To Hell With You - Part I

Dear Sicilian Eagle:

I am writing this letter out of desperation and I need your help!

We must end this war in Iraq now!

As a direct result of this war,both of my sons were killed.To compound that tragedy,I lost my job.Now,I am languishing in jail.You are the Mighty Eagle and you can help me…..please,I beg of you… help me!

signed..........

Not that I would want to kick a guy when he's down and out,but in this case that is exactly what I intend to do with this guy.

Think I feel sorry for this guy?

No way.

This guy got everything he deserved.

In spades.

He tried to pull one over on us and now he's in a box.

He bullshitted the world with his bluster.

He has caused his country to suffer terribly and my country to bleed badly.

He can rot in that box or get the noose for all I care,but this jerk gets no sympathy from me.

Go to hell,Saddam.

Since the mantra of "Bush Lied" has filled since my ears the last presidential election,as Johk Kerry would say I would like to discuss the "root cause" of the president's decision to invade Iraq.

My view is that Saddam gave the world reason to believe that he still had WMDs...keeping the fact that he did not from everyone except his two sons.

Let's examine this threshold set of facts only,and decide what you would do if you were the president.For purposes of this discussion let's limit our discussion to these facts only.

In Part II,we'll deal with Al Queda in Iraq.

Please check the vitrol at the door.

Posted by Sicilian Eagle at May 15, 2006 5:35 PM
Comments
Comment #148387

Eagle,,, Saddam killed thousands of people and the “left” and the U.N were ok with it!! Now they want to Blame Bush for the killing in Darfur. What the hell is wrong with this picture?? Its hopeless!

Posted by: Nathan at May 15, 2006 6:05 PM
Comment #148388

“Please check the vitrol at the door.”

At the end of a piece called, “To Hell With You”? Classy. Real classy.

Posted by: chantico at May 15, 2006 6:10 PM
Comment #148389

SE,

Please everybody, I am in no way trying to excuse Saddam for his actions.

Let’s say that Saddam had to keep up a facade of (for lack of a better term) machismo.
He felt that the countries around him were a threat to the well being of Iraq (Kuwaitt stealing oil and whatnot), and by way of that him.

He has already been involved in two conflicts, one involving the use of chemical weapons, and is being constantly monitored, and his missle sites are being destroyed regularly, by those that monitored his country.

Now your in his position.

Do you roll over and tell everybody the truth and show how defenceless you actually are?

Or, do you put a front of bluster and bullshit, and hope nobody ever finds out the reality?

Posted by: Rocky at May 15, 2006 6:11 PM
Comment #148390

War is hell. If you lie to get into war, then you do what Rumsy tried to do: win it cheaply and quickly.

But that didn’t happen, did it?

What happened instead is the leaders who concocted this scheme didn’t take into account what it’s like to kill a person. They never thought that killing people would be so hard. This is due to the ignorance of our leaders (“It will be a cake walk.”).

Now, the liar needs to lie again to cover his first lie (“Iraq supports terra.”).

That lie will turn into another lie (“Iran supports terra.”).

The US deserves to eat shyyyyt economically, and most of all, bring the real terrorists (http://reopen911.org) to justice. If not, then why have courts? Why have commitees? Why have anything that resembles justice?

You know Bushco did 911. I know Bushco did 911. When America decides to open her eyes, she’ll find out that she’s not so cute after all, and then she’ll know Bushco did 911.

Posted by: Jay at May 15, 2006 6:19 PM
Comment #148396

Come on Jay…
Answer the post…
Don’t give us your line of Bull…

Posted by: Cliff at May 15, 2006 6:40 PM
Comment #148397

chantio
The title of the piece is meant for Saddam…not you.Yikes!

Rocky
In a courtroom we have a theory about the effect of what a persons to another in terms of affecting state of mind.

For example:You are walking down the street and you see two people walking towards you….one slightly ahead of the other.

The first runs up to you and says “Watch it,he has a gun!”

The question is:do you have to see the gun before you believe that a gun exists or does the statement alone suffice?

Here,Saddam intentionially gave the impression to the world…including his top echelon generals that WMDs were hidden.

I ask:how would you react?What would you do?
This question really is a threshhold question,I think.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at May 15, 2006 6:44 PM
Comment #148400

SE
The thought that Saddam EVER posed an IMMENENT threat to the US is laughable. It was then and is now. I never believed that he possessed WMD’s then or now. Regardless, if Saddam, or any other nutball attacked the US wouldn’t it seem reasonable that their “victory” would be short-lived given or nuclear arsenal? The sands of Iraq would been turned to a sea of glass shards. As far as Saddam being a murderous dictator in his own country, I couldn’t care less. Did the oppressed masses make humanitarian pleas to interfere? No. Did hoards of refuges come streaming to our shores? No. Could Americans even find Iraq on a globe before 2001? No. I think that people within their own country have to be suitable motivated to fight their own battles before we interfere.

It seems that if we can spend $8-900 billion to help these people now, that we could have spent that money more wisely on diplomacy— maybe then everyone wouldn’t hate us!

What would I have done as President given the parameters that you established? I would have let the UN complete their work, establish a broader coalition with other countries and had a covert squad apprehend Saddam without a full-scale military invasion.

Posted by: lee at May 15, 2006 6:48 PM
Comment #148410

OK, SE, let’s put ourselves in W’s shoes and see what decision we’d make.

Here’s the deal, Saddam was acting like he still had the weapons - for whatever reason. Maybe it was a “catch 22” for him: damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t.

So, given the circumstances at the time, I understand the idea of contemplating going to war. But when you decide to go to war, you have to hold yourself to the highest degree of certainty. If you give the go ahead to send our kids to war, you have to be sure you’re right. And if you’re not right, you have to be willing to face the consequences.

We also have to recognize that the only reason congress gave the President the power to deploy our forces is the WMD threat. Yea, there were other reasons (he’s a murderer, he’s thumbing his nose at the UN, freeing the Iraqi people, etc.) but without WMD, we don’t go to war. Period.

Now we know the WMD thing was wrong. Maybe W knew it was wrong and actively misled us, or maybe he was a victim of trusting a broken intelligence organization. I don’t care. He was wrong. And if you’re that wrong, I don’t care what the reason is, you should be fired.

Think about it, if a CEO decides to follow a particular strategy for a company - not only agreeing to the decision but selling with all his might to his shareholders, investors, employees, etc. - and that strategy leads the company to financial hardship, irrepairably damages the brand image, and kills 2,500+ of its employees, that guy is so fired, it’s not even a question. Even if the strategy looked good on paper, that guy is a disgrace.

In the case of W, the guy gets re-elected. What the hell’s wrong with us?

If I were in W’s shoes in early 2003, I may have made the same decision. I can’t say for sure ‘cause I don’t know what intelligence he was looking at at the time. But, if I were in that position, I hope that I’d have the balls to say, “I’m so sure I’m right, that if I’m wrong, I’ll resign.” Honestly, I wish some reporter had asked Bush in early 2003, “Since you’re so confident that Saddam has WMD, are you willing to say that you’ll resign if you are wrong?”

I know that if I were in the Senate at the time and W answered “no,” I would vote “no” to the war. There’s no way I’d approve risking the lives of our soldiers if the President and Chief Sales Officer wasn’t even willing to risk his job.

And, while I maybe anti-war now that I have the benefit of 20-20 hindsight, I don’t think it’s right to pull out. We broke it - we gotta fix it. And we have the opportunity to make something great out of this whole mess. The problem I have is that how can we trust the stooges who got us into this mess to be the ones to lead us to a positive outcome? With a new leader, we can remove any baggage and we’ll be a lot more successful. I’m sorry it didn’t happen 2 years ago, but the bright side is that we have no more than 33 months to go.

Posted by: Jeff at May 15, 2006 7:13 PM
Comment #148412

SE,

” ask:how would you react?What would you do?
This question really is a threshhold question,I think.”

My first thought would be to wonder how this guy knows the other has a gun, and what are his intentions.
Secondly, why, if the runner is so nervous about the gun and it’s use, were they walking together in the first place?

Frankly my first action would be to cross the street away from both of them.

Posted by: Rocky at May 15, 2006 7:15 PM
Comment #148417

Lee
You didn’t answer the question I posed.You’re getting ahead of the story.Let’s start at step one.Now,what would you do?

Jeff

Thoughtful answer.Let’s focus on the WMDs only though.Let’s forget about firing anyone for the moment.
The set of facts above is what you have to work with.Throw in the additionial fact that you are on the job only 9 months too,and 9/11 occurred.What would be going on inside your head?

Rocky
Geez….ok,assume you have no time to cross a street..it’s flooded..just like it is here in Massachusetts right now,and both guys are steps away….

Posted by: sicilianeagle at May 15, 2006 7:29 PM
Comment #148418

All I know is that Clinton’s lie that Saddam had WMD’s got us into the war with Iraq. If Clinton hadn’t lied (because of the fat girl) then Bush would have had no reason to take us there.

Posted by: Don at May 15, 2006 7:33 PM
Comment #148420

Don
Let’s put politics aside for a minute.Please try to draft an answer to my question.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at May 15, 2006 7:36 PM
Comment #148422

SE,

I can only assume this is a trick question.

Where does the law stand on protecting myself if I can only assume that I am in danger?

I don’t know if either one of these guys have a weapon so how do I defend myself on an assumption?
Theoreticly I can legaly act if I am actually attacked.
A civilized man/country doesn’t just attack others willy nilly.
Otherwise I think it is called assault/act of war.

Posted by: Rocky at May 15, 2006 7:39 PM
Comment #148423

That should be;

Theoreticly I can legaly act only if I am actually attacked.

Posted by: Rocky at May 15, 2006 7:42 PM
Comment #148424

The facts given are not sufficient for any president to go to war with any nation. Many countries have WMD’s. Many nations threaten to use them. Some may even have used them to a limited extent before. Without the motive and desire to use them against us as part of the equasion, there is no reason to strike pre-emptively. (I, however, believe Bush did have reason to believe that Saddam had both motive and desire to hurt the U.S.A. That, along with the ability to do so, gave Bush the reason to strike first.)

Posted by: Don at May 15, 2006 7:42 PM
Comment #148427

Rocky

No trick question…I am asking you to step inside the mind of the commander in chief:

Here you had Saddam giving the clear impression that he had WMDs.His trusted generals thought he had WMds.The president had just witnessed 9/11 (no I am not talking about a link here with OBL…only the affect that 9/11 had on his thinking),plus he’s getting intelligence from several countries confirming Saddam’s posturing.

That it.Those are the facts you have to work with.What say you?

Here’s a trick question:which is correct:Egg yolks are white or egg yolks is white?

Trick question.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at May 15, 2006 7:51 PM
Comment #148428

SE,

“That it.Those are the facts you have to work with.What say you?”

With the facts I have, Saddam, while maybe a threat to his region, has no delivery system to directly attack America.
American interests, maybe. America, no.

In the lead up to the war Bush was asked to wait, and be patient by those that were conducting the inspections.
Nearly up to the day we invaded the inspectors asked for more time.

A prudent man would have waited before commiting American troops against two guys walking down a street, one of which “might” have a gun, half a world away.
Everyone in the world asked Bush to wait.

Prudence and patience apparently aren’t Bush’s best virtues

Posted by: Rocky at May 15, 2006 8:03 PM
Comment #148430

BTW,

Egg yolks are yellow.

An egg yolk is yellow.

Posted by: Rocky at May 15, 2006 8:05 PM
Comment #148431

Nuremberg this ain’t.

No one has much sympathy for Sadam and rightly so.

But this is little more than a show trial. It’s obvious to the world. You can bluster all you want silcilian eagle, it doesn’t make you look any better for your pandering.

