Did Bush / Blair invent the cause for war?

[cxt]

Chewy

No flaming, will take the time to point out that:

1-I did deal specifically with IJ points

2-The "facts" and how they are viewed are exactly what is in dispute, as I mentioned.

3-I find interesting that you, yourself, merely assert that folks are not dealing with "facts" when you, yourself present no examples of folks doing what you claim.

I agree with you in that I have little trust in either party.

[MEaton]

Everything is black and white Shades of gray only come from the clouding over of facts by lies and bias views.

The facts in this case all show the US taking all the right steps goying through the UN and all.

The only dispute comes from this memo and how some based on there already bias view on the situation misreading a document wrighten by an aide to an adviser that is based on (not word for word) a meeting.

“facts were being fixed around the policy.”
Does not in it self mean the the facts themself where being changed or "fixed" (because then thay would not be "facts").

Rather that all the facts as thay come in where being put together in a way to argue the case based on the policy. Basicly picking the facts you want to show in the way it proves your point best.

In fact there is some question about what "fixing" in this realy means in England.

There is no questionhere. The US wanted regime change for many years. Both sides agree with it.

Did Bush and Blair show the facts that made the best argument? Maybe.

Did Bush push WMD as the main reason even though it wasnt? Most likely. (I have always thought WMD was just the excuse used to try to get UN backing) Thats not bad or a lie just a tactic to try to get the best results.

And on the UN. the only argument for the war being "illegal" Is the fact the UN didnt support it. Well the facts keep showing that the UN was being payed off by saddam. So there is no way thay would ever support a war agenst him.

The people that are at falt in this is the UN its there actions but not aggresivly pushing the weapons inspectors and letting Saddam say where and when thay could inspect a place. and draging it on for decades.

And to the thay told lies by having regime change in mind and saying thay where trying to avoid it. That is not a lie.

A lie requiers intent to deserve. The want for regime change was a wall know fact. And thay did indeed go to the UN to try to avoid it. but knowing that most likely it was useless and that war would probably be the outcome. does not make it a lie. Just that the last resanable atempt was over and there was no other choice.

We could argue about how much more we could of done to avoid it. But with many saying we let saddam get away with to much for to long. And others saying we could of done alot more. Id say the US did the right thing.

Yes there where othes out there thay are worse then iraq supporting terror. but iraq killed 2 birds with 1 stone created a goverment there more friendly and hopefully more supportive in the over all war on terror. and gave us another location to work from in the ongoying war on terror.

But some that are so anti war and anti Bush will never admit the truth because there bias coulds the facts. And others out right lie and misrepresent things. just to try to make the others look bad.

I for one dont like Bush voted agenst him and disagree with many of his ideas (and agree with some) but Im not so blinded by that that I cant admit to the fact that he is honestly trying to do the right thing.

[jorvik]

CXT
as chewy stated folks aren't dealing with the issues. A lot of folks will have me down as some left winger with a grudge. I am not left wing and never have been. In my own country I would be classed as a republican and not a democrat on many many issues. The right to bear arms for one .
However, you cannot get away from the fact that these politicians lied, especially Tony bliar.....I don't know if you actually saw footage of Galloway at the Senate. It was brilliant this little Scot standing up and ferociuosly fighting, he has been villified by bliar expelled from the labour party( british democrats party)bt bliar .and he has stood up to folks who have blackened his name
Take the time and read what he said.....and nobody, absolutely nobody in the US senate said anything.......they looked embarrased, sheepish..he won the day.
Always remember politicians are answerable to the people.we are not their vassals or serfs........we shouldn't be lied to

[cxt]

Jorvik

With all respect to the home of my ancesters--"Gorgous George" is an embarressment.

He is a rabble rouser, an unabashed supporter and fan of SH--(judgeing by his OWN statements) and his carefully worded statement of having never buying/selling/profited thu any oil sales are a joke.
See the key portion is the tense--not that he was not offered or accepted it--just that he has made no money.
Which given that we invaded--A WHOLE LOT OF FOLKS NEVER GOT PAID.

