People haven't changed much since the time of Socrates. The Sophists or Wise Ones who enjoyed high social rank and honors because of their great "wisdom" resented being challenged by the lowly Socrates and his method. As you will see in this blog, the Sophists are still alive and well. If you are a student of the truth, you will bode well; if not...you will run up against the Common Master...Logic.
Who would think it? There's actually good news out there? Is it possible that the Bush administration is not a collection of collossal idiots? Read the WaPo article and see for yourself:
posted by Underground Logician @ 12:29 PM
65 comments
I'm 51 years old, former Baptist pastor who became Catholic. Faith informed by reason is the best way to know all that is true.
65 Comments:
It's not the Wapo (Washington Post). It's the NY Post (New York Post) and it's an OpEd (Opinion Editorial) piece.
The column lacks any criticism of the General's assertions and doesn't independently verify any of what he says. What would you expect from a Murdoch outlet...
To the substance - Not that the sudden appearance of thousands of US troops in certain areas is causing the bad guys in those areas to go underground or anything like that... I think we called it "going to the mattresses" where I come from.
The Shiites have gone to the mattresses to let the Americans and token Iraqis pick away at the Sunnis for a while in their nasty little civil war. Once we are gone they will pick up where they left off. They can melt into and out of the population and government at will. That is a notion that our esteemed leaders seem to not understand. We didn't learn that lesson form Viet Nam and it will haunt us as long as we pursue this idiotic war.
Don't get me wrong I hope the escalation works, whatever "works" means, so our boys can come home sooner. The Goopers will force $hrubco to draw down troops and claim victory prior to the 2008 elections so I'm hopeful.
That would be nice.
I'll second what Cranky said, for the most part. You see, IMHO we have seen how well the Bush admin. has done with the war. This is why we now have a new Congress. Now, don't get me wrong: The new Congress may screw up as badly in the opposite direction. Right now they're threatening to withhold funds from the military in order to force the withdrawal. That's a dangerous meddling with the war powers that a President has. On the other hand, I feel that they're on the right track.
The key thing that everyone needs to remember is that politicians exist to serve and represent the people, not rule over them. Bush forgot that.
I think serving the people is a great ideal we must always shoot for. It's the definition of "serving" that gets sticky. If one defines "serve the people" as doing what the polls indicate and ergo, what the people want, then moral decision making is shot to the wind; let's just rely on polls, and the powers that manipulate them.
Sadly, I think Bush has been standing up for principle, which I'm not going to debate now. My point is that Bush doesn't communicate his points well and I think he is too wimpy to take on the disinformation. His "new tone" is monotone, and it doesnt' serve us very well.
What I find alarming is the effect of the information age, where I see a drastic shift in power taking place: the big media moguls who have the big money, have the information, which holds the power. This is why I cheer on the bloggers, who have little money individually, but collectively have enormous means to get information out.
I'm rambling a bit. Getting back to the subject. If the troop surge creates a false positive, be that as it may. I think it is naive to see this as the means to stop the violence. What it will do is buy some time to allow the continued development of an effective Iraqi military under the direct control of a stable Iraqi government.
Those that look at the surge simply as a stop gap measure misunderstands the purpose of it. I hope it works also. I want the military back home.
UWL, I agree with you for the most part. I understand the point that I don't agree with (what 'serving' means). It's all well and good to speak of principles, etc., but if someone is elected by the people, the people have a vested interest in what he/she does. I have grown to respect those that listen to the polls/the people. I don't think that any politician should do only one of those options; moderation is required. A good politician walks the line between both.
One must always hold to principles, period. If one is elected on principles, then one must remain principled. If one is elected by polls, pity the fool. Their admin. will be all over the place. The polls were strong for us to go into Iraq, until some idiots decided that Bush lied and soldiers died. Bush did NOT do well in the PR battle and the polls swung south.
No, one does not govern by polls alone; one does not lean on polls to swerve away from principle. If people want a man to run the country on polls, then find another Clinton.
UL - This President has not governed by the principles for which some people think he was elected.
Small government conservatives got the shaft.
Fiscal conservatives got the shaft.
Those who oppose the U.S. as a nation builder got the shaft.
Restoring integrity to the White House.
Uniter not a divider...
Social conservatives got the shaft. He has done nothing to push their agenda.
What about the faith community. His faith based initiative was a flop.
