"When a government takes the country to war on lies and misinformation,"

[California]

Re: "When a government takes the country to war on lies and misinformation,"

Bob, I think future evidence will show something like the following:

Cheney called the CIA and said 'send out your best diplomat, or spy or whatever and check out this Niger uranium story'.

Wilson had the proper contacts in Africa to get to the bottom of it and we now know his wife may have had much more extensive contacts to assist in his study and perhaps help verify and draft his report. I think his report is the best research available on the Niger uranium subject.

Wilson was outraged that his report was ignored, then twisted to support the opposite of what he found. I think it is a real act of patriotism for someone who has advanced to the level of a US Ambassador to blow the whistle on the government he represented. Sometimes people unexpectedly find themselves in a position where they see only one right thing to do, and I think he found himself there and made the right choice. The essence of his mesage is that decisions are being made based on no accurate information at all.

We may also see that he is the point man for a dispute between CIA intelligence and the white house's sources.

As deeper background, what I think I see going on here is that the Wolfowitz - Libby - Cheney - Rice policy advocates felt Bush 1 should have rolled into Baghdad and 9/11 gave them another chance to do so.

Unfortunately to support their position they chose to rely on Chalabi, (a subsequently discredited Iraqui expatriate), and this bogus uranium story along with other information that in hindsight has proven inaccurate.

I think Bush has no independent opinion here, he has little interest in overseas policy and believes whatever the 'experts' tell him. I have to make a comparison here with Clinton, as Don described - Clinton was a scholar capable of sorting out conflicting advice offered by various staffers. The Bush white house appears to run on faith-based 'intelligence' that seems to me at times, to have no basis of research or consideration of easily-anticipated consequences.

Dargo - I think the previous policy of keeping Sadam restricted was a workable solution and could have been continued indefinitely. He was a dangerous lunatic but relatively powerless so long as the sanctions remained. The best available *credible* information indicated he occasionally tried to start up production of WMDs then was found out before he could obtain the materials. That impasse could have continued indefinitely. I think this relative stability is what the European customers for his oil wanted, and explains why they didn't get on board the invasion. This was all pretty hard on the citizens of Iraq but that's not our problem. There are many other places in the world where US expenditures of similar magnitude could help people far more.

I think the fact that US forces have looked everywhere and not found any WMD's shows that the previous containment policy was working. As for expecting to find Osama in Iraq after 9/11 ... that would have to be another thread.

 

[dzalphakilo]

Re: "When a government takes the country to war on lies and misinformation,"

What have we accomplished in Iraq?

We took Sadam (sp?) out of power.

Our troops are still being killed.

What is the difference if we just "pull everyone out" (our troops) and "nuke" Iraq, or, we just pull eveyone out and don't use nuclear weapons?

The only difference I see is that if we use nuclear weapons we can claim "victory", where as if we don't "kick some ass", it becomes another Vietnam.

I'm under the understanding that we went to Iraq due to WMD, which none where found.

I did happen to vote for Bush in both elections, and am a regsister republican.

Funny still, went to a friends wedding down at Bragg yesterday. Talking with some lifers who where at the wedding, and my previous statments (here in this post) didn't cause an uproar with anyone.

I would also state that I felt "comfortable" asking "certain questions" only becuase I once was stationed at Bragg, have been in combat, have been shot at, and have had confirmed kills in combat, and for the most part, have "earned" my right to question our actions in some of the peoples minds that I was talking to.

Funny how once you've seen war close and personal how your views can change (young dumb and full of piss and vinager so to speak).

 

[thcri]

Re: "When a government takes the country to war on lies and misinformation,"

You know, maybe I'm the only one thinking this but, if you gave me basically unlimited funds and several years, I could most certainly hide and get rid of most all evidence of WMD. If you recall, inspections did not occur for years before this ordeal. Why doesn't anyone think that Iraq couldn't have disposed of, hidden, or moved out of the country, WMD?! Given the time, the funds and all the resources, I have no doubt I could have gotten rid of all evidence. I honestly don't see why nobody considers this a possibility. If you don't think he could do this, you have to ask why we have not been able to find Bin Laden in several years of trying. I just think that the fact remains that it is easier to hide and hide things when given the funds and people resources they have.

