The Weapons of Mass Destruction are one step closer to being found.

[JAR]

The weapons of mass destruction are one step closer to being found according to the article on this page: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,460160,00.html

At the end of the article it says:
Meanwhile, according to a Pentagon official, those doing the digging in Iraq say they have recently found small pieces of the WMD puzzle. Not yet enough to convince the public, perhaps, but enough to get the WMD hunters excited.

I recommend that you people who think that the U.S. government had no evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction go ahead and take back what you said while you have the chance. If these things are found, boy are you going to be sorry.

[Cain]

First, let me just say that even I'm surprised we haven't found anything yet.

However, a simple point must be made in relation to the administration's case for war: Imminent danger.

On March 19 Bush told us that we were in "grave danger" and that we needed to unleash an army of soldiers on Iraq before an army of fire fighters, policemen, and doctors descend on a major American city.

"Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time; "Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual."

There's also, um, a major problem with a retrospective justification. Colin Powell had no problem producing satellite images to show how stupid those silly weapon's inspectors were. That wily dictator just kept fooling them by transporting the WMDs before they came on site. Now, what, they're buried somewhere in the desert?

Why couldn't we give the weapon's inspectors more time? Everyday that passed when they didn't find something was just a greater reason to move in. Oh, but after taking over Iraq (heroically, of course) and finding nothing (of course), we need to remain tight-lipped because we might, possibly, maybe, find something. Aha! we were right all along! And if we don't find anything, then, well, we "liberated" the Iraqi people, which is all that counts.

Uh huh, makes sense to me.

[JAR]

Originally posted by Cain
First, let me just say that even I'm surprised we haven't found anything yet.

However, a simple point must be made in relation to the administration's case for war: Imminent danger.

On March 19 Bush told us that we were in "grave danger" and that we needed to unleash an army of soldiers on Iraq before an army of fire fighters, policemen, and doctors descend on a major American city.

"Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time; "Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual."

There's also, um, a major problem with a retrospective justification. Colin Powell had no problem producing satellite images to show how stupid those silly weapon's inspectors were. That wily dictator just kept fooling them by transporting the WMDs before they came on site. Now, what, they're buried somewhere in the desert?

Why couldn't we give the weapon's inspectors more time? Everyday that passed when they didn't find something was just a greater reason to move in. Oh, but after taking over Iraq (heroically, of course) and finding nothing (of course), we need to remain tight-lipped because we might, possibly, maybe, find something. Aha! we were right all along! And if we don't find anything, then, well, we "liberated" the Iraqi people, which is all that counts.

Uh huh, makes sense to me.
The duck in your avatar is cute.

[Questioninggeller]

Originally posted by Cain

However, a simple point must be made in relation to the administration's case for war: Imminent danger.

On March 19 Bush told us that we were in "grave danger" and that we needed to unleash an army of soldiers on Iraq before an army of fire fighters, policemen, and doctors descend on a major American city.


Makes you wonder

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by JAR
The weapons of mass destruction are one step closer to being found according to the article on this page: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,460160,00.html


Was that two-line aside at the end worth a post? Some unnamed Pentagon offical makes a vague and fact-less claim that is impossible to evaluate one way or the other. Is that really worth discussion?

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by JAR
Meanwhile, according to a Pentagon official, those doing the digging in Iraq say they have recently found small pieces of the WMD puzzle. Not yet enough to convince the public, perhaps, but enough to get the WMD hunters excited.


Are the small pieces part of a 2000 piece 3d jigsaw puzzle? That could be fun, I love puzz 3d, didn't know there was a WMD puzzle though.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by JAR

I recommend that you people who think that the U.S. government had no evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction go ahead and take back what you said while you have the chance. If these things are found, boy are you going to be sorry.

Y'know the war hawks have been beating this drum since February. At what point do Bushites eat there words????

[Ed]

``It is sort of fascinating that you can have 100 percent certainty about weapons of mass destruction and zero certainty of about where they are,'' Hans Blix NYT, today.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by JAR
The weapons of mass destruction are one step closer to being found according to the article on this page: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,460160,00.html

I recommend that you people who think that the U.S. government had no evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction go ahead and take back what you said while you have the chance. If these things are found, boy are you going to be sorry.

One step closer????? Translates to: found nothing so far! What a joke. When you find the 100-500 tons of WMD that Colin Powell "had irrefutable evidence of"... please call again.

Yes, every day we are one step closer to finding Osama, Saddam, the Iraqi WMD and the Easter Bunny. Last week, we caught the "Ace of Diamonds" who was going to spill the beans. I'm stilll laughing. Can't you see when someone is pulling your chain?

So I am generously going to give you the same advice you dispensed: repent now, before it's too late!

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by JAR
The weapons of mass destruction are one step closer to being found according to the article on this page: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,460160,00.html

...

I recommend that you people who think that the U.S. government had no evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction go ahead and take back what you said while you have the chance. If these things are found, boy are you going to be sorry.

Pardon me if I do not follow your reccomendations today.

The latest account I have seen regarding this item says:

No chemical or biological weapons have been found since U.S.-led forces toppled former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein in April.

And later --

"They're finding a lot of documents. They've got warehouses full of documents that they're rapidly going through and translating and entering into a data base, but nothing that would say 'here it is, go find it,"' the official told Reuters on condition of anonymity.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030623/ts_nm/iraq_usa_weapons_dc_1

Happy reading!

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Cain
First, let me just say that even I'm surprised we haven't found anything yet.

However, a simple point must be made in relation to the administration's case for war: Imminent danger.

On March 19 Bush told us that we were in "grave danger" and that we needed to unleash an army of soldiers on Iraq before an army of fire fighters, policemen, and doctors descend on a major American city.

"Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time; "Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual."

There's also, um, a major problem with a retrospective justification. Colin Powell had no problem producing satellite images to show how stupid those silly weapon's inspectors were. That wily dictator just kept fooling them by transporting the WMDs before they came on site. Now, what, they're buried somewhere in the desert?

Why couldn't we give the weapon's inspectors more time? Everyday that passed when they didn't find something was just a greater reason to move in. Oh, but after taking over Iraq (heroically, of course) and finding nothing (of course), we need to remain tight-lipped because we might, possibly, maybe, find something. Aha! we were right all along! And if we don't find anything, then, well, we "liberated" the Iraqi people, which is all that counts.

Uh huh, makes sense to me.

What US military action in Iraq did was send Saddam's Baath Party into disarray which was a positive outcome. The military action was in response to legitimate danger.

This is how it works. A nation-state like Iraq says: "American cities will burn" and the US President says: "OK, we are coming in."

That is imminent danger. Iraq has used weapons of mass destruction before. They threatened our cities in the international media--President Bush didn't make it up.

That said, just by us moving troops to the gulf caused Saddam to transport his WMD to Syria and bury the rest. That is a positive outcome. We have physical control over Iraq, and now all we have to do is go into Syria and take them out and take away their WMD (supplemented by Iraq's WMD).

In the meantime, revolutionary activity is underway against the government of Iran, destabilising the country.

That is a positive, desired outcome. To think too, none of this would have happened if the terrorists didn't destroy the WTC on 911.

JK

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


...

That said, just by us moving troops to the gulf caused Saddam to transport his WMD to Syria and bury the rest. That is a positive outcome. We have physical control over Iraq, and now all we have to do is go into Syria and take them out and take away their WMD (supplemented by Iraq's WMD).

...

JK

Woah! Wait just a minute, is this your new claim now?

Saddam did have WMDs and somehow during the actual shooting he managed to export and hide all of these "truckloads of WMDs" so well that no Iraqis or Americians know where they now at.

Are you serious?

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Crossbow


Woah! Wait just a minute, is this your new claim now?

Saddam did have WMDs and somehow during the actual shooting he managed to export and hide all of these "truckloads of WMDs" so well that no Iraqis or Americians know where they now at.

Are you serious?

New claim? This is the same claim I have had the entire time. France, Germany and other nation-states gave Saddam months to hide his WMD and gave him our battle plan and invasion timeline.

Ask yourself this Crossbow. You have the nastiest dictator in the middle east and a guy who has killed more Muslims than any other man in history. A guy who used WMD on his own people.

Now, are you saying he just "gave them up"? :eek:

Come on Crossbow, you are smarter than that.

JK

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


New claim? This is the same claim I have had the entire time. France, Germany and other nation-states gave Saddam months to hide his WMD and gave him our battle plan and invasion timeline.

Ask yourself this Crossbow. You have the nastiest dictator in the middle east and a guy who has killed more Muslims than any other man in history. A guy who used WMD on his own people.

Now, are you saying he just "gave them up"? :eek:

Come on Crossbow, you are smarter than that.

JK

Well, thanks much for the compliement. That is most kind.

However, I guess I am a bit confused because I was sure that you originally claimed that vast amounts of WMD would be found in Iraq, but now you are saying something quite different.

Please review the below just to make sure that I have it straight:

Iraq did have WMDs,
but they were hidden and exported prior to the invasion,
and that is why they cannot be found now.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight



That said, just by us moving troops to the gulf caused Saddam to transport his WMD to Syria and bury the rest. That is a positive outcome. We have physical control over Iraq, and now all we have to do is go into Syria and take them out and take away their WMD (supplemented by Iraq's WMD).


France, Germany and other nation-states gave Saddam months to hide his WMD and gave him our battle plan and invasion timeline.



JK


Cite the folowing please:

Evidence, proof, sources.

[Tmy]

So what do you think will happen first?

-The second coming of Jesus Christ

-WMD being found.


Depending on who you talk too both are eminent.

[JAR]

Originally posted by Tmy
So what do you think will happen first?

-The second coming of Jesus Christ

-WMD being found.


Depending on who you talk too both are eminent.
The second coming of Christ will never happen but the U.S. government will clear up the matter of whether or not Saddam secretly had weapons of mass destruction and when it does, it will show that Colin Powell's claims are true.

[Ion]

Originally posted by JAR

...
...and when it does, it will show that Colin Powell's claims are true.
When?

"...Colin Powell's claims are true." in February, triggering a war only Bush's U.S. wanted.

Now, is almost July.

There is forever a zero backup to "...Colin Powell's claims are true.", exposing more and more of Bush's secret agenda in Iraq.

[Crossbow]

Anyone else catch what Hans Blix had to say about the US not finding WMDs in Iraq?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030624/ts_nm/iraq_blix_dc_2

UN Arms Inspector Blix Criticizes U.S. Over Iraq

...

"It is sort of fascinating that you can have 100 percent certainty about weapons of mass destruction and zero certainty of about where they are," Blix said at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York.

...

"Three-and-a-half months for new inspections was a rather short time before calling it a day and especially when we now see the U.S. government is saying that, 'look, you have to have a little patience, you know these things take time.' All right," Blix told his audience of foreign policy analysts, business leaders, academics and journalists.

...

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

The United States didn't declare war on Iraq because of new evidence of banned weapons, U.S. Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld said on Wednesday.

Didn't the Bush administration explicity say they attacked because of the imminent threat that the Saddam Regime's WMD weapons posed to the US?

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/07/09/Rumsfeld_Iraq030709

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by PygmyPlaidGiraffe


Didn't the Bush administration explicity say they attacked because of the imminent threat that the Saddam Regime's WMD weapons posed to the US?

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/07/09/Rumsfeld_Iraq030709

Ah, yes, you are correct that is what they said.

However, the pro-war apologists will say that while Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al may have said these types of things, what they really meant was that the war was waged to rid the world of a brutal, paranoid dictator. And besides, none of the people who made those statements were actually under oath at the time they were being made, therefore there was no actual lying go on.

Ugh!

:rolleyes:

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by PygmyPlaidGiraffe


Didn't the Bush administration explicity say they attacked because of the imminent threat that the Saddam Regime's WMD weapons posed to the US?

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/07/09/Rumsfeld_Iraq030709

From the link:
Rumsfeld said the U.S. declared war because it saw existing evidence of Iraqi arms programs in "a dramatic new light" following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.



BTW, thanks for the link!

When all the anti-Bushies here keep posting misleading and inflamatory rhetoric about Iraq I think it's necessary to remember that Saddam had many chances to comply with UNSC resolutions. He had 11 years, and 16 UNSC resolutions.

He continually thwarted the efforts of UNSCOM inspectors. In order to avoid invasion, lift sanctions, and improve the lives of his people, Saddam had merely to comply in good faith. He never did this.

If it turns out that Iraq's WMD programs were all defunct, then it begs the question; Why didn't Saddam cooperate, and show the world difinitively that he was out of the WMD business? The fault is entirely with him. He miscalculated American resolve after 9/11. He should have been smarter than that.

-z

[Mendor]

Originally posted by JAR
The weapons of mass destruction are one step closer to being found Oh yeah? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3054549.stm)

[shemp]

Maybe Saddam has them hidden in his buttcrack.

[BillyTK]

"Very senior sources" in the British government have ruled out the possibility of finding WMDs in Iraq, but the Prime Minister is adamant that evidence of WMDs will be found (and that the BBC stands for Bloody Bunch (of) Commies!): Blair defiant on Iraqi weapons (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3055801.stm). Where's that crack team of Daily Telegraph (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3027016.stm) reporters when you need 'em?

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by rikzilla


From the link:


BTW, thanks for the link!

When all the anti-Bushies here keep posting misleading and inflamatory rhetoric about Iraq I think it's necessary to remember that Saddam had many chances to comply with UNSC resolutions. He had 11 years, and 16 UNSC resolutions.

He continually thwarted the efforts of UNSCOM inspectors. In order to avoid invasion, lift sanctions, and improve the lives of his people, Saddam had merely to comply in good faith. He never did this.

If it turns out that Iraq's WMD programs were all defunct, then it begs the question; Why didn't Saddam cooperate, and show the world difinitively that he was out of the WMD business? The fault is entirely with him. He miscalculated American resolve after 9/11. He should have been smarter than that.

-z

So, the reason de` jour for the war is that it was all Saddam's fault that the USA invaded a country that was not an immediate threat to the USA. Right?

Well, I find that quite interesting considering that the invaded country was constantly monitored, surrounded by military forces, politically isolated, and almost completely economically isolated.
And the invaded country happens to sitting on the worlds third largest oil reserve and it situated to excellent base of operations for future USA military action in the Middle East.
And since there was little international support for the invasion, there is very little help being offered in the very expensive job of the actual invasion and maintaining post-invasion security as well as post-invasion re-building.

So excuse me if I find the idea that the invasion was all Saddam's fault a bit weak.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by Ed
``It is sort of fascinating that you can have 100 percent certainty about weapons of mass destruction and zero certainty of about where they are,'' Hans Blix NYT, today.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Crossbow


So, the reason de` jour for the war is that it was all Saddam's fault that the USA invaded a country that was not an immediate threat to the USA. Right?

Well, I find that quite interesting considering that the invaded country was constantly monitored, surrounded by military forces, politically isolated, and almost completely economically isolated.
And the invaded country happens to sitting on the worlds third largest oil reserve and it situated to excellent base of operations for future USA military action in the Middle East.
And since there was little international support for the invasion, there is very little help being offered in the very expensive job of the actual invasion and maintaining post-invasion security as well as post-invasion re-building.

So excuse me if I find the idea that the invasion was all Saddam's fault a bit weak.

Stow it. Start dreaming up complaints about the US invasion of Iran, 'cause if we're serious about the WOT they're next. I suspect it'll be sometime after GWB wins re-election.

-z

[Agammamon]

Here's a nice little quote I read recently, though I can'remember where it came from.

"How could we have been 100% certain that the WMD existed, but 0% certain on its location."

[Ed]

Originally posted by Agammamon
Here's a nice little quote I read recently, though I can'remember where it came from.

"How could we have been 100% certain that the WMD existed, but 0% certain on its location."

Hans Blix, cited twice already.

[JAR]

If the U.S. government, which is the most reliable source of information regarding the WMDs, officially states that it didn't have very good evidence that Iraq had chemical weapons in those vans or trucks(whatever they were) and apologizes for claiming it did, then I will say that you the leftists are correct and I am wrong.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by JAR
If the U.S. government, which is the most reliable source of information regarding the WMDs, officially states that it didn't have very good evidence that Iraq had chemical weapons in those vans or trucks(whatever they were) and apologizes for claiming it did, then I will say that you the leftists are correct and I am wrong. The US government is at the moment blaming CIA for the wrong 'information' about Iraq's alleged search for African uranium - CIA is accepting the blame but on the other hand blaming the UK for giving them unreliable intelligence.

Could it be a first step on the road to 'OK, so we were wrong, but we were mislead'? :confused:

[JAR]

Originally posted by Bjorn
The US government is at the moment blaming CIA for the wrong 'information' about Iraq's alleged search for African uranium - CIA is accepting the blame but on the other hand blaming the UK for giving them unreliable intelligence.

Could it be a first step on the road to 'OK, so we were wrong, but we were mislead'? :confused:
While the fact that the CIA was mislead with one piece of information gives the possiblity that is was mislead with others, it still stands that just because one piece of information is bad, it doesn't mean all are.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by JAR
While the fact that the CIA was mislead with one piece of information gives the possiblity that is was mislead with others, it still stands that just because one piece of information is bad, it doesn't mean all are. True, but it isn't very impressive that the CIA was mislead in such a way, and of course it makes one wonder what else they were wrong about.

If they were really 'mislead', that is.

Reports today state that they didn't want to mention the uranium at all, but in the end accepted to let it be mentioned that 'the British intelligence is reporting ...' even if the CIA didn't find any convincing evidence for the story.

"We think the story is fake, but it is not a lie to say that UK sources told us that Iraq is doing so and so, so let's put it that way in the speech to scare the people and cover our asses at the same time ...."

In my eyes, just a nicer way of twisting the truth. :(

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by JAR

While the fact that the CIA was mislead with one piece of information gives the possiblity that is was mislead with others, it still stands that just because one piece of information is bad, it doesn't mean all are.

There is WMD material being tested right now that the media hasn't reported yet. Hang tough Jar, it is like I said all along. We had the WMD. Just stand by and get ready for the announcement. ;)

JK

[fhios]

Originally posted by Agammamon
Here's a nice little quote I read recently, though I can'remember where it came from.

"How could we have been 100% certain that the WMD existed, but 0% certain on its location."

Again, we can't even get weak evidence, like the testimony of ex-soldiers as to mere rumors that some unit or other was a CBW unit, and we have a whole army's worth of potential witnesses. This should bother someone. Meanwhile, North Korea actually has a WMD program, and we don't give a flip. We won't even talk to them.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Bjorn
The US government is at the moment blaming CIA for the wrong 'information' about Iraq's alleged search for African uranium - CIA is accepting the blame but on the other hand blaming the UK for giving them unreliable intelligence.

Could it be a first step on the road to 'OK, so we were wrong, but we were mislead'? :confused:

The Australian Government is trying the same trick. Blame the intelligence agencies. In Australia, the intelligence agency is actually saying that it new the uranium issue was a forgery, but did not get around to telling the Prime Minister! (Sorry for the exclamation mark, I don't use them often). He has been gracious enough to accept their apology.

How does that work. Shouldn't he be sacking people left right and centre for sending our country to war on what was know to be incorrect intelligence? In the Westminster system, the responsible minister is supposed to take responsibity for the actions of his department. He should be quitting too, without even being asked.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Crossbow
Anyone else catch what Hans Blix had to say about the US not finding WMDs in Iraq?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030624/ts_nm/iraq_blix_dc_2

UN Arms Inspector Blix Criticizes U.S. Over Iraq

...

"It is sort of fascinating that you can have 100 percent certainty about weapons of mass destruction and zero certainty of about where they are," Blix said at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York.

...

"Three-and-a-half months for new inspections was a rather short time before calling it a day and especially when we now see the U.S. government is saying that, 'look, you have to have a little patience, you know these things take time.' All right," Blix told his audience of foreign policy analysts, business leaders, academics and journalists.

...

It just proves that Mr. Blix is still justifying his position that war was not necessary. Hans Blix on Iraq WMD's. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2759653.stm)

Nevermind the WMD's that the Bush administration suspected Saddam had. Nevermind the CIA reports.

There were around 1.5 tons of VX Nerve gas that the U.N. knew that Saddam had. There are thousands of shells designed for delivering VX Nerve gas that the U.N. knew that Saddam had. link to known WMD's (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/rls/19723.htm) We still haven't found these items, either.

