Fisking Richard Cohen

Richard Cohen is trying to jump on the “Bush lied!” bandwagon, and only manages to fall off on his ass by recycling a bunch of made-up charges. It’s ironic that he’s lying when he accuses the Bush Administration of lying about not lying. If that’s enough to make one’s head spin, the mendacity of his piece is even more ridiculous.

In one of the most intellectually incoherent major speeches ever delivered by a minor president, George W. Bush last week blamed “some Democrats and anti-war critics” for changing their minds about the war in Iraq and now saying they were deceived. “It is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began,” the president said. Yes, sir, but it is even more deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how history was rewritten in the first place.

Intellectually incoherent? How about “I voted for the war before I voted against it”? The whole Democratic strategy in regards to Iraq is incoherent: Saddam was a threat, nope he wasn’t. All the evidence says he’s a threat. no now it doesn’t and we never saw the real intelligence. Bush is an idiot, oh but we were so dumb as to never question his assertions. The Democratic Party has changed direction more time than a tennis ball at Wimbledon.

It is the failure to acknowledge this — not merely that mistakes were made — that is so troubling about Bush and others in his administration. Yes, the president is right: Foreign intelligence services also thought Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

Gee, so they lied too? Of did Bush magically con the world into believing Hussein was a threat with his magical pixy dust?

Yes, he is right that members of Congress drew the same conclusion — although none of them saw the raw intelligence that the White House did.

Which, again, is a deeply stupid argument. Only a few members of Congress even bothered to read past the 5-page Executive Summary of the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq. Only 6 Senators bothered to even read the full document. It’s hard for the Democrats to argue that they didn’t have the intelligence when they couldn’t even be bothered to read what was presented to them.

Furthermore, why the hell couldn’t the Democrats have used that time-honored tool of intelligence investigation and picked up the damn phone. It’s not like a sitting member of Congress, especially someone who has oversight into intelligence and the required security clearances to go with it, couldn’t have called up George Tenet’s office and asked “is this a pile of BS?” In fact, I’m guessing several of them did exactly that and Tenet told him the same thing he told the President – it was a “slam dunk” case that Saddam had WMDs.

The argument that the Democrats just didn’t have access to the intelligence is pure BS. There’s nothing that would have prevented the Democrats from going directly to the sources. They could have called CIA analysts into Congress under oath to prevent their findings. Even the NIE that several Democratic Senators had access to was a balanced assessment of the intelligence containing several caveats about the sources of information.

The Democrats simply can’t hide from the fact that they shared in the same assumptions about Iraq’s WMDs that everyone else did. Assumptions that were reasonable and based upon Hussein’s past history. Assumptions that even Cohen admits was shared by foreign intelligence services as well as ours.

And he is right, too, that Saddam Hussein had simply ignored more than a dozen U.N. resolutions demanding that he reopen his country to arms inspectors. When it came to U.N. resolutions, Saddam was notoriously hard of hearing.

And furthermore, even Hans Blix admitted that Hussein was not cooperating on the terms of Resolution 1441. In order to have a credible threat that would force Hussein to admit the inspectors, the US had to put pressure on Hussein. However, US troops couldn’t stay in the Gulf forever, and having masses of US troops in range of potential Iraq attacks was not tenable. There had to be a drop-dead date for Hussein to comply. That would have been January of 2003 had Tony Blair not asked for more time to appeal to the UN for a final resolution authorizing force. That resolution was put down by Dominique de Villepin before the Iraqis could even comment on it.

We can endlessly debate the facts of the Iraq War — and we will. More important, though, is the mind-set of those in the administration, from the president on down, who had those facts — or, as we shall see, none at all — and mangled them in the cause of war with Iraq. For example, the insistence that Saddam was somehow linked to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 — a leitmotif of Bush administration geopolitical fantasy — tells you much more than whether this or that fact was right. It tells you that to Bush and his people, the facts did not matter.

Except again, Cohen is lying. The Bush Administration never made that claim. In fact, they repeatedly denied it in no uncertain terms. Apparently to Cohen, the facts don’t matter.

