Lie after Lie (Mother Jones - The Bush War Timeline)

Thanks for the thread. Sorry that we all missed the thread the first time around, as Percy stated. I think we should look at this objectively because there is a lot of subjective opinion swirling around America. We are a nation divided, as I'm sure you can imagine.Its been my experience that truth is usually somewhere in between. Motherjones is a notoriously leftwing magazine, as many publications are. Are they going to be critical of the Bush Administration? Of course they are. But lets deal with one thing at a time. You mentioned the Iraq war and basically spelled out for us that Bush is a son of a bitch for sending US troops in harms way. I think you realize that the UK has been engaged in almost every conflict along side America since the first world war. Do you also implicate British Parliament for sending its troops? Much of the intelligence gathered about WMD's were coming from MI6, the premiere British foreign intelligence agency.Secondly, everyone seems to have a bad memory when it comes to Saddam Hussein and the Democrats. It was a unanimous decision to depose Hussein because he was a maniacal dictator that expressed his hatred for anything Western. See, many Democrats are claiming that the Republican echo chamber is about WMD's. But where do the Dems fit in all of this? Let me refresh everyone's memory.The claim is that Iraq is really about oil, which completely explains why gas prices are so high The most plausible scenario offered by a high ranking Iraqi defector, is that remaining weaponry was smuggled out of Iraq in to Syria. The General alleges that there was a natural disaster that allowed for a perfect cover up. The point is, we know he had WMD's. Remember the Kurds? Remember the UN weapons inspectors that he refused to give entry to his facilities even though he signed a treaty during the first Gulf War?Now, I do believe that even Bush here was a bit of a pawn. Cheney and Rumsfeld took the Iraq war to make parallels to Al Qaeda that likely did not exist before the invasion. They went against the grain and circumvented intelligence agencies that did not corroborate their claims. Did they honestly believe it? Yeah, they probably did. But that doesn't mean that it justifies that reason for going to war on top of other reasons in order to sell the American people on it. That was a selling point for the Administration.The point is that hindsight and foresight is not always 20/20. I think the great fear for America is that we allow another WWII to happen where we were slow to engage the Nazi's, even when we knew they murdering mass people and threatening our allies. As far as I'm concerned, there is no reason why the Nazi's should have bombed your homeland unchecked.Whether Iraq was a good idea or not, we are there now and it would be incredibly irresponsible to simply leave without the fledgling Iraqi government able to support its own weight.

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

Uhhh... Michael Moore, Ward Churchill, the common protester. Isn't this a familiar taunt and a played out tautology? This isn't my conspiracy Crash. I seriously doubt you haven't heard all of the conspiracies about how this war is just about oil cooked up by Haliburton and associates. Unfortunately for them, its impossible to be using that much Iraqi oil and still have the gas prices so inflated. In either case, this is where the US gets its oil. I remember Hussein playing nice a few times to appease the UN because he had been warned numerous times to stop jerking every one around. Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : Trying to fix my link

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

Sectarian rivalry is a problem within the Islamic community, and as you alluded, always has been. But should we forsake it all over this fact, or should we establish order in Iraq and gain a new and much needed ally in the Middle East? I think military strategists would really like to make Iraq a new home for a few air bases because of its central locality. They can't achieve this until the hostilities subside. The number one question is, will it ever subside? One thing is for certain. We are at war with radical Islam regardless. We simply must exist. I simply can't appreciate the argument that terrorists are only trying to get rid of America from their soil. That's not their reason, that's their opportunity to strike America. So if we are going to be at war with them regardless, we might as well secure a good position. Because thus far, we have no bases stationed in the Mid East except for Bahrain. The next closest base is in Turkey. This is why carrier groups for the US Navy are always somewhere in the Gulf because, quite frankly, the Mid East is a tinderbox always capable of intense violence. I've heard a few Fundamentalist Christians say that Babylon (Iraq) is forsaken land and that any attempts to reconcile will result in failure. That may be the case. What is your suggestion in how we should handle it. Its like anything else, really. Clinton wanted to be the one guy to reconcile the Palestinians and Israelis. But he wasn't able to achieve it no matter how hard he tried. I think now that Rumsfeld resigned that we are better off than ever were with him. Notice how many people left the Administration abruptly, but most prominently, Colin Powell, who I believe would have made a far better Secretary of Defense. There has been a lot of mismanagement in the Iraq conflict because the SecDef was not listening to his commanders on the ground, who, lets face it, feel like their hands are tied behind their backs.With that said, I remain firm that what's done is done and we can't change history. But if we were to pull out at this point the condition would be worse off than an effort for stabilization.

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

The diatribes are as follows: "No blood for oil!" "Bush lied kids died!" "Haliburton! Haliburton!" "Its all about oil, man... Its all about oil." "Watch Syriana or Fahrenheit 9/11, man. That will explain everything."Well, if its really about oil then why are gas prices so high? The reason is because its not true. I would go so far as to say that securing oil would be a fringe benefit of toppling the Iraq autocracy, but nowhere close to being the reason. You don't seem to believe that so I'm not talking about you. I'm just relaying that its a common conspiracy theory. Moore and Churchill most certainly speak about the Bush Administrations "insatiable lust for oil." This sounds reasonable. Price gouging is criminal conduct as far as I'm concerned. Believe me, my wife and I have boycotted OPEC for a long time now. We have no love for them. I'm simply saying that people who honestly believe that the war was about oil are very misinformed. Likewise, any one who believes that the war was about coming to the aid of the Kurds is gullible. The sole reason is removing threats posed by against the interests of national security. And since we live in an age of technology, national security often extends to global security. What happens in the Mid East effects us like it happened next door in Canada or Mexico. I agree. I think its a scare tactic to tell every one that oil reserves are depleting. Well, I mean, yes of course they are depleting, but its not like we'll be without oil tomorrow. I think we should really be focusing our attention away from fossil fuels and looking toward Flex fuels, but I doubt we're gonna dry up tomorrow. Look, I don't want you to be under the impression that I'm a big oil guy. Forget those guys. I'm simply arguing that the Iraq war was not about oil. But you seem to agree with me so I guess there is no need in discussing it further. Of course they are concerned with the oil fields. Remember what Saddam had done the first time? Like a child with a temper tantrum, he set them on fire and it took coordinated efforts to stop those fires. It took us over a year to get those fires out. We aren't just going to leave them to fall in to enemy hands. The point of the war was not to get to the oil. Saving the oil reserves is in the interest of global security for every one. Crash, he did it because he moved them and he knew he had nothing to fear. It wasn't the threat of force. For as much of a diabolical genius Saddam wass, his pride consistently got the better of him. Bush gave him 48 hours to leave Baghdad. By staying and not ordering his troops to stand down, it was his big F.U. posture to us. If wanted to avert the invasion he could have done it by complying. The war because he was standing in the way of national security. You think Hilary, Bill, Kerry, Kennedy, Berger, etc were just idiots? Pawns? As if they didn't read sensitive intelligence reports? They got it. They knew he was a threat. But what did they do? They saw how unpopular the war was with their party members was and decided to exploit that to get the vote. Way to stand by your laurels guys.

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis