More Tall Tales From the Bush Administration

[Utah]

You run off at the mouth a little too much. Who are you to accuse anyone of being a member of Hezbollah? Rambo? GI Joe?

Hold your ponies and relax a bit. Alger is sympathetic to the cause of Hezbollah and similar groups - simply read his posts and you will see this. Although, in fairness, he says he doesn't support their methods. If you read the post carefully I never said he was a member.

And just because the Iraqis don't like the insane Hussein doesn't mean they are idiots enough to believe that the US invaded them out of the goodness of their hearts. They knew that Bush wanted Saddam out of there and that the US had to help start some sort of democratic government in Iraq or else risk looking like a bunch of jerks in front of the international community. So they aren't exactly "embracing" Bush; they are embracing the opportunity to be rid of a horrible dictator. Don't believe me? Click on this:

Either way they are happy that Saddam is gone (it appears the only ones who are not are some of the democratic Presidential Candidates). Therefore, to call Bush a murderer is very misleading since the people who he supposedly murdered are happy that he undertook the action that caused their death. The ones who are upset about the deaths are the liberals in the U.S., not the Iraqis.

As to your article, you are going to have to do better than taking info. from the Arab Press, which is hardly a bastion of neutral reporting.

[Utah]

that we were getting involved in Iraq because of the threat of WMD's and links to Al Qaeda.

No - that is simply the left revising history. The main public argument was that Saddam had not lived up to U.N. resolutions and that they did not account for known weapons. Saddam had many opportunities to stop the invasion.

diverted billions of dollars toward the Iraqi operation, when the resources that went toward Iraq could have surely gone to other areas involved in the fight against terror

Regardless of whether we should have went to war, it certainly seems to have helped in the global war on terrorism. Our position was significantly strengthened with N. Korea, Syria, Libya, Iran, etc. These countries understand that the threats from the U.S. are not hollow and that the U.S. will put boot-to-a#$ if need be. Unless, of course, a democrat is elected president. Which, in that case, will mean resorting back to the "constructive dialogue" tactics with the world community and terrorist nations that allowed Al Qaeda and terrorist groups to flourish and which directly led to 9/11, Cole Bombing, African Embassy Bombings, etc.

[Utah]

Of course, any first grader can see through such a faulty argument. The problems with this argument are so obvious they are not worth discussing.

[John Cole]

One document, 12,000 pages, was denounced within hours.

[Chris Alger]

Right, they embrace him so much he can't show his face to them and they shoot ten of his troops every day. Utah: if there's one thing that every should agree on now, its that just because the White House says something doesn't make it true. I know that Stalinist leader worship is a tough habit to break, but given that it is increasingly being shown that the White House is run by compulsive, pathological liars, you should at least make an effort. And Bush didn't "supposedly" murder them. They're really, actually dead.

According to a recent Gallup poll (the story also includes accounts of Cheney trying to mislead about the results, perhaps snaring you in the process), only 62% of Iraqis believe that the hardships of the war was worth getting rid of Saddam. How much of this sentiment is attributable to the end of sanctions and aid money wasn't asked. The margins, howevet, appear to be thin: an Oxford Research International Poll showed 35% of Iraqis claiming that the worse thing that's happened to them is the "the war, the bombings, and the defeat of the Iraqi army."

The polls also show a great deal of skepticism and fear concerning the U.S. Nothing suggests that Iraqis have "embraced" President Bush.

1. 50% of Iraqis that believe the U.S. will hurt Iraq; only 35% believe it will help (whereas most believed the UN would help).
2. 79% say they have little or no confidence in the occupation forces and leadership.
3. Iraqis believe they are worse off instead of better off as a result of the invasion than before by 47% to 33%.
4. 94% believe Baghdad is more dangerous as a result of the invasion than before.
5. Most Iraqis want the U.S. to leave rather than staying to organize Iraq's government.

And while it's perhaps hopeless when you're brainwashed, you should also make an attempt to understand why foreign military occupation isn't regarded by rational people as "freedom."