..and the war on terror. His second term mantra. What a silly concept... Iraq aside, the war on terror has been a colossal failure, public enemy #1 is still on the loose. We have all but abandoned Afghanistan.
So what was all this about sticking to principle? Nice concept, the last one to actually do it was Jimmy Carter and look how he is viewed through the red colored lenses you right wingers use to view past presidents.
Let me clarify, for you are right in your comments. I think Bush was principled in his handling of Iraq, which proved to be an extremely difficult situation. No one seems to measure what would have happened should we NOT have gone into Iraq. We can only speculate, and that probably over party lines. Do we allow the situation to continue business as usual between coalition forces and Saddam Hussein after 9/11? I would think that prudence would dictate a drastic rethinking of how to handle Hussein, especially since he rebuffed 17 UN resolutions, with no consequences. And given the intel that we all had at the time, we had to seriously consider it. Come on, nod with me, the Democrats were calling for Hussein's head prior to 9/11, CY. And the noise got louder after 9/11.
It is this inconvenient truth that some seem to forget with a cacaphony of charges levied at Bush as a liar, a Hitler, a fascist, etc. It is this drumbeat of discord that affected the polls so much which I see is a false indicator in which to make decisions.
We could argue whether Bush is principled in other areas, and you and I would agree on some of them. On Iraq, think it is mostly as I have said. I'm open though.
The debate on Iraq is all about extents. The extent to which he was a threat. The extent to which he had weapons of mass destruction. The extent to which he intended to use them against America. The extent to which he was already contained. The extent to which his removal trumped other war priorities. I could go on and on.
For all his braggadocio Saddam had very little affect outside of Iraq since 1991. Even his infamous payments to suicide bombers in Palestine have never been proven to have actually been paid.
The aftermath of the invasion has proven that the extent to which any of those is measure did not warrant what we did.
I argued then and still hold that, while he was a bad guy and should be removed, the extent to which that was true did not warrant the action of this administration. Those actions include unilateral action, manipulation of the intelligence, smearing of political opposition, the invasion itself, removing military assets from the War on terror, etc...
If you could have seen into the future and known that this administration did indeed exaggerate the extent of the argument would you still have supported the invasion?
Or better yet, if you knew the history of the situation, the extent of the Iraq threat, had been to Iraq, had worked in the field of WMD removal, like I had, would you still hold the same view. I don't see how.
During the run up to the war I lived in the reddest of red states and my military cred didn't seem to matter. Logic went right out the window in this discussion. When refuting the links between Saddam and Al Qaeda, by pointing out that the only link, the meeting in Prague, had been disproved, it somehow betrayed an anti-Americanism that I secretly harbored. By pointing out the only Bin Laden related activities in Iraq prior to the invasion were anti-Saddam camps in U.S. protected Kurdistan somehow proved that I hate $hrubco.
Yes, Democrats were calling for Saddam's head for years prior to the invasion, but none manipulated the country into taking the disastrous course this administration has taken.
Logic went right out the window in the run-up to this war. It seems that there are those who want to keep it out now.
Cy said: Those actions include unilateral action, manipulation of the intelligence, smearing of political opposition, the invasion itself, removing military assets from the War on terror, etc...
You are doing what I had just indicated, repeating that which was never proven, only ASSERTED. It was NEVER unilateral. I'm not going to go over this with you yet again. You are, in essence, proving my point in my explanation.
You totally believe what you do because it has been repeated ad infinitum ad nauseum. It is the Dems doctrine to get Bush. Anyone who doesn't tow the line with this doctrine is excommunicated, i.e. Lieberman.
At any rate, may the troop surge work, and may the Repubs have another 8 years. Wouldn't that be cool?
You totally believe what you do because it has been repeated ad infinitum ad nauseum.
No, if you knew the history of the situation, the extent of the Iraq threat, had been to Iraq, had worked in the field of WMD removal, like I had,
I was saying the same thing when democrats in congress were voting to approve the use of force resolution. My position, supported by the facts, has not changed since 2002. Sorry, been there done that.
That's amazing! You were there...so you knew all along that the Saddam/WMD/threat to U.S. thing was all a hoax? Wow. So, did the hoax begin with Clinton too? Did he lie to Congress?
Well...does that mean you also know that Saddam did NOT have contact with terrorists, and therefore, was not harboring them? You must have spent a long time in Iraq. Tell me, how did Saddam take you being there, knowing his weapons capability and terrorist contacts? I'd like to know...
