CHENEY THREATENS VOTERS WITH TERRORIST REPRISALS

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Pre-9-11, Clinton did a lot, and provided advice and data to the incoming Bush team. He made surgical strikes, and was accused of "wagging the dog".

Those particular surgical strikes were on which country involved in terrorism?

[glatt]

It would have been nice if Bush actually mentioned this stuff when pushing for war instead of saying it was all about an imminent threat to the USA.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

http://denbeste.nu/essays/strategic_overview.shtml

1. To directly reduce support for terrorist groups by eliminating one government which had been providing such support.

I've heard the allegation that Iraq paid widows of suicide bombers in Israel. That's the only evidence I've heard of such terrorist support. I've read and seen much more to point out that Saddam would have nothing to do with people like OBL because they were religious and opposed Saddam. I'm very doubtful that Iraq was much of a factor in terrorism.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

2. To place us in a physical and logistical position to be able to apply substantial pressure on the rest of the major governments of the region.

So far, it's not working out that way. We kind of have our hands full in Iraq. In fairness, I understand events don't always work out the way you plan.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

3. To convince the governments and other leaders of the region that it was no longer fashionable to blame us for their failure, so that they would stop using us as scapegoats.

This seems to have backfired. Maybe the news is only showing the negative stuff, but I hear condemnations of the US on a regular basis.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

4. To make clear to everyone in the world that reform is coming, whether they like it or not, and that the old policy of stability-for-the-sake-of-stability is dead. To make clear to local leaders that they may only choose between reforming voluntarily or having reform forced on them.

Well, the message has been sent. I think everyone got it loud and clear. It's possible that Libya fell into line as a result of Iraq. Or maybe it's more like Reagan taking credit for all the work Gorby did to tear down the wall. Either way, Libya is shaping up. That's a good thing, regardless of where the credit belongs.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

5. To make a significant long term change in the psychology of the "Arab Street"

Too soon to make a call on long term changes. Short term changes don't look so good.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

6. To "nation build". After making the "Arab Street" truly face its own failure, to show the "Arab Street" a better way by creating a secularized, liberated, cosmopolitan society in a core Arab nation. To create a place where Arabs were free, safe, unafraid, happy and successful. To show that this could be done without dictators or monarchs. (I've been referring to this as being the pilot project for "Arab Civilization 2.0".)

I pray this works. It looks like the only way we can solve the situation in Iraq now. It's not looking so good though. Aid workers are talking seriously about pulling out entirely.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

7. Not confirmed: It may have been hoped that the conquered nation would serve as a honey-pot to attract militants from the region, causing them to fight against our troops instead of planning attacks against civilians. (This was described by David Warren as the flypaper strategy.) It seems to have worked out that way, but it's not known if this was a deliberate part of the plan. Many of the defenders who died in the war were not actually Iraqis.

That would be awesome if it worked out that way.

These are all interesting reasons for the war. Hindsight is 20/20 of course, but it seems to be failing on most counts so far. We have a long road in front of us, and maybe things will improve.

I wonder if Bush and Co. ever admit to themselves as they lie awake in bed at night that it was an amazingly stupid idea and they wish they could turn back the clock?

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Those particular surgical strikes were on which country involved in terrorism?

Sudan and Afghanistan.

[Undertoad]

Those weren't the ones that were called Wag the Dog.

[tw]

Originally Posted by lookout123

tw, it is obvious that neither of us will ever convince the other or anything, but let's be clear. that statement was already discredited, because Rice referred to al quaeda by name in a speech in 2000. i will have to search for the reference on that, but i have heard the speech.

Because Rice gives a speech after she is taught about al Qaeda by Richard Clarke does not discredit anything I had posted. Keep your timeline straight. Again. What is George Jr's entire knowledge of the world from? From Wolfowich and Rice - who spent 1.5 years teaching Bush before 2000. We have an administration that was totally ignorant of current events - ie al Qaeda - when they took office. Why? They had already decided their political agenda - reality be damned.

