you're

Stewart is interesting, because although I usually respect him here he falls to the standard armchair liberal revisionist viewpoint: "But he didn't HAVE WMD!".

Neverminding, of course, that all you hippies had no problems with the sanctions and oil-for-food program that was starving thousands of innocent Iraqis - and not affecting Saddam at all - because the UN (including your beloved Scott Ritter) claimed that he DID have WMD, and that we had to keep pushing for more inspections ...

It's really rather funny how selective your memory can be when you're feeling self-righteous. All you people screaming about Saddam gassing the Kurds and torturing people and how WOMEN ARE STONED IF THEY'RE RAPED ... suddenly against taking action. Once it's been shown to be problematic. Suddenly everybody's there with the "I told you so's".

Backbone, or lack thereof, is why liberals can't seem to get their act together.

And so, Joe, with those reasons you would have justified the war in Iraq to the American public and the world back in 2002? That's not enough to warrant going to war. You know it. We know it. And that's why the President had to make up excuses to justify going to war in Iraq.

You're still making new excuses for the war.

-hippie cowboy?

(I do have a cowboy hat made of some hemp-like material but I don't think that qualifies me as a hippie.)

I think what "anon" what trying to type is, "Joe, you're an ass."

Oh, and Joe, one more thing... unless you're in Iraq yourself, fighting this war with your own two hands... YOU have no backbone!

Truth, or lack thereof, is why conservatives can't seem to get their act together.

Conservatives and Libearls HATE FACTS

Mr. Kristol, it shold always be remembered, stooped to shilling the "criminalization of politics" smear on Fox--the only place that was selling that soap. Do not buy his book. He is a dumbass neocon at worst, and at best he is a slightly charming neocon.

Joe, I'm not a hippy. Nor are most of my friends. Most of my friends are the scientists and mathematicians this administration loves to ignore (for example).

I'll sum up the problem for you:

Criminally fixed the facts to sell a costly war that was waged incorrectly - just like the rapidly resigning govt officials said it would be.

You can't even begin to claim that all the liberal complaints are strictly 20/20 hindsight - hindsight is just showing how those who knew the truth were forcibly silenced by the administration and the media.

Nobody's complaining that this administration lacks backbone - it lacks brains, ears, ethics, and now credibility.

(Coming from the administration, "You lack backbone" sounds a lot like the stupid jock in the locker room.)

I particularly noticed the way you phrase the problem in Iraq as demanding one of two choices: 1) nothing, 2) this administration's plan.

Those advocating democracy in Iraq should at the very least be criticizing this administration's bungled attempts to bring it there. The price is not being paid in your blood, but somebody's dying for it.

If there's any tagline that sums up the last 5 years, it's "does not give a shit about most Americans" -- and that includes the under-equiped, underpaid, exploited troops and veterans without medical benefits.

"And so, Joe, with those reasons you would have justified the war in Iraq to the American public and the world back in 2002?"

Another trademark of the liberal mindset is, apparently, inability to read. I guess when you're blinded by your own self-righteousness, seeing print is difficult.

In any case if you actually read what I wrote it is clear that these 'reasons' I listed are not being offered by me. They were offered by every single liberal in the US as reasons why we had to 'do something' about Iraq. And now that the 'something' we did turns out to be a difficult, complex, and often dispiriting task, you're all pretending that you weren't saying these things, pretending that you didn't believe there were WMD in Iraq. It's just pathetic.

Face the facts. You believed there were WMD in the country as well. You supported sanctions and the oil-for-food program. You supported 'solving the Saddam problem'. But you supported it the same way you support your other hippie causes, like 'free Tibet!' (how?) or 'support human rights in China!' (how?). You're all about making grandiose statements and backing away from any real-world effects of your positions.

I do not support the war in Iraq. But I do realize that I was just as culpable in its coming about as everyone else here, just as we are all culpable in the deaths of the innocent Iraqis who starved under sanctions and oil-for-food while Saddam lived in gold palaces and managed to stockpile millions of dollars. And I am not so self-important that I am willing to delude myself into believing revisionist history that elides that guilt.

Let me put it into perspective for you: John Stewart made a snide, cheap-shot remark at Bill Kristol over 'being the first to be wrong about WMD in Iraq' in 1997. Guess what: SO WAS YOUR HERO SCOTT RITTER. So was Koffi Annan. So was Hans Blix. Stop pretending you don't have blood on your hands.

"You're still making new excuses for the war."

Not in the slightest. I'm just pointing out your blatant self-aggrandizing.

Brandon, excluding your strange attraction to the completely unproven concept of 'global warming' (by which I mean the political term used by ecoterrorists, not the actual warming of the globe) I largely agree with you. The funny thing being, even that article you link to states that it is far too early to draw any scientific conclusions on global warming ... but I digress.

"You can't even begin to claim that all the liberal complaints are strictly 20/20 hindsight"

Nor can you claim that all of them AREN'T. I don't claim that all the complaints are hindsight. Just that the majority of them are. But that's not even the problem - since none of us are psychics, many of our realizations must come from hindsight. It's the ATTITUDE of the hindsight that bugs me.

Nobody is disputing the facts here. We all know we were lied to about the surveillance of supposed WMD and WMD manufacture in Iraq. But it isn't like that was created in a vacuum. Prior to that shameful display we put up with 10+ years of sanctions and embargoes, tough language, resolutions, and UN policing based upon a belief which everyone now wants to pretend they always knew was false.

"I particularly noticed the way you phrase the problem in Iraq as demanding one of two choices: 1) nothing, 2) this administration's plan."

I fail to see where I phrased anything of the type. Had I made such a statement, I actually would have offered one of two choices:

1. Continue with the pointless and ineffective sanctions, which only starved the poor people of Iraq. Continue with the non-functioning weapons inspections. Continue with empty threats which the UN would never back up, thus making a mockery of the entire process.
2. Actually follow through on the resolution and attack - and while I would love to believe there was some magical plan to win the war/peace, I have yet to hear someone offer it.

Not quite as black-and-white as 'do nothing or do what we did', but I can't help but notice that even when you typify my position so childishly you don't offer any alternatives.

"Nobody's complaining that this administration lacks backbone"

You're right, nobody is. I'm saying that the type of people who are gleefully tracking each death in Iraq and whose hearts soar each time a GI is killed, who look for every single flaw in the plan we are stuck with but spend no time looking for alternatives, who are just as complicit in what has happened as everyone else - they lack backbone.

And I really am tired of the fact that you folks feel the need to pigeonhole someone as either being for or against 'the administration'. It's like talking to someone through a sieve. You only reply to the talking points that come through your tiny little filter holes.

Joe.

To call the weapons inspections non-functioning is disingenuous at best. If by 'non-functioning' you mean "failed to produce WMD," well...

Further, there were plenty of people screaming about Iraqi sanctions punishing nobody but the helpless. Just because Kennedy wasn't blathering on about it on the Senate floor doesn't mean that the entire liberal movement was silent. Coulter and Hannity love to make that kind of fallacious argument, "you liberals weren't loud then, so you must not really mean it now."

You have to first be listening, before you can claim no one is speaking.

I haven't heard word one about Stewart's specific comments. He wasn't merely falling back on the "but there were no WMD" line, he was responding to Kristol's claim that WMD were a necessary reason to go in, by stating that prior to war were other, perfectly reasonable steps (like inspections). Kristol also claims the inspections weren't working; this brings me back to my first point. Please repeat.

I'm humbled. Good points Joe. I'll stop now my blatant attempts at being self-aggrandized/righteous.

Joe,

No, no all of us were on the same bandwagon. Even setting aside the whole WMD thing for a second. From the very beginning, I felt that the actions we were taking were misguided and had no basis on fact or precedent. I felt this not because I am a liberal hippy, but because I am a student of history.

The fact of the matter is that we (The United States) have been trying to nation build for over a decade now in Eastern Europe, Central Asia, and South America. Ask any historian or political scientist working on the former Soviet Block. In most cases, democratisation just hasn't stuck. Uzbekistan, for example, is now one of the most repressive regimes in Central Aisa. Russia isn't doing so hot on that front either, but that's another story. The transition paradigm that the Bush administration built their policy on has already failed in practise.

Thomas Caruthers wrote a fascinating article about nation building in the former Soviet block in the Journal of Democracy on my 5th 2002 called "the end of the transition Paradigm. Some quotes on the article in regards to building democracy: "The transition paradigm has been somewhat useful during a time of momentuos and often surprising political upheaval in this world. But it is increasingly claer that the reality is no longer conforming to the model."

"Of the nearly 100 countries considered as "transitional" in recent years, only a relatively small number - probably fewer than twenty - are clearly en route to becoming successful, well functioning democracies or at least have made some democratic progress and still enjoy a positive dynamic of democratisation"

http://www.journalofdemocracy.com/ (search the archives)

Keep in mind, he is referring to countries that have relatively more similarities in culture and mindset to us than we do to the Arab world.

If you want to have a civilised discourse on the issue, by all means prove me wrong. I am willing to learn.

But name calling is not how you change minds.

Good places to go for informed opinions on foreign policy: http://www.carnegieendowment.org/ http://cfr.org/ http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/ksgpress/bulletin/index.htm

"Continue with the non-functioning weapons inspections. “

Sticking to the debate we just saw on the Daily Show I’ve always thought the presence of U.N weapons inspectors in Iraq were a hugely under debated political phenomena that had great potential to be expanded to make things incredibly difficult for the politics of Saddam Hussein and all dictators.

We had an invasion going, a passive invasion, but an invasion none the least. Can you imagine how difficult it would have been for Hitler, Stalin and quite frankly any other dictator to build effective armies while the world sent arms inspection teams roaming around their country? Kind of screws with the cult of personality just a little bit don’t you think.

Did the U.N inspection team make things difficult for Saddam? Well if you compare how pitiful his organised resistance was to the U.S invasion I think we can say categorically, “Yes”. It’s hard to build a defiant, robust army and weapons system when you enemy is sitting in your country writing down your military stockpiles.

And why did this form of passive invasion have to end? Why couldn’t we leverage weapons inspections into human rights inspections? Yes, Saddam would have played the U.N around but who’s to say he would have won. He backed down on letting them back again. He was on the back foot, he allowed his enemies into his country, and as we now know for certain, he had a weak army and no weapons of mass destruction. He could have been dealt with by using a sensible and calculated campaign of destabilization, and replaced by using the strength of the social structures that were evident in Iraq at the time rather than literally exploding them and creating the nightmare of a political vacuum we have today.

i love you guys.

except for joe.

The current US administration, just like the previous Bush administration, are a bunch of coked-up neocolonialists. I'm surprised that anyone would put up a fight for them any more. I think Denis Leary said it best when he said, "I'll be watching the war on TV with a 10ft erection and a giant cheeseburger on top". Welcome to the new American dream.

The current US administration, just like the previous Bush administration, are a bunch of coked-up neocolonialists. I'm surprised that anyone would put up a fight for them any more. I think Denis Leary said it best when he said, "I'll be watching the war on TV with a 10ft erection and a giant cheeseburger on top". Welcome to the new American dream.

for someone is "against" the war, you sure do seem to despise liberals who are against the war

“…….standard armchair liberal revisionist viewpoint: ‘But he didn't HAVE WMD!’.”

The United Nations announced a report on March 2, 2004 from the weapons inspection teams stating that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction of any significance after 1994.

Bush-appointed inspector David Kay himself has since stated (concerning Iraqi WMDs): "We were almost all wrong - and I certainly include myself here." He has stated that many intelligence analysts have come to him "in apology that the world we were finding was not the world that they had thought existed"

On October 6, 2004 Charles Duelfer, head of the Iraq Survey Group, appearing before the United States Senate Armed Services Committee announced that the group found no evidence that Iraq under Saddam Hussein had produced any weapons of mass destruction since 1991, when UN sanctions were imposed and furthermore, Iraq had been incapable of doing so.

Colin Powell appeared on The Daily Show and stated regarding Weapons of Mass Destructions in Iraq: "Now where we got the intelligence wrong, dead wrong, is that we thought he also had existing stockpiles, and now we know that those are not there."

“……because the UN (including your beloved Scott Ritter) claimed that he DID have WMD, and that we had to keep pushing for more inspections.”

Scott Ritter, a longtime advocate of more thorough weapons inspections previously and considered an anti-Iraq hardliner, said that he was now absolutely convinced Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction which contradicts earlier 1998 statements by Scott Ritter regarding this issue.

”All you people screaming about Saddam gassing the Kurds and torturing people and how WOMEN ARE STONED IF THEY'RE RAPED ... suddenly against taking action.”

1. Iraq was a secular state not an Islamic Theocracy; in which women can be stoned for dishonoring their family according to Islamic Law.

2. The gassing of the Kurds 22 years ago justification is a little self-serving, since the US government did not do much to prevent or to punish those crimes while they were happening. Although the use of chemical weapons against Kurds in 1983 was known by US intelligence, Donald Rumsfeld, at the time presidential envoy of Ronald Reagan, nevertheless spoke of his "close relationship" with Saddam Hussein and even visited him and offered help.

Ultimately, the Iraq war was presented as largely being a case of removing banned weapons from Iraq. Administration officials, especially with the United States Department of State led by Colin Powell were eager to make the case for war as universally acceptable to as many nations as possible. Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense stated in an interview on 28 May 2003 in Vanity Fair that 'For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction'.

”Once it's been shown to be problematic. Suddenly everybody's there with the ‘I told you so's’.”

On the contrary, from the beginning there was worldwide opposition to the U.S. invading Iraq and with good reason as we now see. The February 15, 2003, worldwide protests drew millions of people across the world. Its is generally estimated that over 3 million people marched in Rome, between one and two million in London, more than 600,000 in Madrid, 300,000 in Berlin, as well as in Damascus, Paris, New York, Oslo, Stockholm, Brussels, Johannesburg, Montreal - more than 600 cities in all, worldwide. This demonstration was listed by the 2004 Guinness Book of Records as the largest mass protest movement in history.

Joe you say: I don't claim that all the complaints are hindsight. Just that the majority of them are. But that's not even the problem - since none of us are psychics, many of our realizations must come from hindsight. It's the ATTITUDE of the hindsight that bugs me.

What attitude exactly are we supposed to have. One like yours?

You also say: I do not support the war in Iraq. But I do realize that I was just as culpable in its coming about as everyone else here.

Democrat and Republican congressmen overwhelmingly voted for the Iraq war. But I am not a congressman. I did what I could before the invasion; wrote letters to the editor and went to protests against the invasion and I wasn't alone. ALOT of ordinary Americans were skeptical of this administrations claims. That they weren't listened to is not their fault. Before the war there was so much media coverage that supported this administration and they barely bothered to give equal time to those who thought this war wasn't a good idea and would be a distraction from the war on terror.

That there were Americans who didn't know all the facts and gave this administration the benefit of the doubt and then found out they were lied to and are justifiably angry about it. Don't like the attitude, then don't lie and don't defend liars.

It's always fun to watch Jon Stewart debate. Few pundits anywhere have such quick wit, or can get so much leverage out of a single sentence.

Kristol says, "We didn't know that he didn't have weapons of mass destruction." Jon says, "To have weapons inspectors, maybe...to look around, might have been a good move?"

Kristol says "Could we have kept 150,000 troops there forever?" Jon says, "Yeah, that would've cost us a lot of money."

That's the essence of the debate summed up in just a few sentences.

Stewart has to play it for laughs, so it is inevitable that Kristol gets away stating Bush's "accomplishments" without a point-by-point rebuttal.

