Seems to me this is inappropriate (via Drudge):
The Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C., the current home of hundreds of wounded veterans from the war in Iraq, has been the target of weekly anti-war demonstrations since March. The protesters hold signs that read “Maimed for Lies” and “Enlist here and die for Halliburton.”
The anti-war demonstrators, who obtain their protest permits from the Washington, D.C., police department, position themselves directly in front of the main entrance to the Army Medical Center, which is located in northwest D.C., about five miles from the White House.
Among the props used by the protesters are mock caskets, lined up on the sidewalk to represent the death toll in Iraq.
Code Pink Women for Peace, one of the groups backing anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan’s vigil outside President Bush’s ranch in Crawford Texas, organizes the protests at Walter Reed as well…
Kevin Pannell, who was recently treated at Walter Reed and had both legs amputated after an ambush grenade attack near Baghdad in 2004, considers the presence of the anti-war protesters in front of the hospital “distasteful.”
When he was a patient at the hospital, Pannell said he initially tried to ignore the anti-war activists camped out in front of Walter Reed, until witnessing something that enraged him.
“We went by there one day and I drove by and [the anti-war protesters] had a bunch of flag-draped coffins laid out on the sidewalk. That, I thought, was probably the most distasteful thing I had ever seen. Ever,” Pannell, a member of the Army’s First Cavalry Division, told Cybercast News Service.
N ow, this is CNS News, so consider the source. And, I am sure that a few of you will accuse me of, well, something, for just printing this. I don’t care what you think. I do, however, care what the rest of you think about this.
M. Scott Eiland
Elaborate rationalizations containing the words “chimp,” “Dear Leader,” “fascist,” and whatnot from the usual suspects coming in 5, 4. . .
Joe Albanese
The ever open-minded John Cole –
aaron
If someone truly believes that the current policy is actually abusing our military and is causing young men and women to die and be maimed for what they believe is a dubious reason…should they remain silent? Perhaps it may be crude to do it at Walter Reed…but these protesters wish to draw attention to the 10s of thousands of wounded. They believe (right or wrong) that they are trying to prevent anymore people from ending up at Walter Reed for an optional war against a non-threat.
Tim F
The same impulse that drives airheaded direct-action on the left…drives airheaded direct-action on the right. Some people will always use some topical issue to feed their self-rightous need to act out. If you want to blame a huge collective segment of society for its worst doofuses then it’s clear that when you said you hate everybody you meant it literally. We all belong to a group that can be discredited by the membership of some screwball.
capelza
Honestly, not to snark, but is this one of Drudge’s “developing” stories?
I have to admit that anything from CNS News immediately raises my BS meter, however.
If it’s true, it is wrong.. WHy not do the same thing outside Arlington, seems more appropriate anyway.
ppGaz
I think that the people demonstrating outside Walter Reed are an embarassment to my side of the political fence, and should take their activities elsewhere. There is a time and place for everything, and these assholes apparently don’t know that. I agree with John 100%. If the report is accurate, the assholes should be ashamed of themselves.
BinkyBoy
Who says they are on your side of the political fence? Quit looking at everything in black and white. There is color in there as well, a whole range of spectrum that you ignore.
But I think the best way to get rid of the protesters is to just close the hospital all together.
Mike
Wonder when they’ll start spitting on the troops and calling them baby-killers?
Blue Neponset
Et tu, John?
Tim F
To say my post differently, The American Left is not The American Left. It’s an awkward lumping-together of several hundred million unique individuals.
Kos:
So do I.
If we want to talk about inappropriate messaging we can perhaps talk about this as well. I don’t think many parents appreciate the graves of their children being forcibly turned into political propaganda.
Joe Albanese
Here is an article in the Stars and Stripes (no left wing rag) that explains what the vigil is all about. Its about supporting the troops not dishonering them. But once again everyone sees what they want through their partisan filter. A snippet from the article:
Joe Albanese
And if anyone is REALLY interested in the motivations of the protestors why not read what THEY say about it:
.
Brad R.
This should be filed under “Disgusting, if true.” But since it came from Drudge via CNS, I’ll withold judgement.
Cyrus
Are you joking, John? This is fucking fantastic!
What we’re seeing here is probably the most tasteless, most extremist, most out-there-on-the-fringe large and unified group there is on the left. And what are they doing at a veteran’s hospital, according to someone clearly (judging by the irrelevant quote thrown in there from the Castro supporter) looking for the worst? They’re getting permits to protest the administration.
I’m way too young to remember Vietnam, and I did read a debunding of the urban legend that soldiers were literally spat on by protesters, but even so I gather that there was a pretty strong anti-soldier mood. I understand the pacificist movement then was less a pragmatic thing like it is now – now 90% of people are only saying “obey the law,” “do it right” or “there was a better way,” despite whatever news reports DougJ and Darrell watch – and more of a dogmatic movement where soldiers were murderers. Flower children and all that.
But here we have the most tasteless, extremist fringe protesters… and according to this, they don’t have one single nasty word for the soldiers.
Insensitive, rude, offensive, I hope they aren’t bothering the veterans any more than their message itself would, if it goes beyond what they have a permit for then jail is (probably) appropriate… but the next time someone accuses liberals of hating the troops, I’ll try to remember to laugh and point them to this article.
ppGaz
What the fuck are you talking about? Sorry, I guess I should have written a 20,000-word essay on the subject. Careful, or I might.
You don’t know enough about how I “look at everything” to make any comment about it, because you haven’t talked to me, and you haven’t asked. All you’ve seen is some one-off posts to a blogsite. You’ll need a little more than that for your unauthorized biography, sir.
But on this topic, let’s not quibble over quibbles. If the story displayed here is true, the demonstrators are assholes and deserve nothing but reproach, AFAIC.
neil
What a joke. You don’t want to know what we think about this. It’s not a thought-provoking topic. You want to influence people to think about how war protesters are mean and wicked people. The only two suitable responses are “Yes, war protesters are really bad like that” or “These war protesters are bad, even if others are not,” and already both of these viewpoints have been heard from. Discussion over.
Tim F
Wow, CNSNews flips the meaning of a story 180 degrees and then whips up a batch of convenient outrage over it. I’m shocked I tell you, shocked.
That’s not to say that there aren’t inappropriate demonstrations going on elsewhere. The people blockading recruitment centers make me wish that there really was a draft. Them and Jonah Goldberg.
sean
Thanks for the link, Joe. I agree with their reasons for the vigil, but the fake coffins and wacky slogans (if true) are pretty over top and certainly not appropriate for the location.
Darrell
It doesn’t matter what they “say”. If they are holding signs that say “Maimed for Lies” and “Die for Halliburton” outside a hospital with wounded soldiers, they are telling those injured vets in very clear language that their sacrifice was for nothing. It’s their way of spitting on the troops while pretending to be honorable
mac Buckets
Gosh, I would’ve thought they’d come out and say, “We’re here because we hate Chimpy McSnortiburton!”
neil
Sorry, Cyrus is showing a third and quite interesting response: It’s good when the left offends people, because that means people will hate them more.
This is why many Republicans truly believe that liberals want us to lose the war so that Bush will be disgraced: because they really do think that way.
Tim F
Cyrus,
You’re a couple of posts behind. Joe Albanese shows here that the outrage is 100% fabricated.
Tim F
Mac buckets,
Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. Maybe the protestors have connections to the Trilateral Commission as well.
neil
To drive my point home, I do wonder why Cyrus doesn’t put on some fake dreadlocks and go join these protestors, you know, to further the good work they’re doing.
Mike S
I hope people will consider the source. CNS is an absolute joke. The Stars and Stripes article is a much better source.
I would think that if any of what Bonzell’s publication says were true S&R, would cover it.
That being said, if this were true in any instance it would be extremly disgusting. If it were happening near me, at the WLA VA, I would be there in a minute to stop it any way I could.
Mike S
As a matter of fact I think I’ll take a run by the VA and see if there are any protests going on and what the nature of them are.
One thing I will not accept is any attack on the troops.
Poika
You have got to be kidding me. A Drudge ‘developer’ taken from CNS news from a tip from the Free Republic. This is getting into Instapundit territory. I was waiting for the ‘indeed’ after the snippet.
I haven’t seen the video. They had one posted this morning and have apparently taken it off. I’m withholding judgement until I see how they’re protesting.
Otto Man
If the CNS claims about the “die for Halliburton” signs and coffins are true, then yes, these people should be ashamed of themselves. That’s not the place for that message.
But again, the Stars and Stripes article gives a much different spin on the protest. And when push comes to shove, I’ll side with S&S over CNS any day.
If that’s an accurate measure of the protest’s aims and tone, then I think it’s a worthwhile cause. This administration has done its best to hide the human costs of this war — the ban on photos at Dover was a crude example — and while that supports the war effort, it doesn’t support the troops at all. It treats them like an embarrassment.
Tim F
To be fair, John did make clear that he was just posting this to piss people off. Gold star for John.
Joe Albanese
You know its so blatently obvious what is going on. The anti-war movement is gaining traction. Bush dropping in polls. Time to take out the big guns and discredit anyone on the anti-war side. We now have this anti-Cindy Sheehan tour that, low and behold, was not a grassroots movement but actually arranged by a PR firm with ties to the GOP. Wow, what a surprise. The Swift Boating of the anti-war movement has now begun with the willing accomplice of Drudge and, unfortunately, John Cole.
This is just the beginning. Anyone that voices doubts about this war will be labeled at a traitor, as not supporting the troops, yada yada yada. As Yogi Berra once said, “it’s deja vu all over again”. We all know the routine right? Even you John
Ok, now before I am attacked mercilessly let me clearly say for the record that there will be many on the anti-war side that will do reprehensible things. Stupid things. Insensitive things. If someone held up those signs that was wrong. Period. But this guilt by assoication that the right has perfected to an art form is so disengenious. You see you can attack Cindy Sheehan, as Christopher Hitchens did, by mentioning that David Duke supports something she may have said once but GOD forbid you attack BUSH for what the good REV. ROBERTSON says. BTW, I dont’ think DUKE ever met SHEEHAN but I sure as shit know that BUSH met with ROBERTSON numerous times.
John, I wonder how it feels to be a willing dupe of the right wing smear machine?
james richardson
disturbing if it’s true. would like to hear it in a more mainstream press venue however. sounds too convenient in it’s target of the crawford protests, much like the “cindy doesn’t speak for me” counter protests that were spontaniously created by a republican pr firm.
Defense Guy
I think its offensive because of the location. Do crap like this in front of the White House or the Capital, not Walter Reed.
Tim F
Jeesh, I don’t think John has any ulterior motives here. He’s just a misanthropic cuss who likes to tweak excitable blogflies*.
* That’s a word I just made up. Sort of like barflies.
Caroline
Remember Nixon? This is what he did w/r/t Vietnam. It’s interesting that references to VN infuriate some conservatives but then they are acting like it’s VN all over again. Obviously, it’s not just some of the protestors who are harking back to VN, it’s conservatives too.
ppGaz
I got a buzz off it.
abnjm
Here’s the video:
http://www.cnsnews.com/video/2005/050825MarcMoranoPackage.wmv
Northman
This has been going on since at least March and it takes this long for someone to get annoyed about it?
To dishonour the soldiers’ sacrifice is inappropriate and outrage at such actions is completely understandable.
If they are protesting that these wounded warriors are being hidden from the public view, I wonder why the major news media hasn’t covered them?
Cyrus
Tim,
Yeah, it looks like this is a real controversial issue (how unusual around here…) when I looked at the comments, wrote my own and hit the “Submit Comment” button, there were two. When I checked 15 minutes later to see if there were any responses, there were 25. Wow.
Sorry, Cyrus is showing a third and quite interesting response: It’s good when the left offends people, because that means people will hate them more.
This is why many Republicans truly believe that liberals want us to lose the war so that Bush will be disgraced: because they really do think that way.
Neil, I have to wonder if you actually read what I wrote. Or, if I’m that bad a writer. I stand by what I meant, which was, to summarize: “If even this group, of all people, doesn’t have any personal attacks or direct insults for the troops, then people who complain about liberals in general hating the men and women in uniform are full of shit.” How a sane and honest person can get from that to claiming I meant “I really do want us to lose so Bush will look stupid” is beyond me.
(And of course, writing those words, let along putting them in quotes, is certain to come back and bite me in the ass… oh well.)
And what do you mean “fake” dreadlocks? I’m Jamaican, mon!
MI
excitable blogflies*.
That’s a word I just made up. Sort of like barflies.
I like it!
Mike S
I looked through a few Bill Floyd postings and found a line that was interesting.
He’s got quite a few of the inbreds Freepers but felt the ones of protesters were too dark. My guess is that they didn’t show what he wanted them to so he discarded them.
Geek, Esq.
Who’s their spiritual adviser, Pat Robertson?
Seriously, does someone have a link to a credible source?
