I have never liked Bush, and when we first invaded I didn’t fully trust his reasons, but I was naive enough to believe we wouldn’t let Iraq get into the incredibly fucked up state it’s now in. I’ve tried to do my part to change things. In 2004 I went to Miami to help ensure people knew how to use the voting machines and were not intimidated away from the polling places. Last year I went to a large antiwar protest march in Washington DC. Maybe it’s not much in itself, but I hope that if more people hear of these sorts of things and give some thought to the subject that they will also turn against Bush.
26 July 1920. Mencken was a prime asshole, but not always wrong.
[QUOTE=Evil One]
The premise that Bush intentionally lied to justify the invasion is not accepted by everyone. It just makes it a little easier to justify the vitriol with which the crow is served. “You lied! And you did it for (insert conspiracy theory here)!”
[/QUOTE]
It depends what specific “lie” you’re referring to. It is possible that Bush genuinely believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. It is, however, unquestionably the case that Bush did say things about that subject that were not true in defense of the invasion, things that he certainly should have known were not true.
It is a matter of public record that Bush claimed he would use military force only as a last resort, when in fact his administration planned all along to use force and never really intended to allow a diplomatic solution. It is a matter of public record that Bush claimed he had not yet decided to use military force quite a few months after that decision had, in fact, been made. It is a matter of public record that Bush claimed that there was **no doubt ** that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, when it was not an absolutely proven fact; even a very favourable interpretation of the intelligence process would not support the claim that there was “no doubt.” Those things are lies, pure and simple.
It IS true, and again I have to recommend everyone read Ricks’s “Fiasco,” that Bush likely said many things he thought were true, or hoped were true, that were not, and that’s not a “lie.” It is certainly true that many of the reports that “Things are getting better, the insurgency is in its last throes” that came out of Bush’s mouth were simply things his advisors and employees had told him that were not true; the level of miscommunication, inter-departmental rivalry and secrecy, and outright incompetence throughout the entire operation was truly staggering.
[QUOTE=RickJay]
Bush likely said many things he thought were true, or hoped were true, that were not, and that’s not a “lie.”
[/QUOTE]
Ah, yes, The Costanza Defense. :dubious:
[QUOTE=Sevastopol]
It is stunning that ignorance this adamant can survive. Where you been boy?
[/QUOTE]
Please help me, oh wise one. Please tell me where I’ve gone wrong.
[QUOTE=Evil One]
If you believe that it was an intentional conspiracy to “enrich his Halliburton cronies” or some other nonsense then I can’t help you.
[/QUOTE]
Oh, it was a lot more complicated than that! (And yes, there is proof, lots of it.)
[QUOTE=Evil One]
The middle east is full of religious zealots and lots of undereducated and easily influenced cannon fodder.
[/QUOTE]
…but there the resemblance to the US ends 
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Saddamcite?
[/QUOTE]
Nope. Not going to bother going digging until I get a definition. I spend enough time dealing with the mobile goalposts that I damned well want to know where these posts are.
-Joe
[QUOTE=elucidator]
its only pre-emption if you ar actually stopping someone from doing something they are otherwise bound to do, imminently.
[/QUOTE]
So you are ready to take another 9/11 type hit before taking any action…is that what you’re saying?
[QUOTE=elucidator]
We might have “pre-emptively” attacked Japan on Dec. 6, 1941, if we had known what the crafty little devils were up to, and that would have been a wholly justifiable “premptive attack”. Because, you see, the Japanese actually intended to attack.
Attacking Iraq as a response to 9/11 makes no more sense than it would have made to invade Costra Rica as a response to Pearl Harbor.
[/QUOTE]
Intel says Iraq have WMD
WMD bad
Wait for WMD hit?
No
Preempt.
[QUOTE=Evil One]
Intel says Iraq have WMD
[/QUOTE]
Except, it didn’t. Intelligence had a few disparate pieces of evidence that said Iraq might have had WMD. They also had many more that said there was no evidence for this. George Bush said Iraq DID have WMD. He wasn’t wrong, because he didn’t say he thought they had them. He said they definitely had them. That was a lie.
[QUOTE=Evil One]
So you are ready to take another 9/11 type hit before taking any action…is that what you’re saying?
[/QUOTE]
I don’t know what he’s saying, but I’m saying this:
It should have been obvious to anybody with two brain cells to rub together that the contention that Saddam had WMD’s was dubious, the contention that he had the capability to strike the US with them was stupid, and the contention that he was somehow in cahoots with al Qaeda was mind-bendingly idiotic, prima facie.
[QUOTE=Evil One]
Please help me, oh wise one. Please tell me where I’ve gone wrong.
[/QUOTE]
Well, for starters, tiptoing around my reply to you. It does make you a cunt[sup]2[/sup]
Is that referencing a footnote, or Evil One equals cunt squared?
[QUOTE=elucidator]
Is that referencing a footnote, or Evil One equals cunt squared?
[/QUOTE]
Interesting question. You’re probably well aware of the problem with inserting a square peg into a round hole, but what about fitting a round peg into a square hole?
In December, 1941, the Japanese were faced with a large enemy navy. No war was declared, but they looked at that navy and said, “That could one day be used against us.” So they decided to preemptively attack that navy in hopes of crippling it.
Evil One. do you think the Japanese were justified in attacking Pearl Harbor?
[QUOTE=Evil One]
S
Intel says Iraq have WMD
WMD bad
Wait for WMD hit?
No
Preempt.
[/QUOTE]
worst. limerick. ever.
[QUOTE=Evil One]
Intel says Iraq have WMD
WMD bad
Wait for WMD hit?
No
Preempt.
[/QUOTE]
Preemption bad. Have the past four years taught you nothing?!
And re-read saoirse’s post #90 above.
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
Quoting H.L. Mencken: As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
[/QUOTE]
Oh. Shit. [Insert “just…dayyum” smilie here.]
[QUOTE=Evil One]
So you are ready to take another 9/11 type hit before taking any action…is that what you’re saying?
Intel says Iraq have WMD
WMD bad
Wait for WMD hit?
No
Preempt.
[/QUOTE]
What would be the proper terms to describe a mindset such as this, so rigid and inflexible, imperfious to reason, preferring to rely on childish jingoistic aphorisms to support their presupposition?
What makes a person so incredibly wedded to his preference that he is unwilling or unable to modify it in any respect, no matter what array of facts mount against it?
Am I entirely off base to be reminded of unthinking extreme religious/cultish beliefs?
These are not the Druids you are looking for.