Carter: Bush's Impact 'Worst in History'

[allvol123]

Please make some sense out of this for me. I have no clue what point you're trying to make.

You said "we're paying for it". How are you paying for it?

The second one speaks for itself.

 

[TennNC]

Who cares if we were told, a 5 year old could see there was and is.

You will never get 100% certainly on something like this, if that was the case, then it wouldn't really take a decision. Now would it?

I am still amused at how hung up people are on WMD's. Tell me again how the mass graves in Iraq were formed?

Why would a 5-year-old know that? Please tell me.

Good point on the 100% certainty thing. I'm sure all the family and friends of those who have died are okay with the fact that we didn't know for sure whether it was a worthwhile venture. And yeah, if there's not some doubt or gamble or risk, then it's not much fun, is it? Especially when you're talking about something as fun as war.

I'm truly sorry that you're amused by the fact that the single reason for us going to war that has cost us thousands of troops' lives, hundreds of billions of dollars, and our reputation, was bogus. I'm saddened by mass graves. But we didn't commit to this b/c of mass graves.

 

[volinbham]

1) Would love to see those quotes.
2) I don't care what the Dems said - it was the WH's decision to push to go to war.
3) The debate always was about WMD - that was the entire debate, and to pretend otherwise is revisionist history at best and delusion at worst.
4) The reason for going might have been to stabilize the region, but that wasn't the reason given to us. It was that Saddam has WMD and we have to prevent him from using them, mainly against us.

Numbers 3 and 4 are the revisionist history. There was little debate about the presence of WMD (had there been more debate perhaps the outcome would be different). There was even very little debate in the UN about it. 1441 was an acknowledgement of this lack of debate - the debate centered around the proper actions for Saddam's definance of 1441 and other resolutions.

WRT #4: The stability argumenat was there from the beginning, as was the democracy argument (the pathway to stability) as was the enforcement of previous treaty and UN sanctions. All these reasons were stated repeatedly. The WMD argument carried the most weight but if you go back to the leadup you will see ALL the reasons mentioned.

 

[allvol123]

Why would a 5-year-old know that? Please tell me. Because that is how simple it is to see.

Good point on the 100% certainty thing. I'm sure all the family and friends of those who have died are okay with the fact that we didn't know for sure whether it was a worthwhile venture. And yeah, if there's not some doubt or gamble or risk, then it's not much fun, is it? Especially when you're talking about something as fun as war. So when people volunteer to join the military they are 100% certain they will only go to war if the need for war is 100%? Brilliant. Who said anything about fun, you are getting lost.

I'm truly sorry that you're amused by the fact that the single reason for us going to war that has cost us thousands of troops' lives, hundreds of billions of dollars, and our reputation, was bogus. I'm saddened by mass graves. But we didn't commit to this b/c of mass graves. Be more amused by your ability to assume things. Who said we caused the mass graves? I asked how did they happen?

Your answers in bold.

 

[TennNC]

The second one speaks for itself.

Ummmmm....no it doesn't.

 

[allvol123]

Ummmmm....no it doesn't.

OK then, where was our support from the muslim world before we entered Iraq, since our being there is the reason for non-support from them now?

 

[volinbham]

Some quotes from the 2003 State of the Union speech - just prior to the war.

Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained.

Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans, this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known.

We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes.

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?

If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.

The world has waited 12 years for Iraq to disarm. America will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country and our friends and our allies.

A direct statement saying the threat is not imminent and that we cannot wait until it is.

A statement saying if the threat is allowed to become imminent (fully and suddenly emerge)

A statement saying the threat is serious and growing - not that it is imminent (about to occur).

 

[volinbham]

Speaking of threats - some of my favorite Democratic quotes about the "threat"

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

 

[TennNC]

Your answers in bold.

Actually, I only asked one question, so technically I should only get one answer. But since you brought up so many more topics, I'll address them.

