The UN, US and Iraq IV

I think its very sad too ci

When an inconsolable mother/wife/child demands an explanation for the death of a loved one, we know the official answer

died in the course of duty, fighting the fight of good against evil
obeying orders searching for WMD when the RPG hit
defending freedom and our cherished values.
fighting the crusade on terrorism

But what do WE say? What can we say? Well madam, sorry as we are, your husband died obeying orders. He was a pawn in a great game that we have embarked upon. History will explain, if it can't take away your pain.

No proof Iraq tied to 9/11: Bush

Okay, so what about the Oil, when ya gonna come clean on the whole story, hmmmmmmm

I don't understand Bill, surely there is no one on this planet who doesn't realise by now what this war was really all about?

Bill W- You don't keep up with the news I see.

Things are always changing. you know.
Presidents do change their stories, you know.

Perhaps Bush learned from the biggest liar of all times, Scumbag Clinton.

Don't you remember when scumbag Clinton looked the American people in the eye and said- I did not have sexual relations with that woman Ms. Lewinsky.

Why did he do that?
He didn't have to tell that lie. He could have left it alone.

Then sometimes presidents choose not to comment.

Sometimes Bush chooses not to comment.

At other times, Scumbag Clinton did not comment.
Don't your remember? Clinton never commented concerning allegations that he had raped Juanita Broadderick.

And then, Bill W., there is always the clever turn of a phrase. Some presidents are quite good at equivocating. Others are masters like Clinton was.

Don't you remember, Bill W. when Clinton said that no one could show that he changed any policy just because of a campaign contribution( The Chinese contribution).

Cleever that Clinton, note the phrase "just because"

But, Bill W., I am very much afraid that some on the left are ignoring the very vital and penetrating statement made by Bill Clinton with regard to Saddam.
quote

"If Saddam Hiussein fails to comply and we fail to act and we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop his program of weapons of mass destruction..he will then conclude that he will go right on doing more to build an arsenel of devestating destruction...Someway, some day- I GUARANTEE you he will use the arsenal."

Now that is not a throw away line from Bill W. or Professor Hobitbob. That is a quote from the leader of the Democratic party when he was still in office.

But some butter on THAT bread and toast it, Bill W.

Five years ago the Republicans found President Clinton's lying about sex to be so dreadfully wrong that they voted to impeach him in the House. Clinton survived, but not before the Republicans hurled all kinds of pejoratives at Clinton's perjuries.
To be clear, Clinton indeed did a lot of bad things in his affair with intern Monica Lewinsky. I wrote before the impeachment that he should resign. The Democrats were wrong to downplay Clinton's sins in the Lewinsky scandal. Any other CEO in the country would have been canned had he or she been found to have used their office to have sex with a decisively powerless intern.

But it is a far more grave matter if we discover that a president's claims in effect claimed the lives of 224 American soldiers and thousands of Iraqi civilians. Five years ago Henry Hyde said, ''The president is the trustee of the nation's conscience.'' It is time to lay bare the conscience of the White House with full public hearings. The way his claims are crumbling, hearings may be the only thing that will stop Bush from plunging his dagger of deceit right through the heart of our democracy and the hearts of our soldiers.

http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/199/oped/GOP_s_double_standard_on_presidential_lies+.shtml

Source for quote- President Clinton's speech on December 16, 1998.

I verify my sources and my quotes. I don't think some of the people who write on this post know what verification means. I think some of them actually feel that their unsourced, amateur's opinion is really persuasive.

Dyslexia thinks that Bush has lied. Very well, I suggest that he contact Nancy( stepford wife) Pelosi to ask her to bring impeachment charges against Bush. I hope that Dyslexia knows better. He knows that Tom( The hammer) DeLay will derail any such nonsense in five minutes.

What to do?
|A suggestion- dyslexia. Rally the people to vote against Bush on November 2nd 2004. But hurry, I think that Bush will have just a little more money available to give his side of the story to the American people- at least 250 Million.

In the meantime, dyslexia, write to all of the nine( now it is ten) candidates for the Democratic nomination. Tell them that internecine squabbling and name calling followed by charges and counter-charges will not hurt but but themselves since most of their time is spent in denigrating each other's messages in order to become top dog.

I hope that you don't think that the original nine have welcomed the put bull that was just tossed in the ring(Clark). That will just complicate things foir the candidates.

Bill W. thinks that Colin Powell is a liar?

Colin Powell said that the oil would be used for the improvement of the lives of the people of Iraq and that the profits would go into a special fund to be used for the people of Iraq.

Is Powell a liar?

Does Bill W. know how much oil would have to be pumped to match the expense of the war in Iraq?

Why didn't Cheney and the rest of the "war hawks" just set up projects for the evil Halliburton type companies without invading Iraq so that they could make even more money?

Bill W. knows not a think about Oil.

I am sure that he knows nothing about the Caspian sea Oil pipeline which is scheduled to open in 2005. News concerning this pipeline was announced by Energy Secratary Abraham in 2002.

