On Wednesday March 16 at 7pm, Town Hall in Seattle will host a panel discussion of veterans reflecting on the Iraq War: www.vetsforum.org. On the panel will be Terry Thomas, a former Marine major, veteran of Afganistan and Iraqi Freedom, and GOP central committeeman. I've met Terry: he's a wonderful speaker and man of energy dedicated to improving the Seattle political scene. He writes:
I will be one of three Iraq veterans debating in a panel - one is very publicly anti-war - and this event is going to bring out both anti-war and pro-troops audiences. We really need some pro-troops people to attend this event in downtown Seattle so that it won't be just anti-war protest attendees. I will be one of those speaking in SUPPORT FOR OUR TROOPS!!! I need people in the audience that stand beside those serving in Iraq. The Seattle PI is running this event as the lead Op-Ed this Sunday and the local media will be in attendance to cover the event and gauge the audience.
Thanks for the heads-up.
Posted by: Unkl Witz on March 11, 2005 02:15 PMAt least witz is honest in his sedition.
Posted by: iconoclast on March 11, 2005 03:14 PMThe question I have is why some people are so ardent in their opposition to actions that have liberated women, improved equality for gays and minorities, and put an end to some of the most large-scale environmental destruction the world has ever seen? It would be one thing if the people affected were opposed, but we see clearly now they are NOT opposed - neither in Iraq nor elsewhere in the region. So the question remains, how can some people still cling to their irrational and frankly un-American view that the world would be better if we had done nothing???
Thanks Andy for posting some information that will hopefully get an audience more representative of America than one would normally expect to find in downtown Seattle.
We all had an opportunity to debate the rationale of going to war in Iraq - before we went. I honestly never bought the WMD claims, but I found many other valid reasons for our actions, foremost of which was our blood debt to the Iraqi people for our actions after the first Gulf War in the 1990's.
But once the war had begun, there was and still remains no excuse for the defeatism of the press and the anti-war movement. You cannot, without a lobotomy, attempt to rationalize a concept as stupid as "I support the troops, BUT oppose the war". If you support the troops you must be an idiot if you don't understand that you have to support victory.
By now though it should be obvious, to all but the brain dead, that Bush's policy in Iraq is working. Our troops have achieved every goal they were asked and have done so in the face of a defeatist press and who have reminded us nightly last two years that we were in a quagmire.
War is a nasty, dirty, horrid thing, but sometimes it is required and indeed a noble undertaking.
The war in Afganistan is over and in Iraq it winding down. We have been victorius in both due the nobility of the cause, the brilliance of our leadership, and the hard work and bravery of our troops.
It time for left to think of something new to carp on.
Posted by: DeadWood on March 11, 2005 04:18 PMWhen your opposition translates to actions that hurt the military or soldiers, you are NOT supporting them.
Can you believe that this war is wrong and we shouldn't have gone there, sure, there are probably soldiers there who also believe that.
Soldiers are not little mindless robots, they all have opinions too.
Lastly, this war was totally and completely justified. I totally and completely support it and the soldiers who are there.
sgmmac wrote:
"It is difficult to support the troops, but oppose the war. It can be done, but it does depend on HOW you support and HOW you oppose."
I'm not sure I agree.
When the pro-war rallies were going on in Silverdale, I noticed that the local blood bank, less than a block away, had a shortage. While I opposed the war, I knew that donating blood was one way of supporting the troops.
Oddly enough, I could convince the anti-war demonstrators to go donate blood, but the pro-war demonstrators weren't interested. (I know that many pro-war people have shown their support in that and in other ways, but there were no takers in this bunch.)
I had grave reservations about the justification for this war, but now that we're there, we have a tiger by the tail. Our troops are always in my prayers. They are going where our country has sent them and are risking their lives in doing their duty. There is no doubt that they are heroes. Most of the (anti-war) people I know feel exactly the same way.
This does not mean that I belive this war was the appropriate way of handling Saddam Hussein, nor do I belive that the war is being handled well at the highest levels.
But, every eight weeks, my wife and I still donate blood, and every day, our troops are in our prayers. That is how you oppose a war, but support the troops.
Posted by: John Barelli on March 11, 2005 05:32 PMOne of the things I’ve noticed about liberals is a startling lack of historical knowledge. The knowledge they *do* possess has been “modernized” -- removing uncomfortable or “inconvenient” facts while dressing up and highlighting other “facts” which support their view of how the world *aught* to be rather than how it *is* (or was).
