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

[Sloth]

[CedarDave]

Nothing wrong with your posting the article -- Need to know what the dark side is thinking. What I want to know is why the article was excerpted by the admin moderator. I didn't see the NY Daily News on the list of publications banned from having full text articles posted.

[marblehead17]

I misunderstood the intent of your post. Please accept my apology

[JoJo Gunn]

Apparently you don't know about the esteemed sewer diver Richard Cohen.

I suggest you look up "War behind Schedule", from November 2001, and note Cohen's jumping on the "AWOL Bush" bandwagon. More than once I've pointed out how that intellectually challenged scrivener never noted that if Gore were President, the same protection rules would have applied.

[colorado tanker]

This is like Lucy playing football with Charlie Brown. After the Dims cry they ARE patriotic, they turn right around and bash Bush over the war on terror. They know what's coming, they know the voters trust Bush more than the Dims to fight terrorists, but they can't help themselves.

[presidio9]

Then what the hell is this post for?

Two things:
1) Your manners suck.
2) Click on the keyword "RICHARDCOHEN" at the bottom of the article. Cohen is a well-known useful idiot. His editorials get posted because we disagree with him.

Again, after you have been with FR for a while you will notice that threads often get formed to rebut liberal propaganda. Until then, maybe you should keep quiet and try to understand that you may not be the foremost authority on what gets posted here.

[kellynla]

Either Cohen has not been paying attention or still doesn't know why we went to Iraq. Every forty or fifty years we have to take out the trash. I am sure Cohen was glad we removed Hitler and if Cohen had relatives living in Iraq he would be happy that we removed Saddam. These liberals either have to start loving America or leaving America. Point, Game, Set, Match! Semper Fi

[groanup]

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

So we should have left Saddam alone after he violated 16 UN resolutions and failed to provide proof that he didn't have WMD's? Sort of : let's DON'T go to war just IN CASE he DOESN'T have WMD's. Yeah that would have been the smart way to do it.

[Nonstatist]

the international community is going to require a higher burden of proof when pre-emptive military action is going to be used...

You mean like in Bosnia? The "international community " (read: France and Germany) wants the US out of its backyard so they can cozy up to the dictators of their choice, like Hussein. France regularly bullies into places like the Ivory Coast and Central African Republic without asking permission. There'd be no talk of "illegitimacy" if this was a Democrat Party action, like Vietnam, for example.

[Old Sarge]

Why not address his remarks on their merits (or lack thereof)?

Because with a Leftist, one does not argue facts - one FEELS, and it's the INTENTIONS that matter.

And, I intend to open up a can o' whupass if I ever see this metro.

[Shermy]

Some recreational Fisking due...

We have found no connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda

Lie # 1. Anyway, big deal, AQ has connections to ALL of the countries over there.

and no evidence that Iraq had an extensive weapons of mass destruction program, particularly one that was about to go nuclear.

Two modifiers, "extensive" and "particularly." "Extensive" - in other words, there was one, how does one gloss it over? Call it non-extensive, whatever that means. "Particularly" - somewhere in the bowels of the DNC agitprop committee they've decided to pretend Bush emphasized nuclear over biological and chemical, a quasi-straw man argument to be torn down. Guys like this writer fall for propaganda while declaiming other's propaganda.

It is true that Saddam was a beast with an appalling human rights record, but as bad as he was - or is - that was not the reason the administration gave for going to war.

Actually, Bush gave this often as a reason for war. There was many reasons. I would like to believe that some well-intentioned people simply misread the intelligence data and concluded what they already thought they knew - namely, that Saddam posed such a grave threat to American security that he had to be dealt with pronto.

"Pronto" - 12 years after 1991, 2 years after Bush first announced the "war." Heck, back in 1998 Clinton and Congress enacted the overthrow of Saddam as law of the US. If there was merely an intelligence failure, it was massive and inexcusable.

Even the French thought Saddam had the weapons.

[presidio9]

normally there is a "barf alert" on articles like this but some are sooooo out there that FReepers feel no need for it

Hey! I resent that. This is Richard Cohen we're talking about here...

[Sloth]

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.

Considering the Clinton administration and the UN previously all agreed that he had WMD programs, I don't fault the administration's intelligence too much... I DO think the case for war should have been more clearly built on Iraq being a terrorism-supporting state, rather than on WMDs and stupid UN resolutions. Bush & Co. foolishly allowed the question to be defined in those terms, and now they're paying a price for it.

Why go to war with Iraq? 1.) They supported terrorists, and 2.) they shot at our planes. 'Nuff said.

[dead]

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.

The information about Iraqi WMD programs goes back at least two previous administrations, and was based on the intelligence gathering operations of various entities outside the US including British Intelligence, the United Nations, the International Atomic Energy Commission, German intelligence, French Intelligence, and many others.

I think the third option could be that there was a deliberate attempt by Saddam Hussein to exaggerate his WMD programs (which were real but overrated) in order to intimidate his enemies and gain respect in the Arab world.

When it came time to prove that his capabilities weren’t very capable, he refused, for the same reasons. He liked pretending he could destroy the world.

You laugh too hard, you cry.

[FairOpinion]

In case anyone missed it, this is the ad they aer complaining about:

---

Here is the ad:

http://www.rnc.org/Newsroom/Releases/nov03/IowaAds.htm

RNC to Run Ads Around Democratic Presidential Debates

Washington, DC-The Republican National Committee today announced it will begin running television ads in Iowa on Sunday, November 23.

"After 10 months, Democrats running for President have coalesced around policies that are wrong for America. They unanimously oppose the President's policy of pre-emptive self-defense. They unanimously support massive tax increases. The RNC will continue to highlight the differences between the two parties on policy after policy that will provide the American people a clear choice in the next election," said Ed Gillespie, Chairman of the Republican National Committee.

To view the ad, go to: http://www.rnc.org/Newsroom/RNCResearch/Reality.htm

Script
Title: "Reality"
Time: 30 Seconds

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: "It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known."
CHYRON: Strong and Principled Leadership
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: "Our war against terror is a contest of will in which perseverance is power."
CHYRON: Some are now attacking the President for attacking the terrorists.
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?"
CHYRON: Some call for us to retreat, putting our national security in the hands of others.
CHYRON: Call Congress Now
CHYRON: Tell them to support the President's policy of preemptive self-defense.
REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN ED GILLESPIE: "The Republican National Committee is responsible for the content of this advertising."
CHYRON: Ed Gillespie
CHYRON: Chairman, RNC
CHYRON: The Republican National Committee paid for and is responsible for the content of this advertising. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate committee. www.gop.com

[tbpiper]

international community is going to require a higher burden of proof

The 'international community' can kiss our collective national ass. They've shown themselves to be more inerested in talk than action and are perfectly willing to let the whole world go to hell as long a everybody 'feels ok' about it.

As far as 'attempts to stifle dissent', that simply bull sh*t. However when the 'dissent' gets our troops killed, I'm all for stiffling it. We can have a sedate discussion after the war is over. But right now, the 'dessent' for a fact, only feed the jehadis and the dimwits who mouthe it proclaiming to support the troops just need to shut the hell up.

[presidio9]

Please accept my apology

No problem.
Sorry I said your manners suck.
Carry on.

[netmilsmom]

>>Hey! I resent that. This is Richard Cohen we're talking about here...<<

Oh my goodness, I am sorely mistaken!! I was looking more at you than your article. Ooooooops!

Next time I read before I write! Sorry!

Mombrain with Little Bear on tv in the backround is my only excuse.

[Conservomax]

Again, after you have been with FR for a while you will notice that threads often get formed to rebut liberal propaganda. Until then, maybe you should keep quiet and try to understand that you may not be the foremost authority on what gets posted here.

I don't know presidio9 - I think your going to the pinko team... LOL.. Just kidding. Good post - this guy's a shill.

[ArrogantBustard]

Because with a Leftist, one does not argue facts

True enough. We'll (probably) never convert the true believers. However, a good command of the facts can sway fence sitters our way.

As for any meeting with Mr. Cohen ...

Don't get caught.