Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Toad on June 09, 2005, 11:39:57 PM
-
The Serpent of Old.
TSoO.
Blitz right? Hero of the People?
Whatever. Pretty garden-variety America basher from my pov.
-
And I deleted my posts in that thread... which makes yours look like they're Plan 9 From Outer Space.
Might want to vaporize them. Your call.
-
Nice.
-
I edited my posts in that thread to make me look less the non-sequitur babbling idiot due to your deleting yours (for some reason). So it's all good.
Raindeer games.
-
:)
See my reply in the other thread. I don't mind if you move 'em here but I feel bad about 'jackin that thread. Charon was right.
Fine by me if you wanna leave 'em, move 'em here, whatever; your call.
Feel free to continue to dance all about singing his praises here if you like. Don't really care, glad he's gone, don't miss him a bit.
Oh..... and this thread is really going nowhere fast too. Did want to give you the 33rd level Mason's key to TSoO though. Don't want to get too cryptic.
Must be near bedtime.
-
Originally posted by Toad
:)Feel free to continue to dance all about singing his praises here if you like.
I didn't sing his praises. I merely repeated his claim to fame. "Iraq a threat to USA? It's redikulouse!" And I did that in asking who the hell you were talking about.
Turns out yeah, you were talking about him. Why? I suppose we'll never know.
And I expressed remorse over his command of the english language. Because he got pounded on by folks like you on a daily basis. Like a weak gazelle in one of those Africa movies.
And I said, well, whoops, it turns out that he was right, and that you of the proud 101st Fighting Keyboarders were much less so, no?
And now he's gone. As if driven off by the Legions of the Wrong.
Only to re-emerge, by proxy, through your calling him some kind of serpent of evil.
Like,... bah.
-
Touching.
He got pounded on alright, but not due to his command or lack of same of the language. He got pounded on for posting a lot of unsupported BS. Yeah, he may have turned out right on a couple of things but he was way wrong on a lot more.
101st Fighting Keyboarders? Legion of the Wrong? I'm tearing up.
As if.
-
Originally posted by Toad
He got pounded on for posting a lot of unsupported BS
lol, Jesus Christ. His unsupported BS trumped your unsupported BS by a country mile. By like, ten of them. A lot of them. Many many many unsupported miles of BS.
But hell, those were heady times. Fast. You had to pummel, and pummel well, and there just wasn't enough time in the day to really think about what it was, on balance, you were actualy saying.
And.... hey, it cost ya. In as much as being dead wrong costs one. Which is, lets be honest here for a sec, dick all these days.
Though.. I notice.
-
Jesus, I thought I was drunk but apparently not drunk enough.
-
no, he enjoyed cannabis oil.
-
LOL.
Notice this. He got banned.
No other poster had that power to do that to him, he did it all by himself.
The WMD issue was opinion on both sides in those heady, heady days. Hindsight is a wonderful thing for you.
But as I said, his non-stop BS attacks on the US are what put in the position he was in.
Not unlike some others here that are already on the 3rd or 4th incarnation of their BBS lives.
-
I was joking a bit Toad. I probably shouldnt have erased my diversion on Satan, Joseph Stalin and the Katyn Forest massacre with the follow up on Jesus and the 2nd ammendment :)
Charon
-
Originally posted by Toad
The WMD issue was opinion on both sides in those heady, heady days. Hindsight is a wonderful thing for you.
Opinion? C'mon Toad, it was not- it was a deliberate spin to sell America on an invasion. There was no threat of "imminent attack" by Sadaam Hussien against his neighbors- as most of the world knew at the time and which some of you are just coming to realize.
You can call it "opinion" all you like, but face it- you were flat out wrong.
-
it was a deliberate spin to sell America on an invasion.
====
you really believe that? your being tooled bro.
Really....its all about war. pick your side and get pounded on, simple as that. always has been always will be, until the lights go out one last time.
I prefer to stick with the white hats, you black hats are going down :D
-
Well, Air, I certainly remember this.
Of all the "dead certain" folks that KNEW "it was a deliberate spin to sell America on an invasion", that KNEW there absolutely were no WMD at all..... and there was a fairly large group of these folks........
NONE of those wanted to take up a small wager of AH time on whether or not WMD would be found. NONE. You were in those threads and you didn't take the wager, for example.
Nash, who I don't put in that camp, took up the wager and I think if you look up his posts from that time you'll find he wasn't certain at all.
He had this to say at that time:
I didn't see the thread where the clock had started... but I assume it goes for our wager also Toad (or whenever u want)?
As far as I'm concerned, *everyone* was going on guesses. Due to that, bragging about any which way this turned out (and will turn out) is absurd.
"I was right, you were wrong" is the same as saying "Gee aint I smart - neither of us had any information, but I made a better guess than you". So I think it's silly to see or do any bragging on it.
Hindsight. A handy thing for the "winners" of the WMD argument because they can brag they were right. A handy thing for the losers because it forces reflection.
I admit my belief turned out to be incorrect. It wasn't because I was in some vast right wing conspiracy to sell America on an invasion. It was because all I had read, the people I had talked to directly, people I had worked with in Recon led me to the conclusion SH had WMD.
So, I accept that I was wrong. I've been wrong before. I've also said here that if it can be shown that Bush deliberately lied or doctored intel, that he should be prosecuted. I also feel that since we made the mess, we've got to clean it up. I realize that's going to cost both blood and treasure.
But what's done is done. I can't deny what I said, I admit I turned out to be wrong. Not much more that I can do in that arena. I've turned my efforts to towards other areas as my atonement.
-
Yeah, but my whole problem - as I saw it then and said often - was that war was about to start on the basis of the guesses of the war makers. I was guessing, you were guessing, and even the administration was guessing. And then war happened. Great.
All those guys were all over the TV saying that Saddam was this incredible threat, but they never proved a damn thing.
That's why I took the WMD bet. Because if he really did have them, the whole marketing campaign by the admin wouldn't have been so flaky looking.
Struck me then and strikes me now an incredibly irresponsible thing to do - to take a country to war to invade and overthrow another nation's government at the cost of tens of thousands of lives and billions and billions of dollars - based on guesses. Which turned out to be wrong.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Struck me then and strikes me now an incredibly irresponsible thing to do - to take a country to war - based on guesses. Which turned out to be wrong.
Nash, don't you see that this is your assumption about the intel available?
What I'm trying to say is that can you possibly conceive the idea that had YOU been sitting on the hot seat, reading all the intel you were given.... which NOT A SINGLE ONE OF US COMMENTING HERE ON THIS BBS HAVE EVER SEEN IN FULL TO THIS DATE, which the "newsies" have never seen in full to this date....
that you just might possibly have reached the same conclusion?
You may well be right. But then, you might have made the same decision had you been seeing what they were seeing in terms of intel back then.
In the end, almost all intel is something of a "guess". For example, the world "knows" that NK has nukes now. Right? We KNOW that? So our assessment of the threat and our reactions proceed from that intel point.
Now... how do we KNOW beyond any shadow of a doubt?
Intel. That's made up, at least partially, of educated guessing. And which could be wrong.
Pearl Harbor? A disaster for the US that resulted primarily from incorrect assessment of intel. Intel based in part on guessing.
It's not a perfect system. Hindsight is much, much better.
-
Just for a second pretend that it can never be proven absolutely true or false whether or not Bush deliberately lied or doctored intel.
What would be your "guess"?
-
That he didn't deliberately lie or doctor intel.
I sure don't think he's the perfect President. Not by a long shot.
But I don't think he's that dishonest either.
Same conditions, what would you guess? Why?
-
My guess? I think he chose the intel that most suited his desire "to do something". Iraq, a continuing thorn in our side, was that "something". I do not think this epidode was an out-and-out lie, but I do believe there was some deception.
I was for the invasion, but not for the reasons Bush stated. (direct threat, wmd, and all.) Prior to this war, I felt the US had a duty to act as some sort of a world police. You know, righting the wrongs and freeing the repressed sort of crap. I do not believe this anymore. The peoples that are ready for a safe, productive and functioning society will have one. Until then we can only provide safe havens and refugee camps.
-
this is a religious world war. most of the western world is currently on the sidelines with their heads up their a** but that is going to change soon.
Like I said, pick your side now so we can plan out the gps coords.
-
Originally posted by Furious
My guess? I think he chose the intel that most suited his desire "to do something".
In the early phases of intel, all they do is gather data. When you have some data, analysts begin to try to make sense of it. This is where human evaluation enters into it.
You see a big hole being dug on a satellite photo, the analyst has to propose a few hypotheses to explain the need for the big hole. There are several possibilities.
More data, hopefully some that removes some of the possibilities. But likely some educated guessing goes into it.
More data, more eliminations and finally "intelligence estimates" or conclusions.
That's what the leadership sees, usually not the actual data, not the analysts process.. just the "intelligence estimates".
I don't know how this one went down. Who knows; maybe Bush poured over sat photos and humint and sigint intercepts himself. But I doubt it.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
this is a religious world war. most of the western world is currently on the sidelines with their heads up their a** but that is going to change soon.
Yeah sure, any minute now...any minute now......ah screw it.
Like I said, pick your side now so we can plan out the gps coords.
Going geocaching?
-
Toad, you know I am not suggesting Bush was looking at raw intercepts. Why type that?
You also know that the"estimates", which are sometimes opinions or best guesses can be tailored to fit a given situation, and that sometimes two or more "estimates" may contridict each other.
-
For the folks that have no clue of the basic process?
We all tend to use shorthand here and seems like it comes back to bite me in particular quite often. So, I guess I'm covering more of the general situation as I comment.
Now, did Bush get presented with various intelligence estimates, some of which probably contained contradictions to other reports?
I'd bet he did.
Did he have to pick and choose amongst them and lay out a course to follow?
Yeah, it's what President's do, part of the job. Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush 1......... all of 'em that had any sort of major military operation on their watches had to do that.
Did Bush 2's personal beliefs, perceptions and life history influence his choices?
I'd bet they did. I think they would for anyone in that job.
Bottom line I don't think he deliberately lied or falsified intelligence data. Someday I may be proven wrong about that but it's what I believe.
Further, if there were a shred of potential evidence that WOULD show he did so, I feel certain that folks like Soros, Dean, et al would be moving to prosecute him right now, and not only in the court of public opinion.
Boggles the mind to think that the anti-Bush crowd would hold silence if they had any evidence, doesn't it?
-
I believed, and posted as much at the time, that the weapons of mass destruction issue was spin. However, it wasn't because I believed there were no WMDs and the administration was lying about it, but rather that of the laundry list of possible reasons to invade Iraq, WMD was just most appealing to the public and the most legally sound way to achieve other foreign policy goals. That's how Washington works. Unfortunately for the Bush administration, the little tin pot dictator actually didn't have any WMDs handy when the dust settled.
Political speeches have failed to surprise me for over a decade now. If you are familiar with the issues you'll not likely hear anything different from what you can read in a press release. Having written numerous speeches during a five-year period, I tend to pay attention to the format, the use of language, the use of metaphor and icon and the quality of the speaker’s presentation (the technique). The same way, I imagine, Toad pays attention to the technique when another pilot makes a cross-wind landing in an airliner when he is in the back as a passenger. The exception to that, a real WTF moment, was the whole “Axis of Evil” speech. Here you have a list of countries not related, for the most part, with radical Islamic fundamentalism and a clear and growing focus on Iraq from the administration. What the hell did that have to do with getting the people responsible for the attack on the Twin Towers?
At first, the only logical explanation for action against Iraq, a secular Stalinist dictatorship that would probably be our best friend in the war against Islamic terror if Saddam hadn't bothered to invade Kuwait in 1991 and didn't have a hard on for Israel, was the whole war for oil thing. But that just didn't quite cover it. It became clearer to me following an article in The Chicago Tribune and a review of many, easy to find, primary sources. If you look at the makeup of the current administration's cabinet, you can find support among the neoconservative elements (a strong faction) for an invasion of Iraq dating back years before 9/11. At no point during that time was “WMDs aimed at America” a cornerstone of their arguments, though the threat these weapons might pose to our "allies in the region" was highlighted.
