The "silent majority" speaks through The Evil Moderator!
New Theory:
First Paragraph:
Ever since the destruction of the First Temple (in Jerusalem), the Isrealites, and by extention the Christians, have sought ways in which to kick the Babalonian ass that had destroyed most sacrelgiously the sacred resting place of God on Earth. Recall with piercing horror the rise of the would be Babalonian king, Saddam. He rebuilt the Hanging Gardens and rumor has it he even wanted to create the Iraqi Space Agency to see the face of God for himself. Realizing early on the significance of Saddam to the causes of kicking Babalonian ass, the Regan administration having full use of thier senses for all of a year, set forth a policy of setting up a Babalonian King (dictator) on balsa stilts. As you may well know balsa wood is strong when force is applied on its ends, but when twisted breaks like a teepee under a MOAB. The story is obvious from there, each administration took pot shots at the would be Babalonian Sun Dictator until our current one, in a mindless delusion of granduer matched only by Saddam's took down the Babalonian empire in the name of God...
There's nothing to respond to. It's all strawman and not connected to reality. The only argument I see there that makes any sense is the idea that Saddam needed to go so he could oppress Iraqis. Well, I'm sure you will find few people that will disagree there, but war this spring was not the only option. Of course, THIS WAR WAS SOLD ON WMD, and WMD was cited as the reason we had to go in so quickly. If this was a war for humanity, we would have no trouble convicting Saddam of crimes against humanity and then gone from there. However, this is not what the war was sold on, so it doesn't matter. It's already been discussed to death in other threads here. Trying to use smoke and mirrors to divert attention from the biggest lie in American history ain't going to work.
Anyway, I have an opinion piece here, too
Quote:
Was the Iraq war worth the human toll? Speaking as a World War II Navy veteran, a peace activist, a compassionate person, and one who affirms the inherent worth and dignity of every person, my answer is an unequivocal "no."
For starters, the case for first-strike military action against Iraq was illusory by any rational cost-benefit analysis. On the cost side, such action:
n Increased the threat of attacks in the United States by suicide bombers, thereby decreasing our national security.
n Put our armed forces in harm's way and risked massive casualties to thousands of Iraqi children and their families.
n Is costing unbudgeted billions (including payoffs for the deals the administration made with other countries to buy their support) ? money better spent on domestic programs needed by taxpayers who will pay the bill.
n Added incentive for rogue nations to develop nuclear weapons.
n Disqualified the U.S. from complaining when other nations breach international law.
n Resulted in decimation of Iraqi cultural institutions.
n Elevated military might over diplomacy and other non-violent means to settle disputes.
Except for field testing our military machine, gaining control of Iraqi oil, diverting media attention from domestic economic woes, and profiteering by well-connected Pentagon contractors, the benefits of Bush's war were negligible. Iraq was never really an imminent threat to the U.S.; its ill-equipped army was no match for the overwhelming superiority of the air, sea and land forces of the U.S. and United Kingdom.
There were other ways to depose Hussein (e.g., an indictment, trial and conviction by the International Criminal Court for his crimes against humanity). It was never one of our national priorities to invade and capture a foreign country in order to impose "democracy" on its citizens.
Peace activists have never questioned the valor and proficiency of our armed forces. What we questioned were the morality, the given purpose (it kept changing), and ultimately the need for rushing to war against Iraq. Finding that this war clearly failed to meet most of the universally recognized criteria of a just war, we exercised our right ? indeed, our patriotic duty in a country that prizes freedom ? to speak out against the president's decision to put our troops in harm's way in Iraq. (In truth, sending our troops to the Middle East last fall and ordering them to attack Iraq in March were pursuant to plans made before 9/11 in secret by Bush and his advisors.)
Being anti-war is also pro-troops. I'd wear a yellow ribbon if it would help keep soldiers and innocent civilians safe, but the better talisman is to stand up against using the force of arms and to advocate non-violent means ? such as diplomacy now being used with North Korea ? as the better way to achieve legitimate political purposes.
Bush's war has taken its toll on his image abroad. The preemptive attack on Iraq ? before UN weapons inspectors were able to complete their task and without Security Council backing ? is regarded as an unjust war of aggression, and the popular perception of the U.S. president as an arrogant, imperialist bully is now confirmed. Furthermore, the belief ? widely held here as well as abroad ? that Bush used intentional disinformation (i.e., propaganda) to dupe Congress and the public into supporting his war, has been substantiated by the absence to date of any viable cache of banned weapons in Iraq.
I believe preemptive war is un-American. The present administration's unprecedented policy of preventive war is reckless and wrong ? it would not survive exposure to serious, non-partisan debate in Congress and in the public square. I'm convinced the Iraq war was initiated to advance the political agenda of the administration, under the strong but divisive and unworthy leadership of President Bush.
There has also been an insidious human toll on the home front. Concurrently with "liberating" the population of Iraq, liberty in our own country is being seriously curtailed. Here, dissent from Bush's war is labeled "unpatriotic," whistle-blowers are being muzzled by the Attorney General, the White House has been using the media to manage public opinion, and opposition to wrong-headed government policies is muted for fear of reprisal.
Constitutionally protected civil rights have been broadly suspended in the name of homeland security but without diminishing fear of fanatical terrorist assaults.
