"Iraq War Naysayers Have Hindsight Bias," says Post writer. Oh really???

[WilliamPitt]

'K.

This:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/01/AR2006100100784.html

...was the first story I read with my morning coffee today. The title is "Iraq War Naysayers May Have Hindsight Bias." After three paragraphs, I almost chewed through the mug. Feast:

Antiwar liberals last week got to savor the four most satisfying words in the English language: "I told you so."

This was after a declassified National Intelligence Estimate asserted that the war in Iraq was creating more terrorists than it was eliminating. For millions of people who opposed President Bush's mission in Iraq from the start, this was proof positive that they had been right all along. Yes, they told themselves, we saw this disaster coming.

Only . . . that isn't quite true.

One of the most systematic errors in human perception is what psychologists call hindsight bias -- the feeling, after an event happens, that we knew all along it was going to happen. Across a wide spectrum of issues, from politics to the vagaries of the stock market, experiments show that once people know something, they readily believe they knew it all along.

This is not to say that no one predicted the war in Iraq would go badly, or that the insurgency would last so long. Many did. But where people might once have called such scenarios possible, or even likely, many will now be certain that they had known for sure that this was the only possible outcome.

I took a little walk through my files this morning and collected a few tidbits. Everything below was written and published before the invasion of Iraq, before "Shock and Awe," before a lot of people who should have known better came to the conclusion that we were not being greeted with hearts and flowers.

I post this not to brag, because this isn't anything to brag about. I post this because there are millions of Americans who knew what I knew, who said it and marched it and preached it...and tried to stop it. More than a few of them reside right here at DU.

This note's for you, friends.

===

http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/07.25A.wrp.iraq.htm

The Coming October War in Iraq (a headline that was wrong by five months, as it turns out)
By William Rivers Pitt

Wednesday, 24 July, 2002

(snip)

"This is not about the security of the United States," said this card-carrying Republican while pounding the lectern. "This is about domestic American politics. The national security of the United States of America has been hijacked by a handful of neo-conservatives who are using their position of authority to pursue their own ideologically-driven political ambitions. The day we go to war for that reason is the day we have failed collectively as a nation."

(snip)

Therein lies the rub: According to Scott Ritter, who spent seven years in Iraq with the UNSCOM weapons inspection teams performing acidly detailed investigations into Iraq's weapons program, no such capability exists. Iraq simply does not have weapons of mass destruction, and does not have threatening ties to international terrorism. Therefore, no premise for a war in Iraq exists. Considering the American military lives and the Iraqi civilian lives that will be spent in such an endeavor, not to mention the deadly regional destabilization that will ensue, such a baseless war must be avoided at all costs.

"The Bush administration has provided the American public with little more than rhetorically laced speculation," said Ritter. "There has been nothing in the way of substantive fact presented that makes the case that Iraq possesses these weapons or has links to international terror, that Iraq poses a threat to the United States of America worthy of war."

(snip)

"The clock is ticking," he said, "and it's ticking towards war. And it's going to be a real war. It's going to be a war that will result in the deaths of hundreds, if not thousands, of Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians. It's a war that is going to devastate Iraq. It's a war that's going to destroy the credibility of the United States of America. I just came back from London, and I can tell you this - Tony Blair may talk a good show about war, but the British people and the bulk of the British government do not support this war. The Europeans do not support this war. NATO does not support this war. No one supports this war."

It is of a certainty that few in the Muslim world support another American war with Iraq. Osama bin Laden used the civilian suffering in Iraq under the sanctions to demonstrate to his followers the evils of America and the West. Another war would exacerbate those already-raw emotions. After 9/11, much of the Islamic world repudiated bin Laden and his actions. Another Iraq war would go a long way to proving, in the minds of many Muslims, that bin Laden was right all along. The fires of terrorism that would follow this are unimaginable.

-----

http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/09.12A.wrp.draft.htm

Think the Days of the Draft are Gone? Think Again
By William Rivers Pitt

September 11th, 2002

(snip)

The situation in Afghanistan will be a significant tax on our military resources, unless we walk away as we did once the Soviets disengaged in 1989, which would guarantee once again the rise of fundamentalist chaos there. We have reaped that whirlwind once already, and will hold this tiger by the tail until further notice. The fact that we have significant interest in the natural resources of that region only cements the permanence of our presence there.

Our military presence in the Middle East is already significant, and has begun to steadily increase since George W. Bush began to beat the war drum against Iraq. A great many officers ensconced in the Pentagon strongly believe our military will become far too stretched in a repeat engagement with Saddam Hussein's forces. Few will say openly that they fear defeat, and in fact the odds of losing a war in Iraq are extremely low, but the pressure placed upon our military resources will be extreme. The potential for explosive upheaval in the Middle East should we make war on Iraq further exacerbates this. Between Afghanistan and Iraq, the United States military is reaching mission capacity.

(snip)

Noted MIT professor Noam Chomsky, writing earlier this week in the Guardian, described the invitation for more terrorism on American shores should we attack Iraq. "No one," wrote Chomsky, "including Donald Rumsfeld, can realistically guess the possible costs and consequences. Radical Islamist extremists surely hope that an attack on Iraq will kill many people and destroy much of the country, providing recruits for terrorist actions." The inference is clear: Any war in that region will spawn a new and terrible wave of attacks against this country. Any war in that region is exactly what the terrorists are hoping for. Fresh recruits, soaked in rage, will flood into their open arms.

(***AHEM, THE LATEST NIE, AHEM***)

-----

http://www.why-war.com/news/2002/09/16/murderfo.html

Murder for Profit
By William Rivers Pitt

September 16 2002

(snip)

Bush will also go to war to satisfy the desires of men like Andrew Card, the White House chief of staff who looks at politics and policy through the eyes of a marketing strategist. Until recently, the product Card had to sell to the American people was smeared with scandal and economic ruin. Bush and his corporate friends have treated the Treasury, and the stock-rooted retirement dreams of millions of Americans, the way a hammer-wielding thief treats a jewelry store display case during a smash-and grab robbery. This was a recipe for disaster come November. War on Iraq has stripped that old, damaged product from the shelves, replacing it with a martial President surging forth against a dangerous foe. The weeks of hemming and hawing over whether or not to go it alone, salted with vastly overstated descriptions of the threat posed by Iraq, and culminating with Bush's appearance before the UN, has changed the national debate completely. Card's new product is priced to move.

We must face a wretched truth. George W. Bush has allowed, and will continue to allow, a course for war to be charted in order to save his party at the polls in November. At the same time, he has given free rein to the neo-con hawks in his administration to begin a process of total war in the Middle East in order to secure petroleum profits for the foreseeable future. Untold hundreds or thousands of Americans will die in this process, as will tens of thousands of innocent civilians.

-----



http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/09.30Ab.intv.wrp.htm

t r u t h o u t | Interview
Writer William Rivers Pitt
With TO Editor Marc Ash

Subject: His New Book; "War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You to Know."

Sunday, 29 September, 2002

(snip)

MA: Okay. Now let's take a quick look at the book itself. Again, the title is "War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You to Know." What is it that the Bush team doesn't want us to know?

