When I referred to the current Iraq situation as “the new Vietnam,” that seemed to spur a discussion as to how it couldn’t possibly be, because the casualty numbers don’t match up. This is, of course, ridiculous. Vietnam didn’t have 50,000 dead in the first few months. These things take time. But the point is, comparing it to Vietnam has nothing to do with the total number dead. It has to do with the fact that the military is sent into a situation for an indefinite period of time with only the vaguest of ideas of what they’re supposed to be doing there or how they’re supposed to go about it.
From the get-go, the Administration has been hazy on what was to happen after Saddam was deposed. The idea of the natives shooting at us for an extended period of time was never addressed. When one military advisor stated that several hundred thousands troops would be required indefinitely to maintain order, the upper echelon shouted the notion down. Except that’s exactly where we are.
And when I said Saddam is fine, thanks, I thought the meaning was clear: He’s alive. And he’s planning. And he’s waiting. And bin Laden still isn’t caught (remember “dead or alive?” Remember that promise?) And soldiers are being picked off. And there’s no end in sight.
We should never have gone in without, at the very least, a clear idea of a long term plan. We didn’t. And now we’re stuck.
And all the responses that are essentially name calling aren’t doing diddly to change that.
PAD
• 
V is for victory that won’t come
I is for bad intelligence
E is for emotion of mourning
T is for terrorism link not proven
N is for the naivte of the admin.
A is for administration run amok
M is for the many men and women who have and will continue to die
PAD wrote:
“And all the responses that are essentially name calling aren’t doing diddly to change that.”
Thank you, PAD, for addressing this. I read through the other thread and was astounded by the sheer number infantile insults! You were called a “fool”, a “little man”, and some other mundane nasties that I can’t recall. I find it interesting that some of those who so vehemently disagree with your opinion are not only history-blind and politically narrow-minded but also seem so woefully incapable of delivering an articulate counter-opinion without the childish name-calling. Maybe if they spent a little less time cheerleading their own cleverness, they could debate on a level higher than that found on an elementary school playground.
mld
Instead trying to look like a “I know it all-I’m always right”, why don’t you go back to work and write some good comics for a change.
Well, PAD does write good, often excellent comics and novels. I wish he’d stick to that, instead of un-informed political commentary.
The most amazing thing was I found myself in a similar conversation earlier tonight. Sadly, we are completely stuck in the situation that we are in now. We created the situation that exists now. We disposed the previous government (and whatever side of the arguement that you stand on, there’s no denying it), and now it is our responsibility and duty to try to keep the innocent people of Iraq, those that were just trying to live as best they could in the circumstances, safe from the anarchy that has resulted. It is a very helpless feeling, a different helplessness that existed the day of the September 11 attacks, but helpless none the less. I wish, hope, and pray to God above that the soldiers that we sent over there could come home, but that would condemn others who can’t protect themselves. I would never be as callous as to scream to those people,
“well, we’ve taken care of the big guy, good luck on the rest, try not to put another guy like him in power. And don’t worry about the pillagers, I”m sure that they will go away once they’ve got all the good stuff.”
So what are we left with? A lack of options and a situations we wish didn’t exist, but there it is none the less. We sit here and try to think about what can be done, and arrive at nothing substantial. In the end we are feeling helpless.
I don’t know if I”m going to get raked across the coals for saying that. I hope not. I”m not attacking any decisions by anyone, and I surely wasn’t trying to be political. It’s just been something that has been on my mind for a little bit, and was curious if anyone else maybe felt the same?
“Well, PAD does write good, often excellent comics and novels. I wish he’d stick to that, instead of un-informed political commentary.” – Rob Thorton
Since when in America do you have to be “informed” to state an opinion? I’ve seen plenty of opinions from you. Shall we assume you are one of the privileged “in the know”?
It’s cool if you don’t agree with PAD. There have been plenty of times when I haven’t agreed with him. But he has every right to state his opinion, and as Americans it is our JOB to question the motivations and actions of our leadership. If we don’t, how are we any better off than the Iraqis we just “liberated”?
mld
PAD,
I nominate Londo (not Mollari, but the poster from the prior thread) as official Opposition view for http://www.peterdavid.net.