While forecasting billions to "rebuild" Iraq, President Bush is asking Congress to reduce income taxes of the richest Americans and to cut spending for programs that help our youth and our powerless citizens. Even before the war began, U.S. military spending exceeded $1,000,000,000 EVERY DAY ? more than the combined military budgets of all other countries in the world and an outrageously high sum given the desperate needs of millions of Americans living at or below the poverty level.
For every dollar spent in Iraq, voters should insist that Congress allocate another dollar (or more) to rebuild our own inner city neighborhoods and schools, provide health care for the uninsured, protect our environment, and create economic opportunities for disadvantaged Americans. This is the way to make life more secure for U.S. citizens.
It's the end of the day, but if you remove the errors in fact, attempts at rewriting history and strawman portrayals, you end up with a post that looks like this:
I would say nice try, but quoting a radical like Ann Coulter spouting off her delusional world view really hurts your credibility.
Look, I found this quote from her:
So this is where folks like SDW get their directions. The blind leading the blind
giant,
Why would anyone even try with you. You consider yourself a critical thinker yet I could type your replies before you do because they are nothing but reflexive.
You don't even reply to points, you just dismiss them and repeat yourself.
As for swing voters, most people would find it amusing and also highly cynical to believe that someone could change their beliefs or vote due to 30 second commercial spots and things of that nature, yet that is obviously what happens and worse still what decides elections, regardless of who wins them. Idiot voters may be a provocative name, but what would you call someone who votes off no core beliefs and little information?
When someone is as dishonest as you, everyone must seem 'self-rightous.'
No one believed they would kill hundreds and thousands of our troops. You lie here and say 'They screamed that Sadfdam' would do whatever, when it's a flat out lie.
Don't lie. It makes you look bad.
'They' continuously said that Sadfdam wasn't a threat to the United States. It sure as hell looks like 'they' were correct. You don't have the courage to admit that 'they' were right though.
You're welcome to repeat my typo all day if you want. I suppose you need to do something to amuse youself.
There were plenty of folks here and in the Sunday talk shows and newspaper editorial columns saying this would be another Vietnam or at minimum there would be casualties both from "urban warfare" to borrow the favored 24 hour news phrase and also from chemical weapons.
You refuse to address the point. You were the one around here yourself saying inspections could work with multiple aircraft carriers sitting off the coast.
Why would Saddam need that sort of "incentive" to comply if he had no weapons? Wouldn't it just be better to prove he had nothing, get the sanctions removed and get on with building yet another presidential palace?
I'm only dishonest to someone someone so politically and dogmatically dug in as yourself. For you the daily "truth" only consists of the Democratic party talking points. People of all stripes and persuasions have brought up points regarding sactions, inspectors and all you do is call names, dismiss others and repeat whatever talking point you have to spin as the "truth" that morning.
There's nothing to respond to. It's all strawman and not connected to reality. The only argument I see there that makes any sense is the idea that Saddam needed to go so he could oppress Iraqis. Well, I'm sure you will find few people that will disagree there, but war this spring was not the only option. Of course, THIS WAR WAS SOLD ON WMD, and WMD was cited as the reason we had to go in so quickly. If this was a war for humanity, we would have no trouble convicting Saddam of crimes against humanity and then gone from there. However, this is not what the war was sold on, so it doesn't matter. It's already been discussed to death in other threads here. Trying to use smoke and mirrors to divert attention from the biggest lie in American history ain't going to work.
Anyway, you guys should post your own opinions rather than relying on radicals. At least pick someone who's sane.
If I didn't want to deal with radicals, I would respond to you, Sammi Jo, Tonton, BillBob..etc.
The one very good point Ann Coulter made is that we didn't just pull the weapons of mass destruction weren't just pulled out of the air. Saddam had used them on Iran, the Kurds, and on his own people as well.
This is basically the same point people have been arguing about since the inspectors. We know he has the weapons, the only question is if he destroyed them. All he would have to do is show how he did that and he refused. The job of the inspectors should have simply been to see the evidence of destruction, not see if the weapons were still around and attempt to find them.
Considering what he had to gain, (staying in power and continuing to starve people, rape, kill, etc. which all the progressive folks around here are too political to acknowledge Bush has ended) why wouldn't he just show that they were gone? I mean he could have started selling even more oil than he was secretly piping out to sell through Syria. (Gee the inspectors didn't find that either did they)
Your inability to see any good from this war shows that you will twist your arguments in any manner you care to in order to advance a political agenda.
Hate to do this because it will derail the thread from the topi: Did Bush lie and what is the consequence if he did.
Quote:
quote:
In fact, the question was never whether Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. We know he had weapons of mass destruction. He used weapons of mass destruction against the Kurds, against the Iranians and against his own people.
Remember all that is passé. It happened 12 years ago. WHat he had then has very little to do with what he has today. But lets for the sake of the argument take it seriously and put it into the context of this thread:
The claim must be this: The fact that Bush used claimed iraq posession of WoMDs as an argument to the congress, the americam people, GB, Polan, Turkey and SC to go to war against better knowledge is somehow not so serious because he Saddam used WoMD in the 80s? Please explain this.