It did not matter that Mohamed Atta, the leader of the 9/11 terrorists, never met with Iraqis in Prague, as high-level Bush people claimed.

Except again, Cohen’s stretching the truth. The only evidence that suggests that Atta was not in Prague is the fact that his cell phone was used in Florida during that time. We do know that Atta was in Prague previously, that he did not have a proper visa and never left the Prague airport. The idea that the Prague Connection has somehow been totally debunked is completely and utterly untrue. Granted, it hasn’t been proven either, but to accuse the Bush Administration of lying on this matter only reflects how Cohen’s selective interpretation of the evidence shows his inability to get the facts straight.

It did not matter that Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, was finding no evidence of an Iraqi nuclear weapons program.

El-Baradei couldn’t find cheese in Wisconsin.

Again, the Duelfer Reportfound the exact opposite. After the first Gulf War, Saddam did decide to significantly scale back nuclear research – however, once the sanctions regime collapsed, he had every intention and ability to restart those program on an active basis, a finding that is consistent with the ISG’s findings on chemical and biological weapons as well.

None of that mattered to Vice President Dick Cheney, a fibber without peer in the realm, who warned of a “reconstituted” nuclear weapons program, promoted the nonexistent Prague meeting and went after legitimate critics with a zealousness that Tony Soprano would have admired: “We will not hesitate to discredit you,” Cheney told ElBaradei and Hans Blix, the other important U.N. inspector. ElBaradei recently won the Nobel Peace Prize. Cheney’s gonna have to wait for his.

Except both El-Baradei, despite the political posturing of the Nobel Committee, and Blix are both laughingstocks. Their repeated inability to prevent and monitor the proliferation of nuclear weapons from Libya to Pakistan to North Korea to Iran indicates just how effective they really are.

Nobody has been repudiated by Bush for incompetence and dishonesty regarding Iraq. Instead, some — former CIA Director George “Slam Dunk” Tenet comes to mind — have received presidential medals. What’s more, there’s evidence aplenty that the sloppy thinking, false analogies and bad history that led to the Iraq War remain the cultural style of the White House. The president’s recent speech, for instance, conflates all sorts of terrorist incidents — from Israel to Chechnya — neglecting that they are specific to their regions and have nothing to do with al Qaeda. Every bombing somehow becomes an attack on Western values “because we stand for democracy and peace.” Oh stop it!

Again, Cohen can’t get his facts straight. Bin Laden himself has mentioned all those conflicts in his writings and statements. It is very well known that al-Qaeda has connections to Chechen terrorists and al-Qaeda fighters trained in Afghanistan have gone to fight in Chechnya. A Pakistani group linked to al-Qaeda was responsible for the suicide bombing of two Russian aircraft in a simultaneous multiple-bomb attack – the signature style of al-Qaeda. Either Cohen is completely ignorant of these connections, or he’s deliberately lying. Either way it indicates the quality of his argument.

It would be nice, fitting and pretty close to sexually exciting if Bush somehow acknowledged his mistakes and said he had learned from them.

I think I threw up a bit in my mouth after reading that. Then again, such blatantly pathological behavior is one of the symptoms of severe Bush Derangement Syndrome.

But more important — far more important — is what this would mean for the conduct of foreign policy from here on out. Repeatedly in his speech, Bush mentioned Syria, Iran and North Korea — Syria above all. If push comes to shove there, it would be nice to have absolute confidence in American intelligence and the case for possibly widening the war. If we are to go to the mat with North Korea or the increasingly alarming Iran, then, once again, it would be wonderful to have the confidence we once had in the intelligence community — as imparted to us by our president. Is there or is there not a threatening nuclear weapons program on the horizon?

Yes, which is why Porter Goss has spent the last few months cleaning house at the CIA – getting rid of the bureaucrats who have actively gutted our intelligence capabilities for the last few decades. As a further irony, it was people like Sen. Kerry and the Church Commission whose horrendously misguided rules have systematically destroyed our human intelligence systems and left us with a system of intelligence gathering that is completely unfit for dealing with the threat of terrorism. Thankfully, those responsible for the gutting of American intelligence aren’t the ones running the White House.

