Skip to main content

View Diary: Shut Your Fucking Pie-Hole... (381 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  That, m'friend... (4.00)
    ...is 20/20 hind-sight.

    No one was SURE of anything and the inspectors weren't getting anywhere.

    Here's how a reasonable man plays the same hand...

    1. Get authorization for war.
    2. Go to the UN and saber rattle.
    3. Get allies (as they did) to agree to a timetable.
    4. GO AS A UNITED WORLD TO SADDAM and tell him what the timetable is.
    5. Watch Saddam back the fuck off (with the UNITED WORLD staring him in the face).
    6. Discover what we now know... that the man was a paper tiger.
    7. Keep our eye on Afghanistan and catcxh and kill Osama using a piece of the 200+ billion.

    Look, you may have known the whole time that there was ABSOLUTELY NO THREAT, but a lot of very smart people, including the best President in my lifetime (WJC) were not so sure.

    Want to beat Bush... it's the LIES, stupid.

    by JeffLieber on Sun Sep 19, 2004 at 10:35:49 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  23 Senators had more than 20/20 hindsight (3.50)
      Seriously, you are acting as if EVERYONE made the mistake Kerry did.  They didn't.  TWENTY-THREE SENATORS saw through Bush's bullshit.

      Fuck, I never believed we needed to inspect, attack, do anything with Iraq.  What did Iraq ever do to us?  Seriously?  

      If people who voted for the war resolution are not to blame, who is to blame, then?

      •  23 Senators had their own reasons... (4.00)
        ...for voting no and they had that right.

        But please don't pretend it was cut and dried.

        That's all I'm asking.

        Don't remake history.

        We know he's no threat for sure now.

        We did not know that back then.

        Want to beat Bush... it's the LIES, stupid.

        by JeffLieber on Sun Sep 19, 2004 at 10:40:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No, YOU didn't know that back then... (2.80)
          ... I did.

          It does a lot for my ego to know I had a better analytical understanding of the Iraq situation than both Presidential candidates did.  I have better foreign policy instincts than Bush or Kerry.

          Hot dog!

          •  I give... (3.50)
            ...in your world EVERYBODY was positive that he was no threat at all and you are a genius and the rest of us are all idiots.

            That's your world.

            Want to beat Bush... it's the LIES, stupid.

            by JeffLieber on Sun Sep 19, 2004 at 10:51:35 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I get the game you are playing (2.46)
              But I was smarter than you on this subject, man.  You thought Saddam had WMD... you were wrong.  OK?  It's not too complicated.  You and Kerry bought this WMD story, thought it might be true... he wasn't able to grasp the situation.  He got put in the spot, and he made the wrong choice.  It's a shame his mistake has a body-count, but...

              It's OK to be wrong.  Kerry was wrong.  He made a mistake.  Foreign policy isn't his strong suit.  He's no Bob Graham.

              •  You are living in the past (none)
                "was...
                thought...
                were ...
                bought...
                thought...
                wasn't...
                got...
                made...
                was...
                made..."

                And we have a very short time to do something about the future.  Snap out of it!

              •  please calm down (none)
                BigNTasty, I've generally liked your posts over most of the year, but in the last few days you're losing your grip. I recommend that you take a break from dKos for a few days. I've had to take that same step myself a few times this year, when politics just plain made me crazy.

                I could take exactly the same positions you are taking here. Like you claim, I also never believed Saddam had WMDs and would not have voted to authorize war if I had been in Kerry's shoes. But I'm darn sure not castigating all my fellow Democrats the way you are! Maybe you and I are special geniuses in our tremendous "knowledge" in advance that Saddam was already declawed. I doubt it.

                I take Kerry at his word. I think he has a lot more credibility than you or more.

          •  So, Given What You Think ... (4.00)
            ... of Kerry, what's your solution for November 2?

            If you're backing Kerry, and working for him, that's great. This is no time for this discussion. It's counterproductive.

