Comments

Entry: One-Sided Conversation With A Liberal Wednesday, January 07, 2004

After trying to get many Liberals to calmly enumerate their reasons for opposition to the liberation of Iraq from Saddam Hussein for well over a year without the conversation devolving into a Bush-bashing flame war, I was surprised to see a post on the Iraqi blog Iraq the Model from a Liberal poster doing exactly that! He was using the usual Liberal tactic of throwing a blizzard of attacks all at once, believing that no one would be able to take them all in at once, much less refute them. Since I refuse to let the following list and rebuttal take over the comments section of that blog (which wouldn't be fair to the people trying to have actual conversations there), I decided to post my answers here.

The war was opposed for these reasons.

Bush lied about the reason for it.

Wrong. All the reasons given for removing Saddam Hussein from power in the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq, dated 16 October 2002, were correct and true. See this line-by-line analysis of that document and whether each reason was, in fact, justified: Justification: A Post-War Review

He claimed Iraq was a threat to America because of WMDs and connections to terrorists.

Correct, and proven.
1997 UNSCOM final report on Iraq's unresolved disarmament issues
Iraq's Unresolved Disarmament Issues -- 6 March 2003
Evidence of cooperation between Saddam and Osama
Saddam and Osama part II
Ansar al-Islam, Iraqi intelligence, and al-Qaeda
Iraqi Intelligence Chief met with bin Laden in Khartoum
Saddam Killed Abu Nidal over al-Qaeda Training
Sabah Khodada: Iraqi Intelligence trained al-Qaeda
Iraq and al-Qaeda: Connecting the Dots in 1998
Second 9/11 hijacker tied to Abu Nidal, Iraq
9/11 Plaintiffs Win Case Against Iraq

It was only after these reasons failed to sway global opinion to support his war that the reason shifted to liberating the people of Iraq.

Wrong. See again the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq, in which all the reasons for the liberation of Iraq were listed, at the same time, and voted into law by the Congress of the United States. Also, see President Bush's speech to the United Nations, given on 12 September 2002.

Maybe if Bush really did want to liberate Iraq and had said so from the start instead of lying, there would have been less opposition to the war.

Wrong. France, Germany, Russia and China still had lucrative economic ties to Iraq, supplying them with military equipment in return for oil contracts. France and Russia also had deals to work towards getting the sanctions lifted, in return for exploitation rights in Iraq's vast untapped oil fields.

The world is not comfortable with the US being the arbiter of what is right and wrong in the world.

The world seems pretty comfortable castigating us for NOT being the global policeman, when they want us to be. Two words: North Korea.

Forcing democracy on a nation has been proven by history to be an uneffective way of democratizing the world

US to Iraqis: You can now decide your own future!
Iraqis in Liberalworld: But we don't WANT to!!

Reminder: Japan was not a democracy until 1945. They seem to be doing quite well today.

The US did not explore any alternatives to war.

Twelve years of sanctions which only hurt the Iraqi people. Twelve years of practically begging Saddam on our hands and knees to please keep his promises so we didn't have to keep ours. Giving him one last chance after one last chance after one last chance to do so.

Bush is just plain ignorant.

HAHAHAHA!!! I just knew you couldn't maintain that false tone of rationality without resorting to an ad hominem attack on President Bush!

He is so unskilled at diplomacy that he can't even get support for an idea like removing a brutal, murderous dictator from power.

United Nations Security Council resolution number 1441, passed 15 to 0.
A Coalition of Nations was formed to free Iraq, with over 48 countries openly supporting it as of March 2003.
Japan forgives Iraqi debt
France and Germany work to forgive Iraqi debt
Russia forgives Iraqi debt
North Korea agrees to nuclear inspections

Master-strokes of international diplomacy, actually.

All nations are free to chose what they will or will not support in the world.

Except, apparently, America... which must have the blessing and support of the UN in Liberalworld.

28 comments


	Kerry Dupont January 6, 2004 10:24 PM PST Cav, thanks for taking this off from O,A,M's page. I did the same thing with Layth about 6 weeks ago at Alaa's although he didn't last as long as R has. There are plenty of us there that want to read what our hosts say and comment on their post, and would still be happy to take on R, or discuss other historical threads that come up, but our gracious Iraqi hosts' site is not the place for it, agreed. Thanks for providing the forum. And the "fisking", you are born for it with the quick comebacks!


	Robert McClelland January 6, 2004 10:38 PM PST Nice disingenious snipping work.


