Democrats & Liberals Archives

What is missing from the "Bush Lied People Died" Senate Report???

Bush Cheney  The Democrats call this an investigation? They are not fit to lick the sweat off Ken Starr’s @#$%$#$#!!! No investigation of whether political pressure was placed on intelligence agencies to politicize intelligence in the first place??? Are you kidding me?

First and foremost, lying is an impeachable offense. Public officials are required by law to tell the truth - whether under oath or not. That is especially the case, in matters of war and peace. Presidents are not allowed to lie the American people into war. They do it all the time, but that does not make it OK. The Bush Regime took lying to a whole new level. Of course we thought we knew that he had WMDs. We gave them to him and Rumsfeld encouraged him to use them. I still think that he might have had a few and that now the Syrians have them. That was no justification for war. The link below says that the lie was that "Saddam was prepared to arm terrorist groups" but that, that was only a "minor" part of the case for war.

The notion that "Saddam was prepared to arm terrorist groups" was the corner stone of the case for war. Everyone knew that Saddam would not dare to challenge the U.S. head to head, so even though we knew about his WMD from well before the First Gulf War, we felt no need to engage in preemptive war. The urgency came from, what to me, was an obviously blatant lie at the time, i.e. that he would arm terrorists. Now it is official. Bush Lied, People Died. There is nothing "minor" about it. It is an impeachable offense. Bush and Cheney should be impeached in order to restore the rule of law.

They won't be, and it would be politically unwise to do it, at this point, even if it were possible. But in an ideal world, they should be impeached in order to assert the rule of law. The Constitution has been subverted. In a very real sense, there is no law in this country. Although the recent Supreme Court ruling restoring Habeas Corpus goes along ways toward restoring faith and hope. However the case can be made that we are ruled, but that there is no law. You can't be a little bit pregnant. You can't be a little bit lawful. Either the President of the United States of America is subject to the rule of law, or he is not. I understand that the world is analog, that there are gray areas and nuances. But ultimately, this is a digital question. Yes or no, true or false, o or 1, is he or isn't he, subject to the rule of law. The law holds, or the law doesn't hold - period.

Impeachment does not necessarily mean that they have to be removed from office. They should be, but a slap on the wrists at least asserts that the law applies. The Congress could simply impeach, (i.e. bring charges), then censure them, openly, honestly, publicly, for lying. Now that it is officially proven that the corner stone of their case for war was a lie, the Congress, (both Parties), has a Constitutional obligation to do exactly that. The Congress will fail. It is incumbent upon us to give rebirth to America in this coming election. One thing is certain, if McCain is elected, he will appoint more Scalias, and the next time Habeas Corpus needs to be restored, it won't be. There will be rule of President but no rule of law.
See: There is one lie, however:

The broader issue here is how was the intelligence community manipulated to hype the intelligence. The reports of on going weapons development came from sources that obviously lacked credibility yet those reports found their way into official intelligence assessments - why? The Senate report linked to below makes it clear that intelligence for the case for war was cherry picked but that most of the assertions for the case for war did have some dubious intelligence behind them which provides cover for the obvious manipulation of American public opinion that occurred. What was the political process that allowed that dubious intelligence to be passed through to the highest levels? Why did Regime officials choose to only use and release that dubious intelligence? How was intelligence gathering and assessment politicized? See: WPost's Enduring Bush Cover-up By Robert Parry


See also: Senate panel: Bush purposely inflated Iraq threat in prelude to war

See also:Presidential Lies and Deceptions

See also: Senate Report Conclusions 10 through 16 - as well as "The Additional Views of Senator Feingold"

Posted by Ray Guest at June 13, 2008 11:59 PM
Comments
Comment #255511

We did not give WMD to Saddam. That is an outright lie and slander on our country. We did talk to Saddam Hussein, much like Obama advocates talking to people like him, perhaps w/o enough preconditions.

0.47% is the amount of Saddam’s weapons supplied by the U.S.

I know you hate Bush but please do not do the terrorists’ work by slandering your country with these kinds of BS.

IF you find any evidence of any major American weapons system owned by Saddam Hussein, please let us all know because you will be the first. The junk yard in Iraq are full or Soviet made weapons; you can find lots from China or France. YOu find nothing from America from the Saddam era. This is THE truth, not A truth. Anybody who thinks differently is misinformed.

The idea that we armed Saddam is a pernicious lie. STOP IT.

You can say what you want and make up what you want re George Bush. You can speculate about what he knew. But you don’t have to trash our country in the process. STOP IT. I suggest you edit your entry to take out the lies about your country. Keep the Bush bashing if you want, but spare America.

Posted by: Jack at June 14, 2008 2:19 AM
Comment #255524

Ray

Excellent post. I too am angry at the dems (eventhough I am one) at their inability to do the right thing. I am afraid that they are worried about what might come up in terms of their own duplicity. Why else will they not step up to the plate?

It amazes me how some posters knowing this is a LIBERAL/DEMOCRATIC messageboard will come on and then act all upset and demand that posters not post certain things. Trying to control others and what they post is quite futile.

Better approach might be to provide support for arguements against the initial poster.

Posted by: Carolina at June 14, 2008 9:16 AM
Comment #255526

Jack,

One other part of your comment also needs to be corrected. You say potato, I say you are full Bull-loney. There is a slightly different quality to Rumsfeld’s meeting with Saddam than what it is that Obama is suggesting. Attempting to find common ground for peace with ones rivals is slightly different from giving them weapons and encouraging them to use them for greater imperialist gain.

Posted by: Ray Guest at June 14, 2008 10:00 AM
Comment #255536

Ray,

While I completely agree that Bush lied and misled us into war, he is most certainly not the first to do so. I disagree that politicians are required to tell the truth. In some cases, they are duty bound to lie, especially in the name of national security. They may not lie under oath to Congress, or the courts, however.

His worst mistake, in my opinion, was to continue this propoganda in the face of failure. That was sheer political expedience, as McClellan’s book suggests.

America now knows he lied. I first saw it when Republican friends began to shake their heads, that while supporting his policies, they hung their heads in shame at his duplicity. You see it in his poll numbers.

I have never been a fan of impeachment. It’s political gamesmanship. We saw that with Clinton. Nixon knew his ticket was up. Impeachment wasn’t necessary. The election will take care of Bush. It’s too bad he was able to lie his way thru 2004.

Sadly, Jack doesn’t get it yet. It’s akin to believing in Santa Claus. Facts just get in the way.

Posted by: googlumpus at June 14, 2008 11:28 AM
Comment #255540
First and foremost, lying is an impeachable offense. Public officials are required by law to tell the truth - whether under oath or not.

Well now let’s get busy impeaching all 537 of them elected folks up there in DC.
And we can start with the biggest lair of the bunch, Hillary Clinton.

Now this is truly amusing. Y’all hate Bush so bad that y’all can’t even except the report from y’all’s own politicians that says he didn’t lie. But y’all will except every other lie they tell ya.

Posted by: Ron Brown at June 14, 2008 11:55 AM
Comment #255545

Ron Brown,

Did y’all not read: There is one lie, however: or Senate Report Conclusions 10 through 16 - as well as “The Additional Views of Senator Feingold” or any of the rest of my links?

googlumpus,

Certainly, the impeachment of Clinton was gamesmanship. The pending impeachment of Nixon was not. We should not engage in gamesmanship with Constitutional responsibilities like impeachment. The filthy Republicans have given it a bad name which is why I agree that it would be politically unwise, but it is still a sacred Constitutional responsibility of both parties. I know that there are laws to the contrary in cases of national security - good point - but that does not apply here, and public officials are legally required to tell the truth. Thanks for your comment.

Posted by: Ray Guest at June 14, 2008 12:27 PM
Comment #255551


Ray: I believe thare was a case in Oregon or washington last year in which the court ruled that a politician is under no obligation to tell the truth. The could have involved a state politician rather a federal one but, it did set a precedent.

It is good to see that Sen. Obama who is running on a slogan of change we can believe in, especially changing the way business is done in Washington D.C., is leading the charge to get to the bottom of these allegations, not! I am also encouraged by Obama’s insistance on not having Washington insiders in his campaign, not!

There is one Democratic Congressman who has layed out the charges against the Bush Administration in great detail. He has been on a one man crusade to impeach Bush and Cheney, Congressman Kucinich (D,OH) Of course, all his diligent work will go for naught. Most politicians are reluctant to expose others wrong doing for fear of having their own wrong doing exposed.

We can now add Sen. Conrad (D,ND) and Sen. Dodd (D,Cn), both members of the Senate Banking Commitee, to the list of politicians and Washington insiders who got preferential treatment loans from Countrywide as part of the company’s Loans for V.I.P.’s Program. What a tangled web they weave in the center of government, Washington D.C.

Posted by: jlw at June 14, 2008 1:19 PM
Comment #255553

(sp above)

Since the election of JFK, the voters have refused to elect a sitting Senator to the presidency. This year, they have no choice that can seriously challenge and overthrow business as usual.

Posted by: jlw at June 14, 2008 1:36 PM
Comment #255557

Ray,

I think the essence of your article is on target. How Donald Rumsfeld sleeps at night is beyond me. Jack can, however, justifiably quibble with “we thought we knew that he had WMDs. We gave them to him and Rumsfeld encouraged him to use them.”

The links you gave show strong evidence that we helped arm Saddam conventionally in spite of know that he was a psychopath, who had the means and likely intent of developing WMD. The strongest corroboration was this link you gave Jack in a follow-up comment. We gave Saddam a wink and a nod in spite of evidence of his treachery in using biological or chemical agents against the Kurds and Iranians, because his success in fighting Iran served our interests. We (the CDC) may have provided raw materials in the form of disease cultures to Iraqi scientists which could have been developed into WMD. Rumsfeld’s “encouragement” (in 1983) came in the form of sharing intelligence with Saddam which he could then apply (conventionally or otherwise) in his war against Iran.

In any case it’s all bad enough, and an honest Congress should have started impeachment proceedings years ago - but Jack is right that we didn’t literally give Saddam WMD those many years ago. My guess is that the CDC scientists who shared the active biological cultures were probably given some benign rationalization for it. Whether there was an insider in the Reagan administration who actively sought to enable Saddam’s manufacture of biological weapons is likely to remain speculation, though it seems pretty likely.

Posted by: Walker Willingham at June 14, 2008 2:14 PM
Comment #255565

A Newsweek article read into the Congressional record is still just a Newsweek article.

I can tell you with metaphysical certainty that there were no significant American supplied arms in Saddam’s arsenal. Check it out for yourself. IF you find something, let me know. Just ONE major system. I know it is fun to bash America, but sometimes you get stuck by the facts.