The cost resulting from their seditious stand can be seen in every war I know of. The enemy takes “aid and comfort” from the anti-war movement in the countries they battle. When all is lost on the battlefield the enemy continue to "hold on a little longer" hoping for a win by other means. This usually takes the form of increased terror attacks against civilians and political leaders. Don’t believe me … go find out for yourselves.
The "I support the troops, BUT oppose the war" movements increase the death toll, increase the period of time before peace can be restored, increase costs, cause to be increased ever more radical and suicidal efforts. They strike me as being spoiled children because they are using *their* Freedom (bought by the blood and effort of better men than themselves) to oppose Freedom for other people. By their actions they say “you know, I don’t want anybody to rape my wife and children, but it’s OK if somebody else’s is”. They’re a bunch of hypocritical and spoiled fools willing to do as weak willed people do … “sell out their neighbor so long as they’re left in ‘peace’”.
Yesterday, some deranged woman got on the bus and for no reason walked over to my wife and her co-worker and started verbally and physically assaulting them. Not one person did anything to help. They turned their backs hoping that somebody else would do something or that the problem would just “go away” (like the UN and liberals wish would happen with Iraq/Iran/North Korea/Palestinian/Somalia/Uganda/Ethiopia/Afghanistan/etc.). I know for a *fact* that if this had happened in a “red” state, people would have stood up and done what was right.
Stand up and be a man!
"The whole "I support the troops, BUT oppose the war" stupidity has been used throughout history. It's a pacifist's way of salving their conscience. To me, they seem like spoiled children having a tantrum."
Excuse me, but my active service to our country of well over twenty years entitles me to have an opinion.
If I feel that a war is unjustified, am I supposed to "support" it anyway? If I see well over a thousand US casualties and God only knows how many Iraqis dead, I should hold my tongue?
Many men have served, fought and died for us to have the right to say, "My government is wrong this time." It is a fundamental liberty. To say that I have freedom of speech, but only when I agree with the government is nonsense.
The phrase "My country, right or wrong" is often used, but people forget the next part. "When right, to be kept right, when wrong, to be set right." This cannot be done if nobody is willing to speak up and say, "we're wrong this time."
Just before we invaded, our leaders told us that they had irrefutable evidence that the Iraqi government had weapons of mass destruction. Not just that they suspected it, but that it was an absolute certainty. They lied.
I will still give them the benefit of the doubt that they believed that they existed, but we have found out that the evidence was shaky at best.
We went to war on a lie. Saddam Hussein was evil, and the world is far better off without him, but that was not the reason we were given for going to war. My government looked me in the face and lied to me. Do I sound angry about that? Not half as angry as I am.
Now, we must stay the course. To leave at this point would compound the harm we have done and negate what good can come from this. And there has been some good.
But, my government lied to me, and sent my shipmates and fellow countrymen out to war. Men, women and children have died because of that lie. Don't expect me to be happy about it.
Now, if you haven't done so recently, go give a pint of blood, and send some money to the USO. Certainly you can do as much to support our troops as I have. Or is your support all talk and no action, like those "pro-war" activists in Silverdale?
Posted by: John Barelli on March 11, 2005 06:57 PMI don't really disagree with anything that you said. Your "actions" supports the troops, your opposition above hasn't hurt them. I spent 30 years in the Army and I was fortunate to never be closely exposed to war protestors in this country. I did see it in Germany where their skin heads were targeting US Army troops with bombs placed under our cars in the 80's. They had a anti-American protest in Germany outside of the base that I ended up being stuck in my car in. It was rather scary and it terrified my daughter, she didn't understand why people were outside of the car smashing their fists into the windows and beating on the cars. I saw them in Japan several times a couple of years ago, but it was at a distance. In Saudi during the first gulf war, a male Saudi truck driver gave me the most hate filled stares that I have ever ever seen in my life. But that was because I was a woman and he did not want to deal with a woman, not because I was an American soldier.
War zones are ugly and if you know that you are there for your country and it's morally right and you are supported at home and will be supported at home when you come home, you can usually get through it. Vietnam veterans are still trying to deal with the hatred from the Vietnam protestors. They feel let down and betrayed by their fellow Americans and by their government. Those wounds may take lifetimes to heal.