This argument has nothing to do with the "proof" used. Bush didn´t say "he used these weapons in the 80s therefore he still have them". No he said " We know these trailers are used for weapons, they have imported Uran from Uganda, that these building are used for weapons production"
In Short: It has nothing to do with the current issue.
Quote:
The United Nations weapons inspectors repeatedly found Saddam's weapons of mass destruction in Iraq after the 1991 Gulf War, right up until Saddam threw them out in 1998. Justifying his impeachment-day bombing, Clinton cited the Iraqi regime's "nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs." (Indeed, this constitutes the only evidence that Saddam didn't have weapons of mass destruction: Bill Clinton said he did.)
I am not democrat and even if I were this is an example of "Whaaa but he did it too" argumentation. Even if Clinton lied it doesn´t make Bush lie less. And again it was not the arguents used by Bush. He used current intelligens (or at least it was claimed that he did)
Quote:
Liberals are now pretending that their position all along was that Saddam had secretly disarmed in the last few years without telling anyone. This would finally explain the devilish question of why Saddam thwarted inspectors every inch of the way for 12 years, issued phony reports to the U.N., and wouldn't allow flyovers or unannounced inspections: It was because he had nothing to hide
What does it matters? Bush didn´t used that as an argument. He didn´t say "Look there must be a reason why so tight restrictions were put on the UN inspectors so they had to withdraw a few years ago. Based on that we presume he has got WoMDs".
So Coulter puts up a lot of smoke to hide the fact: That Bush claimed he had current intelligence to proof Saddams WoMD program. What Coulter does is to render it possible that Saddam had WoMDs based on historical events. An completly other argument than that of Bush.
I am not democrat and even if I were this is an example of "Whaaa but he did it too" argumentation. Even if Clinton lied it doesn´t make Bush lie less.
...this is a new twist....so you would be willing to say at least until 1998 SH had CBN programs?
There are some on this thread who say SH got rid of all his CBN in the early ninties....but if he still had these programs untill 1998 (or even later) he sounds much more culpable.
The thing with GWB lying is that it will take A LONG TIME before all comes to light. This thing where giant paints SH as the forthcoming, transparent complier of UN resolutions and GWB as the evil capitalist swine up to no good, just totally blows me away.
Why would anyone even try with you. You consider yourself a critical thinker yet I could type your replies before you do because they are nothing but reflexive.
You don't even reply to points, you just dismiss them and repeat yourself.
As for swing voters, most people would find it amusing and also highly cynical to believe that someone could change their beliefs or vote due to 30 second commercial spots and things of that nature, yet that is obviously what happens and worse still what decides elections, regardless of who wins them. Idiot voters may be a provocative name, but what would you call someone who votes off no core beliefs and little information?
Nick
you would rather replace ideological rigidity and stubborn unthought with the possibility that someone would think criticaly about an issue and decide to change their perspective?
well that explains why you dogeedly will pursue a point long after its viability has been shown to be moot: in other words you just let your entrenched attitudes, which might as well simply be a uniform and part of the 'neo-con' trendy beltway project, do your thinking for you.
Your inability to see any good from this war shows that you will twist your arguments in any manner you care to in order to advance a political agenda.
Nick
By the way, this issue has nothing to do about 'seeing any good' in the war.
Many of us have acknowledged that some of the outcome has turned out to be beneficial, not just to Bush's super-rich cabal-leros, but to Iraqis, and maybe even to the mid-east balance as a whole . . .
... but the point is is that we invaded a sovereign country, effectively reversing a very honorable policy of not taking the role of aggressor and did so with false pretexts . . . pretexts who's falsity was used to change people's minds as to their support
Never mind that Coulter would rather have us be black-shirts effectively never question the position of 'the Party' . . . people were swayed because they were lead to feel that we were under immanent theat
lead to think so by people who probably knew otherwise
Hate to do this because it will derail the thread from the topi: Did Bush lie and what is the consequence if he did.
Remember all that is passé. It happened 12 years ago. WHat he had then has very little to do with what he has today. But lets for the sake of the argument take it seriously and put it into the context of this thread:
The claim must be this: The fact that Bush used claimed iraq posession of WoMDs as an argument to the congress, the americam people, GB, Polan, Turkey and SC to go to war against better knowledge is somehow not so serious because he Saddam used WoMD in the 80s? Please explain this.
This argument has nothing to do with the "proof" used. Bush didn´t say "he used these weapons in the 80s therefore he still have them". No he said " We know these trailers are used for weapons, they have imported Uran from Uganda, that these building are used for weapons production"
In Short: It has nothing to do with the current issue.
I am not democrat and even if I were this is an example of "Whaaa but he did it too" argumentation. Even if Clinton lied it doesn´t make Bush lie less. And again it was not the arguents used by Bush. He used current intelligens (or at least it was claimed that he did)
What does it matters? Bush didn´t used that as an argument. He didn´t say "Look there must be a reason why so tight restrictions were put on the UN inspectors so they had to withdraw a few years ago. Based on that we presume he has got WoMDs".
So Coulter puts up a lot of smoke to hide the fact: That Bush claimed he had current intelligence to proof Saddams WoMD program. What Coulter does is to render it possible that Saddam had WoMDs based on historical events. An completly other argument than that of Bush.
They were being found, (not voluntarily given up) after the 1991 war as well.