A 5-year-old would only come to this conclusion if they were brainwashed from birth to believe that anyone who lives in Middle East outside Israel is a terrorist. Sounds prejudicial, ignorant and backward. And Afghanistan was the focus of that mission, not Iraq.

Military members probably know they could get sent to an unjustified war, but I'm sure they hope that any mission they go on will be justified. And if they were all supportive of this, there probably wouldn't be so much unabashed criticism of the whole thing like this:

Iraq Veterans Against the War

Regardless, you don't gamble with war, especially when you're the one who started it. You make sure it's the only option before you're willing to send someone's brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, children, friends, off to die.

Finally, I said that we didn't commit to war b/c of mass graves, not that we committed deaths that led to mass graves. But anyway, I think you already know how the mass graves were formed, and you know what? This has been happening there since the beginning of time. So for us to think we'd go in there and solve it is incredibly naive, and again, wasn't the reason given for going to war in the first place!

 

[TennNC]

Speaking of threats - some of my favorite Democratic quotes about the "threat"

I appreciate your thoroughness, Bham, I really do. I'm not being sarcastic - as a former reporter, I am persuaded by facts, not by assumptions.

So we agree that Kerry was a weenie, esp. leading up to the elections. A lot of Dems played along and riled people up just like Republicans. For the record, note that a lot of Dems actually opposed the war from the beginning and were mocked for being cowards.

But as I said before, this debate isn't about the Dems. It's about the WH drumming up support for a war (from people like me) and then being flat wrong about the REASON for going to war.

 

[BigPapaVol]

Iraq Veterans Against the War

Regardless, you don't gamble with war, especially when you're the one who started it. You make sure it's the only option before you're willing to send someone's brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, children, friends, off to die.

Yeah, the Iraq vets against the war are very representative of the military.

What were the other options WRT Iraq?

 

[TennNC]

Some quotes from the 2003 State of the Union speech - just prior to the war.





A direct statement saying the threat is not imminent and that we cannot wait until it is.

A statement saying if the threat is allowed to become imminent (fully and suddenly emerge)

A statement saying the threat is serious and growing - not that it is imminent (about to occur).

And for every one of these, there was at least one other telling us how much we should feel threatened by Saddam. That was the whole point - that the threat was serious. And they had to make us feel that it was serious. When in reality we know the whole point of going to war, for Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, was that we should use our force to gain power and influence - it had been too long, and we needed to flex our muscles.

 

[allvol123]

The unabashed criticism comes from the know nothings in the media. Keep saying how we are "paying for this". What are you paying? The majority of Americans(myself included) have no idea what it is like to be faced with a war that causes them to sacrifice anything. Exactly what are you paying? What has you so worried over a war that I doubt impacts your life in any direct way? America was plenty justified in going to war and as VBH has pointed out, both sides of the aisle agreed. So again, not sure where you were ever duped.

 

[TennNC]

Yeah, the Iraq vets against the war are very representative of the military.

What were the other options WRT Iraq?

I didn't say they were "very representative" of the military, but I will say that it's telling that so many people who are trained to never speak ill of the commander in chief are so compelled to now speak out against him.

Here's one other option for Iraq: The same thing we had done for the previous 12 years that didn't result in the deaths of thousands of people or cost us hundreds of billions or our reputation around the world. Not going to war sometimes is better than going to war.

 

[BigPapaVol]

And for every one of these, there was at least one other telling us how much we should feel threatened by Saddam. That was the whole point - that the threat was serious. And they had to make us feel that it was serious. When in reality we know the whole point of going to war, for Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, was that we should use our force to gain power and influence - it had been too long, and we needed to flex our muscles.

we went for exercise. that makes a lot of sense. a group of reasonably bright people, regardless of ilk, wanted to put our soldiers in harm's way, spend billions and lose 100% of their political capital because they BELIEVED we needed to flex our muscles. that makes tremendous sense.

 

[volinbham]

I appreciate your thoroughness, Bham, I really do. I'm not being sarcastic - as a former reporter, I am persuaded by facts, not by assumptions.

