Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
So? Iraq has no connection to 9/11 right?
Posted by: McQ on Wednesday, December 27, 2006

So what's with this AP headline?

"U.S. Deaths in Iraq Exceed 9-11 Count"

Seems to be a non-sequitur if you ask me.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Quite right.
There does seem a double standard being employed, here.

Oh, wait... it’s AP.
Never mind.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://
Last I checked the Bush administration still advances the theory that Iraq indirectly caused 9/11 by fostering frustration and radicalization in the Arab street, ultimately leading to the creation of terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda. They and their supporters still argue that the invasion has been an important step in preventing further terrorist attacks. This theory is, and always has been ridiculous, but, the fact that it is still out there means that AP’s observation is not a non sequitur.
 
Written By: Badger
URL: http://
That’s true, Badger, they do still advance that point, and rightly, I think. And there is far more evidence of that than the White House has been pointing to. I’ve personally blocked about it several times as have many others. I’ve noticed such evidence on Boortz’ site, for example.

But given that it was the left and the press (A redundancy) pushing the idea that they were not connected, it seems more than a little disingenuous to now try and make the connection so as to make additional political points.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://
Can you imagine an AP report from 1945 that read, "Iwo Jima Death Toll Higher Than Pearl Harbor"?
 
Written By: steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com/
Bithead: You’re conflating what the "connection" in this case means. There was no direct connection between Iraq and 9/11, prior to 9/11. After 9/11 when the Bush Administration declared that Iraq was at least indirectly responsible for 9/11 and invaded Iraq, a "connection" was established. This is the connection that the AP source relies upon and, unlike the first, it is real.

Steverino: Your analogy is absurd. The continued use of WWII metaphors by Bush supporters in referring to the Iraq Occupation or the broader GWOT is flawed, and has led to consistently bad analysis of the conflict. Can you point me to one instance where events on the ground have behaved similar to the WWII analogies conservatives have tried to draw to them? Remember how the insurgency was predicted to fail, just like the Nazi Wolverines/Werewolf post-war insurgency? Remember how we were going to be greeted as liberators, like the French when we freed them from the Nazis? Remember how neither of those things happened? This isn’t WWII. This conflict is entirely different and behaves according to entirely different principles. Of course, your analogy is also flawed since it only makes sense if Iraq was directly responsible for the 9/11 attacks, and this is a view of reality so isolated and absurd that even Dick Cheney can’t subscribe to it.
 
Written By: Badger
URL: http://
Badger, take a chill pill. I wasn’t drawing an analogy between the military operations in WWII and the GWOT. Rather, I was illustrating that the mainstream media behave much differently now from just a couple of generations ago.

BTW, Germany and Italy weren’t directly responsible for Pearl Harbor. According to your apparent line of reasoning, we should never have fought them, since they never attacked the US.
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com/
Steverino, your headline should have been "Normandy death toll exceeds Pearl Harbor."
 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
Last I checked the Bush administration still advances the theory that Iraq indirectly caused 9/11 by fostering frustration and radicalization in the Arab street, ultimately leading to the creation of terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda.
Then you should be able to provide a link, shouldn’t you?
 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
(Snort!)
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://
At what point, I wonder, did American casualties in World War II outnumber the casualties at Pearl Harbor? Probably soon after the first major engagements in North Africa, I would imagine.
 
Written By: Bilwick
URL: http://
Last I checked the Bush administration still advances the theory that Iraq indirectly caused 9/11 ...
Even if true that has nothing to do with the point.

It has been claimed has been made repeatedly by many that Iraq had no connection to 9/11. So how valid is the comparison?

Seems to me if you share that view, you too would question the headline.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
At what point, I wonder, did American casualties in World War II outnumber the casualties at Pearl Harbor? Probably soon after the first major engagements in North Africa, I would imagine.
Quite a bit sooner after Pearl Harbor - think Philippines/Luzon/Corregidor.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
McQ: Please read my second post. The "claim" that "many" repeatedly make is not that there is no connection at all between Iraq and 9/11 now, it’s that there was no connection prior to 9/11. There is undoubtedly a "connection" (although of a different kind) between the two now, since I think everyone here would agree that there is little chance that we would have invaded Iraq had it not been for 9/11.
 
Written By: Badger
URL: http://
Not surprising this is confusing you McQ. So let me help you out here.

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 unless of course you’re as deluded as Laura Mylroie, and I’m betting against that.

However...

Iraq had everything to do with 9/11. Without 9/11 and the cowardice it instilled in a large portion of the population, we never make the biggest foreign policy blunder of the last 100 years.





