Analysis: Rethinking The Iraq Critics

U.S. News & World Report's Michael Barone Says We Are Only Beginning To Learn About What Went On Behind The Scenes

(US News)  This analysis was written by U.S. News and World Report columnist Michael Barone.

---

In trying to understand news about the conflicts in Iraq, I work to keep in mind the difference between what we know now about decision-making in World War II and what most Americans knew at the time. From the memoirs and documents published after the war, we've learned how leaders made critical judgments. But at the time, even well-informed journalists could only guess at what was going on behind the scenes.

Today we're only beginning to learn about what went on behind the scenes on Iraq. One important new source is the recently published War and Decision by Douglas Feith, the No. 3 civilian at the Pentagon from 2001 to 2005. Feith quotes extensively from unpublished documents and contemporary memorandums, just as in the late 1940s Robert Sherwood did in Roosevelt and Hopkins and Winston Churchill did in his World War II histories. The picture Feith paints is at considerable variance from the narratives with which we've become familiar.

One such narrative is "Bush lied, people died." The claim is that "neocons," including Feith, politicized intelligence to show that Saddam Hussein's regime had weapons of mass destruction. Not so, as the Senate Intelligence Committee and the Silberman-Robb Commission have already concluded. Every intelligence agency believed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, and the post-invasion Duelfer report concluded that he maintained the capability to produce them on short notice. There was abundant evidence of contacts between Saddam's regime and al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. Given Saddam's hostility to the United States and his stonewalling of the United Nations, American leaders had every reason to believe he posed a grave threat. Removing him removed that threat.

Unfortunately -- and here Feith is critical of his ultimate boss, George W. Bush -- the administration allowed its critics to frame the issue around the fact that stockpiles of weapons weren't found. Here we see at work the liberal fallacy, apparent in debates on gun control, that weapons are the problem, rather than the people with the capability and will to use them to kill others. The fact that millions of law-abiding Americans have guns is not a problem; the problem is that criminals can get them and have the will to kill others. Similarly, the fact that France has WMDs is not a problem; the fact that Saddam Hussein had the capability to produce WMDs and the will to use them against us was.

Feith identifies as our central mistake the decision not to create an Iraqi Interim Authority to take over some sovereign functions soon after the overthrow of Saddam. Bush ordered the creation of such an authority on March 10, 2003. But it was resisted by State Department and CIA leaders who argued that Iraqis would not trust "externals" -- those in exile -- and who were especially determined to keep the Iraqi National Congress's Ahmed Chalabi from power. As head of the Coalition Provisional Authority, Paul Bremer took the State-CIA view and, without much supervision from Washington, decided that the U.S. occupation would continue for as long as two years. Only deft negotiation by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld produced a June 30, 2004, deadline for returning authority to Iraqis. The January 2005 elections placed many of the "externals," including Chalabi, in high office.

Feith admits he made mistakes and misjudgments. He criticizes Bush for not defending the main rationale for invasion -- protecting Americans from a genuine threat -- and instead emphasizing the subsidiary and iffy goal of establishing democracy. He says little about military operations, beyond noting that Bremer and the military leaders had no common approach to combating disorder.

There's still much to be learned about our decisions, good and bad, in Iraq. But Feith's book is a step forward, as were those of Sherwood and Churchill 60 years ago.

[rru2s]

So US News & World Report is now under contract to rewrite history?

I don''t have to look up the owners of this publication to know where they stand on politics and war...this article makes it all to clear that they would like to help rewrite the history books ala "The World According to Bush the Great"

[fnewton1]

They wrote:
"Every intelligence agency believed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, and the post-invasion Duelfer report concluded that he maintained the capability to produce them on short notice. There was abundant evidence of contacts between Saddam''s regime and al Qaeda and other terrorist groups."

All of this is nothing but a complete set of garbage. The whole argument is doomed to failure. It is one of 2 things: They either lied about the reasons to invade Iraq
OR
All these intelligence agencies are incompetent, and they should be out of work.

Here is a question, would they go to war with China, for example, based on a similar set of criteria? I do think any judicious person would believe that.