WRP: The Bush teams does not want you to know that Iraq does not pose a grave threat to the United States of America. Iraq has been effectively contained by the sanctions, and the weapons inspectors virtually annihilated whatever weapons program they had. Whatever they might have been able to squirrel away is now junk, because the chemistry of the stuff they were trying to make dictates that it ceases to be effective after a couple of years. They do not have any missile technology. They certainly do not have any connections to Al Qaeda - Saddam Hussein has been viciously and vigorously repressing Islamic fundamentalism in his own country. He puts people to death if they proselytize Islamic fundamentalism. That's why he attacks the Kurds. If Hussein were to give Al Qaeda weapons of mass destruction, they would use those weapons on him first. They hate him. Also, the politics and cultural facts of the region, this pipedream of democracy in Iraq, that we're going to institute a regime change and create western style democracy, is laughable. This administration does not want that at all, because the majority of people in Iraq are Shiites, theologically and ideologically aligned with Iran. If we were to give them western style democracy, they would immediately align themselves with Iran and create a strategic issue that is ten times as bad as the one we have now.

-----

http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/11.09A.wrp.wrs.days.htm

Worse Days
By William Rivers Pitt

Friday, 8 November, 2002

(snip)

George W. Bush now holds sole ownership of the power to make war across the globe. The Republican-controlled Congress will rubber-stamp every military decision he makes, and there will be no leavening hand even to modify the language of war-making resolutions. When the Bush resolution for war in Iraq came to Congress, the dangerously vague phrase "the region" - which would have offered legal justification for war on Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan, Yemen, Egypt to name a few - was expunged. That small breakwater is gone.

-----

http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/010103A.wrp.dead.htm

The Dead Remember
By William Rivers Pitt

Wednesday 1 January 2003

(snip)

Here is your bottom line.

This country is headed to war with a nation we armed in the first place for a tidy corporate profit, despite the fact that there is no evidence that nation is a threat anymore. Beyond the tens of thousands of civilian deaths this war will bring to the people of Iraq, beyond the potential for hundreds or thousands of American casualties, beyond the vastly increased threat of stateside terrorism this will cause, yet another tidy corporate profit will be made.

-----

http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/010803A.wrp.facts.htm

Just the Facts
By William Rivers Pitt

January 6, 2003

George W. Bush recently told American troops stationed at Fort Hood, TX, that the war he is about to send them to fight in Iraq will not be about conquering a nation, but about "liberating people." He failed to describe exactly how this will happen, as Iraq is a nation defined by religious and tribal schisms. 60% of the population is Shiite, 23% is Kurdish and the remaining 17% is made up of the Sunni tribes which gave birth to Saddam Hussein in the first place.

Strategically speaking, the Shiites cannot rule, because they are ideologically and theocratically aligned with the hard-line mullahs who control Iran. The Kurds cannot rule because Turkey will not allow it. If the Sunnis are allowed to control Iraq, the same tribal influences that molded Hussein will be present in whomever replaces him. The Sunnis control the Ba'ath Party, which in turn controls/represses the Shiites and the Kurds. None of this has anything to do with liberation or democracy. There is no way around it, either.

Stories are being floated in the international press indicating this push for war will be centered around a summertime engagement. This will be difficult in the extreme - the heat in Iraq is oppressive in the summer, and our troops will be expected to fight in MOPP gear (gasmasks and protective clothing) that will further exacerbate the man-killing temperatures. In fact, the months between April and August are brutal for soldiers and machines. February through March is mud season, making mechanized warfare extraordinarily difficult. The best window of opportunity falls between September and January.

Spokesmen from the Bush administration scoff at the dire American casualty predictions being spoken of regarding the impending attack. There were equally ominous predictions before the first Gulf War, and our total combat losses equaled 148 soldiers. No one seems willing to talk about the tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians who perished the last time around, nor will they quantify the expected civilian casualty rate for this engagement. That is because these same spokesmen refuse to acknowledge how this war is shaping up.

The last war was fought in the desert. This time, Hussein is preparing his troops and defenses for urban combat in the streets of Baghdad. All the super-technology in the world will not help us in a knife fight, and the five million civilians in that city will feel the hammer. American casualties in that kind of fighting will be significantly higher than anything the American populace is willing to accept, and the smashed bodies of Iraqi civilians will be broadcast via regional television to the entire Mideast. The detonation of rage from this, at home and abroad, will be unprecedented.

In all of these casualty discussions, little attention is paid to the tens of thousands of American soldiers who returned safe and sound from the first Gulf War, only to fall terribly ill soon after they got home. Dementia, joint pain, dizziness, fatigue, rashes, headaches, birth defects in their children, cancer, gaping brain lesions, Lou Gehrig's Disease and a host of other maladies came home with the troops, making their lives a living hell to this day.

These soldiers were exposed to ash and fumes from burning oil wells, depleted uranium from spent artillery and tank shells, pesticides used to beat back the insects, vaccines the military gave them to fight indigenous diseases, and the fallout from bombed chemical and biological weapons stockpiles. The Defense Department and Pentagon still refuse to acknowledge that connections between the war and their health have any credence, blaming the estimated 28% disability rate for Gulf War vets (160,000 out of 573,000 soldiers) on liberal policies of evaluating service-related injuries.

There are approximately 65,000 troops in the Gulf region today; another 25,000 will be shipped over in the next few weeks. If the war becomes a bloodbath in the streets of Baghdad, more will be needed. Considering the slow, brutal attrition rate suffered by the soldiers from the last war, it stands to reason that this war will inflict the same damage to our troops. Even if they survive the war, they stand at least a 28% chance of coming home ravaged by a disease the government refuses to acknowledge exists.

Iraq is a clear and present threat to everything America holds dear. This is what Bush and his team would have you believe. They'd have you believe Iraq could cripple our economy, as Bush described a few days ago. Since when did Saddam start working for Enron?

North Korea, now, is no big threat. Yes, they have nuclear weapons, and the capacity to make one nuclear bomb a month, and the missiles to deliver them, and the gall to throw the UN out on it's collective butt, and a leader that makes Saddam look almost sane by comparison, but they are no big deal. Iraq has no proven weapons, no proven missile technology, and has allowed the UN weapons inspectors to go everywhere and do everything they please, but they are the pressing threat.

What? Terrorist connections to Saddam? He's in cahoots with al Qaeda and Osama? That would be remarkable, considering the fact that Hussein has been viciously repressing Islamic fundamentalism in Iraq for thirty years. If you proselytize for Wahabbi Islam in Iraq, that sect which is practiced by al Qaeda and Osama, you get shot. Period. Osama and al Qaeda have said many, many times that they want to see Saddam dead. So why would Saddam give them weapons? He is nothing if not a survivor, and he could conceive of better ways to commit suicide.

What could Iraq possibly have that North Korea does not have?

Oil?

Shhhhhhh. That's just crazy talk. Let's stick to the facts, shall we?