Joe Albanese
Northman said:
Well, here is some more outrageous dishonering of our soldier’s sacrifice:
.
DougJ
I’m sorry but the time has come to crack down on these anti-war protesters. They have crossed the line again and again, but their latest hijinks have insulted our troops and put them at risk.
Free speech has its place, I am sure, but only if it is used responsibly. We need to muzzle these people and I don’t care how we do it. Surely this sort of thing is not protected under the constitution.
John, you have done a great job at bringing these stories of anti-war excess to a wider audience. For that, you are to be commended. I may think you are a RINO on a number of issues but you stand shoulder-to-shoulder with conservatives on the issue of reining in the anti-war left. And for that, I salute you.
wilson
“I agree with their reasons for the vigil, but the fake coffins and wacky slogans (if true) are pretty over top and certainly not appropriate for the location.”
I second this. Really bad message design. Messages ambiguously suggest protesters want wounded troops to die (for Halliburton or Bush) and use the coffins supplied. If what they meant to say was “there have been lots of wounded”, why not signs with numbers, play acting to show lots of wounded? If what they meant to say was we are offended about night admittances, why not say that in the signs, or have a made for tv skit showing wounded smuggled in at night?
Looks like malpractice by the protesters. (Or errors in the reporting, or both.)
PotVsKtl
I think we should shoot all anti-war protestors for hating the troops. Right DougJ?
jg
They’re protesting that the soldiers are being snuck in under the cover of night. How can they not protest at the hospital?
Not the one you guys want to govern by.
Exactly how are troops insulted by this?
Funny but IIRC the ones doing the spiiting were war lovers and they were spitting on the Winter Soldiers. Guys who had served and returned to protest the war were being spit on by the 60’s version of chickenhawks (people like Cheney).
Don
Good one – evokes ‘gadfly‘ as well.
I don’t know what I think about this. My first reaction is that flag-draped coffins are distasteful. My second reaction is to ponder that reaction. Flag-draped coffins are indeed the reality of this endeavor, although some efforts is put into hiding them from us. The location raises my eyebrow as well, but I think there’s something to be said for doing your protesting where real people see it, not just the policy wonks and tourists by the White House. Assuming, of course, that they’d let you be out in front of the White House with a big flag-draped box.
Personally I am in favor of things that make people ponder the actual human costs of what we do as a nation, even if it’s simply an unpleasant thought that it’s unfortunate, but necessary. We’re quick to throw around definitions like just and unjust, necessary and unnecessary, good and bad. But lots of things are bad – we inject people with toxic chemicals because it will arrest the cancer which would kill them, which would be worse. Removing a horrible dictator is a good thing… but what’s the cost?
A number of blogflies are quick to throw around claims that war opponents would rather leave a vicious killer in charge of Bagdad, but they leave no room for the shades of grey that involve asking the question “at what cost?” or “is this necessarily our responsibility?” Fake coffins remind people that lives are the cost, and if they look at them and decide that it was worth it, that’s their right. But it’s offensive to claim they’re entitled to never have to consider those repercussions.
Jim Caputo
I’m not nearly as offended by this protest as some of you are and I’ve been thinking about why that is. I guess it’s because I see the number of dead and wounded as something much more offensive than any protest whether it be in good taste or not.
The plight of the returning wounded is something that has been seriously neglected in the coverage of this war. There have been thousands of kids that have come home, transported in secrecy, and hidden from the public for the most part.
In the earlier days of the war, protestors tried to get Bush’s attention, but they were corraled into “protest zones” so far away from wherever the president was, that their message pretty much went unnoticed and unreported. So if now the protestors have found a more successful way to inform the public of the more complete cost of this war in terms of human lives, good. This is information the public has a right to know and thusfar, except in very few places, that information has been kept from them.
Joe Albanese
DougJ never disappoints with his posts. I hope he keeps them up because when he says this;
boy, that DougJ has a real strong grasp of the constitution doesn’t he? So what is the vigil’s stated purpose that gets DougJ’s panties all in a knot? Here you go:
Wow, those anti-Americans traitors really hate our troops don’t they?
Jim Caputo
Here’s something else I wonder about….
Whenever a cop or fireman (or woman) gets killed in the line of duty, there’s always plenty of stories about it in the paper, on the television news, etc. The funerals of police are attended by all sorts of dignitaries who make public statements commending the person’s service.
But when a soldier dies, nothing. The coffin is brought back in the middle of the night. It’s not covered by the media in any significant way. And public officials hardly say a word.
Why aren’t soldiers entitled to the same respect and the same honorable treatment as police and fire dept. people?
Matt
It’s not the most tasteful protest ever, perhaps, but it’s hardly the “spitting-on-the-soldiers” that Drudge and CNS are trying to push it as.
Lulu
Who really supports the troops?
Let’s see, right wingers who find fake flag -draped coffins offensive? Or Americans of all stripes who feel offended that thousands of flag-draped coffins with real dead soldiers in them who died fighting a war that may have been fought on the basis of lies are being snuck into our country in secrecy.
I’ll take a fake coffin with no dead soldier in it ANY DAY over more dead soldiers.
This war is killing us.
tBone
Whether all the stuff about the signs and slogans is true or not, I wish they’d do this somewhere else. Walter Reed ought to be a haven for wounded soldiers, period. Photo-ops for asshat politicians, protests, whatever – take it somewhere else.
KC
Yeah, I’d like to see more of the story before I make any judgements. CNS news made a really, really, really big deal of that teacher out here in California who supposedly wouldn’t allow a student to read the Constitution or Declaration of Independence (can’t remember which one). Given that story was untrue, I’d have to see more of this story to believe it.
Darrell
So you’re in favor of anti-abortion protesters showing pictures of actual aborted fetuses?.. cause that would make people ponder the actual human costs of legalized abortion, right Don?
Point is, some things are over-the-line distasteful. If the protesters at Walter Reed are holding signs for the injured vets to see which read “Maimed for lies”, that would be a malicious example of a group telling the vets that their sacrifice was for nothing.. for “lies”.
Mike S
Boy I hate it when I agree with Darrell. But I do.
Mike in SLO
What is most troubling is that a Pentagon panel has suggested closing Walter Reed. That will do much more damamge to our servicemen and women than some anti-war protestors at the building entrance. The bigger issue is closing of military bases and hospitals and reduced VA spending and cutting benefits during wartime. Why isn’t Drudge scrreaming about that???? Its the party over country once more.
Don
To elaborate – part of my sympathy for the use of fake coffins in these demonstrations comes as a result of this picture and what it took to get it public. When I saw these on teh interwub it was the first sight I’d had of them. I’ve not seen their like in any news media since, either.
There’s no shame or dishonor in these images; this is the real cost of conflict, and those boxes contain the remains of honorable people who made a commitment to our country and paid the highest possible price. It’s hiding them that dishonors them.
If you think it’s worth it, that’s fine and you’re not alone. But refusing to be confronted with the cost in a concrete manner is cowardly, and trying to keep others from seeing it is pathetic.
capelza
It was “Declaration of Independence BANNED at Cupertino California school”…yeah, THAT event is actually what brought me to the blogs. Watching the horseshit that was being speard around on that one really opened my eyes about how much the media just sucks this stuff up without checking any facts.
Defense Guy
I suppose you have something to back up this claim, some piece of evidence to support the idea that it must be this hospital in the middle of DC rather than some other?
Once again, something to support this claim? The numbers I see indicate that benefits are going up, not down.
Perhaps because its complete bullshit with a little partisanship thrown in. You should also be aware that the actual members of the military are quite aware of which party they wish to support, and why they do so.
Joel
OK. I live in DC about 1 mile (at most) from Walter Reed. I’ve driven by these protests any number of times when purchasing my daily tub of Dr. Pepper from the nearby 7-11. So a couple of facts: these protests are tiny. We’re talking perhaps a couple of dozen people at most (usually far less). I have never seen any flag drapped coffins or “You died for Halliburton” type signs. Now I haven’t seen all of the protests so maybe they did this and I missed it. I can’t say. But it’s certainly not the usual display. The majority of signs I’ve seen run along the lines “Bring the troops home”. People are holding candles, that type of thing. It’s pretty benign. Additionally, directly across the street is a (usually) larger group of counter-protestors who almost always have a large banner with a message that states something to the effect of “You’re all a bunch of America hating commies” or “God Bless America and the troops spreading freedom throughout the world”. Code Pink is a frequent target. The last counter-protest they had a sign saying “Code Pink: $600,00 for Falluja–Crodile Tears for our troops” And a drawing of a crocodile for extra emphasis. Again, the usual sort of stuff that you’d expect from pro-war protestors. Nothing terribly outrageous. The red-baiting I find kind of quaint. Personally I’d prefer that these protests not be held at Walter Reed. This is DC. There are any number of symbolically appropriate places to make your voice heard. I can imagine that for a soldier recuperating from serious mental and/or physical trauma the last thing he/she needs to see is this kind of thing. Walter Reed is first and foremost a hospital and a place for healing: protest somewhere else.
Hell if you want I can snap a couple photos of the respective protests (assuming they occur) this Friday.
DougJ: are you for real?
Joe Albanese
Drudge said,
Now that doesn’t quite match up with everything I posted about the vigil now does it? The stated purpose of the Vigil is to SUPPORT the troops isn’t it? So, why dont’ we all hold off and wait for this supposed video of the protestors taunting wounded vets. But my hunch is that like most of the right wing smear attacks there will be nothing really to it but they will have none the less gotten the headlines out and many will remember that rather than the true facts. These guys are good aren’t they? Really good.
MI
“Perhaps because its complete bullshit with a little partisanship thrown in.”
I love how that’s an explanation for why Drudge isn’t screaming about something. :p
Darrell
But isn’t it a fact that the teacher really did prohibit handouts on the Declaration of Independence because it mentioned the word God, while that same teacher had no problem teaching about Kwaanza? Isn’t that actually what happened?
Just because the school had a framed copy of the Declaration in a hallway doesn’t make the story untrue
Don
If I was suggesting it would be okay to hang mangled maniquins splashed with red paint that might be a valid comparison, but I am not. Nor do I support pictures of actual wounded. I am suggesting that soldiers in general and we as American are strong enough to take the sight of a box wrapped in a flag that is representative of casualties. Sooner or later we all end up in a box, but we as Americans have hard time dealing with that idea. Is the mere sight of a coffin too much for everyone’s fragile egos to take?
“Maimed for lies” is an unpleasant thing to see, no doubt, and I am not happy at the idea of our men and women who’ve pledged to service feeling unappreciated and diminished, but at some point they have to seperate out their dedication to service from the complaints about what service they are being put to. Don’t you expect the exact same division from the protesters – that they respect the job our soldiers have pledged to do even if they do not like the job that’s been assigned?
I think most of us here dislike the Kelo v New London case’s resolution. At some point police officers may be called to remove people from the property taken from those homeowners. What signs will you find acceptable if there’s protests there? I respect the men and women who pledge to defend us at home and enforce the law, but that’s not going to stop me from protesting unjust laws. Or are police officers somehow magically more able to understand the difference between my dislike of what they’re obligated to do and who they are?
Dan Spartan
http://news.yahoo.com/fc/us/us_armed_forces
DecidedFenceSitter
I work in the area. They want to close Walter Reed because the Bethesda Navel Hospital is so close.
And according to the BRAC website, they approved shutting down Walter Reed,
Poika
I can’t believe we’re even talking about this. Abnjm- thanks for the video. There are THREE people protesting, and two dozen freepers counter demonstrating. The one freeper was labeled “pro troops”.
Tasteless? On both ends, perhaps. But please do recognize that this is just an attempt to paint anyone who’s against the current debacle as people who spit on soldiers who have had limbs blown off.
Mike S
‘Maybe not, but this does.
Poika
Also, I think ‘protesting’ is a little harsh. There’s three people standing there holding signs.
Don
Maybe this hasn’t gotten as much press outside the beltway area, but Walter Reed was on the list of proposed closings released over a month ago.
matt
I’ve been wondering about this for a while, I figure this is a good time to bring it up. Other than sites and organizations specifically working to end the war, most of the anti-war, or anti-how-the war-has-been-handled sentiment I’ve been seeing and hearing is actually coming from veterans, not lefty groups.
It’s easy to paint Code Pink or whatever as anti-troop, ect, my question is how are the concerns of actual Iraq war veterans being treated by pro-war folks?
There was a guy on MSNBC just last night, one of the soldiers who captured Saddam in the spider hole. He wasn’t on to talk about the war, he was actually having a difficult time finding a job and I guess Olbermann wanted to give the guy a few minutes to get his resume out there. But anyway, he (the solider) said he thinks it’s time to pack it in in Iraq. Does this guy hates the troops? Does he want America to lose? Obviously those are rhetorical questions, still I’m interested to find out how these guys are looked upon by those who support the war, and specifically fellow soldiers who continue to support the war. I can’t recall reading, hearing or seeing much of anything on that particular slant.
ppGaz
Precisely why they should take their activities somewhere else. As if it weren’t enough that we ask these people to leave a limb or an eye on the battlefield for us, then we make them feel as if they are running a gauntlet of political activism …. regardless of whose activism …. when they get back and still have dressings that need changing?
