PDA

View Full Version : Maybe the Neocons were right.


BIG_DADDY
03-11-2005, 10:49 AM
Very, very interesting artilcle. I find it funny that the original neocons were the intellectual liberals, I never knew that. ROFL I was for going into Afghanistan and against going into Iraq but I have to admit I may have been wrong. If democracy takes hold in the ME Bush will come out as one of the top few presidents of all time, that should go up the liberals ass a mile. Anyone betting terroristme will stay away from this subject like the plague? If you click on the link they provide other links to back up what they are saying, ENJOY. :)



http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/g/a/2005/03/09/cstillwell.

OPINION: Revenge Of The Neocons
Cinnamon Stillwell

Wednesday, March 9, 2005


Printable Version
Email This Article

Cinnamon Stillwell
Archive







To the extent that one hears the term neocon in the Bay Area, the connotation is usually sinister. But few critics actually know of whom they speak. Beyond the stereotypes, neoconservatism is simply another strain in American political history.

The original neocons were liberal intellectuals who gravitated toward the Republican Party in the late 1960s and early '70s out of frustration with the Democrats' approach to defense. Distinguishing themselves from traditional conservative isolationists, they later formed the core of the Reagan Republicans. They supported the Reagan administration's strategies toward the Soviet Union, which are now credited in large part with its demise.

In the wake of 9/11 and the war on terrorism, the muscular yet idealistic foreign policy of the neocons has once again come to the fore. Neocons believe it's in the interest of both the United States and the international community to live in a world relatively free of tyranny and simmering discontent. In short, spreading freedom is a win-win situation.

All of this makes the hostility toward them and President Bush for adopting such policies all the more puzzling -- especially when it comes from those who profess an interest in promoting human rights. But as democracy takes hold in the Muslim world before our very eyes, it seems the neocons are having their revenge at last.

'Arab Street' arises

The once-feared "Arab street" has indeed arisen -- just not against America. Instead, the people of the region have surpassed even the most optimistic neocon's wildest dreams and, rather than blaming their problems on outsiders, are at last demanding change in their own backyards. Following on the heels of successful elections in Afghanistan, the Iraqi elections in January were clearly a turning point, and the rapid succession of developments ever since proves it.

Images of Iraqi voters holding up purple ink-stained fingers in triumph turned out to have farther-reaching consequences than anyone could have hoped for. The idea that effecting regime change in a few pivotal countries can lead to a democratic domino effect in the region is literally being borne out as we speak.

Following the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, most likely at the hands of Syrian intelligence operatives and their Lebanese cohorts, throngs of people filled the street of Beirut with flags, red roses, victory signs and painted faces. Druze, Christians and Muslims alike -- defying the expectations of sectarian violence -- camped out in the streets and marched alongside each other, demanding the withdrawal of Syrian troops.

Within days of what's been dubbed the Cedar Revolution, the entire Lebanese government resigned. Ever since then, Syrian President Bashar Assad and assorted diplomats have been scrambling to convince the international community, including Arab nations, that they plan to withdraw. These scenes, reminiscent of Ukraine's Orange Revolution, were broadcast all over the Arab world and may yet inspire similar "peaceful uprisings" elsewhere.

Good signs in Egypt, Saudi Arabia


Meanwhile, in Egypt, longtime dictator Hosni Mubarak, bowing to pressure from homegrown protesters and U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, has agreed to allow multiparty presidential candidates in the next election.

Saudi Arabia is following suit at a slower pace, having held a municipal election in which only men were allowed to vote. But it seems that there, too, the stirrings of change have been felt. The fact that the nation's election commission recommended that women participate in the next vote, as well as the relatively positive comments of Saudi leaders on the subject, is a good sign.

Similarly, the Palestinian election of Mahmoud Abbas can be seen as a move in the right direction. Actions do speak louder than words, and the recent suicide bombing in Tel Aviv did little to reassure skeptics. However, the anger of the Palestinian people at the terrorist groups involved at the attack -- not at Israel, for a change -- is a hopeful development.

On the other hand, the Palestinian Authority-run media glorified the bomber as a shahid, or martyr, just as they did under Yasser Arafat. Ultimately, whatever path the Palestinians choose to take, the neocons' insistence on a democratic society at peace with their neighbors is a model worth emulating.

Kind words from critics

Even longtime critics of the United States have been forced to concede that perhaps there's something to neoconservative strategy after all. Lebanese Druze leader Walid Jumblatt, in a quote that's exploded across the Western media, put it best: "It's strange for me to say it, but this process of change has started because of the American invasion of Iraq. I was cynical about Iraq. But when I saw the Iraqi people voting three weeks ago, 8 million of them, it was the start of a new Arab world. The Syrian people, the Egyptian people, all say that something is changing. The Berlin Wall has fallen. We can see it."

Europe, too, seems to be figuring it out, albeit from the sidelines. Bush's recent trip there ruffled the usual anti-American feathers, but it also produced introspection in more than one outlet. The German newspaper Der Spiegel carried a revealing article titled "Could Bush Be Right?" that conjured the example of President Reagan and the fall of the Berlin Wall. A pro-Bush rally in Germany, of all places, was captured in the blogosphere, if not in the mainstream media. Over in England, the heretofore staunchly antiwar Guardian admitted that "the dark cloud of the Iraq war may have carried a silver lining."

Even the editorial pages of America's own antiwar media, such as the New York Times, have demonstrated a grudging reversal. Similarly, a piece in The Christian Science Monitor by National Public Radio's Daniel Schorr conceded that "Bush may have had it right." Here in the Bay Area, KGO radio talk show host Pete Wilson devoted part of his March 3 show to the question, "What if we [those opposed to the war in Iraq] were wrong?" In the end, it's inevitable that such former critics join a winning strategy or face political irrelevance.

Biggest story of the generation

But the dyed-in-the-wool Bush bashers and neocon haters seem determined to disregard all the heartening news and persist in their antiwar narrative. As a result, they are missing out on the biggest story of a generation: the unfolding of democracy in the Muslim world. It's little wonder, for, all along, they have maintained an oddly colonial point of view in which inhabitants of the Middle East are deemed incapable of democracy. Either that, or they hold up the specter of Islamic theocracy as written in stone.

Indeed, these days it's the Left that seems to promote realpolitik pragmatism over the apparently radical idea that people all over the world not only deserve freedom but also are capable of controlling their own destinies. Meanwhile, Bush is sneered at for giving an inaugural address that's "too lofty," and the neocons are viewed as a sinister cabal forcing democracy on the unwilling natives of the world.

Admittedly, the neoconservative approach is an incredibly ambitious one, but, when it comes right down to it, what's the alternative? Trying to transform despotic regimes into democracies and enemies into allies is the only solution. These goals are accomplished not only through military means but also by supporting the moderates and intellectuals of the region. As those in the peace camp are fond of saying, endless war is not the answer.

Furthermore, Islamic terrorism has nothing to offer Muslims in the long run, and they know it. Though the Islamofascists will continue trying to wreak havoc in Iraq and beyond, ultimately, what they're selling has already been tried, and, under the Taliban in Afghanistan, it failed.

'Pink Revolution' in Iran

After the terrible suicide car bombing in Hillah last month, thousands of Iraqis gathered together in protest, chanting, "No to terrorism!" In Iran, women have begun sporting pink accessories along with the requisite black abaya in what some are calling the "Pink Revolution." Hundreds of women (and even some men) marked International Women's Day in Pakistan by marching against the acquittal of five suspects in a case of "honor rape" that's shaking the nation.

From Iran to Lebanon and Egypt to Syria, the people have spoken, and what they want is freedom. But the naysayers don't seem to be listening, perhaps because to do so would be to acknowledge that Bush and the neocons might just have been onto something all along.

For those still wringing their hands at what to do about the war on terrorism, here's a revolutionary suggestion: How about what we're already doing? As the old saying goes, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. This doesn't mean that everything will fall into place perfectly or that challenges don't lie ahead, but, by all accounts, there is reason for encouragement. Lest it be thought that supporting such policies translates automatically into becoming a Republican, think again. It may be difficult for those in the post-Vietnam era to comprehend, but during World War II, the country was unified in a common goal of survival, its differences elsewhere notwithstanding.

Whatever one's reasons for opposing the war in Iraq, to extend that opposition to the wave of freedom enveloping the Muslim world is to place oneself squarely on the wrong side of history. As President Bush recently said, "Freedom is on the march." The question is, are you for it, or against it?

Baby Lee
03-11-2005, 10:54 AM
Mememe gives it 6 months, max.

BIG_DADDY
03-11-2005, 10:59 AM
Mememe gives it 6 months, max.

She's just an angry bitch.

Amnorix
03-11-2005, 11:07 AM
Necons certainly aren't traditional conservatives. They are "liberal" in terms of trying to force progress to move the ME along the path of democracy (by force if necessary). But it's hard for me to think of them as "former liberals" or anything.

Anyway, this thread is at least 5 years too early, in some ways. We need to see what happens with Iraq, and democracy in the ME. If Iraq is a catalyst for democratic reform throughout the ME, and a movement away from terrorist-supporting autocrats, then Bush will certain go down in history as one of the top Presidents.

As I always say, only time will tell.

Bwana
03-11-2005, 11:11 AM
She's just an angry bitch.

ROFL

BIG_DADDY
03-11-2005, 11:21 AM
Necons certainly aren't traditional conservatives. They are "liberal" in terms of trying to force progress to move the ME along the path of democracy (by force if necessary). But it's hard for me to think of them as "former liberals" or anything.

Anyway, this thread is at least 5 years too early, in some ways. We need to see what happens with Iraq, and democracy in the ME. If Iraq is a catalyst for democratic reform throughout the ME, and a movement away from terrorist-supporting autocrats, then Bush will certain go down in history as one of the top Presidents.

As I always say, only time will tell.

Sounds to me like they were the liberals who were sick and tired of their wussified partners. I really feel for them and people like yourself when you have that element in your party. I hate the religious right just as much but it just seems the percentage of the right that I would consider like that seems to be much lower than the percentage of yellow bellied, white bashing, tax raising gun grabbers on the other side. Then again maybe it's where I live but it isn't any better where you are at, maybe worse.

Chief Henry
03-11-2005, 11:42 AM
She's just an angry bitch.

Home schooler

Cochise
03-11-2005, 11:46 AM
Anyone betting terroristme will stay away from this subject like the plague?

I'm not. She'll be along shortly to make her "This is a 'mixed bag' and still has time 'backfire' into a 'civil war' " post.

Mr. Kotter
03-11-2005, 11:48 AM
Mememe gives it 6 months, max.

Which means it will be more like 6 centuries or so. Heh.

As for the article, BD....I haven't been a fan of Bush's methods and diplomacy....but the way things are looking, a lot of liberals are squirming.

I posted a thread that compared Bush and Truman. I'm stickin' with it, at this point....so far, so good.

Baby Lee
03-11-2005, 11:50 AM
I posted a thread that compared Bush and Truman. I'm stickin' with it, at this point....so far, so good.
And I'm the one who made the Churchill [Winston, not Ward] comparo.

HC_Chief
03-11-2005, 12:02 PM
tee hee hee!

Of course they were "right". They've been formulating this strategy for how long now? Decades? Their "opponents" suffer from severe myopia. They lack the capacity to see three inches beyond their noses... and that's why they're getting their asses kicked.

A brilliant tactician lacking strategy will always fail if pitted against even a poor tactician with a brilliant strategy.

Radar Chief
03-11-2005, 12:03 PM
Anyway, this thread is at least 5 years too early, in some ways. We need to see what happens with Iraq, and democracy in the ME. If Iraq is a catalyst for democratic reform throughout the ME, and a movement away from terrorist-supporting autocrats, then Bush will certain go down in history as one of the top Presidents.

As I always say, only time will tell.

Yup. While I’ve been a supporter of both fronts in the WOT, I’m not ready to do a victory lap just yet.

BIG_DADDY
03-11-2005, 12:14 PM
Yup. While I’ve been a supporter of both fronts in the WOT, I’m not ready to do a victory lap just yet.

Far from taking a victory lap. I just thought we should stay out of Iraq and now I am beginning to question whether I was wrong about that with the way things are developing. You would think terroristme would be thrilled for the women in the ME but I guess her hate for the America and the white male overshadow all of that.

Mr. Kotter
03-11-2005, 12:55 PM
And I'm the one who made the Churchill [Winston, not Ward] comparo.

Rejecting appeasement? Definitely some other parallels too.

NewChief
03-11-2005, 01:04 PM
tee hee hee!

Of course they were "right". They've been formulating this strategy for how long now? Decades? .

So you admit that they've planned this all along, and the whole imminent threat of WMD was just a convenient way to dupe the American public into going along with what they've been planning for decades. Thanks for the candor. Glad to see I do agree with the Cons on something. :thumb:

HC_Chief
03-11-2005, 01:16 PM
So you admit that they've planned this all along, and the whole imminent threat of WMD was just a convenient way to dupe the American public into going along with what they've been planning for decades. Thanks for the candor. Glad to see I do agree with the Cons on something. :thumb:

Heh, funny, you're doing exactly what I said: thinking "tactically" rather than "strategically".

Saying Saddam was a threat to supply terrorists w/ WMD was hardly revolutionary... hell, the UN, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, and the majority of congress are guilty of that. As are the French and the Germans.

Bush played that tactic up to gain support for implementing a greater <i>strategy</i>: base of operations in the ME to combat terrorists on their soil. It also acts as a conduit of influence - making the possibility of spreading democracy, and one of it's coproducts: freedom, through the region. Hence, implementation of a greater strategy.

Many of us have explained it ad nauseum here. It was clear as day, from day one. Of course, we aren't wearing "Bush = baby eater" blinders, so our vision is a bit clearer :p

Soupnazi
03-11-2005, 01:20 PM
Bush lied, dictators died.

Bearcat2005
03-11-2005, 02:04 PM
Bush's Presidency has an oppurtunity to look favorably in history, with "the Bush Doctrine", economic recovery from 2001, social security reform? (if that passes), along with other issues. All of these while the media and parts of the world demonize him, sounds just like another great president we have had.

Radar Chief
03-11-2005, 03:17 PM
Far from taking a victory lap. I just thought we should stay out of Iraq and now I am beginning to question whether I was wrong about that with the way things are developing.

:thumb:

You would think terroristme would be thrilled for the women in the ME but I guess her hate for the America and the white male overshadow all of that.

That’s the one bit of consistency from’er.

jettio
03-11-2005, 03:17 PM
The costs of not being upfront about the reasons for going to war with Iraq have still not been repaid.

The rapid transformation of Iraq into Utopia is about two years and a whole lot of extra dead people late.

If B*sh had a dick he would have told the truth about his "motives." And, if he had a brain, there would be a helluva lot more progress made up to this point.

B*sh went to war in Iraq because of WOMD's. Period. That is his story and he is sticking to it.

Cochise
03-11-2005, 03:23 PM
Bush lied, dictators died.

They didn't die - even worse - they were MISTREATED!!

bum bum BUMMMMMMM

The Pedestrian
03-11-2005, 03:29 PM
Very, very interesting artilcle. I find it funny that the original neocons were the intellectual liberals, I never knew that. ROFL ...

...


Yeah, Teddy Roosevelt would be a NeoConservative today although he was considered a liberal in his time.

Calcountry
03-11-2005, 03:45 PM
Necons certainly aren't traditional conservatives. They are "liberal" in terms of trying to force progress to move the ME along the path of democracy (by force if necessary). But it's hard for me to think of them as "former liberals" or anything.

Anyway, this thread is at least 5 years too early, in some ways. We need to see what happens with Iraq, and democracy in the ME. If Iraq is a catalyst for democratic reform throughout the ME, and a movement away from terrorist-supporting autocrats, then Bush will certain go down in history as one of the top Presidents.

As I always say, only time will tell.And Bill Clinton will go down....um, I guess thats all I have to say.

:p

patteeu
03-11-2005, 09:54 PM
Bush's Presidency has an oppurtunity to look favorably in history, with "the Bush Doctrine", economic recovery from 2001, social security reform? (if that passes), along with other issues. All of these while the media and parts of the world demonize him, sounds just like another great president we have had.