But read even that carefully. Yes, we tolerated Saddam as the lesser or the two evils. Yes, we permitted some dual use materials – which were never used to make WMD since that is NOT the type of WMD Saddam owned or deployed. Yes, we allowed Arab allies to share intelligence so that the Iranians would not win a stunning victory. I can confess all these American sins and still understand that we did not arm Saddam Hussein. We were responsible for 0.47% of the arms Saddam possessed. A big country like ours is involved with every thing in the world. To have a percentage lower than some countries like Brazil and much lower than the Soviet Union, France or China says a lot.

Please understand the nature of diplomacy. You cannot always have relations only with people you like. Remember, we talked allied with Stalin who killed around 20 million people; we talked to Mao who probably killed nearly 50 million. Albright went to N. Korea and broke bread with Kim. You guys are constantly arguing for relationships with some of the worst guys on the planet. Barack Obama has even called for talks with leader like Saddam Hussein w/o preconditions.

It is really inconsistent to criticize Rumsfeld, who as a minor official went to see Saddam and then defend Obama’s idea of meeting similar guys – as President – w/o preconditions.

Do you recall what position he held during that time? He was NOT secretary of Defense or anybody high up. Yes, it would be very different for PRESIDENT Obama to meet with a leader like Saddam Hussein w/o preconditions.

It is childish to keep on bringing up one picture of a man who was not even a high official at the time of the visit. If you Google Rumsfeld and Saddam that is always the picture you find because there are not more. You are missing the big picture.

In case you don’t remember, it would have been a very bad thing for Iran to overrun the middle east in the 1980s. Maybe that doesn’t bother some people. You can advocate that if you wish. It was a decent policy to prevent that, IMO.

You have accused the United States of sometimes acting practically in world affairs. We are guilty of that. We are also guilty of acting in what we consider our best interests and sometimes guilty of trying to make the best of a bad situation when there are no good choices. That is what adults with experience sometimes have to do.

I envy those who have never had to make a difficult choice but I also have no respect for their opinions about such matters.

Posted by: Jack at June 14, 2008 3:20 PM
Comment #255568

Something that really bothers me about Bush’s lies is that I never saw any outrage. Scott McClellan released his book, which basically said the president was lying, and the reaction in the world press was “Scott McClellan tells no one anything they didn’t already know”. What? How did we jump from believing Bush to it being common knowledge he lied without any outrage at all?

A good example here is Jack, who is outraged, outraged that your post suggests Americans gave WMDs to Iraq. Where’s his outrage about the subject of the post? Namely, that Bush lied and should be impeached? I can only surmise he accepts that part of this post as true, and doesn’t really care.

I can’t think of a crime more heinous than deliberately misleading the American public into thinking they are in mortal danger in order to trick them into supporting an unnecessary war. He should be impeached, imprisoned, and left there. The absurd amount of riches he and Cheney made off the war should be used to help pay off our debt.

As far as the posters here that are arguing the president is allowed to lie to the American people to start a war - I’m flabbergasted. I have nothing to say to you.

Posted by: Max at June 14, 2008 3:34 PM
Comment #255572

Jack:

Is your contention that we only helped Saddam a little bit? Is that like a little bit pregnant? And could we have possibly done other things not publicized? Surely our government never lies to us.

We really take a lot on ourselves when we do everything to interfere with the rest of the world. Our arrogance as a country knows no bounds.

Oh, and as an aside, just because you are in Iraq, that does not necessarily give you the big picture. I suspect you are experiencing a microcosm, only one example in one area of what is going on.

JMHO of course.

Posted by: womanmarine at June 14, 2008 3:45 PM
Comment #255573


When we throw the Middle East ingredients into a pot and boil them down to fact, the fact is that the U.S., other western powers and the Soviets have used the terrorist regimes of Iraq and Iran in their own games of world domination. Many lives and great wealth have been squandered in these efforts.

In these days, the Iraqi people and their government officials are resisting the Bush Admiistrations efforts to exploit them for profit. They are resisting the continued occupation. They are resisting the signing of the oil law. They are resisting the Administrations attempts to build 58 permanent bases in Iraq, most of which are designed to create a border within the border of Iraq, a border around the oil fields to protect and aid ExxonMobil, Halliburton and other corporations in their exploitative efforts.

Posted by: jlw at June 14, 2008 3:46 PM
Comment #255574

Walker Willingham,

Thanks for your comment.

Yes it is possible I overstated the proven facts in my article. However the proven facts show that we “knowingly” allowed biological samples that could be grown for bioweapons to pass. I have also read that we provided nerve agents, but it is not a proven fact. Given what the proven facts are, given the secret nature of international discourse, and given American imperialism, I do assume the worst of both Democratic and Republican Presidents.

The point of that part of my article was to give this Republican Regime the benefit of the doubt and admit that we did all think that he had WMDs, that we had good reason to believe that he had WMDs. I believed he had WMDs. That was no justification for war. This regime knew that was no justification for war. That is why they lied and asserted that there was reason to believe that he would arm terrorists. IMO that is also why they politicized the intelligence community, sought dubious intelligence, and dishonestly bolstered their case for war with it.

I do believe that our country made a choice to knowingly provide materials and knowledge for WMDs to Saddam. As the article that I link to points out, it was a reasonable thing to do at the time - a reasonable thing to do at the time especially from an imperialist perspective. I might add, the link also says that we provided intelligence - what intelligence - knowledge of how to make WMDs is classified… So, I provide proof that we supplied Saddam with weapons, intelligence, and weapons grade bio-agents. The rest is assumption - reasonable assumption - but assumption none the less. BTW however, a weapons grade bio-agent is a WMD that just needs to be cultured and distributed. Indeed virulent bio-agents can be WMDs without even being cultured. Released, they spread of their own accord.

Posted by: Ray Guest at June 14, 2008 3:52 PM
Comment #255577


Jack: Your argument is basically true. We let the citizens of other nations do the heavy lifting to support Iraq while our citizens were doing the same for the Shaw of Iran. Did that 0.47 percent represent a few billions of taxpayer dollars?

Ronald Reagan helped to enable the Iatollah’s regime with his and the Israeli’s weapons for money for contra terrorists policy. I often wonder if the Republican hard line against the Iranians is an attempt to negate Reagan’s weakness. Dito, the hard line against Lebanon and the hard line against negotiating with enemy’s.

Posted by: jlw at June 14, 2008 4:26 PM
Comment #255578

Jack,
My disparaging remarks about Rumsfeld were not well explained. For me, it’s really much less about his meeting with Saddam in 1983 than about his prosecution of the war (lack of troop protection, flouting of Geneva accords, overconfidence, lack of remorse, etc) as Bush’s Secretary of Defense. His history of involvement in helping a known thug way back when, just makes it more ironic. Rumsfeld is a very intelligent man, with a wit and a kind of charm* that appeals to some. He was also a calculating and duplicitous leader who took crazy risks with the lives of our troops and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians. It is because he is smart and witty and able to turn on that charm that his behavior and decisions as Defense Secretary were so despicable. He should have known better. Rumsfeld to Gates was night to day. Too bad that change didn’t happen three years earlier.

*I tended to see it more as smugness. His famous quote about known and unknown knowns and unknowns is remarkable, because unlike a typical Bush statement, Rumsfeld’s statement was grammatically and logically sound, but intentionally obfuscatory. At the end of the day, Rumsfeld knew plenty that he wouldn’t admit he knew. He toyed with us, and he toyed with our future, and it will costs us for decades.

Posted by: Walker at June 14, 2008 5:41 PM
Comment #255580

Nothing more true has ever been spoken on Watchblog:

When we throw the Middle East ingredients into a pot and boil them down to fact, the fact is that the U.S., other western powers and the Soviets have used the terrorist regimes of Iraq and Iran in their own games of world domination. Many lives and great wealth have been squandered in these efforts.

Spot on jlw!

Posted by: bandman at June 14, 2008 5:54 PM
Comment #255593

Jack,
There is the factual history of America and then there is the ideal. I prefer the ideal. Correcting mistakes is the ideal. Not believing lies is the ideal. Admitting the truth is an ideal.
If the true American Patriots are villified, ridiculed and “punished” what’s going to be left over?

Posted by: Stephen Hines at June 14, 2008 7:59 PM
Comment #255599

Ray, jlw is right. The Supreme Court ruled that politicians may lie without recourse, unless of course, they are sworn to tell the truth before Congress or law enforcement agencies or courts.

But there is no legal penalty for lying to the public. That is what the Supreme Court ruled. I wrote an article about the topic at the time.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 14, 2008 11:26 PM
Comment #255600

All,

Thanks for your comments.

Jack,

Thanks for your last comment. My last response to Walker applies to your last comment as well.

Posted by: Ray Guest at June 14, 2008 11:31 PM
Comment #255601

BTW,

Clearly I should have left the references to arming Saddam out… Perhaps then someone on the right would have addressed the real theme of this article, Bush’s lies.

Posted by: Ray Guest at June 14, 2008 11:34 PM
Comment #255602

Ray, also don’t forget the direct implications by Bush, Rice, Cheney and others that if we don’t take out Hussein, there may be mushroom clouds over US cities.

I always loved that GRIM fairy tale. Straight out of Goebbels’ playbook. Make them afraid, very very afraid, and they will be putty in your strong and capable hands.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 14, 2008 11:35 PM
Comment #255611

Woman

We “help” everybody in the world. There is not a county on the face of this earth w/o American involvement, even those we embargo or dislike with a passion. If you want to look for the American villain in such small numbers, you can find them everywhere. But it gets to just be a tautology. You can argue that we are responsible for all the world’s ill. If we apply the same standards, we are also involved in and responsible for all the world’s achievements. Does that make sense to anybody?

Ray

YES – you should have left them out. That gratuitous side swipe destroyed the rest of your arguments, IMO. I honesty did not – and specifically would not – read anything beyond that slander. When I see that argument in the first paragraph I will never – as a matter of principle – credit anything that comes after that is not an apology. One does not have to eat the whole egg to know it is rotten.

I don’t understand why we always need to make Americans the villains. As I said to womanmarine, Americans are indeed involved in almost everything around the world. We are by far the biggest humanitarian donor and the biggest military provider, the largest producer of scientific patents and the most ubiquitous people in the history of the world. You can find bad and you can find good.

What the anti-Americanism reminds me of is the concept of join and several liability and going after the guy who you can shake down the most. It is like me hitting your legally parked care, determining that you are 0.47% responsible for the accident and then blaming you for the whole thing.

