View Full Version : 'whoopsie' - W.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002683398_webbush14.html
"It is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong. As president I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq." - George W. Bush
This has been on the wire for hours, surprised no one posted it yet.
So ... thoughts if you believed in Bush and the mission/s all along? I'm really curious as to what his supporters think of all this.
I'll get back to the Scientology post another day - I'm sick as a dog and can't write cohrently right now
Delta
12-14-2005, 12:16 PM
He should have said this a while ago.
That said, I still support him and the mission completely. I think it was the right decision, even knowing now what we know.
I just think it was a mistake to sell the war on WMD in the first place - especially in retrospect. I think the administration believed wholeheartedly he had WMD, as did other countries, and 99% of the leadership of this country. I think Saddam believed he had WMD. I think his generals thought he had WMD - as in each general thought the others had it.
I would have supported the invasion for neoconical (is that a word?) reasons. But those are abstract reasons and I know many people who 'got' the WMD reasoning wouldn't necessarily support the notion of invading Iraq to cause a revolution in the ME. A revolution which, BTW, is defintely occuring. I don't know why the administration doesn't talk about that more.
pocket
12-14-2005, 12:30 PM
News Bulletin - Sky is BLUE!
:rolleyes:
It's a bit too little too late. Thanks a lot, W.
LittleFredPunkinHead
12-14-2005, 12:40 PM
Agreed. And what kills me is that the analysis they ignored- the stuff about a vacuum being created by the removal of Saddam- that's being proven quite accurate. Man. Dub- it's plan for the worst, hope for the best, not vice versa.
Weddings by
12-14-2005, 12:40 PM
Uhh...he already said this not very long ago. What's new about it?
eta--That's a sincere question, not an attempt to be rude.
LyLMyssChaos
12-14-2005, 01:38 PM
Doesn't change my opinion on things. I still think that what we are doing is for good reason, even if he was misinformed in the beginning. What are we supposed to do now, say "oh we're sorry, here have back your evil dictator?"
Nope. We need to finish what we started, and I think it would be crazy to stop before there is any sort of completion.
southerner
12-14-2005, 01:41 PM
LMC, I see you didn't waste anytime getting your new avatar.
Doesn't change my opinion on things. I still think that what we are doing is for good reason, even if he was misinformed in the beginning. What are we supposed to do now, say "oh we're sorry, here have back your evil dictator?"
Nope. We need to finish what we started, and I think it would be crazy to stop before there is any sort of completion.
Completion. Huh. I thought by "Mission Accomplished", that meant that the mission was, um, completed. I guess in this case, it meant "Mission so not even close to being done."
dionysia
12-14-2005, 01:52 PM
Eliminating Terrorism in any Light... what does that mean?
And if the light is as dark in the avatar, I hope the soldier shooting has night goggles on!!!
Di
hockeybrat
12-14-2005, 01:56 PM
Eliminating Terrorism in any Light... what does that mean?
And if the light is as dark in the avatar, I hope the soldier shooting has night goggles on!!!
Di
Maybe it means that you need to eliminate terrorism no matter how (including torture).
chefker
12-14-2005, 02:00 PM
Reading between the lines here:
But he added a specific reference to the inspiration that a free Iraq could provide to reformers in the region's two governments most hostile to the United States — Syria and Iran.
Anyone else smell 'oil interests' afoot here? Certainly there's other dictatorships in this world, not JUST in Iraq.....yet W has had tunnel vision as far as going after Saddam and the nonexistent "WMD".
LyLMyssChaos
12-14-2005, 02:44 PM
Eliminating Terrorism in any Light... what does that mean?
And if the light is as dark in the avatar, I hope the soldier shooting has night goggles on!!!
Di
Actually, it's the company that my husband works for. They make night vision scopes for the military called the ACOG(and others), that are used by the special forces and such. They use tridium, so that only the person shooting can see the light, it doesn't put a target on what they are aiming at. They even have received letters thanking them for inventing and manufacturing this technology. That is where the play on words "Eliminating Terrorism in any light" came from.
pocket
12-14-2005, 02:50 PM
Actually, it's the company that my husband works for. They make night vision scopes for the military called the ACOG(and others), that are used by the special forces and such. They use tridium, so that only the person shooting can see the light, it doesn't put a target on what they are aiming at. They even have received letters thanking them for inventing and manufacturing this technology. That is where the play on words "Eliminating Terrorism in any light" came from.
In that case, what an effective ad! The first thing I thought of was night goggles.
Aletheia
12-14-2005, 02:54 PM
Mmm. Interesting logo. Though I think it really should say "Eliminating Terrorists" because as far as I can tell, men and women with guns just create more terrorism-- that angry, retalliatory spirit that grows new terrorists. So maybe guns can kill the terrorists, but I think they're just setting the stage for renewed terrorism.
But I don't mean to make enemies, MsChaos! Since I can't do enough to stop the war from happening, it wouldn't be very nice of me not to support the making of tools like the goggles your husband works on that help preserve life.
hockeybrat
12-14-2005, 02:59 PM
Actually, it's the company that my husband works for. They make night vision scopes for the military called the ACOG(and others), that are used by the special forces and such. They use tridium, so that only the person shooting can see the light, it doesn't put a target on what they are aiming at. They even have received letters thanking them for inventing and manufacturing this technology. That is where the play on words "Eliminating Terrorism in any light" came from.
Sorry if my interpretation was snarky.
LyLMyssChaos
12-14-2005, 03:09 PM
Oh no apologies necessary. I don't mind explaining my avatar.
Aletheia: Your point is well taken, and they do 2 other shirts with similar logos and the same slogan, but I thought that would be found much more offensive here since one has Osama Bin Laden in crosshairs, and the other has Saddam in crosshairs that look like this:
http://www.trijicon.com/parts/F361.jpg
And don't worry about "making enemies" I feel all is fair in politics. ;)
pocket
12-14-2005, 04:02 PM
I would have supported the invasion for neoconical (is that a word?) reasons. But those are abstract reasons and I know many people who 'got' the WMD reasoning wouldn't necessarily support the notion of invading Iraq to cause a revolution in the ME. A revolution which, BTW, is defintely occuring. I don't know why the administration doesn't talk about that more.
I just can't understand why this is OK with you. People - Congressional people - supported the war because Bush said there were WMD; an imminent threat. If you say that they wouldn't have supported it without the WMD, which I agree with, how can it be OK that they just used this reason which turned out to be false. It's pretty hard for me to believe they didn't know it was false, but leaving that aside we still have a situation where a false reason was given to Congress and the UN and the American people. then a vote was taken on whether to empower the president to go to war. People made the decision to vote for this or to support the war based on the false reason. That's F'ed up. Even more so if you believe, as I do, that the President knew damn well that it was at least iffy.
jnettie
12-14-2005, 04:17 PM
Here comes a left wing Libral with her opinion on all this.
I completely disagree with any foreign government moving in on any country with the purpose of bringing about a change in regeime. The revolution has to begin from within. Then they can ask for help. But it never works when an outside govenment tires to change what the people never asked for.
Example 1: Vietnam. We fought for how many years just to have the Communists come right on in and slaughter millions.
Example 2: Iran. We (and the British I believe) installed a secular Sha. Then he was assasinated because of how he treated Muslims. A religious extremist goverment now exisits. I have a friend who had to flee the country with her family.
A revolution has to come from within. We are making the same mistake again. Yeah, Sadam was aweful. Yes, he killed lots of people. But, there was NO terrorism in Iraq while he was in charge and now there is every day. Now there are extremist Muslims converting the hearts and minds of every Iraqi. When we fail - and we will - the new Iraqi government will become an extremeist theocracy. It will be FAR WORSE than when Sadam was in charge. History, my friends, is on my side.
Meanwhile...Tiawan has ASKED us for help to become independent from China. They WANT democracy. And we say "sorry, no can do." How's that for hypocracy?
mamahammer
12-14-2005, 04:19 PM
While I don't agree with the war or our reasons for being in there, I think this
we still have a situation where a false reason was given to Congress and the UN and the American people. then a vote was taken on whether to empower the president to go to war. People made the decision to vote for this or to support the war based on the false reason. gives a false sense of the steps leading up to the war. As much as I dislike him, Bush didn't just go to Congress or the UN, say "Hey, guys, Saddam has WMDs!" which then lead to a vote giving him the power to go to war. Purportedly, every bit of evidence that Bush had on the WMDs was also shared with the necessary Congressional committees and UN officials. To say that they were all mislead by Bush himself is disingenuous. They were mislead by faulty intelligence, sure. But they weren't just taking Bush at his word. They were deceived by the evidence.
Again, don't like Bush. Don't like the war. Don't think we should be there. But...
Delta
12-14-2005, 04:34 PM
I'm not quite sure what you are asking, pocket, but I'll say this, which I think goes to your concern.
Congress had the same intelligence that the Administration did in terms of evidence of WMD. They were briefed by the same people the Bush and Cheney were. Much of this intelligence, I believe, came from Chalabi. At that time Chalabi was being portrayed as a hero in the media, in DC, among Iraqi expats, etc. Other countries had this same intelligence, from their own sources and their own investigations. The UN Security Council believed, from their own intel, that he had them. (Thus the meaningless resolutions.) Most likely, Saddam and many of his generals believed he had them. EVERYONE believed this.
One thing is absolutely true. At one time, Saddam did have WMD. That much is known. He used them. What is not known is what happened to them before the invasion, and when, or where they are now.
Now, whether Bush thought the intel was iffy or not, in the light of 9/11, he wasn't going to take the chance with letting Saddam sit there with them, as he shouldn't have.
Now, is it f'ed up that the main reason that people supported going to war turned out to be false? Maybe. But that doesn't mean the decision was the wrong one, nor was WMD the only reason to do it. I strongly believe that in 10 years this will be completely apparent, and the ME will look very different than it does today.
IMO, Bush' biggest mistake has been not to be straight with the American people about how things are going (good and bad.) For so long he was using platitudes and generalization so much that I couldn't even listen to it. He was insulting our intelligence, and making himself look totally out of touch. The past two weeks his statements and speeches have become more nuanced, and he is leveling with us. This is good. I think people will appreciate this and will be more willing to support him and believe him when they aren't hearing all this grand talk about the WOT, etc.
Ebaskio
12-14-2005, 05:18 PM
Now, whether Bush thought the intel was iffy or not, in the light of 9/11, he wasn't going to take the chance with letting Saddam sit there with them, as he shouldn't have.
EXACTLY!!!! If 9/11 would have never happened, would we have invaded Iraq? I'm not sure but I do know that if we didn't and the next terrorist attack came out of militant groups in Iraq, the pansy ass liberals in this country would then blame Bush for not doing something about a known threat. They are going to whine like the babies they are either way and I'm glad they are doing it while that tyrrant is out of power.
pocket
12-14-2005, 05:22 PM
GAH! Can't deal. Seriously Republicans make me hyperventilate.
