JOHN LOFTON, RECOVERING REPUBLICAN SAID:
“Maybe I will solicit articles by Chomsky, et al. But you did not respond to my assertion that truth is truth wherever it appears.”
In that event, to be true to your own maxim, you should also solicit articles from al-Qaida and Hamas, since you share their interpretation of American and Israeli foreign policy.
“Is my statement not true?”
More that true—it’s a tautology. And it entails a corollary tautology: false is false wherever it appears. And since you asked me to comment on your website, that’s why I’m commenting on some of the many falsehoods at your website.
“Re: your faith, God in His Word defines what Christianity is, not me. Are you, as God defines it, a Christian? Simple question.”
Well, just between you, me, and the hidden microphone under your desk, I work for the Mossad. But please don’t post that at your website as that would blow my cover and thereby impede my efforts to infiltrate your gov’t with Zionist spies.
“If so, defend from a Biblical view the carnage you defend.”
i) What “carnage” did you have in mind? Do you think that all “carnage” is indefensible? When you defend the 2nd Amendment, that results in a certain amount of carnage, viz. schoolyard shootings, ex-husbands who murder the wife and kids. Yet I don’t see you taking the position that the right to bear arms is unchristian or unscriptural.
ii) I see a lot of carnage on display in Joshua 6. Do you think that Joshua 6 is unbiblical?
iii) I commented on an article which condemned the war in Afghanistan as well as Iraq. Yes, I happen to think the war in Afghanistan was Biblically justifiable. That was direct retaliation for 9/11.
“If you’re not a Christian, well – your defense of murder is no surprise.”
What, exactly, are you referring to? The war in Iraq? The war in Afghanistan? The Cold War?
“Our site takes the Second Amendment position on the Second Amendment. Don’t really care what NRA says.”
But we only have a 2nd Amendment because we had the Revolutionary War. How do you justify the “carnage” of the American Revolution? Do you think our Founding Fathers were murderers?
“And yes, Christianity allows self-defense, of course.”
That’s not what the article by your contributor, condemning ROTC programs, said. It issued a blanket condemnation of military service as “killing,” contrary to “Biblical Christianity.”
“’IF’ the Iraq war was a miscalculation?! Certainly you jest. It was in no way warranted either Biblically or Constitutionally.”
It was Constitutionally warranted inasmuch as the President is the Commander-in-Chief, and he was acting with the benefit of Congressional authorization.
Biblically speaking, a head-of-state has a duty to defend the lives of his people. Bush believed that Iraq posed a threat to our national security. His DCI briefed him on that. Even Michael Scheuer, who’s a folk hero to guys like you, admits that Tenet briefed him on that.
In hindsight, that may have been a mistake. But a mistaken judgment may still be warranted at the time it was made.
I may accidentally lock myself out of my house. I may have to break into my own home. My wife may shoot me, mistaking me for a house burglar. Her action would be warranted, even if it was mistaken.
“Thanks for this one. A real thigh-slapper; a real howler.”
If that’s what passes for a substantive, intelligent reply on your part, it says a lot about the level at which you operate.
“God will not bless an unGodly military.”
i) That’s a circular argument. You say that Christians shouldn’t join the military because the military is ungodly. But the military would be ungodly to the extent that only the ungodly belong to the military. The more Christians who belong to the military, the more godly it will be. I realize that logic isn’t y0ur forte, so you may have to repeat that to yourself a few times before it begins to sink in.
ii) As a matter of fact, many of our soldiers are also Christians. That’s why the Air Force Academy came under attack by the God-haters. That’s also why the God-haters are also trying to prevent Christian chaplains from offering Christian prayers. The fact that you free slander all of the honorable Christians who serve in our armed forces is a judgment on your profession of faith, not theirs.
“Whoever, the ‘Palestinians’ were/are, they are humans made in God’s image and thus may not be treated the way Israel has treated them: stealing land, assassinating them, and much more.”
i) It’s because humans are made in God’s image that humans can be evil. When so-called Palestinians engage in honor killings, or dress up their toddlers as suicide bombers, I say that’s evil.
ii) What about the way humans are treated in Deut 20? Do you think that’s unbiblical?
iii) To say Israel is “stealing their land” simply begs the question.
iv) Israel is assassinating leaders of Hamas who send suicide bombers into Israel. That’s self-defense. For someone who supports the 2nd Amendment, you should know the difference.
v) It’s duplicitous of you to tout a non-interventionist foreign policy and then pass judgment on Israel’s foreign policy. If you were sincere about your belief in a non-interventionist foreign policy, then it’s none of your business how Israel treats the so-called Palestinians.
“You attempt to linguistically dehumanize them demonstrates you are no Christian. The Nazis also semantically dehumanized those they murdered (‘useless eaters,’ etc). Pathetic.”
i) Given the fact that you take the side of the jihadis over the Jews, it’s imprudent of you to raise the Nazi analogy—since that comparison works to your disadvantage.
ii) You may lipservice to truth, but then you evade the truth. There are no “Palestinians.” That’s a propaganda term.
“You speak of ‘a terrorist.’ Nice try. So, have you proved, through due process of law, that person is ‘a terrorist’?”
i) Oh, but you say you believe in the 2nd Amendment. If a mugger attacks you with a knife, and you shoot him with a gun, haven’t you deprived him of due process? What about a house burglar who breaks into your home at night? Do you have the right to shoot him? Or would that deprive him of due process?
Do you think the mugger and burglar should first be put on trial and convicted before you have a right to defend yourself?
ii) Also, we only have a 2nd Amendment because we had the Revolutionary War. Did British POWs enjoy Geneva Conventions protections? Do you think that George Washington was guilty of war crimes? And what due process did we accord to the Barbary Pirates?
iii) Also, what due process was in place in Joshua 6?
