# Bush asked to explain UK war memo



## dmc (May 12, 2005)

This is disturbing...  Seems our president was determined to get Sadam - even if HE KNEW the evidence was flimsy...   

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/US/05/11/britain.war.memo/index.html



> A British official identified as "C" said that he had returned from a meeting in Washington and that "military action was now seen as inevitable" by U.S. officials.
> 
> "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."


----------



## thetrailboss (May 12, 2005)

:roll:

Not surprising.


----------



## dmc (May 12, 2005)

thetrailboss said:
			
		

> :roll:
> 
> Not surprising.



If Clinton can get impeached for lying about an affair with an intern...

Bush should go to jail for the deaths of 1600 Americans and untolled Iraqis...


----------



## thetrailboss (May 12, 2005)

dmc said:
			
		

> thetrailboss said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You'd think so, but if you do so much as 'question' these folks, they get offended and call you anti-patriotic.   :roll:


----------



## dmc (May 12, 2005)

thetrailboss said:
			
		

> dmc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Funny...  I don't think thats what our "founding Fathers" envisioned..
In fact it doesnt seem like this "administration" has much respect for the concepts laid down when this country was formed...

This is proof... Bush lied...


----------



## Charlie Schuessler (May 12, 2005)

dmc said:
			
		

> ... Bush lied...


Tell us something we don't already know...


----------



## ski_resort_observer (May 12, 2005)

Bush had to go in and topple Sadam....he promised his daddy he would remove this thorn in his legacy no matter what it took. He promised over cocktails on the deck of daddy's home in Maine.


----------



## Paul (May 13, 2005)

ski_resort_observer said:
			
		

> Bush had to go in and topple Sadam....he promised his daddy he would remove this thorn in his legacy no matter what it took. He promised over cocktails on the deck of daddy's home in Maine.



I thought Dubya said that he only answers to the "Higher" father.

I think Jesus called him on the Batphone and said "Go for it!!!"


----------



## Charlie Schuessler (May 13, 2005)

Paul said:
			
		

> I thought Dubya said that he only answers to the "Higher" father.
> 
> I think Jesus called him on the Batphone and said "Go for it!!!"



HA, HA, HA.... :lol:


----------



## thetrailboss (May 13, 2005)

Charlie Schuessler said:
			
		

> Paul said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Same reaction from me...


----------



## dmc (May 13, 2005)

Bush is my shepherd; I dwell in want. 
He maketh logs to be cut down in national forests. 
He leadeth trucks into the still wilderness. 
He restoreth my fears. 
He leadeth me in the paths of international disgrace for his ego's sake. 
Yea, though I walk through the valley of pollution and war, 
I will find no exit, for thou art in office. 
Thy tax cuts for the rich and thy media control, they discomfort me. 
Thou preparest an agenda of deception in the presence of thy religion. 
Thou anointest my head with foreign oil. 
My health insurance runneth out. 
Surely megalomania and false patriotism shall follow me all the days of thy term, 
And my jobless child shall dwell in my basement forever.


----------



## thetrailboss (May 13, 2005)

Not really related...but the thing that was really sad was that the govt. let United just walk away from their employee's pension funds   Pretty sad day.


----------



## dmc (May 13, 2005)

thetrailboss said:
			
		

> Not really related...but the thing that was really sad was that the govt. let United just walk away from their employee's pension funds   Pretty sad day.



Why should the Gov care about the working class...??


----------



## madman (May 13, 2005)

The sad part is it wont stop with United.You cant trust your government or your employer anymore.Promises are only good as long as they benefit them. Or at least dont hurt to bad


----------



## madman (May 13, 2005)

By the way Madman has always been a play on my last name,however after these stories I think there may be more to it


----------



## ctenidae (May 16, 2005)

On the Bush front- No real surprise. I am no longer shocked, surprised, or uspet by any shenanigans pulled by the current administration. At least with Clinton, you could understand why he lied. I mean, Monica isn't all that hot.

On the pension front, there are likely more on the way:
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/sto...A511-4AF6-A008-C028405A0919}&garden=&minisite

Whole lot of underfunded pension plans in cash-strapped companies.


----------



## jjmcgo (May 25, 2005)

*Patriotism*

"You'd think so, but if you do so much as 'question' these folks, they get offended and call you anti-patriotic."

That's because when your nation is attacked and your leadership sets a plan of action that involves war and you don't support the national initiative, you give aid and comfort to the enemy(ies). That's being unpatriotic.
It's unfortunate but part of our system of government that national elections can occur during war. This gives rise to politicians challenging the national plan, as happened in the last presidential election. That's part of our system of democracy and an acceptable exception to supporting your country unfailingly when our troops are in harm's way.
However, the election is over and the administration's course has been affirmed by the national electorate. 
At this point, there is very little that can be said in opposition to the war that could be considered patriotic. Most of the opposition to the war is based in political disappointment and bitterness.
There was more than one reason to invade Iraq. Thousands of bodies have been found in mass graves. Much greater atrocities took place in Abu Ghraib than the prisoner embarassments perpetrated by a few of our troops. The list goes on and on. We have brought democracy for the first time to Afganistan and Iraq. There's quite a record of accomplishment if you'll put down your Times and Globes and pay attention.
I realize this thread was trending lefty/unpatriotic before I weighed in on the side of the USA. Why don't we stick to hiking? Leftist rants don't go unchallenged in America anymore.


----------



## Greg (May 25, 2005)

*Re: Patriotism*



			
				jjmcgo said:
			
		

> That's because when your nation is attacked and your leadership sets a plan of action that involves war and you don't support the national initiative, you give aid and comfort to the enemy(ies). That's being unpatriotic.
> It's unfortunate but part of our system of government that national elections can occur during war. This gives rise to politicians challenging the national plan, as happened in the last presidential election. That's part of our system of democracy and an acceptable exception to supporting your country unfailingly when our troops are in harm's way.
> However, the election is over and the administration's course has been affirmed by the national electorate.
> At this point, there is very little that can be said in opposition to the war that could be considered patriotic. Most of the opposition to the war is based in political disappointment and bitterness.
> ...


I typically stay out of political discussions, but thank you for bringing some balance here and I happen to agree with you. I'll go back in my hole now...


----------



## hammer (May 25, 2005)

*Re: Patriotism*

With all due respect, jjmcgo, I have to differ with a number of your statements...



			
				jjmcgo said:
			
		

> That's because when your nation is attacked and your leadership sets a plan of action that involves war and you don't support the national initiative, you give aid and comfort to the enemy(ies). That's being unpatriotic.


I think that you can support the troops and complain to the politicians about what they are fighting for without being unpatriotic.  Being patriotic is about supporting our country, not necessarily about unconditional support of the decisions of its elected leadership.



			
				jjmcgo said:
			
		

> However, the election is over and the administration's course has been affirmed by the national electorate.


Just because a slim majority of the electorate voted for Bush it does not mean that they agreed with all of his policies and actions...



			
				jjmcgo said:
			
		

> There was more than one reason to invade Iraq.


The reason why we initially invaded Iraq was that we (the public) were told that Saddam had WMD and that he was a threat to the US.  All of the other reasons (good, bad, or otherwise) came up after we were at war.



			
				jjmcgo said:
			
		

> We have brought democracy for the first time to Afghanistan and Iraq.


I'd agree that this is a very good thing...but...

