Cynical Nation

Did you ever notice that it takes an Apologist hundreds of words to attempt to legalese away what can be simply stated in two words: BUSH LIED.

Bush wasn't lied to, he was given correct information and then lied about it. If other politicians who trusted that the President of the United States wouldn't tell baldfaced lies to get his money-grubbing agenda kicked off in Iraq, well, maybe they are naive.

But Bush is the liar. He knew the truth. Cheney twisted arms, Rove intimidated, and they all lied, and now they have been caught and everyone knows it.

Save your breath and straw man arguments.

C'mon, Bailey. Quit beatin' around the bush and show us your tits already.

I fail to see how concrete fact is a straw man argument. You seem to not be able to form your own opinions, as you appear to be spouting outdated and useless ideas for no other reason than you don't know any better.

"Did you ever notice that it takes an Apologist hundreds of words to attempt to legalese away what can be simply stated in two words: BUSH LIED..."

Hundreds of words???

Try fifty-five!

ALL you need to know is found in these fifty-five words: "In July 2004, the Senate Intelligence Committee released a bipartisan 500-page report that found numerous failures of intelligence gathering and analysis. As for the Bush Administration's role, "The Committee did not find any evidence that Administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction."

However, when Bush said on the day of the invasion in March 2003 that there was "no doubt" that "the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised" was at best an overstatement as there was plenty of doubt and that doubt was increasing, not decreasing, as the war approached.

The defense that.. "Everbody was wrong. The intelligence was wrong. So don't blame us." may work with all you guys, but it doesn't work with me. There was intelligence before the war that questioned both that Saddam still had chemical/biological stockpiles and there certainly was questions around the nuclear threat, especially once the forgeries were exposed on the eve of the war. Even Stephen Hayes, when he complains that Valerie Plame was one of those who questioned the WMD threat, inadvertently highlights the fact that plenty of doubts existed.

In any case, the threat was not increasing in the early part of 2003 -- so why did Bush push the UN to pull the inspectors? Inspections were working. The Inspectors had not finished with their mission. So why? Conservatives at that time were portraying Hans Blix as a bumbling idiot, but his team's assessment proved to be far more accurate than the one Colin Powell presented to the United Nations. Did Democrats push for the pulling of Blix's inspection team from Iraq?

I say that the Bush Administration deliberately misrepresented what was known. Bush presented a case as having "no doubt" when there was plenty of doubt. He should have waited for more proof, but he could not wait. Why?

> The defense that.. "Everbody was wrong. The intelligence was wrong. So don't blame us." may work with all you guys, but it doesn't work with me.

Doesn't work with me either. I've frequently taken issue on this site with the administration's reliance on the whole WMD angle as a rationale for war, as you well know. But what also doesn't work is the whole "WMD was the only reason given for the war and Bush lied about those and everyone else gullibly went along" bit. Sorry, but that's just crap.

By the way, I remember vividly the arguments with Bush supporters on the eve of the war. I remember specifically them saying they wanted to get on with the invasion so the troops could get it done and then get home that much faster. There was an impatience on the part of the conservatives that I did not hear from the Democrats. I remember a total dismissal of the possibility of American troops encountering the same type of resistence that the Israelis had been experiencing for years in occupying a much smaller area.

Democrats on the whole seemed to want the threat of force to enforce inspections to find out what is going on inside Iraq. Conservatives, by March 2003, seemed to want war.

I also remember dire predictions from the Left about ten to twenty thousand body bags and a massive refugee crisis from the Battle of Baghdad. So what's your point?

I'm not talking the "left" who are against any war, but those who supported dealing with Irag with the threat of force. Gore, in the speech often quoted by the right, wanted to turn up the heat on Saddam, but war was a last resort precisely because of the possible negative effect that a War in Iraq would have on the War on Terrorism.

Most observers with experience in the region speaking before the war did not talk about the invasion of Baghdad being the challenge (although Scowcroft did), but the resulting occupation of Baghdad.

