Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

Fraud in intelligence on Iraq mounting

Thanks for making me realize that the majority of liberals supported this war from the very start.

Jack,

I agree completely that what we’re seeing is “liberal guilt”. Very few Americans, on either side of the aisle, disagreed with Bush when he led us to war. Those on the Left are now making excuses for it, but the fact remains that, faced with the same information that Bush had, they made the same decision he did.

I guess I should consider myself wiser than they. Since I disagreed with the war from the beginning, and still haven’t changed my stance on it, I can be free of the guilt that so plagues these poor liberals.

I also agree that Bush didn’t lie about the war. He simply believed what he WANTED to believe, instead of what the evidence showed, and managed to convince the majority of America to do the same. Like most Americans, he was so wrapped up in red, white, and blue that he couldn’t see the nose in front of his face. And most people were too busy with their “freedom fries” and “freedom toast” to have a rational discussion about it at the time, and so they have to find someone else to blame now.

Rob:
“I guess I should consider myself wiser than they. Since I disagreed with the war from the beginning, and still haven’t changed my stance on it, I can be free of the guilt that so plagues these poor liberals.”

I too, was against the Iraq war from the beginning (although not the war in Afghanistan) and have not changed my stance. I carry no guilt, although I am a Liberal, and feel there is nothing “poor” about counting myself among them.

“I also agree that Bush didn’t lie about the war. He simply believed what he WANTED to believe, instead of what the evidence showed, and managed to convince the majority of America to do the same.”

I think this entire administration LIED, and then tried to get Congress and the American people to believe whatever they wanted them to believe.
And as my link shows, the evidence keeps mounting to support that supposition.

Question: What should we make of Chalabi being back in such high and chummy favor with the Whitehouse?

Thanks for making me realize that the majority of liberals supported this war from the very start.

Posted by: god you suck at November 14, 2005 05:27 PM

Another fan Eric?

Adrienne,

I do think that Jack has hit on something here, though. As you and I know, there were very good arguments against the war even before we went in. That’s the reason why popular polls in countries around the would showed that only TWO countries (US and Israel) supported the war before it began. Of course, most of the Democrats (including John Kerry) rejected those arguments at the time, and instead voted for the war. That means that they aren’t free to embrace those arguments now, and so must build flimsy arguments around the lies that Bush may or may not have told.

Of course, those lies/false-intelligences/whatever didn’t convince me or you at the time… they only convinced those who really WANTED to believe them. I personally count Bush among that crowd, and will do so until hard evidence proves otherwise (which it may).

As for Chalabi — if nothing else, it indicates a severe lack of good judgement on the part of the Bush administration. It may indicate something more, but based on the track record, I find stupidity easier to believe than malice.

Jack:

There is a lot of truth in what you wrote. Its exemplified in the way the media looks at the world—if Americans do something wrong, excoriate them. If anyone else does something wrong, either excuse it, ignore it, or find a reason America is at fault.

Look at what France has done recently with curfews and essentially martial law. No liberal complaints about their friends the French. No condemnation for the fascist tactics.

Its interesting how many people NOW claim to have been in favor of going to war with Afghanistan. It wasn’t that way at the time, but people’s memories tend to change (Adrienne, this is not pointed at you, but at many who NOW support Afghanistan simply because its different from Iraq).

Liberals simply want the best in the world, but they don’t know how to get it. They are glad Saddam is gone, but they did not have the willpower or fortitude to displace him. They would be bemoaning his reign today if they’d been in control…that is if they weren’t too busy bemoaning what the bad Republicans have done lately.

Well done, Jack, well done.

Those on the Left are now making excuses for it, but the fact remains that, faced with the same information that Bush had, they made the same decision he did.

Rob,

Please cite evidence that liberal Americans had access to the same information that Bush had and that they overwhelmingly supported the war before it started.

Jack
Although it isn’t original, I refer to those liberals now on their guilt trip and blaming the President, as part of the FWS; that is to say the Flip Wilson Syndrome or the devil made me do it. The liberals seem to want the credit when the press is good but when the press is bad, then it’s not my fault. As I was putting this to the computer I had visions of Chuckie from NY, the Boxer from CA, San Fran Nan, Hairless from NV, Poorbottle from CA, Dickie from IL, and the swimming and divng champion from MA, as well as others, all holding their press conferences and pontificating on their high and mighty road to nowhere.

Posted this in the previous thread, but it seems appropriate. Here is a list of Senators who voted against the Iraq Resolution.

Notice they almost all Liberal Democrats. As the rest of us are coming to realize, these are the people who got it right. Notice they are not Republicans. They are not conservatives. They are not even moderates.

Here is a roll call of honor; here are the people who got it right:

Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chafee (R-RI)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (D-FL)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wyden (D-OR)

Liberals like these Senators, and people like Adrienne & myself, do not feel guilt (if I may be so bold as to speak for the others). We feel anger.

Guilt? Yes, you see it among moderates, and among people who placed their aspirations ahead of their inner compass, such as Clinton & Kerry. But among liberals? You see anger. Anger directed towards the Bush administration. Lots of anger. And no inclination to back off.

I agree completely that what we’re seeing is “liberal guiltâ€. Very few Americans, on either side of the aisle, disagreed with Bush when he led us to war. Those on the Left are now making excuses for it, but the fact remains that, faced with the same information that Bush had, they made the same decision he did.

=================================

Nope. Your wrong. Many many americans didn’t want the war. That hasn’t changed. I think “liberals” as you like to throw that title around, whatever it means, opposed the war because it felt rushed, felt wrong, as a matter of fact didn’t feel Iraq was a threat at all. Liberals see too many problems on our homefront that need a addressing, opposed to bombing some country we will never see. Maybe that disconnect is why many don’t have a problem with the decimation of a country & it’s heritage. The people you refer too wanted weapons inspectors to have more time before we spent billions of dollars we didn’t have on a war we knew then we didn’t need. I was in washington protesting the war, trust me, I wasn’t alone.

It doesn’t make sense. If this war makes sense to you then in a way i feel pity for you. Thousands upon thousands of innocent people have died, and for what? WMD? Liberation? C’mon. My heart aches when i read the news. Death and sadness are abundant and much of the blood is on the hands of we americans; but i cannot wash it off because ‘compassionate conservatives’ (my turn to use a title) won’t allow me —I suppose it is unamerican for wanting that.

The liberals you speak of so fondly aren’t really liberals, they are just like you— loyal to a party no matter what, aka democrats. Just one of the many blind followers of a mighty and corrupt unit. True liberals aren’t loyal to any party. They want to see progress socailly, environmentally and politically. They are tired of being lied to and distrust all politicians, regardless if they have that token Democrat or Republican ‘affiliation’. Republicans aren’t the bad guys. Democrats aren’t the bad guys. This administration— well i don’t want to call them bad guys, but i will say they are a bad form of leadership.

A true patriot loves his/her country all the time and their government when they deserve it. That is why the true liberals are unhappy. Democrats are just playing the political card they are dealt just the same as the Republicans are simultaneously. They want power. Repubs don’t want to give it up. In the meantime the party of Bad ideas is wrestling the part of NO ideas (i’ll let you decide which is which) and we ‘common’ americans (and a few thousand dead iraqi civilians) are getting the shaft— some certainly worse than others.

And these silly B**tards you refer to as feeling ‘guilt’ to reconcile their newfound distaste for war— who are these people? It sounds fictional to me. I have had distaste for the war even when it was simply an idea. I have seen some grizzly things (just do a yahoo image search — on an empty stomach…) as well as spoken with some soldiers whom i have befriended and what i know of war is simple: It better be go**amn neccessary and unavoidable because there is nothing worse.

Against war one can say: It makes the victor stupid, the vanquished malignant.

So i say to you who will soon rip this post to threads:

Peace.

Jack,

Don’t pity me.

I don’t feel guilty that my party sent us to war based on false pretenses and false expectations.

I don’t feel guilty that my party is recklessly spending this country into bankruptcy.

I don’t feel guilty that my party is led by numerous people under criminal investigation/indictment.

I don’t feel guilty that my party has dishonored the victims of 9/11 by not doing what’s necessary to capture those responsible nor fully protect us from future threats.

I don’t feel guilty that mouthpieces for my party endorse Al-Qaeda strikes to U.S. cities, and that I support these comments as you do.

Don’t pity me, Jack. I’m hangin’ in there just fine.

Oh- to give credit where credit is due- Chaffee, a Republican, voted against the Iraq resolution.