	JM January 6, 2004 11:17 PM PST The only sentences missing were "Sure there are examples where force has worked, but they are few in number." (which actually refutes your own statement that force is ineffective) and "Bush declared that war was the only option." which is simply a ridiculous statement. I can't refute that which was never said. There was also some stuff about global imperialism. Same answer.


	Robert McClelland January 7, 2004 12:33 AM PST What is missing is this part which clearly shows that I was not making a case against the war. I was making a case against Ali's misunderstanding of why people were against the war. Ali blogged this: The most common objection, these days, against supporting the USA is that she had (installed) Saddam, supported him and supplied him with destructive and chemical weapons that he used against the Iranians and his own people, and that just when he became not useful to them they decided to get rid of him. I responded with this: No it's not. The fact that the US supported Saddam has nothing to do with opposition to the war. The war was opposed for these reasons. CavX snipped the relevant part in order to attack my off the cuff list of reasons that most people opposed the war on. It is the height of disingeniousness, but it doesn't surprise me. That is the only thing right wingers are good at. That and making stuff up.


	JM January 7, 2004 04:48 AM PST Robert, this bizarre objection of yours doesn't EVEN make sense. Of course, it doesn't surprise me. That is the only thing left wingers are good at. That and making stuff up. You said "The war was opposed for these reasons", and listed the most common reasons (in your opinion) the war was opposed, which I then demolished. And the part YOU'RE deliberately leaving out is that even Ali knows that the US was NOT responsible for Saddam. "Here there is no evidence whatever that the American administration or the CIA had helped Saddam more than Russia with her KGB, France, china, England and many other Arab nations. As for Saddam�s weapons it�s well known that his weapons were mainly made in Russia and France and that France provided the nuclear reactor with the help of many Arab countries (in financing) and German and Italian private firms. While I�m sure that most of you know that there is no such thing as (technology for producing chemical weapons) as these are very easy to manufacture and do not require western or eastern help."


	Robert McClelland January 7, 2004 02:10 PM PST You still don't get it. I was not presenting an argument against the war. I was presenting an argument against Ali's misconceptions about why people were against the war. My list wasn't even a list of reasons I was opposed to the war. It was simply a list of some of the most common reasons people opposed the war. You can't argue against something that is simply not there. Of course, that never stops a right winger from trying.


	JM January 7, 2004 03:53 PM PST Looks like "the most common reasons" were wrong. That means that those who refused to support the war based on those reasons were (to be kind) in error about that.


	Robert McClelland January 7, 2004 05:21 PM PST No they weren't.


	Max January 8, 2004 01:24 AM PST Nice job, Cav! I'd like to request permission to reprint, including your site address, to almuajaha.com. Appreciated re-reading the Frontline interview. That was the camp at Salman Pak, wasn't it? In addition, did anything ever come of the Terry Nichols visit to Philippines (supposedly to visit Ramzi Youssef) which was including in the OKC Bombing Law Suit? Was the last law suit dropped (victims v. The Republic of Iraq?)


	JM January 8, 2004 04:25 AM PST Thanks, Max! Yes, feel free to post that, as long as its attributed. The camp discussed on Frontline was indeed Salman Pak, as evidenced by the Boeing 707 found there. The Terry Nichols-al-Qaeda connection is still unproven, as far as I know. And thanks for reminding me about the legal action against Iraq; I'll add that link to the list right now!


	Name January 8, 2004 12:07 PM PST Robert - "You still don't get it. I was not presenting an argument against the war. I was presenting an argument against Ali's misconceptions about why people were against the war." At one point, perhaps, but when people started replying you started arguing that those were valid reasons. If things got out of control, it is primarily that you started in on saying things like "Bush lied" rather than the simple statement made here. I'll just mention, not repeat, your "mud men" post. Way to go, guy. ----------------- The January 10 2003 New York Times quoted French President Chirac on the US call for enforcing 1441 and other resolutions as stating unequivocally that he would never agree to using force to depose Saddam no matter what Saddam did. And if you want to say Pres. Bush "lied" about WMD's, then you have to say that Chirac, Putin, and Schroeder did as well. Other than Saddam's own, I have heard of NO intelligence agency that said - prior to March 2003 - he had no WMD's as of the end of 2002. Come to that, I've only heard Herr Blix say that he must have destroyed them all in 1991-1993. Even Scott Ritter points up that he was finding undeclared stockpiles of chemical weapons in 1998, he just says they would have deteriorated by 2002 even if they were not destroyed.


