Democrats & Liberals Archives

Deliberate Mistakes

Can you make an honest mistake if you deliberately made the mistake?
Can you have an accident if you set out to have one?
Can you call one of your actions a misstep if you took every step to ensure that very action?
No.

"Intelligence provided by former undersecretary of defense Douglas J. Feith to bolster the White House case for invading Iraq included "reporting of dubious quality or reliability" that supported the political views of senior administration officials rather than the conclusions of the intelligence community, according to a report by the Pentagon's inspector general."

The inspector general described Feith's activities as "an alternative intelligence assessment process."

Let me get this straight. The Bush administration disregarded the intelligence community in favor of a man in bed with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. They listened to a man who was a member of the Project for the New American Century that has been begging for Saddams ouster since before 1998. That would be like putting an oil executive in charge of environmental protection. Oh yeah, I forgot. Objectivity be damned.
They allowed him to set up the Office of Special Plans(OSP) within the Pentagon so that he may cherry pick real intelligence and make up his own. Office of Special Plans sounds like the name given to a treehouse spy club by seven year olds.
This group is as incompetent as they are corrupt.

"the inspector general concluded that Feith's assessment in 2002 that Iraq and al-Qaeda had a "mature symbiotic relationship" was not fully supported by available intelligence but was nonetheless used by policymakers."

We didn't hold the people who drove our nation into Vietnam accountable, and that is why the military war mongerers, GOP corporate lap-dogs and the super wealthy CEO's who dictate policy did it again.
Until we punish those who see the poor and middle class as expendable tools that can be used for their ideological experiments and shameful profiteering, we will be in this same situation in the future.
Who will be the next ideologue? Will my children be old enough to get caught up in the next senseless, baseless war? How many times will this have to happen to us before we wake up? Will the rest of the world eventually get sick of us doing this?

The Bush administration, current and past, are responsible for the murder of thousands of Iraqi's and Americans.
They are responsible for the thousands of wounded.
They are responsible for billions of dollars not being used for the people of the United States but fraudulently spent on attacking a sovereign nation based on an ideology formed by wealthy, elitist, hypocrites, who refused to fight for their country when they had their chance.

Feith, who was defense policy chief before leaving the government in 2005, was one of the key contributors to the administration's rationale for war. His intelligence activities, authorized by then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul D. Wolfowitz, and coordinated with Vice President Cheney's office, stemmed from an administration belief that the CIA was underplaying Saddam Hussein's ties with al-Qaeda.

We know that there was never a relationship. The intelligence community knew it too.
That is why the Bush administration had to make up its own organization to make it up.

Feith who was also the man in charge of the Office of Strategic Intelligence(OSI) who's job it was to plant fake news in foreign media organizations was also head of Counterterrorism Evaluation Group(CEG), a small intel outfit who's job was to figure out a way to tie Saddam to al-Qaida.
Do you think he listed "lying my ass off" as one of his qualifications on his resume?

This is not a case of we thought this and we were wrong about that. Bush deceived the United States of America. He is guilty of fraud and murder. He lied to our representatives. He lied to us. He is responsible for the deaths of our soldiers, the pain of our wounded, the loss of billions of dollars, the loss of our credability as a nation and these things are not just stains on a dress.

90% of the American people are not wealthy enough to buy a House or Senate seat, let alone the billions required to buy the Presidency. They are the ones who decide when our friends and families die. Do you want to let this other 10% make life and death choices for you if their are no consequences for the ones who abuse that power?


Posted by Andre M. Hernandez at February 9, 2007 9:05 AM
Comments
Comment #207291

Andre

Vietnam was a Democrat war entered into in force under a Democratic president (Kennedy), ramped up by another Democratic president (Johnson) all the time with Dems controlling the entire congress. The only Republican that got involved ended the war. So the GOP cannot be doing it AGAIN, even if you assume it was wrong and dishonest.

BTW - the assessment you give of the intelligence this time is also kinda simplistic, although it makes a nice story. That is problem with lefty things in general. They sound better than they are.

Posted by: Jack at February 9, 2007 11:07 AM
Comment #207294

Jack,

Simplistic? How?

The point is that there are people who keep making these decisions to send us to war and they have abused this power at the expense of the poor and middle class.
They lied, you know it but you’ve backed this dead horse from the start and I don’t see why you’d admit you bet on a loser who is destroying our country because your pride seems to not allow this.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at February 9, 2007 11:21 AM
Comment #207298

Andre

The reason they call it intelligence and not news is because it always comes from questionable sources and it is never certain. When we look at the history of intelligence, we always find gaps, mistakes and problems. We missed the whole Pakistan bomb program, for example. Intelligence is always wrong. Unfortunately, you do not get to make decisions with perfect information. Indeed, when we have very good information, we do not even call them decisions. Then they are just procedures.

Your analysis makes it sound like somebody just decided to go with the wrong intelligence and it makes it all seem very clear. It just is not like that.

And this poor and middle class thing is just old fashioned. It sort of made sense a century ago. It is true that most of the people who make decisions are rich, but that is because we reward those who make decisions. It is like saying all those who win the race are fast runners.

Beyond that, if the rich were interested only in money, they could easily buy the oil from Saddam. There is just no logical reason to get into this war other than than the stated one - that we believed Saddam was a security threat. That assessment might have been wrong, but that is the one that best explains the behavior. A person motivated primarily by greed would never have undertaken that enterprise.

Posted by: Jack at February 9, 2007 11:34 AM
Comment #207321

Jack, gw,

So the fact that a person who is predisposed to find intel. that would take you in a particular direction means that the President showed sound, objective thinking and not just letting the intel fit the mission? The outcome of that decision is not a tragic one for our troops?

