Join 3,440 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Iraq war justified?
October 7, 2004 10:08 AM   Subscribe

Vice President Cheney declares the no-wmd report justifies war. So what exactly were they going to do to us that was dangerous, think about the act? In related news, widespread genocide is a potential thought of an african government, let's get em?
posted by omidius (98 comments total)

 
Up is down, left is right, good is bad, bad is good, the war in Iraq is going well, Democracy is spreading through the world. Cheney speaks the truth. People around the world think highly of America, Bush and especially of Dick Cheney. Cheney is an honest, kind hearted man who cares deeply about all Americans. Four more years would be the best thing for our nation.

Someone forgot to tell me that today was opposites day.
posted by fenriq at 10:18 AM on October 7, 2004


Up is down, left is right, good is bad, bad is good

the power of that concept is enormous...
posted by quonsar at 10:24 AM on October 7, 2004


"People around the world think highly of America."

Actually, that's not incorrect. I think the world knows that the US is sharply divided, and the actions of the administration don't represent the will of the majority of the citizens.
posted by Stuart_R at 10:27 AM on October 7, 2004


Yea so I'm just trying to understand this.

There were no links between Iraq and Al Qaida.

There were no weapons, no biological, no chemical, no nuclear.

There was an oppressive leader.

And we destroy the government, kill 12,000, loose 1,000+ soldiers, injure 3,000+, go into massive debt all for a hunch?

Meanwhile what happens to North Korea which DOES have nukes and an open hatred of western values?

What happened to Al Qaida, who DID attack us?

There is no way we can leave Iraq in shambles, it'll just breed more hatred. But I think a 10-year-old can tell you we did it the wrong way.
posted by omidius at 10:27 AM on October 7, 2004


Actually, that's not incorrect. I think the world knows that the US is sharply divided, and the actions of the administration don't represent the will of the majority of the citizens.

Speaking for everyone in the world is going to be a tall order at best. But for many people in the world President Bush really sums America up - he is the person that you democratically picked as your leader, commander, spokesperson(!) and moral guide. He is widely regarded outside the US as an incompetent fool, with little in the way of communication skills, little in the way of brains and nothing in the way of understanding when it comes to dealing with foreign policy.

You guys need to understand that people look at Bush and think America!
posted by DrDoberman at 10:38 AM on October 7, 2004


I just hope the American people aren't dumb enough to buy into the premise of this post; that (even if Saddam's WMDs aren't in Syria and/or Lebanon/and/or elsewhere--a cargo container in Tacoma, WA?) what we know now, as opposed to what we had reason to believe pre-invasion matters?

Go ask John Kerry why Saddam was such a threat in 1996, 1998, and 2000.

Please, America, don't buy into the Left's depraved fraud.
posted by ParisParamus at 10:38 AM on October 7, 2004


Good or bad, right or wrong has nothing to do with it. The U.S. will do what's in it's best interests. I think Cheney has been clear that the U.S. has an interest in Iraq because of the oil. If the U.S. had no interest in Iraq, like Rwanda, then Saddam would still be in power torturing people. I'm not being cynical, the U.S. does what the powers in Washington think is in it's best interests. It's just Bush and Cheney are too stupid to know this war is not in America's best interest, unless they're re-elected and the majority of Americans can revel in their own stupidity.
posted by disgruntled at 10:40 AM on October 7, 2004


Sometimes I wonder which would be worse, having Bush or ParisParamus as representative of America to the rest of the world ...

And as for Linkie: Flip-Flop!!
posted by nofundy at 10:44 AM on October 7, 2004


These political posts are awesome and the frequency with which they are appearing is wholly satisfying; moreover, the fact that they are not redunant at all-- each, like a sopping-wet newborn child, is full of beautiful and gleaming and unbiased potential-- is a testimony to the eye for unique web content that our amazing site's members seem to have. In numbers.

I congratulate you on this post, and I look forward-- and I think I speak for all of us-- to another post about the Bush Administration.

Godspeed!
posted by xmutex at 10:44 AM on October 7, 2004


I just hope the American people aren't dumb enough to buy into the premise of this post; that (even if Saddam's WMDs aren't in Syria and/or Lebanon/and/or elsewhere--a cargo container in Tacoma, WA?) what we know now, as opposed to what we had reason to believe pre-invasion matters?

PP, October 7, 2004

If WMDs are not found in Iraq, and in large quantity (or at least objective evidence that they were destroyed), then, in terms of American politics, the war was a sham, and the President should be indicted.

PP, April 29th, 2004
posted by cell divide at 10:58 AM on October 7, 2004


You forgot Poland.
posted by jca at 11:00 AM on October 7, 2004


"THE PRESIDENT SHOULD BE INDICTED" - PARISPARAMUS
posted by quonsar at 11:04 AM on October 7, 2004


In related news, widespread genocide is a potential thought of an african government, let's get em?

Sounds like it might be the right thing to do. Too bad neither Bush nor Kerry have indicated any willingness to do so.
posted by pardonyou? at 11:12 AM on October 7, 2004


mmm, i love the smell of cognitive dissonance in the morning... smells like schadenfreude.
posted by keswick at 11:13 AM on October 7, 2004


I agree with ParisParamus: Bush should be indicted.
posted by dash_slot- at 11:15 AM on October 7, 2004


Yes, ParisParamus makes a good point: no WMD = Fraud = indict the President.
posted by sic at 11:18 AM on October 7, 2004


I have to admit. Paris does have a point. Would there have to be an impeachment first, then an indictment?
posted by eyeballkid at 11:19 AM on October 7, 2004


Smirky & Snarly in '04!

via This Modern World.
posted by fenriq at 11:23 AM on October 7, 2004


"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." - Cheney, 08/26/02

"The headlines all say no weapons of mass destruction stockpiled in Baghdad. We already knew that." - Cheney, 10/07/04

Every time I think we've hit bottom, we go a little lower.
posted by Remy at 11:23 AM on October 7, 2004


Nice flip-flop there, Paris.

p.s.: cell divide: You got the date wrong. ParisParamus said that THE PRESIDENT SHOULD BE INDICTED on April 29, 2003. And I agree with him wholeheartedly.
posted by mr_roboto at 11:24 AM on October 7, 2004


But for many people in the world President Bush really sums America up - he is the person that you democratically picked as your leader, commander, spokesperson(!) and moral guide.
(emphasis added) Some might quibble with you on that point; but at the very least Bush lost the popular election. If foreign populations imagine that the majority of the US wanted this man in office, they're deluding themselves.
posted by LionIndex at 11:31 AM on October 7, 2004


I love you cell divide.

