| Author | Message | ||
     bobk Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 3211 Registered: 5-2001 |
A lot of moderates, both Democrat and Republican, were on the fence about supporting the war in Iraq. Statements that the President made about WMD certainly pushed a number of us over the line into the Hawk group. Now it is looking more and more like a lot of the "evidence" was manufactured and along with the fact that we will probably have troops in that God foresaken land until at least 2007 (per Tommy Franks)I am beginning to feel like I have been had. | ||
| steel Citizen Username: Steel Post Number: 313 Registered: 2-2002 |
"I did not have sex with that woman" = only 8 words. Since when do we quantify the seriousness of a statement based on the number of the words used? -This absurdist defense by the administration is the most lame-ass insulting thing by the republicans yet. Can you imagine what the republicans would have screamed if Clinton's defense had been, -"hey it was only 8 little words". Yet they want us to shrug off the future global implications of sending America to war based on falsehoods and the fact that Saddam was "not a nice guy". -Thou shalt not kill. Only 4 words. Not important. | ||
| Timmeh Citizen Username: Timmeh Post Number: 666 Registered: 1-2002  |
Bush lied. Thousands died. Clinton lied. A blue dress died. Timmeh! | ||
| Bjp Citizen Username: Bjp Post Number: 137 Registered: 10-2002 |
I'm with you, bob. A few months ago, I thought the Bushies truly believed that Iraq was dangerous; and despite the fervent debate about the war, they were right to invade if they saw even an unclear and future danger. But if they falsified and pumped up intelligence (it's not just one fact--remember the "amplifications" in Powell's UN speech), then either a) they believed in the danger of Iraq based on gut feelings or b) they had ulterior (read: they tried to kill my daddy) motives. If they risked (and cost) many lives, not to mention long-term world diplomacy problems for the U.S., just to avenge an old score, well, then Bush is no better than Nixon. Zoe, it's hardly worth replying to your rants, but you should notice that the public is not ignoring this "scandal." It's on the front page of every major paper every day. W's approval rating is dropping in the US and is hitting lows never before seen for an American president elsewhere. | ||
| ml1 Citizen Username: Ml1 Post Number: 1101 Registered: 5-2002  |
For those who keep chanting the mantra "it was only 16 words," please understand that there were many other intelligence reports that have been twisted or misrepresented. The entire run up to the war was based on (as the British have dubbed it) "sexed up" information. | ||
| rheims Citizen Username: Rheims Post Number: 531 Registered: 5-2001 |
as i said nearly a year ago, bush was blowing smoke up america's ass about iraq; and he would bait america into a war for one reason and when that was proven to be unfounded he would switch gears and say the war was a success for a different reason entirely, just like bush pere did in the gulf war. it's nice of the president to live down to my expectations of him. and with that rheims is gone, the boxes packed, the moving van on the way, the forwarding form ready to be dropped off at the post office. a final note to strawberry: that nagging voice in your head, the one you think the tin foil will block? that's your conscience. | ||
| Paul Surovell Citizen Username: Paulsurovell Post Number: 175 Registered: 2-2003 |
Sbenois, Your post on Lieberman is on the mark. This was a bi-partisan war. Very few Democrats had the courage to speak the truth. In the Senate, Robert Byrd stood alone. In the House, we can be proud of Dennis Kucinich, Barbara Lee and a perhaps a couple dozen others. In Maplewood, we can be proud of Vic De Luca, Jerry Ryan and David Huemer. I posted before that if Gore-Lieberman had been elected, the same scare stories of nuclear weapons, Al Qaeda, and mass quantities of chemical and biological weapons would have been spewed out by the media-war-machine, and Gore would have led us into war even sooner than Bush did. And there would have been far less grass-roots protest. There is a portion of the Democratic Party that has the courage and conviction to stand up to the the military-industrial-media complex, but it does not include the party leadership. Democrats are beginning to examine the fraudulent rationales for going into the war, but few are addressing a higher priority -- how do we can get our troops out as quickly as possible? In other words, we need to address not only the false reasons for going into Iraq, we need to address the false notion that we are there as "liberators." The problem of Iraq should never been taken away from the United Nations and we should act to correct that tragic mistake by replacing ourselves as the Occupation Authority with the UN Security Council. US troops should be replaced with UN troops, most of whom should be former Iraqi soldiers under UN command. The United Nations has the credibility to build a real coalition among Iraqi political, ethnic and religious factions that will be able to produce a new constitution and government that will be respected by the Iraqi people. The main thing is that the United States should get out of Iraq as quickly as possible, in a responsible way. You don't hear the Democrats talking about this. Only the families of the GIs, who, along with the Iraqi people, are the real victims of this shameful episode. | ||
| themp Citizen Username: Themp Post Number: 114 Registered: 12-2001 |
Wait until the pumped up, falsified economic/education/environmental policies are aired out. Out in four! Just like dad. | ||
| Paul Surovell Citizen Username: Paulsurovell Post Number: 176 Registered: 2-2003 |
Ml1, Yes, there are many more lies to expose. Glen Rangwala, whose article "20 Lies About the War" I posted in the prior section of this thread, reported this morning on Democracy Now! that he originally cited more than 100 lies, but the editor at the Independent UK said the article had to be reduced for space reasons. Democracy Now! (Amy Goodman, WBAI 99.5-FM 9-10 am M-F) had a great segment this morning that included Rangwala, Ray McGovern of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (cited in today's Kristof column) and Andrew Willkie, a senior Australian intelligence analyst who resigned over the war. The Democracy Now! segment can be heard at: http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/07/15/1423259 Willke and McGovern are appearing at a news conference with Dennis Kucinich this morning. Let's see how much coverage it gets from the major media. | ||
| notehead Citizen Username: Notehead Post Number: 615 Registered: 5-2001  |
My dear Republicans, when our own intelligence community is making efforts to establish that the information they risk their lives to provide is being grossly misused and twisted by the boys at the top, it's time to stop defending the administration. As Nick Kristof reports today in the NY Times: "Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, a group of retired spooks, issued an open letter to President Bush yesterday reflecting the view of many in the intel community that the central culprit is Vice President Dick Cheney. The open letter called for Mr. Cheney's resignation." That's what I'd call a "Capitol" idea. And while we're at it, let's impeach Bush. Hey, Saddam was an evil, sadistic leader. But it remains to be seen how much better off the Iraqis will be without him. If we are only as effective in Iraq as we've been in Afghanistan, most Iraqis will eventually be under the thumb of rulers who will combine Saddam's loving leadership with the Taliban's gentle enforcement of Bronze Age religious doctrines. | ||
| bobk Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 3215 Registered: 5-2001 |
Paul, are you really suggesting that we should re-arm the Iraqi Army? With SH still running around the country? Uhm, well, a lot of what you said made sense, but that one blew the whole thing out the window as far as I am concerned. | ||
| Libby Citizen Username: Lib Post Number: 26 Registered: 3-2003 |
I got to hand it to you Paul Surovell, Maplewood is proud of losers. "In Maplewood, we can be proud of Vic De Luca, Jerry Ryan and David Huemer." But what exactly is the "military-industrial-media complex." Is that something you overheard at a protest movement back in 1968? | ||
| Nohero Citizen Username: Nohero Post Number: 1816 Registered: 5-2001  |
Bobk: The U.S. is now recruiting former Iraqi soldiers for a new force, so don't be too hard on Mr. Surovell. By the way, that new force was going to be called the "New Iraqi Corps", until it was pointed out that, in Arabic, the acronym of that name was a word for fornication. So, it will be called the "New Iraqi Army". | ||
| Paul Surovell Citizen Username: Paulsurovell Post Number: 177 Registered: 2-2003 |
Bobk, Thanks for the partial agreement. What I said was replace US troops with a United Nations force consisting mostly of former Iraqi soldiers under United Nations command. There are hundreds of thousands of unemployed former Iraqi troops with no livelihood who become angrier by the day. Most of these were conscripts who have no love for Saddam, who would I think would like to support a new Iraq -- as long as it's not dictated by the US. I confess that this idea to integrate former Iraqi soldiers into a UN force is based on a general reading of the situation in Iraq, and not backed by any serious research or expert opinion. But it seems worth exploring. | ||
| JJC Citizen Username: Mercury Post Number: 68 Registered: 12-2002 |
Let's stick to the issues - no personal attacks. If you can't make your point without them, you may not have one. | ||
| Dave Ross Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 4855 Registered: 5-2001  |
(Libby sidelined for a week for the personal attack.) | ||
| bobk Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 3216 Registered: 5-2001 |
Yes, and they are also reinstating some police officers, but in fairly small numbers. Paul's post used the word "most" and imho a UN force would have to number somewhere north of 100,000 troops to be effective. | ||
| JJC Citizen Username: Mercury Post Number: 69 Registered: 12-2002 |
Based on how we got into this situation, I am not sure that UN members would support the bodies or $$$ it would take to see this through. It is unlikely that we will get this support and this rebuilding effort will prove to be a big drag on our economy. What was promised as a 30-60 day occupation - I think the original $$$ amount allotted was $60 million - has turned into a $3.9 billion per month 'indefinite' sinkhole. Those of you who still think this was the right thing to do (and the right way to do it), put your money where your mouth is. | ||
| #9Dream Citizen Username: 9dream Post Number: 468 Registered: 12-2002  |
An essay question for all you Conservatives out there (it's a two-parter): a) When the US pours billions of our tax dollars into another country, it's called "foreign aid" and/or "rebuilding." When the US spends one cent of our tax dollars on our own poor, you call it "Socialism." Explain. b) Why does the second-biggest oil producer in the Middle East need our financial help anyway? Shouldn't we just be lending them this money until they get their oil production back on track? | ||
| sbenois Citizen Username: Sbenois Post Number: 10126 Registered: 10-2001  |
Dearest Paul, I believe that we are in agreement! My objection to the slant of this debate is what I perceive to be the desire of many on the MOL Democratic/Liberal side of the aisle to make it sound like this was not a bi-partisan war. If people want to take issue with Bush on Iraq, they sure as hell should make sure that their anti-war rants, delivered as a la carte anti-Republicanism, are squared with the views of many leaders in our own party. But I disagree with you on the pride thing. There are many reasons to be proud of Vic, Jerry and David, but in my eyes, the resolution is not one of them. I have no doubt that for many people - including me - it sent a signal that they were focusing on the wrong issues. In the end, I believe that it was a strong factor in the results on June 3rd. ---> Brought to you by Sbenois Engineering LLC <---- |
