home

Wanting War

By TChris, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Mon Mar 27, 2006 at 06:59:24 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

by TChris

When Helen Thomas recently asked President Bush why he really wanted to go to war, the president took issue with her premise, denying that he wanted a war. A British memo makes clear (yet again) that Bush wanted nothing but war.

During a private two-hour meeting in the Oval Office on Jan. 31, 2003, he made clear to Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain that he was determined to invade Iraq without the second [UN] resolution, or even if international arms inspectors failed to find unconventional weapons, said a confidential memo about the meeting written by Mr. Blair's top foreign policy adviser and reviewed by The New York Times.

The memo confirms that Bush had no clue about the likely aftermath of the invasion.

Mr. Bush predicted that it was "unlikely there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups." Mr. Blair agreed with that assessment.

< Soprano's Open Thread - Show 3 | The War Against Dissent >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Wanting War | 70 comments (70 topical)
    Re: Wanting War (none / 0) (#1)
    by Slado on Mon Mar 27, 2006 at 07:09:34 AM EST
    Another "memo" written by someone regarding their "opinion" of what took place in a meeting. Wow. Stop the presses. Meanwhile everyone who's willing to drink this down won't give any credit to a "memo" that shows a direct conneciton to AQ.

    Re: Wanting War (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 27, 2006 at 07:30:46 AM EST
    Mr. Bush predicted that it was "unlikely there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups." Mr. Blair agreed with that assessment I find this hard to believe as dumbass Bush could never even pronounce the word internecine, much less use it in a sentence. If a President could be charged with malpractice....well.

    Re: Wanting War (none / 0) (#3)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 27, 2006 at 07:33:44 AM EST
    Slado - Irrespective of what was said, remember that this was January of 2003. It is very understandable that, at that point, Bush had decided to go to war based on Saddam's earlier non-compliance, and CIA supplied evidence. Yet we also know that he gave Saddam several more chances to provide further information, and even at the very end he offerred him the chance to leave with his family.

    Re: Wanting War (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 27, 2006 at 07:33:54 AM EST
    bush wants war; i want my passport

    Re: Wanting War (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 27, 2006 at 07:35:06 AM EST
    Another stuck pig squeal. One was clearly acted upon in a less than 2 month period. The other wasn't in a span of over 6 years. That, my dear slado, is how you evaluate evidence.

    Re: Wanting War (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 27, 2006 at 07:38:09 AM EST
    If a President could be charged with malpractice....well.
    This clown could be charged with multiple counts of Man-One.

    Re: Wanting War (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 27, 2006 at 08:46:26 AM EST
    This is the best you can do, TL? A stupid-a$$ post about how Helen Thomas knows better about what Bush wants or wanted better than Bush does or did........... Both you and Helen should be barred from ever refering to yourselves as "journalists" (or any other title related to the news industry) again.

    Re: Wanting War (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 27, 2006 at 08:49:35 AM EST
    Remember they impeached a President over a little sex lie and they defend a cronic liar no matter how much evidence arises. Remember the wingnut creed if you can't dazzel them with the facts baffel them with Bullshi*. Any one with a tiny bit of good sense knows Bushbag was determined to take this Country to war immediately after 9/11. This was his excuse. All you ney sayers are just mindless defenders.

    Re: Wanting War (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 27, 2006 at 08:53:16 AM EST
    Well folks Variable just prooved my point. Mindless wingnut attacking TL for pointing out the facts and obvious truth.

    Re: Wanting War (none / 0) (#10)
    by Lora on Mon Mar 27, 2006 at 08:59:40 AM EST
    Bush responded to Helen Thomas with lies (or maybe he just forgot the facts). He said or that Saddam wouldn't disclose information and wouldn't let weapons inspectors in. In fact, Saddam did disclose information in the form of a 12,000 page report. I'm not saying he told the truth in it, but he did comply on the surface at least with the directive to disclose. He also did let the weapons inspectors in, who were able to do their jobs, and Han Blix's was optimistic about tracking down critical information about past and present weapons programs if they'd been allowed to stay. It was Bush, not Saddam, who pulled them out.

    Re: Wanting War (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 27, 2006 at 09:03:43 AM EST
    Invariably ridiculous.

    Re: Wanting War (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 27, 2006 at 09:31:48 AM EST
    Bush's minions wanted to invade Iraq before 9/11. They wrote a letter trying to get Clinton to do it. Look who signed it.

    Re: Wanting War (none / 0) (#13)
    by scarshapedstar on Mon Mar 27, 2006 at 09:54:23 AM EST
    Debbie, the fact that the entire Bush Defense Department signed their names on a document stating that they want war with Iraq means nothing compared to Slado's brilliant non sequitur. Wait, scratch that, I think you actually won that one by a long shot.

