Now we're going to have a big deficit that will hurt the economy for years because Bush says we had to go to war. I don't think now that we really had to go to war.
I'm voting for Kerry. And what's more, if Kerry has Edwards as his running mate, I think he'll win.
Won't happen!!! Our countries next democratic President will be Hillary Clinton in 2008, I am sorry to say! Just my HO......or wait is that HOE? I forget.....
authority to go to war.
I guess I'm still smarting a little that I was ripped up one side and down the other both on the board and in private for saying, "I've got a really bad feeling about this" as we were about to go to war with Iraq.
In fact when Bush declared that the war was over I quoted Yoda from a scene near the end of "Star Wars: Episode II - The Attack of the Clones" where during the victory celebration he comments, "Victory? Not a victory. Begun it has."
The best recent analysis that I've seen on the situation is by Kenneth Pollack (an ex-CIA analyst). See link. Long but worth reading whether you are liberal or conservative (in my opinion).
Mathesar
-- Modified on 2/5/2004 1:27:08 AM
Ken Pollack is a shady character ... he ran around in all the talk/news shows, advocating this war, based on "secret information," he had and in phony "academic" tone. Now, that we all know we have been had through a complex conspiracy [see o'neil/suskind's book], Pollack is trying to attempt to recover his credibility! FAT CHANCE ... American people are not stupid ...
Here is a link from UK, indicating how the information and intelligence agencies were manipulated.
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=487557
-- Modified on 2/5/2004 1:08:54 AM
by some rather credible people. See link.
I admit that I haven't read his book myself.
Mathesar
-- Modified on 2/5/2004 1:11:21 AM
could have taken on any number of different forms of military action, and could also have taken any number of different forms of rebuilding.
That some politicians were painted in to a corner in 2002, and worried about having their patriotism questioned, may explain some of the votes in the affirmative. You'll recall that Bush went to Georgia in 2002, and managed to paint then Senator Max Cleland, who was runing for reelection, as somehow less than patriotic, when Cleland chose to stand up for collective bargaining rights at the newly formed Homeland department. Pretty effective campaining by Bush, painting a guy who left three limbs on the ground in Vietnam(a conflict W chose to duck, by hiding out in the National Guard)as somehow less than concerned about national security.....I report, you decide.
-- Modified on 2/5/2004 6:18:12 AM
You can also make the case that it's one thing to vote in support of the President, but it's another to actually be the person championing the cause (Bush, in this case).
A more fair question would be: Would Kerry and/or Edwards taken the same course of action had they been in Bush's shoes? I think most would agree that neither would have.
And in lying to us about Iraq having an active NUCLEAR program, despite ACCURATE intelligence to the contrary at the time, Bush and Cheney were able to sway public opinion to over 85% in favor of attacking Iraq. Both Kerry and Edwards are Senators, who are supposed to primarily represent the will of their constituencies. And their constituencies overwhelmingly supported the war at that time, because they had bought the lie.
Also, the exact resolution that Kerry and Edwards voted for gave Bush the authority to go to war if it was necessary to defend the U.S. The purpose of this was to give Bush leverage in exploiting all of the diplomatic options, and the power to protect the nation if it were necessary. They too were being lied to by the Administration. Cheney and Wolfowitz were engaged in ACTIVELY coercing the CIA to cook up the case concerning nukes to the congress prior to this vote.
The British Prime Minister is in trouble over the war too, probably more so than Bush because of his notorious '45 minutes' claim (see articles in the link). The government has an enquiry into the pre-war intelligence on WMD and the whole issue is on the news constantly.
It's a good thing that Saddam is no longer in power but it's a very bad thing indeed that our elected representatives are either willing to lie to us or are so easily misled.
I can't imagine how the families of soldiers killed in Iraq must feel about all this, it can only add to their existing grief.
-- Modified on 2/5/2004 1:31:34 AM
This is america he is the Commander in chief and I am happy Bush went to war. Remember freedom does not come cheap. Get Behind Your Country
and The Last thing we need in office is John Kerry He will be another Bill Clinton The demacrats are destroying the way of life always giving things away
hogan
It's full of people who will mindlessly goose step into war after our "Commander-in-Chief" shouting banale slogans like "Freedom does not come cheap" or "Get behind your country"
But then you can't really blame Republicans for "always giving things away" can you?
Tell that to the parents of the kids that died and will die in Iraq. Did the right thing? By what measure do you make that claim?
If the rationale for war was this "gathering" threat, posed by Hussein's stockpiles of WMD, and the weapons are not there, then how is this war, the "right thing"?