The fact is that a basis for war has not been laid. The UN Secretary General, Koffi Annan, has recently said as much. Germany's addition to the voting body on the Security Council will make it difficult for Bush to bareface his way to war, as Russia and France are already there and have many times rolled their eyes at our Boy King. How could they not? After all, in the aftermath of 9/11, Bush told America, "We need to counter the shock wave of the evildoer by having individual rate cuts accelerated and by thinking about tax rebates." It is hard to take such a man seriously. But we must.

The fact is that we may be at war by the end of the month, and not this summer. The UN weapons inspectors in Iraq are due to report their findings on January 27th. The Bush administration has set a tentative date for his State of the Union address on the 28th. In the intervening weeks, we will all come to see in how much esteem Bush holds the international community. If he declares war regardless of what the inspectors report, things will get wild in a hurry.

[Skittles]

1. recommended!

it's THEIR revisionist history that is the problem, not our friggin' HINDSIGHT.

[Lochloosa]

2. Kick

so I can read this at work

[DRoseDARs]

3. So, the tens of millions of protesters that came out against the war...

...BEFORE the war started are proof positive of the ability to see into the future. And Bush the Lesser's father too...



Edit: Recommended.

[monarch]

4. K & R

Because the reason I fell in love with DU way back when there were about 800 members was the writing of Will Pitt.

[rock]

5. K&R

!

[matcom]

6. Gee Will: You, Me & MANY More DUers drove to D.C. in 2002

and marched along side about a million others in the FIRST anti-war march in HISTORY to take place BEFORE the war started.

so i'll say it AMERICA........

WE TOLD YOU SO!

[WilliamPitt]

7. You're obviously delusional

as were the 250,000 others who were there.

Remember coming up to the toll booth? The phone rang, and we were told Wellstone was dead.

Ah, delusions.

[matcom]

8. yup. actually i think i called you

Martin and I had just heard on the radio. i said, "Oh shit. I gotta call Will."

one of the worst phone calls of my life

[WilliamPitt]

9. We weren't in the car together?

I thought we were. I called Lynne, told her, and she nearly drove off the road.

[matcom]

10. nope. you were following behind us

you had to go from D.C. to NY or someplace for a speech. Martin and I rented a car and drove seperately. Remember? we had the toll pass and you didn't so we had to pull over and let you catch up after the toll booths

[WilliamPitt]

11. Hm.

Who the hell was I in the car with?

*koff*

Damn this short-term memory.

;)

[matcom]

12. LOL!

just you and Rosie and her 5 friends :7

[WilliamPitt]

13. MAWD

Mothers
Against
Wanking and
Driving

:P

[Autonomy]

14. Hindsight bias, eh?

Lemme throw a few biases the Post's way:

Bandwagon effect - the tendency to do (or believe) things because many other people do (or believe) the same. Related to groupthink, herd behaviour, manias and socionomics

Confirmation bias - the tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions.

Disconfirmation bias - the tendency for people to extend critical scrutiny to information which contradicts their prior beliefs and accept uncritically information that is congruent with their prior beliefs.

Focusing effect - prediction bias occurring when people place too much importance on one aspect of an event; causes error in accurately predicting the utility of a future outcome.


Illusion of control - the tendency for human beings to believe they can control or at least influence outcomes which they clearly cannot.


Impact bias - the tendency for people to overestimate the length or the intensity of the impact of future feeling states.

Neglect of Probability - the tendency to completely disregard probability when making a decision under uncertainty.

Post-purchase rationalization - the tendency to persuade oneself through rational argument that a purchase was good value.

Selective perception - the tendency for expectations to affect perception.

Myside bias - the tendency for people to fail to look for or to ignore evidence against what they already favor

Positive outcome bias (prediction) - a tendency in prediction to overestimate the probability of good things happening to them. (see also wishful thinking and valence effect)

False consensus effect - the tendency for people to overestimate the degree to which others agree with them.


I could go on. But you get the point. Logically speaking, all that really matters is that we, the anti-war protesters were right, and they, the warmongers, were wrong. Any talk about being right or wrong for the wrong reason is a smokescreen, and a bias in itself. Perhaps the Post is committing Illusion of asymmetric insight - the bias where people perceive their knowledge of their peers to surpass their peers' knowledge of them. Or maybe it's the forgot it all along effect...

It doesn't matter. There are still more terrorists, and the people responsible for allowing the increase should not be the ones to decide what to do about it.

[indepat]

35. Glad to have e-mailed my Congressman he had probably lost my vote

in perpetuity for having voted to give one man, the decider, the authority to invade and occupy Iraq. He thanked me by being one of seven Dems to vote for W's torture, suspension of habeas corpus, and dictatorial powers. What's so sad, he is probably ten times better in all ways than the 'puke he's running against. We are truly f*cked.

[jhain]

15. Papa Bush must have a bad case

A World Transformed by George Bush
http://tinyurl.com/negj7

Guess the Freepers have a tough time wrapping their warped minds around this as Snopes had to produce a page to prove it to them:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/gulfwar.asp

"In Chapter 19, which discusses the aftermath of the 1991 Gulf War (also known as "Desert Storm," the military operation to liberate Kuwait from occupation by invading Iraqi forces), they wrote:

Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under the circumstances, there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different — and perhaps barren — outcome. "

[exlrrp]

16. The Four Most Satisfying Words:......

"George Bush Was Impeached."

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

17. "George Bush was convicted" would be more satisfying

Impeachment is just the bringing of charges.

[Reader Rabbit]

18. For what it's worth, I sent the guy an email.

Doubt it will do any good, but it made me feel a lot better.

Sorry, sir, but you are full of prunes. If you want, I can send you copies of the nasty email argument I had with my brother during the run-up to this ridiculous war. I have had the good grace not to say, "I told you so," to him, but I couldn't help but make a few comments about his huge supply of duct tape and bottled water the last time I visited.

The least you people in the media could do is apologize for your failure to sufficiently evaluate and analyze the evidence that was there prior to the invasion of Iraq. Unfortunately, you are too similar to this administration in your unwillingness to take responsibility for your actions.

[hunter]

28. I've said "I've told you so" to many people.

Maybe I'm lacking in good grace.

:evilgrin:

[KitSileya]

31. My response to the op-ed.

"I'm sorry, Mr. Vedantam, but I call bullsh!t on your op-ed piece. I was one of millions around the world who protested Bush's determination to go to war on Iraq regardless of facts or evidence in February 2003. Many, many of us correctly claimed that it would not end in flowers and grateful Iraqi citizen, but rather death, bombs and destabilization. The fact that we were right isn't hindsight bias, it is simply that we refused to rely on the biased reporting of you and your colleagues, searching rather for the truth, and listening to more reliable experts than the Bush Administration, such as Hans Blix and Mohammmad El Baradei. We refused to put on the blinkers that the Bush Administration tried to force upon us through the media (that's you and your colleagues, by the way).

If you think that we find joy in saying 'I told you so' at this date, you must think us pretty blood-thirsty and ghoulish. Do you think we are *happy* that we were right in predicting resistance in the Iraqi population? Do you think we *enjoy* being right in believing the war in Iraq would cause thousands of dead children, women and men? Do you think we *revel* in being right that this war would cause the deaths of thousands of American soldiers - that this war would cause a destabilization of the region - that this would precipitate a civil war between the different factions in Iraq - that this war would cost so much that every social program in the US has to be cut, save one, that is hand-outs to the rich?