Gore was right in September of 2002. Senators should have, like Bob Graham did, voted against that authorization precisely because it did require Bush to come back to Congress again for final authority to go ahead with a war that was not urgent for our security. (Something that Bush 41 did for the first gulf war.)

So the Democrats did fail to withhold final approval -- which in the end allowed Bush to make that fateful decision in March 2003. Still, he made it and the justification Bush used was the threat posed by the WMDs, a threat in which he had "no doubt."

As far as the other rationales for the war, yes there were some who gave them and Bush included those other rationales in his speeches. However, a real WMD threat in and of itself could convince most Americans to go to war. Without that threat, however, I believe most Americans would have been unconvinced regardless of other rationales.

Senators should have, like Bob Graham did, voted against that authorization precisely because it did NOT require Bush to come back to Congress again for final authority.

I disagree. I think the American people, post-9/11, would have supported the Iraq war even without the WMD threat. That was thrown into the mix in an (ultimately unsuccessful) bid to win UNSC approval.

But at the end of the day, this country's stated goal vis-à-vis Iraq was regime change, not disarmament. Let's please not forget that.

The goal, as I understood it, was disarmanent. The United States threatened force to compel Iraq to disarm. If regime change was the goal at the beginning, then there would have been no need for inspections.

From Bush's speech on the eve of invasion..

"Today, no nation can possibly claim that Iraq has disarmed. And it will not disarm so long as Saddam Hussein holds power. For the last four-and-a-half months, the United States and our allies have worked within the Security Council to enforce that Council's long-standing demands. Yet, some permanent members of the Security Council have publicly announced they will veto any resolution that compels the disarmament of Iraq."

The goal was regime change, your "understanding" notwithstanding.

Then I guess Bush lied.

Actually, Bush was very up-front about the ultimate goal.

Well, if you define "full compliance" as "complete compliance", then Iraq did fail that test. However, the speech finishes with Bush's pledge to work to enforce U.N. Security Council demands and his pledge that military action is not unavoidable if Iraq did comply.

In this speech, regime change was a last resort. However, in the end, Bush gave up on the inspectors before the inspectors felt their mission was complete.

"Later this week, the United States Congress will vote on this matter. I have asked Congress to authorize the use of America's military, if it proves necessary, to enforce U.N. Security Council demands. Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable. The resolution will tell the United Nations, and all nations, that America speaks with one voice and is determined to make the demands of the civilized world mean something. Congress will also be sending a message to the dictator in Iraq: that his only chance -- his only choice is full compliance, and the time remaining for that choice is limited. Members of Congress are nearing an historic vote. I'm confident they will fully consider the facts, and their duties. "

"......while Saddam had probably not purchased yellowcake from Niger, the dictator had almost certainly tried--and that Mr. Wilson's own briefing of the CIA after his mission supported that conclusion. Mr. Wilson somehow omitted that fact....."

Barry, you either dont know the facts or you like using any excuse even if false. Saddam never tried to buy uranium in Niger. THATS WELL ESTABLISHED. The only evidence for that was a letter from the Iraqi goverment, which was subsequently proven to be FALSE. It was a fake letter....Wilson discovered that in fact.

Regarding Bush giving other reasons for the war...thats hilarious. THE ONLY REASON democrats voted for the war was because the administration lied to them about "imminent threat". Thats the only reason Americans supported this war. Now, we realize that Bush and/or Cheney deliberately LIED. 2000 Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians have died so far in this illegal war. For what? For a lie? Bush will be remembered in history as one of the worst liars presidents in the history of the country. Not only did he lie to start the war, but his administration is so incompetent that we can not win the war. It is one of the most shameful moments in the history of our country.

Barry is an Apologist in the finest Nazi tradition.

Fortunately, most Americans aren't so stupid that they don't know when they have been lied to. The game is over for Bush. He is an evil and dangerous ... well, he isn't a man, since he dodged the draft ... so I guess he is a dangerous Chickenhawk.

At least he has the guts to send young men into the combat that he so feverishly avoided, like the true coward he is.

