For the majority of pro-American people around the world, Election Day 2004 was a bitter pill to swallow. Just about everyone outside the country could see what a mess Bush was making in Iraq and what damage he was doing to America’s international standing, but the majority of electors voted for him (a narrow majority, but more than he got when falsely presenting himself as “a uniter not a divider” in 2000).
Still, getting things wrong from time to time is part of democracy, and some things are more easily seen from abroad than at home (think of how badly we collectively got it wrong on asylum-seekers in 2001, and how long its taken to achieve even a partial reversal of those policies). As Tuesday’s election results have shown, most Americans have come to the same view of Bush and his war as most people everywhere else in the world.
John Quiggin 
Great debate
Out of Iraq or More Troops? A Debate on Withdrawal with Fmr. Senator George McGovern, Congressman Dennis Kucinich and AEI’s Joshua Muravchik
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/15/1459243
Really worth watching, even if it is 2 vs 1.
“The administration tried to leave the implication that somehow we went into Iraq to fight terrorism. There was no terrorist problem in Iraq until we put our army in the middle of the country”–George McGovern, Baath-booster
Sure, George.
If these guys (left loons) ever tell the truth…it’s purely by accident.
“Really worth watching”
If you’re into liefests, maybe.
Dave,
I’m curious as to what evidence of terrorist activity in Iraq you feel McGovern was trying to hide?
It’s worth noting that the world’s leading intelligence agencies seem to agree with him.
Are you kidding? Iraqi state sponsored terrorism was so blatant that even the worthless United Nations noticed it, ordering the Iraqis to cease and desist from engaging in or supporting terrorism way back in 1991. In 2003, the United Nations stated that the Iraqis were still doing it…right before the United States et al invaded. One of the stated reasons we invaded was…Iraqi state sponsored terrorism.
And, guys like Abu Abbas and Abu Nidal, plus hundreds of members of MEK weren’t in Iraq for the great skiing.
George McGovern is a lying sack.
“Are you kidding? Iraqi state sponsored terrorism was so blatant…”
Well, that’s what al Qaeda claims they wanted Chimpo to think, Dave.
This story in the Melbourne “Age”:
“Spy says al-Qaeda tricked US into war”
http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/spy-says-alqaeda-tricked-us-into-war/2006/11/17/1163266782059.html
In what looks like a classic Trojan horse manouevre, al Qaeda claims to have “planted information…
“Ibn Sheikh al-Libi, who ran training camps in Afghanistan, told his US interrogators that al-Qaeda had been training Iraqis.
“Libi was captured in November 2001 and taken to Egypt, where he was allegedly tortured.
“Asked whether he thought Libi had planted information to get the US to fight Iraq, Nasiri [an al Qaeda mole who worked in western intelligence] said: “Exactly.”
According to this story, al Qaeda chose Iraq as the battleground because it was the “weakest” Islamic country.
Furthermore, according to the author of the story:
“It is known that under interrogation, Libi misled Washington. His claims were seized on by President George Bush, Vice-President Dick Cheney and Colin Powell, then secretary of state, in his address to the UN Security Council in February 2003, which argued the case for a pre-emptive war against Iraq.
“Though he did not name Libi, Mr Powell said “a senior terrorist operative” who “was responsible for one of al-Qaeda’s training camps in Afghanistan” had told US agencies that Saddam Hussein had offered to train al-Qaeda in the use of “chemical or biological weapons”.
“What is new, if Nasiri is to be believed, is that the leading al-Qaeda operative wanted to overthrow Saddam and use Iraq as a base for jihad.”
I can imagine RWDBs, desperate in their denial that al Qaeda would be capable of a manouevre as sophisticated as this, that this ploy is impossible. However, the technique has been used many times before, most notably by the KGB in its sting operations against the CIA, an outline of which is to be found here;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatoliy_Golitsyn
If the Bush clique wishes to disprove the charge that they’ve been duped by al Qaeda, they can release the transcripts of Libi’s interrogations.
Then again, perhaps the Bush Clique can attempt to ride out these accusations. But the Democrat dominated Congress may now be more interested in getting to the heart of the matter.
Interesting, Katz – so you are now saying that they had a basis to invade on the grounds of terrorism sponsoring even if it may have been the result of dis-information. Information derived from inside al-Qaeda indicating that there was a connection is new to me. Have you got more?
AR,
I believe that the Bush Clique was hell-bent on invasion regardless of any intelligence.
If the above story is to be given credence, then it is possible that al Qaeda knew of Chimpo’s predisposition to invade Iraq. (Indeed, one had to be living under a rock or in a cave (as was OBL) to have missed Chimpo’s military itch.
And we have seen just how media canny al Qaeda is. They have had their fingers on the US pulse for a long time. Bush himself acknowledged that just befors his recent election disaster when he alleged that al Qaeda may be trying to play the “Tet Card”.
Did the Bush Clique actually believe Libi’s intelligence, or did they see it simply as a convenient justification for war?
Only a full and earnest enquiry in the proper setting of the US Congress armed with subpoena powers is capable of establishing the truth of the matter.
“I believe that the Bush Clique was hell-bent on invasion regardless of any intelligence.”
Well, it was about time.
I suppose now it is up to US taxpayers, US service personnel, and their bereaved, to decide whether or not their expenditure of treasure and blood and tears was a good investment.
And I suppose it is up to Iraqi citizens to decide whether it is now time to begin to throw flowers and chocolates at COW troops, or whether to continue to blow them up.