The reality based community

[Austin85]

Originally Posted by peragro

Sooooo, let me get this straight. You want Saddam Hussain as president here, in the US, and Bush over there in Iraq, in jail?

Dude, you are not right.

Keep that Baath party card handy though, I guess if you have your way here you'll need it.

Not saying that at all...
We can still get Saddam prosecuted for whatever he did...
But send Bush to Iraq and have them do what they will with him...
Don't want Saddam as our Pres.; never said that.
Bob Costas would make a good President..,oh wait that would be a good Baseball commissioner.....(-:
peace brother

[glenmore]

Originally Posted by dculkin

And you aren't?

Not to the point of throwing common sense out the window.

Originally Posted by dculkin

A reasonable person would certainly hope so.

Yes, that's the point, you're NOT being reasonable. You would have us believe that Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Joint Chiefs, State Dept., FBI, CIA, US Congress, RNC, DNC, top echelon of all military branches, thousands upon thousands of individuals just sat on their collective asses from 9/11/01 to Mar 03 while this country prepared for war.

Originally Posted by dculkin

One specific example that comes to mind was the theft and destruction of irreplacable historical artifacts.

This was exaggerated and shown to be largely false. In the big picture, this is what you see as high priority? As to what the admin thought, gee, I can see where they might have thought that the idea of the people plundering their own artifacts after being liberated might have been accorded low probability.

Originally Posted by dculkin

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.

Quit with the two-step. You dismiss all the work this administration has done. You said:

Originally Posted by dculkin

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.

Originally Posted by dculkin

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.

This reason was probably very near the top of the list. Give the people freedom. From there flows stability in the region. A foreign policy directly opposite Bush I's policies and the policies of past administrations. That was the policy of supporting dictators ("he's a SOB but at least he is our SOB") and turning a blind eye to the suffering people so as long as the oil flowed. A grand experiment, and one maybe impossible to achieve, but I think it is the one and only process that will lead to peace in the Middle East, where disagreements are settled with argument and not guns and bombs.

glenmore

[glenmore]

Originally Posted by dculkin

What do you make of Cheney's claims that we would be greeted as liberators?

We weren't?

Originally Posted by dculkin

Or Wolfowitz's dismissal of General Shinseki's estimates of necessary troop levels?

Difference of opinion.

Originally Posted by dculkin

Or Wolfowitz's claim that the war would finance itself with Iraqi oil?

Oil revenues are not being used to finance the war and to benefit the Iraqi people?

Originally Posted by dculkin

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?

Hmmm, let's see. 9/11/01. Destroy the Taliban. Invade Iraq in March 03. Win RE-election in October 04.

glenmore

[Honus]

Originally Posted by glenmore

...You would have us believe that Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Joint Chiefs, State Dept., FBI, CIA, US Congress, RNC, DNC, top echelon of all military branches, thousands upon thousands of individuals just sat on their collective asses from 9/11/01 to Mar 03 while this country prepared for war...

I would? Go figure.

Are you saying that all of those people, including the Joint Chiefs, support the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld agenda? I ain't buying that.

There is no doubt that Bush and his people planned for the Iraq invasion for years before it began. The reason the planning came out so poorly, IMHO, is that it was done in an echo chamber. No dissenting views were allowed.

BTW, you keep referring to 9/11/01. I find Bush's attempt to connect that date to the invasion of Iraq to be implausible.

This was exaggerated and shown to be largely false.

I note your use of the word "largely." That is in the eye beholder, isn't it?

In the big picture, this is what you see as high priority?

No.

As to what the admin thought, gee, I can see where they might have thought that the idea of the people plundering their own artifacts after being liberated might have been accorded low probability.

I heard lots of people, including myself, talk about that risk before the war. I'm no genius, but I saw it coming.

Quit with the two-step.

Quit with the personal comments. I'm being straight with you.

You dismiss all the work this administration has done.

That's a slight exaggeration, but substantially accurate. I don't attribute W's deficiencies to anyone by him. You have no grounds to claim that I have disdain for you or for any other Bush supporters. Your claim is false and unfair.

...This reason was probably very near the top of the list. Give the people freedom....

I believe your recollection is off on this. Can you cite any examples to support your view? I don't have time right now but will try to find news accounts of the previous reasons that Bush gave for invading Iraq. The human rights angle is an after-the-fact rationalization. Maybe it's a good one, but it is after-the-fact.

A grand experiment...

Oh great. The great George W. Bush performing grand experiments on the Middle East. I feel much better now.

[peragro]

Originally Posted by dculkin

The great George W. Bush performing grand experiments on the Middle East. I feel much better now.

Perhaps you feel bad because of your ideology. On one hand you accuse Bush of nefarious manipulation with regard to the current war and other things yet on the other you dismiss him as a moron just barely able to tie his shoes. The ability to hold both of these points of view is logically impossible.

