quote: WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Democrats forced the Senate into a closed session Tuesday to pressure the Republican majority into completing an investigation of the intelligence underpinning the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Democrats demanded that Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts move forward on a promised investigation into how Bush administration officials handled prewar intelligence about Iraq's suspected weapons programs.
I wonder what happens in phase three?
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
More delay in fear of finding grounds for impeachment. Which is why the Republicans have continued to delay phase II even after having already promised earlier in 2004 to speed up the process when the last national election was over.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
We should also launch an investigation into John Kerry for his statement on January 23rd, 2003: "Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator leading an impressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he's miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction." And also Bill Clinton for his statements on February 17th, 1998 "If Saddam rejects peace, and we have to use force, our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." How about these two statements from Al Gore in September 2002 "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." and "We know that he has stored nuclear supplies, secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." We should also drag Robert Byrd into this and demand he explain this statement from October 2002 "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of '98. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons." There are many more such quotes from Democrats and they must be brought to justice. We must get these war hungry Democrats under control and find out what they knew, when they knew it, and why they are obviously lying to the American public.
Posted by Dr. Evil (Member # 8095) on :
Albright and plenty of Dem's rode the bandwagon to remove Saddam from power when it suited their needs. Memories are short.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Strangely enough, none of those were lies. They had all been told those things by intelligence reports.
Bush's administration was also told those things by intelligence reports, but it has come out that many of the more egregious assertions they made were also contradicted by intelligence reports they saw.
That's why there need to be investigations. Why did Bush administration officials keep spreading information as gospel that they had been told was almost certainly not true by experts?
Posted by Dr. Evil (Member # 8095) on :
Actually DarkKnight is right on with his statements. Typical hypocrisy from the left.
Posted by FIJC (Member # 5505) on :
Both sides lose, but I see this as a last, almost desperate resort in their strategy. Nothing else they have tried has been successful anyway. Poor Bill Frist looked really hurt the other day, lol. I suppose that now he is actually getting to see the real Harry Reid, at his finest.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote:We must get these war hungry Democrats under control and find out what they knew, when they knew it, and why they are obviously lying to the American public.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
The Democrats can be held accountable for caving to political pressure and perhaps for naivete in believing the current Administration's reports. But their errors are the kind that should be rectified by subsequent elections, if indeed they are guilty of those things.
However, if it is indeed found that Bush led us to war by knowingly lying about intelligence concerning Iraq's WMDs (and I don't hold out any hope that anything substantially damning will be found at this point), the way to rectify that would be impeachment. See the difference?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Really, Dr. Evil, you have proof that these officials were also given intelligence reports which contradict the statements they made, similarly to how the Bush administration was?
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote: We should also launch an investigation into John Kerry
I agree wholeheartedly!
We should absolutely hold the loser of a Presidential election to the same standards as the real President. Especially considering they have the same power and authority to start wars...oh wait...
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
No, there is no difference between them at all. Well with the exception that it feels more like you want Bush impeached at any cost because he just has to be lying because he is Bush. I may be putting words in your post, so if I misinterperted that I do apologize. A few questions to ponder.... If all of the Iraqi WMD intelligence reports are looked show a long history stretching over 3 Administrations showing Iraq has WMDs (backed up by reports from England, France, Germany, and so on) with a few reports contradicting those claims, what should be done? Did Bush still lie? What if some of those reports are from earlier Administrations? Do we prosecute Clinton and Bush Sr. for lying? Since we didn't find any WMDs should we prosecute Clinton for all of the bombings he ordered? What about all the previous intelligence agencies who said Iraq had WMDs? Should we haul them all in for investigations too? Do we trust the few contradicting reports or the overwhelming majority of reports? Or do we use the few contradicting reports from people like Joe Wilson to impeach Bush?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
One joke and a quote:
Q: Why are Republicans against stem cell research? A: They are afraid the Democrats will use it to grow spines.
"Where the people lead, the leaders will follow."
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Umm, except that John Kerry voted for the war...
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
KMB.... Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I don't know if Bush lied, we don't have sufficient information. It is provable that Cheney lied, that Rice lied, I think also that Rumsfeld lied, and that Powell lied (except his lie could be mere equivocation under certain circumstances that have not yet been uncovered).
Note I've been saying Bush administration. Those are some pretty dang high up people in the Bush administration.
As for the reports that prove lies, I suggest you read news stories about the report made by the energy department, and endorsed by numerous nuclear experts within the department, on why the aluminum tubes that were presented as one of the primary "evidences" the Bush administration trumpeted for nuclear research in Iraq were clearly not such.
Choice observations include that we really should let Iraq use the tubes in centrifuges because that way they wouldn't be using the better methods they already had access to, and that the tubes would take many years even if they had thousands upon thousands of them operating. Or the other choice observation that these tubes happened to match the exact specifications of a tube used in one of Iraq's legal missiles. Of course, Cheney told us that the only use of these tubes was to refine uranium . . . well after he was sent and briefed on this report.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Sorry, I left out one other alternative. It is possible these people did not lie, but were instead incredibly incompetent, ignoring or misunderstanding significant and clearly presented intelligence information that was presented to them through the appropriate channels. That would deserve an investigation as well.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
here's some reading.... WMD Comission Posted by digging_hoIes (Member # 6963) on :
Or perhaps, blessed as we are with 20/20 hindsight, you want to crucify people for not having 20/20 foresight? Or maybe it's just for incredibly base, petty, contemptible partisan reasons. Toeing the party line, fugu?
Personally, I don't care who lied to who what where. Saddaam was a ruthless dictator, and he needed to be removed. No one was even thinking of denying that until someone actually had the balls to do it. Whatever ulterior motives the Bush administration actually may or may not have had is between them and God. The result has been good.
And don't you even think of starting to lay the blame of the present chaos on them. The US troops are not the ones bombing mosques and slaughering innocent Iraqis, it's other Iraqis and Arabs who are doing that.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Saddaam was a ruthless dictator, and he needed to be removed. No one was even thinking of denying that until someone actually had the balls to do it.
I have a qualified denial. The "needed to be removed" isn't crystal clear to me. Then again, I think people are too casual with the term need.
Posted by digging_hoIes (Member # 6963) on :
He was slaughtering people. That justifies the need.
Of course, it would justify the need to remove countless other petty dictators. It's a sad reflection on our world that the invasion of Iraq was an exception, not the rule. Things have gone back to normal, and we've gone back to treating with dangerous madmen again.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
"Let's have a fair trial, and then execute him."
DK raises some good points. But I don't think any of them contradict the need to move forward with the investigation. We have conflicting stories about intelligence reports and who knew what when, and I think it's important to uncover the truth. If that means Bush committed impeachable offenses, then he should be impeached. If it means the intelligence community made huge mistakes, then that needs to be fixed (that may include firing some people, it depends on the nature of the mistakes). If it shows that members of Congress knew the intelligence was bad but voted for the war anyway, they should be held accountable (Can we impeach senators? I'm thinking it's more likely they'd just get voted out next time around.)
The debate should not be "We need an investigation so we can impeach Bush" vs "We can't have an investigation because Bush should stay in power." There should be an investigation because the American people should know what really happened in bringing us to this war.
--Enigmatic
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
quote:Of course, it would justify the need to remove countless other petty dictators. It's a sad reflection on our world that the invasion of Iraq was an exception, not the rule.
Heck, yeah! Let's go back to the days when the military superpowers of the world could smash whatever country they felt like, with no fear of reprisals, and with no good reasons! Sounds like a plan to me! This world could do with a few more countries under occupation.
Posted by digging_hoIes (Member # 6963) on :
quote:and with no good reasons
Of course, if you don't consider genocide and other massacres as a good reason...
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Poor Bill Frist looked really hurt the other day, lol. I suppose that now he is actually getting to see the real Harry Reid, at his finest.
Poor Bill Frist. He's like a little lost lamb.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Or the fact that Saddam defied the UN with impunity for over a decade. Of course the head of the UN was getting rich along with Saddam with the Oil for Food program but no need to call for Annan's immediate resignation
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Whatever ulterior motives the Bush administration actually may or may not have had is between them and God. The result has been good.
So, since we have yet to see the final result in Iraq, your entire argument consists of "the middles justify the means?"
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
DarkKnight,
Don't get me wrong. If the "people are leading", I'm going to try like heck to lead in a direction you wouldn't like. And I've been working hard to help with the spinal implants. I'm also a big fan of both my senators and my represenative.
Posted by digging_hoIes (Member # 6963) on :
Or the expulsion of rogue states like Iran. No, let them continue to hijack the agenda of the UN. Or the PDC, as I call it. Petty Dictator's Club.
EDIT : Tom, Saddaam Hussein has been toppled, and terrorists and madman are now seeking to destroy the state rather than ruling it. That in and of itself is a worthy result, however the rest of it might play out. So don't say such idiotic things, you're disappointing me lately.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: No, there is no difference between them at all. Well with the exception that it feels more like you want Bush impeached at any cost because he just has to be lying because he is Bush. I may be putting words in your post, so if I misinterperted that I do apologize.
You do misinterpret and read a lot into my post that isn't there. I admit that I don't like Bush. I admit there is a petty part of me that would like to see him get the comeuppance I think he deserves. However, I do not want to see anyone get a comeuppance they don't deserve, so I'm withholding actually saying "Bush deserves to be impeached" until/unless something concrete is found.
However, if you really believe there is "no difference" between a liar and someone acting in good faith on a lie they have been told, or in re-iterating a lie they have been led to believe, then there's really no point in discussing this further with you.
I do admit that it's still a question if a lie was actually told, and if so, by whom. However, I don't trust Bush. I don't like his "my way or the highway" attitude, and I abhor his delusions of "political capital" just because he was able to squeak into office. I feel he has wantonly alienated a very large portion of the country to the core and has done more to kill any feelings of cooperation between the parties than any president I remember.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
KMB, I was thinking that is just a good line, and I can adapt that joke for a lot of situations independent of politics...
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: So don't say such idiotic things, you're disappointing me lately.
Only lately? When didn't I? I would genuinely love to hear what I've written that you deeply respected. Posted by digging_hoIes (Member # 6963) on :
Nothing. Only I used to think you were an intelligent evil person, rather than a stupid one.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Okay, I realise why the Democrats feel the need to do this, but don't you think there's other, perhaps more pressing things they could be doing with whatever muscle they happen to have?
I mean, we know someone messed up somewhere but surely there are more important things?
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
More important than discovering if the country was deceived into a war that has resulted in the deaths of over 2000 US servicemen and untold thousands of Iraqi citizens? God, I hope not.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Genocide is a great reason to do something. Wonder why we only worry about it countries that provide us with a lot of oil...hmm...
Posted by dh (Member # 6929) on :
Exactly my point, Megan. You'd think that with that understood, we would be pushing for toppling even those other dicators. So why are you complaining that one of the most repulsive ones is gone for good? You'd think you'd be at least happy it was a step in the right direction.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote: Of course, if you don't consider genocide and other massacres as a good reason...
DH, you do get that the massacres were roughly 20 years ago? This does not mean that they were any less evil, but to use them to justify our current invasion is somewhat disingenuous. We (sadly) didn't have a problem with them at then time.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: You'd think that with that understood, we would be pushing for toppling even those other dicators.
I suppose the logical question, dh, is how you recognize an evil dictator when you see one, and how you prioritize which ones need to be removed for the good of their people and which ones can be favored trading partners.
And you can also ask, I believe, why this conversation is not something the American people are not trusted to hear and understand, instead requiring that we be sold false bills of goods for such invasions instead. Is there a fear that the American public might not support the indiscriminate invasion of dozens of countries?
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
The problem I have with all of this is that some people in their posts are assuming that the Democrats will actually be fair. This isn't a 'let's find out the truth' scenario. Be honest with yourselves. This is political in nature. They are interested in finding the truth only as much as it can hurt their political opponents.
I really have a problem with it when such a group comes in with an agenda like this and people assume that they are going after the truth when that is simply not the case. They are going to try to find whatever they can that will be most politically damaging to Bush and the Republican party, much the same as the Republicans did with Clinton. Don't fool yourselves.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: However, if you really believe there is "no difference" between a liar and someone acting in good faith on a lie they have been told, or in re-iterating a lie they have been led to believe, then there's really no point in discussing this further with you.
Yes there is a complete difference between those types. I would add however instead of keeping the 'lie' in there that it could have read "someone acting in good faith on information that turned out to be false". Your statement (and I admit I am reading into it) has a subtle implication that Bush and the current Administration is guilty already of being liars, rather than people who acted in good faith on information that turned out to be false.
quote: I do admit that it's still a question if a lie was actually told, and if so, by whom.
quote: However, I don't trust Bush. I don't like his "my way or the highway" attitude, and I abhor his delusions of "political capital" just because he was able to squeak into office. I feel he has wantonly alienated a very large portion of the country to the core and has done more to kill any feelings of cooperation between the parties than any president I remember.
I separated those two because I am wondering if the latter is greatly influencing the former? If it turns out that the Administration acted on information that turned out to be false after they presented it the American people, would they still be liars?
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
Putting partisan politics aside, I believe that an impartial investigation needs to occur. The purpose shouldn't be about villifying or defending the Bush administration, it should be about discovering the truth.
As to toppling despots in other countries, well, what gives us the right to invade any country? What scale do we use to measure when we should act? Should we invest more effort in a country with assets that we need, or in a country that we have no long-term interest in? How do you prioritize who's worth saving?
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
For the record, I am fully supportive of investigations into the lead up to the Iraq war from the end of the first Gulf war up until today to see what we need to change about Intelligence gathering and the like.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: They are going to try to find whatever they can that will be most politically damaging to Bush and the Republican party, much the same as the Republicans did with Clinton. Don't fool yourselves.
Do you believe, therefore, that Clinton should not have been investigated? Or Nixon? Or Reagan? All of these investigations were politically motivated; does that mean they should never have occurred?
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote: This is political in nature
I agree that some of the motivation is political in nature, and it shouldn't be, but it is.
That's why it's all the more important that Republicans conduct this investigation in a fair and thorough manner. They shouldn't give Democrats an opportunity to take the high road away from them.
And speaking of the high road, let us not assume that the only motivation driving the Democrats is political in nature. This investigation could just as easily cripple the Democratic party as it could the Republican.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:I separated those two because I am wondering if the latter is greatly influencing the former?
Actually, because I am willing to recognize that my dislike of Bush may hinder my abilities to be fully impartial, it should be to my credit that I am able to utter the "former". I haven't seen even the attempt at that from those wanting to counter-villify the "Democrats" as a whole in this thread.
quote:If it turns out that the Administration acted on information that turned out to be false after they presented it the American people, would they still be liars?
Well, no, that would mean they were mistaken. However, the purpose of an investigation, in part, would be to find out which of the two scenarios is the real one, no?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I, for one, don't really care why they are doing it, I just think it's about time.
My personal best guess is that Bush and Co. didn't lie so much as encourage and believe intelligence that suited their plans and confirmed what they already thought. I don't think this was, necessarily , deliberate or malicious. We all do this to one exent or another. It is hard to tell powerful people things they don't want to hear. And we have seen what happens to those folks who have done so with this administration (and, I'm sure, others).
I do think that we need this investigation in order to help make sure that intelligence gathering is not similarly skewed in the future.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Karl, it is to your credit that you are able to utter former. Although I may have come across that way, I'm not trying to vilify Democrats as whole, although I readily admit that is being done in this thread. I've been trying to name names where appropriate and not do any 'lumping together'.
quote: Well, no, that would mean they were mistaken.
That statement is also to your credit. I do agree with you on what the investigation is for
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:Saddaam was a ruthless dictator, and he needed to be removed.
True, but was defiantly opposing the rest of the world the best way to do that?
quote:Whatever ulterior motives the Bush administration actually may or may not have had is between them and God. The result has been good.
Well, that depends on where you are looking from.
Posted by dh (Member # 6929) on :
quote:Originally posted by camus:
quote:Saddaam was a ruthless dictator, and he needed to be removed.
True, but was defiantly opposing the rest of the world the best way to do that?
If the rest of the world is wrong, the answer is obviously "yes."
quote:Originally posted by camus:
quote:Whatever ulterior motives the Bush administration actually may or may not have had is between them and God. The result has been good.
Well, that depends on where you are looking from.
No, it doesn't. It depends on what you are look at. Where you are looking from will determine if your perception is wrong or not, but it will not change the fundamental reality of the results.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:Where you are looking from will determine if your perception is wrong or not, but it will not change the fundamental reality of the results.
"Good" is a very relative term. Everyone is going to have a different idea of what "good." So one person's opinion of what is good is not exactly an adequate justification for an action.
quote:If the rest of the world is wrong, the answer is obviously "yes."
