Misled into a mistake, a decade later
Note: This incorporates material from a post published earlier on this blog. It is posted here as the electronic version of a column published in today’s dead-tree edition of the AJC.
—————–
Ten years ago today, the United States launched an unprovoked invasion of another country, an attack that was justified by claims of dire threats that our leaders knew to be false and exaggerated. More than 4,000 of our sons and daughters were to die as a result of that decision; tens of thousands more live today with physical and psychic wounds that have changed their lives forever.
The last of our soldiers to die in that war was named David Hickman. He was a recently married 23-year-old Army specialist from Greensboro, N.C. He was killed Nov. 14, 2011, by an improvised explosive device, a term that by the end had became all too familiar. The death toll continues even now within Iraq, with an average of a dozen people a day dying from political-related violence. More than 60 civilians were killed in a terrorist bombing Tuesday, a story that made headlines here only because it was timed to coincide with the war’s anniversary.
In other words, what was once deemed worth the investment of thousands of lives is now not deemed worthy even of notice.
Today, a majority of Americans have come to understand that the war was a mistake. However, that was not the case 10 years ago. In the wake of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, our country was experiencing a degree of fear that it had not felt for decades. Under those conditions, it was all too easy for those in power to direct that fear wherever they wished, and to isolate and marginalize those Americans who dared to question the narrative as they spun it.
One of the architects of that effort, former Vice President Dick Cheney, looks back on that era in a new documentary film that was televised last week on Showtime. Cheney played a decisive role in maneuvering a pliable, inexperienced and maybe somewhat frightened president into an unnecessary war. But in typical Cheney fashion, the vice president expresses not the slightest regret or doubt.
“I did what I did,” he told the filmmakers. “And it’s all part of the public record and I feel very good about it. If I had it to do over again, I’d do it in a minute.”
While we did succeed in removing the tyrannical Saddam from power, that part of the mission was never in real doubt. In other ways, however, the invasion has set American interests back significantly. Instead of serving as a military outpost for U.S. forces keeping Iran in check, Iraq today is all but an Iranian client state. Despite our investment of blood and treasure, we have little or no influence over Iraq’s policies or practices.
By fighting on two fronts at once, both in Iraq and Afghanistan, we also divided our manpower, financial resources and attention, ensuring that we achieved real victory in neither. We will never know whether a full commitment to Afghanistan in the early years would have paid off with success; we do know that the odds of ultimate success look very dim.
Cheney, President Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and others also lost the war here on the home front. The invasion launched 10 years ago today in a show of shock and awe was intended to mark a newly muscular and militaristic foreign policy, with the United States finally freed of the constraints once placed upon it by the Soviet Union.
That was the theory. In practice, the invasion of Iraq, driven by false promises of easy conquest and false threats of WMD, yellowcake, mushroom clouds and unmanned aerial vehicles, exposed the strategic overreach and arrogance implicit in such a policy. By his second term, a chastened President Bush had largely pushed Cheney aside. That recognition of his vice president’s malignant influence came too late to save his presidency.
Today, the ambitions of Cheney and his friends have been discredited. The lessons of Vietnam have been refreshed rather than overturned, and support is now growing even within the Republican Party for a less expensive military and a more circumspect use of force overseas. The remaining advocates of a Cheney-esque foreign policy — men such as John McCain and William Kristol — are left to stamp their feet in frustration.
If given the chance, they, like Cheney, would indeed be willing to do it all over again. But next time, the American people may be wise enough not to give them or others like them the opportunity.
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
517 comments Add your comment
Bob
March 20th, 2013
9:03 am
I am not surprised you didn’t list the names of some of the other people in DC that said Iraq was an immediate threat. Hillary, Bill, John Kerry, Al Gore all said Iraq had WMDs. Bill Clinton bombed Iraq because they had WMDs, does anyone remember ? The war was wrong, no more wrong than democrat wars in Korea and Vietnam though, they were all wrong. According to the left, dems never start ill conceived wars, their wars have purpose. And they pay for their wars right ? Yes, LBJ paid for his war with the Social Security trust fund and 10 times the American lives, who knows what lie the left would come up with as far as paying for Korea. It seems as though we have spent billions of borrowed money to keep our troops there. Maybe if Bill Clinton used his balls to make tough decisions like taking out Osama when he had the chance we would not be having this conversation would we. And if Clinton would not have signed NAFTA, and the end of Glass Stegall and allowing for credit default swaps we may be elsewhere in a different front.
