Politics The Elephant in the room...The GOP today

Bush had US Congressional approval to use the US military to remove Saddam Hussein from power. He did not violate relevant US law. Other laws don't matter. Bush clearly stated the circumstances under which he would use the military. The only deception is with those who gave Bush the authority but needed political cover when the war did not go as planned - the same people who repeatedly voted to fund the war and its aftermath.
--- merged: Nov 27, 2012 at 7:22 AM ---

From the report, it illustrates the problem I have with their findings:

Perhaps "give" is the wrong word, perhaps he was going to "sell". But I agree that in-spite of Hussein's past, his posture and rhetoric, we may not have had a specific CIA report stating that he was not making specific arrangements to cooperate with terrorist groups to give them access to WMD - I just don't think a CIA report is needed to arrive at that conclusion.
--- merged: Nov 27, 2012 at 7:32 AM ---

why not consider the circumstances and how this became more relevant:

Obama Lies: "Al-Qaeda On The Run" | Obama

President Obama was building a false narrative about our exposure terrorism. we repeatedly heard about GM being alive and Osama being dead. Presdent Obama was doing an end-zone dance before getting into the end-zone - and we got hit on 9/11, we got a murdered Ambassador who should not have been exposed the way he was given the real circumstances.

These are the reasons, among others, this is a big deal. Again, if the administration simply came clean on these questions from the beginning this would no longer be an issue. And the thought this would have changed the election, one way or the other, has no credibility to it. Honestly addressing the issue in a timely way carried no risk to his re-election in my opinion.

 

Perhaps Congress would have acted differently had Bush not withheld conflicting intelligence as the report noted.

Or in other words:

“There is no question we all relied on flawed intelligence. But, there is a fundamental difference between relying on incorrect intelligence and deliberately painting a picture to the American people that you know is not fully accurate."​

Gee and I thought GM is alive and well and OBL is dead and shark bait.

 

i almost wish the right had tried to mount the ridiculous arguments to defend the iraq war that ace has advanced rather than spending the past 4 years running away from the bush administration and the damage it did. it would have been more ethical of them--even as i know ethics only applies to other people (the ends justify the means). and it would have been great sport.

more importantly, though, it would have forced a debate about the actual record of conservatives in power. and that is a debate the right cannot win.

 

I've been trying to come up with one lasting public policy achievement of the last 100 years that has come from the conservative wing.

And I cant, other than the ever growing income inequality, the biggest contributor to the debt, the never ending quest to restrict rights....

As opposed to expansion of civil rights, environmental protection, social safety nets...

Help me out, conservatives. Offer something positive; there must be something I am missing.

 

I did just think of one significant Republican accomplishment in the last 100 years. Legislation creating the system of national parks/monuments by Teddy Roosevelt. But he was a conservationist, not a conservative.

And today's conservatives want to privatize the national parks.

 

I'd put Clinton signing a bill to reform welfare and a bill to eliminate depression-era banking regulations in the "conservative acheivement" category. Too bad, but pretty fucking par for the course, that these accomplishments couldn't have happened without the happy aid and benefit of an ostensibly progessive figurehead.

 

Earlier this week, Boehner announced who will chair the major House committees next session:




What is wrong with this picture?

 

Will they never learn....to think I used to believe in this party.
--- merged: Nov 29, 2012 at 1:54 PM ---

That was back when Republican meant something cool....what a pity.

 

​

I did not rely on flawed intelligence in my support of military action in Iraq. Did you? Did you support the war at anytime?​

GM would have gone through a typical large corporate bankruptcy with or without support from the government.
OBL is dead it is true, but he was not the number 1 priority he was made out to be by President Obama - my preference would have been for the US to minimize his death or capture not elevate it.
--- merged: Nov 29, 2012 at 5:21 PM ---

My rhetoric, not typical.

there is no "American empire". Americans are simply willing to stand for freedom and equality. Occasionally we may do it in a flawed manner but at least we have the courage and conviction to take a stand. I am proud to be an American!
--- merged: Nov 29, 2012 at 5:27 PM ---

This is where you get on the wrong side of me, it is with this "holier than thou" pseudo-intelectual b.s. A thousand times over I could call you and your behaviors on this point showing how hypocritical you are on it - the suggestion that you are so ethical that the ends justifying the means would never apply to you and yours.

 

Nope. Never supported it, because Saddam was never a threat to the US or even a serious threat to our allies in the region.

I dont share your belief in the the Bush doctrine of preemptive war - unilaterally deciding to invade a sovereign country based solely on a perceived threat to US national security.

I dont believe in putting young American men and women in uniform at risk based on ideology and the nebuolus, easily manipulated notion of a perceived threat.

He could have just said "Mission Accomplished"

 

My view on this subject is the extreme view, not typical. It has been discussed in the past the folly in grouping all conservatives in the same way the most extreme views characterized. Most conservatives are moderates on most issues, you would think from listening to liberals that we are all the same. regarding international law - I think the US should not be part of the UN - drop the funding - I think it is a waste.

Perhaps it is a cultural issue, but I would expect Canadians to talk about Canadian exeptionalism. And I fully expect that if I as an American was constantly exposed to the talk of Canadian exeptionalism it would rub me the wrong way. I do understand that in some cultures the notion of exceptionalism is not well regarded.

I don't see the US trying to dominate or coerce. Similar to my personality and the way I communicate, I have gotten feedback that I try to dominate or coerce - I just like the debate and I strongly advocate for my point of view in what can appear to be an unyielding manner. But in the end I think I am far more tolerant of differences than almost everyone I interact with - including the folks who post on TFP. I think the US is similar - for example no nation has to like our entertainment industry - but many do (in spite of political leaders in some cases) because of our freedoms of expression - not because we want to dominate or coerce.

 

OK, I'll bite.

Where and when has America "stood for freedom and equality"? Please provide at least one example.

As far as the reasons for invading Iraq were concerned, many of us were calling out the lies at the time. Our views were dismissed.

EDIT: Oh boy. Freedom of expression in the US entertainment industry - are you kidding?

 

Who did? Leading to the next question, if no one did - what is the point of all this?

Do you support President Obama's use of drones in Pakistan? Did you support President Obama authorizing the US military to act resulting in the death of OBL in Pakistan without Pakistan's consent? Etc., Etc., Etc....

Or,

Are you just blowing smoke up my ass so you can take some kinda morality superiority position?