And how exactly do you know that the rest of the world was wrong?
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote: They are going to try to find whatever they can that will be most politically damaging to Bush and the Republican party, much the same as the Republicans did with Clinton. Don't fool yourselves.
Do you believe, therefore, that Clinton should not have been investigated? Or Nixon? Or Reagan? All of these investigations were politically motivated; does that mean they should never have occurred?
No I don't believe that they should not have occured, nor did I state that. Nor do I think that this should be ignored. My frustration is that people out there think that this is going to be a fair and honest investigation and on this thread are actually treating it as such. Treating it as if they don't know that when its all said and done going to be a report that Karl Rove masterminded it all and should be fired (said tongue in cheek).
Seriously though, my opinion is that an independent commision would be better suited to this. It irks me when they tie up the Senate like this when there are so many other things that could be accomplished. Appoint a small bipartison commission, let them report without all the politicizing, and get back to business in the Senate (mostly politicizing, but maybe they'll accidently do some good when they're working on politicizing about laws rather than a big drunken brawl between my great state's Senator Reid and that Texan Bush).
Posted by dh (Member # 6929) on :
quote:Good" is a very relative term. Everyone is going to have a different idea of what "good."
No, Good is a very objective term. But you're right, people have different ideas of what is good. Ultimately, everyone must act on what they believe to be right. But denying that right and wrong even exist is a recipe for disaster.
As we are seeing now, for those who care to look.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Seriously though, my opinion is that an independent commision would be better suited to this.
I agree. Unfortunately, the majority party in Congress disagreed.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
The Republican congressmen have complete and utter veto over the investigation. The Republican Administration has complete and utter control over witnesses and documents under "executive privilege". Unless there is a legal clash in the openly pro-Bush Republican SupremeCourt between the Republicans in Congress and the Republicans in the WhiteHouse, the Democrats don't have much say in the matter beyond questioning the witnesses and documents which the Republicans have allowed to be part of the investigation.
Now, BaoQingTian, precisely how can this investigation be maneuvered to produce a conclusion which displeases the Republicans?
[ November 03, 2005, 02:17 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Ser Bronn Stone (Member # 8759) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dr. Evil: Actually DarkKnight is right on with his statements. Typical hypocrisy from the left.
The Democrats rightfully pointed out that ultimately Saddam Hussein was a threat to world peace and ultimately would need to be neutralized one way or another.
But there was a process that needed to be followed in order to avoid the international perception that this was a unilateral American act that would be (and is) perceived as illegitimate in the region and much of the world. GHWB had the good sense to know this in 1991 and spent the time and most importantly LISTENED to his allies and built a coalition so broad-based that the Arab world could not pretend that it was simply the same old tired US/Israeli cabal.
Alas, the son lacks the sense of the father.
Senator John Kerry (among others) did make a grievous error - he trusted the President. GWB (and minions) came into the Senate and told them that Saddam was not taking the US seriously enough. He had WMD's and was circumventing the United Nations and the inspectors. Only the real threat of force contained in the resolution presented would force Saddam back to the negotiating table. And Bush promised to use that authorization to force Saddam to negotiate.
The Senate ultimately complied and gave GWB the authorization to use force. And suddenly, all US negotiations ceased, except a demand for surrender. The very conditions Bush had told the Senate he sought overnight were not sufficient.
Biggest bait and switch of all time by an American President, and the Democrats in the Senate not only fell for it, but also failed to communicate this fact to the American electorate.
John Kerry made a mistake. He trusted the President. It is not a mistake I have ever made again.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think it's a moot point to be discussing whether or not we should have gone to war. I'd say it's a widely held belief that we should have, and using hindsight to pursue scrutiny isn't really getting us anywhere.
What we CAN fairly scrutinize though, is how the war was prosecuted. DarkKnight and other Bushies, how can you blame the Democrats for that one? Bush is our commander in chief, and clearly had no real plan for what to do with Iraq once it was conquered. The military had substandard materials, lack of materials, lack of security forces, lack of planning to secure toxic wastes sites or museums with countless national treasures.
How are you going to blame the Democrats for that? And how can you blame them for wanting answers to why these things were messed up so badly?
Getting back to the ORIGINAL point of the thread though. This isn't the Dems getting a spine, they've had one for awhile now. This is the Dems getting a PLAN, which they have lacked for five years. They're on the same page, they are hitting back, they are sick of Republican crap and are finally formulating real ways to fight back.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
No, I want to penalize them for lying, dh. Cheney said the aluminum tubes were definitely for use in nuclear refinement despite being told by the official body of nuclear researchers that it was laughable to think so (as an example).
He didn't even leave himself an out such as "almost certainly" (which would also have been false and evidence of egregious misconduct, but could theoretically be called a misunderstanding rather than a lie).
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
Good. This thing needed a shot in the arm.
--j_k
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
This must be a sensitive issue. Just look at all the Presidential Apologists poor out to defend the situation. There is one major talking point that needs to be heard, from the Democratic side.
Saying this war was handled wrong does not mean we wanted Hussein to stay in power.
Sure Clinton and others spoke out against Hussein. The man is a brutal pig. Sure they threatened him.
But they did not go to WAR.
You say they did not because they had no backbone.
However even President Bush I didn't try to conquer Hussein. He listened to the experts that told him trying to plant a democracy on the corpse of Hussein's tyranny would be expensive, dangerous, and a lightening rod for Islamic extremists around the world.
Just because most of us question how we went to war, if we were lied to go to war, and how this war was conducted, does not mean most of us would have prefered Hussein remain in power. It is not an either/or choice.
The most startling revelation to come out of the Libby indictment is not that he may have told reporters about a CIA's status in order to discredit the truth her husband was stating. It is the fact, undenied by anyone in the White House, that in the time when the various elements of the terrorist groups in Iraq were organizing, the main focus of many of Vice President Cheney and Scooter's energy was on keeping their WMD mistake quiet.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: What we CAN fairly scrutinize though, is how the war was prosecuted. DarkKnight and other Bushies, how can you blame the Democrats for that one?
That's easy. I don't blame Democrats for that. I would say that a lot Democrats are using the difficulties in Iraq to gain some politcal leverage, but that is what most politicians do so that is not any kind of indictment either.
quote: clearly had no real plan for what to do with Iraq once it was conquered.
I would say that their plan was optimistic in thinking that foriegn terrorists would not be as effective or as ruthless as they are.
quote: The military had substandard materials, lack of materials, lack of security forces, lack of planning to secure toxic wastes sites or museums with countless national treasures. /QUOTE] This is a more difficult statement to deal with. During peacetime especially after a conflict (and this is NOT an indictment of Clinton) the military is always made smaller, deep budget cuts, force reductions, and the like. Then the problem has always happened that when you need certain equipment you simply don't have it, and it takes time to get it. Factories have to be retooled to make whatever they need. So to 'fix' this particular problem, please contact your Reps and Senators now and constantly contact them asking them NOT to draw down the military once the Iraq conflict is over. [QUOTE] This is the Dems getting a PLAN, which they have lacked for five years
This is exactly what Democrats should do. They should meet, and work out a definitive comprehensive plan instead of reacting to whatever the Repubs do.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: It is the fact, undenied by anyone in the White House, that in the time when the various elements of the terrorist groups in Iraq were organizing, the main focus of many of Vice President Cheney and Scooter's energy was on keeping their WMD mistake quiet.
Can you provide some links to back up that claim?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:This is exactly what Democrats should do. They should meet, and work out a definitive comprehensive plan instead of reacting to whatever the Repubs do.
That'd an odd statement. They oppose most of what the Republicans do. They have to respond to it, and oppose it vocally, otherwise the Republicans would get away with whatever they wanted. Everytime they oppose a bad Republican plan or offer an alternative, Republicans just claim they are the party of road blocks, trying to make sure we don't make progress.
I've always found this party line rather hilarious, but probably sadly effective. "If you oppose our plan, obviously you don't have any good ideas and are against the progress of the nation."
So according to Republicans, if I oppose drilling in ANWR, or oppose MASSIVE spending increases and wide tax cuts, I must want to bring about the destruction of America, and I would rather the nation go down in flames than have Republican legislation pass congress.
Yet the reason I'd oppose it is because they are BAD IDEAS.
PS: DarkKnight, I'm proud of you. You didn't try to blame the Dems for anything there. That must have been hard, but it was the decent thing to do. Congratulations.
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)