I agree, except that the part about the economic recovery will just be a footnote. That kind of thing isn't remembered long. That's why Bill Clinton will go down as such an irrelevant president despite the economic boom he was lucky enough to preside over.

patteeu
03-11-2005, 10:13 PM
The costs of not being upfront about the reasons for going to war with Iraq have still not been repaid.

The rapid transformation of Iraq into Utopia is about two years and a whole lot of extra dead people late.

If B*sh had a dick he would have told the truth about his "motives." And, if he had a brain, there would be a helluva lot more progress made up to this point.

B*sh went to war in Iraq because of WOMD's. Period. That is his story and he is sticking to it.

I don't know how I can be so smart that I was aware of the fact that one of the reasons for attacking Iraq was to transform the region and "drain the swamp" but yet so many others were oblivious to it.

Maybe, I'm not really that smart. Maybe it's those of you who claim you didn't know about this all along who are ignorant (willfully or otherwise).

Mr. Kotter
03-11-2005, 10:31 PM
The costs of not being upfront about the reasons for going to war with Iraq have still not been repaid.

The rapid transformation of Iraq into Utopia is about two years and a whole lot of extra dead people late.

If B*sh had a dick he would have told the truth about his "motives." And, if he had a brain, there would be a helluva lot more progress made up to this point.

B*sh went to war in Iraq because of WOMD's. Period. That is his story and he is sticking to it.

Blah, blah-blah blah blah-blah blah blah blah-blah...BLAH!
Blah, blah-blah blah blah-blah blah blah blah-blah...BLAH!
Blah, blah-blah blah blah-blah blah blah blah-blah...BLAH!
Blah, blah-blah blah blah-blah blah blah blah-blah...BLAH!
Blah, blah-blah blah blah-blah blah blah blah-blah...BLAH!

Yup. Thanks for your input. :thumb:

CHIEF4EVER
03-11-2005, 11:16 PM
Blah, blah-blah blah blah-blah blah blah blah-blah...BLAH!
Blah, blah-blah blah blah-blah blah blah blah-blah...BLAH!
Blah, blah-blah blah blah-blah blah blah blah-blah...BLAH!
Blah, blah-blah blah blah-blah blah blah blah-blah...BLAH!
Blah, blah-blah blah blah-blah blah blah blah-blah...BLAH!

Yup. Thanks for your input. :thumb:

ROFL Rep.

jcl-kcfan2
03-12-2005, 06:32 AM
The costs of not being upfront about the reasons for going to war with Iraq have still not been repaid.

The rapid transformation of Iraq into Utopia is about two years and a whole lot of extra dead people late.

If B*sh had a dick he would have told the truth about his "motives." And, if he had a brain, there would be a helluva lot more progress made up to this point.

B*sh went to war in Iraq because of WOMD's. Period. That is his story and he is sticking to it.


idjet

jettio
03-12-2005, 09:21 AM
I don't know how I can be so smart that I was aware of the fact that one of the reasons for attacking Iraq was to transform the region and "drain the swamp" but yet so many others were oblivious to it.

Maybe, I'm not really that smart. Maybe it's those of you who claim you didn't know about this all along who are ignorant (willfully or otherwise).

Lying is wrong.

That is the ethics that you teach a f*ckin' three year old.

We live in a democracy. And that means that if there is a purported public debate about the wisdom in going to war, then the right thing to do is to give the supposed plus and minuses their true weight.

A person that has to lie to get what they want is a liar.

What you need to explain, other than how smart you happen to be is that why you enter normative discussions about right or wrong with no conception of the age old ethic that using false pretenses is wrong?

B*sh did not have the sack to tell the truth.

And let us not forget that the "plan" had Iraqi infrastructure rebuilt with Iraqi oil revenues about 20 months, 250 billion dollars, 1200+ dead US Troops, and 100,000 dead Iraqis ago.

The only people that would consider the whole fiasco a success are people with no conception of right and wrong and an extremely short memory of their dissapointed expectations of a rout and an immediate transformation of Iraq into the 51st state.

All of the pro-war hawk b*tches were planning on vacationing in Baghdad by now and visiting the I Dream of Jeannie museum.

Now them stupid b*tches want to brag about a transformed Middle East during the same week that hundreds of Iraqis innocents were killed or wounded.

It is inevitable that people that give a pass on lying, will soon devalue life and consider the murder of people irrelevant. Once a person starts to compromise on right and wrong, it does not take long before they forget that there are such things.

There is no justification for devoting all of that time and focus over a false public debate about WOMD.

I thought you Libertarians were against the government assesses taxes and wasting the money on stuff that could be handled by the free market.

Now you approve of the government spending a trillion dollars to have a fake debate about pure bullsh*t.

jettio
03-12-2005, 09:24 AM
ROFL Rep.

Your avatar is very appropriate as applied to your evaluation of the Iraqi fiasco.

arms legs and heads have been chopped off much worse than your dumbazz expected and you can't even realize it.

jettio
03-12-2005, 09:26 AM
Blah, blah-blah blah blah-blah blah blah blah-blah...BLAH!
Blah, blah-blah blah blah-blah blah blah blah-blah...BLAH!
Blah, blah-blah blah blah-blah blah blah blah-blah...BLAH!
Blah, blah-blah blah blah-blah blah blah blah-blah...BLAH!
Blah, blah-blah blah blah-blah blah blah blah-blah...BLAH!

Yup. Thanks for your input. :thumb:

A rose by any other name is still the same sorry sum'b*tch that earns no respect.

CHIEF4EVER
03-12-2005, 09:36 AM
Your avatar is very appropriate as applied to your evaluation of the Iraqi fiasco.

arms legs and heads have been chopped off much worse than your dumbazz expected and you can't even realize it.

My my, open hostility from a libbie who disagrees with me. There's a shock. :rolleyes:

Have you noticed anything different since we started fighting in Iraq? Like, say.....no more terrorist incidents in the FRIGGIN USA??????? Forgot that little tidbit did we? :shake:

DanT
03-12-2005, 11:49 AM
I thought you Libertarians were against the government assesses taxes and wasting the money on stuff that could be handled by the free market.

Now you approve of the government spending a trillion dollars to have a fake debate about pure bullsh*t.


Libertarians are not united on this issue. Here, for example, is a recent essay by Harry Browne, the Libertarian party Presidential nominee in 1996 and 2000. It appeared on this weekend's edition of lewrockwell.com.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/browne/browne42.html
Was George Bush Right?
by Harry Browne


Some liberals have begun to wonder aloud if maybe George Bush was right all along in his Middle East policy. You can read a gloating summary of what some liberals have said, and how the conservatives are celebrating an alleged victory in an article by Jeff Jacoby, a somewhat libertarian conservative writer for the Boston Globe.

Here's how his article begins:

"'It is time to set down in type the most difficult sentence in the English language. That sentence is short and simple. It is this: Bush was right."

Thus spake columnist Richard Gwyn of the Toronto Star, author of such earlier offerings as "Incurious George W. can't grasp democracy," "Time for US to cut and run," and, as recently as Jan. 25, "Bush's hubristic world view."

The Axis of Weasel is crying uncle, and much of the chorus is singing from the same song sheet.

Listen to Claus Christian Malzahn in the German newsmagazine Der Spiegel: "Could George W. be right?" And Guy Sorman in France's Le Figaro: "And if Bush was right?" And NPR's Daniel Schorr in The Christian Science Monitor: "The Iraq effect? Bush may have had it right." And London's Independent, in a Page 1 headline on Monday: "Was Bush right after all?"

Even Jon Stewart, host of Comedy Central's Daily Show and an indefatigable Bush critic, has learned the new lyrics. "Here's the great fear that I have," he said recently. "What if Bush . . . has been right about this all along? I feel like my world view will not sustain itself and I may . . . implode."

For those of us in the War Party, by contrast, these are heady days. If you've agreed with President Bush all along that the way to fight the cancer of Islamist terrorism is with the chemotherapy of freedom and democracy, the temptation to issue I-told-you-so's can be hard to resist.

"Well, who's the simpleton now?" crows Max Boot in the Los Angeles Times. "Those who dreamed of spreading democracy to the Arabs or those who denied that it could ever happen?" On the radio the other day, Rush Limbaugh twisted the knife: "The news is not that Bush may have been right," he chortled. "It's that you liberals were wrong." The gifted Mark Steyn, in a column subtitled, "One man, one gloat," writes: "'I got a lot of things wrong these last three years, but, looking at events in the Middle East this last week . . . I got the big stuff right."

Getting Specific

George Bush was right about what?????

We're not one whit safer than we were before.
We're a whole lot less free than we were before.
Not one person, not one group, not one population in the Middle East is freer than two years ago.
The fact that Iraq had an election (as they did under Hussein), or that Hosni Mubarak is thinking about letting some Egyptian run against him and lose, or that a handful of Saudis got to vote for some local tribesmen, or that Lebanon will be having an election soon (they have them regularly already) doesn't make anyone freer than he was two years ago.

We have no more idea what will happen in those countries than Ronald Reagan, the CIA, and the joyous hawks knew in 1989 that "mission accomplished" Afghanistan was about to sink into a civil war that would leave the country ruled by the Taliban. But this lack of knowledge of the consequences to be unleashed didn't stop conservatives from celebrating a great victory – prematurely, as always.

(In Jacoby's defense I must say that he at least acknowledges that the final chapter hasn't been written yet. But if that's true, isn't it a bit deceptive to be celebrating now?)

The Iraqi Lesson

As for Iraq, the election is over, but curfews remain, the checkpoints where innocent Iraqis have been killed are still operating, the devastation of cities hasn't ended, the barbed wire remains around whole cities, no one has taken responsibility for the torture and so we can only assume it will continue, the censorship is still in force. But we're supposed to celebrate that "freedom is on the march" – even though Iraqis face the same restrictions they faced under Hussein.

"The chemotherapy of freedom and democracy" in reality means that 100,000 Iraqis, mostly civilians, are dead. Is that what George Bush was right about – that the march to freedom must trample over the dead bodies of human beings? Or don't Iraqis count as human beings?

The Celebrations & the Prospects

Meanwhile, the Bush propaganda machine rolls on – celebrating meaningless events that are supposed to be first steps toward meaningful events. But anyone who has studied the history of government knows that promises and first steps are worthless. I'll celebrate when some country is actually freer than before.

And I'll really celebrate if that country is the United States of America.

But since there's little chance that Afghanistan will be free or peaceful in the near future, very little chance that Iraq will be free or peaceful within a few years, and only a remote chance that any Middle Eastern country will actually be freer next year than it is now, the Bush administration will have to turn our attention elsewhere. And, unfortunately, that probably means invading another country – such as Syria, Iran, or some other country that doesn't have the ability to put up much of a fight.

Right or Wrong?

If Der Spiegel or Daniel Schorr or Jon Stewart wants to ponder (not proclaim) whether Bush might have been right, it doesn't change reality. George Bush hasn't been proven right about anything. He lied us into a terrible war.

And if liberals have been wrong, it has been in going along with too much of the Bush doctrine, and in not standing up for the sanctity of human life.

Only libertarians have recognized that force never produces good results. And so far they are the only ones who have been proven right.

I've been wrong many times in my life, and I've never found it difficult to acknowledge my mistakes – even in public, if appropriate. But not one thing has happened so far to give me the slightest doubt that I was right to oppose the killing of 100,000 Iraqis, to oppose the killing of thousands of Afghans merely to turn the country back to the war lords, to oppose the imprisonment and torture of Americans and foreigners who have never been tried or even indicted for anything, or to oppose the many steps taken to turn America into a police state.

I'm sorry. Conservatives can gloat all they want. After all, it seems to be in their nature to celebrate as done deals things that are only promised for the future. But there's no way to avoid the fact that they're supporting bloody murder, the suppression of American liberties, and a President who has no conception whatsoever of the history and the culture of the Middle East.

Choosing Life or Death

Wouldn't you think that if you were President, with a $2½ trillion budget at your disposal, you could hire the best minds in the world to devise a less violent, more effective way of ending the terrorism war and solving the foreign problems that may actually affect America?

Instead, we have a President who won't look for a better way because he relishes being the Ruler of the Universe – the man who hears from God what's best for each nation of the world, and who has the power to crush any country that doesn't obey his commands.

He may be powerful, but he isn't right – not about anything so far.

March 12, 2005

jettio
03-12-2005, 12:31 PM
My my, open hostility from a libbie who disagrees with me. There's a shock. :rolleyes:

Have you noticed anything different since we started fighting in Iraq? Like, say.....no more terrorist incidents in the FRIGGIN USA??????? Forgot that little tidbit did we? :shake:

:o) rep.

the Talking Can
03-12-2005, 12:55 PM
We have no more idea what will happen in those countries than Ronald Reagan, the CIA, and the joyous hawks knew in 1989 that "mission accomplished" Afghanistan was about to sink into a civil war that would leave the country ruled by the Taliban. But this lack of knowledge of the consequences to be unleashed didn't stop conservatives from celebrating a great victory – prematurely, as always......



Meanwhile, the Bush propaganda machine rolls on – celebrating meaningless events that are supposed to be first steps toward meaningful events. But anyone who has studied the history of government knows that promises and first steps are worthless. I'll celebrate when some country is actually freer than before....


If Der Spiegel or Daniel Schorr or Jon Stewart wants to ponder (not proclaim) whether Bush might have been right, it doesn't change reality. George Bush hasn't been proven right about anything. He lied us into a terrible war.

And if liberals have been wrong, it has been in going along with too much of the Bush doctrine, and in not standing up for the sanctity of human life.



damn

bing and o......

patteeu
03-12-2005, 01:21 PM
Lying is wrong.

That is the ethics that you teach a f*ckin' three year old.

We live in a democracy. And that means that if there is a purported public debate about the wisdom in going to war, then the right thing to do is to give the supposed plus and minuses their true weight.

Civics Lesson: The Constitution grants the power to declare war to the Congress, it doesn't call for a referendum vote of the people. There is no requirement for a public debate.

A person that has to lie to get what they want is a liar.

What you need to explain, other than how smart you happen to be is that why you enter normative discussions about right or wrong with no conception of the age old ethic that using false pretenses is wrong?

Since I paid attention during the leadup to the Iraq invasion, I know that the administration didn't lie and there were no false pretenses (by any reasonable understanding of the term). You've been duped by leftwing propaganda and blinded by your own ideology.

B*sh did not have the sack to tell the truth.

And let us not forget that the "plan" had Iraqi infrastructure rebuilt with Iraqi oil revenues about 20 months, 250 billion dollars, 1200+ dead US Troops, and 100,000 dead Iraqis ago.

The only people that would consider the whole fiasco a success are people with no conception of right and wrong and an extremely short memory of their dissapointed expectations of a rout and an immediate transformation of Iraq into the 51st state.

All of the pro-war hawk b*tches were planning on vacationing in Baghdad by now and visiting the I Dream of Jeannie museum.

Now them stupid b*tches want to brag about a transformed Middle East during the same week that hundreds of Iraqis innocents were killed or wounded.

War never works out as planned. Compared to the plan, there have been successes and failures. In the end, the policy will be judged by it's long term results. Neither of us is smart enough to know what those results will be. (But at least I'm smart enough to know what has been going on and you apparently aren't).

It is inevitable that people that give a pass on lying, will soon devalue life and consider the murder of people irrelevant. Once a person starts to compromise on right and wrong, it does not take long before they forget that there are such things.

There is no justification for devoting all of that time and focus over a false public debate about WOMD.

I thought you Libertarians were against the government assesses taxes and wasting the money on stuff that could be handled by the free market.

Now you approve of the government spending a trillion dollars to have a fake debate about pure bullsh*t.

The only lies I see in this debate are the ones you and your fellow anti-Bush zealots are trying to spread.

go bowe
03-12-2005, 01:37 PM
Civics Lesson: The Constitution grants the power to declare war to the Congress, it doesn't call for a referendum vote of the people. There is no requirement for a public debate.
* * *.WHAT?

well, that's just un-american!!

Calcountry
03-12-2005, 01:47 PM
Blah, blah-blah blah blah-blah blah blah blah-blah...BLAH!
Blah, blah-blah blah blah-blah blah blah blah-blah...BLAH!
Blah, blah-blah blah blah-blah blah blah blah-blah...BLAH!
Blah, blah-blah blah blah-blah blah blah blah-blah...BLAH!
Blah, blah-blah blah blah-blah blah blah blah-blah...BLAH!

