I'm SICK of this "Hindsight is 20-20" business, do you HEAR ME!!!

[Brotherjohn]

SICK SICK SICK SICK SICK SICK SICK SICK SICK SICK SICK SICK SICK SICK SICK OF IT!!!!

Saw it again somehwere on a Google News story this morning. Said something about hindsight being 20-20. Well, forgive the rant about something we here all know to be true, but...

WE!
WERE!
NOT!
ALL!
WRONG!!

I KNEW the Uranium from Africa deal was a forgery... BEFORE THE WAR!

I KNEW the centrifuge tubes were most likely NOT for uranium enrichment... BEFORE THE WAR!

I KNEW that Al Qaeda had no significant links with Hussein... BEFORE THE WAR!

I KNEW that many of the sites alleged by the Bush administration to be WMD-related sites were nothing of the sort... BEFORE THE WAR!

I KNEW that the unmanned drones alleged by the Bush administration to be capable of inflicting devastating WMD attacks on our soil were mere styrofoam and balsa wood toys barely capable of the surveillance for which they were intended... BEFORE THE WAR!

And on, and on, and on...

How did I know this? I READ THE PAPERS! I read the United Nations' reports! I read our own government's reports!

There are so many compilations of these misleading statements by the Bush administration, and the evidence showing they were publicly known to be dubious (at best) before the war, that it's impossible to cite them all. But here's a link to the House of Representatives Document "Iraq on the Record", compiled for Rep. Henry Waxman (http://www.house.gov/reform/min/features/iraq_on_the_record/).

It's a pretty good demonstration that this is NOT, as alleged, a case of "hindsight is 20-20". In fact, very very many of us had (if not 20-20) pretty damn good vision BEFORE the war!

(/RANT OFF)

[Catherine Vincent]

1. ditto...

:-)

[plcdude]

2. exactly

and this needs to be revealed to our local papers in a grassroot movement that begins to hold accountable the current doofuses for the mistakes made a priori not post de facto.

[Bandit]

3. Did you know Bin Laden had nothing to do with 9-11 ~ before Afghanistan?

:shrug: It is difficult to know anything with certainty. I have never seen one shred of real evidence Osama Bin Laden had one thing to do with 9-11 but virtually every single person in America believes it to be fact.

[ant]

6. well

there was that video where he talks about it and the tapes where he basically admits involvement.

those seem like pretty big shreds of evidence to me.

[Bandit]

18. Was that the fat Bin Laden or the feeble one or the one with the AK-47?

Which Bin Laden did you see tell you that he personally planned and had executed the 9-11 attacks?

[ant]

25. this one

http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/12/13/ret.bin.laden.videotape/

And he tends to look pretty much the same in every tape.

[StClone]

7. On that line, the problem with BushCo is...

They did nothing, absolutely nothing in regards to preventing terrorism of any kind even if we allow their plea to not being able to move heaven and earth to stop 9/11.

[Brotherjohn]

11. I agree there hasn't been much evidence publicly released. But...

... the difference to me is that the evidence I HAVE seen (not enough, mind you) has held up under scrutiny.

Bin Laden claiming responsibility (mentioned above), the fact that some of the hijackers were already being monitored as potential terrorists with connections to Al Qaeda (yet to be refuted, and even promoted by those of us who think Bush should have done more), etc.

But the evidence repeatedly cited by the Bush administration regarding the threat from Iraq has seldom held up under scrutiny. And this has been after repeatedly urging them to present more and better evidence prior to the war, because previous evidence cited by them was not substantial or convincing.

[Brotherjohn]

14. This also gets to *'s inane press conference claim about pre-emptive...

... war.

"I guess there have been some that said, well, we should have taken preemptive action in Afghanistan, and then turned around and said we shouldn't have taken preemptive action in Iraq."

The implication is you can't criticize him for not doing it in the first case, but then doing it in the second.

Well, Doofus-in-Chief, that assumes there was a THREAT in both cases! As usual, he misses the entire point. The reason we criticize the preemptive war against Iraq (one of many) is that Iraq WAS NOT A THREAT!!!

One can at least make an argument that stands up under minimal scrutiny that Afghanistan harbored the terrorists that attacked us on 9-11, and was therefore at least threatening by proxy. Still, it is likely that an all-out military assault as conducted by Bush would not have stopped 9-11, while covert special ops actions and increased anti-terrorist action at home an abroad might have (the Richard Clarke proposal).

One cannot make an argument that stands up under even minimal scrutiny that Iraq was a threat to us.

