Democrats & Liberals: Archives

Only unimaginative people do anything for only one reason, and an ostensible one at that. Of course the Bush administration had more than one reason to want to oust Saddam Hussein.

The various people of the administration had a variety of motives too. Interestingly, the Neocons were the ones who were most interested in fostering democracy and were most attacked for their beliefs.

Think of the reasons for any war (or almost anything else) in American history. Was the Civil War about slavery? Only that? Was World War II a war to fight fascism? The only reason? The ostensible reason? War aims also change with possibilities and opportunities as they become available.

So I don’t really see the controversy.

In January 2003 we believed Saddam was dangerous and had a current arsenal of WMD. We were right that he was dangerous, probably wrong that he currently had WMD. (We still don’t know what happened to the WMD he definitely possessed in 1998.) We hoped that by toppling Saddam, we would give freedom a chance in the region. That looks like it might be true.

If you look at all the things said about the war in January 2003, you find a lot of mistakes. Just like you do if you look at any month in history. Things happen. Conditions change. You take advantages of opportunities and cope with unforeseen problems. Two years after the war we have an elected government in Iraq. Insurgents are managing to keep on killing civilians, but the war and its aftermath are not as bad as many people anticipated or feared.

The article you mention has plenty of links that show this too.

Jack,
“(We still don?t know what happened to the WMD he definitely possessed in 1998.)”

We know now. They were destroyed in 1995. Kay & Duelfer have both reported on this. The Clinton administration was wrong about their existence, so was the Bush administration. Both Clinton & Bush advocated a policy of regime change. The difference is that Clinton had the wisdom not to invade.

The difference is that Clinton had the wisdom not to invade.

Yes, because starving them while allowing Saddam to continue torturing and raping them was a much better alternative than to give them the democracy we promised them in the early 90’s, meanwhile allowing him to fund and give aid and, we believe, training to terrorists all the while taking daily pot shots at our servicemen patrolling the no-fly zones.

Much more compasionate, yes. That’s why he’s the compassionate president and Bush, who is forcing the hard work to get done so that they can choose a government of their own is the bad mean neocon.

Rh,
I prefer working smart to working hard. Wisdom, judgment, they’re fundamental for good leadership.

We can’t go back and change what happened. We can’t change our withdrawal of support from the Shias after the First Gulf War. It happened. What is objectionable is the attempt to revise history, & pretend it all happened differently, when it comes to the invasion of Iraq.

Before the invasion, the public was largely in agreement that Saddam Hussein was despicable. Most people would agree then & now that democracy in Iraq & other countries is far far preferable to dictatorship. But these are not sufficient grounds for invasion.

What if the US had accepted the offer supposedly made right before the invasion, and sent Saddam & the top Baathists into exile?

You know, what really amazes me is the degree to which Afghanistan is ignored. Personally, I’m not a big fan of playing ‘what if…’ But had the US kept those troops in Afghanistan to pursue OBL, & dedicated $300 billion to rebuilding that country, imagine how much better off we’d be.

You’re all wrong. The reason we are in Iraq was neither to spread democracy nor anything to do with any imaginary weapons. We are in Iraq because America has long term economic interests in the region and is attempting to establish a military presence there to protect those interests. Period. All of these other ever changing reasons are more half-truths and retrograde excuses whose purpose are to make the GOP and the nonthinking branch of its constituency feel good about supporting an increasingly unpopular and disastrous operation that is spiraling future generations of Americans into debt.

Comparing this campaign to either the War Between the States or World War II is a useless endeavor because both of those wars had a precipitating event that necessistated American involvement. The former began because the Confederate States of America seceeded. That it ended up bringing a swift end to the dying and barbarous institution that was the American version of slavery is a thankful byproduct. We entered WWII as a direct response to an attack on American soil, not because the government decided one day in a fit of compassion it wanted to end “facism.”

This quagmire is completely different and Bush and his advisors know it, hence the endless miles of spin. Does anyone honestly believe that had Bush stood up in front of the American people and said we were sending our sons and daughters off to war to “spread democracy” he wouldn’t have been laughed out of office within a week?

