If Bush Was Going To Lie, Why Would He Lie About WMD?

Toogoodreports.com ^ | Weekender June 08, | Lowell Phillips

[Captain Kirk]

Nonsense! Teddy had little patience for nation-building and "spreading democracy." Now....he take the Panama canal but, for the most part, his administration was a model of restraint in foreign policy rather than Wilson (who like modern pro-conservatives) wanted to "liberate" and "uplift" every God-forsaken corner of the planet.

[Captain Kirk]

Corrected version:

Nonsense! Teddy had little patience for nation-building and "spreading democracy." Now....he took the Panama canal but, for the most part, his administration was a model of restraint in foreign policy compared to Wilson (who like modern pro-conservatives) who wanted to "liberate" and "uplift" every God-forsaken corner of the planet.

[VRWC_minion]

Now...when "their side" is in charge most of these conservatives turn on a dime

Please leave this comparative "they all do it" crap argument in the toilet where it belongs.

For me, as I believe for most like minded people, it had nothing to do with who was in charge and everything to do with 9-11 and the fact terrorists made the war come home.

Up until 9-11 there was no political support fro conservtives to go into Iraq.

So, please wipe your feet and leave your revisionist history at the other sites where it belongs.

[My2Cents]

From a post I made earlier on another thread:

From Stephan Ambrose's book, TO AMERICA

In my interviews with World War II veterans, they sometimes tell me that the reason they fought was that they had learned as children the difference between right and wrong and they didn't want to live in a world in which wrong prevailed, so they fought. Right there, I think, one hears the voice of Theodore Roosevelt ringing in the words of soldiers born after his death. It seems to me that perhaps our greatest strength is that American kids are brought up to know right from wrong. And of all our Presidents, the one who used the words "right" and "wrong" more than any other, who did the most to exalt right-doing, was Theodore Roosevelt.

[TomB]

Nonsense! Teddy had little patience for nation-building and "spreading democracy." Now....he took the Panama canal but, for the most part, his administration was a model of restraint in foreign policy compared to Wilson (who like modern pro-conservatives) who wanted to "liberate" and "uplift" every God-forsaken corner of the planet.

The Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine

Foreign intervention in Latin American resurfaced as an issue in U.S. foreign policy at the turn of the century as European governments began to use force to pressure several Latin American countries to repay their debts.. For example, British, German, and Italian gunboats blockaded Venezuela’s ports in 1902 when the Venezuelan government defaulted on its debts to foreign bondholders. Many Americans worried that European intervention in Latin America would undermine their country’s traditional dominance in the region. As part of his annual address to Congress in 1904, President Theodore Roosevelt stated that in keeping with the Monroe Doctrine the United States was justified in exercising "international police power" to put an end to chronic unrest or wrongdoing in the Western Hemisphere. This so-called Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine contained a great irony: whereas the Monroe Doctrine had been sought to prevent European intervention in the Western Hemisphere, the Roosevelt Corollary justified American intervention throughout the Western Hemisphere.

[My2Cents]

Precisely. I like TR's rationale: to put an end to chronic unrest and wrongdoing.

I agree with a previous post that conservatives' perspective changed on 9/11. Prior to 9/11, few conservatives were urging action against Saddam. The War on Terror made that action imperative, in Bush's strategy on the war. Many of us (most, likely) support and back up Bush on this. The fact that we can use US muscle to "put an end to chronic unrest and wrongdoing" as Bush is attempting to do in the Middle East doesn't mean we push our way around in every little hell-hole in the world, but that we pick our fights carefully, and intervene where it is consistent with our overall goals in the War on Terror. I think most Americans, and overwhelmingly most conservatives, do not accept pacifism in this War.

[Egregious Philbin]

You may well be right about the "political costs," TomB, but i'm guessing the Democrats don't think so, and so it becomes at least a small issue for Bush and Co., in that the press has picked up the WMD issue and will be persistent in asking about it. Even a simple "we're putting together our case" would defuse a good amount of this press, but instead this Administration engaged its usual routine - make bold statements, then backtrack from them (why do they do that!?). I don't know about the press argument, VRWC - the flood of stories coming from Iraq during the war has slowed to a trickle.