He’s the only conservative I’ve seen on this board who discusses cases on a point-by-point basis, who thinks about how terms are defined and what precedents exist.
You ought to make some sort of nice fuss over him for that.
I just think it’s ridiculous the amount of crap PAD takes for posting his opinion on his own message board.
Am I really reading all of this correctly? Is Peter David against the war in Iraq? Wow! People tell me that I shouldn’t mix my political views with how I spend my money but I must admit that this pushes my buttons a bit. Americans have died and continue to die for our country as well as the freedom that is coming to the Iraqi people. How can any of you be against this? We have a duty and obligation to use the resources given to us by God to do good in the world and that includes liberation. Some of you may ask why Iraq and not North Korea or China. That is a valid question and has an answer and NO it is not oil! North Korea and China need to be resolved by diplomacy unless they get real aggressive. Sadaam Hussein has proven to be a literal wacko and needed to be taken out before he directly or indirectly strikes us or any other nation especially Israel. He has attacked his neighbors before and there is no doubt that he was pursuing more and already had weapons of mass destruction. Many of you have a problem with Israel and side with the Palestinians. That is absurd and is worse than your liberal position on Iraq. Hopefully some of you will come around to the right side of history and do some research on your own rather that being spoon-fed what the media tells you. I encourage you to take the responsibility to search out the truths out there that relate to current events and politics. Yes, even you Peter David unless I am way off base and you are a supporter of this war. If I am mistaken, then you have my deepest apologies. However, I will not recant my postions and look forward to the sweeping wins my party will enjoy come 2004. God Bless everyone reading this and may God continue to bless America and bring lasting freedom to the good people of Iraq.
Richard
Name callers are jerks.
Actually, Peter is writing good comics and apparently quite informed. If you have a different perspective, shouting out “un-informed” really doesn’t tell us much, does it?
Fair being fair, I’d like to also commend R. E. Contreras for actually giving a _detailed_ and _well-intentioned_ opposing opinion.
I don’t agree with his opinion myself, but I’ll let someone else pick at it. I’m in a weird mood tonight, I feel like being nice to people who comport themselves well.
“Name callers are jerks.”
Good job at proving your point by doing some name calling of your own.
Good job at proving your point by doing some name calling of your own.
Sarchasm: The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who just doesn’t get it.
Richard, that was an extremely well-written comment.
I just think it’s ridiculous the amount of crap PAD takes for posting his opinion on his own message board.
Brian, i’ve come to the conclusion that you’re right. All i’m doing listening to PAD here is aggravating myself. Instead, I intend to delete his website from my favorites list, and just wait for the books to come out for me to enjoy reading. I hope the next two (three?) New Frontier books will be in the continuing vein of what i’ve come to appreciate and not move into the political opinions he espouses here – I can’t stand the politics, but I love the writing. Sayonara, y’all.
Kinda funny that noone seems to be tackling the points PAD raises – when are we done? What, beyond tossing Saddam out and getting the oil resources “harnessed for the good of the Iraqi people”, is the plan here?
We don’t have one, other than “stay until it settles down”, however long it takes. Winning the war and securing the peace aren’t identical. I hope we learn that lesson with minimal loss of life.
I hope you don’t mind, but just could not resist, as there are gaps of argumentation and implied foundational theses (i.e., God exists, therefore such and such follows) that should not stand as givens.
I respect the opinions written above, even if diametrically opposed to mine, and greatly appreciate the postings that attempt to refute the message, rather than the messenger.
Cannot resist just this bit though:
(quote]Americans have died and continue to die for our country as well as the freedom that is coming to the Iraqi people. How can any of you be against this? We have a duty and obligation to use the resources given to us by God to do good in the world and that includes liberation.[unquote]
Exact same argument, with appropriate replacement verbiage, could have been made by Al-Qaeda, to wit,
“(The faithful) have died and continue to die for our countries as well as the reward that is coming to the Muslim peoples. How can any of you be against this? We have a duty and obligation to use the resources given to us by God to do good in the world and that includes liberation (from the infidels).”
