He said she said defense of Bush has gone beyond amusing.  Accountability for going to war in Iraq, seems riddled with coverups and lies.  After McCllenin (spelling) and his book surfaced so has the Bush defending arguments.  “Blame anyone but Bush defense.” Maybe the accountability needs to be diluted defense may work, keep it up.

Cyrena,

I have yet to see you produce anything scholarly. What I have seen a good deal of, what you tend to do, is offer your own opinions and then go about denigrating the person or people you disagree with. That’s not research.

How about we do this in a different way? I’ll show you who believed Saddam Hussein was a direct threat to the United States, had ties to international terrorism and held banned weapons of mass destruction and you can go about dissecting their crimes and lies. I’ll start with one and we’ll move on down the list and see how this goes. I’m sure your many years of extensive research will be of terrific value to you here. But remember, do not give us your opinions. Leave every opinion you hold out of it.

Madeline Albright, Secretary of State—February 18, 1998:

“Iraq is a long way from Ohio, but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face. And it is a threat against which we must, and will, stand firm.”

“The evidence is strong that Iraq continues to hide prohibited weapons and materials. There remains a critical gap between the number of weapons we know Iraq produced and the amount we can confirm were destroyed.”

“Saddam continues to deny UNSCOM access to dozens of suspect sites. He’s also trying to discredit UNSCOM, and to change its character so that it will no longer be independent, and its inspections no longer credible. As President Clinton made clear in his strong speech yesterday at the Pentagon, the United States will not allow this to happen. Iraq must permit UN inspectors to do their jobs, as the Security Council has directed. If this does not occur, we must be, and we are, prepared to use military force.”

Now please remember that we’re looking for crimes and lies. I’m asking you to call on your years of exhaustive research to show how Madeline Albright is a known criminal and liar in regards to her warnings about Saddam Hussein.

The subject is Madeline Albright. Not your opinion of Ms. Albright, Saddam, or UNSCOM, or WMD or whether or not Iraq was a threat. So please, I beg you, don’t mention Dick Bush and how you personally feel. Don’t mention Slick Willy and how your emotions are peeked. Talk about Madeline Albright and her lies, crimes and personal agenda in a scholarly, unattached, manner.

Louise,

This pretty much sums it up..

• “JB, you can not change my mind, because you can not change reality.”

(see, this is why I’m in such admiration of your prose).

This part is really good too…

~“And, I do not hate Bush. Hate is the weapon of the foolish.
I mean look what it has done to you. You really believe Saddam was a threat to you! You really believe hundreds of thousands of dead women and children on the other side of the world, were a threat to you! See what that dishonest man Bush did to you, with his campaign of hate!
I think Bush is thoughtless and pathetic, and guided by evil. But I don’t hate him. Just the evil. “~

Yep…I really like this part a lot.

Thanks

Lefeller, I’m about to check out the Cusak interview that you mentioned. I hadn’t yet.

JBlack:

A quick revue for clarity. Terrorist Czar Richard Clark warns Rice, “bin-Laden determined to attack in the United States.” Bush goes on vacation. A bunch of terrorists from Saudi Arabia, trained in Afghanistan by bin-Laden attack the United States.
The United States retaliates and attacks ... Iraq.

Yeh ok. That makes sense!(?)

Four years [and counting] and a million or so deaths later, Iraq is leveled, the military is depleted and war profiteers have looted the treasury. Bush has a surge and goes on vacation. All is well. What that ALL may be I’m not sure, but neither is anyone else ... including you.

Saddam is dead. But since he never attacked us and never intended to, that just means one less dictator in the world and a few hundred thousand brand new angry insurgents. But hey ... Bush had his war and became war president and he’s happy, so what else matters? Right?

JB, you can not change my mind, because you can not change reality.

And I have no wish to change your mind, although it would be nice if you cared enough to search out the truth and change your own. Millions and millions of words, put down by those far better informed than me and all easily documented. Truthdig limits me to 4000 characters, so I wont try to put down the thousands of links. But in case you care, you can Google.

And, I do not hate Bush. Hate is the weapon of the foolish.

I mean look what it has done to you. You really believe Saddam was a threat to you! You really believe hundreds of thousands of dead women and children on the other side of the world, were a threat to you! See what that dishonest man Bush did to you, with his campaign of hate!

I think Bush is thoughtless and pathetic, and guided by evil. But I don’t hate him. Just the evil.

