FAN-tastic Boston Globe Article

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by Maeve_Mari

Your observation's correct here, Inq. If he were to face up to the situation, in light of the campaign the R's are running this year, Bush would have to call himself a "flipper-flopper!"

Oh, not so much that, I think, as a general raising of the volume on the "incompetent" accusations.

This is a pretty standard tactic in politics: call on one's opponent to do something. If he refuses, he's intransigent and arrogant. If he actually bites, he's "admitting" to the criticisms leveled against him.

Personally, I too think that the best option in the real world would have been to admit to having been wrong and moved on. Just as Clinton would have done far better to have told reporters to get stuffed ( politely, of course )every time they asked about his personal life, rather than wagging his finger and lying to them ( and by extension to us ). But politicians do not live in the real world. They live in Bizarro World, where wrong is right and lies are preferable to the truth...

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by jeff

Unnamed only because I'm not taking the trouble to name them all, not because they're anonymous.

No, no, I meant unnamed by the agents of the various reports, Jeff, not unnamed by you.

The "evidence" never seems to get presented in its raw form. It is presented to us second-hand, as part of a conclusion. Hearsay, in other words. We are to take the word of whoever has compiled the overview, whether that's Blix or Kay or whoever...

Now we have access to what's left of the Baath regimes records

As I said, this is the crux of my uneasiness: "what's left of" them. How many months did they have to sanitize their records before we overthrew the regime? And this in addition to the fact that they know they were trying to do the sidestep with the UN inspectors for years before that. What earthly reason do we have to believe these records are either complete or accurate?

- that's a good basis of good intel. The Republicans haven't tried to discredit the quality of the analysis - I don't see why you should.

They haven't done quite a lot of sensible things. They operate inside the Beltway, where logic often displays a certain whimsical quality. I don't see why it should stop me.

The WMD haven't been found to exist. GWB would have some pithy remark about how you can't run away from the record.

And wouldn't people just have a field day if he were to accede to your wishes and then it were discovered that in fact large stockpiles of WMDs had indeed been moved to Syria? "Bush can't even be right about being wrong, obviously he has got to go!"

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by telkanuru

Would you rather be an unnamed source or have your spouse outed as a covert CIA member for speaking out against the administration?

And you know that's what happened, or you're just repeating what some liberal pundit has claimed?

Plame was widely known in Washington circles to be a CIA employee, long before the "leak". So much for "covert"...

[Gav]

This realy does belong in the politics folder ...
Off it goes.

It's funny. I started to read this. I read the article that was posted. Someone else chimed "Oh, look at the bias ..." (like that automatically makes it false) then immediately launched just as biased an attack on the article (by the same argument does that make his own biased respone false?). The whole "Lets Invade Iraq, they have WMD's" was patently not true. Saddam is a Bad Man(TM), that reason alone would have been more convincing, however that was not the reason that was chosen. And there are a lot of bad men out there. Invading their country will not make them an less Bad Men(TM).

Additionally, it's an oxymoron to impose freedom.

To Janthony I say: "Lack of evidence of an attack does not mean that your policy has been successful."

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by Gav

Saddam is a Bad Man(TM), that reason alone would have been more convincing, however that was not the reason that was chosen.

Is the world so simple, or people so simple-minded, that there must always be one and only one reason for a given policy "chosen"?

[Gav]

Oh dear Inq' that's not what I was saying and you know it.

No, however I it's a better reason than "lets get him before he gets us." Don't forget that our illustrious leaders said that this is the reason to go to war. Not, there are a ultitude of reasons to go to war. I might even have more respect for Bush and Blair if they had just come out and said something like "Saddam is a bad man, we need oil, his country is close to collapse [and therefore not much of a threat to our boys] - let's go!" That would have been honest.

Bush even tried to tie in 9/11 when there was no evidence...

I find som of the posts above this quite worrying. It's almost like you are not allowed to criticise Bush. I thought that free discussion and thought were why it was so good to live in a western democracy.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by Gav

Oh dear Inq' that's not what I was saying and you know it.

If I knew that, I wouldn't have posed the question...

it's a better reason than "lets get him before he gets us."

I'm not so sure. But it's certainly an additional reason.

Don't forget that our illustrious leaders said that this is the reason to go to war.

Perhaps we were listening to different news conferences, speeches and discussions. I remember hearing a lot more than one rationale forwarded...

In fact, read them for yourself:

http://www.usembassy.it/file2002_10/alia/a2101002.htm

Bush even tried to tie in 9/11 when there was no evidence...

Oh, but there WAS evidence. It simply turned out to be riddled with errors and cunning misdirections after the fact.

If a police investigation builds a case, and a judge orders an arrest warrant, and then the evidence later turns out to be wrong or even concocted, one may blame the police, but scarcely the judge...

I find som of the posts above this quite worrying. It's almost like you are not allowed to criticise Bush. I thought that free discussion and thought were why it was so good to live in a western democracy.

I don't know about "not allowed". It's nice if the criticism is on the mark, though. ( Even that has not stopped anyone so you'd notice. )

[Insipiens]

I thought Gav's using the terms "Bad Men" / "Bad Man" particularly with the trademark was a deliberate reference to 1066 and All That - a spoof history text book from early 20th century mocking the way history always defined Kings etc as either good or bad, e.g. King John was a Bad Man (not to be confused with AA Milne's King John was not a bad man ... ).

I read Gav's post to mean that clearly one reason why you could justify war was that Saddam was a "Bad Man".

