I've really had about enough. From this point on, I automatically brand anyone who says the Bush administration lied about WMDs in Iraq as liars themselves. There is -zero- credible evidence to support this vicious, pernicious and hateful lie. John McCain was absolutely right when he said that anyone who accused the President of lying on this issue was in fact lying themselves. Michael Barone also puts it well:
Of course, the Democrats are squawking. McCain and Bush are daring to call their charge—that Bush deliberately lied about intelligence—for the Big Lie that it is. The Democrats still argue that there needs to be an investigation of whether the administration lied about prewar intelligence. But, as the White House points out, the Senate Intelligence Committee, the Silberman-Robb commission, and Lord Butler in Britain have conducted such investigations and have found no manipulation of intelligence—and that the raw intelligence that leading members of the administration had at the time but members of Congress did not was even more alarming than what members of Congress had.
These people's britches are burning so hard you could probably smelt iron with them.
Another lie is the one peddled by supposedly honorable people on the left: "There may have been a good case for war, but they didn't make it." Oooh, really???
We had an entire year of debate in this country wherein well over a dozen reasons for action were raised by the administration and also by countless members of Congress on both sides of the aisle. If you don't remember it, that is your problem, because five minutes of reasonable searching through Google will dispell that myth. Continually peddling your faulty memory as proof of anything except that you weren't paying attention is just goofy.
Below is the war declaration against Saddam. It was jointly authored by the White House and by a bipartisan group in the Congress, with (if I recall correctly) Joe Biden (D) being the principle author in the Senate. I'll quote it extensively, and I'll point out to you that every one of these arguments came out of the President's mouth, and out of other members of the administration, and also came out of the mouths of many, many Democrats and Republicans in Congress in 2002 and well before:
"Public Law 107–243
"107th Congress Joint resolution
"Oct. 16, 2002
"Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq’s war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;
"Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;
"Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;
"Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;
"Whereas in Public Law 105–235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq’s continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in ‘‘material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations’’ and urged the Presi-
dent ‘‘to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations’’;
"Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;
"Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peaceand security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;
"Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;
"Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
"Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;
"Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;
"Whereas Iraq’s demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;
"Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United
Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);
"Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102–1), Congress has authorized the President ‘‘to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677’’;
"Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it ‘‘supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Againstraq Resolution (Public Law 102–1),’’ that Iraq’s repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and ‘‘constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,’’ and that Congress, ‘‘supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688’’;
"Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105–338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;
Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the
United States to ‘‘work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge’’ posed by Iraq and to ‘‘work for the necessary resolutions,’’ while also making clear that ‘‘the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable’’;
"Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq’s ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;
"Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
"Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
"Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40); and
"Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region:
Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled..."
The war resolution goes on from there to authorize use of force against Saddam at the President's option. (SOURCE: CSPAN)
There it all is. The gross human rights abuses. The need to foster democracy in the region. Defying major sections of his cease-fire agreement. Firing on coalition forces. Refusing to cooperate with inspectors. Stockpiling WMDs. Continuing to develop WMDs. Refusing to pay promised reparations. Harboring terrorists. Sponsoring terrorists. It's all there. The Administration said all these things, and so did many members of Congress on both sides of the aisle. Now one of those arguments--just one--turns out to have been an embarassment: we can't find the stockpiles. All the rest are still valid, and were argued forcefully by our political leaders for more than a year.
On the other hand, we now know Saddam was also routinely violating the Oil-For-Food program, which also would have been a strong reason to remove him.
Any embarassment, such as it is, falls as much to the Congress as anyone else, for it is they who bear ultimate responsibility. Democrats held a majority in the Senate when that resolution was passed. Any of them calling the administration liars are lying themselves and should be called on it.
Furthermore, anyone who says the administration hid data from Congress is either an idiot or a baldfaced liar, because Congress does not depend solely on the White House to give them information. So, for example, Dana Milbank and Walter Pincus of the Washington post are pathetic partisan liars for their disingenuous suggestions to the contrary.
Congress has full authority, and obligation, to ask for any intelligence it wants from any of the intelligence agencies it wants, and to call in whoever they want to testify. They are fully responsible for what they ask to see. They are also responsible for what they say, and for what they vote on.