The hoax/lie was the extent of the threat. Clinton was right about the extent to which Saddam's WMD and program were not an imminent threat to the U.S. and to not illegally attack Iraq unilaterally.
No Saddam did not like it all when I and 550,000 of my fellow patriots were there in 1991 and fewer of us in the years up until 1998. Go read the story of how Bob Baer left Iraq in 1996 to understand what I was doing there.
Oh yeah.... I was right...about all of it.
Where are the WMD that were a threat???? 500 old warheads that had been blasted into the sand with trace amounts of weaponized nerve agent 10 years pasts its useful shelf-life were never a threat. That is the finding of David Kay and the BUSH appointed Iraq Study group. There were 1200 WMD Experts scouring Iraq, some I know personally, that never found anything close to resembling the imminent threat this administration sold to the country. The Niger claim....bogus. Aluminum tubes....bogus. Link to Al qaeda .... Bogus. Role in 9/11.....bogus.
History and the facts speak for themselves. You are wrong and are too cowardly to admit it.
You take a lovely sarcastic tone, but how do you explain the fact that I was/am 100 percent correct?
I'm never afraid to admit that I'm wrong. I'm skeptical. I have to take your word for it. You must know George Bush so well that you demonize him. I'm not buying it yet. But I'll be open.
Don't take it personal, CY. What's my opinion of you mean anyway, right?
It's personal to me when people defend the administration for what they have done to this country. I am angry as hell that they chose to invade Iraq based on, best case, shaky information, worst case damn lies. This is the greatest tragedy to ever hit this country. We will be paying for it for generations. To corrupt the noble effort, capturing and punishing the culprits of 9/11, with this horror is unforgivable.
Here is a run down of the lies. If you care to know the truth.
CY:
First of all, your link was a mixed bag of facts and statements from such military experts as Valerie Maines of the Dixie Chicks. I think I'll need more than what you offer.
Help me understand a few other things.
1. Were you a weapons inspector and did you have free reign over Iraq to search for any violations of the U.N. resolutions?
2. If not, how does being in Iraq at "Desert Storm" an expert in Iraq's WMD capabilities?
3. If you are not in the intel circles now, how is it that you can say that GWB was a liar?
In addition to having been in Iraq during Desert Storm I was in Special Operations up until 1997. My unit specialized in "removal" of things command and control deemed worthy of removal. we were extensively trained and briefed on the subject at hand.
Your narrow constraint upon that which would deem my judgment valid is illogical.
If my cred isn't good enough for you...
How about this from Scott Ritter - a real weapons inspector with free reign blah blah blah... Written 6 months before the attack on the Iraqis. He knew the truth. Why didn't the shrubbists?
How about this from Hans Blix who was in Iraq less then a week before the idiotic Rumsefeld Shock and Awe campaign.
Clearly, we didn't find WMD's in Iraq. I read the papers. I see it as a blunder. Two, I don't question your service to our country, or the fact that you have experience that is beneficial to this conversation. You HAVE credibility in this area.
Where your credibility ENDS is when you and millions of others paint Bush as one who instigated the manufacturing of false intel, or knowingly chose to use flawed intel to promote this war. That he deliberately lied to the American people to get us to war. That is quite an assertion, which has not been proven. You, like millions of Bush haters make the allegation and then place the burden of proof onto Bush. How do you disprove that which hasn't occurred? Those that make the allegation need to come up with the proof.
But as those who hate Bush realize, who cares about proof when the groundswell of public opinion sees Bush as a liar? In this case, public opinion is affected in favor of political ends. This is as blantantly hypocritical today as when I saw it first when it cropped up in the Daily Kos.
What would happen if a sudden shift in thinking occurs in this country which would place the burden of proof of these allegations against Bush back onto those who make them? That would be an interesting development. I'm sure that will scare the hell out the Bush haters. What would happen if a huge majority of Americans demand answers from Bush's critics: "Do you have secret information that you are not telling us about Bush's conduct? Telephone logs, inside information and documentation, or video? Do you have proof of activities that equate the man with Hitler? Or is this just yet still another weenie inference that is meant to affect public opinion?
All in all, I see you as an authority on weapons inspections in Iraq, the Gulf War, military life, and military service to our country. And that is where it remains.
