in case you thought Patraeus was apolitical ...

[Infinity]

Well - they actually supported the invasion but lets say you're right - they would only bomb Iraq.

What would we bomb? Saddam? WMD sites? Infrastructure?

If we killed Saddam - it is now obvious civil war would have broken out and the resulting slaughter would be on a scale of Rwanda or worse (not to mention a Taliban-like regime probably eventually taking control). Essentially, the bomb-supporting Dems would then be responsible for unleashing unbelievable sectarian bloodhsed.

If you are going to bomb a country and leave it without leadership, protection, and resources - the humane thing to do is send in troops to help the civilians get back on their feet.

Oh no, i'm not saying that I would have supported an invasion had there even been WMD's. I would have definitely supported tougher sanctions, and would have definitely supported any other means besides war. And I didn't even mean that if we found WMD's the Democrats would have automatically supported the war. But the point I was trying to make is that yes, both Bush and Congress were pro-war. But Congress thought they were voting for the war based on the (now untrue) fact provided by the Bush administration that Iraq has WMD's. Bush on the other hand wanted to take out Saddam no matter what. That is the difference between the Democrats and Bush.

 

[anitram]

From these posts of hawks happily apportioning blame equally among the parties for this calamity in Iraq, one can only conclude that in fact, it is the far left, that has been the most correct on all of this from the beginning. I mean, the people who said Bush was an idiot and wouldn't be able to lead the nation into a reasonable war and had no plan and fudged the facts and manipulated the people into voting for him...well if you are apportioning blame to the Dems in Congress, I can only assume then that you would step up and accept that this faction is, in fact either blameless or the most blameless in the whole mess.

 

[Infinity]

Sorry, I was just confused by all those years where they were supporting air strikes, sanctions and thousands of sorties based on the facts that Iraq had failed to disarm and it had made links with Al Qaeda. Those policies were justified then on the basis of what they intelligence community was saying; I don't see how that line of thinking within a Gore administration would have changed after September 11.

Okay. Had Al Gore sent in weapons inspectors in late 2002 like Bush did, he first of all wouldn't have had them leave before their search was done. And he never would have gone to war with the no evidence of WMD's provided by the weapons inspectors. After that he probably would have looked for a connection with al-Qaeda or 9/11 and found none. And then he definitely wouldn't have supported a war with Iraq. ESPECIALLY since there were and still are bigger threats out there than Saddam's unpowerful regime.

 

[phillyfan26]

Dennis Kucinich and Barack Obama both opposed the war from the beginning. As in 2002.

There were 23 senators and 133 represenatives who opposed the war from the beginning.

Most of that oppositition was from the democratic side.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Okay. Had Al Gore sent in weapons inspectors in late 2002 like Bush did, he first of all wouldn't have had them leave before their search was done. And he never would have gone to war with the no evidence of WMD's provided by the weapons inspectors. After that he probably would have looked for a connection with al-Qaeda or 9/11 and found none. And then he definitely wouldn't have supported a war with Iraq. ESPECIALLY since there were and still are bigger threats out there than Saddam's unpowerful regime.

I don't think that either scenario can be stated with that level of certainty, but one may look at the actions of the previous administration to show that they were not afraid of justifying actions against Iraq on the basis of WMD and terrorism links. I suppose it is a moot point given that the world may get to see how that group would have reacted when presented with a Hillary Clinton presidency, I very much doubt she will be a dove.

 

[namkcuR]

Sorry, I think your thinking of the number that supports congress.

The dems are not advocating an immediate withdrawl and when it is handballed to the next administration they won't be able to do it, which is just chalking up one more aweful piece of politics for which the US only pays a fraction of the price for.

Draw Carey was on Real Time With Bill Maher, and he said that in an upcoming episode of The Power Of 10(which is a game show based on extensive polls taken of the American people), the question was asked, 'what percentage of Americans still support this war?', and the answer was 12%. Take it for what you will.

And as for the Dems not advocating an immediate withdrawl...that's just not true. It's just that Bush would veto any bill with anything of the sort in it, and the Dems don't have enough of Congress to override the veto, so it is an exercise in fruitility. If the Dems suddenly had enough Republicans in Congress willing to go along with it tomorrow, they'd have the bill written, they'd wait for Bush to veto, and then they'd override the veto with glee.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Draw Carey was on Real Time With Bill Maher, and he said that in an upcoming episode of The Power Of 10(which is a game show based on extensive polls taken of the American people), the question was asked, 'what percentage of Americans still support this war?', and the answer was 12%. Take it for what you will.

