Time to quit lying about Bush & Co. supposedly lying about the reasons for war. Robert Kagan puts an end to it once and for all:

Kagan

Bean, if the Preznit shit glass you'd tell us it was diamonds and celebrate our new found wealth. Kagan was an original sort-of cheerleader of Mess O'Potamia and has been a co-author with such fuckwits as Bill Kristol about the need to go to war in Iraq.

I see that Kagan managed to bring the Clenis™ into the justification for war as well. This must be the first time you people have done a happy dance for Bill.

On what day will you admit that the administration that promised to bring "Honor and Dignity" back to the people's house are no more than liars and thieves? Today, for the first time since U.S. Grant and administration official has been indicted (props to digby for that).

So really, Bean old boy, what do these crooks have to do to make you realize that they would do anything to advance their agenda and consolidate their power, burn your house down? Kill your pets? Threaten the life of your family? I'm just wondering...because you know, they probably would if it meant the difference between staying where they are and ending their existance in ignominy.

Oh, and by the way, where is Osama?

Please, Jo. Quite significantly, you didn't address a single issue raised by Kagan, who shows that many people for many years were citing the dangers of Saddam's Iraq and the need to do something about it.

You just do what you always do: engage in ad hominem attacks, a sure sign of someone who doesn't have the fact on his side.

I don't even know why I'm having this discussion. If you want a fact, for all of Kagans' and the NeoCon hysteria about Saddam there were No Weapons of Mass Destruction found. Is that such a difficult concept? The war was a sham. The reasons were a sham. North Korea was (and is) a more significant threat than Iraq ever was. I have not seen a single argument made for an preemptive invasion of North Korea. Or have I missed something?

As for ad hominem attacks and not "having facts on my side" what other facts are relevant to this entire discussion besides lying about the WMD's and everything from that point on?

Oh, and where is Osama?

The idiots running this war/country sold the American people that they are the ones who'll protect us. Didn't protect us too well on 9/11 did they? In fact, they down right suck at it. They took the war to the enemy? No, they brought young American troops closer to a now growing danger that has only grown much worse under their watch. Look, I'm not saying we shouldn't defend ourselves. We have every right to do so. I served myself in combat arms for 5 years as a grunt and tanker before switching over to the AF until retirement. I don't just support the troops, I was one of the troops. I personally think we should have gone into Afgantistan with overwhelming force and taken out Osama's group, instead of screwing around in Iraq in an attempt to secure that country's oil supply (ah, the real reason for the attack on Iraq). Then we should have given the Afgans real help in building their country, instead of installing the oil industry stoogies that are now there. Instead, the neocon chickenhawks have us in a possibly no-win situation (which will negatively affect our standing in the world), being fought by only a small percentage of this country, liberal and conservatives alike. Was Saddam a bad guy? Yep, but that was not the reason given for attacking Iraq. If attacking bad guys we don't like is going to be our national policy, I wonder how Bean will react when the Dems come back to power with that kind of a mandate. Oh wait, didn't they cry when we went into Kosovo to stop ethnic genocide? Yes they did, because we were operating under the auspices of the United Nations? But that ended successfuly without loss of American life due to combat. Uh, the Republicans are better at protecting us? NOT!

has-bean~

I'm not even going to be nice about this.

Shut your goddamn mouth when grown folks are talking. You know NOTHING and it's obvious. When you yellow elephants are faced with the truth, all you do is play semantics games. You were wrong. Get over it.

Simple facts you probably don't know about: Clinton said Sadam was a threat. Many nations, including FRANCE, believed there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

The Kagan article is the latest in a series in which he tries to justify his role in starting an unnecessary war.

You'll note that almost all of the military scholar types who write these kinds of things were part of the right wing think tank world, and they all pushed for the war.

And with a few exceptions, none of these military scholars ever served.

Even worse, Jo, Kagan's not just a cheerleader, he's a co-founder of PNAC, of which his dad was an original signatory, too. Vested interest and all that.

(You have to love their self-description as "An educational organization supporting American global military, diplomatic, and
moral leadership"...)

-- Nate, care to provide some PROOF for that? And yeah, Clinton - so? Plenty of us don't admire him, let alone worship him. ("NABA Bush" is not praise.) Guy was a lightweight, just as indebted to the military-industrial complex and the Corpo machine as anyone. The fact that Albright was out there stumping for a hot war against Iraq in '98 is being broadcast by the *Left* as a discrediting fact. We are not a monolith, who oppose Bush.

