December 16, 2005

Bush Was Going To Invade Iraq Anyway. HUME: So, if you had had this — if the weapons had been out of the equation because the intelligence did not conclude that he had them, it was still the right call? BUSH: Absolutely. Oh, and for extra blowed-up fun, look into Big Oil participate in planning invasion of Iraq?

So, basically, Bush is going to attack any country or countries he likes (Iraq, Iran, it's all good) and you will pay for it. He won't listen to dissent. He won't plan properly. He'll lie and distort the truth until even his closest advisors get nervous about it. He'll say God told him to do it. Could it get more surreal? Sure. But how . . . Toby Keith? You workin' on a new song there, buddy?

posted by petebest 19 years ago
  • Brain cramp! Brain cramp!
  • There are dark points in history from which light is born.
  • I never thought Bush rested his case for invasion solely on WMD - Tony Blair did, but I always understood the Bush case to be different. Don't forget the US was already in Iraq, enforcing no-fly zones and sanctions which were alleged to have led to the deaths of thousands of Iraqi children. The previous administration's policy of bringing about regime change through economic and political destabilisation (with occasional military interventions) was already becoming so repugnant to world opinion that it was on the brink of unravelling, with Saddam still apparently secure. I'm not saying invasion was the optimum strategy, still less that it has been well executed in practice: but I think there was a rational case for thinking it the least bad of a pretty poor set of options, even disregarding the unconvincing WMD business. I'll get me coat.
  • /manages to lift a posting finger due to exhaustion Meh. Meh. All this has been said... and known... from years ago. But, as it was mentioned in the corrresponding thread on Mefi, yesterday it was posted by loons and the 'indy' media. Today, it's on reputable, familiar, fair and balanced sources, so, in te mind of the negeral public, it... Just. Might. Be. True. After. All. Imagine that! Meh. Too late. All the outrage of today, all the 'oh but I didn't knew...', all that won't un-torture people, won't resurrect soldiers, won't un-shatter the lives of millions on several countries, won't sweep out all those little nibbles on the liberty and privacy of citizens worldwide, all in the holy name of the war on intangibles. Yeah, I'm a little bit of a grumpy mode. Merry $mas.
  • Flagpole says it well.
  • I doubt he understood the question, but the conclusion is probably still accurate.
  • I think he's managed to misunderstand his own talking point.
  • I doubt he understood the question or how Karl Rove would have wanted him respond to it. Things don't go in or come out neatly of this man's mind, I think that's something we can all agree upon.
  • Things don't neatly go in or come out of my mind either, and y'all don't hate me for it. do you?
  • only when i disagree with the sentiments you express, however poorly
  • My point was that I don't think he really meant to say what he did. I don't hate him because cus his brain don't work good, my brain don't work good either.
  • Things don't go neatly into his mind or come neatly out, but the scary-as-shit thing is, HE THINKS THEY DO. It all make perfect sense to him. It's all neatly cut-and-dried for him, when it's obviously not in real life.
  • He believes in this. That's enough.
  • The fact that there is a "fast-growing Youth and End-Time market" may in itself be a sign of the End Time...
  • The fact that I'm scoffing at the idea of an "End Time" may in itself be a sign of the End Time.
  • I'm sure everyone has heard of PNAC by now and seen their 1998 letter to President Clinton advocating invading Iraq, but here it is again just in case someone hasn't.
  • The policy of “containment” of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. . . . Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Hm. Maybe instead of "ensure" it should have read "allow credible evidence". Who's up for a slice of yellowcake?
  • Stifle Dissent, too. Cause you know Boise's a hotbed of . . that stuff.
  • Yea, count us red. They wouldn't be abusing their authority now, WOULD they? I'm guess I'm old enough to see history repeating itself. McCarthy? Kent State? Here I was optimistic enough to think we'd outgrown our oppressions. *hangs head in shame*
  • hmm - couldn't find the relevant part of that link?
  • It's the part where she discusses Murray Waas' article on What Bush Was Told About Iraq (look for the pic of the Preznit and the turkey.)
  • The plastic turkey, yes, okay I see it. I think there could be a third option though. Although there was no evidence to support it and although these reports very strongly suggested BushCo was wrong about Iraq, Bush wanted to invade so much he just didn't care. It covers both scenarios - wasn't doing his job (looking at the facts) and lying - to himself along with all Americans, some of whom are now dead because of his decisions.
  • Senate to Big Oil: "Are you giving the American taxpayers The Royal Screwjob??" Big Oil: Ummm . . . Nnnnnnnnno? Senate: Okay thank you. Have a nice day, sirs. Big Oil: Gentlemen . . . to evil! *clink!*
  • Okay, I would just like to address the Pro-War in Iraq crowd at this time. *microphone feedback* ahem. Admit it. Bush didn't even care about WMD's. Didn't even care if the rest of the world felt Iraq was a threat - he brought us into this fuckpile of a war for reasons that are supremely stupid, if not "inadvisable" at the very, very least. Oh there's reasons as you well know. So just say them already. And I'm not talking about the "bringing democracy to an oppressed people" LIE. Beat that drum all day as you like folks, you're not helping yourselves. Yes, I'm talking about the oil. I'm talking about permanent military bases. Permanent presence in one of the most (if not THE most) hostile region the planet, mmmm pretty much since the beginning of human history. Just say it. Live it. 'Cause that's what it is. This just-released memo is the proof (if your own common sense and the flood of evidence hasn't already done it for you). Again: Bush didn't care about WMD's. Bush didn't care that the US was going it alone. (Well, and Poland.) And that, pro-war-in-Iraq people - was a magnificently ignorant and arrogant mistake that we're going to pay for in terms of budget, in terms of morality, in terms of history. You happy with the war yet? Well, good then. Enjoy.
  • *sigh* well, that felt cathartic . .
