1. We have been welcomed as liberators on the whole. The majority of the population is not lobbing grenades at us.
We have not been welcomed as liberators. The huge majority or Iraqis want the US out of there, like yesterday. At best, the Iraqi attitude towards the US presence is sullen frustration.
Quote:
4. Post war: Again, what are you talking about? The post war plan was put into effect even before the war ended. Massive supply convoys entered the country. Infastructure is being rebuilt. A Coalition Authority was established. A provisional government by the end of this year. Yes, there are security problems. The picture you're painting is not accurate. I don't think Bush has said "it isn't my fault" on really anything. Overall the operation is going very well. We have some casualties, but even that number is extremely low. We took over an entire country and have lost 600 lives doing it. I don't mean to scoff at that loss of life, but in military terms, it's a very low number. Those that have visited Iraq say that the picture is very different from the one we see on the news every night. Your statements are predicated on the notion that the effort itself is going badly...and it's not.
Although the official casualty count is some 550 US troops, the way the figures are compiled by the Pentagon makes it wildly inaccurate (low). A soldier has to die on the battlefield to be officially counted as deceased. Soldiers who die in a field hospital, or en route to a field hospital, or en route to the US for treatmant, of after returning home, etc etc etc are often not counted by the Pentagon as among the dead. I shall look for the article....it was in a Veterans group publication.
And....dont forget...the number of US dead in Iraq so far is the same as the number of US dead in the first 3 years of the Vietnam war. And a US presence in Iraq is projected to last until 2008+....lets not count the cost until it's over, and the last of our soldiers have returned home. It is far from over.
Then explain the polls....which show 2/3 of the country opposes gay marriage and full 50% supporting a Constitutional Amendment banning it. And btw, the last time I checked, gay marriage was not the same as "the private sector".
I am glad that you brought the polls up. A little research I did about overall support for this president.
Where supporters and detractors of Bush stand percentage-wise.
First Number is For President\t2nd is Detractors
Gay Marraige (Recent)\t\t51\t\t30
(CBS)
Avg. Iraq Approval since 2/03\t59\t\t35
(CBS)
Average Approval since 1/02\t59\t\t36
(AP)
Avg. Econemy Since 1/02\t\t54\t\t42
(AP)
Avg. Domestic Approval \t\t52\t\t44
since 1/02\t(AP)
Avg. Foreign Policy Approval\t67\t\t30
Since 1/02\t(AP)
Overall\t\t\t\t 57\t\t36
Just some quick observations.
I used only liberal leaning sources lest my observations be called right leaning.
When I see that Bush lied...he loses my vote. I'm not about to just assume that he did because we haven't found WMD. There are so many other possibilites. Our government believed Saddam had WMD long before Bush. If Bush was lying, so was Clinton.
The difference is that Clinton didn't lie like it was something urgent so we must go to war. A war that cost many lives and dollars.
Yes, but Clinton DID make many statements about Saddam's WMD...and he also bombed the shit out of Iraq in 1998, without UN approval of any kind.
Speaking of WMD statements, perhaps you'd like to hear what Kerry said in March of 2003. No, on second thought, it would be more fun to watch your face when it comes out in a few months.
As for Bush, I don't believe he lied or misled anyone. Lack of WMD does not prove he did. When I see that he did, he loses my vote. Period. There are just too many other possible explanations. I don't believe Clinton misled us on Iraq either, btw. I think the intel was bad and/or there are weapons hidden in Syria.
This little bombing mission was nothing compared to the war. As to the WOMD in Syria.....LOL! Besides how would they deploy them so they would be the threat to us that Bush was implying?
Let's face it. I think there's a lot of people out there asking themselves why they bought this in the first place.
" . . . The nation is engaged in a major ongoing debate about why America went to war in Iraq, when Iraq was not an imminent threat, had no nuclear weapons, no persuasive links to Al Qaeda, no connection to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, and no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction.
Over two centuries ago, John Adams spoke eloquently about the need to let facts and evidence guide actions and policies. He said, "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." Listen to those words again, and you can hear John Adams speaking to us now about Iraq. "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."
Tragically, in making the decision to go to war in Iraq, the Bush administration allowed its wishes, its inclinations, and its passions to alter the state of facts and the evidence of the threat we faced from Iraq.
A month ago, in an address at Georgetown University, CIA Director George Tenet discussed the strengths and flaws in the intelligence on Iraq. Tenet testified to several Senate and House committees on these issues, and next Tuesday, he will come before our Senate Armed Services Committee. He will have an opportunity to explain why he waited until last month to publicly state the facts and evidence on these fundamental questions, and why he was so silent when it mattered most -- in the days and months leading up to the war.
If he feels that the White House altered the facts, or misused the intelligence, or ignored it and relied on dubious sources in the Iraqi exile community, Tenet should say so, and say it plainly.
It is not sufficient for Tenet to say only, as he did last week to the Senate Intelligence Committee, that we must be patient. When he was appointed Director of Central Intelligence in 1997, Tenet said to President Clinton, " ... I have believed that you ... and the vice president must be provided with ... complete and objective intelligence. ... We must always be straight and tell you the facts as we know them." The American people and our men and women serving in Iraq deserve the facts and they deserve answers now.
The rushed decision to invade Iraq cannot all be blamed on flawed intelligence. If we view these events simply as an intelligence failure -- rather than a larger failure of decision-making and leadership -- we will learn the wrong lessons.
The more we find out, the clearer it becomes that any failure in the intelligence itself is dwarfed by the administration's manipulation of the intelligence in making the case for war. Specific warnings from the intelligence community were consistently ignored as the administration rushed toward war.
We now know that from the moment President Bush took office, Iraq was given high priority as unfinished business from the first Bush administration.
According to former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill's account in Ron Suskind's book, "The Price of Loyalty," Iraq was on the agenda at the very first meeting of the National Security Council, just 10 days after President Bush's inauguration in 2001. At that meeting, the president quickly -- and wrongly -- concluded that the U.S. could not do much about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He said we should "pull out of that situation," and then turned to a discussion of "how Iraq is destabilizing the region."
