Bush attacks critics claim pre-war intel was manipulated. Huge balls or delusional? [Archive]

Sam Stone

11-11-2005, 10:13 PM

Or maybe you've only been listening to one side of the argument. Here's another:

Who is Lying About Iraq? (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/Production/files/podhoretz1205advance.html)

The main “lie” that George W. Bush is accused of telling us is that Saddam Hussein possessed an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, or WMD as they have invariably come to be called. From this followed the subsidiary “lie” that Iraq under Saddam’s regime posed a two-edged mortal threat. On the one hand, we were informed, there was a distinct (or even “imminent”) possibility that Saddam himself would use these weapons against us and/or our allies; and on the other hand, there was the still more dangerous possibility that he would supply them to terrorists like those who had already attacked us on 9/11 and to whom he was linked.

...

Yet even stipulating—which I do only for the sake of argument—that no weapons of mass destruction existed in Iraq in the period leading up to the invasion, it defies all reason to think that Bush was lying when he asserted that they did. To lie means to say something one knows to be false. But it is as close to certainty as we can get that Bush believed in the truth of what he was saying about WMD in Iraq.

How indeed could it have been otherwise? George Tenet, his own CIA director, assured him that the case was “a slam dunk.” This phrase would later become notorious, but in using it, Tenet had the backing of all fifteen agencies involved in gathering intelligence for the United States. In the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) of 2002, where their collective views were summarized, one of the conclusions offered with “high confidence” was that

Iraq is continuing, and in some areas expanding its chemical, biological, nuclear, and missile programs contrary to UN resolutions.

The intelligence agencies of Britain, Germany, Russia, China, Israel, and—yes—France all agreed with this judgment. And even Hans Blix—who headed the UN team of inspectors trying to determine whether Saddam had complied with the demands of the Security Council that he get rid of the weapons of mass destruction he was known to have had in the past—lent further credibility to the case in a report he issued only a few months before the invasion:

The discovery of a number of 122-mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at a storage depot 170 km southwest of Baghdad was much publicized. This was a relatively new bunker, and therefore the rockets must have been moved there in the past few years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions. . . . They could also be the tip of a submerged iceberg. The discovery of a few rockets does not resolve but rather points to the issue of several thousands of chemical rockets that are unaccounted for.

Blix now claims that he was only being “cautious” here, but if, as he now also adds, the Bush administration “misled itself” in interpreting the evidence before it, he at the very least lent it a helping hand.

Here's what Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell's chief of staff had to say (and he was praised by the left for attacking the war not long ago):

I can’t tell you why the French, the Germans, the Brits, and us thought that most of the material, if not all of it, that we presented at the UN on 5 February 2003 was the truth. I can’t. I’ve wrestled with it. [But] when you see a satellite photograph of all the signs of the chemical-weapons ASP—Ammunition Supply Point—with chemical weapons, and you match all those signs with your matrix on what should show a chemical ASP, and they’re there, you have to conclude that it’s a chemical ASP, especially when you see the next satellite photograph which shows the UN inspectors wheeling in their white vehicles with black markings on them to that same ASP, and everything is changed, everything is clean. . . . But George [Tenet] was convinced, John McLaughlin [Tenet’s deputy] was convinced, that what we were presented [for Powell’s UN speech] was accurate.

People say, well, INR [the State Department] dissented. That’s a bunch of bull. INR dissented that the nuclear program was up and running. That’s all INR dissented on. They were right there with the chems and the bios.

As for the aluminum tubes:

The French came in in the middle of my deliberations at the CIA and said, we have just spun aluminum tubes, and by God, we did it to this RPM, et cetera, et cetera, and it was all, you know, proof positive that the aluminum tubes were not for mortar casings or artillery casings, they were for centrifuges. Otherwise, why would you have such exquisite instruments?

Kenneth Pollack, who served on the National Security Council under Clinton, said this about a 2002 meeting:

I participated in a Washington meeting about Iraqi WMD. Those present included nearly twenty former inspectors from the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), the force established in 1991 to oversee the elimination of WMD in Iraq. One of the senior people put a question to the group: did anyone in the room doubt that Iraq was currently operating a secret centrifuge plant? No one did. Three people added that they believed Iraq was also operating a secret calutron plant (a facility for separating uranium isotopes).

And of course, the charge of manipulation of intelligence has already been investigated by the Senate Intelligence Committee (which has its own independent intelligence gathering), and found to be not true. The Robb-Silverman investigation found the same thing. NO ONE has ever found evidence that the Bush administration in any way attempted to influence the intelligence community or its conclusions.

You should read the whole article.

[/quote]

Squink

11-11-2005, 10:23 PM

Bush is delusional. With this week's breakdown of the republican order on the hill (ANWR, budget cuts, tax cuts) it'll soon be every congressman for himself. Some republicans have good reason to pull out their knives: (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/iraq/20051111-1423-bush.html) Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., who is weighing a run for president in 2008, has said he agrees with Democrats who are pressing the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee to move forward with an investigation into whether the administration manipulated intelligence.

"I was probably the main driver on the Republican side because I thought we needed the answers to whether intelligence was misused, intentionally or unintentionally," Hagel told the Omaha World-Herald in a story published Friday.

Evil One

11-11-2005, 10:28 PM

treis

11-11-2005, 10:35 PM

Oh come on, these claims pale in Huge Ballness compared with his claims shortly after the Iraq war that his administration never called Saddam an imminent threat.

Der Trihs

11-11-2005, 10:36 PM

Miller

11-11-2005, 10:44 PM

What bothers me the most is the refusal of some people to face the fact that they are undercutting the troops when they are undercutting the president. Like it or not, if they see the people in this country claiming that the war is unjust, they will see it as a sign of weakness and take encouragement from that.

Assuming for the minute that that's a valid criticism, which is the greater evil? Undercutting a corrupt and incompetent president now, which might cost the lives of more troops? Or letting him stand unchallenged, so that he can continue to make corrupt and incompetent decisions for the rest of his presidency that will condemn far, far more of our troops to an untimely death?

Yeah, yeah, I know: you don't think Bush is corrupt or incompetent. I do. What else can I do, but everything within my lawful ability to see that his influence is curbed? Trying to make me feel guilty for doing what is, to me, clearly the most moral path isn't going to gain you any traction.

Sam Stone

11-11-2005, 10:50 PM

Oh come on, these claims pale in Huge Ballness compared with his claims shortly after the Iraq war that his administration never called Saddam an imminent threat.

From the same article:

Still, even many who believed that Saddam did possess WMD, and was ruthless enough to use them, accused Bush of telling a different sort of lie by characterizing the risk as “imminent.” But this, too, is false: Bush consistently rejected imminence as a justification for war.4 Thus, in the State of the Union address he delivered only three months after 9/11, Bush declared that he would “not wait on events while dangers gather” and that he would “not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer.” Then, in a speech at West Point six months later, he reiterated the same point: “If we wait for threats to materialize, we will have waited too long.” And as if that were not clear enough, he went out of his way in his State of the Union address in 2003 (that is, three months before the invasion), to bring up the word “imminent” itself precisely in order to repudiate it:

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

GIGObuster

11-11-2005, 10:51 PM

This timeline from In These Times fits most of was discussed before in the SDMB:

http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/707/

Concentrating only on the area before the war:

September 2001

Days after 9/11, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Assistant Secretary of Defense Douglas Feith set up an independent intelligence committee called the Office of Special Plans (OSP). News reports indicate that OSP was created to find the missing evidence that would prove what Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz already believed: Saddam was in cahoots with al-Qaeda and had amassed chemical, biological and had even nuclear weapons. OSP analysts rely on discredited intelligence gathered by the INC.

2002

Cheney, his chief-of-staff Lewis Libby and Pentagon “consultant” Newt Gingrich make repeated trips to Langley to advocate a more “forward-leaning” interpretation of the Iraqi threat. Cheney has close ties to the OSP, whose operations are overseen by William Luti, an ex-aide to Cheney.

February-March 2002

The vice president’s office asks the CIA to confirm a document showing that Niger sold yellowcake uranium to Iraq. The CIA sends former ambassador Joseph Wilson on a fact-finding mission. Upon his return, Wilson briefs CIA officers that the sale never took place.

[To Check what was going on here, see the next quotes article below]

August 2002

Reports that intelligence from the OSP was channeled to Cheney to be used in speeches appear to be substantiated by Cheney’s remarks at the Veterans of Foreign Wars National Convention: “There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.”

October 2002

Deputy National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley receives two memos and a phone call from CIA Director George Tenet warning him to delete references to yellowcake uranium in Bush’s October 7 address.

December 2002

The State Department publishes a fact sheet that references the yellowcake sale.

January 2003

Bush remarks in his State of the Union address, “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”

February 2003

Preparing for his U.N. address, Powell removes dozens of pages of unsubstantiated evidence provided by OSP. A frustrated Powell yells, “I’m not reading this. This is bullshit.”

March 2003

The United States attacks Iraq.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/unmovic/2003/0630selling.htm
In speeches and interviews, administration officials also warned of the connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda. On September 25, 2002, Rice insisted, "There clearly are contacts between Al Qaeda and Iraq. ... There clearly is testimony that some of the contacts have been important contacts and that there's a relationship there." On the same day, President Bush warned of the danger that "Al Qaeda becomes an extension of Saddam's madness." Rice, like Rumsfeld--who the next day would call evidence of a Saddam-bin Laden link "bulletproof"--said she could not share the administration's evidence with the public without endangering intelligence sources. But Bob Graham, the Florida Democrat who chaired the Senate Intelligence Committee, disagreed. On September 27, Paul Anderson, a spokesman for Graham, told USA Today that the senator had seen nothing in the CIA's classified reports that established a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda.

The Senate Intelligence Committee, in fact, was the greatest congressional obstacle to the administration's push for war. Under the lead of Graham and Illinois Senator Richard Durbin, the committee enjoyed respect and deference in the Senate and the House, and its members could speak authoritatively, based on their access to classified information, about whether Iraq was developing nuclear weapons or had ties to Al Qaeda. And, in this case, the classified information available to the committee did not support the public pronouncements being made by the CIA.

In the late summer of 2002, Graham had requested from Tenet an analysis of the Iraqi threat. According to knowledgeable sources, he received a 25-page classified response reflecting the balanced view that had prevailed earlier among the intelligence agencies--noting, for example, that evidence of an Iraqi nuclear program or a link to Al Qaeda was inconclusive. Early that September, the committee also received the DIA's classified analysis, which reflected the same cautious assessments. But committee members became worried when, midway through the month, they received a new CIA analysis of the threat that highlighted the Bush administration's claims and consigned skepticism to footnotes. According to one congressional staffer who read the document, it highlighted "extensive Iraqi chem-bio programs and nuclear programs and links to terrorism" but then included a footnote that read, "This information comes from a source known to fabricate in the past." The staffer concluded that "they didn't do analysis. What they did was they just amassed everything they could that said anything bad about Iraq and put it into a document."

Graham and Durbin had been demanding for more than a month that the CIA produce an NIE on the Iraqi threat--a summary of the available intelligence, reflecting the judgment of the entire intelligence community--and toward the end of September, it was delivered. Like Tenet's earlier letter, the classified NIE was balanced in its assessments. Graham called on Tenet to produce a declassified version of the report that could guide members in voting on the resolution. Graham and Durbin both hoped the declassified report would rebut the kinds of overheated claims they were hearing from administration spokespeople. As Durbin tells TNR, "The most frustrating thing I find is when you have credible evidence on the intelligence committee that is directly contradictory to statements made by the administration."

On October 1, 2002, Tenet produced a declassified NIE. But Graham and Durbin were outraged to find that it omitted the qualifications and countervailing evidence that had characterized the classified version and played up the claims that strengthened the administration's case for war. For instance, the intelligence report cited the much-disputed aluminum tubes as evidence that Saddam "remains intent on acquiring" nuclear weapons. And it claimed, "All intelligence experts agree that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons and that these tubes could be used in a centrifuge enrichment program"--a blatant mischaracterization. Subsequently, the NIE allowed that "some" experts might disagree but insisted that "most" did not, never mentioning that the DOE's expert analysts had determined the tubes were not suitable for a nuclear weapons program. The NIE also said that Iraq had "begun renewed production of chemical warfare agents"--which the DIA report had left pointedly in doubt. Graham demanded that the CIA declassify dissenting portions.

In response, Tenet produced a single-page letter. It satisfied one of Graham's requests: It included a statement that there was a "low" likelihood of Iraq launching an unprovoked attack on the United States. But it also contained a sop to the administration, stating without qualification that the CIA had "solid reporting of senior-level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda going back a decade." Graham demanded that Tenet declassify more of the report, and Tenet promised to fax over additional material. But, later that evening, Graham received a call from the CIA, informing him that the White House had ordered Tenet not to release anything more.

That same evening, October 7, 2002, Bush gave a major speech in Cincinnati defending the resolution now before Congress and laying out the case for war. Bush's speech brought together all the misinformation and exaggeration that the White House had been disseminating that fall. "The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program," the president declared. "Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons." Bush also argued that, through its ties to Al Qaeda, Iraq would be able to use biological and chemical weapons against the United States. "Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists," he warned. If Iraq had to deliver these weapons on its own, Bush said, Iraq could use the new unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) that it was developing. "We have also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas," he said. "We are concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs for missions targeting the United States." This claim represented the height of absurdity. Iraq's UAVs had ranges of, at most, 300 miles. They could not make the flight from Baghdad to Tel Aviv, let alone to New York.

After the speech, when reporters pointed out that Bush's warning of an imminent threat was contradicted by Tenet's statement the same day that there was little likelihood of an Iraqi attack, Tenet dutifully offered a clarification, explaining that there was "no inconsistency" between the president's statement and his own and that he had personally fact-checked the president's speech. He also issued a public statement that read, "There is no question that the likelihood of Saddam using weapons of mass destruction against the United States or our allies ... grows as his arsenal continues to build."

Five of the nine Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee, including Graham and Durbin, ultimately voted against the resolution, but they were unable to convince other committee members or a majority in the Senate itself. This was at least in part because they were not allowed to divulge what they knew: While Graham and Durbin could complain that the administration's and Tenet's own statements contradicted the classified reports they had read, they could not say what was actually in those reports.
The administration hadn't won an outright endorsement of its analysis of the Iraqi threat, but it had undermined and intimidated its potential critics in the intelligence community.
This last quote fits with the Downing Street memos (http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/ )

The efforts of the OSP (http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0506-06.htm)

The use of torture to get FALSE evidence to support the war (http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050214fa_fact6)

The use of shady characters like Chalabi and his Iraqi “defectors” (http://www.cjr.org/issues/2004/4/mccollam-list.asp)

The Plame outing, and the poisoning of the media to support the war. (http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_171.shtml)

I vote for delusional; Bush was and remains a leader that can be lead around, which is why he was selected.

astro

11-11-2005, 10:55 PM

Sam, thank you for taking the trouble to post that information. If only it would make a difference.

Since 2000, people have been increasingly viewing the world through the prism of their partisanship. I'll admit I'm guilty of it myself. If you already think someone is full of crap, when they say something else, you are almost going to discount it out of hand. I think that's what's happening with GWB. He is so hated that anything he says simply must be wrong.

This leads opponents of the president to continue to repeat something they either know is not true, or can't let go of because it's now an article of faith.

And they get away with it because the majority of Americans can't even name the Secretary of State, let alone intelligently discuss the buildup to the Iraq war.

What bothers me the most is the refusal of some people to face the fact that they are undercutting the troops when they are undercutting the president. Like it or not, if they see the people in this country claiming that the war is unjust, they will see it as a sign of weakness and take encouragement from that.

I think it's been fairly well documented at this point that regardless of what the Bush Administration believed, or or more importantly, wanted to believe, that the intelligence used to justify the war was quite deliberately filtered and cherry picked by a group of neo-cons operating as a virtual extension of Cheney's office. The depth and nature of this confederacy of Ex-patriot Iraqi con men, ambitious neo cons trying to protect Israel's security by re-arranging the MENA political landscape, pliant, eager to please upper-level intelligence officials, and a president with a take Saddam down agenda has yet to be fully plumbed, but the parts of this puzzle revealed so far are both frightening and disturbing.

At what point in your scheme of things are we allowed to declare that the Emperor has no clothes, if, in fact, he is clothes free?

clairobscur

11-11-2005, 10:58 PM

if they see the people in this country claiming that the war is unjust, they will see it as a sign of weakness and take encouragement from that.

And what if the war is actually unjust?

David Simmons

11-11-2005, 11:02 PM

One main theme of GW and his defenders is that every intelligence agency that he had access to was telling him that Saddam had chemical and biological weapons and was working on a nuclear program. This argument ignores the plain fact that those in the UN inspection who were actually on the ground and not reading tea leaves were saying that they couldn't find any evidence of such things. For that the inspectors were thought of as inept, or worse. Dr. Blix, leader of the inspection team, was dismissed as just another one of those peace loving Scandinavians who couldn't find a muddy elephant in a snowdrift.

When it was obvious that GW was going to war the inspectors were pulled for their safety and it remained for the US operator, David Kay, to find the same facts a year later.

Whether is was ineptitude or chicanery makes little difference. GW comitted the US to war, perhaps the most dire committment a President can make, in haste while dismissing the best evidence, that of those people actually on the ground in Iraq.

treis

11-11-2005, 11:06 PM

From the same article:

Exactly, big giant brass balls. This administration called Iraq a direct threat, a grave and growing threat and an immediate threat. McLellan the press secretary described Iraq as an imminent threat on more than one occasion. The administration spent months talking about the danger Iraq was to America then it had the balls to argue that it didn't call Iraq an immeninent thread, despite the press secretary using that word and the administration using countless synonms. It takes a gigantic pair to do that.

Der Trihs

11-11-2005, 11:15 PM

It takes a gigantic pair to do that.Or irrationality; these people aren't part of the "reality based community", remember. They may very well think the past doesn't count if the say it doesn't count.

magellan01

11-11-2005, 11:30 PM

And what if the war is actually unjust?

What criteria would you use do decide whether the Iraq war was just or unjust?

David Simmons

11-11-2005, 11:31 PM

magellan01

11-11-2005, 11:39 PM

Or irrationality; these people aren't part of the "reality based community", remember. They may very well think the past doesn't count if the say it doesn't count.

Really, that attitude doesn't foster meaningful debate, it just cuts it off. If you really think that everyone who opposes your view is completely nuts, why do you feel the need to engage? It's childish, unless you are intentionally trying to cut off debate or some reason. I'm on the fence with a lot of this stuff, and I am interested in both sides weighing in with substance. But if you feel you must interfere with that, do what you must...

magellan01

11-11-2005, 11:46 PM

I can't believe that any soldier anywhere is made safer by sweeping under the rug the reliance of his leaders on exaggerated claims in order to go to war.

But that is not the point. Whether the claims were exaggerated or not doesn't matter one iota to people in the field. The decision was made, past tense. The people are over there in harm's way—now. But I think you're using the right criteria: can you believe that any soldier is made safer by constantly throwing accusations at the President and trying to undermine his authority?

treis

11-11-2005, 11:53 PM

GIGObuster

11-12-2005, 12:01 AM

GIGObuster

11-12-2005, 12:05 AM

Sam Stone:

Nice, that writer is using the evidence from the big guys that failed to get the intelligence right, to then say the critics of the intelligence are wrong (remember that independent commissions still depend on what the intelligence community tells to them). It is also worth noticing that the Downing Street Memos were released after the Butler report.

Great timeline here: http://downingstreetmemo.com/timeline/

http://mediamatters.org/items/200408030002
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/004909.php

Regarding Wilson this Norman Podhoretz is lying:

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/005126.php

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/005001.php#2

astro

11-12-2005, 12:08 AM

But that is not the point. Whether the claims were exaggerated or not doesn't matter one iota to people in the field. The decision was made, past tense. The people are over there in harm's way—now. But I think you're using the right criteria: can you believe that any soldier is made safer by constantly throwing accusations at the President and trying to undermine his authority?

In real time no, we're committed to nation building and Iraq so the current action(s) will have to play out. Beyond this (IMO) the extent to which that the current Administration can be brought to account for questionable assertions it made leading up the war, will potentially act as a useful object lesson for any subsequent administrations considering forays into war or violent foreign entanglements, without all the potential outcomes being weighed and considered.

In practical terms how do you perceive, in terms of specific actions against them, that a given solider on the ground in Iraq is really going to be made less safe by criticizing Bush. If anything it would potentially show the Iraqis that democratic institutions and the rule of law do work

elucidator

11-12-2005, 12:30 AM

Delusional. He believes what he says. Its really almost the only answer, because the lies are not cunning enough. Damn near everything the man said during that speech flies in the face of documented fact. And its all openly available to anyone with the slightest effort!

It only makes sense if one assumes that there is no effort being made to convince the skeptical, but merely to give a pretense of legitimacy to "arguments" that have no connection to fact. It is intended to reassure a wavering base, who's support slips through his fingers like so much sand.

magellan01

11-12-2005, 12:41 AM

I'd say yes. If everyone kept their mouth shut Bush would have the political clout to possibly start another war. Now he doesn't have a shot to do so.

Your talking abot soldiers in a hypothetical war. How about the soldiers that are in a REAL war, now?

magellan01

11-12-2005, 12:43 AM

Funny that you ignore that soldiers also died then and now to protect those options.

Please explain.

treis

11-12-2005, 12:47 AM

elucidator

11-12-2005, 12:52 AM

magellan01

11-12-2005, 01:00 AM

In real time no, we're committed to nation building and Iraq so the current action(s) will have to play out. Beyond this (IMO) the extent to which that the current Administration can be brought to account for questionable assertions it made leading up the war, will potentially act as a useful object lesson for any subsequent administrations considering forays into war or violent foreign entanglements, without all the potential outcomes being weighed and considered.

In practical terms how do you perceive, in terms of specific actions against them, that a given solider on the ground in Iraq is really going to be made less safe by criticizing Bush. If anything it would potentially show the Iraqis that democratic institutions and the rule of law do work

I think it encourages the terrorists to persist and makes it easier to recruit more. Let's look at the extreme other end of the spectrum. Let's make believe that the left was on board with the war, that we were as unified as during WWII. Press included. Let's also make believe that France and Germany, after registeriing their doubts, joined us at that very last hour. So, if the whole US and the western powers were fervently behind the war, do you think that it would be easier or more difficult to recruit you (making believe you are a twenty-year-old Iraqi)? As one of the insurgency, would you view your chances of success greater or less than you view it now? Do you think it would be easier or more difficult to attract mercenary terrorists from neighboring countries if we—the US and the West—had a completely unified front?

I think the last part of your answer does point to a valuable tool in the prosecution of the war. That's why we should stick to the rule of law. Back on the eve of the American Revolution, I think John Adams won America some friends in England when he successfully defended an English soldier accused of murder. Doing the right thing is not only moral, but also a valuable tool in winning hearts and minds.

magellan01

11-12-2005, 01:05 AM

I categorically reject any attempt to shift the blame for the results of poor policy decisions from those that made the decisions to those that reported them. The reason our troops are dying over there is not becuase the media reported the tortures that went on or other mistakes by this adminstraion. The reason they are dying is becuase this administration made those mistakes and allowed the torture to happen.

But you're avoiding the issue. To rephrase based on your answer, shouldn't the criteria be: now that they're over there, what actions on our part will cause fewer of them to die?

I think it is pollyannish to believe that the actions we take here will have no effect on the reality of our young men and women in the field.

GIGObuster

11-12-2005, 01:09 AM

Please explain.
Soldiers have died then and now to protect our version of democracy, you are ignoring that that also means that they died to protect the right to investigate the President, to impeach him, or to criticize him even in a time of war.

And for that, I salute them regardless of their opinions:

http://www1.va.gov/opa/vetsday/

http://www.veteransforpeace.org/

treis

11-12-2005, 01:13 AM

But you're avoiding the issue. To rephrase based on your answer, shouldn't the criteria be: now that they're over there, what actions on our part will cause fewer of them to die?

Yes and those actions that are taken by our administration that are causing more of them to die need to be brought into the public light so they can be stopped.

GIGObuster

11-12-2005, 01:23 AM

Marley23

11-12-2005, 01:23 AM

I think it requires huge balls to address these questions with quotes and comments regurgitated from e-mail forwards and message board posts! We've heard all this before - Bush's "rewriting history" line is not new either - so I think it's brassy, or dumb, of him to finally address this issue and then choose to do so in this manner. I'm ignoring for now the question of what he really believes or believed, and why, and when. I simply don't understand why he would finally respond to all these things, and then just repeat himself instead of saying anything specific in response. It doesn't make sense to me.

Personally, I have generally refrained from calling Bush a liar. But I think the case for war was made in a dishonest manner, and some of the links here are pretty solid support for that.

magellan01

11-12-2005, 01:24 AM

mag, this is so obvious its painful to have to point it out to you. If we follow your advice, all a scoundrel of a President has to do is stick some soldiers in harms way, and he's instantly immune from criticism.

Surely you see that this does for stupid what Stonehenge does for rocks?

First, it should be hard to go to war. And the fact is that this war cannot be hung solely on his head. Congress signed on. But even after the troops are there, if the war is THAT dumb and idea and we should extricate ourselves, it's fairly easy: congress can just stop funding it. Now it may take some balls on their part (and that might very well be a problem) but the fact remains is that there is a way to pull back.

So, while the troops are there, we are behind them. Then, Senators and Congressmen (who have received millions of letters communicating their insistence that the war end), withhold funding, and the troops are brought back. Once the troops are back out of harm's way, it's open season on the President. Fire him, impeach him, lock him up, string him up, whatever.

My only point is that our soldiers over there are in a real war, with real bullets, bombs, and people who want to kill, burn and behead them. We sent them there. We owe them our support. In the end, a really do think that it is that black and white.

Yes, it takes some effective tools off the table, but I'm much more concerned about the safety and morale of those young men and women than I am about the indignation I or my neighbors might feel as we slouch in front of our TVs or sip lattes at the cozy Starbucks on the corner.

GIGObuster

11-12-2005, 01:44 AM

First, it should be hard to go to war. And the fact is that this war cannot be hung solely on his head. Congress signed on. But even after the troops are there, if the war is THAT dumb and idea and we should extricate ourselves, it's fairly easy: congress can just stop funding it. Now it may take some balls on their part (and that might very well be a problem) but the fact remains is that there is a way to pull back.

So, while the troops are there, we are behind them. Then, Senators and Congressmen (who have received millions of letters communicating their insistence that the war end), withhold funding, and the troops are brought back. Once the troops are back out of harm's way, it's open season on the President. Fire him, impeach him, lock him up, string him up, whatever.

My only point is that our soldiers over there are in a real war, with real bullets, bombs, and people who want to kill, burn and behead them. We sent them there. We owe them our support. In the end, a really do think that it is that black and white.

Yes, it takes some effective tools off the table, but I'm much more concerned about the safety and morale of those young men and women than I am about the indignation I or my neighbors might feel as we slouch in front of our TVs or sip lattes at the cozy Starbucks on the corner.
An ignorant of history you are. Nixon would be proud though.

Before you reply, remember that during the time Nixon began to be investigated and then resigned, military advisors and Marines, who were protecting U.S. installations where still in Vietnam.

Avenger

11-12-2005, 01:44 AM

Marley23

11-12-2005, 01:45 AM

Loopydude

11-12-2005, 01:53 AM

I swear it's like BushCo raided the Dope for ideas, cribbing his talking points from the all the Bush apologists. That speech was such an eerie rehash of old debates here. Kudos, at the very least, for anticipating the specious arguments our fearless cheater would use to absolve himself.

Don't have much to add beyond the 37 gazillion threads where we've examined the evidence in painful detail, and found BushCo's justifications to be either massively incompetent or overblown.