BTW, a little off topic but here is what the article quotes the coordinators of the sanctions had to say about them. For those of you who can find nothing good about the war, chew on this.
Quote:
In 1998, the co-ordinator of the programme, Denis Halliday, resigned, saying sanctions were bankrupt as a concept and damaged innocent people.
And his successor, Hans von Sponeck, quit his post in 2000, saying sanctions had created ?a true human tragedy?.
Meanwhile UNICEF says...
Quote:
Unicef estimated in 1999 that child mortality in Iraq had doubled since before the Gulf War.
How humanitarian and "compassionate" are folks like you that will let child after child die while allowing a tyrant to starve, rape, brutalize and murder his own people so that U.N. "inspectors" can go around giving 48 hour notices and then showing up to find, gee all the stuff we thought was here has been moved. That was up until 1998 when they were kicked out. With carriers off the coast he finally allowed something resembling real inspections to begin but gee of course he had only had month after month to hide them.
All he had to do was show they had been destroyed and the point is people like yourself would have turned a blind eye to his atrocities and allowed him to continue living and ruling as he had. You know this to be a fact. Saddam could have simply remained in power if he had shown and given proof the weapons had been destroyed and the international community would have left it at that. So why would ANYONE choose to work against that?
Regardless of all the dismissing of history, facts, etc by folks such as yourself. The issue no one will touch is why Saddam acted as he did. Why would you force a showdown that knocks you out of power over something you don't have when the alternative leaves you no worse off, or possibly better off.?
Please address this point if you want some credibility.
you would rather replace ideological rigidity and stubborn unthought with the possibility that someone would think criticaly about an issue and decide to change their perspective?
well that explains why you dogeedly will pursue a point long after its viability has been shown to be moot: in other words you just let your entrenched attitudes, which might as well simply be a uniform and part of the 'neo-con' trendy beltway project, do your thinking for you.
By the way, this issue has nothing to do about 'seeing any good' in the war.
Many of us have acknowledged that some of the outcome has turned out to be beneficial, not just to Bush's super-rich cabal-leros, but to Iraqis, and maybe even to the mid-east balance as a whole . . .
... but the point is is that we invaded a sovereign country, effectively reversing a very honorable policy of not taking the role of aggressor and did so with false pretexts . . . pretexts who's falsity was used to change people's minds as to their support
Never mind that Coulter would rather have us be black-shirts effectively never question the position of 'the Party' . . . people were swayed because they were lead to feel that we were under immanent theat
lead to think so by people who probably knew otherwise
I have thought critically about this matter. From my posts on these boards you should know that I likely lean quasi-libertarian on plenty of matters rather than dogmatically Republican. I don't even support free trade. So I don't know where this neo-con bit comes from. 9/11 changed our understanding of the Middle East. We began to stop seeing things like nation-states and realized the fluidity of people there. We began pondering tribal thinking and realized some pretty terrible things could happen pretty quickly.
Please critically think and address this question.
Regardless of all the dismissing of history, facts, etc by folks such as yourself. The issue no one will touch is why Saddam acted as he did. Why would you force a showdown that knocks you out of power over something you don't have when the alternative leaves you no worse off, or possibly better off.?
Give some proper motivations for his actions, and I will begin questioning Bush and lying. If you can't show why a profoundly selfish man would take a course that would allow him to remain so instead of losing everything, then nothing about the "conspiracies" that pass for theories around here make any sense.
I am not going to get into a point by point reply-quote response on this.
The bottom line is that as ena's Coulter quote said, there is NO QUESTION Saddam had WMD. Anyone who argues otherwise is either intellectually dishonest or just plain stupid. Anyone who argues that Saddam simply gave up his program after the inspectors left in 1998 cannot be taken seriously. The only question that remains is when we'll find the weapons and how many of them we'll find.
Democrats and Republicans looked at this intelligence and then passed a resolution allowing the President to use force. Multiple high ranking Congressional representatives saw the evidence. It isn't a question of "Bush lying to Congress". If the intelligence was flawed, Bush cannot be held responsible. The administration doesn't collect and present the intelligence, the CIA, NSA and Military Intelligence do.
As far as Bush "lying publicly", the evidence on that is extremely thin. I agree he may have focused on WMD too much. That was probably a mistake, though nothing more than a poiltical one. I also know about this IAEA report fiasco which giant cites ad nauseam . That remains an unanswered question for me. I don't think it is proof of Bush lying. I do remember talk of reports by an agency regarding Saddam being within a year (at some point) of developing a nuke. I don't know when this was or to be honest, who issued it. The point is that we know Saddam wished to aquire nukes. Is there even a question of that? Or, have some here become so apologetic for Saddam that they don't believe it's true? I don't know why Bush said what he said (I saw the quote on video). There could be any number of reasons as I mentioned. I'm just saying that for someone to come out and jump on this as "evidence" of Bush lying or "fabricating reports" is really, really weak. I would say that Bush should have come out and corrected himself shortly thereafter. If you saw the quote, you know it was not a strong emphatic statement by the President. In fact, it was almost an "I think there was..." statement. It was pretty casual in nature and probably not a good idea. To twist this statement into "fabricating reports" is a bit ridiculous.
Comments
Originally posted by groverat
Why summarize, they're up there. Respond.
I got this link from a shy lurker.
The "silent majority" speaks through The Evil Moderator!
