Even the Captains Like Kool-Aid
While most polls continue to show Bush still kicking the 30% can down the road of presidential approval, in conjunction with support for the Iraq war well below 50% and still dropping (before Haditha really has a chance to resonate), I find myself wondering how people could actually think Iraq was worth it, that is it going well, or that it has an end in site.
In talking to the few people left who still support this war and somehow believe the mission is clear (yet still can't answer the "why are we there question") I have discovered something: There are a small minority of people who believe Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11. I'm not kidding. We on the left must be in the dark, because just when we thought that the Iraq/September 11th connection was as openly defeated, and just as bungled as our assumption that Iraq had WMD's when we invaded, I have made the discovery that people still connect Iraq to 9/11.
So there's your answer.
If you're asking yourself, as most of the country apparently is, how could anyone still think Iraq was a necessary or even smart move, this will help you understand. If one believes bitter enemies like Saddam and bin Laden cooperated in the horror we saw nearly 5 years ago, despite having directly clashing philosophies, despite the historical absence of a working relationship, despite the CIA dismissing it, despite other world intelligence agencies dismissing it, despite the 9/11 commission dismissing it, despite no one really having a shred of evidence proving otherwise, despite Germany having a greater relationship to Al Qaeda than Iraq, despite everyone in the world but this handful of people closing the book about 4 years ago and moving on - then one must believe the war in Iraq is justified. It's really that simple.
I'm currently reading Richard Clarke's book, Against all Enemies. By only the third chapter, the reader certainly has a sense of the significant role Clarke played - for decades - in terms of geopolitical power through several presidents to track, monitor, and mobilize several administrations toward combating not only terrorism but any threat to our country from the Cold War forward.
What is striking, however, is how Clarke takes the reader through the initial 9/11 attack, and the absolute dumbfoundedness, confusion and outright jaw-on-the-floor shock that he and other counter-terrorism experts felt as they watched officials in this administration, most of which are signed members of PNAC, focus their attention away from fundamentalist Islamic terrorists, to a nation that wasn't even on the radar screen as far as terrorism goes, when compared to about 15 other African and Asian nations.
When those who argue for the merits of the Iraq war mention 9/11, it's easy to feel a little nauseous, and I suspect that Randi Rhodes is no exception. Last Thursday she took a call from a captain in the Army regarding the Iraq war, who wasn't sure about the 9/11 --> Saddam connection.
Randi is not always polite to her callers, but in a time where liberals and Democrats are criticized for not having a pair, I believe she is needed. If you find her annoying, I would direct you to the tuning selector on your radio that enables you to travel the frequencies of the FM and AM spectrums to find about 46 other hosts with different opinions.
As for me, I think our side needs a bit more outrage while calling others on their bullshit. After all, this isn't a debate about tax cuts - people are dying.
And before Bush-supporters feign outrage that Randi is lecturing someine in armed forces, please cut her a little slack. Randi does have more credibility than most in the current administration when it comes to military knowledge – after all, she achieved Airman First Class in the United States Air Force.
Listen to the call:
In talking to the few people left who still support this war and somehow believe the mission is clear (yet still can't answer the "why are we there question") I have discovered something: There are a small minority of people who believe Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11. I'm not kidding. We on the left must be in the dark, because just when we thought that the Iraq/September 11th connection was as openly defeated, and just as bungled as our assumption that Iraq had WMD's when we invaded, I have made the discovery that people still connect Iraq to 9/11.
So there's your answer.
If you're asking yourself, as most of the country apparently is, how could anyone still think Iraq was a necessary or even smart move, this will help you understand. If one believes bitter enemies like Saddam and bin Laden cooperated in the horror we saw nearly 5 years ago, despite having directly clashing philosophies, despite the historical absence of a working relationship, despite the CIA dismissing it, despite other world intelligence agencies dismissing it, despite the 9/11 commission dismissing it, despite no one really having a shred of evidence proving otherwise, despite Germany having a greater relationship to Al Qaeda than Iraq, despite everyone in the world but this handful of people closing the book about 4 years ago and moving on - then one must believe the war in Iraq is justified. It's really that simple.
I'm currently reading Richard Clarke's book, Against all Enemies. By only the third chapter, the reader certainly has a sense of the significant role Clarke played - for decades - in terms of geopolitical power through several presidents to track, monitor, and mobilize several administrations toward combating not only terrorism but any threat to our country from the Cold War forward.