So, yes, leave that kind of thing out of respectable argument and you won’t get stuck holding a bag of manure.

Walker

Rumsfeld was/is an ass. I think he did a good job with the start of the Iraq conflict, but it would have been better for us all if he had quit while he was ahead back in 2004. Bush made the mistake often of being too loyal to his subordinates.

He should have canned Rumsfeld, as McCain suggested.

In fairness to Rumsfeld, however, a few breaks in the other direction and the war could have been very different and Rumsfeld would have been hailed as visionary. He played a high risk game and we lost.

Posted by: Jack at June 15, 2008 1:51 AM
Comment #255613

BTW - legally parked CAR, not care.

And, Ray, sorry that I get so mad about this. I just really hate reflexive anti-Americanism. I know that you think you are just jumping on Rumsfeld, but I can tell you from 23 years of experience overseas that our friends and enemies outside the U.S. really do not make such fine distinctions among Americans. No matter what kind of BS they give us at election time, the American president is just that.

We are “lucky” now that much of the anti-American animosity is centered on the person of George Bush. I hope he takes some of it with him when he leaves, but I believe after a short honeymoon, it will be back, just as it has been ever since I can remember. When Americans associate our own history 20 years ago with genocide and terror - on weak grounds BTW - it gives those who wish us ill permission to do that and more. We are our own worst enemies.

I am not advocating a white wash. Simple fairness would do just fine. We are a powerful country that does good and bad things, rather more good.

Posted by: Jack at June 15, 2008 1:59 AM
Comment #255617

Why is it that we are told by the conservatives that we dont except responsibility for our actions yet as a country they argue against accepting responsibility for our actions? Not only do they agrue against this they call us all sorts of names for doing so?
Why is it that a leader (such as Rumsfield and Cheney) that has been around for so long and done so much is let off the hook by the cons for failing to make this history known to the POTUS whike serving as the Secretay of Defense and while we are at it the VP? What changed so dramatically that would allow any one with an IQ in the triple digits to think that the middle east changed so much in 10 years that a complete reversal of logic was now the right thing to do?

Why would the cons and neocons just now look back on the past 6 years of unparalled incompetence and say we should have done things different yet allow themselves to continue to lead us in the continuing debacle? If they, the neocons and cons, had any respect for this country , if they had any decency at all, any moral conviction, any patriotism they would have admitted these mistakes that were so obvious to all others in this country and allowed others to start fixing this mess years ago.

“YES – you should have left them out. That gratuitous side swipe destroyed the rest of your arguments”

How convenient Ray, because you made a “gratuitous sideswipe” in Jacks opinion it allows for all previous errors on the parts of our neocon leaders and their conservative lackeys to be wiped out. Nothing else should matter because of this. Were there any honor in the right wing of this country they would not hide behind this ruse, they would adhere to the principles they claim and admit they are incapable of leading this country at this point in time, They would go fix their collective problem and ask the American citizenry for another chance. Instead they claim its all good now and continue to follow us. Give me a break and pass that koolaid over here cause lord knows I need it to swallow this line of reasoning.

Posted by: j2t2 at June 15, 2008 4:24 AM
Comment #255627

j2t2

The thing Ray mentioned is unsubstantiated and in considerable dispute on many angles. As I corrected pointed out, there is no doubt that the U.S. was NOT a significant supplier of convential weapons. There is also no evidence that we supplied any WMD. The dispute lies in dual use materials. That argument takes up whole articles by itself.

If somebody wants to write such an article, with decent documentation, we can discuss it. But to make a passing anti-American shot and then expect to move on to the next subject somewhat following that is unrealistic.

We could logically discuss whether a policy of trying to prevent a clear victor in the Iran-Iraq conflict was a smart policy or if it would have been better to let Iran roll over much of the Middle East. We could logically discuss whether it was wise to talk to dictators such as Saddam.

In fact, we had a long discussion re whether or not Obama should meet leaders such as Saddam was w/o preconditions. This certainly is a cautionary tale for that, since even a tangential visit by someone who was not even a cabinet member at the time can cause such an outcry.

Posted by: Jack at June 15, 2008 7:41 AM
Comment #255632

Sorry Jack, but your being offended by “anti-american” opinion is bullshit. It isn’t anti-american to be critical of what your country does or doesn’t do. It isn’t bashing our country, it is, after all, our country. Trying to step aside of the argument because you consider it “anti-american” has more to say about you than others.

You somehow seem to think that your opinions are so much more correct than others. That’s what’s offensive. Our country has an arrogance that some consider wrong. That’s not anti-american. We do things wrong sometimes.

I would like to see how you measure and come to the conclusion that we have somehow done more right than wrong.

Posted by: womanmarine at June 15, 2008 9:07 AM
Comment #255637

Ray:

Your article is well written, but I have to say that, IMHO, Jack is mostly correct with his counterpoints. I do have to congradulate everyone on their tones in a very emotionally charged topic.

It amazes me that there is so much hatred for President Bush for leading us into the Iraqi war, but so very little against the Democratic Congressmen that voted for the authorization. For the purpose of this this paragraph only, let’s assume that the President lied. Given that the war was voted on as the Constitution mandates, and every Member of Congress had full access to the same information that the President had(with the exception of certain classified materials that both Parties’ ranking members on the Intelligence Committee could review), should we not then hold the people that had a sworn duty to oversee and confirm the data to the same standards? I have no faith in a Democratic Senate panel’s findings that places all of the blame on a Republican President, but accepts no responsibility for the gross dereliction of duty of members in their own Party.

I did not read the full Senate Panel’s Findings, I just skimmed over it, but I wonder why they did not include any statements from Democrats leading up to the war. Could it be that from President and Senator Clinton through a whole host of Democrats for years made the case that Iraq was a threat, the same threat that President Bush thought we faced? And could it be possible that some event changed the way we need to deal with threats?

Posted by: submarinesforever at June 15, 2008 10:39 AM
Comment #255638

David,

You wrote:

But there is no legal penalty for lying to the public. That is what the Supreme Court ruled. I wrote an article about the topic at the time.
I am trying to remember the source of my information. It was a good source - I thought it was Thom Hartman on Air America, perhaps I misunderstood. In any case we certainly know that politicians do lie on a regular basis.

You also wrote:

Ray, also don’t forget the direct implications by Bush, Rice, Cheney and others that if we don’t take out Hussein, there may be mushroom clouds over US cities.
Yes, and administration surrogates were talking about suitcase nuclear bombs that terrorist could deliver. I doubt if we can even build a suitcase nuclear bomb. I think those things are pretty big. One must have a fissile core surrounded by enough shaped explosive and a thick enough case to compress the core to critical mass. This is no mean feat. The less the compression, the larger the core has to be. The greater the compression, the larger, thicker, heavier, and more precise, the shaped charge and case must be. neither path leads to a suitcase. They, (this Regime), also terrorized us with the idea of dirty bombs. Slightly dirty bombs are possible but true dirty bombs are difficult. They will kill you before you can deliver them, so they are no mean feat either.

Jack, Jack, Jack,

You wrote:

You can argue that we are responsible for all the world’s ill. If we apply the same standards, we are also involved in and responsible for all the world’s achievements. Does that make sense to anybody?
I think both statements are partially true. We are one of many root causes for everything bad and everything good. Being a realist. I do not deny the good. Being a realist. I want us to look at the bad.

Posted by: Ray Guest at June 15, 2008 11:00 AM
Comment #255639

j2t2 and womanmarine,

Thanks for your thoughtful comments. I need some help here. This is not my best article and I am getting beat up pretty bad. Thanks for refocusing.

submarineforever,

Thanks for your comment. You wrote:

I have no faith in a Democratic Senate panel’s findings that places all of the blame on a Republican President, but accepts no responsibility for the gross dereliction of duty of members in their own Party.
I somewhat agree. They saw the same intelligence, the intelligence was dubious. There is evidence that suggest that the Bush Regime put political pressure on intelligence agencies to produce intelligence supportive of the case for war. They saw the intelligence that the Bush Regime wanted them to see - they (the Dems) were effectively lied to. They have a right to be mad now. None the less, they were also steamrolled and lacked political courage. It took great courage for Obama to oppose the war. I know, because it took great courage for me to quietly oppose the war in small candle light vigils. It was clear to me that the Bush Regime was hyping the case for war. It should have been clear to them. But the Bush Regime had succeeded in terrorizing us and whipping up a hyper-patriotic proto-fascist, militaristic war fervor through outright lies, distortions, cherry picked intelligence, and politically promoted dubious intelligence. It was difficult and scary to be a true patriot and stand up in the face of that.

Posted by: Ray Guest at June 15, 2008 11:23 AM
Comment #255640

submarineforever,

You wrote:

Could it be that from President and Senator Clinton through a whole host of Democrats for years made the case that Iraq was a threat, the same threat that President Bush thought we faced? And could it be possible that some event changed the way we need to deal with threats?
I put no credence on what Clinton said. At the time and now, I thought that she sold out in order to position herself to run for President. Nothing happened that “changed the way we need to deal with threats.” Pearl Harbor did not mean that we had to engage in pre-emptive war and occupation with Joseph Stalin. And on his best day, Saddam was not even a scab on Stalin’s ass.

Posted by: Ray Guest at June 15, 2008 11:32 AM
Comment #255641

Submarinesforever,

No - I do not hold congress as responsible as the president.

1. Bush implied he had access to knowledge no one else did, including congress.

2. Bush sold his asking for permission to go to war as leverage he needed to win diplomacy.

3. Bush primed the pump / hyped up the evidence so much that anyone who voted not to go to war would have been lynched by their constituents.

4. It was democrats who came up with the idea of an embargo - which worked. They never had a plan for invading. Invasion was a neocon idea that broke with traditional Republican ideas.

Posted by: Max at June 15, 2008 11:33 AM
Comment #255643

womanmarine

Trying to step aside of the argument because you consider it “anti-american” has more to say about you than others.

Well said. I was about to write the equivalent. You are correct in that questioning the actions of a group of people does not make one unpatriotic or un-American. I do not care what their status is in this country, if they were deliberately deceptive for personal reasons then they have committed crimes of the worst kind. If they knowingly misled the American people and its congress to attain a false goal that has changed many times since then they should be prosecuted for such misdeeds. To place them above and beyond the laws and accountability of ordinary citizens is wrong and speaks of a class system not in keeping with that of a democratic nation. Any person, elected or not, who is stupid and arrogant enough to believe their sh-t doesn’t stink deserves what they get. I suspect that the only accountability these folks face will be in their legacies.

