Why?

[icenine]

Originally Posted by finnbow

I know your party's line. I also know it's bullshit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downing_Street_memo

Aren't you a member of the "party of personal responsibility?" It seems to me that Dubya launched a war on concocted BS or misread intel. In either instance, it was a monumental phuck-up for which he is responsible. Period.

I have always felt that GWB had a blank check after 911....rightfully so. His using it to invade Iraq (a goal never given up by Dick Cheney ) was a monumental lapse of judgement. There are three types of people
1. People who are smart and know what they doing. They are self-aware of their intelligence.
2. People who are not very smart but know that and seek council before acting.
3. People who are not smart and do not know they lack intelligence and cause great harm when they make decisions. Need I say more?

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by whell

Of course. Never said otherwise. It's just a much more likely scenario than all the half baked nonsense that the left likes to spew about the Iraq war.

I think you mean it would be a more palatable scenario for people of your political persuasion. In a general sense, I consider either possibility to be equally plausible but then there's the evidence, such as Paul O'Niell's book, the Bush Administration falsely linking Saddam Hussein to 9/11, the Downing Street Memo and the Niger Document, to consider. That makes the case pretty strongly that Bush and Cheney cooked up the whole deal.

John

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Boreas

I think you mean it would be a more palatable scenario for people of your political persuasion. In a general sense, I consider either possibility to be equally plausible but then there's the evidence, such as Paul O'Niell's book, the Bush Administration falsely linking Saddam Hussein to 9/11, the Downing Street Memo and the Niger Document, to consider. That makes the case pretty strongly that Bush and Cheney cooked up the whole deal.

John

... to which I'll add Cheney planting a story in the NYTimes, courtesy of Judith Miller, in which she reports on Saddam's WMD's. This is followed by Cheney referring to the story the following Sunday morning to make a case for going to war. Keep in mind that this is the party now bitching about national security leaks, to the NYTimes, no less.

[bhunter]

Originally Posted by Boreas

I think you mean it would be a more palatable scenario for people of your political persuasion. In a general sense, I consider either possibility to be equally plausible but then there's the evidence, such as Paul O'Niell's book, the Bush Administration falsely linking Saddam Hussein to 9/11, the Downing Street Memo and the Niger Document, to consider. That makes the case pretty strongly that Bush and Cheney cooked up the whole deal.

John

Iraq already had a long history of chemical weapons and at least an interest in obtaining biologicals and nuclear precursors when GW Bush was still snorting and drinking. I do not recall anyone disagreeing with the notion that Saddam had chemical weapons and likely wanted more WMDs. The intelligence available was probably not accurate, however, there was already continued significant transgressions from Iraq following the First Gulf War. Now, I agree completely with Finnbow that Saddam historically acted as a buffer in the region and that without a strong Iraq other state actors will fill that void. I suggest watching Russia, China, and India to see their overtures to the region. Christ, I sometimes miss the Cold War when things were somewhat simpler.

BTW, where'd you go Boreas?

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by bhunter

Iraq already had a long history of chemical weapons and at least an interest in obtaining biologicals and nuclear precursors when GW Bush was still snorting and drinking. I do not recall anyone disagreeing with the notion that Saddam had chemical weapons and likely wanted more WMDs. The intelligence available was probably not accurate, however, there was already continued significant transgressions from Iraq following the First Gulf War. Now, I agree completely with Finnbow that Saddam historically acted as a buffer in the region and that without a strong Iraq other state actors will fill that void. I suggest watching Russia, China, and India to see their overtures to the region. Christ, I sometimes miss the Cold War when things were somewhat simpler.
BTW, where'd you go Boreas?

Those big air raid sirens on top of a 100ft. mast rotating 360 degrees were kind of cool but the weekly bomb drills where they told us to place our heads firmly between your knees, I could've done without those.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by whell

The Downing Street memo: yes the left loves a good conspiracy.

And, the right doesn't?

Spare me.

Dave

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by bobabode

Those big air raid sirens on top of a 100ft. mast rotating 360 degrees were kind of cool but the weekly bomb drills where they told us to place our heads firmly between your knees, I could've done without those.

There was one on a pole just across the street from the house my ex and I were renting at the time. It went off at 2:00 AM one morning, so I phoned the duty officer and asked him if Ivan was on his way. He said he would look into it and shut it off. I worked at the local switching center at that time so I told him I could kill it in 15 minutes - how long it would take me to drive there. My ex was in panic mode and wanted to leave. I just looked at her and asked "and go where?"

[piece-itpete]

Hah! We're evil if we support brutal dictators and stupid if we take them out. Nice.

I'm proud of the purple fingers. Regardless of what happened, no one can take that experience away from them - they felt like Americans for a day

The war was for oil. But wait! We walked away, not because it was 'unwinnable' (we won it), but because they asked us to. Big bad imperial US.

I suspect the left hates Iraq because they hate Bush, and don't want him to get just credit for reshaping the entire Middle East.

Pete

[beej]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

Hah! We're evil if we support brutal dictators and stupid if we take them out. Nice.

I'm proud of the purple fingers. Regardless of what happened, no one can take that experience away from them - they felt like Americans for a day

The war was for oil. But wait! We walked away, not because it was 'unwinnable' (we won it), but because they asked us to. Big bad imperial US.

I suspect the left hates Iraq because they hate Bush, and don't want him to get just credit for reshaping the entire Middle East.

Pete

I can't speak for the left but I will say this about Iraq: it was a bad idea for a number of reasons not the least of which is the totally predictable sectarian violence that is rife throughout the country now. I don't hate Bush. I simply think he made a number of wrong headed decisions a couple of which led to some rather problematic ramifications beyond the decision itself, the doubling of the national debt for example.

[piece-itpete]

You do realise everybody believed Saddam was a giant problem, left or right, that were in the know? That is why there was nary a peep. It's something that deserves serious consideration.

Pete