In other news, I'm scared. Very scared about the direction this country has taken.
posted by rafter at 11:39 AM on October 7, 2004


Well, my position is that it's actually too soon to conclude there were no WMDs in Iraq. Will there eventually, in a few years, be grounds for indicting someone? Maybe

But the fundamental problem remains: John Kerry though Iraq had WMDs, too.

So who do I vote for instead of Bush?

PS: do I have egg on my face? Maybe, some.
posted by ParisParamus at 11:43 AM on October 7, 2004


I am genuinely interested in hearing ParisParamus's explanation of the stark difference between his two very strong statements regarding WMD.
posted by majcher at 11:44 AM on October 7, 2004


I, too, agree with ParisParamus's progressive attitude on this matter.
posted by bshort at 11:44 AM on October 7, 2004


Oh, so that's what that gooey semi-transparent stuff is on your face. Thanks for clarifying.
posted by strangeleftydoublethink at 11:46 AM on October 7, 2004


War is always justified. Jesus said so :

"I come bringing not peace, but a sword."

If he wanted to, Jesus could come down to Earth as a twelve foot ninja who shot disintegration rays from his eyes and farted out deadly gas - to singlehandedly take care of Iraq, Iran, North Korea - and anyone other country dumb enough to mess with Jesus.

"Jesus was way cool
Everybody liked Jesus
Everybody wanted to hang out with him
Anything he wanted to do, he did
He turned water into wine
And if he wanted to
He could have turned wheat into marijuana
Or sugar into cocaine
Or vitamin pills into amphetamines

He walked on the water
And swam on the land
He would tell these stories
And people would listen
He was really cool

If you were blind or lame
You just went to Jesus
And he would put his hands on you
And you would be healed
That's so cool

He could've played guitar better than Hendrix
He could've told the future
He could've baked the most delicious cake in the world
He could've scored more goals than Wayne Gretzky
He could've danced better than Barishnikov
Jesus could have been funnier than any comedian you can think of
Jesus was way cool

He told people to eat his body and drink his blood
That's so cool
Jesus was so cool
But then some people got jealous of how cool he was
So they killed him
But then he rose from the dead
He rose from the dead, danced around
Then went up to heaven
I mean, that's so cool
Jesus was way cool

No wonder there are so many Christians"


by King Missile, Lyrics to "Jesus Was Way Cool"
posted by troutfishing at 11:49 AM on October 7, 2004


But the fundamental problem remains: John Kerry though Iraq had WMDs, too.

So who do I vote for instead of Bush?


Because one admits that the first step towards finding a solution is to admit we were wrong, while the other continues to blindly state we were right, regardless of evidence to the contrary?
posted by linux at 11:49 AM on October 7, 2004


LionIndex, perception is reality. Haven't you been paying attention to the spin from the Bush camp?

I believe that the rest of the world thinks Bush is a simpering fool. I believe the majority of this country is in agreement with that sentiment. I also believe that Bush is going to get soundly trounced on election day.

Bush is the current face of our nation and I'm ashamed of it. Not like John Kerry's a great looking guy but at least I can look at him and not think "Burst into flames, burst into flames or just shut up" like I do every time I see Bush.

On Preview: Strangeleftydoublethink, thanks, I needed a little humor and you hit the nail squarely.
posted by fenriq at 11:49 AM on October 7, 2004


ParisParamus, we have had 16 months for the team to find the WMD's. David Kay was in country before Duelfer and said the same thing: No WMD's. Before that Hans Blix was in country and said, "No WMD's." How long until your cognitive dissonance occurs and you realize that Bush pulled a fast one over America? John Kerry thought Iraq had WMD's because the administration pushed faulty intelligence stove piped out of the CIA and from intel handed to him by Chlalbi & Co.
posted by plemeljr at 11:52 AM on October 7, 2004


If John Kerry thought Iraq had WMD's then it's because that's what the Bush administration told him, and the rest of the world, too.

It's not like Kerry was over there looking in every turkey farm in the country.

There were lots of us (*LOTS*) that had doubts.

Besides, this is THE FINAL REPORT FROM THE INSPECTORS. What more proof do you need?
posted by bshort at 11:55 AM on October 7, 2004


My contention, Paris, is that Bush and Kerry were both right about Hussein. He was a bad leader who posed a threat to his neighbors, to his own people, and to the world.

I don't think there was a leader in the world, including France and Germany who didn't think that Hussein was dangerous and that something should be done about him. But what to do? It's a hard question. Bush gave the answer-- war. At the time, I also thought that the idea of war had potential for doing the right thing for the Iraqis and for the world. I am no peacenik, if there is an evil situation and there is no other way, then war is sometimes the only way.

But, it became apparant to me that from the start that the Axis of NeoCons were going to mess it up. These were people who on 9/11 were talking about Iraq. They were people who have lifetime committments to the Defense and Oil industries. They were people who didn't grasp that 9/11 was a horrible tragedy that required new thinking, not a tremendous opportunity to put into place plans written years earlier. They were people who thought that arrogance was a substitute for intelligence. It was obvious to me from the beginning that they were going to mess this up by the way they used scare tactics to drum up support for the war, the way they belittled the world community's input, the way they belittled the US State Department, the Military, the strategists, the economists, and they have proven me right time and time again.