Takes a "special" kind of guy to keep on gushing about what a great leader and man SH is--as they pull more and more bodies from mass graves.

As far as his performence in DC-does not really impress me, already commented above about the general amount of brains in DC.
We have already had a sitting President that claimed not to understand what the words "sex" and intercourse" meant--not to mention asking on TV for the definations of the words "is" and "the."
Once you have gone there---pretty much game over.

And your right--they should not lie to us---however, like I said before--was not a lie, they were wrong ONLY about WMD's the rest of the stuff SH was doing was proved true.

He was supporting international terror, he was providing safe house and medical treatment for internationally wanted terrorist, he was stockpiling weapon and munitions, he corrupted a process created to provide food and medical treatment for his people---to buy weapons and munitions and bribes--while his people starved, he fired at our troops etc.

WMD's--only thing he WAS NOT DOING--thats hardly a "lie."
Esp since everyone includeing SH thought he was.

[Bill Glasheen]

Chewy

The topic depresses me as well. As soon as someone starts something like this, we start getting ranting, hate-filled posts void of facts. (I addressed several of them earlier in thread, and pointed out specific examples of outright falsehoods declared as facts by the posters. My statement is not without example.)

Flaming? No... However you need to reconsider whether all the posts are left vs. right, Dem vs. Rep, etc. I am a solid independent; neither traditional party represents my political viewpoints. And my voting record backs my claim. So at least for me, you are off base.

I know Ian extremely well and feel comfortable getting toe-to-toe about stuff. Beneath our public discussions and disagreements is a common interest in seeking truth. We are even comfortable enough with each other to argue about extremely personal stuff. And we get each other's backs when the time comes and it is appropriate. That's what good friends do. So allow us a little fun.

Ian

To start with, I'm wondering where it is you got the idea that politicians deliver the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. To start with, most of them are lia... I mean lawyers. The good (and the bad) about GW is he is remarkably straightforward and predictable. What you see is what you get. Frankly I'm still baffled about what you see is such a big deal.

To some of your specific questions...

WE are not charged with enforcing UN rules outside of our role in the UN. Why do we keep hearing this? The man broke those rules, yes. When do Canadian police come arrest us for violating US speeding laws?

Because our very own speed Nazis do such a good job already.

But seriously... There is no comparison. Speeding is a local issue. SH repeatdly violated INTERNATIONAL law. Furthermore, he kept doing some nasty personal stuff like repeatedly SHOOTING AT OUR PLANES (both the U.S. and the U.K.). Were we supposed to wait for him to get a lucky shot? Are we supposed to ****** it up and take it? After all, we were doing our part to enforce U.N. mandates (the no-fly zones) designed to halt the extermination of thousands (1000s') of Kurds and Shia. Meanwhile, we had all this soap opera intrigue going on with the oil credits to our U.N. "friends" - designed to screw us over economically and geopolitically.

That's just ONE example, Ian. Cxt and I have been giving you many, many examples that have nothing specifically to do with WMD (although he was ready to turn his factories back on) and 9/11 or AQ (although there WAS and al qaeda camp in the north led by Jordanian-born and bin Laden trained al Zarqawi that we keep reminding you of which already is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans and thousands of innocent Iraqis).

So... What does all that have to do with Canadians interfering with our domestic laws, Ian?

there is a serious problem if the reason for war evolves after the fact. Especially if the people do not notice.

Cxt and I keep giving reasons to go to war other than the flawed reasons you state, but you do not notice.

there is a very serious problem if the people are unaware of the lack of al qaeda / 9-11 link with Iraq

I'll just post part of this article, Ian. It speaks for itself.

THE FIGHT FOR IRAQ

Questions Mount
Over Failure to Hit
Zarqawi's Camp

By SCOT J. PALTROW
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
October 25, 2004; Page A3

As the toll of mayhem inspired by terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi mounts in Iraq, some former officials and military officers increasingly wonder whether the Bush administration made a mistake months before the start of the war by stopping the military from attacking his camp in the northeastern part of that country.

