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

[nixon]

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

Okay, I'm out of my depth here. But didn't Iraq use chemical weapons on it's own citizens ? Didn't they use the against them against the Iranians ? Were they not developing weapons like the "super gun " that had a range of many more miles than could be explained as a defensive weapon ?
Sadam had a history of using weapons of "mass destruction " .
So I can see why it would be easy to think that He might be developing even more effective weapons ,and that reports to the contrary would be discounted given His past history . John

 

[Melensdad]

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

Okay, I'm out of my depth here.
But didn't Iraq use chemical weapons on it's own citizens ?
Didn't they use the against them against the Iranians ?
Were they not developing weapons like the "super gun " that had a range of many more miles than could be explained as a defensive weapon ?
Sadam had a history of using weapons of "mass destruction " .
So I can see why it would be easy to think that He might be developing even more effective weapons ,and that reports to the contrary would be discounted given His past history . John

• But didn't Iraq use chemical weapons on it's own citizens ?
• Didn't they use the against them against the Iranians ?
• Were they not developing weapons like the "super gun " that had a range of many more miles than could be explained as a defensive weapon ?
• Sadam had a history of using weapons of "mass destruction "

To question 1: YES
To question 2: YES
To question 3: YES, but evidence showed it destroyed
To question 4: YES

Seems to me you have a pretty good grasp of history.

 

[nixon]

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



Seems to me you have a pretty good grasp of history.

Not really Bob. But I was fortunate enough to Live in countries like Japan and Germany at a Young age . I was able to go to places like Dachau and East Berlin . I saw first hand what an out of control political system can wreak .
BTW why is this response coming out RED ? John

 

[Dargo]

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

Seems to me you have a pretty good grasp of history.

Not really Bob. But I was fortunate enough to Live in countries like Japan and Germany at a Young age . I was able to go to places like Dachau and East Berlin . I saw first hand what an out of control political system can wreak .
BTW why is this response coming out RED ? John

OMG! He has the "red" flu. Quick, somebody quarantine him before he spreads!

 

[nixon]

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

Brent, does quarantine mean I'm Banned ? If I promise never to do it again , will I be forgiven? I honestly don't know why the response came out red .
I sure as heck would have fixed it if I knew what I did wrong Besides , I don't think quoting ,or answering with colors is in vogue. That is unless My name was Lbrown John

 

[California]

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

• But didn't Iraq use chemical weapons on it's own citizens ?
• Didn't they use the against them against the Iranians ?
• Were they not developing weapons like the "super gun " that had a range of many more miles than could be explained as a defensive weapon ?
• Sadam had a history of using weapons of "mass destruction "

John

All good points. I think there can be honest disagreement on whether the US sanctions, flyovers, etc were sufficient to contain this lunatic. In my opinion the controls were maintaining a stable situation, and Saddam was prevented from rebuilding the materials he used up in 1991.

I think the sanctions, similar to the occupation of Japan and the way Germany was partitioned after WII, were working to prevent Saddam from becoming an international player again. He was awfully hard on his own citizens but I'm not convinced that the people, or at least the two larger of the three feuding ethnic groups, were receptive to replacing Saddam with democracy delivered from Christian America.

 

[OkeeDon]

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

• But didn't Iraq use chemical weapons on it's own citizens ?
• Didn't they use the against them against the Iranians ?
• Were they not developing weapons like the "super gun " that had a range of many more miles than could be explained as a defensive weapon ?
• Sadam had a history of using weapons of "mass destruction "

Yes, he used chemical weapons against his own citizens, although he did not see them as citizens with full rights. They were Kurds. To Saddam, it wouled have been just like our early days when we were trying to exterminate the Inidans. If there had been chemical weapons, Custer and the others would have used them.

Yes, he used them against Iranians. They were within range; they're next door to each other, and they were fighting a conventional war. He did not use them against us in '92 when we were advancing almost all the way to Baghdad. There were some isolated reports of minor use of chemicals in '92, but I think they were discounted later. There is no credible way he could have used them against the continental United States; they were no threat to us.

