Also as I recall the Rob, Silberman report stated that Bush was getting far more alarmist Intel analysis than Congress and they still voted for the AUMF sorry libtards this dog don't hunt! Going into Iraq was the exact right thing to do!
JeanneB
· 1 year ago
I'm not going to bother to read this report. But I'll wager that its catalogue of lies do not include Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Jay Rockefeller et al who said exactly the same thing GWB did, based on exactly the same intelligence.
Maybe they plan to issue that report later? Yeah, I'll hold my breath.
docjim505
· 1 year ago
Bingo. But Slick Willie and all the dems who said the same things about Saddam that Bush said weren't lying because, um, er... Because they said it a long time ago! And-and-and Bush tricken them! Yeah, yeah! That's it! And Slick Willie didn't invade Iraq! So he and everybody else gets a pass.
At least, as far as retarded libs (redundant) are concerned.
NoDonkey
· 1 year ago
It's astounding the time, money and energy, the far left puts into their lies.
Maybe if they used their resources for something productive, they wouldn't be the losers they are.
Anything remotely associated with George Soros is a toxin and a cancer.
Soros has spent billions on lying about President Bush and America and all he has is a small brigade of lunatic left clownage to show for it. Just shows you don't have to be smart, to be rich.
SwabJockey05
· 1 year ago
The "clownage" includes the leading candidate for POTUS...
docjim505
· 1 year ago
Let me help out ignorant lefties a bit before they further pollute the comments:
lie /laɪ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[lahy] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, lied, ly·ing. –noun 1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
Please provide evidence other than the witness of the voices in your heads that Bush, Cheney et al said what they did about Iraq "with deliberate intent to deceive". Otherwise, please STFU.
nightjar
· 1 year ago
Typical debating skills from the right. Don't want to hear the truth, just put your hands over your ears and shout stfu. Or Soros ten times.
docjim505
· 1 year ago
In other words, you've got nothing better to say than, "Bush lied!"(TM) or "It's All Bush's Fault!"(TM) or "I hate Bush!"(TM)
Yes, we've heard it all before. BTW, if your local weatherman predicted a sunny day and you got wet because it rained, would you accuse him of lying, too? I realize that lefties have an... um... different conception of common English words that normal people, so perhaps you would because "lie" doesn't mean the same thing to you as it does to everybody else.
Sigh... STFU would seem to be such easy advice to take, yet so few people do...
nightjar
· 1 year ago
yes we have. about 4 or 5 months ago I used the same acronym and was unloaded on by about all the mates. What goes around comes around, I guess.
Del_Dolemonte
· 1 year ago
Geez, a lot of new posters on this thread. All pro-Soros Kis Kiddies, too.. School let out early?
Hillary Clinton, the Junior Senator from New York now running for Vice President, voted in favor of Bush's Iraq resolution in the fall of 2002. At the time, she said she based her vote on the info she got from Bill's intelligence people.
I guess they were all lying too.
MarkD
· 1 year ago
All the more reason to end "campaign finance reform." Let anybody spend as much as they like on poltics, but there needs to be full disclosure of where the money comes from. That would include the names and amounts of all donations traceable to individuals, along with their political party membership - as of the last election. (No more "lifelong Republican for Clinton" scam mails)
Sunlight is the ultimate disinfectant.
quickjustice
· 1 year ago
It's clear this has been in preparation for months, at great expense to Soros. Had the Iraq insurgency remained an issue, it might have had some impact. Circumstances have changed so dramatically (thanks to General Petraeus) that it's a dud.
I'm certain the timing of its release has been orchestrated with the N.Y. Times and A.P. Both news organizations now are forced to admit that the contents are no longer news, and have no measurable political impact. It also demonstrates the limits of deploying even Soros's great wealth. When you're "stuck on stupid", you lack the insight and flexibility to aim your salvos at the right target.
Oldcrow
· 1 year ago
And note no mention in the study of all the statements from Congress critters including most Dem's and Senator's again including most Dem's and the Clinton Admin who said the exact same things prior to Bush, and all the MSM sites including Fox news are headling this pile of excrement!
DayTrader
· 1 year ago
If you trace the two organizations back you will see Soros plus Bill Moyers in the mix.
Plus look at the other donors and you will see the pattern emerging.
IRS Form 990's are wonderful things if you know how to access them.
DayTrader
· 1 year ago
Looking at just who makes up their board of directors and advisory boards for these two groups is also informative.
onlineanalyst
· 1 year ago
I love how your research tenacity and mind work. Great job!
keemo
· 1 year ago
Thanks for highlighting the efforts of Soros to sway public opinion towards the agenda he is so willing to invest millions into. The ties that bond the Clinton's with Mr. Soros will also be very enlightening as this election year unfolds.
hunter_123
· 1 year ago
That is the really big rat sitting in the room: The Soros ownership of the Clinton campaign.
Derek Cockerham
· 1 year ago
I heard this reported on NPR this morning with the usual lack of vetting. They interviewed the president of CPI and did not question his motivation or funding. Further, he even admitted that he was writing a book about the 900 plus false statements by the administration and therefore admitting that he has a dog in the fight irrespective of the groups funding. Not that NPR is a bastion of balanced reporting I simply thought it par for the course when rather than vetting their interviewees they enable them. Add insult to injury - I (and you) are paying for the NPR crew to be on the air..
NoDonkey
· 1 year ago
I listened for NPR for years. Finally, during the 2004 campaign, I had enough.
NPR is just another left wing propaganda tool. It's sad that a taxpayer funding ":news" station can't try and be a little more even handed. It's steadily moving towards becoming the US version of the BBC.
Derek Cockerham
· 1 year ago
I agree. I do listen to it once or twice a week primarily to hear what the "other side" has to say although like you it has become more and more difficult to stomach some of the obvious propagandic rhetoric. I appreciate Captain Ed staying on top to these types of stories. Unfortunately not all of the listeners of NPR will hear the real story of the funding/agenda of CPI. Thanks Captain Ed for your march toward the truth.
Dhalgren
· 1 year ago
The fact that Bush’s statements were demonstrably untrue is irrelevant. What matters is that a Soros-funded organization said those statements were untrue. Since Soros is pure evil, any statement that his minions say is false inevitably becomes true. Therefore, in saying that Bush lied, Soros transforms Bush’s statements into truth. It’s simple, really.
Just remember - Soros spelled backwards is ’soros’. Think about it.
Del_Dolemonte
· 1 year ago
Here's an article in England's left wing Guardian from February 6, 1999. That's almost two years before "Bushco" was sworn into office. I'd love to see the Kos Kidz spin this one:
Saddam Hussein's regime has opened talks with Osama bin Laden, bringing closer the threat of a terrorist attack using chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, according to US intelligence sources and Iraqi opposition officials.
The key meeting took place in the Afghan mountains near Kandahar in late December. The Iraqi delegation was led by Farouk Hijazi, Baghdad's ambassador in Turkey and one of Saddam's most powerful secret policemen, who is thought to have offered Bin Laden asylum in Iraq.
The Saudi-born fundamentalist's response is unknown. He is thought to have rejected earlier Iraqi advances, disapproving of the Saddam Hussein's secular Baathist regime. But analysts believe that Bin Laden's bolthole in Afghanistan, where he has lived for the past three years, is now in doubt as a result of increasing US and Saudi government pressure.
News of the negotiations emerged in a week when the US attorney general, Janet Reno, warned the Senate that a terrorist attack involving weapons of mass destruction was a growing concern. "There's a threat, and it's real," Ms Reno said, adding that such weapons "are being considered for use."
US embassies around the world are on heightened alert as a result of threats believed to emanate from followers of Bin Laden, who has been indicted by a US court for orchestrating the bombing last August of embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, in which 259 people died. US delegations in Africa and the Gulf have been shut down in recent weeks after credible threats were received.
In this year's budget, President Clinton called for an additional $2 billion to spend on counter-terrorist measures, including extra guards for US embassies around the world and funds for executive jets to fly rapid response investigative teams to terrorist incidents around the world.
Since RAF bombers took part in air raids on Iraq in December, Bin Laden declared that he considered British citizens to be justifiable targets. Vincent Cannistraro, former chief of CIA counter-terrorist operations, said: "Hijazi went to Afghanistan in December and met with Osama, with the knowledge of the Taliban leader, Mullah Omar. We are sure about that. What is the source of some speculation is what transpired."
An acting US counter-intelligence official confirmed the report. "Our understanding over what happened matches your account, but there's no one here who is going to comment on it."
Ahmed Allawi, a senior member of the opposition Iraqi National Congress (INC), based in London, said he had heard reports of the December meeting which he believed to be accurate. "There is a long history of contacts between Mukhabarat [Iraqi secret service] and Osama bin Laden," he said. Mr Hijazi, formerly director of external operations for Iraqi intelligence, was "the perfect man to send to Afghanistan".
Analysts believe that Mr Hijazi offered Mr bin Laden asylum in Iraq, most likely in return for co-operation in launching attacks on US and Saudi targets. Iraqi agents are believed to have made a similar offer to the Saudi maverick leader in the early 1990s when he was based in Sudan.
Although he rejected the offer then, Mamoun Fandy, a professor of Middle East politics at Georgetown University, said Bin Laden's position in Afghanistan is no longer secure after the Saudi monarchy cut off diplomatic relations with, and funding for, the Taleban militia movement, which controls most of the country.
Mr Fandy said senior members of the Saudi royal family told him in recent weeks that they had received assurances from the Taleban leader, Mullah Mohamed Omar, that once the radical Islamist movement secured control over Afghan territory, Bin Laden would be forced to leave. "It's a matter of time now for Osama." He said Bin Laden would have a strong ideological aversion to accepting Iraqi hospitality, but might have little choice.
docjim505
· 1 year ago
It's because Bush and Cheney tricked 'em!
/ sarcasm
You're quite right, though: it WILL be interesting to see our lefties, both resident and visiting, deal with this. Or perhaps I should say that it WOULD be interesting, because I don't think any of them will touch it with a ten-foot pole. It upsets their worldview that Bush, starting on Jan 20, 2001, invented a country called Iraq that was governed by a man named Saddam who was thought to have (because he'd used them before) something called WMD. None of these things were thought to exist prior to being invented by George Bush and the compliant Mainstream Media, which (as we all know) is in the pockets of the corporations that are all controlled by George Bush. That is, when they're not controlled by Dick Cheney because Bush is too stupid to tie his own shoelaces. When he's not sneaking tons of C-4 and thermite into the World Trade Center without anybody seeing him, I should say.
;-)
keemo
· 1 year ago
Geez ol' mighty,
Did monkei and Teresa climb out of bed long enough to invite the entire nut house over for a CQ party?
nightjar
· 1 year ago
I focus on the money time right before Bush booted the inspectors and declared we were going to invade. That was when the inspectors were visiting the CIA's top suspect sites and were finding nothing but dust and cobwebs. It was when the inspectors were about to be increased and aerial surveilance added. This was the big lie, first telling congress he would let the inspectors finish there work and then when they were beginning to find out there were no weapons of md he pulled the trigger on an unnecessary war that has left tens of thousands of innocent people dead.
And please don't offer the falsehood we've heard from the right that Saddam denied access to the inspectors. It is so tired and untrue.
Del_Dolemonte
· 1 year ago
Fact check: the country of Iraq is the same size as the state of California. If Saddam and company wanted to hide something so it would be hard to find, they would have plenty of places to do so. As one who's flown over the length of California many times, I can assure you that it would take much longer than the 5 years that have elapsed since 2003 to search the entire country inch by inch.
Then of course there were numerous reports of truck convoys leaving Iraq and traveling to Syria's Bekaa Valley, as well as Russian cargo planes flying stuff out of the country-all before we went in.
But most damning to the Left's trying to reqrite history is that nearly all of the Democrats, back in the late 1990s, were also alleging that Saddam had those WMDs. Of course, we know that on your world, recorded history didn't begin until late January of 2001...
And while you're at it, please read the Resolution of 2002 that many Democrats voted for. In it, you will see that "WMDs" are only one of 15 or so reasons we went in. Link below:
"Fact check: the country of Iraq is the same size as the state of California. If Saddam and company wanted to hide something so it would be hard to find, they would have plenty of places to do so. As one who's flown over the length of California many times, I can assure you that it would take much longer than the 5 years that have elapsed since 2003 to search the entire country inch by inch. "
Um, fact check, the USA has things called spy satellites and spy planes. We also have a spy agency called the CIA and access to reports from the UN We knew exactly what was in Iraq. Please.
txslr
· 1 year ago
Acting as though your conclusion is obvious doesn't constitute an argument or evidence. The notion that the C.I.A. knew what was in Iraq - and what wasn't - is absolutely contrary to every shred of evidence that we have, including the statements of the C.I.A. and everyone on every side. Not even Hillary claims that the intelligence community knew the disposition of weapons in Iraq. This is just nutty.
Del_Dolemonte
· 1 year ago
Spy satellites, due to the fact that they are satellites, pass overhead, and only pass over any given point on earth so many times per day. Spy planes can't fly if the weather (uh, clouds? prevent them from taking pictures. Many times, certain parts of the globe have clouds sitting over them for days at a time.
As for the UN, their Secretary General at the time was in bed with Saddam (Food for Oil scandal).
Please try again.
Del_Dolemonte
· 1 year ago
PS, there are what are called "geosynchronous" US spy satellites, which means they stay "parked" over one location over earth permanently, but these all are apparently to interercept voice/radio communications, not for imaging.
docjim505
· 1 year ago
Then please explain Tenent's assertion that the case against Saddam was "a slam dunk". After all, he was the Director of the CIA and presumably would have known "exactly what was in Iraq".
nightjar
· 1 year ago
So which is it ? The WMD's are hidden under Ashar's bed in Syria or the war wasn't really about them anyway. And BTW, a strong majority of congressional dems voted against the Iraq war res.
The facts in my last post remain Bush's big lie and will when the historians make judgment on his bloody Iraq adventure.
Del_Dolemonte
· 1 year ago
LOL. If Bush was such a liar, why didn't he just have the US military plant a bunch of stuff?
(Sound of crickets)
nightjar
· 1 year ago
Incompetance? Chirp.
Del_Dolemonte
· 1 year ago
If you're going to accuse someone else of being stupid, at least do so by spelling "incompetence" correctly.
Normally I don't call people here out on spelling errors, but when they accuse someone of being stoopid and then show their own lack of knowledge in the process I can't resist.
nightjar
· 1 year ago
What are you some kind of little miss manners del monte. And since when is incompetance saying someone is stupid. This is the problem with wingers, there's no ends to your changing the facts to suit your argument. Well, at least you proved a liberal can't spell incompetance. hoorah for you.
txslr
· 1 year ago
Still waiting for evidence that Bush knew that anything he said was incorrect at the time he said it. Thus far, no one has offered any.
txslr
· 1 year ago
A little logic tip - the two alternatives you have offered are not mutually exclusive. That is, one can reasonably hold them both simultaneously.
txslr
· 1 year ago
Excuse me, but Saddam absolutely denied access to inspectors until the U.S. and Britain parked their divisions on his borders. And even after the inspectors were allowed in they reported back to the UN that Saddam was in material non-compliance.
nightjar
· 1 year ago
Hans Blix on his report US is misquoting my Iraq report, says Blix - smh.com.au The only non-compliance was Iraq's inability to provide documents stating they had destroyed all weapons. Inadequate paperwork. Of course, Saddam, would not have let the inspectors do their work without the threat of invasion. The point is that Bush didn't let the inspectors finish their work. No matter how hard you try to deny this simple fact, it remains a fact. On this question Bush most certainly lied to Congress, America, and the rest of the world.
Del_Dolemonte
· 1 year ago
Blix? He was working for a guy (Kofi Annan) who was in bed with Saddam. Ever heard of the "Food for Oil" scandal?
Please try again. And why the Australian news source?
BurfordHolly
· 1 year ago
Yeah, I heard of that scandal. Chevron paid a $30 M fine for what they did while Condi was on their board.
docjim505
· 1 year ago
YGTBSM. Saddam was required to prove that he'd destroyed his WMD. He could offer no such proof. You are willing to pass that off as "inadequate paperwork"???
Try looking at it from another angle, eh?
A nasty ol' dictator invades a neighboring country. A group of other countries, including the United States, kicks him out and has to clean up the mess he made. In order to limit his ability to do this sort of thing again, he is required to eliminate certain weapons from his arsenal and allow UN inspectors to certify that he has done so. Over the course of the following decade, he instead plays scavenger hunt with the inspectors, interfering with them in their work and ultimately throwing them out of his country. The UN passes several resolutions declaring that - gosh darn it! - he's not doing what he promised. Please note that the inspectors never said that they thought he'd gotten rid of his WMD. The best they could say was that they weren't sure.
Then 9-11 happens and the world changes a little bit.
US intelligence believes that not only does Saddam still have WMD, he's working on getting more, including a nuke. US intelligence also believes that Saddam has ties to the same whackos who crashed airplanes into buildings in America. The new US president isn't willing to f*** around for another decade with Saddam, hoping that he'll suddenly start honoring his commitments. Saddam, in a desperate move to save his hide, offers to let the inspectors back in... and immediately starts the old game of trying to hinder their work. The US president, supported by a majority of the Congress and other allied nations, announces that enough is enough.
Please try to grasp this point:
The inspection process was not supposed to be a scavenger hunt. Saddam was supposed to destroy his weapons and offer proof that he'd done so (as we have been doing with our own WMD stockpiles in accordance with various treaties and agreements we've made). If he could not prove that he'd destroyed his WMD as he agreed to do, then he was in breach of the cease fire agreement, which constitutes a casus bellum.
Bush's "lie" boils down to his refusal to give Saddam years more time to play hide-n-seek with the inspectors. Those inspectors, as others have pointed out, were employed by an agency corrupted by Saddam's oil-for-food bribery scheme. At any rate, I don't recall Blix saying, "We certify that Saddam doesn't have any WMD." I think that the best he could ever say was, "Give us more time."
You had ten years, jack. How much "more time" is enough???
This kind of stuff is why I've stopped believing anything originating from Soros -- it's all agitprop.
