Support NeoGAF

[Incognito]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/01/washington/01adviser.html?hp

...In 2004, he was appointed the president’s chief campaign strategist.

Looking back, Mr. Dowd now says his faith in Mr. Bush was misplaced.

In a wide-ranging interview here, Mr. Dowd called for a withdrawal from Iraq and expressed his disappointment in Mr. Bush’s leadership.

He criticized the president as failing to call the nation to a shared sense of sacrifice at a time of war, failing to reach across the political divide to build consensus and ignoring the will of the people on Iraq. He said he believed the president had not moved aggressively enough to hold anyone accountable for the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, and that Mr. Bush still approached governing with a “my way or the highway” mentality reinforced by a shrinking circle of trusted aides.

“I really like him, which is probably why I’m so disappointed in things,” he said. He added, “I think he’s become more, in my view, secluded and bubbled in.”

In speaking out, Mr. Dowd became the first member of Mr. Bush’s inner circle to break so publicly with him.

He said his decision to step forward had not come easily. But, he said, his disappointment in Mr. Bush’s presidency is so great that he feels a sense of duty to go public given his role in helping Mr. Bush gain and keep power.

Mr. Dowd, a crucial part of a team that cast Senator John Kerry as a flip-flopper who could not be trusted with national security during wartime, said he had even written but never submitted an op-ed article titled “Kerry Was Right,” arguing that Mr. Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat and 2004 presidential candidate, was correct in calling last year for a withdrawal from Iraq.

“I’m a big believer that in part what we’re called to do — to me, by God; other people call it karma — is to restore balance when things didn’t turn out the way they should have,” Mr. Dowd said. “Just being quiet is not an option when I was so publicly advocating an election.”

Mr. Dowd’s journey from true believer to critic in some ways tracks the public arc of Mr. Bush’s political fortunes. But it is also an intensely personal story of a political operative who at times, by his account, suppressed his doubts about his professional role but then confronted them as he dealt with loss and sorrow in his own life.

In the last several years, as he has gradually broken his ties with the Bush camp, one of Mr. Dowd’s premature twin daughters died, he was divorced, and he watched his oldest son prepare for deployment to Iraq as an Army intelligence specialist fluent in Arabic. Mr. Dowd said he had become so disillusioned with the war that he had considered joining street demonstrations against it, but that his continued personal affection for the president had kept him from joining protests whose anti-Bush fervor is so central.

Mr. Dowd, 45, said he hoped in part that by coming forward he would be able to get a message through to a presidential inner sanctum that he views as increasingly isolated. But, he said, he holds out no great hope. He acknowledges that he has not had a conversation with the president.

Mr. Dowd said he decided to become a Republican in 1999 and joined Mr. Bush after watching him work closely with Bob Bullock, the Democratic lieutenant governor of Texas, who was a political client of Mr. Dowd and a mentor to Mr. Bush.

“It’s almost like you fall in love,” he said. “I was frustrated about Washington, the inability for people to get stuff done and bridge divides. And this guy’s personality — he cared about education and taking a different stand on immigration.”

Mr. Dowd established himself as an expert at interpreting polls, giving Karl Rove, the president’s closest political adviser, and the rest of the Bush team guidance as they set out to woo voters, slash opponents and exploit divisions between Democratic-leaning states and Republican-leaning ones.

In television interviews in 2004, Mr. Dowd said that Mr. Kerry’s campaign was proposing “a weak defense,” and that the voters “trust this president more than they trust Senator Kerry on Iraq.”

But he was starting to have his own doubts by then, he said.

He said he thought Mr. Bush handled the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks well but “missed a real opportunity to call the country to a shared sense of sacrifice.”

He was dumbfounded when Mr. Bush did not fire Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld after revelations that American soldiers had tortured prisoners at Abu Ghraib.

Several associates said Mr. Dowd chafed under Mr. Rove’s leadership. Mr. Dowd said he had not spoken to Mr. Rove in months but would not discuss their relationship in detail.

