In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Ugh…

Jill

Well this is fantastic.

And thanks, Georgie, for “fighting terrorism.” The war in Iraq has clearly improved things for all of us. I would invite him to accompany me on the very crowded subway to and from school tomorrow. Because the world is a safer place thanks to this war, right?

Posted in War

49 thoughts on Ugh…

  3. Right, Jill. Because Muslim fundamentalists who want to smash Enlightenment culture didn’t find out about us until George Bush went to war in Iraq.

  7. I mean, come on: are the terrorists really asking all that much? So we cover our women, lean toward the east a few times a day, and lay off the porcine foodstuffs. Is that so unreasonable?

    It’s really just another diet and exercise fad, like Jenny Craig, except with occasional headchopping for motivation. Who are we to condemn them?

  8. Go easy, Dave. She’s still on stage two.

    “No, really, officer, it’s my fault. Osama’s not a bad guy. He just gets so frustrated sometimes. If these goddamned American cops would stop hassling him….”

  9. But seriously, yes the world is a safer place thanks to ‘his’ war. There are no more children’s prisons or human shredders in Iraq, for starters. And, we haven’t had an attack on American soil since 9/11, despite how easy it would obviously be for some dude from Coney Island Avenue in Brooklyn to walk into a subway at 8am and blow up the commuters. Bush isn’t G-d and he isn’t Superman. He can’t protect you from everything everywhere. But to say that it’s a coincidence that we’ve had no attacks here since that awful day is to let your hatred of him cloud your rationality.

  10. Wow. Way to read way too much into what I said.

    I’m all for condemning terrorists. I don’t think anything I wrote in that post could possibly be interpreted as excusing terrorism. One can be critical of the Bush administration and still believe that terrorism needs to be severely dealt with.

    Osama is a really bad guy. I’d love it if American cops would go hassle him — problem is, we’re a little too busy in Iraq right now.

    And no, the world is not a safer place since the Iraq war (America, believe it or not, is not “the world”). I don’t expect Bush to be God, and I don’t expect him to protect me from everything. Of course I support taking measures to protect U.S. citizens, and I know that terrorism is a huge problem that needs to be taken on forcefully. But going into Iraq was never about terrorism, even if it was framed that way.

    I love how the justifications for the Iraq war keep shifting. First, it was weapons of mass destruction. No weapons? Ok, it’s about rooting out the terrorists who attacked us. No 9/11 connection? Alright then, it’s about getting rid of insurgents and Iraqi terrorists. Wait, you mean we bred those guys? Ok, now it’s about human rights: Look, no more children’s prisons and human shredders! We done good!

    Long before the Iraq war, I was fully in favor of some sort of intervention in Saddam Hussein’s regime, specifically for human rights reasons. But a massive military operation executed under a slew of lies wasn’t exactly what I had in mind. And it has made us less safe.

  11. And, we haven’t had an attack on American soil since 9/11, despite how easy it would obviously be for some dude from Coney Island Avenue in Brooklyn to walk into a subway at 8am and blow up the commuters.

    Thanks for pointing out that “American soil” is a synonym for “the world” and that dead people in Madrid, Bali, London, etc. don’t matter.

    We could debate whether Iraq is better off since the war, and we could debate whether the war has made the world more dangerous. But I don’t think you can seriously contend that it’s made the world safer.

  12. Iraq was never about terrorism?

    Tell that to the families of the dead Israelis killed by suicide bombers that Saddam financed for over a decade.

    Tell that to master terrorists Abu Abbas and Abu Nidal, teh two most famous terrorists in the world prior to Osama Bin Laden, who lived in Baghdad as Saddam’s guests.

    Tell that to Abdul Rahmin Yasin, who made his way from Baghdad to New York in 1993, built a massive bomb,and made his way back to Saddam’s loving arms, where he also lived as Saddam’s guest.. Of course, that bomb he built was only for the first World Trade Center attack, and not the one that counted, right?

    Bush mentioned all of these terrorists, and the various terrorist organizations that Saddam supported in Iraq, in his rationale for the war.

    You just didn’t care to listen.

  13. I don’t think you can seriously contend that it’s made the world safer.

    In 1937 (most of) the world was at peace. It was “safe”.

    In 1942 (much of) the world was at war. It was “dangerous”.

    All we had to do to maintain the level of peace and safety that we had in 1937 was avoid the war. Oh, and turn over all the the Jews and queers to get killed. Not so “safe” for them, I guess.

    “Safety” is an illusion that we show to children so that they won’t go nuts being faced with too much reality too soon. Unfortunately some folks don’t pick up on the fact that “safety” was a con once they get older. There is no safety, short of the grave.

    The battle in Iraq is an attempt to make life harder for the general set of our enemies and, partially coincidentally, eventually make life better for Iraqis. That the justifications expressed to sell this war to the democracy waging it shift with the news reports is unsurprising. The line of BS that Roosevelt spun to get us into the big one didn’t hold up either.

  14. It seems to me that what you’re arguing is that, since it would have been a good idea to go to war with Hitler in 1937, it’s a good idea to go to war with every other bad regime that comes down the pike. Just because one war was a good idea doesn’t mean that all wars are a good idea.

    The battle in Iraq is an attempt to make life harder for the general set of our enemies and, partially coincidentally, eventually make life better for Iraqis.

    It’s not clear to me that the war in Iraq is making life harder for our enemies. In many respects, it’s making life easier for our enemies.

  15. I wouldn’t exactly think that having the worlds most technologically advanced and well trained military trying to kill you or one of the worlds foremost investigative bodies trying to catch you 24/7 would make life easier for Abdul al Jihadi – it just doesn’t make much sense – but those are the differences that make this country great.

  16. t’s not clear to me that the war in Iraq is making life harder for our enemies.

    I had a conversation with an agnostic friend in which he summed up his position as “I can’t understand how God would work, so it can’t be the case that God exists”. His inability to comprehend the Ultimate isn’t evidence against it; your non-perception of how the war is a success doesn’t make it a failure.

    The Palestinian terrorist organizations, who are our enemies, have lost one of their principle sources of funds.

    Top-level Al Qaeda operatives, who are our enemies, have lost a “save haven” where they could go and relax without any worry about Israeli or American attack.

    Al Qaeda propagandists, for years able to score quick propaganda points with potential recruits with cheap attacks on small targets “showing the weakness of the West” now have to answer daily the question of why the mighty Islamic caliphate-in-potentia is so ineffective at driving out the hated crusaders.

    Most directly to the point, by planting a democratic state in the heart of Islamic fundamentalism, we are making life infinitely harder for thugs and fundamentalists all over the world. “If they can have it, why can’t we?”

    I believe that you believe the fact that a lot of terrorist wannabees now have readily available targets means that life is easier for them. Not really; not so much. Would life be easier for some Christian Identity loudmouths if the Feds actually started popping their leaders and busting up their cell meetings and forcing them to stand and fight?

  17. Two Things:

    One: Why is it everyone forgets about the Anthrax whatnot right after 9/11? Why does that never ever count when people natter on about “no attacks on US soil?” Is it because they didn’t explode?

    Two: My dad works for the MTA and they only found out about this apparent threat from a reporter asking them about it. My father only heard about it because he was watching the news. Whee!

  18. I just wanted to point out that the United States armed forces can walk and chew gum at the same time. If we’re spending so much time ignoring Osama then what’s the deal with the occasional reports about firefights in remote regions of the country?

  19. Is it because they didn’t explode?

    No, it’s because of what you said: “right after 9/11”

    Since that time, there haven’t been any successful attacks since that general time, shorthanded to “since then”. Lots of attempts, all thwarted.

  21. Jill:

    Long before the Iraq war, I was fully in favor of some sort of intervention in Saddam Hussein’s regime, specifically for human rights reasons. But a massive military operation executed under a slew of lies wasn’t exactly what I had in mind. And it has made us less safe.

    So what course would you have taken? Strong words? An Al Gore speech? More sanctions? Assassination? Newt Gingrich?

    Your assertion that we are less safe because of a “massive military operation executed under a slew of lies” is a bunch of bullcrap, specifically because the terrorist operations that were planned and occurred – right up to 9/11 and the first Bali blasts – occurred prior to our second incursion into Iraq.

    The only way Hussein and his devil spawn were coming down was at the point of a gun. He was too efficient at weeding out anyone in the Shi’a Iraqi or Kurd Iraqi population who had the political and moral moxie to lead a popular revolt.

    Shoulda, coulda, woulda doesn’t cut in the real world. We’re there, it’s our mess, we’re cleaning it up. Better the splodeydopes should be killed over there rather than over here. The fact that nothing has happened on U.S. soil since 9/11 is somewhere to the right of a fuggin’ miracle in my book.

  23. Why can’t we all just be reasonable?

    We shouldn’t start wars that make terrorists mad.

    We shouldn’t let our women go uncovered, because that makes them mad too.

    It’s simple. The terrorists will leave us alone as soon as we what they want instead of what they don’t want.

    Damn you Jill! I am not getting killed just because you want to flaunt your immorality! Now put on that burqa!

  24. The terrorists don’t like democracy. It’s selfish of you to want to vote when it could get people killed. And it’s even MORE selfish to claim Iraqis have a right to vote, or any rights for that matter. I saw Fahrenheit 911 and the Iraqis looked quite happy under Saddam without any rights; they were flying kites and smiling and everything. Can’t you see you’re just getting more people killed with your selfishness?

  25. Jill,
    You wouldn’t happen to be a Liberal Arts major,would you?

    Nope, read the bio. NYU Law student. Although I majored in Politics and Journalism as an undergrad.

  26. Jill, I thought it was the liberal position to not see everything in black and white. I had a dozen reasons for believing that taking out Saddam was a good thing for the US to do. WMD was one on my list.

    You write: Wow. Way to read way too much into what I said.

    So, what exactly did you mean, then?

  27. The best reason I can site for taking out Mr. Hussein is that he was out of compliance with the agreements that allowed the initial Persian Gulf War to end in the first place.

    Maybe we should have just let him do what he wished. Same think we did with Germany between 1920-1938.

    The biggest mistake the Bush administration made was lying about why to start the conflict in the first place.

    Easy.

  28. I totally agree with Jill and Allah. Iraq makes the terrorists mad. Everything Bush does makes them madder and prone to attack, unlike before. Did you hear about the attack in Bali last week?! Bush again!! What hath Bush wrought?! Did he not promise that Iraq would make all terrorist activity stop immediately! Well it’s 2005 and the terrorists haven’t all been killed or converted to Unitarianism yet. Way to go Bush, ya dummy.

    Our stupid Aussie friends didn’t learn that they need to leave us in Iraq, stop fighting Zarqawi et al, abandon the new Government, fledgling constitution, and the Iraqis who voted. If they did that, they would secure their own safety (and that of their Balinese side-kicks – Hindu infidels!). Like the Spanish, their safety would be guaranteed at least until the next Islamist grievance creeps up – like the Aussie role in facilitating independence for East Timor.

    And did you hear about the Algerian cell busted in Fwance the other day? Further proof of Jill’s point! &*^ing Bush!

    And I won’t even mention the terrorist attacks in Iraq like the car bomb on the funeral at the Shiite mosque. Those people were asking for it by trying to build a new democratic, constitutional government and working with Bush’s occupiers. U.S. out of Iraq. Impeach Bush!

  29. I can grant many, and possibly all, of the premises of the pro-Iraq-war arguments expressed here. Saddam was a baddie and needed to be take out; that he was brutal and we should have done it on humanitarian grounds; that he did harbor terrorists (if not Osama himself); that we had an obligation to plant a democratic seed in the heart of the middle east. I can support acting on any of these ideas.

    So why didn’t I support the war, even from the very beginning? Because it was abundantly obvious from the outset that the Bush administration and Rumsfeld’s DOD in particular had no plan to secure the peace. They were making claims about troop strength that even to me, someone with no military expertise, on the basis of simple common sense, sounded like crazy talk. It was clear to me from the beginning that they were unprepared for the committment. If they had said from the beginning that it would take 400,000 troops and ten years of occupation and nation building after that, then I would have thought, “okay, they’re taking this seriously.”

    But they knew they couldn’t sell that. And in any case, they never intended to secure the peace. They thought it would secure itself.

    I don’t think we can answer the question of “are we safer”? It depends on imagining a universe in which we didn’t go to war in Iraq, and we can’t possibly know what that universe would look like. It’s all meaningless speculation.

  30. I think you may be wanting to criticize the fanciful “we’re fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here” argument, as well as the flypaper theory, Jill. Phrasing the assertion too broadly has led to the national security hall monitor invasion.

    I mean, Iraq is flypaper, if the paper didn’t really stick and was laden with fly sexual potency drugs.

  31. Jill,

    It may be that some commenters are misrepresenting your position on Iraq and its place in the GWOT, albeit unintentionally, because your post left so much to the imagination. You might quell any misconceptions about your position by clarifying them further. Answering the following questions might help.

    1. What specific actions would you have taken regarding Saddam Hussein’s truce-breaking activities? Keep in mind that “some sort of intervention” does not qualify as a responsive answer.

    2. Follow-up question regarding this statement: Long before the Iraq war, I was fully in favor of some sort of intervention in Saddam Hussein’s regime, specifically for human rights reasons. But a massive military operation executed under a slew of lies wasn’t exactly what I had in mind.
    If action regarding Saddam Hussein’s truce-breaking activities was not important to you, action to stop his human rights abuses certainly was. What actions would you have taken to stop those abuses that are different from those taken by the Bush Administration in accordance with the Joint Resolution on the matter passed by both houses of Congress in October 2002 on a bi-partisan basis?

    3. Have you read the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act, President Clinton’s statement about that Act, or the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq referenced above?

    3. Is your post meant to imply that the introduction of ground forces to facilitate conclusion of the 12-year war in Iraq is the one and only answer that the Bush adminstration has offered to stop terrorism, specifically Islamofascist terrorism?

    4. Follow-up question: Have you heard of the Proliferation Security Initiative? If so, can you provide a brief description?

    5. How many American citizens lost their lives in armed conflicts with foreign countries in 1940? 1941? 1942? 1943? 1944? (Hint: each number is bigger than the next) Follow-up: Is it your contention that the number of casualties on our side in a conflict is the primary, and perhaps only, indicator of our military success or failure?

  32. Um … when I read this I thought it was a take on Bush (and other war supporters)’ constant spin about how fighting in Iraq is making us safer. The “flypaper” idea, ie: We have to fight them (terrorists) in Iraq so we don’t fight them at home.

    Is it asking too much for pro-war folks to unpack that sentiment when both we’re “fighting them there” and “fighting them at home”?

  33. I tend to take these unspecified terror threats with a grain of salt. They do seem to be rather conveniently timed.

    This one, even DHS was calling not credible. Yet Rove’s looking at indictments and Bloomberg has a sticky problem with blowing off the mayoral debate at the Apollo on the very night the terror threat was announced.

    The NYPD’s only covering major stations, mostly in Manhattan, and then only searching during rush hours and only the people going in. Someone who wanted to get a bomb on a train could easily board at an outer-borough station. It’s security theater.

    Despite that, I feel reasonably good about the NYPD’s antiterror efforts, particularly counterintelligence. What I don’t feel so good about is the federal government’s apparent failure to do much of anything to make the country safer, whether that’s getting Osama bin Laden, committing to Afghanistan, securing even the Green Zone, increasing port security, or catching the anthrax killer.

    I simply refuse to be intimidated by politically-driven terror alerts. I will not spend my daily life with that same sick feeling in my stomach I got watching my boss’s assistant donning latex gloves and a respirator to open the fucking mail.

  34. Because it was abundantly obvious from the outset that the Bush administration and Rumsfeld’s DOD in particular had no plan to secure the peace.

    Yeah, except for, you know, the thousands of pages of documents dealing with postwar planning.

    Sheesh. There were dozens of congressional meetings on that very topic.

    If they had said from the beginning that it would take 400,000 troops and ten years of occupation and nation building after that

    They said the only thing could say honestly: that they didn’t know how long it would take. Remember when Clinton said all our troops in Bosnia would home by Christmas? They’re still there.

  35. Well, Jill, you went and did it, now! They’ve all come out of the woodwork!
    You know, the ones who bought the Bush propaganda? That Iraq equals terrorism?
    Of course, terrorism has NOTHING to do with how American politicians, CIA operatives, etc. have treated developing countries in the past; it has NOTHING to do with betrayal, or switching allies, or being bullies, or ANYTHING like that. It just has to do with the fact that those terrorists are crazy and we’re not. We’re better than them. We have greater ideas than they do. We’re CHRISTIANS! ; )

  36. Actually, Carrie, as far as the 20th century goes, it has more to do with how the old Soviet Union treated developing countries. They fomented anti-Americanism as part of a long-term campaign – you may remember the Cold War? I’m not excusing some of the bad things that have been done by our country’s covert services, but they are not the root causes of Islamic terrorism. And as for your attempt at devastating sarcasm, we are better than them. It has nothing to do with religion, but with morality. Or are you ready to defend homophobia and misogyny?

  37. “It just has to do with the fact that those terrorists are crazy and we’re not. We’re better than them. We have greater ideas than they do.”

    This is meant as sarcasm? Those statements strike you as evidence of a misguided mindset?

    Okey-dokey.

  38. Long before the Iraq war, I was fully in favor of some sort of intervention in Saddam Hussein’s regime, specifically for human rights reasons.

    More than likely because a beloved Democrat was at the helm, advocating the same. Completely understandable.

  39. You know, the ones who bought the Bush propaganda?

    Apparently, your Chomsky propaganda suits you better… again, understandable and predictable…

  40. Yeah, Carrie, America is just the worst. And always has been! So how long ago did you leave this horrible, Christian country?

  41. Yeah, Carrie, America is just the worst. And always has been! So how long ago did you leave this horrible, Christian country?

    Always got to take that extra step into crazy….

    Not only did Carrie not say that America is “the worst” by any stretch, it’s senseless to say that the only sane response to living in a country with an unethical government is to wash one’s hands of that country. Of course, you’re the woman who equates “moral responsibility” with “I paid the damn corporation that runs the sweatshop for my slave-labor shoes, all right?” so I guess I shouldn’t be surprised.

  42. …are you barefooted, piny? Or do you buy only culturally-sensitive shoes? Sensible culturally-sensitive shoes?

  43. (Sigh) I don’t make entirely responsible choices, but neither do I pretend that my choices are entirely responsible. Ftr, my current pair of shoes is from New Balance, which I’ve been buying for years because I heard their labor practices were pretty reputable, and that they had a mission to use more domestic labor. It came to my attention several months ago that there may actually be some problems with their overseas business, and I’ll be doing extra research when I buy my next pair of shoes.

    But yeah, I do try to make sure that my money doesn’t go to certain of the worst corporations. Karol has said in as many words that paying a corporation with horrendous labor practices for goods produced using said horrendous labor practices is the same as making responsible consumer choices. See how that’s fucked up?

  44. Yeah, there’s no logic there… but what do I know? I make completely human-rights-and-environmentally-ignorant purchasing choices everyday. After all, (shrugs) I’m an American…

    …besides, everything’s made in China anyway…

  47. Well, I’ve been here almost nine years, and we got one day of bombings and two days of anthrax attacks in all that time. The subway’s been shut down more for bad weather and power outages than that.

  48. At least the rent-a-cops prevented the terrorist from hopping into the stadium. Oh, and the terrorists were amateurs, disturbed people, and p[robably intending to drop off the bomb and leave, followed by blowing it up so there would be no trace-back to the Mosque.

    As I see it, every Saudi terrorist killed in Iraq is a Saudi terrorist unable to come to this country. When a young man wants to be a Jihadi, and asks for 4000 dollars to to to the US, his dad can say “here is 20 dollars for bus fare to Iraq. You can get killed there just as well, and that way the rest of the family eats.”

    Unless it is your theory that when we kill Jihadis that decent people will be outraged that we have not yet rolled over, and decide that their death will be the one that convinces us to surrender.

  49. What I want to know is where is the list of confirmed identities of the THOUSANDS of Iraqis we’ve killed? All this talk of getting rid of Saudi terrorists in Iraq presupposes one fact which I’ve NEVER seen verified…that this is who we’ve killed. Anyone with facts to the contrary?
    And spare me the disgusting “break a few eggs to make an omelet” crap.

Comments are currently closed.