I do because it's the truth, pretty much everything that Bush and his gang said about Iraq turned out to be lies.
If you think otherwise, believe what you want to believe. That won't cost me a nickle.
And it certainly won't help Bush's bottom basement image in future history books.
"Maggie, we're through with lies and liars in this house. Lock the door." ~ Tennessee Williams, Cat on a Hot Tin Roof
Last edited by shrubnose; 03-24-13 at 04:44 PM.
So when it comes to Saddam Hussein, merely stating that our job is not to overthrow foreign leaders doesn't quite cover the issue. Some would argue that instead of simply rushing in to ovethrow a foreign leader we gave him 12 years to stop being the Middle East menace his neighbors were constantly afraid of. The invasion of Iraq was always just a matter of time.
Now if you had actually gave it some thought and stated that the way we did it was stupid then I would have been with you. If you had stated that the idea of automatic nation building after we have punished an offender then I would have been with you. Hell, if you had stated that Rumsfeld was probably the worst Secretary of Defense in United States history, then I would have applauded your assesment. But the default protest of Iraq is tired. It was tired then when Bush was designing WMD excuses giving protestors designed excuses to complain about a bigger on going issue they pretended didn't exist.
As far as "our job," aside from war in the Pacific during World War II and Afghanistan, the vast majority of every single foreign war/conflict in American history has one common theme and has had nothing to do with defense. "Our job" is and has always been the preservation of economic security. Even our Revolutionary War was about economic freedom.
1933 - The Glass-Steagall Act was one of the first reform efforts of Roosevelt after the Great Depression. It was introduced to banking law in 1933. It established the creation of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). The FDIC insured bank deposits of up to $2,500 and most importantly prohibited banks from making risky, unsecured investments.
1998 - Democrat President Bill Clinton and the Republican Party repealed it as a part of a deal. Republicans wanted it gone. Clinton wanted reform in welfare. The two collaborated.
If Glass-Steagall was implimented directly after the Great Depression in an effort to correct the economic foolishness of our institutions, what would be the harm in removing it? oday's recession mirrors the Great Depression. Do you think it is a coincidence that Glass-Steagall sits squarely between the two? Or do we just want to blame the Bush guy for inheriting an economic disaster waiting to happen?
Grow beyond the party partisan foolishness. Democrats won't bring up Glass-Steagall because it means blaming Clinton. Republicans don't defend Bush because it means blaming themselves. So what we have is a Congress and a White House getting away with it. Of course they only get away with it because their sheep continue to be ignorant of what is going on. Worse than ignorance is how plenty of people know this, but choose to play the blame-bush-game.
By the way, we are the most powerful nation in history with history's greatest spy network even before 9/11. What's more sad than Bush lying about WMD in Iraq is that so many Americans lacked the common sense to see beyond that shallow excuse and look at bigger things. The White House obviously had no faith in Americans to end what we had been doing since 1991. When Bin Laden reached out to people like you to tell you that 9/11 was because of the "starving children of Iraq" and "foriegners in the holy land," did you not think about the UN mission that offered him that excuse? Sadly, Bush had to rely on the threat of WMD to live up to the American rhetoric.
2001-2008: Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.
2009-2016: Dissent is the highest form of racism.
2017-? (Probably): Dissent is the highest form of misogyny.
on this point, is it possible that a disproportionate number of acdemics are liberals because liberals are more likely to put more faith in science and the scientific process, so that their analysis of Bush will not be a positive one not because they are liberal, but because they will rely more on evidence, data, etc. and the evidence, as we're seeing already, will not put him in a favorable light? I'm hoping for a fair court, not a friendly or hostile one. But, even that may not matter, since increasingly people on the right reject outright analyses by those on the left regardless of how good it is, and vice versa.
I've known Jack for a couple of years now on these threads, and he tends to be kinder to those on the right than on the left ... you should get his take on Pinochet, Castillo Armas, and Somoza ... interesting ...