So for me, a vote for Bush is not a vote for the idea of taking out Saddam Hussein. That's an idea that has a high level of acceptance across the globe, but it's just an idea and not an action. Instead, a vote for Bush is a vote for incompetence, greed, poor planning and arrogance. I'm not a Kerry supporter, but I am fairly certain that Kerry would not take America into a war without a proper strategy (entry, exit, or current). I am also pretty sure that John McCain, Pat Buchanan, Bob Dole, or many others on the right would not do the same.
posted by cell divide at 11:55 AM on October 7, 2004


wow, now Bush is echoing the claim. i figured they used Dick for the most egregious deceptions (to protect Bush when they blow up), but they're scrambling bad today.

from Remy's first link:

The case of Saddam Hussein, a sworn enemy of our country, requires a candid appraisal of the facts ... Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us. And there is no doubt that his aggressive regional ambitions will lead him into future confrontations with his neighbors -- confrontations that will involve both the weapons he has today, and the ones he will continue to develop with his oil wealth.

har. i can't understand Cheney's logic at all today.

A) the UN Food for Oil program was corrupted, potentially on the UN's side as well as by Saddam.

B) the Food for Oil program was a factor in lifting the sanctions against Iraq

C) Saddam's main goal was to get the sanctions lifted, after which (based on nothing but suspicion) he would start developing a weapons program again, possibly nuclear.

D) we had to invade before the sanctions were lifted and Saddam started developing WMDs.

two words: weak sauce. that's a horrible argument, and i don't think it's gonna play well at all.

Bush isn't much better. he claims we went to war based on Saddam's hopes and dreams of weapons of mass destruction.
posted by mrgrimm at 11:56 AM on October 7, 2004


Because one admits that the first step towards finding a solution is to admit we were wrong, while the other continues to blindly state we were right, regardless of evidence to the contrary?

I don't think Kerry has ever admitted he was wrong--and again, I'm not sure he was. Could you please find some support for that. Kerry has simply said the President was wrong, and that he has deceived the American people. Which indicates that Kerry does not deserve to be President.

As has been stated before, the entirety of a WMD stockpile that could kill millions could have fit, and left in a convoy or less of trucks. And with the predicate of having used WMDs previously, I agree with the President that it was simply too dangeous to err on the side of hoping or trusting Iraq (or the very corrupt UN) that Saddam had no WMDs.

THAT IS WHY the President has my support and admiration.
posted by ParisParamus at 11:59 AM on October 7, 2004


If he wanted to, Jesus could come down to Earth as a twelve foot ninja who shot disintegration rays from his eyes and farted out deadly gas - to singlehandedly take care of Iraq, Iran, North Korea - and anyone other country dumb enough to mess with Jesus.

OMFGL0L0LZ0RZ1! I THINK JESUS IS ON MY ROOF:


posted by quonsar at 12:00 PM on October 7, 2004


a vote for Bush is a vote for incompetence, greed, poor planning and arrogance

very well and succinctly put. i only hope that most americans see those as unfavorable qualities in a president.
posted by mrgrimm at 12:01 PM on October 7, 2004


By the way, the report didn't address whether he had any stockpiled; it was limited to finding evidence of production/development. Those are different things. The R&D & P could have been done, for all we know, in Syria or Libya.
posted by ParisParamus at 12:04 PM on October 7, 2004


"a vote for Bush is a vote for incompetence, greed, poor planning and arrogance"

Actually, that could more easily describe a vote for John Kerry--sorry to disappoint you. And, with Kerry, you get the bonus of flip-flopping all the way to France.
posted by ParisParamus at 12:07 PM on October 7, 2004


As has been stated before, the entirety of a WMD stockpile that could kill millions could have fit, and left in a convoy or less of trucks.

You know, there are also an awful lot of islands in various oceans that could be the secret hideout for any number of Evil Scientists plotting to destroy humanity. Maybe we should start invading or at the very least bombing each one of those, too.
posted by papercake at 12:12 PM on October 7, 2004


Well, my position is that it's actually too soon to conclude there were no WMDs in Iraq. Will there eventually, in a few years, be grounds for indicting someone? Maybe

Seriously man, what kind of sign are you looking for? You're living in total denial. We'll never know "for sure"- it's impossible. But at a certain point, you have to accept the facts that are out there.

Put it this way- what happens if we find a single vial of anthrax? Does that justify the war? Hell, we've got that stuff all over the place. Where are you drawing the line?

Meanwhile...

"The suggestion is clearly there by Mr. Duelfer that Saddam had used the program in such a way that he had bought off foreign governments and was building support among them to take the sanctions down," Cheney said.

I dunno, if I were getting rich off bribes from the Oil-For-Food program, I'd think it would be in my best interest to keep that going for as long as possible...
posted by mkultra at 12:13 PM on October 7, 2004


THAT IS WHY the President has my support and admiration.

I thought this . was . why . ! ! !


you freakin' hypocrite.
posted by sic at 12:14 PM on October 7, 2004


By the way, the report didn't address whether he had any toys stockpiled; it was limited to finding evidence of toy production/development. Those are different things. The R&D & P could have been done, for all we know, at the magnetic North Pole, or even the South Pole...
posted by quonsar at 12:15 PM on October 7, 2004


"Put it this way- what happens if we find a single vial of anthrax? Does that justify the war? Hell, we've got that stuff all over the place. Where are you drawing the line?"

That's a good question. But again, one that relies on what we, supposedly know now, not what the entire political world thought.

