Canada Believes Saddam Had WMD

You are absolutely correct, Finn. Beign able to notice the differences between dark grey and light grey is vital to clear understanding.

Light Grey: Abuses in Abu Ghraib by a very small number of American soldiers along with a reconstruction of nearly 7,000 villages and towns; the addition of electricity, water and schools. The abusive soldiers have been and are being court martialed. In Iraq and in the USA, Iraqis whose right hands were severed as a matter of punishment from Saddam Hussein, and Iraqis whose ears were removed as a form of punishment from Saddam Hussein, are being restored through the miracle of prosthesis and plastic surgery.

Dark Grey: a monstrous dictator who gassed thousands of his own Kurd people, fed live people into shredders, tortured, amputated( see above) and stole millions which were supposed to provide food and medicine for his people. Some in Iraq( his own townsmen) praised Saddam highly since he gave them many prerogatives.

Yes, Finn, there is a need to be able to discern the difference between dark grey and light grey. Some left wingers, political partisans, excoriate a few of our troops for being in the light grey area while the dark grey is not mentioned by them.

It is not blindness, it is a ploy for political advantage that does not take into account any rational perspective.

0 Replies

The dark grey of which you speak mporter, is currently in US custody awaiting trial.

What more is there to say about the guy that hasn't already been said a thousand times?

Get off the soapbox.

0 Replies

Mr. Adrian: Imust respectfully disagree with you.

It is not my soapbox. The soapbox belongs to Professor Bernard Lewis who is probably the USA's leading authority on Islam.
Here is the dark grey, Mr. Adrian:( Not only Saddam)

quote

"In the classical Islamist vieew,to which many Muslims are beginning to return, the world and all mankind are divided into two: The House of Islam wher the Muslim Law and faith prevail, and the rest, known as the House of Unbelief..Which it is the DUTY OF MOSLEMS TO BRING TO ISLAM....
Ultimately, the struggle of the fundamentalist is against two enemies, secularism and modernism. This IS NO LESS THAN A CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS.

end of quote

That, Mr. Adrian, is the dark side!!!!!!

0 Replies

Havent been paying attention to this thread but , not discounting Gorlicks "contributions" to the systemic F* up, you cant isolate a single incident and call it truth. I stand by my historical reference because the start of the Chinese wall goes way back to the post WAtergate days. Its gotten successively more refined . If we go far enough to pick out the areas where the system failed us, we have plenty of blame to go around. Thtas not the point of the commission . The fact that both Clinton And Bush were asleep at the switch even after sufficient warnings resulted in the sad consequence of 9/11. Now, we have further warnings of attacks. Lets hope weve learned a lesson and can get suitably motivated to protect our homeland as well as we "protect" others.

0 Replies

Martin no more represents all of Canada then does Bush represent USA. Apparently the last USA poll I saw said 60% of USA says IRAQ war was not worth it.

Not to mention that :
More than 70 per cent of Canadians believe the U.S. military has become mired in a Vietnam-like situation in Iraq that will lead to increasing casualties, an Ipsos-Reid/CTV/Globe and Mail poll released Friday indicates.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20030718.upoll0719/BNStory/International/

Liberals in usually don't believe in preemptive wars based on lies.

0 Replies

That's right. Liberals don't believe in pre-emptive wars based on lies.

0 Replies

Welcome guys/girls.

I think we ought to be careful about how we use the terms 'liberal/conservative' or 'democrat/republican' in this discussion, and avoid sweeping generalizations.

There certainly were liberals/democrats who supported the war and who also supported the doctrine of unilateral pre-emption. On the other hand, there were conservatives/republicans who spoke against this military action, and against the justifying doctrine.

I don't think any real case can be made that conservatives lie more often than liberals. That's the sort of uncareful partisan rhetoric we hear from Coulter or Limbaugh.

I do think however, that this particular Bush administration can be taken to task for each and every instance of deceit, of questionable policy inititatives, and for underlying political ideas. So can Dems, or liberals generally.