I believe that going into Afghanistan was the right thing to do since we knew that Al Qaeda was being harbored there and Al Qaeda is a threat to the US.  I still do not understand, however, why we went into Iraq; there are a lot of other countries that need democracy, why are we not invading those countries and replacing their governments as well?



			
				jjmcgo said:
			
		

> I realize this thread was trending lefty/unpatriotic before I weighed in on the side of the USA. Why don't we stick to hiking? Leftist rants don't go unchallenged in America anymore.


Reasonable people like a good debate...

I may be considered one of the "left leaning" people on the forum, but I like to read other's opinions (as long as they aren't just trolls).  Your response is appreciated (even if I don't necessarily agree).


----------



## thetrailboss (May 25, 2005)

*Re: Patriotism*

I will defend my POV, which was used to begin this post.  



			
				jjmcgo said:
			
		

> That's because when your nation is attacked and your leadership sets a plan of action that involves war and you don't support the national initiative, you give aid and comfort to the enemy(ies). That's being unpatriotic.



I disagree completely.  Dissent is a part of democracy...that's what makes it slow to respond to threats.  Our country is NOT a dictatorship.  

No good American supports "the enemy."  In 2002, we were told it was "terrorism."  Did we go after the terrorists?  No.  We went after Saddam, who is a bad guy as well.  Now we have stirred up more anger in the Arab world against us.  It would have been better to think through before rushing to war...there is a lot more terrorism now...granted it's in Iraq, but Americans are being killed daily now.  




> It's unfortunate but part of our system of government that national elections can occur during war. This gives rise to politicians challenging the national plan, as happened in the last presidential election. That's part of our system of democracy and an acceptable exception to supporting your country unfailingly when our troops are in harm's way.



So what do we do?  Get rid of elections?  I agree that our troops are getting the short end of the stick...in fact some in power are trying to cut their medical aid, benefits, pay, and equipment.   :roll: They get the shaft and yet they STILL believe in this country as much as I do.  If Bush and the other hawks are so committed to this war, why aren't their kids going to fight it?  



> However, the election is over and the administration's course has been affirmed by the national electorate.



Disagree.   :-? Read the Wall Street Journal who, in a joint poll with NBC last week, found that 53 percent of Americans surveyed now feel that the war was not "worth it."  We elected a PRESIDENT we didn't have a referendum on the war...in fact, Bush and Rove did a good job getting people to focus on other supposed 'threats' like gays/lesbians  :roll: 



> At this point, there is very little that can be said in opposition to the war that could be considered patriotic.



So the fact that there was some bad intelligence and that people made mistakes justifies what is happening now? 



> There was more than one reason to invade Iraq. Thousands of bodies have been found in mass graves. Much greater atrocities took place in Abu Ghraib than the prisoner embarassments perpetrated by a few of our troops. The list goes on and on.



This was NOT what we were told...we were told WMD and links to Al Qaeda.  

Is this a good reason to go to war (crimes against humanity), you bet...but where were we in Rwanda and the Sudan then?   :-? 



> We have brought democracy for the first time to Afganistan and Iraq. There's quite a record of accomplishment if you'll put down your Times and Globes and pay attention.
> I realize this thread was trending lefty/unpatriotic before I weighed in on the side of the USA. Why don't we stick to hiking? Leftist rants don't go unchallenged in America anymore.



I agree that democracy in those countries is a good thing, but in order for it to be truly sustainable, THEY have to bring it about themselves.  Otherwise, the governments will have no legitimacy and we'll be right back to where we begun.  

And no, I don't read the Times or the Globe.  I pay attention to a number of news outlets, some "conservative" and some "liberal."  I also have traveled overseas and sometimes see what they think about it.  

NO rants should go unchallenged...CONSERVATIVE or LIBERAL.  Our country has freedom of speech remember...that can be burdonsome at times, but it is our system.   :beer:

With that said, I respectfully disagree with your pov.


----------



## hammer (May 25, 2005)

Wow...two responses to an opposing viewpoint in 15 minutes...


----------



## jjmcgo (May 25, 2005)

*Overwhelmed*

I know. I got an administrator, a moderator and a hammer dropped on me!!!
I said what I had to say and then I privately responded to two messages. I'm done. Everyone knows what I think.


----------



## hammer (May 25, 2005)

*Re: Overwhelmed*



			
				jjmcgo said:
			
		

> I know. I got an administrator, a moderator and a hammer dropped on me!!!
> I said what I had to say and then I privately responded to two messages. I'm done. Everyone knows what I think.


That's a good one... :lol:


----------



## riverc0il (May 25, 2005)

> That's because when your nation is attacked and your leadership sets a plan of action that involves war and you don't support the national initiative, you give aid and comfort to the enemy(ies). That's being unpatriotic.





> At this point, there is very little that can be said in opposition to the war that could be considered patriotic. Most of the opposition to the war is based in political disappointment and bitterness.



total and utter horse crap.  that's the most unamerican thing i've ever heard, to disagree with the government's plan of action is unpatriotic?  speaking out against action's our government makes, actions that one may believe damage the country's standing in the world is actually aiding the enemy?  if you consider terrorists our enemy, there are many intellectual circles that believe we further the terrorist cause and increase their ranks by our actions in iraq... i fail to see how opposing a strategy is aiding this type of enemy.


----------



## jjmcgo (May 25, 2005)

*I said I was done*

But you had to provoke me. I can't think of a better way to put it than you did. You are running around in intellectual circles trying to justify giving aid to the enemy. We had our national referendum on the war in November. We re-elected our President. This is our national policy.


----------



## riverc0il (May 25, 2005)

> I realize this thread was trending lefty/unpatriotic before I weighed in on the side of the USA. Why don't we stick to hiking? Leftist rants don't go unchallenged in America anymore.


your tieing leftist political thought and disagreement with government to a word such as unpatriotic in this comment again smacks of a lack of respect of differing points of view and freedom of speech.  to suggest that people voicing concerns and disagreeing with the government is unpatriotic is an unamerican comment, imo.

you ask why we don't just stick to hiking despite having gotten involved in the thread in the first place?

finally, to suggest leftist thoughts do not go challenged in this country any more is rediculous to an extreme.  discussion and disagreement is a good thing and it's happening everywhere to a spectacular degree.  and that is a beautiful and very american thing.  however, to qualify well thought out and well argued points of view as "rants" suggests you haven't even considered the opposing point of view.  you can argue against a point of view and for your own arguement without dismissing someone's well thought out discussion as a "rant."


----------



## pedxing (May 27, 2005)

> _I realize this thread was trending lefty/unpatriotic before I weighed in on the side of the USA. Why don't we stick to hiking? Leftist rants don't go unchallenged in America anymore._
> 
> I typically stay out of political discussions, but thank you for bringing some balance here and I happen to agree with you. I'll go back in my hole now...
> _________________
> Greg



The London memo surprised me not at all.  It was clear to me at the time that Bush had decided on war, and was working on selling it.  It was clear to me that he shrilly denounced Saddams compliance with inspections in the months prior to war because he was afraid the inspections were working and would rob of him his chance to go to war.  He was counting on a pro-government, pro-war reflex to kick in once he went to war.  People rally around the flag and the President when there is a crisis.  Support may flag over a few years.

Slinging around slurs, like "un-patriotic" over protests against the war is deeply troubling, but it is precisely the kind of thing Bush was counting on.

Most of the mass graves and the worst atrocities cited in justification of the war were filled, or being filled when Reagan, BushI and Rumsfeld were backing him selling hims stuff and providing him with military intelligence.

Jane Fonda's trip to North Vietnam crossed the line from dissent over policy into the un-patriotic, but no one here is praising the terrorists in Iraq, calling American POWs liars, or posing for pictures with suicide bombers.