So as not to be accused by the propagandists of what they do best, (cherrypicking) I’m reproducing this entire comment in order to record my grievance.
By JBlack, June 21 at 11:48 am #
Cyrena, Adlai Stevenson once said, “The sound of tireless voices is the price we pay for the right to hear the music of our own opinions.”
LOL...you always put me in mind of that quote.
###

My grievance JBlack, is that *I* should or would *EVER* put you ‘in mind’ of ANYTHING. Now isn’t there a song or something that says, “Please oh please, just get me OFF of YOUR mind?!” Surely there is. Think about something else JBlack, anything besides ME. I promise not to report you to the ‘thought police’. Just think of ANYthing but me!

On a slightly different note, I had to chuckle at this…so typical (of you) JBlack, and really pretty pathetic.

• “…Louise, While I admit I rarely read your posts I have seen enough to realize you will never agree with anything I write….”

I should be so lucky…

Louise,

I’m jealous.

Did anyone see the John Cusack interview by Olbermann?  Check it out if you can really quite good, someone else who sees the handwriting on the wall.

I’m curious here Russ7355

• “…An Iraq that Clinton felt was “an enemy of the United States”?

What’s your point in suggesting that Slick Willey thought Saddam Hussein was a ‘threat’ to the US. (which isn’t the same as being an ‘enemy’ of the US, since we have hundreds of enemies at this point, but it doesn’t mean they are ‘threats’ to us).

• “…There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein’s Iraq”, which clearly indicates President Clinton’s threat assessment of a danger?”

So what Russ? So what if Slick Willie thought that Iraq was an ‘enemy’ of the US (obviously Regan and Donald Rumsfeld didn’t feel that way back in the ‘80’s, since they were good buddies, all.)

But, even if Clinton did say this; so what? If he really thought that Saddam was such a threat, why wouldn’t he attack and remove Saddam back when the PNAC asked him to do exactly that in 1997? Well, he WOULDN’T russ. It’s that simple. The thugs had already written their Clean Break and other papers that were incorporated into the PNAC doctrine and planned global mission, and getting rid of Saddam was the first on the agenda. But, Slick Willie wouldn’t go for it. He knew he was already killing them slowly with the debilitating sanctions that had been in place since Bush I.

So, what difference does it make if he said all of this, when in fact he refused to attack them when the neo-cons asked him to?

And of course the last standard question..as usual. How does any of this change the fact that Dick Bush started an illegal war of aggression in violation of all the laws of all the lands, against a sovereign nation state that was NOT a threat to the US or ANYONE ELSE?

How does it change that millions of people are dead as a result, and that millions more are homeless, and without even the basic means for survival, and so will continue to die?

Because of Dick Bush…

You guys working together, seems like Mutt and Jeff here.  My point is a preemptive war was used attack Iraq by Bush not Clinton.  Clinton also said ‘I did not have sex with the women’ Maybe you should use that quote too.  Simple fact is Bush can try to use that quote to cover his ass, but in the long run it may be useless.
Clinton quote is grasping for straws, what you are doing, attempting to further Bush’s bad judgment and place it on someone else, an attempt to place a feather in your or Bush’s cap, especially with tentative world criminal charges around the corner.

Find it interesting you ignore the rest of my arguments about preemptive war verses defending our country, the wasted money and deaths caused by bad planning this White House with support of Congress and your so important quote from Clinton .  My feeling is you cherry picked that quote because I remember Clinton saying something about Al Quada which was ignored by Commander Cod Piece, until after 911. 

Furthermore, I find your selected quote even more interesting by taking a few steps back it has a new perspective. “The reckless acts of outlaw nations and an unholy ‘axis of terrorists’, drug traffickers and organized international criminals.’” In some ways it could refer to mean our government and special intrests, maybe that is why you found it so annoying with out SH’s name in it.

I do not support war for war’s sake, you seem to support war for some reason so we will never agree, so be it.

Leefeller,

Why would you use a quote from JBlack but leave out one of the most instructive sentences in order to make your point? What you yourself would call “cherry picking”. Why did you willfully corrupt the Clinton quote by leaving out—“There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein’s Iraq”, which clearly indicates President Clinton’s threat assessment of a danger?

Why would you do that? Was it due to Clinton’s clear and concise description? Did using that full quote in context fail to suit your purpose? You don’t want people here to see that Clinton could think of no more “clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein’s Iraq”? An Iraq that Clinton felt was “an enemy of the United States”?

Is it not a fact that you willfully mangled the president’s words?

