Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-18-2019 1:26 AM
30 online now:
dwise1, PaulK, Tanypteryx (3 members, 27 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 853,982 Year: 9,018/19,786 Month: 1,440/2,119 Week: 200/576 Day: 3/98 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
34Next
Author Topic:   Lie after Lie (Mother Jones - The Bush War Timeline)
Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 12414
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 16 of 46 (366222)
11-27-2006 8:18 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Wepwawet
11-26-2006 10:06 PM


Re: The silence is deafening
wepwawet writes:

Why do you hate America?

To criticize America, if the criticism is warrented and constructive, shows a Love for America rather than a hatred.

Its the ones who listen to everything they have been told and support the politicians without question who are doing far more damage to our country.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Wepwawet, posted 11-26-2006 10:06 PM Wepwawet has not yet responded

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 46 (386847)
02-24-2007 4:41 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by IrishRockhound
11-20-2006 4:26 PM


Dana Priest, Anne Hull, Walter Reed and Imus In The Morning
I-Rock's OP about the lies of our current administration makes this seem the appropriate place to point out how another of their lies has been recently exposed in all its rancid glory, just in case you might've missed it: that the administration and its defenders staunchly "support our troops". It seems unconscionable, but oh so American, that the saga of Anna Nicole has overshadowed reports of the deplorable conditions in which our returning, heroic soldiers, the ones who've lost parts of their own bodies for this insane war of choice, are being ignored by the very people who are supposed to be the ultimate supporters of our troops. But on second thought, one might find a parallel theme running through the two stories: both have much to do with negligent yet excuseful "caregivers" who all seem to want to be entrusted with the care of someone whom they really don't appear to have much genuine regard for.

I'm not a big fan of Imus, but the fact that his are often the most probing and uninhibited political interviews available on any channel at that hour keeps me tuning in from time to time. I missed this segment but I think I tuned in soon after when he was talking about how people like Susan Sarandon and Alec Balwin are far more supportive of the troops than bastards like General Kiley. He also said, and I couldn't agree with him more, that Dana Priest and Anne Hull deserve not only Pulitzers but also the Congressional Medal of Freedom for their reporting.


W.W.E.D.?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by IrishRockhound, posted 11-20-2006 4:26 PM IrishRockhound has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18482
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 18 of 46 (386863)
02-24-2007 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by IrishRockhound
11-20-2006 4:26 PM


I missed this thread the first time around. I think it's a shame it hasn't received the attention it deserves. You're unlikely to see this, you haven't posted in a couple months, but I'm replying in the hope that this thread might become more active.

I grew up in the Vietnam era. As a kid with strongly academic interests, I and my friends all received the same college deferments and none of us went to Vietnam, but I knew kids who went to Vietnam and never returned.

Unthreatened by the draft I had no self-preservation motive driving me toward the anti-war movement. I rejected it on what I thought were its merits. My overly-logical mind refused to consider the possibility that lying on a massive scale could be successful. The government said we were in Vietnam to make the world safe for Democracy (this was part of the domino theory), and that the Vietnamese people wanted us there to ensure their freedom, and I believed them until very late in the game when I was in grad school.

But lies do not neutralize facts, and this works for both sides. Communism at the time *was* a significant threat. Each country converted to communism was a potential Soviet or Chinese ally, and this was a very real security concern, as the presence even today of a communist Cuba off our south eastern shores makes clear. The war in Vietnam had very clear justifications along these lines, whether sufficient or not and whether the right approach or not in anyone's view.

The lesson I took from Vietnam was that big lies can be successful, and so it was obvious to me from the outset that the administration was lying to us about Iraq. There were many signs, but most significant was the reaction of our allies. For example, France would have joined us after seeing our evidence of Iraqi WMD had it been credible. Clearly WMD and terrorism were just excuses for war.

But the lies cannot change that this is yet another case of conflicting facts. Terrorism *is* a significant threat, Saddam Hussein *was* a ruthless dictator and a destabilizing force in the Middle East, and the war in Iraq is one of the most ill-conceived, irrational, dishonest and mistaken misadventures in the history of our nation. The Bush administration itself defies characterization, lying and dissembling not only about the war in Iraq but about science and public policy. He's an embarrassment.