We know that Hussein had WMD's! If you recall he used them on his own people! The question is where did they go. The fact that we have not found them does not translate to they do not exist. This is an ostrich mentality. They did exist and since there is no trail to their disposal, they surely do still exist. Where they are is the question to be answered.
As far as the parents of children who have died or will die or are serving in Iraq or Afghanistan are concerned, from what I have seen, read and heard, they are completely supportive of President Bush and this effort to destroy terrorism. I recently saw several of them interviewed about some of Howard Dean's comments and they all responded that Dean was a disgrace.
Attempting to make political hay over Iraq in a post 9/11 America will backfire severely for the democratic party this November. You mentioned Georgia politics and Bush's involvement in ousting Senator Max Cleland with a Republican Saxby Chambliss as a negative to Bush. What tripe, EVERY President campaigns for his party in Senate and Congressional races. I might also remind you that the Democratic Senator from Georgia, Zell Miller has thrown his support behind President Bush in the 2004 election. Look for more Democrats to support Bush before November.
When the results of the Southern States are counted in November, Bush will carry most likely 60% of the vote. Kerry will most likely go down in history along with his old boss as one of the biggest losers in U.S. Political history. Kerry's voting record is one of extreme liberalism and it just doesn't resonate with the majority of Americans anymore.
Finally, with Kerry the heir apparent of the Democratic nomination and considering he is a Washington insider and has a questionable voting record, Ralph Nader will most certainly enter the race and take the radical fringe of the Democratic Party with him.
MfSD, can you say FOUR MORE YEARS!
I see, so we invaded another sovereign nation, based on the fact that he gassed some of his own people back in 1988? Is that worth sacrificing 500+ brave American kids and counting, and sinking the country hundreds of billions in to debt? You'll recall that then President Reagan did little more than meek protest over the gassing of some 5,000 Iraqi Kurds. Why? Because we saw Iraq as a counter balance to Iran at that time. And the very next year, 1989, James Baker a Republican appointee, was pushing for loan guarantees for Iraq to the tune of billions of dollars, which the Iraqis eventually got. Where was the outrage then?
Apparently you didn't listen to any of David Kay's testimony last week, but I understand your rationale. You simply want to keep whistling this tune about WMD, oh, it's off in the desert somewhere, it got moved to this country or that country, and keep on scaring what's left of the American population that still thinks Iraq ever posed a "gathering" threat to this nation...right up until election day, right? Show me the proof........so far David Kay and his replacement on the ISG haven't been able to.....
Your political analysis is flawed to say the least. Iraq is going to be a major campaign issue. Why else is Bush naming a panel to investigate our intelligence procedures, and appearing on Meet the Press this Sunday? Answer, because his poll munbers are slipping, he's trying to shore them up, and the American electorate is waking up to the fact that Bush's rationale for war doesn't exist.
Did you lose a child in Iraq sir? If you did not, then I would submit that you have no earthly idea what the parents of our dead soldiers are thinking or feeling. And the fact that Zell Miller suppports Bush is irrelevant to the point that I made. George W Bush(who ducked active service in Vietnam) impugning the patrotism of a great American like Max Cleland who chose to bravely fight against communism for his country in SE Asia.
The fact that Bush will carry the south, or that Kerry has a liberal voting record, isn't news to me, or anybody else who has a modicum of curiosity about Presidential politics. And I fully expect Bush to win a second term, but your prognostications about some landslide are way off the mark. This election is going to be close, very close, go and read the RNC website for Pete's sake, or anything Karl Rove has put out about the 04 race.
Will Nader run in 04? Maybe, maybe not. But your point is well taken, if Nader didn't run in 2000, Gore most likely would have beaten Bush. Can I say 4 more years? I would submit that the question isn't whether I can say 4 more years, but rather, can this country stand four more years of Bush......MfSD>>>>
1. We invaded a sovereign nation because their leader refused to live up to the rules of the agreement he signed at the cease fire of Gulf War One. The UN voted to do it, but lacked the backbone.
2. I admit I didn't listen to the entire David Kay testimony. However, the location of Saddam's WMD still are an issue to me. Could it be that Saddam destroyed them but refused to tell us and faced sure destruction from a military he had already been defeated by? I think not, its not rational. They are somewhere, when we locate them, I would advocate destroying them, if they are in Syria, so be it.
3. No I haven't lost a child in Iraq. I do have several friends whose son's are serving there. I correspond with 3 soldiers via email and they do not share your views.
I have however, carried the dead bodies (plural) of my friends out of the jungles of Viet Nam, Cambodia and Laos! I know war, I know what it looks, smells and feels like to see what was your buddies face turned into a charred puddle of goo! I cannot conceive of anything worse.