But the words are now interesting. Rather than "Bush lied", we have the more subtle "Bush told a falsehood", which, of course, is somewhat removed from "Bush relied on faulty data", which is further removed from "Bush relied on faulty data, and when the data was found to be faulty, modified his policies to correct the problems." As we move down the list, we get more Presidential-type behavior.
Good for Soros for taking the first step away from "Bush lied".
Noocyte
· 1 year ago
Oh, blast! "factcheck.org" a Soros-subsidiary?!
The last time I checked there (some time ago), I thought I had detected a leftward drift from the relatively up-the-middle site I recall from 2004.
Then again, I have myself drifted from Far-Left to Right-of-Center during that time, so mayhap it's a perspective thing?
Can I get a little data to support the Soros connection, Uncle (or anyone else)? Thanks in advance
unclesmrgol
· 1 year ago
Whatever you do, don't keep drifting right. Once you move far enough right, it's indistinguishable from the far left.
I made a mistake. The Soros site was (past tense) factcheck dot com. The factcheck.org site is run by the Annenberg Foundation (in particular, the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania). Soros has apparently given up factcheck dot com, which is now held by a domain name camper, domainnamesales.com.
Jeff_from_Mpls
· 1 year ago
Thank you for this smackdown, Captain Ed.
I know we ought to expect no more from mainstream media, but this is despicable.
Some day between now and the election, I guarantee you we'll see a similar headline shouting: "Documents Reveal Historic Clinton Legacy an Absolute Good for the World."
It's patent propaganda masquerading as news. How dare these people.
Chuckdps
· 1 year ago
Hey Jeff, are you better off now than you were 8 years ago? Is the government listening to more of your conversations now than 8 years ago? Is the government torturing more people in your name now than 8 years ago? Oh yeah, and how's that economy thing going for you now, compared to 8 years ago? Like the Onion said in November 2000, our long national nightmare of peace and prosperity has finally ended!
E1701
· 1 year ago
I can't speak for Jeff, but in order;
- I am better off than I was then, as even down here at the bottom end of the middle class, tax cuts are a positive step (and when the government actually gets cut down some, it'll be really positive).
- The government is not listening to my conversations... if you think the government is *capable* of listening or even recording the conversations of the ~250 million Americans with phones, you're out of your bloody mind. But they damned well better be listening to scum out to damage this country who are using our own systems to communicate with each other. And if they were smart, they've been doing this since the days of Alexander Graham Bell. National security, unlike welfare, medicare, and wealth redistribution is actually one of the government's real jobs.
- Are they torturing more people? I doubt it... But I really doubt you want to try and guess the sort of things the CIA's been up to while defending our sorry asses for the past fifty years. The difference these days is that there's no such thing as "covert" any more. Hell, the national news talks about using "covert" operations in a foreign nominally allied nation.
- The economy now is a powerhouse next to eight years ago, unless you bow to media idiocy. Eight years ago the dot-com bubble was on the verge of a meltdown, stocks were on the tipping point, the global market was peaking for a big downturn, and Clinton was still boasting of an imaginary budget "surplus".
And if you take the Onion for news, there's nothing I can do to help you.
So much as I despise Bush and Congress porking it up and bloating the government with even more pointless programs, I vastly would prefer their brand of "compassionate conservatism" and its attendant problems to the Democratic mantra of eyes-wide-shut populist insanity.
Chuckdps
· 1 year ago
"The economy is a powerhouse next to eight years ago"
is perfect evidence of your credibility. The economy is not going in the toilet, its just the media's fault. Clearly, the Onion has a better handle on reality than do you.
apb
· 1 year ago
Chuck-dips :
Everything's going better than 8 years ago - considering the systemic shock from 9/11. It's a shame the obvious connections between "listening to more of your conversations", "torture" and the war on psycho-Islam are completely lost on you. Now step away from the computer and get back behind the counter - three customers are waiting on their lattes.
Chuckdps
· 1 year ago
Wow, what a great argument. Make fun of my log in, wet your pants over a few idiots with sand in their crotch, and then assume you know what I do for a living.
Howard Brooks
· 1 year ago
The press release notes the nonprofit nature of the organization, which I think is designed to make people think "non-partisan" which seems far from the truth. On the Fund for Independence in Journalism side there are a couple on the board of directors who are Obama contributors (they don't want journalists to be THAT independen) and Lee Bollinger is on the Advisory Council.
Del_Dolemonte
· 1 year ago
Any time an entity calls itself "non-partisan", it's usually the exact opposite.
Yashmak
· 1 year ago
What's discouraging, is that the MSM still prints articles about things like this, even though in the content of those articles, they basically say "this isn't really news, it's all been reported before".
Rovin
· 1 year ago
Soro's and his cronies know that the success's in Iraq orchestrated by Gen. Petraeus and Ryan Crocker will haunt the cut n run surrender party that was banking on and supporting the utter defeat of the U. S. Military. This partisan ploy by the agenda driven media is nothing but a distraction to the obvious stabilization process that continues in Iraq. (benchmarks included)
Even while the drawdown of our military presence in the region has begun, the three remaining candidates on the democratic side are competing to see who can promise a mass exodus of all military personel with little or no regard to situation on the ground. And this is what the party of defeat and retreat has to offer in the form of national security and foreign policy.
How can any Soros funded study have any credibility after the now defunct Lancet report turned out to be a pack of lies.
MarkJ
· 1 year ago
Given our increasing success in Iraq, it's clear that the Soromaniacs and their ilk have now entered their "helicopters on the roof" phase. Garbage like this so-called "study" amounts to them firing parting shots at their perceived enemy, the better to give them a "decent interval" as they make their "strategic redeployment."
DayTrader
· 1 year ago
The far left nutroots blogs have been pushing this story hard since yesterday.
They just somehow forgot about mentioning who funded the stuff.
Integrity, it's not even for breakfast any more!.
BurfordHolly
· 1 year ago
The same questions need to be asked of the candidates, who want to have their cake and eat it too.
"................According to a Harris poll in late April 2004, a plurality of Americans, 49 percent to 36 percent, believe "clear evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda has been found."........."
An even more damning phenomenon: the 9-11 nutter documentary Loose Change. Doesn't it make you feel like a complete rube to know that your friends in the democrat party find it persuasive?
Democrat == sucker.
BurfordHolly
· 1 year ago
You overlook the fact that many 9-11 "truthers" are Republicans or Indies.
And the people that are convinced Saddam was behind 9-11 are at least as cut off from reality as the 'truthers."
Del_Dolemonte
· 1 year ago
"You overlook the fact that many 9-11 "truthers" are Republicans or Indies."
Credible and multi-sourced cites, please?
"And the people that are convinced Saddam was behind 9-11 are at least as cut off from reality as the 'truthers."
Would that include the Bill Clinton-appointed Federal Judge in New York who concluded that an impartial jury would find that Iraq did have a hand in those attacks?
Del, you ought to, you know, read these things before you go the trouble of posting them.
hunter_123
· 1 year ago
Saddam was supporting Al Qaeda, idiot. What the President always said in plain English even a lefty tool should be able to read is that there was no evidence Iraq was directly involved in 911. But lefty sock puppets are not really capable of thinking, apparently.
BurfordHolly
· 1 year ago
People aren't getting the message I guess
NoDonkey
· 1 year ago
Shouldn't you be filling potholes somewhere?
BurfordHolly
· 1 year ago
NoDonkey, why do you keep trying to thread hijack the discussion into what a loser Rudy is?
Are you a fan and you think you are doing him a favor to make every thread into a discussion of what a loser he is, or do you hate him and that is why you are trying to turn every thread into what a loser he is?
But if you like him, please send him $5 this very second, because he is flat broke and sinking fast.
Dan
· 1 year ago
And here again we have the left campaigning against George W. Bush. Apart from BDS, I think most folks are aware of the Constitutional problem that renders the Soros investment an utter waste of money. Too bad Soros can't figure it out.
frank Matturri
· 1 year ago
Don't repeat the untruth that Wilson's report backed up the claim Iraq was seeking uranium. From the Select Committee report on Prewar Intelligence, "Niger" section, p. 43, in referring to the draft intelligence report written by the CIA case officer after debriefing Wison: "The intelligence report indicated that former Nigerien Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki was unaware of any contracts that had been signed between Niger and any rogue states for the sale of yellowcake while he was Prime Minister (1997-1999) or Foreign Minister (1996-1997). Mavaki said that if there had been any such contract during his tenure, he would have been aware’of it. Mayaki said, however, that in June 1999, [deleted] businessman, approached him and insisted that Mayaki meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss “expanding commercial relations” between Niger and Iraq. The intelligence report said that Mayaki interpreted “expanding commercial relations” to mean that the delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales. The intelligence report also said that “although the meeting took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to the UN sanctions on Iraq.”
So the only thing Mayaki said that supported the idea of yellowcake sales was his "interpretation" which was discounted by everyone, including the intelligence community. From p. 46: "Because CIA analysts did not believe that the report added any new information to clarify the issue, they did not use the report to produce any further analytical products or highlight the report for policymakers."
txslr
· 1 year ago
Odd. You make an assertion, provide evidence that directly contradicts that very assertion, and then declare victory. Do you get out much?
Tom_Shipley
· 1 year ago
"The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa .”
this is a perfect example of how Bush and Co. twisted intelligence to lead us into war. Our own intellegence was not comfortable saying this... so Bush had to reference the Brits.
But even more importantly, this sentence was used to supplement the assertation that Saddam was ACTIVELY developing nuclear weapons to use against the US. You get A) Muddy intelligence that our agency won't stand by to bolster a completely FALSE claim. But Americans went along with it because we didn't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud (who does?).
I'm going to stop before I get all worked up, but Bush and Co. LIED OR MISLED... whatever you want to call it... this country into Iraq.
txslr
· 1 year ago
I've almost seen the light. If you could just explain to me what it was Saddam wanted with yellowcake uranium I think I could finally get on board. Maybe he just wanted a nice radioactive rec room for one of his palaces?
A moment of silence please, either standing or sitting, for the failure of anybody to mention that the Administration ignored a multinational investigation by Hans Blix, showing that there were no WMDs in Iraq...
Add a half a minute for the casualties, living and dead, of our Armed Forces...
Finished, perhaps one or two seconds for the Iraqi people, living, dead, and refugees...
Del_Dolemonte
· 1 year ago
Hans Blix?
Nice try...
Tom_Shipley
· 1 year ago
Uh... he wuz right.
txslr
· 1 year ago
You mean when he reported back to the UN that Iraq was in substantial non-compliance with UN resolutions and the agreement under which combat in the First Gulf War was ended?
quickjustice
· 1 year ago
From Team America: World Police:
KIm Jong Il: Hans Brix? Oh no! Oh, herro. Great to see you again, Hans! Hans Blix: Mr. Il, I was supposed to be allowed to inspect your palace today, but your guards won't let me enter certain areas. Kim Jong Il: Hans, Hans, Hans! We've been frew this a dozen times. I don't have any weapons of mass destwuction, OK Hans? Hans Blix: Then let me look around, so I can ease the UN's collective mind. I'm sorry, but the UN must be firm with you. Let me in, or else. Kim Jong Il: Or else what? Hans Blix: Or else we will be very angry with you... and we will write you a letter, telling you how angry we are. Kim Jong Il: OK, Hans. I'll show you. Stand to your reft. Hans Blix: [Moves to the left] Kim Jong Il: A rittle more. Hans Blix: [Moves to the left again] Kim Jong Il: Good. [Opens up trap, Hans falls in]
Del_Dolemonte
· 1 year ago
Only on your world, Tom. Only on your world.
njcommuter
· 1 year ago
This d---ed lie is top and center on Yahoo's news page.
If you say something long enough, people believe it. If you get enough sock puppets to repeat it, people believe it. (What I tell you three times is true.)
The report ought to read "George Soros Says 'Bush Lied'." It ought to have big border with the legend "Political Advocacy Advertisement: Paid Research." But it doesn't.
There may still be a few people who don't know what to believe--and who know they don't know it. These people are called swing voters, and the politicians are looking to dance with them.
Xanthippas
· 1 year ago
Look at this point, Saddam Hussein could come back from the dead to sponsor a study on how Bush lied, and most Americans would believe it. Because it's true.
In fact, the headline could say "Saddam Hussein Returns From Dead to Say Bush Lied"...and most Americans would still believe it. Because it's true.
txslr
· 1 year ago
You mean Saddam has come back from the dead?! Why didn't it make the papers?
On the other hand, I'm sure that there is as much evidence for this as for the silly assertion that Bush lied.
jkenney1
· 1 year ago
This is my first post to this site, and I appreciate the ability to have an intelligent conversation.
I know everything today is very partisan, but I would like people to open their minds to other opinions. It seems like there is no middle ground, it is either radical left or radical right. This country will not get it's act together until we stop this childish behavior and honestly discuss what is going on. I truly hope that happens, the sooner the better. Take care and God Bless all of you.
sashal
· 1 year ago
another point ,capt.- it’s a partisan group" meme is BS. Can liberals discount all statements or papers from AEI, Hudson, Mackinaw Center and et. al. because of their bias and funding. The names of Scaife and Coors are just as gulity of funding their pet projects. What about their agendas? .
Del_Dolemonte
· 1 year ago
The problem is that they claim to be non-partisan.
frank
· 1 year ago
txslr: can you read English?
txslr
· 1 year ago
Like a native! Thanks for asking. And you?
Sam
· 1 year ago
"Hey, AP. I'll be posting a couple of essays today."
Captain, will you be including "shopworn quotes taken mostly out of context and misrepresented"?
Otherwise you can't demand similar treatment...
Del_Dolemonte
· 1 year ago
Please cite examples of same.
sanjeevn
· 1 year ago
Forget the quotes and the statements. What's the point of listing actual quotes.
We know the truth: We found the WMDs! Senator Rick Santorum gave a press conference that we found WMDs.
Also, did you know that Soros paid them in dollar bills ... which have been found to have traces of cocaine on them ... why, oh, why do these Soros-funded america-hating baby-killing cocaine-snorting gay-loving liberals hate George W Bush.
But you are free to believe whatever you want, even this late in the Bush term. And when you're ready for a laugh, head on over to Sadly No.
docjim505
· 1 year ago
Please refer to a dictionary for the definition of "lie". Then please offer evidence that Bush and his advisors lied. Not that they said things which were later proved untrue, but that they lied.
Good luck.
txslr
· 1 year ago
Again, a catalog of who said what, what was said and when doesn't constitute proof or even evidence of lying. Assuming that every single thing said was utlimately proven incorrect wouldn't even be a necessary condition for his having lied. It is quite possible to lie and wind up being correct. Suppose Bush absolutely believed that Iraq had no WMD programs but said that they did in order to justify a war just for fun, but was surprised to discover that Saddam did have WMD programs. Does that mean he didn't lie? Nope. In that instance he would have lied because he believed that what he was saying was untrue, regardless of how it turned out. The recitations of things said that ultimately turned out to be counterfactual are tedious and thoroughly, absolutely and completely irrelvent. It's as if I were to posit that someone is a child molester and offer the periodic table as evidence. So, either come up with some evidence or knock it off.
nightjar
· 1 year ago
I'm curious as to what would be acceptable proof for you guys. Would it be a jury verdict, maybe some kind of special commission study. Anyway, the study in question here, I believe claimed "false statements" by the Bush admin.. As for if those false statements were lies or not, the only relevant measure is the opinion rendered by the court of public opinion. I wonder what the verdict is there?
keemo
· 1 year ago
nightjar,
You're way in over your head here. The CQ community will eat you up and spit you out unless you bring the absolute "A" game. You must bring more than garden variety talking points and links that lead us to far left agenda driven propaganda outlets. You have passion included in your argument nightjar; however, you are lacking in substance, solution, and ideas.
Saddam had stockpiles of WMD in 1991; that is a fact that (2) members of my family saw with their own eyes. The question is not "did he have the WMD" but rather "what did he do with the WMD". Saddam used WMD on his own people, as has been documented, photographed, and filmed. Let's stick to the facts nightjar and try to follow a trail that will lead us to some kind of intellectually honest debate. The "Bush lied & people died" theme is simply an old Democrat talking point invented strictly for the purpose of damaging Bush in the lead up to the 2004 election. Saddam deserved what he got " traditional hanging" in my view. It didn't have to end that way, but the man just refused to take any action that would have helped his own cause.
nightjar
· 1 year ago
Well, keemo, I always wear a snorkel and a chem suit when I parlay at CQ. What happened in 1991 is irrelevant, what happened in 1998 is irrelevant, My first post here deals specifically with the few months leading up to the Iraq invasion. Go read my previous posts if your confused. Bush lied about letting the inspectors finish their jobs, period. You can smear Hans Blix, you can rewrite history to your hearts content, but it won't change what happened. Would you like catsup?
keemo
· 1 year ago
Well nightjar,
I guess you can take your snorkel and chem suit and parlay back to places where you might find people that will actually buy into your bullshit. I read your posts, and they are all lacking in substance, detail, honesty, facts, back-up data; on and on. You're just another freaked out Liberal twit.
Namecalling and please go away is all you got. I expected more from an ace debater like yourself. Oh well! some things never change.
Del_Dolemonte
· 1 year ago
OK students, here is classic leftist meltdown:
"Namecalling and please go away is all you got."
Yet here is the same poster, responding to another post here, namely my post several posts above this one:
" I love it when wingers become trolls on their own site."
Yep, you're right. Name calling is all "you got".
Just curious-shouldn't it be "name calling is all you have?" Or "name calling is all you've got"?
nightjar
· 1 year ago
sorry but that won't wash. Troll is a description of people who deflect the conversation away from the blog post subject. Which is exactly what you've been doing. And sorry my southern syntax doesn't meet your approval. But you knows what I does mean.,
Del_Dolemonte
· 1 year ago
No, "troll" is name calling, because it's describing someone in an insulting fashion.
nightjar
· 1 year ago
Now, now don't cry del monte. I take it back, your not a troll. There, does that make it better.
Del_Dolemonte
· 1 year ago
"What happened in 1991 is irrelevant, what happened in 1998 is irrelevant"
Care to tell us why past history isn't important? In 1991, after the UN kicked Saddam's ass out of Iraq, he and his government signed documents saying they would agree to certain things. Over the next decade, they totally reneged on their written contract. Are they above the law?