Soon the bush-a-holics like bean, nate and co. will hit rock-bottom; it's only then that the process of recovery can begin. But then again, there are people who still revere dictators and sadly, some alcoholics never recover. The info on no wmd was available early on, as Blix reminds us. (I hope the bush-a-holics who visit this blog trust USA Today as a source, but the information will be officially published by the UN.)

By the way, I hope all valiant 101st Fighting Keyboardists here have done or will be doing their tours of duty in Iraq to support their fearless leader's "mission".

You Can Kill, Just Don't Lie

The impeachment articles in the case of Richard Nixon charged him with lying about the bombing of Cambodia but did not charge him with war crimes for the actual bombing. The bombing resulted in 600,000 dead and the destruction of much of the farmland in Cambodia driving the peasants into the open arms of the Khmer Rouge.
We are witnessing the same phenomenom today as the Fitzgerald enquiry has charged Libby with perjury and obstruction of justice. He lied so he is a bad boy but not because he was a major player in all the decisions about Iraq which resulted in a multitude of war crimes.

The discourse about the wrongdoing of President Bush focuses on his lies about his reasons for going to war against Iraq but not about the horrendous war crimes for which he is ultimately responsible. The polls, now showing that the people want him impeached, reveal that people are disgusted by the lying of President Bush but not by his war crimes.

All of this is a reflection of a political culture in the United States that supports aggression, intervention and militarism to protect American interests. The voices of dissent are muffled by a press that supports the imperialistic rulers of the empire. The so-called opposition party, the Democrats, is of the same mind and part of a consensus that was struck very early in the history of this imperialisic republic. The explanation for the lack of critique of the President's defense and foreign policy is that Democratic presidents have embraced the same imperialistic policies.

With the media and the opposition on board, there is virtually no prospect that there will even be a discussion about war crimes. The danger in this vacuum of any real dissent is that Americans will not demand that their presidents respect international law and institutions. Until that day, the world is not safe.

AUTHOR OF "LYING FOR EMPIRE: HOW TO COMMIT WAR CRIMES WITH A STRAIGHT FACE"

Ha, ha, GOBH. Is that really how adults talk?

Where were the WMD? Well, some of them were used on Iranians during the '80s. Some of them were used on the Kurds in Halabja in 1988. Even Saddam admited he has 8,000 litres of VX at the end of the first Gulf War. You moonbats on the Left continue to deny reality. Saddam had them at one time and actually used them and twice invaded his neighbors. That's why Saddam was more dangerous than your average bad guy in other countries, and that's why Kagan points out that other people, including the hyper-liberal New York Times, believed it and said something needed to be done about Saddam. Not a one of you has yet to address the points raised by Kagan; the silence is deafening!

Where's Osama? Well, has anyone actually heard from him in the past 2 years? Nope. Oh, and when was the last terrorist attack on US soil? Sounds like Bush & Co. have done a pretty good job of protecting us after all.

Bush trying to avenge his father? I've never believed that. Steve Gilliard has a good take on the family relations:

http://stevegilliard.blogspot.com/2005/10/inside-white-house-pt-1.html

As Helen Thomas so finely put it, "Mr. President, why don't you just ask your staff who leaked Valerie Plame's name?"

Where's Osama? Well, has anyone actually heard from him in the past 2 years? Nope. Oh, and when was the last terrorist attack on US soil? Sounds like Bush & Co. have done a pretty good job of protecting us after all. (bean)

Bean, apparently your dear leader thought the weapons might be hidden somewhere in the oval office since they could not be found in Iraq. Yes, Saddam used weapons on Iraqi citizens during the 1980s, but then, the US also established normal relations with Iraq during that time, and was in the biz of selling weapons to Saddam.

Even the trolls are desperate now, they're responding to their own bullshit and digging their graves even further.

Good post Jo.

Mainstream liberals, have for the most part supportted the idea that force can and should be used in situations where we can at least do more good then harm. In other words the moral case for military intervention in order to save lives. While Bush gave some generic presidential speeches about democracy between his election in 2000 and 9-11-2000, he never once made the case to the American people that Iraq should be invaded for humanitarian reasons in order to save the Iraqi people from tyranny, nor did he ever made the the case that the WMD that supposedly existed in 2003, also exsisted and were an "urgent threat" in any public statements in 2000. For if he truly believed that Saddam was a "unique and urgent threat" he would be guilty of letting the U.S. and the world be vulnerable to that threat without taking appropriate action during the first two years of his reign. Bush's humanitarian reasons, or his apologists post war rationale of humanitarian intervention fall flat when one considers that over 350,000 people have died in the Sudan during the neocon's tenure and Bush has made no attempt to intervine, handing off that messy detail to others to deal with.
How do the Iraqis view the neocon rescue mention? Courtesy of Juan Cole:
• Forty-five per cent of Iraqis believe attacks against British and American troops are justified - rising to 65 per cent in the British-controlled Maysan province;
• 82 per cent are "strongly opposed" to the presence of coalition troops;
• less than one per cent of the population believes coalition forces are responsible for any improvement in security;
• 67 per cent of Iraqis feel less secure because of the occupation;
• 43 per cent of Iraqis believe conditions for peace and stability have worsened;
• 72 per cent do not have confidence in the multi-national forces.