I don't buy the argument that Saddam destroyed these items and made no accounting of it to the U.N., when doing so would have kept him in power. His only motives for not accounting for these items would be if he was hiding them in a stockpile to bring back out when the world wasn't looking, or selling them to another country like Syria. I believe that Saddam was evil, but he wasn't stupid.

[Ed]

How can anyone be certain that he had them if they have no idea where they are? Logically, think this thru.

[egslim]

Originally posted by Ed
How can anyone be certain that he had them if they have no idea where they are? Logically, think this thru.

Well, I am fairly certain (beyond reasonable doubt) that you exist, though I have no idea where you live... :P

[Ed]

Originally posted by egslim


Well, I am fairly certain (beyond reasonable doubt) that you exist, though I have no idea where you live... :P

Well, at the moment of my post you know I am at some sort of interface device. If you had the resourses of the FBI, say, you could know exactly where I am.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Ed
How can anyone be certain that he had them if they have no idea where they are? Logically, think this thru.

Are you also accusing the U.N. of lying? Saddam had weapons that were photographed and cataloged by the U.N., but that he refused to destroy at the time. You can also make a reasonable guess based on the discovery of a production facility and records of materials purchased v.s. time that a facility was in operation. Logically, this is what intelligence operatives spend a lot of time doing, since most hostile countries won't just let us in to browse their facilities.

[crackmonkey]

48 hour rule in effect...

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33530

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
48 hour rule in effect...

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33530

From the story on your link:


At the moment, Democrats are focused on charges the president misled the nation when he cited in his State of the Union address a British intelligence report that Iraq attempted to buy uranium from Africa. The U.S. has admitted the particular report was faulty, but Prime Minister Tony Blair insists his government has other evidence to back the claim.

CIA Director George Tenet said yesterday he accepted responsibility for letting Bush include the allegations in the address.

"These 16 words should never have been included in the text written for the president," Tenet said in a statement.



This is what gets me about the whole thing. The Democrats are focused on the part of the speech that refers to British intelligence. So, the Brits deliberately lied to us to start this war then? I don't believe that for a second.

[crackmonkey]

I totally agree... the Dems' wanting to lynch Bush over some bad British intelligence is pretty absurd, particularly since the intelligence in question comprised about a sentence in an entire speech.
This whole issue is nothing more than a cynical effort to bash Bush by Dem presidential hopefuls. They think they've found a chink in Bush's armor, so they're going to go at it full-on.
George Tenet has already accepted blame for passing this tidbit on - I doubt that will cool the Dems' jets. Pathetic.

[Mocker Wall]

There's a special thread open for you Crackmonkey.

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23196

[Frank Newgent]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
This is what gets me about the whole thing. The Democrats are focused on the part of the speech that refers to British intelligence. So, the Brits deliberately lied to us to start this war then? I don't believe that for a second.
Originally posted by crackmonkey
I totally agree... the Dems' wanting to lynch Bush over some bad British intelligence is pretty absurd, particularly since the intelligence in question comprised about a sentence in an entire speech.

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16345

Former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson publicly revealed over the weekend that he was the mysterious envoy whom the CIA, under pressure from Cheney, sent to Niger to investigate a document — now known to be a crude forgery — that allegedly showed Iraq was trying to acquire enriched uranium that might be used to build a nuclear bomb. Wilson found no basis for the story, and nobody else has either.


What is startling in Wilson's account, however, is that the CIA, the State Department, the National Security Council and the vice president's office were all informed that the Niger-Iraq connection was phony. No one in the chain of command disputed that this "evidence" of Iraq's revised nuclear weapons program was a hoax.


Yet, nearly a year after Wilson reported back the facts to Cheney and the U.S. security apparatus, Bush, in his 2003 State of the Union speech, invoked the fraudulent Iraq-Africa uranium connection as a major justification for rushing the nation to war: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium in Africa." What the president did not say was that the British were relying on their intelligence white paper, which was based on the same false information that Wilson and the U.S. ambassador to Niger had already debunked. "That information was erroneous, and they knew about it well ahead of both the publication of the British white paper and the president's State of the Union address," Wilson said Sunday on "Meet the Press."

At least Tenet hasn't had to die from brain cancer (http://www.bartleby.com/65/ca/Casey-Wi.html)...


http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=420849#post420849

If there are no WMD found in Iraq within, say, 3 months, I'll be willing to be sealed up in a pit of my own filth for a week.

04-13-2003 03:10 PM
Is "within, say, 3 months" less than or equal to 3 months?

[subgenius]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
I totally agree... the Dems' wanting to lynch Bush over some bad British intelligence is pretty absurd, particularly since the intelligence in question comprised about a sentence in an entire speech.
This whole issue is nothing more than a cynical effort to bash Bush by Dem presidential hopefuls. They think they've found a chink in Bush's armor, so they're going to go at it full-on.
George Tenet has already accepted blame for passing this tidbit on - I doubt that will cool the Dems' jets. Pathetic.
And Tenet was appointed by who? He's a "good soldier" who's falling on the grenade.
And what was his explanation for why he let it happen? (Sound of crickets.)
No one's lynching anyone. It is a valid concern. Republican John McCain is calling for an investigation. He has a reasonable position (close to mine): the war was justified, but it is a serious issue to rely on/espouse bad information.
It is not absurd. War is more serious than sex.
"Bad British intelligence".....so we don't verify things independently so we can blame others?
That's absurd.
What did he (Bush) know, and when did he know it?
When he discovered it to be inaccurate, why wasn't it corrected?

[crackmonkey]

Tenet is a lifelong Democrat who was appointed by Clinton. There has been a history of tension between him and the Bush administration - hardly a loyal soldier.
This is absolutely absurd - one sentence in the President's speech is being characterized as the raison d'etre for the war by Dems. Absurd on its face.
The intelligence was British, and was wrong, as intelligence often turns out to be, despite the best efforts of the intelligence community. I'm sure that a number of intelligence analysts said that this piece of intel was bogus, and I'm just as sure that others said it was genuine - as witnessed by Tenet's imprimatur.
This entire flap is artificial, cynical, and intellectually dishonest.
It looks like I have a day before I descend into the cesspit. Reports have it that WMD have been found last week and are undergoing tests, though... we'll have to wait and see.

[Frank Newgent]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
I'm sure that a number of intelligence analysts said that this piece of intel was bogus, and I'm just as sure that others said it was genuine
Who said that it was genuine?

[crackmonkey]

Tenet approved its inclusion in the President's speech, therefore either he believed the intel or he chose to lie to the White House about it being valid.
I strongly suspect the former.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
Tenet approved its inclusion in the President's speech, therefore either he believed the intel or he chose to lie to the White House about it being valid.
I strongly suspect the former.

But then what do we make of the fact that the Vice President's office knew that it was unreliable back in Feb 2002?

No one seems to be talking about that, but the reports that came out this week included statements by the person sent to Africa to investigate the claims over a year before the SOU address that he told the Vice President's office very clearly that the accusations were likely not true.

The VP knew the report was bogus and didn't tell the CIA? How is that suppose to make me feel better about the situation?

[crackmonkey]

As I said, I'm sure that some people told him it was bogus, but I'm just as sure that others thought it was good, as evidenced by Tenet's approval. This is typical with intelligence - it is rare that there is unanimity. There is, of course, unanimity after the fact, and numerous told-you-sos from those who were correct, and a dead silence from thiose who were proved wrong. That's what we have here, except the issue is being kept afloat by political candidates looking for a vehicle to attack a popular incumbent.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
Tenet approved its inclusion in the President's speech, therefore either he believed the intel or he chose to lie to the White House about it being valid.
I strongly suspect the former.
But you could be wrong, right?
And there are other alternatives, since Cheney (I'm sure he talks to Bush on occasion) knew it to be false for a year.
This was a "crude forgery" not some sophisticated data that could be misinterpreted. Yes, our intelligence can be wrong on occasion. But this is the simplest form of intelligence to verify.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
That's what we have here, except the issue is being kept afloat by political candidates looking for a vehicle to attack a popular incumbent.
This rationale would immunize the president from any scutiny.
I'm sure that's not what you want. Or is it? And why? Can he stand the heat, or not?

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
As I said, I'm sure that some people told him it was bogus, but I'm just as sure that others thought it was good, as evidenced by Tenet's approval. This is typical with intelligence - it is rare that there is unanimity. There is, of course, unanimity after the fact, and numerous told-you-sos from those who were correct, and a dead silence from thiose who were proved wrong. That's what we have here, except the issue is being kept afloat by political candidates looking for a vehicle to attack a popular incumbent.

So the VP sends a guy to investigate claims, he comes back and says they are bogus, and the CIA doesn't investigate further because they have a different opinion?

Please.

[crackmonkey]

Look... the VP sends his personal envoy to investigate, and the envoy decides it's bogus and relays that to the VP. VP tells Bush that it's bogus, but the head of the CIA vouches for its authenticity. Bush makes the mistake of relying on the judgment of a professional intelligence agency as opposed to a pal of the VP. Under the circumstances, I can't see how one can blame Bush for not turning his nose up at intelligence that the CIA vouched for.
Purest politics, nothing more.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
Look... the VP sends his personal envoy to investigate, and the envoy decides it's bogus and relays that to the VP. VP tells Bush that it's bogus, but the head of the CIA vouches for its authenticity. Bush makes the mistake of relying on the judgment of a professional intelligence agency as opposed to a pal of the VP. Under the circumstances, I can't see how one can blame Bush for not turning his nose up at intelligence that the CIA vouched for.
Purest politics, nothing more.
Guess you're willing to go to any lengths to excuse Bush for his lack of critical thinking skills and judgement. There's nothing that would make you question anything about this scenario.
Free pass for George on everything.

Time warp:
"Mr. Udall, that was a great speech, every thinking person in America will vote for you."
"That's not enough, I need a majority."

[crackmonkey]

Wow, what a martinet you are. Any President that is less than prescient in intelligence matters must endure your unending scorn, I suppose. You must be screaming for Gray Davis's head after he told Californians that their bridges were targets for AL-Qaeda - intelligence that turned out to be fraudulent. Should there be an investigation for every instance of this kind?
It's one thing to hold the Executive branch accountable; it's quite another to insist on utter omniscience.

[subgenius]

By the way, this is just part of a pattern of data manipulation/suppression:

The Bush administration is finally facing tough questions about its selective use of intelligence in selling war with Iraq. But Americans shouldn't just be skeptical of what the president says about WMD. They should be skeptical of what he says about GDP. In economic policy even more than in war policy, the Bushies have successfully suppressed, manipulated, and withheld evidence to serve their policy purposes.

Of course every administration likes to trumpet its good news and hide its bad, but what's remarkable about the Bush team is its willingness to stifle data that had been widely released and to politicize data that used to be nonpartisan.

The administration muzzles routine economic information that's unfavorable. Last year, for example, the administration stopped issuing a monthly Bureau of Labor Statistics report, known as the Mass Layoff Statistics program, that tracked factory closings throughout the country.......
Interestingly, President George H.W. Bush buried these same statistics in '92, also during a period of job losses. They were revived by President Clinton.)
....
The Bush economic team has snuffed its own reports when they reach conclusions that don't match the administration's rosy scenarios. The administration deep-sixed a study commissioned by then Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill that predicts huge budget deficits well into the future......

The administration also muffled a customary report whose findings would have forced key corporate supporters to pay more to their employees. ..... Among those benefiting politically were Labor Secretary Elaine Chao's husband, Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, whose state relies on several thousand guest workers in its tobacco fields and who receives large contributions from agricultural interests.

Another administration trick is playing with the length of its economic forecast periods, which puts the best possible face on bad news while exaggerating the projected benefits of its own initiatives. For example, to heighten the impression that Social Security is running out of money (thereby strengthening the case for allowing workers to divert money from the system into private retirement accounts), the administration has predicted shortfalls far in the future by relying on preposterously long forecast periods. In a superb analysis of the budget in the June Harper's, Thomas Frank noted that in 2002 the administration declared an $18 trillion shortfall in Social Security and Medicare—about five times the current national debt. Frank notes that in order to arrive at the $18 trillion figure—since Social Security is currently in surplus—the administration used a "cumulative seventy-five-year estimate [Frank's itals] based on extreme long-term projections ... ." Meanwhile, even as it relies on 75-year projections for Social Security, the same document replaces traditional 10-year budget projections with five-year ones, claiming the longer-term numbers were unreliable.
......................................
President Bush also politicized the Council of Economic Advisers, which is supposed to produce straight analysis, not administration spin. CEA staffers complained that top Bush economic adviser Larry Lindsey, not even a member of the council, encouraged them to produce data supporting the president's controversial tax cut initiatives. CEA chairman Glen Hubbard also pushed staffers to find literature supporting the questionable argument that tax cuts created job growth.

On other occasions, the administration has punished economic officials who didn't follow the company line. Treasury Secretary O'Neill left the administration after, among other fits of candor, he expressed skepticism about economic figures the White House had released and suggested that the tax cut could be better used to buttress Social Security. And before Lindsey was made to take a dive, he predicted that the war in Iraq could cost upwards of $200 billion, a figure that infuriated the White House, which was selling the anti-Saddam campaign as a comparatively cheap victory.

Important economic data that casts a bad light on administration policies has been expunged from government Web sites. The Department of Labor removed a report showing the real value of the minimum wage over time, claiming it was "outdated." With no minimum wage hike since 1997, the Web site would have shown minimum-wage workers faring increasingly poorly under the Bush administration, while their real income went up under Clinton.
.....
Earlier this year, a study predicting mediocre job growth from Bush's proposed $674 billion economic stimulus plan disappeared from the Council of Economic Advisers' Web site. ..
... "Instead of doing what serious analysts would do and going to the drawing board to re-evaluate, they just took the offending document off the Web site."
................
http://slate.msn.com/id/2085481/

And not to forget the recent EPA report deleting global warming.

"Pull the wool over your own eyes."--J.R. "Bob" Dobbs
"You will pay to know what you really think."--"Bob"

[subgenius]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
Wow, what a martinet you are. Any President that is less than prescient in intelligence matters must endure your unending scorn, I suppose. You must be screaming for Gray Davis's head after he told Californians that their bridges were targets for AL-Qaeda - intelligence that turned out to be fraudulent. Should there be an investigation for every instance of this kind?
It's one thing to hold the Executive branch accountable; it's quite another to insist on utter omniscience.
Not asking for prescience/omniscience.
And certainly there should be investigation any time our officials use fraudulent data, no matter who.
Who's screaming? Where's my unending scorn? Putting McClain in the same boat?
Geez, one little question and its stonewall time.

And martinet? Interesting you accuse me of that. Which rules, if not honesty, do you insist on? When going to war.

Since there's nothing that you can concede, there's no real sense in continuing is there?
Gonna live up to your pledge? Or is that another one of the rules that doesn't need to be followed?

[subgenius]

Hmmmmm:

"...Tenet himself advised Rice’s top deputy, Steven Hadley, to remove a reference to the uranium report from a speech Bush delivered Oct. 7 in Cincinnati, establishing that the nation’s top intelligence officials suspected that the allegation was false more than three months before they approved Bush’s repeating it in his nationally televised address on Jan. 28."

http://www.msnbc.com/news/937524.asp?vts=071220031305


But Bush says the case is closed, so move along there's nothing to see here.

[peptoabysmal]

I really wish the Democrats would push for a full investigation by the Senate of the Iraq war and Bush's State of the Union address.

I'll predict that if push comes to shove, the Democrats back out of any such investigation with some lame excuse like "such an investigation would serve to tear our country apart at a time when we all need to be pulling together".

There isn't any evidence that Bush deliberately lied in order to go to war with Iraq. There isn't any evidence that America is making a fortune off of Iraqi oil. There isn't any evidence that America desires to make Iraq into a US satellite country.

Anyone starting such an investigation would be made to look the fool. However, if Democrats can stir up enough innuendo and disparagement about the current administration, without being put in the position of actually proving their claims, Democrats just might have a chance in the 2004 election. :roll:

Chant your mantra now: WMD... WMD... WMD....

[subgenius]

Interesting analysis.
No evidence: kinda early in the game isn't it?
I predict: predictions are for gypsies.
Mantra: WMD WMD....I thought that was your mantra.
Either he knew, or he should have known. Bad either way.

[subgenius]

In a hole, the president should have done some plain speaking: "The information I gave you in the State of the Union about Iraq seeking nuclear material from Africa has been revealed to be false. I'm deeply angry and I'm going to get to the bottom of this."
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/13/opinion/13DOWD.html

So why didn't he? Maybe getting to the bottom would get to the top? Alternate explanations invited.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
There isn't any evidence that Bush deliberately lied in order to go to war with Iraq. Maybe you're right.

However, I still think the excuses for the wrong info are bad.

From what I've been reading the last days, it seems that CIA did NOT want to push the Nigeria/uranium issue because they knew it wasn't true. The carefully chosen words about "UK intelligence has evidence" is not a lie, if UK is indeed saying they have such evidence.

But if CIA (and the vice president) know that the 'evidence' is false, and still accepts a certain wording in the speech that makes it sound like it is true ....

The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth it is NOT. :(

[Frank Newgent]

I'm trying to recall exactly what that quote of Bush's was:


"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. But now the upper hand is on the other foot. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide."

Originally posted by crackmonkey
Tenet approved its inclusion in the President's speech, therefore either he believed the intel or he chose to lie to the White House about it being valid.

Maybe you are right. Only an incompetent or a liar could think what the president said..

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by subgenius
In a hole, the president should have done some plain speaking: "The information I gave you in the State of the Union about Iraq seeking nuclear material from Africa has been revealed to be false. I'm deeply angry and I'm going to get to the bottom of this."
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/13/opinion/13DOWD.html

So why didn't he? Maybe getting to the bottom would get to the top? Alternate explanations invited.

Reminds me of the old song.

"When I get to the bottom I go back to the top of the slide"

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by subgenius
Interesting analysis.
No evidence: kinda early in the game isn't it?
Why is it early enough to conclude that there are no WMD's to be found in a huge country, but not early enough to produce a couple of documents and some testimony that indicates Bush lied?


I predict: predictions are for gypsies.

And stock market analysts who get rich from their predictions.


Mantra: WMD WMD....I thought that was your mantra.

D'oh you got me there! I should have said "No WMD..., No WMD..., No WMD...". OK I concede, the victory is yours.


Either he knew, or he should have known. Bad either way.
Now you want the president to be a gypsy and make predictions?

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Bjorn
Maybe you're right.

However, I still think the excuses for the wrong info are bad.

From what I've been reading the last days, it seems that CIA did NOT want to push the Nigeria/uranium issue because they knew it wasn't true. The carefully chosen words about "UK intelligence has evidence" is not a lie, if UK is indeed saying they have such evidence.

But if CIA (and the vice president) know that the 'evidence' is false, and still accepts a certain wording in the speech that makes it sound like it is true ....

The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth it is NOT. :(

What I've read indicates that the CIA didn't know one way or the other that the information was or wasn't true. They did have doubts about the accuracy of the information. I agree, it should have been left out of the speech, but to turn it into a right-wing war hawk conspiracy is just wacky.

[crackmonkey]

Not fortune-telling... he merely wants the President to know intelligence better than the head of the CIA, to know economics better than his economic advisers, and so on.
If you read back through this thread, it's apparent that subgenius is just looking for a reason to bash Bush, and this is the best he can do, apparently. Bash away if it makes you feel better, I guess...

[subgenius]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal

Why is it early enough to conclude that there are no WMD's to be found in a huge country, but not early enough to produce a couple of documents and some testimony that indicates Bush lied?


And stock market analysts who get rich from their predictions.


D'oh you got me there! I should have said "No WMD..., No WMD..., No WMD...". OK I concede, the victory is yours.


Now you want the president to be a gypsy and make predictions?
I never concluded there were no WMDs.
And many market analysts took many down the tubes with predictions. With those there are at least tons of numbers to crunch.
Don't want him to be a gypsy. "Know or should have known" relates to the fact that the data was false, not unknowable things. Want him to rely on facts. Big diff, which is the whole point here.
Your concession on something makes you more credible.
I find those that think they are always right rarely are.
Those that claim to know everything know little.
Those that admit they lie are more honest.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
Not fortune-telling... he merely wants the President to know intelligence better than the head of the CIA, to know economics better than his economic advisers, and so on.
If you read back through this thread, it's apparent that subgenius is just looking for a reason to bash Bush, and this is the best he can do, apparently. Bash away if it makes you feel better, I guess...