    Re: Wanting War (none / 0) (#14)
    by Slado on Mon Mar 27, 2006 at 11:03:06 AM EST
    This all boils down to the difference between "liberal" foreign policy and realistic foreign policy. Form the "letter" you say prooves we wanted war... This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. All three things. Exactly what Bush said and did. First sanctions, the diplomacy, then UN sanctions and finally invasion. See without the threat of force and then the courage to cary out that threat nothing will change. Liberals believe in a fantasy world. First diplomacy can solve all problems. Second when that doesn't work deny the problem exists and criticize anyone storng enough to actually enforce agreements. Bush did not want war but he was strong enough to accept the only solution Saddam gave him. Which was war.

    Re: Wanting War (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 27, 2006 at 11:07:01 AM EST
    Slado, If you keep making sense out of these liberals attempts at disinformation, and your gonna get you a$$ barred from here.

    Re: Wanting War (none / 0) (#16)
    by Sailor on Mon Mar 27, 2006 at 11:11:01 AM EST
    Anyone else remember:
    "f@#$! Saddam we're taking him out!"? --Speaking to Condi Rice, March 2002, a full year before the invasion of Iraq.
    "God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East."
    --GWB to Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas, as reported in the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz, June 23, 2003
    So you defenders of the faith are just as uninformed as your masters of war.

    Re: Wanting War (none / 0) (#17)
    by Slado on Mon Mar 27, 2006 at 11:16:12 AM EST
    Thanks Variable. I'm all for honest debate. Once can say we should have waited longer, had more troops etc... But to now claim that Saddam wasn't given enough chances (15yrs of sanctions and UN resolutions) just shows that "most" on this site simply want to bash Bush. Regardless of the facts.

    Re: Wanting War (none / 0) (#18)
    by Slado on Mon Mar 27, 2006 at 11:21:44 AM EST
    And also if Bush really "wanted war" then why the heck did he go to the UN in the first place? He didn't have to. In fact most "neo-conservatives" thought it was a mistake because it would ultimately lead to Sadam staying in power. Only Saddam being to stupid and playing global chicken allowed Bush to get the force resolution. So I am to believe that Bush did all these things simply to fool everyone into thinking he didn't want to invade meanwhile always planning too. Wow what a smart guy you must think he is.

    Re: Wanting War (none / 0) (#19)
    by Dadler on Mon Mar 27, 2006 at 12:39:44 PM EST
    Slado, It's called going through the motions. It's called image management. It's called empty PR. The "right" represented in the Bush administration desperately wanted to go into Iraq long before 9/11 and took advantage of the tragedy to do so. They slinged their BS to the international community, sent Colin Powell out to lie to the UN (which caused him ultimately to quit this crappy crew), and did what the political necessities dictate. When it came up against his plan, it didn't matter, he was going anyway. The diplomatic stuff was just a show, they had nothing to lose in trying: if it worked, great; if it didn't, so what? Indeed why DIDN'T he just go to war? Because, obviously, since Iraq never attacked us, you couldn't just go in there without giving the appearance of seeking "legitimacy" from the international community -- there was no evident self-defense claim that could be made for invasion, so they had to take some time to put claims out there (or many, whichever was polling best). Ack, this is fruitless, we disagree. This war is a political game, with flesh and blood used as pieces. And a distinct lack of imagination and self-criticism prolonging the agony. Imagination and self-criticism being things which freedom is supposed to give birth to exponentially.

    Re: Wanting War (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 27, 2006 at 12:53:40 PM EST
    "Liberals believe in a fantasy world." Hee heee heeeeee!!! Thanks, I needed a good laugh today on this Monday!

    Re: Wanting War (none / 0) (#21)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Mon Mar 27, 2006 at 12:55:16 PM EST
    if Bush really "wanted war" then why the heck did he go to the UN in the first place?
    The British insisted.

    Re: Wanting War (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 27, 2006 at 12:59:05 PM EST
    Does anyone know if Slado and or Varible are or were, serving their country in Iraq? It's nice to know the Cowards who are only brave enough to send others to fight and die.

    Re: Wanting War (none / 0) (#23)
    by Slado on Mon Mar 27, 2006 at 01:17:38 PM EST
    Let me get your opinion straight ED. If you support the war you must serve. If you don't then you don't have to? What does this have to do with anyting other then you don't want to argue the point? Dadler...agree to disagree. I'm just of the opinion that you have to make a lot of assumptions and basically believe Bush is a liar to believe that he wanted to go to war all along. I would accept that at some point he believed Saddam would not cooperate but that is a completely different argument then Bush wanted war no matter what. The bigger issue as I stated before is Bush was willing to enforce his threat. Saddam believed Bush would chicken out like so many had before him. He was wrong.