0 Replies

I think every administration should be taken to task for its errors:

FDR for getting us into World War II

Truman for dropping the Atomic Bomb on Japan

Kennedy for lying to the American People about the Missles taken out of Turkey during the Missile Crisis

Eisenhower for the U-2 mess.

Nixon for Watergate

Carter for the Iran debacle

Reagan for Iran-Contra

Bush I for his lack of follow up in Desert Storm

Clinton for being Impeached.

It is just short of ridiculous to pretend that any president operates under the guideline of complete transparency at all times. Anyone who thinks so is, in my opinion, a fool.

My favorite instance of a president "leveling" with the American people was when John Kennedy told us that he looked Khruschev in the eyes and Khruschev blinked. Khruschev didn't blink, he had a secret agreement by the US, which the American public did not find out about for years, in his hip pocket.

So if someone wants to speak of "deceit" it is, in my opinion, from a partisan stance of wishing to see George W. Bush and the Republicans defeated in November or from a muddled headed and completely utopian view of realpolitik.

I am very sorry but although it is appropriate for the fans( citizens) to boo the quarterback( president), they really can not know which plays he will be calling and just how the opposing team will react. Of course, we have always had Monday Morning Quarterbacks and we always will. Some are just imperious than others.

0 Replies

septembri

I'm not altogether sure what you are arguing in some of what you've written above.

I believe that the founders of America had a very bright idea when they sought to balance the sectors of power in government. That design acknowledges that we humans are too often tempted to abuse power, a tendency which needs to be checked.

I consider that the press and an educated public are also necessary for the very same reason.

It is not the case that an accusation of deceit by an administration (or the insistence that not act deceitfully) is properly considered a partisan act. It is more properly considered an act of any citizen demanding integrity. McCain and Warner are two very fine examples.

0 Replies

Wel, of course.

A balance of powers?
That was demonstrated when President Bush had to go to the Congress of the United States to get backing to go into Iraq. He did get the authority.That shows a balance.
A balance of powers?
That will be demonstrated clearly when the Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality of the Patriot Act and the Congressional law concering partial birth abortion.

The press is necessary? Of course.

An educated Public? It all depends on what you mean by educated? I don't think more than 5% of the American Public has a decent grasp of what is going on in American Politics.

Of course, an accusation of deceit may not be a partisan act. Then, on the other hand, it may be.

The "right wing conspirators" were accused by Mrs. Hillary Rodham Clinton of conspiring against her husband when she said that there was a conspiracy against her husband.

The left wing cried: Partisanship--no one has any evidence.

Then, President Clinton went before the nation on prime time TV and told us that there had been no sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky.

At that time, there was no absolute evidence, evidence that showed beyond the shadow of a doubt, that President Clinton was telling a lie, being deceitful.
The DNA test gave evidence that he was, indeed, being deceitful.

Now, it is possible that President Bush is being deceitful. However, I have seen no DNA evidence to show he is deceitful in his messages about Iraq.
I have heard no jury rule beoynd the shadow of a doubt that he was deceitful.

People may say that he is, but proving it beyond the shadow of a doubt is another story.

I can, without fear of contradiction, say that John Kennedy, was deceitful, when he did not tell the American public about the removal of the American missles from Turkey.

An educated public? Of course, but they can't be educated about something that is kept a secret!

An active press? Of course, but they can't print what they don't know. It took Sorenson's book, many years after the fact, to show that Kennedy was indeed ingenuous.

I would suggest that any claim of "deceit" be backed up with evidence which is clear beyond the shadow of a doubt like Clinton's DNA was or like the report in Sorenson's book which was not challenged by anyone.

In the meantime, the charge of "deceit" sounds as if it is coming from the partisan left wing. There is no evidence of "deceit".

