We're only as good as our rationale for war

[DrewKaree]

They may not be as long winded as your responses, but I put just as much thought in them.
And my responses make more sense.

President Bush says there is no need to hold anyone in his administration accountable for what has happened in Iraq because the voters have already spoken.

"We had an accountability moment, and that's called the 2004 elections," Bush said in an interview with The Washington Post for Sunday's editions. "

In effect he's saying, "I WON!!" so who cares.

How sad and sick is it when Dartful's lame defense of the president is actually used by the lame president himself to *totally* shirk responsibility for the countless deaths caused by his misguided war?

Call me crazy, but doesn't "winning" an election actually make him *more* responsible for the decisions he made? It's not like Iraq attacked *us*.

There is a special place in hell for this weasel and history will judge him accordingly.

You forgot that he "gave us back our guns".  Otherwise how would we be able to go into our backyards at happy times such as this, or at weddings, or whatnot and fire our assault weapons into the air in glee at such foolproof defenses of our actions as "nener nener boo boo wash yer face in doo doo".

Sorry, you've happened to catch me at at EVER SO MUCH DON'T CARE moment today.  I'll return you to your regularly scheduled insane programming tomorrow.....football's on today, and I'm off to enjoy all that is right in the world on this day.  (thus far)

Go Iggles!

[mr.Curmudgeon]

It should be getting harder to justify this war every single day. One by one, the excuses crumble. The last gasp of self-righteous breath just got knocked out of this administration. Criminals, every last one of them.

U.S. found no evidence WMD moved from Iraq

"As the hunt for weapons of mass destruction dragged on unsuccessfully in Iraq, top Bush administration officials speculated publicly that the banned armaments may have been smuggled out of the country before the war started.

Whether Saddam Hussein moved the WMD

[Dartful Dodger]

There is no longer *ANY* justification for this war. Welcome to Vietnam 2.0.

Uninstalling NaziGermany2.0
...90% complete... 91% complete... 92% complete...

Hitting the cancel button now would mess up my hard drive.

[DrewKaree]

He'll never get it unless he wants to be honest with himself and search for the reasons given for going to war.  In his mind, it was WMD's, ONLY WMD's and always WILL BE WMD'S.  Period, exclamation point, ampersand, ampersand, percentage, asterisk.  End of story.

Dartful, those people didn't fit into any "purpose" to help them, therefore we should have left them to their own devices.  We should have spread our military out all over the face of the earth to help oppressed people EVERYWHERE.  Except Iraq.  It worked for Bill Clinton.  HE showed us how to "save the world" without all the problems Bush has been having with troops dying _{Black Hawk down, Black Hawk down} and people "never forgetting".  And remember, the Bush administration lied about the intelligence they recieved _{by reading Bill Clinton's own words}.

It's like you don't remember history and how well Bill Clinton was at working the world and using our intelligence agency for "good", Dartful.  I'm shocked at you! 


^{waits for the "when will you be honest and admit they're war criminals response}

[Dartful Dodger]

He'll never get it unless he wants to be honest with himself and search for the reasons given for going to war.

[fredster]

IF WMD were the only reason we went to war, then I guess we should just back out and let Saddam back huh?

Your piece from MSNBC has no named sources in it, did you notice that? Not one. Not a single one. It quotes what the intelligence was before the war.

I often wonder what we would be talking about now if we didn't go to war. Because the intelligence would be building up, wrong intel, that Bush should have gone to war and didn't.

Huh. Guess we'll never know.  To Bad.

[ChadTower]

Without having read the thread, since that would actually make me informed as to whatever doofy statements have been made here...

Why does everyone seem to consider the lack of found WMDs solid proof that they never existed?  Since when does lack of evidence prove anything?  They have no proof at all that the weapons were never there and were not simply hiddden/moved.

Anyone remember the fact that he USED MUSTARD GAS on people in Iraq?  That seems fairly conclusive evidence that at least chemical weapons existed.  It's hard to use something you never had.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Without having read the thread, since that would actually make me informed as to whatever doofy statements have been made here...

*click* IGNORE

[mr.Curmudgeon]

I understand why they're mad.  They believed the pentagon when it said that we were going to war over WMD, that's why they agreed to go to war.

Finally DD is being honest. Here he admits to supporting a domestic policy of governance through obfuscation and outright lies. Fine. He can *no longer* mention the Clenis again, or Bubba's lying under oath. DD freely admits that it's OK to lie to further one's own agenda. I'll sure miss all the Clinton bashing, but damn if it isn't nice to see the leopards true spots.

Don't worry Drew, even if the rest of the world thinks the USA is wrong, they'll give us another chance.  Either that, or we'll lay low for 6 months and the rest of the world will just forget.

DD's foreign policy is even more simple...wishful thinking!!! Next we can start electing imaginary friends and other make believe characters to the office of the president. That'll really show the world (and those damned Hollywood Libruls!!!) who's boss.

I nominate Mister Diggles! My magical childhood friend. He's great and wants world peace! Who do you nominate?

[DrewKaree]

Actually, I've seen Mr Diggles in action, and I always thought his name was Diggler.  Dirk Diggler.

I'd vote for that guy.  I second the nomination. 

Wait a minute....Dartful Dodger......Dirk Diggler.....DD....DD.....you don't suppose.....naaahhhhhh, couldn't be.  Could it? 

[Dartful Dodger]

DD freely admits that it's OK to lie to further one's own agenda.

Using a lie to prove your point about using lies.

All I can say to that is ...BUSH WON!!!

[mr.Curmudgeon]

He'll never get it unless he wants to be honest with himself and search for the reasons given for going to war.  In his mind, it was WMD's, ONLY WMD's and always WILL BE WMD'S.  Period, exclamation point, ampersand, ampersand, percentage, asterisk.  End of story.

Nice try. You must be really be running out of steam. You can even address the issues at hand anymore.

It's obvious you haven't been reading anything I've been writing. Which is your perogative, but it's not going to stop me from tearing your arguments to pieces. The facts as they were presented suggest that the American public, CONGRESS and the rest of the WORLD, were being sold an IMMINENT THREAT/WMD justification for the invasion of Iraq. That has been shown to be wrong, and from what you and DD are saying, never the true reasoning of this administration. If there *true* reasoning is so righteous and good for America why didn't they present that to the public?

I (me, mr.C) *KNOW* full well that it was never about the WMD's...I *KNOW* the real agenda behind the invasion of Iraq was/is the Bush's administration's wet-dream of Pax Americana.

What I *HAVE* been arguing (if you took 2 secs to listen) is that if the American public was fully aware of the cost of going into this war and the true reasoning of the chickenhawks in power...This war would *never* have happened. You seem to think it's OK that a vast majority of uninformed Americans and brave soldiers were sorely misled and that it is OK for a government to misrepresent their agenda to the public. Nice to see you have absolutely no faith in the American people making their own informed decisions. A true patriot.

If you start getting paid for this kind of misguided nationalism and absolute blind Bush support make sure you only accept payments through the Armstrong Williams fund, not from Rove directly. Wouldn't want to point to the man behind the curtain.

mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

All I can say to that is ...BUSH WON!!!

Damn DD, does Bush like to be on top or on the bottom?

If he doesn't hold you afterward, you're just being used and you need to move on.

[DrewKaree]

He'll never get it unless he wants to be honest with himself and search for the reasons given for going to war.  In his mind, it was WMD's, ONLY WMD's and always WILL BE WMD'S.  Period, exclamation point, ampersand, ampersand, percentage, asterisk.  End of story.

Nice try. You must be really be running out of steam. You can even address the issues at hand anymore.

It's not a matter of "steam".  You show just as clearly as I do your partisanship - for us to continue to argue matters that we've hashed over YET AGAIN....you would rather I just link you to story after story orback to the threads where we've gone over this before?

I can't believe you don't get that I'm saying you and I will never change each others' minds and that somehow you think this is new territory and that this "evidence" from "countless unnamed sources" is the lynchpin that's about to bring our defense crashing down around us.  Is it really constructive to CONTINUE to argue these same points as if you haven't heard them before? 

I know it doesn't help you to see it as this, but this is what "getting along" is.  Agreeing to disagree when you see no new way to get the other side to understand your point.  You'll never see my point, because you have no interest in what was actually said, as evidenced by your wailing and tearing of sackcloth over this and other stories like it, but if you HONESTLY think it's gonna help, I'll lay out the position SEVERAL of us have told you.  WMD'S were WAY down on the list of reasons we supported the war.  To clear it up so there can be no confusion:

IT WAS ONLY ONE OF     MANY     REASONS BUSH GAVE FOR GOING TO WAR.

You've laid out your points pretty well too.  Bush lied about WMD's.  You view WMD's as the ONLYreason Bush gave for going to war.  He misled us in order to make war against his dad's nemesis.  He's a war criminal because of it.

Does that about sum it up?

We both think the other is misguided at BEST.  I've laid out my position, and done so clearly.  You've laid out your position, and done so clearly.  We'll simply never agree.  If you find it useful to bang your gong, then seriously, more power to you.  Just stop with the drivel about "bringing the parties together".  Our stances haven't changed, but our abilities to www.moveon.org sure as heck have.  The roles are reversing and you're becoming that which you claim to dislike.  I can't open your eyes for you, it's a choice you've got to make yourself.