Good post, Tree Hugger.

Yes, some liberals were for the war. They were convinced by Bush that it was necessary. Some of them see what a quagmire Iraq has become and want to get out. This is common sense. Not guilt. Many, if not most, liberals were against the war.

I repeat here what I posted in the Democratic column:

A March 6 poll by CBS, 2 weeks before the March 20 start of the Iraq war, said this:

“The public is divided on whether the Bush Administration has yet presented enough evidence against Iraq to justify military action right now. 47% say they have, 44% say they still have not.”

Jack,

What a lousy post. You can do much better than that. I’m counting on you right wing types to keep control of the nation for another decade so we can have democrats back in office just before I retire. If you can’t come up with anything better than this article full of crap, you’re not going to be able to keep tricking the centrists in the country to keep voting republican.

Now knock it off. Delete this nonsense, go sit down and think up something convincing!

Thank you Paul for posting a poll from that time period. Something I was quite sure was true, but didn’t have the numbers to point to.

Still, Jack, Eric, Rheinhold, et al have convinced me that war in Iraq is a good thing. I’m finally on your team boys. Heck, I’ll even sign up and go over there myself. Regime change is worth it.

As soon as Chalabi becomes Prime Minister, I suggest we use the full force of the American military to depose this ruthless man and impose the regime change that will be so necessary and just.

You guys really think it was worth all the death, destruction, and cash to put this scumbag into power?

The President is campaigning again….I suppose to get his poll numbers up. He’s slamming the left just as Jack has attempted to do. The left have brought all this “he lied” up in the first place. So, we have a he said - she said.

In the meantime I sit here listening to an update/progress report to the 9/11 report. The bipartisan folks that made up that committee have stated our country has made little IF ANY progress making our nation safer. If the right and left can stop bickering long enough there might be time to prevent the next attack on our soil.

Let’s focus on some real issues here. Why post such a partisan and non-helpful topic? It’s in the past. It’s a he said - she said that both partisan groups have already made their mind up about.

How about us contacting our congress person and have them focus on what they were hired (elected) to do….serve us! I don’t know about the rest of you, but I feel the same about both parties…they need to be booted so we can actually obtain some PUBLIC servants rather than corporate and PAC servants.

Thanks Jack….

I see the left and the right can sling mud at about the same velocity with the spatter covering the important issues of this country.

Jack
Well if liberal guilt you’re pushing today then let’s talk about conservative responsibility dodging. Go to war on bad intelligence, give the guy responsible a medal and send him on his way. Not enough troops to secure post invasion Iraq, then praise the guy that fired the first three generals that told him that it would take five hundred thousand to do the job right. Write a memo condoning torture; watch world opinion explode against the US, blame low level “bad apples†Remember Jack, the first step is admitting you have a problem.

Tom,
“The President is campaigning again….I suppose to get his poll numbers up.”

That’s part of it.

In another month there will be elections in Iraq. In this country, there will be the predictable propoganda exercise celebrating the success of democracy, but we’ll be faced with a very unpleasant realization.

All those people dead, all those people hurt, all those hundreds of billions of dollars squandered, all in order to establish an Iranian-style Shia government in Iraq.

Mission accomplished. Heck of a job…

If we’re really unlucky, the Prime Minister will be Chalabi, a man convicted for defrauding a Jordanian bank of millions of millions of dollars.

Though it would be pretty damn funny to see Chalabi on his first state visit to Jordan.

When are we going to start talking about putting this administration behind bars? Republicans and Democrats alike were all lied to and for what? That’s the most crazy thing about this, what the hell are we fighting for. Can anyone answer me this? It was terrorism, then it was to remove an evil regime, then democracy, then freedom, and now I don’t have a clue why were there. I don’t want to be a conspiracy nut but maybe it is oil. If we would put half the energy into renewable resources as we put into our military being the global police maybe we wouldn’t have an oil problem. I’m a hardcore left wing nut but I would love to see secure borders, why can’t we have our troops there instead of Iraq. All the money that we wasted on war just makes me sick to my stomach. We could have done so much with it, but instead we destroyed lives and the roots of our democracy. Being a liberal still doesn’t allow me to avoid the shame I feel for letting these things happen. So yeah I do feel a little guilty, but not as a liberal but as an American. I personally feel it is time for us as Americans to make a stand against the government that our founding fathers tried so hard to make sure it would never become. We are the Leviathan.

Only 9 percent said their first choice in next year’s elections would be a Republican who supports Bush on almost every major issue.

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/14/bush.poll/index.html

Dang it right wingers…. DO SOMETHING! Whip up some believable lies, desimate the reputation of a war veteran, start another war, mail out more of that anthrax again…. I don’t care which, just do something! Spin like you’ve never spun before! My retirement plan depends on you guys having control of the federal government until 2016.

Liberal guilt isn’t what this is really about. Under UN sanctions and Hussein’s rule, it was estimated that some 50,000 Iraqis were dying a month and that over a half million children died—all while Clinton was president. I don’t remember hearing much liberal guilt then, when the death rate in Iraq was many times higher than it was today.

No, this has more to do with liberal frustration, and it all goes back to the disputed 2000 presidential election.

No matter what the merits of the Iraq war are—right or wrong—it is necessary for the ambitions of the left that it fail. Hence, as far as they are concerned, success is not an option they can stomach for fear that George Bush will get the credit. Failure in Iraq is absolutely necessary, they believe, for their political survival.

Nobody knows for sure what Iraq will look like next year, much less three years from now when the next major US election occurs—and much less ten or twenty years from now.

Of the more prominent Democratic leaders, Hillary Clinton seems to be the only one who really gets it. I have to hand it to her—she really does want to be president, and keeping her options open regarding Iraq is a very savvy political move on her part.

She realizes that in matters of such magnitude, polls don’t matter—polls can change very quickly depending on events on the ground. If and when the Iraq intervention is seen as a success, Clinton will be able to say she supported it all along and hasn’t been so foolish as to provide her opponents with a bunch of anti-war soundbites to be used against in her in future elections.

Perhaps the lie should be called for what it is.
Treason. Part of the Job of the President is to
protect and isolate the people from misuse and
or abuse from the military. His VP and cabinet
(Know as the “Vulcan’s”) misused the power of the
military for their personal ideals. As commander
in chief he has more than one responsibility.

I’m sorry, folks. I’m usually just a lurker around here, but I’ve had enough of this whole debate. Was there some evidence of WMD? Yes, okay. Was Iraq ever a serious threat to the U.S? Come on! I’d say very few people ever seriously believed that. The NeoCons had their own (they thought good) reasons for the war, so they pumped up the volume. And everybody knows it. The American people aren’t quite a dim-witted as all that. Even we can see the obvious. So now it bothers them that they’re seen as dishonest? Give us a break!

Look, either you’re dishonest or you’re inept. Pick one. Either way, people are going to be pissed. Either way, you should pay a political price. That’s the way the system is supposed to work. Stop whining about it and suck it up.

Now, maybe Iraq will wind up a prospering democracy someday and Bush will get credit for it. He’ll have broken throught the Muslim Curtain or stopped Islamofascism or brought democracy to the Arab culture. Whatever. That’s also fine. It’s also the way the system is supposed to work. In the meantime, can’t they (and we) stop whining and get to work? We could sure use a little real work in Washington.

joebagodonuts:

Your ignorance of France is incredible. The French have ALWAYS had the strictest laws on terrorism and law-enforcement since the Algerian War!!!

I swear you Conservatives really need to study before you blindly follow those GOP Talking Points. I know you are paid well but really nothing is worth humiliating yourselves.

Rob:
“based on the track record, I find stupidity easier to believe than malice.”

And I happen to find both equally easy to believe.

phx8:
“Here is a list of Senators who voted against the Iraq Resolution.
Notice they almost all Liberal Democrats. As the rest of us are coming to realize, these are the people who got it right. Notice they are not Republicans. They are not conservatives. They are not even moderates.”

Yes. And yet, we’re the ones getting continually shat on and labeled Bad American’s, Unpatriotic Traitors, and people who don’t “support the troops”. It’s nothing but a enormous steaming pile of horsesh*t covered with flies and maggots.

“Liberals like these Senators, and people like Adrienne & myself, do not feel guilt (if I may be so bold as to speak for the others). We feel anger.”

Yes, indeed.

“And no inclination to back off.”

None whatsoever. I want them impeached for intentionally taking America to war on lies, and causing our soldiers to die unnecessarily.