0 Replies

septembri wrote:

I think every administration should be taken to task for its errors: FDR for getting us into World War II, Truman for dropping the Atomic Bomb on Japan, Kennedy for lying to the American People about the Missles taken out of Turkey during the Missile Crisis, Eisenhower for the U-2 mess, Nixon for Watergate, Carter for the Iran debacle, Reagan for Iran-Contra, Bush I for his lack of follow up in Desert Storm, Clinton for being Impeached.

It is just short of ridiculous to pretend that any president operates under the guideline of complete transparency at all times. Anyone who thinks so is, in my opinion, a fool.

My favorite instance of a president "leveling" with the American people was when John Kennedy told us that he looked Khruschev in the eyes and Khruschev blinked. Khruschev didn't blink, he had a secret agreement by the US, which the American public did not find out about for years, in his hip pocket.

So if someone wants to speak of "deceit" it is, in my opinion, from a partisan stance of wishing to see George W. Bush and the Republicans defeated in November or from a muddled headed and completely utopian view of realpolitik.

septembri, First I want to say you raise a valid point, presidents often lie to achieve their political ends. Also, I attempt to be non-partisan but its not always easy (I am new to this blog forum thing).

I think however, what G.W. Bush has done goes beyond spin or white lies to achive a political goal. Bush has used deciet to pro-actively, AND PREEMPTIVELY invade another nation yet had little or no "smoking guns", little factual basis or proof of wrong doing (see below).

Your examples are valid where presidents used deciet, but I see no lies use to start WAR and kill others based on exaggerated sketchy spin. In fact it is interesting that you use the Cuban missile crisis, cause to me that is the antithisis of BUSH.

Kennedy used Adali Stevenson in the UN with accurate real photos to show the world that the Russians were lying about a real and proven nuclear threat (unlike the Bush where there was no proof or maybe only a potential futre threat at best, even if we found WMD tomorrow most of what was presented by Bush was debunked as false).

Kennedy used his TRUTH and diplomatic skill to solve the REAL threat of nuclear destruction of the world with no lives lost (well maybe just that one navy pilot). True Kennedy did leave out the part about the obsolete Turkey missles to be dismantled but that was an ommission that saved lives rather then took lives, or took the soveriegnty of a nation, to me there is a big difference and Kennedy is a clear example how the pen, truth and diplomacy can win over the sword and deciet.

TO QUOTE OTHERS:
SCOTT RITTER: To say that saddam's reconstituted his WMD programs is in total disregard to the fact that if he gets caught he's a dead man and he knows it. In the long term you have to get inspectors back in.
BUSH: acknowledged that "some prewar intelligence assessments by America and other nations about Iraq's weapons stockpiles have not been confirmed."
Senator BIDEN: ..we had a discussion, on aluminum tubes..Half intel community said..were for artillery shells, half ...said .. for nuclear gas centrifuge. Cheney said".Iraqis have reconstituted their nuclear capability."
Jan 2003, Mohamed ElBaradei, head UN nuclear agency says that, in his view, Iraq as yet is NOT in MATERIAL breach of a U.N. resolution on disarmament -- contrary to what the BUSH Administration said.
The United Nations' top two weapons experts (Hans Blix & Mohamed ElBaradei) said Sunday that the invasion of Iraq a year ago was not justified by the evidence in hand at the time http://edition.cnn.com/2004/US/03/21/iraq.weapons/
Hans Blix, who led the team of UN weapons inspectors in Iraq before the conflict, told the BBC that America still had not come up with any evidence that Iraq had posed a great enough threat to justify war.

0 Replies

Edison Julius- You make some good points but I always listen to those who know-the real authorities-the supreme policy wonks- the top of the food chain--the real leaders-

quote

"...the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people... I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq. They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develope and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to attack his neighbors."

end of quote

President Bill Clinton, Dec. 16th 1998 in his

pre-emptive, unapproved by the Congress, strike at Iraq.

How can anyone fault Bill Clinton?????

0 Replies

septembri wrote:

Wel, of course.