EXACTLY, Sadam was no idiot and he had plenty of places to hide the stuff. The inspections started because everybody did believe there was WMD over there including the United Nations. He used them on his own people. He has all these barracks and even neighboring countries to help him hide this stuff. And did we not during find during the initial war some warheads that could be used for WMD. I just for the life of me can not figure out why people believe this crap that there never was any WMD. It's kind of like to me you think your kid was in the cookie jar, he has no cookies in his hand but he has chocolate all over his face and you expect one to believe he wasn't in there? Give me a break people, this WMD did not just come up in the last two years, just think of what this guy has done and done to his own people, think of the company he kept.


murph

 

[dzalphakilo]

Re: "When a government takes the country to war on lies and misinformation,"

Murph

I do agree with you that Sadam out of power is probably for the "better good", but now what?

Isn't that what we into Iraq for? (to oust Sadam).

When is our "job" complete in that country (Iraq)?

 

[OkeeDon]

Re: "When a government takes the country to war on lies and misinformation,"

You know, maybe I'm the only one thinking this but, if you gave me basically unlimited funds and several years, I could most certainly hide and get rid of most all evidence of WMD. If you recall, inspections did not occur for years before this ordeal. Why doesn't anyone think that Iraq couldn't have disposed of, hidden, or moved out of the country, WMD?! Given the time, the funds and all the resources, I have no doubt I could have gotten rid of all evidence. I honestly don't see why nobody considers this a possibility. If you don't think he could do this, you have to ask why we have not been able to find Bin Laden in several years of trying. I just think that the fact remains that it is easier to hide and hide things when given the funds and people resources they have.

No, before our invasion, there were reports that Iraqi jets and pilots had flown to Iran. No one was quite sure why, but it led to speculation that WMD were being transferred to IRan, also.

It's kind of hard to speculate why Saddam would have been shipping his stuff to Iran, which he had been trying to annihilate not long before, but there were also reports that his people were misleading him (why does that sound familiar?) about the success of the WMD programs. Based on that, it's entirely possible they were misleading him about the planes and pilots as well.

My basis for suggesting that is that Saddam is Sunni Muslim, even though the vast majority of Iraq's population is Shia Muslim, the same as Iran. The Shiites are the ones who believe in a religious government; the Sunnis believe in a more secular government, separating church and state. That's why the Ayahtolla's have control in Iran. It stands to reason that if the majority of people in Iraq are Shiites, then many of Saddams people also sympathized with the Shia sect, and were shipping things to Iran without Saddam's knowledge.

I think the truth is that (a) many, if not most, of the weapons which had been developed were destroyed in the '92 war. (b) What weapons remained were shipped out of the country, or destroyed by folks who didn't want to get caught with them. (c) Saddam continued to bluster like he actually had the weapons (remember Baghdad Bob?), because he didn't know they were gone. (d) The reports we received about weapons buildups came largely from Chalabi and company because they wanted the USA to knock out Saddam, so they could take over. (e) Bush's people believed the reports, and even embellished them, because they also wanted to invade Iraq. There were credible reports (and I can find them again, to prove my point, if anyone wants to push me to it) that the Bush team was discussing how to invade Iraq as early as the transition in 2000, long before 9/11. 9/11 just gave them an excuse. Of course, they had to misrepresent the threat in order to get people to go along with the idea, but they're awfully good at that.

The point is, that it's entirely possible that if there were any WMD, that they were moved or destroyed or hidden. It almost had to be without telling Saddam, because he too obviously believed he could give the USA a fight. He couldn't have been that convincing (or that stupid) if he knew his pockets were empty. However, it's not relevant, because the Bush folks were going to invade Iraq no matter what. They invented two or three other sets of excuses after the original ones flopped; they could have done so before the invasion, and I strongly believe they would have done so.

The sad thing is, we could step back 3-1/2 years and had this same conversation, before the invasion, and I would have told you the same things back then. The difference is, now some folks are starting to believe me. This administration has it's own agenda, it will do whatever it wants without regard for whether it's good for the nation or not. The evidence is piling up, and it's getting tougher and tougher to ignore it. That's why Bush's approval rating is down below 38% right now.

