The war is a dangerous issue

[jpgray]

Bush could easily pull a Nixon, and say he has a plan to move the UN in and reduce US troop presence--exactly the plan of every Democrat. Worse, if matters simply improve, it makes the Democrats look like reactionary opportunists. "Improving" the situation is something Bush has total control over. The most press any candidate gets has to do with bashing Bush, and that's what everybody seems to love at DU. Well, if the bashing turns out to be empty in media terms, such as if we find WMD (possible) or capture Saddam/Osama (also possible), the image of that "wrong" criticism will be burned into people's brains, and our candidates will look weak. Think if Bush brought in a multinational peacekeeping force, brought in the UN, and troops started coming home. What if the Iraqis really started throwing roses? Do you see what the problems could be?

So, how do we stop this from happening? Hoping that Bush continues to ruin things is not a good strategy, because he will swing back toward electable and the Dem candidates will hemorrhage and look silly as Bush adopts their own policies and ideas as his own. Remember, Bush has no scruples. If he gets the economy and the war to improve, all the anger and activism means nothing. Plan for that, because it may very well happen.

But I think he has painted himself into a corner. He canned Shinseki for giving the hundreds of thousands estimate, so he can't send more troops to stabilize Iraq for that reason. He can't totally fix the economy by last-minute action, which we are near to now. So probably this won't be a problem, but if those two issues are removed, the Democrats are screwed into running on what Gore ran on--complex issues that Bush can dance his way out of trouble on like healthcare and court appointees.

Remember, during the "race to Baghdad", everyone and their mother claimed the army was bogged down, would never take Baghdad, etc. and what happened in like half a day? All the critics put their feet right in their mouths, and had to scuttle away from the issue. Let's not let that happen to us in 2004. Strong, flexible criticism that doesn't depend on Bush screwing things up is what will work best. Don't let the war be the centerpiece, because Bush has the capacity to marginalize it as an issue--the Democrats do not.

[w4rma]

1. Is the army bogged down in Iraq? Yup. (n/t)

[wtmusic]

2. "Worse, if matters simply improve"?

I think we've got some tunnel vision going down here jp...

Let's "hope" that Bush is able to stop people dying in Iraq. Fuck American politics--there are lives at stake and I would be overjoyed if he can get our troops home and help Iraqis get started.

Doesn't make him right, doesn't make him electable in 2004.

[jpgray]

4. It's "worse" long-term for those troops if Bush is elected

That's why we can't let him take the issues away. With the war he has the power to do that. The big things on the table are the war and the economy. If Bush can take both those away, the "the candidates are the same" argument will reign supreme in the media once more. Nader will say it if Kucinich isn't the nominee, and he will get camera time every time he does.

[wtmusic]

6. Sorry, but it sounds like

you'd be willing to sacrifice lives now so we'd still have our issues.

Personally I hope Bush is able to get us the hell out of Iraq and fix the economy. I also believe Bush has not one chance in hell of fixing Iraq or the economy so the point is moot.

[jpgray]

9. The antiwar Dem election scenario is worse

if Iraq improves. It gets better if Iraq is a quagmire. That doesn't say "oh good, let's hope troops die", that's just objective analysis. If Bush pulls out a miracle and saves all the troops and makes Iraqis happy and free, I would be the happiest guy around. In terms of a Dem's chances for president, it would be for the "worse". In general terms it would be great. Understand what I mean?

[sandnsea]

3. If Democrats are always right

Why don't we just elect them instead? There's only one real way out of the Iraq mess, as you pointed to, and the Democrats should be leading the way. Then if Bush chooses to follow that path, the Democrats thank him and claim victory. Same with the economy, the environment, health care, medicare, state budget problems, etc. The Democrats really have to become the leaders in this country because the country needs them to be. I wish they could see that.

[acmavm]

5. Everyday Bush & Co. are starting to show what thugs they are. Take

the military tribunal trials they want to hold in Guantanamo. There is no more blantant example of arrogance on this earth that for them to put people on trial without telling anyone what the charges are, what the evidence is, and for that matter, establishing what right they have to even hold the trials. You don't think that it isn't absolutely apparent to the rest of this world that this is immoral, illegal, and unjust? What about the Patriot Act and Patriot Act II? There have been how many places that have stood up and told the federal government that they don't intend to follow these constitutionally prohibited acts? And what about this move into Liberia? Oh, some will say that this is a peace keeping action, an action to save the poor Liberians from a tyrant, Robert Taylor, just like they save Iraq from Saddam Hussein. Bull. This is a move to get a foothold into Africa. Why? Oil. Nigerian Oil. African oil. This bunch of thugs are not the benevolent saviors they want everyone to believe they are.