A balance of powers?
That was demonstrated when President Bush had to go to the Congress of the United States to get backing to go into Iraq. He did get the authority.That shows a balance.
I gather by your argument that you would be quite pleased that the Senate, in its investigation of abuses at Abu Ghraib, fought against the administration's stonewalling and obstructing? Likewise during the 9-11 hearings? And you'll be pleased also, it would seem to follow, when members of congress and senate (including republicans) argue that this administration is improperly bypassing the houses? Apparently you do some reading, so you'll know to what I refer here.
A balance of powers?
That will be demonstrated clearly when the Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality of the Patriot Act and the Congressional law concering partial birth abortion. I'm sorry. That's not quite clear. Balance is demonstrated by the fact of some ruling, or by the finding?

The press is necessary? Of course. Why is it necessary? What ought it to be doing which makes it necessary?

An educated Public? It all depends on what you mean by educated? I don't think more than 5% of the American Public has a decent grasp of what is going on in American Politics. Normally, 'educated' means something such as having a knowledge base of depth and breadth in the various areas of human learning, and having developed cognitive procedures or skills for critical analysis of information or knowledge claims. Normally, the term is differentiated from others such as 'indoctrination' or 'socialization'. What makes you suggest 95% of the American population has no decent grasp of present politics? What consequence would that have for any majoritarian argument, eg. 'the majority of Americans believe the press is left-leaning'?

Of course, an accusation of deceit may not be a partisan act. Then, on the other hand, it may be. Sure, but that's not much help, is it?

The "right wing conspirators" were accused by Mrs. Hillary Rodham Clinton of conspiring against her husband when she said that there was a conspiracy against her husband.

The left wing cried: Partisanship--no one has any evidence. Well, here, you toss yourself smack into that 95% category. There is indeed very much evidence, and from very many different sources.

Then, President Clinton went before the nation on prime time TV and told us that there had been no sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. Yup, he lied.

At that time, there was no absolute evidence, evidence that showed beyond the shadow of a doubt, that President Clinton was telling a lie, being deceitful.
The DNA test gave evidence that he was, indeed, being deceitful. Yup again.

Now, it is possible that President Bush is being deceitful. However, I have seen no DNA evidence to show he is deceitful in his messages about Iraq.
I have heard no jury rule beoynd the shadow of a doubt that he was deceitful. I have no DNA evidence to prove you aren't a hermaphrodite.

People may say that he is, but proving it beyond the shadow of a doubt is another story. That's an irrelevant standard other than in a courtroom, of course. And it certainly isn't the standard by which we elect officials.

I can, without fear of contradiction, say that John Kennedy, was deceitful, when he did not tell the American public about the removal of the American missles from Turkey. Everyone lies, therefore any particular lie is just like all others, thus predictable and unimportant? That's not a terribly compelling moral philosophy.

An educated public? Of course, but they can't be educated about something that is kept a secret! Huh?

An active press? Of course, but they can't print what they don't know. It took Sorenson's book, many years after the fact, to show that Kennedy was indeed ingenuous. Well, you could also take the case of Nixon and Watergate. A good press will be a little quicker to investigate and make known instances of deceit, corruption, falsehoods, etc. That's precisely what a large area of their job/responsbility is. Simple point.

I would suggest that any claim of "deceit" be backed up with evidence which is clear beyond the shadow of a doubt like Clinton's DNA was or like the report in Sorenson's book which was not challenged by anyone. That's not a terribly thoughtful suggestion. Standards that hold in court do not hold elsewhere for very good reasons. Now if a politician is held to be lying, and doing it with some happy ease (as I and many others claim that Bush is doing) that can have repercussions on his future electability, but it won't get him thrown in jail. For the state to deny an individual's liberty we oughta have a very high standard. And, if you think about it, your argument would have to be applied over to claims about Johny Kerry...thus the Republicans would not be able to suggest that Kerry's campaign statements were false. You still sure you want to go with your idea?

