Godless Dave

Eventually someone will have to answer for it, but likely it will be a few thousand innocent Americans killed in another terrorist attack. This will be followed by wails of "How could this happen? Why does the rest of the world hate us?" No one will listen to the obvious answer - our misguided warmongering imperial foreign policy which both pissed people off and let terrorist organizations re-form while we were wasting resources on Iraq. Instead whover is in government at that time will react with a new misguided warmongering foreign policy that completely fails to address any of the causes of terrorism.

So, yes, someone will have to answer for this, but not the people who deserve it.

BibleBelted

The line is already being floated that it doesn't really matter if we find WMDs or not because we have "liberated" the Iraqi people from Hussein.

I guess they would be ingrates for grousing about our (USA) ownership of them now.

The Bush administration strategy is clear. They intend to shout down any opposition. The neo-cons, led by their right-wing radio thugs, are going to wave their bibles and American flags in the face of anyone "simple-minded" or "unpatriotic" enough to oppose them. The Fox commentators will not mention Byrd's name without bringing up his former Klan membership (all the while waxing rhapsodic about great Americans like Strom Thurmond or Jesse Helms), as well as his record of success in bringing home the pork to WV.

The media mafia is working full-out to bully any doubters into silence and submission. We just can't have that.

DarkBronzePlant

You mean this one?

Dr Rick

It's right here.

I'm one of those who, despite some serious misgivings, thought the invasion was justified in part because Saddam is such an evil man, but mostly because I believed that he was a threat to his own people and others because of his WMDs, and that the international community was as a whole burying its collective head in the sand.

I was wrong. Though it's really not a good excuse, I was bamboozled.

I didn't give much credence to either the Bush administration or the American media, but when even the British newsweely, The Economist, was supporting the call to arms with references to the "danger" Saddam posed to world peace, I fell for the whole thing.

Now I know it was all a lie.

The whole charade was an excuse to enrich some already very rich buddies of Bush and Cheney at Halliburton, to allow Lockheed and Raytheon to "field test" their newest, expensive weapons (they'll probably have some real hot sellers at this year's international arms bazaar) and a way to give the US government more contol over our lives by destabilizing international politics and thereby increasing the need for "more security" (less civil rights).

My only doubts are about the British; what the hell did they get out of all this, and why did Blair go along for the ride?

BibleBelted

British Petroleum is as heavily invested in Middle East oil as the US. Of course, I'm sure that had nothing to do with it.

Immaculate Deception

EEk! whoops, got me there Thanks for providing that link, DBP. It's too bad Senator Byrd hadn't fully questioned Bush's shifting reasons for the war. He had bought into the WMD ploy, even though there were reasons to be skeptical of the reports at that point in time. But obviously, he had excellent points for opposing the war even without taking into account the plagiarism, lack of proof, etc. when Powell was trying to sell the invasion to the Security Council, based upon an imminent threat. The saddest, most depressing part to me is that even if Byrd did question the WMD, it probably wouldn't have changed the course of our administration's actions. Again, thanks again for the link.

ID

Iamthebeerking

Byrd the ex-klansman and pork king. Where's all the skepticism? I recall a few months back when a certain Republican senator was forced out of his job for making some comments that could be construed as racist and all of you here were in an uproar. But now that you have someone,anyone spout something you agree with he's the next coming of [insert name]. No matter that his past is truly vile. But then again, you'd give the same benefit of the doubt to a Republican with a similar background. Sickening.

Iraq worked out fine and will work out fine. Just because it's not a paradise today doesn't mean that the future guarantees failure. The people of Iraq have the best chance they have ever had to rule themselves. Ever. But some here would rather see this opportunity fail because if it doesn't then they will have to find something else to be paranoid and over reactive about. But the far left's resiliency after being proven a dismal failure time after time after time is well known.

DarkBronzePlant

No problem. And to be fair, I think that although it was technically before the start of the war was announced, February was already too late.

eldar1011

Well, I guess BibleBelted was right.

DarkBronzePlant

Wow, someone has a background that I don't like, so therefore they can never say anything I wholeheartedly agree with? Sorry, some of us don't see the world in such binary terms.

In fact, note that some of the posters who agreed with Byrd were disturbed to do so, given Byrd's history that you point out.

Also, if you were paying attention, you might have noticed an important difference between Byrd and Lott, to whom I assume you were alluding. Whereas both men had undeniably racist views in the past, it was only Lott who was lamenting that such views are not commonplace today.