 
Written By: Davebo
URL: http://
Without 9/11 and the cowardice it instilled in a large portion of the population
So the US is full of cowards and that is why they went through two wars. Ah, the logic of the left.
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
Steverino: Again, you’re not choosing your metaphors with much care. Germany and Italy weren’t responsible for Pearl Harbor, but Germany did declare war on us and was in the process of subjugating critical allies of ours in Europe. Iraq did neither. We went to war with Germany on moral grounds as well, but is there any doubt that Hitler and the Nazis were committing moral crimes on a much larger and terrible scale than Hussein and the Baath Party ever aspired to?
 
Written By: Badger
URL: http://
Without 9/11 and the cowardice it instilled in a large portion of the population....
Believe me, I wish big brave guys like you could be the ones to die in the next terror attack while you take the bullet (shrapnel, plane, explosion etc etc)so that cowards like me could live.

That’s what you’re proposing right?
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
We went to war with Germany on moral grounds as well, but is there any doubt that Hitler and the Nazis were committing moral crimes on a much larger and terrible scale than Hussein and the Baath Party ever aspired to?
Ah, I get it: Iraq was only garden-variety evil, not big enough to warrant any action. Tell me: do you think Iraq constantly shooting at US planes in the no-fly zone was an act of war? (Or at the very least, a violation of the cease-fire agreement?)
 
Written By: steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com/
Steve: Iraq’s evil was neither garden variety nor unaddressed. Prior to the war we enforced a no-fly zone to protect the Kurdish population and enforced (as best we could, anyway) an embargo on the country, both significant, albeit imperfect, steps towards addressing Hussein’s human rights violations (more than we did in other countries with as bad or worse records.)

While it’s true that Hussein’s self-destructive attacks on US aircraft probably do consitute provocative acts, if every minor border skirmish or international incident unavoidably caused an all-out war, about a third of the world would be on fire. Just because we can go to war, doesn’t mean that we must, or that it’s in our best interests. Furthermore, these attacks on US aircraft, although occasionally cited by the Bush Administration prior to the war, were never made the centerpiece of our rhetorical justifications domestically or at the UN. I believe that this was not accidental and was done because even many of the war’s biggest proponents doubted that the attacks fully justified an all-out ground invasion and occupation.
 
Written By: Badger
URL: http://
but is there any doubt that Hitler and the Nazis were committing moral crimes on a much larger and terrible scale
Yes, now we know that, but in fact, at that time these horrific crimes were treated as rumors with little beyond first person accounts to back them up. The decision to go to war against Hitler was never based on the holocaust.

I remember reading archives of the newspapers of those times before the war and many apologists were scoffing at such stories (as they described them). Before the US entered WW2, Stalin and Hitler signed their pact and leftists worldwide were pushing for the US to remain out of the European war. Off course, this all changed once Hitler attacked the Soviet Union.
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
an embargo on the country
An embargo that only starved the people of Iraq and nothing else. An embargo that corrupted the UN with massive bribes to look the other way. An embargo that achieved nothing at all but serve as another casus belli for Osama Bin Laden and his attack on the US.
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
It has been claimed has been made repeatedly by many that Iraq had no connection to 9/11. So how valid is the comparison?
They both involve the senseless death of thousands of Americans?
 
Written By: Ugh
URL: http://
Capt Joe, I don’t disagree with you that the embargo, like most embargoes, had a lot of problems. I do disagree with the principle that just because something angers OBL, it’s bad. But it’s important to note that the embargo ensured that Hussein would never be able to accumulate enough weapons and resources to invade his neighbors again and may have served as a deterrent to other nations tempted to take similar action (although the second point is probably unprovable).
 
Written By: Badger
URL: http://
And perhaps these folks think we should have quit WWII as soon as the casualties exceeded the Pearl Harbor death toll.
 
Written By: Rhymes With Right
URL: http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu
Badger wrote:
Steverino: Again, you’re not choosing your metaphors with much care. Germany and Italy weren’t responsible for Pearl Harbor, but Germany did declare war on us and was in the process of subjugating critical allies of ours in Europe. Iraq did neither. We went to war with Germany on moral grounds as well, but is there any doubt that Hitler and the Nazis were committing moral crimes on a much larger and terrible scale than Hussein and the Baath Party ever aspired to?
First off, exactly which US allies were subjugated by Germany? We had no alliances with the UK, France, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, nor the USSR. One could, in fact, argue (and many did) that Hitler’s actions were solely focused on Europe, and would not extend across the Atlantic to the United States. If one scoffs (rightfully) at Saddam’s inability to threaten the US, exactly how was Hitler going to do so? Were we within 5 years, or even 10, of SS Panzer divisions storming Coney Island?

