no fly zones

Home » no fly zones

Grab bag Monday

How are you this evening?

  • Several years ago, as I was searching for a theme for my blog, I started watching the O’Reilly factor. I would listen to his rant and then I would post the rant plus whatever I thought he got wrong or distorted. I got tired of documenting the egregious errors of Fox news. I just figured that Fox doesn’t care. They are going to say what they want to say regardless of the facts. (watch the video)

  • Libya confuses me. Libya’s dictator Muammar Gaddafi appears to be a repugnant dictator with little or no redeeming qualities. If he gets overthrown, ousted or otherwise booted out of power… This would be a good thing for the United States and for the world. It would be a great thing for the Libyan people. This thing is very complex. So, after a series of moves, a ragtag coalition has come together to enforce “no-fly zones” over Libya. On one hand, I think this is a good thing. I think that letting Gaddafi indiscriminately kill his own people is simply wrong. Does this riddle have a military solution? I think we all remember the genocide that went on in Rwanda in the mid-1990s. We should not let that kind of killing go on again, ever. On the other hand, what is our goal? Is our goal to destroy every airplane and helicopter that Colonel Gaddafi owns? Is that enough? As I see it, there are many pitfalls to this strategy. Remember Somalia? We were just delivering humanitarian aid. Then we were going to stop folks for stealing the aid. Then there is this serviceman being drug threw the streets.  Finally, if the former Russian president, Vladimir Putin, opposes this action, I’m thinking this action is a good thing.
  • A federal appeals court has reinstated a case against the government which was filed by the ACLU and multiple other groups. The case contends that it is unconstitutional for the executive branch to vacuum up all this information found in e-mails and international phone calls.
  • I find it interesting that the Obama administration is not going to ask for any funding for this Libya campaign. By the way, how much military action can a president engage our troops in without Congressional approval?
  • Former Minnesota governor has made it official, sort of. Tim Pawlenty has formed an exploratory committee. He has really been running for president for the last 2 years. I’m not sure what this committee is for. He knows where he stands with the American public. He has been monitoring his status for the last 24 months.
  • ATT is going to buy T-Mobile. Is this good for you and I? I can’t think of a single merger that has happened in the last 10 – 15 years that has benefited the American consumer. Watch Morningstar’s thoughts on this takeover.

  • BTW, if the Tea Party throws a convention and nobody shows up (about 300), does that mean that the Tea Party was just a fad?
By |2011-03-21T20:56:47-04:00March 21st, 2011|Congress, Foreign Affairs, Media, Obama administration|Comments Off on Grab bag Monday

New Pentagon Report: No Iraq – Al Qaeda links (updated)

It seems that everyone knows this now except for our president and vice president.  They continue to suggest (and, in Cheney’s case, outright state) that there were links between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.

I guess I could’ve titled this post, “What is Old is New Again.” (I originally posted the above paragraphs back in 2007.) One of my commenters has made a full throated defense of our invasion of Iraq. I think that everybody’s entitled to their opinion. Everybody is not entitled to their own facts. We did not invade Iraq based on Saddam Hussein’s violations of UN sanctions. The American people would not invade a sovereign country based on Saddam Hussein playing hide and seek with UN weapons inspectors. Nor did we invade Iraq based on some continuum of the first Gulf War – going back to complete the mission. The Bush administration knew that the American people wouldn’t buy this. Yes, Saddam Hussein did fire at our jets patrolling the no-fly zones both in the north and the south. The Bush administration tried to make a lot out of this but the American people were not moved. They needed more. The Bush administration knew that the American people would defend themselves if we were directly threatened. Therefore, this is exactly what the Bush administration cooked up – a direct threat. They looked for not one thing but a combination of things that would frighten the American people into action.

The Bush administration came up with a unique combination of threats to attack the American psyche. Probably the most creative was the bombshell that Cheney dropped on Tim Russert. It was the connection between 9/11 hijacker and Iraqi government and a fictitious meeting in Prague. We can’t forget the aluminum tubes. These “proved” beyond a shadow of a doubt that Saddam Hussein was trying to build nuclear weapons. These aluminum tubes “could not be used for anything else” but for centrifuges used to concentrate uranium. Tony Blair (former British Prime Minister) was a great help when he talked about mobile biological labs which could strike England with less than 30 minutes’ notice. (We can thank Curveball for this.) Don’t forget the Yellowcake from Niger. These are the reasons that were sold to the American people. Whether there are other reasons, like protecting our oil supply and/or stabilizing the Middle East, those were minor reasons. The major reasons that were put forth by the Bush administration are listed above.

All of these reasons fell apart and were found to be untrue. To rewrite history and say that Saddam Hussein had links to terrorists and that’s why we went to war is simply not true. We, the American People, didn’t care that he had links to terrorists. Instead, what the Bush administration sold to the American people was that Saddam Hussein had specific links to Al Qaeda. There was a report that was commissioned by the Department of Defense which looked at thousands of Iraqi documents and found some minor communications between Saddam Hussein and some terrorist organizations. Saddam Hussein was not a state sponsor of terrorism. At least not in 2003 when we invaded. Finally, it should be restated that Saddam Hussein was not an imminent threat to the United States or any of our major interests throughout the world.

By |2013-10-26T15:46:30-04:00September 8th, 2010|9-11, Al Qaeda, Iraq|Comments Off on New Pentagon Report: No Iraq – Al Qaeda links (updated)
Go to Top