[monsoon]

Even leading Dems contend that they would not STOP fighting but fight it differently.

Many many Democrats are saying that we should leave now. The Iraqs have their freedom, they have their government, they have their constitution, they have all the money in the world they could possibly want in their oil reserves and their former dictator is in jail. They should be able to do anything they like without our help now. You just said the Iraqs are no longer under our care. So our soldiers don't need to be there anymore.

We need to get out of that country and start taking care of out own now. I could care less if Iraqis want to shoot at each other because religion has divided them. That isn't our problem and our soldiers and taxpayers should not be continuing paying the price.

[GRDadof3]

I agree that Bush needs to develop a draw down plan, and soon, because next year is an election year, and it will be turned into a political circus. "Political stability" has such a vague definition that it could vary all over the map, depending on who is doing the defining. One man's peace is another man's civil war. It's time to take Iraq's training wheels off.

BTW: I read today that Zarqawi's killing gave Bush quite a jump in the polls.

And I don't buy the argument earlier that you can't kill a terrorist because another will take his/her place. What, I shouldn't bother wiping my ass because tomorrow I'll take another dump?

[dimebag1980]

Many many Democrats are saying that we should leave now. The Iraqs have their freedom, they have their government, they have their constitution, they have all the money in the world they could possibly want in their oil reserves and their former dictator is in jail. They should be able to do anything they like without our help now. You just said the Iraqs are no longer under our care. So our soldiers don't need to be there anymore.

We need to get out of that country and start taking care of out own now. I could care less if Iraqis want to shoot at each other because religion has divided them. That isn't our problem and our soldiers and taxpayers should not be continuing paying the price.

Am I really about to say this? Oh hell yes I am...

Very true, very true. We've done what we needed to do in Iraq. I'm of the mindset, the more I see, that we're doing nothing but occupying now. Like GRDadof3 said, "It's time to take Iraq's training wheels off." I couldn't have said it any better myself. They can move forward without us now, and they should be given the opportunity to do for themselves.

[Gusterfell]

BTW: I read today that Zarqawi's killing gave Bush quite a jump in the polls.

You have a source for that? It isn't what I've been hearing.

We won't be getting out anytime soon. Too many people with too much power are making too much money off the war. If you read between the lines it's a pretty transparent scheme.

[GRDadof3]

You have a source for that? It isn't what I've been hearing.

We won't be getting out anytime soon. Too many people with too much power are making too much money off the war. If you read between the lines it's a pretty transparent scheme.

On the cover of USA Today at the newstand:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...l-results_x.htm

[dimebag1980]

I just love how the different media outlets can contradict one another. This is why i try not to put too much stock in what the media has to say about things. One media outlet's poll could be completely different from another's, and even their stories can be totally different depending on thier sources.

[damus]

The replacement for Al Zarqawi has said that the worst is yet to come... I don't know what the capacity of al Qaeda is today; this is something that I can imagine he'd be saying whether they were preparing for big 9/11 style attacks or if they're in a situation like Nazi Germany's last days. Hitler was known to have been defiant til the end, and these terrorists seem to be just as insane.

[Inkdaub]

Terrorism and terrorists aren't going anywhere. That is not an enemy to be vanquished through military might and attempting to do so is foolish at best. Who cares that Al Zarqawi is dead. There are hundreds if not thousands ready to take his place. All our time, money and blood spent in Iraq will not change that even a little bit.

Still, let's just keep plugging away at it. YeeeeeeHaaaaawwww!

[GRDadof3]

Terrorism and terrorists aren't going anywhere. That is not an enemy to be vanquished through military might and attempting to do so is foolish at best. Who cares that Al Zarqawi is dead. There are hundreds if not thousands ready to take his place. All our time, money and blood spent in Iraq will not change that even a little bit.

Still, let's just keep plugging away at it. YeeeeeeHaaaaawwww!

You're right. And let's stop going after criminals too because more criminals will just take their place. Yee...haw....

[damus]

Terrorism and terrorists aren't going anywhere. That is not an enemy to be vanquished through military might and attempting to do so is foolish at best. Who cares that Al Zarqawi is dead. There are hundreds if not thousands ready to take his place. All our time, money and blood spent in Iraq will not change that even a little bit.

Still, let's just keep plugging away at it. YeeeeeeHaaaaawwww!

How do you suggest we get rid of terrorism? I'm sure if you allowed for them to take Iraq as their "ideal" state where they could deny every human right they desire, they'd still be out after the "infidels" in the west. The Islamic extremists aren't fighting for sovereignty, they're modern day Nazis.

[monsoon]

....... The Islamic extremists aren't fighting for sovereignty, they're modern day Nazis.

Its far far far more complicated than that simplification. The Nazi's were fighting for sovereignty and the analogy isn't even close to being correct.

In the case of Iraq, we attacked the only secular nation in the Middle East. Saddam Hussein had Christians on his ruling council. Contrast that to Saudi Arabia, Bush's friend, where the Whabbist sect of Islam is taught were Christians are described as worse than dogs in school and it is the duty to kill infidels. This is where the seeds of 9-11 were sewn. There were no terrorists before we blew into Iraq as Saddam was a unhappy with them as we are and he kept them out. It's Bush's niave attempts at "nation building" which he said in 2000 he wasn't going to do, that have led to the hopeless situation today.

The extremists in the middle east hate us because we continue to support corrupt and hated governments in order to pump oil out of the place. If we really want to address that problem, then we need a better policy in the middle east than a big stick.

[Gusterfell]

You're right. And let's stop going after criminals too because more criminals will just take their place. Yee...haw....

The difference is that the very act of fighting terrorists militarily creates more terrorists. People resort to terrorism when they become desperate enough to escape some form of oppression that they feel they have no other choice. Launching military invasions of sovereign nations, locking people up and torturing them without charges, allowing contractors to go on shooting sprees on busy highways... without fear of prosecution, all these things make enough ordinary people willing to resort to desperate acts that we have a problem.

Trying to eliminate terrorism through violence is like trying to put out a fire with gasoline. If you want to win the war on terror, you need to address the underlying cause. Look at Northern Ireland for an example of this. In our case, terrorism will be an increasing threat until US policy in the Middle East changes. Despite what the Bush administration loves to tell you, they don't hate us because of our freedom, nor do they intend to fight until they wipe out every last American. They hate us for the reason metro stated: we prop up oppressive, dictatorial regimes throughout the region for our own benefit. Stop that, and the problem will solve itself.