The reality is Bush and Cheney have wanted to go to war before they even took office, 9/11 presented them that opportunity, and they cherry picked information to support their case. You can call it what you will, but it's certainly not the right way to go about things in persuading a country to go to war. THey should have built their case witht he real truth - that by going into Iraq and disposing of Saddam they could create a democracy domino effect much the way we were afraid of what would happen with vietnam etc... It shouldn't be without a deep sense of irony that Iraq has been a disaster. Think otherwise? Sure Iraq might be a nice place in say 30 years mucht he way vietnam is today, but ya know what, it will probably end up that way in 30 years anyway. Imposing democracy and nation building is so counter to what Republicans traditionally stand for it's incredible that republicans backed this war. really incredible.
both of basso's children do, or at least will, after he teaches them the history of this great patriot [source: basso]
I know it's not what the declaration says, but in effect, Congress declared the war, and let Bush pick the time.
He runs the Quik-Stop over on Little York. His mother makes awesome pastries which he sells on a little paper plate at the register. His other job is that of a shadowy figure who is accused of providing or leading anyone who inquired before witnesses who would say anything to bring hellfire down upon the old Iraqi regime.
Even if democrats at the time had access to all the same data (and while some did, most did not) the admin still made the decision. As for those pansy b**** democrats who decided not to rock the boat - your damn right they should be held accountable too. They are as implicit as the Bush junta. The best evidence was NOT used in this case - the most egregious being the niger yellow cake and the tubes. I don't think you know what you are talking about. Moreover, I'd argue you cannot make a case for war with anything less than concrete evidence. It does not have to be all-encompassing, but it has to be better than "some sources say x, although we cannot verify and have our doubts". You are free to believe whatever you want to believe. I can't beat the truth into your head. But you plainly don't know much except how to contrive excuses. I'll note, that you have not denied my previous succinct summary of your position.
I'd say that's horse****. Congress never declared anything. Thanks to executive powers, it's just a rubber stamp anyway.
I'm for holding people accountable, but let's hold everyone involved accountable. I don't hear you (or anyone else) shouting "Hillary lied!" or then presidential candidate "John Kerry lied!" it's only "Bush lied!" and that's what makes it stink of being politically motivated. And to answer a suggestion you made earlier, I don't think any American soldiers involved in this died in vain. Not that we have lost or are even losing this struggle, but do you think that all soldiers who died on every losing side died "in vain?" I think when relying on intel you are just going to always have doubts... because some will be contradictory. I thought I had denied it. Here it is again: it was a tough decision because the evidence was contradictory. What I call explanations, you call excuses. I think your political stance and the cynicism of your signature line explains a lot of your heat on this.
giddy, I ardently disagree with you about this subject, but at least you argue your case, as frustrating as some of us might find you when you are doing so. That's more than basso does, so I give you credit for that. Impeach Bush.
yeah they all lied.. alot of people lied.. but bush the commander-in-chief and we was the one who sought the american peoples support on the war and authority from congress based on his lies..
If I have not been clear enough in my rather consistent insulting of the democrats currently in congress - I'll say it again. They were a bunch of pansy sissies. When faced with a decision of conviction, involving incalculable costs, they blinked in the sad realization that they had no convictions to stand on - just empty rhetoric and a sad bag of political refuse. Those who actually got to see the majority of the data (pelosi in particular) were liars. Of course, they went along because their jaded political acumen convinced them that since they did not "make the final call to go to war" - they could politely excuse themselves from retribution. That was an enormous mistake, and I can only hope they get sacked for it.
So let's just punish the decision-makers when the indications from all those 2002 citations are that many, maybe most, politicos had come to the same conclusion? Would you be railing so hard had it been Al Gore?
Sometimes I have a hard time disagreeing with you guys. I'm a peace-loving guy. I've never struck another human being in my life except for giving "frogs" to my 12 YO buds and occasionally having to spank my children. I listen to "The Village" on XM Radio (but I don't worship Dylan like Batman does). As a little boy, I watched my mother weep all afternoon when JFK was killed. I have little doubt that I would have fought for civil rights for blacks had I been more than a pre-teen in the sixties. I support gay rights now and I've voted for a Republican since first voting for Nixon in 1972. Don't make the mistake of trying to pigeon-hole everyone. McMark's question was kind of insulting but while I never would be a candidate to write Chalabi's biography I certainly know who he is or at least is thought to be. Mc mark seems like a great guy who I would probably be very pleased to know in real life, but he thinks I'm an idiot... apparently... and so must others. I've been insulted enough. I've thrown back on occasion but life's too short to engage in that too readily. I prefer to make and keep friends but I'll only take so much... fortunately in real life people don't treat one another like they treat people here. Safety in anonymity. That amuses me and I try to take it with a grain of salt. I don't think you or he or rhad or Batman or vlaurello or andymoon or ottomaton or rimrocker are idiots for disagreeing with my positions. I know they come by their own opinions honestly, although I think they see too much black and white where I thing gray rules the day.
conclusion <> final decision to go to war you think people against the war are against bush or against the war? if a democrat lied and manipulated intelligence to take us to war then it shouldn't be any different murderers get the death sentence or life in prison not the poeple who think or say they would have done the samething
killing me softly with his song...telling my whole life, with his words...well, except for the last paragraph- ya'll really are assholes, seriously, not in a nice, gay sort of way.
HA HA HA so funny basso. If i would not be a giant-ass hypocrite to report this post, I would. But it looks like somebody may need a timeout from his life's work.
That's a perfectly fair position. I do see this in black and white. I don't think wars should be fought for anything more than retribution (defense) or 100% concrete evidence of a need to strike 1st. End of story. I supported afghanistan. And then we let them all off the hook and unnecessarily invaded Iraq. I'm absolutely seething about this when I write about it. And I cannot turn that anger and disappointment off. These convictions are what they are. It's one of the reasons I voted Nader last election, simply because both Kerry and Bush were on the wrong side of this fight. I do think Bush made this decision without caring about the evidence or lack thereof. He was, without a doubt, both misled and willfully ignorant - but a small portion of his rationale was also a sincere belief that we could get a democracy going in Iraq with relative ease. I think that criminal stupidity. I pity him for his naivety - but I don't let him off the hook because of it.