People like Paul Wolfowitz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Wolfowitz), Richard Perle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Perle), Douglas Feith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Feith), Donald Rumsfeld (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Rumsfeld) and Dick Cheney (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney) were on record (some directly in a letter to Bill Clinton in 1998 (http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm)) asking for this action, and have similarly testified before Congressional committees during the same time period. In a vision worthy of Robert McNamara, they see the road to Middle East peace as hinging on some democracy domino effect along the lines of "build it and they will convert." Saudi Arabia was also seen as being unstable, a potential Iran, with the need to establish a secondary source for basing in the region as well as a backup in case something happened to Saudi oil production. Additionally, and as secondary benefits, there were potentially significant economic opportunities for the U.S. oil industry in rebuilding Iraq's oil infrastructure, the potential to increase Israel's safety on Israel's terms (strong, direct neoconservative links present to Likud policy agendas), reducing the threat to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait from a future Iraqi invasion and of course closure for some of the issues that arose from the end of the first Gulf War. Again, you can find most of this of this direct from the horses’ mouth by accessing the Project for the New American Century (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century) (please follow this link to see a broad description) and this one for The formal Web site (http://www.newamericancentury.org/index.html). Worthy to check out, really must read infromation.
Additionally, it has come to light that Paul Wolfowitz was pushing for the Iraq option on 9/12 and seemed have blinders on concerning Osama bin Ladin even as information was developed pointing out who the real culprits were. This is been documented in a variety of " insider " books that of came out since and have not been generally disputed, though the significance has been downplayed by those involved. With a P.R. perspective you could see it unfold rather clearly. It has also been clearly documented that there was a fight for the heart and mind of the President between his neoconservative cabinet members and the old school conservative, Colin Powell. The neoconservatives won.
If you remember, there was a strong push in the first couple of weeks after the attack to link Iraq to 9/11. That just didn't pan out (formally, though message development continued to successfully establish a “link” in much of the public’s mind). While action got under way against Afghanistan, certainly a legitimate target, the focus then shifted to Iraq and weapons of mass destruction. This was undoubtedly driven by the fact that there were legal opportunities to pursue this route, as well as consumer marketing 101 which states emotion sells -- not facts. What are the chances of America going to war to overthrow Saddam based on bland think-tank foreign policy theory? Who would pay attention to that? It’s a lot easier decision to make if you are worried about getting vaporized in your bed by Saddam’s atomic bomb. Further, conventional PR wisdom dictates that few people will bother to take a critical look at the logic behind the threat.
1. Saddam Hussein was a Stalinist dictator who focused much of his genocidal efforts on eradicating his personal threats from radical Isalm. If you give Osama bin Ladin WMDs you can flip a coin to see if he's going to use them on you or against the United States.
2. Saddam Hussein clearly had regional ambitions. After going to enormous trouble to develop these weapons it is a illogical to assume that you are going to give them to somebody else.
3. There are far more credible chemical and nuclear threats posed by other countries that would logically have been higher on the list as a first target and that subsequently have not prompted similar action.
With WMD not viable today, the PR machine has moved on to the next message, “The liberation of the suffering people of Iraq.” Not the formal reason we invaded (a small point of course), but again, filling that important human need to be “right” and justify the initial support for the action. Seems to be working so far. Of course, that’s all water under the bridge now. We broke it, we’re there and we have to fix it. If we are really lucky, Iraq will stabilize and the necon regional vision may actually pay off. Then again, it may backfire totally with an Iraqi quagmire as the least of our worries. We’ll just have to wait a decade or so and see.
Charon
-
bee eye enn gee oh.
-
...Additionally, and as secondary benefits, there were potentially significant economic opportunities for the U.S. oil industry in rebuilding Iraq's oil infrastructure...
Sortof like wealth redistribution in reverse - the taxpayers pay for the damage and destruction to the Iraqi oil infrastructure in the first place, and then pay for the repairs, with the primary benefactors being the wealthy owners in the oil industry.
-
That's one possible explanation.
Personally, I think the PNAC conspiracy theory belongs on the same shelf as the Coucil on Foreign Relations plan for one-world government or the Trilateral Commissions plan to take over the world for itself.
Both sides, Republican/Conservative and Democratic/Liberal have their very own little boogeymen to trot out to whip the troops into a frenzy of fear, loathing and monetary contribution.
And not surprisingly, the boogeymen are always either defeated or, even better yet, only temporarily neutralized by the good work of our respective leaders, allowing us to go on living and fighting for a better day. But we have to be always on guard, don't we?
............and Bingo was his name.
-
Given that there is no mistaking PNAC's objectives wrt to Iraq - they're still available for everyone to see - and given that 17 of its members went on to be appointed to key positions in the Bush administration, such as:
Dick Cheney - Vice President & PNAC founder
Donald Rumsfeld - Secretary of Defense & PNAC founder
Elliott Abrams - National Security Council Representative for Middle Eastern Affairs
Richard Armitage - Deputy Secretary of State
John R. Bolton - Department of State and current nominee for U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations
Paula Dobriansky - Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs
Lewis Libby - Chief of Staff for the Vice President
Peter W. Rodman - Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security
Paul Wolfowitz - Deputy Secretary of Defense, 2001-2005
Dov S. Zakheim - Department of Defense Comptroller
Robert B. Zoellick - Deputy Secretary of State
...among others.
And given that their objectives have been carried out since arriving in the Bush administration, I need to ask: What is your definition of "conspiracy theory?"
Because you've got a bunch of men who had stated openly their objectives with regard to Iraq, then they got into positions to achieve those objectives, and then the objectives were achieved. What's the big mystery? Why all the talk of "bogeymen" and "conspiracy theory?"
Is it because, since arriving in the administration, their Iraq ambitions suddenly dissapeared? And instead they only reluctantly went to war based on sobering and credible WMD accounts, not to mention the human rights abuses? My friend, I don't think so.
-
Guess I just don't believe they'd take us to war for a PNAC theory.
-
Guess I just don't believe they'd take us to war for a PNAC theory.
Who is the "they" you're talking about?
"They wouldn't take us to war based on a PNAC theory".
Turns out, the "they" that took everyone to war WROTE the damn PNAC theory. And after writing it, and going to war based on it, you can't believe they'd do it for their own theory?
"They" are the PNAC theory.
My god.
-
And a word about your use of "theory."
Maybe it's an accident, but your introduction of the word conjures "conspiracy theory" or "Lone-gunman theory" etc.
Ask any former or current member of PNAC if what they came up with in any way shape or form represented a "theory." They were not theories. It was broad strategic thinking that combined the analysis of current day states with America's future interests to form concrete policy recommendations.
I guess the only difference between "theory" and "policy" is the job title.
-
You guys are going in circles. We did what we did. You can never unring a bell. Intel? Are you kidding? I didn't need any intel when the president said we were going to fight back. The middle east was doing nothing about the extremists but hiding and supporting them. It could have been saudi arabia for all I cared. I would rather fight them over there than over here. Maybe when the middle east starts to realize that extremists bring American bombs, they will start to do something about them.
Sad, isn't it? Attacking each other, wasting lives and money, when we could be trading goods with each other helping our people and economies.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
We did what we did. You can never unring a bell.
But you can attempt to understand it, in order that it doesn't happen again any time soon.
The rest of your post can fairly be summed up by "yeah, shreck it, we're there," along with factual errors, broad generalizations and a complete disregard of sanity, such as: "It could have been saudi arabia for all I cared. I would rather fight them over there than over here."
Well that's nice, 'cuz you aint fighting them over there. You aint fightin' them anywhere. You're typing on a keyboard.
Allow me though to translate your words:
"I'd rather send kids to die, over in any damned place - it don't matter where and I don't give a crap - and for whatever reason, so I don't have to do a damned thing here."
-
Calm down, honey, you'll get wrinkles in your face.
Behind every plan, every strategy there's a theory.
"They" is all those guys you listed that I'm not going to bother checking to see when they joined the Bush admin, before or after. I guess I could have listed each by name but that seemed a bit tedious and I thought you'd figure out "they".
And all these "they" had to work within the confines of our government. Remember the votes in Congress?
Was Clinton PNAC? Because he supported Bush on Iraq. Or is he part of the coverup?
"I have repeatedly defended President Bush against the left on Iraq, even though I think he should have waited until the U.N. inspections were over," Clinton said in a Time magazine interview that will hit newsstands Monday, a day before the publication of his book "My Life."
Clinton, who was interviewed Thursday, said he did not believe that Bush went to war in Iraq over oil or for imperialist reasons but out of a genuine belief that large quantities of weapons of mass destruction remained unaccounted for.
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
Was Gore PNAC?
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
Or did PNAC fool them too?
Surely they couldn't fool Kerry?
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
It wasn't only Bush. It wasn't only PNAC. It wasn't only the Dems. It was about everybody in our government.
Even Blix couldn't confirm the WMD issue.
January 18, 2003
"There has been prompt access. There has been access everywhere. That is fine. But on substance there has not been sufficient cooperation. We need to have sincere and genuine cooperation," he said. "
Both Blix and ElBaradei said they would demand more proactive cooperation from Iraq.
"Iraq has to come forward and take a proactive approach to prove they are clean," ElBaradei said Friday.
"If they do that, there is a light at the end of the tunnel for them and they can become a full member of the international community."
PNAC subverted those guys too, right?
I'm sorry; I can see the possibility. I just don't subscribe to it.
-
Ah, GScholz3.
Blitz' successor has arrived! The wagon train is saved! The settlers can continue to California. PNAC is routed.
So much for meaningful debate.
Niters.
-
Originally posted by Nash
But you can attempt to understand it, in order that it doesn't happen again any time soon.
The rest of your post can fairly be summed up by "yeah, shreck it, we're there," along with factual errors, broad generalizations and a complete disregard of sanity, such as: "It could have been saudi arabia for all I cared. I would rather fight them over there than over here."
Well that's nice, 'cuz you aint fighting them over there. You aint fightin' them anywhere. You're typing on a keyboard.
Allow me though to translate your words:
"I'd rather send kids to die, over in any damned place - it don't matter where and I don't give a crap - and for whatever reason, so I don't have to do a damned thing here."
Well, with that logic, we should not have invaded normandy. You are good with twisting someone's words to fit your agenda, perhaps you should run for president, eh? Not anywhere Nash. Not Italy, not Russia, not England, not Canada(well, maybe Canada....just kidding!). The middle east Nash, where the extremists are rooted. Send kids to die? If that is the way you term war, so be it. I am too old for even the reserves, so yes, I type on a keyboard, much like you.
Kind of reminds me of Derrick Sanderson when he was down and out. He was fighting with a bum under a bridge over a bottle of wine. He says to the bum, "you know who I am?" The bums says, "yeah, you're a bum, just like me."
-
I coulda guessed the wall of text reply.
As if I'd be buried under a mountain of selectively picked and used quotes.
It certainly looks real, and, say for example Clinton did say those things. But as we should know, there's a whole world of motives for a politician to say basically anything.
I could argue, for example, that Clinton is saying that he supported Bush's move due to the fact that he is ultimately a patriot, and despite his concern over the BS which led to the war and his disagreement with it, he understands that if it isn't successful, his country is harmed. That he understands his role as a former President.
And I could argue that despite all the things he said while governing that would point to war, and all the recommendations made to him to go to war, he never actually did it - despite what he said.
Then, you could focus on the congress, and the myriad of reasons for voting the way they did.
Who the hell knows?
Spare me the wall 'o text assault. It leads to ripping around the internet and selectively cutting and pasting the things that support my views and ignoring the things that do not. Doesn't ultimately serve anything.
You will never get as concrete of a picture as a group of men saying what they wanted, then going ahead and doing it.
The lies they told to achieve it do not have to be supported by a bunch of cut/paste quotes from other people on the periphery.
Again. They said what they wanted. They did it. Pretty fricken simple.
Two key questions.
Did they ignore their own stated wishes upon gaining power, and instead act based on some new enlightenment which just oh so conveniently paralleled their wishes?
Was their selling of the war to the public in line with those already and entirely differently stated wishes?
No and no.
I suck at math and even I understand this.
-
Look Nash, and Toad will tell ya, I was not in support of invading Iraq. I told him if we were to invade anyone it should be the people who attacked us. They were all from saudi arabia, supported by "charity" from the saudi government and people. That's why I consider it an act of war and not terrorism. But let's not get into that.
Sending kids to die is pretty lame to say Nash. We send them to defend us, and hold them in very high regard for being brave enough to do so. Yes, some die, and believe it or not, that matters to me alot. Which is why I am not saying "shreck it, we're there". I am saying if we leave now, and it all goes for nothing, then all those who served and died would have done so for nothing.
