What does Iraq have to do with the war on terrorism?

- Answer: absolutely nothing. This is Bush's* war...not America's.

- BushCo lied to us to get the US into Iraq...knowing that we would have to 'support the troops' once they were put in harm's way.

- They also knew that Democrats could do little about those lies for fear of looking 'unpatriotic' or being smeared in the RWing media as 'un-American'.

- We've been suckered, bamboozled and lied to. What now? Do we play along and continue to pretend Iraq is a good idea despite the fact that no WMD have been found or because 'Saddam is gone'? Or do we do what Byrd and Kennedy have done and tell the truth regardless of the consequences?

- I'm tired of appeasing the Bushie fascists and living in a world of lies and deceit. I vote for the truth. How about you?

"Bush's* war" blah-blah-blah "BushCo lied" blah-blah-blah "Democrats do little" blah-blah-blah "suckered, bamboozled and lied to" blah-blah-blah "play along" blah-blah-blah "no WMD have been found" blah-blah-blah "Byrd" blah-blah-blah "tell the truth regardless of the consequences" blah-blah-blah

All of which just repeats what you always say "My way or the unprincipled way"

- Or are you saying that we should just shut the hell up, sit down and take it? Are you saying that you believe that the Bushies didn't lie about the reasons we invaded and occupied Iraq? Or that we shouldn't make it an issue?

- You, sir are part of the problem.

- Why are you trying to silence Bush* critics?

Haha...so you would rather believe the BUSH* propaganda?"

So, either I agree with you or I agree with Bush*? Sounds like "either you're with us, or you're against us"

Or are you saying that we should just shut the hell up, sit down and take it?

So either I agree with you, or I think you should shut up. Sounds like "either you're with us, or you're against us"

Are you saying that you believe that the Bushies didn't lie about the reasons we invaded and occupied Iraq? Or that we shouldn't make it an issue?

So, either I agree with you or I think Bush* is honest? Sounds like "either you're with us, or you're against us"

You, sir are part of the problem.

And now, like Rummy, you accuse me of "giving aid and comfort to the enemy" simply because I disagree with you.

Why are you trying to silence Bush* critics?

If I were to silence anyone, it would be you, and yet you're still saying the same things, day after day.

...even THEY will tell you this war is a lie.

- I don't understand YOUR movtivation. Why are you against criticizing Bush's* phony war? You didn't answer the question. Are you being intentionally obtuse?

- If you're for this god forsaken war...just say so. Otherwise...stop blaming me for Bush's* war for oil and empire. This thread isn't about Democrats. It's about how Bush's* lies have caused thousands of deaths...including many Americans.

- You just can't seem to utter the words: Bush's* war is illegal and immoral.

even THEY will tell you this war is a lie.

More, if I don't agree with Q, then I think Bush* is honest. "Either you're with Q, or you're against Q"

I don't understand YOUR movtivation.

You don't understand my motivation? I thought you already figured out that, since I'm not with you, I'm "with Bush*"

Why are you against criticizing Bush's* phony war? You didn't answer the question. Are you being intentionally obtuse?

Again, since I disagree with Q, I must be "with Bush*"

If you're for this god forsaken war...just say so. Otherwise...stop blaming me for Bush's* war for oil and empire. This thread isn't about Democrats. It's about how Bush's* lies have caused thousands of deaths...including many Americans.

More, if I don't agree with Q, then I'm "with Bush*". "Either you're with Q, or you're for war"

You just can't seem to utter the words: Bush's* war is illegal and immoral.

Bush*'s war is immoral.

...instead of running away.

- Incidentally...this thread said nothing about Dems 'doing little'....although that's true. Bush* lied to rush this nation to war. Are YOU defending him?

- Quite acting like a *((^*( and defend yourself.

If you are not challenging Q on the level of fact, then what exactly is the stylistic or contextual problem apart from repetition?

If you are challenging Q on a factual level, exactly what is the challenge, please?