Posted by: RickIL at June 15, 2008 11:50 AM
Comment #255646

Womanmarine

0.47%. Yes, we are responsible for arming Saddam to that extent. If you want to find America guilty for every trouble in the world, go ahead. You call it as you see it and I will too.

You don’t seem to understand the difference between not being perfect and being responsible for all those bad things. It is a common tactic of dictators and has been for a long time to find fault with democracies and seek to create a moral equivalence. You steal a pen from work; another guy steals a million dollars. You are both thieves, right?

I really do not understand the profound need to trash America. Or are you so confident in your virtue that only some Americans are guilty? Remember, Obama has advocated talking to dictators w/o preconditions. What will those pictures look like in five or ten years. Partisan Republicans show pictures of Albright or Carter loving Kim. Partisan Democrats pull out an old picture of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam. We are just putting each out each other’s eyes.

There is a place for these discussions. But none of you are making the reasoned arguments. Do you think the policy of preventing a victory by Iran in that conflict was wise?

Re America doing more right than wrong, read a little more history. I cannot talk to you about this at this time.

Ray

Yes, it is very complex. So why do you insist on talking about a 0.47% contribution? If asked to describe an elephant, do you focus only on the broken left toenail?

As to a REAL point – I don’t see how Dems could have been so effectively “lied to”. How stupid would you have to be if you are tricked by “the chimp”. Especailly people like John Kerry, who sat on the intelligence committee for a decade BEFORE Bush came to office, or Hillary whose husband was president of the United States. We all have been lied to, but if we are smart and we know our subject, we are not taken in to that extent.

Assume Bush lied. Kerry et al were on the intelligence committee in 2001. Even if Bush changed ALL the intel from the minute he took office, presumably these guys could compare what they knew nine months before to what Bush was telling them.

So Senate Democrats are either abysmally stupid or they are lying about being deceived.

What REALY happened was that the whole country was caught up in the hysteria of being attacked. Bush, congress and all of us were on a state of higher alert and ready to respond to attacks. In this situation, threats that would have been ignored or discounted were considered dangerous. It is a natural historical reaction. It happened after Pearl Harbor, after Ft Sumter, after the Soviet coup in Czechoslovakia, after the Nazi invasion of Poland … We reacted too casually to threats during the 1990s. We reacted perhaps to strongly in 2002. It does not require dishonesty or villains.

It is very difficult for leaders in a democracy to react appropriately to threatening circumstance. People demand action. Leaders want to lead. Look at what is happening today re gas prices and the hysteria associated with that. And that is not even an existential threat.

Hysteria aside, the decision to remove Saddam Hussein was a serious one. The alternative of leaving him in power w/o sanctions (since they WOULD have been dropped when it was proved he didn’t posess WMD) is equally frightening.

Max

What you call an embargo - i.e. sanctions - were being subverted and would have been taken off entirely when Saddam proved he didn’t have WMD. So if we knew then what we know now, the choice would have been remove Saddam or let Saddam stay in power w/o sanctions. Which do you think is more dangerous?

Posted by: Jack at June 15, 2008 12:09 PM
Comment #255647

there is a recent article about how most democrats suffer from the curse of trying to be reasonable —
And the whole BS about the democratic congress should be held partially responsible for going to war is just more of the same “reasonableness” BS that the right-wing radio morons use to beat up on the Left with.

Think back to those times
9/11
fear fear fear
feavor — anyone speaking of reason, rational, thoughtfull progress was labelled a traitor, non-patriot, providing aid to the enemy, etc.
The Congress was CONTROLLED by the Republicans, they controlled the committees, they controlled the podiums, (remember when the chairman of one committee promptly closed hearings and walked out when he didn’t like where the proceedings were going??)
This is ALL BS
The congress was LIED to
Lied in the “evidence” and “intelligence” for war
Lied to in that the portion of the bill regarding using Military action was just a leverage point and that it would be used “only as a last resort”
They were LIED TO
and they are guilty in being gullible perhaps but they “voted for the war”???
BS
and I will continue to say BS
Because it is only a plow to keep the attention away from the REAL CRIMINALS!!!
(I also deplor their attempt to blame THEIR actions on “faulty intelligence” — again pointing the blame on anyone but themselves, they were not at fault, no, the CIA screwed them!!!)
Jack — THEY ARE CRIMINALS — AND YES I AM UNREPENTANT IN MY HATRED AND DISPISE FOR BUSH AND HIS HENCEMEN.
THEY ARE THUGS, ARROGANT, LYING DISPICABLE THUGS WHO HAVE TRAMPLED ON THE CONSTITUTION AND THE DIGNITY OF THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THEY SHOULD ALL BE SERVING LIFE SENTANCES FOR THE MURDER OF THAT OFFICE!!!!
ANY DOUBTS???
JACK
I remember when you used to post some posts with something actually resembling thought — but that has been along time ago.
whenever I return to this website, and see your posts, they appear to be the rantings of a blind and deaf idealoge who refuses to accept reality inspite of the evidence placed at his feet.
JUST BECAUSE I HATE BUSH FOR DUE CAUSE, DOES NOT MAKE THE ACCUSATIONS ANY LESS CREDIBLE.
THE EVIDENCE IS THERE

and those of us who recognized and accepted this evidence from the beginning will be vindicated by history, not Bush and his ilk and sheep-like followers.
SO CONTINUE TO DENY, DENY, DENY
EXCUSE, EXCUSE, EXCUSE AND ALSO DISTRACT, DISTRACT DISTRACT (your ploy here on these postings)
“LOOK, OVER THERE!!!” HAW! GOTCHA!!
your ploys no longer work, the truth is being revealed and for most Americans the wool has been removed from their eyes, and with the light the no-con cockroaches will go scurring back to their black hiding holes.

oh, and the “Anti-American” charge (rantings is more like it) ??
give up on THAT ploy dude, it is just more of your knee-jerk BS — I am getting rather annoyed and frustrated by ignorant right-wing responses such as that toward legitimate criticizm of wrong-doing in place of having the intellectual honesty to engage in a proper debate of the topic.

Posted by: russ at June 15, 2008 12:11 PM
Comment #255650

Max,

Thanks for the comment. I agree. I said much the same in a different way.

Jack,

Many of your arguments here are good although wrong or distorted. They need to be carefully debunked but things are moving too fast for me. I let this slide as far as I could. You wrote:

Remember, Obama has advocated talking to dictators w/o preconditions.
This is a very different thing. You know very well that the way international diplomacy is done, is that: by the time that the President actually meets, the agreement has been hammered out. Accordingly, it is all in the interpretation of what; “without preconditions” means. Clearly, by “without preconditions” Obama means that we would open diplomatic channels, listen to their concerns, seek common ground, and where common ground was found, and agreement was negotiated, the President would sit down and formalize. That is the way that it is done. Obama, is simply saying that they do not have to agree to kiss our arrogant buttcakes first. Getting ones arrogant buttcakes kissed first is a Republican thing.

Posted by: Ray Guest at June 15, 2008 12:30 PM
Comment #255651

Jack,

I am not, nor is anyone here, trashing America. I am fighting for the vision of what America was intended to be and should be, but has never quite been. I am trashing American imperialist policy. Policies which have been promulgated by both Repubs and sold out Dems. I feel your pain. I know that Repubs are so incestuously related to the imperialist / corporatist that they are unable to see themselves as separate. So when the imperialist / corporatist are attacked, the Repubs feel attacked.


Posted by: Ray Guest at June 15, 2008 12:38 PM
Comment #255653

Jack,

You wrote:

What REALY happened was that the whole country was caught up in the hysteria of being attacked.
Yes, Bush and Bush Regime surrogates, fed that hysteria and exploited it. The country might get caught up in hysteria. It is the President’s job to have a sober mind - tough for a dry drunk.

Posted by: Ray Guest at June 15, 2008 12:43 PM
Comment #255654

Jack, Jack, Jack,

You say that my assertion that we gave WMD to Saddam is ridiculous. OK. Maybe. I will reconsider and come back or drop it, but then you write:

Hysteria aside, the decision to remove Saddam Hussein was a serious one. The alternative of leaving him in power w/o sanctions (since they WOULD have been dropped when it was proved he didn’t posess WMD) is equally frightening.
Talk about ridiculous… You take that back. You take that back. You take that back - right now - boy. That is Bullloney.

Posted by: Ray Guest at June 15, 2008 12:52 PM
Comment #255656

russ,

Thanks for your comment.You wrote:

feavor — anyone speaking of reason, rational, thoughtfull progress was labelled a traitor, non-patriot, providing aid to the enemy, etc.
Hasn’t changed much… well… the country has moved on… but they have not changed their tactics… same play book.

Posted by: Ray Guest at June 15, 2008 12:57 PM
Comment #255661

Ray,

No, it wasn’t BULLlongey, it was the decision that millions of Americans struggled with for quite a while. Your, and the left’s, depicition of all of those who supported the action against Iraq as mindless drones who fell for the Bush’s march to war without thinking about it is insulting and the reason why Obama will not win in a landslide this year. He may win, but it will be tough, because the left still can’t get its head around the fact that it was a tough gut-wrenching decision for so many.

Posted by: Rhinehold at June 15, 2008 1:20 PM
Comment #255665

russ,

A tip. I know that the caps are intended to indicate a raise in volume and emphasis. People read by looking at the shape of the word. Caps turn words into boxes - harder to read so people are less likely to read. I think that it is better to use: bold text.

Also I hear and share much of your anger. Be mindful of WBs rules of participation. I don’t believe that this comment violated any, but it was close I think. Please be careful when you are angry because we need you here.

Posted by: Ray Guest at June 15, 2008 1:43 PM
Comment #255668

Ray:

Thanks for your reply. IMHO you gave a very apt analogy when you said,”Nothing happened that “changed the way we need to deal with threats.” Pearl Harbor did not mean that we had to engage in pre-emptive war and occupation with Joseph Stalin. And on his best day, Saddam was not even a scab on Stalin’s ass.” You are very correct, but Pearl Harbor happened BECAUSE we took no actions to prevent it AND it almost crippled our ability to fight back in a war that was already decided to be fought against us. And keeping with your analogy, Pearl Harbor did in fact allow us to “pre-emtively” enter into the war in Europe. Hitler too, would not have been a scab on Stalin’s ass had he been delt with in a timely fashion.

You said,” I put no credence on what Clinton said. At the time and now, I thought that she sold out in order to position herself to run for President.”. I referred to both President and Senator Clinton AND the host of Democratic leaders that were enspousing some serious accusations on Sadaam long before President Bush had won his first primary. I am referring to a time when we bombed an aspirin factory, on a day that had some relevence to a political investigation, by using false or bad intelligence. I do not recall any calls for impeachment of President Clinton by you or any of the folks on the left for this. What is the difference? Money amount? Number of casualities? POLITICAL gains?