Do you really think the doubt about the attack on Iraq started on DailyKos? I didn't even know Dailykos exist in 2002. Did it?
Why are you so obsessed with it?
As to the proof. I think there is plenty of it. How about the whole "Curveball" scandal?
Cranky Yankee,
Hi, I read UL's blog every now and again (sometimes he forgets to update) *wink* but I do want to ask if you've ever read
http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/
?
It's true that what's happening in Iraq doesn't meet the ambitions of Iraqis or Americans and everyone admits that many mistakes were made.
I agree that the Iraqi government should be pressed to speed up the effort to establish rule of law and achieve reconciliation. And I also agree that the American administration needs to revise the way it's been handling and planning for this critical war.
But abandoning this front or failing to recognize its priority is a terrible mistake that can lead to disastrous consequences to all of us.
Omar Fadhil, Iraq the Model
SL - For every pro-occupation blog there are 10 anti occuptaion blogs. Go read riverbend. This poor woman had a career as a computer programer before the invasion. Now she is not allowed to work.
As to your quote - All those general staments are true to a certain extent, but trying to put out this fire by pouring more gasoline on it is just crazy.
There is no military solution, as stated by numerous U.S. Generals in Iraq and the Baker ISG. We need to engage in a regional summit in order to get all the parties to the table. We need to start pulling combat troops out now. We need to maintain an anti-terrorist presense in the region, but we can not occupy and/or control these countries this way.
We have failed. The longer we stay the greater the threat becomes. We are drastically weakened by this huge mistake and we are getting weaker everyday.
CY:
...and obviously, the amount of people who agree with something determines whether or not it's right?
Hmm... wading in dangerous waters there.
As to our "failure," it's not over until it's over. The fat lady hasn't sung yet. There's still hope for victory. The threat was always there, dormant and growing. It is only revealing itself now that we are fighting in the bee's nest.
RAID would come in handy.
...and obviously, the amount of people who agree with something determines whether or not it's right?
Who said that? Nice Red Herring.
The threat was always there, dormant and growing.
Nice vague statement there. It doesn't mean anything and is the type of apology that is heard from right wingers divorced from the reality that this war was launch under the weakest of cases. The extent to which that was a cause for war has been proven false. No threat from WMD, No Al Qaeda link, No 9/11 Link, NO Nukes..
Get a grip. Aren't you military age? If you believe in it so much go fight for it.
SL - For every pro-occupation blog there are 10 anti occuptaion blogs. Go read riverbend. This poor woman had a career as a computer programer before the invasion. Now she is not allowed to work.
I will do just that. Thank you for the suggestion.
As to your quote - All those general staments are true to a certain extent, but trying to put out this fire by pouring more gasoline on it is just crazy.
Whatever happened to the tried and true conclusion in all projects--finish what you started!
There is no military solution, as stated by numerous U.S. Generals in Iraq and the Baker ISG. We need to engage in a regional summit in order to get all the parties to the table. We need to start pulling combat troops out now.
What kind of message would that be sending to hostiles if we started moving all combat troops out? The Iraqi military is not trained to handle things without us yet. I agree that bringing all parties to the table would be a benefit.
We need to maintain an anti-terrorist presense in the region, but we can not occupy and/or control these countries this way.
In what way would you suggest we relequensh control?
We have failed. The longer we stay the greater the threat becomes. We are drastically weakened by this huge mistake and we are getting weaker everyday.
Failed is a really strong word. I have a friend that just got back from iraq and he isn't talking about failure--he says that if they all pulled out right now and went home--that would be the greatest failure. Our being there is holding everything at bay--I believe the terrorists are just playing a game of beat the clock. They are waiting for us to move out. They probably read updates on MoveOn.org for all there tactical information.
*rolling eyes*
CY:
FYI, the Daily Kos started May 26, 2002.
They probably read updates on MoveOn.org for all there tactical information.
That's all you got? What does it mean? Never mind don't answer. Next time just say, "dirty liberals are helping the enemy."
*rolling eyes* Indeed...
UL - That's good to know, not very useful, but good to know. When I go to the next peace vigil in town I'll ask the ~80 y/o WWII veteran I always chat with if he was swayed by DailyKos. LOL
DIRTY LIBERALS ARE HELPING THE ENEMY.
CY:
For the record, my so deemed "red herring" was in response to your statement: "For every pro-occupation blog there are 10 anti occuptaion blogs."