At the moment, no one can have confidence in the Bush administration. It has shown itself inept in the run-up to the war and the conduct of it since. Almost three years into the war, the world is not safer, the Middle East is less stable and Americans and others die for a mission that is not what it once was and cannot be what it now is called: a fight for democracy. It would be nice, as well as important, to know how we got into this mess — nice for us, important for the president. It wasn’t that he had the wrong facts. It was that the right ones didn’t matter.

Cohen’s stream of lies reaches its apex here – what the hell does Cohen mean that the fight in Iraq is not about democracy? Iraq has had two democratic elections. It has a constitution. It will have another round of elections in December. We’re fighting an enemy that wants to put an end to that.

Make no mistake, this has little to do with Iraq and everything about Cohen’s self-rightous attempts to justify his own contempt for George W. Bush. He and the rest of the left would gladly sell out the people of Iraq and our own troops if it meant achieving their pissant political end of taking down George W. Bush. Cohen’s mendacious distortion of the evidence is just a further example of what both the President and the Vice President are talking about: the Democratic left is trying to rewrite history to serve their own political ends.

The facts are clear: the world saw Hussein as a threat. The Democrats in Congress agreed with those assessments and made statements that quite clearly state their belief that Saddam Hussein had WMDs. They had every opportunity to investigate the evidence in-depth but did not do so. That evidence turned out to have been mostly wrong.

What wasn’t wrong was that Saddam Hussein was a brutal butcher and a tyrant, and that a democratic and free Iraq is in the best interest of world peace and stability. It’s sad that so many would rather fight a political war at home than a war against terrorism and fascism in Iraq. If Cohen and his ilk were around in 1940 and part of the political mainstream, they’d be arguing about what FDR knew about Pearl Harbor while US Marines were dying on the beaches of Iwo Jima. That kind of placing partisanship before country is absolutely inexcusable and a sign of how little the Democratic Party really cares about the goal of winning this war – their was is with Bush, not with terrorism.

14 thoughts on “Fisking Richard Cohen

  1. “Only a few members of Congress even bothered to read past the 5-page Executive Summary of the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq. Only 6 Senators bothered to even read the full document. It’s hard for the Democrats to argue that they didn’t have the intelligence when they couldn’t even be bothered to read what was presented to them.”

    Assuming that’s true, it was the product of a needlessly contracted timeline Bush engineered to play politics out of war. Unlike his father 12 years earlier, Dubya made sure the war authorization vote took place a month BEFORE the election. This insured that the unconvinced masses in both Houses would give the President the benefit of the doubt or risk being branded traitors (in Max Cleland’s case, even a “yea” vote didn’t help). It would be wise for the Dems to point this out more often than they do because it shows just how unprecedentedly sleazy this administration is…and validates their premise that we “rushed into war” against an unarmed man.

  2. Yeah, great excuse. “We didn’t have the spines to stand up to the big, mean President.”

    Too damn bad for the Democrats. Again, if they pursue that ridiculous argument, they only illustrate precisely why they have no business being in power. If the Democrats had any doubts over Iraq intelligence (which they did not based on their own actions and statements), they should have stood in principle.

    Besides, the NIE was 58 pages long. If a member of Congress can’t be bothered to read 58 pages before authorizing a military action, they have no excuse.

    The reality is they already believed, like everyone else, that Saddam had WMDs, and whether the vote was before or after the elections wouldn’t have changed a bloody thing.

  3. After Bush’s angry rant on Veteran’s Day condemning those who have changed their mind on the war as “giving comfort to the enemy,” his poll numbers appear to be declining further. A new Harris Poll today shows Bush’s approval rating down to 34%. A solid majority of Americans now believe the war in Iraq was a mistake and a solid majority believe we were misled into war with Iraq. With that in mind, Bush’s old tricks don’t seem to be working anymore…and it’s working to his disadvantage to continue playing them.

