I personally think that Bush didn't "lead America into war under false premises".

[Smith_3]

I think that is an excuse that people now use to justify their support for the war. I don't see how any person with a functioning brain would have bought into the Bush administration's half baked ideas about how Iraq presented a threat. And even if Iraq did pose a threat of some sort, attacking Iraq was still illegal since, threat or not, Iraq was not conducting warfare of any kind.

Before the Iraq war I heard people say stuff like "Someone has to get it for nine eleven, and it might as well be Iraq.". I think that is what drove the popular support for the war. Even the dumbest among the war supporters were probably aware that "Saddam has weapons of mass-destruction" was a stupid bullshit excuse but they didn't care to repeat it over and over because it served its purpose.

If there are ever any trials about the Iraq war, I sincerely hope the charges are not "Leading the country into war under false premises". Because that would collectively let alot of people off the hook. The charges should be "Aggressive Warfare" for attacking Iraq and "Crimes Against Humanity" for conducting torture. And nothing else. Those were the main charges in Nuremberg and they led to death sentences in most cases.

[wuvuj]

1. The US always tries to define the high ground?

Which makes the low ground now the high ground?

Since the US spends as much on it's military as the rest of the world combined...and Obama has been "captured" by both the military and wall street/finance...sectors that basically favored the war and control the media...some would still wonder why no action?

The cake has new icing...but the cake itself has poorer ingredients? Get used to crap cake...but the icing ain't bad.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

21. Yes, Obama is EXACTLY THE SAME as Bush, LOL.

:eyes:

By the way you realize the OP has nothing to do with the Obama administration, right? But you just had to say your piece, I'm sure.

[meowomon]

2. I agree. Preemptive my ass

[Skittles]

3. I ABSOLUTELY AGREE WITH YOU

that is why I could not support for president anyone who voted for IWR - there simply was NO EXCUSE

[Solly Mack]

7. "Bush fooled me"

A man already known for lying fooled you? A man put into office by the SCOTUS after 36 days of pure and utter bullshit fooled you?
A man who swept most of the Iran-Contra crowd back into office with him fooled you? A man who was already abandoning treaties fooled you? A man already rounding up young Muslim men and disappearing them into INS lock-up fooled you? A man already seeking greater powers fooled you? A man who did all kinds of telling things prior to the IWR that showed exactly what kind of man he is fooled you?

Yeah....right.


I still remember people saying that ("Bush fooled me") and thinking they were either fools or liars.

[Skittles]

9. EXACTLY

the way I saw it, he never fooled me for ONE MINUTE so it DISGUSTED me hearing ANY AND ALL OF THE EXCUSES :puke:

[The_Commonist]

38. I remember an acquaintance saying...

...that he was fooled by Bush into believing Iraq had WMDs and was a threat.
I responded "Well, I guess that makes you a fool!"
He was not pleased...

[Lilith Velkor]

53. You mean like John Kerry?

What was his excuse?

[Skittles]

62. I did not support Kerry in the primary

alas, I had to take him over any repuke

[EFerrari]

4. Their propaganda had most of the country believing Saddam flew those planes himself.

I'd like to agree with you because I never believed it but many people did.

[barbtries]

14. thank you

i recall very distinctly two conversations. on with my then-DIL, after she had watched powell's performance at the UN. she said, he was pretty convincing. i said, he's LYING. but i don't think i convinced her...and my brother, after the war had started, telling me that iraq was responsible for 911. i agree that it is incredible that members of congress believed all that bullshit - if i knew better, they HAD to - but americans en masse did believe it. most of them were getting their news from the tv after all.

[EFerrari]

60. There was a strong wave of self-censorship after 9/11, remember?

Even my lefty friends began sentences with, "I know this is unpopular, but --".

I sat there and yelled at Powell on the teevee but a lot of people swallowed his bs hook, line and sinker.