And as for the Dems not advocating an immediate withdrawl...that's just not true. It's just that Bush would veto any bill with anything of the sort in it, and the Dems don't have enough of Congress to override the veto, so it is an exercise in fruitility. If the Dems suddenly had enough Republicans in Congress willing to go along with it tomorrow, they'd have the bill written, they'd wait for Bush to veto, and then they'd override the veto with glee.

They won't because it would give credence to the narrative of betrayal that has been crafted over the last year.

 

[Infinity]

I don't think that either scenario can be stated with that level of certainty, but one may look at the actions of the previous administration to show that they were not afraid of justifying actions against Iraq on the basis of WMD and terrorism links. I suppose it is a moot point given that the world may get to see how that group would have reacted when presented with a Hillary Clinton presidency, I very much doubt she will be a dove.

Yes on the basis of WMD and terrorism links, I can see Al Gore going into Iraq. But not without those links. As far as Hillary goes, she won't be too dovish because she would go after terrorism if elected. But she won't be too hawkish because she won't go as far as invading non-democratic nations just to build a democracy. We have far too many other problems in the world to be worrying about spreading democracy. Neo-cons and their followers seem to think that with democracy comes an end to terrorism. But the two are not that correlated. There are terrorists in every single country, democracy or non-democracy. These are the people who are the real threat to America, not a nation such as Iraq under Saddam Hussein.

And how do we stop them? We need to get much tougher with illegal immigration. Right now, people don't seem to mind illegals from coming to the U.S. over the Mexican border. But has anyone ever thought that a terrorist can fly to Mexico and illegaly cross the border over the U.S.? Then we would really be screwed. We need to inspect ALL airplane cargo, ALL hand held luggage and ALL shipments coming into any U.S. port. These inspections must be done with the best explosive, bilogical agent, chemical agent, and nuclear weapon sensing devices. I know this seems unpractical, but we will need to spend hundreds of billions in order for this to happen. We would have gotten an enormously better Return on Investment had we spent the $500,000,000,000 on these tough homeland security measures rather then on building a nation in Iraq.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Yes on the basis of WMD and terrorism links, I can see Al Gore going into Iraq. But not without those links.

The point is that the last administration was making those links then as justification for bombing and crushing Iraq. Where do you think that VP Lieberman would have stood on the issue?

 

[anitram]

Where do you think that VP Lieberman would have stood on the issue?

On the wrong side, just like he's stood on the wrong side of everything else.

 

[Bluer White]

I don't see a President Al Gore pre-emptively striking Iraq. It probably would have been the same saber-rattling, and wrangling over UN inspectors' access to the country.

A President Lieberman? Maybe.

 

[AEON]

Dennis Kucinich and Barack Obama both opposed the war from the beginning. As in 2002.

And I respect them for that. I certainly don't agree with them on most issues - but at least they didn't vote to send troops in Iraq then leave try and leave them hanging once the popularity waned.

 

[BVS]

but at least they didn't vote to send troops in Iraq then leave try and leave them hanging once the popularity waned.

You keep saying this, but you haven't shown any evidence that this has occurred.

 

[Bluer White]

I can't think of a congressperson that would "leave the troops hanging." I'm sure plenty would vote for funding to bring the troops home, or to conduct a rapid redeployment.....but not for funding to further entrench us in Iraq.

The fact is that a vote against more funding is a statement about the war effort itself, not the soldiers fighting it. It may represent a change in position for some senators, particularly Democrats, but it's unfair to frame it as if they don't care about the troops.

 

[Infinity]

The point is that the last administration was making those links then as justification for bombing and crushing Iraq. Where do you think that VP Lieberman would have stood on the issue?

But that is what i'm saying. Al Gore using those links as a justification for bombing Iraq is different then George Bush bombing Iraq without any links and simply to "spread democracy." Al Gore would NEVER have done that.

President Lieberman? Yes I can see neo-con written all over him.



Bombing to "spread democracy."