I did not however, after returning to America's cold shoulder, denounce my brothers in arms, do what was "fashionable" at the time, turn into a anti-war fuck head and undermine the efforts of my comrades, like John Kerry did! I did my best to cope, found my legs and did my best to help other Vet's do the same! Sorry I still harbor some rage for assholes like Kerry.
4. I disagree about the degree of Bush's victory in November, I don't think it will be close. I don't think that Edwards will bring much with the possible exception of South Carolina.
5. "If" Ross Perot wouldn't have been in the mix in 1992, we would not have been subjected to 8 years of Clinton either.
The main issue to me in the 2004 race is that the Democrats bring only negative to the table. I have heard nothing positive from any of the candidates. Your comment, "can this country stand four more years of Bush" is just more of this negativism. This country is greater than any one man. I KNOW we could even survive 8 years of Hillary Clinton, God forbid!
An anti-war "fuckhead". And Vietnam was such a resounding victory for the US?
Negativism? Why is it that I can't disagree with Bush and his policies without either being called a name, or described as being negative, by one of you right wingers?
Did you listen to Bush's state of the union speech? Tell me what was positive in that. Sounded like one 30 second campaign commercial after another.
And if Nader hadn't run in 2000, Gore would be President today ( :
You're wrong about the election, it will be close, very close. Bush will win a second term, but may possibly lose the popular vote again
Bush has energized the opposition like never before. And he is trending down so rapidly he's starting to panic.
A Kerry / Edwards ticket will trounce Bush / Cheney on issues of character and integrity, on soundness of fiscal policy, on foreign policy and National Security, along with telling the nation the truth in times of crisis, and on jobs and employment, and on issues of personal freedoms and civil liberties. Bush and Cheney will be left with nobody but the Religious Right, the gay bashers, and the gun nuts, and the moron knee jerk right wing idealogues like Ann Coulter and bribite.
Time for Dumbya to take his souvenir flight suit and go home to Crawford, Texas. A REAL LEADER, not the Alpha male in earthtones is running against him now. Bush will be lucky to carry 40% in the popular vote, and 150 electoral votes.
-- Modified on 2/6/2004 12:02:17 PM
I have the utmost respect for vetrans such as yourself who have served in combat. But soldiers don't make policy, politicians do. There for I am able to object to a war and still support and respect our troops. At least we seem to have learned from Veitnam not to go half ass into a war. If your going to fight you need to commit completely to win anything less is a betrayal to the ones who have to fight.
Viet Nam was winnable, bombing Hanoi and a couple of their harbors would have brought a quick end to their resolve. You are correct politicians make policy and the policy of Lyndon Johnson was pathetic.
After we left Viet Nam, Ho Chi Minh and his hordes murdered over 1,000,000 Viet Nam citizens. Several million more were murdered in Cambodia. How could this not have been a just cause. Our leadership was disgraced, not the military.
Southeast Asia is not altogether dissimilar to Iraq. The desert is littered with shallow graves of the murderous maniac Saddam. Regime change was a goal of the Clinton administration as well. The difference is that Bush looked to the military minds to plan and execute the war. Approved their plan and let them do what military people do - break things and kill people!
The war losses in Iraq of Iraqis and military losses (US, British, Polish, etc) are less than the monthly death toll under Saddam. This war was won with the least amount of civilian casualties in the history of warfare. The same liberal whiners who complain about those killed in the war were complaining about the supposed millions killed by the UN Boycott. I think these people just hate America, whatever is done, they whine and bitch.
We can disagree about the war before the decision is made to go to war, but then as American's I think we stand behind our leader, whether he be a Republican or Democrat.
Second guessing is for whiners. The same people who say Bush didn't do enough to protect us before 9/11 are now crying about Iraq. In my opinion, that is bullshit. He's our leader, fire him in November if you can, but as for me, I'm damn glad he is our Commander in Chief!
Bribite,
Glad there's at least one other sensible person here. Keep up the good work!
Bill Clinton presided over the most prosperous period in American history. He completely eliminated the deficit, over 20 million jobs were created during his tenure, and the Capital Markets and GNP experienced the most sustained growth in U.S. History. All of which were the types of things REPUBLICANS had been clamoring for for over 20 years prior to Clinton's Presidency.
And, BTW, I had ALOT more personal freedom in the 1990s than I do now under Bush / Cheney and the Ashcroft assault on the Bill of Rights.
"All of which were the types of things REPUBLICANS had been clamoring for for over 20 years prior to Clinton's Presidency."