If indeed Iraq ends up with a stable democratic government committed to human rights (try not to laugh), this will be a happy byproduct of a war that should never have been fought. Given the escalating violence and the fact that even within the new government, Anti-American Islamic extremists are consolodating power, the long-term welfare of the Iraqi people is a longshot at best, demonstrating how out-of-touch with reality those who want the rest of us to hail Bush as a foreign policy genius really are. The Bush doctrine of pre-emption based on dubious evidence is a midevil, anti-Western foreign policy that effectively erases 200+ years of American diplomacy and will spell disaster for the entire world if it is not quickly forgotten as an aberration of this presidency. The oustandlingly researched, 500+ page, bipartisan 9/11 Commission Report explains in painstaking detail the proper way to fight the terrorist threat. Notably, not ONE of their recommendations has anything to do with war, preemptive or otherwise. No wonder the current adminstration didn’t want the Commission formed in the first place.

And the notion of a sweaty, snaggle-toothed Saddam stalking the country murdering thousands of terrified Iraqis at will is a myth, which, even if it were true, would not immediately justify pre-emptive war. Since it isn’t true, how the much more foolish our involvement. Saddam gassed and otherwise silenced those in his country who fought with Iran during the Iraq-Iran war during the 80s and buried them in mass graves. He did this with weapons provided to him by American companies (that’s how we know he once had weapons: we gave them to him) and European companies and with the support/cooperation of the Reagan and Bush administrations. Lest we be too hard on the Gipper, please note that it has never been American foreign policy to condemn our allies for killing the other side during acts of war. Since the end of the Iraq-Iran war and the Gulf War that followed, there are several countries who have had and still enjoy worse human rights records than Iraq and no less than 40 countries who have greater weapons capabilities.

Which brings us back to point one and begs the question why we are drowning in debt to “spread democracy” to Iraq instead of liberating people who are actually oppressed, or protecting ourselves from countries who actually pose a threat…or, and here’s a novel idea, actually trying to motivate our own democracy to function properly or, heck, maybe even provide some health care or affordable housing or affordable energy for the AMERICAN people.

Whether a Republican or a Democrat gets elected next time time: the 2nd Tuesday in November 2008 cannot come soon enough.

Couldn’t have said it better myself, Brandopolo! (but the correct spelling is medieval…sorry, I’m a word geek!)

THIS WHOLE FIGHTING FOR PEACE CRAP IS LIKE HAVING SEX FOR VIRGINITY.HAVE WE GONE MAD YOU CAN’T MAKE A COUNTRY BE LIKE US THEY WILL NEVER BE FORCED INTO DEMOCRACY. HAS PRESIDENT BUSH FORGOT WHAT OUR COUNTRY IS ABOUT THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE.THE PEOPLE IN IRAQI ARE NOT WANTING A DEMOCRACY YET OR THEY WOULD HAVE TAKEN SADAMM OUT THEMSELFS. THOSE PEOPLE IN REGION HAVE BEEN FIGHTING FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS SONOW WE THINK WE CAN JUST WALTZ IN THERE AND GIVE THEM THEY’RE OWN GOVERNMENT THAT IS BASED ON US NOT ANY OTHER ARMED FORCES EITHER.I HOPE THAT WE AS AMERICAN GET INVOLVED WITH OUR GOVERNMENT WHILE THERE IS AT LEAST A SMALL PORTION OF A DEMOCRACY LEFT HERE.WE AS AMERICANS MUST TAKE THESE POLITICIANS AND GIVE THEM SOMETHING THEY ARE NOT USED TO? ACCOUNTABILITY THEY WILL NEVER EXPECT US TO GIVE THAT BACK TO THEM AND I THINK THAT IS JUST WHAT THE GOVERNMENT NEED RIGHT NOW. THIS WAS THE GREATEST COUNTRYON EARTH LETS MAKE IT THAT ONCE MORE/.

War in the pursuit of Peace.

We will soon attack Iran in June. I hope every Republican does his Duty and volunteer for military service. Long Live Freedom.

Rhinehold, that argument does not hold up. Mugabe is everybit as evil and dangerous a thug killing, torturing, etc. toward his people and neighbors as Hussein, and we have little interest in him.

