Clearly, the administration, from the president on down, did not want expert advice and intelligence that would have undermined its excuse for invading Iraq. This was a shell game from beginning to end in which Americans' legitimate fear of terrorism after Sept. 11 was almost immediately and cynically exploited by the neoconservative gang that runs U.S. foreign policy.
~
The Brits don't like being fooled. That's not the case in the United States, where for too many pundits and politicians, accepting official mendacity has become a mark of political sophistication.
More American soldiers have died since Bush declared the war over than during the war itself. This misadventure is costing nearly $4 billion a month just for the troops, and billions more for reconstruction by U.S. companies like Dick Cheney's old firm Halliburton. But too many Americans betray the proud tradition of an independent citizenry by buying into the "aw shucks" irresponsibility of a president who daily does a grave injustice to the awesome obligations of the office that he has sworn — in the name of God, no less — to uphold.
posted on September 3, 2003 07:24:27 AM new
"WILL AMERICANS ACCEPT SUCH IMMENSE FRAUD"
Absolutely not! We all realize that the war was necessary to remove Saddam and his monstrous regime. All the lies and fraud spread by the anti-Bush folk are just unbelievable!
-------------------
Replay Media
Games of all kinds!
posted on September 3, 2003 07:36:09 AM new
I was hoping for an answer by someone with understanding of current events. Obvioulsy, your slate is blank in this regard.
posted on September 3, 2003 07:45:41 AM new
Many misguided Americans believed shortly after the war that WMD were found and even believed that these weapons had been used. Such ignorance should be considered when answering the question. So, your answer is helpful after all.
posted on September 3, 2003 07:48:17 AM newAll the lies and fraud spread by the anti-Bush folk are just unbelievable!
No....it's expected. They really don't have a strong candidate to endorse so they amuse themselves with Bush bashing. Their candidates either flip flop around [supported and voted to give Bush war powers now say they are against the war] or don't support any war [will be a long time before an anti-war president gets elected] or are too radical [too far left leaning] to be elected.
TRY to have some compassion for them.....they're feeling so helpless. After all, FEW believe this garbage and it does push more of the undecided's to the right when they know the truth vs what they constantly spew.
posted on September 3, 2003 08:08:25 AM new
You are getting desperate, Linda. You have gone off topic in order to avoid the question. We are not discussing presidential candidates. The topic is a president who is shamelessly dishonest and why there is some American acceptance of that fact. I take it that you believe his every word? If so, I'll put you in the dittohead category along with Twelvepole.
posted on September 3, 2003 08:28:08 AM new twelvepole.
-----------
September 2, 2003 Best of the Web Today - WSJ By JAMES TARANTO
I just love this guy. Always takes whatever the anti-war, anti-Bush people are repeating again, and again and again and shows their clear hyprocrisy.
What Price Popularity?
We've just returned from Europe, our first visit to the Continent in three years.
Europe, in short, hasn't changed much since Sept. 11, 2001, which is not what you'd expect if you'd been listening to certain Americans--specifically, opponents of the Bush administration. To hear them tell it, Europe is full of hostility toward America, resentful over the liberation of Iraq and various other American policies. Having actually visited the place, we didn't see it.
The notion that the Bush administration is wrong because "the rest of the world" objects to its policies may just be a symptom of intellectual immaturity. "Everyone thinks you're wrong" is the sort of argument you expect to hear from elementary-school classmates, not adult policy makers. But there are people who take very seriously the idea that national-security policy is some sort of popularity contest[/b].
One of them, indeed, preceded Colin Powell as secretary of state. In an article for Foreign Affairs, Madeleine Albright opines that while liberating Iraq was justified, it was a bad idea anyway because it "frightens and divides the world." She asserts that liberating Iraq has actually harmed the war against al Qaeda: Instead of simply asking others to oppose al Qaeda, [the president] now asks them to oppose al Qaeda, support the invasion of an Arab country, and endorse the doctrine of preemption--all as part of a single package. Faced with this choice, many who staunchly oppose al Qaeda have nevertheless decided that they do not want to be "with" the United States.