"He finally bit the bullet in the Middle East and decided we couldn't deal with the pre-9/11 status quo."

Right. After downgrading the role of terrorism prevention before 9/11 in his government, he was awakened from his stupor and decided to use 9/11 as a pretext for attacking Iraq - which had little to do with 9/11.

"I think he will succeed in gradually improving and democracizing the Middle East."

Kristol can "think" what he wishes, but there is scant evidence that this is true at this point. The newly "approved" Iraqi Constitution allows for a dominant role of Islamic interference in the "democratic" process. Even if there were no insurgency raging in Iraq, the democracy in Iraq seems likely to function in a manner much like that in Iran – with mullahs vetting candidates to decide on their "suitability". Even after the bloodletting is over (whenever that might occur), Iraq has been converted into an Iranian ally – just exactly what the "realpoliticians" of Kissinger's ilk had feared when they tilted towards Saddam in the 1980s.

"The economy has grown over the past five years."

Economic growth in Bush's BEST year was little better than an AVERAGE year for his predecessor. Supply-side economics has been thouroughly discredited by the historical record. Clinton's 1993 tax increases DID NOT kill economic growth and, in fact, restored confidence in the bond markets sufficient to bring interest rates down - thus helping fuel growth.

And, of course, $2 trillion more debt (and counting) is just beneath mentioning. Oh yeah, he's been a pretty good president...

Stewart has to play it for laughs, so it is inevitable that Kristol gets away stating Bush's "accomplishments" without a point-by-point rebuttal.

"He finally bit the bullet in the Middle East and decided we couldn't deal with the pre-9/11 status quo."

Right. After downgrading the role of terrorism prevention before 9/11 in his government, he was awakened from his stupor and decided to use 9/11 as a pretext for attacking Iraq - which had little to do with 9/11.

"I think he will succeed in gradually improving and democracizing the Middle East."

Kristol can "think" what he wishes, but there is scant evidence that this is true at this point. The newly "approved" Iraqi Constitution allows for a dominant role of Islamic interference in the "democratic" process. Even if there were no insurgency raging in Iraq, the democracy in Iraq seems likely to function in a manner much like that in Iran – with mullahs vetting candidates to decide on their "suitability". Even after the bloodletting is over (whenever that might occur), Iraq has been converted into an Iranian ally – just exactly what the "realpoliticians" of Kissinger's ilk had feared when they tilted towards Saddam in the 1980s.

"The economy has grown over the past five years."

Economic growth in Bush's BEST year was little better than an AVERAGE year for his predecessor. Supply-side economics has been thoroughly discredited by the historical record. Clinton's 1993 tax increases DID NOT kill economic growth and, in combination with modest spending growth, restored confidence in the bond markets sufficient to bring interest rates down - thus helping fuel growth.

And, of course, $2 trillion more debt (and counting) added to the backs of our children and grandchildren is too unimportant to bother mentioning. Talk about taxation without representation!

Oh yeah, he's been a pretty good president...

Those are excellent points Tim, thanks. And praise be FactCheck. I think I have seen Joe one too many times on this blog spouting innaccuracies.

"But I do realize that I was just as culpable in its coming about as everyone else here, just as we are all culpable in the deaths of the innocent Iraqis who starved under sanctions and oil-for-food while Saddam lived in gold palaces and managed to stockpile millions of dollars."

Really Joe? If you and all your ilk were so concerned about greed, corruption and starving civilians, then I can name about a dozen countries that we should invade. Face it Shmoe, Iraq offered the perfect, albeit fake, pre-text (WMD's) in the perfect political environment (post 9/11) for Bush to settle the old man's score (Gulf War)while his cronies (Cheney/Halliburton et al) made millions.

"Face the facts. You believed there were WMD in the country as well."

Who the hell are you speaking for, Joe? I'm not sure if you recall the post 9/11 political climate, but the neo-cons did a great job (and still do) of labeling any dissenting voice, reasonable or not, as unpatriotic. It was a bullying tactic and just part of the let's tie 9/11, WMD and Saddam into one nice tidy package to sell to the American public. That is why there were no dissenting voices.

Don't label other post's as being pansy liberals and then turnaround and presume that they all bought into the same BS that you did. Based on the assbackward stuff I've seen you post recently, I wouldn't be caught dead saying I agree with you on anything.

Joe, you fall under the weight of your own ridiculousness. Go post somewhere where your opinion actually matters.

"I think he will succeed in gradually improving and democracizing the Middle East."

I think Tim is right here, the argument that the Iraq war is the key to democratization has very little support. However some of our current policies may in be leading to democratization--for example we are no longer out-and-out propping up dictatorships and giving arms to jihadist like we were in the Cold War and to some degree afterwards. We are propping them up to a lesser degree and supplying jihadists only indirectly. In these conditions limited elections in Egypt and Saudi Arabia are not a surprise--these are countries where people have access to mass media and advanced communication, as well as education (much more than they did 20 years ago). These factors have a lot more to do with the increased demand for democratization than American occupation.

I have a hard time even trying to piece together Kristol's argument that the Iraq war is somehow causing democracy--people in other Arab countries suddenly believe in democracy because their neighbor was invaded with democratic intentions? The flowering of democracy next door is inspiring Arabs all over the place to believe that they, too can do it (though they don't have American troops to help)? I confess I don't get it. Wasn't the whole neocon justification for Iraq the idea that democracy and decent gov't can't take root on its own without foreign intervention? Iraq is still roughly as democratic as several of its neighbors--there still hasn't been the actual election of a government with the power to show U.S. troops the door, and the freedom and fairness of the elections leaves much to be desired. Iraq isn't a "shining example" of anything but the failure of democratization imposed from the outside. In the end it may indeed become the ultimate example that Arab dictators use to show that there are worse things than living in a safe, orderly, authoritarian regime--like living in a chaotic, bloody "democracy".

we didn't go to war because saddam hussein is a bad guy. we went to war because iraq was supposedly posing a threat to the US. Yet you've said several times that "liberals" want to forget about how bad saddam hussein was. So who's buying into a revisionist history here? who's being "blinded by their own self-righteousness," Joe?

what some folks dont get is it is possible to be opposed to saddam and simultaneously be against waging a war against iraq. not unlike the quakers who were opposed to the civil war and opposed to the institution of slavery...

Joe, if you want people to listen to you, you should get your facts straight and you shouldn't be so insulting. Your arrogant attitude is a turn off and you make a lot of false statements. For example, you said, "All you people screaming about Saddam gassing the Kurds and torturing people and how WOMEN ARE STONED IF THEY'RE RAPED ... suddenly against taking action."

What?! You are confusing Afghanistan with Iraq.

I enjoy reading the opinions of those with differing political views, such as those from Cure4pain, but I am weary of reading your long, insulting posts, chock full of revisionist history.

Just try and get an interview like that on any of the mainstream media "news" shows. It can't be done. That was great and I applaud the Daily Show audience for not going off on Billy because once you go off on someone, no matter how much they deserve it, you lower yourself to their level. This nation needs a higher level of discourse and I think John Stewart is doing a heck of a job at helping to take us there. That was a great clip. Thanks for posting it.

Wonderful clip. I'm amazed at Stewart's ability to handle these guys in such a witty and often biting, yet classy fashion.

That's a lot to catch up on - the liberal misinformation squad must not have day jobs. Let me hit the major points:

"To call the weapons inspections non-functioning is disingenuous at best"

Really? Let's look at what the UN itself was saying/doing:

"The U.N. orders its weapons inspectors to leave Iraq after the chief inspector reports Baghdad is not fully cooperating with them."

-- Sheila MacVicar, ABC World News This Morning, 12/16/98

"Immediately after submitting his report on Baghdad's noncompliance, Butler ordered his inspectors to leave Iraq."