Max:

Thank you too for your reply. I do hold Congress just as accountable for the beginning of the war. I hold President Bush accountable for the final decision to commence hostilities(I agree with the decision) and the conduct of the war(many, many problems here).

To answer your bulleted points:
1. The ranking members on the Intelligence(possibly Armed Services) Committee had access to classified intelligence.
2. Threat of force is needed for diplomacy. Force is needed if diplomacy fails.
3. I have problems with your point here. President Bush made an end run to the American public to the point that for the sake of reelection Democrats were afraid to say no. Is the point that President Bush is to blame because he made his case to the public or that the Democrats should bear no responsibility for putting their Senate offices ahead of all of the death and destruction their vote allowed, even if they knew at the time that it was wrong?
4. President Clinton and other Democrats had used language that was increasingly stern and hinted at a military confrontation long before President Bush was elected. BTW, the “embargo” was a dismal failure. Oil for food anyone?

Posted by: submarinesforever at June 15, 2008 1:55 PM
Comment #255672

Rhinehold,

You wrote:

Your, and the left’s, depicition of all of those who supported the action against Iraq as mindless drones who fell for the Bush’s march to war without thinking about it is insulting
I and others have already responded to this above so I will not repeat. But my Bullloney comment to Jack was really about something else. He is saying… actually I am sure what he is saying… maybe my Bull,/em>loney comment is Bullloney. I thought that he was saying that Saddam still being in power would be “equally as frightening” as Pearl Harbor, ect. Maybe he was saying that Saddam still being in power would be “equally as frightening” as high gas prices. I agree with that. That was not what he was saying. Perhaps he can enlighten us about what he thinks Saddam still being in power would “equally as frightening” as.

Posted by: Ray Guest at June 15, 2008 2:00 PM
Comment #255674

Rhinehold,

BTW, I sometimes forget to thank people for their comments. Thanks for your comment.

submarinesforever,

Thanks for your comment. Wife calls. I will be back later.

Posted by: Ray Guest at June 15, 2008 2:04 PM
Comment #255677

Ray

Obama said w/o preconditions. Your point is well made. I heard Joe Biden make the same case. If Obama said that, then his policy is not different from Bush, Clinton or anybody else. He would be advocating for doing what Reagan did with the Soviets. But he did not say that. He said that he would meet w/o preconditions.

The whole point of the Obama gaff was that he said that and then continued to say that. If he has decided to go with the diplomacy as usual, good. When did he say that?

Re Saddam and sanctions, I really do not understand your objection.

We now know that Saddam did not have WMD in 2002. Presumably he could have proved that sometime in 2003. W/o WMD, he is off sanctions. We did not make that choice at the time, but had we not invaded Iraq, we would have been faced with a Saddam regime off sanctions.

How does that differ from your interpretation?

I see in your subsequent comment that you think I am comparing Saddam w/o sanctions to Pearl Harbor. I do not. I am just saying that we had two choices if we stipulate that Saddam did not possess WMD.

- Invade Iraq
- Accept Saddam in power w/o sanctions.

The international community was little help when we HAD UN sanctions. Why would they stand up to Saddam w/o them?

Obama said he would choose the latter solution. I suspect the former is better, although we should have executed better.

I think both choices are dangerous and it is possible for a reasonable person to choose either one.

In other words, we don’t need your villians and liars on either side. Hatred is not required.

Posted by: jack at June 15, 2008 2:17 PM
Comment #255697

Jack,

Thanks for your comment.

You wrote:

- Invade Iraq
- Accept Saddam in power w/o sanctions.
So you are saying that leaving him in power and removing him are equally frightening. I don’t think so, although not quite as ridiculous as what I thought you were saying. Given your choice: Accept Saddam off sanctions in a heart beat. What was he going to do? Counterbalance Iran until his people united against him? What? Tell me.


I will get back to the rest of people’s comments later.

Posted by: Ray Guest at June 15, 2008 8:54 PM
Comment #255701

Jack,

OK Jack, I thought about it. I could not remember the exact source on which I based the assertion that the US had supplied WMD to Iraq. I did not research it for this article because I thought that it was an accepted fact. It is a little murkier than that. I have found the time to do a little research. Time permitting, I will be writing an article on the subject with a slightly more carefully worded assertion. A teaser, See: This assistance, according to the report, included ‘chemical warfare-agent precursors, chemical warfare-agent production facility plans and technical drawings, chemical warfare filling equipment, biological warfare-related materials, missile fabrication equipment and missile system guidance equipment’.Since I hope to find time to write an article on this subject, I will not debate this issue further in this thread.

Posted by: Ray Guest at June 15, 2008 10:54 PM
Comment #255703

submarinesforever,

Thanks for your comment.

Interesting perspective.

As mentioned above, I think some Democratic members of Congress were duped, others lacked political courage. I don’t remember all the details of the aspirin factory. The aspirin factory screwup is a little different in scale. None the less, Clinton was attacked for wagging the dog by many of the same people who think that bush should not be criticized now. Another difference involves the obvious conflict of interest. Bush is an oilman. The Iraqi oil fields were divvied up b before 911. Another difference is the lying. Clinton did not lie us into an aspirin factory. He did lie his way into a pretty girl’s pants. Aren’t you nostalgic for the good old days when our bald faced lying Presidents just lied about sex - AHhhh.

Then you wrote:

You are very correct, but Pearl Harbor happened BECAUSE we took no actions to prevent it AND it almost crippled our ability to fight back in a war that was already decided to be fought against us. And keeping with your analogy, Pearl Harbor did in fact allow us to “pre-emtively” enter into the war in Europe. Hitler too, would not have been a scab on Stalin’s ass had he been delt with in a timely fashion.
Turning my metaphor to your argument’s benefit - nice - I like that. I especially like to do that to other people.

First, I also think Roosevelt lied us into WWII and the scale of that lie - if it happened - was bigger than Bush’s lie. See: Now, there are many indications that point to President Roosevelt and the CFR as knowingly allowing the attack on Pearl Harbor to occur.Ask yourself: A President knows his population is opposed to war. We assume the best, i.e. that he knows, or believes that we must enter the war. He is making demands on the Japanese in negotiations that he has good reason to believe they will not accept. He knows his Navy in the Pacific is parked on their door step threatening them. He knows their Navy has disappeared and is on the move. He docks his navy in harbor and sends his men on leave, hmmm. Maybe he was just stupid.

That said. The point of my metaphor was that we have a proven track record of containing “evil doers” without preemptive war. WWII and the first Gulf War were different. The “evil doers” were actively engaging in wars of conquest. Thanks.

Posted by: Ray Guest at June 15, 2008 11:48 PM
Comment #255773

“I just really hate reflexive anti-Americanism. ”
Jack, so let’s set up a new HUAC to investigate the various attempts to subvert the constitution by the current administration.

“If you want to find America guilty for every trouble in the world”. Jack, that might not be so much of a concern if we weren’t butting in so many places.

First, Saddam was a small enemy boxed in by our allies. Then, when the government changed in Iran, we slowly developed a policy of appeasement, with full knowledge of his attitude towards Kuwait. Then he invaded Kuwait, and we went to war to get them uninvaded, but we didn’t go far enough to get Saddam out of power, or even take out his Winnebago. (James A Baker: “No one ever asks me now, why we didn’t go to Baghdad”). Then came the sanctions regime, which gradually stopped working, so you knew something more was going to happen eventually.

Then another Bush put our servicemen in harm’s way again, so Congress would have to vote for the authorization. (Can’t look like you’re UnAmerican, or not supporting the troops, even when the POTUS is a jackass.) Then we pulled a statue down, shock and awe, hooray hooray. Then all hell started breaking loose, Iraq became a magnet for other troublemakers, and we decided to stay and occupy, not to create disorder, but to preserve it. So here we are, with some strange agenda, involving permanent bases, and oh yeah, there’s something about oil too.

It sounds like a good argument for cutting the military budget, so we can’t do what we’ve done here. A whole lot of people are dead. Iraq is a mess. The Iranians are still ugly and bad axis of evil gonna bomb Israel. Religious fanatics complain about our presence in the holy city of Abadabadoo, which is near to the holy city of Cucucajoob, not far from the holy city of Ohfugedaboutit.

On Pearl Harbor, I believe carriers were transferred to the Atlantic because Germany was considered to be a more serious threat, and even after the attack, during the war, Hawaii was considered to be a pretty nice place to be posted. An aunt and uncle of mine met there, served a lot of tennis, and later taught me the game.

Posted by: ohrealy at June 16, 2008 6:06 PM
Comment #255779

ohrealy,

“On Pearl Harbor, I believe carriers were transferred to the Atlantic because Germany was considered to be a more serious threat”

Actually the only American carrier in the Atlantic during WW2 was the “Wasp” which was used to ferry Spitfires to Malta.
It was later sent to the Pacific to fight where it was heavily damaged, and was scuttled.
The British had several carriers of their own, which were used primarily in the Atlantic and the Mediterranean.

Posted by: Rocky at June 16, 2008 7:50 PM
Comment #255805

Ray:

Thanks for the reply. I apologize for being a little flip with my comments ealier, I tend to fall back on that when I am pressed for time. I hope to give you more of my thoughts this evening.

Rocky:

If my memory serves, we had four carriers in the Pacific on Pear Harbor day, they were unaccounted for as they were at sea. That was the primary reason the Japanese did not launch their next strike on Pearl and probably saved the Allies in the war of the Pacific. I need to check it out, but that is how I remember the story unfolding.

Posted by: submarinesforever at June 17, 2008 5:47 AM
Comment #255812

subs,

As this is off subject from the rest of the thread I will correct my earlier mistake.

I was incorrect in stating that there was only 1 fleet carrier in the Atlantic at the time of Pearl Harbor.
There were three. “Wasp”, “Yorktown”, and “Ranger”, were in the Atlantic. “Wasp” and “Yorktown” were moved to the Pacific shortly after Pearl.

ohrealy’s question was whether we had moved our carriers into the Atlantic because we considered Germany more of a threat.
We didn’t. “Lexington”, Enterprise”, and “Saratoga”, were the “fleet carries we had in the Pacific at the time.
They stayed there.

Posted by: Rocky at June 17, 2008 9:25 AM
Comment #255820

ohrealy, Rocky, submerinesforever,

Thanks for your interesting comments and details of history.

ohrealy,

I have mixed feelings about the military budget. Clearly the only way to justify spending more on defense as the entire rest of the world put together is if you are going to have an empire and rule the world. It is time for the corporatist to let the empire go. Our children should not die to protect their right to exploit the world. On the hand, it is hard not to be proud of the awesome false power of our massive military machine. As long as the corporatist control the mass media, and control the political process through lobbyist and campaign contributions, we can not even have a serious national discussion of what our true vital national interests are and how much military we need to protect them.

