Oh, and another poll putting me in the minority, no, what's that word, oh yeah, majority (from Gallup):

By 67% to 31%, Americans say the Bush administration did not deliberately mislead the American public about whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
...

In an April 5-6 poll, 58% said the war would be justified even without evidence that Iraq possessed WMD, a 20-point increase. In the current poll, despite continuing controversy over the failure to find the weapons, 56% of Americans continue to take that position. Only about a quarter of Americans are suspending judgment on the war pending the outcome of the search for weapons of mass destruction

Vroomazoom - I remember those comments too. Things like that were said in '91 as well. Fortunately it wasn't the case either time.

b.t.w. I'm a military brat and vet of the first gulf war (army, mechanized infantry). I honor and support the US troops 100%, it's Bush and the current administration that irritate me to no end. Lies lies lies.

Burden of proof - whoever said that in this thread hit the nail on the head

Cliff_Yablonski: wake up people, it doesn't matter if Iraq has/had WMD or not. We needed to make an example out of some country, an established, organized arab country, to send a message: Don't even try that terrorist bullshiat on us, because we will march over there and just end you. Period. No more Bill Clinton style finger-wagging, "hey guys, you better stop it! Quit blowing up our embassies/naval vessels, I'm serious guys!"

I don't know about anyone else, Cliff_Yablonski, but that is quite possibly the stupidest thing I've ever read. So now it doesn't matter whether the White House tells the truth before starting a war? It doesn't matter whether or not we kill the right towelheads just as long as they are "established" and "organized?" And that's just it, eh? Now that "we've" gone and killed a bunch of "them," they'll never dare to try anymore "terrorist bullshiat" on us again, right?

I've got another theory for you: the kind of bullshiat that our government pulls on a fairly-regular basis is exactly what causes terrorism here at home. Funding wars to prop-up dictators and fighting wars on nothing more than pure fiction (ala the Gulf of Tonkin "Incident" and now the laughable WMD claims) puts people in just the kind of mood they need to be in to fly planes into skyscrapers. The sooner the "America First" crowd in this country realizes this, the safer we'll all be. Stop farking with other people for long enough and you might notice that they'll leave you alone too.

"June 10, 2003 -- Slightly more than half of voters likely to participate in the 2004 presidential election think the country is headed in the right direction, and 66 percent approve of the job President Bush is doing, according to a new poll for NPR. And voters are focusing more on the U.S. economy now that the war with Iraq is over, the survey shows."

The poll also showed that only 67 percent believe that it is important to keep government censorship out of the media, and 45 percent feel it is important to keep the military controlled by civilian leadership.
Maybe these are the same folks that believe that toasting your bread will lessen the calories.

Albo, how many people voted in the last election? How many people watched the last episode of American Idol? Enough said about your society and country.

This is what makes me sad: I'm sitting here watching Fox News, and I just saw the new right-wing argument emerge. It goes like this:
'IF it turns out that the administration lied, so what? We still had to get rid of Saddam for various reasons.'

This has a certain Macchiavellian beauty, but if there were so many good reasons, why not tell us those? The reasons given by the guy being interviewed on Studio B were things like we needed an outpost in the region, we needed a free flow of oil and so on. But would the public have supported war for those reasons? It's like our government is playing a big game of Civ II.

What scares me is that this doesn't seem to bother anybody. Is it really OK if the government lies to us to provoke support for war (and I'm still saying IF)? This country has taken a very strange swing over the last few years.

Remember the Iraqi information minister who claimed that there were no American tanks in Bagdad?

Why wouldn't Saddam try the same thing with supposed WMDs? Perhaps he never had them, but wanted everyone to think he did, lest they try to invade his impotent country. The US wasn't his only enemy, and he needed to keep everyone wary.

Saddam may have been bluffing by acting supicious in order to have it revealed that he couldn't invade my old high school if he wanted. (I went to HS in Texas and we have as many guns as he does). If the US declared that Saddam had no weapons and then removed the sanctions, Saddam would need to rely on the US in order to protect his country, and he seems too prideful to allow that to happen.

