No, we’re just taking some satisfaction in GWB’s failure and embarrassment. The “country” didn’t lie about WMDs, the president did. The country had no vote in staging this war and has no culpability in the lies that were told to justify it. We are gratified by the fact that the dishonesty and corruption of this administration has been exposed by this failure and that it may result in getting Shrub out of office. We think that this administration is hurting the country. We are rooting for the restoration of integrity and competence in the White House. Despising Bush and taking some glee in his exposure as a fraud does not make anybody anti-American and I’m surprised that you would resort to playing that card.
Is there a video of this online somewhere? I’ve read this in a number of places, and it always makes me chuckle. That is, it reads like a joke to me, like if Bush were to say, “I woulda been a Muslim if Allah had returned my prayers.” But I guess I can’t really say for certain that Clark is joking unless I see the clip and hear his inflection.
It seems like such an obvious joke to me, though…
I think many olf us knew nothing would be found from the get-go and the War in Iraq was a fraud. While many of us might have different ideas on why the war was started, I think most of us agree it wasn’t for the “safety of the USA”.
I’m pissed off we are wasting so much money there.
The day Bush was declared president the first words out of my mouth were “I guess we’re going to war”. In January 2000 I posted on another messageboard “I expect we will begin to start bombing Iraq again.”
I think many people expected a mishandled Presidency with Bush and they got it. Why do you think people threw things at his limo the day he was sworn in?
I suppose. But the people to whom he said it said he was serious. No, I doubt there’s a video.
Supposedly he’s kind of a prima donna hothead. So I don’t think it would be out of character for him to think that he’s owed a phone call.
I don’t know about you, but I think the people who supported Bush and continue to support Bush are rooting for America’s failure and embarassment.
Don’t be stupid. This isn’t just about George Bush, the whole country is involved and our credibility as well as that of our allies who supported us is also on the line.
If you want to root against it, be my guest, but don’t pretend that it’s just George Bush.
A lot of US soldiers and a lot of Iraqi civilians suffered and died and continue to do so because of our action.
Try telling them, it had nothing to do with them.
If you want to sit there and hope that their sacrifice was meaningless and founded on a lie, just because you don’t like Dubya, be my guest, but I think it’s a shitty attituded.
I hoped that Clinton was doing the right thing in Kosovo. I hoped he was doing the right thing when he sent bombs into Iraq. I hoped he wasn’t using these things to distract from a domestic scandal. I thought the people that said he was wagging the dog were worthy of contempt.
You don’t bet against your county just so that somebody you don’t like will look bad.
How about this: Pray they find a whole bunch of WMDs, that we are vindicated, that our servicemen died for something, that the reconstruction goes well, and we achieve piece and stability… And if you don’t like Dubya, vote him out anyway.
Demostylus you ignorant Chucklehead:
Goddamn your a moron. I am exhibiting the opposite of a gambler’s mentality. I am neither asserting that they will find WMDs or that they don’t exist.
Instead I have chosen (from back since the May or June, IIRC) to withhold judgement for a reasonable period of time and give the facts a chance to surface.
I somewhat arbitrarily chose about six months and adjusted it to Thanksgiving for easy memory. I figured that would be long enough to get the facts and form a sound judgement.
It’s those making the premature assertions that are gambling.
Part of being an adult is to accept the idea that you are not infallible and to accept it with good grace when you are demonstrated to be wrong. I once worked for a guy who’s response to any assertion that questioned or contradicted on of his pet assumptions was: are you trying to make me out a liar. He was a jerk.
It is equally childish, self absorbed and unthinking to launch accusations of disloyalty at every one who points out that an assumption made by you is mistaken. Pit or no pit, the language quoted above is unseemly coming from a thinking adult. From a columnist It would be expected. In a conversation between friends the only possible response to your comment, Scyllia, is to ask if you are you really that goddamned stupid or are you just trying to jerk my chain.
I’d be careful of at whom you chose to throw accusations of disloyalty. There are too many people on this board who have been shot at while wearing the country uniform to do that in jest. Some of them might take your feeble insults seriously.
Finding WMDs isn’t going to bring anyone back to life, jackass. Not finding them might slow down the rush to war next time, actually saving lives. Sorry you can’t see that through your blinkered “patriotism”.
When George W. Bush ignored the thousands of anti-war protesters marching down Main Street USA and declared longtime allies like Germany and France to be “irrelevant” “Old Europe,” this ceased to be an issue for our whole country and our allies. And IMO, the cost for this whole Iraq fiasco should only be paid by the clueless Bushistas who supported the damn fool war to begin with.
That said, I expect next weeks’ Fox News headline will be “Wesley Clark – Former Republican!” 
Let’s not forget that he also compared those people to a “focus group.” 
George Bush has no credibility anywhere that I’m aware of. Maybe Israel, but even the Sharon government doesn’t seem to listen to him when they don’t want to. That’s because of the dishonesty and the blustering - it has nothing to do with Diogenes or anybody else outside the Bush administration.