Posted by: Ray Guest at June 17, 2008 2:07 PM
Comment #255823

Ray
Thanks for the tip —
Hmmm ok to accuse the left posters of “trashing America” Traitors, etc

But not ok to cry BS on the person doing the accusing.
The absolute mind-boggling compunction to not offend anyone, (even someone attacking you) all in the name of “being reasonable and “fair”” has done nothing for the left except allow us to get hammered by right-wing thugs who take advantage of “reasonable people”
I for one am a person on the left who is tired of being beaten up when trying to be reasonable
I now fight back.
anywho

On to one of the other response to my post who claims that it was a “gut-wrentching” decision for millions.
Hmmmm, I don’t recall there being “Millions” involved in the decision
I recall approximate 3 criminal conspirators involved in the decision.
The “Millions” may have had a gut wrenching decision as to whether or not to believe this idiot and buy into his BS and “support the war”.
What I still can’t understand is why, after all this time, and all the evidence that has come out that you guys (you “millions”??) still don’t seem to get that the only reason there was a gut-wrenching decision (???) to make was that this idiot Lied to you and the rest of America. (Is that better Ray??)
Sadaam was not a risk, up until Bush started Crowing his BS about mushroom shaped clouds did ANYONE even give him any attention at all.
OBL and the Tali-Ban and Al-Queda WERE the targets and then all of a sudden I saw Bush Jr. on the little screen all of a sudden playing Chicken Little about Sadaam.
My initial reaction was “Huh”? where did THAT come from??
I saw it for BS from the minute he started babbling.
Wake up
the fact that it was turned into a “gut-wrenching” decision was due to the duplicity, lieing and treachery of this corrupt, malignancy that has occupied the Oval Office for the past 8 years.
I would expect y’all to be absolutly furious for being made such fools of, of being betrayed by this guy who was supposed to be “one of you” but you still agonize over whether or not we should have gone in.
NO NO NO NO we have sacrificed a huge number of our young men for this twisted little toad’s own purposes and you should be mad as hell for that alone.

Posted by: Russ at June 17, 2008 3:05 PM
Comment #255862

Ray:

Now that I have a little time, I will try to answer you properly. Thanks for the patience and kind words you have shown.

Perspective. That was a very interesting word choice, and one that I enjoy. IMHO the study of history is not a set of dates, facts and figures, but ones perspectives on the events that happened on certain dates. The way one remembers events tell less about the events than the person telling about the events past. My best example is that for a few hundred years Colombous was a great adventurer that discovered the New World. Over night he became the man that committed genocide by carring disease infested rats. Now which version is true? Is he a hero or goat? Both probably, but I can discern the philosophy of the storyteller if he presents only one side of the story or presents the story emphasising only one side.

That being said, I will give you my perspective on the issues that we have brought up beginning with the aspirin factory(as a disclaimer, I loathe the Clintons, mostly because of policy positions). IMHO the only two things suspect about that was the timing and intelligence and President Clinton did more to hamstring our intelligence apparatus and cause our current dilemas. Having the correct intelligence is paramount in anything a state does. IMHO President Clinton acted on bad intelligence, but in good faith. I feel the same way with President Bush’s actions on Iraq. As far as the timing, IMHO there was some creative timing of the events, but that is to be expected(but not forgiven) from politicians. But IMHO there was nothing sinister, evil or forced about the decision to make the strike.

As for President Clinton lying, he did so to impede a legal investigation. Personally I don’t begrudge him for affairs, but if I had told the same lies to a grand jury, I would still be in prison. That miffs me. So does this: I know of a man that in 1986 was disqualified from the nuclear power program of the United States Navy due to the fact that he had the audacity to live with his fiance 3 months before his wedding. Apparently it violated a code of conduct for servicemen that made him a security risk to our country. He accepted it, took responsibility for violating the COC and served his time honorably. I just wish that all Members of Congress and POTUS would have to live up to he standards they set for others.

Thanks for the metephor compliment, but it really goes deeper and in a different direction that you were thinking. FDR bent, folded, mutilated and flat out destroyed laws passed by Congress(many were due to a veto overridden) to help the European Allies. He flat violated and ignored many laws of the land to aid our Allies because he “knew” that we were at war. We were not struggling to gain territory, but without his violations of our law, the Allies could not have held out against Hitler on their own AND then we would get to face the Axis on our own. By that time, we could not have won.

IMHO the biggest parallel from WWII and today is the question……Are we at war? If one believes we are, then they are more likely to understand the strategic decisions made to date. If not, then not. As for me, we are at war.

You said,”The point of my metaphor was that we have a proven track record of containing “evil doers” without preemptive war.”. Going back to WWII, we “contained” Japan with an oil embargo. That directly led to the attack on Pearl harbor. We have “contained” Cuba to the point that they have pushed the world to the brink of nuclear war, been active in wars from Angola to Nicaragua and to this day is one of the more repressive countries in the world. The only evil doer that I can think of that we contained was the Soviets, and in terms of money and lives it was more expensive than Iraq and Afghanistan combined. Can you give me better examples?

This is just my perspective.

Posted by: submarinesforever at June 17, 2008 7:33 PM
Comment #255869

Rocky:

Thanks for the history refresher. You could have just said that you were wrong and made up a carrier name so I would have been correct(I hope you take this as pure humor, that is how I intend it).

Ray:

I did not address a couple of points that I feel are important.

1. Pearl Harbor was not a set up. I have read extensively on it and years ago did believe it to be true, but the more I read and think about it, it is not true.

2. IMHO an equally implausible conspiracy theory is that we went to war because President Bush’s and Vice President Cheney’s oil connections. Did oil factor into it? Yes, it is a national security intrest. Is it because millions/billions can be made off of it? No. Oil companies are making record profits my maintaining a set profit margin. It increases the profit amounts in dollar amounts when the market price is high. If you increase the supply, the price drops and the oil companies lose money.

3. These points are off topic(but I included them anyway for specific purposes). I would not mind discussing them either in e-mail or a proper setting/thread(and I think that due to my poor syntax I have set a record for total parenthesis in a calendar day).

Posted by: submarinesforever at June 17, 2008 8:31 PM
Comment #255872
On to one of the other response to my post who claims that it was a “gut-wrentching” decision for millions.

That would be me.

Hmmmm, I don’t recall there being “Millions” involved in the decision

I’m sorry, there is nothing I can do about memory problems.

I recall approximate 3 criminal conspirators involved in the decision.

What an idiotic and obtuse statement. Typical, but still idiotic.

1) Nothing criminal was done. Let me quote from an editorial today:

Yet in spite of all the accusations of White House “manipulation” — that it pressured intelligence analysts into connecting Hussein and Al Qaeda and concocted evidence about weapons of mass destruction — administration critics continually demonstrate an inability to distinguish making claims based on flawed intelligence from knowingly propagating falsehoods.

In 2004, the Senate Intelligence Committee unanimously approved a report acknowledging that it “did not find any evidence that administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments.” The following year, the bipartisan Robb-Silberman report similarly found “no indication that the intelligence community distorted the evidence regarding Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.”

Contrast those conclusions with the Senate Intelligence Committee report issued June 5, the production of which excluded Republican staffers and which only two GOP senators endorsed. In a news release announcing the report, committee Chairman John D. Rockefeller IV got in this familiar shot: “Sadly, the Bush administration led the nation into war under false pretenses.”

Yet Rockefeller’s highly partisan report does not substantiate its most explosive claims. Rockefeller, for instance, charges that “top administration officials made repeated statements that falsely linked Iraq and Al Qaeda as a single threat and insinuated that Iraq played a role in 9/11.” Yet what did his report actually find? That Iraq-Al Qaeda links were “substantiated by intelligence information.” The same goes for claims about Hussein’s possession of biological and chemical weapons, as well as his alleged operation of a nuclear weapons program.

Four years on from the first Senate Intelligence Committee report, war critics, old and newfangled, still don’t get that a lie is an act of deliberate, not unwitting, deception. If Democrats wish to contend they were “misled” into war, they should vent their spleen at the CIA.

2) Had we all had access to time machines to see into the future, we could have all made different decisions. We didn’t. 70+% of the American people supported the action to remove Saddam from power. The “Millions” may have had a gut wrenching decision as to whether or not to believe this idiot and buy into his BS and “support the war”.

Potato, Potatoe. If you want to act like a prick and play games, that’s your decision. If you want to belittle what people went through when trying to decide if they should support invading another country, including the ‘three criminals’ with the responsibility that others did not have and make that decision, feel free. But you will be called out on it and it will present your bottom for all to see when you wave it around at people.

What I still can’t understand is why, after all this time, and all the evidence that has come out that you guys (you “millions”??) still don’t seem to get that the only reason there was a gut-wrenching decision (???) to make was that this idiot Lied to you and the rest of America.

Please, give me the proof that he lied. Because to date NO ONE has been able to do that. Your opinion is not fact, sorry to tell that to you.

Sadaam was not a risk, up until Bush started Crowing his BS about mushroom shaped clouds did ANYONE even give him any attention at all.

Oh what sort of fantasy world did you live in for the past 16 years? The majority of people in the US wanted Saddam removed from power during the Clinton administration as well as the Bush administration. It was an ever increasing issue that was a topic of contention for over 10 years. Did you even read the newspaper before 9/11?

Please read The Case for Invading Iraq for a multitude of reasons why Saddam was a threat including:

Supporting international terrorism, threating to attack the US, attacking US and UK planes on a daily basis, targetting thousands of Iraqi expatriates in the US, ties with several international terrorist groups, including al-Qaeda, violating 16 Chapter 7 UN resolutions (do you know what a chapter 7 resolution is?), attempting to purchase yellowcake from Niger (he did not succeed, but even Joe Wilson brought back evidence that he attempted it) and doing everything in his power to make the world think he still had WMD.

Now, *YOU* can say that that is no threat, but you also make sure to ignore the question of what do we do when we agree that Iraq has no WMD and we have to drop the sanctions. Is he contained then? What do you think happens then. We already know that as soon as they drop those sanctions he goes right back into developing WMD and seeking nuclear weapons. What was your solution again?

OBL and the Tali-Ban and Al-Queda WERE the targets and then all of a sudden I saw Bush Jr. on the little screen all of a sudden playing Chicken Little about Sadaam. My initial reaction was “Huh”? where did THAT come from??

