« My near-brushes with semi-greatness | Main | I'm Thinking They Missed One »

Speaking truth to pinheads

With the anniversary of the war in Iraq (or, as I like to call it when I'm feeling formal, the Iraq Campaign of the War on Terror), I think it's long overdue time to actually LOOK at some of the anti-war crowd's charges and give them the slightest shred of credence, for at least long enough to rip them to pieces.

I don't recall the original source of the statement "if you repeat a lie often enough, people will eventually believe it," but it's a fair observation of human nature. The anti-war crowd has taken that concept and proven it beyond their wildest dreams: they've chanted their mantras so often that they're accepted as gospel by their compatriots (I heard Liane Hansen of NPR repeat the two following as factual on Sunday). But as they say in sports, let's go to the tape:

1) President Bush claimed that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) prior to the invasion, and that was the primary reason for the attack.

Thanks to the ever-worthy Rob Port (my former colleague here at Wizbang!), we have this excerpt from a New York Times account from February 26, 2003 -- almost a full month before the invasion:

President Bush sketched an expansive vision last night of what he expects to accomplish by a war in Iraq. Instead of focusing on eliminating weapons of mass destruction, or reducing the threat of terror to the United States, Mr. Bush talked about establishing a ''free and peaceful Iraq'' that would...

Obviously, I don't feel like forking over $3.95 for the full article. But that was enough to find the actual transcript of Bush's speech, as delivered to the American Enterprise Institute. The sole mention of the threat Iraq posed is contained in one paragraph:

In Iraq, a dictator is building and hiding weapons that could enable him to dominate the Middle East and intimidate the civilized world -- and we will not allow it. This same tyrant has close ties to terrorist organizations, and could supply them with the terrible means to strike this country -- and America will not permit it. The danger posed by Saddam Hussein and his weapons cannot be ignored or wished away. The danger must be confronted. We hope that the Iraqi regime will meet the demands of the United Nations and disarm, fully and peacefully. If it does not, we are prepared to disarm Iraq by force. Either way, this danger will be removed.

The rest of the discussion on Iraq was on how the rebuilding of Iraq would take place, and his vision of freedom blooming in the Muslim world. And as far as WMDs being found -- at least one artillery shell containing sarin has been used in an IED, as well as one containing mustard gas -- the latter being one of over 1,000 mustard gas weapons, totalling over 80 tons of mustard gas -- that was never accounted for in 12 years of Saddam's "compliance."

And never, NEVER forget that no one was obligated to prove Saddam was out of compliance with the 1991 surrender. Under its terms, the onus was solely on him to prove his compliance, and he deliberately and willfully failed to comply. Like a parolee required to undergo regular drug screening, he was presumed guilty until he proved his innocence -- and failure to cooperate nullified his parole.

2) Bush told the American people that Iraq posed an imminent threat to the US.

Once again, let's go to the tape. More specifically, President Bush's 2003 State of the Union address, delivered almost three months before the invasion:

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.

And later, he specifically says the threat is NOT imminent:

America will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country, and our friends and our allies.

What WAS imminent was the collapse of the sanctions on Iraq, fed by Saddam's bribery through the Oil For Food program and other means. Our ears were being filled with the tales of the thousands of Iraqi children dying daily because of the sanctions, and the pressure to "ease up" and "allow Iraq to rejoin the community of nations" were growing more and more intense. The threat of Iraq being able to renew its quest for WMDs -- which it had possessed and used in the past, both on its own people and its neighbors -- was there.

3) Bush lied when he said Iraq possessed WMDs.

First, let's break out the dictionary on this one. To lie means to knowingly and willingly state a falsehood as truth. There is a mountain of difference between lying and being mistaken. For centuries, folks said the earth was flat. Others said that the sun revolved around the earth. Nobody says they were liars, they were simply speaking what they believed was truth.

Likewise, Saddam DID possess WMDs -- so far discovered in far smaller quantities than expected. But the assumption was an eminently fair one, considering several indisputable facts:

  • In the 12 years between the first and second wars, Saddam was supposed to account for and destroy all his nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, along with all research and development materials. Literally TONS of contraband was never accounted for properly, with a great deal of it being covered by Saddam's "we burned it, but we lost the receipt" excuses.
  • Saddam was trying to balance two competing interests against each other: convincing most of the world that he indeed had not WMDs, in accordance with the 1991 ceasefire, and convincing some of his neighbors (mainly Iran and Israel) and certain elements of his own people (mainly the Kurds and Shiites) that he did, and was willing and able to use them against those people if necessary. He thought he could count on his bought-and-paid-for allies in Fance, Germany, Russia, Great Britain, and the UN to provide enough cover to block the US from rigorously enforcing the 1991 terms -- a miscalculation that proved in the post-9/11 world to be fatal.
  • Saddam's own generals and forces thought they would have access to WMDs for any possible US-led invasion. Captured battle plans referred to using chemical weapons against the invaders, and several key units had protective gear on hand.

Yes, there were flaws in the intelligence before the invasion. But intelligence is not a precise science. Based on the best information available, and the existing legal state (the repeated violations of the 1991 ceasefire, and the Congressional authorization of the use of force), the invasion of Iraq and deposal of Saddam was the least worst of the available options. And those who wish to rewrite history based on their own lies and prejudices need to be confronted and defeated with the most powerful weapon available:

The truth.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Speaking truth to pinheads:

» bRight & Early linked with Good Stuff

» Conservative Outpost linked with Daily Summary

» Wizbang Podcast linked with Wizbang Podcast #15

» Loaded Mouth linked with Countering truth with, well, truth...

» Wizbang Podcast linked with Wizbang Podcast #15

» Brutally Honest linked with Hey moonbats, don't read this

Comments (106)

Nice post, well said.... (Below threshold)

Nice post, well said.

Thank you, Jay, for the sum... (Below threshold)

Thank you, Jay, for the summary. You don't think they'll ever stop repeating the "big lies," do you?

Nicely done Jay.... (Below threshold)

Nicely done Jay.

My husband and I had an arg... (Below threshold)
K2LAW:

My husband and I had an argument just yesterday over this very subject. Thanks so much for putting this together -- I've forwarded it to him with a great big "I told you so."

Re: Your Point (2) From the... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

Re: Your Point (2) From the 2003 State of the Union speech, re: Iraq: "All free nations have a stake in preventing sudden and catastrophic attack. We are asking them to join us, and many are doing so..."

BryanD:And as hist... (Below threshold)
Jay Tea:

BryanD:

And as history shows, we led a coalition of nations in the invasion -- and while some have withdrawn, many are still with us. I'm late for work, but I can cite British, Australian, Japanese, and Polish troops alongside others, just from memory. Thanks for proving my point.

J.

Re:Point (1) "We believe he... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

Re:Point (1) "We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." --Dick Cheney, Vice President, Meet The Press, March 16, 2003___(Hey, if nukes aren't good enough to be a primary reason, what's a primary reason good for?)

POINT (3): The Van Gogh of ... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

POINT (3): The Van Gogh of geo-politics: Uses too much paint he didn't pay for.

"We believe he has, in fact... (Below threshold)
toby928:

"We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."

Aiiyee. Quote it in context BD. Its no fair to take a slip of the toungue and posit it as an argument. In context, Cheney clearly meant to say 'nuclear weapons program'. Unless you're just cutting and pasting from the KOS point-o-matic, you know that full well.

Bad troll, Bad

Tob

Here's good stuff.... (Below threshold)
toby928:
Ahhh...the sweet voice of r... (Below threshold)

Ahhh...the sweet voice of reason...

In an <a href="http://www.n... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

In an article published in the New York Sun on February 8, 2006 David Gaubatz, a former member of the Air Force's Office of Special Investigations during the Iraq war said he found four sealed underground bunkers in southern Iraq that he is sure contain stocks of chemical and biological weapons.

The real mystery is why these bunker were never cracked to see what's inside. Then again, Bush may be saving that as an August surprise. Can you imagine the damage that would do to the Democrats who have labeled Bush a liar for not finding a large cache of WMDs. By the Democrats' own standard they would become liars for saying there were no WMDs.

"A lie, told often enough, ... (Below threshold)

"A lie, told often enough, becomes truth."

- Vladimir Lenin

"Yeah, but what is truth? If you follow me..."

- Lionel Hutz

In case it's not clear, the... (Below threshold)

In case it's not clear, the lies I'm talking about are not what Jay has said here. I was trying to point out that the "reality based community" has their own set of "truths" which do not agree with these ones. I suppose that was not terribly clear...

And as history shows, we le... (Below threshold)
nick:

And as history shows, we led a coalition of nations in the invasion -- and while some have withdrawn, many are still with us. I'm late for work, but I can cite British, Australian, Japanese, and Polish troops alongside others, just from memory. Thanks for proving my point.
Posted by: Jay Tea at March 20, 2006 07:25 AM

Jay Tea:

I'm glad you're so interested in the "truth". Let's see where "coalition" troop levels stand as of March 2006:

United States: 132,000 troops
2,304 dead, 16,906 wounded

Great Britain: 7,900 troops (with an anouncement today that 800 more will be withdrawn by the end of May 2006)
103 dead, no info on wounded

(that's quite a decrease in troops from US forces already, but read on.....)