ZoSo
March 20th, 2013
9:03 am
For what it’s worth, I didn’t agree with invading Iraq either.
Paul
March 20th, 2013
9:04 am
alittlecommonsense
Did either of the people you cited advocate, during the time of their comments, that we go to war with Iraq?
Mick
March 20th, 2013
9:05 am
dannyx
Bullseye!!!
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
March 20th, 2013
9:06 am
And if Clinton would not have signed NAFTA, and the end of Glass Stegall and allowing for credit default swaps we may be elsewhere in a different front.
Wow.
Traveled to hell and back to get that one in.
Jay
March 20th, 2013
9:06 am
““If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
For the record, Clinton at the time was warning Saddam that he might launch air strikes against perceived WMD sites. He was not suggesting an invasion and occupation, which is a very different matter.
It’s also important to note that in the 2004 elections, Karl Rove and Bush ran against the Democrats as appeasers, etc. It is only after the stupidity of the war became clear that conservatives began to argue that yeah, well, the Dems supported it too!!!!
Those Dems who did support the war deserve criticism for allowing themselves to be sucked along in the wake of the parade. I have no problem with that.
Doggone/GA
March 20th, 2013
9:07 am
“You can’t just ignore the fact that we had been talking about the Iraq WMD program as a known fact across both Democrat and Republican administrations”
And who among them actually started a WAR with Iraq?
Paul
March 20th, 2013
9:07 am
DannyX
Yep, that’s pretty amazing. One guest on Fox who pointed out something similar managed to set the record for ’shortest guest appearance in the history of Fox.”
Curtis Rivers
March 20th, 2013
9:10 am
Good article, and good thinking Jay. It will be interesting to watch developments in North Korea and our responses in the near future to see if we’ve learned from the Iraq debacle. Good intelligence is the key, and accurate interpretation of it. I surely hope we avoid more war in the future.
F. Sinkwich
March 20th, 2013
9:10 am
What? No Rand Paul blog? But there’s so much left unsaid!
Well, what do ya know, right after a wave of bombings kill 65 people in Baghdad marking the ten year anniversity of the invasion, Jay pens a blog about how all that ills Iraq is Bush’s fault. Coincidence? I think not.
Ever since the great and exalted Preezy got his Nobel, Iraq seriously started to turn into sh*t. Why? Because O’bozo repeatedly told the world the US would be withdrawing TOTALLY (in contrast to the Bush policy) thereby creating a vacuum quickly filled by Iran.
Even the Dem propaganda arm, AP, can’t avoid the truth any longer:
“…its…government is arguably closer to Tehran than to Washington.”
O’bozo and him amen chorus in the press don’t want to be blamed for losing Iraq to terrorist mullahs, so he and they do what they do best: blame someone else. And Bush is the guy.
Road Scholar
March 20th, 2013
9:10 am
“Despite it all, the armchair warriors are now chanting for an invasion of Syria.”
Good! Give them an assault weapon, a few clips and grenades, drop them in the heart of Syria, and let’s see who shoots them….Assad’s troops or the rebels! No more “wheel chair” Generals!( my apologies to the handicapped!) Also send THEIR kids with them!
I’ve wondered recently when the “stats” have been discussed:nearly 4500 dead, 40,000 physically harmed (we still will not know the mentally wounded number or the costs for years to come), an estimated 130,000 Iraqis killed (no number of wounded, maimed, or mentally affected) and $2 trillion in US taxpayers funds.
How many Iraqis did Saddam kill in a 5-10 year period? At what cost? (other than what we think)
And just think! We will be greeted as heroes with open arms! Who would have thunk those arms had bullets and IED’s in them!
Recon 0311 2533
March 20th, 2013
9:11 am
It’s amazing how the left-wing brain selectively blocks out facts that conflicts with the propaganda they soak up from their spin masters. It was well known that Saddam Hussein sat on top of a ton of oil money a good bit of which he used to finance various Islamic terrorist organizations. He paid money to the families of suicide bombers and did indeed maintain a relationship with A.Q. This country and the rest of the world is far better off without Saddam Hussein and if he was left in power we would have had to of dealt with him at some point.
vinny
March 20th, 2013
9:11 am
Paul – What part of “in the timeline that he promised” do you not understand. Learn to read, nimrod.
