Object Lesson, Let's answer the original question

[Khornet]

Howdy, DaveB

Great new signature line, bud.

But sorry, pal, no one-NO ONE- has demonstrated in any convincing way that Bush lied. Let me make that more clear: NO ONE has demonstrated that Bush lied. You are free to believe he did, but that does not an argument make. You level the charge, you have to support it. I'm not seeing any plausible support.

I love the "Bush in the pocket of the oil companies" and "shamelessly favoring industrialists" acts too. If by "favoring" you mean "doesn't make a religion of hammering them with useless regulations and punitive taxes which only serve to increase unemployment and loss of jobs to overseas folks", you're right, because that's about the size of it.

The shrillness, the paranoid fantasticness of the thing said about Bush, the sheer hatefulness of what is said: you expect someone to aplogize for condemning that behavior? Not me, sorry.

 

[mountainclmbr]

I think Bush did a very bad job of explaining the rationale for war. No question about that.

But, the WMD used to exist and there is almost no one who would deny that. The UN did not witness the destruction of all the WMD, some was even tagged by the UN.

The WMD issue was Colon Powells attempt to get the UN to do its job. GWB should have explained that this is a war against a state sponsor of terrorism.

Because GWB did a poor job of explaining himself does not mean the war was not justified.

____________________________
"3) retailiating against people who are simply disagreeing with our governemnt is DEFINITELY UNAMERICAN. "
____________________________

Didn't the Clinton administration use the IRS to harrass sex abuse accusers, Judicial Watch, the NRA? Didn't Hillary get the FBI security background investigation files on political opponents?

Has the present administration done anything even close?

 

[fix]

Has the present administration done anything even close?

While there may not be any evidence of such things, I certainly would not be surprised to find out that they have. While I side with Bush with regards to foreign policy, he is (like most politicians) not above corruption. In fact, I'd say that history shows that most politicians are likely to pee in the pool at some point. Some do it discreetly while they're in the water, others just stand on the side and let it fly.

 

[DaveB]

Because GWB did a poor job of explaining himself does not mean the war was not justified.

Ordinarily I'd close with "time will tell", but with the right controlling all three branches of government, I won't bet.

In any case, it seems to me to be unconstituitional to justify a war after the fact.

db

 

[bountyhunter]

The answer is NEVER. And in fact i will CONTINUE to question it because as far as im concerned your patriotism IS in question.

Thats what you wanted right? A nice clear answer.
.

Actually, that proves my points so succinctly that people will think I am writing under another name.

YES, you and all the Bushies questioned the patriotoism of anybody who didn't blindly lockstep into a misguided war against a country who had nothing to do with 9/11 and is not a player in the WOT... while Bush kissed the butts of the saudi's who have funded Osama Bin laden for over a decade. That level of ignorance is the point.... those who opposed the war knew what everybody else NOW knows long before you knew it.

And even if an apology is out of the question, some realization on the part of the sheeple as to how they were duped would at least be a productive outcome.

 

[bountyhunter]

But, the WMD used to exist and there is almost no one who would deny that. The UN did not witness the destruction of all the WMD, some was even tagged by the UN.

But, the existence of chem or bios was NEVER the reason given for war, it was the excuse so the administration could hide an attack on a sovereign nation under the shade of a UN resolution. Lots of countries have bios and chems. We were told that Iraq had an active nuke program and that they were within a year of a bomb, and that made attack imparative. It was only when that collapsed did the admin fall back on the other stream of excuses:

1) Saddam was a bad guy who killed his own people

2) He was a war criminal who used poison gas.... and during the Iran war, he used it under the direction of our CIA who (with the help of our stellites) directed it's deployment for maximum yield.

3) The Iraqi people were crying out for democracy (although now they are just crying for us to get the hell out)

4) Iraq had supported Al Qaeda( that one finally collapsed and even Bush admitted there was no connection).

5) Iraq had supported and based terrorist training camps and met with the terrorists (another urban myth that also collapsed when several intel agencies admitted that the terrorists alleged to be at the "meetings" were under constant surveillance and known to be in toher countries when the alleged meetings "took place")

6) Saddam had massive hidden stores of nerve agents and biological weapons (pure fiction).

But, the newest is the best one: confronted with proof that GWB had entered the oval office with plans to take out Hussein, he is now saying:

That was just a continuation of the previous administration's policy of "regime change".

AMAZING.......

 

[fix]

What you are saying is that if we support the war in Iraq we are blind bushie sheeple following Bush in lockstep because we're ignorant and have been duped.