Basically, if you charitably ignore the history that completely refutes many of his points, the rest of his counterattack amounts to "you believed my bullshit, so shame on you".

Not unexpected from the prick, but still pretty galling all the same.

HPL

11-12-2005, 01:56 AM

What criteria would you use do decide whether the Iraq war was just or unjust?

Not having any of the reasons pan out would a good one.

WMD: Nope
AQ buddy-buddy with Saddam: Nope
Bring Democracy to Iraq: Still working on it

So the question is, who do I believe: Bush or my own eyes? I know the answer to that, though I suspect it's different then yours.

magellan01

11-12-2005, 01:58 AM

[QUOTE=GIGObuster]Soldiers have died then and now to protect our version of democracy, you are ignoring that that also means that they died to protect the right to investigate the President, to impeach him, or to criticize him even in a time of war.

And for that, I salute them regardless of their opinions:

We agree. But just because you have the right to do something doesn't mean that doing it is the wisest course of action. To a large degree, it has to do with your priorities, what is most important.

I can only try to imagine how much it must suck to be stuck in that sweltering sand hell and never know if the next car or guy coming down the street is going to blow you up. I can only imagine the toll it takes to see innocent men, women and children blown up, killed an maimed, with their loved ones crying over them—day in and day out. And what does it feel like to form a strong bond with someone, each puttiing your life in the others hand, and have him killed a few feet from you. I can't imagine how I'd sleep. Never mind the hard ground, the hard reality of me being in that fucking shithole dessert and not hanging out with my friends or family in the backyard would weigh on me constantly. And then, I have to aim my gun at some guy and kill him before he kills me.

So with all this being carried on the back of every one of our soldiers over there, I feel I owe them my suport. Or, for me, maybe I just want to give it to them. I want them, and me, to know that the thought of home is a source of solace and strength, not one of anxiety and doubt.

How can anyone not want to give them that? I just don't get it. Really. Damn, it makes me sad.

Bill Maher and others have pointed out that nothing has been asked of us during this war. I don't agree. I think that the one think that has been asked of us is the same thing that is asked of all people who send young people off to fight, and die, in wars: Respect. If not respect for the cause itself, respect for the situation we (through the representatives we elected) put them in. So, send them care packages. Write them letters. (Write your congressman, too, if you want.) But don't add to their worries. Let them devote their facultties to staying alive as they do what we sent them there to do. Don't—even inadvertently—encourage the people who are trying to kill them.

Everyone claims to support the troops. And maybe they do. But then we all have the responsibility to consider the effects of our actions. It's a little thing, sure. Just like recycling an old tire or walking to church instead of driving was a small thing sixty years ago. But it's something.

magellan01

11-12-2005, 02:01 AM

An ignorant of history you are. Nixon would be proud though.

Before you reply, remember that during the time Nixon began to be investigated and then resigned, military advisors and Marines, who were protecting U.S. installations where still in Vietnam.

I'm sorry. I was unclear. I meant as it pertained to the war. If there is an unrelated crime, as with Nixon, go for it.

Der Trihs

11-12-2005, 02:02 AM

Really, that attitude doesn't foster meaningful debate, it just cuts it off. If you really think that everyone who opposes your view is completely nuts, why do you feel the need to engage? It's childish, unless you are intentionally trying to cut off debate or some reason. I'm on the fence with a lot of this stuff, and I am interested in both sides weighing in with substance. But if you feel you must interfere with that, do what you must...Your statement only makes sense if the other side isn't nuts ( and I think Bush and friends are ), and if they are willing to listen ( which they aren't ).

But I think you're using the right criteria: can you believe that any soldier is made safer by constantly throwing accusations at the President and trying to undermine his authority? If it creates political pressure on the saner portions of the Republicans, yes.

I think it encourages the terrorists to persist and makes it easier to recruit more. Let's look at the extreme other end of the spectrum. Let's make believe that the left was on board with the war, that we were as unified as during WWII. Press included. Let's also make believe that France and Germany, after registeriing their doubts, joined us at that very last hour. So, if the whole US and the western powers were fervently behind the war, do you think that it would be easier or more difficult to recruit you (making believe you are a twenty-year-old Iraqi)? As one of the insurgency, would you view your chances of success greater or less than you view it now? Do you think it would be easier or more difficult to attract mercenary terrorists from neighboring countries if we—the US and the West—had a completely unified front? Why would it make any difference ? They aren't any worse off militarily, and they still can kill Americans; a victory in itself, from their viewpoint. In fact, I think it would make things worse; a jihad of the Islamic against the combined forces of Christian crusaders, with even the moderate ME groups knowing that they have nothing but enemies, and might as well fight before they are overrun.

But you're avoiding the issue. To rephrase based on your answer, shouldn't the criteria be: now that they're over there, what actions on our part will cause fewer of them to die? Bring them back, of course.

My only point is that our soldiers over there are in a real war, with real bullets, bombs, and people who want to kill, burn and behead them. We sent them there. We owe them our support. In the end, a really do think that it is that black and white. No we don't. They are fighting for an evil cause, and deserve no sympathy or support.

I can only try to imagine how much it must suck to be stuck in that sweltering sand hell and never know if the next car or guy coming down the street is going to blow you up. I can only imagine the toll it takes to see innocent men, women and children blown up, killed an maimed, with their loved ones crying over them—day in and day out. And what does it feel like to form a strong bond with someone, each puttiing your life in the others hand, and have him killed a few feet from you. I can't imagine how I'd sleep. Never mind the hard ground, the hard reality of me being in that fucking shithole dessert and not hanging out with my friends or family in the backyard would weigh on me constantly. And then, I have to aim my gun at some guy and kill him before he kills me. Now try to imagine how the Iraqis feel, being raped and tortured and killed by invaders.

Marley23

11-12-2005, 02:03 AM

Basically, if you charitably ignore the history that completely refutes many of his points, the rest of his counterattack amounts to "you believed my bullshit, so shame on you".

Not unexpected from the prick, but still pretty galling all the same.
When I read about this speech, which was hours and hours before this thread came around (a surprising delay!), the only part of my reply I planned was this: "You fell for it too!" is not an acceptable rejoinder from the President of the United States. Period. Especially not when the issue is war. It's as if "the buck stops here" has become "you didn't stop the buck either!"

Avenger

11-12-2005, 02:04 AM

I support my partner in her chosen career path. If her boss were to take some decisions that led to her being placed in danger for no good reason, I'd be pretty angry. I wouldn't consider articulating this anger to constitute a withdrawal of my support for her.

Perhaps magellan01 could give an explanation of how that would be the case?

HPL

11-12-2005, 02:05 AM

But that is not the point. Whether the claims were exaggerated or not doesn't matter one iota to people in the field. The decision was made, past tense. The people are over there in harm's way—now. But I think you're using the right criteria: can you believe that any soldier is made safer by constantly throwing accusations at the President and trying to undermine his authority?

Do you believe any soldier is made safer by just letting a President do whatever the hell he wants because Criticism would "embolden terrorists"(You know, those guys who the president says hate us no matter what and nothing will change their mind)?

We can't critcize him on the build up to way because it "emboldens the terrorists", we can't criticize him while the war is going on because it "endangers the troops", and we can't criticize him when the war is over because "It's over and done now. Let's move on".

The theme I've been noticing among many conservatives is that we're not supposed to criticize the president......period.

**** that. This is a free country. It's our duty to criticize when we see things wrong. It's how we keep our leaders accountable for their actions. If Bush can't take a little criticism, maybe he should get a better job, like dictator of a banana republic where he can have the perfect government with no need to answer to his subjects.

HPL

11-12-2005, 02:15 AM

My only point is that our soldiers over there are in a real war, with real bullets, bombs, and people who want to kill, burn and behead them. We sent them there. We owe them our support. In the end, a really do think that it is that black and white.
.

The troops do have our support. Whose support is lacking are the people who wanted so badly to go to war and then have been running it so badly, despite the entire government under their control.

It seem that it would make far more sense to say that less lives will be lost once someone competent is running the war, or the troops are brought back home completely.

Instead, your answer is "Shut up, you're endangering the troops by pointing out that the war was badly planned and is being badly executed for dubious purposes" instead of "What the hell is wrong with you, Bush? You're endangering our troops by continually doing the wrong things" . Putting the blame on those pointing out the errors being made instead of those actually making the errors.

GIGObuster

11-12-2005, 02:18 AM

Post #42 still remains only an appeal to emotion magellian01.

I still agree with elucidator: If we follow your lead “all a scoundrel of a President has to do is stick some soldiers in harms way, and he's instantly immune from criticism.”

I'm sorry. I was unclear. I meant as it pertained to the war. If there is an unrelated crime, as with Nixon, go for it.
I need to find the constitutional rule that just because crimes pertain to a war, that then the president will obtain a "get out of jail" free card.

magellan01

11-12-2005, 02:19 AM

I'm somewhat confused as to the mechanism by which Congress would arrive at a decision to suspend payment for the war. If no-one is allowed to articulate their beliefs for why the troops should not be there, how will this public mood register with Congress? And, if the Congressmen are not permitted to debate the issue, how will they arrive at the decision?

It should be a sober decision to go. And a sober decision to pull the troops back. We go to war for certain reasons, if things change we come back. No one has to be evil. It doesn't have to be driven by partisanship. In fact, it shouldn't.

To answer your question, which will no doubt result in the same negative response it has when I posted it about a month ago, we can write letters to out congressmen. If enough people feel the same way and he doesn;t vote how we want he is gone. If we don't have enough people behind us, we don't and shouldn't have enough power. That is how our democracy works.

Congress should debate all it wants. It just doesn't have to be done in a way where it makes the soldiers look like asses. I also think it would be more effective to argue on the merits of where you are in time. Once you go to war and people are in the field of battle, that decision is in the past. It serves no purpose to criticize or second guess it. And you don't have to. Once you're there, the situation—in the present—should be evaluated constantly. It is based on THAT assessment, that the decision to stay or pull out should be made. Now once everyone is home and safe, if there is a desire to evaluate the leadership the President provided in going to war, or in how it was executed, all gloves are off.

tomndebb

11-12-2005, 02:29 AM

The French came in in the middle of my deliberations at the CIA and said, we have just spun aluminum tubes, and by God, we did it to this RPM, et cetera, et cetera, and it was all, you know, proof positive that the aluminum tubes were not for mortar casings or artillery casings, they were for centrifuges. Otherwise, why would you have such exquisite instruments?As noted about five hours after the administration tossed this stinker out for review, the casings were the wrong shape and size for nuclear centrifuges. They were the right sizes and shapes for rocket launchers (prohibited things that Hussein was known to be seeking), not merely "mortar" or "artillery casing." In other words, the administration picked an object that Hussein had tried to smuggle into the country against the ban, but changed the meaning of his intentions to make them look even worse. Wilkerson is simply repeating his views as a person who had not seen the actual evidence. The tubes were built to a high-heat specification to be machined to a particular tolerance and coated with special anodizers, as was needed for the rocket systems for which they were intended. Every technical agency (nuclear and industrial) pointed out that the tubes could not be used for gas separation, but they were outvoted by the political groups (who had been ordered or coached to present the "correct" answers).
The IAEA debunked this claim within hours of the administration producing it. A group that ignores the actual experts on a topic may not be, in some narrowly defined manner, "lying," but they are clearly being dishonest.
Iraq’s Aluminum Tubes: Separating Fact from Fiction (http://www.isis-online.org/publications/iraq/IraqAluminumTubes12-5-03.pdf) (.pdf)

And, as has been noted on several occasions, already, no defender of the adminstration's claim that they thought there were WoMD in Iraq has provided any explanation why the military groups whose task it was to secure WoMD sites was ordered to remain miles behind the lines and forbidden to enter "suspected" sites for days after they had originally been taken in combat.

To fail to secure WoMD sites, leaving them open to be plundered by any insurgents or al Qaida operatives in the area indicates pretty clearly that the administration either knew the sites were empty or that the administration was criminally negligent.

magellan01

11-12-2005, 02:29 AM

Post #42 still remains only an appeal to emotion magellian01.

I still agree with elucidator: If we follow your lead “all a scoundrel of a President has to do is stick some soldiers in harms way, and he's instantly immune from criticism.”

I need to find the constitutional rule that just because crimes pertain to a war, that then the president will obtain a "get out of jail" free card.

I'm sorry. I should bow out now. I just don't have the desire to be flip about this. I don't expect to change your mind. I don't claim to have all the answers. In fact, I know I don't. I just think that the primary concern we should have is the young men and women who are in the thick of it right now, some of whom will not be coming back, or coming back whole. I'll just act in a way that I think shows them respect, appreciation, and support. I ask everyone to do the same, however they see fit. Just be aware that your actions do have consequences, however small they might be.

Good night.

Der Trihs

11-12-2005, 02:32 AM

I'm sorry. I should bow out now. I just don't have the desire to be flip about this. I don't expect to change your mind. I don't claim to have all the answers. In fact, I know I don't. I just think that the primary concern we should have is the young men and women who are in the thick of it right now, some of whom will not be coming back, or coming back whole. I'll just act in a way that I think shows them respect, appreciation, and support. I ask everyone to do the same, however they see fit. Just be aware that your actions do have consequences, however small they might be.

Good night.What about the poor Iraqis, who happen to be the actual victims here ?

clairobscur

11-12-2005, 02:33 AM

What criteria would you use do decide whether the Iraq war was just or unjust?

I wasn't refering specifically to the war in Irak. Besides, it doesn't matter. The poster I was responding to made a general statement, without caveat. Basically :
"they say the war is unjust"==> " the ennemy will be encouraged" ==> "it's a bad thing".

So, does it applies in all situations? If say, it's proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that the war is waged only because Bush wants to confiscates the Iraki oil fields and kill as many Iraki babies as possible in the process, is saying that the war is unjust still a bad thing? Is encouraging the ennemy still a bad thing?

The poster didn't seem to think it was relevant whether or not the war was actually unjust. Or at least didn't mention the issue. Hence my question. If the war is actually unjust, is criticizing the president still a bad thing? Is undercutting the troop's effort still a bad thing? Is encouraging the ennemy still a bad thing? Is shooting at american soldiers (for an american citizen) still a bad thing?

I think that if a war is unjust it's a good thing. And how are you going to determine whether or not the war is unjust? By rolling a dice? By believing whatever the administration is saying? Logically you're going to follow your best judgment. So, IMO, if you believe the war is unjust, it ensues that not only criticizing the government isn't a bad thing, even if (or maybe especially if) it undercuts the troops, but at the contrary a moral duty.

GIGObuster

11-12-2005, 02:44 AM

And now the Google ads are about buying aluminum tubing! :eek: :dubious: :p

If the best defence of the intel is coming from a now shown misleader like Norman Podhoretz, it is not hard to figure out who really is lying about Iraq.

magellan01

11-12-2005, 02:51 AM

No we don't. They are fighting for an evil cause, and deserve no sympathy or support.

Now try to imagine how the Iraqis feel, being raped and tortured and killed by invaders.

Before I hit the hay I thought I'd respond to this. Or just point it out. You guys can take a vote: do you think this kind of talk is more apt to help our own young men and women? Or the people who want to blow them uo and behead them.

With that, a bit you all a good night.

Except you Der Trihs. I wish you a night of fear, sadness, anxiety, discomfort, homesickness, nightmares and insomnia thinking about if you'll ever see the people you love again, to the exact degree—no more, no less—than that experienced by the most frightened 19-year-old American kid fighting in Iraq. Make that ALL your nights. Maybe then you'll get it.

Der Trihs

11-12-2005, 02:55 AM

Before I hit the hay I thought I'd respond to this. Or just point it out. You guys can take a vote: do you think this kind of talk is more apt to help our own young men and women? Or the people who want to blow them uo and behead them.

With that, a bit you all a good night.

Except you Der Trihs. I wish you a night of fear, sadness, anxiety, discomfort, homesickness, nightmares and insomnia thinking about if you'll ever see the people you love again, to the exact degree—no more, no less—than that experienced by the most frightened 19-year-old American kid fighting in Iraq. Make that ALL your nights. Maybe then you'll get it.My oh my, I'm terrified.

Marley23

11-12-2005, 02:56 AM

Marley23

11-12-2005, 03:11 AM

Incidentally, I see the Washington Post has a good article that explains that Congress did not have all the same intelligence that the administration did, and points out a few other blurred truths in the counterattacks.

GIGObuster

11-12-2005, 03:22 AM

My oh my, I'm terrified.
Well, you should be, I do see the American soldiers also as the victims here.

It is all a matter of being specific: the soldiers that tortured in Abu Ghraib and in other places, or try to hide massacres like the one that wiped out an Iraqi wedding party don't deserve sympathy.

But your comment that "They are fighting for an evil cause, and deserve no sympathy or support" was stupid, because it includes even soldiers that oppose the war. http://www.ivaw.net/

Reserve comments like that for the current leadership.

Der Trihs

11-12-2005, 03:41 AM

Well, you should be, I do see the American soldiers also as the victims here.

It is all a matter of being specific: the soldiers that tortured in Abu Ghraib and in other places, or try to hide massacres like the one that wiped out an Iraqi wedding party don't deserve sympathy.

But your comment that "They are fighting for an evil cause, and deserve no sympathy or support" was stupid, because it includes even soldiers that oppose the war. http://www.ivaw.net/

Reserve comments like that for the current leadership.If the are over there killing Iraqis, I really don't care if they oppose the war. I'd put a bullet in my own head before I murdered someone for Bush, and that's what they are doing.

GIGObuster

11-12-2005, 03:51 AM

If the are over there killing Iraqis, I really don't care if they oppose the war. I'd put a bullet in my own head before I murdered someone for Bush, and that's what they are doing.
:rolleyes:

Some of the soldiers in the link are going to jail precisely to not go to Iraq, and you are really an ignorant when you are not recognizing that even soldiers who go with no intentions to murder still have to fight for their lives when the enemy shoots at them. So no, not all are going around murdering, and still the fact remains: someone, that deserves the scorn, ordered them to be there.

MrDibble

11-12-2005, 04:23 AM

:rolleyes:

Some of the soldiers in the link are going to jail precisely to not go to Iraq,
Then those aren't the soldiers Der Trihs is talking about, are they. If only all your other troops had the balls to do the same.

even soldiers who go with no intentions to murder still have to fight for their lives when the enemy shoots at them. So no, not all are going around murdering [snip]
They are soldiers involved in an occupation. If they aren't going there to kill, or help others kill, why are they there?

GIGObuster

11-12-2005, 04:36 AM

Then those aren't the soldiers Der Trihs is talking about, are they. If only all your other troops had the balls to do the same.

Once again: he said "They".

They are soldiers involved in an occupation. If they aren't going there to kill, or help others kill, why are they there?
Ignorance does not discriminate by age, race or rank. If the media was liberal or appreciated facts over opinions then everyone, even the military, would know the right thing to do. Besides, now you are also ignoring what following orders means, in the absence of better information, you follow the leader; in this case the leader is blind too.

MrDibble

11-12-2005, 05:01 AM

Once again: he said "They".

Well, actually he said "the are over there" :)

But anyway, to me, at any rate, it's clear "they" are "they who are over there killing Iraquis", which excludes those who are not, by virtue of the being in jail bit.

Ignorance does not discriminate by age, race or rank. If the media was liberal or appreciated facts over opinions then everyone, even the military, would know the right thing to do. Besides, now you are also ignoring what following orders means, in the absence of better information, you follow the leader; in this case the leader is blind too.

"I vas only follovink orders" is no excuse, and hasn't been since Nuremberg. Are you saying all those US troops have no access to newspapers, TV or The Internets? If not, then ignorance is not a valid reason for their continued complicity.

David Simmons

11-12-2005, 05:10 AM

But that is not the point. Whether the claims were exaggerated or not doesn't matter one iota to people in the field. The decision was made, past tense. The people are over there in harm's way—now. But I think you're using the right criteria: can you believe that any soldier is made safer by constantly throwing accusations at the President and trying to undermine his authority?Future ones? Quite possibly. Those who are now engaged are probably not made any more unsafe. I don't think the insurgents will to blow people up depends upon statements made here in the US. Nor do I believe that troop morale is all that greatly affected by them. Soldiers don't fight for noble, abstract causes such as "freeing the Iraqi people and bringing them democracy." They do fight in each action because that is the group's job for today and they are a part of the group.

I think the best way to make everyone safer is to hold leaders accountable for their actions while the effects of those actions are ongoing and not wait for a later investigation which by then will have become academic.

GIGObuster

11-12-2005, 05:14 AM

"I vas only follovink orders" is no excuse, and hasn't been since Nuremberg. Are you saying all those US troops have no access to newspapers, TV or The Internets? If not, then ignorance is not a valid reason for their continued complicity.
Now you are being silly, the media that gets to them is mostly Fox. :)

Actually, it is the Armed Forces Radio and Television Service (AFRTS) and Rush Limbaugh is one of the bigger voices there. :mad:

As for the internets, some soldiers indeed are getting the message, but officially the commanders are discouraging these efforts.

http://www.militaryproject.org/

MrDibble

11-12-2005, 06:39 AM

Now you are being silly, the media that gets to them is mostly Fox. :)

Those poor, poor bastards :)

As for the internets, some soldiers indeed are getting the message, but officially the commanders are discouraging these efforts.

Fighting to defend your freedoms - but they get none themselves. This has always been the soldier's lot.

I guess it's irrational to hope we could break the chain somewhere.

Digital Stimulus

11-12-2005, 07:24 AM

And of course, the charge of manipulation of intelligence has already been investigated by the Senate Intelligence Committee (which has its own independent intelligence gathering), and found to be not true.
Is this correct? My understanding, which may be wrong, is that the investigation was limited to analysis of the intelligence (Phase I of the report). Manipulation of said intelligence is to be analyzed in Phase II, which is what the whole suspension of the Senate was about.

Squink

11-12-2005, 07:42 AM

Is this correct?Nope. Your understanding is correct.

Neurotik

11-12-2005, 08:01 AM

Except you Der Trihs. I wish you a night of fear, sadness, anxiety, discomfort, homesickness, nightmares and insomnia thinking about if you'll ever see the people you love again, to the exact degree—no more, no less—than that experienced by the most frightened 19-year-old American kid fighting in Iraq. Make that ALL your nights. Maybe then you'll get it.
With all that, maybe you shouldn't have sent him over to Iraq then, should you? Perhaps you should be the one experiencing nights of fear, sadness, etc. You sent the kid over there to possibly die, but feel you should be able to sleep easy because you refuse to now rethink that decision or admit you were wrong.

tomndebb

11-12-2005, 08:23 AM

OK. We do not allow wishes of death on other posters; I see no reason to permit wishes of harm or anxiety on other posters.

Everyone knock it off, now.

[ /Moderator Mode ]

squeegee

11-12-2005, 08:25 AM

The Robb-Silverman investigation found the same thingNonsense. From their report (http://www.wmd.gov/report/report.html#overview):...we were not authorized to investigate how policymakers used the intelligence assessments they received from the Intelligence Community. Accordingly, while we interviewed a host of current and former policymakers during the course of our investigation, the purpose of those interviews was to learn about how the Intelligence Community reached and communicated its judgments about Iraq's weapons programs--not to review how policymakers subsequently used that information.Not only did they not reach that conclusion, they weren't even examining the question.

But thanks for the recycled talking-point.

cosmosdan

11-12-2005, 09:04 AM

Originally Posted by Der Trihs
No we don't. They are fighting for an evil cause, and deserve no sympathy or support.

Now try to imagine how the Iraqis feel, being raped and tortured and killed by invaders.

I was against this war before we went in and consider this administration to to be morally reprehensible if not downright criminal.

The above however is a narrow minded self righteous load of crap. It contains the same ignorent generalities that the fundies use to attack gays, which is almost funny coming from Der Trihs

War brings about a lot of incredible tradegy which is why it should be absolutely the last resort. Some soilders, caught up in the insanity of war do commit moral crimes. Others find within themselves incredible courage and compassion and commit acts of profound kindness and nobility. For you to paint them all with the same brush and insinuate they are all murderers just by being there is profoundly ignorant.

Yes innocent Iraqi's are being killed by American troops. When an innocent civilian is accidently killed in a war it is tragic but it is not murder. When some crazy bastard blows himself up taking many of his fellow countryman with him, that's murder.
I was around during Vietnam and I honor those that had the courage to not go and faced the consequences of that choice. I honor those who saw going as fulfilling their duty to their country and risked their lives for that conviction.
I feel the same way about Iraq. I don't excuse those who commit moral crimes against civilians while there, but I have some concept of the intense emotional trauma they go through. Since I haven't walked in their shoes I try not to judge them too harshly. I do believe that for the most part our soilders are their trying to honor their commitment to their country and more than a few believe they are fighting for a worthy cause. Many more likely just want to survive and come home to their families. I feel for the innocent Iraqis who suffer but they are not the only victems of this war. I also feel for the tousands of American families who suffer because of this war.
I remember soilders coming home from Vietnam and being spit on self righteous jackasses. I had hoped we were beyond that kind of crap. Evidently not.

SteveG1

11-12-2005, 09:12 AM

Is this correct? My understanding, which may be wrong, is that the investigation was limited to analysis of the intelligence (Phase I of the report). Manipulation of said intelligence is to be analyzed in Phase II, which is what the whole suspension of the Senate was about.
The phase 1 investigation itself was manipulated - they were only chartered and allowed to look at specific things, and were not allowed to examine other things (such as the disparities between the actual reports and the spin which ignored or doctored the final "data" that was sold to the USA amd tne UN). I think that this first "investigation" was meant to put all the blame on the intelligence community and exhonerate the administration.

SteveG1

11-12-2005, 09:18 AM

Bush is delusional. With this week's breakdown of the republican order on the hill (ANWR, budget cuts, tax cuts) it'll soon be every congressman for himself. Some republicans have good reason to pull out their knives: (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/iraq/20051111-1423-bush.html)
Welcome to the party Hagle. What the fuck took you so long. Oh. Running or positioning for an election. Got it. It's good that SOME Republicans are finally saying something, but I smell some self interest here. It's the cynic in me. Where have all these upstanding righteous Republicans been the past few years? Oh well, at least now it won't just be the "Democrat Terror Sympathizers" asking questions.

Left Hand of Dorkness

11-12-2005, 09:57 AM

I think it encourages the terrorists to persist and makes it easier to recruit more. Let's look at the extreme other end of the spectrum. Let's make believe that the left was on board with the war, that we were as unified as during WWII. Press included. Let's also make believe that France and Germany, after registeriing their doubts, joined us at that very last hour. So, if the whole US and the western powers were fervently behind the war, do you think that it would be easier or more difficult to recruit you (making believe you are a twenty-year-old Iraqi)? As one of the insurgency, would you view your chances of success greater or less than you view it now? Do you think it would be easier or more difficult to attract mercenary terrorists from neighboring countries if we—the US and the West—had a completely unified front?
Honestly? I think that, were I considering joining a group dedicated to murdering civilians of another country in retribution for a murderous occupation of my homeland, I would be MORE inclined to join up if I knew that the civilians of that other country were united in support of the war in my land. If I knew that those foreign civilians were bitterly divided about the policy, then I'd be less likely to want to commit terrorist acts against them.

Way I see it, we peace protestors are preventing future terror attacks in the US by making it clear that we're not all a bunch of Muslim-hating killers. It's true that the hawks aren't Muslim-hating killers, but they're sure not making that message very clear.

magellan, your policy toward protesting war reminds me of the guy with the leaky roof who won't go out to fix it when it's raining because he doesn't want to get wet, and who won't go out to fix it when it's sunny because it's not raining. If we can't complain about foolish policies for future wars because they're less important than what's happening now, and if we can't complain about foolish policies that led to what's happening now, you've effectively silenced discussion about our country's war policies.

And that's really dangerous.

Daniel

elucidator

11-12-2005, 10:03 AM

Expanding the point a bit further, in response to mag suggestion that we withold our criticism of The Leader until the troops come home....