Actually, all of which were the types of things that Republicans were facilitating during the twelve years prior to Clinton's Presidency. Reagan's tax cuts, victory over the Soviets in the Cold War, and a GOP Congress after 1994 had more to do with prosperity in the 90s than anything Slick Willie did.
And BTW, that "personal freedom" argument is nonsense. Clinton diminished personal freedom by grabbing guns and raising taxes, which did more to diminish the "personal freedom" of most Americans than anything this Administration has done.
The only "personal freedom" diminished for most Americans occurs when boarding aircraft. And we all know how unreasonable that is.
Youre joking right?
If you are not a millionare- then you just might be a Bush Dupe!
If you ARE a millionaire, go on supporting Bush and keeping those uppity poor folk down!
But that Kelly fellow had to go, IMO. BTW, why bother exporting yourself to the Yanks when the pound is trading at around 55p to the dollar?
The world community needs police just like a country does, or like a family needs a father. We are their police and their DADDY!! And why do you think you only pay $1.5 for gas while the rest of the world pays $4? And those Middle-East assholes are still ungrateful, without us buying their oil, those motherfuckers will starve to death.
Sure, the world community needs policing - nobody's gonna deny that. But you have to ask what the long-term consequences will be if we start chest-thumping and claiming to be the source of all justice in the world. My biggest concern over the war was the precedent it would set. I agonized over it for weeks.
Read your history - the decline of almost every empire has coincided with its attempts to overextend its reach. Have we overextended? I'm not sure. However, if we (the USA on its own) try to be the watchdog of the universe, the financial and political strain on this country may be too much to bear. That's why I was hoping we'd hold out for more of a coalition before Gulf War II.
As with most any issue in politics, there's a trade-off to be made between short-term and long-term goals. I fear that Bush has sacrificed too many long-term objectives in this case.
Just my opinion, I could be wrong, yada, yada, yada.
"Begun, it has"
The rest of the industrialized world pays more for gasoline because they understand their responsibilities to their fellow citizens better than we do. There are almost no homeless in the European Union. EVERYONE has health care coverage. People are able to drive 130 mph on the freeways without it being a revenue opportunity, yet there are few accidents.
The US is NOT heaven on earth. I'm proud to be a U.S. citizen, but we don't have the right nor the obligation to be the world's police force.
This war was TOTALLY about securing oil from the world's second largest spigot, with perhaps a bit of revenge for Daddy thrown in. Now we're dealing out lucrative contracts to already filthy rich American corporations to do things like build a cellular phone system based on the US standard that almost NONE of the rest of the world uses. Meanwhile, Social Security heads towards bankrupcy because "we can't afford it."
.......has been long in existence before America was ever on the map. Do not fool yourself, Man and Civilization will survive whether we are here or not.
As for policing ..... we don't even know how to handle our own house let alone police the world.
Your example of the oil price only makes sense in terms of policing the world so that we can fleece others inorder to make our lives more comfortable.
What? The goverment lied to the people and made up a b.s. reason to sell a war to the masses! My God what a shock! This has never happened before.
Remember the Maine! (Spanish American war excuse)
I also remmber a little something about an incident in the Gulf of Tonkin.
Oh, no the American people aren't stupid, and I'm not cynical!
There is an important difference. As someone once said, "Stupidity is forever. Ignorance is temporary."
Mark Twain and many others opposed the invasion of the Philippines at the time of the Spanish American War. See link.
In particular I like "The War Prayer" ( http://www.boondocksnet.com/ai/twain/war_prayer.html )
Mathesar
Mark Twain, what a guy! I'd love to read his comments on our times current events.
Actually if I understand my history correctly the Philippine war followed closely on the heels of the Spanish war. Of course the U.S. never called it a war, but an insurrection.
During the Spanish war most Philippinos supported us as they had already been struggling for independence from Spain. And wrongly believed that we would support their endeavor. Instead we brutally squashed their independence movement, and made them an American colony for the next 50 years.
Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.
I know it's hind sight but when I was a child watching the TV news of the six day war I couldn't figure why we (America) put up with this s**t and just didn't nuke the f**k out of the whole mid east, make it a 51st State and make the world peacefull through our power? Face it; If we had put those camel jockies(and Israel) in their place 30+ years ago we would have a much more stable world today.
The modern world is no place for radical orthodox religions.
IOR.
.... we could not handle Vietnam let alone take on the Middle East. Had we done what you said do you think the then Soviet Union, a super power in its own right, with enough nukes to finish us off a thousand times more, or China would be on the side line watching and cheering. That would have been a recipe for World War III. Think before you ramble.