You can of course suggest the oil angle if you wish. Some will always believe that. But then you would be ignoring a decade of clear warnings. The same types of warnings regarding Al Qaeda types in the same decade.

Since your comment seems to suggest we went into Iraq in order to rid the world of S. Hussein, and granted he was a sick, but the world has many others, just as sick, so why are they not as important?  May I suggest OIL.

“The reckless acts of outlaw nations and an unholy ‘axis of terrorists’, drug traffickers and organized international criminals.’” Clinton, Yes let us cherry pick and select axis of evil, for our government supports and installs the ones that provide something they want.  Our governments meddling in the world affairs, with blatant disregard for the Geneva Convention, destruction of our liberties by induced fear mongering is worthy of nothing but contempt and criminal in nature. . 

My bitterness is not that at all, I have a huge dislike for war, that has nothing to do with defense, but instead offensive and preemptive. 

Excuses are reasons for going to war is how and what is always done, usually after some act or another, we did not need to go to war in Iraq, 911 had nothing to do with Iraq, we have wasted way to much money and lives on a pipe dream of special interests.

Cyrena, Adlai Stevenson once said, “The sound of tireless voices is the price we pay for the right to hear the music of our own opinions.”

LOL...you always put me in mind of that quote.

Louise, I’ll not waist one minute feeling guilty about self defense.

To be certain every life is precious. And at the same time we have little choice but to defend ourselves. And I can think of no better example of self defense than removing Hussein from Iraq. And, no, I do not speak of Sept. 11.

“The reckless acts of outlaw nations and an unholy ‘axis of terrorists’, drug traffickers and organized international criminals.’ ‘These predators of the twenty-first century, these ‘enemies of America’.  ‘There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein’s Iraq’”.-- President Clinton February 17, 1998

Louise, While I admit I rarely read your posts I have seen enough to realize you will never agree with anything I write. I do, however, wish you had taken the time to mention the estimated 2 million deaths Saddam Hussein was responsible for. Or the mass graves of hundreds of thousands. Or the complete annihilation of the Marshlands and the centuries old communities that once lived there but now forever gone. Or the largest man made environmental disaster caused by lighting the Iraqi oil fires in 1991. Oil fires which effected weather patterns over the entire globe for over a year.

You like to write of the costs to removing Hussein. But have you written about the costs of his remaining in power? How many had to die? How many times did President Clinton have to warn us? How many woman had to be picked up off the streets of Baghdad to be brutally raped and then their throats cut? How many mass graves would be enough to rattle your comfortable chair?

As I said: People have the right of Self Defense.

Good luck to you

Louise,

• “…Kinda like running for the plane with a suitcase full of clothes and a suitcase full of rocks. If you want to get to the gate on time, you dump the rocks]..”

You know I love this analogy. Truer words are rarely spoken.

The analogy goes much further into the wisdom database, even from the more metaphorical perspective. We know, (at least at the subconscious level) that it’s ALWAYS better to ‘travel light”, because the least bit of ‘weight’ will take away from the speed AND the efficiency of the journey. It might even stop one in their tracks.

I’m reminded of this hourly these days, as I pack ‘stuff’ and wonder where it all came from, since I’d committed myself over a decade ago, to keeping things really, really, simple, and always…’traveling light’. So as I pack to move on, I’m dumping a bunch of rocks myself. It’s the only way. That and the good fortune to have the wind at our backs.

This reminds me of a poignant, (but still humorous) moment from several years ago.

• “…Either way, I’ve always found, giving in to a spoiled, demanding child usually leads to the spoiled child demanding more…”

I can’t remember exactly what the circumstances were, but my sister, a mother of 3 with a hard working husband, (read – long hours that have often made her feel like a ‘single parent’) was experiencing a ‘frustrated mom moment’. She called me to rant and told me that she was just “sick and tired of LITTLE people ‘bossing her around’!” I had to laugh, because in reality, her kids are extremely well behaved, very responsible and respectful. But of course that is no ‘accident’, which brings us back to the truth of your words. It was also a moment of irony, since my sister, (at the same age) was a tyrant herself! (often employing terrorist tactics against ME!)

Still, your point is clear. Give in to ‘em all the time, and they just keep demanding more. Not ALWAYS, but in general terms..yes. For Hillary, that’s pretty much a no-brainer. It’s WAY too late to use any sort of ‘tyrant reversal’ measures with her, and she is one heavy rock!