--Los Angeles Times, 12/17/98

"If he has secret weapons, he's had four years since he kicked out the inspectors to hide all of them."

--Daniel Schorr, NPR, 8/3/02

"UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- The United Nations Security Council on Friday approved a resolution that demands unfettered access for U.N. inspectors to search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. " - CNN November 8 2002

Just a quick search finds those links. More support for my position: if it doesn't back your predetermined conclusion, you ignore it.

"But name calling is not how you change minds."

Funny how nobody says that until someone with whom they disagree gets on their nerves. You don't seem upset by people calling me a fascist, a right-winger, a Republican, and every other insult that enters their Swiss-cheese-like 'liberal' minds.

"He could have been dealt with by using a sensible and calculated campaign of destabilization"

Really? Like Fidel Castro? Like the Chinese in Tibet?

Where does this assertion come from, that democratic dealings will bring about massive internal change?

Believe me, I would like to strap on blinders and think the same thing but the real world keeps interfering. In the real world brutal dictators don't change unless their hand is forced. And the very nature of their setup means that you don't get to them unless you drive an M1A1 up their driveway.

"For someone is 'against' the war, you sure do seem to despise liberals who are against the war"

Very much so. But not based on ideology - rather based on personality. Frankly I see no difference between people who call themselves 'liberals' and people who call themselves 'conservatives'. Most of both camps are shrill, self-centered, self-aggrandizing people without the intelligence to truly analyze a position.

I feel that true progress is only made by being willing to analyze and listen to the facts as they come from both sides. And what grates on my nerves the most about liberals is that they rarely seem to have a plan - the only time I even hear from liberals about anything is when someone else does something and it doesn't work, and then we have to put up with the 'we told you so!'.

The funny thing is that I used to only attribute that mentality to Republicans. Remember the 'Don't blame me, I voted for Bush' bumper stickers during the Clinton administration? I always thought that was the most ridiculous position I'd ever heard. Now I know differently: now we have the "I knew all along that Saddam didn't have WMD" people to deal with. Sure you did.

"The United Nations announced a report on March 2, 2004 from the weapons inspection teams stating that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction of any significance after 1994."

Hate to break this to you, but we invaded in 2003. So that's too little, too late. And do you think this report could have been generated without full access to the country that invasion brought?

You're actually supporting my position: that we learned that we were wrong after the attack. There was no worldwide consensus that Iraq had no WMD, and in fact people were so willing to believe it that Bush and Blair were both able to fool their own countries with very little effort.

"Ultimately, the Iraq war was presented as largely being a case of removing banned weapons from Iraq."

I have never claimed otherwise; the justification has changed, recently, due to no WMD being found. What I said was that just like with Tibet, all of the hippies were whispering to each other about the same humans rights abuses in both Iraq and Afghanistan (BTW, where is the outrage about invading Afghanistan?) that they now mock the Republicans for using.

Would I have voted to send American troops to die because some chick has to wear a veil in Iraq? Hell no. But the point is about rhetoric. We all seem to be for meddling and getting involved (the entire mission of the UN) until it blows up in our faces.

"On the contrary, from the beginning there was worldwide opposition to the U.S. invading Iraq and with good reason as we now see."

Strange that you don't realize that this was before anyone had a chance to discredit the 'intelligence' about WMD in Iraq. Thus these people were protesting WAR, not protesting the CAUSES FOR WAR. So they were protesting war in general - and the US in general. Not taking a stance that Saddam didn't have WMD. Generic protests against war are hippie rote.

"That there were Americans who didn't know all the facts and gave this administration the benefit of the doubt and then found out they were lied to and are justifiably angry about it."

Yes, and I'm one of those people. But the fact of the matter is that we're there, now. Whining and moaning and pretending that you knew the facts beforehand, mocking the military, laying down on the street to cry and get your name in the papers - none of this changes a thing. It just pisses people off and makes them tune you out.

"What some folks dont get is it is possible to be opposed to saddam and simultaneously be against waging a war against iraq."

I actually completely get that. But I don't understand what position you are taking. If you were against Saddam, what did you want to do?

This is the biggest point of this whole board - nobody has pitched any alternate ideas other than continuing the sanctions or invading.

So what does being 'against Saddam' mean to you? Not buying his greatest hits album?

"There still hasn't been the actual election of a government with the power to show U.S. troops the door"

You don't seem to fathom that the Iraqi government has asked our troops to stay.

"The freedom and fairness of the elections leaves much to be desired."

Strange that the people appointed to investigate this very thing have concluded otherwise. Again, don't let the facts interrupt your anti-US rhetoric.

"What?! You are confusing Afghanistan with Iraq."

So Saddam gassed the Kurds in Afghanistan? Thanks for playing.

And speaking of Afghanistan - why isn't anyone pissed about that invasion? Weren't the hijackers Saudi Arabian?

before the war there was a lot of evidence to support the claim that saddam had weapons. some of this was more credible than other. and the belief that saddam had weapons was widely held. Once it became clear that there were no weapons, and Bush did his little weapons-search-in-the-white-house sketch, the conservative echo-chamber moved the justification for the war, saying in effect that it didn't matter that there were no weapons because a really bad guy is out of power. in fact a really bad guy was out of power. nevertheless, such a shift in the justification for was is, definatively, revisionist.
you say that the "liberals" have no alternative plan, and the UN's investigation was ineffective because it wasn't until after the war started that they reported that there were no WMD in Iraq. in fact, the "liberal plan" WAS the UN inspection regime. and it's only because of the administration's hawkish rush to war that the war began before the the UN had time to publish the report which (correctly) stated that there were no WMD.
The conservative elites wanted this war. they've wanted it since at least 1998, when PNAC wrote a letter to Clinton regarding iraq. 911 was the wild card they needed to rally the political support for such an adventure. I'd argue that had the UN inspection team released their report before the invasion, the administration would have dismissed it, probably by using the same faulty intelligence Powell presented to the UN to prove that the inspectors were wrong while pundits posed questions regarding Hans Blix's connections with French and German business interests, etc. etc.

Let me first state I'm not trying to get into a yelling match, and since you're actually talking to me I'm going to do the same.

I have no dispute with anything you say until you come to this point:

"in fact, the 'liberal plan' WAS the UN inspection regime. and it's only because of the administration's hawkish rush to war that the war began before the the UN had time to publish the report which (correctly) stated that there were no WMD."

Here I just have to call bullshit. You're telling me that you honestly believe that, after 10 years of weapons inspections, of Saddam stalling and blocking and hemming and hawing, of inspectors routinely reporting that they couldn't get necessary access, of the UN telling Iraq "comply or else ... okay, now comply or else ... ok, now comply or else!!!", that this program would have actually resulted in something? That the material for the 'no WMD' report existed and just wasn't typed into Microsoft Word yet? I simply can't agree with you on that point.

"I'd argue that had the UN inspection team released their report before the invasion, the administration would have dismissed it"

Assuming such a report existed (which I find unlikely), you're probably right. But if that had happened - if the UN had issued a report stating that Iraq had no WMD right before Bush sent our troops - we wouldn't be having this discussion. The UN would have been right from the start (although they would have to explain the 10 years of being wrong, but that's a minor issue). Coming out after the fact just seems like a political move.

"while pundits posed questions regarding Hans Blix's connections with French and German business interests, etc. etc"

I am sure you are right that pundits would have seized on this knowledge ... but aren't you concerned about the scandals that were going on in the UN regarding Iraq? It somewhat chips away at the credibility of the organization to find out that people were taking money hand-over-fist behind the scenes.

I think that too many people look at the situation as black and white - as "UN right, US wrong". The fact of the matter is that the UN is just a superset of individual governments, which in most cases means an exaggeration and conglomeration of all the faults and follies found at the micro-level.