Given the aforementioned "scoundrel", why should he? His position as C-in-C is such that he can keep our troops in harm's way pretty much indefinitely. Unless someone rises up to stop him, of course, but how is that too be done without criticizing?

"My fellow Americans, The Leader's vision, wisdom, and firm, decisive leadership has resulted in a perfect world, in all respects a paragon of harmony, a harmony made manifest and guided by the luminous intelligence of The Leader. I propose that we impeach The Leader at once, as a gesture of boundless gratitude for a job well done, and to ensure his divine wisdom is not further taxed on behalf of a nation too much in his debt. Let him toddle off to Crawford for a brisk round of brush clearing, with the thanks of a grateful nation. Tomorrow...."

A bit impractical, I should think. And so should you.

SteveG1

11-12-2005, 10:28 AM

Expanding the point a bit further, in response to mag suggestion that we withold our criticism of The Leader until the troops come home....

Given the aforementioned "scoundrel", why should he? His position as C-in-C is such that he can keep our troops in harm's way pretty much indefinitely. Unless someone rises up to stop him, of course, but how is that too be done without criticizing?
Well, first we had a war in Afghanistan to "stop terror". In the middle of that, Bush diverted troops to Iraq to "stop terror" and because of WMD. We haven't stopped terror and never found WMD (because there were none). Lately there has been sabre rattling against Syria, for hiding the WMD that don't exist, and talk about Iran. All part of the never ending global war on terror. I don't see any of it ending. Add to this, on the one hand we are told we must hang on until we win, and on the other hand, we are told this is an ongoing "crusade" in which there is no final victory (both versions from Bush himself). So, if he has his way, the troops will never come home. Practically everything he does, is justified by 9/11 and the war HE started. He needs war.

Little Nemo

11-12-2005, 10:38 AM

George Bush knows exactly what he's doing. He's lying. And he knows that some people will believe any lie he tells as long as he keep choosing to tell it. Bush has made sure to keep his real base happy (more tax cuts for the wealthy are being planned) and the rest are just sheep who will do whatever they're told.

elucidator

11-12-2005, 10:42 AM

And then, of course, there is the underlying delusion: the Bushiviks delusion that what has failed so far is merely a matter of public comprehension: "What we have here is a failure to communicate!". Hence, the public relations offensive, founded on the utterly charming notion that all Das Goober needs to do is explain himself more clearly, and all of this will simply go *poof!*.

Karl: Mr. President, you should be advised that a small demonstration is marching towards Washington....

DasG: How small, Karl

Karl: Couple hundred thousand, tops. No biggy, we just haven't communicated our talking points as well as we should. But we're taking steps to.....

DasG: Those guys on TV, there, Karl? What are they carrying?

Karl: Appears to be torches and pitchforks, sir. Night agriculture, that's probably the reason. Perhaps planning on a surprise Rose Garden...

DasG: Then why the ropes, Karl?

Karl: Big, heavy rose bushes, sir. We thought it might be best if your next speech were before a slightly less partisan audience, sir, so we have contacted a VFW in Fort Worth.....

Der Trihs

11-12-2005, 10:58 AM

Yes innocent Iraqi's are being killed by American troops. When an innocent civilian is accidently killed in a war it is tragic but it is not murder. When some crazy bastard blows himself up taking many of his fellow countryman with him, that's murder. That sounds remarkably like "terrorist is what the big army calls the little army". We kill innocents, it's not our fault; they kill innocents, and they're murderous bastards.

If the war is unjustified, then all killings commited in that war are murder, whether or not you wear a uniform.

I was around during Vietnam and I honor those that had the courage to not go and faced the consequences of that choice. I honor those who saw going as fulfilling their duty to their country and risked their lives for that conviction. I don't. By going, they prolonged the war and got more people killed.

I feel for the innocent Iraqis who suffer but they are not the only victems of this war. I also feel for the tousands of American families who suffer because of this war. This statement is incredibly arrogant. The conquerers are not the victims. Any pain and death Americans feel in this affair are self inflicted.

I remember soilders coming home from Vietnam and being spit on self righteous jackasses. I had hoped we were beyond that kind of crap. Evidently not.Did that ever really happen ? It sounds like an urban myth to me, or there would be more stories about spitting hippies being sent to the hospital.

:rolleyes:

Some of the soldiers in the link are going to jail precisely to not go to Iraq, Then those aren't the soldiers Der Trihs is talking about, are they. If only all your other troops had the balls to do the same. Precisely; the ones doing the killing are the ones commiting murder; the ones who aren't killing...aren't.

tomndebb

11-12-2005, 11:44 AM

Did that ever really happen ? It sounds like an urban myth to me, or there would be more stories about spitting hippies being sent to the hospital.It happened. It has been testified on both the SDMB and on Fathom by men to whom it happened.

The attempt to pretend that it did not happen was the result of some really sloppy methodology by a couple of guys who set out to "debunk" it as legend. They did not actually make the attempt to determine whether it happened.

As to spitting hippies sent to hospitals, I have had several of those stories related to me, as well.

I'm sorry, but when one's righteous indignation about an event compels one to make blanket statements about those who differ, one tends to wind up looking just like those opposed. I see little difference between your expressed opinions and the opinions of the Far Right regarding "Muslim terrorists" or the "gay agenda" or any number of other topics in which their "f'r us or ag'in' us" attitude is expressed in absolute terms. You are free to pursue your logic to whatever end you wish, but when you find yourself making blanket condemnations, just note whose bed you are sharing under the blanket.

magellan01

11-12-2005, 12:01 PM

So, does it applies in all situations? If say, it's proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that the war is waged only because Bush wants to confiscates the Iraki oil fields and kill as many Iraki babies as possible in the process, is saying that the war is unjust still a bad thing? Is encouraging the ennemy still a bad thing?

I'm still curious what criteria you would use to decide whether a war was just or not. But to respond to your hypothetical: if that were factually the case, we should petition congress to stop/withdraw funds and/or begin impeachment proceedings. If specific soldiers committed specific atrocities they should be punished according to the law.

If the war is actually unjust, is criticizing the president still a bad thing?

It depends if it is factually unjust or merely considered unjust by some. I'd bet that every war is considered unjust by some, but that doesn't make it so.

Is undercutting the troop's effort still a bad thing? Is encouraging the ennemy still a bad thing? Is shooting at american soldiers (for an american citizen) still a bad thing?

Unless by "undercutting" the troops' efforts you mean bringing them home, yes, it is a horrible thing. We sent them to a dangerous place. We owe them full support while they are there. Again, any transgressions should be dealt with swiftly and fully.

I think that if a war is unjust it's a good thing. And how are you going to determine whether or not the war is unjust? By rolling a dice? By believing whatever the administration is saying? Logically you're going to follow your best judgment. So, IMO, if you believe the war is unjust, it ensues that not only criticizing the government isn't a bad thing, even if (or maybe especially if) it undercuts the troops, but at the contrary a moral duty.

But, again, what determines if the war is unjust? And how do you think that it is justifiable to send a twenty-year-old kid into a war zone and then undercut his efforts while he is there? And then to say that him being shot is a good thing? Even assuming you are correct in that this hypothetical war is unjust, do you really think it is right to punish that kid for following orders? I think that is cheap and cowardly. If the war is unjust (factually) then the people who should pay are those who sent him there.

I think the only morally defensible position for the sentiments you express is to be against all wars at all times. Then, I'd say, you would be able to rightly criticize troops for being part of the war machine.

But if you believe that war can be necessary and good, then you agree that we need to have an effective fighting force. And if you believe that, then you should uunderstand that it is not—and cannot be—the business of troops to weigh in on the justness or unjustness of any particular war.

magellan01

11-12-2005, 12:03 PM

If the are over there killing Iraqis, I really don't care if they oppose the war. I'd put a bullet in my own head before I murdered someone for Bush, and that's what they are doing.

It sounds like you could make the world a better place by simply enlisting.

SteveG1

11-12-2005, 12:05 PM

I'm getting real tired of the same pro war and pro Bush "talking points" coming up over and over ad nauseum. The "facts" used to justify the war WERE cooked and manipulated, by Bush and Cheney. How many times, and in how many separate threads must I and so many other people keep citing and directly quoting the news reports, official reports, the flipflop changes in "rationales for war", and the constant self contradictions by Bush? When will the people who keep dredging up the same "points" just stop and read the original reports for themselves? When will people look at the disconnects between Bush's claims and speeches (very well documented for the looking) and compare them with reality?

Der Trihs

11-12-2005, 12:16 PM

It sounds like you could make the world a better place by simply enlisting.A pro war person wants me dead ? Why am I not surprised ?

Johnny L.A.

11-12-2005, 12:20 PM

I'm getting real tired of the same pro war and pro Bush "talking points" coming up over and over ad nauseum.
'A lie repeated often enough becomes the truth.'

Digital Stimulus

11-12-2005, 12:31 PM

Nope. Your understanding is correct.
The phase 1 investigation itself was manipulated - they were only chartered and allowed to look at specific things, and were not allowed to examine other things (such as the disparities between the actual reports and the spin which ignored or doctored the final "data" that was sold to the USA amd tne UN). I think that this first "investigation" was meant to put all the blame on the intelligence community and exhonerate the administration.
Thanks. Can I have a cite? Not because I want to argue, mind you, but rather because I'd like to have an official, trustworthy reference to point to when it comes up again. And you know it will...

magellan01

11-12-2005, 12:31 PM

With all that, maybe you shouldn't have sent him over to Iraq then, should you? Perhaps you should be the one experiencing nights of fear, sadness, etc. You sent the kid over there to possibly die, but feel you should be able to sleep easy because you refuse to now rethink that decision or admit you were wrong.

What makes you think that I sent anyone anywhere? If you think that I am a fan of Bush, or voted for him (either time), or that I advocated going to Iraq, you'd be wrong on all accounts. I simply do not buy that this war is necessarily unjust or unwise. I do think that the efforts to keep the peace have been bothched to a large degree. And to someone's point earlier, I think that not securiing the areas that were known to have weapons was inexcusable.

The question right now is not, "should we have gone to war?". The question is: we have 150k troops in Iraq, what should we do with them—based on the situation right now? In the meantime, young men and women are in harm's way and I don't think that any of us should do anything that might encourage the enemy or make them less safe. Obviously, not all agree.

But this thread has been instructive in one particular regard. Der Trihs and others have proven that it is a lie that everyone supports our troops. That there are those on the left who don't just oppose the war or The President, but the young men and women who are serving their country. I commended Der Trihs for his honesty and the light it provides.

SteveG1

11-12-2005, 12:32 PM

'A lie repeated often enough becomes the truth.'
The PIPA Report nailed it. People would rather keep going down the same path to destruction, ignore all the evidence, and (yeah I'm gonna say this) kill more thousands of people than change their views.

magellan01

11-12-2005, 12:40 PM

A pro war person wants me dead ? Why am I not surprised ?

Heavens no! I much prefer having you around to hold up as a shining example of the hate-filled left. Please, stay healthy. In fact, if I were a wealthy person I'd give you your own radio show. The more people are aware that the extreme left is filled with such "progressive" thoughts the better it will be for everyone.

I was merely making an observation: like when you flush your toilet there is less shit in your house, and therefore, it's a better place.

But PLEASE, stay healthy. Write books. Let as many people as possible know how you feel. It helps put to rest the lie that "Hey, we all support the troops, we just don't support Bush or the war."

Take vitamins. Get plenty of rest. Exercise regularly.

Der Trihs

11-12-2005, 12:44 PM

But this thread has been instructive in one particular regard. Der Trihs and others have proven that it is a lie that everyone supports our troops. That there are those on the left who don't just oppose the war or The President, but the young men and women who are serving their country. I commended Der Trihs for his honesty and the light it provides."On the left" ? What about the right wing government that consistently screws the troops ? Insufficient armor, bait and switch with bonuses, tours extended without notice...

I may not "support the troops", but I'm not actively trying to harm them - Bush and friends are.

tomndebb

11-12-2005, 12:46 PM

Which is all very well, magellan01, but your initial comment was It sounds like you could make the world a better place by simply enlisting. which is much too close to wishing death (or harm) on another poster to be appropriate in this Forum.

SteveG1

11-12-2005, 12:46 PM

Thanks. Can I have a cite? Not because I want to argue, mind you, but rather because I'd like to have an official, trustworthy reference to point to when it comes up again. And you know it will...

During an interview on Fox News (of all places):
Well, I think he, ah, there's a lot to answer for because the intelligence that was available was hyped. I was one of many people who had seen previous intelligence that said the best judgment of the intelligence community was there might be weapons of mass destruction, some materials were unaccounted for. But the talk about mushroom clouds that Secretary Cheney was certain they were going to get a nuclear device fairly soon and so forth; it was irresponsible, it was ungrounded in the facts and the Congress that voted on the resolution never had the chance to see all the dissenting opinions within the intelligence community so I think there's a lot to be looked at here. I think strategically, though, we can see now, four years after 9/11, that going into Iraq in a way to fight the war on terror was a strategic blunder. ... They never looked at whether the administration distorted the information that was available in its approach to the public and they specifically said they weren't authorized to do that. That's what has to be looked at by this <crosstalk> Senate committee and they haven't done so.

Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, November 12, 2005; Page A01

President Bush and his national security adviser have answered critics of the Iraq war in recent days with a two-pronged argument: that Congress saw the same intelligence the administration did before the war, and that independent commissions have determined that the administration did not misrepresent the intelligence. Neither assertion is wholly accurate. But Bush and his aides had access to much more voluminous intelligence information than did lawmakers, who were dependent on the administration to provide the material. And the commissions cited by officials, though concluding that the administration did not pressure intelligence analysts to change their conclusions, were not authorized to determine whether the administration exaggerated or distorted those conclusions.
National security adviser Stephen J. Hadley, briefing reporters Thursday, countered "the notion that somehow this administration manipulated the intelligence." He said that "those people who have looked at that issue, some committees on the Hill in Congress, and also the Silberman-Robb Commission, have concluded it did not happen."
But the only committee investigating the matter in Congress, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, has not yet done its inquiry into whether officials mischaracterized intelligence by omitting caveats and dissenting opinions. And Judge Laurence H. Silberman, chairman of Bush's commission on weapons of mass destruction, said in releasing his report on March 31, 2005: "Our executive order did not direct us to deal with the use of intelligence by policymakers, and all of us were agreed that that was not part of our inquiry." ... In addition, there were doubts within the intelligence community not included in the NIE. And even the doubts expressed in the NIE could not be used publicly by members of Congress because the classified information had not been cleared for release.
For further reading, I suggest you really pay attention to the other cites that I posted in the pit, in the "Is our freedom on its last legs" thread, the original CIA reports, and the Downing Street Memo. The info being given out was deliberately cooked. Afterwards, the "investigations" were a sham that attempted to blame the intelligence community for the spin that was later put in through deliberate alteration and ommission. The Phase 1 "investigation" was told what they would be "allowed" to look at, and were directed NOT to look at where the real problem is.

Miller

11-12-2005, 12:55 PM

Der Trihs

11-12-2005, 12:59 PM

magellan01

11-12-2005, 01:01 PM

magellan01

11-12-2005, 01:05 PM

I'd like to point out that while I neither support nor approve of the troops, I do want them out of Iraq; that will save more of them than any amount of cheering them on.

What? Why not just wish them killed? That way they'll be fewer of them to fight in the next war you might object to. Come on, Der Trihs, don't let me down now. I have great hopes for you. I've already been sharing your "progressive" thoughts with others in cyber space. The light has been sent forth.

SteveG1

11-12-2005, 01:06 PM

Yeah, there are some people on the left who don't support the troops like Der Trihs. This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. The thing to remember is that there are people on the right who don't support the troops, either. One of them is George Bush. Of the two, which do you think is going to get the most troops killed?

You've used this strawman several times in this thread, and I doubt you'll stop using it any time soon, but the people who protest this war support the troops every bit as much as you do. Most of them, anyway. That's why they're protesting the war: because they see it is as the best way to prevent more troops from dying. Pretending otherwise does nothing but destroy your own credibility.
Well said. I oppose the war AND support the soldiers. There is no cognitive disconnect involved. To send soldiers off to fight Bush's "private adventure", to send them in poorly equipped, to willfully deny them the armor that the contractor has stated was Never Requested, to strip their benefits and medical/stress treatment, to offer bonuess and then "reinterpret" regulations to deny what was pronised, and hold them captive with a back door draft, to hold a dog and pony show with canned questions and responses (which Bush couldn't even follow with a script) is NOT SUPPORT. To praise and defend the man who did this to them is NOT SUPPORT. To ask why OUR soldiers are being sent over there for a lie is support. To expect that they be treated fairly and honestly, to be willing to tell them the truth is support.

elucidator

11-12-2005, 01:08 PM

It happened. It has been testified on both the SDMB and on Fathom by men to whom it happened.

The attempt to pretend that it did not happen was the result of some really sloppy methodology by a couple of guys who set out to "debunk" it as legend. They did not actually make the attempt to determine whether it happened.

As to spitting hippies sent to hospitals, I have had several of those stories related to me, as well.....
Inciting to hijack, one count. I'm surprised at you, Tomn.

I call for a cite on the "sloppy methodology" remark. What I've read indicates that a search for original sources proved fruitless: no newspaper articles about actual incidents but only reactions to hearsay. You claim to have the facts at hand. Bring 'em.

"...I have heard several of these stories."? I've heard stories of people being kidnapped by aliens and subjected to probes up their Nixon. Don't make it so.

GIGObuster

11-12-2005, 01:11 PM

The question right now is not, "should we have gone to war?". The question is: we have 150k troops in Iraq, what should we do with them—based on the situation right now?
No it is not, you are just acknowledging that you are hijacking the thread, Deal with the OP.
In the meantime, young men and women are in harm's way and I don't think that any of us should do anything that might encourage the enemy or make them less safe. Obviously, not all agree.
We are creating more of the enemy by remaining there.
But this thread has been instructive in one particular regard.
Der Trihs and others have proven that it is a lie that everyone supports our troops. That there are those on the left who don't just oppose the war or The President, but the young men and women who are serving their country. I commended Der Trihs for his honesty and the light it provides.
That is the light of a straw man argument, if you define that only some in the extreme left do that, fine. (some on the extreme right do spit on soldiers that oppose the war) But saying that "others have proven that it is a lie that everyone [on the left] supports our troops." is not correct: no one here made the statament that everyone on the left support our troops, unlikely that Der Trihs would have said that anyhow, therefore it is a straw man argument. And I have to say that the majority that I have encountered that oppose the war, do not think like Der Trihs.

GIGObuster

11-12-2005, 01:18 PM

Inciting to hijack, one count. I'm surprised at you, Tomn.

I call for a cite on the "sloppy methodology" remark. What I've read indicates that a search for original sources proved fruitless: no newspaper articles about actual incidents but only reactions to hearsay. You claim to have the facts at hand. Bring 'em.

"...I have heard several of these stories."? I've heard stories of people being kidnapped by aliens and subjected to probes up their Nixon. Don't make it so.
I am also surprised at Tomndebb, IIRC the most reliable testimonial from the SDMB came from old Triscademus, but it was to describe how right-wingers that were upset that he was a soldier protesting the Vietnam War spit on him!

Miller

11-12-2005, 01:27 PM

Left Hand of Dorkness, elucidator: Yes, yes, yes. There is much lacking in what I offered. I do not propose to have all the answers. But the point I was really trying to make is that we owe support to our men and women in uniform once they are in the field of battle. On this I am firm and unapologetic.

I support the troops, too. That's why I oppose the war, and that's why I oppose George Bush. One war protestor does more to support the troops than a hundred thousand magnetic car ribbons. I am firmly convinced that there is nothing in the world that you could do that would more support the troops than bringing down the Bush administration. I'm not acting out of partisan politics, here, but out of a concern for this country and its citizens that is every bit as strong as your own. It would be nice if you would acknowledge that, at least once. It feels quite a bit like you aren't listening to anyone else in this thread.

I think it falls to us to find a way to voice our opposition in a way that doesn't either cause them more anxiety or encourage their enemies—even inadvertently. That responsibility lies on us.

And what if there is no way to do that? Do we keep quiet, and let an intolerable situation persist, because we cannot find a perfect solution?

pantom

11-12-2005, 01:35 PM

For those of you who may not have seen it, here is the full text of Colonel Wilkerson's blasting of "the Cheney cabal". (http://www.yuricareport.com/Corruption/Transcript_WilkersonOnCheneyHijacking.html)

Some juicy quotes:

And I would say that we have courted disaster, in Iraq, in North Korea, in Iran, generally with regard to domestic crises like Katrina, Rita and I could go on back, we haven’t done very well on anything like that in a long time. And if something comes along that is truly serious, truly serious, something like a nuclear weapon going off in a major American city, or something like a major pandemic, you are going to see the ineptitude of this government in a way that will take you back to the Declaration of Independence. Read it some time again...
What I saw was a cabal between the Vice President of the United States, Richard Cheney, and the Secretary of Defense and [inaudible] on critical issues that made decisions that the bureaucracy did not know were being made...
Read George Packer’s book The Assassin’s [inaudible] if you haven’t already. George Packer, a New Yorker, reporter for The New Yorker, has got it right. I just finished it and I usually put marginalia in a book but, let me tell you, I had to get extra pages to write on.
And I wish, I wish I had been able to help George Packer write that book. In some places I could have given him a hell of a lot more specifics than he’s got. But if you want to read how the Cheney Rumsfeld cabal flummoxed the process, read that book. And, of course, there are other names in there, Under Secretary of Defense Douglas [inaudible], whom most of you probably know Tommy Frank said was stupidest blankety blank man in the world. He was. Let me testify to that. He was. Seldom in my life have I met a dumber man.
And yet, and yet, after the Secretary of State agrees to a $400 billion department, rather than a $30 billion department, having control, at least in the immediate post-war period in Iraq, this man is put in charge.
...So you’ve got this collegiality there between the Secretary of Defense and the Vice President. And then you’ve got a President who is not versed in international relations. And not too much interested in them either.
And so it’s not too difficult to make decisions in this, what I call Oval Office cabal, and decisions often that are the opposite of what you thought were made in the formal process.

So, given the bolded part, I'd say he's neither got huge balls nor is he delusional. He's just too weak willed, too weakminded, too just plain stupid to be President, and too stupid to know it.

SteveG1

11-12-2005, 01:37 PM

Compare what Bush and his supporters say (Stay the course, God is on our side) to what his own church says about this situation
Methodist Bishops Repent Iraq War 'Complicity'
Thursday, November 10, 2005
WASHINGTON — Ninety-five bishops from President Bush's church said Thursday they repent their "complicity" in the "unjust and immoral" invasion and occupation of Iraq.
"In the face of the United States administration's rush toward military action based on misleading information, too many of us were silent," said a statement of conscience signed by more than half of the 164 retired and active United Methodist bishops worldwide. ... "The only solution seems to be to stay the course. But if you're on the wrong course, you don't stay the course," Carder said. "At the heart of the Christian faith is the willingness to acknowledge mistakes."

SteveG1

11-12-2005, 01:41 PM

For those of you who may not have seen it, here is the full text of Colonel Wilkerson's blasting of "the Cheney cabal". (http://www.yuricareport.com/Corruption/Transcript_WilkersonOnCheneyHijacking.html)

Some juicy quotes:

So, given the bolded part, I'd say he's neither got huge balls nor is he delusional. He's just too weak willed, too weakminded, too just plain stupid to be President, and too stupid to know it.
That is a freaky and scary parallel to what Kwiatkoski (Lt Col, retired) said years ago. All about the "Iraq desk" in the Pentagon, the infusion or invasion of the Pentagon by neocons, and the deliberate manufacture of "evidence " for war. It also meshes well with the CIA, the Downing Street Memo, and all the OTHER documents that the Bush supporters willfully and consciously and deliberately ignore.

magellan01

11-12-2005, 01:56 PM

I'm genuinely confused by magellan's "write your congressmen, but don't protest publically" idea. We write our congressmen, and if they ignore us, we vote them out. Which could take up to six years, if we're talking about Senators. But only two if it's a Representative! How many more troops are going to die between now and 2011, if we follow your advice, magellan?

In war, people die. Unfortunate. True. By until the war is over, the idea is to have as few of them die—particulalry those on your own side—as possible. Isn't it possible, especially if the facts are on your side, to make the decision to bring troops home without pissing on the decision to go to war. Isn't it possible that it may be wise to go to war AND wise to withdraw at a certain time? What I am saying is that if you believe that the war should end, that you owe it to our troops to couch it in those terms. After their home and we can have a less emoptyional discussion we can then evaluate the reasons, our leaders, etc.

I'm also dumbfounded by your insistence that protests at home make more enemies for us, rather than less. Especially in light of your mention of John Adams defending an English soldier against a murder charge! Can you not understand how this exact same scenario applies to our current conflict? If you were invaded and conquered by a foreign army, if your friends and neighbors and family members were being grabbed off the streets, whisked away to secret prisons where they were tortured, raped, and murdered, you would fight back against them, right? Now, you hear that your enemies citizens are outraged at the actions of their military and leadership, and are staging protests and taking to the streets to protest the way your people are being treated. Would that make you hate them more? You would, in that situation, rather hear that your enemey's citizens don't give a shit, or even actively support what's happening to you? I doubt that very much: such information would drive most people to even greater acts of violence or barbarity.

You and I walk into a bar. You get into a beef with some guy over who has the next pool game. As you get chest to chest with this guy his buddy comes up and stands right next to him, implying that if you fight one you're fighting both. I see this and come stand next to my friend, Miller, letting those other two guys know that you have support, too. But then twenty guys get up and come to their friends' aid. At this poiont, I don't know about you, I'm all for trying to talk things out. Violence no longer seems such a good way settle things, regardless of how "right" we thought we were.

That was my point with the hypothetical. The united and overwhelming force we can present, the less fighting seems to be a reasonable course of action for the smaller force.

Yeah, there are some people on the left who don't support the troops like Der Trihs. This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. The thing to remember is that there are people on the right who don't support the troops, either. One of them is George Bush. Of the two, which do you think is going to get the most troops killed?

I don't think this argument is valid. If it were, any President that sends troops into battle would be the one least supportive of the troops.

You've used this strawman several times in this thread, and I doubt you'll stop using it any time soon, but the people who protest this war support the troops every bit as much as you do. Most of them, anyway. That's why they're protesting the war: because they see it is as the best way to prevent more troops from dying. Pretending otherwise does nothing but destroy your own credibility.

What strawman? I'm a little confused by this paragraph. Can you explaiin further? I will say that until Der Trihs revealed the sentiments he did, I was operating under the assumption that everyone supported the troops. I doubted it's varacity, but I was giving all the benefit of the doubt.

I find it encouraging that at least one person who opposes the war has taken issue with Der Trihs. The fact that more people haven't both surprises and saddens me. Are there more of him than I thought?

GIGObuster

11-12-2005, 01:59 PM

From my long post that magellian01 and other administration defenders are purposely ignoring:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/unmovic/2003/0630selling.htm

Five of the nine Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee, including Graham and Durbin, ultimately voted against the resolution, but they were unable to convince other committee members or a majority in the Senate itself. This was at least in part because they were not allowed to divulge what they knew: While Graham and Durbin could complain that the administration's and Tenet's own statements contradicted the classified reports they had read, they could not say what was actually in those reports.
I forgot to remark on that: here is the demonstration that Democrats actually now how to keep secrets even if their party will be hurt; Republicans, as the Plame case shows, just can not keep a secret or manipulate it if it will benefit them. Party before country.

GIGObuster

11-12-2005, 02:04 PM

I find it encouraging that at least one person who opposes the war has taken issue with Der Trihs. The fact that more people haven't both surprises and saddens me. Are there more of him than I thought?
I don't think there is a lot like Der Trihs, but I already posted why your insinuation here is a straw man, and there you go again with the continuation of this hijack. Deal with the issue at hand.

