Thursday, March 16, 2006

Fool Me Once, Shame on You. Fool Me Twice, Shame on Me.

Yesterday, the President Bush re-affirmed our 'doctrine of pre-emptive strike,' while U.N. Ambassador John Bolton raised the specter or 9/11 in discussing the threat from Iran.

What have we heard about Iran? About WMD's, ties to terrorists, how terrible the government is, and the reasoned discussion-ending bloody shirt of 9/11 is pulled out yet again. Haven't we heard something like this before?

Same as things were a few years ago, last letter changed.

I can understand that some people may have believed this crew then. Heck, I even believed back then that Iraq probably had WMD capability based on what I was hearing on the news, although I felt that George Bush should have let Hans Blix do his job and find out for sure whether there were any. But anyone who buys into this one, is a true fool.



Sar said...

At least you can say the fool me once phrase correctly. "Won't get fooled again". Der!


dorsano said...

The whole discussion on the "doctrine of pre-emptive strike" shows just how poor the public debate in this country is.

This administration asserted that Saddam had chemical and biological weapons and was developing nuclear weapons.

It asserted (with the help of the Media) that Saddam was providing safe haven for al-Queda and was in fact in league and allied with al-Queda.

If the administration really believed all that - that in itself is grounds to invade - just as it was in Afghanistan.

So why did this administration need to concoct a "doctrine" of preemption?

If all that was true, we were already at war with Iraq since 9/11.

Why doesn't someone ask the president that question?

dorsano said...

And if Iran is in league with al-Queda then we are war with Iran.

We don't have diplomatic relations with Iran but our ambasador in Iraq is going to pay them a visit.

Perhaps they should discuss that issue too.

dorsano said...

Ooops ..

I didn't mean to imply that the debate on your blog was poor, Eli :)

You're probably reading many of the same newspieces, opeds and poobahs that I am.

I'm refering to the debate in the mainstream media and statements by elected officials

that aren't all that thoughtful it seems to me.

I suppose they think they need to keep things simple for us.

Anonymous said...

Keep thinking there is/was no link between sadam and OBL. Many, many years from now, when all the documents have been declassified, then we will ALL know there was.

dorsano said...

Keep thinking there is/was no link

The president didn't think so - he felt he had to pre-emept some future alliance/war.

The one time he was asked flat out by a SkyNews reporter in the Cross Hall of White House when Blair was here, he said no - that he couldn't claim there was a link.

Saddam tortured and killed Wahhabists - they were a threat to his dictatorship. That's well documented.

The propaganda campaign mounted to justify the administration's war in Iraq not only has taken time, treasure and lives away from the fight against al-Queda (the organization, the ideology, it's potential safe havens, and the environment it recruits from)

it's set back debate in this country by three years on how to best deal with the threat.

Keep thinking there is/was a link and you'll never understand the people trying to kill us.

A majority of Americans wouldn't disapprove of this war if they thought there was a link.

dorsano said...

I'm curious, Eddie - if you think states should have the right to decide what to do about abortion -

why not allow individuals to make that choice?

Eli Blake said...


You make some good points in response to Eddie. Further, as I documented in this post, the clearest link they ever claimed pre-invasion was based on what a guy said trying to get out of an Egyptian interrogation chamber (and we 'renditioned' him to Egypt because they used methods that even Zap Albert couldn't find a way to justify our using).

Eli Blake said...


allow individuals to decide. What a concept.

In China,the authorities ripped a man's genitals off to make him reveal the whereabouts of his wife, accused of the crime of 'being pregnant without permission.' But, how is this any different from the government making this decision?