"You can smear Hans Blix, you can rewrite history to your hearts content, but it won't change what happened. "
You still haven't told us why Blix, or anyone else at the UN, should be believed. After all, Kofi Annan and his son were getting kickbacks from Iraq in the Food for Oil Scam. That makes their "credibility" irrelevant. And the UN refused to enforce their own resolutions against Iraq for over a decade, because some of their countries were still doing business with Saddam, in clear violation of the UN Resolutions.
Just curious-if the UN had refused to endorse their own sanctions against another country, would you ignore that too?
nightjar
· 1 year ago
You can obfuscate till the cows come home. The fact's remain the same. --Bush promised to let the inspectors finish their job --Bush didn't let inspectors finish their job.
Del_Dolemonte
· 1 year ago
"Bush promised to let the inspectors finish their job"
Cite, please?
nightjar
· 1 year ago
Bush agreed to go thru the UN which passed a two part resolution. First to demand that Iraq let inspectors in to look for wmd's. The second part was if Saddam didn't comply with the first part, then the UN would have a second vote to authorize military action. The second vote didn't happen because Bush decided to invade without letting the inspectors finish. I take that as a breach of faith and promise. It is also stipulated in the Iraq War Resolution, that an honest effort to work thru the UN be made by Bush.
Del_Dolemonte
· 1 year ago
What would be "acceptable proof" for YOU guys? After all, only one court sided with Al Gore when he tried to steal the 2000 election, and that was the all-Democrat Florida Supreme Court. Earlier, several Democrat Federal Judges in Florida laughed Gore's claims out of their courtrooms. And when SCOTUS finally ruled against Gore in December of 2000 (by a 7-2 vote!) you didn't even accept that as legitimate, even though a Gallup Poll before the final decision found that over 60 percent of Democrats said they would accept said decision.
As previously noted in my Washington Post cite, a Congressional investigation found that Joe Wilson was lying. You folks simply covered your ears and said "nyah, nyah, not true!".
Likewise, at least 1 Congressional probe concluded that Bush never lied to start a war with Iraq, and also concluded that his Administration never ordered anyone to "cook" the data. Yet on your planet, that's not acceptable proof either. Too funny.
As for "the only relevant measure is the opinion rendered by the court of public opinion", you just admitted that AP and the NY Times ARE trying to change public opinion. Why they are doing so now is simple. They still think they're running against Bush. And, it's an election year.
As I said above, if Bush was as "evil" as you college kids think he is, he wouldn't be as stupid as you think he as, and would thus have ordered the US military to clandestinely plant WMDs in Iraq so they could be "found".
The fact that he never did so proves that you Kos Kid folks in reality do live on another planet. Now, can I have some of your planet's local intoxicant?
nightjar
· 1 year ago
Nice rant. Total BS but nice rant. So you think I'm from planet Kos and I think your from planet wingnut. The above senate study was a sidebar comment from the committees right wing nutjobs and I know , yadda yadda Valerie Plame was not covert and sent her unqualified {not republican} husband on a junket to the Niger paradise where the former gov official told Wilson that he suspected Iraq wanted to meet to buy yellow cake. You forgot to mention when they actually met the Iraqi's did not ask to buy yellow cake. And the world doesn't need a newspaper to tell them what the Bushies are about and what they did to Iraq. You can howl at the moon but it won't do any good.
Del_Dolemonte
· 1 year ago
I always find it totally hilarious that the leftists, who have hated the CIA for decades (see Phillip Agee) suddenly sided with a CIA agent just because they imagined she was "outed"
Please try again.
Del_Dolemonte
· 1 year ago
PS, you never answered my question-what is "acceptable proof"?
(sound of crickets)
nightjar
· 1 year ago
I believe I asked the question first del monte. Anyway's I thought this post was about Bush telling falsehoods about Iraq. You deflect about Gore v Bush, and we on the left hate the CIA. etc.. . I love it when wingers become trolls on their own site.
P.S I thought the CIA was run by a bunch of liberal Bush haters but you say we actually hate the same CIA we supposedly run. Go figure.
Del_Dolemonte
· 1 year ago
Nice try. But you still didn't answer the question. And Joe Wilson was mentioned because his wife was CIA, and got him the job in Niger. Joe was later found to have twisted the truth, and he and Val have been reduced to appearing on leftist talk shows to try and sell their version of the story.
What is "acceptable proof"?
As for "trolls", you're obviously trying to insult me because you can't refute what I said.
Move along, folks,. nothing to see here.
nightjar
· 1 year ago
Read the Libbey court transcripts.testimony from people under oath. Wilson nor Plame lied about anything. And by leading the conversation away from the original post subject is by definition, trolling. Don't fret , it's a common event for those who've lost an argument.
txslr
· 1 year ago
So the only way to know whether Bush lied is to measure public opinion?! But public opinion is made up of people who can't know whether Bush lied until they measure public opinion. So public opinion can't render a verdict until it has a verdict to review, which it can't do until it has verdict to review, which it can't do until it has verdict to review, which it can't...infinite recursion!
What a strange epistimology!
TexasFred
· 1 year ago
But just suppose it's true, maybe part, maybe all, but just suppose the is some serious truth there, regardless of WHO funded it...
liberal
· 1 year ago
So far only one of the statements included in the database, the "sixteen words" has been challenged as not true. What about the other 934? I assume that your qualms about the bias of the compilers has merit. I want you to refute their conclusions, not their bias. Everyone in this arena has bias. The question is who is correct? But when you commit a country to a preemptive war, you have a responsibility to get all the facts, not just the ones that support your bias. We have lost almost 4,000 young men and women, we have over 20,000 seriously wounded, and we don't even count the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis that died. We will end up spending at least 1 or 2 trillion dollars; and you grumble about the Ford Foundation's bias!!!!! And we lost an opportunity to actually do the right thing in Afghanistan. And this doesn't even begin to touch on the unbelievably incompetent job of the Bush administration's prosecution of this war of choice. Just what exactly are you defending?
txslr
· 1 year ago
The reason the "16 words" became such a cause célèbre is that Bush's critics thought that Joe Wilson had provided them the evidence that Bush said something that he knew was not true - that is, that he lied. This belief crashed and burned when Britain reconfirmed that what Bush had said was true and that they still believed the underlying assertion was accurate. Ample supplies of gasoline were poured on the resulting conflagration when it was revealed that Joe Wilson was retailing "falsehoods" and was very likely lying.
The other statements provided do not constitute evidence that Bush lied, and so aren't worth dealing with in a discussion of whether Bush was telling the truth as he knew it.
txslr
· 1 year ago
Interesting. Two days of posts and still no one has offered any evidence that Bush lied. You know, I'm starting to think that, just maybe, he didn't.
Jennifer
· 1 year ago
Yes, it's surely just a huge coincidence that on 935 separate occassions, Bush and various administration figures made incorrect statements in support of an agenda for war...at times making the same incorrect statements or claims multiple times after having to concede that the statements were incorrect...hell, that could happen to anyone.
beanieville
· 1 year ago
c'mon, do you really need a George Soros funding to tell if bush lied? Since when to we have an honest politician?
Steve Carpinelli
· 1 year ago
I’d like to correct several inaccuracies about your statements Ed. George Soros did not fund the Center’s latest Iraq War Card project and he has never directly funded any Center project. The Center has received foundation support from the Open Society Institute, a Soros foundation, over the years, most recently in 2004. The Open Source Society, like most foundations, awards grants independently from their founders. All of the Center’s recent foundation funders are posted on our website and represent a variety of foundations, from the Ford Foundation to the Wallace Global Fund. All of the Center’s projects are editorially independent and managed solely by in-house journalists and staff. The Center does not accept contributions from corporations, labor unions, governments or anonymous donors and the bulk of our financial support comes from foundations and individual contributions. This is a claim that no newspaper or national media outlet can claim. The Center’s mission is to simply hold our public institutions accountable and to make our democracy more transparent. The Center does not and has never endorsed any legislation, political candidate, party or organizations. Our investigations present public information in an easy format so they can be read and shared among the media, public and policy makers alike.
Chuckdps
· 1 year ago
You all are so right on! "Bush lied" is just like "dog bites man". Of course he lied, that isn't news. What is news is that it is being given prominent display in the "liberal" MSM. Of course, ever in thrall to their corporate masters, the story is being buried on page 10, but its still there!
Reality has a known left wing bias.
Jennifer
· 1 year ago
I only have one thing to say:
Anyone who listened to Bush administration claims that Saddam might use remote controlled model planes to spray our homes with anthrax, and didn't think, "hey, that sounds a bit Austin Powers outlandish and why in the world would anyone trot out such a far-fetched rationale for why we have to go to war unless they don't have anything more solid to show us as evidence" simply was not using their brain. If I come to you and say, "giant radioactive lizards are planning to rise from the ocean depths to terrorize us, so we must build trillion dollar defense systems - coincidentally manufactured by my fine company - to avert the threat" and you don't laugh in my face, I'm sorry but you're an idiot. And that would hold true even if I was the president making the case. The "case for war" made by the Bush administration way back in 2002 - 2003 was so weak, so pathetically lacking in any single solid bit of real evidence, that it would have been laughed out of court had it been argued by your local prosecutor. And I don't care HOW MANY people you can point to, in the media or in either party who claimed to believe it, that doesn't excuse you from thinking for yourself. The information disproving each and every claim made by the administration was available at the time though a lot of people chose to disregard it, discount it, or otherwise write it off. The fact that a lot of people chose to remain ignorant of it or actively rejected it is not the fault of Mr. Soros, nor does he have the ability to teleport himself back in time to fabricate facts. That being the case, the fact that his money paid the people who went back to the archives for 2002 and 2003 and compiled the actual facts of what was said, by whom, and when, and the contradictory evidence disproving those things that were said that was available for public consumption at the very same time...who paid for pulling that information together is completely immaterial. The reported facts from that period of time didn't magically rewrite themselves under the evil influence of Soros money. They are what they are. The fact that they reveal a lot of intellectual laziness on the part of people who never questioned the "case for war" may be inconvenient to those people, but they are fooling no one but themselves with the "evil Soros" dodge. Then again, we've already established that they're easily fooled.
keemo
· 1 year ago
Jennifer,
Have you actually studied the history of Mr. Soros? If you have, and you don't understand why this man is a danger to Americans, then I'd have to say you approve of his vision not only for America, but for a "one world government" controlled by the UN.
Jennifer
· 1 year ago
See my point above regarding Soros' inability to teleport himself back in time to fabricate facts and insert them into the documented public record, instead of trying to change the subject with a "Soros scare me - he bad so anything he say or pay for is bad!" pathetic dodge that even the average 7 year old could see through.
IOW, you are personally not excused for not thinking for yourself, regardless of how frightened you are of George Soros.
Or to spell it out even more bluntly, since you failed to grasp the actually quite simple construct of my original statement: this has nothing to do with Soros. The facts are what they are; what exists in public record from the era has nothing to do with Soros or any other individual who might pay someone to go back and compile them all into a report. Just as my personal feelings about Soros or what his "vision" might be mean not a tittle in regard to your attempt to excuse your massive gullibility.
hikerwoman
· 1 year ago
Wow Jennifer,
That explanation was "rich" in content. I'm assuming that you actually believe your "statement above" somehow proved a point of some kind. The "teleporting" thing was cute, but that's about the extent of it.
Jennifer
· 1 year ago
If you want content, go look at the study instead of screeching about how it has to all be "lies, damned LIES!" just because Soros paid for the compilation of stuff that was littered all around in the public record. There's no need for me to re-do the work he's already paid for in order to satisfy your desire for "content" that you refuse to consider simply because someone you don't like paid for it to be compiled. Although I could. See my example from the original post about the balsa wood model planes of death. I could point you to similar debunkings that I remember from the time they occured of the scary aluminum tubes, the scary livestock trailers of biological death, or the scary UN presentation proven, within 10 days of being presented, to have been largely cribbed from a UK grad student's thesis written in 1992. But since Soros has already underwritten the efforts of others to do this work, there's no need for me to repeat it. Your refusal to look at it speaks volumes about your "quest for truth".
txslr
· 1 year ago
Your position is that the case for WMDs was so weak that no one in his right mind could have believed it. And yet, every intelligence agency in the world (including France) did believe it. As did the leaders of both political parties in the U.S. and the majority of the people who opposed the war. (Remember that one of the oft given reasons for NOT invading Iraq was that thousands of our soldiers would be killed by Saddam's chemical and biological weapons.)
So your position is that pretty much everybody in the world except you and Scott Ritter are idiots? Well, at least you're not being "intellectually lazy".
Jennifer
· 1 year ago
Actually, while the intelligence agencies for many other countries assumed that there might be some WMDs left over from the Gulf War era laying around in Iraq, many were notably unconvinced. You mention the French. You should add: the Germans, the Russians, the Chinese...none of whom elected to join in Bush's quagmire. In fact, what powerful nation other than Britain did? (And the evidence is deep that M5 knew the "case for war" was bullshit as well...) I know you might believe that they didn't join in because they "hate America" but isn't it more plausible that each of these countries, all of whom also have a stake in clamping down on international terrorism, simply could not via their own intelligence verify the bullshit emanating from the Bush administration? I mean, come on...you're actually claiming that the majority of the world's most powerful nations - those with the most at stake in fighting terrorism - were presented and/or collected on their own incontravertible evidence of part or all of the Iraqi wrongdoing claimed by Bush...and decided, "ah, to hell with it. We don't care if these terrorists destabilize the world or our own country, so we'll not only sit on the sidelines but we'll also try to tie the hands of anyone who wants to solve the problem...and as an added bonus, we'll be on the shitlist of the world's only superpower!!!"
You see the problem there? People for the most part are rational actors and do things that are in at least their perceived best interest. So your explanation for how they were all on board and buying the same line is quite simply bogus, not only because we know that all of these countries raised questions about the "case for war" but because they also elected to keep out of it. Which means they weren't buying the Iraq "Happy Fun Party!" scenario of candy and flowers, either. So then you're reduced to the position that these intell agencies thought the Bushies were lying about the happy fun party, but believed everything else. You see where I'm going here.
Scott Ritter and I are in good company - including the 62% of Americans on the very eve of war who were still not in favor of the action absent a broad international coalition, some 80% of Italian citizens and some 60+% of British citizens. I suspect that the one thing that all of us have in common is that we were careful in looking at evidence for ourselves. And I'm sorry, but they just did not present anything close to a compelling case for launching a war of choice. Telling us to be afraid is not evidence. And when they got to telling me about how I might be sprayed with deadly anthrax from a balsa wood remote controlled model plane flying over my house, I called bullshit on the whole enterprise. I remain quite frankly astonished that even after all we've learned, there are those who still cannot see the absurdity of that claim as a rationale for war. And to extend that...who cannot look at it and say, yeah, that IS pretty far out there...why were they saying that if they had solid proof of more likely and plausible things? I mean, how can you avoid that? When a lawyer goes to trial, he brings the best evidence he has. He doesn't save back the strongest evidence and go with shaky and preposterous circumstantial claims that cannot be supported by evidence if he can instead present concrete evidence. So when they told me I was going to be sprayed with anthrax by a model airplane...words fail. I could only conclude that they would have never floated such a ridiculous claim if they had anything better, and in that split second realized that they had nothing at all.
I see where many went wrong - it was in starting from a default position of trust. But as your sainted Reagan himself said, "trust but verify". And when it came to verifying, not one thing that was claimed held up...most of them had been debunked before the war got underway. Because I did not trust blindly, I recognized that a cartoon rendering of a "mobile weapons lab" was not the same thing as a photo of an actual mobile weapons lab. I recognized that satellite photos of large warehouse buildings showed just that - large warehouse buildings - and that they could be Baghdad Wal-Mart as easily as a weapons factory. I recognized that a small vial held up to illustrate how small a portion of anthrax would be needed to kill thousands was an illustration, not an actual vial of anthrax, and so on.
You see? If you aren't starting from a position of belief in the supernatural goodness of your leaders (or anyone else), a flimsy case quite rapidly becomes readily apparent as a flimsy case. And as cases go, the Bush "case for war" will go down in history as one of the most flaccid ever.
jharp
· 1 year ago
Del_Dolemonte —1 hour ago with 1 point
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
Hooray for the great President Clinton. He meant what he said. And he went and disarmed Saddam without a trillion dollar invasion.
Dam I miss those days. Hopefully Hillary equal him.
keemo
· 1 year ago
A few Clinton flashback moments:
Ten years ago Hillary Clinton (then the First Lady) went on television with Matt Lauer and said: “This is the great story here for anybody willing to find and write about it and explain it is this vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for president.”
Thus was born the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. Hillary expected serious Americans to believe that the Whitewater convictions (which put a sitting Arkansas governor in prison), the suicide of the Deputy White House Chief Counsel under mysterious circumstances, the unconscionable firing of the White House travel staff, Hillary’s strange acumen in predicting the cattle futures market, an allegation of brutal rape against her husband, the perjury of Bill Clinton in a federal grand jury proceeding, his affair with a White House intern, and the countless other moral debauches of the Clintons were created by some cabal with power greater than the president, the Democratic Party and the huge phalanx of media flacks, fawning Hollywood starlets, militant activists and nihilistic academicians.
The truth, of course, is different. The “vast right wing conspiracy” or VRWC lives on today, and is vast — it includes tens of millions of intelligent Americans who have been systematically marginalized, demonized and defamed in the public debate about America. It has voices because technology, tenacity and innovation gave it voices, in spite of those who hold most of the levers of power in America.
Flashback: In Hillary’s own words, Jan. 27, 1998:
First lady Hillary Rodham Clinton on Tuesday firmly denied allegations that her husband had an affair with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky. Mrs. Clinton blamed the sex allegations on a “a vast right-wing conspiracy” against President Bill Clinton.
She made the statement during an interview on NBC’s “Today” show, where she was asked to comment on accusations and rumors that have caused a political uproar and even triggered speculation about the possibility of impeachment of the president.
“I do believe that this is a battle,” the first lady said.
“Look at the very people who are involved in this. They have popped up in other settings. The great story here for anybody willing to find it, write about it and explain it is this vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for president,” Mrs. Clinton said.