[DrewKaree]

Oh, and Armstrong Williams should be punished to the fullest extent of whatever laws apply to him, and I hope to see him not only lose everything his fame and notoriety got him, but that he's forced to take some "burger-flipping" job to support himself so that he never forgets the betrayal of the trust of American people in him.

It doesn't make the program wrong, it simply makes Williams a ---tallywhacker--- and an idiot for doing what he did.

Are you capable of uttering the same sentiments re: liberals?

[mr.Curmudgeon]

IT WAS ONLY ONE OF     MANY     REASONS BUSH GAVE FOR GOING TO WAR.

Notice I was talking about "pre-invasion" justifications. All the jerry-rigging of excuses "post-invasion" DOES NOT COUNT. You know full well, Drew, that this administration pushed the WMD/Nuclear Threat angle against any other justification, by a factor of 100 to 1, AT LEAST.

Show me any Bush administration offical, PRE-INVASION, offering any other reasoning, in a legitmate* public format, with the same fervor and immediacy as the WMD argument, and maybe you'd have an argument. Until then, you, like this administration, are blowing smoke up everyone's toosh.

*By legimate, I mean, in venues conducive to informing the general public, news program appearances, press conferences, mail campaigns, state of the union. Not b.s. talking points on Rush Limbaugh.

We both think the other is misguided at BEST.  I've laid out my position, and done so clearly.  You've laid out your position, and done so clearly.  We'll simply never agree. 

That's what I'm saying, I don't think you've laid out any substantial facts supporting your argument. You say you have, but it's all red-herring. I'd shut my mouth if had the facts to back up any of what you're saying. See my above challenge in red.

mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Oh, and Armstrong Williams should be punished to the fullest extent of whatever laws apply to him, and I hope to see him not only lose everything his fame and notoriety got him, but that he's forced to take some "burger-flipping" job to support himself so that he never forgets the betrayal of the trust of American people in him.

It doesn't make the program wrong, it simply makes Williams a ---tallywhacker--- and an idiot for doing what he did.

Two part question:
1) What about the people who used our tax dollars to pay him? Same standards there? Or no?
2) Please tell me what you'd say if we found out that the Kerry camp paid Rather for Memogate?

Are you capable of uttering the same sentiments re: liberals?

Yes. Show me one Liberal working today that has knowingly taken "pay for play" and I'll agree to the very same sentiments regarding them. I was recently peeved over the recent Dean/Blogger story, and fully ready to unleash a sh!tstorm on Kos/myDD, but the reality is that it turned out to be falsely overblown. Kos dislosed his relationship w/ the Dean camp, myDD was shutdown while Jerome worked as a consultant. Also, they weren't paid with *our* tax dollars.


mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

He misled us in order to make war against his dad's nemesis.  He's a war criminal because of it.

Does that about sum it up?

No. You forgot Draft-dodgin'-blue-blood-panty-waist-mealy-mouthed-bootlicking-sycophant. But you were close.

[Crazy Cooter]

What were the reasons for the invasion?
1- WMD's (nope)
2- Terrorist connections (nope)
3- Crimes against Humanity ie: the Kurds (yep)
4- ?

Now compare them to 50 other Nations (including us)...

Then stop and think about how the world reacted for the tsunami victims (A natural disaster).  Compare that number to how many civilians our bombs have killed in Iraq (our own doing) and you'll see why people around the world are appaled at our actions.  You'll also see why so many of them are picking up guns against us.  It's a snake eating it's tail over there.

CT - "Since when does lack of evidence prove anything?"  It doesn't.  It's supposed to work the other way around.  You need evidence to prove something.  So says the Judicial system.  "Innocent until proven guilty."  NOT "Guilty until proven innocent."  Unless Bush has professed that as antiquated as the Geneva Conventions...

[DrewKaree]

All the jerry-rigging of excuses "post-invasion" DOES NOT COUNT. You know full well, Drew, that this administration pushed the WMD/Nuclear Threat angle against any other justification, by a factor of 100 to 1, AT LEAST.
Show me any Bush administration offical, PRE-INVASION, offering any other reasoning, in a legitmate* public format, with the same fervor and immediacy as the WMD argument, and maybe you'd have an argument. Until then, you, like this administration, are blowing smoke up everyone's toosh.

*By legimate, I mean, in venues conducive to informing the general public, news program appearances, press conferences, mail campaigns, state of the union. Not b.s. talking points on Rush Limbaugh.

And I was speaking pre-invasion, as given by Bush himself.  If necessary, you can even go to the White House's web site to get transcripts, but I"m MORE than positive that when you lay out your "disclaimer" re: a "legitimate public format", you're also including the actual words spoken by the man in public, as you'd have read them when this subject was previously brought up. 

