There were plenty of conservatives here who were not beating the drum for war, and who did not believe that there were WMD in Iraq in “imminent” danger of being used. In fact, I was not only against the invasion of Iraq as it was carried out, but I also expressed distaste at the attempts to assassinate Saddam. And I never once posted that I believed a connection between Bin Laden and Saddam. I even was against the invasion of Afghanistan on some principles, although I did admit to a large amount of satisfaction that a regime that demeaned and marginalized women was thrown in the dust. I won’t apologize for that.
I guess it’s easy to forget those “embarassing conservatives” like myself, when you’re just in slur mode. Nice one. :rolleyes:
So what you’re saying here is that just because he got ripped off, there was no attempt on Hussein’s part to violate U.N. sanctions? I’m pretty sure that 10 million dollars worth of earnest money is convincing evidence that Iraq really wanted long range weapons.
Well, this is the pit, and I was talking to Hydrocortisone. His brand of conservatives do seem to be running America’s foreign policy these days. That’s a shame, and I’m sure it sucks to be lumped in with them, but adding several paragraphs of qualifications as to exactly which species of conservative I was referring to would have left the whole reply reeking of liberal wishy-washiness. Hydro probably would have missed the point. If you followed many of his threads, you’d see that that he isn’t exactly the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree. Una, I feel your pain, and did not intend for that remark to reflect on actual thinking conservatives such as yourself, but there’s a war on, and there is going to be collateral damage.
That’s fair, and I understand, but the original post was not worded that way. And since it was the Pit, I thought I would parry back. With just a little qualification, I would have kept my little mouth shut.
I do feel a little underappreciated, as do many thinking, practical, facts-oriented conservatives here, when we get lumped in with others. The same way that thinking, practical, facts-oriented liberals do here as well. I guess because I and others are quieter on the War than others who are more strident, our viewpoint isn’t out there much.
The truth is, I really don’t know what to think about the War and events. Oh, what I said about my disapproval of them still stands, but what I mean is - I don’t understand how we (the US and the UK) got into this position, exactly.
I think it’s clear by the public evidence that Bush withheld information and possibly lied to force the issue of the War. However, I can’t say that it wasn’t for a good cause - nor can I say that it wasn’t for a bad cause. Because there’s so much that is unknown I really don’t know what to think about it all. I also don’t know if his lying was justified or not.
Now, I’m not referring to the WMD issue at all, but the issue of whether or not the American public could deal with the truth. I mean, the average slack-jawed person who barely understands that “France” is a country and not a State, who can’t point to Iraq on a map if you held a gun to their head, whose VCR is still flashing “12:00” after 10 long years, because they cannot figure it out. People who believe in Bigfoot, UFOs, perpetual motion, who buy and worship Beanie Babies like household Gods.
If I was Bush, I wouldn’t tell the public the truth either, if the truth was bad enough. For the same reason I wouldn’t give guns to monkeys. Now, whether or not a republic can survive on lies, mis-statements, half-truths, and deceptions will have to be seen.
In the end, I think everyone will lose under this policy. But most of all, I just don’t know.
Your faith is touching, but there’s no reason to believe that any secret reasons for the war are different from the secret WMD evidence that Bush couldn’t show anyone. The secret evidence didn’t exist. It was just bullshit. If you are getting the impression from the Administration that they had real justifications for the war that they can’t tell you about, I’d suggest that that’s just more bullshit.
OK, we’re gonna level with you, folks. The real reason, the one we couldn’t tell you, is that Saddam Hussein has the plans and blueprints for the 1920’s Style Death Ray encoded in his DNA. (We have intelligence reports from Ahmed Chalabis Iraqi Resistance movement that he obtained these plans from Satan, his long-term homosexual lover. They claim to have videotapes, though on this last point their credibility is considered a bit short…)
Until his DNA is wiped from the earth, we cannot be certain he won’t use this weapon. We have no evidence that he has not attempted to obtain the necessary kryptonite (both green and red), therefore we can only assume that he has. He will remain a threat as long as his DNA exists. That’s why we had to plug his grandson. Can’t be too careful.
The depressing truth is that folks like you – the folks I call “intelligent Republicans” – are getting lost in the din from the Limbaugh-worshipping, rabid neo-conservative right. There’s something wrong with the GOP when a level-headed coalition-building Republican like Richard Riordan gets passed over for a gubernatorial campaign because he (gasp!) actually worked with Democrats while in office, instead of burning them at the stakes or something.
That’s the problem in a nutshell. Your party has been hijacked by the Reagan Revolution, Newt Gingrich’s “Contract with America,” and Karl Rove’s brand of Destruct-o-politics.
Just speaking for myself, here, but IMO there are very few instances where it’s justified for a political leader to lie to his constituents. Even if, in his heart of hearts, he feels that the citizens are a bunch of slack-jawed yokels who only care about the next winner on American Idol, he is still under a moral obligation to keep the citizenry fully informed, so they can make an informed decision when it comes time to discuss/vote/debate the issue.
Anything less is condescention of the worst kind, and a mockery of what an open democracy is about. All IMO, anyway.
At this point, I am no longer willing to believe anything the current administration has to say. They have shown themselves to be so fundamentally dishonest that they will lie even when telling the truth would better serve their own interests. My disillusionment is so complete that I am currently not entirely certain that there is such a place as Iraq.
Was that really $87 billion worth of proof of the existence of Iraq, or $87 billion worth of proof of the existence of Halliburton and sundry other campaign contributors? Or $87 billion worth of proof of the Administration’s dishonesty?
Any US news article containing these disclaimers smacks of propaganda. Disclaimers like those tell me to rewind the tape, forget what you have just read, you will be better off in the long run.
“Touching”? There’s no need to mock. Especially since it’s incorrect in the first place.
I didn’t say there was “secret evidence”. I said if there was, I wouldn’t tell the American public either. Because, by definition, it’s not meant to be consumed by the masses.
I don’t believe the President. I fully never did, on the subject of the War, and what belief I did have was based on “surely there will be WMD’s shown ex post facto, or else how can he stay in office?” Seems I was wrong - he likely is here for another 4 years. I did believe much of what Powell and Rice said and testified about, but now do not. I never paid attention to Blair, as everything he said seemed to come right from Bush.
I have no idea of there was any “secret evidence” - a good thing, too, if there really was. It sure doesn’t look to me like there were any WMDs in existence at the time the invasion happened. And I don’t think any will ever be found in any sort of working order, if at all.
As far as “justification” on other grounds, I think that one’s still a little bit under debate by people. The jerking around of the weapons inspectors was in my mind justification for some sort of serious military action. My personal preference would have been a policy of “inspect or destroy” via air strikes - let the inspectors in, or let the cruise missiles in - two choices, pick one. Obviously, there are some serious problems with that policy, so it’s a good thing I don’t decide matters like that.
“Looky there, Clem! Ain’t that one of them honest Conservatives?”
“Golly, Lemuel, I think you may be right! Thought they’d all gone extinct”
“Naw, just driven from thier habitat by the Raving Loons.”
Respectfully, a few points.
Why? What national security purpose could be served by such secrecy? What information might be too sensitive to reveal? The name of our intelligence source? We know his name, its Ahmed Chalabi.
And do you really imagine that the Bushiviks would withstand the political damage of all this, perhaps even putting the Holy Grail of Re-election in jeapordy? Without even a “leak”?
I suggest that if you cannot reasonably imagine such “secret evidence” being too sensitive to be “leaked”, or that the WH is too bound by ethical considerations to countenance such a thing in order to silence a political shitstorm…well, that’s the triumph of hope over experience, is it not?
The very day the ultimatum was delivered, the Saddamites were dismantling missiles that they insisted were legal under the sanctions. The inspectors insisted otherwise, and they were being dismantled.
It might be said that his was under duress, that only the imminent presence of a military threat produced such cooperation. Even were this so, what of it? Why should we imagine that maintaining that threat was more difficult and costly, in blood and treasure, than war itself?
And picture this: if we had done, and the inspectors had found nothing, as clearly they must… The Bushiviks could rightly have called this a victory of enormous consequence! OK, the weapons aren’t there and we forced him to prove it. No lives were lost in the process, and the world sees America as determined, cautious, and humane. Me and may ilk would have had no option but to join the chorus of “Hallelujah!” and “Hosanna” or lock our doors and get drunk until it was over.
For the last time, America was in danger because Iraq was getting ripped off while trying to acquire weapons programs for systems which were capable of delivering the WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION that they didn’t have.
How many times do we have to say, “I told you so”?
Congratulations on your Office’s deft maneuvering to keep the President’s re-election campaign on-message. The “Weapons of Ass Destruction” angle looks near-perfect.
Except for one thing. How is it that Saddam could be all for the destruction of the homosexual ass when he was attempting to give the Iraqi people no dongs?
I’ll expect your response at your earliest convenience. In the meantime, keep fighting the fight against our sworn enemies, the Democratic Party.
– are getting lost in the din from the Limbaugh-worshipping, rabid neo-conservative right. There’s something wrong with the GOP when a level-headed coalition-building Republican like Richard Riordan gets passed over for a gubernatorial campaign because he (gasp!) actually worked with Democrats while in office, instead of burning them at the stakes or something.