You know, when a policeman shoots a teen who had an object in his hand that looked like a gun, but turns out to be a toy, it's not a strike against the policeman. There was more than enough reason to believe that Saddam continued to have a real gun in his hand. What's next? The claim that Saddam wasn't playing cat and mouse with the inspectors? that he didn't throw them out at some point? That no Kurds were WMD'd?
posted by ParisParamus at 12:20 PM on October 7, 2004


Paris, they knew it was all false, unproven claims even before we went to war--they had no proof of any stockpiles, or development plans or even hopes of development of wmds. They had no proof of Saddam-9/11 links either, and still don't. That's all already been proven. They lied to us, to the UN, to the world, and are still lying to us.

You want to vote for the lying bastards, fine. The rest of us are smarter than that. And you dare to mention containers in WA--go look up how port and cargo security has been massively underfunded since 9/11.

And equating Bush with a cop who shoots an unarmed teen doesn't help your case at all--they pay for their mistakes, while we're all paying for Bush's, and will be for years to come.
posted by amberglow at 12:24 PM on October 7, 2004


Saddam didn't throw out the inspectors last year, the US did. They told everyone to get out of Dodge since they were going to start in with the invading at any point.
posted by bshort at 12:25 PM on October 7, 2004


Hey PP, just shut the hell up. Staying on the ridiculous flip flop bullshit does nothing but blow huge holes in your "theories". Its a flip flop if Kerry does it but its resolute consistency if Bush does it?

Demonstrate Kerry's incompetence, his greed, his poor planning and arrogance. Back up your ridiculous bullshit.

Bush is incompetent, how else can you characterize a man who came into the White House with the largest budget surplus in history and turned it into the largest deficit in history in only four years?

Bush is greedy, he grew up lusting for Middle Eastern oil reserves and now he's got his slimy little paws on some. Think about the no-bid contracts (sure, Halliburton was the only company in the whole wide world that could have rebult Iraq, yep, makes sense to me).

Bush has poorly planned, yeah, I'd say attacking a hotbed in the Middle East without planning on how to get out is damned poor planning. Especially when they had nothing to do with the attack on our nation being used to justify attacking them

Bush is arrogant, he is the goddamned apostle of arrogance. "Bring 'em on!", "Mission Accomplished", "I know Osama bin Laden attacked us, I KNOW THAT".

You're a bad little troll today, PP. Looks like its time to up your dosage.

You know, when a policeman shoots a teen who had an object in his hand that looked like a gun, but turns out to be a toy, it's not a strike against the policeman.

Now you're just typing drivel.
posted by fenriq at 12:29 PM on October 7, 2004


Fake environmentalist. Poser.

But at least Bush doesn't smoke.
posted by sic at 12:29 PM on October 7, 2004


the entirety of a WMD stockpile that could kill millions could have fit, and left in a convoy or less of trucks.

And where did the trucks go? Or the labs? Or the storage facilities? (or did they just keep the WMD's in the trucks with the engines running?) Or the people who loaded the trucks? Or the people who drove the trucks? Or the people who supervised the people who loaded and drove the trucks? Or the people or ordered the people killed who supervised the people who loaded and drove the trucks? We haven't been able to find a single one of these people? Not one? No one has come forth with a bad memory that could be improved with a few dollars, American cash only, please?

We've got some of the scientists. They can't tell us where the WMD's went? Was this convoy such a well kept secret that they just showed up for work one morning to empty labs?

And, of course, no paper trail. At all. Because we all know how much governments hate memos.
posted by Cyrano at 12:29 PM on October 7, 2004


THAT IS WHY the President has my support and admiration.

It's not egg.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 12:29 PM on October 7, 2004


when a policeman shoots a teen who had an object in his hand that looked like a gun, but turns out to be a toy, it's not a strike against the policeman.

what if the object was a bike wrench, and the policeman not only killed the teen, but all of his friends and passers-by just to be safe?

horrible analogy.

"a vote for Bush is a vote for incompetence, greed, poor planning and arrogance"

Actually, that could more easily describe a vote for John Kerry--sorry to disappoint you. And, with Kerry, you get the bonus of flip-flopping all the way to France.


try again, PP. just like with GWB, repeating something over and over doesn't make it true.
posted by mrgrimm at 12:33 PM on October 7, 2004


Chemical and biological weapons deteriorate over time- you have to be able to keep producing them or they will become unusable.

The report states clearly that they haven't been able to manufacture these types of weapons since 1991. So any "stockpiles in Syria" are well over a decade old, and thus useless. David Kay said the exact same thing in his report.

Sanctions and inspections worked, and could have been leveraged to get Hussein out of power. Bush's rush to war prevented us from realizing that, which is why he has to go.
posted by InfidelZombie at 12:34 PM on October 7, 2004


> As has been stated before, the entirety of a WMD stockpile that could kill millions could have fit, and left in a convoy or less of trucks.

Let's assume that's true, and that the weapons were spirited out of Iraw prior to the invasion. So, we're all safer now that we don't know where the weapons are?
posted by The Card Cheat at 12:40 PM on October 7, 2004


what if the object was a bike wrench, and the policeman not only killed the teen, but all of his friends and passers-by just to be safe?

What if the shooting led to riots that killed tens of thousands of citizens, a thousand police, and cost $200 billion?

Actions have consequences. I used to think that conservatives realized that.
posted by mr_roboto at 12:42 PM on October 7, 2004


know what would be totally sweet, one of the greatest things ever seen on the internet?

if from now until election day, people stopped responding to paris' trolls. just a few weeks, people, that's all. just let him post his precious little heart away, but restrain yourselves from responding to him in any way.

that would be so cool. a few weeks without the following types of exchanges --

"i'm paris. here's a ridiculous declaration i couldn't possibly truly believe. tee hee."

"paris, here's why you're wrong...."

"no, i'm not wrong, i didn't say that, and lord emperor bush is the greatest of all gods, and everybody on The Left is divisive, incompetent, wrong, and arrogant. here's another declaration i couldn't possibly truly believe."

"paris, here's why you're wrong...."

"no, i'm not wrong, i didn't say that, and lord emperor bush is supreme among all deities. The Left is out of touch with america. here's another declaration i couldn't possibly truly believe...."

-- would put us all in a much better mood. how 'bout it?
posted by lord_wolf at 12:49 PM on October 7, 2004


Ah, but you see, mrgrimm --- that teen might have been thinking about guns! He might have been going to use that bike wrench to fix his bike and then go down to the shooting range and fire off a few rounds. So, you see, the policeman's actions were fully justified.
posted by hattifattener at 1:16 PM on October 7, 2004


No, no. Paris is, well, wrong. Seems that way to me.

But if he's a "troll" he's only a troll because he's outnumbered and therefore unwelcome. His ideas are no less reasonable than those of, perhaps, 20 or 30 regular posters -- only they're on the left.

On the other hand, I can speak from experience: I can't argue with my Bush-lovin' parents because I don't want to destroy my family. Neither do I wish to stop people with Bush-lovin' bumper stickers and start fights. So Paris is around, and I have someone I can argue at.
posted by argybarg at 1:23 PM on October 7, 2004


argybarg, no, a troll is someone who exists merely to try and derail any discussion and reroute it through thier own needy egos. Who says you have to get in fights with GOP supporters, engage them in some intelligent dialogue, it works wonders.

Paris adds nothing to the discussions, he posts ridiculously stupid statements like a good little GOP parrot who's not ever considered what those statements mean and he's an ass about it. There are voices from the other side of the divide (no, not the Right because I truly abhor that semantic trick) here and they can be well received and their points discussed, if they make good points.

There are lots of wingnuts from both sides. Paris isn't a wingnut, Paris is a troll who gets his jollies by baiting people with stupid statements.

And Lord_Wolf, I try, I try sooo hard to not respond but its just impossible not to sometimes. And sometimes it actually makes me feel better to take one of Paris' idiotic statements and deconstruct into its particle lies. Its the logician in me, I can't help it sometimes. And yes, I know that's exactly what feeds his ego.
posted by fenriq at 1:37 PM on October 7, 2004


Oh, and:

-- If France and other countries were being sleazy then the U.S. should have taken the lead on exposing them and shaming them before the world.
-- If the world was headed towards a lifting of sanctions the U.S. should have been a forceful advocate against that.
-- If Saddam seemed to be rearming U.S. should have put together a NATO coalition to forcibly defend weapons inspectors as they searched Iraq.
-- If the sattelites showed where the munitions were then the U.S. should have bombed them.

All of these would have been sane, bold, reasonable responses that would have been more effective than an invastion. Some might have grumbled but I, and 80 percent of the people, would not have. I might have even (grudgingly) admitted that Bush had done well to deal neatly with Iraq.

Can you honestly say you would not prefer the outcome of a combination of the above?
posted by argybarg at 1:39 PM on October 7, 2004


And, with Kerry, you get the bonus of flip-flopping all the way to France.



warning: self link to a 26k pdf
posted by hoborg at 1:46 PM on October 7, 2004


Could you please find some support for that.

Did anyone else think this was supremely ironic and hilarious coming from PP?

For some reason I can hear Chubbie Checker's Twist as I read the could've been and done scenarios presented. Thanks for the comedy PP, you're a gem. Martin Short's Lawyer character comes to mind with a bevy of explanations. His much earlier head of Scrapco also comes to mind.
posted by juiceCake at 1:46 PM on October 7, 2004


Some might have grumbled but I, and 80 percent of the people, would not have. I might have even (grudgingly) admitted that Bush had done well to deal neatly with Iraq.

argybarg, it bothers me to do so, but i confess: i'm one of those who would find something to grumble about in pretty much anything the bush administration does. :-(

that said, if some combo of the things you suggested had been done, i might have grumbled but i know that i would not find myself shaking my head, some days near tears, the way i do now because of the horrible disaster that is iraq, caused by our trumped up evidence and rushing into the situation.

i mean,aside from the loss of lives, there are 1000's of young ppl -- americans, iraqis, brits, aussies, syrians, etc -- whose lives are forever ruined b/c of the way cheney, rove, and rumsfield made bush present and carry out this invasion. i want to say to cheney, rove, and bush, "have you no shame, sirs? finally, have you no shame?"

i'll give this to bush: i think if you got him away from cameras and promised him you wouldn't tell anyone, he would admit to it being a mistake and confess to having great feelings of sadness and regret over the loss and ruination of lives. i don't think cheney, rove, or rumsfield would ever admit to being wrong about it or express heartfelt sadness about it.
posted by lord_wolf at 1:55 PM on October 7, 2004


I think the world knows that the US is sharply divided, and the actions of the administration don't represent the will of the majority of the citizens.

With around half the nation voting for bush in 2000 (regardless if he actually won), and the nation being split right down the middle this election also, your last sentence is factually wrong.

You guys need to understand that people look at Bush and think America!

And you need to understand that american's shouldn't give a fuck. Vote for kerry, vote for bush, but I couldn't care less what someone outside of the country thinks, and the same goes for what I think of blair in england. American's should vote for the best candidate, regardless of what those outside the states think.
posted by justgary at 2:00 PM on October 7, 2004


ParisParamus: So who do I vote for instead of Bush?

Why don't you vote for Badnarik? You know this administration is corrupt and incompetent. You know that they are involved in the same sorts of shady dealings that Clinton was. You know they've squandered our taxes. Look at the deficit. Why should any conservative vote for Bush in 2004?

Why not vote libertarian this election? I'm planning to.
posted by sonofsamiam at 2:14 PM on October 7, 2004


Betty Bowers on Cheney: So I don't know why people are scoffing at Mr. Cheney for stating that he never tied Iraq to 9/11, he'd never met John Edwards or that things are going swimmingly in Iraq. Yes, to those obsessed with facts, such statements would appear to be brazen lies. But it is like I always say to myself when filling out that rudely inquisitive "age" box on forms: If you repeat a lie, it becomes your truth. And if you repeat a lie often enough, you become a Republican. (and don't miss the last paragraph)
posted by amberglow at 2:19 PM on October 7, 2004


aside:

know what would be totally sweet, one of the greatest things ever seen on the internet?

if from now until election day, people stopped responding to paris' trolls.


i do usually skip PP's trolls and all the resultant (if any) jabs, but sometimes he's not trolling, and i don't think he was in this case.

imo, a troll is someone who generally posts stuff solely to make others angry. if he actually believes what he's posting, then it's not a complete troll (sometimes it is). the fact that he appears to take so much pleasure in other people's perceived and expected failures ("ha, ha, i can't wait to see you guys on nov. 3," etc. etc.) certainly amps up the troll factor, but eh ... sometimes nonsense needs to be refuted, not ignored.

posted by mrgrimm at 2:25 PM on October 7, 2004


I wouldn't call Paris a troll. In fact, I'd probably credit him with some cojones, posting as he does in such a left-leaning forum.

That said, Paris, your inability to admit that the signle most important pre-war rationale for this war has now been exposed as a complete sham would be amusing were it not so pathetic.

At what point do you acknowledge that if it looks like bullshit, smells like bullshit and feels like bullshit when you step in it, it is bullshit?
posted by kgasmart at 2:37 PM on October 7, 2004


cell divide - you are my hero.

parisparamus - you backpedal pretty fast there. doesn't the constant bush spin on the WMDs give you whiplash?

and for cripes sakes stop picking on the french. it's a dumb thing to do. bush picked on the french; as a history major at yale he really should have remembered that the only reason we won the revolutionary war is because the french funded us and supplied us with troops. why do you think we've always been so eager to help them out when they need it? and they've needed it quite a few times!

sure it's fun to make fun of the french, to keep our silly imperial weights and measures system just to tease them, to crack a joke here and there see above. but when you start using a nation or a nationality as an insult it's just plain ignorant meanness. if they return in kind by starting to say "god, what a freakin' american" when referring to ruthlessly aggressive homicidal assholes, well, you asked for it bucko. you get what you vote for.
posted by caution live frogs at 3:06 PM on October 7, 2004


And you need to understand that american's shouldn't give a fuck. Vote for kerry, vote for bush, but I couldn't care less what someone outside of the country thinks

And to me as a non-American your statement represents Bush's ideology in the debates in striking difference to Kerry's position that America requires "moral authority" not just superior fire-power.

We're all in this world together, it's not a sports game where you try to smash the opposition to smithereens. We dont want American's thinking "We're Number One!!! Fuck You All!!!' because it's true you do have more guns.
posted by meech at 3:29 PM on October 7, 2004


By the way, Bush and Cheney have now decided to flip flop (though I think they'll call it a strategeric reconsideration) on the WMD's in Iraq. They still contend that Saddam had the materials to make WMDs but that he didn't have any when the "coalition" of the US, the UK, Australia AND Poland marched in.

Bush, Cheney concede Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction.

Nice!

Meech, I don't think that way at all. I listen to John Kerry talking about re-engaging the US in the affairs of the world and giving a damn about how our actions affect our allies is extremely important.

I understand why people get upset when talk turns to how the rest of the world thinks Bush is an incompetent fool. Most of us feel the same. No, you don't get to vote but who we elect is important. Bush has burned his international bridges, Kerry wants to repair our relationships abroad and lift all of us up.

Its not a game, this is life. And we need our friends and allies more than ever. Which is yet another excellent reason to remove Bush.
posted by fenriq at 3:47 PM on October 7, 2004


Why is there so little talk in this thread about to multi-billion $ scandal, this biggest scandal in human history, that made the notion of getting the UN to go along with an invasion a fiction.

If you can't wrestle with that...
posted by ParisParamus at 3:48 PM on October 7, 2004


We don't need "friends" and "allies" taking bribes from Saddam Hussein. Fuck'em, when it comes to having to make moral decisions, particularly with imperfect information.
posted by ParisParamus at 3:57 PM on October 7, 2004


John Kerry is, the more I hear him, one of the most dangerous politicians I have ever heard. He is dead-wrong on issues; as slick as they come; and we are living in at the dawn of the age of WMDs. Please, he MUST be defeated.
posted by ParisParamus at 4:00 PM on October 7, 2004


fenriq - if I was unclear, I agree that Kerry is prepared to take into account other nations points of views.

USA is a super-power and it does not need a "permission slip" to protect itself. I don't think anyone in the world gives a crap about Homeland Security provisions [I mean, some of Bush's actions seem, well, bizarre, but hey it's your country].

But when it acts outside of its borders without consent it is a rogue nation. When you have a rogue nation others will want to take it down - that wont mean that anyone will invade America because they'll get their ass kicked but there will be continued terrorist attacks. If Bush wins and continues with the same modus operandi you can guarantee there will be continued attacks on America - either on its soldiers in countries it has invaded or, more scarily for its citizens, within its borders.
posted by meech at 4:07 PM on October 7, 2004


meech, you and I are in complete agreement. The US has acted like a rogue nation, without any regard for anyone but ourselves. I know its wrong, most of my fellow Americans know its wrong. Its part of the reason that Bush's pleas to the UN just a few weeks ago fell on deaf ears. Hell Chirac didn't even show up to listen to Bush's bullshit.

And PP, yeah, yeah, yeah, do you have a bumper sticker on the back of your bike (see, I do read and remember?) that says Keep On Trollin'? The reason the UN scandal isn't talked about here is because this thread was about Bush and Cheney and their bullshit justifications for the war in Iraq, any UN mentions have been incidental.

But you knew that, didn't you?
posted by fenriq at 4:14 PM on October 7, 2004


It's no more a rogue nation in such circumstances than when Saddam did, or Assad or the Mullahs do anything inside their nations connected to terrorism outside, which is probably daily.
posted by ParisParamus at 4:14 PM on October 7, 2004


Fenriq, maybe you can, but I cannot read minds. And whatever you think the state of mind of the Administration was when it decided to invade Iraq, there was an ample basis on which to do so for non-nefarious reasons. And since I'm not Spock, and can't read the President's mind, that's good enough for me. And the UN scandal, only confirms that the UN would never have authorized force.

(Thank you lurkers and outsiders for your reassuring e-mails!)
posted by ParisParamus at 4:27 PM on October 7, 2004


i fully support PP in his quest to indict the president.
posted by quonsar at 4:48 PM on October 7, 2004


There are a lot of people like ParisParamus in the world. They are hesitant to admit they were wrong. They think people will judge them harshly for it. Their beliefs go beyond rational and move into the dogmatic. The "flip-flopping" charge against Kerry resonates strongly with these people, because in their minds, nothing is worse than admitting you were wrong.

It's not a Republican or a Democrat thing. There are just a lot of stubborn people.
posted by turaho at 5:08 PM on October 7, 2004


PP, what does the one scandal have to do with authorizing force?

I go by what I've read and learned. The administration was talking about attacking Iraq the day of 9/11, Cheney had already mapped out the oil fields (I hope he used a smudge proof map so his drool didn't screw it up too often), their utter refusal (until today) to accept the fact (yes, PP, the FACT, the final report is in, there are no WMD's, none, accept it) that Iraq had no WMD's and posed no threat. I could go on and on but its quitting time. I'm heading home.

You're accepting the word of a man who's demonstrably and consistently misaligned with the truth? That makes sense.

Carry on then.
posted by fenriq at 5:11 PM on October 7, 2004


Flip-flopping = changing your mind in a short period of time because it's politically expedient--duh.
posted by ParisParamus at 5:12 PM on October 7, 2004


Hey PP, you see China through that hole yet?
posted by eyeballkid at 5:52 PM on October 7, 2004


(Thank you outsiders and lurkers for all the e-mails telling me PP is really in trouble if he can only get his imaginary friends to back him up!)
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 6:16 PM on October 7, 2004


Metafilter: There are just a lot of stubborn people.
posted by Remy at 7:49 PM on October 7, 2004


"The dawn of the age of weapons of mass destruction"?

"The DAWN of the age of weapons of mass destruction"?

I also have literally no idea of what "to multi-billion $ scandal, this biggest scandal in human history" refers to.

I thought that the "biggest scandal in human history" was, you know, the slave trade. Or the Holocaust. Or the Cultural Revolution. Or the Stalinist purges. Or the Rwandan genocide. Etc., etc.

Surely crooked French companies selling stuff to Iraq in violation of UN regulations, and bribing someone in their government to look the other way, isn't even on the top 100 list of "big scandals in human history".

Presuming that was what PP meant, of course.

PP's meltdown was funny for a while, but now it's just sad. Seriously. I'm almost glad I was doing some actual work for a change, because I know I would have been here poking at him with a stick along with everyone else, and I would have felt guilty about that.
posted by Sidhedevil at 8:30 PM on October 7, 2004


And to me as a non-American your statement represents Bush's ideology in the debates in striking difference to Kerry's position that America requires "moral authority" not just superior fire-power.

We're all in this world together, it's not a sports game where you try to smash the opposition to smithereens. We dont want American's thinking "We're Number One!!! Fuck You All!!!' because it's true you do have more guns.


That's your perception of what I said. There is nothing in my comments that says we're not in this altogether, or anything even in that ball park.

When voting for president, I do take into consideration what my vote will mean for the world as a whole, not just the US. And then I make my selection. If that selection were to be bush, and the majority of the world hates bush, why should I care? I shouldn't. Your argument is a false one. Voting for who I think should be president does not equal hating the rest of the world. It means making my own choice.

I understand why people get upset when talk turns to how the rest of the world thinks Bush is an incompetent fool. Most of us feel the same.

Again, who is this "most of us"? It's repeated over and over on metafilter, almost as if people say it enough it might turn out to be true. If you're talking about metafilter, you're right, the world, you're probably right, the U.S? You couldn't be more wrong.
posted by justgary at 8:49 PM on October 7, 2004


A) More people in the US voted for Gore than voted for Bush in the last election.

B) Right now, more people in the US say they're going to vote for Kerry than for Bush in this election.

So one certainly could be MORE wrong than to say that "most of us" aren't completely sanguine about Bush's capacities.

Now, I'll agree, justgary, that it's a long way from that to "he's an incompetent fool", but it's true that Bush doesn't exactly have an overwhelming popular mandate right now.

He may certainly win the election, even if he doesn't win the popular vote, but it seems that the majority of US citizens don't think that Bush is the opposite of an incompetent fool (which, I guess, would be a highly competent genius). I think even a lot of the people who plan to vote for him are doing so because they prefer him to Kerry, not because they think he's wonderful in the abstract.
posted by Sidhedevil at 8:55 PM on October 7, 2004


And vice versa, of course--Kerry is a lot of people's hamster.

But Bush just doesn't seem to inspire the love and admiration that Reagan or Clinton did (and, of course, both had bitter detractors as well as impassioned supporters).
posted by Sidhedevil at 8:57 PM on October 7, 2004


Why is there so little talk in this thread about to multi-billion $ scandal, this biggest scandal in human history, that made the notion of getting the UN to go along with an invasion a fiction.