Second, exactly where was there reference in the Declaration of War passed by Congress, or the request by FDR, regarding German moral violations? Indeed, isn’t it worth remembering that the great majority of the slaughter of Jews occurred after the United States declared war on Germany?

Wannsee, after all, was post-Pearl Harbor (and therefore post-US DoW). Not that the US was intent on letting Jews into the US even before then. So much for "everyone knew."

So, as of December 9, 1941, had Hitler killed more Jews than Saddam had killed, say, Kurds?
 
Written By: Lurking Observer
URL: http://
Lurking Observer: You’re being ridiculous. In the invasion of Poland alone, 150,000 polish civilians were killed. At least 20,000 of those deaths occurred over the course of over 700 mass executions perpetrated by Nazi death squads. That alone far eclipses Hussein’s treatment of the Kurds, and that’s barely even scratching the surface of pre-Pearl Harbor Nazi war crimes. Maybe you should try actually reading something about WWII before pretending to be knowledgeable about it. Or just go back to lurking.

Britain and France were important political, economic, and cultural allies at the time WWII. We had previously fought at their side during WWI and had, shared Treaty of Versailles responsibilities afterwards. I don’t think that there was much doubt that the United States had a significant interest in ensuring that they remain free from German domination. I don’t disagree that the Nazis probably never had any hope (or even serious intention, possibly) of invading the United States, but that’s no reason for a country to sit idly by while its closest international allies (who played a significant role in our country’s founding and independence) to be conquered by the likes of Adolf Hitler.
 
Written By: Badger
URL: http://
I don’t disagree that the Nazis probably never had any hope (or even serious intention, possibly) of invading the United States, but that’s no reason for a country to sit idly by while its closest international allies (who played a significant role in our country’s founding and independence) to be conquered by the likes of Adolf Hitler.
Geeze, speaking of sitting down and reading about World War II.

We weren’t allies with France, or Britain, in the sense that we had an agreement about joining them if they went to war with ANYONE. Had we been, we would have started in, Poland...1939 when the Einsatzgruppen troopers started implementing Himmler’s plan for the Jews, right?

Roosevelt had to convince Congress to institute Lend-Lease in March of 1941, which, was well after France had fallen (June 1940) and the German friendly Vichy government was in power. So, we might have lent some gear to De Gaulle and the Free French, waiting to go home, but that’s uh, about it. No "Lafayette we are here" this time.

So, yeah, as a matter of fact, when the Panzers were driving under the Arc de Triomphe in their grand parade, we were sitting idly by and doing nothing about helping our dear French allies from being conquered by the likes of Adolf Hitler. So there’s our ally from the War of Independence gone bye bye.

And the Brits (that would be our enemy in the War of Independence) had to hold out on their own until...ta...da, after Pearl Harbor, with only our Lend-Lease efforts to help shore up their defenses. No troops, no sailors, just gear.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
I do disagree with the principle that just because something angers OBL, it’s bad.
That wasn’t my point. My point was that acting as a talking point for OBL, the left and starving regular Iraqis, that was it’s only real affect.
But it’s important to note that the embargo ensured that Hussein would never be able to accumulate enough weapons
Never is never ever achieved. Saddam was slowed but not stopped. Even so, the embargo was about to come off even with his numerous violations and the like. After 10+ years, there was little interest in continuing the effort. With the ever steady attack on the embargo by the chatterati and most on the left, it was a very unpopular cause. Before 9/11, the Bush admin was all set to forget about Iraq and let go of the chain. I can’t believe you guys forgot all this. Oh right, ....
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
Looker: I don’t disagree with any of that. The point I was trying to make was that our political, economic, cultural and historical ties to France and Britain made our country especially sympathetic to interceding on their behalf. When I described them as "allies" I meant more that their international interests generally aligned with us, not that we had the sort of "your war is automatically our war" kind of alliances that were so popular prior to WWI. While this alignment wasn’t enough for us to automatically go to war for France’s sake, during a period where isolationist sentiment had reached a high-water mark in America, it combined with Germany’s declaration of war against us and our moral indignation at Axis moral travesties to bring into the European theory. It was only one factor of many, but I am arguing with those who say it wasn’t a factor at all.
 
Written By: Badger
URL: http://
Also, I admit that none of that was very clear when I first wrote it so you’re right to call me on it. I’m new to blog commenting and it can require a lot of effort to get thoughts down correctly.
 
Written By: Badger
URL: http://
"BTW, Germany and Italy weren’t directly responsible for Pearl Harbor. According to your apparent line of reasoning, we should never have fought them, since they never attacked the US."

