The reality based community

[Honus]

Originally Posted by luvrpgrl

...Bush lied, yet it has been pointed out that he didnt LIE, he was mistaken at worst....

We have been through this over and over, so I don't think we need to waste more time arguing about whether Bush made knowingly false statements, but I have to comment about your use of the phrase, "mistaken at worst." What do you mean, "at worst"? Is your sycophancy so complete that you can't bring yourself to admit that Bush made statements that we now know to be wrong?

That he had the same info as everyone else (including Clinton and Kerry), and they all concluded Saddam was a threat and had WMD.

It amazes me that such an illogical "argument" gets so much mileage.

Originally Posted by dculkin

It amazes me that such an illogical "argument" gets so much mileage.

It's a double standard, think twice about who's being illogical.

[glenmore]

Originally Posted by dculkin

I am not privy to the studies made or relied upon by the administration in deciding to invade Iraq. I would be amazed, though, if they engaged in anything approaching an open-minded, balanced analysis of the situation. Every indication is that their minds were made up and they had no interest in weighing the downside of their approach. Maybe you can point me to studies that prove me wrong, or maybe history will prove me wrong, but I just don't see the evidence that the Iraq invasion was thought through.

That is because you are idealogically biased. A reasonable person would think that between 9/11/2001 and March 2003, that a tremendous amount of planning and thought went into our actions. Your side did it's part to bring up "quagmire" and "Arab street uprising" etc. Did some things turn out to be a big problem that were originally thought would be minor? Yeah, so what? Did some things thought to be major turn out to be minor? Yeah, so what? I think Peggy Noonan said it best in a WSJ editorial, for a party so hell bent on regaining the reigns of power, you sure hold a large percentage of the population in total disdain.

Originally Posted by dculkin

Actually, the question was rhetorical, but I really don't know the answer to it. If saving the Iraqis from Saddam's human rights abuses justifies this war, why doesn't it justify invading other countries where atrocities are committed? I understand the strategic arguments in favor of invading Iraq. Peragro did a nice job of listing those. But I honestly do not understand that human rights angle. Maybe I'm dense, but my question is asked in good faith.

There are lots of problem areas in the world, so stipulated.

The US cannot solve them all, so stipulated.

The US cannot prioritze where and when it chooses to intervene?

What actually are you arguing anyways? That since the US can't solve all the world's problems, we shouldn't attempt to solve any?


glenmore

[Honus]

Originally Posted by MedMech

It's a double standard, think twice about who's being illogical.

What double standard? I say Bush knew that specific statements made by him were false. How does saying that Bush and Clinton had the same information prove that Bush didn't know that his statements were false? Even if you contend that Bill Clinton is the gold standard for veracity, the specific statements he made were different than the specific statements made by Bush.

BTW, we don't know that Bush and Clinton had the same information. Given the passage of time, I would hope that Bush had more info than Clinton did. On the other hand, Bush is not one to go looking for more information, so maybe they did have the same knowledge base. That still does not show that Bush's statements were not knowingly false.

[luvrpgrl]

Originally Posted by dculkin

We have been through this over and over, so I don't think we need to waste more time arguing about whether Bush made knowingly false statements, but I have to comment about your use of the phrase, "mistaken at worst." What do you mean, "at worst"? Is your sycophancy so complete that you can't bring yourself to admit that Bush made statements that we now know to be wrong?It amazes me that such an illogical "argument" gets so much mileage.

If,,IF,,IF we now know them to be wrong, then he was mistaken, plain and simple.

I still believe a guy whom I heard interviewed on the radio. He was extremely knowledgable about the history and current affairs in Iraq/Middle east. He apparently got a lot of first hand interviews. He said that the leaders of the WMD projects were fearful to tell saddam they failed in their efforts, fearful for their life, not a hard thing to imagine, I mean, his sons are torturing athletes for failing to get the gold

So, the scenario played out like this, they fooled saddam into believing he had WMD's, hence they made it look that way, hence all our intelligence would think it also.

Illogical?? Do you know what a lie is?
Im not disputing if there were WMD's, just to call a person a liar, you have to have PROOF he KNOWINGLY made false statements. Since people, including Kerry and Clinton believed saddam had them, why is it illogical to conclude Bush honestly thought so also?

