so Bush isn't a liar?

quote:

---

I don't think Bush was lying. At most he acted hastily based on erroneous intelligence assessments...

---

There is quite a bit of evidence that Bush, Cheney, and others were planning to invade Iraq long before 9/11, and used that terrible event as some kind of justification.Rice and Powel both characterized Saddam and Iraq as contained and powerless just before 9/11, but when Bush wanted to invade, suddenly there were WMD all over the place.They repeatedly made clever connections between terrorists, 9/11, and Iraq in order to connect them in people's mind.This was so effective that a majority of people believed that the hijackers were Iraqi, not Saudi.How do you think the public got that idea?So, there was definitely some lying in the selling of the war, for sure. There was also quite a lot of ignoring of contradictory evidence because it wasn't what they wanted to see or know. They ignored Blix and the weapons inspectors who told them that there was no evidence of WMD in Iraq and listened to Chalabi and others because it was what they wanted to hear.This might not make them utter liars, but it does make them grossly incompetant.

quote:

---

but then, so did Kerry/Edwards, who both voted to authorize use of force against Iraq. And Blair of the UK, for that matter.

---

Unfortunately, it would have been political death for anyone to vote against Saint George at that point, with irrational patriotism and gullibility being at an all time high amongst the populace.Besides, Kerry and Edwards didn't vote for Bush to bollocks things up so badly....and Blair is very likely to be out after elections due to his support of Bush. That would be ignoring the political realities of the job of a Senator.

Really?That's too bad.

quote:

---

So why was the war necessary when the threat of war had succeeded?

---

During the run up to the war, I thought that Dubya just might be incredibly smart by doing all of this sabre rattling to get Saddam to comply with the UN disarming demands.(not that I really understood why we were fooling around in Iraq, when Afghanistan was where the terrorist who had done this was hiding)Then it became clear that he had decided to invade Iraq unilaterally no matter what, even if the demands were met, even if very nearly the entire world was outraged and disgusted, even if he broke international law.

TC, our conversation about Bush got cut off when the thread was closed.There were quite a few points left hanging that I would very much like for you to address.Would you like to start another coffeehouse thread so you get a chance to respond?The post is #606 in the "Kerry unfit for command" thread.

"I'm worried about an opponent who uses nation-building and the military in the same sentence. See, our view of the military is for our military to be properly prepared to fight and win war and, therefore, prevent war from happening in the first place."George W. Bush, on Al Gore during the pre-election debates.Flip flop.

A reply to these points would be appreciated:

quote:

---

I don't think Bush was lying. At most he acted hastily based on erroneous intelligence assessments...

---

There is quite a bit of evidence that Bush, Cheney, and others were planning to invade Iraq long before 9/11, and used that terrible event as some kind of justification.Rice and Powel both characterized Saddam and Iraq as contained and powerless just before 9/11, but when Bush wanted to invade, suddenly there were WMD all over the place.They repeatedly made clever connections between terrorists, 9/11, and Iraq in order to connect them in people's mind.This was so effective that a majority of people believed that the hijackers were Iraqi, not Saudi.How do you think the public got that idea?So, there was definitely some lying in the selling of the war, for sure. There was also quite a lot of ignoring of contradictory evidence because it wasn't what they wanted to see or know. They ignored Blix and the weapons inspectors who told them that there was no evidence of WMD in Iraq and listened to Chalabi and others because it was what they wanted to hear.This might not make them utter liars, but it does make them grossly incompetant. Unfortunately, it would have been political death for anyone to vote against Saint George at that point, with irrational patriotism and gullibility being at an all time high amongst the populace.Besides, Kerry and Edwards didn't vote for Bush to bollocks things up so badly.

I wasn't thrilled with Gore, either, but I had to vote for him and not Bush, because Gore could at least speak intelligently, was clearly very bright and well educated, and had done a lot of good work, particularly regarding the environment, as VP.Bush appeared to be knuckleheaded and smarmy, a terrible speaker, uninformed and unconcerned about it, and beholden to the religious right.

Well, yeah, I kind of forgot about Liberman, but remember that Liberman wasn't going to be president, Gore was.And I am damn sure that we wouldn't have the Iraq debacle, and we wouldn't have the Patriot Act, and we probably wouldn't have tax cuts for the rich and tax increases for the middle class and poor.We probably wouldn't have presidential support for a ban on gay marriage, either.I am also not so sure 9/11 would have happened, either, as Clinton had been planning a more aggressive program to find and assasinate Bin Laden but did not begin it because it was so close to the end of his term. His people passed on all of their intelligence and plans to Bush's folks and they did not implement any of it. Clinton knew what a danger Bin Laden was and had followed him closely for years.

quote:

---

Funny thing: now that the conservatives are in control of all branches of the federal government, you don't hear so much about "States rights".

---

Yeah, and remember when the "Republican Revolution" headed by Newt Gingrich was shouting about "Government out of our lives!!"?