Pentagon’s Iraq Report Contradicts White House’s Rosy Rhetoric on U.K. Troop Withdrawals
Pentagon’s Iraq Report Contradicts White House’s Rosy Rhetoric on U.K. Troop Withdrawals
Yesterday, administration officials were spinning the announcement that U.K. troops would be withdrawing from Iraq as a sign of progress. “I look at it and see it is actually an affirmation that there are parts of Iraq where things are going pretty well,” Vice President Cheney told ABC News. Tony Snow added: “The fact that [the British] have made some progress on the ground is going to enable them to move some of the forces out, and that’s ultimately the kind of thing that we want to be able to see throughout Iraq.”
In a “Setting the Record Straight” release, the White House claimed the British pulled their troops “based on the conditions on the ground.” But the Los Angeles Times reports that the Pentagon’s latest quarterly report on Iraq contradicts these claims:
[T]he Pentagon, in its most recent quarterly report to Congress, listed Basra as one of five cities outside Baghdad where violence remained “significant,” and said the region was one of only two “not ready for transition” to Iraqi authorities.
Once a promising beacon, Basra suffers from sectarian violence as well as Shiite militia clashes over oil smuggling. Ferocious street battles have broken out between rival Shiite Muslim groups in provincial capitals such as Samawah, Kut and Diwaniya in the last year.
Of the 18 Iraqi provinces, according to the Pentagon report, Anbar and Basra were the only provinces classified as “Not Ready For Transition” to Iraqi control:
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
If nothing else you have to give the Bush Abomination credit for being consistent in their lies. At least they are good at something.
February 22nd, 2007 at 10:23 amSo…the White House lied to the American people.
Again.
It’s pretty sad when we accept blatant falsehoods from the administration as the status quo.
February 22nd, 2007 at 10:29 amLie away. Most of us stopped listening long ago, anyway. Meanwhile, pile it on- it gives present day critics and future historians lots of fodder.
February 22nd, 2007 at 10:33 amGee, “Uncle Dick”, if things are going “pretty well” in Iraq, then I guess you and Auntie Condi and some of your friends like Billy O and Sean wouldn’t have any problems going over there and spending a little time on the ground, outside the Green Zone, without a heavily armed guard, where you could mingle with and get to know the people you’ve “liberated” and brought “democracy” to. No doubt they will “greet you as a liberator”, “Uncle Dick”. Packing your bags, “Uncle Dick”? We’re waiting…
February 22nd, 2007 at 10:34 amI’m shocked, shocked I tell you, that the White House would lie again.
February 22nd, 2007 at 10:34 amNow isn’t that a kick in the balls.
This looks like another “last throes” moment for Cheney. He has had a lot of those throes.
February 22nd, 2007 at 10:35 am#4….
February 22nd, 2007 at 10:44 amI had the same exact thoughts, if things are going so well, he ought to at least drop in for a visit and commendations for all who risk life and limb to pull off whtever it is he thinks can be accomplished…..
To my knowledge, Dickee has never been there since invading……
juan cole completely debunks the claim that things have been going well for the british in southern iraq…
And, yes, I DO take it personally
February 22nd, 2007 at 10:45 amLOL!
February 22nd, 2007 at 10:46 amThis gives you an idea of how a liberal takes responsibility:
“The unpalatable truth is that we will leave behind a country on the brink of civil war, in which reconstruction has stalled and corruption is endemic, and a region that is a lot less stable than it was in 2003,” Liberal Democratic Party leader Menzies Campbell said in Wednesday’s Parliament debate on the troop drawdown.
Do everything you can to obstruct the effort. Do everything you can do to get the troops withdrawn. Then lament the fact that we are leaving behind an unstable country on the brink of civil war. It would be funny, if it weren’t for the impending genocide.
Bush is responsible for the war in Iraq. But, don’t delude yourselves. When you promote surrender and withdrawal, you become responsible for consequences of the withdrawal. If it works out and there is peace in Iraq and an easing of tensions around the world, I will be glad I was wrong and you were right. And I would congratulate you on your foresight. However, if it is as Campbell predicts - unstable civil war - with the mass genocide that comes with it, supporters of withdrawal become responsible for that. You can wish it away all you want, but with leadership comes responsibility. The liberal free ride you want, doesn’t exist.
February 22nd, 2007 at 10:51 am#10 - “When you promote surrender and withdrawal, you become responsible for consequences of the withdrawal. ” Comment by paul — February 22, 2007 @ 10:51 am
So, because the Taliban is re-surging in Afghanistan, then Pres. Bush is responsible for his withdrawl of troops from there to invade Iraq based on lies and fabricated evidence.
Wow! I never thought I’d hear a neo-con take responsibility for their failures, but I guess I’m wrong!
February 22nd, 2007 at 10:55 amI’m waiting for folks to realize that the British have given us a way out of Iraq: just say everything is going great, “hand things over” to the Iraqis, and leave.
I think if W and Cheney want to do spin things this way, let’s let them. We can criticize the hell out of them once we get all the troops out.
February 22nd, 2007 at 10:56 amIf the British are running away why are they sending the Prince to Iraq? This seems a reach, you are going have to define “significant” and tell me if things are so bad why have they turned the area over to the Iraq Army and they are pulling out all their troops (the few that were there to begin with) out immediately.
This looks like more leftist Islamist cheerleading based on what they wish were so and not what is. Kind of Olbermann like.
February 22nd, 2007 at 10:58 amhttp://www.haloscan.com/ comments/ katsiva/ 9193419030762508098/ ?a=48152
Oh my God,read the last comments,I can’t trust this people anymore.
February 22nd, 2007 at 10:59 amThe Pentagon is merely confriming Al Qaeda’s strategy.
-Dick(bag) Cheney
February 22nd, 2007 at 11:00 amYou can wish it away all you want, but with leadership comes responsibility.
Comment by paul.
I don’t believe more true words have ever been written here. When will this administration take responsibilty for this mess Paul? We were lied to going in. There were no WMD’s and we weren’t treated as liberators. Our Govt. didn’t have a clue on what to do after we beat a third world army. We are still being lied to.
How many more American lives have to die for these lies? With leadership comes responsibility. Look in the mirror and ask yourself if our leader has been held responsible.
February 22nd, 2007 at 11:01 amBush supporters consider the continued killings and deaths of American soldiers as success. They don’t want the deaths to stop. They enjoy the deaths of American troops.
If Bush and his supporters get their wishes, Iraqi insurgents will continue killing US soldiers for 2 more years.
Congrats to the Bush supporters, 2 more years of US deaths means success.
-GSD
February 22nd, 2007 at 11:02 amLook at the map at the top of the link. Of 18 provinces, 2 are not ready for transition. If you see failure, and want to quit, you’re probably ‘progressive’. I would very concerned to show up for open heart surgery and see you with a scalpel.
February 22nd, 2007 at 11:03 amThis looks like more leftist Islamist cheerleading based on what they wish were so and not what is. Kind of Olbermann like.
Comment by Patrick1
The day is just beginning but I guess this will be the stupidiest post today.