    Re: Wanting War (none / 0) (#24)
    by jondee on Mon Mar 27, 2006 at 01:24:37 PM EST
    "See without the threat of force.." This is why amoral, authoritarian regimes get supplanted with more of the same. Thats all, ultimatly, that (alot of) the right believes in. Its all one big reward-and-punishment Skinner box. Learning, insight, vision and morality play a minimal part in any of it. Get a big enough stick to whack them with, and the Slados will follow you to the end of the earth.

    Re: Wanting War (none / 0) (#25)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 27, 2006 at 01:46:47 PM EST
    Debbiehamil....sez Bush's minions wanted to invade Iraq before 9/11. They wrote a letter trying to get Clinton to do it. Look who signed it. Yep...and I especially like this part: "If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk". No truer words were ever spoken. Too bad Clinton accepted that course and didn't do more when he had the chance, (1st WTC bombing, USS Cole, various embassies around the world) maybe the need to go into Iraq would have gone away? Dadler.....sez since Iraq never attacked us, you couldn't just go in there without giving the appearance of seeking "legitimacy" from the international community. The problem is, you on the left continue to make the mistake of focusing on conventional thoughts concerning war... IE - that there are countries and/or governments involved. This is not a political (conventional) war....it's a religious one, so boundaries and borders are irrelevant. Iraq (like several other radical Muslim countries) was a danger to the US because of it's animosity towards us. It protected and funded terrorist activities. there was no evident self-defense claim that could be made for invasion Sure there was. You just didn't believe them. And even now with the new proof in front of you......you still won't believe. Its' so mush easier to just keep saying Bush lied, isn't it? I firmly think if Saddam himself admitted at his trial that he was indeed involved, you on the left will claim he was drugged or somehow coerced into it... Your hatred for Bush has taken over any reasonable, rational thoughts you may have, and that's a shame. Where are the open minded liberals I keep hearing about?

    Re: Wanting War (none / 0) (#26)
    by Slado on Mon Mar 27, 2006 at 02:33:43 PM EST
    Your right Jondee. I will follow a strong leader who does what is right as opposed to someone who would rather let our enemies attack us then risk offending someone. That was the question put before the american people in November 2004. Guess who won.

    Re: Wanting War (none / 0) (#27)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 27, 2006 at 02:54:19 PM EST
    Posted by Slado March 27, 2006 03:33 PM
    That was the question put before the american people in November 2004. Guess who won.
    Tyranny. Gee, ya know if ya were half the Patriot ya claim to be, you'd capitalize American.

    Re: Wanting War (none / 0) (#28)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 27, 2006 at 03:10:08 PM EST
    Posted by Slado March 27, 2006 02:17 PM Let me get your opinion straight ED.
    If you support the war you must serve. If you don't then you don't have to?
    Which part of that is givin' you trouble? What does this have to do with anyting other then you don't want to argue the point?
    No, it would indicate you're tryin' to dodge the question. Nice try.
    Dadler...agree to disagree. I'm just of the opinion that you have to make a lot of assumptions and basically believe Bush is a liar to believe that he wanted to go to war all along. I would accept that at some point he believed Saddam would not cooperate but that is a completely different argument then Bush wanted war no matter what.
    Gee, I'm willing to make that leap. I'm also willing to make the equally tough leaps that Einstein was better than average at Math and Science and that Cameron Diaz is not bad lookin'. Oh, and Shaq was probably one of the taller kids in his 8th Grade Class, too.
    The bigger issue as I stated before is Bush was willing to enforce his threat. Saddam believed Bush would chicken out like so many had before him. He was wrong.
    And this led to, what? The capture of bin laden and the world wide collapse of al qaida? The discovery of tremendous stockpiles of WMD? US troops being welcomed with sweets and flowers? A peaceful stable Iraq? An end to global terrorism? That's what I thought. The World is a more dangerous place thanks to the War in Iraq. There's no doubt about it.

    Re: Wanting War (none / 0) (#29)
    by Lora on Mon Mar 27, 2006 at 03:34:18 PM EST
    Hel-lo! Bush DID lie. Saddam WAS cooperating - as little as possible, to be sure - with the weapons inspectors. They WERE able to visit the sites and were able to collect the critical information they needed to determine the extent of Saddam's weapons programs. They WERE poised to learn a lot more, when Bush pulled them out, declared Saddam an imminent threat, and attacked. If you doubt this, read Hans Blix's report to the UN. His report in no way exonerates Saddam, but his people were in there doing their jobs. He needed more time that Bush refused to give him. Bush slammed Blix for not finding any WMD's. There WEREN'T any. Bush went to war on a pretext and pulled out the weapons inspectors before they could fully expose it for what it was -- a pretext. Bush wanted war.