I think that history will show that Bush and his people are the worse administration since Lincoln. They will eventually be seen to be worse than Coolidge, worse that Johnson, worse than Nixon, worse than Carter, worse than Reagan, simply the worst. I continue to believe that ANYONE would have been better. It will be years, if not decades, before we straighten out all the problems this administration has caused and will continue to cause.

 

[Melensdad]

Re: "When a government takes the country to war on lies and misinformation,"

Dargo & Murph: I think it is highly possible that Iraq could have moved some WMD to Syria. I tend to agree that Sadam had virutally unlimited money available to him via the U.N. scandal "Oil for Food." I also think his program appears to have been disassembled. However he gave no cooperation, and further he gave every reason to doubt him. He violated the UN orders dozens, perhaps hundreds of times, he also flaunted international law.

California: I don't doubt that the urnaium story was false, I don't even doubt that Bush was misled by some advisors. No question that Paul Wolfowitz is a brilliant, but agressive hawk with an intervention policy looking to make a name for himself. All that said, Wilson's story is likely true, but it does not negate the WMD evidence provided by MI5 or any of the other foreign sources, including the Russians who opposed the invasion.

 

[OkeeDon]

Re: "When a government takes the country to war on lies and misinformation,"

Dargo and Bob, except that whether or not anyone believed there was WMD is irrelevant. There was credible evidence that Bush's people were working on a scenario to invade Iraq even before 9/11. 9/11 just gave them an excuse. Of course, they had to trot out any misprepresentation they could find to convince the gullible Americans that Iraq had some responsibility for 9/11, but they're good at that. They also used the WMD excuse. If they hadn't had that, they would have trotted out some other excuse, just like they did when the WMD didn't materialize.

Until we determine the REAL reason why they invaded Iraq all the rest is just background noise. I believe it was oil. In the hearings leading up to Congress's giving the President a blank check, Wolfowitz claimed that Iraqi oil production would pay for the damage caused by the invasion. The only way that would have been possible is if the USA had control of the oil. In fact, they could not have control of the oil without offending the Russians, Germans and French who already had the oil contracts, and were willing to fight to keep them. I believe that came as a total shock to Wolfowitz and company, and they had to back off the oil stuff. So, they were already in trouble, and then it turned out there was no WMD. Whether there had been or not is irrelevant; the fact is that while Saddam was never a threat to the USA in the first place, he was even less of a threat without WMD. The war, the administration and the approval ratings have been going down ever since as people discover the truth.

This administration should not have had office in the first place; CityBoy is right that I'm one of the Floridians who firmly believe that the Supremes stole the election. After all their mistakes, this administration should never have been re-elected. In my opinion, they should now be impeached and removed from office before they can do any more harm.

The 2004 election was won on people's perceptions of moral values. Those perceptions were formed by misrepresentations of Democratic moral values. Those misrepresentations came from the administration and their spokesmen, from the RNC, and from Fox News. The war in Iraq had little to do with the reelection; it's only now that people are stating to understand that the emperor is naked.

 

[Melensdad]

Re: "When a government takes the country to war on lies and misinformation,"

Dargo and Bob, except that whether or not anyone believed there was WMD is irrelevant. There was credible evidence that Bush's people were working on a scenario to invade Iraq even before 9/11.

Don, WMD is not irrelevant. The fact that they were working on a scenario to invade prior to 9/11 is what is irrelevant.

No question that Dub-ya had a massive hardon for Sadam, no question he wanted to finish what his dad started. But the fact of the matter is that WMD was the justification. That cannot be overlooked. In fact, without WMD as the justification there would have been no invasion. People keep glossing over the fact that WMDs in Iraq were believed by many nations including those who opposed the war, and intelligence sources from nations who opposed the war were in general (and sometimes specific) agreement that WMD existed in violation of U.N. mandates.

 

[Junkman]

Re: "When a government takes the country to war on lies and misinformation,"

This is the image that the rest of the world has of Bush and the US as a result of going to war with Iraq.