February 22nd, 2007 at 11:09 amBush’s success:
5 years in Afghanistan and now Bush is begging for more NATO troops. Hat in hand begging for more troops because the Taliban is gearing up for a spring offensive.
Coming up on 5 years in Iraq, after declaring the Mission Accomplished, after saying there was no insurgency, after saying week after week that the situation was getting better.
6 years after 9/11 and the WTC hasn’t been rebuilt.
New Orleans is an urban wasteland of govnermental neglect.
US image overseas is the worst it has been, ever.
Russia is now ramping up a new Cold War.
China is shooting down satellites and using submarines to trail US aircraft carriers.
South and Latin America are ganging up against the US.
Domestically America is polarized…even though it is about 70% against Bush, you wouldn’t know it from Bush and the mainstream medias characterization of the debates.
Heckuva job.
-GSD
February 22nd, 2007 at 11:10 amLook at the map above. Of the 18 provinces, almost all the bombings and insurgency attacks are occuring in the “partially ready for transition”.
We’ve been there for four years, and only two regions are under direct Iraqi control. That’s supposed to be “success”?!?!? We had better success in Japan after the war, and the entire country was our enemy! In Iraq, it was only the government under Saddam Hussein that was our enemy, and we STILL only have two provinces under direct Iraqi control?
We should never have invaded when the “proof” was “He’s got WMDs and we got pitcures!!” Pres. Bush lied us into war, and he’s lying us into killing more of our service members on a daily basis.
Based on the vast record of lies and evasions from Pres. Bush, his administration, and the neo-cons responsible for the failures in Iraq and Afghanistan, I would be afraid to see them making any more decisions in which more soldiers lives are at stake.
This just further proves that the neo-cons (that refuse to sign up for military service) hate our troops, and America.
February 22nd, 2007 at 11:11 amFirst answer the question paul. Is our leader being held responsible? You started off your post at #10 saying Bush is responsible for the war in Iraq. What do you mean by that? Is he responsible for the missinformation? The failed attempts to finish off Al Qiada in Afghanistan?
Just how much is this president responsible for? Stand by your words and show me the great example of this leaders responsible behavior before you jump to another subject.
And looking at the map above. Partially ready still means not ready and that is most of the country.
February 22nd, 2007 at 11:12 amGSD
They don’t want the deaths to stop. They enjoy the deaths of American troops.
this is ridiculous and grossly unfair. The junta and it’s supporters don’t give a sh*t one way or another if US troops are killed . Their lives mean nothing so it’s all mox nix to them.
February 22nd, 2007 at 11:13 amI hope WE don’t pull out too soon. Otherwise I won’t finish making my documentary…
Surge: Silent Majorities of America for Make Triumph Glorious Nation of Iraq.
February 22nd, 2007 at 11:13 amYou ever wonder WHY the British are beginning to pull out of Iraq?
It’s because Prince Harry is being sent there!
PM Blair (the biggest lap-dog in the history of lap-dogs) would be forcibly removed should he get Prince Harry killed in the quagmire of Iraq. It’s bad enough that he bent over backwards to kowtow to Pres. Bush and his lies about the war.
The British are leaving because they know that “success” as defined by Pres. Bush and the neo-cons cannot be achieved. When there are no time-lines at all, no metrics as what “success” is, and not plan for eventually leaving, “success” is a pipe dream that will never happen.
February 22nd, 2007 at 11:14 amOf 18 provinces, 2 are not ready for transition. If you see failure, and want to quit, you’re probably ‘progressive’. I would very concerned to show up for open heart surgery and see you with a scalpel.
Comment by paul
So how many FUs before we can start bringing some of our 150,000+ troops home?
February 22nd, 2007 at 11:16 amNow why on earth would Darth Cheney listen to anything the Pentagon says when it conflicts with “the message”?
February 22nd, 2007 at 11:17 amHe’ll chew some ass, tell a few high ranking generals to go Fyck themselves, and resume munching his breakfast of puppy feet and bat’s blood.
From Radio Free Europe: “What all of this means is not that Basra is how we want it to be, but it does mean that the next chapter in Basra’s history can be written by the Iraqis,” Blair said.
Blair contrasted what he called the “orgy of violence” in Baghdad and some other parts of Iraq with the relative calm in Al-Basrah. The southern Iraqi city has a negligible Sunni presence, contributing to the low level of sectarian violence.”
And from Radio New Zealand: “Prime Minister Tony Blair told Parliament that British troops in the southern city of Basra would be reduced by nearly a quarter - 1,600 - in coming months, from 7,100 to 5,500.
Mr Blair said the situation on the ground had improved and made such a move possible. He said British troops had already handed over primary responsibility for security to Iraqi authorities in other southeastern parts of the country and it was now time to do this in Basra.
However, he said the British military presence in Iraq would continue into 2008 as long as it was wanted and the troops had a job to do.”
I hope this helps bloggers who don’t search out other information resources.
February 22nd, 2007 at 11:18 amWhat BS, they aren’t pulling them all out immediately, they are actually sending in replacements to a part of the country that still has violence but to characterize this as some kind of French or American liberal retreat simply goes against the facts on the ground.
February 22nd, 2007 at 11:20 amI would very concerned to show up for open heart surgery and see you with a scalpel.
Comment by paul
That example means to save a life. What is going in Iraq is exactly the opposite.
February 22nd, 2007 at 11:20 amIf you see failure, and want to quit, you’re probably ‘progressive’. I would very concerned to show up for open heart surgery and see you with a scalpel.
Comment by paul
Moron.
February 22nd, 2007 at 11:23 amTo characterise this as some sort of American fascist “win” simply goes against the facts on the ground.
February 22nd, 2007 at 11:26 amThe retreat from Basra
It is an admission of defeat. Iraq is turning into one of the world’s bloodiest battlefields in which nobody is safe. Blind to this reality, Tony Blair said yesterday that Britain could safely cut its forces in Iraq because the apparatus of the Iraqi government is growing stronger.
In fact the civil war is getting worse by the day. Food is short in parts of the country. A quarter of the population would starve without government rations. Many Iraqis are ill because their only drinking water comes from the highly polluted Tigris and Euphrates rivers.
FOR DAYS I HAVE BEEN SAYING THE AMERICANS ARE NOW RESORTING TO STARVING THE CIVILLIANS
February 22nd, 2007 at 11:27 amSo waht else is new?
February 22nd, 2007 at 11:30 amIraq: More nations plan pull-out
Denmark announced that it would withdraw its ground troops serving under British command in Basra, as other countries review their participation in the coalition force.
Lithuania, which has 53 soldiers in Iraq serving alongside the Danish battalion, also said it was considering a pull-out.
The Romanian Defence Minister said that Bucharest would take a decision on the presence of its 600 soldiers in Iraq, mostly serving under British command, in the next few days. But President Traian Basescu, who is also under pressure to announce a withdrawal timetable, warned that a hasty pull-out of the international coalition forces “would cause chaos and the division of Iraqâ€.
Poland has already announced that it will bring home its 900 troops by the end of the year, and Italy, Spain, Ukraine, Japan and New Zealand have already withdrawn their troops.
South Korea, which has a contingent of 2,300 troops in the northern city of Arbil, intends to withdraw half by April, and its parliament is calling for a complete pull-out by the end of the year.