Rice may have given a speech about al Qaeda. But if she really understood what al Qaeda was, then why did she demonte the CSG to a positions where action required months of low level review? She did it because even after the speech, she still had no idea what al Qaeda really was. The CSG was removed from Principals level because Condi Rice and the Project for a New American Century promoted their political agenda rather than learn how the world had changed. Again, the George Jr administration was in Cold War mentality even almost one year later. They saw the world in terms of confronting China and antimissile systems. For some rediculous reason, a country with a military larger that the next top five combined was still too small (which should scare every patriotic American). The reality of Oslo Accords, Muslim Brotherhood attacks on the US, separation of church and state, advancement of science, etc was completely foreign to those extremists who automatically assumed everything of Clinton was evil.

Oslo Accords were of Clinton. Therefore the Oslo Accords had to be killed. Thank you George Jr and Condi Rice for doing just that.

These are facts. The George Jr administration never even had one Principals meeting on terrorism because they had already decided that Saddam was the danger. Reality be damned - which his what an American says who votes for Geroge Jr. Now they have Americans foolishly thinking that a war in Iraq is about terrorism. Only a fool or someone who never reads the news thinks we are in Iraq to attack terrorists. They have Americans foolishly assuming all terrorism has its roots in al Qaeda. Welcome to the Muslim Brotherhood - that exists longer than the United States. They have Americans foolishly thinking that Afghansitan has been civilized or solved.

All this time, Americans who once could go most anywhere and be warmly welcome must now maintain a low profile - hope others assume they are Canadians. This because Condi Rice, et al had no idea about worldwide realities or about al Qaeda. Instead these extremists see everything in black and white; good and evil. It took 11 September to get Condi Rice is even hear what Richard Clarke was really saying and John O'Neill kept loudly warning - because she promoted ideology of the Project for New American Century. Now we will fix the world? Already the world is less safe for all Americans due to those extremist American values. Why? Because righteous extreme right Americans know what is better for the world? This is nothing but dangerous thinking once promoted by Colonial Powers.

Rice had little idea of al Qaeda until after 11 September even though she knew what the world required. Now the solution is to fix the world at the useless expense of American lives? 8000 causulties and that number will only increase. This is the same mentality that created VietNam. Ignorance at the highest levels of government created by ideology rather than by realities. We have met the enemy and he is now us.

Correct. It is obvious we will not agree because I bring to this discussion far more knowledge AND have lived through the same right wing extremist mentality when Nixon was president. Furthermore, I am not satisified with just reading the news. I am an engineer which means I cannot get enough details and other facts; must learn the why. (Remember the Iraqi invasion - when I was starved for more news coverage?)

What is happening in Iraq and Afghanistan is not new. It is classic Condi Rice or Richard Nixon trying to fix the world where the world does not want to be fixed. She did not even know what al Qaeda was when she taught George Jr about the world. No wonder America is now disliked in so many places where we once had friends. Deja Vue all over again.

[lookout123]

Originally Posted by tw

Correct. It is obvious we will not agree because I bring to this discussion far more knowledge AND have lived through the same right wing extremist mentality when Nixon was president. Furthermore, I am not satisified with just reading the news. I am an engineer which means I cannot get enough details and other facts; must learn the why. (Remember the Iraqi invasion - when I was starved for more news coverage?)

no the reason that we will never agree is not about knowledge or individual facts that one or the other of us holds - it is that we have basic philosophical differences. we approach the world from different starting points so when we absorb the same information we will focus on different areas and come up with different solutions. this doesn't make one right and the other wrong. it makes us different. the fact that we have different views and the freedom to express them is what has lent america its strength over the last 200 years.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Those weren't the ones that were called Wag the Dog.

Yes they were.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Those [Sudan and Afghanistan] weren't the ones that were called Wag the Dog.