...and again I say, you are being arrogant and condescending to the folks who disagree with you. Here's a clue for you, I am not a big Bush supporter nor am I ignorant...and I'm far from a blind sheep. I do not feel like I've been duped because I supported the war against Saddam with or without the WMD issue being brought up. The Iraqi people deserve freedom just as much as you and I. We have the means and the will to free them from an oppressive dictator that we essentially put in power, whether through direct action or looking the other way. Therefore we have a duty to right that wrong, and we are doing just that. I see no moral grey area here. We screwed up, and now we are making amends. If in the process we make friends with the oil rich Iraqis and benefit from that relationship, so much the better. If not, it really doesn't make a difference. Freeing the people is the right thing.

 

[bountyhunter]

You are free to believe he did, but that does not an argument make. You level the charge, you have to support it. I'm not seeing any plausible support.

Let's see how many time Bush's story changed about why we had to go to war:

They had an active nuke program and were about to have a bomb, and we have absolute proof... but it's classified so you have to take my word for it. (later proven to be BS)

They had stores of bios and chems they were supplying to terrorists (BS)

They had met with terrorists leaders and were involved in 9/11. (BS)

The Iraqi people needed liberating (maybe, but that is not the job of the US)

Bottom line, Bush's story as to why we went to war changes on a weekly basis to fit whatever previous story has been disproven or whatever revelations are disclosed from people inside the government.

Where I was raised, we had a name for people who kept changing their story:

LIAR

 

[fix]

That was just a continuation of the previous administration's policy of "regime change".

This is not a "trumped up excuse". It is a fact. It is the official policy, authorized by congress. We have plans to invade nearly every nation on the planet. It's called contingency strategy. Again, those who oppose the Iraq war want it both ways.

In the early days of the war...

"Waaaaaaaaahhhhhh, Waaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhh!!! Bush jumped into this without proper planning. Bush rushed into this headlong without planning for anything. Waaaaaaaaaaahhhhh, Wahhhhhhh!!!


Now....

Waaaaaaaaaaahhhh,Waaaaaaaaaaahhh!!! He was planning this all along!!!

 

[bountyhunter]

Stark Contrast

In perusing the posts, it's interesting how many gun lovers direct their ire at the government's attempt to infringe on their constitutional right (to keep arms), and that is a valid point: it's dangerous to let anyone steal a power that isn't rightfully theirs.

Yet, it completely sails over their head that GWB is the first president to go straight into a war thumbing his nose at the congress, his people, the UN, and everybody else.... just because he thinks he can. It's true he bullied congres into giving him a resolution by use of the "support me or you're a Bin Laden Lover" approach (which says how spineless the congress is).

But, the fact is the congress is given exclusive right to start wars. Period. It's in the constitution and there is no question about it. GWB is the first president arrogant enough to sieze that power completely and not go through the typical pretext to justify it like the Gulf of Tonquin (staged) incident or the US college students whose lives were in danger in Granada.

Bottom line, GWB just elected himself King and nobody cared. He now wields unchecked control of the Armed Forces and they act at his whim.

Food for thought: guess what word this definition is for:

A sovereign or ruler who uses power illegally.


TYRANT.

 

[fix]

Yet, it completely sails over their head that GWB is the first president to go straight into a war thumbing his nose at the congress, his people, the UN, and everybody else....

Congress - Authorized it.
People - Most support it. A vocal minority opposes it.
UN -
Everybody else - Who else is there? Saddam? Well, I guess he opposed it, much like yourself. Hmm...

 

[Art Eatman]

bountyhunter, lemme ask a few questions:

1. Is it meaningless that Saddam violated some, what, 14 post-Gulf-War UN resolutions--which the UN didn't bother to try to enforce? That he ignored his agreed-upon obligations after his loss?

2. Is it meaningless that Clinton and other mainline Democrat party congressfolks, as well as republicans, all through the 1990s told of the dangers of Saddam and his WMD? That various intelligence agencies and others were also speaking of his possession of WMDs?

3. Could it not be that the U.S. actions in the Balkans set a precedent for the actions we've taken, now, with Iraq?

Just curious,

Art

 

[Khornet]

Goodness gracious, Bountyhunter!

All you've told us with that last post is that YOU think Bush lied. And you're welcome to think so. But you haven't SHOWN that he lied, only that some of the things he said were going on didn't turn out to be correct. Heck, I once said (1980) that Carter would be a better president than Reagan. I didn't lie: I really thought that.

 

[Derek Zeanah]

1. Is it meaningless that Saddam violated some, what, 14 post-Gulf-War UN resolutions--which the UN didn't bother to try to enforce? That he ignored his agreed-upon obligations after his loss?

I'm not bountyhunter, but I can answer this from my perspective.

1. Israel has ignored more resolutions than Iraq, but we're OK when it's the UN against our allies.
2. The UN was working on Iraq, though at a slow pace. Bush stepped up and said "We can't wait for the UN because Iraq presents a clear and present danger to the US. We need to preemptively defend ourselves."
3. Justification was "he can attack within 30 minutes," and we were assured that our leaders had solid evidence that WMDs existed, and that Iraq was very close to having nukes.

I feel lied to, and I'm not sure I can ever get behind the whole "preemptive war" concept anyway. I can't kill you because I think you don't like me now, and might someday have the ability to act on those negative feelings.

2. Is it meaningless that Clinton and other mainline Democrat party congressfolks, as well as republicans, all through the 1990s told of the dangers of Saddam and his WMD? That various intelligence agencies and others were also speaking of his possession of WMDs?

When you step out in front of the whole world and say "I have secret evidence, and I'm going to war over it," you assume a certain level of risk: namely, you're gonna take a lot of heat if your evidence proves to be manure.

3. Could it not be that the U.S. actions in the Balkans set a precedent for the actions we've taken, now, with Iraq?

"Prevention of genocide" is a reasonable justification to get around the whole sovereignty issue, in my mind. Hell, I volunteered for that mission when I was in the service, though we didn't actually deploy any troops until 3 years after I got out.

Saddam killed a bunch of his own. A long time ago. This wasn't preventative. That's like us going into Russia after Stalin had done his purges...

 

[telewinz]

QUOTE]Part of the reason why Bush is so horribly unpopular abroad right now, and held in pretty low esteem is his insistence on using such language to characterize the Iraq war despite ample evidence, both before and during the war, that we had other motives and justifications for intervention in Iraq. The quote heard quite often is "you Americans really believe this?". [/QUOTE]

Bush's approval rating TODAY is 58%, the highest of any President at this time in his term since Eisenhower, over 40 years!

 

[Khornet]

Derek,

the comparison with Israel is false. The bulk of the resolutions against her have been nothing but malicious, not substantive, and they have come from heinous dictatorships or commercial buddies thereof. I'm just not impressed by the condemnations of a bunch of kleptocracies and murderers. Hardly a day passes at the UN without an anti-Israel resolution of some sort.

Bush never said anything about "30 minutes" and never said the theat was imminent. He said we shouldn't WAIT for it to become imminent. And the 30 minutes: I think you have someone else in mind.

Your comments on the preemptive war thing are a case of trivializing an idea so you can strike it down. It's certainly more serious than "I think you don't like me".

"Saddam killed a whole bunch of his own. A LONG TIME AGO." How long ago was 1991? How 'bout right up to the recent war, was that long ago enough? Stalin is dead, but the crimes of his government continued on and we continued to opose him until we won the Cold War.

 

[fix]

Hardly a day passes at the UN without an anti-Israel resolution of some sort.

We truly are Israel's only friend.

 

[Derek Zeanah]

the comparison with Israel is false. The bulk of the resolutions against her have been nothing but malicious, not substantive, and they have come from heinous dictatorships or commercial buddies thereof.

So the argument isn't "he was in violation of UN resolutions!" Instead, it's "he was in violation of UN resolutions that we agree with, rather than those we see as specious." A judgement call, not a clear line. Correct?

Bush never said anything about "30 minutes" and never said the theat was imminent. He said we shouldn't WAIT for it to become imminent. And the 30 minutes: I think you have someone else in mind.

I may, but the argument for war at that instant was that we didn't have a year to wait for the UN to make up its mind. Agreed? And when asked for evidence of this, the Bush Administration said "we have it, but we can't show it to you." Some of us said "this smells a little funny," but we were assured by many that Bush Had His Reasons, that the Lives of Critical Intelligence Sources could be At Risk. But we were certain that Powell know exactly where they were. Right? Wasn't that what Powell went on TV to say?

Your comments on the preemptive war thing are a case of trivializing an idea so you can strike it down.

No, it's not. North Korea has some seriously paranoid delusions about the US -- are they justified in attacking us? Saddam may have had some serious worries about us -- would he have been justified in attacking us so he could catch us off-guard? How about India -- they know that Pakistan is fairly hostile, and that they're actively working to develop better weapons. Is that reason enough ("they'll do it sooner or later anyway -- it's safer for us to make the first move!") for them to strike now?

Under the preemption doctrine, it is. According to this administration, objective evidence isn't even required -- just enough to claim to the world that your secret evidence is conclusive.

Unless "preemption" means "only the US can behave like this, because by our morals and standards we are a moral nation." BTW -- the Taliban thought the same thing about themselves.

I ain't buying it.

"Saddam killed a whole bunch of his own. A LONG TIME AGO." How long ago was 1991? How 'bout right up to the recent war, was that long ago enough?

Our actions didn't stop a current atrocity -- we didn't care what he did to the Kurds when he was our ally, did we?

"You did something evil a decade ago, and though you've been better lately, we're still morally justified in attackingyou in retribution now." Yeah.

