July 04, 2005
Paul Wynn Goes to Iraq
I don't know Paul Wynn, but the Post-Dispatch actually put together
a very nice story about the pastor who lives in neighboring St. Peters.
If the Rev. Paul Wynn never returns from the war in Iraq, he wants his wife and children to know he served God and his country.
Wynn's church sermon Sunday was the last he'll deliver for a while. The pastor at the New Covenant Church of St. Peters and the father of five children leaves Tuesday to begin 12 to 18 months of military service in Iraq.
"It's a big, big if," Wynn, 36, of O'Fallon, Mo., told his children recently, "But if something does happen to me, I want you to always remember your dad did the right thing."
The 1990 West Point graduate and former Army football punt returner will spend the summer months in Farmington. Mo., where he'll begin training to lead a unit of 120 soldiers. This fall, he'll go to Fort Sill, Okla., before being deployed to Iraq. Wynn, a major, will lead a crew that supplies food, fuel, water and equipment to soldiers fighting on the ground in Iraq.
After returning from active duty in the Persian Gulf War, Wynn lived with his wife, Sandra, in England while attending Bible college. After finishing school, Wynn returned to Missouri and has served various positions in the church, including youth pastor, Bible training coordinator and full-time pastor for the past 18 months.
He said he felt compelled to rejoin the Army Reserve after the terrorist attacks on the United States.
That's the meat of it. I need to go look to see where that was found within the paper itself. I caught the online version.
hln
Posted by: hln at
06:44 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 294 words, total size 2 kb.
1
you should ask his soldiers how he acts on a daily basis. He if they think he is doing "the right thing"
Posted by: john doe at October 05, 2005 05:59 PM (+WPvl)
2
you really should look into this guy more.....i've heard some things about how he really isn't the most "christian" guy down in oklahoma...
Posted by: a concerned citizen at October 15, 2005 09:13 PM (+WPvl)
3
I came across this blog while looking for the post dispatch article on Major Paul Wynn. Unlike the other two people that left comments, if you click on my name you can send me an e-mail. I have been a close friend of Paul’s for many years. I am not sure what ‘concerned citizen’ and ‘john doe’ are cowardly insinuating, but I know Paul to be a man of integrity. I welcome anyone to “look into this guy more”.
Posted by: Gavin Deakin at November 07, 2005 07:34 PM (K9DWC)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 25, 2004
Home Depot
Brian and I just finished turning our rather large bedroom/library purple. We took many trips to Ace Hardware (right around the corner) and one big one to Home Depot, where we procured our purple paint and most of the things that help it adhere to the wall.
I was quite pleased this morning when I read that
Home Depot is donating $1 million worth of tools to the US military in Iraq. Go Home Depot!
Whoever does the overseas shipping for these guys is doing a happy dance right now, too. For sure.
The company said it is sending eight truck trailers to the military, filled with 100,000 tools and materials, including shovels, table saws, concrete mixers, safety scaffolding, power generators, light bulbs and jackhammers. The donated goods left San Diego on Thursday.
Earlier this year, the company also donated $1 million, as well as a million volunteer hours by its employees, to help military families repair and maintain their homes while a family member is deployed. The company said it has more than 1,800 employees currently serving in the military effort. It has about 300,000 employees nationwide.
Having recently returned from serving in Iraq, I know firsthand that our troops appreciate the fact that our communities and our country continue to show their support," said a statement from Tom Wagner, assistant store manager for The Home Depot in San Diego and a captain in the Marine Corps Reserve.
hln
Posted by: hln at
08:27 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 244 words, total size 2 kb.
1
excellent, i love it when i hear things like this. thanks, heather.
Posted by: sarahk at June 25, 2004 08:44 PM (HtWwm)
2
What Sarah said.
We have both a Home Depot and a Menards here in Janesville, and although the Menards is a couple blocks closer, I think that doesn't matter any more.
Posted by: Harvey at June 26, 2004 11:25 AM (ubhj8)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 19, 2004
Paul Johnson
I have spent the last hour and a half thinking about Paul Johnson. It's 4:53 a.m.
I knew Mr. Johnson would die. I knew how he would die. As Kevin Alyward posted,
"As noted here earlier in the week Johnson's fate was sealed from the beginning and he may have even been dead for days. The demands of the kidnappers were a ruse."
Normally, I don't touch the weighty topics. Too emotional to form an argument. But with an hour and a half of thought organization, I think I can eke out a few points.
We - citizens of the Western world, Americans especially, are individuals. We see each other as such, which is why the kidnap/beheading tactic is so horrible and therefore "effective." The victim is a person, and then, at the hands of al Qaeda, he suddenly is not.
This isn't about any war. This is about crimes of opportunity - al Qaeda's aims are met in any event. If a Western nation caves to the demands of terrorism, surely more terrorism will ensue. We all know the flip side to that also resolves the same.
Paul Johnson is an American. He is also a husband, an employee, and many other things we will maybe never know. He may or may not have been a good person. He is dead. He is dead at the hands of those who would seek to do the same to you and me if given the chance. How long before one of us is plucked from American soil and subjected to the same fate? And how will America react to the beheading of the first female victim? These are real possibilities.
There is pure evil in the world, and in this instance, it hides itself in the name of its god. That sickens me.
But America, in all of the projection of its vapid culture, is still a nation of individuals - people who matter, not a citizenry that's expendable, disposable, and ignored. And when we band together in support - in churches, in families, as a nation, we are one mighty and powerful force. And that force is not malevolent.
As a civilized people, we try to find compassion and understand those who seek our destruction. Give it up already. There's nothing available within your psyche to understand. Ask yourself what it would take for you to group with people to snatch a person, depersonalize that person in the sake of "political gain," and then brutally murder that person - a human being. Can't go there? Nothing comes to mind?
