quote:The Bush administration is significantly lowering expectations of what can be achieved in Iraq, recognizing that the United States will have to settle for far less progress than originally envisioned during the transition due to end in four months, according to U.S. officials in Washington and Baghdad.
The United States no longer expects to see a model new democracy, a self-supporting oil industry or a society where the majority of people are free from serious security or economic challenges, U.S. officials say.
"What we expected to achieve was never realistic given the timetable or what unfolded on the ground," said a senior official involved in policy since the 2003 invasion. "We are in a process of absorbing the factors of the situation we're in and shedding the unreality that dominated at the beginning."
**** On Democracy ****
But whatever the outcome on specific disputes, the document on which Iraq's future is to be built will require laws to be compliant with Islam. Kurds and Shiites are expecting de facto long-term political privileges. And women's rights will not be as firmly entrenched as Washington has tried to insist, U.S. officials and Iraq analysts say.
"We set out to establish a democracy, but we're slowly realizing we will have some form of Islamic republic," said another U.S. official familiar with policymaking from the beginning, who like some others interviewed would speak candidly only on the condition of anonymity. "That process is being repeated all over."
**** The Insurgents ****
Last week was the fourth-worst week of the whole war for U.S. military deaths in combat, and August already is the worst month for deaths of members of the National Guard and Reserve.
**** Leaving Iraq ****
"We've said we won't leave a day before it's necessary. But necessary is the key word — necessary for them or for us? When we finally depart, it will probably be for us," a U.S. official said.
**** Self-Sustaning Economy? ****
"The most thoroughly dashed expectation was the ability to build a robust self-sustaining economy. We're nowhere near that. State industries, electricity are all below what they were before we got there," said Wayne White, former head of the State Department's Iraq intelligence team who is now at the Middle East Institute. "The administration says Saddam ran down the country. But most damage was from looting [after the invasion], which took down state industries, large private manufacturing, the national electric" system.
Sounds like we're leaving Iraq in pretty bad shape.
I hated the way we got into this war. But I wouldn't want us to leave Iraq until we finish the job; and that means giving the Iraqi people the security, prosperity, and freedom we promised them.
An immature withdraw would mirror the type of short-sighted foreign policy we adopted earlier when we propped up Saddam to create "regional stability" in the Middle East.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
And this will be worse, in the long run, than if we'd never gone there at all.
If this is true (and I sincerely hope it is not), I believe George W. Bush should be impeached and turned over to the World Court to face charges of war crimes.
Every person to serve as a senior member of his Administration having anything to do with the war should be investigated and held pending charges.
And they should all be bankrupted to give even partial repayment of the US citizens for this mad adventure they promoted.
Every member of Congress who voted in favor of the war should be given an official reprimand and should have to face an early election to see if they should retain their seats.
I believe this "lowered expectations" cr@p is (again, if it is true), is a betrayal of our armed forces and encourages the enemy and, in the Chief Executive, amounts to something just short of treason.
In fact, since I've been arguing against high expectations all along and getting accused of being a traitor and abetting our enemies, I have to say that I will wear that label just as soon as George W. Bush does. If he admits it, I'll join him.
<sits back>
<waits>
I predict that in two days time, the conservative airwaves will be filled with explanations of how this is: 1) the fault of liberals in the US undercutting the President. 2) the fault of the Iraqi people for not doing more to serve their own best interests 3) A "good thing" because the only kind of regime that could ever really be stable in the Arab world is an Islamic Republic, and we knew that all along.
If this is true, George Bush is just a joke. A man who didn't know what he was doing, who managed to pull the wool over a country's eyes. His name will become a derogatory verb used to describe the logical end result of a privileged upbringing mixed with Texas "shoot from the hip" style, and playing to people's baser instincts.
Scholarly books will be written titled things like:
Bush's America: What went wrong?
Descent into madness: 8 Years that Shook a Nation.
Never Again! How America Recovered itself from itself.
I may write at least two of those myself!
If this is true.
Posted by Hamson (Member # 7808) on :
I agree 100% with what you said Bob. In fact I think I'd write the book you don't. This is a complete joke. It's good to have high expectations, but not when they are obviously outside of a timetable your running on. Speaking of which, wasn't Bush always saying how there was no timetable, and we'd get out of Iraq when they were free peoples, or something along those lines? Along with leaving the Iraqi people to devour themselves, or for someone with enough military power to stand up and make the country a virtual slave state, (which is what there was in the first place, before American troops gave their lives to a false purpose, far out of reach of the objective they came to accomplish.) the enemeys of democratic reasoning, and justice, gain the upper hand, and a dramatic moral boost to their cause.
quote: But whatever the outcome on specific disputes, the document on which Iraq's future is to be built will require laws to be compliant with Islam. Kurds and Shiites are expecting de facto long-term political privileges. And women's rights will not be as firmly entrenched as Washington has tried to insist, U.S. officials and Iraq analysts say.
"We set out to establish a democracy, but we're slowly realizing we will have some form of Islamic republic," said another U.S. official familiar with policymaking from the beginning, who like some others interviewed would speak candidly only on the condition of anonymity. "That process is being repeated all over."
This is a major BS excuse. Just because you take away a ruler that imposes laws, doesn't mean the cultures of the imprisoned people will change. Especially in only 2 or 3 years.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
I hope the U.S. officials sourced in the article are mistaken about President Bush's intentions.
It sounds like President Bush is still committed to stay the course:
quote:The terrorists cannot defeat us on the battlefield. The only way they can win is if we lose our nerve. That will not happen on my watch. Withdrawing our troops from Iraq prematurely would betray the Iraqi people, and would cause others to question America's commitment to spreading freedom and winning the war on terror. So we will honor the fallen by completing the mission for which they gave their lives, and by doing so we will ensure that freedom and peace prevail. President's Radio Address 8/13/05
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
If it were two years from now, you'd see the opposite, I think Republicans would run from him as if he were the plague.
But as it is, I doubt anything will change. Liberals will jump on this as proof they were right all along. Critics of Liberals will be even more pissed at them for not stopping Bush to begin with. Conservatives will protect Bush and support the war, claiming we are going to still leave Iraq better than we found it.