I know you "STATE" that you'd like to include those things, but your actions in the past show your willingness to disbelieve.  It was showed to you before, you were directed to it before, and it's intellectually dishonest to act as if it WASN'T.  You weren't interested in what was actually said back then, if you're HONESTLY interested in it now, go back and do the homework. 

As for "pushing an angle", if you mean responding to the predominant questions brought up, then sure, it's an angle.  Not one pushed by the Bush administration, but simply responding to the predominant question constantly brought up.  I can't help that you couldn't stomach reading the entire article to see the other things left to fine print, if they were printed at all.  To view it as "pushing an angle" is simply more of your willingness to throw as much as possible against the wall and see what sticks.  Pushing an angle?  Aks Mr Rather about that - he's more qualified than either of us.

As for posting b.s. talking points,

• "unnamed sources" make a story valid if it agrees with your outlook
• "unnamed sources" don't make a story valid if we use that story's info for war
• Clinton said Sadaam possessed WMD's
• Bush said the same thing
• Clinton didn't act on his identical info - "good" for him 
• Bush did act on his indentical info - "he's a "war criminal"  ::)
• Bush didn't act until the info CLINTON HAD was run past Congress, including Clinton's own wife
  
• Info given by NUMEROUS sources all the way back to Clinton is a blatant lie by Bush - Texas governor at the time 
• We are to believe given all these points, you're NOW willing to listen (although you couldn't be bothered with facts back then) to reason and acknowledge that the words Bush spoke tell a different story than you wish to acknowledge? 

That's what I'm saying, I don't think you've laid out any substantial facts supporting your argument. You say you have, but it's all red-herring. I'd shut my mouth if had the facts to back up any of what you're saying. See my above challenge in red.

See, I UNDERSTAND what you're saying.  I also believe the same regarding your "facts" supporting your argument.  There's not a chance in Texas that you'd shut your mouth if you had the facts to back up what I was saying, because you're STILL prattling on about this.  It's not my concern that you view all the "unsubstantial facts" as red-herrings.  Sadaam would have to have had weapons made on the scale of what we use to defend the U.S.A and you'd still be sitting here telling us "yeah, but they're not any good because they don't have the firing caps on them". 

Your axe will be sharpened in another four years.....keep grinding.

[geomartin]

Late to the show, I know.  But where were all the Democrat peaceniks when BJ Clinton was bombing the Serbs into submission?  The war has been over for years, how come the Democrats in Congress aren't demanding that our boys be sent home from that war?  I know that the numbers of US killed and injured don't add up to the Iraq war, but still, my cousin got his Purple Heart there last year when his Humvee hit a booby trap.  No one in the press is quick to show proof of mass graves, or genocide that BJ used to get us into that one.  I just hate to see how the politicians have stooped to playing politics in the midst of a war.  I know that the argument can be made that the UN approves of it's peacekeeping in Eastern Europe, but, I make the argument that there seems to be plenty of proof around that Koffi Anan, the Germans and the French had significant monetary reasons for not approving of the war in Iraq.  I also remember seeing with my own eyes the video clips of the Kurds after Saddam used Weapons of Mass Destruction on them.

Geo

[DrewKaree]

What were the reasons for the invasion?
1- WMD's (nope)
2- Terrorist connections (nope)
3- Crimes against Humanity ie: the Kurds (yep)
4- ?

I'll give you a few more.  If you'd have kept digging, you'd have found them....next time, don't stop when you've gotten what "works" for ya.  If you look around, you'll find even more than the few more that I'll give ya here.

• violation of resolution.  Take your pick of one.  There's several.  DOZENS, in fact.
• Use of biological/chemical weapons

Those two alone SHOULD be enough to demonstrate his willingness to ignore the sacred U.N.'s wishes (you know, the people we "should have talked to"?  Hey, why'd they ever come up with those dozens of resolutions?  Were they acting like cowboys?  Couldn't be that we "talked with 'em"  ) and the wishes of the world for him to stop what he was thought AND known to be doing, to demonstrate that he was decidedly working to do so, and to allow unfettered access to the inspectors in order to suss out just exactly what, if anything, was being done.

Somehow this is constantly ignored....well, not somehow....it's "conveniently forgotten" in the rush to pin blame - see Dan Rather.

...stop and think about how the world reacted for the tsunami victims (A natural disaster).  Compare that number to how many civilians our bombs have killed in Iraq (our own doing) and you'll see why people around the world are appaled at our actions.  You'll also see why so many of them are picking up guns against us.  It's a snake eating it's tail over there.

You're comparing apples to timing belts. 

Just as we felt a responsibility to use more of our resources than any other nation in the world to solve the problems the tidal wave brought, so too did we do the same thing when dealing with Sadaam.  The world had a choice to make in both instances.  In one, their citizens felt a need to send money.  I sent money too.  It --WASN'T--  a giant sacrifice.  In another, they would have had to sacrifice people.  That  --WAS--  a giant sacrifice.  Those that weren't comfortable going to those lengths sent money. 