Good.
hln
Posted by: hln at
05:13 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 435 words, total size 3 kb.
1
One thing and only one thing comes to mind --
Eli Wiesel's Night Trilogy. He explores that issue in depth in Dawn, the second book of the trilogy. Though, while he is forced to execute a British officer in the name of the cause, he doesn't depersonalize his victim:
“I said that I wanted to go down before the time was up, to see the fellow, and talk, and get to know him. It was cowardly, I said, to kill a complete stranger. It was like war, where you don’t shoot at men, but into the night…To execute a stranger would be the same thing. If I were to see him as only he died, I would feel as if I shot at a dead man.”
Posted by: John at June 19, 2004 09:50 AM (Y7qT0)
2
I was raised to embrace all colors, cultures and any lifestyles of people as well as thier religion. I am a probation officer who sees true evil sometimes but no where near the evil exibited in these ruthless, SOULless killings like that of Mr. Johnson. I used to believe the Muslim faith was kind and good, or atleast human. I no longer believe this. My heart has hardened toward these people. I hate to lump an entire group of people in this sub-human category, but it is getting harder and harder. We need to get out of there, protect our own people and go back to the days when we were not scared to show them we will not tolerate this. That's what we did to Japan and the Japanese were not as a whole, nearly as sick and heartless as the group we are up against today. And my grandfather was fighting them on the ground in WWII. We have got to get rid of this group or all Muslims will someday be viewed as I and many others are beginning to view them now. And I have friends who are Islamic.
Posted by: shawna at June 19, 2004 10:45 AM (k6fCW)
3
All I know is that they have the blood of a innocent man on their hands........ Who ever their higher power is? Will one day make them pay for such an act that can never be explained to an adult, child or their family members. My prayers go out to the family and friends and God help us all when the world is turing to this.....
Michelle C
Posted by: Michelle C at June 20, 2004 11:24 PM (AaBEz)
4
Thinking on how horrible these two beheadings have been, I find myself wondering why are our people even over there... After Nick Berg's death, we should have loaded up and moved'em out.. These people think they are makeing some kind of statement? I feel like shouting, "GUYS, YOUR KILLING INNOCENT POEPLE!!!" How many more innocent people will have to suffer this same fate? I pray for the families of these men, and pray for no one else to have to endure that kind of torment.. Mel.
Posted by: Melinda at June 21, 2004 03:07 PM (hPbUl)
5
first i'll say a pray for those in despair......Angel's east Angel's west,North and south just do your best to gaurd and watch them,while they rest.....god bless all the stolen sole's...and GOD WILL HAVE MERCEY ON THESE MURDER'S SOLE's.
Posted by: Chelsea Edwards at June 25, 2004 07:11 PM (S1nA7)
6
:and the Japanese were not as a whole, nearly as :sick and heartless as the group we are up against :today
This should be researched some if you believe it to be true.. It is not.
JC
Posted by: JCase at July 09, 2004 11:43 PM (ZuR5b)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
March 22, 2004
Clear Something Up For My Simple Mind
CNN. Front page right now (10:11 a.m. CST)
Thousands of Palestinians jammed the streets of Gaza City for the funeral procession today of Hamas founder and spiritual leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, killed earlier in the day in an Israeli missile strike. As Palestinian militant groups vowed revenge, Israeli officials said Yassin was a "terrorist" who deserved death.
CNN:
Linking to itself in: Key facts: Sheikh Ahmed Yassin.
1987: Yassin founds Hamas from ranks of Muslim Brotherhood religious organization. Hamas soon emerges as strongest political rival to mainstream Fatah movement of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat. Hamas opposes peace talks with Israel and carries out scores of suicide bombings, killing hundreds of Israelis, to thwart peace agreements negotiated by Arafat and his supporters.
Someone please explain why "terrorist" appears on CNN's main page. Yes, I'm disputing the quotes. CNN itself calls this a fact, no? I'm certain Isreal's not making an assertion here; Israel believed the man was a terrorist.
"...carries out scores of suicide bombings, killing hundreds of Israelis..."
hln
Posted by: hln at
10:15 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 183 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I take it that you're asking a rhetorical question here.
Posted by: physics geek at March 22, 2004 11:51 AM (Xvrs7)
2
Absolutely.
A bit of Monday a.m. sarcasm does us all some good.
hln
Posted by: hln at March 22, 2004 12:17 PM (CWwGn)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
March 17, 2004
Operation Terrorism
Dictionary.com defines
terrorism as such:
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
It misses two keys words. These words are "illegitimate" (which is different than unlawful) and "immoral."
I was in Florida on March 11th without bloggable access to an Internet-connected computer. So no commentary from me until I read
this - something so illustrative of every point I would make that I'll first let it speak for itself.
PARIS, France (CNN) -- French police have opened an investigation after a Paris newspaper received a letter from a Muslim group threatening spectacular attacks that would make "blood run to (its) borders."
The letter, from a previously unknown group calling itself the "Servants of Allah the Mighty and the Wise," said it planned to take action after Muslim girls were banned from wearing headscarves in schools.
Servants of Allah the Mighty and the Wise, an expansion team.
Before news of the letter was released, French President Jacques Chirac said France was not under direct threat of attack "but, as are all the democracies, it is not safe from terrorist attacks."
Democracy. Yes, there it is, the root of the problem. I'll state it simply and concisely. The problem is not us. So, those of you over in the State of Wyoming, if you were blaming yourself, PLEASE STOP.