Yup. Thanks for your input. :thumb:ROFL

DanT
03-12-2005, 01:56 PM
Since I paid attention during the leadup to the Iraq invasion, I know that the administration didn't lie and there were no false pretenses (by any reasonable understanding of the term). You've been duped by leftwing propaganda and blinded by your own ideology.


The publisher of Harper's Magazine penned the following article that appeared in the L.A. Weekly edition published during the first week of the Gulf War II. His analysis of the truthfulness of the information coming from the Bush Administration in the leadup to the Iraqi invasion differs from yours.

http://www.laweekly.com/ink/printme.php?eid=42761

MARCH 21 - 27, 2003
An Orwellian Pitch
The inner workings of the war-propaganda machine
by John R. McArthur

The first time that a President Bush sold a war against Saddam Hussein, the PR package came wrapped in the flesh and blood of babies torn from incubators. On the second go-round, you might say that the media kit lacks what salesmen call the "touchie-feelie" dimension — for this year's propaganda season has been sponsored mainly by the cold alloy of 81mm high-grade aluminum tubes.

Comparing the advertising techniques of 1990-91 and 2002-3, I can't point to anything as dramatic as the White House/Kuwaiti/Hill & Knowlton fabrication of the great baby-incubator atrocity, allegedly committed by Iraqi soldiers in Kuwaiti hospitals. But I can cite numerous fraudulent assertions — aluminum tubes, in particular — by a Bush PR team that scatters Enlightenment notions of reason and logic (to paraphrase Bush the First's baby-killing metaphor) like so much firewood across the U.S. Capitol's floor.

Government manipulation of public opinion is an old story, of course, but the two Presidents Bush seem especially gifted in the black arts of publicity and sloganeering. In 1990, Bush the First — with brilliant support from a Kuwaiti "witness" named Nayirah — harnessed the fake baby-killing atrocity to help drive a reluctant Senate and public into rescuing the Kuwaiti royal family (and, as Bush the First's U.S. trade representative, Carla Hills, told me, "to guarantee the right to import oil"). The "liberation" of a tiny emirate that had never known liberty remains one of the great propaganda coups of recent times, and its lessons were not lost on Bush the Second. But in seeking to "liberate" Iraq itself from Saddam Hussein, the younger Bush and his counselors have shown themselves every bit the equals of the father.

Twelve years ago the case for war was easier to make — Saddam had, in fact, invaded Kuwait. More recently, George W. Bush possessed no such advantage. Except for the far-fetched (now refuted) connection between 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta and the Iraqi government, George W.'s team began its race for congressional war authorization from a standing start. But beginning on September 7, they accelerated quickly, launching their campaign with a near total fabrication that was nothing more than a calculated scare story.

It was then that the president and British Prime Minister Tony Blair announced that the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) had issued a "new" report describing a revived nuclear-weapons project in Iraq, built on the foundations of the old. Inarticulate to a fault, Bush backtracked a bit from "new" and stated that "when inspectors first went into Iraq and were . . . finally denied access, a report came out of . . . the IAEA that they were six months away from developing a weapon. I don't know what more evidence we need."

Effective propaganda relies on half-truths and the conflation of disparate "facts" (like Saddam's genuine human-rights violations), so the notion of new IAEA evidence at least sounded plausible. Saddam almost certainly harbored ambitions to build an A-bomb — it was this that caused Israel to bomb Iraq's first and only nuclear reactor in 1981 (a pre-emptive act of war that drew unanimous condemnation from the U.N. Security Council). The trouble was that no such "new" report existed. Nor had there ever been an IAEA report containing the "six months away" assertion — not in 1991 after the war; not in December 1998 when the U.S. weapons inspectors pulled out of Iraq; not in September 2001.

More than three weeks elapsed before The Washington Times (not the "liberal" media) took the trouble to straighten out the story, but by then the administration was well on its way to panicking the Congress into authorizing war. The day after the Bush-Blair confidence trick, the newspapers and talk shows were flooded (through the good offices of Michael Gordon and Judith Miller of The New York Times) with an administration leak about Iraq's attempt to buy special aluminum tubes, supposedly destined for its "six months away" nuclear program. Suddenly (along with the phantom IAEA report), aluminum tubes had brought the world to the brink of a nuclear Armageddon.

Not until December 8, when 60 Minutes broadcast an interview with former U.N. weapons inspector David Albright, did any expert point out publicly that the aluminum tubes were probably meant for conventional weapons. Not until January 9 did Mohammed El Baradei, head of the IAEA, essentially bury the aluminum tubes (and the Iraqi nuclear weapons program) by confirming Albright's supposition. But it was too late; Congress had long ago given Bush carte blanche to attack Iraq with its open-ended war resolution of October 11.

Propaganda success breeds contempt for the old-fashioned notion that politicians require the informed consent of the people before they go to war. The media bears much of the blame; it has been so painfully slow in refuting administration double talk that Karl Rove and Andrew Card can count on a fairly long interval between propaganda declaration and contradiction; or they can bet that the contradiction will be so muted as to be insignificant. Thus could the president brazenly include the discredited aluminum tubes in his State of the Union address.

Meanwhile, stories designed to frighten the public onto a war footing proliferate. Colin Powell tells the Security Council of a "poison factory" linked to al Qaeda in northern Iraq. Reporters visit a compound of crude structures and find nothing of the kind, so an unidentified State Department official responds by saying that "a 'poison factory' is a term of art."

Powell cites new "British intelligence" on Saddam's "spying" capabilities; British Channel 4 reveals that this new dossier is plagiarized from a journal article by a graduate student in California.

The administration raises its terrorist threat level to orange, causing widespread anxiety and duct-tape purchases (a handy placebo for a faltering economy); ABC News reports (at last, a rapid response) that the latest terror alert was largely based on "fabricated" information provided by a captured al Qaeda informant who subsequently failed a lie-detector test.

Powell announces a new threat from an Iraqi airborne "drone"; the drone, patched together with tape and powered by a small engine with a wooden propeller, turns out to have a maximum range of five miles.

The administration trumpets alleged attempts by Iraq to purchase uranium from Niger; the IAEA concludes that the incriminating documents were forged.

On March 7, Powell is back in the Security Council brandishing . . . aluminum tubes!: "There is new information . . . available to us . . . and the IAEA about a European country where Iraq was found shopping for these kinds of tubes . . . [tubes] more exact by a factor of 50 percent or more than those usually specified for rocket-motor casings." When I ask the State Department the name of the European country, I am informed that said country wishes to remain anonymous. (So did Nayirah al-Sabah.) When I inquire with the IAEA about the "new evidence," I am told that El Baradei's analysis, presented before Powell's declaration, is unchanged: "Extensive field investigation and document analysis have failed to uncover any evidence that Iraq intended to use these 81mm tubes for any project other than the reverse engineering of rockets."



The question is, why do they get away with it?

George Orwell blamed "slovenliness" in the language, like the phrase "weapons of mass destruction." Most people think it means nuclear weapons, sure to kill hundreds of thousands. With no A-bombs in sight in Iraq, Bush can still shout about nerve gas and poison gas — also "weapons of mass destruction" — and unsophisticated folks think he's still talking about A-bombs. Bad as they are, chemical and biological weapons are very unlikely to kill in the same quantities as nuclear weapons, but Bush gets a free ride on sloppy English.

PR practitioners say it's easy for politicians to have their way. Peter Teeley, Bush the First's press secretary when he was vice president, explained it this way: "You can say anything you want during a debate, and 80 million people hear it." If it happens to be untrue, "so what. Maybe 200 people read [the correction] or 2,000 or 20,000."

Hermann Goering was more specific: "Why, of course, the people don't want war," he told G.M. Gilbert at the Nuremberg war-crimes tribunal. "Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders . . . All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."


John R. MacArthur is the publisher of Harper's magazine and author of Second Front: Censorship and Propaganda in the Gulf War.

oldandslow
03-12-2005, 02:04 PM
Quote - Civics Lesson: The Constitution grants the power to declare war to the Congress, it doesn't call for a referendum vote of the people. There is no requirement for a public debate.--

Agreed...Now if congress had just taken that little step and actually declared war, your argument might hold some merit.

Otherwise, there is more than one constitutional scholar (on both the left and right) who think the president overstepped his bounds.

Mr. Kotter
03-12-2005, 02:06 PM
...Otherwise, there is more than one constitutional scholar (on both the left and right) who think the president overstepped his bounds.

And an equal number who disagree, citing his powers as commander and chief.

In the absence of Congressional refusal to fund the "war," practically speaking the distinction is irrelevant.

oldandslow
03-12-2005, 02:12 PM
Why???

Really...if one is a constitutionalist, it seems to me the powers of war lie in the legislative branch alone...

After we are there, congress has to fund the actions or be labeled as traitorous.

This is not a left or right issue. I was no more in favor of Clinton's actions w/o a congressional declaration of war, than I am of Bush's.

I think walking the path of the imperial presidency is a dangerous one to trod.

BTW... your cic argument is spurrious. Generals cannot take the initiative to go to war w/o political approval.

jettio
03-12-2005, 02:45 PM
My my, open hostility from a libbie who disagrees with me. There's a shock. :rolleyes:

Have you noticed anything different since we started fighting in Iraq? Like, say.....no more terrorist incidents in the FRIGGIN USA??????? Forgot that little tidbit did we? :shake:


You have not been able to pee standing up since before the war in Iraq and have you noticed that there were not any terrorist attacks in the FRIGGIN USA??????? after September 11th.

Since you have been unable to pee standing up for a longer period of time than people other than you have been fighting in IRAQ, seems that there is a more enduring correlation in the prevention of terrorist attacks in the FRIGGIN USA??????? with your inability to pee standing up than with the War in Iraq.

Michael Michigan
03-12-2005, 03:03 PM
You have not been able to pee standing up...

Since you have been unable to pee standing up...

...with your inability to pee standing up than with the War in Iraq.

Can you kindly keep your pee-pee fetish to yourself?

jettio
03-12-2005, 03:08 PM
Civics Lesson: The Constitution grants the power to declare war to the Congress, it doesn't call for a referendum vote of the people. There is no requirement for a public debate.



Since I paid attention during the leadup to the Iraq invasion, I know that the administration didn't lie and there were no false pretenses (by any reasonable understanding of the term). You've been duped by leftwing propaganda and blinded by your own ideology.



War never works out as planned. Compared to the plan, there have been successes and failures. In the end, the policy will be judged by it's long term results. Neither of us is smart enough to know what those results will be. (But at least I'm smart enough to know what has been going on and you apparently aren't).



The only lies I see in this debate are the ones you and your fellow anti-Bush zealots are trying to spread.


My ideology is a regard for the truth, and no willingness to suffer manipulative liars as leaders when our country has produced thousands of people capable of doing the job much more competently and without being two-faced bizitches lying to the public.

You are simply an apologist who has been absolutely wrong about the justifications for war, and the ability of the dumbf*ck Messrs. B*sh Cheney and Rumsfeld to competently deploy the most powerful military in the world.

At least your are equally gracious and forgetful about your own failures to be right as your are of the incompetents.

The people that bear the costs of short term f*ckups are not replaceable by any long term successes.

And None of the numerous short term f*ckups were necessary in achieving long term success, as a matter of fact, it is easier to arrive at long term success when there are not so many collossal blunders along the way.

I think the San Antonio Spurs lost season that ended up giving them the rights to Tim Duncan is about the only thing that I can reference in which abysmal failure is a necessary factor in ultimate success.

Unfortunately, the world forgot to hold a draft lottery for the dipsh*t Messrs. B*sh, Cheney, and Rumsfeld following their seasons of pure incompetence.

patteeu
03-12-2005, 03:45 PM
The publisher of Harper's Magazine penned the following article that appeared in the L.A. Weekly edition published during the first week of the Gulf War II. His analysis of the truthfulness of the information coming from the Bush Administration in the leadup to the Iraqi invasion differs from yours.

http://www.laweekly.com/ink/printme.php?eid=42761

...

I'm not so sure his conclusion differs from mine all that much.

Perhaps my claim that the "administration didn't lie" was too sweeping. I'm sure that at some point, some official associated with the administration knowingly made an objectively false statement. But in the vast majority of the cases, it remains my position that the administration (especially the principal actors) refrained from telling outright lies. Certainly in most of the instances offered by their critics as examples of administration lies (e.g. claiming that Saddam was behind 9/11, claiming that Saddam had the capability of launching a WMD attack against the US on 45 minutes notice, claiming that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD, etc.), it is the critics who are either lying or mistaken.

I recognize that the administration exaggerated claims and cherry-picked the facts to fit the theories they wanted to advance. I consider this to be a fact of life with respect to politics in general and wrt to rallying the nation for war in particular. Responsible citizens will recognize this type of puffery and discount for it.

At no point, that I'm aware of, did the administration say that we had 100% certainty that those aluminum tubes were intended for a nuclear program. Instead, hedges like "could be used for" and "we believe" were used.

Even your Harper's editor recognizes that "half truths" were the propaganda tool of choice. A half-truth might not be honesty in the form of "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." But it isn't a lie in my book either. Talking about Saddam and 9/11 in the same breath might lead some to jump to the conclusion that Saddam was behind 9/11, but it isn't the same as actually saying "Saddam was behind 9/11." Information consumers have to accept some responsibility too.

The bottom line for me is that it isn't reasonable to demand absolute honesty (the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth) from politicians, especially when they are preparing a country for a war that they believe is actually in the best interests of the country. Demonization of the enemy is a necessity if you expect your soldiers to be willing to shoot to kill. Should FDR have talked about Hitler's good points before getting us involved in the war in Europe (leaving aside the technicality that Germany declared war on us)? Should Ronald Reagan have given the USSR kudos for having a low crime rate in his speech about the Evil Empire? Should any President be expected to divulge all classified information to the nation to make sure he gets their fully informed consent for war? I don't think so. That's why we have a representative democracy. Consumers of the government propaganda must be sophisticated in how much credibility they give that information. Citizens need to depend on their elected representatives to hold the President in check and keep him from committing us to foolish or self-serving wars. And if we find that the dishonesty of the government propaganda rises to an unacceptable level, then we should hold the culprit accountable either through impeachment or at the ballot box. In my opinion, the propaganda we experienced was within the bounds of acceptable puffery so I voted to re-elect GWBush.

patteeu
03-12-2005, 04:27 PM
Agreed...Now if congress had just taken that little step and actually declared war, your argument might hold some merit.

Otherwise, there is more than one constitutional scholar (on both the left and right) who think the president overstepped his bounds.

No, my argument holds merit without any "ifs." My argument is that a fully informed and consenting public is not a Constitional requirement for war. I didn't make the argument that bypassing a Congressional declaration is Constitutional.

And as for your second paragraph, I suspect that there are more than one constitutional scholar (on both the left and right), not to mention every modern day President, who think the President didn't overstep his bounds (at least with regard to his authority to commit troops to combat in Iraq). So what?

penchief
03-12-2005, 06:52 PM
More lucky than right, IMO.

I agreed with going into Afghanistan as did any true American, obviously. I agreed with putting the squeeze on Saddam and forcing his removal. I did not agree with the unAmerican way in which we did it.

Even more, I really supported Bush's call for elections and did not believe that he was rushing it. I believed if anything was going to change the dynamics in Iraq, it would be elections. And they did. He deserves credit even though it was a no brainer, IMO.

I still believe it is way too early to call our endeavor in Iraq a success. Just like conservatives, I am rooting for success simply because I am hoping for the best for my country and what it stands for.

While there is no bigger advocate for the values that America represents than myself, I believe that the methods employed by the retrocons have undermined those values even while they pay lip service to them. That, IMO, does not mirror the values of true progressives. Reactionaries and hardliners are those who have traditionally believed that the ends justify the means, not liberals.

When all is said and done, it is my opinion that unworthy means undermine worthy ends even as I continue to hope that real change is occurring in the Middle East.

go bowe
03-12-2005, 08:56 PM
I'm not so sure his conclusion differs from mine all that much.