Note, please, that what is immediately above is NOT my opinion, and also not one I support or espouse – just attempting in my own clumsy way to point out that the faith-based initiative argument can be played equally plausibly to audiences on all sides. I certainly in no way mean to imply in any way, manner, shape or form that all Muslims should be lumped into one camp, just as all Americans cannot be lumped into one heterogeneous group. IMHO, blind, unquestioning allegiance to anything, be it a cause, a political party, a flavor of ice cream or whatever is always a call for skepticism.
As for comparing current day Iraq situation to Vietnam – apples and oranges. Different types of warfare, types of armaments, and types of troops preclude ‘line by line’ comparisons, just for a prelude.
Playing the numbers game is, simply, foolish. But for those who insist otherwise, it can be played the other way around:
# directly killed by Nixon’s lying: zero
# directly killed by Clinton’s lying: zero
# directly killed by Bush & Co. lying: scores of U.S. and ‘coalition’ troops; thousands of Iraqi troops plus civilians.
Hussein was/is a brutal, dastardly, irredemable tyrant, but remains one among many such. If that is the primary rationale for the carnage, for the flouting of internationally-accepted norms and for whatever else has gone on lately, then this is no longer a planet I recognize. The ends do not justify any means; might and right are not equivalent, interchangeable values.
Link here.
I can’t stand the politics, but I love the writing. Sayonara, y’all.
Rob, I applaud the fact that you can actually seperate the man (and his politics) from his writing. Can’t say I agree with not coming to his site at all because of a few threads every so often that you disagree with, but I can see where you’re coming from.
You know, it’s odd. If I say I was opposed to Bush’s war, people just assume I didn’t want Saddam to be taken out. That’s not it at all. I wanted Saddam to go down, and go down hard and in as much pain as he put he people through, but I wanted it done right. You can’t tell me that the race to Baghdad against the wishes of virtually the entire world, based on claims of dubious nature, was the right way to finish off that tyrant.
So, as PAD says, we’re stuck. Our soldiers are sitting in sweltering heat with no good direction, being told “you’re going home in a month… oops, no, maybe six months… oops, no, you’re staying for a year unless we need you for longer!” Even the best soldier is going to start cracking under repeated lies from his/her “superior” officers.
The goal was admirable, I suppose, but the execution so far has been lousy. Yeah, people in Iraq can speak their minds… to complain about the lack of water, electricity, security and to realize that Saddam’s thugs are still there, waiting for the Americans to get tired and pull out. Or worse yet, they watch Saddam’s thugs convincing people that the Americans never intend to leave, and that we’re an imperial power out to control their oil.
I’m not opposed to taking out Saddam. I’m opposed to the way we sort of took out his power. I hope to God that something good comes of this, but every day another US soldier dies, and every day I wonder if our leaders even have a clue how to get Iraq back on its feet so we can pull most of our guys out.
So go ahead and call me names, but I’m with PAD on this one. To be honest, I’m surprised that anyone who has actually thought the whole thing through can disagree. Oh well.
I can understand both Peter David and Richard Contreras. I must say that I supported the war against Iraq. I also admit –because it’s obvious– that the US army doesn’t know how to handle the situation now. What I think is most important for the average American citizen who doesn’t want to get involved in such situations in the future, is to understand how Iraq got to the point where troops from other countries had to go in to protect civilization. First, understanding the situation requires acceptance of paradox. George Senior was once head of the CIA, I believe. The CIA and State Department had long supported Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi Ba`ath party, who were mass murderers way back. Yet, few opinion makers in the USA or Britain said anything against them. When Israel took out Saddam’s nuclear reactor in 1981 in a pinpoint operation, Israel was condemned by the US and foreign ministries around the world, eventhough, from a legal standpoint, Israel and Iraq had been in a state of war since 1948. When Iraq started a war against Iran in 1981, little complaint was heard in the US. The reaction was rather sympathetic in the US govt. George Senior was VP at that time. Maybe somebody could check up on what Senior was saying about Iraq and Saddam Hussein in those days. Now, it seems that there might have been no need to fight a war with Iraq if the CIA and State Dept had not been supporting Saddam, overlooking his mass murders of Kurds, Assyrians, etc., his Nazi-like incitement and indoctrination of his population against Israel and Jews, his general cruelty to his fellow Iraqis, etc. This means that the American people can’t get out of this cycle of wars and terrorism without restraining the CIA and State Dept, who help create the need for civilization to defend itself against the Saddams. And everyone knows of course that Ben Laden worked closely with the CIA for years. As to Saudi Arabia, it has been a pet in Washington for fifty years!!! It has also supplied funds to PLO and Hamas for many years. Only lately has the issue of Saudi money for Hamas become an issue (the Saudis stopped funding Arafat directly after he sided with Saddam over Kuwait, which the Saudis perceived as a threat). Now, if you want to understand Washington policy toward Saudi Arabia over the years, you need to know how the Foreign Tax Credit law was used to subsidize Saudi Arabia, making it the largest single recipient of US foreign aid since 1950 [albeit the money was disguised as “oil income tax” payments to the Saudi govt., and thereby gave the US oil companies, ARAMCO, etc., a tax credit against their US corporate income tax]. So the Saudis grew superrich on the tax payments that were NOT made to the US treasury by the US oil firms [for info on the Foreign Tax Credit as applied to oil, see John Blair, The Control of Oil]. So on one hand, George Junior is in favor of Israel’s security, opposes terrorism, etc. On the other, his Saudi friends finance Hamas, etc. Think of the whole situation as ridden with paradox.