  • said it before, will say it again: WMD was a marketing campaign to generate US support, and a not hugely good one. But beyond the oil aspect (sketchy), and the humanitarian-democracy aspect (not as inconsequential as all that), there is another possible reason: to bring western military forces into the middle east as a part of a long-term anti-Islamic terror campaign. Fighting terrorists and terror orgs on a one-off basis is ludicrous. To truly defeat Islamic terrorism, you'd start by cutting off their sources of supply and succour. Now, Saddam and bin Laden were hardly chums, and the al-Qaeda link to Irzq is tenuous at best (although I doubt it's as non-existent as Bush's detractors make out). On the other hand, not all terrorists belong to al Qaeda, and Baghdad was home to some of the worst. BUT: Iraq was the military giant in the middle east, avowedly anti-American, a human rights cesspool, and had a large, grievant, avowedly PRO-American subpopulation (to wit: the Kurds). Iraq is also centrally located in the region. To defeat Iraq military and place significant troops there threatens all the other terror supporting states around it. Assisting in the creation of an Islamic democracy there shows the population of those same states the benefits (eventually) of freedom and elections SO by going to war in Iraq, we are laying the groundwork for diplomatic pressure on the surrounding terror sponsoring states to stop supporting terror. It is not an overnight kind of operation, but one that I think actually has a chance for success, given time and effort. Now, I don't *know* that this was their aim, but it does make sense. As for permanent bases in Iraq: no way. Once the government of Iraq officially asks the US to leave, we'll leave. We might ahve some advisors and trainers and whatnot over there after a pullout, but a large scale military presence like we have now won't happen. Too politically unviable. And, for all the talk of King Bush the Second, come 2008 he's gone. End of Story. That's sort of the beauty of American politics - what one proposes, another disposes.
  • Helen Thomas: Q I'd like to ask you, Mr. President, your decision to invade Iraq has caused the deaths of thousands of Americans and Iraqis, wounds of Americans and Iraqis for a lifetime. Every reason given, publicly at least, has turned out not to be true. My question is, why did you really want to go to war? From the moment you stepped into the White House, from your Cabinet -- your Cabinet officers, intelligence people, and so forth -- what was your real reason? You have said it wasn't oil -- quest for oil, it hasn't been Israel, or anything else. What was it? THE PRESIDENT: I think your premise -- in all due respect to your question and to you as a lifelong journalist -- is that -- I didn't want war. To assume I wanted war is just flat wrong, Helen, in all due respect -- Laura Bush: No American President ever wants to go to war. Abraham Lincoln didn't want to go to war, but he knew saving the Union required it. Franklin Roosevelt didn't want to go to war -- but he knew defeating tyranny demanded it. And my husband didn't want to go to war, but he knew the safety and security of America and the world depended on it. (Applause.) (Vomit.) posted by blendor at 5:13 AM PST on March 27 Oh wait - he was lying.
  • Fes, you make cogent and practical points as usual, but I just don't see how this war could ever have been supported when so many other avenues to accomplish those goals you lay out could have been tried. I blame Bush for being shortsighted, ignorant of the facts that many people tried to put to him, and forcing us into this war that's - well, let's call it what it is - become a quagmire we will not get out of anytime soon if ever. We certainly seem to be there for the next several years at least. That's . . . what, roughly a trillion dollars?
  • Well, who wouldn't lie to Helen Thomas? She's been lied to by presidents since the Taft administration. I just don't see how this war could ever have been supported when so many other avenues to accomplish those goals you lay out could have been tried. I would surmise that a lot of them HAD been tried! We've had state-supported Islamic terror organizations in the middle east since, well, it would have to be the founding of Israel after WWII. For better or worse, though, the US had considered itself outside of all that (save for our staunch support for Israel), because we had never really been struck hard on home soil, we had never really had a crystalizing moment that changed public attitudes about middle eastern terror - up until 9/11, middle eastern terror was Somebody Else's Problem, save for a few small occasions (the Marine base in Beirut, that ship in Yemen who's name escapes me just this second). And hey, for a lot of these states, the US was a valued customer. Why bite the hand that feeds ya? (I am reminded of the sound and fury coming out of Venezuela - and yet, trade continues. A lot of politics is pure theater, pete). And the fact is, they really didn't - it was bin Laden's ire against the American relationship with the Saudis that prompted 9/11 - he wants the House of Saud overthrown, and a new caliphate established, over their holiest lands. The Road Map in Palestine failed; I imagine there a lot of what else on these guys' grievance list. But we've had almost 60 years of Islamic terror, for which only the last four years or so has the US taken a *really* active, boots-on-the-ground part. Maybe Bush was thinking, instead of treating the symptoms (or rather, ignoring then, see UN activity on the subject for details), let's take a shot at realpolitik'ing the disease...? roughly a trillion dollars? On the other hand, how much a peaceful, democratic middle east worth to America - or worth to the world?
  • > here is another possible reason: to bring western military forces into the middle east as a part of a long-term anti-Islamic terror campaign. but the western military forces were already there: kuwait, saudi arabia, bahrain, qatar, the uae all had u.s. military bases prior to the invasion. there were even some floating bases in the gulf/arabian sea.
  • Nominally, perhaps, but a small force and a question mark in the eyes of the nearby terror sponsoring states, esp. after Gulf I. By demonstrating US military effectiveness against Afghanistan (who bled the Soviets dry in the '80s and were considered by some to be the finest guerilla fighters on the planet) and the Iraqis (the largest and most effective military in the middle east), we essentially showed the leaders of the nearby states the iron fist that we had previously purported to be in the velvet glove. It is one thing to have an Air Force wing at a base or a carrier group in the Arabian Sea, it is quite another to utterly destroy the largest army in the middle east inside of six months (moer like three, if memory serves).
  • I would surmise that a lot of them HAD been tried! Agreed, but I would counter that one of the "lessons of September 11th", to coin a phrase, was that we weren't doing very well at them. We don't have enough translators / speakers, we didn't pursue the money very aggressively, and we certainly didn't promote a peaceful attitude towards the Middle East very well (I think Iran is still a little peeved about that "Installing a Shah" thing, and propping up that Saddam Hussein guy turned out to be a bad idea too it would seem) I think sending in the troops at this stage is not a last resort, although I might grant it's a different tack. It's a terrible idea IMO though because no lasting good can come from aggressive violent conflict. "roughly a trillion dollars?" On the other hand, how much a peaceful, democratic middle east worth to America - or worth to the world? Easily that much, sure but it's not going to get it. A tenuous Islamic theocracy is a slight possibility. But that's not worth my trillion dollars. I'll give you a hundred thousand for it, tops. And no deaths. Or rather no American deaths, no women, no children, just wild-eyed fanatics who wanted to die anyway. Final offer. But seriously I think it's long past time to understand that war, esp. this war in Iraq, is pushing us further away from our aims even as it shows some limited, progress of unknown permanence or meaning (purple-stained-finger voting, for one highly touted example).
