Skip to main content

View Diary: They Weren't Wrong; They Lied (407 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  OK but Lawrence has consistently called Bush, (13+ / 0-)

    Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, etc "liars" very loudly and very often. Few reporters have looked into the camera and said "liar" as often when speaking of BushCo. I saw the language as a rhetorical device: He introduced the segment by saying he wanted to give credit to people who were "right." That was the point, and those who were not right were wrong. I don't see being wrong and lying as mutually exclusive. They were both.

    stay together / learn the flowers / go light - Gary Snyder

    by Mother Mags on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 01:08:20 AM PDT

    •  Wrong implies an error. (16+ / 0-)

      They knew this war was wrong from the start. They had been pushing for it since Gulf 1 when Bush 41 backed out. What they did was intentional and they lied to do it. Huge difference.

      O'Donnell was using this to praise those who were right from the get go. What we were right about was that we were being told lies. That was wrong, not that they were wrong about the war.


      "Information is power. But like all power there are those who want to keep it for themselves" Aaron Swartz, 1986 - 2013
      TheStarsHollowGazette.com

      by TheMomCat on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 01:14:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  If I say I'm 7 feet tall I'm wrong. (7+ / 0-)

        I'm also consciously lying.

        If Bush said they had evidence of WMD, he was wrong. He was also consciously lying.

        Why does it have to be either/or instead of both/and?

        I don't disagree with your history, I guess I just hold those words a different way, and I didn't think Lawrence was "wrong" to present it that way. Hell, most other networks don't even come close to saying that.

        stay together / learn the flowers / go light - Gary Snyder

        by Mother Mags on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 01:30:01 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  There are different senses of wrong (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TheMomCat, Mother Mags

        They were wrong, morally, about the war, but did they believe they were right?  All the stuff about spreading democracy they knew to be a con.  The con that worked the best was WMD, and I think they knew Saddam didn't have the weapons.  Did they fully know he didn't have working weapons development programs?  That's a closer question, but it would be even less of a cause for war.  But if their conception of morality or national interest is such that it's worth doing to "transform" the middle east or some such, they might not have "lied" about it being "right."  Bush would have, when he ran about not being a nation builder, but the people around him could be open about their motives.  So, I'd score this "wrong" about it being a good idea, "reckless" about the costs involved (basically, not telling the truth by deliberately not finding it out), and "lying" about the supposed causes for war.  The U.S.'s wars with Mexico and Spain were built on lies but they turned out ok.  

        Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

        by Loge on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 06:38:15 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  They thought there were active chemical programs (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          TheMomCat, Mother Mags

          Never underestimate the ability of human beings, whatever their level of intelligence, to fool themselves into believing that what they want to be true is true.

          At the time, I was massively surprised when no WMD were found. Not because I thought they existed, but because they so obviously didn't. Surely it would be obvious to the Cheney crowd as well.  That being so, they would plant the weaponry themselves, to justify their invasion after the fact.

          The fact that they didn't plant any evidence, as far as I'm concerned, proves that they expected to find something there. Not a nuclear program - the evidence of its absence was just too massive for them not to know that wouldn't turn up. But I've concluded they were supremely confident that Saddam would have hung on to chemical weaponry. The media would have touted that as the WMDs found, a massive vindication. CNN and the nets would have happily sent the memory of Bush's nuclear claims down the memory hole, on the cutting room floor with the footage of millions of protesters before the war.

          So yes, they believed it just enough to neglect to salt the desert with a couple of mobile "chemical labs".

          •  I was agnostic on that question, (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            TheMomCat

            once I realized it was an argument for more inspections, not war, let alone regime change.  I did think Saddam would develop nuclear or biological programs if he could, but i had been reading a lot on the sanctions in early 2001 and was skeptical of his abilities, especially after Clinton's 1998 bombing.  As far as chemical goes, who gives a shit.  It's not a WMD.  And for active weaponry, I though the evidence against was stronger, and with no connex to AQ, he had no means to deploy them.  

            What galls me the most is the geopolitical argument against it was the Iraq war would just empower Iran in internal Iraq politics and incentivize it to develop its own WMD, and now the proponents want to use the fact that Iran responded that way as an argument for military regime change there.

            Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

            by Loge on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 10:02:13 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  It was definitely WRONG to lie (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          TheMomCat, Mother Mags, mrkvica

          about Saddam having WMD in order to take him out. Saddam had good cause to bluff that he did have WMD and we supported his actions to hedge against Iran....and then we didn't because we wanted to steal Iraq's oil. And we needed a hedge against Iran because we wrecked their democratic gov't and installed Pahlavi, and then came Khomeini. So we are the instigators and the manipulators.

          Bush 1 promised to help the Western Alliance go against Saddam, then reneged. Clinton did the same and a few of our CIA guys and the resistance got massacred. In both instances we backed out at the last minute before people could save themselves.

          Afghanistan we engineered by aiding the tribes and Mujahadin to repel the Russians. Afghanistan used to be a democratic monarchy with schools and people who wore regular western clothes and had regular western type jobs. Now they are back in the stone age. We [Clinton, Bush1] were in cahoots with the Taliban, we sent them money, we wanted pipelines thru the 'Stans. When al Queda got some cover from the recognized gov't of Afghanistan [Taliban], we ousted the Taliban because terrorism was redefined as war and not a crime.

          In all instances we were the aggressors. Our Constitution doesn't allow for that, in fact it expressly prohibits it. We can't even do imperialism right even when it is practiced. We go in and wreck things and kill people and rob our citizens to pay for it, we leave our soldiers to wait long periods before they get their contractual due, and then we legislate less and less services to our own citizens and more and more to multinational corporations.

          •  I thought then Saddam was likely bluffing, (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            TheMomCat

            and the best way to call his bluff was to give inspectors more time. And I agree blowback and unintended consequences are important but do not always point in the same direction - Saddam's slaughter of his own people was evidence of America's past negligence but also an argument for regime change that persuaded at least some "liberal hawks," and to target them as imperialists with the same brush is an oversimplification.  (I see myself as their inverse - military force should be based on geopolitical realism with humanitarian concerns a possible tipping point; they see humanitarian concerns as a reason to use military force with the national interest concerns a possible tipping point against.  But a particular ideology only imperfectly predicts outcomes.).

            I don't think we're reading from the same Constitution on your last point.  The idea that you can win a policy or legal argument by citing the Constitution, alone, regardless of the fact that its a flexible document by design is annoying when the tea party does it, so consistency has to rule.

            Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

            by Loge on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 10:20:15 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  According to an (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              TheMomCat

              acquaintance of mine, who was nearby at the time, the Kurds were gassed by the Iranis. He said there wasn't even a question about who did it. But now we accept that Saddam did it.

              Considering the large percentage that say we invaded Iraq because of 911, it isn't hard to see how such a lie might proliferate and effectively become "truth".

            •  oh and the Bush Doctrine (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              mrkvica

              must be firmly installed in your thought patterns. I do not accept pre-emptive war, alleged retaliation based on criminal activity by a non-sovereign, AKA terra-ism.

              •  I am skeptical of (0+ / 0-)

                viewing non-state actions thru the lens of state-on-state diplomacy. Has elements of looking for keys under the lamppost.  I thought Afganistan's rights record combined with active support for Al-Qaeda justified removing the Taliban, but not for propping up the replacement "govt" 10 years on.  I do see a continuing military role wrt terrorism, but Iraq and Bush's other overreaches made that harder.  The tail shouldn't wag the dog.  Pun intended.

                I think Bush also wanted the Iraq war as a domestic political wedge, and thought that ever since in his post-9/11 remarks he took a cheap shot at social liberalism, attempting to contrast "if it feels good do it," with "let's roll."  People forget that Bush used to work alongside Rove FOR Atwater on his dad's races.

                Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

                by Loge on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 11:24:39 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  And I will say, (10+ / 0-)

      that segment slammed HRC pretty hard.  O'Donnell didn't edit like a good little Democrat.

      He pieced together the video to show the truth: come what come may.

      © grover


      So if you get hit by a bus tonight, would you be satisfied with how you spent today, your last day on earth? Live like tomorrow is never guaranteed, because it's not. -- Me.

      by grover on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 01:29:47 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site