That's all. My point is that it doesn't state or prove anything other than the fact that there are more people active in the blogosphere that are against it. I would say that was a meaningless point in terms of the actual argument. Not really worth the time to prove/disprove.
"The extent to which that was a cause for war has been proven false. No threat from WMD, No Al Qaeda link, No 9/11 Link, NO Nukes.."
I wasn't aware that the Bush Admin tried to convey a 9/11 link to Iraq. Meh.
So no threat, huh? Never ever? The poor little Suddam wasn't breaking any UN resolutions or anything?
Just minding his own business until the big bad bully, America (along with 100+ other countries involved), came and stole his lollipop and halo?
"Aren't you military age? If you believe in it so much go fight for it."
I just might... but what good would that do if I would come home right away anyways (that is, if the dems in congress actually act on their numerous words *cough*).
We'll see. Personally, I don't think I'm physically cut-throat enough to handle the strains that go along with being in the army... yet, one never knows how he will act in war. We'll see how the pieces move.
So no threat, huh? Never ever? The poor little Suddam wasn't breaking any UN resolutions or anything?
No, not to the extent that an invasion by the U.S. and its coalition of the Billing, 100+ other countries LOL, had the right to invade...
I wasn't aware that the Bush Admin tried to convey a 9/11 link to Iraq. Meh.
You don't appear to be aware of much in this case.
Read this As to how they used the false impression that Iraq was related to 911 to sell this war.
CY;
Are you even yet, STILL trying to use this tired argument to make the case for the Bush/Iraq connection?
This sounds so much like, "No WMD's = "the president lied" equation.
IB:
Enough already. Let him pontificate.
The administration did not tell the whole truth. Does that work better for you?
Very euphemistic, but no.
The ugly truth is not your friend in this case. I just tried to dress it up a little for your consumption.
pontificate Aint that the truth, since your past and present Pontif were with me on this issue...but then again the current Pope was a Nazi. So, I don't revel in our agreement. Hey, even a clock that is stoppped is right twice a day.
The Pope said GWB lied? Tie yourself down and stick with the subject. I know the Pope was against the war. That doesn't make your point. You can only infer that Bush lied, and that without evidence. You can say he didn't have it right, he made a mistake, he made a blunder. You imply malice, which is what Bush-haters do. That is where it ceases to be logical, which is where I usually reside in this issue. As to my being in favor of the war, never have been. I have always been skeptical since preemption does NOT fit with Just War Doctrine.
Nice try. We probably agree more than not. I'm just refuse to be a Bush-hater.
Still, the fact remains that everything they said has been proven untrue. There is ample evidence that they ignored evidence to the contrary and promoted stories from incredible witnesses, many paid, with vested interests in an attack on the Iraqis.
Settle that however you need to in your mind. You can call it a mistake, but this administration has proven itself unscrupulous. I say - BUSH LIED!
Back to the original topic, this game of "whack a mole" that you call the surge seems to be having the affect of spreading violence into to areas where it had not been before. The Shiite militias are using this down time to rearm and recruit while the Americans and Iraq (Shiite) Army keep the pressure on their enemies. Gee, didn't see that coming.
You say Bush lied. Big deal. I can equally say Bush is not really who he says he is, but someone in the witness protection program who is gained asylum as president of the United States and has the secret service at his disposal. Anyone can make an allegation.
As to the re-arming of the terrorists during the troop surge...okay. They re-arm. Where do they rearm? In Iraq? Syria? Iran? It would seem to me very obvious that the more personnel you have, the more adequately you can search out these re-arming death squads, find weapons caches, intercept supply lines, search and destroy training camps, find out where they cross from Syria or Iran; seems that there is a lot of work to be done and the more personnel you have, the better job you can do. The more time in training Iraqii personnel means a better Iraqi military. Seems smart to me.
However, in this day and age of instant gratification and to those on the Bush-hating left, this will never be enough. For this has never been an issue of winning the war; the issue has always been to destroy George W. Bush since Al Gore's defeat in 2000. There is no rhetoric that you can produce, Cranky, to obfuscate that fact. Period and exclamation point.
Well other than ignoring the fact that his administration was warned that all this would turn out the way it did and lying about it to the people what he done? The more troops we send the more violent and deadly the situation becomes. What you say is logical but is not happening. It didn't happen in Vietnam and it won't happen here. Those who choose to ignore history are doomed to repeat it. Are you doomed?
