Just Wondering...
Why is it that the folks from the Left can't just say "Iraq War"?
It's always "...the Iraq War, based on hyped and false information,..." or "the Iraq War, based on false intelligence,..." or something of that nature. And it's odd, but they all seem to do it.
Has anyone else noticed this?
Comments
Yes, I have noticed it because I also say it myself :) The reason people say that is simply because it is true. It was a war based on absolutely false intelligence. Even Bush has admitted in a way that the intelligence was false.
Posted by: Blue Wind | September 6, 2005 10:25 PM
I hadn't, actually, but now that you point it out, you're right. It's odd, but there are certain telltale phrases like that which become ingrained in the media to the point that no one even recognizes them as bias anymore.
For example, I noticed in the 1996 and 2000 elections that Steve Forbes (of whom I was rather fond) was never referred to as anything other than "Billionaire Publisher Steve Forbes." It was almost as if when he was born, Malcolm said, "Let's name him 'Billionaire Publisher Steve Forbes,'" and had it typed on his birth certificate.
Ah well. I guess it was useful in that it helped differentiate him from the likes of Al Gore and George W. Bush, who were sharecroppers.
Posted by: Barry | September 6, 2005 11:15 PM
Blue Wind, you're passing opinion off as fact. I wouldn't care what you said, if you'd just put an "I think" or an "In my opinion" in front of your posts.
Posted by: That Guy | September 7, 2005 01:23 AM
Guy,
It is not an opinion. It is a firmly established fact. The intelligence was false and that why the head of the CIA (Tennet) eventually resigned. Thats widely accepted even by supporters of the war.
Posted by: Blue Wind | September 7, 2005 07:37 AM
Ahem, I usually refer to it as simply the war. Or whatever oddly named offensive is currently underway, but please, continue with the sweeping generalizations which seem to so enamor all you folks on the right. :P
Posted by: K | September 7, 2005 10:21 AM
:)
Posted by: CRB | September 7, 2005 01:52 PM
You mean the way Cokie Roberts, Andrea Mitchell, and their ilk keep referring to President George W. Thirty-Six Percent Approval Bush as "a popular president"? ;)
Posted by: Jill | September 7, 2005 02:50 PM
It seems I read your post wrong, Blue. I missed the intelligence part. Sorry, my bad. Yeah, I'll play along and say the intelligence was false, even though I still support the war, no matter the reasons for its inceptions.
Posted by: That Guy | September 7, 2005 03:32 PM
Guy,
Thanks. Of course, you have every right to support any decision of Bush, no matter how wrong and disastrous it is. However, dont forget that it took essentially a lie (false intelligence) to go to this war. Otherwise it would had never been approved by Congress.
Posted by: Blue Wind | September 7, 2005 04:23 PM
Blue, I'd have to disagree a bit. Given the climate at the time, with 9/11 still very fresh in people's mind, I think Bush could have gotten congressional authorization to invade Canada if he'd wanted it. I think the WMD angle was played up more for the international audience than for domestic consumption. That seemed the easiest selling point to potential allies.
Posted by: Barry | September 7, 2005 04:28 PM
No president that I can think of. Can you imagine JFK: "Sorry about that whole Bay of Pigs cock-up! My bad!" or LBJ? "Yeah, this whole Vietnam thing was a clusterfuck from Day One, I guess. Sorry I fucked it up even worse."?
Yeah, I don't remember those either. But once again, it's an example of Dubya being held to a very different standard than his predecessors. Here's another one. Which other president was expected to staff his cabinet with people who did not support his policies? But I remember that being the most frequent complaint lodged against Condi Rice -- that she agreed with him.
It's a strange world.
Posted by: Barry | September 7, 2005 07:11 PM
"but please, continue with the sweeping generalizations which seem to so enamor all you folks on the right."
K--I hope that you were intentionally ironic when you said this...
Posted by: Adam | September 7, 2005 08:41 PM
Barry,
I quote you:
"I think Bush could have gotten congressional authorization to invade Canada if he'd wanted it"
I have Bush capable of wanting to invade Canada, but I doubt anyone would authorize him for that :). In any case, what you mentioned above is all speculation. We will never now. We know one thing though. That FALSE intelligence was used (in my opinion in a deliberate manner) to start this war.
Posted by: Blue Wind | September 7, 2005 08:52 PM
On what grounds can you assert that the intelligence was forged, when it was the same intelligence Clinton was going on before Bush ever came to office, and the British intelligence was telling us the same thing?
Do you have any idea just how ineffective an organization CIA is? Honest mistakes are not only possible from the CIA, they are like a way of life.
Ok, maybe "honest mistakes" is too kind a phrase for "continual incompetance".
Posted by: Adam | September 7, 2005 09:15 PM
Of course Bush wants to invade Canada, they have oil.
Posted by: CRB | September 7, 2005 09:48 PM
Adam-whatever do you mean? Aren't [I]all[/I] you conservatives [I]always[/I] making sweeping generalizations?
Posted by: K | September 8, 2005 09:52 AM
Curse your well-executed satire! :D It's this kind of comedic irresponsibility that leads to wars, man!
Posted by: Adam | September 8, 2005 12:34 PM