Make sure it doesn't happen again? That's easy, don't fly jumbo jets through our skyscrapers.
BTW, we here in the northeast are pretty close with Canada, we have alot in common and are very friendly. Nova Scotia sends us a Christmas tree every year that we put in downtown Boston. Boston sent medical supplies and personel on a ship to help when a munitions ship blew (http://www.truck.net/showdetail/rec_id/1446). If the situation were reversed, and Canada had been attacked, I would not question anything they did to defend themselves, I would back them 100%
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
If the situation were reversed, and Canada had been attacked, I would not question anything they did to defend themselves, I would back them 100%
Well, I would question. I would not back them 100% as a matter of it's just what you do..
-
Originally posted by Nash
Well, I would question. I would not back them 100% as a matter of it's just what you do..
That's just it Nash, it's not it's just what you do, it's what you have to do. We didn't land at Normandy cause it was just what we do
We can go on in circles Nash, so I am not going say anymore. I might start another thread on hockey tho
-
It took me a while to work this up, with some distraction, and even though Nash covered it I'll post it anyway.
Personally, I think the PNAC conspiracy theory belongs on the same shelf as the Coucil on Foreign Relations plan for one-world government or the Trilateral Commissions plan to take over the world for itself.
What conspiracy theory? The individuals cited are/have been both founders/members/supporters of PNAC as well as senior members of the current administration's government. There is not just a paper trail, but a published, public record paper trail. A lot of them even brag about their achievements in the current administration.
* PNAC policy goals have been clearly and publicly laid out, and signed off on since the mid 1990s, in many cases by the same cabinet members.
* Traditional PNAC policy goals clearly outline the course of action we have taken in IRAQ. Or is it just a great coincidence? If so, boy were they lucky.
* Is it not uncommon to have the public reasons for a policy being promoted (and often even the public challenging reasons) be far different from the real motivations impacting that policy issue? I know this to be a fact from first hand experience. It's not that WMD wasn't an "honest" reason to invade Iraq, just not necessiarily in the top five or so on the laundry list (except where public support is concerend, which makes it the No. 1 issue to push).
* Cabinet members have influence over presidents and policy, or is the whole Robert McNamara/Vietnam thing just some 60s Republican conspiracy theory?
What is you rationale for dismissing the fact that the President’s senior advisors have pushed for the current course of action for years, for the reasons cited, and after a fairly well documented internal power struggle managed to sway the President to follow their recommended course of action? Is it hard to believe that Bush could have found their arguments persuasive? He wouldn't even have had to lie about the WMD angle (believing they would be found regardless), just downplay the broader and more direct reasons to concentrate on the primary public selling point. I say downplay because he has addressed the “broader goals” officially, and from early on. President Bush, Remarks at the 20th Anniversary of the National Endowment for Democracy:
Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe -- because in the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty. As long as the Middle East remains a place where freedom does not flourish, it will remain a place of stagnation, resentment, and violence ready for export. And with the spread of weapons that can bring catastrophic harm to our country and to our friends, it would be reckless to accept the status quo. (Applause.)
Therefore, the United States has adopted a new policy, a forward strategy of freedom in the Middle East. This strategy requires the same persistence and energy and idealism we have shown before. And it will yield the same results. As in Europe, as in Asia, as in every region of the world, the advance of freedom leads to peace. (Applause.)
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/11/20031106-2.html
Sounds pretty much PNAC to me.
Both sides, Republican/Conservative and Democratic/Liberal have their very own little boogeymen to trot out to whip the troops into a frenzy of fear, loathing and monetary contribution.
Absolutely. And similarly, the “hasty generalization” or would it be “poisoned well” approach can be used to discredit valid groups and positions. In this case, the “boogeymen” are members of an established, Washington think-tank and also hold/held positions of direct cabinet influence in the current administration at the time the decision to invade Iraq was being made. Although shown on the dreaded PBS, this Frontline piece was produced with the full participation of PNAC members like William Kristol, who was in fact somewhat smug about their success in the administration’s policy direction as indicated by the following:
Wolfowitz [in 1992] was ahead of his time, beginning to try to think through the post-Cold War era. Wolfowitz saw very early that the fundamental choice was American leadership or increasing chaos and danger. And [the first President] Bush didn't really want to think about that in 1992. There was a certain view of the world that we had won the Cold War, and that was great, but now it was time to come back to normalcy and to retrench quite a bit. We would still be a great power. We would still, you know, fulfill our NATO obligations and that sort of thing. [But] we couldn't be a world policemen.
Wolfowitz's view is very different. I think Wolfowitz is now vindicated by history, but it took a long time to get vindicated. And, obviously, the Bush realists, what might be called the minimalist realism of the first Bush administration, was followed by a kind of wishful liberalism of the Clinton administration. And it really wasn't until 9/11 that Wolfowitz's paper, which by that time was nine years old, I think, came to be seen as perhaps prophetic.
Also from the Frontline coverage, but a direct quote of the VP:
Cheney also outlines a larger, long-term strategy whereby regime change in Iraq could transform the Middle East:
"Regime change in Iraq would bring about a number of benefits to the region. When the gravest of threats are eliminated, the freedom-loving peoples of the region will have a chance to promote the values that can bring lasting peace. As for the reaction of the Arab 'street,' the Middle East expert Professor Fouad Ajami predicts that after liberation, the streets in Basra and Baghdad are 'sure to erupt in joy in the same way the throngs in Kabul greeted the Americans.' Extremists in the region would have to rethink their strategy of Jihad. Moderates throughout the region would take heart. And our ability to advance the Israeli-Palestinian peace process would be enhanced, just as it was following the liberation of Kuwait in 1991." http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/iraq/etc/cron.html
Again, sounds an awful lot like mainstream neconservative philosophy than a conspiracy. And from this article describing Woodward’s book, which the Bush administration cooperated with fully:
Woodward describes a relationship between Cheney and Secretary of State Colin L. Powell that became so strained Cheney and Powell are barely on speaking terms. Cheney engaged in a bitter and eventually winning struggle over Iraq with Powell, an opponent of war who believed Cheney was obsessively trying to establish a connection between Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network and treated ambiguous intelligence as fact.
And…
In two interviews with Woodward in December, Bush minimized the failure to find the weapons of mass destruction, expressed no doubts about his decision to invade Iraq, and enunciated an activist role for the United States based on it being "the beacon for freedom in the world."
"I believe we have a duty to free people," Bush told Woodward. "I would hope we wouldn't have to do it militarily, but we have a duty."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17347-2004Apr16.html
That’s nice and all (direct quotes, BTW), but I though it was all about WMD detonating in Washington, NY or Chicago. That’s why Americans agreed to send their sons and daughters off to die in a foreign land.
I came to my opinion, at least 80 percent of it, through primary sources, or primary sources directly quoted in secondary sources. Unlike true conspiracies, there are plenty of primary sources and people willing to talk about it. And it makes more sense, frankly, than WMD being exported to terrorists for use against America, for reasons outlined earlier.
Charon
-
As for the Democrats, etc., so what? The lack of WMD was a surprise for all - I have no problem with that. Still, not worth an invasion under Clinton (even with the assumption of their presence) because, perhaps, they realistically posed only a regional threat and not a national threat.
How does this sound for the Democrats in congress:
Post 9/11, popular support favors doing SOMETHING. The PR message (at work since 9/12 practically) is becoming successful at focusing public opinion for action against Iraq. Hell, 70 percent of the people by now actually believe Saddam had some direct role in 9/11 (Karl Rove - he is ****ing good at what he does). You operate in a disorganized party with weak leadership. The movement gets ahead of your ability to influence or shape the actions. What then:
1. Oppose the war, be in favor of babies gassed in their cribs or vaporized by Fat Man II by the monster responsible somehow (in some inaccurate way) for 9/11. The war is a brilliant success, WMD are found (as expected anyway) you lose for opposing the Administration.
2. (a)Support the war, Toby Keith rides a donkey into his next show to signify the unity of the nation. The war is a brilliant success, WMD are found (as expected anyway) you win for supporting the Administration. (b)Or, the war is less than successful. You blame the administration for blowing it (it was a great idea, but...). You win because even though you supported the action, you did not direct it to failure.
Either way, by the time any serious debate developed the ability of the Democrats to shape things was long past. Reactionary, just like the last campaign. And, you could see the part 2b start to come into play in the last campaign, just too little and too late.
Toad, you give these politicians much more credit than they deserve. When President Bush gets 100 percent partisan support for one of his policies (which happens with some frequency) do you honestly believe that 100 percent of those individuals support that policy? What about that dog of a prescription drug plan - panned by both sides, but it passed anyway. Thanks for the checks, Pfizer! Should we go to war or not... what does the latest poll say?
Charon
-
The argument can be distilled down into two things:
a) You believe that the war was predicated on faulty intelligence, and carried out by men who had no motive aside from (and no choice but in) acting on that faulty intelligence.
b) You believe that these men said what they wanted to do, got into positions of power to do it, and then just did it.
To believe (a) is to take a wild leap into a fantasy world of hobgoblins, mermaids, and sweet sweet elven women.
Because to believe that, you have to believe that the intelligence community, the best in the world, got it oh so very wrong. Not that much of a leap, granted. But it then forces you to accept that the supporting intelligence made the conflicting intelligence pale by comparison.
That could not have happened.
We know that WMD did not exist. So how could there have been a truly compelling case for WMD? I mean, how could there not have been just as many if not more compelling cases for it not existing? Why weren't there even just as many if not more cases of: "Ya know what? We just don't know one way or the other" at the very least?
Righto. There must have been just as many or more cases for it not being there - because it wasn't there! Yet, according to them, it was all an absolute certainty. A Toby Keith shreck yeah damned straight certainty.
Then... you have to believe that the administration took this lopsided train-wreck of a case for war to the public with noble intentions (by way of threatening their very lives if they didn't get behind it), on account of this ambiguous and ultimately non-existent threat. This shreck yeah threat.
What you are doing, at this point, is calling all of them idiots. Or fear mongers. I have my opinions, but I'll let you decide.
Then, you have to also believe that despite the publicly expressed ambitions of this administration towards Iraq all along, they magically left all of those ambitions at the White House door as if it were all just a wispy daydream, and only reluctantly and "as a last resort" used force as a result of the careful examination of sketchy shreck yeah intelligence.
It taxes the imagination.
The alternative?
(b) You have to believe that what these men said they wanted to do all along, they did.
-
frontline covered all that months if not years ago in great detail, it is one of the few media outlets still worthy of viewing.
the backroom neocons would eat their own to further their political dogma. they trashed mccain, powell, well his is damaged goods after commiserating in halabja. they're sly.
voting should be manatory.
-
I don't get it. If I openly tell people I want to take over the world (or whatever) and here's how I'm going to do it, then proceed to follow that course...how the heck is it a conspiracy? :confused:
-
The legal definition of conspiracy:
Law. An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action.
Due to the illegal nature, they are generally secretive, but they wouldn't have to be. Notice in the definition "commit a crime" and "accomplish a legal purpose" complement each other - together they describe just about any possible action.
So basically a conspiracy is an agreement to commit an illegal action.
Was the Iraqi invasion illegal?
-
Went off to watch "Into the West". I can only give the first episode a "C".
Now, I read all the diatribes.
Assume you folks are infallible and have it all 100% correct.
What did PNAC do that was illegal?
"a bunch of men who had stated openly their objectives with regard to Iraq,"
Illegal?
"then they got into positions to achieve those objectives,"
Illegal?
"and then the objectives were achieved"
Illegal?
Yeah, I know in your version they all decided to conquer Iraq with US troops back in 1973 or something. Understand.
What did they do that is legally actionable?
In short, does or does not our Constitution allow this? For example if MADD decided to reinstate prohibition and a bunch of women/men who had stated openly their objectives with regard to Prohibition, then got into positions to achieve those objectives, and then the objectives were achieved in a new Constitutional amendment, would that be illegal?
You have no problem with the process, correct? Do I understand that correctly?
-
You only gave "Into The West" a C? For a first installment of a mini series I thought it was pretty good.
(Sorry but politics are boring- I'd rather talk about Labs) :)
-
Yeah. Nothing really new or unique there and so far the characterizations are bland, IMO. I'll give it another look next week, of course.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Went off to watch "Into the West". I can only give the first episode a "C".