Der Trihs

11-12-2005, 02:11 PM

You and I walk into a bar. You get into a beef with some guy over who has the next pool game. As you get chest to chest with this guy his buddy comes up and stands right next to him, implying that if you fight one you're fighting both. I see this and come stand next to my friend, Miller, letting those other two guys know that you have support, too. But then twenty guys get up and come to their friends' aid. At this poiont, I don't know about you, I'm all for trying to talk things out. Violence no longer seems such a good way settle things, regardless of how "right" we thought we were.

That was my point with the hypothetical. The united and overwhelming force we can present, the less fighting seems to be a reasonable course of action for the smaller force.A more accurate version would involve the bigger crowd waving weapons, they've just murdered your father, and some in the background are raping your 12 year old sister. Oh, and they include the police chief and mayor, so you can't go for help and expect any. Do you back down and try reason, or do you try to hurt and kill as many as possible before they kill you ?

I don't think this argument is valid. If it were, any President that sends troops into battle would be the one least supportive of the troops.It's a obvious reference to the fact that Bush and friends keep betraying the troops.

SteveG1

11-12-2005, 02:12 PM

Gigo, we've all provided cites that support our views. I feel like I'm being ignored here too. I think it's time to put up or shut up. magellan01, do you have any reliable cites to support what you are saying? Do you have anything at all besides beer hall analogies?

magellan01

11-12-2005, 02:17 PM

No it is not, you are just acknowledging that you are hijacking the thread, Deal with the OP.

Bush has big balls. Happy?

We are creating more of the enemy by remaining there.

Your opinion is noted.

That is the light of a straw man argument, if you define that only some in the extreme left do that, fine. (some on the extreme right do spit on soldiers that oppose the war) But saying that "others have proven that it is a lie that everyone [on the left] supports our troops." is not correct: no one here made the statament that everyone on the left support our troops, unlikely that Der Trihs would have said that anyhow, therefore it is a straw man argument. And I have to say that the majority that I have encountered that oppose the war, do not think like Der Trihs.

To quote what I wrote:

But this thread has been instructive in one particular regard.
Der Trihs and others have proven that it is a lie that everyone supports our troops. That there are those on the left who don't just oppose the war or The President, but the young men and women who are serving their country. I commended Der Trihs for his honesty and the light it provides.

It says that the idea that "everyone" supports the troops is a lie. Even you seem to agree that Der Trihs proves this point.

It says that "there are those on the left who don't just oppose the war or The President, but the young men and women who are serving their country." You say that "if you define that only some in the extreme left do that, fine." Please show me where those two statements are in conflict.

magellan01

11-12-2005, 02:26 PM

But PLEASE, stay healthy...Let as many people as possible know how you feel.

A more accurate version would involve the bigger crowd waving weapons, they've just murdered your father, and some in the background are raping your 12 year old sister. Oh, and they include the police chief and mayor, so you can't go for help and expect any. Do you back down and try reason, or do you try to hurt and kill as many as possible before they kill you ?

Thank you for fulfilling my request. Please continue.

clairobscur

11-12-2005, 02:29 PM

Unless by "undercutting" the troops' efforts you mean bringing them home, yes, it is a horrible thing. We sent them to a dangerous place. We owe them full support while they are there.

Who are these "we"? I think american people abuse of the "we". Were you consulted about the war? Did you vote in favor of it? Did you even vote in favor of a candidate supporting it?

War is an outstandish decision to take in a democracy. It changes overnight hundred of thousands of people in state-sponsored murderers and cannonflesh. That the one decision I deny the government the legitimacy to make in my behalf. That's why I'm a conscientious objector. Nobody, absolutely nobody, has any right to tell me for what cause I should kill or be killed. I never sent nor will ever send anybody to a war. I owe these people nothing, except if I personnally support the cause they're fighting for.

But, again, what determines if the war is unjust?

My conscience. Nothing else and nobody else.

And how do you think that it is justifiable to send a twenty-year-old kid into a war zone and then undercut his efforts while he is there?

It is not. Either they should be there and should be supported, or they shouldn't be there at the first place and shouldn't receive support.

And then to say that him being shot is a good thing? Even assuming you are correct in that this hypothetical war is unjust,

I didn't make any statement about this particular war. I'm extremely reluctant about making this kind of statement.

do you really think it is right to punish that kid for following orders?

It's not the most right thing. The lower you're in the food chain, the smaller your personnal responsability. But not having a large share of responsability doesn't mean that you deserve support. It might even mean that you have to be shot at, as sad as it might be. Aren't they themselves shooting at people who don't deserve it, either? Why would it be more "right" to support an american solidier than an Iraki one? If any, the Iraki probably deserves more sympathy because he didn't even have the choice to enlist or not at the first place.

Once again, war is an outstandish decision and situation. Sharing the same citizenship becomes irrelevant in such a situation, and only who's fighting for "good" side (assuming someone actually is) matters in the same way being from the same neighborhood or not becomes irrelevant in a case of homicide. Only who killed whom and did he have a legitimate cause to do so (like self-defense) is.

I think that is cheap and cowardly. If the war is unjust (factually) then the people who should pay are those who sent him there.

Definitely. They should pay. A leader who lied in order to wage a war should receive the harshest punishment available. A leader who was just mistaken should immdiatly resign or be impeached. War is *not* usual business. There's absolutely no acceptable room for deceit or mistake.

This still doesn't mean that the people who were sent to fight should receive support if the cause is unjust. They deserve, once again, less support than the people who were sent to fight for the just cause (the "ennemy", IOW). That's a sad state of things, but aren't the ennemy soldiers in the same situation.? Why wouldn't they deserve support?

I think the only morally defensible position for the sentiments you express is to be against all wars at all times. Then, I'd say, you would be able to rightly criticize troops for being part of the war machine.

Absolutely not. Many of my great-uncles fought and some died for a stupid cause. One fought and died for a just one. My grandfather was a "traitor", and my father both voluntereed for a just war and latter became a traitor, and ended up in an Very Bad Place (TM) as a result. They deserved support not because they were following a french flag, or pissed on said flag, but because they made the right choice (or just randomly happened to find themselves on the good side).

There is such a thing as a just war. A lot of people who fought in unjust or pointless ones deserves pity. But the only ones deserving support are the ones fighting and dying for a just cause.

And once again, I'm the only person I allow to decide on whether a war is just or not. I do not feel morally held by a decision made by anybody else on this issue. And certainly not by someone who happens to have been elected by 50.01% of my fellow citizens because he had a nicer tie.

But if you believe that war can be necessary and good, then you agree that we need to have an effective fighting force. And if you believe that, then you should uunderstand that it is not—and cannot be—the business of troops to weigh in on the justness or unjustness of any particular war.

Ultimately it is up to them. "I was following orders" isn't always a valid defence. There has always been desertors, refuzniks, traitors, simply people who "didn't fire a shot" or even people who choose not to enlist. Even more true for a professionnal army as opposed to draftees who had even less choice a the forst place. Obviously, having the choice between a firing squad and fighting in an unjust war largely diminishes one's responsability, by comparison with the general ordering you to do so. But if you're dropping bombs on some city, you can't be absolved of all responsability. What are you doing in this plane at the first place? Were you put in it at gunpoint?

If you believe so, what support were you ready to offer to Iraki draftees at the beginning of the war? It wasn't their business to decide, either,was it? What makes them less deserving of your support?

tomndebb

11-12-2005, 02:29 PM

I call for a cite on the "sloppy methodology" remark. What I've read indicates that a search for original sources proved fruitless: no newspaper articles about actual incidents but only reactions to hearsay. You claim to have the facts at hand. Bring 'em.Neither Beamish nor Lembcke ever interviewed an actual human being, yet they published "findings" that were based on newspaper surveys. Perhaps that is not "sloppy" so much as "limited." Nearly every testimony of a vet regarding having been spit upon is related in the context of a personal confrontation between two people, not in the context of mobs of protestors that would actually inspire a news story. (The testimonies regarding beatings by angered vets (both by the vets and their victims) have similarly been on the order of two or three individuals having a brief encounter that would not have made the news.*)

If the claim is that protestors never lined up at airports and spat volleys of phlegm at returning vets, then I would say that Beamish and Lembcke provided the evidence to support that limited claim. However, their reports do not support the wider claim adopted by various people that "spitting" never happened and I have yet to see a clarification by either of them regarding the difference between what they studied and what has since been reported. (I hold Lembcke in particular disdain on this point. Beamish simply made a study to discover whether an event had been reported; Lembcke used a similar study as the basis for a significant portion of a book on the topic in which he chose to never seek any other sources--I call that sloppy.)

*(I have never paid attention to general claims that returning vets were beating up people. On the other hand, I have noticed among several vets and protestors of my acquaintance brief references to violent responses to individual acts of scorn, either in the context of "I clocked some guy who insisted on getting in my face and calling me baby-killer at Joe's bar" or in the context of "I made the mistake of getting in some guy's face at Al's Pub and he decked me." I do not have hundreds of such anecdotes, perhaps a half dozen, but none were told in the manner of bragging and I have no reason to doubt that some conflict occurred, even if it was not as conclusive as the tellers would have made it.)

SteveG1

11-12-2005, 02:29 PM

Here's some real support for the troops.

How do those politicians who rush to send our soldiers off to war, yet fail to adequately support them, dare look at themselves in the mirror each morning?
Too often, these are the very same hyprocites who strut about and fervently shout that all life is sacred, then demonstrate they don't give a damn what happens to anyone but themselves and their own family members once birth takes place. … Here is Rumsfeld's comment when asked by a soldier about the missing but needed armor:
"As you know, you go to war with the Army you have. They're not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time."
Rumsfeld went on to blame the problem on physics and then said everything was being done to alleviate the shortage. Of course,this was another set of lies as the manufacturer of such armor later said his company could easily increase output but hadn't been asked to do so.
Any Secretary of Defense worthy of his position and the respect of his troops would have resigned for such improprieties. … Owing to the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the number of veterans receiving compensation for PTSD has increased by almost 80 percent in the last five years. By comparison, the number of veterans receiving compensation for all other types of disabilities increased by only 12 percent. Under the guidelines of the current review, soldiers who cannot prove that a specific incident, known as a "stressor," was sufficient to cause PTSD, their benefits will be revoked. Given the nature of warfare in Iraq and Afghanistan, it's not surprising that many returning soldiers are suffering from mental illness. … Although the number of soldiers suffering from PTSD is high, Dr. Hoge's study found that a majority of veterans are not seeking treatment. Only 40 percent of returning soldiers acknowledged that they need mental health care, and only 26 percent were actually receiving care. Therefore, the number of veterans approved for PTSD compensation by the VA is relatively small. Yet the VA believes that too many soldiers were approved for PTSD disability compensation and is now seeking to deny soldiers this benefit...."
So slap that 'Support Our Troops' bumpersticker on your SUV and wave your flag. After all, what more could be expected to show your support with George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld as your exemplars?

Miller

11-12-2005, 02:29 PM

In war, people die. Unfortunate. True. By until the war is over, the idea is to have as few of them die—particulalry those on your own side—as possible. Isn't it possible, especially if the facts are on your side, to make the decision to bring troops home without pissing on the decision to go to war. Isn't it possible that it may be wise to go to war AND wise to withdraw at a certain time? What I am saying is that if you believe that the war should end, that you owe it to our troops to couch it in those terms. After their home and we can have a less emoptyional discussion we can then evaluate the reasons, our leaders, etc.

Okay, if that's possible, let's see you do it. Pretend you're an anti-war liberal, and sell bringing the troops home right now without mentioning that every single justification for going to war has been false, that the execution of the war has been criminally mismanaged since before our boots hit the ground over there, that the administration has regularly made decisions designed to enrich a select cadre of cronies at the expense of the lives of our men and women over there. After you take all that off the table, what is there left? And how do you counter the continuing lies from the other side about why we're over there and what we're doing, if pointing out the fact that these reasons are lies is somehow damaging or disloyal to our troops? What arguments are left? "War sucks?" That wasn't enough to stop us going in the first place; I think we need something more substantial than that to bring a halt to this royal clusterfuck.

You and I walk into a bar. You get into a beef with some guy over who has the next pool game. As you get chest to chest with this guy his buddy comes up and stands right next to him, implying that if you fight one you're fighting both. I see this and come stand next to my friend, Miller, letting those other two guys know that you have support, too. But then twenty guys get up and come to their friends' aid. At this poiont, I don't know about you, I'm all for trying to talk things out. Violence no longer seems such a good way settle things, regardless of how "right" we thought we were.

I don't see one single way your analogy applies to the situation in Iraq, except for the implicit violence. How about, instead of crappy analogies, you answer my original question, using the actual situation in Iraq? If the insurgents know that not all Americans hate Iraqis and want to see them tortured, if they know that a significant portion of Americans want us out of Iraq altogether, do you think they will be more vicious and angry, or less? Do you think they will be more likely to commit terrorist acts against civilians, or less?

That was my point with the hypothetical. The united and overwhelming force we can present, the less fighting seems to be a reasonable course of action for the smaller force.

On the contrary, in that situation, fighting only seems to be the only way out, because there is no one on the other side who gives a shit about what happens to you.

I don't think this argument is valid. If it were, any President that sends troops into battle would be the one least supportive of the troops.

What? That makes no sense, unless you assume that every president is as corrupt and incompetent as George Bush. This is, thankfully, empirically impossible. The Bush administration has made decision after decision that has put our troops in danger for no reason. There's no reason not to supply our troops with body armor. There's no reason to conquer the country without securing gigantic ammo dumps, giving effectively unlimtied arms and material to the insurgents. There's no reason to disband the Iraqi army without disarming them, creating a huge force of unemployed, disaffected men with military training and tools to oppose us, while we lack sufficient manpower to close the borders and prevent terrorists from entering the country. There's no reason to allow the rampant looting and destruction of the nation's water and electricity plants, destroying the quality of life for every Iraqi and creating even more disaffected and angry natives who want a reason to hit back. Bush has fucked up every single aspect of this invasion: he is a menace to every American stationed in Iraq, not just because he sent them there, but because he lacks the abilities and the resolve to lead them properly.

What strawman? I'm a little confused by this paragraph. Can you explaiin further? I will say that until Der Trihs revealed the sentiments he did, I was operating under the assumption that everyone supported the troops. I doubted it's varacity, but I was giving all the benefit of the doubt.

I'm refering to your constant statements like, "But the point I was really trying to make is that we owe support to our men and women in uniform once they are in the field of battle. On this I am firm and unapologetic." The clear implication being that your opponents do not support the troops. This is bullshit, and damned insulting, to boot.

I find it encouraging that at least one person who opposes the war has taken issue with Der Trihs. The fact that more people haven't both surprises and saddens me. Are there more of him than I thought?

I don't have time to pick a fight with every single person on the board I disagree with. I've got my hand full dealing with you. You have a problem with Der Trihs, you deal with him.

Steve MB

11-12-2005, 02:36 PM

What bothers me the most is the refusal of some people to face the fact that they are undercutting the troops when they are undercutting the president.

Nope.

The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else.

tomndebb

11-12-2005, 02:38 PM

That was my point with the hypothetical. The united and overwhelming force we can present, the less fighting seems to be a reasonable course of action for the smaller force.Seems like one more mistaken lesson from Vietnam.

The British had no serious protests against the Boer war until late in the conflict, yet the Boers campaigned until they were overwhelmed.

There were no visible protests in Germany between 1939 and 1945, yet the French, Dutch, and others continued to resist in the face of a "united" opponent.

When the U.S.S.R. went into Afghanistan, there were no protests at home for several years, yet the Afghanis continued to resist (and recruit outside help) throughout the long period prior to the first fledgling protests in Russia and its associated states.

There is simply no evidence that protests in the invading country actually have much effect on resistance. The claim that protests "strengthen" resistance appears to be merely one more way to suppress dissent.

Steve MB

11-12-2005, 02:44 PM

Your talking abot soldiers in a hypothetical war. How about the soldiers that are in a REAL war, now?

Somebody asserted on another thread that helping real people now was absolutely (i.e. exempt from the usual weighing of options to see which is likely to do the most good and least evil) more important than helping hypothetical people in the future. I think it will suffice to recycle my rebuttal of that argument:

it's false morality to not help a real person on behalf of a hypothetical person.

So, if you're working in a food processing plant and discover that one of your coworkers forgot to put an allergy warning label on a product containing peanut oil.

Do you:

1)Bring this to the attention of management so they can issue a public notification or recall, knowing that one side effect will be to get your coworker fired for negligence, or

2)Help your coworker cover up the mistake, on the grounds that helping the real live person in front of you is more important than protecting the hypothetical peanut-allergic person who might come upon the product unawares?

GIGObuster

11-12-2005, 02:59 PM

It says that the idea that "everyone" supports the troops is a lie. Even you seem to agree that Der Trihs proves this point.

It says that "there are those on the left who don't just oppose the war or The President, but the young men and women who are serving their country." You say that "if you define that only some in the extreme left do that, fine." Please show me where those two statements are in conflict.
That is not the complaint: your statement was indeed referring to the "lie" that "everyone" on the left was saying that "everyone [on the left] supports the troops", unless you can point to all here opposing the war saying that "all the left supports the troops", the only conclusion is that what you are saying is not true. No one was saying that "everyone [on the left] supports the troops", just you. To say that the left is lying in this context requires that someone here was proposing that war opponents are like a monolith.

magellan01

11-12-2005, 02:59 PM

I support the troops, too. That's why I oppose the war, and that's why I oppose George Bush. One war protestor does more to support the troops than a hundred thousand magnetic car ribbons.

If you're talking about things like making sure the troops have armor and the best equipment, we are in agreement, and the people who raise their voices to those ends deserve to be commended. But look at it from the standpoint of our soldiers in Iraq: "Wow, those people back home are really behind me. They want to help me stay alive ." Contrast that with "Illegitimate war. War based on lies. War for oil., etc.

I am firmly convinced that there is nothing in the world that you could do that would more support the troops than bringing down the Bush administration. I'm not acting out of partisan politics, here, but out of a concern for this country and its citizens that is every bit as strong as your own. It would be nice if you would acknowledge that, at least once.

You're right. And I will. I have no doubt that there are people who vehemnently oppose the war and/or the administration and who love their country and support the young men and women we've sent to Iraq. I stand with those that I describe in wanting the best for our country and wanting the best from it. It is incumbent upon all of us to monitor our country and it's leaders and to actively attempt to make sure it lives up to it's promise. This transcends party and politics, and we should all remember that.

I simply ask that we pay attention to the means we employ and that each of us acknowledge that our actions have consequences, intended and unintended.

To the first part of your paragraph, I guess the assumptions you are working under are that Bush and Cheney can be brought down and that Hastert (?) and would do things differently. I would submit that a more effective plan for bringing the troops home is to go after congress. It's easy for Bush top ignore even the largest anti-war rally. But what if there were rallys in each congressman's district? It seems it would be much easier to get each congressman and senator to accept the will of their constituency if it was large enough.

It's about numbers. A couple hundred thousand people at the Washington Mall is a drop in the bucket and easy to ignore, especially when their message is fractured, garbled, and so obviously driven by hate of an individual. It seems that a better strategy ids to find out when your congressman is in his district and march on his office. If oyu have enough people and he wants to stay in office, he will vote your way. If you don't have enough people, you probably won't get your way. Such is democracy.

It feels quite a bit like you aren't listening to anyone else in this thread.

With the exception of you, and one or two others, I feel the same way, which is why I am so appreciative of posters like you and cosmosdan, who I often disagree with. I'll try harder to follow your example.

And what if there is no way to do that? Do we keep quiet, and let an intolerable situation persist, because we cannot find a perfect solution?

I don't know. For me, I am intent in not making the troops pay for the mistakes of our leaders or those who elected them.

Der Trihs

11-12-2005, 03:00 PM

Thank you for fulfilling my request. Please continue.Translation : Der Trihs is right; I have no arguement, so I'll make a meaningless comment.

Steve MB

11-12-2005, 03:00 PM

Let's make believe that the left was on board with the war, that we were as unified as during WWII. Press included. Let's also make believe that France and Germany, after registeriing their doubts, joined us at that very last hour. So, if the whole US and the western powers were fervently behind the war, do you think that it would be easier or more difficult to recruit you (making believe you are a twenty-year-old Iraqi)?
Probably easier; it lends extra credibility to the "the Crusaders are coming to crush Islam" argument.

Loopydude

11-12-2005, 03:04 PM

I don't know. For me, I am intent in not making the troops pay for the mistakes of our leaders or those who elected them.

I always wonder why this can't get through. "You're endangering the troops!" By trying to get them home? "Yes!"

Sort of like the intelligence debate.

"They all believed the intelligence!"

Bush had access to different intelligence, and none of it supported his assertions.

"Yet they believed!"

Okaaay.

Steve MB

11-12-2005, 03:05 PM

I think the president has huge balls and is delusional.
To crassly politicize a Veterans' Day celebration takes huge balls. :wally The specific comments made on the occasion are delusional. :rolleyes:

elucidator

11-12-2005, 03:14 PM

...I simply ask that we pay attention to the means we employ and that each of us...
Democracy ain't for sissies. There are no perfectly innocent choices, save for those under tyranny who are helpless to affect decisions. We choose, therefore we are not innocent, we can choose, therefore we are free.

Is it possible that an enemy can be encouraged by my dissent? Yes, its possible. It is also possible that same enemy might pause to wonder, might pause to ask himself how it is that I live in a nation where dissent is permitted, even honored. And he does not. He might ask himself how it is that I have freedoms that he has not.

Truth is propaganda, in its highest, most rarified form. Only the brave and the free dare use truth as propaganda.

Miller

11-12-2005, 03:25 PM

If you're talking about things like making sure the troops have armor and the best equipment, we are in agreement, and the people who raise their voices to those ends deserve to be commended. But look at it from the standpoint of our soldiers in Iraq: "Wow, those people back home are really behind me. They want to help me stay alive ." Contrast that with "Illegitimate war. War based on lies. War for oil., etc.

The thing is, the people who are opposed to giving the troops the best equipment available, are the ones who are continuing to lie about why we're over there and what we're accomplishing. If we're going to fix the problems of equiping our troops, we have to get past the obstacle of those who would claim that there's no problem with our troops equipment. The best way to do this is to illustrate all the other ways they've lied about this conflict, so that people won't believe their further lies about this conflict.

I also have enough respect for the intelligence of our troops to expect them to understand the difference between, "I don't like the war or the guy who started it," with "I don't like the guys who are fighting it." I have trouble believing there are that many people who are that stupid in any walk of life.

You're right. And I will. I have no doubt that there are people who vehemnently oppose the war and/or the administration and who love their country and support the young men and women we've sent to Iraq. I stand with those that I describe in wanting the best for our country and wanting the best from it. It is incumbent upon all of us to monitor our country and it's leaders and to actively attempt to make sure it lives up to it's promise. This transcends party and politics, and we should all remember that.

I simply ask that we pay attention to the means we employ and that each of us acknowledge that our actions have consequences, intended and unintended.

The problem I'm having with you is that every single other thing you've said in this thread stands in contradiction to what you just wrote.

To the first part of your paragraph, I guess the assumptions you are working under are that Bush and Cheney can be brought down and that Hastert (?) and would do things differently.

No, I doubt we could actually topple the administration. But we can hamstring it so that it lacks political pull, and can't continue to make the sort of mistakes that got us into this mess in the first place, or that make the price we're all paying for those mistakes higher and higher, every single day.

I would submit that a more effective plan for bringing the troops home is to go after congress. It's easy for Bush top ignore even the largest anti-war rally. But what if there were rallys in each congressman's district? It seems it would be much easier to get each congressman and senator to accept the will of their constituency if it was large enough.

It's about numbers. A couple hundred thousand people at the Washington Mall is a drop in the bucket and easy to ignore, especially when their message is fractured, garbled, and so obviously driven by hate of an individual. It seems that a better strategy ids to find out when your congressman is in his district and march on his office. If oyu have enough people and he wants to stay in office, he will vote your way. If you don't have enough people, you probably won't get your way. Such is democracy..

A nitpick, but Senators are congressmen. And you think that the people in congress aren't paying attention when protestors march on the White House? You think they aren't paying very careful attention to every poll that measures Bush's spiraling popularity, and weigh their support for his policies accordingly?

I don't know. For me, I am intent in not making the troops pay for the mistakes of our leaders or those who elected them.

Agreed. Hence, the protesting.

SteveG1

11-12-2005, 03:28 PM

Let's get down to the brass tacks. Bush is claiming that his oppononents are "re-writing history" and doctoring the facts. The FACTS say that Bush has been the one re-writing history and doctoring the facts all along. The reason we are all even talking about it is, Bush did it. It's simple and it's standard Bush/Rove strategy. Lie like a son of a bitch, and then lay the whole sordid mess at someone else's feet, through the use of yet another lie.

elucidator

11-12-2005, 03:33 PM

The thing is, the people who are opposed to giving the troops the best equipment available, are the ones who are continuing to lie about why we're over there and what we're accomplishing....
A minor and respectful nitpick, if you will.

Even the most brain-dead don't "oppose" giving our troops the best equipment. The colossal blunder was in believing that such would not be necessary, that the Iraqi people would shower us with garlands and offer us their daughters. After the cakewalk, the Victory Dance, and then home. The only special equipment needed would be dancing shoes.

SteveG1

11-12-2005, 03:37 PM

"They all believed the intelligence!"

Bush had access to different intelligence, and none of it supported his assertions.

"Yet they believed!"

Okaaay.
Yeah they believed (at first), because the data was already cooked. All references to any doubts or reservations had already been expunged and "sanitized". In short, they were also lied to.

Saying a falsehood is a lie. Deliberately withholding information to "tilt" the story in a certain direction to deliberatley mislead is also a lie. SO let's not get into any semantic crap about what is a lie, or what is the meaning of is. In doctoring and changing the tone and content of the reports, Bush was lying to Congress. Just like he lied to the rest of us. Before you all ask for a cite, it's already posted in the Pit.

Miller

11-12-2005, 03:49 PM

A minor and respectful nitpick, if you will.

Even the most brain-dead don't "oppose" giving our troops the best equipment. The colossal blunder was in believing that such would not be necessary, that the Iraqi people would shower us with garlands and offer us their daughters. After the cakewalk, the Victory Dance, and then home. The only special equipment needed would be dancing shoes.

Well, yes and no. The blunder was, indeed, the optimistic assumption that the armor wouldn't be needed. But remember who the blunderer was: Bush the Infalliable would indeed oppose supplying the troops with armor, if the alternative were admitting he'd screwed up by not giving it to them in the first place.

HPL

11-12-2005, 03:51 PM

I don't know. For me, I am intent in not making the troops pay for the mistakes of our leaders or those who elected them.

I keep noticing that you can't actually defend the actions of El Presidente, but contiually seem to imply that we're helping the terrorists kill Americans if anyone so much as criticizes him. Basically, you don't have an arguement. You just keep harping on the fact that we must support the troops.

News Flash, buddy.

WE DO SUPPORT THE TROOPS!

I don't know how many times we can state that before you get that through your thick shull of yours. Now that we've established that, let's move on.

In case your reading comprehension issues persist, I'll break this down to make it very simple.

1. Bush(which I'll use as a stand-in for the adminstration) started a war for reasons that have turned out to be almost entirely false.

2. There is reason to believe he knew that such reasons have been false.

3. Despite having all the time in the world to plan this endevour, he has been mindnumblingly incompetant at both planning and execution.

4. Because of this, our troops are in danger.

And your suggestion is: Do nothing. It puts the troops in more danger.

Exactly how does people pointing out the obvious truth that this was a disaster of Bush's making, that is continually getting troops killed,and thus should be halted before it gets any worse, make it the fault of the people who are pointing out the flaws and not the guy who actually planned and executed the operation despite warning that it likely would be a disaster.

Or to use an analogy.

Bush runs a mining company. Bush decides to dig a gold mine in a moutain, he's told that the moutain doesn't have any gold and that it will take a lot of money to do so and a lot of miners will die due to hostile conditions. He does so anyway, and lo and behold, there's no gold, so the mine loses money and miners die. The families of the miners start protesting, saying that their miners dying for nothing.

And you tell the familes to shut up, because by criticizing bush, they're hurting the company and causing more miners to die because they see their familes as undercutting them. As opposed to the great sucess the company would be if the familes kept praising bush for sending miners to their death for no good reason.

GIGObuster

11-12-2005, 03:51 PM

Translation : Der Trihs is right; I have no arguement, so I'll make a meaningless comment.
Well Der Trihs, I can see his point regarding you, but I'm not ignoring your position either, IF you are specific, the corrupting nature of an unjust war does change the nature of some soldiers, like Nietzsche said: "He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster". At home, we have the sorry spectacle of many defenders of the administration supporting torture now; meanwhile in Iraq, reports are surfacing that are a carbon copy of the El Salvador civil war: (Cheney and others have said before that the plan for Iraq is like the one applied to El Salvador, heaven help us)

http://dahrjamailiraq.com/weblog/archives/dispatches/000315.php#more
Dr.Walid said: “They arrested me in my house in front of my family, covered my eyes, and tied my hands to the back on October 5, 2005 in the morning, during the last attack on Haditha (360 kilometers west of Baghdad). They occupied the hospital for 8 days and made it their office. The first day they beat me on my eyes, nose, back, hands, legs... My face was covered with blood. I could not wash my face because bleeding would start again. When they removed the tie I could not see. They interrogated me until the afternoon. I realized later that I was arrested in the hospital store. Then they tied my hands to the front, and left me for two days. I was moved then to the pharmacy department. They accused me of treating terrorists, and asked for their names.
I told them that I treat patients regardless of their identity or their political position, according to my oath as a doctor; if they were national guards (which we actually I did) or American soldiers. And any way, if I do not want to treat the insurgents, I have no choice, because they were armed and masked. I would do anything they tell to do. Few days later, one of the soldiers came in the room, did not say anything, kicked me again on my face and left.”

Dr. Jamil, a surgeon for 20 years, was also arrested and very brutally beaten. When we met him, 22 days later, his face was still bluish. His nose was broken, and a big opening in his head. He said: “They beat me on my eyes and nose, kicked me with boots under my chin. One of them threatened me if I do not talk after he counts to three, he would shoot me. He began counting, after three he turned the gun upside down and hit me on the back of my head by the gun. For days I could not move or see. They threatened us of abusing our families. For some reason they took my picture while I was bleeding, I could hear the camera click.”

Both doctors were threatened if they do not talk, they would receive the same treatment in the future. They were warned of passing any information of the arrest to the media. They were asked who wrote the hostile slogans against the American on the opposite wall of the hospital (there were different slogans on that wall from opposite sides, the American soldiers –the F word- and the insurgents). “What are the names of the insurgents they treated,” they asked, “And what are the pictures of the bodies in the hospital computer?”

Dr.Walid said he does not know who wrote on the wall outside the hospital, what the names of the insurgents are, because they were masked. He explained that the dead bodies’ pictures were of unknown people whose bodies were found after the fighting.

...

The hospital became a center of almost everything after the attack. Relief distribution, electricity and water pipes repairing, fuel…etc. Dr.Walid had to arrange for these details and send workers in the ambulance. An American officer asked Dr.Walid what he thinks of the Americans, and he replied “You are occupation troops. I wish that you were friends, but this way, things do not work”

“Is not it better that we are here,” the officer asked again.

“No,” Dr. Walid replied, “Look at you, heavily armed in your military clothes, you frighten children. You create tension.” Dr. Walid was offered $30 as an apology compensation for beating and humiliating him. “I did not know what to do, I did not want to reject them and create more problems, and I could not accept them, so I gave them to the cleaning workers.” One of the American soldiers whispered to Dr.Walid, that the compensation they should pay if such an aggression happen in the US, would buy the whole city of Haditha.

The troops are every where (in the hospital, the assistant room became the investigation room.) They occupy any house for 2 or 3 hours. You find them in the house garden or on the roofs at any time. They are occupying 8 schools now, the Education Office, the water project, the municipality, the court…filling the windows with sand sacs, and turned them into headquarters. Many people whose belongings, money, documents…etc. were confiscated during the house raids, were given small sheets of paper saying that they can collect them in this or that school.
Even on this example, I can see that not all soldiers are there for evil, but a number of monsters are cropping out; bring our soldiers home before we turn into the monster.

Kimstu

11-12-2005, 04:28 PM

I don't think Bush's attempt to squelch investigation into pre-war manipulation of intelligence is either delusional or particularly ballsy. It looks to me like a defensive maneuver.

Now that the Senate Intelligence committee is actually launching Phase II of the investigation, and a lot of congressional Republicans are distancing themselves from the President, he needs to get the meme out there that accusing him of wrongdoing is automatically a Very Bad Thing. (I wonder if it's also a preliminary CYA strategy against potential political embarrassment if public demand makes it necessary to draw down US troops while the Iraq insurgency is still strong. Presumably the line would be "Well, I wanted to keep supporting the troops and winning the war, but those mean old America-hating traitors kept undermining me!")

I think this attack is probably too little too late, however, given the current trends in public opinion (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9981177/):

Fifty-seven percent believe he deliberately misled people to make the case for war, compared with 35 percent who say he gave the most accurate information he had.

This leads opponents of the president to continue to repeat something they either know is not true, or can't let go of because it's now an article of faith.

And they get away with it because the majority of Americans can't even name the Secretary of State, let alone intelligently discuss the buildup to the Iraq war.

Heh. When Bush had popular majorities expressing approval for him and his policies, Bush supporters cited that as an example of how ordinary people were clearer-sighted and more in touch with the facts than those Bush-haters on the left.

Now that public opinion has swung the other way, all of a sudden the Bush supporters are dismissing the ordinary people as a bunch of ignorant boobs incapable of "intelligent discussion" of the war buildup.

I think a more probable explanation is that the public started out, not surprisingly, believing what their leaders told them, and began changing their minds as more facts came out.

SteveG1

11-12-2005, 04:30 PM

Here is yet another call to BUSH, to support the troops.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/12/dems.radio.ap/index.html
Marine general: Bush shortchanging vets
Ex-military chief in Mideast calls veterans' health care inadequate
Speaking on the Veterans Day weekend, the former U.S. military commander in the Middle East said "President Bush has consistently refused to provide enough" money for veterans' health care.

"Earlier this year, his administration admitted that they were $1 billion short in funding for critical health care services," he said. "They also repeatedly tried to increase the cost of prescription drugs and health care services for veterans nationwide."

The Veterans Affairs Department acknowledged in April that it had underestimated medical care costs. Congress reacted by approving an additional $1.5 billion in emergency funds for the current budget year.
Hoar also said, "Thousands of veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan will require mental health care, yet the Bush administration has not taken action to deal with this emerging problem."

SteveG1

11-12-2005, 04:34 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/11/10/iraq.intel/index.html
Prewar CIA report doubted claim that al Qaeda sought WMD in Iraq
A January 2003 CIA report raised doubts about a claim that al Qaeda sent operatives to Iraq to acquire chemical and biological weapons -- assertions that were repeated later by then-Secretary of State Colin Powell to the United Nations in making the case for the invasion of Iraq.

CNN on Thursday obtained a CIA document that outlined the history of the claim, which originated in 2002 with a captured al Qaeda operative who recanted two years later.
The CIA report appears to support a recently declassified document that revealed the Defense Intelligence Agency thought in February 2002 that the source, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, was lying to interrogators.

Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, this week released the DIA report in alleging the administration cited faulty intelligence to argue for the March 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Digital Stimulus

11-12-2005, 04:35 PM

For further reading, I suggest you really pay attention to the other cites that I posted in the pit, in the "Is our freedom on its last legs" thread, the original CIA reports, and the Downing Street Memo.
Thanks again. I avoided that thread since, based solely on the title, I expected it to quickly devolve into all noise, no signal. I'll take a gander.
The Phase 1 "investigation" was told what they would be "allowed" to look at, and were directed NOT to look at where the real problem is.
For clarity, I'm not looking for information about "cooked" intelligence, as I've read enough of that. I'm just looking for a "statement of purpose" about the Phase I and Phase 2 Intelligence reports. For instance, a specific quote that outlines that the committee was "directed NOT to look at" certain topics. Or, a quote that says what Phase II's purpose is.

This has already come up in conversation for me; Bush said something to the effect of "The reports found no manipulation of the intelligence". Which is true, I suppose, if only another example of spinning. That is, if Phase I was only an analysis of the intelligence itself and did not examine why it was faulty, then of course no manipulation was found: that wasn't even part of the questions being asked!

Nice...as a computer scientist, I appreciate (in a sick sort of way) the recursive nature of the tactic. Manipulate the information; then, state that there's no findings of manipulation in the investigation...due to manipulation of the stated purpose of the investigation.

SteveG1

11-12-2005, 04:36 PM

Originally Posted by CNN
Prewar CIA report doubted claim that al Qaeda sought WMD in Iraq
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A January 2003 CIA report raised doubts about a claim that al Qaeda sent operatives to Iraq to acquire chemical and biological weapons -- assertions that were repeated later by then-Secretary of State Colin Powell to the United Nations in making the case for the invasion of Iraq.
CNN on Thursday obtained a CIA document that outlined the history of the claim, which originated in 2002 with a captured al Qaeda operative who recanted two years later.
The CIA report appears to support a recently declassified document that revealed the Defense Intelligence Agency thought in February 2002 that the source, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, was lying to interrogators. … The January 2003 updated version of the report added a key point: "That the detainee was not in a position to know if any training had taken place." … No such stockpiles turned up after the U.S.-led invasion, and the independent commission investigating al Qaeda's 2001 attacks on New York and Washington found no evidence of a collaborative relationship between the two entities. Al-Libi recanted in January 2004 a number of claims he made while in custody, according to the CIA document.

SteveG1

11-12-2005, 04:37 PM

Originally Posted by MSNBCNews
CIA’s final report: No WMD found in Iraq
Recommends freeing detainees held for weapons knowledge
WASHINGTON - In his final word, the CIA’s top weapons inspector in Iraq said Monday that the hunt for weapons of mass destruction has “gone as far as feasible” and has found nothing, closing an investigation into the purported programs of Saddam Hussein that were used to justify the 2003 invasion.
“After more than 18 months, the WMD investigation and debriefing of the WMD-related detainees has been exhausted,” wrote Charles Duelfer, head of the Iraq Survey Group, in an addendum to the final report he issued last fall. … On Monday, Duelfer said there is no purpose in keeping many of the detainees who are in custody because of their knowledge on Iraq’s weapons, although he did not provide any details about the current number. … Among unanswered questions, Duelfer said a group formed to investigate whether WMD-related material was shipped out of Iraq before the invasion wasn’t able to reach firm conclusions because the security situation limited and later halted their work. Investigators were focusing on transfers from Iraq to Syria.
No information gleaned from questioning Iraqis supported the possibility, one addendum said. The Iraq Survey Group believes “it was unlikely that an official transfer of WMD material from Iraq to Syria took place.

SteveG1

11-12-2005, 04:39 PM

Originally Posted by CBSNews
Mid-May saw the leak of the so-called Downing Street Memo written by high-level British national security officials offering textual proof of what those of us who've been paying attention have long suspected: The Bush administration was determined to invade Iraq almost immediately after September 11, and the whole business with WMD, UN inspections, and so forth was just so much kabuki theater designed to lay the groundwork for a policy whose true motives lay elsewhere. This weekend, a second memo, leaked to the Times of London, provided further background. The British government, it seems, had committed itself to joining the United States in this war and was rather gravely concerned that the policy to which it had committed itself violated international law, making it necessary to design an appropriate pretext.

SteveG1

11-12-2005, 04:41 PM

General Wesley Clark
During an interview on Fox News (of all places):
Well, I think he, ah, there's a lot to answer for because the intelligence that was available was hyped. I was one of many people who had seen previous intelligence that said the best judgment of the intelligence community was there might be weapons of mass destruction, some materials were unaccounted for. But the talk about mushroom clouds that Secretary Cheney was certain they were going to get a nuclear device fairly soon and so forth; it was irresponsible, it was ungrounded in the facts and the Congress that voted on the resolution never had the chance to see all the dissenting opinions within the intelligence community so I think there's a lot to be looked at here. I think strategically, though, we can see now, four years after 9/11, that going into Iraq in a way to fight the war on terror was a strategic blunder. ... They never looked at whether the administration distorted the information that was available in its approach to the public and they specifically said they weren't authorized to do that. That's what has to be looked at by this <crosstalk> Senate committee and they haven't done so.

SteveG1

11-12-2005, 04:44 PM

Washington Post
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, November 12, 2005; Page A01

President Bush and his national security adviser have answered critics of the Iraq war in recent days with a two-pronged argument: that Congress saw the same intelligence the administration did before the war, and that independent commissions have determined that the administration did not misrepresent the intelligence. Neither assertion is wholly accurate. But Bush and his aides had access to much more voluminous intelligence information than did lawmakers, who were dependent on the administration to provide the material. And the commissions cited by officials, though concluding that the administration did not pressure intelligence analysts to change their conclusions, were not authorized to determine whether the administration exaggerated or distorted those conclusions.
National security adviser Stephen J. Hadley, briefing reporters Thursday, countered "the notion that somehow this administration manipulated the intelligence." He said that "those people who have looked at that issue, some committees on the Hill in Congress, and also the Silberman-Robb Commission, have concluded it did not happen."
But the only committee investigating the matter in Congress, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, has not yet done its inquiry into whether officials mischaracterized intelligence by omitting caveats and dissenting opinions. And Judge Laurence H. Silberman, chairman of Bush's commission on weapons of mass destruction, said in releasing his report on March 31, 2005: "Our executive order did not direct us to deal with the use of intelligence by policymakers, and all of us were agreed that that was not part of our inquiry." ... In addition, there were doubts within the intelligence community not included in the NIE. And even the doubts expressed in the NIE could not be used publicly by members of Congress because the classified information had not been cleared for release. and they haven't done so.

Fearless Reader

11-12-2005, 04:47 PM

"Support the Troops" is both lip service and a red herring. Why engage on that level? I'd ask magellan01 how he supports the troops personally - other than spouting talking points on messageboards?

My friend's son is in Iraq, so I've been involved in sending care packages and personal regards. Does that mean I can say I support the troops? It's nonsense - just like saying or implying you don't support the troops. Meaningless partisan dribble (absent direct action).

"To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime; differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

- Nuremberg Charter

SteveG1

11-12-2005, 04:52 PM

For instance, a specific quote that outlines that the committee was "directed NOT to look at" certain topics. Or, a quote that says what Phase II's purpose is.

This has already come up in conversation for me; Bush said something to the effect of "The reports found no manipulation of the intelligence". Which is true, I suppose, if only another example of spinning. That is, if Phase I was only an analysis of the intelligence itself and did not examine why it was faulty, then of course no manipulation was found: that wasn't even part of the questions being asked!

Nice...as a computer scientist, I appreciate (in a sick sort of way) the recursive nature of the tactic. Manipulate the information; then, state that there's no findings of manipulation in the investigation...due to manipulation of the stated purpose of the investigation.
Exactly, I decided to include THAT tidbit in this thread. They found no evidence because in a nutshell, they were told NOT to. They didn't find it, because they were NOT looking for it (not part of their "charter". I would Strongly suggest this is because Bush was hoping to lay all blame on the CIA and variious other intel gathering agencies. He should take a leaf from Schwarzenegger's book. After losing all his propositions, in California, the governor said the buck stopped with him and he assumed all blame. That is something Bush would NEVER do.

Here, one more time, is the "line of code" you are looking for:

He said that "those people who have looked at that issue, some committees on the Hill in Congress, and also the Silberman-Robb Commission, have concluded it did not happen."
But the only committee investigating the matter in Congress, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, has not yet done its inquiry into whether officials mischaracterized intelligence by omitting caveats and dissenting opinions. And Judge Laurence H. Silberman, chairman of Bush's commission on weapons of mass destruction, said in releasing his report on March 31, 2005: "Our executive order did not direct us to deal with the use of intelligence by policymakers, and all of us were agreed that that was not part of our inquiry."

SteveG1

11-12-2005, 05:01 PM

"To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime; differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

- Nuremberg Charter
That was the charter for the Nurembug trials - correct? Didn't a whole bunch of Nazis get executed for doing exactly what your quoted words talk about?

pantom

11-12-2005, 05:23 PM

magellan01 is simply trying to suppress dissent of any sort. "Support the troops" is not a slogan they can use on their side anymore, so I've noticed that now it comes with an addendum for the ones who cling to Bush The Unready: "and President Bush." Seen on a bumper sticker. Obviously put there so there would be no mistaking the partisan intent.
You will have to excuse me if I object to a soldier dying in Iraq so the Republicans can attain a majority in the next election. Not something anyone should have to die for.

SteveG1

11-12-2005, 05:47 PM

At this point, supporting Bush and supporting the troops are mutually exclusive. It's evident that Bush and his Neocon and big oil friends see the miltiary to be their plaything, to be used and discarded. The new slogan shoul be "Support our troops - impeach Bush".

Frostillicus

11-12-2005, 06:37 PM

First, it should be hard to go to war. And the fact is that this war cannot be hung solely on [Bush's] head.

The hell it can't. This war never would have happened without the president of the United States wanting it to happen. He had a hard-on for Saddam and was not going to let anything or anyone stop him from invading Iraq. And now he tries to blame others for actually believing his pre-war bullshit.

cosmosdan

11-12-2005, 08:32 PM

That sounds remarkably like "terrorist is what the big army calls the little army". We kill innocents, it's not our fault; they kill innocents, and they're murderous bastards. Well I have to give credit where credit is due. You always seem to be able to back up your ignorant babblings with more ignorant babblings. Not everyone has that unique gift.

I'm talking about reality. In a war fought in urban settings around many civilians then civilians will be killed. It isn't always an intentional act of a soilder shooting at civilians. That's especially true in a war against antagonists that are not uniformed and hide among civilians. As in Nam the American GI can't always tell friend from foe in Iraq. It is one of the inevitable horrors of war that should cause us to make it our last resort. In those cases it is tragic but hardly murder. In cases where soilders intentionally kill civilians and commit other morally reprehensible crimes their uniform should be no protection,and certainly our leaders should be held responsible.
I don't consider Iraqi's fighting to defend their homeland against those they see as foreign invaders terrorists. Foreign fighters who deliberately target Iraqi civilians for death are murderers and terrorists by any definition I know.
If the war is unjustified, then all killings commited in that war are murder, whether or not you wear a uniform. And where does your authority for this sweeping declaration come from? Your own keen sense of right and wrong?
Is there any basis for this other than your own opinion? Any valid precedent at all? Just one will do.

It's too ridiculous for any realistic comment.

I don't. By going, they prolonged the war and got more people killed. I remember in my young naive hippie days we'd say things like "What if they had a war and nobody came?" We thought it was cool and had no idea how completely unrealistic it was. The phrase the courage of your convictions allows for people to have different convictions. Let's also keep in mind that if we pulled out of Iraq tomorrow the war on terror and Arab hatred of the west would still be a volitile issue, and people on both sides will still die. Our presence in Iraq is the wrong way to fight the war on terrorism but it's a war that we must face regardless. Leaving Iraq won't solve that issue.

This statement is incredibly arrogant. The conquerers are not the victims. Any pain and death Americans feel in this affair are self inflicted.
My statement is arrogant? You mean arrogant like these absurd statements you keep presenting as facts. That kind of arrogant?
The soilders being killed and maimed in Iraq have families. Are you dismissing the suffering of mothers and fathers who will never see their child again. Spouses who will never see their loved one again, or children who will grow up without one of their parents. Are they not victims of the deceit of this administration? Are you saying it's their own dam fault for being too easily misled and they deserve their suffering? How about soilders who trusted their leaders and went to serve their country and truly thought they were liberating Iraq and fighting terrorism. Do they deserve to die or come how with missing limbs simply because they believed and trusted? Are their wounds self inflicted because of trust?

Did that ever really happen ? It sounds like an urban myth to me, or there would be more stories about spitting hippies being sent to the hospital. My thanks to Tom for setting the record straight on this one. Read his response carefully. He puts it more politely than I would.

cosmosdan

11-12-2005, 09:32 PM

Either they should be there and should be supported, or they shouldn't be there at the first place and shouldn't receive support.
Do you support them to the extent that you wish for their safe return to home?

I'd like to point out that those of us who are tax paying citizens are supporting the troops and the war, even though we morally object. That's how democracy works. We can pull leaders we don't like from power but as citizens we are partially respopnsible.

Definitely. They should pay. A leader who lied in order to wage a war should receive the harshest punishment available. A leader who was just mistaken should immdiatly resign or be impeached. War is *not* usual business. There's absolutely no acceptable room for deceit or mistake.

I agree for the most part. A Leader must do what he believes to be in the best interest of his citizens, even when they don't agree. That means making judgement calls that may or may not be looked on as the "right" thing to do. Each presidents career is made up of good calls and bad ones.
FDR lied to get us involved in WWII because he believed it was nessecary for our own defense. History seems to indicate he was correct but there were many at the time who didn't believe it.

There is such a thing as a just war. A lot of people who fought in unjust or pointless ones deserves pity. But the only ones deserving support are the ones fighting and dying for a just cause.

And once again, I'm the only person I allow to decide on whether a war is just or not. I do not feel morally held by a decision made by anybody else on this issue. And certainly not by someone who happens to have been elected by 50.01% of my fellow citizens because he had a nicer tie.

If you decide for yourself what is a just and unjust war then are you in any way morally obligated to allow others to make that same judgement call for themselves? If soilders decide that they are fighting for a just cause is that enough to justify it?

elucidator

11-12-2005, 09:48 PM

...FDR lied to get us involved in WWII because he believed it was nessecary for our own defense....
One of us is a bit fuzzy on WWII history. I think its you.

cosmosdan

11-12-2005, 09:52 PM

If the are over there killing Iraqis, I really don't care if they oppose the war. I'd put a bullet in my own head before I murdered someone for Bush, and that's what they are doing.

I just wanted to point out to you as I did to another poster, that as a tax paying citizen you are supporting the troops and contributing to what you see as the murder of Iraqis by US troops. Now, I wouldn't want you to put a bullet in your head over this, but just in case please leave an address where we should send flowers.
:wally

Frank

11-12-2005, 10:00 PM

I just wanted to point out to you as I did to another poster, that as a tax paying citizen you are supporting the troops and contributing to what you see as the murder of Iraqis by US troops. Now, I wouldn't want you to put a bullet in your head over this, but just in case please leave an address where we should send flowers.
:wally
cosmosdan, the use of the putz smily to address another poster in Great Debates (indeed, in any forum other than the Pit) is considered a personal insult, and is forbidden. Do not do this again.

This rule is in the sticky NO DIRECT PERSONAL INSULTS OR "FLAMING" IN GREAT DEBATES (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=220232) at the top of this forum.

cosmosdan

11-12-2005, 10:02 PM

One of us is a bit fuzzy on WWII history. I think its you.

Nope it isn't me.

Early on FDR believed we should get in the war in Europe but the memory of WWI was still too fresh and the majority in the US wanted Europe to fight it's own war. FDR had to circumvent the existing laws to provide military aide to UK. {lie 1}
He was well aware that he could not be reelected by avocating our involvement in the war so even though he believed we needed to be there he campaigned telling America he would not get us in the war. After his election thats exactly what he did. {lie 2}
There's even some superficial evidence that he wanted German U boats to attack US ships in order to gain public support for our entering the war and so US ships were were sent to seek out German submarines.

elucidator

11-12-2005, 10:08 PM

So this whole "Pearl Harbor"thing that I'm so drasticly misinformed about.....it was all done on a Hollywood sound stage?

cosmosdan

11-12-2005, 10:10 PM

cosmosdan, the use of the putz smily to address another poster in Great Debates (indeed, in any forum other than the Pit) is considered a personal insult, and is forbidden. Do not do this again.

This rule is in the sticky NO DIRECT PERSONAL INSULTS OR "FLAMING" IN GREAT DEBATES (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=220232) at the top of this forum.

My apologies. I saw that as more tongue in cheek than an actual insult. I see by your link that I was wrong. Now I know and it won't happen again.

Out of curiosity. Was the post within the rules, other than my use of the wrong smiley?

cosmosdan

11-12-2005, 10:12 PM

So this whole "Pearl Harbor"thing that I'm so drasticly misinformed about.....it was all done on a Hollywood sound stage?

Oh yeah, thats right. We went after Hitler because of Pearl Harbor. My mistake. Thanks for setting me straight. :rolleyes:

Der Trihs

11-12-2005, 10:15 PM

I'm talking about reality. In a war fought in urban settings around many civilians then civilians will be killed. It isn't always an intentional act of a soilder shooting at civilians. That's especially true in a war against antagonists that are not uniformed and hide among civilians. As in Nam the American GI can't always tell friend from foe in Iraq. It is one of the inevitable horrors of war that should cause us to make it our last resort. In those cases it is tragic but hardly murder. In cases where soilders intentionally kill civilians and commit other morally reprehensible crimes their uniform should be no protection,and certainly our leaders should be held responsible.
I don't consider Iraqi's fighting to defend their homeland against those they see as foreign invaders terrorists. Foreign fighters who deliberately target Iraqi civilians for death are murderers and terrorists by any definition I know. When you kill someone without justification, that's murder. Is it so hard to grasp ? Relabeling it "war" doesn't change what it is. Since the whole war is unnecessary, it's sick to just shrug off the innocents killed like you are. It's no different than breaking into someone's house for a little rape and robbery, then killing someone who trys to fight back and saying "too bad".

And where does your authority for this sweeping declaration come from? Your own keen sense of right and wrong?
Is there any basis for this other than your own opinion? Any valid precedent at all? Just one will do.

It's too ridiculous for any realistic comment. I wasn't aware I required authorization from Semantics High Command to express my own opinion. Especially on something so obvious as unjustified killing = murder. I do find your "it's too ridiculous" dodge amusing; it must be easier than actually arguing your position.

I remember in my young naive hippie days we'd say things like "What if they had a war and nobody came?" We thought it was cool and had no idea how completely unrealistic it was. The phrase the courage of your convictions allows for people to have different convictions. Let's also keep in mind that if we pulled out of Iraq tomorrow the war on terror and Arab hatred of the west would still be a volitile issue, and people on both sides will still die. Our presence in Iraq is the wrong way to fight the war on terrorism but it's a war that we must face regardless. Leaving Iraq won't solve that issue. Irrelevant. The war has nothing to do with the imaginary war on terror; it's just a land and oil grab.

It's not courage to slaughter people for no good reason, and an evil conviction is still evil.

My statement is arrogant? You mean arrogant like these absurd statements you keep presenting as facts. That kind of arrogant?
The soilders being killed and maimed in Iraq have families. Are you dismissing the suffering of mothers and fathers who will never see their child again. Spouses who will never see their loved one again, or children who will grow up without one of their parents. Are they not victims of the deceit of this administration? Are you saying it's their own dam fault for being too easily misled and they deserve their suffering? How about soilders who trusted their leaders and went to serve their country and truly thought they were liberating Iraq and fighting terrorism. Do they deserve to die or come how with missing limbs simply because they believed and trusted? Are their wounds self inflicted because of trust? Anyone who paid attention knew this was wrong before it started, and anyone who trusts a politician is a fool. The families are in the same position as the families of any other murderer; they may or may not share blame, but either way that doesn't let the murderer off the hook. And yes, equating the suffering of American and Iraqi families in this is arrogant, as the Iraqs are the ones attacked. They had no choice at all.

elucidator

11-12-2005, 10:26 PM

Oh yeah, thats right. We went after Hitler because of Pearl Harbor. My mistake. Thanks for setting me straight. :rolleyes:
Don't know what your deal is, Cosmo, but here's the facts: Germany declared war on the US as part of its alliance with Japan. (Theoreticly, they were not required to do so, their pact with Japan only had affect if Japan were attacked...).

