McCain Believes Americans Misled

Republican Senator John McCain once wholeheartedly defended the war on Iraq. Now, according to an MSNBC article, Sen. McCain believes the Bush administration misled the American public about the difficulty of war.

McCain believes Americans "were led to believe this could be some kind of day at the beach, which many of us fully understood from the beginning would be a very, very difficult undertaking."

Which Americans? Since when is war a day at the beach? Innocent people die in this war. Many died defending our country, the United States of America. Compare the travesties of the Iraq war to those of World War II and Vietnam. World War II had the loss 405,399 American troops. Vietnam lost 56,244 American troops. As of today, there have been 2,609 American deaths in the War on Terror.

In case you missed that, 2,609 Americans since March 19, 2003. Three years and five months of defending the United States. Three years and five months of providing the Iraqi government the tools it needs to be a strong, independent, free country.

Yes, war is difficult. War is tragic. Lives are lost, every day. Does that mean we should give up? We should raise the white flag and show the world that America can't follow through on it's promises? We break our commitment the second things turn ugly?

Are Americans that naive that they believe war is easy? That no one would be injured or killed? Have we not learned anything from the past 27 years of terrorist incidents in our country?

Sen. McCain seems to think that the Bush administration has failed. The polls are not in our President's favor. One cannot base his job performance on polls alone. That is a bad move in this political chess game. Sen. McCain is starting to sound like most Democrats. You know the ones. Always crying and whining about "Bush lied! Kids died!" and demanding withdrawal of troops immediately because the loss of life is devastating. I agree 100%! The loss of life is devastating. But where do we draw the line? Why are we not crying about the loss of 1.3 million aborted babies every year?

Senate Democrats believe that the withdrawal of troops, gradually, is the most efficient way to win the war on terror. They believe our phasing out of troops will encourage Iraqis to strengthen their government. Perhaps this is true, but you can't force a child to walk before his legs are ready. The Iraqi government has a long road ahead of them. They depend on Americans to help them as we promised. Cutting and running now will only cause their government to fail. The enemy will surely follow us back home.

As Americans, are we willing to see a repeat of 9/11? One can only hope the answer is, "No!"

Posted by Dana J. Tuszke at August 24, 2006 3:39 PM
Comment #177252

There’s no mystery.
McCain is running for president.
As for what is going on in Iraq, that is not making America safer, there was no WMD (of any significance), and nation-building should not be our job. It was a mistake, and the chance to do the job right (that’s a criticism of government; not the military) and get out early has already past. Iraq is not worth the loss of any more American lives.

Posted by: d.a.n at August 24, 2006 3:58 PM
Comment #177253

McCain is spot on. If we all knew this was going to be hard the Bush administration should have committed enough troops, rather than go in with the minimum necessary, arguing that this was going to be a test case for setting up a government on the cheap.

Right now, the war in Iraq is hurting our efforts to fight terrorism. Iraq is a small part of the war on terror, which is currently eating all of our time, resources, and money. I would be all for staying provided the goal is attainable, but its clear to me a sizable number of Iraqi’s do not want us or democracy in Iraq. We can’t shove it down their throats.

Bush’s dream of setting up a democracy in Iraq was a great dream, but, unfortunately, was naive, not to mention poorly planned and executed. I admire the goal, but there is no point in throwing good money after bad with little to no hope of results. I surely wouldn’t run a company that way. At my company we start projects only to find we have to cut and run all the time. It’s a part of life and trying new things.

The Iraq debacle has sucked up enough of our time and resources already. It was a fool’s errand, and probably Osama’s dream come true. Bush has done more damage to this country at this point than Osama. It’s the truth.

If you truly don’t want to see a repeat of 9/11 than vote to leave Iraq and start solutioning for the commonsense problems we need to address.

Posted by: Max at August 24, 2006 4:26 PM
Comment #177254

Lots of assumptions here not stated. Here are a few:

1) The Iraq War was a response to terrorism.

2) McCain is not being truthful when he said the administration painted a rosy picture. (Essentially the writer of this article is saying Americans were fools to believe the administration.)

3) Our freedoms were threatened by Iraq. (Our freedoms are threatened by our own government, not by any other country.)

4) Terrorists will follow us home if we leave. Unknowable. Most attacks in Iraq are sectarian. It’s an interesting theory, though. Put Americans at risk in another country as a decoy bull’s eye.

I have no doubt that the current crew will continue the fallacy of linking the Iraq War to 9/11, as you did in your last few sentences. From a tactical point of view, I suppose playing on fear is better than examination of the record.

Democrats are not united on immediate withdrawal; there are a range of options, as presented in a recent article on the blue side of Watchblog.

What is clear is the failure of Bush and company. If you’re going to launch a pre-emptive war, you better make damn sure of your evidence. Hell, we couldn’t be stopped even by weapons inspectors begging for more time. Meanwhile, the fiasco has led to an emboldened Iran. Do we trust our current leadership in dealing with genuine threats? Including, yes, terrorism!

Posted by: Trent at August 24, 2006 4:28 PM
Comment #177260

you wrote:
“In case you missed that, 2,609 Americans since March 19, 2003. Three years and five months of defending the United States. Three years and five months of providing the Iraqi government the tools it needs to be a strong, independent, free country. “

You have two misstatements in that one paragraph
3 Yrs and 5 months of “defending the United States”
HUH???????? It has long ago been disproven that Iraq was in any way shape or form about to (let alone able to) attack the US (not even thru “terrorist proxy”) — the US Military in IRAQ is not in any way shape or form “defending the U.S.”

As regards to providing anything to IRAQ, the only thing we have provided is the preamble to a civil war.
The government is weak, incompetent and unable to govern it’s own country.
The Iraqi Police are full of death squads that are responsible for kidnapping and executing thousands of their own citizens (due to religious differences)

this is a joke, right
As regards to your trying to belittle McCain’s position — (altho — as in an earlier post I have lost respect for him due to his becoming a Bush Lackey) — you conveniently overlook the obvious.
There are TONS of video of the Bush groupies (Rummy, Condi, Cheney, and Colin) making the rounds prior to the war promoting it in terms of “walk in the park” “being met as liberators” — “no more than 6 Months” “no more than 100-200 casualities — TOPS” etc etc
It was NOT the American People (at least not those of us with more than 1/2 a brain cell) who believed this would be a walk in the park — it was the Bush Administration who tried to sell that pig!!
I find it amazing that it took so long for McCain to wake up to that (it must be whatever BS potion Rove fed him that made him the Bush lackey he has become)

And if you REALLY believe this Iraq war has anything to do with (or will) prevent another 9-11!!
Boy, do I have some “waterfront” property to sell you!!!!

Posted by: Russ at August 24, 2006 5:24 PM
Comment #177261

McCain is pandering to anti-Iraq war sentiment just in time for elections. How typical is that? McCain used to have my respect for integrity.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 24, 2006 5:38 PM
Comment #177262

Dana concluded, “The enemy will surely follow us back home.”

