IRS Apologizes For Targeting Conservative Political Groups In 2012 Ele (1 Viewer)

[BigSteelThrill]

How DARE they unfairly target a demographic and force them to endure humiliating invasions into their personal and financial privacy! How DARE they?! Now excuse me, I need to get back to drafting bills to drug screen every welfare and food stamp recipient after I polish off new legislation requiring anal and ######l ultrasound before abortions

HOW DARE THEY!!!

NCC got it right on page 1. It's s serious problem. But the outrage on the Right (in the press and here) is downright absurd.

What's the sufficient level of outrage for a serious problem such as this?

I dunno. That's the problem. The over the top outrage level from the Right over everything Obama has done means that even when they get something legitimate to be outraged about, they're at an outrage factor of ten million suns by now because they keep having to double up on the last thing they went overboard on.

Terrorist FistBump ☻

 

[adonis]

Another attempt to pin this on the administration when the failure clearly seems to rest with the IRS.

The republicans are ravenous for some red meat...the guys are starving. They've been trying to gnaw on the bones of the health care reform act, then the Libya/Benghazi thing, the AP case sounds tasty but it's just a whiff of meat at this point, and here you have something they're attempting to sink their teeth into but there's no meat.

Sigh...gonna be a long few years to deal with this.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Good to see Adonis weigh in here with an objective point of view.

 

[MaxThreshold]

I have skimmed the report. It is damning! But it does not even come close to supporting the rhetoric of the past few days. Anyone who works in an office where there are departments left to their own devices has seen what happened here.

Please expand, BS.

But it does not even come close to supporting the rhetoric of the past few days.

The rhetoric that the executive branch was targeting political opposition is not supported by the report. The assumption that partisan politics were the motivating factors in the setting up of the shortcuts is similarly not supported. (It is refuted in the sense that IRS officials refute it so I won't go as far as saying it squashes this idea.)

Anyone who works in an office where there are departments left to their own devices has seen what happened here.

Tomorrow at 9AM I have meeting with a department that until about a year ago went about a decade without supervision. I attend these as an outside consultant although that is not technically true. What has happened over the past year has been the unraveling of user devised job rules and guides. This department, much like the IRS created much more work for themselves than was necessary. Like the IRS it created huge backlogs of works. Like the IRS it stopped working on the backlog for a good period of time to get to current stuff. Like the IRS it was demanding that others be timely while being inexcusably late in its own responses. Like the IRS it inappropriately ask for information it didn't need or was entitled. Like the IRS it inappropriately provided information. Like the IRS it had used inappropriate terminology on semi official documentation. Like the IRS the department focus on unnecessary or inappropriate task took them away from doing their real job.

Other than the fact that none of this departments actions will anyone not with this particular company ever care about (very much unlike the IRS), the sins here are pretty much the same. And I have believed all along the cause is pretty much the same. While I am certainly on the liberal side of the spectrum, it is the above experience (which has repeated many times over my career) that is the primary source of my "lack of management and oversight" bias. I'd say it is my liberal bias that is source of my hedging on this. That is if this was happening during the second term of a McCain presidency I would probably not be suggesting that I could be proven wrong at some point. (Though I could very well be trying to sneak in my own "over the top" partisan shots like this is what happens when you put people in charge of government that don't believe in government.)

Sorry, BS, I enjoy your posts but that's just not a good enough excuse. If you're in the business of affecting people's lives you have moral obligation to get it right EVERY time.

This is a huge f'n deal, and to make it sound like anything else is not taking it seriously.

 

[adonis]

Good to see Adonis weigh in here with an objective point of view.

I know I've been absent a while, but it's good to see some of us are still pretending to be objective.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Another attempt to pin this on the administration when the failure clearly seems to rest with the IRS.

The republicans are ravenous for some red meat...the guys are starving. They've been trying to gnaw on the bones of the health care reform act, then the Libya/Benghazi thing, the AP case sounds tasty but it's just a whiff of meat at this point, and here you have something they're attempting to sink their teeth into but there's no meat.

Sigh...gonna be a long few years to deal with this.

Yeah.....okay. Glad to see you're being objective about this.

 

[mad sweeney]

Another attempt to pin this on the administration when the failure clearly seems to rest with the IRS. The republicans are ravenous for some red meat...the guys are starving. They've been trying to gnaw on the bones of the health care reform act, then the Libya/Benghazi thing, the AP case sounds tasty but it's just a whiff of meat at this point, and here you have something they're attempting to sink their teeth into but there's no meat. Sigh...gonna be a long few years to deal with this.

