Still Hating America.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
It was a bad idea ex ante because Iraq didn't have WMD. Another way to put this is that it was a terrific plan in the petri dish of the prevailing political wisdom, but could not survive when confronted with reality. House fires are bad only when the air contains oxygen.



It's a good thing that you're not going to post about this, because it would still be wrong. There were plently of people who doubted the existence of WMD and said so. Few political leaders in this country said so. But you are confusing what U.S. politicians say with reality.

All of this aside, it was a bad idea for the reason stated by Sen. Obama in his recent foreign policy address:

• In 2002, I stated my opposition to the war in Iraq, not only because it was an unnecessary diversion from the struggle against the terrorists who attacked us on September 11th, but also because it was based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the threats that 9/11 brought to light. I believed then, and believe now, that it was based on old ideologies and outdated strategies – a determination to fight a 21st century struggle with a 20th century mindset.

If Penske were here he would quote you what the former President and Dem leaders said while they were in office. I take that and ask "since it is assumed he has them what do you do?" You and Obama, i guess, say, "nothing!" That would have been a confused and ultimately, deadly, position to have taken.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Why don't your clever little macro for a time when a blog is cited? In the meantime, go back to the kids table and let the adults have a conversation.

why not start a Dems only thread?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
If Penske were here he would quote you what the former President and Dem leaders said while they were in office. I take that and ask "since it is assumed he has them what do you do?" You and Obama, i guess, say, "nothing!" That would have been a confused and ultimately, deadly, position to have taken.

They didn't invade Iraq. And what did Iraq have to do with 9/11?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
why not start a Dems only thread?

Why not merge the executive branch and the RNC?

[Oliver_Wendell_Ramone]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
If Penske were here he would quote you what the former President and Dem leaders said while they were in office. I take that and ask "since it is assumed he has them what do you do?" You and Obama, i guess, say, "nothing!" That would have been a confused and ultimately, deadly, position to have taken.

Don't you think Bush would be taking a pretty big hit on post-invasion planning/civil war control even if we'd found a cache or two of chemical weapons?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
They didn't invade Iraq. And what did Iraq have to do with 9/11?

9/11 shows our past practice of ignoring terrorists when they, say, blow up our ships and embassies had consequences. combine that with the belief that Iraq had WMD and the fact that Sadaam hated the US you get to Iraq with WMDs can't be allowed to go on (W)- or you don't get to that position (what Obama claims).

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
9/11 shows our past practice of ignoring terrorists when they, say, blow up our ships and embassies had consequences. combine that with the belief that Iraq had WMD and the fact that Sadaam hated the US you get to Iraq with WMDs can't be allowed to go on (W)- or you don't get to that position (what Obama claims).

Can you cite to a blog or post a picture exploiting WTC victims to support your position?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Oliver_Wendell_Ramone
Don't you think Bush would be taking a pretty big hit on post-invasion planning/civil war control even if we'd found a cache or two of chemical weapons?

No. The Dems wouldn't have been able to touch it.

didn't someone post here that Bush I claimed that anticipation of these problems is why he stopped outside Baghdad? Again, that just goes onto the balance side of the question: what to do-

[Oliver_Wendell_Ramone]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
No. The Dems wouldn't have been able to touch it.

didn't someone post here that Bush I claimed that anticipation of these problems is why he stopped outside Baghdad? Again, that just goes onto the balance side of the question: what to do-

I don't think so. The dem position would be "look, we rightly supported the war to take out those WMDs, but we didn't expect the commander in chief to fuck up the aftermath like this."

[Adder]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
If Penske were here he would quote you what the former President and Dem leaders said while they were in office. I take that and ask "since it is assumed he has them what do you do?" You and Obama, i guess, say, "nothing!" That would have been a confused and ultimately, deadly, position to have taken.

Or you say you continue to exert diplomatic pressure, send the inspectors back in (you recall that we avoided that terrible trap), and continuing doing what had been "working" for a decade.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Oliver_Wendell_Ramone
I don't think so. The dem position would be "look, we rightly supported the war to take out those WMDs, but we didn't expect the commander in chief to fuck up the aftermath like this."

not the smart ones. the R who runs would kill them on that "war is hell, war is messy, this guy would criticize Roosevelt for the battle of the Bulge, etc."

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
No. The Dems wouldn't have been able to touch it.

didn't someone post here that Bush I claimed that anticipation of these problems is why he stopped outside Baghdad? Again, that just goes onto the balance side of the question: what to do-

For half a trillion dollars I expect better results.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
not the smart ones. the R who runs would kill them on that "war is hell, war is messy, this guy would criticize Roosevelt for the battle of the Bulge, etc."

And the Dems would kill that with a comparison to a different president and different war.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Adder
Or you say you continue to exert diplomatic pressure,

we had sanctions, not diplomatic pressure. and, it turns out, created a slush fund for the UN. As a big plus, the sanctions were 1 of 4 reasons stated by AQ for 9/11-

send the inspectors back in (you recall that we avoided that terrible trap),

Umm, they were only let back in when we put the invasion force at the border. Again, I can agree in fairy tale land there were better options then invading.

and continuing doing what had been "working" for a decade.

exactly.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
If Penske were here he would quote you what the former President and Dem leaders said while they were in office. I take that and ask "since it is assumed he has them what do you do?" You and Obama, i guess, say, "nothing!" That would have been a confused and ultimately, deadly, position to have taken.

Establishing that leading Republicans and Democrats agree on x is not the same thing as establishing that everyone thinks x or that x is true.

Moreover, pretending that everyone was in agreement about Iraq's WMD is silly: Inasmuch as you now say that Clinton and Gore agreed with Bush's understanding of the problem in some broad sense, it is nonetheless true that they did not invade Iraq. Therefore, they either disagreed on (important) specifics about the facts on the ground, or they were substantially smarter or wiser about how to solve the problems. Or both.