I...don't quite remember the Nazi's apologizing for anything. You'd do well to reconsider before comparing anyone to a Nazi. First off, Nazi is short for a German term meaning "National Socialist". So, if you're a liberal, the Nazi's are your guys. Secondly, how dare you belittle what was suffered by countless millions by bandying about a term like Nazi. Nobody in this country is as evil as that entire form of government was, and I have a good feeling nobody ever will be again. Bailey, your arguments seem to fold when compared to actual fact. Here's the deal with the war. Who cares why we went. We're over there now, and we're doing good. Not doing good as in a grammatical error when I meant to say well, but good as in we're making a difference for the better. Stop complaining, and support our troops while they fight. Petty partisan infighting makes you look like a small-minded idiot, and throwing blame isn't going to change reality. Face up to it, take your zoloft, and let the adults handle politics.

I have my differences with Barry, but calling him a "Nazi Apologist" is wrong. The Bin Ladens, the Hitlers, and the Stalins of this world are the face of pure evil. There are millions who suffered from their deeds and it is a blight on the memory of those who survived to make light of what total evil means.

As far as Nazi's being socialists and therefore liberals, I only want to point out that Hitler's regime killed not only Jews (many of whom were liberal), but leftists, blacks, and homosexuals. Socialist he might have been, liberal he was not.

Thanks, PE. I'm used to it. I was actually more offended by the "mincing, lisping queen" remark, or whatever it was.

You're on thin ice, Bailey. As you can see, I like to give commenters here wide latitude. I've only banned one individual in the history of this blog. Don't make me do it again.

"Barry, you either dont know the facts or you like using any excuse even if false. Saddam never tried to buy uranium in Niger. THATS WELL ESTABLISHED."

Not "well established," at all.

In 1999, according to the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency, an Iraqi named Wissam al Zawahie was sent on a "trade mission" to Niger. Wissam al Zawahie was one of the chief Iraqi advocates for the development of nuclear weapons by that country.

Niger is one of the world's poorest countries; what, exactly, might it have to sell that Iraq would want to buy? Bearing in mind, of course, that there is no question that Iraq bought large quantities of uranium from Niger in the 1980's.

Here is what the World Bank tells us: In 1991, Niger's exports totaled a minuscule $270 million, of which $199 million was uranium. By 2000, exports had crept up to $283 million, of which $90 million was uranium--the decline largely the result of falling prices. Other than uranium, the only exports substantial enough to merit mention by the World Bank were livestock products, at $49 million.

British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, who had received a copy of Wilson's report, said that Wilson had confirmed that an Iraqi delegation in 1999 "sought the expansion of trade links with Niger—and that former Niger government officials believed that this was in connection with the procurement of yellowcake" or uranium oxide.

The British reported publicly, noting that, "Wilson's reports to the CIA added to the evidence that Iraq may have tried to buy uranium in Niger..." The significance of this cannot be overstated.

"...Hitler's regime killed not only Jews (many of whom were liberal), but leftists, blacks, and homosexuals. Socialist he might have been, liberal he was not." (PE)

While I agree that Hitler was no "Liberal," he was indeed a Socialist, with more in common with fellow totalitarians like Stalin, Mao and Castro (the last one, inexplicably a favorite of today's American Left).

Actually, Hitler's regime murdered primarily Jews and gypsies, few, if any blacks, as very few were available in that region at the time and only "targeted" homosexuals, as many in his inner circle were reputed homosexuals.

The likes of Hitler, Stalin and Mao have no equal in ANY democratic governments today and their ilk exist only on a much smaller scale today among mostly Third World despots from the late Pol Pot and Sukarno, to present day Hussein & Assad in the Mid-East and Mugabe in Africa.

Those who'd compare Bush or Blair or Putin to either Hitler or Stalin are generally ahistoric nitwits without much, if any perspective.