Comparing a choice to send money for something they weren't responsible for is a drop in the bucket compared to doing something they would have to accept responsibility for throughout history.  That they demonstrated unremarkable cowardice in Iraq in no way compares to the tidal wave. 

[DrewKaree]

I make the argument that there seems to be plenty of proof around that Koffi Anan, the Germans and the French had significant monetary reasons for not approving of the war in Iraq.

You're wasting your breath.  Since they aren't fighting in Iraq, they are to be put up on a pedestal as a model of virtue and the way we all should be working for peace 

It's only newsworthy when it's an American company in hot water.  Unless someone thinks Haliburton is a French, German, (and you forgot Russia and Syria) or relative-of-Kofi's company.  The proof is in the pudding, and the only pudding being shouted from the rooftops is about Haliburton (who told on themselves.....load the gun for them because obviously they're unable to dig up facts like this themselves    )

[patrickl]

Late to the show, I know.

[ChadTower]

CT - "Since when does lack of evidence prove anything?"

[Dexter]

The crime was possession of banned weapons.

[Minwah]

There is no longer *ANY* justification for this war. Welcome to Vietnam 2.0.

I think it is worrying that a country can have such power.  ie America.  They can do whatever they want unquestioned, even contravening UN and such if they feel like it.  Even more worrying when you see the chimp in charge.  Add to this the fact that other world leaders such as our clown of a PM seem to kiss his behind all day long and all in all I weep for the future.

[fredster]

Relax.

It's all good!

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Clinton didn't act on his identical info - "good" for him

Yes. Because he possessed enough wisdom and qualities of leadership to determine that the evidence, as compelling at he thought it may have been, was not cause enough to "preemptively" attack a sovereign nation that presented no direct and/or imminent threat. That particular, short-sighted and ill-conceived act is brought to us by the Bush Doctrine alone.

Also, Clinton's decision was good for US as he has since been proven to have been right.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Sadaam would have to have had weapons made on the scale of what we use to defend the U.S.A and you'd still be sitting here telling us "yeah, but they're not any good because they don't have the firing caps on them".

So we use WMD to defend the U.S.A.?  Does this give China/France/Iran/North Korea/UK/Etc the right to preemptively attack us? If not, why not?

Clear this up for me...

[mr.Curmudgeon]

And finally, you bagged on Rather again, but you never responded to my above 2-part question regarding "PayolaGate", or if you did I didn't see it.

[patrickl]

Relax.

It's all good!

Perhaps seen form your side. Look at it from our side and you see a lunatic attacking countries at will. The US already threatened to attack the Netherlands under Clintons rule (if a US war criminal would be convicted in international court he/she would be freed by force if neccesary) let alone what might happen with the Bush regime in power.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Barbara Boxer gloriously beat the hell out of Condi today, during her SoS confirmation hearing. This exchange represents how our congress is suppose to hold our leaders to account. This is a job interview of the highest order and Condi has shown a level of incompetence that surely makes her unworthy to fill the position again.

Boxer used this administrations OWN WORDS to paint a realistic portrait of a war unjustly sold to the American public.

Whole transcript here: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-011805boxertext_wr,0,7859017.story?coll=la-home-headlines

Boxer:
Now, the war was sold to the American people, as Chief of Staff to President Bush Andy Card said, like a "new product." Those were his words. Remember, he said, "You don't roll out a new product in the summer." Now, you rolled out the idea and then you had to convince the people, as you made your case with the president.

And I personally believe -- this is my personal view -- that your loyalty to the mission you were given, to sell this war, overwhelmed your respect for the truth. And I don't say it lightly, and I'm going to go into the documents that show your statements and the facts at the time.

Now, I don't want the families of those 1,366 troops that were killed or the 10,372 that were wounded to believe for a minute that their lives and their bodies were given in vain, because when your commander-in-chief asks you to sacrifice yourself for your country, it is the most noble thing you can do to answer that call.

I am giving their families, as we all are here, all the support they want and need. But I also will not shrink from questioning a war that was not built on the truth.

Now, perhaps the most well-known statement you've made was the one about Saddam Hussein launching a nuclear weapon on America with the image of, quote, quoting you, "a mushroom cloud." That image had to frighten every American into believing that Saddam Hussein was on the verge of annihilating them if he was not stopped. And I will be placing into the record a number of such statements you made which have not been consistent with the facts.

As the nominee for secretary of State, you must answer to the American people, and you are doing that now through this confirmation process. And I continue to stand in awe of our founders, who understood that ultimately those of us in the highest positions of our government must be held accountable to the people we serve.