            If you're planning on voting for Cobb, Nader, the SWP candidate,writing in Mickey Mouse, or sitting out this election, thanks alot ... you're really helping us get this country moving forward ...

            vote early - vote often

            by wystler on Sun Sep 19, 2004 at 11:12:19 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  You know something? (4.00)
            For a long time, I've rolled my eyes in disgust at the whole thing, because I knew it was bullshit, too.

            But the simple fact is that many, many intelligent people (more intelligent than I, certainly, and possibly even than yourself) who should have known better... did not. They might even have had access to, I dunno, confusing intelligence reports that might have clouded the issue further for them.

            I've stopped blaming the people who bought the bullshit and am concentrating solely on the people who SOLD the bullshit.

            It's simplified my life; I recommend it.

            Maryscott O'Connor -- Rage, rage, against the lying of the Right.

            by Maryscott OConnor on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 12:05:58 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  That's A Reasonable Position, but... (3.50)
              ....it still doesn't explain why Kerry continues to say that he would vote the same way again given what he knows today, especially since he made crystal cleat at the time of the IWR vote that the only reason he was voting for it was to disarm Saddam.

              I'd be a lot more sympathetic if Kerry said, "I thought he had WMDs.  I believe what the president said about needing authority to go to the UN and renew inspections.  It turns out I was wrong on both counts.  Knowing what I know now I wouldn't vote for the IWR. Real leaders own up to their mistakes.  George Bush never does.  I just did."

              However, Kerry hasn't said anything remotely like this.  My concern isn't a lack of clarity from JFK (lest I fall under the SYFP fatwa), it's Kerry's own taste for militarism and/or his willingness to be rolled by those who support it in order to look tough and steadfast in a Bushian sort of way.

              In a "safe" state? Consider a vote for David Cobb, the Green Party's candidate for President.

              by GreenSooner on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 06:17:20 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Because (none)
                we still needed to get inspectors in.

                You're talking about hypotheticals here, and most people don't care. They just want to know what we're gonna do next to get our soldiers out of that hellhole.

                Quite frankly, I don't care, myself. It's in the past. The war is raging right now, and it needs to stop.

                •  Basically I Agree... (none)
                  ...that we should be talking about the present, not the past, which is why Kerry's saying he'd have voted the same way knowing what we know now is what really disturbs me.  He is talking about the present when he says that.  It's not Kerry's purported lack of clarity I object to (I find his position plenty clear), nor what Kerry did in the past.  It's his continuing commitment to militarism (admittedly of a smarter and more cautious sort than Dubya's) that bothers me.

                  But as long as we're talking about the past ("we still needed to get inspectors in") there was an alternative resolution that would have required Bush to return to Congress to authorize unilateral use of force.  The IWR was not the only way to get the leverage for inspectors.  (And I'm not sure that we so needed to get inspectors in that we had to risk Chimpy doing what we all knew he'd do with the authority.)

                  In a "safe" state? Consider a vote for David Cobb, the Green Party's candidate for President.

                  by GreenSooner on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 06:42:17 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Shorter me (none)
                    It's a moot fucking point. Nobody cares. Let it go.

                    It's really not important. It's the answer to a hypothetical question.

                    And if you really think a guy who's seen the horrors of war is gung-ho to get this country into another one, you're crazy. Or you're torturing yourself for no bloody good reason.

                    I just saw his reply to a death-penalty question from a 1996 debate, and he said something like, "Look. I've killed people before. I don't like killing."

                    There were other resolutions floating around—most notably Biden-Lugar, which they couldn't get the votes for—but there was also an earlier iteration that gave Bush even more latitude. So they did what they could do.

                    Have you read the speech he made when he cast that vote? Somebody put it up in a diary last night. Maybe if you read that (it's long; bring a snack), you'll get a glimpse into his thought processes, and you might feel a little more comfortable with him.

                •  The inspectors WERE in (none)
                  they were in by December, 2002.  There was a multiple thousand page report submitted in December, most of which the public still hasn't seen because so much of it was redacted for "national security" reasons.  

                  The biggest lie that has been told and that everyone bought for too long was the "Saddam kicked the inspectors out" and the "Saddam will not let them back in" that Bush Co. picked up on.  He did let them back in. There were inspectors on the ground and had to be recalled so that Bush could wage his invasion.

                  "Consult the genius of the place in all things" - Alexander Pope

                  by a gilas girl on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 11:05:08 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  It's not just you, you arrogant sob (4.00)
            It was me too. I knew. And my friend Vic. He knew. My husband knew. So did my friends Mary, and Lee Ann.

            There was plenty of info in the press A YEAR before the invasion, when the debate was heating up, about who wanted the war and who didn't (civilians at pentagon vs military brass) and the things the military brass said made more sense.

            We were all writing feverishly to our senators to NOT vote for the resolution. But at the time, Bush's ratings were extrememly high and the Rs were doing a great job of painting any dissent as lack of patriotism. The D leadership let it happen. Period.

            Let's not obscure the truth. We all want to win, but the vote to "give Bush a big stick" was wrong at the time, not just with hindsight, and the result of a Senate more intent on doing what is popular than what is right. Kerry has to live with this baggage as he runs.

        •  History (4.00)
          Maybe we didn't know he wasn't a threat then, but we did know he wasn't much of a threat. We knew for sure (except for the overly paranoid) that he had no functional nuclear weapons program. We knew that even if he had a chemical or biological weapons program that it was very very underground and not amazingly effective. And we knew that chemical and biological weapons are very very hard to make effective (though they do make great boogey monsters).

          We also knew that Saddam had no direct relationship with terrorists groups and indeed reason to believe the reverse. Iraq was never a threat to U.S. security, even indirectly, and thus there was no reason to attack or even to sabre-rattle more than a tiny bit.

          At this stage there's no longer any point bitching about Kerry's decision, because it's impossible to change. And sure there are arguments that can be used to suggest that it wasn't that bad. But claiming that someone saying 'we should have known' is remaking history is just wrong. It was pretty damn cut and dried that there was no clear and present danger. Enough so that congress setting aside any moral or real authority they may have had to prevent things escalating was just silly.

          I mean fuck it, if I knew this, surely they should have. And given history has proven me (and a lot of people on this site) correct, accusing us of rewriting history is unfair.

          [sigh] This has probably come out stronger than I intended, so my apologies if it causes offence, especially as I enjoyed the original post.

      •  Have any of them been nominated (3.33)
        for President?  Because we have what we have, and we better fucking make it work.  UN resolution 1441, the $87 billion, the war authorization -- NONE OF THAT MATTERS NOW.
      •  Hmmm... (4.00)
        You must not read a whole lot of Congressional Floor Statements. I wonder why...

        Twenty-three other Senators had their reasons, but they aren't any more "cut and dried" than the "Kerry voted for the war" mantra. Should they all have voted NO? Knowing what we know now - that Bush was lying - of course they should have...but hindsight is always 20/20. You seem to think that those who voted NO automatically did so because they believed Bush was a liar. The transcripts of floor testimony prove otherwise.

        Barbara Boxer, my Senator, voted against HJ Res 114: Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq. After a few comments about the hardship it may pose to families where both parents are enlisted, she argued not on whether or not to go to war, but on the language of the resolution that allowed the President to go it alone. She argued for a similar resolution proposed by Senator Levin which basically authorized the exact same thing, but stated that the President had to come back to Congress for authorization if he could not build a coalition. The Levin resolution did not pass. That's democracy for you.

        Boxer is also 1) from California and 2) up for re-election. She's not facing a major fight against Bill Jones right now, but if she had voted for the resolution it would be an entirely different story. There is enough true "anti-war" sentiment here in California that Boxer may very well have been facing a serious anti-war candidate in a three-way race rather than just Republican Bill Jones.

        She's also not the only one who argued for different resolutions giving the President authorization to go to war or amendments that would have changed some aspect of the authorization. Lieberman, Kennedy, Graham (who all voted NO on HJRes114) and many others supported the use of force, but argued on the details of one resolution or amendment or another. Kerry preferred the Biden-Lugar resolution submitted prior to HJRes114, which also did not pass.

