<p>DPX–nice evasion. Fact is, Mini’s questions are all valid ones that the administration kept assuring us would never come up or that we would have the answers if they did. Oh no, this war isn’t about “oil.” And the Iraqis will welcome us with open arms as liberators.</p>
<p>Of course mini’s question is valid, if ephemeral and hypothetical; but then, I do not recall saying otherwise. </p>
<p>To your other point, I do not recall anyone saying this war is not about oil. As I recall, it was one of the reasons given, though not the only one; others believed it was Halliburton; others Israel and their Neo-con lackeys; others permanent bases…others and others…there are always others, you know.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes. As I said, so long as this government does not commit genocide and is peaceful and tolerant towards all of its citizens and the rest of the world (including the Kurds).</p>
<p>Which part of that outcome do you oppose, mini? (Just curious)</p>
<p>Dot: Bush in a jumpsuit on an aircraft carrier proclaiming Victory wasn’t “ephemeral and hypothetical.” He said we won and got a lot of TV footage out of it. Well, where’s our victory?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>First, that is not what you said and what I am asking you to support. You said, “The Administration actively “shut down” intelligence officers who made these points.” and “[an administration] which lied to get us there.” If you feel comfortable making statements like that which I presume represents the logical framework for your opinions about the war, I would think that you would be able to readily defend them.</p>
<p>Instead, you fall back on claiming that “Mission Accomplished” amounts to a lie rather than the “atta boy, job well done, we’re proud of you” that it was meant to be. If you want to support the logic of your position, you will have to do a lot better than pointing at perhaps overly-optimistic “cheer-leading” as a rationale for accusing someone of lying or suppressing data.</p>
<p>Stacked&Packed–Somehow I doubt that’s what Bush meant by “mission accomplished.” …
Dorothy–You said that in your opinion “honest concern for what’s best rarely keeps company with sarcasm and insult.” I disagree. I think the presence of sarcasm and insult on threads like this–from both sides of the political spectrum–is a reflection of how much we all DO care about what’s best. We disagree deeply on how that will be achieved, and many of us simply get enraged and fall back on sarcasm. Both sides.</p>
<p>“The president was in a fire-retardant flight suit, not a “jump suit.” He proclaimed that the crew of the USS Abraham Lincoln had accomplished their mission, not “victory”–which they had.”</p>
<p>Had Rumsfeld actually felt that way, he wouldn’t have had the President take “mission accomplished” OUT of his speech, and try, unsuccessfully, to get the banner taken down. Do you mean Rumsfeld didn’t understand the military? </p>
<p>“Which part of that outcome do you oppose, mini? (Just curious)”</p>
<p>I think that outcome would WONDERFUL, but it is one the U.S. is fighting hard to oppose, and created two million refugees, mostly of secular folks who might have supported it! It certainly wouldn’t be seen as “victory”.</p>
<p>S&P: It did not take long for Bush to disclaim the “Mission Accomplished” banner as a mistake one of his staff made, who then claimed that the people on the ship had ASKED that there be such a banner, and then there was a claim in turn by the people on the ship that the banner was suggested by the planners who came to meet with the ship staff, but no minutes were available of that meeting to see who actually made the request…</p>
<p>But does anybody who is objective have any doubt that it was the guys who plan photo-ops and who wanted to claim an early victory? Victory in the war, not just of the invading mission?</p>
<p>If it weren’t such an embarrassment and hot potato for all those involved. I might say you had a twig of a leg to stand on. People quickly saw it had no meaning. Our mission in Iraq was defined as toppling Saddam and installing a democractic government. Mission not accomplished.</p>
<p>Why, Stacked&Packed–did I detect just a teeny note of sarcasm there?</p>
<p>FF: Sorry I was in a hurry when I made that last post. No, I was not claiming that that was a sound argument in favor of what I had written earlier. Except that it goes to your skepticism, which I would expect many thinking people to have about an Administration that started out claiming a war would need so many fewer troops than it has and that we’d be treated as liberators? Why do you assign them any credibility? The following should not be a surprise, what is below in the one of many URLs I might have posted that detail the mendacities.</p>
<p>The defense used is “well John Edwards said he agreed…” I saw Senator Feinstein at a small discussion she said the same thing. Her point, though, was, essentially, “look we were given a huge packet of information which was not hesitant to declare that our worst fears had already come true in Iraq. In that case, you are going to believe your president is acting with good faith in the best interest of the nation.” You don’t lie to someone then turn around and claim their credence as evidence of your truthfulness.</p>