We knew what the Khmer Rouge were doing, we did not go in to stop the growth of the killing fields. The argument that we spent a 1/3 of a trillion dollars and injured or killed many thousands of our own American troops out of compassion for Saddam’s vicitims just does not hold up. Hundreds of men, women, and children, most of who are innocent victims in Iraq are still dying each month, so, if that was our reason, we sure as hell failed our mission and Bush utterly failed his to end the violence.

Most people would agree then & now that democracy in Iraq & other countries is far far preferable to dictatorship.

I don’t know… Is an anti-American democracy run by terrorist organizations better than a pro-US dictatorship?

Remember, President Carter withdrew support for the Shah of Iran because he was a tyrant who brutally cracked down on Muslim fundamentalists. Carter abandoned the Shah to allow the Iranian people install the Ayatollah because that’s what the majority of Iranians wanted.

Republicans then and now believe that was a bad move.

No doubt, Saddam needed to go. But to do it in such a way as to make a government run by the anti-US Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq is reprehensible. Ayatollah Khomeini is blessing President Bush and smiling down on his brother Ayatollah Sistani from paradise while his 70 virgins give him a pedicure.

The terrorist organization Hamas - far more radical than Arafat’s Fatah Party - dominated in the last round of free elections in Palestine, and captured majorities in the three largest municipalities in the latest election. Explain to me how that’s a good thing.

By all accounts, the terrorist organization Hezbollah will do well in free elections in Lebanon, and the grandfather of all terrorist groups, the Muslim Brotherhood, will take control of Egypt if the pro-US dictator Mubarak ever allows free elections.

In principle, I’m all for democracy. As a practical matter, I want them all to be pro-US democracies - or at least ambivilent. Putting the 9/11 hijackers in charge of the Middle East doesn’t strike me as a particularly good idea.

President Bush has abandoned conservative foreign policy. The Republican Party has adopted Jimmy Carter’s ideological foreign policy, but with no qualms about using American military might to advance it. Yikes! The worst of both worlds.

Seeing as we are already quite bogged down in Iraq, it is rather pointless to debate why we are there. It would be far more useful to debate what the best way of leaving Iraq is.

Jack:

In January 2003 we believed Saddam was dangerous and had a current arsenal of WMD. We were right that he was dangerous, probably wrong that he currently had WMD. … We hoped that by toppling Saddam, we would give freedom a chance in the region. That looks like it might be true.

Actually, we were wrong that he had WMD, and therefore wrong that he posed a threat to the US, which, if you read the SOTU speech, was the main reason - and it would be only a little exaggeration to say the ONLY reason - that Bush presented to the us voters for going into Iraq.

So that reason was either a mistake, or a deception. And with apologies to Zeek, it’s worth while discussing past mistakes (either Bush’s, or ours, for believing lies) so we can learn from them - and hold those that made errors accountable for their poor judgement.

Americans would have been far more reluctant to invade Iraq solely, or primarily, to “spread democracy”, with bin Laden still free, Afghanistan still largely under control of warlords, and failed states like the Sudan and Somalia that could provide haven for terrorists, and Team Red new it. That’s why that reason was only talked up after it became clear that WMD were not going to be found.

BrandonPolo, great post. I’m not sure I’m behind you 100% but I certainly agree with your first paragraph. The Project for a New American Century is not exactly a secret plan, and it sure looks like what we’re trying to follow.

Well said William,

So that reason was either a mistake, or a deception. And with apologies to Zeek, it’s worth while discussing past mistakes (either Bush’s, or ours, for believing lies) so we can learn from them - and hold those that made errors accountable for their poor judgement.

I couldn’t have said it better since you are much more elloquent than I but I believe that accountability is everything. I back the president 100% in Afganistan but can’t back Iraq for the reasons that William just laid out.

What ever happened to accountability.