Like many liberals, I hoped and prayed for a successful mission. I thought that at least there's one less sociopath in the world. Who knew that incompetence, malevolance, and blinding hubris from the Bushies would squander even the the bare remnants of victory. Pardon the language, but regardless of staying the course or changing course, Bush has given Iraq and America one giant cluster fuck.

Where's Osama? Well, has anyone actually heard from him in the past 2 years? Nope. Oh, and when was the last terrorist attack on US soil? Sounds like Bush & Co. have done a pretty good job of protecting us after all.

*Talking points approved and certified by Frank Luntz.*

Ol' bean needs to spend a few years in a military uniform, in order to come to the senority level of we Veterans here.

I think once that plateau has been reached, it's credibility level may reach acceptability.

Doubtful, I know. But fer now, bean'ol boy... just shut your cock holster, and go back to your cheetos in mommy's basement.

Veterans who freely gave up every right as a citizen of this nation to serve it, are having a conversation here. We gave up those rights freely, so that ignorant assholes like yourself could spew your dribble, and play with yourselves while we were in harms way.

So, while you feel it necessary to try and promote this hyperbole as truth, the vast majority of the Veterans here, are far more intelligent - and easily pick through your infantile charade.

If this is the manner in which you Respect and Honor the Veterans who gave for your freedom... then you aren't fit to lick the dust off from my Marine Corps issue combat boots.

Semper Fidelis

Hey, Barndog, I was an 0331 for 7 years, so maybe you can lick my muddy combat boots while you're at it. Neither you no anyone else here has "picked through my infantile charade."

And still no one has yet to answer the substance of Kagan's article. You just call him and me names.

The silence is deafening!

BTW, why do all you moonbats on the Left still wish Saddam was in power?

You guys are being too hard on Bean. He's just trying to say Bush made a mistake. At least he's not trying to argue that Bush was right.

The American people know that g.w. Bush is a born again cristian and that going to war in Iraq was gods command.
God told G.W. to run for president and every thing he does god told him to do it. Why blame G.W. for it was gods fault.
Isn't it time to impeach Bush and throw the bums out before we have something worst then water gate?

I second my brother Barndog's sentiments.
Beano needs to experience laying in his own piss-soaked britches trying to remember the words to the Act of Contrition (it's a RC thing) while mortar rounds are dropping in around him and his buddies. It would give his fucking whining about bushit's war some fucking needed perspective. Like how the TROOPS feel about being used as bomb-bait in a ideological clusterfuck initiated by a bunch of non-hacking, lying cowards!
Semper Fi!
There might have been many U.S. politicians and other governments who thought a lot of things about Hussein and WMD but only one gutless fuck gave the order to put U.S. lives on the line for such a questionable and, now, proven false assumption.

You guys are being too hard on Bean. He's just trying to say Bush made a mistake. He's not trying to say that Bush was right.

Citing media reports to make the case for war is pretty weak -- a lot of those reports came from people pushing the war in the first place. References to gas attacks 15 years in the past are also pretty thin.

You're also blurring the line between people who thought Saddam was a bad guy and those who thought Saddam was an imminent threat. The latter group mostly just consisted of the neocon whackjobs who happened to end up in Bush's employ. Gen. Anthony Zinni, CentCom commander during the Clinton years, testified before the war that Saddam was not an imminent threat.

It's somewhat hard to say that Bush lied, because he clearly believed he was telling the truth. But he did work very hard to discredit anyone presenting a different view. For example, Bush set up an Office of Special Plans to use intelligence the CIA decided wasn't credible. Bush also used a lot of intel from Ahmed Chalabi and his people, who the CIA already decided was a con man. And then there's Joseph Wilson.

You can quibble as to whether this meets the legal definition of a lie, but it sure doesn't meet the definition of honesty that I learned in Sunday School.