Mr. Dowd said, in retrospect, he was in denial.

“When you fall in love like that,” he said, “and then you notice some things that don’t exactly go the way you thought, what do you do? Like in a relationship, you say ‘No no, no, it’ll be different.’ ”

He said he clung to the hope that Mr. Bush would get back to his Texas style of governing if he won. But he saw no change after the 2004 victory.

He describes as further cause for doubt two events in the summer of 2005: the administration’s handling of Hurricane Katrina and the president’s refusal, around the same time that he was entertaining the bicyclist Lance Armstrong at his Crawford ranch, to meet with the war protester Cindy Sheehan, whose son died in Iraq.

“I had finally come to the conclusion that maybe all these things along do add up,” he said. “That it’s not the same, it’s not the person I thought.”

He said that during his work on the 2006 re-election campaign of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California, which had a bipartisan appeal, he began to rethink his approach to elections.

“I think we should design campaigns that appeal not to 51 percent of the people,” he said, “but bring the country together as a whole.”

More at the link. Looks like his son's deployment to Iraq really brought things into focus.

 

[teiresias]

I love how all of these people want some sort of credit for being extremely late to the party in realizing that Bush is a disaster.

News Flash, there were tons of us saying these things years ago, just because you were too moronic to realize it then doesn't mean you should be congratulated for finally not being a moron.

 

[Diablos]

Looks like his son's deployment to Iraq really brought things into focus.

It's amazing how quickly these hacks will fall apart if someone they love has to start fighting in that stupid war.

 

[BocoDragon]

It's hilarious... this trend of republicans "discovering" how the Bush administration has messed up over the years.

They are agreeing with the same people who they were desperately attempting to marginalize for these same opinions a couple years ago.

 

[Triumph]

What a RINO. SHUT UP, SURRENDER MONKEY!

 

[scorcho]

I love how all of these people want some sort of credit for being extremely late to the party in realizing that Bush is a disaster.

News Flash, there were tons of us saying these things years ago, just because you were too moronic to realize it then doesn't mean you should be congratulated for finally not being a moron.

he's not looking for credibility; he's looking to air his personal grief over supporting what has become a failed policy. i don't mind former loyalists stepping forward admitting the follies of the past few years, and much appreciate it over the wall of delusion this Administration has built around itself.

stop being so damn petty.

 

[Dan]

He says twice that he fell in love with Bush.

Interesting.

 

[whytemyke]

I hate it when a politician has a kid go to war and it changes their viewpoint on the war. Somewhere an angel dies as Michael Moore gloats over a burrito in victory.

 

[reaver18]

I love how all of these people want some sort of credit for being extremely late to the party in realizing that Bush is a disaster.

News Flash, there were tons of us saying these things years ago, just because you were too moronic to realize it then doesn't mean you should be congratulated for finally not being a moron.

yeah, I remember telling everyone when bush first decided to go into iraq that it would become a breeding ground for terrorists and destroy the country. back then, I got flamed for saying that. now, we've been there for almost 4 years and iraq is a steaming piece of dogshit that will go into a 20 year civil war until another dictator rises to power.

 

[Diablos]

he's not looking for credibility; he's looking to air his personal grief over supporting what has become a failed policy. i don't mind former loyalists stepping forward admitting the follies of the past few years, and much appreciate it over the wall of delusion this Administration has built around itself.

stop being so damn petty.

Point taken; it's just that it's so frusturating that just NOW are we starting to see more people start to speak about how failed of a war this is. Where was the passion in 2004 when this country needed it more than ever?

 

[scorcho]

hindsight is 20/20, even though I was one of those liburrrls who believed this war was unnecessary and a choice, not a necessity. the biggest i problem i see is that the key policy makers who helped frame and shape this war (like, say, everyone at AEI) have absolved themselves of blame; it wasn't the THEORY of democracy building that was wrong, but the misappropriation of the war by this Administration.

that ****ing deficit of logic will continue to taint our foreign policy for decades.