So by that logic we should have drug manufacturers develope prescription drug policies to benefit themselves and hurt Americans. Oil and energy CEO’s and their reps draw up energy policies that cost the average citizen and give them record profits. That’s right they did that already.
The government is supposed to work for us. Remember?
Douglas Feith is the last person you want fact finding for you unless you don’t want facts. The President lied so that he could enter into this war. This war has been tragic for America. He and the others responsible should be arrested.
Fraud and murder. I can’t believe you’re O.K. with that.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at February 9, 2007 12:31 PM
Comment #207324

Jack
More lives were lost in Vietnam under Nixon than under the Dems. There is plenty of blame to go around. We let the MIC call the shots as we have in Iraq.
Five bucks says Bush decided to invade Iraq the same day he decided to run for cowboy king.

Posted by: BillS at February 9, 2007 12:40 PM
Comment #207327

The Bush administration, current and past, are responsible for the murder of thousands of Iraqi’s and Americans.

O please. The absurdity of this post makes it not worth debating.

Posted by: Carnak at February 9, 2007 12:46 PM
Comment #207342

If GW & DC weren’t so obstinate and delusional regarding Iraq, Hussein, and Iran we wouldn’t have this argument.
They started the day they took office, to run roughshod over their own legislators. It’s no wonder they never got any complaints about how and why we were going into this war.
How many times do we need to hear, after 9-11, the entire world was with us invading Afghanistan. We were going after those responsible.
No one in Iraq was responsible. Period.
Now we have a war that could go on forever and Bush is ready to turn it over to his successor.
Nice guy.

Posted by: jack p at February 9, 2007 2:23 PM
Comment #207352

Carnak,

“The absurdity of this post makes it not worth debating.”

Why, was it not Bush, Powell, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Feith and all the others who made the decision to go to war? Are they not responsible for those who have died in this war?
Why is that absurd?

gw,

“Try to remember 9-11-2001 try to remember the smell of death in New York City.”

I live in New York! Do you?

“Try to remember the mood of the American People”

I do, there was great sadness, anger and fear. In the first week after 9/11 Bush used anger to rally us. He used the sadness to bring us together. After that he used the fear to get us into Iraq, take away our rights and freedoms, torture in our name, alienate allies and others throughout the world, to slash programs for the needy to finance a war based on lies, he used that fear to divide us. He uses fear even now. He keeps telling people across this nation that it’s his way or death from the Islamofascists. The torture and throwing out habeas corpus alone should outrage all Americans. Attacking all the brown scary people is not going to give you back your sense of security that was taken from you on 9/11. All your getting is a theocracy that’s even more frightening than the foreigners with bombs (who want to destroy our way of life) Yeah right.
America is being run, not by the best and the brightest but the wealthiest. I don’t want any of the idiots with power deciding if my friends and family live or die.
Being led around like a sheep is not one of my strengths.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at February 9, 2007 2:35 PM
Comment #207355

“How many times do we need to hear, after 9-11, the entire world was with us invading Afghanistan. We were going after those responsible.
No one in Iraq was responsible. Period.”

Jack, America learned a great lesson in the 9/11 attack. We pursued the terrorist directly responsible for 9/11 and correctly invaded Iraq as a preventive action based upon our knowledge at the time. I want my country to be “proactive” as concerns our security. Blindly waiting for another, and very likely worse, 9/11 is the provence of fools. Jim

Posted by: Jim Martin at February 9, 2007 2:48 PM
Comment #207359

“All your getting is a theocracy that’s even more frightening than the foreigners with bombs”

Talk about using fear to divide.
At least “foreigners with bombs” is truthful.

Posted by: kctim at February 9, 2007 2:57 PM
Comment #207363

Jim and gw,

“America learned a great lesson in the 9/11 attack. We pursued the terrorist directly responsible for 9/11 and correctly invaded Iraq as a preventive action based upon our knowledge at the time.”

We pursued Osama bin Laden?

“I don’t know where Bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don’t care. It’s not important. It’s not our priority.” 3/13/02

“I am truly not that concerned about him.”
4/8/02

If it is based on what we knew at the time why was half the country thinking that he was lying?

We now know he was lying. He put a man in place to make up the lies.

Keep telling your self what you want, but facts are facts.
The President wanted war not Bin Laden. He wanted the neocon dream, not revenge. He wanted his friends to profit. He wanted the MIC happy. He wanted to impress daddy.
He’s an incompetent with power. His administration consist of power mad rich guys who’s only real quality is greed.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at February 9, 2007 3:10 PM
Comment #207371

“We now know he was lying. He put a man in place to make up the lies”

You do? He did?
Shouldn’t you be sharing this info, based on facts, with pelosi or kennedy or any media outlet?
Facts are facts, right?

Posted by: kctim at February 9, 2007 3:28 PM
Comment #207373

Andre

Once again you are assuming omniscience. Decisions are made in a climate of uncertainty. You also do not know the results of the opposite decisions. Leaving Saddam in place also would have had high costs. The decision is made in a climate of uncertainty AND there probably are not really good options.

Imagine you have cancer. You have a 20% chance of dying in an operation and a 80% chance of dying w/o one. Are you stupid, evil or greedy if you choose the operation? Can you guarentee the result? If you do nothing you may be better off, or not.

Posted by: Jack at February 9, 2007 3:32 PM
Comment #207377

kctim,

“Intelligence provided by former undersecretary of defense Douglas J. Feith to bolster the White House case for invading Iraq included “reporting of dubious quality or reliability” that supported the political views of senior administration officials rather than the conclusions of the intelligence community, according to a report by the Pentagon’s inspector general.”

