or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › CHENEY: Criticize me and you don't support the troops
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

CHENEY: Criticize me and you don't support the troops - Page 4

post #121 of 191
Quote:
Originally posted by Northgate
Well, if what you are arguing is ture, then why didn't congress and president Clinton wage a full scale war against Saddham and remove him from power?

Well gawd, Northgate, it's simple: Saddam attacked us on 9/11!
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #122 of 191
And 7/11 before that! Oh, wait..
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
post #123 of 191
Quote:
Originally posted by Gene Clean
And 7/11 before that! Oh, wait..

"We have credible evidence that Saddam has acquired the ability to make microwave burritos. The nations of the world cannot stand by and let a madman put his finger on the "defrost" button...."
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #124 of 191
"Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears;
I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.
The evil that men do lives after them;
The good is oft interred with their bones;
So let it be with Caesar. The noble Brutus
Hath told you Caesar was ambitious:
If it were so, it was a grievous fault,
And grievously hath Caesar answer'd it.
Here, under leave of Brutus and the rest--
For Brutus is an honourable man;
So are they all, all honourable men--
Come I to speak in Caesar's funeral.
He was my friend, faithful and just to me:
But Brutus says he was ambitious;
And Brutus is an honourable man.
He hath brought many captives home to Rome
Whose ransoms did the general coffers fill:
Did this in Caesar seem ambitious?
When that the poor have cried, Caesar hath wept:
Ambition should be made of sterner stuff:
Yet Brutus says he was ambitious;
And Brutus is an honourable man.
You all did see that on the Lupercal
I thrice presented him a kingly crown,
Which he did thrice refuse: was this ambition?
Yet Brutus says he was ambitious;
And, sure, he is an honourable man.
I speak not to disprove what Brutus spoke,
But here I am to speak what I do know.
You all did love him once, not without cause:
What cause withholds you then, to mourn for him?
O judgment! thou art fled to brutish beasts.
And men have lost their reason. Bear with me;
My heart is in the coffin there with Caesar,
And I must pause till it come back to me.

First Citizen
Methinks there is much reason in his sayings...."

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #125 of 191
Figures someone would quote JC as a kind of defense of Bush. Fitting, with irony and everything, considering Caesar was a tyrant and all. The more apt analogy is this, which I wrote about on 9/14/02:

There is a moment in Henry V when Hal is seeking advice from the Archibiship of Canterbury (the most powerful position in the Anglican church) about the legitimacy of any of his claims to the throne of France. Canterbury, however, has his own political agenda, since there is a bill in Parliament arguing for the dispossesion of the clergyclearly something to which the clergy will be opposed. The idea is that the war will divert attention from other political issues, and perhaps even unite the country in a time of great turmoil:

And God forbid, my dear and faithful lord,
That you should fashion, wrest, or bow your reading,
Or nicely charge your understanding soul
With opening titles miscreate whose right
Suits not in native colours with the truth;
For God doth know how many, now in health,
Shall drop their blood in approbation
Of what your reverence shall incite us to.
Therefore take heed how you impawn our person,
How you awake our sleeping sword of war-
We charge you, in the name of God, take heed;
For never two such kingdoms did contend
Without much fall of blood; whose guiltless drops
Are every one a woe, a sore complaint,
Gainst him whose wrongs gives edge unto the swords
That makes such waste in brief mortality.

One wonders if warnings like this are given at National Security Council meetings.

