Dying veteran's F-U letter to Bush and Cheney

[We Come In Peace]

Do you ever wonder if there are people in the US that believe Gitmo was shut down? How about if you like your health plan you'll still be able to keep it? I wonder if some people think this is the most transparent administration in history? I also wonder if some people still believe this is Bush's economy? Shall I go on?

That only furthers my point.

 

The most frustrating part of trying to discuss the lead up to war with anyone is the inherent political bent that is inevitably brought into the discussion. If you bring up the topic with someone who leans right they assume it's an attack on their own politics and get defensive (like you just did above), if you bring it up with someone who leans left they lay the entirety at the feet of Bush or Cheney and refuse to discuss anything but.

 

If what DCTom says about confirmation bias is truly what led the nation to war, then clearly blindness on the left is as dangerous as blindness on the right or in the middle. Questions are asked about the cause of the war not to attack someone's politics (at least in this case) but in order to better understand how we were so incredibly misled by the powers that be so that we can avoid repeating our mistakes.

 

Now, you can argue that going to war with Iraq wasn't a mistake and defend it, plenty have already in this thread including the soldier's letter B posted on page 1. But the knee-jerk political reaction to it is just further proof of how brilliantly the wool was pulled over all our eyes. The question is how do we stop it from happening again?

[3rdnlng]

That only furthers my point.

 

The most frustrating part of trying to discuss the lead up to war with anyone is the inherent political bent that is inevitably brought into the discussion. If you bring up the topic with someone who leans right they assume it's an attack on their own politics and get defensive (like you just did above), if you bring it up with someone who leans left they lay the entirety at the feet of Bush or Cheney and refuse to discuss anything but.

 

If what DCTom says about confirmation bias is truly what led the nation to war, then clearly blindness on the left is as dangerous as blindness on the right or in the middle. Questions are asked about the cause of the war not to attack someone's politics (at least in this case) but in order to better understand how we were so incredibly misled by the powers that be so that we can avoid repeating our mistakes.

 

Now, you can argue that going to war with Iraq wasn't a mistake and defend it, plenty have already in this thread including the soldier's letter B posted on page 1. But the knee-jerk political reaction to it is just further proof of how brilliantly the wool was pulled over all our eyes. The question is how do we stop it from happening again?

 

 

Horseshit! You are assuming facts not in evidence. Did you ever consider that the President and many others were lied to? Saddam even claimed to have WMD.

 

Furthermore, I wasn't being defensive but was ridiculing you.

[ExiledInIllinois]

That only furthers my point.

 

The most frustrating part of trying to discuss the lead up to war with anyone is the inherent political bent that is inevitably brought into the discussion. If you bring up the topic with someone who leans right they assume it's an attack on their own politics and get defensive (like you just did above), if you bring it up with someone who leans left they lay the entirety at the feet of Bush or Cheney and refuse to discuss anything but.

 

If what DCTom says about confirmation bias is truly what led the nation to war, then clearly blindness on the left is as dangerous as blindness on the right or in the middle. Questions are asked about the cause of the war not to attack someone's politics (at least in this case) but in order to better understand how we were so incredibly misled by the powers that be so that we can avoid repeating our mistakes.

 

Now, you can argue that going to war with Iraq wasn't a mistake and defend it, plenty have already in this thread including the soldier's letter B posted on page 1. But the knee-jerk political reaction to it is just further proof of how brilliantly the wool was pulled over all our eyes. The question is how do we stop it from happening again?

 

You should have seen this board 10 years ago almost to this date... The usual. Good thing the old board got destroyed.

 

The funny thing was that I was accused of "stirring the pot" for coming out and claiming SH was a "paper tiger" and exactly what happened, happened.

 

How do we stop it from happening again? LoL...

[We Come In Peace]

Horseshit! You are assuming facts not in evidence. Did you ever consider that the President and many others were lied to? Saddam even claimed to have WMD.

 

Furthermore, I wasn't being defensive but was ridiculing you.

The "we" in my sentence included the president.

[3rdnlng]

The "we" in my sentence included the president.

 

"how we were so incredibly misled by the powers that be"

 

Horseshit again. Who were the "powers to be", if not the president? Is it someone higher than the president? God maybe? Did God mislead us?

[We Come In Peace]

"how we were so incredibly misled by the powers that be"

 

Horseshit again. Who were the "powers to be", if not the president? Is it someone higher than the president? God maybe? Did God mislead us?

The powers that be is a pretty common phrase.

 

However you wish to ascribe the guilt, mistakes were made and we were led into a war under false pretenses. Someone or something was responsible for that, DCTom blames it on confirmation bias, you even suggested it was Saddam himself who was the culprit. As I said earlier, I'm not going to pretend to know the motives of the administration which is why I used the phrase I did.