Sorry, screw these protestors no matter what their agenda is. There’s a time and place, and this isn’t it.
salvage
Distasteful perhaps but is it wrong to draw attention to reality?
This “cakewalk” is a meat grinder and all of America should not only know that but be reminded daily, for or against the war, because the soldiers certainly can’t forget.
capelza
Darrell, the teacher in question was the one who was handing out “cheery picked” quotes from the DoI and other sources (some decades after the founding fathers wereno more) to support HIS contention about the founding fathers views on religion. The teacher was the one who got his HANDOUTS banned. And his handouts only. After parents had complained and he had been talked to about it for quite some time by the school administration. Parents of the school’s kids (a big chunk of whom were Asian, btw.) put up their own website defending the school’s actions. Of course you never heard any of THAT from the same news sources, just the intial damaging headlines deliberatelty imflammatroy. The damage was done…much like what could be happening here.
The Declaration of Independence was not only on the wall of the school, but in the TEXTBOOKS the teacher was using. The whole story was total bullshit, pushed by the legal team and Fox news and every news outlet to lazy to find out the facts.
ppGaz
What part of “time and place” don’t people get?
Joe Albanese
Oh.. the “video evidence” of wounded soldiers being taunted is available. Take a look at it. Tell me if the Druge headlines:
are an accurate reflection of what is going on there.
Mike S
Just watched the video. Boy that Bill Floyd looks like a winner.
But take a look at the signs.
“Support our troops. Bring them home.”
“Save Walter Reed.”
“End the war.”
The only one they showed that I would consider slightly offencive is the “Maimed for a lie” on and that is pretty tame.
BTW, I missed the part with the spitting. You don’t suppose CNS and the
inbredsFreepers were lying, do you?Mike in SLO
Defense Guy:
Source for Walter Reed and base Closure? How about Fox news? I don’t know how to do HTML but you can cut & paste this link into your browser:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,166704,00.html
I hope the numbers you see are indicating benefits are going up. I’d like it if we gave Guards and Reservists military health care since they are taking the brunt of the casualties in Iraq. Stars & Stripes recently reported on this:
http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=30208&archive=true
And by the way, I have nothing but derision for either party and I belong to neither party, so don’t accuse me of partisanship. I supported this war, but have become utterly disgusted with the total incompentence and lack of planning on the part of this Administration. I feel they didn’t listen to the military men and instead relied on pie-in-the-sky estimates by a group of men who never served and have utterly no clue on how to fight a way. And yes, I realize that the majority of the military supports the Republican party. That’s not my point, and I don’t care what party they support as long as they put Country before their party (and they do, all the time, with honor). The soldiers in the field don’t go around accusing people of partisanship; they just do their job. The wanna be soliders on internet, on the other hand…
Tim F
Bush apologizing to Cindy Sheehan?
Okay that was really Fox News. If I close my eyes I can just sort of imagine Bush walking over to Walter Reed and saying that.
Don
I think any suggestion of a ‘gauntlet’ is inaccurate. They’re not blocking entrance or exit, soldiers coming in and out under Army transport likely do so in vehicles where they will be hard-pressed to see these people as they come by. and if you’ve never visited someone at Walter Reed you might not realize it’s about 1/4 mile from the entrance to the first building they could be unloaded at – these folks are not going to be visible to the people coming into the hospital facility.
Who they likely are visible to is all the people driving by on what is a major artery through the area, people who very likely drive back and forth in front of WR with little thought about who is actually in there, and why. I suspect that’s why these folks are there – not to bother incoming patients.
Joe Albanese
ppGaz said:
The part where just because you say it makes it so?
Again, the stated aims of the vigil are:
1) Shed light on the flow of seriously-wounded soldiers to Walter Reed
2) Support soldiers in their efforts to achieve adequate lifetime disability payments
4) Protest unequal health benefits for injured National Guard soldiers as compared to Active Duty troops
5) Protest minimizing of numbers of injuries, including mental and PTSD disorders
6) Protest FY05 budget cuts in soldiers’ health care (including new fees and higher prescription drug payments)
7) Protest FY05 overall cuts in the Veterans Administration budget, including long-term funding
8) Protest FY05 budget cuts in education and family-support programs, directly impacting veterans and their families
ppGaz
It is so. My saying it doesn’t make it so.
The timing and location of this activity is disrespectful to the people in the hospital, regardless of which group of “protestors” we are talking about.
You can list 8, or 8000 things to protest, it changes the impropriety of the activity not a whit.
There is a time and place, and this is not it.
p.lukasiak
What part of “time and place” don’t people get?
What better place to highlight the cost of this horrendous war than where its victims are being treated, ppgaz?
I’d say that Arlington would be a tasteless place to do so, because it would be inappropriate to exploit the grief of survivor of the victims of this war. We know about the number of corpses coming back from Iraq, because the media reports on it.
But there is a practical media blackout in the OTHER wictims of this war—-the soldiers who are being grievously wounded in Iraq each day, and who will bear the costs of this war for the rest of their lives. This protest is a means of bringing THAT reality to the consciousness of the American people, and I applaud those involved in it.
mac Buckets
“Blogfly” is an old one (Dave Barry coined, perhaps?), I’m afraid, so your claim of copyright is rejected.
pmm
I’d say a fair # of troops of still support the war, although the only recent proof I can offer that isn’t based on anecdotal evidence would be the re-enlistment rates (which were fought over in a thread yesterday). While I think that “soldier supports war” is a dog-bites-man story, I think PAO regulations are fairly strict and keep most enlistees from speaking out. For example, guidelines tell you to refrain from editorializing on the merits of an operation. So when Pvt. Snuffy is asked about his work he can comment on what he does or general factors relating to the work, buthe’s not supposed to make politically-charged statements.
The example I got from PAO some time back was that you can talk about how you dig trenches and that it’s hot digging trenches, you’re not supposed to say that digging trenches is a mistake/the greatest thing in the word (obviously I suspect they’ll crack down on negatives more than positives.) The key principle involved is for troops to “stay in their lane”.
Plus, whenever some COL or GEN does produce a “we’re doing great work here” here letter, it tends to be taken as official public affairs and thus is more akin to a news release and treated as such (as it should be).
And given that Walter Reed’s services would be consolidated at Bethesda, the BRAC closure recommendation isn’t a demonstration of disregard for the troops. It’s not like they’re going to bulldoze Walter Reed and just dump wounded troops on the rubble once it’s closed.
Defense Guy
I do appreciate all the links showing me the attempt to close Walter Reed. Perhaps I should have been more clear. Why must it be Walter Reed to treat these soldiers as opposed to someplace else. I apologize for the confusion.
As to the partisan snipe, when you make the claim it is party over the military, you can understand why I would think it might be partisan.
Darrell
Joe Albanese wrote:
You forgot
9)Remind wounded vets and their families that they lost their limbs all for a “lie”
Tex MacRae
John Cole,
You’re falling for a FReeper hoax.
Look at this google search.
The DC Freeps have been “counterprotesting” the Code Pink people from the get-go. Check this out.
Now, whatever you think about Code Pink (Freepers think they’re communists and terror enablers), this is what Code Pink purports to do with their Walter Reed Vigils:
Make up your own mind, but at least figure out what is happening first. I’m pretty sure that if you dig to the bottom of this sudden assault on the Code Pink Walter Reed vigils, you’ll find some DC Freepers, like Kristinn Taylor.
BinkyBoy
If Bush came out tomorrow and said the sun would never rise again, but the next morning here it comes, would Darrell blame the sun?
Tim F
Zoicks, it looks like he’s right. It did seem pretty obvious.
ppGaz
Yes, I get the concept, P. But when you say “better” you mean “more theatrically advantagious” and nothing else.
Yes, it is theatrical. But there is an overriding concern, namely, that inside the building are folks who are recovering from wounds and probably, generally, want nothing more than to be treated with kindness and dignity and respect ….. and what that means is what it means to them, not to you or me or the protestors. Since they are lying on their backs and can’t come out and do a stint in front of the cameras and mikes, the only respectful thing to do is to leave them the hell alone and take the activity somewhere else. Because there is the wrong place, at the wrong time.
It’s a hospital, not a photo opportunity. I would say the same no matter who was outside, or for what “cause.”
We do little enough to honor and respect our servicepeople, is it asking too much to suggest that these assholes take their protest somewhere else, like down the road to the Capitol?
Demdude
We do little enough to honor and respect our servicepeople, is it asking too much to suggest that these assholes take their protest somewhere else, like down the road to the Capitol?
Ahem, isn’t the VA headquartered in DC?
I agree this fiasco should be protested at every turn, but a hospital? Not a good place even if it is most well intentioned or repectful demonstration on the planet.
Having said that, I read Drudge every once in awhile and feel the need to take a shower afterwards.
circlethewagons
Intentions don’t really count – its the appearances that matter here – and to most people it appears disrespectful – particularly when amplified through a media glare.
Joe Albanese
Darrell says;
It is sad isn’t it? That our soldiers are dying and getting maimed because of the lies and distortions of the Bush administration. But strange your outrage is with the people pointing out that we were all lied to rather than those that lied. Guess thats what I mean when I say we all view everything through our own partisan filters.
I know it is uncomfortable to contemplate the thought that so many may have been killed and injured for a war that was sold to us on false pretenses. No one can be happy with that unquestionalbe fact. So what does a citizen do when they believe that their government acted inappropriately? Sit silently by? Do nothing? Hope for the best. My answer is no. We have an obligation as participants in this democracy to protest… to shout… to make noise… to make people “uncomfortable” if necessary. The leaders of this nation must be held accountable for their decisions.
If some wounded soldiers are offended by the protestors I am truly sorry about that. But I imagine some would join the protestors if they could. Just like the Cindy Sheehan protests. Some mothers want to be with her to show their solidarity while others are repulsed by her actions. Who is right? Who is wrong? Neither. Its democracy my friend and its what makes this country great even when it goes off on a tangent as it does from time to time.
Cindy Sheehan for all her faults has caused a dialog about Iraq to erupt. Demonstrators at Walter Reed make people debate and discuss the issues. I know some would like to concentrate on the truly important matters like the lost Ms. Holloway but some of us are gladdened by the fact that Iraq is rising in the consciousness of America. Don’t be afraid of democracy Darrell, its supposedly what were fighting for in Iraq isn’t it?
ppGaz
Exactly. If I were a patient, my reaction would be, hey, you know what, I didn’t get my ass almost blown off so that you could stand out there and get a photo op. Go away.
But down the road at the Capitol, the business is public, not private and personal, and there is nothing more “democratic” than carrying a picket sign on the Capitol steps or in front of the White House. In fact, I’ve done the latter, myself.
Hospital, off limits … unless we are protesting shoddy medicine being practiced there, or something like that. But using the wounded as props in a theatrical display, no good.
mac Buckets
I agree, in the sense that, if you want to engage in pointless protesting, you should at least have the common sense to waste your time someplace where you won’t draw rhetorical fire which hurts your alleged “cause.”
ppGaz
Don’t confuse “democracy” with gratuitous exploitation of someone else’s pain or sacrifice, either.
tBone
Exactly. A hospital full of wounded soldiers is the wrong place for politicial theatrics, whether it’s coming from right-wingers or left-wingers. Protest or counter-protest all you want, just do it somewhere else.
mac Buckets
I suppose that’s why you pretend that the Clinton Administration didn’t think that Saddam was a WMD threat who should be taken out. Suuuuuuure, Bush lied, but Clinton didn’t, even when they said the same thing.
Defense Guy
I am very happy that there are people on both sides of the aisle who appreciate why this is problematic.
DougJ
The bottom line is this: it doesn’t matter if we went to war on the basis of something that turned out to be true. We’re there now and anything less than full support for the mission will be viewed by the terrorists as a sign of weakness. This is not the time to relitigate the war, this is the time to come together and support our troops and our president.
Darrell
Joe Albanese wrote:
Well duh, obviously the first thing for a concerned citizen to do is go torment wounded veterans. Everybody knows that
I gotta say, I’m impressed that most of the leftie posters here seem to agree that the protesters did go over the line by taking their protest to Walter Reed the way they did.
pmm
I would add that the willingness to call out “your own side” when you think it’s warranted means that those of us who are on the other side of the aisle are more inclined to listen to your arguments in these and other debates.