So I want to show you some statements that you made regarding the nuclear threat and the ability of Saddam to attack us. Now, September 5th -- let me get to the right package here. On July 30th, 2003, you were asked by PBS NewsHour's Gwen Ifill if you continued to stand by the claims you made about Saddam's nuclear program in the days and months leading up to the war.

In what appears to be an effort to downplay the nuclear-weapons scare tactics you used before the war, your answer was, and I quote, "It was a case that said he was trying to reconstitute. He's trying to acquire nuclear weapons. Nobody ever said that it was going to be the next year." So that's what you said to the American people on television -- "Nobody ever said it was going to be the next year."

Well, that wasn't true, because nine months before you said this to the American people, what had George Bush said, President Bush, at his speech at the Cincinnati Museum Center? "If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy or steal an amount of highly-enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year."

So the president tells the people there could be a weapon. Nine months later you said no one ever said he could have a weapon in a year, when in fact the president said it.

More evidence showing the unmitigated gall of this blatantly dishonest administration. Sad.

mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

SEN. BOXER: Well, you should read what we voted on when we voted to support the war, which I did not, but most of my colleagues did. It was WMD, period. That was the reason and the causation for that, you know, particular vote.


Drew, you're just wrong. This isn't a "difference of opinion" or a circumstance where we should just "agree to disagree". The fact is the Bush admin sold congress, the people of the United States, and the world a bill of goods that they never intended on delivering.

I'm no longer going to provide you further evidence of just how wrong you are, since I gather you just don't care. Which in the face of having our men and women dying there on a daily basis, I find remarkably sad.

I respect your freedom to differ, but I just cannot accept your refusal to admit the reality of how misleading Bush and Co. had been before the invasion. You are a sharp individual and I enjoy debating with you, but I can't understand how you don't see the need to hold those you'd support to account. I never expected you to join me on the Kerry campaign, but I wouldn't have to be so hyper-critical, and obsessively vigilant, if I felt people like you (those that support Bush) would fight to keep there leaders on the straight and narrow. You just seem to have given them the keys to the kingdom, when it is the absolute responsibility of our citizenry to question and judge our leaders behavior on a scale of facts, not rhetoric.

I can honestly say, if Kerry would have won, and had he proceeded to mislead this nation, I would have worked just as hard to get him *out* of office, as I did to get him in.

In response to the inevitable, "look where that got you", I say this, I view my  individual efforts as having been highly successful. I campaigned in New Hampshire and use contacts in Michigan to work the campaign there. Both states went to Kerry. N.H. is traditionally a very red state. So this effort has, rather than dampen my spirits, served to wet my appetite for success. Rather than leave, I feel there is only more work ahead, in the challenge to win my country back.

mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

But where were all the Democrat peaceniks when BJ Clinton was bombing the Serbs into submission?
Geo

If you'd taken the time to actually read anything in this thread, you'd understand that this isn't a question of War vs. Peace, but rather a question of whether the current war is justified at all. Also, If you took the time to consider the issue, rather than provide useless knee-jerk commentary, you wouldn't come across looking so foolish.

I support the idea of necessary war, I am no peacenik. The current quagmire in Iraq bears no resemblance to Clinton's actions in Bosnia. Learn some history and you are welcome to join us once you're finished.

mrC

[Crazy Cooter]

I wouldn't call it apples & timing belts, more like Washintons & Granny Smiths.

[DrewKaree]

Here you go.

It doesn't answer any of your questions, it doesn't address any of your problems, it just states the rightness of the situation, according to my valid point of view.

http://horus.vcsa.uci.edu/article.php?id=3153

I've listened to what Bush had to say.  I believe you listen to his words and hear what you want to hear, as you believe the same of me.  Your own words - "blatantly dishonest administration" - hint at an anger, a bias, and an unwillingness to admit the undisputable fact that countries around the world had intelligence agencies saying the same thing he acted upon, that the previous President publicly proclaimed the exact same belief - your refusal to acknowledge that the information used regarding WMD's was a widespread belief doesn't jive with the "he's an idiot" shpiel.  One, the other, or both are wrong.

In order for your "blatant lies" comment to be even CLOSE to right, we'd have to believe that the GOVERNOR OF TEXAS had such overwhelming charm and charisma as to get the current (at that time) President of the United States of America to believe the same thing, to get COUNTLESS members of our elected representatives to believe the EXACT same thing WHILE STILL GOVERNOR OF TEXAS, to convince intelligence agencies WORLDWIDE to believe the EXACT same thing, AGAIN, WHILE STILL GOVERNOR OF TEXAS, and then RE-convince the people yet again after  becoming President himself. 

I further point to your belief that the hiding of WMD's in Iraq would require such a massive cover-up as to defy belief, yet you refuse to see the same requirement on the "blatant lies" regarding the intelligence. 

