New York Times- Pentagon Hushed Talk Of Iraq Chemical Weapons

[astonas]

Re: New York Times- Pentagon Hushed Talk Of Iraq Chemical Weapons

You do realize, don't you, that not one person in this thread has said other people didn't also lie. There hasn't really been any "Bush-only" bashing in this thread. Everyone knows there are many other points of responsibility, and other people who also lied.

What people have done in a variety of ways, using a variety of different pieces of evidence, is point out that the initial statement:

"So Bush didn't lie."

... is factually incorrect. That is it.

Let's not overreact to a straightforward factual correction.

[astonas]

Re: New York Times- Pentagon Hushed Talk Of Iraq Chemical Weapons

Sorry, Lek, but this time it really is that simple.

We get to have our own opinions. We get to have our own interpretations. We can try to place the blame where we want to.


... We don't get to have our own facts.


Those have to be checked against what is known to be true.

What Bush said was not, in fact, true.

Everything else may matter to you, and to me, for all sorts of reasons. There may be all sorts of implications that are pleasant or unpleasant. But the discussion in this thread was (until recently) about something that is objectively provable:

What Bush said was not, in fact, true.

And that's it.

[aaron]

Re: New York Times- Pentagon Hushed Talk Of Iraq Chemical Weapons

Red Team / Blue Team has become a sport in the U.S.A.

Where does such divisiveness lead this country?

Who benefits?

[vt]

Re: New York Times- Pentagon Hushed Talk Of Iraq Chemical Weapons

You do realize, don't you, that not one person in this thread has said other people didn't also lie. There hasn't really been any "Bush-only" bashing in this thread. Everyone knows there are many other points of responsibility, and other people who also lied.

What people have done in a variety of ways, using a variety of different pieces of evidence, is point out that the initial statement:

"So Bush didn't lie."

... is factually incorrect. That is it.

Let's not overreact to a straightforward factual correction.

Fair enough. But why doesn't the main street press report that others lie? Why do we always see one sided news?

Only one on this thread said others lie UNTIL I posted liberal quotes on WMDs. The moment I said that Bush didn't lie, there were posts that immediately took issue.

I call out both sides for their failures. I support neither.

In fact I have called for an end to political contributions, and public funding of all campaigns. There is no reason why a Presidential candidate should have to raise almost $1 billion dollars to run. There is no reason why our current President should spend 5% of his time to raise funds from wealthy donors who buy influence. No corporate, union, or special interest money. Ask any politician if they will agree to this! Ask any main street media outlet if they will agree!

[thriftyandboringinohio]

Re: New York Times- Pentagon Hushed Talk Of Iraq Chemical Weapons

F...There is no reason why a Presidential candidate should have to raise almost $1 billion dollars to run. There is no reason why our current President should spend 5% of his time to raise funds from wealthy donors who buy influence. No corporate, union, or special interest money….

Thanks vt.
I bet we can all agree on those goals.

[astonas]

Re: New York Times- Pentagon Hushed Talk Of Iraq Chemical Weapons

Fair enough. But why doesn't the main street press report that others lie? Why do we always see one sided news?

I can't answer for the press, I don't write for them. I can answer only for myself. Could anyone else here do differently?

Only one on this thread said others lie UNTIL I posted liberal quotes on WMDs. The moment I said that Bush didn't lie, there were posts that immediately took issue.

Again, I can't speak for others. For my part, I saw myself as taking issue with a factual misstatement. The opinions of other politicians are entirely irrelevant to the clarification of a singular fact, so it was simply irrelevant to bring them up. (Then, and I suppose now as well.) That's a left/right distinction, which I see (categorically, not just here) as a red herring to almost all questions of objective fact.

I call out both sides for their failures. I support neither.

I feel the same, and I attempt to do the same. I criticize calls for more government, I criticize calls for less. I want better government, which I believe is a parameter that must be optimized prior to the parameter of size.

In fact I have called for an end to political contributions, and public funding of all campaigns. There is no reason why a Presidential candidate should have to raise almost $1 billion dollars to run. There is no reason why our current President should spend 5% of his time to raise funds from wealthy donors who buy influence. No corporate, union, or special interest money. Ask any politician if they will agree to this! Ask any main street media outlet if they will agree!

I'm with thrifty on this. I suspect pretty much everyone here agrees.

And again, it's nice to end with a consensus, isn't it?

[goodrich4bk]

Re: New York Times- Pentagon Hushed Talk Of Iraq Chemical Weapons

So Bush didn't lie:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...pons.html?_r=0

"Jarrod L. Taylor, a former Army sergeant on hand for the destruction of mustard shells that burned two soldiers in his infantry company, joked of “wounds that never happened” from “that stuff that didn’t exist.” The public, he said, was misled for a decade. “I love it when I hear, ‘Oh there weren’t any chemical weapons in Iraq,’ ” he said. “There were plenty.”

I came to a slightly different conclusion after reading the article. I did not focus on whether there ever existed the type of WMD's that Bush claimed justified invasion of a sovereign nation which had not attacked us. As you say, politicians from both parties used such accusations to justify a "shock and awe" carpet bombing that killed tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians (I say "innocent" because by definition the citizens of a dictatorship generally can have no moral responsibility for the actions of their authoritarian government). To those politicians, it was never about WMD's but about creating a plausible theory for circumventing the constitutional requirement of debate and a declaration of war before such a unilateral act of war was taken. As the objective of both parties is to concentrate and increase the executive branch's unilateral powers so those powers can be used to favor their political patrons when they are in charge, both parties are huge fans of military intervention. Just look at some of the so-called "liberal" names in vt's excellent summary and you will see that there is really no difference at all between the Democrats and Republicans when it comes to the President's power to use of our military. The only rational thinkers in Congress on such issues today are libertarians like Paul and socialists like Sanders.

[Raz]

Re: New York Times- Pentagon Hushed Talk Of Iraq Chemical Weapons

I came to a slightly different conclusion after reading the article. I did not focus on whether there ever existed the type of WMD's that Bush claimed justified invasion of a sovereign nation which had not attacked us. As you say, politicians from both parties used such accusations to justify a "shock and awe" carpet bombing that killed tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians (I say "innocent" because by definition the citizens of a dictatorship generally can have no moral responsibility for the actions of their authoritarian government). To those politicians, it was never about WMD's but about creating a plausible theory for circumventing the constitutional requirement of debate and a declaration of war before such a unilateral act of war was taken. As the objective of both parties is to concentrate and increase the executive branch's unilateral powers so those powers can be used to favor their political patrons when they are in charge, both parties are huge fans of military intervention. Just look at some of the so-called "liberal" names in vt's excellent summary and you will see that there is really no difference at all between the Democrats and Republicans when it comes to the President's power to use of our military. The only rational thinkers in Congress on such issues today are libertarians like Paul and socialists like Sanders.

+1.

It's a game, friends: The Red Whores vs. the Blue Whores.
And they've rigged it so that while their two teams share intervals of power, neither team ever really loses.

[TBBNF]

Re: New York Times- Pentagon Hushed Talk Of Iraq Chemical Weapons

Still think the Prez is a President?

(As I recall Bush mostly exercised.)

And vacationed

[lakedaemonian]

Re: New York Times- Pentagon Hushed Talk Of Iraq Chemical Weapons

I know someone who was directly and seriously injured by a chemical weapon IED attack in Iraq.

He suffered severe respiratory and eye injuries he is still dealng with to this day, as did his crew to a lesser extent.

It reportedly shows in his medical records fortunately, which is in contrast to his unit combat/contact records which reportedly don't indicate it.

Despite the fact his unit pinged for NBC on detectors, they and their equipment were all de-contaminated, and NBC masks and suits were suddenly compulsory carry on future patrols because of an event that didn't occur.

[vt]

Re: New York Times- Pentagon Hushed Talk Of Iraq Chemical Weapons

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/16/wo...pons.html?_r=0

Even though the weapons program had been abandon before 2003 some of the weapons were operational and deadly.

I still disagree that we should have taken away a counter weight to Iran. We could have controlled Saddam and his allies, and maybe ISIS and Al Qaeda would have not arisen in Iraq.

[LorenS]

Re: New York Times- Pentagon Hushed Talk Of Iraq Chemical Weapons

+1.

It's a game, friends: The Red Whores vs. the Blue Whores.
And they've rigged it so that while their two teams share intervals of power, neither team ever really loses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

• 58% of Democratic senators (29 of 50) voted for the resolution. Those voting for the resolution are:

Sens. Lincoln (D-AR), Feinstein (D-CA), Dodd (D-CT), Lieberman (D-CT), Biden (D-DE), Carper (D-DE), Nelson (D-FL), Cleland (D-GA), Miller (D-GA), Bayh (D-IN), Harkin (D-IA), Breaux (D-LA), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Kerry (D-MA), Carnahan (D-MO), Baucus (D-MT), Nelson (D-NE), Reid (D-NV), Torricelli (D-NJ), Clinton (D-NY), Schumer (D-NY), Edwards (D-NC), Dorgan (D-ND), Hollings (D-SC), Daschle (D-SD), Johnson (D-SD), Cantwell (D-WA), Rockefeller (D-WV), and Kohl (D-WI).

To me it looked like GWB had a personal vendetta. Congress should have never approved the resolution. On the other hand, the WMD deniers just want an excuse to blame Bush alone while ignoring the complicity of a whole boat load of Democrats.

[touchring]

Re: New York Times- Pentagon Hushed Talk Of Iraq Chemical Weapons

To me it looked like GWB had a personal vendetta. Congress should have never approved the resolution. On the other hand, the WMD deniers just want an excuse to blame Bush alone while ignoring the complicity of a whole boat load of Democrats.

Bush is not the only one to have a personal vendetta.

Look at the current situation, ISIS running amok in Europe, Iran stronger by the day, while war is waged against white Russia.

Connect the the dots. It's so obvious by now. ;)