It may just be that I am a slow liberal type, but can you point out which poster RedFury was personally insulting? I was reading his post as an insult to Bush Apologists in general (which I thought was OK in the same way that , say, making broad brush statements about Liberals seems to be).
Also, did you notice that nifty little icon over on the right that looks like a ! ? Word is that pressing it sommons someone that can make a ruling if you think that a rule has been violated.
RedFury and Sam Stone, take all comments on others’ intelligence (or morality) to the Pit.
[ /Moderator Mode]
I wish the war hawks would stop crapping their pants with joy everytime an article comes out that remotely looks like it is validating their ideas about WMDs in Iraq. It makes for a pathetic display.
When it is pointed out that WMDs in Iraq were not found, the Bush supporters start with the whole “but there were a whole list of OTHER reasons we went to war!” song and dance.
But when a report comes out even slightly suggesting that WMDs in Iraq were found, we see these people stumbling over themselves to share the glad tidings, with much smugness and self-congratulating along the way, as if they’ve finally hit pay dirt. A person has to wonder: if WMDs weren’t all that big of a deal, why all the jubilation and neener-neeners over what amount to ?
Isn’t it about time and we start focusing on the so-called real reasons we invaded Iraq, Mr. Moto? This was never really about WMDs, so let’s stop with the charade.
I don’t recall whether I’ve said it specifically before, but in case those quotes don’t make it clear: I do not believe that Iraq had an active WMD program of the type described by the world’s intelligence agencies at or near the time of the invasion of Iraq. I also don’t care – never did.
The only one who came into this thread making shrill statements was…
prescient in all material respects.
Maybe you can point out a single thing I said that was factually incorrect.
Unless I’m very much mistaken, Dio, friend Manny is, with shy and blushing modesty, referring to himself.
When he calls himself “prescient,” he’s claiming that his initial flurry of links in this thread was a preemptive strike against the likes of me (who he named explicitly and has since pointed to as vindication) who would inevitably point out that finding WMDs at this point would still not justify the invasion of Iraq. His links have not refuted that point so I’m curious as to why he thinks he’s countered anything that I’ve said.
Maybe I’m mistaking the leetspeak or whatever, but the facts are in. Bush did lie. At least we can hope he lied. The only alternative is that he really honest to God believed he had a reason to go to war when there was no evidence to support it. And if that’s true, there’s nothing to keep that from happening agains. Bush might decide next month that the United States needs to go to war with Finland or Australia or Venezuela. And while everyone would be trying to stop him, he’d be saying, “sure there’s no evidence, but I honestly believe I’m right, so regardless of the actual facts my intentions are good.”
So we’ve got the possibility of WMD program related activities? Excuse me for not needing a change of trousers or wondering why we had to go to war so urgently.
One of his most prominent characteristics is that he finds himself very convincing. But consider the source - this is a guy who thinks that some yutz hanging posters in his neighborhood is evidence that the worldwide peace movement consists merely of mindless dupes of the Trotskyites. But this board does need some comic relief from time to time.
Moto?
manhattan?
Bueller?
Bueller?
Enjoy,
Steven
It dependa, Mtgman. Broadly speaking, under the sanctions regime, there was stuff Iraq couldn’t have, other stuff they could, and some stuff they had to have a damn good reason for, since it had dual-use potential.
The Duelfer Report details extensive cheating by the Hussein regime on these matters, and explicitly details the aim of Hussein to resume all programs when sanctions ended. He was waiting out the West here, confident that the will of the Europeans and the Americans would weaken before his own resolve.
Now, the preservation of material and personnel infrastructure would make sense here, so that the programs could hit the ground running when sanctions ended. I think we all know that was going on, and that equipment and people were being moved to keep them away from the inspectors. Nobody denies this. And nobody denies, either, that all of this ran counter not only to our interests in seeing Hussein disarmed of these particularly nasty weapons, but the necessity of this toward a broader stability in the Mideast.
I can certainly see how people can disagree about whether the scope of all this was worthy of a shooting war. I cannot see, though, why such disagreement must make Bush automatically a liar. I realize this suits a rhetorical end nicely, but it doesn’t fit the facts from what I can see.
No amount of “cheating” or violations of sanctions was a legal justification for an attack on sovereignty. Pointing at alleged violations of UNSC resolutions is especially specious in light of the fact that the invasion was carried out in direct defiance of the the UN and international law.
And Bush most definitely lied when he stated repeatedly and emphatically that he “knew” Iraq was a threat to the US. He didn’t “know.” He thought so maybe. He hoped so certainly, but he did but know and he lied when he said he did.
And I hope I’m not going to have to hear about how poor old George was only guilty of trusting too much and that the mean old CIA gave him a bunch of fake information. Too many insiders have already made it clear that the White House was not interested in hearing anything which did not fit what Bush wanted to hear. Bush got caveated and ambiguous intelligence which he cherry-picked and massaged to conform to his predetermined agenda.
I also hope we haven’t forgotten about such things as the yellowcake lie and the fabricated IAEA report.
Oh, they were a threat all right, Diogenes. Please let’s not forget that Hussein was shooting at Americans throughout most of the 1990’s, and that his regime was sponsoring some particularly nasty folks in the Mideast. And that nasty bit of work around 1990, the root of all this, cannot be easily dismissed either.
Now, you could say that the threat didn’t justify an invasion, and that might be a defensible position. But let’s not pretend there was no threat there, and that the scope of that threat went way beyond the details of any weapons programs that might or might not have existed.
How could we forget when John Bolton, the president’s new nominee for ambassador to the UN, was intimitely involved in spreading that lie, and State lied to congress about his involvement ?
Waxman Letter on Bolton
And, once again, you seek to take shelter under semantics. Vast torrents of non-truthful verbage gushed forth, but if you squint, in the right light, and apply carefully selected criteria, you can fairly say “not a liar”. If you permit yourself such rigorous criteria as Pres. William Jefferson “Horndog” Clinton, and can deconstruct verbs like “is”, agreed, you could make a case that GeeDubya wasn’t lying. If he says he is certain of something, but it isn’t so, he isn’t lying because he is certain. Doesn’t happen to be so, but hey, is that his fault?
Actually, yes. Yes, it is. Ideally, we elect as President someone we can trust, since we have to entrust this person with our very lives. The task is daunting, the burden heavy. But no one is drafted for this job, it is not thrust upon the unwilling by lottery. Perhaps it is an act of the purest chutzpah even to put one’s name forward for nomination, much less to campaign. But no one says he has to, he asked for the job, and was elected to it. Well, sorta, kinda… again, you gotta squint…
Ordinary standards do not apply, there are no do-overs, there are no mulligans. There is too much at stake, which is to say, us.
Time an again, doubt was raised and brought to his attention. Time and again he hewed to a predecided course of action, time and again he made alarming statements of potential danger to urge us to accept his course of action, time and again he pushed aside any caution, any suggestion that patience might be of value.
What if he had chosen differently, as I might, as you might? What if we had stood down a bit, kept the troop build-up while proceeding with inspections? What if, God forbid, we were proven wrong before we sacrificed innocents lives to slay a chimera?
Would that have been such a disaster, to be proven wrong? To show ourselves reasonable, sensible, and heavily armed? What a splendid opportunity pissed away. Who will trust us now? If we really need to enter into careful negotiation, if we really need to be trusted? Why shouldn’t a potential adversary heed the counsel of madmen, when they say You can’t trust the Americans to be reasonable, better to shoot first rather than not at all.
All of this because of a man who would rather die than admit he was wrong. Not quite, actually: would rather thousands of other people die. As they did.
There is nothing more dangerous than a pig-headed fool in a position of power. Compared to this, “liar” is a mild and affectionate rebuke. The truth is far, far worse.
You might recall that we tried this tack with Hussein throughout the 1990’s, and it brought exactly zero progress.
And who will heed us if we constantly threaten and never shoot? If our words are never backed up with credible action, they are worthless puffs of air or ink blots on paper.
Agreed, which is why I’m thankful you’re relatively powerless.
Shooting unguided missiles at US jets in the no-fly zone can’t be considered a threat to American civilians stateside, can it?
Support (in name only) of Palestinian killers in order to get ‘street cred’, and for which no money was exchanged, was a threat to America?
How was the legacy of Gulf I in any way a threat to us?
How was Gulf I in itself a threat to us, other than re: economics?
How, also ,can you say Gulf I was the root of this when the claims made were, if I remember correctly: WMD, Al Queda, democracy?
The WMD were a gift from us, the terrorism connections were bogus, and we haven’t made enough of an effort to take care of the Iraqi people… I think you’re giving the bush regime far too much wiggle room in discussing the roots of this particular fiasco.
No… let’s talk about whether or not there was an actual threat. And without those WMD, how exactly were we claiming that he was a threat? Was he going to cast nasty gazes at us?