Yeah.....okay. Glad to see you're being objective about this.

Spoken by a true paradigm of objectivity.

 

[pittstownkiller]

Another attempt to pin this on the administration when the failure clearly seems to rest with the IRS.

The republicans are ravenous for some red meat...the guys are starving. They've been trying to gnaw on the bones of the health care reform act, then the Libya/Benghazi thing, the AP case sounds tasty but it's just a whiff of meat at this point, and here you have something they're attempting to sink their teeth into but there's no meat.

Sigh...gonna be a long few years to deal with this.

Here is some meat for you to sink your teeth into. http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/12/george-will-on-irs-tea-party-attacks-how-stupid-do-they-think-we-are/

 

[adonis]

Another attempt to pin this on the administration when the failure clearly seems to rest with the IRS.

The republicans are ravenous for some red meat...the guys are starving. They've been trying to gnaw on the bones of the health care reform act, then the Libya/Benghazi thing, the AP case sounds tasty but it's just a whiff of meat at this point, and here you have something they're attempting to sink their teeth into but there's no meat.

Sigh...gonna be a long few years to deal with this.

Here is some meat for you to sink your teeth into.http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/12/george-will-on-irs-tea-party-attacks-how-stupid-do-they-think-we-are/

That's not meat, it's talk of meat, and bad talk at that.

The linkage to the president simply isn't there, at least at this point, which makes this whole business ridiculous in terms of using it to impeach Obama.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I have skimmed the report. It is damning! But it does not even come close to supporting the rhetoric of the past few days. Anyone who works in an office where there are departments left to their own devices has seen what happened here.

Please expand, BS.

But it does not even come close to supporting the rhetoric of the past few days.

The rhetoric that the executive branch was targeting political opposition is not supported by the report. The assumption that partisan politics were the motivating factors in the setting up of the shortcuts is similarly not supported. (It is refuted in the sense that IRS officials refute it so I won't go as far as saying it squashes this idea.)

Anyone who works in an office where there are departments left to their own devices has seen what happened here.

Tomorrow at 9AM I have meeting with a department that until about a year ago went about a decade without supervision. I attend these as an outside consultant although that is not technically true. What has happened over the past year has been the unraveling of user devised job rules and guides. This department, much like the IRS created much more work for themselves than was necessary. Like the IRS it created huge backlogs of works. Like the IRS it stopped working on the backlog for a good period of time to get to current stuff. Like the IRS it was demanding that others be timely while being inexcusably late in its own responses. Like the IRS it inappropriately ask for information it didn't need or was entitled. Like the IRS it inappropriately provided information. Like the IRS it had used inappropriate terminology on semi official documentation. Like the IRS the department focus on unnecessary or inappropriate task took them away from doing their real job.

Other than the fact that none of this departments actions will anyone not with this particular company ever care about (very much unlike the IRS), the sins here are pretty much the same. And I have believed all along the cause is pretty much the same. While I am certainly on the liberal side of the spectrum, it is the above experience (which has repeated many times over my career) that is the primary source of my "lack of management and oversight" bias. I'd say it is my liberal bias that is source of my hedging on this. That is if this was happening during the second term of a McCain presidency I would probably not be suggesting that I could be proven wrong at some point. (Though I could very well be trying to sneak in my own "over the top" partisan shots like this is what happens when you put people in charge of government that don't believe in government.)

Sorry, BS, I enjoy your posts but that's just not a good enough excuse. If you're in the business of affecting people's lives you have moral obligation to get it right EVERY time.

This is a huge f'n deal, and to make it sound like anything else is not taking it seriously.

What excuse did I make for anyone? Where did I say this was not a big deal?

 

[MaxThreshold]

This guy I work with is convinced Obama is going to do time for this.

I think talk of impeachment is ridiculous at this point. However, if this leads to the White House it won't be such a laughing matter anymore.

 

[adonis]

This guy I work with is convinced Obama is going to do time for this.

I think talk of impeachment is ridiculous at this point. However, if this leads to the White House it won't be such a laughing matter anymore.

There's no reason to think this will lead to the white house.

 

[MaxThreshold]

I have skimmed the report. It is damning! But it does not even come close to supporting the rhetoric of the past few days. Anyone who works in an office where there are departments left to their own devices has seen what happened here.

Please expand, BS.

But it does not even come close to supporting the rhetoric of the past few days.

The rhetoric that the executive branch was targeting political opposition is not supported by the report. The assumption that partisan politics were the motivating factors in the setting up of the shortcuts is similarly not supported. (It is refuted in the sense that IRS officials refute it so I won't go as far as saying it squashes this idea.)