What evidence of that do you have. This is pure crock and paranoid conjecture. The Civil War in Iraq is taking place between Shia and Sunnis, who have no interest at all in America except our leaving their country. Get a grip. They won’t be coming here if we leave, they will just continue exercising their new found freedom to wage civil war on each other. That’s all.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 24, 2006 5:42 PM
Comment #177263

Did you know the failed state of Somalia recently became united under a movement very similar to the Taliban, the Islamic Courts Union? Did you know the Islamic Courts Union is led by a former compatriot of Osama bin Laden?

How much oil is in Somalia?

Did you know southwestern Afghanistan is back under the control of the Taliban? That is, as much as anything in southwestern Afghanistan can be under control in the first place.

So, Dana, I cannot see how an Iraq subsumed by civil war could be any worse for our national security, given the situations in Somalia and Afghanistan, that it already is. The perpetrators of 9/11 already have safe havens. In Iraq itself, Fallujah, Ramadi, and, well, most of the country is already out of control.

If Iraq were a matter of national security, we would be discussing a draft. What Iraq really represents is a threat to the political security of the Bush administration and the Republican party. You play politics with our troops, with their lives, with the security of our country, all in the name of influencing elections and and catering to Big Oil.

McCain is distancing himself from the debacle. How long before you do the same? We are spending $257 million per day on Iraq, not to mention all those lives. Surely you can think of a better use for all that money and all those lives?

Posted by: phx8 at August 24, 2006 5:43 PM
Comment #177264


A child will never learn to walk if you hold them in your arms all the time. You must put them down and let them fall.

The time has come for the people of Iraq to take some baby steps. Yes, they will fall. If they really want their freedom they will get back up and take more steps, until they can walk on their own.

Posted by: mark at August 24, 2006 5:45 PM
Comment #177265

Now I’ve heard everything Dana…thanks. I guess we should just wait until a half-million people die before we can even begin to complain about the tragic loss of life for this meaningless and already lost battle for Iraq. I guess I’m “naive” to believe that 3000 deaths is far too much cost for how little benefit we will derive (probably a negative amount) even if we do keep it from escalading to full scale civil war.

And please stop with the Iraq and 9/11 connection. Did you see the press conference where Bush said the connection was “NOTHING”!

Posted by: Kevin23 at August 24, 2006 6:00 PM
Comment #177272

“I think one of the biggest mistakes we made was underestimating the size of the task and the sacrifices that would be required,” McCain said. “Stuff happens, mission accomplished, last throes, a few dead-enders. I’m just more familiar with those statements than anyone else because it grieves me so much that we had not told the American people how tough and difficult this task would be.”

What is so bad about saying that? It is true that in any complex situation, mistakes are made. McCain did not say the we went into Iraq for dishonest reasons, nor that we should pull out.

Don’t make such a big thing about nuance. I believe Bush might say the same.

Posted by: Jack at August 24, 2006 6:38 PM
Comment #177273
McCain is pandering to anti-Iraq war sentiment just in time for elections. How typical is that? McCain used to have my respect for integrity.
Is it not truly sad what those cu$hy, coveted seats of power do to people? Most (if not all) inumbent politicians are FOR SALE.

It was truly surprising, having had some respect for McCain (until now). To suddenly see this 180 degree flip-flop is quite a sight.

Does McCain think the voters are that stupid ?
No … don’t answer that question. The answer may not be what we want to hear.

Guess we’ll just have to wait and see where it gets him.

Posted by: d.a.n at August 24, 2006 6:44 PM
Comment #177276

Sure is a lot of conjecture from 5-star wantabes. I sure am thankful you wantabes aren’t making the decisions about Iraq, terrorism, Lebanon, Iran and on and on. I don’t agree all the time with decisions made on those situations and countries, but there are people who have information far greater in quantity than any of us have and they are making decisions that they feel are the best for the nation. The intel that is out there is one of the key driving forces for what our leaders do. For instance, many people complain about inspection of incoming shipping cargo containers. Nobody talks about the ability of the radar imaging precise enough to distinguish certain features on air and sea craft. These are employed now. Using this asset is helping to prohibit the use of cargo containers to import terrorist assets. There is technology to detect where a weapon is being used in a building before the shot even reaches the target. The point I am trying to make is that we do not have enough info to determine who lied, and if they lied, what was lied about and by whom. We in all of our wisom and ego-centric attitudes think we got a handle on it, but not of us do. This means left/right, dem/rep, lib/con, patriotic/unpatriotic; this basically is just history being played out. Forget the labels.

Posted by: tomh at August 24, 2006 6:53 PM
Comment #177277

1) Flip-flop
2) Not the first time

Posted by: Lynne at August 24, 2006 7:00 PM
Comment #177285

Tomh has it all figured out: have faith he says, and technological advances in the areas of surveilance will eliminate the need for human oversight.

Tomh wrote: “…there are people who have information far greater in quantity than any of us have and they are making decisions that they feel are the best for the nation. The intel that is out there is one of the key driving forces for what our leaders do.”

Wow. Scary. Let me remind you of what Lord Acton once said: “Power Corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

Human oversight is VERY important with the rise of new technology, and the best check on a government is its people. Don’t censor them because you ASSUME that your leaders have more and better information. Considering that the intel community is currently under fire for not finding concrete links of Hezbollah to Iran and that Tehran has nukes, it seems that we have a perfect example of avoiding certain intel for other more favorable intel. Thats right, humans bucking the system. Imagine that?

It is much more effective in the end to have your finger on the pulse of your people, and necessary to have them actually believe what you say before going around proclaiming the best policy to be trust.

Posted by: Kevin23 at August 24, 2006 7:57 PM
Comment #177286

The more involved ordinary people are in holding public servants accountable, the better. Read the Federalist papers for god’s sake! People need to question their leaders and not assume they don’t know as much. Only then will they act as if they are being watched…and that is a GOOD thing is it not?

Posted by: Kevin23 at August 24, 2006 8:02 PM
Comment #177288

It seems everyone has short memories. In reality war is not a day at the beach. But reality never had anything to do with this war. But if you go back and take the quotes from Cheney and others, this what I remember hearing:

“We will be welcomed with as liberators and with flowers”

The total cost of the war will be $60 billion and the rest will be paid from oil revenues.

We do not need 500,000 troops. Shock and awe.

We will start withdrawing troops in July 2003. After a year there will be a small US presence

Who dosen’t want freedom?

Go back and re-read quotes and you will see that there was no talk of a downside. A rosy picture was painted. And any dissent or criticsm of going to war was quickly supressed.

There was never any real debate. If you disagreed, you were against America and for the terrorists. We were seduced and brain washed. It astonishes me that there are still people who still talk about this war in Nationalistic and patriotic terms.