I'm neither a Democrat or a Republican. I thought both Reagan and Clinton served us well as president. Whoever succeeds Bush, and I can't imagine it will be anyone but a Democrat after the disgrace Bush has brought upon his party, will face enormous challenges rebuilding American prestige and regaining foreign trust and respect.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by IrishRockhound, posted 11-20-2006 4:26 PM IrishRockhound has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by GDR, posted 02-24-2007 12:09 PM Percy has not yet responded
 Message 23 by Minnemooseus, posted 02-24-2007 7:07 PM Percy has responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4814
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 19 of 46 (386880)
02-24-2007 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Percy
02-24-2007 9:33 AM


When the US, Britain the Aussies and others went into Iraq I genuinely believed that it was the right thing to do. Hussein had already used chemical weapons which are classified, as I understand it, as WMD’s. He had terrorized the Iraqi people for years and his sons, who would likely take over in the event of his death, were if anything worse. I was convinced that people’s freedom is worth fighting for, and I believed and still do, that the freedom of Iraq today is worth just as much as the freedom of France, Holland etc was 65 years ago.

The situation in the Middle East was as always volatile. If a functioning democracy could actually be established in Iraq then I reasoned that it would help stabilize the whole area. I had no faith in the UN and this was born out by the fact that UN member nations were making huge sums of money from the UN “Food for Oil Program”, and the money was being funneled to Hussein.

What I didn’t realize, and the Bush/Blair administrations should have, was the visceral hatred that existed between the different branches of Islam within Iraq. The goals were laudable but in hindsight not achievable. I like many others naively believed that once Hussein was removed that the Iraqis for the most part would rejoice and get on with running their country.

Probably the average Iraqi is marginally better off now than he was under Hussein but I don’t believe that the cost has been worth it. The ME is just as volatile as ever and maybe more so.

I have no idea how to get out of this quagmire. If the western forces pull out of Iraq now there will be a civil war, but I don’t see that the situation will be much different 10 or 20 years from now. I sure hope that assessment is wrong. There are no easy answers.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Percy, posted 02-24-2007 9:33 AM Percy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by nator, posted 02-24-2007 6:52 PM GDR has responded

    
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5655
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 20 of 46 (386885)
02-24-2007 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by IrishRockhound
11-20-2006 4:26 PM


I suppose the first and only question I have is simply this: how do you defend all this? How do you explain or make excuses for this man, who sent your sons and daughters to die in Iraq on the basis of... what? Intelligence they knew was very weak at best or completely false at worst?

I'm willing to admit that I might not have all the facts, living as I do in Ireland and not America. But as it is I'm not surprised the Democrats won so convincingly.

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 :rolleyes: 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
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by IrishRockhound, posted 11-20-2006 4:26 PM IrishRockhound has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by crashfrog, posted 02-24-2007 1:17 PM Hyroglyphx has responded
 Message 25 by kuresu, posted 02-24-2007 7:18 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 26 by berberry, posted 02-24-2007 7:35 PM Hyroglyphx has responded
 Message 27 by jar, posted 02-24-2007 8:19 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 46 (386887)
02-24-2007 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Hyroglyphx
02-24-2007 1:00 PM


The claim is that Iraq is really about oil, which completely explains why gas prices are so high

I don't recall anybody, on the left or the right, asserting that the plan for the Iraq war was to provide the American consumer with cheap oil. Where did you get the impression that those on the left take this position?

Why would, hypothetically, a massive government adventure to secure American access to the second largest oilfield in the world result in cheaper gas at the pump, in your opinion? Perhaps your mistaken assumption is that the oil business is a business where cheaper supply means lower prices for consumers.

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?

Do you remember that he re-admitted the inspectors before the current conflict, and that those inspectors had concluded that they had seen no evidence of any weapons program - at which point we forced them out of Iraq in preparation for our invasion?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-24-2007 1:00 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-25-2007 10:52 AM crashfrog has responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 334 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 22 of 46 (386915)
02-24-2007 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by GDR
02-24-2007 12:09 PM


quote:
Probably the average Iraqi is marginally better off now than he was under Hussein

How do you figure?

Even the big cities only have a couple of hours of electricity a day, and dozens, sometimes hundreds of bodies are brought to the morgue just in Bagdhad every single day. There are many bombed-out neighborhoods and most businesses cannot operate. Many people cannot get food or drinking water or medical attention.