For the people who think the “new Vietnam” label is wrong because the casualty rate is not nearly so high…
What is an acceptable amount of casualties?
Hmm…
# directly killed by Nixon’s lying: zero
Plenty died in Vietnam due to Nixon’s disseminations. How about “We are not in Cambodia?”
# directly killed by Clinton’s lying: zero
“That isn’t an aspirin factory we just bombed, it’s a weapons factory.”
# directly killed by Bush & Co. lying: scores of U.S.
While nothing he’s said has proven to yet be a lie, I don’t think that the situation is unique to GWB. Many presidents have told either outright lies, or at least, jumped to incorrect conclusions, that caused plenty of deaths.
PAD: We should never have gone in without, at the very least, a clear idea of a long term plan. We didn’t. And now we’re stuck.
I couldn’t agree with this more. It’s the Steven Covey “Begin with the end in mind” thing. While again, I don’t think this is a failing unique to GWB (Two presidents presided over Vietnam, Mogadishu was little better as was Korea…) it certainly is a failing.
When one military advisor stated that several hundred thousands troops would be required indefinitely to maintain order, the upper echelon shouted the notion down. Except that’s exactly where we are.
Well, as Rumsfeld said, if you define “several hundred thousand” as 300,000 or more, we’re not there, and probably will never be there, since that would more than double the number of troops on the ground. Hopefully, the energy is being spent on how to get US Soldiers out of there, and not on bringing more in. Whether the soldiers are replaced with coalition troops or Iraqi nationals holds little interest to me, as long as we figure out a solution. It really hasn’t been that long since the conflict ended, so I don’t think that it’s “taking too long” but I would indeed like to know that there is a plan…
Am I really reading all of this correctly? Is Peter David against the war in Iraq? Wow! People tell me that I shouldn’t mix my political views with how I spend my money but I must admit that this pushes my buttons a bit. Americans have died and continue to die for our country as well as the freedom that is coming to the Iraqi people. How can any of you be against this?
Did you really just ask how people can be against American soldiers dying?
We have a duty and obligation to use the resources given to us by God to do good in the world and that includes liberation.
Cool….nation building
Some of you may ask why Iraq and not North Korea or China. That is a valid question and has an answer and NO it is not oil! North Korea and China need to be resolved by diplomacy unless they get real aggressive. Sadaam Hussein has proven to be a literal wacko and needed to be taken out before he directly or indirectly strikes us or any other nation especially Israel.
Are you saying the North Korean and Chinese leaders are stable, low-key guys?
He has attacked his neighbors before and there is no doubt that he was pursuing more and already had weapons of mass destruction.
Where are they? Colin Powell knew where they were before the war? Who hid them and where, and how did we lose track?
Many of you have a problem with Israel and side with the Palestinians. That is absurd and is worse than your liberal position on Iraq. Hopefully some of you will come around to the right side of history and do some research on your own rather that being spoon-fed what the media tells you. I encourage you to take the responsibility to search out the truths out there that relate to current events and politics.
