One by one, they tell the truth

[Narmer]

While I'm glad these people are coming around to the truth, it's unfortunate that it's taken this long. These people, seeking glory, have played into the hands of our enemies, notably Iran and Al Qaeda. Worse, rather than make the Middle East a safe place, they've showed American vulnerability and increased the threat to Israel by fanatical Muslims. Yes, Bush has legitamized fanatical Islamists. Bush Senior deserves some blame as well because a lot of these cronies in the White House came from his Administration.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/article2042969.ece
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iraq: One by one, they tell the truth
As Tony Blair flies out to meet George Bush, the latest admission of failure in Iraq has made the two leaders appear even more isolated

Colin Powell

After telling the UN assembly in 2003 that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, the former Secretary of State admitted in May 2004 the claims were "inaccurate and wrong and, in some cases, deliberately misleading".

Colonel Tim Collins

The Army colonel made a famous rousing speech to troops on the eve of battle. But in September 2005, he declared:

"History might notice the invasion has arguably acted as the best recruiting sergeant for al-Qa'ida ever."

Paul Bremer

The former head of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq admitted in January 2006:

"It [the invasion] was a much tougher job than I think I expected it to be... we really didn't see the insurgency coming."

Zalmay Khalilzad

Contradicting the usually upbeat rhetoric, the US ambassador in Iraq said in March: "We have opened a Pandora's box". And unless the violence abated, Iraq would "make Taliban Afghanistan look like child's play".

Jack Straw

The former foreign secretary, one of the cheerleaders for the war, said in September: "The current situation is dire. I think many mistakes were made after the military action - there is no question about it - by the United States administration."

Gen Sir Richard Dannatt

The British General admitted in an interview in October: "I don't say that the difficulties we are experiencing round the world are caused by our presence in Iraq but undoubtedly our presence in Iraq exacerbates [them]."

Richard Perle

Regarded as one of the intellectual godfathers of the war, Perle changed his tack in November, admitting that "huge mistakes were made" in the invasion of Iraq. "The levels of brutality we've seen are truly horrifying," he added.

Ken Adelman

Last month, the noted neoconservative said: "The national security team... turned out to be among the most incompetent in the post-war era. Not only did each of them have enormous flaws, but together they were deadly."

Donald Rumsfeld

A memo from the hardline former defence secretary revealed this week that he had been looking for a change of tactics. "In my view, it is time for a major adjustment... what US forces are doing in Iraq is not working well enough..."

Robert Gates

Yesterday, Mr Rumsfeld's proposed successor was asked at a Senate hearing whether the US was winning the war in Iraq. "No, sir," he replied. And he warned that the situation could lead to a "regional conflagration".

Tony Blair ...

George Bush ...

----------------------------------------------------------

 

[sandorski]

hehe yup

 

[colonel]

Why we dont learn from history? The British had a hell of the time in Iraq back at the begining of the century, the Arab DONT trust the west.

 

[Moonbeam]

Every citizen of the US is responsible for what happened in Iraq because we elected George Bush, those who voted for him, those who did not vote, and those who voted against him but did not do enough to keep him from being elected.

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Every citizen of the US is responsible for what happened in Iraq because we elected George Bush, those who voted for him, those who did not vote, and those who voted against him but did not do enough to keep him from being elected.

Well, the surest way of stopping the President would be doing You Know What. Surely, you aren't proposing that, are you?

Besides, that's being a good citizen. You vote and let your voice be heard, everybody thanks you for doing your civic duty. You kill the President and you land in prison and become infamous. Then people would've speculated about how great a President Bush could've been. Now that we know Bush may go down in history as one of the Worst Presidents in American History, if you had a time machine, would you go back and do it?

 

[imported_dna]

Hmm....

Even though I never thought that going into Iraq was good idea, and that the post-war administration was abysmal -- I never ceased to be amazed by these orgies you guys are having, simply by echoing one another.

It is obvious that you take great pleasure in the carnage that takes place in Iraq, since you can point and say: "see, it was wrong to go in, Bush is an idiot".

During this ecstasy of yours perspective is lost, and details are no longer consequential.

What am I talking about? Well, the simple fact that these are Iraqis that are killing other Iraqis; throw in some foreign fighters that came in to fight the evil empire, and you got yourself a few more car bombs at the center of Baghdad.

Why -- why is it that the Iraqis can't share the blame, or even own most of it?

A survey conducted not so long ago concluded that over 60% of the population -- despite the situation -- are happy that Saddam is gone. In fact, we don't need surveys to tell us what we've seen on the streets of Iraq after the US took over Baghdad.