Okay, what if they do find WMDs in Iraq? And they might, I'm sure they've smuggled them into the country by now. But even if they pull the old "look what we found" act, that does not justify the reason we went into Iraq. We went into Iraq because, as everyone in this administration as well in Britain said, Iraq was an "imminent" threat. Do you not recall the "mushroom cloud" scenario that crazed bitch Rice described? THERE WAS NEVER ANY IMMINENT THREAT FROM IRAQ to the United States or Great Britain. All that rhetoric was lies. They played on peoples fears, and they are still doing it. But sooner or later, people are going to get damn sick and tired of the money that Bush & Co. are sending out of the country. If democrats are smart they will just keep a running tally of how much American money is going to places like Afganistan, and Iraq. Hell, start keeping track of how much money is going to Israel. And keep pointing out how bad the people in this country are hurting. How the fastest growing members of the homeless population are children. 40% and growing. Keep track of mortgage foreclosures, unemployment, how much money old people on limited incomes have to spend for medication. How about mentioning how many people lost their retirement funds in the Enron fiasco. And never forget, keep repeating what a failure George has always been in every endeavor he has ever undertaken. Start putting the pictures of the American and Iraqi dead in the public's faces. The pictures of My Lai are what really sickened the public on Viet Nam. And if our troops are willing to kill these people in the name of democracy, the people should be forced to look at what we are having them do.

[jpgray]

7. People don't hear

"Where was the imminent threat?" They hear "where are the WMDs/Bin Laden/Hussein?" That is a big part of the problem--the media have slyly defined the Dems' criticism for them in a very narrow fashion.

So when Bush switches his stances to match or nearly match the Democratic candidates', do we just claim "no he hasn't"? I'm not sure how effective that will be, but what else can you do?

[acmavm]

10. Then you point out again and again that he's lying, and you come up

with the proof that he never, ever, ever intended to take a stance similar to what the democrats have been saying. The dumb ass has left traces of all his devious acts all over the place. He's pissed enough people off that they won't forget, and they won't let him forget. Every time he says or does something and someone stands up to him, he quakes in his little boots. Never forget, * is basically a coward. He gets his backbone from Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, that weasel Powel, Wolfowitz, etc. Everytime he opens his mouth without a careful script, he says something ignorant like "bring 'em on". He needs to be forced into saying more crap on his own.

And another thing, people need to be thinking ahead of the guy. Here in Omaha he went to Airlite Plastics for one of his rah rah speeches. The Secret Service put the demonstrators in a First Amendment zone way out of the coward's sight and sound. The excuse the S.S. used was that it was private property along the motor route and they couldn't give demonstrators permission to "demonstrate" on private property. My boss at the time (I was doing an internship with the ACLU for my degree as a paralegal) sent me to the County Assessor's office to find out what public right of ways or public property were on the route. I found a lot owned by the City of Omaha right along the motor route. So the S.S. lied. And that's where people have to get smart. Check this stuff out. Don't let them whammy you with bullshit. Stand up to the lies. And then, threaten a lawsuit. That was a CLEAR violation of First Amendment rights and there was public property right on the motor route that the demonstrators could have been placed.

Want to beat him? Don't back down!!!!

[leftofthedial]

8. sadly, more US troops would just mean more targets

The US in Iraq is like Israel in the West Bank, except 10,000 times bigger.

[BuelahWitch]

11. If Bush does that, won't it be admitting that he was wrong?

And we KNOW how arrogant the Chimp and his advisers are. They won't EVER admit they were wrong on anything!
They don't give a damn about the lives lost over there, they will just keep hitting their heads against the wall to prove they were RIGHT!

[jpgray]

12. To get elected he will do anything

Remember, this guy said in 2000 he would never nation build, etc. Remember "leave no child behind"? He won't admit he's wrong, but he doesn't let what he said and did in the past hold him back from flip-flopping entirely for political gain. His platform will make a lip-service lurch to the center and the media will eat it up. I just hope the Dems can fight it effectively.

[Egnever]

13. Dean has the right idea

Come out on the issues ahead of him. Dont let him define your stance for you , make him react to yours.

Deans coming out in suport of sending troops to liberia ahead of bush was brilliant, It made bush look like he was reacting to Dean.

I realize dean didnt get the coverage on his stance that bush did a few days later but he did get coverage and it is on record.

Dems need to do more of this. It is our single biggest proble right now we are reacting not leading. The only way to take it out of his hands is to come out with the right answer first!

[jpgray]

14. Reacting to an incumbent is part of any campaign

But I get what you're saying and agree. I'm not sure about Liberia yet--I need to do some more reading on it first.

[Egnever]

17. well......

Heres what Dean had to say

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6568&news_iv_ctrl=1301

But of course the chimp seems to be aproaching it with his usual ham handedness. Taking what should be a fairly straightforward situation and trying to impose his will instead of just walking in quietly and doing the right thing.