I’m just curious to see how far you’re prepared to take your argument Biblically and historically.
“Just bomb’em all and let God sort’em out, huh?”
Have we bombed everyone in Iraq and Afghanistan?
“We are our ‘mortal enemies’ because we are enemies of God.”
I accept your confession of guilt. Speak for yourself.
Speaking for myself, it’s possible to have human enemies and also be enemies of God. And the Mosaic law distinguishes between the innocent and the guilty, although everyone’s a sinner. You don’t know the first thing about Biblical ethics.
“That’s why we’re under God’s wrath/judgment (9/11/ Katrina, Calif fires, 50 million babies murdered by abortion, bogged down in unGodly wars, corrupt rulers – read The Book.)”
i) I see. There were no California wildfires before we invaded Iraq. Or were there no wildfires before Roe v. Wade? In either case, I doubt the national weather service would confirm your timeline. Oh, I forgot, the national weather service is in the tank for the Bush administration.
ii) Likewise, there were no hurricanes before we toppled the Shah of Iran back in 1953 or something.
If only we elected Ron Paul president, that would put an end to hurricanes and wildfires. Okay. Whatever you say.
iii) In what sense do you think that 9/11 represents divine judgment? Do you think that’s a case of “blowback”?
But you also sympathize with the 9/11 Truthers:
http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=982
How can 9/11 be both an inside job and a case of blowback?
That’s one of the problems with grand conspiracy theories. It’s very difficult to come up with a consistent conspiracy theory. So which conspiracy theory do you think underwrites 9/11 as divine judgment: blowback or inside job?
“Don’t care what you are ‘a fan’ of. ‘Foreign aid’ unconstitutional. Show it to me in Article 1, Section 8.”
I see that mental discipline is not your forte, but we already know that by now. I was responding to your contributor on his own grounds. But maybe, like Ron Paul, you’re one of those editors who doesn’t read the articles contributed under your own auspices.
To repeat: your contributor was denouncing Israel because Israel was allegedly blocking UN food and medical supplies to Gaza.
That would be a case of foreign aid. How can you oppose foreign aid and also oppose Israel when Israel opposes foreign aid to Gaza?
See, it’s a little thing called moral and rational consistency. Something you might try to practice for a change.
Just for clarification, what do you mean when you say "It’s because humans are made in God’s image that humans can be evil"? I'm not quite sure I understand.
ReplyDeletemaxhew2702 said...
ReplyDelete"Just for clarification, what do you mean when you say 'It’s because humans are made in God’s image that humans can be evil'? I'm not quite sure I understand."
Inanimate objects can't be morally evil. Natural events can't be morally evil. Lower animals can't be morally evil. Only personal agents, like human beings, can be morally evil.
Thanks for the help.
ReplyDeleteSteve,
ReplyDeleteDo you believe that if a government actions was unconstitutional it would be wrong?
vagabondtoad said:
ReplyDeleteSteve,
Do you believe that if a government actions was unconstitutional it would be wrong?
**************
i) No, because there's a difference between morality and legality.
ii) There's also more than one sense in which something can be wrong:
a) Immoral
b) Erroneous, mistaken, incorrect.
In principle, a war could be predicated on a false premise (b), but not be wrong in the sense of (a).
But if a war fulfills i wouldn't it fulfill ii? That is to say, if a war does not meet the criteria of being justified, isn't the civilian killing involved unnecessary and not a necessary evil?
ReplyDeleteVAGABONDTOAD SAID:
ReplyDelete“But if a war fulfills i wouldn't it fulfill ii? That is to say, if a war does not meet the criteria of being justified, isn't the civilian killing involved unnecessary and not a necessary evil?
You’re trying to ask too much in a single sentence. These issues need to be broken down:
i) On the one hand, something can be legal, but immoral. On the 0ther than, something can be moral, but illegal.
ii) Yes, a war, to be moral, must been the criteria of being justified. That, however, is not the same thing as either Constitutionality or Scripturality.
iii) The US Constitution doesn’t lay out just-war criteria. In principle, Congress would declare an unjust war.
iv) Just-war theory is not interchangeable with the Biblical laws of warfare. Certainly Deut 20 is unjust by the yardstick of just-war criteria. For example, Deut commands the killing of noncombatants.
v) I’m not saying whether, or to what degree, Deut to is applicable to the modern world. But if we affirm the inspiration of Scripture, then God was not commanding the Israelites to commit evil.
vi) As a practical matter, there are situations in which killing civilians is a necessary evil (which is not synonymous with moral evil). We should minimize civilian death, but there are circumstances in which people will die through either action or inaction on our part.
At that point we must draw some distinctions regarding just cause, sheer numbers, degrees of complicity, our varying social obligations, &c.
Even civilians are often complicit to one degree or another. Is the guy who builds the bomb any less culpable than the guy to drops the bomb?
And, as a rule, I have a higher duty to defend my family than your family—although a family member can forfeit the allegiance to which he is ordinarily entitled.
"i) On the one hand, something can be legal, but immoral. On the 0ther than, something can be moral, but illegal."
ReplyDeleteI apologize, I didn't make it clear but I was moving away from the issue of legality.
"
ii) Yes, a war, to be moral, must been the criteria of being justified. That, however, is not the same thing as either Constitutionality or Scripturality."
What are you saying the difference is between a justified
war and scriptural war?
"iii) The US Constitution doesn’t lay out just-war criteria. In principle, Congress would declare an unjust war.
iv) Just-war theory is not interchangeable with the Biblical laws of warfare. Certainly Deut 20 is unjust by the yardstick of just-war criteria. For example, Deut commands the killing of noncombatants.
v) I’m not saying whether, or to what degree, Deut to is applicable to the modern world. But if we affirm the inspiration of Scripture, then God was not commanding the Israelites to commit evil."