LittleFredPunkinHead
12-14-2005, 05:34 PM
Congress did not have all the same intel that the Administration did. I know the Administration loves that talking point, but it's not true. The Presidential Daily Briefings are a perfect example.
mamahammer
12-14-2005, 05:36 PM
I'm not sure but I do know that if we didn't and the next terrorist attack came out of militant groups in Iraq, the pansy ass liberals in this country would then blame Bush for not doing something about a known threat. They are going to whine like the babies they are either way and I'm glad they are doing it while that tyrrant is out of power.
Ummm...totally uncalled for and totally false generalization. Doesn't do much for your side.
GAH! Can't deal. Seriously Republicans make me hyperventilate.
Don't know specifically who that's aimed at, just sayin'...not everyone who took issue with your post is a Republican. I, for one, am a registered Dem and have never voted for a Republican candidate. Now, if I see a McCain/Giuliani ticket in 08, I might have to reconsider the no-voting-Repub thing. But I digress. I just don't think it does any good for the cause to place undue blame and make false generalizations about how the war came about. I think there are plenty of truths that can be brought to light that make the administration look bad enough. No need to go making stuff up.
LittleFredPunkinHead
12-14-2005, 05:36 PM
EXACTLY!!!! If 9/11 would have never happened, would we have invaded Iraq? I'm not sure but I do know that if we didn't and the next terrorist attack came out of militant groups in Iraq, the pansy ass liberals in this country would then blame Bush for not doing something about a known threat. They are going to whine like the babies they are either way and I'm glad they are doing it while that tyrrant is out of power.
Well, that's just brilliant reasoning. We'd better attack Iran, India, Pakistan and North Korea now so "the pansy ass liberals" don't blame Bush for not doing something about a known threat.
I'm not sure but I do know that if we didn't and the next terrorist attack came out of militant groups in Iraq, the pansy ass liberals in this country would then blame Bush for not doing something about a known threat.
*looks at ass* I assure you, it doesn't even remotely resemble a pansy. And for the record, liberals aren't the only ones who think this war is a bad idea and feel that if they weren't lied to, the truth wasn't exactly told. That said, I'm sure Abe Lincoln would be proud that thinking like this seems to dominate his party.
wendalah
12-14-2005, 06:06 PM
*looks at ass* I assure you, it doesn't even remotely resemble a pansy.
(Waves hand) Mine does! And my farts smell like roses!
And sheeeit, I'm not even a liberal!
(Waves hand) Mine does! And my farts smell like roses!
And sheeeit, I'm not even a liberal!
Well your ass says differently missy. Get thee over to the left.
gayle
12-14-2005, 06:40 PM
Well Duh, like we didn't ALREADY know this.
I think W assumes that most of the country is really blind, or stupid, or something....
Jeez, the longer this man is in office the more depressed I get.
Delta
12-14-2005, 07:13 PM
Congress did not have all the same intel that the Administration did. I know the Administration loves that talking point, but it's not true. The Presidential Daily Briefings are a perfect example.
LF - Read this:
http://www.factcheck.org/article358.html
udsweetpea
12-14-2005, 07:39 PM
LMC and Dubya- Just thought I'd let you know, you cannot win the fight on terrorism as long as there is at least one person in this world willing to die for their cause.
LittleFredPunkinHead
12-14-2005, 08:23 PM
LF - Read this:
http://www.factcheck.org/article358.html
Yes. I've seen it. Do you believe that disputes what I've said? That talks about the National Intelligence Estimate. They're saying the information presented was not corrupted, as Dean claimed. They're not saying that no information was left out, that all relevant information was presented.
PinkGirl
12-14-2005, 08:34 PM
Delta That said, I still support him and the mission completely. I think it was the right decision, even knowing now what we know.
I just think it was a mistake to sell the war on WMD in the first place - especially in retrospect. I think the administration believed wholeheartedly he had WMD, as did other countries, and 99% of the leadership of this country. I think Saddam believed he had WMD. I think his generals thought he had WMD - as in each general thought the others had it.
ITA. I have always supported Bush. I think Americans in general feel that they have a "right to know" every little bit of intelligence there is, which I feel is ridiculous. You elect your leaders so they can do just that - lead. You have to have faith that they are doing what is right and realize you don't always have all of the information.
What Saddam was doing to the people of Iraq is despicable and people should be proud of the U.S. for being the first to step up and do something about it instead of crying that the whole thing is about oil.
batgirl
12-15-2005, 07:12 AM
What Saddam was doing to the people of Iraq is despicable and people should be proud of the U.S. for being the first to step up and do something about it instead of crying that the whole thing is about oil.
emphasis mine...
Honestly, why else did we invade? I know it was not out of the goodness of our hearts, and to think so is completely naive. The Bu$h admin is a business. Lots of their friends (themselves included) have made enormous amounts of $$ off of this war (think Halliburton for one... you remember, Cheney was formerly its CEO).
If we were truly the great humanitarians we would have, oh, how about stepped in during Africa's genocide? Or how about gone after the dictators that actually have (and proudly talk of) their nuclear weapons (N. Korea for example).
I think people believe this stuff just so they can sleep at night.
ginadc
12-15-2005, 07:18 AM
What Saddam was doing to the people of Iraq is despicable and people should be proud of the U.S. for being the first to step up and do something about it instead of crying that the whole thing is about oil.
We (meaning the government) didn't give a crap about what Saddam was doing to the people of Iraq until Bush used our post-9/11 fear (pretty funny, since Saddam was afraid of Bin Laden too) to convince us that we were in imminent danger of attack. He had been brutalizing his people for decades; the only time we got interested in that was when it (appeared to) serve our own interests as well.
There are brutal dictators all over the world. Unless we're prepared to invade all of their countries, topple them, and deal with years of anarchy while we try to build a new government (with our president who campaigned for his first term saying that we shouldn't nation-build), we'd better think about what we're doing here.
We're no safer because we invaded Iraq. Frankly, we're less safe. Young men from the Arab street who might not have liked America very much before, but weren't particularly exercised about it, have now been radicalized by the war. It was the best recruiting tool Al Qaeda could have come up with. There are terrorists in Iraq now who were never there before, and there are recruits to terror groups all over the world who wouldn't have joined up before.
So no, I'm not "proud" of what we've done in Iraq. I'm not proud that 2200 US soldiers and tens of thousands of Iraqis, many of them civilians, are dead in a war that we were told would take a couple of months. (Remember the whole "we'll be greeted as liberators" thing? What happened to that?) I'm not proud that this war that Bush wanted so badly was pursued on the cheap, so that more soldiers have died and less has been accomplished. I'm not proud that we went from having the support and sympathy of 99.9% of the world on September 12, 2001, to being viewed as a shameful occupier by most of the world today. Am I happy that Saddam is not in power? Sure. But I don't view that one positive thing as worth the enormous price, in blood and grief and instability and treasure, that we and others have paid and will continue to pay.
batgirl
12-15-2005, 07:34 AM
And don't forget that the US supported Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war.
Iraq invaded Iran in 1980 after many years of border disputes. We knew (and supported) Saddam's use of chemical weapons against Iran and even gave them weapons (including Anthrax, btw). Remember the picture of Rumsfeld shaking Hussein's hand?
ETA: forgot to add my links...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_iraq_war
http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/arming_iraq.php
mamahammer
12-15-2005, 07:36 AM
There are brutal dictators all over the world. Unless we're prepared to invade all of their countries, topple them, and deal with years of anarchy while we try to build a new government (with our president who campaigned for his first term saying that we shouldn't nation-build), we'd better think about what we're doing here.
Agreed. This was not about a humanitarian effort - the Great Big Americans Out To Save the World! If that were true, we would have been in there decades ago. And we would have taken out many other dictators on foreign soils along the way. I won't claim that this was all about oil, because I'd like to believe that isn't true. But it certainly wasn't simply a humanitrian effort on our part.
LyLMyssChaos
12-15-2005, 07:38 AM
Honestly, why else did we invade? I know it was not out of the goodness of our hearts, and to think so is completely naive. The Bu$h admin is a business. Lots of their friends (themselves included) have made enormous amounts of $$ off of this war (think Halliburton for one... you remember, Cheney was formerly its CEO).
One thing I want to point out in this statement is what I bolded...the word FORMERLY which by definition means at an earlier time, once. That means that previously Cheney was the CEO of Halliburton and would have profited by them receiving business. He had to give that up to become VP(he sold all of his shares in August of 2000, when he became George W. Bush's running mate.) He no longer receives anything from them!! I wish people would quit saying that he does.
I am tired of people saying that this war was started merely to line Bush and his friend's pockets. Do you really think he would have risked his political career to line the pockets of his friends and take on all the grief that he has received for it, if he didn't feel that there was a justified reason for going into Iraq?? People talk about others being naive for believing that there were good intentions for going into Iraq, but what about being so naive and blinded by political bias that you can't see the facts when they are in front of you?
ginadc
12-15-2005, 07:48 AM
Do you really think he would have risked his political career to line the pockets of his friends and take on all the grief that he has received for it, if he didn't feel that there was a justified reason for going into Iraq??
BWAH! Absolutely. First of all, Bush is enormously arrogant. He clearly seems to think he can get away with doing whatever he wants; and for 5 years, he did get away with it. And if you think that Cheney does not have ways to still rake in the dollars because Halliburton is profiting, then you're more naive than I thought. But it's not just about getting rich themselves--which they undoubtedly are. It's about making all their cronies and buddies rich, and therefore indebted to them...thus consolidating power.
batgirl
12-15-2005, 07:56 AM
One thing I want to point out in this statement is what I bolded...the word FORMERLY which by definition means at an earlier time, once. That means that previously Cheney was the CEO of Halliburton and would have profited by them receiving business. He had to give that up to become VP(he sold all of his shares in August of 2000, when he became George W. Bush's running mate.) He no longer receives anything from them!! I wish people would quit saying that he does.
Thank you for the definition of "formerly" LMC.
And yes, I know of the stuff you just posted. That he had to give up his CEO position in order to be VP, etc. And I remember an interview during the election that he stated he, personally, sold all of his shares before running, but the question I always was asked was how many shares his wife and kids still possess. My guess, is that he and his family are doing very well from this war...
LyLMyssChaos
12-15-2005, 08:00 AM
BWAH! Absolutely. First of all, Bush is enormously arrogant. He clearly seems to think he can get away with doing whatever he wants; and for 5 years, he did get away with it. And if you think that Cheney does not have ways to still rake in the dollars because Halliburton is profiting, then you're more naive than I thought. But it's not just about getting rich themselves--which they undoubtedly are. It's about making all their cronies and buddies rich, and therefore indebted to them...thus consolidating power.