    And now, you want Americans and Senate Democrats to accept that the politically-motivated war authorization vote before the election on the basis that it was effective election-year trickery by the administration. When 57% of Americans believe that we were misled into war, it doesn’t seem like the best strategy to publicly laugh at elected officials expressing the same sentiment for being dupes. But by all means I encourage you to proceed with this strategy as a means of restoring support for the war. There’s something satisfying about watching the filthy contents of a toilet swirling down the drain.

  4. The Democrats should have learned 5 years ago that with this president it’s trust but verify, minus the trust part. I was really disappointed with the Democrats cowering from the neocon’s scare tactics in the run up to the war, rather than standing up to their pressure con job and manipulated intelligence. But if the best argument Bush and his supporters can come up with is “it’s their fault too because they could have done their own investigation of our investigation”, well, that’s pretty pathetic. Shifting focus to avoid responsibility is a hallmark of this sleazy administration, only this time the public isn’t buying it. I agree with Mark, it will be satisfying to eventually unravel all the lies and watch the cockroaches scurry for cover.

  5. So Reality you confirm the incompetence of your party or didn’t they investigate the intel because they believed it too. Tough to say that either my party is grossly incompetent (and thus not to be trusted) or we’re lieing too (and not to be trusted). Its tough to run from their own quotes and those in the Clinton administration. Are you now claiming the military actions by Clinton were wrong as well, were’s the anal exam for his foreign policy regarding this issue. Or are you guys counting on the Sandy Berger, Jamie Gorelick whitewash ? Are you guys gonna have us believe that you trusted that Saddam would be the good world citizen if we didn’t act. Your basing your entire arguement on the WMD theory and your trust in a despot rather than the commander in chief. I guess that says it all, party over country yet again.. Oh happy days…’though I like the Cleland arguement Mark, you abhor the military. Yours is the party that called the Vietnam vets baby killers and spit on them as they returned, you cheer when they cut too deep in military spending (remeber the “peace dividend”) now they are worried about vets? When was it to your side, that vets are unassailable with whatever they do. Although gladdened now by your new found respect for our vets I still think I smell a oppurtunist liberal.

  6. Ray M, since I’m not a member of the Democratic party, what do you mean by my party? Is this just another of your uninformed assumptions? I was strongly opposed to Clinton’s interventions in the Balkans, something reinforeced during a trip to Serbia and in talks with the people who witnessed and suffered from our assaults, as well as knowing the negative consequences that will continue for years. I opposed Somalia too because the altruistic reasons for military action given were suspect at best.

    Let me make it simple enough for you to understand my position so you won’t have to stretch your brain with assumptions. There may be exceptions and this isn’t an inclusive list but, in general, I believe foreign military intervention by our government should be an absolute last resort, it should be based on complete and truthful intelligence, it should have broad Congressional support, it would be preferable to conduct it with an international coalition and support from as many international organizations as possible and, very importantly, it should be done for the benefit of our country, our values and our citizens, not for a few corporations or fanatical advisors to satisfy their personal convictions or to settle scores.

    The last point applies mainly to people like Wolfowitz, Cheney, Libby and, yes, Madeline Albright, a key proponent of needlessly inflaming a volatile situation in Kosovo. The Iraq war failed all of these conditions, with the exception of Congressional support (the US providing 90+% or so of the manpower and budget does not constitute an international coalition).

    As I said about the Democrats (“that” party), they disappointed me in the run-up to this war for trusting Bush to be honest and for fearing retribution from the White House if they opposed the Iraq war.