We will see what kind of mess he makes of it. My confidence is not very high at this point as he has mouthed of in his usual way again and made ultimatums again.

[ParanoidPat]

15. Flame bait....

....So wrong in so so many ways as to be laughable! :evilgrin:

I guess the main point being the undeclared, unconstitutional, pre-emptive 'war' (read invasion) was sold to the public based on nothing but LIES from our highest elected representatives! I don't care what straw men you hold up, the INVASION was UNCONSTITUTIONAL and AGAINST U.S. & INTERNATIONAL LAW!

IMHO, The only people the 'war' issue is a danger to are those who would try to defend it! Democrats and Republicans alike. Try to keep in mind that it doesn't matter how many people buy the lie. What really matters is that our Constitution still holds as the basis for American law! To accept public opinion as the final arbiter of what is right and legal in lieu of the Constitution is to submit to mob rule, and I for one won't stand for it! :)

I just love the last part.

"Remember, during the "race to Baghdad", everyone and their mother claimed the army was bogged down, would never take Baghdad, etc. and what happened in like half a day? All the critics put their feet right in their mouths, and had to scuttle away from the issue."

That is a classic example of a 'straw man' defense. :thumbsdown:

First, please provide a link, any link, to where anyone ever said that the speed with which we reached Baghdad was an issue!
The issue was, and indeed still is, should we be invading Baghdad in the first place! :crazy:

Second, you seem to need a new watch! Let me see, half a day would be equal to 12 hours. Please go back and check on how long it took our troops to finish the 'race' from the time 'shock and awe' ended till the time we finally secured Baghdad! Oh, wait, I forgot we haven't quite won their hearts and minds yet! Call me when we have. Let me know when they stop trying to kill our boys and then I'll consider the 'race' to be over and won. Till then I'll be busy trying to see justice served on all who trashed our Constitution over this 'war', Republicans and Democrats alike! :)

"Strong, flexible criticism that doesn't depend on Bush screwing things up is what will work best. Don't let the war be the centerpiece, because Bush has the capacity to marginalize it as an issue--the Democrats do not. :shrug:

Yeah, like whatever dude! Sit around smokin' whatever shit it is your smokin', just don't tell me what to do! The day I let G.W. and the press decide that what they think is more important than the Constitution is the day I give up on America and move. And I don't feel like moving just yet! :evilgrin:

Let me just add that the war is the best issue the Democrats have right now. Screwing the economy isn't illegal last I checked. Neither is failing to provide adequate health care or retirement benefits. Dragging a country into an unjust invasion of a sovereign nation who poses no threat to you is. The Dems better jump on it or their complicit in it. :)

[jpgray]

16. You misunderstood the entire post

First--do you even know what a strawman is?

:)

First, please provide a link, any link, to where anyone ever said that the speed with which we reached Baghdad was an issue!
The issue was, and indeed still is, should we be invading Baghdad in the first place!

It wasn't about "how fast can we get to Baghdad", there was a great deal of talk about if we could even TAKE Baghdad. There were sandstorms and food shortages and everyone was yelling quagmire, and then all that vanished, because Saddam's boys had been bought off. No one mentioned that, but they did mention constantly how "wrong" the critics were. They're still mentioning it. If you go back in the LBN archives, you'll see oodles of articles saying capturing Baghdad was impossible.

Second, you seem to need a new watch! Let me see, half a day would be equal to 12 hours. Please go back and check on how long it took our troops to finish the 'race' from the time 'shock and awe' ended till the time we finally secured Baghdad!

Again, you are not reading the post or forgetting what actually happened. There was a period of several days of waiting outside Baghdad, when all the critics came out to blast Rumsfeld for not following the tipfiddle, etc. THEN in about a morning and an afternoon our troops had secured parts of the city and were running patrols unopposed.

Let me just add that the war is the best issue the Democrats have right now. Screwing the economy isn't illegal last I checked. Neither is failing to provide adequate health care or retirement benefits. Dragging a country into an unjust invasion of a sovereign nation who poses no threat to you is. The Dems better jump on it or their complicit in it.

First off, learn about your country. This war by no means unique. The war IS a travesty, and a crucial issue, and Democrats need to take Bush to the clearners on it. I don't believe however that it should be the only potent weapon in our arsenal. If the situaiton improves, or if Bush implements the Democrats' own plans, the public in general will not "get" Dem criticism about the war's illegailty; what he did before will fall into the memory hole and never be heard of again. Do you expect the media to report it after the fact when they didn't in the first place? With the media in his pocket and an as-yet apathetic electorate, I wouldn't base my whole campaign around the Iraq war--too much could happen between now and 2004.

We agree that the war should be an important part of the campaign. When Bush lurches to the center, he will try to make it a non-issue, mark my words. Keep in mind how the media act, and I hope you will consider how dangerous the issue can be. The dems should give Bush holy hell for the war, but they should also be prepared for any eventuality.

