New neighbors

Well, I (and millions others) "told you so". We knew for a fact that the war was based on lies way before the bullshit Congressional vote. Any Congressperson who voted for that resolution either committed an evil act or is dumb as dogshit.

Things could hardly be worse in Iraq. The U.S. turned it into a living hell and should leave and let Iraqis start rebuilding their shattered country. We sure know what isn't working. Let's try something else.

Hello? I was opposed to the war, and wrote letters to my congressman, senators, AND the White House saying so.

So y'all didn't tell ME so.

Actually, Mark--I agree with you--to a point. I think we need to let them re-build there own country--and we need to give them the ways and means to do so. My WORRY is that the money will end up in the hands of a few powerful people, and not GET to where it needs to go. Any suggestions as to how that would work?

melanie

Just realized we've violated the "keep it Orange county" mandate. Sorry.

melanie

Mark,

You or I knew nothing before the war started. We certainly knew less than the politicians who actually had access to U.S. intelligence. To claim otherwise -- you just knew the war was based on bogus grounds -- is absurd. Given David Price's knowledge of that intelligence and the situation, the fact that he voted against the war is actually rather courageous.

Chris,

I can state unequivocally that I absolutely knew it was lies long before the vote and the war started. If you didn't, then you were living in some kind of fantasy bubble. The bogus aluminum tubes, the Niger uranium scam, the bizarre remote control planes that could fly from Iraw to the U.S., etc. Any thinking person whose reason was not clouded by nationalistic emotion (or Fox News...) knew it was bullshit. Furthermore, the scoundrels involved were part of the Project for New American Century and their plan to invade Iraq was available for the inquiring mind on their web-site. It was transparent & obvious.

Well, at least we can all rest safe knowing that while the world's top intelligence agencies (ours, the Russians, British, and Israelis) aren't to be trusted, Chapel Hill will always be protected by our home-grown intelligence-gatherers. After all, who else only needed a quick shot of those "aluminum tubes" on the news to unravel this sloppily-assembled hoax? I'm sorry, but I think iconoclastic dogma hardly counts as "absolutely knowing" anything in a serious debate.

Mark, I'm sure you were against the war when it started. But just because you based that theory of a "fantasy bubble" on an irrational disbelief of anything to come out of Washington doesn't mean you honest to gosh saw it coming. Even assuming that we *were* lied to and not just seeing the world's top four intelligence agencies with their pants down, you just got lucky most likely.

It's like being asked what 1 + x is and just shouting 3 without any critical analysis. Sure, x = 2 may be true, but you didn't arrive at your conclusion via any logical and easily reproduced method.

Chris,

It's not iconoclastic dogma or irrational disbelief. The fact is that the Bushites never substantiated their WMD claims. Anyone with a moderate ability to think critically could see that the administrations claims were lies. All across the country & all across the world. Why did you think that the U.S. couldn't put together a credible coalition? Honestly it blows my mind at the ease with which so many people, including youself, were conned on this. You would do well to examine how this happened to you.

In fairness, this type of critical thinking is not taught in schools. In fact, usually the compulsory state-run school system works to discourage the type of free thinking and critical analysis that reveals the corruption and lies that permeate our consensus reality.

JRE has put the quotes above into his own words in an op-ed piece for the Washington Post today. Also available at http://www.oneamericacommittee.com/

Chris,

I remember when I was in Afghanistan thinking that I was in the right place at the right time. As a member of the military I WANT to believe that the democratically elected leadership sending me into harm's way knows what it's doing.

And yet, despite that natural desire to believe, I never, ever believed that going to Iraq was the right thing to do. The administration seemed to be constantly reassuring an anxious country that it knew the right course of action without giving us any reason for that trust.

As a former intelligence analyst (and a member of the NSA in the form of the Intelligence Security Command), I am inured to the argument that my government knows best and that it acts on information too sensitive for the public to know. This "trust me, there's things you don't know" argument is the worst kind of disingenuity. This is the kind of duplicity that sends hundreds of thousands of military people to a war on false premises. There are ways to sterilize even very sensitive intelligence. I know there is because for a decade that was my job.

Quite honestly, Chris, I must say that your ill-veiled apologetics for the Bush administration and revisionism of the recent past makes me seriously question you as the kind of keen observer I would hope to see in journalism today. Is there not a journalism course you might want to take, maybe Questioning Your Government 101 or Getting To The Truth 102?

I am tiptoeing in here because there are a few things that need to be said.

First, John has said he was wrong. If you want people to change their minds and agree with you, you ought to quit stoning them when they do. Just a thought.

Second, the objections to the war at the time were not that everyone knew the aluminum tubes had a different military use or any other such nonsense, including what I have read here. The reasons for opposition were the absence of direct Iraqi provocation and the presence of UN inspectors. Now everyone jumps on the I-knew-there-were-no-WMD-all-along bandwagon, but no one knew that; even Howard Dean said there were 30,000 pounds of anthrax at the time. The questions were whether we should just wait for the inspectors to find them. There were questions too about whether Kofi Annan -- and therefore the UN -- had been compromised on this subject. Although John agrees that you were right about the vote, your rationale against the war shouldn't be changing -- like Bush's rationale for the war has chnaged. It is not right, and what's more, it is not necessary. You have already won the argument.

Third, John didn't listen to what Bush said in his speeches at the time; give him some credit. He listened to what the intelligence people told him. I don't ask him what that was -- it would have been illiegal for him to tell me -- , but I know the magnitude of this vote affected him enough to speak to Clinton NSA staff, and they confirmed what he was being told. The CIA, which usually says "X" and "not X" was only saying "X" and -- to his great regret -- he believed that. For which he faults himself. He doesn't say "my vote" was wrong -- that is not strong enough. He says HE was wrong. I'm proud of him.

I'm proud of him, too, Elizabeth.

As you should be, Elizabeth.

melanie

May I add--I agree with Elizabeth--
"If you want people to change their minds and agree with you, you ought to quit stoning them when they do."

melanie

Elizabeth, you have every reason to be proud, and so does John. His action is rare in today's political environment!

Mrs. Edwards,
So are you saying that the Clinton Administration verified what John was being told by the CIA?

Elizabeth,

Tha fact that the Bush people were continuously trotting out claims that were bogus on the face of them - i.e. the tubes, the Niger uranium, the remote planes that could fly across the ocean and bomb us, etc. was proof to any reasonable person that something wasn't adding up. Then you look at the background of these people and specifically the Project for a New American Century and you realize what they are doing. The fact is that millions of Americans realized that this was a scam way before the war started. That's not nonsense or looking back after the fact - it's true.

Obviously I'm pleased that John has made a public statement that he was wrong. The thousands upon thousands of needless deaths now deserve serious action to begin to reverse the horrible mistake that was made when the war was supported.

One other very important development before the war was Iraq weapons inspector Scott Ritter telling the world that Hussein's weapons had been totally destoyed in the 90's. Which Democrats checked out his claims before the vote to give the neo-cons war powers? It was totally irresponsible (and that's way to nice a way to say it) to ignore Ritter and thereby sentence tens of thousands of innocent people to death and ruin a land so recklessly.

glad to see you blame BOTH parties at fault and not just Bush. That seems responsible and patriotic.

The Washington Post ran a piece by former Senator Bob Graham in which he details some of the knowledge available to him and other Senators way before the war that revealed the case for war against Iraq to be full of holes.

It's in today's Herald-Sun, but not on their web-site.

Obviously, knowledge of the lies in the run-up to war was not "nonsense" & inquiring minds had information available, especially Senators. No excuses and no-one can honestly claim they were duped.

An excellent essay revealing the hypocrisy and political bs behind Edwards' "apology".

http://www.counterpunch.org/walsh12052005.html

thanks for the link Mark - yes, a good read.

I believe a newspaper in North Carolina refered to Edwards as "Senator Gone" - implying he was absent from his senate duties often. I wonder, given his reputation, if he was even at the Senate Intelligence Committee meetings.

He's just gearing up to lose his bid for President.....again. And that's fine with me.