| Author |
Message |
    
Guy
Supporter
Username: Vandalay
Post Number: 519
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 1, 2005 - 2:29 pm: | 
|
Tom , I look at the Senate resolution as the collective rationale of both Congress and the Whitehouse on Iraq. It is pretty much correct except for the missing stockpiles of WMD's.
Cagey, some of those same issues could have been taken up with Reagan during the 1980's and we all know how that turned out.
|
Sgt. Pepper
Citizen
Username: Jjkatz
Post Number: 619
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 1, 2005 - 2:30 pm: |
|
All this stuff about the words "imminent threat" remind me of the "definition of 'is.'"
Bush used synonyms. Others in his Administration used synonyms as well as the actual word "imminent." This is a fact and continuing to deny it based on the technicality that Bush never used the actual word doesn't change what he and his staff said more than once. Geez already. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 3060
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 1, 2005 - 2:36 pm: |
|
We might invade those other countries. Best that they think it's possible, which may make having to do so unnecessary.
Liberating and saving people worked quite well as a rationale for The Balkans. What was different then? There was an imminent threat of genocide in Kosovo based on experiences in Bosnia. They've found few of the graves compared the predictions (guess someone lied?), and NATO currently guards what's left of the Serb population from being 'cleansed' by those we saved. Wesley Clarke has a piece out today on this that's hilarious in it's hypocrisy when related to Iraq.
This all must pain so many Bush detractors as it makes their criticisms seem all the more hollow. |
CageyD
Citizen
Username: Cageyd
Post Number: 221
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 1, 2005 - 2:39 pm: |
|
RE: Regean, you mean irresponsible spending and taxation policies that lead to staggering deficits that eventually plunged the country into a terrible recession that lasted for 4+ years destroying the lives of many families. You mean those policies? |
Bobkat
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 7439
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 1, 2005 - 2:42 pm: |
|
cjc, I don't know how to break this to you gently, but Clinton ain't President anymore.
I think it is about time that the Bushies find justifications for their actions other than, "well Clinton said/did............" |
Albatross
Citizen
Username: Albatross
Post Number: 474
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 1, 2005 - 2:46 pm: |
|
...especially when by your own arguements Clinton had a POOR record on intellegence (cutting the CIA) and the military (further cuts). |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 5327
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 1, 2005 - 2:51 pm: |
|
What criticisms are hollow? And what makes them so, victory? |
Guy
Supporter
Username: Vandalay
Post Number: 521
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 1, 2005 - 2:55 pm: |
|
No Cagey the man who got us out of the economic recession of the late 1970's, reformed tax policy, defeated communism in The Soviet Union, among other things.
Deficits don't cause recessions by the way. The recession lasted from 1990-1991 and was over quickly, just in time for Clinton.
Speaking of Clinton , the policies and actions of all former Presidents should be used when debating the actions and policies of the current.
Clinton and Bush had a similar view of both Social Security and Iraq. The difference is that Bush is willing to act on it.
|
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 3061
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 1, 2005 - 2:56 pm: |
|
Bobkat -- I know it's uncomfortable for you, but the point made here is that many reasonable people in governments far and wide -- and then those not in that group, like Clinton -- believed the intelligence to be true. The "Bush Lied" and "he said 'imminent threat' charges are baseless no matter how many times people may repeat them.
Cagey -- Reagan doubled the revenues to the Treasury with his tax policies. Is that the reason Congress spent too much? |
bottomline
Citizen
Username: Bottomline
Post Number: 171
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 1, 2005 - 2:56 pm: |
|
Guy,
You are correct, they never said imminent.
They said immediate, unique, urgent, real and serious, among others, but apparently not imminent.
"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us."
- Vice President Cheney, 8/26/2002
"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."
- Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, 9/19/02
"Today the world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq."
- President Bush, 11/20/2002
"The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands."
- President Bush, 11/23/02
"The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American. ... Iraq is a threat, a real threat."
- President Bush, 1/3/03
Iraq is "a serious threat to our country, to our friends and to our allies."
- Vice President Cheney, 1/31/03
|
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 5328
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 1, 2005 - 3:02 pm: |
|
Thank you for those quotes, bottomline. cjc, how do you deny or defend them? How do they NOT say imminent threat? Didn't he call for quick action because he claimed the matter was urgent? Doesn't the evidence show that the matter was not as urgent as he claimed? Straight answers, please. Please answer the questions I'm asking, not some other questions intended to make me think of something else. |
Guy
Supporter
Username: Vandalay
Post Number: 522
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 1, 2005 - 3:02 pm: |
|
Bottom, based on the intelligence given to Congress and the President "imminent" could have been an appropriate word, even though he didn't use it.