I must say, as a flag waver, a long time poster and ardent critic of Bush and his war, I am troubled and surprised that our administrator would endorse accusations of being un-patriotic to reasoned debate and posts.  It's one thing to launch an argument, its another to throw such labels out in this manner.


----------



## Greg (May 27, 2005)

pedxing said:
			
		

> I must say, as a flag waver, a long time poster and ardent critic of Bush and his war, I am troubled and surprised that our administrator would endorse accusations of being un-patriotic to reasoned debate and posts.  It's one thing to launch an argument, its another to throw such labels out in this manner.


Let me clarify here. I happen to agree with jjmcgo's  opinion that Bush's foreign policy is the right approach. I do not share his views that feeling otherwise is unpatriotic despite my quoting of his post and indicating argreement. I simply perused his post and did not fully digest it until after reading it a second time. I apologize for the hasty reply.


----------



## ALLSKIING (May 28, 2005)

*Re: Patriotism*



			
				Greg said:
			
		

> I'll go back in my hole now...


 I hate debates online. I stay in my hole. :wink:


----------



## pedxing (May 28, 2005)

Got it Greg.  Thanks for clarifying.


----------



## ctenidae (May 29, 2005)

Notice there has still been no explanation of or rebuttal to the memo. The lack of a response from the White House, while not surprising, is certainly worrisome. Ofrtunately, they had the fillibuster froo-fra available to distract the populace.

Regardless of the hindsight justifications for the invasion, the fact remains the first three or four reasons we were given for the invasion were false. Hussein didn't ahve any WMD, Iraq didn't support bin Laden, al Qaeda didn't have any base in Iraq. Only after all of those reasons were shown to be false did the "Well, Hussein was a really bad guy" reasoning come about. That's what's disturbing to me, almost as disturbing as the ability of many people to forget those bits of information.


----------



## BrockVond (May 31, 2005)

*Re: Patriotism*



			
				jjmcgo said:
			
		

> It's unfortunate but part of our system of government that national elections can occur during war.



Incredible.


----------



## dmc (Jun 1, 2005)

ctenidae said:
			
		

> Notice there has still been no explanation of or rebuttal to the memo. The lack of a response from the White House, while not surprising, is certainly worrisome. Ofrtunately, they had the fillibuster froo-fra available to distract the populace.




Bush will only comment on some things...
Like Amnesty International blasting the US in their report..

His administration is an information quelling machine..

Our friendships around the world are crumbling while we force feed our brand of democracy down peoples throats...
We force countries out of theocracies while our government jams their religious ideal down our throats on a daily basis...
We preach that we are saving lives from dictators while fighting a war against foriegn fighters in those very countries...  Killing off civilians right and left...
We continue to pander to these oil producing countries that control an S-load of our debt...

Meanwhile - THOUSANDS of our men and women have died in the name of fighting terrorism which is a thin disguise for regiem change in countries we feel we don't like or trust...

I'm disgusted....
Countries will follow our lead - the countries that have nukes are just doing what they see us do...
Do as I say - not as I do...


----------



## ctenidae (Jun 13, 2005)

The plot thickens...

http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2005/06/13/british_memo_faulted_us_postwar_plan/


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 13, 2005)

ctenidae said:
			
		

> The plot thickens...
> 
> http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2005/06/13/british_memo_faulted_us_postwar_plan/



Man...this is turning out to be a kind of "Watergate" of our generation... :roll:


----------



## dmc (Jun 13, 2005)

thetrailboss said:
			
		

> ctenidae said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



We can only hope it leads to his impeachment...  But somehow I doubt it...


----------



## ctenidae (Jun 13, 2005)

It might delay his coronation, though.


----------



## Stephen (Jun 13, 2005)

LOL you guys sound like the right wing nut jobs of the CLinton years.

Of course, the only difference is that Clinton commited an impeachable offense, and was impeached.

Too bad he wasn't tried for his perjury.

-Stephen


----------



## dmc (Jun 13, 2005)

Stephen said:
			
		

> LOL you guys sound like the right wing nut jobs of the CLinton years.
> 
> Of course, the only difference is that Clinton commited an impeachable offense, and was impeached.
> 
> ...



WHAT?????!?!?!?!  
your outta your mind..  If this is true and he took us to a war with lies....
He's gotta go...

That is an impeachable offense...


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 13, 2005)

Stephen said:
			
		

> LOL you guys sound like the right wing nut jobs of the CLinton years.
> 
> Of course, the only difference is that Clinton commited an impeachable offense, and was impeached.
> 
> ...



OK, so fooling around in the Oval Office with an intern is a more serious offense than lying to the world and endangering the lives of American troops and starting an international conflict?  :blink:  

I'm not going to condone what Clinton did, but I think that the stakes are MUCH higher with what might have gone down regarding pre-war intelligence and preparation (or lack thereof).  Now we're talking about national security here.

This kind of logic makes no sense to me...


----------



## riverc0il (Jun 13, 2005)

first off, i'll agree with what trailboss said.  BUT suggesting that bush should be impeached for taking the nation to war is just spreading flame bait rhetoric for bush supporters to wave around and use to bring down opposition points of view through attacking a not well thought of point of view rather than the critical and central arguements and issues really at hand.  bush did nothing impeachable, though i believe his administrations actions and decisions took the country down a very horrible and dangerous path that has done more wrong than good.  while i think a president should be honest and truthful, a blow job in the office is a drop in the pan compared to discrediting a nation's good name, making people throughout the world hate the country, creating more terrorists than were originally plotting against us, and violating a central point of united states and united nations view points, that you should not attack a country unless attacked first or have an imminent attack.  changing the reasoning for going to war after the fact has reduced our country's credibility and the ongoing mess over there has reduced our accountability to the world.  these are the issues at hand, and amazingly, none of them are impeachable offences to the best of my knowledge, through it's been a long time in the nation's history since any public official has been more deserving of the dishonor.


----------



## hammer (Jun 13, 2005)

Stephen said:
			
		

> LOL you guys sound like the right wing nut jobs of the CLinton years.
> 
> Of course, the only difference is that Clinton commited an impeachable offense, and was impeached.
> 
> ...


So what Bush has done is not?

Oh, that's right...AFAIK Congress has not made Bush testify on the justification for the Iraq war so I guess we can't accuse him of perjury...yet...


----------



## Stephen (Jun 13, 2005)

Um... Congress authorized it based on the SAME intelligence that Bush based it on. 

So, we'll need to impeach John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, and a whole lot of Democrats along with Bush because apparently they ALL lied to us.

So, you start with Bush, I'll start with Kerry and maybe sometime in our lifetimes we'll see some action on these "LIARS".

-Stephen


----------



## dmc (Jun 13, 2005)

Stephen said:
			
		

> Um... Congress authorized it based on the SAME intelligence that Bush based it on.
> 
> So, we'll need to impeach John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, and a whole lot of Democrats along with Bush because apparently they ALL lied to us.
> 
> ...




uhh....  Good one..  But - Bush lied..  If the memo is true...  And why should I care about Kerry - He's not the president...???

It's so typical of conservatives to push current issues to an issue from the past..
I'm not talking about Clinton, Kerry, Kennedy or even Truman... 

Serously if the only reason we went to war was regigm change - I'm going to be even more mad...


----------



## hammer (Jun 13, 2005)

Stephen said:
			
		

> Um... Congress authorized it based on the SAME intelligence that Bush based it on.
> 
> So, we'll need to impeach John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, and a whole lot of Democrats along with Bush because apparently they ALL lied to us.
> 
> ...