So, none of that ..”she ain’t heavy, she’s my sister” stuff in this case. Her response to that would be, “You knew I was a snake when you took me in.” There’s a parable somewhere with that line in it.

Leefeller, are you simply bitter because you’re unable to feel pleased about things getting markedly better? It does seem that way.

Sectarian violence is down significantly all over the Iraq. Violence of all kinds is down enormously everywhere. IED deaths are now a rarity. The Iraqi parliament has passed almost all of the “benchmark” legislation. And while oil revenue legislation has yet to pass the Iraqi’s do have a de facto oil sharing agreement framework already in force. That is to say; oil revenue is being shared.

A constitutional government has been elected and is widely supported by tens of millions of Iraqi citizens. Two times now millions of Iraqi people turned out to vote. Some under the threat of death. In one Provence alone twenty five thousand people refused to leave the polling stations while under sniper and mortar fire. That’s 25,000 who refused to leave before they had the chance to do what more than 50% of Americans take for granted.

Please feel free to explain to everyone here how these things are not a marked improvement. Being a critic for the sake of criticizing is neither helpful nor constructive.

Or are you being critical due to an inward desire to see everything fail?

Success is measured by what J Black, what you are told it should be?  As lies be told, accepting them as truth is such a sad state of mind. We should have never gone into Iraq, that would have been success. A word bantered about by politicians as people die. Believe as you are told, for thought would require work.

JBlack:

“It is beyond doubt now that the surge has been hugely successful ...”

~~~

Hmmm, tell that to the 16 kids who’s names scrolled down the screen last night. Oh, that’s right. You cant tell them, they’re dead. Killed by a lie. So, tell that to their loved ones instead. No, better still, keep telling it to yourself. Makes it possible to avoid any need to do some honest self-examination that might lead to a sense of remorse. Or heaven forbid ... guilt!

“2008 will mark the deadliest year for American troops in Iraq.”

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/iraq-casualties.htm