Apparently alot more documents damning Clinton are coming out. Now it appears he was told that if OBL gets out of Africa and goes to the middle east, he is gonna wreak some major havoc on us. It was ignored, as well as the info that Mata and others were planning something.

Hmmm, they set up a group of guys to locate terrorists, they locates some, see that they are training to fly planes but not take off, and they are ignored by the Clilnton administration and the lawyers involved said its illegal to pass such information cuz he has a legal green card, damn yes ! ACLU and their ilk, protecting our civil right !!!!!!!!

[matt7531]

Cindy Sheehan's Tragic Critics
by John Nichols


While debating conservative pundit David Horowitz on Ron Reagan's MSNBC show the other night, I was struck by the desperation with which supporters of the war have turned their fury on Cindy Sheehan, the mother of an American soldier killed in Iraq who has been trying to get an audience with President Bush.

Horowitz, the former left-wing zealot who is now a right-wing zealot, described the woman who has camped out near Bush's Crawford, Texas, ranch as "hateful," accused her of dishonoring the memory of her son and promised that if Sheehan and other anti-war activists succeed in bringing an end to the occupation of Iraq then "rivers of blood" will flow in the streets of America. It was a remarkable performance, so much so that even Horowitz admitted that he was "emotional" about the subject.

Of course, Horowitz is wrong, on every point. But it is difficult to get angry with him, or even to take his ranting seriously. When Reagan asked me if I wanted to "dignify" Horowitz's comments with a response, I declined, except to express a measure of sympathy for Horowitz and other true believers who have become so frenzied in their need to defend the Iraq imbroglio that they feel they must attack a grieving mother who wants to make sure that no more parents will have to bury their sons and daughters as a result of the Bush administration's arrogance.

The rapidly dwindling minority of Americans who continue to search for some rationale for keeping U.S. troops in Iraq has been driven to the brink of breakdown by the success of Sheehan's protest. Go to the website of William F. Buckley's National Review magazine and you will find Sheehan described in headlines as "nutty," dismissed by columnists as "the mouthpiece... of howling-at-the-moon, bile-spewing Bush haters" and accused of "sucking up intellectual air" that, presumably, would be better utilized by Condoleezza Rice explaining once more that it would be wrong to read too much into the August 6, 2001, briefing document that declared: "Bin Laden determined to attack inside the U.S." Human Events, the conservative weekly newspaper, dismisses Sheehan as a "professional griever" who "can claim to be in perpetual mourning for her fallen son" -- as if there is some time limit on maternal sorrow over the death of a child.

Fox News Channel spinner-in-chief Bill O'Reilly accuses Sheehan of being "in bed with the radical left," including -- horrors! -- "9-11 families" that are still seeking answers about whether, in the first months of 2001, the Bush administration was more focused on finding excuses to attack Iraq than on protecting Americans from terrorism. And Rush Limbaugh was on the radio the other day ranting about how, "(Sheehan's) story is nothing more than forged documents. There's nothing about it that's real..." (Just to clarify for Limbaugh listeners: Cindy Sheehan's 24-year-old son Casey really did die in Iraq, and his mother really would like to talk with President Bush about all those claims regarding WMDs and al-Qaida ties that the administration used to peddle the "case" for war.)

The pro-war pundits who continue to defend the occupation of Iraq are freaked out by the fact that a grieving mother is calling into question their claim that the only way to "support the troops" is by keeping them in the frontlines of George W. Bush's failed experiment. Bush backers are horrified that Sheehan's sincere and patriotic anti-war voice has captured the nation's attention.

What the pro-war crowd does not understand is that Cindy Sheehan is not inspiring opposition to the occupation. She is merely putting a face on the mainstream sentiments of a country that has stopped believing the president's promises with regard to Iraq. According to the latest Newsweek poll, 61 percent of Americans disapprove of Bush's handing of the war, while just 26 percent support the president's argument that large numbers of U.S. military personnel should remain in Iraq for as long as it takes to achieve the administration's goals there.

The supporters of this war have run out of convincing lies and effective emotional appeals. Now, they are reduced to attacking the grieving mothers of dead soldiers. Samuel Johnson suggested that patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. But, with their attacks on Cindy Sheehan, the apologists for George Bush's infamy have found a new and darker refuge.