  • we weren't doing very well at them. Well, in our defense, it wasn't all "we", either. The entire world wasn't doing very well at them. As far as America's part, we had a few notable gaffes, it's true, but Islamic terror was, prior to 9/11, overwhelmingly was either in Europe or internally-directed (Israel, etc). It's a terrible idea IMO though because no lasting good can come from aggressive violent conflict. In a perfect world, I'd agree, but this is far from a perfect world. And history shows us that, for better AND worse, most of the big-picture changes come directly from aggressive violent conflict. Very little real change comes from anywhere else, mores the pity. A tenuous Islamic theocracy is a slight possibility. Today, yes. Tomorrow, though? Democracies are not built in the span of days, they're built in the span of decades, of generations. The middle east needs time to build democratic institutions, the rule of law, effective and repeatably reliable ways to change power without violence. A benevolent Islamic thoecracy now can - eithe rby design or by happy accident - build those institutions. That is, by and large, how the West managed it, after all. it's long past time to understand that war, esp. this war in Iraq, is pushing us further away from our aims NOT, however, if our aims are as I mentioned earlier: defanging Islamic terror over the long term. If that is indeed the plan, then I think that we might be moving toward it fairly well. Not without problems, but still in the general direction of that goal.
  • an addendum: a benevolent Islamic theocracy need not *like* us - it can be anti-US and succeed nicely, so long as it is not virulently, violently anti-west. The benevolence and tolerance needs to be toward its subjects, first and foremost. And Islam does have some history in this. Imagine bin Laden's new caliphate if, rather than bin Laden at the top spot, you have someone like, say, King Abdullah II of Jordan. Not a magic bullet by any means, but he's no terrorist and, also, he's a Star Trek fan. Dude can't be all bad.
  • But...if you need a "marketing campaign" based on half-truths and suspicions dressed up as certainties to generate support for a war, isn't that a pretty clear sign that the time for war hasn't come yet? If the real reason for going to war was something noble and admirable, why would you need smokescreens like WMD's and fearmongering?
  • Because I don't think the administration felt they could sell noble and admirable or -espeocially - something that would necssitate us being there for petentially a long time. They needed a right-now sort of hook that the sound-bite fed American public, still reeling as it was from 9/11, could understand and get behind. And WMD, although we all kid ourselves and say we knew it was crap all along, was the sort of marketing campaign that could easily have paid off for them. Hussein *had* WMDs, had used them on the Kurds, the Iranians, and the Shi'ites; he played shell games with the UN inspectors contantly after Gulf I; and he not-so-subtly insinuated that he *had* them all the way up to Gulf War II. That Hussein had WMD's, or was actively manufacturing them, was not the utterly inconceivable sort of thing that people now claim - if fact, it seemed almost likely. I think that's why they chose that - because I think they felt that it was something that would, when the dust settled, be borne out. That it wasn't was a HUGE mistake on the administration's part, and I have to give them a little credit for NOT totally putting up a fake job to make it look like they found some.
  • But it was still a huge mistake. Every since, they've been backpedalling, politically, on that point. To my mind, they should have presented it to us as a noble cause, but for whatever reason, they felt they had to sex it up. Now they're paying for it.
  • Former Iraqi General Georges Sada, in this Daily Show interview*, says the WMDs existed and were transported to Syria. I apologise for the exposetheleft.com source, but it was the first transcript I found. Besides, it's got funny stuff like the conservativematch.com dating service, for those whoare tired of dating liberals.
  • You mean "whoares".
  • most of the big-picture changes come directly from aggressive violent conflict. Sadly true. And inherently set up to repeat more of the same. So - don't go to war until you absolutely positively have to. Okay. . . . I don't think the administration felt they could sell noble and admirable or -espeocially - something that would necssitate us being there for petentially a long time. For good reason. The one reasoning I was willing to offer - that they had intelligence that proved beyond doubt that the DeathStar was within range - proved not only to be false but they knew it didn't add up. They lost a lot with that. If, as I think you're saying Fes, that this administration was intent on invading Iraq to take out their army (then, ostensibly, put it back), and install a stable democratic system (which we know is based on a stable society) to create a more peaceful world - I can't imagine it being waged more incompetently and with more disastrous and opposite effects. Hussein *had* WMDs, had used them on the Kurds True, we know because we gave them to him (making our own mess?). And as for gassing the Kurds, I'm not convinced it wasn't an Iranian attack on Halabja as this account says. That's neither here nor there with respect to our overal discussion, I'm just saying. Saddam's got WMD's. Saddam gassed the Kurds. Yeah, no, not so much. And Re: Islamic theocracies, agreed they can be benevolent. The Star Trek news was cool, I didn't know that :) Democracies are not built in the span of days, they're built in the span of decades, of generations. This is what I'm saying. We're gonna be there a looooooooooong time. And paying for it. However, if we do manage to get the oil production secured and functioning, at least the oil companies will be set to make the largest corporate profits in the history of humankind. Y'know, again. If the right-wing argument is that this is a noble history-changing effort we should be proud of - I'd ask firstly why it's based on lies and complete incompetence. Smarter men that George W. and his boys have pondered the Middle East before in the White House. Nothing close to this complete commitment of this country's future has ever been so recklessly gambled.
  • As for permanent bases in Iraq: no way I dunno, they sure sound permanent.
  • Are the Americans here to stay? Air Force mechanic Josh Remy is sure of it as he looks around Balad. "I think we'll be here forever," the 19-year-old airman from Wilkes-Barre, Pa., told a visitor to his base. Oh, well, there you have it :)
  • You realize, of course, Fes, is that your claim (no permanent bases) is based on about as much (read: as little) evidence as is young Josh Remy's.
  • What would constitute evidence of permanent bases? Bush has said that the decision to withdraw will be made by "future presidents" already. Short of a pentagon directive spelling it out, I don't think we can expect any evidence save the mounting days, weeks, months & years that we're there.