 

[OkeeDon]

Re: "When a government takes the country to war on lies and misinformation,"

In fact, without WMD as the justification there would have been no invasion.

But, that's my point, however badly I've expressed it. Clinton believed there was WMD, and didn't invade. As you said, other nations believed in WMD, but were against our invasion. The UN believed there was WMD, but it took Powell, who learned after the fact that he was handed a pack of lies, to go to the UN and convince them. I'm sure the bulk of the Bush administration believed in WMD; that's most likely the reason they were willing to misrepresent the reports that contradicted WMD; because they were absolutely certain that evidence would be found.

Heck, I believed there was WMD.

However, WMD is irrelvant precisely because it was NOT a justification.

The Bush administration used two excuses (OK, justifications) to invade. The first was that Saddam and his WMD posed a threat to the United States.

The second, while never expressed in so many words, was to foster the belief among Americans that Saddam had something to do with 9/11. Heck, even today, even on these pages, you'll still see people saying we are in Iraq because they don't want another 9/11. These people believe that Saddam had something to do with it, and that our invasion is what has protected us.

Both of those excuses are so much bullshit, and anyone who can read knows it. Even if Saddam had WMD, it was NOT A THREAT TO THE USA! It was not a threat because we had his ass covered. Therefore, it was NOT a viable justification for invasion.

And, not only did Saddam have nothing to do with 9/11, he actually had very little regard for bin Laden and Al Quaeda. Remember, Al Queada is a fundamentallist Muslim organization, which means that it is more part of the findamentalist Shiite wing of Muslims, while Saddam was a secular Sunni leader. The chances of his supporting terrorism among fundamentalist Muslims was about as remote as Jesse Jackson supporting the pro-life terrorists.

Beyond those facts is the simple statement, made often back then but forgotten today, that the United States of American simply does not cause pre-emptive wars. My God, how could any good conservative condone such an invasion? That principle is at the bedrock of American conservatism!

Here's the hilarious part. Over the centuries of American history, the dogma of the various political parties has shifted form one pole to another. I believe that the Republican and Democratic parties are undergoing another such shift. Especailly under Clinton, many of his policies were those of the traditional Republican party, including his fiscal restraint. At the same time, it is Republicans who are calling for federal intervention, who are going to war the way FDR once advocated, who are spending us into oblivion, and who are ignoring traditional American values like an honorable invasion.
I'm more conservative than you guys! I certainly care a whole lot more about how we are perceived and what our place is in the world than the "nuke 'em all" crowd...

 

[Melensdad]

Re: "When a government takes the country to war on lies and misinformation,"

Don, I didn't say I thought Bush made the correct decision, I just said he used resonable evidence that was substantiated from many foreign sources to come to the belief that the WMD were legitimate. He also used a few dozen other reasons that were based on other, better documented, U.N. violations.

I seriously doubt I would have made the choice he made, however going back to the original postulation made by California, I don't think one bit of evidence on uranium was reason enough to condemn Bush, nor do I think the US in at a turning point.

And Junk, I don't think the German hysteria banner you posted is how the rest of the world views us. Certainly there are many who do view us with contempt but most rational people won't put Bush in league with Hitler. That is not to say that many people like Bush, I think many people dislike him. In fact I think many people simply dislike the independant spirit we all hold dear. I've entered into a debate with some folks from England (liberals from a more liberal land no less). It is shocking to us what they think is reasonable, and it is shocking to them what we think is unreasonable.

 

[OkeeDon]

Re: "When a government takes the country to war on lies and misinformation,"

OK, now we're getting close to a concensus point. I agree that there was not enough credible evidence about the lack of WMD. I agree that Joe Wilson's report was not enough to throw the administration off their track, even if it was twisted and/or ignored (I can understand how he's be upset about that, but it wasn't a node point in the discussion at the time). LIke I said, I actually believed, and worried about, WMD. My position was, WTF, if we think they can nuke us or hit us with chem or bio weapons, what are we doing provoking them? Leave them alone and they won't hurt us. I viewed Saddam as a nornet's nest, only dangerous if you poke at it.

So, on the original concept of this thread, I think the evidence of WMD at the time was strong enough to justify the Congressional vote, the UN vote and the media's hysteria, and based on what the public knew, the claim of WMD was not misrepresentation.