Anyone who works in an office where there are departments left to their own devices has seen what happened here.

Tomorrow at 9AM I have meeting with a department that until about a year ago went about a decade without supervision. I attend these as an outside consultant although that is not technically true. What has happened over the past year has been the unraveling of user devised job rules and guides. This department, much like the IRS created much more work for themselves than was necessary. Like the IRS it created huge backlogs of works. Like the IRS it stopped working on the backlog for a good period of time to get to current stuff. Like the IRS it was demanding that others be timely while being inexcusably late in its own responses. Like the IRS it inappropriately ask for information it didn't need or was entitled. Like the IRS it inappropriately provided information. Like the IRS it had used inappropriate terminology on semi official documentation. Like the IRS the department focus on unnecessary or inappropriate task took them away from doing their real job.

Other than the fact that none of this departments actions will anyone not with this particular company ever care about (very much unlike the IRS), the sins here are pretty much the same. And I have believed all along the cause is pretty much the same. While I am certainly on the liberal side of the spectrum, it is the above experience (which has repeated many times over my career) that is the primary source of my "lack of management and oversight" bias. I'd say it is my liberal bias that is source of my hedging on this. That is if this was happening during the second term of a McCain presidency I would probably not be suggesting that I could be proven wrong at some point. (Though I could very well be trying to sneak in my own "over the top" partisan shots like this is what happens when you put people in charge of government that don't believe in government.)

Sorry, BS, I enjoy your posts but that's just not a good enough excuse. If you're in the business of affecting people's lives you have moral obligation to get it right EVERY time.

This is a huge f'n deal, and to make it sound like anything else is not taking it seriously.

What excuse did I make for anyone? Where did I say this was not a big deal?

Maybe I misunderstood your phrase of "But it does not even come close to supporting the rhetoric of the past few days". It sounds like you're trying to downplay it. I think the rhetoric is justified - except for any impeachment talk (for now - unless this leads to the WH).

 

[MaxThreshold]

This guy I work with is convinced Obama is going to do time for this.

I think talk of impeachment is ridiculous at this point. However, if this leads to the White House it won't be such a laughing matter anymore.

There's no reason to think this will lead to the white house.

Of course YOU would say that - you voted for the guy 10 times in the last election. I'll reserve judgement until this thing is closed.

 

[Sand]

dems doing a bang up job running the country. hard to complain about Bush now.

No it really isn't. This stuff is bad news, but Bush started a useless war which costs hundreds of thousands of lives, weakened our position overseas, and ballooned our debt. It's hard not to consider Bush as one of the worst Presidents ever just for that act alone. This stuff is just more political shenanigans compared to that.

I love how this is in a vacuum, as if Saddam didn't kill hundreds of thousands of his own people before he was removed from power.

 

[MaxThreshold]

dems doing a bang up job running the country. hard to complain about Bush now.

No it really isn't. This stuff is bad news, but Bush started a useless war which costs hundreds of thousands of lives, weakened our position overseas, and ballooned our debt. It's hard not to consider Bush as one of the worst Presidents ever just for that act alone. This stuff is just more political shenanigans compared to that.

I love how this is in a vacuum, as if Saddam didn't kill hundreds of thousands of his own people before he was removed from power.

But then Tim can't blame it on Bush. Better for him to remain ignorant - makes him FEEL better about his posts.

 

[Sand]

This guy I work with is convinced Obama is going to do time for this.

I think talk of impeachment is ridiculous at this point. However, if this leads to the White House it won't be such a laughing matter anymore.

There's no reason to think this will lead to the white house.

Of course not. Valerie is much too smart for that.

 

[pittstownkiller]

dems doing a bang up job running the country. hard to complain about Bush now.

No it really isn't. This stuff is bad news, but Bush started a useless war which costs hundreds of thousands of lives, weakened our position overseas, and ballooned our debt. It's hard not to consider Bush as one of the worst Presidents ever just for that act alone. This stuff is just more political shenanigans compared to that.

I love how this is in a vacuum, as if Saddam didn't kill hundreds of thousands of his own people before he was removed from power.

...and Clinton didn't lament that Bush got to be the wartime President and finally got to deal with Hussien.

 

[adonis]

This guy I work with is convinced Obama is going to do time for this.

I think talk of impeachment is ridiculous at this point. However, if this leads to the White House it won't be such a laughing matter anymore.

There's no reason to think this will lead to the white house.

Of course not. Valerie is much too smart for that.

Wait...now Valerie is involved?

Man, the conspiracies are going into overdrive!

 

[adonis]

This guy I work with is convinced Obama is going to do time for this.

I think talk of impeachment is ridiculous at this point. However, if this leads to the White House it won't be such a laughing matter anymore.

There's no reason to think this will lead to the white house.

Of course YOU would say that - you voted for the guy 10 times in the last election. I'll reserve judgement until this thing is closed.

Fair enough. I'm only critiquing those who aren't reserving judgment, but who are rushing to it.

 

[mad sweeney]

dems doing a bang up job running the country. hard to complain about Bush now.

No it really isn't. This stuff is bad news, but Bush started a useless war which costs hundreds of thousands of lives, weakened our position overseas, and ballooned our debt. It's hard not to consider Bush as one of the worst Presidents ever just for that act alone. This stuff is just more political shenanigans compared to that.

I love how this is in a vacuum, as if Saddam didn't kill hundreds of thousands of his own people before he was removed from power.

What does that have to do with us? Lots of regimes massacre their people. When Rwandans were being hacked to death by the tens of thousands we had congressional hearings about the word genocide. It's not our job to go take down all the baddies, unless there's another far less altruistic agenda. Your point is moot.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Maybe I misunderstood your phrase of "But it does not even come close to supporting the rhetoric of the past few days". It sounds like you're trying to downplay it. I think the rhetoric is justified - except for any impeachment talk (for now - unless this leads to the WH).

I mean all of the "over the top" sound bites about how this already leads directly to the WH. How this was "Nixon like". Just like I said-

Please expand, BS.

But it does not even come close to supporting the rhetoric of the past few days.The rhetoric that the executive branch was targeting political opposition is not supported by the report. The assumption that partisan politics were the motivating factors in the setting up of the shortcuts is similarly not supported. (It is refuted in the sense that IRS officials refute it so I won't go as far as saying it squashes this idea.)

:

:

As far as being a big deal-

I have skimmed the report. It is damning!...

• Inappropriate criteria was in place for 18 months that had the IRS scrutinizing those that it didn't need to scrutinize while letting others that should have been targeted slip under their nose.
• Whether appropriately scrutinized or not, groups were then asked for unnecessary and I'll say inappropriate information to process these applications.
• While these groups timely "jumped through these hoops" the IRS sat on these cases doing nothing at all for approximately a year in some case.
• As the information bubbled to upper management that management continued to tell congress that none of this was happening.
• Unapproved applications were inappropriately sent to a media organization where some of them were arguably illegally published.
• Documentation used by the IRS had inappropriate terminology that at the very least gave the appearance of bias - partisan or otherwise.

All of the above, and whatever I am forgetting are all big deals. In fact each of them by itself would have been a big deal.

 

[timschochet]

dems doing a bang up job running the country. hard to complain about Bush now.

No it really isn't. This stuff is bad news, but Bush started a useless war which costs hundreds of thousands of lives, weakened our position overseas, and ballooned our debt. It's hard not to consider Bush as one of the worst Presidents ever just for that act alone. This stuff is just more political shenanigans compared to that.

I love how this is in a vacuum, as if Saddam didn't kill hundreds of thousands of his own people before he was removed from power.

I never suggested it was in a vacuum. Saddam Hussein was a terrible evil man who deserved to be killed. But it was a terrible strategic mistake for us to remove his government. It was an error of catastrophic proportions, and yes I blame Bush for this error. I don't hate George W. Bush; in fact I think he's probably a decent, moral person and he certainly took this action with the best of intentions IMO. But in the end when we evaluate Presidents, we can't judge them by intentions, only by results. This was a terrible result which we will be paying for for a long time.

 

[Sand]

What does that have to do with us? Lots of regimes massacre their people. When Rwandans were being hacked to death by the tens of thousands we had congressional hearings about the word genocide.

You see this as an example of normal and desired behavior from our government. I see this in a polar opposite manner. This, not cigars or anything else, is the biggest reason why Clinton is a national disgrace.

 

[mad sweeney]

What does that have to do with us? Lots of regimes massacre their people. When Rwandans were being hacked to death by the tens of thousands we had congressional hearings about the word genocide.

You see this as an example of normal and desired behavior from our government. I see this in a polar opposite manner. This, not cigars or anything else, is the biggest reason why Clinton is a national disgrace.

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here, but if you're suggesting that a) we should be going into countries with murderous dictators and b) that's the reason why we went into Iraq, then you obviously don't have even a simple grasp of reality. And if you really believe b, and like I said, I'm not sure that's what you're saying/implying, then you're flat out stupid.