Now, I read all the diatribes.
Assume you folks are infallible and have it all 100% correct.
What did PNAC do that was illegal?
"a bunch of men who had stated openly their objectives with regard to Iraq,"
Illegal?
"then they got into positions to achieve those objectives,"
Illegal?
"and then the objectives were achieved"
Illegal?
Yeah, I know in your version they all decided to conquer Iraq with US troops back in 1973 or something. Understand.
What did they do that is legally actionable?
In short, does or does not our Constitution allow this? For example if MADD decided to reinstate prohibition and a bunch of women/men who had stated openly their objectives with regard to Prohibition, then got into positions to achieve those objectives, and then the objectives were achieved in a new Constitutional amendment, would that be illegal?
You have no problem with the process, correct? Do I understand that correctly?
You quote me a bunch times, and answer various things with the word "illegal?" as if I said illegal at any time.
I love the fact that you qualified it at one point by saying "legally actionable."
Then you try to blow it off by saying 1973, and then try to turn this into a constitutional argument.
Nowhere, in any of my posts, did I even come close to touching on any of those things.
-
Actually, I'm just trying to understand exactly where you are coming from.
Do you view forming the PNAC, moving into governmental positions and pushing PNAC polices as illegal for those who did so?
Simple question.
-
Only in as much as the policies were illegal.
So, basically, the answer is no.
It is not illegal for a group to have goals, get into power, then attempt to achieve those goals.
I don't get into the illegality of the war because I have no idea - that issue is far too murky for me.
-
I see what's happening now, though.
The definition of "conspiracy" was posted, and it was tied to illegality. Then you tacked it onto my posts as if I was talking about a conspiracy theory, and therefore asserting a claim of illegality.
Problem is, you're the one that brought up "conspiracy theory." I don't think it's that at all.
-
OK, progress.
We agree that forming PNAC, getting "their people" into government correctly (election, approval by Senate, appointement, etc.) and pursuing their policy goals is legal.
In fact, not only is it legal, it is they way this government is Constitutionally designed to work instead of overthrowing governments like they do in the banana republics.
So PNAC is not, in and of itself, an evil, sinister thing. In fact, it's how groups are supposed to accomplish their goals and desired changes. Much as "Democrats" or "Republicans" band together, determine "party platforms", run for office/appointments, and attempt to achieve their policy goals through legislation, etc., etc. .
Now, you say "the policies were illegal".
I admit to not following you here.
From the PNAC "Statement of Principles:
Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:
• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;
• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;
• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;
• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.
Which policy (-cies) were illegal?
-
I don't understand your baseline opposition to PNAC. I'm trying to do that.
If you can succinctly state it in a paragraph or so, please do so.
-
I don't say their policies were or are illegal at all!
I don't say it, because I don't know if they are or not.
That's a world court Geneva type thing... and I just don't go there.
The first part of your post I'm an absolute agreement with, however.
-
I don't have any disagreement with PNAC.
I might have disagreements about their goals, and/or the reasons and solutions for achieving them, but there is nothing essentially wrong with PNAC as an entity.
-
Truly confused here Nash.
You agree PNAC is certainly within the law and in fact representative of how our Constitution is designed for people to band together and change the law, right?
I ask you:
"Do you view forming the PNAC, moving into governmental positions and pushing PNAC polices as illegal for those who did so?"
You reply
"Only in as much as the policies were illegal."
And next you say:
"I don't say their policies were or are illegal at all!
I don't say it, because I don't know if they are or not."
So... what then is your beef with PNAC?
You agree it's a legal/legitimate way to get things done. You say you don't know if their policies were or are illegal at all?
I realize I'm missing something in your presentation. Help me out here.
-
Yeah, my apologies, I had a feeling that: ""Only in as much as the policies were illegal" was a bit ambiguous.
It was an answer to this:
"Do you view forming the PNAC, moving into governmental positions and pushing PNAC polices as illegal for those who did so?"
But your asking three different things.
It's not illegal to form PNAC. It's not illegal for PNAC to move into positions of power. It's not illegal to push PNAC policies unless those policies are illegal.
I don't know if they are or not with respect to Iraq, so I don't go down that road.
-
You have no problem with the process, correct? Do I understand that correctly?
Nothing was illegal -- business as usual. In fact WMD was, as far as I can tell, the only legal way to go about a regime change. It would just be nice to go to war for the primary reasons most people thought we were going to war for at the time.
Frankly, I guess I’m the most aggravated out of all of this by the mainstream media. Not liberal, not conservative -- minor issues -- but lazy, co-opted and careerist. We have to have two versions of the truth in America, one for public consumption and one for the beltway. I am hardly a beltway insider, but I get/have gotten close enough to several public issues, and have spent enough time dealing with lobbyists and staffers and trade groups and special interest groups and federal agencies to see it first hand. The beltway version isn't really hidden, if you read a reputable newspaper beyond the Tempo and Sports sections you can find coverage, as you can in some of the specialty media outlets that concentrate on the beltway and political issues. The weekly newsmagazines give it coverage, but they are generally sloppy and have a well-deserved skepticism of their credibility. It's aggravating that both politicians and the broadcast media play along with the game, but they both know that the public has little patience for complication. This is not an opinion, it is something you learn early on in any marketing related coursework right around the time you encounter Maslow's Hierarchy of needs. Take too long educating, and you lose large percentages of audience.
Laziness and careerism. Talk to two groups on either side of an issue, get the party line spin, present both as “balanced” journalism and call it a day. Better yet, find extremists to liven up the show. Don’t dig, don’t complicate, don’t confuse. You’ve clawed your way to a solid six-figure salary, you go to all the beltway parties (you’re part of the scene - see Almost Famous for a feel), you are increasingly becoming a media celebrity, there’s potentially that big anchor job down the road -- why ask questions that are going to get your access chopped. You don’t want to be the only one reporting what the “spokesman” said while all of your peers/competitors got a face to face with the actual secretary of what not, even though they reported 99 percent spin in the process. Pisses off the boss. Don’t ask too many tough questions, or you lose your front row seat to the invasion imbed (brilliant work by Karen Hughes co-opting critical coverage with that carrot/stick) or you’re not invited to the final pre war press conference like Helen Thomas. Ask bland questions and if the President doesn’t give you specifics on cost (human or economic) or timeframes don’t push the point.
Actually, it’s all just a personal problem. As a humble trade journalist I write for an audience of experts. I have little room for laziness or error. My goal is to provide value, and I have to work hard to provide value to people who have forgotten more about the industry than I know. That means quality sources, constantly looking for spin, looking for the exception to the rule, looking for the truth behind the subject -- you don’t see that in mainstream journalism beyond some print and documentary coverage. What are you going to do. We are not a population of economic, domestic or foreign policy experts - myself included. It takes a lot of work and interest just to get somewhat up to speed on some of these areas, and it’s an ongoing process to stay there.
Politicians and the media give the public exactly what they ask for. We broadly get the government, and the policies we deserve. I had to search the channels for the debate in Congress over Gulf War I. It was barely covered. As I remember it was playoff season, but it was hard to find elsewhere as well. You could try and force “proper” journalism down peoples’ throats and they would just turn the channel or turn off the tube. Again, just a personal problem based on some unrealistic, idealist view of how we should function as a people and government.
Charon
-
OK, let's go back to page 1 then.
You said:
You will never get as concrete of a picture as a group of men saying what they wanted, then going ahead and doing it.
But we agree that it's perfectly legal and, in fact, the correct Constitutional way to get things done.
The lies they told to achieve it do not have to be supported by a bunch of cut/paste quotes from other people on the periphery.
So, it's not the POLICIES that raise issues with you.
You say "It's not illegal to push PNAC policies unless those policies are illegal. I don't know if they are or not with respect to Iraq, so I don't go down that road."
So far, I haven't seen you document the "lies they told" as unquestionable, proven lies. Perhaps we move on to that next?
I'd say that's the key next step in this discussion.
As for the "cut and paste" it merely illustrates that the PNAC's in office and the Republicans in general were not the only ones claiming SH had WD. Democrats as well as the intel agencies of other nations were doing so as well.
So it's hard for me to accept this "the PNAC-generated/created WMD stories were all lies" when you have so many non-PNAC folks saying the same things. In fact you have folks that would be clearly anti-PNAC saying the same things. Even Blix couldn't rule it out.
Again. They said what they wanted. They did it. Pretty fricken simple.
Well, saying what you want and actually doing it is kind of laudable in view of today's common political techniques.
However, I think we'll have to delve into "what they wanted" as well. I haven't seen any PNAC statements saying "we want war in the Middle East". Can you refer me to PNAC statements where they "say what they want" that bother you? I'll admit I haven't studied their site all that much.
Did they ignore their own stated wishes upon gaining power, and instead act based on some new enlightenment which just oh so conveniently paralleled their wishes?
Exactly what I meant above. What "stated wishes" do you refer to here?
Was their selling of the war to the public in line with those already and entirely differently stated wishes?
I think there's an invalid assumption here on several levels.
Did PNAC "sell" the war? Or did they simply present their intelligence summary to Congress and get Congressional approval. Congress had access to the intel analysts themselves before they voted.
(Now, I have to go paint a bedroom.)
-
Originally posted by Charon
Nothing was illegal -- business as usual. In fact WMD was, as far as I can tell, the only legal way to go about a regime change. It would just be nice to go to war for the primary reasons most people thought we were going to war for at the time.
Charon
However, can anyone document that the primary reason was NOT WMD?
IE: Is there ANY proof that Bush KNEW there were no WMD before invasion? That WMD was just a smokescreen and Bush KNEW that?
I haven't seen any. Thus, the assumption that we went to war for some other purpose is unsupported.
See, everyone has suspicions for the reasons why others behave the way they do.
But if we start hanging people on suspicion alone, it's going to be a very messy society.
-
This is going in circles.
I think WMD was a sham used to sell war to people content with a quick and easily digestible reason. You're holding onto it so hard that your knuckles are going white. We're not getting anywhere.
However, it's nice to see that we at least agree that there existed a group of people who had ambitions towards the Middle East, got into positions that enabled them to carry out those ambitions, and then carried them out.
It's a critical point.
This -----> "Is there ANY proof that Bush KNEW there were no WMD before invasion? That WMD was just a smokescreen and Bush KNEW that?"<---- gets us nowhere.
That argument was meant for other people to be having. I certainly believe that WMD was sales pitch. A snow job. It was hollow when they used it as a rationale, and turned out to be just as hollow by there actually being no WMD to speak of. Your mileage may vary of course.
Since we can't go very much further with "ANY proof that Bush KNEW there were no WMD before invasion" because we can't read minds, why not look at the things we do know?
Because the reasons for wanting the invasion of Iraq was plainly spelled out well before its invasion, in black and white, by the people who ordered the invasion. It goes well beyond the WMD pitch that they sold us on. We don't have to read minds here. We don't need any smoking gun. No parsing of the word "fixed" is required.
Again:
There existed a group of people who had ambitions towards the Middle East, got into positions that enabled them to carry out those ambitions, and then carried them out.
So if anyone wants to know why Iraq was invaded - be it wmd, liberty, oil - why not just ask them? (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/pdf/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf)
-
"See, everyone has suspicions for the reasons why others behave the way they do.
But if we start hanging people on suspicion alone, it's going to be a very messy society."
basically the doctrine for pre-emptive strike.
-
mmmmphhtt lol
-
However, can anyone document that the primary reason was NOT WMD?
No one can document that Hitler ordered the Holocaust. But if you look at the circumstantial evidence, it’s not hard to come to the conclusion that he did.
IE: Is there ANY proof that Bush KNEW there were no WMD before invasion? That WMD was just a smokescreen and Bush KNEW that?
I have never argued that Bush knew there were no WMD. In fact, quite the opposite. My position is that out of many issues it was picked and used to sell the policy. The fact that they turned up missing was an unfortunate coincidence (but maybe no one cared to really look all that hard to begin with -- who knows). I provided my reasoning earlier about why it is less than convincing as a primary factor. Clearly there has been no dramatic soul searching at the Whitehouse over the lack of WMD, nor much interest in WMD development elsewhere. Doesn't really seem to be much of an issue. IMO, wasn't the main issue to begin with. It wasn't even the first justification floated for potential action against Iraq, but settled in AFTER no link could be found between 9/11 and Iraq.