Since Bush cannot be re-elected he will try his best to be remembered as an honorable and righteous president when his last term is over. The reality is that the country is divided now more then ever and he will always be remembered as a hero by conservatives and a redneck pompus ass with a low iq by liberals. The only good republican alive is John McCain, but talk is that Mr. Arnold from Cali will be running this next go around? I’m not sure if it will happen, but it would be real sad if he was elected. Our democratic leaders need to step up and reclaim the crown. Kerry was a good candidate, but we could have did so much better. The conservative senate is in control, are we doomed as democrats? I don’t think so, I think this country is more then ready for a democratic change, some people just haven’t opened their eyes yet, and when the shit goes down that finally does make them see. It will either be too late or just on time, but not a moment too soon. Even the conservatives know this war in Iraq was a bad move, all they can do now is make up reasons to feel good about our mistakes. This war has lost so many allies for us, it’s sad. It’s lost so much money for us, it’s sad. Our country needs help, and we are sending so much money over seas whilst our debt rises more and more into the DARK red everyday. Social security will be obselite, and our children will have none. I am tired of even arguing the issue of this travesty personally, and really the only thing anyone can do now is sit back, watch, and hope Bush doesn’t fuck us over any more then he already has, period.

Once more about Saddam

He was a bad guy who was dangerous. He killed many of his own people.

The U.S. was NOT a major arms supplier to Saddam. Most of his weapons were Russian, then French. Even countries like Brazil and Czechoslovakia sold more than we did.

Before Gulf War I, Saddam was armed to the teeth. What kinds of weapons did Saddam have when we fought him in 1991? Anything American? NO. Plenty of other kinds.

The other thing about Saddam leaving Iraq is also a myth. There was talk of it and the U.S. was interested in the possibility, but it never was on the table

Jack,

We all agree that Saddam was a bad guy. If our administration is that worried about bad guys we would be in North Korea or Sudan right now.

Like I have said before, there is an ideological chasm in this country. The right thinks the ends justify the means and the left thinks the means should justify the ends…..at least in the case of Iraq.

“I don’t know… Is an anti-American democracy run by terrorist organizations better than a pro-US dictatorship?”

Yes. Our enemies will be in the open then and we can plug their coordinates into our targeting computers. Much easier than searching through caves.

Well, maybe all of this will be fixed by Barak Obama in 2012. (Assuming he stays the way he is and he can obtain the funding to run for the presidency to begin with.)

Pat,

Maybe our enemes are in the open and maybe, just maybe, we can plug their coordinates into our targeting computers. The only problem with your philosophy is that due to our presence in the Middle East (Iraq), we now have more enemies to target.

Foriegn presence in Iraq, particularly the U.S., which is despised by many in that area has created some strange bed-fellows. I know many people don’t believe it but we have made allies where none existing before simply because there is now a common enemy. Yes, right now they are targeting the Iraq police force but if you read casualty reports you will notice that at least between 10 and 50 US casualties are reported each week. Not that many, huh? You may think differtly if it were your Son, Daughter, Mother or Father.

There have been many causes Americans have died for in our history. I wouldn’t “want” my relatives to die in any of them. However, at least most Americans saw the overall reason (in most cases). I see nothing I could justify any of my relaitves deaths for in this conflict.

War sould always be a last resort. I don’t think it was here. It’s easy to make a call when your “well connected” family doesn’t have to sacrifice life or limb (I’m referring here to most of our congressmen and congresswomen, not to mention the White House).

One more bone to pick with Jack:

Only unimaginative people do anything for only one reason, and an ostensible one at that. Of course the Bush administration had more than one reason to want to oust Saddam Hussein.

I agree that there almost certainly were other reasons, besides danger from WMD. And Bush might have even laid them out, maybe to some Red think tanks, or maybe in code words that Team Red only understood.

But I strongly disagree with the claim, now commonly-made in conservative circles, that the war was ever seriously advertised to the American people as a war to “spread freedom”.

To see how lame that whole argument is, just look at how lame Instapundit’s specific (and widely href-ed) argument is. If Bush ever came out and said to the voters “we’re going to spread freedom in the middle east, and even if we don’t find WMD it will be worth the effort”, then why, Jack, does a persuasive guy like Glenn R. have to resort to fabricating quotations, by splicing together sentences a thousand words apart?

No - as I said above, there’s no way around it: when Bush took us into Iraq, it was either a mistake or a deception. So when you listen to him talk about, say, social security reform, remember: you can trust his judgement but not his character; or else his character but not his judgement.

Well put William!

