At what point will we move on from the run-up to Iraq?

[greyhound]

At some point, is all the arguing and rhetoric about what happened a year ago going to end?

Seems like a more productive dialogue would be about what to do now both in and post-Iraq. I know that folks who opposed the war are angry, but sorry folks - it happened and we have to move forward.

Perfectly well and good to show your disapproval at the ballot box in November, but as of now I don't see a discussion (both in person and places like THR) about what to do in Iraq NOW brgin without it quickly degenerating into the same call and response that's been going on for a year now.

Hey, its America so speech is free, but I don't think I've seen such a devisive issue in my lifetime.

I also feel I have NEVER seen the mainstream media try to spin an issue so far away from what is really happening as in the Iraq war, but I guess that's a different topic....

 

[vmi93]

Don't hold your breath

The dummy-crats are still whining about losing Florida's electoral votes in 2000.

I expect we'll hear "Bush lied about WMD's, give Saddam a do-over" until at least 2010.

 

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

I must say that the Iraq run-up discussion is healthy but sad. There are true believer bourne out of the Vietnam era that feel any engagement is bad. There are the "anybody but Bush" crowd that are using the legitimate disarmament of Iraq as a means to support the "Peacenick." Then there are the humanitarians that strongly believe that we are "too civilized" for war.

Then there are the warmongering rednecks that grab a rifle and do what must be done.

 

[Standing Wolf]

We won.

Leftists always look backward.

 

[jfh]

standing wolf: how true.

They would be better off remembering the words of Sachel Page (sp?)

"Don't look back, cause they might be gainin' on ya."

 

[Malone LaVeigh]

We won.

What do you mean by "we"? Are you a Republican sycophant?

I intend to take every opportunity to remind anyone with an open mind that the administration lied to us. I know, it's crazy in this cynical age, but I think it's kind of important when the person we've entrusted with supreme power can't be trusted to speak the truth to the people.

 

[TheEgg]

Malone,

I intend to take every opportunity to remind anyone with an open mind that the administration lied to us.

I have an open mind, but I have yet to see any evidence of this. I have seen plenty of evidence that they were WRONG, but that is different than lying. If you cannot make the distinction between lying and error, then I would submit that perhaps you do not have an open mind.

Being wrong about such items may be enough in the minds of some to argue for the replacement of the President -- but argue that you want to replace him because they were incompetent, not because they lied.

BTW, I also believe that the use of WMD as the main talking point in the run-up was a convenient "target of opportunity". The real motivation in Bush and Company's mind was a brillant but highly risky strategy to address the problem of terroism at its source, the middle east, by attempting to re-model the middle east through the insertion of a democratic Republic right in the midst of the region. Whether this strategy is doable is still un-answered.

However, when they settled on WMD as the Causus Belli for the simple-minded, I believe that they did so because they were SURE that it would hold up. I think that no one was more surprised by the absence of stock-piles of WMD than the Bush administration.

In the meantime, I believe that we DO need to talk about the present and future in Iraq. My basic belief is that we need to do whatever it takes to make sure that a stable and democratic Republic is quickly established in Iraq, and then GET OUR MEN OUT! As long as our men (and women) are stationed in Iraq, they will be a target and rallying point for the Islamofacists. In the end Iraq must be governed by Iraqis.

How we get to that point is the $64,000 question.

 

[Gordon Fink]

At some point, is all the arguing and rhetoric about what happened a year ago going to end?

At what point will we move on from the Civil War?

~G. Fink

 

[dischord]

At what point will we move on from the run-up to Iraq?

Sunrise, November 10, 2004.

 

[mercedesrules]

Aren't we supposed to keep the Terrible Mistakes (TMs) of history fresh in our minds so as not to repeat them?

And, isn't trucking blindly off to war in foreign lands for no good reason the main TM?

(greyhound) I don't think I've seen such a devisive issue in my lifetime.

Be very glad you weren't around in the Vietnam War era!

MR

 

[fallingblock]

Atta boy, Malone.....

"I intend to take every opportunity to remind anyone with an open mind that the administration lied to us. I know, it's crazy in this cynical age, but I think it's kind of important when the person we've entrusted with supreme power can't be trusted to speak the truth to the people."
************************************************************


That Clinton creature deserves every bit of scorn you can muster.....


Bush, on the other hand.....what makes you think he lied?



Mercedesrules:
************************************************************
"Be very glad you weren't around in the Vietnam War era!"
************************************************************


Whew! I was there then. and I believe the differences between the Vietnam war and the Iraq war are greater than the similarities.

Except for the divisiveness, of course.

 

[Hkmp5sd]

Sunrise, November 10, 2004.

You're about a week too late, unless of course, the Democrats need to try to eliminate a few hundred republican votes again. There will be a lot more military absentee ballots to challenge this year.

 

[greyhound]

I intend to take every opportunity to remind anyone with an open mind that the administration lied to us

While I admire your dedication, I feel that the time is soon upon us, if not here already, when even those with open minds have decided and moved on. You're left with preaching to the choir.