The Bush Doctrine virtually mirrors established neoconservative doctrine in model and practice, from preemption (really the core tenet) to the specifics of how to spread Western democracy in the Middle East while securing a counter to Saudia Arabia, greater security for Israel and more incentives for the Palestinians to seek an agreement on Israel's (Likud's) terms. Long term, it is somewhat of a moot point now, as the post invasion didn’t go as smoothly as anticipated (which has been acknowledged even by Rumsfeld), and the ability to move on to the next “evil” is now limited by the ongoing Iraq commitment. Syria may still be on the bubble, but it’s hard to see Iran as a target and North Korea is certainly not going to happen anytime soon (unless the North makes that decision itself).
Where Iraq is concerned, preemption itself certainly doesn't exclude WMD as a primary reason for action, but to my personal estimation WMD is a weaker argument than the big picture policy goals. Especially since the big picture goals have been acknowledge from Bush on down, immediately after 9/11 with the Axis of Evil speech and subsequently in other public forums. Clearly, WMD was sold as a direct threat to the continental United States, not as a regional threat. While that plays well into the core human motivators of action, it just doesn't add up for me (except, perhaps, as part of a safer world in general scenario). A component of the action, yes. But to my estimation, nothing but a part of the big picture and a big picture that may or may not end as hoped.
As for speculation... That was initially expected of American citizens, particularly where the executive branch is concerned. I was just doing my part, and I've put a lot of effort into the process primarily from primary sources. I have avoided most secondary “tell me what to think” sources like the plague.
Charon
-
Originally posted by Torque
"See, everyone has suspicions for the reasons why others behave the way they do.
But if we start hanging people on suspicion alone, it's going to be a very messy society."
basically the doctrine for pre-emptive strike.
Very true! Any opinions as to the legality of that doctrine? Common sense tells me massive invasions with the stated goal of regime change would HAVE to be illegal.
-
Originally posted by Torque
"See, everyone has suspicions for the reasons why others behave the way they do.
But if we start hanging people on suspicion alone, it's going to be a very messy society."
basically the doctrine for pre-emptive strike.
Yeah, and Nash is subscribing to it.
Unfortunately for you guys, Iraq WAS found in "material breach of disarmament obligations" by unanimous vote of the SC. So there was more than suspicion by far more countries than the US alone.
Nash, admits, however, that he can't find anything illegal that PNAC has done.
I don't doubt you'll fail to see the difference.
-
Wow, 90 pages in that PNAC document Nash.
Tell me you've read it all. Or is just a cut-n-paste of a higher magnitude resulting from " ripping around the internet and selectively cutting and pasting the things that support my views and ignoring the things that do not. Doesn't ultimately serve anything."
I searched it for "Iraq" and found a dozen or so references. NONE of those proposed invasion or regime change. Most of them dealt with Iraq as a threat to the region (Kuwait) and a potential threat to its immediate neighbors and the US (weapons development).
I admit you've got me totally confused.
Just exactly what is your problem with PNAC?
All I've been able to garner from the tons you've posted is that they are/were
"a group of men saying what they wanted, then going ahead and doing it."
I'm sorry but I can see that as a positive improvement in principle over the usual political group.
I'd love to know up front what ALL those "special interest" groups out there are really after.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Yeah, and Nash is subscribing to it.
Unfortunately for you guys, Iraq WAS found in "material breach of disarmament obligations" by unanimous vote of the SC. So there was more than suspicion by far more countries than the US alone.
Nash, admits, however, that he can't find anything illegal that PNAC has done.
I don't doubt you'll fail to see the difference.
Now you want to go back to relying on the UN's findings in order to justify an invasion that the UN didn't authorize. Highly contradictory. And a path already well worn. Please don't go back there.
You're absolutely right. I admit that I "can't find anything ilegal that PNAC has done," because my knowledge of international law amounts to one gigantic gaping hole.
My ignorance of it is not evidence that the administration (and by administration I mean PNAC and by PNAC I mean the administration) is therefore absolved of any claims of illegality, it is just that I do not know. Someone else here is better qualified to speak on that, I would sure as hell hope.
But.... why are you ignoring what is right now hitting you in the face like a ton of bricks?
-
Originally posted by Toad
Wow, 90 pages in that PNAC document Nash.
Tell me you've read it all.
Of course I have read it all. My god, these are the stated policy goals of an administration the result of which have an enormous impact on not only America, but the entire world. It extends a bit further than hiring politicians based on who they'd likely nominate for the Supreme Court (not that I want to rehash an old argument we've had), but it's clearly an important part of our understanding of current events, if our understanding is indeed the goal here.
Please tell me that you read it all.
-
Originally posted by Charon
No one can document that Hitler ordered the Holocaust. But if you look at the circumstantial evidence, it’s not hard to come to the conclusion that he did.
[/b]
OK, show me evidence like this then:
When did Hitler decide on the final solution (http://www.holocaust-history.org/hitler-final-solution/)
The two recent discoveries are:
The first is a diary entry by Joseph Goebbels of December 12, 1941. It runs as follows:
Bezüglich der Judenfrage ist der Führer entschlossen, reinen Tisch zu machen. Er hat den Juden prophezeit, daß, wenn sie noch einmal einen Weltkrieg herbeiführen würden, sie dabei ihre Vernichtung erleben würden. Das ist keine Phrase gewesen. Der Weltkrieg ist da, die Vernichtung des Judentums muß die notwendige Folge sein.
With respect of the Jewish Question, the Führer has decided to make a clean sweep. He prophesied to the Jews that if they again brought about a world war, they would live to see their annihilation in it. That wasn't just a catch-word. The world war is here, and the annihilation of the Jews must be the necessary consequence. [7]
The second is a note in his own handwriting by Reichsführer-SS Heinrich Himmler in his soon to be published diary of a meeting he had with Hitler at the latter's Headquarters (Wolfsschanze) on December 18, 1941. The notes are simply: [8]
Judenfrage / als Partisanen auszurotten
Jewish Question / to be exterminated like the partisans
Show me something of that order, notes from meetings by actual participants that proves "it (WMD) was picked and used to sell the policy." And that deliberate lies were used to "sell" it.
Something a little better than personal opinion. Get some kind of proof, I'll be happy to join the fight to impeach.
The Bush Doctrine virtually mirrors established neoconservative doctrine in model and practice, from preemption (really the core tenet) to the specifics of how to spread Western democracy in the Middle East while securing a counter to Saudia Arabia, greater security for Israel and more incentives for the Palestinians to seek an agreement on Israel's (Likud's) terms.
Other than the fact that you may not agree with it, so what?
You didn't really think Bush would mirror established liberal doctrine in model and practice did you? I'm sure there were many folks that disagreed with the Monroe Doctrine, the Truman Doctrine, etc.
Clearly, WMD was sold as a direct threat to the continental United States, not as a regional threat.
There is much of this "sold" aspect as if that is some how sinister. Is it possible they were just giving their estimate of the situation? In all arenas, administrations make evaluations, decide on courses of action and take their programs to the public and Congress. They "sell" these programs, from welfare to social security; there's nothing sinister in stating your case and persuading your constiutency.
Further, as I said, I read all the references to Iraq in Nash's link to PNAC's document. I saw nothing of preemption.
Again, simply tell me what the big problem is with PNAC forming, stating its goals and moving to accomplish them. Isn't that what all political organizations do? What are you trying to say that I am missing?
-
Originally posted by Nash
This is going in circles.
I think WMD was a sham used to sell war to people content with a quick and easily digestible reason. You're holding onto it so hard that your knuckles are going white. We're not getting anywhere.
Well, you're leading. ;)
OK, you think WMD was a sham.
Have you any proof of that? No, none at all.
Not even in PNAC's document.
What I'm holding on to so hard that my knuckles are white is this simple principle:
COFFIN v. U.S., 156 U.S. 432 (1895)
"The principle that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law. [156 U.S. 432, 454]
You are in the "prosecutor" mode here, not me. Prove your case.
-
It's a case that has its merits, and is certainly interesting to ponder, but I really don't give too much of a damn about trying to prove that one justification for war was any more invalid than another.
I mean... Lets talk about the terrorist justification. Or the human rights justification.
Same difference. Equally as suspect.
Come on Toad, lets move on.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Now you want to go back to relying on the UN's findings in order to justify an invasion that the UN didn't authorize. Highly contradictory.
[/b]
Not at all, but you're putting words in my mouth and twisting the argument to suit you.
The point of the UN "material breach" is that there's NO POSSIBLE way you can claim the WMD threat is solely a PNAC fabrication. There are too many other indepent and in some cases "anti-PNAC" sources that mention the threat. You simply can't lay all "WMD threats" at the feet of PNAC although it would benefit your argument to do so and I see why you keep trying.
And a path already well worn. Please don't go back there.
You're absolutely right. I admit that I "can't find anything ilegal that PNAC has done," because my knowledge of international law amounts to one gigantic gaping hole.
And there's not even the scintilla of an attempt to charge PNAC or the administration by people with far more intelligence and expertise in these areas, far more motive to "get Bush", far more money to do so and far more resources.
What's that tell you?
But.... why are you ignoring what is right now hitting you in the face like a ton of bricks?
I'm still trying to figure our your objection to PNAC. I wish you'd spell it out.
-
Originally posted by oboe
Very true! Any opinions as to the legality of that doctrine? Common sense tells me massive invasions with the stated goal of regime change would HAVE to be illegal.
I'd be much obliged if you can tell me that it's illegal to state the goal of "regime change" if you have just cause for war.
The example that springs to mind is Hitler. I think we were pretty clear that he was going to be removed.
The key isn't "stated goal of regime change". The key is "just war".
Now, THAT has been discussed before here too. If you search you'll find my opinion on that and on it as it relates to Iraq.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Please tell me that you read it all.
No, I haven't read it all. Probably won't.
I'm sure that since you have, you can point me to where it says Iraq must be invaded and SH removed under any pretext that can be "sold" to the US public and Congress.
Also noting any other grave threats to my Republic and the world would be appreciated.
-
Again, I don't have any objection to PNAC.
(and again, by PNAC we're talking about the administration, and by administration we're talking about PNAC).
I have just as much of an objection to PNAC as I have to there being a United States government. Which would be absurd.
I do have an objection to their clearly states goals and their clearly stated solutions, and the flawed means by which they are carrying out these clearly stated goals.
Period.
-
Originally posted by Toad
No, I haven't read it all. Probably won't.
I'm sure that since you have, you can point me to where it says...
This is not a Nuke debate. I'm not going to do your heavy lifting for you.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Come on Toad, lets move on.
To what?
I still have no clue what you're trying to say in this thread other than that PNAC formed, laid out it's goals and policies, attempted to get elected or appointed to positions that allow influencing policy and attempted to achieve its stated goals.
As I said before, I suspect that if ANY other organization did that and you personally subscribed to their theories and goals, you'd be praising them.
All I really see here is that you don't subscribe to the goals and policies of PNAC.
Great. From what I've read so far, I really don't either. I'm an isolationist at heart.
-
Originally posted by Nash
This is not a Nuke debate. I'm not going to do your heavy lifting for you.
Not asking you to really.
But I'm hardly going to take 1-2 hours out of my day to sift through all that and try to decipher your point in this thread from that document.
If it supports some point you're trying to make, link it. Because, as I said, I fail to see much of a point to your statements in this thread.
And, I have to now go and do the final touch-ups on the room I just painted. After it dries down some, you always see those "painter's holidays" and I have to finish the cut-in around the inside of the closet.
Ta for now.
Do try to tell me your point in this thread in a paragraph or two. Maybe I'm just slow today but I can't see it.
-
Originally posted by Nash
I do have an objection to their clearly states goals and their clearly stated solutions, and the flawed means by which they are carrying out these clearly stated goals.
Period.
Ah, finally.
You don't agree with their politics.
That's IT?
OK. Certainly your right to an opinion.
Don't see that was worth a 2 page thread.
-
Well you're defending them, aint ya?
But yeah, that's basically it. I got a problem with them.
And I got a problem when guys like you who have no idea what they're about, defend them all the same, using obfuscation and sidetracking, employing salamanderly little arguments consisting of UN article 317 section 3 blah blah blah and defending them by blowing smoke up people's arses because we cannot really know what "fixed" means.... all the while not knowing much of anything about who these people are and what their goals are.