For some reason, I doubt it.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #126 of 191
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
Figures someone would quote JC as a kind of defense of Bush. Fitting, with irony and everything, considering Caesar was a tyrant and all. The more apt analogy is this, which I wrote about on 9/14/02:

There is a moment in Henry V when Hal is seeking advice from the Archibiship of Canterbury (the most powerful position in the Anglican church) about the legitimacy of any of his claims to the throne of France. Canterbury, however, has his own political agenda, since there is a bill in Parliament arguing for the dispossesion of the clergyclearly something to which the clergy will be opposed. The idea is that the war will divert attention from other political issues, and perhaps even unite the country in a time of great turmoil:

And God forbid, my dear and faithful lord,
That you should fashion, wrest, or bow your reading,
Or nicely charge your understanding soul
With opening titles miscreate whose right
Suits not in native colours with the truth;
For God doth know how many, now in health,
Shall drop their blood in approbation
Of what your reverence shall incite us to.
Therefore take heed how you impawn our person,
How you awake our sleeping sword of war-
We charge you, in the name of God, take heed;
For never two such kingdoms did contend
Without much fall of blood; whose guiltless drops
Are every one a woe, a sore complaint,
Gainst him whose wrongs gives edge unto the swords
That makes such waste in brief mortality.

One wonders if warnings like this are given at National Security Council meetings.

For some reason, I doubt it.

Oh but no -- no easy analogies, midwinter, it was more that this thread's drift was apropos to the dynamics of mob rule.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #127 of 191
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
Oh but no -- no easy analogies, midwinter, it was more that this thread's drift was apropos to the dynamics of mob rule.

Caesar is murdered by aristocrats BECAUSE he's using the mob to gain political power.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #128 of 191
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
Caesar is murdered by aristocrats BECAUSE he's using the mob to gain political power.

arrrrrrrrrrrggggggggg..... I wanted a WIDE shot!

The arc, the whole shebang....nevermind.....to much Yellowtail.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #129 of 191
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
arrrrrrrrrrrggggggggg..... I wanted a WIDE shot!

The arc, the whole shabang....nevermind.....to much Yellowtail.

I haven't cared for any of the Yellowtail I've had. Any recommendations?

And FYI: the quote you want is from Yeats, on the coming of democracy and the inevitable insanity that will ensue:

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all convictions, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #130 of 191
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
I haven't cared for any of the Yellowtail I've had. Any recommendations?

And FYI: the quote you want is from Yeats, on the coming of democracy and the inevitable insanity that will ensue:

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all convictions, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

The yellowtail.....hmmm.... I don't "recommend" yellowtail so much as I "approve of it's use."

It's just a fairly good, mid-week table wine. The shiraz is probably their best effort.

Check out graperadio's podcast-- they did a 2-part interview with John Cassella, a shrewd marketer (he bought the brand image for the yellowtail wines as a turn-key solution)...

http://www.graperadio.com/archives/2...asella-part-1/

http://www.graperadio.com/archives/2...casella-part2/

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #131 of 191
Quote:
Originally posted by BR
Whatever happened to leading by example, SDW? Let us be a beacon of peace and freedom by restricting speech because we're at war!

Who is restricting free speech? No one is doing that. You have the right to say something, and I have the right to publicly state that your statment is false and damaging.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #132 of 191
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
edit:

I suppose then that the Republicans' unrelenting attacks on Clinton led directly to Tim McVeigh, then. Makes sense.


Umm...that's a stupid comparison.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #133 of 191
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
OH! But it's just all so complicated! I'll just trust the leader rather than try to separate the wheat from all the chaff, if that's OK.

The scary thing is that some people actually do this.


" He must be right! I mean Bush is president after all! "


Our leaders are human. You should always question.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #134 of 191
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Umm...that's a stupid comparison.

Umm...no it's not. It's a little bit of a stupid thing called the stupid reductio ad absurdum. Look it up, unless it's too stupid for you to bother. They keep all kinds of stupid information like that on the stupid internets.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #135 of 191
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
The scary thing is that some people actually do this.


" He must be right! I mean Bush is president after all! "


Our leaders are human. You should always question.

Sure. That's how the Republican machinery works now. If you're under a legitimate attack, make the issue as complicated as possiblethrow as much chaff into the mix as possiblesince then the Democrats, who are all mealy-mouthed, cerebral eggheads anyway will have to explain it. The result of these kinds of attacks (Swift Boat Vets, Iraq/9/11/WMD) is that, when you mix'em with a nice bit of jingoism, the people go with the simpler answer. "I voted for the war before I voted against it" = "He's a flip flopper, and on top of that, he doesn't make any sense! Why would he vote for something twice? They only vote ONCE in the Senate!"

