war motivation

[stevepaa]

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/11092765.htm

I don't agree with his last paragraph, but maybe we can remember some of this before we get led falsely into another war.

[Superman]

I do agree with the last paragraph. And it looks like Americans are fully prepared to be led falsely into another war.

[on-ramp]

The fear machine was in full swing for months leading up to the war.

[azasadny]

I have sent this article on to quite a few folks. Thanks!!

[350HP930]

I still remember the news stories claiming that saddam was planning on attacking the US with bioweapon dispersing drone aircraft.

All BS of course, but typical of the kind of propaganda that the bush regime was spreading via our servile corporate media.

http://www.independent-media.tv/item.cfm?fmedia_id=2755&fcategory_desc=Under%20Reported

[CamB]

I just thought I'd reply to make a "who's who" of liberal posters. I don't want to miss out

[WOODPIE]

Yep.

[Staylo]

"Under Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz hastened to the Hill the next day and told the legislators that Shinseki's estimate was "wildly off the mark," and that Iraq wouldn't be nearly as tough as Afghanistan had been because Iraq didn't have the sort of nasty ethnic divisions one found in Afghanistan. "





From "Imminent Threat" to "Model for ME Democracy". How quickly we forget. Yea, it will happen again. Four years is a long time (to forget).

[350HP930]

I think it was Gore Vidal that said that the USA appears to currently stand for the united states of amnesia.

[Jeff Higgins]

Yes, hopefully we have learned something from all of this. It would be nice to be able to set partisian politics asside for just a moment and determine just what it might be that we can learn. Our intelligence was obviously severely lacking; at least a couple of administrations and most European governments honestly believed there was something to the weapons charges. Many still believe they had something going on; the massive convoys exiting to Syria right under inspectors' noses do look at least a little suspicious. Laying all of this on your least favorite politicians' shoulders accomplishes nothing. Neither does blindly supporting your favorite politician. We have become so polarized in this country that I often wonder if it is even possible anymore to have a calm, objective debate over an issue of this importance. I kind of boubt it.

[Superman]

Agreed, Jeff. Nevertheless, the reason many people believed this is because the President of the United States of America told us he was convinced of these facts. Absolutely convinced. Not guessing. Yeah, I don't like that guy anyway, but the fact remains that either he:

* lied, or

* was bamboozled and fibbed (about being certain)

Either way, he's incompetent.

One of my not even liberal but rather centrist friends the other day said:

"Americans must certainly be gullible if a Harvard-and-Yale educated son of a billionnaire oil baron who sat out the Viet Nam war in the National Guard can be sold to the public as a regular joe." I thought that was interesting.

[Tim Hancock]

Sold to the public as a "regular Joe"? WTF is that all about? I think it is pretty awful to hear folks who do not agree with W's policies, call him "incompetent", stupid or try to paint him into some other derogatory category. Clearly he is not a stupid man (he owned a baseball team, he flew fighter jets, he was a governor and is now president of the US. Disagree with his policies, but please do not try to claim he is ignorant.

Supe, you make it sound like you think you are genious, while the president of the greatest country on earth is a complete nimrod. This approach makes zero sense to me and when I hear it, I cannot help but
disregard any point you might be trying to make. Instead I just start smelling sour grapes.

Do you catch my drift?

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally posted by Superman

"Americans must certainly be gullible if a Harvard-and-Yale educated son of a billionnaire oil baron who sat out the Viet Nam war in the National Guard can be sold to the public as a regular joe." I thought that was interesting.