Which is it?  He's the smartest man in the world, able to convince anyone of anything, including the President, or he's the "chimp-in-chief"?

Somehow, this "ever so little"  bit of bias is to be ignored whenever you wish to inform us, and we are not to look upon your jaded comments without the least bit of prejudice?  You seriously don't understand why we are unwilling to believe the "facts" as you lay them out?

I'm no longer going to provide you further evidence of just how wrong you are, since I gather you just don't care. Which in the face of having our men and women dying there on a daily basis, I find remarkably sad.

Please, save the "poor and dying military men each and every day" shlock.  It's akin to saying conservatives hate clean air and clean water because of their environmental views.  To put it in there is simply intellectual dishonesty, the kind you've railed long and loudly about.  This isn't some "if I believe your stance, our soldiers will be saved" debate.  That remark serves no purpose.  To equate my difference of views as "not caring", followed up by "the troops are dying" is bullsh!t, and so far from honest it's lost its way back.  It's time to cry "shame" on yourself.

Your views and your belief in their rightness doesn't make you "care" any less, or any MORE than I do, regardless of how you think.  You've reached the point I reached a week ago.  I know your stance, as evidenced by your agreement with my assessment, and you know mine.  That which I point to as proof is not valid to you, as is the proof you offer up for my enjoyment. 

Your myopia regarding the "Bush Lied" is the basic root of disbelief of all that you put forth as "evidence" for your argument.  It's quite simple for my ilk to start there, and slowly dismantle everything else from that point, something I have no doubt you view as "airtight".  We see you clouded by your views that defy belief, your bias, and your continued irrational argument of the "blatant lies" of this administration.  You, and you alone, are your own worst enemy in the effort to win hearts to your way of thinking.  Bush sold no one a bill of goods that they hadn't thought themselves, been introduced to by the previous administration, believed by intelligence agencies by large land masses across the globe (formerly called countries), explained to-gone over with-agreed upon- by the man you believe to be smart enough to take the job away from the idiot in there now.........whew.

Your disbelief at my disbelief is equalled by my disbelief at your disbelief.  Your shock at my willingness to accept a load of tripe is equalled by my shock at your willingness to accept an equal lod of tripe.  In the end, you think you're right beyond a shadow of a doubt.  I just start from your view and work my way backward, unzipping it as I go.  When I get to the end and there's nothing to hold onto, it's quite easy for me to cast it aside.  You haven't proven your case in this instance to me and others. 

Just telling us over and over again that we're wrong about everything because our President is a blatant liar and master of deception AND an idiot can only lead to us thinking simply the latter of you, our "town crier".  Your attempts continue to fail because of your irrational views they are REQUIRED to be tied to in order for us to start believing. 

[fredster]

Drew,

They quit listening a long time ago. It's the typical liberal method. If you disagree with any of them they always follow a certain pattern.

1) They insult your intelligence.  Like your opinion isn't as learned as theirs.

2) If that doesn't work, they then question your motives and paint you as evil.

3) The truth is always relative.  It doesn't matter what actually happened, only their version of what the "facts" are.  Their perspective is always more probing and concise, without question.

4) If for some reason you can gain a foot hold, they become unhinged and end up calling names and throw around analogies of Hitler.

It's always the same.

The only way to end this with them is to smile and agree.  After all, they know better than we do because they are more intelligent.  Just ask them, they will tell you.


But now it's My turn -

Dexter - Why do you even try?

Patrickl - What are you hiding over there? Do you have children in prisons being tortured? Do you murder people daily on a whim? Do you have long term plans to invade other countries? Have you developed a sophisticated WMD system to attack your own Moroccan population?  If so, are there 12 years of UN resolutions hanging over your head ?

Mr.C -

Clinton didn't act because of his Monica scandal. He didn't have the political power or "capital"  to convice the Republicans he could do it in his Lame duck years.

Clinton supported the war didn't he?

The current quagmire

Ok Mr. History buff, what happened after the fall of the Axis powers and how long did we clean up there?  Even in the civil war there were similar acts, "The South shall rise again" sound familiar?

It irritates me that nobody can truly appreciate the absolute brilliance of the Iraq War.  We let these governments fester for 30 years and fall into corruption and religious zealots spawn terrorists to kill Israel.

My theory is that Carter started this. He didn't back the Shaw of Iran and showed these Muslims weakness in his failed attempt at rescuing the US ambassadors. Not only that, he gave credibility to Arafat, Bad Mistake.
Next we have Reagan that only made one or two missile drops and actually supported Saddam. He also gave birth to OBL by backing him against the Russians. Bad Mistake.
Next we have Bush 1 that did NOTHING to clear this up. By the time it got to Clinton, these people had twisted their victories into somekind of mission from God.  Clinton was so handicapped most of his administration with Whitewater and Monica and Waco and the Cole and the first tower bombing and of course, our own domestic terrorists he couldn't point his attention outward that far.  Black hawk down showed how much we could commit.