Perhaps my claim that the "administration didn't lie" was too sweeping. I'm sure that at some point, some official associated with the administration knowingly made an objectively false statement. But in the vast majority of the cases, it remains my position that the administration (especially the principal actors) refrained from telling outright lies. Certainly in most of the instances offered by their critics as examples of administration lies (e.g. claiming that Saddam was behind 9/11, claiming that Saddam had the capability of launching a WMD attack against the US on 45 minutes notice, claiming that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD, etc.), it is the critics who are either lying or mistaken.

I recognize that the administration exaggerated claims and cherry-picked the facts to fit the theories they wanted to advance. I consider this to be a fact of life with respect to politics in general and wrt to rallying the nation for war in particular. Responsible citizens will recognize this type of puffery and discount for it.

At no point, that I'm aware of, did the administration say that we had 100% certainty that those aluminum tubes were intended for a nuclear program. Instead, hedges like "could be used for" and "we believe" were used.

Even your Harper's editor recognizes that "half truths" were the propaganda tool of choice. A half-truth might not be honesty in the form of "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." But it isn't a lie in my book either. Talking about Saddam and 9/11 in the same breath might lead some to jump to the conclusion that Saddam was behind 9/11, but it isn't the same as actually saying "Saddam was behind 9/11." Information consumers have to accept some responsibility too.

The bottom line for me is that it isn't reasonable to demand absolute honesty (the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth) from politicians, especially when they are preparing a country for a war that they believe is actually in the best interests of the country. Demonization of the enemy is a necessity if you expect your soldiers to be willing to shoot to kill. Should FDR have talked about Hitler's good points before getting us involved in the war in Europe (leaving aside the technicality that Germany declared war on us)? Should Ronald Reagan have given the USSR kudos for having a low crime rate in his speech about the Evil Empire? Should any President be expected to divulge all classified information to the nation to make sure he gets their fully informed consent for war? I don't think so. That's why we have a representative democracy. Consumers of the government propaganda must be sophisticated in how much credibility they give that information. Citizens need to depend on their elected representatives to hold the President in check and keep him from committing us to foolish or self-serving wars. And if we find that the dishonesty of the government propaganda rises to an unacceptable level, then we should hold the culprit accountable either through impeachment or at the ballot box. In my opinion, the propaganda we experienced was within the bounds of acceptable puffery so I voted to re-elect GWBush.puffery...

haven't heard that term used in a very long time...

you're right, of course...

mostly... :D

go bowe
03-12-2005, 08:58 PM
No, my argument holds merit without any "ifs." My argument is that a fully informed and consenting public is not a Constitional requirement for war. I didn't make the argument that bypassing a Congressional declaration is Constitutional.
* * *yep...

right again...

(do you ever get embarrassed being right so much of the time?)

(just wondering... :D )

patteeu
03-12-2005, 09:12 PM
mostly... :D

;)

go bowe
03-12-2005, 09:12 PM
* * *
And as for your second paragraph, I suspect that there are more than one constitutional scholar (on both the left and right), not to mention every modern day President, who think the President didn't overstep his bounds (at least with regard to his authority to commit troops to combat in Iraq). So what?right again...

although there are legitimate questions regarding his iraq policies and strategies, i'm not persuaded that he overstepped his bounds at all...

in fact, i thought he did a nice job of getting a resolution passed in congress, before going to war, to extend the "bounds" so that he didn't overstep them...

Baby Lee
03-13-2005, 06:34 AM
More lucky than right, IMO.
And just like that, penchief self-rescinds his license to play the Clinton economy card.

penchief
03-13-2005, 08:27 AM
Well, I never really played that card. The most I ever did was advocate Clinton's philosophy of empowering the consumer base as opposed to the elitist philosophy of bleeding it. While I may be an ardent critic of "trickle down voodoo economics," I'm certain I never entered the "dot.com economy" debate.

However, I do believe that empowering the consumer base is more conducive to a robust economy (dot.com or not) than the approach taken by those who advocate the top-down philosophy.

craneref
03-13-2005, 09:12 PM
Three words "LET FREEDOM RING"

Radar Chief
03-14-2005, 08:45 AM
The publisher of Harper's Magazine penned the following article that appeared in the L.A. Weekly edition published during the first week of the Gulf War II. His analysis of the truthfulness of the information coming from the Bush Administration in the leadup to the Iraqi invasion differs from yours.

http://www.laweekly.com/ink/printme.php?eid=42761

MARCH 21 - 27, 2003
An Orwellian Pitch
The inner workings of the war-propaganda machine
by John R. McArthur

[/i]

And from the other side:

Since I can't get the article to post, here's the link. (http://joatmoaf.typepad.com/i_love_jet_noise/2004/10/deep_qaqaa_inde.html)

Radar Chief
03-14-2005, 09:04 AM
You have not been able to pee standing up since before the war in Iraq and have you noticed that there were not any terrorist attacks in the FRIGGIN USA???????


B*sh did not have the sack to tell the truth.



If B*sh had a dick he would have told the truth about his "motives."


Normally I’d associate such fascination with other men’s junk as an attempt to compensate for something, but since it’s been previously discussed that you’re prior Navy, all doubts as to the cause of your infatuation have been removed.

Loki
03-14-2005, 09:26 AM
...implementation of a greater strategy...

...Many of us have explained it ad nauseum here...


right on dude. :thumb:

Loki
03-14-2005, 09:39 AM
The costs of not being upfront about the reasons for going to war with Iraq have still not been repaid.

The rapid transformation of Iraq into Utopia is about two years and a whole lot of extra dead people late.

If B*sh had a dick he would have told the truth about his "motives." And, if he had a brain, there would be a helluva lot more progress made up to this point.

B*sh went to war in Iraq because of WOMD's. Period. That is his story and he is sticking to it.

1. you leftist retards would have STILL bitched and moaned and opposed
it if all motive were known. what surprises me is that you 'elite thinking'
types couldn't figure it out for yourselves. (seemed quite clear to a lot
of people around here...)

2. are you trying to say that our own nation that is more than 200
years old is a utopia that didn't (and still doesn't) have it's growing
pains painted in human sacrifice?

dumbass...

3. microwave nation building by jettio... pop it in the micro, set the timer
for 3 minutes and voila!

dumbass...

4. that is YOUR story we've heard 80 million times. period. you stick with
it and disregard what is actually going on.

dumbass...

Loki
03-14-2005, 09:44 AM
...That is the ethics that you teach a f*ckin' three year old...

nice language to describe a child.


* note to self:
* NEVER let jettio teach my children ANYTHING *

Calcountry
03-14-2005, 09:59 AM
Quote - Civics Lesson: The Constitution grants the power to declare war to the Congress, it doesn't call for a referendum vote of the people. There is no requirement for a public debate.--

Agreed...Now if congress had just taken that little step and actually declared war, your argument might hold some merit.

Otherwise, there is more than one constitutional scholar (on both the left and right) who think the president overstepped his bounds.How many times must we go over this. The first Gulf War act of authorization of force against Iraq was still in effect vis a vis the cease fire agreement, WHICH, Iraq repeatedly violated. In the abrogation of such an agreement, the warring parties are returned to their previous state.


DONE. We don't legally need no fuggin WMD, NO further UN resolutions, just the fact that that POS arrogant asshole subhuman Sadaam kept shooting at our pilots, one of which never returned or accounted for, is reason enough to take his ass out.

Calcountry
03-14-2005, 10:06 AM
I still believe it is way too early to call our endeavor in Iraq a success. Just like conservatives, I am rooting for success simply because I am hoping for the best for my country and what it stands for

Just like I had to pray that Bill Clinton actually had our countries vital national interests in mind when he bombed Serbia, a WWII ally against the Germans, back into the stone age.

How many innocent civvies got killed in that thing.

What is up with that anymore anyways? You never hear about Slobo, or any of that crap anymore. I guess it wasn't that big a deal after all.

Calcountry
03-14-2005, 10:08 AM
nice language to describe a child.


* note to self:
* NEVER let jettio teach my children ANYTHING *:thumb:

Loki
03-14-2005, 10:14 AM
Just like I had to pray that Bill Clinton actually had our countries vital national interests in mind when he bombed Serbia, a WWII ally against the Germans, back into the stone age.

How many innocent civvies got killed in that thing.

What is up with that anymore anyways? You never hear about Slobo, or any of that crap anymore. I guess it wasn't that big a deal after all.

the reason you don't hear about it is because we left it to the UN and
it's STILL going on...
another one of those "oops" things that the UN wants swept under the
rug and forgotten (like all of africa...) because it does nothing to
enhance their credibility ratings or make them oodles of dollars...

check it out sometime. i'm pretty sure that a month or two ago, some
other small town was the victim of a genocide campaign by one side
or the other. details are always sketchy, and the stories don't run for
very long...

yep, that conflict got put to bed... :rolleyes:

NewChief
03-14-2005, 10:20 AM
What is up with that anymore anyways? You never hear about Slobo, or any of that crap anymore. I guess it wasn't that big a deal after all.

Milosevic is currently on trial, I believe. I hear reports about his trial from time to time on NPR.

If you're really curious what's going on with the trial, you can find out everything you'd ever want to know here:
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/issue_milosevic.htm


Here's a fairly recent update (yesterday) of what's going on:
http://www.isn.ethz.ch/news/sw/details.cfm?ID=10933

DanT
03-14-2005, 11:06 AM
And from the other side:

Since I can't get the article to post, here's the link. (http://joatmoaf.typepad.com/i_love_jet_noise/2004/10/deep_qaqaa_inde.html)

Thanks for the link, Radar Chief. I'm glad that the author has been able to deduce that the New York Times promulgates disinformation. That has been obvious for a while now, given the key role that Times reporter Judith Miller had in spreading misinformation (e.g. (http://slate.msn.com/id/2087735)) about the threat that Iraq posed. The NY Times disinformation was widely cited by people as a justification for going to war.

It's interesting reading from people like Cassandra and Front Page magazine the claim that the Bush Administration did not consider Iraq an imminent threat. That's one of the reasons why launching a war against them had no moral or legal justification. Obviously, Iraq wasn't an imminent threat. I'm glad that some warhawks acknowledge that. Now that the United States has established a precedent for attacking countries who not only didn't attack us but that weren't even an imminent threat to attack us, we'll have to guard against that example being used by other schemers on behalf of other nations trying to get America involved in their conflicts. Those schemers are very crafty at using historical precedent as somehow being a justification for something that isn't justifiable morally or constitutionally.

I think Cassandra may not have fully understood the Front Page article she linked to with the claim

We confiscated 500 tons of yellowcake (which Saddam was NOT supposed to have, and which the IAEA singularly failed to detect and remove) from Tuwaitha.

That yellowcake was there because the IAEA had secured it there long before the invasion. The coaltion hadn't detected something that the IAEA had failed to detect. The IAEA had detected it and was keeping it secure until the dawn of the invasion, when they left. Indeed, those facts are implied in this three-paragraph excerpt from the Front Page article she cited:


All of this begs the question: why did the IAEA allow Iraq to retain such massive amounts of nuclear material, when its three nuclear facilities had been destroyed over 12 years ago, and have never been repaired? In fact, the Russian reactor is so hot, it would take years to clean up the facility; it’s a total write off. Iraq had no legitimate reason to have possessed the yellowcake.

And speaking of the storage and accountability of the radioactive material, who maintained those seals, anyway? Let’s see the paperwork.

And why didn’t the UN ship the yellowcake and the low-enriched uranium out of the country 12 years ago? Wouldn’t the UN be interested in denying Saddam the nuclear raw materials, in case he decided to conduct enrichment by calutron at facilities such as Tarmiya and al-Fajar?


Anyway, thanks for the link. I have a helluva lot more faith in leaving the security of this nation with people like you--Midwestern veterans who read widely and skeptically--than I do with the ideological warmongers who try to pretend that America was put on this earth to go fight wars all over the globe against countries that aren't an imminent threat to us so that, supposedly, we can implement systems of government in those countries that are like our own. That kind of idealistic, ahistorical, nontraditionalistic nonsense is what has led to the death of thousands at the hands of Jacobins, Stalinists, and, now, neocons.

DanT
03-14-2005, 11:29 AM
The bottom line for me is that it isn't reasonable to demand absolute honesty (the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth) from politicians, especially when they are preparing a country for a war that they believe is actually in the best interests of the country. Demonization of the enemy is a necessity if you expect your soldiers to be willing to shoot to kill. Should FDR have talked about Hitler's good points before getting us involved in the war in Europe (leaving aside the technicality that Germany declared war on us)? Should Ronald Reagan have given the USSR kudos for having a low crime rate in his speech about the Evil Empire? Should any President be expected to divulge all classified information to the nation to make sure he gets their fully informed consent for war? I don't think so. That's why we have a representative democracy. Consumers of the government propaganda must be sophisticated in how much credibility they give that information. Citizens need to depend on their elected representatives to hold the President in check and keep him from committing us to foolish or self-serving wars. And if we find that the dishonesty of the government propaganda rises to an unacceptable level, then we should hold the culprit accountable either through impeachment or at the ballot box. In my opinion, the propaganda we experienced was within the bounds of acceptable puffery so I voted to re-elect GWBush.

Thanks for the reply, patteeu. I very much disagree with the idea that one man should be responsible for deciding what nations it is in the best interests of our nation to attack. That makes it all the easier for a lobby on behalf of a foreign government to get us involved in their conflicts.

American soldiers don't need less than truthful information to make them willing to shoot at people that are shooting at them. It's interesting reading the kind of ahistorical examples you listed in support of your belief. Germany had declared war on us, as you pointed out. American troops weren't asked by Ronald Reagan to start shooting Soviet soldiers. President Reagan's speech that became known as the "Evil Empire" speach (even though it didn't use that phrase) doesn't contain anything but truth in it. That's why it had the moral force it had. The rhetorical question about a President divulging all classified information in order to get full consent for a war is curious. What historical example did you have in mind? It's perfectly obvious to me that the United States government had no classified information whose divulgence would have caused the nation to give full consent for the current war in Iraq. That's why there was instead a promulgation of all kinds of disinformation by the warmongers and why some current apologists for the war insist that the President never said that Iraq was an imminent threat.

Donger
03-14-2005, 11:32 AM
That's why there was instead a promulgation of all kinds of disinformation by the warmongers and why some current apologists for the war insist that the President never said that Iraq was an imminent threat.

Unless I'm mistaken, President Bush never said that Iraq was an "imminent threat."

Do you know otherwise?

DanT
03-14-2005, 11:33 AM
Unless I'm mistaken, President Bush never said that Iraq was an "imminent threat."

Do you know otherwise?

As far as I know, President Bush never said that Iraq was an "imminent threat".

Donger
03-14-2005, 11:38 AM
As far as I know, President Bush never said that Iraq was an "imminent threat".

Then why did you seem to imply that he did?

DanT
03-14-2005, 11:39 AM
Unless I'm mistaken, President Bush never said that Iraq was an "imminent threat."

Do you know otherwise?


The quote of mine you cited was badly put in that it could be taken to mean that President Bush said something he didn't say. What I intended was that, "It was obvious that Iraq wasn't an imminent threat, the traditional standard for when the United States would launch a preemptive war. So, before the war started, it was necessary for people who wanted the war to promulgate information that made it appear that Iraq was an imminent threat. Now that the war has been launched, the people that wanted there to be a historical example of the United States attacking countries that weren't an imminent threat to us have an interest in maximizing what they can get out of the fact that the war happened by pointing out that the rationale for the war offered by the President did not include the fact that Iraq had satisifed the "imminent threat" criterion."

Sorry about the bad phrasing in my earlier post.

Donger
03-14-2005, 11:46 AM
The quote of mine you cited was badly put in that it could be taken to mean that President Bush said something he didn't say. What I intended was that, "It was obvious that Iraq wasn't an imminent threat, the traditional standard for when the United States would launch a preemptive war. So, before the war started, it was necessary for people who wanted the war to promulgate information that made it appear that Iraq was an imminent threat. Now that the war has been launched, the people that wanted there to be a historical example of the United States attacking countries that weren't an imminent threat to us have an interest in maximizing what they can get out of the fact that the war happened by pointing out that the rationale for the war offered by the President did not include the fact that Iraq had satisifed the "imminent threat" criterion."

Sorry about the bad phrasing in my earlier post.

