No, you wrote specifically of 9/11. That was one, specific terrorist act, not “many.” In my answer to you when you had asked the opposite question I listed 6 general circumstances in which I could conceive of using American military power. I will list them again:

[1]harboring terrorists or [2]aiding terrorists or [3]attacking the US or [4]attacking allies or [5]invading allies or if I even think there’s [6]a very good chance they will attack …

Naturally I expected you to respond in kind. The goalposts remain firmly where they were.

UB also requests: But can you do me a favor and list here a few of what you consider to be the most important Iraq/bin Laden/9-11 links, with references? Be sure to include all those that were found *before* the invasion began, and Rumsfeld’s statement that “Iraq has better targets” doesn’t count.

Rather than do all that why don’t you & the readers read the post on my blog, “Copious connections: Saddam, WMD & 9/11,” which goes into the subject in detail, providing links to the specific articles along with excepts to highlight specific points.

http://spareeye.blogspot.com/2005/08/copious-connections-saddam-wmd-911.html

The point was that even the Holocaust is, in some quarters, blamed on the US.

I remember endlessly hearing the phrase “we failed to connect the dots” after 911. as john moulder points out, some of those dots are now being discovered and connected. (see Stephen Hayes’s book, “The Connection” & his reports in The Weekly Standard) It’s murky but also quite clear: Saddam hosted terrorists.

Current intel assessments of the various aspects of Saddam Hussain’s past actions and his future intentions is “connecting the dots”.

From what we learn about Saddam and his cronies’s treatment of their fellow Iraqis alone, many of them muslims, what sort of lovely things would he have been seeking to perpetrate on those infidels in the west he really hates.

Re recruitment:

UPI June 3, 2005:

“Defense Department figures at the end of April showed that 35,926 recruits had signed up this fiscal year, which began last Oct. 1. This gives recruiters four months to sign up another 44,000 to meet their goal. Even worse is the number of reserves. Statistics show that 7,283 reserves have signed up. The goal is for 22,175 by the end of the year.”

Re reinlistment: I’m not sure, but I think the reinlistment rate could also reflect the fact that guys see how bad it is over there, that there aren’t many new recruits coming in, and they want to go back and help their buddies. I wouldn’t expect anything less from our troops in any war.

On polling, you said:

You’re projecting polls onto the totality of the American population when the polls don’t actually poll every American. It’s likely that there are demographics that are rarely, if ever, polled.

Um, that’s the whole point of polls, Kalroy. BTW, the “50,000,000” figure wasn’t meant to be an accurate number but reference was to the “50,000,000 Elvis fans can’t be wrong”. But given that about that many voted against Bush, some others who didn’t vote were probably agains tthe war, and then some who voted for Bush have turned against the war, I figure it’s in the ball park.

John Moulder: You asked for any conceivable use of military power I would be in favor of. I listed many. Where do you ask for guidelines rather than specifics? Who is moving the goalposts here?

But can you do me a favor and list here a few of what you consider to be the most important Iraq/bin Laden/9-11 links, with references? Be sure to include all those that were found *before* the invasion began, and Rumsfeld’s statement that “Iraq has better targets” doesn’t count.

Larry: I brought up Pol Pot because someone here brought him up, and Saddam is sort of on topic anyway. I notice you didn’t try to refute any US responsibility (notice I said partial responsibility) for Pol Pot’s rise to power or the gassing of the Kurds. You just started calling me names.

Richard Aubrey: I responded to you forthrightly, but you ignore my reply and now suggest that I must think the Holocaust was all the US’s fault. I never mentioned the Holocaust.

Moving goalposts, ad hominem attacks, purely imaginary charges, who are the real trolls around here?

You will have noted a recent report of a post-invasion–probably–chem warfare production facility. It was in somebody’s basement and was kind of crude, so the presumption is that it is recent. Unfettered, Saddaam would have been neater and produced more.
If the bad guys can build some crude chem weapons under current conditions, the assertion that SH had gotten rid of the means of creating WMD and thus could never, ever start up again is a howler.
In fact, the problem with chem weapons is that you really can make them in the basement with materials easily available at the corner store, and materials which are necessary to running a modern society (hence the term “dual use”).
And you could make bioweapons in a microbrewery. Since most microbreweries are making good money, they probably wouldn’t take the job, but the point is, the plumbing necessary is easily available, too.
So sanctions, even if they worked, and inspections, even if they were not hindered, are and were meaningless.
Commanders who look at their enemy’s capability are losers. Those who look at their intent have a better chance.

But notice that, as he’s “lightening things up”, he informs us that Pol Pot and Saddam Hussein’s gassing of the Kurds were really America’s fault. Don’t know why he didn’t throw in the Holocaust, Nazi Germany, and the Russian Revolution as well, though perhaps he just hadn’t heard of them. But don’t get him wrong — he’ll deny he’s part of any “Hate America” crowd, honestly. And there he might finally be right — he just seems too confused to know the difference between love and hate, respect and contempt. Another proud member of the “reality-based community”, no doubt.

Best regards back atcha, UB.