And, you know, that intuitive pulling back wasn't wrong either. BushCo was rounding people up and abusing them starting in September 2001. It's like people unconsciously KNEW that, even then.

[wickerwoman]

66. Nothing unconscious about it

Bush was bragging about it in his 2002 SOTU. Something about "We're going after the terrorists. Some things you'll hear about and some thing you'll never hear about..."

Crickets from the mainstream media which should have jumped all over that quote.

[MrModerate]

5. Except that the lies were a significant factor in making the war possible . . .

I felt the same thing about war supporters: they wanted to whack someone post 9/11 and Saddam was a nasty piece of work, so have at it.

I'd hoped that we'd lanced that particular boil with the lightning overthrow of the Taliban (lightning being a very temporary phenomenon, as it turns out), but apparently more blood was needed.

But a lot of people really did believe the threat part. Or appeared to, anyway. Suffice it to say, IMO, without the lies, no Iraq war.

[bvar22]

43. The Taliban did NOT attack us either...

Nor were they a threat to the US.

The people who attacked us were a small band of Saudi financed criminals hiding in a remote desert of Afghanistan and paying "rent" to a Tribal Warlord who didn't care what their politics were as long as they paid their "rent" and left the locals alone.

[MrModerate]

61. I'd noticed that, yeah. My context was slaking American bloodlust . . .

in the wake of 9/11.

If Bush had really wanted to get bin Laden and his lieutenants, he would have gone after the bases with sufficient force to get the job done. It's not as if he was going to respect Pakistani and Afghan sovereignty anyway.

The Taliban, as obnoxious to Westerners as they may be, were not our problem or our responsibility. And, as it turned out for so many of Bush's bloodthirsty adventures, whacking them ultimately did lots more harm than good. This always happens when 1) you're stupid; 2) you're lazy; 3) you're easily distracted.

[Hekate]

6. There was a well-coordinated propaganda effort jointly with the MSM and the Bush administration...

Way too many people, including many congresscritters, were taken in by it. In addition to which Senators in the relevant congressional committees were explicitly lied to and given false info which they were sworn to keep secret.

I'm not trying to let anyone culpable off the hook, only to keep the record straight.

A whale of a lot of us were NOT taken in by the lies. I distinctly remember being in the streets with them, but there was that problem with the MSM under-reporting or not reporting protests at all.

Hekate

[tomp]

17. yes and no.

you are absolutely correct that a media campaign existed. it's purpose was not to convince congress that bush's lies were true. It's purpose was to drum up jingoistic support among the people, thereby making it harder for a congressperson to vote against it. but to say you were convinced of the truth of bush's lies is to admit idiocy. yes, america is full of idiots. in addition, and most importantly, many congresspersons are actually aggressive militarists when it comes to american foreign policy, including many democrats with "liberal" cred.

[Grey]

8. I totally agree with you, nt

[KG]

10. americans love their myths and fairey tales.

all these generations, living in a land far from, and inured to, the ravages of the wars they created or participated in. it's still all guns and roses to them.

[Dogtown]

24. KG, interesting foto in your sigline

Is that your work, or a symbol of some particular movement?

Reminds me vaguely of an anarchy star & evokes unionism or socialism.

Nice strong symbol!

[KG]

26. it's from Pink Floyd's 'the Wall'.

[Dogtown]

50. OK, tx!

Yes, i recognize it now.

[Laelth]

45. And it's not a "nice" symbol at all. I'd recommend watching that movie.

It is quite profound. Though it's principally about man/woman relations, it also about emotional totalitarianism and the effect that has on the world.

Great film.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Dogtown]

51. Tx!

Appreciate the information.

[Laelth]

64. No problem.

I can even make it easy for you. Check out this video clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bDY0DfEjmo

:dem:

-Laelth

[Dogtown]

69. Excellent iconography.

&yes, certainly a negative symbol in context.

Effing hammer-skins,I should have recognized that right off.