If God commands something then it is not evil, but I don't believe anyone is claiming that God is giving direct commands to go to war (correct me if I'm mistaken). If a foreign nation were to wipe out American citizens en masse because the US government posed a threat to them Christians would certainly see this as evil.
"Even civilians are often complicit to one degree or another. Is the guy who builds the bomb any less culpable than the guy to drops the bomb?"
"As a practical matter, there are situations in which killing civilians is a necessary evil (which is not synonymous with moral evil). We should minimize civilian death, but there are circumstances in which people will die through either action or inaction on our part."
True, but we shouldn't trust that government officials are always looking for whether a military action is scripturally justifiable. Government leaders are fallen men as well, and can uses excuses to try to justify mass murder.
Do you believe that the bombings over Japan were justified?
But all civilians are not complicit in this sense because not every civilian makes bombs and not every civilian is deserving of death. You'd have an interesting, though I believe incorrect argument if you were to claim that citizens are guilty of being punished by death by virtue of not stopping an evil or threat within their society. I don't believe that people who give moral support to an evil organization are guilty to the same degree as the organization.
Steve said, "Biblically speaking, a head-of-state has a duty to defend the lives of his people. Bush believed that Iraq posed a threat to our national security. His DCI briefed him on that. Even Michael Scheuer, who’s a folk hero to guys like you, admits that Tenet briefed him on that."
ReplyDeleteCould you please cite your sources. Tenet has backtracked off the bad information in his book, though many think he should rightly be held accountable as well. He's blamed everyone but himself and Bush. He has said that Cheney went well beyond their intelligence assessments when he gave his speech in Aug 2002.
It was Scheuer who headed up the team to search out a connection between Saddam and Bin Laden and he says that there was no substantial relationship. He has also said repeatedly, in interviews and elsewhere, that the invasion of Iraq was a "gift to bin Laden".
Steve also said, "ii) Likewise, there were no hurricanes before we toppled the Shah of Iran back in 1953 or something."
Ummm this is wrong. We *installed* the Shah and overthrew the Prime Minister Mossadeq. haha Remember he wanted to nationalize the oil industry?
Steve,
ReplyDeleteAs a matter of fact, here's Tenet in his own words in an interview on CBS:
"He (Richard Perle) said to me, 'Iraq has to pay a price for what happened yesterday, they bear responsibility.' It's September the 12th. I've got the manifest with me that tell me al-Qaeda did this. Nothing in my head that says there is any Iraqi involvement in this in any way shape or form and I remember thinking to myself, as I'm about to go brief the president, 'What the hell is he talking about?'"
PUBVALERIUS2 SAID:
ReplyDelete"Could you please cite your sources."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/27/AR2007042702052.html
"Ummm this is wrong. We *installed* the Shah and overthrew the Prime Minister Mossadeq. haha Remember he wanted to nationalize the oil industry?"
You have a tin-ear for my satirical tone. haha. But, okay, so hurricanes began after we installed the Shah and overthrew the Prime Minister. That makes a lot more sense, don't you think?
"It was Scheuer who headed up the team to search out a connection between Saddam and Bin Laden and he says that there was no substantial relationship. He has also said repeatedly, in interviews and elsewhere, that the invasion of Iraq was a 'gift to bin Laden'."
Irrelevant to my statement since I never said that Scheuer agreed with the Iraq war. I specifically cited Scheuer with reference to what Tenet believed.
Did Bush receive regular briefings from Scheuer?
"As a matter of fact, here's Tenet in his own words in an interview on CBS."
And here's Richard Perle in his own words:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/04/perle.tenet/index.html
Steve cited, "http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/27/AR2007042702052.html"
ReplyDeleteI'm well aware of that article but don't see how it excuses Bush in any way. I don't see how Tenet stating that Iraq was a 'slam-dunk' constitutes a 'briefing' that would inform Bush of the WMD and somehow get Bush and Cheney off the hook.
Look at the time frame of that statement - the intelligence had already been decided by the administration. Those words came four months after Dick Cheney's VFW speech in which he said there was 'no doubt' that Saddam had WMD. It was 3 months after the president told the UN that the Iraqi regime should "immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose, and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles, and all related material." And it was 2 months after Congress had authorized the use of force in Iraq.
However, like I stated, I still think that Tenet is culpable due to his acquiescence (also culpable - Bush and the Cheney cabal) and I am no big fan of his. I think it's quite apparent that this was a case of the policy shaping the 'intelligence'. Most of the Administration wanted war with Iraq (also confirmed by Paul O'Neill) and unfortunately, Tenet did not take the stand that he should've.
Steve said, "You have a tin-ear for my satirical tone. haha. But, okay, so hurricanes began after we installed the Shah and overthrew the Prime Minister. That makes a lot more sense, don't you think?"
I noted the satire, but nothing in it excused your ignorance of basic history.
Steve said, "And here's Richard Perle in his own words:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/04/perle.tenet"
I'm aware that he's denied what Tenet has stated. However, based on things he said to CNN and in a letter to Bush shortly after 9/11, making it quite obvious that he wanted war with Iraq.
In the CNN video footage (5 days after 9/11) Perle states:
"Even if we cannot prove to the standard that we enjoy in our own civil society they are involved, we do know, for example, that Saddam Hussein has ties to Osama bin Laden."
Here's Perle's words to Bush on 9/20/01 in a signed letter:
[E]ven if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq.
VAGABONDTOAD SAID:
ReplyDelete“What are you saying the difference is between a justified_war and scriptural war?”
I explain that further down. Just-war theory is a piece of Medieval moral theology. That, of itself, doesn’t make it wrong, but it also doesn’t make it Scriptural.
If you think you can exegete just-war criteria from Scripture, be my guest. Show me your exegetical defense of just-war criteria.