Secretary O'Neill remembers, "Getting Hussein was now the administration's focus. From the start, we were building the case against Hussein and looking at how we could take him out and change Iraq into a new country. And, if we did that, it would solve everything. It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of It -- the president saying, 'Fine. Go find me a way to do this.'"
By the end of February 2001, the talk on Iraq was mostly about how -- and how quickly -- to get rid of Saddam Hussein. President Bush was clearly frustrated with what the intelligence community was providing. According to Secretary O'Neill, on May 16, 2001, he and the other principals of the National Security Council met with the president to discuss the Middle East. Tenet presented his intelligence report, and told the president that it was still only speculation whether Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, or was even starting a program to build such weapons.
Secretary O'Neill says, "Everything Tenet sent up to Bush and [Vice President Dick] Cheney about Iraq was very judicious and precisely qualified. The president was clearly very interested in weapons or weapons programs -- and frustrated about our weak intelligence capability -- but Tenet was clearly being careful to say, here's the little that we know and the great deal that we don't. That wouldn't change, and I read those CIA reports for two years," said O'Neill.
Then came 9/11. In the months that followed, the war in Afghanistan and the hunt for Osama bin Laden had obvious priority. Al Qaeda was clearly the most imminent threat to our national security. In fact, in his testimony to Congress in February 2001, one month after President Bush's inauguration and seven months before 9/11, Tenet had said, "Osama bin Laden and his global network of lieutenants and associates remain the most immediate and serious threat." That testimony emphasized the clear danger of bin Laden in light of the specific attacks in previous years on American citizens and American institutions.
In February 2002, five months after 9/11, Tenet testified, "Last year, I told you that Osama bin Laden and the Al Qaeda network were the most immediate and serious threat this country faced. This remains true despite the progress we have made in Afghanistan and in disrupting the network elsewhere."
Even during the buildup to the war in Iraq, in February 2003, Tenet again testified, "The threat from al Qaeda remains. ... We place no limitations on our expectations on what al Qaeda might do to survive. ... Al Qaeda is living in the expectation of resuming the offensive."
In his testimony last week to the Senate Intelligence Committee, Tenet repeated his earlier warnings. He said again that Al Qaeda is not defeated and that "We are still at war. ... This is a learning organization that remains committed to attacking the United States, its friends and allies."
Tenet never used that kind of strong language to describe the threat from Iraq. Yet despite all the clear and consistent warnings about Al Qaeda, by the summer of 2002, President Bush was ready for war with Iraq. The war in Afghanistan was no longer in the headlines or at the center of attention. Bin Laden was hard to find, the economy was in trouble, and so was the president's approval rating in the polls.
[White House political adviser] Karl Rove had tipped his hand earlier by stating that the war on terrorism could bring political benefits as well. The president's undeniable goal was to convince the American people that war was necessary -- and necessary soon, because soon-to-be-acquired nuclear weapons in the hands of Saddam Hussein could easily be handed off to terrorists.
This conclusion was not supported by the facts, but the intelligence could be retrofitted to support it. Greg Thielmann, former director of the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, put it bluntly last July. He said, "Some of the fault lies with the performance of the intelligence community, but most of it lies with the way senior officials misused the information they were provided." He said, "They surveyed the data, and picked out what they liked. The whole thing was bizarre. The secretary of defense had this huge Defense Intelligence Agency, and he went around it." Thielmann also said, "This administration has had a faith-based intelligence attitude, its top-down use of intelligence: we know the answers; give us the intelligence to support those answers. ... Going down the list of administration deficiencies, or distortions, one has to talk about, first and foremost, the nuclear threat being hyped," he said."
it goes on for three more pages and is worth every word Here just go through the day-pass it takes a split second and gets none of your info
Please re-read my comments. I have neither implied nor stated that the terrorist attacks are indicative of the failure of the Iraqis to welcome their new overlords. I have only said that the picture that was painted for us (mostly by Rumsfeld) was not true, and has not come true.
Bush says that, and like most politicians, it means nothing. The State dept. had everything planned. Rumsfeld and the Admin didn't let them fight the war they wanted and pushed for this small force. It's a miracle it was even as large as it was, apparently. This is clearly an example of the generals NOT being allowed to fight the war they wanted. This has been well-documented.
Looked like a deer to damned near everyone, including the Iraqis and many soldiers fighting there. Why the hell do you think Rumsfeld went to Iraq to boost troop morale?
1. I think they fought the war they wanted. There may have been conflict between Rumsfeld and the "old Pentagon", but the generals ran the war.
2. Rumsfeld might have gone to Iraq because he's THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE.
Quote:
Clinton did not attempt to bully the UN into going along with him.
Quote of the year! Really...that's the funniest thing I've every heard. Bush tries to go to the UN, gets a resolution which it then refuses to enforce, then finally goes to war with 17 resoltutions behind him. Clinton doesn't even attempt to go to the UN...and Bush is "bullying" the UN? HAHAHAHAHA.
Clinton attacked on the same intel. He bombed. He used cruise missles. He hit them pretty hard. The scale of it doesn't matter...he attacked based on the SAME intelligence...and all you can up with is that he didn't use ground troops? Please.
Quote:
You mistakenly assume I like Kerry. I do not. Again, quit trying to change the subject.
That's not the point. He made statements supporting war based on the same info. And yet...he's not called a liar. He's a war hero. It's complete bullshit.
Quote:
And again..."It's not his fault! It was bad intel!"
He said there were WMD. There aren't, and soon there will be an investigation of what he knew beforehand. There will soon be an investigation into why the admin didn't push for more fact-checking. There will be an investigation into whether or not the admin retaliated against unfavorable intel by outing a CIA agent.
He lied. I doubt very seriously that there is anything that will make you see it.
Of course not, because how could any intelligent person disagree with you? And further, we all know I'm a blind Bush supporter with no critical thinking skills. There's no evidence anything was distorted or manipulated or even exaggerated. None. Zero. When I see it....Bush loses my vote.
We have not been welcomed as liberators. The huge majority or Iraqis want the US out of there, like yesterday. At best, the Iraqi attitude towards the US presence is sullen frustration.
