Saturday, August 22, 2009

Someone's lying

Maybe it's both of them. They are, after all, both Bushists.

My natural inclination is to believe anything plausible that casts the Bushists in a bad light. I already believed that they manipulated threat levels for baldly political purposes. They manipulated everything for baldly political purposes, right up to the stove-piped intelligence they used to manipulate the people and the Congress into the panic that put us stupidly into Iraq.


flounder said...

Um... It was Clinton that pushed for us to go back to Iraq, remember.

Besides, why is nobody complaining about us being in Afghanistan? All of your misdirected objections apply to this war too!

Oh and for the record... The war in Iraq was absolutly necessary. Maybe a little history lesson is in order...

Back in the 80s, Sadam killed countless Curds with flowers and peace signs... no, that's right.. It was WMDs!

We slapped his wrist. Then he invaded Kuwait and the UN called upon us to help push him out. We did! But we stopped short of taking Sadam out under certain conditions.. A treaty if you will.

Over the next decade he (Sadam) continually tested the limits of that treaty and often ignored it completely. Your hero, mr Clinton, even sent a few bombs over there to remind Sadam of his agreement. I supported that!

Sadam kept it up and Clinton gave him a last warning. His response was to kick the inspectors (which were demanded by the treaty) out while threatening to use his WMDs again but against us.

Between Clinton and bush, along with the UN, there were 17 last warnings. None of which were even considered by Sadam who insisted that he was going to attack us with the WMDs that he was producing.

So you mean to tell me that if your neighbor shot at you and then was released from prison on the condition that you be allowed to check him for weapons at any time, only to have him stop letting you check him as he promised that he was arming himself to finish the job... You would just sit back and let him?

If you're willing to say this (or believe that we should have stayed out of Iraq) then you are a complete moron.

lovable liberal said...

You clearly don't know what you're talking about.

We enforced the no-fly zones over Iraq under Clinton, which we had done since Bush I. It was Duhbya who invaded again, using bullshit intel and trying (and failing) to link Saddam to 9/11, which we know he was not involved in.

It's totally obvious that Saddam was not a threat. It wasn't so obvious in 2003, but the thin pretexts that the Bushists presented did not justify war.

Idiot, the people who did 9/11 were in Afghanistan. That's why that war made sense. Instead of fully prosecuting it, Duhbya and the neocons diverted resources to Iraq, which had not attacked us and which was incapable of attacking us.

Duhbya wanted to go, and he went, and it was a disaster.

You don't have the slightest clue what happened even though you evidently lived through it. You must get your news from Fox. It's pretty obvious who the complete moron is here, and it ain't me.

globeisatrocious said...

Not so lovable is he Flounder? Is 9-11 still a pretext for the current build-up in Afghanistan? Can Colin Powell be dusted off for another UN speech justifying that troop transfer? He's so damn convincing of Democratic lawmakers who read the same raw intel. Cindy Sheehan call you office; Charlie Gibson says get a life!

flounder said...

Ok, I'm the moron...

But then why was it nearly 2 years after 9/11 that we finally invaded Iraq but we were in Afghanistan within a week.

Where did the tons of WMDs that were recovered during the attack come from?

Oh wait, you don't believe that WMDs were found, do you? You see, getting your news from TV, no matter which network, does not make you an expert. You have been sucked in to the politics of hate and you refuse to let the FACTS get into your way.

I would love to give Bush credit for invading Iraq, it would make him less embarassing as a president, unfortunatly.. I can't.

It was Sadam that brought that attack on himself. It was never presented (by anyone who was actually involved) to be related to 9/11 at all. The media made that leap and used it to make the right look bad.

I'm guessing that you are young and are looking at the event through the skewed prism of "historical knowledge" rather than experience. I also must assume that while my brothers were over there doing things that you would never have the courage to do, you were playing games on your x-box and cooking brain cells with your drug of choice.

My MOS, by the way, 25s. I had top secret security clearance and was in a job that requires the highest ASVAB score in the Army. Not exactly the kind of profession that lends itself to all of those things that you've called me.

So what's your security clearance?

lovable liberal said...

Yeah, you're the moron. Glad you agree.

Obviously, invading a country with a functioning modern army took a lot more logistics than buying proxies in Afghanistan. Duh! You didn't know that with your high ASVAB score? Did that help you count 18 months between 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq as nearly 2 years? (Hint: Bring up test scores is desperate.)

Oh, yeah, right, we found tons of WMDs in Iraq. That damn sand gets in everything and wrecks it. Massively.

I'm older than you are. I read more widely than you do. I don't believe your so-called facts because they're warmed-over wingnut bullshit.

Silence DoGood said...

Bottom line here ("someone's lying") is that Obama generally ran on a peace-maker anti-war platform. Oh sure being a good lawyer I read all the fine-print on his website. But to all the voters and Ozombies, he was anti-war.

Now we have 1,000's of troops left in Iraq and 1,00's new ones along with killer drones being sent to Afghanistan.

And the media, the fact-free blogs, and the TV watching masses have shut the wars out of their minds and only talk about Bush's war crimes as if it were a past era.

Obama lied to us and we are at war now. He needs to tke responsibility at some point. Be at war or bring out troops home. Time to stop mumbling and be a real liberal - or stick to your status quo.

lovable liberal said...

Obama ran on ending the war in Iraq, clearly and explicitly. He has so far failed to do that, although the U.S. presence there is beginning to wind down. Half measures, to be sure.

It was, however, the Republicans who characterized Obama as the candidate of merely talking to our enemies, not Obama himself.

Afghanistan is different from Iraq. Don't you guys get that? I'm a liberal, not someone in favor of peace at any price.

Still, the news media have forgotten the wars. Atrios regularly remember, but CNN only occasionally has a small story. I guess there's some feverish way of laying the blame for media amnesia at Obama's feet, too. Did he take a vacation this August? That must be it.

Silence DoGood said...

Obama did say that he would end Iraq and persue enemies and defend the country.

However the message he put out to his version of the ditto heads, and I heard this from a lot of Obama button wearing fans, was that he was a not a war president. He is smart man and knows the value of words and rumors. He is not stupid and by saying Iraq over and over he knew how it would translate.

With troops left in Iraq to protect "our interests" (oil), and war elsewhere Obama nows owns the title War President.

...and his shiny distractions have pulled the media off the wars. I bet a survey would return a healthy percent of "we are not at war". I should call Gallup to try that one out.

He will be a better Liberal if the people keep him honest.

I will keep banging the anti-war drum like Arlo Guthrie " I am not proud or tired" Alice's Restaurant

flounder said...

Are you saying that there were no WMDs in Iraq?
Are you saying that 1.5 does not round off to 2?

"when I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for.... So I thought it was prudent for the president to go to the UN and for the UN to say, you got to let these inspectors in, and this time if you don't cooperate the penalty could be regime change, not just continued sanctions" Bill Clinton

According to the Clinton administration these were the facts as of 1998...

-After the first gulf war Iraq had produced at lease 3.9 tons of VX gas(deadly nerve agent) and acquired 805 tons of ingredients for the gas.

- Iraq had produced 25 missile warheads containing germ agents

-Iraq had produced 8,500 liters of Anthrax

-Iraq had 550 artillery shells with mustard gas

-Iraq had produced 157 aerial bombs filled with germ agents

With this knowledge, Clintons administration prepared for war against Iraq. On Feb 17th of that year Clinton gave a speech from the steps of the Pentagon. He made an iron clad case for going to war with Iraq (it was very inspiring, you should read it some day). That was when the coalition started building and by the time the invasion took place it was the largest coalition in world history.

Now you are going to tell me that Bush went back to 1998 and forced Clinton to do this?

You see, we did find a portion of those "unaccounted for" weapons hidden within Iraq. The thing that shakes me is that many of the WMDs that inspectors did know about had vanished by the time we got there.

I am very concerned about Afghanistan. It is a much more difficult battlefield than Iraq and we stand to lose far more of my brothers over there. However, I support the surge and I am in contact with many guys over there that are looking forward to the challenge. I'm just surprised that the Anti-war crowd has suddenly been silenced, it's as if they got what they really wanted and never really cared about the war.

Silence DoGood said...

Afghanistan is a major concern for our current War president.

The NY Times reported today that foreign deaths there are at an all time high. The terrorists there are not impressed at all with Obama's empty speeches when they watch their peers and villagers vaporizing in frint of their eyes.

I am not endorsing the terroists here, but there was a clear feeling in the media circus surrounding the election that the world would just love us once Obama took charge. And the terror threat would go down.

The truth is Obama is just continuing like Bush to poke them while trying to spin news about it.

VietNam: If we just fight half-assed in VietNam, world communism would be stopped.

Afghanistan: If we just fight half-assed, world terrorism will be stopped.

Obama has his VietNam.

lovable liberal said...

The terrorists there are not impressed at all with Obama's empty speeches when they watch their peers and villagers vaporizing in frint of their eyes.

I am not endorsing the terroists here, but there was a clear feeling in the media circus surrounding the election that the world would just love us once Obama took charge.

This is why I don't trust you. You're spouting Bushist talking points and holding President Obama responsible for the fact that the media often regurgitated them, which suggests that you are a concern troll.

Feel free to prove me wrong.

It reminds me how it was Al Gore's fault that the big media were all repeating the Rovian lies about him. It's thick-headed, and I won't buy it. Ever.

lovable liberal said...

Hey, flounder, Clinton made regime change his official policy. He didn't go to war over it. You're openly bullshitting and untrustworthy when you try to make those two the same.

Iraq had in the past had had WMD. They didn't when Duhbya went in. There were some remnants that forensics could detect; the rest was a right-wing wet dream.

I know you'll hate this: The inspections regime worked. Saddam just couldn't admit it publicly, lest his very real internal and regional enemies scent the full measure of his weakness. A threat to America my ass!

flounder said...

Do you simply ignore the facts that you disagree with? You are the only person alive who really believes that nonsense. I guess when you were in Iraq you searched and proved that there were none. The rest of us were just dreaming about what we have seen! There were still tons of WMDs when Bush took office, that is an absolute fact.

Wow! Not one single person who was actually involved would say that Sadam had gotten rid of his WMDs, because he didn't. they were scattered all over Iraq.

As I said in my other comment, I cannot debate with someone who has no foundation for their argument and refers to people as clueless for not buying into the propaganda.

Silence DoGood said...

blog template:

LL: Repubs are doo-doo heads
someone: argument
LL: You are a doo-doo head
(rinse and repeat)

It might help if you actually addressed the points that people are laboring to make.

Reminds me of the Monty Python "i'd like to buy an argument" sketch.

lovable liberal said...

No, it's not.

lovable liberal said...

flounder, your claim that weapons of mass destruction were "scattered all over Iraq" puts you in the category of someone who's lying. Even Duhbya and Darth had to admit there were no WMD.

You have got to be a Fox viewer.