After all, how many people here would read John Cole’s website if he were just a West Virginian Sean Hannity? Something to keep in mind for folks who feel compelled to defend anything “their guys” do…
tBone
Yeah, nice to see there are still areas of agreement. Wish it happened more often. Most of the time, I’m convinced that you could take a topic like “Puppy Snuff Films – Good or Bad?” and the ‘nuts and ‘bats would still find room to disagree.
mac Buckets
Ooooooh, I just vomited in my mouth a little there…
goonie bird
Dont you think it would be better if we closed down the UN building? just think how much we could save if we evected these tyrants and despots and we bombed those dirty protesters with manure
ppGaz
Let’s not make agreement with each other a habit, Darrell.
We have reputations to uphold, you know.
ppGaz
Bad.
But how about setting fire to ants?
Specifically, fire ants?
DougJ
I know that Bill O’Reilly has proposed closing it down and turning into a solar power plant. Seems like a good idea to me.
Joe Albanese
Who the fuck is “tormenting” the wounded vets? Please give me a break. Read the Stars and Stripes article I posted earlier. That is a military paper. It certainly didn’t leave the impression that the vets were being “tormented” by the demonstrators that are well out of sight and hearing range. Tormenting? Oh, yeah thats what Drudge said so it must be true.
And to those that alwasys bring up Clinton when talking about WMD. Two points. Clinton didn’t invade Iraq and two did Clinton every say something like this:
No doubt? No doubt? That is a LIE. There was DOUBT. Plenty of DOUBT. DOUBT all over the damn place. But we Americans were never told about that DOUBT because it didn’t fit the story line.
DougJ
The trouble is that the libruls get too hung up with what they think of as the truth. They have this need to be right all the time. They think that matters. Sometimes being a good American isn’t about being right, it’s about going along with something that maybe wrong that will help make us stronger as a nation.
It would have been better if the public had never learned of Abu Ghraib or of Watergate for that matter. But the librul media’s fixation with “getting the story” trumped all other concerns in both cases. And it might be better if we don’t make too much of the seeming lack of WMDs. WMDs or not, we’re there now, so why make too much out of the truth or falsity of some of the prewar claims that were made.
tBone
You know, I don’t know about this doctrine of setting fire ants on fire, but if they like fire so much, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It’s a whole lot cheaper than calling an exterminator.
(Check back later for my retraction and apology.)
DougJ
I may not agree with you much, but that was damn funny. The best post I’ve read in a while.
pmm
Joe Albanese wrote:
So Operation Desert Fox doesn’t count? I guess if Bush had spent the last few years just bombing Iraq and refraining from deploying ground forces, that’d be cool?
Don
What else is protesting if not theatre? It’s meant to communicate to the Powers That Be that there are people with that position and bring others around to that position, or at least make them consider it.
Having been to the WR entrance I am skeptical that anyone in the hospital can even see these folks.
DougJ
Where I come from, theatre means the Lion King, not a bunch of hippies marching around with signs.
Joe Albanese
pmm
errrrr…. yeah !
Joe Albanese
I said:
then pmm retorted:
Perhaps Webster’s will be helpful ppm:
.
tBone
I suppose I should be snarky but with all of the goodwill here today I’ll just say thanks instead.
I do reserve the right to begin flaming if you come out in favor of puppy snuff films, though.
Tim F
Goodwill hell. We need a Plame thread.
jaime
Hmmmm….my HTML was correct a second ago. Providing a link lessens the smarminess, but here:
http://www.wolfpack168.com/newsletter/november/files/bushandkenneth.jpg
Demdude
Where I come from, theatre means the Lion King, not a bunch of hippies marching around with signs.
Remember, it’s you guys bitching about Vietnam War comparisons.
mac Buckets
LOL! Quit changing the subject. We were talking about rationale, not actions. If Bush “lied,” then Clinton “lied,” regardless of what follow-up actions Clinton took after his “lie” (which, by the way, were to bomb Iraq and then fund and arm rebel groups in Iraq to try to oust Saddam — let’s not pretend he didn’t think the WMD threat warranted military action). So again, quit changing the subject. It’s weak rhetoric.
Of course, he did, but only for about six years, so you might’ve missed it.
“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
“People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons.”
President Clinton on Larry King Live – Aired July 22, 2003
Clinton believes Iraq had weapons of mass destruction: Portugal PM
“When Clinton was here recently he told me he was absolutely convinced, given his years in the White House and the
access to privileged information which he had, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction until the end of the
Saddam regime,” he said in an interview with Portuguese cable news channel SIC Noticias. Clinton, a Democrat who left office in 2001, met with Durao Barroso on October 21 when he traveled to Lisbon to give a speech on globalization
AP, Fri Jan 9, 2004 3:48 AM ET
You couldn’t responsibly ignore that a tyrant had these stocks. I never really thought he’d [use them]. What I was far more worried about was that he’d sell this stuff or give it away. Same thing I’ve always been worried about North Korea’s nuclear and missile capacity. I don’t expect North Korea to bomb South Korea, because they know it would be the end of their country. But if you can’t feed yourself, the temptation to sell this stuff is overwhelming. So that’s why I thought Bush did the right thing to go back. When you’re the President, and your country has just been through what we had, you want everything to be accounted for.”
-Bill Clinton, June 2004, TIME
There’s only about four pages more of quotes…
And if you think Clinton didn’t REALLY think Saddam had WMD, then he’s an outright murderer of thousands of Iraqis who died in the US-led bombings and in the aftermath.
The correct answer is that neither man lied, and that Clinton did the best he could (given his background) to respond militarily to the assumed threat of Saddam’s WMD…as did Bush.
pmm
Joe Albanese,
That seems rather pedantic. Is your opposition to OIF predicated entirely on the fact that we occupied the country? Would you have supported the current war if it was limited to aircraft and shipborne firing systems? Or perhaps the duration of the war? If so, the argument that “Bush lied” would be moot, since I don’t see how the method of military intervention vindicates a war launched under false pretenses.
This isn’t to say that, as a war supporter, I can simply cite Pres. Clinton’s foreign policy and walk away, confident that the argument’s won. Rather, I’m saying that opponents of OIF should address the fact that Pres. Bush’s foreign policy was a continuation and expansion of Clinton-era policies, which undercuts the argument that OIF was waged in bad-faith.
BinkyBoy
Mac, you might want to see someone about this OCD thing you have with Clinton.
First off, at least Clinton knew that invading Iraq was a losing situation. Bombing suspected sites and working on furthering discussion through diplomatic channels was and still is the concensus of the world.
Second, Bush did lie. He has lied repeatedly. The man can barely speak the truth, yet you seem to ignore that. Everyone in his administration has lied. Why do you enjoy being lied to? Is it some sick twisted self-destructive trip that you are on?
Third: Thousands died in the handful of bombings done at Clinton’s command? Wow, thats the first time thats ever been charged. But hey, your OCD is calling, quick, get your binoculars and check out what Clinton is doing today!
Joe Albanese
mac Buckets one question I have to ask, if Bush and company truly believed Iraq had WMD and that of the prime reasons to invade was the fear that those WMD’s could be given to terrorists, why then did we not secure the very sites that those WMDs were supposedly stockpiled in? All those locations were looted right to the ground. Whole buildings and heavy machinery were dismantled and carted away. Either they really didn’t belive there were WMD stored at those locations or they are the most incompetent war planners in history.
jg
Funniest thing I’ve read all day.
I love how its always put back on Clinton. As though if he did more than Clinton did then he did great.
pmm
Joe Albanese,
Actually, as part of the invasion force I can tell you that–as far as my battalion went–we did work hard to secure those potential WMD sites as we went along. There’s these things called “Commander’s Critical Intelligence Requirements (CCIR’s) that S-2 uses to prioritize intelligence gathering, and the top one was locating and securing WMD facilities. I can recall actually going on a wild goose chase to locate a supposed WMD facility in Southern Iraq that was based on one informant’s testimony. It didn’t mean that the BN CO was lying when he ordered the mission…also, there’s quite a bit of arguing out there that it was the delay of talking/preparing for war before we actually invaded that facilitated the ability to dismantle stuff.
And in case you ask, it wasn’t until several weeks into the war that we stopped wearing our MOPP suits and having our pro-masks at the ready.
Could it have been done better? That’s outside my lane, but I can say that it was the highest priority outside of engaging and defeating the enemy.
Joe Albanese
ppm said,
You are kidding aren’t you? ONLY on the fact that we invaded the country? Lol.. ONLY? You don’t see that there is much of a difference between lobbing a few cruise missiles at a suspected weapons factory and the sending in of hundreds of thousands of ground forces for the purpose of regime change? Just a minor difference in tactics? Lol
I dont’ even know how to answer something like that.
Otto Man
Good point. If Clinton and his penis really were the greatest threats that ever raged against Western Civilization, Christianity, and the hope in a young child’s eyes, then why is he the automatic gold standard for conservatives rating Bush’s progress?
Anyway, it’s 2005. Bush has been running the show for a while now, and I think it’s time to take the training wheels off and let him rise or fall on his own. If people have to respond to a comment about Bush with the standard “b-b-but Clinton…” whine, then they clearly have nothing to say.
pmm
Wow, can a thread on this website go over 50 comments and not transform into a Plame or Iraq thread? I hang my head in shame for contributing to the inexorable drift towards Balloon-Juice readers’ favorite topics…particularly since I don’t think that Iraq invasion justification thread #10,2000 will change anybody’s mind.
Defense Guy
It’s not that it gets back to Clinton, or that it is an attempt to divert attention from Bush, it is the simple truth that regime change is a policy that was instituted under Clinton, so the execution of that policy is a continuation of policy put in place before Bush by a Democrat. Not Rocket Science.
As to the WMD, it appears that we were ALL wrong. By all, I mean both parties and intelligence agencies all over the world. The weapons inspectors stated truthfully everytime that while they were not able to find any, that they were absolutely certain that Saddam was not being forthcoming and that he was probably hiding something.
Coming on the heals of 9/11, I can understand why the decision was made to go to war.
pmm
Joe A.,
I’m just trying to understand your thinking. Apparently it’s fine for the US to use it’s military force selectively in service to a lie, so long as we don’t kill/destroy too many people or things.
I’m honestly not trying to misrepresent your position, but if you argue that “Bush lied”, than why does it matter if he uses one B-52 or ten divisions? Again, I can see rational arguments against the war that are independent of “Bush lied”, I’m just saying that the “Bush lied” one should address that.
Unfortunately, I’ve got to go so I can’t respond if you choose to. But if I’m building a strawman here, please explain to me why my question is b.s.
Joe Albanese
defense guy gives us the expected defense to the WMD agrument:
Not quite:
.
ppGaz
It doesn’t matter whether the idea came from an elephant or a donkey or a frog. GHWBush was out for regime change before Clinton; Hussein was “Hitler reincarnated”, remember? Just with a bigger moustache, or something.
Anyway, the real issue is, whether regime change is a good policy, was a good policy, would ever have been a good policy. In the context of … regime change.
Academic, now, in the sense that regime change is a fact.
However, it is not academic in the sense that we are now to take advice from people who have, like it or not, a track record. Let’s take the Bush record …. Chimpy, and his dad, both. Their record on Hussein strikes me as a bad Three Stooges Movie. Saddam our friend, Saddam the naughty boy, Saddam as Hitler, Saddam as Big Scary Threat, etc etc. Let me be blunt: I don’t believe a goddamned thing these Bushes say about Hussein, and I have no reason to believe them. They give every appearance of making shit up to suit their (ever-changing) agenda. I don’t trust their judgement on this. Why should I?
Defense Guy
Joe
Do you have the part where Blix talks about cooperation with the inspectors. You know, the next part of the statement I made.
I will tell you this, if Saddam did not have WMD he is perhaps the stupidest dictator of all time.
Defense Guy
It is a debatable question for sure. I also agree that it doesn’t matter one whit which party instituted the policy and which party carried it out. At the end of the day it is American policy and action and as Americans we all must live and learn from it.
Agreed.
ppGaz
First Darrell, and now you.
This constant agreement is getting on my nerves!
I know what you are up to and it won’t work, I tell you.
Otto Man
If? Is the jury still out for you?
And perhaps? The guy wound up in a hole looking like Nick Nolte.
Demdude
I will tell you this, if Saddam did not have WMD he is perhaps the stupidest dictator of all time.
Perhaps a strategy DG?
If you know no matter what you say, your country will be invaded, why come clean? It allows for some doubt and may allow for some advantage.
My two cents.
jg
No ‘if’ about it and yes he was the stupidest dictator of all time. I think many world leaders were trying to make that point before the war.
Paraphrasing the whole noncoalitionofthewilling world:
‘He’s not messing with the inspectors because he has something to hide, its because he’s too stupid and proud to realize the you (the US) will really show up at his door. If you knock him over you will do it easily but then you OWN Iraq and that will suck.’
Joe Albanese
Defense Guy:
No. I only have this:
Can you back up what you say?
jg
What point are you getting at? Do you see grounds for war here? $200 billion and 1800 lives? He’s the president of a sovereign noation being dictated to, I’d expect him to stomewall just for diplomacys sake.