So we agree that Kerry was a weenie, esp. leading up to the elections. A lot of Dems played along and riled people up just like Republicans. For the record, note that a lot of Dems actually opposed the war from the beginning and were mocked for being cowards.

But as I said before, this debate isn't about the Dems. It's about the WH drumming up support for a war (from people like me) and then being flat wrong about the REASON for going to war.

They were wrong about the reason but that "wrongness" was widely shared and taken as fact.

Here's a more comprehensive list of Dem statements ranging across the leadership that asserts WMD are real, the threat was real and removing SH was justified under this belief setting. Interesting to note is that many of these statements predate the Bush Adm. In other words, they inhereted a security belief that was virtually set in stone prior to their term. This includes harsh WH critics such as Levin, Gore, Pelosi, Reid, Schummer, Kennedy, etc.

http://www.freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html

The term "reason" is a tricky one. The Neo-con strategy clearly extends beyond WMD and is grounded in the view of regional transformation. This was no secret (openly discussed) as was the idea of liberation (throughout the State of the Union speech). WMD was the hot button but the deeper strategic intent behind removing SH was always there and openly discussed.

I realize many feel duped. I do not. I spent a ton of time during the lead up getting every viewpoint I could. Many of the claims I hear now (such as imminent threat) are bothersome since careful listening revealed that was not the case being made. Neither was a case made that SH had anything to do with 9/11. Rather it was a case that he might help facilitate future 9/11's. Bottomline, hindsight shows the war was a mistake on many fronts. At the time, that was nowhere near as clear.

 

[volinbham]

And for every one of these, there was at least one other telling us how much we should feel threatened by Saddam. That was the whole point - that the threat was serious. And they had to make us feel that it was serious. When in reality we know the whole point of going to war, for Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, was that we should use our force to gain power and influence - it had been too long, and we needed to flex our muscles.

Again, read the link I posted. Virtually all (both Dem and Rep) viewed the threat as serious and said so repeatedly.

Then read what is being said. The threat is serious - we need to do something before it becomes imminent. This is where the heart of the debate was - do you take pre-emptive strategy. Prior to 9/11, the answer was clearly no. Post 9/11, pre-emption seemed like a better idea (even to the many Dems that supported it). After Iraq, pre-emptive action will be unlikely for some time (for better or worse depending on your view)

 

[allvol123]

Here's one other option for Iraq: The same thing we had done for the previous 12 years that didn't result in the deaths of thousands of people or cost us hundreds of billions or our reputation around the world. Not going to war sometimes is better than going to war.

Great option, do nothing. Sit on the bench. Actually not doing anything did cost thousands of people their lives when we abandoned this cause the first time around. I could not care less about the US reputation in France, Ethiopa, Turkey or any other country.

 

[TennNC]

we went for exercise. that makes a lot of sense. a group of reasonably bright people, regardless of ilk, wanted to put our soldiers in harm's way, spend billions and lose 100% of their political capital because they BELIEVED we needed to flex our muscles. that makes tremendous sense.

I'm as baffled as you are.

From the Christian Science Monitor:

US News / Special: Empire Builders / Neocon 101 | Christian Science Monitor

"What do neoconservatives believe?

"Neocons" believe that the United States should not be ashamed to use its unrivaled power – forcefully if necessary – to promote its values around the world. Some even speak of the need to cultivate a US empire. Neoconservatives believe modern threats facing the US can no longer be reliably contained and therefore must be prevented, sometimes through preemptive military action.

Most neocons believe that the US has allowed dangers to gather by not spending enough on defense and not confronting threats aggressively enough. One such threat, they contend, was Saddam Hussein and his pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. Since the 1991 Gulf War, neocons relentlessly advocated Mr. Hussein's ouster."

 

[TennNC]

Great option, do nothing. Sit on the bench. Actually not doing anything did cost thousands of people their lives when we abandoned this cause the first time around. I could not care less about the US reputation in France, Ethiopa, Turkey or any other country.