You would all be pissed if Bush had left this murderer alone..Let him kill more of his people..If he had kept his chemical weapons ...which he did use on his own people... so he did have them... and all of a sudden we had a biological 9/11.. You would be yelling for Bush to be lynched for that..This needed to happen with or without the amount of facts necessary to please the bleeding heart liberals who are pissed off no matter what he does..
and give me a call...lmao
Shaye
Wonderful response, Shaye. [As all your posts are.] Wish I were in your area to call.
-- Modified on 2/5/2004 9:18:45 AM
And baby, that's some beautiful cleared land!
I just found out that the society with the most universities per population and one with the most libraries an bookstores just woke up out of its somber ignorance and is surprised to find out their politicans lie to them.
But but but those damn republicans did it for oil.
No, you commie socialist liberals are responsible for terrorism.
Your mother!!
No, your mother!!
I know you are but what am I??
Whatever you say to me bounces off me and sticks to you!!
For a good majority of you the conversation is going to melt down to a childish and unthoughtful tirade about which political party lied and why. Guess f!@#$%^ what?? Most of you are too blind to realize that it doesn't matter they lied. Both parties will do it over and over and over again because the public is IGNORANT. If a majority of you had courage not to vote party line and actually started looking at each individual's records, judgement, principles, and capability you wouldn't get lied to so damn much.
Well well how dare you call any of us ignorant?? Why you ask??
Democrats--John Kerry took more special interest money than any senator, including all Republicans. He voted for a the same damn war this time that he didn't vote for in 91. Now lets see you democrats accuse Republicans of an illegal war for election year propoganda and being the party of special interests. Had I not know better I would think John Kerry the head of the RNC. Any of you really think he voted for this war based on principle. NO. In 91 he wasn't running for president and this time he wanted to. In 91 there was a legitimate threat of destabilazation to the entire region, but no presidential election. Yet you hail this man as if her were Robert Kennedy. If Kerry, after protesting the Vietnam war, didn't have the judgement to realize that this war was a lie then he doesn't deserve to even be a senator.
Democrats--Have any of you asked for any DAMN evidence or intelligence proof that at that time in 98 Clinton and the CIA had undeniable proof the factory in Sudan was a chemical weapons factory?? I don't remember any of you crying foul over that bombing where innocent people died and there was NO intelligence of the fact. Oh but I do remember that the Monica Blewinsky scandal was putting a lot of heat on Willy.
Republicans--You cry foul about national security and how democrats are a bunch of Pu#$%^ on national security. Yet if any of you had the decency to be Americans first and Republicans second and couraget enough to take that blindfold off your eyes you would recognize that our reliance on middle east OIL is the biggest threat to our national security. Yet your party is subsidized by the damn OIL industry, so are Democrats but not to the extent Republicans are. Stop being so damn ignorant, science isn't the anti-christ. Science has the answers to rid us of Middle East oil in 10 years yet Repbulican OIL party will not allow this to happen because they are pimped out by the OIL industry. Yet as long as Bush waves the Bible in front of your faces, selling out to the OIL industry at the detriment of our national security is not a problem. Jesus must want us to rely on Middle East Oil, because Jesus personally put Bush in power.
Republicans--You should be disgusted and outraged that president Karl Rove said in March of 03 that we do not unveil a new marketing campaign until Labor day. You f@#$%^& blind ass republicans, wake the f@#$ up, this was a political and OIL war. If the threat was so damn urgent and threat to our national security "grave and gathering" why f#$%^&* wait until September. You have the nerve to cry foul about playing politics with lives?? Your party president Rove planned the timing of the damn war to start during elections to get votes. President Rove and Andy Card agreed that they should not "unveil a new marketing campaign until labor day." Thats right, the war was a marketing campaign you f!@#$%^ idiots. Why the f@#$ do you think Cheney had maps of Iraqi oil fields in his 01 energy task force papers. In case you idiots do now know this, your honorable VP Cheney had maps of Iraqi OIL fields and names of possible contractors to explore those OIL fields back in 01 as party of his energy policy papers. How the f#$% could Cheney be thinking of possible contractors for OIL fields in Iraq when in 01 Saddam was still in power, could he have been thinking of a f!@#$%^ WAR in the near future maybe?? Did he see WMD's in someones near future??
As I always ask, why do we need terrorists to bomb us when we have a ignorant and stupid public to take this country down
??
Politicians -- I don't trust a single one of them!
I supported the war then .. and I support it now.