/of course, I could be wrong

Perigee
Oh, I dunno, Burn... I was promised

I agree! But right now the die-hard Bush fans are willing to accept two trailers full of maybe.

If they find even one ton and one rocket there will be those who claim complete vindication.

I love how everytime someone brings up the humanitarian argument about Iraq everyone screams, "What about the rest of the world?" Christ, what, would you people prefer we left EVERYONE alone and let things go as they will? We can't do everything at once, and we do give out PLENTY in aid. Barring dethroning every dictator in the world, we can't give food to people if their governments won't let us. One thing at a time.

Why does it have to be an all or nothing deal. If you see a woman being beaten on the street and you stop the guy who's beating her, does that make you an asshole for not stopping every single beating in the world? Saddam had been on thin ice ever since Desert Storm and he's thumbed his nose at us. That's why we went there first, as far as for the humanitarian reasons.

The worst part of the administration knowing that Saddam had no WMD available when we attacked Iraq is the fact that the brass made all those soldiers wear that crazy gear to protect them from chemical and bio weapons.

That stuff looked incredibly uncomfortable, especially for desert action.

Am I the only one who still thinks church and state should be separate? I mean, creating a state-wide holiday called Jesus Day probably was keeping church and state separate, right? Oh well, at least our god is stronger than their's.

Sroth:

well, I will agree that we better do a good job setting up a new government in that country. I hope we dont forget about it, and go on to somthing else. The US seems to have a short attention span.

Nope. But like Vietnam, I believe we will be there (and be dying) for a long while yet to come. What do you think the time-table is for complete withdrawal? Me? Two generations.

Jeez, Albo, you're grabbing for anything that will support your Bush-fellating ideals?

Burn98 probably meant you're the minority on this thread

A couple million people also voted for American Idol, but that don't make it legit, or even good entertainment for that matter.

Pman: Bashing the US? Your Canadian inferiority complex slip is showing. Calm done and get yourself a nice dish of poutine.

I agree with AcadianSidhe.
It was all about the oil.

"well, I will agree that we better do a good job setting up a new government in that country. I hope we dont forget about it, and go on to somthing else. The US seems to have a short attention span."

What happens when that new government put in place by the US down the road decides to turn against the US? Do you go back and invade them again and again? Look at what the Taliban is doing in Afghanistan, yes folks, the Taliban is still in the picture, trying to recruit the current "liberated" Afghans to join them...

Albo

Not going to answer my questions?

War Supporters, "Red Herring"

War Detractors, "Red Herring debunked"

Supporters, "Red Herring #2"

Detractors, "Red Herring #2 debunked"

Supporters, "Red Herring #3"

Detractors, "Red Herring #3 debunked"

Supporters, "I loathe you whiney liberals, you all hate America!"

Detractors, shaking their heads in disbelief.

Why would the American public think that Saddam was involved in 9/11? I just can't believe stupidity would go that deep.

And why would the public want payback for 9/11 directed towards Saddam? Didn't we already annihilate Afghanistan for that purpose?

Albo, I'm actually from Spain living in Canada. I'm on your side remember?

I'm not bashing the US, I'm bashing your government.

PERIGREE
---You don't send the army in, charging a nuke and come out proudly holding up a pea-shooter. This is about lies. Character, if you will. The Republicans know all about character as an issue. Now its time to hold up the deep, dark truthful mirror and let everyone get a good hard look at governing by rule of lie.----

well said!
good post!

had a pithy comment an hour ago but it all seems so meaningless, wid ya'll covering every angle and all...


/just starting, it'll get better

As someone stated much earlier in this thread, if Tony BLair fries, someone in Bush Admin is going to fry too. Look to Britain for answers, because our politicians and media are a bunch of pvssies who won't ask serious questions about why so many people died in this war.