The first lady called the sex and perjury allegations swirling around her husband part of an effort “to undo the results of two elections.”
An independent counsel, Kenneth Starr, has expanded his investigation to include charges that the president may have encouraged the ex-intern, Monica Lewinsky, now 24, to lie under oath about whether she and the president had an affair.
“That is not going to be proven true,” Clinton said. She said she was fighting the charges “not only because I love and believe my husband” but for the sake of the nation. (malkin)
Classic Liberal tactic; blame the other guy long enough and the mindless little foot soldiers will become believers and revolt against the sayers. jharp falls right in line; yes Ms. Clinton, what can I next to help fight the vast right wing conspiracy... I'm in Ms. Clinton, how can I follow thee.... Go my brother; go out there and attack the vast right wing bloggers; go my brother, and repeat my talking points, spread them all over the internet; repeat after me my brother "Valerie Plame was a covert agent, she was not a bimbo (nor am I), Joe Wilson is an American hero; go my brother and attack the right wingers with my talking points; we must take back our country...
jharp pops some wood; fires up the keyboard and readies for the assignment.....
Del_Dolemonte
· 1 year ago
I notice you cherry-pick one quote out of the 20 or so quotes I cited of Dems who said the same thing Bush said.
Please try again.
SDN
· 1 year ago
And of course, there's not a shred of evidence that Clinton disarmed anyone. Bush, OTOH, has Libya's WMD program in his bag.
sashal
· 1 year ago
How come i missed on all this Soros's money !(what a boogie man, heh? ) I knew( and majority of people ) all this for free. Including the honesty of J.Wilson,btw,capt.
Del_Dolemonte
· 1 year ago
Joe Wilson told the truth? About what?
sashal
· 1 year ago
about everything
Del_Dolemonte
· 1 year ago
Brilliant satire! Care to back that up with credible, multi-sourced cites that don't come from DU or Daily Kaos or Puffington Host?
The Senate Intelligence Committee report in 2004, in fact, said he was lying.
Instead, you cite a Clinton think tank which has received funding from...George Soros.
According to the Washington Post, which has since mysteriously lost its original story cited in wiki down the Clinton Memory Hole, and I quote:
"The Center has no information on its website about its funding, but the Washington Post reported that "...seed money pledged by such deep-pocketed Democrats as regular liberal financier George Soros ( and mortgage billionaires Herbert and Marion Sandler..." assisted its formation"
At least I cited a real live newspaper that quoted the Senate Intelligence Committee report. Please try again.
jharp
· 1 year ago
Del,
You're being dishonest.
I cited a video clip. It's George Bush speaking and he is lying.
Maybe this will help. From whitehouse.gov. Buffalo, NY April 2004.
"Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires — a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we’re talking about chasing down terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so. It’s important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."
Del_Dolemonte
· 1 year ago
No, you posted a link from Think Progress. On their "about" page, and I quote directly, they state:
"Think Progress is a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund."
And as I previously proved, Soros funded said Center for American Progress.
As for your link and cite about Bush and wiretaps, he said this in 2004. In other words, after the war had started. So how is this "proof" that he "lied us into war", when in fact he said it after the war had started?
jharp
· 1 year ago
My bad, Del.
I thought the debate was over George Bush lying period.
I just cited the most obvious and impossible to defend lie he has told. It was not a lie that led us to war.
It's hard to keep it all straight and I apologize.
Del_Dolemonte
· 1 year ago
If you read Captain Ed's original up top, this is the first line he quotes from today's story
"A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks."
2 years after 2001 = 2003. Your cite was from a year later.
jharp
· 1 year ago
Could have sworn I just ackowledged this and apologized.
My bad, Del.
I thought the debate was over George Bush lying period.
I just cited the most obvious and impossible to defend lie he has told. It was not a lie that led us to war.
It's hard to keep it all straight and I apologize.
Del_Dolemonte
· 1 year ago
If "Bush lied" about the WMDs, why didn't he have the US military plant some and then "discover" them? I've asked countless Kool-Ade drinkers like yourself this question over tha past few years, and none of them have been able to answer.
It's absolutely hilarious that this same Bush, who you clowns have derided for years and years as being an "idiot", was smart enough to brainwash Congress into giving him what he "wanted", namely to invade Iraq for its oil.
jvill
· 1 year ago
Haha.. So when you cite Powerline, that's legit. But when someone cites thinkprogress, it's not credible?
Hahahahaha...
This George Soros stuff is such a crack-up. The man contributes a few million dollars and that someone translates into funding the entire Liberal Establishment (defined as anyone who says anything that doesn't support what conservatives think).
Meanwhile, massive chunks of the $300 million funded rightwing thinks tanks and media establishment is actually track to about a dozen wealthy families, but that's all fine and dandy.
Soros = evil! Bradley, Olin, Koch = Who dey?
Love it. What else you got?
Del_Dolemonte
· 1 year ago
Nice try-let me guess, you're one of his sons, right?
I first cited the Washington Post. Last time I checked, they endorsed Bush's opponent in both 2000 and 2004, so cannot be considered "pro-Bush"..
I then cited Powerline while explicitly saying it was commentary. Can you give us some credible examples of things Powerline has gotten "wrong"?
On the other hand, I attacked the Think Progress cite that was given because it came from a group Soros actually paid money to help start up. That's equivalent to citing the New York Times to try and prove the New York Times isn't biased.
As for Soros donating "a few million dollars", in the 2004 election cycle he in fact donated something like $23 million to try and defeat the evil Rethuglicans.
from wiki:
"Soros was not a large donor to US political causes until the U.S. presidential election, 2004, but according to the Center for Responsive Politics, during the 2003-2004 election cycle, Soros donated $23,581,000 to various 527 Groups dedicated to defeating President Bush"
Name me one single individual person from the other side of the aisle who donated anywhere near that much in the same election. You can't, because none did.
Monkei
· 1 year ago
Why would anyone spend money to investigate what is common day knowledge, either the GWB administration out right lied or stretch and fabricated the truth beyond reality through the help of the MSM.
Finally something all GOP haters of the MSM can be proud of.
MarkTheGreat
· 1 year ago
To the left, anything they don't want to hear is automatically labeled a lie.
jkenney1
· 1 year ago
Sir, the same thing can be said about the right. Until we can have an intelligent conversation, this great country will continue to go down the drain.
apb
· 1 year ago
So then you agree that Congress, through independent analysis and opinion, voted to approve the Iraq resolution of 2002? Use that as a starting point to see if you're up to intelligent conversation.
You guys can bitch about funding and media bias all you like, but we WERE misled into war by the Bush administration. The MAIN justifications for invading Iraq -- without which, there would have been no invasion -- were false. And the Bush administration did utter MANY false statements in the lead-up to war. See:
You're utterly shameless, Shipley. On Bill Clinton's watch, the U.N. sanctions regime against Iraq was undermined by the "oil for food" scandal that corrupted the U.N. bureaucracy. With the U.N. sanctions collapsing, the Bush Administration was cornered. The choice was stark: go to war to take out Saddam Hussein, or let the sanctions collapse, and let Saddam Hussein continue his funding of terrorists and his weapons development programs with Iraq's oil wealth. And Democrats forgot long ago about the suffering of the Iraqi people under Saddam Hussein.
Iraqi threats to America? We now know that Iraqi intelligence was implicated in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, during the Clinton Administration. We also know that during the Clinton Administration, Saddam Hussein attempted to assassinate Bush the Elder, an act of war in and of itself.
Bill Clinton used the U.S. criminal justice system against the bombers of the WTC, but never took effective action against Iraq. The assassination attempt against former President Bush went unanswered. As usual, Bill Clinton left a mess for his successor.
quickjustice
· 1 year ago
I need to correct myself on one point: Madeline Albright presented the evidence of the 1993 Iraqi Intelligence Service assassination attempt on President Bush I to the U.N. Security Council. The Clinton Administration then launched a cruise missile that hit Iraqi Intelligence headquarters, killing several people. Clinton did respond to the assassination attempt.
txslr
· 1 year ago
Many things postulated by the adminstration and by the administration's critics turned out to be incorrect as the state of the world revealed itself. Of course, this is not lying and it is not "misleading" as that word implies purposeful dissembling. If perfect foresight is a prerequisite for action, not much will get done. As any sane person understands.
Del_Dolemonte
· 1 year ago
LOL! What "sane" person reads and believes The Guardian?
docjim505
· 1 year ago
Tom Shipley,
I suggest that you edit your comment in the interests of accuracy (i.e. looking like a sane, reasonable person and not a barking moonbat). How about this:
The MAIN justifications for invading Iraq -- without which, there would have been no invasion -- were false and based on faulty, incorrect intelligence going back to the '90s. And the Bush administration did utter MANY statements later shown to be untrue in the lead-up to war. Whether they did so knowingly is unclear, but no credible evidence has been put forward that they did KNOWINGLY lie.
Del_Dolemonte
· 1 year ago
Try this Guardian story, Tom. And please notice the date-1999.
I don't understand why people spend so much breath complaining about the existence of proproganda. Instead of debating about lies and spinning, we need to question the ideological foundations. So instead of wasting copious amounts of time talking about the existence of weapons programs, we need to debate what a response should be in either case. For example, I'd like to see people argue about whether the U.S. would be justified in preventing Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapons program. If why have guns and bombs, why can't they? But of course foreign policy is about pure struggle for power. We claim sovereignty while denying the same when it applies to other countries. It is assumed that we have the right to retain and pursue global hegemony with any means.
quickjustice
· 1 year ago
News flash, Seth: We're the good guys. Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, Kim Jong Il, and Amadinejad, and their allies, are the bad guys. If you really believe that we're morally equivalent to any of these people, try moving to North Korea.
E1701
· 1 year ago
That's a philosophical argument, which doesn't make for good sound-bites, so you can forget the media even mentioning this in more than passing.
It is an argument I reject, personally. Nations represent organized society, and that requires a sense of nationalism to function - ie, the concept that "my nation is better than yours" is actually *necessary* to maximize the unity of human societies, even as it divides them along those same lines. But this is nothing new - humans are by nature a tribal and competitive sort, which requires tribal, competitive societies in order to prevent stagnation and decay. The United States, for example, was at the peak of its power when it was competing with the Soviet Union, and Britain was at its peak while competing with the other Great Powers. World government in the absence of an external polity (whether a human off-world colony or alien empire) is a pipe dream, doomed to instability and inevitable, destructive collapse.
Therefore, to pull back to the modern era, nations must compete with other nations - and in so doing, improve themselves or fail. And therefore the *duty* of any national leader... be it the POTUS or Ayatollah Al-Kahmani, is to seek advantage for their nation. Iran's attempt to develop nuclear weapons and secure a regional hegemony is therefore in their national interest. But by the same token, that hegemony threatens our own position, and is undesirable from our perspective - which makes it the duty of the President to make sure they fail.
Most of the moralizing that follows is only relevant in the aftermath (morality is a meaningless term in international politics), and then only if the side doing the moralizing has not been destroyed in the process. Therefore the real debate here should not be "was going into Iraq the nice thing to do", but "was going into Iraq the proper way to advance our national interests?" On the balance of that score, I say yes, and it has nothing to do with the public reasons handed out to a sound-bite driven media by one of the more incompetent PR administrations in recent memory.
Seth
· 1 year ago
Thanks for the argued response, much better than a lot of the mere assertions I see.
I think a major problem is what you have pointed --that the moralizing is found only in the aftermath. But just because that's the way it is, doesn't mean it should be. The media and politicians may think ethical foreign policy is impossible, but I don't. I'm not saying I know what it is exactly, but we should be arguing about it and developing it.
You also seem to argue in the second to last paragraph that Iran's struggle for regional hegemony justifies ours. Whatever happened to the policy of defense within borders? We seem to assume the policy of...I forget the historical figure who said this..."the only safe border is an expanding one." People argue the downfall of the U.S. will be cultural deterioration through extravagance and ignorance, but I think our imperialist efforts are a greater threat. Do empires fall because the people become fat, lazy, and immoral, or because they have spread themselves too thin, or some combination?
I don't agree with your nationalistic framework, but I think I could grant you that and still avoid the "necessity" of aggressive warfare.
E1701
· 1 year ago
I think we may have to agree to disagree on this point.
From a pragmatic point of view, morality is only a condition of foreign policy when it results in an advantage of some sort. We see this regularly, to varying degrees of success - during the opening phase of the war, the Iraqi government published many stories of civilians being killed by invading troops (nevermind said troops are under some of the most restrictive rules of engagement where civilians are concerned in all of history). This was of no concern to the Iraqi government, but it was morality used as ammunition against us in the political arena. Likewise when the WMD mantra did not pan out, you will of course notice how quickly the justification switched to the plight of Iraqis under Saddam's rule... again, morality as ammunition in the political phase of the war, but in reality a secondary concern at best (noone truly launches are war for purely moral reasons).
The most obvious example of this "morality as a weapon" is of course the Emancipation Proclamation. By its phrasing, the document itself was a meaningless piece of paper - the only slaves liberated by it were those already freed by military dictat on occupied soil, border states were exempted. However, it had a number of major political repercussions, even hinging as it did on a single tactical victory, by creating a moral imperative. It was a political masterstroke, and the actual morality of slavery was entirely secondary (or it would have included slaves held in border states... but Lincoln couldn't alienate them).
This is not an argument in favor of abandoning ethics and morality entirely, mind you, nor a vote in favor of anarchy. Merely an illustrated point that in the real-world political arena, morality is very much a secondary issue. We can debate whether or not this *should* be the case, but it unquestionably *is* the case. This is also not an argument against the generally accepted "rules of war" - although again, these are based on enlightened self-interest... if we don't mistreat your soldiers, you won't mistreat ours, and the morale of soldiers on both sides is improved, as well as public opinion worldwide. This is also why the issue is difficult when one side simply does not care about these rules.
And I think you misunderstand me - in that second to last paragraph, I'm not justifying anything. International politics is functionally defined by *power* - economic, military, industrial, social, etc - not by any vague sense of morality or the laughable concept of "international law"... but simply by who can wield the biggest club. This is a crude analogy, but apt, I feel. It is Iran's vested interest to expand their hegemony, because that will assure their survival as a nation (the reasons of their leadership are transitory). The easiest way at this juncture is the North Korea route - a nuclear test demonstration, which will, like the DPRK, render them instantly unassailable by even the largest conventional forces, unless those forces are willing to accept extreme casualties... and the political will for that has long since evaporated. Therefore, on a purely objective level, the criticism of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not his goals, but his competance in carrying them out. The United States has directly opposing goals - the spread of radical Islam and Iranian influence over OPEC is detrimental to our nation, therefore the job of the President is to ensure that Iran fails. To that end, the President, like Ahmadinejad and Khamenei, has a duty to use the power of his nation to effect that outcome. The United States is considerably more powerful, and the final decision must hinge on how to use that power, and in what way, just as it was with Iraq in 2002. Justification is not an issue, except in how the nations go about expending and gaining political capital in the process. If a nation is powerful enough "because I don't like the funny hat your leader wears" is sufficient justification.
As to the fall of empire - here again I would argue nationalism as a saving grace. The Western Roman Empire exerted virtual hegemony over most of Europe. Indeed, the only comparable power in the entire region was the Eastern Empire. As a result, when the Western Empire at last fell, and the ruins of sacked Rome were still establishing themselves as the seat of Catholicism, Europe was plunged into a Dark Age that lasted the better part of eight hundred years before nation states worth the name once again began to assert themselves and establish a genuine civilization. When a modern empire falls, nationalism ensures that no one power is so significant as to be irreplaceable, and indeed, that "falls" is no longer even the right term. The Soviet Union was an empire vaster than any controlled by Rome, with power undreamed of by them - but when it fell, and splintered, it spawned new nations, a rocked the political landscape... but no dark age, and no regression of knowledge. Other nations filled the hole provided. Likewise, as the European Great Powers waned and their empire fragmented, none save France fell outright (and the nation survived), all retain some fragments of that power, and other powers - the US and USSR, rose to fill the void.
Who fills the void in a world controlled by a single polity where there is no sense of nationalism when that polity inevitably falls?
Seth
· 1 year ago
I think we are on same page in regards to describing how discussions of morality are shallow propaganda serving agendas based on pure desire for power. We I hear newscasters and politicians ranting about the "right" thing, my eyes glaze over. These non-religious claims of moral authority function in the same way as "God is on our side" justifications always have.
Anyway, my main concern is how foreign policy discussion becomes or perhaps always has been philosophically or morally ungrounded (authentically, that is). Anti-realist pragmatism is the dominating hidden ideology, and I think it's scary because it makes meaningful discussion theoretically impossible. Everything is propaganda if that form of pragmatism is assumed.
I'd like to know what books are running in the back of your mind when you speak of nationalism. I'm guessing you are heavily influenced by Kissenger and realpolitik, which isn't a very prescient claim I guess since everyone is.
E1701
· 1 year ago
Oh certainly - though I am still referring specifically to the international political realm... morals do have somewhat more bearing on domestic issues and in our personal lives (I'm agnostic, so I'm speaking from a philosophical point of view, not a religious one), where they are absolutely vital to establishing a functional social order. I don't really subscribe to Hobbes on that score, although I can't say his view doesn't apply to some people.
Yes, in the international realm when a politician or national leader speaks of the "right thing," that's merely code for "what I intend to do anyway but need to sell people on." Individuals who demand "the right thing" are too often allowing ideals to override common sense and future planning (as in the case of those insisting we retreat from Iraq in order to invade Sudan), but their values are clearly morality-based. People like that however tend to make very dangerous politicians, because their morals demand action and do not submit to compromise, and are not suited to the amoral landscape of international relations. Jimmy Carter is usually cited as a prime example of that.
I'm not thinking of any books in particular when I discuss nationalism, although I do indeed think of Kissenger and realpolitik - as you say, almost everyone does. But I'm also looking from a historical perspective on the rise and nature of nationhood itself, and the course of interaction and competition between states, and the long view of the progress of the species itself. In that latter respect, nationalism is also necessary as it forces growth and development out of competition without a force external to our species. The longest periods of peace and stability have typically been the most stagnant in our history. How much technological,social, and philosophical progress was made in the first three thousand years of relatively peaceful Egyptian dominance compared to the past five hundred years of violence, competition, warfare, and rebuilding?