The cause of terrorism is not the United States. It is not Israel, not Spain, not France. It is freedom, the ability to live one's life as an individual with free will. And there is no logical "why." And it's not as simple as have and have not. Rather, it's a credo of hate held by bands of individuals who are willing to die to achieve, no, wait - willing not only to die but to kill innocent civilians (and consider themselves ever the more successful by doing so) to take aim at democracy - at "Westerners" especially.
While this particular decision (the headscarves) seems extreme, it certainly does not warrant "attacks that would make "blood run to (its) borders"." I would hope we have consensus here.
From the dawn of humanity (Cain killed Abel, no?) until far beyond our days here on earth there will be senseless killing of innocent human beings. And the reason, should you feel the need to search for one, is mere evil. This is a time unique only in its technology - the ability to coordinate attack strategy much like September 11th and March 11th. And it's bone chilling. If you find this acceptable behavior - a viable political vehicle - I'm certain there's a group that'd love your help for the small cost of your soul.
Terrorism is not another form of disagreement. It's an ideologically bully where those bullied are disposable "examples" so the rest of us who remain will act as though we were the victims. Shocked beyond action or into inaction. That is the aim.
If you live in a free society, you are a target. There is no answer to this problem, no surefire means of eradication. Only attempts at containment, define that as you will. Certainly I'd not advocate that we abandon democracy. So, those of you who would argue that Spain was attacked because of its affiliation with the Coalition, I reply that perhaps the time and place was so chosen, but Spain "had it coming" merely because it's free. <sarcasm>If it's not oppressed, than surely it's an oppressor, for that is the way of things.</sarcasm>
And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.
For nation shall rise agains nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in diverse places.
All these are the beginning of sorrows.
Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.
And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.
Matthew 24:6 - 10.
hln
Posted by: hln at
09:40 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 715 words, total size 5 kb.
Posted by: Harvey at March 18, 2004 09:23 AM (tJfh1)
2
I missed this when you first posted it - man am I sorry. This is fantastic. What a well laid out argument. You have my admiration and agreement!
Posted by: Tammi at March 21, 2004 09:09 AM (qg4Lf)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
December 14, 2003
A Difference of Opinion
By now, of course, everyone is aware of the capture of Saddam Hussein.
Brian and I were at the Hyatt Regency St. Louis this morning, having stayed there last evening after his company's Christmas party.
I was washing my face, and I heard him explain, "Oh, my God." A few moments later I emerged, and the television lower caption told the story before the reporter, who was explaining a tangent of the operation.
I felt immediate relief.
I'm not sure why that was my first reaction, but I've given it a bit of thought, and I think that's because Hussein's capture is tangible. It is a very good thing that we have the man alive and not dead. Alive, perhaps he can save lives. Alive but defeated, and perhaps those who were fearful can move on. Alive but defeated, and perhaps his allies will slowly, one by one, concede defeat.
Unrelated but still today, I went to do my duty for voting for the
New Blog Showcase, and I found this post by N.Z. Bear. This week, sponsorship goes to the
Liberal Coalition. Having never visited, I did exactly that, and I found some postulating about how democratic contenders might spin Hussein's capture to their advantage. Each point taken alone seems weak. I said as much, and then I ventured to the source of the post.
The weblog is
DOHIYI MIR, and this is the first time I've seen it. So I read along a bit. This post seems
accurate. And
this heartfelt. But here's where my mental brakes
screeched. The post is entitled Truth With a Side of Lies. Not the lies thing again, but, alas, yes.
The bad guys attacking our soldiers are not terrorists--they are guerrillas, engaged in an insurgency. Nor are they a direct threat to the American people--or is this an admission that the neo-con's beloved "flypaper strategy" is a failure? I'll further note that we created the current violent environment in Iraq through an illegal invasion and inept occupation.
Regardless, these statements are proof positive that Bush offers only fear to the American people.
And I have this to say. I started to comment on the site, but I believe I lost the top part of the comment, so this is a safer haven for my words. I don't address the "created the current violent environment in Iraq though illegal invasion and inept occupation." I just let that slide. But the post brought out my own thoughts, and they are not in accord with the author's. Seldom do you see me wax political - mostly because there are others who do so much more eloquently and effectively - from both sides of issues. But today - here we are. My response:
Of course it does. The continuation of violence in Iraq going on, that is. How do you stop a suicide bomber? You don't. He or she could be any person in a crowd (or car), willing to sacrifice his or her life to destroy and take the lives of others. We face cowards who are willing to die, kill those whom they do not know and may not begrudge, and give no warning.
I don't think there's any way to "win" against one. Or many.
The violence in Iraq will continue. It will continue long after we are gone, too, likely.
Is all of it senseless? Of course it is. I heard something on the radio today from a former army so and so - tuned in too late to catch who he was. But he made pretty much this same point and that it was highly unlikely that Saddam Hussein was coordinating the attacks himself.
Just a few thoughts. In an earlier post, you say "Truth With a Side of Lies." I hate this approach because everything else I'd read on this blog seemed to include balanced argument. Because person X and person Y disagree, and person Y is in power, person X labels his words as lies.
Take your classification of guerillas. I disagree, and I'll take to the dictionary.
Guerilla - A member of an irregular, usually indigenous military or paramilitary unit operating in small bands in occupied territory to harass and undermine the enemy, as by surprise raids. (from dictionary.com).
Okay - suicide bombings - yeah, it fits either way - terrorist or guerilla. You believe one way, and I believe the opposite? Is one of us lying? No, I don't believe so. It's merely semantics.
You are correct that the people who are attacking our soldiers are not a direct threat to "the American people." Why? Because right now they're in Iraq! We have no way of knowing the outcome and occurrences of the last 8 months had we not engaged in war. Have we done any good in Afghanistan though we have not found bin Laden? Some would say that we have not. My measure is that there have been no follow-up attacks on American soil since September 11, 2001.