They have not identified the enemy. Who is the enemy? Is it the Shiite Militia that has the support of the Iraqi government, the majority of the people and is fully integrated into the Iraqi Police and military? Is it the former baathist Sunni who have the support of the vast majority of the Iraqis living in Anbar province and are the victim Shiite revenge? Is it the 4000 foreign - Al qaeda in Iraq fighters who are there only to fight us? Is it the Kurdish death squads that are purging Kirkuk of Arabs so they don't have to share its oil wealth?
What are we trying to do? Throwing troops at an undefined enemy is stupid. This surge is stupid and the people who planned to are stupid. To stupid and stubborn to admit they have failed. Failure is no longer and option it is the reality.
The answer is simple. Remove U.S. combat troops in an orderly manner so they can protect themselves. Let the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurd dissolve Iraq and determine their own fate. If that is a full civil war so be it. We are not the 'deciders" of their fate. We never were.
Removing the dictator that was forcing these people to live together in an artificial nation simply uncorked the bottle that had been that way since England invented Iraq in 1920. The borders are artificial and so is the nation. The best thing we can hope for is that a negotiated disintegration of Iraq is preferred to what is going on now. If we took the lead in helping determine their borders etc.. we might salvage our national soul and see some good come of this.
All your "bush-hating" rhetoric means nothing as long as you ignore the reality of the situation. No good can come of a situation that has its origin in lies and malfeasance.
Ah yes, lies and malfeasance, back to where you started. All your hindsight expertise and cirular rhetoric is making me dizzy.
May the tremendous benefits of the sacrifice of our soldiers be shouted from the rooftops. Long live the United States! Land of the free home of the brave!
...and the lies continue to this day! I guess once you start lying you have to ride it out to the bitter end.
This is at best a lie of omission. He is leaving out the inconvenient truth that al qaeda in iraq prior to our invasion was an anti-Saddam group operating out of the U.S. protected no fly zone in Kurdistan.
Then there's this proving that they were told prior to making the assertions.. I would say that repeating something you have been told is not true constitutes lying.
BUSH LIED! My brothers in arms died.
Just in case you are having mouse trouble or are afraid to face proof that they did in fact lie...
"Zarqawi, whom Cheney depicted yesterday as an agent of al-Qaeda in Iraq before the war, was not then an al-Qaeda member but was the leader of an unaffiliated terrorist group who occasionally associated with al-Qaeda adherents, according to several intelligence analysts. He publicly allied himself with al-Qaeda in early 2004, after the U.S. invasion."
Being a man of honor I'm sure you will concede this silly position in the face of the vast evidence against it.
You see, the worst part of this whole situation is that is is based on lies.
After the 2000 election, I said, "how bad could it be." I really didn't care for Gore all that much anyway. I mainly voted for Gore, my first Democratic Presidential vote ever, because I didn't like the smear job the bush campaign pulled on John McCain in South Carolina. Of course I don't care for McCain much these days, but that is another topic.
After 911 I wholeheartedly supported the war on al qaeda and our action against the Taliban. I was one hundred percent on "Bush's side." Iraq changed all that. Iraq turned me into what you would deride as a bush-hater. So be it. He and his administration betrayed all of us. This is the greatest sin a leader can commit.
Bush LIED! - Our heroes died
Long live the United States!!! The land of the free...the home of the brave!!!
Envy appeasers can find there own island.
Yes, Long live America and down with BUSH THE LIAR and all his sock puppet apologists.
You are so "anti-anything left wing" that you will not accept the truth sitting right in front of you when confront with a mountain of evidence. That is very sad.
Even McCain, the insane, is going to go on 60 Minutes this sunday and recant his "Baghdad is safe" bullshit.
BUSH LIES! This is a really good article written prior to the illegal and immoral invasion that discusses the techniques used by this administration to manipulated the simple minded left haters like you into going along with his illegal and immoral invasion. I dare you to read it,"...But if you are an American citizen who believes in the bedrock democratic principle of “the informed consent of the governed,”".
Hey, I think I'm on to something. Maybe the reason you refuse to accept the fact that Bush lied is the same reason you deny a human role in global warming? You hate the people putting forth those facts. Yes, it's all clear now.
Here are a few more facts for you...
"Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people
now in custody reveal that
Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida."