Meanwhile, you fail to cite any of the reading you’ve done.
Yes, even you Peter David unless I am way off base and you are a supporter of this war. If I am mistaken, then you have my deepest apologies. However, I will not recant my postions and look forward to the sweeping wins my party will enjoy come 2004. God Bless everyone reading this and may God continue to bless America and bring lasting freedom to the good people of Iraq.
Richard
Did I just respond to a great big parody?
To quote Joss Whedon via ‘Rupert Giles’:
Now our fight is done, and we kind of won, so we sing our victory cheer,
But tell me, where do we go from here?
I know this won’t be popular, but I believe that God puts our leaders in place (yes, even Clinton; even Saddam). I believe that as the leaders do the best they can that a grand plan is carried out to change the hearts of men, the course of nations, and the fate of the world.
I think what’s going on in Iraq and Afganistan is horrible. I also believe it is horribly necessary.
Yes, the Middle East is a powder keg. Yes, I can see if you don’t believe in God then this looks like the worst of blunderings in a china shop. I believe, however, that what is happening is necessary for the good the majority, not to mention the Iraqis.
Flame away. 🙂
I usually avoid political discussions because they quite often do end up becoming exercises in name calling, but what the hëll, here goes.
Not living in the US (citizen yes, resident no) provides a slightly different perspective on all of this. Did Saddam need to be taken out? Definitely. Did Bush actually prove his case for HIS reasoning to do so at this time? No. I’ve seen no proof of weapons of mass destruction. I haven’t even seen proof of Saddam’s connection to 9/11 (not that I particularly doubt it), which was Dubya’s primary argument. Personally, I like to have clear proof before I kill large numbers of people (maybe that’s just me).
Basically, Bush is saying “Trust me, I’m telling the truth”, and I haven’t blindly trusted a politician since JFK (and I was only 6 then).
Our purpose is to establish a democratic system of government in the heart of the Arab world. To take a country that had been both feared and hated by its neighbors and plant the seeds of democracy in their backyard. I think that’s been pretty clear from the beginning. Did some of you think we were there to recruit soccer players or obtain land for Speilberg to film Indy IV?
We’re establishing democracy in the the middle east. Is it easy? No. It’s hard. Ðámņ hard. And as each day goes by, it’s coming to light that the sixteen words were accurate(at least if you don’t conveniently alter the meaning of those words). And while I think it wasn’t a good idea to include those sixteen words in the speech, he didn’t lie.
Why do you think that anything we could set out to do post war would be easy? That seems to be the point. Things are tough so the administration had no plan. Bûllšhìŧ. Am I happy that we have guys getting killed? Hëll, no. But I try to retain some perspective about what it is we are trying to do and what we face. This is dirty business, but the alternative is to allow the region to become even more unstable and a larger threat.
Frank Cooper wrote: Sadaam Hussein has proven to be a literal wacko
Is it you contention that Saddam is more wacko than Kim Jon Il? You know the guy who spent millions of dollars to film a Korean version of Godzilla, while his people were starving.
” I wish he’d stick to that, instead of un-informed political commentary.”
Not that I agree with the bit about “un-informed”, but I will point out that, even if I did believe PAD was talking through his hat (I don’t), his comments on such matters DO bring out more replies and from more people than just about anything else, thus giving the [by your standards] ‘informed’ ones a chance to have their say and enlighten the rest of us. How can this be a bad thing?
It’s interesting to note that even though some people villify him, PAD doesn’t seem inclined to censor those speaking out against him, or whose ideologies differ from his. I wonder if those people would be as likely to return the favour on their sites – those who have them anyway.
Is this the same Vietnam that was predicted one week into the war? Two weeks before Baghdad fell?
North Vietnam had the backing of China and the Soviet Union. We couldn’t even invade North Vietnam because of the geopolitics. The ones fighting in Iraq have nothing like that. They don’t even have the support of many Iraqis: http://www.channel4.com/news/2003/07/week_3/16_poll.html
//We should never have gone in without, at the very least, a clear idea of a long term plan. //
Well, there was a reason why the UN was against this war. Just as there was a reason the Bush administration was eager, almost desperate to go to Iraque, even if it meant warping and fabricating information, even if it meant alienating a major part of Europe and, of course, the Middle Eastern nations.