Would there have been further terrorist attacks had we quivered in a diplomatic corner - had we tried to merely move on with our lives as if nothing had occurred?
I have no idea. I cannot postulate because these things did not occur. And if I cannot postulate about an alternative reality, then, truly, neither can anyone else.
Pray for peace and stability. As I do.
hln
Posted by: hln at
01:51 PM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
Post contains 908 words, total size 6 kb.
1
Hey, my cunning plan of having a controversial hed worked! :-)
Seriously, though, you make some good, thoughtful comments. I'll be linking to this post at my site.
One thing here: the issue about guerrillas is not semantics. We are involved in a guerrilla war, just like in Vietnam, where suicide tactics were also used. It's not just me saying this--the folks at the top of the military call this a guerrilla war.
What I object to about Bush's statement is that he is trying to paint all of this as part of the "war on terror", and he can't do that unless he calls the insurgents "terrorists". By creating a false connection and trying to fuel Americans' fear, he is lying. It ain't the same as saying "green men from Mars are invading," but it's still a calculated deception.
I did not accept Clinton's lying about his penis, and I do not accept Bush's lying about his war.
Posted by: NTodd at December 14, 2003 02:21 PM (bW9IA)
2
I don't disagree with your post, but I do find this quote disturbing:
"My measure is that there have been no follow-up attacks on American soil since September 11, 2001."
Will a domestic attack then cause you to conclude that we have done no good? It's hardly fair to the men and women working to stabilize Afghanistan, or to those working for our security at home, to deny they have done any good if one attempt slips through the net.
Nor is it fair to assume that, as long as we do not suffer from a successful attack, that we have "done good." I believe we have done good in Afghanistan, but I fear that many of your conservative colleagues follow this line of reasoning to its absurd conclusion: since there has not been another domestic attack, the war on Iraq has contributed positively toward a peaceful state of the world. This hold no more reasoned weight than asserting "the economy seems to be recovering, and we have been watching more reality television. Hence, reality TV is good for the economy."
Posted by: hans at December 14, 2003 04:38 PM (SSLGd)
3
> You are correct that the people who are attacking our soldiers are not a direct threat to "the American people." Why? Because right now they're in Iraq! We have no way of knowing the outcome and occurrences of the last 8 months had we not engaged in war.
Most of the people attacking our soldiers and allies and aid workers right now in Iraq were not a threat 9 months ago either. They had no reason to attack America or Americans, and no opportunity to do so. Nor did they have and WMDs to sell to the real terrorists.
Now we've (a) kicked out of power a lot of Baathists, who now have nothing better to do than attack Americans, (b) killed, injured, humiliated and oppressed thousands of formerly docile average Iraqis, some of whom have joined the Iraqi resistance, and some of whom have joined the real terrorists, (c) put thousands of American soldiers and aid workers (not to mention our allies and friendly aid workers) right in the thick of things, (d) invited the real terrorists in to take a shot with "bring it on" rhetoric and practice.
So of course we can't say for sure what would have happened had we not invaded, but we can make some pretty good guesses:
* Baathists would have remained in power (and thus had no reason to attack us)
* average Iraqis would have continued to live under the oppressive yet relatively stable Saddam regime (and thus had no reason to become either anti-American guerillas or terrorists)
* Al Qaeda would have remained persona non grata in Iraq (remember, there was no love lost between Saddam and Bin Laden), and would have had to keep organizing in shadowy places with few American targets, and would have had many fewer new recruits
It is very difficult to imagine a scenario in which either a Baathist loyalist or any average Iraqi would have even come up with the idea of attacking Americans, let alone having the werewithal to do it, a year ago.
Can you see the difference between Iraqi resistance guerillas and the real terrorists?
And can you see that the real reasons for this war were to line the pockets of military contractors, and to realize the geopolitical fantasies of a few radical neocons?
Posted by: Alex at December 14, 2003 06:04 PM (XKAKK)
4
Actually, Alex, your entire argument hinges on your assertion that
Al Qaeda would have remained persona non grata in Iraq (remember, there was no love lost between Saddam and Bin Laden), and would have had to keep organizing in shadowy places with few American targets, and would have had many fewer new recruits
I think you're focusing too narrowly on
Al Qaeda when we need to fear not just a single band of merry ambulatory improvisational explosive devisers but any number of them.
Considering that Saddam Hussein gave refuge to too many high-ranking Abus while he was in power and that he paid bounties to Palestinian suicide bombers, he was an eligible target. He wasn't going to stop his pro-terrorist practices on his own.
Posted by: Brian J. at December 14, 2003 07:47 PM (yJyUC)
5
NTodd - 1. Did you "not accept Clinton's lying" before or after he admitted it? Prove it.
2. I have yet to see/hear one shredd of proof with regards to Bush lying. You would think that a President who lied would be in a bit more trouble than...than what?...nothing? It must be that Bush is having all of the ones who know the truth murdered...Really people, I am so damn sick of hearing this Bush lied mantra without any proof/repurcussions for the president.
3. As for the al Qaed/Iraqi link, who knows for sure? You say to-may-to, the Telegraph says to-mah-to... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/12/14/wterr14.xml&sSheet=/portal/2003/12/14/ixportaltop.html
4. Time will tell with the WMD, too, now that we have Saddam...maybe it's there, maybe it's in Syria, and maybe it was never there. But, if it was never there, it sure fooled the rest of the world...
Alex - 1. war and occupation is full of risks. We definitely underestimated the reaction of the end of Saddam's regime.
2. In theory, I agree somewhat with your last two points (the somewhat is because I think you have a weird definition of stable and I seriously doubt that average Iraqis are attacking Americans). Plus, you could say the same thing about any war in which we invaded a country...were the Germans killing Americans daily before we landed in Normandy?