BTW - how is the war in Iraq defending our country? How was our country ever threatened by Iraq? If any of you heard GW’s Press conference on Monday? Do really feel good about this war listening to him speak about this war. It is scary that he is so clueless, incompetent and full of contradictions and that there is this cadre of unquestioning followers right behind him.

Get real..!

Posted by: stefano at August 24, 2006 8:06 PM
Comment #177291

You’re correct. The cost and difficulty was understated.

Posted by: d.a.n at August 24, 2006 8:16 PM
Comment #177292


Don’t read into something thoughts that are not there. It is not bad to question leadership. To call leadership liars because we disagree with them is wrong. Far too often the disagreements we have are only with our own preconceived ideas and thoughts whether they are correct or not. So, if one is calling another one a liar or any other neegative charge, then step forward with proof that will stand up in a court of law, not just presupposition. I so agree with you that the Federalist Papers should be read and read again. They should be required reading in high school also.

Posted by: tomh at August 24, 2006 8:22 PM
Comment #177294

McCain is not out-right lying.
He’s spinning.
He’s posturing.
That’s what all politicians do.
I’m just surprised to see McCain do it.
Until now, he was one of the few that I thought was above that. Guess not.

Posted by: d.a.n at August 24, 2006 8:40 PM
Comment #177295


I’ve said this many times in these threads, but I’ll repeat it again because I am amazed that it is even an issue on a blog where the whole point is for people to speak openly. Public debate should never be stifled by having to first overcome the standards in place to submit evidence before a court. First off, hearsay would be out altogether, and eliminating this from public debate or even from journalism would have a chilling effect. Secondly, it is just silly to imagine a world full of lawyers. People must be free to discuss matters even if their only basis is impression. Hell, this is how elections are decided, not by “facts” which can be easily distorted.

Ever hear about the study of blinks per minute? Every winning presidential candidate in recent history has blinked less times per minute than their losing opponent. Bush is a master at this and practices. This is just one of MANY examples of how people make up their minds about “facts”.

So you cannot argue that it would lead to a better debate. The only result of telling someone they cannot speak unless they know everything there is to know and have overcome the rules of evidence (which by the way are strict because there is an assumption that all facts can be traced to their original form - hearsay is not allowed because the courts assume you can go find the person who said it in the first place) is that the person will say nothing of any importance. This is the world of politics, not the real world. In the real world, we use instinct, and we make judgements based on the totality of our experience. Only politicians muffle themselves into obsolescence. Public debate must be real and from the heart, otherwise it is false and watered down. How is any leader supposed to guage the will of the people when no one can speak without 6 months of pretrial pleadings?

Posted by: Kevin23 at August 24, 2006 8:49 PM
Comment #177297


That press conference was just amazingly bad. Here is a great write-up that Dana and others should read.


If the point of your first post was not that we cannot critisize our “deciders” because they have more info than we do and now have better technology to exploit their agenda, which we cannot disagree with because we have no information on it, then what WAS the point???

Posted by: Kevin23 at August 24, 2006 8:55 PM
Comment #177299

Please stop playing the Rovian parrot by equating the so-called war on terrorism with anything that’s going on in Iraq.

First, we were told that we invaded Iraq because they had WMD’s.

Next, we were told that we invaded Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein.

Now, we’re still in Iraq … because Iraqis will swarm into the U.S. if we leave Baghdad?

I’ve never heard anyone coherently explain why Iraq has anything to do, even remotely, with U.S. security.

Posted by: pianofan at August 24, 2006 9:23 PM
Comment #177303

What many of you fail to realize is that McCain prefaced his remarks by stating that he agreed with the decision to go to war with Iraq, then and now. But, he said, mistakes were made. He was being factual, not hypocritical or pandering.

I’m not a big McCain fan, but in all fairness, I don’t believe he is a Johnny-come-lately to the idea that more troops were needed from the onset.

Posted by: Tim in NY at August 24, 2006 9:42 PM
Comment #177320

It amazes you when fascists who attempt, through rhetoric, attempt to associate one war with another. World War II was a WORLD WAR joined in by many countries in response to a threat which was ATTACKING us and other countries. Vietnam was, in essence to keep communism from spreading and to, of course increase financial interests in asia. Korea was, in essence, the same. You’ll note that in both the Korean conflict and Vietnam (which, for the ignorant weren’t wars but conflicts), we didn’t cut and run but logically withdrew. We are the stronger, no sense costing our children’s lives for a point already taken. Iraq, on the other hand is not a war against terrorism. Only a complete idiot or liar would even presume it. The war in Iraq, from the beginning, was about oil and creating a presence in the Mid-East. There are far worse situations occuring in the world like Korea and Darfur in which we do nothing but talk. We have, in case you haven’t noticed, been breeding terrorists in Iraq by killing innocent civilians, murdering children, raping young women and spending more time pushing ourselves on them then dealing with their secular problem. The scariest thing to me is that people who write this kind of propaganda are actually voters. Sometimes I think that we should give voters a psychological test to see if they are true Americans, who believe in justice and liberty and the pursuit of happiness or whether they are anti-social personalities who want to justify anything THEIR president does because he happens to belong to a group of thugs who want to rewrite reality. I am beginning to think, sadly, that any religious group with the word fundamentalist in it is a radical, fascist group who has taken the founding father of their religion and rewritten His words to form a religion based on hate, greed, condemnation, bias and bigotry. Perhaps you should actually read about Jesus, what he stood for and what he said and not try and rewrite his words. The Iraq ‘conflict’ is just that, a conflict of ideologies, based on a need for oil. The Administration can jump up and down all they want screaming about how it is about democracy and choice and terrorists but they are lying. They are spending most of their free time erasing freedom, democracy and choice in their own country while pretending to defend it in another. I can only think that whoever is writing in this column is either a anti-social fundamentalist that truly believes we can beat everyone in the world, or simply an idiot. As we spend countless billions of dollars trying to unite a country it reminds me of Ireland, with the protestants and cathelics who will fight one another forever. Better to divide Iraq into two seperate countries than continue this crap. It is about time you realise that we are actually creating terrorists in Iraq, not erasing them. If we truly want to spread the ‘Word’ we must live the ‘Word’ ourselves. The Bible speaks of the false prophet and his followers. I’m sad to say I’m seeing them on your web site; especially since I am a republican - not a bigot.

Posted by: robin szczepaniak at August 24, 2006 11:54 PM
Comment #177323

We cannot win this war if we cannot leave without losing. If Iraq, at this late date is not together enough, it’s time to admit you have a problem, and that this war isn’t going well.

We were assured of an easy war in ways that crippled the fight over time. First, the number of soldiers. People were concerned, the administration didn’t register those complaints, but instead attacked such people as defeatists, using cases like that of General Shinseki to show that they wanted low troop numbers. Rumsfeld would have attacked with fewer, if he could have.