    Re: Wanting War (none / 0) (#30)
    by jondee on Mon Mar 27, 2006 at 04:22:57 PM EST
    "Thats right jondee.." Dont make me laugh. The public was bludgeoned with a monumental dumb-down campaign about humasexuals prowling playgrounds, baby killin clinics on evey corner, and dirtiest of all, scaring the the hell out of Ma and Pa with bi-weekly color coded terror alerts (strangely fallen out of use since the election). Btw, show me a specific poll that shows the majority of Americans favored attacking Iraq.

    Re: Wanting War (none / 0) (#31)
    by jondee on Mon Mar 27, 2006 at 04:57:28 PM EST
    Declare war on anybody and you automatically get about 90% of the right wing vote (it gives thier lives focus and meaning.) Getting them to join up is another story though.

    Re: Wanting War (none / 0) (#32)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 27, 2006 at 05:16:53 PM EST
    Well said Jondee. You see from the top down chicken hawks love to send others to die. Bushbag set the standard for the rest of these 101st Keyboarders. They like to pretend bush is not a Coward. He didn't want to invade. He was willing to risk his own daughters for the cause, Oops I'm sorry his kids served in the battle of the Drunks instead. These wingnuts certainly don't like to be reminded they have others blood on their hands. I for one knew what it was like to go and fight knowing folks like Bushbag and slippery Dick avoided and evaded serving their Country in Vietnam. I now sit in a wheelchair for over 3 decades as a result and people wonder why I'm so critical of the wingnuts.

    Re: Wanting War (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 27, 2006 at 05:31:46 PM EST
    I don't wonder at all, Ed. There's not a shred of mystery. These nitwits who can't see the difference between those who opposed the War in Vietnam, like, oh, say, Bill Clinton, and did everything they could to get out of it, and those who were gung ho Yankee Doodle Dandies as long as it was somebody else doin' the fightin' and the dyin', like most of the republican party, are more than a tad slow on the uptake.

    Re: Wanting War (none / 0) (#34)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 27, 2006 at 09:18:17 PM EST
    slado:
    I'm just of the opinion that you have to make a lot of assumptions and basically believe Bush is a liar to believe that he wanted to go to war all along.
    This is a perfect example of why it's a complete waste of time trying to reason with posters like slado about the actions of Bush or his administration. Assumptions?! In the face of the overwhelming evidence that yes, Bush is a liar, and yes, he planned to go to war all along?! Come on!! What assumptions? There are none so blind as those that will not see, and if they honestly can't see what is absolutely plain and obvious to any thinking person, what hope do we have of opening their eyes? And if they are not actually being honest (as I believe to be the case for certain RW posters), then there is no point in even trying to explain anything. So I am of the opinion that I have to make the assumption that slado has either never really studied the history of the Iraq war and does not intend to start now, or else he is not being honest in his defense of Bush.

    Re: Wanting War (none / 0) (#35)
    by john horse on Tue Mar 28, 2006 at 03:20:25 AM EST
    Reading Slado and some of the other apologists for the unjustified invasion of Iraq brought to mind this comment from Atrios, "Isn't it a bit weird that we have to deal with people arguing, simultaneously, that Saddam really WAS in league with al Qaeda but Bush never claimed that he was so stop saying he did?"

    Re: Wanting War (none / 0) (#36)
    by Edger on Tue Mar 28, 2006 at 06:03:17 AM EST
    Cymro:
    There are none so blind as those that will not see,
    That's pretty near the truth of the matter Cymro, but I think the bushco apologists and trools who post here have 'refined' it to:
    "there are none who appear so blind as those who pretend to no see"
    to try to fool others here into thinking the trool's intention is to engage in honest debate. It isn't. Which is why their posts here contain so many logical contradictions and outragous statements. Their purpose is to sucker and infuriate only.
    and if they honestly can't see what is absolutely plain and obvious to any thinking person, what hope do we have of opening their eyes?
    None. They are are not worth the time and effort to try. Better to not give them the satisfaction of a response, in most cases. They can't stand it, and are left in the position of having to respond to others if they want to be heard at all, then immediately they are back to their old trick of pretending. It's a curious way to lie continuously, but be able to claim outrage if called on it. Another pretension.

    Re: Wanting War (none / 0) (#37)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 28, 2006 at 06:40:03 AM EST
    War is money.

    Re: Wanting War (none / 0) (#38)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 28, 2006 at 06:46:41 AM EST
    slado:
    I'm just of the opinion that you have to make a lot of assumptions and basically believe Bush is a liar to believe that he wanted to go to war all along.
    Well, in the words of Max Bialystock in the Producers, "Assume away!" It's either that or just look at the evidence.