	John Anderson again January 8, 2004 01:00 PM PST Robert, I apologize - the mudmen thing was a troll, not you, and I should have known it.


	Name January 8, 2004 10:03 PM PST Wow. So Robert has moved into the alleys to fight, has he? Cav, Robert has GUNS, so he is not Liberal. I have guns (actually have trophies for pointing them at things and pulling the trigger) and I am a Liberal, at least by the old definitions. Why does Liberalism need admonishing, when it seems the villain has many faces? What is wwrong with being Liberal these days? I don't get it. I THOUGHT I was a reasonable guy, easy to get along with, kind, caring, that type of thing.....


	JM January 8, 2004 10:15 PM PST Like most things in real life, there's no hard dividing line between Liberals and Conservatives. Just because someone owns guns doesn't mean they're not Liberals, and vice versa. As for how most -- the hardcore -- Liberals differ from those of yesteryear, see "When Good Liberals Go Bad", the first article I had published at Useless-Knowledge (below). http://www.useless-knowledge.com/articles/new/021.html and "How To Be A Hypocritical Liberal" at http://www.useless-knowledge.com/columnists/joemariani/article19.html


	geo January 9, 2004 04:19 PM PST Geez... This liberal's comments got deleted off your blogosphere...


	JM January 9, 2004 04:22 PM PST That's right; I don't allow insulting or trashy comments.


	Robert McClelland January 9, 2004 06:13 PM PST >Robert has GUNS, so he is not Liberal. You Americans really don't understand sarcasm, do you?


	JM January 9, 2004 07:37 PM PST Robert, while I applaud your effort to find actual evidence to support your argument this time, I feel compelled to point out that Colin Powell is the US Secretary of State, not a part of the US Department of Defense. Of COURSE he never saw the classified internal DoD raw data.


	Robert McClelland January 9, 2004 08:42 PM PST >Of COURSE he never saw the classified internal DoD raw data. He was pretty confident when he made his presentation to the UN. Now however, he is not so confident. Why the change? Oh, right, because it was all a bunch of hyped up bs.


	JM January 9, 2004 08:50 PM PST Give over, Robert. Powell's presentation to the UN was about WMDs, not terrorist links. Nice try, though.


	Robert McClelland January 10, 2004 02:07 PM PST "I want to bring to your attention today [to] the potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the al-Qaida terrorist network...al-Qaida affiliates based in Baghdad now coordinate the movement of people, money and supplies into and throughout Iraq for Saddam's network, and they have now been operating freely in [Baghdad]."- Secretary of State Colin Powell, 2/5/03 You were saying?


	JM January 10, 2004 02:50 PM PST You mean to tell me that Colin Powell actually read the New York Times printing of George Tenet's 7 Oct 2002 letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee in which he stated, "We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda going back a decade"? What is the world COMING to? http://foi.missouri.edu/terrorintelligence/cialetter.html Enjoy.


	Liberalworld resident January 13, 2004 08:31 PM PST Perhaps you'd care to read PBS's follow-on interview with Chalabi - where he comes up with such precious gems as the following. Full link at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/truth/interviews/chalabi.html [rest of lengthy cut-and-paste deleted for length]


	JM January 13, 2004 08:35 PM PST Chelabi, schmelabi. What does he have to do with it? Like any other source... some of his information is good, some is bad, and it's the job of the CIA to sift through it. Are you saying the CIA didn't do a really great job? Good, we agree.


	Liberalworld resident January 14, 2004 08:14 AM PST Well, if you're going to put up statements like "Correct and Proven" and then post a link to one of Chalabi's prime "informants" (Khodada) as to the Hussein/Al Qaeda link, I figure you might as well post both sides of the story...


	Name January 14, 2004 08:44 AM PST Oh, Liberal.... Chalabi was not the source of the information, Khodada was. Why would interviewing Chalabi tell you more about Khodada's veracity? That would be like interviewing Paul O'Neill about the veracity of George Tenet's assertion regarding al-Qaeda.


	Liberalworld resident January 14, 2004 09:31 AM PST http://tvset.org/hersch00.html For information on Chalabi and his "intelligence assets".


	JM January 14, 2004 10:25 AM PST Your opinion of Chalabi is immaterial -- I don't like him myself. Your opinion of Rumsfeld is immaterial. Neither has any bearing on the provability of the data. Was the data good? Was it backed up by other sources? Have links between Saddam and al-Qaeda been known for over ten years? Yes.

Leave a Comment:

Name

Homepage (optional)

Comments