I disagree to a point. I mean, honestly, what successful politician isn't arrogant?? You can't be successful in the game of politics and be really and truly genuine. I don't think he "does whatever he wants." If you remember, our president cannot just declare war because he feels like it. He took the intelligence provided to him (even if incorrect, he believed it to be correct) presented it to the U.S House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate, and THEY voted to give authority to use force against Iraq. People make it sound like Bush has some sort of "God complex" and walks around saying "I want it this way, so it shall be." And that is not the case. And if you remember correctly, we are not the only country that believed that there were WMD's. Spain and England also agreed with us based on the intelligence, so there must have been some sort of information that led them to believe there was reason to go in.
batgirl
12-15-2005, 08:01 AM
Do you really think he would have risked his political career to line the pockets of his friends and take on all the grief that he has received for it, if he didn't feel that there was a justified reason for going into Iraq?? People talk about others being naive for believing that there were good intentions for going into Iraq, but what about being so naive and blinded by political bias that you can't see the facts when they are in front of you?
What ginadc said!
And all of the grief he's received??? Bu$h HAS been re-elected (can't stress how unfortunate this is...) the republican run house and senate will never impeach him. What does he have grief about? He seems to be taking it pretty easy for a president at a time of war. More vacations that any other president. Doesn't work nights or weekends. Shit, I wish I had so much grief...
LyLMyssChaos
12-15-2005, 08:10 AM
What ginadc said!
And all of the grief he's received??? Bu$h HAS been re-elected (can't stress how unfortunate this is...) the republican run house and senate will never impeach him. What does he have grief about? He seems to be taking it pretty easy for a president at a time of war. More vacations that any other president. Doesn't work nights or weekends. Shit, I wish I had so much grief...
Doesn't work nights or weekends?? Vacations?? I am not so sure I would call those vacations. Just because he is not stationed at 1600 Pennsylvania avenue, I wouldn't say he's on vacation. I wonder how many 2 a.m. phone calls a President gets?? I wonder how many times a President has to drop whatever they are doing to meet with someone about something that the public knows nothing about? Do you really think that the American public knows every single step the President takes?? It wouldn't be safe for that to happen! I'm sure that the President(and I'm not just saying Bush, I mean ANY President) works A LOT more than any of us can even comprehend!
I think that some people are so blinded by pure political bias and hatred that they don't see what a difficult job a President has. I know that I wouldn't want that job. No matter what you do, someone is going to hate you, disagree with you, criticize you. It's an impossible job. A thankless job. And honestly, I give props to ANYONE willing to take it on.
LittleFredPunkinHead
12-15-2005, 08:11 AM
I do not believe that this war was started as a moneymaker for Bush, Cheney, etc. I do think they have made money as a result of it, but not for a minute do I believe that that was their motivation.
In fact, I think the motivation was altruistic- I do think they believed they could bring democracy to the Middle East by making Iraq over, and I think they probably felt easier access to oil would be a big boon to the United States. However, I also very strongly believe that they misled the country and themselves egregiously. They ignored anything that didn't fit with the plan they wanted to pursue. They've lied by omission. They have thrown integrity and justice out the door. They've tarnished our reputation worldwide, and they've made the whole situation FUBAR. Good intentions mean jack if you ignore reality and principles.
batgirl
12-15-2005, 08:21 AM
I know that I wouldn't want that job.
That makes two of us...
But in regards to his vacations. Have you really not heard of his excessive vacationing? His two-hour daily mid afternoon workout sessions? His "disinclination" to work nights or weekends?
Here's a couple of places to look if your interested...
Actually, I'm not going to post them. Just google "George Bush vacations" and you'll see for yourself..
And LittleFred. I don't really believe that we went to war for oil. Honestly, I really have no idea... Its like trying to probe the mind of the schizophrenic... I'll probably never get it...
dionysia
12-15-2005, 09:01 AM
Actually, it's the company that my husband works for. They make night vision scopes for the military called the ACOG(and others), that are used by the special forces and such. They use tridium, so that only the person shooting can see the light, it doesn't put a target on what they are aiming at. They even have received letters thanking them for inventing and manufacturing this technology. That is where the play on words "Eliminating Terrorism in any light" came from.Who would have thought that I pretty much guessed (hoped!) it was about night goggles!
Nifty!
Di
dionysia
12-15-2005, 09:04 AM
EXACTLY!!!! If 9/11 would have never happened, would we have invaded Iraq? I'm not sure but I do know that if we didn't and the next terrorist attack came out of militant groups in Iraq, the pansy ass liberals in this country would then blame Bush for not doing something about a known threat. They are going to whine like the babies they are either way and I'm glad they are doing it while that tyrrant is out of power.Way to create a good first impression, Ebaskio! :rolleyes:
Di
(A DAHLIA-assed liberal!)
LyLMyssChaos
12-15-2005, 09:06 AM
That makes two of us...
But in regards to his vacations. Have you really not heard of his excessive vacationing? His two-hour daily mid afternoon workout sessions? His "disinclination" to work nights or weekends?
Here's a couple of places to look if your interested...
Actually, I'm not going to post them. Just google "George Bush vacations" and you'll see for yourself..
And LittleFred. I don't really believe that we went to war for oil. Honestly, I really have no idea... Its like trying to probe the mind of the schizophrenic... I'll probably never get it...
You don't honestly think that George Bush is the only President that has ever worked out, do you??? Forgive him for taking some perks! :rolleyes: I seem to remember other recent Presidents that worked out regularly as well.
I took your suggestion and googled. Here is what I found:
Time.com (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,170078,00.html)
And I found it interesting that in the week prior to him vacationing, he managed to get quite a few things pushed through. And you make it sound like he is the only President to vacation. So what if he isn't a workaholic? I didn't know that was in the job description. I personally don't think there is anything wrong with taking vacation time, a lot of people do it. And besides that, a lot of people work from home. How come the President can't do it? Just because he is in Crawford Texas, doesn't mean he isn't working. I also found this article in The Seattle Times (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002417607_crawford03.html) that supports my theory about him working on vacation. Here is a quote from that article:
At the ranch, White House officials say, Bush continues to receive daily national-security briefings, sign documents, hold teleconferences with aides and military commanders, and even meet with foreign leaders. And from the president's point of view, the long Texas stints are the best way to clear his mind and reconnect with everyday America.
"I'm looking forward to getting down there and just kind of settling in," Bush told reporters from Texas newspapers during a roundtable interview at the White House on Monday. "I'll be doing a lot of work. On the other hand, I'll also be kind of making sure my Texas roots run deep."
"Spending time outside of Washington always gives the president a fresh perspective of what's on the minds of the American people," White House press secretary Scott McClellan told reporters Friday. "It's a time, really, for him to shed the coat and tie and meet with folks out in the heartland and hear what's on their minds."
He should have said this a while ago.
That said, I still support him and the mission completely. I think it was the right decision, even knowing now what we know.
[reconstruction, dam computer ate my first reply]
Knowing that there were no WMD, knowing we were going in underpowered, undergunned, underplanned?
I just think it was a mistake to sell the war on WMD in the first place - especially in retrospect. I think the administration believed wholeheartedly he had WMD, as did other countries, and 99% of the leadership of this country. I think Saddam believed he had WMD. I think his generals thought he had WMD - as in each general thought the others had it.
See the thing is, what happens to those supporters of his if they find out (which may be the case, I believe it but I don't know ... yet) that they did know there were no WMD?
I would have supported the invasion for neoconical (is that a word?) reasons. But those are abstract reasons and I know many people who 'got' the WMD reasoning wouldn't necessarily support the notion of invading Iraq to cause a revolution in the ME. A revolution which, BTW, is defintely occuring. I don't know why the administration doesn't talk about that more.
Thank you. Most people who say "well, there were no WMD, but it's a durned good thing we got the bastid anyway" can't go into any depth about it, or want to. They just clam up. But I'm sure the only way to sell it was WMD, real or not - and they knew it had to be sold that way because they knew the majority of the country isn't interested in brutal dictatorships that don't seem to affect their ability to drive their Hummers to WalMart.
So the question is this, if our government's responsibility is to topple brutal, dangerous dictatorships, end horrible regimes and allow democracy to flourish, what country would be next on the list once we're done in Iraq? Darfour? Haiti? Cuba? North Korea? Or is proximity to ... resources we might be concerned about necessary? If not WMD, why did Iraq need to be second on the list after Afghanistan?
Uhh...he already said this not very long ago. What's new about it?
eta--That's a sincere question, not an attempt to be rude.
Sorry - if you can link me to the appropriate thread, we can merge the topics, maybe?
Example 2: Iran. We (and the British I believe) installed a secular Sha. Then he was assasinated because of how he treated Muslims. A religious extremist goverment now exisits. I have a friend who had to flee the country with her family.
What a small world. I've got a friend who was six? when they were evacuated during the revolution - one of the last military flights. Been bugging him for years to publish his stories about it.
udsweetpea
12-15-2005, 09:27 AM
Do you really think he would have risked his political career to line the pockets of his friends and take on all the grief that he has received for it, if he didn't feel that there was a justified reason for going into Iraq??
Yes! He makes more money off of oil than being a President.
ginadc
12-15-2005, 09:28 AM
People make it sound like Bush has some sort of "God complex" and walks around saying "I want it this way, so it shall be." And that is not the case.
Well, given that he's said in more than one interview that he believes God is speaking through him, God has put him here, it's God's will that he do xyz ... I think it is the case.
udsweetpea
12-15-2005, 09:31 AM
EXACTLY!!!! If 9/11 would have never happened, would we have invaded Iraq? I'm not sure but I do know that if we didn't and the next terrorist attack came out of militant groups in Iraq, the pansy ass liberals in this country would then blame Bush for not doing something about a known threat. They are going to whine like the babies they are either way and I'm glad they are doing it while that tyrrant is out of power.
You do know 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq, right?
LyLMyssChaos
12-15-2005, 09:35 AM
Well, given that he's said in more than one interview that he believes God is speaking through him, God has put him here, it's God's will that he do xyz ... I think it is the case.
He said that to a small group of HIGHLY religious people, not in some big speech. He was touched by the people he encountered, and felt that he should share that message with them. I have myself felt inspired to share similar messages with people about certain topics. That doesn't mean he has a "God complex."
udsweetpea
12-15-2005, 09:40 AM
He said that to a small group of HIGHLY religious people, not in some big speech. He was touched by the people he encountered, and felt that he should share that message with them. I have myself felt inspired to share similar messages with people about certain topics. That doesn't mean he has a "God complex."
So basically he tells people what they want to hear?