    Re: Wanting War (none / 0) (#39)
    by Lora on Tue Mar 28, 2006 at 06:47:20 AM EST
    Cymro, Actually I think the truth wins out. You can't argue the plain facts that are there for everyone to see, if they will only look. When faced with facts, there's nothing left to do but make a personal attack, or retreat, OR (I keep hoping), open their minds.

    Re: Wanting War (none / 0) (#40)
    by Che's Lounge on Tue Mar 28, 2006 at 07:21:16 AM EST
    Lora, You're going to need a chainsaw to open some of the "minds" around here.

    Re: Wanting War (none / 0) (#41)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 28, 2006 at 07:32:12 AM EST
    I have served this country in two separate wars, and in combat roles. Desert Storm was one of them. However, that doesn't qualify me to speak on the issues, and neither does Slado's lack of service disqualify his opinion either. We are Americans tax payers and that is all the qualification that is necessary. I mean after all, your spouting off, and through your lack of understanding, its crystal clear that you have never served. Secondly, if you believe that Bush wanted this war to win votes your logic is as flawed as your ideology. This is and has been from the beginning a hugely dicey gamble for the president. If things go well, you still have the overwhelmingly liberal press that is going to slam him day in and day out. If things go well then, yes, he will be remembered as an American hero, but either way it was clear from the beginning that this war was going to go on long after GW was retired and possibly long after he is dead, and the only favor GW would reap for making the decision would come in the very long term. In short, the decision to go into Iraq, was going to have a detremental effect on his 04' bid, and it did exactly that. Gave, Kerry the opportunity to come after him in many ways that Kerry didn't have if Bush just stayed the course in Afghanistan. The only reason a sane man would have gone into Iraq was because it was necessary to the long term security of a nation faced with a cultural death threat from a people that have gone a long way towards putting their desires into actions. Those are the facts of the past, they were played out on TV for all to see, and the fly directly in the face of your whole premise. But you still won't believe. Fine. You don't believe because you choose not to. Also fine. But perhaps, just maybe once you could become a serious human being and knock off the "GW lied" nonsense, because it really bores the sh!t out of anyone who is interested in a literate debate. Yeah, I could see how that whole line may be effective as a one liner sold to the masses by a leaning media, but to offer it as serious debate does nothing more than highlight your ignorance.

    Re: Wanting War (none / 0) (#42)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 28, 2006 at 07:33:25 AM EST
    the last post was directed at ED

    Re: Wanting War (none / 0) (#43)
    by Dadler on Tue Mar 28, 2006 at 08:56:36 AM EST
    Slado, The conventional thought going on with rests with the administration. Their entire strategy is physical violence will bring about what they want. And it has failed miserably in Iraq. And no matter how twisted you rationalizations, Iraq did not have any role in attacking us. Why sould a secular dictator deal with groups that only have an interest in getting rid of him? If you claim he hated the U.S. more than his own position, then I guess you can believe the connection. I don't. And if you don't think the Bushies wanted Iraq from the get-go, then fine, ignore all they wrote. They were looking for an excuse and got one. But that's all 9/11 was for them, an excuse to flex their utterly conventional and unimaginative "muscle". Because they were still completely off the mark with what "threats" to be concerened with. Saddam was a tinpot dictator who wasn't about to make his own death bed. That's what letting Al Qeada in his house would've done. Afghanistan (which we've already forgotten about) and Saudi Arabia were the two nations most involved with 9/11. That is indisputable fact. But where have we decided to run amok? In Iraq. Just...plain...stupid. There isn't a person with an imagination or a self-critical bone anywhere in this administration. Both of those traits would be unconventional for this cadre. What they use now is utterly conventional, failed, and is going to come back to haunt us, just like supporting radical islamists in the first place did.

    Re: Wanting War (none / 0) (#44)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 28, 2006 at 08:56:41 AM EST
    Variable, you're not a serious person. In fact, you're a ludicrous shrub shill with no command of the facts, utterly incapable of even the most rudimentary form of academic discussion let alone serious debate. Bush did lie. The question is, when has he ever told the truth? This whole Iraq business was planned way ahead of 9/11. The evidence is overwhelming.

    Re: Wanting War (none / 0) (#45)
    by Dadler on Tue Mar 28, 2006 at 09:02:22 AM EST
    Oops, first part of my last post was for BB.

    Re: Wanting War (none / 0) (#46)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 28, 2006 at 09:37:44 AM EST
    Variable. You served in Two wars and Desert Storm was one? What was the second war and in what capacity did you serve? Just asking. By the way the post you directed my way missed.

