ambivalent imbroglio home

« Sunday Sermon: Teaching Integrity | Main | I say we make it a mantra »

March 20, 2006

The incredible tales of G.W.Bush & Co.

Three years ago on the imbroglio:

As the world waits with apparent resignation for the U.S. to begin killing Iraqis and pulverizing Iraq (and losing who knows how many of our own troops), some of us continue to ask: Why this war? Why now? . . . . Are we really going to kill thousands of Iraqis to save U.S. hegemony? What's certain is that we are definitely going to kill many Iraqis, at least some number of American troops, and injure and anger countless people around the world. Whether we're doing this for oil, dollar supremacy, or some other completely insane reason is impossible to say.

. . . .

Yesterday Ari Fliescher said, “the President hopes that people will continue with their normal lives.” Of course he does. We're not supposed to think about what's really going on, we're supposed to go about our “business,” proud of the fact that we live in such a “strong” country. We're supposed to “support our troops,” which seems to be code for “cease all criticism of anything other than the evildoers and what they've done.” It's easier for our troops to kill people when Americans are acting like it's just another day in the best of all possible worlds.

. . . .

The point is: This war was never inevitable until Bush made it inevitable. None of the reasons I've heard for going to war have been even slightly convincing, and I'm sick with the thought of U.S. citizens shopping in malls and going to movies and watching war porn while people die in our names. Why can't people remember that, despite all Bush Administration claims to the contrary, Iraq had nothing to do with September 11?

Three years later, I don't want to say I told you so. Instead, I just want to point out a simple fact: Those who pushed the war and tried to convince the world it was necessary turned out to be completely wrong—as wrong as wrong could be. Nearly every single thing those people said turned out to be incorrect. And whether they were wrong because they were lying on purpose, or because they were just relying on bad information, the fact remains that they were wrong. They have continued to be wrong on just about everything for the last three years.

Meanwhile, those who never believed the attack on Iraq was necessary or justified—they were right in nearly everything they said three years ago. For the last three years, most of their criticisms of the war have continued to be accurate and subsequent facts have shown that they were correct all along.

So now, today, shouldn't we listen to those who always opposed the war? If we have any desire to learn from our mistakes rather than repeat them, shouldn't we start listening to the people who have shown they have a grasp on what's really going on in the world?

Posted March 20, 2006 07:51 AM | general politics

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:

You are quite wrong and have made some fantastic assumptions.

First, you neglect the folks who continue to say, including an Iraqi General, that WMD were flown to Syria under the cover of flood relief by civillian jetliner before the war began.

It is far too early to come to any conclusions. Only four documents have been translated and published for all to see from the stack of paper we recovered from the former regime. One of those documents points to a relationship between Iraq, Al-Queda, and the Taliban. At this point to say someone was without a doubt wrong, or right is premature.

Finally, we are killing and capturing the most evil people on the planet in Iraq. Until you understand the true evil we face in Iraq and the threat that they pose to society in general, not just US hegemony, you will not understand why going to Iraq was in our best interest and why we must stay until it is finished.

Posted by: Josh at March 20, 2006 10:56 AM

hey AI -- did you catch noah chomsky's bit? it's a good read.,,1731009,00.html

Posted by: ap at March 20, 2006 02:21 PM

Josh: Yeah, I do neglect the story that WMD were flown to Syria by civilian jets before the war. Where the heck did that story come from? Would I be wrong if I guessed that right wing talk radio has been burning up the airwaves with this story for the last three years?

Too early to come to conclusions? Are you serious? American troops spent two years scouring Iraq for evidence of WMD and multiple searches and investigations turned up nada. Nothing. Too early?

Ok, be honest: Are you joking w/this whole comment? If so, it's a good one. I'm a sucker for such deft subtlety.

ap: Thanks for the link! Would you like to have coffee w/Josh? ;-)

Posted by: ambimb at March 21, 2006 08:00 PM

Look, I dont mean to be harsh.

Actually, there is a book I will link to that was just released a few weeks ago by this former Iraqi General I speak of. I am not saying he speaks the Gospel. I am only saying this guy had very close access to Saddam and is worth listening to.

Actually, no, talk radio has not burned up the waves with this. The guy was interviewed once on Hannity and was very compelling. I am only saying don't close the book on this.

Look I was in Iraq until this past Oct and it would be very easy to hide something if you really wanted to. The amount of open desert and weapons caches is seemingly infinite as we are still uncovering large underground bunker complexes.

I thought liberals liked conspiracy theories anyway?

Posted by: Josh at March 22, 2006 01:03 AM

Thanks for the link to the book; it does sound interesting.

Perhaps history will prove you (and that author) correct that it's too early to say there were no WMD in Iraq. There's a mountain of evidence that says that won't happen, but it's always possible. So how about that claim that we'd be greeted with flowers as liberators? How about the idea that an Iraq operation would only last a few weeks or months? How about the idea that Iraqis and Iraqi money would rebuild their own country? Or how about countless other things about which this administration has been mistaken? Here's a more up-to-date list with even more to choose from. Do you really think history is going to exonerate them on all of these things? And even if it does, don't you think we should make our judgments today based on facts that we know to be true today, rather than hoping or guessing that time will perhaps disprove what the evidence proves today?

My point remains: Critics of the Bush administration have proven to be more accurate than the administration in their assessment of what's going on; therefore, we should listen to the people who have gotten more things right instead of those who have gotten more things wrong.

Posted by: ambimb at March 22, 2006 10:05 AM

about   ∞     ∞   archives   ∞   links   ∞   rss
This template highly modified from The Style Monkey.