The US will now have cheap oil until approx. 2040, a major military and strategic presence in the Near East, the dollar is stil the No. 1 (oil) currency, the EU have fallen out over the question of being pro or contra the war, thus Europe has lost weight as a political and economic counterweight to the US, no one seems to care about the ecological, social and economical inner problems in the USA these days, Bushs re-electon, which wasn’t thta much of a given before 911 is a rather sure bet, Halliburton et al are making lots of money… and so on and so on. Bush has reached a lot of strategic and political goals, and I’d guess it’s fair to say that some very personal and some rather selfish motives were served as well.
That, of course doesn’t mean (and never meant) that the terrorism will ebb (on the contrary, the Iraq war effort is, if anything, fuel on the fire of global terror), that the population of Iraq will be that much better off in the long term, that democracy and peace will prevail in the Middle East. All that MIGHT happen (and might also have happend if we went the Hans Blix route of getting rid of Saddam peacefully) but we also might get a massive kind of Belfast Situation, a rise in Anti-Western-Terror, and absurdly, an alliance of the more fundamentalist and the more secular Islam leaders (because lets face it, Saddamm never had anything to do with Bin Laden, they are at two very different ends of the political and religious spectrum… only now we forced them and their supporters together.) It might lead to more fear, and thus more rigid 1984-style inner policing in Europe and the US, with legislative cutting deeper and deeper into our democratic freedom, as if such state supervision ever actually could effectively fight terror as long as the terrorists are willing to die for their cause and fight to individually and guerille-style to ever get caught by a bureaucratic and technocratic large system. (If THAT worked, Israel would be the safest land in the world, but somehow it isn’t…)
So… the short-term egocentric political goals of the Bush administration were fully realized, but the long-term global political and social problems weren’t solced but rather actively escalated.
There’s a lot of unanswered questions about 911 and about both the Afghanistan and the Iraq war… and one of those questions should be WHAT excactly have your soldiers died for in Iraq?
The rationale behind the Iraq invasion seems to have been that of The Bad Guy: Only Hussein and his followes hate us, the rest of the Iraquis are innocents crying out for U.S. help, and once we get rid of Hussein the rest of the country will love and embrace us.
Only it doesn’t work like that. Many Iraquis hated us, even before we dropped bombs all over their country, for our politics, or our liberalism, or our wealth, or our secularism. While news crews showed lots of Iraquis cheering our arrival, they haven’t been showing the natives burning American flags and chanting that we must go. And they’ve started a guerilla war that’s killing American soldiers on almost a daily basis. (The Bush administration has also tried to keep up The Bad Guy theory by blaming Hussein for the guerilla attacks. Even if this is true, how is this reassuring? We threw everything we had at him, and he’s still doing a lot of damage to us?)
And while I’m glad about the pleas against name-calling, I wish I’d stop seeing people using God as the reason we’re right. Used improperly, religion can be the ultimate selfish validation for what we want: No matter how much it flies in the face of reason, logic, or decency, God wants it so it must be right. This sort of thinking empowers both the terrorism we fight and the nation-building we’re in now. (It also led to Pat Robertson’s hysterical fatwah against “three Supreme Court” judges.)
My grandfather is an old-fashioned traditionalist who voted for Bush, and bought into everything he said about the threat Iraq posed and the necessity of the war.
Yesterday he said to me that it now seemed to him that the Bush administration has no plan for dealing with post-war Iraq, and that we are in a very bad situation with no clear way out.
That was the moment I realized this was no longer a partisan issue, and this thing was truly off the rails.
Of course, it will take some longer to come to that conclusion. It always does.
Check out Charles Krauthammer’s column in today’s Washington Post for a convincing (at least to me) rationale for attacking Iraq.
Re: God put the leaders in position.
I’m sorry. I just don’t see this. What seems to be said is that God has put Saddam Hussein in place as a ruler in order that we can have someone to liberate? That what’s gone on under the reign of Saddam has been part of God’s plan for the world?
Wow…
This isn’t a flame. This is complete, full on, actual confusion.