Not the liberal mainstream Pentagon, but the regular one.

The inspector general described Feith’s activities as “an alternative intelligence assessment process.”

Not inspector Pelossi, but the Inspector general

“the inspector general concluded that Feith’s assessment in 2002 that Iraq and al-Qaeda had a “mature symbiotic relationship” was not fully supported by available intelligence but was nonetheless used by policymakers.

Not inspector Kennedy or Hilary but inspector general of the military pentagon, not Michael Moore’s pentagon

Feith, who was defense policy chief before leaving the government in 2005, was one of the key contributors to the administration’s rationale for war. His intelligence activities, authorized by then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul D. Wolfowitz, and coordinated with Vice President Cheney’s office, stemmed from an administration belief that the CIA was underplaying Saddam Hussein’s ties with al-Qaeda.

Facts that you can get from Wikipedia and many other sources.

Feith who was also the man in charge of the Office of Strategic Intelligence(OSI) who’s job it was to plant fake news in foreign media organizations was also head of Counterterrorism Evaluation Group(CEG), a small intel outfit who’s job was to figure out a way to tie Saddam to al-Qaida.

Facts my friend that can be verified anywhere you like.
Feith is also still under investigation. If Gonzales would stop firing everyone who might investigate we might get even more answers.

Enjoy the facts. Feel free to read the article in the Washington Post, MSNBC and other News outlets.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at February 9, 2007 3:44 PM
Comment #207380

Jack, GW and all the other left in the dust Bush supporters
Get real
this whole trying to make excuses for these guys
“they couldn’t predict, they couldn’t know, they had to go with what was available at the time”
Nice try BUT
There is a ton of evidence (as reported by this latest report by the IG) that what WAS available at the time, that was CREDIBLE, AND DEVELOPED BY COMPETENT PROFESSIONAL was PURPOSELY DISCARDED.
The CREDIBLE evidence DID NOT support the assertions made by Shrub (said in memoriam to Molly)
Shrub controlled what was shown to Congress and the American people — everything was labeled TOP SECRET and whatever Bush didn’t want revealed, wasn’t.
Then you try to blame congress for acting on the only information (DOCTORED INFORMATION) provided?? and refuse to hold accountable the group that DOCTORED, LIED and DISCEIVED the American People — oh yea, I forgot, you don’t get upset about KILLING OUR YOUTH IN ILLEGAL WARS — your priorities are making sure a Prez who got a Blow Job is run out of town on a rail.
Your “values” and priorities make me sick
If you think that makes you a “Patriot” — then you can have the label, it has lost all credibity.

Add to that the evidence that the people they sent over there to run the war and “rebuilding” were picked based on being able to tow the ideology line, not competence, not ability — except to be able to parrot the talking points — and golly gee whiz, look at the mess that happens when you put a 20 year old starry-eyed republican patsy in charge of millions of dollars — corruption, mismanagment— chaos — the whole nine yards, — Yep sure is alot to crow about these guys
“Doin a heck of a job Bushie”
You don’t have blinders on — you’re just plain blind.

Posted by: Russ at February 9, 2007 4:08 PM
Comment #207382

Ah, I see Andre. We are taking only the “facts” that support one particular side of the argument. I get it now.

“Gimble said that while the actions of the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy “were not illegal or unauthorized,” they “did not provide the most accurate analysis of intelligence to senior decision makers

Would Bush be a senior decision maker? Isn’t it possible that Bush was actually using the intel he and other decision makers were given and acted accordingly?
We get it Andre, Bush is a Republican and the left dislikes him. Everything that happens is because of some great conspiracy which is created in the mind of a man whom you guys say is so dumb.

“Rep. Ike Skelton (news, bio, voting record), D-Mo., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said Friday the report “clearly shows that Doug Feith and others in that office exercised extremely poor judgment for which our nation, and our service members in particular, are paying a terrible price.”“

Extremely poor judgment. NOT lied.

“Some Democrats also have contended that Feith misled Congress about the basis of the administration’s assertions on the threat posed by Iraq, but the Pentagon investigation did not support that

This is the same Pentagon you speak of, right? Not michael moore’s, but the IG of the military Pentagon. Right?
Are we to only believe that “not fully supported by the available intel” is true when coming from them, but believe it is a lie when they say Feith did NOT mislead Congress? You know, lie.

Now, you said President Bush intentionally did not tell the truth and that he intentionally put Feith into that office to make up lies.
IF that is true, then please send your facts to pelosi or kennedy or any media outlet and lets impeach. They are in power aren’t they? Can’t hide behind “the evil Republicans won’t do anything” line anymore my friend.
IF you have the facts to support your accussations, then use them.

Posted by: kctim at February 9, 2007 4:33 PM
Comment #207383
Beyond that, if the rich were interested only in money, they could easily buy the oil from Saddam.

Why buying Saddam’s oil when you could grab it for free while knowing nobody will defend him?

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at February 9, 2007 4:34 PM
Comment #207386


Andre: When a nation of people allow themselves to be turned into a nation of hedonists, the natural reaction is to praise those who are providing the good times and attack any one or any nation that may pose a threat to their fun. In the future, we as a nation will kill many many more in the name of protecting our way of life, our hedonism, our fun. We will do what we have to do to justify our cause. The American people are not mad at Bush and Cheney for starting the war in Iraq. They had no dispute with Cheney’s intelligence on demand. The people are mad at Bush and Cheney because they FXXXed the war up.

Jack: You should go on comedy central with your second post. Since you probably won’t, thanks for the good laughs.