In the end though, as our expansionist drive forces us off the planet Earth, it comes down to the simple fact that I think we would be far better served for the coming millennia by the ideals of freedom, self-determination, and justice espoused by the (often fallible) western world, or, for example, the semi-benevolent overlordship of Islamic fascism.
Seth
· 1 year ago
Yup, we are going to have to agree to disagree here.
You seem to be some sort of social Darwinist of the inter-specie competitive sort where group progress trumps individual rights. Essentially, we are debating between consequentialist and rights-based moral systems, which is what the issues of war, torture, and surveillance are founded on. Although you would probably grant a rights-based framework for domestic issues and then a consequentialist framework for foreign policy. That is what I'm questioning. Why is it that individual rights theory dominate domestic issues, but is then replaced by consequentialist/social darwinist theory when non-U.S. citizens are involved?
E1701
· 1 year ago
Nations aren't people. They are the sums of their people, what those people make of their nation, and the sort of people they either place into positions of power, or allow to remain there.
I believe in maximum liberty and individual freedom for all people, everywhere. I would cheerfully apply that system, as eloquently expressed in our Constitution, to everyone, citizen or not. But freedom does entail responsibility - which is where government becomes necessary to maintain a civilization and not anarchy. Nations do not have a government to oversee them (and such a thing would be incredibly dangerous for the above-mentioned reasons), which means they do in effect operate according to a social Darwinism. Nations establish civilization and prevent anarchy for their citizens - the *international* scene in a very real way *is* anarchy. Hence the big club rules all analogy from before... bearing in mind that the club represents economic, political, and social power as well as military.
If a person abuses their freedom and rights, usually by interfering in another person's freedom and rights (ie, crime), the government imprisons them, executes them if the crime is particularly heinous, or punishes them economically. In an anarchic situation, where no government exists, a strong person can do as he pleases, and a weak person who does "wrong" is punished by one of the strong ones. You just hope like hell that the strong people are also good and wise.
So as it is in the international realm - a nation can do as it pleases unless a stronger nation says "no." The United States was able to invade and conquer Mexico on a thin pretext in 1848, then take half their territory because the US was strong, Mexico was weak, and stronger nations like Britain and France didn't care enough to intervene. In 1991, Iraq invaded the much weaker Kuwait to strengthen itself - but Kuwait was friendly and a major oil supplier, so the west *did* care, as did Kuwait's similarly weak neighbors, and the much stronger US kicked Iraq out and punished them for being "bad". Had we not cared, Kuwait would be an Iraqi province, and the invasion would have gone down as a glorious victory in Iraqi textbooks.
This is why I say morality and rights are a non issue when discussing nations. There is only what they want to do, and what they have the ability to do. This is not to be deliberately cruel - but if we try to account for morality for morality's sake, and concern ourselves with every person affected by any national action, we'll be paralyzed into inactivity, which is invariably national suicide.
Seth
· 1 year ago
I think we both realize the problems with taking either a consequentialist approach or a rights based approach. Consequentialist theory must rely on knowledge of the future in order to maximize the good (of a nation or humans in general), it often becomes a cost/benefit decision that ignores the idea that a human life is incommensurable with other lives and resources, and it eventually people forget about maximizing the overall good and instead pursue self-interest over the common good. But I also see the weaknesses of rights-based theory that your are alluding to when you write of being paralyzed.
So I guess I want some sort of a hybrid, some that J.S. Mill was originally trying to do. People forget that he tried to incorporate rights in his utilitarian theory. I'd like to see some work that picks up on that philosophical thread. (I'm thinking about going to grad school to do just that).
To continue, being concerned about everyone doesn't necessarily paralyze anyone. It will give one pause, in which her or she will recognize the significance of their decision and will naturally lead to a reconsideration. Even consequentialists such as Peter Singer recognize that we need to expand our circle of concern.
Finally, your assertion that "Nations aren't people. They are the sum..." is a very strong philsophical statement, and I think a very dangerous one. I recommend reading "The Ethics of Ambiguity" by Simone de Beauvoir. She discusses this very issue and provides examples how it can lead to the totalitarian ethic of Hitlers and Stalin. The individual gets subsumed by the interests of the state. I don't think its essentially any different with nations. Of course, they aren't individual people, but they are made up of people. That sounds trite, but I think it's important to keep in mind especially when discussing foreign policy. It is not a chess game of abstract entities or "sums".
E1701
· 1 year ago
Oh I agree on that point - one must always shape philosophy and ideals to reality... the reverse is what has produced some of the bloodiest episodes in our history. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, as they say.
That being said, I believe the reality of nationhood is very much an amoral concept. A citizen, and even a local politician should be guided by morality - be it philosophical or religious, or civilization cannot exist. Even if we accept the Hobbesian proviso that humans only behave morally under threat of punishment for immorality. And of course ignoring the varying nature of morals hinging upon culture, religion, local history, etc.
However, a leader - be it military, business, or the head of a nation, must be able to act in amoral ways. A moral leader is faced with decisions they cannot make, or can be forced into poor decisions that are both moral and unalterably wrong. An immoral leader of course is typically guided by unenlightened self-interest, and very often destructive to what he leads. An amoral leader can choose the moral path when that produces the best results, but is able to choose the right path even when it is not the moral one. Reconsidering decisions is perfectly fine - but there comes a point where "a pause" loses the moment, or where that pause turns into indecision. And any leader worth the name must put the priority on his own people - the President of the United States must be first and foremost concerned with the well being of the United States, and its citizens (in that order).
As to nations not being people... yes, it is a strong statement, and yes, if taken to extremes it can lead to totalitarianship. On the other hand, "concern for all" and "the common good" is often an even easier path to the same end... it is remarkably easy for a man convinced that he is doing the moral thing to justify even greater immorality. You certainly don't think Josef Stalin or Mao thought of themselves as evil, now do you? A clear division of thought processes between dealing with nations and dealing with people is, I feel, a far more realistic and logical way, as well as being less likely to result in totalitarianship.
Seth
· 1 year ago
This is my last post here. I've really enjoyed this discussion. Although we disagree on some fundamentals, I think we still engaged a bit.
To end, I don't buy "amoral" decisions when lives and well-being are on the line. Moral or ethical decisions don't equal the decision that eliminates any risk or harm to anyone, and just because they can't doesn't make them amoral or immoral. I think claiming amoral leadership is an unnecessary relinquishment of morality when the decisions become difficult.
Anyway, it's been a pleasure.
David
· 1 year ago
E1701 said: "Therefore the real debate here should not be "was going into Iraq the nice thing to do", but "was going into Iraq the proper way to advance our national interests?" On the balance of that score, I say yes, ..."
I've never understood this argument. To my way of thinking, invading Iraq was an opportunity wasted. After the tragedy of 9/11, the U.S. had the moral authority, the military capability and support of a broad spectrum of the international community to respond to the attack. Invading Afghanistan, toppling the Taliban, routing Al Qaeda and depriving them of safe haven was regarded by nearly all Americans and the world community as the proper response. Iran, who has little common ground with the Taliban and Al Qaeda, was quietly supportive, both in word and in deed, in helping the U.S. in Afghanistan. There have been numerous credible reports of Iran making diplomatic overtures during this time (before Ahmadinijead) about working towards normalizing, or at least improving U.S.-Iranian relations. We could have responded to Iran's overtures (note, that I did not say, capitulated!) maintained the focus on securing Afghanistan and continued hunting down Al Qaeda leaders and marginalizing Al Qaeda as an organization. Instead, we do the opposite. We proceed to lose nearly all international support as well as fulfill Al Qaeda's claims about what they claim to be our true intentions (which serves to strengthen and legitimize, rather than marginalize them) when we invade Iraq. Invading Iraq, which was as has been well documented, on the agenda of the meeting of the first National Security Council meeting of the Bush administration in January of 2001. Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda are bitter enemies and philosophically at the very opposite ends of the political, ideological and religious spectrum, with mistrust over each others intentions far outweighing any possibility of cooperation. Iran's overtures are rebuffed when they are included as a member of the axis of evil. A new, much more radical Iranian president is elected.
All this seems to me to be anything but advancing out national interest. I'd say it is rather a moment with great potential to advance our national interest that was lost.
E1701
· 1 year ago
I disagree (yeah, I'm sure that surprises you =) ).
In the first place, I believe you overstate the impact of 9/11 on public perception of the United States across the world. Oh, no doubt the sympathy and offers of aid from the western world, and even Russia and China were genuine (even if merely to ensure reciprocation if they were attacked by the same maniacs). Invading Afghanistan met with almost immediate opposition from the usual suspects - insistence on some fronts that we'd meet the same fate as the Soviets did in there, protests and demonstrations across the Middle East, cries of sympathy for the civilians who would no doubt be killed in the process, etc. Afghanistan was not as popular a war around the world as you seem to be implying, but it was one that could be mostly ignored except by Islamists. Iran for example was *not* happy with having the US military on their border... but they were "quietly supportive" because the Taliban were a thorn in their sides and being openly opposed would put them on the wrong side of an "us and them" equation that had most of the planet on the "us" side.
Responding to Iran's overtures at that time, minimal as they were, would have done little - need I remind you that Iran is also one of the primary terrorism supporting states on Earth, and has been since the Ayatollah's took power? The nation is a dichotomy - a relatively educated, westernized population that by and large does not buy into the terrorist "Islam is under assault" meme, and a government (not Ahmadinejad - the real power is the Ayatollah's and Guardian Council) that has, since the revolution, been a wellspring of radical Islam and religious fundamentalism. The average urban Iranian might, as you suggest, have been opposed to al-Queda and supportive of restored ties to the US... but the government most certainly is not. And how could we in good conscience restore ties with one terrorism-exporting regime while waging war on another for the very same reason?
However, this is beside the point - Al Queda is not the real enemy, and never was. Al-Queda is a symptom movement of radical Islam, not a heirarchical "Dr. Evil" organization that takes marching orders from the top. It has leaders and some organization, but by and large it is a movement aimed at jihad against the very social and political values we hold in esteem, but one that is too weak for the time being to wage open warfare. Hence terrorism.
So, radical Islam being the real threat here, the goal is not the oversimplistic "kill Osama, declare victory, and make nice with the other brutal Middle East kleptocrats", but a much more difficult and long term strategy of cultural shift. The culture that spawns fanatic religious fundamentalism as anything other than a lunatic fringe (ala Westboro Baptist Church) has to be modified. That can't be done from the tribal hinterlands of Afghanistan, nor can it be done simply by swamping them in American merchandise and TV shows. The culture that develops must be their own, but one that does not hinge upon "Islam is under siege" and the desperation of government oppression and extreme poverty.
That bring us to Iraq and the cold-blooded long term view. Centrally located, a history as a unified country, the heart of Arabic culture, location of Baghdad, former seat of the Caliphate... if we intend to effect a cultural change that will spread to the whole region, you can't ask for a better target than Iraq - Afghanistan is too tribal and too far removed, and the moderate Gulf States don't have enough influence or large enough populations to effect that kind of change across the region. Further, we had already fought a war with them, and signed only a cease-fire, it's leader was a Hitlerian tyrant already familiar to the American public, it was believed to be working on a WMD program much like Iran's current nuclear project (as we now know it was in remission awaiting the end of sanctions, but poor intel appears to have been rife on that score), it was known to have employed WMD's in the past against civilian targets, the UN sanctions regime was breaking down because France, Russia, and China wanted that weapons market opened up again, and to top it off, the US/British containment was becoming untenable. If that weren't enough, unlike many other tyrants, Saddam had two even worse heirs waiting in the wings, so waiting for him to die would have been akin to waiting for Kim Il Sung to kick off.
No, if there was a failure involving Iraq, it was that we should have toppled Saddam and begun this process in 1991, but Bush Sr. didn't want to upset the Arab League or look like a bully. Then he failed to support the Shiite/Kurdish uprisings who thought they could bank on our support... and were massacred in Al-Anfal for their trouble because we didn't (anyone who expected them to greet us with open arms this time around was smoking the wacky tabbacy). Then we had a number of opportunities during the mid-nineties, but Clinton felt random missile strikes and strongly lettered statements would suffice, and when Iraq really became a thorn in his second term, he initiated Desert Fox because it was more politically expedient, and it won him more brownie points to embroil us in a Balkan civil war instead. The current Iraq war was necessary, it just should have come a decade ago.
Seth
· 1 year ago
Bush I would probably agree with your diagnosis, but he stopped at the border for the same reasons the U.S. public wants to get out--occupation is inherently difficult, long, bloody, and expensive. I don't understand why his son didn't inherent that caution.
txslr
· 1 year ago
Bush I believed that Saddam would fall to a coup or an uprising. He didn't, and so Bush II faced a different reality. Leaving Saddam and his sons in control of Iraq in perpetuity was not acceptable given their desire and intention to gain WMD's and to lead a type of revanchist Islamic movement. They showed no signs of losing control of the country to any internal opponent. The sanctions were clearing failing and would soon be lifted in total. Bush II was left with little choice.
E1701
· 1 year ago
From some of his statement recently, I think Bush Sr probably did feel that way in retrospect. But hindsight is 20/20.
Yes, occupation is inherently long, difficult, bloody, and expensive. And sometimes it's even futile (much of our success in Germany and Japan post WWII had to do with the degree to which they had been hammered flat during the war... they depended on us for more basic needs). But it's also necessary unless we're prepared to spend the next two centuries attempting to contain Islamic radicalism while the religion comes to terms with itself the way Christianity had to do throughout the Reformation period (and those resultant bloodlettings)... and do so without provoking an "Islam vs the World" jihad that could only realistically result in the annihilation of every Muslim dominated nation on Earth.
With that as a too likely possibility weighed against our intervening directly to establish a distinctly Islamic yet modern and representative society with a much higher standard of living than that to be found in most parts of the region (which moreso, should not be dependent upon oil exports)... we don't have much of an alternative.
I don't agree with Bush Jr on a lot of issues, but this is one I think he took control of - however bumbling the PR campaign and some of the politicial decision making, he did what a proper republican (as in the system, not the party) executive should - he made a difficult decision, carried it out, is backing it to the hilt, and is doing so regardless of the whims of the fickle public. Caution has its place, but it should never lead to national paralysis.
jdg
· 1 year ago
You are right to question the claim of being "independent" in the study of the Bush administration's statements in the build up to the Iraq war and yes, their count is questionable, but the bottom line is: they did lie, many times.
txslr
· 1 year ago
The big problem is that Bush's critics keep insisting that any operating assumptions made by the administration that ulitmately turned out to be wrong constitute lies. So, as evidence, they provide lists of things that administration officials said or wrote that didn't turn out to be absolutely accurate. The administration's supporters - at least on this issue - keep pointing out that these are not lies and asking for evidence that Bush ever said anything that he knew was counterfactual when he said it. This accusation has, of course, has been investigated by Congress over and over again, and each time even his enemies have failed to unearth a single example. So we end up with these tedious recitations of lists accompanied by verbal and written foot-stomping. If you have any knowledge that Bush actually said something that he knew was incorrect at the time, please provide both pieces of evidence - that it was incorrect and that he knew it. Otherwise, please give up. It is only keeping you from dealing with world as it actually is.
jdg
· 1 year ago
"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction" - Dick Cheney, 8/26/02. "We do know that (Saddam) is actively pursing a nuclear weapon" - Condolezza Rice, 9/10/02 "Iraq will not require sustained aid" - O.M.B. director Mitch Daniels, 3/2/03. "We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon" - Dep. Sec. of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz, 3/27/03 "Major combat operations have ended" - George Bush, 5/1/03.
I guess in fact these are just delusions (lies one tells one self to justify their beliefs).
docjim505
· 1 year ago
For what very little it's worth, please read txslr's post again. I'll make it easy for you and quote the operate sentence:
txslr: If you have any knowledge that Bush actually said something that he knew was incorrect at the time, please provide both pieces of evidence - that it was incorrect and that he knew it.
You've got your little laundry list that we've all seen, in one form or another, about a billion times, so you're half-way to the goal. Now, please provide information other than the witness of the voices in your head that Bush, Cheney, et al KNEW that the statements were untrue when they made them.
While you're at it, go back into the record of members of Congress saying the same thing as far back as the '90s - when Slick Willie and HIS administration were making similar claims - and show that they WEREN'T lying.
Good luck.
Del_Dolemonte
· 1 year ago
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by: -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them." -- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
Jo D.
· 1 year ago
Dude are you repubs so weak you can not take on the substance and you have to rely on a soros smear.
It seems you have finally jumped the Shark.
Mr. Mike
· 1 year ago
typical right wing B.S. make a lie about the messanger and hope it sticks. Distort the facts. All the while never having to address the substance o f the report. Genuis.
Have the other lemmings pile on.
Redleg
· 1 year ago
Do we really need a study to tell us that Bushco lied?
Tstick
· 1 year ago
Wow. What an echo chamber here! All the good captain has to do is shout, "SOROS!," and the responding din drowns out all sounds, not to mention reason. Except, of course, for such intrepid souls as jkenney and Tom_Shipley who try to represent the rational among us. But I fear your efforts in echo chambers like this only get drowned out by the din. But thanks for trying.
AngryDumbo
· 1 year ago
So I take it your position is that the influence of Mr. Soros and Mr. Lewis and other billionare "philanthropists" is not corrupting? Americans Coming Together raising 137 million in the last election cycle, violating election laws, paying a fine, then simply disbanding as if nothing happened is a GOOD thing for a representative democracy? Is this what the McCain Feingold reformists had in mind?
Your buddy, the Soros fueled, "Mainstreet Republican" Senator McCain thinks so.
All Comments
Maybe they plan to issue that report later? Yeah, I'll hold my breath.
At least, as far as retarded libs (redundant) are concerned.
Maybe if they used their resources for something productive, they wouldn't be the losers they are.
Anything remotely associated with George Soros is a toxin and a cancer.
Soros has spent billions on lying about President Bush and America and all he has is a small brigade of lunatic left clownage to show for it. Just shows you don't have to be smart, to be rich.
lie /laɪ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[lahy] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, lied, ly·ing.
–noun 1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
Please provide evidence other than the witness of the voices in your heads that Bush, Cheney et al said what they did about Iraq "with deliberate intent to deceive". Otherwise, please STFU.