I'm not as concerned now with laying blame, I think it's pretty clear who is to blame, harping on it won't fix the problem. There will be plenty of time later for us to affix punishment for potential crimes.
What should be done now is:
1. Figure out what condition Iraq needs to be in before a withdrawel is acceptable to us. And it can't just be acceptable to us. It needs to be acceptable to the Iraqis too.
2. How can we stop something like this from ever happening again. The War Powers issue needs to be solved once and for all. The entire issue of police actions, wars (declared or not), and hostilities in general demands attention. The President still claims he did not need congressional approval before he sent troops in. He made it logistically and politically impossible for the Congress to remove troops from Iraq.
Only the Congress has the power to declare war, yet Bush has declared we are fighting the war on terror. Not legally admissible no, but still, this is a crisis of government. Would this war have ever happened in Bush really needed clear congressional approval before commencing hostilities? More stringent ammendments need to be made to the War Powers resolution.
By letting that issue go, and smoothing it over with blame laying, we're just setting ourselves up for a repeat in the future.
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
Reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw today. It read "Quagmire Accomplished".
And that's exactly what it is. And even when American troops leave, the Iraqi people will still have to live in that quagmire. Meanwhile, certain very limited segments of the US business community will be laughing all the way to the bank. Who was it who said that "war is good business"?
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote:A man who didn't know what he was doing, who managed to pull the wool over a country's eyes.
The second part sounds like a man who knows what he is doing. Just a thought.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
That would be Haliburton.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
No. I'm sorry, but Bush is not guilty of war crimes. Starting an un-necessary war, yes. Giving the spoils thereof to his cronies, yes. Alienating most of the world and making the US a rather despised nation, yes. But he is not guilty of ordering deliberate massacres of civilians, first use of weapons of mass destruction, or breaches of human rights. And more to the point, he is not guilty of being head of a defeated nation, occupied by a victor who wants to make an example of him.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I believe he is guilty of deceiving the public. What a deeply foolish act this war was from the very beginning. They should have lowered expectations when it first started!
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
Actually, he may be guilty of ordering breaches of human rights. We just don't have solid enough evidence that the torture commands truly rest at the top.
--Enigmatic
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: That would be Haliburton.
Yep. That's exactly who I had in mind.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
KoM...
To my mind, it should be up to the World Court to decide if Bush is a war criminal. I just want to see him up on charges and have to actually face them.
I think our country needs that, and deserves it, for letting him do this to us.
Our rallying cry should be "never again!" How sad that America has to go through that painful experience.
But, perhaps, one good thing may come from it. A change to the War Powers act is indeed required and I hope the GOP-controlled Congress has the sense to see the writing on the wall and start drafting a Constitutional Amendment sooner, rather than later.
Meanwhile, I doubt he'll ever even be in danger of impeachment or have to face an international court. The GOP is too good at rallying around their guy, right or wrong. But I tell you right now that is the end of that Grand Old Party as we know it today.
Maybe it'll turn into something better.
But I doubt it.
Personally, I'd like to see the DNC obliterated at the same time.
I'd like to see this country's politics splinter into myriad small factions with none of them ever able to hold a dominant control of Congress without forming a coalition.
And, personally, I think we have been hoodwinked by some manipulative scum. Blaming this on Halliburton is not far off. If only we as a people weren't also to blame.
Bush should resign. I'm sorry, but this is the worst thing ever perpetrated by a sitting President. It surpasses Watergate by at least an order of magnitude.
Again...if it is true.
Of course, today's Washington Post has the story as well. I'll be very curious to see what Bush does with this. It could all just be an opportunity for him to come out as the one stalwart who is going to keep plugging away even if there are nay-sayers all around him.
Interesting times.
Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
war is good for buisness is one of the Ferengi Rule's of acquisition, also one rule before it, peace is also good for buisness. o.0
Personally what I'ld like is some Admiral to break away from the states leading the fleet to DC and arresting Bush... and happened to be named Captain Sheridan...
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
I do think the invasion of Iraq was a mistake.
It turned us into an Occupying Armed Force.
History shows that sons are quick to take up arms against alien invaders and occupiers, especially ones of a totally different Religion.
Should Bush be impeached?
No.
It would be more logical to impeach America, because after they found out that there were NO weapons of Mass destruction, meaning the entire reason for our invasion was FALSE, America RE-ELECTED the man.
An unwinable war and gas prices doubling?
Hey.
America.
This is EXACTLY what you voted for.
Enron was his #1 campaign contributor from Governer to first term Prez.
Ha ha HA!
Fighting a war on terrorism, while encouraging Americans to buy the biggest gas guzzlers than can afford on credit?
Remember when Cheney LAUGHED at the thought of conservation?
Gas in my City has jumped like .30 cents in three weeks.
Iraq.
We shouldn't have gone and now we can't leave.
We as Americans have to give the Iraqi people what we promised them. A better way of Life.
T
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The scary thing to me, is that a large portion, probably 40% at least, of the American people still don't think anything bad has happened. They like Bush, are glad the voted for him, and still support him and the way of life he upholds.
If that many people can't learn from the monumental mistake that has been made, it doesn't bode well for us as a whole.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
Yes, a lot of American voters are also to blame for buying into Bush's lies. However, the fact that he was re-elected does not let him or any members of his administration off the hook for accussations of falsifying evidence, lies about our reasons for going to war, or anything else.
That would be like saying "Sure, I lied to you, but it's your fault for believing me."
The thing is, isn't this based on an anonymous leak from some official in the administration? That's far different than an actual public admission that things aren't going so great. Bush seems to still be "staying the course" last I heard.
--Enigmatic
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
You don't have to be THAT dramatic adam (that was a weird sentence for me to type, as my name is Adam).
The damage done by Bush can be fixed over the next two presidencies. It won't be easy, but goodwill can be earned back through honesty and being a good neighbor. If we got involved with European efforts to be more aggressive in ending poverty and war in Africa they would forgive a lot of what they are angry about, and we'd do a lot more good for the world, (not to mention ourselves, for the selfish people out there who thinks Africa is simply charity).