Defense Guy
While this is not Blix, a google search will get you him saying the same stuff.
http://www.time.com/time/europe/magazine/article/0,13005,901020819-336010,00.html
If I have time, I will try to dig up a Blix quote. If not, you should be able to get one fairly easily.
Defense Guy
http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2002_10/iraqspecialoct02.asp
A fairly good chronology, not sure of any bias in the organization though.
mac Buckets
Either you guys only have one response when Clinton gets mentioned (“Clinton ain’t the Prezadent no more! Git over it!”), or you have serious reading comprehension problems — I’m not discounting that it might be both.
I never “put anything back on Clinton,” although I’m not even exactly sure what that phrase means. He did the best he could to handle what he was sure was an Iraq WMD threat. He bombed for a few weeks. Then, he signed the Iraq Liberation Act, and put American money in Iraqi rebels pockets. He spoke out about the threat of Iraq’s WMD programs. While all these actions failed, by Clinton’s own admission, to bring Saddam to account for all his known WMD, I thought he was clearly moving in the right direction, just in steps and stages.
Joe Albanese
pmm asked me
How do you get that from anything I’ve said. First off, I don’t belive Clinton “lied” when he said that he believed Iraq had WMD. Now of course you conclude from that that Bush couldn’t be lying if he was saying the same thing. Wrong conclusion ppm.
The bar is a little higher when you are contemplating risking US lives in a ground invasion won’t you say than in firing a couple of missiles? I hope you would think that a President would have more of an obligation to see if there really is a need to go to war.
The Bush lies have to do with how intelligence was manipulated and cherry picked. I’m not going to over this but if you watched the CNN Presents special on this matter just a couple days ago, it made it pretty clear that what the adminstration was saying didn’t match up to the intel. Aluminum tubes, mobile labs, yellow cake from uranium, unmanned drones etc. All of these issues were HOTLY CONTESTED. But that is not what the Bush team wanted to hear. They relied more on a single source named Curveball that was a known proven liar to support their claims while at other times they totally discounted what the State Dept intel people were saying (no yellow cake purchase) or what the Energy Dept intel people were saying (aluminium tubes definitly not suited for centrifuge) or what the Air Force intel people were saying (unmanned drones not for spraying WMDs). Hey when Doug Feith and company set up their own intel unit you can always find someone to say what you want to hear. And that is what they did. And that is lying to me.
They picked and chose what they wanted to belive. They manipulated the intel. They violated normal analytical processes and procedures to come up with the result they were looking for. There is no evidence that I have found that Clinton ever did anything like that, and I belive that he would never have COOKED THE INTELLIGENCE so he could go off to war. I know I can’t prove that but it is my opinion.
mac Buckets
I doubt it, but this is just supposition on your part. Clinton must’ve known — he knows history — that he couldn’t meet his own policy goal of regime change with bombing raids and inspections. Don’t forget: Clinton’s policy was to oust Saddam militarily, as stated in the Iraq Liberation Act. Even Clinton didn’t even buy your “bombs-and-inspections” routine!
If he lied about WMD, then so did Clinton, Kerry, Gore, Hillary, Teddy Kennedy, etc. So there was this huge, bi-partisan lie that each side secretly decided not to use against each other in election cycles?? That’s pretty naive.
Just because you’re just hearing about it for the first time, doesn’t mean that informed people didn’t already know. I mean, we only launched more cruise missles at Iraq in 1998-1999 than we did in the entire Gulf War. How could anyone have gotten killed?
Same old boring responses. It’s OK — you were wrong about everything else, too!
tBone
Now, now . . . I know Saddam was a ruthless blood-soaked dictator, but c’mon. Comparing him to Nick Nolte’s mugshot? That’s just plain mean.
Joe Albanese
Defense Guy said
No, I dont think you will. Iraq was cooperating with the inspectors when the US basically said TIME UP. Blix wanted more time. The guy you quoted wasn’t involved in the weapon’s inspection just before the war. His comments are irrelevant. Find me where Blix says Iraq wasn’t allowing them to go where they wanted. As a matter of fact, Blix was asking the USA to supply him with places to check if they were so sure WMD were stockpiled in the country. Of course we never did. Wonder why?
jg
Clinton believed Saddam had wmd. Bush may have believed it at one time but knew for a fact that Saddam didn’t when he gave the go ahead (don’t ask for proof, you won’t believe it anyway). Clinton shot cruise missiles. Bush invaded and occcupied at tremendous expense.
Exact same thing. I can see why its continuously brought up that Clinton also wanted regime change.
Joe Albanese
As a matter of fact, Defense Guy, this is what BLIX had to say on the subject:
.
Tim F
Stupid? If Saddam was a wrestler his persona would be the huge, crazy guy. You didn’t screw with him because might do something crazy like pull your pants up over your head or bite your ear off. Lo and behold, nobody fucked with him.
If you want to keep up that persona you have to project a credible threat. A crazy weak guy is a crazy guy with no lunch money.
So Saddam painted himself into a corner, which was kind of stupid. On the other hand if the only sandbox he’s playing in is the Middle East it works just fine. You don’t have to be a very big kid for the crazy act to work. When Sonny Barger steps into the sandbox, like we did, he’s pretty much fucked. He’s got no option but to play just crazy enough to keep his neighbors nervous but not so crazy that Sonny Barger feels the need to bury him in the sand headfirst.
Not an easy role for anybody to play.
pleonastic piranha
ah, CNS news, as so often, not much with the veracity. and i see the discussion has veered back to iraq. forgive me for returning briefly to the case of wounded bringing soldiers back in the middle of the night, and the folks protesting that in a manner some seem to find inappropriate.
the demonstration is tiny, and it seems far away from the actual hospital buildings with the signs facing towards the street, so i doubt that any soldiers could get offended by this if they just casually looked out their windows. of course some might be, if they hear of it. and others might feel those protesters are pointing out serious issues. it’s not like soldiers all think alike. it seems that some are right there with the protestors. so, how inappropriate is that? not very, IMO, if at all. there’s a good, solid distance between them and the soldiers; they’re not yelling in their faces, nor are they difficult to avoid hearing and seeing. ergo, looks appropriate to me (i can’t stand protestors who get right into people’s face, no matter what their message).
but is there something to protest here? i consider the prohibition on showing honor cordons a travesty. and yes, it could be that bringing wounded soldiers home in the middle of the night might be more of the same craven cover-up. i understand why the protestors are suspicious of it. but here’s something i’ve not seen anyone mention:
if i were wounded, and feeling like crap, i’d very much like to be transported at night, and not given a loud and enthusiastic welcome — that can wait until i feel better. i don’t want a lot of people around me when i am hurt; the quieter and darker it is, the better — preferably i’d like to sleep through the transport. and it wouldn’t surprise me if there were medical evidence showing it’s less stressful to transport wounded people at night, and as quietly as possible.
maybe i am not yet paranoid enough?
Don
*boggle* You’re actually claiming the Watergate stories are a bad thing? We as a nation would have been better if a group of people had been allowed to subvert democracy and break the law for no other reason than political gain?
Wow. I’m through the looking glass. When did I take the red pill?
Blue Neponset
Fox picked up the Walter Reed protest story.
I don’t know how to link to the page to watch the video but if you go here and click on Brit Hume’s Grapevine in the Fox News 24/7 section you can watch his report. The story about the protest at Walter Reed is toward the end of the clip.
Oh, and don’t worry, Brit didn’t forget to mention Cindy Sheehan has ties to the group protesting.
mac Buckets
There’s the partisan Democrats Iraq view in a nutshell:
Clinton said Iraq had WMD. His statements weren’t lies, because he just bombed and funded rebels.
Bush said Iraq had WMD. His statements were lies, because he invaded.
What kind of Bizarro world do you have to come from for this illogical crap to actually make sense in your head?
No. No. And more no. If it was a lie for Bush to say that Saddam had WMD, it was a lie for Clinton, Kerry, Gore, Hillary, Waxman, etc., to say it. A lie can’t be the truth, regardless of whether Clinton “only” bombed and funded rebels.
And again, for the record, I think it is illogical and naive to think that Clinton and Bush lied about WMD. They both genuinely thought Iraq was a WMD threat, based on the evidence they saw.
I think most of us are agreed on this.
pmm
Joe Albanese wrote:
Thanks for the interesting response. I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree (as I would dispute the ‘cooked intelligence’ argument.) I would argue that it was a judgement call that made sense at the time, while you would argue that it was a willful distortion of available evidence to fit a preconceived conclusion.
It’s interesting that the two times I’ve pursued this query on balloon-juice, the “Bush lied” argument has come down to what will be effectively unprovable until sufficient documents are declassified, or there is a whistleblower with something definitive. NOT to say that you’re wrong, or that I’m right, but rather that our positions are based on different interpretations of the same information (as when ppgaz notes that the track-record of the administration affects his views.)
Either way, thanks for the insight.
jg
Clintons statements weren’t lies because he thought it was the truth. Bush’s statements are lies because he knew Saddam didn’t have wmd. If the ‘cooking the books’ argument made above is true then he told us what he knew to not be true, thats lying.
True but some info is out already. The Plame issue is a result of some of the evidence getting to the public.
Mike
“p.lukasiak Says:
What part of “time and place” don’t people get?
What better place to highlight the cost of this horrendous war than where its victims are being treated, ppgaz?
I’d say that Arlington would be a tasteless place to do so, because it would be inappropriate to exploit the grief of survivor of the victims of this war. We know about the number of corpses coming back from Iraq, because the media reports on it.
But there is a practical media blackout in the OTHER wictims of this war——the soldiers who are being grievously wounded in Iraq each day, and who will bear the costs of this war for the rest of their lives. This protest is a means of bringing THAT reality to the consciousness of the American people, and I applaud those involved in it.”
So are the soldiers that are being treated at Walter Reed just from fighting the Iraq War, or are both wars being protested? How about if a guy’s just getting his tonsils taken out? And if the only real “aim” of the protestors is to call attention to the plight of vets, then why now? Why not when we went into Afghanistan? Did it JUST become a problem? Also, why are they not also in front of Bethesda? I’m sure they could find it, in fact you can take Metro. This like the Cindy Sheehan bullshit, is just more theatrics put on by people with nothing better to do with their time. More useful idiots. Nothing more.
ppGaz
Actually, it couldn’t be more different.
mac Buckets
Mind-reading, are we? I thought only the Shadow knew what evil lurked in the hearts of men… Besides the blind-faith assertions regarding Clinton’s and Bush’s inner thoughts (which are highly, ummmmm, fortuitous for partisan Democrats, might I add) , your notion doesn’t square with the fact that it was Clinton’s CIA Director who told Bush it was a “slam-dunk” that Saddam had WMD. If there were opposing views of whether Saddam really had WMD, and Bush really was skeptical (as Woodward’s book shows), it was Tenet’s “slam-dunk” that held the most sway with Bush in the end.
The “cooking the books” story has more holes than good Emmenthaler, and was discounted by the subsequent investigations. If there was a conflict with the intelligence (bear in mind that 10 OTHER international intel agencies came to the same conclusion as ours did), it wasn’t a “lie” to believe one piece of intel over the other, especially when the “Saddam still has WMD and has no intention of ever disarming” intel was accepted truth since June 1991, when the UN inspectors first got shot at for trying to take nuclear materials from Saddam’s army.
Jim Caputo
I took a look at the video and found nothing offensive about what the anti-war protestors were doing, nor did I find anything offensive about the signs they were carrying.
And I was pleased to see the freepers didn’t have a bunch of signs that read “traitor” and the like, although freeper Nina Burke did insist on mischaracterizing the motivation of the anti-war protestors by saying “they’re only here to taunt the wounded.”
Since they focused on the sign that says “Maimed for a lie,” I’m going to assume that was the one they found most offensive. And in reality, it’s pretty mild. I’d have had a sign that said “Maimed because Bush is a goddamned fucking liar who’s going to spend eternity rotting away in the flames of hell…and that’s if he gets off easy.” But that’s just me.
And someone should recommend a good dentist to that Nina Burke woman…sheesh, what is she with those teeth? British?
And while we’re on the subject of freepers… I have no respect at all for those asswipes. On their site, they allow no divergence from the repug line. If you take up a counterpoint, they block you from posting. You don’t have be rude or anything, you just have to disagree with them. Cowards.
Jim Caputo
This is just a tired old disingenuous line that Repugs keep throwing around. Clinton’s concerns about Saddam’s WMD capabilities were pre-Operation Desert Fox. Post Operation Desert Fox, it was believed that Saddam’s WMD capabilities had been pretty much eliminated.
mac Buckets
I had the same experience with the Kossacks (of course, they make no bones about their site existing strictly for the purposes of getting liberals elected, so they aren’t after healthy debate, anyway). It’s a testiment to the internets that there are still some sites, (cue “Battle Hymn of the Republic”) where we are all, from Darrell to John to Joe A., free to agree and disagree without fear of being banned or censored — even if you call John a bleeping pile of bleep bleep.
