Island, I don't remember "lets go free the Iraqi people" as being the catch-cry prior to invading Iraq. It was more about "WMD" and "terrorism".

Cynically, I see WMD sliding away, and the (understandably) pleased Iraqi people being used as a justification for the invasion. The terrorism link is only partially proven in my mind (Saddam wanted to set up links with Al Qaeda - we don't know if he did anything, yet).

So if "liberating the Iraqi people" wasn't why the US invaded, why should it form a part of the (ex-post) justification of the war?

What do you mean? It's been about Operation Iraqui Liberation all along!

You guys keep reminding me that you need things to be kept simple. . . no more than one concept.

Too many facets to an issue will risk. . .
http://www.pelicanparts.com/support/smileys/explode.gif

:p

"Scanners?"

Well, if there are other reasons (than the WMD/terrorism ones) for invading Iraq, shouldn't they be clearly acknowledged?

Its interesting to look back on Bush's "48 hours" speech now -->

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3250594&thesection=news&t hesubsection=world

He basically says - we're going in, and either Saddam can go peacefully or he can fight. The positive effect to the Iraqi people is mentioned almost as an afterthough - almost a positive externality. The speech makes it very clear that US security is the primary issue.

I also know the US has a (stated) policy to ensure that no single country (or alliance of countries) can challenge it the way the USSR used to. This annoys certain countries (the other big ones, generally).

Cam

Island, The entire argument for invading Iraq NOW, w/o the backing of the world or the legitimacy of the U.N. was to "disarm Saddam Hussein". I do not seem to remember the multiple facets that you keep refering to, are those Island's reasons for going to war or the U.S.'s?? I must have missed the "we must liberate Iraq NOW" speech in front of the U.N. :rolleyes:

Now we are being prepped by the info providers to ratchet back any expectations of actually finding any WMD, so far there is zero evidence that he posed an immediate, or non-immediate threat to our security that would give legal justification for invading a country unilaterally. I know, I know, another "liberal" splitting hairs about wanting wars to be legal and legitimate.

As for discrediting Bush Jr., he discredits himself as far as I'm concerned. And if it turns out that he and his administration lied about having "bullet-proof evidence" of WMDs and a link between Iraq and 9/11, to justify this war, well......., I think that would make Clinton's lie about the blowjob pale in comparison, don't ya think? BTW, the "bullet-proof evidence" remark was Rumsfeld's and it was a lie. He will hang for it, (politically speaking of course), I predict. :cool:

SO you're arguing that because in one of GWs' speeches, he didn't acknowlege enough for you, it wasn't a clear goal. (?)

Clearly, the Iraqis were flooded with leaflet explaining the US intention of targeting Saddam (and freeing the people suffering under him.)

Different audiences got different emphasis, about the various aspects of this war.

Some in the US thought GW talked about that "freeing" aspect a bit much. The security of the US is/was the primary goal.
Though, for Bush to lay a road-map, prior to the war, for a WIN-WIN situation for the Iraqi people, was smart icing on the cake, which save many lives.

Denis, if Cliton wasn't lying about BJ's maybe he could have done more to prevent 9/11. As it turned out, Clitons lobbed a cruise-missle or two in binladens direction and allowed the inspectors to be kicked out of Iraq.
His legacy will be ALL about letting binladen & saddam gain strength.

I'm sorry, I forgot. Republicans don't get BJs, and only bang their wives, right? :rolleyes:

If there is one thing that has been proven beyond a doubt, it is that Bible-thumpers are the biggest liars in that dept. FWIW.

As for Rumsfeld, I had no strong opinion about him one way or the other before this war. I'd read flattering reports about his brilliant career in magazines, even nearly bumped into him in a restaurant here in L.A. a year ago. Just in case you think that I am a simple ideologue/equal opportunity Republican-hater, I'm not. In fact, after the Gulf War I gained enourmous respect and admiration for N. Swartzkoff, (sp?) and Powell, like most Americans. I now despise Rumsfeld, he is insulting w/ his bald lies. I believed that he lied to Bush and bullied Powell, (who sold his soul to support this effort), he is the bad actor and liar in this deal.

Clinton? It's a shame about his flaws, which include being an unrepentant hound and having incredibly low-brow taste in women. You would think that the most powerful man on earth could do a little bit better. Oh well. It's a shame that he had to degrade his legacy like that, because otherwise he would be simply considered one of the most successful politicians in the history of the free world. The country was a great place under him, I'm not mad at him. Miss those days, seems like yesterday that things were good, doesn't it? :cool:

I don't know about Republicans (I voted against GW) and howmany BJs they get. . .but monica!? I wouldn't hit that even if I was married to Hillary.

Also, from what I've seen, Clintons are the Master liars, and Bible-thumpers just have a book to support their rationalizations. So I guess I have to dissagree with you on the whole "that Bible-thumpers are the biggest liars in that dept. "

Though, yes; seems like yesterday (clinton years) that things were good.
Ignorance is bliss, I've heard. . . .though I don't really buy that either.

FWIW, I have to laugh at the thought of Republicans sitting around and celebrating the passing of Clinton. Something like this(?):

"Well......, the country, no, make that the world is in the *****ter, just when you think that it can't get worse a plague comes along to run the last airline out of business and give already jittery people something else to be afraid of. The stock market is looking like a 20th century idea, economy shrinking, world peace never looked worse, every city and state govt. in the land is hemorraging red ink, former allies hate us, etc., etc..........., Thank God for sending his son, Ralph Nader, down to earth and for putting the fritz on some voting machines in Fla. to help us accomplish the IMPOSSIBLE! Electing the weakest Republican candidate since Jerry Ford to be the President of the United States!" :)

Is that how it goes? :cool:

Do you really think that Clinton was a master liar? Not trying to start something, just that I always thought that he was a lousy liar. You could always tell. "I did not have sexual relations w/ that woman"......, yeah right. :rolleyes:

Nah, Denis: he just had a cigar with her. ;)

Ralph Nader: now that's a name I have growing respect for day after day. Only problem is I'm a Corvair fan. :rolleyes:

DD74...maybe thats the reason you like the P cars

Remember "Bomb em back to the stone age" Curtis LeMay, he and Rumsfield have about the same mentality....very hawkish hard liners...every time I see Rumsfield I think of ole Curtis. Actually I like the way he keeps the media jackals in their place.....

Bill and Hill stand for nothing.....the only thing they care about is their own ambitions...and a win at ANY cost philosophy which might be described as Situational Ethics ....Even the Tricky Dick....put country first....1960

Now here is the MOAL.....LBJ (Liberal Democrat BTW) and the Tonkin Gulf Incident......which lead to the Tonkin Gulf Resolutioin which just cost the USA apx 50,000 dead (after the resolution) and untold treasure and nearly a generation of self recrimination....If that wasn't the biggest BJ that the American people ever got I don't know what is?


I simply don't care what the administration says about the reason why we invaded Iraq....The perceived National Security was the ultimate goal.....go back and read my previous posts about the Iraqie campaign being Geopolitical....The USA is now taking a STAND and saying this is what we need to do, and it's too bad if you France Germany Russia and China don't like it, we are going ahead anyway. Anyway why should those other countries dictate what America should do or shouldn't....we should listen to their advice but ultimately it's Americas decision to make concerning it's own destiny..... BTW decision making by commitee doesn't work very well......

I simply don't care what the administration says about the reason why we invaded Iraq....The perceived National Security was the ultimate goal.....go back and read my previous posts about the Iraqie campaign being Geopolitical....The USA is now taking a STAND and saying this is what we need to do, and it's too bad if you France Germany Russia and China don't like it, we are going ahead anyway. Anyway why should those other countries dictate what America should do or shouldn't....we should listen to their advice but ultimately it's Americas decision to make concerning it's own destiny..... BTW decision making by commitee doesn't work very well......

Ok Tabs, this represents what I see as the reality of the situation (I agree National Security was the goal - and a very zealously pursued one). But this reality sucks. If the US was anyone other than the US, the rest of the world would come down on it like a ton of bricks. The simple fact that the US can get away with this "National Security" policy, which can only come at the expense of others, does not mean it should.

If your actual society (the people, not the country) operated like that, it would go to crap in weeks, if not days. Its almost anarchic (sp?).

Reading tabs last post, I gotta agree. This is all about America's interests.

In history, when has top dog of the world NOT flexed muscle? When have the lackeys NOT complained about the balance of power?

NZ is a beautiful place, kinda removed from the mainstream.....but civilization is just a thin veneer an illusion if you will.....this was clearly brought home to me in 1992 within hours of the verdict concerning the LA Policemen connected with the Rodney King a riot broke out and once itbecame apparent that the police had stepped back and were going to do nothing.....the place was burned and looted....the only businesses that survived were the ones that were defended by their owners with guns.... If that can happen in the USA...just what can hapen in the rest of the world.....Civilization stands so long as there is someone there to maintain order.....otherwise it's chaos..... Now the USA chooses to do it by rule of law for the most part, but we ain't perfect.