Posted by: gergle at May 15, 2006 8:07 PM
Comment #148435

The other night I met someone who supported Bush and wanted to talk about why. For about an hour we tried to have a conversation, but we never got anywhere. Everytime he would make a point hewould start off by saying something like “when someone attacks you…” and I would be obligated to stop the conversation and point out that we were never invaded by Iraq. It was amazing how many times it happened, over and over and over again.

So - here’s why Bush’s case that Iraq had WMDs was so weak we should never have invaded:

1. We couldn’t convince anyone else besides England to provide more than token support for the war. That must have been some convincing evidence.

2. Scott Ritter served from 1991 to 1998 as a United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq in the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), which was charged with finding and destroying all weapons of mass destruction and WMD-related manufacturing capabilities in Iraq. He was chief inspector in 14 of the more than 30 inspection missions in which he participated. Scott by the way is a big Republican. Here’s what Scott Ritter said very publicly to Bush:

There’s no doubt Iraq hasn’t fully complied with its disarmament obligations as set forth by the Security Council in its resolution. But on the other hand, since 1998 Iraq has been fundamentally disarmed: 90-95% of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction capacity has been verifiably eliminated… We have to remember that this missing 5-10% doesn’t necessarily constitute a threat… It constitutes bits and pieces of a weapons program which in its totality doesn’t amount to much, but which is still prohibited… We can’t give Iraq a clean bill of health, therefore we can’t close the book on their weapons of mass destruction. But simultaneously, we can’t reasonably talk about Iraqi non-compliance as representing a de-facto retention of a prohibited capacity worthy of war.

We eliminated the nuclear program, and for Iraq to have reconstituted it would require undertaking activities that would have been eminently detectable by intelligence services.

If Iraq were producing [chemical] weapons today, we’d have proof, pure and simple.

3. Richard Clarke provided national security advice to four U.S. presidents: Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, consulting on issues of intelligence and terrorism, from 1973 to 2003. Richard Clarke says, “There’s absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda, ever.” Also, he has stated that Bush pushed the CIA to argue that Iraq was behind the 9/11 attacks. This shows Bush was gunning for them.

4. Recently, the Downingstreet memo came to light, which says that the “evidence of WMDs will be fixed around the policy of going to war”. It also suggests that if this doesn’t work, war could be forced by painting an American plane to look like a UN plan and then flying it over Iraq where it would be shot. Neither administration has denied the document is false. Blair has suggested it is correct.

5. The 1,000-page report by chief weapons searcher Charles Duelfer, a document that President Bush said would represent the last word on the issue, undermined much of the Bush administration’s case about the Iraq weapons threat. The report resolves disputes about allegations made prior to the U.S. invasion:

• Aluminum tubes that the Bush administration alleged were for nuclear weapons production were, in fact, for making conventional artillery rockets.

• Iraq did not try to buy uranium overseas.

• The team found no evidence that Iraq was developing biological weapons trailers or rail cars. Two trailers found after the war were for producing hydrogen gas for weather balloons.

6. Plamegate. If Bush had solid evidence, why would Scooter Libby need to release the name of a CIA agent to stop her husband from correctly pointing out that the document Bush was presenting proving that Iraq went to Africa to buy uranium had been identified as a forgery and long ago debunked within the intelligence community? Why was Bush presenting intelligence commonly known to be junk?

7. Bush pointed to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE)to prove Iraq had WMDs, but the report never said much of what he publicly proclaimed.

In an October 7, 2002, speech in Cincinnati, Bush said Iraq had a “massive stockpile of biological weapons.” The NIE said no such thing. As Tenet noted, “We said we had no specific information on the types or quantities of [biological] weapons, agent, or stockpiles at Baghdad’s disposal.”

8. Bush said Iraq had stockpiled biological weapons, suggesting his claim was based on the previous findings of UN inspectors. But the UN inspections team, which left Iraq in 1998, had not concluded that a stockpile remained. In fact, Rolf Ekeus, who headed the UN inspections effort, had deduced the opposite. In a 2000 interview, he said, “There are no large quantities of weapons [in Iraq]. I don’t think Iraq is especially eager in the biological and chemical area to produce such weapons for storage…. Rather, Iraq has been aiming to keep the capability to start up production immediately should it need to.” Tenet’s speech also contradicted Cheney.

9. Bush declared, “We found the weapons of mass destruction.” He was referring to two tractor-trailers discovered in northern Iraq during the war that the CIA initially maintained were mobile bioweapons labs. But Bush spoke too soon. Engineering experts at the Defense Intelligence Agency and experts outside government concluded that these trailers had been manufactured for other purposes, perhaps the production of hydrogen. Ignoring the well-known controversy over the trailers, Cheney in mid-January declared they were “conclusive evidence” that Saddam had programs for producing WMDs.

10. Tenet said that “initially the community was skeptical about whether Iraq had started chemical weapons agent production.” But, he added, once analysts saw satellite photos of shipments from ammunition sites, they concluded that Iraq was cooking up chemical weapons. That view was not unanimous. In September 2002 the Defense Intelligence Agency reported, “There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons.” And when Powell displayed satellite photos at the UN to back up his chemical weapons claims, independent analysts did not find them persuasive. Jonathan Tucker, a former weapons inspector who specialized in chemical weapons, said they probably indicated Saddam had some chemical weapons but “not huge amounts.” Kelly Motz, another weapons specialist, said, “The evidence is still circumstantial and open to interpretation.”

11. Bush and Cheney said Saddam was revving up efforts to develop a nuclear bomb. In August 2002 Cheney said, “We now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons…. Many of us are convinced that Saddam will acquire nuclear weapons fairly soon.” The next month Bush claimed a 1998 International Atomic Energy Agency report had said Iraq was six months away from producing a bomb. (No such report existed, and the IAEA in 1998 had said its inspectors destroyed the known components of Iraq’s nuclear weapons program.) In December 2002 Bush said, “We don’t know whether or not [Saddam] has a nuclear weapon”—a remark that suggested he might have one. But no intelligence analyst believed Saddam possessed such weapons. “We said Saddam Hussein did not have a nuclear weapon,” Tenet recalled. And the NIE did not depict his program as an immediate threat. It noted that Iraq would probably only be able to produce a bomb by 2007 to 2009 “if left unchecked.”

12. Before the war, intelligence analysts at the Energy and State departments dissented from the view that the aluminum tubes were destined for a nuclear weapons program, and the State Department analysts called the uranium-from-Niger charge “highly dubious.” They also concluded, according to the NIE, that there was no “compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing…an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquire nuclear weapons.” These analysts were not the only ones who accurately assessed the situation. On March 7, 2003, IAEA director general Mohamed ElBaradei reported that his agency’s renewed inspections had found “no indication of resumed nuclear activities…nor any indication of nuclear-related prohibited activities at any inspected sites.”

13. In his Cincinnati speech, Bush said, “We’ve also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical and biological weapons across broad areas.” He raised the prospect of Iraq attacking the United States with these drones. But the NIE concluded only that Iraq had a “development program”—not a “growing fleet”—of UAVs. And the intelligence analysts with the most expertise in the UAV area—those at the Air Force—believed that the UAVs under development were intended for reconnaissance, not WMD attacks. “The jury is still out,” Tenet said, “on whether Iraq intended to use its newer, smaller [UAVs] to deliver biological weapons.”

14. In mid-January, Powell said, “I have not seen smoking-gun concrete evidence about the [Saddam-Al Qaeda] connection, but I think the possibility of such connections did exist and it was prudent to consider them at the time that we did.” Prudent to consider the possibility? That’s not how Bush put it before the war.

15. Tenet said his intelligence team had never concluded Iraq was an “imminent” threat. Instead, he said, they portrayed Saddam as a “brutal dictator who was continuing his efforts to deceive and build programs that might constantly surprise us and threaten our interests.” Might, he said. Bush turned might into had. While Bush seemingly never publicly used the word “imminent,” he did say before the war that Iraq was able to launch a biological or chemical weapons attack within forty-five minutes and to hand WMDs to terrorists “on any given day.” He warned that “Hussein and his weapons are a direct threat to this country,” and the White House asserted that there was a “high risk” Iraq would use WMDs “to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its armed forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so.” What was the basis? Not the intelligence.

So the pattern is again and again he made it sound much more certain that it was. In fact, there was no certainty, and if anything, the evidence pointed the other way.

Being such a patriot I know you will turn against a president that lied to his country and troops about why we went to war.

Posted by: Max at May 15, 2006 8:16 PM
Comment #148438

Richard clarke is a dick!

someone might have to explain this to the slow dimwitted Democrat.

Posted by: lm at May 15, 2006 8:20 PM
Comment #148440

So much for no vitriol.

Posted by: Rocky at May 15, 2006 8:23 PM
Comment #148441

No delivery mechanism? Did I miss something on 911 or did they use a delivery system? One that used our own assets against us?

“Remember you can lead a horse to water, but would it not be smarter to ride it there?”

Posted by: Edge at May 15, 2006 8:24 PM
Comment #148442
Let’s focus on the WMDs only though.Let’s forget about firing anyone for the moment. The set of facts above is what you have to work with.Throw in the additionial fact that you are on the job only 9 months too,and 9/11 occurred.What would be going on inside your head?

Posted by: sicilianeagle at May 15, 2006 07:29 PM

Com’on SE, that’s way too easy! If I’m GW Bush I’m thinking about My Pet Goat.
Posted by: Dave at May 15, 2006 8:28 PM
Comment #148444

Edge,

“No delivery mechanism? Did I miss something on 911 or did they use a delivery system? One that used our own assets against us?”

Was Saddam behind Sept 11th?

Or was it someone else?

Posted by: Rocky at May 15, 2006 8:31 PM
Comment #148449

Stop the LIES!!

I was in Kuwait 2003-2005 and my other contractor friends showed me pictures that they took in Iraq of missles and chemical factories. I don’t have to debate if they are real, I know they were there.

All that I don’t know is why we don’t tell the world.

Posted by: Dances with Camels at May 15, 2006 8:37 PM
Comment #148450

Dear Sicilian Eagle,

You have no topic with this post, none. Your notion that it is us who utilize vitriol, that being an advertisement of a particular position in boastful words—you JUST FRIGGIN’ DID THAT IN YOUR POST!!!! HELLO?!!!

Our prayers and condolences are with your wife as you have clearly lost your damn mind. Doesn’t hypocracy embarrass you in the least? Dost thou have no shame Eagle of Sicily?

As for Saddam it would be best to kill him sooner than later at the pace this trial is going. It would be a boost to the Iraqi people’s morale of our occupation as they want (read expect) a swifter form of justice than this. We look like bureaucrats and not the heroes we want to portray ourselves as to the public, if that still is the public relations agenda at all. WE have to look like victors and victors don’t let Saddam reject his lawyers and take to soapboxing. Justice to the Iraqis and to our public relations needs is a gameplan of “Shut the f’ up and sit the hell down and let’s get on with this”.

Posted by: Novenge at May 15, 2006 8:42 PM
Comment #148451

Eagle:

Good luck trying to get people to look at the situation as it WAS, not as they know it to be in hindsight. Its amazing how many people now claim to have known definitively that there were no WMD’s in Iraq—-even Chief Weapons Inspector Hans Blix did not know that then, yet these expert chatters knew it. Amazing stuff.

Reminds me of how thousands of people remember seeing Wilt Chamberlain score 100 points againnst the Knicks. They talk about how wonderful the game was and what a great ambience Madison Square Garden provided for the historic feat.