Absolutely. That is, however, what we are stuck with at that level. Anyone that rises to that level of power in our country is a child of priveledge and wealth. We have not had a "regular Joe" in the Oval Office in my lifetime, or my parents' lifetimes either. That's no longer possible with what it costs monitarily or politically to launch a campaign for that office today. As far as our current resident of that hallowed office, if he is to be labeled a liar, incompetent, or whatever else over this issue, we must include his predecessor and a very large number of not only our leaders, but others from around the world. I'm sure he was acting upon the best information he had available at the time. That it turned out to be a bigger can of worms than he realized going in is something we have the luxury of pointing out through hindsight, and a fine mess it is. Looking at our options after having opened that can, I'm not sure we could have done anything different that what we are doing - riding it out to the end. Hopefully when the dust settles over there, all those American lives will mean something. The track record in that area of the world is historically not very good, and I would not be surprised to see it settle back into their traditional infighting based on tribal and religious differences. It bothers me to think this, but unfortunately I truly believe there are those in this country that would like nothing better, just so they can say "we told you so", and add to their "Bush is an idiot and it's all his fault" rhetoric. There are a lot of good peoples' futures at stake over there. Unfortunately, it seems to boil down to a partisian political debate here at home, with those futures some abstract idea that seems to be left out. Too many here are more interested in winning that political debate than they are in those peoples' futures.

[Tim Hancock]

Jeff, hold your head up. It aint over yet, but it appears good things are starting to happen in the Middle East (Syria/Lebanon, Israel/Palestine, women's rights, voting in Iraq, lots of dead terrorist/insurgents). Imagine if all this comes around while W is still in office, alot of naysayers will be changing their stories and claiming they were for it all along! How funny will that be??!!

[widebody911]

Originally posted by Tim Hancock
Clearly he is not a stupid man (he owned a baseball team,

And traded off the one good player he had

he flew fighter jets,

When he wasn't too drunk or coked up to show up for duty.

but please do not try to claim he is ignorant.

Listen to a few of these and decide for yourself. http://www.dubyaspeak.com

[Tim Hancock]

Thom, did you ever party while in college? Have you mastered the systems in a fighter jet? What team and players have you owned and traded? Are you a professional speaker?

I guess if any of your answers to the above questions are different than W's answer to the same questions, then that would make you a better president? I am soooo confused! If only I were a liberal, maybe then I would be able to make sense of all of this. Thank you for your "attempt" at showing me the light though!

[Moneyguy1]

Tim:

When your family has access to virtually unlimited funds and power, anything is possible:govenorship, even the presidency. Talent, under these circumstances, is only a minor factor in the equation.

Not taking sides, just pointing out a fact of life.

[Tim Hancock]

I agree that often in life it is not neccesarily what you know, but who you know. That does not mean that one should not take the opportunities that are presented in life. One would truly be "stupid" to squander opportunities. Many (not all) high level politicians and successful business men have come from well to do families, so what?
You cannot fault them just because they got a good education. (well, I guess some people try to).

To state that the man is a blundering idiot because he came from a wealthy family is just ridiculous.

[island911]

Originally posted by stevepaa
. .. but maybe we can remember some of this before we get led falsely into another war.

I like the way the article starts with a false premise:

WASHINGTON - Something about anniversaries prods us to pause and reflect on what's transpired in the intervening time. March 20 is the second anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, and it's a good time to consider what's happened since then.

"War with Iraq" started when Saddams troops invaded Kuwait! Pushing him back to Bagdad. . .the No-Fly zone enforcement -- to keep Saddams genocide in check.

To say it started so simpley, such a short time ago, is really disingenuous.

Furthermore, this article confuses Iraq's liberation with the Alqaeda types who went to Iraq (or were already there) to continue the fight . . to stir the pot . . to make America fail.

But hey, you lib's will be happy, I suppose, now that AlQaeda is pulling out of Iraq to redirect their efforts back DIRECTLY at Americans.

Just think, our next "9-11" you lib's can spin-up as GW's fault for invading Iraq. . .. .scapegoat beating dumb-asses.

[Moneyguy1]

Tim:

Respectfully; I am not one who labels the current president in any way, shape or manner. We agree that many politicians come from wealthy, well-to-do families. However, look at the caliber of some of these individuals and tell me they are the best of the breed....

Taking advantage of opportunities is what policians do best!! And not necessarily to the advantage of the public they are supposed to serve.