Anyway. That's what they're doing now, again. Who had what intel and when? Did the WH doctor that intel before it sent it along to the SIC? That's the question. It's that simple. But they muddy the waters with all this stuff about patriotism and Murtha (utterly changing the subject, but failing to make it meaningful) and POOF, the populace has noticed some new shiny thing and can't remember why it cared about this in the first place.

I mean hell, remember a few months ago when Social Security was an absolute crisis and had to be fixed immediately or the terrorists would attack? What happened? Did it become less of a crisis somehow?
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #136 of 191
Quote:
Originally posted by Northgate
Well, if what you are arguing is ture, then why didn't congress and president Clinton wage a full scale war against Saddham and remove him from power?

That is a good question. I mean he was the one who signed the bill stating that the policy of the United States toward Iraq was one of regime change.

Clinton statement after signing bill

I read that statement and just sort of smirk because there are so many on these forums who attribute certain words by Bush to nothing more that evil spin. Yet there is Clinton with that ever present Iraqi's are "freedom-loving" people.

Could one of you very quickly caricature this and state that if you now didn't support Clinton's bill for regime change that you must be asking "Why do they hate freedom?"

Of course some people, who you would quickly dismiss as "Bush apologists" or as "People who can't understand why we are in Iraq when the terrorists came from Saudi Arabia" instead of thinking about this matter, would say that the reason both Republicans and Democrats supported Bush on this matter is because they felt Iraq ought not be given any additional chances after 9/11 changed our minds about how threats should be dealt with.

The reality is that after 9/11 Bush articulated a strategy of preemptive war. He didn't lie about that or cook the books on that. He changed the question to one of proving that you are not a threat instead of us waiting around and hoping to prove you are a threat.

Those policies and the questions related to them have never changed and they don't change whether Iraq had WMD. In the past we had to prove someone was a threat and then let them use force before action was taken. Bush announced that you must prove you are not a threat and we will not wait until you take any action.

If any criticism about Iraq and WMD should be made, it shouldn't be about Bush "lying." It should be about the policy of preemptive war. Yet Bush never lied at all about that. He never cooked the books or hid his intentions. Now that we have discovered that perhaps Iraq was never a threat (many would still argue that those WMD's have shipped off somewhere) it is easier for people to point the finger at Bush and say "you lied" than it is for people to point the finger at themselves and say "I supported a policy that states we will pretty much punch someone who is looking at us mean instead of one where they have to take the first swing."

This is why I have argued that any label that is applied to Bush ought be applied to those who supported the war. It doesn't matter how big the threat is that launched the war. The reality is that they all signed on to a preemptive war policy.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #137 of 191
Wait, did Clinton invade Iraq and I didn't notice?
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #138 of 191
Good post, Nick.

The only other thing I can add to that is, the same intelligence that drove that [Nick's link] Clinton administration policy was the same intelligence that, 36 months down the road bolstered the case against Iraq. I don't think it's arguable that you can separate those two positions in that their technical perspectives on Iraq were identical.

The only real difference was the policy. And like Nick said, Congress signed on to that policy.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #139 of 191
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
The only real difference was the policy.

And the invading. Don't forget the invading. Otherwise, Clinton's policy of not invading was just like Bush's policy of doing the opposite!
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #140 of 191
As I recall, there were a few other differences...

Clinton didn't set up a parallel 'intelligence' apparatus, the Office of Special Plans to cherry pick and massage data the CIA rejected. Numerous other sources confirm the OSP mandate was to justify war in Iraq whether the facts supported it or not. See also the Sy Hersh piece on "stovepiping intel" to validate the suggestion that the WH only wanted to hear info that supported its predetermined view.
Clinton was a member of the 'reality-based-community'.