However, as he and I are British you have to realise that our (glorious ) leader would never have been able to go to war on the "Saddam is a Bad Man" justification, in fact he did say that WMD were the reason for war. (Or at least that is what he managed to get people to think he meant).

[Maeve_Mari]

The key to this article is this:

"Saddam could persist in the cocoon of his own delusions because he did not listen to opposing views and was loath to take advice from foreign leaders. Bush's own unchecked impulse to believe what he wanted to believe allowed him to be fooled about Saddam's weapons, the force levels needed to stabilize Iraq, the cost of not stopping postwar looting, and the ease of nation-building in Iraq."

Bush's determined reluctance to admit any error or miscalculations makes him vulnerable to more mistakes as the United States tries to gain control of the situation and bring it to a successful conclusion. And meanwhile the level of terror threat against Americans continues to grow and spread!

[esskreemr]

Let me add a little to the "Conspiracy" theory that the Bush neocons are dying for perpetual war (that's a play on words, it's actually our servicemen who are dying...).

If you were/are a neocon President, or a President being controlled by the neocons, which country would you attack? One known to have wmds or one that doesn't have wmds any longer but you might be able to "cook the books" a little bit to get the U.S. in there and by then we have a "moral responsibility" to rebuild Iraq?

Korea has nukes -- Bush keeps talking
Iran has nukes -- Economic sanctions put in place by Clinton
Iraq's got nothing -- Let's attack them

[Soldier]

As has been said many, many times before, the rules change once a country's got nukes. The idea is to attack before they get them, since it is a much trickier matter after they get them.

[Maeve_Mari]

Originally Posted by Soldier

As has been said many, many times before, the rules change once a country's got nukes. The idea is to attack before they get them, since it is a much trickier matter after they get them.

Oh,. is that what we do?
So, are we going to go after Ireland next? or maybe Sweden? I think those countries don't have nukes yet.

Bush had to believe there were nukes in Iraq. I just can't conceive that he would have gone there as any kind of distraction and certainly not for any kind of revenge. Everyone needs to get real and think about how the 911 reports and the intel reports must be wrong. There had to be nukes there. Had to be. Bush is fighting a hard war because there are times you have to be hard and strong to keep America strong.

[Soldier]

And yet more sarcasm. Ireland and Sweden aren't exactly national security issues. Thank you ever so much for taking my words and exaggerating them to ridiculous levels.

[esskreemr]

"HOW DARE YOU SIR!!!"

[esskreemr]

Originally Posted by jeff

Peter is right on "wrong place"

Rogue - if ending Saddam's regime to liberate Iraq from him was cited as the reason to go to war, then I would have no reason to complain. He was a monster who terrorised his own people, and we've ended his regime. But, GWB was dismissive of "nation building" as a candidate, and demanded regime change on the basis of the non-existant WMD and connection to September 11. He only started down the "we did this to liberte the Iraqi people" line when the wells turned out to be dry.

I disagree with the idea that it was alright to smack Hussein down. Remember, we are in a war on terror. The attack on Iraq did nothing to increase the stability in the region and also did nothing to increase our safety. It shows our outdated desire to use conventional weapons and tactics to fight an unconventional war.

[achilleus]

Originally Posted by esskreemr

I disagree with the idea that it was alright to smack Hussein down. Remember, we are in a war on terror. The attack on Iraq did nothing to increase the stability in the region and also did nothing to increase our safety. It shows our outdated desire to use conventional weapons and tactics to fight an unconventional war.

I totally agree, and I'm amazed this hasn't been pointed out.

I mean, our first order of business, after 9/11, should have been protecting ourselves, not liberating other countries. While it's good for many people that he's gone, it has hurt us and our ability to protect ourselves.

[esskreemr]

Originally Posted by Gav

Oh dear Inq' that's not what I was saying and you know it.

I find som of the posts above this quite worrying. It's almost like you are not allowed to criticise Bush. I thought that free discussion and thought were why it was so good to live in a western democracy.

I have a feeling that Bush could go on television, rape a baboon and as long as he continued to shout the "Save the babies, kill the Ay-rabs" mantra, the God, Bush, and Country people would spin as "Well, he was firm and resolute. A real leader!"

Remember, the same people who are willing to burn Clinton on a stake for shacking up with his intern are willing to give Bush a free ride for:

1) Secret policy meetings with known criminals
2) Outing a CIA Agent
3) Using faulty intel to prop up a war
4) Illegally diverting funds from Afghanistan for a war that had yet to be approved
5) Illegally profiting from insider trading
6) Consorting with enemies of the state

Of course, none of these allegations are worthy of a special investigation. That's left for the sexual indiscretions of a past president.

There are plenty more, but I don't feel like looking them up.

[Maeve_Mari]

Originally Posted by esskreemr

Remember, the same people who are willing to burn Clinton on a stake for shacking up with his intern are willing to give Bush a free ride for:

1) Secret policy meetings with known criminals
2) Outing a CIA Agent
3) Using faulty intel to prop up a war
4) Illegally diverting funds from Afghanistan for a war that had yet to be approved
5) Illegally profiting from insider trading
6) Consorting with enemies of the state

Of course, none of these allegations are worthy of a special investigation. That's left for the sexual indiscretions of a past president.

There are plenty more, but I don't feel like looking them up.

I don't want to be critical of my divine leader, but you might want to add to the list being able to have an administration who got away with the atrocities at Abu Ghraib. I still can't believe that not a single head has rolled for that one!