When everyone was yelling what was taking Bush so long to go to war with Iraq

Who was that? For many, quite the opposite - what was the rush? And that's a big part of this WMD thing - the Administration claimed deposing Saddam was urgent, yet two months in we haven't found any WMDs. We may still find them, or they may be building their case, but will that represent the imminent threat to the U.S. that Saddam supposedly represented.

[Captain Kirk]

The Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe doctrine was not unimportant but it was mostly just talk. As the distinguished historian, Howard Beale points out, he generally showed restraint during his tenure. Intervention in a major way began under Taft and Wilson.

[Captain Kirk]

9-11? I must say is hard to keep trap of the constantly shifting arguments of pro-war revisionists. I thought that the new party line was that we went to war to "liberate Iraq."

[TomB]

The Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe doctrine was not unimportant but it was mostly just talk. As the distinguished historian, Howard Beale points out, he generally showed restraint during his tenure. Intervention in a major way began under Taft and Wilson

Perhaps, but you made the assertion that TR's administration was "a model of restraint in foreign policy". Nothing in that declaration is "restrained".

[Captain Kirk]

True...I am no fan of TR but the mad, bloodthirsty imperialist who gleefully praised war per se as a positive good in 1898 was far more restained that many predicted as president.

[VANHALEN2002]

Good call. He's done this to them on several occasions in the past.

[VRWC_minion]

9-11? I must say is hard to keep trap of the constantly shifting arguments of pro-war revisionists. I thought that the new party line was that we went to war to "liberate Iraq."

Hardly a shift. Bush gave numerous speeches preceeding any action on the war on terrorism and how that changed the dynamics. You must of missed it. It was carried live and in all the papers. Maybe you were out of the country at the time.

Later, when it became apparent that it was Iraq's turn to come clean the administration listed a number of benefits that would come from going into Iraq. These included liberating Iraq, regime change and WMD.

I know its hard for anti-bushies to hold more than one thought in their heads at one time and all but even us common conservatives can se that Bush presented a logical progression in his argument to remove Saddam by force.

[VRWC_minion]

Even a simple "we're putting together our case" would defuse a good amount of this press

Bush and his spokespeople already said this.

[VRWC_minion]

Even a simple "we're putting together our case" would defuse a good amount of this press

one add on. If Bush made this clear this wouldn't stop the press and critics at all. They would just change gears to Bush doing all this in secret and what does he have to hide.

[VRWC_minion]

Who was that? For many, quite the opposite - what was the rush?

I should have said everyone on FR. But the proof works both ways. It was obvious Bush didn't change his plan either for his critics that wanted the war now or the critics that wanted him to put it off for ever. He had his preplanned time line, he never sought to justify it to anyone and he implemented it on his time frame.

Watching that prior scenario, (which an observor coudl see that he has employed on almost every issue) it should be apparent that one should not assume that the search isn't on a similar path. The timing of which is one of Bush's choosing.

[alnick]

9-11? I must say is hard to keep trap of the constantly shifting arguments of pro-war revisionists. I thought that the new party line was that we went to war to "liberate Iraq."

You haven't been paying attention then. All along, President Bush has listed liberation of Iraq, support of terrorism, and WMD as reasons for regime change in Iraq.

[dark_lord]

Wasn't Wilson a racist who introduced segregating and banning blacks from any higher level posts in the Federal government? Any students of Presidential history can correct me here if my memory is incorrect.

[Captain Kirk]

I will prove how much I have been paying attention by making an observation. You put WMD number three on your list. This says it all doesn't it? Before the war Bush and most other pro-war types, led with WMD as their chief scare argument. The other arguments were generally far behind on the list of priorities....that is until now!

[Captain Kirk]

Yes, he was. The federal government had been integrated before then.