[ParanoidPat]

20. First, do you know what a quagmire is?

Go check LBN! How many people (you know, people, as in Americans, Iraqis, Australians etc.) DIED or were wounded yesterday? How many more will die today, and tomorrow and the next day?
I could care less what 'they', whoever the hell 'they' are, say!

"It wasn't about "how fast can we get to Baghdad", there was a great deal of talk about if we could even TAKE Baghdad. There were sandstorms and food shortages and everyone was yelling quagmire, and then all that vanished, because Saddam's boys had been bought off. No one mentioned that, but they did mention constantly how "wrong" the critics were. They're still mentioning it. If you go back in the LBN archives, you'll see oodles of articles saying capturing Baghdad was impossible."

I'll tell you what a 'straw man' is.

EVERYTHING IN THE ABOVE STATEMENT! "A great deal of talk about if we could even take Baghdad", "sand storms", "food shortages", "Saddams boys had been bought off", "mentioning how wrong the critics were", "still mentioning it", "oodles of articles", each and every item is a 'straw man'!

Not one of the things you mention have any bearing on the fact that the invasion should never have occurred and was illegal! But the one that burns me the most is 'and then all that vanished'!

Please explain that to the families of the troops who were, and still are, being killed and injured daily! That is what a 'quagmire' is. We're there for no legitimate reason, stuck, with no good way out, suffering mounting losses on a daily basis. That kind of spells 'quagmire' in my book! What do you call it? We may have troops occupying Baghdad but to truly 'capture' it you must also capture the 'hearts and minds' of the people. I'm afraid that the way we're going about it, makes that impossible.

"If the situation improves, or if Bush implements the Democrats' own plans, ; what he did before will fall into the memory hole and never be heard of again. Do you expect the media to report it after the fact when they didn't in the first place? With the media in his pocket and an as-yet apathetic electorate, I wouldn't base my whole campaign around the Iraq war--too much could happen between now and 2004.

You've got to be kidding with this! "the public in general will not "get" Dem criticism about the war's illegailty"????

What the hell does public opinion or the media have to do with the enforcement of the law? If your elected representatives are unwilling to stand up for the rule of law and enforce it, regardless of the media and public opinion, all you have left is 'mob rule'.
You had better be willing to stand up and demand that your elected representatives follow the laws and prosecute those responsible for this travesty, otherwise what the hell are you electing? :shrug:

You tell me I should learn about my country. Are you trying to say that because they lied about the Tonkin Bay incident to get us into the Vietnam conflict and they lied about babies being thrown from their incubators to get us into the first gulf war that I should just accept more lies this time? Just because they got away with it in the past we should ignore it now? That somehow is alright with you?

I'll tell you kid, you've got balls telling me to learn about my country! I know how my country and my Constitution are supposed to work! I'll be damned if I just sit around and let the press or public opinion dictate whether the law and the Constitution are upheld by my elected representatives.

If you really believe what you've written, it's you that needs to learn about your country! You put a little too much faith in how the media says it should work, rather than putting out the effort to ensure it works properly. :)

[jpgray]

21. Whoa whoa whoa

I agree with you totally that the war is illegal. I've said that three or four times now.

I'm saying go back to the Mexican war, and what we were doing for Standard Oil and other corporations in Asia and Central/South America. This sort of war in America is about as old as our country.

So the war is illegal. Now, how do you mobilize the apathetic populace? Now, what if Bush "fixes" things so it isn't a quagmire? Can you still make the charges stick?

With the media in his pocket, how can you do anything with the necessary public support? How do you keep the whistleblowers or the first attackers from being crucified?

It isn't a question of whether Bush SHOULD be impeached and tried for war crimes, it's a question of HOW.

edit: What I'm saying is the public's interest in legal proceedings over this war is going to be tied to how the war is going. Yeah, that sucks, but that's the way it is. If Iraq is peachy, no one will give a crap. Sad but true.

[ParanoidPat]

23. not "Whoa whoa whoa", ATTACK, ATTACK, ATTACK!

....You're half way there! We both agree that staging a bogus invasion of a sovereign nation and targeting people for assassination without 'due process' (not to mention killing the wrong people and innocent bystanders!) are totally illegal ! The one area where we still apparently have a difference of opinion is in what to do about it.