Although the official casualty count is some 550 US troops, the way the figures are compiled by the Pentagon makes it wildly inaccurate (low). A soldier has to die on the battlefield to be officially counted as deceased. Soldiers who die in a field hospital, or en route to a field hospital, or en route to the US for treatmant, of after returning home, etc etc etc are often not counted by the Pentagon as among the dead. I shall look for the article....it was in a Veterans group publication.
And....dont forget...the number of US dead in Iraq so far is the same as the number of US dead in the first 3 years of the Vietnam war. And a US presence in Iraq is projected to last until 2008+....lets not count the cost until it's over, and the last of our soldiers have returned home. It is far from over.
That's deceptive. We didn't have 250,000 men in Vietnam then. The conflict was totally different. And, I'm not about to take someone seriously who claims we killed 100,000 civilians (or whatever your number was) in Gulf War #1.
The difference is that Clinton didn't lie like it was something urgent so we must go to war. A war that cost many lives and dollars.
Right...what he did was put the problem off for the next Administration. We should have invaded Iraq the SECOND they violated the terms of the 1991 ceae fire. Clinton put off the terror threat. He sold nuke technology to N. Korea. He ignored the bombings of the USS Cole and embassies.
As for lying, Bush never, ever used the term "imminent". Not once.
pfflam: Nice balanced article there. No agenda at all. Why do you bother bombing the thread with this? Post a link....not 10,000 words.
From the article:
Quote:
Bush's "needless war"
Accusing the president of "pure, unadulterated fear-mongering," Sen. Edward Kennedy delivers a scathing indictment of the administration's case for invading Iraq.
Editor's note: Following are prepared remarks for a speech by Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., delivered at the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington on March 5.
1. I think they fought the war they wanted. There may have been conflict between Rumsfeld and the "old Pentagon", but the generals ran the war.
You keep missing the point. It doesn't matter what you think. What matters is what happened. And the record is quite clear: State wanted one war; the admin wanted another. The admin won, and the generals did NOT get to fight the war they wanted.
Quote:
2. Rumsfeld might have gone to Iraq because he's THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE.
Huh? That must be why he's only been there ONCE, right? Right? I suppose the fact that the major news outlets were doing nothing but covering low troop morale had nothing to do with it, huh?
Quote:
Quote of the year! Really...that's the funniest thing I've every heard. Bush tries to go to the UN, gets a resolution which it then refuses to enforce, then finally goes to war with 17 resoltutions behind him. Clinton doesn't even attempt to go to the UN...and Bush is "bullying" the UN? HAHAHAHAHA.
Bush didn't "try" to go to the UN. He did. And the UNSC rejected him. His father went to the UN and got support, on the other hand.
Clinton didn't need to go to the UN, since he wasn't invading a country and overthrowing its government.
Nonetheless, you're trying to change the subject again.
Quote:
Clinton attacked on the same intel. He bombed. He used cruise missles. He hit them pretty hard. The scale of it doesn't matter...he attacked based on the SAME intelligence...and all you can up with is that he didn't use ground troops? Please.
You're kidding, right? The scale doesn't matter? Go and tell that to some widows of this war. I'll keep a raw steak handy for you to put on your eye.
Nevertheless, to go along with your endless attempts to change the subject from this indefensible president, Clinton did NOT attack on the same intel. The Clinton attacks were in retaliation for an attempt to assassinate Bush I (who went to soldiers' funerals).
Quote:
That's not the point. He made statements supporting war based on the same info. And yet...he's not called a liar. He's a war hero. It's complete bullshit.
Wait a minute. You try to change the subject, I call you on it, and then you tell me I miss the point? No, sir. That is very much the point. Clinton had intel suggesting that Iraq had WMD. He did not invade. Bush did, and apparently had to mangle the intel in order to sell it to the public.
He lied.
Whatever you may think, all of you who are defending him are wearing the blue dress now.
Quote:
Of course not, because how could any intelligent person disagree with you?
They usually don't.
Quote:
And further, we all know I'm a blind Bush supporter with no critical thinking skills.
Good. Glad you're catching up.
Quote:
There's no evidence anything was distorted or manipulated or even exaggerated. None. Zero. When I see it....Bush loses my vote.
Better tell that to the committee that's INVESTIGATING THIS VERY QUESTION. And remember, Bush can take a vacation for a month, or spend 4 hours at a NASCAR rally, but he only gives that commission ONE HOUR to question him.
You'd better cut your losses and quit making excuses for this guy.
You keep missing the point. It doesn't matter what you think. What matters is what happened. And the record is quite clear: State wanted one war; the admin wanted another. The admin won, and the generals did NOT get to fight the war they wanted.
What evidence exists on this point? State? I assume you mean the Pentagon. My understanding is that Bush instructed the Pentagon to develop a plan for accomplishing certain objectives. They then did so. If you're going to make the accusation that the politicians interefered with war planning (as they did in Vietnam), then you're going to have to back it up. What would even cause you to say that?
Quote:
Huh? That must be why he's only been there ONCE, right? Right? I suppose the fact that the major news outlets were doing nothing but covering low troop morale had nothing to do with it, huh?
One, if you believe the major news outlets all the time, you're nuts (with all due respect). They had a few soldiers interviewed...and of course it comes off as if half the military is experiencing low morale. Three words: Criminal Liberal Media. Showing troops on TV ripping on Rumsfeld and Bush borders on treason. In any case, making the statement "Rumsfeld went to Iraq, therefore things are going badly" is a logical fallacy. He's the top Defense official in the country, other than Bush. Why is it a problem?
Quote:
Bush didn't "try" to go to the UN. He did. And the UNSC rejected him. His father went to the UN and got support, on the other hand.
Clinton didn't need to go to the UN, since he wasn't invading a country and overthrowing its government.
Nonetheless, you're trying to change the subject again.
I haven't changed any subject. You're the one that said "Bush bullied the UN". Bush went to the UN and got resolution 1441 passed, which stated that "serious consequences" would follow without Iraq's FULL cooperation. There is no man, woman or child on this planet that can honestly say Iraq did that. Bush then circulated a second "authorization of force" resolution, which the UNSC refused to pass. Actually, it was primarily Germany and France that said they would veto. We had two nations, at least one of which was directly tied to Saddam, that were essentially blocking the security council from backing up its own resolutions.
Bush made very effort to involve the UN. The UN, being the spineless and toothless tiger that it is, refused to enforce its own resoltutions. Clinton did not even ATTEMPT to get a another resolution passed. He still attacked Iraq, whether or not he removed the "government". So, I have to laugh when I hear Bush criticized for being "unilateral" and at the same time "bullying" the UN. Which is it? If he had not gone at all...you'd be charging him with being a rogue cowboy. It doesn't matter what Bush does. The Left hates him either way.
Quote:
You're kidding, right? The scale doesn't matter? Go and tell that to some widows of this war. I'll keep a raw steak handy for you to put on your eye.
Nevertheless, to go along with your endless attempts to change the subject from this indefensible president, Clinton did NOT attack on the same intel. The Clinton attacks were in retaliation for an attempt to assassinate Bush I (who went to soldiers' funerals).
The scale does not matter because it was the same intelligence. He attacked. It wouldn't matter if he launched one missile with a stink bomb attached to it. He based his decision on the SAME INTELLIGENCE Bush saw. So did John Kerry in voting for the war.
You then UNBELIEVABLY claim that Clinton's bombing had nothing to do with WMD. That statement you made above is patently false. Clinton was punishing Iraq due to the UN inspector debacle. When the inspectors left, he attacked, giving speeches along the way which sounded.....wait for it....one hell of a lot like Bush's did 6 years later. It had little to do with the assasinination attempt. And now all of a sudden, Bush lied. It doesn't add up. Even if Clinton had not attacked at all....even if he had only given publicc statements like he did, one would still have to call Clinton a liar if doing the same for Bush. That's the point.
Quote:
Wait a minute. You try to change the subject, I call you on it, and then you tell me I miss the point? No, sir. That is very much the point. Clinton had intel suggesting that Iraq had WMD. He did not invade. Bush did, and apparently had to mangle the intel in order to sell it to the public.
He lied.
Whatever you may think, all of you who are defending him are wearing the blue dress now.
Say it with me: "Clinton used the same intel to attack". You can't possibly be making the case that had the intel been stronger, Clinton would have invaded...can you? Same intel, Same intel, Same intel. We could make that into a loop in GarageBand.
Quote:
Better tell that to the committee that's INVESTIGATING THIS VERY QUESTION. And remember, Bush can take a vacation for a month, or spend 4 hours at a NASCAR rally, but he only gives that commission ONE HOUR to question him.
You'd better cut your losses and quit making excuses for this guy.
This is where your leftist hypocrisy really shows. Clinton galavanted all around the world, spending taxpayer dollars like monopoly money. Clinton lied under oath, hooked up with an intern in the Oval Office, sold nuclear tech to N. Korea, raised taxes, lied on national television (the to the very children he always references), refused to deal with the terror threat, cut the military. was accused of sexual harrassment on multiple ocassions, and was impeached. And yet...Bush is criticized for taking a vacation and going to a NASCAR race?
BTW, I agree he should give the commission more time. Just say that next time.
Just a note on this 'Clinton had the same intelligence' stuff.
The last US President used cruise missiles and bombs to enforce no-fly zones and protect allied aeroplanes.
He.
Did.
Not.
Invade.
Iraq.
Unless I missed it.
That doesn't matter. The accusation is that Bush lied about the intelligence. The point in response is that Clinton referenced the very same intlligence. The action (bombing) is secondary.
Trying to justify your point by saying "yeah guys, but Clinton didn't go as far as Bush did" is ridiculous and besides the point.
Clinton and Blair did not have the same intelligence as Bush. Don't take it from me. Take it from the horse's mouth, eh?
Quote:
"He [Saddam Hussein] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction...our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbours of Iraq."
That's Colin Powell in 2001.
Quote:
"We believe that the sanctions regime has effectively contained Saddam Hussein."
That's Tony Blair addressing the House of Commons. In November 2000.
Or maybe Bush is nowhere near as stupid as the other half thinks? It doesn't matter how many times Bush has beaten his opponents, they still underestimate him. Amazing.
I am not convinced that Bush is all that intelligent. The only smart thing he has done is to surrond himself with intelligent people.
Right...what he did was put the problem off for the next Administration. We should have invaded Iraq the SECOND they violated the terms of the 1991 ceae fire. Clinton put off the terror threat. He sold nuke technology to N. Korea. He ignored the bombings of the USS Cole and embassies.
As for lying, Bush never, ever used the term "imminent". Not once.
pfflam: Nice balanced article there. No agenda at all. Why do you bother bombing the thread with this? Post a link....not 10,000 words.
From the article:
Who are you shitting here, pfflam?
Man I'm sorry but there's only one reply for the way you twist reality......"The Stupidity is Amazing"
That doesn't matter. The accusation is that Bush lied about the intelligence. The point in response is that Clinton referenced the very same intlligence. The action (bombing) is secondary.
Trying to justify your point by saying "yeah guys, but Clinton didn't go as far as Bush did" is ridiculous and besides the point.
Listen that's not just a small difference! And the reason he gave didn't exist! The circumstaces surrounding this seem very suspicious. Not in a good way for Dubbya. The more that gets dug up about this the mopre the finger points at him.
So what do you want? I'm sorry if your president looks extremely guilty if only in a round about way. However men in court have been convicted on such evidence because there was no other explaination.
Just like Sherlock Holmes says : " If you eliminate all other possibilities. What remains no matter how incredible must be the truth ".
And you know there just aren't that many plausible possibilities here.
Comments
Originally posted by SDW2001
1. We have been welcomed as liberators on the whole. The majority of the population is not lobbing grenades at us.
We have not been welcomed as liberators. The huge majority or Iraqis want the US out of there, like yesterday. At best, the Iraqi attitude towards the US presence is sullen frustration.
Quote:
4. Post war: Again, what are you talking about? The post war plan was put into effect even before the war ended. Massive supply convoys entered the country. Infastructure is being rebuilt. A Coalition Authority was established. A provisional government by the end of this year. Yes, there are security problems. The picture you're painting is not accurate. I don't think Bush has said "it isn't my fault" on really anything. Overall the operation is going very well. We have some casualties, but even that number is extremely low. We took over an entire country and have lost 600 lives doing it. I don't mean to scoff at that loss of life, but in military terms, it's a very low number. Those that have visited Iraq say that the picture is very different from the one we see on the news every night. Your statements are predicated on the notion that the effort itself is going badly...and it's not.
Although the official casualty count is some 550 US troops, the way the figures are compiled by the Pentagon makes it wildly inaccurate (low). A soldier has to die on the battlefield to be officially counted as deceased. Soldiers who die in a field hospital, or en route to a field hospital, or en route to the US for treatmant, of after returning home, etc etc etc are often not counted by the Pentagon as among the dead. I shall look for the article....it was in a Veterans group publication.
And....dont forget...the number of US dead in Iraq so far is the same as the number of US dead in the first 3 years of the Vietnam war. And a US presence in Iraq is projected to last until 2008+....lets not count the cost until it's over, and the last of our soldiers have returned home. It is far from over.
Originally posted by billybobsky
Hinterlands is a common (i think) expression referring to homelands or a heartland...
Actually, it means the boonies.
Originally posted by midwinter
Actually, it means the boonies.
well in any event, it fits...
Originally posted by SDW2001
jimmac:
Then explain the polls....which show 2/3 of the country opposes gay marriage and full 50% supporting a Constitutional Amendment banning it. And btw, the last time I checked, gay marriage was not the same as "the private sector".
I am glad that you brought the polls up. A little research I did about overall support for this president.
Where supporters and detractors of Bush stand percentage-wise.
First Number is For President\t2nd is Detractors
Gay Marraige (Recent)\t\t51\t\t30
(CBS)
Avg. Iraq Approval since 2/03\t59\t\t35
(CBS)
Average Approval since 1/02\t59\t\t36
(AP)
Avg. Econemy Since 1/02\t\t54\t\t42
(AP)
Avg. Domestic Approval \t\t52\t\t44
since 1/02\t(AP)
Avg. Foreign Policy Approval\t67\t\t30
Since 1/02\t(AP)
Overall\t\t\t\t 57\t\t36
Just some quick observations.
I used only liberal leaning sources lest my observations be called right leaning.
Originally posted by SDW2001
When I see that Bush lied...he loses my vote. I'm not about to just assume that he did because we haven't found WMD. There are so many other possibilites. Our government believed Saddam had WMD long before Bush. If Bush was lying, so was Clinton.
The difference is that Clinton didn't lie like it was something urgent so we must go to war. A war that cost many lives and dollars.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Yes, but Clinton DID make many statements about Saddam's WMD...and he also bombed the shit out of Iraq in 1998, without UN approval of any kind.
Speaking of WMD statements, perhaps you'd like to hear what Kerry said in March of 2003. No, on second thought, it would be more fun to watch your face when it comes out in a few months.
As for Bush, I don't believe he lied or misled anyone. Lack of WMD does not prove he did. When I see that he did, he loses my vote. Period. There are just too many other possible explanations. I don't believe Clinton misled us on Iraq either, btw. I think the intel was bad and/or there are weapons hidden in Syria.
This little bombing mission was nothing compared to the war. As to the WOMD in Syria.....LOL! Besides how would they deploy them so they would be the threat to us that Bush was implying?
Let's face it. I think there's a lot of people out there asking themselves why they bought this in the first place.
Originally posted by NaplesX
I am glad that you brought the polls up. A little research I did about overall support for this president.
Where supporters and detractors of Bush stand percentage-wise.
First Number is For President\t2nd is Detractors
Gay Marraige (Recent)\t\t51\t\t30
(CBS)
Avg. Iraq Approval since 2/03\t59\t\t35
(CBS)
Average Approval since 1/02\t59\t\t36
(AP)
Avg. Econemy Since 1/02\t\t54\t\t42
(AP)
Avg. Domestic Approval \t\t52\t\t44
since 1/02\t(AP)
Avg. Foreign Policy Approval\t67\t\t30
Since 1/02\t(AP)
Overall\t\t\t\t 57\t\t36
Just some quick observations.
I used only liberal leaning sources lest my observations be called right leaning.
So this is from many sources collated by youself?
approval:
http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm
favorables
http://www.pollingreport.com/BushFav.htm
It looks like in the most recent polls (this week) it's averaging +4 over disapproval.
Looking for "shares values"...
Edit #4: Here it is: http://www.pollingreport.com/bush.htm
Over two centuries ago, John Adams spoke eloquently about the need to let facts and evidence guide actions and policies. He said, "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." Listen to those words again, and you can hear John Adams speaking to us now about Iraq. "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."
Tragically, in making the decision to go to war in Iraq, the Bush administration allowed its wishes, its inclinations, and its passions to alter the state of facts and the evidence of the threat we faced from Iraq.
A month ago, in an address at Georgetown University, CIA Director George Tenet discussed the strengths and flaws in the intelligence on Iraq. Tenet testified to several Senate and House committees on these issues, and next Tuesday, he will come before our Senate Armed Services Committee. He will have an opportunity to explain why he waited until last month to publicly state the facts and evidence on these fundamental questions, and why he was so silent when it mattered most -- in the days and months leading up to the war.
If he feels that the White House altered the facts, or misused the intelligence, or ignored it and relied on dubious sources in the Iraqi exile community, Tenet should say so, and say it plainly.
It is not sufficient for Tenet to say only, as he did last week to the Senate Intelligence Committee, that we must be patient. When he was appointed Director of Central Intelligence in 1997, Tenet said to President Clinton, " ... I have believed that you ... and the vice president must be provided with ... complete and objective intelligence. ... We must always be straight and tell you the facts as we know them." The American people and our men and women serving in Iraq deserve the facts and they deserve answers now.
The rushed decision to invade Iraq cannot all be blamed on flawed intelligence. If we view these events simply as an intelligence failure -- rather than a larger failure of decision-making and leadership -- we will learn the wrong lessons.
The more we find out, the clearer it becomes that any failure in the intelligence itself is dwarfed by the administration's manipulation of the intelligence in making the case for war. Specific warnings from the intelligence community were consistently ignored as the administration rushed toward war.
We now know that from the moment President Bush took office, Iraq was given high priority as unfinished business from the first Bush administration.
According to former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill's account in Ron Suskind's book, "The Price of Loyalty," Iraq was on the agenda at the very first meeting of the National Security Council, just 10 days after President Bush's inauguration in 2001. At that meeting, the president quickly -- and wrongly -- concluded that the U.S. could not do much about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He said we should "pull out of that situation," and then turned to a discussion of "how Iraq is destabilizing the region."
Secretary O'Neill remembers, "Getting Hussein was now the administration's focus. From the start, we were building the case against Hussein and looking at how we could take him out and change Iraq into a new country. And, if we did that, it would solve everything. It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of It -- the president saying, 'Fine. Go find me a way to do this.'"
By the end of February 2001, the talk on Iraq was mostly about how -- and how quickly -- to get rid of Saddam Hussein. President Bush was clearly frustrated with what the intelligence community was providing. According to Secretary O'Neill, on May 16, 2001, he and the other principals of the National Security Council met with the president to discuss the Middle East. Tenet presented his intelligence report, and told the president that it was still only speculation whether Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, or was even starting a program to build such weapons.
Secretary O'Neill says, "Everything Tenet sent up to Bush and [Vice President Dick] Cheney about Iraq was very judicious and precisely qualified. The president was clearly very interested in weapons or weapons programs -- and frustrated about our weak intelligence capability -- but Tenet was clearly being careful to say, here's the little that we know and the great deal that we don't. That wouldn't change, and I read those CIA reports for two years," said O'Neill.
Then came 9/11. In the months that followed, the war in Afghanistan and the hunt for Osama bin Laden had obvious priority. Al Qaeda was clearly the most imminent threat to our national security. In fact, in his testimony to Congress in February 2001, one month after President Bush's inauguration and seven months before 9/11, Tenet had said, "Osama bin Laden and his global network of lieutenants and associates remain the most immediate and serious threat." That testimony emphasized the clear danger of bin Laden in light of the specific attacks in previous years on American citizens and American institutions.
In February 2002, five months after 9/11, Tenet testified, "Last year, I told you that Osama bin Laden and the Al Qaeda network were the most immediate and serious threat this country faced. This remains true despite the progress we have made in Afghanistan and in disrupting the network elsewhere."
Even during the buildup to the war in Iraq, in February 2003, Tenet again testified, "The threat from al Qaeda remains. ... We place no limitations on our expectations on what al Qaeda might do to survive. ... Al Qaeda is living in the expectation of resuming the offensive."
In his testimony last week to the Senate Intelligence Committee, Tenet repeated his earlier warnings. He said again that Al Qaeda is not defeated and that "We are still at war. ... This is a learning organization that remains committed to attacking the United States, its friends and allies."
Tenet never used that kind of strong language to describe the threat from Iraq. Yet despite all the clear and consistent warnings about Al Qaeda, by the summer of 2002, President Bush was ready for war with Iraq. The war in Afghanistan was no longer in the headlines or at the center of attention. Bin Laden was hard to find, the economy was in trouble, and so was the president's approval rating in the polls.
[White House political adviser] Karl Rove had tipped his hand earlier by stating that the war on terrorism could bring political benefits as well. The president's undeniable goal was to convince the American people that war was necessary -- and necessary soon, because soon-to-be-acquired nuclear weapons in the hands of Saddam Hussein could easily be handed off to terrorists.
This conclusion was not supported by the facts, but the intelligence could be retrofitted to support it. Greg Thielmann, former director of the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, put it bluntly last July. He said, "Some of the fault lies with the performance of the intelligence community, but most of it lies with the way senior officials misused the information they were provided." He said, "They surveyed the data, and picked out what they liked. The whole thing was bizarre. The secretary of defense had this huge Defense Intelligence Agency, and he went around it." Thielmann also said, "This administration has had a faith-based intelligence attitude, its top-down use of intelligence: we know the answers; give us the intelligence to support those answers. ... Going down the list of administration deficiencies, or distortions, one has to talk about, first and foremost, the nuclear threat being hyped," he said."
it goes on for three more pages and is worth every word Here just go through the day-pass it takes a split second and gets none of your info
Originally posted by midwinter
Please re-read my comments. I have neither implied nor stated that the terrorist attacks are indicative of the failure of the Iraqis to welcome their new overlords. I have only said that the picture that was painted for us (mostly by Rumsfeld) was not true, and has not come true.
Bush says that, and like most politicians, it means nothing. The State dept. had everything planned. Rumsfeld and the Admin didn't let them fight the war they wanted and pushed for this small force. It's a miracle it was even as large as it was, apparently. This is clearly an example of the generals NOT being allowed to fight the war they wanted. This has been well-documented.
Looked like a deer to damned near everyone, including the Iraqis and many soldiers fighting there. Why the hell do you think Rumsfeld went to Iraq to boost troop morale?
1. I think they fought the war they wanted. There may have been conflict between Rumsfeld and the "old Pentagon", but the generals ran the war.
2. Rumsfeld might have gone to Iraq because he's THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE.
Clinton did not attempt to bully the UN into going along with him.
Quote of the year! Really...that's the funniest thing I've every heard. Bush tries to go to the UN, gets a resolution which it then refuses to enforce, then finally goes to war with 17 resoltutions behind him. Clinton doesn't even attempt to go to the UN...and Bush is "bullying" the UN? HAHAHAHAHA.
Clinton attacked on the same intel. He bombed. He used cruise missles. He hit them pretty hard. The scale of it doesn't matter...he attacked based on the SAME intelligence...and all you can up with is that he didn't use ground troops? Please.
You mistakenly assume I like Kerry. I do not. Again, quit trying to change the subject.
That's not the point. He made statements supporting war based on the same info. And yet...he's not called a liar. He's a war hero. It's complete bullshit.
And again..."It's not his fault! It was bad intel!"
He said there were WMD. There aren't, and soon there will be an investigation of what he knew beforehand. There will soon be an investigation into why the admin didn't push for more fact-checking. There will be an investigation into whether or not the admin retaliated against unfavorable intel by outing a CIA agent.
He lied. I doubt very seriously that there is anything that will make you see it.
Of course not, because how could any intelligent person disagree with you? And further, we all know I'm a blind Bush supporter with no critical thinking skills. There's no evidence anything was distorted or manipulated or even exaggerated. None. Zero. When I see it....Bush loses my vote.
Originally posted by sammi jo
We have not been welcomed as liberators. The huge majority or Iraqis want the US out of there, like yesterday. At best, the Iraqi attitude towards the US presence is sullen frustration.
Although the official casualty count is some 550 US troops, the way the figures are compiled by the Pentagon makes it wildly inaccurate (low). A soldier has to die on the battlefield to be officially counted as deceased. Soldiers who die in a field hospital, or en route to a field hospital, or en route to the US for treatmant, of after returning home, etc etc etc are often not counted by the Pentagon as among the dead. I shall look for the article....it was in a Veterans group publication.
And....dont forget...the number of US dead in Iraq so far is the same as the number of US dead in the first 3 years of the Vietnam war. And a US presence in Iraq is projected to last until 2008+....lets not count the cost until it's over, and the last of our soldiers have returned home. It is far from over.
That's deceptive. We didn't have 250,000 men in Vietnam then. The conflict was totally different. And, I'm not about to take someone seriously who claims we killed 100,000 civilians (or whatever your number was) in Gulf War #1.
Originally posted by jimmac
The difference is that Clinton didn't lie like it was something urgent so we must go to war. A war that cost many lives and dollars.
Right...what he did was put the problem off for the next Administration. We should have invaded Iraq the SECOND they violated the terms of the 1991 ceae fire. Clinton put off the terror threat. He sold nuke technology to N. Korea. He ignored the bombings of the USS Cole and embassies.
As for lying, Bush never, ever used the term "imminent". Not once.
pfflam: Nice balanced article there. No agenda at all. Why do you bother bombing the thread with this? Post a link....not 10,000 words.
From the article:
Bush's "needless war"
Accusing the president of "pure, unadulterated fear-mongering," Sen. Edward Kennedy delivers a scathing indictment of the administration's case for invading Iraq.
Editor's note: Following are prepared remarks for a speech by Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., delivered at the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington on March 5.
Who are you shitting here, pfflam?
Originally posted by SDW2001
1. I think they fought the war they wanted. There may have been conflict between Rumsfeld and the "old Pentagon", but the generals ran the war.
You keep missing the point. It doesn't matter what you think. What matters is what happened. And the record is quite clear: State wanted one war; the admin wanted another. The admin won, and the generals did NOT get to fight the war they wanted.
2. Rumsfeld might have gone to Iraq because he's THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE.
Huh? That must be why he's only been there ONCE, right? Right? I suppose the fact that the major news outlets were doing nothing but covering low troop morale had nothing to do with it, huh?
Quote of the year! Really...that's the funniest thing I've every heard. Bush tries to go to the UN, gets a resolution which it then refuses to enforce, then finally goes to war with 17 resoltutions behind him. Clinton doesn't even attempt to go to the UN...and Bush is "bullying" the UN? HAHAHAHAHA.
Bush didn't "try" to go to the UN. He did. And the UNSC rejected him. His father went to the UN and got support, on the other hand.
Clinton didn't need to go to the UN, since he wasn't invading a country and overthrowing its government.
Nonetheless, you're trying to change the subject again.
Clinton attacked on the same intel. He bombed. He used cruise missles. He hit them pretty hard. The scale of it doesn't matter...he attacked based on the SAME intelligence...and all you can up with is that he didn't use ground troops? Please.
You're kidding, right? The scale doesn't matter? Go and tell that to some widows of this war. I'll keep a raw steak handy for you to put on your eye.
Nevertheless, to go along with your endless attempts to change the subject from this indefensible president, Clinton did NOT attack on the same intel. The Clinton attacks were in retaliation for an attempt to assassinate Bush I (who went to soldiers' funerals).
That's not the point. He made statements supporting war based on the same info. And yet...he's not called a liar. He's a war hero. It's complete bullshit.
Wait a minute. You try to change the subject, I call you on it, and then you tell me I miss the point? No, sir. That is very much the point. Clinton had intel suggesting that Iraq had WMD. He did not invade. Bush did, and apparently had to mangle the intel in order to sell it to the public.
He lied.
Whatever you may think, all of you who are defending him are wearing the blue dress now.
Of course not, because how could any intelligent person disagree with you?
They usually don't.
And further, we all know I'm a blind Bush supporter with no critical thinking skills.
Good. Glad you're catching up.
There's no evidence anything was distorted or manipulated or even exaggerated. None. Zero. When I see it....Bush loses my vote.
Better tell that to the committee that's INVESTIGATING THIS VERY QUESTION. And remember, Bush can take a vacation for a month, or spend 4 hours at a NASCAR rally, but he only gives that commission ONE HOUR to question him.
You'd better cut your losses and quit making excuses for this guy.
You keep missing the point. It doesn't matter what you think. What matters is what happened. And the record is quite clear: State wanted one war; the admin wanted another. The admin won, and the generals did NOT get to fight the war they wanted.
What evidence exists on this point? State? I assume you mean the Pentagon. My understanding is that Bush instructed the Pentagon to develop a plan for accomplishing certain objectives. They then did so. If you're going to make the accusation that the politicians interefered with war planning (as they did in Vietnam), then you're going to have to back it up. What would even cause you to say that?
Huh? That must be why he's only been there ONCE, right? Right? I suppose the fact that the major news outlets were doing nothing but covering low troop morale had nothing to do with it, huh?
One, if you believe the major news outlets all the time, you're nuts (with all due respect). They had a few soldiers interviewed...and of course it comes off as if half the military is experiencing low morale. Three words: Criminal Liberal Media. Showing troops on TV ripping on Rumsfeld and Bush borders on treason. In any case, making the statement "Rumsfeld went to Iraq, therefore things are going badly" is a logical fallacy. He's the top Defense official in the country, other than Bush. Why is it a problem?
Bush didn't "try" to go to the UN. He did. And the UNSC rejected him. His father went to the UN and got support, on the other hand.