“If God commands something then it is not evil, but I don't believe anyone is claiming that God is giving direct commands to go to war (correct me if I'm mistaken).”
i) I’m using Deut 20 as a limiting case of what’s morally permissible—at least under some circumstances. It’s an argument from the greater to the lesser.
When you bring up divine commands, that underscores my point. What is divinely commanded is obligatory. And what is obligatory is at least permissible. Permission is weaker than obligation. It something is permissible, then I have the right to either do it or refrain from doing it. If something is obligatory, then it’s my duty to do it.
ii) We don’t need a divine command to do something. Divine permission is sufficient. Exod 22:2 is not a command. But I assume you think we have the right to shoot a house burglar who breaks into our home at night.
iii) The extent to which Deut 20 is applicable to a modern situation is complicated. But given Deut 20, the onus lies on the just-war theorist to prove that a war is unjust unless it satisfies every condition of just-war criteria, not to mention the Geneva Conventions.
“If a foreign nation were to wipe out American citizens en masse because the US government posed a threat to them Christians would certainly see this as evil.”
i) Well, you’ve rigged the statement with a number of assumptions. Did the foreign country provoke this reaction? Or is the US gov’t the culprit? Is it necessary for the foreign country to wipe out American citizens en masse to defend itself?
ii) And the US gov’t didn’t wipe out Iraqi or Afghan citizens en masse, so if there’s an analogy lurking in your statement, the comparison is false.
“Government leaders are fallen men as well, and can uses excuses to try to justify mass murder.”
Are you speaking hypothetically, or do you apply that to the war in Afghanistan and/or Iraq?
“Do you believe that the bombings over Japan were justified?”
I’ve discussed that elsewhere:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2005/08/hiroshima-mon-amour.html
“But all civilians are not complicit in this sense because not every civilian makes bombs.”
I’m simply responding to you on your own grounds. You cite an example, so I cite a counterexample.
You brought up civilian casualties. I responded by making the point that the difference between combatants and noncombatants can be morally inconsequential.
You are free to add caveats to your original statement. But I was responding to your initial formulation.
“And not every civilian is deserving of death. You'd have an interesting, though I believe incorrect argument if you were to claim that citizens are guilty of being punished by death by virtue of not stopping an evil or threat within their society.”
You’re imputing to me a rationale I didn’t use. Apparently, this would be your own rationale. But you’re invoking the wrong category.
The justification for war isn’t necessarily penal, as if we’re waging war to “punish” the enemy because he committed a capital offense.
Rather, national defense is an extension of self-defense. Do I have a right to defend myself if another individual places my life (or the lives of my dependents) at risk?
Let’s say a guy with brain cancer seizes my five-year old son and holds a knife to his throat. Even though the assailant is not responsible for his actions, I still have the right—and, indeed, the duty—to use lethal force—if need be—to protect my son.
Suppose I knew the assailant had brain cancer? Suppose I knew he wasn’t responsible for his actions? That doesn’t change the fact that I have a duty to protect my young son.
I’m not shooting the assailant because he deserves to die. I’m not shooting the assailant to punish him. I’m shooting him because he doesn’t have the right to menace the life of my child, and I’m obliged to protect my child from harm.
Likewise, lethal force may be sometimes be justified in the case of a misperceived threat. Suppose a bank robber uses a toy gun. The toy gun looks just like a real gun.
Suppose he points his toy gun at the police. The police have a right to shoot him. The bank robber was never in a position to actually endanger the life of the policemen, but he acted in such a weight as to forfeit the benefit of the doubt.
The policemen didn’t shoot him to punish him. They didn’t shoot him because he deserved to die. Rather, the policemen shot him in an act of apparent self-defense.
These are limiting cases, but they’re useful in setting the moral parameters.
“I don't believe that people who give moral support to an evil organization are guilty to the same degree as the organization.”
Your distinction is not self-explanatory.
“I'm well aware of that article but don't see how it excuses Bush in any way. I don't see how Tenet stating that Iraq was a 'slam-dunk' constitutes a 'briefing' that would inform Bush of the WMD and somehow get Bush and Cheney off the hook.”
Your denial does not amount to an argument. All you’ve done is to give me your sheer opinion that it doesn’t “excuse” Bush or get him (along with Cheney) “off the hook.”
I happen to think that if Bush’s DCI informs him that Iraq is a threat to our national security, then Bush would be culpable if he didn’t act on that information.
“Look at the time frame of that statement - the intelligence had already been decided by the administration. Those words came four months after Dick Cheney's VFW speech in which he said there was 'no doubt' that Saddam had WMD. It was 3 months after the president told the UN that the Iraqi regime should ‘immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose, and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles, and all related material.’ And it was 2 months after Congress had authorized the use of force in Iraq. __However, like I stated, I still think that Tenet is culpable due to his acquiescence (also culpable - Bush and the Cheney cabal) and I am no big fan of his. I think it's quite apparent that this was a case of the policy shaping the 'intelligence'. Most of the Administration wanted war with Iraq (also confirmed by Paul O'Neill) and unfortunately, Tenet did not take the stand that he should've. “
i) O’Neill’s version of events was disputed by other administration officials. And O’Neill was not a member of Bush’s war cabinet. He was not an insider regarding the deliberations over going to war.
ii) More to the point, why do you think that’s even germane? Yes, there were administration officials and other advisors who thought all along that Iraq was unfinished business.
Your objection would only be salient if the war in Iraq was predicated on a direct connection between 9/11 and the Iraqi regime. Can you name any speech by Bush or any member of his war cabinet in which that rationale for going to war was ever used?
“I noted the satire, but nothing in it excused your ignorance of basic history.”
And nothing in my statement excuses your ignorance of basic satire. I wasn’t making an effort to be accurate. That’s why I added the throwaway disclaimer “or something.” Try to pay more attention to my exact wording.
The point was to ridicule Lofton’s statement that California wildfires and Gulf Coast hurricanes are the result of American domestic or foreign policy.