The riots and looting that followed the fall of the Baathist government alarmed many people, as did the heightening of the violence over time. If the Bush administration had wanted to, it could have recognized that things were not so simple as they thought, and immediately start getting people in.

That, though, would have been a political embarrassment, and this is an administration obsessed with avoiding them.

This, ultimately, is what has turned so many people against this administration and what makes the 2600+ deaths so infuriating an issue: We believe many people have died simply because this President was more interested in maintaining his office than he was in correcting his mistakes.

Moreover, little is being shown to the Americans back home to prove that Iraq is any further down the road to recovery, to self-governance, than it was only a little while ago.

We do not need any more self-congratulatory rhetoric from the right on how they are the defenders of the realm We need results, and we needed them three years ago. We’re only having to fight this war now becaus Bush failed to get the results required the first time and has kept failing ever since.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 25, 2006 12:08 AM
Comment #177337

Dana, what does the war in Iraq have to due with 9/11? There has never been any connection between 9/11 and Iraq found.

McCain, has been a backer of this war that should have never happened, but he like a majority of Americans believe that the current misadminstration, did not send in enough troops and had no idea what to do once Sadam was removed. Bush might think he won the war but he has surley lost the peace.

McCain like other is voicing his opinion, even though he is going against the Pres and majority of his party. He is forcing the hand of the misadministartion to make a choice instead of staying the course which is doing nothing but costing lives of Americans that should not be there at all.

Now that the Marines are recalling members that have gotten out, maybe Bush’s daughter will sign up to fight also, but then again they are probably out partying.

Myself I would feel more secure knowing the border were secure. The war in Iraq is over and now a Civil War, and we are caught in the middle, and losing lives instead of saving lives

Posted by: KT at August 25, 2006 7:59 AM
Comment #177339

McCain may be right about misleading us.

But let’s hold ourselves accountable for that somewhat too. Americans have increasingly become “prissy” when it comes to diplomacy, foreign affairs and war. Our politicians seem to sugarcoat everything, so its no suprise that when it came to war, the government put lipstick on the hooker before putting her out on the street.
Anyone with half a brain and a little knowledge of middle eastern dynamics KNEW darn well that she was ugly on the inside.

Now…then there’s those who continue to repeat the talking points regurgitated by the bobble heads on tv…
“no connection between Iraq and Al quaeda”
“Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11”

Opinions are like buttholes, we all have one and most are sh1tty. Its too bad that its so easy to share them.

I’ve read about 15-20 books on the issue, read the 9/11 Commission Rag, gone back to familiarize myself with the history of the region and followed the issue since 9/11.
And I STILL cannot say with any certainty that I understand all the grey areas
But it is obvious that there are indirect connections…and to be expected in the arts of war and intelligence, these connections, TAKEN ONE AT A TIME, simply aren’t tangible enough to be admitted as solid proof. However, when taken as a whole, its undeniably clear that complacency and passive enablement AT THE VERY LEAST.

Some of you simply spend too much time watching Desperate Housewives and NFL football.

Posted by: Matt Goldseth at August 25, 2006 8:26 AM
Comment #177345
According to a new report by Chatham House, a British think tank, after spending over $400 billion on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States has succeeded… in making Iran the top dog in the region.

That’s right, after over three years and 2,618 American lives lost in Iraq, Iran has now superceded America as the most influential power in that country. Indeed, in the words of the report, Iran now considers its former arch enemy its “own backyard.” The Mullahs in Tehran have also become a “prominent presence” in Afghanistan.

Nothing like great and wonderful results for our children’s lives and our tax $$$$ !!

And McCain thinks there’ve been a “few mistakes”??

Posted by: Lynne at August 25, 2006 10:20 AM
Comment #177353

So Matt according to your indirect connection theory, since rummy dummy visited Iraq and was/is a friend of Sadam, and the US (Bush) had Taliban visit Texass and wined and dined them, then rummy and bush both helped with 9/11.

I guess I will go watch my NFL, a lot better then watching FOX NEWS, Republican BS Newsmouth.

Posted by: KT at August 25, 2006 11:13 AM
Comment #177360

“3 Yrs and 5 months of “defending the United States”

This is the new republican mantra, repeat it many times so people (naive) will believe it. The sad thing is that Dana herself now believes it, in psychiatry we call this delusional belief.

Posted by: Sad for you at August 25, 2006 11:47 AM
Comment #177362

John McCain Believes Americans Misled?
Who knows what McCain actually believes?

Fasten the seatbelts on the wayback machine and see what McCain had to say about the way just days after the invasion was launched. McCain said that the war would be a short conflict, our overall goals had been met and that Americans would be, wait for it, welcomed as liberators.
CHRIS MATTHEWS: Are you one of those who holds up an optimistic view of the post-war scene? Do you believe that the people of Iraq or at least a large number of them will treat us as liberators?
MCCAIN: Absolutely. [Hardball, 3/12/2003]
“I believe that this conflict is still going to be relatively short. I believe we’ve achieved significant goals and successes. … even though these forces have been harassing and have inflicted some casualties, tragically, our overall goals, I believe, have been met” [NBC, 3/30/2003]
But as dozens of papers have reported, McCain has been a steady and staunch supporter of invading Iraq. Right? Well, maybe since the invasion, but just weeks before he authorized the President to use force, McCain argued against an invasion, believing that the Hussein regime might fall from within.
I have always strongly felt that you must try the option of opposition from within …. At least try that option before we send Americans into harm’s way” [NBC Meet the Press, 7/14/2002].
Last Sunday, McCain reiterated his lack of support for Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. So even if he softpedals his criticism of Bush, McCain secretly detests what has happened during the war and the way its been run, right? Surely McCain would never give somebody like Rumsfeld the keys to the Pentagon. Not so much.
Early in the war, McCain helped deflect criticism for the way the Secretary was running the war early on, praised his talent, experience and loyalty to Bush and said his leadership “magnificent.”
MCCAIN: I saw a poll today that you may have seen that 77 percent of the American people approve of President Bush. That is a direct endorsement of his view of how this should be conducted. And, look, I just want to say again, the leadership that the president has shown, the secretary of state, secretary of defense, General Myers, has been magnificent and I’m so proud of them. [Hannity & Colmes, 4/10/2003]
“I’m a great admirer of Secretary Rumsfeld. He’s part of the president’s team. I support him. [“Buchanan & Press,” MSNBC, 11/6/2003]
But even if McCain has changed his mind about Rumsfeld, we can be sure that the war would have been run differently, right? After all, McCain says we needed more troops to begin with, and is the most strenuous advocate of putting more troops into Iraq.
At least initially, that was far from the case. McCain actually questioned whether the Bush Administration was committing too many troops to Iraq.
“I’m not yet convinced that the large U.S. force contemplated for the operation is the best or only option.” [Time, 9/1/2002]

Above quotes from this article: Mike Gehrke — John McCain’s Monday Morning Quarterbacking

Here is another link to some more “Straight Talk” from McCain:
McCain caught lying again about his paid bloggers — CrushKerry blogger now on his payroll.