Bear in mind that it is the mindset of the UN - the concept of a world-policing organization that tells sovereign states what is right and wrong - that leads to the very idea of determining who is a good ruler, who is a bad ruler, and taking steps to twist the world to your perspective. People focus hate on the US because we are a single, identifiable political body. But do you think the people of Somalia are happy with how the UN functions? Or the average citizen in Iraq?

Since every single UN mission has been a pretty resounding failure, since corruption in the UN is widespread and the power is concentrated in the hands of a select few ... it seems to me that many of the critiques that are leveled against the US really should be leveled against the UN as well.

There is a very big question that everyone has to ask themselves when they examine situations like Iraq: what do you believe should be the role of the more powerful nations, and how far should they take that role? Should we have the power to change other countries, by force if necessary? How much of a consensus should be necessary to use that power?

And, more importantly, what do we do when we screw up?

Joe, you said, "how WOMEN ARE STONED IF THEY'RE RAPED"... this is the part I was referring to which pertains to Afghanistan.

Joe,

I'm curious why you argue for our invasion of Iraq. Although you said in an earlier post that you aren't for this war. So far, you've said you wouldn't have sent troops for humanitarian reasons (chicks wearing veils). And you agree that there weren't any WMD. The only reason left I can think of was to remove Saddam, which you seem to support. But if you wanted to remove Saddam, what would be the reason to do it except for humanitarian reasons or WMD? I'm a little confused and am thinking maybe you should fully explain your thinking.

• Hannah

joe-only people my grandpa's age still call people hippies. it's so dated it's funny, kinda like when people still say groovy.

joe

One thing here, here is some conservative revisionism for ya, Rumsfeld was in Bagdad shaking hands with Saddam, days after he used nerve gas to kill the Kurds. But Saddam was an American Ally at the time, so that's ok i guess, because no one is talking about that.

Oh and by the way, an American Lab sold Iraq some Anthrax in the 80's. There is a paper trail, and it was ok'd by the American Federal GVT at the time.......But i'm sure the Conservatives won't want to talk about that, because that's just revisionism.

Oh and one more thing,

“Strange that you don't realize that this was before anyone had a chance to discredit the 'intelligence' about WMD in Iraq. Thus these people were protesting WAR, not protesting the CAUSES FOR WAR. So they were protesting war in general - and the US in general. Not taking a stance that Saddam didn't have WMD. Generic protests against war are hippie rote.”

Those who opposed the war in Iraq did not regard Iraq's violation of UN resolutions to be a valid case for the war, since no single nation has the authority, under the UN Charter, to judge Iraq's compliance to UN resolutions and to enforce them. Furthermore, critics argued that the US was applying double standards of justice, noting that other nations such as Israel are also in breach of UN resolutions and have nuclear weapons; this argument is not a black and white matter,as some claim that Iraq's history of actually using chemical weapons (against Iran and the Kurdish population in Iraq) suggested at the time that Iraq was a far greater threat. Others claim, also, that this contradicts previous U.S. policy, since the US was one of many nations that supplied chemical weapon precursors, even when well aware of what it was being used for.

There were several reasons why people didn’t support the idea of an invasion: a belief that the UN process (including Hans Blix's inspections) should be allowed to reach its natural conclusion, a belief that the threat posed by Iraq was being exaggerated, a preference for multilateralism, a belief that war might just "serve as a recruiting sergeant for Al-Qaida", and fear of the "fog of war". Many expressed puzzlement that the U.S. would consider military action against Iraq and not against North Korea, which had claimed it already had nuclear weapons and had announced that it was willing to contemplate war with the U.S.

America was in the middle of a war on terror and finding Bin Laden. Many who opposed the Iraq invasion wanted the focus to stay on Bin Laden and not to take our eye off the ball. Many thought we weren’t being told the real reasons for invading Iraq and that perhaps the Bush Administration's reason for going to war with Saddam was to gain control over Iraqi natural resources.

‘I'd argue that had the UN inspection team released their report before the invasion, the administration would have dismissed it’ - Assuming such a report existed (which I find unlikely), you're probably right.

The invasion of Iraq officially started on March 20, 2003.

Before the invasion, on February 14, 2003, UN Chief Inspector Hans Blix presented a report to the UN Security council. Mr. Blix gave an update of the situation in Iraq, and he stated that the Iraqis were now more proactive in their cooperation. He also rebutted some of the arguments proposed by Mr. Powell. Mr. Blix questioned the interpretations of the satellite images put forward by Powell, and stated that alternate interpretations of the satellite images were in fact credible. He also stated that the Iraqis have in fact never received early warning of the inspectors visiting any sites (an allegation made by Mr. Powell during his presentation.) International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Mohammed ElBaradei also said that he does not believe the Iraqis have a nuclear weapons program, in disagreement with Mr. Powell.

Blix also said in an interview concerning the invasion that “the coalition was using “shaky” evidence, including forged documents, as a pretext for making war on Iraq.”

Here some interesting tidbits from rest of the above article to rebut the claim that EVERYONE had jumped on the Iraq WMD bandwagon:

Afterwards [Blix] he said it was "conspicuous" that coalition forces had so far failed to find "anything relevant" in their search for proscribed weapons.

The White House, which accused Mr Blix of hindering its drive for international support for the war, is reluctant to see him return to Iraq and has already sent its own teams to search for illegal weapons. It is is recruiting former UN inspectors from the US, Britain and Australia to verify any discoveries.

"For the time being, and for the foreseeable future, we see it as a coalition activity," the US ambassador to the UN, John Negroponte, said after the security council meeting.

The US desire to sideline the UN, and the information on which the US and Britain based their case for military action, also attracted sharp criticism from the former foreign secretary Robin Cook.

Yesterday Mr Cook said he doubted that there was a single figure in the intelligence services who believed that a weapon of mass destruction in working order would be found in Iraq, and he called for Mr Blix to be allowed back to Iraq "on the next plane".

Joe,

Watch the clip again.

You say;

'Stewart is interesting, because although I usually respect him here he falls to the standard armchair liberal revisionist viewpoint: "But he didn't HAVE WMD!".'

Wrong.

Stewart says, "Do you think, if Bush had put it before the American people as... to sell it to us as a flowering of democracy in the middle east".

His point is that the public was deceived. Not that there weren't WMD's.

Pay attention Joe, try to keep up with the rest of the class.

Oh and Joe,

As far as global warming being unproven? Oh the earth is warming my friend...

2005 warmest year on record.

Unless you have some sort of WMD argument hidden somewhere, your fighting a losing battle.

silly wabbits! don't you get it? joe has worked out a brilliant, feel-good strategy for himself & is leaving the lot of you in his dust: he can say that he is against this war but ALSO not be on YOUR side either! he is a brave loner! unblinded by the liberal media! not bogged down in right-wing punditry! he's against the war, BUT he is heroically bearing the burden of guilt for the rest of us, who are forever engaged in the cowardly process of shirking. he is a christ-like figure! or a greek god! he is the star of his own gritty HBO cop show, where no one's hands are clean and he occasionally must indulge his minions with lengthly asides explaining the tough, murky logic that must be waged against the evils of the world.

I applaud the exchange of ideas going on in this thread, but remember the golden rule of internet posting: why is the poster writing this? I do not believe Joe is out to change anyone's mind so much as to antagonize. And he did it well. As a side result, a good amount of points and references were made.

If I have to read one more long-winded, self righteous, factually incorrect post from Joe, I might just hurl...

I think many people posting about our supposed liberal masturbatory "we told you so" attitude are missing the point. You are talking about how we thought there were WMD too, and in some cases you are right. In my case and in the case of many other liberals you are wrong. The UN in the lead up to the war called their dissarmament program "the most successfull in history" and claimed to have destroyed at least %99.5 of Saddam's weapons. The UN plan was working, and Saddam was not a threat.

Saddam was as ruthless and evil a leader as ever there was in history, but the extent of his evil reaches only as far as his influence. His influence resided only within the borders of his own country, so why go attack? There was no "Saddam problem" and even if there was a "Saddam problem" it was being solved quite well by the UN.

