[Allan from Fallbrook]

marion: If by “grandpa” you mean McCain, well, I’m not voting for him, either. I never voted for Dubya (either term), and actually the last Republican I voted for was Dole in ’96.

Regarding Obama, I want to turn the question back on you. Why are you voting for him? I’d be curious as to why you’re voting for him, and would like to hear your thoughts.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

marion: If by “grandpa” you mean McCain, well, I’m not voting for him, either. I never voted for Dubya (either term), and actually the last Republican I voted for was Dole in ’96.

Regarding Obama, I want to turn the question back on you. Why are you voting for him? I’d be curious as to why you’re voting for him, and would like to hear your thoughts.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

marion: If by “grandpa” you mean McCain, well, I’m not voting for him, either. I never voted for Dubya (either term), and actually the last Republican I voted for was Dole in ’96.

Regarding Obama, I want to turn the question back on you. Why are you voting for him? I’d be curious as to why you’re voting for him, and would like to hear your thoughts.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

marion: If by “grandpa” you mean McCain, well, I’m not voting for him, either. I never voted for Dubya (either term), and actually the last Republican I voted for was Dole in ’96.

Regarding Obama, I want to turn the question back on you. Why are you voting for him? I’d be curious as to why you’re voting for him, and would like to hear your thoughts.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

gandalf: Here’s a picture of FDR meeting with Saudi King Abdulaziz (ibn Saud) aboard the USS Quincy in February of 1945.

http://www.toursaudiarabia.com/images/ibn-saud-1.html

We’ve always had a “special” relationship with the Saudis, and it has always been driven by oil and the usefulness of the Saudis in maintaining US interests in the region. The particulars of this meeting are interesting: It took place as FDR was returning from meeting Churchill and Stalin at Yalta, and, while FDR did discuss oil, he also discussed Palestine and how the Saudis could help with what FDR recognized as a developing problem.

I have no doubt that FDR, recognizing that WWII was drawing to a successful close, and also recognizing the over-the-horizon threat of Uncle Joe and the USSR, was getting his proverbial ducks in a row. It’s been said that Churchill was very threatened by the newfound US influence in the region, and there had to be a sense in Churchill’s mind that the balance of power in the region was shifting from the British to the Americans.

I bring all of this up because it illustrates a couple of important points. First, as gandalf astutely pointed out, we do view that part of the world through a Cold War filter. We knew as early as 1943 that we would have to deal with the Soviets at some point, and nailing down our strategic resources was a key issue. Second, we relied on the British “balance of power” strategy, as well as having to deal with the remnants of the old British order, including problems like Palestine. To that end, we got into bed with allies like the Saudis and have stayed there, for better and for worse.

I would be the first to agitate for a regime change in Saudi Arabia. But to what? And the Saudis have 60+ years of uncashed chits with the US government. When it comes to rendition and a lot of the dirty work, you can bet your ass the Saudis have been there with us, ensuring that our “needs” are “met”. The problem is that the Saudis are also trying to buy time internally and allowing Wahabism to be taught and proselytized in their schools. At some point, this whole situation goes critical.

Viewed that way, having a large “footprint” (to use gandalf’s term) in Iraq is a benefit. We have 150,000 US troops in place as a counterweight to regional powers like Iran and Syria, as well as global powers like Russia and China. Think in terms of the “Great Game” philosophy of the mid- to late 19th century. Then it is more like chess than checkers.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

gandalf: Here’s a picture of FDR meeting with Saudi King Abdulaziz (ibn Saud) aboard the USS Quincy in February of 1945.

http://www.toursaudiarabia.com/images/ibn-saud-1.html

We’ve always had a “special” relationship with the Saudis, and it has always been driven by oil and the usefulness of the Saudis in maintaining US interests in the region. The particulars of this meeting are interesting: It took place as FDR was returning from meeting Churchill and Stalin at Yalta, and, while FDR did discuss oil, he also discussed Palestine and how the Saudis could help with what FDR recognized as a developing problem.

