With respect Rageous, whilst you may believe that others believed...
'Virtually everyone BELIEVED the weapons were there, but not everyone was willing to wage war on belief. Some wanted hard evidence that could be brought forth and be irrefutable, unquestionable, incontrovertible'
That was not my perception at all at the time. Before the invasion started there was a lot of dissent here in the UK; people were forcibly making the point that if such weapons existed the weapons inspectors would have found them, would know where to find them, or should have longer to verify that they in fact existed. From the limited amount of European media I saw I think that there were similar doubts there too.
In any case, unless I misread Pfflam's original post:
'quote:
. . . [Admin spokesmen] saying the forecast was the work of number-crunchers and that President Bush was not a statistician.
which means that the president puppetted wrong information fed to him by 'them damned "number crunchers"'...
He is appealing to that one base quality that has existed in strength in America: anti-intellectualism. '
his point was more about Bush's attempt to deflect responsibility and seek popular support by deflecting the blame for errors onto public officials/researchers who were labelled as 'number crunchers' in order to denigrate them.
Blair's government has recently been doing much the same here and it won't do.
The President/Prime Minister & Governments appoints or employs advisers to give them their findings or opinions, not to direct policy or make the final decisions.
A 'number-cruncher' in one field may be very good at what they do but have a far more restricted view of the position as a whole.
Surely it is the administration's responsibility to appoint the best people, take information from the widest possible range of sources and then to EVALUATE their findings, before making a judgement. The 'crunchers' play a very small part - if they were not up to it why appoint them, why quote them, why make policies based upon their ideas? If your people, the ones you believed, cited and used to make important decisions are found to be wrong, it is you (by relying on them) who have made a mistake. Its not good enough to point and sneer then hoping that others will join in and not notice your own complicity.
BTW and OT...
I think that your position:
'while I do not like the preemptive action the US took I still steadfastly believe Hussein needed to be brought to justice for what he'd done in the past, not his perceived future threat...I also stand behind the ultimate goal'
Is an honourable one, (when held honestly), but wonder whether you believe that it was a genuine concern for justice (for the Kurds, the Murdered the dissappeared of Iraq, the victim's of SH's war with Iran and for the people of Kuwait) that motivated either of our governments?
If you do, can we expect to see preparations for interventions elsewhere (The Congo, Uzbekistan, Zimbabwe et al..) soon?
Z: No, unfortunately I don't think that justice for the Kurds or others factored into our government's decision, simply because if that were the case we'd have taken care of this long ago.
Z: No, unfortunately I don't think that justice for the Kurds or others factored into our government's decision, simply because if that were the case we'd have taken care of this long ago.
Completely OT, even if the motivations were for justice, and unfortunately I don't believe they were (or if they were they were for some long range vision of a 'democratic Middle-East brought about through our "establishing a presence in the Middle East" as stipulated in the Pax Americana Doctrine ) Justice for the Kurds would be a very difficult hot potato item: the Turks absolutely do not want them to have autonomy as they fear what the Kurds would do for their Turkish brethren . . .
anyway . .. if it had been about justice for the Kurds then we would have donesoemthing about the hellecopters that were killing fleeing refugees in the 90s much sooner than we did, or even the gassings . . . we would have never let it get to that point
It's more than that. It's the negative stuff that keeps surfacing abouit Bush that's contributing to the slide.
A couple of years ago I said once this stuff starts coming out it will be like a thread that keeps unraveling.
Of course it's more than just what i listed, but the point is that it's not like it's unusual for the numbers to be slipping at this stage of the race for an incumbent. It's where the numbers start going once the opposing party's nominee is chosen that is truly critical.
BEACHWOOD, Ohio ? In the 2000 presidential election, Bill Flanagan a semiretired newspaper worker, happily voted for George W. Bush. But now, shaking his head, he vows, "Never again."
"The combination of lies and boys coming home in body bags is just too awful," Mr. Flanagan said, drinking coffee and reading newspapers at the local mall. "I could vote for Kerry. I could vote for any Democrat unless he's a real dummy."
Mr. Flanagan is hardly alone, even though polls show that the overwhelming majority of Republicans who supported Mr. Bush in 2000 will do so again in November. In dozens of random interviews around the country, independents and Republicans who said they voted for Mr. Bush in 2000 say they intend to vote for the Democratic presidential candidate this year. Some polls are beginning to bolster the idea of those kind of stirrings among Republicans and independents.
...
While sharing a sandwich at the stylish Beachwood Mall in this Cleveland suburb, one older couple ? a judge and a teacher ? reluctantly divulged their secret: though they are stalwarts in the local Republican Party, they are planning to vote Democratic this year.
"I feel like a complete traitor, and if you'd asked me four months ago, the answer would have been different," said the judge, after assurances of anonymity. "But we are really disgusted. It's the lies, the war, the economy. We have very good friends who are staunch Republicans, who don't even want to hear the name George Bush anymore."
In 2000, Mr. Bush won here in Ohio with 50 percent of the popular vote, as against 46.5 percent for Al Gore.
These are not independants and moderate republicans looking for a 3rd party... these are people who want Bush out. They won't be voting for Nader.
Comments
'Virtually everyone BELIEVED the weapons were there, but not everyone was willing to wage war on belief. Some wanted hard evidence that could be brought forth and be irrefutable, unquestionable, incontrovertible'
That was not my perception at all at the time. Before the invasion started there was a lot of dissent here in the UK; people were forcibly making the point that if such weapons existed the weapons inspectors would have found them, would know where to find them, or should have longer to verify that they in fact existed. From the limited amount of European media I saw I think that there were similar doubts there too.
