I’ve not been able to come up with a believable scenario in which Bush both knew that Saddam had no weapons of this kind and then devised a plan to make the rest of the country think he did. Many of this country’s leading pols are on record at some point in the 90’s as saying Saddam poses a threat, so it just doesn’t fly that this was a recent Bush invention. Or that any of it was untrue. Sorry.
And when you don’t have that, the whole evil neocons-want-to-rule-the-world schtick and “Bush Lied!” kind of fall flat.
Tee, fer cryin’ out loud! They didn’t say they suspected, they didn’t say they were guessing, they said they knew! They didn’t. Fact of the matter is, they were 100% wrong.
You choose to find such pig-headed ignorance forgiveable. I do not.
As Elucidator pointed earlier, you´re working from the false premise that there was only one way to do it.
Now to the explanation.
You said:
And Elucidator said:
I said that the A (your assertion) doesn´t equal B (Elucidator´s)
Si I say A <> (not equal) B
You say A = B
Now, removing Saddam was part of the whole Iraqi affair, let´s put it in a diagram
There´s a group of elelments related to the whole Iraqi thing; it´s made of things like the initial rattle sabling, the UN “show your cards” blunder, the polarization of the US and world population, the whole “with us or against us”, the suspicious contracts, the lies about WMD, the overthrown of Saddam, the death of civilians, the allienation of former allies, etc, etc, etc…
Now all that process was described as “immoral, illegal, and dishonest.” by Elucidator, yet, you picked just one item of the long-long list of events regarding the war which was in conflict with Elucidator assertion; it was a novel maneouvre, a reverse strawman; the Uzi counter attack; from all the immoral, and dishonest behaviours you picked the only thing that, out of context sounds laudable.
So in short we have
A (Saddams ovethrown)
B (Saddams ovethrown plus all the other things I ennumerated above about this war)
To me, is crystal clear that A <> B
P.S:
Let´s make an analogy for further explanation, Bob wakes up, stabs his wife 20 times, sets the house on fire, goes to a restaurant, pays the bill and leaves a bomb behind that kills 10 people, goes to the bank and cashes a false check for 1 million, which he spends in a weekend of sinful depravation.
But hey! Bob paid the restaurant ticket so he must be a good guy!. :rolleyes:
And to add one more thing, since that removing a brutal dictator is a good an moral thing, I´m sure you agree with the involvment in Kosovo, right?
That is, actually, a partisanship test.
I’m a Canadian. I have no party line. But if you want to look at how evil it was to attack an ‘innocent’ country without due cause and forget about the good things that can come of doing it, then that is your stupidity, or your Party Line. So, party on, dude.
**
If I am not for myself, who will be?
If I am only for myself, who am I?
If not now, when?
-Hillel
If the US isn’t the Palladin of Virtue, who is? No one? Certainly not the UN. They don’t care even though they should. Who else has the power?
**
Why do I get the feeling that if someone like Clinton had done the exact same thing we wouldn’t be having this discussion?
**
Well, I respect your opinion even though I don’t agree with it. Why? Because I can learn from it and maybe come to understand why you think the way you do. So far I think it is based upon the type of thinking in the first line of Hillel’s quote.
I doubt that I can improve much on Ale’s explication above. Suffice to say that quoting Hillel in this context is a bit like quoting Jesus in support of a capital gains tax cut.
Suggest another way that someone was actually working on and was going to do to accomplish this goal? Weapons inspections were doing nothing to stop Saddam from brutalizing his people.
Look, regardless of why the US invaded Iraq is irrelevant because what is done is done. Is it not a good thing that the Iraqis no longer have Saddam, or his sons, to worry about? I think it is. I also think that the UN should take a strong look at itself and start to deal with guys like him who are in other countries. Because if there were less people like him in charge, there would be less contention in the world, and less places for bugs like Osama to gain support. And I’m not suggesting that Osama and Saddam had anything to do with each other, but if you give people a chance to have a decent life they are less likely to support guys like Osama. The Iraqis have that chance now. They didn’t before, nor were very likely to have it in the forseeable future if Saddam had remained in power. Which he would still be if the US hadn’t done anything. So, to me it doesn’t matter why he was invaded because it has happened.
As you seem to agree with me that it is moral to remove brutal dictators from power, what you are ineffect it seems you are arguing against is how that was accomplished in this case. You are upset because you think you were lied to. Lied to by a politician! Maybe you should move to Canada as we are used to that sort of thing. Ours lie to us all the time and we still vote for them! :rolleyes: (the rolleyes are for my fellow sheep in Canada, not you)
Yeah, it was immoral you were lied to (MAY have been lied to). Yeah, it was immoral that people died in this war and are still dying if there was another way to accomplish the task. But, it isn’t immoral to have removed Saddam from power which I think serves the greater good. That was my point in addressing elucidator.
P.S. Ale, I’m sorry if you were feeling neglected. I’ve got a life, I can’t spend the time racking up 20,000 posts like some of the people around here, fer cryin’ out loud! Geez, half of you must be shut-ins.
Thanks, guys. I knew I could count on you. Scylla:
You should read the Hersch article as well as perusing the PNAC website.
But I’m still struck by your strange statement, “The Palestinians are a continuing problem and rallying point because they have been allowed to continue to exist and they are granted this right of existance and entitlement.” I’m at a loss as to what you intend with this; do you think the entire Palestinian population should be annihilated, or what?
Anyway, regarding your stance on this issue, you may be interested in checking out this article from the latest edition of the Washington Post, Elite Israeli Troops Refuse To Serve in the Territories:
Excerpts from the text of the letter can be found here. For those who don’t wish to register with the JP, an excerpt:
Now…what was that you said about “* line between being a bully who will attack wantonly at the slightest provocation and standing up for yourself*”? I’m curious, because you seem to think that the annihilation of the Palestinians is an act of self-defense, while these elite soldiers seem to be of the opinion that Israel stepped over the line and became an oppressor long ago.
IIRC, isn’t there a guy in prison doing time for WTC bombing I ???
after that, wasn’t there heightened tracking, interest, investigation into OBL, and AQ? which then was transmitted to the next administration? and this is called “didn’t do shit”???
How about the US backing up the ICC, so that all brutal dictators feel the rope on their necks, so to speak. The removal of Saddam, to anyone with a critical mind is not so much the result of his atrocities, but that he was a convenient boogey man to weave and that Iraq has an enormous geopolitical value.
I fully agree, I hope the US starts doing it too, througly and without concessions; for once I´d like to see that a brutal dictator is a brutal dictator no mather if it´s on the US side or not, or if the US just doesn´t care. That in every case strong measures are taken to protect human rights.
Hint, Osama was filthy rich and powerful when before he became what he is now, poverty is not the (only) cause of pests like him. When people feel as pawns of a greater power their resentment swells; that´s why I most emphatically condemn the Iraqui war, it´s just another dirty geo-political movement, and has all the potential of a match on a powder keg, so to speak…
I´m more than hopefull they will.
A sensible guess, but as I said, there where other ways to solve the problem.
It matters a lot, it sets a precedent of huge implications, a bogus case for war and a diplomacy debacle it´s not something I´m willing to let sleep into history just like that.
Quite correct. For example we can argue that over population is a problem, and it has to be adressed and solutions should be looked for; that doesn´t mean that, gassing a billion or two people would be good; while it does certainly alleviate the problem, is by no means a moral thing to do. Yes, hyperbolic, I know, I know…
How many times have you been lied into a war?
There are small and big lies, a full spectrum; in this case the lies, for their consecuences are industrial size.
[QUOTEYeah, it was immoral you were lied to (MAY have been lied to). Yeah, it was immoral that people died in this war and are still dying if there was another way to accomplish the task. But, it isn’t immoral to have removed Saddam from power which I think serves the greater good. That was my point in addressing elucidator.[/QUOTE]
Well, glad to hear that.
Oh, nevermind, I was a bit touchy because it was a very hot, humid night.
It would seem that Dean is making implications for which the technical term is a big fat f*cking lie.
So maybe one of the Usual Suspects can explain how Bush agreeing with practically everyone else on earth pre-Iraq invasion is a “lie”, but Dean spouting conspiracy theories about Bush knowing about 9/11 in advance is A-OK.
Excellent, Shodan An actual post, with a cite and everything!
What a pity that you didn’t have time to post the cites of Dean speaking for himself, rather than Bush speaking for him. Now, I have read his statements (disclaimer: not my first choice) and they clearly state his opinion that more could have been done, and should have been done, especially by an administration determined to wrap its every political advantage in Old Glory.
" As you read the report, you’re going to have a pretty clear idea what wasn’t done and what should have been done," he said. “This was not something that had to happen.”
Appointed by the Bush administration, Kean, a former Republican governor of New Jersey, is now pointing fingers inside the administration and laying blame.
“There are people that, if I was doing the job, would certainly not be in the position they were in at that time because they failed. They simply failed,” Kean said."
Well, that’s one way to put it, but I would say the more commonly excepted definition is someone who acts in an inappropriate manner. Perhaps a splitting of semantics, but a person can do or say things I don’t like or agree with, yet do it in a civil way.
**
Wow, this is such an unbelievable heap of horseshit, I have to actually shoo the flies away from my computer monitor.
Speaking about this global war on terror, I’m not convinced going after Iraq was a good move, in fact, I think it was counter productive and here’s why.
A) Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. NOTHING! B) We’re squandering goodwill in the international community, which in turn is effecting our ability to wage war. C) We’re diverting a great deal of resources towards something that has little to do with the war on terror. D) We were lied to, at least in part, by our administration in order to start the war. If we weren’t, please provide a cite showing me the all the WMD we’ve found. E) We’ve most likely created many more terrorists worldwide by attacking a place where none existed. F) The level of opposition should have at least made us pause. Even some of our traditional western allies were against us on this one. G) Nobody really gives a shit about liberating the Iraqis, it just happened to be a convenient line to regurgitate.
As far as the foreign policy thing with an eye towards the future, you didn’t like my “don’t be an asshole to the world” comment, so here’s another suggestion.
Don’t create any more Saddam fucking Husseins, or Osama Bin fucking Ladens you dumb fucks! With our shitty foreign policy we’re probably cuddling up to someone right now who’ll be biting us in the ass in 20 years.
Dealing with those 2 numbnuts was pretty stupid. Let’s be painfully aware of who we’re dealing with in the future as to avoid getting fucked by them even further in the future.
Make sense? Or do you need a picture?
I could link up that nice photo of your good boy Rummy hanging out with SH.
A) Iraq, like North Korea, Syria, Lybia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc., had very close ties to terrorism at every level. No Iraqi Mukhabarat agent or the like was tied in with 9/11, true. As usual, that’s about one tenth of the whole picture.
B) France, Germany? Ptew.
I’ll take Poland, Spain, and Italy.
C) Funny that terror attacks on the US and high value targets have dropped so far then. Al Qaeda is reduced to blowing up synogogues and apartment buildings.
D) Go read the final report of the UN inspectors. Nobody knows what the fuck exists, or where. Bush, Clinton, Bush II, the CIA, the British, and everyone else, screwed the pooch on that one. What was clear was that Saddam was playing the UN and biding his time to reconstitute in full force whatever was left.
E) Where no terrorists existed? That hardly squares with reality as it exists in our universe. The “worldwide” reach of terrorist organizations is always there in our interconnected modern world. Get used to it. One fuckhead with a truck full of fertilizer can change world history.
F) Bullshit. Clinton bombed Serbia without consulting the UN, thus enraging the Russians. I had white knuckles that week.
G) You obviously speak for yourself.
For me the most fascinating aspect of the whole thing is that this comes through in a message board. In person, there’s no wonder why. Because of my alpha male attitude, animal good looks, charisma, godlike physique, multi-talents, and towering intellect, my presence tends to be overwhelming socially.
That’s why I came to this message board. I was tired of being so desirable, tired of being in the limelight, tired of it always being about me.
I had hoped the generic words across the anonymity of the internet would be enough to shield my brilliance.
But Alas! It 'tis not so. I shine through, indomitably. When such as you see the piercing truth of my words, my reason shining like a beacon, you become enraged. It has alsways been so. Troglodytes of mediocrity like yourself cannot countenance the words of a superior intellect such as mind, and your tactics are those of vandals. It’s sad really. I do try not to shine so bright, in the hopes that such dim bulbs as yourself will be blinded.
It’s a curse really. To stand above all men is to be always alone. Do you think I like it like this? Don’t you know how I wish I could be shallow and stupid like you, just so I can fit in? The burden of excellence is heavy on my shoulders.
.
The majority of people are mediocre. I’m not sure you’re up to that level of society, but I guess it’s good to set your cites high.
Your post, unfortunately, was not up to the same standard, but only up to your usual - almost beneath contempt, but not quite that good.
And the relevant part of my cite:
Please note that this is not Bush saying what Dean said - it is reporters on Yahoo News saying what Dean is insinuating.
So, apparently, the “suggestion” that Bush knew in advance about 9/11, and did nothing about it, is “a most interesting theory”, even if there is no reason besides (in the case of Dean) desperation, or (in your case), nearly clinical anti-Bush paranoia. However, the belief that Iraq had or has WMD, shared by virtually every person on the planet prior to the invasion, is a “lie”.
Except if it is said by Clinton, her husband, Lieberman, etc., etc. - apparently.