 

But thank you for continuing to prove my point about people being unable to separate their own political bents when discussing this topic.

[DC Tom]

The powers that be is a pretty common phrase.

 

However you wish to ascribe the guilt, mistakes were made and we were led into a war under false pretenses. Someone or something was responsible for that, DCTom blames it on confirmation bias, you even suggested it was Saddam himself who was the culprit. As I said earlier, I'm not going to pretend to know the motives of the administration which is why I used the phrase I did.

 

But thank you for continuing to prove my point about people being unable to separate their own political bents when discussing this topic.

 

This is possibly the most ironic thing every posted on this board, which is saying a HELL of a lot.

[B-Man]

 

 

But thank you for continuing to prove my point about people being unable to separate their own political bents when discussing this topic.

 

Lol...at least you're consistent.

 

Whenever a poster points out the obvious problems in your responses (which is to say , every day)

 

you always show your willful ignorance or intellectual dishonesty, followed quickly by your "above it all" childishness................

 

you overuse that "thanks for proving my point" claim..................Every one sees through that, you know.

 

 

 

This is possibly the most ironic thing every posted on this board, which is saying a HELL of a lot.

 

QFT.

 

Sadly, he will interpret our responses as a victory for him.

 

 

.

[3rdnlng]

The powers that be is a pretty common phrase.

 

However you wish to ascribe the guilt, mistakes were made and we were led into a war under false pretenses. Someone or something was responsible for that, DCTom blames it on confirmation bias, you even suggested it was Saddam himself who was the culprit. As I said earlier, I'm not going to pretend to know the motives of the administration which is why I used the phrase I did.

 

But thank you for continuing to prove my point about people being unable to separate their own political bents when discussing this topic.

 

Now you've gone and done it again. I said that "Saddam even claimed to have WMD's". For all we know he did and he shipped them off to Syria. Saying that you're not going to pretend to know the motives of the administration sorta flies in the face of your prior statements condemning that same administration.

[We Come In Peace]

Now you've gone and done it again. I said that "Saddam even claimed to have WMD's". For all we know he did and he shipped them off to Syria. Saying that you're not going to pretend to know the motives of the administration sorta flies in the face of your prior statements condemning that same administration.

So you're saying what? The reasons and justifications presented to the public and congress for the need to go to war were actually true and the WMD are in Syria?

Lol...at least you're consistent.

 

Whenever a poster points out the obvious problems in your responses (which is to say , every day)

 

you always show your willful ignorance or intellectual dishonesty, followed quickly by your "above it all" childishness................

 

you overuse that "thanks for proving my point" claim..................Every one sees through that, you know

In this case I'm trying to stay above it all because I'm trying to have a discussion. I'm quite happy to roll in the mud and cut people down when needs be. The entire point that both you and 3rd and Tom are missing is, removing the issue of motive since none of us know the truth, and political bent (which apparently you nor 3rd are willing to do) what's the solution to prevent this from happening again. If Tom's point about confirmation bias is correct, that Bush and company were merely mistaken in how they chose to review the intelligence presented to them, how do we avoid that when we live in a world where there are no more "facts".

 

Considering the amount of blood and treasure spent on the war that wound up being nothing like the one we were sold, it's our duty as citizens to figure out what went wrong so that it doesn't happen again, isn't it?

[3rdnlng]

So you're saying what? The reasons and justifications presented to the public and congress for the need to go to war were actually true and the WMD are in Syria?

 

In this case I'm trying to stay above it all because I'm trying to have a discussion. I'm quite happy to roll in the mud and cut people down when needs be. The entire point that both you and 3rd and Tom are missing is, removing the issue of motive since none of us know the truth, and political bent (which apparently you nor 3rd are willing to do) what's the solution to prevent this from happening again. If Tom's point about confirmation bias is correct, that Bush and company were merely mistaken in how they chose to review the intelligence presented to them, how do we avoid that when we live in a world where there are no more "facts".

 

Considering the amount of blood and treasure spent on the war that wound up being nothing like the one we were sold, it's our duty as citizens to figure out what went wrong so that it doesn't happen again, isn't it?

 

Why are you trying so hard to make this political? The Iraqi War started out as bipartisan. It ended up being something different because liberals lost an election and looked for every reason to vilify Bush. The one-time General Betrayus and his later acceptance by the libs is proof of their partisanship. Face it we don't know all of the facts and your continued insinuation that Bush lied, people died is the real point you are trying to get across. Where is the liberal's outcry over Benghazi? Why is there no comparison or weeping and wailing over the destruction by Hurricane Sandy as there was with Katrina?

[DC Tom]

how do we avoid that when we live in a world where there are no more "facts".