You still seem to be under the 'illusion' that public opinion and the media somehow count when our elected representatives fail to uphold their sworn duties to 'support and defend' the Constitution! You seem to suffer from the 'American Idol' syndrome that stations like FAUX have been honing for some time now. That mistaken perception that somehow now is different than any other period in our history and public opinion of some sub group of people outweighs the basic underpinnings of our country. :(

If only 1% of the public finally gets tired of our elected reps shirking their sworn duties and start to scream "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it any more!" I suspect we'll start waking the neighbors! The problem with the anti-war protest movement is that the message was watered down. Too many groups were trying to get 'their' cause aired at the expense of the bigger message that we ALL share. Our root cause, the subversion of the Constitution by our elected representatives by their failure to uphold it, got lost in the details of too many different problems. :(

'We the People' must take our government back from 'they the powerful' who think that because 'they' hold public office, 'they' can do whatever the hell 'they' want! We must all temporarily set aside our pet causes and join in one common cause, protecting the Constitution and the rule of law and how it's applied to ALL! It's long past time to remind our elected representatives that they are not the leaders they think themselves to be. They are mearly our public servants, there to represent us in the expression of our collective will. We can't let them forget that. :) If we can't hold them accountable for their deeds under the law then what does it matter who's in office?

[jpgray]

24. The media is a huge obstacle

Because Congress will not move unless public opinion is in their favor. Certainly they won't move on their own when the Republicans have the majority. Remember the various Reagan scandals that didn't seem to touch him? No one wanted to touch that because the media wouldn't and the public didn't care--same problem here.

[ParanoidPat]

37. OK, Let me try to explain it another way...

....you need to stop just accepting that 'that's just the way it is' and start demanding the way it should be under the Constitution!

IOW, If 10,000 people on line started to e-mail and fax blast every member of Congress and the Senate, every day, with a short reminder of who they really are and why they're there, they will start to notice. If a week later 10,000 more people hear about it and decide to join the fun, they will have no choice but to notice something's changed. If less than one half of one percent of Americans, ONE MILLION PEOPLE, were to contact there elected reps every day with a simple reminder......

Do you think they'd get the message? :evilgrin:

It's time to stop just accepting that which we can all see is wrong and start demanding better of our country and our representatives.
Wouldn't you agree? :)

[jpgray]

38. OK, we do totally agree after all

I am an indefatiguable activist when it comes to Bush getting what's coming to him for this war. I've written dozens of legislators, probably hundreds of journalists, and had letters published in several newspapers trying to get things changed. I participate in every big protest in Minnesota, and I get the word out as often as I can to whomever I can.

[ParanoidPat]

47. Cool, that makes at least two of us....

....Now if we can each find two more and brainstorm a way to put together a freeware bulk e-mailer with all of the e-mail addresses pre loaded making it easy for anyone to type in a short message each day and hit send....:evilgrin:

It's that easy! If just half a dozen people start the push and develop the tools to make it easy, then offer the tools to other sites, in no time you've started something. Something long overdue.

If each person who decides to join in the fun gets two more people, and so on, you get the idea.
If we had the foresight and means to do this 20 years ago perhaps a number of the people in charge today would have actually been prosecuted and jailed years ago. Things wouldn't be as bad as they are today.
If we fail to act today, what Cabinet position will Ken Lay hold 20 years from now and how bad will things be then? :shrug: :scared: :)

[Classical_Liberal]

39. bogus history

The dems won huge majorities running against Reagan. You don't defeat republicans by agreeing with them. Newt won majorities by running against Clinton. As for the press, well it is a bunch of butt sniffing, as Buzzflash says. The day Daschle even looked a little like he would take on Bush, he was the lead story on every network, and he got more than a sound bite in. It simply isn't true that the dem congresscritters have no control.

[jpgray]

40. Was Reagan impeached or put in prison?

Then how is that bogus history? What about the numerous war criminals within his administration? Nope? I'm not talking about winning Congressional elections, I'm talking about putting war criminals behind bars.

edit: And where did I say the Repubs had a majority in the Reagan administration? Are you reading my posts?

[Classical_Liberal]

45. That is changing the goal post

It is bogus history to suggest that you can't take on republicans when in the minority. If that were the case, how did we ever get to be the majority. Iran contra was too complicated to understand. I didn't even get it until the neocons started pushing the pnac stuff. I don't think the congresscritters got it either or they would have fried bigger fish than Olly North, who was nothing but a neocon errand boy. I don't think Reagan knew what in the hell they were doing in the basemant, and it was his second term so he couldn't have lost election over it. Besides people who want to use this as an issue are talking about the election, not impeachment, for the most part and if that is what you were referring to maybe you should have said so. I for one would have avoided this thread.

[Dhalgren]

32. Ah, but you see, Lieberman needs cover.

If we can get Democrats to drop the anti-war stuff, then Lieberman can be viable. As it stands now, Holy Joe still supports the war and wants to invade Syria, too. No no no, if you support this illegal war you have no place in the Democratic nomination.

Nice try, though. :eyes:

[jpgray]

34. Again, please read the thread

.