  7. Sounds like a democrat to me but maybe I am not nuanced enough to grasp all of those truely inane talking points. What this does however is to show that your foreign policy plan is based on an unachieveable utopian philosophy, set up so we are never allowed to use any military force. Your philosophy would fit perfectly in the European socialist model, where you can sit back and chide everyone as a warmonger and then do absolutly nothing or offer any real plan to protect your citizenry. If governments role isn’t to protect its citizenry then what should its primary function be ? redistribution of wealth, social safety nets, why would the founders make security a priority ?
    The global test component is particularly annoying, so in your view we need to go to the corrupt UN for any of our security needs. Also why do we need to get foreign approval for our own safety, why would we NEED to go to some international NGO for their thumbs up ? And only when Kofi Annan gives up the thumbs up and the Blue helmets lead us into battle can we ever defend ourselves against anyone. Not a very tenable position, did we elect the UN or the NGO’s or our allies, then how are they accountable. What are their stakes in the game and why are you so willing to give over our sovereignty to others ? How does this type of foreign policy jive in a post 9/11
    Absolutes in the realm of intellegence ?, when has that ever been achieved. Since in the real world none of your conditioned would ever be achieved then it really isn’t a realistic foreign policy, now is it ?

  8. Number one, I never said we could never use force. The two world wars would have met every criteria I listed earlier. Tell me, what military intervention since WWII was worth the price in blood and treasure? Korea? That’s debatable. Iraq in ‘91? Maybe. Afghanistan? Probably. What did we gain from our wars in Central America, Vietnam, the Balkans as well as our proxy wars in Asia and Africa? Grenada? Somalia? Panama? You sound a lot like Madeline Albright when she asked what’s the point of having the world’s most powerful military if we aren’t going to use it. We should just make war and kill people because we’ve spent so much money building the capability to do so. Is that what you are suggesting?

    The Defense Department should be just that, defense, but you seem to have a very itchy trigger finger, ready to drop bombs at a moment’s notice. Are you in the military? Have you ever seen a war zone? I’d be very surprised if you answer yes to either question. But you’d still keep powerful company, such as all the chicken hawks who launched this unnecessary war that has killed tens of thousands of people, while simultaneously viciously attacking veterans who don’t support it.

    Protect our citizens? Iraq never threatened or attacked us, so I guess you are making my argument: we shouldn’t have attacked Iraq. Here’s a suggestion, stop attacking people who’ve caused us no harm. Why don’t radical Muslims attack Japan or Brazil, or other countries that don’t attack them? The citizens of Serbia were very pro-American before we destroyed their country. Now they hate us. Al Quada wasn’t in Iraq before we attacked. Now they are and the hatred toward the US amongst ordinary Iraqis is growing. Do you see a pattern here?

    No one is suggesting there are absolutes in intelligence. But absolutes are a lot different than lying or manipulating intelligence to support a pre-determined action. Niger yellowcake? Ties to Al Quada? Prague meetings with Atta? WMD? Forged documents in Italy? Don’t you understand the difference between intelligence and lying about intelligence?

    I said we should get international support, because things would be easier that way and the risks would be shared, but I used the word should and not must for a reason. Where did I say we should turn over sovereignty to the UN? Read before you write, and comment on what I actually wrote, not what you want to believe I wrote.

  9. “Yours is the party that called the Vietnam vets baby killers and spit on them as they returned, you cheer when they cut too deep in military spending (remeber the “peace dividend”) now they are worried about vets?”

    Well, my dad is a Vietnam War vet. How about you, Ray M?

  10. Hey Mark, tell your Dad that I appreciate his service to our country. Still doesn’t seem to make you libs any more military friendly does it. But again the chickenhawk arguement is a little vacous and seems and if thats the only defense you have you may want to boneup on some history and civics. Our military is run by non-militaries, right, the civialians run the military, so by yours and realities definition alot of the Presidents were chickenhawks when they put our troops in harms way. And further if, as Reality states you need to be in a warzone to qualify, that would reduce those allowed to discuss military matters to a paltry less than 2% of the population that serve in our all voluteer force. If you guys are angling for a military junta as a form of gov’t that doesn’t seem to be too good either. On the other side of the coin your opinions on this matter are as valid as mine but I’m not trying to shut you up with a label.
    Your right Reality you didn’t say never but you set up conditions that would effectively take force off the table. I think that Bush and Congress followed all those rules in the run up to the war and now what you are doing is using hindsight to say that the intellegence was manipulated. What you know today no one knew so no one could have manipulated that which they didn’t know. So unless we can invent a time machine to go back and forth thru time to insure that the intel was bad or good we cannot decide to do anything. Jay has great points in another post that the intel was twice investigated by bipartisan commitees and still we hear that Bush lied and the intel was manipulated, oh yeah and the dems weren’t given the proper intel, they get the other kind right. Well if thats the case how is it that they are now calling for withdraw just 15 days before the constitution election in iraq, they have the bad intel nes pa we cannot listen to them. Why does this work on you I don’t know but let me ask you: Don’t they have access to all those agencies that make a living collecting intel, is there some kind of Gorelick wall between the executive and the congress ? Through this whole exchange we have heard of the executive branchs errors and the corruption with the president. Those members of congress who are the presidents biggest critics are the exact same people who have sat through actions taken by Clinton as well as Bush and they escape scrutiny why is that. At any time during the process they could have gummed up the works. In VietNam as you may remeber the voted to defund the military contribution to Siagon, effectively ending the war and cedeing the territory to the communists. Why no such action against Clinton or Bush ?

