Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Yes, calling me "Mark" is fine.
I think the use of chemical weapons against the kurds is frankly a good reason to show that Iraq had chemical weapons.
Why didn't we attack Saudi Arabia instead of Iraq? I think for lots of very valid reasons. But, does citizenship of a country imply that a citizens actions represent those of that country's government/leaders? I don't think the men who drove those planes were acting at the direction of the leaders of Saudi Arabia.
Iraq didn't attack us on 9/11. Very true. We were attacked by a group of people, not a country.
Again, I think, given the circumstances, the decision to invade Iraq and remove Saddam from power and allow that country an opportunity to move in a new direction was the right thing to do.
BSD really stands for Bullshit Derangement Syndrome.
These selfish egotists need something to deflect their enabling of this monster. Projection anyone?
Truly "egotism is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of stupidity.".
Watch Laura Bush during the Charles Gibson interview with little Bush, the American tush. Her body English says she knows full well her moronic spouse is lying and she's hoping that she doesn't get splashed as he dives into the pig sty.
The Saudi's have fundraisers on TV for the families of terrorists. They set up Wahabi schools all over south Asia to fuel a fight against infidels. They funded those hijackers on 9-11. They are more responsible for the attack on us that Iraq ever was. We set the Kurds up to be attacked remember and then did nothing when they were attacked by Sadaam. The Iraqis began to torment the Kurds well before the first war with Iraq and afterward and yet we did nothing, the fact is we abandoned the Kurds after the first gulf war. Please. The neo-cons had been planning this since 1998, 9-11 gave them a reason because American's were scared shitless. They wanted to attack any Muslim anywhere. I will repeat again, Iraq did not attack us. If they did not attack us we had no legal reason to attack Iraq, it is a violation of International Law, then we violated the Geneva Conventions. You and I are never going to agree on this. I didn't support the war against Iraq from the beginning, I knew those folks in charge were lying. I worked for the DoE. The folks in the Whitehouse didn't want evidence that disproved what they wanted people to believe. But they did know there was evidence to the contrary and they didn't care. They never will care.
Let's not forget, too, that since the first Gulf War Sodamn Insane had been pinned down by no-fly zones in the north and south swaths of Iraq; had UN inspectors turning the country upside down; and endured severe trade sanctions. All this over a twelve-year span. How was Sodamn Insane going to develop new weapons and more to the point, how the hell was he going to deliver them? The unreasonable fears of the Bush/Cheney cabal smacks of the fears of Vietnamese Sampans attacking the American West Coast.
O'Donnell believes W. Bush had met with so many maimed and disabled soldiers and their families in the unnecessary war he started that in this interview with Gibson he is essentially attempting to shift the blame to others. Sort of like Pontius Pilate who symbolically wiped his hands to exempt himself from what the crowd was doing to Jesus. The tears Bush sheds when he meets with the American victims of his war can only be explained by a competent psychiatrist. I have framed a photo taken from the The Daily Mail in London which showed Bush posing with a faceless soldier/victim from his war. I doubt if the lad was a member of the Rich and Famous. steve, world war 2
Mark Denney: "I think you're applying a very single minded and obtuse approach to military action and the reasons for going to war."
I think you don't know what you're talking about.
Mark Denney: "The reasons to not apply the same logic for one country as opposed to another are many and have more to do with logistics, troop safety, estimates for success, etc than the simple moral decision to act."
Uh-huh. So basically "We want to rid the world of evil dictators, but only if they're in regions that are logistically feasible," right?
Sorry, but my point is that the entire rationale is empty. It's all well and good to claim you're invading for humanitarian reasons when, oh by the way, it just so happens that controlling the country will also serve your self interests.
Note that you listed "estimates for success" among the considerations. How well did Bush estimate success? That's part of the reason I am criticizing him. He had no idea what he was doing. He didn't even know the difference between Sunni and Shia, let alone give any thought to what might happen in the event of Iraq's government breakdown in the aftermath of an invasion.
Mark Denney: "Imagine your reaction when 50,000 troops laid dead in NK "well, at least we applied our morals evenly!". You should look at each situation as just that - a single situation that needs to be dealt with on it's own merits and circumstances."
Uh huh. I am not arguing that we should have invaded North Korea. I am arguing that it's B.S. to CLAIM you're waging war for humanitarian reasons when you don't lift a single finger to do a single humanitarian thing anywhere else in the entire world.
And it's especially hypocriticial to say you have humanitarian interests in mind when you've sent a message down every chain of command that says it's A-OK to torture people.
Mark Denney: "Bush is no hero but he was President during the single worst invasion and tragedy our country has faced."
You are right, Bush is no hero.
Mark Denney: "To say "well, he said he was against nation building when he ran for office!" is anemic..."
There's no iron in my red blood cells? Huh? And what is your argument here, that 9/11 had a bearing on policy toward Iraq? How exactly? We invaded Iraq to prevent terrorism by a loose faction of well-funded Islamic militants in other countries? This makes little sense. Invading Iraq was not a response to 9/11, Operation Enduring Freedom was. Even the stated goal of spreading democracy doesn't address what happened on 9/11 because there's no indication 9/11 had anything to do with democracy vs. dictatorship.
Mark Denney: "I am no fan of Bush. I think he did many if not most things wrong or against my own views. I don't come to my current views on the war without first feeling it was wrong top to bottom. But, I had to ask myself if I thought us NOT intervening in Rawanda was wrong. I think it was. I also think we did the right thing by acting to stop the Bosnian conflict."
I agree, I think we should have done much more about Rwanda. But we didn't. Nor has Bush done much about Sudan. We know Saddam Hussein killed thousands of people many years ago, but here's something that happened on Bush's watch, and he did nothing. What does that tell you? It tells me that the stated motive of ridding the world of genocide and dictatorship was a disingenuous justification.
Mark Denney: "Given those two items, I have to ask myself - should we have acted in Iraq - I think yes. Should we have acted in NK, I think yes but, not the same way we did in Iraq. I think our actions so far in NK have (now, thankfully) resulted in progress. Different situations, different actions but, to me, both right."
So you think it was right to invade Iraq with no plan for a successful occupation and with no guidance in terms of how our troops interacted with citizens?
Do you really believe Bush and his administration cared at all about the Iraqis? Because if you really believe that, the burden is on you to explain why they maintained a policy in which Iraqis were routinely beaten and humiliated.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
