# Now that there is some good old fashion GOP truth telling. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 4, 2007, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-that-there-is-some-good-old-fashion-gop-truth-telling/406696 "2007-06-04T14:56:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2007, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-that-there-is-some-good-old-fashion-gop-truth-telling/406696/81 "2007-06-07T21:49:55Z")
[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold] I could point to bills sponsored to help healthcare, or I could suggest they actually do believe (in disagreement with you and of course others) that what they’re doing is actually best for the country. [/quote] And I would point out that the bill in question is no doubt a giveaway to the medical industry that if anything hurts the common people - Republican sponsored bills always are. And not being a mind reader, I’m going to judge by actions and not speculations about what they **really** believe; and what I see is a party that consistantly acts to benefit themselves and the corporate/religious elite, at the expense of everything and everyone else. The only evidence i see **against** my belief is the standard assertion that it’s just plain impossible for the Republican party leadership to be composed of bad people. It’s **so** impossible that believing that the Republicans are in the wrong is as silly as believing that they are lizards from space. :rolleyes: [QUOTE=Revenant Threshold] I note among your response that you carefully avoid refuting any of my insults. And yes, i’m willing to believe i’m genuinely wrong about you. But it is a faith equivalent to my faith in God. [/QUOTE] I don’t care enough to try, and I expect nothing else but insults from a believer in God and a defender of the Republicans. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2007, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-that-there-is-some-good-old-fashion-gop-truth-telling/406696/82 "2007-06-07T23:11:27Z")
I’m an atheist, you moron. At least do yourself the credit of understanding a pretty simply insult. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2007, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-that-there-is-some-good-old-fashion-gop-truth-telling/406696/83 "2007-06-07T23:40:57Z")
That’s what the phrase, “Oh, snap!” was made for. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2007, 10:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-that-there-is-some-good-old-fashion-gop-truth-telling/406696/84 "2007-06-08T10:39:51Z")
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto] Wasn’t the US official policy after 1998 (indeed, the policy supported by both the Republican and Democratic Parties here) the removal of the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq? [/QUOTE] Originally, the sanctions were to be lifted when Iraq was confirmed to have no WMD and under the conditions of a continuing inspections program. This was later changed and instead linked to a policy of regime change. You are correct in stating that the deaths of ~1.5 million Iraqi people was a bipartisan effort. From that infamous interview: > [@](#): > > Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it? > > Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price–we think the price is worth it. That was in 1996. Oh horrors of horrors, what will Saddam Hussein do? Maybe he’ll look at us funny and twirl his moustache. Iraq’s neighbors were flabbergasted when the U.S. talked about Iraq being a ‘threat to the region’ in 2002/3. Ignoring the fact its army, infrastructure, and economy was in tatters, what do you think would happen if Saddam marched a couple of columns of tanks and infantry toward Iran or Saudi Arabia or whatever fantasy target we’re thinking up? The Highway of Death Part II: Electric Boogaloo, that’s what. As for the rest of **Mr. Moto’s** posts, they were quite amazing, attempting to justify the wholesale invasion and occupation of a country for reasons which, in total, make no sense if one believes war is a serious matter which must only be undertaken in very grave times. I had to quickly check the calendar to make sure it wasn’t 2004, but then I realized they’re still out there, waiting. Maybe next he’ll talk about how we must invade Iran because they did the international equivalent of jaywalking. ---
**Author:** ![Merijeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f05b48/32.png) [@Merijeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merijeek)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2007, 12:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-that-there-is-some-good-old-fashion-gop-truth-telling/406696/85 "2007-06-08T12:27:33Z")
[QUOTE=Liberal] That’s what the phrase, “Oh, snap!” was made for. 😃 [/QUOTE] “Ah chingado!” -Joe, confident someone will get it ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2007, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-that-there-is-some-good-old-fashion-gop-truth-telling/406696/86 "2007-06-08T13:22:16Z")
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto] Hussein…was supporting terrorism in his region [/QUOTE] To about the same extent that those who wrote letters urging clemency wrt Scooter Libby’s sentencing (or columns supporting a Presidential pardon) were supporting perjury in Washington, D.C. IOW, gimme a fucking break. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2007, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-that-there-is-some-good-old-fashion-gop-truth-telling/406696/87 "2007-06-08T13:31:19Z")