The President considered WMD his strong hand. He was also mistaken. He made a tactical mistake making it such an issue because he thought he could persuade the UN to act. He mistaken here too. Saddam Husseins most reliable European ally, Chirac, had already decided not to cooperate.

In September 2002, the White House published its reasons to oppose Saddam.

It is still available on the Internet

If you read the list, you find that Saddam’s defiance of UN resolutions is first on the list. If you read the resolutions, you find that most do not refer to WMD or WMD alone. WMD is indeed second on the list. Following it is Saddam’s repression the Iraqi people. The list is below. Remember published by the White House and September 2002. You don’t have to skip parts. If you read to the end of the document you will find it all. All of these things were featured in the President’s statements and those of his officials in the months before the war.

Saddam Hussein’s Defiance of United Nations Resolutions

Saddam Hussein’s Development of Weapons of Mass Destruction

Saddam Hussein’s Repression of the Iraqi People

Saddam Hussein’s Support for International Terrorism

Saddam Hussein’s Refusal to Account for Gulf War Prisoners

Saddam Hussein’s Refusal to Return Stolen Property

Saddam Hussein’s Efforts to Circumvent Economic Sanctions

So this is the history of the affair.

Jack, if you think President Bush misled us into thinking Iraq had WMD and nukes that it could pass to its terrorist allies for use against strip malls in Kansas and Iowa in order to get UN support, you’re just as mistaken as he was.

President Bush was going to pull the trigger with or without a credible coalition. Somewhere in Woodward’s book, “Plan of Attack”, Woodward quotes VP Cheney arguing against going to the UN at all, “George, what if the UN goes in and doesn’t find any WMD? What are you going to do then?”

The dramatically implied “imminent threat” to the United States - “mushroom clouds” and all - was solely to get Americans behind Bush’s invasion.

Jack,

Based on these reasons we should launch and attack on both Iran and North Korea….immediately. I think the only difference is that we might actually find WMD there.

Well, I will have to agree with one thing, we are waste deep in Iraq with no exit strategy. We cannot possibly attack another country because of our involvement in Iraq and Afganistan (are we even still in that country). Our military would definitely be spread too thin.

I guess that leaves us with our only option, finish the job in Iraq, leave and make sure as American voters we never elect another man like Bush again.

Jack is definite right that the presidents foreign policy successes and mistakes are America’s foreign policy successes and mistakes.

Jack,
So the US was right to ignore the UN and invade Iraq - because Iraq ignored the UN. Now that’s what I call great logic! ;-)

Jack, this just don’t wash. How many people do you think read that list? and how many people saw the State of the Union address?

BTW, that list you gave is says it’s “a background paper for President George W. Bush’s September 12th speech to the United Nations General Assembly”. So it’s not at all surprising that he put “defiance of UN resolutions” on the top of this list.

And, just to save time - can you point me to the passage where Bush says that the best reason for removing Saddam is to bring democracy and stability to the Middle East?

Same old stuff, William.

Um, seems you left out the pbs quotes in your instapundit link. Were you trying to “deceive through elipsis” yourself?

MARGARET WARNER: Last night, Pres. Bush laid out his argument that a post-Saddam Iraq could become a flourishing democracy.

PRES. GEORGE W. BUSH: There was a time when many said that the cultures of Japan and Germany were incapable of sustaining democratic values. Well, they were wrong. Some say the same of Iraq today. They are mistaken. (Applause) The nation of Iraq, with its proud heritage, abundant resources and skilled and educated people, is fully capable of moving toward democracy and living in freedom. (Applause)

MARGARET WARNER: The president further asserted that a democratic Iraq could transform the entire region in a similar way.

PRES. GEORGE W. BUSH: There are hopeful signs of the desire for freedom in the Middle East. Arab intellectuals have called on Arab governments to address the freedom gap, so their peoples can fully share in the progress of our times. From Morocco to Bahrain and beyond, nations are taking genuine steps toward political reform. A new regime in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example of freedom for other nations in the region. (Applause) It is presumptuous and insulting to suggest that a whole region of the world, or the one-fifth of humanity that is Muslim, is somehow untouched by the most basic aspirations of life. pbs.org

Oh, no, he never said anything about democracy.