    Our proxy wars and we are the problem, you know they have declassified some of the documents from Moscow you may want to read up on some of those “proxy” fights before pinning the blame on the US. Grenda (Marxist) absolutely, Nicaragua (Marxist), Africa, Asia, middle east all “worth it” But since your a blame America first’er, and that the US only builds up its military just to use it (I don’t even know how to respond to such a comment), I let you know that I believe they were all “worth” it. To your ilk none are worth it because the world is always at peace before we enter it not the other way around. The world is not a dangerous place until and unless the US makes the scene. If we are so imperious where are all our conquered nations where are all our colonies. Have we taken all those resources for the world or just traded with them ? Were is that “blood for oil” when you need it ?If the US is so bad why didn’t we get to have our own Iron Curtain after world war II, why France and Germany could be classified as belegerents against us today, how is that possible in Pax Americana. What did we do with Korea after we supposedly went to war for it, did we subjegate the South like the current dear leader of the North did. How about Viet Nam or laos or Cambodia. How did all those supposed nationalist movements end up for the people living there and wasn’t it a coincedence that the all seemed to do that nationist thing together or in short order, and you know what they all ended up communist or a peoples democratic something or other.
    As far as the countries “loving” us, spare me the sophistry. No country loves another, this is just the “we wasted the solidarity of the world canard” that Kerry wanted us all to believe. We freed Europe and rebuilt them you’d think they would love us, right, not so. To niavely believe that the lone super power will be loved by all is just absolute bunk. Hey do you know why the Japanese are cozying up to us more, ’cause they have China in their backyard thats the way of international relations, not some Dr. Phil show call in.
    Yellowcake, Niger, faked documents in italy, you know the British intelligence hasn’t back off the Niger connection even after being investigated, maybe they didn’t get to read Joe Wilsons editorial in the NYT. Prague meeting of Atta, the Cechs still maintain that it had happened, why didn’t they get the memo. Ties to Al Quida, wasn’t Kusay the liason for the contact and weren’t they exploring some options. Oh thats right you guys assured us that the secularist Saddam and the religious would never get together right.
    We also followed you suggestion to get international support. Bush tryed and were rebuffed, why becasue France,China, Russia and Germany were in bed with Saddam. How about the others that joined the coalition, Japan,Britian,Poland, S.Korea, Kuwait, why are they not considered international support. Hence the reason for my assertion that you are looking for UN approval for our security, or you wouldn’t throw the Kerryesk statement of we didn’t get any international support

  11. Ray, your problem is that you equate “military-friendly” with unthinking fealty to the whims of leadership (at least as long as that leadership has an (R) next to its name). True patriots are those who only behave like soldiers when they’re wearing the uniform, then challenge conventional wisdom when they disagree with it in their post-military civilian life. When non-soldiers behave as though the President is their drill sergeant, it’s merely pitiful.

    And there’s nothing wrong with being a chickenhawk…unless of course you expect to be taken seriously.