“I'm aware that he's denied what Tenet has stated. However, based on things he said to CNN and in a letter to Bush shortly after 9/11, making it quite obvious that he wanted war with Iraq. “
Which I don’t deny, and which isn’t germane to the issue at hand.
Steve said, “Your denial does not amount to an argument. All you’ve done is to give me your sheer opinion that it doesn’t “excuse” Bush or get him (along with Cheney) “off the hook.”
ReplyDeleteI happen to think that if Bush’s DCI informs him that Iraq is a threat to our national security, then Bush would be culpable if he didn’t act on that information.”
You offered that information in a way that is expected to get Bush off the hook. Blame it on the intelligence. If Bush would’ve paid attention to the CIA’s earlier acquittals of Iraq (and the IAEA and UN – the reason they exist), then we wouldn’t be in that mess. I don’t think this excuses Tenet, but Bush supporters can’t simply push the blame on Tenet due to the scores of other intelligence out there.
Unfortunately, the article you cited doesn’t state that Tenet ‘briefed’ Bush on Iraq being a threat. What it says is that Tenet was complicit by sitting through Powell’s brief and it refers to Tenet’s comment ‘slam-dunk’. If you would’ve quoted the NIE report of 10/2002 (not mentioned in the article) that Tenet signed, you would’ve done a bit better, but unfortunately, the decision that Iraq was a threat had already been made and stated in a speech by Cheney in Aug 2002.
Steve said, “i) O’Neill’s version of events was disputed by other administration officials. And O’Neill was not a member of Bush’s war cabinet. He was not an insider regarding the deliberations over going to war.”
So? Read Suskind’s book. There’s plenty of evidence.
Steve said, “ii) More to the point, why do you think that’s even germane? Yes, there were administration officials and other advisors who thought all along that Iraq was unfinished business. “
It’s germane for the simple reason that the decision to go to war in Iraq had *already* been decided. Hence, the reason for my comment that the policy shaped the intelligence.
Steve said, “Your objection would only be salient if the war in Iraq was predicated on a direct connection between 9/11 and the Iraqi regime. Can you name any speech by Bush or any member of his war cabinet in which that rationale for going to war was ever used?”
Yes, Colin Powell’s speech to the UN in Feb 2003, in which he attempted to establish link between Zarqawi (al-qaeda) and Saddam. Scheuer refers to this in the very article you cited by him. Scheuer refers to this in the very article you cited by him.
Also, in August 2002, Rumsfeld told Tom Brokaw on NBC News that "there are al-Qaeda in Iraq." On September 26, 2002, he claimed that the U.S. government had "bulletproof" confirmation of links between Iraq and al-Qaeda members, including "solid evidence" that members of the terrorist network maintained a presence in Iraq. He went on to suggest that Iraq had offered safe haven to bin Laden and the Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar. In his October 11 speech, President Bush added that "some al-Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq."
Steve said, “And nothing in my statement excuses your ignorance of basic satire. I wasn’t making an effort to be accurate. That’s why I added the throwaway disclaimer “or something.” Try to pay more attention to my exact wording.”
It was apparent that the ‘or something’ referred to the date, Steve, so nice try. Your statement is about as dumb as saying that we installed the British crown at the American Revolution. Whether you’re being comedic or not, it’s stupid.
Steve said, “The point was to ridicule Lofton’s statement that California wildfires and Gulf Coast hurricanes are the result of American domestic or foreign policy.”
I understood your point and my point was to ridicule you for basic errors. If you are going to be a comedian though, at least get basic facts correct. ;)
Steve said, “Which I don’t deny, and which isn’t germane to the issue at hand.”
Umm hello? It’s germane since it lends credence to Tenet’s testimony of what he claims Perle said. Perle is hardly known for his honesty.
PUBVALERIUS2 SAID:
ReplyDelete“You offered that information in a way that is expected to get Bush off the hook. Blame it on the intelligence.”
Bush was getting regular briefings from Tenet. Tenet was the primary channel of intel to Bush. That was his job.
Bush, like all presidents, relies on advisors in the relevant fields of specialization. Bush is not an expert on counterintelligence, any more than he’s an expert on various branches of the law.
“If Bush would’ve paid attention to the CIA’s earlier acquittals of Iraq (and the IAEA and UN – the reason they exist), then we wouldn’t be in that mess. I don’t think this excuses Tenet, but Bush supporters can’t simply push the blame on Tenet due to the scores of other intelligence out there.”
This is a very selective and lop-sided on your part. In the ramp up to the Iraq war, there were a parade of “experts,” outside of gov’t, who went on national television and vouched for the fact that Saddam had WMD. The inyelligence agencies of other governments also vouched the presence of WMD in Iraq. You have to constantly expand the circle of coconspirators to make your theory work.
“The decision that Iraq was a threat had already been made and stated in a speech by Cheney in Aug 2002. “
Non sequitur. The “decision” that Iraq was a threat, and the decision to go to war are two separate issues.
In addition, a Veep doesn’t have the authority to go to war. He’s only a presidential advisor—one among many.
“So? Read Suskind’s book. There’s plenty of evidence.”
Read the other side of the argument:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZjE5YWY2ODQ4YWZhYmQ5NzA1NGM3M2M1OGNjMmMwMmU=
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2004/01/005596.php
“It’s germane for the simple reason that the decision to go to war in Iraq had *already* been decided.”
i) Once again, you’re conflating two different issues.
ii) Moreover, there’s no inherent inconsistency here. Some members of the Bush administration, or adjunct advisors, thought that Iraq was already a threat.
9/11 would heighten the threat, as Bush often explained, of Saddam handing weapons off to al-Qaida. That’s how the administration actually made the case for war.
