Hi Chris,

>> Wrong analogy. After 911 we attacked Afghanistan which was the hotbed for Al-Queda (the Japanese analogy). Later, we attacked Iraq. This is more akin to our getting active with Germany than with a Japanese neighbor because it was felt that Germany was the root of the problem much as this government felt that Iraq was one of the roots of the terrorism problem.
>
>You nailed it. We attacked Iraq. We preemptively went into Iraq. We did not preemptively go to war with Japan. We didnt need Cheney's OSP, or WHIG to nudge us along, to cherrypick, to catapult the propaganda. No Iraq911-esque conflation
>necessary. We declared war on Japan the next day. There was no suffering of an "intelligence failure" when going to war with Japan.
>
>> ... This is more akin to our getting active with Germany...
>
>Its more akin to Germany declaring war on the U.S.

Yeah, one of history's mysteries. Why on Earth did Germany declare war on the US? It's not as if the Japanese were helping the Nazis with the Soviets.

>
>>>Likewise, if FDR's administration had establish something comparable to Bush's White House Iraq Group and staffed it with politicos in order to market an attack on Japan, then i'd say that helps the comparison a bit.
>>
>> Ahh, but FDR did! There's a fascinating book called "Empires on the Pacific" that came out a few years ago and details FDR and the American presses continual efforts to demonize and threaten...
>
>More inconsequential comparisons, ala Germany/Japan wanted land and natural resources of the countries they invaded. The attack on Pearl Harbor sealed our entry into WWII. The marketing was quite a moot point at that point. But it was the focal point for going into Iraq.

Not a moot point at all, Chris. Suppose that Japan had gone with the "gpo north" strategy and not "go south". FDR and the media had already demonized the Japanese and the Germans to the point that it would have not taken much to precipitate our direct entry into the war...heck, we were already blowing German subs up in the Atlantic.


>>> Did FDR find it necessary to declassify the status of a guvmint agent and then share this declassified info with a very limited group of reporters (who at the time were not aware of the declassified status of the information, including the timeframe several years later when they were required to testify under oath to a special prosecuter) and then for years pretend he didnt have any involvement in the declassifying of the agent's status?
>> If you hate Bush then be honest about it and not throw wild-eyed liberal moonbat junk into it and expect a rational response.
>
>Ah yes, the dismissive "you hate Bush" canard. Lets see if i can borrow a page from your book... Your hatred of people who are critical of the Bush administration permits you to throw wild-eyed, moonbat blah blah blah. With the Plame 'declassification', I could swear that I had accurately described the current rationale now in use by the administration.

You're being presumptuous of me....I don't hate anyone. What I dislike is those who bend the facts to preserve their worldview. Or, more accurately, so fervently believe the crap they read that they don't analyze it because they love reading it.


>> Inspections were NOT going on. There was a 5 year gap between the UN being kicked out and the UN being let back in.
>
>To be precise...
>
>November 13, 2002 - Iraq accepts U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 and informs the UN that it will abide by the resolution. Weapons inspectors arrive in Baghdad again after a four-year absence.
>
>March 16, 2003 - The United States advises U.N. weapons inspectors to leave Iraq.

Wrong timeline. Try 1998 - 2002. Jeez.

>> Iraq was contained from the pure military standpoint - there was no way they were going to preemptively attack Iran or Kuwait (again). However, we had a lack of intelligence assets in country but we knew Abu Nidal was being hosted there. We also had no knowledge where the WMD were that we knew he had at one point (the last 3 Presidents agreed on that one while each was in office).
>
>You're really lowballing the marketing. "Iraq's militarly is contained" doesnt make for persuasive PR.

I have no idea what point you are trying to make.

>> We also had no knowledge where the WMD were....
>
>When Rumsfeld says things like "We know where they [Iraq's WMD] are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat" people tend to think that that he knows what he's talking about. I know i did. And i remember watching live Powell's speech and i'm thinking why arent we in Iraq already taking out S.H.. And then after we went in, the everyday-expectation was to hear that our guys found the stuff that the admin said he had. And then much later come the details about how dissenting opinions of the intel by CIA, DOE, ORNL, USAF, and others had a hard time finding the light of day. And you hear news accounts where admin officials had Iraq in their sites from the get go. Makes some people wonder, but if you're ok with it....
>

I don't remember Rumsfeld ever claiming he knew where this stuff was but, if he did, cite a quote and score some points.

As to the rest of your point....yeah, did the Bush folks have Iraq in "their sights". Undoubtedly. No arguments here. Was that a bad thing? That's what deserves a discussion.

>> Hindsight's wonderful, ain't it?
>
>Hindsight is one thing. But the slow revelation of details from CIA analysts, retired military personal, ex-admin officials, from the minutes of British government meetings, and from other sources is another. I'm sure all will be explained when Bush's Congress gets back to work on the review of how the administration used the intel.

Maybe. This is something that can only be properly evaluated 20 years from now. We messed up in almost every military occupation we ever did. Do you honestly think the US or GB or anyone ever totally played fair to achieve a military/political end?


>> ... shows that you're just not up for the argument.
>> ... And the fact that I have had to enlighted you
>> I have had to point out so many things you didn't know
>
>You never miss an opportunity to remind people that you find your own opinions very persuasive.

BZZZT. Wrong. To be accurate, I never miss an opportunity to pounce on ignorance or misinformed opinions. I welcome debate and discussion but I won't abide by propaganda or a lack of the historical facts. When you come to the table with me you better have your ducks in a line because military and diplomatic history are hobbies of mine and I know the subjects well.