If this is true, then it reduces the lives of thousands of Iraqi citizens that died under Hussein to little more than bit players in the grand scheme of things.
If I did believe in God, I’d hate to think he’d create people just to die in such bit parts to give other people something to do.
I really am confused by such points.
I partially agree with David E.C., leave all the “God” crap out of it!
The hijackers who flew planes into the WTC and the Pentagon thought they were serving their “god”, I guess since “god” was on their sides, they were right to do so?
Any claim that the non-existant “God” is on your side shows a severe mental illness and detatchment from reality.
Even similar religions like the different Christian factions (catholics, lutherans, baptists, methodist, etc) can’t agree on what “God” wants/says, so how can we trust the sanity of anyone claiming that the kind, loving New Testament God that sacrificed his own son supports going to war and killing people?
Too many people who claim to be “doing god’s work” seem to pick and choose what they want to use from god’s word while ignoring the parts that don’t match them.
World would be better of if everyone were atheists…
While nothing he’s said has proven to yet be a lie, I don’t think that the situation is unique to GWB. Many presidents have told either outright lies, or at least, jumped to incorrect conclusions, that caused plenty of deaths.
First: Bush has lied–although whether it was truly his fault or not is still up for debate. Remember, in his State of Union address, he told us that Saddam had tried to buy uranium from Africa. So he has lied.
Second: So just because other Presidents have purportedly lied and caused many deaths, that suddenly makes it okay for Bush to do so?
Josh said:”Remember, in his State of Union address, he told us that Saddam had tried to buy uranium from Africa. So he has lied.”
Except he didn’t say that. He said that British Intelligence has learned that Saddam tried to buy uranium from Africa, something Tony Blair said yesterday that he still believes to be true. Sure, it’s a techincality, but Bush’s statements were probably literally true.
PAD, while I appreciate your right to your opinion I would like to say I vehemently disagree with you. However I do enjoy your books and will most certainly continue reading them so long as they entertain me.
partially agree with David E.C., leave all the “God” crap out of it!
blah blah blah…
I understand your point, but I consider that a fairly unattractive way to present your opinion.
If you cannot present your opinion in a logical, non-offensive way, then you are no better than the people who write books called “Rush Limbaugh Is A Big Fat Idiot” and “Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism.”
I don’t think people understand that your opinion is given credence when you go out of your way to present an intelligent opinion. Calling something “God Crap” is sort of lighting gasoline underneath an oil well.
Mind you, I agree with you on the fact that too many atrocities have been done in the name of God, YHWH, Allah and others. But… as most people understand, being inflammatory helps nothing.
At All.
Travis
Except he didn’t say that. He said that British Intelligence has learned that Saddam tried to buy uranium from Africa, something Tony Blair said yesterday that he still believes to be true. Sure, it’s a techincality, but Bush’s statements were probably literally true.
Doesn’t that all depend on what your definition of “is” is?
Another thing that irks me: People who disagree with someone’s position calling them “uninformed.” If anything, PAD has shown that he has read and researched a lot about this issue. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn’t make them any less informed than you are. People can look at the same facts and draw different conclusions. They can even disagree on politics with you and be good people.
I’m really getting sick of this attitude where people on both sides of the issue can’t just say, “well, I disagree with you on that.” They have demonize and call people ignorant or stupid or even evil (unpatriotic, anti-God, insert whatever sinister label you like best).
Den said, “Doesn’t that all depend on what your definition of “is” is?”
I assume you’re being facetious, which I can appreciate. However, I think in light of our intelligence failings that this line is very important. That in the SOTU, POTUS would rely upon, as well as cite, intelligence from a foriegn nation, is incredible. If our own stuff is wrong, we’ll we can only blame ourselves, but if we rely one someone else’s work, and it’s wrong, then whoa, that’s pretty bad. Kind of like copying Susie’s paper and getting a D-.
If this information turns out to be exactly wrong, then I think it makes GWB, or whomever runs our intelligence, a terrible researcher, intelligence agent, and non-dilligent. It’s nonfeasence, instead of malfeasence, which I think is different enough to make a distinction.
In my opinion, nonfeasence is worse. No one can really fault a guy who is doing his best, and fails. But to not even do the work yourself, and make a huge bet on it is like reading Henry Blodgett’s stock opinions, and putting the Social Security money on it.