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto] Wasn’t the US official policy after 1998 (indeed, the policy supported by both the Republican and Democratic Parties here) the removal of the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq? [/QUOTE] You know, we’ve been over this ground a million times, but the same stuff seems to keep coming up from the same people, no matter how many times it’s been swatted down. “By whom?” is the key question here. There’s a world of difference between being willing to provide moral support (and a limited amount of covert practical support) for an internal coup attempt, and mounting a full-scale invasion and occupation. To suggest that the U.S.’ policy of supporting regime change in Iraq in any way justified the invasion is completely bogus. People have supplied this refutation here over and over again during the past five years, yet “what about our policy of regime change?” keeps on popping up. Kindly be shut up of this particular bullshit argument. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2007, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-that-there-is-some-good-old-fashion-gop-truth-telling/406696/88 "2007-06-08T14:03:07Z")
I offer it as particular refutation of arguments I see around here all of the time: **SDMB common argument #1 - The war with Iraq sprang solely from the neoconservative mind, was motivated by oil, or was motivated by revenge** This argument completely ignores the history of our dealings with Iraq since 1990, including the first Bush Administration and the Clinton Administration. **SDMB common argument #2 - Iraq was well contained** Certainly false. Not only did Oil for Food afford the Hussein regime massive amounts of money to keep the rudiments of a WMD program in place, it also allowed him to buy influence on a global scale. Furthermore, support for the sanctions against Iraq was fading among the UN member states, and the sanctions likely would have fallen soon. Once they did, there would have been nothing to stop Hussein from pursuing the program on a large scale, which he certainly would have done. **SDMB common argument #2 - Iraq was abiding by the requirement to disarm when we went to war** Patently false. The report filed by the Iraqi government on December 7, 2002 was a reworking of previously filed (and rejected) information. Hans Bliz rejected it, and so did the UN Security Council. At no time after this did they demonstrate full compliance - only public relations moves purposely designed to avert war. Whether it was wise or not to go to war can be endlessly debated. But we ought to cease debating it on these particular points, given the facts as they stand. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2007, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-that-there-is-some-good-old-fashion-gop-truth-telling/406696/89 "2007-06-08T14:26:44Z")
He had no WMD’s, he had no WMD program, he had no means to reconstitute one, his army was a joke and he was destroying missiles even as the attack started. [Saddam destroys missiles](http://observer.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,,905908,00.html) > [@](#): > > Saddam Hussein made a last-ditch attempt to avoid military conflict with America and Britain last night when he began destruction of his al-Samoud 2 missile system and allowed two military scientists to be interviewed by UN weapons inspectors. > > In a move described as ‘a very significant piece of real disarmament’ by the chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, Iraq began dismantling four of its al-Samoud weapons with what the UN described as a ‘planned’ process to destroy the rest of the outstanding arsenal. > > Blix said he would now amend a critical report handed to the UN Security Council on Friday night, which accused Iraq of ‘very limited’ compliance with Resolution 1441 requiring its disarmament. > > The judgment will form the basis of Blix’s crucial report to the UN Security Council on Friday. How much more friggin’ contained could he be? (Disclaimer: All facts refer to the planet Earth where the sky is blue, not whatever bizarro world the few remaining kool-aid drinkers occupy) ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2007, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-that-there-is-some-good-old-fashion-gop-truth-telling/406696/90 "2007-06-08T14:29:46Z")
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto] I offer it as particular refutation of arguments I see around here all of the time: **SDMB common argument #1 - The war with Iraq sprang solely from the neoconservative mind, was motivated by oil, or was motivated by revenge** This argument completely ignores the history of our dealings with Iraq since 1990, including the first Bush Administration and the Clinton Administration. [/quote] This does not mean that war was an inevitable or necessary step. The Clinton administration did not invade Iraq. Nothing had changed in Iraq that suggested that invasion at that time was needed. > [@](#): > > **SDMB common argument #2 - Iraq was well contained** Certainly false. From Colin Powell, 15 May 2001: “The sanctions, as they are called, have succeeded over the last 10 years, not in deterring him from moving in that direction, but from actually being able to move in that direction. The Iraqi regime militarily remains fairly weak. It doesn’t have the capacity it had 10 or 12 years ago. **It has been contained.