Rediscovered testimony given by CIA director in 2001 suggests manipulation of pre-war intelligence

Aldous:

Perhaps when you learn to read in context, you will understand the meaning of my previous post. I referred of course to the recent French decision to enact curfews and restrictions on public gatherings.

Imagine if you are able what the left wing of this country would do if those kind of rules were enacted in the US. The caterwauling would be raucous and unlimited. Now think of those on the left who have held France (and Germany) up as exemplars of how society ought to be. Hmmm…I sense a cognitive dissonance here. And a touch of irony.

So, Aldous, consider that I spoke of recent events in France and nothing of history. Its amazing what you can learn when you read in context, isn’t it?

There is so much BS here I don’t know where to begin.

First of all, please define the word liberal. Keep in mind, you just said the liberals supported the Iraq War. I thought liberals were Saddam-loving peaceniks.

Secondly, you accuse liberals of trying to pass off blame on Bush, but, if you haven’t noticed, he is the one running the country. I don’t get to read his briefings. All I can do is trust the guy or not. If I choose to trust him, maybe that makes me a sucker. But what does that make him?

As for guilt, I for one don’t feel guilty at all. I feel proud for figuring out so early that Bush is a nincompoop. Now the rest of the company is waking up. I can walk tall among my slower-learning fellow citizens. Where can I get one of those “Don’t blame me…” bumper stickers?

Kerry took nearly 70% of the vote in Salem.

Come on, Jack, this is beneath you. The Salem witch trials happened over 300 years ago.

You suck (what a name)

Jack is me. I don’t know who Eric is, but not the same.

Woody

I had fun writing this.

I don’t suppose the witch trials really have much to do with liberals, but I do think you can find puritanism among liberals. You find the concern coupled with the desire to create a regulated utopian society.

Both sides of the spectrum have their good and their bad points. Sometimes the good and the bad points are the same things.

Some people feel little need to bother their fellow citizens, but one reason they don’t care is because they feel little responsibility for them. Other people feel responsibility for their fellows, but they also feel the need to bother them.

Poor Jack,

It’s not us liberals with the guilt, we’ve been vindicated. But, we’re liberals, we will forgive you, eventually.

Sorry if my insouciance offends. The bottom line is Bush didn’t lie. If you disagree with the war, talk about the results - plenty of room for discussion there. Anything else is fruitless and useless. Historians will find motives, or make them, up after the passions of today have cooled. We the living should be interested in what we have to do now and how to move forward.

Posted by Jack at November 14, 2005 05:03 PM
_________________________________

I agree with you Jack, he definitely didn’t lie. I do want to say that, thanks to your post, I now know insouciance means. :)

Amazing the mental resilience you have, Jack. To take the steaming pile of dung that your championed administration has handed you and try to turn it into a shining gold medallion is truly heroic. I mean it. I realize that maintenance of cognitive dissonance is a survival mechanism, but to employ it so boldly and decisively, in the presence of overwhelming odds, has to be admired.

Liberals as Puritans! Liberals as war supporters gone bad! The Bush administration as steely-eyed warriors carefully planning their next move! It’s all so scripted and cunning, isn’t it? Jack, when you get tired of being a mouthpiece for these corrupt rascals and really want to get back to the original aim of making a better US through conservative principles, let us all know. We’d love to have you back.

Jack,

I empathize…your worldview is collapsing around you…there’s nowhere left to hide. Your denial is understandable, but unfortunate.

There’s nothing wrong with guilt when it keeps us honest, when it motivates us not to make or repeat mistakes.

This is not guilt, this is outrage at being used, outrage of being lied too, so thoroughly.

The real question is what happened to Republican Guilt. They use to believe some things were beyond the pale.

JBOD,

Its interesting how many people NOW claim to have been in favor of going to war with Afghanistan. It wasn’t that way at the time, but people’s memories tend to change (Adrienne, this is not pointed at you, but at many who NOW support Afghanistan simply because its different from Iraq).

Wow! Memories sure do change - namely YOURS. Who are you trying to kid here? You really don’t think there was overwhelming support for military action in Afghanistan from all sides?

Pardon me if I don’t rely on your memory. I’ll use a bit of actual evidence instead if you don’t mind.

The Gallup Poll. Oct. 11-14, 2001. N=1,011 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

“Do you favor or oppose the United States taking direct military action in Afghanistan?” 10/11-14-2001
Favor Oppose No Opinion
88………10…………..2

Man, does anyone on the right give a damn about facts anymore? Talk about revisionist history!

Burt

You’re living in the reality-based community. What we have now is empire. We have the ability to change reality. All it takes is some loud screaming of what we want to be the truth and it becomes so. This is the nature of empire. And all you guys in the reality-based community can do is watch us.

And they’re claiming that the Dems are “rewriting history”, see? see? see? I’m so proud of myself, I used the Reps newest slogan, Accusing others of what they are most guilty of doing themselves.

MyPetGoat

Yeah, yeah, and that one democrat guy, he lied, too, so it’s, like, rilly, rilly on-fair that they give GWB such a hard time for lying. And that Clinton guy, too, he lied. So leave Georgie alone. He’s got a hard job to do. Those other, bigger, meaner guys keep pushin’ him around, makin’ him do stuff and then he has to try to explain it and he really doesn’t understand it all that well. If you’ve ever been in that situation, you’d know. So just back, off, ‘kay?

Drip, drip.

“Amazing the mental resilience you have, Jack. To take the steaming pile of dung that your championed administration has handed you and try to turn it into a shining gold medallion is truly heroic.”

Man that was funny I shot scotch out of my nose laughing when I read that You made my day Wimp.

As far as feeling guilty I don’t. I’m not the one standing behind a bunch of Veterans, on Veterans day attacking people during a speech who are questioning why and how we wound up in the boondoggle that is Iraq. I find it amusing that everytime W has a difficult policy to sell it’s in front of troops on a military base (or an Aricraft carrier remember that one, Mission Accomplished!) It really does take balls on his part considering him an half he administration never served in Viet Nam.

HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!!1

The GOP Senate has caved in on stripping Guantanamo Detainees the Right to Sue!!!

For Your Entertainment… Here are exerpts from a FreeRepublic Blooger:

__________________________________________________
Complete insanity.

We do not have lawmakers, we have traitors!

(May God give President Bush strength and comfort in this time of struggle!)

What wimps. It won’t be long before illegal combatants have more rights in this country than resident citizen taxpayers do.

“…the 500 or so detainees at the U.S. naval base in Cuba would be allowed to challenge in federal court.”

Does this mean that each of the 500 animals will receive their own counsel? Someone please tell me this isn’t the case.

And still the GOP keep sending me requests for political donations. As if…
__________________________________________________

What repeatedly gets lost in all of these charges and countercharges of lying, treason and treachery is that the CIA’s intelligence (which we all agree was far off the mark) was only one component of the whole lead-up to war. A big part, yes, but not the whole story.

Totally aside from the intelligence was the fact that Iraq was required by a whole series of UN resolutions as well as by their own armistice agreements on the books since the first Gulf War to comply with a regime of weapons inspections, which they were adamently refusing to do.

I can’t believe how this essential fact gets totally written out of history. Whether Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction or not, he was sure behaving as if he had something to hide, and we had to assume, reliable intelligence or not, that his behavior meant he really did have a weapons program.

Even Hans Blix said that Saddam Hussein, right up to the time Iraq was invaded, was in material breach of UN resolutions and was refusing to cooperate.

At the end of the day, if you brandish a gun at the police, it’s YOUR fault, not the fault of the police, if you get shot and the gun turns out to be a toy.

Sanger

And yet, Hans Blix did not feel the need to invade and felt that the inspections were working in keeping him from being able to use any weapons he might have. In other words, he posed no threat.

It is unfair to cite his opinion on one thing and ignore it on another.

Also, not so concerned about fate of guy with toy gun, but rather of neighbors and police who are being killed.

I can’t believe how this essential fact gets totally written out of history. Whether Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction or not, he was sure behaving as if he had something to hide, and we had to assume, reliable intelligence or not, that his behavior meant he really did have a weapons program

And you know what happens when you assume? You make an ass out of you, me, and 2000+ dead soldiers.

Even Hans Blix said that Saddam Hussein, right up to the time Iraq was invaded, was in material breach of UN resolutions and was refusing to cooperate.

Oh, come on. You guys are just trying to f%#* with me now, right? Check the thread below, sanger. Blix said no such thing in his reports closest to the invasion. In fact, he said they were proactively cooperating. Not actively - “proactively”.