[kansas1946]

Mr. Barone, you are so full of it that your article hardly deserves a rebuttal. History will silence you Bush apologists and make you look like fools.

[geneonlbk]

why do you keep on printing blithering propaganda trying to whitewash the lies of a mass murderer named Bush/Chaney/OIL. There was so much evidence that Iraq had neither WMDs nor the infrastructure to make them.

Feith is just another apologist for the darkest time in American history.

History will show that Bush was a stupid fool without morals and full of himself. He and Chaney have brought this county to the brink of financial collapse in just six years. That is horribly amazing.

[dmgenet]

Not EVERY intelligence agency. Most of our allies did not believe Saddam had WMD. The rewriting of history is always ongoing. If I remember correctly people in the ''intelligence community" were founded to produce specific results and if they didn''t they were allowed to resign. Same with the Generals in Iraq. Neocons don''t want relaity checks. It interferes with there blinders.

Now we have Neocons writing that the ideas about Iraq were sound but the execution (esp after the invasion) was flawed. NeoCons...(radicals in Republican clothing) people wo don''t believe in compromise. Old style love ''em or leave ''em people. Tired of the America being kicked around. Such people have a serious inferiourity complex. America has done as much kicking around as we have been kicked. America foregin policy is no innocent.

The Neocons just took it to an all new level when dealing with the terrorists. They thought this was WWII all over again. Idiots and morons all of them.

[norcalruss]

Feith admits he made mistakes and misjudgments. He criticizes Bush for not defending the main rationale for invasion -- protecting Americans from a genuine threat -- and.....

What genuine threat? There were no WMD, no connection to Al Qaeda, none of any of the lies they wanted us to believe. Comparing Feith to Churchill and Sherwood and Churchill is ludicrous. Feith was a willing participant in one of the biggest foreign policy blunders in the nations history.

[roger_inkart]

''Feith admits he made mistakes and misjudgments.''

Not his own, of course - those around him. As is typical of a neocon, everything that goes wrong must be pinned onto others.

This is nothing more than apologist garbage from pro-war conservative Michael Barone - a frequent Fox commentator.

[roger_inkart]

''But Feith''s book is a step forward, as were those of Sherwood and Churchill 60 years ago.''

How dare you breath the little weasel Feith''s name in tandem with these two men.

This article is revionist nonsense trying to justify the worst military decision in the history of the nation. Barone is trying to purge his sins along with Feiths. I hope you both burn in h.ell.

[terrythr]

"What genuine threat? There were no WMD, no connection to Al Qaeda, none of any of the lies they wanted us to believe. Comparing Feith to Churchill and Sherwood and Churchill is ludicrous. Feith was a willing participant in one of the biggest foreign policy blunders in the nations history."

One word ... Gallipoli!

[terrythr]

roger_inkart, rru2s, fnewton1, kansas1946, have any of you actually read the book. I would really like to know what you base your opinions on. It sounds to me like there is a lot of emotion and not much thought involved.

[roger_inkart]

roger_inkart, rru2s, fnewton1, kansas1946, have any of you actually read the book

Posted by terrythr at 06:42 PM : May 14, 2008

No, but I do know a good deal about our friend Mr. Feith. Do you? Do you know much about the PNAC? I do. Do you know much about the Necons? Again, I do.

Tell you what Terry: you read up on the Project for the New American Century, the Neocons and Mr. Feith and I''ll consider reading the book. Do we have a deal?

Google ''PNAC'' - should take you right there.

[roger_inkart]

Yes, in typical conservative fashion Barone portrays the critics of the war (the ones who were right all along) as naive, slow-witted and too literal. We''re fools for believing the very specific claims of Rumsfeld, Powell and Cheney.

Apparently, we should have just trusted the Bush administration, and forgiven them when the claims of WMDs proved to be false. When we were threatened with mushroom clouds, we should have seen this as merely a metaphor. When Rumsfeld said we know where the WMDs are "in and around Tikrit" - we should have understood that as we know where weapons might be one day.

Well, Mr. Barone and Feith should realize people don''t like being lied to. No amount of spin, rationalization or blatant rewriting of history will change this fact.

[quatermass2]

You blithering dolt, you DO realize that Tommy Franks referred to Feith as "the stupidest f***ing guy on the face of the earth", aren''t you? You expect us to read Feith, of all people, and take HIS word for how things went? What about citing people with less OBVIOUS ties to the crimes, shall we? Feith was IN CHARGE of the cherry-picking "Office of Special Intelligence" - of COURSE he would deny he was politicizing data, but that''s the very reason his little office was created, because they couldn''t get any LEGITIMATE intelligence agency to carry their water for them. My GOD, man, you are the worst sort of shill. Hack. Poseur. Begone, knave!

[andor3]

there were no WMD. many people knew it and were saying so very confidently before the invasion, weapons inspectors, intelligence sources. they also knew that evidence was being fabricated or invented based on twisting facts--that is well documented too. Many other people who looked at the experts data and opinions and evidence concluded, well before the invasion, that there were no WMDs and no threat to the US.

So GWB and the US intelligence agencies either DID know or SHOULD have known. Or at least had enough doubt to not invade.

Of course, this is a smokescreen: the invasion was never really about WMD, terrorism or security--it was about greed.

[roger_inkart]

Some of us saw the Man Behind the Curtain.

Some of us sniffed out this hoax before the first shot was fired. Some of us learned about the Neocons, and what they wanted, and what they would do to get it. Some of lifted up the veneer, and saw little scuttling roaches working under the guide of national security, but really what they were doing was cherry-picking intel to support a pre-determined conclusion that would lead the nation to war.

Yes, some of us saw this. And little maggots like Feith and Barone can hardly stomach the thought of it.

[ausus-2009]

Let''s say Bush decided to leave Iraq alone. Here is an alternative scenario. By 2004 Saddam would have succeeded in getting the UN sanctions lifted so by 2006 he would have organized a third invasion of Kuwait and be well on the path to developing nuclear weapons, having retrieved his equipment from Syria. It is as plausible as concepts presented by the conspiracy theorists above.

[terrythr]

%u201CYou expect us to read Feith, of all people, and take HIS word for how things went?%u201D

Gentlemen, statements like this indicate that you have no interest in investigating what the man has to say and evaluate it in light of other sources. It appears that you intend to dismiss him out of hand. Much the same way you accuse Feith of dismissing intelligence that did not fit his scheme for the war. Wouldn%u2019t you say that is short sighted, narrow minded, and prejudice of you?

I have no love of the Neocon. They have gotten us into a war we did not need, they have greatly enlarged the already blotted carcass we call a government, and failed to secure our borders. Having gotten us into a war for ideological reasons they then mismanaged that war because they were basing their decisions on the same misguided ideology.

But back to the issue of Feith, even is he is wrong, reading his book in search of insights into the minds of those that made the decisions that brought us to this point, rightly or wrongly, is the mark of a historian and a true thinker. To dismiss him out of hand is the mark of an ideological bigot that has no interest in the search for truth. It is the mark of someone who has already made up his mind. We will never know the whole truth, but to through evidence out simply because we do not like the source is egotism and self deception.

[imnho]

Feith basically falsefied the data to support what the whitehouse wanted. This article is revisionist history. There was no WMD ad Feith knew it. He just cherrpyicked the data until he got the answer that he wanted. The investigation of the intellegence coumminty was incomplete. They were never allowed to interview mid-level or high level intellegence officals. Given the requirements of need to know this makea the report useless.

As some point the neocons will face a very angry electorate. Presently they are finding that it is easier to ride the tiger then get off. This tiger is real hungry

[greatdrivew]

Douglas Feith is a sleazy, lying, neo-con parasite.

His attempt to rewrite history will not work!!!

You''ll see, other than his fellow neo-con slime, no one will read his book.

In fact, I won''t be a bit surprised when I see stacks of them on the shelves of my local 99 Cents store.

Thanks for nothing, Doug, you lying sack of sleaze.

[gkc99]

What a crock. Maybe Feith scratches Barones hemorrhoids for him. Maybe Barone reciprocates.

It must be some unnatural sexual urge for Barone. There''s no other reason for such a complete pile of cow dung.