I cannot believe that the left really cannot see that removing Saddam Hussein is a part of Bush’s stated greater strategy in the war on terror in addition to invading Afghanistan.

In the year long ‘rush to war’ I recall that it was democrats who talked nothing of democracy and all about WMD. You may not remember Bush talking about democracy, but I certainly do. His whole administration was. The left has turned away from its true (non-marxist) liberal roots.

This liberal elipsis about democracy is the primary reason democrats will be relegated to having Michael Moore and Howard Dean be the spokesman for the party for some time to come.

“Oh, no, he never said anything about democracy.”

The SOTU speech was Bush’s highest-profile address to the nation on invading Iraq - and Instapundit leads off his argument by distorting it, big time, to suggest an emphasis that’s just not there. I think my actual characterization was “Just enough freedom rhetoric to stitch together into one very nice quotation, if you pick and choose very, very carefully” - which I still think is quite accurate.

PBS is known for in-depth coverage, and the story you point to is an example. They again cobbled together a handful of quotes, here as an intro to a debate between two experts as to whether democracy in Iraq has a chance. And this case of cover-all-the-angles journalism to a jaded news-savvy PBS audience is Instapundit’s second best argument.

If Bush really “stated” - to all of us, in plain English - that invading Iraq was part of a “greater strategy” for spreading democracy, surely you Red pundits should be able to find one hi-profile speech - one connected series of statements, delivered one after another to the press, or to the nation - that says that in plain words. And you haven’t.

William
I (and I think Eric) am not saying it was his only reason for Iraq or even the reason on top of the list.
President Bush would not have gone to war had he not considered Iraq a danger. Democracy would not alone have been a sufficient reason. But it was an important reason. And it was an essential reason in the mix.
A question. If you don’t believe WMD was the reason and you don’t believe Saddam being a danger was the reason. You don’t believe the idea to transform the region was a reason. Why did Bush do it? Don’t say oil, because the cost of the war from the beginning would cost more than the $20 billion total oil revenue from Iraq (when it was producing well). Besides, Saddam was willing to sell all the oil he could at cut rates, if we would only let him.
I believe Bush went to war for the mix of reasons stated in the backgrounder. Some of them proved to be inaccurate in the light of subsequent events. Some, such as the subverting of sanctions, were worse than we thought. Decisions are always made in a climate of uncertainty and for the U.S. there is no zero option.

William Cohen, now you did it Bub. I can’t get that dang song out of my head: “And it’s 1,2,3 - what are we fighting for?”

Shades of Woodstock!

I (and I think Eric) am not saying it was his only reason for Iraq or even the reason on top of the list. President Bush would not have gone to war had he not considered Iraq a danger. Democracy would not alone have been a sufficient reason. But it was an important reason. And it was an essential reason in the mix.

What exactly do you mean by “essential reason”? Do you mean Bush wouldn’t have gone if, for example, the odds were that Iraq would end up as an Islamic theocracy?

A question. If you don’t believe WMD was the reason and you don’t believe Saddam being a danger was the reason. You don’t believe the idea to transform the region was a reason. Why did Bush do it?

I didn’t say either of those things. It may have been that Bush sincerely believed Iraq had WMD, and posed a threat - in which case going into Iraq was a mistake. It may be that Bush didn’t believe there was a significant WMD threat, and had some other motive - in which case the WMD scare was, let’s say, political window dressing. I don’t know which.

My personal guess is that Bush believed that there were some WMD activity - enough so he wouldn’t be embarassed in the history books for talking it up - but not enough to pose a real threat - which explains the quick dash to Bagdad without even stopping to secure sites known to contain high explosives and other WMD-related materials, and the “mission accomplished” photo-op, when there was still in principle a real possibility terrorists/insurgents would get hold of those still-unlocated WMD from Saddam’s “arsenal”.

That suggests another motive. Call me cynical, but don’t think it was humanitarian and “pro-democracy”. If that was the case, real nation-building in Afghanistan and humanitarian involvement in Darfur would have been higher on the agenda.