That the misperception the preceeding President was vilified and impeached for lies relating to sexual misbehavior is indicative of the failure of some to "Get it". It is not that a lie was told, or that the lie concerned private matters; rather it is that an elected official lied under oath. The issue is the violation of oath, not the particulars. Had the lie been about flyfishing or bicycle maintenance, and isuued under oath, it would have been no less egregious, no less serious an assualt on and contempt for the rule of law which defines our nation.

Would be quite funny, if I had to give a source for my opinion! (But I don't have a treble MA.)

So timber justifies lying to go to war, it isn't a serious matter, seems you don't get it - just can't understand that men are dying for what, appears oil is it, corporate profits, the old greenback, but that's okay - he wasn't under oath.

The Right line, doesn't matter what Bush said, we needed to go after Saddam........... It is truly sad <sigh>

I've posted this news, just now, in as a new "General" thread. It just came to me from Mamajuana's daughter. I know many of you will be as shocked and horrified as I was.

Our friend, Mamajuana, died last Monday afternoon. She had been in iffy health for years but game and very much a participant in our lives and in those of her family. About two weeks ago she contracted a bacterial flu-like thing which her doctor believed was a result of air pollution in northern NJ. Her heart gave up the fight. Her last email to me (if the times given are to be trusted) was written within half an hour of her death. So she was still with us all in mind and spirit until the end.

Walter Hinteler- I am very much afraid that you do not realize the difference between informed opinion and uninformed opinion.

Informed opinion comes from people who are experts in the field in which they comment. Unless you are a political scientist, you should, AS THE GUIDELINES CLEARLY STATE, reveal that your post is just your opinion.

If you wish to support your uniformed opinion, I would respectfully suggest that you buttress your uniformed opinion with evidence. Failing that it is your UNIFORMED opinion, unless, of course, you are commenting on a subject in which you are an expert. If so, I would appreciate it if you would tell us.

Thank You.

Well, Italgato, I really studied Poltical Sciences. (It's in my profile.)

And I'm well aware of how to quote and what's about informed and uninformed opinions, since I gave classes on this subject at university.

I don't think, however, that answers here are applying to the very same rules than in a thesis.

Besides, could you please give some quotation for your above stated opinions?

Main Entry: opin·ion
Pronunciation: &-'pin-y&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin opinion-, opinio, from opinari
Date: 14th century
1 a : a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter b : APPROVAL, ESTEEM
2 a : belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge b : a generally held view
3 a : a formal expression of judgment or advice by an expert b : the formal expression (as by a judge, court, or referee) of the legal reasons and principles upon which a legal decision is based
- opin·ioned /-y&nd/ adjective
synonyms OPINION, VIEW, BELIEF, CONVICTION, PERSUASION, SENTIMENT mean a judgment one holds as true. OPINION implies a conclusion thought out yet open to dispute <each expert seemed to have a different opinion>. VIEW suggests a subjective opinion <very assertive in stating his views>. BELIEF implies often deliberate acceptance and intellectual assent <a firm belief in her party's platform>. CONVICTION applies to a firmly and seriously held belief <the conviction that animal life is as sacred as human>. PERSUASION suggests a belief grounded on assurance (as by evidence) of its truth <was of the persuasion that everything changes>. SENTIMENT suggests a settled opinion reflective of one's feelings <her feminist sentiments are well-known>.

Italgato, Opinions are very subjective to the individual, and it is not necessary for all opinions to be backed by supporting 'evidence' or a disclaimer. When discussing politics or religion, we are going to find opinions based on personal subjective truths. Whether it is right or wrong "is" the debate. Even political scientists can have differing opinions about the same topic. If all professors of political science can be considered experts in their field, we will still find different opinions on whether William J. Clinton was a good president. It doesn't require that their answer by right or wrong, because both sides will be able to point out the pros and cons of Clinton as president. Each will be able to point out why they think Clinton was a good or bad president, but it will be subjective.

If you infer I in any way do anything of the sort. you are in grievous error. Perhaps the failure of communication is mine. To recognize and acknowledge an observed thing or condition in no way implies either edorsement or condemnation of same. That's my opinion.

That's not an opinion; it's neutral.

The TOS guidelines are just that -- guidelines. I don't think they're looking around for some self-appointed guideline policeman. An opinion isn't necessarily supportable by any fact and facts often mask the truth anyway. I don't think there is anyone on these forums who is a credentialed authority on anything -- they wouldn't be on this forum if they were. They'd be writing books. As a matter of fact, we had someone on this forum not long ago who does write books and was just published. He was a smug, self-important boor.

Really, the Terms Of Service
and
The Guidelines
are separate, if not entirely distinct things. It is quite possible to remain within The Terms of Service though interacting in breach of The Guidelines. The converse is not the case. There is no rule against being an irritating idiot. There is no justification for hatespeech, gratuitous vulgarity, porn, personal invective, spam, or purely disruptive behavior. Jerks who are civil and noncommercial are welcome to participate.

Damnit.