And Feith''s book will be good only for a$$-wiping in the outhouse.

[observantx]

Feith is a slimy litle toad trying to hop his way across the history highway without being squashed into jelly by the traffic.

I listened to him on NPR a while back and it was all I could do to keep from tasting bile while listening to him weasel his way through the questions. He never answered a single question directly. He just kept piling on the lawyerly lingo to keep from admitting what a sack of feces he is and how he and the rest of the Bush cabal have sacrificed our sons and daughters for their oil scheme.

What a truly vile and disgusting little toad.

[bluestardad]

START WAR CRIMES TRIALS!

AMERICA STAND UP OR SHUT UP!

[irliberal]

Wow, the writer of this article really gave us a pathetic analysis. Everyone knows now that we were deceived into Iraq, and the administration and the republican party will pay for that deception in November.

Go Obama! Go Hillary! Woohoo!!!

[jerr11]

935 Lies.

4072 Dead Americans because of those lies.

''nuff said!

[ioweign]

Let''s say Bush decided to leave Iraq alone. Here is an alternative scenario. By 2004 Saddam would have succeeded in getting the UN sanctions lifted so by 2006 he would have organized a third invasion of Kuwait and be well on the path to developing nuclear weapons, having retrieved his equipment from Syria. It is as plausible as concepts presented by the conspiracy theorists above.

Posted by ausus at 08:08 PM : May 14, 2008

And here is another alternate scenario. In 2004, Saddam wants to diversify and have multiple incomes beside just oil. Disney Inc. wants to expand globally. Saddam and Disney get together and create Disney on The Tigris with the Magic Carpet Ride...

10 days after taking office Bush wanted excuses to invade Iraq, 8 months before 911. Feith was nothing more than a propagandist and continues to spin. Why out Plame because her husband exposes a lie? Why the Downing Street memo ?

935 false statements and counting...

[ausus-2009]

IOWEIGN, I am basing my scenario on Saddam''s statements and actions. He told the world he didn''t have nuclear weapons (wink,wink) and even his generals believed he did. He ran a campaign that his people were starving and had no medicine while of course he was living in luxury in multiple palaces (in an attempt to get the UN sanctions lifted). Iraq invaded Kuwait twice previously. How do you think Saddam would have behaved if he got the UN sanctions lifted?

[catlady1412]

This Feith guy is just trying to set up the defenses for the potential criminal charges that could come up against some of the players in the Bush administration. He was on The Daily Show a couple of days ago and Jon Stewart did a nice job of pushing back at him, asking tough questions which he flailed around at instead of really answering. I would not consider this book a solid reference source for history except as a piece of propaganda.

[bdave2008]

Does anybody remember when our Great Leader Goerge Bush Jr. Stood up on Global TV and Stated: That, "GOD" told him to ATTACK IRAQ! Then Later the Excuse Was,"HE TRIED to KILL MY DADDY!!" And America''s Son and Daughters paid that Price! AS he Emptied our FEDERAL Coffers,OUR MONEY NOT HIS! And All of America saw G.W. Bush Unify All of the Terriorists! AMEN!!!!

[bdave2008]

Does anybody remember when our Great Leader Goerge Bush Jr. Stood up on Global TV and Stated: That, "GOD" told him to ATTACK IRAQ! Then Later the Excuse Was,"HE TRIED to KILL MY DADDY!!" And America''s Son and Daughters paid that Price! AS he Emptied our FEDERAL Coffers,OUR MONEY NOT HIS! And All of America saw G.W. Bush Unify All of the Terriorists! AMEN!!!! And GOD HELP US!!!!

[tmittelstaed]

"...But back to the issue of Feith, even is he is wrong, reading his book in search of insights into the minds of those that made the decisions that brought us to this point, rightly or wrongly, is the mark of a historian and a true thinker..."

That is true. But what your missing is that the only insight that reading this book would give a historian is that at the current time, Feith is still attempting to manipulate public opinion.

A book like this simply cannot be objectively analyzed until many years after it''s been published, when history reveals many of the reasons the author wrote it. For all we know Feith is running out of money and sat down and banged out this book in a couple months, aiming it at the neocons because that would be the most sure market for getting a lot of sales quick. Your not going to know any of this for at least another 10-20 years, until then this book is simply another layer of the gauze that the White House is shrouding all of it''s reasons in.

