Lying, etc.
William is calling me/us out for seemingly rationalizing lies about the Iraq War in the comments over at his “slam dunk for impeachment” post.
When there are 4100 Americans dead and 30,000 seriously wounded, a trillion spent and no end in sight… you’re going to sit there and rationalize… ‘oh - those lies weren’t all that bad.’ ?
Okay, I see now what the miscommunication is . . . William’s presuming that I believe there was lying going on. This Lefty obsession with pinning the liar label on opponents is something I’ve wondered about before (I think it’s a side effect of the Clinton impeachment), but that’s not the point of this post.
William may legitimately claim that Bush and others underestimated the cost and course of this war, but even the impact of that vindication is tempered if a person trying to say I Told You So about the war is an appeasing weasel at heart. I’m not saying that William is an appeasing weasel (I haven’t paid that much attention to know), but I am saying that anything beyond “you guys don’t know how to run a war” rings hollow to me.
Frankly, nation building, armed humanitarian work, multiculturalist optimism, etc. are values of the American Left. The Iraq war is rooted in overlapping values, and I guess that’s why Lefties are working so hard to make it about oil or conspiracy or the military industrial complex or whatever. My principles regarding the military are something along the lines of taking the fight to them, not appeasing jihadists, proactive threat of force. In my estimation, the Iraq war has challenged a lot of theories about how we can effectively deal with what I guess you can call asymmetrical threats.
BTW, when searching my site for my past “liars!” post (I couldn’t find it), I came across this post about William and at least one of his prior Liar!Liar! posts. This is old news, William, though it certainly has some salience because of the McClellan book.
William’s presuming that I believe there was lying going on.
Even worse, I believe you’re in denial that lying DID occur… or more politely - deliberate misconception. Who was deceived? What is the eveidence for that?
Consider this. Why do you suppose that polls have CONSISTENTLY shown that the public has bought the lie of a Saddam = 9/11 link? This misconception came from none other than the Bush administration.
Quoting from the report: “policy makers did not accurately convey the intelligence … and left the impression that the contacts led to substantive Iraqi cooperation or support of al-Qa’ida ”
This is particularly apparent in this poll during the first year of the war where a USA Today poll shoed 70% of Americans believed the Saddam 9/11 link. A 2005 Harris poll showed 47% believed the Saddam 9/11 link, and even as late as last year, 41% believe this in a Newsweek poll.
These polls are evidence that the Bush Administration misled America but what is most stunning is the Zogby Poll of Feb 28, ‘06 that shows 90% of US military think war is retaliation for Saddam’s role in 9/11.
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075
So Ned, tell us … who is accountable for this mass misconception?
How would you be treating Clinton right now if he launched a unilateral war that has killed and maimed tens of thousands of Americans, killed and/or displaced more than a milliona Iraqis, wrecked our standing in the world, hurt our economy, has failed to keep al Qaeda from getting stronger and shows no real plan for an end?
Let me give you a hint:
William, your arguments are old and tired. We are in this war, most Americans are desirous of a win, and your repeated over-and-over-and-over recirculating retreatist arguments are tiresome. Also, you give aid to the enemy with your (and the groups you samzidat) repeated negativism. It’s not wonder our enemies are endorsing Democrats and hate George Bush; they know that Democrats are the soft underbelly of the U.S. and are easily exploited for their weakness.
Yes, William, you are the enemy.
William, you are a sick individual.
Try to get some help.
The meds aren’t working.
Well, we know what they said, William. It isn’t like they used some paranormal mind tricks to convince Americans of something.
But, if you take the time to read the link I (generously) provided, there’s this quote from George Tenet’s book (a year ago, boy is this argument getting old):
Critics argue the administration tried to imply Iraqi culpability for 9/11 by talking about Iraq and al-Qaeda in the same breath. The opposite seems closer to the truth: The critics dishonestly imply that because Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, it also had nothing to do with al-Qaeda. Tenet stipulates that Iraq had “no authority, direction, or control” over al-Qaeda, but he counters the conventional wisdom that cooperation between the two was a fantasy.
According to Tenet, “There were, over a decade, a number of possible high-level contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda, through high-level and third-party intermediaries. Our data told us that at various points there were discussions of cooperation, safe haven, training, and reciprocal nonaggression.” In the post-9/11 world, this was alarming, and it wasn’t the worst of it: “There were solid reports from senior al Qaeda members that raised concerns about al Qaeda’s enduring interest in acquiring chemical and biological expertise from Iraq.”
(Incidentally, regarding the Bush quote, are you saying “you (or Bush) did it, too” now?)
I’m not in denial. I don’t think there were any lies. They made their case for taking the next step in the GWOT. Ironically, Liberals (and Democrats who opposed the war) then and now continue to undermine their credibility by trying to make the war into a war for oil, or a vendetta, or HalliburtonHalliburtonHalliburton, or a distraction, or . . . or what is the latest nefarious motive? You seem incapable of accepting that someone could disagree with you without being evil or psychotic or power-hungry or money-grubbing.
It’s tiresome, William.
Ok Ned
Ned,
Multiculturalist optimism?
So, xenophobia and ethnic-cleansing are values of the American Right?
And, William has not indicated that he thinks you are “evil or psychotic or power-hungry or money-grubbing”, Cheney maybe, but not you. He merely thinks you are in denial. Therefore, he clearly could be capable of accepting that someone could disagree with him “without being evil or psychotic or power-hungry or money-grubbing.”
As it as been pointed out numerous times (speaking of tiresome), it is not just “liberals” that understand that there are unstated ulterior motives at work regarding the invasion of Iraq. It is only cultist authoritarians that do not.
What is the “latest justification” for the invasion, BTW?
Good post Ned.