The country is in civil war! How can you say that the "average Iraqi" is better off, even marginally?

Anybody who had/has enough money to get out of the country is living in places like Jordan becasue it isn't safe to live in Iraq anymore.

Oh, and I was never a supporter of the Iraq preemptive strike, and I outlined exactly why right here at EvC just a few days after the invasion:

Posted by me, 03-27-2003 here:

I predict that this war will only make things much less safe for Americans. I predict that it will make it much more likely that a fundamentalist moslem dictatorship will take over in Iraq eventually as well as promoting radical anti-American sentiment throughout the Arab and Moslem world, making terrorism more likely. I think that we will have to work very, very hard to gain back our prestige and credibility internationally. I think this war has made our future dealings with North Korea even more difficult.

Apparently, I'm a foreign policy genious.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by GDR, posted 02-24-2007 12:09 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by GDR, posted 02-24-2007 7:10 PM nator has responded

    
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3723
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001


Message 23 of 46 (386918)
02-24-2007 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Percy
02-24-2007 9:33 AM


Iraq needed Saddam?
Percy writes:

...Saddam Hussein *was* a ruthless dictator and a destabilizing force in the Middle East,

While Saddam definitely was excessive and criminal in his actions, wasn't he actually a stabilizing force in the Middle East?

I personally suspect that a more moderate, but perhaps still rather ruthless version of Saddam is what Iraq needed and needs. What is going to be put into place, that will work better? I have no idea.

And, of course, there is always the ugly question of to what degree the United States were significant contributers to Saddam's excesses? Remember that photo of buddy-buddy Saddam and Donald Rumsfeld.

Moose

{This message and the two replies have been spun-off into the new topic Iraq needed Saddam? - Adminnemooseus}

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : See above.


Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.

"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith

"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Percy, posted 02-24-2007 9:33 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Percy, posted 02-24-2007 8:25 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded
 Message 29 by Archer Opteryx, posted 02-24-2007 10:02 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4814
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 24 of 46 (386919)
02-24-2007 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by nator
02-24-2007 6:52 PM


Nator writes:

The country is in civil war! How can you say that the "average Iraqi" is better off, even marginally?

There were also thousands of people dying under Hussein. Being ruled by a cruel despot like Hussein with no hope of anything changing in your lifetime is no way to live. Which is the lesser of the two evils? I agree it is a very debatable point. It seems to me that at least now there is hope for a better future that didn't exist before.

Edited by GDR, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by nator, posted 02-24-2007 6:52 PM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by nator, posted 02-25-2007 8:22 AM GDR has responded

    
kuresu
Member (Idle past 677 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 25 of 46 (386924)
02-24-2007 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Hyroglyphx
02-24-2007 1:00 PM


The claim is that Iraq is really about oil, which completely explains why gas prices are so high

from what I understand, Iraqi oil production has actually fallen since the invasion (of 1990, and pretty positive same holds true for 03 invasion)
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aairaqioil.htm
Oil Production showing less production after 1990 invasion

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002674284_webiraqoil09.html
Okay, so oil production rose right after the invasion (can't pump in war), but lately it's been falling, and never reached pre 1990 levels

Edited by kuresu, : No reason given.


"Have the Courage to Know!" --Immanuel Kant

" . . .and some nights I just pray to the god of sex and drugs and rock'n'roll"--meatloaf

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-24-2007 1:00 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 46 (386925)
02-24-2007 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Hyroglyphx
02-24-2007 1:00 PM


nemesis_juggernaut writes:

quote:
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.

I'll concede that you have a point, but there's a much larger and overshadowing counterpoint: the tribes that are now at war with each other in Iraq were at war for centuries before Iraq was ever a country. Only Prince Fiesal was ever able to truly unite the different Arab tribes, and even he, beloved as he was by almost all Arabs, was only able to do it ad hoc. By the time he was made King of Iraq, it was only the continuing presence of British armed forces that allowed him to keep peace.

What makes you think we can do any better? George Bush isn't Lawrence of Arabia and Ahmadinajhad (I probably mispelled that) isn't Prince Feisal.

These people have been at war with each other since the 7th century. We deposed a dictator who, ruthlessly or not, managed to control them and keep peace. Without him they're out of control and at war with each other again. What the hell do you neocons propose we do to change that?