[bluestardad]

WAIT TILL WAR CRIMES TRIALS ON THESE REPIGS!

THERE IS NO DIFFERENT BETWEEN THE TRUMPHED UP REASON THE REPUBLICANS AND THEIR NEOCONS SENT AMERICA TO WAR IN IRAQ IN 2003 THAN THE NAZI ATTACK ON POLAND IN 1939!

BOTH ARE BUILT ON LIES AND DECEPTION AND THE NAZIS HAD THEIR DAY IN COURT FOR WWII SO WILL BUSH CHENEY AND THE NEOCONS FOR IRAQ!

AMERICA STAND UP OR SHUT UP!

[neoconrcrazy]

This apologist, Barone, seems to think that it''s acceptable to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of lives on the basis of Saddams'' "threat" to the US.

What threat? A nuclear attack?

Or, he says, Saddam''s "stonewalling" of the UN.

Is this a reason to order the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people?

It is without doubt, this kind of moralless thinking that has brought this great country''s principles into the gutter.

[brianbwb-2009]

"Unfortunately -- and here Feith is critical of his ultimate boss, George W. Bush -- the administration allowed its critics to frame the issue around the fact that stockpiles of weapons weren''t found."

This author must have been a comic writer. Of course the issue is that there were no weapons, you tool, and Barone also forgets that even the pentagon told Bush three days before the infamous address that his evidence was BS.

Barone also forgets that the British intel report, spewed to lend "credibility" to the Bush BS, was pirated from a 10 year old thesis by an Indian student from Berkeley University, in the US. He seems to think that those presenting the report somehow didn''t know they had pirated it.

Then he says "There was abundant evidence of contacts between Saddam''s regime and al Qaeda and other terrorist groups." Which, of course contradicts the pentagon, whose job it is to know more than Barone does, and he writes this without reference to said "evidence", or to the fact that Al Qaeda was created, funded, trained, and maintained by the CIA to be the US proxy in the Russia Afghanistan war.

Barone is either a sucker who is unwilling to admit to having been suckered, or a pro war fascist, who is profiting in some way by being a total tool.

[brianbwb-2009]

"...the fact that Saddam Hussein had the capability to produce WMDs and the will to use them against us was."

Yo tool, it is not a "fact", that has been long ago been proven to be nothing more than lies, if he had the capability, why have the "existing" logistics been shown to the public to vindicate the liar in chief?

"...Every intelligence agency believed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction,"

Again, more lies, Barone doesn''t say who these agencies were, and we know now that even the CIA themselves didn''t believe this, and since the Brits used pirated a thesis from the US, it is obvious they also had no real evidence with which to support such lies.

Hans Blix told the world that Saddam had no weapons, having spent 2 years searching for them, but Bush was intentionally ignorant of that, choosing to order the inspectors out. I suppose Barone would also lie about this, and say that Saddam ordered them out.

[bmadeline-2009]

And we''re going to believe Feith? One of the evil doers? I don''t think so. This bunch has no problem telling lies and covering their own behinds.
The whole bunch should be imprisoned in GitMo and waterboarded to get the whole truth out. Let''s see how they like torture when it''s done to them.
I''d like to be a fly on that wall. What scum!

[sharncedar]

Feith was a member of a Zionist youth organization. Read his biography- it is utterly shocking that this creep, this piece of America-hating trash, this spy for Israel, was ever allowed to have power within the Defense Department. Ir is a shock, an outrage, a matter that needs to be followed by someone losing their head.

Now this freak of a foreign plant traitor has been allowed to publish a book in america to justify his attack on our country from within. We have freeedom of the press in America to a point, but there are limits to everything. A known traitor who has allegience to a foreign country above the US has no right to publish from within the US. This situation si grave indeed when an admitted Zionist is allowed to work within the government to bring us down from within.

People, if we don''t defend our government from known traitors who are members of foreign nations, we are lost. The Iraq war is a wakeup call. We spent trillions, and 4000 lives, and Feith got his Zionist aims met over our bloody dead soldiers. This must be prosecuted, we must begin to protect our country from foreign agents planted in our government.