New Theory:
First Paragraph:
Ever since the destruction of the First Temple (in Jerusalem), the Isrealites, and by extention the Christians, have sought ways in which to kick the Babalonian ass that had destroyed most sacrelgiously the sacred resting place of God on Earth. Recall with piercing horror the rise of the would be Babalonian king, Saddam. He rebuilt the Hanging Gardens and rumor has it he even wanted to create the Iraqi Space Agency to see the face of God for himself. Realizing early on the significance of Saddam to the causes of kicking Babalonian ass, the Regan administration having full use of thier senses for all of a year, set forth a policy of setting up a Babalonian King (dictator) on balsa stilts. As you may well know balsa wood is strong when force is applied on its ends, but when twisted breaks like a teepee under a MOAB. The story is obvious from there, each administration took pot shots at the would be Babalonian Sun Dictator until our current one, in a mindless delusion of granduer matched only by Saddam's took down the Babalonian empire in the name of God...
Anyway, I have an opinion piece here, too
Was the Iraq war worth the human toll? Speaking as a World War II Navy veteran, a peace activist, a compassionate person, and one who affirms the inherent worth and dignity of every person, my answer is an unequivocal "no."
For starters, the case for first-strike military action against Iraq was illusory by any rational cost-benefit analysis. On the cost side, such action:
n Increased the threat of attacks in the United States by suicide bombers, thereby decreasing our national security.
n Put our armed forces in harm's way and risked massive casualties to thousands of Iraqi children and their families.
n Is costing unbudgeted billions (including payoffs for the deals the administration made with other countries to buy their support) ? money better spent on domestic programs needed by taxpayers who will pay the bill.
n Added incentive for rogue nations to develop nuclear weapons.
n Disqualified the U.S. from complaining when other nations breach international law.
n Resulted in decimation of Iraqi cultural institutions.
n Elevated military might over diplomacy and other non-violent means to settle disputes.
Except for field testing our military machine, gaining control of Iraqi oil, diverting media attention from domestic economic woes, and profiteering by well-connected Pentagon contractors, the benefits of Bush's war were negligible. Iraq was never really an imminent threat to the U.S.; its ill-equipped army was no match for the overwhelming superiority of the air, sea and land forces of the U.S. and United Kingdom.
There were other ways to depose Hussein (e.g., an indictment, trial and conviction by the International Criminal Court for his crimes against humanity). It was never one of our national priorities to invade and capture a foreign country in order to impose "democracy" on its citizens.
Peace activists have never questioned the valor and proficiency of our armed forces. What we questioned were the morality, the given purpose (it kept changing), and ultimately the need for rushing to war against Iraq. Finding that this war clearly failed to meet most of the universally recognized criteria of a just war, we exercised our right ? indeed, our patriotic duty in a country that prizes freedom ? to speak out against the president's decision to put our troops in harm's way in Iraq. (In truth, sending our troops to the Middle East last fall and ordering them to attack Iraq in March were pursuant to plans made before 9/11 in secret by Bush and his advisors.)
Being anti-war is also pro-troops. I'd wear a yellow ribbon if it would help keep soldiers and innocent civilians safe, but the better talisman is to stand up against using the force of arms and to advocate non-violent means ? such as diplomacy now being used with North Korea ? as the better way to achieve legitimate political purposes.
Bush's war has taken its toll on his image abroad. The preemptive attack on Iraq ? before UN weapons inspectors were able to complete their task and without Security Council backing ? is regarded as an unjust war of aggression, and the popular perception of the U.S. president as an arrogant, imperialist bully is now confirmed. Furthermore, the belief ? widely held here as well as abroad ? that Bush used intentional disinformation (i.e., propaganda) to dupe Congress and the public into supporting his war, has been substantiated by the absence to date of any viable cache of banned weapons in Iraq.
I believe preemptive war is un-American. The present administration's unprecedented policy of preventive war is reckless and wrong ? it would not survive exposure to serious, non-partisan debate in Congress and in the public square. I'm convinced the Iraq war was initiated to advance the political agenda of the administration, under the strong but divisive and unworthy leadership of President Bush.
There has also been an insidious human toll on the home front. Concurrently with "liberating" the population of Iraq, liberty in our own country is being seriously curtailed. Here, dissent from Bush's war is labeled "unpatriotic," whistle-blowers are being muzzled by the Attorney General, the White House has been using the media to manage public opinion, and opposition to wrong-headed government policies is muted for fear of reprisal.
Constitutionally protected civil rights have been broadly suspended in the name of homeland security but without diminishing fear of fanatical terrorist assaults.
While forecasting billions to "rebuild" Iraq, President Bush is asking Congress to reduce income taxes of the richest Americans and to cut spending for programs that help our youth and our powerless citizens. Even before the war began, U.S. military spending exceeded $1,000,000,000 EVERY DAY ? more than the combined military budgets of all other countries in the world and an outrageously high sum given the desperate needs of millions of Americans living at or below the poverty level.
For every dollar spent in Iraq, voters should insist that Congress allocate another dollar (or more) to rebuild our own inner city neighborhoods and schools, provide health care for the uninsured, protect our environment, and create economic opportunities for disadvantaged Americans. This is the way to make life more secure for U.S. citizens.
http://goerie.com/apps/pbcs.dll/arti...ON30/106060260
Anyway, you guys should post your own opinions rather than relying on radicals. At least pick someone who's sane.