In other words, you're guilty of "promulgating disinformation."

craneref
03-14-2005, 11:50 AM
Thanks for the reply, patteeu. I very much disagree with the idea that one man should be responsible for deciding what nations it is in the best interests of our nation to attack. That makes it all the easier for a lobby on behalf of a foreign government to get us involved in their conflicts.

American soldiers don't need less than truthful information to make them willing to shoot at people that are shooting at them. It's interesting reading the kind of ahistorical examples you listed in support of your belief. Germany had declared war on us, as you pointed out. American troops weren't asked by Ronald Reagan to start shooting Soviet soldiers. President Reagan's speech that became known as the "Evil Empire" speach (even though it didn't use that phrase) doesn't contain anything but truth in it. That's why it had the moral force it had. The rhetorical question about a President divulging all classified information in order to get full consent for a war is curious. What historical example did you have in mind? It's perfectly obvious to me that the United States government had no classified information whose divulgence would have caused the nation to give full consent for the current war in Iraq. That's why there was instead a promulgation of all kinds of disinformation by the warmongers and why some current apologists for the war insist that the President never said that Iraq was an imminent threat.

Speaking form the point of view of someone who was deployed morethan once to patrol no fly zones over Iraq, hearing the pilots were repeatedly shot at and locked onto, I think I may have earned the opportunity to express my opinion. Let me ask a couple of questions, 1) Was Japan an imminent threat before Pearl Harbor? 2) Were McVeigh and Nichols and imminet threat before the bombing at OK City? 3) Was Al Queda an imminent threat before the WTC murder? Some love to throw around the "Imminent Threat" thing at say we were lied to. But who would have been he first to scream if Iraq would have done something. Iraq had already tried to assissinate the first President Bush, and may have very well been co-conspirators in OK City bombing yet their danger was not imminent. So I guess the 10 plus years of throwing on the masks and chem gear in the Middle East becasue of Chemical threats from Iraq were just a ruse so that a yet to be elected President could give credence to his story. Everybody who had any intelligence on the Iraq situation knew that Iraq was indeed an imminent threat. The longer you leave a bomb armed and explosive, the higher the percentage it has of exploding. By the way, as a 17 year vet, I have never questioned the use of force by the United States Military under any President I have served, I meant it when I promised to protect America from "ALL enemies foreign and domestic". It amazes me that certain people paint the military as a bunch of mindless sheep looking for something to kill. We watch the news, we vote, we support our communities, we are husbands, fathers, wives, mothers, brothers and sisters. Our families worry about us when we are gone as we worry about them. It is never easy when my children hold me tight and cry with great sobs before Daddy leaves for an undetermined period of time. Sometimes they don't understand why their Daddy has to go to protect everyone, but other Daddy's get to stay home. But they understand that Freedom is not Free, it never was and never will be. That someone has to pay the price of Freedom, sometime even with blood. When deaths are reported on TV, you shake your head and say that is proof to your point, but as for me and my comrads in arms, we shed a silent tear with a heavy heart and slaute their flag draped coffin as it is lowered. We understand the sacrifice that they WILLINGLY made for all of us. We need to lead freedom by example, and it shows when my 7 year old son, when he hears reteat being played, gets up and mutes the cartoons he is watching or stops playing, faces the music and salutes the flag. The same flag that represents the country that has given him freedom, the same country that repeatedly takes his Daddy away. I appreciate your right as an American to have your opinion, but I would like you to appreciate the fact that my children or any child should not have to hear that their parent is gone for no good reason, and respect my right to think your opinion is wrong. God Bless America.

DanT
03-14-2005, 11:51 AM
In other words, you're guilty of "promulgating disinformation."

No. I had no intention of implying other than what I meant. When I noticed the other implication was taken by you, I immediately sat about to clarify what I did intend.

Radar Chief
03-14-2005, 12:09 PM
That yellowcake was there because the IAEA had secured it there long before the invasion. The coaltion hadn't detected something that the IAEA had failed to detect. The IAEA had detected it and was keeping it secure until the dawn of the invasion, when they left.

Got a link to that?

Radar Chief
03-14-2005, 12:11 PM
No. I had no intention of implying other than what I meant. When I noticed the other implication was taken by you, I immediately sat about to clarify what I did intend.

I could be wrong but that set off my sarcasm detector. I think Donger’s just poke’n fun at’cha. ;)

DanT
03-14-2005, 12:22 PM
Speaking form the point of view of someone who was deployed morethan once to patrol no fly zones over Iraq, hearing the pilots were repeatedly shot at and locked onto, I think I may have earned the opportunity to express my opinion. Let me ask a couple of questions, 1) Was Japan an imminent threat before Pearl Harbor? 2) Were McVeigh and Nichols and imminet threat before the bombing at OK City? 3) Was Al Queda an imminent threat before the WTC murder? Some love to throw around the "Imminent Threat" thing at say we were lied to. But who would have been he first to scream if Iraq would have done something. Iraq had already tried to assissinate the first President Bush, and may have very well been co-conspirators in OK City bombing yet their danger was not imminent. So I guess the 10 plus years of throwing on the masks and chem gear in the Middle East becasue of Chemical threats from Iraq were just a ruse so that a yet to be elected President could give credence to his story. Everybody who had any intelligence on the Iraq situation knew that Iraq was indeed an imminent threat. The longer you leave a bomb armed and explosive, the higher the percentage it has of exploding. By the way, as a 17 year vet, I have never questioned the use of force by the United States Military under any President I have served, I meant it when I promised to protect America from "ALL enemies foreign and domestic". It amazes me that certain people paint the military as a bunch of mindless sheep looking for something to kill. We watch the news, we vote, we support our communities, we are husbands, fathers, wives, mothers, brothers and sisters. Our families worry about us when we are gone as we worry about them. It is never easy when my children hold me tight and cry with great sobs before Daddy leaves for an undetermined period of time. Sometimes they don't understand why their Daddy has to go to protect everyone, but other Daddy's get to stay home. But they understand that Freedom is not Free, it never was and never will be. That someone has to pay the price of Freedom, sometime even with blood. When deaths are reported on TV, you shake your head and say that is proof to your point, but as for me and my comrads in arms, we shed a silent tear with a heavy heart and slaute their flag draped coffin as it is lowered. We understand the sacrifice that they WILLINGLY made for all of us. We need to lead freedom by example, and it shows when my 7 year old son, when he hears reteat being played, gets up and mutes the cartoons he is watching or stops playing, faces the music and salutes the flag. The same flag that represents the country that has given him freedom, the same country that repeatedly takes his Daddy away. I appreciate your right as an American to have your opinion, but I would like you to appreciate the fact that my children or any child should not have to hear that their parent is gone for no good reason, and respect my right to think your opinion is wrong. God Bless America.

I'll try to answer all your questions. Let me know if I didn't.

1) Japan was more of a threat to the United States on December 6, 1941, than Iraq has ever been. Japan was ready, willing and able to make a major strike on our military forces on American territory. I would call them an "imminent threat".

2) American military veterans McVeigh and Nichols were not an imminent threat. I'd be interested in knowing why you think that Iraq may have been involved with the OKC bombings. The motivation for that action that has been presented in the popular media seems sufficient to me: McVeigh got a taste of killing on behalf of the US Government in Iraq, didn't like it, came back to the USA and had an even more distasteful reaction to the US Government's slaughter of religious communalists in Waco, Texas.

3) Al Queda was an imminent threat.



By the way, you may find the following New Yorker article by Seymour Hersh on the alleged Iraqi assassination attempt on President Bush interesting:
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/content/?020930fr_archive02

You said,

Everybody who had any intelligence on the Iraq situation knew that Iraq was indeed an imminent threat.

How do you explain President Bush never saying Iraq was an imminent threat? Do you think he thought they were and never said so? Why wouldn't a President trying to get the world to go to war against another nation not say that the nation is an imminent threat if they are?

You don't have to worry about people like me thinking that the American military has mindless sheep in it. I know better than that. I was seriously thinking about joining the military myself as a lad. My younger brother, whom you may know as jettio (he's posted on this thread), served 6 years in the US Navy before completing his education, which included an Ivy League college degree. I know damn well that the US Military is full of smart, devoted and honorable men and women. That's one of the reasons why I don't like seeing them sent on unnecessary wars.

By the way, my freedom comes from God, not from elective wars against countries that aren't an imminent threat. The threat that Iraq posed to my freedom before this war started is exactly the same as the threat they posed to it today: infinitesimally tiny and effectively zero. The threat that the United States government poses to my freedom is higher. The deficits they are running will have to be paid by people like me and you, after all.

DanT
03-14-2005, 12:22 PM
I could be wrong but that set off my sarcasm detector. I think Donger’s just poke’n fun at’cha. ;)

ROFL

Donger
03-14-2005, 12:26 PM
I could be wrong but that set off my sarcasm detector. I think Donger’s just poke’n fun at’cha. ;)

Partly.

However, it seems to be part of the liberal mantra that President Bush publically stated that Iraq was indeed an "imminent threat." jAZ and I went around and around and around on this long ago. So naturally when I read what Dan wrote, I assumed that it was the same.

DanT
03-14-2005, 12:46 PM
Got a link to that?

Here's one from FrontPagemag.com, from a person who's critical of the IAEA. He acknowledges that the 500 tons of yellowcake had been at Tuwaitha site C for a long time and supposedly under IAEA control and supervision. Some of his criticisms ring true to me, so I retract my statement that the IAEA had been keeping the yellowcake "secure". Though none of it was lost from the warehouse, it could have been, so calling what the IAEA did to be "securing it" is overstating the case. I expect that this article will satisfy you that the 500 tons of yellowcake at Tuwaitha had been known inventoried and monitored by the IAEA long before the coaltion invaded. If you'd also like me to back up the claim that the IAEA had to leave before the dawn of the invasion, let me know.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=14295

The UN, Al-Tuwaitha, and Nukes
By Douglas Hanson
The American Thinker | July 20, 2004


The UN’s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), was very upset last week that the US had shipped about 1.8 tons of low-enriched uranium and other radioactive material out of Iraq for disposition in the US. One would think that the IAEA would have appreciated our work in assisting them in the implementation of the provisions of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in this particularly volatile region of the world. But one would be wrong.

The actions, or more appropriately, the inactions of the IAEA regarding Iraq since the end of Gulf War I, betray the agency’s true agenda. Rather than inspect, report, and implement restrictions in accordance with the provisions in the treaty, the agency has in effect become an enabler of rogue nations who are attempting, or who have already succeeded in developing or acquiring special nuclear material and equipment. In other words, the IAEA is simply a reflection of its parent organization, which routinely delays and obfuscates the efforts of the US and the UK in controlling banned substances and delivery systems.

Time after time, the agency has either intentionally or naively bought into the lies and deceptions contrived by nations of the Axis of Evil during IAEA visits and inspections. In most cases, the IAEA avoids confrontation like the plague in order to maintain access to the facilities. If they are booted out, as was the case with North Korea, their impotence is on display for all to see. In other cases, the agency joins in the deception, thereby allowing these rogue states to level the nuclear playing field with the West and Russia. Their reaction to the shipment of nuclear material out of Saddam’s nuclear research center at Al-Tuwaitha is a perfect example of this tactic.

The nuclear research center of Al-Tuwaitha is a 23,000 acre site located about 20 kilometers south-southeast of Baghdad. Most reports of the transfer of the low-enriched uranium out of the country correctly refer to the source location of the uranium as at Tuwaitha Site C. But there is much more material stored at this huge site, and there are more facilities at Tuwaitha that have contributed significantly to the overall capabilities of the research center. These key facilities are, of course, generally ignored in major press reports.

Site C is a relatively small site as compared to the rest of the reservation, but the amount of material stored there is not insignificant. In addition to the nearly two tons of low-enriched uranium secured by the US, Site C was home to an additional 500 tons of yellowcake uranium,* This is a conservative estimate as initially reported by Coalition personnel from the US Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA). Ironically, this initial figure is backed up by, of all organizations, Greenpeace.

Yellowcake is uranium ore that has been milled to produce a pure form of the substance known as Uranium Oxide. Further processes, such as conversion and enrichment, are required to make the yellowcake suitable for use as nuclear fuel in a reactor or for use in a nuclear weapon. Interestingly, a quantity of depleted uranium was also found at Tuwaitha. This implies that some enrichment processes occurred on-site, as depleted uranium is the natural byproduct of the enrichment process.

In addition to the yellowcake, approximately 300 tons of radioisotopes for industrial and medical uses were stored at primarily Site B. These materials, numbering over 1000 radioactive items retrieved from the site, included Cesium-137 and Cobalt-60. Both are extremely radioactive substances that are ideal for use in Radiological Dispersal Devices (RDD), or “dirty bombs.”

There are also three key facilities on the Al-Tuwaitha reservation that are rarely mentioned in media accounts of the transfer. First, there is the French reactor at Site B, better known as Osirak, which was destroyed by the Israelis in 1981 in Operation Opera. The second facility is the Russian built reactor at Site A, destroyed by the US in Gulf War I in 1991. The third facility is a fuel fabrication plant at Site D, also destroyed in 1991. All three facilities have never been rebuilt. All spent fuel or fresh fuel was sent back to the country of origin after Gulf War I.

Now, the IAEA complains that the Department of Energy (DOE) shipped the radioactive materials to the US without UN permission. The agency’s rationale is that there was

some concern about the legality of the U.S. transfer because the nuclear material belonged to Iraq and was under the control and supervision of the IAEA.

The material at Tuwaitha is also characterized as being “under IAEA seal and control.” The article states that only two tons of yellowcake remained at Al-Tuwaitha after Gulf War I. This is simply incorrect, according to my own sources. Either the AP, the IAEA, or both, are misrepresenting the facts.

All of this begs the question: why did the IAEA allow Iraq to retain such massive amounts of nuclear material, when its three nuclear facilities had been destroyed over 12 years ago, and have never been repaired? In fact, the Russian reactor is so hot, it would take years to clean up the facility; it’s a total write off. Iraq had no legitimate reason to have possessed the yellowcake.

And speaking of the storage and accountability of the radioactive material, who maintained those seals, anyway? Let’s see the paperwork.

And why didn’t the UN ship the yellowcake and the low-enriched uranium out of the country 12 years ago? Wouldn’t the UN be interested in denying Saddam the nuclear raw materials, in case he decided to conduct enrichment by calutron at facilities such as Tarmiya and al-Fajar?

It appears the IAEA is not really interested in non-proliferation at all; otherwise this material would have long ago been safeguarded in another country. Thankfully, this overdue evacuation of a dangerous stockpile has finally been started by the DOE, even if much more remains to be done.

Department of Energy officials estimated that the two tons of low-enriched uranium shipped to the US, given further refinement, is enough to produce one nuclear bomb. The number of bombs that could be made from the over 500 tons of yellowcake is frightening, and, had the coalition not attacked Iraq, Saddam’s nuclear bomb stockpile may have become reality. The IAEA would have us believe that the massive amount of yellowcake on-site and the depleted uranium find were just due to the Iraqis pursuing enrichment techniques in order to provide fuel for two destroyed reactors. This is what the UN views as nuclear research for “peaceful purposes.” Simply put, Saddam had retained a nuclear weapons regeneration capability in the same way he did for biological and chemical weapons production.

The IAEA chief, Mohamed El-Baradei is distraught at the secretive nature of the US transfer of nuclear materials out of Iraq. He also continues to opine about the US confronting Tehran about its 18 year effort to conceal its nuclear weapon activities. Most analysts say the mullahs will produce a bomb in short order. El-Baradei said that he didn’t want to take the Iran issue before the UN Security Council because

You are running the risk that the Security Council might not act and therefore the situation would exacerbate. And you run the risk that Iran might opt out of the NPT (nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty) and you have another North Korea.

In other words, the chief of the UN nuclear watchdog agency doesn’t want to notify the member nations of the UN Security Council of the Iranian breach of treaty provisions, because the council might then institute economic sanctions, and then Iran might opt out of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and then expel UN inspectors, and then some big US city is blown to smithereens -- well, you get the idea.

The UN and its so-called nuclear watchdog agency have proven again that they are not about preventing the proliferation of WMD, but in reality, unwittingly or intentionally, assist rogue nations’ nuclear weapons programs. Their track record over the last decade includes abject failure in North Korea, allowing a sadistic dictator to keep nuclear materials to fuel non-operational reactors, and now they are afraid to truthfully report the critical situation in Iran to the Security Council.