Clinton didn't have Cheney's staff (including Lewis Scooter "Indicted" Libby) cheerleading for war. Nor did he have a Defence secretary trying to pin 9/11 on SH despite no evidence of connection.

Clinton didn't take Ahmed Chalabi's fiction faction as the sole source for intel without factchecking.

And I don't recall Clinton giving untendered contracts to Halliburton then ignoring the disappearance of Billions to 'bad accounting'.

And Clinton didn't authorize and excuse torture.
"I do not fear computers. I fear the lack of them" -Isaac Asimov
Reply
"I do not fear computers. I fear the lack of them" -Isaac Asimov
Reply
post #141 of 191
Quote:
Originally posted by curiousuburb
As I recall, there were a few other differences...

Clinton didn't set up a parallel 'intelligence' apparatus, the 'Office of Special Plan's to cherry pick and massage data the CIA rejected. See also the Sy Hersh piece on "stovepiping intel" to validate the suggestion that the WH only wanted to hear info that supported its predetermined view. Numerous other sources confirm the OSP mandate was to justify war whether the facts supported it or not.

Clinton didn't have Cheney's staff (including Lewis Scooter "Indicted" Libby) cheerleading for war. Nor did he have a Defence secretary trying to pin 9/11 on SH despite no evidence of connection.

Clinton didn't take Ahmed Chalabi's fiction faction as the sole source for intel without factchecking.

And I don't recall Clinton giving untendered contracts to Halliburton then ignoring the disappearance of Billions to 'bad accounting'.

And Clinton didn't authorize and excuse torture.

Don't mistake the chaff (in this case, a false equivalency) for the wheat.

And for what it's worth, here's the salient bit of the Iraq Liberation Act:

Quote:
This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers.

Man. Supporting an internal rebellion and overthrow of Hussein is just like invading! See? It's exactly the same!
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #142 of 191
post #143 of 191
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
The only real difference was the policy.

There is a massive difference between supporting regime change by Iraqis, even if those Iraqis were the INC, and invading the country, using lies to get public support and neglecting a more important enemy that already attacked us.

But it's also not the only difference. The 1998 Iraq Liberation Act doesn't say we should tie up our military resources in a massive invasion and occupation of Iraq because Saddam wants to help terrorists attack us with WMD. In fact, the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. Everyone with sense wanted Saddam out of power and a better, more liberal and more democratic Iraq.
Quote:
The only other thing I can add to that is, the same intelligence that drove that [Nick's link] Clinton administration policy was the same intelligence that, 36 months down the road bolstered the case against Iraq.

That is completely and entirely 100% untrue, dmz. I understand you have a position, but don't make flagrantly false statements to try to support it.
post #144 of 191
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
Wait, did Clinton invade Iraq and I didn't notice?

What you didn't notice is that Clinton signed a measure to promote regime change in Iraq based off the unwillingness of Saddam to comply with U.N. resolutions to prove he no longer had WMD's.

Oh I forgot. This is about quips and caricatures. Clinton lied, so people died.

Quote:
And the invading. Don't forget the invading. Otherwise, Clinton's policy of not invading was just like Bush's policy of doing the opposite!

Clinton's conclusion that we ought to invade was the same which makes it hard to show that "Bush lied because we all know he cooked intelligence to get what he wanted."

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #145 of 191
trumpt:

Is your position so untenable now that you can't even pretend to pay attention to the actual, substantial arguments made by people?

If you bother to actually read what was written in what Clinton signed on to, Clinton supported Hussein's ouster by Iraqis. How is this similar to actually sending hundreds of thousands of American soldiers into Iraq to oust Hussein?

This is nothing but the desperation of the pro-war movement to find something, anything, to grab onto as they fall down the mountain.

Quote:
Clinton's conclusion that we ought to invade was the same which makes it hard to show that "Bush lied because we all know he cooked intelligence to get what he wanted."

Can you explain what you mean by the first 7 words of this sentence?
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #146 of 191
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
[B]What you didn't notice is that Clinton signed a measure to promote regime change in Iraq based off the unwillingness of Saddam to comply with U.N. resolutions to prove he no longer had WMD's.

