Did THEY "Cherry Pick" the Intelligence?

[Adam's Apple]

Did the Democrats forget already that we had this debate during the 2004 presidential election campaign, and 3-1/2 million more people agreed with Bush than with Kerry and the Democrats?

Opponents Say Bush Lied; Read between the Lines
By Jonathan Gurwitz, The San Antonio Express-News
11/13/2005

Opponents of President Bush routinely invoke the incantation that he lied about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to take the nation to war.

"Urges the President to take all necessary and appropriate actions to respond to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
— Text of Senate Concurrent Resolution 71, Jan. 28, 1998, co-sponsored by Democrats Tom Daschle, Patrick Leahy, Max Cleland, John Kerry and Robert Byrd, among others

In doing so, they conveniently overlook the fact that if Bush lied, a long list of liberal icons have also been lying for a very long time, some from before the time he arrived in the Oval Office.

"(Iraq) admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability — notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And might I say, UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production."
— Text of President Clinton's address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff, Feb. 17, 1998

Of course, it's not the continuity of intelligence findings and Bush's reliance on them that his detractors find objectionable. It's what he did in response.

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
— Press release from Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., Dec. 16, 1998
Clinton fired cruise missiles and put his faith in what we now know was a corrupt and ineffectual U.N. sanctions regime in a fruitless effort to keep Saddam in a box.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
— From an address by Al Gore to the Commonwealth Club of California, Sept. 23, 2002

In fairness to Clinton, there was no consensus in American politics to initiate major military operations against the Baathist regime or other state sponsors of international terror before Sept. 11, 2001. There was barely such a consensus afterward.

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last four years ... he has continued to build those weapons."
— Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, Oct. 9, 2002

But the central issue of the presidential election one year ago was Iraq: why we are there, how we got there and whether Bush misled the nation.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years."
— Floor statement of Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Oct. 10, 2002

Having lost that election — in effect, a plebiscite on what Bush did about the intelligence information he, his predecessors and Democrats and Republicans in the House and the Senate agreed upon — Bush opponents are left banging their heads against a wall, repeating the meaningless mantra, "Bush lied."

"Under Saddam's rule, Iraq has engaged in far-reaching human rights abuses, been a state sponsor of terrorism and has long sought to obtain and develop weapons of mass destruction."
— Statement from the Web site of Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, dated 2002

Only the blindly partisan, the ignorant and the gullible can subscribe to the belief that Bush — and, somehow, Bush alone — lied about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

"I consider the prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam Hussein who can threaten not only his neighbors, but the stability of the region and the world, a very serious threat to the United States."
— Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York at a Jan. 22, 2003, press conference

www.mysanantonio.com

 

[CSM]

Somehow, the statements and positiond presented by Democrats on the issue are conveniently forgotten which makes the libs appear even more hypocritical.

 

[Harmageddon]

From my perspective, it seems that almost your entire government has been complicit in either fabricating or "catapulting the propaganda", in GW Bush's words, to march your country into a war over a pile of oil and more importantly, a fraudulent idea.

I think the whole affair is a fairly complex problem, and in it, two key players are responsible for our current state of world affairs.

On the one hand, there are these Muslim extremists, inspired by Mohammed Kutb, who stated in the fifties that people should be united under a common goal, to lay the foundations for shared values that would hold society together. Because the individualism that he witnessed in the fifties in America, was to him some corrupting force that turned human beings into selfish animalistic things, dwarves of their former selves. According to Kutb, the shared values that would hold society together, should be the Koran, the law of Islam.

Thus inspired, his pupil Al Zawahri started creating a small group of extremists that would make this happen. He blew some people up in Egypt, served some prison time, and finally met Bin Laden in Afghanistan, in the war against the Russians. Togethere, they have been trying for decades to get the people in Muslim countries see the error of their secular regime. By blowing up innocent civilians, they hoped that the populace would see that their country had been corrupted to the core and that they would rise up and overthrow their leaders, and subsequently install a Muslim theocracy.

Small surprise blowing up civilians didn't really work in mobilizing them.
But then, these people are extremists, aka insane. They just think "whatever, that didn't work, maybe we should use a bigger bomb". It's truly sad.

On the other hand, there are the neoconservatives. They have been inspired by Leo Strauss, who stated, in the fifties, that people should be united under a common goal, to lay the foundations for shared values that would hold society together. He was an American, and inspired a small group of students to form a small group that would do this. Because Strauss too, like Kutb, believed that individualism ultimately undermined the shared values that would hold society together. Without these shared values, society would descend into chaos, and we would become animalistic, selfish beings, dwarves of our former selves.

The shared values according to Strauss could be anything, and they did not necessarily need to be true. Religion could work as a unifying cause, but so could nationalism. To Strauss, it didn't really matter, as long as it was there.
To keep society from descending into a barbaric age.

Thus, his pupils, Wolfowitz, Perle and others, created an image of America as the sole force of good in the world, that would combat all evil across the globe, and spread democracy in it's wake. This was not true of course, since America is not the sole force of good in the world, and non-democratic regimes are not necessarily evil. It was a simplified, and thus inaccurate view of the world, but it would serve it's purpose: to unite the American people under a common cause.

They did not get their necessary reforms under Reagan, since he had a more pragmatic view of the world. The Russians were evil, yes, but they could be dealt with using diplomacy instead of an all-out war. Only at the end of Reagan's reign, did they get their ideas more firmly in Reagans mind. But by then, Reagan could not implement the agenda fully enough. The neocons disapeared to backstage for a while - during this period, the Muslim extremists had also seen all of their "revolutions" fail. Both groups went back to plotting.

Then, the Project for the New American Century's publication, "Rebuilding America's Defences" was printed in september 2000. Authors: Wolfowitz and others, in short: Straussians.

It called for the above, but in it, the authors realize a catalyst event is necessary for the above false premise of the American nation to gain traction. A "pearl harbour like" event should serve as a catalyst, that would quickly get the American people behind the banner of the War on Terror, that would be a unifying cause to prevent American society from degrading into selfish chaos.
It might not be true, but it was necessary.

One year later, 9/11 2001 was etched forever in our memories.

 

[Mr. P]

Howard Dean was on “Meet the Press” yesterday beating this “Bush Lied” drum.
Kickoff of the 06 democratic campaign, maybe?

 

[CSM]

From my perspective, it seems that almost your entire government has been complicit in either fabricating or "catapulting the propaganda", in GW Bush's words, to march your country into a war over a pile of oil and more importantly, a fraudulent idea. .....

If only that were true! That "pile of oil" has yet to be seen. All oil profits (such as they are) from Iraqi oil are being poured right back into rebuilding Iraq.

As for the fraudulent idea....which idea would that be...democracy? freedom? removal of a tyrant? that Saddam was seeking WMD...which idea are you calling fraudulent?

 

[Harmageddon]

Originally posted by CSM:
If only that were true! That "pile of oil" has yet to be seen. All oil profits (such as they are) from Iraqi oil are being poured right back into rebuilding Iraq.

As for the fraudulent idea....which idea would that be...democracy? freedom? removal of a tyrant? that Saddam was seeking WMD...which idea are you calling fraudulent?

Ok, so maybe I should have dropped the oil remark.
It's just something you hear a lot about, with Haliburton doing more reconstruction than drilling for oil, that was a little off-target.

What I was referring to with the "fraudulent idea" is the idea that America IS the sole force of good in the world, that everybody else is basically less good than America, and thus America's task in the world should be to defeat the "evil" in the world, and bring democracy in the wake of the destruction.

The idea that America is a sole force of good in the world is ridiculous.
If you look throughout history, not one nation in the world has ever been a force of good; instead, countries have done some good things and some bad things, like any other country.

But the idea, however untrue it may be, works marvelously as a unifying cause. The war on terror serves to keep the American people unified.

That is it's primary goal.

Secondary, a few dictators may be killed as well as some civilians that just happen to be born in the wrong place at the wrong time. But that is the secondary goal: and for it to serve the primary one, war needs to be continuous. Syria? Iran? What's it going to be?

 

[CSM]

Ok, so maybe I should have dropped the oil remark.
It's just something you hear a lot about, with Haliburton doing more reconstruction than drilling for oil, that was a little off-target.

What I was referring to with the "fraudulent idea" is the idea that America IS the sole force of good in the world, that everybody else is basically less good than America, and thus America's task in the world should be to defeat the "evil" in the world, and bring democracy in the wake of the destruction.

