Redheat wrote:
Ok I'll make it as simple as I can. The source you give a link to is a Rush Limbaugh transcript.
Where is that coo coo clock smilie when you need it?
Well, I guess Edwards fell for it too. So?
He also said "And I agree with Senator Shelby. I think we will find him. I think it does matter, too, that we find him. I mean, we've made it a focus of our effort in Afghanistan. I think it's important that we find bin Laden."
While the president says: "I truly am not that concerned about him."
Disputing the transcript is silly. Yes, is a "Rush Transcript", "subject to correction or update", which, if made, customarilly is noted and either inserted into the transcript body or appended to the transcript as published. That is common Newsroom practice, just simple CYA. Apart from which, any with sincere doubts need do nothing more than order the video and determine for themselves.
What it comes down to, IMHO, is pretty much the whole damned world, much of it basing their conclusions on their own highly sophisticated and capable intelligence, "Fell for it". "It" was just about a given, by multinational agreement. Nobody much argued the point untill someone decided to do something about it. That happens a lot. Particularly if the "Somebody" who does something happens to be The US.
Bush and the administration did have other intellengence that congress didn't have because in the final intellegence report the doubts about the WMD and other claims was not in the report that congress got. (at least that is my understanding on what I have been hearing from those in congress on the intellegence committee.
Having said that I think even on the intellengence that they did have they were wrong to vote for the war in Iraq because Saddam posed no direct threat to us, the UN inspectors said that they couldn't find any WMD and so fourth. However most of the congress did and we can't vote them all out and so we go choose between the lesser of two evils.
Kerry and Edwards are more for the middle and lower class and that is what we need and for me that is the bottom line.
revel, it never was the job of the inspectors to find a damned thing other than Iraq's total, unconditional cooperation in the matter of verifying divestiture of proscribed assets, programs, and capabilities. The job wasn't to locate proscribed things, it was to verify Iraq had fully accounted for disposal and/or discontinuance of same. That unqualified cooperation was not found.
Bullshit.
It was the United States who decided we had given the UN enough time. I don't recall Iraq as being uncooperative. We were somehow in a big hurry.
the reincarnation of suzy wrote:Bullshit.
It was the United States who decided we had given the UN enough time. I don't recall Iraq as being uncooperative. We were somehow in a big hurry.
LOL, you were not paying attention!
I get the impression many people think that WMD were the litmus test for justifying the invasion. At least that was the main reason that Bush ever gave, which is too bad.
I think a convincing case could have been made apart from the WMD, or at the very least these reasons would have been grounds for rational debate:
1. The Iraqis under Saddam regularly fired on our aircraft patrolling the "no fly" zones. The last time I checked, this is an act of war.
2. Saddam regularly violated the terms of the Gulf War I cease fire (one example - kicking out the Weapons Inspectors). I view this as similar to a parolee violating his/her terms of parole, and being sent back to jail.
3. Lack of Democracy and Human Rights. I have mixed feelings about this one - whether it was Mr. Clinton and Haiti or Mr. Bush and Iraq. Once you start down this path, how do you know when to stop? Does this rational hold for North Korea? China? Iran? There's more counties on the list than we have military resources to handle.
I dearly wish that 18 months ago Mr. Bush had given more emphasis to the reasons above, and also added that we believe, but cannot conclusively prove WMD. Then we could have had a more intelligent up-front debate.
Jim, in case you've missed it, I've been hammering precisely those points here for almost 2 years now. Some folks think its my mantra
I'm just goin' by what actually was written, not what was said or written about it; this is what you refer to as BS, Suzy:
Quote:UNSCOM MANDATE
The Commission's mandate is the following: to carry out immediate on-site inspections of Iraq's biological, chemical and missile capabilities; to take possession for destruction, removal or rendering harmless of all chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related sub-systems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities; to supervise the destruction by Iraq of all its ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 km and related major parts, and repair and production facilities; and to monitor and verify Iraq's compliance with its undertaking not to use, develop, construct or acquire any of the items specified above. The Commission is also requested to assist the Director General of IAEA, which, under resolution 687, has been requested to undertake activities similar to those of the Commission but specifically in the nuclear field. Further, the Commission is entrusted to designate for inspection any additional site necessary for ensuring the fulfillment of the mandates given to the Commission and IAEA.
Quote:UNSCR 1284: UNMOVIC Mandated Successor to UNSCOM
RESOLUTION 1284 (1999)
Adopted by the Security Council at its 4084th meeting,
on 17 December 1999
The Security Council,
Recalling its previous relevant resolutions, including its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 699 (1991) of 17 June 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, 1051 (1996) of 27 March 1996, 1153 (1998) of 20 February 1998, 1175 (1998) of 19 June 1998, 1242 (1999) of 21 May 1999 and 1266 (1999) of 4 October 1999,
Recalling the approval by the Council in its resolution 715 (1991) of the plans for future ongoing monitoring and verification submitted by the Secretary-General and the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in pursuance of paragraphs 10 and 13 of resolution 687 (1991),
Welcoming the reports of the three panels on Iraq (S/1999/356), and having held a comprehensive consideration of them and the recommendations contained in them,
Stressing the importance of a comprehensive approach to the full implementation of all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and the need for Iraqi compliance with these resolutions, ...
... Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, and taking into account that operative provisions of this resolution relate to previous resolutions adopted under Chapter VII of the Charter,
A.
1. Decides to establish, as a subsidiary body of the Council, the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) which replaces the Special Commission established pursuant to paragraph 9 (b) of resolution 687 (1991);
2. Decides also that UNMOVIC
will undertake the responsibilities mandated to the Special Commission by the Council with regard to the verification of compliance by Iraq with its obligations under paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 of resolution 687 (1991) and other related resolutions ...
Both UNSCOM and its successor, UNMOVIC, were charged not with searching, but with verifying. Iraq was charged with providing unconditional cooperation in the matter of that verification. In such regard, and in multiple specific, Iraq's obligation was unmet.
Jim wrote:I get the impression many people think that WMD were the litmus test for justifying the invasion. At least that was the main reason that Bush ever gave, which is too bad.
I think a convincing case could have been made apart from the WMD, or at the very least these reasons would have been grounds for rational debate:
1. The Iraqis under Saddam regularly fired on our aircraft patrolling the "no fly" zones. The last time I checked, this is an act of war.
2. Saddam regularly violated the terms of the Gulf War I cease fire (one example - kicking out the Weapons Inspectors). I view this as similar to a parolee violating his/her terms of parole, and being sent back to jail.
3. Lack of Democracy and Human Rights. I have mixed feelings about this one - whether it was Mr. Clinton and Haiti or Mr. Bush and Iraq. Once you start down this path, how do you know when to stop? Does this rational hold for North Korea? China? Iran? There's more counties on the list than we have military resources to handle.
I dearly wish that 18 months ago Mr. Bush had given more emphasis to the reasons above, and also added that we believe, but cannot conclusively prove WMD. Then we could have had a more intelligent up-front debate.
Then let's say all your points are valid, well taken and enough justification for going to war.
The arrogant sons of bitches sitting around Capital Hill didn't think it necessary to talk to the people who elected them like adults, and instead chose to stir everyone up with a cauldron of bullshit soup instead.
Plenty enough reason in itself to send theses useless bastards packing.
Bi-Polar Bear wrote: ... The arrogant sons of bitches sitting around Capital Hill didn't think it necessary to talk to the people who elected them like adults, and instead chose to stir everyone up with a cauldron of bullshit soup instead.
Plenty enough reason in itself to send theses useless bastards packing.
Little argument from me there. The case for war was sold atrociously ... a marketing blunder of enormous proportion ... the
"New Coke" (remember that?) of politics and diplomacy.
If only there were a viable alternative.
BPB - I agree with everything you said.
Only if we're going to fire Mr. Bush, I'd like to replace him with something better.
As much as I dislike Mr. Bush, I have a worse feeling about Mr. Kerry.
You know what I wish?
In November it was McCain against Lieberman instead of Bush against Kerry. Then we'd have the problem of choosing between two good choices, instead of holding your nose and picking between two awful choices.
I hear ya, Jim. Unfortunately, politics often leaves only the option of selecting the least-objectionable choice ... something likely causal to the phenomenon of overall declining voter turnout.
Fellas I'm being sincere here because I REALLY do not understand the philosophy behind the bush sucks, but I have a bad feeling about Kerry argument.
If you're given the choice between the man you feel might suck (Kerry) or the man that you KNOW is an irrefutable f*@k up (bush) why not look at the glass as half full and give Kerry a chance?
Lotta folks figure better the thief ya know than the one ya don't. Things can always get worse.
Besides, whether the glass is half empty or half full, eventually somebody's gonna hafta wash it ... 'less it gets broke first, then there's that mess ta deal with
timberlandko wrote:Lotta folks figure better the thief ya know than the one ya don't. Things can always get worse.
If bush is reelected, and I make no bones about the fact that in spite of the best efforts of many including me I believe he will be......then I believe things will indeed get worse....much worse than has even been considered by most.......
Kerry is much worse than Bush. Bush's only problem is that he is a poor public speaker. Kerrys problems run to the very core of his being, from his horrible service record and actions in nam, to the way he played it when he got back, his years of flip flops and waffles, he is a man without courage or convictions.
We know kerry, he doesn't deserve the office of dogcatcher, much less president.
timberlandko wrote:Lotta folks figure better the thief ya know than the one ya don't. Things can always get worse.
Besides, whether the glass is half empty or half full, eventually somebody's gonna hafta wash it ... 'less it gets broke first, then there's that mess ta deal with
Or you could view it from this perspective.
You let a friend drive your car and your moving on down the road. Your friend is being reckless and irresponsible and ends up driving your car into the ditch. NOW do you allow your friend to drive you out of the ditch and continue to drive OR do you allow someone else take the car out from the ditch? Yes the other person COULD be a worse driver but you all ready know the friend was a lousy one, so would you risk the car and your life once again on the knowledge or do you go with the possibility?