“Yes, Colin Powell’s speech to the UN in Feb 2003, in which he attempted to establish link between Zarqawi (al-qaeda) and Saddam.”
Because you have your own pet theory of what “really happened,” you keep superimposing that interpretive grid on the actual evidence.
Colin Powell did not say that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. The concern was to avert another 9/11 in the future.
“Also, in August 2002, Rumsfeld told Tom Brokaw on NBC News that ‘there are al-Qaeda in Iraq.’ On September 26, 2002, he claimed that the U.S. government had ‘bulletproof’ confirmation of links between Iraq and al-Qaeda members, including "solid evidence" that members of the terrorist network maintained a presence in Iraq. He went on to suggest that Iraq had offered safe haven to bin Laden and the Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar. In his October 11 speech, President Bush added that ‘some al-Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq’."
None of that attributes 9/11 to Iraq. Rather, it’s concerned with the danger which Iraq *would* pose to the US if Saddam were to secretly proliferate WMD to terrorist organizations like al-Qaida. Flying airplanes into skyscrapers is not the same thing as WMD in the hands of terrorists.
You are trying to create a narrative to fit your own theory that doesn’t fit the sources you quote. You are straining to shoehorn them into your own theory of what “really happened.”
“Whether you’re being comedic or not, it’s stupid.”
There are always some overly-literal, dull-witted minds like yours on whom satire is a lost cause. No doubt you’d also criticize Lilliputian geography. Stick to something you can understand, like the phone book.
“Umm hello? It’s germane since it lends credence to Tenet’s testimony of what he claims Perle said. Perle is hardly known for his honesty.”
If Perle wasn’t in France at the time, then it should be easy to falsify his claim—especially when so many folks are gunning for Perle. Do you have any hard evidence that Perle wasn't in France at that time?
Steve said, “Bush was getting regular briefings from Tenet. Tenet was the primary channel of intel to Bush. That was his job.
ReplyDeleteBush, like all presidents, relies on advisors in the relevant fields of specialization. Bush is not an expert on counterintelligence, any more than he’s an expert on various branches of the law.”
You have yet to cite your reference for your first claim about Scheuer (that actually backs it up) and I’m waiting for references for these new claims. Nevertheless, what briefing was it on *Iraq* being a danger? When did it take place? Anyway, it’s no excuse for Bush to claim ignorance – remember the standard we held the Japanese generals to after WW2?
Steve said, “This is a very selective and lop-sided on your part. In the ramp up to the Iraq war, there were a parade of “experts,” outside of gov’t, who went on national television and vouched for the fact that Saddam had WMD. The inyelligence agencies of other governments also vouched the presence of WMD in Iraq. You have to constantly expand the circle of coconspirators to make your theory work.”
Umm do you want me to start quoting the IAEA (Hans Blix and El Baradei), the UN, Scott Ritter, Hussein Kamel and a number of others?
Steve said, “Non sequitur. The “decision” that Iraq was a threat, and the decision to go to war are two separate issues.”
I’m not sure how your non sequitur statement is relevant, but the war hinged on Iraq being a *threat* unless you insanely think that we would’ve gone to war *stating* that Iraq was not a threat.
Steve said, “In addition, a Veep doesn’t have the authority to go to war. He’s only a presidential advisor—one among many.”
Thank you for that piece of info there, Steve. I’d have never guessed it.
Steve said, “Read the other side of the argument:”
I have and am unimpressed.
Steve said, “i) Once again, you’re conflating two different issues.”
No I’m not. Show it rather than state it.
Steve said, “ii) Moreover, there’s no inherent inconsistency here. Some members of the Bush administration, or adjunct advisors, thought that Iraq was already a threat.”
Are you that dense? Are you just going to repeat yourself or actually engage what I’ve said about the *policy shaping the intelligence*?
Steve said, “9/11 would heighten the threat, as Bush often explained, of Saddam handing weapons off to al-Qaida. That’s how the administration actually made the case for war.”
Another connection to 9/11 made for the Iraq war. And I wonder why you asked me to provide quotes.
Steve said, “Because you have your own pet theory of what “really happened,” you keep superimposing that interpretive grid on the actual evidence.
Colin Powell did not say that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. The concern was to avert another 9/11 in the future.”
This has nothing to do with what I stated of Colin Powell. I never said that Powell said that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. He made a *link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda*. In effect, that connects 9/11 and Saddam.
Steve said, “None of that attributes 9/11 to Iraq. Rather, it’s concerned with the danger which Iraq *would* pose to the US if Saddam were to secretly proliferate WMD to terrorist organizations like al-Qaida. Flying airplanes into skyscrapers is not the same thing as WMD in the hands of terrorists.”
The hell it doesn’t attribute 9/11 to Iraq (esp considering the Bush doctrine). You apparently didn’t *read* what Rumsfeld said. Aiding and abetting al qaeda is what Iraq had supposedly done according to rummy…
Steve said, “You are trying to create a narrative to fit your own theory that doesn’t fit the sources you quote. You are straining to shoehorn them into your own theory of what “really happened.””
Are you going to offer something of value here Steve? Nope guess not.
Steve said, “There are always some overly-literal, dull-witted minds like yours on whom satire is a lost cause. No doubt you’d also criticize Lilliputian geography. Stick to something you can understand, like the phone book.”
No offense but you are retarded Steve. We installed the British crown during the American revolution. that’s funny ain’t it! Hahaha what a knee slapper…
Steve said, “If Perle wasn’t in France at the time, then it should be easy to falsify his claim—especially when so many folks are gunning for Perle. Do you have any hard evidence that Perle wasn't in France at that time?”
I was wondering how long it’d take you to google that to figure it out. Actually Tenet has stated that he may have had the date wrong but still insists that those were the words of Perle.
PUBVALERIUS2 SAID:
ReplyDelete“You have yet to cite your reference for your first claim about Scheuer (that actually backs it up) and I’m waiting for references for these new claims. Nevertheless, what briefing was it on *Iraq* being a danger?”