~~~

“When asked why he changed his position on an issue, John Maynard Keynes said: “When the facts change, I change my mind.”

~~~

Or in the case of a stubborn arm chair warrior, “I ignore the facts, so I don’t have to change my position.”

Comfy and safe, fighting in Iraq ... from an arm-chair.

As we enter the second half of the campaign year, facts are undermining the Democratic narrative that has dominated our politics since about the time Hurricane Katrina rolled into the Gulf coast—most importantly, the facts about Iraq.

In January 2007, when George W. Bush ordered the surge strategy, which John McCain had advocated since the summer of 2003, Barack Obama informed us that the surge couldn’t work. The only thing to do was to get out as soon as possible.

That stance proved to be a good move toward winning the presidential nomination—but it was poor prophecy. It is beyond doubt now that the surge has been hugely successful, beyond even the hopes of its strongest advocates, like Frederick and Kimberly Kagan. Violence is down enormously, Anbar and Basra and Sadr City have been pacified, Prime Minister Maliki has led successful attempts to pacify Shiites as well as Sunnis, and the Iraqi parliament has passed almost all of the “benchmark” legislation demanded by the Democratic Congress—all of which Barack Obama seems to have barely noticed or noticed not at all. He has not visited Iraq since January 2006 and did not seek a meeting with Gen. David Petraeus when he was in Washington.

The editorial writers of The Washington Post have been paying close and careful attention. And even though they may be temperamentally more inclined to favor Obama’s candidacy over John McCain’s, they have not been unwilling to take Obama to task for his inattention to American success. Obama, the Post noted tartly on June 7, “has become unreasonably wedded to a year-old proposal to rapidly withdraw all U.S. combat forces from the country—a plan offered when he wrongly believed that the situation would only worsen as long as American troops remained.”

On June 18, a Post editorial made the same point again and noted that Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyard Zebari told Obama in a phone conversation that a precipitate withdrawal would embolden al-Qaida and Iran. But Obama told ABC News’ Jake Tapper he said no such thing. Perhaps he’s still trying to avoid facing facts that undermine his narrative. Which might also explain why he said he was willing to meet Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without preconditions while he has not been able to find time to meet with Petraeus.

Other examples of facts undermining Democratic narratives readily occur. Last week charges were dropped against the seventh of eight Marines accused of atrocities in Haditha. The narrative, peddled by Democratic Congressman (and Marine veteran) John Murtha, of depraved American soldiers massacring innocent Iraqis seems to be falling victim to the facts.

And the fact of $4 gasoline has undermined the narrative that alternative forms of energy can painlessly supply our needs. Public opinion has switched sharply and now favors drilling offshore and, by inference, in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Democrats are scrambling to argue that drilling wouldn’t make any difference—and that anyway the oil companies aren’t drilling enough on federal land they currently lease.

All of this matters because the rejection of the Republicans in the 2006 elections was a verdict on competence more than ideology. The Republicans seemed incompetent at relieving victims of Katrina, producing success in Iraq and even policing the House page programs. The Democrats could not do worse and might do better. But in the 19 months since November 2006, some important facts have changed.

If George W. Bush was wrong about the surge from summer 2003 to January 2007, Barack Obama has been wrong about it from January 2007 to today. John McCain seems to have been right on it all along. When asked why he changed his position on an issue, John Maynard Keynes said: “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?” What say you, Sen. Obama?

cyrena:

“Seriously..some of my very worst experiences have been prompted by the UNSOLICITED ‘support’ of those who’ve claimed to have my best interests at heart.”

Words of wisdom.

Maybe Obama is meeting with Hillary’s donors to try and work out some way to get her bills paid. No reason why the folks who have been supporting his campaign should pay for her bad management.

Or maybe the decision has been made to test the waters, and see how the public at large accepts a Hillary/Obama ticket. [I am one public who sees that ticket as a drag on Obama’s winning. Kinda like running for the plane with a suitcase full of clothes and a suitcase full of rocks. If you want to get to the gate on time, you dump the rocks]

Maybe it really is as simple as garnering Hillary supporters behind the Obama campaign.

Either way, I’ve always found, giving in to a spoiled, demanding child usually leads to the spoiled child demanding more.

Time for Sen. Clinton to pay the piper.  She has a lot to answer for, so going 110% campaigning to help Obama get elected is the 2nd step--the first was her speech 2 weeks ago.

If she really goes to the wall for him, and he gets elected, she’ll be off the hook.

I’m not a Puritan.  I think some trespasses can be forgiven.  Atonement is possible even if it’s not called that.

Plus, having seen the Habeas Corpus decision, it is VITALLY important to having a Democrat pick the next Supreme Court justices.  In the last 40 years, only 2--Breyer and Ginsberg, have been picked by Democratic presidents. The rest are Republicans.

Thank goodness Stevens and Souter are loyal to the Constitution and not Rethuglican neocon dogma.  Kennedy at least has learned that he can do as he believes and they can’t throw him off the Court, but he sides with the Anti-American wing of Scalia/Thomas/Roberts/Alito too often.

Well this takes the cake and they getting to eat it too!  How far does pandering go? This make about as much sense as me taking the Pope four wheeling in my pickup, or Chaney going duck hunting with a judge.

• “…Obama and Clinton also plan to meet in Washington with some of her top contributors in an effort to calm donors who remain frustrated with Obama’s presidential campaign. The former first lady will introduce Obama to her financial backers…”

Oh MY! This is very, very tricky here. I’m not sure I understand it. Who are the ‘donors’ who remain frustrated with Obama’s campaign, and….so what? It sounds like they are Clinton donors, (she’s gonna introduce him to her FINANCIAL BACKERS), and since she LOST to Obama, (a waste of their money) I guess maybe they WOULD be ‘frustrated’ with his campaign. His campaign BEAT their candidate. So yeah, they’d be frustrated, especially with Hillary’s still unpaid campaign debts.

BUT..why does Obama have to get involved with them, if he’s ALREADY managed to beat Clinton WITHOUT the support of her ‘financial backers’, why would he want it NOW, to beat McSame? Yes, I understand the political party dynamics to this, but the paradigm has changed. Obama needs to stick to basically what got him this far, and be very, very, cautious about who he becomes beholden to, in the final lap of this.

Yes, I know it will take considerable sums of money to win against McCain, because the GOP works some very dirty ropes in their loops around campaign finance. But, Obama needs to be very careful where his comes from. I guess allowing Hillary to join the party (the campaign trail) is a necessary evil, but he’d better put some clear time frames on that, and get it in writing. I say a week should be the max.

After that, New Yorkers have every reason to expect her to get her ass back on the job they’re paying her to do. If she really wants to help the cause for November, she can do that better with her Senatorial vote.

Seriously..some of my very worst experiences have been prompted by the UNSOLICITED ‘support’ of those who’ve claimed to have my best interests at heart.

That’s what I see here.

Who would trust anything that woman has to say?

Ohillabama ‘08

Obillary ‘08