February 22nd, 2007 at 11:31 amNow It Is Lack of Food Security
BAGHDAD, Feb 19 (IPS) - The lack of security in Iraq is leading now to a collapse in food supplies.
February 22nd, 2007 at 11:34 am9th U.S. helicopter crashes in Iraq
BAGHDAD, Feb. 22 (Xinhua) — A U.S. helicopter crashed in an area north of Baquba City, 65 km northeast of Baghdad, on Thursday, the Qatar-based al-Jazeera satellite TV channel reported.
The helicopter went down in a clash between gunmen and U.S. troops, the report quoted witnesses as saying, without specifying location of the crash
February 22nd, 2007 at 11:37 amThe key statement here is “moving them out” and not to Bagdad to partake in the “surge”.
February 22nd, 2007 at 11:41 amIraqis welcome British withdrawal
Two British military bases in Basra were bombarded with missiles in the past 24 hours, an Iraqi security source said Thursday.
Thats gratefull ????? mmmmm
February 22nd, 2007 at 11:50 amWe had better success in Japan after the war, and the entire country was our enemy!
We also had democrats on board.
February 22nd, 2007 at 11:50 amPaul,
You are an idiot. Why else would you continue to listen to a group of ideological fanatics who have been radically wrong about EVERYTHING. You just lap up the propaganda like a dog, and believe it like a two-year old. Here are two articles to educate yourself with. Now start reading:
http://www.slate.com/id/2160225/
http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0219-20.htm
February 22nd, 2007 at 11:51 am#40 - good point, paul. Goes to show ya’ that Republicans should NEVER be allowed to be in complete control.
February 22nd, 2007 at 11:53 amThis looks like more leftist Islamist cheerleading based on what they wish were so and not what is. Kind of Olbermann like.
Comment by Patrick1 — February 22, 2007 @ 10:58 am
Juan, my first thought when I read this empty-headed dribble was “stupid troll comment of the day award”.
Good rebuttals to Paul, everyone, but our words will sail right over his tiny head. He is living in a fantasy world of his own making that bears no resemblance to reality.
February 22nd, 2007 at 11:58 amBut, don’t delude yourselves. When you promote surrender and withdrawal, you become responsible for consequences of the withdrawal.
Comment by paul #10
paul,
Stop “deluding” YOURSELF…
…America can’t AFFORD (neither in treasure nor person power)…
…to stop whatever’s coming in Iraq…
…whether it be today, tomorrow or twenty years from now…
…BUT one thing’s for certain…
…if we don’t leave, and change course…
…America is going to crash and burn from the weight of its own hubris and stupidity…
…NOTE paul how the rest of the international community (the one’s that truly matter)…
…have so far “failed’ to “grasp” your fearless gods’ (Bushiva and L’il Dick’s) URGENCY…
…in this fight for “civilization”…
…ever wonder why paul?
…because its ALL fake!
…you’ve been had, I’ve been had and NOW we have a decision to make…
…do we keep being STUPID, or do we bring those who’ve conned us (and destroyed a sovereign nation and its people inthe process)…
…to justice…
February 22nd, 2007 at 11:58 am#40 - “We also had democrats on board.” Comment by paul — February 22, 2007 @ 11:50 am
We also weren’t lied into attacking during that war.
That’s the difference between the Republicans of yester-year and the neo-con Republicans of today. When you build your entire case for invading another country on lies, more lies, and even more egregious lies, don’t be surprised when you find your support disappearing.
February 22nd, 2007 at 11:58 amPaul’s idea that things would be going better if “we had Democrats on board” shows the depth of stupidity plumbed by his feeble mind. Paul, precisely would do you think would be different? Bush is the unitary executive, and he doesn’t listen to his own party much less the Democrats. No matter what the Democrats had done, Bush wouldn’t have changed a thing. Since you believe otherwise, please explain what the Democrats could have done differently and how it would have changed the outcome.
February 22nd, 2007 at 12:01 pmBush didn’t lie to get us into Iraq, but it was his decision. Things have been mismanaged. There were no WMDs found, despite the globally accepted intel. Cheney’s predictions that we would be greeted as liberators were absolutely wrong. But we have deposed a tyrannt. We have helped facilate a democracy and a constitution and are working towards leaving a secure Iraq as an alternative to jihad friendly theocracy. Many mistakes have been made. Bush holds the responsibility for deaths of the soldiers, the insurgents and the innocent Iraqis that have been killed. Just as FDR was reponsible for our part in WWII, the deaths of the 300,000 soldiers, many more enemy and civilian deaths attributed to the U.S. I support FDRs actions and I also support Bush, despite the missteps and setbacks.
Here’s the thing: If it works out and there is peace in Iraq and an easing of tensions around the world, I will be glad I was wrong and you were right. And I would congratulate you on your foresight.
You wanted less power for the Bush administration and more power for those that support withdrawal. You got it. If it turns out worse than it is now, it’s due to the push to withdrawal. If you are convicted about your beliefs, you would gladly accept responsibility for the outcome.
February 22nd, 2007 at 12:01 pmYou wanted less power for the Bush administration and more power for those that support withdrawal. You got it.
Comment by paul #47
paul you’re being purposefully obtuse…
…you 9and all of your Repulsivescum kind know)…
…Dems don’t have 60 votes in the Senate…
February 22nd, 2007 at 12:06 pm#47 blah blah blah blah blah blah
February 22nd, 2007 at 12:09 pm#47 - “Bush didn’t lie to get us into Iraq”
Yes. He did. He said there were WMD’s that would be used against us in the US. There were not.
Then he said “He had active programs to build WMD’s”. There were not.
Then he said “He’s got plans for programs to build WMD’s.” There were not.
Then he said “He’s planning on planning on building WMD’s”. At that point, the majority of US citizens got tired of the lies on top of lies on top of lies and just gave up expecting Pres. Bush to tell ANYTHING that was truthful.
If we wanted to depose tryants, why is N. Korea still a factor? They HAVE nuclear weapons that CAN hit the US. I guess he’s not enough of a dictator, right? Or maybe it’s the no-oil in N. Korea.
Pres. Bush has lied, lied, lied. You still refuse to admit the truth, so you have become a cheerleader for killing more troops to support lies.
Why do you hate our troops so much, Paul?
February 22nd, 2007 at 12:09 pmHillary Clinton is self-serving and a political opportunist, but she is also, very smart.
“We expect him to extricate our country from this before he leaves office,” future President Clinton astonishingly told a campaign rally in Iowa on January 28.
The reason she feels compelled to make this statement, despite it’s self-serving connotations, is simple: She understands what you do not. If we pull out of Iraq, there are negative consequences (you won’t contemplate) that reasonable people will charge to those promoting the withdrawal. Hillary understands. She wants Bush held responsible for the withdrawal that progressives are pressuring him to make. Hillary shares at least one thing with the progressives here. She wants her cake and wants to eat it too. Good Luck. People aren’t as naive as you might want them to be.