3. I disagree with your point on al Qaeda being persona non grata in Iraq. We already know that Saddam harbored one of their leaders and we know that he allowed one of their cells to operate in Northwest Iraq.
4. Grow up and post your real email address if you want to be taken seriously.
As for the guerilla vs. terrorist comment, I prefer terrorist. You all that label them as guerillas give them some sort of legitimacy. Do you think the resisters are average Iraqis fighting for freedom or are they paid by the Baathists or Baathist loyalists who stand to lose everything? Really, they are fighting because Saddam was the Iraqi George Washington? Puh-lease. Terrorists.
American Heritage Dictionary definition of Terrorsim:
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
Posted by: Blackfive at December 14, 2003 07:50 PM (6nsnp)
6
1. Did you "not accept Clinton's lying" before or after he admitted it? Prove it.
Exactly how am I supposed to do that to your satisfaction? I believe the burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused. No matter--you either believe me or you don't. I care not a whit.
2. I have yet to see/hear one shredd of proof with regards to Bush lying.
Then I don't believe you've been paying attention for the past several months, and my rehashing all the old evidence will do nothing to convince you.
3. As for the al Qaed/Iraqi link, who knows for sure?
Exactly why you don't go invading other countries on "darn good" intel. Preventive war is dicey business, which is why it has been universally condemned ever since the Axis powers got their asses handed to them.
4. Time will tell with the WMD, too, now that we have Saddam...maybe it's there, maybe it's in Syria, and maybe it was never there. But, if it was never there, it sure fooled the rest of the world...
Time will tell. Just as the inspectors said. But I'll note I was not fooled. After years of sanctions, inspections, and intel that directly contradicted BushCo's assertions, it was pretty clear that there was no WMD.
And even if I am ultimately proven wrong, it matters not: my arguments against the war don't rest on the existence of WMD.
We already know that Saddam harbored one of their leaders and we know that he allowed one of their cells to operate in Northwest Iraq.
You mean in the Kurdish controlled area, in which Saddam had no power? Riiiiight.
As for the guerilla vs. terrorist comment, I prefer terrorist. You all that label them as guerillas give them some sort of legitimacy. Do you think the resisters are average Iraqis fighting for freedom or are they paid by the Baathists or Baathist loyalists who stand to lose everything? Really, they are fighting because Saddam was the Iraqi George Washington? Puh-lease. Terrorists.
It doesn't matter what you prefer. The insurgents are guerrillas by all classic definitions, and according to the military folks in charge.
Nice strawman about Saddam = Washington. Nobody has claimed anything of the sort. I echo what many "experts" have said: the resistance has little to do with Saddam at this point. Check out my blog, or Juan Cole's, or a myriad other sites that offer a more realistic, nuanced view of the insurgency.
Posted by: NTodd at December 14, 2003 09:43 PM (TtsA5)
7
Well, Ntodd, I guess time will tell if you are genius or a fool...
1. If you don't care, then don't spew about how bi-partisan you are about lying presidents.
2. If memory serves, the last one got called on it. Don't know why this would be different.
3. I guess I will spell it out for you. We'll have to wait and see because there are media reports about the connection which I posted. That is unless you are really the director of the CIA...are you?
4. You were not fooled, but everyone on the security council, every nation's intel services contradicted the great Ntodd.
Intel is never perfect and it is always a gamble. And if there is WMD, "it matters not?" No, it matters (wasn't it one of the supposed lies?) and it just shows that you were a debater in high school who learned the classic bait and switch technique. You address half of what I queried...and still no proof, links, grand juries, etc.
Congrats, you egomaniac.
Posted by: Blackfive at December 14, 2003 10:43 PM (6nsnp)
8
OK, fine, let's call them all terrorists. But let's distinguish between
* terrorists who plot acts of violence against civilians outside their own countries
* terrorists who were all set and making plans to attack the US a year ago
* terrorists who would have loved to attack the US if only we made their job easier by transporting a couple hundred thousand troops and aid workers to within a few hundred miles of them and their explosives caches
* terrorists who are trying to expel the occupying force which just expelled them from power
* terrorists who would have lived normal(*), non-terrorist lives if it weren't for an invasion and an occupation that pushed them over the edge
* terrorists who were inspired to come from a neighboring country to help the previous two types of terrorists
and then, just for argument, let's call the first three types of terrorist "apes" and the final three types "gorillas"
I think that Todd's and my argument is that the war in Iraq created a lot of brand new gorillas, and didn't really reduce the number of, or risk from, the apes.
As for documentation of Bush's lies, that's a whole other conversation. But if you like I'd be happy to buy you a copy of Franken's book, or Ivins', or any of the lefty screeds, for Christmas. (And most of them don't even cover Q3-4 '03!)
(*) The premise here is not that "the average Iraqi" is truck-bombing hospitals, but that many new terrorist recruits were until recently in the ranks of normal, albiet possibly emotionally unstable and borderline disfunctional with bouts of raving, non-terrorist citizens.
- Alex yes really at stinky dot com
Posted by: Alex at December 15, 2003 12:02 AM (XKAKK)
9
Alex - it all goes back to the title of the post. A difference of opinion. We're focusing on different things, and we all call them "facts." Blackfive likely isn't going to want to purchase Franken's book until it's out in paperback. 'Round here, that's a better idea because paperback screeds from the opposite side do less damage to the walls when you throw them. And, typically, you will. At least once.