“The bottom line is Bush didn’t lie.”

Other than the fact that this is the current GOP Talking Point, what makes you feel so comfortable in making this claim.

At the very least, there is evidence to the contrary which a majority of the country believes to be true.

I find it funny that in all the public appearances done by Bartlett, Mehlman, et al, as well as Republican bloggers and posters, NOT ONE has directly responded to the two main issues of contention that are at the heart of whether or not Bush lied/misled/whatever

1. “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”
President George Bush
January 28, 2003 State of the Union address

Despite CIA reservations about the intel, likely forged documents and Wilson’s investigation turning up nothing, the White House still decided to include these words in the SOTU Address.

2. “I can trace the story of a senior terrorist operative telling how Iraq provided training in these weapons to Al-Qaeda.”
Former Secretary of State Colin Powell
February 5, 2003 U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell Addresses the U.N. Security Council

“US military intelligence warned the Bush administration as early as February 2002 that its key source on Al-Qaeda’s relationship with Iraq had provided “intentionally misleading” data, according to a declassified report.

Nevertheless, eight months later, President George W. Bush went public with charges that the Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein had trained members of Osama bin Laden’s terror network in manufacturing deadly poisons and gases.” (Yahoo News)

I would love to see one Republican out there step up and respond to these claims directly. That means NOT resorting to the current Talking Points. I want an intellectually honest answer.

Do you feel that the Bush administration painted the appropriate picture of the “imminent threat” or do you think they cherrypicked shaky intelligence that supported what they had already made up their mind to do?

Oh, Jack. I know you’re having a bit of fun, but President Bush did in fact lie.

President Bush was told that the intelligence he had on a Saddam/al Qaeda connection was probably wrong, yet he told Congress and America that it was a fact. He lied.

If there’s any group feeling guit around here, it’s the Bush-fans who got totally suckered, and are now reduced to self-imposed ignorance and denial of reality.

Bush did lie.

BTW, Jack. Before the war, most polls showed American support for the invasion in the mid fifties. While technically, that’s “most Americans”, it’s not by much.

Support for the war really went along partisan lines, with only the independents swinging back and forth — so there goes the premis for this article, Jack.

Hey!

Did I miss something on that list of liberals at the top of the thread who voted against the war?

Did I miss John Kerry’s name?

Did I miss the “I voted for the war but then voted against funding it” Kerry”

Oh,right.

THAT’S the guy I should have voted for,right?

Old reliable.

Distinguish that,gentlemen.

Theorize all you want.

Given the choice of that guy,Reed,Rockfeller (I will leave Kennedy out because Burt says I have a hard on about him),Edwards and Leahy…now That’s a real war management team.

Catch the bad guys and the polls shoot up.

Don’t catch the bad guys and they go down.

If I were the president,I would have a chat with General Casey.

I’d give him 2 more weeks to catch the Jordinian or else he’d be peeling potatoes.

EB
Yes,lies go to character.

Obviously.

In the case you cited,I argue that it doesn’t…it goes to politics,which is the norm.

As a threshold requirement for elective office,all politicians are liars.

It’s the nature of the beast.

I didn’t support the invasion. And it was clear from my citizen’s chair even back then, that the intelligence, ALL of it, including reliability reports, sources, etc, were not made available to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees prior to the Congress’ vote to support invasion.

And that is the bottom line. Had Democrats, Independents, and even some Republicans been privy to the many dubious notes and qualifications attached to the intelligence and about the sources, the votes of support for invasion would not have been as forthcoming.

Hence, there is plenty room for those in America who initially supported the invasion, to now feel betrayed and lied to by the Whitehouse indirectly inasmuch as the Whitehouse was not honest with Congress about its intelligence sources, later proved erroneous.

Did I miss the “I voted for the war but then voted against funding it” Kerry

That’s lame, SE. Unless you seriously think President Bush doesn’t support the troops because he’s threatening to veto the next defense funding bill.

If I were the president,I would have a chat with General Casey.

I’d give him 2 more weeks to catch the Jordinian or else he’d be peeling potatoes.

Now yer talkin.

Burt:

My apologies for my unclear assertion. I was referring to the “anti-war left” who did not support us going into Afghanistan nor Iraq. I was not referring to the general population.

My apologies for not being clear.

Wow, JBOD. I guess you really showed that 10 percent of Americans who opposed the Afghan operation. Good job.

It does make me wonder why you’d bother addressing such a tiny portin of the population, though.

Jack,

For those liberals who did support the Iraq War*, and most didn’t, you don’t need a fancy schmancy explanation like cognitive dissonance. Let’s suppose your doctor talked you into amputating your leg, and then you found out later that the reasons he gave you were wrong, and in fact were based on information he should have known was biased and unreliable. (Let’s say another doctor who was also a business or romantic rival of yours.)

Would you be experiencing “cognitive dissonance”, or would you just be plain-old pissed off?

*I’m not sure if I fit in this category or not.

AP:

I’d suggest you try to understand things by reading in context, as opposed to trying to skim conversations and cherry pick the comments you want to attack. My earlier comments were focused against hypocrisy, though as Burt pointed out, I wasn’t clear on who I claimed was being hypocritical.

If you want to intelligently discuss a topic, you really need to do more than cherrypick comments. But thanks for trying.

Oh, I read it JBOD. You called what turned out to be a very small, insignificant percentage of Americans hypocrites. I thought it was pointless and funny. Good job :)

Sanger,

At the end of the day, if you brandish a gun at the police, it’s YOUR fault, not the fault of the police, if you get shot and the gun turns out to be a toy.

When police shot someone and find after that what he think was a gun was in fact just his hand, it’s called a cop blunder, not victim fault.

So, show us the Iraq so-called threatfull guns or stop using this metaphore please.

Your frenchly,

Mental Wimp wrote:
And yet, Hans Blix did not feel the need to invade and felt that the inspections were working in keeping him from being able to use any weapons he might have. In other words, he posed no threat.

It is unfair to cite his opinion on one thing and ignore it on another.
_________________

In all seriousness, Hans Blix can’t make a decision on if we should invade or not. His job was to inspect and he had said that “Saddam made it hard for his inspectors” and that they wouldn’t let them interview the scientists.

Anyway, the 17 UN violations were enough to go to war with Iraq; especially since it was post 9/11.

Andrew

The party doesn’t send me talking points.

I supported the invasion of Iraq in 2003. I support it now. With the benefit of hindsight, I see things that should have been done differently. But the decision was correct and moral. Bush did not lie.

What I say about intelligence and claims is what I have said all along. Intelligence is ALWAYS uncertain. Our (and the world’s) intelligence operations missed things like the Pakistani atom bomb. We underestimated Libya. We even underestimated Saddam Hussein WMD in the years before 1990.

In the world of intelligence, many people are mistaken; some people are trying to deceive you; others just don’t know.

But the decision maker has to decide and has to be decisive. You can’t jump across a chasm with two hops.

It is very easy after the fact to claim and even believe that you knew what would happen. That is why so many people theoretically made money in the stock market, but don’t have any. That is why all final exams are “easy†in hindsight, but not everyone gets a good grades.

In a high stakes situation such as Iraq, you have to err on the side of safety. Saddam was not operationally involved in 9/11, but 9/11 is the key to understanding the Iraq war. Before 9/11, we Americans felt reasonably safe behind our oceans. After 9/11 we know that terrorist could reach out and touch us. Saddam was a sponsor of terrorist, who had invaded his neighbors, used WMD, threaten the U.S., tried to shoot down our planes on a daily basis and nursed a hateful grudge against us. You can’t play a shell game with this kind of guy.

One more thing about the last months of inspections. Remember that WMD in many cases is low tech. It is easy to make by anyone with the time, money and inclination. That is why it was dangerous. Hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops were poised in the desert near Iraq. That was the ONLY thing that made Saddam cooperate. The troops could not stay there indefinitely. But Saddam could set up his WMD production any time.

Take one step further. Assume the UN found no WMD (as they might have). Saddam would have been off sanctions. The U.S. troops would have ignominiously pulled out. What would have happened then?

The Iraq war was the right thing to do based on the information available at the time. I also believe it was the right thing to do based on the information we have NOW. The WMD justification was overused and if we knew then what we know now we would not have used it. But there were plenty of other reasons, good reasons.

Your alternative is not a garden of peace. Your alternative is Saddam in power. Saddam without sanctions. Saddam more confident than ever that he can face down the U.S. and the UN. I am sorry, but that is not acceptable.