The significance of this cannot be overstated. (JMK)

Sure, it can. The fact that an Iraqi official came to Niger three years earlier and while there he "may have" tried to buy uranium doesn't mean that much when there were safeguards in place to prevent him from doing so. "Maybe" he was seeking uranium. If he "tried" to buy uranium, he would have fallen under the scrutiny of the IAEA, as well as numerous nations that are involved in uranium production in Niger. So if he did "try" to "seek" uranium, he didn't "try" very hard as there isn't any evidence of his efforts other than he was there.

You are woefully ignorant. The Nazi party was a FAR RIGHT CHRISTIAN party, and unless you are completely uneducated you know that, so you are really just a liar. Bush is every bit like Hitler, only he took over a country with a good economy and happy people. Bush is doing everything he can to change that. He is starting wars with "Evildoers" and stripping us of our rights, just like Hitler. He is invading sovereign nations just like Hitler. He and his Nazi Party are trying feverishly to change all the rules and put themselves above all laws, just like the mass dictatorship of Nazi Germany.

But anyway, I never said Barry was a Nazi Apologist. I said he was LIKE a Nazi Apologist. For you retards out there who went to public schools, an Apologist is someone who makes excuses for evil men, like Bush, when they are caught lying, cheating, stealing, and in this case committing treason.

Try the Public Library instead of the Rush Limbaugh Show every once in a while.

Actually, I'm not 'woefully ignorant', and I did in fact attend a private school and a public school. Nazi is a shortened term for the german equivalent for national socialist. Socialism is a form of government that is situated more to the left if center, since it is the last step before a communist government. I'm not here to condone or disapprove of communism or socialism, though. I am here to say that you, Bailey, are in fact the lowest form of human. You who dare to devalue the very lives of those who suffered the injustices of Hitler's regime, who were killed in the camps, or those who survived the camps, by comparing the penulitmate of evil to a man you are unable to....like. You don't 'like' Bush as president, and so you have the very audacity to compare him to Hitler, Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot. You, with the messiah complex who thinks you're in the right. There's a special place in Hell for you who think like this. I;m not a bible-thumping evangelist, nor am I even a regular church-attender. I also realize very few people will read this debate. But my conscience will not rest until I have said this. You are not a person. You are a thundering moron who really doesn't deserve to be a part of any society. You and those who think as hatefully as you should, in all honesty, be rounded up and sent to live in a designated fenced in area, only to be visited by normal humans when we need a laugh. And no matter how arrogant or pompous I sound here, I can say with confidence that I am right, because I am not you, Bailey. And that's all that matters.

Actually, it can't be overstated PE, BECAUSE, as the NY Times reported back in early 2004 over 500 tons of Uranium were found in Iraq post invasion.

Sure, none of it was enriched, at least not AT THAT POINT, but even in that state it could've been used as "Dirty Bomb" material and with Hussein's ties to al Qaeda (Ansar al Islam) and other international terrorist groups (the Islamic Jihad, etc) it's reasonable to suspect that Saddam's regime was positioned to become exactly what Hillary Clinton of all people worried he'[d become back in 2000, "the world's leading weapons merchant to international terrorism.

But the real issue is that Joe Wilson's report actually supported the Iraq in Niger story, as did the two other reports done at the time. The only time Wislon tried to "debunk" the story was in his NY Times Op-Ed piece and recently he's even backed away from that, claiming he's never shown the Iraq in Niger story to be bogus.

Bottomline, Fitzgerald could find no grounds on whcih to charge either Libby, or Cheney with "outing" a covert operative, and settled on a perjury charge on Libby.

"Nazi is a shortened term for the german equivalent for national socialist. Socialism is a form of government that is situated more to the left if center, since it is the last step before a communist government." (That Guy)

I can't believe anyone would think otherwise.

ALL totalitarian regimes are Leftist because of the Leftist obsession with micromanaging other people's lives. Even here in America, sick, degenerate Leftists/Liberals are continually obsessed with some people "having too much." They support regressive taxation like the "graduaterd income/productivity tax and the recent ill-advised Kelo Decision that allows government to seize private property for a "better use."

And they wonder why the country is becoming more and more Conservative.