Yes, we've heard it all before. BTW, if your local weatherman predicted a sunny day and you got wet because it rained, would you accuse him of lying, too? I realize that lefties have an... um... different conception of common English words that normal people, so perhaps you would because "lie" doesn't mean the same thing to you as it does to everybody else.
Sigh... STFU would seem to be such easy advice to take, yet so few people do...
Hillary Clinton, the Junior Senator from New York now running for Vice President, voted in favor of Bush's Iraq resolution in the fall of 2002. At the time, she said she based her vote on the info she got from Bill's intelligence people.
I guess they were all lying too.
Sunlight is the ultimate disinfectant.
I'm certain the timing of its release has been orchestrated with the N.Y. Times and A.P. Both news organizations now are forced to admit that the contents are no longer news, and have no measurable political impact. It also demonstrates the limits of deploying even Soros's great wealth. When you're "stuck on stupid", you lack the insight and flexibility to aim your salvos at the right target.
Plus look at the other donors and you will see the pattern emerging.
IRS Form 990's are wonderful things if you know how to access them.
The Soros ownership of the Clinton campaign.
NPR is just another left wing propaganda tool. It's sad that a taxpayer funding ":news" station can't try and be a little more even handed. It's steadily moving towards becoming the US version of the BBC.
Just remember - Soros spelled backwards is ’soros’. Think about it.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0...
Saddam Hussein's regime has opened talks with Osama bin Laden, bringing closer the threat of a terrorist attack using chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, according to US intelligence sources and Iraqi opposition officials.
The key meeting took place in the Afghan mountains near Kandahar in late December. The Iraqi delegation was led by Farouk Hijazi, Baghdad's ambassador in Turkey and one of Saddam's most powerful secret policemen, who is thought to have offered Bin Laden asylum in Iraq.
The Saudi-born fundamentalist's response is unknown. He is thought to have rejected earlier Iraqi advances, disapproving of the Saddam Hussein's secular Baathist regime. But analysts believe that Bin Laden's bolthole in Afghanistan, where he has lived for the past three years, is now in doubt as a result of increasing US and Saudi government pressure.
News of the negotiations emerged in a week when the US attorney general, Janet Reno, warned the Senate that a terrorist attack involving weapons of mass destruction was a growing concern. "There's a threat, and it's real," Ms Reno said, adding that such weapons "are being considered for use."
US embassies around the world are on heightened alert as a result of threats believed to emanate from followers of Bin Laden, who has been indicted by a US court for orchestrating the bombing last August of embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, in which 259 people died. US delegations in Africa and the Gulf have been shut down in recent weeks after credible threats were received.
In this year's budget, President Clinton called for an additional $2 billion to spend on counter-terrorist measures, including extra guards for US embassies around the world and funds for executive jets to fly rapid response investigative teams to terrorist incidents around the world.
Since RAF bombers took part in air raids on Iraq in December, Bin Laden declared that he considered British citizens to be justifiable targets. Vincent Cannistraro, former chief of CIA counter-terrorist operations, said: "Hijazi went to Afghanistan in December and met with Osama, with the knowledge of the Taliban leader, Mullah Omar. We are sure about that. What is the source of some speculation is what transpired."
An acting US counter-intelligence official confirmed the report. "Our understanding over what happened matches your account, but there's no one here who is going to comment on it."
Ahmed Allawi, a senior member of the opposition Iraqi National Congress (INC), based in London, said he had heard reports of the December meeting which he believed to be accurate. "There is a long history of contacts between Mukhabarat [Iraqi secret service] and Osama bin Laden," he said. Mr Hijazi, formerly director of external operations for Iraqi intelligence, was "the perfect man to send to Afghanistan".
Analysts believe that Mr Hijazi offered Mr bin Laden asylum in Iraq, most likely in return for co-operation in launching attacks on US and Saudi targets. Iraqi agents are believed to have made a similar offer to the Saudi maverick leader in the early 1990s when he was based in Sudan.
Although he rejected the offer then, Mamoun Fandy, a professor of Middle East politics at Georgetown University, said Bin Laden's position in Afghanistan is no longer secure after the Saudi monarchy cut off diplomatic relations with, and funding for, the Taleban militia movement, which controls most of the country.
Mr Fandy said senior members of the Saudi royal family told him in recent weeks that they had received assurances from the Taleban leader, Mullah Mohamed Omar, that once the radical Islamist movement secured control over Afghan territory, Bin Laden would be forced to leave. "It's a matter of time now for Osama." He said Bin Laden would have a strong ideological aversion to accepting Iraqi hospitality, but might have little choice.
/ sarcasm
You're quite right, though: it WILL be interesting to see our lefties, both resident and visiting, deal with this. Or perhaps I should say that it WOULD be interesting, because I don't think any of them will touch it with a ten-foot pole. It upsets their worldview that Bush, starting on Jan 20, 2001, invented a country called Iraq that was governed by a man named Saddam who was thought to have (because he'd used them before) something called WMD. None of these things were thought to exist prior to being invented by George Bush and the compliant Mainstream Media, which (as we all know) is in the pockets of the corporations that are all controlled by George Bush. That is, when they're not controlled by Dick Cheney because Bush is too stupid to tie his own shoelaces. When he's not sneaking tons of C-4 and thermite into the World Trade Center without anybody seeing him, I should say.
;-)
Did monkei and Teresa climb out of bed long enough to invite the entire nut house over for a CQ party?
And please don't offer the falsehood we've heard from the right that Saddam denied access to the inspectors. It is so tired and untrue.
Then of course there were numerous reports of truck convoys leaving Iraq and traveling to Syria's Bekaa Valley, as well as Russian cargo planes flying stuff out of the country-all before we went in.
But most damning to the Left's trying to reqrite history is that nearly all of the Democrats, back in the late 1990s, were also alleging that Saddam had those WMDs. Of course, we know that on your world, recorded history didn't begin until late January of 2001...
And while you're at it, please read the Resolution of 2002 that many Democrats voted for. In it, you will see that "WMDs" are only one of 15 or so reasons we went in. Link below:
http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf
Um, fact check, the USA has things called spy satellites and spy planes. We also have a spy agency called the CIA and access to reports from the UN We knew exactly what was in Iraq. Please.
As for the UN, their Secretary General at the time was in bed with Saddam (Food for Oil scandal).
Please try again.
The facts in my last post remain Bush's big lie and will when the historians make judgment on his bloody Iraq adventure.
(Sound of crickets)
Normally I don't call people here out on spelling errors, but when they accuse someone of being stoopid and then show their own lack of knowledge in the process I can't resist.
US is misquoting my Iraq report, says Blix - smh.com.au
The only non-compliance was Iraq's inability to provide documents stating they had destroyed all weapons. Inadequate paperwork. Of course, Saddam, would not have let the inspectors do their work without the threat of invasion. The point is that Bush didn't let the inspectors finish their work. No matter how hard you try to deny this simple fact, it remains a fact. On this question Bush most certainly lied to Congress, America, and the rest of the world.
Please try again. And why the Australian news source?
Try looking at it from another angle, eh?
A nasty ol' dictator invades a neighboring country. A group of other countries, including the United States, kicks him out and has to clean up the mess he made. In order to limit his ability to do this sort of thing again, he is required to eliminate certain weapons from his arsenal and allow UN inspectors to certify that he has done so. Over the course of the following decade, he instead plays scavenger hunt with the inspectors, interfering with them in their work and ultimately throwing them out of his country. The UN passes several resolutions declaring that - gosh darn it! - he's not doing what he promised. Please note that the inspectors never said that they thought he'd gotten rid of his WMD. The best they could say was that they weren't sure.
Then 9-11 happens and the world changes a little bit.
US intelligence believes that not only does Saddam still have WMD, he's working on getting more, including a nuke. US intelligence also believes that Saddam has ties to the same whackos who crashed airplanes into buildings in America. The new US president isn't willing to f*** around for another decade with Saddam, hoping that he'll suddenly start honoring his commitments. Saddam, in a desperate move to save his hide, offers to let the inspectors back in... and immediately starts the old game of trying to hinder their work. The US president, supported by a majority of the Congress and other allied nations, announces that enough is enough.
Please try to grasp this point:
The inspection process was not supposed to be a scavenger hunt. Saddam was supposed to destroy his weapons and offer proof that he'd done so (as we have been doing with our own WMD stockpiles in accordance with various treaties and agreements we've made). If he could not prove that he'd destroyed his WMD as he agreed to do, then he was in breach of the cease fire agreement, which constitutes a casus bellum.
Bush's "lie" boils down to his refusal to give Saddam years more time to play hide-n-seek with the inspectors. Those inspectors, as others have pointed out, were employed by an agency corrupted by Saddam's oil-for-food bribery scheme. At any rate, I don't recall Blix saying, "We certify that Saddam doesn't have any WMD." I think that the best he could ever say was, "Give us more time."
You had ten years, jack. How much "more time" is enough???
This kind of stuff is why I've stopped believing anything originating from Soros -- it's all agitprop.
But the words are now interesting. Rather than "Bush lied", we have the more subtle "Bush told a falsehood", which, of course, is somewhat removed from "Bush relied on faulty data", which is further removed from "Bush relied on faulty data, and when the data was found to be faulty, modified his policies to correct the problems." As we move down the list, we get more Presidential-type behavior.
Good for Soros for taking the first step away from "Bush lied".
The last time I checked there (some time ago), I thought I had detected a leftward drift from the relatively up-the-middle site I recall from 2004.
Then again, I have myself drifted from Far-Left to Right-of-Center during that time, so mayhap it's a perspective thing?
Can I get a little data to support the Soros connection, Uncle (or anyone else)? Thanks in advance
I made a mistake. The Soros site was (past tense) factcheck dot com. The factcheck.org site is run by the Annenberg Foundation (in particular, the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania). Soros has apparently given up factcheck dot com, which is now held by a domain name camper, domainnamesales.com.
I know we ought to expect no more from mainstream media, but this is despicable.
Some day between now and the election, I guarantee you we'll see a similar headline shouting: "Documents Reveal Historic Clinton Legacy an Absolute Good for the World."
It's patent propaganda masquerading as news. How dare these people.
- I am better off than I was then, as even down here at the bottom end of the middle class, tax cuts are a positive step (and when the government actually gets cut down some, it'll be really positive).
- The government is not listening to my conversations... if you think the government is *capable* of listening or even recording the conversations of the ~250 million Americans with phones, you're out of your bloody mind. But they damned well better be listening to scum out to damage this country who are using our own systems to communicate with each other. And if they were smart, they've been doing this since the days of Alexander Graham Bell. National security, unlike welfare, medicare, and wealth redistribution is actually one of the government's real jobs.
- Are they torturing more people? I doubt it... But I really doubt you want to try and guess the sort of things the CIA's been up to while defending our sorry asses for the past fifty years. The difference these days is that there's no such thing as "covert" any more. Hell, the national news talks about using "covert" operations in a foreign nominally allied nation.
- The economy now is a powerhouse next to eight years ago, unless you bow to media idiocy. Eight years ago the dot-com bubble was on the verge of a meltdown, stocks were on the tipping point, the global market was peaking for a big downturn, and Clinton was still boasting of an imaginary budget "surplus".
And if you take the Onion for news, there's nothing I can do to help you.
So much as I despise Bush and Congress porking it up and bloating the government with even more pointless programs, I vastly would prefer their brand of "compassionate conservatism" and its attendant problems to the Democratic mantra of eyes-wide-shut populist insanity.
is perfect evidence of your credibility. The economy is not going in the toilet, its just the media's fault. Clearly, the Onion has a better handle on reality than do you.
Everything's going better than 8 years ago - considering the systemic shock from 9/11. It's a shame the obvious connections between "listening to more of your conversations", "torture" and the war on psycho-Islam are completely lost on you. Now step away from the computer and get back behind the counter - three customers are waiting on their lattes.
Even while the drawdown of our military presence in the region has begun, the three remaining candidates on the democratic side are competing to see who can promise a mass exodus of all military personel with little or no regard to situation on the ground. And this is what the party of defeat and retreat has to offer in the form of national security and foreign policy.
How can any Soros funded study have any credibility after the now defunct Lancet report turned out to be a pack of lies.
They just somehow forgot about mentioning who funded the stuff.
Integrity, it's not even for breakfast any more!.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/ar...
To appeal to this group
"................According to a Harris poll in late April 2004, a plurality of Americans, 49 percent to 36 percent, believe "clear evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda has been found."........."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A...
Democrat == sucker.
And the people that are convinced Saddam was behind 9-11 are at least as cut off from reality as the 'truthers."
Credible and multi-sourced cites, please?
"And the people that are convinced Saddam was behind 9-11 are at least as cut off from reality as the 'truthers."
Would that include the Bill Clinton-appointed Federal Judge in New York who concluded that an impartial jury would find that Iraq did have a hand in those attacks?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-05-07-...
What the President always said in plain English even a lefty tool should be able to read is that there was no evidence Iraq was directly involved in 911.
But lefty sock puppets are not really capable of thinking, apparently.
Are you a fan and you think you are doing him a favor to make every thread into a discussion of what a loser he is, or do you hate him and that is why you are trying to turn every thread into what a loser he is?
But if you like him, please send him $5 this very second, because he is flat broke and sinking fast.
"The intelligence report indicated that former Nigerien Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki was unaware of any contracts that had been signed between Niger and any rogue states for the sale of yellowcake while he was Prime Minister (1997-1999) or Foreign Minister (1996-1997). Mavaki said that if there had been any such contract during his tenure, he would have
been aware’of it. Mayaki said, however, that in June 1999, [deleted]
businessman, approached him and insisted that Mayaki meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss “expanding commercial relations” between Niger and Iraq. The intelligence report said that Mayaki interpreted “expanding commercial relations” to mean that the delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales. The intelligence report also said that “although the meeting took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to the UN sanctions on Iraq.”
So the only thing Mayaki said that supported the idea of yellowcake sales was his "interpretation" which was discounted by everyone, including the intelligence community. From p. 46: "Because CIA analysts did not believe that the report added any new information to clarify the issue, they did not use the report to produce any further analytical products or highlight the report for policymakers."
this is a perfect example of how Bush and Co. twisted intelligence to lead us into war. Our own intellegence was not comfortable saying this... so Bush had to reference the Brits.
But even more importantly, this sentence was used to supplement the assertation that Saddam was ACTIVELY developing nuclear weapons to use against the US. You get A) Muddy intelligence that our agency won't stand by to bolster a completely FALSE claim. But Americans went along with it because we didn't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud (who does?).
I'm going to stop before I get all worked up, but Bush and Co. LIED OR MISLED... whatever you want to call it... this country into Iraq.
Add a half a minute for the casualties, living and dead, of our Armed Forces...
Finished, perhaps one or two seconds for the Iraqi people, living, dead, and refugees...
Nice try...
KIm Jong Il: Hans Brix? Oh no! Oh, herro. Great to see you again, Hans!
Hans Blix: Mr. Il, I was supposed to be allowed to inspect your palace today, but your guards won't let me enter certain areas.
Kim Jong Il: Hans, Hans, Hans! We've been frew this a dozen times. I don't have any weapons of mass destwuction, OK Hans?
Hans Blix: Then let me look around, so I can ease the UN's collective mind. I'm sorry, but the UN must be firm with you. Let me in, or else.
Kim Jong Il: Or else what?
Hans Blix: Or else we will be very angry with you... and we will write you a letter, telling you how angry we are.
Kim Jong Il: OK, Hans. I'll show you. Stand to your reft.
Hans Blix: [Moves to the left]
Kim Jong Il: A rittle more.
Hans Blix: [Moves to the left again]
Kim Jong Il: Good.
[Opens up trap, Hans falls in]
If you say something long enough, people believe it. If you get enough sock puppets to repeat it, people believe it. (What I tell you three times is true.)
The report ought to read "George Soros Says 'Bush Lied'." It ought to have big border with the legend "Political Advocacy Advertisement: Paid Research." But it doesn't.
There may still be a few people who don't know what to believe--and who know they don't know it. These people are called swing voters, and the politicians are looking to dance with them.
In fact, the headline could say "Saddam Hussein Returns From Dead to Say Bush Lied"...and most Americans would still believe it. Because it's true.
On the other hand, I'm sure that there is as much evidence for this as for the silly assertion that Bush lied.
I know everything today is very partisan, but I would like people to open their minds to other opinions. It seems like there is no middle ground, it is either radical left or radical right. This country will not get it's act together until we stop this childish behavior and honestly discuss what is going on. I truly hope that happens, the sooner the better. Take care and God Bless all of you.
it’s a partisan group" meme is BS. Can liberals discount all statements or papers from AEI, Hudson, Mackinaw Center and et. al. because of their bias and funding. The names of Scaife and Coors are just as gulity of funding their pet projects. What about their agendas? .
Captain, will you be including "shopworn quotes taken mostly out of context and misrepresented"?
Otherwise you can't demand similar treatment...
We know the truth: We found the WMDs! Senator Rick Santorum gave a press conference that we found WMDs.
Also, did you know that Soros paid them in dollar bills ... which have been found to have traces of cocaine on them ... why, oh, why do these Soros-funded america-hating baby-killing cocaine-snorting gay-loving liberals hate George W Bush.
http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/Search/R...
But you are free to believe whatever you want, even this late in the Bush term. And when you're ready for a laugh, head on over to Sadly No.
Good luck.
You're way in over your head here. The CQ community will eat you up and spit you out unless you bring the absolute "A" game. You must bring more than garden variety talking points and links that lead us to far left agenda driven propaganda outlets. You have passion included in your argument nightjar; however, you are lacking in substance, solution, and ideas.
Saddam had stockpiles of WMD in 1991; that is a fact that (2) members of my family saw with their own eyes. The question is not "did he have the WMD" but rather "what did he do with the WMD". Saddam used WMD on his own people, as has been documented, photographed, and filmed. Let's stick to the facts nightjar and try to follow a trail that will lead us to some kind of intellectually honest debate. The "Bush lied & people died" theme is simply an old Democrat talking point invented strictly for the purpose of damaging Bush in the lead up to the 2004 election. Saddam deserved what he got " traditional hanging" in my view. It didn't have to end that way, but the man just refused to take any action that would have helped his own cause.