Clinton didn't need to go to the UN, since he wasn't invading a country and overthrowing its government.
Nonetheless, you're trying to change the subject again.
I haven't changed any subject. You're the one that said "Bush bullied the UN". Bush went to the UN and got resolution 1441 passed, which stated that "serious consequences" would follow without Iraq's FULL cooperation. There is no man, woman or child on this planet that can honestly say Iraq did that. Bush then circulated a second "authorization of force" resolution, which the UNSC refused to pass. Actually, it was primarily Germany and France that said they would veto. We had two nations, at least one of which was directly tied to Saddam, that were essentially blocking the security council from backing up its own resolutions.
Bush made very effort to involve the UN. The UN, being the spineless and toothless tiger that it is, refused to enforce its own resoltutions. Clinton did not even ATTEMPT to get a another resolution passed. He still attacked Iraq, whether or not he removed the "government". So, I have to laugh when I hear Bush criticized for being "unilateral" and at the same time "bullying" the UN. Which is it? If he had not gone at all...you'd be charging him with being a rogue cowboy. It doesn't matter what Bush does. The Left hates him either way.
You're kidding, right? The scale doesn't matter? Go and tell that to some widows of this war. I'll keep a raw steak handy for you to put on your eye.
Nevertheless, to go along with your endless attempts to change the subject from this indefensible president, Clinton did NOT attack on the same intel. The Clinton attacks were in retaliation for an attempt to assassinate Bush I (who went to soldiers' funerals).
The scale does not matter because it was the same intelligence. He attacked. It wouldn't matter if he launched one missile with a stink bomb attached to it. He based his decision on the SAME INTELLIGENCE Bush saw. So did John Kerry in voting for the war.
You then UNBELIEVABLY claim that Clinton's bombing had nothing to do with WMD. That statement you made above is patently false. Clinton was punishing Iraq due to the UN inspector debacle. When the inspectors left, he attacked, giving speeches along the way which sounded.....wait for it....one hell of a lot like Bush's did 6 years later. It had little to do with the assasinination attempt. And now all of a sudden, Bush lied. It doesn't add up. Even if Clinton had not attacked at all....even if he had only given publicc statements like he did, one would still have to call Clinton a liar if doing the same for Bush. That's the point.
Wait a minute. You try to change the subject, I call you on it, and then you tell me I miss the point? No, sir. That is very much the point. Clinton had intel suggesting that Iraq had WMD. He did not invade. Bush did, and apparently had to mangle the intel in order to sell it to the public.
He lied.
Whatever you may think, all of you who are defending him are wearing the blue dress now.
Say it with me: "Clinton used the same intel to attack". You can't possibly be making the case that had the intel been stronger, Clinton would have invaded...can you? Same intel, Same intel, Same intel. We could make that into a loop in GarageBand.
Better tell that to the committee that's INVESTIGATING THIS VERY QUESTION. And remember, Bush can take a vacation for a month, or spend 4 hours at a NASCAR rally, but he only gives that commission ONE HOUR to question him.
You'd better cut your losses and quit making excuses for this guy.
This is where your leftist hypocrisy really shows. Clinton galavanted all around the world, spending taxpayer dollars like monopoly money. Clinton lied under oath, hooked up with an intern in the Oval Office, sold nuclear tech to N. Korea, raised taxes, lied on national television (the to the very children he always references), refused to deal with the terror threat, cut the military. was accused of sexual harrassment on multiple ocassions, and was impeached. And yet...Bush is criticized for taking a vacation and going to a NASCAR race?
BTW, I agree he should give the commission more time. Just say that next time.
The last US President used cruise missiles and bombs to enforce no-fly zones and protect allied aeroplanes.
He.
Did.
Not.
Invade.
Iraq.
Unless I missed it.
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Just a note on this 'Clinton had the same intelligence' stuff.
The last US President used cruise missiles and bombs to enforce no-fly zones and protect allied aeroplanes.
He.
Did.
Not.
Invade.
Iraq.
Unless I missed it.
That doesn't matter. The accusation is that Bush lied about the intelligence. The point in response is that Clinton referenced the very same intlligence. The action (bombing) is secondary.
Trying to justify your point by saying "yeah guys, but Clinton didn't go as far as Bush did" is ridiculous and besides the point.
"He [Saddam Hussein] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction...our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbours of Iraq."
That's Colin Powell in 2001.
"We believe that the sanctions regime has effectively contained Saddam Hussein."
That's Tony Blair addressing the House of Commons. In November 2000.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Or maybe Bush is nowhere near as stupid as the other half thinks? It doesn't matter how many times Bush has beaten his opponents, they still underestimate him. Amazing.
I am not convinced that Bush is all that intelligent. The only smart thing he has done is to surrond himself with intelligent people.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Right...what he did was put the problem off for the next Administration. We should have invaded Iraq the SECOND they violated the terms of the 1991 ceae fire. Clinton put off the terror threat. He sold nuke technology to N. Korea. He ignored the bombings of the USS Cole and embassies.
As for lying, Bush never, ever used the term "imminent". Not once.
pfflam: Nice balanced article there. No agenda at all. Why do you bother bombing the thread with this? Post a link....not 10,000 words.
From the article:
Who are you shitting here, pfflam?
Man I'm sorry but there's only one reply for the way you twist reality......"The Stupidity is Amazing"
Originally posted by SDW2001
That doesn't matter. The accusation is that Bush lied about the intelligence. The point in response is that Clinton referenced the very same intlligence. The action (bombing) is secondary.
Trying to justify your point by saying "yeah guys, but Clinton didn't go as far as Bush did" is ridiculous and besides the point.
Listen that's not just a small difference! And the reason he gave didn't exist! The circumstaces surrounding this seem very suspicious. Not in a good way for Dubbya. The more that gets dug up about this the mopre the finger points at him.
So what do you want? I'm sorry if your president looks extremely guilty if only in a round about way. However men in court have been convicted on such evidence because there was no other explaination.
Just like Sherlock Holmes says : " If you eliminate all other possibilities. What remains no matter how incredible must be the truth ".
And you know there just aren't that many plausible possibilities here.