Keep in mind that John Kerry wants to entrust our national security to these same people.

All I have to say is, thank God for the Coalition and George W. Bush.

------------------------------
* Critics of President Bush, who carped about the so-called fabricated intelligence about Iraq seeking uranium from Africa (Niger), would be wise to wait for a full analysis of the source of the materials that were flown to the US, and the materials that remain at Tuwaitha.
------------------------------

Douglas Hanson was the Chief of Staff of the Ministry of Science and Technology for the Coalition Provisional Authority during the Summer of 2003. As then, the Iraqi-controlled ministry today has oversight of Al-Tuwaitha and its 3000 scientists and engineers of the now-disbanded Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission.

DanT
03-14-2005, 01:02 PM
craneref,

God bless you and your family.

Best regards,
DanT

patteeu
03-14-2005, 01:33 PM
Thanks for the reply, patteeu. I very much disagree with the idea that one man should be responsible for deciding what nations it is in the best interests of our nation to attack. That makes it all the easier for a lobby on behalf of a foreign government to get us involved in their conflicts.

Of course, I never suggested that one man should be able to do so. But the check on that one man isn't a referendum of the people, it is the cumulative wisdom of the representatives of the people. I assume your reference to interference from a foreign government is a thinly disguised criticism of our relationship with Israel. Are you really concerned that the Israelis are leading our President around by the nose?

American soldiers don't need less than truthful information to make them willing to shoot at people that are shooting at them. It's interesting reading the kind of ahistorical examples you listed in support of your belief. Germany had declared war on us, as you pointed out. American troops weren't asked by Ronald Reagan to start shooting Soviet soldiers. President Reagan's speech that became known as the "Evil Empire" speach (even though it didn't use that phrase) doesn't contain anything but truth in it. That's why it had the moral force it had. The rhetorical question about a President divulging all classified information in order to get full consent for a war is curious. What historical example did you have in mind? It's perfectly obvious to me that the United States government had no classified information whose divulgence would have caused the nation to give full consent for the current war in Iraq. That's why there was instead a promulgation of all kinds of disinformation by the warmongers and why some current apologists for the war insist that the President never said that Iraq was an imminent threat.

You seem to have missed my point. I wasn't suggesting that Ronald Reagan lied in his speech. I was suggesting that the truth he told was not the whole truth. Same with FDR. Same with the pep talks our military commanders give our troops before sending them into battle. Can you imagine a General addressing his troops before deployment and telling them how the enemy grunts are really not much different than the US troops are:

"... they have hopes and dreams and wives and kids. If they survive the war, many will go on to become doctors and car mechanics and clerics and construction workers. When they get wounded in battle, they suffer and bleed and have limbs ripped off just like our side does. And their families grieve just like ours do. Now go out there and kick some ass"

- The fact that Germany declared war on us first has nothing to do with whether or not FDR told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth when he rallied the nation for war in Europe. I added that in an effort to keep you from trying to make a strawman argument about Germany starting the war, but I see that I failed.

- The trivia about which speech came to be called "The Evil Empire Speech" as opposed to which speech Reagan actually used the term is similarly irrelevant. In neither speech did Reagan tell the whole truth about the USSR. I'm not at all critical of what he did do, I'm just pointing out that partial truths are the accepted norm for these kinds of things.

- For those who expect to be fully informed in order to provide full consent, and you appear to be among them, it would follow that they expect to be indulged with access to the most critical information whether it be public or classified. Of course, this hasn't ever happened and it is unreasonable to expect it to happen in the future. Congress is the people's check on the Presidential use of our military.

- AFAIK, the President never used the term of art, "imminent threat." None of his underlings used this term in a prepared statement. The only instances of the use of this term or the implicit use of this term are in on-the-fly responses to questions and criticisms. In most cases, I'd guess that the questioner/critic didn't understand the phrase to be a term of art having a very specific meaning and as rare as this use is, it seems unfair to hold the administration (and especially GWBush himself) accountable for a lie. Instead, when issuing prepared statements, administration officials were careful to use phrases like "gathering threat" or "immediate threat" or "grave threat" or "unique urgency." The accuracy of these statements at the time is a matter of opinion, I suppose, but in my opinion, they represent reasonable interpretations of the available, reportedly widely-held intelligence assessments from our intelligence agencies and those of many of our allies. It's certainly not the clear lie that you and other anti-Bush zealots believe them to be. (I don't really know if you are an anti-Bush zealot or not, but then, I'm not an apologist or a war monger either).

P.S. Can you provide a link to text of a statement where the President said Iraq was an "imminent threat?" If he didn't actually say such a thing, aren't you guilty of the same kind of disinformation that you accuse the Bush administration of, if not an outright lie?

P.S.S. Upon re-read, I see that you didn't commit an outright lie by claiming that Bush said the words. Very clever. Maybe you should sign up for a PR job with those Neocons that you despise.

Radar Chief
03-14-2005, 01:37 PM
Here's one from FrontPagemag.com, from a person who's critical of the IAEA. He acknowledges that the 500 tons of yellowcake had been at Tuwaitha site C for a long time and supposedly under IAEA control and supervision. Some of his criticisms ring true to me, so I retract my statement that the IAEA had been keeping the yellowcake "secure". Though none of it was lost from the warehouse, it could have been, so calling what the IAEA did to be "securing it" is overstating the case. I expect that this article will satisfy you that the 500 tons of yellowcake at Tuwaitha had been known inventoried and monitored by the IAEA long before the coaltion invaded. If you'd also like me to back up the claim that the IAEA had to leave before the dawn of the invasion, let me know.



It’s all good, I just wanted to make sure we’re talking about the same thing since I first heard about the uranium in relation to the Al-Qaqaa weapons depot.
To save you from searching any further, looks like we're talking about the same stuff. The explosives at Al-Qaqaa appear to have been for the shaped charges necessary for a nuclear weapon.
But I’m sorry for interrupting, you were say’n something about Saddam not being a threat. ;)

patteeu
03-14-2005, 01:44 PM
The quote of mine you cited was badly put in that it could be taken to mean that President Bush said something he didn't say. What I intended was that, "It was obvious that Iraq wasn't an imminent threat, the traditional standard for when the United States would launch a preemptive war. So, before the war started, it was necessary for people who wanted the war to promulgate information that made it appear that Iraq was an imminent threat. Now that the war has been launched, the people that wanted there to be a historical example of the United States attacking countries that weren't an imminent threat to us have an interest in maximizing what they can get out of the fact that the war happened by pointing out that the rationale for the war offered by the President did not include the fact that Iraq had satisifed the "imminent threat" criterion."

Sorry about the bad phrasing in my earlier post.

How do you explain the fact that the administration didn't regularly use the term "imminent threat" if it's your position that they were trying to fit their pre-emptive war under the requirements of the traditional framework?

DanT
03-14-2005, 02:12 PM
It’s all good, I just wanted to make sure we’re talking about the same thing since I first heard about the uranium in relation to the Al-Qaqaa weapons depot.
To save you from searching any further, looks like we're talking about the same stuff. The explosives at Al-Qaqaa appear to have been for the shaped charges necessary for a nuclear weapon.
But I’m sorry for interrupting, you were say’n something about Saddam not being a threat. ;)

Actually, I think I first heard about that uranium by reading one of your links. You read interesting sites. ;)

DanT
03-14-2005, 02:18 PM
How do you explain the fact that the administration didn't regularly use the term "imminent threat" if it's your position that they were trying to fit their pre-emptive war under the requirements of the traditional framework?


My position is that the people that wanted this war formed a large set that included many members of the administration but also included many more besides. The administration weren't the only people speaking on behalf of the war.

DanT
03-14-2005, 02:22 PM
Of course, I never suggested that one man should be able to do so. But the check on that one man isn't a referendum of the people, it is the cumulative wisdom of the representatives of the people. I assume your reference to interference from a foreign government is a thinly disguised criticism of our relationship with Israel. Are you really concerned that the Israelis are leading our President around by the nose?



Don't forget Iran. There's all kinds of people out there in the big bad world out to manipulate folks into getting them involved in other nations' conflicts. Israel, at least, is an ally.

Radar Chief
03-14-2005, 02:26 PM
Actually, I think I first heard about that uranium by reading one of your links. You read interesting sites. ;)

Sometimes the most interesting information is in the weirdest places.
Example, the only good review I’ve been able to find of the book, “The bomb in my garden” a tell all from the former head of Saddam’s nuclear weapon research team, is on a site called footballfansfortruth.com (http://www.footballfansfortruth.us/archives/000554.html).
Who’da thought, a football site going political.

DanT
03-14-2005, 02:28 PM
Sometimes the most interesting information is in the weirdest places.
Example, the only good review I’ve been able to find of the book, “The bomb in my garden” a tell all from the former head of Saddam’s nuclear weapon research team, is on a site called footballfansfortruth.com (http://www.footballfansfortruth.us/archives/000554.html).
Who’da thought, a football site going political.
ROFL

Donger
03-14-2005, 02:58 PM
Don't forget Iran. There's all kinds of people out there in the big bad world out to manipulate folks into getting them involved in other nations' conflicts. Israel, at least, is an ally.

Are you suggesting that Iran wants confrontation? At least verbal confrontation, ala North Korea?

DanT
03-14-2005, 03:32 PM
Are you suggesting that Iran wants confrontation? At least verbal confrontation, ala North Korea?


No, I'm suggesting that Iran had an interest in having the Unites States attack Iraq.

There are lots of countries out there and lots of folks who would like the United States to get involved in conflicts in ways that are disproportionate to our nation's own direct interests. So in the particular case of the Iraq war and in the general case of any future potential conflict, I am in favor of processes and people that promote America's direct interests.

Donger
03-14-2005, 03:40 PM
No, I'm suggesting that Iran had an interest in having the Unites States attack Iraq.

There are lots of countries out there and lots of folks who would like the United States to get involved in conflicts in ways that are disproportionate to our nation's own direct interests. So in the particular case of the Iraq war and in the general case of any future potential conflict, I am in favor of processes and people that promote America's direct interests.

Are you of the opinion that the Iranians should not be allowed to develop an indigenous capability to produce nuclear weapons?

Calcountry
03-14-2005, 04:19 PM
Milosevic is currently on trial, I believe. I hear reports about his trial from time to time on NPR.

If you're really curious what's going on with the trial, you can find out everything you'd ever want to know here:
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/issue_milosevic.htm


Here's a fairly recent update (yesterday) of what's going on:
http://www.isn.ethz.ch/news/sw/details.cfm?ID=10933

Thanks for the links. :thumb:

jettio
03-14-2005, 04:40 PM
1. you leftist retards would have STILL bitched and moaned and opposed
it if all motive were known. what surprises me is that you 'elite thinking'
types couldn't figure it out for yourselves. (seemed quite clear to a lot
of people around here...)

2. are you trying to say that our own nation that is more than 200
years old is a utopia that didn't (and still doesn't) have it's growing
pains painted in human sacrifice?

dumbass...

3. microwave nation building by jettio... pop it in the micro, set the timer
for 3 minutes and voila!

dumbass...

4. that is YOUR story we've heard 80 million times. period. you stick with
it and disregard what is actually going on.

dumbass...

So you are now saying that when there was a pre-war debate and folks called bullsh*t on the song and dance about imminent threat and WOMD, that the hawks, would then say that of course it was a three ton crock of sh*t, but that the real reason for war is this and this and this.

That is not what I remember. Not what anybody remembers, because nearly all hawks were following blindly and not even questioning B*sh.

And it is indisputable that the post-regime planning was awful.

75 % of Quik Trip store managers could have done a better job than B*sh, Cheney and Rumsfeld, and they would not have had to give fake reasons.

DanT
03-14-2005, 04:49 PM
Are you of the opinion that the Iranians should not be allowed to develop an indigenous capability to produce nuclear weapons?

I don't have a well-informed opinion on that subject. I know that they were present at the 1995 conference in which the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty was extended indefinitely in 1995 by consensus of over 170 countries. http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/npr/vol02/23/welsh23.pdf

I don't know enough about that treaty to know under what circumstances parties can withdraw from the treaty and how the treaty is to be enforced.

jettio
03-14-2005, 04:49 PM
nice language to describe a child.


* note to self:
* NEVER let jettio teach my children ANYTHING *

If you can give B*sh a pass on the concrete reality of starting a war on false pretenses and setting off a chain of events in which a hundred thousand people that were minding their own business get killed.

Then maybe you could shut your trap about abstract rhetoric.

There are some real three year olds completely dead from this war.

Care more about them when writing notes to your self.

Donger
03-14-2005, 04:53 PM
I don't have a well-informed opinion on that subject. I know that they were present at the 1995 conference in which the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty was extended indefinitely in 1995 by consensus of over 170 countries. http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/npr/vol02/23/welsh23.pdf

I don't know enough about that treaty to know under what circumstances parties can withdraw from the treaty and how the treaty is to be enforced.

You don't know enough about Iran to have an opinion on whether or not you think they should be allowed to develop an indigenous nuclear weapons capability?

craneref
03-14-2005, 04:57 PM
If you can give B*sh a pass on the concrete reality of starting a war on false pretenses and setting off a chain of events in which a hundred thousand people that were minding their own business get killed.

Then maybe you could shut your trap about abstract rhetoric.

There are some real three year olds completely dead from this war.

Care more about them when writing notes to your self.

Oh that is what we call it False pretenses, I thought it was called, President Clinton, Vice-President Gore, Senator Kerry pretenses, since one or all said the exact same thing about Iraq before President Bush was sworn in, and that was pre 9-11. So explain to me how the three I mentioned get a free pass from you and President Bush doesn't. coule it be you are playing politics, and it is OK when Dems do it but not OK when President Bush says the EXACT SAME THING. Spin away

jettio
03-14-2005, 05:07 PM
Oh that is what we call it False pretenses, I thought it was called, President Clinton, Vice-President Gore, Senator Kerry pretenses, since one or all said the exact same thing about Iraq before President Bush was sworn in, and that was pre 9-11. So explain to me how the three I mentioned get a free pass from you and President Bush doesn't. coule it be you are playing politics, and it is OK when Dems do it but not OK when President Bush says the EXACT SAME THING. Spin away

Free your mind of Yellowcake from Africa induced fear, it is clouding your thinking.

DanT
03-14-2005, 05:08 PM
You don't know enough about Iran to have an opinion on whether or not you think they should be allowed to develop an indigenous nuclear weapons capability?

No, I don't know enough about Iran to pretend that the opinion that I offered on the question you asked is "well-informed". Why do you ask, am I supposed to be afraid of Iran or something?

craneref
03-14-2005, 05:10 PM
Free your mind of Yellowcake from Africa induced fear, it is clouding your thinking.

That away, avoid the question, you still didn't bother answering why it is OK for the Dems in power to say that Iraq was threat to mankind, yet when President Bush said the same thing and did something about it it is wrong, patiently waiting for an answer that I know may never come. Spin away, change the subject, dodge the question, it is very Liberal of you to do so.

Donger
03-14-2005, 05:12 PM
No. Why, am I supposed to be afraid of Iran or something?

That's for you to decide.

Personally, I'd prefer to see a Islamic state that sponsors terrorism and isn't exactly friendly with the US without fission weapons in their arsenal.

But maybe that's just me. And Israel.

craneref
03-14-2005, 05:22 PM
That's for you to decide.

Personally, I'd prefer to see a Islamic state that sponsors terrorism and isn't exactly friendly with the US without fission weapons in their arsenal.

But maybe that's just me. And Israel.

I guess I am just an optimist if I prefer both. State sponsored terrorists did a number on the WTC last time I checked, but I remember thinking "Thank God they didn't do this and have a fission weapon!"

Rausch
03-14-2005, 05:54 PM
That's for you to decide.

Personally, I'd prefer to see a Islamic state that sponsors terrorism and isn't exactly friendly with the US without fission weapons in their arsenal.

But maybe that's just me. And Israel.

You got Turkey.

It's about the only apple in the barrel that isn't crawling with worms...

jettio
03-14-2005, 07:33 PM
That away, avoid the question, you still didn't bother answering why it is OK for the Dems in power to say that Iraq was threat to mankind, yet when President Bush said the same thing and did something about it it is wrong, patiently waiting for an answer that I know may never come. Spin away, change the subject, dodge the question, it is very Liberal of you to do so.