[tommilator]

18. How many democrats...

Actually opposed the war? Not a whole lot as I recall. THAT is why they should avoid making it an issue. While the whole world was protesting and trying our best to get the 'NO WAR IN IRAQ' message across, the Democratic party was largely toeing the line of the AWOL emperor and his neocon cabal. Why? Where they afraid to be called unpatriotic terrorist sympathizers? Or did they really think the war was a project in Americas best interest and defense. Do democrat senators and congressmen only get their information from FOX news or did they have other reasons NOT to question el Presidente as his reasons for war shifted from WMD's to the elusive freedom of iraqis. War is a racket and unfortunately it seems like the democrats are just as entangled as the GOP. What USA needs is a genuine opposition or the powers that be will remain in power regardless if they're wearing a republican or democratic suit.

[jpgray]

19. I disagree

And I don't think the issue should be avoided--it should be met head-on. To answer your question, I would say they were chiefly worried about the political implications. We don't know for sure.

But there are some solid antiwar Dems that deserve the best shot they can get. That's why I think the war criticism should remain strong, but being prepared for a successful "peace" as well as a dismal failure should be important for all our candidates. It's possible Bush could try to fix everything before the election, and it wouldn't hurt to be ready for that.

AGAIN--this is not to say Dems shouldn't criticize Bush on the war. They should, and as often as possible.

[tommilator]

22. The damage of war is done

And a succesful peace is more like wishful thinking than something to prepare for (of course stories of success will be broadcast no doubt). Now you're there, on the ground in Iraq and its going to be ugly for years to come. Expensive too. As I see it, the best way to attack shrub is the lies told by his administration that brought about this unfortunate situation of "liberating" a country while occupying it to defend yourself...preemptively:
"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction....What he wants is time, and more time to husband his resources to invest in his ongoing chemical and biological weapons program, and to gain possession of nuclear weapons." -- Dick Cheney, August 26, 2002

"There is no doubt that (Saddam) has chemical weapons stocks." -- Colin Powell in a television interview Sept. 8, 2003

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons. Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon." - George W. Bush, in a speech to the United Nations General Assembly, September 12, 2002

"The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons. The Iraqi regime is building the facilities necessary to make more biological and chemical weapons." - - George W. Bush, in the Rose Garden, on Sept. 26, 2002

"It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons." -- George W. Bush, in a speech in Cincinnati, Oct. 7, 2002

"Saddam Hussein has chosen to build and keep these weapons despite international sanctions, U.N. demands, and isolation from the civilized world." -- George W. Bush, Oct. 7, 2002

"If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world." - Ari Fleischer, December 2, 2002

"There is no doubt in my mind but that they currently have chemical and biological weapons." -- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, January 7, 2003

"We know for a fact that there are weapons there." - Ari Fleischer, January 9, 2003

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent." - George W. Bush, State of the Union address, January 28, 2003

"We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more." - Colin Powell, February 5, 2003

"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have." - George Bush, February 8, 2003

"We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons. I think Mr. El Baradei frankly is wrong" --Dick Cheney, on NBC's `Meet The Press', March 16, 2003

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." - George Bush, March 17, 2003

"Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes." - Ari Fleischer, March 21, 2003

"There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. As this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them." - Gen. Tommy Franks, March 22, 2003

"We have seen intelligence over many months that they have chemical and biological weapons, and that they have dispersed them and that they're weaponized and that, in one case at least, the command and control arrangements have been established." -- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, in an appearance on CBS's `Face the Nation,' March 24, 2003

"We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad." - Donald Rumsfeld, March 30, 2003

"I think you have always heard, and you continue to hear from officials, a measure of high confidence that, indeed, the weapons of mass destruction will be found." - Ari Fleischer, April 10, 2003

"We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them." - George Bush, April 24, 2003

"There are people who in large measure have information that we need . . . so that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that country." - Donald Rumsfeld, April 25, 2003

"We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so." - George Bush, May 3, 2003

"I am confident that we will find evidence that makes it clear he had weapons of mass destruction." - Colin Powell, May 4, 2003

"I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein -- because he had a weapons program." - George W. Bush, May 6, 2003 (post invasion)


Because Rumsfeld is still going at it like the world is sharing his selective memory:

Q: And, Secretary Rumsfeld, can I just ask you -- follow-up on your statement about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. You said that -- in your opening statement, that there was no doubt before the war that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction "programs," was the word you used.

Rumsfeld: Yes.

Q: I'm just wondering, when I hear you say "programs," are you signaling at all that Iraq may not have had actual weapons or weaponized forms of this, but simply the programs to produce them? Or am I reading too much into what you said?

Rumsfeld: You may be reading too much. I don't know anybody that I can think of who has contended that the Iraqis had nuclear weapons.