  • Well, first, I'm not arguing that we are. My claims are based on a history of America generally following the will of foreign sovereign governments when it comes to having military bases inside their borders, and I feel that it's a teench viable more than Airman Remy's claims based on the presence of a lot of concrete trucks and a KFC. I'll pose this to you: why *would* we stay if the government of Iraq said, hey, we've got it from here and we'd like you to go. Do you imagine that Bush *likes* to read about mounting casualties and continuing unpopularity? Do you imagine that we couldn't simply purchase any oil from Iraq we needed, or that Iraq doesn't *want* to sell us oil? It's not like they're our #1 supplier, or even #2 - that would be Canada and Mexico, respectively, who I figure would be pleased to sell us a few additional million barrels in a pinch, Mexico especially. There's no reason to stay if they can handle their own security and they ask us to leave AND we've left in the past - didn't Turkey not long ago ask us to leave and we did? Didn't one or another middle eastern countries (Qatar?) as us to pick up stakes and leave AND don't overfly their airspace, which we iirc did and did? I'll grant you, this administration tends to act, shall we say, cavalierly :) But why must we always assume some sort of backstage Darth Vader play is in motion when there are perfectly rational reasons why such a thing is implausible. The Iraqi president says no permanent bases, Zinni says no permanent bases - but Airman Remy says he sees a lot of concrete being poured, so everyone assumes that a grand nefarious conspiracy is afoot? This is one of those things upon which each of us is, in the face of a complete lack of any concrete (heh) evidence, exceeding willing to take what little meat is on that bone and posit a tyrannosaur. So, ok, I'll be first: While it is possible that the US might create permanent bases in Iraq in defiance of the Iraqi government's wishes, it is my rank, unfounded opinion that we will not, and that we will leave entirely when the Iraqi government asks us to.
  • it may be, upon reflection, that we differ on what "permanent" means. To my mind: bases that will be in operation for the next five to ten years: temporary. More than 25 years? Permanentish.
  • Bases that have a planned closing date. Those are temporary. (Though of course I wouldn't doubt this crew would lie about planning to leave bases.) The thing is, Fes, that there's an awful stench of imperialism about the whole Iraq affair; from my perspective, permanent rather than temporary seems more likely at this point. Especially given the neocons' stated goal of "reshaping" the Middle East.
  • That is: Unless the makeup of the Congress is changed this year, and the philosophy of the executive branch changes in Jan. 2009.
  • But as you say, HawthorneWingo, there's no real evidence either way. Why is making claims on the simple statements a sin for me, but not for thee? Mine are from the people in *charge*, whereas yours are from a 19-year-old air force mechanic from Wilkes-Barre. And by your definition, *all* bases are permanent. I've never heard of a base that had a planned closing date, until the paperwork was already filed to close them (as in the BRACC closures here). if this was 1875, HW, I might agree with you. But there is no such thing as an empire these days, not in the way is has historically meant. And America was, at best, a half-hearted imperial power at best. And Bush ain't no Teddy Roosevelt.
  • the philosophy of the executive branch changes in Jan. 2009. I think that's probably a given, either way.
  • I didn't say it was a sin, Fes! Just pointed out that it ain't right to dis someone else for doing the same kind of supposin' you are. And on the other thing, I don't think it's very far off base to call the neocons' impulses in the Middle East imperialistic.
  • But why must we always assume some sort of backstage Darth Vader play is in motion when there are perfectly rational reasons why such a thing is implausible. Believe me, no one would like to be able to trust our administration more than I would. No one would like to believe that it's made up of rational-thinking people more than I would. But in this day and age, that's just not an option.
  • Curious that Iraq is mentioned upthread as the most efficient military in the Middle East. I can think of one that is vastly better supported and equipped without too much head-scratching, and I'm also told Iran has some pretty surprising capabilities. Anyway, chaps, on to wherever.
  • Perhaps, and this is just a suggestion, there's never been anyone as short-sighted, venal, willfully deaf, sound-bitted, frequently televised, and s-t-u-p-i-d a man in the oval office. This guy has no pride -- why should he? Every mistake he ever made, someone covered for him. Drunk?...well...AWOL in the Air Force?...well...Fuck-up in the oil biz?...well...Lies his head off everytime he opens his mouth?...well...seems no one has cared to pursue any of these issues; he's never had to bear real responsibilty all alone by himself. Before...
  • What was that I just heard? Was it . . . could it have been? . . . Yes, I think it was: A terrorist giggling at yet another unit of support being withdrawn from the U.S. troops. NICE WORK, BEES! And as far as accountability goes, Bush is *all for it*. How do I know that? He said so. Iraq has to be accountable for its WMDs . . . schoolchildren have to be accountable for being unable to pass standardized tests . . . &cetera ad infinitum.
  • Do you imagine that Bush *likes* to read No.
  • Just pointed out that it ain't right to dis someone else for doing the same kind of supposin' you are. OK, I'll grant you that. but don't think it's very far off base to call the neocons' impulses in the Middle East imperialistic I have to disagree with. I don't think the neocons were ever really imperialistic per se. More than anything, I see the neoconservatives as a return to vigorous political opportunism coupled with a rather millenial sense of destiny, of our-time-has-come. More than anything, they're true believers, and that their star was ascendent. BUT I still contend that a truly imperial ambition is all but precluded in this day and age. And the questions remains: if we assume that there is indeed imperial ambitions in Iraq, to what end? Economic? To pay trillions to control oil reserves we could simply buy on the open market? To transfer billions to Halliburton? Territorial? Let's be honest, Iraq has exactly two natural resources: oil, and history. Otherwise, it's an amazingly shitty desert surrounded by equally shitty deserts. Try as I might, I can't come up with a reason why we would care to colonize Iraq - they have nothing we can't get easier some other way. I can think of one that is vastly better supported and equipped without too much head-scratching Gotta be Israel. I omit them from the list. schoolchildren have to be accountable for being unable to pass standardized tests Not to derail, but what's inherently wrong with having baseline tests for children's education? Isn't it better to test and learn if they're failing and maybe help, than to promote and send poorly educated kids out in to the world without the skills they need? True, we know because we gave them to him Not by ourselves, we didn't. Not that that makes it right, but we had lots of help from most of Europe - hell, Russia practically catered the Iraq-Iran War, according to Wikipedia. I can't imagine it being waged more incompetently and with more disastrous and opposite effects. Being in support of the war in Iraq in a general sense, I agree with the former, if not entirely with the latter. That last is only modified by my belief that the situation is salvageable, given time and willingness not to abandon the Iraqi government.