She cites no actual evidence that disagreements over Iraq have undermined cooperation over al Qaeda. It's worth noting, though, that when Albright was in a position to do something about al Qaeda, she demurred--for precisely the same reason that she now thinks freeing Iraq from Saddam Hussein's rule was a mistake.
[i]The concluding chapter of Richard Miniter's new book, "Losing bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror" recounts a meeting of President Clinton's national-security team in the wake of the October 2000 bombing of the USS Cole. Robert Novak has a useful summary of the meeting, at which Richard Clarke, Clinton's "terrorism czar," advocated a strike against bin Laden but everyone else present opposed it.
Albright says she was against such a strike because there was not yet "definitive" proof that al Qaeda was behind the bombings. "To strike without evidence or any expectation of hitting bin Laden would have turned world opinion against the United States at the very moment we were seeking maximum cooperation in tracking down the terrorist network responsible for the murders," she wrote in an e-mail to Miniter. It is possible that the Sept. 11 attacks would have been averted had Albright and her colleagues been more concerned about American security and less about "world opinion."
posted on September 3, 2003 08:41:31 AM new
you are right on Helen,
These fascist suppoters have yet to see their TAXES RISE,which will happen very soon, not to mention more CUTBACKS within government services which has already started,which means POOR GOVERNMENT SERVICE FOR THE PUBLIC, and oh yea, the spending of the consumer has dwindled also, and yep GAS PRICES went up, and will go up, your Electrical, Heating, and Phone Bills will go up, and the excuses will be blamed on the war, in other words CHAOS is coming, soon to a neigbourhood near you
AND GUESS WHO GETS RICH THROUGH ALL THIS....BUSH AND BUDDIES, which makes one wonder why anyone would support these idiots, because they sure don't give a damn about the common person, especially those on this board who support these fanatics............
posted on September 3, 2003 08:58:37 AM new
Good post, skylite!
Back to the question...Why Americans accept such immense fraud???
So far, we've established ignorance as one reason.
I've wondered if some people may be thinking along the lines of the Bush administration...Tell them anything wink, wink...lie...whatever....so that we can carry out our mission. Nevermind the lives of our troops or the lives of innocent Iraqis. Sacrifice lives and credibility for anything that will expand our empirial ambitions
American soldiers standing guard over the White House's imperial ambitions — a new Middle East as linchpin to a new world order — are now being shot like fish in a barrel.
Robert Scheer
posted on September 3, 2003 09:28:05 AM new
LOL @ Helen and you response to me 'being off topic' and yet no scolding of skylite for doing the same. OF COURSE NOT!!! HE AGREES WITH YOU SIDE OF THE ISSUES....so that makes it okay then. What a hyprocrite you are Helen.
And I was on topic. Your article and your opinion take the position: Clearly, the administration, from the president on down, did not want expert advice and intelligence that would have undermined its excuse for invading Iraq. And I have shown you many times Clinton own words agreeing a regime change was needed. Something you appear unable to read and comprehend.
And I found it laughable that Madeleine Albright opines that while liberating Iraq was justified, something you obviously don't agree with, she makes a decision against letting the terrorist know they don't bomb American interests and get away with it, she bases her 'call' on what others are going to think.
Do what you know is right....doesn't matter what others think. It's not their responsibility to defend American. Bush understands that.....clinton understood that...he just didn't have the guts to do what he said needed doing.
posted on September 3, 2003 09:45:22 AM new
Americans have pretty much been able to embrace or ignore every other set of lies by the previous administrations of both parties - so why do you expect a big change from the past?
posted on September 3, 2003 09:51:55 AM new
[i]Why do you expect a change from the past[i]?
If you're addressing me, I don't. Think I've already stated that.
No....it's expected. They really don't have a strong candidate to endorse so they amuse themselves with Bush bashing.
posted on September 3, 2003 10:06:30 AM new
No, Linda...Not a hypocrite..I am considerate.
