| Author | Message | ||
     Dave Ross Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 4849 Registered: 5-2001  |
The operative word in my post (to sound like a Bush flack) is "becoming." The other words are non-operative. By lying the administration endangers us because they're losing credibility. Loss of credibility weakens our ability to work with others and that is bad for fighting terrorism. | ||
| Tommy Reingold Citizen Username: Noglider Post Number: 232 Registered: 1-2003  |
No, Saddam was never to be trusted with anything. He very well may have had WMD's. The point isn't whether we should have been doing something about him. One point is whether we should have done specifically what we did. And this thread is about whether the president misled the public to justify his actions. It's fine to say that the action was justified, but it's beside the point. Did the president act responsibly when he mentioned a reason that wasn't true? It appears that he knew it wasn't true. Moreover, his claiming that it doesn't matter whether he believed it, he merely said the British made the claim, is pretty immature and irresponsible. I was told to outgrow that stuff in the sixth grade. Tom Reingold | ||
| Tommy Reingold Citizen Username: Noglider Post Number: 233 Registered: 1-2003 |
Newjerz, welcome very much to the forum. I like a guy whom I disagree with who argues reasonably and logically. But wait. Who made the claim that Saddam was above suspicion. I haven't heard anyone make that claim. This is how you characterize us people who oppose the invasion, and I don't think it's accurate. Tom Reingold | ||
| duncanrogers Citizen Username: Duncanrogers Post Number: 592 Registered: 12-2001  |
Sbenois..WHOOPS | ||
| zoe Citizen Username: Zoe Post Number: 258 Registered: 7-2002 |
This is outrageous! It's worse than the Enron "scandal" where Democrats ceaselessly repeated the words "Bush", "scandal", & "Enron" over and over! They even have a better sounding slogan than "no war for oil." This time it's "Bush lied, people died!" See? It rhymes? Why don't all the "sheeple" get this? Just keep repeating "Bush lied" over and over again MOL liberals most of the American public has already tuned you out to the point where they don't even know this "scandal" is happening. You can only cry "wolf"...ehr "scandal" so many times without a payoff before much of the public starts to ignore you. Happily, the Democrats seem to have already reached that point. Check out Terry McAuliffe's bi-partisan efforts on the DNC website, bi-partisan, get it? Bush is doing what it takes to defend our country. | ||
| tjohn Citizen Username: Tjohn Post Number: 1590 Registered: 12-2001  |
We haven't found any WoMD in Iraq. The pre-war links between Al Qaeda and the Hussein regime seem to be few and far between. Why should we feel any safer today than we did when Hussein was still in power? It is nice with Hussein gone. It seems like we can move forward diplomatically after 11 years of constipation resulting from Hussein inconveniently NOT being overthrown following Desert Storm. But I don't understand why we are safer than if we had continued to run the no fly zones and keep up the inspection pressure. Meanwhile, we are now spending almost $4B/month occupying Iraq (only 2x von Rumsfeld's orginal guess). Iran seems to be a problem. N. Korea is a huge problem (hopefully being dealt with quietly through China). The most serious thing is that the war was marketed using inaccurate or exaggerated intelligence reports. This is extraordinarily serious. If you believe that the invasion was justifiable on other grounds, that is fine, but that is how it should have been presented to the American people. Bush has got to make sure the stabilization of Iraq is successful. Otherwise, he ought to read up on Br'er Rabbit and de Tar Baby, because we are going to be stuck good and proper if we don't stablize Iraq. | ||
| zoe Citizen Username: Zoe Post Number: 262 Registered: 7-2002 |
Tjohn, you say you "don't understand why we are safer than if we had continued to run the no fly zones and keep up the inspection pressure." Why cannot you see that the US means business. If you are a dictator in a country, do you seriously want to attract the attention of the US, make them angry, piss them off? Look at Syria. Tjohn you truly hate Bush. Your hate for him jeopardizes your ability to see what is right before youe eyes. Do every American a favor, spend your time trying to come up with a solution to assisting Iraq, rather than waste time denouncing our government every chance you get. | ||
| sbenois Citizen Username: Sbenois Post Number: 10122 Registered: 10-2001  |
Gee Tjohn, I don't recall a single post on MOL where I, or anyone else who was in favor of our military action, ever stated that we've got to do this because hussein was trying to buy uranium from a country in Africa. Every argument that was made was on the basis of 11 years of lies, deceit and non-compliance. After 11 years, this dictator lost the benefit of the doubt in my book. Actually, he lost it alot sooner but unfortunately, Bush was preceeded by a President who did not have the guts to get the job done. Except of course on the night that he learned he was being impeached and he needed to find a way to divert attention away from that fact. I have no sympathy whatsoever for hussein and I completely forgive Bush for any mistake that was made on this point. Is it important? Maybe to you but not to me. Why? Because I'm not going to crucify the guy just because he's a Republican President. Say, where is Joe Lieberman on all this? Or Bill Clinton? If the Democratic Party is so hell bent on making this an issue, are they going to ostracize those in their own party who endorsed the war based upon CIA intelligence? I doubt it. ---> Brought to you by Sbenois Engineering LLC <---- | ||
| sbenois Citizen Username: Sbenois Post Number: 10124 Registered: 10-2001 |
Dearest Tjohn, For your benefit as well as for those Democrats out there who are so convinced that we're there for the oil, that we are occupiers, that we're on a wild goose chase, etc, I have taken the liberty of giving you this link to Senator Joseph Lieberman's comments on Iraq in September 2002. You and the other members of the anti-Bush crowd might well remember that the man who delivered this speech from the Senate Floor is the same man who should be the Vice President of the United States right now. Maybe as you read his words that discuss Iraq's possession of weapons you will recall that this conflict did not begin on the day that the uranium story broke. http://www.senate.gov/~lieberman/speeches/02/09/2002913614.html Has anyone asked Joe if he knows where the weapons are? Who's next? Schumer? ---> Brought to you by Sbenois Engineering LLC <---- | ||
| tjohn Citizen Username: Tjohn Post Number: 1592 Registered: 12-2001 |
Dearest Sbenois, You will recall that in my post #7,234,651 on the subject, I clearly stated that my primary concern with invading Iraq was that it would turn into our version of the Israeli experience in South Lebanon. Consequently, I believed that it made more sense to continue with the no-fly zone containment policy, however imperfect. My standard for war was rather different than that that of the weathervanes in Washington. My standard for war with Iraq was active cooperation with and support for Al Qaeda. I do not believe that the Bush Doctrine of unilateral preemption is a viable long-term doctrine. But let's see where things stand in six months. By that time, we will have a clear idea of how things will work out. It is too soon to judge right now and it is next to impossible to get an accurate picture of what is happening in Iraq. | ||
| sbenois Citizen Username: Sbenois Post Number: 10125 Registered: 10-2001 |
Dearest Tjohn, Now there you go again with the "unilateral" stuff. It was NOT unilateral and even if you repeat it another fifty times and click your heels, it won't make it so. ---> Brought to you by Sbenois Engineering LLC <---- | ||
| montagnard Citizen Username: Montagnard Post Number: 9 Registered: 6-2003 |
As a signatory to the U.N. Charter, the U.S. has a number of rights and obligations with respect to other nation states. One of these is not to invade other states without the authorization of the United Nations (it's a due process kind of thing, and very American in its original inspiration). Although states plainly have the right to defend themselves against imminent attack, this was never a genuine factor in Iraq. The U.S. claim that Iraq possessed "weapons of mass destruction" and was about to use them has now been confirmed as bogus, as many people suspected from the start. Ironically, had the U.S. displayed more competent leadership, the U.N. would have probably authorized the use of force against Iraq, and the war (if even necessary) would have fought with the help of America's traditional allies. This multilateral approach would have left the U.S. in a much stronger position overall. We don't have to use the word "unilateral" if it causes offense. There are plenty of other words in the dictionary to describe this regrettable series of events. | ||
| strawberry Citizen Username: Strawberry Post Number: 921 Registered: 10-2001 |
duncan said "pot" | ||
| Insite Citizen Username: Insite Post Number: 82 Registered: 10-2002 |
more news than just this link to come, i'm sure. as condoleeza pointed out this weekend, as they begin to decipher all of the info and documentation and put the pieces together, the trickle will become a steady stream. not that it really matters, because each piece of news will be analyzed seperatley and found "not worthy" of justification for freeing iraq. but none the less, here it is: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/889jldct.asp | ||
| Dave Ross Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 4851 Registered: 5-2001 |
Pretty weak stuff, though at least better than lying about Iraqi uranium deals in a State of the Nation address. | ||
| Dave Ross Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 4852 Registered: 5-2001 |
"The notion that because Iraq may or may not have been seeking uranium from Africa undermines the case for going to war with Saddam Hussein, ignores the fact that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons, chemical weapons." -- Ari Fleischer 7/14/03 (From the "Don't know when to stop lying" Dept.) | ||
| Insite Citizen Username: Insite Post Number: 84 Registered: 10-2002 |
"I did not have sex with that woman" - Bill Clinton http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html - Bill Clinton 1998 Once a liar, always a liar, i guess using Dave's logic. I actually believed Clinton in his speech as much as I still do Bush. Clinton's timing was a bit suspect, but the act was justified then. Bush's team was provided information from respected internal and external sources (i.e. the Brits) and made use of as mush info in possible in his SOU speech. But then to surmise he was fooling us because one piece of a statement was not accurate EQUATES to our president lying about why we needed to act against Iraq is partisan and hypocritical (especially from Dave seeing as he was in support of this war before it started. If only i could get back to earlier threads). funny that .... | ||
| strawberry Citizen Username: Strawberry Post Number: 922 Registered: 10-2001 |
plus not to mention it was 14 WORDS!!! Considering it was a 20 minute speech, the dems are making to much of this. Of course they always do. You see they would rather fight the U.S. then they would our enemies. As Ann Coulter would say, they're once again committing treason. A party of fools, the Dems are.. Have been since Jimmy Carter. Here we are putting a serious hold on terrorism for the first time since The Twin towers were "first" attacked, and these filthy dems NOW want to investigate the U.S.!!!!!!If I were a Democrat I'd be ashamed. VOTE BUSH IN 2004. SAY NO TO ANTI-AMERICAN DEMOCRATS... | ||
| Dave Ross Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 4853 Registered: 5-2001 |
Um, wrong. Bush removed the unproven information about uranium months earlier in a speech. He added them back into his State of the Nation without obtaining any further intelligence. Total deception. About war. About real people. About national security. Not an affair with an intern. I supported the war and still do, though to a lesser degree now because I'm beginning to see a pattern of deception by Bush. But seriously, how do you defend Fleischer's lie? He repeats the same garbage over and over and couches his words much more than anyone I've ever heard. | ||
| Dave Ross Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 4854 Registered: 5-2001 |
Strawberry, I know you have a problem with the Rule of Law, so perhaps you'd like to relocate to Saudi Arabia, where the men are men and the government can escape self-examination. Here, in this messy democracy we are constantly forcing our leaders to account for their actions. It's an American thing to do. The un-American thing would be to not care or call each other silly names or stand up for ideals we don't believe in. |