 

I'd made an observation in the run-up to the war that no one ever answered: the Japanese carriers leave Tankan Bay on the morning of November 26th, 1941. They attack Pearl Harbor on the morning of December 7th, 1941. Assuming the US has complete, accurate intelligence on the Kido Butai's intent and operations, at what point (i.e. on what day and time, or triggered by what event) does attacking the Japanese carriers cease to be an offensive action and become a defensive one?

 

For example, attacking them at Tankan Bay is clearly aggressive - they haven't sailed. And attacking them after Pearl Harbor is bombed is clearly defensive...but also too late. So at what point in between those two events does an attack cease to be aggressive and become defensive?

 

Answer that, and you can answer your question.

[We Come In Peace]

Why are you trying so hard to make this political?

I'm actually trying to do the opposite. Which is why I used the phrase "powers that be" rather than assigning blame. That's not an effort to stay above the fray but an effort to actually have a constructive conversation about a topic that is laced with political landmines.

 

The Iraqi War started out as bipartisan. It ended up being something different because liberals lost an election and looked for every reason to vilify Bush.

It became something different because none of what we were told about the need for war turned out to be accurate.

 

THEN it became politicized.

 

The question is, if it wasn't Bush and Cheney dragging the nation to war to fulfill their own personal agendas (and I'm willing to concede that for the sake of this conversation), then why did it go so terribly off the rails and how to we prevent that from happening again?

 

Face it we don't know all of the facts and your continued insinuation that Bush lied, people died is the real point you are trying to get across.

Not the point I'm trying to get across. I've gone out of my way to say several times I'm not going to pretend to know the motives of the individuals within the administration. That's what that sentence means.

 

Where is the liberal's outcry over Benghazi? Why is there no comparison or weeping and wailing over the destruction by Hurricane Sandy as there was with Katrina?

Dodging the issue. These have nothing to do with the conversation.

 

I'd made an observation in the run-up to the war that no one ever answered: the Japanese carriers leave Tankan Bay on the morning of November 26th, 1941. They attack Pearl Harbor on the morning of December 7th, 1941. Assuming the US has complete, accurate intelligence on the Kido Butai's intent and operations, at what point (i.e. on what day and time, or triggered by what event) does attacking the Japanese carriers cease to be an offensive action and become a defensive one?

 

For example, attacking them at Tankan Bay is clearly aggressive - they haven't sailed. And attacking them after Pearl Harbor is bombed is clearly defensive...but also too late. So at what point in between those two events does an attack cease to be aggressive and become defensive?

 

Answer that, and you can answer your question.

I like that analogy.

 

But doesn't this analogy imply that Iraq, by definition, was intent on attacking the US like the Japanese carriers did? The Japanese carriers, by their very existence, posed a direct threat to the US. They were steaming to Pearl with the intent to attack and were also already waging war. Iraq on the other hand was not waging war nor in any position to threaten the US directly or indirectly -- even though the intelligence that was presented painted the opposite picture. There's also a difference between a military target, like a carrier fleet, and invading a nation. Stopping the carrier fleet has a clear end game: destroy them before they can attack Pearl. There is no clear case end game when you're talking about invading another country.

 

In other words, the carrier problem is far easier to solve, both from a public relations angle and a geopolitical one.

[Joe Miner]

I'd made an observation in the run-up to the war that no one ever answered: the Japanese carriers leave Tankan Bay on the morning of November 26th, 1941. They attack Pearl Harbor on the morning of December 7th, 1941. Assuming the US has complete, accurate intelligence on the Kido Butai's intent and operations, at what point (i.e. on what day and time, or triggered by what event) does attacking the Japanese carriers cease to be an offensive action and become a defensive one?

 

For example, attacking them at Tankan Bay is clearly aggressive - they haven't sailed. And attacking them after Pearl Harbor is bombed is clearly defensive...but also too late. So at what point in between those two events does an attack cease to be aggressive and become defensive?

 

Answer that, and you can answer your question.

 

That's the part that people who have never been leaders have difficulty understanding.

 

It's much easier to dream up evil motives or conspiracy theories than recognize that it's an extremely difficult decision that a leader has to make. And your scenario gave the US complete and accurate intelligence. How much harder does it get when the intelligence isn't complete and in some cases contradictory?

[DC Tom]

I like that analogy.

 

But doesn't this analogy imply that Iraq, by definition, was intent on attacking the US like the Japanese carriers did? The Japanese carriers, by their very existence, posed a direct threat to the US. They were steaming to Pearl with the intent to attack and were also already waging war. Iraq on the other hand was not waging war nor in any position to threaten the US directly or indirectly -- even though the intelligence that was presented painted the opposite picture. There's also a difference between a military target, like a carrier fleet, and invading a nation. Stopping the carrier fleet has a clear end game: destroy them before they can attack Pearl. There is no clear case end game when you're talking about invading another country.

 

In other words, the carrier problem is far easier to solve, both from a public relations angle and a geopolitical one.

 

Actually, it implies no such thing. It's nothing more than a thought experiment designed to get anyone who wants to argue the relative morality of aggressive conquest vs. preemptive war thinking about "At what point does aggression become preemptive, given a specified threat assessment."

 

And it's a perfectly valid analogy in this case, because if you'll recall, the administration's argument wasn't just "Iraq has WMDs," it was "Iraq has WMDs and poses an imminent threat to the security of the United States." So the analogy of Japanese carriers sailing to Pearl Harbor, and presumption of clear intel of such, is not only accurate but goes beyond the issue of Saddam's possession or lack of WMDs: if you know that an adversary has weapons that pose a threat, and have intel that they intend to use them, at what point does attacking them become a valid act of defense?

 

In other words: even if Saddam had WMDs, the war still may not have been a valid act of defense. The issue of the WMDs is primarily a straw man distracting from the proper use of military force to begin with.

 

(And yes, I did say as much at the time. I've never wavered from the belief that the war was an act of aggression and not defensive, even if all the intel was true and accurate.)

[K-9]

Actually, it implies no such thing. It's nothing more than a thought experiment designed to get anyone who wants to argue the relative morality of aggressive conquest vs. preemptive war thinking about "At what point does aggression become preemptive, given a specified threat assessment."

 

And it's a perfectly valid analogy in this case, because if you'll recall, the administration's argument wasn't just "Iraq has WMDs," it was "Iraq has WMDs and poses an imminent threat to the security of the United States." So the analogy of Japanese carriers sailing to Pearl Harbor, and presumption of clear intel of such, is not only accurate but goes beyond the issue of Saddam's possession or lack of WMDs: if you know that an adversary has weapons that pose a threat, and have intel that they intend to use them, at what point does attacking them become a valid act of defense?

 

In other words: even if Saddam had WMDs, the war still may not have been a valid act of defense. The issue of the WMDs is primarily a straw man distracting from the proper use of military force to begin with.

 

(And yes, I did say as much at the time. I've never wavered from the belief that the war was an act of aggression and not defensive, even if all the intel was true and accurate.)

 

Agreed. And I remember many of your arguments to that very point at the time.

 

As the sole superpower in the world, the US simply doesn't have the luxury of anything but the appearance of defensive acts vs. pre-emptive military doctrine. The entire lead-up and subsequent prosecution of the war in Iraq never came close to giving the appearance of defensive action both here and abroad.

 

The only saving grace is that Iraqi oil revenues paid for the war just like Wolfowitz said they would.

 

Oh wait.

[TakeYouToTasker]

I'd made an observation in the run-up to the war that no one ever answered: the Japanese carriers leave Tankan Bay on the morning of November 26th, 1941. They attack Pearl Harbor on the morning of December 7th, 1941. Assuming the US has complete, accurate intelligence on the Kido Butai's intent and operations, at what point (i.e. on what day and time, or triggered by what event) does attacking the Japanese carriers cease to be an offensive action and become a defensive one?

 

For example, attacking them at Tankan Bay is clearly aggressive - they haven't sailed. And attacking them after Pearl Harbor is bombed is clearly defensive...but also too late. So at what point in between those two events does an attack cease to be aggressive and become defensive?

 

Answer that, and you can answer your question.

At the point they enter US territory.

[3rdnlng]

At the point they enter US territory.

 

The ships or the planes?

[DC Tom]

At the point they enter US territory.

 

The ships don't need to enter US "territory" (assuming, in this case, you mean the traditional 12-mile limit). The planes...once they do, they're 5-10 minutes from attacking, which isn't enough time to do anything. So that's functionally equivalent to saying "When you're attacked."

 

 

(Just playing devil's advocate...demonstrating that it's not necessarily that easy.)

[TakeYouToTasker]

The ships don't need to enter US "territory" (assuming, in this case, you mean the traditional 12-mile limit). The planes...once they do, they're 5-10 minutes from attacking, which isn't enough time to do anything. So that's functionally equivalent to saying "When you're attacked."

 

 

(Just playing devil's advocate...demonstrating that it's not necessarily that easy.)

Understood, but I'm of the belief that:

 

A) One should remain crouched like a readied tiger until one is "attacked" (it's perfectly acceptable for the US to declare a much wider air and naval perimeter for defense purposes, assuming those perimeters are disclosed to the world, and are based on a defensive position linked to current cutting edge technology at all times.)

 

B) Total War is a legitimate response to external aggressors.

Edited March 26, 2013 by TakeYouToTasker