South Korea: 3,300 (with 1,000 being withdrawn by June)
4 dead, no info on wounded

Italy: 1,400 (with full withdrawl by December 2006)
27 dead, no info on wounded

Poland: reduction to 900 by the end of this month
17 dead, no info on wounded

Romania: 830 troops (of which only a portion are actual soldiers - the rest are medics, engineers, etc).
0 deaths, 3 wounded

Denmark: 550 (includes medics, and military police)
All Danish soldiers will be gone from Iraq by Dec 2006
2 dead, 0 wounded

Czech Republic: 90 police trainers
0 dead, 0 wounded

Latvia: 120
0 dead, 0 wounded

Slovakia: 105 engineers
0 dead, 0 wounded

Armenia: 46 (logistics, medical, and "support" only - no soldiers)
0 dead, 0 wounded

Estonia: 35
2 dead, 0 wounded

Bosnia: 33
1 dead, 0 wouned

So, this is Jay Tea's "coalition" forces. Now, who are the pinheads? People who realize we were dupped by Bushie McFlightsuit, or the meager 29% who stupidly still support George Bush?

Jay Tea, you're really grasping at straws these days. What happened to all that arrogant bravado you right-wing assholes were spouting just a few months ago? Gone down the tubes with the Bush presidency. LOL.

Nick:Great post. ... (Below threshold)
bethright:

Nick:

Great post. Funny how Jay Tea brings up that ridiculous "faulty intelligence" excuse again. Can't you just feel the nervous tension in the air as the right-wing realizes what a catastrophe the Bush Administration has become?

The 29% who still support Bush? That's what's called the "dumbing down of America".

P.S. Love the Bushie McFlightsuit line. Hahahaha.

OK, once we are going to st... (Below threshold)
epador:

OK, once we are going to start with character ass asination, how about a post from Jay about another mantra, "No one Died when Clinton Lied" and put Vince Foster and a few others at the top of the list... ...sure to get some vitriolic replies.

Proportionally, the other coalition members sent a fair amount of their troops, if you look at either the size of their military, their population, or their GNP.

I would hope someone is archiving all the troll verbiage, as it will be interesting to see how they match up to their views in 30 years. Much the same trash was spouted before, during and after WWII, (as pointed out in the previous post about post WWII Germany), yet few of those folks are still maintaining their positions as history has developed their perspective.

No one has really taken on... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

No one has really taken on Jay's provocative riposote, so I will try.Speaking truth to Pinheads Evidently that is only the majority of Americans now.far more than even the number of angels that the Inquisition interrogators believed could be found dancing on a pinhead...Personally I am not so concerned about "the bureaucratic reason" (MWD) Wolfowitz said was used to justify the war. Unfortunately, for Bush Iraq was probably one of the few nasty regimes didn't have well stocked inventory. The problem is that Dubya (a self advertised non nation-builder) and his largely neo-con coteries, wanted to reshape the Arab world, and reverse centuries of history, without preparing for the post invasionary phase. "It's not just about weapons of mass destruction or American credibility. It's about reforming the Arab world." from the Big Lie( this was a famous phrase of Goebbels I believe).
The Administration didn't have the whit, desire, dedication, aptitudude ;in short competence to do it. They were only concerned with the expected military success of the war. Just as they didn't listen to their own State Department about the immense difficulties of being a infidel Army of Occupation, they probably thought their 'friends', such as the UN and the other Arab nations, could be relegated in planet America. And just as Bush( who almost never asks or encourages others to ask a question such as the worst case scenario) seems to suffer from a attention defecit disorder, so do the Americans;and this is why the war is so unpopular. Who would have thought that three years later the US who outspends the rest of the world combined in its defence budget would seem no closer to winning than it was in 2003.? The US and Bush always a project, are learning (again) the limits of power.

And notice the death rates ... (Below threshold)
epador:

And notice the death rates for each member - (though the numbers spouted above I have not checked for accuracy, nor do they reflect total troops committed at earlier times). UK took a big hit but I think that they've had more troops on the ground earlier.

"the Iraq Campaign of the W... (Below threshold)
FIAR:

"the Iraq Campaign of the War on Terror"

That is it's proper name.

Even if these Bunkers do co... (Below threshold)
JEFF:

Even if these Bunkers do contain some of saddams numerous wmd,s,, the Dems would say BUSH ,CHENEY, RUMSFELD and Halliburton at the direction of TOM DELAY and KARL ROVE planted them there for the mid-terms..The bigger mystery is why would Saddam give up billions of dollars ,a harem of women,palaces, anything He could ever want simply to keep weapons He did not have??

Epador:I think it'... (Below threshold)
nick:

Epador:

I think it's safe to say that character assasination started when Jay Tea refers to anyone who disagrees with him as a "pinhead". You've heard the saying "If you can't take the heat......"

As far as the troop levels, look them up - you will find it as disturbing as I've indicated.

And why don't they reflect troop levels at earlier times? Because these countries were intelligent enough to realize that Iraq was disaster waiting to break into civil war, and they got out while they could. This is not a coalition, and anyone with half a brain knows it's not.

Epador, get your head out of your ass. Iraq is a mistake now, and will be judged even more of one in 30 years.

Your article is crap. Try ... (Below threshold)
David Welsh:

Your article is crap. Try to do better next time.
For centuries the intelligent have known, for example, that the earth is spherical, and, no doubt,
"some folks" might today believe it is flat, but they are not among intelligent.

Even if these Bunkers do co... (Below threshold)
bethright:

Even if these Bunkers do contain some of saddams numerous wmd,s,, the Dems would say BUSH ,CHENEY, RUMSFELD and Halliburton at the direction of TOM DELAY and KARL ROVE planted them there for the mid-terms..The bigger mystery is why would Saddam give up billions of dollars ,a harem of women,palaces, anything He could ever want simply to keep weapons He did not have??
Posted by: JEFF at March 20, 2006 10:18 AM

Yawn. Stretch. How boring. Blame the Dems, blah, blah, blah. Republitards were in power when this mess started - it's your problem.

By the way, all you posters who are here supporting the war - if it's such a great thing, why aren't you in Iraq? Support our troops - go fight with them.

First of all, I am not affi... (Below threshold)
JEFF:

First of all, I am not affiliated with any political party ! second of all I did not blame the dems, i simply stated their upcoming reaction to any discovery of wmd,s of which there already has been.. and third Saddam was a threat before George Bush 1 or 2 were in power ! How do you think He got into power..by Murdering people.. 5th drop the name calling , it really shows your ignorance.

"No one Died when Clinton L... (Below threshold)
bethright:

"No one Died when Clinton Lied" and put Vince Foster and a few others at the top of the list...
Posted by Epador

Boy, the right-wing really is getting desperate. Vince Foster?

Epador, let's stick to the subject - Iraq and the disasterous consequences of a failed Bush presidency.

bethright , if the msm was ... (Below threshold)
JEFF:

bethright , if the msm was as pro Bush as they were pro Clinton..this would be touted as the greatest presidency ever and you know it.. thats how phony all this Bush bashing is..

Jeff,If he was suc... (Below threshold)
bethright:

Jeff,

If he was such a threat, why is there that famous photo of Donald Rumsfeld as special envoy to Baghdad (under Repub hero Ronald Reagan) shaking hands with Saddam Hussein? This "he was a threat" nonsence is baloney, and you know it.

As far as the name calling (and my supposed ignorance), there's nothing more ignorant than holding on to false beliefs when all evidence points to the contrary. Is that too deep for you to understand?

that's "nonsense" not nonse... (Below threshold)
bethright:

that's "nonsense" not nonsence!!!

Maybe it,s because that spe... (Below threshold)
JEFF:

Maybe it,s because that special envoy was before He invaded Kuwaiit and showed His true intentions.. And just because someone shakes your hand does not mean they will not stab you in the back the first chance they get.. so than why do you keep holding on to your false beliefs than !

bethright , if the msm was ... (Below threshold)
bethright:

bethright , if the msm was as pro Bush as they were pro Clinton..this would be touted as the greatest presidency ever and you know it.. thats how phony all this Bush bashing is..
Posted by: JEFF at March 20, 2006 11:07 AM

Really? So Bush deserves no criticism? If you believe that, there's a swamp in Florida you'll love.

The media has bent over backward to accommodate George Bush, and he still screwed it up (think 9/11). This guy is the epitome of the privileged frat boy who was handed everything and somehow managed to make a complete mess of it all.

I find your state of denial to be very sad. Apparently, you're willing to put political philosophy ahead of what's best for this country - you and the other 6 people that think Bush is doing a good job. Talk about being unpatriotic!!!

Maybe it,s because that spe... (Below threshold)
bethright:

Maybe it,s because that special envoy was before He invaded Kuwaiit and showed His true intentions.. And just because someone shakes your hand does not mean they will not stab you in the back the first chance they get.. so than why do you keep holding on to your false beliefs than !
Posted by: JEFF at March 20, 2006 11:21 AM

Jeff,

Now you're just full of shit. The US Gov't was well aware of what and who Saddam was before he invaded Kuwait. You need to re-read your history book. In fact, our beloved gov't did business (including arms sales) with him for many years. To claim, as you're apparently doing here, that we didn't know the "true" Saddam before the invasion of Kuwait is either the height of ignorance or arrogance - you pick.

Oh dear, someone see... (Below threshold)
Patrick Chester:

Oh dear, someone seems a bit threatened enough to charge into the comments section and spew tons of characters denouncing the icky writings of one of those "meager 29% who stupidly still support George Bush" all over the place.

It's almost amusing how quickly it happens, though I suppose Mr. Tea was being unfair by posting at such an early time. Not everyone stays up late or wakes up early, after all.

This is a good post for one... (Below threshold)

This is a good post for one reason JT, it brought out the complete crop of those that hate Bush, seems they usually keep some distance, a few commenting there, a few here...I guess they don't want to cluster up and have the CIA spy on them. Anyway, if nothing else, that is a victory for this post.

Second, though, for all the name calling, all the nonsense, all the unrelated information...I personally am still waiting for someone to explain something, anything that the administration has lied to them about. They've been in power for about 5+ years now, right? And we're told that we're being lied to constantly. You'd think that would be a lot of easily demonstrated lies, wouldn't you? I think so. 5 years of lying is a lot of lies. In 5+ years the New York Times does not have anything they can splash on their front page and call it a 'smoking gun'. Think about how many things they have tried it with...heck before 9-11 it was Enron, etc. Cheney and the energy meetings? That finally went to court and Cheney won. Don't hear much about that one any more except at left wing rallies. WMD? I'm still waiting for someone to show up with something that shows that Bush had knowledge to contradict the worlds' intelligence services. They must think it's there because they keep screaming 'lie' but, alas, they have nothing to show us. Intelligence was changed, analysts were pressured...etc? Two Congressional committees say 'didn't happen'. Latest spin on this one is Pillar, who doesn't seem to like people saying he was partially responsible for the pre-9-11 intelligence failures. Uranium from Niger? That's still popular with the left, regardless of the fact that Bush never said what they think he said and Niger is not a synonym for Africa and what Wilson told his debriefers differed vastly from what he then told the world. Regardless of the British investigation that found the statement well founded. Mission accomplished? Sure, why not ignore the actual speech when he praises the crew of that vessel for accomplishing THEIR mission while noting, rather specifically, that the larger mission was not accomplished. National Guard service? Some bogus documents are the best they can do? I could go on.

The typical reaction at this point, and I'm sure most of the usual suspects here are already steaming out of their ears at my words, is that I have just written a mindless defense of the war-mongering-oil-baron neoconservative death machine administration. I know this to be true because that's the reaction I get whenever I ask anyone to prove one of the administration's 'lies'. You can't even ask someone to prove something they're saying without them attacking you and saying you're just defending the person they're attacking. I can pretty much guarantee that if anyone chooses to respond to this comment they won't actually try to prove an administration lie, they will instead claim that this is just a pro-Bush defense full of crap.

So, let's have it. Give me the money quote. Clinton 'did not have sexual relations with that woman'. Like him or hate him, is not the base of the debate that he said those words and they were not true by his own, later, admission? Did John Kerry say he voted for the money before he voted against it? Now, trust me, I understand that in both of those cases parties have spun what was said. But when you tear it down, both sides must be able to agree what was actually said. So give me the money quote. Somewhere is there a quote from Bush that is, demonstrably, a lie?

Where will the responses fall? Will they make something up a la Dan Rather? Probably not. How about the 'greeted as liberators' 'lie'? That's a good one. Because Baathists and international terrorists want us out so they can regain control of Iraq, that means that the Iraqi people aren't happy about Saddam not being there anymore. Because Al Sadr wants to ride Iranian money to be the Shiite Saddam in Baghdad, that means they really want the old Saddam back, things were better then. Because your one lamp and radio worked more often than your new air conditioner, satellite dish, and PC with internet access (not to mention your lamp and radio) do, it was better with Saddam and that's the way they're struggling to go, every day we see Iraqi contractors blowing up their own power stations. The vast number of business start ups, the relative peace in much of the country, the huge increase in the voting participation (especially amongst the group of those least likely to want to be 'liberated' since they were already in control, the Sunnis)...surely these are all signs of a population that agrees with the terorrists...even as the terrorists blow them up.

Give me a lie. Surely this is not too much to ask. Bush knew about the levees breaching because of this briefing! No, wait, let's issue a 'clarification', breaches never came up at that briefing. Hey, forget that, what was the Secretary of State doing shopping when she should have had her head crammed in a levee breach, anyway? And where was the Ambassador to Spain when the residents of New Orleans REALLY needed them? I don't recall seeing John Bolton filling sandbags, do you?

Where is the money quote? Bush said we're working hard to put food on our families. Right? Everyone has to agree that he really said that before any debate can begin about what he really meant. But the starting point is that he really said that. People have put in on T-shirts, for crying out loud. He said that. Where are the T-shirts that say "I do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat"? Why isn't that on the top of the front page of the NY Times in 500 point type? Is it because it was a Democratic Senator that said it and not Bush? If Bush had said anything that easily refuted by his enemies, wouldn't it be on the front page of every paper pretty much every day and on T-shirt and mugs around the world? "Bush claims global warming caused by PETA"! That was in the Times, right? I see anti-Bush bumper stickers every day in NY...and not a single one of them has any sort of money quote. They say Bush is riding on fear...they make us afraid so they can dominate us...so why are the anti-Bush bumper stickers the ones that are all about fear? 'He's spying on you!' 'He's destroying democracy to make money for Halliburton!' John Kerry? I saw bumper stickers that said 'I actually voted for John Kerry before I voted against him' during the campaign...because an actual quote was there for the taking...so where are the Bush quote bumper stickers? George Soros and millions of well-meaning liberals are pouring hard-earned cash into organizations whose sole purpose is to attack George Bush, who is lying to them CONSTANTLY, or so they claim. So where is the money quote? I can't help but laugh at each new MorOn.org email I get and what they claim is each new 'smoking gun' against the administration...crap so crazy even the NY Times doesn't touch it. There is an entire industry now in our country to prove that the administration is lying and they're spending billions! And they haven't come up with a single thing?

Where is the money quote? I haven't heard one yet and I find it awfully hard to believe that the NY Times wouldn't have made a big deal if the administration had actually been lying. Secret prisons in Europe? "Bush said there were none, but these photos clearly show CIA personnel beating on terrorists at this facility in rural Poland..." No? The investigation found none, much to the euro-liberals' chagrin, who think they just need to keep looking because the press assured them they were there. Torture at Gitmo? Well, we haven't seen any and actually didn't want to go look, but our press, who also hasn't been there, has assured us that it exists so Gitmo must be shut down, claim the Euro-liberals. After all, if everyone believes it, it must be true, right? (if you don't get the allusion there, please don't play this game).

Eavesdropping on innocent civilians? Who? Bring them forth to stand next to Sheehan on the bright media stage. There are a half dozen anti-US dictators that would love to give such a person a big wet kiss in front of every reporter they can find, Cindy has them on speed dial. The NSA came knocking when you tried to take out a communist book from the library? Oh, so sorry, that was just a little lie on the Bush hater's part.

Can't someone give us a single money quote? Something backed by evidence, something obviously a lie? Something not correct in light of the intelligence or evidence at the time it was spoken? Anything? Nothing. So far, nothing. If we can't agree that truth must be at the root of our disagreements, how can we hope to survive? No matter our disagreements, why can we no longer agree that we must at least begin with a nugget of truth before we shine it the way we desire?

bethright, <blockquot... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

bethright,

Now you're just full of shit. The US Gov't was well aware of what and who Saddam was before he invaded Kuwait. You need to re-read your history book. In fact, our beloved gov't did business (including arms sales) with him for many years.

Everything has a season. A season for building up and a season for tearing down. It's such as simple concept, yet so many have difficulties with it. People put money into a savings account for years and then they pull it all out. That doesn't make them hypocrites, that just means their purpose changed. Maybe they were saving for a new car.

When Iran and Iraq were at war we helped Iraq to prevent the far more populous Iran from overrunning Iraq and being an even bigger threat to us. When Iraq invaded Kuwait, our purpose changed and we started to tear Iraq down. Only people who don't understand the fundamental concept of seasons can't except that both building up and tearing down Iraq we wise polices in their season.

The Media bends over backw... (Below threshold)
JEFF:

The Media bends over backwards to accomodate BUSH !!!!! That is the singlemost assnine statement i have ever seen on a blog to date..hahahahaha The government knew Saddam was a bad apple before He invaded KUWAIIT ) How come your willing to believe the government knew how evil Saddam was before KUWAIIT, BUT DONT believe they knew about His WMD,S Hmmmmmm

Falze:Lots of hot ... (Below threshold)
nick:

Falze:

Lots of hot air (as usual). What you essentially state is that as president, Bush has never told a lie. That, in and of itself, is either a complete state of denial or psychosis requiring immediate attention.

How about "the insurgency is in it's last throes"?

Or there's Bush's "I served my country admirably" during Vietnam? How about "I'll restore dignity and integrity to the White House"?

How about "no one could have known" that a terrorist attack was about to occur with a document titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike Within US" in their hands (1 month and 2 days before the attach occured)?

Or our president saying that the war is a "noble" cause, but his daughters (who are of age and capability) have opted to drink and party instead?

There are many definitions of what constitutes a lie.

Your support of the president now places you in the dismal 29% of Americans who continue to view this moron favorably. Why? Because the other 71% of us realize that Mr Bush lies, and lies often.

And the irony here is that because of your viewpoint, you're now lying to yourself.

The Media bends over backwa... (Below threshold)
bethright:

The Media bends over backwards to accomodate BUSH !!!!! That is the singlemost assnine statement i have ever seen on a blog to date..hahahahaha The government knew Saddam was a bad apple before He invaded KUWAIIT ) How come your willing to believe the government knew how evil Saddam was before KUWAIIT, BUT DONT believe they knew about His WMD,S Hmmmmmm
Posted by: JEFF at March 20, 2006 12:37 PM

Umm, hello? Because there were no WMD's.

I always believed that Saddam Hussien was a "bad apple" (love the military jingo). That's just my point.

Jeff, you really show your ignorance. Brush up on something before you write commentary (and use something other than Faux News as your source).

Iran was rightfully stoppe... (Below threshold)
JEFF:

Iran was rightfully stopped from taking over Iraq just as Iraq was rightfully kicked out of Kuwaiit... very well said Mac Lorry

Looks like Jay Tea struck a... (Below threshold)
John Irving:

Looks like Jay Tea struck a nerve. Well done!