Call me cynical, but I suspect it was a desire to establish Iraq as a base from which to project American military power to the rest of the Middle East. In the best of cases Iraq could have turned out to be a staunch ally, cheerfully hosting a big US army indefinitely, right between Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Iraq….a huge strategic plum, if you’re thinking in cold-war terms.

Jack~
Give up the ghost! This party has their own demons:
1: Celebrities speaking on their behalf about rich people,as though we are not aware that they are a part of that so called “evil group”.
2: They will never figure out that voters actually live in those “fly over” states.
3: Everytime they choose to knock Americans as a whole it becomes very evident that they never leave California/New York!
FOR EXAMPLE:
A:Most of the country does their own farming and laboring(we don’t all depend on Mexican’s)
B:Some of us actually need an SUV for a little thing I like to call SNOW~ without which we will not get to work(but I guess we could all get on the public dole for the winter months)(By the way showing us your little celebrities in electric cars for photo opts still dosn’t make us forget that they are heating and cooling 4 or 5 mansions that they fly to in their private jets!)
***I am very well aware of the fact that a lot of Liberals do not agree with these people but you had better learn how to shut them up because it is these crazies that lost you the election!!!****Each party has their crazies but the lefts seem to be encouraged to take the stage- Even celebrated in most cases!

traci, I know what you mean, like Ann Coulter and Pat Robertson,,, yep, celebrate and flaunt their crazies, both sides do it.

William, I’m still curious about the “permanent bases” that Congress allocated funds for. Rep. Jim McGovern was in Iraq recently trying to get the 411,

I asked both General Petraeus and our embassy about US plans to build military bases in Iraq, which in my view would indicate a prolonged US presence. I was told - emphatically - that there are no plans to construct military bases. Yet Congress recently passed a huge supplemental wartime appropriations bill that includes, at the request of the Bush Administration, $500 million for military base construction. In Iraq.

Traci, if shutting up crazy spokespeople is your passion, here’s a petition to get DeLay and Frist to repudiate Pat Robertson for saying the US judicial branch is worse than Nazis, worse than the Confederate States of America, and worse than bin Laden.

William,

The SOTU speech was Bush’s highest-profile address to the nation on invading Iraq - and Instapundit leads off his argument by distorting it, big time, to suggest an emphasis that’s just not there. I think my actual characterization was “Just enough freedom rhetoric to stitch together into one very nice quotation, if you pick and choose very, very carefully” - which I still think is quite accurate.

I believe you were also focusing on a single speech to make the point that Instapundit’s point was ‘cherrypicked’. Nice try. The elipsis thing is also a non-sequiter especially when any quote is by it’s very nature going to be ‘out of context’ by your definition, unless the speech is quoted in it’s entirety— or even more tellingly, isn’t quoted by a conservative.

First, before the excerpt: 3,435 words on domestic issues, Afghanistan, peace between Israel and Palestine, AIDS in Africa, Al Qaida, leading into the statement: “The gravest danger facing America and the world, is outlaw regimes that seek and possess nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.”

Hmm, domestic issues, Afghanistan, peace in the middle east… in a State of the Union Speech! You know, maybe you have a point there. Why it’s as though Bush thought the speech was supposed to be about all the things affecting the state of the country or something. Why would he put in all this other stuff about domestic issues and Afghanistan in a speech about why invading Iraq is all about democratic transformation?

PBS is known for in-depth coverage, and the story you point to is an example. They again cobbled together a handful of quotes, here as an intro to a debate between two experts as to whether democracy in Iraq has a chance. And this case of cover-all-the-angles journalism to a jaded news-savvy PBS audience is Instapundit’s second best argument.

If Bush really “stated” - to all of us, in plain English - that invading Iraq was part of a “greater strategy” for spreading democracy, surely you Red pundits should be able to find one hi-profile speech - one connected series of statements, delivered one after another to the press, or to the nation - that says that in plain words. And you haven’t.

I don’t know what to tell you William. But you’re so right about PBS being known for their ‘cobbled together’ coverage, especially in regards to their ‘jaded’ audience.

You’re claiming that we can’t find any mention of it in any speech? Or that we can’t find any single speech that only mentions bringing democracy to Iraq as the sole justification of invading? Because frankly the truth is that it’s in virtually every speech. Which brings me…

back to the original point:

“Look, on the long-range, big picture of getting the freedom-and-democracy ball rolling in the Middle East, maybe these guys had it right,” Maher said on his show Friday.