As brianbwb points out - the ''intel'' that made ''every security agency believe'' Saddam had WMD, was indeed BS and ripped off a 10 year old thesis. The thesis didn''t even directly relate to contemporary Iraq in 2002/3 - they used a find/replace to change names where necessary, so if you read it all the way through it made no sense!

The other point about the thesis rip-off that this article neatly sidesteps is that it wasn''t British Intel who presented it as evidence anyway, but politicos. It came straight from Alistair Campbell''s PR obsessed press office (from a civil servant) and was most likely OK''d by Campbell himself prior to Blair stating it as fact. Blair might not have known any better at the time he gave the original speech - he was handed a document and told to present it as truth - but he WOULD have known instantly from the backlash as millions of people shouted him down with the REAL evidence that rubbished his ''claims''... the rest''s history - just not the history these revisionist journos are attempting to paint. We know, we were there, we remember - how can we ever forget these grand crimes?

I''ll tell you WHY they had to use the WMD claim (please note: the anti-war movement did NOT frame the discussion, they merely responded to the already-framed discussion) and why the discussion HAD to be framed in the way it was. Because if the discussion were allowed to stray to matters of international law the Iraq war could NOT HAVE HAPPENED!!! Invading a sovereign nation is illegal unless in self defence. ''Regime Change'' is an illegitimate reason for invasion and a crime (see Nurenburg), although that''s the REAL reason we went - to throw out Saddam, install ''yes men'', sign lucrative oil deals and establish a military presence around the oil supply... fact! We''ve done it before many times - and we''re rich because of it.


Perhaps the revisionism so prevalent in the media is an attempt to cover up their culpability in grand crimes. They''re trying to wash their hands of the fact that THEY framed the discussion, therefore THEY stifled the truth and laid the groundwork for the crimes to be committed.

[ioweign]

IOWEIGN, I am basing my scenario on Saddam''''s statements and actions. He told the world he didn''t have nuclear weapons (wink,wink) and even his generals believed he did. He ran a campaign that his people were starving and had no medicine while of course he was living in luxury in multiple palaces (in an attempt to get the UN sanctions lifted). Iraq invaded Kuwait twice previously. How do you think Saddam would have behaved if he got the UN sanctions lifted?

Posted by ausus at 12:16 AM : May 15, 2008

He told the world he didn''t have nuclear weapons (wink,wink) and even his generals believed he did.

And he was telling the truth about the WMDs. What his generals may or may not believe is not the question ?
How many generals has Bush gone through because they don''t share the same optometrist?

It is like Petraeus on 9/11/2007 telling Congress the surge (escalation of troops) is working but the fact is the surge and being in Iraq is not making the US any more secure.

Bush has failed to address the main reason for 911.

Would FDR remain as president if he had gone after and invaded Brazil instead Japan because Brazil wronged his daddy?

The best thing to do with warmongers and their apologist lackies is to dump them all on an island together, somewhere a long long way from civilised society.

Let them have their wars, their little games of death and politics. They can do whatever they want to each other on their little island, but they can never again influence the rest of the world or have any power of the majority of humanity.

Then we can all sit back, get on with each other, cooperate to sort out the poverty/health/water supply/education problems and watch as our species makes advancement after advancement with the massive amount of manpower suddenly available to work on ANY PROBLEM OUR SPECIES FACES... the warmongers are unevolved humans who need to die out (or be weeded out) for the betterment of the majority.

[thewatcher6]

When we close our minds to reallity, we only see what we believe.
There are those who still think the "actual" price of oil changes on a day to day bases.

To find fault is easy, all we have to do is close our eyes and visualize.

[thewatcher6]

"The best thing to do with warmongers and their apologist lackies is to dump them all on an island together, somewhere a long long way from civilised society.

Posted by M-RES at 08:34 AM : May 15, 2008
""

To achieve this one hell of a war would have to be fought. I am sure the warmongers would probley win because the masses have soft bellies and no taste for war. There will be wars and rumors of war. When a country is attacked, somebody has to die.

