Should we be better than this

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by ecduzitgood

Isn't everyone biased? I suppose I am because I don't feel the need to invest my time searching for information to support your perspective, especially when I was considerate enough to save you the time searching for where I got my information, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised the left wants you to do the work for them.
I can only think of Nixon (R) off hand without looking into it, and I haven't looked up impeachment procedures either it just seemed to me if what you say was true it would be an impeachable offense.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It isn't about supporting my perspective. It is about the facts that came out after we invaded and the proposals by pnac before Bush was even elected. The scattered weapons found, by every account, were pre-Gulf war. Rumsfeld even admitted there was no wmd program. You may feel that you saved me the time by "searching... where I got my information." I spoke specifically to the points you made based on freely available information . It is not a question of you doing the work for me. The whole left/liberal spin you put on things is a bit comical. If you are curious, you can look into it. I suggest you start with Project for the New America and Cheney's role.

As an aside, two presidents were impeached: Andrew Johnson and Clinton. It is hard to do. You might remember what the circus was like with Clinton and that was a case of perjury about sex acts. A bit harder to prove Bush intentionally misrepresented the truth. More likely he was just simple minded enough to be bullied to do whatever Cheney suggested.

[ecduzitgood]

Originally Posted by zimmy

It isn't about supporting my perspective. It is about the facts that came out after we invaded and the proposals by pnac before Bush was even elected. The scattered weapons found, by every account, were pre-Gulf war. Rumsfeld even admitted there was no wmd program. You may feel that you saved me the time by "searching... where I got my information." I spoke specifically to the points you made based on freely available information . It is not a question of you doing the work for me. The whole left/liberal spin you put on things is a bit comical. If you are curious, you can look into it. I suggest you start with Project for the New America and Cheney's role.

As an aside, two presidents were impeached: Andrew Johnson and Clinton. It is hard to do. You might remember what the circus was like with Clinton and that was a case of perjury about sex acts. A bit harder to prove Bush intentionally misrepresented the truth. More likely he was just simple minded enough to be bullied to do whatever Cheney suggested.

It's not just me reading these post. I would think others who may be trying to follow the derailment into the no weapons of mass destruction found and Bush lied perspective that you proposed would also not be willing to look further. Even Spence who intimidates the hell out of me with his knowledge has probably left them wanting more substantiated points to show how incorrect I am but he chose to play games and lost my interest.

I thought Nixon was impeached but I guess I was wrong. I honestly don't like political discussions anymore and it is rare for me to stick my nose in here; primarily because of the round and round, chase your tail, I won't admit I may be wrong type of augments that I find from both sides, it's too frustrating. Nothing gets accomplished and I don't want to waste my time anymore. I would also have to start listening to both sides on the radio and the tv in order to be better prepared for the discussions, which never accomplish anything so it is just wasting more of my time.
I am nobody that can make any difference in anyones life and people who think of me otherwise are mistaken. I don't matter, and my opinion when you come right down to it shouldn't matter either. If anything my stupidity for getting involved in these discussions probably cause me more harm than good. I do hope people will find it entertaining at least reading my post and perhaps even post themselves, after all it's good for the site to have the traffic.
I may look into the impeachment issue because you have peaked my interest and I thank you for that. I believe this horse is dead now, yes?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by ecduzitgood

It's not just me reading these post. I would think others who may be trying to follow the derailment into the no weapons of mass destruction found and Bush lied perspective that you proposed would also not be willing to look further. Even Spence who intimidates the hell out of me with his knowledge has probably left them wanting more substantiated points to show how incorrect I am but he chose to play games and lost my interest.

I thought Nixon was impeached but I guess I was wrong. I honestly don't like political discussions anymore and it is rare for me to stick my nose in here; primarily because of the round and round, chase your tail, I won't admit I may be wrong type of augments that I find from both sides, it's too frustrating. Nothing gets accomplished and I don't want to waste my time anymore. I would also have to start listening to both sides on the radio and the tv in order to be better prepared for the discussions, which never accomplish anything so it is just wasting more of my time.
I am nobody that can make any difference in anyones life and people who think of me otherwise are mistaken. I don't matter, and my opinion when you come right down to it shouldn't matter either. If anything my stupidity for getting involved in these discussions probably cause me more harm than good. I do hope people will find it entertaining at least reading my post and perhaps even post themselves, after all it's good for the site to have the traffic.
I may look into the impeachment issue because you have peaked my interest and I thank you for that. I believe this horse is dead now, yes?

Don't underestimate yourself. Most Americans don't have even a small portion of interest in our political system that you're showing here. That you have the courage to express yourself, knowing there are other supposedly "wiser" people ready to rebut your opinions is the essence of the first ammendment, and if we don't use that freedom of speech to actually speak, we fall prey to the demagogues who think they know it all.

Your intuition is not wrong here. Nobody has "proved" that Bush lied in order to invade Iraq. There are no "facts" to support a "lie,"--just "evidence" that could mean whatever you wish it to mean. Only Bush knows if he lied. And you're right, there were a number of "reasons" to invade Iraq, not just WMD. And if he knew there weren't WMds, he would indeed have been incredibly stupid to declare there were then order his troops to search for them, KNOWING none would be found. PNAC certainly supported regime change, as did Clinton who signed the Iraq Liberation Act. But PNAC, I don't think, ever stated that there were no WMDs. All the so-called "facts" could imply the possibility of a lie, if one chose to conjure up that possibility, especially for political purposes. The fact that there was a great desire to remove Sadaam, by ALL SIDES, doesn't come close to even hinting that Bush lied. Without actual proof it's just politics--that high quality dirt that Spence likes.