    Re: Wanting War (none / 0) (#47)
    by Slado on Tue Mar 28, 2006 at 10:53:12 AM EST
    In the face of the overwhelming evidence that yes, Bush is a liar, and yes, he planned to go to war all along?! Come on!! What assumptions? Your position is equally baffeling to me. Anytime you assume your position is fact you are incapable of honest debate. Look in the mirror and your comments apply equally to yourself. Dadler, Iraq has not failed. The fact that you already believe its failed while troops are still trying to make it work leads me to believe that you don't want it to succeed. Am I wrong? Also Bush does not support violence to solve all problems. He has not invaded NK, Syria, Iran or any other country. Why is that? Is it inevitable? Please answer these question when you make satetments like... Their entire strategy is physical violence will bring about what they want

    Re: Wanting War (none / 0) (#48)
    by jondee on Tue Mar 28, 2006 at 12:01:37 PM EST
    Slado and Variable - I'd suggest you read two time Medal of Honor winner Gen. Smedley Butler's "War Is A Racket." But you probobly wont.

    Re: Wanting War (none / 0) (#49)
    by jondee on Tue Mar 28, 2006 at 12:05:57 PM EST
    Ed - Im sorry about what happened to you, as trite as that may sound. Obviously your spiritual fire stayed very much intact though. Keep fightin the good fight. Shalom.

    Re: Wanting War (none / 0) (#50)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 28, 2006 at 12:27:25 PM EST
    Ed, I was in the USAF from 87' to 93', I served in Kuwait and Turkey during Desert Storm, and also was in Panama during the invasion there and afterwards. I was involved in collecting electronic intelligence.

    Re: Wanting War (none / 0) (#51)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 28, 2006 at 12:36:32 PM EST
    Posted by Jondee March 28, 2006 01:01 PM
    Slado and Variable - I'd suggest you read two time Medal of Honor winner Gen. Smedley Butler's "War Is A Racket." But you probobly wont.
    I'm not so sure "can't" wouldn't be the more appropriate term.

    Re: Wanting War (none / 0) (#52)
    by Patrick on Tue Mar 28, 2006 at 01:18:29 PM EST
    Hmmm, I was in the USAF and in Panama in the months leading up to Just Cause. Ancon Inn ring a bell? Perhaps we chewed the same ground? I was involved in the incident that got the ROE's changed around Howard AFB. I also worked at an ELP just outside of Howard in that huge POL storage area, IIRC it was the airhan tank farm, not sure of the spelling.

    Re: Wanting War (none / 0) (#53)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Mar 28, 2006 at 02:35:26 PM EST
    Variable, I believe this administration ran on a "war time president" platform and used it to secure votes. I do not believe that he went to war to get votes, rather used it as a tool once we were in. It is extremely difficult to unseat a war time president.

    Re: Wanting War (none / 0) (#54)
    by john horse on Tue Mar 28, 2006 at 02:36:42 PM EST
    Regarding that so-called devastating memo that proves that Saddam and Al Queda were in cohoots. As the 9/11 Commission pointed out, there is evidence of desultory contacts but not cooperation and I hope that I don't have to explain the difference between the two. How reliable are these documents that my friends on the right point to? They are so reliable that our government added this disclaimer "The US Government has made no determination regarding the authenticity of the documents, validity or factual accuracy of the information contained therein, or the quality of any translations, when available." As Peter Bergen points out, some of these documents rely on third-hand hearsay. He also points out that "since the fall of the Taliban, not one of the thousands of documents found in Afghanistan substantiate such an alliance." You would think that after having some of their fradulent claims about Iraq exposed that those on the right would be careful with their facts but this is not the case. As a matter of fact, isn't this how we got into this mess?

    Re: Wanting War (none / 0) (#55)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Mar 28, 2006 at 02:45:33 PM EST
    P, I had no idear you was a flyboy, i assumed the corp or USAR. Assumptions are stupid. Slado et al, I see no difference in the spin for Bush and this war than I do for Bill and the definition of "is". I think Bush planned the war all along, long before the announcement because he thought Saddam was a threat. I believe the evidence proves that. However, I do think that saying he lied about it is a silly argument. Nothing could have changed his mind and with him thinking Saddam was a threat and we could have minimal casualties, I can understand his logic in removing Saddam. What bugs me is the conversation around this issue when we should be talking about transition, every stinking day. Serving in a hostile foreign country sucks and we have spent a sh*tload of money over there. I want our troops to come home but not at the expense of instability in Iraq. I said all along the war was a bad idea, but I also think the Cubs are going to the series every year. The reason war is a bad idea is obvious with the situation in Iraq, but we are there and to leave would be irresponsible. I guess I would like to see the money we are hemoragging (sp) demonstrate improvement and self sufficiency so our soldiers can come home....