I have no doubt that FDR, recognizing that WWII was drawing to a successful close, and also recognizing the over-the-horizon threat of Uncle Joe and the USSR, was getting his proverbial ducks in a row. It’s been said that Churchill was very threatened by the newfound US influence in the region, and there had to be a sense in Churchill’s mind that the balance of power in the region was shifting from the British to the Americans.

I bring all of this up because it illustrates a couple of important points. First, as gandalf astutely pointed out, we do view that part of the world through a Cold War filter. We knew as early as 1943 that we would have to deal with the Soviets at some point, and nailing down our strategic resources was a key issue. Second, we relied on the British “balance of power” strategy, as well as having to deal with the remnants of the old British order, including problems like Palestine. To that end, we got into bed with allies like the Saudis and have stayed there, for better and for worse.

I would be the first to agitate for a regime change in Saudi Arabia. But to what? And the Saudis have 60+ years of uncashed chits with the US government. When it comes to rendition and a lot of the dirty work, you can bet your ass the Saudis have been there with us, ensuring that our “needs” are “met”. The problem is that the Saudis are also trying to buy time internally and allowing Wahabism to be taught and proselytized in their schools. At some point, this whole situation goes critical.

Viewed that way, having a large “footprint” (to use gandalf’s term) in Iraq is a benefit. We have 150,000 US troops in place as a counterweight to regional powers like Iran and Syria, as well as global powers like Russia and China. Think in terms of the “Great Game” philosophy of the mid- to late 19th century. Then it is more like chess than checkers.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

gandalf: Here’s a picture of FDR meeting with Saudi King Abdulaziz (ibn Saud) aboard the USS Quincy in February of 1945.

http://www.toursaudiarabia.com/images/ibn-saud-1.html

We’ve always had a “special” relationship with the Saudis, and it has always been driven by oil and the usefulness of the Saudis in maintaining US interests in the region. The particulars of this meeting are interesting: It took place as FDR was returning from meeting Churchill and Stalin at Yalta, and, while FDR did discuss oil, he also discussed Palestine and how the Saudis could help with what FDR recognized as a developing problem.

I have no doubt that FDR, recognizing that WWII was drawing to a successful close, and also recognizing the over-the-horizon threat of Uncle Joe and the USSR, was getting his proverbial ducks in a row. It’s been said that Churchill was very threatened by the newfound US influence in the region, and there had to be a sense in Churchill’s mind that the balance of power in the region was shifting from the British to the Americans.

I bring all of this up because it illustrates a couple of important points. First, as gandalf astutely pointed out, we do view that part of the world through a Cold War filter. We knew as early as 1943 that we would have to deal with the Soviets at some point, and nailing down our strategic resources was a key issue. Second, we relied on the British “balance of power” strategy, as well as having to deal with the remnants of the old British order, including problems like Palestine. To that end, we got into bed with allies like the Saudis and have stayed there, for better and for worse.

I would be the first to agitate for a regime change in Saudi Arabia. But to what? And the Saudis have 60+ years of uncashed chits with the US government. When it comes to rendition and a lot of the dirty work, you can bet your ass the Saudis have been there with us, ensuring that our “needs” are “met”. The problem is that the Saudis are also trying to buy time internally and allowing Wahabism to be taught and proselytized in their schools. At some point, this whole situation goes critical.

Viewed that way, having a large “footprint” (to use gandalf’s term) in Iraq is a benefit. We have 150,000 US troops in place as a counterweight to regional powers like Iran and Syria, as well as global powers like Russia and China. Think in terms of the “Great Game” philosophy of the mid- to late 19th century. Then it is more like chess than checkers.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

gandalf: Here’s a picture of FDR meeting with Saudi King Abdulaziz (ibn Saud) aboard the USS Quincy in February of 1945.

http://www.toursaudiarabia.com/images/ibn-saud-1.html

We’ve always had a “special” relationship with the Saudis, and it has always been driven by oil and the usefulness of the Saudis in maintaining US interests in the region. The particulars of this meeting are interesting: It took place as FDR was returning from meeting Churchill and Stalin at Yalta, and, while FDR did discuss oil, he also discussed Palestine and how the Saudis could help with what FDR recognized as a developing problem.