In the meantime, the charge of "deceit" sounds as if it is coming from the partisan left wing. There is no evidence of "deceit". Yes, well that statement comes as little surprise.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

That's the sort of uncareful partisan rhetoric we hear from Coulter or Limbaugh.

And Franken and Moore

0 Replies

But it isn't finn. These four are not comparable.

Please choose a number between one and two hundred.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

But it isn't finn. These four are not comparable.

So says ye

Now offer up some substantiation, because here I am finding you stubbornly, if not hopelessly, partisan.

0 Replies

We are enroute.

Please choose any number between one and two hundred.

0 Replies

Finn- You are correct. However, I must point out that Franken( given name- Frankenstein-changed for obvious reasons) is in very big trouble.

Franken( stein) is portrayed in a Tribune Article- Headline- AIR AMERICA DEBUT SENDS WEAK SIGNAL- April 2nd, 2004- by Howard Reich- Tribune Arts Critic

quote

"The formidable comedian-satirist may have been brilliant in the pages of his best selling books but his debut Wednesday as standard bearer for a self-proclaimed liberal radio network signals that the man has no clue why Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity rule the air waves...For starters, the lackadaisical pace of Franken's chit-chat with co-host Katherine Lanpher suggested they were sipping espressos and munching on scones at a Starbucks rather than taking on Limbaugh, Hannity, Bill O'Reilly and the rest of the vast right-wing conspiracy...In the end, Wednesday turned out to be a great day for right-wing talk radio."

0 Replies

Blatham appears to be fond of argument which posits points that have not been mentioned at all.

Blatham asks if I am pleased with, 9/11 findings. the adminstration's so called "stonewalling"! etc.

Pleased has nothing to do with it. Blatham seems to have been bemoaning the lack of "checks and balances". As I pointed out, there is no lack of "checks and balances". The President sought the Congress's approval to send troops to Iraq.

The Congress gave authorization. That is a clear cut case of "balance" between the executive and the legislative branch.

The courts, especially the USSC, are always showing that the can "check" the federal legislature or the executive branch. The USSC's findings on "affirmative action" last year, as posed against the excutive's brief that pushed for the total elimination of affirmative action in the law school of Michigan, was certainly a "check".

The coming case in the USSC concerning the legislature's passage of a bill on "partial birth abortion is another possible "check"

There are many instances which shows that the "checks and balances" are alive and well.

Blatham asks why the press is necessary and what should it be doing to show it is necessary?

I say that the press should confine its news to the news articles and its politics to the editorial page. In this way, it will be conforming to the guidelines taught in every good journalism school in the USA.

When I stated that there was no DNA evidence to show that Bush was deceitful or that there was no finding beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was deceitful, Blatham comments in a rather rude way--He says that he has no DNA evidence that I am not a hermaphrodite--irrevelant and weak.

The charge that Bush is deceitful has been made.

I will state again that there is no evidence that President Bush is deceitful.

Words have meanings:

Black's law Dictionary- Deceit-

A fraudulent and deceptive misrepresentation, artifice or device to deceive and trick another, who is ignorant of the true facts, to the prejudice and damage of the party imposed upon. TO CONSTITUTE DECEIT, THE STATEMENT MUST BE UNTRUE, MADE WITH KNOWLEDGE OF ITS FALSITY...

Now, if Blatham can prove that President Bush's statement or statements were indeed UNTRUE and that those statements were made WITH KNOWLEDGE OF THEIR FALSITY, then "deceit" will be an appropriate charge.

I await evidence.

However, Blatham states that some people claim that Bush is lying. I am sure that is the case. A claim that something is so does not make it so but the claim can be made in order to denigrate the opposition. There is an election coming up.

One key will be, of course, whether the public will believe that Bush was lying or telling the truth.

Another key will be, of course, whether the public will believe that the economy is doing well or is not doing well.

Another key will be, of course, how the public views the situation in Iraq in October.

