Thread: liar or just wrong

I don't "lean".

Originally Posted by Davocrat

But it always comes down to a Bushian tap dance on this issue, km. I mean we were told in 2003 of DEFINITE IMMEDIATE threats with future mushroom clouds.

Now, after the fact, the administration and the hawkish blogosphere dances from "sort-of" to "could have" to "mightabeen" rationales.

To run a democracy, you have to sell your policies. The overstatements of the Bush administration were no different than the overstatements of the democrats on the exact same subject.

Originally Posted by kmiller1610

To run a democracy, you have to sell your policies. The overstatements of the Bush administration were no different than the overstatements of the democrats on the exact same subject.

It's so sad to see that conservatives and republicans still don't get it. The reality is this: The Bush administration (and its supporters) are going to eat SOME crow on this issue. How much crow you have to eat is entirely up to you.

There is no escaping the fact that the case for war was made ENTIRELY by the Bush administration. The lack of evidence, in Iraq after the invasion, leaves 99% of the world (including about 70% of America) of the opinion that either President Bush lied, or he was wrong. The lack of evidence, to support the claims made by this administration, seems to indicate that either Mr. Bush was wrong, or he lied. There really isn't a whole lot of evidence, that the public has been allowed to see and critique, which defends the decision to invade IRaq.

All the attempts to preserve the President's "infallability" (by denying he lied or made a mistake) serve to do is to convince people that something sinister is going on. What this does is to prolong the argument, provide more time for political opponents to make hay out of this issue, and make it look like the administration is going to have to eat even MORE crow before this issue is through.

Time for everyone involved to admit that they screwed up and have a nice serving of crow followed by some deep dish humble pie.

Originally Posted by johnlocke

There is no escaping the fact that the case for war was made ENTIRELY by the Bush administration. The lack of evidence, in Iraq after the invasion, leaves 99% of the world (including about 70% of America) of the opinion that either President Bush lied, or he was wrong.

Shortly after 911, Bush made a very clear policy statement that his war on terror started with AQ, but would not end with it. Shortly after that he described Iraq as a member of the "axis of evil." The justification for dealing with each member of the axis was that we could not wait until they had wmds and gave those wmds to terrorists. The doctrine of pre-emption established by Bush was not dependant on finding wmds in Iraq. UN resolution 1441, the last one before the war, required Sadaam to prove he had destroyed all his wmds. He did not. Bush decided he could wait no longer. The lack of wmds in Iraq has absolutely nothing to do with the justification for the war. No wmds? GOOD!

Now you and your buddies in the leftist press have TRIED to re-invent the justification for the war, but it's just spin. We did not got to war because Sadaam planned 911. We did not go to war because we wanted to find wmds in Iraq. We went to war to make sure Sadaam would NEVER develop them and give them to terrorists.

Of the three members of the AXIS, Sadaam was the one who had proven his ambitions with actions. Removing him was a no brainer.

I did the other choice, and here is my explanation. I think at the time we decided to go to war, nobody really cared too much about the facts, we were all just pissed and wanted revenge. It was easy to believe that Iraq did have WMD's at the time, we were all in shock just after 9/11.

Originally Posted by kmiller1610

To run a democracy, you have to sell your policies. The overstatements of the Bush administration were no different than the overstatements of the democrats on the exact same subject.

But only the Bush Administration has taken us into Iraq, correct?

Originally Posted by kmiller1610

Shortly after 911, Bush made a very clear policy statement that his war on terror started with AQ, but would not end with it. Shortly after that he described Iraq as a member of the "axis of evil." The justification for dealing with each member of the axis was that we could not wait until they had wmds and gave those wmds to terrorists. The doctrine of pre-emption established by Bush was not dependant on finding wmds in Iraq. UN resolution 1441, the last one before the war, required Sadaam to prove he had destroyed all his wmds. He did not. Bush decided he could wait no longer. The lack of wmds in Iraq has absolutely nothing to do with the justification for the war. No wmds? GOOD!

Now you and your buddies in the leftist press have TRIED to re-invent the justification for the war, but it's just spin. We did not got to war because Sadaam planned 911. We did not go to war because we wanted to find wmds in Iraq. We went to war to make sure Sadaam would NEVER develop them and give them to terrorists.

Of the three members of the AXIS, Sadaam was the one who had proven his ambitions with actions. Removing him was a no brainer.

Sure we did. We went to war with Iraq because they might have weapons someday that they MIGHT give to terrorists.

This despite the constant attempts to defend the Iraq war, by Bush apologists, using UN resolution 1441. Then there was the excuse that we were just there to depose a tyrant with numerous human rights violations (Saddam). Then there was the excuse that we were there to get the Al Queda training camps (which didn't exist in Iraq until AFTER we conquered them). Then it was that we are spreading freedom and democracy, and so the spin goes- month after month- year after year of shifting rational and mission creep. All to avoid eating the crow and humble pie that will inevitably be apportioned to you, now, fifty years from now, or five hundred years from now.

Because it's sooo important that the President not be wrong, isn't it? Well, I've got a news flash for you. You know what the police call it when they interview someone and that person keeps changing his story? They call it suspicious, and SO DO I.

Originally Posted by kmiller1610

Shortly after 911, Bush made a very clear policy statement that his war on terror started with AQ, but would not end with it. Shortly after that he described Iraq as a member of the "axis of evil." The justification for dealing with each member of the axis was that we could not wait until they had wmds and gave those wmds to terrorists. The doctrine of pre-emption established by Bush was not dependant on finding wmds in Iraq. UN resolution 1441, the last one before the war, required Sadaam to prove he had destroyed all his wmds. He did not. Bush decided he could wait no longer. The lack of wmds in Iraq has absolutely nothing to do with the justification for the war. No wmds? GOOD!

Now you and your buddies in the leftist press have TRIED to re-invent the justification for the war, but it's just spin. We did not got to war because Sadaam planned 911. We did not go to war because we wanted to find wmds in Iraq. We went to war to make sure Sadaam would NEVER develop them and give them to terrorists.

Of the three members of the AXIS, Sadaam was the one who had proven his ambitions with actions. Removing him was a no brainer.

The problem with this rationale is that the 2002 NIE stated that Saddam would only take the "extreme step" of arming al Qaida if the US invaded and he was "sufficiently desperate", and even then, US intelligence agencies still had low confidence he would do it. Why would Saddam arm a terror group that his hostile to his regime?

"Saddam Hussein is an apostate, an infidel and a traitor to Islam. The socialist government in Iraq has lost credibility. Socialists are infidels wherever they are."

"He's a bad Muslim. He took Kuwait for his own self-aggrandizement."

-Osama bin Laden

Originally Posted by johnlocke

Sure we did. We went to war with Iraq because they might have weapons someday that they MIGHT give to terrorists.

This despite the constant attempts to defend the Iraq war, by Bush apologists, using UN resolution 1441. Then there was the excuse that we were just there to depose a tyrant with numerous human rights violations (Saddam). Then there was the excuse that we were there to get the Al Queda training camps (which didn't exist in Iraq until AFTER we conquered them). Then it was that we are spreading freedom and democracy, and so the spin goes- month after month- year after year of shifting rational and mission creep. All to avoid eating the crow and humble pie that will inevitably be apportioned to you, now, fifty years from now, or five hundred years from now.

Because it's sooo important that the President not be wrong, isn't it? Well, I've got a news flash for you. You know what the police call it when they interview someone and that person keeps changing his story? They call it suspicious, and SO DO I.

I agree, it's time we swallow or pride, admit we were wrong, because we were, and move on. There's nothing more we can do with a shaky government in place, and terrorists attacking civillians each and every day. We can't defend those civillians anyway, they will continue to die with or without American troops dying as well.

Originally Posted by johnlocke

Sure we did. We went to war with Iraq because they might have weapons someday that they MIGHT give to terrorists.

Most of the world thought Sadaam had wmds. Do I need to quote them all again? It was up to Sadaam to prove he did not have them. He had been eluding the inspectors for a decade. We could no longer leave the issue as an unknown. If he had them or did not have them could not remain amiguous.

And Horhey, who said Sadaam was going to give Amds to UBL and AQ? Again, the counter arguements all revolve around a limited focus on UBL. Less than 10 days after 911, Bush stated the war would not be limited to AQ. The authorization to use force followed that statement of focus.

The policy statement included all terrorists of international reach.