Posted by JaimeBenlevy (Member # 6222) on :
"The scary thing to me, is that a large portion, probably 40% at least, of the American people still don't think anything bad has happened. They like Bush, are glad the voted for him, and still support him and the way of life he upholds."
I could see how people could regret voting for him in the 2000 election, but since 2004, he hasn't made any huge decisions that could make people change their mind on voting for him, right?
If someone voted for him in 2000, and then they didn't like the Iraq war, which they didn't know he'd do during election season, they have a reason to regret their vote. But since the 2004 election season, he hasn't made any policy changes or done anything against what he was campaigning for, so I don't really see how people could regret voting for him in the 2004 election, unless they suddenly realized that they thought the Iraq war was a bad idea.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
He's made a number of huge decisions, mainly to not do things, or to support policy changes that failed so badly the administration is trying to make people forget they tried.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Well, it's only since the last election that we have solid proof that he lied about our reasons for going to war. But if you suspected that already and voted for him anyway, I can't see why you'd change your mind. He's also made a lot of really suspect appointments, and has been much more up-front in his submitted legislation about his big-business interests. (See the latest energy bill for an example.)
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Should Bush be impeached?
No.
It would be more logical to impeach America, because after they found out that there were NO weapons of Mass destruction, meaning the entire reason for our invasion was FALSE, America RE-ELECTED the man.
Truest words you ever posted, Thor.
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
Hey, wait a minute. I didn't vote for him, and I urged everyone I know not to vote for him. Don't include me in this "impeach America" thing.
*goes off to find a bumper sticker that says "Don't blame me - I voted for Kerry"*
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I see it as a figurative statement. I didn't vote for him either.
Posted by JaimeBenlevy (Member # 6222) on :
Like this? Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
Yeah, exactly like that. Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
Remember kids, always vote for the losing candidate of the two main parties so that you still get to complain as much as you want! 3rd party candidates don't count though, you vote-wasters.
--Enigmatic
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote: It would be more logical to impeach America, because after they found out that there were NO weapons of Mass destruction, meaning the entire reason for our invasion was FALSE, America RE-ELECTED the man.
I have yet to see anything that shows that Bush did not believe there were WMD. He was clearly wrong, but I think that he sincerely believed that. So did the vast majority of America. Further, I saw little difference between Kerry and Bush's 2004 election plans for Iraq. Both said they would stay and "finish the job". A job that I think is impossible to finish. The war in Iraq was not an issue that factored into my vote for Bush. Support for the war from both parties, not voting for Bush, is what makes America responsible.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
Bush may have believed Iraq had WMDs, but there have been various reports that the administration was ignoring intelligence reports which didn't match those beliefs and requesting intelligence based on that belief instead of basing belief about WMDs on actual intelligence. And yes, I'm too lazy to find links for that.
I agree that there wasn't enough difference between Kerry and Bush's Iraq plans. I think one of Kerry's big mistakes was answering Yes to the "If you knew then what we know now" question about his Iraq vote.
--Enigmatic
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
We have definite proof that Condoleeza Rice and Dick Cheney, among others, were either incompetent in keeping appraised of intelligence on Iraq (an unlikely possibility), or intentionally mislead the American public and foreign allies about our intelligence on Iraq.
For one specific example, take a look at the fiasco with the aluminum tubes. Our nuclear experts, speaking for the entire energy department, had a devastating case against them being for refinement of nuclear material (including an obvious alternative use). However, both Rice and Cheney said there were no other uses for the tubes, and that Iraq getting the tubes meant they were going to use the tubes for nuclear refinement.
Coincidentally, these are the same tubes that were the only solid piece of "evidence" in the National Intelligence Assessment that formed the basis for the war, which should tell you something about how pathetic our other "evidence" was.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I wouldn't fire the man for being wrong. I would fire him for:
1) not admiting he was wrong. 2) not considering the possibility in the first place 3) impugning the "patriotism" of anyone who considered the possibility he was wrong.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I don't think that the Bush administration would publically anounce anything like this. These are the people who said that they expected to be met with smiles and parades, that the fighting would take 6 days, maybe 6 weeks, but not 6 months and have yet to say that this was wrong or majorly alter the military requirements of their plans, so our forces were inadequate to secure the borders and have been running raids but lack the forces to hold places after they've raided them, making it necesarry to pull out and raid them again and again.
They're the people who kept pushing the WMD excuse long after it was clear that this was false and have not admitted it, but rather simply shifted to other excuses.
They keep claiming victory - "Mission Accomplished" and all that. In June the Vice-President said that the insurgency was in it's last throws. In July, Donald Rumsfeld confirmed this assesment. Last week the commander there said that the insurgency no longer had the ability to carry out major operations, just before a huge attack killed over 30 people and the mayor of Baghdad was deposed.
They'll never come out and say this, but it's possible that we'll wake up one day and this is what they'll have done. Why shouldn't they leave this war as dishonestly and with as poor execution and results as they entered it?
[ August 16, 2005, 02:07 AM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Excuse me, he was wrong about WMD.
He went to war touting WMD of Hussein even on the State of the Nation speech.
And he was wrong.
If I go into my neighbors house and shoot the owner then claim I thought he had a cannon aimed at my house, I will be arrested...especially when there is no cannon to be found.
Does it matter whether or not I believed there was a cannon aimed at my house? No.
This administration began a war, and used as their excuse, at least during the begining, that the enemy was a threat to us. This has been proven wrong.
Even President Bush's most recent explanation is flawed. He claimed that "There might have been WMD and there might have been a connection between Hussein and terrorists, which might have resulted in an arrangement that might have led to an attack on the US."
There are an awful lot of "Mights" in that explanation. Far to many to start a War which "Might" be over quickly, after which thier nationals "might" be thrilled to help us rebuild thier country with the aid of exhiled Iraqi's whom we "might" be able to trust.
Did he get any of those "mights" correct other than the "war" part being over quickly, and by war we mean a ground offensive against regular troops.
In the real world, not the one of elitist cronyism, if you are this wrong, yes, you get fired!!!!
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
And they did definitely lie about WMD. They said they knew what they didn't know. That's a lie.