Actually, Germany declared war on the US first. Dec 7th, 1941 was Pearl Harbor. The US Officially declared war with Japan on Dec 8th. Germany on Dec 11th, then declared war on the US.

The US went to War with Germany because they declared war on us. To be sure, I don’t think anyone doubted that Germany would declare war on the US once the US declared war on Japan, since they had an official alliance.
 
Written By: Tito
URL: http://
Tito:

Actually, there was quite a bit of concern on the part of FDR about whether the Germans would declare war on us. Hitler’s reliability regarding signed agreements was sufficiently low that quite a few in London and Washington wondered whether he’d do it (and there were serious questions about how the US could enter the European War if the Germans failed to do so).

Interestingly, most of the German General Staff assumed that Hitler would not declare war. In fact, quite a few were downright startled when he did so—they did remember World War I and knew that American industrial might would play a huge factor in the war’s outcome.

Given that Japan, however, had not entered the war against the USSR (as some in Germany had hoped, and which would have crippled the Soviet defense), and given that they had also not discussed Pearl Harbor w/ their German counterparts, the Generalstab can be forgiven for seeing the Japanese as less than reliable allies.


Badger:

Words have meaning. Don’t use the term "ally" when you don’t mean "ally." In the case of the UK and France, one could argue, somewhat, that we were aligned with them, but we were most certainly not allies with them, any more than we were with the USSR.

Which, by your logic, we should also have gone to war with, since we had fought them recently (US intervention in the Russian Civil War), who had committed atrocities against both their own people (rf. Gulag Archipelago), and which had invaded its neighbors (rf. Poland 1939, Baltic states 1940, Finland 1940). So, there we have a state we were neither allied nor aligned with prior to Pearl Harbor, with which we most certainly did not share political, economic, or cultural ties (the US had only recognized the USSR ~1933 or so).
 
Written By: Lurking Observer
URL: http://
Lurking: Maybe you should try looking at a dictionary before you start going after my word choice. From the Wiktionary:

Alliance
Noun

1. The state of being allied; the act of allying or uniting; a union or connection of interests between families, states, parties, etc., especially between families by marriage and states by compact, treaty, or league; as, matrimonial alliances; an alliance between church and state; an alliance between France and England.

2.Any union resembling that of families or states; union by relationship in qualities; affinity.
The alliance of the principles of the world with those of the gospel. —C. J. Smith.

3.The alliance . . . between logic and metaphysics. —Mansel.
The persons or parties allied. —Udall.
I have already admitted that I might not have been clear enough in specifying which meaning of "ally" I was using, but I don’t need lectures on word choice from people who can’t even be bothered to see if words might have more than one commonly accepted meaning. That goes double for posters who are just trying to change the subject away from their embarassing claims about Nazi war crimes being comparable in scope to those of Saddam Hussein. Go back to lurking.
 
Written By: Badger
URL: http://
Just as a general theory question -
is there a magic genocide casualty number that one has to cross over?

Isn’t that a UN style game? calling something ethnic cleansing we can try and turn genocide into some quantifiable figure where some genocide is actually much worse than others, and some things that really look like genocide aren’t actually genocide.

Is a lot of genocide really worse than a little genocide?

Seriously, if Adolf Hitler shot my family and then went on to shoot a million more families, I’m finding it hard to believe I’d be less upset if Saddam Hussein shot my family and only went on to shoot 1000 more.

Does that make sense?

Or should I ask - How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Looker: I think you’re splitting hairs. I think to obsess over whether a 20,000 person genocide is worse than a 100,000 person genocide, is closer to the "UN style game" you worry about than to just choose the obvious answer that, yes, size does matter. Although the perpetrators of either crime would both be so far beyond the moral pale that they may in many practical ways be identical (one does run out of labels and kinds of punishment pretty quickly when it comes to mass murderers), the fact remains that one committed a crime considerably worse than the other. If you had to choose between which criminal to punish, and in a world of limited resources for foreign interventions this is not a rare hypothetical, wouldn’t the 6-figure genocidaire be the easy pick?
 
Written By: Badger
URL: http://
Badger - put that way, yes, if I had to choose between which of the nasty little buggers I’d squash, obviously Dolphy goes first.

I get it, lesser of two weavils....

Limited (civilized) punishments, far too true, in these cases, alas.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
"At what point, I wonder, did American casualties in World War II outnumber the casualties at Pearl Harbor?"

Probably sometime before the fall of Bataan(April 9, 1942), and after the fall of Wake Island(Dec, 1942).
********************************
" An embargo that corrupted the UN "

Right. Those innocent, unsullied, virginal public servants were seduced and ravaged by the irresistible corrupting force of an embargo. Entrapment.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider