You're absolutely wrong and either mistaken or lying again. Rumsfeld specifically spoke in terms of the length of the US Army's deployment in Iraq when he predicted it to be weeks. But anyway you, and everybody else here, are missing (or in your case purposefully ignoring my main point which I have repeated several times. Actions speak louder than words. It is glaringly obvious, that no matter what these guys said - they planned - and i use that term loosely - for a short war that would have been a cakewalk. The consequences of this misjudgment are visible for all to see.
so am i correct that excepting that "misjudgment" (your term, which we can use for the sake of argument) you supported the war?
If flying pigs were sh-tting pure gold in my bathtub I would support that too, but just like the War in Iraq, there was no chance of it ever happening the way it was envisioned, and that is as obvious today as it was 5 years ago.
what is basso trying to get people to say, that if we thought the war would be easy and quick we would have supported it or we did because that's what we were told. and now because its not, we are weak and don't have true guts like him, who supports the troops by posting on the internet?
worst explanation ever? MAYBE THE FACT THAT WE HAD NO PLANNING GOING INTO THE WAR IS HURTING THE WAR EFFORT!! basso, make sure you hold the party line. go down with the ship. do you even believe what you post or do you just do it to get people irritated?
Many people did and they trusted the Admin. when they said it would be easy and quick. Speaking for myself I didn't buy it but that doesn't mean that much of the country didn't. In the end the a resolution was passed based upon very flawed predictions and overly optimistic rhetoric.
They were right on every count????? People have already corrected the error you made in that statement. Has the oil financed Iraqi reconstruction? Were we greeted as liberators? It may be pointless but it was a point that you were asking about, and so people provided you with what you were looking for.
I supported the war because the administration brought out WMD claims and said that Iraq was trying to acquire uranium. Those claims were absolutely false, they KNEW at the time that they were absolutely false, and they lied to us anyway. They were wrong on nearly every point and we all know it. Stop trying to define "is" and look at the facts.
Basso, I just have to say that your posts in this thread are some of the most shameful, illogical, and misconstructed arguments that I have ever read. Your arguments skip around reality and facts, and your use of semantics to distort rational points is completely dishonest. Please explain IN DETAIL what this last post is refering to, or go back and make a response to the quotation you highlight.
he's saying he's looking at "the facts", which he is in fact not doing. what he cites as fact, ie that the admin knew at the time it's intel was wrong and lied about it, is in fact, not a fact. but in any case, this entire line of discussion is really rather pointless, and is just another of the games of gotcha that seem to drive so much of lefty commentary, so hopeful is it that they will be able to find something, anything, to pin on W and allow them to realize their political wetdream of another watergate. for the past six years, the left has waged war on george bush, and for most of that time we have been in a hot war with islamic fundamentalism. bush is an admittedly imperfect vessel to lead that war, he's gotten some things right, others he's been wrong about, but democrats are much more interested in punishing bush for his missteps than they are in punishing those we are actually at war w/. whatever else he may have gotten wrong, bush, almost uniquely among our current political class, understands what we're up against. cheney and rumsfeld share that trait. my support for all of them is based almost solely on this clear vision of the nature of the enemy and an unsentimental willingness to do whatever is necessary to defeat them. bush will be gone in 22 months. the war with the fascists will go forward. we should all decide who we want to win.
I have seen no evidence of this. I have seen some Dems and some Republicans striving to regain our focus in the war towards the real threats, and most of the way they have been opposed by W. Their misunderstanding of the war has cost this nation, its reputation, much of its worldwide support, and has drastically set us back in the war against terrorists. I never thought I would see you call Bush and his admin fascists. I definitely don't want the fascists to win.
Don't have much time at the moment (at work), but I just wanted to comment on this one point. You are describing the political climate of the last 6 years as persecution. That is impossible since Republicans have controlled the House, Senate, and Presidency for those years. For the most part, up until preparation for the most recent elections, the Democratic strategy has been to disassociate themselves from current affairs and let Republicans hang themselves. Of course, there has been the standard barrage of criticism through the media that goes both ways, but Republicans can hardly be upset since Fox News has dramatically shifted the balance in that phase of the battle. Now that Democrats control Congress, there have been investigations launched. Can you imagine a post-Clinton-Bush-Iraq world where this would not happen? It is a well known fact that the Republican political strategy is about wedge issues, and divide and conquer. Due to the fact that strategy has worked well, it inherently generates massive amounts of ill-will. The way I see it is the Republicans have benefitted mightily from a weak Democratic party, and the dramatic drop in approvals and failure in elections recently have been almost solely due to Republican incompetance in the management of the war, Katrina, and general diplomacy. Had we not gone into Iraq, the Republican party would still be riding high and crushing Democrats. How can you describe the last six years as a war on Bush? The US political climate has been defined by the Republican party for the last 14 years.
its hilarious for the hawks to claim that the democrats have been on the offensive when no one challenged bush for his little war. no one challenged him his entire first term and as dr. robert points out, he had a republican congress, both houses. such is the paranoia of the hawk.
please- bush has been subjected to far worse opposition than clinton ever was, and moreover, when we're actually fighting a multi-front war. in that scenario congress', and the media's first responsibility should be to their country, party or ideology a distant second. the stakes are just too damn high.