Of course, because you don’t understand the real issue, just the surface one…

If the issue is OBL and al Qaeda, then there is no need to change our tact in Iraq.

If the issue is International Terrorism and trying to stop the problem that was going on in may different forms for the past couple of decades, then once the Taliban was destroyed and OBL on the run, it makes sense to go after one of the top 5 countries supporting and using International Terrorism. If that is lost on you, that again is not my issue.

the fact that it was turned into a “gut-wrenching” decision was due to the duplicity, lieing and treachery of this corrupt, malignancy that has occupied the Oval Office for the past 8 years.

Do you realize that the majority of Americans wanted Iraq invaded in 1998, when Bill Clinton attacked them? That he was seen as weak, by members of his own party?

I would expect y’all to be absolutly furious for being made such fools of, of being betrayed by this guy who was supposed to be “one of you” but you still agonize over whether or not we should have gone in.

‘one of you’? no sense…

NO NO NO NO we have sacrificed a huge number of our young men for this twisted little toad’s own purposes and you should be mad as hell for that alone.

So, even though the majority of people wanted the President to do something, he’s a twisted little toad who did it for his own purposes, nevermind the myriad of reasons I have listed as to why he needed removed from power?

And, had we left once we did remove him from power and found him, exactly how many servicemen would have died?

There is a difference, one you refuse to acknowledge, between the two. Again, you choose, for your own hate-filled partisan reasons, not to see that others have different, but valid, views than you. Litmus test much?

BTW, even Richard Clarke still asserts that Hussein and OBL worked together at al-Shifa. Please make sure to tell him that he is a dope…

Posted by: Rhinehold at June 17, 2008 8:54 PM
Comment #255889

Russ,

Thanks for your comment.

You wrote:

Hmmmm, I don’t recall there being “Millions” involved in the decision
I recall approximate 3 criminal conspirators involved in the decision.
The “Millions” may have had a gut wrenching decision as to whether or not to believe this idiot and buy into his BS and “support the war”.
Well said.

You also wrote:

(Is that better Ray??)
Absolutely.

The news media makes it sound like the tide is finally turning, but they sold us this war and they are tied to the corporatist for profit military industrial complex, so how much credibility do they have - none.

submarinesforever,

Thanks for your comment.

You wrote:

The way one remembers events tell less about the events than the person telling about the events past.
Agreed. I always say: What you think about me, is more about you, then it is about me - even assuming that you are correct about me. To you, I can only be a projection of your mind. History is the same. Politics is the same. We all project “our stuff” onto the political canvas - our personalities, our woundedness, our hopes, our dreams, our nobility, our banality, the best of us, and the worst of us.

The Soviets are the best example of containment in this context. The Chinese come to mind also. We contained them at the same time we contained the Soviets. It seems clear to me that Saddam was much less of a threat and much more easily contained and counterbalanced. You say you think that we are at war. So do I. But who are we at war with? Not Iraq. It was never Iraq. Pushing Iraq out of Kuwait was probably a good geopolitical idea. People talk about the oil for food program as proof that Saddam was breaking containment. Yes and so what. What the oil for food program shows is that Saddam was open for business and that American corporatist were more than happy to deal with him, i.e. he would sell us the oil. Yes he would have rebuilt his military which would have had the effect of counterbalancing Iran and stabilizing the region. Could he ever have constituted a real threat to us? Absolutely not, IMHO. The Soviets and the Chinese also contained each other and the historic parallel would have translated here as well, since Iraq and Iran would also have contained each other. Who are at war with? Al-qaeda in Pakistan. We are squandering our resources and that is a good way to lose. The Lakota Sioux have a battle cry: “Hoka Hey” - “It is a good day to die” so what would be their cry for it is a good day to lose?


1. Pearl Harbor was not a set up. I have read extensively on it and years ago did believe it to be true, but the more I read and think about it, it is not true.
Quite possible either way. I just know that when I visited the Arizona memorial that it seemed that way to me and it brought a sense of peace and reconciliation. Many Japanese were there paying their respects as well. I do think that WWII was strategically, and geopolitically necessary. I am not even sure about that. Were we duped by the big money elites? WWII was certainly morally desirable given the holocaust.


No. Oil companies are making record profits my maintaining a set profit margin. It increases the profit amounts in dollar amounts when the market price is high. If you increase the supply, the price drops and the oil companies lose money.
The flaw in your logic here is that You have to look closely at the oil sharing agreement which we are attempting to ram down Iraq’s throat. It gives unprecedented control and royalties to the oil companies. Also: Forgot not the profitable war profiteering made by the military industrial complex, the mass media, the Federal Reserve Bank, ect.

I usually allow the focus to ramble in my threads as long as people are making substantive comments.

Rhinehold,

Thanks for your comment. I have to go to bed. I will try to respond tomorrow.

Posted by: Ray Guest at June 18, 2008 1:52 AM
Comment #255934

Rhinehold,

Thanks for your lengthy comment.

First, you quote an editorial but don’t give us the source so that we can judge its merit. If it is a “good” source then it will bolster your argument. A weak source will of course undermine your argument. In an either case, an editorial is just like this article, it is just someone’s opinion. Believe it if you like, disregard it if you don’t.

Then you write:

Had we all had access to time machines to see into the future, we could have all made different decisions. We didn’t.
Apparently, this Regime did not have access to any common sense either. As to the 70% of Americans and most of Congress, they only had access to cherry picked information at best.

Then you write:

Please, give me the proof that he lied. Because to date NO ONE has been able to do that. Your opinion is not fact, sorry to tell that to you.
The Senate finding referred to in the main article which found that they knowingly made statements not supported by intelligence as if those statements were supported by intelligence constitutes a legal finding that they lied. You are of course free to disagree with it. I think that half of the people on death roe are not guilty of a capital offense but they have been proven guilty. They are proven guilty until their case is overturned. By the same token, the Bush Regime is proven guilty of lying until a new investigation determines otherwise. Deal with it.


Then you write:

Please read The Case for Invading Iraq for a multitude of reasons why Saddam was a threat including:
Please read the right wing propaganda and accept it uncritically. Seventy percent of Americans have stopped buying that crap. They are either wrong now or they were wrong then.


Then you write:

What was your solution again?
Already answered above.


Then you write:

If the issue is OBL and al Qaeda, then there is no need to change our tact in Iraq.
Not quite sure of your logic here - quite sure that you don’t have any here. The last time I picked a fight with some guy that wasn’t even threatening me is because the guy that was threatening me was too tough. So I figured I better pick an easier target and act tough. In truth, I have never done that, but as a short man, I have had cowardly bullies think that I looked easy and do that to me. That is the only rationale that I can imagine for attacking a country that was not a threat because somebody else was a threat. It is a proven fact that there were no operational links to OBL. There were links to other terrorist. We tolerate other brutal dictators. We tolerate other terrorist.

Then you write:

BTW, even Richard Clarke still asserts that Hussein and OBL worked together at al-Shifa. Please make sure to tell him that he is a dope…
Well, unlike the Bush Regime, at least Clinton had some evidence that suggested the plant could be producing VX and could conceivably have links to OBL or Hussiein, but the case was too weak to have acted on.

Posted by: Ray Guest at June 18, 2008 3:06 PM
Comment #255937

On the Cold War, are we sure we’ve won? Because the Russians have invaded here. A quarterly class that I needed to take for my accreditation was only in Russian at the office where I’m supposed to work. Recently, I went to a department store near where I live now, and there are more Russians working there.

On WW2, we essentially went in to Europe to prevent the Russians from winning everything, which they ultimately would have done after Lend-Lease was extended to them. On the Pacific side, wasn’t it really the first Oil War, fought for BP, Shell and others? On FDR, there was always a right wing rumor mill, determined to blacken his name in any way possible. As a youngster, I was told, as if it was a fact, that he had committed suicide, which was the reason for the closed coffin.

Columbus was a con-man, but what happened to the native populations was by and large inevitable. Fisherman were always following the fish, and the same thing resulted from very slight contact between the natives and very small groups of European fisher folk. In fact, the native population had not recovered from an epidemic a hundred years before Columbus. They had no immunities. Read Jared Diamond’s books for that.

R G, the question for me would be how much of the military budget would have to be cut to prevent another idiot POTUS from getting us into another mess like the one we’re in now, without significant allies. Some people thought William Jefferson Clinton, Forty-Second President of the United States, cut enough, but obviously not.

Posted by: ohrealy at June 18, 2008 3:57 PM
Comment #255938
First, you quote an editorial but don’t give us the source so that we can judge its merit.

What is the matter, Ray? You can’t look at the charges made unless you know the source? I’ll remember that next time someone quotes from something I disagree with, nevermind the points made…

BTW, it was from :http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-kirchick16-2008jun16,0,4808346.story

So, now let me guess what the response will be…

they only had access to cherry picked information at best.

And 12 years of history watching the Saddam regeime block inspections, doing everything in their power to make sure no one ever know for sure if they had WMD or not, abuse the food and oil program and cause millions of children in his country to die because of it, continually threaten and shoot at the US and UK, continue to fund international terrorist groups, etc…

Even before 9/11 and the buildup of the war, the majority of people in the US wanted Saddam removed from power. Even before Bush was elected president. Most sane people had had enough and knew that he was doing everything in his power to make the world a more dangerous place, especially knowing that he had the means to interrupt oil flow and intended to become the leader of a single Arab union, much like the EU.

None of that was ‘cherry picked’ by Bush, it was before Bush was ever elected.

Please read the right wing propaganda and accept it uncritically.

First, it’s not ‘right wing’ as I am not a member of the right wing. So the attempt to ignore something because it came from ‘the other side’ fails.

Second, what about the facts stated do you disagree with? Where the planes not being shot at? Did Iraq not support and use international terrorism when he wanted? Was he not in the top 5 Terrorist supporters according to the State Department (Afghanistan was in there too).

What exactly was it that you didn’t buy that puts it over the top to say that he was no threat whatsoever? You can say that YOU don’t think he was, but it is the belittling of anyone else who did to say that they only could have believed so if they were ‘hoodwinked’ somehow. I think the editorial even points this stuff out, most likely better than I can.

The Senate finding referred to in the main article which found that they knowingly made statements not supported by intelligence as if those statements were supported by intelligence constitutes a legal finding that they lied.

And, as I pointed out, they make this finding with no evidence to back it up. Please point to the area of the document that proves that Bush knowingly made statements not supported by intelligence. You can’t, because they didn’t.

If the issue is OBL and al Qaeda, then there is (was) no need to change our tact in Iraq.

Not quite sure of your logic here - quite sure that you don’t have any here.