About the only thing worse than the 'They hate our freedoms' meme is trying to justify that meme by equating 'Promote regime change' with 'Go there and shoot any motherfucker that moves' policy that BushCo promotes.
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
post #147 of 191
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Clinton signed a measure to promote regime change in Iraq

GOOD. That's what we all wanted. That's not the issue.

Again:

There is a massive difference between supporting regime change by Iraqis, even if those Iraqis were the INC, and invading the country, using lies to get public support and neglecting a more important enemy that already attacked us.
post #148 of 191
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
Don't mistake the chaff (in this case, a false equivalency) for the wheat.

And for what it's worth, here's the salient bit of the Iraq Liberation Act:



Man. Supporting an internal rebellion and overthrow of Hussein is just like invading! See? It's exactly the same!

Hey don't look at my left hand, just look at me waving my right hand. Please pay no attention to the left hand.

You are waving the right hand and noting that Clinton supported regime change via internal rebellion versus direct invasion. What you want people to ignore in the left hand is that both men came to their plans for action because Iraq was shown by our internal and also foreign intelligence agencies to still have WMD's and had failed to comply with multiple UN resolutions detailing their destruction.

You also ignore the fact that Congress had to sign off both times and do so.

In fact if I recall correctly, (I could be wrong on this point) didn't the Republican's not even have control of the Senate during this time? I'm pretty sure that from 2001-2003 that it was under the control of the Democrats.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #149 of 191
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
What you want people to ignore in the left hand is that both men came to their plans for action because Iraq was shown by our internal and also foreign intelligence agencies to still have WMD's and had failed to comply with multiple UN resolutions detailing their destruction.

WRONG.

First:
Quote:
The Iraq Liberation Act

October 31, 1998

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT

Today I am signing into law H.R. 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998." This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers.

Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are: The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.

The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.

My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership.

In the meantime, while the United States continues to look to the Security Council's efforts to keep the current regime's behavior in check, we look forward to new leadership in Iraq that has the support of the Iraqi people. The United States is providing support to opposition groups from all sectors of the Iraqi community that could lead to a popularly supported government.

On October 21, 1998, I signed into law the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999, which made $8 million available for assistance to the Iraqi democratic opposition. This assistance is intended to help the democratic opposition unify, work together more effectively, and articulate the aspirations of the Iraqi people for a pluralistic, participa--tory political system that will include all of Iraq's diverse ethnic and religious groups. As required by the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for FY 1998 (Public Law 105-174), the Department of State submitted a report to the Congress on plans to establish a program to support the democratic opposition. My Administration, as required by that statute, has also begun to implement a program to compile information regarding allegations of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes by Iraq's current leaders as a step towards bringing to justice those directly responsible for such acts.

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 provides additional, discretionary authorities under which my Administration can act to further the objectives I outlined above.

Note the reasons. It's only at the end that the weapons are talked about:
Quote:
There are, of course, other important elements of U.S. policy. These include the maintenance of U.N. Security Council support efforts to eliminate Iraq's weapons and missile programs and economic sanctions that continue to deny the regime the means to reconstitute those threats to international peace and security. United States support for the Iraqi opposition will be carried out consistent with those policy objectives as well. Similarly, U.S. support must be attuned to what the opposition can effectively make use of as it develops over time. With those observations, I sign H.R. 4655 into law.

WILLIAM J. CLINTON

THE WHITE HOUSE,

The focus is completely different, and there is no hint that the issue is about Iraq's weapons being a threat to the US.

On top of that, there is no obvious fabrication or exaggeration like the *many* that came from the Bush administration.

and again:

There is a massive difference between supporting regime change by Iraqis, even if those Iraqis were the INC, and invading and occupying the country, using lies to get public support and neglecting a more important enemy that already attacked us.
post #150 of 191
That's Talking Point #4781 dead.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #151 of 191
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
What you didn't notice is that Clinton signed a measure to promote regime change in Iraq based off the unwillingness of Saddam to comply with U.N. resolutions to prove he no longer had WMD's.