 

[Sinrman]

Definitely another arrow in the FairTax quiver....

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

...Anyone who works in an office where there are departments left to their own devices has seen what happened here.

Please expand, BS.

Anyone who works in an office where there are departments left to their own devices has seen an episode of Restaurant Stake Out has seen what happened here.

(And no presenting examples of how this this is just human nature in less visible jobs is not meant to trivialize what happened here.)

 

[Slapdash]

...Anyone who works in an office where there are departments left to their own devices has seen what happened here.

Please expand, BS.

Anyone who works in an office where there are departments left to their own devices has seen an episode of Restaurant Stake Out has seen what happened here.

(And no presenting examples of how this this is just human nature in less visible jobs is not meant to trivialize what happened here.)

I like Mystery Diners better.

 

[soothsayer]

This guy I work with is convinced Obama is going to do time for this.

I think talk of impeachment is ridiculous at this point. However, if this leads to the White House it won't be such a laughing matter anymore.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/05/14/Obama-campaign-co-chair-attacked-Romney-conservative-group-in-2012-with-leaked-IRS-scandal-documents

One of President Barack Obama's re-election campaign co-chairmen used a leaked document from the IRS to attack GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney during the 2012 election, according to the National Organization for Marriage (NOM).NOM, a pro-traditional marriage organization, claims the IRS leaked their 2008 confidential financial documents to the rival Human Rights Campaign. Those NOM documents were published on the Huffington Post on March 30, 2012. At that time, Joe Solmonese, a left-wing activist and Huffington Post contributor, was the president of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC). Solmonese was also a 2012 Obama campaign co-chairman.

 

[ichris]

Boehner wants someone thrown in jail. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/15/boehner-irs-whos-going-jail-over-scandal/

 

[joffer]

Boehner wants someone thrown in jail. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/15/boehner-irs-whos-going-jail-over-scandal/

he doesn't know which law was violated, but he's sure there must be one.

 

[Phil Elliott]

Looks like the government is getting control of the situation. DOJ is going to investigate.

 

[pittstownkiller]

Looks like the government is getting control of the situation. DOJ is going to investigate.

Eric Holder, right?

 

[Phil Elliott]

Looks like the government is getting control of the situation. DOJ is going to investigate.

Eric Holder, right?

Unless he recuses himself...since he may be concerned he won't be viewed as being impartial.

 

[Sand]

Boehner wants someone thrown in jail. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/15/boehner-irs-whos-going-jail-over-scandal/

he doesn't know which law was violated, but he's sure there must be one.

Given the laws in this country there is about a 99.9% chance something applies.

 

[Sand]

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here, but if you're suggesting that a) we should be going into countries with murderous dictators and b) that's the reason why we went into Iraq, then you obviously don't have even a simple grasp of reality. And if you really believe b, and like I said, I'm not sure that's what you're saying/implying, then you're flat out stupid.

I was simply lamenting that we should have intervened in Rwanda.

As far as intelligence NASA thinks I'm smart (but my wife thinks I'm an idiot). So take your pick.

 

[GroveDiesel]

This guy I work with is convinced Obama is going to do time for this.

I think talk of impeachment is ridiculous at this point. However, if this leads to the White House it won't be such a laughing matter anymore.

There's no reason to think this will lead to the white house.

It's amazing how all this crazy stuff keeps happening under Obama's watch and he has no clue and no responsibility on any of it. Apparently he makes Reagan look like a micromanager. Maybe he should spend less time partying with Beyonce, golfing and taking vacations every month and start figuring out what's going on in his Executive branch.

 

[Fennis]

This guy I work with is convinced Obama is going to do time for this.

I think talk of impeachment is ridiculous at this point. However, if this leads to the White House it won't be such a laughing matter anymore.

There's no reason to think this will lead to the white house.

It's amazing how all this crazy stuff keeps happening under Obama's watch and he has no clue and no responsibility on any of it. Apparently he makes Reagan look like a micromanager. Maybe he should spend less time partying with Beyonce, golfing and taking vacations every month and start figuring out what's going on in his Executive branch.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

This guy I work with is convinced Obama is going to do time for this.

I think talk of impeachment is ridiculous at this point. However, if this leads to the White House it won't be such a laughing matter anymore.

There's no reason to think this will lead to the white house.

It's amazing how all this crazy stuff keeps happening under Obama's watch and he has no clue and no responsibility on any of it. Apparently he makes Reagan look like a micromanager. Maybe he should spend less time partying with Beyonce, golfing and taking vacations every month and start figuring out what's going on in his Executive branch.