It’s not my job to make up for your sloth. The reference to "slam dunk" originally surfaced in Bob Woodward's book, according to which Tenet did, indeed, make a case to Bush for WMD in Iraq. And Bush's decision to invade Iraq was subsequent to 9/11, not a fait accompli. For example:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17347-2004Apr16.html
And there’s plenty of easily accessible info on what Tenet thought about the WMD in Iraq and the potential threat that posed to our national security. For example:
http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2002/10/dci100702.html
http://www.fas.org/irp/cia/product/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm
http://www.fas.org/irp/cia/product/dci020504.html
“Anyway, it’s no excuse for Bush to claim ignorance – remember the standard we held the Japanese generals to after WW2?”
First you demand documentation, then you dismiss any forthcoming documentation in advance of the fact. So why should I waste my time on you when you’ve already admitted that even if I complied with your demand, it would be an exercise in futility?
And I’m not interested in legalistic footnotes about WW2 jurisprudence. That’s irrelevant to real world questions about nature and scale of the threat posed by militant Islam.
Moreover, we put the Japanese generals on trial after we won the war. One has to win the war first.
“Umm do you want me to start quoting the IAEA (Hans Blix and El Baradei), the UN, Scott Ritter, Hussein Kamel and a number of others?”
i) Irrelevant since there were “experts” on both sides of that debate. I could just as easily quote various experts on the other side of the debate, in the lead up to war—such as Richard Butler or David Kay.
ii) And your one-sided appeal undercuts your own case. Blix, for one, has admitted that he was expecting to find WMD in Iraq. In addition, the Iraqi authorities stonewalled Blix and Baradei.
iii) Of course, the UN is a peacenik organization, so I’d expect it to soft peddle the potential threat. Just look it how it procrastinates over the Iranian WMD program. Baradei is totally ineffectual. He embodies the impotence of the UN in miniature.
iv) Ritter suffers from credibility problems. He originally said the same thing that other experts said. Then he did an about-face—which conveniently timed with a conflict of interest:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec98/ritter_8-31.html
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/605fgcob.asp
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004822
“I’m not sure how your non sequitur statement is relevant, but the war hinged on Iraq being a *threat* unless you insanely think that we would’ve gone to war *stating* that Iraq was not a threat.”
I never said that we should have gone to war. I’m merely fielding conspiracy theories about why we “really” went to war.
“I have and am unimpressed.”
And I’m unimpressed by how unimpressed you are.
“No I’m not. Show it rather than state it.”
I already did.
“Are you that dense? Are you just going to repeat yourself or actually engage what I’ve said about the *policy shaping the intelligence*?”
i) I didn’t repeat myself. This goes beyond the initial argument.
ii) I don’t need to engage your allegation since others have already done that. When are you going to actually engage the counterargument? For example:
http://www.dougfeith.com/coverage_6.html
iii) It would also behoove you to remember that you are a guest here. If you don’t know how to act like a guest, I can make you go away. Try not to be obnoxious to the host. Otherwise, you’ll find yourself out on the curb.
“Another connection to 9/11 made for the Iraq war. And I wonder why you asked me to provide quotes.”
Now you’re playing dumb. The connection was with reference to a future threat, not to the attack on 9/11. You’re not even attempting to be honest at this point.
“This has nothing to do with what I stated of Colin Powell. I never said that Powell said that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. He made a *link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda*. In effect, that connects 9/11 and Saddam.”
You continue to obfuscate the nature of the “connection.” Evidently, you can only keep one idea in your head at a time. Try to master the elementary distinction between past and future.
And while you’re at it, try to master a few other elementary distinctions. If I have a second cousin who robs a bank, that doesn’t make me a bank robber. Difficult for you to grasp, I know, but with enough practice you might just get the hang of it.
“The hell it doesn’t attribute 9/11 to Iraq (esp considering the Bush doctrine). You apparently didn’t *read* what Rumsfeld said. Aiding and abetting al qaeda is what Iraq had supposedly done according to rummy…”
You continue to equivocate and prevaricate. The Bush doctrine does not imply that Iraq was behind the 9/11 attack.
“Are you going to offer something of value here Steve? Nope guess not.”
Are you going to offer something of value here PUBVALERIUS2? Nope guess not.
“No offense but you are retarded Steve.”
You keep giving me reasons to show you the door.
“I was wondering how long it’d take you to google that to figure it out. Actually Tenet has stated that he may have had the date wrong but still insists that those were the words of Perle.”
Aside from the fact that I could reference this information because I already knew it, your dissimulation is quite revealing. You originally said:
““Umm hello? It’s germane since it lends credence to Tenet’s testimony of what he claims Perle said. Perle is hardly known for his honesty.”
When challenged, you back peddle while acting as if you knew it all along. But if you knew it all along, then your original statement was mendacious.
I don’t have time to waste on weasels and liars like you. Since you can’t discuss an issue in good faith, I’d advise you to find another forum in which to dissemble and dissimulate before I push the delete button.
“When you bring up divine commands, that underscores my point. What is divinely commanded is obligatory. And what is obligatory is at least permissible. Permission is weaker than obligation. It something is permissible, then I have the right to either do it or refrain from doing it. If something is obligatory, then it’s my duty to do it.”
ReplyDeletePermissible at a point in time, but not necessarily permissible for all people at all time. Onan was allowed to have sex with his brother’s wife for a purpose, though having sex with one’s brother’s wife is not normally permissible behavior
“The extent to which Deut 20 is applicable to a modern situation is complicated. But given Deut 20, the onus lies on the just-war theorist to prove that a war is unjust unless it satisfies every condition of just-war criteria, not to mention the Geneva Conventions.”
