Democrats Disingenous in Their Rhetoric

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

DTS/GR: Keep drinkin that moonshine...war trials...please report back to us from the Hague,DTS! Whatever happened after 2003 ...its our fault! Please ..that is so much blather....there are warring factions over there for political or religious reasons, and that situation coupled with Iraq's meager and unsteady response to our aid and leadership has resulted in what we have now. So its so convenient to jump on the bandwagon....welll if the best and brightest polititions were fooled by the Administration...then what does that tell you about them? You cant have it both ways.....oh I forgot...you can if your a demoncrat!

It tells me:
A) our "best and brightest" in Congress are actually complete morons
B) the Administration at best, massaged the information they gave Congress, and at worst, outright lied to them
C) Rove and co.'s tactics of accusing anyone who questioned the info of being "soft on terror" cowed them into voting for authorization

Look, I knew the evidence was flimsy at best, and I was just reading the damn paper in 2003. But I thought there's just no way our government, the US government, the good guys, would mislead us into war. Which made me a moron; you think Iran Contra would have permanently woken me up to government dishonesty. Well, as Bush said, "fool me once, shame on.. shame on...foolmetwicewongetfooledagin."

Timm, what has happened since 2003 IS our fault. We destablized the region, we cheerfully handed over billions of dollars in no-bid contracts to Cheney's beloved Halliburton, we underfunded our own soldiers and we understaffed the area. We f*cked up and we're still f*cking up. And at some point, you have to ask yourself, is this worth it? Would things be better off if Saddam were still in power? And God forgive me for thinking it, but in terms of our long-term national security, I think yes. He was a huge thorn in the side of Iran, which kept them from gaining more power in the region. He was secular, slowing the encroachment of radical Isalm. He was a monster, yes. So are quite a few dictators of nations we call allies, even as they fund people who want to kill us (Saudi Arabia and the funding of Wahhabi schools, anyone?).

Now, four years later, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are dead. Stop and think about that, Timm- hundreds of thousands. If we go with the low figures of 300,000, that's 100 9/11s. One hundred of them. Do you really think 300,000 Iraqis would be dead in four years if we hadn't gone in? Honestly, do you think that? Is that better for the Iraqis than what they had? Three hundred thousand dead in four years?

And the nation (what's left of it) is given over to warring factions, Iran is taking over the region, and radical Islam is gaining hold over an area it didn't have one. Do you think this is better for the US than Saddam in power?

Tell me, Timm, how is all this better? How is this a success?

And here's the other thing that has kept me awake at night- is it also possible that some of these Congressmen voted for the resolution because they thought there was no way the government would willfully deceive them like this, and willfully send young men to die for a cause unnecessary to national security? And what does that say about the people in the Administration? Look at them- look at their military records (or rather, complete lack thereof). Do you think they really understood what war means to those fighting it? And do you think, in the end, they cared?

The difference between me and you, Timm (besides your striking good looks. ) is that, for all my railing against this damn idiot in the White House, it's because he's doing a horrendous job, not because he's a Republican (I think NYC's current Republican mayor is the bee's knees, except when he starts yammering about West Side stadiums). But as soon as you see a (D) next to someone's name you automatically discount anything they say or anything they do. And the current Administration is depending on people like you to continue to do that. That way they can tell you anything they want and as long as there is an (R) next to their name, you'll buy it. And that's a shame, because it stops you from really comparing their words to their actions and seeing if they match up. So you'll hide out on your right-wing boards because it makes you feel safe to read nothing but like-minded rhetoric from fellow ditto-heads. And it's also a shame, because your party is rapidly becoming the party of the absolute nutjobs (Dinesh D'Souza, anyone?) and you're not doing anything to stop it. And you should be, but you'd rather hand it over to the nutjobs than admit that maybe, just maybe, the current batch of (R)s are not the people who should be in charge of this country.

[GenuineRisk]

Though, for the record, I think choice A) in my above post is quite possible...

[brianwspencer]

GR,

You laid that out very thoughtfully, and much better than I could have.

Thank you for pointing out the connection between Iran's behavior now as opposed to their behavior before Saddam was deposed. It doesn't get talked about enough (or at all really), because if we can make Saddam the 100% bogeyman in every way, then it makes all the casualties somehow "worth it," which leads me to....

I think the thing that bothers me most, that you so succinctly stated was how many Iraqis have died...at our hands, at each other's hands since the infighting reached breaking point etc.

Many point out the terrible things that Saddam did to some of his own people.

But those are the people who are differentiating killing. They are implying that it is somehow noble and somehow worthy and somehow right to kill Iraqis in a war we started of our own volition. That those deaths are somehow more honorable or more easily written off as collateral damage because they weren't at the hands of a brutal dictator. A dead Iraqi who is dead because of violent force is a dead Iraqi who is dead because of violent force.