Only problem is that the game was played in Hershey, Pennsylvania, and only 4124 spectators were at the game. Bad memories combined with revisionist history…..what a combo.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at May 15, 2006 8:42 PM
Comment #148452

Rocky, since you are good at asking questions … Was Saddam happy that 9/11 happened?

You point was that he has no delivery system to get weapons to the US.

Do you believe that there is no interest in getting a weapon of mass destruction into the United States?

In today’s world, not the past. Do we wait and find out about delivery systems?

Posted by: Edge at May 15, 2006 8:44 PM
Comment #148454

OH and Sicilian Eagle, WHO THE HECK IS “AL QUEDA”????????

Posted by: Novenge at May 15, 2006 8:46 PM
Comment #148459

Edge,

In today’s world apparently intel doesn’t mean anything—they’re still guilty look at ‘em! SO you are correct, in today’s world do we wait and find out about delivery systems? Apparently not in this “day and age”.

Dances with Camels, and you are a biochemist (slash) engineer I assume.

Joe Bagodonuts, Does the name UNSCOM mean anything to you? Or how about the CIA? Nuthin’? Just checking.

Posted by: Novenge at May 15, 2006 9:02 PM
Comment #148460

Edge,

We’re talking about Saddam. and preinvasion of Iraq.

If I remember correctly, the world was pretty much behind us and the only people that demonstrated against us on Sept. 11th were the Palistinians, even though Arafat sent his condolences.

Posted by: Rocky at May 15, 2006 9:03 PM
Comment #148465

We cannot leave Iraq until every terrorist inside it is dead. Regardless of cost and blood, we cannot allow Al Queda to win in Iraq.

Posted by: Aldous at May 15, 2006 9:19 PM
Comment #148472
OH and Sicilian Eagle, WHO THE HECK IS “AL QUEDA”????????

It’s a food treat from SicilianPigeon’s second favourite country: Mexico!

In Spanish, “queda” means, “it is” and “al” means “to” - hance, “Al Queda” means “To It Is.” (Hey, don’t blame me, it was those crazy Mexicans who thought it up!) Anyway, here’s a:

Recipe For Al Queda

1 “Paloma Siciliano” (plucked and cleaned)
1 cup diced Jalapeno Peppers
1 pound Botched Foreign Policy
1 boatload War-Profiteering
1 ounce Prevention

Take the ounce of Prevention and throw it out the window; place the Pigeon halfway into a frying pan while holding its feet to the fire; stir in the Botched Foreign Policy and the War-Profiteering; bring to a boil. When the dish explodes in your face, stick a fork in it.


Here’s a picture of Minister Of War Darth Rumsfeld giving the Recipe to Saddam Hussein on December 20, 1983, when he worked for President Ronald Reagan, a known connoisseur of Mexican cuisine:

Saddam later used the recipe to murder some tens of thousands of Kurds, who did not find it to their taste.

Posted by: Betty Burke at May 15, 2006 9:36 PM
Comment #148485

Novenge

Your post made me smile..no…laugh.You’re one funny poster!

By the way,I don’t have a wife.Tragic story.Have a beautiful girlfriend though.

Anyway,all I am trying to do (geez…everyone always thinks I am trying to set a trap) is replicate ,with scant information,the picture as the president approached it.

JBOD is correct in a sense that hindsight is 20-20.

Unfortunately,the president initially had to work with the fact that Saddam certainly gave the impression to everyone (including his staff….I’ll say that again) that he did possess WMDs….that there was a delivery system available (a suitcase would do,I think…along with a plane ticket),9/11 had occurred,plus intelligence everyplace was confirming WMDs….personally I think it would have been criminally negligent not to act.

On the other hand,Max has a pretty good list there of stuff that wasn’t available to the president initially,I think.

I don’t see a lie…a premeditated lie here at the formation of this story.

Again,using these scant initial facts,where exactly did the president lie?

Focus on the initial set of events please.

Pre-invasion.

Rocky

See?You got the trick question:Bravo.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at May 15, 2006 9:54 PM
Comment #148491

Betty

I hate Mexican…even Sicilian-Mexican.I’ll take a little pasta with 100% extra virgin olive oil,and a little cheese from Parma everytime.

The picture is interesting.

If anything it goes to prove the existence of WMDs.

Look closely at the picture.

You’ll see Rummy getting a receipt for all the WMDs that we sold them.

You musta forgot.

We know he had WMDs because Rummy has that receipt.

I read someplace that all the WMDs that Saddam bought would fit in a two-car garage.In a country rough the size of California…with a big desert to boot,plus a willing neighbor (Syria) ,it wouldn’t be impossible to hide those leftovers,no?

Posted by: sicilianeagle at May 15, 2006 10:02 PM
Comment #148494

SE,

When Bush said that the NSA only monitored international calls, that was a lie. When he said he had definitive proof Iraq had WMDs, that was either a lie, or total incompetency.

Posted by: Max at May 15, 2006 10:09 PM
Comment #148495

1. Bush cherry picked any positive WMD info. Even taking the word of single source informents who had a vested interest in overthrowing Hussein.

2. He disregarded intel that questioned or raised doubt that Saddam had WMDs. Even going so far as to ignore these people by saying they don’t work off of single source info.

3. Bush Co knowingly lied to the US Congress and the World about a forged document that stated Saddam wanted to buy uranium from Niger.

4. They knowingly lied about metal tubes that could not be used for enriching uranium.

5. This one is often forgotten: Bush pulled out UN inspectors that he knew were, slowly but surely, making progress. They were checking old facilities as well as HUSSEIN’S OWN PALACES. But because Rummy wanted to start the invasion before the brutal summer heat, they pulled out the UN inspectors and attacked in early spring.

Posted by: Matthew at May 15, 2006 10:10 PM
Comment #148497

Max

Thanks for at least being able to discuss the topic.

Ok.Now,using the scant info I presented at the top of the thread….no extra facts or tid bits….what would you have done….just try to answer that question,please.

Picture yourself only in that time frame.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at May 15, 2006 10:17 PM
Comment #148498
My view is that Saddam gave the world reason to believe that he still had WMDs

Umm… No he didn’t. Saddam consistently stated that the WMD was destroyed in 1993, the IAEA certified he had no nukes or nuke programs in Jan 2003, and UNMOVIC was just weeks from certifying that he had no bio-chem weapons or programs.

It’s pretty sad and pathetic that you guys have to make up some cock ‘n’ bull story about Saddam fooling us. Why don’t you just admit you were all wrong about the WMD, and the UN, Barbara Boxer, and the rest of the world were right.

Posted by: American Pundit at May 15, 2006 10:18 PM
Comment #148500

Matthew

(my son’s name)

All post invasion stuff you’ve presented….focus on that initial sub set of facts that I presented…limit yourself to those fats please.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at May 15, 2006 10:20 PM
Comment #148501

AP

Welcome to the Eagle’s Nest.Back from Singapore yet?

How about taking a stab at the question I posed?

Limit yourself to the initial facts presented.

By the way,the cock ‘n bull story came from translated documents that were captured…unless you think they were a plant or something….

Posted by: sicilianeagle at May 15, 2006 10:24 PM
Comment #148503

dances with camels,

I was in Kuwait 2003-2005 and my other contractor friends showed me pictures that they took in Iraq of missles and chemical factories. I don’t have to debate if they are real, I know they were there.

Perhaps those missile are disarmed and the rockets destroyed or dismantled by the first round of UN inspectors back in the 90’s. You don’t have to blow up a missile to make it unuseable.

Posted by: Matthew at May 15, 2006 10:26 PM
Comment #148508

Betty,

I wasn’t sure, I thought “Al Queda” was like the fourth night of Kwanzaa? But then reading your post I remembered the name from the cultural food section at the grocery store—it usually comes canned as I recall. Clever post, liberal tag team, nice.

Sicilian Eagle, you illustrated it well—that is pretty much as the president approached it. Saddam was asking him for help (???). That must have been between the tonsil check and the lice washing.

Posted by: Novenge at May 15, 2006 10:40 PM
Comment #148509

SE,
You should check your timeline, my friend. All the items I listed happend before the invasion.

Isn’t your subset of facts about Hussein’s claim of having WMDs?

UN inspectors were looking for them and making progress. Bush pulled them out well before they could complete their mission. Bush wanted to invade. Bush lied, soldiers died. Next question.

Posted by: Matthew at May 15, 2006 10:40 PM
Comment #148513

Matthew

Lots of things happened before the invasion.All I am trying to do it get you to at least understand how the president’s thought process worked at the inception.

Humor me.Try.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at May 15, 2006 10:51 PM
Comment #148518

Bush’s thought process?????? You got to be kidding! Okay, here goes.

Bush thoughts: I don’t have a clue about foreign policy so I will listen to Cheney and Rummy. They say invade. They say Hussein tried to kill my daddy. They say Al Qiada is in Bagdhad. Rove says it will get me a 2nd term. Sounds good to me. What do I have to do to make it happen?

There, I think I got it.

Posted by: Matthew at May 15, 2006 11:01 PM
Comment #148522

SE,

I really think it’s there. Um, read it again?

Posted by: Max at May 15, 2006 11:14 PM
Comment #148539

SE
As “Deep Throat” said in the Watergate years, “Follow the Money”. The “root cause” for going to war with Iraq was to find a way to repay all of W’s contributers he was beholding to. W has repeatly demonstrated that he is extremely loyal to his circle of friends— even at the expense of rationality. He raced to this war as a method of greatly enriching the pocketbooks of his buddies in the military industrial complex and presumably big oil.

The war could be fought to a quick and decisive end, expend billions in military equipment and supplies. The country could be repaired in a no-bid contract by Haliburton, Root and Brown, and then big oil would step in start shipping crude to the US.

Follow the money. Personal greed is the core value of this administration and controls all policy making decisions.

Posted by: lee at May 16, 2006 12:38 AM
Comment #148540

This just reminds me of the trick question of “when did you stop beating your wife”.

It’s not answerable. As if SE knows what Bush knew or had access to.

Unreal.

Posted by: womanmarine at May 16, 2006 12:58 AM
Comment #148541

A fifth-rate State Department Spokesman just announced that LIBYA will have normalized relations with the US.

Big Oil and Big Guns will be so proud of little Bush Junior.

Posted by: Aldous at May 16, 2006 1:01 AM
Comment #148544

Sicilian Eagle,

There was plenty of dispute about the WMD. Most people thought he had chemical weapons. Few really thought he had nukes. Let’s at least get those facts straight.

We had Sadam contained. It can be argued that he was bypassing some sanctions. It can be argued that he continued to be a threat to the region.

It can’t be argued that the major reason we went to war was an imminent threat to the US. At least by reasoned people. It could be seen as a strategic move, but many argued the folly of that.

But that wasn’t the bill of goods sold to the American people. I know Republicans like to quote Fox News babble as fact, but to hell with them and their fantasies.

Joebagofdonuts,

Isn’t 4124, thousands? It was when I went to school.

Posted by: gergle at May 16, 2006 3:42 AM
Comment #148547

I wanted to add, I always found it interesting when we were making the push for Bagdhad that an imbed asked a commander why the soldiers weren’t wearing their chemical suits, since there was the obvious threat of a chemical attack.

The commander answered that they didn’t believe they were necessary. I always wondered with all the hoopla about WMD and Sadam’s nihilistic chemical option, what was the intel they had that this wasn’t a problem. I never heard one reporter pursue this.

Posted by: gergle at May 16, 2006 3:48 AM
Comment #148548

0.47%

That how much of Hussein’s weapons the U.s. provided. You can get a picture of anything.

Posted by: blogjohn at May 16, 2006 4:02 AM
Comment #148555

Well I know that different types of deadly chemicial,gas and virus strains certainly can be carried in a suitcase or anything else for that matter..that is what I am alluding to.