[tonyd_31]

Please, give me a break. The neocons wanted a war for all of the wrong reasons: oil, war profiteering, etc.,. I really believe that they think the American people are not so intelligent (although reading some of the neocon postings - one would have to agree to a certain extent). What would one expect from Donald Fieth? He and the rest of the cronies thought they could conduct war on the cheap and the roar against war would eventually go away as long as we won and won fast. Bad judgement on their part. Had any of the ''paper tigers'' ever served they wouldn''t have rushed into an unprovoked war. This is when W got congress to give him the authority for war saying he would exhaust all diplomacy first, and the next thing you know he is on TV telling Saddam that he and his sons had 48 hours to leave. Nothing wrong with that but he misled congress. No good comes from the "fruit of the poisionous tree" and that is why nothing has went right for the Administration with regard to this war. Feith and the rest of the paper tigers, please just crawl under a rock and stay there!

[tonyd_31]

"The best thing to do with warmongers and their apologist lackies is to dump them all on an island together, somewhere a long long way from civilised society.

Posted by M-RES at 08:34 AM : May 15, 2008

I like this idea!!

"To achieve this one hell of a war would have to be fought. I am sure the warmongers would probley win"

Not necessarily. All we need to do is build dig a moat around them and leave them stranded. Leave them where they are and WE all go somewhere else ;)

Plus, peace loving people outnumber warmongers by ratios of hundreds of thousands to one. That''s a vastly overwhelming majority. Plus factor in that MOST warmongers have no taste for war if THEY have to fight it - most are armchair generals who hide behind those that actually do the dying. Given that the numbers of those who want peace are vast, and that we have a CAUSE that we''d possibly have to fight FOR, then we could never lose. The warmongers only like war for the sake of it and that''s why they usually lose those wars, they''re fighting against ideology. People die, but ideas live on...

Plus the fact that most warmongers are NOT in the military would be on the side of those who wanted an end to wars. You''ll also find that most people in the military are of the belief that war is THE LAST OPTION and should be avoided at all costs - the simple reason for this belief being that they are the ones who stand to lose their life, so they have a vested interest in maintaining peace.

[roger_inkart]

''The picture Feith paints is at considerable variance from the narratives with which we''ve become familiar.''

That''s because he knows history will remember him as the little weasel who helped lie the nation into war. It''s little wonder he would try and lie his way out as well.

Barone, if by some bizarre miracle these posts reach you, are an weak apologists and you - like Feith - only fool those eager to be deceived. You''re both little cowardly maggots IMO.

[notblue]

If one bothered to actually read the article it clearly states EVERYONE on both sides of the isle thought Sadam was a THREAT end of story. THe vial politics and hatred from the left is misguided and solely driven by politics not facts.

[brianbwb-2009]

"If one bothered to actually read the article it clearly states EVERYONE on both sides of the isle thought Sadam was a THREAT end of story. THe vial politics and hatred from the left is misguided and solely driven by politics not facts." Posted by notblue

Oh the article states it, so it must be true? What about the parts that are clearly not true? are they true also, because the article said so?

[talkingham]

Yet another press apologist article granting full pardon to the Bush lies, cherry picked intelligence. No mention of Colin Powell''s fake mobil lab photos shown to the UN and the world. No mention of the Bush team''s character assasination of anyone who opposed their lies, the generals fired or forced to retire because they advised Bush that the occupation of Iraq would be a disaster. NO mention of the outing of a CIA whose husband went public on the Bush lies in his State of the Bush Nation of lies.

To say that EVERYONE on both sides of the isle believed these lies is yet another lie. The lies presented by the intelligence community to the senate and house have been waived off as bad intelligence gathering. Bad because they knew in many cases that the so-called intel came from known liars who made hundreds of thousands of dollars on their lies.

Lie-on. It works. Bush is obviosly a well trained graduate of the School for Scoundrels.

They knew Saddam was crippled and posed no real threat to us after the first Gulf War - he had his hands full dealing with the same Islamic extremists that have killed more than 4,000 of our best equipped troops and permanently maimed another 25,000.

Lie, lie, lie and then lie some more.