Don't want him to know intelligence better than the CIA.
If he would have listened to it he wouldn't be in this mess.
I'm not looking for a way to bash anyone. This issue doesn't make me feel good at all. I happen to love my country.
This is not the best I can do, others raised the issue (like John McCain).
Some want to remain blissful.
Some want to know.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal


What I've read indicates that the CIA didn't know one way or the other that the information was or wasn't true. They did have doubts about the accuracy of the information. I agree, it should have been left out of the speech, but to turn it into a right-wing war hawk conspiracy is just wacky.
John McCain is not alleging a right wing hawk conspiracy.

[subgenius]

There are reasons to be concerned even, and maybe especially, if you're a Bush supporter and supported the war:

Did Bush really need to push the WMD case so hard to convince Americans that Saddam should be ousted? In a TIME poll taken four weeks before coalition forces invaded, 83% of Americans thought war was justified on the grounds that "Saddam Hussein is a dictator who has killed many citizens of his Iraq." That's one claim that has never been contested. In the same TIME poll, however, 72% of Americans thought war was also justified because it "will help eliminate weapons of mass destruction in Iraq."

The unseen threat of a Saddam with WMD was an argument that played to Bush's strengths. As a politician, Bush has always been better at asserting his case than at making it. After 9/11, his sheer certitude—and the faith Americans had in his essential trustworthiness—led Americans to overwhelmingly support him. The yellowcake affair may have already changed that relationship, for as the casualties mount in Iraq, polls suggest that some of that faith is eroding. Which means the next time Bush tells the nation where he wants to go, it may not be so quick to follow.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101030721-464405,00.html

[JAR]

Originally posted by subgenius
[snip]
In a TIME poll taken four weeks before coalition forces invaded, 83% of Americans thought war was justified on the grounds that "Saddam Hussein is a dictator who has killed many citizens of his Iraq."
[snip]
As it is, the fact that Saddam commits mass-murder against his own people wouldn't be a justifiable reason to go to war with his country. If it's okay to invade a country because we don't like the way that country is running it's affairs, then there will be no end to amount of countries we can justifiably invade, because it is the norm for countries to not govern their people by the same standards. When a country invades another country, it must justify it on the grounds that the other country is committing an act of aggression or has stated that it will commit an act of aggression and not taken back that statement.

But it is noteworthy that the countries that mass-murder their own people often are the countries that commit acts of aggression against other countries. A country that kills a lot of it's own people might have even less problems with killing a lot of people in other countries. [Edited to add: Perhaps I'm wrong. Parents who yell at their children(that would include most parents I've known, including my own) tend not to yell at other people's children as often. So maybe a country that kills a lot of its own people would have problems with killing people who don't live within it's boundaries.]

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
Look... the VP sends his personal envoy to investigate, and the envoy decides it's bogus and relays that to the VP. VP tells Bush that it's bogus, but the head of the CIA vouches for its authenticity. Bush makes the mistake of relying on the judgment of a professional intelligence agency as opposed to a pal of the VP. Under the circumstances, I can't see how one can blame Bush for not turning his nose up at intelligence that the CIA vouched for.
Purest politics, nothing more.

OR

The VP sends his personal envoy to investigate, and the envoy determines it's bogus and tells the VP. The VP knows that it would not help the president's position so doesn't inform the president or the CIA, figuring they are better off spreading the lie.

Or

The VP sends his personal envoy to investigate, and the envoy determines it's bogus and tells the VP. The VP tells the president, but the president won't listen to anything that goes against his preconceived notions of what must be true.

But then, who could blame the administration for any of this, right?

[subgenius]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


OR

The VP sends his personal envoy to investigate, and the envoy determines it's bogus and tells the VP. The VP knows that it would not help the president's position so doesn't inform the president or the CIA, figuring they are better off spreading the lie.

Or

The VP sends his personal envoy to investigate, and the envoy determines it's bogus and tells the VP. The VP tells the president, but the president won't listen to anything that goes against his preconceived notions of what must be true.

But then, who could blame the administration for any of this, right?
Just those trying to attack a popular president. Purest politics, nothing more. Ignorance is bliss.

[Bjorn]

From Washington Post, yesterday:

CIA Director George J. Tenet successfully intervened with White House officials to have a reference to Iraq seeking uranium from Niger removed from a presidential speech last October, three months before a less specific reference to the same intelligence appeared in the State of the Union address, according to senior administration officials. In other words, they accepted Tenet's intervention in October, but still included the same story in the State of the Union address later on.

Did anything change in the meantime? It doesn't look like it:

"We followed the NIE and hoped there was more intelligence to support it," a senior administration official said yesterday. When told there was nothing new, White House officials backed off, and as a result "seeking uranium from Niger was never in drafts," he said. One wonders who pushed to put it in the final speech ... :(

[crackmonkey]

It seems like a pretty dead issue to me... Tenet admitted that it was his fault, and the BUsh administration agrees. I'm satisfied, anyway.
I'm heartened by your diligence in ferreting out the truth, though. I assume that you're likewise as interested in digging up the truth about Clinton's assorted scandals - why did he bomb the Chinese embassy during the Kosovo conflict, why didn't he allow SUdan to hand over bin Laden when they offered, why he bombed a Sudanese aspirin factory...
I don't recall reading your outrage and cries for investigation on these... I'm certain that you wouldn't be partisan in these matters, only calling for investigations for Republican administrations. That would be unthinkable.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
It seems like a pretty dead issue to me... Tenet admitted that it was his fault, and the BUsh administration agrees. I'm satisfied, anyway.
I'm heartened by your diligence in ferreting out the truth, though. I assume that you're likewise as interested in digging up the truth about Clinton's assorted scandals - why did he bomb the Chinese embassy during the Kosovo conflict, why didn't he allow SUdan to hand over bin Laden when they offered, why he bombed a Sudanese aspirin factory...
I don't recall reading your outrage and cries for investigation on these... I'm certain that you wouldn't be partisan in these matters, only calling for investigations for Republican administrations. That would be unthinkable. Thanks for your concern.

However, when I moved to the US Dubya was the president already, and it seems quite important to find out if we have a president who is willing to tell lies to his people to start a war. I'm sure you agree.

By the way, did you start any threads about Clinton bombing a Sudanese aspirin factory? If so, please let me know.

Finally, two wrongs don't make one right - whatever mistake the current government does can't be justified by saying 'well, Clinton did too'.

[Lyle Beaudoin]

It seems to me that what Mr. Tenet has apologized for is letting the Bush Administration pull more wool over the public's eyes when he could've stopped it.

His statement certainly doesn't exonerate the White House. Not even close.

[crackmonkey]

Actually, Bjorn, my post was directed to Subgenius, not you.
I didn't write anything at all about the Sudanese aspirin plant. I believed the Clintonj administration that it was an accident. I understand that intelligence is often faulty... Clinton used what he believed to be accurate intelligence, which was unfortunately wrong.
While it is true that saying 'Clinton did it too' won't excuse anything Bush may do, if someone screams in protest of the Bush administration while remaining conspicuously silent about similar events during the Clinton years, it sheds light on their motives. I find Subgenius to be more than a bit biased. I sincerely doubt that he'd be willing to subject Clinton to the level of scrutiny he favors for Bush.

[Cinorjer]

It seems like a pretty dead issue to me... Tenet admitted that it was his fault, and the BUsh administration agrees. I'm satisfied, anyway.

So Bush Inc. found a scapegoat, in the form of the last Clinton apointee left. Given this administration's obsession about Iraq, only an idiot would believe that the oval office wasn't well aware of every bit of intelligence, what was proven, what was speculation, and what was false. They were engaged on a campaign to scare people into accepting a war, and crossed the line into propaganda. Either that, or the people making the decisions are blind believers in their own worldview that refuse to accept evidence to the contrary.

So what's the harm? The harm is the "boy who cried wolf" effect. Gee, Bush swore Iraq had an active WMD program. Turns out he was wrong. Now, he claims that Iran has a nuclear weapons program. Do we trust Bush again? He has destroyed his credibility. That's a stupid thing for any President to do. When it comes to making a case for something as important as war, facts must be checked and rechecked before presenting them to the public.

[subgenius]

Re: my willingness to criticize Clinton.
Amazingly enough (this is a skeptics forum) I live by the old adage about how much to believe in what you hear, read or see, regardless of who.
I'm wondering though, when we'll start hearing better defenses of current affairs than "its better, the same, or no worse than ______(fill in the blank)."
My mama telt me "Just because Johnny did/does it, don't make it right."
Actually I think that's one of the great moral lessons to learn.
That was then, this is now. We can do nothing about the past but learn from it.

(Rambling aside:
I am a skeptic not a cynic, and I have wanted to start a thread on the difference. Gee, I hate cynics---[referring to no one in particular here].)

[a_unique_person]

What's that Chinese quote? Hmmmm, "The Journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step".

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by crackmonkey

It looks like I have a day before I descend into the cesspit. Reports have it that WMD have been found last week and are undergoing tests, though... we'll have to wait and see.

Well....in Ann Coulter's opinion you need not immerse yourself in the dung-heap just yet.

(Many thanks to Pepto for the link. Ann's a feisty lady! Meow!
:D :D :D

For the sake of their tiresome argument, let's stipulate that we will find no weapons of mass destruction – or, to be accurate, no more weapons of mass destruction. Perhaps Hussein was using the three trucks capable of assembling poison gases to sell ice cream under some heretofore undisclosed U.N. "Oil For Popsicles" program.

Should we apologize and return the country to Saddam Hussein and his winsome sons? Should we have him on "Designer's Challenge" to put his palaces back in all their '80s Vegas splendor? Or maybe Uday and Qusay could spruce up each other's rape rooms on a very special episode of "Trading Spaces"? What is liberals' point?

No one cares.

[Frank Newgent]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A17845-2003Jun20&notFound=true

For the president, the missing weapons are not a political problem. Frank Luntz, a Republican pollster, says Americans are happily focused on Iraqis liberated rather than WMD not found, so we "feel good about ourselves."

But unless America's foreign policy is New Age therapy to make the public feel mellow, feeling good about the consequences of an action does not obviate the need to assess the original rationale for the action.

Until WMD are found, or their absence accounted for, there is urgent explaining to be done.
Jeez, what a leftist...

[Tricky]

Originally posted by crackmonkey 7-12-2003
Tenet is a lifelong Democrat who was appointed by Clinton. There has been a history of tension between him and the Bush administration - hardly a loyal soldier.
This is absolutely absurd - one sentence in the President's speech is being characterized as the raison d'etre for the war by Dems. Absurd on its face.
The intelligence was British, and was wrong, as intelligence often turns out to be, despite the best efforts of the intelligence community. I'm sure that a number of intelligence analysts said that this piece of intel was bogus, and I'm just as sure that others said it was genuine - as witnessed by Tenet's imprimatur.
This entire flap is artificial, cynical, and intellectually dishonest.
It looks like I have a day before I descend into the cesspit. Reports have it that WMD have been found last week and are undergoing tests, though... we'll have to wait and see.
Whoa! Can I call 'em, or what? (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1869996175&highlight=Sylviaesque#post1869996175)

Originally posted by Tricky 7-10-2003

He may do a Sylvia-esque no-show, but I suspect that he will claim (as so many here have) that the empty trailers, the twelve-year old reactor parts and the buried medical waste are weapons of mass destruction. Either that or some lame story about how they have found them, but not released the info. Under no circumstances whatsoever do I expect him to make good on his pledge. Besides, how would we verify it?
:eek:

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Cinorjer
It seems like a pretty dead issue to me... Tenet admitted that it was his fault, and the BUsh administration agrees. I'm satisfied, anyway.

So Bush Inc. found a scapegoat, in the form of the last Clinton apointee left. Given this administration's obsession about Iraq, only an idiot would believe that the oval office wasn't well aware of every bit of intelligence, what was proven, what was speculation, and what was false. They were engaged on a campaign to scare people into accepting a war, and crossed the line into propaganda. Either that, or the people making the decisions are blind believers in their own worldview that refuse to accept evidence to the contrary.

So what's the harm? The harm is the "boy who cried wolf" effect. Gee, Bush swore Iraq had an active WMD program. Turns out he was wrong. Now, he claims that Iran has a nuclear weapons program. Do we trust Bush again? He has destroyed his credibility. That's a stupid thing for any President to do. When it comes to making a case for something as important as war, facts must be checked and rechecked before presenting them to the public.

First you say Bush "found a scapegoat"...then you go on to say that the harm is "the boy who cried wolf" effect. George Tenet is that boy.

Let's look at his bio from the CIA's web page:
George John Tenet was sworn in as Director of Central Intelligence on 11 July 1997 following a unanimous vote by both the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the full Senate. In this position he heads the Intelligence Community (all foreign intelligence agencies of the United States) and directs the Central Intelligence Agency.

Mr. Tenet served as the Deputy Director of Central Intelligence, having been confirmed in that position in July 1995. Following the departure of John Deutch in December 1996, he served as Acting Director.

Mr. Tenet previously served as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Intelligence Programs at the National Security Council. While at the NSC, he coordinated Presidential Decision Directives on ''Intelligence Priorities,'' ''Security Policy Coordination,'' ''US Counterintelligence Effectiveness,'' and ''US Policy on Remote Sensing Space Capabilities.'' He also was responsible for coordinating all interagency activities concerning covert action.

Prior to serving at the National Security Council, he served on President Clinton's national security transition team. In this capacity, he coordinated the evaluation of the US Intelligence Community. Mr. Tenet also served as Staff Director of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence for over four years under the chairmanship of Senator David Boren. In this capacity he was responsible for coordinating all of the Committee's oversight and legislative activities including the strengthening of covert action reporting requirements, the creation of a statutory Inspector General at CIA, and the introduction of comprehensive legislation to reorganize US intelligence

What this means is that Mr. Tenet was in charge of advising the POTUS about national security matters since 1992 when Clinton first arrived in DC. It means that when Sudan offered to give up Osama, George was there to advise Clinton before Clinton took a decision not to take Osama.

He was already the CIA director when the embassies were attacked in Kenya and Tanzania. He was there to tell Clinton to bomb Al Qaida camps in Afghanistan (that were empty). He was there to tell Clinton that Al Qaida was making Chemical weapons at the cleverly disguised asprin factory in Sudan....that after all really was just making asprin! He was there when a cruise missile was targeted on the Chinese embassy in Belgrade (and no one above a middle manager at CIA has ever taken responsability!....Damn! Shouldn't there have been an investigation???!!)

But most importantly, he was there on 9/11. Easily the most spectacular failure of US intelligence in our history.

The man should be fired, or at least investigated. I think he's gotten the benefit of the doubt long enough. He's not only the "boy who cried wolf",...he's the boy who looked the other way as the wolf attacked. Bush's big mistake was keeping on even one of Bill Clinton's incompetent crowd.

-zilla

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Well....in Ann Coulter's opinion you need not immerse yourself in the dung-heap just yet. Quoted:

For the sake of their tiresome argument, let's stipulate that we will find no weapons of mass destruction – or, to be accurate, no more weapons of mass destruction. Perhaps Hussein was using the three trucks capable of assembling poison gases to sell ice cream under some heretofore undisclosed U.N. "Oil For Popsicles" program.

Should we apologize and return the country to Saddam Hussein and his winsome sons? Should we have him on "Designer's Challenge" to put his palaces back in all their '80s Vegas splendor? Or maybe Uday and Qusay could spruce up each other's rape rooms on a very special episode of "Trading Spaces"? What is liberals' point?

No one cares.


I can't speak for the liberals, but the issue is: using the power of the presidency for lying to the American people to justify the actions of the administration. Since there has not been even one OUNCE of WMDs found to date (over 3 months and counting, friends), you would have to be a complete mo-ron to continue to believe they EVER EXISTED.

Even the most gullible amongst Americans - or those who were willing to give the president the benefit of the doubt - don't like being lied to. If I recall correctly, Nixon resigned for his lies and Clinton was impeached for his. So Bush's lies have the potential to come back to haunt him.

As to what to do in Iraq, immediate withdrawal sounds reasonable to me - and let the U.N. clean up our mess.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by DrChinese


Since there has not been even one OUNCE of WMDs found to date (over 3 months and counting, friends), you would have to be a complete mo-ron to continue to believe they EVER EXISTED.

Mister Chicom strikes again! Well I guess not only am I a mo-ron, but so is little Aagiza:

The account of an eight-year old girl dramatized the attack and its consequences. Just after 6 am on August 25, 1988, Aagiza saw planes suddenly appear over the mountain tops and unload bombs on Ekmala, her Kurdish village in northern Iraq. Minutes later, she watched her parents and twenty-year old brother die, and then she saw their skin blacken. Next, with other survivors, she undertook an arduous trip over high mountain passes into southeastern Turkey. She coughed, vomited and had bloody diarrhea. Her skin stung from blisters, which six weeks later are still healing. Aagiza now lives in a tent camp near the Turkish border with Syria, with her three sisters and a surviving brother. As winter approaches in the highlands, they have no idea where they will live for the next week or thereafter.



Chicom, the only mo-ron here is you. Of course poor Saddam was innocent of EVER having WMD's!!! :rolleyes:

-z

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by DrChinese



As to what to do in Iraq, immediate withdrawal sounds reasonable to me - and let the U.N. clean up our mess.

Lets name all the great American leaders who's fame was built on running away:




:con2:


Oh, wait a minute.....maybe that's why they don't call it "The land of the Cowardly!"

-z

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
It seems like a pretty dead issue to me... Tenet admitted that it was his fault, and the BUsh administration agrees. I'm satisfied, anyway.

I'm glad you are satisfied, if that makes you feel better.

On the other hand, I disagree that Tenet has admitted that it was his "fault." Tenet admitted that they approved the statement as written, but it is soley on a technicality that it passed. Because if you look at it, the statement, as written, is true. Absolutely true. British Intel did have a document saying that Iraq was trying to buy uranium. That is perfectly correct.

Now, where the problem lies is in the fact that the British intel that had this information was fabricated. So the question was, did the administration know it was fabricated but used it anyway? Well, the VP did, we know that much.

So did the president include the statement knowing that it was misleading? Or was it an honest mistake?

The fact that the CIA approved it really doesn't matter. All it means is that it is technically correct (which it is). OTOH, it is not the CIA's job to be involved with the politics of the State of the Union. They are only there to ascertain that the information is correct. It is not there job to make sure the president is not using it to mislead the public for political gain.

Did the president know the British documents showing that Iraq was trying to buy uranium, which do exist, were false before he made the speech? If not, why not? The VP did...

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Mister Chicom strikes again! Well I guess not only am I a mo-ron, but so is little Aagiza:

(account from August 25, 1988...)

Chicom, the only mo-ron here is you. Of course poor Saddam was innocent of EVER having WMD's!!! :rolleyes:

-z

So we agree that he had WMDs 15 years ago. That wasn't what was used to justify the invasion of Iraq. Got anything a little more current? Like circa when we invaded?

I notice that the apologists can't seem to stay focused on a single criticism long enough to ride it out. No WMDs have been found as per Bush's accusations - he said Iraq was an immediate threat to the U.S.A. Threat of what? There wasn't any threat after all, Rik! Admit it - it was all trumped up...

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by DrChinese


So we agree that he had WMDs 15 years ago. That wasn't what was used to justify the invasion of Iraq. Got anything a little more current? Like circa when we invaded?

I notice that the apologists can't seem to stay focused on a single criticism long enough to ride it out. No WMDs have been found as per Bush's accusations - he said Iraq was an immediate threat to the U.S.A. Threat of what? There wasn't any threat after all, Rik! Admit it - it was all trumped up...

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by DrChinese


Since there has not been even one OUNCE of WMDs found to date (over 3 months and counting, friends), you would have to be a complete mo-ron to continue to believe they EVER EXISTED.

perhaps someone should give you an English lesson....EVER EXISTED.....means EVER EXISTED. Now who's the mo-ron?

:k:

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by rikzilla


perhaps someone should give you an English lesson....EVER EXISTED.....means EVER EXISTED. Now who's the mo-ron?