There are some who will accuse President Bush of "deceit". How many will agree?

There are some who believed that President Clinton committed perjury. How many agreed?

Blatham is interested in a compelling moral philosophy. The fact that Kennedy lied does not bear on whether Bush or any future president can or should lie.

How true!!!

In Utopia, of course. Utopia comes from the Greek- U topos- No place. There is no such place!

But Blatham cries out for a compelling moral philosophy. Very good. May I ask which political leader has had a "compelling moral philosophy"?

Surely, Blatham is familiar with Machiavelli--one of the founders of present day political science.

But, Blatham warns that the use of the argument of realpolitik would make it impossible to say that Senator Kerry's arguments were false.

Blatham is very optomistic.

He must know that the left will, with no real proof, continue to say that President Bush is deceitful and that the right will say that Kerry has contradicted himself over and over in the Senate.

I am sure that Blatham will find that there will be NO COMPELLING MORAL PHILOSOPHY utilized in the campaigns of the Democrats and the Republicans and that lies and exaggerations will be manifest from both sides and that the American Public will pick and choose based on whatever they see fit.

0 Replies

Septembri-welcome to the boards. However, youre not going to get a free "newbie" pass on your incorrectly concieved and convoluted logfic.
The concept of publishing a definition of a word is quite a popular technique among debators herein. The only difference is that, usually , when one uses this technique, the author uses that definition to SUPPORT their point. You have, alas, failed. Your definition merely underpinns Blathams posts pretty well.
There is abundant forensic evidence available in videotape, and audio transcripts, to show that Bush had pronounced a number of "not true" statements regarding this war, namely

1 He used the argument of WMDs to support his need to be in Iraq(one of the key points, later found out to be untrue)

2 He used the WMD argument to stress the imminence of Saddams threat.(Making the world safer so that we arent threatened by attacks using WMDs-later found out to be bogus)

3 He spent his credibility in presenting the untrue claim that Iraq, sought to buy Uranium from Niger(nuclear scientists all agreed that we could find such evidence by monitoring, This was found to be untrue)

4His Cabinet members , most notably Powell, provided false evidence to the UN and the public regarding Iraq (Powell himself was livid when he learned that his overflights were either doctored or incorrectly interpreted)

Your argument seems to boil down to a rather convoluted logic , that I shall attempt to synthesize.
"I dont believe that Bush lied and you cant prove it to my satisfaction, but even if he did, other presidents lied and that makes it OK" AM I CLOSE?
I strongly differ on your situational ethics. I believe Blatham stipulated that Clinton lied to us about his frequent Hummers, but , unlike you, Blatham- doesnt forgive other presidential lies, like

NIXON lying about his covering up the Watergate break-in

Reagan lying about the Iran Contra scheme

I remain quite unimpressed with your attempts to "whitewash" the Bush deceit. Its clearly understood by anyone who is not so closed minded to interpret the facts as they exist.

Canadians are usually more polite about rejoinders that , somehow , challenge the logic of posts that tend to be either , totally illogical , or, totally partisan (hence illogical). I am under no such politeness restraint, you sir (or madam) are full of it.

Your point that the President sought Congresses approval to send troops , clearly shows the cynical manipulation of Congress in accomplishing this annoying "detail". If it wasnt lying to Congress, then the President, his cabinet, and the Congress are all incredibly stupid, dont you think?

I was , initially a supporter of the war , based on the "evidence" which we later found out was untrue and incorrect. When I found out from looking at the terra-server airphotos and data from the various UnSCoM and US weapons inspectors i changed my mind and my opinion of this admin went from cautious support to outright suspicion .
I remember how the Conservatives villified and excoriated anyone that was associated with the weapons inspection process. The gOP accused Scott Ritter with being a "traitor".

Where is that momentum now? It seems to have disappeared as quietly as
"The british have determined that Saddam has sought to purchase fissionable material from an African Country"

0 Replies

Canada Believes Saddam Had WMD

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know