The Years of Shame

[jlprk]

which unjustified war voted on by the Congress and enjoying large popular support at the time is he (are you) referring to? Iraqi Freedom or Enduring Freedom? Or the "Global War on Terror?"

I mean, listen to the President:


By "President", I mean William Jefferson Clinton in 1998, when he signed the Iraqi Liberation Act.

Since when did Bill Clinton become a neo-con?

Sounds like a matter of a guy not knowing (or caring) what he's talking about, attempting to use his platform to push a revisionist history and progressive present. More power to him, but he also should get called out for it.

As for large popular support, I've posted on this board a decade of polls showing that the majority of Americans never supported the war, even at the start.
------------
Clinton saying similar things to Bush doesn't justify Bush going to war over them. You notice Clinton didn't think the issues were bad enough to go to war.

That's like saying that Kennedy noted the same problems in Vietnam that Johnson later did, therefore he would have agreed with Johnson sending 20 times as many troops as Kennedy did. There is no equivalence.

Instead of finding minor similarities between Clinton's treatment of Iraq and Bush's, why don't you note the giant difference between them--Clinton didn't think the presence of tiny amounts (of leftover materials that Reagan had sold Saddam, hoping he would mass murder Iranians) was anywhere nearly bad enough to instigate a giant war.

 

[BrianFromWA]

I was talking about this quote from the article.

And then the attack was used to justify an unrelated war the neocons wanted to fight, for all the wrong reasons.

I sincerely asked the question about "which war?" b/c I thought he could mean Afghanistan (direct result of 9/11, imo, and pretty easy to justify and having high popular opinion at the time); or GWoT (also, imo, justified, and as a direct result of 9/11); or Iraq. If he meant the first two, then I think he's revisionist. If he meant Iraq (as an "unrelated war") it was due to repeated non-compliance with the treaties ending the first Gulf War and non-compliance with UN resolutions. As quoted above, whether or not you think Bush knew that there wasn't a large amount of WMDs in Iraq, he used it as one of his three reasons (along with regime change) for action against Iraq, in almost the same wording as Clinton 4 years earlier. In that case, I don't understand how it was a "neocon" war. And I don't remember (though at the time, I was out to sea for 3 months at a time, so I acknowledge that maybe I missed it) Bush ever stating that Iraq (or Saddam) was responsible for 9/11.

(EDIT I just looked up some quick articles to see if I was missing something, and it seems that public opinion was growing (some say 40% or so) that Saddam was involved in 9/11, but it wasn't administration policy.

 

[BrianFromWA]

As for large popular support, I've posted on this board a decade of polls showing that the majority of Americans never supported the war, even at the start.
------------
Clinton saying similar things to Bush doesn't justify Bush going to war over them. You notice Clinton didn't think the issues were bad enough to go to war.

That's like saying that Kennedy noted the same problems in Vietnam that Johnson later did, therefore he would have agreed with Johnson sending 20 times as many troops as Kennedy did. There is no equivalence.

Instead of finding minor similarities between Clinton's treatment of Iraq and Bush's, why don't you note the giant difference between them--Clinton didn't think the presence of tiny amounts (of leftover materials that Reagan had sold Saddam, hoping he would mass murder Iranians) was anywhere nearly bad enough to instigate a giant war.

You and I are probably not going to agree on going to war, but I was speaking specifically about Krugman's quotes. Bush, Powell, Sen. Clinton all have said publicly that Saddam was not involved in 9/11. Krugman stated that it was the justification for neocon invasions in an unrelated war.

Again, we'll disagree about the necessity or not of invading Iraq in 2003. But what I don't think even you can deny is that Krugman is pulling revisionist fecal matter out of his ass when trying to denounce what 9/11 was, and what our leaders at the time were doing about it.

 

[jlprk]

Bush, Powell, Sen. Clinton all have said publicly that Saddam was not involved in 9/11. Krugman stated that it was the justification for neocon invasions in an unrelated war.

And then the attack was used to justify an unrelated war the neocons wanted to fight, for all the wrong reasons.

That's the sentence you're talking about. Krugman didn't say Bush had blamed Saddam for 9/11. Krugman didn't name names like Bush or Cheney. He just said that in the general propaganda rush (he might have just been thinking of the media), 9/11 was planted in the minds of Americans, which succeeded in motivating a minority of them to desire war.

I don't have the links, but years ago I saw articles listing the quotes from Bush (and far far more from Cheney) in which those two insinuated a connection between Saddam and 9/11. Cheney did it again a couple of months ago, I read.