:k:

Dear Moe:

As repeatedly mentioned, the accusation Bush made was that WMDs existed as of the time of the accusation because Iraq was an immediate threat to the security of the US. Powell said 100-500 tons, conservatively (Feb 2003).

So it doesn't really matter how you interpret my words, you are still running from the battle. The WMDs have not been found - not even an ounce - and you dance around this issue even though this is what the thread is about. It is not about whether Sadda should be restored to power, it is not about casting those who disagree with you as liberals or commies...

No WMD found to date. 3+ months and counting... mo-ron.

[crackmonkey]

This is germane to the discussion...


http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2003/7/14/120020

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by DrChinese


Dear Moe:

As repeatedly mentioned, the accusation Bush made was that WMDs existed as of the time of the accusation because Iraq was an immediate threat to the security of the US. Powell said 100-500 tons, conservatively (Feb 2003).

So it doesn't really matter how you interpret my words, you are still running from the battle. The WMDs have not been found - not even an ounce - and you dance around this issue even though this is what the thread is about. It is not about whether Sadda should be restored to power, it is not about casting those who disagree with you as liberals or commies...

No WMD found to date. 3+ months and counting... mo-ron.

Another liberal who cannot admit a simple mistake! You said "EVER EXISTED" you were wrong. You make no apology. It's a simple thing, and yet you cannot even bring yourself to admit a simple mistake. If you cannot admit a simple mistake, how is anyone here to trust your judgement? When you make a mistake that really matters, we know you'll pretend you never made it.

-z

[Crossbow]

Dr Chinese:

There is no point in arguing facts and logic with rikzilla since he has already determined the type of person you are.

Originally posted by rikzilla in When, oh when, JK?


...

But the truth is, that in the short term, most liberals are individually merely cowardly traitors.

-zilla

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Tmy


Y'know the war hawks have been beating this drum since February. At what point do Bushites eat there words????

Never, because we didn't fight Saddam over uranium or WMD (http://www.nationalreview.com/frum/diary071303.asp) .

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Another liberal

-z

Originally posted by rikzilla in When, oh when, JK?
...

But the truth is, that in the short term, most liberals are individually merely cowardly traitors.

-zilla

You are very quick to categorize people and or groups and ascribe pigeonholed positions to the people you categorize. You declare yourself a winner and everyone else that opposes your view a loser in your arguments, as if doing so makes your position right.

Let me go on record as saying:

Rikzila's position is correct because his opposition's position is incorrect. The opposition is incorrect because they want Saddam back in power, and would rather live in a repressive cowardly murderous regime rather than a righteous, powerful nation that takes actions with Christian Fundamentalist certiantly.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
This is germane to the discussion...


http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2003/7/14/120020

Not relevant, clearly a red herring. Facts are facts, the uranium story was never true - no matter who thought so at one time.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Crossbow
Dr Chinese:

There is no point in arguing facts and logic with rikzilla since he has already determined the type of person you are.



So true...

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by DrChinese

As to what to do in Iraq, immediate withdrawal sounds reasonable to me - and let the U.N. clean up our mess.

Hey, I like that thought.... The UN is the perfect organization to rebuild Iraq:

Lets see:

- Libya, as head of the human rights council, can make sure that human rights are respected

- All the African nations can use their vast knowlege of agricultural production to ensure Iraqis can feed themselves

- Russia, a member of the security council, can help rebuild Iraq's infrastructure. After all, they were keen to help prior to the war (when they built those jamming towers for Saddam)

- The Islamic countries in the area can help Iraq set up a proper legal system

After doing that, Iraq will be MUCH better off.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Segnosaur


Hey, I like that thought.... The UN is the perfect organization to rebuild Iraq:

Lets see:

- Libya, as head of the human rights council, can make sure that human rights are respected

- All the African nations can use their vast knowlege of agricultural production to ensure Iraqis can feed themselves

- Russia, a member of the security council, can help rebuild Iraq's infrastructure. After all, they were keen to help prior to the war (when they built those jamming towers for Saddam)

- The Islamic countries in the area can help Iraq set up a proper legal system

After doing that, Iraq will be MUCH better off.



:big:

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Crossbow
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by rikzilla in When, oh when, JK?


...

But the truth is, that in the short term, most liberals are individually merely cowardly traitors.

-zilla

Dr Chinese:

There is no point in arguing facts and logic with rikzilla since he has already determined the type of person you are.



It bears repeating I guess! ;)

This is Crossbow's attempt at demonizing me. I'm honored! He attempts to demonize me in the tradition of political correctness. Instead of showing why I'm wrong (He can't because for every 1 real liberal patriot I'll show him 2 or more traitors) he wants to take sound bites.

There...the gauntlet is thrown Crosseyes....for every Kennedy you give me I'll serve up a Jane Fonda, and raise you a Woody Harrelson!

-z

[subgenius]

Talk about demonizing.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by rikzilla
This is Crossbow's attempt at demonizing me. I'm honored! He attempts to demonize me in the tradition of political correctness. Instead of showing why I'm wrong (He can't because for every 1 real liberal patriot I'll show him 2 or more traitors) he wants to take sound bites.
Tell me, Rick, is anyone who criticizes the government a traitor? If so, there were a hell of a lot of traitors last decade.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Tricky

Tell me, Rick, is anyone who criticizes the government a traitor? If so, there were a hell of a lot of traitors last decade.

Looking for straw to build your man eh? I ain't biting.

Of course not....and you knew the answer all along dincha?

However two of the traits of a traitor is that he hates his country, and sympathizes with it's enemies. You want to see an example? Look no farther than the likes of Noam Chomsky, or the infamous Jane Fonda.

-z

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Looking for straw to build your man eh? I ain't biting.

Of course not....and you knew the answer all along dincha?

However two of the traits of a traitor is that he hates his country, and sympathizes with it's enemies. You want to see an example? Look no farther than the likes of Noam Chomsky, or the infamous Jane Fonda.

-z

So she should have supported a war that had no purpose that resulted in the death of over a million vietnamese?

How about Mohammed Ali, who couldn't see the point either.

Then again, there were also plenty of current politicians who couldn't see the point in wasting their lives in Vietnam either.

[Bjorn]

Tricky:

Tell me, Rick, is anyone who criticizes the government a traitor? rikzilla:

Looking for straw to build your man eh? I ain't biting.rikzilla's sig:

But the truth is, that in the short term, most liberals are individually merely cowardly traitors. So, what did you mean by this - only liberals criticizing the government are traitors? Strawman, sure. :p

[Tricky]

Originally posted by rikzilla
Looking for straw to build your man eh? I ain't biting.

Of course not....and you knew the answer all along dincha?

No, I knew you wouldn't bite. I was trying to get you to reconsider your position.

Originally posted by rikzilla
However two of the traits of a traitor is that he hates his country, and sympathizes with it's enemies. You want to see an example? Look no farther than the likes of Noam Chomsky, or the infamous Jane Fonda.

Here's another question for you. Is it possible to sympathize with your country's enemies (or at least empathize) and still not want them to win? Can you understand why other countries hate us, and still love your country?

This is the position I find myself in. I think our country has made some tremendously bad decisions in the last few years (yes, back to the Clinton administration), which have given a lot of fanatics an excuse (not necessarily a good one) to want revenge. Yet, I still think my country is one of the best in the world, with the ability to quickly (at least quickly in terms of world events) adjust their path and do the right thing. I constantly push for what I think they should do. This country gives me the opportunity to do so, which makes me extremely proud of my country. I don't consider disagreeing with the government to be treason. I call it being a good citizen.

Calling people cowards and traitors because they disagree with you is a poor substitute for honest debate. I always thought you were above that sort of tactic. Please prove me right.

[subgenius]

So, about that yellowcake.?

[subgenius]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


So she should have supported a war that had no purpose that resulted in the death of over a million vietnamese?

How about Mohammed Ali, who couldn't see the point either.

Then again, there were also plenty of current politicians who couldn't see the point in wasting their lives in Vietnam either.

Liberal traitors, one and all. But then again, most of them are.
Like Michigan's liberal ex-governor John Engler who got out of VietNam by being 5 pounds overweight.
Or Rush Limbaugh and his anal cysts. Or was it because he is an anal cyst? Oh, I forget, they're all just liberals.
Although some of my best friends are liberals.
They smell bad too.
But what about the yellowcake?

[subgenius]

Labeling, or any kind of negative name-calling, is not only a way
to make personal enemies. It is one of the deadliest enemies of
communication itself.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by rikzilla


It bears repeating I guess! ;)

This is Crossbow's attempt at demonizing me. I'm honored! He attempts to demonize me in the tradition of political correctness. Instead of showing why I'm wrong (He can't because for every 1 real liberal patriot I'll show him 2 or more traitors) he wants to take sound bites.

There...the gauntlet is thrown Crosseyes....for every Kennedy you give me I'll serve up a Jane Fonda, and raise you a Woody Harrelson!

-z

To: rikzilla

Consider the gauntlet to be picked up.

Crossbow

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by subgenius
Labeling, or any kind of negative name-calling, is not only a way
to make personal enemies. It is one of the deadliest enemies of
communication itself.

Demonization of those who speak truth is worse. It's what "Political Correctness" is built on. A fine way to shout down the opposition without having to explain your motives....and an anchor liberals use when their arguments grow stale.

Google your butt off there Crossbow. Take your time....you'll need it. Kiss your wife, hug your kids, phone in sick to work, pack a lunch.... :D Prepare to face the tribulations inherrent in mounting a defence of the indefensible.

-z

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Tricky

No, I knew you wouldn't bite. I was trying to get you to reconsider your position.


Here's another question for you. Is it possible to sympathize with your country's enemies (or at least empathize) and still not want them to win? Can you understand why other countries hate us, and still love your country?

This is the position I find myself in. I think our country has made some tremendously bad decisions in the last few years (yes, back to the Clinton administration), which have given a lot of fanatics an excuse (not necessarily a good one) to want revenge. Yet, I still think my country is one of the best in the world, with the ability to quickly (at least quickly in terms of world events) adjust their path and do the right thing. I constantly push for what I think they should do. This country gives me the opportunity to do so, which makes me extremely proud of my country. I don't consider disagreeing with the government to be treason. I call it being a good citizen.

Calling people cowards and traitors because they disagree with you is a poor substitute for honest debate. I always thought you were above that sort of tactic. Please prove me right.

You're a good man Tricky,

Perhaps I'm being unfair. Crossbow has decided to become the liberal champion of the forum....he picked up the gauntlet. I'm not unreasonable...if he shows me good upstanding American liberals that do not gravitate naturally to our enemy's sides I will agree that I've been wrong.

Unlike Shanek and AUP I do not believe myself to be infallible. If I'm wrong, then I will admit it. I don't believe I am...but I guess we'll see. AUP has already gone the extra mile to try and defend the actions of Jane Fonda during Vietnam! Talk about defending the indefensible! He almost proves my point by himself. It's just this sort of thing that pisses me off about the militant liberals. They think they can do no wrong.

-z

[Tricky]

Originally posted by rikzilla
Perhaps I'm being unfair. Crossbow has decided to become the liberal champion of the forum....he picked up the gauntlet. I'm not unreasonable...if he shows me good upstanding American liberals that do not gravitate naturally to our enemy's sides I will agree that I've been wrong.
Welcome back to the light side, Rick. I think Crossbow was irritated at being called a coward and a traitor. Now that the labeling has ended, I'm hoping we can get back to the issues.

Originally posted by rikzilla
Unlike Shanek and AUP I do not believe myself to be infallible. If I'm wrong, then I will admit it. I don't believe I am...but I guess we'll see. AUP has already gone the extra mile to try and defend the actions of Jane Fonda during Vietnam! Talk about defending the indefensible! He almost proves my point by himself. It's just this sort of thing that pisses me off about the militant liberals. They think they can do no wrong.

I don't think that anyone here believes themselves infallible, but many of us, once we don our forum personas, become flame warriors, and as such are duty bound never to surrender.;)

I also don't think any position is indefensible. I disagree (militantly! ;)) with some positions, but I always recognize that the person who is defending their point does not feel that way. As for Jane Fonda, I disagree with what she did, but ultimately she turned out to be right about Viet Nam. I can hardly blame her for saying so, even if I don't like the way she did it. She did not give any tactical info to the Viet Cong (since she had none to give) and I seriously doubt that she made a significant difference in the final outcome of the war. If she solidified the home opposition to the war and made us withdraw more quickly, then she may have saved the lives of a few of our boys (and theirs).

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Tricky

Welcome back to the light side, Rick. I think Crossbow was irritated at being called a coward and a traitor. Now that the labeling has ended, I'm hoping we can get back to the issues.


I don't think that anyone here believes themselves infallible, but many of us, once we don our forum personas, become flame warriors, and as such are duty bound never to surrender.;)

I also don't think any position is indefensible. I disagree (militantly! ;)) with some positions, but I always recognize that the person who is defending their point does not feel that way. As for Jane Fonda, I disagree with what she did, but ultimately she turned out to be right about Viet Nam. I can hardly blame her for saying so, even if I don't like the way she did it. She did not give any tactical info to the Viet Cong (since she had none to give) and I seriously doubt that she made a significant difference in the final outcome of the war. If she solidified the home opposition to the war and made us withdraw more quickly, then she may have saved the lives of a few of our boys (and theirs).

Tricky,

Nice try man... it is very good of you to forgive Jane her stupidity, but don't attempt to show her as a saviour of the American soldier. Here's the reality from none other than that great debunking tool itself: Snopes (http://www.snopes.com/military/fonda.htm)

[QUOTE] From the link:
Claim: During a 1972 trip to North Vietnam, Jane Fonda propagandized on behalf of the North Vietnamese government, declared that American POWs were being treated humanely and condemned U.S. soldiers as "war criminals" and later denounced them as liars for claiming they had been tortured.
Status: True

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by rikzilla


You're a good man Tricky,

Perhaps I'm being unfair. Crossbow has decided to become the liberal champion of the forum....he picked up the gauntlet. I'm not unreasonable...if he shows me good upstanding American liberals that do not gravitate naturally to our enemy's sides I will agree that I've been wrong.

Unlike Shanek and AUP I do not believe myself to be infallible. If I'm wrong, then I will admit it. I don't believe I am...but I guess we'll see. AUP has already gone the extra mile to try and defend the actions of Jane Fonda during Vietnam! Talk about defending the indefensible! He almost proves my point by himself. It's just this sort of thing that pisses me off about the militant liberals. They think they can do no wrong.

-z

Onto the strawmen again. I don't think I was defending the indefensible as much as pointing out that what she was saying was no worse then the official line from the politicians.

It is a common mistake to believe that, when you find out that what you were brought up to believe contains some lies, that the opposite is the truth. Make no doubt of it, she realised she had been fed a lot of lies about that war from her own leaders. She did not realise that maybe the other side was not all that is good and holy in the world, either. However, if she had not been lied to, to such an extent, maybe she would never have arrived in the situation you resent so much.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Tricky,

Nice try man... it is very good of you to forgive Jane her stupidity, but don't attempt to show her as a saviour of the American soldier. Here's the reality from none other than that great debunking tool itself: Snopes (http://www.snopes.com/military/fonda.htm)

[QUOTE] From the link:
Claim: During a 1972 trip to North Vietnam, Jane Fonda propagandized on behalf of the North Vietnamese government, declared that American POWs were being treated humanely and condemned U.S. soldiers as "war criminals" and later denounced them as liars for claiming they had been tortured.
Status: True

So, what do we have here?

Jane Fonda, after being deluded by her own country about the Vietnam War, is deluded by the North Vietnamese. At least she trie to learn and think about the situation. What is worse Rick, to learn from your mistakes, and grow in your knowledge, or to never learn at all? You haven't even reached the stage of realising that maybe there were war crimes conducted in Vietnam, both at the level of government policy, and on the ground from the troops and officers.

And there were war criminals amongst the Americans. You only have to look at the treatment of Lt Calley and Mai Lai to realise the protection given to those were guilty of war crimes.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Onto the strawmen again. I don't think I was defending the indefensible as much as pointing out that what she was saying was no worse then the official line from the politicians.

It is a common mistake to believe that, when you find out that what you were brought up to believe contains some lies, that the opposite is the truth. Make no doubt of it, she realised she had been fed a lot of lies about that war from her own leaders. She did not realise that maybe the other side was not all that is good and holy in the world, either. However, if she had not been lied to, to such an extent, maybe she would never have arrived in the situation you resent so much.

Thank you so much AUP. I do so love your predictable nature.
You have no idea what a caracature of all that is disgusting about liberalism you have become.

I'm starting to think you're my sock puppet....I make an outrageous claim about liberals in general,...one that I'm about to retract because it's just too over the top....and then you go and help me out by illustrating my point. :cool:

Danke,
-zilla

[Tricky]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Tricky,

Nice try man... it is very good of you to forgive Jane her stupidity, but don't attempt to show her as a saviour of the American soldier. Here's the reality from none other than that great debunking tool itself: Snopes (http://www.snopes.com/military/fonda.htm)

[QUOTE] From the link:
Claim: During a 1972 trip to North Vietnam, Jane Fonda propagandized on behalf of the North Vietnamese government, declared that American POWs were being treated humanely and condemned U.S. soldiers as "war criminals" and later denounced them as liars for claiming they had been tortured.
Status: True
I know that is true. I was a teenager at the time. My point was that if she significantly influenced anything, it was in getting the war over more quickly. I don't believe we would have won had she not spoken, and she gave no information to the "enemy".

Most (although not all) Americans now agree that the war in Viet Nam was foolish and wrong. Fonda reached that conclusion earlier than some, and acted on her beliefs. Again, I disagree with her methods, but not her motivation.

I think the Viet Nam war ended because the US people would no longer support it. Why do you think it ended?

-------------
edited to say:
There is no doubt in my mind that Jane is, and always was a first-class fruitcake. Her recent conversion to bible-thumping Christianity merely continues that trend. Dizzy? yes. Foolish? often. Traitor? hardly.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Thank you so much AUP. I do so love your predictable nature.
You have no idea what a caracature of all that is disgusting about liberalism you have become.

I'm starting to think you're my sock puppet....I make an outrageous claim about liberals in general,...one that I'm about to retract because it's just too over the top....and then you go and help me out by illustrating my point. :cool:

Danke,
-zilla

Could you make a coherent argument here, rather than just a bunch meaningless platitudes.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Could you make a coherent argument here, rather than just a bunch meaningless platitudes.

What about your "gilding the lily" comment on the other thread?
You commit a small act of obvious libel...and when it turns out that you don't know what you're talking about you just pretend it didn't happen.

-edited to add: You're so damned predictable man...


-edited to add: :ywn:

-edited to fix smilie: :slp:

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Demonization of those who speak truth is worse. It's what "Political Correctness" is built on. A fine way to shout down the opposition without having to explain your motives....and an anchor liberals use when their arguments grow stale.

Google your butt off there Crossbow. Take your time....you'll need it. Kiss your wife, hug your kids, phone in sick to work, pack a lunch.... :D Prepare to face the tribulations inherrent in mounting a defence of the indefensible.

-z



Rikzilla:

You called me liberal who is a liar and a coward then you threw your gauntlet down.

While I will not contest the liberal label (for I can see where one could get that idea considering what I post at JREF), however I do consider liar and coward label to be an insult.

I spent four years in the Navy, three of which were on an aircraft carrier where I went on three WESTPAC cruises. Also, I have been an EMT, I am now an engineer, a college professor, and a pilot. Further, I am 6'0" tall, 190 pounds, in good health and have been studying martial arts for the last several years.

I have picked up your gauntlet and I will be the one to decide on exactly how it is to be returned to you.

Your obedient servant.

Crossbow

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Crossbow


Rikzilla:

You called me liberal who is a liar and a coward then you threw your gauntlet down.

While I will not contest the liberal label (for I can see where one could get that idea considering what I post at JREF), however I do consider liar and coward label to be an insult.

I spent four years in the Navy, three of which were on an aircraft carrier where I went on three WESTPAC cruises. Also, I have been an EMT, I am now an engineer, a college professor, and a pilot. Further, I am 6'0" tall, 190 pounds, in good health and have been studying martial arts for the last several years.

I have picked up your gauntlet and I will be the one to decide on exactly how it is to be returned to you.

Your obedient servant.

Crossbow

Grass before breakfast!

You are a martial artist eh? Well, I fence quite well myself. Bring it on my friend! Duelling is a lost art, I do wish we could bring it back.