        Many in Congress appear to have committed the grave sin of believing their President when he was saying that all the intelligence indicated Iraq has WMDs. A Senator had better have rock-solid evidence to the before s/he votes against that bill on that belief that the President is lying. Nobody had that in October 2002. Graham - who was certainly in a position to know more than most - voted against HJRes114 because he preferred a different resolution, not because he thought the President was lying.

        In the end, HJRes114 passed...end game.

        Need a bumper sticker?
        Bush/Cheney '04: Keeping the "duh" in "W"!

        by mugsimo on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 02:33:12 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Speaks to a different subject (4.00)
          For some here (myself included) this speaks ot the paucity of leadership even from those who should have lead in that timeframe not to the "murkiness" of the threat from Iraq.

          We all knew that SH was a dickhead who was ruthless to his people.

          We deluded ourselves, though, to depart from Colin Powell's May 2001 assessment of Iraq:  a relatively impotent country that has virtually NONE of its 1991 capablities that had been and continued to be successfully contained.

          THE ONLY THING that changed from 5/15/2001 and the invasion was 9/11.  SH didn't get any of the weaponry described in the run up to the invasion between Colin Powell's May 15, 2001 speach to Congressional committees and his later defense of the Invasion.  No new weaponry was acquired!!

          That so many democratic senators could have abandoned the ideals of the party at such a time  speaks to their spinelessness (perhaps fogiveable in the wake of 9/11) at the time, not to the murkiness of the threat of Iraq.

      •  You Are Right (none)
        As a smart politician for most of his life John Kerry was very familiar with the neo-con agenda, and knew as well as any of us that it was their driving focus to go to war.  His speach and the resolution itself, was designed to give him cover, to require the president to give inspectors time, to require a coalition be built with our allies, to require a new resolution from the UN, and to require the president to come back to congress and present the evidence for the need to use that authorization.  

        I think Kerry knew there was a good chance that Bush would not do what he was supposed to do, so in that sense he was wrong to give authority.  But he also knew that the mistakes would be Bush's, and not his own and after 9/11 he felt he politically had no choice but to give the president the authorization.  

        From a political perspective you can't blame Kerry at all for this mess because the bad decisions were Bush's alone.  But from a moral perspective, however, Kerry does bear a small amount of the blame.  He as much as anybody knew what was going to happen, and the nuances within the authorization vote will not cover that.

    •  Not true (4.00)
      No one was SURE of anything and the inspectors weren't getting anywhere.

      Lots of people were SURE and there was ample evidence (since 1997) but it had always been buried and the ongoing "threat" of Saddam maintained to justify the illegal no fly zones and the air strikes.  Jim Mcwhatever his name is from Washington knew.  Scott Ritter had been saying for years they were disarmed, and he's the one who turned out to be right.  For anyone paying attention to the anti-sanctions movement, it was clear that the sanctions were being continued based on a technicality, which is the premise used to "force" inspections that Bush didn't want but that were ongoing at the time he gave his ultimatum and were demonstrated what lots of folks (just not Americans, and whose fault is that?) already knew.

      I knew it, and I'm nobody.  Two events on the horror of the sanctions and some background reading of three or four articles and it was clear to me.  I'm nothing special, so what the f*** is wrong with the members of Congress, the press, the general electorate?  I'll tell you what's wrong, the on-going narrative that Saddam = Hitler was too comfortable and convenient for anyone to shake enought to see what was happening. Bush and Co certainly manipulated that into the horror that was the invasion, but the electorate, the press, the Clinton Administration and Congress provided the Bushies with some of the raw material to do that. As much as we'd like to say, they pulled it out of their asses, they didn't.  They built it upon a foundation that the nation as a whole created and maintained.  We all should have known better, and the fact that we didn't is the problem.

      None of that is hindsight on my part, I can tell you.  

      "Consult the genius of the place in all things" - Alexander Pope

      by a gilas girl on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 10:57:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site