 

[Dan]

Point taken; it's just that it's so frusturating that just NOW are we starting to see more people start to speak about how failed of a war this is. Where was the passion in 2004 when this country needed it more than ever?

Forget passion, where was the thought?

This quote says it all:
“When you fall in love like that,” he said, “and then you notice some things that don’t exactly go the way you thought, what do you do? Like in a relationship, you say ‘No no, no, it’ll be different.’ ”

Way to go pal. Irrationally convince yourself to give the abuser a second chance to make it right. You know he didn't mean it, he'll be better next time.

These people aren't, or at least weren't, right in the mind.

 

[BocoDragon]

Remember the Dixie Chicks backlash in 2003, for saying they were embaressed by the president?

That's practically something the White House would put out as a press release these days.

I was just so amazed that America could dip into McCarthyism in modern times.... but now I know better.

 

[DarkJediKnight]

"Tell Georgie that Kerry was right!! Kerry was right!"

 

[Slurpy]

I love how all of these people want some sort of credit for being extremely late to the party in realizing that Bush is a disaster.

News Flash, there were tons of us saying these things years ago, just because you were too moronic to realize it then doesn't mean you should be congratulated for finally not being a moron.

Pretty much.

 

[siamesedreamer]

Like someone else said - its all 20/20 hindsight.

Knowing everything I know now, I still would vote for Bush in 2004. Even if it leads to the DEMs controlling everything for several cycles, Bush's re-election still led to a purging of the corruption from the GOP (and we'll likely see even more next election). Every party needs to experience it every 8-10 years. The Democrats will be no different in a decade or so.

Its just scary knowing how bad one party rule is for the country and the fact we're headed right back to where we started.

 

[Dan]

Like someone else said - its all 20/20 hindsight.

Knowing everything I know now, I still would vote for Bush in 2004. Even if it leads to the DEMs controlling everything for several cycles, Bush's re-election still led to a purging of the corruption from the GOP (and we'll likely see even more next election). Every party needs to experience it every 8-10 years. The Democrats will be no different in a decade or so.

Its just scary knowing how bad one party rule is for the country and the fact we're headed right back to where we started.

What a distorted perspective. You claim to despise one party rule, yet you vote in order to maintain it.

Not to mention that you seem to believe all of this party purification happens inside of a vacuum, as if Bush's re-election did no harm to anyone outside of GOP membership.

 

[siamesedreamer]

"Seem" seems to be the key word doesn't it?

 

[Dan]

I'm not sure what's worse, that you ignore the real world consequences of Bush's re-election or that you believe purging parts of the GOP ranks makes up for those destructive, corrupt and often un-American policies.

 

[140.85]

missed a real opportunity to call the country to a shared sense of sacrifice

I have to agree with him here, unfortunately he's is wrong about the withdrawal issue. Poor guy's been through alot, I wish him and his son all the best.

 

[CharlieDigital]

Bush's re-election still led to a purging of the corruption from the GOP (and we'll likely see even more next election)

:lol So you think the GOP isn't as corrupt now as it was previously?

 

[Bizarro Sun Yat-sen]

Kerry doesn't seem to have been right about campaign strategy.

 

[FightyF]

Like someone else said - its all 20/20 hindsight.

No it wasn't.

Heck, even in a 2002 interview, Obama predicted the current situation.

Y'know...people who educated themselves on the matter...they knew.

 

[Ollie Pooch]

Like someone else said - its all 20/20 hindsight.

rubbish. many people, myself included, were completely against the iraq war and suspicious of Bush's bullshit justifications even back then. all that's happening now is the rest are finally waking up and distancing themselves from him and his corrupt administration.

 

[theBishop]

he's not looking for credibility; he's looking to air his personal grief over supporting what has become a failed policy. i don't mind former loyalists stepping forward admitting the follies of the past few years, and much appreciate it over the wall of delusion this Administration has built around itself.

stop being so damn petty.

I agree with what you're saying, but at the same time, where's the ****ing responsibility?