Sounds to me like Maher’s buying into the bait-and-switch rhetoric of the Bush clan. Maybe I would, too, if they were straight shooters. But, before the Iraq invasion, the rallying cry was against an “axis of evil” and “weapons of mass destruction.” I don’t recall any prewar speeches about delivering democracy to the Middle East.
stltoday.com

Two words: faulty memory.

The only plausible reason for keeping American troops in Iraq is to protect the democratic transformation that President Bush seized upon as a rationale for the invasion after his claims about weapons of mass destruction turned out to be fictitious. If that transformation is now allowed to run off the rails, the new rationale could prove to be as hollow as the original one. instapundit quoting the NYTimes

Here’s the point, which has always been true, democratic transformation has been a key element in all of this since before the war, WMD or no WMD. It is simply dishonest to say that Bush ‘seized upon as a rational’ democratic transformation only after WMD turned out to be ficticious. There can be no bait and switch because he and all of the administration, and might I add all the ‘brainwashed conservatives’ like myself who supported this war, have stated it as a reason all along. This is the point Instapundit makes so well.

It’s strange how the left is able to ‘read between the lines’ about the evil empire GW, (the merciful and compassionate) is building, but have no recollection of any mention of creating democracy in Iraq by the President. None whatsoever, and whatever quotes are cited are indeed not enough.

eric, the invasion was sold to America as a response to a “growing” threat - with “mushroom clouds” and “shadowy” terrorist connections - and oh yeah, a democratic Iraq is better than Saddam.

Like Wolfowitz - in a rare moment of candor - once said, “The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason.”

Of course there were other - less relevent - reasons, but the war was packaged and sold to America as getting rid of Saddam’s non-existent WMD.

Had democratizing the Middle East at the point of a gun been openly given as the main reason for the war, Americans wouldn’t feel they’d been lied to by President Bush. Of course, they probably wouldn’t have supported it, either.

Heh. It was such an excellent example of using the Big Lie that now you’re having trouble convincing people that we didn’t go into Iraq for the WMD. :)

AP~
Sign me up for that petition~ Like I said crazies on both sides! My biggest problem with Kerry was that the Liberal crazies (Michael Moore) practicaly went to bed with him at night!They were right by his side throught his campaign! I am aware that you will never stop what people say but you can be a victim of guilt by association and they put to much stock in the power of celebrity worship!

Traci,

And on the other side of the bed there was O’Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter, Savage, etc… going to bed with Bush at night. That was pretty ugly, oh yeah and then there was the Swift Boats. Do you realize that Kerry got slammed for not standing up for himself enough against that attack. Thats like me punching someone in the face for no reason and then yelling at that person for getting punched.

ok, so Michael Moore is a liar, we all know that. His credibility is shot.

Reed~
Once again I am aware of the ultra-conservatives out there, but please give me one example of when they were sitting with the president or up on the stage with him!(Other than an interview on the above mentioned programs because they were pleading w/ Kerry to come on there also, I am talking about the campaign trail, it looked like the academy awards)! I am sure the President dosn’t mind them speaking about things in public forums- but he was wise enough to distance himself from them by not holding their hands for the world to see!! In conclusion, I am just stating that I didn’t think it was the way to go- but, if your party thinks it was a good idea than go ahead and bring them along in 2008! All the better for me.

Good article and follow-up posts, William.

“Good article and follow-up posts, William.”

Thanks, Adrienne.

Oh, c’mon traci. Bush meets with kooks like Pat Robertson and James Dobson all the time.

Moore went over the line while campaigning for Clark, calling Bush a deserter for getting out of his Guard duty early, but he never incited hatred against federal judges or called for rounding up liberals in concentration camps.

Have you ever hard of Occams Razor?

The reason we invaded Iraq was because saddam tried to assasinate gwb’s father. When you go over all of the evidence, it is the only conclusion that makes sense. Not many people are more mean-spirited and vindictive than gwb.

As for his national guard duty during the vietnam war; gwb is a liar and a coward. The veterans, from that era, know it.