I wonder :would the opinion of Max,Matt,ladymarine,Novenge,Betty Burke,AP ,blogjohn,Rocky and Jay change if a big stash of WMDs had been found?

Play it forward from that point please.

Let’s go there for a while.Please answer.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at May 16, 2006 7:14 AM
Comment #148558

To refresh your memory,this was an article taken from the San Francisco Chronicle in April of 2003,shortly after the invasion began.

Note that ‘Frisco has always been the hot bed of the anti-war movement.

In April of 2003,the vast majority of America supported the president.

So I ask you again:Was the issue not finding WMDs dispositive and later responsible for the drop in the polls or the fact that “Bush lied” dispositive?

If WMDs had been found,what say you?


FIELD POLL: 63% in Bay Area support war to remove dictator
Marc Sandalow, Washington Bureau Chief

Tuesday, April 8, 2003

Despite the Bay Area’s reputation as a hotbed for anti-war dissent, the overwhelming majority of residents support U.S. military action in Iraq, a Field Poll released today shows.

The first statewide survey published since the war began last month found that 3 out of 4 Californians support U.S. efforts to remove Saddam Hussein from power, a figure that mirrors national polls on the same question. The poll also found that California’s opinion of President Bush had risen since the war began, reversing a yearlong downward trend.

Although support for the war was lower in the Bay Area than elsewhere in the state, residents in the nine-county region told pollsters by nearly a 2-to- 1 ratio that they approve of the U.S. attack.

Asked “Do you support or oppose the U.S.’ taking military action in Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein from power,” 63 percent said they favor and 32 percent said they oppose, a result that surprised even the pollsters.

“The stereotype that one would have of the Bay Area would be that it is one of the hotbeds of the anti-war movement,” said Mark DiCamillo, director of the Field Poll, based in San Francisco. “For a poll to show strong support of the war here — that’s major news.”

National polls, including two released Monday, have consistently found that 70 to 80 percent of Americans support the war, a figure that has barely changed since its first days.


Posted by: sicilianeagle at May 16, 2006 7:39 AM
Comment #148559
By the way,the cock ‘n bull story came from translated documents

SE, can you link to anything that quotes Saddam saying he had WMD in 2003? You can’t. It doesn’t exist.

The translated docs your talking about show Saddam in secret meetings with his ministers yelling, “We don’t have anything hidden!” and “Don’t think for a minute that we still have WMD. We have nothing.” and “We played by the rules of the game. In 1991, our weapons were destroyed.”

Seriously, if Saddam ever said or implied he had WMD, then there wouldn’t have been any reason to send in the inspectors — just like there’s no need to confirm that Kim Jong-Il has nukes. Kim’s jumping up and down yelling, “Hello! Look at me! I have nukes!” Saddam always claimed he had nothing — and he didn’t.

No SE, the excuse that Saddam made us think he had WMD is bullshit. It never happened.

Again,using these scant initial facts,where exactly did the president lie?

Wow. We’ve been over this so many times, and you guys still refuse to accept it. Well, here it goes again:

Cheney lied when he said he knew exactly where the WMD were. Rice lied when she insisted that the aluminum tubes could only be used for a nuclear program. Bush never shared the pre-war intelligence caveats and dissenting opinions with Congress — he knew damned well there was no consensus on Iraq’s WMD in the intelligence community, but purposely mislead Congress and America into thinking there was. And Bush lied when he said there was “no doubt” that Saddam had WMD — there was doubt; Plenty of doubt.

How’s that, SE?

Posted by: American Pundit at May 16, 2006 7:52 AM
Comment #148560
I wonder :would the opinion of …AP… change if a big stash of WMDs had been found?

Of course. But it never happened. You can play fantasy games all you want, SE, but Saddam didn’t have WMD in 2003 — and according to recently released British government documents, Bush knew it.

Posted by: American Pundit at May 16, 2006 7:57 AM
Comment #148568

Gergle:

Isn’t 4124, thousands? It was when I went to school.

Yes it is, you are correct, sir. I should have been clearer, that while 4124 people actually saw the game, far more than that CLAIM to have seen the game, as evidenced by the comment below:

“Philadelphia’s Director of Press Relations was Harvey Pollack, who also served as the official statistician. The official crowd was listed at 4,124. “I guess I’ve heard 40,000 people claim to have been there that night,” Pollack says wryly. “But the building was only about half full.”

The story exemplifies the revisionist history that is common in so many people’s memories. And that was only about a basketball game, for which there were few agendas. Its far more prevalent when people have political agendas to pursue.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at May 16, 2006 8:35 AM
Comment #148569

SE,

Now I see your “debate” style. When someone challenges your positiona dn you have nothing real in reply, you smile and make a joke. Very eastern of you.

As for “If we found WMD’s”… We didn’t find any, only DickDonBush said they were there. Even the Brits knew there weren’t, and the memos said BushCo knew there weren’t. Everyone else had real doubts. No slam dunk. No reason for war other than some stupid ill concieved and now abandoned philosophy. There is no defense of your president, only excuses.

as for “National polls, including two released Monday, have consistently found that 70 to 80 percent of Americans support the war, a figure that has barely changed since its first days. ” That’s bullshit, unless you have links for respectable polls. And what do you mean by “support”? Do you mean people who say “We’re in it now, we’re screwed but have to stick it out” as “support”? How about “What % of Americans think the war was a good idea?”

Posted by: Dave at May 16, 2006 8:36 AM
Comment #148572

AP

Ah…a breakthrough old friend.

If WMDs had been found,you…the most lefty of lefties (take that in a good way,of course),responded “of course”.

Thus,because no WMDs were found,you came to the conclusion that everyone within 100 miles of the president…concocted a well cordinated lie.

The cordination,I assume also included other countries such as France and Russia I presume,not to mention Egypt. (I will discount both the Isreali Mossad and British intelligence findings as maybe being too close to America’s view)

But how so you square France and Russia’s confirmation…not to mention the others?

I disagree with the intentionial lie theory…I go along with the “flow” theory…that is,when all fingers point to a certain direction,then that must be the logicial direction to follow,no?

Perhaps the correct answer is a bad sub set of initial assumptions….bad inteligence so to speak resulting in the decision to invade…no?

I find it hard to believe that Condi Rice and members of both the NSA and Joint Chiefs of Staff are pathalogicial liars in cahoots with a sinister plot by the president and the vice-president.

Sorry,but I just don’t buy a conspiracy theory that big taking so many career prosessionial .

Following your theory,please link the actions of all the above together for me.

So far,you are rehashing old accusations.Let’s link them all together…all the outside professionals who helped the administration make this decision and now find a collective lie someplace.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at May 16, 2006 8:58 AM
Comment #148574

Dave

I find that a little humor can keep a discussion going in the right direction,frankly.

Anyone can hurl insults.

One liners are easy to find for the occasion.

However,I don’t back away from a fight..ever.

Here I am trying to engage you in a non-adversarial way.American patriot to American patriot.

Is that so bad?

I am trying to re-create the setting of information that flowed in from a million places that helped the administration decide to invade Iraq in 2003.

I am trying to get that mindset out there…for all to see.

Plus,by perhaps showing that this information came to the administration from sources in addition to that of his inner circle exclusively,then IF the decision was a wrong one(note I said if…I’ll have more on that later)it couldn’t have been based on a massive conspiracy but rather on bad information available at the time.

I asked that vitrol be check at the door. Thus far I have taken some shots here (not from you)that while humorous really don’t add to the discussion.I don’t think that shots are appropriate when the purpose isn’t to jump you or anyone.However I would like you (collectively) to simply look at the decision to invade from a completely different viewpoint and particuliarily I want to reach out to those in my party and ask them to re-examine the issue again.

There is an important election coming up in the very near future and we (The Republician Party) need to get the base back together.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at May 16, 2006 9:23 AM
Comment #148576

Joebagodonuts,

Okay so people lie about attending games?? Is that it? I mean if they weren’t at the game and 10,000 people claim to remember it as if they were there, then there are roughly six thousand liars. So I guess you are just saying we are liars then right? Your point is a little muddy—what are we lying about???

It can’t be a case of mistaken memory—there are those that are claiming to have ticket stubs making them liars. AND my question to you is what are we as you claim lying about?

Posted by: Novenge at May 16, 2006 9:31 AM
Comment #148578

SE,

You mean your question about what I would do if I were president? I really think that we’re in this war only because Bush was president. I don’t believe it would have happened had ANYONE else been president. Bush always said he felt his Dad leaving Iraq was a huge political mistake and that a full on war would have given him “political capital”. Pretty warped way to think about it. Only Bush’s mix of desire to finish what daddy started and arrogance in thinking it would be so easy could have led to the Iraq war. I honestly believe he saw 9/11 as a big opportunity to convince America to invade Iraq. You don’t?

Anyone else would have focused on rebuilding Afghanistan and then destroying the terrorist network. You really had to go out of your way to make 9/11 about Iraq.

This Republican I was talking to basically said something along the lines of “well at least Bush proved to the world that when we’re messed with we kick ass”. That’s not how the world sees it. It’s really a tragedy, but everyone sees this disaster was used by a corrupt government to manipulate Americans into betraying their ideals. All the righteousness we had, which could have meant everything in this war, was squandered.

SE, I really believe Bush has made the wrong choices, and then badly implemented them, at every step of his game.

Posted by: Max at May 16, 2006 9:52 AM
Comment #148583

Max

Bravo.An intelligent reply with zero vitrol.Terrific.

Now,assume you WERE president Bush..not anyone else and use only the operative facts given.See what happens.

I am glad we are talking civily though.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at May 16, 2006 10:11 AM
Comment #148584
Throw in the additionial fact that you are on the job only 9 months too,and 9/11 occurred.What would be going on inside your head?


Well, let’s ask Clinton about what was going on in his head when the the WTC was attacked approx.
one month into his first term
…and he didn’t blame GHWB, either! He managed to round up the perpetrators and get them convicted and they’re all in prison…and where’s Osama????

Posted by: Lynne at May 16, 2006 10:17 AM
Comment #148587

Novenge:

I didn’t claim that anyone was lying. In my estimation, lying requires intent, and I’m not placing any intent on people’s comments. I’m saying specifically that people are often mistaken about their memories. Research shows that eyewitnesses to crimes are often mistaken about what actually happened. This is not due to them lying, but rather that their memories are flawed. Over time, the accuracy of their recollections worsens further.

Its very difficult to ignore what we know NOW when we are remembering what we knew THEN. That’s why some people claim to have known all along that Saddam didn’t have WMD’s. As I stated, even Hans Blix didn’t know that prior to the war—he said clearly that he could not prove or disprove the existence of WMD’s. Yet we have “experts” who claim to have known more than the weapons inspectors themselves.

I hope that clarifies my point.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at May 16, 2006 10:43 AM
Comment #148590

SE,

It’s spelled “vitriol,” not “vitrol.” And if you don’t want people here to be virtiolic, I suggest that you try to be the same. Plus, you want to limit this discussion to facts only. Where are yours? That Saddam has been captured is indeed a fact, yet it’s the only one you offer. What is the purpose of your post?

Posted by: Mister Magoo at May 16, 2006 10:53 AM
Comment #148592

Joe,

“Research shows that eyewitnesses to crimes are often mistaken about what actually happened. This is not due to them lying, but rather that their memories are flawed. Over time, the accuracy of their recollections worsens further.”

How much of that has to do with the fact that most people aren’t paying much attention in the first place?

Your example of the Chamberlin game isn’t so much about faulty memory as it is about bravado. Too often people find it nescessary, for whatever reason, to impress folks that are gullible enough to belive it.
Some people just don’t want to think for themselves, and in the lead up to Iraq, Bush depended on that.