And if we the American people are going to tackle an oppressive regime by force, why weren't we just told then that that was why we were doing it? All the evidence given for WMDs had caveats and qualifiers that the administration did not tell us. They sent to war on lies of omission. I think the most reasonable answer to the above question is that the administration knew that a war could not gain publice support without the threat of imminent danger.

And if we were told that we were going to war to tackle an oppressive regime and we still supported it, why couldn't they wage it in a competent way? Why didn't they listen to the warnings of the state department or do anything about the looting? I think the most reasonable answer to the above question is the administration does not give a fuck about ordinary people. (tongue in cheek)

Also, if we really are waging war to get rid of an oppressive regime, then why are we holding hundreds (thousands?) without charges and torturing them? We, a government that supports tortue (Bush's first veto may be an ammendment written by senator McCain that bans torture by American soldiers), went to war to abolish a government because they supported tortue.

And don't tell me Saddam's was worse, those 60 minute photos were the nice ones. We're raping children in front of their parents, breaking arms, chaining them to the floor, ect. Why? Well, because we're America and God loves us so we do what we want.

fin.

And I thought the Iraq invasion and occupation was just because 'Murricans are violent expansionist war-mongers who love any excuse to kill brown people.

That, and stealing oil and natural resources because they have raped their own land and killed the natives already.

Hopefully the rest of the world will get its act together and figure out a method of ridding itself of these 'Murrican parasites.

Ha ha ha ha ha....

Here's where Joe makes me laugh the most.

"I feel that true progress is only made by being willing to analyze and listen to the facts as they come from both sides."

Facts don't have sides, Joe. Facts are so strong that they don't need 'em and stand on their own.

Perhaps the best strategy is to seek out the most unbiased source you can find and stop relying on the interpretations other people are trying to spin, THEN form YOUR OWN opinion.

I refuse to read any argument which tries to add a "liberal" or "neocon" tagline to it. Any debator that still throws around a sweeping and infantile label like it can ever lump millions of people's opinions together fairly and accurately does not have the mental fortitude to debate intelligently nor understand the very points he is trying to refute.

Thank you, Factchecker.

yes, facts are their enemy. they may have power right now but we have the truth on our side.

sorry, i wasn't suggesting that a UN report existed proir to invasion and that they were just sitting on it. my point was that the admin didn't give the inspectors time to finish their work.

factchecker: "neocon" doesn't refer to millions of people, just a few douzen, many of whom hold positions within the bush admin or have contributed to it's policy: Chaney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Libby, Fukuyama, and Khalilzad, among others... here's the website: http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

there you can also find the 1998 letter to clinton which supports my claim that they've been anxious to go back to Iraq since at least 1998

sorry, i wasn't suggesting that a UN report existed prior to invasion and that they were just sitting on it. my point was that the admin didn't give the inspectors time to finish their work.

factchecker: "neocon" doesn't refer to millions of people, just a few dozen, many of whom hold positions within the bush admin or have contributed to it's policy: Chaney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Libby, Fukuyama, and Khalilzad, among others... here's the website: http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

there you can also find the 1998 letter to clinton which supports my claim that they've been anxious to go back to Iraq since at least 1998

"I'm curious why you argue for our invasion of Iraq."

I'm not. I would have thought saying so several times would have been sufficient to make this point.

"Only people my grandpa's age still call people hippies."

It's the best term I can think of because you seem to find the term 'liberal' a compliment. When someone is against anything done by the government; is 100% anti-capitalist (while listening to their iPod and driving their Volvo); and toes the line of every tree-hugging hippie ideal, the best term I can come up with is 'hippie'.

"One thing here, here is some conservative revisionism for ya, Rumsfeld was in Bagdad shaking hands with Saddam, days after he used nerve gas to kill the Kurds."

I fail to see the relevance - because Rumsfeld shook hands with Saddam, nobody in the US can say anything negative against Saddam? The fact that Saddam was an 'ally' during our conflict with Iran is actually well-documented.

"Blix also said in an interview concerning the invasion that “the coalition was using “shaky” evidence, including forged documents, as a pretext for making war on Iraq.”

Why is it, then, that the UN - for 10 years - was convinced that such weapons did exist in Iraq? Why is it that their suspicions apparently changed precisely at the point at which the last resolution demanding that Iraq comply "or else"?

As I said I am not arguing that there was a clear push on the part of the Bush administration to start the invasion of Iraq. But this didn't come out of the blue. The UN very firmly believed that Iraq was a threat - if this wasn't the case, there wouldn't have been years of sanctions and warnings and threats and inspections.

"Pay attention Joe, try to keep up with the rest of the class."

Curious that you missed the cheap shot at the start of the interview: "You were wrong about Iraq before everyone else!" (referring to Kristol's writing about WMD in Iraq in 1997). Perhaps you should pay attention.

"As far as global warming being unproven? Oh the earth is warming my friend..."

If only it were that easy. The records simply don't go back far enough; the methods used for measuring are not accurate enough (sampling in dense urban areas and using those as indicators, for example).

From the Fraser Institute's Guide to the Science of Global Warming: "The historical surface and proxy records suggest that temperatures rose about 0.5°C in the early twentieth century—before most of the greenhouse gases were added to the air by human activities."

The fact of the matter is that 'global warming' alarmists don't know anything for a fact - they assume. And a lot of people who assume that the world is warming due to the effects of industry/pollution willingly admit this, saying that 'if it reduces emissions, I'm willing to believe the myth'. Well excuse me if I don't agree that the end justifies the means.

I am definitely in support of seeing emissions reduced, mileage increased, and the like. But to attempt to influence such changes through lies and terror tactics - particularly when most of the groups behind such methods are thinly-veiled anti-capitalist propaganda mouthpieces (e.g., Greenpeace) - seems wrong.

"I do not believe Joe is out to change anyone's mind so much as to antagonize"

Perhaps you don't realize the negative light this sheds upon your fellow hippies? What are your intentions in posting to a site where you actively shun anyone who disagrees with your party line, and commiserate amongst each other about your lies? This is a propaganda board, plain and simple.

"If I have to read one more long-winded, self righteous, factually incorrect post from Joe, I might just hurl..."

That's certainly easier than addressing the points. By continuing to post emotional and reactionary statements in the face of fact, you are just weakening your own stance. You've admitted that you have no factual basis for your beliefs. You just don't like the conclusions that the facts force.

"We're raping children in front of their parents, breaking arms, chaining them to the floor, ect."

You know, one thing I will never understand about your hippie mentality is why you consider triumph to be independent, and guilt to be communal. Notice that whenever I posted that 'we are there for a reason', or anything of the type, the response: you're not there at all! Unless you're there dodging bullets and bombs, then you have no right to say that!

Yet I am expected to just buckle under to statements like the above - that when, rarely, a soldier does go past his authority or violates the Geneva convention, that I'm just supposed to notch another little hole in my conscience, spit on the flag of my country, and feel shame and guilt?

Do you really think that you could arm and equip 750,000 teenagers, set them free on a country, and expect everything to go well? Ask the residents of Cancun or Daytona Beach how much havok unarmed teenagers have wrought in the past.

The most telling thing about any problems we have experienced in this war is not that there have been instances of cruelty or abuse: it is that our media has picked up on this fact and reported it. That we as a people have recognized the problem, have taken responsibility for it (even as our administration has, at times, hummed and hawed about it). That those who commit these crimes are tried and brought to justice.

The most telling thing I notice about 'liberals' is how quickly they are willing to say and think the worst possible thing about their country and their countrymen. You want the US to be wrong, you want the US to be evil. Which is just ridiculous to me.

"Even if there was a 'Saddam problem' it was being solved quite well by the UN."

Then why was the UN constantly complaining that they couldn't get proper access? Why were they taking kickbacks? Why were several UN countries selling weapons and materiel to Saddam? Why was the UN starving the poor in Iraq through ineffective sanctions?

"Facts don't have sides, Joe. Facts are so strong that they don't need 'em and stand on their own."

Really? And tell me, how do you know what is a fact? All the knowledge you receive is secondhand. Even during civil cases the judge asks both sides to 'tell their story', which points to the very subjective nature of 'fact' as we understand it. Unless you are dealing with some very specific cases, the concept of fact is very subjective - even with OJ's fingerprints on the knife he was found innocent.

That you seem to think that you are always right, and the people with whom you disagree always wrong, is the very reason I find people like you intolerable.

"They may have power right now but we have the truth on our side."

Who is 'they'? Who is 'we'? Last I checked, we're all part of the same country. I'd wager that in your family there is probably someone who has a different political mindset than you do. You're making it an 'us or them' mentality is one of the larger problems of the issue.

It just amazes me that there could be such a large collection of people whose entire concept of 'change' or 'power' is monitoring their government for the slightest thing to mock or ridicule, then patting each other on the back and talking about how stupid everyone is but them.

And then when someone asks them for their ideas, what they want to do ...

Silence.

Note that despite my repeated requests for any alternatives to the current situation in Iraq, nobody has posted anything. Nobody has a solution to the old situation, nobody has a solution to the current situation.

Because all of you are reactionaries. You have put yourself in the ultimate position for professional doubters: the position of finding fault with what everbody else does, speaking loudly about how you knew better (always in the past tense) and patting yourself on the back for being so 'liberal', so 'open-minded'.

Clinically this type of mentality is called oppositional defiant disorder. Your entire position is being against everything - if, in fact, you were handed the power to change the world to your vision you would be immobilized, because you have no vision of your own. You simply have your contrary position, which you believe elevates you above those with beliefs.

"I find people like you intolerable." ..."Who is 'they'? Who is 'we'? Last I checked, we're all part of the same country." ... "You're making it an 'us or them' mentality is one of the larger problems of the issue." ..."all of you are reactionaries"

I think someone is Hungry, Angry, Lonely, or Tired

2 o'clock said: "FactChecker, "neocon" doesn't refer to millions of people, just a few dozen."

Where did I say that it did?

Joe still didn't answer my question, which was:

I'm curious why you argue for our invasion of Iraq. Although you said in an earlier post that you aren't for this war. So far, you've said you wouldn't have sent troops for humanitarian reasons (chicks wearing veils). And you agree that there weren't any WMD. The only reason left I can think of was to remove Saddam, which you seem to support. But if you wanted to remove Saddam, what would be the reason to do it except for humanitarian reasons or WMD? I'm a little confused and am thinking maybe you should fully explain your thinking.

""neocon" tagline...lump millions of people's opinions together fairly and accurately"

maybe i misunderstood

There was a plan on Iraq, it was the return of the weapons inspectors, it was progressing as well as could be expected considering we were dealing with a desperate dictator but it was progressing. Bush lost patience (and/or understanding) with it and invaded a nation because apparently that’s what god wanted and subsequently blew that plan to bits (once again literally). What is the plan now? I don’t know, it’s a f**king mess. We had a plan, we were dealing with Iraq, slowly but it was bringing results. We were slowly weakening the power of a dictator without bombing the crap out of innocent civilians. Who knows what these policies may have achieved. We’ll never know. This is why your criticism of the people on this thread opposing the war is so flawed. You debate from a point of view that there was no other alternative, there were alternatives. Joe, we had a plan , people were monitoring it and abunch of rich, corrupt businessman and professional rightwing lobbyists who skillfully manipulated one of the weakest presidents ever decided that all Iran needed was a couple of huge explosions and they’d all be lining up to set up Wal-Marts and drink Coke. It’s painful to think that the people advising one of the most powerful leaders in the world could be so simplistic.

Joe, we had a plan , people were monitoring it and abunch of rich, corrupt businessman and professional rightwing lobbyists who skillfully manipulated one of the weakest presidents ever decided that all "Iraq" needed was a couple of huge explosions and they’d all be lining up to set up Wal-Marts and drink Coke. It’s painful to think that the people advising one of the most powerful leaders in the world could be so simplistic

"Joe still didn't answer my question, which was: I'm curious why you argue for our invasion of Iraq."

Yes I did, when I said:

"I don't".

I suggest putting down the bong, letting your mind clear, THEN posting.

"We had a plan, we were dealing with Iraq, slowly but it was bringing results. We were slowly weakening the power of a dictator"

This is pure wishful thinking. Yes, Bush jumped the gun on attacking Iraq. But pretending that anything we were doing was 'weakening Saddam' is pure revisionist history. The guy lived in a gold palace, ate well, had an iron grip on his country, and millions of dollars squirreled away.

"It’s painful to think that the people advising one of the most powerful leaders in the world could be so simplistic"

I'm completely in agreement. I can't imagine how anyone could be so naive as to think that any country is going to welcome invaders with open arms, be they US or UN.

But that doesn't mean that doing nothing would have solved the problem, either.

"You debate from a point of view that there was no other alternative, there were alternatives. Joe, we had a plan"

I'm not arguing that there were no other alternatives - I'm arguing that nobody is proposing them. You're basically saying that the alternative was to keep doing what we were doing before the US invaded. Certainly that is an alternative, but it's not a new or radical one. And I disagree that it would have had some sudden and profound impact that the 10 previous years did not have.

So to this point we have seen two options pitched:

1. Keep the sanctions and weapons inspections.
2. Invade.

Note that these are the two choices that someone claimed I was proposing ... I'm still waiting for a different suggestion.

Maybe our only two choices were to 'do nothing' or 'do something'. I'm perfectly willing to accept that 'doing nothing' (letting the UN keep failing at its job) was a valid alternative ... Saddam certainly wasn't hurting me. But people offering that as a choice need to realize that this would have meant many more years of Saddam and his brutal regime thumbing their nose at the rest of the world. This kind of makes the UN look pointless and ineffective. Not that the UN has often managed to seem otherwise.

Would that have been worse than what we have now? Hell if I know. Given the quagmire we're currently in it certainly looks attractive ... but isn't that the definition of relativism?

Maybe this whole situation is more complex than just being for/against something?

In any case, I don't have a time machine. I'm relatively sure you don't either. So the question is, what do we do now? I'd love to see the president impeached or someone charged for falsifying the 'intelligence', I'd love to see justice for that. But at the end of the day we have troops dying in Iraq, we have a country destabilized.

Anyone have any ideas about that one?

well, no one's suggesting what should be done about our present situation because our discussion has been focusing on the events leading up to the invasion.

someones quoted the UN reports that the iraqi scientists were cooperating, etc. You yourself stated that Bush rushed in. what exactly did you mean about that? fact is that saddam was isolated and unarmed. he was contained.

as to the current situation, how can I propose a plan? I'm not there, on the ground. I don't have access to top secret information. I'm not familiar with the 10 thousand intricacies that need to be navigated. The only people who can make a truly comprehensive plan are the iraqi people and the US forces. Bush and friends created this problem, against my wishes, against an overwhelming majority of the world's wishes. it is his mess.

nevertheless, the one thing that needs to be present in any plan is legitimacy. I don't think the average iraqi sees the american forces as legitimate rulers. Perhaps an international force is needed. maybe a UN peacekeeping mission (remember those?) in close conjunctions with the Arab League.

since i'm getting tired of this, i'm giving you links to some articles which present various "plans" for Iraq. I don't expect these to satisfy you. i'd imagine you'll be able to go on for 40 days and 40 nights about the faults in any plan presented. so be it...

well, no one's suggesting what should be done about our present situation because our discussion has been focusing on the events leading up to the invasion.

someones quoted the UN reports that the iraqi scientists were cooperating, etc. You yourself stated that Bush rushed in. what exactly did you mean about that? fact is that saddam was isolated and unarmed. he was contained.