The military is over extended due to the “peace dividend cuts.” Recruitment is back on target after being low for the Army (but not the AF, USN, or Marines) for a few months. The more telling number is the rate of re-enlistment. The problem with the enlistment rate is affected by anti-war propaganda, anti-enlistment forces, and the media’s negative portrayel of the war and the military (historically).

The re-enlistment rate in Iraq is affected by being deployed to Iraq. I see this as being a far better barometer of “… the war in Iraq as the right thing to be doing.”

“It’s like, come on, step up people, if you are really into it, if this is the “highest calling” as Bush puts it, let’s see some lines outside of those recruiting offices.”

Again, recruiting was a problem, for only a few months, for the ARMY, not for the military, and re-enlistment rates were astronomic.

“Let’s see Bush or Rumsfeld or somebody make a speech at a university calling for more people to enlist.”

They’d be booed off the stage. Though I agree with the underlying sentiment of your sentence and commend you on your support of allowing military recruiters equal access to Universities as they give to other groups/organizations/businesses.

Kalroy

Your facts are skewed. You’re projecting polls onto the totality of the American population when the polls don’t actually poll every American. It’s likely that there are demographics that are rarely, if ever, polled.

Ask your veteran friends how often they were polled during their entire military career. I’m betting never.

Also, I’d point out that those most informed about the situation in Iraq have “voted with their feet,” and re-enlisted at an unheard of rate.

Kalroy

I think there is some truth to this. During the Vietnam war you didn’t hear anti-war protestors calling for an end to the war through victory or through a mutually beneficial cease-fire and peace treaty. Same for today’s anti-war protestors. They would rather have the United States lose than for the United States to win. If they were rooting for the US they would be calling for an end to the war in ways that didn’t mean defeat for the US.

They have the option, as ineffectual as it may be, to use all of their protests and anti-war motivation on the enemy and target the enemy for defeat as a means to end the war, but they don’t. They choose to have the United States be defeated as a means to end the war.

Does that mean they are on the side of the enemy? I think that it is more of the case that the anti-war movement and America’s enemies have a common goal and are quite willing to help the enemy in pursuit of that common goal.

Are there ways that they could work to end this war without aiding and abetting America’s enemies? Certainly, but they are far less attention-grabbing than “No Blood for Oil.”

Perhaps it’s not so much that they want to side with America’s enemies, as they are willing to side with America’s enemies in the pursuit of their own agenda. History has examples of both, though I think current events show more of the latter today than the former.

Kalroy

Here’s a question for you, Unknown Blogger: Is there any conceivable use of American military power that you can see yourself being in favor of?

This is UB’s reply: Thank you for asking. If the 9/11 hijackers had been Iraqis, or trained in Iraq, or were financed by Iraqis, or even if they were inspired by the teachings of a violent fundamentalist movement which was popular and widespread in Iraq, I would be supporting the war in Iraq, just as I (and most everyone else) supported the war in Afghanistan. If we’d found WMD in Iraq, my opposition would be mitigated somewhat, but I doubt I would “support” it. I’m more concerned about loose nukes in the former Soviet Republics, which I understand we have a 10-year plan to recover at a mere $2 billion a year. I would like to see that moved up a few years.

This is pretty standard for the BAC(Blame America Club). Notice that it’s not really a direct answer to my question, which wanted guidelines instead of historical specifics. But it will suffice. I smile when I read of UB’s worries about “loose nukes.” In a brawl UB would be more worried about the bottles lining the shelves behind the bar than those actually bashing in his skull.

UB should read a book entitled The Bomb in My Garden: The Secrets of Saddam’s Nuclear Mastermind by Mahdi Obeidi. The garden of this fellow is where Saddam buried his nuclear centrifuge. Mostly the BAC likes to conveniently forget about Chemical Ali & the Kurds. Or if they do acknowledge that atrocity it’s only to claim that America is to blame for it. No despot is ever held accountable. Why? Because America creates them, of course. The BAC holds America responsible for all the world’s ills.

There is growing evidence that Saddam had connections to 9/11 & the BAC howls every time they get wind of such heresy — that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 is the linchpin of the anti-war argument. If that pin slips out the wheels come off the anti-war wagon. And as time goes by it keeps working a little further out. Even back in November 11, 2001, Guardian Unlimited ran a Special Report entitled “The Iraqi Connection.” Here’s an excerpt:

“This is the man, Colonel Muhammed Khalil Ibrahim al-Ani, whom Mohamed Atta flew halfway across the world to meet in Prague last April, five months before piloting his hijacked aircraft into the World Trade Center. Evidence is mounting that this meeting was not an isolated event. The Observer has learnt that Atta’s talks with al-Ani were only one of several apparent links between Iraq, the 11 September hijackers and Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda network.”

Various intelligence agencies also know that Ahmed Hikmat Shakir attended a Kuala Lampur pre-9/11 strategy session with 2 of the hijackers. Shakir was an Iraqi Intelligence agent. This shouldn’t be surprising to anyone since it is common knowledge that for 10 years Saddam harbored Abdul Rahman Yasin, who was part of the plot to bring down the World Trade Center in 1993. If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again.

Saddam/bin Laden/Al Qaeda connections are almost too numerous to list. Everything from training to funding. And finally there was Saddam’s plot to assassinate the elder Bush in Kuwait. For me, that alone is almost enough grounds for war.