Funny about that: The report contains a long list of foreign officials and companies involved in helping Iraq -- while the names of Americans were blacked out because of privacy considerations.
I guess Cheney would have been pretty embarrassed seeing his name in the report, huh?
posted by amberglow at 9:02 PM on October 7, 2004


I'm sorry, I'm just going to laugh about the idea that this is "the biggest scandal in human history" again.

My heavens, amberglow! Are you saying that American citizens violated a UN sanction? I thought only those evil Frenchies would do such a thing! There must be some other explanation.
posted by Sidhedevil at 9:15 PM on October 7, 2004


i know! and that it's all based on documents from that paragon of truth and justice: Ahmed Chalabi!-- ...the documents incriminating these individuals came right out of the Chalabi operation in Baghdad. And, quite suspiciously, he and his assigns have repeatedly refused to hand those documents over to independent investigative authorities to authenticate them. Again and again, silly or nonsensical excuses were proferred for not doing so.
Needless to say, with Mr. Chalabi, ascertaining whether these documents are forgeries or not is hardly an academic exercise.
The story has again resurfaced now -- in large part because the charges are included in the Duelfer Report on Iraqi WMD. Not surprisingly, Vice President Cheney pounced on the story yesterday on the campaign trail. And in a virtual tour de force of inanity, President Bush today suggested that the invasion may well have been justified by Iraq's abuse of the oil-for-food program. ...

posted by amberglow at 9:23 PM on October 7, 2004


" PP, what does the one scandal have to do with authorizing force?"

Only E V E R Y T H I N G. The countries involved in the scandal had a vested interest in keeping Saddam in power, despite the dozen + resolutions.

Surely you get it?
posted by ParisParamus at 10:06 PM on October 7, 2004


Still not getting it, PP. The stated rationale for the war was not "must depose Saddam Hussein because he is a violent, corrupt dictator" but rather "must depose Saddam Hussein because he has weapons of mass destruction."

So what does possible gaming of the oil-for-food deal, by international players including US citizens and corporations, and possibly some key US allies in the Iraq war have to do with the rationale for the war?

As the AP story puts it quite succinctly,

This week marks the first time that the Bush administration has listed abuses in the oil-for-fuel program as an Iraq war rationale. But the strategy holds risks because some of the countries that could be implicated include U.S. allies, such as Poland, Jordan and Egypt. In addition, the United States itself played a significant role in both the creation of the program and how it was operated and overseen.
posted by Sidhedevil at 11:04 PM on October 7, 2004


I get it.
Ahmed Chalabi pulls a list of 270 names - just a list of names, no additional proof - out of his ass, and "leaks" it to a pro-invasion newspaper (Al-Mada). 8 months later, this list of names is solid evidence proving without a doubt that these people were bribed by Saddam.
Got it.
posted by mr.marx at 11:24 PM on October 7, 2004


I get that Saddam Hussein had pretty well nothing to do with 9/11. I get that saying you'd do the same thing even knowing that he posed no threat is asinine.

Especially knowing that one of the main things he screwed up and should want to admit he'd change is that he'd have not stopped going after Osama bin Laden. Admitting he lost site of Osama would go be a good start for Bush to begin to build any credibility outside of his powerbase.

Scroll up and read amberglow's comments, you think there's a chance that maybe some US businessmen were making mad bank by doing some illegal trading? Naw, that could never happen. Scroll back through history, Cheney also supported aid to the Nicaraguan rebels, even after a moratorium on funding was passed (via Cheney Voting Records).
posted by fenriq at 11:24 PM on October 7, 2004


i agree with PP that any state that willingly supports an aggressive, terrorist-funding ruler should be invaded and have their leader ousted from office. so all that cash that reagan sent to iraq in the 80's, and all the weapons we supplied to saddam to help him beat the iranians, well, that pretty much qualifies the US as a sponsor of terrorism. we also trained osama bin laden, taught him how to kill a technologically superior enemy (the russians in afghanistan) with simple, effective weapons (like SAMs, and, say, passenger jets...)

so we sponsor terrorism, 'cause we only think 4 years ahead at a time. as we cycle between dems and repubs in the oval office, we seem to also cycle between aggressive and peaceful foregin policies... and the aggressive foregin policies always come back to bite us in the ass. how much of a hit will we take in the near future thanks to bush? how many new terrorists are there out there again? how many more countries are developing WMDs to defend themselves againt the invasion we've proven ourselves capable of mounting?

to papaphrase PP: george bush is, the more i hear [about] him, one of the most dangerous politicians i have ever heard. he is dead-wrong on issues; as slick as they come; and we are living in the dawn of the age of WMDs. please, he MUST be defeated..
posted by caution live frogs at 5:27 AM on October 8, 2004


damn my lousy two-fingered typing. "foreign". keep hitting the "g" before i get around to the "i". ah hell you know what i meant.
posted by caution live frogs at 5:28 AM on October 8, 2004


Flip-flopping = changing your mind in a short period of time because it's politically expedient--duh.

Oh, like the president.
posted by oaf at 7:40 AM on October 8, 2004


Scroll up and read amberglow's comments, you think there's a chance that maybe some US businessmen were making mad bank by doing some illegal trading? Naw, that could never happen.

Millions of dollars of US oil business with Iraq are being channelled discreetly through European and other companies, in a practice that has highlighted the double standards now dominating relations between Baghdad and Washington after a decade of crippling sanctions.
Though legal, leading US oil service companies such as Halliburton, Baker Hughes, Schlumberger, Flowserve, Fisher-Rosemount and others, have used subsidiaries and joint venture companies for this lucrative business, so as to avoid straining relations with Washington and jeopardising their ties with President Saddam Hussein's government in Baghdad.
Halliburton, the largest US oil services company, is among a significant number of US companies that have sold oil industry equipment to Iraq since the UN relaxed sanctions two years ago.

posted by amberglow at 4:53 PM on October 8, 2004


« Older The Money Shot...  |  Is John Kerry Mentally ILL?... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments