Brain Fertilizer

Thanks for the advice. I will make sure everyone gets the message.

-

LOL! That was the best comment ever.

The Bushies have gotten 50% of the people to believe what he says on TV...but, so far he doesn't have a very good track record for being correct.

That depends on what you mean.
A Clinton appointee was wrong about WMD. President Bush was wrong to trust him.

But he was right that we should topple Saddam. Look at the progress toward peace in Israel since that occurred. Look at the changes in Libya, Syria, Yemen, Saudi Arabia.

He was right to invade Afghanistan, look at the success there!

Some things cannot be shown to be "correct" or "incorrect" until years after the fact. Many of the platforms receive the support of over 50% of the nation. Others receive nearly 50%, and the overlap handed President Bush a clear majority of the voters.

Your comment smacks of sour grapes, it seems to me.

Yo Nathan,

By directing your post to "Yo Dems" and using phrases like "why do you" it would seem that you believe that all democrats are connected telepathically to one another and therefore speak with one grand borg voice. In my small attempt at making honest rational debate again possible in America I would ask that you speak directly to those who create the offense that you have decided to take offense with. In my view politics is not a team sport - where the other team is all bad simply because they are not on my team. Politics is, and should be, a rational debate of opposing ideas argued between those who expose them. I do not judge all republicans by the words of some republicans - try and give democrats the same courtesy.

http://rationaldebate.blogspot.com/

what Clinton apointee was wrong on WMD?
Topple Saddam- good idea, wrong justification.
Libya, Syria, Yemen and SA--, come on! Do you read anything besides Fox?

Afghanistan, outside of Kabul, is now run by war-lords producing heroin...oh, and Osama is still laying out getting a tan.

The Iraq folly was supported because a) we were told by Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice and Powell that Iraq was an IMMINENT THREAT to the US (a lie)
and b) that it would be a cake-walk, and we would be greeted as liberators (a lie, and wrong).

Jim,
Good point, but I was kind of vamping off of a Mickey Kaus observation, rather than something posted at a liberal or Democrat site. It's not like I can say, "Hey, Richard J. Montalbahn of MooseEar, Pennsylvania, stop assuming that Obama should move things leftward!"
This is one of those things that, if you assume President Bush is wrong about everything and it is a betrayal of Democrat principles for Obama to vote for lawsuit reform, then you should consider that maybe Obama is correct.
If you aren't one of those people, you can disregard.

Interested (sorry for the delayed reply, was having network problems),

Bush, Powell, Rumsfeld and Rice are not Intelligence gatherers nor analysts. They depend on the Intelligence organizations to give them good info. Regarding WMD, George Tenet (a Bill Clinton appointee, fwiw) told President Bush that it was a "Slam Dunk" that Saddam had WMD.

However, there were multiple reasons why we invaded. The most important reason was repeated several times (so I don't know how you can get it so badly wrong): Saddam was not cooperating with inspections, and we could no longer afford to not know whether he had WMD or not...we had to act before the threat became imminent. That's a direct quote from President Bush, you can look it up (who's wrong/lying now, hmm? [grin]).

President Bush was clearly right to invade Afghanistan.

I gotta say, though, that I don't remember President Bush or <>i>any senior cabinet officials saying they thought the invasion of Iraq would be a cakewalk. Interestingly, however, it was a cakewalk by any reasonable military standards. And the people did welcome us as liberators...they just didn't want us to stay for long after that. And we were prescient in staying, because the attacks started about 2 months later. When the attacks did begin, it was the former Saddam loyalists who had no chance for power or safety without him, and it was individuals connected to al-Qaida that felt they could hurt the US more easily in Iraq than in Afghanistan or elsewhere.

You can look this all up. It would be nice if you did, so you could stop distorting and rewriting history.

And you think Yemen isn't doing anything differently after the invasion of Yemen? You think Lebanon isn't starting to be fed up with Syria? You don't think Saddam's being deposed contributed greatly to the significant progress toward peace in Israel? You think Libya's admission of WMD had nothing to do with Iraq?

Because I don't watch or read Fox News. It's my least favorite of online sources, and I don't watch TV. You are batting like 0-for-10 today! [grin]

You GOPers really are trying hard to convince Democrats that to win elections they need to be more like Bush and his followers.

I pray to God that Democrats are not stupid enough to believe it, though some -- like Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, Peter Beinart, The New Republic -- seem to be.

You guys may be evil, but you are pretty clever, I'll give you that.

Not at all, man!
What we are trying to convince you is that there is a reason you have been losing elections, so you should go back and reconsider your premises.

If all you care about is winning elections, then: Sure! Try to pretend you hold conservative values. But you've had a few generations to enact your agenda, and it seems like more and more people are tired of it.

You can do what you want, think what you want, say what you want...but when you start letting paranoia dictate your reasoning (like with the "evil" GOP belief), you should get ready for your political power to continue to dissipate.

Nathan,

there are many reasons we invaded Irage...correct. But none of the REAL reasons are what we were told during the runup to war. Oh, it was Richard Perle who said, and wrote that Iraq would be a cakewalk.

But you deviate from the original post when you imply that the words of Bush, Cheney, Powell, et al. are not valid because they "are not Intelligence gatherers nor analysts". They are the faces that the voters see, and falsely believe. THAT was my point.

"Saddam was not cooperating with inspections, and we could no longer afford to not know whether he had WMD or not...we had to act before the threat became imminent. That's a direct quote from President Bush, you can look it up (who's wrong/lying now, hmm? [grin])."

That was his second line of defense aginst the press, after it became apparent that there were no WMD. His opening statements were more to the tune of "he has nukular and biologic weapons" [grin]. Colin Powell showed these weapons to the UN...all lies. You say faulty intelligence...yet ex intelligence officers, weapons experts, and inspectors, including David Kay, all say (on camera) that it's all lies...(Uncovered: The War on Iraq, by Robert Greenwald). You should watch it...it's 1.5 ours of interviews with Chas Freeman, Scott Ritter, David Albright, Graham Fuller, The Rt Honorable Clare Short, Robert Baer, Mel Goodman, Stansfield Turner, Milt Bearden, Larry C. Johnson, The Honorable Henry Waxman, Rand Beers, Dr. David Kay, Thomas E. White, Bill Christison, John Brady Kiesling, Joseph C. Wilson, David Corn, Karen Kwiatkowski, Colonel Mary Ann Wright, Philip Coyle, Patrick Lang and Peter Zimmerman. And plent of footage of BushCo LLP lying their butts off.

Richard Perle...which cabinet does he head up? He doesn't? Hmmm: wrong or lying again.

And once you get to denying what was actually said and written about the reason for invading to insist on a so-called "REAL" reason, you have entered conspiracy-theory levels that effectively ends the usefulness of debate.

The bottom line on WMD: Saddam's scientists were lying to him about what he had, and he exaggerated what he thought he had. He also retained the capability to produce tons of chemical weapons at the push of a button, and refused to give up that capability or even cooperate with our dismantling. Read Resolution 1441 again.

And as for President Bush, et al, not being intelligence gatherers/analysts is simply this: If you pay me to provide you with information, you should trust me to give you accurate information. If you make a decision based on that information and it turns out to be wrong, whose fault is that? Obviously: mine. President Bush didn't lie, he believed his Director of the CIA when Tenet said Saddam having WMD was a "Slam Dunk".

Putting it bluntly: there is more proof of you deliberately lying than President Bush.

Richard Perle was the chairman of the Defense Policy Board, not Cabinet...but very influential.

Watch Scott Ritter and David Kay talk repeatedly about how they told the CIA and DOD about the non-existence of weapons...and were not listened to.

Whether shipped to Syria or destroyed, the WMD were gone long before we invaded. Saddam is nuts, but he's no fool. The last thing he wanted is what has happened. Now I think it's a very good thing he's in prison...but that doesn't change the fact that this administration lied to the congress and the American people to justify "regime-change".

You don't get it, obviously.

WMD was not the only reason. Perhaps the only reason you might have cared, but that makes little difference.

Saddam was not cooperating with with inspections. Anything Scott Ritter said was more of a guess that turned out to be right than anything else. Anything Kay has to say is only because our invasion allowed him the opportunity for unobstructed inspections. You are using circular logic to claim that Bush lied to get an invasion mainly because of information we could not ever have confirmed without the invasion...

No, you are FINALLY starting to get it. As you say, WMD was not the only reason...

...BUT it was the ONLY reason given at the time congress gave the President the authority to do so.

Scott Ritter was the man-on-the-ground...the point man in Iraq. His opinion should have outweiged everyone elses...but, well we know what happened.

Really, you should watch the interviews.

Glad to see you coming around.

{grin]
Well, I don't think I'm coming around to your view, but if you see it that way, that's fine.

Scott Ritter really didn't have enough access to give a definitive judgment. And he took money from Saddam later, did he not? That makes his motives questionable.

It's almost like giving weight to anything Sean Penn said about Saddam's intentions and capabilities...

ASMAN: That's why people, when they see you in Iraq with these Iraqi government officials, they wonder what the heck is going on. 

RITTER: I went to Iraq on my own initiative. I made the decision to approach and say I think it is time for me to deliver a message to the Iraqi government that if they don't allow ... 

ASMAN: Paid for out of your own pocket? 

RITTER: Hell, yes. Or by an anti-sanctions group in the case of South Africa, they didn't spend a single damn penny. I wouldn't accept their money, it is against the law. 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,62916,00.html

"Saddam was not cooperating with inspections"

My favorite part of this quote is that weapons inspectors were on the ground in Iraq while he was saying this.

I'm amused that you think merely being in a country provides omniscience of what is going on out of line-of-sight.

Think how much I could hide in just one building if I set the schedule for your tour through it. Now consider that for the size of California...

float like a butterfly...

...sting, whoops! no stinger left.

you've run out of corners Nathan.

Shoot, I own the ring.

...because if you think that ignoring what was actually said and written to insist you know what President Bush actually meant (and then to blame him for what you ascribe to him) is winning an argument, then you actually haven't even landed a punch.

And Scott Ritter? Did you know he writes for Al Jazeera now? He's publishing slander as fact. Your assertions are looking weaker by the hour when you cite someone who could write garbage like that Al Jazeera article. Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas, you know?

Scott Ritter was the man-on-the-ground...the point man in Iraq. His opinion should have outweiged everyone elses...

Nice try there, Scott. Picked up any underage girls at Burger King lately?

"And Scott Ritter? Did you know he Al Jazeera"

And how long has "he Al Jazeera" been? Is that suppose to make him a traitor? Are all news agencies, except America's, BS? He's been saying the same thing for years. He's been a weapon's inspector for over 10 years. I think he'd have a MUCH better idea of what's going on there than you!

"Now consider that for the size of California..."

I'm so sick of this parrotted talking point. If it's sooooo hard, why were we able to provide alleged photos of weapons factories before we invaded? You don't think that with our supposed technological military superiority over the majority of the world that we can effectively search Iraq? Did they bury all the weapon's factories? It's ridiculous the lengths some people go to to try and paint a perfectly rosey picture of Iraq. The weapon's inspectors never said they weren't being cooperated with, where'd Bush get that idea? Where'd you get that idea? From the Bush quote? From that you KNOW that what he meant was they were there, but not being given access to places? Did you see the only questionable material they could find being destroyed before we invaded? Have you read the reports or even excerpts from the weapon's inspectors? The quote was just another lie from this admin before the invasion. Even if they believed the false cherry picked intelligence, they still lied when making the further proclamations about knowing exactly where these plants were, having photos of factories, and all the other "imbelishments". The "faulty intel" didn't tell them anything about that stuff, so they lied about those things. One way or the other, but more than likely both.

Oh, yes: catch me in an inadvertant omission of a word. That certainly proves your point beyond a doubt.

And you are tired of that talking point because it makes sense.

Remember the pictures? Lots of 'em had transport trucks outside. That's how we identified the sites in many cases.

...transport to where? Anything transported out can be transported back.

There are at least five possible ways that George Tenet was absolutely correct in what he told his superiors yet we would be unable to find any evidence of WMD. Please do not forget that of the people you cite, Mr. Kay had the most time and unfettered access, and while he was unable to find WMD and even said it was unlikely WMD existed in any quantities, he also said Saddam had a WMD development program and could produce mass quantities of WMD quickly and easily through some turn-key facilities. Including the mobile lab trucks that idiots claim were used to inflate weather balloons (I guess some people are unable to understand the concept of purchasing dual-use specifically to attempt plausible deniability).

But that's all just a distraction. You keep avoiding the point, which is was the UN signed off on the resolution that if Saddam Hussein did not immediately cooperate and prove what happened to the WMD we knew he already had from the first Gulf War, we would enter his country and remove him from power to facilitate being able to force compliance.
Guess what? We did that. There is no WMD threat from Iraq. There is no sponsoring of terrorism from Iraq anymore. There is no Oil-For-Food scandal that allows European bureaucrats and Clinton pardonees to get rich while Saddam uses the money to build up his conventional weapons while allowing children to starve to suit his international propaganda. There are no children's prisons. There is no more Rape-as-Punishment. No more Secret Police. No more Kurds are being murdered with poison gas so Saddam can test out his Chem Warfare techniques. Saddam's sons no longer torture athletes for poor performances.

And you must wish it was still going on, because you still want to argue without end to blame President Bush for believing George Tenet about the WMD. That's despicable. President George Bush was right about toppling Saddam for all the multiple reasons.