My Dad and I had several arguments about John Kerry when I was home recently. We both voted for Bush, so that wasn't the issue. He believes that Kerry is kind of a good guy who came home from Vietnam and joined the anti-war protestors to further his career. I think Kerry joined the Navy, went to Vietnam, and did some really bad things that would probably get him courts-martialed in today's military. Then when he returned he couldn't live with his conscience or his actions, and joined the anti-war protestors to rid himself of his guilt. It is easier to blame the govenment and say that all soldiers in Vietnam were killing, raping, burning villages and pillaging. If he believes that everyone was doing it, it makes his bad actions okay. I don't think he is okay with it now either. I watched a video clip of him on the campaign trail talking about killing a man and his voice and body language tell me that he is not at peace with it.
We all have our opinions and they are as individual as all of us are.
Have a great night!
I support the troops and the institution they are a part of. I do not support this war.
The right thinks we should provide unquestioning support to any armed conflict our political leadership engages in. Anything short of that is "sedition".
Yet they constantly harp on the level of taxation required to maintain our military/industrial might. Why is that not sedition as well?
The troops are honorable and do what they are told to do. The political leadership is disingenuous and hypocritical. When they were faced with the choice of national service, they either declined, or found a very comfortable way to fulfill it.
Posted by: Unkl Witz on March 11, 2005 07:37 PMsgmmac, I appreciate your words. Among those of us who have served there are different viewpoints about this war. Some feel it is necessary, others disagree.
I cannot fault someone who, knowing the price and having been in the position where they might have to pay that price personally, feels that it is the right thing. While I may disagree, it will be with the utmost respect.
Many people have memories of coming home from Vietnam. Young men went where their country sent them and did what their country told them to do. They served honorably, and then they came back home and were spit on. That was wrong. I don't have words for how wrong it was.
I enlisted shortly after that.
Our troops are fighting because they volunteered to defend our country. They are where we, the people of the United States, sent them and are doing what we are telling them to do. They understand, as do I, the importance of the military following the orders of the civilian government.
I don't have to agree with those orders to honor the people following them.
First, my own background, although it has been given many times before.
http://www.lonesailor.org/log.php?search=yes&navy_log_id=247310&lname_search=BARELLI&fname_search=JOHN&page=1
In essence, people like sgmmac, who have put their own lives on the line are welcome to call me anything they like. You, sir, may refer to me as "Chief Barelli" or "Mister Barelli". You have not earned the right to call me anything else.
Now to your "argument":
"Maybe Commissar John Barelli has proof that there were actually lies committed? I sure would like to see this proof that you have to justify the claim of lies."
"Lie is a pretty strong word to use with no proof to substantiate your claim."
As to my alegations that "my government lied to me", I simply refer you to the statements made by our government prior to invading Iraq.
"Saddam Hussein possesses chemical and biological weapons." - Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/20/03
"Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons." - Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02
"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." - Secretary of State Colin Powell 9/08/02
"Iraq is busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents, and they continue to pursue an aggressive nuclear weapons program." - Vice President Dick Cheney, 8/29/02
There are many others, but my point is made. None of these statements were true, and they were all made publicly, by senior members of the government in support of the invasion.
Yes, "lied" is a very strong word. I do not use it lightly. It refers to deliberate misinformation given to advance a cause or action.
It is such a strong word that I do not use it in reference to your post. "Ill-informed" seems more appropriate.
Posted by: John Barelli on March 12, 2005 11:27 AM
Second let's quote a few statements made in good faith that were admitted mistakes but certainly not lies and use those as justification and evidence of lies.
"None of these statements were true, and they were all made publicly, by senior members of the government in support of the invasion."
Still waiting for the "proof" commissar John...what you have is evidence of mistakes not lies. And BTW most of those mistakes have been admitted as mistakes by the same people that made them.
Maybe you do not understand the meaning of lie? Or maybe it is the propaganda and rhetoric dancing in your head?
And as for your comment of:
"Ill-informed" seems more appropriate."
The only advice I have for you is that the rhetoric and propaganda dancing in your head seems to cloud your judgement.....you have no proof but claim I am ill informed? ha-ha-ha-ha I can only laugh at you.
Still waiting for some proof Commissar John, not just rhetoric and innuendo. Surely someone of your caliber who makes such strong statements has proof to back these claims that you make? Come on John give us the proof. You are the one throwing around the word liar with such abandon without so far a shred of facts to back your claims up...
Keep up the good work John, we do need more of your types spouting your nonsense to prove to us "common folk" that liberals are what they claim others to be....liars.
Proof John, that is what I asked you for. Cannot you substantiate your claims? Maybe in your circle of friends it is OK to call people liars without proof but where I come from strong words require strong evidence and proof to back those claims up.