I guess you can take your snorkel and chem suit and parlay back to places where you might find people that will actually buy into your bullshit. I read your posts, and they are all lacking in substance, detail, honesty, facts, back-up data; on and on. You're just another freaked out Liberal twit.
Cheers...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMSic0V-Xww
"Namecalling and please go away is all you got."
Yet here is the same poster, responding to another post here, namely my post several posts above this one:
" I love it when wingers become trolls on their own site."
Yep, you're right. Name calling is all "you got".
Just curious-shouldn't it be "name calling is all you have?" Or "name calling is all you've got"?
Which is exactly what you've been doing.
And sorry my southern syntax doesn't meet your approval. But you knows what I does mean.,
Care to tell us why past history isn't important? In 1991, after the UN kicked Saddam's ass out of Iraq, he and his government signed documents saying they would agree to certain things. Over the next decade, they totally reneged on their written contract. Are they above the law?
"You can smear Hans Blix, you can rewrite history to your hearts content, but it won't change what happened. "
You still haven't told us why Blix, or anyone else at the UN, should be believed. After all, Kofi Annan and his son were getting kickbacks from Iraq in the Food for Oil Scam. That makes their "credibility" irrelevant. And the UN refused to enforce their own resolutions against Iraq for over a decade, because some of their countries were still doing business with Saddam, in clear violation of the UN Resolutions.
Just curious-if the UN had refused to endorse their own sanctions against another country, would you ignore that too?
--Bush promised to let the inspectors finish their job
--Bush didn't let inspectors finish their job.
Cite, please?
As previously noted in my Washington Post cite, a Congressional investigation found that Joe Wilson was lying. You folks simply covered your ears and said "nyah, nyah, not true!".
Likewise, at least 1 Congressional probe concluded that Bush never lied to start a war with Iraq, and also concluded that his Administration never ordered anyone to "cook" the data. Yet on your planet, that's not acceptable proof either. Too funny.
As for "the only relevant measure is the opinion rendered by the court of public opinion", you just admitted that AP and the NY Times ARE trying to change public opinion. Why they are doing so now is simple. They still think they're running against Bush. And, it's an election year.
As I said above, if Bush was as "evil" as you college kids think he is, he wouldn't
be as stupid as you think he as, and would thus have ordered the US military to clandestinely plant WMDs in Iraq so they could be "found".
The fact that he never did so proves that you Kos Kid folks in reality do live on another planet. Now, can I have some of your planet's local intoxicant?
Please try again.
(sound of crickets)
P.S I thought the CIA was run by a bunch of liberal Bush haters but you say we actually hate the same CIA we supposedly run. Go figure.
What is "acceptable proof"?
As for "trolls", you're obviously trying to insult me because you can't refute what I said.
Move along, folks,. nothing to see here.
What a strange epistimology!
The other statements provided do not constitute evidence that Bush lied, and so aren't worth dealing with in a discussion of whether Bush was telling the truth as he knew it.
Reality has a known left wing bias.
Anyone who listened to Bush administration claims that Saddam might use remote controlled model planes to spray our homes with anthrax, and didn't think, "hey, that sounds a bit Austin Powers outlandish and why in the world would anyone trot out such a far-fetched rationale for why we have to go to war unless they don't have anything more solid to show us as evidence" simply was not using their brain. If I come to you and say, "giant radioactive lizards are planning to rise from the ocean depths to terrorize us, so we must build trillion dollar defense systems - coincidentally manufactured by my fine company - to avert the threat" and you don't laugh in my face, I'm sorry but you're an idiot. And that would hold true even if I was the president making the case. The "case for war" made by the Bush administration way back in 2002 - 2003 was so weak, so pathetically lacking in any single solid bit of real evidence, that it would have been laughed out of court had it been argued by your local prosecutor. And I don't care HOW MANY people you can point to, in the media or in either party who claimed to believe it, that doesn't excuse you from thinking for yourself. The information disproving each and every claim made by the administration was available at the time though a lot of people chose to disregard it, discount it, or otherwise write it off. The fact that a lot of people chose to remain ignorant of it or actively rejected it is not the fault of Mr. Soros, nor does he have the ability to teleport himself back in time to fabricate facts. That being the case, the fact that his money paid the people who went back to the archives for 2002 and 2003 and compiled the actual facts of what was said, by whom, and when, and the contradictory evidence disproving those things that were said that was available for public consumption at the very same time...who paid for pulling that information together is completely immaterial. The reported facts from that period of time didn't magically rewrite themselves under the evil influence of Soros money. They are what they are. The fact that they reveal a lot of intellectual laziness on the part of people who never questioned the "case for war" may be inconvenient to those people, but they are fooling no one but themselves with the "evil Soros" dodge. Then again, we've already established that they're easily fooled.
Have you actually studied the history of Mr. Soros? If you have, and you don't understand why this man is a danger to Americans, then I'd have to say you approve of his vision not only for America, but for a "one world government" controlled by the UN.
IOW, you are personally not excused for not thinking for yourself, regardless of how frightened you are of George Soros.
Or to spell it out even more bluntly, since you failed to grasp the actually quite simple construct of my original statement: this has nothing to do with Soros. The facts are what they are; what exists in public record from the era has nothing to do with Soros or any other individual who might pay someone to go back and compile them all into a report. Just as my personal feelings about Soros or what his "vision" might be mean not a tittle in regard to your attempt to excuse your massive gullibility.
That explanation was "rich" in content. I'm assuming that you actually believe your "statement above" somehow proved a point of some kind. The "teleporting" thing was cute, but that's about the extent of it.
So your position is that pretty much everybody in the world except you and Scott Ritter are idiots? Well, at least you're not being "intellectually lazy".
You see the problem there? People for the most part are rational actors and do things that are in at least their perceived best interest. So your explanation for how they were all on board and buying the same line is quite simply bogus, not only because we know that all of these countries raised questions about the "case for war" but because they also elected to keep out of it. Which means they weren't buying the Iraq "Happy Fun Party!" scenario of candy and flowers, either. So then you're reduced to the position that these intell agencies thought the Bushies were lying about the happy fun party, but believed everything else. You see where I'm going here.
Scott Ritter and I are in good company - including the 62% of Americans on the very eve of war who were still not in favor of the action absent a broad international coalition, some 80% of Italian citizens and some 60+% of British citizens. I suspect that the one thing that all of us have in common is that we were careful in looking at evidence for ourselves. And I'm sorry, but they just did not present anything close to a compelling case for launching a war of choice. Telling us to be afraid is not evidence. And when they got to telling me about how I might be sprayed with deadly anthrax from a balsa wood remote controlled model plane flying over my house, I called bullshit on the whole enterprise. I remain quite frankly astonished that even after all we've learned, there are those who still cannot see the absurdity of that claim as a rationale for war. And to extend that...who cannot look at it and say, yeah, that IS pretty far out there...why were they saying that if they had solid proof of more likely and plausible things? I mean, how can you avoid that? When a lawyer goes to trial, he brings the best evidence he has. He doesn't save back the strongest evidence and go with shaky and preposterous circumstantial claims that cannot be supported by evidence if he can instead present concrete evidence. So when they told me I was going to be sprayed with anthrax by a model airplane...words fail. I could only conclude that they would have never floated such a ridiculous claim if they had anything better, and in that split second realized that they had nothing at all.
I see where many went wrong - it was in starting from a default position of trust. But as your sainted Reagan himself said, "trust but verify". And when it came to verifying, not one thing that was claimed held up...most of them had been debunked before the war got underway. Because I did not trust blindly, I recognized that a cartoon rendering of a "mobile weapons lab" was not the same thing as a photo of an actual mobile weapons lab. I recognized that satellite photos of large warehouse buildings showed just that - large warehouse buildings - and that they could be Baghdad Wal-Mart as easily as a weapons factory. I recognized that a small vial held up to illustrate how small a portion of anthrax would be needed to kill thousands was an illustration, not an actual vial of anthrax, and so on.
You see? If you aren't starting from a position of belief in the supernatural goodness of your leaders (or anyone else), a flimsy case quite rapidly becomes readily apparent as a flimsy case. And as cases go, the Bush "case for war" will go down in history as one of the most flaccid ever.
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
Hooray for the great President Clinton. He meant what he said. And he went and disarmed Saddam without a trillion dollar invasion.
Dam I miss those days. Hopefully Hillary equal him.
Ten years ago Hillary Clinton (then the First Lady) went on television with Matt Lauer and said: “This is the great story here for anybody willing to find and write about it and explain it is this vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for president.”
Thus was born the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. Hillary expected serious Americans to believe that the Whitewater convictions (which put a sitting Arkansas governor in prison), the suicide of the Deputy White House Chief Counsel under mysterious circumstances, the unconscionable firing of the White House travel staff, Hillary’s strange acumen in predicting the cattle futures market, an allegation of brutal rape against her husband, the perjury of Bill Clinton in a federal grand jury proceeding, his affair with a White House intern, and the countless other moral debauches of the Clintons were created by some cabal with power greater than the president, the Democratic Party and the huge phalanx of media flacks, fawning Hollywood starlets, militant activists and nihilistic academicians.
The truth, of course, is different. The “vast right wing conspiracy” or VRWC lives on today, and is vast — it includes tens of millions of intelligent Americans who have been systematically marginalized, demonized and defamed in the public debate about America. It has voices because technology, tenacity and innovation gave it voices, in spite of those who hold most of the levers of power in America.
Flashback: In Hillary’s own words, Jan. 27, 1998:
First lady Hillary Rodham Clinton on Tuesday firmly denied allegations that her husband had an affair with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky. Mrs. Clinton blamed the sex allegations on a “a vast right-wing conspiracy” against President Bill Clinton.
She made the statement during an interview on NBC’s “Today” show, where she was asked to comment on accusations and rumors that have caused a political uproar and even triggered speculation about the possibility of impeachment of the president.
“I do believe that this is a battle,” the first lady said.
“Look at the very people who are involved in this. They have popped up in other settings. The great story here for anybody willing to find it, write about it and explain it is this vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for president,” Mrs. Clinton said.
The first lady called the sex and perjury allegations swirling around her husband part of an effort “to undo the results of two elections.”
An independent counsel, Kenneth Starr, has expanded his investigation to include charges that the president may have encouraged the ex-intern, Monica Lewinsky, now 24, to lie under oath about whether she and the president had an affair.
“That is not going to be proven true,” Clinton said. She said she was fighting the charges “not only because I love and believe my husband” but for the sake of the nation. (malkin)
Classic Liberal tactic; blame the other guy long enough and the mindless little foot soldiers will become believers and revolt against the sayers. jharp falls right in line; yes Ms. Clinton, what can I next to help fight the vast right wing conspiracy... I'm in Ms. Clinton, how can I follow thee.... Go my brother; go out there and attack the vast right wing bloggers; go my brother, and repeat my talking points, spread them all over the internet; repeat after me my brother "Valerie Plame was a covert agent, she was not a bimbo (nor am I), Joe Wilson is an American hero; go my brother and attack the right wingers with my talking points; we must take back our country...
jharp pops some wood; fires up the keyboard and readies for the assignment.....
Please try again.
I knew( and majority of people ) all this for free.
Including the honesty of J.Wilson,btw,capt.
The Senate Intelligence Committee report in 2004, in fact, said he was lying.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A...
John at Powerline, who also caught Dan Rather lying, had this to say at the time:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/007135.php
Put this is your pipe and smoke it. About as clear as can be. And why are defending the policies of this most disastrous administration?
http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/bush-caught...
Instead, you cite a Clinton think tank which has received funding from...George Soros.
According to the Washington Post, which has since mysteriously lost its original story cited in wiki down the Clinton Memory Hole, and I quote:
"The Center has no information on its website about its funding, but the Washington Post reported that "...seed money pledged by such deep-pocketed Democrats as regular liberal financier George Soros ( and mortgage billionaires Herbert and Marion Sandler..." assisted its formation"
At least I cited a real live newspaper that quoted the Senate Intelligence Committee report. Please try again.
You're being dishonest.
I cited a video clip. It's George Bush speaking and he is lying.
Maybe this will help. From whitehouse.gov. Buffalo, NY April 2004.
"Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires — a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we’re talking about chasing down terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so. It’s important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."
"Think Progress is a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund."
http://thinkprogress.org/about
And as I previously proved, Soros funded said Center for American Progress.
As for your link and cite about Bush and wiretaps, he said this in 2004. In other words, after the war had started. So how is this "proof" that he "lied us into war", when in fact he said it after the war had started?
I thought the debate was over George Bush lying period.
I just cited the most obvious and impossible to defend lie he has told. It was not a lie that led us to war.
It's hard to keep it all straight and I apologize.
"A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks."
2 years after 2001 = 2003. Your cite was from a year later.
My bad, Del.
I thought the debate was over George Bush lying period.
I just cited the most obvious and impossible to defend lie he has told. It was not a lie that led us to war.
It's hard to keep it all straight and I apologize.
It's absolutely hilarious that this same Bush, who you clowns have derided for years and years as being an "idiot", was smart enough to brainwash Congress into giving him what he "wanted", namely to invade Iraq for its oil.
Hahahahaha...
This George Soros stuff is such a crack-up. The man contributes a few million dollars and that someone translates into funding the entire Liberal Establishment (defined as anyone who says anything that doesn't support what conservatives think).
Meanwhile, massive chunks of the $300 million funded rightwing thinks tanks and media establishment is actually track to about a dozen wealthy families, but that's all fine and dandy.
Soros = evil!
Bradley, Olin, Koch = Who dey?
Love it. What else you got?
I first cited the Washington Post. Last time I checked, they endorsed Bush's opponent in both 2000 and 2004, so cannot be considered "pro-Bush"..
I then cited Powerline while explicitly saying it was commentary. Can you give us some credible examples of things Powerline has gotten "wrong"?
On the other hand, I attacked the Think Progress cite that was given because it came from a group Soros actually paid money to help start up. That's equivalent to citing the New York Times to try and prove the New York Times isn't biased.
As for Soros donating "a few million dollars", in the 2004 election cycle he in fact donated something like $23 million to try and defeat the evil Rethuglicans.
from wiki:
"Soros was not a large donor to US political causes until the U.S. presidential election, 2004, but according to the Center for Responsive Politics, during the 2003-2004 election cycle, Soros donated $23,581,000 to various 527 Groups dedicated to defeating President Bush"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Soros
Name me one single individual person from the other side of the aisle who donated anywhere near that much in the same election. You can't, because none did.
Finally something all GOP haters of the MSM can be proud of.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,889531,...
Any sane person knows this.
Iraqi threats to America? We now know that Iraqi intelligence was implicated in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, during the Clinton Administration. We also know that during the Clinton Administration, Saddam Hussein attempted to assassinate Bush the Elder, an act of war in and of itself.
Bill Clinton used the U.S. criminal justice system against the bombers of the WTC, but never took effective action against Iraq. The assassination attempt against former President Bush went unanswered. As usual, Bill Clinton left a mess for his successor.
I suggest that you edit your comment in the interests of accuracy (i.e. looking like a sane, reasonable person and not a barking moonbat). How about this:
The MAIN justifications for invading Iraq -- without which, there would have been no invasion -- were false and based on faulty, incorrect intelligence going back to the '90s. And the Bush administration did utter MANY statements later shown to be untrue in the lead-up to war. Whether they did so knowingly is unclear, but no credible evidence has been put forward that they did KNOWINGLY lie.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0...
It is an argument I reject, personally. Nations represent organized society, and that requires a sense of nationalism to function - ie, the concept that "my nation is better than yours" is actually *necessary* to maximize the unity of human societies, even as it divides them along those same lines. But this is nothing new - humans are by nature a tribal and competitive sort, which requires tribal, competitive societies in order to prevent stagnation and decay. The United States, for example, was at the peak of its power when it was competing with the Soviet Union, and Britain was at its peak while competing with the other Great Powers. World government in the absence of an external polity (whether a human off-world colony or alien empire) is a pipe dream, doomed to instability and inevitable, destructive collapse.
Therefore, to pull back to the modern era, nations must compete with other nations - and in so doing, improve themselves or fail. And therefore the *duty* of any national leader... be it the POTUS or Ayatollah Al-Kahmani, is to seek advantage for their nation. Iran's attempt to develop nuclear weapons and secure a regional hegemony is therefore in their national interest. But by the same token, that hegemony threatens our own position, and is undesirable from our perspective - which makes it the duty of the President to make sure they fail.
Most of the moralizing that follows is only relevant in the aftermath (morality is a meaningless term in international politics), and then only if the side doing the moralizing has not been destroyed in the process. Therefore the real debate here should not be "was going into Iraq the nice thing to do", but "was going into Iraq the proper way to advance our national interests?" On the balance of that score, I say yes, and it has nothing to do with the public reasons handed out to a sound-bite driven media by one of the more incompetent PR administrations in recent memory.
I think a major problem is what you have pointed --that the moralizing is found only in the aftermath. But just because that's the way it is, doesn't mean it should be. The media and politicians may think ethical foreign policy is impossible, but I don't. I'm not saying I know what it is exactly, but we should be arguing about it and developing it.
You also seem to argue in the second to last paragraph that Iran's struggle for regional hegemony justifies ours. Whatever happened to the policy of defense within borders? We seem to assume the policy of...I forget the historical figure who said this..."the only safe border is an expanding one." People argue the downfall of the U.S. will be cultural deterioration through extravagance and ignorance, but I think our imperialist efforts are a greater threat. Do empires fall because the people become fat, lazy, and immoral, or because they have spread themselves too thin, or some combination?
I don't agree with your nationalistic framework, but I think I could grant you that and still avoid the "necessity" of aggressive warfare.
From a pragmatic point of view, morality is only a condition of foreign policy when it results in an advantage of some sort. We see this regularly, to varying degrees of success - during the opening phase of the war, the Iraqi government published many stories of civilians being killed by invading troops (nevermind said troops are under some of the most restrictive rules of engagement where civilians are concerned in all of history). This was of no concern to the Iraqi government, but it was morality used as ammunition against us in the political arena. Likewise when the WMD mantra did not pan out, you will of course notice how quickly the justification switched to the plight of Iraqis under Saddam's rule... again, morality as ammunition in the political phase of the war, but in reality a secondary concern at best (noone truly launches are war for purely moral reasons).