The Pentagon drew up detailed plans in June 2002, giving the administration a series of options for a military strike on the camp Mr. Zarqawi was running then in remote northeastern Iraq, according to generals who were involved directly in planning the attack and several former White House staffers. They said the camp, near the town of Khurmal, was known to contain Mr. Zarqawi and his supporters as well as al Qaeda fighters, all of whom had fled from Afghanistan. Intelligence indicated the camp was training recruits and making poisons for attacks against the West.

Senior Pentagon officials who were involved in planning the attack said that even by spring 2002 Mr. Zarqawi had been identified as a significant terrorist target, based in part on intelligence that the camp he earlier ran in Afghanistan had been attempting to make chemical weapons, and because he was known as the head of a group that was plotting, and training for, attacks against the West. He already was identified as the ringleader in several failed terrorist plots against Israeli and European targets. In addition, by late 2002, while the White House still was deliberating over attacking the camp, Mr. Zarqawi was known to have been behind the October 2002 assassination of a senior American diplomat in Amman, Jordan.



But the raid on Mr. Zarqawi didn't take place. Months passed with no approval of the plan from the White House, until word came down just weeks before the March 19, 2003, start of the Iraq war that Mr. Bush had rejected any strike on the camp until after an official outbreak of hostilities with Iraq. Ultimately, the camp was hit just after the invasion of Iraq began.

Lisa Gordon-Hagerty, who was in the White House as the National Security Council's director for combatting terrorism at the time, said an NSC working group, led by the Defense Department, had been in charge of reviewing the plans to target the camp. She said the camp was "definitely a stronghold, and we knew that certain individuals were there including Zarqawi." Ms. Gordon-Hagerty said she wasn't part of the working group and never learned the reason why the camp wasn't hit. But she said that much later, when reports surfaced that Mr. Zarqawi was behind a series of bloody attacks in Iraq, she said "I remember my response," adding, "I said why didn't we get that ['son of a b-'] when we could."

Administration officials say the attack was set aside for a variety of reasons, including uncertain intelligence reports on Mr. Zarqawi's whereabouts and the difficulties of hitting him within a large complex.

"Because there was never any real-time, actionable intelligence that placed Zarqawi at Khurmal, action taken against the facility would have been ineffective," said Jim Wilkinson, a spokesman for the NSC. "It was more effective to deal with the facility as part of the broader strategy, and in fact, the facility was destroyed early in the war."

Another factor, though, was fear that a strike on the camp could stir up opposition while the administration was trying to build an international coalition to launch an invasion of Iraq. Lawrence Di Rita, the Pentagon's chief spokesman, said in an interview that the reasons for not striking included "the president's decision to engage the international community on Iraq." Mr. Di Rita said the camp was of interest only because it was believed to be producing chemical weapons. He also cited several potential logistical problems in planning a strike, such as getting enough ground troops into the area, and the camp's large size.

Still, after the defeat of the Taliban in Afghanistan, President Bush had said he relentlessly would pursue and attack fleeing al Qaeda fighters regardless of where they went to hide. Mr. Bush also had decided upon a policy of pre-emptive strikes, in which the U.S. wouldn't wait to be struck before hitting enemies who posed a threat. An attack on Mr. Zarqawi would have amounted to such a pre-emptive strike. The story of the debate over his camp shows how difficult the policy can be to carry out; Mr. Zarqawi's subsequent resurgence highlights that while pre-emptive strikes entail considerable risks, the risk of not making them can be significant too, a factor that may weigh in future decisions on when to attack terrorist leaders.

***

So, Ian, don't say I didn't address your specific issues.

- Bill

[jorvik]

CXT
quote
With all respect to the home of my ancesters--"Gorgous George" is an embarressment.........
yeah we know that, and he looks like an ape, and he reads kiddies books upside down, and he flies his plane in the other direction to the action, and he thinks that the french have no word for entrpeneur
..and he has made a gazillion buck dollars $$$ out of this whole sorry affair...................and I though you were argueing aginst me
Bill
Quote
The topic depresses me as well. As soon as someone starts something like this, we start getting ranting, hate-filled posts void of facts. (I addressed several of them earlier in thread, and pointed out specific examples of outright falsehoods declared as facts by the posters. My statement is not without example.)