Posted by: Adrienne at August 25, 2006 11:47 AM
Comment #177365


It just goes to show that when some people want to believe something, even reading “15-20 books” on the subject isn’t going to do anything to change their opinion. Calling the 9/11 commission report a “rag” is priceless, especially seeing as how all their recommendations are turning out to be the best possible solutions.


“no connection between Iraq and Al quaeda”
“Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11”

These are not talking points. A talking point is saying “you are either with us, or with the terrorists”

See the difference? Maybe 15-20 books would help…then again…

Posted by: Kevin23 at August 25, 2006 12:02 PM
Comment #177383

There’s another way to look at the proposition that we are in Iraq in order to avoid another 9-11 here. On 9-11 we lost @ 3000 people and suffered several hundred billions in losses. In Iraq, we have lost @ 3000 people and suffered several hundred billions in losses. The only substantial differences is that in the newest “9-11” we have, in addition to the above in Iraq, suffered more than 17,000 injured AND just about completely lost the respect of the rest of the world with regard to our judgment.
I supported COMPETENT action on the part of our president with regard to Iraq, including war if he decided, as commander-and-chief, that war was necessary. That is why I am so against this conflict now, we have no one at the top who is a capable “decider”. I will be voting Democrat in November.

Posted by: Charles Ross at August 25, 2006 1:33 PM
Comment #177387

If Americans believe that there is no connection between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein, then our country is in big trouble. It had been proven that Saddam had funded several terrorist groups including Al Qaeda.

And the funny thing is that one of you commented that there were no WMD. You’re right, we found that out. But here’s a trivia question: Which presidential administration first declared there were weapons of mass destruction? For 50 points, the answer is: President William Jefferson Clinton and his cronies.

But every Lefty loves to comedown on Bush and claim he lied to America. Thank God that most Americans are smarter than Democrats and Liberals.

Posted by: Dana J. Tuszke at August 25, 2006 1:54 PM
Comment #177389

Dana maybe you are right that Iraq help fund Al Qeada, but so did Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran and probably more. But I don’t see where bush went after them. But again with Bush holding hands with the Saudi’s, and allowing them to fly out of the US while other planes were grounded after 9/11, you got to wonder where else does bush and saudi’s have their hands.
Clinton and Bush both said Iraq had WMD, but before the war started the inspector’s said no they did not, the reason given to start the war.
Out of the three evil countries per his remark, Iran,N.Korea, and Iraq who does he decide to attack, the weakest one.

Posted by: KT at August 25, 2006 2:08 PM
Comment #177390

Dana concluded, “The enemy will surely follow us back home.”

“What evidence of that do you have. This is pure crock and paranoid conjecture. The Civil War in Iraq is taking place between Shia and Sunnis, who have no interest at all in America except our leaving their country. Get a grip. They won’t be coming here if we leave, they will just continue exercising their new found freedom to wage civil war on each other. That’s all.”

What evidence do you have that they won’t??? We’ve already had two foiled terrorist plots. One in Canada and the other in London. Are we really this blind that we can’t see that terrorists are still looking for ways to destroy us?

Posted by: Dana J. Tuszke at August 25, 2006 2:09 PM
Comment #177392

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Worse, you publicly display this ignorance with pride, as if “Americans” were smarter than “Democrats and liberals.” And even worse yet, you persist in parroting discredited stands from years ago, as if that were “smart,” and even though your own president says that the connection between 9/11 and and Iraq consists of one word:


He just said that in his press conference. That is what Bush said just the other day. Not you. Not me. Bush. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Zero. Are you even paying attention to politics?

That trivia question about Clinton is pathetic. The WMDs were destroyed once and for all in 1995. Please read The Duelfer Report, which reports the final CIA findings on the topic. This is the administration point of view, as tasked by President Bush. Not you. Not me. That is the formal report.

For crying out loud, Dana, follow the news, and please, think for yourself!

Posted by: phx8 at August 25, 2006 2:17 PM
Comment #177394

“3 Yrs and 5 months of ⤥fending the United States⼯p>

This is the new republican mantra, repeat it many times so people (naive) will believe it. The sad thing is that Dana herself now believes it, in psychiatry we call this delusional belief.”

I’m just glad you can spell “delusional” many other people can’t!

Posted by: Dana J. Tuszke at August 25, 2006 2:19 PM
Comment #177395

It is certainly true that there is no rationale for invading Iraq that would withstand even cursory scrutiny. However, I think the it is a good thing that we have become bogged down in Iraq’s civil war. If not for Iraq, Bush would have invaded Iran, and possibly Korea or Lebanon. So, for now, the Iraq quagmire is serving a useful purpose. I hope all of you will continue to support the war.

Posted by: Yellowdog at August 25, 2006 2:20 PM
Comment #177398


Why do you think we don’t want to take out terrorists? You’re confusing two issues: how to do with nations and how to deal with terrorist organizations. Our rush to war with Iraq, based on faulty intelligence and even faulter misreading of it, has led us to the current situation.

Do some reading on the Bush Doctrine and the Wolfowitz ideas that led to it. One problem with it is (disregarding the sheer hubris of it), it is a doctrine designed to deal with nations, not shadowy terrorist organizations.

The mistake advocates on the right make is to think that military force applied against nations can eliminate the threat, when the simple truth is, miltary might can be one tool, but not the primary one. It’s a more prosaic matter of good intelligence, investigation, grunt work.

Even if you don’t count what’s happening now in Iraq, terrorist activity across the world has increased, not decreased, after the invasion of Iraq. It is a logical fallacy to equate disapproval of a misguided attack on a country we had contained with being soft on terrorism. Where does it end, Dana? Iran is next; there is an excellent chance that we will see a major attack on Iran before Bush leaves office. Will that decrease terrorist attacks? Dealing with nations and dealing with non-national organizations requires different strategies.

Our actions have further turned many ordinary Islamists against us. That is unfortunate, because we’ve provided terrorist-minded groups with an easy way to rally support.

Posted by: Trent at August 25, 2006 2:33 PM
Comment #177399

Funny moniker.
I understand what you are saying, but I am not at all sure anything will stop the Bush administration from prosecuting WWIII.

It is sad. In 2002, the country stood behind Bush in near unanimity. All sides of the continued spectrum still seem to support Afghanistan, with the debate only over whether we could afford to allow Iraq to distract us from rebuilding the failed state which helped produce 9/11.

The wheels came off with Iraq. No one seems to see a positive outcome. It is just a question of which bad ending we choose.

But even today, the Bush administration is criticizing its own providers of intelligence about Iran, because they will not provide material to justify bombing Iran. The Intelligence Directorate has a Neocon providing Cheney with material to support when Cheney wants to believe. We are walking down the same road, and the results may be even worse this time, if possible.