Q: I didn't say nuclear --

Rumsfeld: I'm saying that. I'm trying to respond to your question. I don't know anybody in any government or any intelligence agency who suggested that the Iraqis had nuclear weapons. That's fact number one. If you go back to my statement, we also know that the Iraqis did have chemical weapons. They confessed to having had all of these weapons over a sustained period of time. I brought something along. In the '90s, Iraq admitted having 8,500 liters of anthrax and several tons of VX. Iraq admitted producing 6,500 chemical bombs containing an estimated 1,000 tons of chemical agents, none of which have ever been accounted for. In 1998, President Clinton said Saddam Hussein possessed 5,000 gallons of botulin, 2,000 gallons of anthrax, and 177 Scud warheads, and bombs filled with biological agents.

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/tr20030624-secdef0301.html

Is this man a complete nutter?? Now he want to redefine the newspeak word of WMD. This is where to hit them hard.

[Classical_Liberal]

25. If they could find the WMD

thye would have by now. It is more dangerous not to. Sorry. This is just the spin of prowar dems.

[jpgray]

26. Generalizations, aren't they neat

I wish you would at least read a thread before you pass judgment next time. ;-)

[Classical_Liberal]

27. Did you support the iraq invasion?

? Do you believe the dems who voted for it were right? I read the whole thing. It presumes most people strongly supported the war. Most didn't. Public opinion only supported it after it started and that was just rallying around, and based on provable lies, that about 400 guys will die for by the time primary season starts.

[jpgray]

28. No

And I think Democrats should continue to attack as hard and fast as they can on this. I'm just saying, don't be surprised if suddenly "Oh, guess what, we just found Saddam and Bin Laden and they were smoking 500 gallons of VX in hookah." Myself and a lot of the antiwar folks who were critical of Rumsfeld's plan were surprised when Baghdad was a pushover. Of course the RG generals were paid off, but we hardly heard that in the media, all we heard was how glorious the victory was and how silly the critics were.

If you check the archives, there wasn't a second when I supported the Iraq war.

[Classical_Liberal]

29. If it existed it would have been found

The adminstration is despirit to find weapons of mass destruction. That is why every mustard seed and bunsin burner found is spun as evidence of their program. I wasn't surprised when bagdad fell quickly. I was primarily worried about the pnac plan. They still threaten Iran and Syria all the time. The quaigmire thing didn't afflict everyone. The repuke predictions are much more embarrassing.

[jpgray]

31. If it existed in Iraq, I agree with you

:)

Getting suckered again is not something I'm interested in. After Rummy totally disregarded the tipfiddle and went in with underwhelming force, I should have guessed the fix was in. Well, I got suckered. Not again--I'll be prepared for any eventuality. If they captured Saddam/Osama or found even a few drops of WMD, I dn't doubt they would hold onto them until it was most politically profitable. The political jackpot for Bush is another four years.

Or maybe this time they had no plan and screwed up. Could be either one.

[Classical_Liberal]

33. They would use it to political advantage right now, if it were there

even George Will sees they are in a pickle. they are scared. It isn't a matter of getting suckered. Presuming they find a little, it is just a little. Then they have to explain why these massively dangerous things weren't used during the war, etc. Saddam had nothing to do with Al Qaeda. Osama hated him for being secular, so if Osama has them, they were gleaned after the war, which would be on Bush's watch. Now we have an incompetant bluderer. We just keep plugging away, we hit something. It is the theory behind the automatic weapon. Stop worrying about what they are going to do to us, and think about what you intend to do to them. Even if you didn't support the war, you are supporting it now by allowing them to scare you into passivity. as you well no I can't check out your posting history because I don't donate.

[jpgray]

35. It's smart to worry about both things

At no point do I say "tone down the criticism--we have to be careful!". I think predicting what your opponent is going to do is smart politics.

[Classical_Liberal]

36. Democrats don't suffer a deficite in thinking on this line

They suffer from inaction and paralysis. If you were being constructive rather than trying to encourage more of the same you would think of solutions. You said the war was a dangerous issue. That means you want to avoid it to most of us.

[Walt Starr]

30. Quaghdad, Iraqnam is a hydrogen bomb just waiting to be dropped

on the Bush campaign.

We would do best to remember this as we move towards a potential candidate. Iraqnam will be such a quagmire during the 2004 election cycle that we would be best unsaddled with a candidate who bears much of the responsibility by voting for such a war.

This is why Rove uses reverse psychology and the Rethug talking heads are saying they want to run against Dean. Dean TERRIFIES them because he comes off well and will be unrelenting on the Quaghdad, Iraqnam issue.

[ParanoidPat]

42. Quaghdad! Iraqnam!

ROFLMAO! :thumbsup: The perfect soundbyte!