Q's propoganda mirrors the Republicans and so while he may thing he's doing a Good Thing (because he's (supposedly) right on the facts) he is unintentionally promoting counter-productive messages like:

Either you're with us or against us
There's no difference
Dissent is unpatriotic

on edit: thanks for asking. At least someone is thinking about what's being posted

- You're so caught up in your bullshit that you're not even making sense.

- You're trying to distort the intent of this thread, which is: Bush* lied about the reasons we HAD TO invade Iraq. This is treason.

When the Repukes get caught lying, or doing anything else wrong, they always give the same response...."The Dems do it, too" or in other words "There's no difference"

You're trying to distort the intent of this thread, which is: Bush* lied about the reasons we HAD TO invade Iraq.

You're blowing smoke. That is NOT the intent of this thread. EVERYBODY here already knows that Bush* lied, and you know that we all know, so who are you trying to kid with that spiel?

...or come up with a direct quotation. It's not ethical to pretend to quote me when you're just making shit up.

- I believe you're intentionally trying to disrupt this thread. Why? I won't even pretend to know the reasons.

- You say that 'everyone knows' that Bush* lied. But is it enough to 'know'? Many Americans still seem to believe that Bush* was justified in attacking Iraq in the name of the 'war on terrorism'. THEY don't seem to understand that he lied about why we HAD to attack Iraq.

- And just to let you know: I'll criticize Democrats and their position on the Iraq invasion and occupation any damn time I please. I'm not going to allow YOU to intimidate me into silence on this extremely important issue.

You say that 'everyone knows' that Bush* lied.

No, I said "EVERYBODY here knows"

Not "everyone knows". "EVERYBODY here"

And just to let you know: I'll criticize Democrats and their position on the Iraq invasion and occupation any damn time I please. I'm not going to allow YOU to intimidate me into silence on this extremely important issue.

And just so you know, I fully expect you will continue to mislead people about your intentions, as you did here when you claimed your intent to attack Bush*, when it's obvious your intent was to attack Dems.

- Just wondering...because you can't seem to admit it. Did Bush* lie in order to rush this nation into war? And if he DID lie...what should be his punishment?

"EVERYONE here", not "everyone"

If you tell me which of those two words you're unfamiliar with, I'll tell you how to look it up in the dictionary

Q most emphatically advocates dissent.

The false dichotomy (either/or) surfaces most often, in my experience here, when I encounter discussants who dismiss my opinions - or even think I should not be allowed here - because of my preference for the Green Party. I am either absolute friend or foe, in their minds. Anyone can make such a faulty construction, but don't think that Q especially does. If I could venture a guess, I'd guess that you two have a history of antagonism that occludes fair readings of each other's postings.

Likewise, the "no difference" canard stands in place of a more serious point. There is a great deal of frustration on the part of progressives who see, with reason, too much appeasement of the far right.

Perhaps we will disagree on issues, but there is no need to engage in a personal campaign to "prove" that another poster is a liar. Let's keep our fights at the level of issues and not character or motive, OK?

...just the usual BS that can't or won't admit to Bush* being wrong...thus the Democrats being 'wrong' for supporting him even AFTER they discovered he was a liar.

I have spent many hours studying PNAC documents, and the Bush administration's casus belli, earnestly trying to understand their viewpoint, and have come to the sad conclusion that it is a fraud, and worse yet, a disaster.

Yes, we were bamboozled. That's why smirky rushed to war -- because he knew once the bombs started falling, that we would be stuck there, and he would be able to use the Ghost of Viet Nam to keep us there, regardless of the cost and the pointlessness.

Iraq has jack shit to do with the war on terror. Occupying Iraq is just going to make the problem worse. But I suspect that there are ideologues surrounding the smirk who *want* a larger regional war, to duke it out with the Arabs out in the open, in order to ensure American and Israeli dominance in the region. Iraq decades ago might have been a threat to Israel, but it was clear during the Gulf War that Iraq was not a significant threat that could destabilize the middle east, but in 2003, even Israeli intelligence was aware that Iraq was not a threat to its security.