The idea that America is a sole force of good in the world is ridiculous.
If you look throughout history, not one nation in the world has ever been a force of good; instead, countries have done some good things and some bad things, like any other country.

But the idea, however untrue it may be, works marvelously as a unifying cause. The war on terror serves to keep the American people unified.

That is it's primary goal.

Secondary, a few dictators may be killed as well as some civilians that just happen to be born in the wrong place at the wrong time. But that is the secondary goal: and for it to serve the primary one, war needs to be continuous. Syria? Iran? What's it going to be?

From my perspective, I do not think that the US is the sole force for good in the world nor do I think that most Americans believe that either. The US however, is probably in a better position econmically to do things "globally" especially when compared to other countries. Funny thing about Americans is that when approached with a friendly attitude and a warm smile, they (the Americans) are likely to be very friendly...New Yorkers are the exception (just kidding!). If you attack them (in genereal as a people) they can be very vindictive and then somebody is going to pay a price. Once that is over with, they are just as likely to want to be friends againa s they are to hold a grudge. All of this is generalization of course but I think it is accurate for the most part.

 

[Harmageddon]

I agree with your generalizations

However, taken that America is in a better position to engage in global activities than say, the tiny country of the Netherlands, I and a lot of Europeans with me, still feel that America has been flipping the finger in the face of the world (Powell's presentation to the UN about Iraq's weapon capabilites, of which he later admitted he was lying).

Flipping the finger to your allies and lying to them to get things done is not in my view the way forward to an era of progressive cooperation. Going into Iraq and threatening your allies by stating "You are either with us, or against us" does not improve things either. Not that I think America will ever attack it's allies over such a statement, but still.

I do think that once this whole thing is over with, Europe and America can get back to friendlier territory. But as is the case with large masses of people, that is probably going to take quite some time.

 

[CSM]

I agree with your generalizations

However, taken that America is in a better position to engage in global activities than say, the tiny country of the Netherlands, I and a lot of Europeans with me, still feel that America has been flipping the finger in the face of the world (Powell's presentation to the UN about Iraq's weapon capabilites, of which he later admitted he was lying).

Flipping the finger to your allies and lying to them to get things done is not in my view the way forward to an era of progressive cooperation. Going into Iraq and threatening your allies by stating "You are either with us, or against us" does not improve things either. Not that I think America will ever attack it's allies over such a statement, but still.

I do think that once this whole thing is over with, Europe and America can get back to friendlier territory. But as is the case with large masses of people, that is probably going to take quite some time.

Obviously, we can discuss the particular strategy for approaching different issues ad nauseum and never come to agreement. Lying, it seems to me is part of diplomacy. Let us not forget that some European countries were undeniably deceitful in their role in events leading to the invasion of Iraq. France and Germany in particular were "flipping the finger" at the US by blocking efforts to enforce sanctions on Iraq while covertly supplying Saddam with mutually lucrative deals. The UN was also "flipping the US the finger" by censuring the US while at thee same time taking kickbacks in the Oil for Food program. Seems to me there was a whole bunch of finger flipping going on and it wasn't just the US. Is it any wonder that the US sent the for/against us message to the rest of the world?

 

[Annie]

I agree with your generalizations

However, taken that America is in a better position to engage in global activities than say, the tiny country of the Netherlands, I and a lot of Europeans with me, still feel that America has been flipping the finger in the face of the world (Powell's presentation to the UN about Iraq's weapon capabilites, of which he later admitted he was lying).

Flipping the finger to your allies and lying to them to get things done is not in my view the way forward to an era of progressive cooperation. Going into Iraq and threatening your allies by stating "You are either with us, or against us" does not improve things either. Not that I think America will ever attack it's allies over such a statement, but still.

I do think that once this whole thing is over with, Europe and America can get back to friendlier territory. But as is the case with large masses of people, that is probably going to take quite some time.

I'm seriously wondering who you consider our allies in Europe? UK and the Eastern nations is what I see. You have a different perspective? I hardly would call the Netherlands an ally. Why would I?

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Not to mention, in '98, it became CLINTON ADMINISTRATION POLICY for REGIME CHANGE IN IRAQ. Bush just had the balls to carry it out.

We went to Iraq for OIL??? Bizarre,,since we already were able to get as much oil from them as possible BEFORE the invasion. Usual convoluted Liberal thinking.

And talk about the art of deception and deflection, LIARgeddon has to start of his limp ass attempt at a rebuttal by changing the subject. THE subject is how the DEMS are now lying about this issue to beat on Bush.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

BWAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHA

BWAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHA

You know, there is one major problem with your "OPINON" stated below. You use NO QUOTES, NO FACTS, NO STUDIES, NO INFORMATION WHATSOEVER, Its FULLY and COMPLETELY 100%%%%%%%%%%% NOTHING but your biased opinion.

And since your opinion has already been shown to have a strong bias, based on lies and misleading information, and you have zero credibility, then the portion of the page I printed, with your words on it, well, its not even fit to serve as toilet paper.

From my perspective, it seems that almost your entire government has been complicit in either fabricating or "catapulting the propaganda", in GW Bush's words, to march your country into a war over a pile of oil and more importantly, a fraudulent idea.

I think the whole affair is a fairly complex problem, and in it, two key players are responsible for our current state of world affairs.

On the one hand, there are these Muslim extremists, inspired by Mohammed Kutb, who stated in the fifties that people should be united under a common goal, to lay the foundations for shared values that would hold society together. Because the individualism that he witnessed in the fifties in America, was to him some corrupting force that turned human beings into selfish animalistic things, dwarves of their former selves. According to Kutb, the shared values that would hold society together, should be the Koran, the law of Islam.

Thus inspired, his pupil Al Zawahri started creating a small group of extremists that would make this happen. He blew some people up in Egypt, served some prison time, and finally met Bin Laden in Afghanistan, in the war against the Russians. Togethere, they have been trying for decades to get the people in Muslim countries see the error of their secular regime. By blowing up innocent civilians, they hoped that the populace would see that their country had been corrupted to the core and that they would rise up and overthrow their leaders, and subsequently install a Muslim theocracy.

Small surprise blowing up civilians didn't really work in mobilizing them.
But then, these people are extremists, aka insane. They just think "whatever, that didn't work, maybe we should use a bigger bomb". It's truly sad.

On the other hand, there are the neoconservatives. They have been inspired by Leo Strauss, who stated, in the fifties, that people should be united under a common goal, to lay the foundations for shared values that would hold society together. He was an American, and inspired a small group of students to form a small group that would do this. Because Strauss too, like Kutb, believed that individualism ultimately undermined the shared values that would hold society together. Without these shared values, society would descend into chaos, and we would become animalistic, selfish beings, dwarves of our former selves.

The shared values according to Strauss could be anything, and they did not necessarily need to be true. Religion could work as a unifying cause, but so could nationalism. To Strauss, it didn't really matter, as long as it was there.
To keep society from descending into a barbaric age.

Thus, his pupils, Wolfowitz, Perle and others, created an image of America as the sole force of good in the world, that would combat all evil across the globe, and spread democracy in it's wake. This was not true of course, since America is not the sole force of good in the world, and non-democratic regimes are not necessarily evil. It was a simplified, and thus inaccurate view of the world, but it would serve it's purpose: to unite the American people under a common cause.

They did not get their necessary reforms under Reagan, since he had a more pragmatic view of the world. The Russians were evil, yes, but they could be dealt with using diplomacy instead of an all-out war. Only at the end of Reagan's reign, did they get their ideas more firmly in Reagans mind. But by then, Reagan could not implement the agenda fully enough. The neocons disapeared to backstage for a while - during this period, the Muslim extremists had also seen all of their "revolutions" fail. Both groups went back to plotting.

Then, the Project for the New American Century's publication, "Rebuilding America's Defences" was printed in september 2000. Authors: Wolfowitz and others, in short: Straussians.

It called for the above, but in it, the authors realize a catalyst event is necessary for the above false premise of the American nation to gain traction. A "pearl harbour like" event should serve as a catalyst, that would quickly get the American people behind the banner of the War on Terror, that would be a unifying cause to prevent American society from degrading into selfish chaos.
It might not be true, but it was necessary.

One year later, 9/11 2001 was etched forever in our memories.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Howard Dean was on “Meet the Press” yesterday beating this “Bush Lied” drum.
Kickoff of the 06 democratic campaign, maybe?

Lets hope they keep ol Dean at the forefront. He will mess up regularly, exposing the left as an extreme group based on hatred.

I loved his interview where he claimed Repubs never work an honest day, want to see kids as slaves again, etc, etc.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

WE'RE WE AWARE OF WHAT????
That you have an opinion? :duh3:

From my perspective, it seems that almost your entire government has been complicit in either fabricating or "catapulting the propaganda", in GW Bush's words, to march your country into a war over a pile of oil and more importantly, a fraudulent idea.

I think the whole affair is a fairly complex problem, and in it, two key players are responsible for our current state of world affairs.

On the one hand, there are these Muslim extremists, inspired by Mohammed Kutb, who stated in the fifties that people should be united under a common goal, to lay the foundations for shared values that would hold society together. Because the individualism that he witnessed in the fifties in America, was to him some corrupting force that turned human beings into selfish animalistic things, dwarves of their former selves. According to Kutb, the shared values that would hold society together, should be the Koran, the law of Islam.

Thus inspired, his pupil Al Zawahri started creating a small group of extremists that would make this happen. He blew some people up in Egypt, served some prison time, and finally met Bin Laden in Afghanistan, in the war against the Russians. Togethere, they have been trying for decades to get the people in Muslim countries see the error of their secular regime. By blowing up innocent civilians, they hoped that the populace would see that their country had been corrupted to the core and that they would rise up and overthrow their leaders, and subsequently install a Muslim theocracy.

Small surprise blowing up civilians didn't really work in mobilizing them.
But then, these people are extremists, aka insane. They just think "whatever, that didn't work, maybe we should use a bigger bomb". It's truly sad.

On the other hand, there are the neoconservatives. They have been inspired by Leo Strauss, who stated, in the fifties, that people should be united under a common goal, to lay the foundations for shared values that would hold society together. He was an American, and inspired a small group of students to form a small group that would do this. Because Strauss too, like Kutb, believed that individualism ultimately undermined the shared values that would hold society together. Without these shared values, society would descend into chaos, and we would become animalistic, selfish beings, dwarves of our former selves.

The shared values according to Strauss could be anything, and they did not necessarily need to be true. Religion could work as a unifying cause, but so could nationalism. To Strauss, it didn't really matter, as long as it was there.
To keep society from descending into a barbaric age.

Thus, his pupils, Wolfowitz, Perle and others, created an image of America as the sole force of good in the world, that would combat all evil across the globe, and spread democracy in it's wake. This was not true of course, since America is not the sole force of good in the world, and non-democratic regimes are not necessarily evil. It was a simplified, and thus inaccurate view of the world, but it would serve it's purpose: to unite the American people under a common cause.

They did not get their necessary reforms under Reagan, since he had a more pragmatic view of the world. The Russians were evil, yes, but they could be dealt with using diplomacy instead of an all-out war. Only at the end of Reagan's reign, did they get their ideas more firmly in Reagans mind. But by then, Reagan could not implement the agenda fully enough. The neocons disapeared to backstage for a while - during this period, the Muslim extremists had also seen all of their "revolutions" fail. Both groups went back to plotting.

Then, the Project for the New American Century's publication, "Rebuilding America's Defences" was printed in september 2000. Authors: Wolfowitz and others, in short: Straussians.

It called for the above, but in it, the authors realize a catalyst event is necessary for the above false premise of the American nation to gain traction. A "pearl harbour like" event should serve as a catalyst, that would quickly get the American people behind the banner of the War on Terror, that would be a unifying cause to prevent American society from degrading into selfish chaos.
It might not be true, but it was necessary.

One year later, 9/11 2001 was etched forever in our memories.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Ok, so maybe I should have dropped the oil remark.
It's just something you hear a lot about, with Haliburton doing more reconstruction than drilling for oil, that was a little off-target.

?

Thats because you thought you could get away with it. You are guilty of spreading the propaganda. War for oil is one of the many lies that the left perpetuates, and some people are gullible and uninformed enough to believe.

If you hadnt been called on it, you would have continued that propaganda.

As for your tiny little Netherlands being as good a force for good, and Europe in general, EUROPE is in major problem, collapsing, soon to sucumb to the Muslim immigrants who are NOT adopting the culture of the country they are moving into.

You idea is socialism, it doesnt work. Our capitalistic system is just fine thanks, leave it alone please. Our enemies is what causes wars, not our desire to spread democracy. The enemy is also within, spreading lies about us going to Iraq for oil, and socialism of the now seriously failing Europe, (Paris is on fire, unemployment in Germany and elsewhere is out of hand, a pastor is being charged with a crime for giving a sermon in Sweden) being "better" than what we have.

America, by and large, prefers to be left alone, but it just isnt gonna happen. Being the big kid on the block, the WORLD looks to us for leadership. "To whom much is given, much is expected."

DO we do evil sometimes, of course. But the overall ledger is waaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyy in our favor.

Do we make honest mistakes sometimes, of course, I as a father of five have also made mistakes with my kids.

America is the beacon of light, truth, justice, the Statue of Liberty, she stands tall, but the liberals are climbing her arm in pursuit of gain, eager to crawl over anyone and everyone who gets in their way in pursuit of money, power, control and fame. When they reach the top for good, they will extinguish the light that Washington and other neo cons of their time, started.

You love socialism so well, buy a ticket to Paris. Oh, take your fire jacket, and car insurance policy. Oh, and make out a will before leaving please.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

I agree with your generalizations

However, taken that America is in a better position to engage in global activities than say, the tiny country of the Netherlands, I and a lot of Europeans with me, still feel that America has been flipping the finger in the face of the world (Powell's presentation to the UN about Iraq's weapon capabilites, of which he later admitted he was lying).

Flipping the finger to your allies and lying to them to get things done is not in my view the way forward to an era of progressive cooperation. Going into Iraq and threatening your allies by stating "You are either with us, or against us" does not improve things either. Not that I think America will ever attack it's allies over such a statement, but still.

I do think that once this whole thing is over with, Europe and America can get back to friendlier territory. But as is the case with large masses of people, that is probably going to take quite some time.

You have proof Powell admitted he LIED? LIED????

As for us getting along with Europe, of course they would like to have a say so in how we conduct ourselves, because they are no longer in the posistion of authority or power. They forfeited that when they went to socialistic ideas and have weakened themselves.

Besides, why should we listen to a bunch of corrupt regimes. France was doing illegal trading with saddam, oil for food has proven to be a major farce. The main reason Russia, Germany and France didnt want to invade Iraq was because they knew it would expose the corruption, which is exactly what happened.

Who gives a rats ass if alot of the rest of the world doesnt like us. THEY have changed, not us. Their lack of gratitude is the problem. Take the Philippines for example. Those idiots have enough anti American sentiment charged up so that we no longer invest there, and now they have gone from the "pearl of the orient" to a third world country. They export their women as prostitutes, sell their children into pedophilia, (mostlly to those western Europeans you so love and adore) and their people are imprisoned on an island of poverty. China joined up with us and is extremely succesful for it, and get this:THEY MODIFIED THEIR CIVIL AND HUMAN RIGHTS FOR US, SO THEY COULD GET INTO THE WTO AND IMPROVE THEIR ECONOMY

So there you have a perfect example, RP (Philippines) opposes us and goes it alone, and delves into worse economic struggles than before, China accepts our invitation into the WTO on the basis that CHINA CHANGES, and they have not only improved their economy, but their human rights record, even though it still needs more major improvements, at least its going in the right direction.

yet you want us to change to buddy up to the Russians who are inching closer and closer to one man rule and continued economic mess, Europe which is collapsing under the weight of its socialism, what a joke.

Dont let the tail wag the dog.

 

[ThomasPaine]

From my perspective, it seems that almost your entire government has been complicit in either fabricating or "catapulting the propaganda", in GW Bush's words, to march your country into a war over a pile of oil and more importantly, a fraudulent idea.

I think the whole affair is a fairly complex problem, and in it, two key players are responsible for our current state of world affairs.

On the one hand, there are these Muslim extremists, inspired by Mohammed Kutb, who stated in the fifties that people should be united under a common goal, to lay the foundations for shared values that would hold society together. Because the individualism that he witnessed in the fifties in America, was to him some corrupting force that turned human beings into selfish animalistic things, dwarves of their former selves. According to Kutb, the shared values that would hold society together, should be the Koran, the law of Islam.

Thus inspired, his pupil Al Zawahri started creating a small group of extremists that would make this happen. He blew some people up in Egypt, served some prison time, and finally met Bin Laden in Afghanistan, in the war against the Russians. Togethere, they have been trying for decades to get the people in Muslim countries see the error of their secular regime. By blowing up innocent civilians, they hoped that the populace would see that their country had been corrupted to the core and that they would rise up and overthrow their leaders, and subsequently install a Muslim theocracy.

Small surprise blowing up civilians didn't really work in mobilizing them.
But then, these people are extremists, aka insane. They just think "whatever, that didn't work, maybe we should use a bigger bomb". It's truly sad.

On the other hand, there are the neoconservatives. They have been inspired by Leo Strauss, who stated, in the fifties, that people should be united under a common goal, to lay the foundations for shared values that would hold society together. He was an American, and inspired a small group of students to form a small group that would do this. Because Strauss too, like Kutb, believed that individualism ultimately undermined the shared values that would hold society together. Without these shared values, society would descend into chaos, and we would become animalistic, selfish beings, dwarves of our former selves.

The shared values according to Strauss could be anything, and they did not necessarily need to be true. Religion could work as a unifying cause, but so could nationalism. To Strauss, it didn't really matter, as long as it was there.
To keep society from descending into a barbaric age.

Thus, his pupils, Wolfowitz, Perle and others, created an image of America as the sole force of good in the world, that would combat all evil across the globe, and spread democracy in it's wake. This was not true of course, since America is not the sole force of good in the world, and non-democratic regimes are not necessarily evil. It was a simplified, and thus inaccurate view of the world, but it would serve it's purpose: to unite the American people under a common cause.

They did not get their necessary reforms under Reagan, since he had a more pragmatic view of the world. The Russians were evil, yes, but they could be dealt with using diplomacy instead of an all-out war. Only at the end of Reagan's reign, did they get their ideas more firmly in Reagans mind. But by then, Reagan could not implement the agenda fully enough. The neocons disapeared to backstage for a while - during this period, the Muslim extremists had also seen all of their "revolutions" fail. Both groups went back to plotting.

Then, the Project for the New American Century's publication, "Rebuilding America's Defences" was printed in september 2000. Authors: Wolfowitz and others, in short: Straussians.

It called for the above, but in it, the authors realize a catalyst event is necessary for the above false premise of the American nation to gain traction. A "pearl harbour like" event should serve as a catalyst, that would quickly get the American people behind the banner of the War on Terror, that would be a unifying cause to prevent American society from degrading into selfish chaos.
It might not be true, but it was necessary.

One year later, 9/11 2001 was etched forever in our memories.

Absolute PINHEAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Absolute PINHEAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You are being kind in your description !

The left is a strange breed.

On one hand, they emphatically claim, without doubt, there were no WMD's, even though its very plausable they were removed during the buildup to war

Yet at the very same time, they will catch a guy on video shooting someone, and refer to him as the "suspected" shooter.

The most unfuckingbelievable part of this is they dont see a problem with it, and they will defend it. Orwellian.

 

[manu1959]

Ok, so maybe I should have dropped the oil remark.
It's just something you hear a lot about, with Haliburton doing more reconstruction than drilling for oil, that was a little off-target.

What I was referring to with the "fraudulent idea" is the idea that America IS the sole force of good in the world, that everybody else is basically less good than America, and thus America's task in the world should be to defeat the "evil" in the world, and bring democracy in the wake of the destruction.

The idea that America is a sole force of good in the world is ridiculous.
If you look throughout history, not one nation in the world has ever been a force of good; instead, countries have done some good things and some bad things, like any other country.

But the idea, however untrue it may be, works marvelously as a unifying cause. The war on terror serves to keep the American people unified.

That is it's primary goal.

Secondary, a few dictators may be killed as well as some civilians that just happen to be born in the wrong place at the wrong time. But that is the secondary goal: and for it to serve the primary one, war needs to be continuous. Syria? Iran? What's it going to be?

what is the primary goal again?

 

[Emmett]

viva La France