 

[DocHolliday]

Not a fan of Obama but I admire his brillance. He pulls the strings but is never caught holding them. He has the uncanny ability to seem like he is in control of a situation until that situation goes bad. There is never a way to connect them back to him.

Benghazi? He was sleeping.

The IRS focusing on the Tea Party? He is not in charge of the IRS.

And, I guarantee Obama and his admin already had a plan in place if they were caught in their corruption. Using Holder to investigate any these current problems is perfect.

 

[mad sweeney]

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here, but if you're suggesting that a) we should be going into countries with murderous dictators and b) that's the reason why we went into Iraq, then you obviously don't have even a simple grasp of reality. And if you really believe b, and like I said, I'm not sure that's what you're saying/implying, then you're flat out stupid.

I was simply lamenting that we should have intervened in Rwanda.

As far as intelligence NASA thinks I'm smart (but my wife thinks I'm an idiot). So take your pick.

There's an "if" in that statement. If you do believe we went in there to save the Iraqis from Saddam as a primary motivation, then I'll have to side with your wife.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here, but if you're suggesting that a) we should be going into countries with murderous dictators and b) that's the reason why we went into Iraq, then you obviously don't have even a simple grasp of reality. And if you really believe b, and like I said, I'm not sure that's what you're saying/implying, then you're flat out stupid.

I was simply lamenting that we should have intervened in Rwanda.

As far as intelligence NASA thinks I'm smart (but my wife thinks I'm an idiot). So take your pick.

There's an "if" in that statement. If you do believe we went in there to save the Iraqis from Saddam as a primary motivation, then I'll have to side with your wife.

Your use of the word "we" is inappropriate here. Different people can support the same policy for different reasons, If somebody tells me that they supported the Iraq war on humanitarian grounds, I'm inclined to believe them (since I'm not a mind reader). If Bush or Cheney or Kerry or Hillary were motivated by different considerations, that's a separate issue.

 

[mad sweeney]

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here, but if you're suggesting that a) we should be going into countries with murderous dictators and b) that's the reason why we went into Iraq, then you obviously don't have even a simple grasp of reality. And if you really believe b, and like I said, I'm not sure that's what you're saying/implying, then you're flat out stupid.

I was simply lamenting that we should have intervened in Rwanda. As far as intelligence NASA thinks I'm smart (but my wife thinks I'm an idiot). So take your pick.

There's an "if" in that statement. If you do believe we went in there to save the Iraqis from Saddam as a primary motivation, then I'll have to side with your wife.

Your use of the word "we" is inappropriate here. Different people can support the same policy for different reasons, If somebody tells me that they supported the Iraq war on humanitarian grounds, I'm inclined to believe them (since I'm not a mind reader). If Bush or Cheney or Kerry or Hillary were motivated by different considerations, that's a separate issue.

By we, I mean the US. By the US, I mean the people pointing the finger for the military to follow. By the people pointing the finger, I mean the ones who said that Iraq was a threat to the US. Basically, and it should seem very clear, I'm talking about the policy, which is all that masters since there wasn't a popular vote on whether or not we were going to invade Iraq. You even reference the policy which leads me to believe you get what I am talking about. I'm talking about going to (unofficial) war with them, not what unimportant supporters (no offense, we're all unimportant) think about it.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here, but if you're suggesting that a) we should be going into countries with murderous dictators and b) that's the reason why we went into Iraq, then you obviously don't have even a simple grasp of reality. And if you really believe b, and like I said, I'm not sure that's what you're saying/implying, then you're flat out stupid.

I was simply lamenting that we should have intervened in Rwanda. As far as intelligence NASA thinks I'm smart (but my wife thinks I'm an idiot). So take your pick.

There's an "if" in that statement. If you do believe we went in there to save the Iraqis from Saddam as a primary motivation, then I'll have to side with your wife.

Your use of the word "we" is inappropriate here. Different people can support the same policy for different reasons, If somebody tells me that they supported the Iraq war on humanitarian grounds, I'm inclined to believe them (since I'm not a mind reader). If Bush or Cheney or Kerry or Hillary were motivated by different considerations, that's a separate issue.

By we, I mean the US. By the US, I mean the people pointing the finger for the military to follow. By the people pointing the finger, I mean the ones who said that Iraq was a threat to the US.Basically, and it should seem very clear, I'm talking about the policy, which is all that masters since there wasn't a popular vote on whether or not we were going to invade Iraq. You even reference the policy which leads me to believe you get what I am talking about. I'm talking about going to (unofficial) war with them, not what unimportant supporters (no offense, we're all unimportant) think about it.

