A conspicuous contradiction.

[Scuba]

[Jim__]

1. Only the deciderer can decide who gets to be free. - n/t

[el_bryanto]

2. It's an interesting question

Did we invade Iraq to free the Iraqi people? Not at the time. At the time we believed that Saddam Hussein was a monster and that he was close to having nuclear weapons so we had to invade in order to stop him from blowing us up. (I know most people around here didn't believe that - I'm just talking about the story we were told).

But then when we found out how pathetic his plans to build weapons of mass destruction actually were, well, we had to come up with another reason to have invaded, so we decided that we'd invaded because we wanted to bring freedom to the Iraqi people.

Bryant

[90-percent]

8. Thanks for mentioning this

The height of absurdity was the constantly changing rational for invading Iraq as the war was being conducted.

Smoking gun=mushroom cloud. Nope no good.

Well, how about liberating the Iraqi people? Better, lets run with that for a while.

Fight 'em over there so we don't have to fight them over here. Good, we can use that for a few years, too.

We have to drive Al Qaeda out of Iraq - good, except they weren't there until we invaded.

etc.

The height of absurdity was when Paul Wolfowitz stated publicly that we invaded based on WMD's "BECAUSE THAT WAS THE ONLY THING WE COULD ALL AGREE ON!"

Step one - decide to invade Iraq on the first day of your new administration

Step two - brainstorm on how to sell it to the American public

Step three - 9-11 happens and is the New Pearl Harbor and all that is needed as wonderful marketing tool for invasion

Step three is fucking infuriating - America had the entire planet on our side after 9-11 and we all could have changed the whole world for the better. But no, we had to be imbecilic brutish lying scumbags instead!


-90% Jimmy

PS - the spell check wants to substitute "halfwits" for Wolfowitz. Ironic - cubed.

[Scuba]

18. It was to help Iraqi women for a few days too, don't forget!

Love the "halfwits" irony!!

[Martin Eden]

13. That all depends on who you mean by "we"

The rationale for the Iraq war fed to the public often shifted, but the real reasons were fairly constant:

Necon ambitions for Pax Americana (PNAC)
Greed (oil corporations & the MIC)
Israel (many neocons had dual loyalties)
Petrodollar (Saddam had switched his oil transactions to the Euro)
Domestic politics (Rove & Co. saw this as part of the strategy to establish permanent GOP control of the government)

[el_bryanto]

15. Well I'm talking about the rationale of the war fed to the American people, though.

I guess though one could argue that the rationale fed to the people was irrelevant - they could have invaded even if public opinion was against them.

Bryant

[Martin Eden]

16. The false rationale fed to the people was NOT irrelevant.

It was necessary to build support among voters and in Congress.

You and I are not in disagreement, but I think it is very important to make the distinction between the political spin used to justify the war and the real reasons behind the invasion of Iraq.

It's important not only to educate those who don't understand the real reasons, but also to hammer away at the steady re-writing of history as these events recede further into the past. I've found that even knowledgable progressives can fall into the trap of using the frames of discussion crafted by rightwing spin into conventional "wisdom." Unless refuted at every opportunity, that spin shapes the general public perception.

We did not invade Iraq to protect America from WMD or to help the Iraqi people, though many believed it at the time and almost as many still do. The people must be disabused of these false narratives.

It is critically important that collectively We The People learn the essential lessons from this tragic and criminal episode in our history. It is the only way we will avoid repeating it.

[Wounded Bear]

20. Well...

it was originally named Operation Iraqi Liberation.

I guess even the irony deprived can have an "OOPS" moment.

[unblock]

3. not a contradiction at all.

we would never dream of turning them away if they brought oil with them.

[riqster]

4. Operation Iraqi Liberation was about freeing the OIL, not the people.

[MatthewStLouis]

5. What Would Jesus Do?

He would certainly turn away all those children in need.



I cannot understand how so many people can live with so much cognitive dissonance.

[stupidicus]

6. A rightwinger not afflicted with the "both ways"

hypocrisy bug is as rare as one whose best friend isn't denial.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

7. These idiots actually believe they're turning away future Democrats.

[Moostache]

9. Here's my question about this whole situation...

WHERE IS THIS GUY NOW?????



Why is it totally OK to pepper spray peaceful protesters ON THE GROUND, yet there are no paramilitary cops breaking up the traffic jam causing shitheads in the OP????

Why is it super OK to use violence on liberal protesters, but these Tea Baggers and their spiritual brethen like the asshats at the Bundy land grab get a free pass? Someone call pepper spray cop...his handiwork is needed again!!!

[Rex]

10. Because none of those peaceful protesters was armed with a weapon.

Evidently, the only thing law enforcement respects/fears is other people with guns...lots of guns. If you are obviously unarmed and sitting on the ground, then you are a prime target for assholes like Pepper Spray Pig.

[QuestForSense]

11. Good one!

[marmar]

12. We gotta make the world safe for hypocrisy

[OriginalGeek]

14. Their freedom only applies to over there

we don't want them free here.


They are free to catch our bullets in either case though.





(in case this is needed: )

[Romulox]

17. The way we treat immigrant children stands in STARK contradiction to how we treat

inner city children. There will be no special Congressional appropriations for poor children in Detroit, for example.

And yet so many have "compassion...for the children!" Now there's a contradiction!

[Scuba]

19. +1