Only a lying liar who lies would accuse the administration of hiding things based on nothing but half-assed allegations like, "well the White House only used intelligence analysts who agreed with them." So freaking what? They were trying to build a case wherein Congress was and is the final judge. It is Congress' job to weigh the evidence, and if any member of Congress who had any doubts they were fully within their power to demand more. Hell, they were obligated to demand more. Which many of them, by the way, did. Most came away satisfied (or, in a few cases, unsatisfied, and thus they voted against the resolution).
It's time to take the kid gloves off with people who continually reassert falsehoods. The case was made. It was a strong case. It involved a huge list of reasons, well over a dozen. All but one of them were completely correct. So please: Ignorance is no excuse if you have access to the internet and just look at the record. We had a large, detailed case that was argued before the American public for an entire year, and every single one of the reasons listed in the war resolution was mentioned publicly and repeatedly by the administration, by the President himself, and by many members of congress on both sides of the aisle. Those reasons, every one of them, were also debated in newspapers and television shows on politics around the nation, and throughout the blogosphere, and in dinner table and water cooler conversations everywhere.
I also suggest, if your memory is really that bad, viewing this video reminder.
Pretending now that none of that was ever said, that "the case wasn't made," is simply dishonest. Not just wrong, but dishonest, because anyone who spends a few minutes just looking for the other side of the argument knows it's true.
Decent people can disagree with the decision to go to war, or the conduct of the war after the decision was made. But enough of the pernicious and destructive lies, please.
But remember: The Democrats are the party of perjury. Of course they'll lie. It's what they do.
Also this statement of his is laughable:
"The primary piece of evidence for this claim [Iraq-yellowcake] was a document showing that Iraq had signed a contract to buy yellowcake from Niger. However, the CIA specifically told the White House in October 2002 that the "reporting was weak" and that they disagreed with the British about the reliability of this intelligence."
The primary evidence, as can be deduced from the second half of this statement, was that the British said so, using information other than the forgeries. But somehow, Drum doesn't think that was so important. Perhaps because it can't be refuted?
There is no concern about how this is going to play out overseas, how much damage this would do to America's interests, no matter which party is in power. If the Democrats think that this wouldn't reflect upon them were they ever to regain control of Congress and the Executive, then they are dreamin' fools.
No power to you, donkey, until you grow up!
Still means they should be thrown out of office.
Yours,
Wince
But I see where it comes from. The reason many people were convinced that Saddam needed to be overthrown was that they believed he posed an express threat to America. And that express threat was best "proven" by Iraq's stockpile of WMDs. Without the WMDs, I'm not sure the majority of Americans would have bought off on the war--that doesn't mean it still wasn't justified, just that it's hard to galvanize the people to go to war if they don't feel specifically and immediately threatened.
The fact that there were no WMDs means that a goodly portion of the support for the war was based on false pretenses. But those false pretenses weren't the result of lies, they were the result of bad intelligence (intelligence, mind you, that every major Western spy organization believed to be accurate).
The Dems see a political opportunity in all of this. They have calculated that despite all the other good reasons for going to war, most people will remember supporting it because of the WMDs. If you can convince those people they were lied to, you have a political advantage.
It's a despicable tactic and a piss-poor way to "rebuild" a party. But it is not surprising.
Of course, such demagoguery is never more than marginally effective in America and I doubt the Dems will be able to convert these deceptions into a substantial political victory. But that doesn't mean we should stop pointing out their lies.
But I see where it comes from. The reason many people were convinced that Saddam needed to be overthrown was that they believed he posed an express threat to America. And that express threat was best "proven" by Iraq's stockpile of WMDs. Without the WMDs, I'm not sure the majority of Americans would have bought off on the war--that doesn't mean it still wasn't justified, just that it's hard to galvanize the people to go to war if they don't feel specifically and immediately threatened.
The fact that there were no WMDs means that a goodly portion of the support for the war was based on false pretenses. But those false pretenses weren't the result of lies, they were the result of bad intelligence (intelligence, mind you, that every major Western spy organization believed to be accurate).
The Dems see a political opportunity in all of this. They have calculated that despite all the other good reasons for going to war, most people will remember supporting it because of the WMDs. If you can convince those people they were lied to, you have a political advantage.