I have never posted anything like that.

You need to put the crack pipe down and quit imagining that I have said or am saying anything other than what I am saying.

I could give half of a damn as to what some other politician said about Iraq anytime before.

B*sh did not have any honest fear of Iraq attacking US interests. If he wanted a war for other reasons, he should have been truthful about it.

patteeu
03-14-2005, 08:20 PM
My position is that the people that wanted this war formed a large set that included many members of the administration but also included many more besides. The administration weren't the only people speaking on behalf of the war.

When you criticized so-called apologists for "insisting that the President never said that Iraq was an imminent threat," it didn't sound like you were talking about the rhetoric of outsiders. And even if outsiders were telling all kinds of lies, why would that lead you to question the "truthfulness of the information coming from the Bush Administration in the leadup to the Iraqi invasion" which is where our dialog began? FWIW, I don't vouch for the truthfulness of the entire set of war proponents just as I'm sure you wouldn't vouch for the statements of the entire anti-war movement. My focus was primarily on Bush and the principal spokesmen for the administration and the charge that they lied.

Perhaps my claim that the "administration didn't lie" was too sweeping. I'm sure that at some point, some official associated with the administration knowingly made an objectively false statement. But in the vast majority of the cases, it remains my position that the administration (especially the principal actors) refrained from telling outright lies.

patteeu
03-14-2005, 08:29 PM
My younger brother, whom you may know as jettio (he's posted on this thread)...


:eek: Holy moly, can this be true? Was one of you adopted? You have such different styles (and you can take that as a compliment). I really enjoy reading your posts and opinions even if I don't always agree.

patteeu
03-14-2005, 08:44 PM
B*sh did not have any honest fear of Iraq attacking US interests.

You don't think that Bush was seriously concerned about Iraq either having or developing the ability to produce some form of WMD and handing it over to terrorists with whom Saddam shared a common enemy (the US)? On what basis would you be so skeptical of this Bush claim?

DanT
03-14-2005, 09:50 PM
When you criticized so-called apologists for "insisting that the President never said that Iraq was an imminent threat," it didn't sound like you were talking about the rhetoric of outsiders.

Your quote of me came from Post #67 in this thread. In Post #66, you'll see that I was referring to Cassandra, in particular, and other such current-day apologists for the war, in general. As far as I know, she's an outsider. In replying to you in post #67, I had my post #66 in mind. I can see how that wouldn't have been obvious and apologize about any confusion it caused.


And even if outsiders were telling all kinds of lies, why would that lead you to question the "truthfulness of the information coming from the Bush Administration in the leadup to the Iraqi invasion" which is where our dialog began? FWIW, I don't vouch for the truthfulness of the entire set of war proponents just as I'm sure you wouldn't vouch for the statements of the entire anti-war movement. My focus was primarily on Bush and the principal spokesmen for the administration and the charge that they lied.

Cassandra's comments and my reaction to them took place long after I first questioned the "truthfulness of the information coming from the Bush administration in the leadup to the Iraqi invasion" in this thread. Hence, the one did not lead to the other and your question is based on an inapplicable premise.

patteeu
03-14-2005, 10:05 PM
Your quote came from Post #67 in this thread. In Post #66, you'll see that I was referring to Cassandra, in particular, and other such current-day apologists for the war, in general. As far as I know, she's an outsider.



Cassandra's comments and my reaction to them took place long after I first questioned the "truthfulness of the information coming from the Bush administration in the leadup to the Iraqi invasion" in this thread. Hence, the one did not lead to the other and your question is based on an invalid premise.

I have to admit that I'm left scratching my head over this explanation. I look back at post #67 and you are clearly responding to your quote of my earlier post through most of your statement. If the last line was intended as a response to the Cassandra blurb from post #66, I don't see the connection since there is nothing in this thread AFAICS that connects Cassandra with the concept of "insist[ing] that the President never said that Iraq was an imminent threat." But I'll take your word for it.

Loki
03-14-2005, 11:28 PM
So you are now saying that when there was a pre-war debate and folks called bullsh*t on the song and dance about imminent threat and WOMD, that the hawks, would then say that of course it was a three ton crock of sh*t, but that the real reason for war is this and this and this.

That is not what I remember. Not what anybody remembers, because nearly all hawks were following blindly and not even questioning B*sh.

And it is indisputable that the post-regime planning was awful.

75 % of Quik Trip store managers could have done a better job than B*sh, Cheney and Rumsfeld, and they would not have had to give fake reasons.

:bong:

Zzz Zzz Zzz

Loki
03-14-2005, 11:40 PM
If you can give B*sh a pass on the concrete reality of starting a war on false pretenses and setting off a chain of events in which a hundred thousand people that were minding their own business get killed.

Then maybe you could shut your trap about abstract rhetoric.

There are some real three year olds completely dead from this war.

Care more about them when writing notes to your self.

1. sorry, i guess i don't give a sh*t on that one. it all seemed pretty
obvious to me what the "grand plan" was... my position on that has
never changed, and i'm sure i've made it quite clear to you and others.

2. if anyone here needs to shut their trap... (not me). you have some
serious issues. get over yourself.

3. wouldn't those be "dead f*ckin three year olds" in your dialect?

4. note to self:
jettio is STILL a raving lunatic with a one track mind.






ps: i keep hearing you rave about how ANY person could handle this
better than bush/cheney. why don't you STFU and get to work then?
cripes... do SOMETHING hardass. talk about rhetoric... :rolleyes:

DanT
03-15-2005, 06:04 AM
I have to admit that I'm left scratching my head over this explanation. I look back at post #67 and you are clearly responding to your quote of my earlier post through most of your statement. If the last line was intended as a response to the Cassandra blurb from post #66, I don't see the connection since there is nothing in this thread AFAICS that connects Cassandra with the concept of "insist[ing] that the President never said that Iraq was an imminent threat." But I'll take your word for it.

Let me see if I can shed more light on what I had intended with my post #67.
You're right that in my post #67, I was responding to your earlier posts. I was answering each of your questions. By the end of post #67, I was addressing this question from you:

Should any President be expected to divulge all classified information to the nation to make sure he gets their fully informed consent for war? I don't think so.

Here are the last sentences in my post #67:

The rhetorical question about a President divulging all classified information in order to get full consent for a war is curious. What historical example did you have in mind? It's perfectly obvious to me that the United States government had no classified information whose divulgence would have caused the nation to give full consent for the current war in Iraq. That's why there was instead a promulgation of all kinds of disinformation by the warmongers and why some current apologists for the war insist that the President never said that Iraq was an imminent threat.

The fact that "current apologists for the war" (e.g. Cassandra) now insist that the President never said that Iraq was an imminent threat is used to support the claim that Iraq was not an imminent threat and that there was no classified information that the President could have divulged that would have convinced the nation that it was. Indeed, the President never said that Iraq was an imminent threat. It wasn't. The phrase "imminent threat" may be a term or art, but it goes to a concept that is widely understood and it's the concept that is the reason why the name for it has been bandied about--in many people's opinion, including mine, a necessary condition in order to justify a preemptive war is that the country being attacked be an imminent threat.

Since there obviously wasn't information that the President could divulge that would have caused the nation to give full consent to the war (i.e. Iraq was not an imminent threat and it was so far from being an imminent threat that even an administration awash in misinformation didn't say that it was) I was challenging the applicability of your question (quoted above) to the present conflict.

jettio
03-15-2005, 03:04 PM
You don't think that Bush was seriously concerned about Iraq either having or developing the ability to produce some form of WMD and handing it over to terrorists with whom Saddam shared a common enemy (the US)? On what basis would you be so skeptical of this Bush claim?

By bringing the issue of Iraq to the forefront, B*sh had the United nations committed to enforcing the inspections.

You would have to be retarded not to realize that the inspections process would have completely eliminated the possibility of Saddam developing WOMD.

The weapons inspections had been ended more than four years before and its effectiveness and the sanctions prevented Saddam from producing WOMD. Don't you realize that nothing substantial has been found?

That is the basis for being extremely f*ckin' skeptical of B*sh's claim.

Since he refused to allow for the least costly and equally effective solution to the "problem," it is pretty clear that he did not believe in the existence of the problem as much as he believed in his undisclosed intentions and motives.

And whether it is me or DanT posting the absolute truth in our own respective style, boneheads still refuse to see the truth.

Duck Dog
03-15-2005, 03:09 PM
By bringing the issue of Iraq to the forefront, B*sh had the United nations committed to enforcing the inspections.

You would have to be retarded not to realize that the inspections process would have completely eliminated the possibility of Saddam developing WOMD.

The weapons inspections had been ended more than four years before and its effectiveness and the sanctions prevented Saddam from producing WOMD. Don't you realize that nothing substantial has been found?

That is the basis for being extremely f*ckin' skeptical of B*sh's claim.

Since he refused to allow for the least costly and equally effective solution to the "problem," it is pretty clear that he did not believe in the existence of the problem as much as he believed in his undisclosed intentions and motives.

And whether it is me or DanT posting the absolute truth in our own respective style, boneheads still refuse to see the truth.

Really? And how many times were the inspectors barred from certain areas? How many times were they forced to leave Iraq?

To listen to you, one would think Sadam was playing this by the book and not interfering with the inspectors.

jettio
03-15-2005, 03:22 PM
Really? And how many times were the inspectors barred from certain areas? How many times were they forced to leave Iraq?

To listen to you, one would think Sadam was playing this by the book and not interfering with the inspectors.


B*sh chose the option that has over a hundred thousand innocents dead, over 1,500 US Troops dead, over 10,000 US Troops having amputations, and over 10,000 US Troops being taken out of duty due to psychological trauma.

Not to mention the unprecedented reaming of the National Guard and Reserve.

Having Saddam completely impotent in his palace is not so much worse than having him completely impotent in a jail cell.

Certainly not worth the cost in dollars and human suffering to chose one option over the other to prevent Saddam giving WOMD to terrorrists, when both are as effective in that regard.

It is extremely obvious that B*sh's actions were not based on any real fear of Saddam.

Need to quit being cowards about admitting that you have as little regard for the truth as B*sh.

B*sh is a lying azz Phony, some people believe that he is a forgivable lying-azz phony because they think he is benevolent and means well.

If that is what his supporters think, they need to be honest about it to themselves, but they might as well give up on thinking that the people with brains and a regard from the truth will not be able to see what's real.

Radar Chief
03-15-2005, 03:29 PM
B*sh chose the option that has over a hundred thousand innocents dead,

“Innocents”? :spock:

but they might as well give up on thinking that the people with brains and a regard from the truth will not be able to see what's real.

:LOL: You’d have to find someone with brains and a regard FOR the truth before speak’n for’em.

jettio
03-15-2005, 03:40 PM
1. sorry, i guess i don't give a sh*t on that one. it all seemed pretty
obvious to me what the "grand plan" was... my position on that has
never changed, and i'm sure i've made it quite clear to you and others.

2. if anyone here needs to shut their trap... (not me). you have some
serious issues. get over yourself.

3. wouldn't those be "dead f*ckin three year olds" in your dialect?

4. note to self:
jettio is STILL a raving lunatic with a one track mind.






ps: i keep hearing you rave about how ANY person could handle this
better than bush/cheney. why don't you STFU and get to work then?
cripes... do SOMETHING hardass. talk about rhetoric... :rolleyes:

You never posted anyting before the war about any "grand plan" contrary to the BS being painted on your face by B*sh about WOMD and implications of Saddam being associated with terrorists including Al Qaeda.

Quit making up after the fact explanations. You sucked up what was dribbling out of the White House, and spit it out verbatim.

And you need to quit trying to call somebody out with the getting personal nonsense.

If you can't formulate anything that addresses anything I have posted, you ought to just not reply at all.

jettio
03-15-2005, 03:44 PM
“Innocents”? :spock:



:LOL: You’d have to find someone with brains and a regard FOR the truth before speak’n for’em.

There have been a lot of non combatants and Iraqis that have been trying to cooperate with the Coalition as volunteers for Police and the Iraqi army that have been killed by terrorists and by coalition operations..

That is the fact.

And it is not funny. "sswipe.

Calcountry
03-15-2005, 04:18 PM
Free your mind of Yellowcake from Africa induced fear, it is clouding your thinking.Priceless demonstration of your rhetorical capabilities.

ROFL

Radar Chief
03-16-2005, 06:32 AM
There have been a lot of non combatants and Iraqis that have been trying to cooperate with the Coalition as volunteers for Police and the Iraqi army that have been killed by terrorists and by coalition operations..

That is the fact.

And it is not funny. "sswipe.

And I’m sure you’re squirting crocodile tears over the hundreds of mass graves Saddam filled with innocent men, women and children.

"sswipe. 4321

Besides, I was laughing at you trying to claim some sort of intellectual superiority in the same sentence you made a grammatical error.
And the more you bitch, the funnier it is. “sswipe. ROFL

jettio
03-16-2005, 07:12 AM
And I’m sure you’re squirting crocodile tears over the hundreds of mass graves Saddam filled with innocent men, women and children.

"sswipe. 4321

As a matter of fact, I have never approved of any killings by any evil tyrannical bastard.

Just because your are a amoral gutless POS that laughs at the fact that Iraqi innocents have died due to the current war, and you don't care that you were lied to about the reasons for the war, that does not mean that my disagreement with being lied to would represent any approval for deaths attributed to Saddam.

If you think your disregard for the deaths of innocent Iraqis is excusable because of the reasons you now cite, you should realize that those reasons don't exist.

You need to just simply re-evaluate how f*ck*in' funny it is that thousands upon thousands of Iraqis that have not taken up arms against the coalition are now dead.

Radar Chief
03-16-2005, 07:15 AM
As a matter of fact, I have never approved of any killings by any evil tyrannical bastard.

Just because your are a amoral gutless POS that laughs at the fact that Iraqi innocents have died due to the current war, and you don't care that you were lied to about the reasons for the war, that does not mean that my disagreement with being lied to would represent any approval for deaths attributed to Saddam.

If you think your disregard for the deaths of innocent Iraqis is excusable because of the reasons you now cite, you should realize that those reasons don't exist.

You need to just simply re-evaluate how f*ck*in' funny it is that thousands upon thousands of Iraqis that have not taken up arms against the coalition are now dead.

Hey Einstien, get a clue. I’m laughing at YOU. ROFL Dumbass.

jettio
03-16-2005, 07:16 AM
“Innocents”? :spock:



:LOL: You’d have to find someone with brains and a regard FOR the truth before speak’n for’em.


This is what you posted.

I did not misinterpret it.

Donger
03-16-2005, 07:20 AM
you don't care that you were lied to about the reasons for the war

Lied to? About what?

Radar Chief
03-16-2005, 07:32 AM
This is what you posted.

I did not misinterpret it.

B*sh chose the option that has over a hundred thousand innocents dead,


“Innocents”? :spock:


but they might as well give up on thinking that the people with brains and a regard from the truth will not be able to see what's real.

:LOL: You’d have to find someone with brains and a regard FOR the truth before speak’n for’em.

Wow, all that money wasted on a supposed “Ivy League Education” and they couldn’t teach you an iota of comprehension, or class for that matter.

Radar Chief
03-16-2005, 07:36 AM
Lied to? About what?

Don’t bother Donger, I’ve already pointed out numerous times the facts behind the statements made and he persists in making this false “lied” claim. It’s now obvious Jettio is so lost in his rhetoric that no amount of information will shift his paradigm.

jettio
03-16-2005, 07:40 AM
Wow, all that money wasted on a supposed “Ivy League Education” and they couldn’t teach you an iota of comprehension, or class for that matter.

Ask a disinterested third party to read this thread for you.

jettio
03-16-2005, 07:47 AM
By bringing the issue of Iraq to the forefront, B*sh had the United nations committed to enforcing the inspections.

You would have to be retarded not to realize that the inspections process would have completely eliminated the possibility of Saddam developing WOMD.

The weapons inspections had been ended more than four years before and its effectiveness and the sanctions prevented Saddam from producing WOMD. Don't you realize that nothing substantial has been found?

That is the basis for being extremely f*ckin' skeptical of B*sh's claim.