That's a good point -- and most likely the reason why Bush will never be held accountable...plenty of blame to go around...

This is depressing.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 14, 2005)

riverc0il said:
			
		

> first off, i'll agree with what trailboss said.



Cheers!   :beer: 



			
				riverc0il said:
			
		

> BUT suggesting that bush should be impeached for taking the nation to war is just spreading flame bait rhetoric for bush supporters to wave around and use to bring down opposition points of view through attacking a not well thought of point of view rather than the critical and central arguements and issues really at hand.



I don't think I said that...my point with the 'Watergate of our generation' is that the effect of the incident will do so much damage for trust in our officials and the national institutions.



			
				riverc0il said:
			
		

> bush did nothing impeachable, though i believe his administrations actions and decisions took the country down a very horrible and dangerous path that has done more wrong than good.  while i think a president should be honest and truthful, a blow job in the office is a drop in the pan compared to discrediting a nation's good name, making people throughout the world hate the country, creating more terrorists than were originally plotting against us, and violating a central point of united states and united nations view points, that you should not attack a country unless attacked first or have an imminent attack.  changing the reasoning for going to war after the fact has reduced our country's credibility and the ongoing mess over there has reduced our accountability to the world.  these are the issues at hand, and amazingly, none of them are impeachable offences to the best of my knowledge, through it's been a long time in the nation's history since any public official has been more deserving of the dishonor.



Exactly.  Well articulated.


----------



## ctenidae (Jun 14, 2005)

I'd be careful saying Bush did nothing impeachable. If it's shown that he willfully influenced intelligence analysis in order to provide justification for war, then I do believe that's an impeachable offense. If it's not, the Senate better make it. Of course, there's no way that's going to happen, is there? It's just never a good thing to have the Executive and Legislative branches firmly under the same party.


----------



## dmc (Jun 14, 2005)

ctenidae said:
			
		

> It's just never a good thing to have the Executive and Legislative branches firmly under the same party.



Is the "religious right" a party?


----------



## Stephen (Jun 14, 2005)

ctenidae said:
			
		

> It's just never a good thing to have the Executive and Legislative branches firmly under the same party.



Did you feel the same way pre-1996?




			
				dmc said:
			
		

> Is the "religious right" a party?



Nope. Just a majority. Majority rules in our government. Period. Get used to it.

Correction: Regligous right is not the majority. I'm thinking sanity is coming back into majority power.

-Stephen


----------



## dmc (Jun 14, 2005)

Stephen said:
			
		

> dmc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The "religious right" is not a majority - just very organized...  They even got the Texas Gov to sign some bills in a church the other day...

Scarey stuff...

PS: If I had a dollar for every conservative that said "Get used to it" after the last election - I'd be a rich!   It really annoys me... Like my opinion doesnt count..


----------



## ctenidae (Jun 14, 2005)

Stephen- Yes I did. I have always felt that way, and will always feel that way.

dmc- The only thing you can do is tell conservatives to "Get over it" when they bring up Clinton. He beat Bush I. Get over it. He got a hummer. Get over it. He did NOT get impeached. Get over it. He presided over one of the best economic times we've seen. Get over it. The world kind of liked us then. Get over it.


----------



## dmc (Jun 14, 2005)

ctenidae said:
			
		

> Stephen- Yes I did. I have always felt that way, and will always feel that way.
> 
> dmc- The only thing you can do is tell conservatives to "Get over it" when they bring up Clinton. He beat Bush I. Get over it. He got a hummer. Get over it. He did NOT get impeached. Get over it. He presided over one of the best economic times we've seen. Get over it. The world kind of liked us then. Get over it.



I tend to try and think of the present and the future rather then the past...  
What concerns me is WHATS GOING ON NOW!  And how we can change the situation to make it better..


----------



## riverc0il (Jun 14, 2005)

> I don't think I said that...


you didn't trailboss, my comment following my argreement with you was in regards to another poster.


----------



## hammer (Jun 14, 2005)

Stephen said:
			
		

> Nope. Just a majority. Majority rules in our government. Period. Get used to it.


Sorry to say this but...

If majority truly ruled, Gore would have been President in 2001 and we may not have been having this discussion.


----------



## ctenidae (Jun 14, 2005)

Careful there, *hammer*- the Electoral College was put in place by the Founding Fathers, in part because they believed the general public wasn't bright or well-informed enough to directly elect their leader (I'm beginning to understand how smart those guys were). Bringing up any point that questions 1) the patriotism of the Founding Fathers, or 2) the legitimacy of Bush II's reign is unpatriotic and possibly dangerous. Remember- the terrorists hate our freedom, which God and the Founding Fathers gave to us, as is embodied by the man Bush. To say that Gore actually won means you think Jefferson et al were wrong, and that Bush is illegitimate, which means you must be a freedom-hating terrorist.   

Why do you hate America so much?


----------



## dmc (Jun 14, 2005)

ctenidae said:
			
		

> Remember- the terrorists hate our freedom, which God and the Founding Fathers gave to us, as is embodied by the man Bush. To say that Gore actually won means you think Jefferson et al were wrong, and that Bush is illegitimate, which means you must be a freedom-hating terrorist.
> 
> Why do you hate America so much?



BAW HAW HAW!!!

I needed that post... Thanks...


----------



## Stephen (Jun 14, 2005)

He only hates the part of America that disagrees with him... like a good liberal should.   :beer:

Remember: tolerance means accepthing only that which agrees with everybody else you like.

-Stephen


----------



## hammer (Jun 14, 2005)

Stephen said:
			
		

> He only hates the part of America that disagrees with him... like a good liberal should.   :beer:
> 
> Remember: tolerance means accepthing only that which agrees with everybody else you like.
> 
> -Stephen


Whoa...I hope that this isn't becoming a :flame: skirmish.

I just couldn't resist the comment about majority rule.  Hopefully everybody knows that, Republican or Democrat, in the world of politics it's all about getting your own way...majority rule has nothing to do with it...


----------



## riverc0il (Jun 14, 2005)

just to add a little fuel to the fire  i would like to present the actual memo that sparked the thread for primary document reference for folks following this topic.  i looked back and noticed the only two links were to news sources that did not link to the document (unless i missed the link?).  here is the memo as appeared in the UK TimesOnline on May 1, 2005.  the downing street memo is dated july 23, 2002. 

interesting verbage that i noticed included the following quotes:



> C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.


specifically of note is that the intelligence and facts were being "fixed" around the policy.  vague but given the circumstances that statement is telling.  additionally, "Military action was now seen as inevitable" long before all the avenues of peaceful resolution were supposedly exaughsted.  bear in mind, the president at this time was still publically fronting that he desired a peaceful solution.



> It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.


again, it seems as if a decision had been made before all possible non-violent methods of achieving the end goal had been followed through.  and i think the WMD reasoning is now in hind sight seen as not a good reason.  it certainly is not a reason used by the president any more.

is lying to the american people an impeachable offense?  i do not believe it is, correct me if i am wrong.  especially in regards to national security as i respect the government's ability to decieve it's people to protect the nation in the effort of national security (NOTE: given the government comes clean and fully discloses the situation and legitiment reasons for the disception after the fact and after the security issue has passed).  a public deception could have been used in this case to mask the administrations motives and or plans.  essentially, our boys through on the poker face and played a hand.  was that a violation of law and an illegal action?  i guess you have to be underoath and decieve for it to actually be "wrong" in the eyes of the judicial system and the constitution.  but the vague and fine line between right and wrong is not always best judged by our systems, though we must follow them to a T else all we have strove for in this countries complex histories is wasted.