-z

edited to add: A pilot eh? I am a CFII...multi engine and instrument rated. I teach at Davis Field in Manassas after work and on weekends. So, when was the last time you flew?? HEF (http://www.airnav.com/airport/HEF/)

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by rikzilla


What about your "gilding the lily" comment on the other thread?
You commit a small act of obvious libel...and when it turns out that you don't know what you're talking about you just pretend it didn't happen.

-edited to add: You're so damned predictable man...


-edited to add: :ywn:

-edited to fix smilie: :slp:

When you edit to add a comment to a previously posted post, the software adds a comment below the sig showing that the post has been edited, and the timestamp when this was done. There was no such comment under your post.

[subgenius]

"You don't know me but you don't like me. Say you care less how I feel. How many of you that sit and judge me ever walked the Streets of Bakersfield?"


One of you guys start a new thread on L. vs. C. (this one's about yellowcake):
Here's a starting point:
"1. Conservatives say that Liberals are anti-family. However . . .
o Conservatives want to define what your family should be Whereas . . .
o Liberals put you in charge of your family
o Liberals support your right to define what your family will be
o Liberals fight for your family's rights against economic and political oppression
2. Conservatives say that Liberals are anti-business. However . . .
o Conservatives are pro-money, but that often translates into monopolies, which hurt small business and competition, which hurts us all Whereas . . .
o Liberals protect small businesses by regulating the larger ones and by breaking up monopolies
o Liberals protect workers in order to create a healthy workforce that will help businesses grow
3. Conservatives say that Liberals are anti-religion. However . . .
o Conservatives are often for one dominant religion, and are, therefore, against others Whereas . . .
o Liberals support complete freedom of religion and from religion so that all citizen are free to choose the manner in which faith is a part of their lives
o Liberals strive to keep government completely out of a family's religious choices
4. Conservatives say that Liberals are anti-freedom. However . . .
o Conservatives want to stop homosexuals, stop abortions, stop the women's movement, and stop freedom of expression through the use of censorship Whereas . . .
o Liberals leave it up to the parents to teach such values to their children
o Liberals believe each person or family should be free to choose how to behave as long as it does not interfere with another's rights
5. Conservatives say that Liberals are anti-morality. However . . .
o Conservatives are for one specific kind of morality Whereas . . .
o Liberals are for the morality of free choice, where each person or family decides their own values
o Liberals want the government to protect our freedom to choose what is important to us rather than to impose the laws and codes of another's morality
6. Conservatives say that Liberals are anti-military. However . . .
o Conservatives see the military as a means to impose their values and standards on others Whereas . . .
o Liberals see the military as a vital protection of our freedoms and our liberties, giving us a space in which to pursue happiness "

http://www.elroy.net/politics/liberal.html

Now talk and play nice amongst yourselves, I'm headed out to find and exercise some lib-erty.

[subgenius]

"If you don't want to be forced to live under a foreign set of values, don't force others to live under yours. Instead, fight for the freedom to believe as you want while others believe as they want. Freedom of choice, as long as it does not infringe on another's rights, is the foundation upon which this nation was built. Liberalism is the ideology that strives to defend that freedom for everyone. And for that reason it pleases me to no end to state that I am proud to be Liberal."

http://www.elroy.net/politics/liberal.html

We agree on much more than we (think we) disagree on. Automatic disagreement (like labeling and name-calling) is lazy, a substitute for real discussion, and a disease that can be cured.(try saying "You could be right" more often)

See Deborah Tannen's "The Argument Culture."
https://www.storytapes.net/php/title_oneup.php3?Sku=NTA002&vst=90a820444d8e01b45112ce9b33eea003

She also wrote a book that every heterosexual should read if they plan on relating to the opposite gender in the future:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0345372050/103-7074928-1773434?vi=glance

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by subgenius
One of you guys start a new thread on L. vs. C. (this one's about yellowcake):
Here's a starting point:
"1. Conservatives say that Liberals are anti-family. However . . .
o Conservatives want to define what your family should be Whereas . . .
o Liberals put you in charge of your family
o Liberals support your right to define what your family will be
o Liberals fight for your family's rights against economic and political oppression
2. Conservatives say that Liberals are anti-business. However . . .
o Conservatives are pro-money, but that often translates into monopolies, which hurt small business and competition, which hurts us all Whereas . . .
o Liberals protect small businesses by regulating the larger ones and by breaking up monopolies
o Liberals protect workers in order to create a healthy workforce that will help businesses grow
3. Conservatives say that Liberals are anti-religion. However . . .
o Conservatives are often for one dominant religion, and are, therefore, against others Whereas . . .
o Liberals support complete freedom of religion and from religion so that all citizen are free to choose the manner in which faith is a part of their lives
o Liberals strive to keep government completely out of a family's religious choices
4. Conservatives say that Liberals are anti-freedom. However . . .
o Conservatives want to stop homosexuals, stop abortions, stop the women's movement, and stop freedom of expression through the use of censorship Whereas . . .
o Liberals leave it up to the parents to teach such values to their children
o Liberals believe each person or family should be free to choose how to behave as long as it does not interfere with another's rights
5. Conservatives say that Liberals are anti-morality. However . . .
o Conservatives are for one specific kind of morality Whereas . . .
o Liberals are for the morality of free choice, where each person or family decides their own values
o Liberals want the government to protect our freedom to choose what is important to us rather than to impose the laws and codes of another's morality
6. Conservatives say that Liberals are anti-military. However . . .
o Conservatives see the military as a means to impose their values and standards on others Whereas . . .
o Liberals see the military as a vital protection of our freedoms and our liberties, giving us a space in which to pursue happiness "


Two words...


PROPA





GANDA

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Two words...


PROPA

GANDA

What a well reasoned reply. :rolleyes:
Do you want to discuss specific points, or just shout down the opposition?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Tricky

What a well reasoned reply. :rolleyes:

My last post does suffer a bit from accuracy, doesn't it...


Originally posted by Tricky

Do you want to discuss specific points, or just shout down the opposition?

The former, obviously. Lets just see if we can do that without the strawmen, red herrings, and ad hominems (not directed at anyone in particular).

I mean, it would be just a simple for me to post pro-conservative/anti-liberal propaganda from the likes of Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh.

Silly me...I thought we might rise above that. :(

Never mind Tricky...you're right.

Liberals are good and conservatives are evil. :rolleyes:

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Kodiak


My last post does suffer a bit from accuracy, doesn't it...




The former, obviously. Lets just see if we can do that without the strawmen, red herrings, and ad hominems (not directed at anyone in particular).

I mean, it would be just a simple for me to post pro-conservative/anti-liberal propaganda from the likes of Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh.

Silly me...I thought we might rise above that. :(

Never mind Tricky...you're right.

Liberals are good and conservatives are evil. :rolleyes:
Now THAT is a strawman! ;)

But if you wish, we can discuss specific points. Let's start with point 1.
1. Conservatives say that Liberals are anti-family. However . . .
Conservatives want to define what your family should be Whereas . . .
Liberals put you in charge of your family
Liberals support your right to define what your family will be
Liberals fight for your family's rights against economic and political oppression
Now I agree that the fourth point is just cheerleading, but I pretty much agree with the first three. Some conservatives tell you that homosexual marriage is "anti-family" and some even go so far as to say that the ERA was anti-family (since men should be the wage earners). To me, both of those things fall into the category of "defining for yourself what your family will be". Other than forcing women to have unwanted children, I can't see exactly what is "pro-family" about the conservative stance.

Have a go at this one, and we'll discuss other points later. Perhaps this deserves its own thread.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Tricky
But if you wish, we can discuss specific points. Let's start with point 1.



1. Conservatives say that Liberals are anti-family. However . . .

Conservatives want to define what your family should be

Whereas . . .

Liberals put you in charge of your family

Liberals support your right to define what your family will be

Liberals fight for your family's rights against economic and political oppression



Now I agree that the fourth point is just cheerleading, but I pretty much agree with the first three. Some conservatives tell you that homosexual marriage is "anti-family" and some even go so far as to say that the ERA was anti-family (since men should be the wage earners). To me, both of those things fall into the category of "defining for yourself what your family will be". Other than forcing women to have unwanted children, I can't see exactly what is "pro-family" about the conservative stance.

Have a go at this one, and we'll discuss other points later. Perhaps this deserves its own thread.

First off, faulty premise. I, and many other conservatives, do not consider liberals to be anti-family.

Many liberals also want to define what your family should be. Its just a different definition.

I have no idea how liberals would put me in charge of my family as opposed to conservatives. Please elaborate.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Tricky

Now THAT is a strawman! ;)

But if you wish, we can discuss specific points. Let's start with point 1.

Now I agree that the fourth point is just cheerleading, but I pretty much agree with the first three. Some conservatives tell you that homosexual marriage is "anti-family" and some even go so far as to say that the ERA was anti-family (since men should be the wage earners). To me, both of those things fall into the category of "defining for yourself what your family will be". Other than forcing women to have unwanted children, I can't see exactly what is "pro-family" about the conservative stance.

Have a go at this one, and we'll discuss other points later. Perhaps this deserves its own thread.

Well, as I told Crossbow and Sundog before, I make a really crappy conservative. (yet here on JREF my name is bandied about as an arch neo-con of the JK stripe.) I agree with what you posted Tricky. Families should be defined by those within them, not those on the outside. I have no problem with gay civil union (though I think calling it marriage is adding controversy where there need not be)

Unless your "family" consists of people under the age of consent having sex, or otherwise being coerced or abused, then I think government should butt right out. I am pro-choice, and in favor of full equal rights for women and minorities. (Which opinion takes me cleanly out of JK's realm BTW) ;)

Don't get me wrong,...I think, and have posted plenty of times my opinion that liberal thought is essential to the progress of our nation towards more justice and freedom. The wisest of all our founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson was a liberal.

Yet....all the good ideas and gains made from liberal thought of the past is what conservatives end up conserving. Conservatives are the ratcheting device of society...they are the safety valve that protects the gains of the liberals of the past.

Why do conservatives resist liberals then? Because liberals are notorious for their bad ideas as well as their good. The truly good ideas of liberals eventually make it past the barriers thrown up by conservatives. The civil rights movement is a good example of this. Whereas the continued criminalization of creepy loony-left ideas like NAMBLA are a good example of society's need for conservatives. It took conservatives to stand up to the left's repressive, and weird ideas of "Political Correctness".

So. I will admit that as a movement, liberals are essential to the progress of society. I have many good reasons to despise individual liberals who I've met on this board....but I have no right to make blanket pronouncements about liberals in general. That is nothing less than prejudice.

Therefore I respectfully withdraw my inflamatory remarks of yesterday and offer my apology. I'll withdraw the infamous "traitors and cowards" comment from my sig line. If, however other folks wish to remember my quote that's ok too. I pledge to all of you that I will always own up to my words and mistakes. Unlike so many others.

-zilla

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Kodiak
First off, faulty premise. I, and many other conservatives, do not consider liberals to be anti-family.
Perhaps you don't. Many do, especially the anti-abortion crew. They now call themselves "pro-family". What would the opposite be?

Originally posted by Kodiak
Many liberals also want to define what your family should be. Its just a different definition.

I have no idea how liberals would put me in charge of my family as opposed to conservatives. Please elaborate.
You claim liberals want to define what your family shold be, yet you have no idea how they would do it? Come now, Ko. Your two points are in direct opposition to each other.

But to answer your question about how they would "put you in charge", they would allow you to define your family as a "homosexual couple" or even "homosexual parents with children". They would also allow you to decide whether or not you want to continue an unwanted pregnancy. I call that "putting you in charge".

Now can we have some examples of where liberals want to define what your family should be?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by rikzilla
So. I will admit that as a movement, liberals are essential to the progress of society. I have many good reasons to despise individual liberals who I've met on this board....but I have no right to make blanket pronouncements about liberals in general. That is nothing less than prejudice.

Therefore I respectfully withdraw my inflamatory remarks of yesterday and offer my apology. I'll withdraw the infamous "traitors and cowards" comment from my sig line. If, however other folks wish to remember my quote that's ok too. I pledge to all of you that I will always own up to my words and mistakes. Unlike so many others.

Thank you, zilla. I knew that must have been "evil rik" posting and not really you.:clap:

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Tricky

Thank you, zilla. I knew that must have been "evil rik" posting and not really you.:clap:

I have my moments. There should be a warning somewhere about "Posting While Pissed".

I was guilty of PWP. I'm over it now.

-z

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Tricky

Perhaps you don't. Many do, especially the anti-abortion crew. They now call themselves "pro-family". What would the opposite be?

Like I said, propaganda can comes from either end of the political spectrum.


Originally posted by Tricky
You claim liberals want to define what your family shold be, yet you have no idea how they would do it? Come now, Ko. Your two points are in direct opposition to each other.

Reread my post. I never said that. I said that many liberals also define "the family", but with a different definition. Then I said I do not know how liberals would put me in charge of my family (as you assert). I never said I have no idea how they would define what my family should be.


Originally posted by Tricky
But to answer your question about how they would "put you in charge", they would allow you to define your family as a "homosexual couple" or even "homosexual parents with children". They would also allow you to decide whether or not you want to continue an unwanted pregnancy. I call that "putting you in charge".

O.K. Like Rikzilla, I have no problem with homosexual married couples, with or without children.

To counter your points, though...

Most conservatives would put you in charge of your family by not restricting your right to protect them and their property with a firearm, or by not punishing you with taxes because you want to drive your family around in a SUV, or by giving you school vouchers which allow you to shop for the best schools for your children, or by giving you the option of investing a portion of your earnings as you see fit instead of paying into Social Security.

Now I call that "putting you in charge".

[rikzilla]

Well,

When I was in the Army I once knew this fellow who advised us loudly every time he got drunk/stoned that the best piece of ass he ever had was his sister.

Now I expect the old boy is living somewhere in the woods of Minnesota, growing a crop of weed and screwing his sister. Does that bother me? Not really...I don't live with him and frankly could care less. But is this something that liberals would refer to as a "family"?? Yeah, I really think that many on the left would. Is that a good direction for society to take? No. or perhaps a hearty Hell No!! would be more appropriate.

-z

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Kodiak
Like I said, propaganda can comes from either end of the political spectrum.
Indeed. That is why I was careful to say "some" conservatives.

Originally posted by Kodiak
Reread my post. I never said that. I said that many liberals also define "the family", but with a different definition. Then I said I do not know how liberals would put me in charge of my family (as you assert). I never said I have no idea how they would define what my family should be.
Sorry, but it still sounds as if you are making unsupported claims. If you think liberals also "define" the family, then you surely must have some examples of said definition. It is not that I disagree that they do, but rather that their definition is much less restrictive than that of conservatives.

Originally posted by Kodiak
O.K. Like Rikzilla, I have no problem with homosexual married couples, with or without children.
You damned liberal. :D

Originally posted by Kodiak
Most conservatives would put you in charge of your family by not restricting your right to protect them and their property with a firearm, ...
Yes, that does put you in charge, although it also puts you in charge to leave your gun out and loaded so that your family may kill themselves or others. I believe these sort of occurrances are more common than the ones where it is used for defense. However, that is a topic for another thread. Suffice it to say that I don't believe that absolute freedom is good. Only when it does not harm others.

Originally posted by Kodiak
... or by not punishing you with taxes because you want to drive your family around in a SUV...
This one is a bit iffy. I agree with personal choices as long as they don't harm others. Whether or not wasting gasoline harms others is very much in question. But again, another topic for another thread.

Originally posted by Kodiak
giving you school vouchers which allow you to shop for the best schools for your children,
If the vouchers paid full tuition at whatever school a person chose, then this would be a good point. But for the poor, who cannot afford to tack on those extra bucks for the top schools, it merely means that what is left of the public school system is even worse than it was before. You ALWAYS have the choice to send your children to whatever school you like. Now you want the government to subsidize it? Sounds like welfare for the rich to me. But again, another topic for another thread.

Originally posted by Kodiak
... or by giving you the option of investing a portion of your earnings as you see fit instead of paying into Social Security.
Again, you still have this option (and if you are smart, you are already doing so). No liberal has said "you may not invest a portion of your earnings in whatever you see fit." Social Security is an admittedly socialist program which is intend to guard against having a very large class of impoverished people. We have found that rampant poverty is not good for our country. In my opinion, it is worth paying for. I respect your right to disagree.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Tricky


Yes, that does put you in charge, although it also puts you in charge to leave your gun out and loaded so that your family may kill themselves or others. I believe these sort of occurrances are more common than the ones where it is used for defense. However, that is a topic for another thread. Suffice it to say that I don't believe that absolute freedom is good. Only when it does not harm others.


This one is a bit iffy. I agree with personal choices as long as they don't harm others. Whether or not wasting gasoline harms others is very much in question. But again, another topic for another thread.


If the vouchers paid full tuition at whatever school a person chose, then this would be a good point. But for the poor, who cannot afford to tack on those extra bucks for the top schools, it merely means that what is left of the public school system is even worse than it was before. You ALWAYS have the choice to send your children to whatever school you like. Now you want the government to subsidize it? Sounds like welfare for the rich to me. But again, another topic for another thread.


Again, you still have this option (and if you are smart, you are already doing so). No liberal has said "you may not invest a portion of your earnings in whatever you see fit." Social Security is an admittedly socialist program which is intend to guard against having a very large class of impoverished people. We have found that rampant poverty is not good for our country. In my opinion, it is worth paying for. I respect your right to disagree.

You disagree with almost all my points...wow, you are a liberal (gasp!).

And this is why I called, and still call, subgenius' list propaganda. Though we rightly disagree (as we generally sit at opposite ends of the political spectrum) both sides can validly argue and defend their agenda. One is not evil and the other saintly. Both truly think that it is they who have the best plan for the future of the United States. I think, depending on the issue, that they both have something to offer (though I definitely tend to lean in one direction). ;)

To post a list like sungenius' which casts liberals in one light, but conservatives in a different (negative) one is speading ideas to further one cause and damage the other, which is the exact definition of propaganda - which was my only point, and one that you took umbrage with.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by rikzilla
Well,

When I was in the Army I once knew this fellow who advised us loudly every time he got drunk/stoned that the best piece of ass he ever had was his sister.

Now I expect the old boy is living somewhere in the woods of Minnesota, growing a crop of weed and screwing his sister. Does that bother me? Not really...I don't live with him and frankly could care less. But is this something that liberals would refer to as a "family"?? Yeah, I really think that many on the left would. Is that a good direction for society to take? No. or perhaps a hearty Hell No!! would be more appropriate.

-z

Let's ask one...

Well Tricky, what do you think?

Do/should adult consenting siblings have a right to copulate legally in the US?

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Tricky


Yes, that does put you in charge, although it also puts you in charge to leave your gun out and loaded so that your family may kill themselves or others. I believe these sort of occurrances are more common than the ones where it is used for defense. However, that is a topic for another thread. Suffice it to say that I don't believe that absolute freedom is good. Only when it does not harm others.




Can you say "nanny state"? :D

Tricky,...when you allow people to have freedom you must also allow them to take bad decisions. That's why we so-called conservatives say that there can be no freedom without responsibility.

So, yes, I do have the right to be stupid with my firearms....I also have the responsibility not to be....and if I fail in my responsibility that's where the government can finally step in and punish me. Otherwise the government should butt out of my personal business.

It's those people who behave as though they have rights without responsibility that end up earning the ire of conservatives. We call them liberals. ;) ;) (before you get all uppity...I was just kidding!)

-z

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Let's ask one...

Well Tricky, what do you think?

Do/should adult consenting siblings have a right to copulate legally in the US?
Yes, (as I have already noted in the "gay marriage" thread). As long as they are of age of consent. I mentioned the possibility of genetic disease, and indeed that is a big consideration. I suggested mandatory birth control, but as some reader astutely pointed out, the chances of genetic disease are fairly small. Also another reader pointed out that if we were to prevent siblings from procreating, then we should also prohibit dwarves from having children with each other, since there is a 25% chance that their offspring will be a dwarf.

In any case, a psychologist friend of mine tells me that sibling incest is among the most common of childhood "traumas". Maybe it wouldn't be so traumatic if it were not viewed as sick.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Tricky

Yes, (as I have already noted in the "gay marriage" thread). As long as they are of age of consent. I mentioned the possibility of genetic disease, and indeed that is a big consideration. I suggested mandatory birth control, but as some reader astutely pointed out, the chances of genetic disease are fairly small. Also another reader pointed out that if we were to prevent siblings from procreating, then we should also prohibit dwarves from having children with each other, since there is a 25% chance that their offspring will be a dwarf.