BTW, following the legislative process hasn’t stopped obama the dictator from signing executive orders, and he could have with Gitmo.
alittlecommonsense
March 20th, 2013
9:11 am
Jay “And that is simply wrong as well, a blatant rewriting of history. There was almost no criticism of Bush post-9/11″
You and I remember this time much differently. There was a very vocal minority who opposed the war in the strongest terms. So strong that it had a very partisan appearance.
Welcome to the Occupation
March 20th, 2013
9:12 am
Recon: “This country and the rest of the world is far better off without Saddam Hussein ..”
You’re dreaming.
And lying.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
March 20th, 2013
9:13 am
Sen. Bob Graham, at the time the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, voted AGAINST the war resolution because he said the intel just was not there. That’s one reason why I have never given Hillary, another member of that committee, any slack on her vote in support. She had every opportunity to know better, and chose otherwise.
I can appreciate that and would agree. Unfortunately not everyone was as well informed as those two and certainly the American public was not.
Doggone/GA
March 20th, 2013
9:13 am
“and he could have with Gitmo”
he did. but even an executive order can’t ORDER the MONEY to be provided.
alittlecommonsense
March 20th, 2013
9:14 am
Jay “For the record, Clinton at the time was warning Saddam that he might launch air strikes against perceived WMD sites. He was not suggesting an invasion and occupation, which is a very different matter.
Agreed. I wasn’t trying to suggest Clinton was making the case for war. I was just saying we can’t pretend that Bush just made this whole WMD thing up out of thin air in order to invade Iraq. That seems to be the revisionist history that is going around.
joe
March 20th, 2013
9:14 am
Wow Bookman, you just can’t let it go…what will you say in 10 years about Obama’s horrible presidency?
Doggone/GA
March 20th, 2013
9:15 am
“and certainly the American public was not”
Not all of us were “not well informed”
Lynnie Gal
March 20th, 2013
9:15 am
Cheney, Bush, Rummy and Wolfy should be made to use every day of their remaining life visiting VA hospitals and talking to those who lost body parts because of this war. And on weekends, they should be made to visit graves of men and women who died in their war of choice and deception. They should do penance for their crimes against humanity, and not be humored by letting Cheney snarl at reporters and tell them he regrets nothing. There’s a warm little place in hell waiting for Cheney.
mbtc
March 20th, 2013
9:15 am
So vinny’s concerned about our gulag in Guantanamo? Not so much, just wants to do him some hating on Obama.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
March 20th, 2013
9:16 am
I was just saying we can’t pretend that Bush just made this whole WMD thing up out of thin air in order to invade Iraq.
The only one “pretending” is you.
The Bush administration DID make the weapons of mass destruction lie up.
godless heathen - owner of many things he does not need
March 20th, 2013
9:16 am
If al gore would have rightfully become president it is entirely possibble that 9/11 might not have happened, but what we definitely know that he would not have invaded iraq.
LOL!!!
Paul
March 20th, 2013
9:16 am
“Ever since the great and exalted Preezy got his Nobel, Iraq seriously started to turn into sh*t. ”
This is when I miss Bosch and his comment about something that burns -
Jay
March 20th, 2013
9:17 am
” There was a very vocal minority who opposed the war in the strongest terms. So strong that it had a very partisan appearance.”
Yes. And there was no way that anyone could have opposed it strongly without you and others perceiving it as partisan. That was YOUR perception that you imposed on it and that prevented you from looking at what they saying objectively.
Your problem, not theirs.
atler8
March 20th, 2013
9:17 am
Vinny,
You are so full of knee-jerk rw talking points that it’s eyerolling time here.
Speaking of bedwetting, your Depends are ready when you are.
Paul
March 20th, 2013
9:17 am
vinny
” What part of “in the timeline that he promised” do you not understand. Learn to read, nimrod.”
And why did he not close Gitmo ‘in the timeline that he promised.” vinny? Enlighten us, please.
Jay
March 20th, 2013
9:18 am
“It was well known that Saddam Hussein sat on top of a ton of oil money a good bit of which he used to finance various Islamic terrorist organizations. He paid money to the families of suicide bombers and did indeed maintain a relationship with A.Q.
Again, the zombie lie.
Mick
March 20th, 2013
9:18 am
sink
Amazing conclusion there fella….after bush let loose the dogs of war the writing was on the wall, he handed over iraq to iran on a silver platter. The shiites far outnumber the sunni’s and they hated saddam, didn’t take long for them to align with iran which is shiite.
Bush and co. were truly incompetent concerning this important fact concerning war and the consequences…
alittlecommonsense
March 20th, 2013
9:18 am
“And who among them actually started a WAR with Iraq?”
Agreed – but that wasn’t my point. As I stated earlier, I think in retrospect we probably shouldn’t have entered that war. I’m just saying it wasn’t the clear cut “Bush Lied” scenario that people want to believe. A more accurate statement might be that he looked at the intelligence reports that supported his opinion and ignored those that didn’t. That would be a fair criticism.
Road Scholar
March 20th, 2013
9:18 am
GT: “This country has lost its guts; we have become a nation of fear.”
And whiners, brother!
DannyX: Good point.
F Sinkwich: I do not remember internal bombings by the natives when Saddam was in power. Your point?
Doggone/GA
March 20th, 2013
9:19 am
“I was just saying we can’t pretend that Bush just made this whole WMD thing up out of thin air in order to invade Iraq. That seems to be the revisionist history that is going around.”
Except it’s not “revisionist”…he did exactly that. The inspectors were on the ground, they had access to EVERYTHING. And they found NOTHING. And that wasn’t secret information. It was reported in the news.
mm
March 20th, 2013
9:19 am
Is that a teleprompter in the picture? You betcha.
The media was quiet because the cons labeled anyone who disagreed “unAmerican” or “unpatriotic”.
And you saw plenty of that on Lukovich’s blog.
” He paid money to the families of suicide bombers and did indeed maintain a relationship with A.Q. ”
This has already been disproven. But keep lying to yourself if it gets rid of the guilt.
Recon 0311 2533
March 20th, 2013
9:19 am
econ, Saddam did not support radical Islamic terrorists. He opposed them bitterly — as they opposed him — because he saw them as a threat to his regime. That is not a matter of dispute
Jay, I would agree that it’s not in dispute among those who engage in revisionist history but the fact is that Saddam Hussein was aligned with terrorist organizations that threatened both the United States and Israel. It was a proven fact that he helped finance terrorist operations.
Welcome to the Occupation
March 20th, 2013
9:19 am
The world is not “better off” without Saddam in any way, shape, or form, nor is Iraq.
Paul
March 20th, 2013
9:19 am
vinny
Don’t forget the other part of your original post: you still think we have troops in Iraq? Because Obama failed to pull them out?
Mick
March 20th, 2013
9:20 am
godless
Close to 5000 soldiers dead and over 30,000 severely wounded are not lol…
Keep Up the Good Fight!
March 20th, 2013
9:21 am
Doggone, you may be right. Some, and I admit to being one of them, believed that the WMD justification provided by Bush, if true, was a reason for the war. I was against the war on any other circumstance. I was wrong to trust that we were being provided the truth on that issue.
Doggone/GA
March 20th, 2013
9:21 am
“I’m just saying it wasn’t the clear cut “Bush Lied” scenario that people want to believe. A more accurate statement might be that he looked at the intelligence reports that supported his opinion and ignored those that didn’t”
And you truly cannot see the contradiction in what you just posted? Really and truly?
Paul
March 20th, 2013
9:21 am
vinny
“BTW, following the legislative process hasn’t stopped obama the dictator from signing executive orders, and he could have with Gitmo.”
?????????????????????????????
Do you even know what an executive order is? Do you think the Executive, thru executive orders, can authorize and appropriate funds in opposition to the Congress and public law?
Do you?
curious
March 20th, 2013
9:22 am
The overwhelming majority of Americans hear only what information the Government wants you to know.
I believe President Bush truly believed Iraq had WMDs because his circle of advisors led by Cheney fed him that information. They had their own agenda and manipulated President Bush, Congress, and the American public. They figured it would be quick and easy plus their friends and ultimately they would make money. They miscalculated on the quick and easy part.
So what do we have after our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan?
More enemies in the Middle East.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
March 20th, 2013
9:22 am
Except it’s not “revisionist”…he did exactly that. The inspectors were on the ground, they had access to EVERYTHING. And they found NOTHING. And that wasn’t secret information. It was reported in the news.
Evidently it was reported in such a partisan fashion, that ignoring or dismissing it is justified.
alittlecommonsense
March 20th, 2013
9:22 am
“That was YOUR perception that you imposed on it and that prevented you from looking at what they saying objectively.”