Saddam was a bad dude. But that isn't what this is about.

 

[bountyhunter]

Bush never said anything about "30 minutes" and never said the theat was imminent. He said we shouldn't WAIT for it to become imminent. And the 30 minutes: I think you have someone else in mind.

The quote from Bush that will never cease to ring in my ears is this one:

"There is no time!!!! We must act now!!!!!"

I don't have to prove he said that because it is on video tape... and he said it many times.

The simple truth is, that there was plenty of time. No weapons programs which threatened us or anybody else were under way in Iraq. If there was intel which said otherwise, it was false. Further, it was openly disputed by intel from our closest allies like the Israelis. If there was even a whiff of a nuclear program, do you think they would have hesitated to act? Do you remember when they attacked and obliterated the nuclear reactor Iraq tried to build? I do. Israel knew about it the minute it went under construction and they bombed it into dust. Their existence depends on knowing if such weapons are being developed. face it..... the intel showed what we now know: there was no nuclear program at all. Period.

The other big lie from Bush:

"The inspectors are not effective."

The truth is, the only consistent statements we have gotten from Iraqi defectors is that the standing orders were that no weapons development was to begin until the inspectors left. period. Hussein wanted to get off probation, get them out of his country, and then get back to work. Inspectors were 100% effective, dirt cheap compared to the cost of occupation... and as a bonus: they were driving Saddam crazy.

Your comments on the preemptive war thing are a case of trivializing an idea so you can strike it down.

The concept of "preemptive military action" is completely reprehensible from any standpoint. Israel immediately siezed on it to launch attacks in their "war on terror". But, for the US to take the posture that we can and will attack any country we find threatening puts us as an outlaw to international law and at odds with the world. No country, not even the greatest one on Earth, can afford that level of shameless arrogance.

"Saddam killed a whole bunch of his own. A LONG TIME AGO." How long ago was 1991? How 'bout right up to the recent war, was that long ago enough?

Nobody disputes that Saddam was an evil dictator, we simply reject Bush's moral authority to use that as an excuse for a war. Our policy is not (and never has been) to use force to clean house in other countries and take out murdering dictators. No sarcasm intended, but such a policy would require we kill most of our allies. The list is endless: Marcos, Alliende, baby Doc Duvalier, Josef Stalin, the Shah of Iran, Manuel Noriega, and not the least of which: Saddam Hussein. He was an ally in good standing when he slaughtered Iranians for us (we turned a blind eye to that use of nerve gas). Hussein only became a bad guy when he bit the hand that armed him (the US).

And for any president to take the "murdered his people" card out and play it, I will require he answer where the indignation was when Idi Amin slaughtered over a half million of his people. ooops, forgot: no oil in Africa and there's that skin pigmentation issue as well.

 

[bountyhunter]

"Prevention of genocide" is a reasonable justification to get around the whole sovereignty issue, in my mind. Hell, I volunteered for that mission when I was in the service, though we didn't actually deploy any troops until 3 years after I got out.

I supported the use of force in the Balkans because genocide was underway and we had the power to stop it. Period. I would have supported the use of the CIA to covertly support the resistance in Iraq after desert Storm to take down Hussein if Bush I had only had the balls to follow through on his promise that those resistance fighters would be supported. he didn't, and they were slaughtered. And many of the mass graves we now are supposed to be horrified by are the bodies of those fighters. Newsflash: a dictator will kill the people who try to overthrow him.

Bottom line: none of the genocide in the balkans justified a president who walked into the oval office with "NAIL HUSSEIN" printed at the top of his list of things to do.

 

[bountyhunter]

bountyhunter, lemme ask a few questions:
1. Is it meaningless that Saddam violated some, what, 14 post-Gulf-War UN resolutions--which the UN didn't bother to try to enforce? That he ignored his agreed-upon obligations after his loss?

Not meaningless, but 100000X too little to justify what this train wreck of a war will end up costing us.

bountyhunter, lemme ask a few questions:

2. Is it meaningless that Clinton and other mainline Democrat party congressfolks, as well as republicans, all through the 1990s told of the dangers of Saddam and his WMD? That various intelligence agencies and others were also speaking of his possession of WMDs?
:

He did pose a danger long term, but certainly did not require imminent military action. That statement is proven by none other than Bush who resorted to the "the nukes are coming!" song to rouse support for war. The fact that it was a lie is worth mentioning.

3. Could it not be that the U.S. actions in the Balkans set a precedent for the actions we've taken, now, with Iraq?

:

NOPE. We used the minimum force required to alleviate a genocide, we did not embark on an expedition to take a country and find a head that GWB could hang on his wall.

 

[BigG]

Look, GWB is not "The Great Communicator," but he gets results. Didn't Lincoln have good things to say about a certain general that had those qualities?