Let freedom…reign?
mac Buckets
Hey, I’d like to drop this off-topic thread, but I just can’t let people get away with this nonsense. Let’s see, so far, we’ve seen that “Clinton wasn’t lying, but Bush was, because:
1) Clinton didn’t invade
2) Clinton never said he was certain Iraq had WMD
3) Clinton isn’t President now
4) Clinton really, really believed the intel, and Bush just cooked the intel…(so that it said exactly what the Clinton intel said).
Amazing. Now, the latest contender in the Search For Partisan Rationalization?
Ahhh, good old 5) Iraq was a WMD threat when Clinton said they were, but not when Bush said they were!
That’s a convenient piece of unsubstantiated assertions you’ve got there, and it doesn’t really suggest Bush “lied,” but… A couple of big problems:
It would be pretty difficult to believe that Desert Fox pretty much eliminated Saddam’s WMD capabilities when 1) we didn’t target any dual-use facilities, and only targeted 11 of the couple hundred known WMD-related sites 2) there was no way of knowing for certain, absent ground recon, what really got destroyed 3) the Duelfer Report, if you believe that, says that there wasn’t WMD production in Iraq to any significant extent after 1991…so what were we attacking again?
I’ll just leave you with a couple of words from The Man Hisself. Then I’ll give you the chance to rescind the part of your post about Clinton not being concerned about Iraq after Desert Fox.
“Let me tell you what I know. When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for. That is, at the end of the first Gulf War, we knew what he had. We knew what was destroyed in all the inspection processes and that was a lot. And then we bombed with the British for four days in 1998. We might have gotten it all; we might have gotten half of it; we might have gotten none of it. But we didn’t know…
People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons.”
–President Clinton on Larry King Live – Aired July 22, 2003
You couldn’t responsibly ignore that a tyrant had these stocks. I never really thought he’d [use them]. What I was far more worried about was that he’d sell this stuff or give it away. Same thing I’ve always been worried about North Korea’s nuclear and missile capacity. I don’t expect North Korea to bomb South Korea, because they know it would be the end of their country. But if you can’t feed yourself, the temptation to sell this stuff is overwhelming. So that’s why I thought Bush did the right thing to go back. When you’re the President, and your country has just been through what we had, you want everything to be accounted for.”
-Bill Clinton, June 2004, TIME
jg
Didn’t Clinton (and Bush) believe what he believed because Saddam wasn’t letting anyone in prior to 02? I’m not even trying to pretend the whole world wasn’t suspicious of this guy before he finally let inspectors in late 02. I’m saying from that point on the bullshit started. At this point Bush had already heard back that the yellowcake thing didn’t pan out, yet went ahead with it in the SOTU anyway. What Clinton thought when he was president doesn’t matter. There’s new information now. I used to believe he had wmd (IMO the only reason he doesn’t is because of the sanctions), I can’t fault anyone for once thinking that before he let the inspectors back in. After that its spin.
PotVsKtl
Who gives a crap what Clinton said? Clinton may have been a more likeable guy but they were both part of the same sick club. Focus on the present.
mac Buckets
Well, it’s the easiest way to show blatant partisan hypocrisy. But beyond that, I’m witcha. I’d drop the thread in an instant if there weren’t people spouting anti-historical nonsense.
DougJ
It’s really only a certain kind of Republican line. I got booted for defending James Dobson. I’m pretty sure they were kicking people off for defending Robertson yesterday too (I saw comments disappear anyway).
scs
If those protesters were really concerned with the troops, they would take their protests elsewhere and let the wounded soldiers recouperate in peace.
Joe Albanese
mac Buckets if you dont’n think the Bush adminstration “cooked the books” fine. I strongly disagree with you. I think history will strongly disagree with you. I think common sense disagrees with you. I think all the evidence that has so far been revealed disagrees with you. I know that I am not going to change your mind with facts but let me just mention just ONE instance where the adminstration lied (or at the very best mislead Americans with regards to WMD:
The whole yellowcake from Niger statement. What we NOW know about that claim is:
1) Our own CIA didn’t belive it.
2) The State Dept STRONGLY didn’t believe it.
3) It was based on documents that were so badly forged that they were determined to be forged in a matter of minutes by those that really wanted to know the truth.
4)Not only Ambassador Wilson but a four star general and an ambassador in the region said there was NO evidence of the supposed sale.
5) The CIA made the adminstration take the reference of yellowcake from Africa out of a previous speech.
6) The CIA sent memos to administration officials (Stephen Hadley for one) telling them NOT to use that claim in a speech because they didnt’ have confidence in the information.
Now, after ALL of the above the president made his famous State of the Union speech contradicting everything stated above. Oh yes.. I KNOW he did a slip and slide by saying “british intelligence” right? Thats the argument right? Now that is misleading. That is cherry picking the info you want to use while discarding that which you dont’ want to reveal. That is LYING. And lying about something as important as the nuclear capabilites of an enemy to provide the rationale to go to war. Is there anything MORE important than that?
And that is just ONE example. I could do a similiar exercise with:
1) the aluminium tubes
2) the mobile bio labs
3) the unmanned aerial drones
4) the links to Atta in Prague
etc. etc. all have tiny bits of intel that may mean WMD but also massive amounts of intel that disprove that. Guess which pieces of intel the adminstration told us about?
Lies. You can say what you want. They were LYING to us about the WMD capability of Iraq.
Oh, and one final point. All of this was POST CLINTON. It is entirely logical to say that CLINTON could be telling the truth and BUSH lying even if they were saying the same thing.
Jim Caputo
I’m not going to continually argue every single line of every thing Clinton has said, but this one seems to be represenatative of what Clinton’s position was, so I’ll just look at this one.
When he talks about biological and chemical materials being unaccounted for, he’s referring to what SH had left over from the first Gulf War. Now what could have happened to that material? A number of things are plausible:
1. SH might have actually used it in the Gulf War but kept no record of it or the records of it were lost or destroyed.
2. The chemicals could have been destroyed in any number of bombing attacks on Iraq since the first Gulf War.
3. Our original estimates of what he had to begin with were overstated.
4. He has it hidden somewhere for future use.
None of these can be proved or disproved with absolute certainty, however, Clinton does go on to say “We knew what was destroyed in all the inspection processes and that was a lot.” I think that line certainly gives the impression, at least to me, that whatever threat SH was, he was much less of a threat after the inspection process destroyed what it found.
Now for what I made bold…
Clinton talks about this with none of the surety or absolutism that Bush does. Clinton believed that, through the inspection process and as a result of Op. Desert Fox (and other air assaults), SH was no longer the threat he had been.
Now here’s another take on this…
Clinton, as a former president, is entitled to daily national security briefings. I don’t know if he gets ALL the information Bush gets in his security briefing, but I feel very certain that Cheney had a hand in cherry-picking what intelligence Bush saw, and that probably resulted in Clinton only getting a one-sided assessment as well.
Mike
“ppGaz Says:
This like the Cindy Sheehan bullshit
Actually, it couldn’t be more different.”
In your opinion, which is meaningless.
Different clowns, different location that’s all. Only difference is that the Walter Reed protesters have even less class.
Meanwhile, Rev. Al is joining Cindy, and people are starting to go TAKE the crosses of their sons away from Cindy and the other idiots.
Just gets better and better…
ppGaz
Heh.
Actually, if all we had was your own description, my point would be proven.
Defense Guy
Joe
Thanks for the Blix link from Jan 23, 03. It is an interesting read, but hardly IMO the compelling piece of evidence for what you are asserting regarding cooperation. You are correct that the part you quote indicates some or even close to full cooperation with inspectors during this 60 day period of inspections to bring about full compliance and avert resumption of war. However, a more thourough reading is not quite the rosy picture your quote shows.
From the UN News release your link points to, in the immediate paragraph before yours we find this (emp. mine):
In the paragraph immediately after yours (emp. mine):
I will throw some other key quotes out here, as having done this before I do not want to waste a ton of time trying to discuss the issue without a fair assesment of both sides of the issue. The link you provided also has a link to Blix’s actual speech to the UN, in his words, a worthy read for those interested.
There is much more, of course. In addition any consideration of this discussion must include the questions about what the inspections meant to the larger picture, or to be more precise, forcing Saddam with military might to comply to the demands of the cease fire agreed to before Clinton was even in office. The history leading up to all of this, including UN involvement with Iraq monitoring and outright hostilities between our nations, planned and actual is also part of the puzzle.
DougJ
That was his problem as a president, IMHO, his lack of belief in absolutes. He was one of our few relativist presidents. That is why we lacked coherent policy and a coherent moral message.
I — and most Americans — reject relativisim. We want a president who divides the world into black and white, light and dark, good and evil, for us or against us. And that is president Bush in a nutshell. We don’t want nuance; he doesn’t do nuance. We want straight talk; he gives nothing but.
The answers to the problems facing us are not complicated. They do not require the sort of complex, nuanced solutions that libruls have come to love. They require simple answers and a hell of a lot of resolution. We needed to go into Iraq because Saddam was evil. Simple as that. And now we will stay the course and spread the seeds of democracy. Not so complicated, huh? Freedom is on the march.
Bob
This is what it means:
People are now emboldened, again, to protest against the war. They have been suppressed by the false threats of treason that the nutters and the leaders always generate when embarking on these insane wars, but we’ve reached the tipping point.
I am old enough to remember Vietnam, before, during and after my two years in uniform, and this is history repeating itself. At this point in Vietnam there was a big scandal (Watergate) that bubbled up inside the corridors of power to finally sink the President.
When does Fitzgerald release his report?
Joe Albanese
Well Defense Guy I’m not going to refute the points you are making (which I could easily do) but at this point it is all water under the bridge. We’re there. Bottom line, you got what you and Bush wanted – a war with Iraq. How’s it going?
Let me ask you one question and lets see if we can get an honest response. Knowing all that you know today – no WMD found, the cost of the war in blood and tresure, the chances of Iraq becoming a stable democracy in the region, etc. etc….. would you still have gone into Iraq? Has the decision been vindicated by events on the ground? Are Americans safer as a result of that decision?
Joe Albanese
DougJ please keep posting. You do more for my side of the argument with your posts than I could do with ten. Once again, keep it up, you are refreshingly honest and its good that we get to see what the right really thinks unfiltered.
ppGaz
Doug, Doug, Doug. You aren’t listening. Your material is just a little too ….. too. You are parodying yourself now.
Credibility, gone. All you need now is a laugh track. Or, to bust out with, “I just saved a bunch of money by switching my car insurance to Geico.”
Now that would be believable!
DougJ
I assume Defense Guy agrees when I answer “yes”, “yes”, and “yes”. Saddam was pure evil. He had defied us for years. He had to go. It’s that simple.
The war in Iraq has made us safer and has made the Iraqi people more free. Establishing a new democracy is never easy, but spreading freedom is something we must do. Simply because people’s skin is darker than ours and because they practice a different religion does not mean that they do not deserve to taste the fruits of democracy. Freedom is on the march.
DougJ
Pretty good one ppgaz. I do like those Geico ads.
ppGaz
Would that be kiwi? Plantains? Just curious.
No, you furry little Henson puppet, you, America was founded to bring democracy to America. Not to the land of Ali Baba and the Forty Oil Thieves.
The purpose of this country is not to squander its blood and treasure trying to stuff democracy into every rat hole on the planet, Doug. No matter how much fun you have whipping up these hilarious posts of yours, that future is not coming true. Not now, not ever.
Joe Albanese
DougJ do you get a discount on bulk quantities of Kool-aid you must be drinking?
Joe Albanese
Back to the topic at hand for a moment. As I previously stated I think the whole issue with the protesters at Walter Reed is part of the SWIFT BOATING of the anti-war movment. We had the GOP PR firm organizing the anti-Sheehan tour, we had the Veterans of Foreign Wars going out with a strong letter denouncing the protestors, we’ve had the President saying that those against the war “dont want us to win the war on terrorism” (oh, thats a good one), we have the relentless attacks on Cindy Sheehan herself by pundits that know better than she what her son would have wanted, and we’ve even had our own little DougJ saying the constitution couldn’t possibly permit this.
So how are they doing? Not so good is seems if you belive this poll:
.
Defense Guy
Joe
I am not sure I agree that you could easily refute the validity or importance of what I point out, but will gladly concede that as it is entirely possible that we have both had this conversation with to many others only interested in their point of view, having the conversation again might well produce the same empty results. I am more than willing to cast it at this point as what we look to in the future when determining our countries course of action. In short, I can agree to allow it to serve merely as historical precedent for what we do in the future and leave what it means alone, for now.