Maybe – but if you wanted to persuade me, you would have been better off by telling me that there were conflicting intelligence reports instead of screaming “Bush is a liar”.
If you want to win public support, it is incumbent on you to make the argument in a rational way, not on the public to pick the rational points out of a screeching rant.
Scooter
March 20th, 2013
9:23 am
Bush said Operation Iraqi Freedom would embolden other people in the region to overthrow their rulers and it would be a generational shift. In Mrs. Clinton’s Bengahzi testimony she said the uprisings in the Middle East were not predicted – Bush did – and they offered opportunities for America. Who you gonna believe, Hillary or Jay Bookman?
Jay
March 20th, 2013
9:23 am
“If al gore would have rightfully become president it is entirely possibble that 9/11 might not have happened, but what we definitely know that he would not have invaded iraq.”
I don’t know that we can say much about whether 9/11 would have been prevented. Maybe, maybe not. There’s no way of knowing. I do agree that if Gore had become president, we would not have invaded Iraq.
To take it a step further, if we hadn’t had l’affaire Lewinsky, Gore almost certainly would have won in 2000, and we wouldn’t have had the Iraq war. World history hinged on an act of oral sex.
Recon 0311 2533
March 20th, 2013
9:24 am
Again, the zombie lie.
Jay, you’re either a left wing zombie or you’re aiding and abetting in ignoring facts that came out about the Hussein regimes activities and attempting to rewrite history. I think the latter but go ahead and enjoy yourself, your fan base loves it.
ATL Tiger
March 20th, 2013
9:24 am
It’s too easy for all of us to play Monday quarterback on a situation like this. Whether you for or against the invasion at the time it occurred 10 years ago, the majority of Americans (both publicly and represented by the public in Congress) approved of this measure. We as a people need to not forgot this mistake, and that history not repeat itself.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
March 20th, 2013
9:24 am
If you want to win public support, it is incumbent on you to make the argument in a rational way, not on the public to pick the rational points out of a screeching rant.
If it is information that you want, it is incumbent on you to go to news sources.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
March 20th, 2013
9:26 am
Shorter Recon: I can’t hear you. LALALALALALALALALALALALALAL
Paul
March 20th, 2013
9:26 am
Recon 9:11
As I initially asked: source?
Saying the world is flat, then responding by saying ‘it is well documented by those who know that the world really, really is flat’ just doesn’t cut it.
Maybe you know of a heretofore unread portion of The 9/11 Commission Report?
Scratch It
March 20th, 2013
9:27 am
I guess Jay and his ilk still longs for the days of Saddam being in power.
l
March 20th, 2013
9:27 am
It was a mistake, a big one. However, the U.S. was faced with the fact that Iraqi nationals had leveled the Twin Towers, how can business go on as if nothing had happened.
Actually, it was Osama Bin Laden, a Pakistani. That should have been the target. I really have never understood the restrained response to attacks on the U.S. Always they look for individual perpertators rather than the country,itself, that is behind the whole show.
With that kind of reasoning, we would have looked for Hitler,himself, rather than destroying the countries capacity to wage war.
Things are so nebulous today, with nuclear build ups in Iran and N Korea, issues are left cooking, until they have the full capability to strike. It makes no sense why action is not instigated before the fact.
JamVet
March 20th, 2013
9:27 am
Ten years on and I don’t even know where to begin anymore.
I do know that I need to be very careful with my words on this topic, if I want to remain a contributing member to this forum!
Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, of course, and not just because of the First Amendment. But the filthy and absurd lies STILL being promulgated by Recon and others are completely astounding.
So, I’m going to break my thoughts on this one down into smaller pieces.
First piece:
That photo of those five walking together repulses me. That it does not have the same effect on pretty much everyone amazes me.
Jm
March 20th, 2013
9:27 am
I don’t generally agree with Jay’s blog post.
Doggone/GA
March 20th, 2013
9:27 am
“you would have been better off by telling me that there were conflicting intelligence reports instead of screaming “Bush is a liar”. ”
Except there weren’t conflicting reports. At the time, the most reliable, up to date reports were from the inspectors on the ground in Iraq who found…and SAID they found…NOTHING. The only “conflict” has already shown up here: that there were reports IN THE PAST the he had WMD. Those reports were superseded by the inspectors. And the inspectors were not only ignored, they were ordered to get out as we were about to attack.
mbtc
March 20th, 2013
9:28 am
“The larger point is, and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn’t let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power, along with other nations, so as to make sure he was not a threat to the United States and our friends and allies in the region.”