Not sure what there is to miss. If all we were concerned about in the United States was that al Qaeda attacked us, we just go after them. However, as it was clearly not the issue of just al Qaeda but international terrorists AND those countries that support them, then stopping at crushing al Qaeda would have been enough.

The last time I picked a fight with some guy that wasn’t even threatening me is because the guy that was threatening me was too tough.

Except this guy was threating us. I’m still not sure why you reject this, it is simply stating facts. Saddam still considered us at war, he was DAILY shooting at US and UK planes. We were given intelligence from Russia that they intended to attack us, their agents were working in the US, threating former Iraqi nationals. They had a long track record of supporting international terrorism (in the top 5 according to the State department), including occasional ties with al Qaeda and were considered one of the worst human rights violators on the planet.

Why here is Russia telling us:

Russian President Vladimir Putin said his country warned the United States several times that Saddam Hussein’s regime was planning terror attacks on the United States and its overseas interests.

“I can confirm that after the events of September 11, 2001, and up to the military operation in Iraq, Russian special services and Russian intelligence several times received … information that official organs of Saddam’s regime were preparing terrorist acts on the territory of the United States and beyond its borders, at U.S. military and civilian locations,” Putin said.

All they had to do, if they did have, say, Anthrax, was get a couple of terrorists to mail some envelopes of Anthrax to some senators and random people in the US. That would be a pretty big event, and just a small sample of what they could have done.

How was he contained exactly, if you no longer can assume that we can only be attacked by military means. 9/11 kind of proved that that sort of conatinment was no longer dependable, didn’t it?

That is the only rationale that I can imagine for attacking a country that was not a threat because somebody else was a threat.

Except they were a threat. You saying they weren’t over and over again must be a comfort to all of the pilots shot at in the late 90s and early 00’s. They had nothing to fear!

It is a proven fact that there were no operational links to OBL. There were links to other terrorist.

No, it was not proven that there were no operational links with al Qaeda. It was proven that we couldn’t prove any operational links. That they did meet and did work together from time to time is well established as well, again ask Richard Clarke who still maintains that to this day, as does James Baker who never understood why people miss that part of the 9/11 Committee report.

There was even a recent report that supports what I am saying http://www.nysun.com/foreign/report-details-saddams-terrorist-ties/72906/

This is the beginning of the process of exposing Saddam’s involvement in Islamic terror. But it is only the beginning. Time and declassification I’m sure will reveal yet more,” he said. “Even so, this report is damning to those who doubted Saddam Hussein’s involvement with Jihadist terrorist groups. It devastates one of the central myths plaguing our government prior to 9-11, that a Jihadist group would not cooperate with a secular regime and vice versa.”

The report concludes that Saddam until the final months of his regime was willing to attack America. Its conclusion asks “Is there anything in the captured archives to indicate that Saddam had the will to use his terrorist capabilities directly against the United States?” It goes on, “Judging from Saddam’s statements before the 1991 Gulf War with the United States, the answer is yes.” As for after the Gulf War, the report states, “The rise of Islamist fundamentalism in the region gave Saddam the opportunity to make terrorism, one of the few tools remaining in Saddam’s ‘coercion’ tool box.” It goes on, “Evidence that was uncovered and analyzed attests to the existence of a terrorist capability and a willingness to use it until the day Saddam was forced to flee Baghdad by Coalition forces.” The report does note that it is unclear whether Saddam would have authorized terrorism against American targets in the final months of his regime before Operation Iraqi Freedom five years ago. “The answer to the question of Saddam’s will in the final months in power remains elusive,” it says.

No threat indeed…

We tolerate other brutal dictators. We tolerate other terrorist.

Should we be?

According to you, as long as they leave us alone they should be free to terrorize the rest of the world or oppress the rest of the world without worry from us…

Posted by: Rhinehold at June 18, 2008 3:59 PM
Comment #256029

I find it hard to believe — but it seems the only people in America who refuse to accept that Bush and co lied write for the red column on this website
Unbelievable
Rhinehold
RE: the source and the credibility
Ray indicated that an editorial is just that, another opinion piece — and usually lacking in supportive evidence
It is to be expected that you would throw up an opinion piece that supports your opinion, we can throw up just as many valid opinion pieces that support our opinion — it gets nowhere because it only continues the “he said, she said” arguement.
No facts are brought into the discussion
I find it interesting tho that you are willing to accept opinion without facts that support your arguement, but when Ray provides the Investigative report — you dismiss it (it doesn’t support your arguement) because there are no facts backing it up.

Regarding the book you suggested reading — Ray indicated (rightly) that it was right-wing propoganda, — the book being right-wing propoganda has nothing to do with whether or not you consider yourself right-wing — your affiliation — or lack thereof— plays no part in the what the book is.

We not only tolerate other brutal dictators, we have routinely ensured their positions by providing military and economic aid — and assisted directly in the oppression of their own people — as long as it was to our financial benefit we sacrificed the lives of many innocent people — Sadaam was just not one of the ones “on our side” — now (he had been at one time, like Norega in Panama)
Regardless of all the ineffectual actions you claim for Sadaam — and many which he did — none of them came close to constituting any real threat to the US — at least not a threat that should have been addressed by Invasion and the resulting quaqmire. Whatever threat he posed could have been effectively neutralized without invasion and without the needless loss of thousands of our troops, (to say nothing of the physical and emotional maiming that is occuring to them on a daily basis)
Our nation is not safer because of our folly in Iraq — we have been distracted from addressing the REAL sources of terror — and we are less able to confront other threats in other theatres in other parts of the world.
but
the above is all mainly for my benefit as I know that, just as Jack — you stubbornly refuse to actually open your eyes and accept the failure and wrongness of your stongly held position — one you’ve had for so long that it is too painful for you to admit failure and being wrong — and so you will continue to present the most pathetic of arguements rather than just admit defeat.
pathetic and sad.

Posted by: Russ at June 19, 2008 3:00 PM
Comment #256049
No facts are brought into the discussion I find it interesting tho that you are willing to accept opinion without facts that support your arguement, but when Ray provides the Investigative report — you dismiss it (it doesn’t support your arguement) because there are no facts backing it up

ok, Russ, I’m trying to get this figured out here…

I bring up an editorial that says there are no facts to back up the report, then Ray says ‘but read the report’. Again, I just want someone to point to the facts backing up that report, but none are forthcoming. And somehow, I’m the one that is wrong?

Ignore the editorial then, simply show me the proof that I asked for that wasn’t related to the editorial at all. That would do nicely, thank you.

Regarding the book you suggested reading — Ray indicated (rightly) that it was right-wing propoganda

I suggested no book, I suggested the earlier work I had written detailing out the the facts that I had worked to uncover.

That neither of you actually clicked on the link and assumed that I was linking to a book is even more telling…

Finally, since I did write it, and it was being called ‘right wing propoganda’, I am going to have to assume that the attack on me was made. And I defended it.

We not only tolerate other brutal dictators, we have routinely ensured their positions by providing military and economic aid

So, you are supporting those policies then? I never did then and I don’t now, but apparently I’m in the minority…

none of them came close to constituting any real threat to the US — at least not a threat that should have been addressed by Invasion and the resulting quaqmire.

1) that is your opinion, which was the whole freaking point. You can’t state something as fact when it is opinion, and you shouldn’t disregard those, of which the majority of Americans disagree with you, who did see Iraq as a threat.

2) The resulting mess we are in now was not necessary. The UN offered to come in and take over the after-war operations and Bush refused. Had he not refused it would be a completely different environment now, wouldn’t it?

We went in to remove Saddam. That is what we should have done and then we should have left. Instead, we committed to helping prevent civil war, which I still think needed to happen, and have been there since. Your attempt to combine the two is again a mistake many make and are wrong to do, further alienating a large section of the population not on the left or fight of the issue, who aren’t playing partisan politics.

Posted by: Rhinehold at June 19, 2008 4:18 PM
Comment #256050
you stubbornly refuse to actually open your eyes and accept the failure and wrongness of your stongly held position — one you’ve had for so long that it is too painful for you to admit failure and being wrong

You don’t have a clue what you are talking about, btw. Did you ever read Enough is Enough? Do you even understand the point I am making?

I don’t think so…

Posted by: Rhinehold at June 19, 2008 4:21 PM
Comment #256221

Thanks All.

Rhinehold,

I have not forgotten you. I wrote about half of my response, my wife called me away, my computer froze and I lost it. It looks as if Russ has pretty well answered you anyhow. Shame, I had a good response.

Russ wrote:

Whatever threat he posed could have been effectively neutralized without invasion and without the needless loss of thousands of our troops, (to say nothing of the physical and emotional maiming that is occuring to them on a daily basis)
Our nation is not safer because of our folly in Iraq — we have been distracted from addressing the REAL sources of terror — and we are less able to confront other threats in other theatres in other parts of the world.
Absolutely agreed. But there is one other important aspect missing… The oportunity cost of what could have been done with 1 trillion dollars of lost treasure - that is: $1,000,000,000,000.00. That is more than enough money to have completely broken our dependence on foreign oil - not only our dependence - the entire world’s dependence - and in the process to have revitalized our country and tax base with 10 million to 30 million new high paying jobs. Has Rhinehold forgot that terrorists the world over get their money form our purchase of oil - mostly from Saudi Arabia? Has Rhinehold forgotten that the Islamo-terrorists hate us because of our imperialist policies? Has Rhinehold forgotten that our imperialist policies exist in order to maintain control over the oil that we are dependent on? We could have broken the back of Saddam, AckwardIDidaHandJob, and OPEC. Oil would be selling for ten dollars a barrel. Osama bin Laden would have a tin cup. We could have broken the back of the terrorist. Free from our sick imperialist need to control, we could have become honest power brokers in the Mideast and actually helped those people.

Rhinehold,

I will try to answer the rest of your comments tomorrow.

Posted by: Ray Guest at June 20, 2008 11:26 PM
Comment #256279

Ray,

I hate to poop on your parade, but bin Laden’s money came from his father’s construction business.
Perhaps without the revenue from Saudi oil there might not have been much in the way of construction in the Middle East, and he might not have had the fortune to draw from, but that’s merely hypothetical.

Posted by: Rocky at June 21, 2008 11:48 AM
Comment #257226

“LobbyDelegtes.com is a great tool, I have contacted all my State Delegates for free through email, I have come accross another tool from the same company www.statedemocracy.org its also free and I can contact my lawmakers, apply for an absentee ballot & voter registration and on election day I can locate my polling places. Great tool…. use it”

Posted by: Kathy at July 28, 2008 7:27 AM
Post a comment