  • Isn't it better to test and learn if they're failing and maybe help, than to promote and send poorly educated kids out in to the world without the skills they need? Agreed, this line of talk is a derail, and my original thinking wasn't very clear (I was more trying to point out the hypocrisy of Bush telling *anyone* they need to be more accountable). But your thinking here presupposes that it's an either-or choice, either these tests or unprepared young adults -- as well as presupposing that these tests are indeed testing for the skills needed for success. It's just that many teachers I know are saying that these tests a.) don't do that, and b.) promote "teaching to the test" rather than truly educating kids, so yes, there may be something worth criticizing here.
  • Not to mention that Bush isn't funding the very same No Child Left Behind policy that he's taking credit for.
  • Granted. I should have said that I favor testing in general. those tests should be worthwhile gauges, and if it's a good test? It won't matter that the teachers teach to it, if you get me. As for unfunded mandates, Bush didn't invent them but, yeah, they suck. All pain, no gain, at the local level, while the dicks upstairs take all the credit.
  • By demonstrating US military effectiveness against Afghanistan (who bled the Soviets dry in the '80s and were considered by some to be the finest guerilla fighters on the planet) i take your point, but note that the forces involved in operation enduring freedom are dominated by members of the afghani northern alliance and have fought only against the taliban. in contrast, the soviets fought against a large variety of factions, depending on the stage of the conflict. it's becoming clear that the afghanis can continue to bleed occupying forces dry indefinitely. the guerilla fighters are still active in afghanistan; it's just that a lot of them have something to gain from the removal of the taliban and thus far litte reason to oppose coalition forces.
  • I don't think the neocons were ever really imperialistic per se. im·pe·ri·al·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-pîr--lzm) n. The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations. So, if I read that right and the definition is agreed on - you're saying that the neocons don't want to extend America's authority over the middle east via economic and political hegemony? (Pop Quiz: what's the fastest way to do that? Heh okay, but just sayin'- War! Hunh! Goot gawd y'all . . .) But there is no such thing as an empire these days, not in the way is has historically meant. Disagree with the former, agree with the latter. My claims are based on a history of America generally following the will of foreign sovereign governments Are you familiar with the works of Mr. George W. Bush? Heck the memo that started this re-threading was specifically to the point that he doesn't care what other countries think or do vis a vis this war. Fes, ya big lug, I think I appreciate what you're saying, but I'm just countering that there is ample evidence that this administration is the most counter to American history ever. Ample! . . .why must we always assume some sort of backstage Darth Vader play is in motion . . . C'mon sing it with me - you know the words: * Aggressively advocating the use of torture * Indefinite imprisonment without charge * Manipulating the intelligence and the will of the public to go to war (Did ya see the part about "the memo also says the president raised three possible ways of provoking a confrontation." Hello ShrubCo? I have the Gulf of Tonkin on the line . . .) * Being backed by big oil interests * Aggressively shooting down an anti-profiteering provision * Handing out billions in no-bid contracts to Halliburton * Zero accountability on the part of the administration for any of the scandals * Leaking the name of a CIA operative in political retaliation * Illegal wiretaps on vegetarians and grandmothers?? * Shaping energy policy hand-in-hand with oil, coal interests, Relaxing constraints on polluting the water and air (thanks big oil!) * Continuing to actively classify documents that have been public domain for years * Lobbying scandals * Lying to the press (and therefore the public) over and over and over and over again. *lather, rinse, repeat* Anyhoo, you get the idea. I just think "Darth Vader motivation" is a pretty apt term.
  • I think that "authority" is way too strict a term for what they want. I certainly don't think they want a middle eastern colony, and I think the Jewish (and assumed concomintant anti-Arab sentiment) aspect of the neocon founders is overstated. Personally, I think they expected to see the middle east embrace the opportunities for democracy; I think they expected there to be an upswell of support for the American presence, a general rejection of terror and sectarianism, and overall good things. But as far as hegemony, I don't think so - I think they se themselves as liberators, rather than conquerors. I think they're quite serious about that. I think they want less to extend America's authority as they want to extend America's values and culture. Heck the memo that started this re-threading was specifically to the point that he doesn't care what other countries think or do vis a vis this war. Apples and oranges. It comes back to the idea of colonial rule - unless we were willing to pretty much enslave the "native population" like the colonial powers of the 18th and 19th centuries were (and we're not), the political and economic costs of having an actual in-deed empire are far too great for the benefits. What you describe can be interpreted (for example) as a principled if unsubltle man seeing a problem and going after a solution despite the machinations of states that have vested interests in ensuring the root causes of the problem remain viable - states that are willing to pay the "terror price" for continued, lucrative dealings with the countries behind them. We used to be one of those go-along, get-alongs - until it hit our shores. Then the big dog had to get off the porch. *lather, rinse, repeat* I'll admit that this administration seems to have a nodding acquaitance with truth and a casual disregard for law. It is the latter that bothers me the most. The Geneva Convention, the 4th Amendment - these are things that I too feel are important. Hardball politics (the Plame incident is just ludicrous, imo) and dolla-bill cronyism and corruption is more business as usual (if on something of a grander scale) than something this administration dreamed up for itself. But even as I have defended Bush in the past, I have to admit that's a fairly damning laundry list.
  • I think they expected there to be an upswell of support for the American presence, a general rejection of terror and sectarianism, and overall good things. I would compare that to an expectation that one could breathe on the moon. I mean, sectarianism is hundreds / thousands of years old and the foundation of their current society ("their" being middle eastern Arab countries). To expect a sea change as you've stated there prompts the exclamation that the neocons are absolutely high on crack. No serious scholar of the Mid East could even say that without laughing out loud. I would expect, anyway. I think they want less to extend America's authority as they want to extend America's values and culture. I think the 19th century definition of "empire" needs updating to understand what it appears they want. Values and culture are authority under a hypercapitalist, conservative system. They don't have to enslave them with chains and ghettoes, MTV and Exxon (to use some tried-n-true bugaboos) will do that and they rake in the bucks. Grabbing authority by furtherance of culture and commerce may not be wrong in and of itself perhaps, but invasion, killing and torture to achieve that most definitely is. And just how is this supposed to help stop terrorism? It actively works directly against it - to invade and occupy a state as a measure to stop terrorism is to fundamentally (ha! - punny) misunderstand the nature of it.