And, really, do you buy all that just because they said it? I'm reading Laura Ingraham's
Shut Up and Sing right now. I can't stomach it without filtering some and saying in my head, "no, you're wrong" on about every other or every third point. I can assure you, I'd do the same with one of those books. We don't have a Franken book in the house, but if I wanted my dose of Ivins, I could life
Molly Ivins Can't Say That, Can She? off of my husband's "read" shelf. I'll pass, though. Too many other things much further ahead in the to-do list.
I don't see Blackfive spouting off other people's obviously slanted books as his proof. Your evidence of evidence is not going to wash with someone who has a difference of opinion. At least do me the honor of quoting your proof from said book, seeing as it might be another year or so before it's part of the library.
hln
Posted by: hln at December 15, 2003 05:34 AM (yJyUC)
10
RE Ntodd: First Post " I do not accept Bush's lying about his war "
Ntodd: Second Post " I believe the burden of proof is on the accuser. " Either keep the cake or eat it.
In reguards to Iraq; it is my belief that the invasion was picked as a set piece battle. The U.S. is in a war with militant Islam and it's Arabic exponents. Merely persuing bin Laden's ghost through the mountains of Afganistan was an insufficient response to 9-11. The average, would be terrorist needed to see that America would fight and win in a campaign against a regime that was still considered formidable in the Arab mind. The international frame-work, already existed for military intervention in Iraq. It was, in some respects, a road apple. We needed a major operational theater, central staging area, and a reason; the Bathist regime provided all of these.
In the present era of P.C., our President would have hit a wall, both political and diplomatic had this plan been outlined bluntly. So, the occassion had to be met in less than straight foward terms. We made the war about WMDs and democracy both of which are valid goals in the long term but... we needed action in the short term, and chose to stress these issues. It often makes sense to handle the easy issues 1st, even if they seem tangential. Was Iraq planning to sell sarin to Alqeda this year maybe so, maybe no.The point is: Iraq is part of a larger strategy a stepping stone or pressure point.
The ultimate objective is taming the Islamo-Facist movement in the mid-east. We must realise there exist no common ground between occidentalism and wahhabbism. The muslims have decided correctly or not that Israel and the U.S. are the source of there pathetic situation. They are unambivalent in a desire for our fall. They delivered the terms of negotiation on 9-11. Anything other than a forcefull response, will simply reinforce their belief in our weakness. The only way to deal with a man who fundamentally wants you dead, is to fight and win. And never let him hold out any hope of victory. Be fierce and decisive. They want us dead and worship their own deaths, I want to live and enjoy life peacefully. There is no moral equivocation, no happy median.
Final Note: Could we drop the specious B.S. about the war being a ploy to enrich some of Bush's friends. I would not accuse Clinton/Gore of such evil, inspite of their questionable dealings with the Buddhist, Red Chineese and the timebomb they left in N.K.. America has never had a president capable of such evil as sacraficing his own citizens/soldiers for nothing more than a little personal enrichment. When someone suggests this they loose much credibility in my estimation.
J.W.
Posted by: J. Wilkinson at December 15, 2003 08:26 PM (Q6CNr)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 26, 2003
War and, Well, War
I'd like to note a couple of war-themed posts this evening. First, there's
this post from Shark Blog that I found via
Free Will. The author traces the words "imminent threat" through the media over time.
I link to
Robert Prather a lot. There's a reason for this. He spends a lot of time putting together thought-provoking posts about economics and foreign policy. This particular post
addresses thoughts and questions from a commentor from a previous post regarding Iraq, timing, justification, and the future.
hln
Posted by: hln at
09:51 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 93 words, total size 1 kb.
1
WRT to "imminent threat," it cannot be disputed (although the rightwing is certainly trying) this appointed administration certainly attempted to portray Iraq's WMD threat as imminent. The rightwing's sole response is to claim Bush never used the words "imminent" and "threat" together.
Sharkansky's post is embarrassing in its sophistry; it pretends one cannot possibly convey a sense of imminent threat without using those words. So, when a Colin Powell tells the UN that we
know--not suspect, not think, not guess--but
know Saddam possesses "conservative estimates" of at least 500 tons of bioweapons--we ought not believe that's really an imminent threat. When Cheney and Rice talk about "mushroom clouds" over American cities, we couldn't possibly infer an imminent threat. When Bush tells us that Iraq is less than 6 months away from having a nuclear weapon--that's not an imminent threat? When he tells us Iraq has unmanned drones capable of hitting US targets--that's not an imminent threat?
Look, the fact is Bush lied as to why we needed to invade Iraq. It was not an error or an intelligence failure--it was a calculated lie.
The great shame is that we've squandered all of the gains we've made combatting terrorism.
As for Robert Prather; well, he's wrong on just about everything. Reading Prather is merely reading RNC blast faxes in a different format; everything he writes can distilled down to a single message: Bush is right and just in whatever he does or might do.
Posted by: JadeGold at October 27, 2003 09:39 AM (P65xj)
2
No strong opinions, there JG. Don't forget to breathe, now. Breathe. Relax. (Smile, I'm not trying to be snarky; I'm just amused).
While what you say is written well, most of my readership and I likely don't particularly agree. Beauty of this country. We don't have to - no harm done.
hln
Posted by: hln at October 27, 2003 02:36 PM (ivis5)
3
Diversity of opinion is a beautiful thing, Heather. And, no, you don't have to agree.
But many of your 'readership,' will never have to fight in a war. And they'll likely die surrounded by loved ones after living a full and rewarding life. They won't be asked to place their lives or limbs on the line. They won't have to bury a son or a daughter struck down in what should be the prime of their life.
See where this is going, H?
It's not a game or a debate about whether Pedro Martinez is a better pitcher than Mike Mussina; it's something that shouldn't be debatable or subject to question.
It's not a game of parsing for political points.