We were all there, some of us just weren’t paying attention.

Posted by: Rocky at May 16, 2006 11:00 AM
Comment #148593

SE, JBOD, etc.

You have all read Rove’s playbook and I commend you for your ability to stay on message. It has been the shining accomplishment of the right wing over the last two decades. Even the phrasing is similar between you. I especially like the tactic of accusing your opponents of doing exactly what you are guilty of doing.

For example, JBOD talks about revisionist history, but we all know that before the invasion Bush was trying to make the case that Saddam was an imminent threat to US security. Not that he had had WMD in the past, not that he really, really wanted them, or that he was a really, really bad guy, but that he had nukes and was about to use them on the US. He felt he had to make this seem true because most people believed at that time that international law required an imminent threat to justify invading a sovereign nation. To argue for an imminent threat, he had to inflate the type of WMD Saddam might have, to make what might be appear to be what is, and to make a long time frame look potentially very short. He was called on it at the time by many credible commentators, including professionals within the CIA. He pulled whatever strings he needed to get the job done, including humiliating Colin Powell, destroying Tenet’s career, and neutering the professional staff of the CIA, who opposed the twisting and doctoring of intelligence. Yet JBOD says that this obvious chain of events is “revisionist” while his fairy tale is true. All you need to do is read Hans Blix’s reports to see that he is revising history.

None of it matters now. “Alia iacta est,” as Caesar said while crossing the Rubicon. The die is indeed cast, and Iraq, Iran, the US, Israel, and the rest of the world will be paying for this for a long time. We just need to get the grip of the chimp and his minions off the reins of government so we can right our policies and again attain respect and cooperation in the world.

Posted by: Mental Wimp at May 16, 2006 11:04 AM
Comment #148598

Mental Wimp:

Its humorous that so many like you are forced—or maybe just coerced—into being afraid of Karl Rove. You think that I listen to Rove and follow his advice—how funny. I could turn the coin and claim you blindly follow the Howard Dean/Nancy Pelosi/Michael Moore subset, but that would be no more true than your statement about me. Which is precisely why I’d never say such a thing.

I recognize that Bush played up the WMD issue. I’ve stated repeatedly that I thought he did so far too much. I’ve never ever denied that he did so. I’ll repeat my point, since it seems to have evaded you. Those who claim NOW to have known there were no WMD’s are revising history. NO ONE knew that at the time, though some suspected it. I have to state it one more time: Hans Blix—the man who was in a position to have the utmost knowledge of Iraqi WMD’s stated that even he did not know whether they had them or not. That’s why he wanted more inspections—if he’d known either way about WMD’s, he would not have needed more investigation time.

My claim all along has been that Saddam was akin to a rabid dog on a fraying leash. Much better to deal with the dog while the leash still tethers him, rather than wait for the leash to break (the sanctions to be removed, in the case of Iraq).

Saddam was dangerous—we all agree on that. The degree of his danger was in question. Bush spent too much time on the WMD’s. I’d have preferred that he focus on all the resolutions that Saddam broke, and all the cease-fire agreements and promises he broke—those were enough for me to take serious action against him.

Its humorous, in a sad way, that you claim I’m revising history. You might as well have just said, “Nyah nyah, I’m not doing it…YOU ARE!!”

Posted by: joebagodonuts at May 16, 2006 11:17 AM
Comment #148606

In order to answer this “hypothetical” question we would need ALL of the information that the president had at the time. Since most of this information is still classified we can’t get into his head (a scary place, no doubt).

The facts you have given us are only those that are public knowlege. ALL of the information is what we need to answer a “hypothetical” question such as yours.

War should be a last resort….ALWAYS!!!

Posted by: Tom L at May 16, 2006 11:34 AM
Comment #148608

JBOD

If I understand your current point, you are saying that sure, Bush lied, but Saddam was a bad guy, so good riddance. Perfect. Exactly the Rove playbook position that was formulated well after the war had tanked.

But, c’mon, “…a rabid dog on a fraying leash…” is a bit over the top, too. I know you forgive yourself for the same type of hyperbole you forgive your fearless leader, but I don’t if the rest of us should. He was pretty much a toothless cat trying to get by on a weakened snarl. That became clearer the closer we got to the war Bush was pushing.

I’m really at a loss for why you articulate and thoughtful posters want to keep defending this president and his policies. The damage is so readily evident and keeps piling up. Surely you guys have a better example than this collection of all too frail humans.

Posted by: Mental Wimp at May 16, 2006 11:37 AM
Comment #148609

Mister Magoo

Sorry about the typo.We got flooded really badly here in New England and I’m on my son’s wireless laptop.

The facts are that I am trying to discuss the run up to the war from the limited “facts” that the president had at his disposal.

I think at this point I can discount an intentionial lie…or a conspiracy.

While there is plenty of blame to go around here,no one has yet demonstrated how the president pulled everyone from within his administration plus non-politicial career professionials plus internationial intelligence agencies and orchestrated a giant con on the world.

I don’t see it.

Posted by: alfredzappala at May 16, 2006 11:37 AM
Comment #148624

Mental Wimp:

If I understand your current point, you are saying that sure, Bush lied, but Saddam was a bad guy, so good riddance.

Well, obviously you weren’t understanding my point. In fact, you aren’t even close. Makes me wonder if your screen name is just a name or an apt description. Don’t even know how you could formulate that kind of thought from what I wrote unless….waitaminute….of course, you formulated your response BEFORE you read what I wrote. I get it now.

Seriously, I recognize that there have been mistakes made with regard to Iraq—I’ve got no problem stating that. The mistakes do not mean we should not have gone to war. There were mistakes made in WWII as well, both politically and strategically, but I think we’d agree that entering WWII was the right thing to do.

You illustrated my point quite well, though I think it was unintentional. Its easy NOW to say that Saddam was “pretty much a toothless cat trying to get by on a weakened snarl”, but we know that only because we called his bluff. Before the war, we knew no such thing. You might recall the numerous comments about how Baghdad was going to be a bloody street fight, how Saddam’s Republican Guard was a ferocious well trained fighting machine etc. THOSE were the sentiments THEN. Thanks for proving my point about memories and how they change.

As far as defending the president and his policies, you need to understand the facts about my position. I defend his stance regarding Iraq. That said, there have been mistakes made in strategies that have required changes in strategy. In general, I support Bush, but not blindly or unequivocally as you would like to suggest. I opposed his Medicare plan, I found his SS ideas not fully funded, though I like the idea of partial privatization if it can be funded, I’m on the fence (pun intended) on his immigration policies.

I’m free to say I support his choices in general. I’m free to say I oppose some of his policies. Why am I so free? Because I’m not a partisan, so I have nothing to hope for but a better America.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at May 16, 2006 12:08 PM
Comment #148626
I think at this point I can discount an intentionial lie…or a conspiracy.

Why? I gave you a list of the lies, and you just ignored it.

Seriously, when Dr. Rice said the aluminum tubes could only be used for a nuclear program — even though she knew there was no consensus in the intelligence community on their use — how is that not a lie?

When Dick Cheney said “There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction” — even though he knows there is doubt in the intelligence community — how is that not a lie?

When President Bush said, “Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons” — after CIA Director Tenet explicitely told him that Iraq had no active weapons of mass destruction program — how is that not a lie?

Just answer the questions, SE.

Posted by: American Pundit at May 16, 2006 12:19 PM
Comment #148631

SE,

Thank you for your reply. Whether Bush conned us into the war by deliberately misleading the American public is probably something we’ll never know…at least while he’s still in office. But we all know he did sell us on the imminent threat Iraq posed (a factual untruth), based on the convictions he arrived at through bad and incomplete intelligence. Max, Pundit and others here (not to mention Bob Woodward, Richard Clark, Michael Scheurer, the MSM et. al.) have already done a good job pointing to many of those facts, so I won’t beat that dead horse. But I will say, let’s stick to the facts…as you said you wanted us to. And those facts point to Bush’s eagerness to get us into a war based on dubious intelligence. Do you want to take us away from that fact by invoking a conspiracy theory no can can factually prove? If so, you’re doing exactly what you told us you didn’t want us bloggers to do - veer away from the facts.

Posted by: Mister Magoo at May 16, 2006 12:25 PM
Comment #148641

Everyone should stop for a second and think back to the path that was taken to get to war. Regardless of whether there was an inetent to decieve or not, there was a decided effort to eschew some of the checks and balances in place to prevent war, most notably the UN. Had Bush simply gone through established channels of diplomacy and allowed the UN to fully inspect Iraq before invading, he would have at the very least quieted much of the opposition, especially internationally, and possibly discovered that his intel was faulty and avoided the war altogether.

Looking back, it seems fairly obvious that the administration set their path to war with Iraq before the first troops had even hit the ground in Afghanistan. Did they intend to decieve us all in an effort to get the results they wanted? Were they so blinded by their own anger, fear, power or patriotism that they could only hear the facts that fit their theory? Or did they just screw up royally? While there are many people looking at this with 20/20 hindsight, that is how leaders are judged. When you’re talking politics, and especially the politics of war, the outcome will always determine how the protaganists are jugded by history.

Posted by: David S at May 16, 2006 12:59 PM
Comment #148648

David S.:

The problem I have with your thought process is the expectation that if given more time, the UN would have somehow accomplished that which it had been unable to do for 12 years. Inspections were set up early and often, yet were unproductive in part because Iraq was non-compliant repeatedly. What makes you think that a couple months longer would have brought about results different than the previous 144 months?

Secondly, I think Bush had Iraq in his sights from day 1 of his Presidency, and that he should have. Clinton had Iraq on the front burner for much of his Presidency as well, so its to be expected that Bush would also.

I think Bush hoped Saddam would not call his bluff, but Saddam did, and it wasn’t a bluff after all. I think Bush wanted to force Saddam to admit he had no WMD’s and back down, which would have allowed others to encite a coup de tat. As Clinton had said, Saddam would not give ground unless the real threat of force was employed, and his words proved true.

Posted by: jeobagodonuts at May 16, 2006 1:40 PM
Comment #148651

AP


Lie Def:
n.
A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.

There was no deliberate presentation of a falsehood by the president…..maybe negligent presentation…but not deliberate…..honestly I just don’t see a deliiberate,orchestrated lie here…

From the article you sited:

“The American people want to believe the president. I have relatives who I’ve tried to talk to about this who say, ‘Well, no, you can’t tell me the president had this information and just ignored it,’” says Drumheller. “But I think over time, people will look back on this and see this is going to be one of the great, I think, policy mistakes of all time.”


Drumheller called it a policy mistake…not a lie…and he was the “star” of the article.

continuing….


“The White House declined 60 Minutes’ request for an interview for this story, but Dan Bartlett, Counselor to the President, wrote us:

“The President’s convictions about Saddam Hussein’s possession of WMD were based on the collective judgment of the intelligence community at that time. Bipartisan investigations … found no evidence of political pressure to influence the pre-war intelligence assessments of Iraq’s weapons programs.” And he added: “Saddam Hussein never abandoned his plan to acquire WMD, and he posed a serious threat to the American people and to the region.”


“Bipartisan investigations for no evidence of politicial pressure to influence pre-war intelligence.”….doesn’t sound like a lie to me.

“collective judgement”….not single sources….

Posted by: sicilianeagle at May 16, 2006 1:55 PM
Comment #148653

SE,

I disagree with you that “it would have been criminally negligent not to attack.”

I think declaring war falls under the “beyond a reasonable-doubt” category. What we’ve learned in the last 3 years is that in addition to the evidence that Saddam had WMD, there was also a lot of credible evidence that the intel was dubious.