The biggest WMD argument for the war, Colin Powell's speech before the U.N. made definite claims about things that could not have happened. Even he has said that the information must have been fraudulent and called for an investigation of how he was given it (said investigation has not yet come into being).
And even if you ignore this and the Downing Street memos that show that the Bush administration regarded war in Iraq as inevitible following 9/11 and that they were deliberately fitting the intelligence to this end, the choice still comes down to either they were lying or they were really freakin' incompetent and unwilling to admit that they were wrong. The second option still isn't something our leaders should be allowed. "He wasn't lying, he's just really bad at his job." is not a slogan I'm going to rally behind.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
So after reading this thread I realize that the people who have always hated Bush still hate Bush. What a big surprise. I also realize that if you are wrong about anything that makes you a traitorous liar except of course if you are a Democrat President, like Bill Clinton, who was a complete liar, sent thousands of civilians to their death, risked hundreds of American troops for a distraction from Lewinsky, and now we learn that he knew that Atta was in the country running a terrorist cell and he did nothing to stop him. Why? Because terrorism to Democrats is nothing more than a police matter. Gorelick is the idiot who set up the walls between the intelligence agencies so they can't communicate and who did the Democrats appoint to investigate this idiocy? Gorelick. So Bush is the one to blame for everything? Right. That makes so much sense.
The last paragraph is one of the most telling.. "Ms. Goudreau, for one, found the discussion useful. By the end, she said, editors were acknowledging that even in their own hometowns, "we're more likely to focus on people who are killed than on the positive news out of a school."
So maybe it is more, using the current definition of lying, that the press is lying than Bush is.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:So after reading this thread I realize that the people who have always hated Bush still hate Bush.
Be honest with yourself. You already thought that; this thread didn't change your mind.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
OK, I can concede the point that I knew people who hate Bush will hate Bush no matter what happens
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I don't hate Bush, there are extremely few people who warrant that, and he doesn't.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, but I can get ticked off about how his administration has provable deceived me in order to achieve its own ends.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
what exactly are those ends? So far I have heard that he wants to destroy America. I'm not exactly sure why he would want to do that though
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:OK, I can concede the point that I knew people who hate Bush will hate Bush no matter what happens
To sum up:
You will always assume that Bush haters will always hate Bush.
See the irony? I sure do.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
What kind of power are they seeking? Who are the cronies?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
One of those ends was to invade Iraq.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Ok, we invaded Iraq. So then what do you think the real motivation is? We will take over Iraq? We are stealing all of their oil? How does this benefit Bush and his cronies?
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
Every time a sensible criticism of the president comes up, his supporters will dismiss it with "You just hate Bush." What a big surprise.
I must of missed where somebody said Clinton was perfect or did no wrong, too. Oh, maybe it was that strawman in the corner. And of course, if Clinton went after terrorists it was just as a distraction from a scandal, but if he didn't then all the terrorism later was his fault. Convenient, that.
If the issue here was just "Bush lied about something" I honestly wouldn't care. He's a politician, and I do expect a certain amount of lies, or at least half-truths and evasiveness, from any politician regardless of party affiliation. But the issue is that he led us into a war that was unneccessary, has destabilized an already volatile region, is creating more terrorists and anti-US sentiment, stretched our armed forces very thin, killed thousands, etc, etc, etc. So, yeah, I think he's doing a pretty crappy job as president.
--Enigmatic
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Eh, don't really care what the administration's motivation to deceive me in order to do so was. Pressed to speculate, I'd say likely your standard case of obsession with the obvious correctness of things one has already decided would be good and must be right, which is what drives many intelligent and/or ambitious people to lie to defend their baubles of choice.
But it doesn't really matter. For whichever reason the administration did it, they perpetuated gross lies in order to do so.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: what exactly are those ends? So far I have heard that he wants to destroy America. I'm not exactly sure why he would want to do that though
Who said that? I must be a pretty bad reader, to have missed these exagerated claims you expect your opponents to defend. What's that, Ctrl-F? You say "destroy" isn't in any of the previous posts? How odd.
--Enigmatic
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
The hatred of Bush is important because they will believe anything negative about Bush, or people who support Bush, and will not even think about anything positive that can happen. The war in Iraq was and is necessary for our future. Other than Iraq what area over there has become more destabilized? Terrorists have existed before, and will exist after Bush is President. Terrorists are not created by Bush. Terrorists are created by thugs and madmen who teach children from birth how to hate. Imagine the possibilities of a free Iraq. Imagine what could happen with a democratic Iraq. Or you can just hate Bush.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
I definitely believe that it's in our best interests to stay in Iraq now that we're there and help to build that country into something stable. I question, though, the assertion that invading Iraq in the first place was necessary for our future. What are your reasons for thinking that, DarkKnight?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yeah, just as we should imagine what could happen with a democratic Afghanistan instead of the warlord-ruled drug state currently in place . . . maybe we should invade . . .
When the public eye drops from Iraq, the US will drop support like hot potatos, just as Bush has done again and again.
If Bush had put forward a different case for invasion of Iraq, I would have supported it. I still think the invasion of Iraq was necessary in the near future, though the Bush administration has botched the follow up badly.
However necessary the invasion of Iraq may or may not have been, that does not justify the abuse of secrecy to perpetuate gross lies, as the Bush adminstration has done. You continue to fail to respond to this point, which does not surprise me as you seem to have gouged out your eyes to replace them with shrubbery.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Adam613
quote: When the goal of the Bush administration is the destruction of America, and the Republicans are backing up the Bush administration, hurting the Republicans in any way they can is a worthy goal from the standpoint of Americans.
Just because you didn't read it in this thread, doesn't mean it hasn't happened
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Neomon, my assertions are that after the first Gulf War Saddam agreed to terms set forth by the UN. He agreed to let UN weapons inspectors in, and all kinds of other things. From the start he stalled, delayed, lied, and then kicked out the inspectors. Nothing happened to him, well, excpet that he made untold millions by the corrupt Oil for Food program. So what did he, and the other thugs and dictators around the world, learn? That if you violate UN resolutions you will just have them pass another UN resolution and nothing will happen to you. I believe that emboldened Iraq and Bin Laden to believe that the UN is nothing but a corrupt powerless group and the US is simply a paper tiger. People like Hussein and Bin laden felt that they had nothing to fear anymore so why not get more and more ruthless in their attacks
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
DarkKnight, you must have missed my post. I asked you why you thought that the invasion of Iraq was necessary to the future of the United States. I'm very curious to hear your response.