Posted by: JadeGold at October 27, 2003 02:59 PM (Fpdq/)
4
It's fair to make these assertions, but who's to know what would truly justify a war? The killing of the Archduke Ferdinand? Re-enactment of the bombing of Pearl Harbor?
Most of the military members and veterans whom I know support the war. That helps. I have no firsthand experience.
How many American bodies? Would it take destruction of an American city? Occupation of part of the country? I covered my thoughts on it earlier - you can take a look at the War category to see where I'm coming from. What would be justification for use of military force? Were Clinton's bombings of Iraq justified? If so, why? If not, on what grounds?
hln
Posted by: hln at October 27, 2003 03:09 PM (ivis5)
5
Being a vet, having graduated from a Federal military academy, and coming from a family with many vets and active duty servicemen--I could hardly be characterized as a 'dove.' Yes, I believe there are justifications for war. But the commitment of troops into harm's way must only be undertaken for reasons that are, above all, based on truth. We owe those risking their lives nothing less.
Generally speaking, war is undertaken only as a last resort--when all other avenues have been exhausted. Prosecution of war should only occur in one, or more, of three scenarios: 1) in response to an attack upon US civilian or military targets, 2) to preempt an
immediate or imminent threat to US national security, and 3)to prevent or mitigate an ongoing genocide.
There's also a political component to war, but this is a secondary factor (or should be) in the decision to go to war.
In the case of the invasion of Iraq, the decision to go to war was made solely as a political decision with an attempt (read: dishonest) to justify the war on the basis of an imminent threat.
But let's look at the facts. After 1991, the Iraqi military had been decimated--its conventional force levels were about 20-25% of what they had been when they invaded Kuwait. Further, Saddam didn't control 2/3 of his own country. Thus, Saaddam's Iraq didn't pose much of a threat to exert force in the region let alone against the US.
WRT WMD, the record is pretty clear. We know this administration was willing to believe and hype information our own intelligence agencies knew was either false or highly suspect. This administration also was willing to believe stories from defectors our own State Dept. and intelligence agencies deemed to be con men and "pathological liars."
We also knew this administration undertook a concerted effort to tie Saddam to al Qaeda despite the fact our own intelligence agencies couldn't find a scintilla of evidence to support such a connection.
Yes, intelligence is more of an art than a science. And intelligence in the real world differs from the movies and TV in that it is rarely precise and accurate. In the real world, intelligence, at best, presents a picture of capabilities upon which some informed analysis might be made as to intentions.
In every case, this administration based its policy upon the least plausible intelligence. In a number of cases, it based decisions on information it knew was false.
As for military members supporting the war, it's a bit more complicated. As a member of the military, you are an instrument of the administration's policy--be it right, wrong, or unclear. Do I know people in or retired from the military who believe invading Iraq was a good idea? Sure. I also know some who think attacking France would be a swell idea. I know an O-6 who thinks we could send a couple RECON grunts into North Korea and create a Chernobyl. But I know far more, in and out of the service, who really question why we did it. That includes my cousin who just earned a bronze star in Afghanistan.
Were Clinton's bombings of Iraq justified? If so, why? If not, on what grounds?
Our last democratically-elected President bombed Iraq in response to Saddam's refusal to allow UN inspectors to inspect suspected sites. Clinton also was able to get unanimous security council support for his actions.
Posted by: JadeGold at October 28, 2003 08:53 AM (P65xj)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 06, 2003
Reviewing the War
Jon of QandO does an
amazing job of enumerating the justifications for the war in Iraq.
With the end of the Iraq war, comes the question...was the war justified?
Of course, one must define the justification for war first. Was it human rights? Was it terrorism? Was it WMDs all along, with the others only claimed after the fact?
Well, there's only one definitive answer, and it always suprises me that this is still debated. The justification for war has long been codified and official.
It is described in the October 10th, 2002 "House Joint Resolution Authorizing Use of Force Against Iraq", and it is quite clear.
So, in light of the recent progress report from David Kay, let's examine the justification for war, and see what we get. We'll list the justifications and see if they have been confirmed, or found wanting.
This is a very, very long post with lots of links. Prepare to spend some time. I'm certain Jon did.
hln
Posted by: hln at
09:09 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 170 words, total size 1 kb.
1
So we went in to disarm all those damn scissors, so we could safely choose paper again?
I think you might've mispasted a link ;-)
Posted by: hans at October 07, 2003 05:19 PM (SSLGd)
2
Heh....thanks for the, um, linkage?

(seriously, I do appreciate that you read all the way through it. Gold stars all around.)
Posted by: Jon Henke at October 07, 2003 06:32 PM (RWwXB)
3
Very, very strange. I thought I had the principles of Ctrl+C and Ctrl+V mastered at the young age of 31. I thought wrong. Fixing.

hln
Posted by: hln at October 07, 2003 06:46 PM (g+waq)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 01, 2003
Hoping and Praying
..that we have some
objective evidence for the whiners and the wary (I fit in the second category).
As seen in the news earlier and on
Electric Venom. I'm certain this will be widely discussed for the rest of the week.
hln
Posted by: hln at
09:06 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 48 words, total size 1 kb.
Front Line Voices
Front Line Voices is live.
If you haven't yet stopped by, it's worth your time. If you know a service member with a story, please pass on the information about the site.
hln
Posted by: hln at
08:52 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 39 words, total size 1 kb.
September 27, 2003
Front Line Voices
The project is taking shape. The URL is in place with a blog atop it,
skinning to commence soon. The group of us who have volunteered have been
sharing ideas about how this should and will take place. The whole thing is
fascinating; the effect should be as well.
If you have as few as two free hours per week and have an interest in the
project, please visit the
discussion blog and find a fitting way to donate some of
your time.
hln
Posted by: hln at
05:20 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 90 words, total size 1 kb.