Doubtless, FDR's sympathy lay with Britain. Be that as it may, had Japan not attacked, we cannot assume that FDR would have led us into war, or even he might have been able to do so, absent some direct belligerance on the Axis' part.

A considerable number of Americans would have been coldly tickled pink to see Joe Stalin and Adolf Hitler beat the living snot out of each other. And, of course, if everybody else loses, we win. To a certain degree, that's exactly what happened.

squeegee

11-12-2005, 10:31 PM

Oh yeah, thats right. We went after Hitler because of Pearl Harbor. My mistake. Thanks for setting me straight. :rolleyes:
So, that whole Germany declaring war on the U.S on Dec. 11, 1941 (http://fcit.coedu.usf.edu/holocaust/resource/document/DECWAR.htm) was just some shit FDR made up? Wow, who'da thunk?

cosmosdan

11-12-2005, 11:05 PM

So, that whole Germany declaring war on the U.S on Dec. 11, 1941 (http://fcit.coedu.usf.edu/holocaust/resource/document/DECWAR.htm) was just some shit FDR made up? Wow, who'da thunk?

Check out your own link.
On September 11, 1941, the President of the United States publicly declared that he had ordered the American Navy and Air Force to shoot on sight at any German war vessel. In his speech of October 27, 1941, he once more expressly affirmed that this order was in force. Acting under this order, vessels of the American Navy, since early September 1941, have systematically attacked German naval forces. Thus, American destroyers, as for instance the Greer, the Kearney and the Reuben James, have opened fire on German sub-marines according to plan. The Secretary of the American Navy, Mr. Knox, himself confirmed that-American destroyers attacked German submarines.

Furthermore, the naval forces of the United States, under order of their Government and contrary to international law have treated and seized German merchant vessels on the high seas as enemy ships.

Do you suppose FDR knew those actions would lead to a declaration of war? What happened to cause FDR to issue such orders? The Germans had attacked American ships. Why? Because FDR had circumvented the law in order to ship military supplies to the UK. Which is what I originally said.

cosmosdan

11-12-2005, 11:13 PM

Don't know what your deal is, Cosmo, but here's the facts: Germany declared war on the US as part of its alliance with Japan. (Theoreticly, they were not required to do so, their pact with Japan only had affect if Japan were attacked...).

Doubtless, FDR's sympathy lay with Britain. Be that as it may, had Japan not attacked, we cannot assume that FDR would have led us into war, or even he might have been able to do so, absent some direct belligerance on the Axis' part.

A considerable number of Americans would have been coldly tickled pink to see Joe Stalin and Adolf Hitler beat the living snot out of each other. And, of course, if everybody else loses, we win. To a certain degree, that's exactly what happened.

I apologize for my scarcasm. We are way off subject here, but what I have said is true. Check out my response to squeegee FDR had virtually declared war on the German navy before they officially declared war on us. Both of these things happening before Pearl Harbor. I suspect that FDR would have been satisfied to just go after Germany but following PH he had no choice but to go after Japan as well. No fooling. He wanted us in the war and was working it to win public support. Germany attacking our ships as we illegally supplied arms to UK only helped.

squeegee

11-12-2005, 11:14 PM

elucidator

11-12-2005, 11:32 PM

Keeping in mind, as well, that Germany claimed that its attack on Poland was in response to a Polish attack on a German radio station.

tomndebb

11-12-2005, 11:38 PM

Just for everyone's edification: The actual text of the September 11, 1941 "Fireside chat" (http://www.usmm.org/fdr/rattlesnake.html) in which FDR ordered attacks on German naval vessels that were attacking U.S. shipping in limited areas designated as defensive by the U.S. even though they were outside U.S. territorial waters.

David Simmons

11-12-2005, 11:44 PM

Do you suppose FDR knew those actions would lead to a declaration of war? What happened to cause FDR to issue such orders? The Germans had attacked American ships. Why? Because FDR had circumvented the law in order to ship military supplies to the UK. Which is what I originally said.Congress passed the Lend-Lease Ace in March of 1941 thus authorizing US supplies to Britain so FDR circumvented no laws in furnishing such supplies. Here is a timeline of events applicable to the US Neutrality Act. (http://history.acusd.edu/gen/WW2Timeline/neutralityacts.html) None of FDR's actions violated this law and all of the actions relative to supplying arms was in voilation of the act and were open to examination of Congress.

With regard to aid to Britain after the fall of France, the mood of Congress changed drastically as did the mood of the majority of the US populace. There was no deception although die-hard isolationists still complained.

David Simmons

11-12-2005, 11:47 PM

Congress passed the Lend-Lease Ace in March of 1941 thus authorizing US supplies to Britain so FDR circumvented no laws in furnishing such supplies. Here is a timeline of events applicable to the US Neutrality Act. (http://history.acusd.edu/gen/WW2Timeline/neutralityacts.html) None of FDR's actions violated this law and all of the actions relative to supplying arms was in voilation of the act and were open to examination of Congress.

With regard to aid to Britain after the fall of France, the mood of Congress changed drastically as did the mood of the majority of the US populace. There was no deception although die-hard isolationists still complained.

Amend this sentence, "None of FDR's actions violated this law and all of the actions relative to supplying arms was in voilation of the act and were open to examination of Congress." to this: "None of FDR's actions violated this law and all were open to examination of Congress."

elucidator

11-13-2005, 12:04 AM

Fearless Reader

11-13-2005, 12:50 AM

"To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime; differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

- Nuremberg CharterThat was the charter for the Nurembug trials - correct? Didn't a whole bunch of Nazis get executed for doing exactly what your quoted words talk about?Yes.

cosmosdan

11-13-2005, 12:59 AM

When you kill someone without justification, that's murder. Is it so hard to grasp ?
Not at all. It's just that you don't get to decide for everyone else what justification is good enough.
For me justification and what determines murder is the what's in the heart and mind of those doing the deed as well as the circumstance. Since that's how we seem to judge deaths in our own court system I'd say more than a couple of people agree with me.

Relabeling it "war" doesn't change what it is. Yes that's exactly what it does. If some macho ass decided to go kill some towelheads on his own then that would be murder. It's not the same for troops by any court I can think of. I'm just talking legality not morality. Since the whole war is unnecessary, it's sick to just shrug off the innocents killed like you are. It's no different than breaking into someone's house for a little rape and robbery, then killing someone who trys to fight back and saying "too bad".
I'm not shruging off any innocents killed.PLease cite me the phrase where I said or implied any such thing. I'm disagreeing with your sweeping generalities about the war. The opposite yet equal arguement to this gem you just spouted is when the Neocons claim everyone who doesn't agree with them are somehow supporting terrorism. Both statements equally illogical and repugnant in their ignorance.
No it is most certainly not the same thing as breaking into someone's house for a little murder and rape. If you believed your neighbor was beating and abusing his family at what point would you consider it you moral responsibility to break into his house, and intervene?
If you believed your neighbor was supporting someone who had indeed attacked you and killed your friends what might your moral responsibility be then? Some of us knew these things weren't true from the start but many Americans believed.

I wasn't aware I required authorization from Semantics High Command to express my own opinion. Especially on something so obvious as unjustified killing = murder. I do find your "it's too ridiculous" dodge amusing; it must be easier than actually arguing your position.
Does that mean that your answer to my question is that it is indeed only your opinion and you don't have even one reference to support it. If that's the case it might not be as obvious as you propose, otherwise you might find some reputable source that agrees with your assesment. That being the case, I've already given it all the consideration it deserves.

Irrelevant. The war has nothing to do with the imaginary war on terror; it's just a land and oil grab. No it isn't. When someone is accused of murder {as you are doing} then the motives and miindset of those that that are accused are given consideration are they not? Isn't that how our legal system works. The war on terrorism is far from imaginary but I'm going to refrain from going off on another tangent.

It's not courage to slaughter people for no good reason, and an evil conviction is still evil. My point being that many soilders believe they have good reasons for being there and their conviction is that they are doing their duty serving their country and accomplishing something worthwhile by freeing Iraq form an an evil dictator, saving them from an oppressive theocracy, and helping them to esrtablish a democracy. There is a huge difference between mistaken, misguided, and evil.

Anyone who paid attention knew this was wrong before it started, and anyone who trusts a politician is a fool.
Evidently most of the country didn't get your memo. The majority did not know it was wrong before it started. They have since come to realize that because of evidence presented after the fact.

The families are in the same position as the families of any other murderer; they may or may not share blame, but either way that doesn't let the murderer off the hook. And yes, equating the suffering of American and Iraqi families in this is arrogant, as the Iraqs are the ones attacked. They had no choice at all.

They didn't have any choice? They could have surrendered to an obviously vastly superior force. I wouldn't expect them to make that choice but I'm just pointing out that you are wrong in saying they had no choice. They have a choice now. They don't have to blow up their own people, yet they regularly do. They could actually non violently establish a democracy and run their own country yet they choose to use violent tactics.
When you are in the service and your commander says "Here's your orders, report to duty" then a soilder has some choices too. Follow orders or disobey and face the consequences. What you don't get to do is talk things over and get a permission slip to stay home from your commander. The decision to refuse to serve has serious consequences although I know some have had the courage to do exactly that.
I still don't get the arrogant reference. You may think the comparision is invalid and incorrect but I don't understand how it's arrogant. No matter.
I think its interesting the way you accuse me of being sick for dismissing all the suffereing of innocent Iraqi's {which I never did} and here you are dismissing the suffering of thousands of human beings because they don't share your narrow moral vision. Whew!!

cosmosdan

11-13-2005, 01:40 AM

Amend this sentence, "None of FDR's actions violated this law and all of the actions relative to supplying arms was in voilation of the act and were open to examination of Congress." to this: "None of FDR's actions violated this law and all were open to examination of Congress."

I may have overstated my case but what I was refering to was two major points.

One here (http://rwebs.net/dispatch/output.asp?ArticleID=56)

Shortly after the British evacuation at Dunkirk in June 1940, Roosevelt and others sympathetic to the British side-stepped the restrictive acts by an outright gift of much needed munitions, worth about $43 million, by declaring the supplies "surplus." In September 1940, Great Britain received 50 old but much needed American destroyers in exchange for 99-year leases on Atlantic air and naval bases. Great Britain, however, needed much more, and Prime Minister Winston Churchill continued to pressure Roosevelt for aid.

perhaps the side stepping they refered to was not technically illegal, but for all intents and purposes it circumvented what was then the law.

and this (http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/fdr-churchill/) portion of his 1940 speech,

In the 1940 presidental election campaign Roosevelt promised to keep America out of the war. He stated, "I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again; your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars.

even though he believed that it would be nessecary he knew in order to get relected he needed to say this. That's all my original point was about.

cosmosdan

11-13-2005, 01:51 AM

Jesus, listen to yourself: my link was to Germany's declaration of war against the U.S. Are you really taking Germany's word, in 1941, about the "crimes" of FDR? Really?

No I'm not. It's historic fact. FDR did circumvent the Neutrality act to supply arms to UK and did order German ships to be attacked. Check out Tom's link.

FDR
I assume that the German leaders are not deeply concerned, tonight or any other time, by what we Americans or the American Government say or publish about them. We cannot bring about the downfall of Nazism by the use of long-range invective. But when you see a rattlesnake poised to strike, you do not wait until he has struck before you crush him. {or don't wait for the mushroom cloud}

These Nazi submarines and raiders are the rattlesnakes of the Atlantic. They are a menace to the free pathways of the high seas. They are a challenge to our sovereignty. They hammer at our most precious rights when they attack ships of the American flag -- symbols of our independence, our freedom, our very life.

It is clear to all Americans that the time has come when the Americas themselves must now be defended. A continuation of attacks in our own waters, or in waters that could be used for further and greater attacks on us, will inevitably weaken our American ability to repel Hitlerism.
Do not let us be Hairsplitters Let us not ask ourselves whether the Americas should begin to defend themselves after the first attack, or the fifth attack, or the tenth attack, or the twentieth attack.

The time for active defense is now.

Do not let us split hairs. Let us not say: "We will only defend ourselves if the torpedo succeeds in getting home, or if the crew and the passengers are drowned."

This is the time for prevention of attack.

If submarines or raiders attack in distant waters, they can attack equally well within sight of our own shores. Their very presence in any waters which America deems vital to its defense constitutes an attack.

In the waters which we deem necessary for our defense, American naval vessels and American planes will no longer wait until Axis submarines lurking under the water, or Axis raiders on the surface of the sea, strike their deadly blow -- first.

To be clear I think FDR was right on and GWB was and is completely wrong. I just find the similarities interesting.

David Simmons

11-13-2005, 02:44 AM

I may have overstated my case but what I was refering to was two major points.

One here (http://rwebs.net/dispatch/output.asp?ArticleID=56)

perhaps the side stepping they refered to was not technically illegal, but for all intents and purposes it circumvented what was then the law.Well, no it didn't. The Neutrality Act was amended in 1939 (see the timeline in my previous post).

The provision of the amended act were:1. arms embargo repealed, but trade must be cash-and-carry

2. no U.S. ships in war zone around British Isles

3. no loans to belligerents

4. no travel on belligerent ships

5. no armed merchant ships

None of these provisions was sidestepped by the destroyers for bases deal. We got rent free 99 year leases on bases that were valuable for defense of the Panama Canal and the east coast which was the equivalent of cash. The carry part was met because the British sent crews to pick up the ships.

and this (http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/fdr-churchill/) portion of his 1940 speech,
In the 1940 presidental election campaign Roosevelt promised to keep America out of the war. He stated, "I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again; your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars.

even though he believed that it would be nessecary he knew in order to get relected he needed to say this. That's all my original point was about.And in fact no one was sent into a foreigh war. By the time any US personnel were sent into war it had become our war because of the attack on Pearl Harbor and the subsequent declaration of war on the US by Germany.

The use of US naval units to escort British convoys partway across the Atlantic was questionable. However FDR didn't lie about it, nor did he exaggerate the dire straits that Britain was in because of the fall of France and the U-boats in order to get us into a war with Germany.

David Simmons

11-13-2005, 03:02 AM

Oh, and by the wayeven though he believed that it would be nessecary he knew in order to get relected he needed to say this.Lean back, put your feet up and take a deep breath. ;)

cosmosdan

11-13-2005, 03:14 AM

Well, no it didn't. The Neutrality Act was amended in 1939 (see the timeline in my previous post).

The provision of the amended act were:

None of these provisions was sidestepped by the destroyers for bases deal. We got rent free 99 year leases on bases that were valuable for defense of the Panama Canal and the east coast which was the equivalent of cash. The carry part was met because the British sent crews to pick up the ships.
Maybe so. I remember seeing something about this on the history channel {not that they are infallible. But from my link
The U.S. was still trying to shake off the effects of the Great Depression, and many Americans remembered the horrors of the last war in Europe and its great cost in both men and money. Americans who wanted to help the British, including newly re-elected president Franklin D. Roosevelt, were prevented from loaning them money by a set of Neutrality Acts, the last of which had been passed by the U.S. Congress in May 1937. These acts initially prevented the U.S. from selling war materials to any belligerent in a war, but they were later modified to allow purchases on a strictly cash-and-carry basis. Thus, each purchaser had to pay in cash and provide its own shipping to carry the materials. Another law, the Johnson Debt-Default Act, kept any nation from borrowing money from America if it had not repaid its prior war debt – which only Finland had done after the First World War.

Why did he had to declare anything surplus unless it was to in some way technically obey a law he was trying to get around?

And in fact no one was sent into a foreigh war. By the time any US personnel were sent into war it had become our war because of the attack on Pearl Harbor and the subsequent declaration of war on the US by Germany.

The use of US naval units to escort British convoys partway across the Atlantic was questionable. However FDR didn't lie about it, nor did he exaggerate the dire straits that Britain was in because of the fall of France and the U-boats in order to get us into a war with Germany.

Well that's my point actually. FDR believed when he made his satement that we needed to have boots on the ground but needed something to motivate the public to his way of thinking. It took quite a while to convince the public while Churchill was begging him for support which he wanted to give. I suppose you can let him skate on the technicality of it then being our war but in spirit what he was telling the public was that we won't get involved in the war in Europe when he believed that's exactly what we should do. I guess that's what made him a brilliant politician. After the election he appointed his opponent to go to Europe and this fellow who had campaigned against our involvement saw first hand what FDR knew in his heart. The stories that I have no evidence for is that he sought confrontations with German ships in order to give the public the reasons they needed for wanting to fight. It's easy to believe that when he ordered US ships to attack German ships, in self defense of course, he knew a declaration of war wasn't far behind. Which happened to be what he wanted.

I'm not making him out to be a bad guy and the NAzi's misunderstood. It just helps us have a more realistic view of history and how leaders have to make certain decisions.
Unlike some I see the war on terrorism as very real and a pretty serious threat. I think this admin has bungled the job in pursuit of their own greedy agenda but we have yet to see how the Dems will deal with things.
Thanks for the info BTW.

GIGObuster

11-13-2005, 03:23 AM

I feel like I’m stepping into the Hitler History Channel.. :)

cosmosdan

11-13-2005, 03:24 AM

Oh, and by the wayLean back, put your feet up and take a deep breath. ;)

I'm afraid this went over my head.........????

You might also note in my link that the provisions you quoted went in place in Nov as well as the lend lease deal for bases, while the "surplus" supplies were provided in June of that same year.

David Simmons

11-13-2005, 03:47 AM

I'm afraid this went over my head.........????If a joke has to be explained it can't have been very good. I was commenting on your spelling of "necessary." "Nessecary" just doesn't have that ring to it.

You might also note in my link that the provisions you quoted went in place in Nov as well as the lend lease deal for bases, while the "surplus" supplies were provided in June of that same year.The Neutrality Act was modified to remove the prohibition against supplying arms to combatants, along with all the other cited provisions, in November of 1939. The destroyers for bases was in September of 1940 and the furnishing of surplus arms was in June of 1940.

Nothing whatever that FDR did was in any way comparable to the exaggeration of intelligence by omitting all references to caveats that GW did.

Gala Matrix Fire

11-13-2005, 04:54 AM

cosmosdan, do you keep typing "soilders" instead of "soldiers" on purpose?

Fearless Reader

11-13-2005, 05:03 AM

Pretty scary to me when the Nuremberg charter gets ignored to such an extent(not you Steve). Have we past that measure of humanity already? Did I mention already how scared I am? What will it take this time around?

Left Hand of Dorkness

11-13-2005, 07:52 AM

If the right thing to dio is to bring troops home, I simply ask that that case be made on the realities of the present situation, not on rehashing history. Because unless you have a time machine, it is moot.
"No matter how far you've gone down the wrong road, turn back." It's a Turkish proverb, and it applies.

magellan, when you say things like
I much prefer having you around to hold up as a shining example of the hate-filled left. Please, stay healthy. In fact, if I were a wealthy person I'd give you your own radio show. The more people are aware that the extreme left is filled with such "progressive" thoughts the better it will be for everyone.
you are exaggerating to the point of a lie. A desire to see more US troops die is extremely rare on the left; it is as if I took an abortion-doctor murderer to be an example of the hate-filled right.

That said, I disagree with you that once war has begun, we should hope to see as few people die, especially those on our side. I hope to see as few people die, but especially those who didn't choose to fight. That is, I think the highest priority in a war ought to be on not killing civilians, especially when both armies fighting comprise volunteer forces.

It's a horrible choice, but if the choice is between an American soldier dying and a 17-year-old Iraqi kid on his way to school dying, I'd rather the American soldier die. Yes, his family will miss him; yes, it will be devastating; but he made the choice to join a military and put himself in harm's way. The Iraqi on his way to school did not make such a choice. And the Iraqi kid's family will be just as devastated by his death.

Daniel

Johnny L.A.

11-13-2005, 09:00 AM

I remember seeing something about this on the history channel...
Hm. The History Channel, or David Simmons?

I'll put my money on Mr. Simmons. ;) :p

Evil Captor

11-13-2005, 09:32 AM

If Bush can't take a little criticism, maybe he should get a better job, like dictator of a banana republic where he can have the perfect government with no need to answer to his subjects.

Judging from his actions, -- starting a pointless war to drum up militarism, trying to suppress free speech, building up the security apparatus, instituting torture, making the rich richer and the poor poorer, I'd say the whole impetus of the Bush Administration has been to make the United States into a banana republican and the Bush family its dictators-for-life. That's why I call 'em Banana Republicans.

Johnny L.A.

11-13-2005, 09:46 AM

Yes, yes. But besides starting a pointless war to drum up militarism, trying to suppress free speech, building up the security apparatus, instituting torture, and making the rich richer and the poor poorer, what's he really done that was all that bad?

:D

SteveG1

11-13-2005, 09:47 AM

"Well, I wanted to keep supporting the troops and winning the war, but those mean old America-hating traitors kept undermining me!")
That's been the underlying, hinted at theme all along. Bush talks all the way around it, and lets his pundits and shill say it out loud. If we want to bandy the "T" word around, then Bush and his adherents are the traitors, using their defiinition of the word. I know all about the definition as it applies to the law, I am using it in the broader sense. Anyone who deliberately causes harm to their country and countrymen.
Heh. When Bush had popular majorities expressing approval for him and his policies, Bush supporters cited that as an example of how ordinary people were clearer-sighted and more in touch with the facts than those Bush-haters on the left.
Now that public opinion has swung the other way, all of a sudden the Bush supporters are dismissing the ordinary people as a bunch of ignorant boobs incapable of "intelligent discussion" of the war buildup.
Yeah. We used to hear an awful lot about nonexistent landslides (really. 51 percent was a landslide) and a Mandate. We don't hear that so much anymore.
By the way, I am STILL waiting for a cite of any sort from the pro people that defends Bush, the war, the reason for war, or any other goddam thing. They have a lot of worn out talking points, but no facts or documentation. I want CITES of Actual reports. White House propaganda blurbs and excerpts from Bush speeches will not be accepted as facts.

furt

11-13-2005, 09:56 AM

FWIW:

In December 1941, and throughout the war, the actual primary U.S. justification for the total war with Germany was not based on Hitlerís declaration. Rather, it was based on the U.S. blame of Germany for the attack on Pearl Harbor. Most Americans charged that Germany was guilty of that attack either because Germany was a material accomplice of Japan, or because Germany actually controlled a subservient Japan. Many Americans even said that German military forces had actually participated in the December 7, 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor. The U.S. charge that a complicit and conspiratorial Germany was guilty of the attack on Pearl Harbor was a charge that launched the United States into total war in Europe in December 1941, and it was a charge that endured throughout the war.
<snip>
This consistently held U.S. policy formulation was reiterated on December 12, 1941 by the Cincinnati Enquirer in its editorial on Germanyís declaration of war, entitled Confirming the Obvious.It was clear to most Americans months ago that we were engaged in an undeclared war with Germany, on a limited basis.http://www.shafr.org/newsletter/2002/jun/hitler.htm#_edn3

SteveG1

11-13-2005, 09:58 AM

Meanwhile, back at the ranch....

What appears to be actually delusional would be the Bushivik's expectations. They appear to really believe thier own press releases, that the only difficulty is that GW hasn't clearly articulated the real situation. And that all that is required is a forceful, direct speech that communicates his vision to the people. And the approval rates and all those other ghastly numbers will reverse themselves, and he will bask once again in the warm approval of his people.

See what happens to people who don't smoke pot?
In other words, the lies need to be bolder, broader and more outrageous, and have an even more combative tone. "Bring 'em on" and all that. Why doen't he just call a fatwa or holy war or something. "kill an Muslim for Christ"." "kill the foreign infidels". Yeah, that'll work. Bush is NOT articulate. He can't even handle canned speeches and canned interviews. Maybe if he told the truth for once, he'd be a better talker. Maybe he'd be able to speak in a more direct and cogent manner. It's tough trying to remember all the lies and keep them all straight.

"It's tough being president". That right there was an unitentional admission that he was groosly unqualified.

cosmosdan

11-13-2005, 10:54 AM

If a joke has to be explained it can't have been very good. I was commenting on your spelling of "necessary." "Nessecary" just doesn't have that ring to it.
:smack: ooooohhhhhhh

Nothing whatever that FDR did was in any way comparable to the exaggeration of intelligence by omitting all references to caveats that GW did.

Here we are in complete agreement.

David Simmons

11-13-2005, 11:01 AM

In other words, the lies need to be bolder, broader and more outrageous, and have an even more combative tone. "Bring 'em on" and all that. An article in this morning's Los Angeles Times deals with the administrations struggles with low approval ratings and what to do about them. One striking thing was that a change in policies wasn't on the short list of possible fixes, at least from those that GW seems guided by. The general tone seemed to be that they weren't communicating adequately. If people could only get the correct message they would see than nothing that GW has done is wrong.

We can expect more of the same from GW. Criticism is only from the "hate America" crowd. Criticism gives "aid and comfort to the enemy." Criticism "undermines morale in the military." Stuff like that.

cosmosdan

11-13-2005, 11:03 AM

cosmosdan, do you keep typing "soilders" instead of "soldiers" on purpose?

I get a little dislexic when I hurry and my brain doesn't seem to spot those mistakes in proof read. Gosh I hope I didn't ruin the whole thread for you.

elucidator

11-13-2005, 11:06 AM

Hey, I hear you, brother! Dyslexics Untie!

cosmosdan

11-13-2005, 11:19 AM

FWIW:

http://www.shafr.org/newsletter/2002/jun/hitler.htm#_edn3

Now that's pretty dam interesting,

I thought this was relevant.

For a quick verification of the political reality that underlay the U.S. entry into the European war, one need only read President Rooseveltís speeches during December 1941 and January 1942.Ý President Rooseveltís speeches are the single most important and informative piece of evidence explaining the basis of U.S. policy at that time.Ý President Roosevelt repeatedly blamed Germany for Pearl Harbor, but only once during this period did he even mention Hitlerís declaration of war.Ý That sole mention was limited to the day of December 11, 1941.Ý But thereafter, President Roosevelt never again mentioned Hitlerís declaration, although President Roosevelt repeatedly and pointedly ìmentionedî Hitlerís guilt for Pearl Harbor.

I did not know that. Thanks furt

SteveG1

11-13-2005, 11:51 AM

An article in this morning's Los Angeles Times deals with the administrations struggles with low approval ratings and what to do about them. One striking thing was that a change in policies wasn't on the short list of possible fixes, at least from those that GW seems guided by. The general tone seemed to be that they weren't communicating adequately. If people could only get the correct message they would see than nothing that GW has done is wrong.

We can expect more of the same from GW. Criticism is only from the "hate America" crowd. Criticism gives "aid and comfort to the enemy." Criticism "undermines morale in the military." Stuff like that.
He makes me want to vomit. I wish we could institute a recall and get his sorry ass out of office right now.

clairobscur

11-13-2005, 12:42 PM

Do you support them to the extent that you wish for their safe return to home?

Of course. Why would I want them to die/kill rather than stop fighting and come back home?

If you decide for yourself what is a just and unjust war then are you in any way morally obligated to allow others to make that same judgement call for themselves?

Of course. My point is that you can't demand that someone kill/die for some cause someone, somewhere, for some reason, has decided was good enough. Now, if you're personnally willing to kill/die for this cause, go ahead. You might end up being a hero or a criminal. Choose wisely.