*sigh*

i am not making an argument for the current administration or the president.  the memo is damning as far as i am concerned, putting in print what i long suspected.  but i see no recourse for the american people except to educate people on the issue, show them the primary source, and let them make their own decisions.  the trend is growing in the direction of people feeling like they have been had.


----------



## hammer (Jun 14, 2005)

riverc0il said:
			
		

> is lying to the american people an impeachable offense?  i do not believe it is, correct me if i am wrong.  especially in regards to national security as i respect the government's ability to decieve it's people to protect the nation in the effort of national security (NOTE: given the government comes clean and fully discloses the situation and legitiment reasons for the disception after the fact and after the security issue has passed).  a public deception could have been used in this case to mask the administrations motives and or plans.  essentially, our boys through on the poker face and played a hand.  was that a violation of law and an illegal action?  i guess you have to be underoath and decieve for it to actually be "wrong" in the eyes of the judicial system and the constitution.  but the vague and fine line between right and wrong is not always best judged by our systems, though we must follow them to a T else all we have strove for in this countries complex histories is wasted.
> 
> *sigh*
> 
> i am not making an argument for the current administration or the president.  the memo is damning as far as i am concerned, putting in print what i long suspected.  but i see no recourse for the american people except to educate people on the issue, show them the primary source, and let them make their own decisions.  the trend is growing in the direction of people feeling like they have been had.


IMO, you have a valid point about "lying for security reasons", but if that were truly the case in Iraq then the administration would have stood by its original story that we attacked Saddam because US security was threatened.

I've actually found it difficult to understand the real reason why the administration pushed us into this war...


----------



## riverc0il (Jun 15, 2005)

exactly hammer.  the reason has changed numerous times and is currently different than the innitial reasoning given.  to date, the admin has not come clean and sources indicate deception without valid reasons.


----------



## Stephen (Jun 15, 2005)

It's all about oil, remenber? The $.75/gallon prices prove that.

Oh, wait. That's just the discount I get with my GOP membership card.

:lol:

-Stephen


----------



## dmc (Jun 15, 2005)

Stephen said:
			
		

> He only hates the part of America that disagrees with him... like a good liberal should.   :beer:
> 
> Remember: tolerance means accepthing only that which agrees with everybody else you like.
> 
> -Stephen


CLICK FOR STORY



> The president proudly considers himself a politician who forges ahead, despite the obstacles, but some Republicans are worried that Bush's resolve could cost them control of Congress in 2006 or 2008.
> 
> They fear his advisers are ignoring the signs of voter discontent, moving too slowly to adjust their strategies to new realities. Some top Republicans also blame GOP congressional leaders for focusing on legislation that seems to help a select few while making no progress on issues that matter to many.
> 
> ...


----------



## ctenidae (Jun 15, 2005)

Conditions are similar to when the Dems lost control of Congress. Let's hope history repeats itself, *dmc*. 

*Stephen*- Why is it a bad thing to hold an opinion and think that people who disagree with you are wrong? Isn't that the point of an opinion? The Conservative war cry of "Liberals hate America!" is well beneath your usually astute thoughts. I can't imagine you are 100% on board with every item on the Republican agenda. If you disagree with any part of it, doesn't that make you an America-hating Liberal (gasp!), too?

Also, I notice that, to date, no one has come up with a decent, or any, for that matter, explanation of the bait-and-switch on reasons for going to war. Are the media so scared, and the Dems so spineless, that no one's pushing this issue? Is the Republican machine so powerful? Doesn't that give anyone else the heebie-jeebies?


----------



## dmc (Jun 15, 2005)

ctenidae said:
			
		

> I notice that, to date, no one has come up with a decent, or any, for that matter, explanation of the bait-and-switch on reasons for going to war. Are the media so scared, and the Dems so spineless, that no one's pushing this issue? Is the Republican machine so powerful? Doesn't that give anyone else the heebie-jeebies?



I've never felt more political manipulation then now..
Anybody notice that now the election is over the terror alerts have stopped?  I guess it's not important to be scared anymore cause the election is over...


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 15, 2005)

Stephen said:
			
		

> He only hates the part of America that disagrees with him... like a good liberal should.   :beer:
> 
> Remember: tolerance means accepthing only that which agrees with everybody else you like.
> 
> -Stephen



Yes, folks need to look beyond party identification and see that we are all AMERICANS.  This is BOTH Republicans and Democrats now...and equating hate with liberals is the kind of  :flame:  :uzi: rhetoric that must stop.  

Also, those in power need to realize that it is in the best interest of our country to have folks question what is being done.  This is NOT Unpatriotic... :flag:


----------



## dmc (Jun 15, 2005)

thetrailboss said:
			
		

> Also, those in power need to realize that it is in the best interest of our country to have folks question what is being done.  This is NOT Unpatriotic... :flag:



It's funny... I'm constantly bombarded with conservatives saying we(liberals) don't pay enough attention to the soldiers and the good things about the Iraq "war"..  
I seek the soldiers out and read their interviews..  Funny thing is - lots of them actually like the fact the debate is raging..  They realize it's part of what makes the USA great..  And is something that they fight to protect..


----------



## JimG. (Jun 15, 2005)

ctenidae said:
			
		

> Are the media so scared, and the Dems so spineless, that no one's pushing this issue? Is the Republican machine so powerful? Doesn't that give anyone else the heebie-jeebies?



One day it will occur to you that these groups are all in it together; all in it for their best interests, not yours; all part of the problem, none part of the solution.


----------



## ctenidae (Jun 15, 2005)

I do, *JimG*, I do. That's part of what gives me the heebie-jeebies.


----------



## JimG. (Jun 15, 2005)

ctenidae said:
			
		

> That's part of what gives me the heebie-jeebies.



Not a bad thing. One day you, and the rest of us who usually put up with what goes on, will get totally fed up with what is happening and we will take action.
The majority of the country is here with us, in the middle of most issues, or "liberal" about some and "conservative" about others. I've posted before about my faith that the silent majority will rise up one day and force our government to work "for the people", not narrow special interests.
It's coming...it'll happen in the blink of an eye and there won't be any going back.


----------



## riverc0il (Jun 15, 2005)

JimG, that actually happened back in the late 1800s and early 1900s during the labor movement.  politicians and the big money makers realized that in order to keep their control, they had to control the low man on the proverbial totem pole.  what happened?  american what from upper class and working class with a fine line of seperation to a very very small upper class, a rather small "underclass" and a constantly expanding middle class with media portrays allowing people to believe they are "upper-middle class" when they are anything but.  the middle man was created in which he has just enough to get by and even quite a few creature comforts...  but too much to loose.  it threw a bone at the demanding and growling american and shut him up.  here, have the freedom of speech and complain to your hearts content but don't take action.  sit down, shut up, and watch TV.  here's american gladiators (props to those who recognize that line).

i don't believe there will be action or people rising up or a silent majority take over.  maybe it's the pecimism of my generation showing through (part of the problem, not the solution for sure), but until people are willing to risk their creature comforts (really really risk it i mean) and make some personal sacrifice and stop watching TV and actually get up and do something, it's only going to get worse.

my hope is it does get worse.  i hope it gets so bad the whole thing collapses in on itself and that's when people will realize how bad it is and do something.  the natural tendency of humanity does not trend towards action and fixing a problem until it's generally too late to solve something in a sensible manner.  just my gen-x styled opinion.