In any case, unless I misread Pfflam's original post:
'quote:
. . . [Admin spokesmen] saying the forecast was the work of number-crunchers and that President Bush was not a statistician.
which means that the president puppetted wrong information fed to him by 'them damned "number crunchers"'...
He is appealing to that one base quality that has existed in strength in America: anti-intellectualism. '
his point was more about Bush's attempt to deflect responsibility and seek popular support by deflecting the blame for errors onto public officials/researchers who were labelled as 'number crunchers' in order to denigrate them.
Blair's government has recently been doing much the same here and it won't do.
The President/Prime Minister & Governments appoints or employs advisers to give them their findings or opinions, not to direct policy or make the final decisions.
A 'number-cruncher' in one field may be very good at what they do but have a far more restricted view of the position as a whole.
Surely it is the administration's responsibility to appoint the best people, take information from the widest possible range of sources and then to EVALUATE their findings, before making a judgement. The 'crunchers' play a very small part - if they were not up to it why appoint them, why quote them, why make policies based upon their ideas? If your people, the ones you believed, cited and used to make important decisions are found to be wrong, it is you (by relying on them) who have made a mistake. Its not good enough to point and sneer then hoping that others will join in and not notice your own complicity.
BTW and OT...
I think that your position:
'while I do not like the preemptive action the US took I still steadfastly believe Hussein needed to be brought to justice for what he'd done in the past, not his perceived future threat...I also stand behind the ultimate goal'
Is an honourable one, (when held honestly), but wonder whether you believe that it was a genuine concern for justice (for the Kurds, the Murdered the dissappeared of Iraq, the victim's of SH's war with Iran and for the people of Kuwait) that motivated either of our governments?
If you do, can we expect to see preparations for interventions elsewhere (The Congo, Uzbekistan, Zimbabwe et al..) soon?
Originally posted by rageous
Z: No, unfortunately I don't think that justice for the Kurds or others factored into our government's decision, simply because if that were the case we'd have taken care of this long ago.
Completely OT, even if the motivations were for justice, and unfortunately I don't believe they were (or if they were they were for some long range vision of a 'democratic Middle-East brought about through our "establishing a presence in the Middle East" as stipulated in the Pax Americana Doctrine ) Justice for the Kurds would be a very difficult hot potato item: the Turks absolutely do not want them to have autonomy as they fear what the Kurds would do for their Turkish brethren . . .
anyway . .. if it had been about justice for the Kurds then we would have donesoemthing about the hellecopters that were killing fleeing refugees in the 90s much sooner than we did, or even the gassings . . . we would have never let it get to that point
Originally posted by giant
http://hrw.org/wr2k4/3.htm#_Toc58744952
Human Rights watch, naw they are not biased at all. That article is just more propaganda.
and those approval ratings keep sliding
http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm
fox has him below 50 now... 48 approve / 41 disapprove/ 11 don't know
someone has a credibility problem. Starts with B and ends with USH.
Originally posted by rageous
Of course his numbers are sliding. It's Democratic primary season. Incumbent president's numbers always slide during the oppositions primaries.
It's more than that. It's the negative stuff that keeps surfacing about Bush that's contributing to the slide.
A couple of years ago I said once this stuff starts coming out it will be like a thread that keeps unraveling.
Originally posted by pfflam
yeah, and I'm sure you got past the name of the organization . ..
Leave him alone. Can't you see he's from Texas?
Originally posted by jimmac
It's more than that. It's the negative stuff that keeps surfacing abouit Bush that's contributing to the slide.
A couple of years ago I said once this stuff starts coming out it will be like a thread that keeps unraveling.
Of course it's more than just what i listed, but the point is that it's not like it's unusual for the numbers to be slipping at this stage of the race for an incumbent. It's where the numbers start going once the opposing party's nominee is chosen that is truly critical.
Some republican's are very disenchanted with Bush perhaps as many as 10%... and have no intention of voting for him.
http://nytimes.com/2004/02/22/politi...gn/22VOTE.html
BEACHWOOD, Ohio ? In the 2000 presidential election, Bill Flanagan a semiretired newspaper worker, happily voted for George W. Bush. But now, shaking his head, he vows, "Never again."
"The combination of lies and boys coming home in body bags is just too awful," Mr. Flanagan said, drinking coffee and reading newspapers at the local mall. "I could vote for Kerry. I could vote for any Democrat unless he's a real dummy."
Mr. Flanagan is hardly alone, even though polls show that the overwhelming majority of Republicans who supported Mr. Bush in 2000 will do so again in November. In dozens of random interviews around the country, independents and Republicans who said they voted for Mr. Bush in 2000 say they intend to vote for the Democratic presidential candidate this year. Some polls are beginning to bolster the idea of those kind of stirrings among Republicans and independents.
...
While sharing a sandwich at the stylish Beachwood Mall in this Cleveland suburb, one older couple ? a judge and a teacher ? reluctantly divulged their secret: though they are stalwarts in the local Republican Party, they are planning to vote Democratic this year.
"I feel like a complete traitor, and if you'd asked me four months ago, the answer would have been different," said the judge, after assurances of anonymity. "But we are really disgusted. It's the lies, the war, the economy. We have very good friends who are staunch Republicans, who don't even want to hear the name George Bush anymore."
In 2000, Mr. Bush won here in Ohio with 50 percent of the popular vote, as against 46.5 percent for Al Gore.
These are not independants and moderate republicans looking for a 3rd party... these are people who want Bush out. They won't be voting for Nader.
Originally posted by pfflam
yeah, and I'm sure you got past the name of the organization . ..
no kidding.