A.P.

Obviously you didn’t follow or didn’t agree with the comments I made. That’s okay.

If you have been reading my posts for a while now, and doing so in context and with cognition, you’ll know that hypocrisy and inconsistency are two of the things I detest. They seem to go hand in hand with partisanship on many occasions.

People on both sides are guilty of this, and I hold them equally accountable. In the context of this thread, I note how so many on the left have held Europe up as an exemplar of what society should be like, and how the US should do a better job of living up to their example.

Yet I haven’t heard complaints about the measures France is employing in the face of the rioting. I have yet to hear that the US should enact such infringements on freedoms if we face similar circumstances. I have yet to hear how the rights of people are being taken away by fascist tactics, and I have yet to see any comparisons to Nazi Germany.

I’ve seen all of that about the US for taking much less draconian measures. I’m just curious about the silence.

I think there’s enough collective “guilt” to go around. Yep, the liberal think may be there, but I think the real motivations behind the WHIGs adventure in Iraq were to “finish what GWB’s Dad started”. Yep, there should be liberal guilt about the sanctions as they damaged more innocent people than they helped and we didn’t speak up about it. Yep, there should be conservative guilt about the thousands killed by Hussein during the Shia uprising in 1991 where GHWB didn’t support the rebellion to overthrow him when they had the chance. Yep, there should be liberal guilt about Clinton’s lack of action in Rwanda. Yep, there should be conservative guilt about GWB’s lack of action in the Sudan.

Notice something here? Regardless of conservative or liberal, democrat or republican, when we stick our noses into other people’s business, something usually bad happens.

Perhaps we should stick to our knitting and focus on our problems here at home. It’s not like we don’t have any. 37 million people in poverty. 45 million without health insurance. Education levels falling consistently across the board. Jeez.

jack wrote:
The Iraq war was the right thing to do based on the information available at the time. I also believe it was the right thing to do based on the information we have NOW. The WMD justification was overused and if we knew then what we know now we would not have used it. But there were plenty of other reasons, good reasons.
________________________________________

That’s so true. We found out about the “The UN Oil For Food Scandal” a year after we took out (AND REMOVED!) Saddam. Also, there were the countries in the UN Security Council that he bribed with oil contracts; yeah, Saddam was definitely going to get his power and confidence back. That would have been bad for Israel, US and the rest of the world. That’s for (darn) sure.

Liberal Guilt? Nonsense. It has nothing to do with that.

Liberals Guilty? Yes. Guilty of following the crowd. At the time, it would have been political suicide to do anything else.

Repubs Guilty? Yes. Of whipping the crowd into an unjustified frenzy.

So, was the reason for the war WMD, removal of a mean dictator, UN sanctions, to spread democracy (nation building), or was it an immediate danger to our soil?

I’m so confused….

Tom

Read the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq.

There were lots of reasons Saddam was a danger. His earlier used of WMD was an important reason, but not the only one. Pay attention to this:

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated.

Now compare that to the intelligence in 2003. In 1990 we badly UNDERESTIMATED Iraq’s WMD. Intelligence is never complete.

How hippocritical do we look trying to spread democracy when in fact we don’t even have a democracy here.

Oh, and our current administration is a flowering example of how a “functioning” “democracy” works. Just copy us! Insult and twist the truth about your opponent in soundbites so the “liberal” media owned by conservative corporations (how does that work?) can play your insulting soundbites over and over. Then we americans can feel empowered going out to vote for the person we feel is more “qualified”.

Things will never get better if we keep voting the same two parties in. The Democrats can’t fix what the Republicans degrade. There is no step forward there are only steps backwards and that is frustrating. Proof? Look at the deficit, look at a war, look at two parties with no real clue on how to fix either, look at the interaction between the two parties and realize that there is no real cooperation (nor desire to do so). Its like the crips and bloods…

joebagodonuts,

Yet I haven’t heard complaints about the measures France is employing in the face of the rioting.

I guess such complains was blocked by atlantic gap then because here, at home, I’ve heard (so) many of them and I’ve some myself too.

Today a law to expand curfews usage allowance to 3 months is debated by our lawmakers. Many left ones are actually opposed to such expansion. But they won’t get majority.

I’ve seen all of that about the US for taking much less draconian measures. I’m just curious about the silence.

Maybe because nobody care that much about France turning into facism??? Not even some (radical) french, go figure!

But I agree, France is showing some wrong parts of his social model, indeed. Let’s try to learn some lessons…

I just have one question, it seems that it is more important to both the left and the right to insult each other than it is to get anything accomplished. If there is one major fault with our government (yes I know that left it open to about a billion things) it is that through the wrecked art of compromise not a single good idea from either isle gets written as it is intended, nothing pure ever comes out of the legislative branch anymore. Good ideas are polluted before they are even voted on. Anyway, I digress, my question is this, when are “we” going to discover that what needs to be done in Iraq is far more important than any of the petty jibes that are thrown all day long across the isle? Is not a solution and a plan (which demands cooperation, if that is even possible with the level of holier-than-thou I see on BOTH sides) more important than throwing stones? The religious right is just as conceited as the liberal jacka** left. Keep that in mind! Personally, i think we ought to get rid of both parties. I long for the days of the Lincoln vs. Douglas debates. I don’t think any of our canidates (presidential or otherwise) could stand on their own in such a format, do you think they could live without their speech writers? One last comment, look around next time you are walking around your town or city. Ignorant and lethargic voters are reflected in our government. We cry because our government has been bought by special interests, but “we the poeple” allowed it. Hell, we sold it practically! The liberal left exploits voter ignorance as the foundation for their campaigns, but the religious right is just as guilty, since they can’t understand why a citizen who doesn’t degrade himself with the typical hypocrisy of church go-ers doesn’t see they are going to hell. Our government DOES reflect our society. Think about that!
Thanks for the forum to vent………Hope I didn’t piss off too many people heh heh

Phlegm

Jack is me. I don’t know who Eric is, but not the same.

Sory Jack, I confussed this article with one posted by Eric Simonson on this side of the blog.

Philippe:

Thanks for the info. What do you think should be done to stop the violence? Should the govt crack down hard, either permanently or temporarily, or should they appease in some way now.

For sure, the long term view is to change the economics of the situation, but how is that to be done? Any thoughts?

Treehugger, other than your comment about cooperation, you don’t come across as very smart. I am no genuis, well technically, lol just kidding. Anyway, I don’t see how you can say we don’t have a democracy. Our government is what we have made it. Pure and simple. Democracy demands the involvement of the people. That means voters have to educate themselves, and not be fed the “facts” by the very people wanting their vote. It is not our government that has failed, it is the average voter in thinking he or she doesn’t have to be a responsible voter. Look how many people who haven’t graduated high school can vote, look how many immigrants vote illegally, look how many people vote based on the rhetoric of their party (for example, is it really acceptable for the democrats to get buses to pick up people from poor neighborhoods and buy their vote with a sack lunch and a trip to the voting booth? and yes I know republicans do similar things too). It is astoundingly stupid! Don’t blame the politicians, blame the voters. We voted the idiots into office, not them. That inlcudes both parties.
Phlegm

Tree Hugger

The U.S. is a democracy and the people’s rights are protected. It is silly, disingenuous and childish to call it otherwise.

It is not a perfect democracy, but we don’t even have a commonly accepted definition of what that might be. Those that try to set up perfect systems end up with tyrannies. We have many years of experience. Thank you for your opinion. When you find a real democracy let me know. I am sure we will all want to see what lives up to your academic ideal. A “real” democracy must be sufficiently rare and small that you can set up a tent and sell tickets.

Philippe

You French are doing a competent job dealing with the current situation (and to my colleagues, the French have an excellent response to terror threats within France and are very cooperative with the U.S and others on the operational level.) Your problem comes from the general lack of economic growth over the past decades and that is the problem you need to address. At least you will be able to sell some new cars.

I came across this polical cartoon from the Washington Post that made me laugh. I felt I should share it.

I Didn’t Mislead!

It is astoundingly stupid! Don’t blame the politicians, blame the voters. We voted the idiots into office, not them. That inlcudes both parties. Phlegm

Your right about that. But now it’s to vote them out.

http://voidnow.org

Doctor Shopper

It really does take balls on his part considering him an half he administration never served in Viet Nam.