I'll go that far with you.

My point has been that there was lies and misrepresentation, but not about WMD, at least as far as I know. There were reports that the CIA knew the case was being overstated; it would be interesting to know what the administration actually knew, and when they knew it...

...the lies and misrepresentation to which I refer was the claims that the WMD were a threat to us. And, the perception that they carefully nurtured that Saddam was behind 9/11, without actually coming out and saying it in so many words. It was a masterful job of propaganda. And, as such, is in the spirit of California's original question, if not technically the same.

This country WAS taken to war on lies and misrepresentation, and the administration members who fostered it should burn in hell for it.

 

[Melensdad]

Re: "When a government takes the country to war on lies and misinformation,"

it would be interesting to know what the administration actually knew, and when they knew it...

I think it is fair to say that if the public knew what most of the various administrations knew about a lot of topics over many decades that the public would not be sleeping very well at night.

 

[bczoom]

Re: "When a government takes the country to war on lies and misinformation,"

Don,

Regarding Iraq's WMDs, as noted, it was the perception by the world community that he had them.

Although Saddam may not have specific ties/support to UBL or Al Quada, as the saying goes "an enemy of my enemy is my friend". Therefore, it's also a safe assumption that Saddam would have provided terrorist organizations the tools (WMD's) to launch attacks on our (or our allies) interests.

Also noted here was Saddam's violations of UN resolutions. Many of them. If the UN wasn't so weak, they would/should have stood up and done military actions to stop these events by Saddam's regime instead of the US coalition.

Brian

 

[Melensdad]

Re: "When a government takes the country to war on lies and misinformation,"

Also noted here was Saddam's violations of UN resolutions. Many of them. If the UN wasn't so weak, they would/should have stood up and done military actions to stop these events by Saddam's regime instead of the US coalition.

Brian

While not an overwhelming tone in this thread, I do find it very interesting that many people who do not want the USA to go into places suggest that the U.N. should do the work. But the U.N. is a nearly worthless organization, limp wristed and hang wringing bunch of bureaucrats who won't enforce their own sanctions, who rely on the USA to do it, and who then criticize the USA for doing it.

 

[Dargo]

Re: "When a government takes the country to war on lies and misinformation,"

There was credible evidence that Bush's people were working on a scenario to invade Iraq even before 9/11.

Our military currently has contingent plans on conducting war with over 2 dozen countries. However, that does not mean that they are actually planning on doing so. I think the military and government follow the phrase, and I'll quote it in English rather than the original Latin (Si vis pacem, para bellum), "If you want peace, prepare for war". The fact that this phrase was originally in Latin should tell you how old this philosophy is. This is nothing new or out of the ordinary.

 

[LarryRB]

Re: "When a government takes the country to war on lies and misinformation,"

While not an overwhelming tone in this thread, I do find it very interesting that many people who do not want the USA to go into places suggest that the U.N. should do the work. But the U.N. is a nearly worthless organization, limp wristed and hang wringing bunch of bureaucrats who won't enforce their own sanctions, who rely on the USA to do it, and who then criticize the USA for doing it.

Well, like other things, maybe the UN outlived it's usefulness and we don't need it anymore..

 

[Cityboy]

Re: "When a government takes the country to war on lies and misinformation,"

What constitutes WMD? There was enough nerve agent found in Iraq to exterminate a large city or two. This was downplayed in the media. Why?

Everyone makes reference to WMD but I have not yet seen anyone define it.

Does nerve agent and other chemical weapons count as WMD? If not, why not?

What exactly constitutes WMD?

 

[Melensdad]

Re: "When a government takes the country to war on lies and misinformation,"

Well, like other things, maybe the UN outlived it's usefulness and we don't need it anymore..

Certainly it is on the brink. It could easily follow the path of the League of Nations. Currently the UN is biased against the "west" and has really become a political joke in many ways. It is less than effective, its Peacekeepers from many less advanced nations are political appointees who have a history of being desserters when times are tough and of being some of the worst abusers of the populations they are supposed to protect. It is fairly safe to say that "ethics" vary from society to society and that the UN has no clear ethical base for how it conducts business, nor how its people act in their missions.