—President George W. Bush
This outright lie was repeated over and over by Bush but the media never called him out on it.
July 14, 2003
pete
March 20th, 2013
9:28 am
Hind sight is always 20/20. Bush did what he thought had to be done, and at the time the majority of Americans supported it. Then the media started with their propaganda, constantly telling Americans the ‘Bush lied, Americans died’ garbage. The left make him out to be a crazed lunatic with a happy trigger finger. George Bush was a good man, too bad you are blinded by your ideology. At least George Bush stood up to tyranny as opposed to what we have in Washington now.
And how is that Benghazi investigation going? Been 6 months and haven’t heard a peep from our pathetic president or his media lap dogs.
Normal, Plain and Simple
March 20th, 2013
9:29 am
Del,
Written by the Washington Post, June 2004…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html
Mick
March 20th, 2013
9:29 am
recon
I believe your only correct talking point is that saddam pledged 10k to any palestinian family whose son became a suicide bomber against israel. Also, he plotted to assassinate george h.w. bush when he visited kuwait. Both of those incidents even put together don’t amount to going to war, plain and simple…
Scratch It
March 20th, 2013
9:29 am
What jay fails to mention is that the world saw the same intelligence the US did. Congress authorized the war yet jay still implies it was all President Bush and VP Cheney. When you mislead people you do it on purpose. The faulty intelligence was not on purpose as jay and his ilk would have you believe.
Regnad Kcin
March 20th, 2013
9:29 am
“Evidently it was reported in such a partisan fashion, that ignoring or dismissing it is justified’
Huh?
I never understood the justifications proposed by the Bush administration. The inspectors on the ground said there were NO WMDs.
When the adminstration suggested they had indisputable evidence, including locations of the WMDs, I wondered why they didn’t just take them out – we were enforcing the No Fly zone at the time, as I recall.
It all seemed very suspicious. But any attempt to question was shouted down as “unpatriotic.” I think 9/11 screwed up a lot of people in their minds…
Doggone/GA
March 20th, 2013
9:29 am
“However, the U.S. was faced with the fact that Iraqi nationals had leveled the Twin Towers, how can business go on as if nothing had happened.”
Well, except for the FACT that the Twin Towers attackers were from Saudi Arabia..not Iraq. But why let FACTS get in the way of opinion?
Jm
March 20th, 2013
9:29 am
“There’s no way of knowing.”
Stick to that line of thinking Jay….
Jackie
March 20th, 2013
9:30 am
Another consequence of a very big lie.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/after-decade-of-war-troops-still-struggling-to-find-work/2013/03/19/f064a0ba-8810-11e2-98a3-b3db6b9ac586_story.html?hpid=z1
Peadawg
March 20th, 2013
9:30 am
Recon 0311 2533
March 20th, 2013
9:24 am
Then please, post some links to back up what you claim.
Paul
March 20th, 2013
9:30 am
VINNY!
Where’d ya’ go?
To the library?
godless heathen - owner of many things he does not need
March 20th, 2013
9:30 am
I laughed at the notion that Al Gore was cheated out of the election and that he would have prevented 9/11. Maybe we would not have gone to Iraq in 2003, but we would have sooner or later.
Soothsayer
March 20th, 2013
9:30 am
Republicans Foil What Majority Wants by Gerrymandering
Michigan’s 14th congressional district looks like a jagged letter ’S’ lying on its side.
From Detroit, one of the nation’s most Democratic cities, it meanders to the west, north and east, scooping up the black- majority cities of Southfield and Pontiac while bending sharply to avoid Bloomfield Hills, the affluent suburb where 2012 Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney was raised.
Its unusual shape is intentional. Michigan Republicans, seeking to maximize their political strength, drew the district lines — and the residential patterns of Democratic voters made their job easier.
Here’s a great article if you have a moment.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
March 20th, 2013
9:30 am
Saying the world is flat, then responding by saying ‘it is well documented by those who know that the world really, really is flat’ just doesn’t cut it.
It is actually disc shaped and being carried throughout the solar system by a giant space turtle.
http://tinyurl.com/bmnqhjh
Betcha didn’t know that, did ya?
