Murdered G.I.s may have died for a lie

NY Daily News ^ | November 25, 2003 | Richard Cohen

[presidio9]

The Republican National Committee - and, by implication, the White House - is running a TV commercial defending President Bush's handling of the Iraq War, saying Democrats are attacking him "for attacking the terrorists." Not really. It's for doing such a bad job of it. This despicable attempt to muffle criticism by throwing the flag over it may or may not work. But it does not change the fact that America went into Iraq for reasons that now appear specious and so distantly related to the war on terrorism that the connection seems merely rhetorical. Saddam Hussein lives, and Osama Bin Laden lives. And yet, somehow, the Bush White House wants nothing but congratulations.

Excerpt

[aomagrat]

And yet, somehow, the Bush White House wants nothing but congratulations.

[Old Sarge]

Note to Mr. Cohen: You are not now, nor have you ever been, a member of the United States Army. Therefore, your words fall upon deaf ears.

I invite you to leave.

[Doctor Freeze]

Does Mr. Cohen know the definition of the word "lie?" Does he have the evidence to back up his assertion? I doubt it.

[Oldeconomybuyer]

[presidio9]

Pentagon Denies Mutilation Reports

[marblehead17]

Shouldn't you be over at DU?

[presidio9]

Shouldn't you be over at DU?

If I was you, I'd hold off on making generalizations about fellow FReepers until I had been here for more than a few months...

[marblehead17]

Then what the hell is this post for?

[netmilsmom]

Run your cursor over the screen name of the poster and you can see the date he/she signed up.
Don't feel bad, normally there is a "barf alert" on articles like this but some are sooooo out there that FReepers feel no need for it.

[Argus]

None of the reasons the Bush administration gave for attacking Iraq - and none of the reasons cited in the congressional resolution authorizing the war - has proved to be true. We have found no connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda and no evidence that Iraq had an extensive weapons of mass destruction program, particularly one that was about to go nuclear.

This is the Democratic Party line on Iraq. The facts that connections between Saddam's secret police and key al Qaeda operatives are well-established, and that every secret service on earth knows that Iraq had "an extensive weapons of mass destruction program" do not matter. The Dems have their bogus talking points, and they will repeat them in every forum they have, until doomsday.

[dwd1]

And they call me a troublemaker...

And some point, there does need to be a discussion about whether the president lied to get us into this war or whether he relied on faulty intelligience or whether the reasons have changed...

His intent was definitely good but the international community is going to require a higher burden of proof when pre-emptive military action is going to be used... (I still say it is self-defense)

And I think the body count is going to go up but that is acceptable to the administration as long the US government is up front about what is going on...

The writer is correct about certain attempts to stifle dissent but the writer of the piece needs to always preface by offering his support to the troops...

[UCANSEE2]

I would think it is being posted so that other Freepers have the ability to COMMENT on it's content.

That is the purpose here. Discuss, debate, expose lies, etc.

We ARE NOT a site that only allows ONE OPINION, ONE TRUTH. Just because the poster posted that article doesn't mean he agrees with it.

[JackDanielsOldNo7]

Note to Mr. Cohen: You are not now, nor have you ever been, a member of the United States Army. Therefore, your words fall upon deaf ears.

It is interesting to note that liberals tell conservatives that they can not talk about the war if you have never been in the military. However, when it comes to criticizing the war you can say all you want. LIBERALS SUCK!!!!!!

[dead]

Then what the hell is this post for?

Since you’re relatively new here, you might not be aware that one of the reasons this forum was established was to analyze and correct the distortions produced by the leftist idiots and liars in the media.

That’s a pretty tough mission to accomplish if we only post the “Yeah Team!” articles.

It would also make it really really boring around here.

[marblehead17]

Thanks

[Straight Vermonter]

[I]t does not change the fact that America went into Iraq for reasons that now appear specious

I stood behind the President on the war in Iraq but the reasons given for DO seem to be false. We all mocked the UN inspectors for searching with their eyes closed. Now American inspectors are on the ground, presumably with eyes open, and they have yet to find any WMDs. They have found evidence of WMD programs and even evidence of a coverup operation for WMDs but not the items themsleves.

Now it may be that the weapons are buried and we may yet find them. They may have been moved to Syria or elsewhere, in which case we may never find them. Saddam may have ended the programs but kept them seed stock to restart when he felt it was safe to. Any of these are possible.

The question, however, for the upcoming election year is were we so far off about WMDs because administration lies or administration incompetence?

If someone can explain a third option I will be happy to listen. Please, don't say we did it for the Iraqis because that would be the worst possible reason for us to go to war. War is, and should be, a pragmatic business.

[2nd Bn, 11th Mar]

"Saddam Hussein lives, and Osama Bin Laden lives."

My, my, Mr. Cohen, aren't we a bloodthirsty liberal this fine afternoon.

Semper Fi,

[ArrogantBustard]

Why not address his remarks on their merits (or lack thereof)? His lack of military service is irrelevant. His false premises (ie. that there was no connection between international terrorism and S. Hussein), however, make his argument complete BS.

Argumentum ad hominem is just so DU.

[marblehead17]

My apologies. I thought it was from a DUer.