State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003
The most recently, thursday I believe, released Pentagon report shows that the administration knew as early as June 2002 that this was not true, but chose to ignore the intel and use it to manipulate the public anyway...
"Our intelligence sources tell us that he (Saddam) has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."
State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003
Not True
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as well as dozens of leading scientists declared said tubes unsuitable for nuclear weapons production -- months before the war.
BUSH LIED!
Ten Appalling Lies We Were Told About Iraq
If you can stomach some brutal truth...
It was a systematic campaign to frighten the hell out of us about the threat of Hussein, and almost none of it was true.
I could cut and paste the entire article if you would like. It was written in June 2003 right around the time the U.S. Media began to realize it was used like a the cheap whore it is.
btw - What exactly is an envy appeaser?
Envy appeasers are those who hate to be envied. So to diffuse the envy, they turn to self-hatred so to make themselves uneviable. For instance, if a bully picks on kids at a school who wear new clothes, the kids who don't want to be picked on roll around in the dirt to make the new threads look crappy. Then the bully, seeing the dirty clothing, and seeing the kids attitude towards their clothing leaves them alone.
Same with the percentage of Americans who are embarrassed by being the lone super-power and the richest nation on earth--they turn their anger and hatred towards themselves so as to avoid being envied by other nations. If you care to, read the article by Jack Wheeler called Rejecting the Evil Eye.
As I was saying before, "Long live the United States of America...the land of the free and the home of the brave...who don't give a damn about being envied."
Hmmm... Interesting article. Definitely no pretention to balance. Pat Buchanon says pretty much the same things regarding the demise of White European Culture as a model of to what we have to look forward if we don't protect our "culture."
I would argue that one way to fight the "envy" is to extend those thing to which other cultures may be envious to them. Spread the good, spread the opportunity, spread the idea of freedom.
What we are arguing about in regard to Iraq is not what people envy, but rather what they hate. And they are right to hate preemptive unilateralism based on lies and manipulation.
I agree that pre-emption is being tauted as just when, in most, if not all cases, it cannot be justified. I think what makes the whole idea of pre-emptive war sticky is the technology involved that can kill people so quickly and catastrophically.
What was usually deemed threatening behavior one hundred years ago between two countries usually meant the possibility of death which took weeks or months to develop. Now, we have missles that can pose a deadly threat to an entire metropolis in as little as twenty minutes.
When so much depends on intel for pre-emption to be just and successful, makes it too easy to make mistakes. Where you and I go round and round is your quickness to assign malice on the part of Bush. If there are lies and manipulation, I wonder if it is in the State Department? Bush only echoed what was given to the Clinton Admin. as well.
"Bush only echoed what was given to the Clinton Admin. as well. "
Not true. What makes your statement not true is the use of the word only. If you left that word out your statement would be true to an extent.
The difference is Clinton did not ignore evidence to the contrary, considered it in the context of a bigger picture and took with skepticism the discredited sources which Bush relied upon.
The Clinton administration had already discarded the Uranium, and aluminum tubes charges. They had investigated and determined all of "Curveball's" info to be unreliable, which in fact constituted most of the Bush case. Clinton did recognize that there were problems with how Saddam accounted for weapons he was reported to have possessed before 1991 that were supposed to be destroyed. He also knew that while some may have been hidden, most were destroyed and accounting was the main problem. The Clinton administration also knew that any missing weapons posed very little threat to anyone as the years past due to the shelf life of the chemicals involved. Scott Ritter and David kay confirmed this and it has been proven by the actual 500 or so artillery shells found that had previously contained vx nerve agents.
History has proven that in this case Clinton's position was the correct one. While he encouraged regime change in Iraq and made it the policy of his administration, Iraq posed little or no threat to the United Stated and unilateral options should have been reconsidered.
I really don't see how anyone can look at the entire picture, all the evidence that has recently come out, and not come to the conclusion that this administration cherry picked information they knew was false and repeated it to an seriously traumatized nation. That is the very definition of lying.
Wonderful reconstruction of history. Not a seam in the account. Bravo. So, next you're going to tell me that relying on discredited information amounts to lying? Don't try.
I thought with all the saber rattling that Clinton did against the Saddam regime, echoed by the Dem lackies, that he was trying to make a case for his immoral military campaign "Operation Desert Fox." He did you know. Perhaps he used a little of this discredited information you mention in order to lob a few cruise missles at Saddam. And to think, he too was responsible for killing so many innocent people. Tsk, tsk, tsk. He and all of those Dems who supported his decision...