I think it was a foregone conclusion that Iraq was going to be whacked by smirky. As soon as he assumed the throne, people started calling "The Gulf War" "The First Gulf War." Remember? That is significant -- it was even the name that the Gulf War was given in popular usage! I strongly suspect that Iraq was one of the topics discussed by Cheney's secret energy forum - that's when they made the plans to attack Afghanistan and Iraq.

All one had to do was to pick up a decent newspaper to know that something fishy was going on.

So now a war without justification is being turned into a humanitarian mission. If I balk at pouring money down this rat hole, I will be called cruel to the Iraqi people. But I feel I cannot go along with this -- it will just get Bush off the hook for what he has done, and he will be able to claim it as a victory, and yes, you can be sure he will repeat it and repeat it. He must face the consequences of his disastrous course.

What is the phrase -- what a web we weave when we begin to deceive? I will never live in their Disney version of reality. As soon as our nation admits to the truth, the facts about what has been done to us, the better for us, and Iraq.

- Why are (seemingly) so many 'Democrats' afraid of confronting the Bushies on this issue? They're even attacking other Democrats for bringing it up.

- What's going on here?

In another post in this thread, Q claims that the intent of this thread was to confront Bush* about his Iraq lies. However, he proves his deceit when his response to the first person to come along and agree with him is to immediately ask "Why are (seemingly) so many 'Democrats' afraid of confronting the Bushies on this issue? They're even attacking other Democrats for bringing it up."

He claims to be concerned about Bush*'s lies, but his immediate response is to blame the Dems.

- Not that you give a shit about such things.

- I won't ask you for a considered response because you're incapable of such things. But I feel compelled to remind you that it was YOU that made this thread about Dems. I only mentioned Dems in my original post to demonstate how Bush* had intentionally put them in a hard place by lying about the reasons for war...knowing that it would be difficult to withdraw them once they were 'in country'.

- I was talking about YOU when I said Dems were afraid to confront Bush* on this issue. You sound like you're actually supporting him. What's up with that?

...posed in the title of this thread: What does Iraq have to do with the 'war on terrorism'.

- What DOES Iraq have to do with 9-11? Wasn't this attack on America the reason behind this so-called war on a noun? Perhaps you found a connection between Iraq and 9-11 that none of us know about?

A couple of reasons:

One is Bush's Holy Cow #1, Sept 11. When things get tough, all he has to do is say that, and Dems faint -- because of the emotional tone the words invoke. Iraq was the biggest Bait and Switch by this bold administration so far, and viserally, most Americans are still in the stage of the framing the debate "America should strike back with blind rage" or "American should strike back with focused rage" (a la The Onion). Note that it is not a rational matter, but a purely emotional one.

Another is Bush's Holy Cow #2: troops in the field. Apparently it is more demoralizing to them if the folks at home talk openly about how they are being slaughtered in a pointless quagmire, than for the folks at home to pretend that this same pointless quagmire (which I think many of them have caught on to) is some sort of Disneyland Vahalla. I agonize when I think of them over there! They are the ones who are paying the heaviest price for smirky's rush to war under false pretences - but as General Clark has said. soldiers don't expect the folks at home to turn their brains off and live lies in order to "support" them. The issue of our troops over there is another highly emotional flash point - but I think more so for ideologues who try to use it as justification for swallowing Bush's lies, rather than from the warriors themselves or their loved ones, who know by now they have gotten the shaft Big Time.

smirky has gotten where he is, and our country on its disastrous course, by bold independent action. Anyone Democrats who thinks that they can influence him by cooperating with him to some extent is, in my opinion, mistaken. The Bushistas consider anyone who compromises is a weakling to be crushed. They are intent on one party rule of the US; they seek to advance a radical agenda, which they can achieve only by stealth, by pretending they are moderates and pretending they are telling the truth -- because if they are open and honest about what they are really up to, they will be rejected by the American people. However difficult it shall be, the situation demands that it be met with bold independent action by strong Democratic leaders, and yes, sane Republicans will follow.