Don't know if he was developing a "Super Gun", but he did have some missles with a longer range than had been allow for defensive purposes. Neither had the range to reach the United States; they were no threat to us.

Many third-world countries and a bunch of tinhorn dictators have used even worse methods on their own citizens, have attacked their neighbors, and some have even developed nuclear weapons. Many have been much more active in their support of terrorists, and many have declared a more basic hatred of the United States. What was it about Iraq that set it apart and made it a candidate for a pre-emptive invasion rather than one of the other countries? If the logic that was used to justify our attack on Iraq fits many other countries, why haven't we attacked them? Some of the countries pose a more direct threat to us than Iraq did. Wouldn't it have made more sense to go after them, first? Many of the things that existed in Iraq also exist in our allies, such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Why is it OK for them and not for Iraq?

The only possible answer is that the Bush administration had some secret agenda behind their attack on Iraq. If that agenda had worked out, I'm sure we'd have all heard about it, by now. Because we haven't heard any good reason, my guess is that whatever the real reason was, it is no longer a viable option. In other words, all of the kids who have died really were killed for no good reason. If the Bush administration admits they can't complete the job and if they pull out early, then we'll know they are responsible for all those deaths.

For those reasons, and for the simple reason that they have NOT been able to be successful in more than 3 years and more than 2000 soldiers and more than $200 Billion, the people who are running this war must be fired immediately and give someone who knows what they are doing a chance.

 

[nixon]

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

I think the sanctions, similar to the occupation of Japan and the way Germany was partitioned after WII, were working to prevent Saddam from becoming an international player again. He was awfully hard on his own citizens but I'm not convinced that the people, or at least the two larger of the three feuding ethnic groups, were receptive to replacing Saddam with democracy delivered from Christian America.

The sanctions did little if anything to stop sadam . It did, however hurt his citizens. ( I'm thinking the Oil for food sanctions ) It made a few callous and greedy folks rich,kept saddam in power ,yet let the citizens of Iran suffer .
As to Your last statement . He was more than awfully hard . He practiced Genocide . As far as the population being receptive to our values ... You have a good point . But I believe they would be more receptive to some form of democracy over being held captive by a butcher,and His miscreant Sons .Also , how do You equate simple freedom with Christianity ? But then time will tell

 

[California]

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

Then today, after hearings in the Italian parliamentary secret services oversight commission:

"Italian secret services warned the United States months before it invaded Iraq that a dossier about a purported Saddam Hussein effort to buy uranium in Africa was fake, a[n Italian] lawmaker said Thursday after a briefing by the nation's intelligence chief.

Bah. Responding to my own post. That same Italian legislator has issued a correction :

"Commission member Sen. Massimo Brutti told reporters after the closed-door session that that the commission was told that the Italian secret services warned the United States in January 2003 that the dossier was fake.

But later, the senator called The Associated Press to retract that statement. He said that the commission was not told that the Italians had warned the Americans."
Revised news release

 

[Cityboy]

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

............ the people who are running this war must be fired immediately and give someone who knows what they are doing a chance.

Your chance to do just that is coming in the next presidential election.

I could argue either way that Saddam could have been left in place and kept control of the fanatical muslim lunatics, or that it was the right thing to do to take him out. The bottom line is that we are there now and we must see the mission through to completion. In the end, there might just be a representative republic in the middle east that will do much good for the future of the world. It could also turn into another muslim theocracy right next door to Iran. I do not know and no one else here knows either. We are all just speculating, regardless of which side we choose.

I do firmly believe that the continuing barrage of criticism coming from the political left in this country does nothing to help the situation and only encourages fanatical muslim terrorists to continue blowing themselves up and anyone else they can get close enough to to take out with them. I believe that the political left in this counrty is prolonging the war because our enemies in Iraq see these Americans on television deriding their own country and are encouraged by our very own citizens to keep fighting. This criticism from the left also is causing our troops to have to fight the war in a politically correct manner, fearing making a mistake in life and death combat and facing a court marshall as a result. I believe that the political left in this country is responsible for many of the 2000 KIA's because their anti-Bush rhetoric only encourages the enemy, plus the damage they cause to our troops morale. The left says they support our troops out of one side of their mouths while spouting just the opposite out of the other. You cannot have it both ways.