Put up or shut up.....it's a real simple principle.
First, my apologies for the personal attack. I usually manage to remove that sort of thing prior to the "post" button.
Still, as to your argument, exactly what, beyond the false statements themselves, are you looking for?
Remember, many of these statements were questioned at the time. They did not say "we have some evidence of..." or "We strongly believe, but have been unable to verify..."
Somehow, "oops, we were wrong" just doesn't cut it.
Are you claiming that the statements quoted were not made? That somehow I created them out of thin air? If you believe that, then any further references I give you would be equally suspect, so I will simply suggest a quick Google search. You'll find the statements very easily.
Now, for the last point. I've given my background, complete with a reference to it. Who are you, that you feel it appropriate to insult me with the name "Commissar Barelli"?
What, exactly, are you doing or have you done to support our country or our troops? Anything more than talk? If not, then I suggest checking our your local Army recruiter. They're having trouble making quota and will be happy to speak with you.
You're welcome to disagree with me, but unless you have put your own life on the line for our country, I expect you to treat me with the respect that my years of service entitle me to.
Posted by: John Barelli on March 12, 2005 12:24 PMUnkl who's you brother, Erik?
Posted by: Inquisitor on March 12, 2005 12:24 PMThe statements made by our leaders are not at question, they were supported by the best intelligence available at the time and believed to be fact not only by us and our intelligence services but by most of the foreign intelligence services at the time. Did we make mistakes in our assessment of Saddams abilities? Sure we did. That is not even an issue, we all know that now.
To equate those mistakes to lies is an extreme disservice to our country, our leaders and the soldiers that are placing their lives on the line.
As for your years of service, that buys you very little as a point of fact in an arguement except to acknowledge that you have served. Why does your background 20 years ago offer anything to the conversation about the run up to the war in Iraq? You cannot argue the facts or provide the proof requested so you use your military service as proof? Proof of what? That the government lied? Come on John I am still waiting proof of those lies.....like I said earlier, a person of your supposed caliber making statement such as you have should have the proof readily at hand.
Put up or shut up...or then again you could just admit that they were not lies, just mistakes but somehow I don't believe that fits with your idiology. ( in case you were wondering about the "commissar" part)
John Heywood 1497 - 1580
Cliff:
I believe they were lies, perhaps clouded by some wishful thinking. We certainly know they were not truths.
Going to war on bad or inadequate information is not "supporting our troops."
Posted by: Unkl Witz on March 12, 2005 03:33 PMThe only clouded thinking was why did we wait for 18 UN resolutions plus 13 years of UN sanctions and Saddams refusal to follow the conditions that ended the fist gulf war before we did anything.
Prove that they were lies or produce convincing evidence. It is really that plain and simple. The standard for calling someone a liar is usually called proof not just innuendo, speculation, propaganda and rhetoric.
The persons you are accusing of being liars are the leaders of our country. They deserve at least a modicum of respect. You are making statements that are backed up by no facts, no real evidence and no proof and that is a pretty poor reflection on your character.
So George Soros and moveon.org says they are liars and you swallow it hook-line-sinker....talk about brainwashed!
Posted by: Cliff on March 12, 2005 04:01 PMMaking mistakes does not equate to lies, period. Oops, we were wrong may not cut it for you but it is the truth supported by the facts at hand. Mistakes still do not equate to a lie.
The statements speak for themselves:
"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." Secretary of State Powell, 9/08/02
"There is no doubt that he has chemical weapons stocks” Vice President Cheney, 3/16/03
"We know he has reconstituted these programs since the Gulf War.” Vice President Cheney, 3/16/03
"There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction.” Press Secretary Fleischer 3/23/03
When you use the words “we know” and “there is no doubt” in situations where we do not know, and where there is doubt, that is a lie. We aren’t debating the definition of the word “is” here. This is the plain language. Lives were and are at stake, and there was doubt and we did not know. We suspected and believed.
I truly hope that the people making these statements believed that there were the weapons described. Even I cannot bring myself to believe that we went to war on premises known to be untrue. But they didn’t say, “We believe that he has chemical weapons stocks” or “We think he has reconstituted these programs.” It is an important difference. It is the difference between a mistake and a lie.
Why does your background 20 years ago offer anything to the conversation about the run up to the war in Iraq?
If you had checked the link I provided, you would have noted that my years of service were from 1978 through 1999. Hardly 20 years ago. I have walked the streets of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Qatar and Kuwait.
a person of your supposed caliber making statement such as you have should have the proof readily at hand.