 

[LarryRB]

Re: "When a government takes the country to war on lies and misinformation,"

NYC, NY, has always had a problem with the UN. I refused delivering computers there because there is nowhere one can place his tractor trailer to make such deliveries. You were forced to illegally double park, and this in itself, brought on a host of other problems. The city is owed, in the hundreds of thousands of dollars because of all these exempt (diplomatic diplomacy) excuses while they double park, blocking fire hydrants, impeding other emergency vehicles and the like. Those supposed diplomats could care less of the aggravation and heartache they cause the locals.. For many years now, I have thought we should do away with that organization or at a mimimum, force it to move to another country,, It seems to me, they all would fit in great in a new building somewhere in downtown Paris...

 

[OkeeDon]

Re: "When a government takes the country to war on lies and misinformation,"

What constitutes WMD? There was enough nerve agent found in Iraq to exterminate a large city or two. This was downplayed in the media. Why?

Because it's not true.

This link is to a news story on Fox News, headlined "A roadside bomb containing sarin nerve agent recently exploded near a U.S. military convoy, the U.S. military said Monday."

However, the last paragraph is the important one: "However, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said the results were from a field test, which can be imperfect, and said more analysis was needed. If confirmed, it would be the first finding of a banned weapon upon which the United States based its case for war."

Note, the suspected gas was from a 155 mm shell. The report is dated 5/17/2004. By 2004, most experts agreed that if Iraq had any chemical or biological weapons, they would be ineffective because of age. Also, the important statement in that sentence is, "...it would be the first finding of a banned weapon upon which the United States based its case for war." This was based on a statement from the Secretary of Defense and reported on Fox News. I doubt they would have twisted it to help those against the war.

In other words, your claim simply is not true.
-----------------------------------------
About thje United Nations. I find it interesting that the folks who are complaining it's weak are members of the party that won't support the UN. Maybe it wouldn't be so weak if we paid our dues, among other things. You can't have it both ways -- make it weak by withdrawing support, then complain that it's weak. That's a circular argument.
-----------------------------------------
Dargo, of course our military has plans for everything from invasion by Luxemburg to invasion from outer space. However, my statement was that the Bush administration, that is, people like Cheney and Wolfowitz and Perle and Libby and Rice, NOT the military, was making plans to invade Iraq, even before they took office. That's an entirely different thing than military contingency plans. My point was, they were going to find an excuse to invade Iraq even if there had never been a 9/11.

If they had spent a little more time listening to the Clinton advisors who were briefing them during the transition, maybe 9/11 would never have happened...they were warned, and they ignored it. They had their own agenda, and still do, and it isn't good forAmerica.
----------------------------------------

But the U.N. is a nearly worthless organization, limp wristed and hang wringing bunch of bureaucrats who won't enforce their own sanctions, who rely on the USA to do it, and who then criticize the USA for doing it.

Bob, do you understand how the UN works? They have no means to enforce their own sanctions unless the member nations provide the means. The United States is the single most powerful member, by far. If they are"relying" on the USA to do it, it's because no one else can. And, if they "rely" on the USA, your statement that they then criticize us doesn't make sense. I'd like to see some evidence of that criticism. If you're talking about individual members, then make that distinction clear. Youy statement addressed the "bureaucrats" of the United Nations, not the individual members who DO criticize us. I don't believe your categorization of the United Nations officials is true, and I'm surprised that you said it -- you usually are more thoughtful.

 

[Big Dog]

Re: "When a government takes the country to war on lies and misinformation,"

While not an overwhelming tone in this thread, I do find it very interesting that many people who do not want the USA to go into places suggest that the U.N. should do the work. But the U.N. is a nearly worthless organization, limp wristed and hang wringing bunch of bureaucrats who won't enforce their own sanctions, who rely on the USA to do it, and who then criticize the USA for doing it.

Here we go! First too many people on both sides believed the "LIES" and supported the war. That's said and done and nothing can erase the fact.......now lets move on!