  • And just how is this supposed to help stop terrorism? It actively works directly against it - to invade and occupy a state as a measure to stop terrorism is to fundamentally (ha! - punny) misunderstand the nature of it. I am reminded of Bush's first term, when Ashcroft was attorney general. Ashcroft was widely considered a nut and his appointment a sop to the religious right for their support against Gore - all of which may be true. But Ashcroft served another VERY valuable purpose: he concentrated criticism that might otherwise be levelled against the administration as a whole against himself personally. He basically functioned as a bitch-sink for the media and the left - while everyone was pegging their outrage meter or one or another of Ashcroft's wacky pronouncements, the rest of the admin was free to embark on various and sundry relatively scrutiny-free. Ashcroft admitted that this was pretty much by design in a GQ interview a couple years ago (wish I could find a link to that, but you know Conde-Nast). Politically speaking, I thought it was a fairly sophisticated bit of misdirection, and it made me reconsider the Bush-is-dumb meme. In any event, it could be that in addition to putting large amounts of highly competent troops on terror-sponsoring states doorstep as an incentive toward dropping that support, perhaps the lightning-rod approach of placing a large and convenient target in a central location to concentrate a diverse and geographically divided group of malefactors (a honeypot, if you will?) so as to make an easier, shorter time of wiping them out? might not be so stupid after all.
  • The stupid part being, they stuck their honeypot in a city with the civilian population the size of Chicago. That ain't great.
  • Yeah if they weren't so seriously (and publicly) spread thin, I might agree with that. The 250 Billion dollar price tag coupled with the 2006 slash-the-poor budget Bush introduced is not only sad and outrageous because of that disparity, it's literally against the good of Americans. (That's less money for programs = less good, that is) The troops in the MidEast can't protect us from terrorists - they're busy already. Is there not consensus that Iraq is a magnet, a breeding ground for terrorism? If not, what evidence would be sufficent to prove that point? Politically speaking, I thought it was a fairly sophisticated bit of misdirection Oh you know Ashcroft's appointment wasn't Bush's idea. C'mon, W don't care what anybody thinks. He's famous for it even. He's not making suggestions about who's on his cabinet - he's allowing them. I don't think he's capable of the machination you described, not without big-time help. Rove or Cheney made a good case in his mind, that's as far as I can imagine it. Actually, it's got Rove's fingerprints all over it.
  • I also think it's interesting that CNN.com picked up the "memo" story 24 hours late *and* posted it only as a video (which never ever works). Hm, it's not on Fox. Now that's odd.
  • "...to bolster moderates against extremists in the region..." Hey, can we have something like that over here?
  • from today's boston globe:
    Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and the British foreign minister, Jack Straw, made a surprise visit to Baghdad yesterday, telling Iraqi leaders they are growing impatient with the slow progress of political negotiations and pressing them to come to an agreement on a new government.
    this really does give rise to the question, "or else what?" what are they going to do about it? invade? withdraw and then invade again?
  • Ooh baby!
  • Or else we'll go back to calling them "Eye-rack" instead of "Eeeee-rock."
  • I know it's hard! It's hard to put the . . uhmm to put the people on the ground! Out there. But we will not cut-and-run. Freedom is just around the corner. These people hate liberty and many times we have to tell ourselves . . . uhmm . . the, It y'know, I'm a president who will stay where it counts. Terror will not defend . . that is, Saddam and terror need to understand that liberty is for the brown-skinned people. They love to vote. And . . uhmm . . that's why I urge the Congress to vote. And to look beyond the differences. 9/11. Thank you (Laughter).
  • Huh. Well wonders never fuckin' cease I guess. "I don't think that anybody believes that we really want to be there longer than we have to," Rice told the House Appropriations Committee's foreign-operations panel. I was all set to call her a huge fucking liar, but a critical reading of the quote reveals that it's inherently true. If we don't "have to be there", we won't be there. But we "have to be there" forever. 'Cause, y'know. 9-11. Terra.
  • POTUS spieled his spiel to the Amercian voters; he spoke of Iraq's having uranium until this canard lodged in each reporter's cranium. And his tales of non-existent bacteria grew eerier and eerier as American troops combed Iraq's interior: they could only report, "It has been bombed." Was there a single terrorist from Iraq among the hijackers on those planes? Seems when POTUS and Company told repeated their fabrications again and again, Congress and the press corps thought that was just fine -- or were afraid to buck the current, seek other answers, too cowed to say, "Those are lies you speak, sir!" -- for most hardly seem to have a spine.
  • Too true, Sir Bees A jellyfish corps indeed Allowed the POTUS to exceed With malice fore t'launch his greed And more aggression than we'd agreed. So Fie on the weekend press Gov't power-mad excess Clenched them in a tightend fist All shaven clean they don't resist The Right House Press does not exist.
  • I don't know what Big Oil has to do with the War in Iraq *cough*, but Exxon Chairman's $400 Million Dollar "Golden Parachute"
  • More about Gardiner and US psyops here: Mind Games
  • *sigh*
  • Well, c'mon, it's a no-brainer! It's obviously not in the national interest! *burns a flag*
  • Lookie the shiny object I'm holding! Pay no attention to what my other hand is doing.
  • Cheney. Energy task force. Iraq. Hellooooo? Good thing this isn't going on in the naked light of day or anything.
  • Saw that last night. Very good. Oddly, it had a disclaimer in front of it: "The following program contains material that some viewers may find objectionable..." I've never seen that disclaimer added to a news documentary that simply detailed unsavory FACTS about those in power before. It's not like they showed Cheney's pasty white ass or anything.
  • Very odd, I missed that. I know PBS has been in the crosshairs for a long time. NPR's toothless faux-critical propagandizing has just gotten so bad I can't listen anymore. But that's for another thread.
  • i watched it the other night. highly recommended. frontline totally pwns.
  • Let them eat war. You can't win, think it over again.
  • Few lies have wound up injuring Americans more—in everything from automobile gas tanks and winter heating bills to diminished U.S. global standing—than a rarely revisited three-year-old fib-fest involving George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, and Tony Blair. Since World War I, history is clear: the British and Americans have been pre-occupied with only one thing in Iraq—oil. Yet in 2003, as their troops again disembarked, the pretense was all about good and evil, democracy and freedom. The disastrous outcome of the unacknowledged Middle Eastern mission, the struggle for petroleum, has rarely been discussed. The American Conservative Magazine, I hardly know ye. Spanx h-dogg!