How little you think of us. But I can tell you, that after this column of yours, we think as little of you - and we don't need to add I told you so to that."

[Reader Rabbit]

38. The author responded to my email.

Some long-winded thing about how the article was about science, not politics. He seemed in earnest about his analysis of the bias theory, but honestly, if the poor guy thought anyone was going to be able to look past the politics to see the science, I feel kind of sorry for him.

[KitSileya]

42. He responded to mine too,

however, it ended up in my junkmail, and I didn't see his name as the sender until I'd already clicked on the empty button. Could have kicked myself. I do wish I could have read his response, especially if, as you say, he wrote the response and it wasn't a form letter.

[Reader Rabbit]

45. Would it be appropriate to post his response to me here?

I'm not up on all the proper etiquette for email. Is it acceptable for me to do this? If so, and if there is interest, I will.

[KitSileya]

46. If you don't, I'd like it if you pm'ed it to me.

I did get my own reply, even if I deleted it by mistake.

[mike_c]

19. dude, you were just guessing....

:sarcasm: :rofl:

Yep, we actually did know it would turn out badly. Note to the media and Washington: we told you so.

[WilliamPitt]

20. .

[kentuck]

21. A prophet amongst us ?

I must admit that Will Pitt was at the front in warning us about the mess we were headed toward and most of us agreed with his assessments. We did not know for certain exactly what was going to happen. But it took no genius to see the direction we were going...

[Lilith Velkor]

22. This butt-dart thinks it's about being right, not 100,000+ people

I don't know what to say anymore to people who treat this like it's a fucking game.

Notice how the psychologist quoted in the article thinks he can read the minds of all liberals? :crazy:

[GeorgeGist]

23. State of Denial

is all the rage in DC, and the hinterlands beneath the beltway.

[stevedeshazer]

24. So, thousands of my friends on August 22, 2002 had "hindsight bias"?

Errr...

[Chomp]

25. I disagree with many of WRP's posts,

but this one is absolutely spot on.

Almost everything that intelligent pre-war critics said has come to pass. In fact, it is remarkable looking back just how accurate they have been.

The WaPo piece is bullshit.

[hunter]

26. How far can this Shankar Vedantam stick his head up his ass?

Far enough to French Kiss himself?

Crap, this is in the Washington Post???

Like so many people here, I was telling people that Iraq was a tar pit and protesting before most Americans even knew we were going to invade Iraq.

This article is among the most astonishing feats of psychobabble assholery I've ever seen.

Yeah, I saw the bus flying off the cliff, but it was "...hindsight bias -- the feeling, after an event happens, that we knew all along it was going to happen... because I only sort of knew that bus was going to crash into the rocks below, but really, how the hell was I to know angels wouldn't descend from heaven and gently lift the bus back onto the road with nary a scratch? It could have turned out that way.

Ughh. Vedantam also writes about Evolution vs. Intelligent Design, presenting "both sides," but in effect always building up props for highly irrational anti-evolutionists... changing their diapers and wiping the spittle off their lips before they step out onto his stage.

If karma exists, Vedantam will probably destroy his career writing about pedophilia or something... something like "Sex with children: Another kind of love." His writing is a Fox News kind of "fair and balanced" smoking a big doobie.

[Jack Rabbit]

27. My work:

From Democratic Underground
Dated February 28, 2003

Mr. Bush's Colonial War
By Jack Rabbit

In the past year, Mr. Bush and those in his inner circle have put together several reasons for going to war against Iraq. However, each reason that they have given either has been called into question by credible sources or outright refuted. It would seem that if there were a good case for war, it would have been made now. Furthermore, it would seem that if there were a good case for war, Mr. Bush's people would be in foreign capitals making that case instead of resorting to threats and bribes in order to secure a favorable vote in the Security Council.

The reasons given for the war have been that Saddam Hussein is a threat to America; that he is a threat to his neighbors in the Middle East; that he aids al-Qaida; that he is in material breach of UN resolutions; that he possesses weapons of mass destruction; that he is a brutal dictator.

The first reason is simply preposterous. Whatever weapons Saddam possesses or merely have been suggested he possesses, none are able to reach the shores of the United States. For the second charge, Saddam's neighbors have shown very little enthusiasm for this war. Were he a bona fide threat, they would be showing much more. That he aids or is even associated in any way with al-Qaida or Osama bin Laden is absurd. Osama regards Saddam as a socialist infidel who should be overthrown and killed. Meanwhile, Islamic fundamentalists in Saddam's Iraq come in for some of Saddam's harshest repressive measures. These two are not allies. The charges that he is in material breach of UN resolutions and that he possess weapons of mass destruction are for the most part the same charge, since the resolutions of which he accused of breaching are those that directed his disarm after the 1991 war as well as a more recent resolution under which inspectors have returned to Iraq. The inspectors have found nothing of significance and while the chief insppectors, Dr. Blix and Dr. ElBaradei, have expressed a belief that Iraq's cooperation could be better, they have not indicated that they have been prevented from executing their mission.

That Saddam is a brutal dictator is true. However, this is not in and of itself reason to go to war. If it were, we would go to war against many other brutal dictators, some of whom are our allies.

To the refutation of their reasons for going to war, Mr. Bush and his associates have responded with bluster and propaganda. They continue to repeat what has been refuted. We are given an audio tape in which Osama bin Laden expresses his support for the Iraqi people and told by administration spokesmen that this proves a connection between Saddam and al-Qaida. It does nothing of the kind. We are also told that the burden of proof is not on those who charge Saddam with possessing weapons of mass destruction, but on Saddam to prove that he is not in possession of banned weapons. In short, the demand is being placed on Saddam to prove a negative, something that is logically impossible.

Mr. Bush may think less of this tactic if one were to demand that he prove that he stopped drinking many years ago as he claims. However Mr. Bush and his allies wish to spin it, the burden of proof is on them to prove their case against Saddam. They have not.

Read more.

There isn't a word in that piece I would eat today.

[Martin Eden]

29. YOU TOLD THEM SO ...

... and it wasn't "HINDSIGHT BIAS"

Will, that's an excellent job of throwing the facts right back in the face of the rightwing spin machine. Fortunately we can still retain records from 4 years ago and retrieve them from the memory hole the neofascists depend upon.

[never cry wolf]

30. Ok, I AM posting this to brag (edited to add, it's quite long)

Well, not really brag but a big I told ya so to the RWers and sheeple. Approx 3 weeks after the war started I got the following war supporting email crap and added my replies. Sorry for the length but I was quite ticked off. I wrote this before I found DU and have learned alot more since so today my answers would be a bit different but for the most part I think I was on target.