“It is true that most of the people who make decisions are rich, but that is because we reward those who make decisions.” Those who make decisions make the rules of law that help make them rich.

“It is like saying all those who win the race are fast runners.” Taken at face value, this is partially true. However, in the reality of the current paradigm, most often money determines the winner. I am sure we are all waiting in breathless anticipation for the day when Paris gives up her jet setting ways and starts making the decisions that govern our nation.

“Beyond that, if the rich were interested only in money, they could easily buy the oil from Saddam. There is just no logical reason to get into this war other than the stated one-that we believed Saddam was a security threat.” Of course the rich aren’t only interested in the money. They are interested in the power that allows them to control and expand the current corporate paradigm. Unless they have the power to control, that paradigm is at risk.

The stated goals that you mention are the publicly stated goals. The non-publicly stated goals are those of PNAC and their goal is Pax Americana. That goal requires a Department of War rather than a Department of Defense.

Posted by: jlw at February 9, 2007 4:49 PM
Comment #207387

“your priorities are making sure a Prez who got a Blow Job is run out of town on a rail.”

Actually Russ, people were more pissed off about the trampling of rights, the corruption and how their own govt killed its own people than they were about the dumb bj. The bj is just what you guys use to deflect from all the real crap that went on. You know, like an illegal war and all that other stuff.

Posted by: kctim at February 9, 2007 4:50 PM
Comment #207395

gw,

Andre second guessing is always easy after the fact.

You should be kidding!?
The whole world warned Bush about their doubt on the “immediate” attribute of the yet-to-be-found threat Saddam was posing to the USA.
It was NOT after the fact. It was BEFORE.

Bushies can’t care less.
Americans can’t care less.

Only the rest of the world care(d).
We don’t anymore. You wanted your war, you got it.
Deal with it now.

Try to remember 9-11-2001 try to remember the smell of death in New York City.

Try to remember Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11.
Even Bush had stop trying to tie them.
Why not you?

WE AS AMERICANS WERE FIGHTING FOR OUR VERY SURVIVAL.

BS.
Global War On Terror but no draft? Tax cut during war time? Massive usage of mercenaries? No closed borders? No harbors security raised?

Americans at home were NEVER fighting for their survival. Americans were seeking for their revenge. Anybody, anywhere, whatever the reasons, backed, forged or just genuinely wrong, they didn’t care.
Your leaders known it. And they took this unique advantage to push their neoconservative agenda far away than in their wettest dreams.

Doesn’t > 40% of americans STILL think some 9/11 terrorists were iraqis, when none were in reality?
Doesn’t > 40% of americans STILL think Saddam was behind 9/11, when he was not?

Americans were not fighting for their survival.
Americans were fighting because their leaders hyped it as a survival issue to push their agenda.

And, 4 years later, you’re still drinking their kool-aid. Welcome to Neoconstown. Check the “New American Century Project” sign on the far right.

Pun intended.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at February 9, 2007 5:27 PM
Comment #207398

Phillippe

Because you cannot grab it for free. Compared with 2003, are we paying more or less for Iraqi oil?

Posted by: Jack at February 9, 2007 5:43 PM
Comment #207402
Because you cannot grab it for free. Compared with 2003, are we paying more or less for Iraqi oil?

Less, as today pretty much all iraq oil is extracted by american companies, while before russian, british and french were for the most part.
Extracting Iraq oil is now filling US economy, while before it was emptying it.

Oh, sure, the little guy, even in US, don’t see it at the gas station. Only stock markets does.

Anyway, that’s fair play. After all, your country (but not BigOils) is paying a very huge price for Iraq war, the least you could get back is petrodollars and less dependency from the OPEC pressure…

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at February 9, 2007 6:20 PM
Comment #207404

Jim,

I want my country to be “proactive” as concerns our security.

Then go ahead and nuke the rest of the world because nobody could predict what would be the next country to threat your security and everybody can tell than in the ends every country could.

You can have both security and freedom. It’s opposite forces. You need to balance them. Permanently. I hope that between total security but no freedom and total freedom but no security there’s a balanced place where peace is for everybody on this little planet.

Do you too?
Or does your compulsive security addiction justify being overaggressive with, potentially, all others countries?

And do you understand that this pro-active policy make you the aggressor, spreading justified fear of the US which in turn is spawning potential threat to your security.

Self-prophecy at works.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at February 9, 2007 6:31 PM
Comment #207405

It should have been “You CAN’T have both full security and freedom”, obviously.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at February 9, 2007 6:34 PM
Comment #207406

kctm
So people were more pissed off about “trampling of rights,corruption,and about how the govt killed its own people”yada,yada then why was that not the grounds for the impeachment ?
What astounds me how you guys are ready to give Bush a pass on everything. He fires the chief terrorism expert, ignores the report that says SPECIFICALLY what Bin Laden is planning,reads My Pet Goat and hides in a hole when it does happen,takes world support and trashes it in an unconnected adventure even his father warned against, handles that so incompetently that there is no hope for victory, refuses to engage in the diplomacy that just might help us leave with some shred of dignity and accomplishment,Really tramples rights(not some wingnut fantasy),dumps tax payer money by the pallet on cronies, uses a defensivive provision in the Patroit Act to replace trouble making US attornies with political hacks,Katrina…at least he did not get a BJ.

Posted by: BillS at February 9, 2007 6:47 PM
Comment #207407

Anyone have a good explanation as to why at least 30% of us have, from before the beginning, known and said that Iraq would be a US quagmire? How did we know this so certainly (and been proven so correct) and how could our president, vice-president, sec’y of defense, and their hangers-on and appointees be so wrong?

Just wondering.