Going from masses of people greeting US troops to masses of people hating and assaulting US troops is quite a transition, especially when taking into account that the US didn't embark on brutal repression, or public execution of alleged militants. Sure, you'll argue that they have been doing that because of the security situation, but they themselves are contributing to that situation.

I have no doubt that the reason that many Iraqis harbor so much hatered towards the US is because that is what they are told they should do by their illustrious leaders, like Al-Sadr which blamed the US and Britain for some of the mosque bombings.

Unfortunately, you guys are too buys to be bothered with such details, and those who dare to suggest that perhaps the US is not at fault for all the violence in Iraq, well, are clearly raving neocon lunatics.

When I read all these complaints about the US's mishandling of post-war Iraq, makes me think of a yuppie sitting at a Starbucks, talking about how horrible Saddam is, and that someone should do something about such terrible dictators. However, when someone does do something, the yuppie then redirect his criticism, arguing that "you're doing it all wrong".

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: dna
Hmm....

Even though I never thought that going into Iraq was good idea, and that the post-war administration was abysmal -- I never ceased to be amazed by these orgies you guys are having, simply by echoing one another.

It is obvious that you take great pleasure in the carnage that takes place in Iraq, since you can point and say: "see, it was wrong to go in, Bush is an idiot".

During this ecstasy of yours perspective is lost, and details are no longer consequential.

What am I talking about? Well, the simple fact that these are Iraqis that are killing other Iraqis; throw in some foreign fighters that came in to fight the evil empire, and you got yourself a few more car bombs at the center of Baghdad.

Why -- why is it that the Iraqis can't share the blame, or even own most of it?

A survey conducted not so long ago concluded that over 60% of the population -- despite the situation -- are happy that Saddam is gone. In fact, we don't need surveys to tell us what we've seen on the streets of Iraq after the US took over Baghdad.

Going from masses of people greeting US troops to masses of people hating and assaulting US troops is quite a transition, especially when taking into account that the US didn't embark on brutal repression, or public execution of alleged militants. Sure, you'll argue that they have been doing that because of the security situation, but they themselves are contributing to that situation.

I have no doubt that the reason that many Iraqis harbor so much hatered towards the US is because that is what they are told they should do by their illustrious leaders, like Al-Sadr which blamed the US and Britain for some of the mosque bombings.

Unfortunately, you guys are too buys to be bothered with such details, and those who dare to suggest that perhaps the US is not at fault for all the violence in Iraq, well, are clearly raving neocon lunatics.

When I read all these complaints about the US's mishandling of post-war Iraq, makes me think of a yuppie sitting at a Starbucks, talking about how horrible Saddam is, and that someone should do something about such terrible dictators. However, when someone does do something, the yuppie then redirect his criticism, arguing that "you're doing it all wrong".

Who borked it all up is not an issue and never would have been an issue if the Liar in Chief hadn't started the whole thing to begin with.

 

[imported_dna]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Who borked it all up is not an issue and never would have been an issue if the Liar in Chief hadn't started the whole thing to begin with.

I believe that the Sunni-Shiia rivalry predates the Liar in Chief.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: dna

Originally posted by: sandorski
Who borked it all up is not an issue and never would have been an issue if the Liar in Chief hadn't started the whole thing to begin with.

I believe that the Sunni-Shiia rivalry predates the Liar in Chief.

Moot.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: dna

Originally posted by: sandorski
Who borked it all up is not an issue and never would have been an issue if the Liar in Chief hadn't started the whole thing to begin with.

I believe that the Sunni-Shiia rivalry predates the Liar in Chief.

Moot.

depends in your perspective...
Its a moot point if you don`t want to go there...hehehe

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: dna
Hmm....

Even though I never thought that going into Iraq was good idea, and that the post-war administration was abysmal -- I never ceased to be amazed by these orgies you guys are having, simply by echoing one another.

It is obvious that you take great pleasure in the carnage that takes place in Iraq, since you can point and say: "see, it was wrong to go in, Bush is an idiot".

During this ecstasy of yours perspective is lost, and details are no longer consequential.

What am I talking about? Well, the simple fact that these are Iraqis that are killing other Iraqis; throw in some foreign fighters that came in to fight the evil empire, and you got yourself a few more car bombs at the center of Baghdad.

Why -- why is it that the Iraqis can't share the blame, or even own most of it?

A survey conducted not so long ago concluded that over 60% of the population -- despite the situation -- are happy that Saddam is gone. In fact, we don't need surveys to tell us what we've seen on the streets of Iraq after the US took over Baghdad.

Going from masses of people greeting US troops to masses of people hating and assaulting US troops is quite a transition, especially when taking into account that the US didn't embark on brutal repression, or public execution of alleged militants. Sure, you'll argue that they have been doing that because of the security situation, but they themselves are contributing to that situation.