[Goldmund]

4. I couldn't agree more.

Also, note that this "hindsight is 20/20" argument is readily reversed by the same people when they say "knowing what we know now, 9/11 couldn't have been prevented even if we had paid attention to <insert your choice of the Aug 6th PDB, Phoenix memo, etc, etc>". First of all, I believe in LIHOP, so as far as I'm concerned it's all a lie. But let's forget that and view those comments in an isolated context: only AFTER 9/11 happened can you guess whether it was preventable or not, not BEFORE. So, even if it would have happened anyway (in HINDSIGHT), it still doesn't explain why you did nothing to prevent it -- even if that prevention would have (again, in hindsight) been unsuccessful.

[Beam Me Up]

5. TOTALLY with you! n/t

[G_j]

8. right on!

Judge your honor, if I had known running a red light would have resulted in an accident...but hindsight is 20-20 you know.

[Sequoia]

9. Hear me clapping in California

[Imalittleteapot]

10. I feel your pain.

I'm suffering from the same sickness. And who's to blame?
The lame media, that's who.
:mad:

[lutherj]

12. Agree totally. Besides, these guys are paid to know this stuff.

And at a certain point it doesn't matter. I mean, CEOs get sacked if they don't foresee the market right. Bad luck is an element of incompetence.

[bearfartinthewoods]

13. please, the polls and the trolls have everyone jumpy

but can we tone down the hysteria just a little? it's not helping, seriously. if everyone would just take a few deep breathes or maybe take a walk or something. running around and screaming never gets anything meaningful accomplished.

it's going to be a long hot summer with lots of ups and downs. we can't afford to go ballistic every other week. we need to stay calm and focused.

take some of that energy and write some letters. or lock yourself in the bathroom and scream until you are hoarse.

but please, let's try and tone down the board hysteria level if we can?

[Brotherjohn]

17. That's sort of what I was doing. "Screaming until I was hoarse".

So I did it here instead of in front of the mirror at home. I don't think there's a rule against that. I'm also presenting other DUers with the opportunity to do the same. For my part, it makes me feel like I'm still sane to hear others echo my sentiments. Call it therapy.

Besides, if I did it at home, I'd scare my kids and my wife would kick me out.

[bearfartinthewoods]

19. LOL.."I'd scare my kids and my wife would kick me out."

she-bear is always on me for freaking the cats when i yell at the tube. I understand the therapy aspect but sometimes it seems to be a case where the angst is getting spread and amplified by the venting rather then getting the pressure released ifyaknowhatimean?

do what you need to do i guess. it's been a shitload of a week and it's only tuesday.

me...i think i'll go out and dethatch the lawn. i am certainly in the mood for it.

[Brotherjohn]

22. I'm buoyed by the idea that, even after weeks like these (when we so often

... hear statements like "hindsight is 20-20" and "everyone's to blame"), there's still a constant drip-drip-drip. The Robb-Silberman commission has yet to meet, and hopefully will by summer (as some in the mainstream press are urging: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/15/opinion/meyer/main612152.shtml).

And that commission is specifically geared to answer the question: "Were we, in fact, 'all wrong'?"

Then there's the Woodward book, following on the heels of the Clarke and O'Niell books. Joseph Wilson's book will soon come out as well.

Pretty soon, everyone but Condi herself will have a book out citing verifiable, inside information, and it'll be impossible for the WH to continue to make claims of "disgruntled employee" or "partisan hack".

In the meantime, I'm just venting. But I continue to have faith in the American people to (eventually) come to their senses.

[anarchy1999]

20. I appreciate your rant and I'm saving it to share.

I'm glad you did it here. There are soooo many of us feeling just as you do. Daily!

Once again, thanks for sharing. Hysteria and all.

[Bridget Burke]

15. Experts on foreign policy?

I was discussing Iraq with a co-worker the other day. Before the invasion, both of us thought the WMD claims were spurious; we doubted any would be found. And, although neither of us likes Saddam, we thought it highly likely that removing him would just open up a can of worms.

We were right on both counts. How could 2 middle-aged office ladies know better than the "experts"? The high-paid government types & most media types are paid way too much.

[Skittles]

16. AMEN BROTHER JOHN

I CRINGE WHEN I HEAR THAT TOO.

[riverwalker]

21. Amen brotherJohn

in this day and age of information, anyone who supported the war does not get a free ride from me. They are held accountable.

[Mandate My Ass]

23. Say it loud. Say it proud.

That was a damn fine rant, Brotherjohn. It made my day. :toast:

[Jacobin]

24. *Applause*

Thank you for saying that.

I wish I could see a talking head say that, but I know that we don't have a free press in this country, so I never will.

Thank you again.