 

[California]

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

...I believe they would be more receptive to some form of democracy over being held captive by a butcher,and His miscreant Sons .Also , how do You equate simple freedom with Christianity ? But then time will tell

One problem with bringing democracy is that the minority Sunnis who held all the power would be outvoted and would lose control of the oil revenue to the Shiites and Kurds who lived in the oil-producing regions. They didn't want one man - one vote, rather they preferred Saddam's Golden Rule of whoever has the gold, rules. So it was in fact neccesary to displace the ruling party before any democracy could occur. Daily news indicates this is not going smoothly.

re. invasion by Christian nations - I think much of the Muslim world doesn't care to adopt western values and many over there feel they can't learn anything from us. Right or wrong, this is a cultural obstacle to sharing our political system.

Then when Bush initially referrred to the invasion as a 'Crusade' that didn't help matters since it means the same thing in Arabic as in English - a fight to the death for territory where both participants claim God is on their side. Thankfully the White House quickly abandoned that terminology when someone explained it to them. But I think they should have known this as part of the invasion planning.

 

[OkeeDon]

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

The bottom line is that we are there now and we must see the mission through to completion.

That's the first thing you've said on which we completely agree. I also agree that if we don't make any more mistakes, we might end up with something resembling a democracy there, and that would be a Good Thing. I surely hope so; believe it or not, no one would be happier to see the Bush strategy work -- now that we're there.

I can't speak for the so-called left; I only know that I truly support the troops, that I do not think we should leave before the job is done, and that we should not tie up the troops with poor strategy like we did in Vietnam. I think you'll find that the majority of people agree with me, left or right. I also suspect you'd see just as many people from the right speaking out against the way this war has been prosecuted if it wasn't for the fact that they need to stay on the good side of the administration.

Now that the initial mistake has been made and we are there, my problem is with the continuing mistakes that are being made. I only point out the intial mistake as part of my evidence that everything this administration has done has been wrong. We shouldn't be there, but if we are there, we should have sent the right equipment and protection, we should have done a better job in preventing the looting after we threw out the government; we should have had a better plan to get the country up and running; we should have had a better plan to get the oil industry up again; we should have been doing a better job right from the beginning of training the Iraqis; we shouldn't have fired the entire army until we had sorted the good from the bad; we should have done a better job of hanging onto the few allies we had; we should have done a better job of letting the Muslims in other countries know that this was not a religious war, and that we respected them. Those are just the mistakes I can think of off the top of my head.

In other words, this administration has done a LOUSY job of running this war, and that is entirely their own fault. You can't get away with blaming any of that on the left. I'll give my whole-hearted support to anyone with competence, right or left. I see no competence at present. They have to go, and 3 years is too long to wait. The President is the Commander in Chief, and if he had any balls, and if he wasn't so stupidly stubborn, he'd fire the bunch of them and get in someone -- anyone -- who can do a better job.

 

[Cityboy]

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

Things do appear bad in the mainstream news media, but do you truly believe you are getting the whole story? I don't. I silently grieve for every American that falls in Iraq. No one wants them home any more than me. But we have got to finish the job, and we have got to let them do what they are capable of doing. It will end so much faster if they are fully allowed to do what they are trained to do. The news medial needs to give them a break, and so do those who disapprove of Bush. There is one thing I do fault Bush for and that is giving in to the political correctness pressure being applied from the media and largely from the left. I believe this caving in to political correctness costs far too many lives. Yes, many on the right believe this could be done better, but they refrian from encouraging our enemies by public televised criticism of our country and its government.

 

[OkeeDon]

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

Give Us Your nominees.