I agree that the current, most pressing issue is what the hell do we do now. On that, I have no easy answers, nor do I wish to just repeat the same platitudes about staying the course. We can discuss together, and we can do better. So we should, as we owe it to those we have asked to hold the shitty end of the stick for us, as well as for the benefit of those people who we can help to move to a position of brotherhood or enmity based on our choices and willingness to act in good faith. Having said that, it is past the point where Iraq must stand as leading partner in this endeavor. We have spent our nations blood and its treasure and it is only reasonable that we expect returns now, not later.
The questions we need answered is how to do this, and how do we measure our progress or failure. How do we even know how we are doing? For this, again, we must require that Iraq be willing to provide answers. They must be made to understand that our patience is not infinite and even our best intentions at vigilance may fall short if public perceptions of the worthiness of the effort continue to slide towards not.
Most important for those of us that are Americans or are part of the coalition of the willing, we need to remember that our military and its individual members are not a plaything to be used as our whims change. We need to continue to remember that they are sacrificing much for our gain, and ensure they know how much we appreciate it. We must, in this vein remember to speak to each other rather than at. In this, I remain hopeful.
So yes DougJ, in general terms my answers are all yes and now hopefully anyone who cares will know why.
ppGaz
Cut the maudlin crap, DG. If you want more than “empty results”, it’s up to you. Try taking responsbility for your own results. You’ll find it therapeutic. Your tee shirts will go on much easier when your nose shrinks down from its present eight-foot length.
Defense Guy
ppGaz
Sounds like you are calling me a liar. In other times this might well be considered fighting words. You don’t want to play nice with others, fine, prepare to be ignored by those that will.
I’ll mark you down as unwilling to come to the table until I accept your point of view as the one true claim. Convince me, or hell boy, just give me a clue what your point is besides arogant posturing.
Jim Caputo
I’ve long wondered what defect a person must have to believe in Bush, especially at this point in the game. Thanks for making it so abundantly clear.
Defense Guy
Joe
Is someone trying to state that Mrs. Sheehan has no right to express her opinion? It looks to me like what is happening is that those with views that differ from hers are organizing to counter what she is saying. They should focus on that and not her, a point which I think you will also find great agreement amongst the people, should you care to float a poll.
Jim Caputo
I’ll agree with that. But I’m not seeing much of that coming from the right. Instead, they attack the woman with nonsense about giving aid and comfort to the enemy and by trying to tie her to anyone the right has attacked in the past. I’d love to see some examples of people on the right who have attacked her position without attacking her personally (and let’s not make this about John Cole), but so far I have not.
ppGaz
You are a liar. You are not interested in “non-empty” results. If you were, you wouldn’t be putting on the appearance of a “conversation” with DougJ, who is widely believed around here to be a clever put-on, so over-the-top are his comments straight from the pages of wingnut websites. You want non-empty results? Why don’t you have an honest conversation with somebody who strongly disagrees with you? You can’t, because you’re a coward. By all means, though, talk it up with “DougJ” who is either a spoof, or …. I dunno, somebody else would have to describe him, I can’t.
Go ahead, DG, I double dog dare you. Have a “nice” conversation with a strong adversary, and produce “non-empty” results. First, define what you think “non empty” results would be, and then demonstrate them.
Joe Albanese
Defense Guy with all due respect you didn’t say anything? First you didn’t answer my question which was a simple one: Knowing all that we know now would you still have supported going into Iraq?
Anyone that answers yes to this I immediatly write off as someone that can’t be reasoned with as facts are less important to them than the inability to admit they were wrong. Sorry to have such a harsh assesment but anyone truly OBJECTIVE would have to agree that the Iraq adventure has been a huge blunder. Even more disasterous than Viet Nam because of the wider global strategic implications.
The Iraq war has in my opinion:
Made us look weaker rather than stroner to the world
Decimated our credibility across the planet
Has given Al Qaeda a propoganda bonanza
Has been the best recruiting tool Bin Laden could have hoped for
Has made IRAN stronger
Has trained many wannbee guerilla fighters with much better traning than the Afghanistan training camps
Has threatened our oil supply
Has cost our treasury enormous sums of money
Has take our eye off the ball (Al Qaeda)
Has divided our country
Has made our enemies hate us more and our allies fear us
Has cost the lives of our brave soldiers and has wounded tens of thousands
Has damaged our Army
Has hurt our ability to recruit into the services
Has given the message to N Korea and Iran to hurry up with their NUKE programs
Now on the positive side of the ledger we have:
Haliburton is having a good year.
mac Buckets
Regarding “cooking the intel”:
Since you offer no evidence, just unsourced assertions, I frankly find that ridiculous.
But all the evidence is against me? Even the Senate report that said outright, based in part on David Kay’s testimony, that no Administration pressure was put on intelligence agencies to produce certain intelligence? I think that rather confirms what I said. But if you think it disagrees with me, that’s your interesting interpretation. Or do you mean “all the opinions I’ve read on Kos and DU…”
Facts? This oughta be good!
What part of, “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa ” can be construed as a “lie,” when we have on record the British Government saying that they learned that uranium was sought? You can argue that it was wrong (tenuously), but not that it was a “lie.” But go on…
Our own CIA and State Department didn’t believe that British Intelligence reported that Saddam was seeking nuclear materials? You’ll have to source that. Not only did they believe the Brits reported it (which is all the President said), after Joe Wilson’s trip, the CIA was even more convinced that Iraq was trying to set up a deal.
I can’t decide whether you are uninformed or just plain lying. The forged documents weren’t even available when the Brits made their assessment. As factcheck.org points out, the Senate Intelligence Committee Report and the British Butler Report both say that the forged documents weren’t the basis of the intel. Yes, they were forgeries, but no, they weren’t important forgeries.
What is this, Remedial Iraq class? If you could read, you’d see the President never claimed the British said there was an actual sale. It was the seeking, not the purchase, that was the issue. Everyone agreed there was no proof of an actual sale.
Both statements proved false. From the Senate Report: “When coordinating the State of the Union, no Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) analysts or officials told the National Security Council (NSC) to remove the “16 words” or that there were concerns about the credibility of the Iraq-Niger uranium reporting.”
The “sixteen words” were vindicated by two separate investigations. They were judged to be “well-founded.”
No, lying is not “cherry-picking.” Lying is saying words that you know to be untrue, which Bush didn’t do.
Where did Bush say that Saddam purchased uranium? Nowhere. So Saddam’s “nuclear capabilities” were never in question, unless you count the numerous times Clinton raised the specter of Iraq’s nuke program…and of course, you don’t want to talk about that, do you?
Also, none of the incidents you choose to list were “the rationale to go to war.” These points were, at best, ancillary to the fact that Saddam had broken the UN Resolution and the Ceasefire of 1991.
I will never find that not funny. Clinton and Bush say the same thing, that Saddam is a WMD threat who must be removed militarily, but Clinton is telling the truth and Bush is lying. Funny, funny stuff.
Jim Caputo
So what’s the criteria for deciding which countries get to dine on the fruits we provide? I’d love to see the list in order of importance. Or is it just whatever country the president at the time has his panties in a wad over?
mac Buckets
To paraphrase you to you:
Anyone that answers like this, I immediatly write off as someone that can’t be reasoned with as facts are less important to them than the inability to admit the Bush Administration could ever do a worthwhile thing.
If Bush cured cancer and AIDS on the same day, people like you would whine about the common cold.
Jim Caputo
Joe, I agree with everything you listed but this is a great point.
We’re certainly not intimidating the people throwing bombs our way in Iraq, are we? And this war has shown that we don’t have the capability to effectively control a country the size of Iraq. And every day that this thing goes on, and our troops are sitting there with bulleyes on their backs due to the ineffectiveness of our political leadership, has got to be raising the morale of those still waging war in Iraq against our people and those who support them.
Joe Albanese
mac Buckets says:
Give me a buzz when he does either. In the meantime I am going to evaluate him on what he HAS done if you dont mind. In my post I gave a score of specific reasons why I think the Iraq war has been detrimental to US interests. Your absense of being able to refute even one of them is telling.
Oh, btw, in one of my posts way back when I said I did support Bush after 911. I thought he did a good job soothing a jittery nation. He actually exhibited leadership. I an not a knee jerk anti-bush guy as much as you like to paint anyone that disagrees with you as. Once again I judge Bush by what he has done. And IRAQ is a huge, huge mistake that has been and will continue to be very damaging to our WAR ON TERROR for years to come. Sorry, he doesn’t get a pass for that.
BinkyBoy
Is that what it takes to get mac Buckets to ignore you?
How about this:
Exxon is having an amazing year!
GE has never been more profitable!
KBR is charging outragious prices to serve our troops with food I wouldn’t feed pigs.
Will that do it? Its only because I respect you, Mac.
tBone
In Defense Guy’s, uh, defense (sorry for the Austin Powers moment), he did say this:
I’ll give DG the benefit of the doubt and say I think that’s an honest sentiment. It’s exactly the kind of thing I’d like to hear from our leaders – this is a conversation we need to have as a country, without all of the rancor and bitterness from both sides.
I’m not going to lose any sleep waiting for the spontaneous outbreaks of hand-holding and Kumbaya singing, though.
mac Buckets
As I stated, your silly Halliburton comment marks you, in your own words, as “someone that can’t be reasoned with as facts are less important to them…”
Or in your other words, I COULD easily refute them, but…
mac Buckets
Yes, making no intelligible point whatsoever will usually get you ignored by me.
I’m only answering now because you asked :)
Joe Albanese
mac Buckets flailed around with this nonsense:
the Halliburton comment was a bit of dark humor that obviously you didn’t find amusing. Putting that aside, is my FACT about Halliburton not TRUE?
John S.
Facts are irrelevant when perception is 9/10 of the law.
mac Buckets
No, it was exactly what I said it was: a mark that you can’t bring yourself to look at the positive results, long-term or short-term, of the war in Iraq. It’s unrealistic, unreasonable, and intellectually indefensible.
Joe Albanese
Mac Buckets continues with his self destruction with this comment:
Ok, show me up. Give me YOUR list of the POSITIVE RESULTS of the War in Iraq so we can all evaluate who is intellectually indefensible. Ok?
Defense Guy
ppGaz
Nice, first the claim of my being a liar and then a coward. Nothing left to say to you but go fuck yourself. Had that in the last post, and it was a mistake to take it out. I will have the conversation with anyone at this point, except now for you. I really don’t care how you feel about it at this point, so you can save yourself the time of a response.
Joe
The above is in no way indicative of anything other than that ppGaz is behaving like an ass. You on the other hand, are far more inclined to be civil, which I thank you for, and so will take the time to answer your questions.
I said a great deal, is this a question?
I thought I had when I agreed with DougJ’s guess that I would answer Yes. In that he is correct.
If this is in fact the position you set for yourself, then really there is no need to continue, as we are at an impasse, which you created.
We are well at a time for harsh assessment, let us let the chips fall where they may, but do not assume that because I disagree with certain subjective issues, that this is proof I have no point. In addition, you must also concede, as you would demand of me, that there is the possibility that one or both of us is just wrong on at least part of what we use to frame our opinions. It is also fair to point out that our possibility of being wrong does not have to point to the malicious sort of intent some would make it out to be, it could just be error. I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt on that, are you?
Would it be wrong to point out that Viet Nam is not the only war we have in our historical arsenal from which to draw lessons, or are our losing efforts the only ones worth studying?
ppGaz
I’d like to see what DG describes as a “non-empty result” before I decide whether to cut him any slack.
First he has to describe it, and then demonstrate that he can actually do it. Otherwise, I’ll stick to my blast, because I just don’t believe him.
mac Buckets
Racism aside, the list of people who disagrees with you is long, starting with Thomas Jefferson, going through to FDR, to JFK, and including the vast majority of the Amnesty International/Human Rights left of the 1960s through 1980s, who would’ve smeared your “America first, last, and only” remarks as “isolationist conservativism.”
ppGaz
First honest thing you’ve said today, DG. And if you are true to form, the last.
ppGaz
Nice try, but no cigar. Refusing to accept a role for America as the Official Bringer of Democracy to the World is hardly “isolationist.”
And trying to pimp that role as if it were perfect routine and acceptable, completely dishonest, and what’s more, completely in the face of the history of this country’s policy.
Please describe the last 50 years’ American policy toward the Arab world and show me where advancing democracy is part of that history, part of the stated policy, demonstrated by our actions.
For fun, start with our relationships with the Shah of Iran in the 1960’s and 1970’s, and the Saddam Hussein in the 1980’s, and the the Saudi Royal Family from 1975 to today.
mac Buckets
I’ve got a better idea. I’m asking you first to prove you have the intellectual honesty (that was my point, after all) to rack that brain of yours and come up with your own list of the positive results of the War in Iraq. Your answers will prove to everyone whether you are really thinking honestly, and not just reciting closed-minded talking points.