We can smile and nod and hug Mr. Dowd for waking up to reality, but this guy is openly admitting that he advocated for policies he was having doubts about. Not the least of these policies has led to the death of over 3,000 American soldiers.

Are we supposed to applaud him for having the "bravery" to "write, but not submit" his Mea Culpa?

Excuse me if I don't have a lot of patience for kool-aid drinkers seeing the light 4 years and 3,000 lives too late. There was ample evidence pointing against the Iraqi occupation well before it began.

 

[scorcho]

he has no responsibility to come forward also. he could've continued wearing his partisanship on his sleeve and been a good boy. instead he decided to have a public hand wringing for all the world to see. i don't admire the man, but i respect the action; but that show of humility is more genuine than i've seen from other former Bushies.

and while i mentioned hindsight previously, you didn't have to be a fortune teller to see how badly the war was trending.

 

[Spainkiller]

and while i mentioned hindsight previously, you didn't have to be a fortune teller to see how badly the war was trending.

lolz. No.

 

[Pimpwerx]

I wish the Iraq War thread wasn't swallowed up by this forum, b/c I remember making a big deal out of this before the war even started. And I remember not being alone in this opinion, and all of us getting flamed to hell and back for being "doves".

Well, piss on this turd and the rest of the morons who disagreed back then. I remember a couple of lines of defense. For one, Iraq only has outdated T51 tanks. The Iraqi military was no threat to its neighbors, much less the US. We had no purpose there. But the popular opinion of the hawks was the "fight them there so we don't fight them here" argument.

Let's just look at that broken logic. You intentionally pick an unwinnable fight (see also: war on drugs) with a faceless enemy on foreign soil. WTF do you expect to happen? Are flowers suppose to bloom in the aftermath? We went over there with the intention of turning Iraq into a shithole where we fight terrorists.

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

What's everyone got their panties in a twist for now that we want to pull out and leave the place smoldering? Wasn't that our very intention? Don't people think things through to completion before agreeing on a course of action? THIS IS WHAT WE WANTED. THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE NOW. WHY ARE WE ACTING SO DAMNED SHOCKED?

My head is about to explode at all the backpedalling and blatant "revisionist history" (like what I did there?) going on now that Iraq is too big of a disaster to ignore. We can't put on the tinted glasses and pretend this mess is winnable. It's done. America has lost. America has lost credibility. America has lost clout. America made its bed and must sleep in it. And the complete idiots (yes...you are a ****ing idiot) that supported it from the beginning need to accept this blame. Wear this guilt like the star-spangled flag you adorned yourself with back when people like me thought you were stupid for wanting a war. Wear it with pride, b/c you are the reason we're stuck there now. 70% of this country is implicit in the murder of countless thousands of Iraqi civilians. You can't blame someone else for your own stupidity. You weren't imisled, you were just too hawkish/ignorant/stupid to see the big, bright, flashing, neon signs of warning before you. Suck it down, this is the time for being right. PEACE.

 

[siamesedreamer]

I'm not sure what's worse, that you ignore the real world consequences of Bush's re-election or that you believe purging parts of the GOP ranks makes up for those destructive, corrupt and often un-American policies.

Who says I'm ignoring? The invasion had already occured and IMO sticking with the devil you know is better than going with the devil you don't. (And yes you could equate that with Saddam too.) Kerry's plan for Iraq wasn't much different than Bush's anyway.

So you think the GOP isn't as corrupt now as it was previously?

Yes. I'm not saying they're all as clean as a whistle now, but there has been a significant purging of the really bad ones.


The monday morning quarterbacking in this thread is absolutely nauseating......

 

[Spainkiller]

I wish the Iraq War thread wasn't swallowed up by this forum, b/c I remember making a big deal out of this before the war even started. And I remember not being alone in this opinion, and all of us getting flamed to hell and back for being "doves".

Well, piss on this turd and the rest of the morons who disagreed back then. I remember a couple of lines of defense. For one, Iraq only has outdated T51 tanks. The Iraqi military was no threat to its neighbors, much less the US. We had no purpose there. But the popular opinion of the hawks was the "fight them there so we don't fight them here" argument.