Posted by: Lynne at February 9, 2007 6:54 PM
Comment #207418


The Iraq war is all about defending America. Not the territorial integrity of our country, 12 million illegial immigrants proves that this Administration doesn’t give a damn about territorial integrity.

The war is about defending our way of life and the affluence that we enjoy. That affluence is based on a borrow to consume economy. In order to maintain this borrow to consume economy, we need more and more of the Worlds resources. America can no longer afford to be a peaceful nation that rises to the occasion when it has to defend itself. We must become a waring nation. The wealthy who have benefited the most from our consumptive lifestyles realize that this change is necessary, the alternative is a less consumptive more sustainable economy with greater expence and fewer profits. Petty little dictators like Saddam have to be demonized and elevated in stature to make it appear that they pose a threat to us that is greater than the threat posed by the Soviet Union.

This voluntary army thing isn’t going to last much longer. Start preparing your sons and daughters now so that they will be ready when the hoards of Venezuelans begin to march north.

Posted by: jlw at February 9, 2007 8:54 PM
Comment #207426

Philippe

Most of the cost of the oil is in the raw material. That money goes in royalties to the Iraqis.

Posted by: Jack at February 9, 2007 9:48 PM
Comment #207443

George Tenet, a Clinton appointee, assured Bush that it was a “slam-dunk,” so so much for “ignoring the intelligence community,” unless the head of the CIA is not part of the intelligence community. Care to argue that?

But what possibly could ever have given the administration the idea that some elements of the “intelligence community” tended to overlook or minimize security threats? Hmm…

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at February 9, 2007 11:06 PM
Comment #207448

Regardless of the past, the future dictates thaty we invade Iran soon. I am proud to see so many Republicans here are supporting our troops behind the upcoming invasion.

DOWN WITH IRAN!!!

Posted by: Juan dela Cruz at February 10, 2007 7:34 AM
Comment #207451

Going back to something said at the beginning of this post: While I agree that Kennedy and Johnson had a lot to do with the bulk of the Vietnam conflict, I get tired of people saying that Kennedy was responsible for involving America. Eisenhower opened the door. By the time Kennedy took office, the US was already involved in Vietnam. Eisenhower had guaranteed South Vietnam’s security and sent military and economic aid, as well as U.S. military advisors, to South Vietnam. Kennedy escalated U.S. involvement only because one of Eisenhower’s last wishes as President was that Kennedy not allow Vietnam go by the wayside.

Kennedy came in to Vietnam after we became involved. GW Bush started the current war. No matter who takes over the next presidency (democrat or republican), they will be in the same (albeit worse) situation Kenedy was in when he entered office. The next president will be scrutinized for how we will get out of this mess. I believe that Bush will milk the war until he leaves office so he can eventually say, “Sorry, not my problem anymore” and he won’t have to worry about how to get our troops out.

Posted by: Cath at February 10, 2007 8:34 AM
Comment #207455

Cath,

Actually Truman “opened the door” in Vietnam by giving his support to the French in 1945.

Eisenhower added support monetarily, and then upped the ante after the French got their asses handed to them at Dienbienphu.

Posted by: Rocky at February 10, 2007 9:36 AM
Comment #207458

Rocky.

You’re right. But he also sent military and economic aid. The only point I was trying to make was that our involvement did not begin with Kennedy as most people think. It started before his presidency.

Posted by: Cath at February 10, 2007 10:29 AM
Comment #207476

Jack, Your reasoning is right about Vietnam. Kennedy did allow us to be involved in Vietnam, Johnson screwed it up more and Nixon prolonged the agony. It wasted American lives and lost us influence in the region.

Your reasoning is about Iraq is simplistic and foolish.

The lesson Americans should learn from 9-11 is that there are more than enough real enemies of the US. They continue to be harbored and generated by some of our so called friends. Entering Iraq while maybe reasoned as a realignment of the middleeast and certainly promoted by Israel, Saudi Arabia and Iran as such, was a gross mistake. It was poorly planned and serious caveats were ignored.

There are elements at play in our government whose interests lie elsewhere. Just like Vietnam, we have been drawn into something for various reasons that have little to do with American security. Just like Vietnam, the politicians use patriotism to rally fools behind their mistakes. Just like Vietnam, middleclass Americans are dying for the perogative of the wealthy classes. Just like Vietnam, many politicans lack the courage and moral strength to do the right thing. Just like Vietnam, the right wing is again mislead by it’s political idealogy. Just like you were wrong about Vietnam, Jack, you are wrong again.

Posted by: gergle at February 10, 2007 12:30 PM
Comment #207483

Terrific article, Andre. Five stars!

Posted by: Adrienne at February 10, 2007 1:00 PM
Comment #207488

LO-

re: Tenet - he was telling his boss what he wanted to hear. Just like many others did, and have since expressed regret for doing so.

How about a little context? It often make all the difference.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/18/woodward.book/

Posted by: Kevin23 at February 10, 2007 1:18 PM
Comment #207490

gw-

you make so many assumptions about the nature of the war in Iraq, that I can’t even find a good place to begin responding. All I can say is that I’m not motivated by fear. That is what the terrorists want. Obviously they have succeeded. That is the root issue here.

Your passion for being purely reactive (calling it being proactive is just denial and spin) is short-sighted, sets a terrible precedent, and has done absolutely nothing to improve the security of the US according to every credible independent review on the matter.

re: your slandering of war veterens like Murtha, Kerry, etc. I think it is safe to say that most Americans would gladly share a foxhole with Jack Murtha than they would GWB any day of the week. Your calling them “weak” and “runners” makes you seem like you could care less for actually basing your opinions on reality.