I have no doubt that the reason that many Iraqis harbor so much hatered towards the US is because that is what they are told they should do by their illustrious leaders, like Al-Sadr which blamed the US and Britain for some of the mosque bombings.

Unfortunately, you guys are too buys to be bothered with such details, and those who dare to suggest that perhaps the US is not at fault for all the violence in Iraq, well, are clearly raving neocon lunatics.

When I read all these complaints about the US's mishandling of post-war Iraq, makes me think of a yuppie sitting at a Starbucks, talking about how horrible Saddam is, and that someone should do something about such terrible dictators. However, when someone does do something, the yuppie then redirect his criticism, arguing that "you're doing it all wrong".

Awkward, poorly formed redirection, invalid arguments, poor composition, strawmen aplenty.
1.5/10

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: dna

Originally posted by: sandorski
Who borked it all up is not an issue and never would have been an issue if the Liar in Chief hadn't started the whole thing to begin with.

I believe that the Sunni-Shiia rivalry predates the Liar in Chief.

That may be true but Bush broke the balancing act that was Saddam's Regime. That moron ran through there like a bull in a China shop and paved the way for Iranian domination of the Middle East. I'm sure your Israeli friends are thrilled.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: dna

Originally posted by: sandorski
Who borked it all up is not an issue and never would have been an issue if the Liar in Chief hadn't started the whole thing to begin with.

I believe that the Sunni-Shiia rivalry predates the Liar in Chief.

Moot.

depends in your perspective...
Its a moot point if you don`t want to go there...hehehe

Nah, it's Moot because it's Moot. If all this was the everyday event prior to Bush's invasion, then it would not be Moot.

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: dna
Hmm....

Even though I never thought that going into Iraq was good idea, and that the post-war administration was abysmal -- I never ceased to be amazed by these orgies you guys are having, simply by echoing one another.

It is obvious that you take great pleasure in the carnage that takes place in Iraq, since you can point and say: "see, it was wrong to go in, Bush is an idiot".

During this ecstasy of yours perspective is lost, and details are no longer consequential.

What am I talking about? Well, the simple fact that these are Iraqis that are killing other Iraqis; throw in some foreign fighters that came in to fight the evil empire, and you got yourself a few more car bombs at the center of Baghdad.

Why -- why is it that the Iraqis can't share the blame, or even own most of it?

A survey conducted not so long ago concluded that over 60% of the population -- despite the situation -- are happy that Saddam is gone. In fact, we don't need surveys to tell us what we've seen on the streets of Iraq after the US took over Baghdad.

Going from masses of people greeting US troops to masses of people hating and assaulting US troops is quite a transition, especially when taking into account that the US didn't embark on brutal repression, or public execution of alleged militants. Sure, you'll argue that they have been doing that because of the security situation, but they themselves are contributing to that situation.

I have no doubt that the reason that many Iraqis harbor so much hatered towards the US is because that is what they are told they should do by their illustrious leaders, like Al-Sadr which blamed the US and Britain for some of the mosque bombings.

Unfortunately, you guys are too buys to be bothered with such details, and those who dare to suggest that perhaps the US is not at fault for all the violence in Iraq, well, are clearly raving neocon lunatics.

When I read all these complaints about the US's mishandling of post-war Iraq, makes me think of a yuppie sitting at a Starbucks, talking about how horrible Saddam is, and that someone should do something about such terrible dictators. However, when someone does do something, the yuppie then redirect his criticism, arguing that "you're doing it all wrong".

The world is more complicated than that. If it wasn't, there's a lot of boogie-men we would've dealt with a long time ago.

 

[BladeVenom]

?One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.?
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

?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

?Iraq is a long way from USA but, what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.?
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

?He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.?
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

?We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.Constitution and Laws, to take necessary actions, (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq?s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.?
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

?Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.?
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

?Hussein has .. chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.?
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

 

[imported_dna]

How could it be moot?

While Saddam was in charge the killings and tortures were taking place, but the difference was that it wasn't on live TV, or with 24/7 news coverage.

The rivalry was still alive and well back then. You just didn't care since you didn't see it in all its glory.

Anyway, I think you've proved my point with your attitude/replies.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: dna
How could it be moot?

While Saddam was in charge the killings and tortures were taking place, but the difference was that it wasn't on live TV, or with 24/7 news coverage.

The rivalry was still alive and well back then. You just didn't care since you didn't see it in all its glory.

Anyway, I think you've proved my point with your attitude/replies.

