minty green, in my addled mental state, I imagine that although Republican registration used to run far below Democratic registration, it’s now only 2 percentage points below the Dems. I imagine that Republicans control the Presidency, both houses of Congress, a majority of the governorships, and even the last two mayors of New York City. It must be all in my imagination that everything hurts the Democratic Party.
thanX.
I’m sure that some of those sites are the kinds of ones where i’m more accustomed to hearing the word pairing- Bush admin apologists. Everytime I’ve heard the term, (til now), it’s been from someone saying Iraq wasn’t one.
I don’t know why anyone would think that we’d have a hard time taking Baghdad.
Of course, we haven’t left yet and there may well be more hostile fire fatalities for our troops since we have taken Baghdad than before.
That’s not a promise or an offer. That’s simply a diplomatic way of saying that you’re not going along, at least for now. A tip off should be the use of such vague terms as "all diplomatic options ". After all, “sit around doing nothing except make disapproving noises” is a diplomatic option, and it looked like France was nowhere near exhausting it.
You could address the words of Chirac if you were so inclined. "If we were to see that our strategy, inspections, was failing, we would consider all the options, including war."
Even December has provided a cite to show that the inspections were keeping Hussein from producing biological weapons.
No it’s not. Lying is a false statement deliberately presented as true. Saying something that you believe is true isn’t lying. But let’s assume for a moment it is, and let’s see how your statement works when we apply it to you.
Do you know that to be true, or are you lying? I only ask because everyone else seems to think they’re still searching, even this guy, a reporter for the Washington Post who was in Iraq with one of the search teams.
But I’m sure you wouldn’t make such a statement without some sort of cite, so I’ll look forward to whatever evidence you have to back up that assertion.
You really need to use a dictionary. There’s nothing hypocritical about believing that WMD may still be found in Iraq. It may be foolish, but it’s not hypocritical.
Age Quod Agis and Megadave, I have a hypothetical question:
Let’s give George W. Bush every benefit of a doubt. Let’s say that he really didn’t know what was going on in Iraq and Saddam’s WMDs. Hell, let’s say Monday morning a low-level agent at the CIA confesses on nationwide TV that he’s been doctoring up all the Iraq WMD reports for the last ten years, and has somehow managed to scam everyone into thinking there were huge stockpiles that we haven’t found. Toss in some maniacal giggling about how he’s been laughin’ his fool head off watching folks comb the Iraqi desert all this time.
(1) So instead of saying George W. Bush is a lying warmonger, we would then say George W. Bush is a clueless idiot, not only for believing the (hypothetically) false intelligence reports, but for assembling an Administration that was also duped. Is the idea of Bush-as-colossal-idiot something you’re comfortable with?
(2) Despite these (hypothetical) revelations, the fact would still remain that George W. Bush is the Commander-in-Chief who ordered the troop buildups, tried to bully the rest of the world into war, gave the US troops their marching orders that resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of US servicemen, Iraqis, and wandering pigeons. And even though (hypothetically) George got duped as much as everyone else, should he take some responsibility for those orders? After all, he could have listened to Hans Blix et al about the need to actually find a cause for war, but he didn’t – so doesn’t the buck stop with him anyway?
– Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998
– Madeline Albright, 1998
– Robert Byrd, October 2002
– Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002
– Bill Clinton in 1998
– Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002
– Clinton’s Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003
– Tom Daschle in 1998
– Dick Gephardt in September of 2002
– Al Gore, 2002
– Bob Graham, December 2002
– Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002
– Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998
– Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998
– President Clinton, February 17, 1998
– Dr. Hans Blix, Chief UN Weapons Inspector
January 27, 2003
– Al Gore
Not to mention that 15 out of 15 members of the UN Security Council found him to be in material breach of the WMD resolutions.
rjung, I tend not to think that all these people were wrong. I think we will find out that Iraq had WMDs. But, if they didn’t, it will be hard to find that Bush was uniquely wrong.
The problem with the war and what we did was not SH and what he does/did to his people. (The killing of one’s own people is deplorable.) The problem was that we initially were disarming him because of WMDs. When it seemed probable that there were none, they could have destroyed them, moved them etc Bush changed his rhetoric to “let’s liberate Iraq”. I would have had more respect for the man if he said that first. His scare tactic that he started it all with made me ill.
We’re not done with the problems left over from 9/11. We don’t have Bin Laden, Afghanistan is a mess and our freedoms are in jeopardy because we’re being ‘protected from terrorism’. Let’s deal with things one at a time. SH was never a threat and the ease at which we took him demonstrated that.
If we knew SH was a threat for this long, and we did, Bush Sr. should have been the one to get rid of him a long time ago. Convincing his son to do it now is too little, too late.
Don’t be fooled by what’s going on in our government. Bush needs to go in 2004.
Sure, but none of those folks was itchin’ to start Iraq War II ASAP, with the whole “the United States is under imminent threat from Saddam’s WMDs” business. Or did I miss the bit where Bill Clinton went before the UN and pulled up satellite photos and whatnot and urged everyone to hop on board his Iraqi War Bandwagon? At least Clinton and Chirac and Gore and Byrd and Daschile and everyone else were level-headed enough to say “let’s wait and see if there’s any truth to these rumors.”
Er, what? You need me to give you a cite that George W. Bush is the Commander-In-Chief? Or do you seriously think that the decision to start the war with Iraq was made by some anonymous junior staffer, and the guy at the top of the chain of command simply shrugged and said “Hey, start the shootin’ whenever you want”?