----------



## JimG. (Jun 16, 2005)

riverc0il said:
			
		

> JimG, that actually happened back in the late 1800s and early 1900s during the labor movement.  politicians and the big money makers realized that in order to keep their control, they had to control the low man on the proverbial totem pole.  what happened?  american what from upper class and working class with a fine line of seperation to a very very small upper class, a rather small "underclass" and a constantly expanding middle class with media portrays allowing people to believe they are "upper-middle class" when they are anything but.  the middle man was created in which he has just enough to get by and even quite a few creature comforts...  but too much to loose.  it threw a bone at the demanding and growling american and shut him up.  here, have the freedom of speech and complain to your hearts content but don't take action.  sit down, shut up, and watch TV.  here's american gladiators (props to those who recognize that line).
> 
> i don't believe there will be action or people rising up or a silent majority take over.  maybe it's the pecimism of my generation showing through (part of the problem, not the solution for sure), but until people are willing to risk their creature comforts (really really risk it i mean) and make some personal sacrifice and stop watching TV and actually get up and do something, it's only going to get worse.
> 
> my hope is it does get worse.  i hope it gets so bad the whole thing collapses in on itself and that's when people will realize how bad it is and do something.  the natural tendency of humanity does not trend towards action and fixing a problem until it's generally too late to solve something in a sensible manner.  just my gen-x styled opinion.



You are obviously a thoughtful person, rare in any generation. Your reference to the labor movement is interesting in that it shows more of the political trickery that we still live with.

At the risk of sounding like an anarchist or paranoid, the 2 party politcal system is brilliantly designed to obscure real issues behind bipartisan and polar bickering; keep the masses consumed with disagreement and they won't think about the real issues. That's what we have now. Read some of these threads and you would think certain people are blood enemies; I don't think that's the case, but it is the illusion that those entrenched in the political arena want.

My vision of majority uprising is akin to masses of zombies suddenly rising from the dead and seeing the light of day. Humans can do anything when they work as a team with a common goal. Once masses bond against a government, it either changes or falls. It's happened throughout history, why not here?


----------



## ctenidae (Jun 16, 2005)

You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time. That should be sufficient for most purposes.


----------



## jjmcgo (Jun 21, 2005)

*Rivercoil wrote:*

"my hope is it does get worse. i hope it gets so bad the whole thing collapses in on itself."

Earlier in this thread, he argued with me when I said his words were unpatriotic and gave comfort to our enemies.
Let him be known by his words.

BTW, I saw this picture on another website today. Let's try to remember what this war is all about: We were attacked.
http://www.jeffhead.com/attack/inwindows.jpg


----------



## Stephen (Jun 21, 2005)

Liberals have positioned themselves to look good when America looks bad. As such, they ROOT for America to fall apart at the seems. Some even go so far as to help it along (ref. Durbin's thoughts on the military). 

You are for America or against it. Even in Clinton's WORST days, I never prayed for things to get worse, just so Clinton would look bad. Rooting for the country to fail IS unpatriotic, sedition, and, in some cases, treasonous, IMO

-Stephen


----------



## dmc (Jun 21, 2005)

*Re: Rivercoil wrote:*



			
				jjmcgo said:
			
		

> BTW, I saw this picture on another website today. Let's try to remember what this war is all about: We were attacked.
> http://www.jeffhead.com/attack/inwindows.jpg



Yeah... about that.... Ummm... Sadam did not attack us on 911.... that would've been Bin Laden...

Have we captured him yet?    Let's see...  I'm going to say - NO...


----------



## Stephen (Jun 21, 2005)

*Re: Rivercoil wrote:*



			
				dmc said:
			
		

> Have we captured him yet?    Let's see...  I'm going to say - NO...



Because we have to pay homage to your beloved UN and not just go ILLEGALLY into the country he is hiding and wipe him out.

So, which is it that you want? Violation of a nation's sovereignty (which you argue we did in Iraq) or waiting to kill bin Laden at the proper time (which you complain above isn't happening)? 

Typcial no-win situation, eh?

-Stephen


----------



## dmc (Jun 21, 2005)

Stephen said:
			
		

> Liberals have positioned themselves to look good when America looks bad.



Not this liberal...  I want America to be great!
I want to be able to travel to other countries without being harrassed...
I want my friends to prosper and have jobs!
I want people to not have to choose between food or prescription drugs...
I want to know that my brother and sisterinlaw will not have to go back to Iraq...
I want the erosion of the middle class to stop...

You seem to know a lot about liberals...  Probably form Sean Hannity and Coulter...


----------



## dmc (Jun 21, 2005)

*Re: Rivercoil wrote:*



			
				Stephen said:
			
		

> dmc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



My beloved UN!?!?!?!?! Why do you keep generalizing about me... It makes it tough to respond...

We violated Iraqs sovereignty when we invaded...
Whats the difference...??

Oh - thats right Pakistan has nukes...

I want Bin Laden.... It makes me mad that we spent all our resources on fulling GWBs destiny of taking Sadam instead of taking out Bin Laden..


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 21, 2005)

*Re: Rivercoil wrote:*



			
				Stephen said:
			
		

> dmc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Sovereignty is an issue that goes beyond the UN and predates the institution.  Let's put it this way: would you want Iranians to just enter this country in the name of arresting a terrorist or whatever?


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 21, 2005)

dmc said:
			
		

> I want America to be great!
> I want to be able to travel to other countries without being harrassed...
> I want my friends to prosper and have jobs!
> I want people to not have to choose between food or prescription drugs...
> ...



Amen!!  :beer: :flag:


----------



## dmc (Jun 21, 2005)

thetrailboss said:
			
		

> dmc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thanks... and one more thing..
I don't want people shoving their religious ideals down my throat...  I have my own belief set - thank you very much...


----------



## Stephen (Jun 21, 2005)

*Re: Rivercoil wrote:*



			
				thetrailboss said:
			
		

> would you want Iranians to just enter this country in the name of arresting a terrorist or whatever?



They already can, thanks to our pourous borders... but that's another discussion.

OK, brief history lesson: So the UN states that there are WMDs in Iraq. We go back and say "where are they?" Iraq says "What WMDs"? We say, "the ones you showed the UN 10 years ago". Iraq says "we have no WMD's". Iraq has used WMDs on their own people, and now threatens their neighbors. The countries of the world vote that Iraq must produce either the WMDs or evidence of their destruction, or else. Iraq says "what WMD's." We attack rather than wait for them to use their weapons. Turns out they've been moved, destroyed or didn't exist.

So. Here are the questions based on the above:

Where are the WMDs? They clearly existed 10 years ago. Did they get used, destroyed or moved? Those are the only three options. They existed 10 years ago, based on the documentation of the UN. The other option is the the UN was wrong 10 years ago. Even in my total skepticism of the usefulness of the UN, I find it hard to believe that they could blow it THAT bad. Besides, we have the evidence that he has USED them. Therefore, in some capacity, he HAD them

Therefore, since Saddam HAD WMDs, would Saddam use them on the US, given the chance to do so? What does the preponderance of evidence point to? He WOULD use them, either through his own operatives or a link to another possible organization.

He had WMDs. He had the desire to use them. He had the ability to use them. This was a direct threat to our security.

If 9/11 could have been prevented (and it could, if immigration in this country wasn't half-assed), then the powers-that-be should be held responsible (cf, Kennedy's immigration reform of the 60's along with Clinton's policies and Bush's failure to close the borders). 3000 Americans paid the price for this lapse.