I'm shocked, shocked I tell you (as Claude Raines said in Casablanca) to find that my government lied to me. Of course they did - they always do and they have to. Why? Because the average American Voter is too stupid to get his hands around the issues even if we hired him a [unionized] crew of 100 people to help explain it. "We have met the enemy and he is us."
In fact, I'm not even sure they lied to us. What they did was piece together sketchy information they were able to get from sources that weren't very reliable.
Intelligence gathering isn't like we see it in the movies (which is, apparently, where most people get their education). Intelligence gathering is like taking a ton of 5,000 piece jigsaw puzzles, tossing out 3/4 of all the pieces .. mixing all the remaining pices together in one pile ... then scattering them all over the world.... and then asking someone to find all the pieces and put all the puzzles back together. For the last 30 years it's been well known that solid inteligence from that entire region is obtained ONLY by having someone sitting at the next table (or same table) in the cafe when the information is being passed .... but we just don't HAVE those people in place. Why not, when we know it's so important? Because every year for the last 10, the budget for Humint (Human Intelligence gathering, ie spys) had been cut by the Congress. Which members? They all lined up for a famous photo! The one where they were on the Capitol Steps singing "God Bless America" after 9/11.
So ... Bush sat at the top of the chain of command and responsibility and he made a judgement call. Based on the best information available he made a call that erred on the side of kicking someone's ass rather than waiting to see it that person kicked OUR ass. Then he gets blamed by acting too quickly by the very same people who accuse him of acting too conservatively in preventing 9/11.
If it had been ME.... I'd have ordered "Operation Melted Sand" with the NUKEing of Iraq. Then I'd have nuked Iran, too. Then I would have called up the King of Saudi Arabia and said "what's this I hear about no Amercan forces being allowed to use your bases?"
I agree with Robin Williams who suggested that we remodel the Statue of Liberty to get rid of the torch and the saying "Give us your tired ....." We should have her standing there with a baseball bat and the saying reads "You want a piece of me???"
Very intense, Megapig, but I agree with many things that you have stated in your email. However, I'm a veteran, so my outlook is slightly different than those who have never been in a conflict. I, too, do not like war. Who does? It is very easy and accepted by the majority to blame someone else when something goes wrong. Military Intelligence gathers their information from not only those you mentioned but from people who are willing to trade information to blast their own country -- some good, maybe some bad. Unfortunately, Americans are kept in the dark about many issues but, after all, we're very ignorant so that's probably why we can't be privied to everything. There will never be common ground with everyone on the subject of war. You know the saying, "It takes a village to raise a child"? Well, it takes a nation to raise a president.
Hugs,
Ciara
Pig you are da Man! I loved "Operation Melted Sand", and I think that Most American's feel just like Robin Williams, even if we are the minority on this board.
Hello. Robin Williams practices a form of comedy called satire!
Many liberals applauded Bush's retaliation after 9/11, even Robin Williams!
of liberal publications, I can say with confidence that liberals were united (as united as liberals ever manage to get) in their opposition to the war even before it began.
Liberal news sources in general felt the evidence for WMDs (especially nuclear) in Iraq was very weak even before the outbreak of war. (See link) Nor did most liberal sources feel then or now that the fact that Saddam was a brutal tyrant justified the invasion of Iraq.
Personally, I do hope that Saddam is tried in open court where we can find out more about his relationship with the US during the period when he actually had WMDs and was using them.
I will say that although I dislike Bush intensely that does not mean that I feel any great love for Kerry.
-- Modified on 2/5/2004 10:11:05 PM
The joke credited to Robin Williams (the statue of liberty with the baseball bat) was an INTERNET HOAX! It made the rounds of multiple newsgroups and websites and invoked so much head scratching (by liberals who knew better) that Mr. Williams was eventually contacted through his publicist and denied having ever said that (of course).
But like much of Right Wing rhetoric, if enough people repeat it and it gets pumped louder and louder, it then becomes fact. Isn't it strange that no Republican ever seems to have stopped and asked herself whether Robin Williams would make such comments about Iraq, the War and Bush in the first place?
There does seem to be a major hoax regarding Robin Williams.
However, if you trace it far enough ( http://www.jsonline.com/onwisconsin/music/mar02/25596.asp ) and ignore context Williams did pretty much say what megapig said he said.