Instead, it is all about partisan BS, right? Yay republicans, boo democrats. Sorry, but I was never a very good cheerleader, as I always preferred to be in the game rather than on the sidelines with my back to it.

Posted by: Kevin23 at February 10, 2007 1:26 PM
Comment #207495

Andre,

Good article. I’d ask though for clarification of one statement:

“The Bush administration, current and past, are responsible for the murder of thousands of Iraqi’s and Americans.”

I’d hope you’re not comparing HW’s war to drive Saddam back out of Kuwait to this current debacle. I’ll grant you that the collateral damage was horrendous but the only alternative would have involved sacrificing the lives of many more American troops. I credit HW with excersing great restraint for resisting the calls to topple Bagdad. He was wise enough to know that an occupation of any foreign land is real damn messy.

Beyond that I totally agree with you. GW lied, or at the very least refused to consider any opposing views. Either way he failed to uphold his oath of office. He should be impeached and possibly worse, but it ain’t gonna’ happen. We lack the votes in the Senate to even pass a non-binding resolution.

Juan dela Cruz actually makes a very good point. Now that more than half of Americans believe the Bush administration at least “cherry picked” info to justify the war in Iraq, how can we possibly trust the same administration with info regarding Iran? I’ll go on record as saying that if the Iranian government is supplying arms to the Shia insurgency then we should take a strong offensive stance against Iran.

—“Sigh”—, the sad thing is I can’t trust Bush or anyone appointed by Bush due to his disregard of opposing views on invading Iraq. All else aside I’ll never forget Hans Blix nearly pleading for Bush to give the UN weapons inspectors more time. Bush squandered any credibility he had (which was little IMO anyway).

It sure is good to see that “gw” thinks patriotism is as easily defined as belonging to the Republican Party. That makes it even easier to disregard everything he (or she) says.

Posted by: KansasDem at February 10, 2007 2:25 PM
Comment #207504

KansasDem,

“It sure is good to see that “gw” thinks patriotism is as easily defined as belonging to the Republican Party.”

Actually I think that Mark Twain said it best.

“Patriot: the person who can holler the loudest without knowing what he is hollering about.”

Posted by: Rocky at February 10, 2007 3:14 PM
Comment #207516

Rocky,

I tend to ignore most of the “hollering”.

Posted by: KansasDem at February 10, 2007 5:46 PM
Comment #207523

gw
Those “hundred of thousands” murdered after we pulled out of Vietnam ? That is an unsubstaniated urban myth pertrayed by right wing attemots at revisionist history. Because you want to believe real hard does not make it so. I am pointing this out because a lie oft repeated sometimes become accepted as truth.
How about the 900000-1000000000 deaths caused by us being there in thew first place. How about the continueing birth defects caused by our use of chemical weapons . This is documented.

Posted by: BillS at February 10, 2007 6:39 PM
Comment #207522

gw
Those “hundred of thousands” murdered after we pulled out of Vietnam ? That is an unsubstaniated urban myth pertrayed by right wing attemots at revisionist history. Because you want to believe real hard does not make it so. I am pointing this out because a lie oft repeated sometimes become accepted as truth.
How about the 900000-1000000000 deaths caused by us being there in thew first place. How about the continueing birth defects caused by our use of chemical weapons . This is documented.

Posted by: BillS at February 10, 2007 6:39 PM
Comment #207532

BillS-

Please give the source of your figure of one billion deaths caused by the U.S. being in VietNam. I think your zeal and partisanship outran your typing ability.

BTW, there is documentation of the murders after we pulled out. Try a Google search and choose your source.

Posted by: John Back at February 10, 2007 9:07 PM
Comment #207534


How many tons of 100 dollar bills was it that disappeared in Iraq? In typical Bush Administration fashion, they are training their lawyers on how to stonewall Congressional investigations to hide the fact that billions were stolen by their crony corporations and corrupt Iraqi officials. This will not alter the fact that this administration has been the most corrupt in American history. Nothing in the past can even come close to the billions that have been stolen from the people of America.

Posted by: jlw at February 10, 2007 10:02 PM
Comment #207535

GW,
You mean the ones slaughtered by Pol Pot which Vietnam finally stopped? Of Course our meddling in Cambodia had nothing to do with the rise of Pol Pot. Or the hundreds of thousands of U.S. Kills?

As to the non sequiter about light skinned Americans what has that have anything to do with Vietnam or Liberal politics for that matter? You clearly listen to the hate filled rants on talk radio and fear Americans with different opinions to yours. You apparantly don’t let facts stand in the way of your opinions.


Posted by: gergle at February 10, 2007 10:23 PM
Comment #207536

“How many tons of 100 dollar bills was it that disappeared in Iraq?”

jlw,

We expected them to buy Chevy’s and Fords, not AK’s and rocket launchers!

Besides it would have taken more pallets to send food and medical supplies, and pallets are expensive.

Posted by: KansasDem at February 10, 2007 10:35 PM
Comment #207544

John Back
Apologies for the typo. Some estimates go as high as two million.

Posted by: BillS at February 10, 2007 11:11 PM
Comment #207545

As for “patriotism,” I’ve been continually shocked by how many on the left howl about how their patriotism is being questioned even when nobody is saying any such thing. It seems to be an article of faith among Democrats that Republicans call them “unpatriotic,” that Republicans say that only Republicans are the only real patriots, etcetera, etcetera.