[Edit - Ah, never mind--I see that you were posting your response at the same time I was repeating the question. ]
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Fugu, Bush put forth more than one tiny case for invading Iraq you are just stuck on the WMD's. As far as the lies go, that means that Clinton, the UN, Kerry, Germany, France, and on and on all lied about the WMD's in Iraq. So it was a global conspiracy to lie about the WMD's in Iraq?
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
That's OK, I am supposed to be working now Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Fugu, I can assure that I have not gouged out my eyes and replaced them with shrubbery. But thanks for that well meaning mental image.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Ok, I've read your response, but I'm not sure that it really answers the question. Yes, Iraq was indisputably in violation of the terms the UN had set forth. That Iraq was able to do so for years without the UN moving against him militarily certainly does underscore the fact that the UN really doesn't have any teeth.
Am I right in thinking that you're arguing that the invasion of Iraq was conducted, in significant part, to protect and enhance the authroity of the United Nations?
I'm also curious about your assertion that not having invaded Iraq would have left Bin Laden with the impression that the US was a paper tiger. Are you arguing that showing Bin Laden that the US means business was the reason why invading Iraq was necessary to the future of the US? It may seem redundant for me to be asking this again, but please bear with me--I want to make absoluely sure that I understand your argument, and am not putting words in your mouth.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
"The hatred of Bush is important because they will believe anything negative about Bush, or people who support Bush, and will not even think about anything positive that can happen."
I'm sure there are some people like that. However, that doesn't mean that's the motivation for every criticism. Independant thinkers can discuss policy, actions, and repercussions.
"The war in Iraq was and is necessary for our future. Other than Iraq what area over there has become more destabilized?"
For one, Iraq was a check for Iran, which is why the US sold weapons to Saddam in the first place. The entire balance of power in the mideast is what is destabalized, besides just the chaos within Iraq.
"Terrorists have existed before, and will exist after Bush is President."
Again, not what anyone said. I said the war created MORE terrorists.
"Terrorists are not created by Bush. Terrorists are created by thugs and madmen who teach children from birth how to hate."
Blowing up those children's homes and killing their fathers sure does help the recruitment drive, though. I'm talking about war, btw, not Bush. The Iraqi people may have been happy to get rid of Saddam, but it seems they don't want us over there either.
"Imagine the possibilities of a free Iraq. Imagine what could happen with a democratic Iraq."
They could vote in an islamic fundamentalist government? Ok, that's the cynical answer. Yes, I do think it would be great if more of the world was free and democratic. I just think that's more likely accomplished by a gradual cultural change than invasion by an outside military power. But hey, I'd love to be wrong on this one. I can disagree with the USA going to war but then still be happy if some good does come out of it.
"Or you can just hate Bush."
Or you can refuse to accept that there could be a reason someone would disagree with (most of) his policies other than having something against Bush individually.
--Enigmatic
PS: I know it's tacky to post in a debate thread then leave, but I have to be afk for a while now. Sorry.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
12 years and 16 UN resolutions. I am saying that ONE of the reasons is to help protect and enhance the authority of the UN. The UN had its own reasons, such as Kofi and son getting rich off the Oil for Food program, for not wanting to take the steps that they outlined in their resolutions against Iraq. When the US was struck several times by terrorists (1st WTC bombing, USS Cole, and so on) we really had no response. Bin Laden knew he was offered to us by the Saudis (I think it was the Saudis) and we did nothing because it was a police matter. To be more clear, it is not just bin laden, but the "bin laden" type, meaning people who want to use the US as the Great Impotent Satan of the world to furthur their own agendas. Other reasons are the atrocities being committed by Saddam and his sons. Rape rooms, mass graves, child slavery all were happening in Iraq. WMD's are also another reason. None were found, but he did have them at one time. Where did they go? I am at work and just finishing lunch so it is hard to type out everything coherently and succinctly.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: Just because you didn't read it in this thread, doesn't mean it hasn't happened
Thank you for clarifying. I didn't know who your comments were directed to, and since most of the posts here were far from that extreme, you seemed to be making strawman arguements. I guess I'm just somewhere in the middle-to-left on this one, as I don't like Bush's policy decisions, but don't agree with the posted quotes about him.
Really do have to run now, --Enigmatic
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: The hatred of Bush is important because they will believe anything negative about Bush, or people who support Bush, and will not even think about anything positive that can happen. The war in Iraq was and is necessary for our future.
It sounds to me like you're about as religious in your own opinions.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I'm not referring to being mistaken about there being WMDs in Iraq, I'm referring to using lies in order to support that notion, which is a very different thing, something that the UN did not do, that Kerry did not do, that Clinton did not do, that Germany did not do, that France did not do, but that the Bush administration did (this is all stated under the current evidence available to us, of course).
As for the case Bush made, Bush justified his authority to invade Iraq with UN and Congressional resolutions, but the reasons put forward rested firmly upon the hasty National Threat Assessment on Iraq, which was all about the possibilities of WMD.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
DarkKnight, I definitely understand about trying to post from work--if it takes you a while to respond, or if you don't have time to polish your phrasing, no problem.
What I'm trying to get to the bottom of is why you think that it was necessary to the future of the United States that we invade Iraq--not just why an invasion was a good thing, but why it was necessary for the survival of the United States (which is what I took you to mean when you said "The war in Iraq was and is necessary for our future." If I'm misunderstanding what you meant there, definitely tell me).
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
In my mind, war should be the absolute last resort to a conflict, only available after every other option has been thoroughly explored. I would like to have seen Bush at least pretend that he was willing to work with other countries in pursuing other alternatives to war.
There may have been many reasons why Saddam did not deserve to rule Iraq, yet the WMD issue was the only one that Bush used to promote the war. He used it knowing that the perception of the immediate threat to our lives from Saddam was the only thing that would gain him support for his war.
