Even fox news posted this one: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,144143,00.html So... is there anyone out there who can still justify this war? It's still driving me nuts though that Bush and his thugs won't apologize or even acknowladge the fact they were wrong.
How would it serve them or their party to do such a thing? However, I agree. The war was(is) an unmitigated disaster, entered into unlawfully, based on faulty information. I feel it was a purely political move by the Bush administration.
By the way, I voted for the other guy. Although some here would still string all of the citizens of my whole country up by their thumbs for allowing Bush to stay in office. Sorry, but my friends and neighbors just won't listen to reason and mount an armed march on DC with me...
I don't give a crap about any weapons of mass destruction and never did. I wouldn't care if President Bush declared that he was going in to search for the Easter Bunny. All I know is that Saddam is in prison, probably with a very short projected lifespan, and his regiem has been ground into ashes. That is enough for me. If President Bush thought there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, I can understand why. Saddam had a weapons project that, while disfunctional, even he thought was on the brink of putting out the goods. He had longer and longer range scuds produced and bought that would be capable of carrying WMDs. He even got in the way of every UN investigation known to man. What was President Bush supposed to think?
And guess what's in the news today... Is it the weapons that were never there? Wrong! Is it our corrupt government? Guess again. Maybe reports of impending violence in Iraq leadign up to a soon to be failed election? Nope. Surely, some more coverage of a disaster that killed an assload of people. No way. It's a prince wearing a nazi arm band in a tabloid. Armed march on washington is sounding pretty damn good right about now...
That's the spirit, ignore that you were lied too or mislead at the least, and it's like it never even happened! Gladly allow the administration to shove the sunshine pump up your ass and accept that we went to war because Saddam was just a really bad guy all along! Of course! It's all so simple. Were we at war with Eurasia or East Asia again. . . I never can seem to remember. So, what "bad guys" are next on our hit list? If we really wanted to take out dictatorships run by madmen who have WMD at their command then we'd have invaded Iran or North Korea, but I guess their people didn't need liberating, so Iraq was the obvious choice, really. It all makes sense if you're quick to forget the past few months, and can tie your brain in nice little knots.
I don't give a crap about any weapons of mass destruction and never did. Oh please...you were probably towing the line. All I know is that Saddam is in prison, probably with a very short projected lifespan, and his regiem has been ground into ashes. That is enough for me. And thanks to his overthrow the almost inevitable civil war that may engluf the whole region...HURRAH! Was Saddam worth it? I mean the only WMD Iraq had was immigrants with colds. Saddam had a weapons project He did not...see you are still towing the line here. He had longer and longer range scuds produced and bought that would be capable of carrying WMDs. In 1989 sure... He even got in the way of every UN investigation known to man. What was President Bush supposed to think? According to the UN in 1998 (I believe) the demilitarization of Iraq was the most successful de-militarization in history... with 98% of his WMD gone. You don't care clock...my arse b.c if you didn't u wouldn't try to rationalize it.
You people are airheads. Read the book "Shadow War" which explains the following: Saddam's WMDs. Saddam's WMD research programs active until the war. Saddam's connections with Al Qaeda. These things are real, not fake, the News ignores them, and then idiots like yourselves claim that the Administration is ignoring their "lying" to you. You are listening to lies, so just bugger off and learn something from a credible source, instead of Dan Rather or Peter Jennings.
Ermmm...right...why aren't you banned yet? Even President Bush pretty much admitted nothing was there...why can't you? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Oh but I forgot you think Scandinavian nations are Catholic...right...PROTESTANTISM is a lie right?