If somebody who was in Congress at the time tells me that he voted in favor of the Iraq war because of humanitarian reasons, who am I to tell him otherwise? You're losing sight of the fact that not everybody has to support a policy for the exact same reasons. That goes for both plebes like us and lawmakers.

 

[Zegras11]

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here, but if you're suggesting that a) we should be going into countries with murderous dictators and b) that's the reason why we went into Iraq, then you obviously don't have even a simple grasp of reality. And if you really believe b, and like I said, I'm not sure that's what you're saying/implying, then you're flat out stupid.

I was simply lamenting that we should have intervened in Rwanda.

As far as intelligence NASA thinks I'm smart (but my wife thinks I'm an idiot). So take your pick.

There's an "if" in that statement. If you do believe we went in there to save the Iraqis from Saddam as a primary motivation, then I'll have to side with your wife.

Your use of the word "we" is inappropriate here. Different people can support the same policy for different reasons, If somebody tells me that they supported the Iraq war on humanitarian grounds, I'm inclined to believe them (since I'm not a mind reader). If Bush or Cheney or Kerry or Hillary were motivated by different considerations, that's a separate issue.

By we, I mean the US. By the US, I mean the people pointing the finger for the military to follow. By the people pointing the finger, I mean the ones who said that Iraq was a threat to the US.Basically, and it should seem very clear, I'm talking about the policy, which is all that masters since there wasn't a popular vote on whether or not we were going to invade Iraq. You even reference the policy which leads me to believe you get what I am talking about. I'm talking about going to (unofficial) war with them, not what unimportant supporters (no offense, we're all unimportant) think about it.

A Gallup poll made on behalf of CNN and USA Today concluded that 79% of Americans thought the Iraq War was justified, with or without conclusive evidence of illegal weapons.

 

[Sand]

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here, but if you're suggesting that a) we should be going into countries with murderous dictators and b) that's the reason why we went into Iraq, then you obviously don't have even a simple grasp of reality. And if you really believe b, and like I said, I'm not sure that's what you're saying/implying, then you're flat out stupid.

I was simply lamenting that we should have intervened in Rwanda.

As far as intelligence NASA thinks I'm smart (but my wife thinks I'm an idiot). So take your pick.

There's an "if" in that statement. If you do believe we went in there to save the Iraqis from Saddam as a primary motivation, then I'll have to side with your wife.

You're again conflating the two statements I made about Iraq and Rwanda. I have very different thoughts about both and you are assuming I would have the same thought processes for supporting or not supporting what we did or did not do.

This is a logical fallacy that you really need to fix, particularly before calling someone an idiot twice.

 

[Fennis]

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here, but if you're suggesting that a) we should be going into countries with murderous dictators and b) that's the reason why we went into Iraq, then you obviously don't have even a simple grasp of reality. And if you really believe b, and like I said, I'm not sure that's what you're saying/implying, then you're flat out stupid.

I was simply lamenting that we should have intervened in Rwanda.

As far as intelligence NASA thinks I'm smart (but my wife thinks I'm an idiot). So take your pick.

There's an "if" in that statement. If you do believe we went in there to save the Iraqis from Saddam as a primary motivation, then I'll have to side with your wife.

Your use of the word "we" is inappropriate here. Different people can support the same policy for different reasons, If somebody tells me that they supported the Iraq war on humanitarian grounds, I'm inclined to believe them (since I'm not a mind reader). If Bush or Cheney or Kerry or Hillary were motivated by different considerations, that's a separate issue.

By we, I mean the US. By the US, I mean the people pointing the finger for the military to follow. By the people pointing the finger, I mean the ones who said that Iraq was a threat to the US.Basically, and it should seem very clear, I'm talking about the policy, which is all that masters since there wasn't a popular vote on whether or not we were going to invade Iraq. You even reference the policy which leads me to believe you get what I am talking about. I'm talking about going to (unofficial) war with them, not what unimportant supporters (no offense, we're all unimportant) think about it.

A Gallup poll made on behalf of CNN and USA Today concluded that 79% of Americans thought the Iraq War was justified, with or without conclusive evidence of illegal weapons.

hopefully, the 79% learned a collective lesson

 

[Ghost Rider]

The Iraq War was definitely a disaster, and while Bush deserves some blame for it, it is important to remember that most of Congress (Republicans and Democrats) was in favor of it, as were most Americans, so any president at the time, with that much support and following 9-11 where the country was begging for payback, would have done the same thing. It sucks that it turned out the way it did, but blaming it all on Bush seems short-sighted. Bush did enough to warrant a crapload of criticism without heaping that on the pile.