So if this war is justified, should the U.S. now seek to invade nuclear threats (Syria, N Korea, Iran), threats to democracy (Russia), and any other country that personally offends our sensibilities? I think the war on Iraq creates a bad perception in the eyes of other countries that now sees the U.S. as a superpower willing to bully other countries into submission. But it's not just a perception, it's a reality.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
DK and other Administration supporters:
Being against how this war was sold to America does not make someone against the war. It means that they believe the war could be handled better.
Being against the numerous errors made by the administration does not make someone against the war. Such errors include the lack of post-war planning, the installation of crooks and conterfeiters into the Iraqi government by the US (recently the main purchaser of weapons for the Iraqi army and police was shown to be embezzeling millions of dollars that should be going to protect those Iraqi police who are diing by the handfulls every day and will replace our troops eventually.) and yes, the espousing of Saddam Huseins WMD and AlQueda ties. It means that some believe this war was planned badly.
Being against the corruption of contractors like Haliburton, and their ties to members of this administration does not mean we are against those hard working people who risk their lives in Iraq.
And mostly, being against problems in the administration policies does not mean we hate the President. It means we don't like or trust those policies.
Now I can understand where criticizing the Presidents policies could be seen by his backers as hating the President. After all, his policies are so important to him that he chooses his facts to support those policies, instead of creating policies that reflect the facts. He's done this in everything from Global Warming, to Iraq to the cost of Prescription Coverage in Medi-care. So perhaps he's so closely linked himself to his policies and his version of reality that anyone with different--actual--facts that attacks his policies is seen as hating him.
I do not hate President Bush.
I do not want to see him hurt or humiliated. Out of office, yes, but not punished.
I do consider much of what he has to say and propose and consider it deeply and I hope with an open mind. But an open mind goes both ways. I admit that he may be right on occasion, but I admit he may be wrong on occasion. He and his supporters have not done that often.
When you say, "those are just Bush haters" those who are reading your comments know that they are not "Bush haters" so ignore anything else you say. That is not good for presenting your point of view.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
DK I take issue with this:
quote: From the start he stalled, delayed, lied, and then kicked out the inspectors. Nothing happened to him, well, excpet that he made untold millions by the corrupt Oil for Food program. So what did he, and the other thugs and dictators around the world, learn? That if you violate UN resolutions you will just have them pass another UN resolution and nothing will happen to you.
You forget that before we went to war, Saddam agreed to let inspectors back in without restriction, they could go anywhere they wanted to anytime without warning. Those were the terms negotiated when the US threatened to invade. Bush gave them something like five weeks then said they were wasting time, they asked for more time, certainly five weeks wasn't long enough. Bush said they should have found the weapons by now and they were ineffective.
So then we invaded. Five weeks in, the world said "where are the weapons?" and Bush said five weeks wasn't enough, he needed more time. If you can't find the irony and hipocrisy in there, you need a magnifying glass. It's amazing that Bush expected 200 guys in UN jeeps, to do what 250,000 troops in tanks and humvees and planes and helicopters couldn't accomplish.
Thus, if I were you I would leave out the entire UN argument. We didn't invade to protect the power and authority of the UN, we invaded for ourselves. Had it been for the UN, we would have supported the inspectors for longer.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: You forget that before we went to war, Saddam agreed to let inspectors back in without restriction, they could go anywhere they wanted to anytime without warning. Those were the terms negotiated when the US threatened to invade.
"March 7, 2003: UNMOVIC Executive Chairman Hans Blix tells the Security Council that Iraq's cooperation with the inspectors in providing information about past weapons activities has improved, although Baghdad has not yet complied with its disarmament obligations. UNMOVIC and IAEA inspectors had stated during briefings to the Security Council on January 27 and February 14 that Iraq was gradually increasing its cooperation with the United Nations. Yet, both deemed the cooperation insufficient.
The United States, United Kingdom, and Spain co-sponsor another resolution stating that Iraq "will have failed" to comply with Resolution 1441 unless Baghdad cooperates with its disarmament obligations by March 17. The draft resolution implies that the council members would take military action if Iraq failed to meet the deadline."
The inspectors were not allowed to go where they wanted without restriction nor were they being cooperative as set forth by the resolution
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
I believe the correct amount of time that UN inspectors should have been allowed free access was more like 12 years, not 5 weeks
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: So if this war is justified, should the U.S. now seek to invade nuclear threats (Syria, N Korea, Iran), threats to democracy (Russia), and any other country that personally offends our sensibilities?
They are complete different situations. But yes if Syria were to invade Kuwait, then be forcibly removed, agree to terms set forth by the UN, then not abide by those same terms for over a decade, posses WMD's, commit some of the most horrible human rights violations known to man, if they do all of those things (and all the other stuff Saddam has done) then yes, we should go to war against them. Syria is starting to be dealt with. The first time would be to secure the border between Iraq and Syria and see how much the terrorist threat drops in Iraq. North Korea is currently in negotations. Russia is not a threat to democracy, they are barely surviving as a country. We are helping them, although we should be doing more, destroy their nuclear arsenal. We did not go to war against anyone because the offended our sensibilities.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
I do apologize for the rudeness of posting and leaving, but it's past my quittin' time and I have wrestling practice tonight Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Yeah, just as we should imagine what could happen with a democratic Afghanistan instead of the warlord-ruled drug state currently in place . . . maybe we should invade . . .
Why would we invade a country we still have military forces based in??? I don't remember us ever pulling out of Afghanistan. In fact I have a few friends still stationed over there.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I think perhaps you missed my point. We invaded, and have since royally botched the follow through, leaving the country a drug state in control of the warlords.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Would it be counterproductive to say "I told you so"?
Seriously though, it frustrates me when I hear some say we could not have known things would go this way when we started this war. Why not? Why did the "experts" have such unrealistic expectations to begin with? I argued even before the war that Iraq would become an Islamic state rather than a democracy, that Iraq would be in disorder for a long time after Saddam was eliminated, and that the most likely result would be a new terrorist haven working against us. The media was warning against similar possibilities. Why then are the experts in power only just now, two years later, coming to those same conclusions? How am I supposed to trust the government if regular, non-expert citizens can predict the outcome of their wars better than they do - especially after they claimed to be certain there would be WMDs in Iraq and were so wrong?
