News Flash: No Wmd In Iraq

[PLATO]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


This, however, is an obfuscation of reality.

Indeed it is. The type of action that was required would not have sold well. The President's duty is to do what is best for the country. It is interesting that among all the rehtoric that the President has actually spelled out the real reasons. They have just gotten lost is the media frenzy over the sell job. What a dilema! To have a clear idea of what is best for your country, but no clear way to make people understand that it is for the greater good of all.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
PLATO is mostly correct, except for the Bush not lying part. Of course, it's possible Bush may not have known he was lying, since important information had been kept from him.

Regardless, the war was sold to Congress and the American people as a war of self-defense against imminent danger. That's the only reason the Administration received funds to embark on their crusade. It was the fig-leaf they attempted to sell the war on internationally, damaging the credibility of some of our allies, such as Great Britain and bringing down the Spanish Conservative government. BTW, GB has said that no matter what the evidence, they won't follow us into Iran. So another real danger gets a go ahead while Bush goes after his daddy's enemy.

Che, check out my new sig.

As to the second paragraph, Bush argued that action was needed BEFORE the threat became imminent.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by PLATO
The type of action that was required would not have sold well. The President's duty is to do what is best for the country.

It is against the law to lie to Congress, even if you are the President. It should be against the law for the government to lie to the American people, regardless of how good they think their excuse is. Democracy relies upon truth. When the government can dispense with the truth as they see fit, we may as well stop voting.

I would also argue that this war was not in our best interests, but that's a discussion for another thread.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Ned


No doubt that the war was justified regardless of whether or not WMD's were found. But the central thesis of the left is that Bush lied because there were no WMD's found and that war was unjustified for the same reason. I would hope you would agree that the left is being completely disingenuous here.

Yes the war was justified. The left's thesis is irrelvant to the issue. In the end analysis, if we are successful in Iraq, their argument will be a footnote in history. The real proplem is on the international scene. It may well be much harder for the next twenty years or so to get any kind of tacit approval for pre-emptive action. Franch, Germany, and Russia know what we did to them and they are unlikely to let themselves get so seriously pwned on this type situation again for quite a while.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
Che, check out my new sig.

teh w00t!

I think I'm the most quoted Poly-Tubbie.

[MrFun]

Ned is trying to get into the groove of things, thinking it's popular now, to quote commies living in Florida, who ride bicycles.

[Ned]

Che, one question: Did any of the committees or special panels investigating the Iraq intelligence failure conclude that the president lied to Congress?

[Ramo]

The war wouldn't have been that bad in realist terms if it were run competently; as is, it's been a total disaster, however you choose to look at it.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Ramo
The war wouldn't have been that bad in realist terms if it were run competently; as is, it's been a total disaster, however you choose to look at it.

Indeed. That, however, is a totally different question.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
Che, one question: Did any of the committees or special panels investigating the Iraq intelligence failure conclude that the president lied to Congress?

No, but I think they weren't completely honest either. One doesn't trust foxes to truthfully lead the investigation into disapearing chickens.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


No, but I think they weren't completely honest either. One doesn't trust foxes to truthfully lead the investigation into disapearing chickens.

I don't think they were a rubber stamp at all. There was definately some political opposition to the President on that panel.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by PLATO
I don't think they were a rubber stamp at all. There was definately some political opposition to the President on that panel.

On the 9/11 Commission, yes. On the commission led by David Kay, no. As well, the design of the 9/11 Comission made it unable to blame the Pres or Administration.

Nor did I say they were rubber stamps. I just think that the Administration should have nothing to do with setting up a commission to investigate the Adminstration. This is why we need the Special Prosecutor law.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
This is why we need the Special Prosecutor law.

The special prosecutor comes into play when their is evidence that a crime may have been committed by a high official. The majority in Congress and the justice department say no evidence of that. (Big suprise there, huh? ). Therefore no special prosecutor would be appointed.

[chequita guevara]

They did it to Clinton for years.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
They did it to Clinton for years.

Yes, but the situation was different. Clinton had a hostile Congress for one. Also, Bush did have evidence that he could point to. And, lastly, Clinton was guilty.