I second my brother Barndog! Not everyone has to be a vet to have an opinion but don't forget that our brave armed forces personnel being blown to bits and maimed for life in Iraq are our fellow citizens ... not a bunch of toy figures on a gameboard to be moved around at the descretion of a group of lying, cowardly, neocons.
A lot of people in a lot of countries had strong opinions regarding Hussein and WMD. But only one clueless, cowardly fuck actually gave the word to put the lives of his citizens on the line for his own ends.
Laying in a pair of piss soaked britches trying to remember the words to The Act Of
Contrition (it's a Catholic thing)while mortar rounds are falling in around him and his friends would give Beano a WHOOOOOOOOLE different outlook on war in general. To die defending your country is one thing ... to die to support some fucking poltical outlook is a crime!
Semper Fi!!!

Kagan, Kagan, Kagan! One person's opinion is your total basis for justification for our citizens dying for nothing??? What, are you fucking Kagan in his pudgy ass with that 0331 dipstick of yours, you dipshit fuck??

bean - I still think you're completely full of shit, and off your medication. I don't know which Marines you may have been in, but the one I was in expected Marines to think for themselves - not parrot utter stupidity. How many hundred of times did you get hit in the head?

Maybe you would be served well to pay close attention to CMDR Huber up the page here - who has published required reading articles for the Naval War College, just for starters.
He's probally forgotten more about these issues, than Kagan has ever thought he knew about them in the first place.

I'd also like to know when the Marines started 7 year enlistment terms. 'Splain that for me willya, Lucy? Maybe you were "special".

You got about 8 more years to catch up to my seniority, buckshot. Marine or not , you're still a fucking idiot just like your buddy Kagan.

Bean ol' Bean:

Apparently you're lovin' the money quote from neocon Bob's article: "It was based on reporting by a large number of journalists who in turn based their stories on the judgments of international intelligence analysts, Clinton officials and weapons inspectors.", the "it" being reports of wmd in Iraq.

First question: In the face of there being no wmd in Iraq, what argument are you trying to make?
That reporters other than Judy got it wrong? So stipulated, but so what?

Or are you trying to argue there were in fact wmd there? Well then say so and then provide evidence of same.

See, there's a big difference between taking steps to make sure that what may exist -- wmd --will not be allowed to continue -- whacking the place with TLAMs as Clinton did (and signing the silly "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998", a PNAC-sponsored fantasy which specifically prohibited the use of US forces in Iraq) and invading. Please discuss.

As for "intelligence analysts" and "weapons" inspectors" -- they didn't call for an invasion either; rather, they were all about MORE weapons inspectors, which if we'd done that would have resulted in the likes of David Kay and Charles Deulfer reporting, say in '03 what they reported in '04: no wmd nowhere.

But then we knew that -- Condi gave the game away last week when she stated our reason for going to war was because after 9/11 you see, we just couldn't let the Middle East keep percolating along the way it was, you see. Oddly enough, nothing about wmd, Saddam and OBL high -fiving, etc. But then you probably knew that already.

By the bye, where is OBL?

Oh, and congrats on having an MOS. Outstanding.

Bean's buddies can't find bin Ladin so he must be dead? Then where is his right hand man, the Eygptian Doctor? Bush is good about starting wars but just can't seem to win them... even when he chooses the arena and time. Shock and yawn, I say. How long did WW II last again? How long has Bush been at it? And since we haven't had an attack on his watch since 9/11 he gets the credit? Then who gets the credit for having 9/11 actually happen on his watch? And what about all the American GIs killed by terrorists attacks on his watch?

Ha, ha. Bill and Barndog, your articulateness and fine reasoning abilities are simply amazing. Now let's back up again and re-read my original point: Everyone is accusing Bush of lying about Saddam when in fact many people for a long time were saying the same thing. It's one thing to be mistaken--and mistaken on good grounds, given Saddam's past--and lying. A very simple point that's apparently beyond your fine reasoning abilities.

On another point, Bush never said Saddam was an imminent threat. His exact words were "grave and growing threat." Putting words in his mouth is what's called a straw-man agrument, one that thickheads often resort to although they're often too, well, thickheaded to realize it.

And Barndog, my seven years come from an initial 4-year enlistment and then re-enlisting for 3 years specifically for MSG Duty, a 3-year billet.

"On another point, Bush never said Saddam was an imminent threat. His exact words were "grave and growing threat.""

That's pretty weak, Bean. Bush apparently thought Saddam was an imminent enough threat to justify a pre-emptive war.

I do applaud your reasoning skills for being able to recognize Bush made a mistake, though. If you see how hard he worked to suppress good information, though, it's hard to call it an honest mistake. I question why you're such a strong supporter of someone who bungled national security so badly.

1. Timely
   
2. Strategery
   
3. Webb wins
   
4. Huh?
   
5. Bunnypants in Bagdad
   
6. Outage
   
7. Filthy Lucre Watch
   
8. Playing the numbers
   
9. My letter to Countdown
   
10. Jefferson's Nigerian Scams