So if you want to examine who it is that's runnin' the show, and what they want to do, and evaluate the repurcussions and effectiveness of those aims, and debate the relative merits of all of that, then great.
There can easily exist disagreements on it.
But if you want to run around and pretend that it's about something other than what it is, using every possible dance move in the Solid Gold inventory.... I don't care for it.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Well you're defending them, aint ya?
Nope. Where did you get that idea?
THIS is what I'm defending, white knuckles and all, for Bush, for PNAC, for you, for me, for Kerry, for anyone:
COFFIN v. U.S., 156 U.S. 432 (1895)
"The principle that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law. [156 U.S. 432, 454]
And I got a problem when guys like you who have no idea what they're about, defend them all the same, using obfuscation and sidetracking, employing salamanderly little arguments
...and as I've said, I've got a problem with folks that condemn them without anything but opinion to back up the condemenation. The formed, had a plan, got in office, implemented some]/i] aspects of their plan.
None of you have shown the least bit of evidence that they deliberately lied about WMD, haven't shown that, from their perspective (amongst others that thought it was real as well), the threat wasn't real.
all the while not knowing much of anything about who these people are and what their goals are.
Just because I didn't read the entire 90 page manifesto doesn't mean I was a) unaware of them b) unaware of some of their tenets, unaware of their general goals. I had visited their website before and read some of it.
But if you want to run around and pretend that it's about something other than what it is, using every possible dance move in the Solid Gold inventory.... I don't care for it.
Isn't it funny how life is full of mirrors? You apparently see my paraticipation in this thread exactly as I see yours.
Lot of dancing, implying and pretending that ends up with "I don't like their politics."
Whoop-de-do. Now there's something rarely heard in this world.
-
Ah, so your participation in this thread, as well as other related threads, is just to stand up for the presumption of innocence? That's it?
I guess that would explain your obsession with the WMD issue. A shame that you cannot simply admit defeat, and let it go. Not because it's fun to see you admit defeat, but because despite WMD seeming like some huge issue - it really isn't. It's not pretty to see one so smart grasping at a thing so peripheral.
It's just one thing, and its context needs to be understood. If you'd care to read and absorb the expressed views upon which this government is currently acting, then I'd expect that you'd be at some discomfort, to put it mildy, upon realizing that those views amount to blatant imperialism which runs counter to your personal isolationist leaning, evidenced by: "...the belief that America should seek to preserve and extend its position of global leadership by maintaining the preeminence of U.S. military forces" running counter to "I'm an isolationist at heart."
So on one hand, you hold a core belief about the direction America should take, and on the other are more than happy to enter into a UBB dust-up in order to defend the administration on the details that merely surround a greater policy that you fundamentally disagree with.
Then you label your defense as the defense of the presumption of innocence.
That's the problem I see with many of your arguments here. Due to the fact that they are not consistent with your core values, they end up falling flat. Luckily for you, you are quite intelligent and are able to express whatever it is you want to say with enough panache to make it seem as if your arguments are valid. Indeed many of them are.
But due to them being in support of a fallacy to which even you do not subscribe, those arguments tumble down over the shaky ground upon which they were built.
I suggest that if you are serious about defending this administration's actions, you educate yourself on this administration's intentions.
-
Look Nash, you have this need to twist everything into your particular frame of reference, your particular strawman. It's your style. Unfortunately, your frame of reference is just that. It's valid for you, that's all. It's sure not an open view.
Review the whole thread.
There's a few people jumping up and down shouting "PNAC! PNAC!"
My response is "PNAC what?"
And the answer is "I don't like them".
The entire case for just war rests on WMD. You're smart enough to know that. Yeah, I gave them the benefit of the doubt on it. The time passed and now I feel the war cannot be justified. (We're stuck with it now; we have to stay with it.)
I'm the one bringing up WMD all the time? EVERYONE brings it up. It's key to the entire issue. It basically IS the issue.
That is not to say, however, that I or YOU or anyone else has any idea what they (President, Congress, Joint Chiefs) REALLY thought about the threat. Maybe they were convinced it was real, maybe they weren't. Maybe some were, some weren't. As you pointed out, everyone not involved at that level, in the end, was guessing what the intel actually said.
Now as to PNAC principles. I'm familar with the "Reader's Digest Version." Why? Because while you apparently feel PNAC is some unstoppable force, I am comfortable enough that our form of government provided checks and balances. When something gets too far out of balance, the pendulum swings back. PNAC has passed its apogee. I don't feel the need to read 90 pages of it; the short story will do. I'm not the one that can influence it in any degree anyway. For that I pretty much have to rely on the built in checks and balances.
Further, I do subscribe to some of their principles but not necessarily for their reasons or in full. Take the one you qoute:
"the belief that America should seek to preserve and extend its position of global leadership by maintaining the preeminence of U.S. military forces".
I ABSOLUTELY believe America should maintain the preeminence of U.S. military forces. Not a doubt in my mind. However, I could really give a fig about "global leadership". That's not what matters to me. Can you understand that?
Take another one:
we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad
I basically agree with that. However, I reserve the right to disagree with PNAC's methods of achieving that goal.
So, while you try to force people into Nash-defined pigeon holes so you can slam the strawman, you have to realize that people see that tactic for what it is too.
Now, let's talk about your charge of "defending" PNAC. I have a conceptual problem here, help me out.
You say you can find nothing that PNAC has done wrong or illegal.
OK, so how is it I am "defending" them against you if you say they haven't done anything wrong?
I'm certainly not defending them against your "I don't like their political views" attack. I told you that's certainly your right to an opinion and I don't agree with them for the most part either.
What I did is point out that despite all the brouhaha about PNAC and Bush......... there's just no evidence they did anything wrong.
In fact, there's really no evidence they did anything other than what they are saying they did, which is make a decision for war on the intel they had about the threat they saw. Which, yes, turned out to be wrong.
Defend the administration's actions? Yet another strawman.
All I did is point out that there CAN be other explanations than those that you provide. There's other possibilities. As yet there's just no definitive proof either way.
I've said in this and previous threads that if there ever IS proof, I'll be calling for and working for impeachment/punishment proceedings. So I'm totally siding with them, right? Not.
It turned out to be an unjust war. Why? No WMD = no immediate threat. (That's why WMD is important, BTW; it's the only thing that fits just war theory. And why supporting statements from other intel agencies and Blix are important.)
However, being wrong alone is not enough to impeach Bush because there's no evidence that shows Bush deliberately lied us into the war.
Bush may have just thought he was doing his job. Assign any probabillity you like to that other than "0". Because there is that prossibility to some unknown degree.
Now, until there's actual evidence... not opinion or simple frothing hate of Bush.... I'll have to go with presumption of innnocence.
I guess you won't though; your perogative.
I wish it was all simple. But it isn't. The Congress gave the President the clearance to act and he did.
Is the other method to wait for another Pearl Harbor? IE: wait until we have been attacked and someone or some country has openly declared responsibility for it and declared war on us?
Distrust and ignore all intel until an attack validates one of the intelligence estimates?
Only this isn't 1941 anymore and the weapons are a lot different.
-
Well, gee...
That was certainly passionate. :)
It's not like I think that you're expecting a response by me to what you've written. But in case you are, can you break it down into 1 or 2 things? You don't feel like reading a book any more than I feel like writing one.
-
Show me something of that order, notes from meetings by actual participants that proves "it (WMD) was picked and used to sell the policy." And that deliberate lies were used to "sell" it.
Something a little better than personal opinion. Get some kind of proof, I'll be happy to join the fight to impeach.
After the participants are dead, or cleanly out of public service, you may get something like that. Happened with McNamara. And the "deliberate lies" argument was never my position. I'll say it again, since you seem to have missed it the other times I've said it already. I DON"T BELIEVE THEY DELIBERATELY LIED ABOUT THINKING WMD WOULD BE FOUND. How's that? But, you never lie in PR anyway, you just concentrate on the appropriate truths, or portions of the appropriate truths. I doubt there are any legally impeachable quality smoking guns.
However, here are a couple of additional interesting primary sources and a study. Not worthy of a legal conviction perhaps, but worthy of some "grand jury" style consideration (which has a much lower burden of proof):
Scott Ritter:
The admission followed claims by Scott Ritter, who led 14 inspection missions in Iraq, that MI6 had recruited him in 1997 to help with the propaganda effort. He described meetings where the senior officer and at least two other MI6 staff had discussed ways to manipulate intelligence material.
“The aim was to convince the public that Iraq was a far greater threat than it actually was,” Ritter said last week.
He said there was evidence that MI6 continued to use similar propaganda tactics up to the invasion of Iraq earlier this year. “Stories ran in the media about secret underground facilities in Iraq and ongoing programmes (to produce weapons of mass destruction),” said Ritter. “They were sourced to western intelligence and all of them were garbage.”
Kelly, himself a former United Nations weapons inspector and colleague of Ritter, might also have been used by MI6 to pass information to the media. “Kelly was a known and government-approved conduit with the media,” said Ritter. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,2-523-944831,00.html
BTW, manipulate isn't "lie" but it does suggest a means to an end.
Interview with Richard Perle -- WMD an important rational but part of the big picture.
But a rationale emerges for why we need to go to war, and weapons of mass destruction becomes the leading reason. There were other reasons, as well. Give me a sense of why it was that weapons of mass destructions was preeminent and what the other reasons were?
Weapons of mass destruction were, of course, an important part of the rationale. We knew that Saddam had them. The U.N. had determined that he had chemical and biological weapons, that he had a nuclear program that was discovered in the aftermath of the first Gulf War. He refused to account for those weapons.
The inspectors had been constructively dismissed from Iraq in 1998. We knew there was activity hiding things. We knew the organization responsible for hiding them. So the picture was reasonably clear, although incomplete. He had weapons, he was moving them around, he had an organization to hide them and he wouldn't account for them. So it was an obvious concern. Sept. 11 had focused everyone's attention on what terrorists could do if they were to employ weapons of mass destruction.
But there was a larger, more ambitious plan, too, to remake the Middle East; that establishing a democracy in Iraq would be an important change in the world order.
There's no question that liberating Iraq from this vicious tyrannical regime was thought by many of us to be a good thing in itself. The added benefits -- if one could bring democratic political process to Iraq -- of shaping opinion in the Arab world, which is woefully devoid of democratic political institutions, would also be a good thing.
If you say would we have taken this action in Iraq, if the only purpose had been to try to bring democracy to Iraq, I think the answer is no. We didn't even consider using force to bring democracy to any other Arab country. But the combination of Saddam Hussein -- who had made war in the past, who had weapons of mass destruction, who was an avowed enemy of the United States-- When you put all of that together, that was a very powerful case for the action we took. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/truth/interviews/perle.html
You have to decide for yourself if WMD was more important, equal or less important than the other factors. I have made my decision - for now.
The study by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace states that "administration officials systematically misrepresented the threat from Iraq's WMD and ballistic missile program" by treating possibilities as fact and "misrepresenting inspectors' findings in ways that turned threats from minor to dire." http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/01/09/carnegie_study_calls_arms_threat_overstated/
Again, misrepresented isn't really a "lie" in a Clinton sense of the word, but it does suggest a means to an end.
Again, simply tell me what the big problem is with PNAC forming, stating its goals and moving to accomplish them. Isn't that what all political organizations do? What are you trying to say that I am missing?
I've covered this previously. As I stated -- nothing but a personal problem. I just think that when you put 1,300 kids in body bags with another 12,000 wounded, it should be for the primary reason stated. Not to mention the primary reason is now a total bust. I mean hell, doesn't that call for some critical analysis of our leadership, it goals and motivations? Maybe they actually did lie, though I don't currently buy it myself. It certainly opens up the topic for some consideration, I would think. Shouldn't you now start questioning that "presumption of innocence?" Similarly, if we do have bigger plans for the region I would like to know about them and know what it's going to cost moving forward in lives and dollars.
My life’s mission isn’t to convert you Toad. I’ve probably spent 30+ hours finding my own perspective, and lack the extra time to spend another 30 hours at the cut and paste shop. So I guess we just have to agree to disagree, or whatever, and move on. At leat that's my plan. I'm going to have a busy time dealing with the fine ethanol lobby next week.