What is amazing is that all the objectives of the Iraq Liberation Act that Clinton signed have, with that Irag war, been achieved. And here we are, still arguing about whether Bush lied or not. Some might say that eventually Sadaam would have been removed as have other dictators in the area, but others might say that Iraqi freedom may well have been a motivating force or, at least, a catalyst behind the "Arab Spring." Who knows? It certainly is farther advanced down the road to democracy, and maybe with a better chance to be free of Islamist Fundamentalist rule. Who knows?

Don't be intimidated. Keep on expressing your opinion.

[ecduzitgood]

Thanks detbuch, I just look at myself in the mirror and know if a book was written about me it wouldn't cost more than 44 cents to send in the mail.

[justplugit]

Ya Ecduzitgood, no one is ever going to change anybody's mind here and
it does seem like we just go round and round. But it's fun, I learn stuff from
both sides, and it can be a great frustration reliever.
There are a lot of guys who let their fingers do the walking through Google,
that's ok, but what's betta is some of the good common sense
you leave here.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Your intuition is not wrong here. Nobody has "proved" that Bush lied in order to invade Iraq. There are no "facts" to support a "lie,"--just "evidence" that could mean whatever you wish it to mean. Only Bush knows if he lied. And you're right, there were a number of "reasons" to invade Iraq, not just WMD. And if he knew there weren't WMds, he would indeed have been incredibly stupid to declare there were then order his troops to search for them, KNOWING none would be found. PNAC certainly supported regime change, as did Clinton who signed the Iraq Liberation Act. But PNAC, I don't think, ever stated that there were no WMDs. All the so-called "facts" could imply the possibility of a lie, if one chose to conjure up that possibility, especially for political purposes. The fact that there was a great desire to remove Sadaam, by ALL SIDES, doesn't come close to even hinting that Bush lied. Without actual proof it's just politics--that high quality dirt that Spence likes.

In the hundreds of pages of debates on this site over the years I've never asserted that Bush lied.

I do think he surrounded himself with people who were heavily biased towards war with Saddam. I also think he surrendered too much diligence to others without showing much curiosity to their processes.

The result was pretty disturbing. While the threat of WMD were used to justify the invasion to the general public, the real motivation was liberalization of the Middle East. The facts were indeed being fit around the policy...There's enough good investigation and first hand accounts to have a very clear picture of what really happened.

Yes, Clinton and a host of other prominent Democrats were bullish on regime change in the 1990's, but stopped short of using the US Military to demand it, nor did Clinton's scope ever go beyond Saddam.

What is amazing is that all the objectives of the Iraq Liberation Act that Clinton signed have, with that Irag war, been achieved.

Big difference, the Iraq Liberation Act forbid the direct use of force to achieve regime change. The Act provided a few million dollars in funding to aid resistance groups.

By contrast we've spent nearly a trillion dollars on Operation Iraqi Freedom and lost around 4500 personnel to create this fledgeling democratic institution...not very "amazing" in this context. If Iraq does maintain a peaceful democracy we may well be lucky...they've got a ways to go.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Yes, Clinton and a host of other prominent Democrats were bullish on regime change in the 1990's, but stopped short of using the US Military to demand it, nor did Clinton's scope ever go beyond Saddam.


Big difference, the Iraq Liberation Act forbid the direct use of force to achieve regime change. The Act provided a few million dollars in funding to aid resistance groups.

By contrast we've spent nearly a trillion dollars on Operation Iraqi Freedom and lost around 4500 personnel to create this fledgeling democratic institution...not very "amazing" in this context. If Iraq does maintain a peaceful democracy we may well be lucky...they've got a ways to go.

-spence

Without force there would not have been regime change. Not in Iraq. Not in any other Arab country. A few million dollars in funding to aid resistance groups is a nice token to make it look like your serious about the regime change that you say is necessary, but it was only an uneffective token. The threat of Islamic terrorism had risen to demonstrably real events, and there was no real "plan" to strike at its roots. No, or "moderate," action was just encouragement for more terrorism. Massive retaliation or counter attack would, supposedly, just incite more terrorism. The roots of terrorism were planted in a religious view that the West with its democratic secular views was the Devil. Removing that root and planting a new one of, as you put it, liberization of the East needed to begin. If invading Iraq was the wrong way, history may or may not tell. The writers of history also have differing roots. As far as the cost in blood and treasure goes, there is no telling what the cost might be now and in the future if this liberalization did not begin or if we are not "lucky" enough to have it succeed.

Arguments, as ecduzitgood says, go back and forth. You are absolutely sure your argument is right. I am not sure one way or the other. So I'll defer to your view simply to defer also to ecdu's q "I believe this horse is dead now, yes?"

[likwid]

Originally Posted by spence

By contrast we've spent nearly a trillion dollars on Operation Iraqi Freedom and lost around 4500 personnel to create this fledgeling democratic institution...not very "amazing" in this context. If Iraq does maintain a peaceful democracy we may well be lucky...they've got a ways to go.

-spence

You forgot the 100,000 civilian deaths.