So, if it were me, I’d look at all the evidence, see reasonable doubt, hear the inspectors and the rest of the world asking me to wait, and then I’d wait. In the mean time, I’d make life as uncomfortable for Saddam as I could (short of war). Embargo, freeze assets, etc. Then I’d spend the 100’s of billions I saved on finding Osama.

You ask what we think was going on in Bush’s head at the time. Lots of stuff, including the Downing Street memo, tell me he was looking for any reason he could to go into Iraq. That’s what I think.

Looking forward to part 2.

Posted by: Jeff at May 16, 2006 2:02 PM
Comment #148658

Jeff

No problemo on the disagreement.The important thing is that we are talking.

I’m putting the finishing touches on part II…it’s a doosey…and will post it on Thursday…I think I will let my friend JBOD handdle further posts on this thread as he and I seem to be on the same page…but overall I was happy with the thread..lots of good give and take and no vitrol (McGoo…did I get it right?)

Now…I gotta eat my Eagle-Wheaties and don my battle gear for Thursday’s post…..thanks again!

Posted by: sicilianeagle at May 16, 2006 2:31 PM
Comment #148667

Please provide some evidence with Part 2 instead of just making the assertion that Sadaam and Al Quaeda are linked. The responsibility is really supposed to be on the poster’s part. We’re really not supposed to just say “the moon is made of green cheese now prove me wrong”.

We have everything but the videotape on Bush. If there were a trial (and there should be) he’d be found guilty of lying.

But let’s say he didn’t. He was really fooled. Well, with all the evidence he shouldn’t have been.

But let’s say you don’t believe he lied. Well, with all the mistakes he’s made, he should be fired.

But let’s say you don’t believe he made mistakes. Well, does massive failure mean anything? You can have all the excuses in the world, a failing student still flunks out and is asked to leave.

But let’s say you think this whole thing has been a success. Well, that’s pretty much just you. Sorry. I am sure I could trot out success indicators like there’s no tomorrow and you would still say “but that’s not proof it wasn’t a success”.

You know he lied about tracking only international calls. You know he wanted to attack Iraq before 9/11. You know the evidence of WMDs did not convince many. You know the evidence of WMDs was wrong. You know about Osama, Katrina, and all the other disasters. You know very many right wing Republicans think he’s crazy. What more do you need to stop worshipping this guy?

You want to know what I would have done as president? Stopped terrorism, put our money into a lockbox, developed alternative energy, and fixed social security. Oh wait, that’s what Gore was going to do. Arrrrrgh~!

Posted by: Max at May 16, 2006 3:05 PM
Comment #148674

Sicilian Eagle,

I will tell you what I would do…

I would have had our military as close to Saddam’s border as possible. Then I would have let Hans Blix finish the work he started. You know, the work we rushed him out of once we became trigger happy. Then I would have waited to hear from Blix. Guess what? We would have found out what many in the CIA had been telling this administration…. THERE WERE NO WMD’S!

Sorry Mr. Eagle, but this is NOT a courtroom. This is a warzone where people HAVE lost two sons. The Comander in Chief should know that.

Posted by: Vincent Vega at May 16, 2006 3:26 PM
Comment #148676

SE,

“Lots of things happened before the invasion.All I am trying to do it get you to at least understand how the president’s thought process worked at the inception.”

His thought process? Are we talking about the same thought process that led our President to read a children’s book while we were being invaded? Before any of you Neo-Cons get pissy about this comment, remember it only takes minutes for a nuke to hit. Those minutes were spent blinking and staring last time an attack happened. So lets stay clear from disecting our leaders thought process.

Posted by: Vincent Vega at May 16, 2006 3:32 PM
Comment #148677

JBOD revises again

I recognize that Bush played up the WMD issue. I’ve stated repeatedly that I thought he did so far too much.

in other words, Bush lied.

My claim all along has been that Saddam was akin to a rabid dog on a fraying leash.

Saddam is bad.

Much better to deal with the dog while the leash still tethers him, rather than wait for the leash to break…

good riddance.

Posted by: Mental Wimp at May 16, 2006 3:34 PM
Comment #148679

JBOD-

See Max’s earlier posts, where Scott Ritter asserted that 90-95% of Saddam’s weapons had been destroyed, along with most of his capability to rebuild them. If that’s not progress, I’m not sure what is. Just because Saddam wasn’t eager and excited to play along with the UN doesn’t mean the plan wasn’t working.

Posted by: David S at May 16, 2006 3:35 PM
Comment #148680

Max,

“a failing student still flunks out and is asked to leave.”

Did you forget who we are talking about? This guy is the only C student to get into an Ivy League school.

Again, thought process….

Posted by: Vincent Vega at May 16, 2006 3:35 PM
Comment #148687

Bush lied about WMD
Bush is responsible for global warming
Bush is in Iraq for oil
Bush ignored N.O. because he hates african americans
Bush had the levies blown up in N.O.
Bush single handedly destroyed public schools
Bush is listening to every phone call in the US
Bush ignored Darfur purposely
Bush pushed tax cuts for the rich only
Bush blindly supports Israel over Palestinians
Bush wants to establish a christian theocracy
Bush ordered the Valerie Plame leak
Bush knew about 9/11 before it happeded
Bush placed Bolton in the UN to undermine it
Bush is trying to stack the Supreme Court
Bush is planning to attack Venezuela (for oil)
Bush is a stupid cowboy

This just in: President Bush sent in navy seals Monday night to blow up dams in MA to teach John Kerry and Ted Kennedy a lesson. The rising flood waters were caused by a top secret weather making machine, (endorsed by Don Rumsfeld), first tested in New Orleans. Sources say the president was on the phone with with VP Cheney and Haliburton, (negociating the clean-up in the N. East after waters recede), moments before his Border Security speech, and counting his money made on oil futures.

Is that about right?

Posted by: JR at May 16, 2006 3:54 PM
Comment #148690

Bush lied about WMD (Yep)

Bush is responsible for global warming (Well by cutting Clinton’s clean air act, yes.)

Bush is in Iraq for oil (What oil? You mean the same oil that was supposed to pay for the war?)

Bush ignored N.O. because he hates african americans (Well when you would rather play guitar with some hick instead of going to a disaster area, I can see where some people might think that)
Bush had the levies blown up in N.O. (He is not that smart.)

Bush single handedly destroyed public schools (No, his bill did. He made everybody think that Texas was a great model. Big mistake.)

Bush is listening to every phone call in the US (Can you prove that he isn’t?)

Bush ignored Darfur purposely (Well at least you admit that there is a place called Darfur. Next option is to stop the genocide.)

Bush pushed tax cuts for the rich only (If you don’t think this is true, maybe you should see the gap between the middle class and the upper class.)

Bush blindly supports Israel over Palestinians (Yeah, so? Isreal has always had our back, so why would we not do the same?)

Bush wants to establish a christian theocracy (You mean the same person who got permission from a ghost? If that is not Christian Theocracy, then what is?)

Bush ordered the Valerie Plame leak (No his VP did. He hired the VP, so indirectly you could say that it was him as well.)

Bush knew about 9/11 before it happeded (He should of. But he was on vacation. While the memo “Bin Laden to attack US” ran through his desk, he was chopping wood.)

Bush placed Bolton in the UN to undermine it (No, he did it because he could. That is his style. And why some many countries dislike him.)

Bush is trying to stack the Supreme Court (Of course he is. So would a democrat President.)

Bush is planning to attack Venezuela (for oil)(Who knows what Bush will attack next?)

Bush is a stupid cowboy (The blank stare and the constant blinking after two of the biggest US buildings were collapsing, gives you a good idea doesn’t it?)

Any more questions?

Posted by: Vincent Vega at May 16, 2006 4:28 PM
Comment #148691

JR


This looks like the list Rush Limbaugh uses when he claims he knows what liberals think. Because you know that all liberals think the same thing…kinda like conservatives. Where did you get it?

Posted by: 037 at May 16, 2006 4:32 PM
Comment #148692

SE just a quick one for you. We have 3 threats we will call them A. B. and C. the year is end 2002
Threat A. has a compromised military due to constant air strikes in the north and south of his country.
This country has used chemical weapons in the past. May or may not have been developing WMD again.
Threat B. Has a program that we believe to be developing U-235 for Bombs. We don’t know its capibilities and has no compramised military.
Threat C. Is widely believed to have 3-10 Nukes. With a missle divelery system that can reach over 1000 miles. has tested this delivery system over one of our allies.
My question to you is which of these three poses a greater risk to America in 2002.
Threat A. Iraq
Threat B. Iran
Threat C. N. Korea
Why pick on the one that has the least capibilities.
Oh yeah we are still at war with N. Korea

Posted by: timesend at May 16, 2006 4:36 PM
Comment #148695

El Paloma Siciliano invited - no - *insisted*:

All I am trying to do it get you to at least understand how the president’s thought process worked at the inception.

Humor me.Try.

Okay.

Bush’s Thought-Processes:

Posted by: Betty Burke at May 16, 2006 4:47 PM
Comment #148705

Ok, I will spell this out real s-i-m-p-l-e for you anti-Bush and anti-War types…

Bottom line is, conspiracy theories are crap. Especially the one about our own governement ruining the economy, allowing 9/11 to happen, just to go to war by helping the 9/11 hijackers.

Crack is a bad drug and shouldn’t be used…

Back a long time ago people thought Saddam and the Republican Gaurd were a mighty force to be reckoned with. Critics of the war claimed the UN/US armed forces were out-numbered and doomed in 1991. Saddam had attacked before, with Iran and Kuwait. Mix in that the psycho had claimed, which we all believed(don’t say you didn’t -liar), that he had WMD’s.

Now, without 20/20 hindsight, and pressure from the people(remember they called Bush weak for staying with the kids in that school), what the F* would you do…

I personally I don’t know what I would do, but I find it arrogant and idiotic to say he was definately wrong. He may be, but no one knew at the time.

Posted by: Chris at May 16, 2006 5:30 PM
Comment #148706

Mental Wimp:

I can only write what I write. I can’t make it any clearer for you than I have already done. If you want to continue with your opinion, so be it. You’ve obviously reached your conclusions about what I have to say, because your comments have little to do with my posts. So be it.

DavidS:

12 years of inspections and sanctions and no-fly zones and Saddam was still not complying with the cease-fire agreement he agreed to. When someone breaks a cease-fire agreement, what should be done about it? Anything? Nothing? Another agreement?

Posted by: joebagodonuts at May 16, 2006 5:33 PM
Comment #148722

I find it hard to believe that Condi Rice and members of both the NSA and Joint Chiefs of Staff are pathalogicial liars in cahoots with a sinister plot by the president and the vice-president.~SE

check this post then tell me about how convinced we were that there were no WMD. PS nice blog keep up the good work!!

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm

Posted by: 037 at May 16, 2006 6:16 PM
Comment #148724

JBOD,

Well, in hind site, it WOULD have saved 2400 Americans, tens of thousands of Iraqis and billions of dolars……..but I guess that’s just nit picking.

Posted by: gergle at May 16, 2006 6:23 PM
Comment #148727

oops that last post should be for Chris now that I re-read it…liar you say???? Let me pose a question. Did Isreal think Saddam had weapons?????? Those light weights never defend themselves from real threats and their intelligence sucks! (sarcasm intended).

Posted by: 037 at May 16, 2006 6:24 PM
Comment #148728

Chris,

“Critics of the war claimed the UN/US armed forces were out-numbered and doomed in 1991.”

Powell and Schwarzkopf went into Kuwaitt (about the size of New Jersey) in ‘91 with 1/2 million troops.

Why is it then in ‘03 we went into Iraq (about the size of California) with less than half that?

And, please, don’t give me the old baloney about going into war with the Military you have.