[Toucano]

32. In fairness, all societies love their myths and fairytales.

Too many Americans, however, don't realize they are myths and fairytales.

[Mari333]

11. I remember well

back then anyone who had even a reasonable IQ could get past the bullshit in a day. It didnt take much googling to find PNAC and see what the agenda was. Unfortunately, the powers in Congress, many of them, didnt take the time or the effort to find things out for themselves. Here I was, some old lady in MI, who had it nailed. and was proven correct. But so many who are purported to be in leadership roles just went along with it, and voted for it, and I will never ever forget the horror I felt when Shock and Awe was broadcast like a reality show on TV.
Move ahead? No, not yet. this shit is like a festering boil underneath the surface of the country. no moving ahead until its lanced.
The whole country needs a GOOD look in the mirror.

[barbtries]

12. but there were the 934 (?) lies

just saying. speaking as one who always knew they were lies and was dead set against going to war even the day after 911.

[formercia]

13. War has become entertainment

From 'True lies' to real lies. People fail to know the difference and one just blends into the other.

[Jeep789]

15. Functioning brain being key

Now you know why the GOP strives to keep people from receiving an education (especially the "liberal" kind that requires thinking).

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

16. It's like buying a stereo on some shady streetcorner that has the serial numbers filed off, 90% off.

The shady character sells it to you and assures you that it's not stolen when you ask him, it's a special manufacturer's discount on items with damaged and unreadable serial numbers.

You "believe" it not because you really think it's true, but because it suits your purposes, it gives you convenient cover to rationalize what you know is wrong but really want to do. In this case - get that sweet sweet discount. Invading Iraq - to kill some brown people, and just maybe get some cheap oil while at it.

So yeah, there are definitely some who were genuinely taken in, there always are, but I think for the large majority, it was people who found it convenient to "believe" the obvious lie.

[Echo In Light]

18. PNAC, and "Rebuilding America's Defenses."

[conscious evolution]

19. You can say that again nt

[baldguy]

34. Iraq was ALWAYS the objective.

Once Bush was appointed to the Presidency, it was inevitable that he would attack them. 9/11 was a distraction & Afghanistan was a sideshow.

[Echo In Light]

40. I see it as 'that day' being the required justification to bolster public support for PNAC designs

[PATRICK]

20. Bush and his bumbling CYA

A president should not be so lazy as not to be have a tight CYA operation to remove him and the office from condemnation and legal trouble. Junior was a fumbling moron as a speaker as he navigated the words dealing with Intel and justifications. The most unclear words were the ones most trumpeted, as straining to parse and hear the sense of the sounds from the grassy knoll, the constant drumbeat and clear intent of not so sly propaganda continued from the horse's and its rider's mouth. If any scrutiny really wanted to pierce the incompetent and violated layers of presidential protections is there really much doubt Bush bumbled and got himself involved in torture, war for lies and almost every other high crime and misdemeanor? I don't think so and I think every malefactor with a brain knew how to get this guy involved for their own protection- and Daddy Bush knew it in his own impotent outrage. To keep Junior feeling more protected than he was the entire MSM and establishment is ready to give him the privileges of the king he isn't as the only way to preserve the entire domino board, precisely the kind of entitlement that keeps badly performing elites going as they drive everything into the ground.

As long as the pretense of secrecy, doubt and misdirection succeeds it is all the myth Bush needs to stumble along with no personal responsibility, to his dishonored grave. Then, when there can be no healing consequences or hint of justice or moral lesson to anyone it will be squeaked in some corners of ignored public history: bushknewwentalongdeleagatedenjoyedorderedsignedcroniedupplottedstolecommittedtreasontortureillegalwar
ruinedhealthguttedlawkilledecologicalrescuekilledbabieskilledkilledkille and drunkenly laughed.

[sendero]

22. Who could argue...

...the lies and half-truths were so obvious a 5 year old could smell them. America was not satisfied with Afghanistan, so we had to take action.