No Bill you didn't address anything earlier....WMD,Regime change etc...........you just redirected the questions to some "neverland"...............As mr Galloway stated
I told the world that Iraq, contrary to your claims did not have weapons of mass destruction.

I told the world, contrary to your claims, that Iraq had no connection to al-Qaeda.

I told the world, contrary to your claims, that Iraq had no connection to the atrocity on 9/11 2001.
The US senate didn't answer this and neither have you
quote
The topic depresses me as well.
It's starting to positively bore me..but what I really don't get is when somebody has told such blatant lies how people think that by trying to put it into another context it will be anything more than lies.....................It won't.................and I think you know this

[Bill Glasheen]

You should read what I post, jorvik. Read the thread. Read the facts. Read the citations and the references

I am not addresssing Galloway's irrelevant assertions.

But I don't think you want your mind changed. And that's fine by me. I always know what you feel, anyhow.

- Bill

[Valkenar]

The simple fact is that people are going to believe what they want to. People want to believe in an Iraq/Al-Qaida connection. Even if Bush and his administration hadn't worked hard to plant that falsehood in people's minds, many probably would've lept on it since it's such a great device for moral outrage.

And then there's the legislative doublespeak. Is it a lie to call a piece of legislation the opposite of what it is (See: Patriot Act, Clear Skies, Healthy Forests, No Child Left Behind, etc.)? Not really, no. But it is deceptive.

[jorvik]

Quote
I am not addresssing Galloway's irrelevant assertions.

Why are they irrelevant??.I realy don't understand this
I told the world that Iraq, contrary to your claims did not have weapons of mass destruction.

I told the world, contrary to your claims, that Iraq had no connection to al-Qaeda.

I told the world, contrary to your claims, that Iraq had no connection to the atrocity on 9/11 2001.
I find them very relevant....but hey.that's just me ..WMD that can be deployed in 45 minutes.......Whoa!!....I could sh*tt my pants on that one, but it was all cr*pp ......yeah and what about all those brave sodiers who gave their lives for this crock of cr*pp, or were disabled......all so dubya could gain brownie points with exxon.....and what did he promise tony Blair.....wait until he's gone .I'll tell you what a couple of nice directorships in big US companies.....oil companies I would expect .......and maybe Genetically modified food stocks ...which he has contnually pushed against the thoughts of his own country.........., and all of Europe.......well we'll just have to see.but I predicted that we would never find WMD...and all of this sad sorry show............but I also predicted that this could end up like Vietnam ...and it could

[Bill Glasheen]

OK, jorvik, and justin, and Ian. Do me a favor. Could you at least read the WSJ article I posted? That would be a good start. Here's a fun game you can do. Cut the article, and drop it into your favorite word processing program. Then do a search on the following words: al qaeda, terrorist, Iraq, chemical weapons.

And the logic of "This is wrong so the whole case is wrong" never ceases to amaze me. Our intelligence in the ME ***** - period. We've got false positives and false negatives coming out the yazoo. Meanwhile, we get bit in the arse. *****!

Minds were made up years ago. Meanwhile, the history just gets more and more interesting. I don't concern myself over the what or why about being in Iraq any more. It's moot. Same for the politicians; elections are over.

Hopefully by next election we'll have something new worth debating.

- Bill

[cxt]

Jorvik

Its irrlevent because even a broken clock can be right 2 times a day.

Of the 3 statements you listed only the WMD's is possibly correct the other 2 are arguable.

From where I sit providing medical treatment to AZ is clear link it AQ.
As would be the training camp in Iraq itself.

That would also give you a clear link to 9/11--above and beyond the Iraqi passports used by the terrorists.

So AT BEST I 'll grant him 1 out of 3--not really all that good is it?

