Well, when you said “External war is nothing”, that’s certainly what it sounded like.
NI:US public never punished a President for starting a war
You’re now ignoring the example of Johnson that you acknowledged just a few posts ago (“It’s too late to expect Bush to get Johnson treatment”), as well as that of Truman and the highly unpopular Korean War.
NI:Besides, if we allow just for a moment that removal of vicious dictator is equal to Watergate, what kind of bizarro world that brings into existence?
I continue to be gobsmacked by the way that war supporters still refer to the invasion of Iraq as a “removal”, as though it were some kind of medical procedure. “Mrs. Mesopotamia, I’m afraid the tests show that dictator of yours is malignant, we’re going to have to remove it.”
If the invasion of Iraq had simply “removed a vicious dictator”, I really doubt that anybody would be seriously upset over it. But what that euphemistic newspeak conceals is that our leaders manipulated and distorted facts in order to deliberately start a multi-year conflict that killed at least tens of thousands of Iraqis and nearly two thousand coalition soldiers and contractors, destroyed vital infrastructure, ignited civil tensions into an armed and growing insurgency, caused millions of people around the world to regard us as anti-Muslim bigots and rapacious oppressors, and inspired jihadis and terrorists to help kill and intimidate innocent Iraqis—besides costing hundreds of billions of dollars. All without any legitimate justification of self-defense, or any viable post-war plans, or any workable strategies for paying even the financial costs.
If you’re seriously trying to argue that Nixon’s illegal spying operations and other Beltway dirty tricks were ethically worse than something of this magnitude, I’m afraid it’s you who are living in a bizarro world.
Sweet of you to give Joe Sixpack that much credit for a significant attention span. I’ll be astonished if two months from now the results of such a poll result in more than a miniscule proportion saying: “WHAT memo?”
I meant to say “nothing in comparison to Watergate”. Sorry about misunderstanding.
By “Johnson treatment” I meant obscurity and embarrassment. No official action was taken against Johnson. And I thought Truman was lionized; at least on “West Wing” he is.
And I am equally “gobsmacked” how carefully war opponents avoid talking about Saddam removal. Why, this very thread leads you to only one inevitable conclusion: it was all about removing Saddam, the rest was pyrotechnics. Yet all you hear, “Bush Started a War”, ad nauseam. As if Bush is some kind of madman who enjoys starting wars for no reason.
I like that.
Conceals nothing. We all very well aware what’s going on. We did what we did and it’s extremely costly. Things might get much worse, even. It doesn’t mean there was a better way.
If there is not a way to do something that does not sink to the depths that were achieved in this adventure, it is better to leave it undone until there is.
So, let’s see, if he wanted to remove Sadaam, why cherry pick intel, ruin American credibility, and run with the WMD/Al Queada angle? If he wanted to remove Sadaam for the sake of the Iraqi people, why was there so little support for the Iraqi civilians once we invaded? How long did it take us to get basic services back up and running in Baghdad? The rest of the country?
No… he wanted Sadaam gone, but the reasons weren’t 1) WMD 2) AQ 3) The Iraqi civilians.
I think WMD, AlQ and Iraqis all did figure in the equation, but there was something else, probably more important then other three parts. I don’t know what.
When (sorry, if) you ever develop any ability to empathise with others at all (there are no current signs of that) you will understand that within this single comment is all you need to know about why enormous numbers of people hate you, some so much they will kill themselves trying to hurt you and yours.
The sad part being of course that along the way, they may have learnt (from you) to regard any hurt to people like me and mine as “just pyrotechnics”.
and
Is there any price that you would regard as higher than the price of doing nothing? What price is that? Feel free to be specific.
No, it does not. Did you happen to hear anything about the decade-long, entirely-successful containment operation that preceded the invasion? Would continuing it have been “nothing”?
*Your * statement presupposes that there *was * a good option. There wasn’t. The real world rarely provides one. We had been using the least bad option, and Bush switched to the worst.
I’m assuming that this is in response to my post immediately preceding. Well, bullshit. It presupposes that doing what was being done ever since the 1991 ceasefire was a better option than abandoning our principles as Americans and as believers in the rule of law, even international law.
There were no WMD, and we knew it, having to cherry pick rejected intel in order to make our case.
There was no AQ connection, and even while we were making claims of meetings, Czech intel was telling us that it was unsubstantiated and wrong.
Even when we invaded Baghdad, we did not bring sufficient portable generators, enough civil engineers to get the water back on, enough police forces to prevent rioting and looting, etc…
So, you can figure that WMD, AQ, and the Iraqis figured into the situation, but there’s virtually no proof that that’s true, and a lot that it isn’t.
And this doesn’t disturb you? That the administration had some secret agenda that even now isn’t public knowledge?
When something is being done in my fucking name, it is my God. Damned. JOB. to know what the reasons are. And it’s your job when it’s being done in your name.
Am I incorrect in believing that you are a citizen of one of the Scandinavian nations, New Iskander? Or are you an American expatriate? I’d like to get my contempt for your positions and attitudes placed in some context.
It most certainly does not disturb me in the least. I don’t expect to be told everything. I expect to think through things on my own.
For example, I still don’t know all the real reasons we bombed Kosovo. It does not disturb me either. I accepted that if Clinton decided to act against Miloscevic in that manner, then it was probably the best possible thing to do. I extend similar credence to Bush versus Saddam.
Therein lies all the difference. You don’t trust Bush. I clearly see that the starting point of all your arguments is, “If only Bush was never elected!”. You can not distinguish between hard-nosed political decision that any party President would have to make and hated Bush persona. So there is no resolution possible and we just have to wait until '08. May be Hillary can restore some sanity.
Wow.
You don’t expect to be told everything… when our government is marching us to war, possibly an unnecessary war in which Americans and Iraqi civilians will die, in which there is, by your own admission, a missive hidden agenda, and you don’t care? How, exactly, do you propose we as a nation ‘think through’ hidden motivations and agendas?
You really don’t expect our leaders to be honest and transparent when they’re trying to march us to war?
This is absurd.
The reasons we bombed Kosovo are a matter of public record, the reasons we invaded Iraq were all lies and the real reason is still hidden.
What, exactly, are you confused about re: Kosovo?
The difference was that when we were bombing Kosovo, we weren’t pretending that they had terorist links, or WMD, or what have you.
Get new glasses, you’re seeing through them rather darkly.
Durrrrrr me no think good brain hurt ouch!
:rolleyes:
The resolution would be to turn Iraq over to international bidding for reconstruction, to bring in the UN’s multinational forces and to stop violating the GC and human rights. And, simply in case you wanted some of your straw back, I’m not a Dem and wouldn’t vote for Hillary. Nice try though.
Why did we have to invade the sovereign country without UN Security Council approval? Why did we have to stop the genocide that was never found to be taking place there? Why did we have to risk serious military confrontation with two nuclear powers over the hollow issue?
Very commendable. Start working on your presidential campaign. I promise you my vote. If you decide not to run after all, I promise you to vote for Hillary.