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?bid=1&pid=13737

[matt7531]

Originally Posted by luvrpgrl

If,,IF,,IF we now know them to be wrong, then he was mistaken, plain and simple.

I still believe a guy whom I heard interviewed on the radio. He was extremely knowledgable about the history and current affairs in Iraq/Middle east. He apparently got a lot of first hand interviews. He said that the leaders of the WMD projects were fearful to tell saddam they failed in their efforts, fearful for their life, not a hard thing to imagine, I mean, his sons are torturing athletes for failing to get the gold

So, the scenario played out like this, they fooled saddam into believing he had WMD's, hence they made it look that way, hence all our intelligence would think it also.

Illogical?? Do you know what a lie is?
Im not disputing if there were WMD's, just to call a person a liar, you have to have PROOF he KNOWINGLY made false statements. Since people, including Kerry and Clinton believed saddam had them, why is it illogical to conclude Bush honestly thought so also?

Apparently alot more documents damning Clinton are coming out. Now it appears he was told that if OBL gets out of Africa and goes to the middle east, he is gonna wreak some major havoc on us. It was ignored, as well as the info that Mata and others were planning something.

Hmmm, they set up a group of guys to locate terrorists, they locates some, see that they are training to fly planes but not take off, and they are ignored by the Clilnton administration and the lawyers involved said its illegal to pass such information cuz he has a legal green card, damn yes ! ACLU and their ilk, protecting our civil right !!!!!!!!

Since there are so many "ifs", I am sure you will join me in calling for a Special Prosecutor.

Originally Posted by matt7531

Since there are so many "ifs", I am sure you will join me in calling for a Special Prosecutor.

I agree! if Clinton fabricated the WMD evidence as stated in his WMD speech(see my sig) there should most definitely be an investigation. Better yet investigate every US congressman that led us to believe that WMD's were there.

[Honus]

Originally Posted by glenmore

That is because you are idealogically biased.

And you aren't?

A reasonable person would think that between 9/11/2001 and March 2003, that a tremendous amount of planning and thought went into our actions.

A reasonable person would certainly hope so.

Your side did it's part to bring up "quagmire" and "Arab street uprising" etc.

I'm not sure what "side" you are talking about, but you didn't hear anything like that from me.

Did some things turn out to be a big problem that were originally thought would be minor? Yeah, so what?

The "so what" is that W ignored warnings that things he was treating as minor would become major. Moreover, anyone without blinders on would have foreseen some of the problems we've had. One specific example that comes to mind was the theft and destruction of irreplacable historical artifacts. Rumsfeld, after apparently failing to give the issue a second thought, referred to the lost artifacts in an incredibly dismissive way. I think he called them a bunch of "pottery." If he wasn't such an arrogant jerk, he would have recognized that many people value historical artifacts from the very cradle of human civilization. I mean, we are talking about Babylon. Protection of artifacts is less important than protection of human rights, but that example illustrates the administration's indifference to the potential problems we would face.

...I think Peggy Noonan said it best in a WSJ editorial, for a party so hell bent on regaining the reigns of power, you sure hold a large percentage of the population in total disdain...

Where do you and Peggy get that idea? I hold Bush in total disdain, but he is not a large percentage of the population. I don't hold Bush voters in disdain. Not at all. Peggy should stick with speech writing. Her mind-reading skills leave a lot to be desired.

...What actually are you arguing anyways? That since the US can't solve all the world's problems, we shouldn't attempt to solve any?...

No. Just looking for honesty and consistency. If the invasion of Iraq results in those people having a better life, then maybe I shouldn't complain, but claims that Bush invaded to advance human rights are disingenuous. At best.

[Honus]

Originally Posted by luvrpgrl

...I still believe a guy whom I heard interviewed on the radio...

I'm sure you do, just like all the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee believed Clarance Thomas and all the Democrats believed Anita Hill.

... Illogical?? Do you know what a lie is?
Im not disputing if there were WMD's, just to call a person a liar, you have to have PROOF he KNOWINGLY made false statements...

I don't mean to be impolite, but we really have beat that horse to death. Let's just agree to disagree on that one.

...Since people, including Kerry and Clinton believed saddam had them, why is it illogical to conclude Bush honestly thought so also?...