Subject: Re: snappy answers to all those pansy anti war people (are you calling Jesus a pansy? i was taught in sunday sch that it took more courage to walk away from a fight.) not so snappy responses


I support our troops, i support the war effort. I am sick of people who don't. Every day you hear some shit from some pacifist democrat who thinks the war is WRONG! Well, alot of things are WRONG with this world, quit your whining. So, my repsonses to their crap....

i support our troops and appreciate their efforts as well but do not support the war, i just wish they were not being put at risk unnecessarily. there is no logical reason for it and it will only make things worse at the cost of american and innocent civilian lives. every day you hear crap from some right wing bully who wants to nuke the world, so they can just quit with their selfish insensitivity. yeah, alot of things are wrong with this world, why add to them??

Them:Young americans will die in battle.
Me: Would you rather they die in skyscrapers?

no, i would rather that they and all live. making war against a country will not stop the terrorists who have no country, spending 75 billion on food and drugs in that part of the world or beefing up our first defense of intelligence and fire and police support would!

them: they US is taking unilateral action against Iraq

me: so far, it is a 90 member worldwide 'unilateral' coalition.

actually it is 45, 10 of who don't want their names listed and a few of which found out they were supporting this from reading it in the newspapers. only 3 countries have sent fighting troops and austrailia is talking impeachment over their 2,000. of this "coalition", most need the US in other areas for trade or foreign aid, which we have offer to many in abundance, or have big treaties pending that they do not want to risk. most in the world have refused. oooohhh we have eritrea and the marshall islands on our side!!! many also have a horrible human rights record theirownself. here is a list: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/middle_east/EC28Ak01.html

them: we are in a rush to war!

me: a 12 year rush?

3 weeks ago it was a choice of waiting 2 more months to see what the inspectors can find. if they found something and saddam did not get rid of it, then the un would approve use of force and we wud have a REAL coalition. if they found and disarmed him, well that is what this is sposed to be bout, right? there was absolutely no threat whatsoever of anything happening in the meantime with the strongest sanctions ever imposed upon a country and the microscope of the world watching for sadaam to try to pull anything would be a death sentence. to chance the potential downside and spill american and innocent blood over two fucking months doesn't make any sense, unless you know that the reason the admin didn't want that is cuz they didn't WANT the un to disarm iraq cuz that wud take away their pretext for invading, that is why they were in a hurry.

them: tough inspections can disarm saddam without invading iraq

me: 12 yrs of inspections have done us wonders so far

sadaam'smilitary strength was a fraction of what it was during the last war, he has been effectively contained for 12 years. his nuclear program completely disbanded and at least 95% of his other non-conventional weapons are gone as well, he has done no act of agression towards anyone in those 12 years and was a paper tiger. the inspections were WORKING extremely well!!!!

them: we should let the inspectors finish their jobs

me: we did. they didnt. WE WILL.

we did not, they asked for 2 more months which they felt was needed to finish the job. i DO believe that chem or bio agents will be found but i am not so sure they will have been there since BEFORE the war. the US does not want international observers along with their inspection teams.

them: there's no prrof of weapons

me: we know they have em, we know they hide em, and we have tape recordings and photographs. What more is needed? An iraqui rocket in Martin Sheens shorts?

then why didn't we share this info with the un? oh, we did you say?? including the incredibly poorly forged documents about purchase of uranium from nigeria (that the cia told the admin were fake before they were presented) and the brit report that was plagarized from a calif students paper? if we know and didn't tell the security council, why not? if we did show them all the proof we have how come 9 of the 15 members didn't believe it was proof positive or that it posed so immediate a threat that war was necessary. why was the info not turned over to the inspectors so they could locate it??? things that make you go "hmmmmmmmm."

them: if we invade, sadam might use those weapons of mass destruction against us

me: i thought you said iraq didnt have them?

no, he may have some left but our invasion is the ONLY circumstance where he would use them. our prior policy of deterrence and containment worked, he knew if he used them he would be in for retaliation and turned to dust. the cia said that our invasion and backing him into a corner may make him use those weapons, btw, not a liberal pacifist and they made it public because the admin ignored their warnings and they wanted to CYA.

them: but terrorists might attack if we invade iraq

me: oh, so if we dont attack iraq, terrorists will never strike again?

terrorism will increase 10 fold, maybe 100 fold. a billion muslims that didn't give us much of a passing thought now hate our guts. in addition, we are quickly losing the support of other countries in the real war on terrorism as well as directing fbi, cia, nsa and other intelligence resources away from the real enemies, osama, et al. not to mention the police and firemen who have been called up to serve. of course the bush budget cuts money to the states to pay for this front line of defense anyway so what the hell....

them: we shouldnt go to war without a UN resolution

me: another resolution? what about the last 18 resolutions? Shall we use them as wallpaper? Or should we use the same resolutions bill clinton used in bosnia? (he didnt go to the UN on bosnia)

well, maybe we should invade the record holder for violating un resolutions and one of the leading human rights violators, israel, who has 30 to their name including one from 1967 (a longevity record as well) for occupying a foreign country. and they would have dozens more if we didn't use our veto power in the security council. or maybe one of the other 6 countries with more violations than iraq. the bosnia action was a true humane action and we had a real coalition that included all of nato.

them: we dont have a real declaration for war

me: it's called joint congressional resolution number 114

which is currently being challenged as unconstitutional, and is.

them: we are giving turkey 20 billion dollars. we could use that money at home.

me: Ok, we will use that $ to strengthen our iraqui border with wyoming

sure would pay for alot of police, firefighters, fbi and cia agents tho. they cud provide a whole lot more help against terrorism than this shit.

them: if north korea has nuclear weapons, why arent we invading them first?

me: Uh...hello...isnt that the point?

isn't what the point?? north korea yesterday said iraq was stupid for submitting to inspections, look what it got them. nk will NEVER submit now and every country on the verge is hustling thier buns to develop nukes so that they aren't the next iraq. this war sure is making things safe, huh? btw: iraq has NO NUKES!!! has no possibility of ever getting nukes under the unprecedented world scrutiny and even if they did they have no wya to deliver them to our shores, unlike n korea.

them: European leaders are against the war

me: The Reichstag was not attacked, the Grande Palace was not attacked, the Kremlin was not attacked, the Jerry Lewis Lifetime Achievement Museum was not attacked. AMERICA was attacked. And besaides, except for the tantrums of France, Belgium and Germany, only 3 European nations are not willing to defend freedom. Teh entire rest of Europe is WITH the us.

the european leaders are (or at least were) 100% FOR the war against the people who attacked us. since iraq has never attacked us nor was responsible in the slightest for 9-11 (even the chicken hawks in the admin don't claim THAT) they are not for that, you need to separate the 2. while we are off on this fiasco, osama still runs free with the heat off him, i thought we were gonna smoke him out?? the rest of europe needs our $ because they are the former USSR states that are just now emerging and rebuilding and are afraid of our threats to pull the plug, therefore the govts claim they back us, tho with no tangible support. there are only 2 countries on earth where the majority of the peeps back the war, us and uk, and the uk is at 53% and falling fast. 91% of spainards are against it!!! btw: you forgot that sweden, norway, finland, austria, belarus, ireland, switzerland, greece and the ukraine are not WITH us either.

them: the french dont support the war

me: oh, did they surrender already?

the below was taken from a column maybe a month and a half ago, a very good column. it is alwyas easy to cut someone or some people down, a very non-intellectual pursuit, but trying to understand them and have compassion, well who gives a shit, right?? i urge you to read the entire column: http://www.sacbee.com/content/opinion/national/ivins/story/6136732p-7092269c.html

George Will saw fit to include in his latest Newsweek column this joke: "How many Frenchmen does it take to defend Paris? No one knows, it's never been tried." That was certainly amusing. One million, four hundred thousand French soldiers were killed during World War I. As a result, there weren't many Frenchmen left to fight in World War II. Nevertheless, 100,000 French soldiers lost their lives (not to mention civilians and the free french resistance) trying to stop Hitler.