I would have considered the world as a whole, and would have had the Pentagon assess Iraq as a threat amongst other potential threats from other sources.
I would have considered human-rights situations as a class, and would have had the State Department assess which countries were the most dangerous for their own citizens, whether from their own rulers, from external powers, from anarchy, disease, or whatever.
Regarding military/terrorist threats, I would have concluded that nukes are still the one true WMD, and that from a security standpoint, blocking nuclear proliferation should be the #1 goal of our national defense. (Iraq would have been a distant blip on the radar screen here.) I would have rallied the NATO countries and the other developed nations to the cause of nonproliferation, to attempt to reach a common strategy for keeping new nuclear powers from emerging, one that included both carrots and sticks. The idea being that should an Iran or North Korea refuse to allow verification that its nuclear programs weren’t weapons programs, this group would have already signed onto the notion that force - U.S. force - was a reasonable option when diplomacy failed.
I would have looked at economic threats as well, and noted the disproportionate role of the Middle East in American and world affairs. Then I would have submitted legislation to Congress including all vehicles marketed as passenger vehicles under the CAFE standards, with a schedule for gradually increasing the required fleet averages. As a revenue-neutral measure, I would have proposed replacing part of the Social Security payroll tax with an increase in the gasoline tax. (An idea stolen from John Anderson. :))
Then I would have had the group of nations look at the most problematic human-rights offenders, and raised the question of when the internal situation of a country justifies rescue of its people by force, considering how woeful their plight, and how likely and how costly permanent improvement might be.
I would have mostly avoided working through the UN. It doesn’t bother me that the Clinton administration’s involvement in the former Yugoslavia was backed by NATO rather than the UN. But I would have sought the support of the Western and Asian democracies, at least.
Sorry if this doesn’t say what I would have done about Iraq, but I believe a view of the world that hadn’t been focused on Iraq to begin with, wouldn’t have elevated it to near the top of the list of the world’s problems that required America’s attention.
I would respect international law. Toppling foreign regimes simply isn’t done unilaterally, period. Were I to take action against any oppressive regime, I would do it in accordance with international standards. Lastly, I would avoid the hypocrisy of supporting murderous regimes when it serves our purpose, then condemning those same regimes when that serves our purpose. Unfortunately, I’m not President.
I should add that I would have continued pursuing al-Qaeda to the ends of the earth; when a Great Power is attacked on its own soil, it must strike back or cease to be a Great Power.
No, I wouldn’t be more comfortable with the idea of Bush as a collosal idiot because it, too, relies on unfounded assumptions. In an earlier post, I pointed out three (in my opinion, flawed) assumptions that you have to make before you can get to “Bush is a liar.” You’re offering to drop the “Bush knew” assumption, but you’re still assuming that there are no WMD in Iraq, and that there never were any WMD in Iraq, and you’re also adding in an assumption that “only a colossal idiot could have looked at available evidence and concluded there are or were WMD in Iraq.”
I’ve seen no evidence that would lead me to believe any of your assumptions are true. I also find it odd that you feel safe arguing that “only a colossal idiot could have looked at the available evidence and concluded there are or were WMD in Iraq.” As I pointed out earlier, you concluded that Iraq had WMD.
Finally, you are once again ignoring the other justifications for war. At the very least, hawks argued that the war was justified because of the fact that Saddam was developing WMD. So even if there are no WMD, there never were any WMD in Iraq, and Bush knew it, he wasn’t a colossal idiot for going in if he was justified in thinking Saddam was developing WMD that he would use against the US and its interests.
Daschle voted in favor of the use of force in Iraq, as did a number of the other folks cited by december. In particular, Edwards, Lieberman, and HRC supported the war from beginning to end.
“Finally, you are once again ignoring the other justifications for war. At the very least, hawks argued that the war was justified because of the fact that Saddam was developing WMD”
Funny, I could swear that I heard again, and again, AND ONCE AGAIN that Saddam HAD WMD, that he was capable of using them against the USA and it´s allies, and so forth.
And when I say HAD I mean that he had them untill the invation.
I thought I had to point that before someone comes crying about the Iraq-Iran war and other past issues.
That’s not entirely true. The justification for war wasn’t simply that there were (or had been) some WMD. But that there were sufficient amounts of WMD and intent to use them to amount to a clear danger to the USA.
That means that Bush isn’t off the hook if he finds a few vials of poison. In fact, enough time and investigation has passed ALREADY to be certain that there was never any danger to the USA.
It’s also clear that some of Bushes statementes in his state of the union address justifying war were known at the time to be lies (The ‘evidence’ of uranium purchased from Nigeria, for instance).
Not true. No one in congress voted to go to war. They voted to authorise a war on the condition that Bush found a clear and present danger to the USA in Iraq and was willing to certify that he had done so in to Congress in writing.
Now, since the Security council never authorized the use of force in Iraq, Bush is left using the ‘security of the USA’ as justification for his war. But on that count, he has only lies about massive amounts of WMD to base his war on.
Here is the text of his letter to Congress justifying the war.
(Bolding mine)
But, as we are learning, there was no threat to the USA. At this point, even if there is some small amount of WMD found it will still be true that there was no threat to the USA, and yet a threat to the USA was a requirement to satisy the terms of the congressional authorzation for war.
Bush lied about the severity of the threat, and about the fact that all peaceful means had been exhausted.