-- Modified on 2/5/2004 10:26:10 PM
Anyone who still doubts that is either ignorant or an imbecile. I am NOT talking about CHEMICAL weapons. They had legitimate reason to believe that Saddam still had those, even though now it appears that he destroyed or otherwise got rid of them. I am talking about NUKES. It was the entire cooked up story that Iraq had an active NUCLEAR program, and was looking to purchase fissionable material, that was most instrumental LIE in getting public opinion, and the Congress to back this war. And this was all done contrary to the existing, and, it turns out, ACCURATE CIA intelligence at the time, that Saddam DIDN'T have any kind of viable nuclear program. The evidence now is that Cheney and Wolfowitz actually tried to get the CIA to revise the story to make it more convincing.
What is also clear is that when Joseph Wilson (who investigated the supposed purchase of fissionable material by Saddam for the CIA, and concluded it was a fiction) confronted the Adminstration with this fact by writing a public editorial in the NY Times, somebody (as yet unidentified) in the adminstration committed TREASON by outing Wilson's wife Valerie Plam from her position as a deep cover CIA operative. So, we not only have an orchestrated campaign to lie to the American People in order to justify a war, we have Treason being committed in order to punish someone for bringing this Lie to public light. This makes getting a consensual blowjob from an intern look like a fairy tale.
How about all those against the war give Bush as much time to find the dreaded WMD's as Bush spent trying to form an international coalition?
Oh wait, that would mean his time's up
I love the Left. They call broken promises ("Read my lips ... no new taxes") and reliance upon faulty intelligence (Bush 43) "lies," and vote against convicting Clinton on impeachment.
What the present naysayers forget is that there was a worldwide consensus that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. Even the UN believed it. Certainly France and Germany did (probably because they gave Saddam the materials with which to make them). Clinton said so (OK, so don't rely on that). Kerry said so before he was running for President. But that Iraq had WMDs was not open to serious dispute. Hell, he used them against his own people as recently as the early 90s, and against Iran during their war.
What was disputed was whether to actually do something about it and, surprise, surprise, the UN and Democrats didn't want to.
"Bush lied" is just like "Bush deserted" ... the moronic fantasies of those who hate him anyway.
I don't know if WhatTheHeck actually supported the war (which I did and do; liberating 25 million people is a good thing), but his willingness to accept the characterization of the BushHaters calls into question the truthfulness of that assertion, something that probably cannot be tested on an anonymous chat board.
Of course Clinton lied about the consensual blowjob. That's not an impeachable offense. Getting us into a war under false pretenses is.
The fact is, Bush and Cheney DID lie about the Iraqi nuclear program, (although Bush called it a "nucular" program when he did it). Cheney and Wolfowitz then tried to get the CIA to change it's assessment in order to buttress the adminsitration's assertion that Saddam had nukes "and we know where they are" (a direct quote from Bush).
What about that LIE don't you understand? You are confusing Chemical weapons (which it WAS reasonable to assume Saddam had) with Nukes, which NOBODY in the intelligence community believed he had (accurately, it turns out). We didn't get into the war because of the presence of CHEMICAL weapons, which Saddam had clearly had and used 10 years earlier against the Kurds. We got into the war because of the claim that Saddam had NUKES, which were an IMMINENT THREAT to the U.S. and that claim was an out and out lie to the American people. Stop revising history.
sdstud,
You get more ridiculous as this thread continues. You manage to get three things that don't follow into three consecutive sentences.
Of course, "lying about a blowjob" is not an "impeachable offense." "Lying [about a blowjob or anything else] under oath" in a legal proceeding (a deposition) is called "perjury," and is and should be an impeachable offense.
As for getting us "into a war under false pretenses," it is only your premises which are false. First, you should recall that the post to which you responded only mentioned WMDs, not a specific nuclear program (and which is dumber, GWB, businessman, saying "nucular," or Jimmy Carter, nuclear engineer and former aid to the father of the nuclear Navy, saying "nucular"?). But as for Iraq's "nucular" program, you seem to have forgotten Osirik, the reactor bombed by the Israelis more than 20 years ago. Whole books ("Under the Baghdad Sun" comes to mind) have been written about Saddam's nuclear ambitions. You BushHaters on the far Left have keyed in on what may have been one piece of faulty intelligence (the State of the Union reference to British Intelligence's report about an African yellowcake buy) to construct this entire myth about lies which is, in itself, nothing but a far Left fantasy. Now you're (and I speak in the generic "you," you do not make these references, though many on the far Left do) leavening it with borderline anti-Semitic attacks (Wolfowitz and the "neo-cons," largely neo-conservative American Jews) and fantasies about Administration officials re-writing intellegence estimates, though they have been consistent for a quarter century.
I know you guys on the far Left depend upon ignoring/re-writing/forgetting history and other assorted ignorance for your power, but try it somewhere else, like with average voters, rather than the better-educated, more perverse readership here.
