Washblog || Un-F#*!%NG Believable!

Un-F#*!%NG Believable!

By The Left Shue
Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 12:27:18 PM PST
Section: Diary Topic: Peace

Is this how Hillary intends to use Bill for her campaign?

Thanks to OlsonOnline for uncovering this curious post from A Tiny Revolution

The post's author begins, "Let's assume Clinton means fewer people have died in Iraq than would have if we'd overthrown Saddam and left immediately, rather than if we'd never invaded at all. And let's also assume Bosnia and Iraq are closely comparable situations (as unlikely as that seems)."

Even assuming Bill is talking about "post Saddam", we are still looking at more than three years in the past. I would make the argument that had we left after accomplishing the two pre-set goals of our invasion (WMD and deposing Saddam) there would have been some form of international intervention to head off the civil war that has ensued as a direct result of our invasion.

However, I cannot bring myself to accept anything other than the obvious truth which is this: Our invasion and occupation of Iraq has resulted in the deaths of over 600,000 Iraqis and the displacement of some two MILLION more. Because I recognize this simple fact, I cannot/I will not accept a candidate for president who voted FOR the authorization and has yet to fully accept the error of that vote and the resulting responsibility for the lives lost as a consequence.

Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue

< All you need to know about Ron Paul | Executive Sims responds to 36th's Election Equipment Resolution >

Un-F#*!%NG Believable! | 4 comments (4 topical)

Reason for Dem's consent to invade Iraq

The other day Congressman Jim McDermott was interviewed on Thom Hartmann's show on Air America. McDermott was very revealing in his comments. I don't think this has ever been stated, at least not in public, by any elected candidate.

A caller asked him why the Democrats in Congress voted to authorize the invasion of Iraq. She said after all, we all knew they were lying about WMDs and Iraq's links to terrorists. Why didn't they?

McDermott responded by saying the following (I am paraphrasing). First, they did not realize how serious Bush was about taking military action. He talked about that for minutes. Then he starts talking about our country's addiction to oil. He said that members of Congress, like many others,were fearful of what would happen if we did not have access to oil.

I was flabbergasted. Although I have always thought the invasion and occupation was about oil and military presence in that region (read writings from neocon think tank, the Project for New American Century), I deluded myself into thinking that the Dems who authorized military action in Iraq, were naive about such matters. I am the one who is naive. They new all along.

Getting back to Bill Clinton's discussion, I think he is trying to fool/confuse the public.

by raincity calling on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 01:22:34 PM PST

* 1 none 0 *

This is the same Bill Clinton

whose Secretary of State thought that the sanctions were well worth the cost in Iraqi lives.

by DWE on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 02:27:49 PM PST

* 2 none 0 *

Also, who knew how Iraqis would react?

Living under Saddam's boot was no picnic, and they may well have decided that the difference between that and a foreign boot was six of one and half a dozen of the other. The American public would have been just fine with an easy conquest--it's not a very large minority that objects to unprovoked wars of conquest simply on the grounds that they are morally wrong.

Too bad people can't think straight about oil. The Japanese, totally dependent on imported energy resources, are far more connected to reality on this issue. During Gulf War I, they were reluctant allies. In the process of arm-twisting, an American diplomat asked a Japanese diplomat why Japan wasn't worried about a madman like Saddam controlling all that oil. The Japanese response was something to the effect of "We feel that whoever owns the oil will quickly realize that they have no choice but to sell it."

by eridani on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 02:28:12 PM PST

* 3 none 0 *

The Clintons are full of shit

by Pen on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 03:16:05 PM PST

* 4 none 0 *

Un-F#*!%NG Believable! | 4 comments (4 topical)

PNW TOPIC HOTLIST

WELCOME AND FAQ
ABOUT

Login


Make a new account
Username:
Password:

HELP

Recommended Diaries

Bernie Sanders to the richest: via Youtube
What Bernie says -- in 2005 the top 1% of earners made more than the bottom 50% in the United States.
By chadlupkes (2 comments)
Terry Bergeson Has To Go - Do The Math
At the Thursday July 10th 36th Disctrict Democrat endorsement meeting, some people spoke in favor of Terry Bergeson. I thought they
By rmdSeaBos (18 comments)
Eye Candy from 08 Pride Parade
A girl has to have SOME fun. Above, 34th District Obama delegates Dinazina (moi) and Jody Rogers. This year I
By dinazina (7 comments)
It's election day somewhere.
The sun is hot and the calendar pages are flipping slow And so am I Election season passes like molasses in
By chadlupkes (3 comments)
Democrats MUST quit using Republican framing
I have been tearing my hair out reading all the nitpicky squabbling in cyberspace about minor differences in the platforms and
By eridani (7 comments)
On How The State Gave Me MRSA (Part II), Or, What, Me Worry?
We began a story this week that describes how poor clinical practice in a State-operated healthcare facility holds the potential to
By fake consultant (15 comments)