As a result of bombings on the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, Clinton deperately sought 1) proof of who did it, and 2) an appropriate response. Item one is not disputed. This was the event that demonstrated al Qaeda was something more than a financing group for terrorism; the first time that the al Qaeda branch of Muslim Brotherhood was considered a serious threat.

from Richard Clarke's Against All Enemies
If we though this was the best time to hit the Afghan camps, he would order it and take the heat for "Wag the Dog" criticism that we all knew would happen, for the media and congressional reaction that would say that he was using a military strike to divert attention from his deposition in the investigation. (Wag the Dog was a movie that had been released that year, in which fictional presidential advisors created an artifical crisis with Albania to attack it and divert attention from domestic problems. Ironically, Clinton was blamed for a "Wag the Dog" strategy in 1998 dealing with the real threat from al Qaeda but no one labeled Bush's 2003 war on Iraq as a "Wag the Dog" move even thought the "crisis" was manufacturered and the Bush political advisor Karl Rove was telling Republicans to "run on the war".)

Furthermore, this was not the only time Clinton had attempted military strikes on al Qaeda. This particular strike, of course, was easily predicted by Pakistan who saw numerous US destroyer conjugating. The Pakistan Navy told their government in advance AND the US had to inform Pakistan in advance so that Pakistan would not assume an Indian surprise attack. All this probably alerted al Qaeda who quickly abandoned the targeted camps. Which begs the question of who really is the American ally? The one who warns al Qaeda and promotes nuclear proliferation?

But yes, the Sudan and Afghanistan reprisals were unjustified accusations of Clinton doing Wag the Dog. Since right wing extremist commentators don't accuse George Jr of same, then many of us don't accuse George of playing the same game. Yes, it begs the question - what are your sources of information? Based upon facts or based upon political agenda spin - ie Rush Limbaugh?

[tw]

Originally Posted by lookout123

no the reason that we will never agree is not about knowledge or individual facts that one or the other of us holds - it is that we have basic philosophical differences. we approach the world from different starting points so when we absorb the same information we will focus on different areas and come up with different solutions. this doesn't make one right and the other wrong. it makes us different.

A valid point that was also demonstrated in the Philosophy discussion group in a thread entitled "logistical logistics".

Originally Posted by lookout123

no the reason that we will never agree is not about knowledge or individual facts that one or the other of us holds - it is that we have basic philosophical differences. we approach the world from different starting points so when we absorb the same information we will focus on different areas and come up with different solutions. this doesn't make one right and the other wrong. it makes us different. the fact that we have different views and the freedom to express them is what has lent america its strength over the last 200 years.

I think you make a very interesting point here, Lookout. We all look at the world through our own individual filters. I think that's why it's good that people can come together in places such as The Cellar and state our points of view and debate the differences. Believe it or not, some of your posts have allowed me to widen my own field of perception and catch a glimpse of things I had never thought about before. I mean like once or twice maybe, in a funny sort of way. I'm still not going to be your new best friend, but I kind of respect you when you're not calling me names.

[xoxoxoBruce]

I wonder if Bush and Co. ever admit to themselves as they lie awake in bed at night that it was an amazingly stupid idea and they wish they could turn back the clock?

No, that's for people that are not doing God's work.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

7. Not confirmed: It may have been hoped that the conquered nation would serve as a honey-pot to attract militants from the region, causing them to fight against our troops instead of planning attacks against civilians. (This was described by David Warren as the flypaper strategy.) It seems to have worked out that way, but it's not known if this was a deliberate part of the plan. Many of the defenders who died in the war were not actually Iraqis.

Funny quote from Josh Marshall:

As a TPM reader put it to me both hilariously and brilliantly more than a year ago, this 'fly paper' thesis is like saying we're going to build one super dirty hospital where we can fight the germs on our own terms.

And the Iraqi civilians are the patients.

[Happy Monkey]

Here's a depressing article on Rove's tactics in elections.

Some of [Judge Mark] Kennedy's campaign commercials touted his volunteer work, including one that showed him holding hands with children. "We were trying to counter the positives from that ad," a former Rove staffer told me, explaining that some within the See camp initiated a whisper campaign that Kennedy was a pedophile. "It was our standard practice to use the University of Alabama Law School to disseminate whisper-campaign information," the staffer went on. "That was a major device we used for the transmission of this stuff.