I have no doubt that FDR, recognizing that WWII was drawing to a successful close, and also recognizing the over-the-horizon threat of Uncle Joe and the USSR, was getting his proverbial ducks in a row. It’s been said that Churchill was very threatened by the newfound US influence in the region, and there had to be a sense in Churchill’s mind that the balance of power in the region was shifting from the British to the Americans.

I bring all of this up because it illustrates a couple of important points. First, as gandalf astutely pointed out, we do view that part of the world through a Cold War filter. We knew as early as 1943 that we would have to deal with the Soviets at some point, and nailing down our strategic resources was a key issue. Second, we relied on the British “balance of power” strategy, as well as having to deal with the remnants of the old British order, including problems like Palestine. To that end, we got into bed with allies like the Saudis and have stayed there, for better and for worse.

I would be the first to agitate for a regime change in Saudi Arabia. But to what? And the Saudis have 60+ years of uncashed chits with the US government. When it comes to rendition and a lot of the dirty work, you can bet your ass the Saudis have been there with us, ensuring that our “needs” are “met”. The problem is that the Saudis are also trying to buy time internally and allowing Wahabism to be taught and proselytized in their schools. At some point, this whole situation goes critical.

Viewed that way, having a large “footprint” (to use gandalf’s term) in Iraq is a benefit. We have 150,000 US troops in place as a counterweight to regional powers like Iran and Syria, as well as global powers like Russia and China. Think in terms of the “Great Game” philosophy of the mid- to late 19th century. Then it is more like chess than checkers.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

gandalf: Here’s a picture of FDR meeting with Saudi King Abdulaziz (ibn Saud) aboard the USS Quincy in February of 1945.

http://www.toursaudiarabia.com/images/ibn-saud-1.html

We’ve always had a “special” relationship with the Saudis, and it has always been driven by oil and the usefulness of the Saudis in maintaining US interests in the region. The particulars of this meeting are interesting: It took place as FDR was returning from meeting Churchill and Stalin at Yalta, and, while FDR did discuss oil, he also discussed Palestine and how the Saudis could help with what FDR recognized as a developing problem.

I have no doubt that FDR, recognizing that WWII was drawing to a successful close, and also recognizing the over-the-horizon threat of Uncle Joe and the USSR, was getting his proverbial ducks in a row. It’s been said that Churchill was very threatened by the newfound US influence in the region, and there had to be a sense in Churchill’s mind that the balance of power in the region was shifting from the British to the Americans.

I bring all of this up because it illustrates a couple of important points. First, as gandalf astutely pointed out, we do view that part of the world through a Cold War filter. We knew as early as 1943 that we would have to deal with the Soviets at some point, and nailing down our strategic resources was a key issue. Second, we relied on the British “balance of power” strategy, as well as having to deal with the remnants of the old British order, including problems like Palestine. To that end, we got into bed with allies like the Saudis and have stayed there, for better and for worse.

I would be the first to agitate for a regime change in Saudi Arabia. But to what? And the Saudis have 60+ years of uncashed chits with the US government. When it comes to rendition and a lot of the dirty work, you can bet your ass the Saudis have been there with us, ensuring that our “needs” are “met”. The problem is that the Saudis are also trying to buy time internally and allowing Wahabism to be taught and proselytized in their schools. At some point, this whole situation goes critical.