[Honus]

Originally Posted by peragro

...yet on the other you dismiss him as a moron just barely able to tie his shoes...

When did I ever say anything remotely like that?

[Honus]

Originally Posted by glenmore

We weren't?

Greeted as liberators? By some, I suppose. Are you saying that Cheney's projections of how we would be greeted were even close to the mark?

Difference of opinion.

A difference of opinion driven by arrogant refusal to listen to anyone who didn't support the PNAC agenda.

Oil revenues are not being used to finance the war and to benefit the Iraqi people?

I don't know whether they are being used to finance anything, but you changed my words. Wolfowitz said the war would pay for itself. Seriously. He said that. It now appears that he was off by hundreds of billions of dollars.

Hmmm, let's see. 9/11/01. Destroy the Taliban. Invade Iraq in March 03. Win RE-election in October 04...

I said, "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?" I thought it was apparent that we were talking about Iraq. Your response has the word "Iraq" in it, but is otherwise beside the point.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

impeach impeach impeach

[A264172]

Originally Posted by 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

This place is going to get boring... can't you reconsider?

[Botnst]

Originally Posted by A264172

This place is going to get boring... can't you reconsider?

I find myself morphing into Bonehead Doctor. Instead of, "Clinton did it first and worst", I'll...

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

[A264172]

Originally Posted by Botnst

I find myself morphing into Bonehead Doctor. Instead of, "Clinton did it first and worst", I'll...

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

Ah... a BHD like moment of clarity...

I cant wait till he gets back (next week?) he'll shake your tree.

[luvrpgrl]

Originally Posted by dculkin

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.

If anything, the newer info Bush had was indicating that WMD's were even more of a problem than previously thought.

Kerry believed he had them also, and Kerry actually supported the war, till he needed to be against it when running for office.

[luvrpgrl]

My lord, what a total bunch of crap. I love the way he has to refer to people as "freaked out", "desperate", "frenzied", "brink of breakdown", "horrified", I personally havent felt any of those emotions, nor have I sensed nor heard them in any of the talk radio hosts or callers, nor have I heard anybody who opposes her protest say they feel like that.

He doesnt provide any act they have done to qualify him to use such terms to describe us, so I guess he must be psychic and know our feelings better than us.

Originally Posted by 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

[luvrpgrl]

Originally Posted by glenmore

Not to the point of throwing common sense out the window.

Yes, that's the point, you're NOT being reasonable. You would have us believe that Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Joint Chiefs, State Dept., FBI, CIA, US Congress, RNC, DNC, top echelon of all military branches, thousands upon thousands of individuals just sat on their collective asses from 9/11/01 to Mar 03 while this country prepared for war.

This is particularly hilarious since many of the anti war gang claim Bush wanted to oust saddam from the very beginning, even before he became pres. even to the point some claim he "allowed" 9/11 to happen so he could attack saddam.

So, he planned it a long time ago, planned it from the very beginning, but he didnt plan enough for it

For the guy who wants to trade saddam for Bush, I guess he isnt too informed, one city in Iraq even named themselves after Bush, the Iraqi people for the most part would welcome Bush, certainly wouldnt be the case for OBL or saddam here in the states.

[luvrpgrl]

Originally Posted by dculkin

I would? Go figure.

Are you saying that all of those people, including the Joint Chiefs, support the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld agenda? I ain't buying that.

There is no doubt that Bush and his people planned for the Iraq invasion for years before it began. The reason the planning came out so poorly, IMHO, is that it was done in an echo chamber. No dissenting views were allowed.

BTW, you keep referring to 9/11/01. I find Bush's attempt to connect that date to the invasion of Iraq to be implausible.

I note your use of the word "largely." That is in the eye beholder, isn't it?No.I heard lots of people, including myself, talk about that risk before the war. I'm no genius, but I saw it coming.Quit with the personal comments. I'm being straight with you.That's a slight exaggeration, but substantially accurate. I don't attribute W's deficiencies to anyone by him. You have no grounds to claim that I have disdain for you or for any other Bush supporters. Your claim is false and unfair.I believe your recollection is off on this. Can you cite any examples to support your view? I don't have time right now but will try to find news accounts of the previous reasons that Bush gave for invading Iraq. The human rights angle is an after-the-fact rationalization. Maybe it's a good one, but it is after-the-fact.Oh great. The great George W. Bush performing grand experiments on the Middle East. I feel much better now.

IT was later reported as FACT that the original story was blown way out of proportion. But the major media didnt cover that cuz it wasnt sensational and anti Bush.

Oh, refering to it as an "experiment" is bad? Hmmm, me thinks of the Gettysburg address,,Lincoln referred to the founding fathers breaking from England and forming a new union as an "experiment" in democracy.