Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "<How is it false?> How is it true?" Not so fast. Typical avoidance on your part. I haven't it's true. Besides, you said it's false, so back it up.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh I'd have considered it, if you had asked nicely instead of making a personal attack.
Originally Posted By gadzuux Since this has become a contentious point - allow me to tidy up my own comment (it had sloppy typos) ... >> "GOP accountability" - create a catastrophic failure and then try and pin it on the other guy - clinton, the democratic party, anybody. Except it only works with other republicans. Everybody else knows better. <<
Originally Posted By wahooskipper The Democrats, by and large, were as determined about going to war as were the Republicans. To say otherwise is to completely ignore history. Now, by and large, they have also been the first to say, "oops...I was wrong...we shouldn't have gone to war." But, let's not overlook the fact that it was an almost overwhelming majority of politicians pushing the war and the country...at that time...was largely for it as well. Even in my own, liberal family you are hard pressed to find someone who was opposed to this war from day one.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Asking "how is it false" is a personal attack? Puhleeeze.....
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> The Democrats, by and large, were as determined about going to war as were the Republicans. To say otherwise is to completely ignore history. << I disagree. No one was as "determined" as bush - he led us there. The fact that some democrats voted him the authorization doesn't rise to the same level of culpability. And what is the point? To shift responsibility for iraq to the democrats? Never gonna happen. If this thing were any kind of success, the publicans would be tripping over themselves to get in front of the parade. Instead they're sluffing off the resonsibility as fast as they can.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper I'm not shifting the blame anywhere. Bush pushed for it. His party AND the other party gave him the go ahead. Everyone wants to make this a black and white story. But it never has been.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>If this thing were any kind of success, the publicans would be tripping over themselves to get in front of the parade.<< You mean tripping over the F-14s they would take to the aircraft carrier or military base while they dressed up and played soldier with gargantuan "Mission Accomplished" and "We Did It" banners strewn every which way. We've already seen the shameless propaganda that happened when they were so desperate to declare victory without a plan. Now how many more kids have died in Iraq for this fiasco? How many more will die? Tick tock, tick tock, George. But he had good intentions, so he gets a mulligan.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Everyone wants to make this a black and white story. But it never has been.> Perhaps not. But I'd say "dark gray and light gray." Clinton (as the right loves to point out) said plenty of bad things about Saddam in the 90's. But he was wise enough not to commit to war, invasion and occupation. If Gore had succeeded Clinton, I think it's pretty safe to say he wouldn't have, either. And absent a push from the executive branch, a war (certainly a war of choice such as this one) doesn't happen. We know from Woodward, O'Neill, and other sources that Bush, and even more so Cheney and Rumsfeld, were pushing to find a link to Iraq immediately after 9/11. And that there was a desire to invade Iraq BEFORE 9/11 - 9/11 provided the justification to push for what they wanted to begin with, even though there was no link. That's all on the administration. Without that push, this war doesn't happen. So yes, many Democrats gave the okay, either because they were as scared as the public was by the constant drumbeat of fear and selected intelligence released by the administration, or because they were too gutless to risk looking "unpatriotic." They bear some responsibility. But without the administration's push, the war simply doesn't happen. So maybe not black and white - but dark gray and light gray, I'd say.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Asking "how is it false" is a personal attack?> It's not. The "Typical avoidance on your part" was.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "The "Typical avoidance on your part" was." Oh fer cryin' out loud. THAT'S a personal attack? You've got to be kidding. Of course, you're not, and that's the sad part.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh I'm not kidding, and yes, it's an attack. What else would you call it? It's certainly not a factual statement that furthers the discussion.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< But, let's not overlook the fact that it was an almost overwhelming majority of politicians pushing the war and the country...at that time...was largely for it as well. >>> At least some responsibility for this must be taken by the Administration, as they were the ones stovepiping intelligence that fit their agenda and sidelining that which did not. I think this had a significant influence on Congress. In the computer world, there's the notion of GIGO - Garbage In, Garbage Out. If you feed Senators and Representatives highly selective intelligence that's designed only to support your agenda and not reveal the actual truth, you can end up with a result such as we did. <<< almost overwhelming majority >>> Also, your current stance seems to be along the lines of "Look, the Democrats were almost as stupid as the Republicans." Perhaps this is true, but it doesn't really speak very well of the Republicans, now does it? <<< Even in my own, liberal family you are hard pressed to find someone who was opposed to this war from day one. >>> Well, I'm not a member of your family, nor am I a liberal. In fact, I'm a lifelong Republican. Yet I somehow was able to determine that the whole thing was one big load of B.S. I don't know when "day one" of my opposition to the war or the administration's policy was, but it was in either November or December 2001 (obviously, the war was not really on the public table at that point). Entering 2003, when the rhetoric, public discourse, and actual planning for the war was being ramped up, I had a rather strong feeling and belief that it was based on false pretenses. I can't point to any one thing that told me this, but perhaps the single most influential factor was noticing just how carefully the administration's statements were worded. It was very clear to me that there was one message that was the intended interpretation, and a very different message being stated if you looked at what was actually being said. It was very clear to me that the administration did not want to be caught in a "lie" later on if by chance something they wanted to claim was true ended up being not true. But that of course raised the question of why they would go to such lengths in each and every public statement if they were really certain that they were right. And this was all without the benefit of hindsight of what we now know to be true, and even what was publicly available at the time but unknown to me at the time (such as PNAC public statements from the late 90's). No matter how much I promoted my point of view either in person or online, most everyone thought I was crazy, "just didn't get it," or hated America. Of course, now several years later, having been vindicated to a large degree, it's quite amazing to see how things have turned out. I might actually want to find consolation in a "See, I told you so!" attitude, if it were not for the 3,000+ dead US servicemen and women, and the six figures of dead Iraqis that have resulted from the war.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper Well, I will say perhaps the most unpopular thing on here. I think we needed to go to Iraq and I think we need to stay. I think the surge of troops, though difficult, is necessary. And, I think we can't leave until there is some form of stability. If we do, the Region is going to go to hell and we will be turning right back around and heading into a regional conflict as opposed to the local conflict that currently exists. I hate all of this. But I don't see another way.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <If you feed Senators and Representatives highly selective intelligence that's designed only to support your agenda and not reveal the actual truth, you can end up with a result such as we did.> But there's no evidence they did that. The fact that the Clinton administration said the same things about Saddam that the Bush administration did indicates they didn't.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <I'm not kidding, and yes, it's an attack. What else would you call it? It's certainly not a factual statement that furthers the discussion.> I may regret stepping in here, but I don't see SPP's comment as an attack. "You're a poopyhead" is an attack. "You're a Saddam-lover" or "you're just a greedy Republican" are attacks. "Your post avoided answering my question and you've done this before" is not a personal attack, it's a critique of your post.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <"Your post avoided answering my question and you've done this before " is not a personal attack, it's a critique of your post.> No, saying "Your post avoided answering my question" is a critique of my post. Saying, "It's typical of you" is a personal attack. What's more, as I noted earlier, it's not a factual statement that furthers the discussion.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 "It's typical of you" (to avoid answering my question) is not a personal attack either, IMO. It's a critique of your pattern of answering posts. And it's arguable whether or not it's factual.