Viewed that way, having a large “footprint” (to use gandalf’s term) in Iraq is a benefit. We have 150,000 US troops in place as a counterweight to regional powers like Iran and Syria, as well as global powers like Russia and China. Think in terms of the “Great Game” philosophy of the mid- to late 19th century. Then it is more like chess than checkers.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

gandalf: I wouldn’t disagree about Ike, but I think the point needs to be made regarding the world in Eisenhower’s time versus the world now (and in Reagan’s time). That was a pretty idyllic period in America history. Yes, we had the Soviet threat to deal with, along with the shoe banging Nikita Khrushchev, but it had not yet morphed into the truly global threat it would become later in the 1960s and 1970s. The US still had the edge in terms of atomic supremacy and ballistic missile technology was still in its infancy. At home, the economy was booming, and Americans were enjoying their new prosperity.

It was also a fairly innocent time. You could still trust the government, and Ike represented the best of the war years to many people. He had led the Allies to victory in “The Great Crusade” against Nazism, and was considered trustworthy and forthright.

I have my own issues with Reagan, having served under him for five years, but I agree that, under the present circumstances, he is a far better choice than either Clinton or Bush II. Or Bush I, for that matter.

In terms of Iraq, I remain torn. We’re there and we need to finish what we started. At the time, I did believe there were WMD, and I also believed that Saddam, while a secular leader, would find a way to leverage al Qaeda’s success against the West to his advantage. No, I don’t think Saddam had anything to do with 9/11, nor do I discount the fact that Osama bin Laden was openly critical of Saddam and had threatened his regime. But, it also needs to be said that Saddam fancied himself a Pan-Arabic leader in the mold of Salah al-Din (Saladin) and had plans for regional hegemony. The immediacy of the threat can also be called into question. While Saddam did not have nukes, it was still undetermined as to whether or not he did or didn’t have chem and bio weapons.

I would also point out that our intel, regardless of source, has always been a day late and a dollar short. Bush was heavily upbraided for his administration’s failure to properly read the tea leaves, but, in fairness, we’ve never done a great job when it comes to getting a handle on the Middle East. Add our over-reliance on Israel to provide strategic direction in the region (and I have a whole other set of objections when it comes to Israel), along with supporting the Saudis while they vigorously stab us in the back and you have a regional policy that makes for these kinds of decisions.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

gandalf: I wouldn’t disagree about Ike, but I think the point needs to be made regarding the world in Eisenhower’s time versus the world now (and in Reagan’s time). That was a pretty idyllic period in America history. Yes, we had the Soviet threat to deal with, along with the shoe banging Nikita Khrushchev, but it had not yet morphed into the truly global threat it would become later in the 1960s and 1970s. The US still had the edge in terms of atomic supremacy and ballistic missile technology was still in its infancy. At home, the economy was booming, and Americans were enjoying their new prosperity.

It was also a fairly innocent time. You could still trust the government, and Ike represented the best of the war years to many people. He had led the Allies to victory in “The Great Crusade” against Nazism, and was considered trustworthy and forthright.

I have my own issues with Reagan, having served under him for five years, but I agree that, under the present circumstances, he is a far better choice than either Clinton or Bush II. Or Bush I, for that matter.

In terms of Iraq, I remain torn. We’re there and we need to finish what we started. At the time, I did believe there were WMD, and I also believed that Saddam, while a secular leader, would find a way to leverage al Qaeda’s success against the West to his advantage. No, I don’t think Saddam had anything to do with 9/11, nor do I discount the fact that Osama bin Laden was openly critical of Saddam and had threatened his regime. But, it also needs to be said that Saddam fancied himself a Pan-Arabic leader in the mold of Salah al-Din (Saladin) and had plans for regional hegemony. The immediacy of the threat can also be called into question. While Saddam did not have nukes, it was still undetermined as to whether or not he did or didn’t have chem and bio weapons.