 

[Irvine511]

Sorry, I was just confused by all those years where they were supporting air strikes, sanctions and thousands of sorties based on the facts that Iraq had failed to disarm and it had made links with Al Qaeda. Those policies were justified then on the basis of what they intelligence community was saying; I don't see how that line of thinking within a Gore administration would have changed after September 11.

doesn't the very fact that there was all this anti-Saddam rhetoric, and actions, all of which fell short of a war, from 1991-2003 essentially prove that no one thought the war launched by Bush was a good idea?

there's more than one way to "deal with" or "disarm" or support "regime change" short of invading with 150,000 troops?

there were rumors all through the Clinton years of the US having agents on the ground in Baghdad and working with anti-Saddam revolutionary forces. the policy then was regime change, only it was getting the Iraqis to do it for themselves with support from the US.

the difference is that Bush chose to change the regime using the US Army. and that's a big, big, big difference.

also, just how many Democrats have apologized for authorizing Bush to use force since 2002? all of the presidential candidates, except for HRC who has deftly avoided this.

also, just how many Democrats can reasonably say that authorizing Bush to use force, if necessary, was tantamount to giving him a carte blanche to march in whenever he wanted?

also, is it not reasonable to look at the Democrats in 2002 and say that they supported a policy that might have worked had we not had what is, hands down, the most incompetent administration, president, and sec of def in the history of the United States?

i find it very interesting how Bush-like this conversation has become. it's all very, "i believe on Wednesday what i believed on Monday no matter what happened on Tuesday."

and you'll all notice that AEON is doing what the Republicans are trying to do -- wash their hands and avoid any responsibility for this failure.

and it is a failure. a REPUBLICAN failure. the REPUBLICANS have lost ANOTHER war. and it is the REPUBLCIANS fault.

never forget that. hold their feet to the fire.

they held the presidency and both houses of congress from 2001-2006. iraq is your fault.

so fucking man up and take responsiblity for it and admit that you've failed and stop being like a man without a map who can't admit he's lost. all this talk about supporting the troops and, again, they are just political pawns being used to create another natioanl security narrative, like they did post-Vietnam, to get the armchair generals and angry white men to foist all of their "we didn't lose 'Nam it was a TIE" shame onto Cindy Sheehan and Jane Fonda and Susan Sarandon.

 

[Irvine511]

I can't think of a congressperson that would "leave the troops hanging." I'm sure plenty would vote for funding to bring the troops home, or to conduct a rapid redeployment.....but not for funding to further entrench us in Iraq.

The fact is that a vote against more funding is a statement about the war effort itself, not the soldiers fighting it. It may represent a change in position for some senators, particularly Democrats, but it's unfair to frame it as if they don't care about the troops.

traitor. why don't you just come out and say you hate the troops and have your picture taken with OBL.



(see, i went past the protests in DC this weekend, and this was essentially the position of the anti-protest protestors, the "gathering of eagles," position -- if you don't think the troops should stay in Iraq indefinitely then you hate them and hate american and should just go back to Russia with Jane Fonda)

 

[AEON]

and it is a failure. a REPUBLICAN failure. the REPUBLICANS have lost ANOTHER war. and it is the REPUBLCIANS fault.

How exactly is this war ONLY the Republicans fault? You said the current Dem candidates that voted for the war have apologized - is that all you need? They vote to send 150,000 troops into a country smack dab in the heart of the Middle East and put the lives of millions of Iraqi civilians at risk, and all they have to say is "I'm sorry" and you are fine with that?

I am sure you are a forgiving person. That's a good thing. I would hope that same sense forgiveness and understanding would extend to the Republicans that were also deceived by the faulty intelligence Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush have handed them.

 

[A_Wanderer]

The only deception was assuming that the signals sent by Iraq to prevent neighbours from threatening them actually had weight. Saddam maintained some elements from weapons programs, had to make Iran think that he was armed and had the intention of rearming when sanctions where inevitably lifted - dealing with that would have demanded coopting him, allow Iraqi oil to flow freely provided that the slaughter by the regime was done on the down-low and Iraqi weapons weren't used against western interests; but that is speculation based on policy towards other rogue allies and the inevitability of sanctions being lifted.

The actions under the CPA, the strategic decisions during the first two years that enabled insurgency and sectarianism to take root and the politically motivated decisions that squandered opportunity are where real accountability should be held; and it doesn't fall at the feet of the dems.

 

[anitram]

AEON, would you honestly sit there and apportion "guilt" (for lack of a better word) at 50/50?

 

[Bluer White]

Al Gore using those links as a justification for bombing Iraq is different then George Bush bombing Iraq without any links and simply to "spread democracy."

Spreading democracy didn't really come to forefront until we came up empty on the WMD search. WMD was the main sales pitch leading up to the invasion. That was the thrust of the argument Powell presented to the UN.

And as Saddam had clearly used chemical weapons, and not verifiably disarmed, it was a legitimate argument. It also turned out to be tragically tragically wrong.