February 22nd, 2007 at 12:10 pm“Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam has reconstituted his nuclear weapons program.” Dick Cheney
Paul, the words “no doubt” mean something. As your friend Rush Limbaugh has said over and over, “words mean things.” What is it about Bush cultists? The same people who were just red-faced outraged that Clinton could say “it depends on the meaning of ‘is’” can’t bring themselves to admit that their cult leaders have lied.
Paul, when Bush said that anyone involved in the outing of a CIA agent wouldn’t be in his administration anymore, do you think of that as a “lie?” Because we all know that at least 10 people in his administration were involved and they haven’t been fired.
I’d just like to know if you think Bush has lied about anything.
February 22nd, 2007 at 12:17 pm#51 - Well, how many people still fall for the lie that the recession that Pres. Bush brought into office with his was because of Pres. Clinton?
Pres. Bush refuses to take responsibility for ANYTHING he has done!
All it takes is for him to say “Yes, I’m responsible”, but the man won’t do it.
I guess Pres. Hillary clinton will have to clean up all Pres. Bush’s mistakes, just like her husband had to clean up Pres. Bush’s father mistakes.
As for this post, the British are leaving because of the debacle that Pres. Bush has started and will be his final (and only) legacy: nationbuilding that didn’t work out because he refused to listen to the people that wanted to plan for the war and the aftermath.
February 22nd, 2007 at 12:17 pm#45 - “We also weren’t lied into attacking during that war.”
Actually, FDR looked for a way to get us into WWII to assist the British. Check out the precursor Lend/Lease program. In addition, the Roosevelt administration was aware of circumatances leading to US involvement.
“John T. Flynn (liberal journalist who wrote for the Nation and New Republic) labored mightily to avert that disaster, joining with others – conservatives, mostly, and nascent libertarians – in the antiwar America First Committee, writing, speaking, rallying and lobbying to stop FDR’s drive to war….He wrote two scathing pamphlets, The Truth About Pearl Harbor (1944) and The Final Secret of Pearl Harbor (1945), that raised the question for the first time: did FDR have advance warning of the Pearl Harbor catastrophe?….Flynn makes the case that FDR had every reason to expect the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor, that he ignored the advice of his generals, and that he deliberately bottled up the fleet there. ….Originally a supporter of the President, Flynn became one of FDR’s bitterest, most relentless critics: his book, Country Squire in the White House, so enraged its subject that FDR wrote to one editor, at the Yale Review, demanding that Flynn be “forever barred” from the pages of the “respectable” media. Flynn’s 1948 book, The Roosevelt Myth, is the definitive study of Roosevelt the opportunist and autocrat; Flynn’s 1944 volume, As We Go Marching, cited the fascist proclivities of the New Deal in wartime.”
(from http://www.antiwar.com)
Maybe you should broaden your scope.
February 22nd, 2007 at 12:22 pmSo, Paul, do you think Bush should be held accountable for Iraq or what? If not the Commander-in-chief, who should be held accountable for this foreign policy disaster? Iraq is in worse shape than it was before the invasion, the Shiites are enjoying an unprecedented surge of political and military power that they didn’t have before, al Qaeda is enjoying a surge in recruitment, Afganistan is moving back under control of the Taliban, who is now helping al Qaeda again, every nation in the Middle East, including Saudi Arabia is angry with our policies, we have no more diplomatic friends in the world, we’ve turned into the biggest debtor nation in the world, poverty rates have been increasing for 5 straight years, abortion rates have increased every year under Bush, the proliferation of nuclear weapons has increased and a major American city lies in ruins, the current administration unwilling or unable to do anything about it.
Now, Paul, who on earth would you blame for this mess? When will conservatives learn to take responsibility for their actions?
February 22nd, 2007 at 12:23 pmCancel US Embassy In Baghdad And Build A Hospital Complex!
Thursday 22nd of February 2007
by Jay Randal
There is absolutely NO justifiable reason to construct a huge US Embassy complex in the heart of Baghdad!
The “Green Zone” is already a bastion of imperialism, in Iraq, so another monument ediface is unnecessary!
Iraqis do NOT appreciate another enclave for the US Ambassador to live in extravagant luxury like a King!
Saddam Hussein built palatial palaces for himself, all over Iraq, but he never asked the people if it was OK!
He never asked the common people what they needed and he squandered money on personal frivolities too!
President Bush has NOT asked Iraqis what they need, in their cities, NOR has he offered them employment!
The bloodshed and carnage in Baghdad have seriously injured many people and a new hospital is needed badly!
( Jay Randal, political activist and writer in Georgia, USA.)
PS: Contact Reps and Senators in DC and give them hell!
February 22nd, 2007 at 12:24 pmPaul isn’t here to convince anyone of anything. He is here to convince himself. It looks pathetic. It smells of desperation.
February 22nd, 2007 at 12:25 pmYes. He did. He said there were WMD’s that would be used against us in the US. There were not.
If I told you that Hillary supported Bush’s decision to invade Iraq based on her own assessment of the situation (not Bush’s) and you thought otherwise and said. “No, she didn’t.”
Then I gave you the link to the Hillary code pink youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYATbsu2cP8
And you watched all 15 minutes, then concluded: “You know, you’re right, Democratic leadership at the time believed exactly as Bush did”
Would your initial statement, (No, she didn’t) be a lie. Or would it be that you were unaware (as was almost everyone else at the time) that you were mistaken.
If you conclude that Bush made a mistake on bad intel, I understand that. If you accuse him of lying for holding a belief that the U.N., leadership of the democratic party (Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Al Gore, most of congress), the French, the Brits, etc, etc; that’s just not credible.
February 22nd, 2007 at 12:25 pmNO! NO! NO!
It wasn’t a lie!
NO ONE TOLD HIM!
HOW WAS HE SUPPOSED TO KNOW?
Why should he know?
How could it a lie if he didn’t know?
So it wasn’t a lie.
February 22nd, 2007 at 12:26 pmSince you believe otherwise, please explain what the Democrats could have done differently and how it would have changed the outcome.
Comment by VerbalKint — February 22, 2007 @ 12:01 pm
Answer the question, Paul.
February 22nd, 2007 at 12:27 pmI Believe
I Know
I am not sure how saying “He BELIEVED he knew” exonerates him for saying “I KNOW” and “will order the deaths of Tens of thousands based on that knowledge”.
Ignorance makes okay?
February 22nd, 2007 at 12:34 pmPaul, one thing Hillary has said over and over is that if she knew in 2002 what we know now, there wouldn’t have even been a vote. This is because it is clear now to all those who are able to see reality that the Bush administration manipulated and distorted intelligence, presented partial information to congress, hid information which did not support its arguments and basically ginned up a false argument for war. In addition, this adminsitration didn’t even follow the guidelines of it’s own authorization bill. It didn’t come back to congress with more data and evidence of WMD’s, it didn’t allow the inspectors to finish their job and it didn’t invade as a last resort.
It’s almost pathetic to watch people like you torture facts and logic to arrive at conclusions which are simply counter to what we now know. When are you going to just give it up?
February 22nd, 2007 at 12:35 pmIf you accuse him of lying for holding a belief that the U.N., leadership of the democratic party (Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Al Gore, most of congress), the French, the Brits, etc, etc; that’s just not credible.
Comment by paul #58
paul,
If you say that Bushiva DIDN”T lie about Iraq because he was misinformed…
…how do you explain how the Niger yellow cake and aluminum tubes for nuclear weapons lies got into his SOTU address that year…
…when CLEARLY he was advised that the sources were dubious and had in fact been gleaned from forged documents and a certified “unreliable” (informant)?
…and MOST importantly if you say that Clinton, the French, the Brits and all believed Saddam was the wmd threat…
…why didn’t THEY see fit to go to war with saddam before 9/11…
…or SUPPORT it AFTER?
February 22nd, 2007 at 12:35 pmhttp://www.zmag.org/ content/ showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=12169
very informative, clear and wise as usual from chomsky
it’s about the oil, guys, neither bems nor repubs. can admit that…
February 22nd, 2007 at 12:35 pmAgain and again, we must point out that belief in the prospect that Saddam might have had WMD’s is not the same thing as rushing to invade the country. Paul keeps pointing out that certain democrats might have believed certain things about Saddam in the 90’s. This is just another lame attempt to deflect blame for a foreign policy blunder.
Do any of these Bush cultists want to argue that a President Gore would have invaded Iraq? Please.
February 22nd, 2007 at 12:37 pmHere’s what Bush said:“Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.â€
State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003
Not True
Zero Chemical Weapons Found
Not a drop of any chemical weapons has been found anywhere in Iraq
“U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein
had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable
of delivering chemical agents.â€
State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003
Not True
Zero Munitions Found
Not a single chemical weapon’s munition has been found anywhere in Iraq
“We have also discovered through intelligence
that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas.”
State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003
Not True
Zero Aerial Vehicles Found
Not a single aerial vehicle capable of dispersing chemical or biological weapons, has been found anywhere in Iraq
“Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida.”
State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003
Not True
Zero Al Qaeda Connection
To date, not a shred of evidence connecting Hussein with Al Qaida or any other known terrorist organizations have been revealed.
(besides certain Palestinian groups who represent no direct threat to the US)
“Our intelligence sources tell us that he (Saddam) has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.”
State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003
Not True
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as well as dozens of leading scientists declared said tubes unsuitable for nuclear weapons production — months before the war.
“Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at [past nuclear] sites.”
Bush speech to the nation – 10/7/2002
Not True
Two months of inspections at these former Iraqi nuclear sites found zero evidence of prohibited nuclear activities there. IAEA report to UN Security Council – 1/27/2003
“The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003
Not True
The documents implied were known at the time by Bush to be forged and not credible.
“We know he’s been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.”
VP Dick Cheney – “Meet the Press†3/16/2003
Not True
“The IAEA had found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq.”
IAEA report to UN Security Council – 3/7/2003
“We gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn’t let them in.”
Bush Press Conference 7/14/2003
Not True
UN inspectors went into Iraq to search for possible weapons violations from December 2002 into March 2003
February 22nd, 2007 at 12:38 pmdid anybody here actually believe the crap about weapons of mass destruction before the invasion? I sure as hell didn’t and for some reason 99% of the rest of the world other than american citizens knew it was fabricated; it was just so obviously a bunch of crap to scare U.S. citizens. sad how well it worked even when it was based on such obviously made up facts
February 22nd, 2007 at 12:39 pmThe British are pulling out of Iraq, because when it was announced that Prince Harry would have to go there with his military unit, then the Queen called up PM Tony Blair and told him if her grandson died, or was maimed in Iraq, then she would have Blair castrated. He decided quick that he has enough problems, so the troops will all be gone by early next year.
February 22nd, 2007 at 12:39 pmBushCo did everything they could to convince Americans to suupport attacking Iraq. They did everything they could to get the troops into the country to destroy the regime, government structure, and physical infastructure of the country. They did everything which could have been known to create instability in the sectarian culture of Iraq. Then they promote the fact that there is an unstable country which requires U.S. presence as a solution. And they deny the civil war. It would be funny, if it weren’t for the fact that U.S. troops keep getting killed.
Bush is responsible for the war in Iraq. But, the neocons keep trying to delude the American public and to demean Democrats for seeing the reality that must be faced. When you create instability by militarily toppling a regime, you become responsible for consequences of that condition, including taking off the lid of sectarian strife which escalates to civil war. Wanting to be a “war President” as a means of gaining executive authority domestically and a greater influence in geopolitical region far from your own are insufficient justifications for a preemptive war. The U.S., through the leadership of BushCo, created war, an increase in Iraq’s internal tensions, an increase in Iraq’s regional tensions, and the situation in which U.S. troops must operate at the best of their ability. There will be violence in Iraq whether we are there or not at this point and much of the blood is on BushCo’s hands. The Democrats want to make the best of the situation for the best interests of our country, by getting America out. BushCo wants the U.S. to remain in order to try to pass the inevitable escalation of conflict onto the next administration as a means of avoiding responsibility. BushCo opened up Pandora’s box. The free ride BushCo had is over.
Comment by paul [translated]
February 22nd, 2007 at 12:40 pmGood summary, DemocratSoldier, but these facts are orthogonal to Paul’s fantasy world and therefore cannot be represented in the narrow space of his thinking. Therefore, he will ignore them, and if he replies it will be strawman gibberish.
February 22nd, 2007 at 12:42 pm#66!!!!
well done dem soldier! well done!
February 22nd, 2007 at 12:43 pmbravisimo!
Thank you, Dem Soldier. Nice little list there. Let me paraphrase our Sec. of State here:
“No one could have imagined that we would have an administration which would lie so often and with such impunity that our media would be embarassed to point it out without seeming partisan.”
February 22nd, 2007 at 12:43 pmKarlX, I never believed it, and I seriously doubt that European intelligence agencies believed it either. But they were in a difficult position, because it would have been very difficult diplomatically to publicly accuse the Bush administration of lying. We know that German intelligence worked hard behind the scenes to discredit “Curveball”, and I suspect that they and other agencies were doing other things behind the scenes, but to no avail.
February 22nd, 2007 at 12:45 pm69 It would be funny, if it weren’t for the fact that U.S. troops keep getting killed. PLC
and even funnier if (500,000) iraqis weren’t being, tortured, imprisoned, killed en masse.
February 22nd, 2007 at 12:47 pmand even funnier if (500,000) iraqis weren’t being, tortured, imprisoned, killed en masse.
Comment by karlX
True.
February 22nd, 2007 at 12:51 pmits a sad case of the media being a mega phone for who ever is in power; it really keeps the u.s. citizenry in the dark unless they’re actually reading “dissident” literature; i recently returned to the u.s from abroad and was astounded by the degree of orwellian style culture here, the total inability for the populace to hold dialogue that is not based on the narrow limits set by the elite.
what else could explain 99% of the world not buying Bush and co.’s garbage?
It’s about the oil, and you’ve really got to be a disciplined right wing zombie to not be able to see that.
February 22nd, 2007 at 12:53 pmPaul had such a passionate argument that there were no lies. Now that some of these lies have been listed, he’s run off. Funny, Paul. Very nice example of the consumate Bush cultist.
February 22nd, 2007 at 12:54 pmSince you believe otherwise, please explain what the Democrats could have done differently and how it would have changed the outcome.
Comment by VerbalKint — February 22, 2007 @ 12:01 pm
Answer the question, Paul.
Comment by VerbalKint — February 22, 2007 @ 12:27 pm
Jihadists/Insurgents watch CNN. Its pretty easy to turn on the television and watch a nation divided (U.S.). A contant drumbeat of democratic talking heads second guessing every facet of the war. You don’t see it, but it emboldens the those that oppose the U.S. in Iraq. It also silences opposition to the insurgents in Iraq (would you oppose insurgents, if you believed increasingly your support from the U.S. was going to vanish with a pullout because things aren’t going well?). The scrutiny also demoralizes the support at home (arguably the key to any success).
If FDR would have had to fight the Japanese, the Germans and the Republicans; it would have at least taken longer to win WWII. Most likely the division would have jeopardized our chances for success.
February 22nd, 2007 at 12:54 pmkarlX: “its a sad case of the media being a mega phone for who ever is in power”
I seem to recall that in the 90’s, the media was all about the various “gates” that the right wing ginned up to take down a president. I want everyone to remember that the media used to get all worked up over things like whether or not a couple of people were fired from the Whitehouse travel office for political reasons. Remember? It was spread across the print and television media as “Travelgate.” It was a real big deal. Very, very important.
February 22nd, 2007 at 12:58 pmPaul, you’re comparing Japanese and Germans from WW-II to Iraqi insurgents of today. That’s about as smart as comparing the pro-states-rights to the pro-Federal-Government Republicans of today. Two completely different animals, with the old Republicans dead and gone and the neo-con Republicans here to stay.
Also, you’ve ignored the question itself.
Great way to sidestep the question and feel like you’ve answered it. Throwing in your little jibe at the end was rather petty, but expected at this point when your talking points come crashing down around you.
February 22nd, 2007 at 1:04 pmI have heard 100 times here that Bush misdirected the efforts from Afganistan to Iraq. That’s a valid point.
Who bears the responsibility for the re-emergence of the Taliban in the absense of significant troops. Bush. It was his decision.
If you redirect the efforts in the war in Iraq (Democrats Demand Troop Withdrawal). And the situation worsens, due to the lack of troops to secure the situation, who bears the responsibility?
Those that lead the withdrawal of the troops. Is there one reasonable progressive here that will concede that if after the troop withdrawal, the situation improves, it would be due to progressive efforts to end the war. Conversely, if removing the troops degrades the situation into an intense civil war with less security, the progressives (who demanded the withdrawal) would bear the responsibilty.
February 22nd, 2007 at 1:04 pm“I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarifiedrules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our overextended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today”
 Â
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)
Paul, did you agree with Tom Delay in 1999? Did his words make it tougher for Clinton to fulfill his military responsibility to NATO allies? Did his words embolden the Serbs who were killing Bosnian muslims? Did his words hurt troop moral. Were you concerned about that then, or was it oral sex that you thought was more important?
February 22nd, 2007 at 1:05 pmPaul, are you still holding to the argument that no lies were told to the American people? Are you just going to ignore Dem Soldier’s comprehensive list of lies ane move on as if nothing happened?
February 22nd, 2007 at 1:06 pmBluedog49
And using paul’s logic, it would be reasonable to assume that the terrorists saw the U.S. as vulnerable because of the political divisiveness from these “gates” which they subsequently opened and waltzed in with their attack on the U.S.
February 22nd, 2007 at 1:07 pmPaul has claimed that no lies were told to the American people. Sorry, but with respect to Dem Soldier, his post needs to be repeated so Paul can’t just act like it never happened:
Here’s what Bush said:“Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.â€
State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003
Not True
Zero Chemical Weapons Found
Not a drop of any chemical weapons has been found anywhere in Iraq
“U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein
had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable
of delivering chemical agents.â€
State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003
Not True
Zero Munitions Found
Not a single chemical weapon’s munition has been found anywhere in Iraq
“We have also discovered through intelligence
that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas.â€
State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003
Not True
Zero Aerial Vehicles Found
Not a single aerial vehicle capable of dispersing chemical or biological weapons, has been found anywhere in Iraq
“Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida.â€
State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003
Not True
Zero Al Qaeda Connection
To date, not a shred of evidence connecting Hussein with Al Qaida or any other known terrorist organizations have been revealed.
(besides certain Palestinian groups who represent no direct threat to the US)
“Our intelligence sources tell us that he (Saddam) has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.â€
State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003
Not True
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as well as dozens of leading scientists declared said tubes unsuitable for nuclear weapons production — months before the war.
“Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at [past nuclear] sites.â€
Bush speech to the nation – 10/7/2002
Not True
Two months of inspections at these former Iraqi nuclear sites found zero evidence of prohibited nuclear activities there. IAEA report to UN Security Council – 1/27/2003
“The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.†State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003
Not True
The documents implied were known at the time by Bush to be forged and not credible.
“We know he’s been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.â€
VP Dick Cheney – “Meet the Press†3/16/2003
Not True
“The IAEA had found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq.â€
IAEA report to UN Security Council – 3/7/2003
“We gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn’t let them in.â€
Bush Press Conference 7/14/2003
Not True
UN inspectors went into Iraq to search for possible weapons violations from December 2002 into March 2003
Comment by Democrat Soldier — February 22, 2007 @ 12:38 pm
Paul, are you sticking with the argument that Bush hasn’t lied?
February 22nd, 2007 at 1:09 pmDem Soldier said in #45, “We also weren’t lied into attacking during that war.â€
Still waiting for you to admit your ignorance of the facts -or- lie about the facts (if you knew. I think we’re in for a long wait.
February 22nd, 2007 at 1:10 pmGood point, PLC. Funny how they want to blame Clinton for the terrorism we have today, but they refuse to even consider the fact that for the repub congress of the 90’s, oral sex was more important than fighting terrorism.
February 22nd, 2007 at 1:12 pmIs there one reasonable progressive here that will concede that if after the troop withdrawal, the situation improves, it would be due to progressive efforts to end the war.
If the situation in Iraq improves it will because the people of Iraq want it to improve and do something constructive.
Conversely, if removing the troops degrades the situation into an intense civil war with less security, the progressives (who demanded the withdrawal) would bear the responsibilty
No, the Iraqi people themselves are ultimately responsible for whether or not they choose to kill each other. Bush is responsible for ignoring that reality and getting more innocent Americans and Iraqis killed by the U.S. presence there in the middle.
February 22nd, 2007 at 1:12 pmDemocratic Soldier
Maybe you should respond to the goddess-wannabe troll so her arms and head don’t fall off from lack of attention.
February 22nd, 2007 at 1:14 pmBluedog. I’m still here my friend. Have you watched the hillary youtube? Have you forgot the overwhelming support for Bush had before the invasion? Have you forgot how Kerry, Clinton, Gore, the French, the British, the U.N., the huge majority of both houses of congress, etc; all supported the intel? At the time we had 40 something countries on board.
Now that things haven’t gone well, and your representatives have turned 180 and run, you want to accuse Bush of lying. Is the whole world so gullible to believe in Bush, or is it more likely, we were all mistaken because Hussein made the most curious bluff in history. Your monday morning quarterbacking has been enabled here so long, you believe it. The problem is: Hillary’s words have been recorded. So has Kerry’s, Congress, U.N. the Brits the French, etc.
Hillary has another thing in common with progressives. She can’t admit she made a mistake (with the intelligence of the time). It’s easier for her, and you, to explain it away by saying, you were lied to. That’s a little thin.
February 22nd, 2007 at 1:14 pmValiant venus desperately tries to drive the conversation from the many lies of the Bush administration to….. Pearl Harbor???!!! Oh, come on. Here’s something just as irrelevant: the secret service had to physically restrain Warren Harding’s wife from opening a closet door and exposing her husband getting it on with a secretary.
February 22nd, 2007 at 1:14 pmNo, the Iraqi people themselves are ultimately responsible for whether or not they choose to kill each other.
Are there any progressives here that would like to jump on board with this idea?
February 22nd, 2007 at 1:18 pmpaul, did you read Dem soldiers breakdown of your b.s.? you’ve created some fantasy history where “everyone” backed the intel and invasion of Iraq, open your eyes, educate yourself just a little please
February 22nd, 2007 at 1:19 pmpaul,
Three words for you: Downing Street Memo.
Also, remember Scooter Libby? That guy who’s on trial for perjury? Remember what he (allegedly) perjured himself about? Hmm?
February 22nd, 2007 at 1:23 pmPaul, I understand that you desperately want to drive any conversation towards whether or not a given Dem was wrong to believe what they were told by the Bush administration. I can understand that it is much more important to Bush cultists to get Dems arguing among themselves about who was right and who was wrong.
Now, you seem to be criticizing Dems for recognizing that a huge mistake was made and dealing with what we must do now.
Paul: “Now that things haven’t gone well, and your representatives have turned 180 and run, you want to accuse Bush of lying.”
What would you have your elected reps do when they find mistakes have been made or they have been lied to? Just keep going the same direction? That’s just crazy. And, again, many of these LIES have been listed. Why are you acting like someone hasn’t offered you a black and white list of lies?
Here’s one again: ““We gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn’t let them in.â€
Bush Press Conference 7/14/2003
You know very well that Bush ordered the inspectors to leave before he began his bombing campaign. What kind of tortured logic do you have to subject your mind to in order to believe this was not a lie?
February 22nd, 2007 at 1:24 pm#91 - “….tries to drive the conversation from the many lies of the Bush administration to….. Pearl Harbor???!!”
Actually, if you kept up with the thread YOU might know Dem Soldier brought WWII to the table in this argument. I was merely refuting his lie or ignorance.
#45 - “We also weren’t lied into attacking during that war. (WWII)â€
February 22nd, 2007 at 1:25 pmComment by Democrat Soldier
92. paul what exactly are you arguing for? that the u.s. should continnue its occupation of a foreign nation in order to fatten up oil companies and haliburton? this is who wins, Paul. This has nothing to do with terrorism, democracy,etc. Why do you still support an elected official who selectively picked intel (at best) and lied (at worst) to use you tax dollars invade another nation for control of oil resources. THis is what the discussion should be about: not this b.s. of “freedom”, the war on terror, stay till the job gets done…. these are meaningless buzz words, empty.
No, the Iraqi people themselves are ultimately responsible for whether or not they choose to kill each other. PLC
i’ll say this: i’d like to see an immediate withdrawl of all u.s. military personel from Iraq
February 22nd, 2007 at 1:26 pmWhatever, Valiant. My point is that Bush cultists like you will jump at any opportunity to turn the conversation away from the fact that Bush and his people lied through their teeth to get us into an illegal shooting war. You know it, I know it, and the American people know it. They’ve lied over and over, about big things and small. They’ve told lies of ommission and lies of distortion. They’ve told half-truths and manipulated public opinion. The amazing thing to me is that there are still Americans who seem to want to argue that this hasn’t happened.
February 22nd, 2007 at 1:31 pmpaul
Obviously, you didn’t agree with my assessment that the Iraqi people themselves are ultimately responsible for killing each other. I ask you, then, since the sectarian violence has increased since Hussein was taken from power, isn’t it BushCo’s actions that led to the escalation and, thus, that is where the responsibility for the bloodshed lies? Or are you going to continue to blame the Democrats with tortured logic?
February 22nd, 2007 at 1:34 pmkarlX. I’m just saying we shouldn’t abandon the Iraqis to slaughter after vowing to help them secure a democracy.
February 22nd, 2007 at 1:35 pmFOR PAUL
The “Downing Street memo” (occasionally DSM, or the “Downing Street Minutes”), sometimes described by critics of the Iraq War as the “smoking gun memo”, contains an overview of a secret 23 July 2002 meeting among United Kingdom Labour government, defense and intelligence figures, discussing the build-up to the war—including direct reference to classified United States policy of the time. It clearly states that, “Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.”
February 22nd, 2007 at 1:36 pmThese people took control of the Whitehouse in 2001 saying “the adults are back in charge.” They touted their own “culture of responsibility.”
Sane people now realize what hollow words these were. These people will not take responsibility for anything.
February 22nd, 2007 at 1:36 pmThey’ve lied over and over, about big things and small. They’ve told lies of ommission and lies of distortion. They’ve told half-truths and manipulated public opinion. The amazing thing to me is that there are still Americans who seem to want to argue that this hasn’t happened. Bluedog
yes, this is intriguing, it requires a disciplined deference to authority that would make any totalitarian proud
February 22nd, 2007 at 1:38 pmBluedog. The intelligence could have been better. It would also be nice, if we could conduct a perfect war. That’s not reality. My suggestion is to persevere and fulfill our obligations. Just because you encounter difficulty or realize mistakes were made, it doesn’t justify giving up and abandoning our commitments.
February 22nd, 2007 at 1:39 pmkarlX. I am obviously not perfectly informed. (I would submit that no one is). I haven’t read the DSM. Thanks for the lead. I’ll look at it.
February 22nd, 2007 at 1:41 pm101 Paul
I’m just saying we shouldn’t abandon the Iraqis to slaughter after vowing to help them secure a democracy. Paul
Paul, Mr. Bush’s vows to create a democracy can be read: a gov’t that allows for oil profits to flow to oil companies and not the Iraqi people. Don’t let yourself be conned by bush, the iraqis arent.
but then let’s say, just say, the iraqis (like 70% of the population) don’t want us there? then what.
February 22nd, 2007 at 1:42 pmYour arguments are so good, you’ve run me off. (Actually, I need to get my kids out to the park). Good discussion. Later.
February 22nd, 2007 at 1:43 pmSorry, Paul, you really didn’t answer my question, at least not using basic common sense, logic, and any respect for human history. Just keep lapping up the koolaid, because its toxic effects have already destroyed your brain.
February 22nd, 2007 at 1:45 pmalright, enjoy the little ones, i wish it were warm enough here to go out (boston)
I haven’t read the DSM. Thanks for the lead. I’ll look at it.
Comment by paul
February 22nd, 2007 at 1:45 pmdid Paul, actually agree to educate himself? what a strange and glorious day on TP when a troll is willing to maybe open his eyes….
#98 - Expected response delivered, “Whatever, Valiant. (Continues with same ol’ Dem lines…)”
Wow - That’s deep!
February 22nd, 2007 at 1:47 pm#100 - “I’m just saying we shouldn’t abandon the Iraqis to slaughter after vowing to help them secure a democracy.” Comment by paul — February 22, 2007 @ 1:35 pm
Like we already did to Afghanistan? Don’t forget, the Taliban is making a come back!
Why is Iraq special and Afghinistan not so special?
February 22nd, 2007 at 1:52 pmkarlX sez:
Don’t get your hopes up…you’ll notice how he pointedly ignored my post. His silence on the subjects of the Downing Street memo and the Scooter Libby trial speak volumes.
February 22nd, 2007 at 1:58 pmValiant, if you want something better than “whatever,” you’re going to have to come up with an argument yourself. Responding to arguments that Bush lied to us by citing Pearl Harbor is not an argument. It is obfuscation, hence the “whatever.”
Paul, you respond: “Just because you encounter difficulty or realize mistakes were made, it doesn’t justify giving up and abandoning our commitments.”
First, I’m not saying “mistakes were made.” I’m saying that Bush and his people lied to the American people, manipulated intelligence and the media and diverted important military and intelligence assets to fight an illegal war that they planned on waging all along. This is a constitutional crime of the highest order, not a “mistake.” And, someone should be held accountable. I’ll paraphrase something Bill Mahr said the other day: If you’ve got a rat problem and you call an exterminator, and he starts smashing rats with a hammer, you might say, “I don’t think this is the right way to go about this.” It doesn’t mean you are “for the rats” or that you’re “abandoning your commitment to get rid of the rats.” It means you don’t agree with how the job is being carried out.
February 22nd, 2007 at 2:16 pmWhy is Iraq special and Afghinistan not so special?
Comment by Democrat Soldier
#2 oil reservoir in the world
February 22nd, 2007 at 2:24 pmBush didn’t lie to get us into Iraq, but it was his decision….
Comment by paul
Wrong and wrong.
How can you be so totally f*cking clueless?
February 22nd, 2007 at 2:54 pmLike we already did to Afghanistan? Don’t forget, the Taliban is making a come back!
Why is Iraq special and Afghinistan not so special?
Comment by Democrat Soldier — February 22, 2007 @ 1:52 pm
How is it abandonment IF WE ARE STILL THERE?
February 22nd, 2007 at 3:07 pmThe map says, “it time to go home. Pack your bags and get ready for deployment.
February 22nd, 2007 at 3:30 pmWhy don’t we just call it the coalition of the wilting?
February 22nd, 2007 at 4:21 pm#118 ….”Coalition of the wilting.”
I gotta admit, Walt…That was pretty good!
Look, even I think this spin that the British are reducing their forces in Iraq because everything is just so ducky over there is silly.
From the thread:
“Ferocious street battles have broken out between rival Shiite Muslim groups in provincial capitals such as Samawah, Kut and Diwaniya in the last year.”
There is no reason British troops should be endangered by being placed in the middle of a gang war in Basra between rival Shiite groups.
February 22nd, 2007 at 4:41 pm#119,
February 22nd, 2007 at 4:49 pmThanks, Exley, as you know, I try to be succinct.
To MikeHunt (Comment #1):
If they had been good at this one thing (lying, no less!) then they would not be as transparent as they are.
No, they are not good at anything. Everything this Bush Administration touches turns into a disaster. The latest being the conditions of the rehab facilities for ‘our beloved troops’ at Walter Reed Hospital. That, of course, is now being eclipsed by the overstating of the number of ‘terrorist attakcs’ which have been foiled since 9/11.
Everything they touch becomes a shameful disaster! Unbecoming to the most powerful country in the world - apparently.
February 22nd, 2007 at 5:04 pmExley, just to clarify a discussion we had a while ago:
Insurrection: an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government. People who bombed children to make a point is not an insurgent is a terrorist.
For example:
February 22nd, 2007 at 5:42 pmiraqis fighting against an invading army = insurgency
US army throwing cluster bombs and WP over children = terrorism.
Thus, even for reliable allies with capable militaries, the political price of marching into battle alongside the Great Satan is steep and getting steeper. This does not bode well for the general health of the planet. When the wilier Democrats berate Bush for not maintaining an adequate military, they have a sort of crude point, albeit not the one they think they’re making: if the time, money and energy expended in getting pseudo-allies to make pseudo-contributions were to be spent instead on the Vermont National Guard, you’d get more troops more quickly with more capability. Yet for wealthy countries to deny Washington even the figleaf of token multilateralism is, in the end, to gamble with their own futures.
Howard is perhaps the last Western leader to understand this. If he is a pathetic Bush poodle, he was a poodle long before most folks had even heard of Bush. He first committed Australia to supporting American military action against Iraq in 1998, back when Bill Clinton was in the Oval Office. All that’s changed is the scale of the threat: an American defeat - or perceived defeat - in Iraq would embolden all kinds of forces around the globe, including in Indonesia and the Pacific.
The French and the Norwegians will never be meaningful American allies again, and even the British will be ordering a la carte. To modify Howard’s words on September 11, even if 80 per cent of the allies have gone, this is no time to join them.
Mark Steyn, a Canadian columnist, is a regular contributor to The Australian’s opinion page.
February 22nd, 2007 at 5:56 pmZooey. Bush didn’t lie to get us into Iraq, but it was his decision….
Comment by paul
Wrong and wrong.
How can you be so totally f*cking clueless?
How can it be that Bush came to the same conclusion about Iraq, as did Clinton (Bill), Kerry, Gore, Clinton (Hillary), the French, the U.N., the Brits, most of congress, etc; when it turns out the intel was bad, he’s a liar. But the Clinton’s, Kerry, Gore, the French, the U.N. and the Brits; just made a mistake. Bush didn’t lie. You’ve had 6 eager years and can’t mount an impeachment if he is a liar. Why? Because, he didn’t lie, despite what you’ve heard from desperate liberal leadership.
And if it wasn’t Bush’s decision (ultimate) to go into Iraq, who’s was it? Maybe you should blame that person and call him/her a liar?
And you know it jazzes me up when you talk dirty. (C^:!
February 22nd, 2007 at 6:24 pmLIE: “We gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn’t let them in.â€
Bush Press Conference 7/14/2003
LIE: “Our intelligence sources tell us that he (Saddam) has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.â€
State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003
LIE: “Simply stated, there is no doubt Saddam has reconstituted his nuclear weapons program.” Dick cheney, Meet the Press
LIE: “Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at [past nuclear] sites.â€
Bush speech to the nation – 10/7/2002
Some of these are lies of ommission, some are distortions and a couple are just flat-out lies. At the time Bush made the above statements in SOTU addresses, there was the possibility that he was misinformed. We now know that he knew these things were questionable. So, yes, Paul, Bush and his administration lied to the American people about the most important of all issues — going to war. You can’t win this absurd argument. We have video and speech transcripts that cannnot be flushed down the frickin memory hole so just stop trying already!
February 22nd, 2007 at 6:32 pm