<p>sjmom, there have been many who have objected to this mini-series since filming began. I have been particularly interested in the objections of Richard Clarke and Richard Ben-Veniste regarding the issue of accuracy, which can be read about at this site, in addition to other issues surrounding the project:</p>
<p><a href=“"The Path to 9/11" (2006 Docudrama) - SourceWatch”</p>
<p>I GOTTA have more cowbell, people.</p>
<p>Frankly, I think Al Gore wouldda nuked 'em. (He would have wanted to look “strong”.)</p>
<p>What a quirky and interesting group of people we are. I think that’s why I like this website.</p>
<p>I have met Richard Clarke a few times, and heard him speak at various events - recently. At the last one, he actually completely got wrong all of the data that is well known and documented about Dawood Ibraham, and contradicted himself several times on even basic points of history. I respect his CV for what it and I do believe he deserves respect for his years of public service but no one I know gives any credibility to any of his statements or his writings. </p>
<p>The man doesn’t even have a normal office. If you call his main office extension, enter his extension at the prompt, you get a recording that says something like “I never check this voicemail, so please don’t leave a message”. Um, why even have the voicemail, then??? That makes not even the slightest bit of sense.</p>
<p>DRJ:
If you make mistakes that cost scores of thousands of lives and cost hundreds of billions of dollars I think you should be held responsible and pay a price. The fact that spineless democrats went along with Bush doesn’t justify his actions. Millions of people around the world knew tht there were no WMD in Iraq, or if there were there was no justification for pre-emptive, i.e. agressive war.</p>
<p>FF: Glad to know that things in Afghanistan are going as well as Iraq.</p>
<p>SJM:
Sorry if I sounded condescending. But you admit that your fear of terrorism is irrational. If it is that big a problem in your life I suggest therapy over war.
I don’t know what a Democratic president would have done, but I did list what steps I think should have been taken. I don’t blame Bush for 9/11. I just don’t like his response.
U.S. Imperialism: California, Texas (no, I don’t suggest giving them back, but clearly we seized these territories from Mexico) Hawaii, The Phillipines. Not colonies but victims of 20th Century Imperialism: Iran, Guatemala.</p>
<p>GLA,</p>
<p>I’m not in the mood to debate your points right now, me being so hungry and all, but as a born and bred Texan I cannot let this little gem go unchallenged:</p>
<p>
I’ve taken years of Texas history and I can assure you Texas is not a state because of US imperialism. Prior to the Texas war for independence, the Texicans begged the US to liberate them from the Mexican government but were regularly rebuffed. After gaining it’s independence and forming the Republic of Texas, Texas eagerly sought US statehood (foolishly, in retrospect - I guess this is another mistake that someone ought to pay for) but was rejected by the US Congress for 10 years before finally gaining admission. </p>
<p>Please don’t insult Texas by claiming it was the victim of an imperialistic United States. I’m a patriotic American but remember this: Don’t Mess With Texas.</p>
<p>LIBERALS! ANSWER…MY…QUESTION…please explain to me why the Clinton Administration had three occasions to take out OBL, but did not do so. Explain to me why the Clinton Administration, in the 90s, did not take action agaist the Taliban when we were attacked in the basement of the WTC and the bombing of the USS Cole. Please explain to me why Clinton in general refused to take action against the Taliban when we were attacked on our own soil, and a great disaster on the sea. Also, explain to me why 9/11 was Bush’s fault when he was only in office for only six to seven months, with Clinton knowing of the issue of the Taliban for years prior to the Bush Presidency.</p>
<pre><code> OpiefromMayberry, you are so right. We need to take out the wealthy families who are funding terror activities; that is why we particularly targeted the Hussein family, isn’t it true?
</code></pre>
<p>I enjoy intelligent debate. But when people start debating whether or not California was the result of imperialistic efforts, it’s gone way off the track.</p>
<p>CGM – if you ever feel like putting together an if-then-else argument, let me know. I can’t get through your stream of conciousness posts. They remind me of those charts where you choose one word from column A, one from column B and one from column C to come up with nonsensical phrases.</p>
<p>Gla – intelligent people debate ideas – others resort to name calling and condescension. My first degree was in psychology, so I really feel like I’m in touch with my inner child and all that. If I need therapy, I’ll check with someone qualified to advise me. Next time you fly from London to Boston, feel free to remember that it’s all my imagination. Or, wait a minute – maybe there was a recent plot?</p>
<p>sjmom2329 - well you got your info wrong… again. Although I applaud the quote you attribute to me it was Allmusic. Sorry I guess you were so quick to bash again you didn’t quite read the quote fully or who wrote it</p>
<p>I’m sorry you find it difficult to get through what the posters are saying. Each viewpoint and thought is important and shouldn’t be dismissed. People take the times to write their views on one side or the other. If it’s to difficult for you to get through you should stop posting on this topic. Everyside has something to say. They all deserve the right to be heard. </p>
<p>rel don’t bash or attack me. I hope you don’t feel like you are hurting or destroying me or the things I believe in. I am every bit the american you think you are ( or confederate it’s been awhile but the south did lose) because I question what isn’t right not blindly follow it in fear. Calling me a liberal doesn’t scare me away or make me ashamed.Even when you put it in CAPS! Like you think flag waving makes you patriot a liberal label does not make me unpatriotic. I rather be someone who thinks for themselves.</p>
<p>Remember fear comes from a lack of knowledge and understanding.</p>
<p>smj I’d discuss that with your inner child.</p>
<p>sideways, your previous post really makes no sense. My post was not necessarily to you; I merely used caps to emphasize that I have not received a legitimate response to my question. My original question still remains.</p>
<p>Thanks for your patience, GLA, and I apologize to everyone (especially SJMom) for my Texas rant. I’m prone to that when I’m hungry.</p>
<p>
I’ll preface my response by saying that I know neither of us will change our minds on this subject but I want to offer my 2 cents anyway. Here are the problems I have with your statement, GLA:</p>
<ol>
<li> “If you make mistakes …”<br></li>
</ol>
<p>As FundingFather explained above, it is not a mistake to research a problem, follow procedures, make a decision, and have that decision not turn out the way you want. A mistake would be acting rashly without thinking, failing to follow procedures, or refusing to make a decision due to procrastination or other excuse. I’m sure you feel the Bush Administration is guilty of those offenses, too, but the available evidence suggests that if the intelligence was wrong and Saddam Hussein did not have WMDs and had no intent to acquire WMDs, then the Bush Administration was as much a victim of that misinformation as anyone.</p>
<p>There are many times in life that things don’t turn out the way we plan but that doesn’t mean we made a mistake when we did the original act. The fact that this particular action (invading Iraq) had consequences in lives and cost doesn’t change the analysis. We can make a mistake that has no adverse consequences but that doesn’t make it any less of a mistake. You don’t measure mistakes by the consequences because hindsight is always 20/20. Real life is more like 200/200.</p>
<ol>
<li> “The fact that spineless democrats went along with Bush doesn’t justify his actions.”</li>
</ol>
<p>I’ll raise your spineless democrat with one republican-in-name-only. Okay, just kidding, but you’re pretty hard on your fellow democrats. We rarely know politicians’ motivations for their votes and I don’t think we care as long as they ultimately represent their constituents. I submit that most of these votes were cast by representatives and senators who reflected what their constituents wanted at the time. Then again, I’m not a fan of the idea that anytime someone disagrees with me, it must be because they are stupid, spineless, or corrupt.</p>
<ol>
<li> “Millions of people around the world knew tht there were no WMD in Iraq, or if there were there was no justification for pre-emptive, i.e. agressive war.”</li>
</ol>
<p>This is just silly but if it’s true, those people were French, Russian and Chinese and they didn’t share their inside information with us. So whose fault is that?</p>
<p>DRJ, I happen to agree that we don’t always know how things are going to turn out before we do them. And yes, both democrats and republicans were apparently operating under the same set of false assumptions and faulty intelligence.</p>
<p>We thought we would be “greeted as liberators”, that once Saddam was overthrown, it would be easy to implant Western democracy. Victory was declared, then that the insurgency “was in its last throes”. </p>
<p>From the very beginning, nothing has gone right in Iraq. It has spiraled into a civil war. So, at some point, reasonable people say, “Hmmm, we made a decision, based on information we had, and it was the wrong one. What can we do about that now?” Most people, when they make a decision that is turning out very, very badly, do not dig in their heels and refuse to make a change.</p>
<p>I think that is the part I find most flummoxing. When mistakes are made, intelligent people have to decide that it’s time for a change of course. And we simply don’t see that in this situation, and thus, we will continue to lose blood and treasure.</p>