[IJ]

I read your article Bill... why would you think I wouldn't? There've been comments on unread articles here, but not from me.

To cut past the tangents about where we enforce UN rules against it's wishes... what Clinton's penis was up to, even though the embarassing thing he did didn't put a single life at risk... how we can't risk a pilot getting shot down so we put tens of thousands at risk... how a contingency plan isn't contingent on anything... how Bush Co, evidently expert enough at cooking information flow from the White house that they wormed their way out of planting a homosexual ex hooker to ask absurdly biased questions of the President, "tells it like it is;" ...how supporting regime change is the same as declaring war... how the document is unproven BUT as the sources I listed mention, neither man refuted its key points when asked about them.

All I'm saying is the men said we were trying to avoid war and had already decided to go. Is this the end of the world? No, but it irks me. To borrow your idea, this one thing doesn't prove our President is a dud. But even if it were completely undermined in the future, we'd still have the rest of "the case."

[Bill Glasheen]

All I'm saying is the men said we were trying to avoid war and had already decided to go.

I did address this earlier, Ian, although the scenarios are more than likely unsatisfactory for you. There were multiple "last chance" U.N. resolutions, and multiple violations thereof.

And before the invasion, Saddam and his family were asked to step down as a condition to avoid the entire invasion. Empty, pointless ultimatum? Not really. There are examples in history where such an ultimatum was rendered while warships were on the way. Before you were born (and while I was in third grade) President Kennedy made such an ultimatum to Khrushchev/Castro (October 1962). Either the missiles come out of Cuba, or we would invade. It was pretty much assumed at the time that nuclear war would be the end result. But Khrushchev backed down and had all missiles removed. We in turn agreed not to invade, and to remove missiles from Turkey.

People have such short memory of the constant promises and broken promises between SH and the world. It's all part of the historical record. Sure, Ian, Bush and Blair had had enough. Yes, they were spoiling for a fight. And yes, the last ultimatum had teeth.

Meanwhile, people are still arguing about it while the al qaeda remnants are recruiting suicide bombers in Africa and Spain (see today's news).

Have you ever made a medical error, Ian? Unless you are God, I have to believe you have - probably often. You did it because there was God's truth, and then there was the limited information on your patient's condition (from imperfect tests and physical symptoms) and from the fact that real patients never are quite that simple. Did you let guilt paralyze you? To do so would endanger the lives of your present and future patients, no? You probably did fine by the patients in spite of rather than because of your less-than-God-like judgement. And your patients probably owe you.

I have no patience for guiltmongers and political assasins. I had no patience for them when they tortured Clinton about blow jobs in the Oval Office, and I have no patience for them now that they are torturing GW about a war being fought while American troop lives are at stake. From my point of view, they can all go "south" along with Sen Dick Durbin (IL) and his whacko comments about Gitmo vs. Hitler, the Gulag, and Pol Pot. Puuulllleeeeze!

There, I feel better now.

- Bill

[chewy]

Chewy

The topic depresses me as well. As soon as someone starts something like this, we start getting ranting, hate-filled posts void of facts. (I addressed several of them earlier in thread, and pointed out specific examples of outright falsehoods declared as facts by the posters. My statement is not without example.)

Flaming? No... However you need to reconsider whether all the posts are left vs. right, Dem vs. Rep, etc. I am a solid independent; neither traditional party represents my political viewpoints. And my voting record backs my claim. So at least for me, you are off base.

I know Ian extremely well and feel comfortable getting toe-to-toe about stuff. Beneath our public discussions and disagreements is a common interest in seeking truth. We are even comfortable enough with each other to argue about extremely personal stuff. And we get each other's backs when the time comes and it is appropriate. That's what good friends do. So allow us a little fun.

Ian

To start with, I'm wondering where it is you got the idea that politicians deliver the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. To start with, most of them are lia... I mean lawyers. The good (and the bad) about GW is he is remarkably straightforward and predictable. What you see is what you get. Frankly I'm still baffled about what you see is such a big deal.

To some of your specific questions...

