Locobot

I have no problems with "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime." If this had been GWBush's goal from the beginning I might have supported the war. Instead the reasoning we were given was paraphrased: "It is the policy of the United States to preemptively invade Iraq to ensure our security without a clear successor for Hussein or any semblance of an exit strategy for our soldiers." A democratic solution was only mentioned by Bush after it was painfully clear to every last American that the WMDs used to inspire so much fear and support for the war were non-existant.

"Support efforts" is somewhat different from "unilateral invasion" in my eyes.

dksuddeth

There were many mistakes made, for that there should be accountability. I don't see it happening with a republican majority in the government but we really only have the democrats that protected bill clinton from conviction to blame for that, wouldn't you agree?

So, in light of the fact that we will never see the accountability we should, should we not be promoting what remnants of US policy for Iraqi Liberation remain?

As far as unilateral vs. support, theres no argument to be made. Countries were given an opportunity and instead those countries chose their finances over the lives of the Iraqi's.

Locobot

Huh? Agree with what? That because the Democrats failed to support a right-wing coup attempt centered on an oval office blowjob that they weren't a strong enough dissenting minority to sway military policy? huh? I don't follow or agree.
And the lives of their own soldiers let's not forget. This "ends-justify-means" logic doesn't exactly sit well with me. An allegory might be your drunk uncle who wrecks on the interstate killing 5 people and propels himself throught the windshield onto the grass where, looking up through his blood-soaked eyelashes discovers a four-leafed clover and we're all expected to be happy for him and all the good luck coming his way. yeah right.

dksuddeth

So you don't consider lying to a grand jury an issue as long as its about a blowjob? Glad to know that you feel there are times when lying under oath is ok with you.

Thats an exremely inaccurate 'allegory'.

Locobot

Of course there are times when lying, even to a grand jury, is justified, heroic, or even in the case of a blowjob--inconsequential.

Lying to your nation and the free world about motivations to invade a soverign nation resulting in the deaths of 1300+ soldiers and thousands of citizens--consequential.

You're right it wasn't an allegory strictly, "symbolism" would have been a better word. Are you not arguing to me that the ends justify the means?

dksuddeth

lying under oath, period, is consequential. legitimizing it under 'certain circumstances' is wrong.

No, although it certainly does look like that. What I'm arguing is that just as with clinton having a democratic majority to protect him from an impeachment conviction for lying, Bush has a republican majority to protect him from impeachment. In light of this, there will never be a charge against bush, or his administration, so instead of whining and crying about it now, why shouldn't we focus on the fact that regime change was still US policy (which it was) and support the democratization of Iraq?

Locobot

I do support the democratization of Iraq. I also think it would be foolhardy to consider this the reason we invaded. I'm also not entirely sure it's feasible, Iraq is composed of disparate factions who would really rather have nothing to do with each other. Will a democratically elected leader, with all the checks and balances a democracy places on her power, be strong enough to keep the factions in line? We'll see I suppose.