I might start with that general who was fired when he correctly predicted that the war would take more men, more money and more time than was being proposed. I would get rid of Rumsfeld and beg Colin Powell to come back in, this time as Sec Defense, and let him name his own staff. I might depend more on that Lousiana general who suffered no nonsense after Katrina; I believe he's now working on training the Iraqis, and that's good.

I don't know who I'd name as Presidential Advisor, but anyone would be better than Rove. And, while it probably wouldn't be popular on this forum, I'd replace Condi Rice. I think she's in over her head. I don't know who should replace her; I think there are some recently retired Republican congressmen who know more about foreign policy and would make a good Sec State.

There are good people out there in the Republican party who would be acceptable to the public who elected Bush. There must be lots of those people who are pretty unhappy now; Bush's approval rating is down to 39%, and the rating on the way he's handlng Iraq is 38%. He couldn't be re-elected if the election was today.

 

[OkeeDon]

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

...but they refrian from encouraging our enemies by public televised criticism of our country and its government.

I understand your point. But, where do we draw the line? When is it more harmful to be silent and let the mistakes go on happening? When might it be better in the long run to point out that the emperor is naked? How long can we, in good conscience, let this continue without calling for change?

I repeat, I am NOT calling for the troops to be brought home before the job is done. We're stuck with the job; we have to do it. I will forever resent the fact that we're stuck with it, but that doesn't help the present situation. We have to get someone in charge, starting with Sec Defense and national security advisors, who will give better recommendations to the Commander in Chief. If he will NOT change his commanders, he should be impeached and removed from office.

During the Civil War, Lincoln changed commanders as often as he had to until he found competence. Truman fired MacArthur in the middle of a "war". Only Bush is continuing with the same people without showing any real progress in solving the basic problems. His people are telling him that it's working, and he's repeating it because he personally has no clue, while the kids are still being killed at a steady rate. Only our protests and his approval rating will finally convince him that he has to make changes!

 

[Dargo]

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

I might start with that general who was fired when he correctly predicted that the war would take more men, more money and more time than was being proposed. I would get rid of Rumsfeld and beg Colin Powell to come back in, this time as Sec Defense, and let him name his own staff. I might depend more on that Lousiana general who suffered no nonsense after Katrina; I believe he's now working on training the Iraqis, and that's good..

Okay, I'll go along with you on this one now that I've seen more of the recent developments/lack there of, and how he reacts. I'll go along with Powell. I read his book, I like his style.

I don't know who I'd name as Presidential Advisor, but anyone would be better than Rove. And, while it probably wouldn't be popular on this forum, I'd replace Condi Rice. I think she's in over her head. I don't know who should replace her; I think there are some recently retired Republican congressmen who know more about foreign policy and would make a good Sec State.

Gosh dang it! I knew this agreement wouldn't last long. You keep laying into my lady here, and I can't agree with you. I've read quite a bit by Condi, quite a bit about her, and quite a bit about how her grades were not "affirmative action" grades. She earned her own way. Sure she specialized in Soviet relations and the Soviet language and now that is not as important. However, it is actually still important. Also, have you tried to study Russian or the Cyrillic alphabet? It's no cake walk. I think she can do the job required of her.

There are good people out there in the Republican party who would be acceptable to the public who elected Bush. There must be lots of those people who are pretty unhappy now; Bush's approval rating is down to 39%, and the rating on the way he's handlng Iraq is 38%. He couldn't be re-elected if the election was today.

Yes, his rating is down. However, I would have to attribute some of that to the liberal media and CNN being effective in their goal of bringing his ratings down. I'd say 50/50; his own actions vs the media attacking.

 

[OkeeDon]

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

There are two factors at work when it comes to the media. First of all, their nature is to attack. At least, it has been since Lyndon Johnson, Vietnam, the 60's, the assassinations, all the things that turned society upside down. Before that, reporters reported. Now, they attack. It also doesn't hurt that it sells newpapers and TV advertising.

There is no liberal media. They attacked Nixon, Carter, they attacked Reagan, they attacked Clnton. They have convinced themselves that they are doing it for the public good.

The other factor is more interesting. Essentially, while one can argue about whether or not they should be attacking all the time, the fact is that for the most part they attack what is vulnerable. For example, they rarely attacked the policies under Clinton. That's not because they were lefties; it's because those policies largely worked and were good for the nation. However, they did attack him personally, because personally he was pretty much of a cad, and wide open for attack.

On the other hand, they don't attack Bush much on a personal basis, except his speech patterns, where he is , indeed, vulnerable to attack. However, his personal life, since he gave up boozing and such, is pretty much unassailable. He's also a pretty likable guy. However, he is pretty clueless. I'm not saying he's dumb; he managed to get a Yale degree, so he does have some brains. What I'm saying is that he doesn't know how to use them, and doesn't know when he's being foxed by his so-called people. He doesn't seem to be able to acknowledge a mistake even when it splits open in front of him. So, he's vulnerable, and he's attacked, for his policies, or more precisely because of his lack of policies. "Stay the course" and "tax cuts". What else is there?

Now, about Condi. Of course, she's darned intelligent. She sure has got all that stuff memorized. Doesn't mean she can think, however. I think she's in over her head because she has learned certain responses to certain situations and isn't intellectually creative enough to handle situations where her previously-learned responses don't work. I think there's also some circular logic in play: George supports her because he thinks she knows more than she does, and she thinks she knows more because George supports her. Of all the administration posers, I think she is the most innocent, because I don't think she has a private agenda. I think that the dangerous ones, like Rove and Cheney, tolerate her because they know she's not doing any harm. But, they're actually running things, not her -- or George.

I like her, too, and I admire her for the things she's good at. When this is all over, I hope she gets a position as a major university president. I think she'll do an excellent job. But, Madelaine Albright can think circles around her.

 

[LarryRB]

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

I like her, too, and I admire her for the things she's good at. When this is all over, I hope she gets a position as a major university president. I think she'll do an excellent job. But, Madelaine Albright can think circles around her.

Not fact Don, you are posting your own personal opinion.. I heard the first go around with Iraq under the Clinton administration that he sent Albright and the Joint Chiefs of staff to a meeting in Europe. When she walked in and asked, OK gentlemen, shall we make love or war, Of course we know what happened since.,.

 

[OkeeDon]

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

And, you really believe that? Provide some facts to back it up. You're making a specific accusation, not stating an opinion. Of course what I said about Condi was an opinion, and I did not make any specific accusations I could not back up. In other words, I didn't tell any made-up stories about her.

Wasn't it one of Bush I's female state department folks that met with Saddam shortly before the war and reassured him that we were on his side? Ah yes, found it -- April Glaspie. Here is the actual transcript of her meeting with Saddam.

Many people believe it was the direct cause of Saddam's invasion of Kuwait; Glaspie in essence gave him permission. Without that invasion, Bush I would not have trailed him almost to Baghdad before pulling out, and without that failure, Bush II probably would not have invaded. That's my opinion, too.

 

[OkeeDon]

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

Getting back to the original topic of this thread, lies and misreprentation, I happened to stumble across a reference to something I had forgotten, the almost -humorous duct tape scare back when the Bushies were trying to convince us about the threat. Remember when almost everyone rushed out to buy duct tape because they were advised to use it to seal their windows against an Iraqi chemical attack? Priceless.

 

[OkeeDon]

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

Many of the folks on the forum profess to be Libertarians. Well, here's the text of a speech by a leading libertarian on the subject of the Iraq war. See how many of the concepts are similar to what I've been saying and then try to pin a political label on me...

 

[Cityboy]

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

[

There is no liberal media. They attacked Nixon, Carter, they attacked Reagan, they attacked Clnton. They have convinced themselves that they are doing it for the public good.

There was a poll conducted some years ago as to the political beliefs of American news media reporters. Around 85% described themselves as liberal and that they voted primarily democrat. The fact that the mainstream media is liberal is not even debatable. Sure, the remaining 15% of reporters may not be, but there is still the 85%. There are many leftover crusaders from the anti-Vietnam era. Was Clinton really attacked? Only by talk radio. He got a pass on nearly everything else, including attempting to socialize our health care system. The lying under oath issue was swept back under the rug post haste. No, the mainstream media loved Clinton. Still does, because they are indeed a liberal media.

He's also a pretty likable guy. However, he is pretty clueless. I'm not saying he's dumb; he managed to get a Yale degree, so he does have some brains. What I'm saying is that he doesn't know how to use them, and doesn't know when he's being foxed by his so-called people.

The media and the left continue to "misunderestimate" Bush. He's dumb like a fox and he will win in the end. The media and the left are gleeful at the poll numbers right now, but the fact is, Bush is not up for reelection, and we have the lives of our troops at stake. Every time the media and the left criticize Bush, they critcize America in the eyes of the world, hence reenergizing the enemy and ultimately prolonging the war and killing more of our troops.

I like her, But, Madeline Albright can think circles around her.

Madeline Albright thinking circles around Condoleeza Rice?? I think not. Clinton never surrounded himself with extremely bright people who might outshine him or even share the spotlight with him for that matter. He did not have to with a willing press corp at his feet. Just look at his choice of Joycelyn Elders as Surgeon General. She was a complete buffoon. I was sad to see Clinton fire her though, because you just never knew what she was going to say next, and like her or not, that woman was funny. "Saturday Night Live" gained a lot of free material from those two Clinton ladies.

 

[Cityboy]

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

Many of the folks on the forum profess to be Libertarians. Well,

here's the text of a speech by a leading libertarian on the subject of the Iraq war. See how many of the concepts are similar to what I've been saying and then try to pin a political label on me...

I consider myself a "conservative libertarian" Note that I place conservative ahead of libertarian. I differ from the libertarians in that I believe America should continue to be a superpower and wield the biggest sword with the strongest military on the planet and that occasionally we might need to protect our economic and security interests abroad.

I differ with the conservatives in that I think we should end the drug war and just legalize the stuff. The national savings would be astronomical. I also believe if you want to be a butt plooking homosexual, then go for it. Just don't try to recruit our children into your lifestyle or teach butt plooking techniques in the public schools. What consenting adults do is their business though I do find it impossible to imagine how one man can look into another man's fuzzy butt and find love.

If a woman chooses to stop the beating heart of the child that is growing within her, so be it. She will have to deal with that decision and reconcile with her own creator. Juvenile females should have to consult their parents.

My bottom line is that if you are not violating anyone else’s rights or intruding on someone else’s privacy, then have at it.

Economically speaking, I believe the government should spend no more than is absolutely constitutionally necessary to support our required infrastructure and military. Welfare only for the truly disabled who cannot help themselves and not for the brood-mares who continue to download the fatherless thugs on society. The government should get out of the way and allow people to accumulate as much wealth as they are capable of accumulating in their lives and not punish the achievers in society with confiscatory tax rates.

OK. Label me now.

 

[Gwill]

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

I truly don't understand how anyone can defend such stupidity.__________________
...Don

Excuse me but I'm new here and just trying to catch up on some of these threads. The "stupidity" you speak of isn't hard to understand. You seem like a fairly intelligent man, merely misguided in your beliefs. Try this... If you disagree that lowering taxes stimulates the economy enough to increase total revenue, as it has every time it has been done, why not advocate raising taxes on all income enough so the government can give everyone everything they might want? How about raising them to something like 100%? Sounds silly doesn't it? That's the logical extention of your position. I learned about killing the goose long ago.

 

[California]

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

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

And finally today we see how it all works.

Send an ambassador (and possibly CIA man) over to get the facts.

Ignore his report. Tell the public the opposite. Smear the ambassador and his wife.

Evade responsibility for the smear. Falsely claim a persistent reporter was the source.

Finally today

"Scooter" Libby was found guilty Tuesday of obstruction of justice and perjury in connection with the scandal over the leak of a CIA agent's identity.

Liberal Media (AFP) story: Former White House aide guilty in trial of CIA spy leak