<p>Sideways, that will teach me not to multi-task when I’m on CC!</p>
<p>CityGirlsMom, I owe you an apology. My impatience got the better of me yesterday, and I think I was unkind to you. I’m sorry.</p>
<p>DRJ4 – I enjoyed your history lesson about Texas! ;)</p>
<p>The point re: imperialism is that it’s just another way to bash this country and strikes me as pretty ridiculous. Good grief! </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Even if people agreed that having U.S. troops in Iraq is a mistake, many people (even Democrats) would argue that we can’t just pull them out. I don’t think that’s a question of digging in one’s heels and refusing to make a change – it’s just that sometimes you have to stay on a given path until it’s finished. How do you know that they aren’t just as anxious to get our troops out? Do you have insider knowledge of the military’s plans? For all any of us know, they are in the middle of trying to rectify that situation now.</p>
<p>Well, staying on this path is not working either. I am not necessarily saying cut and run (although I do think the US presence is hindering more than helping), I am saying change it up a bit. </p>
<p>I have no idea what is going on with the military plans, but we have been on this particular course, with no positive result, for too long. Sectarian violence is increasing, there is no unity government, no one is safe beyond the green line, even rebuilding infracstructure continues at an unbearably slow pace; there is less water and electricity than pre-invasion (and we’re three and a half years into this here).</p>
<p>It seems to me that, under these circumstances, reasonable people decide it’s time to do something differently. And perhaps a change of course if being considered, but it is time to share some of those ideas with the American people. This might quell their anxiety about this war, since support is pitifully low.</p>
<p>I’d like to echo what sjmom said. It seems that there is a mentality among some people that if you walk away from something it will revert to some benign thing - kind of like pulling the covers over your head to be safe from the “monster”. It doesn’t work that way, you don’t get a do over. A decision to withdraw from Iraq can not be backward looking (“Oh, this was harder than we thought, let’s get out of here and go back to 2002.”)</p>
<p>This is a variant of the mentality that seems to think that if you do nothing, things will stay the same. (“Oh, Saddam isn’t bothering anyone right now and the sanctions have kept him in check, so let’s ignore the situation.”). This thinking totally ignores the fact that things do change and, in the case for Iraq, the prognosis for change was all negative. As the Duelfer report verified, Saddam had every intention to restore his WMD program (including nuclear) once the sanctions were lifted - and the sanctions were rapidly eroding to nothing. So the correct decision process would not be to compare the staus quo to that of going to war but what the future of Iraq with Saddam in control would look like versus going to war to eliminate him. I believe the following statement: Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power. BTW, this was Al Gore speaking - strange how you never know what politicians with the backbone of Al will say.</p>
<p>allmusic, I would also question your premise that there have been no positive results. I think that the removal of Saddam from power, helping a sovereign nation develop a democracy, and freeing a people from oppression are all positive outcomes. </p>
<p>(quick aside: as an UG, I worked in a lab with lots of foreign grad students. One was from Iraq. When I asked the Professor in charge of the lab why Student X didn’t just stay in this country, he told me that the student’s entire family would be tortured and killed if the student didn’t return to Iraq. This was in 1979 or so – Saddam has a long history of brutality.)</p>
<p>Prior to invading Iraq, the evidence pointed to Saddam’s WMD program. We didn’t find the smoking gun, but I don’t think any logical person can say that there was zero risk from Saddam Hussein.</p>
<p>Sideways posted: “That is just how the republicans want you to feel. I am sorry for you.”</p>
<p>I’m stunned that someone could actually say that, much less believe it.</p>
<p>As far as ongoing inspections, it was abundantly clear that the UN inspections had failed utterly. Which is not to say that WMD were present, but it is absolutely certain that inspections were not working at all. Now, again, that doesn’t mean the invasion of Iraq was necessarily right. It can be true that the inspections weren’t working AND the invasion was a mistake.</p>
<p>Saddam was a bad guy noone is disputing that. It was not our reponsibility to take him out. He was not an immediate threat. That is why there is a UN. As a world we need to stand together against men like Saddam. The president now suddenly feels it is better to act diplomatically against Iran and allow the UN to work than use military aggresion. Which is what he should have done in Iraq. Perhaps for the moment he has learned the lessons of Iraq.We have become bullies. The world see’s us as not as liberaters not as leaders. It will take a lot of work to become the leaders we were once percieved to be.</p>
<p>I not sure the hundreds of Sunni’s and Shiites being massacred weekly(simply for their beliefs) would agree with you premise sjm. Iraq is a mess. The basic are gone to most. No fresh water or electricity. They have suicide bombers. I don’t think their quality of life has improved.
The democracy you speak of and the constitution we are protecting in Iraq is a fundalmentalist Islamic one. It restricts women’s rights among other things. The new democratic gov’t we are defending in Iraq embraces our declared enemies (embracing the president of Iran just yesterday) and backing Hezbollah. I hope it was worth the sacrifice of our servicemen and women.</p>