For what its worth, I think the same thing happened with the Clinton impeachment, and conservatives were left mumbling about "how can they not SEE this?"

As far as our cynical age, I agree. Even though I feel its time to move on about the origins of the Iraq War, I feel no small bit of frustration when a passioned argument about "American Idol" grinds to a screeching halt and blank stares when any piece of politics or current affairs is brought up. I think of Ancient Rome everytime.....

 

[Waitone]

Malone, you consider the best thing to have happened to your position is the absence of WMD being found in Iraq.

The doctrine of pre-emption requires solid intelligence. By failing to find WMD in Iraq, Bush and Co. dare not use pre-emption again. They may have very well just did something really unsanitary in their MRE's.

Note: I'm not debating if our actions in Iraq were justified. I'm just saying pre-emption as policy is dead. Unfortunate, but dead.

 

[BeLikeTrey]

Enough of the woulda coulda shoulda!

Democrats and Republicans alike, voted for it! Intelligence snafu or whatever! Same intelligence was preseted to Clinton and he stated that Iraq was a threat to be dealt with. Now Bush says it and he is a bad guy!
What, free pass only given to Clinton because he is a Democrat? (who bombs aspirin factories and does interns and perjures himself? The only president to actually be impeached?) Wanna talk about lies? How about the next Democrat du-jour (Kerry) and his BS (war crimes testimony)? You tin foil Democrats are just ticked because you keep nominating philandering scum and gigolo's and want to try to bring others to your level. It's the classic "see everybody does it" mentality. We nominate honorable people. Seen bush dipping his cigars? Or does he latch on to the nearest rich woman? Did he lie on war atrocities?
Hmm 14 resolutions by the UN agreeing with us? Intelligence collected by the "infallible Clinton administration" agreeing that Iraq was a threat? You guys, wake up! this isn't about them being lied to. It's their way of distancing themselves from Republicans as much as possible in an election year. They don't believe this crud they are saying themselves, why do you? If that isn't good enough, did we do the right thing in freeing a people repressed? Taking out a sponsor of terror? Quit being so narrow minded on Weapons of Mass Destruction lies. At best it's a mistake that the Democrats shared in, and now they wanna distance themselves. Heaven forbid we find something.That backpeddling would be epic! I'd pay a year's salary to see these Democrats say, " well uh yes see we voted to have these weapons found by our nonpartisanship and we were bamboozled. We still think they were planted there." my .02$

 

[geegee]

I'm spending the weekend in Haskell, TX. at my wife's mother's house. This is the same county that Governor Rick Perry is from (he's not actually from the town of Haskell, but a smaller town-Paint Creek, which is in Haskell County). One would think that out here in West Texas's Bible Belt, the support for GWB and even the Governor would be very strong. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Most everyone out here is viruently ant-Bush (and even anti-Perry, one of their own local boys). The folks out here all believe that Bush cooked up the the entire reason to go to war, i.e. there were no WMD's, never have been, and the country has been sold a bill of goods. The last time I was here, I actually had to go online to print out pages of comments made by Democrats from the Clinton administration (for ammo for my Mother in Law), claiming there was proof of WMD's. Makes zero difference to these folks. That provides me with some real insight into this political divide.

Even though you would think folks out here are very conservative, more to the point they're farmers living in a distressed economy. The bottom line is that without farm subsidies, they'd long be out of business. They're not about to bite the hand that feeds them, and in this case it's Uncle Sam's big hand. And no hand is ready to provide more of a handout that a Democrat in the White House. National defense? A minor issue. Scandal with a President? It was only sex-leave him alone. A President impeached? Look at how strong the economy was back the. It goes on and on....:banghead:

As long as people at the local level are getting what they want from the government, these issues can have a very long life. The attacks on 9-11 just don't compare to the notion of a smaller subsidy check in the mailbox, and with a Republican in the White House, that fear for many of these folks is too much to consider. It's pathetic, but gives me some real insight as to why this argument rages on across the country. geegee

 

[BeLikeTrey]

GeeGee

Quite insightful! Great point! I can think of a few other segments of our population with that same mentality. It's sickening !

 

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

I believe that there is a more sinister side to this issue.

GWB says what he means and means what he says. In short, he does not lie. You may not like what he is saying, or what his policies are, but he lays it out right up front. Americans know this. They see it and hear it. Character counts.

This is an unsurmountable obstacle for the party that nominates the likes of BillIdidnothavesexwiththatwomanWillie, AlIinventedtheinternetand global warmingGore, and now, JohnIdonotworkforspecialinterestsorcontradictmyselfateveryturnKerry. So they must "tear down" Bush to their level and convince the world that he is a LIAR. Repeat it enough and it becomes a mantra and eventually pseudo-truth.

They can not rise to this level of character so the next best thing (for them, not for all) is to tear down the opponent to their level.

I do not agree with Bush on everything, but I know that he is dealing it straight. In this day and age, a man of his word and unimpeachable character is a standout.