"What lie don't [I] understand?" Unfortunately for you, I understand everyone of yours, and recognize your efforts to confuse misanalyzed intelligence --- about which I probably know orders of magnitude more than you --- with affirmative lies. It's not me that's "confusing Chemical weapons (which it WAS reasonable to assume Saddam had) with Nukes, which NOBODY in the intelligence community believed he had (accurately, it turns out)."
Fact is, I never said he had nukes, and never believed that he did. I do, however, know that he was trying to get them. The Osirik reactor was evidence of that. Your entire last paragraph is nothing but fantasy, and I defy you to cite even a single quotation from a single Administration official which even remotely suggests that "We got into the war because of the claim that Saddam had NUKES, which were an IMMINENT THREAT to the U.S. and that claim was an out and out lie to the American people."
The only people "revising history" are those who are misrepresenting the Administration's argument (like the TV show JAG on Friday night, which also used the phrase "imminent threat," one never used by the President or anyone else in the Administration.
We are constantly being assaulted with politics in every form of media. Let’s keep these boards for fun things and leave the politics at the door.
-- Modified on 2/5/2004 9:40:19 AM
-- Modified on 2/5/2004 2:16:14 PM
Kerry Licks Bush!!!
A famous poet said:
A foolish friend is worst than a wise enemy.
This saying applies here.
Our nation was attacked on 9/11 by fanatics. It was horrible. It still seems like a bad dream. We lost 2500 of our countrymen. But in real terms, there was little damage to us as a nation and a people. For comparison, the flu of 1918 killed 700,000 Americans, when our nations population was 1/4 of what it is now (something to keep in mind these days with the outbreaks in asia). Our nation, our people, and our way of life have not really been hurt by these terrorist &%cks, who at most number a thousand or so. They do not threaten our existence. This wasn't like Pearl harbor where our country was attacked by the empire of Japan, an industrialized nation and a real military threat. This was 20 people with box cutters.
What DOES truly matter is not the physical.
It is our principles.
It is our collective ideology.
It is what is embodied in our Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights.
The WORST damage that can be done to our nation is the violation, erosion, and betrayal of these principles.
Terrorists will NEVER be able to damage these. We ourselves are the only ones who can.
And we have.
There is little point in reciting a list of the misdeeds of the Bush Administration. They are many. The only way to be blind to them is to believe in the administration's skewed version of reality. Maybe cousin Ali is really on vacation in Guantanemo Bay. Maybe it's ok that Johnny Ashcroft knows what books you get from the library. Hey.. that cavity search at the airport wasn't too bad.
In the end though, 9/11 was merely a symptom of a much larger problem. The problem is the violation of our own ideals.
It is the sort of thing that can best be seen in a Schizophrenic foreign policy that supports friendly dictators in Saudi Arabia and Egypt and yet deems appropriate the slaughter of countless Iraqis and loss of our own brave soldiers in order to "free" them from the yoke of another. Our history this century is replete with this sort of thing.
The Bush administration's policies are essentially the extreme of this type of myopic thinking. In the long term, they are a disaster in the making. What good is eradicating 500 Al-Queda terrorists when our method will breed 6000 more in the next generation. And what if the people of Saudi or Egypt rise up against their masters like we did 200 years ago ourselves. Will they look kindly upon us?
We wonder why there are people in Saudi Arabia that hate us so much so that they're willing to kill themself to do us harm. Who knows the exact reason? For one of them, perhaps it was because of the "Made in the USA" tag on the device in King Fahd's torture chamber that had wires attached to his testicles ; all because he wrote an article disagreeing with the governments policy on something or another.
Perhaps when our forefathers said "We the people", they only meant those residing here in the U.S. Perhaps they only had US citizens in mind when they said "that all men are created equal" and "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights".
I doubt it.
I truly believe that our collective salvation can only be found by going back to our roots. To believe in the rights of all people. Our principles must be our guide.
Without them, we are lost.
PS. Apologies for the long rant. I almost never care to give opinions like this (in writing or otherwise), but I really started down the hill on this one.
This Administration has never had the slightest regard for the bedrock principles of our Republic (as articulated in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights) And that is why they do not see the cost of what they are squandering in pursuit of their own agenda in Iraq, and also domestically. I am heartened, however, in that many folks seem to be waking up to this.
Nobody intentionally lied to you. Even 98% of the Democrats from
the Clinton admin made speeches about the Iraqi WMD because every one of them believed it. It looks like part of it was because Saddam's people lied to HIM about what they had or were
making.
Give it a effing break; Saddam needed to be out and he is and some beneficial changes are happening because of it. . .