Operation Desert Fox was aimed at convincing Saddam to allow the UN WMD inspectors back into Iraq. It was not an invasion nor was it a illegal attack aimed at regime change.
It should be noted that Operation was preceded by Clinton signing into law HR 4655, The Iraq Liberation Act which "appropriated funds to Iraqi opposition groups in the hope of removing Saddam Hussein from power and replacing his regime with a democracy.
The Act also said that "Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces," except in direct aid to an active Iraqi rebellion.
That operation was a just and appropriate response that was carried out with support of the world. It vwas not an effort to topple his regime. A four day bombing campaign could not have that eefect.
Don't compare it with bush's illegal and immoral invasion that was based on outright lies and manipulation of a traumatized fear filled people. A crime against the constitution and people of America.
Relying on information you know is discredited is lying when you repeat it as credible. That is the very definition of lying.
Let me be specific with you. We can talk about all the contrary and even contradictory intel that existed prior to the War in Iraq. We can look at the UN resolutions that formed the basis of entering Iraq. We can go back and forth on what we knew prior to the war or not. We can go over again what the Popes have been saying about the injustice of pre-emptive war.
All that aside, which I'm sure you and I agree on, what still hasn't been proven is that Bush lied. My observations are an extremely thin slice of the entire topic. The fact that Bush lied is an assertion only, an inference made by those who hate the man. And given the climate of Bush-hatred, this assertion that "Bush lied" has become a protected a priori proposition. Without this premise, protests against Bush would never get off the ground.
The bulk of my commentary has been against this a priori assertion. That's it. As a result, my refusal to believe it as an a priori have created a lot of heat. Obviously this "Bush lied" assertion is extremely precious.
Spin it any way you want, he, his administration, did not tell the truth and manipulated a traumatized nation into an illegal and immoral invasion.
There it is!
Maybe there is hope for you.
That's not in question here for there's always hope for me, or for you, in that case. You simply illustrated my point: I pointed to your a priori at work.
Quite frankly I have lost track of what you are talking about. Are you saying that Bush did not tell the truth to the American people in the run up to the war? Or are you saying anybody who has looked at the situation and weighed all the evidence and come to that conclusion can not rationally participate in the debate because they are "Anti-bush"?
What is your point?
My point is this: to say "Bush lied" is an impossible to prove given the evidence unless more comes in. To assert it to be true and make it a point beyond discussion transforms it into an a priori proposition.
In light of this, we could also say:
1. Intel was conflicted and Bush chose wrong and was overconfident concerning the results.
2. Someone in the State Dept. mislead Clinton, Bush and the American people.
3. The intel was correct and caches of WMD's were shipped to Syria. This, according to your expertise is unlikely.
Conclusion: This is a deplorable intel situation, especially if the Bush Doctrine of pre-emption and regime change is to work. Frankly, I don't think it will work. In addition, I think the Bush Doctrine extends beyond Just War Theory. The bottom line is Iraq, primarily the Shia, must be responsible and step up to the plate and make the government work, for both Shia and Sunni in order for it to work.
If they do not...egad.
You choose to ignore the mountain of evidence that proves this administration knew the intel they chose to use was false, fabricated or question at best. That, to a certain extent, taints any assertion you make on the subject, but I will no go as far as you seem to have gone. You do seem to be ignoring the reality of the current situation in the same way.
We do tend to agree more than our rhetoric would lead one to believe.
Nah. We have the value of hindsight. You still don't have the proof for Bush lying.
...and I repeat...
You choose to ignore the mountain of evidence that proves this administration knew the intel they chose to use was false, fabricated or question at best.
You seem to be the only one who doesn't want to admit the truth.
Sorry for you.
AGAIN, you make the same a priori assumption that Bush lied. Until you tie down your argument, I'll just sit here and watch you walk in circles.
What can I do if...
You choose to ignore the mountain of evidence that proves this administration knew the intel they chose to use was false, fabricated or question at best.
You are a lost soul. What's the point?
Find someone that agrees with your a priori. Only those that disagree with you are lost. Our media atmosphere is rife with it. So, it shouldn't be too hard. By the way, getting dizzy yet?
Post a Comment
<< Home