Joe Albanese
Defense Guy said:
Yes, I am willing to give you the bennefit of the doubt. There can be good people on both sides of pretty much any issue. But what I look for in someone’s argument is that there is some objective analysis of facts going on. So much of our political dialogue (on both sides) is just digging in one’s position and never being able to entertain doubts of their own position.
I have a real hard time seeing how anybody can view the Iraq War as anything other than being a mistake. Perhaps a well intentioned mistake but a mistake none the less. The stated purpose of going in was WMD. And there were no WMD. But those on your side then change why we went to war. Well, its for spreading democracy. Really? Thats the mission? Ok, but now when that looks tenious at best we change the reason yet again. And the latest “reason” to continue fighting is so that our soldiers won’t have died in vain. Wow. I guess we can go to war with any country at any time and for any reason if we can always hang our hat on that one.
So, yeah I get a bit frustrated with those that can’t even admit that, whatever good intentions you might have had, you were WRONG about Iraq and it seems so many have a hard time admitting that.
Defense Guy
Joe
Unless I am wrong, you have had this conversation many times, as have I. It is easy to get discouraged when we keep doing the same things over and over expecting or hoping for different results. It is also easy for emotion to cloud our ability to really discuss rather than attempt to prove our various points. I concede, without reservation, that those who hold that the Iraq war was a mistaken endevour have a defensible position. I hope you understand that I simply feel based on objective and subjective facts that neither the pro or anti positions are built entirely on foundations of sand.
Again, I feel our most pressing concern as a nation is what now? It would be great if we could work together to figure that out. If we could do that with minimum amount of denegration of those who simply hold a different opinion, then so much the better.
Joe Albanese
mac Buckets challenges me with :
Sorry, mac buckets but I was not being just funny when I failed to list any positive results of the war. I really, really dont’ see any – in the short term at least. I will say this, if, BIG FUCKIN IF, Iraq somehow manages to turn into a somewhat of a Democracy that is not a puppet of Iran, and is not an Islamic state, and we dont have to be there to provide its security with American blood, that would be very good thing. But quite frankly my expectations of that happening are very small and dwindling daily with stories like this
So, when do we get your list of POSITIVE RESULTS?
mac Buckets
Yeah, I’m the Pimp of Democracy (it’s written in diamonds on my gold pimp-chalice).
If I read you correctly (I think you’re missing a verb), you’re reading “routine” into it. Although, when FDR said, “America must be the great arsenal of Democracy,” or when JFK said we must “support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the success of liberty,” were they just blowing smoke?
As you well know, playing along with the oil kings has been the name of our failed policy in the Middle East for longer than the last 50 years, and that’s why there has been more democratic reform in the last two years in the Middle East than in the last 100 years combined.
ppGaz
How in the world do you sleep at night?
I’ve got $5 — to add the money you already owe me — that says you can’t even describe my opinion. That’s how much attention you pay to anyone else’s opinion, DG. None.
I recently spent two days asking you a simple war-question, DG, and your final response, IIRC, was that you didn’t have to answer, neener neener.
Here it is in case you forgot:
How does your government, which got us into this mess, get back the support it needs to get us out of it?
Simple, easy, straightforward question. Your answer? I gave you mine.
No, you’d rather sit here and whine about “empty results” from conversations you are having.
You’re a tough act to follow, DG.
Joe Albanese
mac Buckets? your list of POSITIVE RESULTS from the IRAQ WAR? We’re all waiting with baited breath.
Defense Guy
ppGaz
You are a putz. I laugh at your outrage.
ppGaz
I laugh at your laugh.
mac Buckets
Oh, come on! I’ll get you started.
“We are safer” with Saddam out of power. (John Kerry)
Seriously, if the Democratic candidate for President, running against Bush, can come up with that one, and you can’t, what does that say about your open-mindedness?
ppGaz
Kerry was wrong.
Joe Albanese
mac Buckets? still can’t come up with a list I see.
Not surprising since there are no POSITIVE RESULTS from the IRAQ war. Oh and as far as the argument that we are safer because Saddam is out of power, that is just absolute nonsense and you know it. What was Saddam going to attack us with? SPITBALLS? to quote Zel Miller
Not many people buy that argument anymore. Latest Harris Poll says:
mac Buckets
Of course, I could. You just have to earn it by opening your brain a little. So far, no luck, even with John Kerry’s help.
ppGaz
But, Kerry was wrong.
mac Buckets
I’ll give you another hint, Joe: You can include positive effects for the Iraqi people, if you like. Just anything to show you aren’t just a black-and-white-thinking gloomer. I mean, you must admit that things are better for the majority of people in Iraq, right?
Joe Albanese
mac Buckets? still no list? your letting all your fans down. You mean you can’t come up with one damn positive thing this war has resulted in? and yet you say you would do it all over again? Wow. Now that is mighty powerful thinkin’.
Listen, I’m sure everyone is tired of this, I think I made my point. This war is a huge disaster. A blunder of monumental proportions. When even die hard supporter like my bucket friend can’t come up with anything good that this war has resulted in, I think we can all safely say it over. Public opinon has reached a tipping point. As Frank Rich said in his brilliant Op-ed a few weeks ago, The War is Over. Any pretense of something positive coming out of this mess has evaporated like the morning dew.
Joe Albanese
bucket struggling to come up with something.. anything… comes up with this:
No I dont’ admit that for a moment. How many have died as a result of this war? How many live in daily fear of being blown up. Or being kidnapped. Crime is totally out of control. Services like electricity and water are much worse. Unemployment is a major problem. You actually think they are better off living in the middle of this horrific combat zone? And what is the future for the average Iraqi? Will there be civil war? Who will slaughter whom when we leave?
Listen Saddam was a bad guy. Iraq was a bad place to live. And I am sure most people are glad that he is gone but at what price. For every benefit you always have to way the price. The price for removing Saddam has been very very high with no end in sight.
So no I don’t think the people of Iraq are better off right now. Got anything else?
mac Buckets
I think that pretty much proves where your head is at. I had hoped for better, but whatever.
mac Buckets
By the way, if I’m not posting, it doesn’t mean I’m stumped by your terrific posts. Some people have to work, you know?
Joe Albanese
mac Buckets
Oh, your posting a plenty just not presenting any arguments to support your position at all. I’d respect you a little more if you could articulate why you feel the way you do as I have done in numerous posts.
Sorry to have undressed you in front of everyone but I have no tolerance for vacuous pontificating.
mac Buckets
Ironic, coming from the guy who posts: I could easily refute your arguments, but…
Look, I’ve had enough discussions with closed-minded partisans to realize that, when I’m up against someone who can’t even bring himself to articulate even one good thing to come out of ousting Saddam, then I’m dealing with (again, in your own words) “someone that can’t be reasoned with.”
Unfortunately, your “articulation” is either uninformed suppositions (like your indefensible “yellowcake” post, which I pointed out was either lies or ignorant parrotting, I can’t tell which) or closed-minded negativity.
By way of example, I’ll grant you this one response: Your most recent uninformed, unsubstantiated post about how bad life is for Iraqis now is the height of ignorant arrogance. Instead of your speaking for people you haven’t met, why don’t you listen to them?
Only 36% of Iraqis polled believed their lives were worse since Saddam’s overthrow, compared to 61% who said their lives were better. 58% say democracy is likely to succeed, versus 32% who say it is unlikely to succeed. 82% say their lives will be better a year from now. 90% are hopeful for the future.
Care to take back what you said about the majority of Iraqis’ lives being worse off since the invasion? I’m not expecting it, but I’d be pleasantly surprised by the honesty.
How ironic.
I’ll try to survive.
Joe Albanese
sorry mac Bucketts but your uranium yellowcake defense of the President was so lame it was not worthy of response but since you brought it up again I’ll keep it simple.
To say that he said, “british intelligence” shows that he was not lying is pretty much in the same category as “depends on what is is”.
He was misinforming the american public. He was trying to suggest that Iraq was trying to secure yellowcake from Niger when his own intelligence agencies didn’t belive that. That is misrepresenting the truth even if his exact words may have been carefully constructed as to not be a lie technically. I would have hoped you would have had a higher standard for the president.
The fact that the President apologized and said it should not have been included in the speech means nothign to you I suppose. Just pressure from lefties like me? The fact that Tenant took a hit on it irrelevant? You ARE a kool-adi drinker aren’t you.
No. They used information that they were specicially told they should use because the intel did not back it up but they did anyway. And their excuse was, “we forgot”. They forgot the memo from the CIA? lol.. now that is a laughable defense for one of the most vetted speechs President gives buy hey, they always have patsies like you to belive them. Unfortunatly for the President, those patsies are dwindling every day even as you cling to fantasies. All polls show the president’s credibility taking a dive. You are now in the ever shrinking minority of those that don’t think Bush intentionally lied about WMD.
Enjoy your day.
mac Buckets
That’s rich. You whine when I don’t respond, and when I do respond, you whine that I’m not worthy of a response. Your posts should really be on a comedy blog.
Again with the unsubstantiated, unlinked assertions. “Bush’s” intelligence agencies not only believed the basic story of the British report, but they were even more convinced than ever after Jow Wilson’s visit. Try reading a little — I provided the links. So is restating your original arguments without ever addressing my points your idea of argumentation? Because it’s my idea of intellectual laziness.
The White House (not the President, per se) saying the 16 Words shouldn’t have been in the SOTU was a puzzling over-reaction to criticism, but it means absolutely nothing as to the truth of the statement. It certainly doesn’t elevate it into a “lie,” which was your initial supposition. The 16 Words were found by two separate investigations to be “well founded.” Even when the CIA raised its post-speech objections to the 16 Words, it wasn’t because the claim was a lie — it was that their evidence independant of the Brits was “inconclusive,” although the CIA admits the text of the speech was accurate.
I already proved with links that this is nonsense, and you are just restating.
Wow, it must be fun to be unfettered by the need to post links backing your assertions. Me, I need to have something to document my claims. Your way is easier, I’ll bet.
What’s your response to the Senate Report that no CIA official ever contacted anyone before the speech to complain about the 16 Words? (Crickets.) Or that no intelligence operatives were coerced to provide certain intel? (More Crickets.) Oh, that’s right. Those are not worthy of a response, not when you have so much baseless history-writing to do.
I don’t mind being in that minority at all, especially seeing the rather “faith-based” argumentation of the opposition.
Joe Albanese
Ok….one more time but then thats it. Not even looking at this thread again.
You said,
but the State Dept disagrees:
and then there is this:
and as for the CIA
.
You said:
Lol…ok. yeah pretty puzzling.
As I demonstrated, the CIA and State Dept didn’t belive that Iraq was attempting to purchase uranium from Niger not withstanding the republican committees that wish to re-write history. And Bush using the ploy of pointing to someone (the British) that supported what they wanted to convey is CHERRY PICKING INTELLIGENCE. Its MISLEADING. To me its a LIE. A bold faced LIE.
HH
Who ya gonna believe? The people attacking CNSNews (before bothering to read the story) or your lying eyes?
HH
“I don’t think many parents appreciate the graves of their children being forcibly turned into political propaganda.”
I’m sure you’re a big fan of Camp Casey right? “Oh kettle? This is pot. You’re black.”
HH
“did Clinton every say something like this”
Er yeah. Where have you been?
mac Buckets
Ah, Walter Pincus’ “news-based editorials” with unnamed sources. I’ll stick to bipartisan committees and non-partisan studies.
So tell me, when was that memo written? Answer: June, 2003. And when was the State of the Union address? Answer January, 2003, five months before the memo was even written! Get an inkling of the problem there, as far as the White House having access to the sentiments of a memo that hadn’t even been written yet?
So, did the CIA think Saddam had sought uranium from Niger? Let’s ask the Senate Committee, rather than a shill.
Never mind the fact that the CIA itself said that no one ever disputed the 16 Words before the speech or told anyone to take them out.
Never mind the fact that the 16 Words have been deemed to be “well founded” by two separate investigations.
Butler Report:
Your definition of “lie” seems to be: “Whatever Bush says, regardless of facts or reality.” I’ll stick with the real definition of “lie,” which even you admit hasn’t been reached here, even if all your fantasies about “who knew what when” were true.
Joe Albanese
mac buckets:
Boy, you really aren’t very bright are you? It may have been WRITTEN in June 2003 but it was discussing events BEFORE the State of the Union address. Again the MEMO stated that the STATE DEPT had opposed the WILSON trip. The WILSON trip was before the State of the Union wasn’t it? And why did they OPPOSE sending him ?
.
DISPROVED. Prety strong word isn’t it? Not had questions about it? or hadn’t yet concluded… no.. they had DISPROVED the allegation. Before the WILSON trip. BEFORE the State of the Union. DISPROVED.
But Bush and company didn’t like that answer so they cite British intelligence in the speech. But thats not a lie right? To state something that your own State Dept had DISPROVED?
Ok, listen you are not going to convince me and I’m not going to convince you so lets agree to disagree. Enjoy the Kool-aid.