It was not Daily, it was not 100's upon 100's constantly. Baghdad and the rest of Iraq was not in chaos. Moot it is.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Every citizen of the US is responsible for what happened in Iraq because we elected George Bush, those who voted for him, those who did not vote, and those who voted against him but did not do enough to keep him from being elected.

Well, the surest way of stopping the President would be doing You Know What. Surely, you aren't proposing that, are you?

Besides, that's being a good citizen. You vote and let your voice be heard, everybody thanks you for doing your civic duty. You kill the President and you land in prison and become infamous. Then people would've speculated about how great a President Bush could've been. Now that we know Bush may go down in history as one of the Worst Presidents in American History, if you had a time machine, would you go back and do it?

SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, _ _ _ _ _ BUSH.... SNL had a skit with 41 & 43 on a deer hunting trip, 41 debates this very dilemma with himself. To shoot 43 or not to shoot 43.

 

[sierrita]

Originally posted by: dna
How could it be moot?

While Saddam was in charge the killings and tortures were taking place, but the difference was that it wasn't on live TV, or with 24/7 news coverage.

The rivalry was still alive and well back then. You just didn't care since you didn't see it in all its glory.

Anyway, I think you've proved my point with your attitude/replies.

You desperately attempt to blame the victims.

You sir, are despicable.

:disgust:

 

[tomywishbone]

"Richard Perle... Regarded as one of the intellectual godfathers of the war, Perle changed his tack in November, admitting that "huge mistakes were made" in the invasion of Iraq. "The levels of brutality we've seen are truly horrifying," he added. "
-----------------------
My personal favorite. Wow.

 

[imported_dna]

Originally posted by: sandorski
It was not Daily, it was not 100's upon 100's constantly. Baghdad and the rest of Iraq was not in chaos. Moot it is.

It may have not been at today's numbers, but you have just admitted that the rivalry was there.

You assertion that the what I say is moot seems to be the only way you can counter what I say.

I'll borrow a line from Moonbeam's sig, which says the follows: "You limit the scope you limit the findings". In this case, as I've argued in my first message, a lot of you want to limit the scope of the discussion in order to make sure that nothing contradicts your assertions that the US is 100% at fault.

 

[2Xtreme21]

And 3.5 years later, those of us opposed from the get-go are still shaking our heads...

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: dna

Originally posted by: sandorski
It was not Daily, it was not 100's upon 100's constantly. Baghdad and the rest of Iraq was not in chaos. Moot it is.

It may have not been at today's numbers, but you have just admitted that the rivalry was there.

You assertion that the what I say is moot seems to be the only way you can counter what I say.

I'll borrow a line from Moonbeam's sig, which says the follows: "You limit the scope you limit the findings". In this case, as I've argued in my first message, a lot of you want to limit the scope of the discussion in order to make sure that nothing contradicts your assertions that the US is 100% at fault.

Who cares about "rivalry"?

There's Rivalry between the US and France. There's Rivalry between China and Japan. There's Rivalry between New York, NY and Los Angeles, Ca. What there isn't in all those Rivalries is chaos, mass killings, armies stuck in the middle and being attacked constantly. Your point remains Moot.

 

[boredhokie]

Iran and OPEC already owns, what, 20-30% of our debt now? Maybe they put the lean on the neocon baby boomers and we went into Iraq so Iran would keep buying our bullsh!t mortgage and plasma screen debt.. sure would explain a lot.

 

[imported_dna]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Who cares about "rivalry"?

There's Rivalry between the US and France. There's Rivalry between China and Japan. There's Rivalry between New York, NY and Los Angeles, Ca. What there isn't in all those Rivalries is chaos, mass killings, armies stuck in the middle and being attacked constantly. Your point remains Moot.

There may be rivalry between US and France, but that takes a civilized form. In Iraq, the rivalry takes a hateful, violent form.

You guys keep arguing that the US invasion is the source of all evils, and that it has upsetted the "balance" that existed, effectively implying that the Sunni-Shiia rivalry came to be only after the removal of Saddam. However, we all know that the rivalry was there, and in such a form that only one of the parties could exact vengeance on the other.

True -- the US upset the status quo, but represtnting that status quo as a "balance" is quite misleading, as it implies harmony and peaceful co-existance. Sometimes I wonder whether some of you pine for Saddam's "balance" of torture and murder, which, of course, you didn't know much about, as it did not appear prominently in the newspapers every day. Ignorace is indeed a bliss.

This goes back to my original point, and that is that none of you wish to admit that there were pre-existing conditions prior to the invasion, as well as external forces that inflammed the decades-old rivalry. I can't say that I'm surprised, since your stated goal is to lay the blame entirely and solely on the USA, while acknowledging any of the points I've raised would detract from your argument, and broaden the scope of the discussion.