Let's just look at that broken logic. You intentionally pick an unwinnable fight (see also: war on drugs) with a faceless enemy on foreign soil. WTF do you expect to happen? Are flowers suppose to bloom in the aftermath? We went over there with the intention of turning Iraq into a shithole where we fight terrorists.

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

What's everyone got their panties in a twist for now that we want to pull out and leave the place smoldering? Wasn't that our very intention? Don't people think things through to completion before agreeing on a course of action? THIS IS WHAT WE WANTED. THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE NOW. WHY ARE WE ACTING SO DAMNED SHOCKED?

My head is about to explode at all the backpedalling and blatant "revisionist history" (like what I did there?) going on now that Iraq is too big of a disaster to ignore. We can't put on the tinted glasses and pretend this mess is winnable. It's done. America has lost. America has lost credibility. America has lost clout. America made its bed and must sleep in it. And the complete idiots (yes...you are a ****ing idiot) that supported it from the beginning need to accept this blame. Wear this guilt like the star-spangled flag you adorned yourself with back when people like me thought you were stupid for wanting a war. Wear it with pride, b/c you are the reason we're stuck there now. 70% of this country is implicit in the murder of countless thousands of Iraqi civilians. You can't blame someone else for your own stupidity. You weren't imisled, you were just too hawkish/ignorant/stupid to see the big, bright, flashing, neon signs of warning before you. Suck it down, this is the time for being right. PEACE.

QFTFT.

 

[JayDubya]

And the complete idiots (yes...you are a ****ing idiot) that supported it from the beginning need to accept this blame. Wear this guilt like the star-spangled flag you adorned yourself with back when people like me thought you were stupid for wanting a war. Wear it with pride, b/c you are the reason we're stuck there now.

Intellectually dishonest.

Hussein was effectively on probation for his aggression against Kuwait and subsequent mass firing of SCUDs at his enemies.

If he had possessed WMDs in his arsenal as the gathered intelligence supported, and as the American people and the Legislative Branch were told, then this war would be completely just.

How were we all to have this magical foresight that the intelligence reports given to the public and used as justification were faulty?

 

[MassiveAttack]

I wish the Iraq War thread wasn't swallowed up by this forum, b/c I remember making a big deal out of this before the war even started. And I remember not being alone in this opinion, and all of us getting flamed to hell and back for being "doves".

Well, piss on this turd and the rest of the morons who disagreed back then. I remember a couple of lines of defense. For one, Iraq only has outdated T51 tanks. The Iraqi military was no threat to its neighbors, much less the US. We had no purpose there. But the popular opinion of the hawks was the "fight them there so we don't fight them here" argument.

Let's just look at that broken logic. You intentionally pick an unwinnable fight (see also: war on drugs) with a faceless enemy on foreign soil. WTF do you expect to happen? Are flowers suppose to bloom in the aftermath? We went over there with the intention of turning Iraq into a shithole where we fight terrorists.

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

What's everyone got their panties in a twist for now that we want to pull out and leave the place smoldering? Wasn't that our very intention? Don't people think things through to completion before agreeing on a course of action? THIS IS WHAT WE WANTED. THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE NOW. WHY ARE WE ACTING SO DAMNED SHOCKED?

My head is about to explode at all the backpedalling and blatant "revisionist history" (like what I did there?) going on now that Iraq is too big of a disaster to ignore. We can't put on the tinted glasses and pretend this mess is winnable. It's done. America has lost. America has lost credibility. America has lost clout. America made its bed and must sleep in it. And the complete idiots (yes...you are a ****ing idiot) that supported it from the beginning need to accept this blame. Wear this guilt like the star-spangled flag you adorned yourself with back when people like me thought you were stupid for wanting a war. Wear it with pride, b/c you are the reason we're stuck there now. 70% of this country is implicit in the murder of countless thousands of Iraqi civilians. You can't blame someone else for your own stupidity. You weren't imisled, you were just too hawkish/ignorant/stupid to see the big, bright, flashing, neon signs of warning before you. Suck it down, this is the time for being right. PEACE.

POST OF THE YEAR.

 

[MassiveAttack]

Intellectually dishonest.

Hussein was effectively on probation for his aggression against Kuwait and subsequent mass firing of SCUDs at his enemies.

If he had possessed WMDs in his arsenal as the gathered intelligence supported, and as the American people and the Legislative Branch were told, then this war would be completely just.

How were we all to have this magical foresight that the intelligence reports given to the public and used as justification were faulty?

You considered those "intelligence" reports? The so-called "evidence" was so unbelievably vague it required a quantum leap of faith to consider it anything other than wild speculation.

 

[Pimpwerx]

Intellectually dishonest.

Hussein was effectively on probation for his aggression against Kuwait and subsequent mass firing of SCUDs at his enemies.

If he had possessed WMDs in his arsenal as the gathered intelligence supported, and as the American people and the Legislative Branch were told, then this war would be completely just.

How were we all to have this magical foresight that the intelligence reports given to the public and used as justification were faulty?

The other point many of us clueless doves tried to argue before the war was that there were inspections. The UN team just found nothing. The only evidence was the manufactured evidence from the US and UK. The neutral parties had agreed that we were pumping a dry well. Oh, but Saddam was obfuscating, right? Jesus, this is the revisionist history I'm talking about. Some of us remember back more than a few months, thank you very much. I'm not the one being dishonest here. PEACE.

 

[scorcho]

The monday morning quarterbacking in this thread is absolutely nauseating......

as is your delusional partisanship. i give you props for avoiding the term 'super majority' in this thread!

 

[scorcho]

If he had possessed WMDs in his arsenal as the gathered intelligence supported, and as the American people and the Legislative Branch were told, then this war would be completely just.

not quite - even were he stockpiling WMDs i, and many others argued that we could effectively contain his aggression. Hussein has shown in the past to be a realist actor who, like all dictators, cared about his regime first, country second.

 

[whytemyke]

Let's be honest-- there were people who said from the outset that if we did the war it had to be done right. Honestly, I never took an official stance on the war. Everyone screams about war happening and my stance was that historically wars over material posession aren't that rare and the argument could have been made that shoring up the oil was in the interest of America (I never bit on Hussein being a threat to America, not for a second. It was always about oil to me.) Creating a situation where the US wasn't dependent upon oil barons of a completely different culture really isn't the worst thing you can do, especially considering this entire nations lack of maneuverability in terms of switching to alternate forms.

The problem wasn't that we went to war, as so many people like to think. It's that A) We didn't create a situation in Afghanistan where the UN could come in and be successful and B) We didn't create a winning strategy in Iraq, and the strategy we did have was unrealistic. If this war had been done correctly from the word go, via the UN where we could guarantee that we went in there with half a million troops so we didn't have to bounce from town to town for 3 years trying to cover our ass because we didn't finish the job the first time through, then this is a completely different war. But the inane idealism of the administration in thinking that everyone would be waving American flags once we knocked a few statues over was just laughable, and to not see that Iraq would be torn to shreds by it's own internal struggles (Every piece of academic writing (read: same people that contribute to think tanks) said the exact same thing: CIVIL WAR EMMINENT!)

Thus we were left fighting a war on two fronts, because the UN didn't have the resources or willpower to fully dominate a country and we didn't have the resources or willpower to do so either.

This is what happens when your ethnocentricity gets in the way of your foreign policy decisions. The lesson should be that you never interact with other cultures in any way-- trade, war, treaties, etc-- without having a firm grip on the expectations of that culture in any facet of interaction. When you try to assume that because we like democracy then everyone will, and use that as an underlying pillar for your long-term goals, then you're doomed to failure no matter what you do.

Ultimately, Iraq is yet another example of America being a young and ignorant nation on the world stage, as I'm sure any number of Europeans and Asians will tell you.

 

[siamesedreamer]

Hussein has shown in the past to be a realist actor who, like all dictators, cared about his regime first, country second.

Yes, his invasion of Kuwaitt is an obvious example of that.

 

[scorcho]

i think you're wrong - the major problem was the theory behind the war. that it was mismanaged without any semblance of a grand strategy only brought this to the forefront. this belief that we could transform the Middle East in our image through war, and this hyper sense of American exceptionalism led to every other misstep.

 

[scorcho]

Yes, his invasion of Kuwaitt is an obvious example of that.

if you read any bit of history, yes it was. hussein believed he had tacit approval from Bush that the US wouldn't stand in the way of the invasion. he misjudged our ire, and if you want i can easily dig up some of my old class work and point you to jstor articles or books that argue this point extensively.

 

[siamesedreamer]

Yeah, PM me. I would like to see some of that.....

 

[whytemyke]

I read the same stuff Scorcho did, apparently. Or else we both got some tasty Kool Aid. mmmm

 

[OG_Original Gamer]

The war has been over for years, we're just there now to save face. The banner said Mission Accomplished, so why are we still there. Another problem, the people willingness to except each excuse or reasoning for going there without question. WMD, To remove a horrible dictator, to bring democracy to the middle east, so we don't have to fight them over here.

I'm afraid of what other possible consequences that may occur, besides more terrorist attacks on U.S soil or attempts.( I hope not)

Maybe G-Dub needs to call up Monica Lewinsky for a BJ, that should put things into perspective. He'll be less tense and feel refreshed, hopefully he'll gain some common sense. He may even lose his speech impediment, or he'll actually sit and read a book and not pretend to.

 

[scorcho]

great, now i have to dig shit out of my closet...

 

[teruterubozu]

The monday morning quarterbacking in this thread is absolutely nauseating......

That's what happens when the home team lays a goose egg.

 

[BobLoblaw]

If he had possessed WMDs in his arsenal as the gathered intelligence supported, and as the American people and the Legislative Branch were told, then this war would be completely just.

That's a big f***in if. Besides, you can't make retarded statements like this. How many other countries in the world want WMDs besides Iraq? The answer is a lot. I stated before the war even started that it was a mistake. The inspectors were in the country and had open access to everything. The US was telling them where to go and whenever they did, they found nothing. So what does the dumb ass in the White house do? Tells the inspectors to leave, launches a pointless war, and then finds no weapons.

 

[OG_Original Gamer]

I wonder if Joe Wilson trip to Niger ever turn up anything, I mean didn't he come back. I was looking forward to a slice of lemon cake with buttercream icing. Is Valery Plame company still hiring, been looking for a higher paying job.

Heard, the pres was pissed that Joe didn't bring him any lemon cake as well.

 

[Sweedishrodeo]

[insert o rly gif here]

 

[siamesedreamer]

The inspectors were in the country and had open access to everything.

Factually incorrect.

 

[Slurpy]

Intellectually dishonest.

Hussein was effectively on probation for his aggression against Kuwait and subsequent mass firing of SCUDs at his enemies.

If he had possessed WMDs in his arsenal as the gathered intelligence supported, and as the American people and the Legislative Branch were told, then this war would be completely just.

How were we all to have this magical foresight that the intelligence reports given to the public and used as justification were faulty?

Magical foresight? :lol :lol :lol

It was plain as ****ing day. You would have had to make an incredible will to ignore all the evidence and signs (and there was a hell of alot) that what was presented was bullshit, and was just a means to an end, so you could pretend to believe it. And THAT is intellectually dishonest. Don't even start with the 'but..but.. I DIDNT KNOW' schtick- if you had the brain-cells to type out that post, you had enough brain cells to discern truth from obvious fiction. You're not that innocent. Like many others, you consciously CHOSE to believe what was being spouted, because it suited your partisan/ideological agenda, when it would have veen impossible to believe if one has the moral courage to look at everything with a bit of objectivity.