Jm
March 20th, 2013
9:32 am
Democracy as it should be
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-20/california-nonpolitical-districting-ousts-life-incumbents.html
Possibly the only decent lesson to learn from California
Doggone/GA
March 20th, 2013
9:32 am
“Congress authorized the war yet jay still implies it was all President Bush and VP Cheney”
and it was. if your Mother tells you YOU can choose to jump off a cliff or not, it is NOT her responsiblity if you decide to jump. Congress authorized Bush to MAKE THE CHOICE. He chose wrong, and that choice is his responsibility and his alone.
Regnad Kcin
March 20th, 2013
9:33 am
“Jay, you’re either a left wing zombie or you’re aiding and abetting in ignoring facts…”
Recon – it seems to me you can easily resolve this spat by linking to the evidence that Saddam supported AQ, right? Why don’t you quit the squabbling, and just supply the link?
Jay
March 20th, 2013
9:33 am
Doggone is correct. By the time the war came, we had had UN inspectors on the ground in Iraq for weeks, and they had been given free rein to go wherever they wished. US intel agencies told them to search sites A, B, C and D; they did so and found nothing. Same with sites E, F, G, H and I.
The inspectors were perilously close to proving that no WMD existed, which is why Bush ordered them out of the country so the war could proceed. That is documented history.
The war was never about WMD; WMD was the excuse used to justify an invasion of an oil-rich country at the heart of the Islamic world that had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11. That invasion was intended to send a message to Muslims everywhere, and as a means of establishing permanent US bases in Iraq to be used to dominate that region militarily and intimidate neighboring Iran into doing what we said.
Thug
March 20th, 2013
9:34 am
I was in Iraq in ‘91 and at that time Saddam DID in fact have WMD.
I saw them with my own eyes.
Regnad Kcin
March 20th, 2013
9:34 am
“I guess Jay and his ilk still longs for the days of Saddam being in power.”
You guess strangely.
Mike
March 20th, 2013
9:34 am
I agree that we were not given all the facts leading up to the war in Iraq. But let’s not act as if Saddam Hussein was some saint either. Here is a little fact sheet about his life and his actions against his own people who dared to question him. He was a monster.
http://history1900s.about.com/od/saddamhussein/a/husseincrimes.htm
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
March 20th, 2013
9:38 am
But let’s not act as if Saddam Hussein was some saint either. Here is a little fact sheet about his life and his actions against his own people who dared to question him. He was a monster.
“Saddam is a monster” is not the reason given for the invasion of Iraq.
The smoking gun is the mushroom cloud.
Doggone/GA
March 20th, 2013
9:38 am
Thank you Jay!
Soothsayer
March 20th, 2013
9:38 am
California Nonpartisan Districting Ousts Life Incumbents
In the 1980s, a joke that ran through California political circles was that more turnover occurred in
the Soviet Union’s Politburo than in the state’s U.S. House delegation.
The laugh-line still worked well after the Berlin Wall came down in 1989. From 2002 to 2010, the partisan re-election rate for California House seats was 99.6 percent. Only once in 265 House races in general elections during those years did a district’s representation flip parties, going from Republican to Democratic.
That stability ended last year after California (STOCA1) voters in 2010 gave a citizen’s panel the power to redraw the House districts. The impact, combined with a new primary system, was immediate. One out of four of the state’s 53 congressional incumbents departed through retirements or defeats in the 2012 primaries and elections.
“You’ve had voters shoehorned into districts for the sake of maintaining incumbency and we aren’t doing that in California anymore,” said Kim Alexander, founder and president of California Voter Foundation. “It was a big shakeout. That’s probably what would happen everywhere if you had fair redistricting.”
Could these independent commissions be the end of gerrymandering?
This is the original article of which the preceeding post was a part.
Doggone/GA
March 20th, 2013
9:38 am
Thank you Jay!
Granny Godzilla
March 20th, 2013
9:38 am
Scratch It
March 20th, 2013
9:29 am
What jay fails to mention is that the world saw the same intelligence the US did
.
.
.
.
Ah, nope.
JamVet
March 20th, 2013
9:38 am
Wow Bookman, you just can’t let it go…
Because moral people of conscience tend to avoid sweeping VERY unpleasant facts under the carpet just to appease those who desperately want that.
