1
   

WHY WE LAUNCHED THE IRAQ INVASION . . . AND MORE

 
 
Charli
 
Reply Sun 21 Sep, 2003 02:21 am

Baghdad, Birmingham and True Believers

By Colbert I. King
Washington Post, Saturday, September 20, 2003; Page A31

Count me among those who are having a little trouble keeping track of the Bush administration's intentions in Iraq. It's not the barrage of criticism from the antiwar crowd that's throwing us off. It's the administration itself. There are some folks, you see, who have this almost incorrigible inclination to take the administration at its word. And the word, sorry to say, keeps changing.

For starters, there's the now familiar reason we launched the March invasion. An imminent threat from Saddam Hussein and his nasty weapons of mass destruction, we were told. No question, Hussein has them, said the administration. And we know where they are. To protect America and her friends from another surprise attack, we are going in to disarm him, with or without the United Nations. Right on, said those of us who took it on trust that when the administration said Hussein was armed and ready to strike, it was telling the truth.

Now we're told we went to war because Hussein was a tyrant who killed lots of his own people, because Hussein was working on a nuclear bomb and conspiring with international terrorists, and, now, because Iraq is the first stop in a U.S. quest to transform the Middle East into a region more to our liking.

Bait-and-switch? Hush your mouth!

Remember this? We were assured there would be hugs and kisses in the streets of Baghdad when our troops marched in, and that with Saddam Hussein's tyrannical infrastructure brought to ruin, the rule of law would prevail. Why then, since May 1, when President Bush declared major combat over, have 159 Americans been killed in Iraq? Where's the love?

**************************************************************

To read the the rest of the article:

WHY WE LAUNCHED THE IRAQ INVASION . . . AND MORE
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 918 • Replies: 11
No top replies

 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Sep, 2003 05:15 am
Im having this same discussion over on another thread. The hard liners believe that Bush never lied about anything and, besides, Iraq needed to get its ass whupped, ,
Weve entered a whole new scarier time Charli. I dont like the guys being the first in line to run all over preemptively striking. It flies in the face of what sensible Mr John Adams said.
This president has all the bad features of Teddy Roosevelt, but with no measurable IQ of his own
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Sep, 2003 05:39 am
Oil, oil, oil.
0 Replies
 
Charli
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Sep, 2003 06:53 am
FARMERMAN, IS THIS THE FORUM?
FARMERMAN, Is this the Forum?

Snow Job or_Low Job

If not, please post the one you are referring to.

AND, thank you. I've read the posts in the one above. Many excellent responders there. Thanks to them too! I was wondering if Clinton's words about Hussein's WMD were made in 1998 or before. The world admits they did exist then, but were destroyed (supposedly?) shortly thereafter.
[/color]
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Sep, 2003 11:05 am
If only 1% of Saddam loyalist population are actively resisting, that's about 250,000 more that will have to be dealt with.
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Sep, 2003 11:15 am
I am curious where you get the 1% number you keep flashing about.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Sep, 2003 02:08 pm
Its a good statistically insignificant number that one can pull out of ones ass, and then multiplied by a large population , gives an astoundingly large product. Its done all the time by people who say theyre providing "data"
Hee hee, We just got our electricity back so Im a happy , silly camper again
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Sep, 2003 02:24 pm
charli-yeh, that was my attempt to try to understand the difference in severity between Bushes "non lying" to stoke a war and Clintons "lie under oath".
Im not real smart about these things but Id say that Clinton would still get into heaven , in the grand schema
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Sep, 2003 02:26 pm
In the strange pseudo-Victroian world of American Conservatism, sex is always horrific, but killing is virtuous behaviour. Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Sep, 2003 02:43 pm
farmerman wrote:
Its a good statistically insignificant number that one can pull out of ones ass, and then multiplied by a large population , gives an astoundingly large product. Its done all the time by people who say theyre providing "data"
Hee hee, We just got our electricity back so Im a happy , silly camper again


It was a hypothetical amount I pulled out of my ass, because there is no 'data' on how many are involved in the resistance. It is done all the time, especially when there is no data. Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Sep, 2003 02:51 pm
SO, brand x, have you data or not?
0 Replies
 
Charli
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Sep, 2003 08:28 pm
"IF" AND OTHER OPERATIVE WORDS
That word "if" - or the words "if only" - can boggle the mind when playing the numbers game. There are others like "could be, might be, as much as," "possibly," etc. Think that possibly the number "could be as much as 10% . . . or more" . . . of what, 25 million? Even "supposed" real statistical data can be skewed and twisted to say or "prove" any point one wishes to make. In sociology, there is an entire body of published literature about this. And it goes on from there, mostly downhill. IMHO all stats should come with a disclaimer clause! Smile Smile Smile
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » WHY WE LAUNCHED THE IRAQ INVASION . . . AND MORE
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 10/22/2021 at 06:59:25