Together.
Is Scylla here, or did somebody just leave?
[Emperor Smith]The eleventh commandment. Thou shalt not get away with it.[/Emperor Smith]
Yeah, though there’s a slight difference between covering up a blow job and starting a war.
Same here. Well said, Luci.
One shouldn’t underestimate what a spinmeister like Blair can get away with, but nonetheless I doubt Blair to get away with such an interpretation. There is a very very high level of awareness in the UK press of the dilemma faced by those who, like tagos, can’t stand Blair but can’t see any alternative.
As do I. But hardly for the same reasons:
For any insomniacs out there still looking for the truth:
"Bush is Lying" by Kevin McMillan
The problem is that the people most in need of the truth are deluded into believing they already have it, and thus have no motivation to seek it out.
And they’ve got verification, apparently, that the minutes accurately reflected the state of play in the Bush Administration at the time:
This last part is important, because it says that well before the war, the Brits were aware that Saddam’s WMD capability just wasn’t that big a deal.
Breaking News:
Bush Wanted to Invade Iraq as Early as Summer 2002
ALSO …
Water Found to be Wet
AND …
Pope Benedict XVI Admits Catholicism
NOT TO MENTION …
Bear Feces Found in Wooded Area
For what it’s worth, I was one (of many?) who honestly DIDN’T think that this water was wet. It really WOULD have changed my opinions about the legitimacy of the war, and the integrity of Bush (and Blair), had I known that they were reading intelligence reports with this fixed intention. I suppose that makes me gullible: foolishly, at the time, I thought that wearing an “I’m not cynical” badge was a decent act in itself.
And after he tried so hard in post #2 to engage others in a rational and courteous debate. What fuckers we!
I do agree that he has shown himself to be stupid and gullible, although I point to different evidence for that claim than do you.
One of the things that annoys me about all of this is that some of you are making the point that if GWB did not know for a fact that Iraq did *not * have WMDs, then he didn’t lie.
Bullshit. We don’t go to war with every nation that has WMDs. Hell, North Korea was sitting over in the corner waving its hand like Horshak in Mr. Kotter’s class, going “Hey, we’ve got nukes! Over here! Hey, look at us!” There must be dozens of nations, maybe hundreds, that have chemical weapons - they’re fairly cheap and easy to make.
The claim was that Iraq was an imminent danger to our nation, and one of the many “supports” of this claim was that Iraq had large stockpiles of WMDs, and were well-advanced on a nuclear program. Does anyone here believe that this was true? Does anyone here believe that the current administration actually believed that the US was in danger of attack from Iraq? Although this was a Blair-ism, rather than a Bush-ism, we were informed that Iraq was capable of launching a (possibly nuclear) attack within 45 minutes of deciding to do so. Does anyone believe that there was actually *credible * evidence to support this claim?
Bush’s lie wasn’t that Iraq had WMDs - as has been pointed out by many, many people many, many times, pretty much everyone figured they must have a few. The lie was that there was a *crisis * - that the situation had to be dealt with right now, that it couldn’t even wait a few more months, or we (or possibly Israel) were risking grave danger of attack. Does anyone here really think that the administration believed this? Remember, these are neo-cons, whose own documents state that lying to the people in order to get their support is perfectly acceptable.
And remember the timing of the so-called Iraqi crisis - prompted by absolutely no action on the part of Iraq. It was September 2002, just two months before the congressional election. By screaming “Iraq” and “9/11” in the same breath enough times, the Republicans were able to convey the idea that anyone who spoke out against making war on Iraq was at the best soft on terrorism and at worst a traitor. This really happened, remember? People who thought going to war with Iraq was unjustified and wrong were called traitors. I have friends who still have the bumper sticker “Boycott France” on their car (I just discovered this - haven’t decided if I still respect them enough to maintain the friendship).
Scylla, it’s not beating a dead horse while so many people still believe the bullshit. And not all of them are idiots - look at Bricker. Whatever else he has demonstrated himself to be, he’s not stupid. This stuff is important. It’s important that people know just how badly the American public was manipulated.
Don’t get me wrong. The people share the blame here. They wanted easy answers to highly complex issues, and they elected the guy who promised to give them. They shut their eyes and ears to anything that threatened to disagree with their comfortable world view.
We get the government we deserve. But we should know the truth.
Giving people who have not shown themselves to be evil the benefit of the doubt is usually decent. Continuing to give them the benefit after you have been shown to have been wrong about them because it’s easier than admitting that you’ve been backing a bastard is not.
I agree - but no one enjoys being wrong, and I’m not surprised how hard it is to admit: one of humanity’s more explicable peculiarities.
When those thousands that died come back to life, I’ll stop “harping” on the “crap”.
Bricker, thanks for your ‘timeline’ response, I haven’t had time to read it properly and respond. Maybe this weekend.
So where’s the house cleaning 'ol innocent boy should be doing after all those agencies fucked up?
What?!? Someone called you a traitor outside the SDMB, and someone calls me a coward in this very thread, and we are to discuss the two events here in this thread, granting them equal relevance?
You’re crazy. Batshit, blubbering crazy. Go away now and peddle crazy somewhere else – we’re full up here.