But he DID serve. Unlike a previous President that ran to Europe to KEEP FROM serving. And YES the Gaurd IS part of the US Military. How else do you think the President can call them up.
I’ve talked to alot of men that were active duty during Vietnam that never served over there. I reckon you don’t think much of them either.
If they put on the uniform of this great country, it doesn’t matter if they were active, reserves, or gaurd, if they went to Vietnam or not.
THEY STOOD AND DELIVERED!

O.k.,o.k….So you have all gotten the chance to screach and scream liars and what-not and act like preschoolers in a playground squabble..

I love it when the same people that scream about what is good for the world and public relations would have opted to keep Sadaam in power and do nothing! How very humanitarian of you….

Lets see what the options were..
1.Let the dictator stay in charge and brutally kill mass numbers of innocent civilians all at his whims as he sees fit.
2.Take him out and give them the possibility of a brighter tomorrow!

I know, I know, American lives are WAY more important than any other lives (at least that is the way it comes across, when people hoot and holler). Geez, I just don’t get it I’m a conservative and am only suppose to care about myself….yet for some reason…I feel for the Iraqi citizens…what a crazy world!!!

With that in mind…all the other semantics seem rediculous…he needed to go and he’s gone!!
Has there been problems? Yes, but people are not just arguing to solve the problems, they are suggesting that Iraq would be better with a brutal dictator in charge. Amazing stuff…truly!!

Ron,

Bush didn’t deliver squat. He ran.
Not ONE person in his squadron remembers him.
NOT ONE.

Did you ever read the letter from Clinton’s commandant?

Jack,

I thank you for responding to my points — I didn’t think anyone would brave it and respond directly.

So your argument in response to my two points seems to boil down to this: “Intelligence is ALWAYS uncertain,” therefore we must err on the side of caution based on the intelligence before us.

It is a reasonable argument; however, it begs a few very important questions. What is the burden of actionability for intelligence? We get a lot of intelligence showing threats but we don’t act on the vast majority of it. We investigate and determine if it is specific and reliable.

In both cases, there were MAJOR questions brought up about the intelligence. In fact, it doesn’t appear that this intelligence was EVER deemed very credible. Why then did the administration use it in building the public case for war?

Jack, I understand which side of the debate you’re on. But I also think you’re a smart guy capable of drawing intellectually honest conclusions. There are certainly legitimate arguments for going to war, and I welcome that debate. But I just don’t know how anyone can look at what has unfolded and not think that there is AT THE VERY LEAST significant evidence pointing to the fact that this administration decided to go into Iraq well before 9/11 and cherrypicked intelligence to mke that case.

And if that is indeed the case, doesn’t it scare you just a little that we can be manipulated by our own leadership in a Democracy? Doesn’t it at least give you some pause? Or are you so blindly faithful to Bush and his administration that you haven’t even stopped to consider the implications of running a country that way?

Andrew, well written, well argued. I would ask that you read my earlier comments about voters’ responsibility in answer to your fear of how our leaders act. Whether or not you voted for George W. isn’t important “we” did. Well spoken though, thanks for the good reading.

Bush did not lie.

Jack, I gave you a very specific instance where President Bush lied. But I guess you can keep pretending it didn’t happen if that makes you feel better, though it seems a little dishonest.

Assume the UN found no WMD (as they might have). Saddam would have been off sanctions. The U.S. troops would have ignominiously pulled out. What would have happened then?

Saddam would have gotten run over by a bus crossing the street and we wouldn’t be in the mess we’re in now.

Yet I haven’t heard complaints about the measures France is employing in the face of the rioting. I have yet to hear that the US should enact such infringements on freedoms if we face similar circumstances.

JBOD, that’s ridiculous. We declared marshal law in New Orleans, flooded the place with troops, and shot looters and rioters — and nobody raised an eye brow. What makes you think we’d come down on France for merely imposing a curfew?

Does anyone have anything to say about the fact that the Congress is going to push off social security reform until 2008 or 2009? Just curious what you all were thinking.
P

Amercian POundit; RE Bush Lied:” President Bush was told that the intelligence he had on a Saddam/al Qaeda connection was probably wrong, yet he told Congress and America that it was a fact.” Actually, this was a reference to a quote made by Sen. Clinton!! Wonder where she got her info?

Dave
Bush didn’t deliver squat. He ran.
Not ONE person in his squadron remembers him.
NOT ONE.

So says the Bush Bashers.
I was in service 20 years and I’ll bet only one person I served with really remembers me. And I really don’t remember but one person I ever served with. The ONLY reason why we remember each other is we are brothers-in-law.

Did you ever read the letter from Clinton’s commandant?

No, But I’ve read the letter he wrote after he winned enough to get an exemption from service. The man hated the military and HE RAN

Oh lord, now it is on. Did someone actually mention Hillary? I swear, if my father hadn’t taught me not to run from a fight, I’d move out of the country if she were ever elected to the Presidency. She is one sick witch!!

I am always confused when liberals are shocked at the outrage from conservatives when they try to introduce or support a socialist policy. She is nothing more than a manipulative, lying, cheating, SOCIALIST!! I could stand the rest of it, but not the socialist part. Our country is not socialist, should not be, was never intended to be. If you want nationalized medicine, and all the other socialist policies she favors, grab her on your way to a damn plane and move to Europe!!!

Good Editorial:
Decoding Mr. Bush’s Denials

Andrew

When dealing with a threat like Iraq, we are not trying to prove beyond a reasonable doubt because both action and non-action have serious risks. We are looking only for preponderance of evidence.

After 9/11, we set the balance between action and non-action to the more agressive. That is the criteria. Besides WMD, there were plenty of reasons to want Saddam gone. With WMD (as we thought the evidence pointed) it was a slam dunk.

Were WMD proved beyond a reasonable doubt? - NO. Should we have waited for that? - ALSO NO. The outcome does not change the criteria of the decision.

Critics of the decision want to put a higher burden of proof on the decision. This was not justified at the time nor is it in hindsight. The cost of being wrong about Saddam having WMD was higher than the cost of being wrong about him not having WMD. In the case of uncertainty, we were wise to do with a more agressive response. We did the right thing.

AP

Lie assumes Bush knew and said differently. When you decide to go with a source that might be discredited, it is not a lie. Re the discredited source, who knows if HE was lying then or lying now?

Traci,

Like so many before you, you have made the false assumption that there were only two choices. The fact that I didn’t support a preemptive war doesn’t mean that I supported Saddam Hussein. I just thought (and still think) that there were better ways of handling it.

If a man’s only answer to a potential threat (not an actual one yet, just a potential one for the future) is to start the war first, he has no business in the Oval Office. There were DOZENS of other options. We didn’t have to send our troops in, uninvited and without a UN mandate, in order to remove Saddam from power. Bush ignored those options in favor of starting a war — a war that he can’t blame on anyone but himself.

Here’s where I think the truth in Jack’s argument is found. Yes, Bush abandoned those other options and went to war, but the majority of America supported him in it. While many Democrats opposed him, all the major presidential hopefuls (Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards, etc.) supported him, and voted for the war. By doing so, they declared that those other options were invalid, and that preemptive war was the only solution.

So now that those same Democratic hopefuls are opposing the war, they can’t go back to the REAL reasons that we shouldn’t have gone to war, because they have already rejected them. So they instead claim that Bush manipulated them with false intelligence. (Incidentally, can you think of any two words to better describe President Bush than “false intelligence”? I can’t.) ;-)

The reality is that those Democratic hopefuls made a mistake, and voted for a war they shouldn’t have supported, and don’t want to admit it. Bush didn’t make Kerry vote for the war. It was Kerry’s choice, and the only person to blame for that vote is Kerry. Likewise for any other senator who voted for it.

Rob,

So it’s true then? Bush didn’t mislead? The dems misfollowed?

If my 6 yo came up with that line of reasoning I would send her to a remedial logic course.

Dave, you missed his point. Whether or not the information from intelligence sources was accurate, whether or not George knew it or not, the senators who voted for the war, did not choose to persue other courses of action. That is the result of their vote. They decided that war was better than a diplomatic or international solution, it doesn’t matter whether the intelligence was wrong, or misleading, they still chose warfare over diplomacy or any other more peacful solution. Andrew’s point was that even if all the info was correct, there were still other options than declaring war without the UN (which is quite possibly the biggest international farce I have seen in my young life).

Rob,

If you opposed the war all along, you have every right to criticize Democrats who supported the war. What I can’t abide is Republicans who supported the war criticizing Democrats who voted for it. Basically, their argument is, “Some of you guys were as gullible as we were.”

That may be true, but it’s nothing to brag about!!!