To Bethright,Nick and all p... (Below threshold)
Mark Vance:

To Bethright,Nick and all pinheads like you

I have struggled long to remember that the first amendment does protect fools as well as geniuses.

My problem is that America cannot exist for long half Jefferson and half Marx.

You are best characterized as termites, constantly eating away at the structure of this country.

You are arrogant and without reason, and I can only quote Samuel Adams, "May posterity forget that you were ever our countrymen.

It is tragic and probably deadly to our freedoms that we have to tolerate the likes of you.

If you don't my harsh and realistic opinion, I am at your service.

Mark

Hey nick , I believe Chene... (Below threshold)
virgo:

Hey nick , I believe Cheney said the terrorist,s were in their last throes not Bush.. People have the choice to serve their country or not ..because you choose not to does not make your father a liar.. Every homicidal maniac that blows him/herself up in a murderous self centered rage is indeed a welcomed decrease in the scummy insurgents numbers ,and thus in its last throes for there is no tomorrow for them..no heaven ,no virgins,nothing but utter blackness. Was this Bin Laden document (Bin Laden determined to attack america forwarded by the Rose Law Firm billing dept ? because this is the administration that refused to take Bin Laden on a silver platter,, I guess your idea of restoring integrity to the white house is Bill boinking Monica.. you still have not pointed out a lie ? why ?

I thinks it's funny how the... (Below threshold)
Fran:

I thinks it's funny how the argument is framed around pinheads accusing the admin of lying. What a god damned problem.

Steve Crickmore had the answer to Jay's post.

What if we think that the pinheads are all wrong, and that WMD wasn't the reason for the war.

Now all we have to discuss is the incompetence of the admin.

Don't forget...Bush does what the commanders on the ground want. Bush appointed Rumsfeld, Rumsfeld picked the commanders...hey...it sounds like a circle jerk.

How 'bout this one...If the war is as important as the admin says...maybe they would change the commanders on the ground. I do remember something about certain generals, Shinseki, who wanted to actually win the war and the peace.

Vote for Competence in 2006.

This is a riot. Really.</p... (Below threshold)

This is a riot. Really.

The fact is that no matter how much Bush or anyone else talked about all of the other reasons and goals and motivations for invading Iraq, the only one that the BDS folks *heard* was WMD because that's the only reason they cared about. Bush didn't lie to them. They lied to themselves.

They latched onto the WMD thing because it was simple... simplistic. Mass graves? Who cares. Gas the Kurds? Whoop de doo. Defy UN sanctions and take every opportunity to act like a tough guy while letting children die for lack of clean water just so you can blame the US for killing Iraqi children? Hey, it's *all* good. No one minds *that* stuff because they know the US is evil incarnate and who cares about brown kids anyway, but if they might lob a nuke on NEW YORK CITY, well then the BDS folks suddenly approve of military force after all.

Understand that terrorists must be defeated by destroying their breeding grounds... not by turning the region to glass, but by imposing (yes, imposing) freedom and democracy. That's just too HARD. Like math or something.

Besides, we have freedom and democracy and we're evil, so we ought to respect the rights of others to live in tyrannies, which aren't all that bad anyhow. Right? Rape rooms and human abattoirs aren't bad at all compared to a system that oppresses the poor. Heck, who wouldn't prefer the rape room? And most people never saw that. Most people were happy, kite flying, lovers of Saddam. Except for the children dying because they couldn't get clean water... but that was the fault of America anyhow.

If we'd just LEAVE PEOPLE ALONE everything would be wonderful.

It's better for the US to lose... if things start to go badly, it's better for us to leave than to try harder, because obviously it's better for the world if the region decends into horror and civil war. It's not as though Imams will preach exterior villians to explain the crappy daily lives that people have to live. It's not like this would pose any long term threat to the West and our free-speech, homosexual tolerating evil ways. Heck no. Much *much* better for us to lose than for us to win.

Which is why "Bush is incompetent" is always followed by calls for abandonment rather than better plans for victory.

Always.

The day I hear the Democrat... (Below threshold)

The day I hear the Democrats or the "Peace" crowd demanding for more troops, more money, and a 10 year plan is the day I retract my previous statment.

But it's better to defeat Bush than to win in Iraq because... if we *win* then people are going to say that Bush was right, and that would be worse than losing.

Hmmm.The moonbatti... (Below threshold)
ed:

Hmmm.

The moonbattiness in this thread has exceeded my willingness to suffer it.

Name one reason worthy of r... (Below threshold)
virgo:

Name one reason worthy of removing Saddam other than the Weapon,s of mass Destruction that He hid in Syria ,libya , paris ,russia and what do you come up with.. # 1 They shot at our friggin military jets! case closed!!

I still support Bush becaus... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

I still support Bush because I understand something of the consequences of withdrawing from Iraq before the job is done. I don't consider making a statement that later turns out to be wrong as a lie. My dictionary calls that a mistake. Apart from someone who can see the future, being wrong happens to every President and is going to continue to happen.

All eight justices and the chief justice of the Supreme court are experts in Americian law. They hear the exact same oriel arguments for a given case (if they are awake), read the exact same case record and the exact same briefs, yet they often disagree on the decision. That shows how different people can interpret the same data in different ways.

In the intelligence community analysts come to a wide range of conclusions for one set of data. In WWII a few intelligence analysts were saying that Germany knew about the Allies' plan to invade Normandy. Had the invasion been a disaster, some could have made the claim that General Eisenhower had a document in hand revealing that Germany knew about Normandy beforehand. Of course, it turned out that Normandy was a complete surprise to the Germans, so no body cared about these contrary reports.

Bush faced the usual spectrum of analyst opinions before 9/11, before invading Iraq, and to this day. If a president waited until all the analysts agreed about anything, it would be history before he could act. That's why we have a President; to make decisions when there's no clear answer.

People who have no understanding of the chaos and spectrum of opinions that are integral to any important decision making point to a speculative document here or an explorative document there to say Bush lied. What's amazing is that these same people see themselves as being intelligent and open minded. Obvious, that's an ignorant opinion.

Ive got a question for all ... (Below threshold)
virgo:

Ive got a question for all the pinheads or libs out there ! How would Jon Kerry, or Hillary or Algore deal with Iran right now ? please tell us how to deal with this " Real Threat " that saddam never was!!

"Grasping at straws" says i... (Below threshold)
jp2:

"Grasping at straws" says it best.

Folks, all you need to know about people and posts like this is that they are continuously defending something THREE years later to themselves. That really says it all. The Cult of Bush is tearing at the seams - look up cognitive dissonance.

Fran,How ... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Fran,

How 'bout this one...If the war is as important as the admin says...maybe they would change the commanders on the ground. I do remember something about certain generals, Shinseki, who wanted to actually win the war and the peace.

Generals see things in military terms. During the Korean war General McCarthy wanted to use nuclear weapons against China. Maybe he was right, but if he was wrong the war could have escalated out of control. If all we wanted to do in Iraq was win militarily, we could nuke Iran and Syria to stop the flow of insurgents and arms into Iraq. We could annihilate any cite from the air if they allowed terrorists to operate in their area. The people of Iraq would soon learn to tow the line or die. Is that what you are calling for in 2006? If not, give us your plan for winning in Iraq that's substantially different than what's already being done.

Folks, all you need to k... (Below threshold)
LJD:

Folks, all you need to know about people and posts like this is that they are continuously defending something THREE years later to themselves.

Yeah- Cuz after three years moonbats give themselves a clean slate...

LOL, ya criticize folks for... (Below threshold)
epador:

LOL, ya criticize folks for gutter talk and character ass-assination, and they splash the same all over ya.

Res Ispa Loquitor.

1) President Bush cla... (Below threshold)
mantis:

1) President Bush claimed that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) prior to the invasion, and that was the primary reason for the attack.

Oct 28, 2002

"It's a person who claims he has no weapons of mass destruction, in order to escape the dictums of the U.N. Security Council and the United Nations -- but he's got them. See, he'll lie. He'll deceive us. And he'll use them."

March 19, 2003

"Our nation enters this conflict reluctantly -- yet, our purpose is sure. The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder."

2) Bush told the American people that Iraq posed an imminent threat to the US.

Nov 3, 2002

"Saddam Hussein is a threat to America. He's a threat to our friends. He's a man who said he wouldn't have weapons of mass destruction, yet he has them. He's a man that not only has weapons of mass destruction, he's used them."

Mar 6, 2003

"Saddam Hussein and his weapons are a direct threat to this country, to our people, and to all free people.... I will not leave the American people at the mercy of the Iraqi dictator and his weapons."

3) Bush lied when he said Iraq possessed WMDs.

Mar 17, 2003

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

It has come to light since then that there was plenty of doubt among the intelligence community.

I'm not going to get into "Bush Lied!" silliness, but he was clearly selling us a bill of goods. There are plenty more quotes, especially if you count others from the administration.

For instance this admission by Wolfowitz (May 28, 2003):

"For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue -- weapons of mass destruction -- because it was the one reason everyone could agree on."

Nick,Thanks for prov... (Below threshold)
GMoney:

Nick,
Thanks for proving Falze's point... For anyone to believe Bush intentionally lied, you have to believe Saddam: a)compeltely destroyed his entire arsenal after the 1st gulf invasion and b) had no intention of ever reconstituting their production. Basically, you have to trust a mass murderer at his word (fire away with the bush/mass murderer/take him at his word rebuttals). If anyone can come up with some shred of evidence that Bush intentionally sent 2313 of this country's best to thier death under false pretenses, I will don my shiniest pink jumpsuit and hop on the first VW van out of the land of christians and inbreeders to kiss Cindy Sheehan right on her pasty white cheek.