I don’t believe I’ve ever stated that I hold to the just-war theory, though I do believe I stringent restrictions to war (war is sometimes a necessary evil but in the majority of cases it is brought about by the evil and greed in men’s hearts).
I think you believe that governments have some amount of liberty in taking out actions they say are necessary. The Geneva conventions were treaties that governments voluntary signed to deal with a perceived problem. What is your issue with them? (I’m not going to defend them very seriously, just curious)
“i) Well, you’ve rigged the statement with a number of assumptions. Did the foreign country provoke this reaction? Or is the US gov’t the culprit? Is it necessary for the foreign country to wipe out American citizens en masse to defend itself?”
I’m assuming that The U.S government was the provocative force. Would it ever be justified to kill all American citzens to deal with something that was the government’s fault?
Also, everyone has their own definition of “necessary.” Some might say that corrupt government officials were hiding so it would be necessary to bomb/ destroy large groups of people to make sure they were no longer a threat. Others would say that we need to acknowledge that it’s not worth it to try to completely destroy a threat, and believe that work needs to be done to eliminate the problem short of causing large civilian causialites.
“ii) And the US gov’t didn’t wipe out Iraqi or Afghan citizens en masse, so if there’s an analogy lurking in your statement, the comparison is false”
We’ll they haven’t resorted to genocide or random bombings, I’ll give you that, but my anaology was purposely extreme to highlight the point.
““Do you believe that the bombings over Japan were justified?”
I’ve discussed that elsewhere:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2005/08/hiroshima-mon-amour.html”
You use the word “enemy” so liberally, not recognizing that thousands of Japanese citzens are not the enemy. I wonder how you can justify, biblically, your “shoot first ask questions later.” If I kill my neighbor because of an ongoing conflict, the defense “H might have killed me we got into a fisfight before and he was really really angry” won’t work.
“Rather, national defense is an extension of self-defense. Do I have a right to defend myself if another individual places my life (or the lives of my dependents) at risk?”
This is true, however, that self-defense must be established, and not based on a hunch. I’m not arguing against preemptive strikes per-se, but only if a direct threat is present. Also, you’re bringing a third party into the picture.
“
Let’s say a guy with brain cancer seizes my five-year old son and holds a knife to his throat. Even though the assailant is not responsible for his actions, I still have the right—and, indeed, the duty—to use lethal force—if need be—to protect my son.
Suppose I knew the assailant had brain cancer? Suppose I knew he wasn’t responsible for his actions? That doesn’t change the fact that I have a duty to protect my young son.”
VAGABONDTOAD SAID:
ReplyDelete"The Geneva conventions were treaties that governments voluntary signed to deal with a perceived problem. What is your issue with them? (I’m not going to defend them very seriously, just curious)"
I’ve done a lot of blogging on that particular subject. Depends on how much you want to read.
“I’m assuming that The U.S government was the provocative force. Would it ever be justified to kill all American citzens to deal with something that was the government’s fault?”
i) If your question is predicated on a hypothetical situation in which America is equivalent to Nazi Germany, then an attack on America would be justified. But that’s only as good as the hypothetical.
ii) As to the question of wiping out the entire population of the US, that’s too speculative to answer. There are limits to how far, in God’s common grace, he will allow evil to progress. Would it be justifiable if God put us in that position? Maybe yes, maybe no?
We could turn this around. Perhaps that scale of indiscriminate carnage is unjustifiable, in which case God would never put us in the position of having to make that choice. I don’t know where the Lord has drawn the hypothetical line. It’s written in invisible ink!
“Others would say that we need to acknowledge that it’s not worth it to try to completely destroy a threat, and believe that work needs to be done to eliminate the problem short of causing large civilian causialites.”
Well, that’s a false dilemma. No one is suggesting that we can entirely eliminate every potential threat to our national security. Rather, it’s a case of risk management. Cutting it down to size. In a fallen world, evil is eradicable. But it can be kept at manageable levels.
“We’ll they haven’t resorted to genocide or random bombings, I’ll give you that, but my anaology was purposely extreme to highlight the point.”
True, but the world is not a runaway train. Even conjectures must respect the Christian worldview. Not every worst-case scenario is a live possibility. As a consequence, genuine ethical dilemmas are pseudoproblems. There is always a morally permissible course of action, however painful that might be.
“You use the word ‘enemy’ so liberally, not recognizing that thousands of Japanese citzens are not the enemy.”
i) You’re drawing distinctions on behalf of the Japanese which they themselves refrained from drawing. Japan was a warrior culture.
ii) And if the enemy makes it difficult to sort out the good guys from the bad guys, then it’s not the responsibility of our soldiers to be more discriminating when the enemy has gone out of its way to successfully frustrate that very effort. The enemy is to blame for the consequences.
“I wonder how you can justify, biblically, your ‘shoot first ask questions later’.”
Since that’s a deliberate travesty of my carefully qualified position, your caricature doesn’t merit a response. Ethics is a very painstaking field. If you want serious answers, ask serious questions. If you lack the intellectual patience to draw the necessary distinctions, don’t ask.
“If I kill my neighbor because of an ongoing conflict, the defense ‘H might have killed me we got into a fisfight before and he was really really angry’ won’t work.”
The justification depends on the threat level, as well as some culpable provocation. Once again, you’re trying to trivialize a serious issue. I could go into more detail, but since the quality of your responses is rapidly deteriorating, why bother?
“This is true, however, that self-defense must be established, and not based on a hunch.”
Once again, that’s a false dichotomy. Counterintelligence, to take a topical example, is a question of probabilities. And probabilities range along a continuum.
“I’m not arguing against preemptive strikes per-se, but only if a direct threat is present.”
“Direct threat” is very vague.
“Also, you’re bringing a third party into the picture.”
Real life is messy.
I’ve not responded to some of your other statements because I decided to do a post on the subject.