Originally posted by groverat
Why summarize, they're up there.
No, you said she makes a 'few good points', so which few do you think are good? Which ones are being ignored?
Originally posted by groverat
Why summarize[?]
I think you now know why people would ask you to summarize. Because you have no valid point and they're calling you on it.
Originally posted by giant
It's the end of the day, but if you remove the errors in fact, attempts at rewriting history and strawman portrayals, you end up with a post that looks like this:
I would say nice try, but quoting a radical like Ann Coulter spouting off her delusional world view really hurts your credibility.
Look, I found this quote from her:
So this is where folks like SDW get their directions. The blind leading the blind
giant,
Why would anyone even try with you. You consider yourself a critical thinker yet I could type your replies before you do because they are nothing but reflexive.
You don't even reply to points, you just dismiss them and repeat yourself.
As for swing voters, most people would find it amusing and also highly cynical to believe that someone could change their beliefs or vote due to 30 second commercial spots and things of that nature, yet that is obviously what happens and worse still what decides elections, regardless of who wins them. Idiot voters may be a provocative name, but what would you call someone who votes off no core beliefs and little information?
Nick
Originally posted by bunge
When someone is as dishonest as you, everyone must seem 'self-rightous.'
No one believed they would kill hundreds and thousands of our troops. You lie here and say 'They screamed that Sadfdam' would do whatever, when it's a flat out lie.
Don't lie. It makes you look bad.
'They' continuously said that Sadfdam wasn't a threat to the United States. It sure as hell looks like 'they' were correct. You don't have the courage to admit that 'they' were right though.
You're welcome to repeat my typo all day if you want. I suppose you need to do something to amuse youself.
There were plenty of folks here and in the Sunday talk shows and newspaper editorial columns saying this would be another Vietnam or at minimum there would be casualties both from "urban warfare" to borrow the favored 24 hour news phrase and also from chemical weapons.
You refuse to address the point. You were the one around here yourself saying inspections could work with multiple aircraft carriers sitting off the coast.
Why would Saddam need that sort of "incentive" to comply if he had no weapons? Wouldn't it just be better to prove he had nothing, get the sanctions removed and get on with building yet another presidential palace?
I'm only dishonest to someone someone so politically and dogmatically dug in as yourself. For you the daily "truth" only consists of the Democratic party talking points. People of all stripes and persuasions have brought up points regarding sactions, inspectors and all you do is call names, dismiss others and repeat whatever talking point you have to spin as the "truth" that morning.
Nick
Originally posted by giant
There's nothing to respond to. It's all strawman and not connected to reality. The only argument I see there that makes any sense is the idea that Saddam needed to go so he could oppress Iraqis. Well, I'm sure you will find few people that will disagree there, but war this spring was not the only option. Of course, THIS WAR WAS SOLD ON WMD, and WMD was cited as the reason we had to go in so quickly. If this was a war for humanity, we would have no trouble convicting Saddam of crimes against humanity and then gone from there. However, this is not what the war was sold on, so it doesn't matter. It's already been discussed to death in other threads here. Trying to use smoke and mirrors to divert attention from the biggest lie in American history ain't going to work.
Anyway, I have an opinion piece here, too
http://goerie.com/apps/pbcs.dll/arti...ON30/106060260
Anyway, you guys should post your own opinions rather than relying on radicals. At least pick someone who's sane.
If I didn't want to deal with radicals, I would respond to you, Sammi Jo, Tonton, BillBob..etc.
The one very good point Ann Coulter made is that we didn't just pull the weapons of mass destruction weren't just pulled out of the air. Saddam had used them on Iran, the Kurds, and on his own people as well.
This is basically the same point people have been arguing about since the inspectors. We know he has the weapons, the only question is if he destroyed them. All he would have to do is show how he did that and he refused. The job of the inspectors should have simply been to see the evidence of destruction, not see if the weapons were still around and attempt to find them.
Considering what he had to gain, (staying in power and continuing to starve people, rape, kill, etc. which all the progressive folks around here are too political to acknowledge Bush has ended) why wouldn't he just show that they were gone? I mean he could have started selling even more oil than he was secretly piping out to sell through Syria. (Gee the inspectors didn't find that either did they)
Your inability to see any good from this war shows that you will twist your arguments in any manner you care to in order to advance a political agenda.
Nick
Nobody wants to touch the Coulter piece.
Amazing.
quote:
In fact, the question was never whether Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. We know he had weapons of mass destruction. He used weapons of mass destruction against the Kurds, against the Iranians and against his own people.
Remember all that is passé. It happened 12 years ago. WHat he had then has very little to do with what he has today. But lets for the sake of the argument take it seriously and put it into the context of this thread:
The claim must be this: The fact that Bush used claimed iraq posession of WoMDs as an argument to the congress, the americam people, GB, Polan, Turkey and SC to go to war against better knowledge is somehow not so serious because he Saddam used WoMD in the 80s? Please explain this.
This argument has nothing to do with the "proof" used. Bush didn´t say "he used these weapons in the 80s therefore he still have them". No he said " We know these trailers are used for weapons, they have imported Uran from Uganda, that these building are used for weapons production"
In Short: It has nothing to do with the current issue.