Far more were the times newscasters said it and the Administration did not correct the general impression. The idea was spread mainly without the big shots saying it. No one corrected constant hints made in the media by neocon underlings. On purpose.

 

[Denny Crane]

The wars cost $100B a year on or off the budget.

--I've read it was more.

The government was running a surplus and increased its revenues to $2.5T from $2T.

--By 9/11/01, anticipated surpluses had been lost. Bush had already blown it with increased spending and decreases coming in taxes.

If government grew by $600B a year in addition to the wars, we'd have a balanced budget. So how is it that we're borrowing from China to pay for just the wars?

--No one said we didn't borrow from China for any expenses other than the wars. The guy said we borrowed from China to pay for the wars, and you said we're not borrowing anything at all from China. Nice try to confuse everything. I'm still reeling, actually.

We're borrowing from China for EVERYTHING else, for the MASSIVE increase in the size, scope, and spending needs of the government.

--While that's irrelevant to you saying that we didn't borrow anything from China, I'll answer it. You're using average cost when you should use marginal cost (cost of making one more widget). If there had been no war, the savings would have been the marginal cost, not the average cost of all government expenditures.

No wars and we'd be borrowing $1.4T from China instead of $1.5T.

I bet we ran a surplus for 2001.

 

[Denny Crane]

I'm not sure I understand your point, Brian. You seem to be arguing it is reasonable that Bush thought there were WMDs. But Krugman's comment was about his using 9/11 to justify the war with Iraq.

barfo

They didn't use 9/11 as justification for Iraq.

 

[barfo]

They didn't use 9/11 as justification for Iraq.

Link.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

That's the sentence you're talking about. Krugman didn't say Bush had blamed Saddam for 9/11. Krugman didn't name names like Bush or Cheney. He just said that in the general propaganda rush (he might have just been thinking of the media), 9/11 was planted in the minds of Americans, which succeeded in motivating a minority of them to desire war.

I don't have the links, but years ago I saw articles listing the quotes from Bush (and far far more from Cheney) in which those two insinuated a connection between Saddam and 9/11. Cheney did it again a couple of months ago, I read.

Far more were the times newscasters said it and the Administration did not correct the general impression. The idea was spread mainly without the big shots saying it. No one corrected constant hints made in the media by neocon underlings. On purpose.

The administration, various people including Bush, early on stated Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 and repeated that often.

Count the months from 9/11/01 to 03/03, when we took out Saddam. I count 18 months. That's pretty deliberative and not some rush to war. The debate was quite public, too.

Bush gave the same reasons as Clinton did for attacking Iraq. WMD and Saddam will use them. The next 9/11 type attack would be devastating if WMDs were used. Bush enumerated several other reasons in his state of the union, including ending Saddam's torture of his own people, liberating the people, violation of UN resolutions, disarming Saddam, etc.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

No wars and we'd be borrowing $1.4T from China instead of $1.5T.

I bet we ran a surplus for 2001.

 

[Denny Crane]

Link.

barfo

More revisionism. In none of those quotes does he accuse Saddam of being involved in 9/11.

Got a better link? One that's honest!

 

[Denny Crane]

The surplus for 2001 was $127B.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

More revisionism. In none of those quotes does he accuse Saddam of being involved in 9/11.

Got a better link? One that's honest!

Iraq was part of the Axis of Evil. I think a lot of the general public and the assumption that if they were one of the 3 most evil countries on this planet they must have been and will be a terrorist threat to us.

 

[barfo]

The administration, various people including Bush, early on stated Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 and repeated that often.

It wasn't an accident that the public thought that Saddam was involved with 9/11. The administration painted him as in bed with, and equivalent to, al qaida.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

It wasn't an accident that the public thought that Saddam was involved with 9/11. The administration painted him as in bed with, and equivalent to, al qaida.

barfo

You make the right distinction. Tied to Al Qaeda made him an ongoing threat. I bet you can easily find a link to a Bush quote where he explicitly says no link to 9/11.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

The surplus for 2001 was $127B.

My point is after we are out of Iraq and Afghanistan will our military spending go back down to pre 9/11 levels? Is anyone even talking about reducing our military spending back down to pre 9/11 levels? And please don't consider me anti military. I fully support our military but I've always believed our military was pretty damn bad ass in 2001 and that level of spending will continue to keep us the biggest bad asses on the planet.

 

[Denny Crane]

For barfo

Mr. RUSSERT: Do we have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraqis to this operation?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: No.
Meet the Press, September 16, 2001

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A32862-2003Sep5?language=printer

Hussein Link to 9/11 Lingers in Many Minds
By Dana Milbank and Claudia Deane
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, September 6, 2003; Page A01

Nearing the second anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, seven in 10 Americans continue to believe that Iraq’s Saddam Hussein had a role in the attacks, even though the Bush administration and congressional investigators say they have no evidence of this.