I would also point out that our intel, regardless of source, has always been a day late and a dollar short. Bush was heavily upbraided for his administration’s failure to properly read the tea leaves, but, in fairness, we’ve never done a great job when it comes to getting a handle on the Middle East. Add our over-reliance on Israel to provide strategic direction in the region (and I have a whole other set of objections when it comes to Israel), along with supporting the Saudis while they vigorously stab us in the back and you have a regional policy that makes for these kinds of decisions.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

gandalf: I wouldn’t disagree about Ike, but I think the point needs to be made regarding the world in Eisenhower’s time versus the world now (and in Reagan’s time). That was a pretty idyllic period in America history. Yes, we had the Soviet threat to deal with, along with the shoe banging Nikita Khrushchev, but it had not yet morphed into the truly global threat it would become later in the 1960s and 1970s. The US still had the edge in terms of atomic supremacy and ballistic missile technology was still in its infancy. At home, the economy was booming, and Americans were enjoying their new prosperity.

It was also a fairly innocent time. You could still trust the government, and Ike represented the best of the war years to many people. He had led the Allies to victory in “The Great Crusade” against Nazism, and was considered trustworthy and forthright.

I have my own issues with Reagan, having served under him for five years, but I agree that, under the present circumstances, he is a far better choice than either Clinton or Bush II. Or Bush I, for that matter.

In terms of Iraq, I remain torn. We’re there and we need to finish what we started. At the time, I did believe there were WMD, and I also believed that Saddam, while a secular leader, would find a way to leverage al Qaeda’s success against the West to his advantage. No, I don’t think Saddam had anything to do with 9/11, nor do I discount the fact that Osama bin Laden was openly critical of Saddam and had threatened his regime. But, it also needs to be said that Saddam fancied himself a Pan-Arabic leader in the mold of Salah al-Din (Saladin) and had plans for regional hegemony. The immediacy of the threat can also be called into question. While Saddam did not have nukes, it was still undetermined as to whether or not he did or didn’t have chem and bio weapons.

I would also point out that our intel, regardless of source, has always been a day late and a dollar short. Bush was heavily upbraided for his administration’s failure to properly read the tea leaves, but, in fairness, we’ve never done a great job when it comes to getting a handle on the Middle East. Add our over-reliance on Israel to provide strategic direction in the region (and I have a whole other set of objections when it comes to Israel), along with supporting the Saudis while they vigorously stab us in the back and you have a regional policy that makes for these kinds of decisions.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

gandalf: I wouldn’t disagree about Ike, but I think the point needs to be made regarding the world in Eisenhower’s time versus the world now (and in Reagan’s time). That was a pretty idyllic period in America history. Yes, we had the Soviet threat to deal with, along with the shoe banging Nikita Khrushchev, but it had not yet morphed into the truly global threat it would become later in the 1960s and 1970s. The US still had the edge in terms of atomic supremacy and ballistic missile technology was still in its infancy. At home, the economy was booming, and Americans were enjoying their new prosperity.

It was also a fairly innocent time. You could still trust the government, and Ike represented the best of the war years to many people. He had led the Allies to victory in “The Great Crusade” against Nazism, and was considered trustworthy and forthright.

I have my own issues with Reagan, having served under him for five years, but I agree that, under the present circumstances, he is a far better choice than either Clinton or Bush II. Or Bush I, for that matter.

In terms of Iraq, I remain torn. We’re there and we need to finish what we started. At the time, I did believe there were WMD, and I also believed that Saddam, while a secular leader, would find a way to leverage al Qaeda’s success against the West to his advantage. No, I don’t think Saddam had anything to do with 9/11, nor do I discount the fact that Osama bin Laden was openly critical of Saddam and had threatened his regime. But, it also needs to be said that Saddam fancied himself a Pan-Arabic leader in the mold of Salah al-Din (Saladin) and had plans for regional hegemony. The immediacy of the threat can also be called into question. While Saddam did not have nukes, it was still undetermined as to whether or not he did or didn’t have chem and bio weapons.

I would also point out that our intel, regardless of source, has always been a day late and a dollar short. Bush was heavily upbraided for his administration’s failure to properly read the tea leaves, but, in fairness, we’ve never done a great job when it comes to getting a handle on the Middle East. Add our over-reliance on Israel to provide strategic direction in the region (and I have a whole other set of objections when it comes to Israel), along with supporting the Saudis while they vigorously stab us in the back and you have a regional policy that makes for these kinds of decisions.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

gandalf: I wouldn’t disagree about Ike, but I think the point needs to be made regarding the world in Eisenhower’s time versus the world now (and in Reagan’s time). That was a pretty idyllic period in America history. Yes, we had the Soviet threat to deal with, along with the shoe banging Nikita Khrushchev, but it had not yet morphed into the truly global threat it would become later in the 1960s and 1970s. The US still had the edge in terms of atomic supremacy and ballistic missile technology was still in its infancy. At home, the economy was booming, and Americans were enjoying their new prosperity.

It was also a fairly innocent time. You could still trust the government, and Ike represented the best of the war years to many people. He had led the Allies to victory in “The Great Crusade” against Nazism, and was considered trustworthy and forthright.

I have my own issues with Reagan, having served under him for five years, but I agree that, under the present circumstances, he is a far better choice than either Clinton or Bush II. Or Bush I, for that matter.

In terms of Iraq, I remain torn. We’re there and we need to finish what we started. At the time, I did believe there were WMD, and I also believed that Saddam, while a secular leader, would find a way to leverage al Qaeda’s success against the West to his advantage. No, I don’t think Saddam had anything to do with 9/11, nor do I discount the fact that Osama bin Laden was openly critical of Saddam and had threatened his regime. But, it also needs to be said that Saddam fancied himself a Pan-Arabic leader in the mold of Salah al-Din (Saladin) and had plans for regional hegemony. The immediacy of the threat can also be called into question. While Saddam did not have nukes, it was still undetermined as to whether or not he did or didn’t have chem and bio weapons.

I would also point out that our intel, regardless of source, has always been a day late and a dollar short. Bush was heavily upbraided for his administration’s failure to properly read the tea leaves, but, in fairness, we’ve never done a great job when it comes to getting a handle on the Middle East. Add our over-reliance on Israel to provide strategic direction in the region (and I have a whole other set of objections when it comes to Israel), along with supporting the Saudis while they vigorously stab us in the back and you have a regional policy that makes for these kinds of decisions.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

sdnativeson: Related to the Plame issue is the situation involving her husband and the trip to investigate the Iraqi-Niger connection. Niger has only a few exports worth mentioning: Uranium, livestock and agriculture. Given that Iraq would seem to have no need of the last two, it certainly begs the question of Iraqi interest in Niger and why they (Iraq) went so far as to establish a trade mission with Niger.

Amidst all the talk about whether or not Saddam had WMD (and the Clinton Administration believed he did), one forgets that he (Saddam) was actively upgrading his capabilities in the areas of bioweapons (he was looking to weaponize botulin), as well as chemical weapons (looking to purchase old Soviet stocks of VX and Sarin), and he was acquiring the technology and scientific know-how to build a nuke.

There was a clearly established link between Iraq and Niger, and the Iraqi government’s explanation that Iraq was also developing relationships with other African nations as well as Niger and therefore the Niger trip was of no consequence has the substance of wind.

Plame was not outed by a vindictive administration. Moreover, she was not in a position to be outed, in that she was no longer operating in any sort of clandesting or undercover capacity.

I would hasten to add (for those like justme) that Saddam did have WMD. They were used against the Kurds at Halabja and the Iranians during the Iran-Iraq War. The assertion that the invasion of Iraq was built on a lie would then mean that Clinton and his senior administration officials, including the intelligence community, created and then perpetuated the lie during both terms of his presidency.

[Author]

Posts