Perhaps of "America"? To put it in context, Poppy Bush comes out of this looking clean: that took some doing. • Single-source and unreliable information? He should have thought to build a stronger case. • American policy and tradition do not prescribe this brand of war? He did think of that, and wrote a new policy that casts Americans as imperial aggressors. • The entwined histories of the United States and Iraq? Bush should have thought of better justifications than as to how something acceptable to the United States becomes so unacceptable. Mere convenience doesn't cut it. • American history in the region? Start with the senior Schwarzkopf and run to the second; it's all one story, and Bush could have chosen to look at it that way in order to have a better grasp of the situation. He did not. • War on Terror? Some substantial link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda would have been nice. As it is, we can overlook the rest of the United States' support for the Shah of Iran and say that the Iraq-Al Qaeda connection offered is approximately equivalent to treating the Shah at American hospitals in the wake of the Revolution. • Necessity of War? Even if we grant Bush the necessity of this war, his administration has willfully chosen to ignore its responsibilities; it would have been nice if he gave those obligations more consideration than simply dismissing them. The idea that this war is just merely because of the cruelty of the Hussein regime simply doesn't stand up inasmuch as Rumsfeld is still the man of the hour. It was Rumsfeld who stroked the Iraqi regime in the 1980s; it was the United States who armed him amid reports of atrocities. Hussein was good enough then, and instead of explaining what has changed, the Bush administration has told Americans to simply move on and give the issue no thought. They say that those who don't know history are condemned to repeat it. And this is a person's choice. However, that person doesn't really have the right to visit that ignorance and its ill effects unto millions of people. Or so says me. The real downside of this situation, of course, is that we get to see Scott Ritter mugging it up on the cable news stations. Americans of my generation were constantly taught to think before acting, to look before leaping, &c. The reason for this is essentially a statement of foresight against unanticipated problems. "Always be prepared," says the motto. Quite clearly, the Bush administration either did not, or didn't care what they saw if they did. The ethical offense of the war's commencement might have paled in contrast to the discovery of these huge caches of weapons of mass destruction that were forty-five minutes away from deployment, or even something remotely resembling what the people were led to believe. But whether it's outing CIA agents, intentionally abrogating the Geneva Conventions in the Days of Fallen Swine and Invisible Roses, the abuse of prisoners, the Al Qaeda association, the aircraft carrier stunt, the failure to anticipate the insurgency .... So we got to Baghdad quickly and toppled Saddam. And we eventually found him hiding, almost literally under a rock. These are spectacular headlines, to be sure, but what do they equal in real terms? What was the president supposed to think? The simple weight of the responsibility of his office should have been enough to compel him to think something other than, "I'm going to do this anyway, and all I need is a reason, and it doesn't matter if that reason is real." Or, in light of the administration's consistent mishandling of its own debacle, we might, in order to move away from the "Bush-is-stupid" tack that is so annoying to those who have so few proper responses than to complain about what reality suggests, excuse the appearance of stupidity and merely say that it would be nice if the president started thinking at some point. • • • We could, if we choose, consider, oh ... me. Many people, from frustrated teachers to my closest friends, and obviously my family, consider me "bright", and in some cases even "brilliant". People have gone so far in the past as to offer me the chance to excuse my inability to get along with certain people according to the demands of my intellect. Nonetheless, it's all for naught if I don't actually show it and build something tangible with this allegedly-vast resource. They know it. I know it. At this point, admittedly, the worst thing I can do is show it and blow it. But at some point I'm going to have to take a gamble and test certain hypotheses. Then again, if my family's wealth, prestige, and legacy could get me into the Ivy League despite my grades, I could probably manage to run a few businesses into the ground, as well. So inasmuch as we hear from Bush's supporters how intelligent he is, I am sympathetic to the challenges presented by the widespread perception of his stupidity. And I don't think I'm asking of the president anything more than I ought to be asking of myself. If it seems so much greater a burden for the president, well, there is an issue of magnitude: he's the president, and if I'm lucky I'll sell a few books before I die and raise a happy daughter. His opinions and actions affect a far greater number of people than mine. We all have our burdens. Certainly the sand falls away as time passes, and while I haven't much time left before I absolutely must have certain things figured out, the president, in asking for and receiving this office, stepped past the point of no return: if it's there, he ought to be using it. • • • Can we really solve the world's problems with bullets and bombs? I won't hold you to the Wolfowitz standard that makes Iraq's oil reserves the object, but there are lots of people suffering under sick tyrants around the world, some of whom we helped prop up, and some of whom have, with a certain degree of success, exploited the results of American policies abroad. Even if we limit ourselves to saving the world from these, and think nothing of the general suffering going on for other reasons, that's still a hell of a list. And if it's not the potential of wealth that makes Iraq worth liberating while other countries suffer, what is that factor? Is the Pax Americana going to be an endless string of wars against evil--whether real or imagined--in humanity? Do the ends always justify the means? What principle justifies Iraq in 2003? Are we Americans admitting that our security needs at home officially take second fiddle to the rest of the world? Ballsy, yes, but not the image the administration is trying to protect. For me, the attraction of a massive war to put down all the evil on the planet has passed, and in part because I grew up at a time when such an idea was reviled. What has Donald Rumsfeld learned, for instance, that changes his stance on tolerating dictators? If the administration could put some sense of context on such issues pertaining to this war, it would do much for their case in explaining the necessity. But rather than do that, the administration has circled the wagons and made every effort to duck such considerations. Are they unable to explain? Are they unwilling? Is this an arbitrary switch? Is it calculated in a manner that many would consider sinister? What's the middle ground? Hello? Is anybody in the White House listening? Do they even care? They give every appearance of only caring insofar as they might hold such notions in contempt. Given numerous opportunities to explain themselves, including a lasting period of unusually friendly press despite the administration's poor regard for journalists, they held themselves above reproach, above question, above the law, and then accused their critics of elitism. • • • That the search for weapons has produced no substantial result according to our expectations at the advent of this war is significant. That the United States should be an advocate and even a force for peace and freedom is rarely argued against. In fact, the last time we heard the argument against with any volume, it was Republican criticism of President Clinton's willingness to play "international policeman". However, Poppy Bush's decision to not go to Baghdad in 1991 also reflected the range of our commitment of force to freedom; liberating Kuwait was the object, not toppling another regime. Which is why we needed a "Bush doctrine" in the first place: the administration wished to do what the United States had previously alleged to work against. That was a pretty big stake to gamble on unreliable intelligence and, as the yellowcake issue reveals, outright lies. The administration, aware of the WMD shortcomings, has for a good while now insisted that this was about liberating the Iraqi people. This explanation does not hold up, in part for the reasons I've expressed above. Any liar can say they're helping, and many do while robbing people blind. It would do this administration some credit to stop acting like "any liar" and show some awareness of reality. I still hold by my assertion that what the Bush administration has done since 9/11 is so unimaginable that to imagine this conduct of a president was commie pinko trash thinking in the 1980s. That the grim visions of the future from that age seem prophetic is hardly cause for celebration. Some things you can't "take back". The Bush administration should acknowledge that it was wrong and apologize. This won't fix things, but it would at least give us some leverage in pleading for assistance in Iraq.
Maybe you didn't quite understand the story we are discussing. The U.S. military/CIA/government has stopped looking for WMDs. They haven't found any, won't find any, and have acknoledged they don't exist and thusly, have stopped alltogether looking for them. We won't ever find any WMDs unless a grunt is strolling along and trips over one. We were lied to. They knew from day 1 there weren't any WMDs and now they won't even admit it publically. OOnly their actions betray them Come on, if Sadaam had these huge weapons, don't you think it would have been good a time as any to use them against US forces?
He even got in the way of every UN investigation known to man. What was President Bush supposed to think? So should we go after Israel?? This double standard is mind numbing.
*So should we go after Israel?? No! But lets cut the strings. Those 10billion we send yearly to Israel can do a lot of good here at home!. G.
WMD's or not we are much better off without Saddam. He could have easily and quickly obtained them. Every single country in the UN and all of our allies beleived he had them. He was a great threat to the region. He continually defied the cease fire agreements after the 1st Gulf War. He routinely fired on our planes in the No fly zone. He would not cooperate with investigators. If he had no WMD's it was up to him to prove he didn't have them. He was paying suicide bombers families. He was harboring terrorists. He acted like he did have weapons and that he was hiding them. There was plenty to justify Bush going into Iraq. Even Clinton came very close to going in himself. It is possible that if the UN, France, German, and Russia were not on the take with Saddam in the UN oil for food program then we may have been able to avoid war, but how things stood at the time we had no choice. Now the only thing we can do is clean up the mess that Saddam made and try to make it more livable over there.
Right... but that's not why we are there. We are not liberating these people from an evil dictator, only setting one up in our own immage. We aren't rebuilding their civilization. We are demolishing it and replacing it with American run pipelines. The administration invented and/or saw what they needed to see to capture a territory. There is no great cause here, only death. Yes, the Iraqis who were in torture rooms and camps are probably a little better off now... but that doesn't mean the rest of the people are, much less America. And besides, you cannot be so naive as to think democracy will work when introduced at the barrel of a gun, especially in a region such as the middle east...