What is striking, however, is how Clarke takes the reader through the initial 9/11 attack, and the absolute dumbfoundedness, confusion and outright jaw-on-the-floor shock that he and other counter-terrorism experts felt as they watched officials in this administration, most of which are signed members of PNAC, focus their attention away from fundamentalist Islamic terrorists, to a nation that wasn't even on the radar screen as far as terrorism goes, when compared to about 15 other African and Asian nations.
When those who argue for the merits of the Iraq war mention 9/11, it's easy to feel a little nauseous, and I suspect that Randi Rhodes is no exception. Last Thursday she took a call from a captain in the Army regarding the Iraq war, who wasn't sure about the 9/11 --> Saddam connection.
Randi is not always polite to her callers, but in a time where liberals and Democrats are criticized for not having a pair, I believe she is needed. If you find her annoying, I would direct you to the tuning selector on your radio that enables you to travel the frequencies of the FM and AM spectrums to find about 46 other hosts with different opinions.
As for me, I think our side needs a bit more outrage while calling others on their bullshit. After all, this isn't a debate about tax cuts - people are dying.
And before Bush-supporters feign outrage that Randi is lecturing someine in armed forces, please cut her a little slack. Randi does have more credibility than most in the current administration when it comes to military knowledge – after all, she achieved Airman First Class in the United States Air Force.
Listen to the call:
posted by Jeremy at 9:03 PM
11 Comments:
it is easier to be in denial than to take a hard look at what you thought that you believed- and see that it is all lies. people have a hard time admitting mistakes and that they are wrong. it is harder for the rigid right- who believe that they are the only ones with any morals or values- to admit that their moral leader was wrong.
Jeremy, thanks for that clip. I've never heard of Randi Rhodes before this post, but she's a great debater and makes fantastic points in this segment. (By the end of the call, she makes the captain look like a total idiot.)
I'm awed by the number of people (I didn't think existed anymore) who justify Bush's Iraq war by equating Sadaam with al Qaeda. There's no evidence to suggest a link, never was any evidence to suggest a link, yet these people cling to the (now defunct) initial reason the Bushies gave for invading a non-threatening country.
In this woman's case, I think she's in desperate need for validation that she and her fellow soldiers didn't kill, suffer injuries, or die in vain, and that need is, in my book, completely understandable. Unfortunately, in this case, it's a need that will go unmet, as the neocons and radical rights are left without plausible, moral reason for putting hundreds of thousands of lives in jeopardy. The fact that Bush hasn't been impeached and none of his lackeys has been punished for war crimes is proof to me that justice in this country simply doesn't exist.
It's always their defense--so-and-so wrote a book condemning our actions, but (s)he didn't know what we knew. Never debate the information; just criticize the author.
What I find amazing is that, on the back cover of Cobra II, Dick Cheney is quoted to have called the book, "A fascinating account of the war. I recommend it to my friends as something that gives them a different element of some of the key decisions that were made." The book is, in a nutshell, a scathing indictment of the Bushies' strategies pre- and post-Iraq invasion. Was Cheney high when he read it?
most likely didn't read it. scooter probably wrote that in his name.
I really dig Randi Rhodes. She is much better then Al Fraken. I also like Ed Schultz.
it's amazing the amount of ignorance out there as to the facts.
it's amazing the amount of ignorance out there as to the facts.
GraemeAnfinson...well said, well said.
Basically everyone here agrees, and knows the facts. It’s simply really – it involves picking up a newspaper, maybe 3 minutes of Google research or whatever. The case has been closed for a while.
But you guys bring up a point and I ran smack into the other day. A woman whose son died in Iraq point blank told me I was naieve because I didn’t think Saddam had a hand in 9/11.
For me, it was the first time that I realized the points of which you speak above. A lot of people, especially with strong emotional ties, need to believe in something, and need to make a connection for their own well being and peace of mind. And if someone loses someone in the war and wants to believe their loved one was fighting against what happened on 9/11, the go for it. If you need to believe there is a connection, then perhaps its best you don’t know the truth
PS james - never heard schultz' program. I think Randi is just about the best out there, and it has nothing to do with her passion and anger. If I wanted to listen to someone go off for hours, I'd be an O'Reilly fan.
It's her citing examples, using facts, her military knowledge, her depth, the clarity of her points, etc..
Cooper, to whose ignorance are you referring?
Everyone also needs to read Cobra II
POP...my dad is reading that now...he says it's amazing. You're the 10th person who has praised it, and I can't wait to read it after I'm done with Clarke's book.
Post a Comment
<< Home