Posted by: Rocky at May 16, 2006 6:24 PM
Comment #148733

Vincent & 037

Most of the seething rage and outrageous statements I listed above came from this and other blogs. If you look deeply into what you tend to blame the President for you will find, somewhere in the last 40 years or so, a failed liberal attempt at “managing society”. Darfur? Why not mention Rwanda in the same manner of loathing? Gap between rich and poor? Thank you “GREAT SOCIETY”. What did Carter or Clinton do to stop the decline of education in America, besides take care of the teachers unions for votes? With all the lawsuits stopping school prayer, asking for crosses to be removed and the 10 commandments being treated like mein kampf, has the President infuenced any of these decisions? He was on vacation during Katerina? OK, but where was Ray and Kathleen? Stared blankly and blinked his eyes? sorry, I guess he should have screamed like a little girl and run out of the room? So many countries dislike us in the UN because we won’t play the game - dictators and tyrants and countries who have a public hatred of the US because we allow our women to vote & work, because citizens can vote and because we are free to speak our minds without fear of governmental punishment, don’t forget the Islamist who view us with disgust because we’re still breathing. Those who support the war on terror have to prove that he’s not listening to every call, but you folks on the left can make the claim with no evidence but the Wash. Post or USA Today? I made the list up because inevitably those are the first things written whenever some topic is brought up on this page. What in the area of levy protection did Clinton do for 8 years? What about UBL? Bill and the environment? He took the nations largest supply of low sulphur coal off the market with an executive order - “stroke of the pen, law of the land, pretty cool huh?” Who can we blame for immigration? Dems controlled the hill for 40+ years - where was the commitment then? Nothing will appease folks who pile on the President until they can try to impeach him,(for no legal reason), thereby avenging the impeachment of Bill - “that depends what your definition of the word is, is..” Clinton. Disagree with policy, question his actions/reactions but name calling is childish. Bush embarasses you because he’s a man of faith, but Clinton acting like a fratboy in the Whitehouse didn’t? Let me apologize for all us idiots on the right, we’re sorry so much of the country is not on the same intellectual plane as you folks on the left.

Posted by: JR at May 16, 2006 6:47 PM
Comment #148736

Betty Burke

Classic…bloody classic.Funniest one yet.I sent it to about a dozen of my friends.Whatta gal….


timesend

I’ll take a stab.
#1 is North Korea simply because they have nuclear weapons and the regime is as stable as the Democratic Party Chairman.

037
Thank guys like David Reemer for Watchblog….he has desperately tried to get people to TALK to each other…and re-reading this thread overall I think it is going well given the flash-point topic.

Of course that remains to be seen once Part II is posted.

Part II is so good that you should pay to read it….throw a dollar bill at the computer screen on Thursday…. :)

#2 Is Iraq because that is the present front of the war on terror

#3 Is Iran. I am still holding out hope for this country.I said previously we better be goddam sure about this.No,triple goddam sure.This is the next predident’s fight barring something really stupid from them.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at May 16, 2006 7:07 PM
Comment #148739

Jay: How does someone as stupid as you even find the toilet? Some advice for your dumb ass; Have an original thought. Try not going to the DNC, Move On.org, or whatever web site is your daily source for talking points (and silly cliches). Try using truth and logic to form your opinions; it will be a refreshing change for you.

p.s.: Move to Cuba, please…

Posted by: Bob at May 16, 2006 7:16 PM
Comment #148741

Well said JR.

Posted by: Craig at May 16, 2006 7:19 PM
Comment #148742

JR
Well JR you have proven my point nicely..I didn’t realize I was a liberal when I called you to task for pigeon holing liberals.

I don’t recall what Carter’s education policy was. I do remember “Open classes” in the 70’s. Not the best idea. But, in conservative speak it is called “best intelligence at the time”. Oh and he thought living together before marriage was wrong and said so. Friggin libs they’re all the same. I bet he wanted alternative fuel too! Probably drives a Yugo.

As for Clinton I think he was for better qualifed and compensated professional teachers.

and a pay as you go program to stop out of control spending. Friggin libs.

But please, tell me if I am liberal or conservative I can’t quite get myself into a box.

Posted by: 037 at May 16, 2006 7:28 PM
Comment #148755

Mr. Eagle. One of the oldest tricks in the book is to make sarcasm when one can’t make sense. I think Matt’s post hit the nail on the head, but let’s see why.

What could the President have known about his intelligence information before the war? If you are going to reach a reasonable conclusion about lying one would have to determine what the President, or anyone, probably knew about the information they received as to its validity. I can recall, just from doing reading on my own, that the President, nor anyone, could have been so CERTAIN about the intelligence. There were always too many caveats, either implied or categorically stated, that accompanied the information.

Did we ever hear from the President or any of his administration that maybe, just maybe, the information they had may have been false? Never. That is why Ray McGovern’s confrontation with Secretary Rumsfield the other day was so important. McGovern called Rumsfield out about Rumsfield’s statements. Then Rumsfield lied, plain and simple about what he had said. Do not take my word for it, go back and review the tapes.

I am convinced that the intelligence on Saddam and WMD was shaky at best. To claim that it was rock solid was the lie. At any rate, the set of conditions surrounding the apparent lying merits, in my opinion, an impeachment proceeding. That is the best and only way to get at the true conditions surrounding the data that were told to us by this administration. Why this has not been done demonstrates a serious fault in our system.

Trying to guess what it was that motivated the invasion is like mind reading. We can make some assumptions, but to what end? Your guess is as good as mine. No doubt Saddam is a bad guy. That is not the question. Whatever personal reason the President had for his course of action is immaterial to what he said were the reasons for the invasion. That is something we can and must evaluate as a nation. If we cannot believe the reasons given for a war, what can we believe?

Posted by: cml at May 16, 2006 8:20 PM
Comment #148758

BTW, Mr. Eagle, Peace, cml.

Posted by: cml at May 16, 2006 8:22 PM
Comment #148760

SE,
I am happy Saddam is in a box, and at his own fault no less.

However to put one man in a box cost us

Over 250 billion dollars so far
Over 2,400 lives of our service men and women so far
I’ll stop there.

Maybe this should have been outsourced.

Posted by: europheus at May 16, 2006 8:28 PM
Comment #148768

Face it, Republicans… you’ve been had by your own. Bush and Cheney have done almost singlehandedly what hundreds of Democrats could not have done… that is, to discredit and disprove nearly every Republican fiscal theory and foreign policy stance. Bullying tactics have failed. Give to the rich to help the poor policies have resulted in massive fraud, cronyism, the false perception of a vibrant economy, a shrinking middle class, a growing lower class, record debt for our children, and the near collapse of American freedom.

When our government routinely manipulates the media, lies to and deceives the American public, runs secret prisons, argues in defense of its torture policy, corrupts and falsifies elections, spies on its own citizens, and invades countries who have not attacked us… well, we ARE the enemy that I was taught to despise during the Cold War years.

I’m seriously bummed. Where’s the next New World that we can migrate to build a government by the people, of the people, and for the people?

Voting Republican is now the equivalent of signing up with the Soviets or Nazis. Sheesh?

And NO oversight from sitting Republican Congress??? If those in the seats of power don’t object then I must assume they consent or agree with the policies. And these were the people who vented that Clinton was morally bankrupt? God help us all.

LibRick

Posted by: LibRick at May 16, 2006 9:15 PM
Comment #148785

Bob
Please critique the message not the messenger.

cml
So,the talk turns to foreign policy from education.Bravo.

Actually,I am never sarcastic…especially this week.My son Matt gets married this weekend so I am in a good mood overall.

Let me put it this way:Thirty years ago,Death at an Early Age influenced you.Last year,joe Smoe writes a book smacking arounf Kozol’s theories.Kozol responds by writing a new book refuting Joe Smoe.

In your case,who are you pre-disposed to believe?Kozol or Smoe?

Here,Bush…who had a history of delegating to and acceopting advice trusted advisors while Texas governor,turned to people in this time of crisis that he has history with…and confidence in for counsel.

He considered those with differing views…Colin Powell for one…but ultimately he filtered out those views that he wasn’t confortable with and naturally gravitated to those views,and people to whom he was.

Using the word “lie” is a bad choice of words,I think.There’s an inference of an intent to decieve hidden within that word….at most he was guilty of bad judgement…in choosing who he sought counsel with and (if you want to believe this) in the decision to invade Iraq.

We differ in how we see it.

Under my view,he didn’t “lie”

Actually you can figure our motivations,cml…historians do it all the time by examining the historicial record.I recommend Rubicon by Tom Holland…an excellent insight into the mind of Ceasar and the events leading to his seizing power in Rome for an example of a historian who does precisely that.

From what I understand about Ray McGovern,he has serious CIA history all right but of the sour grapes variety.He is a poor example to site,I think.

The intelligence was shaky…I concur rather I believe using it was a bad decision,not a lie.

pease

PS Adams and Jefferson had a wonderful exchange of letters late in life…perhaps you and I should do the same …and then publish them in book form.:)You are a wonderful intellect.
peace


Lib Rick
I want to parse out your above post on Thursday,when I post Part II.Promise me that you’ll visit and repeat the allegations made above please.I have tried to keep this thread on the question at hand (and have done a pretty good job,I think..with 108 comments so far and good points being scored on each side)

Posted by: sicilianeagle at May 16, 2006 10:00 PM
Comment #148787

gergle:

Well, in hind site, it WOULD have saved 2400 Americans, tens of thousands of Iraqis and billions of dolars……..but I guess that’s just nit picking.

Hindsight is a great thing. It makes us all geniuses. In hindsight, I wish I’d bought Microsoft long ago. I wish I’d bet Barbaro in the Derby. Gosh, if only I’d had George Mason going a long way in the NCAA tournament—why didn’t I see it ahead of time. And the Red Sox beating the Yanks a couple years ago in the Series—its all so obvious now.

By the way, if we’d stayed out of WWII, we’d have saved thousands and thousands of lives, billions of dollars and all too. Oh wait, but we’d be speaking German. Achh du lieber, why nitpick?

Posted by: joebagodonuts at May 16, 2006 10:07 PM
Comment #148793

joebagodonuts

Help me out with your analogy to Germany. Who did Saddam invade? I thought it was about WMD, or terrorism, or he was a tyrant killing his own people. BTW If those are the criteria for invasion why, pray tell, aren’t we in, well, most of Africa?

Posted by: 037 at May 16, 2006 10:29 PM
Comment #148800

SE,

Well, I suppose I did jump the gun, but your premise that this is all Saddam’s fault is patently absurd. Despite the best efforts of most Republicans, Conservatives, and all the Bush supporters (a dwindling crowd indeed) to paint the blame on Saddam, Bush made the first big move and the decision to put us where we are rests with Bush and Cheney and the cabal that laid out the deceitful misinformation about Saddam’s intent and capabilities. So I will wait for Part II but I see no other way to respond to your Part I other than to ignore its false premise that Saddam started all this mess. He was/is a single wasp irritating us. To strike at the nest is a fool’s mistake.

LibRick

Posted by: LibRick at May 16, 2006 11:02 PM
Comment #148835
There was no deliberate presentation of a falsehood by the president

I gave you three instances of just that, SE.

You chose to focus on just one, and — inadvertently, I’m sure — misunderstood what was written.

“The American people want to believe the president. I have relatives who I’ve tried to talk to about this who say, ‘Well, no, you can’t tell me the president had this information and just ignored it,’” says Drumheller. “But I think over time, people will look back on this and see this is going to be one of the great, I think, policy mistakes of all time.”

Drumheller is clearly saying that the President lied, but Americans don’t want to believe it. The policy — invading Iraq — was a mistake, and President Bush clearly lied to advance it.