  12. Ray, we don’t need a time machine to find out if the intelligence was “fixed” to sell the war, we just need to follow through with a serious non-partisan investigation, which the Republicans keep delaying. If the administration really did lie don’t you think the American people should know? Or maybe you would prefer we keep everything secret and never question our leaders, just like the good old days of the Kremlin.

    In the meantime, I’d recommend you fill out an application for a passport and then undertake some lengthy travel outside the US. It’s probably a good idea for someone with your level of interest and understanding of international issues.

  13. Since you guys need to label the people opposed to you, and if it makes you feel good by all means do so. To think that we follow mindlessly is again another one of those short and brainless non sequenters. But you know what is truely pathetic is that people like yourself somehow feel that the liberties we enjoy are never require defending. That true peace is something that just spontaneously arises out of the natural good will of the peoples of the global or if the USA had been invovled. The problem is that when you read history no matter how brief you read that this Kumbayaa version of history has never been, ever. That only through constant vigilance and dry powder is the liberty of this nation protected. Or what did Jefferson say “the tree of liberty requires the blood of patriots”. We don’t have to pay any cost to maintain our liberty all we have to do is make a treaty or some international NGO or some other paper, worhtless agreement to appease all these despots , dictators and tyrants. The world isn’t that backward you claim its only us, but as we see with Islamofascism that is still not the case. WW1, to WW2. to the cold war to the current war, your side has been proven wrong time and again at great cost to us the great unwashed and yet you still persist in thinking your euro snobbery should somehow make the call for these complex issues. And yet if you look at our history or the history of any other civilization its been on the backs of our military men and women that we have been able to persist and survive. Pathetic is the person who thinks that the non-working solutions to history’s problems (peace in our time) need only be dusted off and applied to todays problems.

    Reality how many more investigations of the same intel, why would a reposible governement resist full blown investigations during war time ? Maybe ’cause its wartime and not time for a fishing trip to just to gain some political points? Wasn’t there 2 bipartisan ones already (Jay names them in another post and goes in to some good detail), isn’t that enough ? Why another one ? Not getting the supposed answers to fill in the gaps of the wacko conspiracey nuts ? Could it be possible that some intel needs to be kept secret while at war or should we just give our enemies the same intel we are working on / after all its only fair right, 2 investigations suffices for me but maybe you have an agenda that Bush lied, do ya think !, and until and unless you get that answer you won’t be satisfied, but what happens Reality if he didn’t, what happens if like Blair and the rest of our allies he went to war with what he had, just like every other President in our history did.

  14. “WW1, to WW2. to the cold war to the current war, your side has been proven wrong time and again at great cost to us the great unwashed and yet you still persist in thinking your euro snobbery should somehow make the call for these complex issues.”

    Wow, I think Ray needs to be cited for ignorance of history…

    Who lead us through WWI?

    Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat.

    Who lead us through WWII?

    Franklin D. Roosevelt, a Democrat, and probably the closest we’ve ever been to having a socialist in the whitehouse.

    Who were the first people to go to Spain and fight the fascists?

    Oh yeah, American and British Social Democrats and COMMUNISTS.

    Who were the most agressive boosters of the Cold War?

    Kennedy, Johnson, and the friggin’ AFL-CIO.

    In the 1990’s, who dragged the US, kicking and screaming, into the Balkans, while the GOP cried about the “boys that would come home in body bags” and “the high cost”?

    Bill Clinton, of course. Also, in 1999, the initial phases of what would become the “War on Terror” were planned under the Clinton Administration and the auspices of Wes Clark… probably why the initial phases of the Afghanistan campaign worked…

    No, the sides don’t matter. It’s all blatant partisanship. If Al Gore had been president, and dragged us into a war in Iraq, the Democrats would have lined up behind him while the Republicans would have screamed about the $200 billion price tag, the reckless spending, and the lack of respect for the millitary by those awful Democrats who want to waste our millitary strength in a useless social work mission in the Middle East.

    Oh, and if you think the Dems are anti-millitary, I suggest you go tell that to Tim Johnson or Stephanie Herseth. I’d be suprised if you didn’t get punched in the face.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.