But I am not considerate of you and your offensive scatterbrained and deliberately off topic posts. Still, you are grasping at straws by talking about Madeline Albright and now you have added yet another diversion, Bill Clinton. When will you begin to focus???
You have offered nothing in answer to the question.
How distressing that it turns out to be Bush, leader of the world's greatest democracy, who is the true master of denial and deception, rather than Hussein, who proved to be a paper tiger. Bush is such a master at deceiving the American public that even now he is not threatened with the prospect of impeachment or any serious congressional investigation into the possibility that he led this nation into war with lies. Robert Scheer
posted on September 3, 2003 10:18:19 AM new
Lies according to who? Robert Scheer? You? Yes I do believe you both tell lies... I guess it makes you feel better about yourself...
posted on September 3, 2003 11:15:24 AM new
Well Helen. You continue your support of Saddam over an American president and American intelligence....it appears you feel more comfortable supporting that position.
You quote: How distressing that it turns out to be Bush, leader of the world's greatest democracy, who is the true master of denial and deception, rather than Hussein, who proved to be a paper tiger.
Bush rather than Hussein....yep, that's support for Saddam alright. Taking his side against an American president.
posted on September 3, 2003 11:28:30 AM new
Linda,
You are demonstrating now that you can't tell the difference between a comparative evaluation and a preferance. You may use a comparison as part of an evaluation without showing any preferance to either model...in this case, Saddam or George.
You need a course in critical thinking and reading.
posted on September 3, 2003 11:35:27 AM new
I did take a course in critical thinking
But your piece you, errr, um copied ..... well that you have up there is an OP ED piece, which is a writers opinion... it can be as idiotic as anyones, even a 'non' writer
So.... thats that guys opinion followed by your opinioin, on which, I have no opinion
Wanna talk about the Armeggedon Cults, the NON political ones?
Or viewing of the polar caps on Mars is interesting
Art Bell Retired! George Noory is on late night coasttocoastam.com
posted on September 3, 2003 11:56:23 AM newpreference for either model
ROFLMHO.....yeah, like you haven't shown a preference. You think you're being objective? LOL
You have continually bashed Bush using the theory he lied to us. I'm saying that to believe Bush lied is to believe presidents before him and all our intelligence were also lying during the last 12-13 years.
posted on September 3, 2003 12:02:45 PM new
Personally, I like most of what Bush has done.... and yes, I voted for him
In 'real life', 'offline world' I don't even hear the stuff that is on this here Round Table... the constant Bush bashing. And the op ed pieces copied then pasted here.
We talk politics all the time with our friends, yes, we have lots of offline freinds, and never have we expierenced what is 'said' on here.
Some think this or that about one or two things Bush has (or hasn't ) done, but not an absolute HATRED like I see here. We actually have freindly, civilized conversations on politics.
I guess its different when you are behind a monitor and anonymous? I don't know.
12pole... I won't even ask what a C.O.B. is.... I can only guess
Art Bell Retired! George Noory is on late night coasttocoastam.com
posted on September 3, 2003 12:13:00 PM new
Then how can someone, that finds fault with the current President, voice their opinion without sounding like they're "Bush bashing"? He's done some scarey things that make people nervous. Why don't Republicans want to talk about the issues (that Bush created) that are scaring people?
posted on September 3, 2003 12:31:00 PM new
If I understand your question correctly Kraft, its not just Helen
I'm mostly referring to the twins; Bigcitycollectibles and Skylite (maybe others) whom, when anyone 'defends' (is that the right word? ) Bush or the GOP .... they are called
NAZI
FASCISTS
FASCIST SCUM
and others, including, but not limited to Neocon....
in the wording of Neocon I actually brought that up with Mikes mother who we visted with this holiday weekend, who is quite up on politics, and a few others who were here, they had never heard the 'expression' before.
Art Bell Retired! George Noory is on late night coasttocoastam.com
for them.....they're feeling so helpless. 
After all, FEW believe this garbage and it does push more of the undecided's to the right when they know the truth vs what they constantly spew. 