The most obvious example of this "morality as a weapon" is of course the Emancipation Proclamation. By its phrasing, the document itself was a meaningless piece of paper - the only slaves liberated by it were those already freed by military dictat on occupied soil, border states were exempted. However, it had a number of major political repercussions, even hinging as it did on a single tactical victory, by creating a moral imperative. It was a political masterstroke, and the actual morality of slavery was entirely secondary (or it would have included slaves held in border states... but Lincoln couldn't alienate them).
This is not an argument in favor of abandoning ethics and morality entirely, mind you, nor a vote in favor of anarchy. Merely an illustrated point that in the real-world political arena, morality is very much a secondary issue. We can debate whether or not this *should* be the case, but it unquestionably *is* the case. This is also not an argument against the generally accepted "rules of war" - although again, these are based on enlightened self-interest... if we don't mistreat your soldiers, you won't mistreat ours, and the morale of soldiers on both sides is improved, as well as public opinion worldwide. This is also why the issue is difficult when one side simply does not care about these rules.
And I think you misunderstand me - in that second to last paragraph, I'm not justifying anything. International politics is functionally defined by *power* - economic, military, industrial, social, etc - not by any vague sense of morality or the laughable concept of "international law"... but simply by who can wield the biggest club. This is a crude analogy, but apt, I feel. It is Iran's vested interest to expand their hegemony, because that will assure their survival as a nation (the reasons of their leadership are transitory). The easiest way at this juncture is the North Korea route - a nuclear test demonstration, which will, like the DPRK, render them instantly unassailable by even the largest conventional forces, unless those forces are willing to accept extreme casualties... and the political will for that has long since evaporated. Therefore, on a purely objective level, the criticism of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not his goals, but his competance in carrying them out. The United States has directly opposing goals - the spread of radical Islam and Iranian influence over OPEC is detrimental to our nation, therefore the job of the President is to ensure that Iran fails. To that end, the President, like Ahmadinejad and Khamenei, has a duty to use the power of his nation to effect that outcome. The United States is considerably more powerful, and the final decision must hinge on how to use that power, and in what way, just as it was with Iraq in 2002. Justification is not an issue, except in how the nations go about expending and gaining political capital in the process. If a nation is powerful enough "because I don't like the funny hat your leader wears" is sufficient justification.
As to the fall of empire - here again I would argue nationalism as a saving grace. The Western Roman Empire exerted virtual hegemony over most of Europe. Indeed, the only comparable power in the entire region was the Eastern Empire. As a result, when the Western Empire at last fell, and the ruins of sacked Rome were still establishing themselves as the seat of Catholicism, Europe was plunged into a Dark Age that lasted the better part of eight hundred years before nation states worth the name once again began to assert themselves and establish a genuine civilization. When a modern empire falls, nationalism ensures that no one power is so significant as to be irreplaceable, and indeed, that "falls" is no longer even the right term. The Soviet Union was an empire vaster than any controlled by Rome, with power undreamed of by them - but when it fell, and splintered, it spawned new nations, a rocked the political landscape... but no dark age, and no regression of knowledge. Other nations filled the hole provided. Likewise, as the European Great Powers waned and their empire fragmented, none save France fell outright (and the nation survived), all retain some fragments of that power, and other powers - the US and USSR, rose to fill the void.
Who fills the void in a world controlled by a single polity where there is no sense of nationalism when that polity inevitably falls?
Anyway, my main concern is how foreign policy discussion becomes or perhaps always has been philosophically or morally ungrounded (authentically, that is). Anti-realist pragmatism is the dominating hidden ideology, and I think it's scary because it makes meaningful discussion theoretically impossible. Everything is propaganda if that form of pragmatism is assumed.
I'd like to know what books are running in the back of your mind when you speak of nationalism. I'm guessing you are heavily influenced by Kissenger and realpolitik, which isn't a very prescient claim I guess since everyone is.
Yes, in the international realm when a politician or national leader speaks of the "right thing," that's merely code for "what I intend to do anyway but need to sell people on." Individuals who demand "the right thing" are too often allowing ideals to override common sense and future planning (as in the case of those insisting we retreat from Iraq in order to invade Sudan), but their values are clearly morality-based. People like that however tend to make very dangerous politicians, because their morals demand action and do not submit to compromise, and are not suited to the amoral landscape of international relations. Jimmy Carter is usually cited as a prime example of that.
I'm not thinking of any books in particular when I discuss nationalism, although I do indeed think of Kissenger and realpolitik - as you say, almost everyone does. But I'm also looking from a historical perspective on the rise and nature of nationhood itself, and the course of interaction and competition between states, and the long view of the progress of the species itself. In that latter respect, nationalism is also necessary as it forces growth and development out of competition without a force external to our species. The longest periods of peace and stability have typically been the most stagnant in our history. How much technological,social, and philosophical progress was made in the first three thousand years of relatively peaceful Egyptian dominance compared to the past five hundred years of violence, competition, warfare, and rebuilding?
In the end though, as our expansionist drive forces us off the planet Earth, it comes down to the simple fact that I think we would be far better served for the coming millennia by the ideals of freedom, self-determination, and justice espoused by the (often fallible) western world, or, for example, the semi-benevolent overlordship of Islamic fascism.
You seem to be some sort of social Darwinist of the inter-specie competitive sort where group progress trumps individual rights. Essentially, we are debating between consequentialist and rights-based moral systems, which is what the issues of war, torture, and surveillance are founded on. Although you would probably grant a rights-based framework for domestic issues and then a consequentialist framework for foreign policy. That is what I'm questioning. Why is it that individual rights theory dominate domestic issues, but is then replaced by consequentialist/social darwinist theory when non-U.S. citizens are involved?
I believe in maximum liberty and individual freedom for all people, everywhere. I would cheerfully apply that system, as eloquently expressed in our Constitution, to everyone, citizen or not. But freedom does entail responsibility - which is where government becomes necessary to maintain a civilization and not anarchy. Nations do not have a government to oversee them (and such a thing would be incredibly dangerous for the above-mentioned reasons), which means they do in effect operate according to a social Darwinism. Nations establish civilization and prevent anarchy for their citizens - the *international* scene in a very real way *is* anarchy. Hence the big club rules all analogy from before... bearing in mind that the club represents economic, political, and social power as well as military.
If a person abuses their freedom and rights, usually by interfering in another person's freedom and rights (ie, crime), the government imprisons them, executes them if the crime is particularly heinous, or punishes them economically. In an anarchic situation, where no government exists, a strong person can do as he pleases, and a weak person who does "wrong" is punished by one of the strong ones. You just hope like hell that the strong people are also good and wise.
So as it is in the international realm - a nation can do as it pleases unless a stronger nation says "no." The United States was able to invade and conquer Mexico on a thin pretext in 1848, then take half their territory because the US was strong, Mexico was weak, and stronger nations like Britain and France didn't care enough to intervene. In 1991, Iraq invaded the much weaker Kuwait to strengthen itself - but Kuwait was friendly and a major oil supplier, so the west *did* care, as did Kuwait's similarly weak neighbors, and the much stronger US kicked Iraq out and punished them for being "bad". Had we not cared, Kuwait would be an Iraqi province, and the invasion would have gone down as a glorious victory in Iraqi textbooks.
This is why I say morality and rights are a non issue when discussing nations. There is only what they want to do, and what they have the ability to do. This is not to be deliberately cruel - but if we try to account for morality for morality's sake, and concern ourselves with every person affected by any national action, we'll be paralyzed into inactivity, which is invariably national suicide.
So I guess I want some sort of a hybrid, some that J.S. Mill was originally trying to do. People forget that he tried to incorporate rights in his utilitarian theory. I'd like to see some work that picks up on that philosophical thread. (I'm thinking about going to grad school to do just that).
To continue, being concerned about everyone doesn't necessarily paralyze anyone. It will give one pause, in which her or she will recognize the significance of their decision and will naturally lead to a reconsideration. Even consequentialists such as Peter Singer recognize that we need to expand our circle of concern.
Finally, your assertion that "Nations aren't people. They are the sum..." is a very strong philsophical statement, and I think a very dangerous one. I recommend reading "The Ethics of Ambiguity" by Simone de Beauvoir. She discusses this very issue and provides examples how it can lead to the totalitarian ethic of Hitlers and Stalin. The individual gets subsumed by the interests of the state. I don't think its essentially any different with nations. Of course, they aren't individual people, but they are made up of people. That sounds trite, but I think it's important to keep in mind especially when discussing foreign policy. It is not a chess game of abstract entities or "sums".
That being said, I believe the reality of nationhood is very much an amoral concept. A citizen, and even a local politician should be guided by morality - be it philosophical or religious, or civilization cannot exist. Even if we accept the Hobbesian proviso that humans only behave morally under threat of punishment for immorality. And of course ignoring the varying nature of morals hinging upon culture, religion, local history, etc.
However, a leader - be it military, business, or the head of a nation, must be able to act in amoral ways. A moral leader is faced with decisions they cannot make, or can be forced into poor decisions that are both moral and unalterably wrong. An immoral leader of course is typically guided by unenlightened self-interest, and very often destructive to what he leads. An amoral leader can choose the moral path when that produces the best results, but is able to choose the right path even when it is not the moral one. Reconsidering decisions is perfectly fine - but there comes a point where "a pause" loses the moment, or where that pause turns into indecision. And any leader worth the name must put the priority on his own people - the President of the United States must be first and foremost concerned with the well being of the United States, and its citizens (in that order).
As to nations not being people... yes, it is a strong statement, and yes, if taken to extremes it can lead to totalitarianship. On the other hand, "concern for all" and "the common good" is often an even easier path to the same end... it is remarkably easy for a man convinced that he is doing the moral thing to justify even greater immorality. You certainly don't think Josef Stalin or Mao thought of themselves as evil, now do you? A clear division of thought processes between dealing with nations and dealing with people is, I feel, a far more realistic and logical way, as well as being less likely to result in totalitarianship.
To end, I don't buy "amoral" decisions when lives and well-being are on the line. Moral or ethical decisions don't equal the decision that eliminates any risk or harm to anyone, and just because they can't doesn't make them amoral or immoral. I think claiming amoral leadership is an unnecessary relinquishment of morality when the decisions become difficult.
Anyway, it's been a pleasure.
I've never understood this argument. To my way of thinking, invading Iraq was an opportunity wasted. After the tragedy of 9/11, the U.S. had the moral authority, the military capability and support of a broad spectrum of the international community to respond to the attack. Invading Afghanistan, toppling the Taliban, routing Al Qaeda and depriving them of safe haven was regarded by nearly all Americans and the world community as the proper response. Iran, who has little common ground with the Taliban and Al Qaeda, was quietly supportive, both in word and in deed, in helping the U.S. in Afghanistan. There have been numerous credible reports of Iran making diplomatic overtures during this time (before Ahmadinijead) about working towards normalizing, or at least improving U.S.-Iranian relations. We could have responded to Iran's overtures (note, that I did not say, capitulated!) maintained the focus on securing Afghanistan and continued hunting down Al Qaeda leaders and marginalizing Al Qaeda as an organization. Instead, we do the opposite. We proceed to lose nearly all international support as well as fulfill Al Qaeda's claims about what they claim to be our true intentions (which serves to strengthen and legitimize, rather than marginalize them) when we invade Iraq. Invading Iraq, which was as has been well documented, on the agenda of the meeting of the first National Security Council meeting of the Bush administration in January of 2001. Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda are bitter enemies and philosophically at the very opposite ends of the political, ideological and religious spectrum, with mistrust over each others intentions far outweighing any possibility of cooperation. Iran's overtures are rebuffed when they are included as a member of the axis of evil. A new, much more radical Iranian president is elected.
All this seems to me to be anything but advancing out national interest. I'd say it is rather a moment with great potential to advance our national interest that was lost.
In the first place, I believe you overstate the impact of 9/11 on public perception of the United States across the world. Oh, no doubt the sympathy and offers of aid from the western world, and even Russia and China were genuine (even if merely to ensure reciprocation if they were attacked by the same maniacs). Invading Afghanistan met with almost immediate opposition from the usual suspects - insistence on some fronts that we'd meet the same fate as the Soviets did in there, protests and demonstrations across the Middle East, cries of sympathy for the civilians who would no doubt be killed in the process, etc. Afghanistan was not as popular a war around the world as you seem to be implying, but it was one that could be mostly ignored except by Islamists. Iran for example was *not* happy with having the US military on their border... but they were "quietly supportive" because the Taliban were a thorn in their sides and being openly opposed would put them on the wrong side of an "us and them" equation that had most of the planet on the "us" side.
Responding to Iran's overtures at that time, minimal as they were, would have done little - need I remind you that Iran is also one of the primary terrorism supporting states on Earth, and has been since the Ayatollah's took power? The nation is a dichotomy - a relatively educated, westernized population that by and large does not buy into the terrorist "Islam is under assault" meme, and a government (not Ahmadinejad - the real power is the Ayatollah's and Guardian Council) that has, since the revolution, been a wellspring of radical Islam and religious fundamentalism. The average urban Iranian might, as you suggest, have been opposed to al-Queda and supportive of restored ties to the US... but the government most certainly is not. And how could we in good conscience restore ties with one terrorism-exporting regime while waging war on another for the very same reason?
However, this is beside the point - Al Queda is not the real enemy, and never was. Al-Queda is a symptom movement of radical Islam, not a heirarchical "Dr. Evil" organization that takes marching orders from the top. It has leaders and some organization, but by and large it is a movement aimed at jihad against the very social and political values we hold in esteem, but one that is too weak for the time being to wage open warfare. Hence terrorism.
So, radical Islam being the real threat here, the goal is not the oversimplistic "kill Osama, declare victory, and make nice with the other brutal Middle East kleptocrats", but a much more difficult and long term strategy of cultural shift. The culture that spawns fanatic religious fundamentalism as anything other than a lunatic fringe (ala Westboro Baptist Church) has to be modified. That can't be done from the tribal hinterlands of Afghanistan, nor can it be done simply by swamping them in American merchandise and TV shows. The culture that develops must be their own, but one that does not hinge upon "Islam is under siege" and the desperation of government oppression and extreme poverty.
That bring us to Iraq and the cold-blooded long term view. Centrally located, a history as a unified country, the heart of Arabic culture, location of Baghdad, former seat of the Caliphate... if we intend to effect a cultural change that will spread to the whole region, you can't ask for a better target than Iraq - Afghanistan is too tribal and too far removed, and the moderate Gulf States don't have enough influence or large enough populations to effect that kind of change across the region. Further, we had already fought a war with them, and signed only a cease-fire, it's leader was a Hitlerian tyrant already familiar to the American public, it was believed to be working on a WMD program much like Iran's current nuclear project (as we now know it was in remission awaiting the end of sanctions, but poor intel appears to have been rife on that score), it was known to have employed WMD's in the past against civilian targets, the UN sanctions regime was breaking down because France, Russia, and China wanted that weapons market opened up again, and to top it off, the US/British containment was becoming untenable. If that weren't enough, unlike many other tyrants, Saddam had two even worse heirs waiting in the wings, so waiting for him to die would have been akin to waiting for Kim Il Sung to kick off.
No, if there was a failure involving Iraq, it was that we should have toppled Saddam and begun this process in 1991, but Bush Sr. didn't want to upset the Arab League or look like a bully. Then he failed to support the Shiite/Kurdish uprisings who thought they could bank on our support... and were massacred in Al-Anfal for their trouble because we didn't (anyone who expected them to greet us with open arms this time around was smoking the wacky tabbacy). Then we had a number of opportunities during the mid-nineties, but Clinton felt random missile strikes and strongly lettered statements would suffice, and when Iraq really became a thorn in his second term, he initiated Desert Fox because it was more politically expedient, and it won him more brownie points to embroil us in a Balkan civil war instead. The current Iraq war was necessary, it just should have come a decade ago.
Yes, occupation is inherently long, difficult, bloody, and expensive. And sometimes it's even futile (much of our success in Germany and Japan post WWII had to do with the degree to which they had been hammered flat during the war... they depended on us for more basic needs). But it's also necessary unless we're prepared to spend the next two centuries attempting to contain Islamic radicalism while the religion comes to terms with itself the way Christianity had to do throughout the Reformation period (and those resultant bloodlettings)... and do so without provoking an "Islam vs the World" jihad that could only realistically result in the annihilation of every Muslim dominated nation on Earth.
With that as a too likely possibility weighed against our intervening directly to establish a distinctly Islamic yet modern and representative society with a much higher standard of living than that to be found in most parts of the region (which moreso, should not be dependent upon oil exports)... we don't have much of an alternative.
I don't agree with Bush Jr on a lot of issues, but this is one I think he took control of - however bumbling the PR campaign and some of the politicial decision making, he did what a proper republican (as in the system, not the party) executive should - he made a difficult decision, carried it out, is backing it to the hilt, and is doing so regardless of the whims of the fickle public. Caution has its place, but it should never lead to national paralysis.
"We do know that (Saddam) is actively pursing a nuclear weapon" - Condolezza Rice, 9/10/02
"Iraq will not require sustained aid" - O.M.B. director Mitch Daniels, 3/2/03.
"We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon" - Dep. Sec. of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz, 3/27/03
"Major combat operations have ended" - George Bush, 5/1/03.
I guess in fact these are just delusions (lies one tells one self to justify their beliefs).
txslr: If you have any knowledge that Bush actually said something that he knew was incorrect at the time, please provide both pieces of evidence - that it was incorrect and that he knew it.
You've got your little laundry list that we've all seen, in one form or another, about a billion times, so you're half-way to the goal. Now, please provide information other than the witness of the voices in your head that Bush, Cheney, et al KNEW that the statements were untrue when they made them.
While you're at it, go back into the record of members of Congress saying the same thing as far back as the '90s - when Slick Willie and HIS administration were making similar claims - and show that they WEREN'T lying.
Good luck.
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by: -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them." -- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
It seems you have finally jumped the Shark.
Have the other lemmings pile on.
Your buddy, the Soros fueled, "Mainstreet Republican" Senator McCain thinks so.
http://michellemalkin.com/2005/11/28/exposing-t...