In any case, a psychologist friend of mine tells me that sibling incest is among the most common of childhood "traumas". Maybe it wouldn't be so traumatic if it were not viewed as sick.

Damn Kodiak!!!

You were right! Actually I didn't think Tricky would go on record in favor of sibling sex. Do I owe you a beer now??

Of course, when I started the Fonda thread I didn't think it would result in an impassioned defense of Hanoi Jane, AND Osama Bin Laden!

Those Wacky liberals! All ya gotta do is give 'em rope.

-z

PS: And to think that my views on Gays, Abortion, and Gun Control makes me a liberal in many people's eyes!

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Tricky

Yes, (as I have already noted in the "gay marriage" thread). As long as they are of age of consent. I mentioned the possibility of genetic disease, and indeed that is a big consideration. I suggested mandatory birth control, but as some reader astutely pointed out, the chances of genetic disease are fairly small. Also another reader pointed out that if we were to prevent siblings from procreating, then we should also prohibit dwarves from having children with each other, since there is a 25% chance that their offspring will be a dwarf.

In any case, a psychologist friend of mine tells me that sibling incest is among the most common of childhood "traumas". Maybe it wouldn't be so traumatic if it were not viewed as sick.

Cousins...no big deal.

Siblings...eewwwwwww.

Mind you, my reaction is instinctual/socializational. Logically speaking, your position seems sound.

Still... :eek:

[Tricky]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Damn Kodiak!!!

You were right! Actually I didn't think Tricky would go on record in favor of sibling sex. Do I owe you a beer now??
Yeah, I'll suprise you sometimes. You might be suprised that I am also a death penalty supporter.:p

However, the question is mostly moot. Having two sisters, I am completely repulsed by the thought of being married to either of them. I suspect this is the case with most siblings, with a few exceptions.

However, suppose you and your sister were both given up for adoption. Then you met years later and fell in love. What would be wrong about getting married?

Can you give me your reasoning for being against sibling marriages? We've already covered the genetics thing.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Damn Kodiak!!!

You were right! Actually I didn't think Tricky would go on record in favor of sibling sex. Do I owe you a beer now??

Of course, when I started the Fonda thread I didn't think it would result in an impassioned defense of Hanoi Jane, AND Osama Bin Laden!

Those Wacky liberals! All ya gotta do is give 'em rope.

-z

PS: And to think that my views on Gays, Abortion, and Gun Control makes me a liberal in many people's eyes!

I know! As a godless conservative, I'm feared by the religious right and hated by the left!

Whatever Tricky's position, you have to respect his stances and his attempt to even try to listen to the conservative side.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Kodiak


I know! As a godless conservative, I'm feared by the religious right and hated by the left!

Whatever Tricky's position, you have to respect his stances and his attempt to even try to listen to the conservative side. :wink8:

Yes, I do respect Tricky. Maybe he's even right about incest, after all it's a time-honored Christian tradition! If God really created Adam in his image, and Eve from Adam....then we've all always been incestuous! :rolleyes:

The JREF may be full of liberals...but at least we can agree that "Real Men don't Need To Love Jesus!

At least we have that! ;)

-z

[rikzilla]

BTW, This has to be the most utterly hijacked thread I've ever seen!

:big:

...my work here is done!

:roll:

[Tricky]

Aww, you guys are making me all mushy inside. GROUP HUG!!!

But this thread is getting seriously derailed, so I'm going to start another one to deal with Sub's post.

[no one in particular]

Originally posted by subgenius

I am a skeptic not a cynic, and I have wanted to start a thread on the difference. Gee, I hate cynics---[referring to no one in particular here]. Hey damnit!

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Tricky
Aww, you guys are making me all mushy inside. GROUP HUG!!!

But this thread is getting seriously derailed, so I'm going to start another one to deal with Sub's post.
Feel the love.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by no one in particular
Hey damnit!

How do I get out of this one?
Yes, I was referring to you.


______________________

"Hey Yogi, what time is it?"
"Ya mean right now?"

I use that one all the time.

[DrChinese]

Good, let's get back to our regularly scheduled thread in which we note that we are NO CLOSER to finding WMDs today than a month ago.

(Since the Bush administration deceived, erred, ignored, spun, misread, misunderstood, miscommunicated and generally recklessly ignored the truth about WMDs.)

[subgenius]

Tick Tock.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by subgenius
Gee, I hate cynics
Grrrr...

[subgenius]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

Grrrr...

You're not one, they just put that under your name.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by subgenius

You're not one, they just put that under your name.
Per my request.
:)

[subgenius]

cynicism: a scornful bitter mocking attitude.

Just as bad as one who believes any damn thing without evidence.

Skepticism good, cynicism bad.

Gee, is this the most hijacked thread ever?
I guess we gotta do something while we wait.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

Per my request.
:)
That don't make you one.
But let me amend, por favor, "I hate cynicism."

[subgenius]

Senate committee to widen its intelligence inquiry Panel grills CIA director
By John Diamond
USA TODAY


WASHINGTON -- The Senate Intelligence Committee indicated Wednesday that it will widen its investigation into President Bush's disputed charges last January about Iraq's attempts to buy uranium in Africa, going beyond the CIA's responsibility in the examination of the White House's role in the controversy.

Committee Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kan., said it was possible the committee would call White House officials to testify.

''We'll let the chips fall where they may,'' Roberts said.

It was the first indication from the REPUBLICAN-controlled panel that its inquiry could go beyond the CIA's role in vetting portions of Bush's State of the Union address.

http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/20030717/5330672s.htm

(P.S. Anyone know the origin of the now oft-used term "vetting"?)

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by subgenius
Senate committee to widen its intelligence inquiry Panel grills CIA director
By John Diamond
USA TODAY


WASHINGTON -- The Senate Intelligence Committee indicated Wednesday that it will widen its investigation into President Bush's disputed charges last January about Iraq's attempts to buy uranium in Africa, going beyond the CIA's responsibility in the examination of the White House's role in the controversy.

Committee Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kan., said it was possible the committee would call White House officials to testify.

''We'll let the chips fall where they may,'' Roberts said.

It was the first indication from the REPUBLICAN-controlled panel that its inquiry could go beyond the CIA's role in vetting portions of Bush's State of the Union address.




''We'll let the chips fall where they may''

Sounds about right to me...

[whitefork]

Originally posted by subgenius
(P.S. Anyone know the origin of the now oft-used term "vetting"?) Vet is short for veterinary or veterinarian, which comes from Latin veterinarius, of or belonging to beasts of burden and draught, from veterinus, of draught, of beasts of burden. The earlier sense was "to submit to examination or treatment by a veterinary surgeon": hence, "to subject to thorough appraisal."
http://dictionary.reference.com/wordoftheday/archive/2001/01/12.html

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by DrChinese
(Since the Bush administration deceived, erred, ignored, spun, misread, misunderstood, miscommunicated and generally recklessly ignored the truth about WMDs.)

Hyperbole!

The only thing we know for sure is that he used one shred of faulty intelligence.

You guys act like Holocaust deniers. They find one thing to debunk, such as the old story about Nazis making soap from Jews. When that proves to be a myth, they trumpet it and use it as a pillar to deny the reality of the entire Holocaust.

Same damned thing the anti-Bushies do.

-z

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Hyperbole!

The only thing we know for sure is that he used one shred of faulty intelligence.

You guys act like Holocaust deniers. They find one thing to debunk, such as the old story about Nazis making soap from Jews. When that proves to be a myth, they trumpet it and use it as a pillar to deny the Holocaust.

Same damned thing the anti-Bushies do.

-z

It's not clear if this is the right comparison. If it was an honest mistake on Bush's part, it would be one thing. OTOH, if they knew it was not reliable but used it anyway, then that is a different situation altogether.

The current probe is to basically figure out who knew what and when. According to reports, Tenet has named the White House staffer who insisted that the claim be included. And the interpretation looks to be that the CIA and White House argued about including it, with the White House insisting that it be there, and the CIA ultimately approving it in a technically correct, although misleading, version.

Now, do Holocaust believers really try to make their case by making claims that they know are not reliable? If so, then it would be a fair comparison to what is going on here. Of course, if they are, then they _should_ be questioned.

Actually, the parroting of information known to be false reaks of creationist dishonesty.

[subgenius]

And if it was an honest mistake, its good to learn how it happened so that history doesn't repeat itself. That's more important than assessing blame.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


It's not clear if this is the right comparison. If it was an honest mistake on Bush's part, it would be one thing. OTOH, if they knew it was not reliable but used it anyway, then that is a different situation altogether.

The current probe is to basically figure out who knew what and when. According to reports, Tenet has named the White House staffer who insisted that the claim be included. And the interpretation looks to be that the CIA and White House argued about including it, with the White House insisting that it be there, and the CIA ultimately approving it in a technically correct, although misleading, version.

Now, do Holocaust believers really try to make their case by making claims that they know are not reliable? If so, then it would be a fair comparison to what is going on here. Of course, if they are, then they _should_ be questioned.

Actually, the parroting of information known to be false reaks of creationist dishonesty.

The Jews into soap story was true. However it was a small scale experiment, and the Nazi ghouls only made a bar or two of the stuff. But word got out among the Jews in the camps and they wouldn't touch soap from then on. So, in other words, it's a good comparison. The Jewish Holocaust survivors insisted the story was true, though in reality it was mostly not. The Holocaust deniers seized on that proven untruth and attempted to use it to dispute the entire Holocaust.

-z

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by subgenius
And if it was an honest mistake, its good to learn how it happened so that history doesn't repeat itself. That's more important than assessing blame.

Damn straight....but hyping it with such things as the "Misleader" TV commercials etc do not serve the truth either. Indeed it really does remind me of Holocaust denier tactics.

[crackmonkey]

Whie we're investigating Bush's intelligence, let's do the same for Levin...

http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2003/7/17/121703

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by rikzilla


The Jews into soap story was true. However it was a small scale experiment, and the Nazi ghouls only made a bar or two of the stuff. But word got out among the Jews in the camps and they wouldn't touch soap from then on. So, in other words, it's a good comparison. The Jewish Holocaust survivors insisted the story was true, though in reality it was mostly not.

And what part of the "Iraq tried to buy uranium from Africa" claim is even partially true?

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
Whie we're investigating Bush's intelligence, let's do the same for Levin...

http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2003/7/17/121703

Did Levin have sources telling him the information was unreliable at the time?

Investigate him. Go ahead. You know what you are going to find? He was relying on White House reports. That's my prediction.

Where's that buck stop, Mr. Truman?

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


And what part of the "Iraq tried to buy uranium from Africa" claim is even partially true?

I don't know,...but it's not unthinkable unless you happen to be hopelessly naive. I think that I heard that Hussein had made such a deal in the past....but don't remember where I heard it.

But you are missing my point. The point is that there is a huge body of evidence that Saddam was a bad guy, and needed to be removed for a variety of good reasons. Liberals find one erroneous reason and attempt to use it to cast aspertions upon the rest of the evidence. It's the Holocaust Denier's tactic,...it flies in the face of all known logic....and yet liberals wave it about as if it invalidates all that the Coalition has done.

-z

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by rikzilla


I don't know,...but it's not unthinkable unless you happen to be hopelessly naive. I think that I heard that Hussein had made such a deal in the past....but don't remember where I heard it.

But you are missing my point. The point is that there is a huge body of evidence that Saddam was a bad guy, and needed to be removed for a variety of good reasons.

Evidence given by whom?

It's a question of reliability. Why did the President knowingly mislead the nation on this point, if that is what he did? If the president is willing to mislead, how do we interpret the other things he said? Can he be trusted?

Republicans like to talk about things like "character." Clinton has lacks character because he has marital affairs. How will that lack of character influence how he does his job? Good question.

But here we have a president who may have not just screwed around on his wife, but knowing attempted to deceive the nation for political gain. Sounds a lot more a like a place where character, or lack thereof, has actually influenced the way he did his job. But we should ignore it?

[subgenius]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


Where's that buck stop, Mr. Truman?

Thank you.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by pgwenthold

Evidence given by whom?

It's a question of reliability. Why did the President knowingly mislead the nation on this point, if that is what he did? If the president is willing to mislead, how do we interpret the other things he said? Can he be trusted?

Republicans like to talk about things like "character." Clinton has lacks character because he has marital affairs. How will that lack of character influence how he does his job? Good question.

But here we have a president who may have not just screwed around on his wife, but knowing attempted to deceive the nation for political gain. Sounds a lot more a like a place where character, or lack thereof, has actually influenced the way he did his job. But we should ignore it?

"May have"...

You anti-Bushites are prematurely foaming at the mouth worse than Limbaugh and his ilk did during the Ken Starr/Whitewater investigation!

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Kodiak


"May have"...

You anti-Bushites are prematurely foaming at the mouth worse than Limbaugh and his ilk did during the Ken Starr/Whitewater investigation!

Yes, may have.

That's why I think it's a good idea to investigate the matter, to find out who know what and when they knew it.

Bush thinks it should be dropped. I think we should find out exactly what he knew beforehand. If he deliberately mislead the nation, then it is a far more serious problem.

As subgenious notes, even if we find out it was an honest mistake, it is something we can learn from. OTOH, if we find out it wasn't an honest mistake, we can take it from there. So let's learn what happened.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
Yes, may have.

That's why I think it's a good idea to investigate the matter, to find out who know what and when they knew it.

I have never had a problem with this.

Originally posted by pgwenthold
Bush thinks it should be dropped.

Could you tell me where he's said this?

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Kodiak



Could you tell me where he's said this?

Last weekend when he said he considered the matter closed.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


Last weekend when he said he considered the matter closed.

Sorry, but that is not the same thing as saying that any investigation should be dropped.

All Bush is saying is that the incident is behind him and that he is moving on. He said nothing about what either the Congress or the attorney general should do or not do concerning this issue.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Sorry, but that is not the same thing as saying that any investigation should be dropped.

All Bush is saying is that the incident is behind him and that he is moving on. He said nothing about what either the Congress or the attorney general should do or not do concerning this issue.
Oh please. Read his lips.
Give a dog a bone once in a while. There's no way that he wants an investigation. No one in his position would.

[Sundog]

I hope this thread lives for years. The title just gets funnier and funnier as time passes.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by subgenius

Oh please. Read his lips.
Give a dog a bone once in a while. There's no way that he wants an investigation. No one in his position would.

And of course I agree with you.

My point is that President Bush did not say that Congress and/or the Atty. Gen. should or should not investigate the Iraq-uranium-Niger speech mix-up (or whatever you'd prefer to call it).

Pgwenthold implied that Bush had.

[subgenius]

Not sure what the point is in putting too fine a point on it.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by subgenius
Not sure what the point is in putting too fine a point on it.


"Did say"...

"Did not say"...

"Too fine a point" indeed... :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Kodiak



"Did say"...

"Did not say"...

"Too fine a point" indeed... :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
I guess your interpretation is that when he says the "matter's closed", that means that he nonetheless doesn't think it should be dropped. "Closed" doesn't mean "drop it." Hmmmm. Sure I can buy that.

No he didn't use the exact words, you are correct. You get a cookie.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by subgenius

I guess your interpretation is that when he says the "matter's closed", that means that he nonetheless doesn't think it should be dropped. "Closed" doesn't mean "drop it." Hmmmm. Sure I can buy that.

No he didn't use the exact words, you are correct. You get a cookie.

As tenacious as you guys can be? I'll take it! :)

[Frank Newgent]

Has anyone tried going to Google to type in Weapons of mass destruction lately? Just hit "I'm Feeling Lucky". Read carefully.

[subgenius]

For us lazy folk:
http://www.coxar.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
:con2:

[subgenius]

The White House, in the run-up to war in Iraq, did not seek CIA approval before charging that Saddam Hussein could launch a biological or chemical attack within 45 minutes, administration officials now say.

The claim, which has since been discredited, was made twice by President Bush, in a September Rose Garden appearance after meeting with lawmakers and in a Saturday radio address the same week. Bush attributed the claim to the British government, but in a "Global Message" issued Sept. 26 and still on the White House Web site, the White House claimed, without attribution, that Iraq "could launch a biological or chemical attack 45 minutes after the order is given."

The 45-minute claim is at the center of a scandal in Britain that led to the apparent suicide on Friday of a British weapons scientist who had questioned the government's use of the allegation.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17424-2003Jul19.html?nav=hptop_tb

What a wicked web we weave.....

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by subgenius
The White House, in the run-up to war in Iraq, did not seek CIA approval before charging that Saddam Hussein could launch a biological or chemical attack within 45 minutes, administration officials now say.

The claim, which has since been discredited, was made twice by President Bush, in a September Rose Garden appearance after meeting with lawmakers and in a Saturday radio address the same week. Bush attributed the claim to the British government, but in a "Global Message" issued Sept. 26 and still on the White House Web site, the White House claimed, without attribution, that Iraq "could launch a biological or chemical attack 45 minutes after the order is given."


"After the order is given..."

That's the key. See, it may only take 45 minutes after the order is given, but they won't be able to give the order for another 18 years. Thus, it is "technically correct."

[Frank Newgent]

From the Bush-Blair news conference on Thursday...

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/07/17/bush.blair.presser.highlights/

QUESTION: Mr. President, others in your administration have said that your words on Iraq and Africa did not belong in your State of the Union address. Will you take responsibility -- personal responsibility for those words?
Click Play Audio. (http://www.junglewalk.com/popup.asp?type=a&AnimalAudioID=10420)

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by Frank Newgent
From the Bush-Blair news conference on Thursday...

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/07/17/bush.blair.presser.highlights/


Click Play Audio. (http://www.junglewalk.com/popup.asp?type=a&AnimalAudioID=10420)

Hmmm, interesting. What does that say about a president when he won't even take personal responsibility for the things he says in a state of union address.
I guess Bush really is just a pawn of the old guard (Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfield).

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by JAR
The weapons of mass destruction are one step closer to being found according to the article on this page: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,460160,00.html

I recommend that you people who think that the U.S. government had no evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction go ahead and take back what you said while you have the chance. If these things are found, boy are you going to be sorry.

It's been 4 weeks since this was posted. Hello JAR? Nothing found to date.

Maybe someone needs to start another thread speculating "something" will be found "soon". Maybe eventually, after starting enough of them, someone will accidently be right. Since it is obvious that the WMDs are nowhere to be found, calling into question their existence in the first place.

Some people might feel really funny if it turns out that the UN inspections actually resulted in the elimination of Saddam's WMDs - meaning that sanctions worked! Ha ha ha...

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

http://www.thehammer.ca/images/46/oj_powell_front.jpg

O.J. Simpson hired to find WMD (http://www.thehammer.ca/story.php?section=pages/46&page=3.html)

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Well, as I told Crossbow and Sundog before, I make a really crappy conservative. (yet here on JREF my name is bandied about as an arch neo-con of the JK stripe.) I agree with what you posted Tricky. Families should be defined by those within them, not those on the outside. I have no problem with gay civil union (though I think calling it marriage is adding controversy where there need not be)

...

Therefore I respectfully withdraw my inflamatory remarks of yesterday and offer my apology. I'll withdraw the infamous "traitors and cowards" comment from my sig line. If, however other folks wish to remember my quote that's ok too. I pledge to all of you that I will always own up to my words and mistakes. Unlike so many others.

-zilla

rikzilla:

Sorry for the tardy reply, I have been out of town and away from computers for the last few days.

Anyway, not to derail the thread but I would just like to make sure of a small detail, to wit:

You threw down your gauntlet and I picked it up. However, am I to understand that now you do not want me to return it?

- If so, then I will drop where I found it and walk away.
- If not, then I am still willing to return it.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Crossbow


rikzilla:

Sorry for the tardy reply, I have been out of town and away from computers for the last few days.

Anyway, not to derail the thread but I would just like to make sure of a small detail, to wit:

You threw down your gauntlet and I picked it up. However, am I to understand that now you do not want me to return it?

- If so, then I will drop where I found it and walk away.
- If not, then I am still willing to return it.