LyLMyssChaos
12-15-2005, 09:44 AM
So basically he tells people what they want to hear?
Nice spin ud! But no dice. ;) He told them that because that is what he felt inspired to tell them. He is someone that values his religion and while speaking with a group of people that also values their religion, he felt he should share that information with them. I don't expect you to understand that as I know what your views on religion are, but as someone that is also religious, I would take comfort in having that little bit of information shared with me.
southerner
12-15-2005, 09:47 AM
He told them that because that is what he felt inspired to tell them. He is someone that values his religion and while speaking with a group of people that also values their religion, he felt he should share that information with them.
If I didn't know any better I'd think you know him personally.
LyLMyssChaos
12-15-2005, 09:54 AM
If I didn't know any better I'd think you know him personally.
No, that is what I got out of the article that I read about when he said it to the Amish group that he met with. And having said similar things myself, I can sympathize with what might have been going through his head. I can only speculate, but just from the choice of words, I think I have a pretty good idea what he was thinking during that encounter.
LittleFredPunkinHead
12-15-2005, 09:57 AM
He said that to a small group of HIGHLY religious people, not in some big speech. He was touched by the people he encountered, and felt that he should share that message with them. I have myself felt inspired to share similar messages with people about certain topics. That doesn't mean he has a "God complex."
It doesn't mean he has a God complex, but it does mean that he feels God is guiding him in his actions. Which doesn't make me feel any better. Plenty of people have done really bad things because that's what they felt God was guiding them to do.
pocket
12-15-2005, 10:29 AM
Don't know specifically who that's aimed at, just sayin'...not everyone who took issue with your post is a Republican.
LOL - why don't you take a wild guess? How can someone even say - "pansy-ass liberal" without the ground opening up and swallowing them? It's completely offensive on so many levels.
anyway, this pansy-ass doesn't believe that the WH and Congress have access to the same intelligence, and secondly that the Cheney's Office of Special Plans was devoted to combing through existing intelligence to make a more solid case for the Iraq Invasion. I was skeptical about WMD when Clinton was president (ah, the 90's), but Bush really convinced me. I do think that there were people who voted for the war/supported the war becuase of enhanced intelligence, and that if Bush had tried to make his case for war simply on the basis of creating a democratic revolution in the ME, he would not have gotten the required level of support.
udsweetpea
12-15-2005, 10:52 AM
Nice spin ud! But no dice. ;) He told them that because that is what he felt inspired to tell them. He is someone that values his religion and while speaking with a group of people that also values their religion, he felt he should share that information with them. I don't expect you to understand that as I know what your views on religion are, but as someone that is also religious, I would take comfort in having that little bit of information shared with me.
You don't expect me to understand that because I'm an atheist? Well, yes, I do find it laughable that God is directing him like a puppet. But I can understand why he would say it. I'm not stupid.
LyLMyssChaos
12-15-2005, 10:54 AM
You don't expect me to understand that because I'm an atheist? Well, yes, I do find it laughable that God is directing him like a puppet. But I can understand why he would say it. I'm not stupid.
I never said you were stupid, but I thought that perhaps since you were an atheist that you may not understand the security that many find in religion and in sharing that experience with someone.
udsweetpea
12-15-2005, 10:56 AM
I never said you were stupid, but I thought that perhaps since you were an atheist that you may not understand the security that many find in religion and in sharing that experience with someone.
There's a reason I'm atheist. It's because I was Christian, so stop assuming you know something about someone when you don't. So yes, I could understand the "security". For me, it was false security, but I'm glad others find real security in it.
LyLMyssChaos
12-15-2005, 11:03 AM
There's a reason I'm atheist. It's because I was Christian, so stop assuming you know something about someone when you don't. So yes, I could understand the "security". For me, it was false security, but I'm glad others find real security in it.
Well, I apologize for making assumptions without knowing all the details. I have not met many atheists that truly understand things from the Christian perspective as well and that have experienced that lifestyle themselves. It's my own fault for stereotyping and for that I apologize.
udsweetpea
12-15-2005, 11:06 AM
Well, I apologize for making assumptions without knowing all the details. I have not met many atheists that truly understand things from the Christian perspective as well and that have experienced that lifestyle themselves. It's my own fault for stereotyping and for that I apologize.
Thanks! I myself thought most atheists were once Christians, who decided to part ways from the Church. I find most atheists are pretty knowledgeable about the Christian religion. It was funny when my Wiccan brother, his Wiccan fiancee, and I were reading the Christmas story to my nephew, and he didn't know anything about it. And he's been going to Sunday school for 2 years now! We knew more than he did!
LyLMyssChaos
12-15-2005, 11:25 AM
It was funny when my Wiccan brother, his Wiccan fiancee, and I were reading the Christmas story to my nephew, and he didn't know anything about it. And he's been going to Sunday school for 2 years now! We knew more than he did!
Not to hijack or anything, but I'm sad to say that I hear this happening more and more often. It seems like so many churches have gotten caught up in "boosting membership numbers" and "trying to make church fun" that they have forgotten what church is supposed to be about, teaching! It really is a sad state of affairs when more children can identify pop culture items in a Sunday school class than can identify religious personages.
Delta
12-15-2005, 11:29 AM
Is this thread about religion?
Delta
12-15-2005, 11:34 AM
Knowing that there were no WMD, knowing we were going in underpowered, undergunned, underplanned?Yes. Absolutely mistakes were made, big mistakes. But in the long run I strongly, strongly, STRONGLY feel that it was the best decision. Mistakes are made in every war, but that doesn't make it a wrong war.
See the thing is, what happens to those supporters of his if they find out (which may be the case, I believe it but I don't know ... yet) that they did know there were no WMD?
Not sure what you mean by this, but your question is a total hypothetical so I can't really answer it. If you think they really 'knew' there weren't WMD, well, I just disagree 100%.
So the question is this, if our government's responsibility is to topple brutal, dangerous dictatorships, end horrible regimes and allow democracy to flourish, what country would be next on the list once we're done in Iraq? Darfour? Haiti? Cuba? North Korea? Or is proximity to ... resources we might be concerned about necessary? If not WMD, why did Iraq need to be second on the list after Afghanistan?
Foreign and military policy is not formed in a vacuum. You can't apply the same strategy to every dictatorship or problem country. You are smart enough to recognize this, I think.
As for the why Iraq question - I think the president has answered that about 1,345,693 times. ;)
pocket
12-15-2005, 11:36 AM
If the US really wanted to promote democracy and good governance they would do what they do when they want to promote democracy – fund democracy programs. Look what a good job we did in Ukraine! That is a decade of great democracy and governance programs, fostering of civil society organizations fostering of grass roots democracy NGO’s, targeted technical assistance and training, training of trainers, attacking corruption, building an independent media - your tax dollars at work to build a better world. Those are programs we can all be proud of. We try to change other countries governments all the time. Sometimes we do it by trying to empower localities and build democratic infrastructure. Sometimes we do it by engaging in secret spy wars. Sometimes we actually invade other countries. I like the first, and abhor the rest.
udsweetpea
12-15-2005, 11:44 AM
Is this thread about religion?
Does it really matter? I've actually gotten to have a civil conversation with LMC, and that makes it worth it to me to stray from the topic just a bit.
Delta
12-15-2005, 11:48 AM
pocket - Those democracy programs are absolutely fantastic when used in the right places - I agree 100% and have friends who have participated in them. But you KNOW they would never work in a place like Iraq with Saddam as a dictator. Are you kidding? I think now that is something we can (and are) using, but it would have been impossible with Saddam there.
pocket
12-15-2005, 11:54 AM
IMO, Bush' biggest mistake has been not to be straight with the American people about how things are going (good and bad.) For so long he was using platitudes and generalization so much that I couldn't even listen to it. He was insulting our intelligence, and making himself look totally out of touch. The past two weeks his statements and speeches have become more nuanced, and he is leveling with us. This is good. I think people will appreciate this and will be more willing to support him and believe him when they aren't hearing all this grand talk about the WOT, etc.
Unfortunately I haven't even listened to a word he has said in any of these speeches. I have heard that he is being more forthcoming, but I have no faith in him at all. He lives in another world. At this point, and especially after the double punch of Katrina plus Harriet, I think he has made too many bad mistakes to be trusted. In the long run, we are in Iraq, and as much as I hate it, we will stay there in our military bases. I hate that every time the President or anyone in his administration opens their mouths we have to categorize each statement as BS or Not BS. I don't agree that we will look back in a decade and say that it was a great idea to invade a sovereign country in order to change their govt. And sadly, none of it was worth it. We will leave them with a fractured state dominated by religous zealots and held together by the presence of the US military. They have far more than 30,000 dead. Just counting reported Iraqi deaths, it's way over 100,000. I heard the guy who is the world's expert on counting civilian war casualties describing his methodology and it was sound. Let's not forget that the Iraqi institutions we have fostered are torturing prisoners, that there are terrible pictures we have not seen yet of Abu Ghraib, and that we are illegally transferring prisoners around the world in order to stay as close as humanly possible to the knife-edge of the law.
Delta
12-15-2005, 12:00 PM
Pocket - I figured out a long time ago that you are going to be very doom and gloom about all of this no matter what, so I am not even going to attempt to change your mind, because I know it's pointless. Time will tell though.
udsweetpea
12-15-2005, 12:07 PM
Pocket - I figured out a long time ago that you are going to be very doom and gloom about all of this no matter what, so I am not even going to attempt to change your mind, because I know it's pointless. Time will tell though.
Well, that's how most Democrats feel about Republicans.
dionysia
12-15-2005, 12:09 PM
Well, that's how most Democrats feel about Republicans.:rolleyes:
Di
pocket
12-15-2005, 12:10 PM
pocket - Those democracy programs are absolutely fantastic when used in the right places - I agree 100% and have friends who have participated in them. But you KNOW they would never work in a place like Iraq with Saddam as a dictator. Are you kidding? I think now that is something we can (and are) using, but it would have been impossible with Saddam there.
Delta,
It's wrong to invade another country to make them have the sort of government you want them to have. convincing is one thing, and forcing is another thing entirely. We currently fund effective democracy programs in many single-party states. If we wanted to build a democratic revolution in the middle east we should have started in Saudi Arabia or Egypt. This is, in my opinion, the death of neoconservatism as an ideology.
pocket
12-15-2005, 12:16 PM
Pocket - I figured out a long time ago that you are going to be very doom and gloom about all of this no matter what, so I am not even going to attempt to change your mind, because I know it's pointless. Time will tell though.
Delta, you make it sound like there's no reason to be doom and gloom about the war in iraq or the debacle of corruption that is the republican party. the pay to play has reached insane levels with lobbyists and journalists who do not play routinely shut out of power and access. the unbelievably partisan redistricting of texas in violation of the voting rights act. the torture stuff is real and it's horrible and it's on the hands of the bush administration. it really isn't politics as usual, it's a whole different animal.