Posted by: phx8 at August 25, 2006 2:35 PM
Comment #177433

Actually, there were significant peace marches in San Francisco and Washington in the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq. The peace activists predicted the civil war that we are now involved in and hoped to prevent it. It was obvious even before the invasion that Bush had no plan to secure the country, and no plan to get the US troops out of the country.

But now the military is stretched so thin that they cannot possibly take on any more military adventures, so it has turned out OK anyway. Ireally can’t see how Bush can invade any other country without re-instating the draft. And that would be political suicide, of course.

Posted by: Yellowdog at August 25, 2006 3:59 PM
Comment #177438

Dana wrote: “What evidence do you have that they won’t??? We’ve already had two foiled terrorist plots. One in Canada and the other in London. Are we really this blind that we can’t see that terrorists are still looking for ways to destroy us?”

So you are advocating that government and even military should intervene anytime and anywhere there is not concrete evidence that a nation, organization or individual will not attack us?

Wow. See you when you take on the world…alone. Wait, I think that would more closely resemble terrorism than anything in Iraq before we screwed the pooch.

Dana, please either provide at least SOME logical reasoning or give concrete evidence or examples. Your post and subsequent posts are painfully under-researched and provide absolutely nothing new to this debate. To quote Billy Madison, “everyone here is now dumber for having read it.”

Posted by: Kevin23 at August 25, 2006 4:18 PM
Comment #177439

“But even today, the Bush administration is criticizing its own providers of intelligence about Iran, because they will not provide material to justify bombing Iran.”

Yeah, and they really cooked their own goose (and ours) regarding that intelligence. Recent article from Larry Johnson’s blog, No Quarter: Republican Chutzpah on Iran

Posted by: Adrienne at August 25, 2006 4:18 PM
Comment #177444


Bush is the one who held a giant victory celebration on the aircraft carrier under a banner that said “Mission accomplished!” Why shouldn’t the American people be confused and angry as to why we’re still fighting and dying in Iraq after that? You seem to be blaming Americans for taking Bush at his word.

“Since when is war a day at the beach?” You should ask that to Bush and Rumsfeld, who did indeed think everything was going to be easy, and refused the advice of our generals to put in enough troops at the beginning to establish order and prevent the formation and arming of the militia groups that are now fighting the Iraqi government. Bush has also refused to raise taxes to pay for the war and refused to order a full-scale mobilization of the National Guard.

Bush is no different than LBJ, who thought he could win Vietnam without nationalizing the Guard or increasing taxes while at the same time going to the moon and fighting the War on Poverty. Bush is the one who tried to have an easy, “painless” war and is now screwing it up.

Posted by: Darren at August 25, 2006 4:34 PM
Comment #177506

VDH is the best there is. You all might learn something.

Posted by: beagle9 at August 25, 2006 10:33 PM
Comment #177520

VDH makes some good points, but he allows his prejudices and his pejorative vocabulary to blur his meaning.

He begins with the idea that “death is the mantra of terrorists.” This is wrong. It may capture attention, but it is wrong. The terrorist act in and of itself is of minor importance. Who dies does not matter. What is destroyed does not matter either, not in a tactical sense. Civilian deaths amount to mere collateral damage. That people die in a terrorist attack is awful, of course, but nearly irrelevant. What matters is the symbolic import.

A terrorist attack demands attention. The horror and terror and sheer impact of the act commands headlines, and as VDH notes, the act polarizes.

Terrorism is a tool for the weaker side when fighting an asymmetrical war. The weaker side has no reason to go toe to toe with a superior conventional force. Instead of confronting a superior force, the polarization of terrorism forces the moderate middle to choose sides. As a tool for waging asymmetrical warfare, the weaker side cannot help but come out ahead when the middle chooses sides.

Terrorism is not about death. Terrorists do not “hate us for our freedoms.” As many people have already noted, terrorists hate the US not for its freedom, but for its policies, for what it does.

VDH argues that high oil prices fuel radical Islam. I can think of a lot of reasons why we should act to lower oil prices, but the effect of oil prices on terrorism is absolutely minimal.

Think about it. Terrorists do not depend on large amounts of money. They are not carrying a monkey on their back called the Military Industrial Complex. Almost by definition, and as a result of being the weaker force, terrorists seek low tech means of making their points. For example, Hezbollah may contribute $12,000 to each family who had their house blown up by US bombs dropped by Israel. But it is a small amount of money compare to the $230 million the US is providing to Lebanon to rebuild the infrasructure destroyed by US explosives. And the war in Iraq costs $257 million PER DAY. So, the financial impact of high oil prices on terrorism is negligible.

Lumping Hezbollah in with other radical islamic terrorists, as VDH does, is uselss. Unlike Al Qaida, Hezbollah is not anti-historical, and like Dawa & SCIRI, it is in the process of becoming part of the Lebanese political landscape, a political party representing the Shias. (So is Amal. For some reason we completely ignore Amal.)

Finally, VDH concludes:

“But unless we in the West adapt more quickly than do canny Islamic terrorists in this constantly evolving war, cease our internecine fighting and stop forgetting what we’ve learned about our enemies - there will be disasters to come far worse than Sept 11.”

That is simple fearmongering. There is almost no chance whatsoever of a major terrorist attack causing massive casualties. Get a grip, think about it, and I am sure you will come to the same conclusion.

If you take a few mintutes to reflect on how terrorism works, how its goal is to command attention and to polarize, and then consider the actions of the Bush administration, you will no doubt conclude that Bush might well be the worst president in the history of our country.

Posted by: phx8 at August 25, 2006 11:47 PM
Comment #177579

“Think about it. Terrorists do not depend on large amounts of money.”

The naiveté of that statement is beyond mind-boggling. The link above gives the amount of dollars per day that Iran is receiving from its oil exports. As of the end of 2005 (higher now) it was 46 Billion per day. This is the monetary engine that fuels terrorist fantasies. Without this incredible amount of money it (terrorist activity) would largely remain unfulfilled fantasies.

With 46 Billion dollars days coming into Iran’s pocket, and a ready supply of willing jihadists to commit suicide to destroy the “infidels”, we will let the readers decide whether they believe that statement to be true as you do or whether they believe it to be complete idiocy (nothing personal) as I do.

Posted by: beagle9 at August 26, 2006 9:49 AM
Comment #177586

First, I do not accept that Iran is a terrorist state. If you define terrorism loosely enough to include Iran, you must also include Saudi Arabia, Dawa, SCIRI, Israel, the US, and just about any other political entity you care to name that engages in violence or provides aid to insurgencies and foreign militaries.

Second, generally speaking, Shias do not use suicide attacks. How many suicide attacks were luanched against Israel during its invasion of Lebanon? In Iraq, the suicide attacks are being launched against Shias by Sunnis- the majority of those Sunnis are from Saudi Arabia.