So we are weak and puny to these guys. We were spoiled and the biggest target they could find to show their might without reprisals.

Bush comes in wanting to adjust Social Security and shore up the economy from a fall, an BAM. OBL and his minions are all over us. We let them build up until they are a force. Our lax attitude to the Middle East has let these people run wild in our country.

Afghanistan is riddled and destroyed because of the lack of US and international action to rebuild it after the Russian Vietnam there.  Nobody wants it but OBL finds a safehaven and a place to build his Muslim Utopia.

When we are hit, we are totally pissed. Nobody hits the US like that, nobody. Even Mr.C was with Bush on that war.

Bush wins the war that even the Romans couldn't win. Russia tried for years to subdue that country and we did it in days.

But we still have Saddam. He's across the border. He is getting out of the box by selling oil to everybody that has a vote in the UN.  France and Russia are backing him because he's using his countries resources to pay them off.  They are into him for Billions, and there is more comming. Soon he'll be out of the UN sanctions and back into power. Bush 1's gamble to let his own people kill him failed miserably.

He's gonna get out, and there is no telling what he will do. Go after Iran and start a nuclear war. Recapture Kuwait.  Pakistan is wavering on total anarchy, with atomic bombs pointed at India.  They are poor in Pakistan and corrupt. Saddam is sitting on an endless fortune. Plus he has his legacy, his two maniacal sons. It's a recipe for the beginning of Armageddon.

So Bush has the pieces in place to sweep forward. The international community agrees Saddam has WMD, as I recall there were very few naysayers at the time.  Bush has a choice, retract and stop the military action like is father did, or wipe him out before he gets to the postion of power he would have by now. Retract and he risks the reported WMD will be transfered to the terrorists via Saddam or delivered personally by Saddam. Advance and he destroys a madman.

If Saddam had bribed enough people and got out of the UN sanctions, he would have bought more and more equipment from France and Russia.  As a full partner in the international community he would have retooled his Army, which prior to GW1 was the 4th largest in the world.

Instead W decides to take care of this while has the chance.  His advisors are confident that we can and will remove Saddam and the resistance will be small. We'll clean it up and be out of there like we did in Afghanistan.

The best and probably planned outcome - create a stable government in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Turkey, and Iraq.  Setup a band of democracies through the middle of the Middle East and isolate Lybia, Syria and Iran.

The gamble stabilizes the political situations there for a generation and removes any Saddam made barriers to peace in Israel and the Palestinians.

Freaking Brilliant boys. He saved the world and you can't see it.  You can't appreciate it because the vision is so broad and breathtaking that he should have his face carved on Mount Rushmore.

Instead you think we should have approached the whole thing with negotiation and police actions.  Well, Rocky said it best to Bullwinkle:
"ah that trick never works"

So we didn't get out of there unscathed like we have prior to this. Iran and Syria through curves to us by sending in militia to destabalize the area and drive us out.  They all had a DVD of "Black Hawk Down" as a guideline (Thank you Mr. Clinton).

We lost a lot of good men. Men I admire and was once one of about 15 and 20 years ago.  I know people over there and they are proud to be able to support us.

Bush may have been wrong about the aftermath. The Dems supported him just to give him enough rope to hang himself hoping it would be a "quagmire" so they could win the next election. (Remember Kerry's speaches at the time Mr. C? He supported the war too.)  The Republicans had to fall in line.

10 years from now I hope that we will look back and see this as a bold vision that paid off.  I hope that you are all wrong and "myopic" in your assesment of the situation. 

That's my view of it. Freaking Brilliant. Where am I wrong?

[Dexter]

Freaking Brilliant boys. He saved the world and you can't see it.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Here you go.

It doesn't answer any of your questions, it doesn't address any of your problems, it just states the rightness of the situation, according to my valid point of view.

http://horus.vcsa.uci.edu/article.php?id=3153

It's an op-ed piece. If you are comfortable supporting your stance w/ an op-ed, that's fine. You're right though, I read through the entire thing, and it certainly doesn't address any of my questions or problems. I've presented you with factual quotations directly from the administration, as well as a factual account from a member of congress, stating that the vote on the authority to use force was based solely on the condition, as Bush/Powell/Rummy/et al. promised, that not only did they know Saddam had WMD, but they knew exactly how much, and exactly where it may be hidden. None of that turned out to be true. Which is why I gather you are only left with an op-ed piece to defend your position.

Which, btw, is also factually incorrect and intellictually dishonest. See below.

The United States has now called off an active physical search of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Don