Peadawg
March 20th, 2013
9:30 am
Recon 0311 2533
March 20th, 2013
9:24 am
Then please, post some links to back up what you claim.
You;re kidding, right?
Please tell me you are.
Regnad Kcin
March 20th, 2013
9:38 am
“Possibly the only decent lesson to learn from California”
You don’t like right turn on red?
Doggone/GA
March 20th, 2013
9:39 am
“He was a monster”
And he was not the only “monster” in power. Why did we attack him, but not North Korea (for example)…that DOES have WMD, and those of a NUCLEAR power?
Mick
March 20th, 2013
9:40 am
godless
Over 60k legitimate african american voters were scrubbed from election rolls in fl. by katherin harris, think they were going to vote for bush? That’s why jeb, who is complicit in this blatant act of cheating should never be president, first and foremost..
godless heathen - owner of many things he does not need
March 20th, 2013
9:40 am
Except there weren’t conflicting reports.
Although praising Iraq for it’s cooperation in the inspection “process”, Chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix, January 2003: “Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance—not even today—of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace.”Among other things he noted that 1,000 short tons (910 t) of chemical agent were unaccounted for, information on Iraq’s VX nerve agent program was missing, and that “no convincing evidence” was presented for the destruction of 8,500 litres (1,900 imp gal; 2,200 US gal) of anthrax that had been declared.
mbtc
March 20th, 2013
9:40 am
“Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.”
Secret Downing Street memo leaked and published in the Sunday Times. Mostly ignored in the American media.
Paul
March 20th, 2013
9:40 am
Kamchak
That’s one reason I come here – to learn new things!
southpaw
March 20th, 2013
9:42 am
Jay @8:45
Cal Thomas did suggest a “Truth Commission” some years later–with the full agreement of the more liberal Bob Beckel, FWIW.
http://www.calthomas.com/index.php?news=2603
Recon 0311 2533
March 20th, 2013
9:42 am
Mick,
You at least have some clear recollection of factual events of that time and the reports that appeared even in the MSM and I applaud you for saying so. There were reports of the symbiotic relationship between the Saddam regime and various terrorist organizations including A.Q. Hussein was an Arab and within that culture “my enemy whose the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” We were very much the enemy of Saddam Hussein and this idiocy that he represented no potential threat is indeed idiotic.
GT
March 20th, 2013
9:43 am
Danny X is right, creepy logic has gotten us where we are today. I think Republicans watch too many movies and mix reality and fiction up. There is no poetic license given in governing peoples lives, nothing romantic about being shot, or anything about guns, that make midgets feel like giants, idiots feel like Einstein.
Jm
March 20th, 2013
9:44 am
“The war was never about WMD; WMD was the excuse used to justify an invasion of an oil-rich country at the heart of the Islamic world that had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11. That invasion was intended to send a message to Muslims everywhere, and as a means of establishing permanent US bases in Iraq to be used to dominate that region militarily and intimidate neighboring Iran into doing what we said.”
Overly simplistic. We weren’t exactly invading a peace loving prosperous democracy. Sometimes people forget Saddam Hussein was a horrific tyrant that could not be trusted no matter what the inspectors said.
And no, we can’t go invade every country run by a tyrant. But we can do a little bit at a time.
Jm
March 20th, 2013
9:45 am
Soothie likes me linky eh?
Jefferson
March 20th, 2013
9:45 am
There’s half of your deficit, somebody got the money now didn’t they.
Erwin's cat
March 20th, 2013
9:46 am
The speculation about why Gore lost and what might have and might not have happened if he had won is at best laughable….those kinds of predictions only serve those that make them
Doggone/GA
March 20th, 2013
9:47 am
“And no, we can’t go invade every country run by a tyrant. But we can do a little bit at a time.”
and what if some other country decides Obama is a tyrant? would you support them attacking US?
Regnad Kcin
March 20th, 2013
9:47 am
” Hussein was an Arab and within that culture”
So, Recon’s got nothin’.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
March 20th, 2013
9:47 am
Iraq: A Chronology of UN Inspections
http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2002_10/iraqspecialoct02
Mick
March 20th, 2013
9:48 am
recon
The palestinians are not al queda, saddam was just trying to be a thorn in israel side because they took out his fledgling nuclear reactor in the 80’s. I still maintain along with many that the invasion of iraq was illegal and ultimately destablized the region even more than it was to begin with…