It's a despicable tactic and a piss-poor way to "rebuild" a party. But it is not surprising.
Of course, such demagoguery is never more than marginally effective in America and I doubt the Dems will be able to convert these deceptions into a substantial political victory. But that doesn't mean we should stop pointing out their lies.
The list of the 23 Senators, 22 Democrats and one independent, who voted against the Iraq war authorization can be found here. The list of the 133 memebers of the house, 126 Deomocrats, 6 Republicans, and 1 independent who voted against the Iraq war authorization can be found here.
I am proud to say that my Congressman and one of the Senators from my state voted against the war resolution. Regrettably, my other Senator voted for it.
Are these people who voted against the resolution still free to criticize the Bush administrations use of intelligence before the war?
Am I reading this correctly? You are saying it was ok for the Bush administration to slant the intelligence in making its case for war because Congress was the consumer of this marketing and it was their job to figure out if the Bush administration was stretching the intelligence or not before they voted? And after they bought the product and voted to authorize the war, they are not allowed to come back and suggest that the advertising may have been misleading?
So if I go into a store and buy a bottle of face lift cream because the box says it will make me look 10-15 years younger in just 60 seconds, and after I use it, I don’t think I look any younger, I am not allowed to suggest that the statements on the box are misleading, because they are just marketing to try to get me to buy the product and I bought the product! I was supposed to have done my research before I bought the product. After I bought the product, I am no longer allowed to question the correctness of the marketing. This is what you are saying?
I don’t agree with this, and in my case I did not believe the intelligence before the war justified an invasion of Iraq, although even I was surprised at how wrong the intelligence turned out to be.
I think we all agree that the intelligence on WMDs in Iraq turned out to be surprisingly inaccurate. The Bush administration is in charge of those intelligence agencies that produced that flawed intelligence. I think it is fair for administration critics to suggest that some of the responsibility for that failure goes to the top of the administration. Conservatives like to talk about talking personal responsibility for failures rather than blaming them on others. I think Bush should accept that some of the responsibility for this failure was in the WH. Instead he promoted Rice, the head of the NSC, to Secretary of State, Steve Hadley, who pushed the 16 words on uranium from Africa into the SOTU address, to NSC head, and he gave Tenet the Medal of Freedom after he retired. That doesn’t look like holding anyone accountable to me.
I guess we should just agree to disagree about this.
:)
Bush didn't slant the intelligence. The intelligence was wrong which made Bush look bad. And if you expect the intelligence community to get it right when Saddam's own generals were fooled I think you are not exercising your critical thinking skills hard enough. Go back and explain how our intelligence people could get that right and I will accept that you've done your homework.
Don't forget to explain how we are going to get double agents in disgusting regimes like Iraq who are also lily-white and pure as required by those who wax perpertually indignant.
Yours,
Wince
Sorry, I am not familiar with all the forth-grade derogatory political terms that the Rush fans like to throw around. What's a chickenvoter? Were chickens running for office? Get my name on the ballot? Why on earth would I have to do that? What political office do you hold?
The ChickenVoter is meant to be a joke as Reductio Ad Absurdum. I.e. someone who wants to change gov't (Voter), but aren't willing to run for office themselves (Chicken).
BK
Interesting...
The idea of fighting them here may not work either. It's a strategy. It's a war. Some things work some of the time, others don't. Oh never mind. I'm too busy for this.
After your last two postings I'm gonna say you need more than a little gentle ribbing. You may be in need of what the sergeant was in need in "Good Morning, Vietnam".
That last also was a joke. :)
People need to recognize Iraq as an independent country liberated by the United States, not as a puppet government installed by an imperialistic nation. Are we imperialistic? No. Is Iraq indeed a liberated country? Yes. Is it going to be easy to convince the world that the actions of Iraq are not the actions of the US once occupation ends? Does the world trust us and are they convinced we are the benevolent giant we like to see ourselves as? No, because of the shitstorm all of this has kicked up. Sorry, I just don't agree that the administration has done all it could have, or has done a lot right. Some people feel that to support the war you have to support the administration. I'm sorry, that isn't so. They are not one and the same.