 

[Zegras11]

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here, but if you're suggesting that a) we should be going into countries with murderous dictators and b) that's the reason why we went into Iraq, then you obviously don't have even a simple grasp of reality. And if you really believe b, and like I said, I'm not sure that's what you're saying/implying, then you're flat out stupid.

I was simply lamenting that we should have intervened in Rwanda.

As far as intelligence NASA thinks I'm smart (but my wife thinks I'm an idiot). So take your pick.

There's an "if" in that statement. If you do believe we went in there to save the Iraqis from Saddam as a primary motivation, then I'll have to side with your wife.

Your use of the word "we" is inappropriate here. Different people can support the same policy for different reasons, If somebody tells me that they supported the Iraq war on humanitarian grounds, I'm inclined to believe them (since I'm not a mind reader). If Bush or Cheney or Kerry or Hillary were motivated by different considerations, that's a separate issue.

By we, I mean the US. By the US, I mean the people pointing the finger for the military to follow. By the people pointing the finger, I mean the ones who said that Iraq was a threat to the US.Basically, and it should seem very clear, I'm talking about the policy, which is all that masters since there wasn't a popular vote on whether or not we were going to invade Iraq. You even reference the policy which leads me to believe you get what I am talking about. I'm talking about going to (unofficial) war with them, not what unimportant supporters (no offense, we're all unimportant) think about it.

A Gallup poll made on behalf of CNN and USA Today concluded that 79% of Americans thought the Iraq War was justified, with or without conclusive evidence of illegal weapons.

hopefully, the 79% learned a collective lesson

Maybe.... so why is none of this worth stopping?

Number of Victims [SIZE=small][edit][/SIZE]According to The New York Times, "he [saddam] murdered as many as a million of his people, many with poison gas. He tortured, maimed and imprisoned countless more. His unprovoked invasion of Iran is estimated to have left another million people dead. His seizure of Kuwait threw the Middle East into crisis. More insidious, arguably, was the psychological damage he inflicted on his own land. Hussein created a nation of informants — friends on friends, circles within circles — making an entire population complicit in his rule".[9] Other estimates as to the number of Iraqis killed by Saddam's regime vary from roughly a quarter to half a million,[10][11] including 50,000 to 182,000 Kurds and 25,000 to 280,000 killed during the repression of the 1991 rebellion.[12][13] Estimates for the number of dead in the Iran-Iraq war range upwards from 300,000.[14]

Other atrocities [SIZE=small][edit][/SIZE]During the 1991 rebellion, several "dungeons" were liberated, revealing "disoriented and confused" inmates that believed Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr was still the president.[15] Of nearly 2 million refugees created by the 1991 crackdown on dissent, it is estimated that 1,000 died every day for a period of months due to unsanitary and inhumane conditions.[16] The destruction of Shi'ite religious shrines by Hussein's regime has been called "comparable to the levelling of cities in the Second World War, and the damage to the shrines [of Hussein and Abbas] was more serious than that which had been done to many European cathedrals."[17] Methods of torture used by Hussein's regime included assault with brass knuckles and wooden bludgeons; electric shocks to the genitalia; scorched metal rods being forced into body orifices; the crushing of toes and removal of toenails; burning off limbs; lowering prisoners into vats of acid; poisoning with thallium; raping women in front of their family members; burning with cigarette butts; the crushing of bones; the amputation of ears, limbs, and tongues; and the gouging of eyes.[18] After the 1983-88 genocide, some 1 million Kurds were allowed to resettle in "model villages". According to a U.S. Senate staff report, these villages "were poorly constructed, had minimal sanitation and water, and provided few employment opportunities for the residents. Some, if not most, were surrounded by barbed wire, and Kurds could enter or leave only with difficulty."[19]

 

[Slapdash]

The Iraq War was definitely a disaster, and while Bush deserves some blame for it, it is important to remember that most of Congress (Republicans and Democrats) was in favor of it, as were most Americans, so any president at the time, with that much support and following 9-11 where the country was begging for payback, would have done the same thing. It sucks that it turned out the way it did, but blaming it all on Bush seems short-sighted. Bush did enough to warrant a crapload of criticism without heaping that on the pile.

Of course support among the public was high. Both Clinton and Bush did everything they could to whip up support for invading Iraq. After 9/11, it was inevitable.