Since he refused to allow for the least costly and equally effective solution to the "problem," it is pretty clear that he did not believe in the existence of the problem as much as he believed in his undisclosed intentions and motives.

And whether it is me or DanT posting the absolute truth in our own respective style, boneheads still refuse to see the truth.


This answer completely knocked any assumption that B*sh honestly feared Iraq all of the way out the f*ckin' park.

If his primary concern was preventing WOMD to terrorists he chose the option that was hundreds of times more expensive and no more effective than the next best and readily available option.

If American lives are going to be sacrificed and billions upon billions of dollars wasted, it is proper to be honest about it.

Radar Chief
03-16-2005, 07:48 AM
Ask a disinterested third party to read this thread for you.

:LOL: Backpedal a little harder. ROFL

jettio
03-16-2005, 07:59 AM
:LOL: Backpedal a little harder. ROFL

God bless ya', your incorrigible dufous-situde is funny, although I think it should be a long time before there is any further attempt to replicate the experimental cranial-posterior pelvic fusion operation for which you were such a willing subject.

Radar Chief
03-16-2005, 08:17 AM
God bless ya', your incorrigible dufous-situde is funny, although I think it should be a long time before there is any further attempt to replicate the experimental cranial-posterior pelvic fusion operation for which you were such a willing subject.

Says the guy that can’t even read AND comprehend the previous posts. ROFL
Is this what that “Ivy League Education” taught’cha? How impressive. :rolleyes:

jettio
03-16-2005, 10:22 AM
Says the guy that can’t even read AND comprehend the previous posts. ROFL
Is this what that “Ivy League Education” taught’cha? How impressive. :rolleyes:

It is pretty clear that I fairly interpreted:

Innocents :spock:

especially as it was in immediate response to my previous post.

and you have not even offered an alternative interpretation.

And I have not responded to the other part of the quoted post. It is pretty clear what you posted, and there is nothing that I posted that indicates any lack of comprehension.

It is also clear that you are flailing and you ought to just let this thread sink to the bottom, as per usual whenever I dispell the nonsense of collective false beliefs.

B*sh was not honestly fearful of Iraq as a threat, and he clearly did not chose the best option to address the problem that he was crying about.

B*sh was not honest about the purpose of the mission, and he was either as dishonest about the price or too f*ckin' stupid to realize what the price would be.

With the resources at his disposal, his results are less than anybody else would achieve spending the same amount of money and sending the same amount of people to their death or permanent injury.

Radar Chief
03-16-2005, 10:57 AM
Jee-zus, do I really have to hand hold you through ANOTHER one? :rolleyes:

It is pretty clear that I fairly interpreted:

Innocents :spock:

especially as it was in immediate response to my previous post.

and you have not even offered an alternative interpretation.


And I’m sure you’re squirting crocodile tears over the hundreds of mass graves Saddam filled with innocent men, women and children.

"sswipe. 4321


Not to fast on the uptake are ya?
Appears to me that “innocents” were being murdered long before we arrived, and anyone with at least a shred of intelligence would see that. At least now the people of Iraq have a chance to change their fate.
Never mind the FACT that most of the unverifiable number of "innocents" killed have been terrorists/insurgences.


And I have not responded to the other part of the quoted post. It is pretty clear what you posted, and there is nothing that I posted that indicates any lack of comprehension.


Except a complete lack of comprehension. ROFL


It is also clear that you are flailing and you ought to just let this thread sink to the bottom

I’m not the one that started calling names or attempting to belittle others intelligence. Whose “flailing” again here. :hmmm:

as per usual whenever I dispell the nonsense of collective false beliefs.

Now THIS is truly hilarious. You’ve yet to post a verifiable fact or link, just a bunch of rambling rhetoric. I’m sure in your little playground world this equals “dispelling” but I’d think the adults around these parts probably see it as just another childish spat.

B*sh was not honestly fearful of Iraq as a threat, and he clearly did not chose the best option to address the problem that he was crying about.

B*sh was not honest about the purpose of the mission, and he was either as dishonest about the price or too f*ckin' stupid to realize what the price would be.

With the resources at his disposal, his results are less than anybody else would achieve spending the same amount of money and sending the same amount of people to their death or permanent injury.

See, this is exactly what I’m talking ‘bout. No evidence, no links, just your rambling impressions without any proof of how you came to this impression. The childish way you express yourself isn’t helping any, just FYI.

Cochise
03-16-2005, 11:38 AM
:LOL: Backpedal a little harder. ROFL

Shouldn't he be protesting his university president for being an evil chauvanist or something?

Radar Chief
03-16-2005, 11:50 AM
Shouldn't he be protesting his university president for being an evil chauvanist or something?

Yea, but considering his posting style, if you can call it a “style”, I’d put the level schooling closer the kindergarten. ;)

jettio
03-16-2005, 02:30 PM
Jee-zus, do I really have to hand hold you through ANOTHER one? :rolleyes:





Not to fast on the uptake are ya?
Appears to me that “innocents” were being murdered long before we arrived, and anyone with at least a shred of intelligence would see that. At least now the people of Iraq have a chance to change their fate.
Never mind the FACT that most of the unverifiable number of "innocents" killed have been terrorists/insurgences.




Except a complete lack of comprehension. ROFL




I’m not the one that started calling names or attempting to belittle others intelligence. Whose “flailing” again here. :hmmm:



Now THIS is truly hilarious. You’ve yet to post a verifiable fact or link, just a bunch of rambling rhetoric. I’m sure in your little playground world this equals “dispelling” but I’d think the adults around these parts probably see it as just another childish spat.



See, this is exactly what I’m talking ‘bout. No evidence, no links, just your rambling impressions without any proof of how you came to this impression. The childish way you express yourself isn’t helping any, just FYI.


So to sum it up. You only meant to say that since Saddam killed innocents, that it is fine and dandy that we care not that innocents die from this most recent war.

And you go into convulsive laughter over the fact that a typographical grammatical error appears on a discussion board, and that makes you extraordinarily superior and witty to someone who has gone to a good school.

Not only that, the appearance of a grammatical error makes it so that you can ignore any assertion that B*sh mislead the public over the necessity and purposes for starting a war with Iraq, when it is as plain as the nose of Richard Perle's face, who has, in fact, admitted the intentional effort to mislead and was the one who told B*sh what to say.

Between you and me, you are in fact the one that started calling names and belittling the intelligence of others in this thread. You directly quoted my post and made an insult that did exactly that.

As to the topic of the thread, I don't agree that the course B*sh has takin' to this day following his brainwashing at the hands of the neocons have vindicated his misleading the country into war when there was a clearly better option available to prevent the supposed concern that he was complaining of, neither has the piss poor planning and execution of Post Saddam Iraq vindicated the neocon belief in the ease of the mission.

It was and remains possible to improve the Middle East, but wasting money and making stupid decisions slows that down a lot more than it helps. And casting off the moral mantle by being a lying sack of Raiders makes it a lot harder to be a credible moral agent.

I know who I am and my ability to comprehend and think speaks for itself.

You and your friends snide massaging of one another's crotches does not change that at all.

Cochise
03-16-2005, 02:48 PM
Yea, but considering his posting style, if you can call it a “style”, I’d put the level schooling closer the kindergarten. ;)

You mean "you are all a @*#* bunch of (#*@#* stupid ()*@* 0)((( idiots" is a posting style? :p

Radar Chief
03-16-2005, 03:39 PM
Sure hope you don’t have a job where others safety is involved, cause your powers of observation just plain suck.

So to sum it up. You only meant to say that since Saddam killed innocents, that it is fine and dandy that we care not that innocents die from this most recent war.


First, what makes you think all dead are “innocents”? None of them picked up arms against our troops? Second, they we’re being killed by the thousands before we showed up, so your “we’re there so everyone that winds up dead is our fault” theory doesn’t fit. Work on another one.


And you go into convulsive laughter over the fact that a typographical grammatical error appears on a discussion board, and that makes you extraordinarily superior and witty to someone who has gone to a good school.


Yes, when you try to insult others intelligence in the same post as making grammatical errors it’s called irony and it’s funny. That you throw a fit over it makes it hilarious. Difference is, I make no claims of superiority. That’s your shtick, and I’ll enjoy it every time I point out that your acting like a jackass. Don’t like it, the solution’s simple. Don’t act like a jackass.

Not only that, the appearance of a grammatical error makes it so that you can ignore any assertion that B*sh mislead the public over the necessity and purposes for starting a war with Iraq, when it is as plain as the nose of Richard Perle's face, who has, in fact, admitted the intentional effort to mislead and was the one who told B*sh what to say.

If you had any verifiable assertion that B*sh mislead the public, you’d post it and we’d discuss it. But since you don’t, all you have is what you apparently want to believe, we’ve digressed to your typical childish name-calling. The act is starting to get a little old.

Between you and me, you are in fact the one that started calling names and belittling the intelligence of others in this thread. You directly quoted my post and made an insult that did exactly that.


Contradict yourself much. :rolleyes: My first post to you was making fun of you for belittling others and trying to claim your intellectual superiority. Thanks for pointing that out.

As to the topic of the thread, I don't agree that the course B*sh has takin' to this day following his brainwashing at the hands of the neocons have vindicated his misleading the country into war when there was a clearly better option available to prevent the supposed concern that he was complaining of, neither has the piss poor planning and execution of Post Saddam Iraq vindicated the neocon belief in the ease of the mission.

See this is what I’m talk’n ‘bout. Got any proof of this? Link? Anything? Or is more childish name calling all you’ve got? Seems like you’ve been pretty well “brainwashed” with rhetoric to me.

I know who I am and my ability to comprehend and think speaks for itself.

That’s the funny part, it truly does speak for itself. ROFL

You and your friends snide massaging of one another's crotches does not change that at all.

What is it with you and other guys junk? Are your really that worried everyones gonna find out your hung like a gerbil? Your definatly trying to compensate for something.

jettio
03-16-2005, 04:34 PM
And I’m sure you’re squirting crocodile tears over the hundreds of mass graves Saddam filled with innocent men, women and children.

"sswipe. 4321

Besides, I was laughing at you trying to claim some sort of intellectual superiority in the same sentence you made a grammatical error.
And the more you bitch, the funnier it is. “sswipe. ROFL

I almost always quote posts in full.

Nice move for you to go back and edit a post after I had already quoted it in full, so that you could add an entirely new sentence and then in later posts go on about how someone fails to comprehend something they never read.

You are a real winner like that.

Pointing out that people with brains and a regard for the truth can detect obvious bullshit is not belittling anybody.

Criticizing a public figure like B*sh is also not personally insulting to anybody on Chiefs Planet.

Before embarking on a discussion about what everybody else already knows,

Is it your postiion that B*sh was fully forthright about the purposes for war, disarming Iraq, and that he chose the least costly course of action among all of those that would secure the objective of effectively disarming Iraq?

Is it also your position that B*sh correctly anticipated the circumstances post-invasion, and that he made the most effective decisions on how to best utilize the best military in the world to make Iraq as secure as possible as fast as possible?

Radar Chief
03-17-2005, 06:56 AM
I almost always quote posts in full.

Nice move for you to go back and edit a post after I had already quoted it in full, so that you could add an entirely new sentence and then in later posts go on about how someone fails to comprehend something they never read.

You are a real winner like that.


I edited that post before I even knew you responded, so go cry on someone else’s shoulder.
Besides, my laughing at your lack of comprehension has to do with the post BEFORE that one. Thanks for pointing out your failed observations yet again. :thumb:

Pointing out that people with brains and a regard for the truth can detect obvious bullshit is not belittling anybody.


Like I posted before, you’d have to find someone with brains before talking about what they know, and this little pee pee fetish you’ve got going is pretty odd. NTTAWWT.
Doesn't have anything to do with being prior Navy does it?

Criticizing a public figure like B*sh is also not personally insulting to anybody on Chiefs Planet.

Criticize B*sh all you want, but when you do it with disinformation and rhetoric, I’m gonna point it out and laugh. Your own brother and I disagree on many subjects but it never digresses to this petty name-calling and childish temper tantrums that are your apparent norm. Why is that? Daddy not play catch with you enough? Momma give him more attention or something? Actually, scratch that. I don’t care what your little problem is.

Before embarking on a discussion about what everybody else already knows,

Is it your postiion that B*sh was fully forthright about the purposes for war, disarming Iraq, and that he chose the least costly course of action among all of those that would secure the objective of effectively disarming Iraq?

Ok, if we can actually have this conversation without your typical childish temper tantrums, yes.

Is it also your position that B*sh correctly anticipated the circumstances post-invasion, and that he made the most effective decisions on how to best utilize the best military in the world to make Iraq as secure as possible as fast as possible?

No, I don’t think he anticipated how suspicious of us the Shiites and Kurds would be. Considering they revolted against the “Butcher of Baghdad” at our request then we completely abandoned them, he probably should have known.

Now your turn.
Is it your position that because we can’t find the huge stockpiles of WMD now that they never existed?

Is it also your position that despite Saddam’s open support of terrorists, and the 9-11 Commission’s making several connections between him and Al-Quada, that the war in Iraq has nothing to do with the War on Terror?

And finally, is it your position that despite Hans Blix and Scott Ritter admitting that Saddam maintained his ability to reconstitute his WMD programs the moment sanctions were lifted, something the French were pressing the UN hard for BTW, that the sanctions were working?

There now, if you can keep your little pee pee fetish out of it, maybe we could actually hold a conversation. :thumb:
I’m not holding my breath though.

jettio
03-17-2005, 10:11 AM
I edited that post before I even knew you responded, so go cry on someone else’s shoulder.
Besides, my laughing at your lack of comprehension has to do with the post BEFORE that one. Thanks for pointing out your failed observations yet again. :thumb:



Like I posted before, you’d have to find someone with brains before talking about what they know, and this little pee pee fetish you’ve got going is pretty odd. NTTAWWT.
Doesn't have anything to do with being prior Navy does it?



Criticize B*sh all you want, but when you do it with disinformation and rhetoric, I’m gonna point it out and laugh. Your own brother and I disagree on many subjects but it never digresses to this petty name-calling and childish temper tantrums that are your apparent norm. Why is that? Daddy not play catch with you enough? Momma give him more attention or something? Actually, scratch that. I don’t care what your little problem is.



Ok, if we can actually have this conversation without your typical childish temper tantrums, yes.



No, I don’t think he anticipated how suspicious of us the Shiites and Kurds would be. Considering they revolted against the “Butcher of Baghdad” at our request then we completely abandoned them, he probably should have known.

Now your turn.
Is it your position that because we can’t find the huge stockpiles of WMD now that they never existed?

Is it also your position that despite Saddam’s open support of terrorists, and the 9-11 Commission’s making several connections between him and Al-Quada, that the war in Iraq has nothing to do with the War on Terror?

And finally, is it your position that despite Hans Blix and Scott Ritter admitting that Saddam maintained his ability to reconstitute his WMD programs the moment sanctions were lifted, something the French were pressing the UN hard for BTW, that the sanctions were working?

There now, if you can keep your little pee pee fetish out of it, maybe we could actually hold a conversation. :thumb:
I’m not holding my breath though.

You just about said it all right there. :thumb: Godspeed.

Are you career military?

Raiderhader
03-17-2005, 12:37 PM
Necons certainly aren't traditional conservatives. They are "liberal" in terms of trying to force progress to move the ME along the path of democracy (by force if necessary). But it's hard for me to think of them as "former liberals" or anything.


Actually, if one thinks about it, conservatives are liberal, and vice versa. It has been pointed out many times that our Founders were liberal; they were progressive in their thinking that man is endowed by God with certain rights and that man should seize those rights. They were progressive in their thinking that government was to be subservient to the rights of man as oppossed to the status quo thinking that man was to be subserviant to the will of government.

In reality, I am not a conservative ideologically or philosophically, just as you are not a liberal by the same standards. We are both wearing the other's lable. The lables have been switched for two reasons: first of all conservatives are labled as such because we are trying to conserve the new world liberalism and secondly, because "liberals" have to attempt to package their beliefs as "new" and "progressive" lest they be seen as the old world conservatism of the more powerful governmental control.

Thereofore, following that reasoning, it makes perfect sense that the neocons seem so liberal in their approach to freedom for the rest of the world, and very easy to think of them as liberals in any regard.