Is it your position that nothing said by Kerry and Clinton can be a lie?

Unlike some on this board, when I say someone lied, I am referring to specific statements, not generalities. The words Bush used are not precisely the same words Kerry or Clinton used. What one person said has nothing to do with whether a different statement by a different person is or is not a lie.

...Apparently alot more documents damning Clinton are coming out...

Is that right? The content of those documents is apparent to you even though you haven't seen them? You have amazing powers, I must say.

And exactly how do these documents exonerate Bush?

[Honus]

Originally Posted by MedMech

I agree! if Clinton fabricated the WMD evidence as stated in his WMD speech(see my sig) there should most definitely be an investigation. Better yet investigate every US congressman that led us to believe that WMD's were there.

That would be great, but only if the investigators could be trusted. And only if a full investigation could be done without compromising on-going intelligence efforts.

[glenmore]

Originally Posted by cmac2012

I in no way tried to downplay the opinions or credibility of mothers who lost children in Iraq but support the war nonetheless. I say let them speak out. Haven't heard too much about such a group. Could be they're hedging their bets.

You don't have to look any further than Casey Sheehan's dad and the rest of the family.

Ask and ye shall receive:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007122

If all you only listen to is the MSM, I'm not surprised you haven't heard the "other" side. The MSM is relentless in their negativity, but fortunately there are other options now.

Originally Posted by cmac2012

I read most of the NReview article. I can only stomach so much of those guys -- they remind me of the Weekly Standard crowd: masters of spin. That's why they make the big bucks.

I read this stuff all the time. I think their articles are clear and concise. I can understand why you don't like them. I don't like reading lefty stuff either. Plenty of disagreement in these articles, but that is healthy. Argument doesn't seem to be tolerated much on your side of the aisle.

Originally Posted by cmac2012

Funny how the real vets were a lot more cautious about this thing going in than the non-vets.

How do you blithely discard all common sense in order to believe the lefty meme of "rush to war".
You have no evidence of this. Common sense would tell you EVERYONE was apprenhensive about this thing going in. Show me ONE cavalier, Slim Picken's Dr. Strangelove type character before the invasion.

Originally Posted by cmac2012

I'm not a vet. I don't think that disqualifies me from speaking out in civic matters or defense issues.

So stipulated. Service in the armed forces is not a requirement to serve in a position that will direct said armed forces. If John Kerry has half baked ideas about Iraq, they are still half baked ideas regardless of the fact he served in Vietnam.

glenmore

[Honus]

Originally Posted by glenmore

...Show me ONE cavalier, Slim Picken's Dr. Strangelove type character before the invasion...

It would be hard to match Dr. Strangelove, I suppose, but aren't you setting bar a little low? Wouldn't you want the administration to do much, much better than Dr. Strangelove?

What do you make of Cheney's claims that we would be greeted as liberators? Or Wolfowitz's dismissal of General Shinseki's estimates of necessary troop levels? Or Wolfowitz's claim that the war would finance itself with Iraqi oil?

Can you name a single credible person who will say that the Bush administration did a good job of planning for the post-war period?

EDIT: And how could I forget the Project for a New American Century? Those are Dick Cheney's boys, and they are about as close to Dr. Strangelove as you are going to get.

[Botnst]

That's it! I'm now convinced that Bush is the anti-Christ and is personally responsible for every ill-conceived, misgotten, unfortunate and unlucky event over the past 5 years, if not longer.

B

[peragro]

Originally Posted by MedMech

I agree! if Clinton fabricated the WMD evidence as stated in his WMD speech(see my sig) there should most definitely be an investigation. Better yet investigate every US congressman that led us to believe that WMD's were there.

let's bring that special prosecuter on! As it turns out, he not only fabricated the WMD evidence but in 1996 he ignored completly and absolutly the intelligence that stated Bil Laden was a credible threat and intended to attack us. IF he had acted on that info, or his administration had allowed military intelligence to share with the FBI (Gorelick and Reno) we could have avoided 9/11 and then we'd most likely still just have our pilots flying over the no-fly zone in Iraq dodging bullets whilst Hussein and N. Korea worked out whatever various weapons deals they could do.

BTW, just for laughs, you all should know that I voted for Billy boy back early in the 90's. Sorry to short the "You're an idealogue" argument.