<p>You really think all the lies leading up to this war and misrepresentations of what was really going on the ground were just enthusiasm?</p>
<p>Read this article. Consider the Downing Street Memo. Have you been paying attention to the Libby Trial going on right now? It is providing a pretty unvarnished look at how Cheney was manipulating the press and fighting the public debate underhandedly at the time.</p>
<p><a href=“Web Page Under Construction”>Web Page Under Construction;
<p>DPX,
Sarcasm and insult are also the tools of the disempowered. When you know you are right and no one is paying attention or at least someone is trying hard to discredit you, it can lead to frustration and anger. This administration is very good at disempowering critics - from those at the very top to the average citizen. Hence remarks like yours that question the character of those who state they saw the folly of this war.</p>
<p>
I suppose you did not actually read my post: I also opposed the war. </p>
<p>Given that, I fail to see your point, even if you do.</p>
<p>Bedhead,</p>
<p>I don’t have time to respond in full, but the Feinstein quote is typical Democratic buck passing. She had the NIE with all of the nuances from the intelligence community at her disposal. The dispute over the tubes was clearly pointed out in the document - as well as all of the other points of contention. She either a) didn’t bother to read it or b) decided that the political momentum was on the side of war and decided to let politics dictate her vote. Now she completes her cycle of of deceit by claiming that she was “lied to”. Shame on her and all those who take that approach.</p>
<p>I have seen two Democrats so far that have been man enough to stand behind their decisions without trying to blame others. The first was Dick Gephart who says that he did his own independant questioning of the intelligence community and was satisfied that what he was seeing in the NIE and hearing from the President was consistent with their views. The other was John Edwards just this past Sunday who said that he did his own investigation by talking with former Clinton officials. They also confirmed that the information that was being presented was consistent from their own intelligence back in the 90s. Add these views to the reports that I referenced earlier and it really makes it a hard case to sell that Bush lied - despite the overwhelming echo that comes from the Democratic echo chamber.</p>
<p>Guess all those Rpublicans now back tracking saying that it was a mistake… guess they are buck passing as well…everyone is wrong except for BUsh and FF and DPX</p>
<p>we were mislead into war, but heaven forbid some would ever admit the President did that</p>
<p>CGM, put your thinking cap on and then look at any Republican who no longer supports the war and also claims that he/she was lied to. If you can find one, I will gladly identify them as buck passers.</p>
<p>Difference is FF, many Republicans have broken ranks with Bush, whereas you remain steadfast in your support.</p>
<p>Question is why on earth you still support this president, who has squandered the lives of thousands of Americans and tens (or hundreds) of thousands of Iraqi and BILLIONS of dollars?</p>
<p>How can any intelligent person (and I do think you must be an intelligent person, FF) still support this debacle?</p>
<p>Today’s headline:</p>
<p>Four Army Officers to Be Indicted With Bribery and Conspiracy in Iraq Kickback Scheme</p>
<p>Debacle upon debacle.</p>
<p>No CGM, regrettably, I may have been right–but I do not believe I was lied to. </p>
<p>The old “devil made me do it” defense, as in most places, holds no currency here. Those who voted for the war, grown men and women to the last, knew what they were doing. Even if they were just swimming down stream–lacking the will to swim against the tide, they knew which direction they had chosen even if for squishy reasons: They call these people Democrats, from time to time.</p>
<p>Even more, it is possible to be wrong without being a liar.</p>
<p>It is not, on the other hand, noble or honest to pass the buck along by claiming “the devil made me do it” ex post facto, even if, as in this case, your devil-o-the-week is George Bush.</p>
<p>well, if you think everything we were told was TRUE, guess you can live with your head in the sand</p>
<p>even the Republicans that supported Bush in this mess are saying they know they weren’t given all the correct information</p>
<p>guess you know better than they do</p>
<p>And if you want to say twsiting and turning and ignoring and cherry picking information is relly different than lying feel free</p>
<p>Sorry you can’t vote for him again, oh that’s right, you can’t vote</p>
<p>Would that Bush were only the “devil-o-the-week,” instead of the “devil-o-eight-years!” … Yes, it most certainly is possible to be wrong without being a liar. I don’t know for certain if Bush was wrong or if he lied, but I do know that there’s hell to pay in Iraq, either way.</p>