- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Groenhagen: "Bin Laden in 1997 said he would send Clinton "messages with no words" in response to Clinton's policies vis-a-vis Iraq."
Way to cherry-pick, there. Bin Laden had a laundry list of reasons, with that being just one small aspect. Bin Laden's justifcation involved the U.S.'s entire history of meddling in the Middle East and other Islamic regions.
Still, what's your point? I don't recall anybody here claiming that Clinton had the situation well in hand until Bush came along. The main point is that Bush's solution made matters worse.
If you're going to insist on bringing up Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, etc., then let's talk about the fact that there was NO connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda prior to the invasion, whereas now, whoops, we've created a breeding ground for all sorts of insurgents from a whole variety of factions.
That your big success story, smart guy?
Groenhagen: "That declaration was followed by the bombing of our embassies in Africa in August 1998, the bombing of the USS Cole in October 2000, and 9/11."
Thanks for the history lesson, professor. You forgot to mention the bombing in Saudi Arabia, though. You're a little off your game here.
Groenhagen: "It appears that Iraq was bin Laden's main "justification" for those messages with no words."
Is "it appears that" your secret code for "I'm pulling my argument out of my butt"? Bin Laden said much more than that. Why don't you refer to what he actually said instead of what you're selectively pinpointing for the self-serving purposes of your argument?
Groenhagen: "I provided sources to confirm the reality. All you moonbats have is invective."
What's that, wingnut chickenhawk hypocrite? I can't hear you over the cacophanous droning idiocy otherwise known as your inability to use fundamental reason.
It's nice you went to school or read a book, but too bad nobody taught you plain sense.
Groenhagen: ""While you were doing your research, what did you learn about how Saddam Hussein came into power to begin with?" I believe he came to power when Carter was president."
WRONG! This just proves you didn't do your homework. Saddam Hussein was a nobody until Rumsfeld and friends got their mitts on him during the Reagan era, priming him to become top their proxy swinging dick against the Soviets' top proxy. Who cared if he ended up oppressing his own people? Nothing a little slap on the wrist couldn't take care of, right? But wait, here we are 15 years down the road and you're pretending that Saddam Hussein was some sort of self-made dictator who had to be taken out for humanitarian purposes? Go back to school.....go get yourself another award.
Groenhagen: "I've heard moonbats claim that we gave Saddam his WMD, but the record does not support that claim."
No, as I said earlier, we gave him the money, the tactical equipment, access to the relevant information, and a de-facto green light that only turned red when he finally embarrassed us. But we didn't give him the actual chemicals. So what.
Groenhagen: "Actually, Clinton's top expert on Iraq, Kenneth Pollack, argued in "The Threatening Storm" that containment, while more successful in the past than expected, was beginning to fail by 2002. I assume, like most moonbats, you have never read that book."
You obviously didn't read what I wrote, since I admitted that containment policy wasn't going to work indefinitely. However, the U.S. had any number of options available besides an invastion and occupation. Chief among those were the kind of smart, focused CIA operations that led to our initial success against the Taliban in 2002. Instead, unfortunatley, Bush and Cheney and company decided to deliver a gift that just kept giving to their military-industrial buddies in the form of an endless war and enough inflated, no-bid construction and security contracts to ensure wealth and control for years to come. Or at least until the whole economy implodes.
