<p>Dorothy–Surely you can’t be blaming the Democrats in Congress for the war? The Republicans were in power at the time.
George Bush is Commander in Chief and the Great Decider, as he keeps reminding us. And at the time it was pretty difficult to oppose the war without looking like you didn’t support the troops, which was the original connundrum posed in this thread, if I recall.</p>
<p>Sheesh.</p>
<p>DPX can’t vote?</p>
<p>I do not believe I was lied to; take it as you will.</p>
<p>I opposed the war. </p>
<p>I am a conservative; hearing the information presented I made a decision: so, it is, I believe, reasonable to ask, </p>
<p>what happened to the Democrats who had even more access than I did? </p>
<p>They knew what they were doing and they had a vote. In retrospect, I ask, other than Edwards+, are they cowards or liars or sheep…or ‘D’. Oh My!</p>
<p>For those of you who cling to the notion “my president, right or wrong,” I’ll re-post a Teddy Roosevelt quote that I had in another thread.</p>
<p>“To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.” (1918) –Theodore Roosevelt</p>
<p>FF: Now I am going to accuse you of evasion. What about the Downing Street memo and all the other things?</p>
<p>And I stand by what I said: you don’t lie to someone and then use their own belief in your statements as evidence of your rightness. The Administration controls intelligence with some oversight by Congress. If you believe that Congress should spend time investigating the veracity of every claim put forward, why do we have an intelligence apparatus at all? Neither the Democrats or Republicans in Congress led us into this war, the Administration did. And the Congress gave their assent. In other words, they never had a buck to pass. The vehemence and confidence with which the intelligence estimates asserted that there were WMD to be found and even where they were didn’t leave a Congress a lot of doubt. Don’t try to pass the buck for this war away from the Administration, nor its failures…</p>
<p>When this war started, DPX, was 13ish perhaps? </p>
<p>Why the defense of this man who has done a crappy job fighting this war, took us in with bad information, has fired those that disagree with his failing stratgey, has defunded many programs that support soldiers, who has NO plan, who admitted that yeah, maybe some of the reasons we went in for where not in fact true, that kept changing his mind about why we were there to suit the moment</p>
<p>to see him as anyhting but incompetent is truely astounding </p>
<p>Guess the Dems were wrong to trust Bush,that was their biggest mistake, trusting the person you, DPX find have such integrity, while finding other to lack it </p>
<p>so, do you vote anywhere and show your support in the most democratic way possible, if I recall you don’t</p>
<p>
There must be an epidemic of people who “have heard” things and then pass them on with no support. Please provide some support for your statements. </p>
<p>Those who question why I may have the views that I do need to only look at the paucity of credible information to dissuade me. One would think that with the strongly held views as expressed by the left that they should have all sorts of data to support their views. Instead all we get is “I’ve heard” or “everyone knows that …” or “it’s common knowledge that …”</p>
<p>As the little old lady in the Wendy’s commercials used to say, “where’s the beef?”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>…it is not at all clear to me that I have ever claimed any politician, including GWB, has any integrity, whatsoever. Just to get that out of the way.</p>
<p>I agree with you completely, Dorothy! The Democrats who followed like sheep in authorizing this war were pathetic. Some of them (like Edwards) have been re-thinking that decision, but in my opinion it’s many thousands of deaths too late in the game. I’ll end up supporting one of these candidates (or Barak Obama), but I’ll never forgive them for enabling Bush to invade and occupy Iraq.</p>
<p>No, FF. We have hard facts.</p>
<p>Number of dead.</p>
<p>Number of wounded.</p>
<p>War costs.</p>
<p>Those are irrefutable (alright, they might be refutable, since they are arguably too low, all of them). Where’s the “I heard” in that?</p>
<p>Check your own USGov websites. The facts are there, for those who care to pick their heads out of the sand.</p>
<p>So, DPX, did Bush tell us the WHOLE truth about the war? ANd if not, do you blaim him at all for anything he told us not being true…</p>
<p>call yourself a conservaitve, whatever that means, who did you vote for in the last election and who will you VOTE for in the next</p>
<p>What gives me hope is knowing that most of America has seen the truth, finally, about Bush, and that those here who profess to trust him so are in a minority</p>
<p>Bush has changed laws to suit his personal need for MORE power, even in light and because of public votes </p>
<p>He will go down in history as a failure of a president, and we don’t even have all the information yet</p>
<p>There is little he has done to make this country a better place for my grandchildren…nothing</p>
<p>Me, to be honest, not sure who I will vote for…will see what they have to say</p>
<p>I know I wont be voting for a Republican as they havenothing to offer</p>
<p>No, AM. No one is disputing the costs of the war, but the costs are not the only input into the equation of the value of the war or its continued pursuit. They also have nothing at all to do with whether we were lied to in terms of getting us involved with the war. </p>
<p>However, if you want to use deaths of humans as the key criteria for where we go from here, you need to include the long term death count of Iraqis, other middle Easterners and yes, even American civillians in future terror attacks, into your equation.</p>
<p>CGM,</p>
<p>You seem to be asking me if politicians tell the whole truth all the time, meaning, I assume, everything they know whether it suits their view of the world or not.</p>
<p>I assume, as most do, that they do not.
Not Republicans generally, and most certainly not Democrats. You, perhaps, feel differently about politicians, or Democrats.</p>
<p>As for who I will vote for…tough call…who’s on the ballot?</p>
<p>I was not aware that there was yet a slate to choose from.
But, I believe you know that, and have other disingenuous aims with your thin inquiry. Much like you claim for your nemesis, GWB: not the whole truth. That’s ok, though.</p>
<p>We should, perhaps, all practice what we preach to others. Where possible. Wouldn’t you agree?</p>
<p>FF: Haven’t heard from you yet on the metal tubing, the Downey Street memo, yellowcake geranium, reliance on a very questionable cast of characters to justify vehement claims of the Administration in support of this war? Hmmmm…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Still shaking my head over the sweeping audacity of this statement. </p>
<p>Dorothy, can you cite specific examples of ‘many on the left’ — or anyone here on CC — actually
rejoicing
over American setbacks or
celebrating
the death, destruction and waste of this ‘liberation?’<br>
You say you didn’t support the war, hoped for the best once it was underway and never “celebrated the worst.” Who did? Who can you point to who ever “celebrated” the disastrous turns in this war? </p>
<p>Keep in mind that calling attention to, reporting on, decrying, expressing outrage over setbacks and ‘foibles’ does not qualify as rejoicing and celebrating.</p>
<p>This is a recent article from the Washington Post called “no I told you so’s.” I told my Dad with whom I debated (though he agrees with me now) whether we should go into Iraq – I told him I knew exactly what General Odom was talking about. There’s no joy. Quite the opposite. Anger, irritation, sadness. </p>
<p>And anger at the kind of people would, in one swath, claim that opposition effectively equates with being an anti-American or self-hating American. Or gleeful at our failures. Its a really cheap thing to do.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/05/AR2007020500754.html[/url]”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/05/AR2007020500754.html</a></p>
<p>No I-Told-You-Sos
Opponents of the Iraq War Voice Pain, Not Vindication, At Predictions They Could Only Hope Would Be Wrong</p>
<p>By Lynne Duke
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, February 5, 2007; 2:50 PM</p>
<p>Sweet vindication. Who wouldn’t want it? To be right. To be free of criticism and upheld by evidence, by actual proof, that one’s predictions about a controversial war were correct.</p>
<p>It is the culture of this town – trafficking in rightness. People clamor day in and day out, in that polished and politic way of the Washingtonian, to be proved right.</p>
<p>But on Iraq, the vindicated are pained. There is no gloating – not with thousands of people dead, Americans and Iraqis; not with the Iraq war precipitating an ongoing foreign policy crisis that has left the United States’ global image in tatters.</p>
<p>For people who were pilloried, penalized or warned to be careful because of their opposition to a powerful president’s war, vindication is nothing to celebrate. It is a victory most bitter.</p>
<p>“Emotionally, it’s a very traumatic and unhappy outcome.” That is retired Army Lt. Gen. William E. Odom, head of the National Security Agency under President Ronald Reagan. “How can you be happy about being right about the disaster that’s been created?”</p>
<p>It weighs on him.</p>
<p>“Vindication is not pleasing,” he says. “Even some of my friends have noted: the more vindicated I’ve been, the more irritable I become.”</p>
<p>CONTINUED…</p>
<p>“Dorothy, can you cite specific examples of ‘many on the left’ — or anyone here on CC — actually rejoicing over American setbacks or celebrating the death, destruction and waste of this ‘liberation?’”</p>
<p>I have seen folks “rooting” for the aggressive hostile occupiers, but I haven’t seen any such thing from lefties.</p>
<p>A sweet satisfaction…</p>
<p>Well, I am not outing anybody; I am a lady, after all.</p>
<p>“yellowcake geranium”</p>
<p>The flower that kills? 
</p>
<p>Sorry I support your POV, but I couldn’t resist.</p>
<p>and FF,</p>
<p>“even American civillians in future terror attacks, into your equation.”</p>
<p>? 
What nonsense. Please show me how you can guarantee we will or won’t have another attack based on maintaining the status quo or making a
change? </p>
<p>If anything we’ve made it easier for terrorists to kill Americans by bringing them over so the jhaidist that can’t afford airfare or a detailed way into America can now take a bus from Iran or Sryia and within a day blow himself up and some servicemen at little or no cost. We’ve made it economically feaseable for the bad guys to kill americans. Sort of a Walmart of Jihads, low cost terrorist. Kill an American for 50% less in Bagdad. </p>
<p>But who cares, they’re soldiers after all… I mean if we can keep it easy for them to kill americans without having to go overnight far away from home, it’s a good thing isn’t it? </p>
<p>I mean isn’t it better for us if the terrorists don’t have to spend the money to fake passports, buy airline tickets, teach the bombers how to navigate in America and set themselves up in a phony lifestyle for some period of time, before attempting an act of terror? Isn’t it better for us to let them to walk a couple of blocks and just kill some troops? </p>
<p>Isn’t it better that we bring Americans to them so they don’t have to learn english, buy a fake passport or wait hours in line at an airport? Look at the money we saved them. </p>
<p>So many are willing to sacrifice our soldiers to keep the terrorist gods at appeased. That’s all your doing. Letting our kids die over there so you can sleep better here. </p>
<p>I’d like to slap every ass that says it’s better to fight them over there than here. Why? just cause you don’t have to or because it’s easier for them to concentrate on our troops and more cost effective for them and allows them to kill GI’s, making their jhaid more honorable. </p>
<p>It’s not conventional war. it’s not the germans or japanese rolling up on our beaches. They have to sneak in. It costs alot of money to sneak in and not stand out. Take a 10th of the billions spent over there and we’d have a secure border and they wouldn’t be able to kill on a daily basis. </p>
<p>Meanwhile as we burn through troops our homeland security has switched to how do we keep the mexicans from crossing the border to work as they are taking our good jobs. </p>
<p>Yes invading Iraq certainly was a good decision and staying there as an occuppiers even better. We certainly wouldn’t want our Saudi friends going broke funding terrorism at america would we></p>