September 24, 2003
Visit Here
Visit Here
And volunteer.
hln
Posted by: hln at
06:32 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 9 words, total size 1 kb.
The War - Choose Your Battles
I don't write much about the Iraq war, the events leading up to it, and the
events that have occurred in the rebuilding stage. There's a reason -
mostly because I become emotional and have trouble becoming, much less
remaining, objective on this issue. But, here are a few months' worth of
thoughts conglomerated.
On March 21, 2003 at about 9:00 in the evening, news of the war came on the
radio. It was a Wednesday evening, and I was at my community volleyball
session, just as I will be tonight. Volleyball was scheduled to last until
9:30. At 9:15, I left, very distracted, essentially unable to function in a
"fun" and recreational enviornment. I arrived home to Brian watching
Fox.
The media's night vision live action footage and term coinage, as if this
were somehow trendy, this "Shock and Awe" etc. was and is disgusting. At
work in the reception area, TVs are tuned to CNN all day. Every time I'd
leave my cubicle to get more water, I'd walk by more bombing. Bombing,
bombing, and more bombing. Bombing as an Olympic event. On Friday, I was
at lunch at Ruby Tuesday's when
Hans remarked while looking up at a perched television
screen covering - you guessed it, more bombing - "What's the score?"
And that about sums it up. I support the government's choice to go to war;
I hope I understand it. I essentially believe we declared war because we
had to - we had said we would if certain
final conditions were not met (we did all but ask Saddam
pretty please with sugar on top to leave); the conditions were not
satisfied, of course, and, well, you know the rest. Had we backed down with
an "oh, sorry," I believe there would've been graver consequence than these
we face today because the image of the United States would be weakened (thus
leading to more attacks and a lessened ability to negotiate by staunch
deterrence and subtle threat). There is no glaring evidence of WMDs (yet
another term) - the SOLE reason we went to war, according to many of those
opposed. This is disheartening, yes.
The simple fact remains, though. We. are. in. Iraq. We are not leaving
until we have done our job. Many tragedies will occur between now and then -
some preventable, some not. As a nation, though, we have made a commitment
- a commitment I am comfortable assuming that was undertaken based on
knowledge far greater than any normal citizen you and I can obtain.
Do I support the war and America's efforts against terrorism? Wholeheartedly
and unquestionably, yes. Does this come without a price? No. The war makes
me question what I'm about - I have become callous and have stopped reading
past the headlines when soldiers die. I do not learn their names or about
their childhoods and families left behind as I did early in the war. I do
not connect.
I also believe that this nation has done two things with the war - one good,
and one very, very bad.
The good is that with a limited amount of power, we deposed the Saddam
Hussein regime very quickly. This stands as an example to other nations who
would dare challenge our military and technological supremacy. It also
paints us in a benevolent light, to those who stop to notice, because of our
restraint.
The bad is that this is one nation, one link to terrorism. We are merely
beginning, and I believe we are entering something that has no conceivable
end. It has been said before and I merely reiterate that we will forever be
criticized for every skirmish and issue and possible link to terrorism that
we do NOT eradicate because we chose the war with Iraq.
This post comes from what Frank J.
wrote last night on the Alliance blog and my frustration
with knowing NO ONE involved in the Iraq war. I stopped to think about that
- I don't know a soul serving in Iraq in this phase, either. That lends
itself to a nice disconnect, no.
Sadly, and in complete honesty, yes.
hln
Posted by: hln at
06:55 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 705 words, total size 4 kb.
September 11, 2003
Lileks on 9/11/2001
Lileks on 9/11/2001
If you read Lileks, then you expect nothing less than what he
delivers today. If you haven't or don't read him, today
is a good day to begin.
hln
Posted by: hln at
09:26 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 38 words, total size 1 kb.
Voices
If you've not visited Michele's
Voices project,
please do.
I'm borrowing the text of
Meryl's (
Meryl Yourish) to show you how powerful these stories
are.
My how-I-heard-it story is of no matter. It's not very interesting. I left
work early, stopped and pick up some extra groceries, talked with neighbors
until after dark. What I found far more visceral was the first time I
realized what exactly was a strange odor that sometimes permeated Montclair,
where I lived at the time.
A few days after the eleventh, maybe the thirteenth or the fourteenth, I was
driving across town for lunch. It was another beautiful September day. My
car windows were open, and I thought to myself, "Someone has used far too
much fertilizer on their lawn."
But it wasn't fertilizer. The wind was coming from the east, and it brought
the smell of the remains of the twin towers burning. And though that was the
first time, it was far from the last.
My birthday is November 15th. On November 15th, 2001, I went to dinner with
friends. We had dinner at a favorite place of mine, Charlie Brown's, in
Upper Montclair. As we left the restaurant, Brenda sniffed the air and
asked, "What's that awful smell?"
It was the World Trade Center fires, still burning, two months later.
Montclair is twelve miles west of New York City. Every time the wind was in
the east during the months following September 11th, you could smell the
towers burning.
This is what I wrote that night:
We may be getting closer to normal, but we will never forget. We will never
be the same. Twelve miles west of Manhattan, and I can smell the Towers
burning. Ten o'clock at night, and I can step outside onto my patio and
smell Ground Zero.
Twelve miles west. There's a theater troupe in Montclair named Twelve Miles
West. I can no longer think of them, or that phrase, without thinking of the
wind coming from the east, bearing the odor of death.
--Meryl
hln
Posted by: hln at
07:30 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 342 words, total size 2 kb.
84kb generated in CPU 0.0493, elapsed 0.1031 seconds.
87 queries taking 0.0669 seconds, 215 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.