Osama and Saddam, sitting in a tree...

[Ben Kenobi]

to Baathist, Saudi royalists, or Nasserites as Muslim groups since that religious identity is incidental to their aims)

True, but it still helps when they snipe at each other rather than at the 'Great Satan.'

[GePap]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Bush hadn't been in office long enough before 9/11 to have all his boys get a feel for their new jobs, and a host of other reasons.

No Presidential candidate in a hundred years or more has campaigned during peacetime on a "let's go to war against __________" platform, because it doesn't sell. Doesn't mean that lots of people didn't want to wave a magic wand and annex Baghdad, it just means that there are other priorities. After all, it's not like Saddam was going anywhere, or was ever going to rise to the level where he could really challenge us.

The great problem is that from january 2002 by which time the main fighting in afghanistan was done till august of 2002 the admin. did diddly about trying to lay an international groundwork for invading Iraq- then all of a sudden from august to march they have this marathon were they make the was about an immidiate danger, now or never! go go go! with us or against us!charade. If these rocket scientist were having meetings about this in Feb 2001, you would think once if was feb 2002, they should have had some idea how to start selling the idea of invading iraq to the world and given themselves a whole year plus of intensive diplomacy, instead of really 6 month period in which they only did intesive diplomacy the last 4, and did that with a lot of useless demogagery attached and strawmen as it now turns out.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
If the arguments here at Poly were any indication, there was still an underground of support for going back into Iraq and "finishing the job."

Before 9/11? I'm sure there are some who wanted us to go back into Iraq, but nothing close to a majority.

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
O'Neil revealed that the Bush Administration was making plans before 9/11 to attack Iraq. This isn't something you pull off 8 months into your administration. We probably would have attacked Iraq a year earlier had we not been distracted by bin Laden.

Yes, they wanted to attack Iraq, but they didn't believe that they could get the political support until 9-11.


There is a large group of Americans that would not have supported the invasion just on the grounds that Iraq was defying us. That group was fooled by the Bush administration. Most of them don't want to believe that they were fooled. That's human nature. And that's why they don't care. It's not because Iraq was defying us.

[chequita guevara]

You have to remember that the Administration was realing from all those corporate backers going belly up. Then there were the revelations about the government's collosal screw-ups leading to 9/11. The Bush Administration was under fire most of the year. It wasn't until they dropped their Iraq bomb in August that all that criticism just vaporized.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by rah
Some people should be reminded that there are a lot of americans that feel that this is just an extension of 10 years ago, and that we're finishing off what we started.
Irag signed a cease fire and tried to weasel every way possible over compliance.

No excuse was necessary and they really weren't listening or cared what the rational for going back was, since they already had one.

Whether thinking this way is right or wrong is immaterial. That's the way people feel and it's the main reason why Bush doesn't take that big of a PR hit when people accuse Bush of lying. THEY DON"T CARE, they think there was a valid reason already.

To these people, it doesn't make a difference and they won't be convinced otherwise. I think they've stopped listening. Calling them stupid for believing it is also silly, since it's just a matter of opinion/belief.

Your President Bush's shoeshine boy, aren't you?

[MRT144]

I agree with rah, the people that support the invasion
or support bush dont care about the reasons or the lies.

[MrFun]

I know -- I agree with Rah's reasonable post for the most part.

I knew that invading Iraq was the right thing to do, for the wrong reasons.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by rah
Some people should be reminded that there are a lot of americans that feel that this is just an extension of 10 years ago, and that we're finishing off what we started.
Irag signed a cease fire and tried to weasel every way possible over compliance.

Considering the first violations of said cease fire were the U.S., U.K. and France unilaterally imposing an unmandated No-Fly Zone and then bombing Iraqi radar sights, I can't say I agree with that.

[oedo]

Originally posted by rah
Whether thinking this way is right or wrong is immaterial. That's the way people feel and it's the main reason why Bush doesn't take that big of a PR hit when people accuse Bush of lying. THEY DON"T CARE, they think there was a valid reason already.

those people you´re talking about, are they the same people who once cared very much about, whether Billy Boy had oral sex or vaginal sex with Monica? or were these completely other people who cared about that?

and if so, I wonder, is there´s anyone in this forum willing to admit and able to argue, that he very much cared about Bill Clinton´s lying about having sex with Monica, while he doesn´t care about G.W. Bush´s lying about reasons for a war?

and how would this person think, if Bill Clinton came up with that WMD and OBL stuff and G.W. Bush got the blow job by Monica?

[rah]

Actually I see it as the same thing, since there are many Clinton supporters that didn't care about the lying about his BJs but are outraged that Bush seemingly lied about the WMD. Nothing you tell them will change their minds and they stopped listening also.

So calling either group stupid for feeling that way is just plain silly.

[GePap]

Actually I see it as the same thing, since there are many Clinton supporters that didn't care about the lying about his BJs but are outraged that Bush seemingly lied about the WMD. Nothing you tell them will change their minds and they stopped listening also.

Yes, while lying is lying, the magnitude of the difference in topics is immense. The impeachement of Clinton was a transiatory event in American politics. Even if all were to go well in Iraq, it was still a multi-year commitment that would change the relation of the US to the whole ME and islamic world.

[rah]

But there is one BIG difference.
Clinton knew 100% that he got a BJ

There is no proof that Bush knew 100% that there were WMD or no connection. And I don't believe he did for sure. I could be convinced that he wanted to attack Iraq and was looking for excuses, but there are many people saying that the intel community was bending the truth to tell them what then wanted to hear.
THAT"S A BIG DIFFERENCE.

[oedo]

Originally posted by rah
But there is one BIG difference.
Clinton knew 100% that he got a BJ

great one!

however, I doubt it was on his agenda right after he became president.

[GePap]

Originally posted by rah
But there is one BIG difference.
Clinton knew 100% that he got a BJ

There is no proof that Bush knew 100% that there were WMD or no connection. And I don't believe he did for sure. I could be convinced that he wanted to attack Iraq and was looking for excuses, but there are many people saying that the intel community was bending the truth to tell them what then wanted to hear.
THAT"S A BIG DIFFERENCE.

Okie dokie....

Bush knew 100% he did not have definitive proof. He did not act as if there was any doubt about iraq when it came ot WMD's. Based on his public comments Bush NEVER commented that it was possible Iraq had no WMD's.

The sad truth is that the really BIG LIES, like Bush's lie, always live on, becuase you can never really put an end to them. Sadly, my quote form hitler is common.

[rah]

Originally posted by oedo



great one!

however, I doubt it was on his agenda right after he became president.

IT WAS ON HIS AGENDA BEFORE HE BECAME PRESIDENT< WHILE HE WAS BEING SWORN IN AND probably every day he was president.

And GePAP, there is proof that Clinton lied. There is still no definative proof that Bush did. HAS he been tried and found guilty? Or are you saying presumption of innocence doesn't apply anymore. And I'm not saying he didn't lie. I don't know for sure yet.