I think we are learning a lesson the hard way, but only if we actually DO learn the lesson and change the way we approach our foreign policy. You can't just invade people and force them to change. That's not going to solve terrorism, for one thing, and it's not going to help them in the long run. Instead, it's going to make us look imperialist, it's going to increase terrorism, and it's going to create conflict in the nations in question. I am all in favor of supporting democracy in the world, but not through unilateral, unprovoked force.
At this point, we should stay in Iraq until we get the job done. However, at the same time, we need to learn from this.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It's still not clear exactly what is going to happen over there. We should start a new thread on the Iraqi Constitutional debate going on right now.
The Sunnis, Shi'a and Kurdish peoples all have a virtual veto over the constitution if it doesn't match up to what they want. The Shiites and the Kurds want the three regions to have autonomy, but nominally united as the nation of Iraq. The Sunnis want it to be one united nation with no autonomy, and they want a share in the oil of the north and south, whereas they would be economically devastated by the plan supported in the north and south currently.
Also, the Kurds have a decent record on democracy and civil rights. It's not stellar, but compared to other middle eastern nations, it's pretty good. The Sunnis have always been lenient on woman's rights, compared to nations like Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia.
My point is, we don't know what's going to happen yet, we can only guess, and to a certain degree, hope.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
DK...
I have been called a traitor for saying exactly what is being leaked by "administration sources" now. Do you have any idea how that makes me feel? For one thing, it makes me feel vindicated in that, while I was pretty sure I was right about this war all along, it's nice to have people who supposedly have had all the data all along come to the same realizations I did back before they started it.
Secondly, I feel as if the whole Administration must now be traitors too. 'Cuz if I was one for saying what I did about the war, then now that they are saying the same things, it must mean that they've joined me in treason. Either that or I was never a traitor and I'm owed a HUGE frequin' apology by the people on the right who kept saying that failure to support this war harmed the US...
I certainly am one who hates the idea of GWB as President. I think you earlier used the typical "well Clinton did xxx" gambit. I have never said I enjoyed having Bill Clinton as President either. But... I do believe that George W Bush is among the worst "leaders" this country has ever had. He's shown in numerous ways that I have set down here and elsewhere.
What I want to know, however, is how you're going to feel when we end up with an Islamist republic in Iraq. When Afghanistan just turns out to be a flat fiasco that we conveniently ignore. And when the result of all our efforts over there are just a mass of casualties and a huge debt.
How, pray tell, is that better than having stalemated Saddam for another x years? What will we have achieved for us or for the Iraqi people?
Do you not understand what's being said in these back-channel leaks? Do you really believe that these leaks are happening without the Administration's knowledge of it all? It's called floating a trial balloon. The President is using this to see how bad the fall out will be.
Or...there are massive defections from high up in the Administration.
Or...it's all a pack of lies that the press is blowing out of proportion.
I'm anxious to see which it is. I fear it's Bush's trial ballooning to see if he can escape from this situation without destroying his power base for the next GOP Administration.
Seriously.
The next worst case is that there are high-level defections. That means this Administration is unraveling from the top down, the inside out. And you know what that means, don't you? It means that we'll have some rapid disintegration pretty soon.
I hope that doesn't happen either.
In fact, for once, I'm just praying that this whole thing is a tempest in a teacup that some enterprising reporter cooked up out of scraps just before deadline. Only that scenario, in which the Administration really isn't trying to lower expectations on Iraq, leaves me believing that this country has a chance of recovering gradually and with some semblance of "face" after the debacle of this war.
I have zero hope of this war turning out well. They never do. There's no such thing as a good outcome. There's only less bad than it could've been. I'm surprised at our leaders (many of whom have experienced war) for not recognizing this fact and acting accordingly. But it's awfully tempting to see war as a solution. Especially if one has only a short amount of time in which to demonstrate progress.
It's why, secretly, I'm hoping that America really does have a wakeup call over this. I think it's time we changed the way we give (or rather loan) power to people. Our election system has consistently given us lack-luster performers for decades. We need a better way. Maybe now people will recognize the dangers of letting incompetent, manipulative, egotistical, border-line sociopaths into high government positions.
At any rate, while I think it's fun to watch you support the President, I haven't seen you address the possibilities that are raised by the opening post in this thread. What if this "lowered expectation" stuff is true?
How does the described result equate to success on any but a purely speculative scale? It's a success because Saddam would've been worse. Except that he wasn't supporting terrorists like we thought, he didn't have WMD like we thought, and he wasn't pursuing nuclear weapons like we thought. Sure, he was a complete nightmare as a leader and I'm personally glad he's not in power, but the point is he wasn't OUR nightmare and we might, apparently, be leaving the Iraqi people with an even worse nightmare to follow.
I'm not sure if you just think it's all going to turn out great, or what? I know it's going to be short of our goals. I knew it immediately. I said so then. And I was called "traitor" by people like you (if not you indeed). So...now that it's no longer traitorous to say that things aren't going so great for us over there...just exactly how is it that this is all going to turn into a bed of roses?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:I believe the correct amount of time that UN inspectors should have been allowed free access was more like 12 years, not 5 weeks
No, until they were allowed reentry in 2003, they hadn't been in country in several years. Bush expected them to find the weapons in a week, and when they didn't he invaded, then claimed he needed a year to do it. You're missing the point.
Further, if that which they are accused of is not disarming, where is your proof? Or for that matter, the President's?
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Bob, I have not called you or anyone else a traitor. We disagree on the war, but no one has called you a traitor, nor implied it. If you can be critical of the Government, then I can be critical of you, and you can be critical of me. No one is a traitor, relax a little. I have not even remotely come close to calling anyone a traitor. The worst I have said is people being a Bush hater, and the only bad thing about that is not everyone is really a 'hater', they are more 'dislikers'. We all have the same rights of Free Speech, I absolutely respect your right to agree or disagree with the Government or anything else.
quote: What I want to know, however, is how you're going to feel when we end up with an Islamist republic in Iraq. When Afghanistan just turns out to be a flat fiasco that we conveniently ignore. And when the result of all our efforts over there are just a mass of casualties and a huge debt.