Mac Lorry , right on again... (Below threshold)
virgo:

Mac Lorry , right on again.. that would be the easy way to physically end these threats. but to mean tyrant,s like Bush ,that would hurt His poll numbers to much and you know how He cares about those.. I bet that nutjob in Iran would,nt hesitate to use nukes on millions of innocent people though... as a matter of fact he brags about it . Scary

nick,How ... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

nick,

How about "the insurgency is in it's last throes"?

So did you consider it a lie when Kerry said he would be the next president or take a particular state, and it turns out different? When someone refers to a future event most people correctly access that as a statement of opinion, rather than fact. Question, do you know the medical term for people who can't distinguish statements of fact from statements of opinion?

Or there's Bush's "I served my country admirably" during Vietnam? How about "I'll restore dignity and integrity to the White House"?

Being a fighter pilot in the reserves is serving admirably, particularly compared to Bill Clinton's draft dodger status. Ending the White House sex scandals did restore dignity and integrity to the White House.

How about "no one could have known" that a terrorist attack was about to occur with a document titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike Within US" in their hands (1 month and 2 days before the attach occured)?

I've debunked this in one of my posts above. Basically there are documents warning UFOs are getting ready to invade. If it happened you would say Bush lied if he had said there's no creatable evidence of an invasion from space.

Or our president saying that the war is a "noble" cause, but his daughters (who are of age and capability) have opted to drink and party instead?

Only an idiot like Michael Moore could come up with something so stupid. I expect you got the idea from him.

There are many definitions of what constitutes a lie.

We have known for some time that the left has one definition for Democrats and a different one for Republicans. Bill Clinton can lie under oath, but it's ok because it's about sex. Bush says the war is a noble cause, but because his daughters don't join the military, that's a lie.

All we want is a single credible example of Bush telling a lie as a part of his duties as President. I had to qualify that, otherwise some liberal would cite an example where Bush told his mother she looked good.

Intelligence is a precise s... (Below threshold)
Alice de Tokeville:

Intelligence is a precise science, it just seems it's not applied to many functions in the good ol' USA anymore.

Do any of you deny that it was CIA backing that helped put Saddam Hussein in power in the first place, after he served time in prison for murdering his own uncle? That he received loan guarantees, illegally, during the Bush the First administration, for 'dual-use'chemicals that could be used to make chemical weapons? That then Senator Bob Dole personally told Hussein that he'd help silence a pesky American reporter who kept reporting on Saddam's atrocities? (Who shortly thereafter lost his job)

I would posit that whatever you believe about Saddam's stockpile, the current gang of policy-makers, who actually are the same ones who served during the arming of Saddam would be the last ones you'd want to trust to get rid of him. Mr. Cheney, as Halliburton chief, made millions arming Saddam. Think there could be just a teensy-weeensy conflict of interest here?

Or, if you dispute these allegations, I wonder what you would advise IF they were true. Or if this country went to war for what you believed was a good cause, and then you found out the public had been lied to? Or do you believe it's the government's prerogative to lie to its' citizens?
I'm just wondering what you believe is the proper way to oppose "our" government.


Mantis:Great post.... (Below threshold)
nick:

Mantis:

Great post. Unfortunately, the Epados, and Mac Lorry's of this thread are like lemmings being led into the sea by Bush and the rest of the administration chickenhawks. They just can't come to grips with the fact that they've backed an asshole.

The two words most associated with Bush in last week's Pew poll were "idiot" and "incompetent". But no, GMoney, Virgo, and all these other right-wing apologists sit on their fat, lazy asses and tell us we should support the president. I think they should go sign-up for the war. But I'm sure, like Little Dick Cheney, they have other "priorities".

See this from CNN today:

"Has the Bush administration been effective in handling public relations on efforts in Iraq?"

Yes 9%
9430 votes

No 91%
96851 votes
Total: 106281 votes

But I guess that 91% (yup, 91%) of us are all wrong. That darned "liberal" media. Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Any CNN poll is suspect fro... (Below threshold)
virgo:

Any CNN poll is suspect from the word go simply because they are the clinton news network..stinky pew polls do not matter either.. all that matters are election results ! and from what i see you fraudulent vote buying lazy libs are losing left and right including the major so called newspapers .. so keep on losing losers and we,ll keep pointing out your inadequesies to lead or tell the truth... Keep on raking in the buck,s cheney ..make mine Halliburton.

Alice de Tokeville,<p... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Alice de Tokeville,

See my post on "seasons" above. Basically there was good reason to arm Iraq, so that it could withstand Iran. When Saddam invaded Kuwait it was time to disarm Iraq. When Saddam found corrupt U.N. officials to get around the sanctions and when he violate the ceasefire agreement, it was time to remove Saddam. Each action was wise in it's own season. Why is it difficult to understand that Policy has to change with changing circumstances?

Game. set. match., mantis. ... (Below threshold)
jp2:

Game. set. match., mantis. And all you had to do was quote Bush.

Unfortunately, the... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
Unfortunately, the Epados, and Mac Lorry's of this thread are like lemmings being led into the sea by Bush and the rest of the administration chickenhawks.

You can have whatever opinion you want, but you can't have your own set of facts. All your examples have been rebutted. With no facts to base your opinion on it's you who are being lead like a mindless liberal (I don't want to defame lemmings). Just admit you hate Bush. No reason needed.

WRONG AGAIN jp2, man its ge... (Below threshold)
virgo:

WRONG AGAIN jp2, man its getting to be a habit with you.. cant you see there is so much more at stake here than your hatred of Bush !

Refute the points Virgo - w... (Below threshold)
jp2:

Refute the points Virgo - when you resort to insults, you lose.

What insult ?? stating your... (Below threshold)
virgo:

What insult ?? stating your hatred for bush is not an insult..and you did not present any points

Refuting no point is easy.... (Below threshold)
virgo:

Refuting no point is easy. Why dont you quote ERR america .......ohhh thats right they could,nt hold a coherent thought long enough to keep anyone interested..and neither can you!

All this can be summed up i... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

All this can be summed up in a few words:

BUSH HAS SOMETHING THAT ALL THSES LEFTIES DON"T:


BALLS

I still subscribe to the 'c... (Below threshold)
Fran:

I still subscribe to the 'change the topic' postition of those who write in support of Bush in this post.

MacLorry is very concerned with someone pointing out a Bush lie...

...Bush himself is a lie.

Oh yea,..."Bring em on". Unfortunately he's using someone elses balls...the guys on the front lines.

Once again, consider the possibility that Bush, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz disregarded the advice of many experienced military people, disregarded the Pentagons own plans concerning occupation and control and 'blew it'.

A key question:

Do you all think that what we have in Iraq now, is the best that this country could do?

And this is not 20/20 hindsight. Back in the spring /summer of 2003 I was calling for more troops and control of the country through the implementation of a curfew.

Vote for Competence in 2006.

The media is bending over b... (Below threshold)
Sweetie:

The media is bending over backwards for Bush. This the same media that tried to kneecap him two months before an election with forged documents?

I guess we'll have to call that 'tough love'.

no Fran i really dont , a ... (Below threshold)
virgo:

no Fran i really dont , a neutron bomb would have been much easier for the ever evil Bush would,nt it

"And this is not 20/20 hind... (Below threshold)
Sweetie:

"And this is not 20/20 hindsight. Back in the spring /summer of 2003 I was calling for more troops and control of the country through the implementation of a curfew.

Vote for Competence in 2006."

Vote for Fran. She had it all figured out three years ago you dummies!


Fran,Oh y... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Fran,

Oh yea,..."Bring em on". Unfortunately he's using someone elses balls...the guys on the front lines.

So what standard are you setting for Bush and all the Presidents that follow him; that they have to lead from the battlefield? It doesn't take much thinking to realize that's nothing but a recipe for disaster. Obviously you are motivated by something other than reason.

Once again, consider the possibility that Bush, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz disregarded the advice of many experienced military people, disregarded the Pentagons own plans concerning occupation and control and 'blew it'.

If you spent any time learning history you would know that Generals often don't agree on military strategy. With some like Patton and Montgomery, it was a contest for glory. Others just have different opinions based on their own experience. That's why we have a President, to make tough decisions when there's no clear answer. The Pentagon has lots of different plans including carpet bombing all major cities in Iraq just as was done in WWII. Is that the plan you want to see implemented?

Do you all think that what we have in Iraq now, is the best that this country could do?

This is another question like the MSM is asking. Did you think three years ago that we would still be fighting in Iraq? Why not just cut to the chase and ask a person if they are clairvoyant. If the next Democratic nominee for President is from the left end of the political spectrum, that's the litmus test s/he must pass to get elected, because that's the standard Bush is being held to by the far left.

And this is not 20/20 hindsight. Back in the spring /summer of 2003 I was calling for more troops and control of the country through the implementation of a curfew.

Of course if you have a solder for each Iraqi and have them follow them all day long and then lock up all the people in their homes at night you will have control. Now what are you going to do? Our thick presence makes the Iraqis feel we are conquers rather than liberators and locking them up every night is the proof of that. How are you going to build an Iraqi government when no Iraqi has room to breath?

History shows that the birth pangs of a country are often violent and disorderly, but from that bloody trial a common set of unifying principles emerges. It's a messy process, but the only viable alternative for peace in the middle-east is the Trinitite option. Apparently that's the one you are pushing for 2006.

Did you ever notice that wh... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

Did you ever notice that when you start reading a post by a lefty that you can finish reading it with your eyes closed?

