Everyone Knew that Iraq Didn't Have WMDs

[Prazak]

Re: Everyone Knew that Iraq Didn't Have WMDs

In the matter of the War in Iraq you are certainly correct. Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and above all Bush bear the responsibility.
But on political matters in general, the Left seems to avoid almost all accountability.

I should have made that distinction.

It's funny, lately I've been thinking just the opposite.

I watch as the congressional debate over health care reform turns on the CBO's scoring of each element of every proposal for cost impacts. But does anyone still remember the expansion of Medicare to include a prescription drug benefit? Nobody gave a fig what the CBO said it would cost and the Bush Administration threatened to fire Medicare's chief actuary over his cost estimates. Its cost vastly exceeds the projected costs of the Senate's latest proposal and was financed solely through deficit spending in the middle of two wars. But here we are, demanding that the Democratic version be deficit neutral and wringing our hands about a state takeover of the health care system. Nary a whimper over the previous Administration's stewardship of public health care programs and costs.

Here's another recent example: Obama increases the troop count in Afghanistan and the right-wing commentariat taunts him to admit that he was wrong about Bush's "surge" in Iraq. Yes, the Obamanistas are understandably reluctant to call its policy a "surge" lest it draw too much attention to his former opposition to Bush's surge. But where is the outrage that the Bush Administration allowed the Afghan-Pakistan-Pashtun-Taliban situation, replete with Al Qaeda safe havens within a one-day's drive of nuclear weaponry, to fester for eight years while he led an underequipped, undermanned military to struggle in Iraq? Oh, but let's all hold Obama's feet to the fire for being wrong about that surge, shall we?

I'm a pretty conservative guy, but I'm furious with the right wing in the American body politic. I think its political resurgence is the biggest danger facing this country. I remember thinking the same in the 70s with respect to the left wing. And if there were such a thing as political accountability the right would be quiescent for at least a decade for how it led this country into the ditch on so many fronts.

[Raz]

Re: Everyone Knew that Iraq Didn't Have WMDs

It's funny, lately I've been thinking just the opposite.

I watch as the congressional debate over health care reform turns on the CBO's scoring of each element of every proposal for cost impacts. But does anyone still remember the expansion of Medicare to include a prescription drug benefit? Nobody gave a fig what the CBO said it would cost and the Bush Administration threatened to fire Medicare's chief actuary over his cost estimates. Its cost vastly exceeds the projected costs of the Senate's latest proposal and was financed solely through deficit spending in the middle of two wars. But here we are, demanding that the Democratic version be deficit neutral and wringing our hands about a state takeover of the health care system. Nary a whimper over the previous Administration's stewardship of public health care programs and costs.

Here's another recent example: Obama increases the troop count in Afghanistan and the right-wing commentariat taunts him to admit that he was wrong about Bush's "surge" in Iraq. Yes, the Obamanistas are understandably reluctant to call its policy a "surge" lest it draw too much attention to his former opposition to Bush's surge. But where is the outrage that the Bush Administration allowed the Afghan-Pakistan-Pashtun-Taliban situation, replete with Al Qaeda safe havens within a one-day's drive of nuclear weaponry, to fester for eight years while he led an underequipped, undermanned military to struggle in Iraq? Oh, but let's all hold Obama's feet to the fire for being wrong about that surge, shall we?

I'm a pretty conservative guy, but I'm furious with the right wing in the American body politic. I think its political resurgence is the biggest danger facing this country. I remember thinking the same in the 70s with respect to the left wing. And if there were such a thing as political accountability the right would be quiescent for at least a decade for how it led this country into the ditch on so many fronts.

I'm not angry with Conservatives. The problem as I see it is that other than Ron Paul and a few others there no longer are any!!

The NeoCons are the "boat people" of the McGovern Revolution that hit the Democratic Party after 1968. They share the utopianism of Woodrow Wilson, but even that has now been perverted by them to support an American Empire. You couldn't possibly detest these phony bastards any more that I do. http://itulip.com/forums/showthread....33407#poststop

If you mean that the voters aren't holding the "conservatives" accountable you are mostly correct. I think it's because the Democrats can only offer more of the same crap that screwed up the country back in the 1960s and 70s: BIGGER government, HIGHER taxes, et cetera, et cetera. But it seems to me that there was no shortage of media to blast "W" and the Republicans for everything except BIG spending.

Now that the US is clearly bankrupt even the Networks (-NBC) are afraid of the monstrous spending of Pelosi and Obama.

I don't see the point about Obama and the Surge. The only person I've heard mouthing that crapola is the NeoCon dunderhead Shawn the Hannity. I only hear him when in my car and then only until I can change the channel. He's right about twelve percent of the time, wrong about twice that much, and the other 64% is just a bunch of "spin". The only favorable comparison of him I can make is that he's not filled with venom as is Olberman.

All that aside, it seems to me that a majority of television newscasts lean to the Left.

[lalla]

Re: Everyone Knew that Iraq Didn't Have WMDs

http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/..._peter_beinart

[Slimprofits]

Re: Everyone Knew that Iraq Didn't Have WMDs

newly declassified documents at GWU's NSA archive

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB326/print.htm

This compilation further shows:

• The preliminary strategy Rumsfeld imparted to Franks while directing him to develop a new war plan for Iraq
• Secretary of State Powell’s awareness, three days into a new administration, that Iraq “regime change” would be a principal focus of the Bush presidency
• Administration determination to exploit the perceived propaganda value of intercepted aluminum tubes – falsely identified as nuclear related – before completion of even a preliminary determination of their end use
• The difficulty of winning European support for attacking Iraq (except that of British Prime Minister Tony Blair) without real evidence that Baghdad was implicated in 9/11
• The State Department’s analytical unit observing that a decision by Tony Blair to join a U.S. war on Iraq “could bring a radicalization of British Muslims, the great majority of whom opposed the September 11 attacks but are increasingly restive about what they see as an anti-Islamic campaign”
• Pentagon interest in the perception of an Iraq invasion as a “just war” and State Department insights into the improbability of that outcome

****

October 17, 2000 Debate Transcript

October 17, 2000
The Third Gore-Bush Presidential Debate

MEMBER OF AUDIENCE: What would you make -- what would make you the best candidate in office during the Middle East crisis?


BUSH: I've been a leader. I've been a person who has to set a clear vision and convince people to follow. I've got a strategy for the Middle East. And first let me say that our nation now needs to speak with one voice during this time, and I applaud the president for working hard to diffuse tensions. Our nation needs to be credible and strong. When we say we're somebody's friend, everybody has got to believe it. Israel is our friend and we'll stand by Israel. We need to reach out to modern Arab nations as well. To build coalitions to keep the peace. I also need -- the next leader needs to be patient. We can't put the Middle East peace process on our timetable. It's got to be on the timetable of the people that we're trying to bring to the peace table. We can't dictate the terms of peace, which means that you have to be steady. You can't worry about polls or focus groups. You've got to have a clear vision. That's what a leader does. A leader also understands that the United States must be strong to keep the peace. Saddam Hussein still is a threat in the Middle East. Our coalition against Saddam is unraveling. Sanctions are loosened. The man who may be developing weapons of mass destruction, we don't know because inspectors aren't in. So to answer your question, it requires a clear vision, a willingness to stand by our friends, and the credibility for people both friend and foe to understand when America says something, we mean it.