Dude, you've lost all cred with me. The others might not agree with me, and that's fine. But I respect them b/c they're not manipulating what I write.

Check the post - I never said "do nothing." I said "not going to war." We actually did a lot during those 12 years without stirring up a hornet's nest. And I also don't believe it's America's job to police the world. Do you?

 

[allvol123]

Dude, you've lost all cred with me. The others might not agree with me, and that's fine. But I respect them b/c they're not manipulating what I write.

Check the post - I never said "do nothing." I said "not going to war." We actually did a lot during those 12 years without stirring up a hornet's nest. And I also don't believe it's America's job to police the world. Do you?

We basically did nothing the previous 12 years.

Not sure I should answer your question since I have lost all "cred" with you.

But I will. No I do not believe in policing the world. But I have no problem with this war, well I have some problems with how it is being fought, but in totality I do not have a problem with going into this war. Coming off of being hit in the back of the head on 09/11 a member of the party that socializes with the gang that did the smacking continued to antagonize the situation. He got what he deserved.

 

[TennNC]

Again, read the link I posted. Virtually all (both Dem and Rep) viewed the threat as serious and said so repeatedly.

Then read what is being said. The threat is serious - we need to do something before it becomes imminent. This is where the heart of the debate was - do you take pre-emptive strategy. Prior to 9/11, the answer was clearly no. Post 9/11, pre-emption seemed like a better idea (even to the many Dems that supported it). After Iraq, pre-emptive action will be unlikely for some time (for better or worse depending on your view)

And what I'm saying is that the threat was NOT serious. We were told that it was serious, and as a result many of us believed it. If it had been serious we would've found WMDs.

I don't know in the next instance whether pre-emption would be better than reacting, but I agree with what you pointed out: that pre-emptive action, and any military action in general, has taken a hit b/c of Iraq. This administration cried wolf, and it's going to be hard to believe (or support) the next person who says we need to take action.

 

[BigPapaVol]

I'm as baffled as you are.

From the Christian Science Monitor:

US News / Special: Empire Builders / Neocon 101 | Christian Science Monitor

"What do neoconservatives believe?

"Neocons" believe that the United States should not be ashamed to use its unrivaled power – forcefully if necessary – to promote its values around the world. Some even speak of the need to cultivate a US empire. Neoconservatives believe modern threats facing the US can no longer be reliably contained and therefore must be prevented, sometimes through preemptive military action.

Most neocons believe that the US has allowed dangers to gather by not spending enough on defense and not confronting threats aggressively enough. One such threat, they contend, was Saddam Hussein and his pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. Since the 1991 Gulf War, neocons relentlessly advocated Mr. Hussein's ouster."

And US News is THE source for perspective on Neocons, given their penchant for bipartisanship. By the absurd definition printed, there are no neocons.

Nonetheless, I agree with the notion that preventative action has become a necessity today given the non linear nature of modern conflict. One thing we can be sure of - Iraq will no longer sponsor terrorism nor will they sell a nuke to those who would harm us. I'm sure to hear some retort about they now hate us and we're creating enemies today, but I would ask - what's frickin new?

 

[BigPapaVol]

And what I'm saying is that the threat was NOT serious. We were told that it was serious, and as a result many of us believed it. If it had been serious we would've found WMDs.

I don't know in the next instance whether pre-emption would be better than reacting, but I agree with what you pointed out: that pre-emptive action, and any military action in general, has taken a hit b/c of Iraq. This administration cried wolf, and it's going to be hard to believe (or support) the next person who says we need to take action.

that's lame as well. Given a set of facts that merit military response, we will act accordingly.

 

[allvol123]

And what I'm saying is that the threat was NOT serious. We were told that it was serious, and as a result many of us believed it. If it had been serious we would've found WMDs.

You refuse to answer how the kurds wound up with mass graves? What was used? No WMD's? People really get hung up on this "no WMD" thing. Guess what, the hi-jakcers on 09/11 didn't have their own WMD's either.