How Bill Kristol Closed the Conservative Mind

THE AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE ^ | 12/18/2018 | Jack Hunter

[otness_e]

I’d beg to differ about Goldwater being radical. I think late into his life he advocated for gay marriage, which is pretty dang radical if you ask me.

[otness_e]

Would you have REALLY preferred we just ignored Osama Bin Ladin and continued the exact same thing Clinton did with him during the 1990s, which amounted to treating him like a schoolyard bully and ignoring him? That led directly to 9/11, and made our having to go to Afghanistan inevitable (heck, forget 9/11, we had the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing, that bombing of that airport, and also U.S.S. Cole). Besides, by your logic, we might as well just not even bother fighting against Japan in World War II even after Pearl Harbor.

I’m not fond of Bill Kristol, and I’m mixed with globalism (the only reason I even CONSIDER it is because we Americans unfortunately were pretty much guilty of getting Lenin into power in part, not to mention made a mess with China during World War II where we effectively backstabbed Kai Shek and handed it to China on a silver platter, so globalism is OUR punishment for pretty much aiding Communism despite fighting against it.), and quite frankly, I think we should outright end the UN altogether, get rid of one of the last instances of Marxist influences in America. However, under Just War doctrine, Afghanistan WAS necessary, especially after they bombed us, repeatedly, and we under Clinton were too stupid to try and take Osama bin Ladin out despite multiple opportunities. And ultimately, Iraq WAS necessary due to CIA documents confirming they had trained al Qaeda. If it was okay for us to go after Nazis and Italian Fascists in World War II despite their having no direct role in Pearl Harbor, I see no reason why we can’t fight Iraq for its indirect role in 9/11. If I have to blame Bush for one thing regarding Iraq, it’s screwing up by trying to make Iraq into a democracy (I’m mixed with nation building. I’m not exactly for it in practice, but then again, nationbuilding Afghanistan probably would have at the very least made it more difficult for Osama bin Ladin from gaining a foothold and establishing al Qaeda.), especially when “democracy” is what ruined France and Germany, heck, several other countries.

[otness_e]

Eh, I wouldn’t want any country to have a Liberal Jeffersonian Democracy, not even here in America. France got EXACTLY that with the French Revolution, and that was a disaster (and I call that a Liberal Jeffersonian Democracy because Thomas Jefferson supported the Jacobin excesses up to and including the Reign of Terror, and it was a democratic republic).

I also don’t have your optimism. Communist countries, heck, atheistic countries of ALL stripes, want to exterminate Christians, and I cannot accept an atheistic country as an ally, no matter how many hurdles we put before them.

[Sir_Humphrey]

Would you have REALLY preferred we just ignored Osama Bin Ladin and continued the exact same thing Clinton did with him during the 1990s, which amounted to treating him like a schoolyard bully and ignoring him?

I never said that. I said that it was foolish if not outright lying to spin a yard about WMD in IRAQ. There were NO WMDs found - it was all a hoax and a lie. The proof of this was that there were no WMDs found in our 17+ years of being there.

I guess my question to the war's supporters in 2020 is this: Was it worth it? Was it worth the $11 trillion we spent/will spend to satisfy some cowboy's wild goose chase for non existent WMDs? Was it worth the 4000+ young soldiers cut down in the prime of their life? Was it worth the tens of thousands who were wounded and now require a lifetime of hospital services. That's not to mention the hundreds of thousands of Iraq innocent civilians who were killed or wounded. Again was it worth it?

As for the rest of your response, well those were at best presented as tangential arguments. Bush and his neo-con buddies never aggressively pressed that point because they knew it would never fly with the America people. The overwhelming thrust of the pro-war argument at the time centered around WMDs which didn't exist.

[otness_e]

I wouldn’t be so sure about it being a lie if I were you: One of Saddam Hussein’s top generals did in fact indicate that Saddam had in fact relocated said WMDs to Syria and Jordan, gave full details about it, and if anything, it’s the leftist press who lied despite his directly telling them about it. Don’t believe me? Read this:

https://theblacksphere.net/2017/04/leftist-myth-busted-saddam-moved-wmd-from-iraq-to-syria/

And for the record, Ion Mihai Pacepa also agreed with that notion as well, and he’s no Neocon (and if anything he FLED the USSR to get away from Communists and Neocons).

[Sir_Humphrey]

First, your link is from a very dubious source but let’s put that aside for now.

OK, if they (WMDs) actually did exist and were moved, where are they now? How come after 17 years no pictures? After 17 years somebody would have at least leaked a photo that can be verified.

Again, my question stands: was it worth it? Did the price we paid and will continue to pay make us any safer?

[Lurker]

“There were NO WMDs found...”

Actually several tons were found. They were old and probably useless but they were found.

L

[Sir_Humphrey]

Actually several tons were found. They were old and probably useless but they were found.

Well Bush no longer makes that claim, The CIA has admitted no WMDs were found as well as many independent watchdog groups. But you are technically correct in that what was found was old and useless and therefore not a threat.

My question today to all who supported the war effort circa 2002 & 2003: Was it worth it?