ETA - actually one of the saddest things that has happened in this administration that very rarely gets recognized is how long time civil servants have been fired, forced to retire, quit because they couldn't stand it anymore and moved to busy work.
LyLMyssChaos
12-15-2005, 12:16 PM
Delta,
It's wrong to invade another country to make them have the sort of government you want them to have. convincing is one thing, and forcing is another thing entirely. We currently fund effective democracy programs in many single-party states. If we wanted to build a democratic revolution in the middle east we should have started in Saudi Arabia or Egypt. This is, in my opinion, the death of neoconservatism as an ideology.
How are we making them have the sort of government we want them to have when they are setting up their own government? They are holding their own elections, with their own candidates. It's not like we are nominating Americans to run their country or something.
pocket
12-15-2005, 12:29 PM
How are we making them have the sort of government we want them to have when they are setting up their own government? They are holding their own elections, with their own candidates. It's not like we are nominating Americans to run their country or something.
???
Eh?
If we hadn't invaded their country, they would still have their single-party govt. I'm not saying that a good sort of govt, but lots of countries have single-party govts and human rights abuses and we don't invade them. Singapore, Pakistan and Egypt spring instantly to mind.
udsweetpea
12-15-2005, 12:29 PM
:rolleyes:
Di
Can you explain the rolleyes smiley?
LyLMyssChaos
12-15-2005, 12:34 PM
???
Eh?
If we hadn't invaded their country, they would still have their single-party govt. I'm not saying that a good sort of govt, but lots of countries have single-party govts and human rights abuses and we don't invade them. Singapore, Pakistan and Egypt spring instantly to mind.
And perhaps we just haven't gotten to those countries yet? I really don't know, but what I do know is that the Iraqi's really don't seem too upset about the ability to vote and actually have a choice in who they vote for. I can't imagine someone being upset about being able to choose who their leaders are, rather than having them put in place by overthrowing the current government.
pocket
12-15-2005, 12:38 PM
And perhaps we just haven't gotten to those countries yet? I really don't know, but what I do know is that the Iraqi's really don't seem too upset about the ability to vote and actually have a choice in who they vote for. I can't imagine someone being upset about being able to choose who their leaders are, rather than having them put in place by overthrowing the current government.
No, I don't think the Iraqis are upset about voting. But overall if I were Iraqi, I would feel that more bad things had happened as a result of the US invasion than good things. Perhaps you would feel differently.
I'm not really sure what you are getting at with the idea that we are going to go around the world invading other countries to change their govts. I dont' think that's what we are going to do. Invade Singapore? I just think that's crazy. Why would we invade Singapore? Pakistan are our BFF's and Egypt gets more US aid than any other coutryt beside Israel.
And perhaps we just haven't gotten to those countries yet?
well, when it is in our "economic best interest" to do so, we will.
Ebaskio
12-15-2005, 12:39 PM
ABC News Poll: 70% of Iraqis, "Life Is Good"
http://abcnews.go.com/International/PollVault/story?id=1389228
Interesting huh?;)
Is this thread about religion?
Not that I'm aware of - is it worth me turning off "ignore" on a couple folks to find out? Or is that bit not really on topic?
there are countries with even worse human rights violations than iraq. in pakistan, they allow women to be stoned for supposedly committing adultery when in fact they were raped. if a male has committed a crime, they will punish him by having his sister gang raped. as settlements to law suits, they daughters are offered as a form of payment, and they are still children. these are courts making legal rulings.
also, pakistan frequently commits acts of terrorism in india.
alisong
12-15-2005, 12:44 PM
And perhaps we just haven't gotten to those countries yet? I really don't know, but what I do know is that the Iraqi's really don't seem too upset about the ability to vote and actually have a choice in who they vote for. I can't imagine someone being upset about being able to choose who their leaders are, rather than having them put in place by overthrowing the current government.
I posted this way back when we'd just invaded Iraq. A friend from Zimbabwe (a country with a brutal dictator and plentiful human rights abuses), who's no fan of the current government liked to quote the following to me:
"We have the right to misgovern ourselves."
It would drive me crazy! But we could help you! "We have the right to misgovern ourselves."
southerner
12-15-2005, 12:45 PM
there's been another thread started about religion here. (http://www.constantchatter.com/showthread.php?t=12540)
LMC, trying hard to get them to create that Religion/Spirituality forum you requested ;)
very doom and gloom about all of this no matter what
They have far more than 30,000 dead. Just counting reported Iraqi deaths, it's way over 100,000.
that's more than just gloom and doom, it is a sorrowful reality.
Not sure what you mean by this, but your question is a total hypothetical so I can't really answer it. If you think they really 'knew' there weren't WMD, well, I just disagree 100%.
Well, a few months ago, I wonder, or a few years ago, if someone had said, "what if the intelligence were all wrong, hypothetically?" would you have had an answer? Or declined to answer a hypotheical?
But now, it's not only wrong, but proven so irrefutably that a few months later, the government notices officially in a statment from Bush. Not so hypothetical anymore.
So I guess I don't get how any of them knowing it was false from the get go (never mind the plans on the internet published in the late 90s with an eye towards invading Iraq and still available today on their own website) is so outrageoulsy hypothetical as to be unanswerable.
Foreign and military policy is not formed in a vacuum. You can't apply the same strategy to every dictatorship or problem country. You are smart enough to recognize this, I think.
I think at this juncture it was formed in a vacuum. Not to nitipick the point, but I didn't say invade all those countries, toppling could mean assassination, running them out of the country, dropping American dollars and porn in the streets - I don't know. Invading them, forcing them to convert, whatever it was some of those "Lake Afghanistaners" had in mind ... I'm not in the regime toppling industry or hobby - we've got enough to undo here at home with the Police State Act up for renewal today.
As for the why Iraq question - I think the president has answered that about 1,345,693 times. ;)
Ick - okay, I'll go digging and see if I can find it. All I've ever heard was "9/11" and "WMD".
Emilie
12-15-2005, 01:15 PM
ABC News Poll: 70% of Iraqis, "Life Is Good"
http://abcnews.go.com/International/PollVault/story?id=1389228
Interesting huh?;)
Perhaps you should read the whole poll, it isn't quite as rosy as that one stat would have you believe. Only 44% said that life in Iraq was good. Less than 1/2 the poll responses indicated that life is better now than before the war! Half the country says it was better off under Sadaam than under Bush!
The level of confidence in US/UK forces? 18% Yep, we won the hearts and minds of those folks!
LittleFredPunkinHead
12-15-2005, 01:19 PM
ABC News Poll: 70% of Iraqis, "Life Is Good"
http://abcnews.go.com/International/PollVault/story?id=1389228
Interesting huh?;)
Did you read that whole article?
Fewer than half, 46 percent, say the country is better off now than it was before the war. And half of Iraqis now say it was wrong for U.S.-led forces to invade in spring 2003, up from 39 percent in 2004.
The number of Iraqis who say things are going well in their country overall is just 44 percent, far fewer than the 71 percent who say their own lives are going well. Fifty-two percent instead say the country is doing badly.
There's other evidence of the United States' increasing unpopularity: Two-thirds now oppose the presence of U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq, 14 points higher than in February 2004. Nearly six in 10 disapprove of how the United States has operated in Iraq since the war, and most of them disapprove strongly. And nearly half of Iraqis would like to see U.S. forces leave soon.
And I have to wonder, where all they are polling? Seeing as how much of Iraq is considered unsafe for journalists.
ETA: Cross-posted with Emilie! :)
pocket
12-15-2005, 02:12 PM
Boy that doom and gloom comment really got under my skin. I had to double check with several RL friends to make sure others don’t think I have been way too pessimistic about the Iraq war. I actually think I’ve been right about a lot of things about this war, from the very beginning. Of the two of us, Delta, I made the more accurate predictions of how this war would go. Just reminding, because what good is being right if you can’t say I told you so?
Anyway, rebjc I can’t imagine why you say we don’t agree about anything. I think we agree about a lot of things.
I have to agree with Emilie and LF that those poll numbers aren't exactly supporting your argument. the opposite, actually.
Anyway, rebjc I can’t imagine why you say we don’t agree about anything. I think we agree about a lot of things.
we don't agree on giving money to relatives and maybe one of the "heated" child raising threads, but it seems to be that we agree on a political level. :D
dionysia
12-15-2005, 02:27 PM
Can you explain the rolleyes smiley?You have to ask?
How about your generalization here:
Originally Posted by Delta
Pocket - I figured out a long time ago that you are going to be very doom and gloom about all of this no matter what, so I am not even going to attempt to change your mind, because I know it's pointless. Time will tell though.
Originally posted by udsweetpea:
Well, that's how most Democrats feel about Republicans.
Di
Ebaskio
12-15-2005, 03:08 PM
Perhaps you should read the whole poll, it isn't quite as rosy as that one stat would have you believe. Only 44% said that life in Iraq was good. Less than 1/2 the poll responses indicated that life is better now than before the war! Half the country says it was better off under Sadaam than under Bush!
I don't think that the Iraqis wanting the US out is bad - it shows they want to move on and govern their country. It's what we WANT them to do, take control and we get to leave while they stand on their own.
While some of the basics of modern life worked under Saddam, he would turn them on and off on a whim. If a segment of his country was getting uppity, he'd shut down their water and power. If they continued to get uppity, he'd gas them.
Yeah, they were much better off. :rolleyes:
When you've lived your entire life in constant fear, it's probably very difficult to adjust to a life where you have some choice and don't have to worry about your wife, daughter or sons being drug from your home in the middle of the night to be raped, tortured and killed. It probably takes many people quite a while to overcome that level of mistrust, especially when all they've ever heard was "the US is evil" from a man they hated and were forced to worship.
Emilie
12-15-2005, 03:38 PM
I never said they were better off - THEY are saying they were better off - read the poll you posted. And I am well aware of what Saddam did to the people of Iraq. He was a mad man, he was cruel and he was purely evil. But what does it say that 1/2 the country said they were better off WITH him versus us being there?
pocket
12-15-2005, 03:52 PM
Iraqis are still being dragged from their homes in the middle of the night to be tortured and killed. Only now it’s by American soldiers or Iraqis led by Americans. So in one way you are right, their lives have improved as rape is less of an issue. Of course rape is always more of an issue in times of civil disorder, so maybe it’s all evened out. If my viewpoint is too dismal, yours is irresponsibly sunny.
udsweetpea
12-15-2005, 05:55 PM
You have to ask?
How about your generalization here:
Di
That's why I used "most". I remember last year during the elections over in WC there was a debate about how neither party could talk any sense into the other. I think many people said they felt like they were talking to sheep because no one changes their mind when it comes to politics.
But really though, using the rolling eyes smiley with no explanation is quite immature.
Delta
12-15-2005, 06:27 PM
That's why I used "most". I remember last year during the elections over in WC there was a debate about how neither party could talk any sense into the other. I think many people said they felt like they were talking to sheep because no one changes their mind when it comes to politics.
To clarify, I by no means think Pocket is a 'sheep.'
(Mynn, I'll be back to respond. ;) )
dionysia
12-16-2005, 07:12 AM
But really though, using the rolling eyes smiley with no explanation is quite immature.Mr. Pot? It's Mr. Kettle on Line 1!
Di
udsweetpea
12-16-2005, 08:42 AM
Mr. Pot? It's Mr. Kettle on Line 1!
Di
So what exactly makes me immature? I'm dying to know.
batgirl
12-16-2005, 08:45 AM
So what exactly makes me immature? I'm dying to know.
Because you sleep with a stuffed elephant! ;)
ETA: oops! does my use of the winking smilie make me immature also? Know that I'm asking this in my most whiniest voice!
dionysia
12-16-2005, 08:53 AM
So what exactly makes me immature? I'm dying to know.Predictability in responses, for one.
Sweeping generalizations, check.
Di
udsweetpea
12-16-2005, 08:58 AM
Predictability in responses, for one.
Maybe because I don't change my mind in my views, so why would my responses to certain things be different
Sweeping generalizations, check.
About Democrats feeling the same way about Republicans? There was a thread about this on WC last year around the election. I've explained this before. Neither party can influence the other to sway from their political affiliations. It's like talking to a brick wall.
But these things make me immature??? I guess I'll have to look up on Webster's and make sure my definition isn't outdated.
udsweetpea
12-16-2005, 08:59 AM
Because you sleep with a stuffed elephant! ;)
ETA: oops! does my use of the winking smilie make me immature also? Know that I'm asking this in my most whiniest voice!
Aww... poor Ella! She'd be so lonely without me ;) And no, the winky smiley does not make someone immature. I cannot stand the rolling eyes smiley. I think its ridiculous. Would you really roll your eyes at someone in real life right in their face?
batgirl
12-16-2005, 10:01 AM
Would you really roll your eyes at someone in real life right in their face?
Good point.
Sorry for the confusion...
pocket
12-16-2005, 10:18 AM
BAA Humbug! That’s me!
Maybe I need a new avatar…?
http://www.avatarity.com/avatars/12/126/12662.gif
Delta
12-16-2005, 07:50 PM
Well, a few months ago, I wonder, or a few years ago, if someone had said, "what if the intelligence were all wrong, hypothetically?" would you have had an answer? Or declined to answer a hypotheical?
But now, it's not only wrong, but proven so irrefutably that a few months later, the government notices officially in a statment from Bush. Not so hypothetical anymore.
So I guess I don't get how any of them knowing it was false from the get go (never mind the plans on the internet published in the late 90s with an eye towards invading Iraq and still available today on their own website) is so outrageoulsy hypothetical as to be unanswerable.
Mynn, sometimes your posts are just...not completely clear, to me at least. And I have to read them 5 times. ;)
The fact that there were "plans" out there before the invasion means what? It's no secret the neocons wanted to get rid of Saddam as early as the mid '90's. But how does that translate into them knowing he had no WMD?
I think at this juncture it was formed in a vacuum. Not to nitipick the point, but I didn't say invade all those countries, toppling could mean assassination, running them out of the country, dropping American dollars and porn in the streets - I don't know. Invading them, forcing them to convert, whatever it was some of those "Lake Afghanistaners" had in mind ... I'm not in the regime toppling industry or hobby - we've got enough to undo here at home with the Police State Act up for renewal today.
I know you didn't say invade all those countries. But the point still stands - they all require different policies - military, economic, diplomatic, etc.
Ick - okay, I'll go digging and see if I can find it. All I've ever heard was "9/11" and "WMD". He's always talked about the broader implications of a democratic Iraq and ME.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030226-11.html
Success in Iraq could also begin a new stage for Middle Eastern peace, and set in motion progress towards a truly democratic Palestinian state. (Applause.) The passing of Saddam Hussein's regime will deprive terrorist networks of a wealthy patron that pays for terrorist training, and offers rewards to families of suicide bombers. And other regimes will be given a clear warning that support for terror will not be tolerated. (Applause.)
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/11/20031106-2.html
Yet there's a great challenge today in the Middle East. In the words of a recent report by Arab scholars, the global wave of democracy has -- and I quote -- "barely reached the Arab states." They continue: "This freedom deficit undermines human development and is one of the most painful manifestations of lagging political development." The freedom deficit they describe has terrible consequences, of the people of the Middle East and for the world. In many Middle Eastern countries, poverty is deep and it is spreading, women lack rights and are denied schooling. Whole societies remain stagnant while the world moves ahead. These are not the failures of a culture or a religion. These are the failures of political and economic doctrines.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html
And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country -- your enemy is ruling your country. (Applause.) And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. (Applause.)
In a nutshell, Iraq is/was unique because of its geographical location, the background of the Iraqi people, its oil interests, and Saddam's perceived threat and 9/11.
Delta
12-16-2005, 07:56 PM
Iraqis are still being dragged from their homes in the middle of the night to be tortured and killed. Only now it’s by American soldiers or Iraqis led by Americans. Can you cite a source for this?
Delta
12-16-2005, 08:22 PM
Ugh, I don't want to cut and paste all of your comments and all of that business, pocket. In some respects, yes, you were right about some things. But it's not over yet. Both of our political biases color how we see this, no doubt. But, were you with Kerry et al when they predicted/proclaimed that the elections last January wouldn't happen? (I don't know if you were, I'm just using him as an example.) So many naysayers have been proven wrong, and are being proven wrong. Bush has always taken the long view of this, and has said it is going to take time (years) and sacrifice from the American people, and be believed we were tough enough to deal with it. I believe we are, but we cannot give up prematurely. Thankfully we have a president who is not prone to giving up. I shudder to think how things would be right now were Kerry president.
I feel like you really don't give enough credence to the good things that are happening there, like the election yesterday, nor do you seem to have much faith in the Iraqi people's willingness/desire/ability to form a sustaining democracy. If this happens, the war will have been a success. It was a gamble on Bush's part and mistakes were made, but no war is mistake free. Really, it was a choice I think he had to make.
Regina Phalange
12-16-2005, 09:53 PM
I shudder to think how things would be right now were Kerry president.
I shudder at the thought of how things ARE.
pocket
12-17-2005, 07:55 AM
Can you cite a source for this?
Well presumably that's how they got to Abu Ghraib or the horrible Iraqi run prison in the first place.
No, I wasn't saying the elections would never happen. I'm not saying they aren't doing anything at all over in Iraq. I'm saying that 1) they haven't done a very good job, and that 2) it's really not worth it to me in terms of US soldiers lives, tax dollars, and priorities. this doesn't and never did rise to a level requiring invasion to sort it out. that should have been a last resort.
I mean, it's great that Iraq is going to have a democratically elected govt. I just think if that was all this was about we could have done it another way.
pocket
12-17-2005, 08:12 AM
i don't know, delta. Overall, the naysayers have been right about almost everything, and the Administration has turned out to be wrong about almost everything. I can't think of one major thing about Iraq that turned out to be right.
Witty Username
12-17-2005, 10:19 AM
I feel like you really don't give enough credence to the good things that are happening there, like the election yesterday, nor do you seem to have much faith in the Iraqi people's willingness/desire/ability to form a sustaining democracy.
I have a hard time calling any election in which candidates were murdered a success.
Delta
12-17-2005, 10:55 AM
I have a hard time calling any election in which candidates were murdered a success.
Interesting, because pretty much everyone who has been covering Iraq has said clearly that it was a success, and a big step forward.
Does anyone here know anyone who is serving in Iraq? One of my best friends is. And I can tell you that he's not dragging people out of their homes in the middle of the night to torture and murder them. I can tell you about weapon caches he's found in homes and all the people who thanked him for making sure they safely made it to their polling place. It hasn't been all rosy for him, but he's not killing people at random.
We're in Iraq. Why not focus on what can be done now instead of continuing to argue about a decision that was made years ago? We can't change that decision.
yes, my bil has gone to iraq many times.
a lot of the stuff they do over there is top secret, so just because there are no reports of abuses going on doesn't mean that it doesn't happen.
i meant to post this in this thread, but posted it in the other thread.
if his motive was to spread democracy and fight for civil rights, i can think of a few other countries where our time and money might have been better spent. hmmmmm....come to think of it, maybe, our own country.
do you think it's right that children in our own country have to witness people being shot in their own neighborhoods when they are playing at recess? do you think it is right that we have one of the highest murder rates of any developing country? do you think its right that not all children in america are offered an equal education? do you think its right that hard working american citizens get less health care than able bodied people who don't work? do you think its right that babies are born with aids? do you think its right that we have an embarrassing illiteracy rate in our country? do you think its right that some people are afraid to walk in their own neighborhoods after dark? do you think its right that we are supporting a country that most like harbors the proven terrorist - osama bin laden? do you think its right that our airport security is still below standard?
there's a lot of ways that money in iraq could have been used to help our own country
I know that we will never know everything that happens over there. But that goes both ways. It will never fully be known what our troops are doing, but we will also never fully know what the other side is doing.
I'm just tired of people, on both sides, arguing over why we went there, if we should be there. Let's focus on what to do NOW.
i meant to post this in this thread, but posted it in the other thread.
if his motive was to spread democracy and fight for civil rights, i can think of a few other countries where our time and money might have been better spent. hmmmmm....come to think of it, maybe, our own country.
do you think it's right that children in our own country have to witness people being shot in their own neighborhoods when they are playing at recess? do you think it is right that we have one of the highest murder rates of any developing country? do you think its right that not all children in america are offered an equal education? do you think its right that hard working american citizens get less health care than able bodied people who don't work? do you think its right that babies are born with aids? do you think its right that we have an embarrassing illiteracy rate in our country? do you think its right that some people are afraid to walk in their own neighborhoods after dark? do you think its right that we are supporting a country that most like harbors the proven terrorist - osama bin laden? do you think its right that our airport security is still below standard?
there's a lot of ways that money in iraq could have been used to help our own country
Do you acknowledge that these same things were going on during previous administrations of both parties?
Do you acknowledge that these same things were going on during previous administrations of both parties?
yes, i didn't say that the current administration caused them. i said that the money used for iraq could have been used to help the people of our own country.
