If that were the case then why was it necessary to tell so many lies about things like yellowcake and mobile anthrax production facilities?

Vaguely remember Gen Wes Clark describing some of them. Said they were slick and convincing,

At any rate, some Dems knew better anyway. Good on them

and Bush wanted to invade Iraq come hell or high water, but how come we could see through the BS but the Senators and Representatives couldn't? I thought it was pretty obvious that Bush was using 911 to conflate and confuse Americans into Iraq. Not everyone of those Senators that sat in on those intelligence briefings bought it like Senator Wyden, but others did. Why? IMO, they made a political calculation not to appear "weak on terror" by "doing something" which has led us to the blowback of today: Syria and ISIS.

Not looking for an argument, just on how this all happened.

Bush invaded Iraq not because of gibberish about oil, but because he genuinely thought that it was the right thing to do, to the extent that it was justifiable to bend the facts to justify it.

Always give the devil his due.

Bear in mind that everyone is the hero in their own story.

going to excuse that or try to justify it?

We have no moral standing left to criticize any other nation or people for their behavior, imo. Bush and Cheney completely eroded the last shreds of our moral standing (those left after Vietnam and Central America, that is).

2006-08). And its crimes unpunished under a Democratic Congress AND Democratic President (2009-10).

As I said, we have no moral standing left to criticize the conduct of any other nation or people. Bush and Cheney killed it off and Obama has done nothing to revive it. It's over. Done. Finito.

architects and perpetrators of the complete erosion of the U.S.' moral standing have totally escaped accountability for their nihilism.

It's over man. I'm sorry. For a brief moment in the 19th and 20th centuries, we were arguably 'the last best hope of man' (although our indigenous, black, Latino and Asian populations might have disagreed). Not any more, though. Bush and Cheney put a stake in the heart of that particular mythos.

This is to be praised not admonished for not doing enough. Because if you keep praising and supporting good policy, then eventually you'll get Democrats who will do the prosecutions. If you don't, then Republicans get back in office, and history repeats itself. And, of course, one of the leading voices against CIA torture (and NSA spying), Mark Udall, lost his seat in Colorado, and it was praised because he was "Third Way."

The bashing of Democrats when they are inherently better than Republicans is the goal here. There is no admonishment of Republican congressional members who refuse to sign on to CIA prosecutions.

Udall's defeat was a catastrophe for us on so many levels.

U.S.' moral standing (or lack thereof) to criticize other nations or peoples. The Democrats may have 'ended the policy' (provided one ignores the fact of force-feeding the hunger strikers at Guantanamo), but they have done nothing whatsoever to bring the perps and architects to justice.

Let me state this again very directly and clearly so there is no mistaking my meaning: so long as the architects and perpetrators of CIA torture are not called to account, the U.S. has no moral standing to criticize any other nations or peoples. The only standing we have left is a 'might makes right' realpolitik, typical of every Empire in decline before ours, most recently the Brits and French in Africa and Asia.

I've talked to people who say they now cherrypick which laws they want to obey, arbritarily, subjectively and with zero respect for the law. They tell me, "Hey those guys got away with mass murder and torture, I'm just small fry here. I'll do what I want and answer to my own morality and honor."

They damaged our country with several assists from named prominent Democrats. No real proof they stopped torturing either.

There's no question that Democrats on the intelligence committee who knew about the torture were complicit in one way or another. I'm not debating that. I'm saying that the Democrats did change the policy.

You'll never get the perpetrators prosecuted if you keep saying that the Democrats are no better and ignoring the substantive policy change that has happened since 2008.

This is whataboutism at its core, saying that because past US policy, under a Republican president, who started two wars, then the US, under a Democratic president, who changed the policy, is no better, and not worth supporting.

We should support good policy and admonish bad policy.

another and signalling in different languages to one another.

That Dems are better than the fascists hardly needs saying. It is so obvious and self-evident that mentioning it opens one up to charges of being ironic or satirical.

You seem to think, though, that there's some chance at some vague point in the future that we will regain our moral standing. I'm saying it's all over but the obsequies, Obama's pablum about American 'exceptionalism' notwithstanding. I wish it were not so. I'd like to live in a country that aspired to be something a little better than the tawdry and failed empires that have come before. But I'm wise enough to understand that we are no better than those we criticize.