The United Nations weapons inspectors repeatedly found Saddam's weapons of mass destruction in Iraq after the 1991 Gulf War, right up until Saddam threw them out in 1998. Justifying his impeachment-day bombing, Clinton cited the Iraqi regime's "nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs." (Indeed, this constitutes the only evidence that Saddam didn't have weapons of mass destruction: Bill Clinton said he did.)
I am not democrat and even if I were this is an example of "Whaaa but he did it too" argumentation. Even if Clinton lied it doesn´t make Bush lie less. And again it was not the arguents used by Bush. He used current intelligens (or at least it was claimed that he did)
Liberals are now pretending that their position all along was that Saddam had secretly disarmed in the last few years without telling anyone. This would finally explain the devilish question of why Saddam thwarted inspectors every inch of the way for 12 years, issued phony reports to the U.N., and wouldn't allow flyovers or unannounced inspections: It was because he had nothing to hide
What does it matters? Bush didn´t used that as an argument. He didn´t say "Look there must be a reason why so tight restrictions were put on the UN inspectors so they had to withdraw a few years ago. Based on that we presume he has got WoMDs".
So Coulter puts up a lot of smoke to hide the fact: That Bush claimed he had current intelligence to proof Saddams WoMD program. What Coulter does is to render it possible that Saddam had WoMDs based on historical events. An completly other argument than that of Bush.
Lets return to the main argument in this thread.
Originally posted by Anders the White
I am not democrat and even if I were this is an example of "Whaaa but he did it too" argumentation. Even if Clinton lied it doesn´t make Bush lie less.
...this is a new twist....so you would be willing to say at least until 1998 SH had CBN programs?
The thing with GWB lying is that it will take A LONG TIME before all comes to light. This thing where giant paints SH as the forthcoming, transparent complier of UN resolutions and GWB as the evil capitalist swine up to no good, just totally blows me away.
Originally posted by trumptman
giant,
Why would anyone even try with you. You consider yourself a critical thinker yet I could type your replies before you do because they are nothing but reflexive.
You don't even reply to points, you just dismiss them and repeat yourself.
As for swing voters, most people would find it amusing and also highly cynical to believe that someone could change their beliefs or vote due to 30 second commercial spots and things of that nature, yet that is obviously what happens and worse still what decides elections, regardless of who wins them. Idiot voters may be a provocative name, but what would you call someone who votes off no core beliefs and little information?
Nick
you would rather replace ideological rigidity and stubborn unthought with the possibility that someone would think criticaly about an issue and decide to change their perspective?
well that explains why you dogeedly will pursue a point long after its viability has been shown to be moot: in other words you just let your entrenched attitudes, which might as well simply be a uniform and part of the 'neo-con' trendy beltway project, do your thinking for you.
Originally posted by trumptman
Your inability to see any good from this war shows that you will twist your arguments in any manner you care to in order to advance a political agenda.
Nick
By the way, this issue has nothing to do about 'seeing any good' in the war.
Many of us have acknowledged that some of the outcome has turned out to be beneficial, not just to Bush's super-rich cabal-leros, but to Iraqis, and maybe even to the mid-east balance as a whole . . .
... but the point is is that we invaded a sovereign country, effectively reversing a very honorable policy of not taking the role of aggressor and did so with false pretexts . . . pretexts who's falsity was used to change people's minds as to their support
Never mind that Coulter would rather have us be black-shirts effectively never question the position of 'the Party' . . . people were swayed because they were lead to feel that we were under immanent theat
lead to think so by people who probably knew otherwise
Originally posted by Anders the White
Hate to do this because it will derail the thread from the topi: Did Bush lie and what is the consequence if he did.
Remember all that is passé. It happened 12 years ago. WHat he had then has very little to do with what he has today. But lets for the sake of the argument take it seriously and put it into the context of this thread:
The claim must be this: The fact that Bush used claimed iraq posession of WoMDs as an argument to the congress, the americam people, GB, Polan, Turkey and SC to go to war against better knowledge is somehow not so serious because he Saddam used WoMD in the 80s? Please explain this.
This argument has nothing to do with the "proof" used. Bush didn´t say "he used these weapons in the 80s therefore he still have them". No he said " We know these trailers are used for weapons, they have imported Uran from Uganda, that these building are used for weapons production"
In Short: It has nothing to do with the current issue.
I am not democrat and even if I were this is an example of "Whaaa but he did it too" argumentation. Even if Clinton lied it doesn´t make Bush lie less. And again it was not the arguents used by Bush. He used current intelligens (or at least it was claimed that he did)
What does it matters? Bush didn´t used that as an argument. He didn´t say "Look there must be a reason why so tight restrictions were put on the UN inspectors so they had to withdraw a few years ago. Based on that we presume he has got WoMDs".
So Coulter puts up a lot of smoke to hide the fact: That Bush claimed he had current intelligence to proof Saddams WoMD program. What Coulter does is to render it possible that Saddam had WoMDs based on historical events. An completly other argument than that of Bush.
Lets return to the main argument in this thread.
It wasn't just the 80's.
Iraq timeline
They were being found, (not voluntarily given up) after the 1991 war as well.
BTW, a little off topic but here is what the article quotes the coordinators of the sanctions had to say about them. For those of you who can find nothing good about the war, chew on this.
In 1998, the co-ordinator of the programme, Denis Halliday, resigned, saying sanctions were bankrupt as a concept and damaged innocent people.
And his successor, Hans von Sponeck, quit his post in 2000, saying sanctions had created ?a true human tragedy?.
Meanwhile UNICEF says...
Unicef estimated in 1999 that child mortality in Iraq had doubled since before the Gulf War.
How humanitarian and "compassionate" are folks like you that will let child after child die while allowing a tyrant to starve, rape, brutalize and murder his own people so that U.N. "inspectors" can go around giving 48 hour notices and then showing up to find, gee all the stuff we thought was here has been moved. That was up until 1998 when they were kicked out. With carriers off the coast he finally allowed something resembling real inspections to begin but gee of course he had only had month after month to hide them.
All he had to do was show they had been destroyed and the point is people like yourself would have turned a blind eye to his atrocities and allowed him to continue living and ruling as he had. You know this to be a fact. Saddam could have simply remained in power if he had shown and given proof the weapons had been destroyed and the international community would have left it at that. So why would ANYONE choose to work against that?
Regardless of all the dismissing of history, facts, etc by folks such as yourself. The issue no one will touch is why Saddam acted as he did. Why would you force a showdown that knocks you out of power over something you don't have when the alternative leaves you no worse off, or possibly better off.?
Please address this point if you want some credibility.
Nick
Originally posted by pfflam
you would rather replace ideological rigidity and stubborn unthought with the possibility that someone would think criticaly about an issue and decide to change their perspective?
well that explains why you dogeedly will pursue a point long after its viability has been shown to be moot: in other words you just let your entrenched attitudes, which might as well simply be a uniform and part of the 'neo-con' trendy beltway project, do your thinking for you.
By the way, this issue has nothing to do about 'seeing any good' in the war.
Many of us have acknowledged that some of the outcome has turned out to be beneficial, not just to Bush's super-rich cabal-leros, but to Iraqis, and maybe even to the mid-east balance as a whole . . .
... but the point is is that we invaded a sovereign country, effectively reversing a very honorable policy of not taking the role of aggressor and did so with false pretexts . . . pretexts who's falsity was used to change people's minds as to their support
Never mind that Coulter would rather have us be black-shirts effectively never question the position of 'the Party' . . . people were swayed because they were lead to feel that we were under immanent theat
lead to think so by people who probably knew otherwise
I have thought critically about this matter. From my posts on these boards you should know that I likely lean quasi-libertarian on plenty of matters rather than dogmatically Republican. I don't even support free trade. So I don't know where this neo-con bit comes from. 9/11 changed our understanding of the Middle East. We began to stop seeing things like nation-states and realized the fluidity of people there. We began pondering tribal thinking and realized some pretty terrible things could happen pretty quickly.
Please critically think and address this question.
Regardless of all the dismissing of history, facts, etc by folks such as yourself. The issue no one will touch is why Saddam acted as he did. Why would you force a showdown that knocks you out of power over something you don't have when the alternative leaves you no worse off, or possibly better off.?
Give some proper motivations for his actions, and I will begin questioning Bush and lying. If you can't show why a profoundly selfish man would take a course that would allow him to remain so instead of losing everything, then nothing about the "conspiracies" that pass for theories around here make any sense.
Nick
The bottom line is that as ena's Coulter quote said, there is NO QUESTION Saddam had WMD. Anyone who argues otherwise is either intellectually dishonest or just plain stupid. Anyone who argues that Saddam simply gave up his program after the inspectors left in 1998 cannot be taken seriously. The only question that remains is when we'll find the weapons and how many of them we'll find.
Democrats and Republicans looked at this intelligence and then passed a resolution allowing the President to use force. Multiple high ranking Congressional representatives saw the evidence. It isn't a question of "Bush lying to Congress". If the intelligence was flawed, Bush cannot be held responsible. The administration doesn't collect and present the intelligence, the CIA, NSA and Military Intelligence do.
As far as Bush "lying publicly", the evidence on that is extremely thin. I agree he may have focused on WMD too much. That was probably a mistake, though nothing more than a poiltical one. I also know about this IAEA report fiasco which giant cites ad nauseam . That remains an unanswered question for me. I don't think it is proof of Bush lying. I do remember talk of reports by an agency regarding Saddam being within a year (at some point) of developing a nuke. I don't know when this was or to be honest, who issued it. The point is that we know Saddam wished to aquire nukes. Is there even a question of that? Or, have some here become so apologetic for Saddam that they don't believe it's true? I don't know why Bush said what he said (I saw the quote on video). There could be any number of reasons as I mentioned. I'm just saying that for someone to come out and jump on this as "evidence" of Bush lying or "fabricating reports" is really, really weak. I would say that Bush should have come out and corrected himself shortly thereafter. If you saw the quote, you know it was not a strong emphatic statement by the President. In fact, it was almost an "I think there was..." statement. It was pretty casual in nature and probably not a good idea. To twist this statement into "fabricating reports" is a bit ridiculous.
Originally posted by ena
Good posts, guys. I think we can get this bad boy ironed out before giant gets back and starts bombing this thread those splendid 58,000 word posts.