The emocratic policy makers who voted for the war did so out of the patriotic wave that passed over the U.S. after 9/11. The atmosphere was one of tough talk not diplomacy. There were so many Americans who did not want this war. I have never supported this war or the Bush administration so why would I feel guilt?
Half of the United States was against going to war. Those who opposed it were not liberals, they were people who did not agree that war was the answer. There were many Republicans I know who opposed the preemptive attack on Iraq was the wrong thing to do. We needed to focus on those who attacked us.
Those who thought the war was just but now feel differently should feel guilty. Those who never supported the war should feel disappointed but not guilty. Those who still support this war are just foolish.

Dave,

Before the war, even when Bush was pushing his now-defunct “intelligence”, many of us were smart enough to see that we didn’t need to go to war to deal with the problem. Even if the intel had proven true, there were still other ways to deal with the problem without launching an invasion force.

Above, phx8 lists the 23 senators who were smart enough to realize this. If Teddy *hiccup* Kennedy could realize it, why couldn’t Clinton and Kerry?

I don’t know if Bush lied about the intel, or if he was simply misled himself (or if HE misled himself — you never know with this guy). My point is that the intel in question shouldn’t have changed anyone’s mind (or vote) on the subject, true or not.

“Andrew

When dealing with a threat like Iraq, we are not trying to prove beyond a reasonable doubt because both action and non-action have serious risks. We are looking only for preponderance of evidence.

After 9/11, we set the balance between action and non-action to the more agressive. That is the criteria. Besides WMD, there were plenty of reasons to want Saddam gone. With WMD (as we thought the evidence pointed) it was a slam dunk.

Were WMD proved beyond a reasonable doubt? - NO. Should we have waited for that? - ALSO NO. The outcome does not change the criteria of the decision.

Critics of the decision want to put a higher burden of proof on the decision. This was not justified at the time nor is it in hindsight. The cost of being wrong about Saddam having WMD was higher than the cost of being wrong about him not having WMD. In the case of uncertainty, we were wise to do with a more agressive response. We did the right thing.”

Jack,

I have to roundly reject your arguments. First off, I have always had a problem with the Mushroom Cloud/Better Safe Than Sorry arguments.

I do not feel that in matters of PUBLIC POLICY you determine courses of action based on doomsday scenarios. Fact is, we have limited resources and it is the burden of policymakers to make the BEST DECISIONS given their resources. Extreme scenarios have no place in Public Policy. Every day we know we are facing threats and every day we have to go out and live our way of life and it is the goal of Public Policy to find the best balance between SAFETY and FREEDOM. If you deploy all your resources to be completely safe, you give up your freedom, and vice versa.

Now if you were to apply this doomsday/safety at all costs logic to other situations, then we ought to go into just about every country in the Middle East and North Korea. The reason we don’t is because of the costs associated with those courses of action, and the reasonable confidence we have that the threats are not imminent.

With Iraq it was quite clear for various reasons that any Iraq threat was not imminent. We knew Iraq and al Qaeda were at odds with each other because of their religious dissonance, but we sold the public that they were in cohoots. We completely mischaracterized their relationship based on ONE CLEARLY SHODDY PIECE OF INTELLIGENCE. That is dishonest and I don’t know how you can see it any differently.

The preponderance of the evidence in fact showed that Iraq was NOT a threat. Saddam had no history of picking fights with larger enemies. The evidence only showed (wrongly) that he had chemical and biological weapons that there appeared to be no intention to use.

Saddam was no different than any one of a number of enemies we live with every single day. The only difference with him was, he had oil.

Until you realize that we went into Iraq for Oil and we determined this course of action well before 9/11 you will always remain blind to how we were misled into this war. At the end of the day, THAT IS WHAT THE PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE TELLS US.

…Or maybe I’m wrong and “preponderance” really means “what I want to hear.”

Andrew

We went to war about oil, but not in the sense you probably mean. We did not go to war to secure the oil for ourselves alone. We did not go to war to make profits off the oil in Iraq. Iraq produces about $20 billion in oil revenue each year. Everybody knew it would cost a lot more than that to fight the war. The U.S. could never hope to get paid back out of Iraqi oil, even if we got it all - AND we won’t. So war FOR oil NO.

Of course it was ABOUT oil. Oil is money. Money is power. Oil runs to the world economy to a large extent and much of it is found in Saddam’s neighborhood. So Saddam, backed by oil money and living where he did could be a much bigger threat to world peace and the world economy than some other little nasty without oil, like Robert Mugabe. Saddam with his oil money could buy some parts of world opinion. He could afford to buy weapons. He could afford to buy weapons and expertise.

So ABOUT oil, not FOR oil.

Without oil Saddam was the same kind of threat as Robert Mugabe, who is strictly a local menace. How much of a threat would Osama bin Laden be if he didn’t come from a rich family and have followers with oil money. Without oil, Saddam is a nasty local potentate and Osama is a picturesque old goat … herder. It is oil that allowed them to become what they did.

CONDOLEEZZA RICE: “We don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.”

DICK CHENEY: “Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.”

COLIN POWELL: “Saddam Hussein already possesses two out of the three key components needed to build a nuclear bomb.”

Yeah man, liberals should have been against the war from the beginning! They’re just guilty now. Makes a lot of sense.

Andrew L. wrote:
“Saddam was no different than any one of a number of enemies we live with every single day. The only difference with him was, he had oil….Until you realize that we went into Iraq for Oil and we determined this course of action well before 9/11 you will always remain blind to how we were misled into this war. At the end of the day, THAT IS WHAT THE PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE TELLS US.”
__________________________________

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: “there are plenty of despots out there for people to defend, Saddam is no longer one of them. Ha!”

We don’t “Police the world” nor do we “rid every mad regime”; if people think we do then why is Khadafi, Kim Jong Ill, the mullahs, etc. still in power? No, we handle terrorist regimes differently.

Saddam was supposed to be dealt w/ in 1991; we kept him in power and sanctioned the hell out of him. How did that pan out?! In 1996 the Oil for food scandal was in gear and it turned out he bribed and coerced governments (with that oil you talked about!) to lift the UN sanctions in order to re-build his weapons program (AGAIN!). In 1998, all the democrats were talking like the 2002 Republicans about Saddam and his “threat” to us and the world. Check it out: http://nashvilletruth.blogspot.com/2005/11/this-weeks-quotes-whole-bunch-of.html

As you can see, he’s always been a threat and we finally removed him. And the world is better off!!!

Jack:
“Critics of the decision want to put a higher burden of proof on the decision. This was not justified at the time nor is it in hindsight. The cost of being wrong about Saddam having WMD was higher than the cost of being wrong about him not having WMD. In the case of uncertainty, we were wise to do with a more agressive response. We did the right thing.”

Jack, I’ve seen you make this argument time and again, but each and every time, I view it as nothing but NONSENSE.
Though Saddam was undoubtedly a problem that one day needed to be dealt with (preferably with a large consensus of world leaders), there was no reason whatsoever to start a pre-emptive war and invade and occupy a sovereign nation that had nothing to do with 9/11 at that time NONE.
There was NO LINK between Al Qaida and Iraq.
Al Qaida was the enemy who attacked us, but these Neocons decided to start a second war that had nothing to do the threat we faced at precisely the moment when we needed to focus all our best energies. Instead, they LIED, manufacturing both an eminent threat and a supposed connection to Al Qaida where none actually existed, to get us to go there.
The ONLY connection to Al Qaida that existed was Zarqawi. But there we run into another serious problem for Bushco, because before the Iraq war even started, the Pentagon had given the White House THREE separate opportunities to take out the ONE MAN who might have been related to al-Qaeda in Iraq. Yet, in all three instances the White House REFUSED to order the air-strikes — and the only reason for that was because it might have undercut their reason for invading Iraq.
After blowing all three of those opportunities they of course then claimed that it was imperative that we invade Iraq because Saddam Hussein was sheltering Zarqawi! And btw, any link between those two has also been debunked.
In attempting to manufacture reasons for America to invade Iraq, we can only conclude that Bush administration gave aid and comfort to America’s enemy — because after their invasion, Zarqawi was then free to establish strong connections to Al Qaida (something he’d been unable to do when Saddam was in power) and to create another haven for our enemies in Iraq, the chance to spread the Al Qaida message and recruit new members, and to provide a AQ training ground with our soldiers as the targets.
No matter which way we look at this war, it was a COLOSSAL MISTAKE OF GIGANTIC PROPORTIONS. The fact that you rightwingers refuse to comprehend this in defense of your party over the facts is a complete disgrace, and something you should all feel very ashamed of.