How are you going to feel if it doesn't happen? Will you apologize and ask for forgiveness for not believing in the Iraqis and Afghanis?
quote: I have zero hope of this war turning out well. They never do. There's no such thing as a good outcome.
Unless you count countries like Japan and Germany.
Lyrhawn
quote: No, until they were allowed reentry in 2003, they hadn't been in country in several years.
That is exactly my point. Saddam should have NEVER been allowed to kick them out for YEARS in the first place
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
DK, you've been respectful so far and I don't recall ever seeing you refer to anyone here as a traitor.
But to put what Bob said in context, I think you should take a look at this post by Occasional.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
DK, whether or not Afghanistan turns out well in the long run, we've failed it so far. It is (again) a drug state run by warlords because we allowed it to become one after kicking out the Taliban.
And that failure rests squarely on the shoulders of the Bush administration, and demonstrates how bad their follow-through gets if the public lets it.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Thanks Beren I think calling someone a traitor because they disagree with the Goverment is just dumb. I really mad at both Democrats and Republicans for not doing anything, or not doing more about illegal immigration and securing the borders. Democrats are at least starting to talk about that issue.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote: That is exactly my point. Saddam should have NEVER been allowed to kick them out for YEARS in the first place
That wasn't really the point you were making though, not from what you actually said. You tried to make it sound like defending the UN was part of our rationale for invading, or that we had UN authority to invade when we did. Neither of which is true. No, the inspectors never should have been allowed to be kicked out (same thing for North Korea, but who is raising a fuss about that?), but the point is that they were, and we, along with the rest of the world let it happen. But then we got them back in.
Don't dwell in the past, stick with the present. Invading now, to make up for inspectors being kicked out, what 10 years ago almost? That makes no sense if that is your argument. We never gave the inspectors a chance, it was a calculated plot and PR stunt by the President, and when he felt it had run its course, he did away with it and invaded.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Lord I don't know if I dare post here. Too much foaming at the mouth improper usage of the words "impeach" and "war crimes/criminal/liar" etc. etc.
It's what's kept me from posting these many months.
Now back to your regularly scheduled ranting.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Hm. I think the word "impeach" is being used properly, but I think you disagree that it should be done. Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Hehe...exactly and let's leave it at that.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:How are you going to feel if it doesn't happen? Will you apologize and ask for forgiveness for not believing in the Iraqis and Afghanis?
I asked you first. And since there's an apparently leak from the Administration making my scenario less of a hypothetical, I figure it's a legitimate question for those who continue to support the Administration. I assume you believe the leaks aren't true, but if you believe the need for lowered expectations, or if you're willing to answer a non-hypothetical question about the lowered expecations, I'd appreciate it.
But in answer to your hypothetical, no one would cheer louder than I if we end up with a pro-Western democracy with a strong commitment to the rule of law in either Afghanistan or Iraq. What I'm hearing, though, is what I feared from the very first, that we are not likely to have that, despite the promises made at the beginning of this sad adventure.
quote:Unless you count countries like Japan and Germany.
Do you honestly see the situation in Afghanistan or Iraq as in any way paralleling that of post-war Japan or Germany?
Let's look at a more recent "success" story. Vietnam. We now have diplomatic relations with the government we despised and fought and died to prevent from seizing power. Did that happen because we went to war with them? Hmm...I think that'd be a stretch.
Perhaps I said "never" too hastily. It just hasn't happened in my life time. it happened twice following WWII for reasons that may or may not have anything to do with the actual war but certainly have to do with the generosity of the American people, as well as the foresight of some pretty decent leaders acknowledging (in retrospect) that economic hardship can cause people to do crazy things and supports the rise of a malignant form of nationalism. So, we invested in those country's future in part to make sure they didn't slide back into the horrid conditions that fueled the war-like attitudes in the first place.
Of course, such brilliant foresight has been lacking with respect to our middle East policy since the same war. From all accounts, we just ran out of steam or political will to fix ALL the problems we knew existed. And the ripple effects of propping up one nasty regime after another have finally come home to roost, so to speak.
This is not the same model at all. IMHO.
RE: immigration. Maybe we need a new thread on this. I have seen some fairly compelling arguments for curtailing the costly fight against illegal immigration. Basically, we have a few problems related to cost of educating the children of illegal immigrants and, perhaps, some crime to deal with. The main costs we have seem to be in fighting the tide of illegal border crossings. The question is whether it's really in our best interest to stop the people from coming over here in the first place. If we allowed more immigration, more options for temporary status, and controlled the people's comings and goings by letting them in legally and making sure they don't just disappear into the woodwork, we might actually benefit even more than we already do from "illegals."
But that has little to do with whether George Bush is lowering expectations on Iraq and, if so, what the implications are.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: Fugu, Bush put forth more than one tiny case for invading Iraq you are just stuck on the WMD's. As far as the lies go, that means that Clinton, the UN, Kerry, Germany, France, and on and on all lied about the WMD's in Iraq. So it was a global conspiracy to lie about the WMD's in Iraq?
Yes, there was also the Iraq/al-Quaeda conflation that was put forth by the administration and it's supporters--without any evidence. More lies.
Lies about WMDs and Iraqi support of al-Queada were the lynchpin of administration strategy to whip up support for the war. So people are understandably upset when they turn out to be utter BS.
As fugu pointed out, Clinton, the UN, and so on didn't make crap up to support the idea of Iraqi WMDs. Nor did they invade. Bush lied and invaded. If you are going to invade a country, you better be damn sure your evidence is solid.
quote:Originally posted by camus: There may have been many reasons why Saddam did not deserve to rule Iraq, yet the WMD issue was the only one that Bush used to promote the war. He used it knowing that the perception of the immediate threat to our lives from Saddam was the only thing that would gain him support for his war.
Exactly. Without WMDs, what domestic support could Bush have gotten for his war? Very little. I supported the Afghanistan invasion despite misgivings because it was the main country supporting al-Queada.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
]
![[Wink]](wink.gif)