Like him or not, Rummy minces no words and doesn't suffer media fools lightly. I like seeing Ari pass out the crayons too. Look at the briefing on why we couldn't bring in food to a habor (paraphrased with short words for liberal arts majors)-

Ari- We will begin bringing in food aid when the harbor is demined.

Presscorps- Why aren't you bringing in food now?

Ari- Demining operations are ongoing and when finished, the ships will be unloaded.

Presscorps- There are people starving there, shouldn't you get those ships in now?

Ari- As soon as the mines are cleared, we will begin unloading the ships.

Presscorps- So just what is holding up unloading the ships?

Ari (crayon time)- Mines sink ships, sunk ships are destroyed, destroyed ships cannot be unloaded. That's why we have to remove the mines first.

Presscorps- So why aren't you removing the mines?

With each presscorps briefing I see, any confidence or respect for the press I may have mistakenly had drains away rapidly. Couple that with a definate bias in the mainstream media for the dem view and liberal causes, and I can only hope that liberals will be unable to reproduce because they should be naturally selected from the gene pool. :P

Like Bush or not, he inherited a mess from the previous administration. It will take a while to clean up and will cost lives and money before its done.

I have to include another comment here about the "reasons" we went into Iraq. I have relatives in the intelligence community, to the limit they can comment, it is a universal lament in response to the "oil is the reason crowd"- if the public only knew....

The comments I have made come pretty close to what the thinking is...

"Rummy and Ari". http://www.pelicanparts.com/support/smileys/smlove2.gif Sounds like a love connection to me. :)

But "Rummy", (sweet guy that he is), doesn't mince words, he lies. He claimed that the administration had "bullet-proof evidence" of ties between Iraq's govt. and Al Queda. This was not a little white lie, told in the national interest, it was a BIG, WHOPPING LIE told to mislead congress and the American people into supporting the administration's war plan. If this little scandal pans out, he could at the very least go down in history as one of the most damaging liars in the history of the U.S. The blood of over 100 dead U.S. service personnel and countless thousands of Iraqis would be on his hands. If there really was justification for ignoring the will of most of the world, including our allies in attacking Iraq immediately, why would this guy have to lie like that??

So you think that Liberal Arts majors need shorter words? As opposed to whom, business majors? :D I too have lost respect for most of the White House press corps, albeit for different reasons. They have become spineless, callow suplicants deathly afraid to really ask any tough questions of the current goon squad info ministry. If we had real reporters there, they would rip "Ari" a new bunghole, DEMANDING to know the truth behind our "evidence" that justified this disasterous course that we are on. Domestically and internationally. Ari would have to wear a clown suit to briefings, like his Iraqi counterpart. If those reporters that you quote were worth a ****e, they would have asked, " Why did you not anticipate any of these predictable hurtles to delivering aid before attacking the country, you f**king genius?? It seems as though everything other than the bomb-dropping was an afterthought in this mission, would that be accurate?" I only have one year of journalism school, but let me at that pencil-neck geek! :D

A bigger lie than the Social Security system? A bigger lie than Democrats are telling every day about tax cuts?

Perhaps the administration did lie, exaggerate, spin--whatever you want to call it--to facilitate the ultimately noble goal of toppling a sadistic, mass-murdering regime. It was essentially a marketing job aimed at convincing the slow-thinkers that make up the majority of the U.S. population. Most people would agree that Sadaam and the Baathists were bad and should have been removed. The marketing campaign (or lies, if you like) was just to build consensus for the timetable.

Federal and state government tells lies every day that affect Americans in a much more immediate way. I wish the rest of government had the clarity of purpose over everyday issues that the Bushies had for Iraq. Instead Americans pay taxes that disappear into vaguely defined programs. The grotesque and convoluted lies that government tells us about the actual uses of those tax dollars completely eclipses any pitch "Rummy" used to galvanize support among the drooling masses.

If I had a nickel for every whine of, "we need to find weapons of mass destruction" and, "there's no proof that Iraq supports terrorism" I could afford to put a 3.6 in my 911. :D

Wake up call, folks--the war wasn't about WMD or Al-Chaida, and it's time to stop crying over spilt milk. This isn't a high school debate so quit trying to score points by poking little petty holes.