That’s the point of the whole article, and it’s disturbing that you missed it. Should we blame that on your college professors?

So, nice try SE, but you still haven’t answered the questions. Specifically, how are the examples I provided not lies? Just answer the question.

Posted by: American Pundit at May 17, 2006 1:41 AM
Comment #148847

SE,

you said:

“My view is that Saddam gave the world reason to believe that he still had WMDs…keeping the fact that he did not from everyone except his two sons.”

Uhhh….you forgot to mention us. It is now very much out in the open that the inteligence was manipulated. Bush knew and his cabinet knew because they were told by the very sources they took out of context, that there were no longer any WMD’s!!! The British sources had already recanted BEFORE Bush quoted them in seeking justification.

This reality is even getting rehashed on the ideologue channel: FOX.

…as for the Al Qeada connection, no again, SE. There is no connection between Sadaam and Al Qeada. It isn’t there. Yes, Zarqawe is in the North of Iraq. He was sent there to stir up trouble by Osama because we created the battlefield for that to happen. It is opportunity knocking for the terrorists and told them where the door was. How do I know this? this was reported from those Osama tapes that keep getting sent in to Al Jazeera. You can find it for yourself, if you wish. Also, it is worthy of note that the North of Iraq was and is a great place to hide within Iraq if you want be hidden and still be present to stir up trouble. SE, you may well be the last member of the GOP still trying to fabricate a connection between Sadaam and Al Qeada.

Nobody on the left is going to argue that Sadaam is anything less than evil. That is not the point, though. He was not a threat and we knew it. That fact has been public knowledge now for more than a year. Changing the mission after the fact to justify it by saying that Sadaam was evil and needed to be replaced still does not negate the fact that without the WMD’s the whole justification for war is gone. The last vestige of gray area for legality for this war was that there was a clear and present danger posed to us by WMD’s ….WHAT WMD’S???
There is now no mistaking the fact that the war was, is utterly illegal. It is a violation of both American and International law. No ifs ands or buts about it.


Posted by: RGF at May 17, 2006 3:56 AM
Comment #148857

Yay LibRick!

:o)

Posted by: Betty Burke at May 17, 2006 5:35 AM
Comment #148869

AP

“You chose to focus on just one, and — inadvertently, I’m sure — misunderstood what was written.”

Exactly where in that article was the word “lie” written?


“But I think over time, people will look back on this and see this is going to be one of the great, I think, policy mistakes of all time.”

He said a policy mistake.You jump from there and mutate it into the word “lie”.

Neither Cheney nor Rice lied….they mis-spoke based on what was intelligence.

Just like Ike did on D-Day.Bad intel told him that Normandy was a nice place to land.Someone forgot the hedgerows.No one called him a liar except maybe the isolationists.

A decision made on bad intelligence is one thing..a lie another.

Show me the conspiracy.Square it with the whole lot…the inner circle….career professionials…outside intelligence agencies…

A conspiracy is an unlawful combination between two or more parties.

For the purposes of this conversation,the administration used (I’ll even stipulate to cherry picked intelligence) from groups (a)career professionals and (b)outside intelligence agencies.

Link the conspiracy among all three together,please.

It was a bad decision based on bad intelligence…the same came be said for both Cheney’s and Rice’s statements.The evidence you site was a part of information that both chose to reject prior to making their decision whether or not to use it.

PLUS,a bi-partisian committee concluded there was no wrong doing.

Emphasis on the word bi-partisian.

You musta misunderstood that portion of the article,old friend


Lib Rick

“Bush made the first big move and the decision to put us where we are rests with Bush and Cheney and the cabal that laid out the deceitful misinformation about Saddam’s intent and capabilities.”

Gassing Kurds was a bigger move if you ask them I think, but yes the decision that we are there clearly was the president’s.Ultimately however,the peaks and valleys of this war still need to be played out a bit more.


RFG

“SE, you may well be the last member of the GOP still trying to fabricate a connection between Sadaam and Al Qeada.”

Was there a connection between Japan and December 11,1941?
No.

Two fronts.

Same here.

I will add this:If Saddam and OBL weren’t actively plotting…then certainly were carpoolong together.

“The enemy of my enemy is my friend”

Favorite Muslim saying.


Posted by: sicilianeagle at May 17, 2006 7:07 AM
Comment #148876

037:

Hopefully, you can see that the world today is far different than it was in the 1940’s. As such, we have different reasons for taking actions. Technology makes this so. So any analogy needs to take this into account. I sort of figured people would do that on their own, but I was mistaken.

I was pointing out to gergle that any war has a cost in lives and dollars. Those are important factors to consider, but they are not the only factors that bear consideration.

I’d ask you this simple question: If you defeat someone in war to the point that they surrender, and they turn around and violate the cease-fire agreement repeatedly and purposefully, what do you do about it?

Posted by: joebagodonuts at May 17, 2006 7:28 AM
Comment #148899

SE,

huh…? Japan? What the..? …carpooling…?
Most of the time SE, you just sound like someone who is VERY ENERGETICALLY not making any sense.
Did you take all your meds in the right doses?

Posted by: RGF at May 17, 2006 9:36 AM
Comment #148906

RFG

Hey…from this altitude..with all this fresh,clean air…The Mighty Eagle needs no meds…

Posted by: sicilianeagle at May 17, 2006 9:59 AM
Comment #148916

Eagle:

As you magnificently soar on the thermals, your wings taut against the breeze, your feathers shimmering in the sunlight, eyes wide to the wonders of the world…as you look down from the grandiose heights in which you thrive, remember this, my friend:

The left sees not your majesty, nor how eloquently you speak the truth, nor how wisely you engage others with your opinions, for their world is too far beneath you. They see only the black and white spatter you leave on their windshield and thus conclude that is all there is to see. If only they could see the full picture of how you chase down prey, the magnificent violent machine that you are, and the symbol of victory. But alas, they cannot, for as they engage their wipers, smearing the last vestiges of your knowledge on the glass, they are left with nothing but the need for a good cleansing.

Posted by: freddieflintstone at May 17, 2006 11:02 AM
Comment #148917

SE,

“The enemy of my enemy is my friend.”

That can make for some mighty strange bedfellows.

I think we need to have a better criteria in picking our friends.

Posted by: Rocky at May 17, 2006 11:04 AM
Comment #148926

Max - re: your large list of evidence - what about this?

Posted by: Gandhi at May 17, 2006 11:38 AM
Comment #148928

Hey…from this altitude..with all this fresh,clean air…The Mighty Eagle needs no meds…

Posted by: sicilianeagle

The “mighty eagle” is suffering from oxygen deprivation, clearly.

Posted by: RGF at May 17, 2006 11:41 AM
Comment #148936

Freddieflintsone

(As the Mighty Eagle wipes a tear from his eye)

Truly elegant.

I am ordering the business cards as we speak.Where oh where is my friend Betty Burke when I need her? :)


“The left sees not your majesty, nor how eloquently you speak the truth, nor how wisely you engage others with your opinions, for their world is too far beneath you. They see only the black and white spatter you leave on their windshield and thus conclude that is all there is to see. If only they could see the full picture of how you chase down prey, the magnificent violent machine that you are, and the symbol of victory. But alas, they cannot, for as they engage their wipers, smearing the last vestiges of your knowledge on the glass, they are left with nothing but the need for a good cleansing”

Posted by: sicilianeagle at May 17, 2006 12:11 PM
Comment #148940

Yep,

The right has been crapping on America for some time now.

Where are those homeless guys with their squeegees when we truely need them?

Posted by: Rocky at May 17, 2006 12:23 PM
Comment #148944

Ganji,

If that is your evidence it explains alot about your posts. Please try to expand what you read to beyond the selfgratifying and into the realm of critical thinking.

SE,

Interesting response to freddie. If you’re a bird looking down on what you left on a cars windshield, then what is your “black & white splatter”?

Posted by: Dave at May 17, 2006 12:43 PM
Comment #148951

Dave


Correct…should be red,white and blue splatter…stop the presses!

Posted by: sicilianeagle at May 17, 2006 1:00 PM
Comment #148972

Shall I take to mean you are SH**ING on America?

Posted by: RGF at May 17, 2006 2:25 PM
Comment #148977

RFG

Now I know definately that libs have zero,zip,nada zilch sense of humor.Geeezzz….

Posted by: sicilianeagle at May 17, 2006 2:34 PM
Comment #148988

Rocky,

Obviously you missed my point. Furthermore, what does the number of troops we invade with have to do with what I said?! We can discuss any point about the situation you want, just one at a time please…

Even furthermore, if you think about it, we assessed Saddam’s military strengths as less than that in 1991, due to the ease of battle in 91’ I’m sure. My whole point was that everyone thought he was a bigger threat than he was… before the original Gulf war and now those are trying to deny it, which is wrong.

Pay attention man.

Posted by: Chris at May 17, 2006 3:20 PM
Comment #148996

SE,

You want to see humor?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-869183917758574879

Posted by: RGF at May 17, 2006 3:41 PM
Comment #149018

Chris,

“Even furthermore, if you think about it, we assessed Saddam’s military strengths as less than that in 1991, due to the ease of battle in 91’ I’m sure. My whole point was that everyone thought he was a bigger threat than he was… before the original Gulf war and now those are trying to deny it, which is wrong.”

Not everyone thought he was a “greater threat”, and if he was such a “greater threat” why then, did we go in “light”?

The intel that we were going by was years old and even though Saddam was indeed thumbing his nose and not entirely cooperating with the UN, inspections were taking place until Mr. Bush decided to invade. Those inspections found nothing.

Mr. Bush repeatedly told us he knew what he was doing, even in the face of world wide demonstrations against our intent to invade.

Posted by: Rocky at May 17, 2006 5:24 PM
Comment #149062

JBOD,

Well you asked. And yes, hindsight is a wonderful thing but so is foresite.

oops 1
oops 2
oops 3
oops 4

Posted by: gergle at May 17, 2006 7:56 PM
Comment #149153

La Paloma Siciliano taunted:

Where oh where is my friend Betty Burke when I need her? :)

Right HERE, sweetiekins, tracking your Azimuth and Elevation with a much bigger Gun than Darth Cheney has ever used - and remembering to Lead…

Say, when you don’t say that you are Al M. Zappala, Esq. - you don’t mean that you are this Al Zappala, Esq., do you? Because he seems to be some sort of Crook!

And, I’m pretty sure you’re not this Al Zappala, because he lost his son in Iraq, and is speaking out against BushCo.’s Elective War.

So, you must be the Al Zappala of Lawrence, MA, whose Work telephone number is: 1(978)686-7667 - right?

Betty doesn’t like to be Screwed With - and I *think* she might have mentioned that she has Experience with the `net going back to the old ARPAnet days…

Experience which one can only gain after a certain number of hours playing Core Wars via Telnet between government CDC Star® systems.

It’s not nice to screw with Betty.

I won’t be so Nice either, if it ever happens again.

Posted by: BettyBurke at May 18, 2006 7:01 AM
Comment #149174

Bettye

Now ,now….why so nasty?

No,I am neither the Conn. attorney nor the Arizona Al either.

Nice dective work..all you had to do was go to my profile,I think,then link to my blog.

Good work.Feel better?

By the way,the name is Alfred,but I have had a lot of fun using the nom di internet Sicilian Eagle.I can change it if you like.People feel less threatened when replying to an Eagle,I think.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at May 18, 2006 9:03 AM
Comment #149492

Goodol’bets

Seriously…my blog has my name on it…always has..plus my website is awesome too

No apology necessary.I think you’re passionate about your views,something I respect.

Posted by: alfredzappala at May 19, 2006 2:59 PM
Post a comment