Oregon's Republican Senator Gordon Smith spoke on the Senate floor this past Friday about his perspective on the Iraq war: Note how he phrased his perspective (my emphasis).
It is widely acknowledged by most government leaders around the world that most believed there were WMD prior to the start of the war in 2003. This would be acknowledged by virtually all world leaders around the world. It is also probable that most were relying on word of mouth and relaying of information from one source to the other without seeing hard evidence. Saddam was being coy. He gave the impression of having WMD but was dancing with the inspectors, making their efforts hard, yet never acknowledging the truth one way or the other. His own generals thought he had wmd. It's possible he kept that impression up to keep his middle eastern enemies (such as Iran) at bay. But nobody knows why he kept claiming he had wmd without having new modern usable wmd. It was subsequently discovered that the intelligence on this was BAD. Few people actually review the evidence. We only get a feel for the existing intelligence from people at the top reporting on it. Two reviews on this come from the following sources involved in Colin Powell's speach to the UN in 2003 making the case for wmd. Here is Powell, after the fact describing the sources and situation: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-09-08-powell-iraq_x.htm Powell calls it a "blot on his record" And here is a report from one of his chief of staff who called his involvement the lowest experience of his life: http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/08/19/powell.un/ The hard evidence wasn't there....so people were relying on word of mouth, and supposition, and above all a diligent case made by the administration, before the war, that tried to throw every piece of any type of news against the wall, hoping some of it would stick. Basically, in trying to make a hard case with hard evidence Powell and his colleagues relied on soft evidence...in that there was no hard evidence. But, it is true that everyone THOUGHT there were live current wmd in Iraq prior to the war. So GTech: You think people, specifically, dems, and the head of France, should be embarrassed because prior to 2003 they thought there were wmd. On the contrary. Many people quickly revised their thinking once we didn't find current wmd. Revelations from the state dept. and others involved in the efforts to actually find evidence further reinforced the realization that the intelligence was bad. On the other hand the administration was steaming ahead taking any piece of information and trying to sell a case to go to war. The administration then kept providing "happy news" to the nation and world that progress and successful resolution were close at hand. In fact they controlled information vastly underreporting the level of violence in Iraq. Now that the US election is over a growing number of republicans are acknowledging deep unhappiness with the war in Iraq and the direction of the administration. Should they be ashamed also? Should only democrats be ashamed? Why is that? Because they are democrats? The key is to try and move forward. Virtually anyone in a responsable position acknowledges that the steps forward are tough. Noone says this will be nice or easy. NOBODY. Nobody in a responsable and accountable position is labeling or blaming anyone. Currently, President Bush is reviewing alternatives. Besides the Bipartisan commission he has initiated additional studies from the military and state depts. I think that is reasonable and smart. Hopefully people in responsable positions will make well thought out decisions for the future. It is highly unlikely any of these responsable people will be labeling those that disagree with them with terms like traitor, favoring the terrorists, etc. Hopefully that ended with the election.
You'd be surprised at how dishonest some are, that when you label one (appropriately so) a traitor, they try to portray it as labeling "everyone" as a traitor. Fortunately, you are not like that. It is interesting how democrats came up with the intelligence, begged Clinton to go to war and how so many absolutely knew saddam had them, before Bush was ever in office. And the thing is, those democrats were right! But they don't care that they were right, blind hatred of Bush is more important. Take for example, the latest discovery of spying. What? Turns out ol' Bill was spying too? Not a peep on the forum here, though. I've been waiting all day for you to make the post (because it's been SO important to you in the past), but, because it was unca Bill who did it this time, well, no need to take issue! It seems like every time I need a good case of double standards to demonstrate, one just appears out of the sky. If I could win the lottery in the same manner, I'd be a rich man No issue with moving forward, but that's not a reason to forget the absolute hatred liberals have offered as their only solution. And the ISG's plan isn't moving forwared. It's 79 ways to reach defeat, which after all, is what democrats want. Democrats are willing to sell out America by proactively calling for defeat and retreat because anything good for Bush is bad for them. So filled with hatred, democrats would rather proclaim defeat, then look for a win. A win, in their vision, would be something positive for Bush. It doesn't matter that it's positive for our country though. Four year patriotism at it's finest.
Hey Earl! Did you see this other headline? How embarrassing Sorry, I'm sure you were going to post it shortly
First off: This Post w/this title with a citation and then this comment: (my emphasis) This Post infers that Democrats are treasonous. I agree with anyone else here that suggests that with that post you inferred that Democrats are treasonous. That kind of bs ended with the election. BTW; it was an election where the majority of voters voted down the Bush administration. That is the same administration that aggressively and continuously made those slanderous comments. Those are the types of comments that tear a nation apart, not allow it to go forward. The real work going forward by patriotic and well meaning Americans is how to pull the US out of this mess in Iraq. Unfortunately there is no nice or easy solution. Nobody agrees on steps going forward. The only thing there is universal agreement on is that the US is in an amazing mess. Who got us there? Which president and administration?
While I believe in an effort to rebuild Iraq, I am becoming less and less convinced with time that this is what our forces are trying to do there. From the reports and news videos I have seen we have far to few troops training Iraqis, and far to little effort going to rebuilding the Iraqi infrastructure.
Incorrect. It pointed out the act smells kerryesque. In that kerry did meet with enemies of our country during vietnam. A direct parallel between the two incidents. At no time did I say or infer that all democrats are treasonous. I did not label all democrats as such when I made a case for kerry earlier this year and I did not do it this time. I'm surprised, you, of all the reasonable and rationale people here, would perpetuate such. There is no basis. I continue to give you the benefit of the doubt. Sometimes I wonder why. Incorrect, the administration did not make such comments. Others did and rightfully so. People had a right to be informed of the treasonous things Kerry did. Being informed is not politically incorrect. And yet, with all yours and others blind hatred of Bush and willfully misinformation and outright acceptance on your own part of anything negative against Bush, no matter what is said, you attempt to offer "Those are the types of comments that tear a nation apart, not allow it to go forward." What party is tearing our nation apart? It's interesting you can see this when it comes to a man that by all standards, committed treason, but actively participate in such when it comes to our current President. Double standards. So we're back to "cut and run." So against the term, but so ready for what it actually means. It doesn't make sense to take such strong stands against the term, yet be so supportive of what actions it calls for. As I've pointed out, democrats are so filled with hatred with Bush, they would rather claim a victory for our enemies, then the perception of a win for Bush. When all along, it's a win for our country. That's really a shame, that hatred for an individual can drive a party to want and call for the defeat of it's country. Our founding fathers would be proud Who called for it, supported it, was calling and supporting it before Bush was ever in office? Whose intelligence was passed on? And when times got tough, who was ready to surrender when not needed? In essence, democrats used Bush to do their own dirty work. Democrats had been calling for war, shouting WMD, and making the case for Iraq long before Bush was in office. They gave him the authority, the backing and the support to do their dirty work, then viciously attacked him for doing what they wanted all along. What a shame that one party could be so deceptive, filled with so much hatred and work so hard to divide our country.