I was listening to talk radio the other day and I heard a women state we shouldn't have gone to war without UN support. FOLKS it wasn't gonna happen because to many that opposed it were making huge sums of money. Wether it be by sales or corruption (food for oil), we was NEVER gonna get UN support. I just wish some liberals would wake to the fact that political correctness is a minority in the world!

From making sure your kid gets to play to fighting the perfect war, neither helps anyone. There is defeat, we have to accept it. There is winning and in war you cannot play politically correct........IMO, Irag should be over and Bagdad a Wal-Mart parking lot!

Now I ain't promoting the killing of innocents. But you must eliminate the centers for organization.

 

[LarryRB]

Re: "When a government takes the country to war on lies and misinformation,"

-----------------------------------------
About thje United Nations. I find it interesting that the folks who are complaining it's weak are members of the party that won't support the UN. Maybe it wouldn't be so weak if we paid our dues, among other things. You can't have it both ways -- make it weak by withdrawing support, then complain that it's weak. That's a circular argument.
If they are"relying" on the USA to do it, it's because no one else can. And, if they "rely" on the USA, your statement that they then criticize us doesn't make sense. I'd like to see some evidence of that criticism. If you're talking about individual members, then make that distinction clear. Youy statement addressed the "bureaucrats" of the United Nations, not the individual members who DO criticize us. I don't believe your categorization of the United Nations officials is true, and I'm surprised that you said it -- you usually are more thoughtful.

Don, I shortened your quote a bit, hilighting these two items.... Complaining it is weak and to pay our dues,,, It is my belief that for 30 or more years the U.S. has footed all or near all agenda's the U.N. has put forth... Why should we pay dues when we already pay the vast majority of anything they wish to do? Secondly, again with NYC. They want dues? pay up all the illegal stuff and stop the aggravation to the locals..
Your second point concurs with mine,, we are relyied on for this mass support, then let the other lesser nations foot the monthly electric bill and whatever then need in NYC.
I still believe the UN is a waste of time, money and effort.... Years ago, helping children with shots, food, water and ?,, I ahd no problem with, even this, has become a boondoggle.

 

[OkeeDon]

Re: "When a government takes the country to war on lies and misinformation,"

I just wish some liberals would wake to the fact that political correctness is a minority in the world!

Why single out "some liberals"? Is it OK if conservatives are asleep? Political Correctness is not limited to just one faction. It pisses me off when the term "liberals" is used in such a one-sided manner. I just wish that some conservatives would wake up to the fact that being liberal is not bad! Different, yes, but the mistakes made by liberals have been no worse than the mistakes made by conservatives. Please get off the "Holier than thou" high horse.

And, fair warning. This is not the place for a pissing contest. For every Al Sharpton you throw at me, I'll throw a David Duke at you, and more, and I can keep it up all day. Let's start with the premise that neither side is perfect, and move on from there.

 

[Cityboy]

Re: "When a government takes the country to war on lies and misinformation,"

The following link and excerpt is one of many instances of chemical agents found. One need only combine the chemicals to make persistent agents. I think those against the war and those ABB folks will automatically spin the findings as nothing significant. To these people, there can be no justification for anything that Bush does. I cannot help but wonder if John Kerry were president and we were in Iraq if these chemical findings would be lauded as WMD by the very same people who say it is not.



It helps if you realize that hundreds of thousands of people can be killed with one quart of nerve agent.



Again I ask: What constitutes WMD?





http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/13/AR2005081300530.html



By Ellen Knickmeyer

Washington Post Foreign Service
Sunday, August 14, 2005; Page A18

BAGHDAD, Aug. 13 -- U.S. troops raiding a warehouse in the northern city of Mosul uncovered a suspected chemical weapons factory containing 1,500 gallons of chemicals believed destined for attacks on U.S. and Iraqi forces and civilians, military officials said Saturday.

Monday's early morning raid found 11 precursor agents, "some of them quite dangerous by themselves," a military spokesman, Lt. Col. Steven A. Boylan, said in Baghdad.

 

[OkeeDon]

Re: "When a government takes the country to war on lies and misinformation,"

Here you go again, leaving out the most important part of the news report.