What am I wrong about?
**
What assumption is that over which I am mistaken?
Elvis is no friend of mine. If you share his sentiments and think it’s gonna be “sweet” if no WMDs are found than my comments are directed at you as well. If not, then not.
CarnalK:
Fine. You tell the families of the dead that you hope they died for a lie.
Fine. You can cheer as the Prez sends the next group to a useless early death.
You know with absolute certainty, Scylla, as do most of us now, that they most assuredly died in pursuit of a policy justified by lies. Fuck you for pretending otherwise, and piss on you for pretending that those of us who will find it “sweet” when the liars are revealed do so out of disregard for those who died.
No. I don’t know that. Neither do you.
I absolutely believe that you wish it were so.
What I wish to be true is that most people could spot bullshit. As you, quite evidently, know, most people cannot.
It was definitely a lie that Bush knew there were WMDs. Hehoped there were WMDs. He gambled and lost. I’m pretty pissed off about that. He sent people to kill and be killed over false pretenses. If I take gratification in his exposure, it is in the same way that I am gratified by the conviction of a murderer in a courtroom. I am not gratified that he is a killer, but that he has not gotten away with it.
I know in my case of the one Iraqi Veteran I know he thought that he was fighting for oil. So, no lie there at least.
Why don’t you go around and ask the families of the dead what they think the chances are of WMDs appearing.
Because unless they also happen to be personally involved in the search or privy to intelligence, they are not in a position to have any useful insight on the question.
But, I guess you knew that and were just playing cute.
This is starting to echo a speech made some thirty years ago by a young veteran of my country’s adventurism. To paraphrase:
How do you ask a man to die for a lie. How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake.
The error, Scyllia is your assumption that our President played straight with the country when he lead, cajoled and prodded us into this war. Do you remember what is was that the President told us all in the last State of the Union Address? Do you still think that the factual assertions made in that speech were based on a sound and unbiased reading of the information then available? Do you still think that the defense of some vital national interest of the United States required the invasion of Iraq and that there was no other way that the threatened vital national interest could be protected? Do you think the objective of the war was to prevent Saddam from employing weapons of mass destruction against the United States? Do you think that Saddam was a moving party in the catastrophe of September 11, 2001? Do you think that the President disregarded information that indicated that Saddam posed no threat to a vital national interest. Do you think that the President disregarded credible alternative methods of dealing with that threat, if threat there was? Did you believe the Administration when it said that American troops would be welcomed as liberators? Did you believe the Administration when it said that Iraqi oil would pay for the war?
Do you think that the inability of a large staff of hunters to turn up even forensic traces of weapons of mass destruction might adversely reflect on the President’s credibility?
Do you think it an act of disloyalty to point out that the Emperor’s new suit may not be a fancy as represented?
Do you think your argument would be more forceful if you just threaten to hold your breath until you turn blue?
It has been my assumption that we are all friends on this board. Apparently, I’m wrong about that since you deny being the friend of at least one person you are arguing with; maybe with every one who sees fit to challenge your views and positions. Be careful, like “Old Europe,” we may come in handy in the future.
**
There’s no I in Scylla, and that’s not an accurate representation of my position.
I am inclined to accept it conditionally with the proviso that in due course the verity of his assertions will need to stand up to scrutiny. I withhold judgement on whether or not this has occured until the facts are in.
No. I believe it was a political speech and that he selling the war.
Actually I do, but WMDs aren’t the operative part of that thinking.
That would be one objective of several.
I do not. I’m pretty sure that Bush didn’t say he was in that speech you refer to, or any other for that matter.
I’m not aware of any such information and I doubt it exists. Proving a negative is not an easy thing to do.
I dunno. This is a good question. The answer is that this is not a thing that was done for one purpose and one purpose only. It served multiple purposes.
The question shouldn’t be does this thing serve this one purpose, but does it best advance a variety of desirable purposes.
I honestly don’t know.
Yes, and they were and are in many cases.
I don’t remember that being said. Was it? I think I would have noticed. Maybe not though. Do you have a cite?
I don’t doubt that, but I don’t think that the current situation makes much sense.
In the last week, Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rice and Blair have all made a point of reiterating the WMD claims. Not only have they not backed away, it seems to me they’ve made a point of such a reiteration.
Assuming that the “There are no WMDs” crowd is correct and it was all a big lie and there never were any and aren’t any now, and they therefore would not be found, why would they do this.
Why emphasize a lie you are about to be caught in?
It doesn’t make sense.
So, I pretty much discount the “big lie” theory on WMDs.
If you haven’t seen the suit, yup.
You were asking interesting questions and now you’re being a prick. Too bad. I’m answering you’re questions.
I noticed you haven’t answered mine.
Yes. I guess you apparently were wrong. It’s a nice thought though, if somewhat naive.