** ” > [@Mr. Moto](#): > > Furthermore, support for the sanctions against Iraq was fading among the UN member states, and the sanctions likely would have fallen soon. Once they did, there would have been nothing to stop Hussein from pursuing the program on a large scale, which he certainly would have done. There is no single shred of evidence that the sanctions would have inevitably fallen. If it was the case that support for sanctions was failing, it makes no logical or rational sense to suggest that the appropriate response is war. A simple diplomatic effort to enhance the support for the containment effort that Colin Powell said was “reasonably successful” would have been more appropriate and more successful. > [@](#): > > **SDMB common argument #2 - Iraq was abiding by the requirement to disarm when we went to war** Patently false. The report filed by the Iraqi government on December 7, 2002 was a reworking of previously filed (and rejected) information. Hans Bliz rejected it, and so did the UN Security Council. At no time after this did they demonstrate full compliance - only public relations moves purposely designed to avert war. This very obviously and very conveniently leaves out the fact that Iraq was very open and compliant with the inspections that occurred after December 7th, 2002. If you find the words of Hans Blix compelling, why do you stop at December, 2002? Here is what he said in January, 2003: > [@Blix](#): > > Iraq has on the whole cooperated rather well so far with UNMOVIC in this field. The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect and with one exception it has been prompt. We have further had great help in building up the infrastructure of our office in Baghdad and the field office in Mosul. Arrangements and services for our plane and our helicopters have been good. The environment has been workable. > > Our inspections have included universities, military bases, presidential sites and private residences. Inspections have also taken place on Fridays, the Muslim day of rest, on Christmas day and New Years day. These inspections have been conducted in the same manner as all other inspections. We seek to be both effective and correct. Here is what he said on March 7, 2003: > [@Blix](#): > > Inspections in Iraq resumed on the 27th of November 2002. In matters relating to process, notably prompt access to sites, we have faced relatively few difficulties, and certainly much less than those that were faced by UNSCOM [U.N. Special Commission] in the period 1991 to 1998. This may well be due to the strong outside pressure. […] > This is not to say that the operation of inspections is free from frictions, but at this juncture we are able to perform professional, no-notice inspections all over Iraq and to increase aerial surveillance. > **[CNN.com - Transcript of Blix's U.N. presentation - Mar. 7, 2003](https://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/07/sprj.irq.un.transcript.blix/index.html)** > [@Mr. Moto](#): > > Whether it was wise or not to go to war can be endlessly debated. But we ought to cease debating it on these particular points, given the facts as they stand. Your view of the facts is so skewed that it raises, for me, serious questions about you. I’m not sure what to make of your so very, very selective assessment of the facts and your very strange and obviously exceptionally biased interpretation of them. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2007, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-that-there-is-some-good-old-fashion-gop-truth-telling/406696/91 "2007-06-08T14:49:08Z")
[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian] Your view of the facts is so skewed that it raises, for me, serious questions about you. I’m not sure what to make of your so very, very selective assessment of the facts and your very strange and obviously exceptionally biased interpretation of them. [/QUOTE] There are 6 possibilities only: 1. He’s retarded in the technical sense of the word; 2. He’s so blinded by ideology he literally cannot recognise counter-facts 3. My side right or wrong even if I have to lie. 4. He’s a troll 5. He’s communicating from an alternate world. 6. Brain damage that has affected long term memory so he can’t actually remember being presented with the same evidence over and over again. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2007, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-that-there-is-some-good-old-fashion-gop-truth-telling/406696/92 "2007-06-08T14:55:32Z")
[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian] From Colin Powell, 15 May 2001: “The sanctions, as they are called, have succeeded over the last 10 years, not in deterring him from moving in that direction, but from actually being able to move in that direction. The Iraqi regime militarily remains fairly weak. It doesn’t have the capacity it had 10 or 12 years ago. **It has been contained.** ” [/QUOTE] Please give me your opinion of the state of the sanctions by late 2002. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2007, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-that-there-is-some-good-old-fashion-gop-truth-telling/406696/93 "2007-06-08T15:01:04Z")
[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian] There is no single shred of evidence that the sanctions would have inevitably fallen. If it was the case that support for sanctions was failing, it makes no logical or rational sense to suggest that the appropriate response is war. A simple diplomatic effort to enhance the support for the containment effort that Colin Powell said was “reasonably successful” would have been more appropriate and more successful. [/QUOTE] From the Duelfer Report: > [@](#): > > By 2000-2001, Saddam had managed to mitigate many of the effects of sanctions and undermine their international support. Iraq was within striking distance of a de facto end to the sanctions regime, both interms of oil exports and the trade embargo, by the end of 1999. Do you have any proof that refutes this, besides quotes from Colin Powell, who well could have been mistaken at that early date in 2001. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2007, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-that-there-is-some-good-old-fashion-gop-truth-telling/406696/94 "2007-06-08T15:06:34Z")