Third, why would oil revenues matter? Remember those 10,000 katyusha rockets possessed by Hezbollah? Those rockets cost $150 a piece. When talking about terrorism, the sum to support an operation of any kind does not cost a great deal to support and run. We are talking single digit millions, at most. When talking oil revenues, we are talking in the billion of dollars. Iran currently provides Hezbollah with $100 million. Most of that goes, not towards weaponry, but towards social programs. I guarantee you the $12,000 Hezbollah gives to Shias who suffered during the recent fighting goes farther towards winning hearts and minds than any US-made cluster bomblets the locals are picking up.

The linked essay starts out talking about terrorists and the mantra of death. Yet the most effective terrorist act since 9/11 involved a Shia attack upon a mosque in Samarra. The attack did not kill so much as enrage, and it marked the tipping point into the Iraqi civil war. The essay ends with vague warnings of disasters (plural) than 9/11.

Beagle9, that is fearmongering. The writer knows what he is talking about, but ditches his knowledge in favor of toeing to the Bush administration line. He repeats some material about oil revenues supporting terrorism, because Tom Friedman makes it sound plausible. It is not. It is good for a publication credit, it curries favor with the current administration, and it all amounts to whoring for 15 seconds of fame.

Posted by: phx8 at August 26, 2006 11:35 AM
Comment #177593

Phx8, We will just have to agree to disagree. The fundamentals of terrorism are, trying not to be simplistic, are political will + opportunity. Inherently, political will is a constant, while opportunity is created most efficiently by available money. The more money available, the greater are the opportunities. It is not rocket science.

Posted by: beagle9 at August 26, 2006 12:35 PM
Comment #177674


Since you are so gung-ho for the war and only 2609 soldiers have died, why don’t you sign up to go fight the war on terror. I understand the armed forces need more soldiers. The ones that are already over there are being overworked and underpaid. I’m sure they could use your services. Maybe you could even work for free.

Just a thought…

Posted by: tanderson at August 26, 2006 10:26 PM
Comment #177678


“If Americans believe that there is no connection between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein, then our country is in big trouble. It had been proven that Saddam had funded several terrorist groups including Al Qaeda.”
your words

Just a few days ago during a press conference, the president himself said Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Is he lying?

Just seeking the truth…

Posted by: tanderson at August 26, 2006 10:45 PM
Comment #177679


check out these links:
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11

Overworked soldiers

very sad indeed…

Posted by: tanderson at August 26, 2006 10:51 PM
Comment #177681
It just goes to show that when some people want to believe something, even reading “15-20 books” on the subject isn’t going to do anything to change their opinion. Calling the 9/11 commission report a “rag” is priceless, especially seeing as how all their recommendations are turning out to be the best possible solutions.
You never read it, so I wont even ask what you think “their recommendations” were. The 9/11 Commission investigation was a farce…it was nothing more than an opportunity for politicians to grandstand and display their feigned outrage. Very little came from the investigation that wasn’t already public knowledge. It was a waste of taxpayer money and a slap in the face of those 1% of Americans who actually DO pay attention to more than headlines.

And you’re wrong…my opinion on the war has changed a few times…back and forth, but never at either extreme. If you cared about my actual opinion, it wouldnt take long to find it, but its far from some apologetic for some naive dream of utopian democracy. Neither is it some Democratic fairy tale of evil Mr Bush lying for oil.

Im likely the exact opposite of you.
Im not guided by party politics, my personal opinion doesnt shadow the mantra of any party and I rarely swallow the popular perspective…because its usually the opinion of the masses who tend to be intellectually lazy, uneducated and reactionary.

Posted by: Matt Goldseth at August 26, 2006 11:02 PM
Comment #177690

How people can still proclaim that soldiers in Iraq are dying defending our freedom is beyond me. Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, had no plans to attack America, and for all but the totally ignorant, was much less a threat to our freedom than North Korea or even Iran. The ultimate justification was to remove Sudam Hussein, was it not? He was a tyrant, allowing a minority of the population to dictate the law and control the majority of the country. He was a ruthless dictator who monitored citizens, outlawed desent, and allowed his own religious party to prevail over the majority. But there was no imminent threat to anyone at the time we invaded. Granted, he would fire at aircraft (never hitting), and commit a lot of verbal garbage. However, it was never proved that there was a threat. In addition, anyone involved in the CIA or other intelligence gathering organizations which told the Bush Administration that, were censored.
So to have the audacity to sit here and tell people that our soldiers are dying to protect our liberty are either complete idiots, or part of that minority that wants to rule America (just like Sudam’s party ruled Iraq). These are not true Americans but mean-spirited fundamentalists who want the majority of Americans to be ruled by their distorted view on freedom.
America was founded with a system to prevent one ideology from gaining control. Bush and his fundamentalist friends have spent years trying to eliminate that system. Their aim, obviously, is to do exactly what Sudam did to Iraq, and that is to take control and suppress any ideology which doesn’t agree with theirs. It is a sad day for America, our beliefs and concepts, our love of freedom, when a fractional group of mean-spirited fundamentalists whose actions represent more satanic influences, then Christian influences, are attempting to take over the country with greed, lies, misrepresentations, and condemnations. You should all be ashamed of yourselves for distorting the very beauty of the American value system. You should all be ashamed of yourselves for promulgating the ideals of Satan while ignoring the ideals of Jesus. Perhaps you should read the actual teachings and parables of Jesus, not the adulterated versions you’re being fed. I believe that there are still real versions of Jesus’s words available in the library..or is the library now on the condemned list as well. If the fundamentalist fascism has its way the books will have to be rewritten to redfine not only religion, but science as well. I, as a Christian, am embarrassed to be in the same religion of people who are trying to redefine reality with their distorted vision of what Jesus wants.
To believe in Jesus is fine but to ignore all of what he asked us to do, is satanic.

Posted by: robin szczepaniak at August 27, 2006 1:08 AM
Comment #177707

First I want anyone to site a quote where the president sugested that the war in Iraq would be easy.
Second. If you were paying attention, you know we went to war against Saddam because of the long list of resolutions he ignored. The U.N. said he had WMD, the French said he had WMD, Al Gore said he had WMD, everyone agreed he had WMD until a Republican President decided to do something about it. Then everyone changed thier stories for politcal purposes.
Third. We are no longer fighting Iraqis in Iraq. Muslim fanatics are attacking our troops while we are in Iraq. We are not fighting a war on terror we are fighting against an enemy. They are Islamic fascist. Iraq happens to be a front on the war agaist Islamic fascist, and these fascist will follow us home if we leave Iraq.

McCain seems to think that he can win an election by protesting the war. For the sake of every American citizen who likes our way of life we have become accustom to, I hope the hippies, appeasers, and peaceniks stay home and smoke, or shoot up whatever it is they do on election day.