I'm just tired of people, on both sides, arguing over why we went there, if we should be there. Let's focus on what to do NOW.
the best way to prevent future mistakes is to acknowledge past mistakes. isn't that what historians try to do too by examining the causes past events?
udsweetpea
12-17-2005, 01:08 PM
Does anyone here know anyone who is serving in Iraq? One of my best friends is. And I can tell you that he's not dragging people out of their homes in the middle of the night to torture and murder them. I can tell you about weapon caches he's found in homes and all the people who thanked him for making sure they safely made it to their polling place. It hasn't been all rosy for him, but he's not killing people at random.
Not to discount your friends tales of Iraq, but do you think he would tell you if he was killing people?
My brother was in Navy Intelligence over in Iraq and can't say a single peep about anything he knows.
Yes, he has killed people over there. He is in a very high-level position and I realize that I will never know everything he is doing. But I do know that he is not randomly killing people for kicks.
IrisHope
12-17-2005, 01:18 PM
Doesn't change my opinion on things. I still think that what we are doing is for good reason, even if he was misinformed in the beginning. What are we supposed to do now, say "oh we're sorry, here have back your evil dictator?"
Nope. We need to finish what we started, and I think it would be crazy to stop before there is any sort of completion.
and here I was thinking that we were the ones with the evil dictator.
Delta
12-17-2005, 06:45 PM
Does anyone here know anyone who is serving in Iraq? One of my best friends is. And I can tell you that he's not dragging people out of their homes in the middle of the night to torture and murder them. I can tell you about weapon caches he's found in homes and all the people who thanked him for making sure they safely made it to their polling place. It hasn't been all rosy for him, but he's not killing people at random.
We're in Iraq. Why not focus on what can be done now instead of continuing to argue about a decision that was made years ago? We can't change that decision.
Agreed and I've heard the same thing!
I have 3 friends who have been over there at some point in the past 3 years. One of them, an Army officer, said they often went into peoples homes while they were sleeping without waking them to scope out weapons and evidence of insurgents. They don't want to hurt the people at all, they just want to find contraband.
Delta
12-17-2005, 06:46 PM
Not to discount your friends tales of Iraq, but do you think he would tell you if he was killing people?
My brother was in Navy Intelligence over in Iraq and can't say a single peep about anything he knows.
But if he was in intelligence I hope he doesn't talk about it, especially to the New York Times!
(And my friend does say that he killed people. Namely, insurgents in Fallujah.)
Mynn, sometimes your posts are just...not completely clear, to me at least. And I have to read them 5 times. ;) [/quote]
I know, and sometimes the harder I try, the worse it gets.
The fact that there were "plans" out there before the invasion means what? It's no secret the neocons wanted to get rid of Saddam as early as the mid '90's. But how does that translate into them knowing he had no WMD?
Yes, I think invading has been a plan for along time, 9/11 didn't quite give them an excuse, but gave them a culture of fear and terror to make the manufacture of WMD 'information' plausible.
I know you didn't say invade all those countries. But the point still stands - they all require different policies - military, economic, diplomatic, etc.
And the number one way to solve Iraq was invasion? And Iraq was so bad (look at Iran!) that it was priority number one? Children are being pressed into military service in other countries, kidnaped in, and Iraq was more of a 'threat' with their real or imagined WMD?
He's always talked about the broader implications of a democratic Iraq and ME.
Okay, so I heard that, and figured it was a cover - like a, oh, we invaded, well, um, hang on *shuffles papers* "Here's why!"
I'm sure glad you understand him - I certainly don't.
In a nutshell, Iraq is/was unique because of its geographical location, the background of the Iraqi people, its oil interests, and Saddam's perceived threat and 9/11.
Geo location - cobbled together out of previous wars, with lots of oil available.
Background - yeah, a bit unique
Oil interests - probably a very main reason to be there
Saddam's percieved threat - Weapons of Mass Distraction
9/11 - Whoops, he changed his tune on that one:
Whachoo Talkin' 'bout, Willis? (http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2005-12-16T211416Z_01_KNE676438_RTRUKOC_0_US-BUSH-IRAQ.xml&archived=False)
"There was no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the attack of 9/11," Bush said. "I've never said that and never made that case prior to going into Iraq."
Does anyone here know anyone who is serving in Iraq?
Not anymore. Got his very own little 3' X 6' plot of land back home, now.
flygirl
12-18-2005, 07:52 AM
Does anyone here know anyone who is serving in Iraq? One of my best friends is. And I can tell you that he's not dragging people out of their homes in the middle of the night to torture and murder them. I can tell you about weapon caches he's found in homes and all the people who thanked him for making sure they safely made it to their polling place. It hasn't been all rosy for him, but he's not killing people at random.I admit I haven't caught up on the last few pages, so I apologize if this has already been said.
Everyone can come up with an anecdote of five of all the wonderful/horrible things that US soldiers are doing in Iraq. Last weekend, there was a very good, very balanced documentary on CNN, with reporters sharing stories of Iraq. I didn't see the whole thing, but much of what I did see was very hopeful. One reporter told the story of a school that was used as a polling place earlier this year. They were terrified it would come under attack and children would be killed, but under Iraqi & international guidance, everything went smoothly, and it is still a vibrant school. On the flip side, the teacher speaks of fearing for her life every single day, traveling to and from school. There was a story about a man who's entire family had been killed by US soliders as they were fleeing insurgents. The wife survived the initial attack on the car & ran toward the soldiers, begging them to stop shooting. They shot her dead.
My point is that no matter what soldier-friends might tell you, there ARE soldiers doing horrific things in Iraq, just as there are soldiers doing much good. We need to accept that broad picture. Are there more good than bad? More importantly, even if there are more good than bad, are there enough bad things to turn our presence into a negative?
Delta
12-18-2005, 06:36 PM
I think the President said it better than I did. A defeatist attitude is exactly what I get from many people here.
From his speech tonight:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/18/bush.transcript/
Yet there is a difference between honest critics who recognize what is wrong, and defeatists who refuse to see that anything is right.
Defeatism may have its partisan uses, but it is not justified by the facts. For every scene of destruction in Iraq, there are more scenes of rebuilding and hope. For every life lost, there are countless more lives reclaimed. And for every terrorist working to stop freedom in Iraq, there are many more Iraqis and Americans working to defeat them. My fellow citizens: not only can we win the war in Iraq -- we are winning the war in Iraq.
I also want to speak to those of you who did not support my decision to send troops to Iraq: I have heard your disagreement, and I know how deeply it is felt.
Yet now there are only two options before our country -- victory or defeat. And the need for victory is larger than any president or political party, because the security of our people is in the balance. I do not expect you to support everything I do, but tonight I have a request: do not give in to despair, and do not give up on this fight for freedom.
Delta
12-18-2005, 07:13 PM
I'd post the entire speech but it's too long. It was a good one. Here are other good parts, IMHO.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/print/20051218-2.html
This election will not mean the end of violence. But it is the beginning of something new: constitutional democracy at the heart of the Middle East. And this vote - 6,000 miles away, in a vital region of the world - means that America has an ally of growing strength in the fight against terror.
All who had a part in this achievement - Iraqis, Americans, and Coalition partners - can be proud. Yet our work is not done. There is more testing and sacrifice before us. I know many Americans have questions about the cost and direction of this war. So tonight I want to talk to you about how far we have come in Iraq, and the path that lies ahead.
But much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong. And as your President, I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq.
Yet it was right to remove Saddam Hussein from power. He was given an ultimatum - and he made his choice for war. And the result of that war was to rid the world of a murderous dictator who menaced his people, invaded his neighbors, and declared America to be his enemy. Saddam Hussein, captured and jailed, is still the same raging tyrant - only now without a throne. His power to harm a single man, woman, or child is gone forever. And the world is better for it.
Some look at the challenges in Iraq, and conclude that the war is lost, and not worth another dime or another day. I don't believe that. Our military commanders do not believe that. Our troops in the field, who bear the burden and make the sacrifice, do not believe that America has lost. And not even the terrorists believe it. We know from their own communications that they feel a tightening noose - and fear the rise of a democratic Iraq.
The terrorists will continue to have the coward's power to plant roadside bombs and recruit suicide bombers. And you will continue to see the grim results on the evening news. This proves that the war is difficult - it does not mean that we are losing. Behind the images of chaos that terrorists create for the cameras, we are making steady gains with a clear objective in view.
America, our Coalition, and Iraqi leaders are working toward the same goal - a democratic Iraq that can defend itself, that will never again be a safe haven for terrorists and that will serve as a model of freedom for the Middle East.
In all three aspects of our strategy - security, democracy, and reconstruction - we have learned from our experiences, and fixed what has not worked. We will continue to listen to honest criticism, and make every change that will help us complete the mission. Yet there is a difference between honest critics who recognize what is wrong, and defeatists who refuse to see that anything is right.
We are approaching a New Year, and there are certain things all Americans can expect to see. We will see more sacrifice - from our military, their families, and the Iraqi people. We will see a concerted effort to improve Iraqi police forces and fight corruption. We will see the Iraqi military gaining strength and confidence, and the democratic process moving forward. As these achievements come, it should require fewer American troops to accomplish our mission. I will make decisions on troop levels based on the progress we see on the ground and the advice of our military leaders - not based on artificial timetables set by politicians in Washington. Our forces in Iraq are on the road to victory - and that is the road that will take them home.
Americans can expect some things of me as well. My most solemn responsibility is to protect our Nation, and that requires me to make some tough decisions. I see the consequences of those decisions when I meet wounded servicemen and women who cannot leave their hospital beds, but summon the strength to look me in the eye and say they would do it all over again. I see the consequences when I talk to parents who miss a child so much - but tell me he loved being a soldier, he believed in his mission ... and Mr. President, finish the job.
I know that some of my decisions have led to terrible loss - and not one of those decisions has been taken lightly. I know this war is controversial - yet being your President requires doing what I believe is right and accepting the consequences. And I have never been more certain that America's actions in Iraq are essential to the security of our citizens, and will lay the foundation of peace for our children and grandchildren.
cocopops
12-18-2005, 07:55 PM
Does anyone here know anyone who is serving in Iraq?
DH was stationed in Iraq, and I have a best friend stationed out there not to mention I know at least 2 or 3 dozen others who have served or who are currently serving since the war has started. I also work for The Department of Veteran Affairs and deal with combat vets.
OFF TOPIC sort of kind of...
Today I went to finish up my Christmas shopping and parked next to a vehicle that had a remembrance sticker of the dates of a Marine who was killed in Action (Iraqi War) and the years read from 1986 to 2005. 1986!!! If that is not a wake up call I have no idea what the hell is :(
LittleFredPunkinHead
12-19-2005, 09:37 PM
A defeatist attitude. Hum. I think sometimes people who are overly optimistic can mistake a realistic attitude for a defeatist attitude.
Oh, Delta, he's bailing his sinking rowboat as fast as he can. He's admitted to worse than Nixon ever did, he's hollering at a few stupidiotds who think we should just take this giganto mess we should have never made and run away and trying to paint it like all of us think that way ...
He's still trying to justify removing the dictator his country, his father, helped support*. He's trying to justify taking UN business into his own hands and blowing billions of dollars away and a hundred thousand lives away ...
Disingenously calling anything he doesn't agree with dishonest and partisan; saying there is only victory or defeat, without defining what either are. He waves around weasel words about Iraq's security and other bullshit - it's like the war on drugs. The corporations win when we funnel money into it for decades or centuries. Makes for good propoganda, but that's about it.
The newly declassified US intelligence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War)(SNIE 34/36.2-82 available at http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB167/) which explores both the domestic and foreign implications of Iran's apparent (in 1982) victory over Iraq in their then two-year old war shows how US was behind the prolonged conflict to keep Iran from winning the war for numerous reasons which were against the interests of the US.
I'm really sorry you feel this way, hon. I was hoping ... maybe I was missing something. Some key points that all his handlers in the world was somehow not getting across to people - that this war was necessary other than financially, that maybe there really were WMD and they aren't lying and actually did give all information to the senate and house as they claim, that they aren't lying and actually did fully brief members of congress fully on this domestic tapping (every one I've heard speak says that's not true, they were given summaries and some only heard of this a couple months ago, not all along).
I keep hoping I'm missing something, I keep hoping maybe you or someone knows what it is.
I guess not.
Delta
12-20-2005, 07:45 AM
Mynn, thank you for your sympathies. ;)
Seriously though, I don't know what I could really say to give you the insight you are looking for. You either trust the president or you don't - and that's what ALL of this comes down to in the end.
I guess so. I don't trust him. He's never given a single reason for me to do so. When I can't go on trust, I go on facts. Can't find any.
Delta
12-20-2005, 11:41 AM
I guess so. I don't trust him. He's never given a single reason for me to do so. When I can't go on trust, I go on facts. Can't find any.
Mynn, there are plenty of facts right there in front of you. If you don't choose to see them, or take them at face value, then I can't help you. I also find it interesting that based on your posts you seem to place more credence in conspiracy theories and rhetoric than facts.
He's always talked about the broader implications of a democratic Iraq and ME.
Okay, so I heard that, and figured it was a cover - like a, oh, we invaded, well, um, hang on *shuffles papers* "Here's why!"
I'm sure glad you understand him - I certainly don't.
In a nutshell, Iraq is/was unique because of its geographical location, the background of the Iraqi people, its oil interests, and Saddam's perceived threat and 9/11.
Geo location - cobbled together out of previous wars, with lots of oil available.
Background - yeah, a bit unique
Oil interests - probably a very main reason to be there
Saddam's percieved threat - Weapons of Mass Distraction
9/11 - Whoops, he changed his tune on that one:
Whachoo Talkin' 'bout, Willis? (http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2005-12-16T211416Z_01_KNE676438_RTRUKOC_0_US-BUSH-IRAQ.xml&archived=False)
"There was no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the attack of 9/11," Bush said. "I've never said that and never made that case prior to going into Iraq."
The fact that his country and his father, through the offices of the Vice Presidency and possibly during his tenure in the CIA helped put and keep Saddam in power?
The fact that he decided to seize the opportunity of 9/11 to go off and randomly invade one of the many countries violating UN policies and sanctions just because he could call it "the war on terror"?
I'm not sure how declassified government documents showing the contributions we made to help Saddam keep power is consipiracy theory.
I'm not sure how being upset at secret wiretaps that avoid all laws and protections created to not only protect us, but to protect Bush, is rhetoric. I'm not sure how being upset about the illegal survelling peace groups and spiriting enemy combatants off to secret prisons is rhetoric.
You're the one saying he screwed up, but trust him. I'm saying I see nothing I can trust.
If they really have outlined what victory and defeat are, please, edumacate me.
If they really did fully expose the survellience stuff to congress, please find a single congress person of either party who backs this up.
If they really did give all of the information on WMD to congress, please find a single congress person of either party who backs this up.
Delta
12-20-2005, 12:18 PM
The fact that his country and his father, through the offices of the Vice Presidency and possibly during his tenure in the CIA helped put and keep Saddam in power?What does this have to do with anything? I don't think anybody is disputing this. But I guess it sounds good to throw out there. It doesn't really mean anything in terms of dealing with Saddam now.
The fact that he decided to seize the opportunity of 9/11 to go off and randomly invade one of the many countries violating UN policies and sanctions just because he could call it "the war on terror"?
I have explained and the president has explained and plenty of explanation is out there for why he did what he did. You can disagree with it, but don't pretend it doesn't exist. It wasn't random, and wasn't 'just because'.
I'm not sure how declassified government documents showing the contributions we made to help Saddam keep power is consipiracy theory.The conspiracy theory is that is has anything to do with how we are handling Saddam now. I just don't understand the point to this point. It's true to a large extent, nobody is denying that. Ironic, even. But we still had to deal with the problem that was facing us.
You're the one saying he screwed up, but trust him. I'm saying I see nothing I can trust. He screwed up in that his hasn't done a good job in explaining and keeping Americans engaged and understanding in why we are doing what we are doing. In fact, I'd say he wasn't even around to do that the past year, or even 2 years. For some reason the past few weeks he's decided to come back and talk frankly. For this I am very glad. But if you are saying I am saying he screwed up in going into Iraq, I am not saying that. I also do not agree that he screwed up WRT WMD. He is responsible for the decision, yes, but he wasn't the one who was out there gathering the intel (that the CIA, FBI, UN and numerous other foreign intel agencies also had.)
If they really have outlined what victory and defeat are, please, edumacate me.They have never outlined a clear definition, which I understand, but I think you can safely say that a self-sustaining democracy in Iraq, along with a democratic transformation throughout the ME would be a clear success.
If they really did fully expose the survellience stuff to congress, please find a single congress person of either party who backs this up.About wiretapping? I doubt they did, but I really don't know.
If they really did give all of the information on WMD to congress, please find a single congress person of either party who backs this up.http://kyl.senate.gov/legis_center/rpc/rpc_030404.pdf
pocket
12-20-2005, 12:29 PM
He screwed up in that his hasn't done a good job in explaining and keeping Americans engaged and understanding in why we are doing what we are doing. In fact, I'd say he wasn't even around to do that the past year, or even 2 years. For some reason the past few weeks he's decided to come back and talk frankly. For this I am very glad.
I agree with this, actually. But I guess what I would like to know is on what planet does 2 weeks of pretty speeches make up for all of this? It's BS and there's no substance to it at all.
Delta
12-20-2005, 12:35 PM
He's pretty much let the Democrats define the debate and skew the facts for the past year. That's hurt him, it's hurt the country, and it's hurt the mission in Iraq. Coming back to the table to defend his policies, owning his decision even after the WMD mistakes, and owning the NSA deal is not just 'pretty speeches.' It's called leadership, and it's something the country hasn't had much from him in a while.
It's called leadership, and it's something the country hasn't had from him.
Slight edit, there. ;)
I think that we supported this jackass [Saddam] and now are knifing him in the back says a lot about this country and what our priorities are, and our place in the grand scheme of things. I think that we put supported this jackass and then told the UN to kiss our brass and went in anway says a lot about us to everyone who disagrees with us - be it the US or the "persons in positions of power" currently running the show.
The story before we went in was imminent danger from WMD. The story today is "whoops, sorry about that dear, no WMD, our bad on misinterpreting that, but we needed to force bad guy of the week out for um, democracy. Yeah." What's the story tomorrow, "Lied, well, um ..." unverified link - click at your own peril (http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Democrats_plan_sharp_rebuke_of_prewar_1219.html).
I don't think that we set Saddam up just to pull him down. I can't think of any other conspiracy you can think of out of my linking our support and attack on him. I'm pointing out that the republicans who have run this country have demonstrated a long history of setting up and knocking down leaderships as convenient, measured in money, oil, and other resources.
http://kyl.senate.gov/legis_center/rpc/rpc_030404.pdf
"largely the same information" is not "exactly the same information". It was also loaded with the bullshit stories about people who claimed to have participated in massive destruction movement and coverups of non-existent WMD, and the intelligence group's notes that this seemed spurious was not included.
Delta
12-20-2005, 01:36 PM
Mynn, I really don't think I can continue and intelligent conversation with you when you use terms like 'robber barons' to describe the Administration. It really makes me ask what the point is.
The story before we went in was imminent danger from WMD. The story today is "whoops, sorry about that dear, no WMD, our bad on misinterpreting that, but we needed to force bad guy of the week out for um, democracy. Yeah." What's the story tomorrow, "Lied, well, um ..." unverified link - click at your own peril.1. The link doesn't work.
2. As I posted way in the beginning of the thread, he has always talked about the neoconical reasons, even before the war.
I don't think that we set Saddam up just to pull him down. I can't think of any other conspiracy you can think of out of my linking our support and attack on him. I'm pointing out that the republicans who have run this country have demonstrated a long history of setting up and knocking down leaderships as convenient, measured in money, oil, and other resources.No doubt we have aided people and set up governments (for what seemed like legit reasons at the time) who have turned around to bite us in the butt. No doubt. And it's certainly not just Republican administrations, and not just the US that has done so, but many industrialized, Western nations.
Above edited to make the post more palatable.
Guido is blocking the link for me, so I can't check it. It is supposed to be a link to:
"The Constitution in Crisis: The Downing Street Minutes and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution and Coverups in the Iraq War."
Which is supposed to include copies of all the Downing Street minutes and correspondence.
Like I said, from "there are WMD and it's urgent, must act before it's imminent" to "oh, darn, it was all wrong!" to ....
Re: setting up bad guys we don't really trust to run countries that serve an economic interest to ourselves (or trading arms for hostages, or funding South American death squads) and then knocking them back down in the name of "security" or "terrorism cleaning" isn't something no one else has never done ... doesn't mean we should continue the trend.
Do I think Clinton, with the same fabrications the administration had, stripped of the "by the way, I think this guy is lying" info not there, would have gone to the UN and started hollering, or considered sending in an assasination team? Probably. He missed bin Laden by not much. But he didn't have the "omg urgent" stuff the administration was claiming as true that they were working with, to act on it.
Would I have wanted Clinton to go in on the same information presented to Congress and was true to Iraq with a coalition of who we got? Nope. Be a part of a UN-led something - maybe. Bush send troops, if the information that was presented to Congress was true with a coalition of who we got? Nope? Be part of a UN-led something, maybe.
No, it doesn't help that I don't like the Bush administration. But it doesn't help that it's all bluster and smoke and mirrors and lies as far as I can see.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