Thanks,

I'll take the challenge back. Seeing how I would be placed into a position of defending a statement that I have already acknowledged was in poor taste. I do not believe it was completely inaccurate, but it was terribly rude. If you still wish to make a point against that statement feel free to do so. If you've taken the time to do research, then by all means post it. But otherwise the subject can die with my apology. It's up to you.

-z

[Crossbow]

rikzilla:

Fine by me. I consider the matter closed.

[Crossbow]

JAR started this thread off by saying:

Originally posted by JAR
The weapons of mass destruction are one step closer to being found according to the article on this page: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,460160,00.html

At the end of the article it says:

Meanwhile, according to a Pentagon official, those doing the digging in Iraq say they have recently found small pieces of the WMD puzzle. Not yet enough to convince the public, perhaps, but enough to get the WMD hunters excited.

I recommend that you people who think that the U.S. government had no evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction go ahead and take back what you said while you have the chance. If these things are found, boy are you going to be sorry.

Now in another thread he says:

Originally posted by JAR on July 26, 2003 at 04:59 PM
I stand corrected. According to this article: http://us.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/15/sprj.irq.no.labs/, it has been proven that the labs weren't labs for making weapons of mass destruction.

So, JAR, just who is sorry now?

[MRC_Hans]

JAR admitted to being wrong. That's one notch up for him. Nobody should need to feel sorry for admitting to be wrong.

Hans

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
JAR admitted to being wrong. That's one notch up for him. Nobody should need to feel sorry for admitting to be wrong.

Hans

I do have a problem with those who insult anyone who would disagree with them about an issue of dubious facts. To wit:

Originally posted by JAR on July 11, 2003
If the U.S. government, which is the most reliable source of information regarding the WMDs, officially states that it didn't have very good evidence that Iraq had chemical weapons in those vans or trucks(whatever they were) and apologizes for claiming it did, then I will say that you the leftists are correct and I am wrong.

[Tricky]

What with the tremendous strides we are making at penetrating Saddam's inner circle, the question looms ever larger. Why is it they can point out Saddam's sons, but can't show us where they hid the WMDs?


*kick* "stupid dead horse" *kick*

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Tricky
What with the tremendous strides we are making at penetrating Saddam's inner circle, the question looms ever larger. Why is it they can point out Saddam's sons, but can't show us where they hid the WMDs?


Um...maybe because they know the answer to one question, but don't know the answer to the other?

Seemed obvious to me...

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Tricky
What with the tremendous strides we are making at penetrating Saddam's inner circle, the question looms ever larger. Why is it they can point out Saddam's sons, but can't show us where they hid the WMDs?

I give. Why?
And wasn't there someone who was going to throw themselves in a septic tank if we didn't find them by now?

[Crossbow]

With George W. Bush, the Iraqi WMDs have disappeared almost as fast the "New World Order" did back in the First Gulf War with George H. W. Bush.

This apple did not fall far from the tree.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Kodiak

Um...maybe because they know the answer to one question, but don't know the answer to the other?

Seemed obvious to me...
Seem unfathomable to me. Assuming there were WMDs, there would have had to be a fairly large number of people who knew where they were, or else the WMDs would have been pretty much useless. In contrast, the fewer who knew where Ouday and Qusay were hiding, the more useful it would be.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Tricky

Seem unfathomable to me. Assuming there were WMDs, there would have had to be a fairly large number of people who knew where they were, or else the WMDs would have been pretty much useless. In contrast, the fewer who knew where Ouday and Qusay were hiding, the more useful it would be.

You may very well be correct. My point is that they are not necessarily the same people.

How do we know that those individuals who had knowledge of WMD are not among the more than 300,000 Iraqi's missing and feared executed by Saddam's regime?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Kodiak
You may very well be correct. My point is that they are not necessarily the same people.
A legitimate point, but it still seems quite unlikely that we would find so many of one group and none of the other, unless...
...those individuals who had knowledge of WMD are ... among the more than 300,000 Iraqi's missing and feared executed by Saddam's regime?
Again, possible, but very unlikely. Saddam had been very much restrained in the last few months of his regime, what with the weapons inspectors over there and the eyes of the world trained on him.

If he carefully and silently executed every single person who worked in his WMD shops months before the invasion, then I cannot but be amazed at his ability to foretell the future. On the other hand, he would have to execute everybody who knew where those people worked too. Of course, he grants freedom to those WMD workers who bury parts in their yard for 12 years.

While your points are not provably wrong, Kodiac, they strain credulity to the snapping point.

[Crossbow]

Boy your pro-war types are in denial as bad as, if not worse, than John Edward fans for both of you are constantly making excuses for evidence not being found while continuing your faith in the system that says evidence will be found.

So far, here is what I have heard.

1) (pre-war talk) Saddam has WMDs and we can prove it!
> Oh really? Please do so.
Sorry, can't do that since it would give the terrorists information they want. But don't worry, we have a really, really good case against him.

2) (during the war) We will find those Saddam WMDs and prove what we have been saying all along.
> Oh really? So where are the WMDs anyway?
Well, we don't know just yet since Iraq is such a big country. But you just keep on watching and they will turn up soon enough.

3) (just after the war) Aha! We told you so! These two trailers prove that Iraq had WMDs.
> Oh really? They look like they were used to make hydrogen for weather and artillery balloons.
Well, um yeah they were used for that after all. But don't you worry! We will have plenty of other evidence before long!

4) (shortly after the war) Iraq is a big country so Saddam must have hidden those WMDs or gave them to some other country.
> Oh really? The US military was carefully watching Iraq prior to the war, so why did not anyone notice them moving out.
Well, um we do not know how they may have slipped out. But don't you worry, there will be plenty of evidence coming.

5) (in the last few weeks) Now that Iraq is an occupied country we will find out about all that Nigerian uranium.
> Oh really? That was such a big deal that George W. mentioned that Iraq bought some 200 tons of uranium in the last State of the Union Address.
Well, um, it looks like they never got the uranium and that stuff about it should have never been in the SUA to begin with. But don't you worry about the quality of the other intelligence (i.e. Iraq supported terrorists) because there will be plenty of other evidence presented, just wait a bit more.

6) (and now according to Kodiak) The reason why the USA cannot find anyone who has ever worked with Iraqi WMDs is that Saddam killed everyone involved with them expect for himself.

I suppose that Saddam also managed to somehow destroy all the documentation about these WMDS and the WMDs themselves since neither documentation nor WMDs have been found. So one is left with a situation where:

There are no WMDs,
There are no people who worked with WMDs,
There are no records about WMDs, and
There is no independent WMD evidence
Therefore, the pro-war people continue to belive that Iraq does have WMDs.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Crossbow
Boy your pro-war types are in denial as bad as, if not worse, than John Edward fans for both of you are constantly making excuses for evidence not being found while continuing your faith in the system that says evidence will be found.

Sorry, but I cannot continue to allow this straw man of my position.

I have repeatedly posted that no evidence of WMD's may ever be found, and that this doesn't automatically mean that they therefore never existed, or that whether or not they indeed existed automatically legitimizes or illegitimizes (is that a word? :) ) the invasion of Iraq. I think it is very clear that it is here where we disagree.

What you call "excuses", I call "possibilities".

What you call "denial" and "faith", I call not prematurely jumping to conclusions, as evidenced by the following:

Originally posted by Crossbow
There are no WMDs,
There are no people who worked with WMDs,
There are no records about WMDs, and
There is no independent WMD evidence

You could might be right, but you could be proven wrong.

I still say " lets wait and see".

How long? I don't know.

[Tricky]

I agree that Kodiac has taken no such positions as described by Crossbow. Neither did Crossbow attach Kodiac's name to those straw men.

Yes, they were a bit of hyperbole, but they also illustrate (even if by exaggeration ;)) the thin ice that the some of the WMD claimants are treading on. Reasons for not finding WMDs do in fact become more outlandish.

Kodiac has admitted this, and while he still sees the possibility of finding WMDs (as do I, in limited numbers), he has not been unreasonable in discussion. Yes I am a troll-baiter, but Kodiac is no troll. He's just wrong! :p

[Crossbow]

Kodiak:

Well I guess that I have misunderstood you.

You, and most of the other pro-war people, wrote extensively about how Iraq had WMDs and that is why it is so important that Iraq must be invaded. Sure, sometimes you all would mention other things such as Iraq supporting terrorists, or the poor human rights record of Iraq, but the one topic more than anything else was that Iraq did have WMDs.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Crossbow
Kodiak:

Well I guess that I have misunderstood you.

You, and most of the other pro-war people, wrote extensively about how Iraq had WMDs and that is why it is so important that Iraq must be invaded. Sure, sometimes you all would mention other things such as Iraq supporting terrorists, or the poor human rights record of Iraq, but the one topic more than anything else was that Iraq did have WMDs.

Prior to the war, I myself wrote much about the WMD. But, I also knew that it was not the only reason why Iraq should be invaded. In fact, it may not have even been the most important.

Pershaps the reason why there was so much emphasis on Weapons is that it is one thing that differentiates Saddam from so many other dictators. Other countries support terrorism, other countries oppress people, only Iraq had (or was suspected to have) WMD. But if the US said "we are going to go in and get rid of a bad dictator", people would have been saying "why Iraq and not ____(insert alternative bad place here)"

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Segnosaur


Prior to the war, I myself wrote much about the WMD. But, I also knew that it was not the only reason why Iraq should be invaded. In fact, it may not have even been the most important.

Perhaps the reason why there was so much emphasis on Weapons is that it is one thing that differentiates Saddam from so many other dictators. Other countries support terrorism, other countries oppress people, only Iraq had (or was suspected to have) WMD. But if the US said "we are going to go in and get rid of a bad dictator", people would have been saying "why Iraq and not ____(insert alternative bad place here)"
So the WMDs were the proverbial "straw that broke the camel's back?" Fair enough, but one would think that a role so important as "the last straw" would have been assigned to one of the things that had a little more proof behind it, because now, people are saying, "Why Iraq and not ____".

In retrospect, I believe that the WMD thing was just a ploy to try to get as much UN support as possible. After all, the sanctions were about weapons, so the only way we could get the UN to admit we had a case was to harp on the weapons. It backfired. Who will trust us next time when there is a real wolf?

And I suspect that the real "last straw" was probably the assassination attempt on Bush Sr. Plus, the window of opportunity for the American people's acceptance of unquestioned attacks against Arabs could not last forever. Truly, if Bush was determined invade, this was probably the best time. I don't believe he should have been so determined.

[DanishDynamite]

I'm very disappointed in the CIA. Its been months now. For Chr*st sake, how long does it take to manufacture and plant a few WMD! :mad: :D

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Segnosaur


Prior to the war, I myself wrote much about the WMD. But, I also knew that it was not the only reason why Iraq should be invaded. In fact, it may not have even been the most important.

Pershaps the reason why there was so much emphasis on Weapons is that it is one thing that differentiates Saddam from so many other dictators. Other countries support terrorism, other countries oppress people, only Iraq had (or was suspected to have) WMD. But if the US said "we are going to go in and get rid of a bad dictator", people would have been saying "why Iraq and not ____(insert alternative bad place here)"
So you're saying to not rely on what this administration says, and look to other reasons for what they do.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Tricky

In retrospect, I believe that the WMD thing was just a ploy to try to get as much UN support as possible.

A lot of good it did the US, didn't it?

Originally posted by Tricky

After all, the sanctions were about weapons, so the only way we could get the UN to admit we had a case was to harp on the weapons. It backfired. Who will trust us next time when there is a real wolf?


I don't think the US could ever really trust the UN. They went through NATO when they wanted to intervene in Kosovo. And I'm sure the next 'wolf' that comes along will probably be handled either by the US alone, or by some other coaltion (e.g. NATO, or some ad-hoc group.)

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by subgenius

So you're saying to not rely on what this administration says, and look to other reasons for what they do.

Thing is, the U.S. administration did talk about Iraq's support of terrorism, and their human rights abuses.

[dsm]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

A lot of good it did the US, didn't it?


True, but once Bush (et.al.) played the card, they had to play out the hand or suffer credibility problems. Question is, did they not know how weak their hand was? If so (as it seems they should have), why'd they play the card? If not, does it suggest an "ineptness" in foreign affairs by Bush (et.al.)?


I don't think the US could ever really trust the UN. They went through NATO when they wanted to intervene in Kosovo. And I'm sure the next 'wolf' that comes along will probably be handled either by the US alone, or by some other coaltion (e.g. NATO, or some ad-hoc group.)


We may never know how much the UN would have gone with the US on Iraq if:


it did not appear like the US was moving too fast in it's zeal to retaliate for 9/11
the connections between Iraq and 9/11 had been made much clearer
it did not seem like Bush (et.al.) were predisposed to attack Iraq when elected


The US had world sympathy because of 9/11 and we appear to have squandered that.

If the stature of the US is reduced in the UN, what effect will that have on its stature in NATO (etc.)? :eek:

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Crossbow
Kodiak:

Well I guess that I have misunderstood you.

You, and most of the other pro-war people, wrote extensively about how Iraq had WMDs...

The evidence still shows that they did!

Saddam used chemical weapons against Iran during their war, and against his own citizens in northern Irag. The Israelis destroyed a nuclear weapons facility in western Iraq, and though the statement about Saddam trying to get uranium from Niger proved to be incorrect, I've previously posted links showing that he indeed sought other NBC components from half a dozen other countries in Africa and Asia.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Kodiak


The evidence still shows that they did!

Saddam used chemical weapons against Iran during their war, and against his own citizens in northern Irag. The Israelis destroyed a nuclear weapons facility in western Iraq, and though the statement about Saddam trying to get uranium from Niger proved to be incorrect, I've previously posted links showing that he indeed sought other NBC components from half a dozen other countries in Africa and Asia.

Gee whiz man! As soon as yoiu start to make some degree of sense, you post something like this and that is why it is so easy to misunderstand you.

As for the time Saddam used chemical weapons and the raid by Israel, that was 20 years ago!!!
And looking for something is hardly the same thing as having that something.

We were being told that Iraq already had WMDs. We were told that he was going to use them on us provide them to terrorists. And that is why Iraq has to be invaded now!

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Crossbow
Gee whiz man! As soon as yoiu start to make some degree of sense, you post something like this and that is why it is so easy to misunderstand you.

How can you misunderstand the reasoning that if he had in his possession and used WMD's that it is likely that he still does have them and is still willing the use them, especially when he is caught lying about delivery systems and resists UN weapons inspectors at every turn?? It's circumstantial evidence, admittedly, but there's a whole lot of it...

Originally posted by Crossbow
And looking for something is hardly the same thing as having that something.

True enough. I've never denied this.

Originally posted by Crossbow
We were being told that Iraq already had WMDs. We were told that he was going to use them on us provide them to terrorists. And that is why Iraq has to be invaded now!

No, Bush told us that he believed that it was imperative that we invade Iraq because they were in violation of UN security council resolution 1441 and that Iraq had proven to be a WMD threat which must be destroyed before he used these weapons on us or our allies, or sold them to our enemies.

Violation of security council resolutions were always the administration's No.1 reason for invasion.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Kodiak


The evidence still shows that they did!

Saddam used chemical weapons against Iran during their war, and against his own citizens in northern Irag. The Israelis destroyed a nuclear weapons facility in western Iraq, and though the statement about Saddam trying to get uranium from Niger proved to be incorrect, I've previously posted links showing that he indeed sought other NBC components from half a dozen other countries in Africa and Asia.
Even if this were true, and I have seen no credible evidence that it is, you indicate, by omission, that there is no evidence of his actually receiving NBC componants, only that he tried to get them. There's no evidence he was able to assemble them and nobody in Iraq who seems to know anything about them.

The last gas attacks were in 1988,before Gulf War I (and the US refused to sanction Saddam for them) and although this does not excuse it, the Kurds have been trying for years to overthrow Saddam. While still horrible, using these weapons on a rebel force sounds a lot better than "using them on his own citizens". The US has used devastating force against "it's own citizens" too, in Waco for example.

Nothing that has been said supports the contention that we needed to attack Saddam right now. We might have had better justification back in 1988, but for some reason, no one seemed as outraged by WMDs back then.

[Crossbow]

Amen Tricky!

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Tricky
...you indicate...that there is no evidence of his actually receiving NBC componants, only that he tried to get them. There's no evidence he was able to assemble them and nobody in Iraq who seems to know anything about them.

You are correct.

Originally posted by Tricky
The last gas attacks were in 1988,before Gulf War I (and the US refused to sanction Saddam for them) and although this does not excuse it, the Kurds have been trying for years to overthrow Saddam. While still horrible, using these weapons on a rebel force sounds a lot better than "using them on his own citizens". The US has used devastating force against "it's own citizens" too, in Waco for example.

A "rebel force" which included women and children??

Sorry, but we don't gas the KKK, or towns with a high percentage of militant Aryans.

Originally posted by Tricky
Nothing that has been said supports the contention that we needed to attack Saddam right now.

Reasonable people can disagree.

Originally posted by Tricky
We might have had better justification back in 1988, but for some reason, no one seemed as outraged by WMDs back then.

9-11 and the "War on Terror" had an overwhelming effect on that, I'm sure.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Crossbow
Amen Tricky!

"Amen"? :rolleyes:

Pleease...he isn't that good!... ;)

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Kodiak
A "rebel force" which included women and children??

Sorry, but we don't gas the KKK, or towns with a high percentage of militant Aryans.
Again, I assure you I am not condoning what Saddam did, but when you attack a "rebel force", then women and children get killed. The coalitions forces killed a large number of women and children in the invasion of Iraq. You may argue that a war is different from supression of a rebel uprising, but I remind you that Israel sometimes kills women and children too. Also, women and children were killed at Waco. If you agree that a government has the right to put down rebel uprisinings, then surely you agree that "collateral damage" is expected when doing so. You may or may not agree that Saddam had the right to put down the Kurdish uprising (I'm not sure myself) but you surely know that innocents die in war. That's one reason why I think war should be only for really important things.

Originally posted by Kodiak
Reasonable people can disagree.
Indeed.

Originally posted by Kodiak
9-11 and the "War on Terror" had an overwhelming effect on that, I'm sure.
I said as much earlier when discussing with Seg what was the real "last straw".
Tricky said
the window of opportunity for the American people's acceptance of unquestioned attacks against Arabs could not last forever.
To wreak revenge on the Iraqis for something they had no part in is just plain wrong.

Originally posted by Kodiak
"Amen"?

Pleease...he isn't that good!...
Well, I was debating with God in the Flame war section.:halo:

[The Lord God Almighty]

Originally posted by Tricky
Well, I was debating with God in the Flame war section.:halo: How did that one come out, anyway? I forget.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by The Lord God Almighty
How did that one come out, anyway? I forget.
I think I was finally able to convince you that you could not make a rock so large that you yourself could not pick it up.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by dsm

True, but once Bush (et.al.) played the card, they had to play out the hand or suffer credibility problems. Question is, did they not know how weak their hand was? If so (as it seems they should have), why'd they play the card? If not, does it suggest an "ineptness" in foreign affairs by Bush (et.al.)?


There is more to the issue of invading or not invading Iraq than how it will change the US's reputation in the UN.

Obviously, it would have been better to get UN support. The US tried and failed. But, I'm assuming they thought that the benefits of going into Iraq without UN support outweighed the problems it represented.

Originally posted by dsm

We may never know how much the UN would have gone with the US on Iraq if:


it did not appear like the US was moving too fast in it's zeal to retaliate for 9/11
the connections between Iraq and 9/11 had been made much clearer
it did not seem like Bush (et.al.) were predisposed to attack Iraq when elected



A couple of points:
- Although it may appear that they were moving "too fast", there were several considerations; the US president only gets a limited 4 year term to enact any plans, The weather in Iraq is too hot to operate in the summer (if they waited a few more weeks, they would have had to wait a half year), the cost of stationing military forces near Iraq (but not invading) was expensive, and finally, if anyone supported the war for humantiarian or pro-terrorist reasons, any delays would give more time for Saddam to oppress his his own people and/or fund terrorism
- I am not (and I don't think the US administration ever said) that Iraq was connected to 9/11. So, there is nothing that could be done to make them clearer
- Do you notice a contradiction... on one hand you say that Bush was predisposed to attack Iraq, but you've also said that it was in retaliation for 9/11.

Originally posted by dsm

The US had world sympathy because of 9/11 and we appear to have squandered that.