We'll all be paying for it decades from now.

[Toucano]

23. I don't think you could be more wrong.

Just because the public in general was willing to believe the lies, doesn't mean they weren't lied to.

Believing a lie is not immoral or illegal. Lying is immoral and illegal.

Don't forget the Downing Street memos.

Don't forget the Yellow Cake Uranium story.

Don't forget that George Tenet TOLD them not to list the Niger uranium story as a reason because it was false, yet they did it anyway. Condi said, "We simply forgot..." between October 2002 and January 2003 that the story wasn't true.

The weapons of mass destruction story was a trumped up charge that they knew was false and all evidence that contradicted them was eschewed and people were punished for talking about it.

[Oregone]

28. "Believing a lie is not immoral or illegal."

"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies." - Nietzsche

:)

Charles Peirce has some great essays on belief and the implications they have (how beliefs and the process of believing have great consequences).

Its probably not exactly in the scope of this thread, you know. But, do people not have any personal responsibility for what they believe, especially if that belief has a larger impact upon the world (even if it is but a small part, across a population, of a collective belief)? Is is permissible to forgo a chance at dissenting, when the absence of non-belief and dissension could cause pain and suffering to mankind? You say it is not immoral to believe? But what if that belief is a fundamental tool of destruction? What if that belief prevents someone from stopping the destruction? (But then comes the question: is permissible or rather immoral to not prevent pain and suffering; should a body always act to be an agent of "good" when given an opportunity, or is it permissible to abstain).

You will never have these answers, and if you did, no one would agree anyway.

In this case, a man lied to his country and to the world. In this case, at least his country wanted to be lied to, and the world didn't go to extraordinary lengths to stop it. There was stupidity and "immorality" abounds.

[Toucano]

30. Good contribution.

It wasn't my intention to absolve the American people of all responsibility for the march to war madness, but I see how that statement suggests that I did.

Fear, revenge, and blood-lust really can't be excuses, can they?

I even remember some war supporters who admitted the invasion was about oil and Bush's psychological need to one-up his father.

Still, that graph of public support for the war did spike after the "mushroom cloud" mantra went out.

[MedleyMisty]

47. I have been told that people have no responsibility for their beliefs

Personally I'm not convinced. I don't know, maybe it's that some of us do have the ability to be responsible for our own thoughts and others don't, and I'm prejudiced because I grew up with a lot of mental freedom. My mother didn't really force any beliefs or dogmas on me. Not religion or politics or gender roles or even any "expectations" or "conditions". She just loved me unconditionally and let me be me, whoever that was. I also had access to any book that I wanted to read, as long as it was in the library or bookstore or around the house.

And so maybe it's like the equivalent of someone born into material wealth being prejudiced against poverty. That idea does bother me a lot. I know that I have no way to empathize with stuff like being raised by fundamentalist parents. I can't imagine what it's like or what conditions it would produce inside your mind.

[Oregone]

48. Well,

Its certainly true that different molded minds may be more susceptible to the entire concept of belief in the first place, so perhaps there is a different degree of "wrong" you could lay at the foot of each believer. You been fortunate enough to be raised differently. This wasn't a choice of your own. A zealous church choir singer may of missed every opportunity you were given to ask "why?" (and churches are definite institutions that foster and train the notion of believing without proof--or faith).

So while your experience with "mental freedom" may make you prejudiced, it may only illustrate that was a product of an environment you didn't choose. So, on the other hand, perhaps these people are not responsible for being so susceptible to belief--sometimes the egg must come before the chicken, and this "product" is predictably made to believe anything.