Tom, Bush's decision was based on pre war world wide accepted intelligence.
The Deulfer Report still showed Saddam as a threat minus the large stockplies.
|
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 1020
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 1, 2005 - 3:07 pm: |
|
quote:the point made here is that many reasonable people in governments far and wide -- and then those not in that group, like Clinton -- believed the intelligence to be true.
It's a debatable point as to what degree reasonable people believed the evidence. I know the wingers prefer a binary view of the world, but it's more likely that there was a range of belief. Some accepted the intelligence without reservation, some believed it was probably true, some believed it might be true, others thought it was unlikely to be true.
The difference is that most of the rest of the world sought verification of the intelligence through inspections, which were in fact underway before Bush launched the military invasion. If the inspections had continued, the likelihood that there were WMD in Iraq would have decreased to the point where there would have been no imminent reason to attack. |
Guy
Supporter
Username: Vandalay
Post Number: 523
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 1, 2005 - 3:11 pm: |
|
The Deulfer Report says otherwise. It says that Saddam would have ressurected his WMD program , once the inspectors left. A threat was removed and a democracy will replace it. |
Bobkat
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 7440
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 1, 2005 - 3:15 pm: |
|
Guy, there is inteligence and then there is actionable inteligence. They aren't the same.
I bought into the "unique and urgent threat" like a majority of Americans, not to mention the Senate. Part of the reason I did this was that while I don't always agree with them I have always considered Cheney and Rumsfeld highly inteligent, very experienced pros. I am also aware that Cheney was against carrying on to Bagdad during Desert Storm, mostly for the reasons that came true.
As the years have rolled on and more and more information has become available I am very afraid that the WMDs were nothing more than a smoke screen to be used as an excuse for invading Iraq. The basic idea has been around since a bunch of Majors and Lt. Colonels at the Army War College wrote the basic plan as a class exercise and the neo-con community has been beating the drum on this subject since they found out about the plan. I am beginning to believe that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld didn't have actionable inteligence and Bush really wan't to be a war President. |
Phenixrising
Citizen
Username: Phenixrising
Post Number: 387
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 1, 2005 - 3:23 pm: |
|
We might invade those other countries. Best that they think it's possible, which may make having to do so unnecessary.
Ahhh…I doubt that very much. I don't believe they'll invade any country that has NUKES!
Guy, as federal funds for our highways are cut becuase of the cost of Iraq ask yourself was Bush right.
And ask yourself that question when you ride NJ Transit or ride the subways or bus. Because of the Feds cuts in transportation, our fares are going up and our roadways are a mess. |
Guy
Supporter
Username: Vandalay
Post Number: 524
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 1, 2005 - 3:24 pm: |
|
Bobk, in the post 9-11 world the status quo in Iraq could not continue. Reading the Deulfer Report , I don't view the WMD rationale as a smoke screen.
As far as actionable intelligence goes, why did the UN say comply fully or face serious consequences. You don't sign 1441 unless you believe the intelligence is actionable.
Phenix , on Sept 12,2001 I was apprehensive about riding NJT and the subway. Not any more. |
Albatross
Citizen
Username: Albatross
Post Number: 475
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 1, 2005 - 3:33 pm: |
|
Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't there Energy Department and CIA reports debunking the only physical evidence of a WMD program, available before the war?
People claim in the same breath that Clinton was bad on intellegence and then cite his beliefs. People claim that the UN is incompetant but then cite their beliefs. I think it's interesting. |
Phenixrising
Citizen
Username: Phenixrising
Post Number: 388
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 1, 2005 - 3:36 pm: |
|
Guy,
I'm referring to the economic costs of running our system. Is it safer before 9/11? After 9/11 I still remain alert.
Last year while riding NJT, a middle eastern man got on the train and left a huge package on the racks above. He left to use the bathroom in another car. You should've seen the look on the others passengers faces. One guy called in the conductor, but he assured everyone that the man just went to the restroom.
Goes to show…you never know.
Nothing is 100%full proof. |
Guy
Supporter
Username: Vandalay
Post Number: 525
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 1, 2005 - 4:04 pm: |
|
Phenix , remember Safer but not safe to quote the 9-11 commission.
Back to the original post , Jon Stewart may agree that Bush may be right:
Jon Stewart, late in the Daily Show last night to Newsweek pundit Fareed Zakaria: "I’ve watched this thing unfold from the start and here’s the great fear that I have: What if Bush, the president, ours, has been right about this all along? I feel like my world view will not sustain itself and I may, and again I don’t know if I can physically do this, implode
|
bottomline
Citizen
Username: Bottomline
Post Number: 172
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 1, 2005 - 4:12 pm: |
|
Guy, he's a comedian.
First you cite Clinton as a source of support and inspiration. Then the U.N. Now a late-night comedian. So, what the hell, why not believe everything George Bush tells you as well?
|
Guy
Supporter
Username: Vandalay
Post Number: 526
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 1, 2005 - 4:26 pm: |
|
Bottom, what is wrong with using the statements of Clinton and the UN to support an argument?
Jon Stewart made the same statement that the author that Heybub referenced at the beginning of this thread. Seems relevent if not funny.
Why not post it?
|
Mustt_mustt
Citizen
Username: Mustt_mustt
Post Number: 247
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 1, 2005 - 5:47 pm: |
|
Whatever happened to the report investigating the "outing" of Joe Wilson's wife who was a CIA agent? That uranium cake that Iraq purported to buy from Niger and which was repatedly drummed up as "evidence," in addition to those aluminium tubes went out of the window. Colin Powell was made to look like a fool to the rest of the world when he held up a vial of what was that? Why is still that bozo Bob Novak giving us the inside thoughts of Congressmen and Senators when he should be tried by the Justice dept? I am never tired of repeating myself: This war was immoral, illegal and racist. PERIOD.
We'd be extremely naive to assume that the neocons in DC who are a cabal of ruthless people, actually had this noble idea of liberating Iraq from Saddam while at the same time,cozying up with dictatorial monarchies from Saudi Arabia to Bahrain. |
Albatross
Citizen
Username: Albatross
Post Number: 476
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 1, 2005 - 6:07 pm: |
|
Mustt, where do you get that this is a racist war? I can't make the connection myself, and there's nothing in your post to support that statement.
I'll say it a third time: Why is Clinton credible now when he is not on a) the military (he cut it) b) intellegence (he cut that too)? After all, weren't intellegence cuts in the Clinton years responsible for decreased intellegence of value from the Middle East? Either Clinton was bad with these matters, or he was good. It can't be both ways.
And also: why is intellegence 4 years old (whatever Clinton said) more credible than intel (or lack of it) that is 2 years old? I'm thinking Energy Department reports discounting the only physical evidence, among other things...
...and that completely ignores the fact that nobody has found weapons. Professed vast quantities of WMD were never found. I'm sure that we can agree that if they exist, not finding them was a dangerous failure. If they exist, what effort is being made to fnd them? Is any? If they never existed or were decommissioned, that's still a failure. Iraq can be a stellar success, but the Bush administration still has that failure on its head.
EDIT: and BTW, if weapons are found that are said to come from Iraq, we better get ALL the info and intellegence this time. Trust is running a little thin on this matter as a) it is an embarassment and b) it wouldn't be the first cover-up. |
Mustt_mustt
Citizen
Username: Mustt_mustt
Post Number: 248
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 1, 2005 - 6:33 pm: |
|
I've always thought that the war against Iraq was racist because of the way the Iraqis were treated - bombed to smithereens - and the tens of thousands who died were not even kept count of until a Human Rights group stepped in with the amazing figures. The deaths of "innocent civilians" were considered collateral damage. To visit death on a people that did not do us any harm is based on a misplaced sense of moral superiority and that in my book is racist.
My thoughts on this were further borne out when a couple of days ago, I had the opportunity to listen to two veterans, one of whom served as a prison guard at Abu Ghraib. He had no compunctions in calling the American soldiers "racist," given the ways in which they treated the Iraqi citizens. His accounts were based on close observations of the behavior of these soldiers -not a few of them, but a vast majority of them. |
Albatross
Citizen
Username: Albatross
Post Number: 477
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 1, 2005 - 7:52 pm: |
|
An individual soldier may be racist, but that does not mean that the entire action is. A misplaced sense of moral superiority is only racist if that sense is based on race. That's where I'm coming from. I think it's a fallacy to imply that the Iraq action was / is racially motivated. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 3062
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 1, 2005 - 9:32 pm: |
|
Albatross -- Clinton is cited because even with his shortcomings in national security, military capability and intelligence deficiencies -- he believed Saddam had WMD as did others who were against the war -- the Russians, the French, and I think even the Chinese. Clinton and others are cited in an effort to prove that Bush's contention about WMD was not isolated, was not born of ideological predisposition, and was honest given what all thought to be absolutely true at the time -- including Democrats who sat on the intelligence committees.
And by the way, I think the Brits still stand by the African yellow-cake intelligence, as the (Lord Butler?) investigation in Britain concluded.
The real question that has yet to be answered is why Saddam didn't provide enough evidence of WMD dismantlement to forestall the invasion. Machismo? Worried about saving face in the Arab World when he could just blow anyone who challenged him away? That's the question. |
Strawberry
Supporter
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 4426
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 1, 2005 - 9:53 pm: |
|
Saddam felt the UN had his back. The oil for food scandal gave Saddam all the confidence he needed. He knew that if he went down and the scandal uncovered, the UN would be crushed. He figured as a result he could spit in the eye of America, be seen as a hero in the Arab world as a result, while continuing to steal billions from the mouths of his own people.
Why do thiefs do the things they do? Greed. Saddam was greedy.
It's that simple. |
Mustt_mustt
Citizen
Username: Mustt_mustt
Post Number: 251
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 1, 2005 - 10:27 pm: |
|
Albatross- Here's a short excerpt from an article written by a Canadian journalist of Iraqi heritage, Firas Al-Atraqchi on Racism and the War against Iraq:
It is no surprise then when we hear that British commanders in Iraq were condemning the Americans’ heavy-handed and disproportionate military tactics in Iraq . According to The Telegraph's Sean Rayment, a British officer, “who agreed to the interview on the condition of anonymity, said that part of the problem was that American troops viewed Iraqis as 'untermenschen' - the Nazi expression for ‘sub-humans’.
“They are not concerned about the Iraqi loss of life in the way the British are. Their attitude towards the Iraqis is tragic, it's awful.” The British officer accused the US Military of targeting “terrorists” even if they are located in densely-populated civilian areas: “They may well kill the terrorists in the barrage but they will also kill and maim innocent civilians. That has been their response on a number of occasions. It is trite, but American troops do shoot first and ask questions later. They are very concerned about taking casualties and have even trained their guns on British troops, which has led to some confrontations between soldiers,” The Telegraph reported.
By the way, if you weren’t around during the Nazi purging of Europe’s Jews, “untermenschen” is the popular term a certain Adolf Hitler used to express his disdain for what he termed the “inferior” Jews in Mein Kamp.
Consequently, if the US Military, which can be considered the military hand of the US government, considers Iraqis as inferior beings, it is then academic to extrapolate that US lawmakers view Iraqis as lesser peoples. Perhaps that helps explain why the Bush administration is so irked by news reports showing dead Iraqi women and children. Perhaps it helps explain why he accuses Arab media – including Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya – of being propagandists and liars. Perhaps it also explains why every Iraqi protestation in the last few years about lack of WMDs was shot down by US media and Iraqi officials were branded expert liars.
Perhaps, it also explains why “the axis of evil” slogan was so popular with Washington neocons. Inferior people are considered satanic and evil. After all, was this not how slavery was maintained and thrived in the continental US in the 17th, 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries? Were not the slaves considered by white (supremacist) landowners to be cursed by God, soulless and would never see the gates of heaven? Was this not how Apartheid was allowed to survive in the heart of black Africa ?
Racism. The same racism that allowed 800,000 Rwandan Hutus and Tutsis to die exactly 10 years ago while the so-called compassionate superpower focused on twiddling their thumbs. The same racism that refused to apologize for centuries of slavery at the Durban Conferences in South Africa on September 8, 2001.
Zakaria put it best when he told Matthews how Iraqis must feel: “We lost four on our side and they lost 700. What do you think that tells them? That their lives are not nearly as important?”
Touché.
Firas Al-Atraqchi is a Canadian journalist of Iraqi heritage. Holding an MA in Journalism and Mass Communication, he has eleven years of experience covering Middle East issues, oil and gas markets, and the telecom industry. You can reach him at firascape@hotmail.com
|
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 3067
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 1, 2005 - 10:58 pm: |
|
Why even try to give "untermenchen" democracy if they're inferior beings? You have to have a brain, work together towards a common good, pass laws that protect minorities and get out of bed every day. Perhaps our drive to spread democracy is a smokescreen for our imperialist desires.
And if that's the case, I had no idea there was so much oil in Haiti. |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page