Posted by: Bill at August 27, 2006 9:39 AM
Comment #177780

You write: “First I want anyone to site a quote where the president sugested that the war in Iraq would be easy.”

On May 1st, just weeks after the invasion, Bush said: ““Major combat operations in Iraq have ended.”

Oh, yeah. That.

Look at the 2003 State of the Union address. The last third outlines reasons to invade Iraq. Nearly everything the president says is wrong. I think it is the worst speech by an American president in the history of our country? What do you think, Bill? Can you name a worse speech? I cannot. Worst. Speech. Ever.

There are lots and lots and lots of well known statements by Cheney, Rumsfeld, and others about how easy it would be to invade & rebuild Iraq.

They were lying.

As CINQ, does Bush have the responsibility to chastise and fire all those people who were so completely, terribly, tragically wrong about something as important as going to war?

How about you, Bill?

Here are some choice statistics:

91.7% of Iraqis oppose the presence of coaltion forces in their country.

84.5% are “strongly opposed.”

“The most recent survey, done in April this year, also asked for “the three main reasons for the U.S. invasion of Iraq.” Less than 2% chose “to bring democracy to Iraq” as their first choice. The list was topped by “to control Iraqi oil” (76%), followed by “to build military bases” (41%) and “to help Israel” (32%).”

Bill, your third point is grossly inaccurate. Care to cite your sources? And do you really think Iraqis will follow us home? Because no Iraqi has ever attacked an American in the United States. Ever. Not once. Zero. Zilch. Nada. None. Not after the First Gulf War. Not during the Embargo. Not during the invasion in 2003. Not during the occupation.

Bill, a lot of Bush supporters owe the American people an apology. Care to be the first?

Posted by: phx8 at August 27, 2006 8:06 PM
Comment #177847

I was considering responding to robin szczepaniak’s post, however, the more I read, the more I suspected I could be responding to a teenage/college student know-it-all who thinks reading the ticker on CNN qualifies as being “up on the news”.

While I share your belief that the war is hardly about “freedom” alone, you simply haven’t studied enough material to make an fair and accurate judgement on WMDs, the connection to terrorism, and certainly regarding the CIAs involvement and accountability in this fiasco.

Although epitomizing the one shortcoming of free speech, such shortsightedness is forgivable.
However, you certainly distinguish yourself as being incapable of individual, reasoned thought when you veer into some erroneous diatribe about “fundamentalists”, “christians” and “fascism”. (the last of which you obviously dont know even know the actual meaning of).

While rants like yours may succeed in producing a few cheers from the usual myrmidons on these blogs, it also casts your lot as another rambling malcontent without any real conviction to know what the hell they’re talking about.

Posted by: Matt Goldseth at August 28, 2006 3:10 PM
Comment #177896

“You never read it [9/11 report]”


“The 9/11 Commission investigation was a farce…it was nothing more than an opportunity for politicians to grandstand and display their feigned outrage.”


“Very little came from the investigation that wasn’t already public knowledge”

Except that the public obviously didn’t know, or were being intentionally confused by their leaders, so it became an absolutely necessary to have an official report. We all know now why Bush didn’t want an independent commission.

“It was a waste of taxpayer money and a slap in the face of those 1% of Americans who actually DO pay attention to more than headlines”

It cost a LOT less than the Iraq war, the justifications for which were the competing headlines at that time. Gee….which turned out to be wrong AND more costly????

“…my actual opinion, …its far from some apologetic for some naive dream of utopian democracy. Neither is it some Democratic fairy tale of evil Mr Bush lying for oil”

So what? Nobody claimed either for you or themselves. Is this some half-assed pre-emtive attack? Probably.

“Im not guided by party politics”

Then maybe give a little REASONING along with your name calling and labeling to let us know what guides you instead of bashing those who would rightfully say that Iraq has no connection to 9/11 (they obviously DO READ!!!) by saying they watch too much NFL or whatever else.

“…because its usually the opinion of the masses who tend to be intellectually lazy, uneducated and reactionary”

As opposed to you? So far you haven’t shown me intellectual diligence, ecucation (other than claiming how many books you’ve read on the subject), or anything that would not be considered knee-jerk.

You want to have a real debate on the issues? I’m here. But don’t think you can apply a label, claim to be label free, and then pretend you are better than anyone else.

And picking on Robin for what exactly? Maybe attack her message…but you just label her and run away. You are no better!

Posted by: Kevin23 at August 28, 2006 6:02 PM
Comment #177899

C’mon Matt, I’m calling you out. I hope my typos in the previous post are enough to provoke you into thinking I’m an easy target.

Maybe I’m just “a teenage/college student know-it-all who thinks reading the ticker on CNN qualifies as being ‘up on the news’”

Then again, maybe I’ll force you to show original thought above and beyond calling people stupid and hiding behind a wall of non-information.

Posted by: Kevin23 at August 28, 2006 6:08 PM
Comment #177964

First, I’ll remind you of the topic of this thread.
Second, I’ll remind you that I actually agreed with it!

As usual, there are a number of posts which veer completely off topic and into the usual, “Bush the evil lying oil baron promoting christian theocracy” mantras.
While most posts are but a blip on the internet universe, the right to speak freely should still be treated responsibly.

Maybe you didnt see my first post, but I may be the ONLY one who admits not fully understanding everything about the middle east conflict and not always having a clear view of right/wrong.

The one point that kills me is how people reiterate that famous talking point of “no connection between Sadaam and Bin laden”.
Are those people aware that the 9/11 commission concluded that while no such “DIRECT” connection could be proven, they also concluded that there WAS ample evidence of a connection between Iraq and Al Queda”?

Of course, various other texts have illustrated the same and have illustrated the intelligence community’s failure to protect America and its’ subsequent RAILROADING of efforts to get to the truth.

Unfortunately, political partisans prey upon Americans’ general lack of historical education…especially regarding middle east politics and culture.

I dont suspect we could hash out the debate on Iraq in one thread here, but I would be willing to discuss any specific issues individually. You’ll find that I dont support the philosophy behind the Bush doctrine, but that I find 9/11 to be a mere continuation of a domino effect beginning with the creation of Afghan resistance to the Soviets.

I feel there is a terrorism threat to deal with.
I believe 9/11 was bait to draw us into Iraq.
I believe we are fighting in part to provide a hedge against middle east terror and in part to protect and preserve trading partners’ oil assets. Perhaps a small part may be for freedom and democracy, but I believe such goals to be a naive imposition cloaked in good intention.

I believe we could better protect our country by bringing military home to secure borders, while leaving those middle east holy lands in Saudi Arabia by using our own oil resources.

For further discussion, please refer me to the appropriate thread. im not as bad as you may think…jusy stirring the pot to keep things interesting!

Posted by: Matt Goldseth at August 28, 2006 9:12 PM
Post a comment