And while I have not spoken of my "supposed caliber", but of my actions, the proof is listed above.
Now, I have answered your questions. Perhaps not to your satisfaction, but certainly giving my reasons for my statements. You have not answered mine.
So, what, exactly are you doing to support the troops beyond talking? Where do you get the right to disparage my service and show me disrespect? Your statements and attitude imply that you have not served. I gave over twenty years. Even though I do not believe we should have gotten into this war, my family and I give blood every eight weeks and donate to the USO. If you truly believe in this war, I would suggest that you visit your local Army recruiter. They’re having problems making quota. 1-800-USA-ARMY (872-2769). Do your part, then come and talk to me. I’ll listen respectfully. In your own words, “put up, or shut up.”.
John states:
"When you use the words “we know” and “there is no doubt” in situations where we do not know, and where there is doubt, that is a lie."
It certainly is not. To be a lie it has to be known beforehand that the statements made were false. Back to english 101 for you John.
Like I said John lets see the proof. You are so certain that they lied lets see it. Do you have a hard time with the concept of presenting proof to back up your claims?
John also states:
"Where do you get the right to disparage my service and show me disrespect?"
You call someone a liar with no proof...what more would I need? Show us the proof. That is all that is required of you and you cannot do that, All's you show is evidence that they were wrong. For that I do show you the same respect you give for others which is ZERO.
Another pathetic example of a brainwashed liberal....
Posted by: Cliff on March 12, 2005 04:49 PM"To be a lie it has to be known beforehand that the statements made were false."
If I haven't been outside, but read a weather report and I say that I know it's raining when in fact it's sunny, have I lied?
The answer is yes. I did not know that it was raining, I simply thought so. If someone risked their life on that statement, they would have every right to call that statement a lie. If it eventually turned out that only two of three weather reports I read said that it would probably rain, and I said that I knew is was raining, that would prove the lie.
Now, if I stated that I "believed" that it was raining, and it turned out to be sunny, that is a different matter. I can be mistaken in that circumstance and still be truthful.
Understand? The lie is not the claim that we believed there were WMDs. The lie is that we "knew" and that there was "no doubt". Those statements require a great deal of certainty.
And I'm still waiting for your answer to my question. It seems very odd to me that with so many people publicly supporting our going to war, the Army is having difficulty finding enough recruits.
Seems that lots of people are willing to send other folks out to fight and die.
Posted by: John Barelli on March 12, 2005 05:42 PMIf you made the statement knowing well that it was raining outside then yes you would be a liar.
If you made the statement without knowing first hand that it was raining outside then you would not be a liar.
Replace raining with knowing there was WMD's and outside with in Iraq and the answers are the same. English is english. Facts are facts. And a lie is a false statement deliberately presented as being true and nothing more.
What happens when the weatherman makes a mistake and someone dies? Is that also a lie? By your logic (or lack of) it would be.
Surely you can figure this one out by yourself...
John states:
"If someone risked their life on that statement, they would have every right to call that statement a lie."
Umm... gee John I see the english language is again beyond your grasp. Risking your life has nothing to do with the facts or the statement at hand. Of course unless the rhetoric and propaganda has gotten the better of you which apparently it has.
If someone risked their life on that statement, they would have every right to call that statement a mistake. Without knowledge that the statements were made knowing that they were untrue they certainly cannot call it a lie.
John states:
"The lie is that we "knew" and that there was "no doubt". Those statements require a great deal of certainty."
At the time we did know and there was no doubt. All of the evidence pointed to the fact that Saddam did have WMD's... I know it is pretty hard for a Bush hating liberal to swallow but those are the facts, learn to live with it.
And for gods sake quit wearing your military service on your sleeve. It just makes you appear more pathetic. Military service has NOTHING to do with you being wrong or right. In fact it just makes you appear to be a liberal struggling to defend a statement that you cannot prove... pathetic is about the only word that comes to mind.
If you're going to publish my name on this forum, how about having the honor and courage to publish your own?
Posted by: Unkl Witz on March 12, 2005 10:27 PMThank you for your thoughtful posts on this topic. I find them well written and to the point.
It seems these self described patriots posses neither the courage of their convictions, nor the self confidence to associate their actual names with their posts. They appear to define “support for our troops” as hiding behind the anonymity of a public forum and hurling barbs and insults at those who disagree with their own ideological positions.
I’m sure the troops feel a lot better about all this.