  • Last night on CNN, I heard Alexander Haig, calmly and with a straight face, tell us which countries in the Middle East were doing "the Devil's work." Republic of Gilead much?
  • Hey, He's in charge! /JFA
  • I don't think that any one cause, by itself, was responsible for Bush's decision to invade Iraq. His religious views figured into the decision, as did military disappointment over not being allowed to finish the job the first time we fought Iraq. And yes, oil was part of the equation, but far from the most important reason.
  • His religious views figured into the decision Which ones?
  • Messianic endtimes views whereby the recapture of the holy land is considered a necessery precondition for bringing about the rapture.
  • Oops. That was meant for the head transplant thread. I'm not quite sure how I did that.
  • Lost your head eh?
  • I lost the thread I'd inten-ded I have misread, And lost my head. And though I'm wrong, And it doesn't belong, All the boys throng To see Miss Wong.
  • Not to defend our government or anything, but it should be pointed out that others have done the same. That list includes the British, the French, Russia, China, etc.
  • Argh.
  • This Modern World rocks!
  • All of your links is 404.
  • Good find Glama. The Euston Manifesto looks like a good read too.
  • Did you hear about the 24 Iraqis who plotted to blow up a bunch of airplanes flying across the Atlantic Ocean? Oh, that's right. They weren't Iraqis. They were Pakistanis. Did you hear that Osama bin Laden is hiding in Iraq? Whoa, check that. That would be Pakistan. And did you know that Iraq has nuclear bombs and sold that technology to Iran and North Korea? Oops, I meant Pakistan, not Iraq. And how about Iraq supporting Islamic terrorism against its democratic neighbors? Oh, that would be Pakistan, again. And now there is a new warning that al Qaeda may attack Americans in India. And where would these attackers be coming from? Again, Pakistan. Yeah, but Pakistan didn't try to kill mah daddy. Hyuk. *goes on vacation*
  • As of . . nnnnnnnOW, The War in Iraq Costs: $308,569,320,725
  • Hmmm, more tax cuts for the wealthy should have that bill paid in no time!
  • Aw, that's not REAL money. That's pretend money! Remember kids: the dollar is an abstraction of labor, and has no real value (or standard) to back it up. With that said, I suggest you all take your fake money and buy gold today.
  • Yeah but when they tried to spend 308 billion on teachers, you should have seen them preening like belles at the ball . . . Good thing they didn't do it though, an educated and informed electorate would have monkeywrenched everything Rove has strugged for for 30 years.
  • Sheet, man. Everyone knows that those billions never reach the classroom. All that money is funnelled away to Hawaiian development workshops for administration and personal BMWs for district big-whigs. They've got priorities, you know. We can throw all the money we want at the education system, and those damned kids will stay blessedly uneducated because the money floats at the top of the education pyramid. Yay for progress!
  • Dammit! Curse you H-dogg!! *wrestles damaged Sopwith Camel to safe crash landing*
  • In May 2002--months before he asked Congress for authority to attack Saddam- Bush bluntly revealed his ultimate game plan in a candid moment with two aides. When told that reporter Helen Thomas was questioning the need to oust Saddam by force, Bush snapped: "Did you tell her I intend to kick his sorry mother fucking ass all over the Mideast?" Then he farted. 300 Billion dollars of US taxpayer's money disappeared from the treasury, terrorists from many parts of the Mideast gathered, and hundreds of thousands of men, women & children died. Then he went on vacation. This thing writes itself.
  • While on vacation, he hurt himself during a three day bender war exercises on brushwood.
  • Linkage from the mother lode: Postwar Findings About Iraq's WMD Programs and Links to Terrorism and How They Compare With Prewar Assessments [pdf] Already proving to be an interesting read...
  • Democrats say report shows administration misrepresented intelligence Wow. Those Dems are fuckin' on fire! Go party of the people! Go! Goddammit.
  • Wanted to invade - check No good reason - check complicit media - check Midterm elections? . . Meh. Not really buyin' it. But even if Rich's book is mostly a chronological retelling of familiar tales, it is invaluable as a comprehensive record of the tawdry machinations of a debased presidency, a kind of one-stop-shopping mall for all things truthy and Bushiful. Need a pithy, accurate account of the "Mission Accomplished" episode? Check. Need to refresh your memory about Bush's various, contradictory accounts of his relation to "Kenny Boy"? Check. Searching for a record of bleak news bulletins that were immediately followed by sudden "revelations" of impending terrorist attacks? Check. Want a transcript of what Cheney actually said about the nonexistent link between Saddam and 9/11? Check.
  • Nuh uh! He didn't know it, he just believed it! Totally different! NO WAY they intended to go to war under false pretenses even ONE SECOND before they had to - because they totally knew they were risking US lives! That's why they were double extra cautious and took way more time than they wanted to to invade! Totally, dude. Way.
  • The pdf source seems to be gone now. You don't say!!
  • *sighs heavily*
  • Ah, here it is now (they renamed the link). Page 26 is the page in question.
  • What was it that Deep Throat said?
  • Oh please, it's not about oil at all. It's about the fight for democracy!! Let freedom ring throughout the lands of Earth. Stop terrorism dead in its tracks. God will show us the way!! Hear yea! Hear yea!
  • Fortunately, CorpWatch is still on the case, specifically David Phinney on the continuing saga of foreign workers lured to Baghdad to work on the new $592-million US embassy in Baghdad. First Kuwaiti Trading & Contracting is the lead builder on what will be the largest embassy in the world. Huh.
  • We prefer to call it "freedom grease," you cheese-eating surrender monkey!
  • Oh for fuck's sake. Next you're going to say the President of the United States advocates torture and will deny detainees the right of habeas corpus. Whatever, hippie! Enjoy your "groovy trips"!
  • Oooh that smarts
  • This is my surprised face (tm)
  • Now for the YouTube link. Who has it?
  • It serves Saddam right for crashing those planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. He won't do that again in a hurry.
  • Saddam is dead. HOLY SHIT! How did THAT happen?
  • I like the picture at cnn.com right now. It is of a guy in a hood fitting a noose around Hussein's neck. I thought people didn't like the image/idea of hooded figures executing people for political reasons...
  • When I am finally executed for crimes against humanity (and against Ralph), I hope they have the decency of having state-sponsored drag queens put me to death.