WE are not charged with enforcing UN rules outside of our role in the UN. Why do we keep hearing this? The man broke those rules, yes. When do Canadian police come arrest us for violating US speeding laws?

Because our very own speed Nazis do such a good job already.

But seriously... There is no comparison. Speeding is a local issue. SH repeatdly violated INTERNATIONAL law. Furthermore, he kept doing some nasty personal stuff like repeatedly SHOOTING AT OUR PLANES (both the U.S. and the U.K.). Were we supposed to wait for him to get a lucky shot? Are we supposed to ****** it up and take it? After all, we were doing our part to enforce U.N. mandates (the no-fly zones) designed to halt the extermination of thousands (1000s') of Kurds and Shia. Meanwhile, we had all this soap opera intrigue going on with the oil credits to our U.N. "friends" - designed to screw us over economically and geopolitically.

That's just ONE example, Ian. Cxt and I have been giving you many, many examples that have nothing specifically to do with WMD (although he was ready to turn his factories back on) and 9/11 or AQ (although there WAS and al qaeda camp in the north led by Jordanian-born and bin Laden trained al Zarqawi that we keep reminding you of which already is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans and thousands of innocent Iraqis).

So... What does all that have to do with Canadians interfering with our domestic laws, Ian?

there is a serious problem if the reason for war evolves after the fact. Especially if the people do not notice.

Cxt and I keep giving reasons to go to war other than the flawed reasons you state, but you do not notice.

there is a very serious problem if the people are unaware of the lack of al qaeda / 9-11 link with Iraq

I'll just post part of this article, Ian. It speaks for itself.

THE FIGHT FOR IRAQ

Questions Mount
Over Failure to Hit
Zarqawi's Camp

By SCOT J. PALTROW
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
October 25, 2004; Page A3

As the toll of mayhem inspired by terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi mounts in Iraq, some former officials and military officers increasingly wonder whether the Bush administration made a mistake months before the start of the war by stopping the military from attacking his camp in the northeastern part of that country.

The Pentagon drew up detailed plans in June 2002, giving the administration a series of options for a military strike on the camp Mr. Zarqawi was running then in remote northeastern Iraq, according to generals who were involved directly in planning the attack and several former White House staffers. They said the camp, near the town of Khurmal, was known to contain Mr. Zarqawi and his supporters as well as al Qaeda fighters, all of whom had fled from Afghanistan. Intelligence indicated the camp was training recruits and making poisons for attacks against the West.

Senior Pentagon officials who were involved in planning the attack said that even by spring 2002 Mr. Zarqawi had been identified as a significant terrorist target, based in part on intelligence that the camp he earlier ran in Afghanistan had been attempting to make chemical weapons, and because he was known as the head of a group that was plotting, and training for, attacks against the West. He already was identified as the ringleader in several failed terrorist plots against Israeli and European targets. In addition, by late 2002, while the White House still was deliberating over attacking the camp, Mr. Zarqawi was known to have been behind the October 2002 assassination of a senior American diplomat in Amman, Jordan.



But the raid on Mr. Zarqawi didn't take place. Months passed with no approval of the plan from the White House, until word came down just weeks before the March 19, 2003, start of the Iraq war that Mr. Bush had rejected any strike on the camp until after an official outbreak of hostilities with Iraq. Ultimately, the camp was hit just after the invasion of Iraq began.

Lisa Gordon-Hagerty, who was in the White House as the National Security Council's director for combatting terrorism at the time, said an NSC working group, led by the Defense Department, had been in charge of reviewing the plans to target the camp. She said the camp was "definitely a stronghold, and we knew that certain individuals were there including Zarqawi." Ms. Gordon-Hagerty said she wasn't part of the working group and never learned the reason why the camp wasn't hit. But she said that much later, when reports surfaced that Mr. Zarqawi was behind a series of bloody attacks in Iraq, she said "I remember my response," adding, "I said why didn't we get that ['son of a b-'] when we could."