On behalf of every one of those 100,000 men, I would like to thank Mr. Will for his clever joke. They were out-manned, out-gunned, out-generaled and, above all, out-tanked. They got slaughtered, but they stood and they fought. Ha-ha, how funny. In the few places where they had tanks, they held splendidly.

it was very true, europe was fighting panzers with donkeys. i have read extensively on WWII in europe and know my facts here. nazi germany had by far the most modern and powerful military on earth. i have been particularly fascinated by how such a madman could come to power in a westernized democracy and i am sorry to tell you that many of the scare tactics used on the population then are being employed now. also keep in mind that french help in our own revolution was key and we would not be the USA today without them.

them: germany objects to this war

me: Germany objected to reagans 'attitude' towards the soviet union. of course they objected to our presence in 1943 as well.

they have learned the lessons of WWII very well, unfortunately apparently we have not. they know very well the cost of aggression and pre-emptive strikes and where it leads.

them: belgians are against the war

me: i can live without waffles and ice cream

can't argue there. how do you drive a belgian crazy? put him in a round room and tell him there is a pomme frite in the corner. (an old french joke)

them:russia does not support the war

me: they are still angry over Reagan's brilliant Cold War victory

on the contrary they are grateful to join the rest of the world. by the wya, did reagan use a pre-emptive strike and invade russia or did i miss that? i kinda thought his brilliant strategy was deterrence, containment, economic pressure and DIPLOMACY!!! NOT war. it worked then on the ussr, was working til 2 weeks ago in iraq, has worked prior and is the only wya to obtain a real peace. what this admin is doing is VERY different from what reagan did and i doubt he would follow the same path. the warhawks pulling bush's strings were also part of the reagan admin and he sat on them, thought they were too radical. they were also in bush I admin, when they brought up their proposed policies then and news of it leaked to the press GH immediately reined in cheney and wolfowicz and tore up their proposal in disgust..

them: polls show europeans are against this war

me: Polls show europeans believe thier freedom was achieved by endlessly debating in marvelous dining halls, conveniently forgetting their right to be pompous blowhards was granted with american blood, not fabulous wine and brie.

10 million europeans lost their lives in WWII, their economy and infrastructure were in ruins. our casualties of 150,000 in that conflict and little damage at home makes our payment light in comparison. the europeans KNOW what war is like first hand, unlike bush, cheney, wolfowicz, rumsfeld and the others who never fought in one. they KNOW it is intestine splattering, orphan making brains blown out brutal that has permanent after affects that are not always pretty and not to be undertaken except under circumstances of national defense.

them: we should build a coalition with our friends

me: with friends like these, who needs enemies?

i imagine that they are saying the same things about us. there's a few words not in bush's vocabulary (many of em actually!!) tact, diplomacy and compromise. do u know any successful relationship where there is not give and take on BOTH sides?? hey, france and germany and russia and the others sent troops to afghanastan and they are still there looking for the REAL bad guys who hit us. they also gave total support of their intelligence resources after 9-11, but that is now going to dry up.

them: what happens if we cant build a UN coalition?

me: who cares?

and that is what they will tell us that next time we ask for their help too. it is no wonder this bush cud not create a coalition like his pappy. from day one in office he has spat on all international pacts (including and first kyoto, close to my and every nature lovers heart)and in the security council he got what he gave after he and rumsfelt hurled invectives and insults at them. wars have begun in the past on less degrading insults.

them: But the UN is the world's most respected governing body

me: not as respected as the US MILITARY

nor as hated now worldwide. i didn't know the US MILITARY was a governing body even tho i have read the policy paper written by cheney, wolfowicz, rumsfeld, et al and published in 2000 (before 9-11) where they state that they WANT the us military to be a governing body. hey, we insisted on starting the un after WWII, it was our invention, our creation. russia decided to rule their sphere of influence thru harsh military dictatorship, we decided to rule ours thru democracy. and it was working superbly, democracy was spreading like wildfire with new countries joining the world community by the score without resorting to war. that globalization was a HUGE reason for the boom of the 90's. we have taken many steps backwards, it will be a long cold winter.

them: America has always waited till enemies attacked

me: now that oceans cant hold back enemies, pre-emptive war is forever a necessity

IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9-11!!!!! they were not our enemies, OSAMA is our enemy!!! the "tapes" presented as "evidence" also contained the message that osama thinks sadaam is satan. besides, iraq could not possibly attack the usa by any means. their missile with the longest range went 114 miles for Chrissakes, 21 miles in violation of the sanctions and 80 were destroyed by the inspectors!! and once all these other marginal countries have nuked up as our actions have prodded them to do, pre-emptive war with them will not be possible. that is why they are in such a hurry. isn't that a pleasant thought??? deterrance has worked for 50 years, who knows what hell this new policy will bring?

them: War will cost Billions!

me: how much is YOUR city worth?

my city is priceless, that is why i wish we were spending those billions on protecting it rather than feeding a group "macho" of neo-cons egos while at the same time lessening our security against terrorists and feeding them with recruits. imagine if we spent that on seeking out terrorists rather than regime change in a non-threatening country.

them: President Bush says he is willing to violate the 1976 executive order forbidding assassinations of foreign leaders

me:as soon as the ink dries on rescinding thatr idiotic order, will someone please pull the trigger? the line forms on the right

for sadaam, i agree. but that executive order was put in place in agreement with other nations of the world and they have reciprocal agreements. shud they tear theirs up as well??

them: tom daschle says pres. bush has a credibility gap

me: when was the last time we went to tom daschle for the truth????

when was the last time bush told the truth??? i cud sent u scads of articles pointing out his numerous bald faced lies. (we're going for a security council vote no matter what??, we will no longer be at thier mercy?? we will be a humble nation?? c'mon now) see this link: http://www.presentdanger.org/papers/iraqspresp.html

them: these problems didnt happen under clinton

me: Actually, they happened. But clinton ignored them. Now Bush will clean up his mess.

what exactly was that that happened again?? our grandchildren, maybe great grandchildren will be cleaning up THIS mess.

them: But clinton didnt start a war

me: Unless his girlfriend was testifying before congress

hey, the right wing spent 50 mill and 4 years digging up anything they cud find on this guy and that is all they cud come up with??? how i pray that they cud do the same thing on bush, he has quite a few skeletons himself. i wud rather our prez have his human frailities in his personal life rather than as a part of our nations policy putting lives and our national interest at risk in starting an unjust war and then lying as to the true reasons behind it. besides, let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

them: bush senior should have taken out saddam in '91

me: that 1991 un resolution forbade a march on baghdad-remember?????

the resolution was to free kuwait, which was accomplished. further resolutions imposed the harshest, strictest sanctions and international scrutiny ever imposed upon a country. sadaam was denuded, his offensive military capabilities taken away for good. NOBODY, not even his neighbors considered him a threat in the very least now or in the perceivable future, but i guess that half a world away possessing the strongest military might in the world we did?

them: millions of peace activists are demanding we stop the war

me: millions of iraquis are beggin us to start the war

i don't think so. that is either another lie by the administration or they have been mis-led by the iraqis in dc who are set on taking over and want the war. the iraqi peeps in general hate sadaam, but Goddamn it, their homeland is being attacked by a foreign invader and that is exactly how they view it. you know who IS happy we started this war??? none other than osama bin laden. his actions of 9-11 were intended to cause this sort of reaction so that his fundamentalist terrorist group and others like them would have a cause to rally around to fill their ranks with angry muslims and eventually overthrow the more moderate gov'ts in the region. and bush fell for the bait. there will be no end to this thru violence, it will just breed more violence as it has always done and always will do. i read 4 weeks ago that in the pentagon the catch phrase for this is the "first" war. that syria is next and then iran with permanent us military bases in all of them when we are done, that is how their script reads and it won't make us any friends.

them: thousands of innocents will be killed

me: thas a lot less than saddam is killing now

100,000 iraqis died as a result of the sanctions, which they hold against us. we encouraged a kurd and shite uprising to overthrow sadaam after GWI and then allowed him to fly his helicopters over the no fly zone and over our troops so that he could use chemical agents to repress the situation. no wonder the iraqi citizens don't trust us.(chemical agents we gave him to use against iran, btw, when they were the bad guys of choice in the early 80's) how many saudis have died at the hands of that royal fam who are bush buddies?? there are cruel dictatorships all over the world and unfortunately we back many of them as long as they go along with out policy. many of them are also in the current coalition of the willing, see above article.

them: protestors have genuine objections to the war

me: just like they did in WWII? Korea? Vietnam? Panama? The gulf War? Somalia? Haiti? Bosnia? Afghanistan?

personally i did not have qualms about any of the above cept maybe nam. there is a need for war sometimes and those were just causes. some protested those wars as well, such as the christian religious leaders and true believers who believe God does not like war. (did u know that bush refused an audience with the leader of his own church?)

them: people are coming from all over the world to act a human shields

me: hurry up before the bombs start dropping....

i agree, they are dopes and few in number.

them: this is about american imperialism

me: So which country do we own? Name our colonies? What nations send us their tax dollars? If America was imperialist, we'd already own the entire world

afganastan and kuwait amongst many others today maybe. in the past iran (that turned out nicely, huh?), the phillipines, south vietnam and many others. we have had a habit of helping and/or installing regimes and groups favorable to us that later turn against us, see iran, iraq and osama. again, our main and most successful policy of spreading our influence has always been thru diplomatic and mainly economic pressures, not occupation and control at the point of a gun. unfortunately, that policy is changing. many in the world would say that the westernization of third and second world economies is a form of imperialism but i disagree with that, i call it progress. wolfowicz prefers to call their new poilcy american hegemony, btw, tho others in the admin refer to it as pax-americana. honest to God. i cud send ya articles, not weird on line shit but ny times, philly enquirer, toronto star, etc. this link brings you to the american conservative magazine put out by pat buchanan, whom i agree with. the repub party (whom i have voted for) the conservative movement and the country have been hijacked by the neo-conservatives. this explains the empire question: http://www.amconmag.com/02_24_03/cover.html

Them: Whow would stand in our way? This is Blood for oil

me: the only bloood is the Iraqui people tortured, starve, and killed while saddam builds massive palaces to hide nuclear weapo0ns...all financed with Iraqui oil.

HE HAS NO NUKES!!!! of that the un inspectors were nearly 100% certain!! they have detectors that can find the isotopes if they are within miles of where they may have been or passed and they detected nothing nowhere no time, and with world watching he never would have them. i cannot argue that he is a despicable evil guy but again, he is not alone in the world in that. iraqi oil also financed the reconstruction of kuwait, paid to US const corps with ties to haliburton. you can bet it will also be paid to these same companies to rebuild iraq. read the PNAC policy paper and you will see just how important it is to them to secure the flow of oil to the US, that is the first step in their strategy. if they have their hands on the nozzle, no westernized country will dare defy us if we can shut them off. that is their plan, honest.

them: this is a racist war

me: America happily endorses a multi cultural attitude towards anyone who dares take away our freedom. Regardless of race, color or creed... we will hunt them down and kill them

and exactly what freedoms was sadaam taking away from or even threatening from you, me or anyone in this country again?? i must have missed that one too. on the contrary this administration is the most secretive in history, in the wake of 9-11 they passed several laws that deeply curtail our freedoms and rights and the patriot act II is next up, want unfettered access by the gov't to ur email and phone calls?? no checks and balances, no court orders needed, thank you. God forbid if you are an arab american in this country these days.

them: a Us led invasion of Iraq is a great recruting tool for terrorists

me: have fun recruiting people into oppressive misery while they enjoy their first taste of freedom

exactly as osama planned it out. there will not be an iraqi that did not lose a husband/son/daughter/wife/cousin/friend or many in this mess, the first war or the sanctions. they will view us as an occupying force, not as liberators. it is THEIR fucking country, THEIR home turf where they grew up, where their ancestors lived and we are trashing it and killing or causing the death of their loved ones. the only iraqis that won't hate us will be the ones in washington forming up the next government currently as a branch of the PNAC and they havn't lived there for decades. it is not just in iraq, all over the muslim world peeps are lining up to fight what they see as opression with the only weapons they have available, their bodies and their lives. this will be a royal mess for decades and it was all so unnecessary. btw: terrorists don't oppress their members, countries oppress their citizens.

them: an attack on iraq could seriously undermine and destabilize arab nations

me: destabilize the region? what stability? the sooner we topple these 14th century terrorist regimes the better

they are more likely to be toppled by fundamentalist muslims ala iran than us. again, part of osama's plan. these 14th century regimes are the ones that we back and are currently friendly to us despite public opinion of the masses. if these masses shout loud enuf the gov'ts will have to change their view on us or face revolution. wudn't it be safer for the US to just pull all our troops out of the area completely, including backing israel, and let them all just fight it out amongst themselves? take away all reasons for any of them to want to get back at us?? fuck em, why do we have to dictate the order of the region, let em flounder. oh yeah, i forgot, the oil. what other fucking reason do we have to be there?? we are not messing with civil wars and atrocities in africa or other places. we have 3% of the worlds reserves but are the biggest pig by far. iraq has 20% identified, second only to saudi arabia but it is said that the unfound reserves alone there could amount to twice as much as arabia.

them: Are we prepared for a multi billion dollar occupation?

me: Were we prepared to liberate europe and japan in 1945 South Korea in 1953? Grenada? ElSavador? Kuwait? The Eastern Bloc? Afghanistan? Nations always love americans when we rescue them from tyranny. the price of freedom is never free.

the iraqi "people's" oil will pay for the occupation and reconstruction, you can bank it. i also question just how "free" the new iraq will be. will we allow free elections?? what if the majority want a fundamentalist islamic regime, are we gonna let that happen? the largest bloc in iraq are the shiites, the same as in iran.

them: polls show americans are more concerned about the threat from AlQaeda than from iraq

me: it is not a war against al qaeda, it is not a war against iraq...it is a war against terrorism...anywhere we find it. one nation at a time.

nations do NOT do terrorism, terrorist groups do. when a nation practices violence it is called an attack or a war, that is national terrorism. on 9-11 we had the unprecedented sympathy of the world and soon thereafter unprecented international cooperation in hunting down the criminals who did it and those like them. we had a true coalition in afghanastan and everyone shared their intelligence with us. US embassys worldwide were showered with flowers and notes of condolence and pledges to fight these bastards that did that to us. if you read the above link to the article i recommended you would heve seen the reaction in Paris. even fucking cuba was sympathetic. only this administration could have taken all that good will and in less than 2 years squandered it into next to nothing and made sadaam a hero and martyr in the eyes of a good chunk of the world. millions have marched worldwide against our policies and no international organization backs us. just as they have squandered our budget surplus which our grandkids will also have to pay for. the cooperation against terrorism is slowing and soon will be a trickle. these cells will soon fester and grow unabated in foreign lands.

them: american opinion is against the war

me: no, its not. the majority of americans want to fight now, not later...according to a recent poll!

i agree, that is what the polls show, something like 65% i think (tho b4 the war it was like 55% without the un backing.) however the polls also show that 42% of americans think that sadaam was directly responsible for 9-11 so if you subtract them the way i see it is that of the educated americans who do not live in trailers and know how to read there is a 35% to 23% majority against.



You know what? Screw these polls. We are in a war against terrorism. If you dont want to fight the ones who would murder you and your family in a heartbeat, get the hell out of the way. Go visit Paris. Or Antwerp. Or Berlin. Or Moscow. And stay there. FOREVER.

we WERE in a war against terrorism, the bush administration has changed that and we are no longer. we are no longer putting our vast resources towards terrorists but are instead invading a country that had never performed a terrorist act against us nor were they likely to unless we did what we did. i sooooo wish we were fighting the ones that would murder me and my family but instead we are fighting iraq while terrorism grows and gains supporters and strength because we have pissed off the rest of the world. we are letting our defenses down against the real threat in order to assure the USA will always be the lone superpower in control of the nozzle as is presented in the PNAC paper.

i did want u to know a lil more on my thoughts on the war. i am not anti-american or even so pacifist as to say war is never justified. the last gulf war i was really into, i never missed a swartzkoph or powell press conference, had the radio or tv on all day, dutifully put out my flag daily. the justification was clear, sadaam was a big bad bully that invaded and took over his smaller defenseless neighbor who was our friend. bush, sr. put together a worldwide coalition with only like 3 countries objecting. 29 countries sent military fighting forces and it had the full backing of the UN. we were clearly leading the good guys against the bad guys. unfortunately most of the world now sees us as the big bad bully invading a smaller nearly defenseless country, in this war there are like over 100 against or not participating in and 45 or so sorta backing tho only 3 have sent fighting forces.

i will stay right here, thank you. (maybe sri lanka or somewhere exotic tho some day) somebody has to fight the good fight and make sure we refocus on the proper enemy. it is those that want to fight iraq that are giving up the fight on terrorism, not the other wya around. the fundamental terrorist organizations are completely polar to sadaam and they hate each others guts, or at least they did before they found a common enemy. i consider myself a true patriot and would lay down my life for this country, but i am NOT a mindless cheerleader who does not even know the score. i pray for our troops and for a quick end to this crap. i pray i am wrong about my predictions but the knowledge i have gathered in my volumnous reading tells me i am not. only time will tell. in every case i respect your opinions and hope you do the same for mine. sure wish we cud debate it in person. no, i take that back, i'd rather talk bout more cheerful subjects if we ever get the limited chance rather than debate something neither of us has any control over.

i am not trying to change your mind on this issue and i doubt that i cud anywya. just voicing mine as you have voiced yours. if you are at all interested attached are some more links, i am not alone in my thinking. this is what the europeans have read and know to be the truth. i have also included a link to the PNAC website where they have their global policy paper published.

sorry bout the length of this but i am passionate about many things. if ya want this can end our debate cept for the i told ya so's years down the line by one of us. again, i pray it is you, but don't think it will be!!!


http://abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline/DailyNews/pnac_030310.html

http://www.rense.com/general33/pearl.htm

http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/news/local/5025024.htm

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

[deadparrot]

32. Well, they can ask my sophomore World History teacher.

Because as we discussed the invasion extensively in that class, I'm certain she remembers my (very vocal) feelings on the subject.

[DemReadingDU]

33. kickie

[Rex]

34. Just look at you...hindsighting all over the place!

I mean, who could have predicted things would be so bad in Iraq? Who I ask you? :sarcasm:

[bobbieinok]

39. who could have imagined using planes to attack buildings??? ( CRice)

:sarcasm:

[LSK]

36. K&R

I wish I had found you guys 2 years earlier, I could have used these stories back then.

[jhain]

37. I could ask my adult sons...

I do believe they will (VIVIDLY) remember me losing it completely as the Shock & Awe plans were being gobbled up by all the Freepers. Finally, at the top of my lungs I predicted a "ClusterF*uck" in Iraq. You don't forget stopping by for a nice home cooked meal and hearing your little 5 foot tall Mom screaming the word Clusterf*ck in the kitchen.

Yeah, hindsight *IS* 20/20 this time.

[DinahMoeHum]

40. Shankar Vedantam can go soak his head.

n/t

[girl gone mad]

41. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together...

who had been paying attention to the Bush crew's numerous mis-steps up to that point knew this war was going to be a disaster.

Funny, right around the time Jessica Lynch was captured and it was becoming apparent that the war wasn't going to be just a two week party in the desert with really cool fireworks, I remember being accused of cheering on the insurgency because I reminded Right Wingers that they had been warned it would be anything but a cakewalk.

Back then they accused us of hoping and praying things would go wrong just so that we could say 'I told you so'. Now they want to pretend that our opposition is only hindsight? Give them another three years and they'll be claiming they were for peace all along, but we pushed them into it.

[Hissyspit]

43. Thomas Powers two days before the war started:

"And I think sort of an endless amount of trouble will slowly begin to bubble forth, so I figure we're gonna have a month of war, and then we're gonna have a month of indecision, and then we're gonna have a couple of months where everything looks pretty good. And then after that, things are gonna start going downhill, and it's gonna be trouble, and it's gonna be money and it'll take a generation to resolve it."

Fuck you, Washington Post.

[Hissyspit]

44. I just shot off a letter to the editor. Anyone let me know if you see it

show up. It will have the Thomas Powers quote and have my first name, Cary. They may think it a little late to use, we'll see.