as to the current situation, how can I propose a plan? I'm not there, on the ground. I don't have access to top secret information. I'm not familiar with the 10 thousand intricacies that need to be navigated. The only people who can make a truly comprehensive plan are the iraqi people and the US forces. Bush and friends created this problem, against my wishes, against an overwhelming majority of the world's wishes. it is his mess.

nevertheless, the one thing that needs to be present in any plan is legitimacy. I don't think the average iraqi sees the american forces as legitimate rulers. Perhaps an international force is needed. maybe a UN peacekeeping mission (remember those?) in close conjunctions with the Arab League.
that's all i have to say about that

well, no one's suggesting what should be done about our present situation because our discussion has been focusing on the events leading up to the invasion.

someones quoted the UN reports that the iraqi scientists were cooperating, etc. You yourself stated that Bush rushed in. what exactly did you mean about that? fact is that saddam was isolated and unarmed. he was contained.

as to the current situation, how can I propose a plan? I'm not there, on the ground. I don't have access to top secret information. I'm not familiar with the 10 thousand intricacies that need to be navigated. The only people who can make a truly comprehensive plan are the iraqi people and the US forces. Bush and friends created this problem, against my wishes, against an overwhelming majority of the world's wishes. it is his mess.

nevertheless, the one thing that needs to be present in any plan is legitimacy. I don't think the average iraqi sees the american forces as legitimate rulers. Perhaps an international force is needed. maybe a UN peacekeeping mission (remember those?) in close conjunctions with the Arab League.
that's all i have to say about that

2 O'CLOCK:

YOU WROTE (THEN DELETED): "...since i'm getting tired of this, i'm giving you links to some articles which present various "plans" for Iraq."

NO! PLEASE SEND THE LINKS! I THINK THEY WOULD BE INTERESTING TO ALL OF US, REGARDLESS OF THE ARGUMENT YOU'VE GOT GOING WITH JOE!

(APOLOGIES FOR THE ABSURD CAPS LOCK.)

HOW BOUT' IT?

Joe posted:

"Joe still didn't answer my question, which was: I'm curious why you argue for our invasion of Iraq."

Yes I did, when I said:

"I don't".

I suggest putting down the bong, letting your mind clear, THEN posting.

Okay, I get it.....you're just a jerk. Sorry for asking you to clarify, it was obviously a completely pointless endeavor. ; )

Joe Joe Joe.... Rumsfeld shook hands with Saddam the same week he gased the Kurds. Where was the US gvt outrage back then....there was none because Saddam was an ally....oh the hypocrosy of it all.

Bush is NOW saying that he wants to bring freedom to the Iraqi people, he says this like he as no ulterior motive, maybe freedom should of been brought to the Iraqis when Iraq was an ally of America.

I guess what i'm saying is this. The US should never befriend ruthless dictators or ruthless governments for selfish persuasions. In the long run, these types of relationships never pays off....

This as been the policy of the American gvt since the end of second world war. The US as propped up many ruthless gvts around the world even though the people of these countries were being troddened down,(to put it lightly). Over time these gvts were overthrown by the people (ie: Iran in 1979)

The world does not hate America for it's freedom, it hates America for being Accomplice in the torture of innocent people by corrupted gvt's over the pass 60 yrs.... Many of these gvt that tortured it's citizen were propped up by America. (ie: Saddam in the 80's, the Shaw of Iran was put in power in the 50's by England and the United States. The coup d'etat was done to undermine the Iranian national election....the Iranians back then were working toward a constitution similar to that of the US. Had they not overthrown the legitimate gvt of Iran back then, Iran would of become a DEMOCRACY......

Funny that it is now the US and the British that are now trying to bring democracy to this same area..,

Anyway if America wants to live by the sword ....well you know the rest

"'I do not believe Joe is out to change anyone's mind so much as to antagonize' (Joe quoting me)

Perhaps you don't realize the negative light this sheds upon your fellow hippies? What are your intentions in posting to a site where you actively shun anyone who disagrees with your party line, and commiserate amongst each other about your lies? This is a propaganda board, plain and simple."(Joe's quote)

Wow. I say I think someone's trying to antagonize, and based off this opinion, I've clearly shown evidence of being:

• a fellow hippie.
• someone who actively shuns anyone who disagrees with "my" party line.

Interesting. Well, since you asked, my big intention is to remind people to consider the reason behind people making posts when analyzing their post. My intention with the above was to diffuse the rancor, since I felt your post's goal was to stir up animosity on this liberal "propaganda board."

Seriously, if I go to a self-identified republican or conservative board and posted comments (substituting chickenhawk for hippie and conservative for liberal, naturally) like:

"Neverminding, of course, that all you hippies had no problems with..."

"It's really rather funny how selective your memory can be when you're feeling self-righteous."

"Backbone, or lack thereof, is why liberals can't seem to get their act together."

3 comments, from your first post in this thread, and you're alreaedy on the offensive. If you honestly wanted a valid retort, this is not how you would have phrased your questions.

In short, if you really want answers, ask questions. But if you want to piss people off, namecall and point fingers.

BTW - my intention in this post was to illustrate that your points, however valid, are invalidated by your method of communication.

Joe,

I really don't think that you believe half of the things you say. I believe you are just trying to get a reaction by being inflamatory with half ass facts and name calling.

You're assertion that human rights was a good enough reason for invading a nation, if that were the case, then we would be invading half of the world.

Nothing is going to change your mind - but, before you throw some of your versions of history, look it up before you write it. I bet you are one of those that thinks that the beef between the U.S. and Iran started at the hostage crisis in 1979. Go back to 1951 and see what actually started it.

One question for you...

What would you do if another country invaded us and manipulated our government? Would you sit back and trust that it is for our own good, or would you rise up and fight them?

I know it's hard for you to fathom, but try.

Nah, a knockout blow would have been to point out that Bush kicked the weapons inspectors out of Iraq, and just as they were to report that there were no weapons and they were going onto the next stage, containment.

here's a silly story:

drunk guy and wife are at a party. drunk guy insists on driving home. wife says, "you're too drunk, let me drive!" drunk guy ignores wife, jumps into car with wife in passenger seat and speeds off. a mile down the road he looses control, crashes into a tree, and they're both barely able to get out of the car before it bursts into flames. wife says, "i told you you were to drunk to drive!" drunk guy says, "you think you could do better, go ahead. lets see you drive home in that thing" he gestures to the burning destroyed car wrapped around the tree.

so you say the "liberals" don't have a plan for iraq. that's because iraq is fucked, thankyou GWB

George W. Bush is our commander-in-chief. HE needs to have a plan. Have I heard a plan from democrats? no have I heard a plan from conservatives? no. have I ever heard any plan from anyone including the guys in the admin who started this war? no, unless you count: "Shock and Awe will cripple their will to resist"

if "the liberals" seem to be excessive naysayers lately, it's because the president's ideas have been excessively asinine.

what's your plan, joe? what's the conservative plan? to continue coming up with bullshit rationalizations for a bullshit war because heaven forbid the troops ever get the impression that they're risking their lives because of a giant fuck up. do you somehow take the lack of a "liberal plan" as some sort of justification for what's going on in iraq? 'it's all the liberals' fault; THEY don't have a plan.' no one has a plan, joe. there never was a plan. not a realistic one, anyway. and it's not the fault of liberals, or conservatives, or gay evangelicals or aborted creationists. our commander-in-chief chose to begin this, and he has said or done nothing about finishing it.

you still want a plan? here's my liberal plan: learn chinese, because once we're bankrupted from the costs of two foreign wars and the 4 biggest tax cuts in the nation's history, they're going to be the new masters of the universe: http://democraticwhip.house.gov/docuploads/budget05_tanner.pdf

Ever wonder why China is willing to underwrite our war costs?