Honestly though, I don’t know where they’re getting such stuff unless it’s from a few right wing pundits. I have never heard Republican officials, and certainly not administration officials, saying anything of the kind. On the left, you have the equivelent of the Anne Coulters and Rush Limbaughs on the left who say that Republicans aren’t motivated by patritotism but by money, Saudi or Texas oil interests, and so on. So it’s pretty much a wash as far as who is brandining who as unpatriotic, and it’s not a majority view on either side.

What’s strange, though, is having people defend themselves so often on charges that haven’t even been made.

If your girlfriend tells you once that she isn’t cheating on you, believe her. If she feels the need to tell you that twice a day even if you’ve never suggested otherwise, then it’s time to start wondering.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at February 10, 2007 11:13 PM
Comment #207551

How about;

Traitorous,
Treasonous,
Terrorist supporting,
Giving comfort to the enemy…….

Yep, nobody’s ever said that either.

Posted by: Rocky at February 10, 2007 11:58 PM
Comment #207552

Rocky, plenty of people have said those things.

Republican partisans say them about Democrats, and Democratic partisans say them or similar things about Repubicans.

But it’s BS to say that the Republican administration takes this line towards Democrats who disagree with them, or that the Republican rank in file in general makes use of such of hyperbole to any greater extent than the Democratic rank and file does.

I totally defy you to come up with even a single instance when somebody in the administration has called any Democrat “traitorous,” “treasonous,” “terrorist-supporting” or anything else you’re saying.

I know how this works. Somebody like Howard Dean screeches “George Bush, Karl Rove and Dick Cheney say we’re traitors! That we’re not patriotic because we voice our dissent!” and then a thousand blogs pick it up and repeat it, and a thousand Democrats accept it as an article of faith… but with one tiny itsy bitsy problem.

It never happened. Ah, victimhood. Real or imagined, it just feels good!

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at February 11, 2007 12:19 AM
Comment #207556

Andre,

Great post, sad but true.

This administration clearly decided to invade Iraq the day it took office and clearly decided 911 was its chance to invade Iraq. They decided it was going to invade while trying to make a case to Americans (not the U.N.) even as Bush lied that he hadn’t decided yet. What? He’s said he doesn’t care about polls and he clearly didn’t care what the world thought so what had actually changed? Nothing.

A few terrorists from Saudi Arabia pulled off a very patient and elaborate attack, one so difficult and long in planning that nearly six years later nothing close to it has occured since. If you think the Bush administration is actually able to protect Americans and that is why we haven’t been attacked here you’ve been into the Kool-aid for a very long time. And for this attack, we’ve gone after a country that had NOTHING to do with ‘911’ and killed thousands of Americans, tens of thousands of Iraqis, unleashed secterian killing that may have killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and maimed tens of thousands of Americans and Iraqis. We have helped to create a country where children are being orphaned, killed, or grow up as animals waiting to kill Americans, Jews, Shia, or Sunni.

We were not nor are we “fighting for our survival” in Iraq as Andre aptly points out. We are at best clinging to the hope of fighting to correct a huge mistake. I for one want the “surge” to succeed and hope that brave Iraqis will stand up and see us as their friend and liberator. I am willing to give it time even though trusting this adminstration at anything it says is dangerous in the extreme. The decent people of Iraq need to stand up to the animals. If they won’t this year we should get out quick and let them fight it out. I sure hope we are not in the same situation in Afghanistan next year.

That doesn’t mean that those responsible for manipulating this war should not stand trial for crimes against humanity. How many instances of creating intelligence to fit policy does the right need to stand up to this administration?

Posted by: chris2x at February 11, 2007 1:37 AM
Comment #207563

I think it was Philippe who so aptly refuted GWs absurd assertions about “fighting for our survival”.

Jim Martin,
There is a HUGE DIFFERENCE between being “proactive” and killing thousands of innocents and putting American service men and women needlessly in harms way. Taking out the Taliban who actively harbored our attacker in Osama Bin Laden is being strategically proactive. Deciding to take out Saddam Hussein because “wouldn’t it be neat to take out the guy who tried to kill my Dad (who didn’t try and take Saddam out) and set up a democracy in Iraq even if it means trumping up Iraq’s threat to America and killing thousands of more people” is not proactive but murderously simpleminded. If gw is correct in claiming you speak as a “true American” we are indeed a nation of egregiously dangerous simpletons with lots of blood on our hands.

Luckily for our country we are not obstinately stupid and can tell when we are repeatedly hit over the head with incompetence that the “fear-mongering” by this adminstration is to be ignored. We will be attacked again on our soil, make no mistake. When we are it will be much less likely for more murderous adventure by our government. For now, there is no more carte blanche for the idealogic war-mongering by this administration and you can thank the electorate and Democrats for that.

Posted by: chris2x at February 11, 2007 2:58 AM
Comment #207574

I just don’t understand what patriotism has to do with anything. I’m tired of people using patriotism as an excuse to absolve themselves from the burdens of right and wrong: obviously if they stick an American flag to something, it has to be right…right?

Patriotism, or to drop the spin, nationalism, has a great history on our planet. Without it, people like Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Franco, Kim, Mao would have had a much harder time staying in power. I see it’s had some benefits for politicians in both parties here in the US.

I’m sorry if calling a spade a spade when it comes to American transgressions amounts to “unpatriotic” in some eyes, but I’d much rather be thought unpatriotic and still be able to maintain my integrity and know I stood for justice and good than be called a patriot and find myself blindly loyal and dewy-eyed over some bellicose groupthink and iconic imagery.

If people thought for themselves, the government wouldn’t find itself in a position to do it for them.

