And with that "full access" you ballyhoo, we have been finding all kinds of things...relics, treasures long thought destroyed and large sums of cash. It's going to take a good long time to uncover every nook, cranny and hiding place in Iraq.
You mean its easier to find cash than Weapons of Mass production manufacturing facilities that you suppodesly had realiable information about before the war.
Although I supported the action in Iraq I am puzzled as to why not one vile, test tube, or microscopic piece of evidence has been recovered to prove anything the president had boasted on about months before hand. What we do have is some trucks that the president is pointing to as his justification of war but there is even question as to if these trucks are what Bush claims. What this has turned into is a big mess. Perhaps Bush had the wrong people around him feeding him prevarications and false information. Who knows. But its hard for me to totally discount the good that has happened because of the action taken in Iraq. Our boys in Iraq are rescueing people from torture chambers and underground prisons. Alot of people in Iraq have an opportunity now. Its difficult for me to root against that. But despite all that this president has alot to answer for. As for this Watergate business.... I don't know. I hate to compare this to one of the biggest scandals in politics. But this definately is embarrassing when you talk like WMD are coming out of the ears of Saddam. Bush hasn't made it any easier for me to accept everything that comes out of his mouth when evidence points against. There was a good thread someone started in the Hangout months ago about Clinton. How he visited his father during his time of illness even though he was abusive to Bill as a child. That story really got to me because his character had taken a beating for a while. Granted the Lewinsky scandal brought shame to the Whitehouse and the country but I think that story really redeemed him imo. Too bad not everyone gets to hear it. We'll see if Bush can redeem himself from the critique of the commentators and media.
Cash may not be as well hidden as viles of VX. Not to mention the possibility that some of the WMD materials may have been moved across borders.
I have proven that Bush lied regarding the IAEA report on nukes. Condi Rice lied regarding the aluminium tubing that were supposedly to be used for the nuke weapon process when she said using them to make nuke weapon material was really the only thing they were good for. They both have lied in an effort to drum up war support, and both were exposed. Whether anybody actually cares is another topic.
"Lying" is the wrong word to use in regards to WMD/Iraq/Bush Administration. Bush did not lie. What he did was that he used the wrong justification for war by harping on WMD and playing up certain bits of intel that were highly suspect. Wouldn't the American people have supported invading Iraq if Bush would have laid out the distinct and overwhelming proof that Saddam is an evil dictator who repressed and killed his own countrymen, and that the world would be much better off without him? It seems like the Bush Administration didn't trust the American people to support an attack on Iraq without playing up WMD and their belief that they would be used against the US. I believe it was, more than anything else, a short-selling of the intelligence level of the average American citizen.
RMTex, We finally agree. I do think this is what happened, and from the majority side, I can tell you that most of us do not mind if that is what he did. The bottom line is taking out Saddam was a good thing, and people are willing to accept a bit of exaggeration as long as the end result is fine. DD
I, too, completely agree. I think this is somewhat of a failure of leadership. The Administration was responding to the chatter-- telling the American people what they perceived they wanted to hear in order to justify Operation Iraqi Freedom. They should have just gone ahead and done the right thing for the sake of the Iraqi people and for the sake of Middle East stability.
Giddy & DD...we agree? Shocking! Seriously, the end result (No Saddam) is definitely an improvement, as long as the warlords don't start to run the show. The problem I see is a credibility issue. If, for example, we have to go to war with Iran or North Korea, will the American people believe the reasons used to justify such a war? Will they ask the questions of the Bush Administration that were not asked prior to the invasion of Iraq? Unfortunately for the Bush Administration, credibility issues have a tendency to snowball rather quickly. Only time will tell.
DD...assume, for a second, that you're right, and the end in this particular case justify the means...unless we DO examine it, DO hold those accountable for the means, you are giving them and those that follow the right to subvert the democratic system, and manipulate the populace to accomplish what they deem to be for the best...if you want a fuller explanation of the process, I refer you to the writings of Mussolini and Hitler.
MacBeth, You are such a drama queen aren't you. Yep, that is what Bush is...Hitler, he is going around conquering the world.... Oh, wait, no he's not, he took out a horrible leader who had broken all the treaties he signed 12 years ago, and continually thumbed his nose at the UN. I think sometimes doing the right thing is of the utmost importance. Russia, France, Germany, they all had illegal economic ties to Iraq, they would never have supported this....good that we did it with people of like mindedness. Good for us, and GREAT for the rest of the world whether they liked it at the time or not. DD
why is it that when any side in an argument makes an absolute type statement...the other side has to counter with..."yes, but if we apply that logic to Hitler...."???? just wondering...happens ALL the time i'm not sure we've had one substantive discussion here about hitler...but i'll be damned if his name doesn't come up in about 1/3 of the threads here.
I'm a drama queen? I almost prefaced the Hitler comments as being about the end result of that kind of thinking, but I gave you more credit than to go for the usual jh style avoiding issue/focusing on extreme interpretation of connection made. Let's try again....IF you fogrgive a manipulation of the facts to further an end around the democratic system on the grounds that THEY KNOW BEST, you are systematically excusing all corruptions of the system under that same guise....If you sacrifice the democratic system for what you deem to be practical priorities, you may get the trains to run on time, but at what cost? Hitler too believed that he knew better...Mussolini also felt that manipulating the public to gain their approval for what he believed was best was the most efficient use of the political machine...Bush doesn't have to kill millions of Jews in order to be using the same political tactics.
Max, It is a way to derail the threads when they have nothing substantive to offer in the discussion. It is a bunch of sound and fury signifying nothing. MacBeth, WE ARE NOT A DEMOCRACY !!! We are a Republic, and we elect leaders to make decisions FOR us. Our elected officials studied the materials, and decided to go to war. Not just Bush, but Congress and the Senate too. And, since they have more info then you or I or a journalist with a deadline has, I choose to believe them over Saddam. Ask us in 10 years if it was the right thing to do, because right now, it looks golden. DD
I think you answered your own question...it's in the word absolute...Hitler is the most recognized result of an adherance to 'absolute' thinking, sacrificing 'little' things like civil liberties and global approval on the alter of 'security'. It would be remiss NOT to bring him up when his tactics are praised... I thought if anyone would understand the value of recognizable precedents, it would be you.
that last statement was good!! you're right...but actually...looking back...DaDakota didn't offer an absolute...he offered an exception to the rule...he said, "in this particular instance, the ends justified the means." i made a mistake in calling that an absolute. but this isn't my argument....rocketman tex believes the administration didn't lie...that's good enough for me.