Maybe we are back at square one, and it really isn't an individual responsibility. Maybe, its a "social responsibility", to be given to the people that make up the society at large. Maybe the church choir isn't to be charged with critical thought, but rather, the school teacher charged with expressing it to the masses at large (collectively and along with others)? Maybe the paradigm only insist that a society needs to maintain healthy level of dissent & non-belief (critical analysis) among sub-groups of the population, in order to shift the society as a whole away from danger. In fact, maybe the omni-believers only enhance and tune the skills of the others that keep the balance in check. Perhaps the issue here is that the society, for one reason or another, simply fell out of balance (which reciprocally pushes itself further out of balance), and no one was there to correct it (with a loud enough voice). The rich people were profiting, the media was entertaining, and the masses were having their blood lust filled.

For sure, I will call Bush an asshole. But I also remember it was like standing in a room, and screaming at a wall. Everyone was deaf. I think the entire society failed, and perhaps it was engineered to at the time. It was the same society that voted for Bush twice (enough to win with discrepancies), and yet, the same group that voted for Obama to clean up the mess. Forgiving people, I can do, but as for the entire country (which the media continues to claim is absolutely "redeemed"), I'm not so sure yet.

I guess I really don't know where I am going with any of this.

[Oregone]

25. He did too. Look, we know he lied...

Yes, he fed the American people exactly what they wanted...they knew it was bullshit and they just wanted war and blood. But, he still did the crafting and delivery to appease and inspire such masses, and lead them straight into the conflict they desired.

I don't even think 9/11 was the catalyst that got these people craving blood anymore in the first place. I think its something much sicker, thats been around for a while. 9/11 and terrorism have merely become excuses the people wore as masks. It was the perfect way to advocate for the bloodlust they've desired, yet pretend to cower in fear and lash out as a necessity.

But despite it all, Bush gave it to everyone on a silver platter. He sold it to those who may not yet have been afflicted with the sickness. And he sold it to the rest of the world, all with lies.

[patrice]

31. "what they wanted" Polls were starting to trend against war. I remember People had doubts.

The polls during that time kept me hopeful, until March 20th 2003.

[Optical.Catalyst]

27. Bush was ever the opportunist

He took a little mistake in intelligence gathering and parleyed it into a 2 trillion dollar transfer to his buddies in the defense industry. (like I believe that)

[endarkenment]

29. Yup: this is the CYA explanation for participation in war crimes. nt.

[bigbrother05]

33. The lies made it palatable

If * had just come out and said we needed to whack Saddam and now as good a time as any, he would not have gotten support. When he and Deadeye Dick fabricated their web of lies, it made it possible for otherwise sane people to join in the chorus based on the "evidence" and the need to stand together to protect the country/world.

It wasn't right (or really believable) and they should have known better, but as Andy Card and others noted, they chose what would sell to roll out the war.

[spanone]

35. bu$h* led us into war under false premises....oh, yes he did

[adamuu]

36. Honestly, I believed Bush had to know something he couldn't reveal

It was the only rational explanation I could come up with.
I closed my eyes and hoped for the best.
I'm a little less gullible, now.

[Captain Hilts]

39. That's exactly right. And he got the highly-trusted Colin Powell to deliver the message. nt

[Echo In Light]

41. Yes, although one needn't frame it as "Bush," per se. His ilk/kind, yes, but not necessarily...

...him as a lone individual pulling the strings.

Google PNAC if you want to know who constructed the blueprint for much of our foreign and domestic policies of the Bush/Cheney admin.

[adamuu]

42. oh, i'm well aware of PNAC.... now.

I'm talking 2000. I was 20.

[Echo In Light]

44. Funny how the periodic scandals vis a vis our sham democracy is what usually wakes people up....

...politically. Mine came as a teenager during the Iran/Contra cover up.

[adamuu]

54. yeah. Unfortunately during Clinton I think it was too tempting

to just leave the government on auto-pilot. As if!!!!

Now with Obama, I'm not letting my eye off him for a second!

[Captain Hilts]

37. Even David Letterman supported the Iraq War because he "wanted to smack someone." nt

[nichomachus]

46. Someone has to get it for 9-11? Not at all

The decision to go into Iraq was made long before 9-11. It was part of the PNAC plan all along. The PNAC manifesto said we were going to invade Iraq even if Saddam Hussein was no long in power.

As soon as the plane had hit the Pentagon on 9-11 and before all the survivors were pulled out, Rummy was heard shouting "Find some way to pin this on Iraq."

[Uncle Joe]

49. Bush did lie to the nation and along with the corporate media propaganda machine

brainwashed a sizable percent of the American People after the tragedy of 9/11, taking advantage of their fear and anger.

The first and most evil action was the "lie" for without it, "Aggressive Warfare" for attacking Iraq and "Crimes Against Humanity" for conducting torture." wouldn't have happened.

In my best Ross Perot voice, "you know, I know and the American People know," Bush is a lying sack of shit, but that's no excuse for lying the American People in to a war as President. The American People never elected him to the office and I seriously doubt they reelected him, Bush was installed to serve a purpose and I believe Iraq was a large part of that agenda.

I see no reason as to why he can't be charged with all the offenses you cited above plus lying to the nation as for reasons to wage war. Maybe a President will think twice the next time about lying the nation in to a war.

[raccoon]

52. People that stupid are just oxygen-wasters, pure and simple.

"Before the Iraq war I heard people say stuff like "Someone has to get it for nine eleven, and it might as well be Iraq.".

[alarimer]

55. I think you are right.

Congress should have stopped it. People certainly tried; millions marched all over the world.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

56. I didn't fall for it but look up Goebbels' Big Lie.

Propaganda works, always has, and even on 'people with a functioning brain.'

[Echo In Light]

57. True. Propaganda appeals to the emotional by masquerading as "logic."

[Political Heretic]

58. Administration did use false pretenses for war. Whether they were believable or not ....

is another matter.

The administration made specific itemized reasons why war as necessary. These itemized points were lies.

Whether they were believable or not does not change the fact that they were lies.

[Echo In Light]

59. LIES that couldn't have taken root in the public mind absent an obedient M$M

[tbyg52]

63. You're right there. *I* knew they had no real reason except that they wanted to,

and I had a lot less information than our fearless leaders, I'm sure.

[Libertyfirst]

65. He did. He and his administration lied about the presence of weapons of mass destruction.

Why all the posts today excusing Bush and company, attacking gays, etc.? Has DU been invaded?

[CoffeeCat]

67. One thing that has always bothered the hell out of me...

Is that Bill Clinton talked about the PNACers and how they wrote him a letter in 1998--asking him for war with Iraq. During
an interview, the former President said that he rebuffed their efforts, because he didn't want to go to war and be accused
of "wagging the dog". Clinton was embroiled in the Lewinsky scandal and he feared that the public would view going to war
as an obfuscation.

I heard Bill Clinton say this and I looked up this letter. http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
Sure enough, in 1998, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Armitage, Zoellick, Bolton, Kristol and the rest of the neocon gang of thugs
begged President Clinton for war.

So, let's fast forward to 2002--when George Bush is demanding war with Iraq--just four years after this same neocon gang
of thugs asked President Clinton for it.

Are we really supposed to believe that the Clintons and the rest of Congress didn't fully grasp that these criminals had wanted
war with Iraq for years--and were just waiting for the right opportunity to justify their grand plan of Middle East domination?

For the love of Pete, the PNACers had a Website--delineating their entire plan. First, gain a foothold in Iraq...then Iran...then
Syria. They lay out their intentions--global domination through military might and overtaking resources, such as oil.

The truth is right in front of us. They ALL damn well knew what was going on! None of them were fooled or tricked with
"faulty intelligence". Not a one.

...and they are laughing their asses off every night--about how easily hoodwinked we are and about how many lies they tell us
on an hourly basis.

[PufPuf23]

68. Even today reading the boring detail of PNAC's Rebuilding

America's Defenses is instructive as to world events.