In a deeply divided America, many "Democrats" feel that they have to straddle the fence, when, in my opinion, to do so is to participate in the moral relativism of the Bush administration.

Other are *rightly* afraid of the wrath of the Reich attack dogs. The days of "agreeing to disagree" are long gone - now the opposition chooses the course of virtual assassination. Who in their right mind wants to stand in the cross-hairs of this vicious machine? Only a Hero. And heroic Americans.

Yes, people can be lead by lies, but they can also be lead by Truth -- what will NOT lead them is unsure lukewarm waffling, and an attitude of compromise with an administration wildly off course.

It's going to be a very tough battle, but as you and I have discussed before -- the longer the confrontation is put off, the harder it is going to be to put our country on a reverse course out of disaster.

We are now living in an authoritarian society -- voices of opposition are shouted down; there is an underlying threat of violence....

But anyone who wants to get into the history books are those who are going to end this authoritarian era in America. And the facts about Bush's War, repeated loudly and often, is the beginning.

....and thanks for the rational reply.

- The Bushies knew full well that once the troops were in Iraq...it would take a very long time to get them out...especially after they had done everything in their power to make the UN 'irrelevant'. It's the same philosophy the Pentagon uses: once a weapons system is approved it's almost impossible to stop the funding...whether the system actually works or not.

- Those who supported Bush* and/or this war made a horrible mistake. That's part of the human condition. But what's unforgiveable is that now that 'everyone' is aware of the mistake...few in DC are willing to admit it.

dennis kucinich.

There is no rational explation that the censored media-of-rome will print... so its up to each one of us to make the case underground on the web for those smart enough to want to know, and to oppose shrub at every turn.

My focus these days is to make sure the world at large is well informed as to how criminal the bush regime is... Whether or not they can coerce americans to play on their slanted pitch, the other 94.5% of humanity are digging in their heels.

I don't think we need worry anymore... the iraq tarbaby is 100% disaster and will destroy the neocons... all we have to do is keep repeating the mantra of who got us in to that swamp.

...but I disagree that we don't need to 'worry'. The Bushie American media has convinced too many citizens that we're in Iraq to fight 'terrorism'. How could THAT be possible if Iraq has never been connected to 9-11 or any other terrorist event against the US?

- Does it matter that the Bushies keep changing their minds about why we attacked and invaded Iraq? Hell, yes it matters.

- Bush* will ride HIS 'war' on terrorism right back into the WH unless we can expose his many lies.

that is my seeing..... at a minimum. If you are a soldier going to be sent there, go AWOL now... get ye to canada and wait.

The opponents of america have more to lose than we do, and history always votes with those who have more to lose... as they always win rebel insurgencies (like the american revolution).

The tapestry of lies will collapse after the democratic primary when the opposition voices unite on open-air media. I myself argued with one of their "heavys" on public BBC nationwide (in uk) radio and he lost and lied... back in march before bush visited the uk. These neocriminals cannot stand in open debate when the gloves are off... the lies are transparent without censorship, and the problem with cheating and lying to your spouse is that lies eventually come home to roost... shrub's will come home 1 bodybag at a time.

I sadly think that is a good thing, if 500 more deaths is what it takes to prevent 30 million american deaths in a nuclear war of hubris, then history may indeed prove dying in iraq is a noble thing after all.

Because I'm sick of the "well at least Saddam is gone" bullshit.

And I'm tired of the right saying "are you saying we should have left Saddam in power?"

I think it's time to say "yes". We should have left Saddam in power.