What you didn't notice is that Clinton clearly says that regime change needs to come from within Iraq.

Quote:
Oh I forgot. This is about quips and caricatures. Clinton lied, so people died.

Chaff.

Quote:
Clinton's conclusion that we ought to invade was the same which makes it hard to show that "Bush lied because we all know he cooked intelligence to get what he wanted."

Please show where Clinton concludes that we ought to invade.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #152 of 191
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Hey don't look at my left hand, just look at me waving my right hand. Please pay no attention to the left hand.

Indeed.

Quote:
You are waving the right hand and noting that Clinton supported regime change via internal rebellion versus direct invasion. What you want people to ignore in the left hand is that both men came to their plans for action because Iraq was shown by our internal and also foreign intelligence agencies to still have WMD's and had failed to comply with multiple UN resolutions detailing their destruction.

And? You are trying to draw an equivalency between two radically different policies.

Quote:
You also ignore the fact that Congress had to sign off both times and do so.

Chaff.

Quote:
In fact if I recall correctly, (I could be wrong on this point) didn't the Republican's not even have control of the Senate during this time? I'm pretty sure that from 2001-2003 that it was under the control of the Democrats.

Chaff.

Your last two points depend upon a mistaken belief that the Iraq Liberation Act says we should invade. Unless I'm missing something, it says no such thing.

I'm not really sure what the point of all this is, Nick. The two policies are wildly different.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #153 of 191
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
What you didn't notice is that Clinton clearly says that regime change needs to come from within Iraq.

I did notice that. What you didn't notice is that we supported regime change because the intelligence showed Saddam had WMD's .

Quote:
Chaff.

If you don't want them pointed out, then don't add them to the discussion.

Quote:
Please show where Clinton concludes that we ought to invade.

I didn't say that. Please show where Clinton concludes that Saddam does not have WMD's and thus the next administration must "lie" and cook the data to draw that conclusion.

Quote:
And? You are trying to draw an equivalency between two radically different policies.

No I'm trying to show you have have the same premise but come to two different conclusions about that premise.

The premise, that Iraq had WMD's was shared by both administrations. One didn't lie about this and the other not.

Quote:
Chaff.

It isn't chaff. It is our systems of checks and balances at work. People want to forget this because they prefer political gain but Bush could not have done this without Congress.

Quote:
Chaff.

Again checks and balances. It suggests that even if Democrats had reservations and the means to schedules votes and committees to investigate these reservations, that they were somehow stopped by Bush when this was not possible and not true.

Quote:
Your last two points depend upon a mistaken belief that the Iraq Liberation Act says we should invade. Unless I'm missing something, it says no such thing.

I'm not really sure what the point of all this is, Nick. The two policies are wildly different.

Please look at the basis for action.

A helpful analogy.

You conclude Ralph beats his wife and recommend they be counseled.

I conclude that Ralph beats his wife and recommend he be jailed.

If we both learn after the fact that Ralph didn't beat his wife you can't claim I am a liar because you only recommended counseling instead of jail.

We both came to the same conclusion.

Clinton recommend that we actively pursue overthrowing the government of a sovereign nation. He did not advocate that in a vacuum. He would not recommend such a thing because Saddam wasn't a threat or because he was a paper tiger. He did it because of the WMD's and the fact that Saddam could and would use them.

I even explained clearly that Bush moved us to a policy of preemptive war and that this policy is what should be debated. Instead people are focusing on the WMD's which both administrations, the basis for both of their different policies, concluded Iraq had.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #154 of 191
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
That is a good question. I mean he was the one who signed the bill stating that the policy of the United States toward Iraq was one of regime change.

Clinton statement after signing bill

I read that statement and just sort of smirk because there are so many on these forums who attribute certain words by Bush to nothing more that evil spin. Yet there is Clinton with that ever present Iraqi's are "freedom-loving" people.