[Chris Alger]

"Alger is sympathetic to the cause of Hezbollah and similar groups"

I've never said anything sympathetic about Hezbollah, unless by pointing out the fact that Hezbollah didn't exist until the Israelis started bombing Shiite villages in Southern Lebanon. Statements of historical fact shouldn't be construed as necessary "sympathy."

"Either way they are happy that Saddam is gone (it appears the only ones who are not are some of the democratic Presidential Candidates). Therefore, to call Bush a murderer is very misleading since the people who he supposedly murdered are happy that he undertook the action that caused their death."

Which means that Bush could have stood 90% of Iraq's population against a wall, shot them, and if the survivors say they're glad Saddam's gone then Bush is exonerated from murder. That's smart.

"The ones who are upset about the deaths are the liberals in the U.S., not the Iraqis."

That's an unusually candid expression of the racist/imperialist mindset: the families of the civilians we kill aren't even "upset" about the deaths. Probably some sort of Muslim death wish thing.

[Chris Alger]

But you manged to discuss the point without mentioning the "obvious" problems. You're the one that said that dead people have "embraced" Bush. Have some trouble in first grade?

It's not only a good argument it's unanswerable: if some Iraqis hate Bush to the point of killing his troops daily, it is logically impossible to factually state that "the" Iraqis, much less the Iraqis that have been killed by the U.S., have embraced President Bush, as you implied.

[Cyrus]

"Regardless of whether we should have went to war, it certainly seems to have helped in the global war on terrorism."

That just about ranks as worthy as the teachings of TARGET gurus in Blackjack. "You's gotta concentrate and be cool to hit 'em lucky streaks..."

But don't think them fellas in the White House are planning their moves with any more elaborate thinking than the above, though. (You think I'm kidding? Paul Wolfowitz admitted that there were no plans for post-victory in Iraq because that would be planning "too far ahead" in a situation with "too many variables"! Utah can do that gig no sweat.)

[MattHatter]

O.K Here is something you all should see.

This is from a John Pilger Documentary called 'Breaking The Silence'

This is footage of Colin Powell (in Egypt if im not mistaken) just months before 9/11.. Listen to what he says about Iraq and WMD. Quite A different story just a few months later.

Also in this little Gem is Condoleeza Rice.. anothe huge liar. Saying basically the same things at the same time.

They both state that Sanctions work, that iraq has not been able to reconstiturte it's WMD program. That he is contained. and CANNOT EVEN POSE A CONVENTIONAL THREAT TO HIS NIEGHBORS! (Thier words not mine). Not to mention the threat of WMD to a nation halfway around the world.

But it serves both of these lying murderous liars that when it comes time to perform (just a few months later) the truth goes out the window.

I heard that Colin Powell refused to give the UN speech unless George Tenet sat behind him... cause Colin knew it was a load of crap.. but he had to perform for the boss.

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-rice-wmd.wmv

If you look.. you can find the full DL of this Documentary on the web.

[Utah]

Ah, I have missed sparing with you ole' Cyrus. I am not sure if it is either the humorous backwards logic that I enjoy the most or the always original titles.

Paul Wolfowitz admitted that there were no plans for post-victory in Iraq because that would be planning "too far ahead" in a situation with "too many variables"!

I thought it was Rummy who said that, not Paul W. I could be wrong though as there is a first time for everything [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Because you cannot plan exactly does not mean something doesn't have inherent value or negative consequences. In the business world, you can sometimes use some pretty fancy calculus to arrive at a quantitative value. This is called the option pricing of an investment and it uses calculus to arrive at a value across an infinite number of possibilities across a set range (Black- Shoales Model). Or for the simple minded you can even use a simple binominal model. Or, if one doesn't like calculus, you can construction some pretty elaborate Game Theory cubes to account for probabilities across many scenarios.

Also, sometimes it simply is unknowable and you simply need to use qualitative analysis.

I might say that I can't plan today how I am going to run my business in three years (which is true). However, that in no way says I shouldn't have started my business.

The same type of analysis goes into war planning or many other types of decision making.