Perhaps now we can get back to a discussion of the topic: Iraq War - Good use of lives and tax dollars or not?
Posted by: Unkl Witz on March 13, 2005 11:27 AMGlad you agree it wasn't worth it. The $300 billion can be replaced, the lives are gone forever. Gone at the direction of a group of political leaders who didn't quite have the nerve to put their own lives on the line when they were called to serve.
I must say I'm also amused by your unwillingness to put your name on your posts. It convinces me you are no more a "patriot" than Timothy McVey, who chose, like you, to cast his political dissent anonymously.
I look forward to you response.
Posted by: Unkl Witz on March 13, 2005 10:20 PMAh, but it wasn't a lie if they thought it might possibly be true. Just ask Cliff. He'll tell you that if they didn't know that he had no WMDs, then telling people that there was "no doubt" that they did is not a lie. He certainly told me.
Funny thing, though. My son's English teacher reads those comments the same way I do. (Saying that you have certain knowledge of a thing, when you do not have that knowledge is a lie.) Of course, she's a member of the WEA and teaches in a public school, so she too must be another one of us "brainwashed liberals".
Still, regardless of the reason we are there, and even regardless of our anger at how we got into it, we are there now.
Perhaps that's the worst thing of all. In one way, I do have to support the war now. We've got the proverbial tiger by the tail. Anything we do at this point other than seeing it through to the end not only wastes the lives of those already dead, but dooms Iraq to anarchy, and likely another dictatorship.
While it would be easy to let that anger flow over to the troops, we must avoid that trap. Those are our troops, following the orders of the legitimate government of the United States. We must support them in any way we can, and welcome them home as the heroes they are. Three easy ways to help:
1. Give blood. During national conflicts, a percentage of all blood donated goes to the military. That blood can be the difference between a soldier coming home alive or in a box.
2. Support the USO. (www.uso.org) They provide vital support to the morale of the troops, often risking their own lives to do so. Yes, some of the shows could be considered "inappropriate". Let's deal with the PC issues later. Right now, our troops need that support.
3. Support your local Navy and Marine Corps Relief (http://www.nmcrs.org/) or Army Emergency Relief (http://www.aerhq.org/). These organizations provide help not only to the service members, but to their families as well.
Regardless of our feelings about how we got where we are, we're there now. Our troops are fighting for us. Those of us that say we support the troops, but not the war have a special responsibility to do more than talk.
Posted by: John Barelli on March 14, 2005 03:11 PMAnyone willing to put their whole name up deserves a response, and a respectful one at that.
My whole take on this from the beginning was not that President Bush or anyone else in government did not believe that there were WMDs. Only that they either knew, or had reason to know that the evidence was not conclusive, and there was good reason to doubt the information.
While I really believed this to be common knowledge, apparently it is not, so I will refer you to the Carnegie Foundation report at http://www.ceip.org/files/pdf/Iraq3FullText.pdf
So, mistake? Yes, insofar as people gave incorrect information. Lie? Yes, but only so far as we were told that the information was absolutely conclusive and "beyond doubt". To argue that the executive branch of the government was somehow too busy or preoccupied to verify reports sending our troops to war is certainly no less insulting than to simply say that they lied. Perhaps it could be argued that a lie was justified, but that level of negligence could not be.
This is probably not something that we're going to agree on, no matter what is said here. Some may even believe that the situation was so grave that the evidence had to be described as "beyond doubt" because any stated doubt would have been pounced on by the "wait" crowd as a reason for delay
Still, we were told that the information was "beyond doubt". That was, in my opinion, not only untrue, but known to be untrue. As evidence, I will refer you once again to the Carnegie report. While you may disagree with some of the conclusions therein, it is well documented and thorough.
As to the arguments that we "went to war for oil", my level of cynicism has not gone that high. Some believe it, but I do not claim knowledge of someone else’s motivation in this case, nor am I willing to believe that either our President or the Congress would stoop that low. While I may not like our current leaders, I refuse to believe that they are actively evil.
My anger is confined to one area. Our government told us that, while we couldn’t see for ourselves what the evidence was, it was conclusive and beyond doubt. We were asked to trust them that this was so. I (very reluctantly) did. Then it turned out to be that the evidence was what I would call “flimsy” at best. Much of it came from sources with obvious incentives to give us exaggerated or even false information, and was not verified. Contrary evidence was ignored. It was not “beyond doubt” by any stretch of the imagination, and we sent our troops off to fight and die based on that evidence.