If you develop the time or interest, Richard Clark has a pretty good book on a variety of related subjects, includeing the shift to Iraq post 9/11. Not factually inaccurate according to Philip Zelikow (http://www.9-11commission.gov/about/bio_zelikow.htm), who I had a unique opportunity to meet last year when he was the honored guest at a small UVA dinner function i was lucky enough to attend. I was reading the book at the time and specifically asked him about it's accuracy. This frontline piece is also pretty good at showing some of my perspective: The War Behind Closed Doors (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/iraq/) And I missed this one, but it looks interesting: Truth War and Consequences (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/truth/) I personally want to check out Woodward’s book, and "Weapons of Mass Distraction” which purports to cover these very issues in detail.
Charon
-
When Toad's feet were held to the fire, he ends up going ballistic - shotgun style. To an extent that you really aren't certain what it is he supports and does not support after all. I'm sort of amazed that he didn't mention the moon landing conspiracy.
A couple of things are telling.
The fact that when these very issues were raised a couple of years ago, the people who raised them were drowned out by a chorus of "shut up." Today, it is as if Toad is the sole champion of a failed policy. Everyone else (and believe me, it was overwhelming) have seemed to just.... well I don't know.
Interesting to me, at least.
We're not even into the 6th month of a 48 month term, and already the watermelon is starting to hit the fan and hit it but hard.
It's gonna be just as damned interesting to reflect back on "but you don't KNOW what he was thinking" types of arguments as it is to reflect back on the "Saddam will nuke our freedom" arguments.
Anchors away.
-
Toad you are being inconsistant.
If you don't have a problem with PNAC (legality asside) why did you post this?
"Guess I just don't believe they'd take us to war for a PNAC theory."
-
Originally posted by Nash
It's not like I think that you're expecting a response by me to what you've written.
[/b]
Yeah, I was. But it fits that you choose not to.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Yeah, I was. But it fits that you choose not to. [/B]
Toad, you have to focus. I'll reply to whatever you want. The topic of your choosing. But I can't reply to a hundred of them with any meaning.
-
Originally posted by Charon
I DON"T BELIEVE THEY DELIBERATELY LIED ABOUT THINKING WMD WOULD BE FOUND.
[/b]
Neither do I; thus my participation.
You have to decide for yourself if WMD was more important, equal or less important than the other factors. I have made my decision - for now.
[/b]
Look at Perle's quote; notes akin to Himmler's or Heydrick's:
If you say would we have taken this action in Iraq, if the only purpose had been to try to bring democracy to Iraq, I think the answer is no. We didn't even consider using force to bring democracy to any other Arab country. But the combination of Saddam Hussein -- who had made war in the past, who had weapons of mass destruction, who was an avowed enemy of the United States-- When you put all of that together, that was a very powerful case for the action we took.
I think that contradicts what you try to establish with the other quotes.
I mean hell, doesn't that call for some critical analysis of our leadership, it goals and motivations?
[/b]
Yep. Note that I didn't vote for Bush, this being one of the considerations.
Shouldn't you now start questioning that "presumption of innocence?"
[/b]
Actually, shouldn't one of the people with influence, resources, money and access to the halls of power being starting to question? Where' Soros on this particular issue? How about spending a little money here?
I seriously doubt if there's a single AH BBS participant with the clout to start anything.
I've previously stated that if evidence can be shown I'll support impeachment and further punishment.
Similarly, if we do have bigger plans for the region I would like to know about them and know what it's going to cost moving forward in lives and dollars.
[/b]
You're an American right? Lived here all your life? Do you REALLY think the people and/or the Congress would allow any other such military action unless in direct retaliation for a major attack on us?
In other words, how do you view the mood of the country towards war in general right now?
My life’s mission isn’t to convert you Toad.
[/b]
Convert me to what? To a willingness to suspend my belief in innocent until proven guilty?
-
Jeeze, you are gonna regret this Toad. Charon, the floor is yours.
-
Originally posted by Nash
When Toad's feet were held to the fire, he ends up going ballistic - shotgun style.
[/b]
Really? Do tell. Just where did I go ballistic - shotgun style.
You throw so much stuff out at once it's not easily answer in the short, glib, I'm-so-cool one-liners you prefer. Or maybe I'm not good at those. Sorry.
To an extent that you really aren't certain what it is he supports and does not support after all.
[/b]
That may well be true of those with a short memory or a selective memory... or for those that try to pigeonhole me into a category they've created in their own minds.
Today, it is as if Toad is the sole champion of a failed policy.
[/b]
Well, here's the challenge. Prove that isn't another of your strawmen by:
1) defining the "failed policy" specifically and
2) show a few quotes of me supporting it
Go for it, strawmeister... oh wait... I'll bet you just can't be arsed to show this to be more than just another strawman.
-
I doubt it. But go ahead an take yourself out of it; that doesn't suprise me either.
-
What changed your mind Toad to now believe that Bush wouldn't lie?
*Turns on the way-back machine.*
"But I think the WMD are there and if they're found on the 91st day I will cheerfully pay on the 90th but I'll still know I was right.
Now, if it gets into the 6 months or a year range...... I'll be looking at Bush in a whole new light.
But, as I've said, time will tell and I'm a patient man.
Geez, 10Bears.... you think a sitting President would look right into a camera and lie? Naaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!. I share your outrage. "
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=80932
-
Originally posted by Toad
2) show a few quotes of me supporting it
Go for it, strawmeister... oh wait... I'll bet you just can't be arsed to show this to be more than just another strawman. [/B]
No no no, I actually can be arsed. You know I can.
I actually just did some checking. Just now. Trust me Toad, we don't want to be taking a walk down memory lane with respect to your views on the war. I enjoy a good toe to toe, but this would get out of hand.
And I don't mind folks making predictions based on beliefs. It's all good. It's just that when those predictions fail, and those beliefs are still clung to despite the reasons for clinging onto them vaporizing that I have a bit of trouble understanding.
-
On your earlier question:
First of all Thrawn, it's a reply to a long post of Nash's. Second, the "they" refers to Bush and the Congress, not to PNAC. In that context, I think that answers your question.
Originally posted by Thrawn
What changed your mind Toad to now believe that Bush wouldn't lie?
Again, what I've asked for in this thread is some sort of proof he lied before jumping on the bandwagon with the rest of yas.
Asking for some evidence is apparently construed as being a total Bush supporter. That is an external thing that I can't help you with.
Would Bush lie? It's possible, but I don't think it's probable in this case. Were he to be shown as having deliberately lied or falsified intel, I would support his impeachment and further punishment. I guess that makes me a Bush supporter, right?
-
Originally posted by Nash
Trust me Toad, we don't want to be taking a walk down memory lane with respect to your views on the war.
[/b]
Please do. I'd enjoy seeing you twist what I said and replying. Please quote enough to give context.
Yeah, I supported the war. I said I have. I think you'll find right in there, in that early period, that I also said I extend them my trust but that the WMD reason would have to be validated at some point. Otherwise it would have to be viewed as an unjust war.
I also remember a letter I wrote to all the Senators and Reps. I believe you got a copy of that one, right? Typical of a Bush supporter would you say?
It's just that when those predictions fail, and those beliefs are still clung to despite the reasons for clinging onto them vaporizing that I have a bit of trouble understanding.
Good. You'll be able to show me the "beliefs (that) are still clung to"?
I'll check in tomorrow. Big day tomorrow and I'm late to bed already.
-
I'm not going to do it Toad.
-
Pffffffffffft.
I know why too.
-
Yah alright.
Sleep it off.
-
I'm truly sorry I'm not an easy fit into your preconceived pigeonhole.
Nothing to sleep off except honest work. Don't do drugs and even a beer wrecks my stomach since they cut on me. So, I don't fit in that pigeonhole either. ;)
-
Okay so what are you asking me to do, exactly?
-
Well whatever, I wouldn't do it anyways.
G'night! :D
-
I'm sorry, but I sacked out.
Do whatever it is you were threatening to do. Show whatever it is you were gonna show.
All I ask is a bit of context to your cut-n-paste and links to the threads.
-
Originally posted by Toad
What I'm holding on to so hard that my knuckles are white is this simple principle:
COFFIN v. U.S., 156 U.S. 432 (1895)
"The principle that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law. [156 U.S. 432, 454]
What an amazingly daunting if not not impossible task, in respects to the fact that the Bush administration has the ligitimate(?) power to deny the investigator access to the information that could prove thier case. At the end of the day the investigator must look a whatever information they can find and build a circumstanial case. The irony of this of course is that the same administration can than maginalise these people as "conspiracy theorists".
We saw that occur recently with Cheney's comments regarding the sources Amnesty Interational US used for thier critic of GITMO.
"Guantanamo's been operated, I think, in a very sane and sound fashion by the U.S. military. ... I think these people have been well treated, treated humanely and decently," Cheney said. "Occasionally there are allegations of mistreatment.
"But if you trace those back, in nearly every case, it turns out to come from somebody who has been inside and been released ... to their home country and now are peddling lies about how they were treated."
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/30/cheney.amnestyintl/
What amazing gall. The Bush Administration (rightly or not) limits access to GITMO so an investigator is hard pressed to get direct information on the goings on in GITMO, than marginalises the the one source that they can get. He implies that the people that where released are lying on the basis that they where in GITMO to begin with. Is one supposed to forget they were not charged and were released?
I find it ironic that this administration that you wish us to have such a high level of evidentiary proof to condemn, denies us such evidence and then condemns the ex-GITMO detainies without offer such proof themselves.
-
If you say would we have taken this action in Iraq, if the only purpose had been to try to bring democracy to Iraq, I think the answer is no. We didn't even consider using force to bring democracy to any other Arab country. But the combination of Saddam Hussein -- who had made war in the past, who had weapons of mass destruction, who was an avowed enemy of the United States-- When you put all of that together, that was a very powerful case for the action we took.
***
I think that contradicts what you try to establish with the other quotes.
Not at all. They wouldn't have taken the action based on democracy alone because you couldn't make it happen based on democracy alone. But, when you add in a madman, WMD, enemy of the US it becomes actionable -- to the American people. That direct threat is what generates the majority of the approval to proceed. If you look at Perle’s position dating back many years (the Clinton letter, for example), you see that Saddam Hussein is considered a regional problem, with his WMD being a regional threat and removing him provides a regional solution (to some admittedly national problems). In Perle’s above quotation he is participating in a public interview, so there will be limits to how open and direct he is to the questions, and spin on how he frames the answers. That's why the context of previous positions is important when looking at what he says in the present under difficult questioning.
It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. Clinton Letter
Yep. Note that I didn't vote for Bush, this being one of the considerations.
Same here. In fact, I believe we voted for the same guy that came in behind Nader. It’s funny, but I would probably have voted for his father, had that been a choice.
Actually, shouldn't one of the people with influence, resources, money and access to the halls of power being starting to question? Where' Soros on this particular issue? How about spending a little money here?
I seriously doubt if there's a single AH BBS participant with the clout to start anything.
I've previously stated that if evidence can be shown I'll support impeachment and further punishment.
Why bother posting about gun laws, or abortion or politics at all? Some of us must just like an outlet for mental masturbation, and a place to discuss things we can’t discuss that often with many of the people around us. I largely agree that any individual opinion is minute compared to the Washington two-party status quo, corporate influence, bureaucratic morass, public apathy, vapid media -- a long list. Some influential people are trying to move this forward, but the individual citizen still has the ultimate power and ultimate responsibility for our government, and change has to start somewhere. Frankly, I have been slacker in acting on my responsibilities by not becoming involved beyond the voting booth. I should change that -- wouldn’t put any bets on it happening -- but who knows. Like everybody else there is always something “important” to be done with the time. As far as impeachment, probably nothing to impeach over unless there was some hard evidence showing that there were no WMD and it was acknowledged as factual with a cover up and fabricated materials. While this might, at some point and to some degree be found to be true (certainly might not), if so it could very well have happened at the cabinet level. But it would have to be pretty clear.
You're an American right? Lived here all your life? Do you REALLY think the people and/or the Congress would allow any other such military action unless in direct retaliation for a major attack on us?
In other words, how do you view the mood of the country towards war in general right now?