See, it wasn't just some Democrats on intelligence committees who were complicit. It was intelligence and military personnel the length and breadth of the command structures, civilian contractors and mercenaries, even members of the medical and psychiatric professions. It was an entire stratum of 'good Germans' who went along to get along, who chose to look the other way and stay silent just like their predecessors a half-century earlier. And the one guy who spoke up, Kiriakou, was the only guy who was tried, convicted and incarcerated. You can't underline the depths of our moral depravity and imperial corruption any more deftly than that.

so I do have the moral standing to condemn someone being burned alive. Try your "we" stuff on someone else. I don't go for the collective guilt thing.

yourself a pass, you be my guest.

"The difference between trying to do the right thing and fucking it up, and doing the completely immoral thing and not even caring about the right thing is pretty clear. It's OK to fuck up and make mistakes, if you try to fix it, and make amends. "

When you know you will be killing innocent people and continue to do the act which will result in that killing and burning of innocents, you can no longer claim the moral mantle of "trying to do the right thing and just fucking up". It becomes intentional.

continue to say it is an accident.

Here is an analogy.

A man wants to clean the kitchen sink because it is dirty, so he takes out some bleach, puts it into a spray bottle and sprays it all over the sink area.

Then he notices that the bleach accidentally sprayed on the curtains behind the sink, leaving lots of white spots that essentially ruin the sink.

His wife has to buy a whole new pair of curtains.

Next day, the sink is dirty again, so the man repeats the bleach spraying.

Same thing happens. Ruined curtains.

Wife: "Why did you spray the bleach again!"

Man: "Well, the sink was dirty, I had to."

Wife: "What about the curtains!?"

Man: "It was an accident!"

at this point we are probably preaching to the proverbial converted.

I think it was FDR who said "There are no accidents in politics."

He is a feisty one and never backs down.

The nuances of geopolitics as it relates to going after terrorists are extremely complex, and cannot fit in sound-byte laden clickbait articles.

Why do we use drones? The simple answer is we don't want to use people. And by "we" I don't just mean the US. I mean in every country where drones are deployed and actively "decried" but somehow magically allowed to fly (they are simple targets to any state military; if the state did not want them there, they would shoot them down, and kick the US out of bases there).

I believe if we are going to assist countries in rounding up their terrorists then we should do so with strike teams and trainers (not Taliban style training). Drones are too indiscriminate.

But there's still a huge difference between burning someone alive, or, you know, mass executing 1500 people and carelessly hitting a wedding then giving out million dollar payouts. I find it hard to believe that the US intentionally hits weddings, pays them off, and hopes somehow that has a good result, it doesn't. There's no intent to fuck up there.

With outright war or under the pretense of an "Arab Spring".

There was no "trying to do the right thing". Bushco did it purposefully. The war on terror is carte Blanche to continue committing atrocities indefinitely and clearly Obama is ok with that.

In places like Libya we're not even trying to do the right thing.

That's absurd

The "scare quotes" trying to denigrate the Arab Spring is a non-starter.

they rose up against Mubarak and Ben Ali was because some intellectually superior Americans were pulling their strings?

Cute combination of anti-Amercanism combined with Orientalism.

How are we gonna get America's Warbone engorged if they find out we do this kinda shit all the time?!?

I wonder why everyone is making the comparison...

what are you complaining about?

Either that or, yeah, the psychopaths actually warrant condemnation.

by people in Iraq, Syria, Japan etc is understandable revulsion, of course when Americans express the same horror we must be doing it for exceptional reasons that don't apply to normal human beings.

Then again, this is a guy whose idea of moderate American Muslims is Al-Awlaki.

Not a peep. His "concern" about "ISIS brutality" is, like the MSM, just another way to get clicks and to cause controversy. He is literally part of the problem.

Go watch that video of the executed Iraqi's, if so. The beheadings, the burning, they are literally nothing in comparison.

Here's a link to give you an idea (it is not to the actual videos released, as those are on gore sites and disgusting sickness): http://www.nytimes.com/video/world/middleeast/100000003077656/surviving-isis-massacre-iraq.html

I find it hard to believe he doesn't know about the brutalization of ISIS when he writes that no one is "comparable" to ISIS brutality, yet he somehow decided to link a "less brutal" incident to make his claims. It shows the efforts expended to make a false equivalency to prove some convoluted click-bait point.

So I actually agree, Greenwald is saying Americans are exceptional.