 

[phillyfan26]

How exactly is this war ONLY the Republicans fault? You said the current Dem candidates that voted for the war have apologized - is that all you need? They vote to send 150,000 troops into a country smack dab in the heart of the Middle East and put the lives of millions of Iraqi civilians at risk, and all they have to say is "I'm sorry" and you are fine with that?

I am sure you are a forgiving person. That's a good thing. I would hope that same sense forgiveness and understanding would extend to the Republicans that were also deceived by the faulty intelligence Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush have handed them.

You seem to have missed most of his post. He clearly stated more than just an apology as his reasons.

And how is Clinton involved in this, other than him saying Saddam's probably a threat?

 

[anitram]

Spreading democracy didn't really come to forefront until we came up empty on the WMD search. WMD was the main sales pitch leading up to the invasion.

Wolfowitz's exact quote on the matter:

"The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on, which was weapons of mass destruction, as the core reason. There have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. Actually, I guess you could say there's a fourth overriding one, which is the connection between the first two."

So, don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining.

 

[Irvine511]

How exactly is this war ONLY the Republicans fault? You said the current Dem candidates that voted for the war have apologized - is that all you need? They vote to send 150,000 troops into a country smack dab in the heart of the Middle East and put the lives of millions of Iraqi civilians at risk, and all they have to say is "I'm sorry" and you are fine with that?

I am sure you are a forgiving person. That's a good thing. I would hope that same sense forgiveness and understanding would extend to the Republicans that were also deceived by the faulty intelligence Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush have handed them.

it's like with an alcoholic.

sure, there are enablers, but someone's drinking the whiskey and hitting his wife and driving drunk.

do you like this better: it's the REPUBLICANS who have LOST this war.

and, yes, i am fine with politicians saying, yes, i made a mistake. yes, i thought the people in this administration had more than three collective brain cells. no, i could never, ever have imagined it has been this mismanaged.

what matters is what's happened since then.

 

[maycocksean]

particularly Democrats, but it's unfair to frame it as if they don't care about the troops.

Thanks for that. I find the kind of "the Democrats hate the troops, the Democrats want us to lose" type of argument just the worst kind of dishonesty and cynical rabble rousing.

It's just naked propaganda.

 

[maycocksean]

Using the Democrat's concerns about Saddam, pre-9/11 against them is just wrong. Saddam was a concern--he DID have WMD at one time and he used them. He's the sort who might not have minded giving some friendly shelter to a terrorist group, but the war was an over-reaction to that concern. It still amazes me how people can't see that 9/11 to war in Iraq was NOT a logical progression. Regime change in Saudia Arabia maybe, but Iraq?

I don't have any objection to anyone suggesting the Dems were cowards. . .they were. I don't buy most of their "apologies." That's how they get around admitting they didn't have the guts to do the right thing.

But bottom line, it was the Bush administration that led the way, it was the Bush administration that bungled the execution, and it was Republicans and conservative-talk-show-listening America that both bought and sold the jingoistic bs that got us into this mess.

The Democrats need to apologize, not for being "wrong" but for being cowardly.

The Republicans need to apologize for being wrong.

And the American people who supported this fiasco need to turn Rush OFF and start thinking with their heads instead of responding to emotional manipulation.

 

[AEON]

AEON, would you honestly sit there and apportion "guilt" (for lack of a better word) at 50/50?

I think anyone who voted for the war is 100% "guilty" for starting the war.

However, I certainly blame Bush, Rumsfeld, and Bremer for poorly executing Phase II (after the initial toppling of the government). The only honorable thing left to do is to fix that mess. I think it is worth a shot for the sake of millions of lives.

 

[Irvine511]

The only honorable thing left to do is to fix that mess. I think it is worth a shot for the sake of millions of lives. [/B]

how do we fix it?

how long do we give something a "shot" before we determine that it's a bad policy?

 

[AEON]

how do we fix it?

how long do we give something a "shot" before we determine that it's a bad policy?

That what is a bad policy? The war or the way we are fighting it?

 

[Irvine511]

That what is a bad policy? The war or the way we are fighting it?

i'd argue both. and i'd argue it became policy the minute these fools in the White House thought that war was good policy.

it was screwed from the beginning. as the Far Left has said from the beginning, and i've agreed, and we've been right all along, it doesn't matter whether the war was a good idea implemented badly. it became a bad idea the minute Bush and Cheney and Co. cooked it up because these were precisely the wrong people to go about doing this.

it's all ultimately irrelevant. Bush, Gore, even Bush 1, would never have thought this war was a policy worth pusuing, whether it would have been good or not. because Bush 2 thought it worth pursuing, it became, by definition, a bad idea.