From the rest of your response, I can only conclude that you are not.
Gaaah! I'm sorry dude. I forgot most of the readers are rational people. I would have worded things with something akin to logic but I have had a bad morning and have started frothing at the mouth for some reason. My statement about the term "Chickenvoter" still stands however, it just isn't applied directly at you anymore. If it's any consolation I feel the same way about the term "Chickenhawk". Statements like that do not attempt to sway or correct with logic but instead attack the attacker which does nothing.
The problem, as Dean mentioned in his post, is that "the grounds" have not been proven false. Only one out of many have turned out to be false.
Count 'em. 10 reasons, 9 correct, 1 incorrect. How is that "The grounds are proven false"?
Maybe [6] is the only one *you* care about, but there are a lot of people that care about the other 9 as well.
Sorry, I don't buy this. World opinion is being shaped by the agendas of other nations just as much as by our actions, so we can't tailor our actions as a way to curry world opinion. It's looking increasingly clear that France for sure and Russia most probably would never have backed us no matter what grounds we proposed, because they were on Saddam's payroll. And a lot of the nations in the UN were never ging to back us because they wanted to be just like Saddam. So world opinion was going to be against us no matter what. If you're damned if you do and damned if you don't, then do what you think best, and world opinion be damned.
I think this may explain senior administration officials, but it does not completely explain how they got the CIA to generate the NIE that they needed. Did Dick Cheney’s multiple visits to the CIA analysts writing the NIE suck them into this self-deception too?
I do not believe we would have been able to get the same reaction from the UN and other countries without that critical arguement for invasion. I'll also grant you this. Saddam made his own mistake by arousing suspicions against him by not letting the inspectors in. We presented as an additional sting to all of the pre-existing reasons WMDs which, now that we have found out they probably weren't there, is going to create a sense of irresponsibility.
I exclude France and Russia from the "World Support" statement. I think everyone here knows about the happy little money making game those two countries were playing with him. In fact, barring that I wouldn't have expected much in the way of support from them anyhow. China too for that matter.
As for Iraq, all 10 reasons given were right. Whether or not Saddam had WMDs, the whole point is that we dared not take any chances. Far better to overthrow Saddam and not find any WMDs than to not fight him and then find out the hard way that he did have them.
Weak horses do not respect the strong horses. The strong horses rule because it is a design of nature. Horses are animals. We are men, a more complicated animal. Men do not just follow the strong man, they need the illusion that they have more control than they have. They need individual power. The strongest man is not only the mightiest man, but has those not as strong as him who are complacent with the power they feel they have.
There is also envy, and no one envies the strongest man more than the second strongest man. It is the goal of the second strongest man to win the favor of the weaker men. For even the strongest man cannot stand against many men. When the strongest man falls, it will be not only because the second strongest man has given favors and baubles. It will be, most importantly, because the weaker men no longer feel safe with the strongest man around.
A strong political position revolves around the assurance of safety. That assurance comes from might and benevolence. Without a strong political position you sap strength from yourself and give it to your enemy. We have bigger enemies than Iraq and weakening our position gives those enemies strength. That is what I am against sir.
I seriously doubt it.
And OK, maybe [6] isn't your only concern, but it certainly sounds like it's by and far the most heavily weighted.
I don't weight it that highly at all. Given the other 9 reasons, like SMA, I would rather take out Saddam and be wrong about WMDs than not take him out and be right about WMDs. The conseuences of the latter are devestating, while the consequences of the former still nets out to a positive.
As for other, bigger, enemies, I assume you mean Iran and NK. One, you don't always attack the biggest enemy first. Our first foray into the European theater wasn't anywhere near Germany, it was in North Africa, to set staging grounds for Italy.
To go after NK we would be fighting a two front war on opposite sides of the globe. This was logisistically tough in WWII, we simply do not have the logistical infrastructure today to effectivly wage that kind of conflict.
To go after Iran, do you really think Iraq would stay out of it? We'd be fighting in Iraq anyway. Why not take it on singly first, and then go after Iran if still necessary.