I don't like to parse words and try to talk around the fact that Iraqi deaths because of the United States are somehow even remotely more acceptable than a death at the hands of a dictator.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

It tells me:
A) our "best and brightest" in Congress are actually complete morons
B) the Administration at best, massaged the information they gave Congress, and at worst, outright lied to them
C) Rove and co.'s tactics of accusing anyone who questioned the info of being "soft on terror" cowed them into voting for authorization

Look, I knew the evidence was flimsy at best, and I was just reading the damn paper in 2003. But I thought there's just no way our government, the US government, the good guys, would mislead us into war. Which made me a moron; you think Iran Contra would have permanently woken me up to government dishonesty. Well, as Bush said, "fool me once, shame on.. shame on...foolmetwicewongetfooledagin."

Timm, what has happened since 2003 IS our fault. We destablized the region, we cheerfully handed over billions of dollars in no-bid contracts to Cheney's beloved Halliburton, we underfunded our own soldiers and we understaffed the area. We f*cked up and we're still f*cking up. And at some point, you have to ask yourself, is this worth it? Would things be better off if Saddam were still in power? And God forgive me for thinking it, but in terms of our long-term national security, I think yes. He was a huge thorn in the side of Iran, which kept them from gaining more power in the region. He was secular, slowing the encroachment of radical Isalm. He was a monster, yes. So are quite a few dictators of nations we call allies, even as they fund people who want to kill us (Saudi Arabia and the funding of Wahhabi schools, anyone?).

Now, four years later, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are dead. Stop and think about that, Timm- hundreds of thousands. If we go with the low figures of 300,000, that's 100 9/11s. One hundred of them. Do you really think 300,000 Iraqis would be dead in four years if we hadn't gone in? Honestly, do you think that? Is that better for the Iraqis than what they had? Three hundred thousand dead in four years?

And the nation (what's left of it) is given over to warring factions, Iran is taking over the region, and radical Islam is gaining hold over an area it didn't have one. Do you think this is better for the US than Saddam in power?

Tell me, Timm, how is all this better? How is this a success?

And here's the other thing that has kept me awake at night- is it also possible that some of these Congressmen voted for the resolution because they thought there was no way the government would willfully deceive them like this, and willfully send young men to die for a cause unnecessary to national security? And what does that say about the people in the Administration? Look at them- look at their military records (or rather, complete lack thereof). Do you think they really understood what war means to those fighting it? And do you think, in the end, they cared?

The difference between me and you, Timm (besides your striking good looks. ) is that, for all my railing against this damn idiot in the White House, it's because he's doing a horrendous job, not because he's a Republican (I think NYC's current Republican mayor is the bee's knees, except when he starts yammering about West Side stadiums). But as soon as you see a (D) next to someone's name you automatically discount anything they say or anything they do. And the current Administration is depending on people like you to continue to do that. That way they can tell you anything they want and as long as there is an (R) next to their name, you'll buy it. And that's a shame, because it stops you from really comparing their words to their actions and seeing if they match up. So you'll hide out on your right-wing boards because it makes you feel safe to read nothing but like-minded rhetoric from fellow ditto-heads. And it's also a shame, because your party is rapidly becoming the party of the absolute nutjobs (Dinesh D'Souza, anyone?) and you're not doing anything to stop it. And you should be, but you'd rather hand it over to the nutjobs than admit that maybe, just maybe, the current batch of (R)s are not the people who should be in charge of this country.

they voted as they voted so as not to appear weak on terror and lose their next election! now that it has been going poorly, they are all saying they were lied to-no, they weren't. they voted in the way they felt they needed to in order to hold their job! the intel is the same as it was, just now that things are going poorly, it's time to repair and play the blame game.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Danzig188

they voted as they voted so as not to appear weak on terror and lose their next election! now that it has been going poorly, they are all saying they were lied to-no, they weren't. they voted in the way they felt they needed to in order to hold their job! the intel is the same as it was, just now that things are going poorly, it's time to repair and play the blame game.

so you're implying that none of the intel is any different than it was then? None of the intel has been proven to be false? None of the intel has been shown as the sort that was dubious but presented as if it were fact back then?

gosh i hope you don't believe that.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by Danzig188

they voted as they voted so as not to appear weak on terror and lose their next election! now that it has been going poorly, they are all saying they were lied to-no, they weren't. they voted in the way they felt they needed to in order to hold their job! the intel is the same as it was, just now that things are going poorly, it's time to repair and play the blame game.

Danzig,
Your point is well made. If memory serves, was there not an attempt by the Bush administration to connect Iraq with 9-11 and the "war on terror"?
Given the way the war was sold, for many politicians votes in opposition
would have been seen as "unpatriotic".
Do you remember France bashing? Dixie Chicks?
On a side note, I don't think "repair" is currently possible.