Boylan said the suspected lab was new, dating from some time after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. The Bush administration cited evidence that Saddam Hussein's government was manufacturing weapons of mass destruction as the main justification for the invasion. No such weapons or factories were found.

In other words, this did not exist at the time of our invasion. I hardly think a chemical lab that was created AFTER our invasion could be used as an excuse for our invasion.

I resent your continuing to try to define how I and others who blame Bush really think. You will never understand, and it's ludicrous for you to try. Leave out the trash talk about people you can't understand, and stick to the facts in the posts you make, and someone might listen to you. But then, you'd have nothing to say...

As for a definition of WMD, if you haven't seen one, it's because you haven't looked. Here is a link to the CIA's Comprehensive Report on Iraq's WMD. There are all the glossaries and definitions you ccould ever want.

 

[Dargo]

Re: "When a government takes the country to war on lies and misinformation,"

If they had spent a little more time listening to the Clinton advisors who were briefing them during the transition, maybe 9/11 would never have happened...

Uh, I recall numerous articles of the Clinton exit from the 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., and they were all wrought with information of the Clinton's and their administration stealing government property, destroying government property, and pardoning dangerous criminals. I don't recall much at all about the Clinton administration trying to be "fair" and brief anyone on anything. They were busy being the criminals we all know they are. The pictures and articles drew more of a high school mentality of sabatoge and looting rather than a respectful political administration. And, even worse, these articles were not from the much feared Fox News which appears to be less biased, but from the blatently biased CNN (Clinton News Network). How soon we forget this fact.

P.S. I do like your insight, as it makes me go look up things that I'd forgotten. I'd forgotten about all of the Clinton transition mess until you'd mentioned the transition. When looking up articles on the transition, I discovered all the stuff I'd forgotten about all the crap the Clinton administration pulled.

 

[OkeeDon]

Re: "When a government takes the country to war on lies and misinformation,"

Dargo, I remember those articles, too. And, I remember the reports a few days later saying the whole thing had been overblown and exxagerated. In a quick Google search, I found dozens of articles after a 16 month, $200,000 GAO investigation brought about by the Republicans. Here's a typical one:

[size=-1]"Sixteen months after Bush staffers complained that Clinton aides had trashed the White House, a report has found they could not prove serious vandalism, and that damage totaled at most $14,000, Democrats familiar with a draft audit said Angry Democrats who had scoffed at the accusations were quick to say 'I told you so' and said the investigation and subsequent report cost the federal government at least $200,000."

And another:

[/size]

[size=-1]The report indicated that the damage was fairly typical of that left by an outgoing administration, and we never saw Clinton getting up in arms about Poppy Bush's outgoing pranks, which are well documented in the report. The report also states vaguely that "it was unclear whether, in all cases, the reported incidents occurred, when they occurred, how many occurred, and who was responsible for them."

And yet another:

[/size]

[size=-1]For example, Bush aides announced to the media that a still-warm pizza crust had been left behind. However, it was proven that, as the Clinton folks had not been anywhere near the office for over 12 hours, it would have been a crust with such amazing thermal properties that maybe Bush ought to study IT as an alternative energy source!

I hate it when you guys continue to believe the absolute crap that has come out of the Bush administration!
[/size]
I also remember the reports about the transition talks. Those reports came out after 9/11. Some of them were from frustrated career administrators who were in both administrations and remember the way the Bush amatuers pooh-poohed whatever they heard from the Clinton people.

 

[Doc]

Re: "When a government takes the country to war on lies and misinformation,"

I guess it depends on your choosen side ....but I thought the taking of the W's from all the keyboards in the whitehouse as hilarious. (school boy kind of prank for sure, but I still thought it funny.)

Would they have done that if the 2000 election had gone like all other elections and W had won from the get go? I'd guess not, but I sure don't know.

 

[OkeeDon]

Re: "When a government takes the country to war on lies and misinformation,"

I'm getting a little tired of finding the evidence, and often proof, that most of what the conservatives believe is simply wrong. I have other things to do. May I make a simple request? Before you post any of the "conventional wisdom", please do your own research and provide the quotes or cite the proof to back up your claims. Why should I have to do all the work to educate you all?

However, please rest assured that if you don't do the research, I can, and I will.