    Re: Wanting War (none / 0) (#56)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Mar 28, 2006 at 03:21:33 PM EST
    P, I had no idear you was a flyboy
    Does this explain Patrick's role in his fly-over pot farm police activities? Jl, I find myself in agreement with damn near everything you said. With 20/20 hindsight, maybe things should have been handled differently. But, if they were, who knows where we'd be now, maybe in a worse spot. No one who claims to tell us how things would have shaken out if things had been handled differently knows jack sh*t...unless they can also tell us what the winning lottery numbers for this weekend will be... Regardless, we are where we are and we need to focus on the here and now. Thanks to both Patrick and Variable for your service.

    Re: Wanting War (none / 0) (#57)
    by Patrick on Tue Mar 28, 2006 at 03:37:41 PM EST
    Does this explain Patrick's role in his fly-over pot farm police activities?
    SUO, Not hardly, I was a ground pounder in the only service which prided itself on flying. Guess that should tell you where I shook out in the food chain. I wouldn't trade my service time for all the money in the world, but I wouldn't have served any longer for all the money in the world if that makes sense. The eradication is part of my current job, although the prior experience and my few remaining contacts help.

    Re: Wanting War (none / 0) (#58)
    by Sailor on Tue Mar 28, 2006 at 04:01:57 PM EST
    I'm amazed that this thread has gotten so off topic. Anyone else remember when the it was about the fact the bush has insisted on overthrowing the iraq gov't since day one? By bush's own stratements this has been proved to bve true. Try to focus folks.

    Re: Wanting War (none / 0) (#59)
    by john horse on Tue Mar 28, 2006 at 05:47:21 PM EST
    Sailor, I agree that this has gotten off topic. Getting off topic is a GOP/conservative form of denial. They don't want to critically examine their assumptions because then they would have to acknowledge that they were responsible for the deaths of over 2300 American soldiers, 16000 wounded, billions wasted in this march of folly. Here we have another memo that contradicts what Bush was saying publicly and the GOP/conservative war apologists deal with it by asking us to ignore it. Don't look at the memos behind the curtain, otherwise we will discover that the Great Oz is nothing but a big humbug.

    Re: Wanting War (none / 0) (#60)
    by Sailor on Tue Mar 28, 2006 at 06:35:52 PM EST
    JH, I know what you mean, I posted 2 of bush's quotes with attributions, links and timestamps showing he was determined to attack the 'man who shot his paw' long before he ignored the UN to sart this war.

    Re: Wanting War (none / 0) (#61)
    by Dadler on Tue Mar 28, 2006 at 07:10:36 PM EST
    Slado, My opinion that we've failed up to this point in Iraq makes me incapable of honest debate? But you think it's a success and you ARE capable of such debate? Also, there is no way Bush could go into any other country now militarily and do anything (thankfully I must say, but I guess that makes me incapable of honest debate), so your point about Syria, NK, et al. not being invaded, is moot in any real debate. We are mired in Iraq and Afghanistan, my brother has been mired in both, our forces are stretched thin, thousands are dead, thousands more maimed, the "mission" and desperately hoped for outcome a far cry from what we have on the ground today (and mostly because of ignored planning, bull-in-a-china-shop mentality, and some pie-in-the-sky notion on behalf of this administration that thousands of years of history were somehow going to evaporate into a Western democracy reasonably quickly). And the notion we're going to go mire ourselves somewhere else is just not logical to me. Forget the idiocy of it, the moral questions, where are you going to get all the soldiers to willingly sign up and follow this expanded pre-emptive invasion force all over the globe?

    Re: Wanting War (none / 0) (#62)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 28, 2006 at 07:15:46 PM EST
    Another memo has surfaced showing that Colin Powell was against going to war without the UN behind it. Guess he lost the debate. think progress

    Re: Wanting War (none / 0) (#63)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 28, 2006 at 07:56:28 PM EST
    Posted by Squeaky March 28, 2006 08:15 PM
    Another memo has surfaced showing that Colin Powell was against going to war without the UN behind it. Guess he lost the debate. think progress
    He lost his honor and his integrity while he was at it, too, making it a natural hat trick. That's what he gets for messin' round with the dark side.

    Re: Wanting War (none / 0) (#64)
    by Che's Lounge on Tue Mar 28, 2006 at 11:35:07 PM EST
    We argue memos while children are being ripped to pieces for Bush's lies and Cheney's profit.

    Re: Wanting War (none / 0) (#65)
    by john horse on Wed Mar 29, 2006 at 03:44:21 AM EST
    Che, That new memo that Squeaky refers to also shows that "... the president and the prime minister acknowledged that no unconventional weapons had been found inside Iraq. Faced with the possibility of not finding any before the planned invasion, Mr. Bush talked about several ways to provoke a confrontation, including a proposal to paint a United States surveillance plane in the colors of the United Nations in hopes of drawing fire..." These memos matter because they expose Bush for the liar he is. The public needs to realize the light and transient reasons that Bush and the neocons used to justify the unwarranted invasion of Iraq. They matter precisely because "children are being ripped to pieces for Bush's lies and Cheney's profit."

    Re: Wanting War (none / 0) (#66)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 29, 2006 at 05:48:36 AM EST
    Yes Patrick, I believe we did chew some of the same dirt. although I wasn't in panama long. TDYd from Dyess for about a month. Thanks for the thanks SUO. Why is it so impossible for you libs to understand this war on terror. I purposely did not call it "the war in Iraq." Because that limits the true nature of this war. Why is it so hard to understand that you have loose groupings of people scattered through out the globe who all have the same villanous intentions. Every where they are, there is blood shed and tragedy. Third world governments are falling prey to them left and right. There own well stated, well publicized mission in life is to rid the world of infidels (thats you and me). Every day that goes by that they are unchecked they gather strength and sophistication. France and many other nations have proven themselves powerless to stop their invasion of French soil. Yes you could call them imigrants, but they no intentions of assimilated to the societies they invade. More to the point they are demanding that the governments assimilate to them. I could go on and on, page after page, about the threat they represent, but ultimately, the point is, GW, has chosen to challenge this threat face to face, now. Before it becomes overwhelming. I'm sure he did it hoping they would back down from us, but they didn't. Who cares how long he has been planning our defense. Stratch that, I care. I hope and pray that he continues to see threats on the horizon and defends me from them. I hope his successor does the same. If you don't, you should reevaluate your priorities before you speak, because your opposition, and it's not dissent, its direct opposition, continues to be the biggest impediment to peace that exists today.

    Re: Wanting War (none / 0) (#67)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 29, 2006 at 06:09:12 AM EST
    I could go on and on, page after page, about the threat they represent, but ultimately, the point is, GW, has chosen to challenge this threat face to face, now. Before it becomes overwhelming. I'm sure he did it hoping they would back down from us, but they didn't. Who cares how long he has been planning our defense. Stratch that, I care. I hope and pray that he continues to see threats on the horizon and defends me from them. I hope his successor does the same. If you don't, you should reevaluate your priorities before you speak, because your opposition, and it's not dissent, its direct opposition, continues to be the biggest impediment to peace that exists today.
    Yeah, And I'm sure ya will, variable. Your ability to disseminate disinformation was never in doubt. That don't mean I'm buyin' your BS. Everything shrubco has said to date has been a lie. Everything. I see no reason to start trusting them or give them the benefit of the doubt. They haven't earned it. They've proved themselves to be lyin' scum on a good day. They're not havin' a good day. They're not havin' a good three years. As for your charges of direct opposition to this administration's policies in Iraq and warrantless domestic wiretapping, etc, I CERTAINLY HOPE SO. To oppose these clowns is the only Patriotic thing to do. They not only should be censured, they should be tried as War Criminals. In fact, with Milosevic gone, they've got a vacancy in the Hague as we speak.

    Re: Wanting War (none / 0) (#68)
    by Edger on Wed Mar 29, 2006 at 06:39:33 AM EST
    I hope and pray that [bush] continues to see threats on the horizon Yeah well, he's never been noted for anything but pushing fantasies. opposition, continues to be the biggest impediment to peace that exists today.
    It's like going to confession every time I hear you speak You're makin' the most of your losin' streak Some call it sick, but I call it weak You drag it around like a ball and chain You wallow in the guilt; you wallow in the pain You wave it like a flag, you wear it like a crown Got your mind in the gutter, bringin' everybody down --Get Over It


    Re: Wanting War (none / 0) (#69)
    by Slado on Wed Mar 29, 2006 at 07:07:41 AM EST
    Dadler. I didn't say it was a success. Pardon me for not being clear. I should have said it was open to debate but neither side should claim it a success or failure. Hows that? Jlvngston is exactly correct that the real question should be what do we do now? We're there. We can either leave it broken or fix it. I think we should fix it. I don't believe Bush was "determined" to invade Iraq. I believe it was inevitable because Saddam wasn't going to play ball. Why should he have? He had Oil for Food going, his own generals were lying to him etc... What reason did he have to believe Bush would live up to his threats. Two presidents bush I and clinton hand't finished the job or stood up to him. Why would this one? he was wrong and he's sitting in a jail cell because of it.

    Re: Wanting War (none / 0) (#70)
    by Edger on Wed Mar 29, 2006 at 07:18:03 AM EST
    I challenge anyone here, besides the two previous fools, to make a credible and serious argument that the radical Muslim movement does not present a grave and imminent threat to this nation and its people. It's been done. Repeatedly here. Check the Talkleft archives yourself. No one else is doing your homework for you, Variable.

    Wanting War | 70 comments (70 topical)