Administration officials say the attack was set aside for a variety of reasons, including uncertain intelligence reports on Mr. Zarqawi's whereabouts and the difficulties of hitting him within a large complex.

"Because there was never any real-time, actionable intelligence that placed Zarqawi at Khurmal, action taken against the facility would have been ineffective," said Jim Wilkinson, a spokesman for the NSC. "It was more effective to deal with the facility as part of the broader strategy, and in fact, the facility was destroyed early in the war."

Another factor, though, was fear that a strike on the camp could stir up opposition while the administration was trying to build an international coalition to launch an invasion of Iraq. Lawrence Di Rita, the Pentagon's chief spokesman, said in an interview that the reasons for not striking included "the president's decision to engage the international community on Iraq." Mr. Di Rita said the camp was of interest only because it was believed to be producing chemical weapons. He also cited several potential logistical problems in planning a strike, such as getting enough ground troops into the area, and the camp's large size.

Still, after the defeat of the Taliban in Afghanistan, President Bush had said he relentlessly would pursue and attack fleeing al Qaeda fighters regardless of where they went to hide. Mr. Bush also had decided upon a policy of pre-emptive strikes, in which the U.S. wouldn't wait to be struck before hitting enemies who posed a threat. An attack on Mr. Zarqawi would have amounted to such a pre-emptive strike. The story of the debate over his camp shows how difficult the policy can be to carry out; Mr. Zarqawi's subsequent resurgence highlights that while pre-emptive strikes entail considerable risks, the risk of not making them can be significant too, a factor that may weigh in future decisions on when to attack terrorist leaders.

***

So, Ian, don't say I didn't address your specific issues.

- Bill

Bill,

Forgive me in advance, because I'm finding it hard to keep up with all the posts in this thread. Between the time I last posted and now there this thread has doubled in size .

I wanted to address what you seem to be implying here: that there was indeed some sort of Iraq-Terrorist link that helped justify invasion of the country. If you read the article carefully you'll see that the camp was in a part of Iraq that the Iraqi government had no authority over. Since the 1st Gulf war the entire Northern 3rd of the country was out of SH's control. I will admit there is a "link", but not the one used to justify our invasion; the implication, at that time, was that SH was somehow in bed with Al-Queda.

As far as my comments in my previous post, I wasn't attacking any one individual in particular. I'm simply trying to get everyone to think twice about the reliability of their sources. I also find it bothersome when someone uses an attack on the actions of "a member of the other party" to justify the actiions of their party. It is a fairly large leap to say just because Clinton agreed with a Bush policy, that a Bush detractor's agruments are moot.

I also consider myself an independent voter (just from a presidential stand point I've supported GOP twice, Dems three times, and 3rd party candidate twice). I don't think I'm too off base in asking everyone to step back from this discussion and ask themselves if what they think they knew to be true is actually true. There has been a lot of bad information fed to us by our elected leaders (regardless of party affiliation), as well as our major media outlets. I have a feeling it will be many generations before we fully understand all the whos, whats, wheres, whys, and hows.

cheers,

chewy

[IJ]

Nothing to add about this specific issue...

Everyone in medicine makes mistakes, and yeah, often. The more well intentioned / careful ones out there:

--take loud / full responsibility for errors, including those made by our trainees
--don't deflect concerns with nonsequitors and tangents (yes, but the care is better than in Mexico; so and so made this mistake 5 years ago; regarding the question about X, let me point out that Y is being handled, etc)
--predict possible outcomes and relay our concerns about imprecise diagnoses, imperfect treatments, and possible rocky post-treatment courses to those affected before
--try to keep an open mind about diagnoses and so on before embarking on hazardous courses, always asking, what are we missing?
--direct our efforts and $ towards those interventions which will do the most good at keeping us healthy; focus on the most vulnerable and at risk of our charges.
--refrain from the "god complex": believing that we are miracle workers or have unusual or supernatural insights
--aggresively avoid economic and personal entanglements that might lead to a conflict of interest
--honestly debate with others without name calling, distractions, and other nonsense when there are disagreements, seeking improvements and not power.