So, there you go. I think the President (or the administration, however you wish to put it) is guilty of nonfeasance, which in my mind, is more dámņáblë than being wrong.
However, I don’t think that it was a lie.
…and may God continue to bless America…
This cracks me up. 9/11, soldiers killed and injured every day. Yeah, God just loves America.
To prove this is a war that is more about semantics than semtex, one should observe that the British governemnt has admitted that the source for various *important* pieces of information may have been misleading, but that no-one was misled.
The fact is I’m hearing lots of questions and opinions, but very few facts. The sound most deafening is the one of the buck being passed in the vain hope that when the music stops it’ll be in some patsy’s hands.
John
I assume you’re being facetious, which I can appreciate.
Of course.
However, I think in light of our intelligence failings that this line is very important. That in the SOTU, POTUS would rely upon, as well as cite, intelligence from a foriegn nation, is incredible. If our own stuff is wrong, we’ll we can only blame ourselves, but if we rely one someone else’s work, and it’s wrong, then whoa, that’s pretty bad. Kind of like copying Susie’s paper and getting a D-.
The thing is, we sent one of our CIA to Niger to check the story out. He reported back to Tenet that it was bogus, but the reference still found its way into the State of the Union address.
Whether Bush was personally willful saying something that wasn’t true or if Cheney or someone below him stopped the report from reaching Bush, it’s still a lie because the head of this administration said something that the administration knew or should have known was untrue.
Mitch said
I nominate Londo (not Mollari, but the poster from the prior thread) as official Opposition view for http://www.peterdavid.net.
He’s the only conservative I’ve seen on this board who discusses cases on a point-by-point basis, who thinks about how terms are defined and what precedents exist.
You ought to make some sort of nice fuss over him for that.
I also have to make a nice fuss over Londo. He and I shared a nice little debate over the relative harm done by dishonest presidents and not only did it not degenerate into a flame-fest, it ended quite amicably with us mutually understanding yet respectfully disagreeing with each other’s point of view.
I wish all debates on this board could go so smoothly.
I would say that the war against drugs has more similarities to vietnam then the situation in iraq.
I’m not saying your wrong, i’m saying that you are jumping in way to early, give it at least a year before you make these kind of accusations, that make you seem irrational and one sided.
Travis, I don’t really care whether people like how I refer to the religious groups and their beliefs.
I consider religion to be a way for people to avoid responsibility for themselves and their lives.
“Oh, it was god’s will…”
“It’s all part of god’s plan…”
“god has his reasons…”
Yeah, children being raped and killed, war, famine and disease are such a great plan…
Den said:”The thing is, we sent one of our CIA to Niger to check the story out.”
See again, here’s where I get to nonfeasance. We didn’t send CIA, we didn’t even send an operative, we sent, wait for it, Retired Ambassador to Gabon, Joseph C. Wilson IV. We sent a state department diplomat, whose report (you can read it in the NY Times, if you’re willing to pay) basically said, “I had tea with them, and they told me that it didn’t happen.”
Now, he might turn out to be 100% right, but if all he’s going to do is ask nicely, you can be sure that Niger would respond with a firm “No way.” If they didn’t meet with Saddam, then saying No would end the discussion. If they did, they’d certainly want to hide it, no? And deny, deny, deny.
I think that the report from Niger was specious. However, I think it was intentionally that way, otherwise, why didn’t we actually send in the CIA (or Agent Bristow?) I think that someone didn’t want to know for sure, so that they could ignore contrary evidence.
Londo
See again, here’s where I get to nonfeasance. We didn’t send CIA, we didn’t even send an operative, we sent, wait for it, Retired Ambassador to Gabon, Joseph C. Wilson IV. We sent a state department diplomat, whose report (you can read it in the NY Times, if you’re willing to pay) basically said, “I had tea with them, and they told me that it didn’t happen.”
The fact is, we sent someone to verify it and he couldn’t. Tenet warned against using it because it came from one single unverified source and Bush used it anyway. It’s a lie. To be honest, all this effort to make it look like just a goof is starting to sound downright Clintonian.
And you don’t have to pay to view the NY Times online.