I would hope not, but not much would really surprise me today. You would think that even if someone believed the invasion took place entirely for the reasons stated, with no ambiguity involved, that the person would want the administration kicked out off office for gross incompetence. But that didn’t happen (shout out to the incompetent Democrats as well). Most of Bush’s supporters, and then some, seem to have made a smooth transition from WMD to saving the Iraqi people, as if the whole basis for invading another country wasn’t important in the first place. I think it would take something like a draft to really get anybody’s attention, since Iraq seems to be becoming another forgotten conflict in the public mind like Korea was at the time. While maddening to me, it’s not really all that surprising. Also, with a virtual Republican rubber stamp majority, it’s not like the Democrats have any unity, guts, direction or focus to serve as a counter. However, logistically major action is likely ruled out regardless of any other factors -- but who knows. Syria could be seen as a walk in the park…
Again, just venting personal aggravations, and perhaps procrastinating and avoiding some more important but less interesting tasks I need to get cracking on. Really am bowing out this time (or I’m screwed)
BTW, is it just me or has it been hard to access the board lately? [edit: I see it wasn't just me]
Charon
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
What an amazingly daunting if not not impossible task, in respects to the fact that the Bush administration has the ligitimate(?) power to deny the investigator
[/b]
Thrawn, there are avenues of investigation open that the Bush admin cannot avoid.
The Grand Jury for one. A basic Congressional investigation for another.
Remember the 9/11 Commission, an independent, bipartisan commission created by congressional legislation?
If there is such clear evidence of wrongdoing, why haven't the "loyal opposition" moved to investigate using one of these methods?
Look, it's crystal clear to some of you that this was all deliberate lies.
There are powerful people that simply hate Bush... no other word for it. Yet none of these avenues of investigation have been pursued. At all; not even attempted. Why?
How do you explain that if this myriad "evidence" you all find so crystal clear is already in the public purview?
I personally would welcome Congress or a Grand Jury looking into this. I think it's a GOOD thing for this President and all future Presidents to realize they are going to be held responsible if they lie. If Bush gets cleared, fine. If he's found to lie, jail him.
I find it ironic that this administration that you wish us to have such a high level of evidentiary proof to condemn, denies us such evidence and then condemns the ex-GITMO detainies without offer such proof themselves.
Thank you for making my point!
From: Arabic News, June 10, 2005
Meantime, the Senate Judiciary Committee will conduct a hearing June 15 to determine whether hundreds of people from around the world who have been labled by the US as "enemy combatants" and "suspected" terrorists currently held at the U.S. detention center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and elsewhere are being given adequate legal protection, the committee announced June 8.
A witness list for the hearing, set for June 15 at 9:30 a.m. in Washington, has not been announced. But Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, is planning to introduce legislation to provide detainees with certain legal rights that will allow them to challenge their detention before a special federal court established under the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), according to committee
The exact first step of doing what needs to be done.
-
Uh oh. (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1650822,00.html) Another memo.
Sort of like a slowly tightening noose. And in the last two paragraphs, "the exact first step."
-
Originally posted by Charon
But, when you add in a madman, WMD, enemy of the US it becomes actionable -- to the American people.
[/b]
Subtract the WMD and it's Non-actionable. I see Perle stating the necessary conditions and all are necessary. YMMV.
Same here. In fact, I believe we voted for the same guy that came in behind Nader.
[/b]
but nevar forget I am teh blind Bush sopporter!!!!
Why bother posting about gun laws, or abortion or politics at all?
[/b]
I post here primarily because it challenges my beliefs and leads to self-examination of politicial positions. I post here because I learn new things. I post here because I enjoy the give and take of debate with other intelligent, like-minded people. Few though they are........ ;)
Some influential people are trying to move this forward, but the individual citizen still has the ultimate power and ultimate responsibility for our government, and change has to start somewhere.
[/b]
Under the Ethics In Government Act, the Democrats in Congress could file specific charges of misconduct with the Attorney General. He in turn would HAVE to appoint a Special Prosecutor if he found "reasonable grounds to believe that further investigation is warranted."
Now, I for one think that if such misconduct is so perfectly clear to some of the "little folks" in this thread, it must be incredibly clear to anti-Bush politicians on the national stage. For example, if this evidence was available during the last election, don't you think the Kerry camp would have had their Congressonal allies bring it to the Special Prosecutor stage? How damaging would that have been for Bush? But.... nothing.
And nothing in the 8 or so months since the election.
I have to conclude Bush's opponents would use it if they had it. Why sit on it?
What's your interpretation of that?
Frankly, I have been slacker in acting on my responsibilities by not becoming involved beyond the voting booth.
[/b]
I take it a bit further. I write to my Congressional reps, probably far more than 95% of US voters. I contribute to candidates I think can improve the situation. I'm not going to run myself, however.
Most of Bush’s supporters, and then some, seem to have made a smooth transition from WMD to saving the Iraqi people, as if the whole basis for invading another country wasn’t important in the first place.
[/b]
Or perhaps that transition has been made because just about anyone (pro or anti-Bush) with a sense of accountability and responsibility realizes we can't just walk away from them now? That we have to stay and at least attempt to make it better than it was?
I think it would take something like a draft to really get anybody’s attention,
[/b]
I think they're going the money route instead.
Army bonuses may rise to $40K (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-06-09-army-bonuses_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA)
I favor that anyway; considering their pay, a big bonus is the least they deserve. They're talking about giving 8 year sign-ups $50K for a mortgage too. I'd support that as well.
Also, with a virtual Republican rubber stamp majority, it’s not like the Democrats have any unity, guts, direction or focus to serve as a counter.
[/b]
Tell that to Bush's judicial nominees. ;)
Syria? Bush still has to get Congressional approval for war, with the usual time line after committing the troops. It'd have to be a pretty obvious threat to get Congress to authorize another war. IMO, of course.
-
Thanks, Nash.
Just read the text of "memo #2" from this site:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1648758_1,00.html
I don't see any evidence of fabrication lies wrt WMD, rather I see using WMD to support invasion.
It does appear to show that the WMD issue was key to the Brits signing on for the invasion:
When the Prime Minister discussed Iraq with President Bush at Crawford in April he said that the UK would support military action to bring about regime change, provided that certain conditions were met: efforts had been made to construct a coalition/shape public opinion, the Israel-Palestine Crisis was quiescent, and the options for action to eliminate Iraq's WMD through the UN weapons inspectors had been exhausted.
The document makes it clear in several places that the Brits believed SH had WMD. The mention them as considerations in the invasion.
It also appears that Bush was planning for invasion early in '02. What's still missing is why this planning was being done. Getting back at SH for trying to assassinate dad? PNAC-ing in the Middle East? Genuine concern for US security?
That is the question that needs answering at this stage. Depending on the answer, there'll be more questions. In any event, I think the Dems in Congress, given the two memos, have enough now to ask for a Special Prosecutor to get the answer to that question. I, teh numbah won Boosh sopporter evar!, think that's exactly what needs to be done at this stage.
Time to settle it. If he's guilty of lieing us into war, maximum punishment. If he's not...... studmuffingeddabowdit.
-
Regarding the timing of Bush's detractors, perhaps they are biding their time for a moment when it could do maximum damage? Maybe closer to the mid-term elections? Though that does seem too far off to me. That may be giving them too much credit; it seems to me Bush's backers have a lock on the shrewd/cunning market. During the election last year I got the distinct impression that it was an intravarsity squad taking on the pros.
Re the possibility of 40K enlistment bonuses: I wouldn't mind seeing the existing troops get more for the hardships they are enduring, but I don't think you can buy loyalty. 40K bonus will undoubtedly get more bodies on the buses but I'm not sure they'll get the right kind of people, or get them for the right reasons. And their buddies in combat may learn that truth at a pretty rotten time.
It also means Rummy will be back for the next $80 billion handout sooner. Good thing we'll never have to pay all that borrowed money back! Might as well make 'em 100K bonuses, eh, boys?
-
Oboe, seems like if they had it BEFORE the last election, they'd have used it then. Agree?
If they had it since the last election are you suggesting they would cynically put a hold on justice until they could play the card at mid-term elections? The Dems? Really?
(Don't forget, it would take a while to become daily front page news. Timing is everything, right?)
Volunteer enlistment recruitment bonuses won't bring the "right kind of people" coming for the "right reasons"?
Are we looking for guys that have taken a vow of poverty? I'd say you'd get more of what you're already getting. It almost would make it a liveable wage. People who are attracted to the military don't consider the wages first?
Military spending... yep, it's high. This will make it higher. I'd love to hear your suggestions though. You favor returning to the draft? I'm sure will get the right kind of people for the right reasons with that. Seriously, what do you propose instead of raising the bonus?
-
Did they have the info BEFORE the last election? My error if I missed something. I thought this stuff you're speaking were the latest memo's coming out of Britain, ie, Downing Street, etc. and how it gives more credence to the PNAC strategy over the WMD threat as the reason for the Iraqi invasion. Apologies if I followed the logic incorrectly.
My 'right kind of people/right reasons' relates to patriotism and loyalty; a sincere desire to serve your country- without money being the prime motivator (I hope you know what I mean). Would you want your son's backs guarded by someone who signed up solely becuase the 40K bonus? btw, are we already hiring mercenaries (non-U.S. citizens)?
From your link:
The Army also said Thursday that it will ease requirements for new officers by accepting older candidates and being more tolerant of past minor crimes.
Meaning in general, we just aren't getting as good of recruits as we were before and we are going to pay them more besides.
I would like to see all our troops who serve earn at least a liveable wage, not just the ones who sign up now. Seems to me too, it could cause some resentment from the guys who signed up last month and just missed the big bonus increase?
No, I don't propose a draft. My advice, as always, is to quit spending more money than we earn and make do with what we have. If that means a smaller force, so be it - and we must be willing to rethink our goals so they fit with what we can afford. I feel like a broken record always harping on the budget deficit, but I can't in good conscience ignore it. Have a lot of people just given up and accepted the delusion that it doesn't matter?
-
No, I think if they had it before the last election they'd have used it. I doubt they'll wait till mid-term to use this.
I'd rather have a $40K bonus guy guarding my son's back than no one at all.
When I was in, I missed a bonus other guys got. No hard feelings with me. It's just how it works. Like, "you shoulda been here Tuesday when the fish were biting" or when you buy a Chevy one week and the rebate doubles next week.
As for a smaller force, I think one positive thing has been shown. Since WW2 they've maintained through thick and thin we could fight two wars at once.
It was BS while I was in, it was BS before I was in, it was BS after I got out and it's still BS.
As for the deficit, I think everyone accepts them in wartime. It's a given about as far back as you want to go.
-
You're probably right. But still I thought they ran a fairly incompetent campaign, right down to the VP candidate who couldn't even add his home state to the ticket.
My comment about rethinking our strategies and limiting ourselves to what actions we can afford was meant to ensure that your sons would never be put in a position with exposed backs.
You know actually, I won't be flabbergasted to eventually hear talk of resurrecting the draft. Neither would it surprise me to hear talk of rescinding the 2 term limit on the Presidency.
-
Sometimes you don't have the luxury of dictating the engagement and/or strategy.
Neither a draft or a three term Presidency is likely.
-
a man more worthy of civil citation, i have not seen.
"Across seven administrations they have shared a belief in the importance of American military power. Today, they are President Bush's war cabinet. Here's an overview of their intertwined relationships over the decades, their conflicts, and the events that have shaped their views on America's role in the world."
Paths to Power (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/pentagon/paths/)
-
I never would've though a billboard-sized portrait of GW with the words "Our Leader", paid for by a media company was likely either.
I dunno - 3 years or so into this term, it may become apparent that Iran is the real threat in the Middle East. Intelligence might show Al Queda leaders, WMD, captured Americans being tortured- whatever. Bush may have to reluctantly order another full scale invasion to save America from an imminent threat. And this country hates to change presidents in the middle of a war, right?
The Republicans have a majority in both houses. I could see them introducing legislation to rescind the 2 term limit so GW can finish what he started because it's infinitely better to be "fighting them over there than fighting them over here."
I don't think its likely either - just giving the darker side of my imagination a little free reign.
-
lol...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4086380.stm
-
The White House has declined to respond to a letter from 89 Democratic congressmen asking if it was true — as Dearlove told the July meeting — that “the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy” in Washington.
I imagine the purported ambiguity of the word "fixed" was lost on those 89 congressmen.
lol...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4086380.stm
Brilliant, almost as good as the complete disappearance of UN/France Oil for Food corruption Op-Ed cut n'pastes since it was revealed that the US companies were doing most of the skimming.