 

[jlprk]

The government was running a surplus and increased its revenues to $2.5T from $2T.

--By 9/11/01, anticipated surpluses had been lost. Bush had already blown it with increased spending and decreases coming in taxes.

I bet we ran a surplus for 2001.

I thought that might be true, so you notice I worded it to say that before 9/11/01, economists were unanimous that anticipation (i.e. beginning the next year) of surpluses had vanished. The surplus was sustainable when Bush took office, but before 9/11 he had killed the gravy train.

 

[jlprk]

As for Cheney going back and forth on whether Saddam was linked to 9/11, he was inconsistent just a couple of months ago on 60 Minutes. Leslie Whatshername asked him, he said there was no link, then a minute later he insinuated there was, and she noted his inconsistency to his face. He just made his famous smirking Elvis upper lip sneer.

 

[Denny Crane]

As for Cheney going back and forth on whether Saddam was linked to 9/11, he was inconsistent just a couple of months ago on 60 Minutes. Leslie Whatshername asked him, he said there was no link, then a minute later he insinuated there was, and she noted his inconsistency to his face. He just made his famous smirking Elvis upper lip sneer.

No google results for him on 60 minutes saying anything about 9/11.

You find it

 

[Denny Crane]

I thought that might be true, so you notice I worded it to say that before 9/11/01, economists were unanimous that anticipation (i.e. beginning the next year) of surpluses had vanished. The surplus was sustainable when Bush took office, but before 9/11 he had killed the gravy train.

The US govt. ran its 2nd largest surplus in history, for 2001.

 

[Ed O]

Iraq was part of the Axis of Evil. I think a lot of the general public and the assumption that if they were one of the 3 most evil countries on this planet they must have been and will be a terrorist threat to us.

That's fine... and probably accurate. It doesn't mean that the administration was pinning 9/11 on Iraq any more than it was on Iran or North Korea.

Ed O.

 

[jlprk]

The US govt. ran its 2nd largest surplus in history, for 2001.

I just answered that.

No google results for him on 60 minutes saying anything about 9/11.
You find it

I know I saw him recently interviewed for his book "In My Time" by a female and that's what happened. I guess it wasn't Leslie Stahl. He denied the Saddam-9/11 connection, but then he soon (accidentally) made some wording that connected them again, and was called out for it by the interviewer. Cheney had no answer and just smiled.

 

[Denny Crane]

Not very useful to rely on your recent memories. If I can't see what he actually said, I don't trust your assertion is true.

 

[Denny Crane]

The problem with Iraq is we didn't follow the Powell doctrine. We used overwhelming force successfully, check. We had a mission to disarm Saddam, check. We had an exit strategy, nope.

When the plan became nation building, there is no exit.

This is why I keep posting that we should have left right away, maybe after searching for WMDs. It's also the same issue with Afghanistan. No exit.

 

[jlprk]

Not very useful to rely on your recent memories. If I can't see what he actually said, I don't trust your assertion is true.

Can't find that one, so all these will have to do.

http://sportstwo.com/threads/195446-The-Years-of-Shame?p=2659296&viewfull=1#post2659296

I got these from Page 1 of a search engine. I didn't go to Page 2 of the many pages which came up.

http://open.salon.com/blog/je_rober...ts_to_lying_about_iraq-911_connection_sort_of

http://www.pensitoreview.com/2009/0...-seeking-confession-of-saddam-911-connection/

If you know how I can move my files from my backup drive of my dead Windows XP hard drive to my current Windows 7 hard drive, I can get you many more relevant sites that I saved during the last 10 years. I have 100 gb of good stuff that apparently I'm going to have to move data file by individual data file.

 

[Denny Crane]

If your motherboard has aSATA interface and your old drive is SATA also, you can probably just plug the old drive in, boot up, and mass copy the files. The 2nd drive would show up as D: or E: ...

 

[Denny Crane]

As far as Cheney goes... It wouldn't surprise me if the Intel changed a lot over time. Some guy a Gitmo tells them there was a meeting between Saddam's guys and Al Qaeda. Two months later they find out the story isn't so strong.

I never felt lied to or they were trying to cover up stuff. There were many reports of WMDs found that the administration quickly said were bogus.

If they were devious and sinister, they'd have sent in some Ollie North type to plant WMDs to be found. Even a single test tube of a bio weapon would suffice.