All About McCain

[innerSpaceman]

... or the War on Drugs for that matter.


As for librarian flap. I think Palin loses that one. So she didn't actually request that books be removed, but then tried to get the librarian fired when she was told there was no way to do that? Um, that seems to be Palin's M.O. Her brother-in-law, her brother-in-law's boss.

(hmmm, not unlike the treatment certain generals received in Ghoulish Delight's excellent Iraq post above.)




Palin makes me ill.

[BarTopDancer]

It does seem she has a record of I don't like you and/or the choices you've made, so I'm going to have you fired. Sounds like a boss we'd all be venting about.

[Alex]

I was reading it this morning and found it an interesting time warp. A pre-war discussion on MousePad about Iraq with many people here laying out their early views on the matter (though it eventually devolved into a "patriotism" pissing match).

iSm is really the only one opposing the war on the simple ground that Iraq and Saddam Hussein was of absolutely no real threat to the United States.

GD opposes on geopolitical grounds but did say

On the other hand, Saddam is a threat. He needs to go. He's a freaking lunatic. If we don't do something to nip it in the bud, he will start WWIII.

Lots of others.

Unfortunately, I didn't post in the thread (which is what I was looking for; examples of me expressing my pre-war view of things so that I could check against my memory).

[scaeagles]

This all then leads to what people believe was deliberate misleading or falsification of intelligence by Bush. While it is true that the intelligence was bad, I do not believe it was intentionally falsified, which is the major argument of those who were for "doing something" now base their opposition on.

[Gemini Cricket]

Originally Posted by Alex

I was reading it this morning and found it an interesting time warp. A pre-war discussion on MousePad about Iraq with many people here laying out their early views on the matter (though it eventually devolved into a "patriotism" pissing match).

Here's what I posted towards the end of the thread:

Originally Posted by Gemini Can't We Just Get Along Cricket

I think everyone is entitled to their opinions on this thread and everywhere else. But the name-calling has to end. It's uncalled for. It works against having a clear, mature, concise discussion.




btw~
I was going to post something political, but I decided to delete it. I don't plan on discussing things on this thread any more.

Nerd!


[derail]Jeepers H. Crackers! That thread was started almost 6 freakin' years ago! Gak! I've been a discussion board geek for over 7 years.[/derail]

[BarTopDancer]

Wow, I had some good points.

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by Motorboat Cruiser

I've yet to hear a specific definition of winning from anyone who uses the term in regard to the Iraq War or the War on Terrorism.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ibnuyusuf/1271119853/


Fierce fighting lasted for 10 plus years followed by sporadic fights and riots right up into the late 1980's...........now this Nation is one of if not the most powerful economy in SE Asia.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Alex

GD opposes on geopolitical grounds but did say

I don't think I've said anything since inconsistent with my statements there. I said we were in Afghanistan for legitimate reasons and were turning our attention toward Iraq for illegitimate reasons.

I still think Saddam was someone that needed to be dealt with, but that was not the way to go about doing so. "Do something to nip it in the bud" never equated to military aggression in my mind.

I'm a little appalled at myself for suggesting assassination.

This all then leads to what people believe was deliberate misleading or falsification of intelligence by Bush. While it is true that the intelligence was bad, I do not believe it was intentionally falsified, which is the major argument of those who were for "doing something" now base their opposition on.

The Senate Intelligenc Committe disagrees with your belief.

Statements and implications by the President and Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and al-Qa’ida had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-Qa’ida with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence. Ø Statements by the President and the Vice President indicating that Saddam Hussein was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups for attacks against the United States were contradicted by available intelligence information.

Okay, so there's just a small sample of the willful misleading of the public. Ah, I can hear you say, but what of the Congress members who saw the itnelligence and drew their own conclusions? Surely they could not have been duped...

Additionally, the Committee issued a report on the Intelligence Activities Relating to Iraq conducted by the Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group and the Office of Special Plans within the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy. The report found that the clandestine meetings between Pentagon officials and Iranians in Rome and Paris were inappropriate and mishandled from beginning to end.

Potentially important information collected during the meetings was withheld from intelligence agencies by Pentagon officials.

Finally, senior Defense Department officials cut short internal investigations of the meetings and failed to implement the recommendations of their own counterintelligence experts.

This is just he summary report. It rather bleakly shows a concerted effort to justify war, not to collect facts. It shows that Congress did not just see faulty information and come to the same faulty conclusion, they were fed a distorted picture of the intelligence, purposefully shielded from the full picture, and willfully influenced by Cheney and the Pentagon into drawing conclusions that weren't even supported by the bad intelligence.

All from a President who, almost 2 years before 9/11, was sitting in cabinet meetings talking about finding a way to depose Saddam.

Zero credibility.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

I don't think I've said anything since inconsistent with my statements there.

It wasn't my intention to imply that you have. I was just differentiating your position opposing the war from iSm's and highlighting the more substantive positions stakes out there by people now here.

[Tenigma]

Well, I didn't participate in any discussions here back then but I was one of many silent masses who didn't say peep about our invasion of Iraq. While I was pretty sure Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11, I was also pretty tired of his flouting of UN requests to inspect his nuclear facilities, and I felt like it was OK for us to step in and stop the bully.

Of course, I was also still relatively pro-Bush at the time.

I just chose to keep listening to talk radio and dismiss the anti-war people as kooks and hippies.

Boy was I wrong.