Comments on: The Burden of Hindsight http://informedspeculation.com/2005/12/04/the-burden-of-hindsight/ Refunds Cheerfully Given To All Who Disagree Sat, 07 Apr 2012 09:00:47 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Mark http://informedspeculation.com/2005/12/04/the-burden-of-hindsight/comment-page-1/#comment-8642 Mark Tue, 06 Dec 2005 03:31:57 +0000 http://decision08.net/2005/12/04/the-burden-of-hindsight/#comment-8642 Okay, took out 'a' threat, not 'the' threat... Okay, took out ‘a’ threat, not ‘the’ threat…

]]> By: peter http://informedspeculation.com/2005/12/04/the-burden-of-hindsight/comment-page-1/#comment-8640 peter Tue, 06 Dec 2005 02:59:20 +0000 http://decision08.net/2005/12/04/the-burden-of-hindsight/#comment-8640 Well, that's like saying that you want to wage war against the Mafia, but instead of going after the mobsters you go after their lawyers instead. Saddam might be sympathetic to Al Qaeda's cause -- or maybe not -- but at most he was tangential to it. However, there is an irony at work here. The (bi-partisan) 9/11 commission reports that we are unprepared to fight terrorism and it enumerates the ways in which the government has failed to protect us. You can fight terrorism offensively -- as you praise Bush for doing -- and you can fight it defensively. We disagree about whether Bush is pursuing an offensive strategy which will actually work. However, there does not seem to be much of a dispute regarding our inability to protect homeland security defensively. If, in fact, Bush "took out the threat," then we would be protected on both flanks. Well, that’s like saying that you want to wage war against the Mafia, but instead of going after the mobsters you go after their lawyers instead. Saddam might be sympathetic to Al Qaeda’s cause — or maybe not — but at most he was tangential to it.

However, there is an irony at work here. The (bi-partisan) 9/11 commission reports that we are unprepared to fight terrorism and it enumerates the ways in which the government has failed to protect us. You can fight terrorism offensively — as you praise Bush for doing — and you can fight it defensively. We disagree about whether Bush is pursuing an offensive strategy which will actually work. However, there does not seem to be much of a dispute regarding our inability to protect homeland security defensively. If, in fact, Bush “took out the threat,” then we would be protected on both flanks.

]]> By: Mark http://informedspeculation.com/2005/12/04/the-burden-of-hindsight/comment-page-1/#comment-8598 Mark Mon, 05 Dec 2005 05:23:21 +0000 http://decision08.net/2005/12/04/the-burden-of-hindsight/#comment-8598 Well, I don't agree with that...the threat is not Al Qaeda, but militant Islam. Now, it is certainly true that Saddam was not an jihadist...but we know for a fact that he harbored terrorists, and looked kindly on those who would harm the United States and Israel...and it can't be stressed enough that he was in a de facto state of war with Israel (the money to the bombers' families) and that hatred of Israel is the true root of radical Islamic terrorism... Well, I don’t agree with that…the threat is not Al Qaeda, but militant Islam. Now, it is certainly true that Saddam was not an jihadist…but we know for a fact that he harbored terrorists, and looked kindly on those who would harm the United States and Israel…and it can’t be stressed enough that he was in a de facto state of war with Israel (the money to the bombers’ families) and that hatred of Israel is the true root of radical Islamic terrorism…

]]> By: peter http://informedspeculation.com/2005/12/04/the-burden-of-hindsight/comment-page-1/#comment-8574 peter Mon, 05 Dec 2005 04:00:07 +0000 http://decision08.net/2005/12/04/the-burden-of-hindsight/#comment-8574 The statement "Given what happened to the WTC towers, the history of Saddam, the failure of the U.N. sanctions and Oil-For-Food, the lack of cooperation with inspectors, and the worldwide intelligence belief that Saddam was in possession of WMD stockpiles, the President took the hard, principled stand with a nerve lacking in the two previous administrations and took out the threat" is logical only if you equate Iraq with "the threat" (i.e., Al Qaeda). If, however, you believe that there was a negligible connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda, then the statement falls apart. If you also accept the fact that one of the results of the Iraqi war is that Al Qaeda now has a stronghold in Iraq -- where before they were non-existent there -- then you would have to accept the complete reverse of the statement. The statement “Given what happened to the WTC towers, the history of Saddam, the failure of the U.N. sanctions and Oil-For-Food, the lack of cooperation with inspectors, and the worldwide intelligence belief that Saddam was in possession of WMD stockpiles, the President took the hard, principled stand with a nerve lacking in the two previous administrations and took out the threat” is logical only if you equate Iraq with “the threat” (i.e., Al Qaeda).

If, however, you believe that there was a negligible connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda, then the statement falls apart. If you also accept the fact that one of the results of the Iraqi war is that Al Qaeda now has a stronghold in Iraq — where before they were non-existent there — then you would have to accept the complete reverse of the statement.

]]>