Andre, if you don’t support the war now, you are a useless American. I didn’t like the idea of going to war, neither did a lot of people. One quick lesson here though, we haev soldiers fighting and dying, the cause is irrelevant, the blame is irrelevant. If you have problems with the politicians, then educate yourself and the people in your environment, better yet, teach them to educate themselves. Then encourage them to vote next election. That is how a democracy works, but please, don’t take it out on the soldiers by saying you don’t support the war. Hopefully I misunderstood you. If you don’t support out troops though, regardless of the circumstance, you don’t deserve to live under the freedoms our flag represents.

phlegm,

Are you suggesting that, once troops are committed, debate should cease, and we should fight until either (a) the objective is won, or (b) we are all dead? Or are you willing to accept that some of us “support our troops” by trying to bring them home safely, and by not sending them needlessly into harm’s way?

Here’s where I think the truth in Jack’s argument is found. Yes, Bush abandoned those other options and went to war, but the majority of America supported him in it. While many Democrats opposed him, all the major presidential hopefuls (Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards, etc.) supported him, and voted for the war. By doing so, they declared that those other options were invalid, and that preemptive war was the only solution.

This is just untrue, and Kerry and Clinton said so in no uncertain terms. I realize that the right takes to nuance like vampires to garlic, but as you suggest, not every question can be adequately answered with a yes or no. This is the problem that a Senator must face. They can’t re-write every act to suit a middle ground that they agree with. They must give a thumbs up or down.

Please read these quotes carefully, from the Senate floor in debating the Authorization of Force against Iraq:

Mr. Kerry: Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him by force, if we ever exhaust those other options, as the President has promised, but I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible under any circumstances.

In voting to grant the President the authority, I am not giving him carte blanche to run roughshod over every country that poses or may pose some kind of potential threat to the United States. Every nation has the right to act preemptively, if it faces an imminent and grave threat, for its self-defense under the standards of law. The threat we face today with Iraq does not meet that test yet. I emphasize “yet.” Yes, it is grave because of the deadliness of Saddam Hussein’s arsenal and the very high probability that he might use these weapons one day if not disarmed. But it is not imminent, and no one in the CIA, no intelligence briefing we have had suggests it is imminent. None of our intelligence reports suggest that he is about to launch an attack.

From Mrs. Clinton:

The open questions are: what should we do about it? How, when, and with whom?

Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament, and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular democratic state in the Middle East, one which could perhaps move the entire region toward democratic reform.

This view has appeal to some, because it would assure disarmament; because it would right old wrongs after our abandonment of the Shiites and Kurds in 1991, and our support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980’s when he was using chemical weapons and terrorizing his people; and because it would give the Iraqi people a chance to build a future in freedom.

However, this course is fraught with danger. We and our NATO allies did not depose Mr. Milosevic, who was responsible for more than a quarter of a million people being killed in the 1990s. Instead, by stopping his aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo, and keeping on the tough sanctions, we created the conditions in which his own people threw him out and led to his being in the dock being tried for war crimes as we speak.

If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?

So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option.

I just want to say that this made my day:

“I don’t suppose the witch trials really have much to do with liberals, but I do think you can find puritanism among liberals.”

Yeah, baby, the puritans were liberals. If you’re going to revise history, I guess, you might as well revise it back to 1620.

Not at all Rob, although I do see how my remarks could have been taken that way. What I can’t stand is when people express their anger at the war and by proxy its participants, express it at the politicians. What I mean, is that regardless of how we got there, doesn’t it make sense to stay until it is done right? i.e. Iraq can stand on its own. Do we really want to leave them in shambles? The point is that fighting to have our soldiers brought home prematurely is silly and disrespectful to our soldiers. And by the way, I don’t think we need to be quite that sarcastic, the whole “until we are all dead” comment was a bit offensive to a supporter of the truth. Just another example of how liberal our news is though. We focus on the Americans that have died and exploit each death to the fullest. That is such crap. People die in war, it is a sad fact. Some of those kids we sent over there aren’t coming back. How many times have you seen the total number of insurgents killed vs. how many americans have died? Last time I looked though, we haven’t even had 2000 casualties. Not that I take them lightly, far from it, however perspective is everything. I think the best way to discover our faults in thinking, is to discuss this topic with a person from the WWII generation. They actually know what sacrifice means, they actually know what freedom costs. We are so selfish in our daily lives, that somehow our soldiers’ lives are more important than Iraq’s lives. How many of them have died? How many died directly from Saddam’s orders? Should we not honor the fallen soldiers by finishing the task they died for? I agree that we shouldn’t have started the war, but now I worry more about how we will finish it. Politics will solve themselves, IF we have an active and educated public participation. Soldiers get orders and go, let’s do what we can to help them finish the task and THEN come home fulfilled. To do anything less is to dishonor those who have fallen.

I realize that the right takes to nuance like vampires to garlic…

I wish you people would hurry up and decide whether I’m a lefty or a righty. One minute, I’m being accused of being a tree-hugging liberal, and the next minute I’m a right-wing fascist. Once again, some stories have more than two sides….

This is just untrue, and Kerry and Clinton said so in no uncertain terms.

Then they shouldn’t have voted to grant the President that authority! If we didn’t have enough evidence to show an imminent threat, then they should have withheld their supporting vote until we did. They had a responsibility to provide checks and balances which they failed to provide.

I want to hear them admit that they were wrong. Not “Bush lied to us”, or “Bush misused the power we gave him.” I want to hear them say “I gave the President power that I shouldn’t have given him. I failed in my Constitutional duty.” Anything else is passing the buck, IMHO.

Little problem Jack (this is without reading ANY OTHER COMMENTS)
I NEVER supported the war
I KNEW the line that SHRUB was pitching was phoney from the get-go
Right out from left (ironic) field came this “imminent threat” (don’t even try to deny that was how BUSHY originally pitched his scare tactic)
When I first heard him pitch this load of garbage I couldn’t believe ANYBODY with more than 1/2 a brain cell would fall for this (man was I wrong)
Gee, initial pitch, right before congressional elections that were looking to go bad — HMMMMMM would’ve put him in a good position no matter how they came out — after all you dare not prevent a WAR TIME PRESIDENT from doing his job, nor deny him anything he asks for!!)
THEN when the pitch kept changing — the people that bow down (and cow-tow) to Bushy just accepted this FLIP_Floppying all over the place (together with convenient amnesia as to the previous week’s “Rationale of the DAY”)
and these were the same people that gave Kerry Grief (polite word) over “flip flopping”!!!!!
THIS WAR WAS NEVER NECESSARY
STILL ISN’T and has done MORE to contribute to world terrorism than anything
BUSH should be tried and convicted of “aiding and abetting the enemy” — He’s ten times worse and more dangerous than Jane Fonda EVER was!!

Ohhh, and EVERYBODY on BOTH SIDES — do NOT accept this current MYTH that CONGRESS CONDONED, VOTED FOR or GAVE BUSH permission for the war
The bill that was passed required BUSH (per HIS PROMISE) to do EVERYTHING POSSIBLE BEFORE INVADING
DON’T LET THEM FORGET THAT WAR WAS THE LAST RESORT
BUSH IS THE ONE WHO PREMATURELY LAUNCHED THE ATTACK!! AND NOW HE IS TRYING TO SAY EVERYONE AGREED ON THAT ——- NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
TALK ABOUT REVISIONIST HISTORY!! DON’T BUY INTO IT!!

Russ

“As they stand up, we stand down.” - George W. Bush, on the Training given to Iraqis by the U.S. Occupying Forces

BAGHDAD - 11/15/05 - (Reuters) - Iraq is investigating allegations of abuse after more than 170 prisoners were found locked in an Interior Ministry bunker in Baghdad, many of them beaten and malnourished and some apparently tortured.

The detainees were discovered on Sunday night during a raid by U.S. troops who were searching for a missing teenage boy.

They were found in an underground cell near an Interior Ministry compound in Jadriya, a central Baghdad neighborhood, and many of them showed signs of severe hunger and beatings, Iraqi officials and U.S. military sources said.

“I was informed that there were 173 detainees held at an Interior Ministry prison and they appear to be malnourished,” Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafari told reporters.

“There is also some talk that they were subjected to some kind of torture,” he said.

Earlier a deputy interior minister put the number of prisoners at 161 and said he was stunned by their treatment.

“They were being treated in an ina