If you agree that this cause is worth fighting, then by all means support the troops (whatever this might mean), support the president, etc... (or support the other side by providing them with intelligence or giving them "aid and comfort").
Once again you might end up having done the right thing or being an accomplice.

Though if you're really convinced the cause is just, the proper thing to do is probably to volunteer if you're fit, not to claim you're "supporting" the guys actually putting their life on the line. That's why I'm very reluctant to state that a war is "just" because then, I would feel like a hypocrite just claiming "I support".

If soilders decide that they are fighting for a just cause is that enough to justify it?

Nope. It's enough to justify it for them, not for me. If I disagree with them on this issue, I'm not going to "support" them. I might even accuse them of being evil-doers. Or do worse (assuming that I'd have the balls to do worse, which isn't a given).

tomndebb

11-13-2005, 01:13 PM

I am, going to take issue with the emphasis of Richard Hill the author of furt's cited essay. I don't think that there is anyone who has claimed that the U.S. did not look on Germany as the enemy, in 1941. However, he appears to be responding to remarks by two other authors and he overstates his case in trying to refute their statements.President Roosevelt repeatedly blamed Germany for Pearl Harbor, but only once during this period did he even mention Hitlers declaration of war.I would really like to see a citation for this assertion that FDR "repeatedly" blamed Germany for Pearl Harbor.

There is no question that the U.S. saw Germany as an enemy and that FDR spent the greater part of 1941 encouraging that belief among U.S. citizens. On the other hand, despite having read numerous articles from papers and magazines written between 1940 and 1945, the only time I have ever seen a reference that associated Pearl Harbor and Germany was in Animal House. Germany had begun acting as though the entire world ocean was a combat zone and had attacked neutral ships, including American-flagged freighters and U.S. warships, througout the oceans. On the other hand, the U.S. had declared certain regions of the ocean off the coast of North America and (at the time, neutral) Iceland as "defense" zones. We came into confliuct when Germany began attacking ships within those zones. There was no need to make an issue of Germany's December 11 declaration because everyone who could read a newspaper or hear the radio knew that we were clearly on the verge of hostilities with Germany.

Beyond that I have never seen a historian that claimed that the only reason we declared war on Germany was their declaration of war on us. I think that most people, then and now, recognize that the trans-Atlantic war was inevitable. The point that most historians make, (substantiated by Hill's essay), is that the U.S. waited until Hitler acted so that there would be no confusion regarding "who started it."

Unlike the recent silliness about an "axis of evil" (that combined sworn enemies with a totally irrelevant player), the original Axis had a basis in fact: militarized nations acting in concert to conquer territory, with treaties of mutual aid and support among them. FDR's statements reflect that visible association. He may have oversold the reality of the control exercised by Germany over Japan, but Germany was the close and more critical enemy which FDR and Churchill had agreed needed to be taken out first. Most of FDR's comments following the attack on Pearl Harbor should be seen in the light of preparing the nation for a two-front war when many people were focused on the immediate outrage in the Pacific.

Hill seems to be arguing a strawman position (although he may be making a legitimate response to claims or errors by Harvey Asher and Manfred Jonas whose essays I have not yet dug up). No history of WWII that I have encountered has claimed that the U.S. was going to ignore Germany except that Germany declared war. With German aggression on the seas, we were moving directly toward a conflict with Germany (with direct parallels to our entry into WWI). FDR's "chessmen" allusion is only made after he has already outlined a fifty-year campaign of conquest by the Japanese, then links them to Germany with a statement that Hitler brought the three Axis powers together.

We were clearly going to fight Germany.
We were almost as clearly going to fight Japan.
When Japan got in the first blow, FDR waited for Hitler's declaration to reduce cavilling about "who started it," but I see no evidence that anyone ever believed that we would not fight Germany at some point.

SteveG1

11-13-2005, 01:57 PM

It was already a foregone conclusion, the only question was when. It would have happened sooner or later.

Evil Captor

11-13-2005, 02:23 PM

Somebody asserted on another thread that helping real people now was absolutely (i.e. exempt from the usual weighing of options to see which is likely to do the most good and least evil) more important than helping hypothetical people in the future. I think it will suffice to recycle my rebuttal of that argument:

That was my thread, I never got around to rebutting your rebuttal, so let me do it now since you think you made a point worth making (you're wrong about that): best case, if the individual hasn't made any screw-ups of a similar nature, you get the word out about the defect without implicating them. That way, everybody wins -- If the individual HAS made similar screw-ups, you let people know he did it: allowing someone who's prone to make mistakes that will get people poisoned to stay in a position where he or she can make mistakes that will get people poisoned is NOT really helping them. Sooner or later, a lot of people will get poisoned, there will be an investigation, and the person in question will be identified as the source of the problem. Better for all concerned, INCLUDING the real person you know who might lose their job, to prevent that.

As for your current concern, c'mon, I haven't seen a single halfway decent response to elucidator's point that people having to shut up and get in line when war is declared is a scoundrel's wet dream. And apparently, quite appealing to the scoundrel's supporters too, for some reason. Until I see a respectable response to elucidator's point I will just have to assume that this line of reasoning is just a disingenuous attempt to silence opposing voices. In conjunction with TomnDebb's point about the lack of historical evidence that opponents pay a hell of a lot of attention to war protests, I can't say I'm at all impressed.

Spavined Gelding

11-13-2005, 02:29 PM

Apparently the Administration has settled on a strategy to deal with the present disenchantment with the President and the widespread sense that the rationale for the invasion of Iraq was not as honestly and forthrightly argued as one might expect from the man who pledged to restore honor to the federal government. Ken Mehlman, the Republican National Committee chairman, was on the chat shows this morning. Josh Marshall talks about it here ( http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_11_13.php#006992). The answer is to defend the misrepresented need for the war with misrepresentations.

This outfit doesn’t know any other way to operate. They have gotten away with taking us for dummies before and see no reason to change a sucessful tactic now.

cosmosdan

11-13-2005, 03:37 PM

Of course. Why would I want them to die/kill rather than stop fighting and come back home?

Nope. It's enough to justify it for them, not for me. If I disagree with them on this issue, I'm not going to "support" them. I might even accuse them of being evil-doers. Or do worse (assuming that I'd have the balls to do worse, which isn't a given).

I think I understand your point. My support for the troops is that I don't blame them for obeying orders or believing as they believe. I hope they return safely home, and I hope we as a nation pull them out of there ASAP so there are as few deaths American and Iraqi at the hands of Americans as possible.

The next question is if and when we pull out and the violence there continues will we be blamed for that as wel, because we unable to fix it after we broke it?

Marley23

11-13-2005, 03:45 PM

The next question is if and when we pull out and the violence there continues will we be blamed for that as wel, because we unable to fix it after we broke it?
And if so - because I'm sure the answer is yes - how much of that blame is deserved?

cosmosdan

11-13-2005, 03:52 PM

And if so - because I'm sure the answer is yes - how much of that blame is deserved?

Tough question isn't it? To some degree I'd say we do have partial responsibility but people are ultimately responsible for their own choices. I understand Iraqi's and other Arabs believing that the US wants military and economic control of the middle east and seeing us as foreign invaders. Once we are gone and that excuse for violence is removed there will be a bloody battle for control. They could choose otherwise but they won't. I'm not convinced that's our fault.
I remember reading articles about how US sanctions against Hussien were causeing such hardship among the Iraqi people and how awful we were. I noticed that none of these articles actually blamed the ruler oif the country for allowing those sanctions to continue when he could simply cooperate to help his own people.

Marley23

11-13-2005, 04:01 PM

Tough question isn't it? To some degree I'd say we do have partial responsibility but people are ultimately responsible for their own choices.
Unfortunately, this sounds a little like Rumsfeld's comment about historic sites being looted: "in a free society, people are free to commit crimes." It's not false, but the foreign terrorists never get into the country and the insurgents don't "make their own choices" if the US doesn't invade. It's indisputable that we "broke" Iraq.
I remember reading articles about how US sanctions against Hussien were causeing such hardship among the Iraqi people and how awful we were. I noticed that none of these articles actually blamed the ruler oif the country for allowing those sanctions to continue when he could simply cooperate to help his own people.
I can't vouch for what you remember, but I don't think that's how the conversation went. I seem to recall that US leadership had committed to continuing the sanctions regardless of Iraqi compliance.

David Simmons

11-13-2005, 04:52 PM

And if so - because I'm sure the answer is yes - how much of that blame is deserved?Like you I'm pretty sure that we can't fix what we broke. I don't see how a culture and society that we don't understand very well can be fixed in the way that GW speaks of, i.e. a western style, secular democracy. I believe that would require something like imprisoning all of the adults and children over 2 years old and starting over.

cosmosdan

11-13-2005, 06:39 PM

Unfortunately, this sounds a little like Rumsfeld's comment about historic sites being looted: "in a free society, people are free to commit crimes." It's not false, but the foreign terrorists never get into the country and the insurgents don't "make their own choices" if the US doesn't invade. It's indisputable that we "broke" Iraq.
No arguement here about the past. We can't undo bad decisions. My point is what happens now and what can we do about it? We can accept the responsibility that our poor planning opened the door for looters. Now what. Staying and trying to establish a democracy we can work with is likely to fail miserably. If we pull out there will no doubt be a bloody civil war. Faced with these choices we still must choose.

I can't vouch for what you remember, but I don't think that's how the conversation went. I seem to recall that US leadership had committed to continuing the sanctions regardless of Iraqi compliance.
My point was not the details of the timeline. It was that the articles I read exclusively blamed the US for the damage done rather than mention the fact that there was a leader of Iraq who bore the primary responsibility for his citizens.
That doesn't free us from the consequences of our own decisions but it doesn't make us responsible for his, or in present day theirs. Those that choose to resist US presence in the middle east choose which method they will use. We are not responsible for the specifics of their choices. When some nut decides to strap a bomb to himself and blow up a group of his own countrymen that's his responsibility not ours.

cosmosdan

11-13-2005, 06:41 PM

Like you I'm pretty sure that we can't fix what we broke. I don't see how a culture and society that we don't understand very well can be fixed in the way that GW speaks of, i.e. a western style, secular democracy. I believe that would require something like imprisoning all of the adults and children over 2 years old and starting over.

Thats been my feeling all along. We can't place a democracy among a population that just isn't ready for it. They have to want it and be willing to work for themselves. That requires the evolution of a culture from within. We can encourage and push and entice in that direction, but we can't make that choice for them.

SteveG1

11-13-2005, 07:15 PM

Bush Limited Access and Disclosures of Classified Information to only 8 Members of Congress per a policy memo written and signed on October 5, 2001. Therefore, Congress could not possibly have had access to the same intelligence information that the White House had. "We can't have leaks of classified information. It's not in our nation's interest." - President George W. Bush, 10/9/01.

President Bush's defiant statement came in the immediate weeks following 9/11, as the administration clamped down on the information it provided to Congress. President Bush issued an order limiting access to classified intelligence only to 8 members of Congress -- the Speaker of the House, House Minority Leader, Senate Majority Leader, Senate Minority Leader, and chairmen and ranking members of the House and Senate intelligence committees.
However, when it is Bush, Cheney, Libby, Rove or any other one of the inner circle leaking info, then its all hunky dory. National interest justifies anything they want to do, including misrepresenting to Congress and putting forth a false reason for war. When things go sour, you can then blame the congress that supported you, based on the faulty data YOU fed them.

President Bush pulled classified intelligence access for 92 senators:

MEMORANDUM FOR:

THE SECRETARY OF STATE
THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY
THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
THE DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE
THE DIRECTOR OF FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

SUBJECT: Disclosures to the Congress

As we wage our campaign to respond to the terrorist attacks against the United States on September 11, and to protect us from further acts of terrorism, I intend to continue to work closely with the Congress. Consistent with the longstanding executive branch practice, this Administration will continue to work to inform the leadership of the Congress about the course of, and important developments in, our critical military, intelligence, and law enforcement operations. At the same time, we have an obligation to protect military operational security, intelligence sources and methods, and sensitive law enforcement investigations. Accordingly, your departments should adhere to the following procedures when providing briefings to the Congress relating to the information we have or the actions we plan to take:

i) Only you or officers expressly designated by you may brief Members of Congress regarding classified or sensitive law enforcement information; and

(ii) The only Members of Congress whom you or your expressly designated officers may brief regarding classified or sensitive law enforcement information are the Speaker of the House, the House Minority Leader, the Senate Majority and Minority Leaders, and the Chairs and Ranking Members of the Intelligence Committees in the House and Senate.

This approach will best serve our shared goals of protecting American lives, maintaining the proper level of confidentiality for the success of our military, intelligence, and law enforcement operations, and keeping the leadership of the Congress appropriately informed about important developments. This morning, I informed the House and Senate leadership of this policy which shall remain in effect until you receive further notice from me.

[signed:] George W. Bush

the First Senate Report, that is not in any way ambiguous:

From The First Senate Report

(U) Conclusion 85. The Intelligence Community's elimination of the caveats from the unclassified White Paper misrepresented their judgments to the public which did not have access to the classified National Intelligence Estimate containing the more carefully worded assessments.

Conclusion 86. The names of agencies which had dissenting opinions in the classified National Intelligence Estimate were not included in the unclassified white paper and in the case of the unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), the dissenting opinion was excluded completely. In both cases in which there were dissenting opinions, the dissenting agencies were widely regarded as the primary subject matter experts on the issues in question. Excluding the names of the agencies provided readers with an incomplete picture of the nature and extent of the debate within the Intelligence Community regarding these issues.

Conclusion 87. The key judgment in the unclassified October 2002 White Paper on Iraq's potential to deliver biological agents conveyed a level of threat to the United States homeland inconsistent with the classified National Intelligence Estimate.

This is merely more info, and it coincides with what I have already cited. Congress was lied to, just like the rest of us were lied to. Now Bush dares to say, on Veterans Day even, that the people calling him on it are the liars, not him. That takes huge immense BRASS balls. Or severe insanity.

jshore

11-13-2005, 07:37 PM

And, as has been noted on several occasions, already, no defender of the adminstration's claim that they thought there were WoMD in Iraq has provided any explanation why the military groups whose task it was to secure WoMD sites was ordered to remain miles behind the lines and forbidden to enter "suspected" sites for days after they had originally been taken in combat.

To fail to secure WoMD sites, leaving them open to be plundered by any insurgents or al Qaida operatives in the area indicates pretty clearly that the administration either knew the sites were empty or that the administration was criminally negligent.

I think this point is something that can not be repeated often enough! We should be yelling this one at every opportunity. In fact, it boggles my mind that more people aren't bothered to death by this! Why haven't even the Democrats in Congress been demanding that the President explain to them in full detail just what his plan to keep WMD out of the hands of terrorists was during and after the invasion. Because if they had any such plan, they did a freakin' spectacular job hiding it!

Another point that hasn't been made yet in this thread (or just touched upon) is the difference between what we knew in October 2002 and what we knew by March 2003. In October 2002, we arguably might have had good reasons to believe that Saddam had WMD. However, by February / March 2003, the inspectors had shown that the U.S. intelligence was complete and utter crap. (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/18/iraq/main537096.shtml) This did not prove that Saddam definitively did not have WMD, since it is nearly impossible to prove a negative like that, but it did prove that our reasons for being so cock-sure that he did were simply fantasy and fiction.

jshore

11-13-2005, 07:52 PM

Oh yeah, another point, here is what Bush actually said the other day:

“When I made the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power, Congress approved it with strong bipartisan support,”

It amazes me that Bush actually makes this statement: "When I made the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power...". That is simply amazing. He is admitting what some of us said all along which is that the son-of-a-bitch was a freakin' liar and that the resolution about Iraq was not about "keeping the peace" as the President claimed but rather that he had already made the decision to go to war. He just admitted this!

[He also has a somewhat generous definition of "strong bipartisan support". I suppose you could call the support for the resolution that in the sense that a fair number of Democrats supported it. But, a majority of the Democrats in the House actually voted against the resolution. And, while a majority of all of the Democrats in the Senate voted for it, a majority of the Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee (i.e., those with the best, but by no means total access to the intelligence) voted against it.]

SteveG1

11-13-2005, 08:09 PM

Oh yeah, another point, here is what Bush actually said the other day:

It amazes me that Bush actually makes this statement: "When I made the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power...". That is simply amazing. He is admitting what some of us said all along which is that the son-of-a-bitch was a freakin' liar and that the resolution about Iraq was not about "keeping the peace" as the President claimed but rather that he had already made the decision to go to war. He just admitted this!

[He also has a somewhat generous definition of "strong bipartisan support". I suppose you could call the support for the resolution that in the sense that a fair number of Democrats supported it. But, a majority of the Democrats in the House actually voted against the resolution. And, while a majority of all of the Democrats in the Senate voted for it, a majority of the Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee (i.e., those with the best, but by no means total access to the intelligence) voted against it.]
I am dumbfounded that anyone at all continues to believe Bush. I am dumbfounded that he got away with presenting doctored evidence to Congress. He has, all his life, always gotten away with everything.

Der Trihs

11-13-2005, 08:55 PM

This is merely more info, and it coincides with what I have already cited. Congress was lied to, just like the rest of us were lied to. Now Bush dares to say, on Veterans Day even, that the people calling him on it are the liars, not him. That takes huge immense BRASS balls. Or severe insanity.I vote insane; as far as I can tell, these are people who believe their own propaganda.

My favorite example is the WMD debacle; why didn't they plant any ? They certainly have no moral scruples to stop them, nor do they lack loyal followers to do the work. For months after the invasion, I expected we would "find" a large cache of weapons, "vindicating" the invasion. I believe it never happened because these people believe what they say, regardless of lack of evidence and any inconsistances. They are True Believers, and honestly think their beliefs override reality; reality is for the "reality based community", not them.

SteveG1

11-13-2005, 10:01 PM

They are True Believers, and honestly think their beliefs override reality; reality is for the "reality based community", not them.
Well for what it's worth, I was just informed by An Annointed True Believer that I am a rabid America hater and a Glen Close (whatever the hell that means). I guess I should tear up my army discharge papers, throw away my "road guard ribbon" and quit my government job. That way I can devote more time to America hating. Is there something wrong in wanting my country to actually follow the fine sounding words it was founded on? Silly things like honor, freedom, justice, truth, decency, etc. Is it now a criminal act to want my country to be an example of what could and should be?

Churchill once said of us something to the effect that Americans always do the right thing after exhausting all other options. In a sly way, he was calling us clueless, but havining our heart in the right place. What would he say about us now? What would Washington, Lincoln, Ike, Kennedy, Roosevlet or Goldwater say? How about Jefferson? Carter has already come out and said he is pretty disgusted. Who knew it. An ex president is an America hater too.

Johanna

11-13-2005, 10:59 PM

Huge balls + delusional = BERSERK.

David Simmons

11-13-2005, 11:16 PM

I am dumbfounded that anyone at all continues to believe Bush. I am dumbfounded that he got away with presenting doctored evidence to Congress. He has, all his life, always gotten away with everything.It was predictable that GW would screw things up because he always has. The trajedy in this case is that his father's rich friends can't bail him out of this one and he has taken the rest of us with him.

He has committed us to a war that is unwinnable by military methods (Unless, of course, you just kill everyon). He has alienated the great majority of the rest of the world, and he has increased the national debt to the point where servicing it is getting to be a real problem, with no end in sight.

And that's without mentioning the dire effects of his economic and tax policies on the middle class. The news just recently tells of the proposal by his tax revision panel to restrict home mortgage interest deduction on the income tax and drastic changes in the college loan program. At the same time a tax break for capital gains and other changes of benefit to business and those in the tax bracket of Warren Buffet are pushed hard for.

Marley23

11-13-2005, 11:24 PM

No arguement here about the past. We can't undo bad decisions. My point is what happens now and what can we do about it? We can accept the responsibility that our poor planning opened the door for looters. Now what. Staying and trying to establish a democracy we can work with is likely to fail miserably. If we pull out there will no doubt be a bloody civil war. Faced with these choices we still must choose.
Sure. Since you asked about blame, I was just saying that I expect we'll get a lot of it, and that might not be unfair.
My point was not the details of the timeline. It was that the articles I read exclusively blamed the US for the damage done rather than mention the fact that there was a leader of Iraq who bore the primary responsibility for his citizens.

I suppose no one expected better from him.
Those that choose to resist US presence in the middle east choose which method they will use. We are not responsible for the specifics of their choices. When some nut decides to strap a bomb to himself and blow up a group of his own countrymen that's his responsibility not ours.
No, but in some ways we are responsible for the situation that created the choices, so as I was saying, we'll be blamed for that.

HPL

11-14-2005, 12:36 AM

Carter has already come out and said he is pretty disgusted. Who knew it. An ex president is an America hater too.

That's not news. The right wingers I've met seem have some sort of bizarre hatred for the man that I can't fathom. Some of them were going ballistic when they learned a US Naval vessel(I think it was a submarine) was to be named for him.

Evil Captor

11-14-2005, 08:14 AM

Well for what it's worth, I was just informed by An Annointed True Believer that I am a rabid America hater and a Glen Close (whatever the hell that means).

It means that if you were married to Kevin Kline, you would let Mary Kay Place fuck him just because her biological clock ticking had gotten kinda loud. You BITCH!!!

Homebrew

11-14-2005, 08:29 AM

I think it is absurd to suggest criticism here in the States makes the insurgency in Iraq stronger. I doubt most insurgents know what's going on here. Regardless of what we say, though, I would suspect the deaths of their family members, the ongoing strife in their streets and lack of security and infrastructure in much of the country has a somewhat stronger influence on their motivations.

jshore

11-14-2005, 09:15 AM

My favorite example is the WMD debacle; why didn't they plant any ? They certainly have no moral scruples to stop them, nor do they lack loyal followers to do the work. For months after the invasion, I expected we would "find" a large cache of weapons, "vindicating" the invasion. I believe it never happened because these people believe what they say, regardless of lack of evidence and any inconsistances. They are True Believers, and honestly think their beliefs override reality; reality is for the "reality based community", not them.

Well, I halfway agree with you. I think that they expected to find something that they could point to justify the invasion. That they found nothing probably did come as a surprise. You might even notice that once the invasion began there was a continual lowering of expectations. No longer were we looking for hundreds of tons of this and that...all of a sudden one or two drums of some decaying chemical agent would have sufficed. (Of course, in the end what sufficed was some "WMD program related activities".)

But, I don't believe they believed themselves in regards to there being a real danger from Iraq's WMDs. Certainly, they don't seem to have been at all concerned about them falling into the hands of terrorists. Or else, they were so mind-numbingly inept that it is beyond my comprehension to understand.

astro

11-14-2005, 10:14 AM

Well, I halfway agree with you. I think that they expected to find something that they could point to justify the invasion. That they found nothing probably did come as a surprise. You might even notice that once the invasion began there was a continual lowering of expectations. No longer were we looking for hundreds of tons of this and that...all of a sudden one or two drums of some decaying chemical agent would have sufficed. (Of course, in the end what sufficed was some "WMD program related activities".)

But, I don't believe they believed themselves in regards to there being a real danger from Iraq's WMDs or some analogous threat. Certainly, they don't seem to have been at all concerned about them falling into the hands of terrorists. Or else, they were so mind-numbingly inept that it is beyond my comprehension to understand.

To the extent Bush can point to an honest (though IMO somewhat incompetent) failure of US intelligence, and not cherry picked or manipulated intelligence, this may be the one area where he is somewhat justified in doing so.

Saddam had worked hard to convince everyone that the had WMDs. There have been several stories that have come out over the last few years about the extent of this three card monte disinformation shuffle and the bluffs he quite successfully implemented. Even those in his inner circle were convinced he had something hidden away.

The main rationale for this at the time was not to deter the US, which he never imagined as being a real invasion threat, but to maintain his standing as a threat and power to his potential adversaries in the region.

If someone had taken the time to unravel this elaborate web of deceptions they would have seen there was less there than met the eye (and some intelligence did mention this as a real world possibility) but for someone with an impulsive inclination to take him on, and not inclined to parse the fine details or look beyond the surface, it was bluff that worked all too well.

The problem was that this eager and impulsive person was the President of the United States whose aggressive attitudes WRT to Saddam were buttressed by others with various MENA (Middle East North African) agendas of their own.

There are so many players in this debacle, and it almost reads like some wild assed, speculative work of fiction that would never happen in the real world. One day someone is going to write a comprehensive history of all this and I'll be first in line to buy that book.

SteveG1

11-14-2005, 10:20 AM

There are so many players in this debacle, and it almost reads like some wild assed, speculative work of fiction that would never happen in the real world. One day someone is going to write a comprehensive history of all this and I'll be first in line to buy that book.
Forget buying the book, I'd prefer to see the guilty go to prison for it.

astro

11-14-2005, 10:53 AM

Forget buying the book, I'd prefer to see the guilty go to prison for it.

As incompetent as the process may have been that got us to this point (and that's my main gripe with Bush on this issue) I don't think there's ever going to be a point where you can point to a person or group and say definitively.

You knew this was shit intelligence and you still encouraged us to go to war!

The problem is that I don't thing anybody really _knew_ what was up with Iraq's WMD status other than Saddam himself. At best your could accuse someone of filtering and cherry picking intelligence, but whether this rises to the level of a prosecutable offense I have no idea. I doubt anyone will ever go to jail over the issue of how the intelligence was gamed in the build up to the occupation of Iraq.

Sevastopol

11-14-2005, 11:18 AM

Today Juan Cole (http://www.juancole.com/) has some timely observations on the manipulation of intelligence:

...
By the way, the allegation that some, including Sen. John McCain, keep making that "the whole world" thought that Iraq had WMD is wrong for two reasons. First, most of the world depended on the US for its intelligence on Iraq and did not have a way of making an independent judgment. Second, the French ministry of defense demurred, as did several of the most important and experience arms inspectors, including Scott Ritter and Hans Blix
...

' France, Germany and Russia have released an unprecedented joint declaration on the Iraq crisis, demanding more weapons inspectors and more technical assistance for them . . . "Nothing today justifies a war," Mr Chirac told a joint news conference with Mr Putin. "This region really does not need another war." He said France did not have "undisputed proof" that Iraq still held weapons of mass destruction. '
...

It is not true that most of the Democrats in Congress saw the same intelligence that Bush saw. Democrats in Congress have told me that most of what they knew about Iraq before the war came via briefings from Bush administration and Pentagon officials. They say privately that they now feel that they were consistently lied to.

elucidator

11-14-2005, 11:45 AM

True enough, but not true enough to absolve them. They caved, to a large degree, with the prominent exception of our own Sen. Wellstone, who had the stones to stand up on his hind legs and bark truth to power. Its true enough that they were dependent upon intelligence from executive sources, but there were enough hints, there were sufficient reasons for caution, reasons to demand accountability. Our representatives failed us, they failed to take the unpopular stand.

Not as culpable as those who engineered this disgrace, to be sure. But a share of the blame lies with them, as well.

magellan01

11-14-2005, 01:30 PM

Okay, if that's possible, let's see you do it. Pretend you're an anti-war liberal, and sell bringing the troops home right now without mentioning that every single justification for going to war has been false, that the execution of the war has been criminally mismanaged since before our boots hit the ground over there, that the administration has regularly made decisions designed to enrich a select cadre of cronies at the expense of the lives of our men and women over there.

I'd suggest something like this, which, I would add, has the enormous added benefit of bringing some of the opposition onto your side:

Dear Congressman,

I am writing to express my strong insistence that you do everything you can to get our troops home from Iraq. Because the sooner they are home, the sooner the reports of more of them dying will stop.

Whether we should have sent out troops to Iraq in the first place is now beside the point. For the sake of argument, let’s assume that the President did not have an agenda for going into Iraq prior to 9/11. Let’s also assume that he did not seek to mislead the American people and that based on the best information he had at the time the case for going to war was a good one. That was the past.