Just what use is 'world sympathy'? Obviously, it doesn't get the US any support from contries that were opposed to its military actions. I know that several countries (Germany and South Korea come to mind) had leaders who got elected on anti-American platforms (this was before the invasion, mind you), yet these same leaders complain when the US says "OK, we'll move our forces out of your country". People complain about the US, but when trade with the US drops off, people panic.

So, again, what use is world sympathy?

Originally posted by dsm

If the stature of the US is reduced in the UN, what effect will that have on its stature in NATO (etc.)? :eek:

Just what 'great stature' has the US ever had in the UN?

For a long time, the UN has been critical of the US. (Espeically in the general assembly, and in various working groups.)

And given the fact that the UN is mostly useless, why should the US care what its stature is?

As for NATO, remember, most of the countries in NATO actually supported US action.

[dsm]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

There is more to the issue of invading or not invading Iraq than how it will change the US's reputation in the UN.


No, you're misinterpretting what I said. It seems apparent that Bush (et.al.) had it in their mind to go after Iraq from the very beginning. They were going to Iraq with or without a UN supported reason. So, not gaining the support of the UN was not going to be a showstopper as far as the invasion, but having the support (as Colin Powell recognized) would've helped improve the credibility of the operation in the world's eyes.


Obviously, it would have been better to get UN support. The US tried and failed. But, I'm assuming they thought that the benefits of going into Iraq without UN support outweighed the problems it represented.


Of course, the question remains "benefits for who?"


the US president only gets a limited 4 year term to enact any plans,


But usually they have an eye toward 8 years. Either way, the buildup for war began at 2 years and concluded at 2.5 years into Bush's term.


The weather in Iraq is too hot to operate in the summer (if they waited a few more weeks, they would have had to wait a half year),


Funny, the summer heat is still a problem, but they are still there... :rolleyes:


the cost of stationing military forces near Iraq (but not invading) was expensive,


...and still spending enormous amounts of money.

Weather and cost is mere obfuscation. There was never any doubt that the US would stomp on Iraq whenever we invaded and it should've been known that this "short" war would have consequences that we would have to pay enormously for afterwards (either in military support or financial reparations).


and finally, if anyone supported the war for humantiarian or pro-terrorist reasons, any delays would give more time for Saddam to oppress his his own people and/or fund terrorism


More obfuscation. If the need were as dire as all that, I think many more in the UN would've lined up behind it. Look how the UN is currently pushing the US on the humanitarian issues of Liberia.


- I am not (and I don't think the US administration ever said) that Iraq was connected to 9/11. So, there is nothing that could be done to make them clearer
- Do you notice a contradiction... on one hand you say that Bush was predisposed to attack Iraq, but you've also said that it was in retaliation for 9/11.


No. I said that it would've been nice to draw the connection as much as possible. The world (for the most part) was much more understanding about terrorism and the need to do something about it after 9/11. While Bush (et.al.) may not have directly connected Iraq to 9/11, he certainly implied it a number of times as reported here (http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html) by the pro-Bush Christian Science Monitor. If he couldn't draw a direct link between Iraq and 9/11, then should we conclude that he misused 9/11 to help make his case for invading Iraq (which he was predisposed to do)?


So, again, what use is world sympathy?


Well, possibly none if you're going to war for a reason you can't justify. On the other hand, if you can justify it reasonably, then the sympathy for 9/11 would give you much more of the world's ear than you were likely to have otherwise.


Just what 'great stature' has the US ever had in the UN?


The stature of having helped found the UN. The stature of being a country that, more than any other, promotes "freedom".


And given the fact that the UN is mostly useless, why should the US care what its stature is?


As the US is finding out now, trying to cleanup the problems in the world on your own is a difficult and expensive proposition.


As for NATO, remember, most of the countries in NATO actually supported US action.

"Most"? ;)

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by dsm

Of course, the question remains "benefits for who?"

You mean other than:
- The Iraqi people, who no longer have to live under Saddam's rule
- The Israelis and any other country that are (or could be) subject to terrorist attacks by groups supported by Saddam?
- The remainder of the citizens of the world, who will receive an economic boost from increased oils supplies and a free economy in Iraq, and perhaps (in the long run) live in a world with at least one more peaceful democracy?
Other than those people, you're right; nobody really benefits. I withdraw my statement.

(Note: I'm not saying that a more 'peaceful' world is guaranteed; only that the US may have thought that eliminating saddam would lead to it.)

Originally posted by dsm

But usually they have an eye toward 8 years. Either way, the buildup for war began at 2 years and concluded at 2.5 years into Bush's term.


A build up 2 years into his term is 'rushing' to attack Iraq?

Originally posted by dsm

Funny, the summer heat is still a problem, but they are still there... :rolleyes:


The heat is a problem for peace keepers, but it would be even MORE of a problem to actually wage a military conflict. (Peace keepers don't have to worry about wearing protective chem suits, for example.) Not to mention the sand storms which can cause problems.

Originally posted by dsm

Weather and cost is mere obfuscation. There was never any doubt that the US would stomp on Iraq whenever we invaded and it should've been known that this "short" war would have consequences that we would have to pay enormously for afterwards (either in military support or financial reparations).


The issue that we had been discussing was why there was a rush to war, not whether the war was good or not. (That was the issue I was talking about when I mentioned the weather and the cost of positioning troops but not attacking.)

As for the consequences of the short war, the administration must have felt that the benefits (as I outlined above) outweighed the cost.

Originally posted by dsm

More obfuscation. If the need were as dire as all that, I think many more in the UN would've lined up behind it. Look how the UN is currently pushing the US on the humanitarian issues of Liberia.


I have no idea why the UN is pushing the humanitarian issue in Liberia and ignored the issue in so many other places (like Iraq, Afghanistan, Cuba, Iran, etc.) Perhaps it is the nature of the conflicts; in Iraq, it was a dictatorial government that was overthrown, and given the fact that so many countries in the world are dictatorships, they probably don't want to see 'one of their own' eliminated. Liberia is a different type of conflict.


Originally posted by dsm

Well, possibly none if you're going to war for a reason you can't justify. On the other hand, if you can justify it reasonably, then the sympathy for 9/11 would give you much more of the world's ear than you were likely to have otherwise.


I think you overestimate the "world's" ability to accept justification. If the overthrow of someone who had lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of his own people was not 'justification', then they wouldn't have accepted anything.

Originally posted by dsm

The stature of having helped found the UN. The stature of being a country that, more than any other, promotes "freedom".


Strange, there is more freedom in Iraq now than there was when Saddam was in power. Sounds like 'promotion' of freedom to me....

As for the 'stature' of having helped found the UN... who cares? As I said before, they were regularly criticized in the UN, many of the countries in the UN are dictatorships, and the UN provides little or no benefit to the US.

Originally posted by dsm

As the US is finding out now, trying to cleanup the problems in the world on your own is a difficult and expensive proposition.


The US felt the problem was worth 'cleaning up' (as opposed to the rest of the world), even though they had to bear most of the costs themselves.

Originally posted by dsm

(on support for US actions from Nato)
"Most"? ;)

France (who isn't even a full member), Belgium and Germany were opposed. Britian, Italy, Spain, Poland (not to mention the United States) were for it. Not sure about all of the others. (Ok, it may not have been 'most', but it was a significant number.)

[dsm]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

The US felt the problem was worth 'cleaning up' (as opposed to the rest of the world), even though they had to bear most of the costs themselves.


As well as the potential ire of a world that didn't agree with them on their reasoning.

Also, you're mixing nouns. The people of the US believed (for the most part) what the Bush Administration told them about why we needed to go to Iraq. If anyone felt that Iraq was something that needed 'cleaning up', it was the Bush Administration. Couching this in terms of "the US" leads one to believe the people of the US were making the decision.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by dsm

As well as the potential ire of a world that didn't agree with them on their reasoning.


Being in the 'majority' does not necessarily make someone morally right.

As an anology, lets say you lived in a town where criminals were regularly robbing and killing; however, the majority of people had no problem with the illegal activity. Does that mean that the majority is right, and that nothing should be done about it?

Originally posted by dsm

The people of the US believed (for the most part) what the Bush Administration told them about why we needed to go to Iraq. If anyone felt that Iraq was something that needed 'cleaning up', it was the Bush Administration. Couching this in terms of "the US" leads one to believe the people of the US were making the decision.

The US administration said a lot of things... Yes, they probably overplayed the WMD issue; they also talked about Saddam's support of terrorism and his human rights abuses. Obviously, some people had the wrong information (like the people who think 9/11 hijackers were Iraqi), but then I'm sure many people on the anti-war side were against the war for invalid reasons.

What you should remember:
- Most Americans did support the Iraq invasion
- Leaders may make decisions which run contrary to the immediate desires of the population. But leaders ARE elected to lead. (Note that in Canada, the majority of our population thought we should have been involved in Iraq, yet our government sayed out of it. Are you saying Canada should have joined the coalition because it would have been the 'people' making the decision?)

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by dsm
If anyone felt that Iraq was something that needed 'cleaning up', it was the Bush Administration. Couching this in terms of "the US" leads one to believe the people of the US were making the decision.

Sorry, but that's the way it works in a constitutionally-limited representative democracy.

[dsm]

Originally posted by Kodiak

Sorry, but that's the way it works in a constitutionally-limited representative democracy.


And I'm not saying it should work any different. My complaint was not with the government, but rather how what the governmnet did was reported (by, in this case, Segnosaur).

:rolleyes:

[dsm]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

Being in the 'majority' does not necessarily make someone morally right.


The morality of GWB is far from proven in this case. (NOTE: I'm not saying that GWB is an immoral person.)


The US administration said a lot of things... Yes, they probably overplayed the WMD issue; they also talked about Saddam's support of terrorism and his human rights abuses. Obviously, some people had the wrong information (like the people who think 9/11 hijackers were Iraqi), but then I'm sure many people on the anti-war side were against the war for invalid reasons.


The difference is that Bush (et.al.) controlled the discussion. They either knew what impression they were giving the world about Iraq (again, as mentioned here (http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html)) or they were incompetent in their reading of public opinion and the like.


What you should remember:
- Most Americans did support the Iraq invasion


Based upon the information given to them by the Administration and their trust in the Administration to do the Right Thing.


- Leaders may make decisions which run contrary to the immediate desires of the population. But leaders ARE elected to lead.


And, as shown in California, they are held accountable when they fail to lead. Just as Gray Davis is being recalled for (mostly) being unable to forge good relationships with the California legislature, one should look critically at George W Bush and his ability to forge relationships on key issues with other world leaders (like on the Iraq War).

Just because GWB has got his finger on the biggest trigger in the world doesn't make his decisions automatically right.

:rolleyes:

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by dsm

The morality of GWB is far from proven in this case. (NOTE: I'm not saying that GWB is an immoral person.)


George Bush could very well be the most immoral person in the world. He could have attacked Iraq because his astrologer told him to, or because voices in his head convinced him, or that he just wanted to see American forces kill people.

But I didn't support military action because Bush said so... I supported the military actions for my own reasons (more like in spite of Bush rather than because of them.) Just because 2 people come to the same 'conclusion' through 2 different means (one through rational thought, one through irrational), does that mean that the conclusion (and the rational thought) behind it must be rejected just because the irrational thought also lead to the same conclusion?

Originally posted by dsm

Based upon the information given to them by the Administration and their trust in the Administration to do the Right Thing.


There was a lot of information in the media from the anti-war side. There were large protests. There were celebraties like Moore and Sarandon criticizing Bush's actions. I think there was enough counter-information available for people to make their own minds up. (And just because the government says something, dosen't necessarily mean that everyone will believe it.) Basically, you're accusing people in the US of being sheep, which I think is wrong.

Oh, and if the US population really was being 'lead' into its pro-war stance by the government and/or the media, then could it also be possible that many people around the world were against the war for the same reasons? Why is it only in the U.S. that people are 'sheep', trusting in what the leaders tell them?

Originally posted by dsm

And, as shown in California, they are held accountable when they fail to lead. Just as Gray Davis is being recalled for (mostly) being unable to forge good relationships with the California legislature, one should look critically at George W Bush and his ability to forge relationships on key issues with other world leaders (like on the Iraq War).


Perhaps the ability to forge relationships with other leaders in the world is not an important factor in people's opinions on what a 'good' leader is. Lets face it, the international political fallout for this will ultimately be very minimal. Many of these world leaders either aren't worth befriending (Arab dictatorships anyone?) or have already gone through efforts to bridge relations (probably for economic reasons, but they certainly aren't holding a grudge.)

In fact, the US is getting a lot of international good news since the end of the Iraq war.... Syria had refused to give refuge to pro-Saddam factions (there were rumours that one of his sons tried to flee there), Kaddafy's son in Libya has made comments about how he wants to improve relations, North Korea is more willing to follow US terms for discussions (NK wanted talks between just the US and NK; the US wanted to include China and South Korea), many African nations have asked for US help (would they really be doing that if they thought the US was bad?), and several african nations have started an organization (requested by the US) to help fight terrorism.

So, where is the 'bad' fallout?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Segnosaur
So, where is the 'bad' fallout?

Maybe it's the widely predicted negative effect on the economy. (http://www.msnbc.com/news/946435.asp?0cv=CA01) :rolleyes:

[dsm]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

George Bush could very well be the most immoral person in the world. He could have attacked Iraq because his astrologer told him to, or because voices in his head convinced him, or that he just wanted to see American forces kill people.


You raised the morality issue. :rolleyes:


But I didn't support military action because Bush said so... I supported the military actions for my own reasons (more like in spite of Bush rather than because of them.) Just because 2 people come to the same 'conclusion' through 2 different means (one through rational thought, one through irrational), does that mean that the conclusion (and the rational thought) behind it must be rejected just because the irrational thought also lead to the same conclusion?


No, the conclusion is accepted or rejected on it's own merits. There is no relationship to the "rationality" of the person making the conclusion. You haven't shown that your reasons for going to war with Iraq are any more solid (regardless of rationality) than Bush's may have been.


Basically, you're accusing people in the US of being sheep, which I think is wrong.


No, I'm accusing people the world over of being "sheep". That's why advertisement works... :rolleyes:


Oh, and if the US population really was being 'lead' into its pro-war stance by the government and/or the media, then could it also be possible that many people around the world were against the war for the same reasons? Why is it only in the U.S. that people are 'sheep', trusting in what the leaders tell them?


Uncritical thinking! The Bush Administration was proposing doing something. Is it wrong of the rest of the world to ask for proof of why something needed to be done?


Perhaps the ability to forge relationships with other leaders in the world is not an important factor in people's opinions on what a 'good' leader is.


Tell that to Gray Davis. :rolleyes:


So, where is the 'bad' fallout?


Many things are still playing out. We'll have to see the effects in the long run. How hard or easy it will be for the US government to accomplish its goals in the future remains to be seen. For instance, although there has been some change in North Korea and Iran stances on nuclear weapons, they haven't negotiated them away yet. If Bush can accomplish that without war, great. If not, then the fallout will be in whether the world will be persuaded of the need to go to war since our military is stretched thin with just Iraq.

[subgenius]

Just because GWB has got his finger on the biggest trigger in the world doesn't make his decisions automatically right.

(With all due respect I'm not going to attribute this to the real author and claim it as my own.)

[subgenius]

Re: the thread topic
Have we taken another step?

[richardm]

Originally posted by dsm
For instance, although there has been some change in North Korea and Iran stances on nuclear weapons, they haven't negotiated them away yet. If Bush can accomplish that without war, great. If not, then the fallout will be in whether the world will be persuaded of the need to go to war since our military is stretched thin with just Iraq.

Ouch! Did you have to use the "F" word?

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by dsm

You raised the morality issue. :rolleyes:

Yes, but you were the one that tied it to Bush.

My 'moral' arguments for the war (stoping the opression of Iraqi people, eliminate some terrorist support) had nothing to do with what Bush may or may not believe. So why bring Bush into it?

Originally posted by dsm

No, the conclusion is accepted or rejected on it's own merits. There is no relationship to the "rationality" of the person making the conclusion. You haven't shown that your reasons for going to war with Iraq are any more solid (regardless of rationality) than Bush's may have been.


I believe that even though some innocent people were (and will be) killed, it will save Iraqi lives in the long run. No more mass graves, no more deliberate starvation. I also believe it may lead to a more peaceful world, as one of the supporters of terrorism is eliminated, and a free Iraq provides a good template for other Islamic states. (Note: The second point is more tenuous... I know there are a lot of risks involved, but I believe the rewards make it worth the risk.)

Is that solid enough reasoning for you?

Originally posted by dsm

Uncritical thinking! The Bush Administration was proposing doing something. Is it wrong of the rest of the world to ask for proof of why something needed to be done?


The evidence of Iraq's terrorism support and human rights abuses were available before the war, from the media, from the UN and from other international organizations. If they hear that thousands of people die each month from Saddam's actions, and they don't think that something must be done, how do you suggest they 'prove' things?



Originally posted by dsm

Tell that to Gray Davis. :rolleyes:


That's why I said "world" leaders. Obviously, Bush must be able to work with elements within the US. He may also have to relate to elements outside the US. There are a lot of factors. It could be that people rate the importance of "playing nice" with world leaders to be of lower priority than other factors.

By the way, I'm in Canada, so there are parts of the Gray Davis story that I'm not familiar with, but I think there was a little more than him just not working well with others. I understand he submitted an unreasonable budget prior to the recall (tax increases, etc.) Had he not done that, he may not be in the state he's in now.

Originally posted by dsm

Many things are still playing out. We'll have to see the effects in the long run. How hard or easy it will be for the US government to accomplish its goals in the future remains to be seen.

If there were to be serious international effects of going to war, they would likely occur very soon after the war. I expect any bad feelings to decrease, as memories fade and other events take center stage. If there aren't negative effects now, what makes you think the effect will increase later?

Originally posted by dsm

For instance, although there has been some change in North Korea and Iran stances on nuclear weapons, they haven't negotiated them away yet. If Bush can accomplish that without war, great. If not, then the fallout will be in whether the world will be persuaded of the need to go to war since our military is stretched thin with just Iraq.

If the world wasn't persuaded by the need to go to war in Iraq, what makes you think they'd be persuaded to go to war anywhere else?

[dsm]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

Yes, but you were the one that tied it to Bush.

My 'moral' arguments for the war (stoping the opression of Iraqi people, eliminate some terrorist support) had nothing to do with what Bush may or may not believe. So why bring Bush into it?


Okay, I misinterpretted the reference to "majority" as the world at large and (therefore) "minority" as the Administration.


Is that solid enough reasoning for you?


Better. And ones that the Bush Administration could've strived for (and strived for hard) over the next couple of years. The humanitarian issue is still controversial as to how bad it really was in Iraq (in comparison to, say, Liberia), but that's certainly something that the UN could've been mobilized to better document (and, in the process, nudge them toward similar issues in Liberia, etc.). However, you're reasons do not rise to the level of "let's take out Saddam now". I also note that you've dropped WMD from your reasons -- the one thing that would've made war with Saddam an immediate issue.


The evidence of Iraq's terrorism support and human rights abuses were available before the war, from the media, from the UN and from other international organizations. If they hear that thousands of people die each month from Saddam's actions, and they don't think that something must be done, how do you suggest they 'prove' things?


Do you have a reference to this?


That's why I said "world" leaders. Obviously, Bush must be able to work with elements within the US. He may also have to relate to elements outside the US. There are a lot of factors. It could be that people rate the importance of "playing nice" with world leaders to be of lower priority than other factors.


Different (groups of) people have different ways of rating their leaders (as is their right). I have presented some of mine in this thread.


If there were to be serious international effects of going to war, they would likely occur very soon after the war. I expect any bad feelings to decrease, as memories fade and other events take center stage. If there aren't negative effects now, what makes you think the effect will increase later?


Memories fade until similar circumstances occur. For instance, if it is deemed by the world that Bush jumped the gun on Iraq, then what will they think if Bush starts making similar moves against North Korea or Iran?


If the world wasn't persuaded by the need to go to war in Iraq, what makes you think they'd be persuaded to go to war anywhere else?


Good leadership? :p

[dsm]

Originally posted by subgenius
Just because GWB has got his finger on the biggest trigger in the world doesn't make his decisions automatically right.

(With all due respect I'm not going to attribute this to the real author and claim it as my own.)

Why? What "trigger" were you thinking of? ;)