Why?

a. he's not dead. he's not gone.

b. 300+ American soldiers would be alive today

c. 1000+ American soldiers would still have their arms/legs/eyes/skin

d. Our military wouldn't be completely tied down in a foreign country that doesn't want us. Right now our military is helpless. Our national guard is AWOL in Iraq. We are completely vulnerable to attack right now and incapable of fighting another war.

e. Powell and Rice admitted before 9/11 that Iraq was no threat because SANTIONS WERE WORKING.

f. Containment works. I.E. the Soviet Union. By the argument they used to attack Iraq, we should have attacked the Soviet Union during the cold war.

I could go on, but my fingers are getting tired.

These are all rational arguments by the way. Not an emotion in any of them.

on edit: see my post at:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=543219

...attacked Iraq. If for no other reason than it's against the Geneva convention and international laws. This is one of the reasons why Hitler's gang was put on trial: aggressive war.

- Not to mention that Bush* is a war criminal for ORDERING the bombing of civilian neighborhoods and unnecessarily killing thousands of innocents.

I think the Dems (i.e. the candidates) should start harping on this.

Go on the defensive. Otherwise, for instance, they'll point to Dean as the "guy who wanted to keep Saddam in power".

I think they should go on the offensive now and point out all the reasons we SHOULD have left Saddam in power.

Once you're on the defensive in this world, you're toast.

"we'd all be better off with Saddam in power"

...and I'll say it right now: you give yourself more credit that you deserve. Do you actually believe you're a 'good' Democrat when you attempt to hide the truth and stifle well-deserved criticism of the party?

- Your intellectual dishonest is astounding to observe. Now you're associating me with the posts of others...simply for the sake of disrupting and distorting my POV.

- Roosting with the chickenhawks should be beneath any Democrat.

Are you afraid?

"we'd all be better off with Saddam in power"

- Don't they phrase the question a similar way? "Aren't we better off with Saddam out of power?"

- Whether or not Saddam is 'in power' is the worst of straw man arguments...considering that the invasion and occupation of Iraq is based on outright lies. Everything about Iraq now flows from the poisoned well. Go ahead and drink if you will and deny the truth about the desires of the Bush*/PNAC empire.

They say "Aren't we better off with Saddam out of power?"

I asked you to say the opposite - "We were better off with Saddam IN power?"

Why are you afraid to say "We were better off with Saddam IN power?"

If you need some help saying that, then read this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=543219

Iraq is certainly better off without that bloody bastard Saddam Hussein in power -- but what is far less certain is if Iraq will be better off with whatever government follows him! It was this very great uncertainty that the more prudent Bush 1 administration factored in when they considered military operations over with the retreat of Iraq from Kuwait, and not going for the ousting of Hussein. Iraq is highly fragmented, always has been, and is certainly in grave danger of being now seized by radical fundamentalists, or balkanized into a wild civil war of many competing factions. Yes, there are people there who want a western style democracy, but just how many of them are there, and can they prevail over those who would see a theocracy established, or another warlord installed? This remains to be seen.

The future of Iraq is far less certain than the "Iraq is better off without Hussein" amen chorus would have us believe. A western democracy that is kept in place by US military force? Now, that's an interesting concept!! Clearly, an Iraqi democracy that does not have acceptance of Israel as a state as part of its constitution will also not be allowed to survive, and anti-Israeli feeling is very strong in Iraq (even among Jews there).

I believe what will occur in the short run is yet another US sanctioned despot, or the "Meet the New Boss, Same as The Old Boss" scenario -- because it is easier for the US to control an authoritarian regime. How long he will remain in power will be due to the grip of control he will be able to extert.

It could encourage a new terrorist attack on American soil, which as Paul Wolfowitz might say, would be a useful "catalyzing event".

I honestly don't think they particularly care whether or not there are additional attacks in the US. I think they'd welcome them, really. As long as they're not in DC.

...would serve to rally even more terrorists to strike out at the US.

- But Bush* was determined to have HIS war. A war to serve his own needs and to solidify power for the Republican party.

I remember a great parody of the whole thing on The Onion. Here it is:

http://www.theonion.com/onion3911/pt_the_war_on_iraq.html

That about sums it up.