Yeah i kind of noticed that... (Below threshold)
virgo:

Yeah i kind of noticed that.. or you can just fill it in with the same old hate speech you would here on any self respecting liberal campus..

I was hoping someone would ... (Below threshold)
mantis:

I was hoping someone would have responded to my post detailing the pre-war speeches of President Bush, which I believe quite succinctly rebut Jay's entire post. No takers thus far. Guess it's too tough to argue with us pinheads.

mantis,Your points... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

mantis,

Your points seem to have been rebutted before you posted them. Just more of the Bush is bad because he believed the vast majority of the intelligence, which showed Saddam had WMD. As I pointed out to others, there's always going to be someone with a contrary analysis. All that shows is that the President has to make hard decisions and why a flip flopper is not cut out for the job. If the President waited until all the intelligence analysts agreed it would already be history and too late to act. What I find difficult to understand is why that's difficult to understand.

Also, you said "Bush told the American people that Iraq posed an imminent threat to the US", but the word "imminent" in not in any of the quotes you posted. Did you spice up the intelligence just to support your contention?

I don't think anyone disput... (Below threshold)

I don't think anyone disputes that Bush believed and Bush told us Saddam had WMD.

Look back at my first comment, mantis. Bush said that but it was far from the only thing he said. WMD was *the* reason for the invasion of Iraq only for those who didn't accept any of the other reasons. The one thing everyone could agree on? Sure, it was. But just because some people had a single reason doesn't mean that was the only, or even primary, reason given by Bush.

I don't suppose you remember a while ago (I really don't think you pay that much attention to me,) when I said that Iraq was about remaking the region into something we could live with, as a first step and a catalyst for liberty and freedom... or something similar in so many words and another commenter was appalled, "Do our soldiers know that's what they're doing over there?"

Zogby, in his "interesting" poll found that 24% of them do believe that is what they are doing there and that 93% of them said that WMD was not a reason they were there.

It seems to me that a lot of people were listening to Bush's speeches and just tuned out all the flowery, patriotic rhetoric about freedom and liberty and human striving, etc., as meaningless filler instead of what it was, which was a plan to destroy terrorism at the roots. You can take the WMD references and ignore the rest, even today. But why?

I don't think you're a pin head at all.

To all the supporters of th... (Below threshold)
Subsunk:

To all the supporters of the President and the war, I say thanks for putting up with the defeatists in our midst. Keep fighting the good fight against the domestic enemies of the Constitution, because, as surely as they, above all else, want nothing more than power, they will use the judges they appointed to interpret the Constitution to eliminate their enemies as a political force.

That means they will denigrate, demonize, and detain as many Republicans as they can until the average American is too intimidated to speak out against them. The terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan (and many other Muslim countries) work via exactly the same principle. And history is replete with examples bearing striking resemblance to the tactics in use by the MSM and Dhimmicrats today. The Communists and Nazis and fascists were very effective using the exact tactics applied by today's MSM and Dhimmicrats.

To all the Dhimmis in the comment threads (mantis, bethright, nick, Fran, jp2, and those who are certain that America installed, propped up, supplied Iraq and Saddam against our friends with the recognition that he would one day invade Kuwait, and that 9/11 was a Bushco conspiracy to get into a war to secure oil for his rich fat cat frat brothers --- and you know who you are), I guess I can only say that it is better to keep one's mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.

Perhaps it is because none of you actually lived through the period of time in this world from 1980-1988 known as the Iran-Iraq War, and the reasons Iraq was minimally supported (reluctantly, I might add) by the United States, that you display such a cluelessness concerning history and foreign policy in the Middle East before you were born (or at least before you were conscious of anything except your own navel). The lesser of two evils is still lesser. And the lesser of two principles is still lesser. You figure out who really has America's interests in their heart. Those who denigrate her daily. Or those who defend her daily.

Where do your words place you?

Subsunk

Ah, good, here we go then.<... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Ah, good, here we go then.

Mac,

Also, you said "Bush told the American people that Iraq posed an imminent threat to the US", but the word "imminent" in not in any of the quotes you posted. Did you spice up the intelligence just to support your contention?

I was quoting Jay in the three supposed anti-war points he was refuting. You are correct that the word imminent was not spoken by the President in those quotes, but I think it's pretty clear that he meant that. The whole "did anyone say the word imminent" argument is pretty stupid, it's pretty apparent from the speeches during that time that the Bush administration was saying that Iraq was a threat that needed to be dealt with immediately, as supported by the fact that they invaded when they did. If that doesn't mean the threat was supposed to be imminent, what does?

As I pointed out to others, there's always going to be someone with a contrary analysis. All that shows is that the President has to make hard decisions and why a flip flopper is not cut out for the job. If the President waited until all the intelligence analysts agreed it would already be history and too late to act.

Well, considering what has come to light since the invasion, it seems fairly clear to me that there was a fair amount of dispute within the intelligence community about the threat that Iraq posed. I would call your attention to this National Journal article:

Two highly classified intelligence reports delivered directly to President Bush before the Iraq war cast doubt on key public assertions made by the president, Vice President Cheney, and other administration officials as justifications for invading Iraq and toppling Saddam Hussein, according to records and knowledgeable sources.

The president received highly classified intelligence reports containing information at odds with his justifications for going to war.

The first report, delivered to Bush in early October 2002, was a one-page summary of a National Intelligence Estimate that discussed whether Saddam's procurement of high-strength aluminum tubes was for the purpose of developing a nuclear weapon.

Among other things, the report stated that the Energy Department and the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research believed that the tubes were "intended for conventional weapons," a view disagreeing with that of other intelligence agencies, including the CIA, which believed that the tubes were intended for a nuclear bomb.

Let's consider that in light of what VP Cheney said on Sept. 8, 2002:

"We do know, with absolute certainty, that he is using his procurement system to acquire the equipment he needs in order to enrich uranium to build a nuclear weapon."

and Bush:

On October 7, 2002, less than a week after Bush was given the summary, he said in a speech in Cincinnati: "Evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his 'nuclear mujahedeen' -- his nuclear holy warriors.... Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."

More from National Journal:

The second classified report, delivered to Bush in early January 2003, was also a summary of a National Intelligence Estimate, this one focusing on whether Saddam would launch an unprovoked attack on the United States, either directly, or indirectly by working with terrorists.

The report stated that U.S. intelligence agencies unanimously agreed that it was unlikely that Saddam would try to attack the United States -- except if "ongoing military operations risked the imminent demise of his regime" or if he intended to "extract revenge" for such an assault, according to records and sources.

The single dissent in the report again came from State's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, known as INR, which believed that the Iraqi leader was "unlikely to conduct clandestine attacks against the U.S. homeland even if [his] regime's demise is imminent" as the result of a U.S. invasion.

Now, how can one read this and believe that the Iraq threat was not exaggerated and trumped up? You can chalk it up to conflicting analyses if you want, but it seems pretty clear to me that the intelligence in no way matched the rhetoric of justification.

Saddam was a threat, yes. But not an threat that needed to be dealt with immediately thru invasion and occupation. And this administration knew that, but spoke as if it was.

Synova,First, let ... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Synova,

First, let me say that I do pay attention to what you post, I just come to this site in fits and starts and often don't have time to respond to everything.

Look back at my first comment, mantis. Bush said that but it was far from the only thing he said. WMD was *the* reason for the invasion of Iraq only for those who didn't accept any of the other reasons.

Well, I would respond with the quote from Bush at the time of invasion, posted above:

"Our nation enters this conflict reluctantly -- yet, our purpose is sure. The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder."

Seems to me he spells out the "purpose" of the invasion pretty clearly: Weapons. Anyway, the fact is that the administration knew that the only way to get public support for the war was to push the weapons threat. Freedom and democracy does not rally most people behind a military invasion and protracted occupation. Not a single speech or interview dealing with Iraq before the war did not focus on weapons. Many speeches and interviews did not mention any of the other "reasons".

I don't suppose you remember a while ago (I really don't think you pay that much attention to me,) when I said that Iraq was about remaking the region into something we could live with, as a first step and a catalyst for liberty and freedom... or something similar in so many words and another commenter was appalled, "Do our soldiers know that's what they're doing over there?"

Zogby, in his "interesting" poll found that 24% of them do believe that is what they are doing there and that 93% of them said that WMD was not a reason they were there.

I have no doubt that that is what the soldiers believe they are doing over there, however the question here is how the war was sold to the citizens. Plus of course they don't think they are there for WMD, they know there are none. In any case I really hope they are successful. However I doubt they can be, though not for a lack of trying.

It seems to me that a lot of people were listening to Bush's speeches and just tuned out all the flowery, patriotic rhetoric about freedom and liberty and human striving, etc., as meaningless filler instead of what it was, which was a plan to destroy terrorism at the roots. You can take the WMD references and ignore the rest, even today. But why?

As I said before, WMD were the only constant, and by far the loudest, reason provided for war. Fear is what sells wars, not hope, and that was what they pushed first and foremost, to the citizens, the Congress, and to the UN.

See this from CNN today:</p... (Below threshold)
B Moe:

See this from CNN today:

"Has the Bush administration been effective in handling public relations on efforts in Iraq?"

Yes 9%
9430 votes

No 91%
96851 votes
Total: 106281 votes

But I guess that 91% (yup, 91%) of us are all wrong. That darned "liberal" media. Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Posted by: nick at March 20, 2006 03:20 PM

Pure moonbat gold, right there. LMFAO!

mantis, We do know... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

mantis,

We do know that weapons inspectors documented the existence of tons of both biological and chemical weapons after the first gulf war, which still have not been accounted for to this day. We do know that British intelligence reported that Saddam was trying to purchase yellowcake, a report the British government stands by to this day. We can only speculate on the number intelligence reports that supported the President's public position because much is still classified to protect sources and methods. To support your contention, you cite two intelligence reports as being contrary to the President's public position. Prior to your post yesterday I had already disposed of that issue.

Basically every important military or national policy decision involves an entire spectrum of intelligence reports, some will support one position and others will support the contrary. Are you saying that's not true? It certainly was for WWII, the Korean war and the Vietnam war.

Are you saying that a President shouldn't make any major decision unless all the intelligence reports support one position only? If so, then no President is likely to be able to act in a crises. If that's not what you mean, then I don't see what your point is. Please explain why, contrary to precedence, Bush should have thrown out the majority of intelligence and gone with the two rather weak contrary reports you cite.

You seem to be saying that Bush's sales job for the invasion of Iraq was over the top. In 2003, Bush was going to the UN in an attempt to get security council approval for invading Iraq. If you remember, he was having a hard time getting any support from Kofi Anan, France, Russia, and China. Pointing out all of Saddam's violations of UN resolutions for 12 years as well as violations of the ceasefire agreement should have been enough. I'm sure Bush was mystified as to why the UN was so hard to convince, and in a last ditch effort he sent Colon Powell to make the best case, which was that Iraq had WMD, which the vast majority of intelligence supported. Little did we know at the time that key players in the UN, France, Russia, and China had been corrupted by Saddam's oil money. It seems you want to hold Bush accountable for exaggerating the reasons to invade Iraq, while dismissing the actual corruption that compelled Bush to use increasingly persuasive arguments to invade Iraq. Without the corruption, there would have been no need to push the case so hard.

We also know now the Saddam's corruption scheme was likely to have resulted in removal of UN sanctions against Iraq without Iraq ever coming clean. We also know that Saddam did preserve his capability to produce WMDs and his nuclear program. We also know that Saddam hated the U.S. Given all that, we know that Saddam would have been a serious threat to the U.S. had Bush not removed him from power.

There is a difference between an imminent threat and a threat. Bush never said Iraq was an imminent threat, but just a threat. It's a ridicules argument to put words in Bush's mouth and then says he lied, or to say that's what Bush meant to say and then claim he lied even though that's not what he said.

The entire left-wing case against Bush is founded on redefinition of words (a mistake is a lie), ignorance of history, ignorance of common sense principles like seasons, dismissing real wrong doing by the UN, and idiotic assertions about what Bush meant to say, but didn't say.

Like I said before, give me one real example of Bush lying in his official capacity as President. So far I haven't seen one.

All we want is a single cre... (Below threshold)
nick:

All we want is a single credible example of Bush telling a lie as a part of his duties as President. I had to qualify that, otherwise some liberal would cite an example where Bush told his mother she looked good.
Posted by: Mac Lorry at March 20, 2006 03:15 PM

Mac Lorry:

Why do you make it so easy to show what morons you cons are? Here's a credible example of bush telling a lie as "part of his duties as President":

George Bush on 3/20/06
"First, just if I might correct a misperception, I don't think we ever said -- at least I know I didn't say that there was a direct connection between September the 11th and Saddam Hussein."

George Bush on 3/21/03
"The use of armed forces against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."

There is your lie. Thanks.

Nick:Good one. It... (Below threshold)
bennito:

Nick:

Good one. It should be humorous to see all the definitions and explanations from the right-wing about why this isn't a "lie". Of course, they will dismiss it or bring up Bill Clinton to try and minimize what amounts to the very thing they've arrongantly insisted doesn't exist - Bush lying. Don't they ever learn that "bring it on" is always a mistake?

Gee, Mac Lorry disappeared ... (Below threshold)
nick:

Gee, Mac Lorry disappeared fast after he was proved wrong, didn't he?

nick,So where in t... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

nick,

So where in the 3/21/03 quote do you see where Bush says "that there was a direct connection between September the 11th and Saddam Hussein"?

Apparently you don't you know how to read a series of items separated by commas. I'll have to add failure to comprehend English to my list of requirements for the left-wing to make their case against Bush.

I'm still waiting for a single example.

Dang, Mac Lorry beat me to ... (Below threshold)
Jay Tea:

Dang, Mac Lorry beat me to it.

A fundamental grasp of English proves nick's point... well, pointless. Admittedly, Bush some times acts like he lacks that grasp, but this time he didn't.

"Including" does not mean "limited to." Anyone who thinks that Saddam's Iraq was not a "terrorist nation" -- defined as "a nation that harbors, sponsors, or commissions acts of terrorism by third parties" -- is even more reality-impaired than nick.

And that's a hell of an accomplishment.

J.

Nicky , Sorry but your las... (Below threshold)
virgo:

Nicky , Sorry but your last post does not inform anyone as to where a lie occurred ? what are you trying to say ?

Mac Lorry and Jay Tea:... (Below threshold)
nick:

Mac Lorry and Jay Tea:

You are both morons of the highest order. You sound like Bill Clinton's "it depends on what the definition of "is" is.

Jay Tea, who said anything about "limited to"? Nice try at putting a lame twist on Bush's lie - yes, his lie.

Mac Lorry, it's obvious you're challenged, but read it again.....

"The use of armed forces against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."

Talk about "reality impaired".

Oh, and Jay Tea - pathetic attempt to retreat from your "coalition force" claim yesterday after my post outlining the numbers.

By the way - why aren't the two of you over in Baghdad? After all, you obviously believe the war is a good cause. Put your money where your fat mouths are.

Nick:The cons are ... (Below threshold)
bethright:

Nick:

The cons are nothing if not predictable. Just as I thought, they're unable to comprehend that the terrorists arrived in Iraq AFTER we invaded. But Mac Lorry and Jay Tea never let facts get in the way of the way bizarre love affair with George Bush.

Ahhh , Saddam Insane paid... (Below threshold)
virgo:

Ahhh , Saddam Insane paid 25,000 u.s. dollars to the families of palestinian homicide bombers and bragged about it !! so He is and Iraq was a terrorist enableing regime..

nick,"The... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

nick,

"The use of armed forces against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."

Like I said, your reading comprehension is not up to parsing a complex sentence. Bush will have to dummy down his speeches so you'll be able to understand them.

Jay gave you the key, but you still don't get it; talk about dense. See the word "including" Here's the dictionary definition: "used to introduce examples of people or things forming part of a particular group or whole".

I've highlighted the important part. Bush was talking about a larger group that included the subset of "organizations or person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001." Bush didn't say Iraq was a part of the subset, only of the group of "international terrorists and terrorist organizations". Saddam openly supported international terrorists by offering rewards to the families of suicide bombers.

Lean to read moron.

bethright,I addres... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

bethright,

I addressed you directly yesterday about your nonsense, but so far I haven seen a reply.

Apparently you recognize the limitations of your intellect and decided it was best to just cheerlead nick.

Do you have the courage to stand on your own?

EXACTIMUNGO TOUCHEE Mac... (Below threshold)
virgo:

EXACTIMUNGO TOUCHEE Mac Lorry

Nick,It's been ove... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Nick,

It's been over an hour since you last posted. When I didn't post for 29 minutes you posted the following:

Gee, Mac Lorry disappeared fast after he was proved wrong, didn't he?

I understand that people have other things to do, but you set the standard, so it must be that you ducked out after being proven wrong. Or is it one standard for me and a different one for you?

Yes and since Saddam was op... (Below threshold)
virgo:

Yes and since Saddam was openly rewarding terrorists activities, how much dont we know about behind the scenes.. He declared war on the U.S., Tried to have George Bush #1 assassinated, and that bozo that fled the country after the first world trade center bombing just happened to coincidentally be in and out of Baghdad on a number of occasions. But Noooooo way could Saddam have any link to a terrorist training camp just north of Baghdad .. what was it salman pak or something like that.. no he,s just being "Misunderstood " his intentions areas pure as the driven snow...

Yes apparently Nick has a ... (Below threshold)
virgo:

Yes apparently Nick has a double standard for a number of things that slam dunk his warped delusions of reality.. It was Bill Clintons illegal war that was not brought to the U.N. , IT DID NOT THREATEN THE U.S. but its ok because its macho Bubba doing it..truly a pathetic display of immaturity.

Basically every importan... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Basically every important military or national policy decision involves an entire spectrum of intelligence reports, some will support one position and others will support the contrary. Are you saying that's not true? It certainly was for WWII, the Korean war and the Vietnam war.

I'm not saying that's not true. I would also like to note that even though Roosevelt and others wanted to enter WWII to assist our European allies fighting off Germany, it took an attack on U.S. soil to get public support. The Korean and Vietnam wars were supported in large part due to fear of the threat of spreading communism. These were real threats and this administration knew that to get support for a war in Iraq they needed to convince the public that Saddam was a real and immediate threat.

Are you saying that a President shouldn't make any major decision unless all the intelligence reports support one position only?

I'm not saying that.

If so, then no President is likely to be able to act in a crises. If that's not what you mean, then I don't see what your point is. Please explain why, contrary to precedence, Bush should have thrown out the majority of intelligence and gone with the two rather weak contrary reports you cite.

Weak reports? You do understand what the Dept. of Energy does, right? They would know better than any agency what those aluminum tubes were for, and they were ignored, as was the State Dept (not to mention the IAEA!). You also conveniently ignore the threat assessments which unanimously agree that Saddam was not an immediate threat to us. I'll repeat that again since you seem so ready to dismiss it: All intelligence agencies agreed that it was very unlikely Saddam would try to attack the U.S.

I'm sure Bush was mystified as to why the UN was so hard to convince, and in a last ditch effort he sent Colon Powell to make the best case, which was that Iraq had WMD, which the vast majority of intelligence supported.