I think this is the real travesty, because maybe nothing wrong was done and the whole thing is a series of miscommunications, honest mistakes, etc. BUT, at this point, there is enough of a stink and inconsistency in the public record to begin an inquiry, and it doesn't look like anybody in our government or in the media has the nutsack to hold elected public servants' feet to the fire.

Elected officials must be held accountable to the public that elected them or all we really are is a communist country with really good popular entertainment.

um, I don't think it was all about the oil.

Weemill:

hey! did you miss me?

Albo makes a good point. A majority of Americans do seem to support all this. So, if it turns out that the administration just flat-out lied (i.e., they knew that there weren't any/many WMDs or didn't think Saddam was a threat to the US) do you think these people will still support Bush? I think they will and that scares me. I can see the arguments now: "Clinton was under oath when he lied about his BJ, Bush just told a regular-old lie."

Soporific
Why wouldn't Saddam try the same thing with supposed WMDs? Perhaps he never had them, but wanted everyone to think he did, lest they try to invade his impotent country. The US wasn't his only enemy, and he needed to keep everyone wary.

Another possiblity is that Saddam's insuboordinates fooled him into thinking that they had them. They would parade masks and trailers around whenever Hussein came by but then go back to smoking their hookah's when he left. Given eventuality, they didn't want to deal with the UN inspectors or the US. It's a long shot but it is possible.

Microbe...

War Supporters, "Red Herring"

War Detractors, "Red Herring debunked"

Supporters, "Red Herring #2"

Detractors, "Red Herring #2 debunked"

Supporters, "Red Herring #3"

Detractors, "Red Herring #3 debunked"

Supporters, "I loathe you whiney liberals, you all hate America!"

Detractors, shaking their heads in disbelief.

I think next time, you should try being even more vague.

Albo: Just out of curiosity, are you also part of the majority of americans that believes Saddam Hussein was behind the 9-11 attacks?

Btw, I'd be interested to see a poll about how many americans know why( or even if,heh) we even invaded afghanistan or not.

AcadianSidhe - "If you see a woman being beaten on the street and you stop the guy who's beating her, does that make you an asshole for not stopping every single beating in the world?"

Your analogy is flawed. What we have done here is walked past a dozen people getting beaten, but because the abusers gave us beer, we let the beatings continue. Then, when we come across someone who won't give us beer, we rush in, beat the guy, and then get self-righteous about the fact that we stopped a beating. We then made up a story about how this guy had a gun and was ready to use it on us, but we have yet to find the gun.

And in the process of "saving" this women, we broke both her arms.

The sad thing is Bush could admit on public tv tonight that he inflated the facts on Iraq and the majority of the American public wouldn't even bat an eye. Hell, most of them would probably just flip to another channel half way through the speech.

The Bush Administration already got caught with fake documents about Saddam buying uranium from Africa. It barely even got press coverage and no outrage from the public.

It's flat out scary what is happening to this country. People are willing to roll over to whatever the Administration wants for some illusion of safety. I wonder how far this will go before people snap out of it.

Weemill: How and where was Saddam a threat to the US? that question? Well, despite the fact that his air defense forces fired hundreds of missiles at US planes enforcing the no-fly zone, he supported Al-Queda terrorists, who attacked us and who consider us their mortal enemy.

Is that now enough?

Happy fun cartoon time.

If the war ends up being positive for Iraq, will that be enough for anyone to be content with the war?

Saddam was bad! Bad, Bad, BAD! My trusted advisors told me so!

/Duh-bya

"F--k Saddam; we're taking him out." -- actual Dubya quote

Pontechango - I never thought of that. After all, if Saddam could order your slow death, wouldn't you tell him what he wants to hear?

Saddam: "Weapons guy. Do I have many WMDs"
Weapons Guy: "Sure Saddam, we have many."
Saddam: "Would you say we have a plethora?"
Weapons Guy: "Sure Saddam. We have a plethora of WMDs"

Vroomazoom

Not particularly, but I did miss hearing your name being referred to. BTW, someone mentioned Rodney King and his asinine driving incident. I'm too lazy to scroll up, but i'm sure noone actually said the lawsuit against king was racism, right? W/ regard to Condie and Colin, i think they're being used as pawns, and its hilarious. But that's another flamewar altogether, and purely based on my emotional assumptions.

I'm still waiting for albo to tell me how Iraq was a threat to the US and how the US administration can justify its unilateral stance, in the face UN opposition and say that the invasion of Iraq was justified b/c Iraq broke UN law.

"he supported Al-Queda terrorists, who attacked us and who consider us their mortal enemy."

Idiot, there is no proof of this but there is proof of Pakistan's ISI wiring around $100,000 a week before 9/11 to the highjackers but nobody is talking about this...

Plus thanks to your lunatic foreign policy of the past couple of decades, most countries hate your guts...

Albo:
I don't know anyone who believes in presidential popularity polls anymore, most of the time farkers get them off foxnews.com or Rush Limbaugh's page. When in reality these polls are little more than a number corresponding to a statistically flawed evaluation of telephone or rushed oral surveys. For example, stand in the unemployment line and ask people what they think of Prez bush. The only one that I have found that makes any non-partisan sense is this one this one gives a lot of info but it still has a margin of error.

The simple truth is just as I've stated in plenty of previous posts. Bush gambled with America's legitimacy and lost.

Sayanora support for the war against terrorism.

Bush has so far been a failure to bring the perpetrators of 9/11 to justice.

Bush has so far been a failure to secure international support through diplomacy- the true goal of politics, diplomacy.

Bush so far has been a failure to justify this complete flight from long time hard fought United States non-agression policy.

Bush has so far been a failure at bringing about economic turn around.

Bush so far has been a failure at solidifying America's role in the future of the free world, beyond that of the cop with a chip on its shoulder.

I'm not impressed, and the fact that some of you are is just plain pathetic.

06-10-03 04:09:42 PM Vroomazoom

Maybe. Maybe not. What time frame are we looking at? Not to be overly picky, but are you asking if that will make EVERYONE content with the war?

/facetiousness

It's a simple question, but I don't know if there are simple answers.

Albo - "he supported Al-Queda terrorists, who attacked us and who consider us their mortal enemy"

And your proof of that is...

MICROBE

you forgot to add:

War Supporter: To prove why this war is necessary, allow me to say the following [superficial analogy or straw man logical fallacy].
War Detractor: No, thats not an argument. Thats a superficial analogy or straw man!
War Supporter: See! You cant refute my iron clad argument!
War Detractor: No, i just did; i pointed out your "argument" made no sense, its not really an argument at all per se; its a bad analogy and a logical fallacy.
War Supporter: Gimme *FACTS* to disprove my argument
War Detractor: How can i disprove a bad analogy?
War Supporter: HA! See? You whining liberals dont have a leg to stand on, why dont you move to France you pussy!
War Detractor: *blink blink*. . . BWAHAHAHAHAHHAAAAAA!

06-10-03 03:55:23 PM Albo

Oh, and another poll putting me in the minority, no, what's that word, oh yeah, majority (from Gallup):

The majority of Americans also believe Saddam was behind 9-11 as well. Don't you feel honored so be in such great intelligent company?

Soporific, that was sweet.

Albo,

There was never any evidence linking Saddam to Al-Queda. The only evidence they had was linking Al-Queda with a group of Kurds in northern Iraq, our supposed allies. Read the articles on it, they all referenced that the terrorist links to Al-Queda were all in Kurdish controlled terrority. Yet, noone in our pathetic excuse for a media called him on that.

Oh well, we either fight saddam now or Uday in the future.

A Hussein in power in Iraq for another half century and that region would never be stable.

He had the weapons, just ask the Kurds. What makes me wonder is the lack of panic on the adminstrations part, I would dropping a brick if I couldn't find these weapons.

Albo

How did Saddam support Al-Quaeda?