Do \*you \* have any proof at all that Saddam’s regime had \*any \* military capability that represented a \*real \* threat at the time Bush went to war with him _anyway_? Or is this just more lame rationalization to avoid confronting the monstrosity of what you’ve done? ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2007, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-that-there-is-some-good-old-fashion-gop-truth-telling/406696/95 "2007-06-08T15:20:04Z")
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto] Right. Wasn’t there some grumbling in America when early campaigns went to North Africa? After all, Hitler didn’t attack us. As I have said before, I have long felt that another war with the Hussein regime was inevitable, and the sanctions against it were in danger of completely falling apart. Even with that sanctions enforcement in place, we still had to engage Iraq militarily in 1998. That is the reality of the situation. It posed considerable danger to the region, and you have never been able to adequately explain it away. [/QUOTE] > **[Hitler's Speech Declaring War Against the United States | Jewish Virtual Library](https://jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/hitler_declares_war.html)** Pearl Harbor Dec 7. Germany declares war against us Dec.11. I missed when Sadaam declared war. You are the last to see how Iraq was all bs. They were not a threat to us or their neighbors. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2007, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-that-there-is-some-good-old-fashion-gop-truth-telling/406696/96 "2007-06-08T15:25:35Z")
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto] Please give me your opinion of the state of the sanctions by late 2002. [/QUOTE] Irrelevant. The state of the sanctions regime has no bearing on a decision to go to war immediately, can’t wait, must do it NOW etc etc. Only war criminals would try to justify it on those grounds. Desperate, flailing about war criminals in utter denial. Your posts, this pathetic thrashing around for some, for any shred of justification no matter how threadbare are actually quite sad. You do realise that don’t you? Just admit it was wrong in conception and execution and follow-up. You’ll feel better for it. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2007, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-that-there-is-some-good-old-fashion-gop-truth-telling/406696/97 "2007-06-08T15:33:58Z")
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto] From the Duelfer Report: Do you have any proof that refutes this, besides quotes from Colin Powell, who well could have been mistaken at that early date in 2001. [/QUOTE] This would make total sense if the failure of the sanctions, in and of itself, would present a ‘grave and gathering threat,’ in Bush’s lingo. It doesn’t. To confuse it with a _casus belli_ is patently ridiculous. What so many of these arguments amount to is, “Saddam Hussein, in some way, shape, or form, was a baaaaad boy. And if someone named Saddam Hussein is a baaaaad boy, we have no choice but to invade and occupy his country.” ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2007, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-that-there-is-some-good-old-fashion-gop-truth-telling/406696/98 "2007-06-08T16:04:15Z")
They come down to something even more basic: Simple denial. “I was for it at the time, I can’t admit the possibility of having been fooled because that would make me a fool, I can’t admit the possibility of having done or supported something evil because I’m one of the good guys by self-definition. Therefore I \*was \* right and what I supported \*was \* good, therefore that’s what the facts \*did and do \* support.” IOW, the usual rationalization process that humans are often prone to, but usually stop after the first few ten thousand lost lives. **gonzomax** , odd that you should bring up Pearl Harbor without pointing out that **Mr. Moto** ’s “argument” is the same one the Japanese used. But at least he hasn’t tried another favorite of the rationalizers, the one about how we had all those troops over there and we just had to give them something to do other than wait. Other Dopers have tried that on us before, though. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2007, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-that-there-is-some-good-old-fashion-gop-truth-telling/406696/99 "2007-06-08T16:08:45Z")
Why not just, uhm, fix the sanctions? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2007, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-that-there-is-some-good-old-fashion-gop-truth-telling/406696/100 "2007-06-08T16:12:49Z")
Why not, um, _go get_ Zarqawi? Or, um, send the Marines \*into \* Tora Bora with Bin Laden pinned down there? Is there a reason other than needing boogiemen to scare us with? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-that-there-is-some-good-old-fashion-gop-truth-telling/406696.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-that-there-is-some-good-old-fashion-gop-truth-telling/406696.md?page=6)