Last I heard even Powell knew much of that intelligence was, to quote him, "bullshit".

It seems you want to hold Bush accountable for exaggerating the reasons to invade Iraq, while dismissing the actual corruption that compelled Bush to use increasingly persuasive arguments to invade Iraq. Without the corruption, there would have been no need to push the case so hard.

I don't dismiss the corruption, it was deplorable. I just don't think that invasion and occupation was the correct response.

We also know now the Saddam's corruption scheme was likely to have resulted in removal of UN sanctions against Iraq without Iraq ever coming clean.

We could have done something about that besides invading.

We also know that Saddam did preserve his capability to produce WMDs and his nuclear program.

As compared to other, greater threats that actually had active programs. Threats, I might add, that still exist.

We also know that Saddam hated the U.S. Given all that, we know that Saddam would have been a serious threat to the U.S. had Bush not removed him from power.

We do? How do we know that? Based on all the evidence discovered in Iraq since the invasion? Maybe I missed something, but none of that has added up to a serious threat as far as I've seen. Or are you just referring to the threat of bad intentions? If that is the case we have a lot more countries to invade.

There is a difference between an imminent threat and a threat. Bush never said Iraq was an imminent threat, but just a threat. It's a ridicules argument to put words in Bush's mouth and then says he lied, or to say that's what Bush meant to say and then claim he lied even though that's not what he said.

I never claimed he said the word imminent. My contention is that his rhetoric, coupled with the fact that the administration was so gung ho to invade ASAP, could only suggest that the threat had to be dealt with immediately. Why, if not imminent?

The entire left-wing case against Bush is founded on redefinition of words (a mistake is a lie), ignorance of history, ignorance of common sense principles like seasons, dismissing real wrong doing by the UN, and idiotic assertions about what Bush meant to say, but didn't say.

I already said I have no intention of joining the Bush Lied! chorus. What I believe is he was intent on taking out Saddam for whatever reasons, and any intelligence that did not support that intention was ignored and in some cases, covered up. What I also believe is that President Bush believed he was doing the right thing and was protecting this country. I believe he believed that Iran, Iraq, and North Korea all posed significant threats to the U.S. and our interests. What I also believe is that Iraq was chosen because it was the war we could win easily and quickly. It was such a war because Iraq was weak militarily (and had no WMDs, heh). I don't think he started this war for oil or something stupid like that, I truly believe he was trying to protect this country. He just did it in a stupid, ignorant, and hubristic way and had he been more honest, we could today be talking about the great success of Afghanistan, whose infrastructure would be sound and whose economy would not be based on the heroin trade, whose government did not execute Christians. Maybe. It's funny that you mention ignorance of history, since the Bush administration's ignorance of Iraqi history has given us a three year war with an insurgency that at present doesn't seem diminished at all. I think it's good that Saddam is gone, but I fear what will take his place.

mantis,Ko... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

mantis,

Korean and Vietnam wars were supported in large part due to fear of the threat of spreading communism.

I don't disagree, but President Johnson had far worse intelligence when he used the Tonkin gulf incident to escalate the Vietnam conflict.

These were real threats and this administration knew that to get support for a war in Iraq they needed to convince the public that Saddam was a real and immediate threat.

I disagree, but only with the immediate part. I think most thinking people realized that Saddam was under control, but that the UN wasn't going to keep him under control indefinitely. That's obvious in hindsight, but the signs were there in 2003.

Weak reports? You do understand what the Dept. of Energy does, right? They would know better than any agency what those aluminum tubes were for, and they were ignored, as was the State Dept (not to mention the IAEA!).

It's weak because the subject is so specific. There are other ways of enriching uranium, ways which don't need special aluminum tubes. You have to remember that British intelligence reported Saddam's attempt to obtain yellowcake, the raw material for producing an A-bomb.

You also conveniently ignore the threat assessments which unanimously agree that Saddam was not an immediate threat to us. I'll repeat that again since you seem so ready to dismiss it: All intelligence agencies agreed that it was very unlikely Saddam would try to attack the U.S.

I don't ignore or dismiss this report, but once again I find it weak because of the subject. I never really thought Saddam would attack the U.S. while he was under UN sanctions. He had the potential of becoming a significant threat once he bribed his ways out of those sanctions.

Last I heard even Powell knew much of that intelligence was, to quote him, "bullshit".

That's why Powell went to great lengths to filter out all the information he wasn't comfortable with. As an experienced user of intelligences, Powell knew that nothing in such reports is absolutely reliable, yet the body of the evidence often points strongly to a given set of conclusions.

I don't dismiss the corruption, it was deplorable. I just don't think that invasion and occupation was the correct response.

I'm sure Bush didn't invade Iraq because Saddam was corrupting the UN. However, the corruption stacked the deck against Bush, so that he pressed the argument for war much harder than would have been needed without the corruption. It's that hard pressed case that seem to be your beef with Bush.

We could have done something about that besides invading.

Bush obviously thought differently, and being he was elected President, it's his call.

As compared to other, greater threats that actually had active programs. Threats, I might add, that still exist.

Saddam was by far the easiest case to make having violate UN resolutions for 12 years as well as the ceasefire agreement. Divide and conquer is a better strategy than trying to take on all the treats at the same time.

Based on all the evidence discovered in Iraq since the invasion? Maybe I missed something, but none of that has added up to a serious threat as far as I've seen. Or are you just referring to the threat of bad intentions? If that is the case we have a lot more countries to invade.

Saddam still had his WMD programs intact including nuclear weapons. With no UN sanctions, Saddam would have had billions of oil dollars to spend on revenge. Don't tell me you think Saddam was above revenge.

I never claimed he said the word imminent. My contention is that his rhetoric, coupled with the fact that the administration was so gung ho to invade ASAP, could only suggest that the threat had to be dealt with immediately. Why, if not imminent?

It was not about an imminent threat, but about a window of opportunity. It was time for the U.S. to act or withdraw. Bush decided to act.

It's funny that you mention ignorance of history, since the Bush administration's ignorance of Iraqi history has given us a three year war with an insurgency that at present doesn't seem diminished at all.

Afghanistan has a longer history of resisting invaders than Iraq, but that was proven wrong if the invaders came as a liberator rather than as conquers. The rulers in Iran know that if Iraq becomes a prosperous and democratic nation, that their days in power are numbered. They see so clearly what the left-wing in the U.S. can't.

I think it's good that Saddam is gone, but I fear what will take his place.

I agree, and that's why I support Bush. We must finish the job or this nation will suffer the consequences of failure for decades to come.

While you don't agree with Bush (or me), at least you're not calling him a liar. I respect that.

Well, Jay T, I don't think ... (Below threshold)
BenJCarter:

Well, Jay T, I don't think that US citizens having to prove innocence" is a GOOD thing.

No matter how bad you think they are.

And I voted for Bush. Cause he sucks less. And we're winning the war on terror.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

Enjoy.


The problem is that debatin... (Below threshold)

The problem is that debating these people is like wrestling with 5 year olds. They have no sense of military history, foreign affairs, or anything beyond their little collection of cliches, tiresome insults, and stamina.

I'd rather stick my hand in a blender or read a book than debate these fools.

I remember why we went to w... (Below threshold)
AnnaB:

I remember why we went to war and I remember the expectations before we went, though some have easily forgotten so I appreciate you refreshing the memory. Further, I want to put something into perspective - our troops are there and fighting to finish a mission. Our senators voted to go to war three years ago based on this inforamtion you posted above, and I'm glad we did. So much progress has been made - don't believe everything you hear on the news, because good things really are happening there and a civil war is not imminent. In fact, I suggest some of you look to the blogosphere for stories from actual soldiers who are serving - an example is willtoexist.com (see his entry on "all quiet in the heart of baghdad). They shouldnt' have to ask for our support but they are - we owe it to them to seek the truth and not rely on the mainstream media.

Jay, this was another of yo... (Below threshold)

Jay, this was another of your many great summaries of the case for our actions in Iraq, and for conservative thought in general.

I took the liberty of using it as the basis for this week's Wizbang podcast. I went to the sources you mentioned and used NPR's audio & Bush's actual words in the podcast where you quoted them.

Another one that drives me crazy is the accusation that Bush killed Kyoto. That died during the Clinton administration when the Senate refused to vote on it.

Would you be surprised to f... (Below threshold)

Would you be surprised to find out that Iran and Russia were supporting those
that assemble and design the IEDs?  Currently Russian is protecting in the
UN their fighter in the old Iran Iraq wars! Could it be that the Cold War never
ended due to the ineptitude of Bush1, Clinton, and Bush2?  Why is it that
the people of the Ukraine recently elected a pro soviet era government?  Is
it likely that this is simply the payback of the Russian government for our
interference with Afghanistan during the Regan years?  War is the natural
state of humanity.  Consider that the "fight or flight response" is our
body's primitive, automatic, inborn response that prepares the body to "fight"
or "flee" from perceived attack, harm or threat to our survival. Although we
think that this is true it doesn't mean that the enemy cares what we think. War
is a tool that can advance humanity.  Unfortunately every government fails
at some point.  Even the experts in the CIA missed the fact that the Soviet
Union was about to fall.  Don't forget if your like me and have to write a
big check the day is coming soon!  Where is the
Peace Dividend

Jason Spalding,Wha... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Jason Spalding,

What? A single paragraph and it's all over the board from the cold war, to evolution, to the darker side of human nature, to the fall of the west, to the Peace Dividend. The only common thread seems to be that you're not happy with history.

Just because anyone can have a blog doesn't mean everyone should.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

tips@wizbangblog.com

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy