This will be my last comment at TP. The editorial staff has elected to remove my response to a rabid attack, while leaving the falsehoods of the other party for all to see. This is unacceptable.

I’ve had fun, and, I will doubtless run into many of you on, effectively moderated, forums.

I can’t leave without a warning, however. The troll known as BARTLEBEE is a narrow minded, ignorant, hateful, judgmental, abusive sh!t-stain. And, when challenged, it lies like the lowest of conservative trolls. Don’t dare to disagree with it or you may be the next one subjected to it’s foul abuse only to have your response deleted as happened to me in this thread:http://thinkprogress.org/2007/11/29/huckabee-phone-call-with-god/#comment-4191249

Good bye.

Comment by pete — January 1, 2008 @ 10:57 pm

My beef is with the staff. I will no longer support their incompetance.

Comment by pete — January 1, 2008 @ 11:16 pm

Absolutely nothing.

The obvious fact that the intel provided, to those who approved action in
Iraq, has proven to be inaccurate and incomplete (if not fabricated) is all the rationale needed to proclaim the invasion wrong. It has, in fact, been proven illegal in most contexts. Intent doesn’t really enter into it. I believe most, if not all, were convinced they were right, plus, they were acting on a deserved wish for revenge.

Unfortunately, our guilt was assured with the very first bomb. Then, it was compounded by our continuing offensive operations after it was established there were no WMD’s. If such operations had been reduced, and replaced by operations in support of Iraqi interests, there is a small chance that the situation could have been salvaged.

Instead the powers that be changed their stated objectives and increased the level of offensive operations. Over and over. Now? Our only hope is that at sometime (I predict several decades, at best) the victims of Bushco’s folly will forgive us. Unfortunately, the people of the Mideast aren’t noted for their forgiving natures and, indeed, we may never be able to regain the trust, and goodwill, of the international community.

Every phony justification will be repaid, many times over, by the ill will of the World Community. Our great-grandkids won’t be able to safely walk the streets of, or conduct commerce with, many nations. “Right” and “wrong” is not for us to judge. That judgment will be made by the righteous enemies of our country long after I leave my mortal body behind. And, children, yet unborn, will pay with their lives.

There are no mitigating factors. Our feelings don’t matter. The Iraqi disaster will define our Nation, and, there’s nothing that will ever change that sad fact.

If we, as a Nation, had pursued the 9/11 attacks as a criminal matter it wouldn’t have happened. But, we allowed the greedy, the vengeful, and the violent, to pursue military action.

Personally? I’ll always carry my share of guilt, and, I’ll never forgive those who put me in this position, unless, the guilty step forward and take their punishment. I’m not holding my breath. I think we’ll, eventually, have to drag them, kicking and screaming, to the gallows. And, worst of all, it didn’t have to happen.

It was a “product roll-out,” and you risk muddying the message with too many differing rationales. He was doing this at a time when we all knew the Gulf War stories (of Kuwaiti babies being yanked from incubators, and slammed on hospital floors by invading Iraqis) were bogus, and that the human-interest angle might be challenged as more propaganda, by a now-credulous public. Bush needed to scare Americans with an existential threat to get the war wheels turning.

There were many reasons why, according to the Bush administration at least, Iraq deserved to be invaded. But the decision of whether or not to actually carry out the military action would be the failure, on the part of the Hussein regime, to rid themselves of all the WMD they supposedly had.

That is what Pres Bush called the single question.

I never understood why there had to be just one reason.

That was Pres Bush painting himself into a corner. No one else got to vote on the reasons. After all, he is The Decider.

But, it would be difficult for me to believe that the overconfidence could be neatly described as criminal.

If facts were being fixed around the policy, they are, in fact, criminal.

Yes, I agree.

At any rate, happy New Year to you too! ;-)

If you want to discuss whether or not the Bush administration knew their publicly stated rationale was bunkum, let’s not forget about the Downing Street memos, you know, the ones that revealed that the “facts were being fixed around the policy”.

In fact, the case for war was crumbling -back in 2002- almost as quickly as the Bush administration could piece it together; African uranium? Bunk. Atta meeting in Germany with a Hussein agent? Bunk. I could go on, but you get the picture….

Exactly. All one has to do is go back and read the various PNAC policy statements to know what they always had in mind. And, please remember that Neocons are “Straussians.” One of Leo Strauss’ main things was the use of what he termed “noble lies.” His philosophy was that a special elite would know what is right for society and couldn’t tell the truth about their goals because the vast majority of a democratic population simply wouldn’t agree.

Let me remind you that Cheney said, “Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam has reconstituted his nuclear weapons program.”

The words “there is no doubt” are particularly important here. As Rush Limbaugh says, “words mean things.” We know now that Cheney knew full well that there was indeed doubt about that. Therefore, Cheney lied, pure and simple.

In that case, the publicly stated rationale needs to change constantly, as the old reasons don’t hold water anymore and/or new benchmarks are met.

Sorry for the confusion, Captain. No, I think you’re quite civil and reasonable. I was addressing that particular statement to Manslag and phony Kerry, who strangely seem to blame Bush’s failures on the people who criticize his policies.

What we are discussing here is the rationale for the invasion. From that perspective, it doesn’t matter what the bush administration believed, only what they stated publicly.

As I pointed out, that rationale was to rid the Hussein regime of its WMD. That was what Pres Bush repeated, over and over, in every speech about Iraq.

It was the failure to find said WMD that has triggered a deluge of rationalisations from his supporters as to why the US must stay in Iraq indefinitely, whether to rebuild Iraq, help them establish a democracy, or chase terrorists.

There is always a good reason why the US must stay. My reply always is: If the original reason to invade has proved to be wrong, you don’t make up new ones. Arguing otherwise is pure rubbish.

By that, I mean JK. While I don’t agree with much Captn man says, he at least engages in mostly honest debate.

A recent UNHCR survey of families returning found that less than 18 percent did so by choice. Most came back because they lacked a visa, had run out of money abroad, or were deported.
Sectarian killings have decreased in recent months, but still continue. Bodies continue to be dumped on the streets of Baghdad daily.
One reason for a decrease in the level of violence is that most of Baghdad has essentially been divided along sectarian lines. Entire neighbourhoods are now surrounded by concrete blast walls several metres high, with strict security checkpoints. Normal life has all but vanished.
[...]
By the end of 2007, attacks against occupation forces decreased substantially, but still number more than 2,000 monthly. Iraqi infrastructure, like supply of potable water and electricity are improving, but remain below pre-invasion levels.
Iraq Progresses To Some Of Its Worst

And here is another eye opener:

The Iraqi government announcement that monthly food rations will be cut by half has left many Iraqis asking how they can survive.
The government also wants to reduce the number of people depending on the rationing system by five million by June 2008.
[...]
The cuts, which are to be introduced in the beginning of 2008, have drawn widespread criticism. The Iraqi government is unable to supply the rations with several billion dollars at its disposal, whereas Saddam Hussein was able to maintain the programme with less than a billion dollars.
Iraq Slashes Food Rations, Putting Lives at Risk

If dodging bullets wasn’t bad enough, the Iraqis will now have to make do with even less food than the brutal Hussein regime provided for them.

Heckuva job, Georgie!

So, after nearly five years of no political progress, the Iraqis are suddenly going to bury their past differences, and unite – and before the ‘08 election.

Riiight.

If the fact that every single Dem voted to go into Afghanistan doesn’t prove you wrong—-I don’t know what you’d accept!