Posted by: Jacob in SC at February 11, 2007 10:24 AM
Comment #207575

It looks like House Democrats “Mistakenly” lied to Republicans. Did we expect Democrats to suddenly become honest or honor their campaign promises?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070211/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq_1

Posted by: Stephen at February 11, 2007 10:46 AM
Comment #207577
I totally defy you to come up with even a single instance when somebody in the administration has called any Democrat “traitorous,” “treasonous,” “terrorist-supporting” or anything else you’re saying.

“If you’re not with us, you’re against us” contains all those terms…

“If you question us, you’re comforting the enemy”.

What a bunch of hyperbolic hogwash from the so-called “right”.

Posted by: Lynne at February 11, 2007 10:49 AM
Comment #207580

Stephen,

So it’s ok for the Republicans when given the option to add an amendment, instead of doing something constructive, they make sure the amendment goes all out to make the Democrats look bad.

Yep, you’re right, there is no partisanship in Congress, and everybody on the hill has only the best interests of America at heart.

Posted by: Rocky at February 11, 2007 11:12 AM
Comment #207581

Nice attemt at MISDIRECTION there, Rocky. But it didn’t work.

My post was about the lie that Democratic Party Leadership in the house told Republicans. Why are democrats lying to the Republicans? Is this the “bipartisanship” that Pelosi promised us? The End to Division?

Seems to me that the lying democrat party leadership is both partisan and divisive.

Posted by: Stephen at February 11, 2007 11:17 AM
Comment #207582

And yet, when given the opportunity to take the high road, the Republicans chose not to.

Posted by: Rocky at February 11, 2007 11:27 AM
Comment #207583

But didn’t the Democratic party PROMISE us to take the high road themselves and to allow bipartisanship? Why are they breaking a specific promise from their leadership to the Republicans about letting them vote on their bill this week?

And this gets to my more general point.

No Balanced budget coming from the democrats. No “pay as you go”.

No plan to fix social security.

No plan to fix Medicare.

No end to Ear Marks to close down on real corruption.

No plan to seal the boarder from Illegals.

Continued Deficit spending with no budget.

And all the dem leadership has been able to do is pass meaningless bills that make people “feel good” then lie and cause divisions.

Already we are reading that their “anti corruption” bill leaks like a sive.

When it comes to “deliberate mistakes” what do you call it when the democratic party leadership LIES to the Republican leadership. Good thing they weren’t under oath, they would be on the stand like Libby! Oh that’s right, it’s OK for democrats to lie, even under oath like Clinton….only a problem if a Republican lies.

Posted by: Stephen at February 11, 2007 11:35 AM
Comment #207601

Stephen, with less than two months into this Congressional term, your expectations are outrageous and unreal. If you’ll even consider reality and truth for a minute, you would have to admit that there has been a great deal of activity, and most of it has been dodging a myriad of stuff thrown out from the right side of the aisles. It’s going to take a while to clean up what you guys left behind !! C’mon….all your patience been used up waiting for something intelligent to come out of Shrub’s mouth???
Jacob in SC…..good post.

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at February 11, 2007 1:43 PM
Comment #207831

To all,

Bush administration past and present refers to Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Feith. Not previous President Bush.
I actually agreed with his policy to take on Iraq and defend Kuait.

Bush hired a man who was willing to ignore the truth and push a shared agenda. Feith was that man. Bush routinely places people in positions who are there to sabotage or make impotent the government body they have been placed in. He places others in positions that they have no business being in or that have obvious conflicting interests. Oil man protecting environment, pharmaceutical co’s creating prescription drug plan, Bolton at the U.N., anti abortion doctor at family planning, people who want to create segregated(financial) schools in charge of No Child Left Behind, oil CEO’s creating energy policy, draft dodger as defense secretary, horse judge in charge of FEMA, Person who wants Saddam out and is in favor of the Middle East consisting of two countries Israel and Saudi Arabia as his intel source for your anti-Saddam, pro-Israel war.
Those who continue to rally behind the worst president in recent history have every right to do so. I choose not to. We are all Americans. Republicans, Democrats and Independents can disagree on a wide variety of issues but like it or not we are all still Americans. Neither side can get rid of the other. We can agree to disagree. We must band together to fix the things that are terribly wrong with our government. Democratic leaders have failed their constituency, Republican leaders have too. That’s what is relevent not which party is failing now. Who is failing individually is what we should focus on. Bush is a complete and total failure. The current GOP failed us. Democratic leaders who allowed this war failed us. I’m in favor of gettin rid of them all. I feel that anyone involved in this mess should be out of government. Bush and his current and former administration should be arrested, profiteers sued.
The military industrial complex, Oil and energy, Pharmaceutical, chemical, insurance, financial industries have created a new Democracy. It’s not owned by us. It is a government of loopholes, exceptions and fovorable legaleze for the wealthy.

Think about it.
I get pulled over in possession of Cocain and a gun. I’m finished. I’m doing real time in jail, lose my job and am destroyed in my community.
Wealthy person gets no jail time, no consequences and community service.

I am a middle class woman in my 60’s. I find out my health insurance just raised my deductable by $15.00. I call my Senator. I get a form letter 3 months later.

I’m a wealthy real estate developer who wants favorable legislation that would help me to secure 100’s of acres of land. I call my senator. He or she picks up on the other end and we set up a lunch meeting.

Democracy or Wealthocracy?

You want secure borders? Tell companies who hire illegal aliens that they can’t. Will your government do that? No

You want fair taxation? Will your government give it to you?

You want a say in foreign policy?

You want equal representation in court?

Better public schools?

environmental regulation that is meaningful?

Safer streets?

elimination of drugs?

dealing with pedophiles to protect society?

When these issues become meaninful to the wealthiest of Americans only then will it become important to our government. That is never.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at February 13, 2007 10:06 AM
Post a comment