[Lurker]

“My question today to all who supported the war effort circa 2002 & 2003: Was it worth it?”

I did and no it was not.

L

[Sir_Humphrey]

I commend you for your honesty

[Lurker]

“But you are technically correct in that what was found was old and useless and therefore not a threat.”

The delivery systems were useless. The chemical agents were still extremely dangerous.

L

[otness_e]

Fine, here’s IMP’s commentary on the issue: https://web.archive.org/web/20090822185422/http://www.washtimes.com/news/2003/aug/20/20030820-081256-6822r/

And there’s also more sources indicating Syria moved them:

http://www.dfire.org/x1989.xml

http://www.dfire.org/x2097.xml

https://web.archive.org/web/20060618015730/http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,182932,00.html

And you can even read George Sada’s book, Saddam’s Secrets: How an Iraqi General Defied and Survived Saddam Hussein, for yourself.

And maybe the chemical weapons are currently being used by, I don’t know, the dictator of Syria as well as the rebel forces fighting against him? Ever think of that?

[Sir_Humphrey]

I actually checked the links (the ones I could open) and my question remains: after 16, I said after sixteen - more than a decade and a half - how come we haven't found physical evidence they existed. There should have been photos of stock piles of "captured" WMD but there wasn't even a single snapshot of such. We just have the word of a former general trying to sell a book. Sorry, but if are going to spend $11 trillion and lose thousands of young lives not to mention the thousands who will be wounded for life, I would think you's want more. If, as the general said, they were moved in 2002, why didn't we know since we have that entire region under satellite surveillance since the first Gulf War in 1990? And if they were moved in 2002 and we knew, why go ahead with the invasion?

My ultimate question on this subject remains: Was it worth it? My answer now as it was then is a resounding no!

[otness_e]

Considering the alternative was to essentially ignore or even capitulate to al Qaeda without even a fight, essentially surrendering even worse than Vichy France, yes, it was WELL worth it. And don’t think of it as a theory. Bill Clinton had REPEATEDLY done exactly that for eight whole years, no less than 10 times.

[Sir_Humphrey]

Considering the alternative was to essentially ignore or even capitulate to al Qaeda

Well that was not the only alternative and nobody was talking about surrender to Al Qaeda. Plus it had zero to with WMDs in Iraq. If you remember, the imminent threat of WMDs was the fable W sold to the frightened American Public in 2002/2003. There was no formidable ISIS/ Al Qaeda presence in Iraq until after the invasion.

This will be one area in which conservatives will always disagree. Back in the day, I resented being called an 'appeaser" or "RINO" on these very boards just because I opposed the party line. The insults were so intense, I kept away for almost 5 years. But those days are in the past and we need to move on. In 2020 there are upcoming events that may put our republic at stake. In around 100 days we have a critical election that the Dems can't be allowed to win. I am talking on Federal, State and even Local levels. They should be the focus of our opposition and efforts. It shouldn't be fellow conservatives with whom we disagreed with on an issue 16 years ago.

[otness_e]

Actually, even if we WERE to ignore WMDs in Iraq for a minute (and there’s plenty of evidence that Iraq did indeed have that, some of which was provided by General George Sada, one of Saddam Hussein’s top men, and even a plane pilot assigned to relocate the chemical weapons), Iraq STILL ultimately would have needed to be invaded since, according to the 9/11 Commission Report, they HELPED al Qaeda commit various terrorist acts, INCLUDING 9/11. And if we can fight against the Nazis and Italian Fascists during World War II despite having absolutely no direct role in Pearl Harbor, I’m pretty sure Iraq is fair game for THAT reason alone. Heck, Conservapedia even has documented evidence making clear that WMDs did exist in Iraq, as you can see here: https://www.conservapedia.com/Iraq_War#Weapons_of_Mass_Destruction And bear in mind, they were NEVER fans of GWB at all, even freely calling the Bushes RINOS, so it’s not like they agree with him or like him at all.

The only bit I’ll blame Bush for was nation-building, particularly his screwing up and trying to put in democracy (it didn’t even work out in France, why should it work in a place like Iraq?). Even there, I’m not necessarily against nation-building itself (nor am I for it, for that matter). In fact, I’d argue that if we did nation build enough in Afghanistan to allow for better infrastructure, al Qaeda wouldn’t have gotten a foothold in there.

[Sir_Humphrey]

Chuckle Chuckle. Sounds like that argument is a “save face” type of argument after the disastrous Iraq war. None of those things would have happened. Face it, deep down people know they were fooled and a lot of them can’t come to grips with the horror they sanctioned

[otness_e]

Actually, it’s not saving face at all. And for the record, the 9/11 Commission Report already made it VERY clear that al Qaeda already had training camps in Iraq, with Saddam Hussein’s likely support. And aside from that, when even Conservapedia, whom most of the editors there are NOT Bush fans by any stretch (and most certainly aren’t fond of Neocons), fully acknowledge that there were in fact WMDs in Iraq, I think that’s enough to say there were in fact WMDs in Iraq. Not to mention the fact that General Sada and General Al-Tikriti both verified there were in fact WMDs (and why would they risk their lives exposing this information if they were lying?).