Could one of you very quickly caricature this and state that if you now didn't support Clinton's bill for regime change that you must be asking "Why do they hate freedom?"

Of course some people, who you would quickly dismiss as "Bush apologists" or as "People who can't understand why we are in Iraq when the terrorists came from Saudi Arabia" instead of thinking about this matter, would say that the reason both Republicans and Democrats supported Bush on this matter is because they felt Iraq ought not be given any additional chances after 9/11 changed our minds about how threats should be dealt with.

The reality is that after 9/11 Bush articulated a strategy of preemptive war. He didn't lie about that or cook the books on that. He changed the question to one of proving that you are not a threat instead of us waiting around and hoping to prove you are a threat.

Those policies and the questions related to them have never changed and they don't change whether Iraq had WMD. In the past we had to prove someone was a threat and then let them use force before action was taken. Bush announced that you must prove you are not a threat and we will not wait until you take any action.

If any criticism about Iraq and WMD should be made, it shouldn't be about Bush "lying." It should be about the policy of preemptive war. Yet Bush never lied at all about that. He never cooked the books or hid his intentions. Now that we have discovered that perhaps Iraq was never a threat (many would still argue that those WMD's have shipped off somewhere) it is easier for people to point the finger at Bush and say "you lied" than it is for people to point the finger at themselves and say "I supported a policy that states we will pretty much punch someone who is looking at us mean instead of one where they have to take the first swing."

This is why I have argued that any label that is applied to Bush ought be applied to those who supported the war. It doesn't matter how big the threat is that launched the war. The reality is that they all signed on to a preemptive war policy.

Nick

A case for war is a case for war regardless of 9/11. I'm going to ignore your 9/11=Saddham argument (low hanging fruit) for the moment. I have a couple questions about the Clinton/Bush issue.

If Clinton's evidence and arguments for regime change were just as legitimate then as they were in '02, why didn't Clinton prepare the military for a full-scale invasion?

Could it be that congressional Republicans would have killed (metaphorically) Clinton for doing something that extreme?

And why would have Republicans been right?
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #155 of 191
In my view, the big difference between Clinton and Bush is - get ready for it - honesty. When Clinton announced the airstrikes against Iraq, he explained it like this: "They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors." Clinton repeatedly referred to Iraq's ability to make WMDs, and refrained from making exaggerated claims about the actual presence of WMDs. Bush et al., on the other hand, made repeated statements that were known to be false or exaggerated or misleading at the time - not just because we later were surprised to find them to be untrue, but because the statements weren't based on the evidence that was then known.

Since you like analogies Nick, it's the difference between me saying that my neighbor might be trying to buy a gun vs. falsely saying that my neighbor has a rifle a shotgun and a handgun. It's all the difference in the world. In short, one was a truthful justification and one was not.
post #156 of 191
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
Don't mistake the chaff (in this case, a false equivalency) for the wheat.

And for what it's worth, here's the salient bit of the Iraq Liberation Act:



Man. Supporting an internal rebellion and overthrow of Hussein is just like invading! See? It's exactly the same!

Actually, Clinton's model for overthrowing the Milosivec regime was executed brilliantly and flawlessly. And it didn't involve a full scale invasion, either.

Our casualties were extraordinarilly low, the grass-roots movement in Yugoslavia was carefully and adequatly aided and funded, and Milosivec fell to his own people and not an American tank commander.

If only the lovely folks at PNAC were paying attention and applied similar logic to Saddham. Oh, well.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #157 of 191
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Please show where Clinton concludes that Saddam does not have WMD's and thus the next administration must "lie" and cook the data to draw that conclusion.

We can point out individual lies and exaggerations. We can point, and have done so (even in this thread), to a mountain of individual statements that are clear lies and exaggerations. From citing nonexistant UN reports, to citing nonexistant UN statements, to exaggerating UN findings, to ignoring caveats, to promoting discredited or unrealistic statements of INC folks, etc, etc, there is a mountain of individual statements and actions that are in the public record. You can't hide from that.

Most importantly, your statement that "the intelligence showed Saddam had WMD's" has absolutely no meaning in the context of 1998. The issue in 1998 was that Saddam wasn't cooperating with inspectors. It wasn't an issue of "intelligence" and whether "Saddam had WMD's," is was an issue of the cooperation with the inspection process so that the programs can be dismantled. See BRussell's post.
post #158 of 191
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
There is a massive difference between supporting regime change by Iraqis, even if those Iraqis were the INC, and invading the country, using lies to get public support and neglecting a more important enemy that already attacked us.

But it's also not the only difference. The 1998 Iraq Liberation Act doesn't say we should tie up our military resources in a massive invasion and occupation of Iraq because Saddam wants to help terrorists attack us with WMD. In fact, the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. Everyone with sense wanted Saddam out of power and a better, more liberal and more democratic Iraq.

That is completely and entirely 100% untrue, dmz. I understand you have a position, but don't make flagrantly false statements to try to support it.

I don't think you can read the SIC report and really say that -- they were lost in the assumptions of well over a decade of set thinking.

Also, by policy I mean the preemptive war strategy, and the invasion. And I think that is were the real -- and very legitimate -- difference is. Whether preemptive war is 'Just' as in 'Just war theory' is what is separating both sides; but like the ID debate, the real issue gets clobbered with adjectives like "stupid" and "lying'.

I can't read that SIC report and come away with "oh the president didn't like what he was hearing....." -- all they were telling him were the degrees of how dirty Iraq was.

Now, it is true that, in cases like Niger, the office of VP had the power to made special requests, but in the end analysis Iraq and Niger did have those discussions and that was just piled on to existing group-think, and that seems to be the set pattern. "How dirty is Iraq?", "Well, they're this dirty"

It is also true the Blix and others had their 'day in court', but I don't think a UN committee is going to trump the entirety of the U.S. intelligence apparatus anytime soon.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #159 of 191
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
I don't think you can read the SIC report...

Why be hung up on the SIC report? It doesn't even touch on 1/8th of what went on.
Quote:
that was just piled on to existing group-think...

That's just not true.

First of all, there was a concerted effort by DoD officials and the VP's office to come up with "evidence," and it didn't matter how shaky or far-fetched, that boosted their case.

Secondly, there was no shortage of CIA folks who were openly critical of the BS, both through leaks and through folks no longer with the agency. It's a myth that intelligence agencies interpreted the intel the way the admin presented it, and even a cursory look at the public record shows this.

On top of that, as I've mentioned a bunch of times, there is a mountain of statements from admin officials that are clearly and unmistakably fabrications and exaggerations.

The fact is that everyone was subjected to the same PR campaign. "Groupthink" played a role, but not in the simple "well everyone thought x, y, z," because it's crystal clear that it's not true. Not everyone thought it. Not even the administration. It's clear that they dealt with the information in a purposefully deceitful way.

If you like reading reports, read the UNMOVIC reports. For every admin claim that "saddam is dangerous because the UN says he has [insert agent/chemical/nuke]," the UN reports show that the claim is greatly exaggerated or fabricated. This has been the case from the beginning.

The reason people like me were able to view the situation objectively and correctly is because we actually looked at the details and not the grand, sweeping statements.
post #160 of 191
One of the arguments that Bush supporters use to defend the Plame outing goes like this: They didn't out her to get back at Wilson, they outed her to provide reporters with the context that he was part of the CIA anti-war clique. According to the White House, the CIA WMD people (e.g., Plame) were resisting the war and equivocal about WMDs, and so Wilson had a pre-existing agenda since he was a CIA WMD person's husband. So her outing wasn't revenge so much as political context.

But you can't make both that argument as well as the argument that the CIA were a bunch of exaggerating war hawks who thought Iraq was brimming with nukes and duped the White House into believing their story.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › CHENEY: Criticize me and you don't support the troops