Everything about the execution of this war - EVERYTHING! - has been "incredibly irresponsible". The Bush administration has been nothing but "incredibly irresponsible". And we continue to be "incredibly irresponsible" in the way we treat our troops (see my post above for just one ignominious example).

I think George Bush planned this whole nightmare, obviously thinking it would turn out much better and obviously seeing himself as achieving what people like T.E. Lawrence and King Feisal were never able to do: create a lasting alliance between bitter Arab enemies. Even if it were just in one country - like Iraq - uniting the Shia with the Sunni would change the course of Arab history. Bush would be a global hero if he could pull something like that off. But he didn't pull it off, and even if you ever thought he could, surely you must see that we are far beyond any such hope now.


W.W.E.D.?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-24-2007 1:00 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-25-2007 11:59 AM berberry has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30981
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 27 of 46 (386932)
02-24-2007 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Hyroglyphx
02-24-2007 1:00 PM


It was a unanimous decision to depose Hussein because he was a maniacal dictator that expressed his hatred for anything Western.

I'm sorry but that is simply not true, not even close to being true.

First, Iraq was without a doubt one of the most westernized of Arab countries before the US invaded. Far from hating the west, Iraq adopted much of western culture and was the most secular of the Middle Eastern nations.

Second, you go on to post a link to a propaganda flick that simply continues to distort the truth. Since the Administration withheld information and distorted the intelligence give to Congress, it is absurd to then later say "They went along."

Those in Congress who supported the decision did so only because they trusted that the Administration was not lying to them. Unfortunately it is now obvious to everyone that the Administration did just that, lie to the Congress and the American people.

The claim is that Iraq is really about oil, which completely explains why gas prices are so high

I'm sorry, that is simply not true. Only someone as stupid as our current President would believe something that silly. If the goal was oil then Bush truly was a double idiot for continuing to Baghdad.

The most plausible scenario offered by a high ranking Iraqi defector, is that remaining weaponry was smuggled out of Iraq in to Syria.

Only someone a stupid as the current Administration was not aware that that was the most likely result of any WMDs if they did exist long before the invasion.

Now, I do believe that even Bush here was a bit of a pawn.

I'm sorry, but we are speaking of the President of the United States. If that is true he definitely should be impeached.

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.

That, my friend, should have been considered BEFORE the stupid invasion.

Granted we are in this mess and we have few options. Unfortunately though there have been zero credible plans presented to dealing with the issue.

In the long run, only the Iraqis can solve the problem.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-24-2007 1:00 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18482
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 28 of 46 (386935)
02-24-2007 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Minnemooseus
02-24-2007 7:07 PM


Re: Iraq needed Saddam?
Minnemooseus writes:

While Saddam definitely was excessive and criminal in his actions, wasn't he actually a stabilizing force in the Middle East?

That's a good point post-Kuwait, leaving even less justification for the Bush war. What a waste. It is so sad.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Minnemooseus, posted 02-24-2007 7:07 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

    
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 1762 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 29 of 46 (386944)
02-24-2007 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Minnemooseus
02-24-2007 7:07 PM


Re: Iraq needed Saddam?
While Saddam definitely was excessive and criminal in his actions, wasn't he actually a stabilizing force in the Middle East?

Of course. Just look at all those bodies they pull out of his mass graves.

http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/legacyofterror.html

It's a very stabilized condition.

___


Archer

All species are transitional.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Minnemooseus, posted 02-24-2007 7:07 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Adminnemooseus, posted 02-24-2007 11:02 PM Archer Opteryx has not yet responded

  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3883
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 30 of 46 (386951)
02-24-2007 11:02 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Archer Opteryx
02-24-2007 10:02 PM


Topic derailment happening
My non-admin mode contributed to it. This topic is about the lies of the Bush administration, the led to the war.

I think I'll spin off the Minnemooseus message to become a new topic. I will also quote the two replies and link back to this topic.

Please stand by.

Adminnemooseus


New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum

Other useful links:

Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, Assistance w/ Forum Formatting, Proposed New (Great Debate) Topics, Official Invitations to Online Chat@EvC


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Archer Opteryx, posted 02-24-2007 10:02 PM Archer Opteryx has not yet responded

    
Prev1
2
34Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019