IF WMD's are used and kill 10K, 100K, or 1M people, then the government would be even more skewered for the lapse, since THE ENTIRE WORLD knew Saddam had them.

So, to sum up, here are is the short story of what the President AND CONGRESS faced:

1) Saddam had WMDs.
2) He will use them on the US if possible.
3) It is possible to use them on the US.
4) The UN had condemned Iraq and Saddam multiple times, including the final "or else" sanction.
5) It would be our (Prez and Congress) fault if he uses them successfully and we did nothing to prevent.

What decision would YOU make under those circumstances? Al Quaeda/the Taliban was already on the run in Afghanistan, therefore a lesser threat at the time. Would you wait until Saddam had committed an offense? Would you allow Americans to die to convince a lazy America that action is called for? If so, I hope you do not gain a position of leadership.

I am proud that our President and our Congress (both Democrats AND Republicans) took the responsibility of protecting us (the citizens) as a priority over their own approval ratings, or worse, waiting for 100% of the citizens to be behind it (which would take something more drastic than 9-11, which obviously wasn't drastic enough). THAT is leadership.

This is MY opinion in the subject. I don't watch Hannity, and I don't read Coulter. In fact, I listen to Franken and Colmes, in the hopes that I can learn how the other side thinks. One day, I might understand and be able to share their feelings of natural goodwill of the rest of the world. Until then, I prefer to be cautious of those who criticize the U.S. while they do NOT have our best interests in mind.

That's all I got to say about that.

-Stephen


----------



## dmc (Jun 21, 2005)

*Re: Rivercoil wrote:*



			
				Stephen said:
			
		

> Until then, I prefer to be cautious of those who criticize the U.S. while they do NOT have our best interests in mind.



Rest assured this Liberal Democrat has nothing but the best interests of the USA in mind...

And thats a lot of the reason I battle against GWB and his cronies every darn day...  I try and expose lies and spin and educate people that just want to forward emails and google for their opinions..

I do love this country..  And that's what really bugs me...  I'm not being a good American because I'm totally against our current administration..

But the reality of it is...  One side doesnt make America great...  It's all sides...


----------



## ctenidae (Jun 21, 2005)

A few important points that may alter your thinking, Stephen. They may not, but I think they're important.

It's not UN evidence that provides the basis for Saddam having WMD. The US sold Saddam the weapons, the technology, and the training, because he was fighting Iran at the time, and the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Rumsfeld was a big part of that sale.

Did Saddam still have WMD when we invaded? Apparently not. The UN inspectors had found no trace of them before, and the only real evidence that he had any was that his records were crap and didn't show everyhting had been destroyed.

Would Saddam have used WMD on the US? Doubtful. First, Iraq had no means to deliver them to the US. Second, Saddam didn't have ties to any substantial terrorist networks that could hav/would have done it. Third, if Saddam were going to use them on anyone, it would have been the Israelis, and he wasn't that stupid. Nuts, sadistic, evil, yes, but not stupid.

Based on that, Saddam may not have had WMD, he didn't have any way to use them on the US, and he knew better than to use them anywhere else, so he was not a direct threat to our security. Flimsy case to build a war on. 

Besides, WMD isn't the current reason we invaded Iraq, or did you not get that memo?


----------



## Stephen (Jun 21, 2005)

ct,

Here are the list of UN resolutions that Iraq violated:



> UNSCR 1441 - November 8, 2002
> 
> * Called for the immediate and complete disarmament of Iraq and its prohibited weapons.
> * Iraq must provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA full access to Iraqi facilities, individuals, means of transportation, and documents.
> ...



There is more than the paper trail. Hundreds of Iraqi scientists have reported working on these programs. Perhaps this is the "Left-Brain Conspiracy). We also have evidence of delivery vehicles (ie, medium range balistic missles) that were prohibited by UN resolutions. There have been more than one report of "UN-sealed" bunkers being found empty; bunkers that once held WMD components.

Saddam used them on his own citizens. Saddam stupid? Remember Kuwait? Stupid move there. And the terrorist training camp found in Northern Iraq? Here's a bonus to the movie quote thread: "I always know what happens in my hotel". Saddam is quoted in one breath to be aware of being sly and aware of everything around him and in the next breath too dumb to figure out how to use WMDs in the US or to know that terrorists were training in his country.

At this point, with the thousands of Kurds and Iranians who have died from Iraq's chemical weapons, to say he does not have them is as bad as saying the holocaust didn't happen.

I guess we know the root of Durbin's comparison now.

-Stephen


----------



## dmc (Jun 21, 2005)

Sadams scientist were "yessing" him... 

Here's another interesting read about our Vice President and his horrible guesswork on post Iraq invasion...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/20/AR2005062001177.html


----------



## dmc (Jun 21, 2005)

Now - I'm confused...  Do you subscribe to the UN?  I thought you said it was all messed up...?

If so - why would you care...?




			
				Stephen said:
			
		

> ct,
> 
> Here are the list of UN resolutions that Iraq violated:
> 
> ...


----------



## Stephen (Jun 21, 2005)

dmc said:
			
		

> Sadams scientist were "yessing" him...
> 
> Here's another interesting read about our Vice President and his horrible guesswork on post Iraq invasion...
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/20/AR2005062001177.html



dmc,

Try not to confuse editorials with facts. Again, another facet of liberalism: "It's not whether it's true or false, it's the seriousness of the charge that matters." 

This is why Durbin is still in power and Lott is not.

-Stephen


----------



## ctenidae (Jun 21, 2005)

I never said Saddam complied with the UN resolutions. His non-compliance is the reason the sanctions were never lifted. However, it's tough to invade a country because they're violating UN resolutions when the UN declines to invade with you.

I also never said he never had them, just that he didn't appear to have them at the time we invaded.

I also never said he didn't associate, to an extent, with terrorists, just that he didn't have connections to terrorist groups that were willing or able to deliver WMD to the US. Terrorist camps in northern Iraq probably made it a little easier to keep an eye on the Kurds, anyway.

Saddam's use of chemical agents in a battlefield scenario, however thin that scenario might have been, hardly compares to the attempted systematic extermination of an entire race. Using that argument is either sensationalist or an attempt to Godwin the thread. Seems to me your comments are closer to Durbin's than mine were.

Saddam's move in Kuwait, while perhaps poorly executed, wasn't exactly stupid. Iraq does have a territorial claim on Kuwait, and needed not only the oil there, but also the sea ports. That doesn't make an invasion okay, but it does provide a reason. Saddam's mistake there was thinking the US wouldn't or couldn't react, and that Saudi Arabia would rather have Iraq in Kuwait than the US in Meca.

Those medium range ballistic missles you mention are commonly known as "SCUDS". You may remember their use during the first Gulf War. You may also recall that the US hasn't found any since invading.

The emptied bunkers you mention have, by and large, only been emptied since the US invasion, and the majority of the remainder stood empty for quite some time before that.

There are still two points that, no matter the uN resolutions or prior WMD use, never get directly answered. What's the story on the pre-war memos, and why has the reasoning for the invasion changed so many times? Explain both of those clearly and effectively, and I might see your side of things better. Until then, I will stand by my opinion that invading Iraq was wrong.


----------



## ctenidae (Jun 21, 2005)

"It's not whether it's true or false, it's the seriousness of the charge that matters." 


That's a political concept invented by Nixon.

Durbin's a putz, too, and part of the reason the Democratic party is in such terrible shape, and allowing the Republicans to run rampant.


----------



## Stephen (Jun 21, 2005)

To answer your two questions:

1) I don't know enough about the memos to be able to make a judgement call. However, you are talking about a few pieces of paper taken out of the context of an entire diplomatic process. That small view can be easily skewed to anyone's agenda (either side).

2) Changing reasons: The administration is trying too hard to appease their critics rather than sticking to it's guns about what it knows to be the truth. This has certainly watered down the original reasons.

-Stephen


----------



## ctenidae (Jun 21, 2005)

Two memos in which the British clearly indicate they are convinced Bush has already decided to invade, 3 months before the question is even brought before the UN, doesn't strike me as out of context.

What truth on the WMD should Bush be sticking to his guns about? That we haven't found any? That we haven't found any evidence there were any after about 3 years before the invasion? That evidence was massaged to fit the conclusion described in the British memos? Or is the truth in the second reason for invading? Would that truth be that al Qaeda had no ties to Iraq prior to the invasion? Or that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11? Or is it that Saudi Arabia had more to do with 9/11 than Iraq? Or that bin Laden is still at large (and now suspected to not be anywhere near Afghanistan)? I'd go on about the current reason du'jour, but I'm not even sure I know what it is.

I'll agree, 100%, that Saddam is a piece of scum that doesn't deserve to breath the same air as a banana slug. I'll also agree that he oppressed the people of Iraq, that he used chemical weapons on his own people, that he was a threat to the stability of the region, and that he generally was not a nice person. I won't agree that that's a reason to invade a country. If it were, then why haven't we planted an American flag in Iran, North Korea, China, and most of Africa?

I don't think Bush is trying to appease his critics. I think he's backpedaling, and I think he and his buddies have been lying through their teeth to the American public about a great many thigns.


----------



## JimG. (Jun 21, 2005)

*Re: Rivercoil wrote:*



			
				dmc said:
			
		

> But the reality of it is...  One side doesnt make America great...  It's all sides...



YES!!!!!


----------



## JimG. (Jun 21, 2005)

*Re: Rivercoil wrote:*



			
				jjmcgo said:
			
		

> "my hope is it does get worse. i hope it gets so bad the whole thing collapses in on itself."
> 
> Earlier in this thread, he argued with me when I said his words were unpatriotic and gave comfort to our enemies.
> Let him be known by his words.
> ...



Ah, there's the patriotism card...a common play by any politcal party when there is disagreement; those who disagree or who seek change are unpatriotic. So predictable!

But I'll agree that what Steve said is wrong...things couldn't get any worse than they are right now! Fire away.


----------



## ctenidae (Jun 21, 2005)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607_1,00.html

The text of the "Downing Street Memo"

8 months before the invasion.


----------



## Stephen (Jun 21, 2005)

ctenidae said:
			
		

> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607_1,00.html
> 
> The text of the "Downing Street Memo"
> 
> 8 months before the invasion.



Is C supposed to be Colin Powell?

If so, then we're to believe that the one man in the administration who did NOT want to go to war is accusing the administration of moulding the intelligence around the need for war? 

Ok, so Bush is supposed to answer to what? That an opponent of his policy is accusing him of molding the intelligence around the policy? 

Colin Powell went from being Uncle Tom to Deep Throat? Again, you hate the person when he supports the Prez and worship him when he goes against. I can't believe his interpretation of the events 100% any more than I can believe Ken Starr's interpretation of Clinton's affairs. Both shaped their statements around THEIR deisred outcomes... Powell did not want to go to war.

-Stephen


----------



## dmc (Jun 21, 2005)

Stephen said:
			
		

> dmc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Look at the quotes from Cheney...
Pretty much fact....  he DID say that stuff..

Your pigeon-holing is really making me sick....


----------



## dmc (Jun 21, 2005)

Stephen said:
			
		

> Colin Powell went from being Uncle Tom to Deep Throat? Again, you hate the person when he supports the Prez and worship him when he goes against.



Colin Powell is a great american...  
He told W not to go to war...  Bush totally blew off the Powell Doctrine...  If he had followed Colin's advise we wouldnt be in this mess...   

But sadly he passed into the Bush Whitehouse Politcal Emasculation scene....
Along with other Bush appointees that dissagreed with him...

There's alot of great americans that dissagree with W and the war... His father included..


----------



## dmc (Jun 21, 2005)

dmc said:
			
		

> Stephen said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Forgot to mention...  To keep it ski related...
My brother skied with Cheny at Jackson Hole..  He was the Flight Surgeon for the Pentagon for a while and both Cheney and Powell were in his care during Gulf War I.....   Flew with the SecDef crew...


----------



## ctenidae (Jun 21, 2005)

C is the traditional name of the head of MI6- the British Secret Intelligence Service, in this case Richard Dearlove. Interestingly, C, no matter who it is, always writes his memos in green ink. Those whacky Brits.

Granted, the authenticity of the memo has not been officialy confirmed by either government, but neither has it been denied (officialy or un-), and it has been confirmed off the record by a variety of people in the British government.

Your strawman isn't working, Stephen. For more information, you can Google "Downing Street memo." There are about 1,580,000 hits.


----------



## ctenidae (Jun 21, 2005)

Not ski related, but it was cold as can be when I hunted out of a duck blind that Bush I had used the day before.

I got more ducks than he did.


----------



## pedxing (Jun 22, 2005)

[/img]


----------



## JimG. (Jun 23, 2005)

pedxing said:
			
		

> [/img]



 :lol:


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 23, 2005)

pedxing said:
			
		

> [/img]



That's great!!!

 :lol:


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 23, 2005)

pedxing said:
			
		

> [/img]



That's great!!!

 :lol:


----------



## Greg (Jun 23, 2005)

I wanna know how I can buy the wet carpet...


----------



## ctenidae (Jun 23, 2005)

Not sure about the wet carpet (hopefully the black lab puppies had nothing to do with it), but the pre-war intel (fixed) is freely available.


----------



## Stephen (Jun 23, 2005)

ctenidae said:
			
		

> Not sure about the wet carpet (hopefully the black lab puppies had nothing to do with it), but the pre-war intel (fixed) is freely available.



Free pair of Sandy Berger's pants to the buyer.


----------



## riverc0il (Jun 25, 2005)

> "my hope is it does get worse. i hope it gets so bad the whole thing collapses in on itself."
> 
> Earlier in this thread, he argued with me when I said his words were unpatriotic and gave comfort to our enemies.
> Let him be known by his words.


just because i don't like the system doesn't mean i do not unconditionally love my country.  shame on you for again insisting otherwise.  questioning our government is the most patriotic thing we can do as citizens.  lest we forget, our great nation was founded by people that rebeled against their prior government.


----------



## riverc0il (Jun 25, 2005)

> Where are the WMDs? They clearly existed 10 years ago. Did they get used, destroyed or moved? Those are the only three options.


no, those are not the only three options.  the bioweapons are no longer potenent.  i can not remember the exact figure, but i believe the worst of the bio weapons expired after 5-7 years or so and it is known that no new WMD's have been recently produced with a current shelf life.


----------



## riverc0il (Jun 25, 2005)

Stephen said:
			
		

> ctenidae said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


C in the memo is the Director of SIS (aka MI6) - Sir Richard Dearlove.  keep in mind, this memo was written for and by the british, but the memo is regarding brits who sat in on meetings with top US admin.  not sure where you got colin powell from...


----------



## ctenidae (Jun 26, 2005)

Stephen was using Colin Powel as a strawman, *riverc0il*. A favored tactic, great for creating a diversion and controlling the conversation, something the current administration is very, very good at.


----------