  • *makes mental note* but, how does one FIND a state-sponsored drag queen???
  • Look deep within your closet, my friend. You will find him-her there. C'mon old pal: say it loud and say it proud!
  • > I thought people didn't like the image/idea of hooded figures executing people for political reasons... That's a very United States citizenian point of view. Hoods in Europe were de riguer for executioners until executions were done away with...
  • Poncey, limp-wristed, tree-lickiing humanists! *cuts funding for education, arts*
  • Now, that's a surprise read...
  • Oil, that is . . . Iraqi tea
  • He's the decider!
  • Why should they? Fucking ungrateful sand-niggers.
  • He's the decider! He's the educator-in-chief! Is our citizens learning?
  • > Congress obviously has to support the effort through the power of the purse. Sounds like Congress has to play indulgent parent to a spoiled teenager.
  • That's quite an astounding read! Why do interveiews like this always end up in the far corners of the US media? GQ magazine? This should be up-front and center. But no... GQ: And you feel like you were misled? Hagel: I asked tough questions of Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld before the war: How are you going to govern? Who’s going to govern? Where is the money coming from? What are you going to do with their army? How will you secure their borders? And I was assured every time I asked, “Senator, don’t worry, we’ve got task forces on that, they’ve been working, they’re coordinated,” and so on. GQ: Do you think they knew that was false? Hagel: Oh, I eventually was sure they knew. Even before we actually invaded, I had a pretty clear sense of it—that this administration was hell-bent on going to war in Iraq. GQ: Even if it meant deceiving Congress? Hagel: That’s right.
  • indeed. another beaut, HD!
  • A Prewar Slide Show Cast Iraq in Rosy Hues and also - the show itself: "Completely unrealistic assumptions about a post-Saddam Iraq permeate these war plans," said National Security Archive Executive Director Thomas Blanton. "First, they assumed that a provisional government would be in place by 'D-Day', then that the Iraqis would stay in their garrisons and be reliable partners, and finally that the post-hostilities phase would be a matter of mere 'months'. All of these were delusions." DELUSIONAL.
  • Understanding the Iraq Insurgency For Beginners (Salon, ad view req.) What happened to the U.S. message of democracy? It totally failed. The idea of Western-style democracy in Iraq doesn't appeal to anyone. It was our own myth. We thought that if we get rid of Saddam Hussein, people would come together and celebrate and democracy would reign throughout the Middle East. The people who thought that up are people who think Iraq is like Texas. Iraq is not Texas. To Iraqis, tribal affiliations, religion and family mean a lot more than saying, "I'm from Iraq." You know we're doing a bad job of communicating our own message when we're losing the propaganda war to people who cut other people's heads off on camera. Think about it: People in one of the most Westernized countries in the Middle East would rather trust al-Qaida than the United States. That's a terrible sign of things to come. Does the Bush administration have the smarts to figure that out? I'm not sure they do. I thought perhaps, in invading Iraq, they had some long-term view that nobody else could see. But that hope faded very quickly. The Bush administration didn't reach out to anyone credible when they were asking about, for instance, the connections between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein. Anybody with any real knowledge of the region would have told them there are no connections between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida. The only people who believed that nonsense were lunatics. If I was going to invade Iraq, the first thing I would do is commission the top history experts, top geographical experts, top cultural experts, and sit them down at a table and say, "This is what I'm thinking about doing. Is this feasible?" That was never done. Nobody in their right mind would have taken a look at Bush's plan and said, "Oh, yeah, that's going to work." It's not possible that it could work. Every historic precedent works directly against Bush's plan. I know it's easy to say, but the best solution is not to have invaded at all.
  • Bill Moyers has put together an amazing 90-minute video documenting the lies that the Bush administration told to sell the Iraq War to the American public, with a special focus on how the media led the charge. I've watched an advance copy and read a transcript, and the most important thing I can say about it is: Watch PBS from 9 to 10:30 p.m. on Wednesday, April 25. Spending that 90 minutes on this will actually save you time, because you'll never watch television news again – not even on PBS, which comes in for its share of criticism. . . . But what comes out of watching this show is a powerful realization that no investigation is needed by Congress, just as no hidden information was needed for the media to get the story right in the first place. The claims that the White House made were not honest mistakes. But neither were they deceptions. They were transparent and laughably absurd falsehoods. And they were high crimes and misdemeanors. Thanks for the heads-up!
  • *hands H-Dogg a beautiful ripe ) for the reminder*
  • It's got a blog too. Which is cool. (But then, what doesn't?)
  • Is there ANYONE in the US or any other country who thinks Bush didn't lie about his reasons for invasion? Please raise your hand. If you're able stand up, and take your head out of your posterior.
  • Is there ANYONE in the US or any other country who thinks Bush didn't lie about his reasons for invasion? I heard snippets on the radio of a debate between the Mayor of Salt Lake City and Sean Hannity about the occupation. Based on that, the answer is a resounding yes. Some of the pro-war crowd even know full well he was lying and don't care. We support the president, rah-rah-rah.
  • On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior CIA officers. Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam's inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. Tenet never brought it up again. On April 23, 2006, CBS's "60 Minutes" interviewed Tyler Drumheller, the former CIA chief of clandestine operations for Europe, who disclosed that the agency had received documentary intelligence from Naji Sabri, Saddam's foreign minister, that Saddam did not have WMD. "We continued to validate him the whole way through," said Drumheller. "The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming, and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy, to justify the policy." In a related story, Bush Pledges to 'Hang In There' on Iraq Policy
  • So he's crazy crazy?
  • Na, Pete, he lives in an alternate reality. Or else he's just a miserable lying sack of shit. Pick one.
  • Can't I pick both?
  • more than three weeks prior to that Bush had told former Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar that “The Egyptians are speaking to Saddam Hussein. It seems he’s indicated he would be prepared to go into exile if he’s allowed to take $1 billion …” When confronted about the leaked transcript yesterday, Whitehouse spokeswoman Dana Perino did not dispute its accuracy. *clears throat, points to thread title*
  • Duh! *strangles self with rope weaved from this thread*
  • Actually, McCain makes a good point in that video. Who cares about the occupation as long as things get better and people stop dying? Problem is, I don't think that's ever going to happen in Iraq.
  • WAR IS PEACE (Have I chanted that before?)