Last, how would you pitch either of these given that we have not engaged any real diplomacy with either country, much less done so for over 15 years. How do you counter the cries of "Give Peace a Chance". No direct action (such as firing on our pilots) against us. No history of violating UN resolutions. Given the large number of reasons for going to Iraq and the pitiful backing it's receiving of late, do you really, honestly, believe that we have the political will to engage and stay the course to defeat either of these targets? I don't in a million years believe it could be done.
Iran and NK may be bigger threats, but Iraq was the one we could act on *now*. Iran and NK still have years of "diplomacy" to go thru before they become viable military targets. Let's not sit on our tails while we wait for that to happen.
BK
Of the listed reasons, these three could be could be said to make Iraq a threat to the US in the post 9/11 world: [6]Stockpiling WMDs. [9]Harboring terrorists. [10]Sponsoring terrorists.
This was always a very weak argument. The so called WMDs that everyone thought Iraq had were chemical weapons, and everyone has chemical weapons. Al Qaeda already knows how to make chemical weapons. They don’t need Iraq’s help to do that. Taking out Iraq’s chemical weapons, if they had had any, would not make the US any safer.
The Iraq links to Al Qaeda were also based on very weak intelligence.
You really needed to convince the American people that Iraq was working on nuclear weapons AND that Iraq might give these weapons to terrorists to use against the US OR that Iraq was a state sponsor of Al Qaeda. All of these were very thin propositions with very weak intelligence to back them up.
The other items on the list might make a good case to some people, but not to most Americans.
As far as WMD's are concerned, I could care less whether or not he had them. Well, in the sense of making a case for war. He was a threat for the pure and simple reason that we attacked him in the past. If we had attacked WITHOUT the WMD arguement, we would at least not have as many questions towards our honesty and integrity. We could have made a case against him without the use of the WMD arguement if the other reasons are so strong. If WMD's weren't deemed important in gaining the war support then we could have left it off of the list of reasons to go to war right? So, if the intelligence was double checked and we gave just a little bit more time for the facts to come in we wouldn't have made a case people can pick apart as false.
Even if other nations were dubious of the other charges levied against Saddam, once these charges have been made to come to light (as they have been) our position at this point and time would be stronger. "Look, see? We found the terrorists he was harboring, oh and look at these mass graves.". What can you say to that except, "You were right he was harboring terrorists and he was ruthless towards his people."?
The reason for the dissent, in my perspective at least, comes from a standard that is held in the United States. We have a standard of honesty that is now tarnished (temporarily) and that standard of honesty is one of the great things about America. The Bald Eagle, the Stars and Stripes, honor and integrity, the American dream of liberty and justice for all. Our first president "could not tell a lie" to paraphrase. By being careless with the intelligence given to us we set ourselves up for being caught in a falsehood which to me is more hurtful to us than almost anything.
As far as our invasion strategy goes in terms of setting up a base of power in Iraq, I have no problems with that per say. It seems sound. In that respect I have no issues. My issues are purely political and I think the military is doing a great job on their front.
"Until a better system of estabilishing laws of conduct and morality amongst the nations of the world is invented, the U.N.O is all we have."
THe U.N.O. as a source of law and morality? I'd sooner look to Jack the Ripper! As Ayn Rand once said: "To name that institution is to damn it."
Get U.S. out!
Well, America should build something better and the pull itself out if it's that bad. Or maybe we shouldn't make any effort at all to form an organization that allows the nations of the world to collude. Maybe we should just skip any efforts to establish communication with others and world peace. Maybe we should just stand across the ocean and beat our chests and fling feces at the other evil nations?
But I haven't read all of the arguements that the UN is evil other than Larry the Cable Guy's so I may not have the whole picture. I would love to sdiscuss the UN sometime but it is a bit off topic.
"Maybe we should just stand across the ocean and beat our chests and fling feces at the other evil nations?"
I will leave you to your Walter Mitty fantasy rather than try to argue with you.
A Walter Mitty fantasy? No I am simply critical, maybe over critical of government. Thinking you can rush into a war with anyone you wish regardless of who cares or what other nations think, mowing down all who stand in your way, invincible to the consequences thereof sounds more like heroic fantasy to me. You know what? I'll agree to disagree with you. Or, we can agree I'm disagreeable I don't really care either way. :)