Geee I love it when you talk like that! :evilgrin:

[Walt Starr]

48. I'm working on a possible DU article titled:

Dateline: Quaghdad, Iraqnam

[ParanoidPat]

49. The phrase, "mired in Quaghdad Iraqnam"....

....also has a lovely ring to it! :evilgrin:

Says so much in so little space! :) Would also make a great song title!

The Mired in Quaghdad Iraqnam Blues!

[Walt Starr]

50. GMTA!!!!!

I was going to use that phrase in the article I'm writing!

[diamond14]

43. and there are so many great videos of shrub making his WMD

case...and Military Generals, and Rummy, and Condi...all immortalized on easily transmittable digital displays...and some great flash movie people, who (hopefully) are already calling to get jobs in the Democratic Campaign....

this is the BIG difference from previous wars...Vietnam had regular films that had to be developed and shipped back to USA (first war in color)...no satillite phones and video transmission...so politicians could say whatever they wanted and it was real hard to hold them to it....the papers published as ordered....even Gulf War I had not much Internet Technology...and little of this instant transmission of photos...all campaign remarks and fund-raising events get video taped...used to be that they may have been filmed, but only "special" people held onto the film...

had to laugh listening to Senator John Warner this weekend...having been through several wars already, he just seemed shocked at the big displays of his and others previous comments...he seemed horrified at all this new technology, and his standard "old school" replies just weren't cutting it...he was caught by his own words...

it all should be great playing for the upcoming campaign...shrub is already smoked by his own words...bring on the numerous "I won the Trifecta!" with laughs and cheers and the towers collapsing in the background...people may have forgotten, but all those videos remember it clearly...

[lkinsale]

41. Focus on the miserable failure to make us one bit safer at home

Focus on the fact that "liberating" Iraq did not take any WMD out of the hands of terrorists, but probably put them there. That our homeland preparedness is a mess. That all those billions we are using to get a grip on things in Iraq could have been much better spent on actually doing something to keep American safe from another 9/11.

http://www.npr.org/programs/specials/democrats2004/transcripts/graham_trans.html

NPR Morning Edition: May 20, 2003

EDWARDS: You opposed the war in Iraq... said Iraq was only a minor threat to the United States but it has to be better for the Iraqi people to have Saddam Hussein gone.

GRAHAM: Certainly, it is. But the question in my mind was what is the greatest risk to the American people? And in my judgment the greatest risks are international terrorist groups like al Qaeda and Hezbollah and that the effect of the war in Iraq has been to take our attention off those priorities, allow, in the case of al Qaeda, for a regeneration, and we have just seen the consequence of that. (The bombing in Saudi)

[ProfessorPlum]

44. the War is a dangerous issue

only for Bush. This "War", though of course we never declared war officially so as not to be beholding to the rules for war, can be spun as a disaster six ways to Sunday. It is a complete and total clusterf*ck. It was illegal, poorly planned, ill-advised. We have just inherited 26 million dependents, who we have to pay for, who don't want us there, who are planning guerilla attacks against our troops even now. Sure, maybe we were able to steal some oil from them, via Kuwait, but even that is not working to pay off our war expenses. We murdered thousands of civilians, weakened the UN and NATO -

This war is the single most horrible, terribly planned and executed decision our government has ever made. It is based and justified on a web of lies, with no thought to how the postwar would go. It has cost us almost all of our allies, and weakened us severely in our world standing. It has killed Americans, made us no safer (and arguably less safe) than before we started it, and goes against every grain of American ideals. Even now our government is getting ready to hold military tribunals and start executing "illegal combatants" in Guantanimo.

What could possibly be used to justify this war? The people in Iraq are in terrible condition now. At least they had a functioning (if autocratic and repressive) society under Saddam. And the worst part of it is that all of this was predicted - it was all warned against and protested against months before the first shots were fired. Nobody can say that they didn't see this coming.

Do not tell me that this war is some kind of albatross on the Democrats necks!!! The only way this war can be used against us is if we don't shove it so far up Bush's ass that we can't see it coming back out of his lying mouth.

AND WHY WOULDN'T DEMOCRATS DO THAT? Don't tell me they are so happy to just take it and take it and take it that they will happily shut up about this gross atrocity and affront to the rule of law. I won't believe that.

[teryang]

46. And another thing!

Good post professor! One thing that bothers me in practical terms is that the lion's share of armed forces are tied up occupying and attempting to pacify a nation that was not even an imminent threat. Not only was that illegal but it was stupid.

The huge manpower demands of the occupation leave us less able to defend our interests elsewhere.

:-)

[ProfessorPlum]

51. Thanks, and good point yourself

I always seem to kill the thread

[BiggJawn]

52. Who says we "Took" Baghdad?

Honestly, Our HumVees are getting toasted, their crews blown up, soldiers getting capped waiting for a coke...

If this is what its like to "Take" the town, I'd hate to see what'd have to happen to get Rumsferatu to admit we're "having a little problem" over there...