Now it is 2005, and the information set we have now is completely different than it was two and a half years ago.

There are no WMD to be concerned with. Saddam, a truly evil despot, is no longer ruling over his people with an iron fist. The people in Iraq have not welcomed us with rose petals, or with the open arms of the French people as we ousted the Germans from their country during WWII.

It is clear that the insurgency is not disheartened by our overwhelming strength, or the rate at which we kill and capture their members. Their estimation of victory is not to win the war, but to win each small battle. And every time they can convince a member to blow himself up and take either Coalition soldiers or innocent Iraqi civilians with them, they chalk it up as a victory. It should be painfully evident by now that being able to stop such actions by individuals is unrealistic in the extreme. Hopefully, over 2,000 dead servicemen and -women have taught us that much.

It has also become evident that our continued presence in Iraq is not deterring terrorists or causing their numbers to diminish. In fact, the reality is quite the opposite. Our presence has inflamed opposition sentiment and emboldened them to kill as many soldiers and innocents as they can. Our presence has also become a magnet for terrorists from neighboring countries, not to mention an effective recruitment tool for the terrorists to swell in numbers and prolong their insurgency.

So, BASED ON THE FACTS AS THEY NOW ARE, I must insist that you do the wise thing and oppose our continued involvement in that war at every turn. I insist that you use the position that we entrusted you with and use every vote to stop or withdraw funding for it, and to introduce legislation that will make it harder for the administration to continue our futile efforts.

I understand that speaking out against a war can, politically, be a difficult thing for a congressman to do. But that is not the issue now. The issue now, is how long will we continue down a road that we know to be a dead end?

No one should look down upon the U.S. for the noble intentions many of us had regarding Iraq. It could have turned out differently. But it didn’t. It is incumbent upon us now to look at the current situation honestly and to act accordingly.

It seems that we owe the American people that much. We owe it to the Iraqis and the rest of the world. We owe it to the 2,000 young men and women in uniform that have lost their lives, and to the tens of thousands more who have lost limbs or who will otherwise have to carry the scars of war with them for as long as they live.

But most important, we owe it to the 130,000 U.S. and Coalition troops who are honorably serving their country and following orders that come, indirectly, from us. We owe it to them to not have them die for what is now clear to be a fantasy.

Wanting the best for our troops is not a partisan issue. And the best thing we could want for them is for them to remain among the living and the healthy.

So, I ask you—no, I insist—that you do everything in your power to bring our young men and women home immediately. Please know, that I am not alone in this sentiment. And if you cannot or do not respect the wishes of the people you represent, we will find someone who will.

Bring the troops home now. Regardless of what has transpired politically in the last few years, it is the wisest course of action for the current reality.

Sincerely,

John Doe
Anytown, USA

Or something like that. The point is that I wouldn't hesitate for a second to show that to a returning soldier who had lost a limb. It doesn't question the righteousness of the war or degrade his service or mock his loss. It simply is a call to make the wisest decision for RIGHT NOW. I think it would be more effective than all the anti-Bush-ant-war ranting because it is non-partisan. It would increase the odds of the troops actually being brought home. And that is the point, isn't it. Yes it necessitates you don't piss on Bush (about) the war. Only question is, is that price to high for the Bush haters.

I don't see one single way your analogy applies to the situation in Iraq, except for the implicit violence. How about, instead of crappy analogies, you answer my original question, using the actual situation in Iraq? If the insurgents know that not all Americans hate Iraqis and want to see them tortured, if they know that a significant portion of Americans want us out of Iraq altogether, do you think they will be more vicious and angry, or less? Do you think they will be more likely to commit terrorist acts against civilians, or less?

I do not agree that the analogy is "crappy", or even poor. Unless I'm mistaken, a great deal of U.S. military strategy is based maintaining overwhelming force. Because if you have it people or less likely to want to fuck with you. This seems like common sense. I don't kow why you're arguing with it.

To answer your question in a way you seem to prefer, I think the insurgents are moreemboldened when they see a fractured enemy. They want us out of Iraq. They are opushing us out. If they sense that there is a force that is pulling us out, as well, that I think encourages them to contiunue—or step up—those activities that have gotten the this far.

Th bombings in Jordan will, I think—HOPE—have a positive effect. That is, that more of the Muslim world will unite in oppostion to the terrorists. We will see.

On the contrary, in that situation, fighting only seems to be the only way out, because there is no one on the other side who gives a shit about what happens to you.

They want something: power. Using force is one way to get it. Negotiation is another. The more futile using force looks, the more attactive negotiation becomes. I think the recent election in Iraq bodes well in this regard.

What? That makes no sense, unless you assume that every president is as corrupt and incompetent as George Bush.

To recap, you said:

Yeah, there are some people on the left who don't support the troops like Der Trihs. This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. The thing to remember is that there are people on the right who don't support the troops, either. One of them is George Bush. Of the two, which do you think is going to get the most troops killed?

I answered:

I don't think this argument is valid. If it were, any President that sends troops into battle would be the one least supportive of the troops.

You were comparing the consequences of the actions of someone from the extreme left with those of the President. The action of the President that unquestionably has resulted in death to out troops is his decision to send them into war. Consequently, your point seems to be that whoever sends the troops into war is most responsible for causing them harm (okay) and least supportive of them. And that is simply ridiculous.

I'm refering to your constant statements like, "But the point I was really trying to make is that we owe support to our men and women in uniform once they are in the field of battle. On this I am firm and unapologetic." The clear implication being that your opponents do not support the troops. This is bullshit, and damned insulting, to boot.

It is a fact that some people do NOT support the troops. An organism with the ability to type who has posted in this thread has proven that to be true. The fact that so few have expressed outrage at his thinking leads me to believe that the minority he is in is probably larger than I, or you, might have believed. Or would like to believe.

I don't have time to pick a fight with every single person on the board I disagree with. I've got my hand full dealing with you. You have a problem with Der Trihs, you deal with him.

You can pick a fight with whomever you like. But I would offer, just like the peace-loving moderate Muslims who keep silent as their religion is hijacked, those of any ideology who do not act to separate themselves from a disease-minded fringe does their own ideology a disservice.

magellan01

11-14-2005, 01:48 PM

Who are these "we"? I think american people abuse of the "we". Were you consulted about the war? Did you vote in favor of it? Did you even vote in favor of a candidate supporting it?

No. But is there more I could have done? Yes. I, personally was not as engaged as I should have been. But I am willing to take some responsibility for that.

If you believe so, what support were you ready to offer to Iraki draftees at the beginning of the war? It wasn't their business to decide, either,was it? What makes them less deserving of your support?

I'm not sure who you are referring to? If you mean those who had to fight initially, my sympathy needs to be applied on a case-for-case basis. I'm sure there were those, who ahd no desire to fight and to attempt to keep the country under the oppresive thumb of Saddam. They have my support. Other will doubt fall to the other end of the spectrum.

magellan01

11-14-2005, 01:50 PM

magellan01

11-14-2005, 01:57 PM

That is not the complaint: your statement was indeed referring to the "lie" that "everyone" on the left was saying that "everyone [on the left] supports the troops", unless you can point to all here opposing the war saying that "all the left supports the troops", the only conclusion is that what you are saying is not true. No one was saying that "everyone [on the left] supports the troops", just you. To say that the left is lying in this context requires that someone here was proposing that war opponents are like a monolith.

Thank you for the explanation. I think you are correct and that no one here as asserted that "all people on the left support the troops". I was working under a general impression. If that offends you, so be it. But I know that the criticism that vocal opposition to the war is often—or sometimes—tied to no support for the troops is often screamed down with a similar generality: that those that support the war still support the troops. I guess it brings to light the problem with generalities.

magellan01

11-14-2005, 02:06 PM

The problem I'm having with you is that every single other thing you've said in this thread stands in contradiction to what you just wrote.

I do not see any contradiction. Can you point them out. I just ask that you go by what I wrote and not what you might have inadvertently read into it.

No, I doubt we could actually topple the administration. But we can hamstring it so that it lacks political pull, and can't continue to make the sort of mistakes that got us into this mess in the first place, or that make the price we're all paying for those mistakes higher and higher, every single day.

Understood. I just ask that—especially in light of the reality oyu perceive of Bush staying in office—you weigh the potential benefit with the potential ill it might do. I would then ask that you give priority to the men and women that are currently in harm's way. Reasonable?

A nitpick, but Senators are congressmen. And you think that the people in congress aren't paying attention when protestors march on the White House? You think they aren't paying very careful attention to every poll that measures Bush's spiraling popularity, and weigh their support for his policies accordingly?

What does Bush's popularity matter at this pointy. He can't be reelected. Cheney isn't running. I think that it is easy for any congressman to ignore a large mass protest, especially when it is directed at someone else: The president. A more focused effort in their home districts I think is much more likely to force them to deal with the issue.

magellan01

11-14-2005, 02:17 PM

"No matter how far you've gone down the wrong road, turn back." It's a Turkish proverb, and it applies.

magellan, when you say things like

[QUOTE=magellan01]I much prefer having you around to hold up as a shining example of the hate-filled left. Please, stay healthy. In fact, if I were a wealthy person I'd give you your own radio show. The more people are aware that the extreme left is filled with such "progressive" thoughts the better it will be for everyone.[QUOTE]

you are exaggerating to the point of a lie. A desire to see more US troops die is extremely rare on the left; it is as if I took an abortion-doctor murderer to be an example of the hate-filled right.

If you will reread you will notice that in both instances that "the left" was referred to, it was qualified. First with "hate-filled", and then with"extreme". So where is the exaggeration and where is the lie?

[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]That said, I disagree with you that once war has begun, we should hope to see as few people die, especially those on our side. I hope to see as few people die, but especially those who didn't choose to fight. That is, I think the highest priority in a war ought to be on not killing civilians, especially when both armies fighting comprise volunteer forces.

It's a horrible choice, but if the choice is between an American soldier dying and a 17-year-old Iraqi kid on his way to school dying, I'd rather the American soldier die. Yes, his family will miss him; yes, it will be devastating; but he made the choice to join a military and put himself in harm's way. The Iraqi on his way to school did not make such a choice. And the Iraqi kid's family will be just as devastated by his death.

Daniel

Yes. We are in agreement that that kid walking to school has more "right to continued life" than a soldier who chose to isert himself into harm's way. I think the U.S. military in general, and each soldier specifically, would agree as well, as they continually put themselves at great risk by tryiing to be very discrimnant in their exercises.

SteveG1

11-14-2005, 02:20 PM

You BITCH!!!
Bitch!?!? Bitch!?!?! I'll claw you eyes out you hussy! :D :D :D

GIGObuster

11-14-2005, 02:22 PM

What does Bush's popularity matter at this pointy. He can't be reelected. Cheney isn't running. I think that it is easy for any congressman to ignore a large mass protest, especially when it is directed at someone else: The president. A more focused effort in their home districts I think is much more likely to force them to deal with the issue.
At this "pointy" only his pointy headed stubborness. :)

But the fact that the republican leadership is rolling with the Bush deceptions means that we cannot trust Republicans to do the right thing:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/
RNC Chair Ken Mehlman, now with twice the lying power!

Here's the clip from Mehlman's appearance this morning on the Russert show. And I honestly found it hard to keep up with the full number of lies and half-truths that rolled out of his mouth.

I know that some of my more cautious readers will blanch at my use of the "L" word. But when so many falsehoods and misleading statements are rolled atop each other, there's really no other description that fairly categorizes what the man is doing. As for why he's doing so, it's not just that he has to as head of the RNC. He was part of the deception and perfidy to the constitution. So like the president and his advisors, Mehlman's dishonesty today is just self-protection.

Let's catalog a few of them.

One was that the Senate intel report exonerated the administration of any effort to mislead the American people over Iraq. Wrong. They specifically did not look at that question.

He also said the Silbermann/Robb Commission concluded the same thing. Wrong. They too were specifically not authorized to examine that question.

He said the British Butler Report said the same thing. First of all, who cares what a Report written to cover Tony Blair said? Second of all, it said no such thing.

SteveG1

11-14-2005, 02:24 PM

Today Juan Cole (http://www.juancole.com/) has some timely observations on the manipulation of intelligence:

It is not true that most of the Democrats in Congress saw the same intelligence that Bush saw. Democrats in Congress have told me that most of what they knew about Iraq before the war came via briefings from Bush administration and Pentagon officials. They say privately that they now feel that they were consistently lied to.

I've been "informed" that this is just a bold and evil lie, put forward by the America hating traitors. Even der Bush said in his Veterans Day speech that this is a lie (probably being spread by traitors and haters). Yeah right.

elucidator

11-14-2005, 02:26 PM

Your agenda is showing, Mag.

...Yes it necessitates you don't piss on Bush (about) the war. Only question is, is that price to high for the Bush haters...
By which you imply, but do not actually state, that those who blame Bush (rightly!) for this disgrace have underhanded motives, that somehow our sincerity must be adjudged less than your own. It all lies in the coy definition of "Bush haters", which you would like us to believe is that set of people who place their disdain for Bush above concern for our troops.

As demonstrated by this:

...It is a fact that some people do NOT support the troops. An organism with the ability to type who has posted in this thread has proven that to be true. The fact that so few have expressed outrage at his thinking leads me to believe that the minority he is in is probably larger than I, or you, might have believed. Or would like to believe....
This did not suddenly occur to you, you have stated similar views before. You imply that you are dragged to accept the notion that such thinking as this is common to your rhetorical opponents. Such declarations of reluctance appears disingenuous when you seize upon such scant evidence with the eagerness of a starving dog on a poisoned pork chop.

ObL is undeniably an opponent of Bush policy, need I declare my hostility to his viewpoint on every occassion merely to protect your regard for me? Or worry that by failing to do so, I offer you to imply that my views and his coincide?

You have no special sanction to determine who my allies are, Red Shirt or no. By that same token, you have no such privilege to determine who's views I need to publicly denounce in order to earn your regard, except for yourself.

Even amongst us who most definitely place the blame where it belongs, there remains considerable argument over the best course of action. I have relucatantly come to the opinion that our presence in Iraq does more harm than good, and have abandoned my previous "we broke it, we fix it" stance. Please note that such an argument does not even consider Bush's culpability, it is not relevent.

We are left to conclude you would have us soften our denunciations of Bush's failings for other reasons, and to guess what they might be.

Der Trihs

11-14-2005, 02:26 PM

Yes. We are in agreement that that kid walking to school has more "right to continued life" than a soldier who chose to isert himself into harm's way. I think the U.S. military in general, and each soldier specifically, would agree as well, as they continually put themselves at great risk by tryiing to be very discrimnant in their exercises.Really. You mean "risks" like killing any within a hundred feet, killing people who are just getting out of cars, torturing people and raping children ? Those kinds of "risks" ?

I see no evidence that American soldiers even regard Iraqis as human, much less worry about killing them.

elucidator

11-14-2005, 02:38 PM

Red Shirt, you've simply got to be kidding.

Der Trihs

11-14-2005, 02:41 PM

Red Shirt, you've simply got to be kidding. About what ?

Miller

11-14-2005, 04:31 PM

Or something like that. The point is that I wouldn't hesitate for a second to show that to a returning soldier who had lost a limb. It doesn't question the righteousness of the war or degrade his service or mock his loss. It simply is a call to make the wisest decision for RIGHT NOW. I think it would be more effective than all the anti-Bush-ant-war ranting because it is non-partisan. It would increase the odds of the troops actually being brought home. And that is the point, isn't it. Yes it necessitates you don't piss on Bush (about) the war. Only question is, is that price to high for the Bush haters.

Okay, great. That's one letter. Is a congressman going to change his position based on one letter? Of course not. He's only going to do that when he sees that the weight of public opinion is turning against the war. How do I reach the mass of American voters, to make them see why this war is a mistake, and convince them to write their congressman?

I do not agree that the analogy is "crappy", or even poor. Unless I'm mistaken, a great deal of U.S. military strategy is based maintaining overwhelming force. Because if you have it people or less likely to want to fuck with you. This seems like common sense. I don't kow why you're arguing with it.

It's a crappy analogy because nothing that ever happens in a bar brawl is worth dying over. It's a crappy analogy because backing down from a bar brawl doesn't cost you anything except for maybe a loss of face. And it's a crappy analogy because if my friend starts acting like an asshole in a bar and picking fights with people who haven't done anything to him, I'm going to damn well let his idiot ass get stomped, in the hopes that next time we're out in public, he doesn't embarass me like that again. None of those situations are remotely comparable to Iraq.

To answer your question in a way you seem to prefer, I think the insurgents are more emboldened when they see a fractured enemy. They want us out of Iraq. They are pushing us out. If they sense that there is a force that is pulling us out, as well, that I think encourages them to contiunue—or step up—those activities that have gotten the this far.

That did not answer either of my questions. Not even remotely.

They want something: power. Using force is one way to get it. Negotiation is another. The more futile using force looks, the more attactive negotiation becomes. I think the recent election in Iraq bodes well in this regard.

What on Earth do they have to negotiate with? We own their country. They don't have a single thing that we can't simply take.

You were comparing the consequences of the actions of someone from the extreme left with those of the President. The action of the President that unquestionably has resulted in death to out troops is his decision to send them into war. Consequently, your point seems to be that whoever sends the troops into war is most responsible for causing them harm (okay) and least supportive of them. And that is simply ridiculous.

Ridiculous is right. Where are you getting the idea that my criticisms of the way Bush has handled this war are in anyway comparable to how we've handled other wars in the past? I think George Bush is an awful president. Do you assume that I think all American presidents are awful? I think George Bush has not supported our troops; indeed, that he has been callously indifferent to their welfare and their lives in favor of his private interests and vendettas. Why on Earth are you assuming that I feel that way about every American president? Do you understand that, when I say Bush is the worst American president in living memory, it means that every other president has been better?

It is a fact that some people do NOT support the troops. An organism with the ability to type who has posted in this thread has proven that to be true. The fact that so few have expressed outrage at his thinking leads me to believe that the minority he is in is probably larger than I, or you, might have believed. Or would like to believe.

So who in this thread, precisely, are you accusing of secretly agreeing with Der Trihs? Please be specific: talk of silent majorities gives me painful stomach gas.

You can pick a fight with whomever you like. But I would offer, just like the peace-loving moderate Muslims who keep silent as their religion is hijacked, those of any ideology who do not act to separate themselves from a disease-minded fringe does their own ideology a disservice.

I reject the basic postulate of this statement. I don't expect moderate Muslims to reject extremist Muslims with any greater fervor than any other civilized human. I don't expect Polycarp to answer for Fred Phelps just because they're both Christian, and I don't expect you to answer for George Bush just because you're both conservative. Don't expect me to answer for Der Trihs just because we're both liberal. This entire concept is infuriating to me, and strikes me as intellectually dishonest. Instead of debating your opposition honestly, you highlight the most extreme element among them and attack him as if he were representative of the whole. It's bullshit. You have a problem with Der Trihs, open a pit thread about him. This isn't that thread; don't expect those responses to show up here.

Miller

11-14-2005, 04:49 PM

Understood. I just ask that—especially in light of the reality oyu perceive of Bush staying in office—you weigh the potential benefit with the potential ill it might do. I would then ask that you give priority to the men and women that are currently in harm's way. Reasonable?

Why do you assume that I haven't already done that?

What does Bush's popularity matter at this pointy. He can't be reelected. Cheney isn't running. I think that it is easy for any congressman to ignore a large mass protest, especially when it is directed at someone else: The president. A more focused effort in their home districts I think is much more likely to force them to deal with the issue.

Bush is dangerous so long as he is in a leadership position. Right now, he's massively unpopular. This limits his ability to lead: other politicians are unlikely to align themselves, lest those negative poll numbers start to rub off on themselves. Hammering on Bush's flaws reduced his ability to lead. And if he can't lead at all, he certainly can't lead us into further misadventures like Iraq.

clairobscur

11-14-2005, 05:18 PM

I'm not sure who you are referring to? If you mean those who had to fight initially,

Yes, I was refering to them. I assume that most Irakis currently fighting freely choose to do so.

I'm sure there were those, who ahd no desire to fight and to attempt to keep the country under the oppresive thumb of Saddam. They have my support. .

But what does "support" mean exactly in your mind? I assume you didn't send them packages or letters of congratulation..... So, what do you mean when you say you're supporting the american troops on the ground (or the "good Irakis" for that matter)?

magellan01

11-14-2005, 05:36 PM

Your agenda is showing, Mag.

I hope it is. And that is to not have us inadvertently put our troops in more danger, as well as to make sure when they do come home that we honor their service.

I think that one of the biggest blemishes on America is the the way the vets were "welcomed" back after serving in Vietnam. I would hate to see that happen again, but I fear we are on that course. This is not to say that all of those on the left, or all those who opposeed the war, run the risk of the becoming the reality. But some are. That seems undeniable.

Even amongst us who most definitely place the blame where it belongs, there remains considerable argument over the best course of action. I have relucatantly come to the opinion that our presence in Iraq does more harm than good, and have abandoned my previous "we broke it, we fix it" stance. Please note that such an argument does not even consider Bush's culpability, it is not relevent.

I understand and respect this position. (Not that you should care one way or the other, just sharing my thoughts.)

Much of the rest of your post I have a difficult time deciphering, as it is rather cryptic. Intentionally so, I gather. But I am lost as to why.

HPL

11-14-2005, 05:43 PM

I think that one of the biggest blemishes on America is the the way the vets were "welcomed" back after serving in Vietnam. I would hate to see that happen again, but I fear we are on that course. This is not to say that all of those on the left, or all those who opposeed the war, run the risk of the becoming the reality. But some are. That seems undeniable.
.

Magellan, do you have some kind of reading comprehension problem? We've had a grand total of one person in this thread that doesn't support the troops and I don't he would actually spit. A vast majority of the anti-war movement supports the troops. Quit pretending otherwise. At this point, it seems less like actual concern for the troops on your part and more like you're trying to use them to deflect any criticism away from bush. Your belief that "anti-war people secretly hate the troops" is disingenous and frankly, Bonvine feces. It only exists in your mind. Move on to the real conversation.

That horse is not only dead, it's been taken to the glue and dog food factories respectivly.

HPL

11-14-2005, 05:43 PM

I think that one of the biggest blemishes on America is the the way the vets were "welcomed" back after serving in Vietnam. I would hate to see that happen again, but I fear we are on that course. This is not to say that all of those on the left, or all those who opposeed the war, run the risk of the becoming the reality. But some are. That seems undeniable.
.

Magellan, do you have some kind of reading comprehension problem? We've had a grand total of one person in this thread that doesn't support the troops and I don't he would actually spit. A vast majority of the anti-war movement supports the troops. Quit pretending otherwise. At this point, it seems less like actual concern for the troops on your part and more like you're trying to use them to deflect any criticism away from bush. Your belief that "anti-war people secretly hate the troops" is disingenous and frankly, Bovine feces. It only exists in your mind. Move on to the real conversation.

That horse is not only dead, it's been taken to the glue and dog food factories respectivly.

Der Trihs

11-14-2005, 05:57 PM

We've had a grand total of one person in this thread that doesn't support the troops and I don't he would actually spit.Quite right. That would be both stupid and rather tacky.

elucidator

11-14-2005, 06:29 PM

...Much of the rest of your post I have a difficult time deciphering, as it is rather cryptic. Intentionally so, I gather. But I am lost as to why.
Heavens! Please advise soonest precisely what portions give you difficulty, and I will bend every effort to make such accessible.

Of course, intentional obfuscation on my part is not the only interpretation possible. You do realize that, yes?

magellan01

11-14-2005, 06:35 PM

Okay, great. That's one letter. Is a congressman going to change his position based on one letter? Of course not. He's only going to do that when he sees that the weight of public opinion is turning against the war. How do I reach the mass of American voters, to make them see why this war is a mistake, and convince them to write their congressman?

Come on, convince others to write letters, as well. Just as one protestor marching in Washington is invisible and you need to convince others to march with you (figuratively), one letter is just an idea. Obviously you need some critical mass or you will be ignored.

Also, the letter I provided in response to your request demonstrates the nature of the argument. If adhered to, I wouldn't even see anything wrong with marching with those talking points—exclusively. The usual "Bush lied, People died; No war for Oil; etc, will simply subvert the effectiveness of the strategy. As will, perhaps needless to say, "We support our troops who kill their officers; and Free Mumia"-type messages that seem to come pre-packeged with ANSWER anfd other extreme groups.

It's a crappy analogy because nothing that ever happens in a bar brawl is worth dying over.

I maintain that the analogy is apt. I think we are looking for it to accomplish two different things. It demonstrates that an inclination to violence—even if perceived as righteous—is lessened by the reality of an overwhelming opposition.

That did not answer either of my questions. Not even remotely.

Your question (singular, I thought. Did I miss one?) was:

Yeah, there are some people on the left who don't support the troops like Der Trihs. This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. The thing to remember is that there are people on the right who don't support the troops, either. One of them is George Bush. Of the two, which do you think is going to get the most troops killed?

If you choose to lay the responsibility of every life lost to The President, I will agree with you, as if hadn't sent them they would not have died. But that seems ridiculous, in that you are them blaming the loss of life of every soldier on every President who sent them there. Now if you wish to hold The President responsible for the day-to-day prosecution of the war, I'd say you are being grossly unfair. The President does not decide battle strategy, but I think you know that. I mean, you wouldn't hold Roosevelt or Truman responsible for every life lost during WWII, would you?

What on Earth do they have to negotiate with? We own their country. They don't have a single thing that we can't simply take.

They have the threat of violence. And I was referring to negotiating with their countrymen.

Ridiculous is right. Where are you getting the idea that my criticisms of the way Bush has handled this war are in anyway comparable to how we've handled other wars in the past? I think George Bush is an awful president. Do you assume that I think all American presidents are awful? I think George Bush has not supported our troops; indeed, that he has been callously indifferent to their welfare and their lives in favor of his private interests and vendettas. Why on Earth are you assuming that I feel that way about every American president? Do you understand that, when I say Bush is the worst American president in living memory, it means that every other president has been better?

If my additional response (above) does not answer this, we are talking past each other here. I suggest we move on.

So who in this thread, precisely, are you accusing of secretly agreeing with Der Trihs? Please be specific: talk of silent majorities gives me painful stomach gas.

I do not know. I can only tell who does not agree with him, as they have made that clear. The others either do or don't. How am I to know? Do you have a way? Also, I would point out that my reality is not confined to this message board. I live in San Francisco, so rest assured I have heard much extremism from the left. If I lived in For Worth, I'm sure I would hear much of it from the right.

I reject the basic postulate of this statement. I don't expect moderate Muslims to reject extremist Muslims with any greater fervor than any other civilized human. I don't expect Polycarp to answer for Fred Phelps just because they're both Christian, and I don't expect you to answer for George Bush just because you're both conservative.

I would say I wouldn't expect it out of the blue. But if I'm in a debate thread about sports and let's say someone says all skiers are assholes, and that person is being taken seriously, my choice is either 1) speak up and say "Wait a minute, I'm a skier and I'm not an asshole. And I know a lot of other skiers, and there not assholes either." or 2) accept the possibility that people will start to equate skiers with assholes.

Don't expect me to answer for Der Trihs just because we're both liberal. This entire concept is infuriating to me, and strikes me as intellectually dishonest. Instead of debating your opposition honestly, you highlight the most extreme element among them and attack him as if he were representative of the whole. It's bullshit. You have a problem with Der Trihs, open a pit thread about him. This isn't that thread; don't expect those responses to show up here.

I will not pit the organism that can type and give him, or others who desire to defend him, the excuse that what he said was said in a Pit Thread and must be taken with a grain of salt. No I prefer to have his "enlightened" thoughts exposed in the sober world of measured debate.

As far as confusing you two, I do not see that I am doing that. I am respectful of your positions and the tenor of what you have offered. I thought I made that clear, in both tone and actual words.