Still wanna defend him?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The only reason what he said strikes people as wrong is because there is a lot of truth in it.

Not at all, unless you believe that every contrary reason expressed on this thread and others is a lie or simply the product of ignorance.

Cyclop wrote:

Bush lied.

At the very least, he failed to provide Due Dilligence as our elected leader in the implementation of his duties as head of our armed forces

Well, are you sure he lied or not?

0 Replies

Clinton, at least most of his entire cabinet and staff, and numerous members of Congress were expressing the threat of Saddam Hussein and that it was imperative that he be dealt with sternly. John Kerry, along with several other prominent Democrats, is a cosigner of a letter to the president uring him to take action. Every single one of them took this stance because of certainty of Saddam Hussein's WMD arsenal and development programs. At least most of heads of state in the free world were in complete agreement that Saddam had WMD. Several of those countries knew this because they had furnished him the stuff and technology to make them. These people didn't quibble about it. It was all an absolute fact.
Prior to the vote to attack Iraq, the Senate Intelligence Committees in Congress were fully briefed and all members had access to the documents supporting the need for the war. All agreed that the evidence was compelling and the vote was decisive to attack.

Cyclop would have us believe that only George Bush lied about Saddam's WMD. All the rest of these illustrious people were simply stupid I guess and can't be held accountable. It's funny how partisanship can make one think.

0 Replies

Quote:

Cyclop would have us believe that only George Bush lied about Saddam's WMD. All the rest of these illustrious people were simply stupid I guess and can't be held accountable. It's funny how partisanship can make one think.

Yes, except that about a week or so ago, I saw Mario Cuomo being interviewed for his book about Lincoln. The reporter asked him flat out "did President Bush lie about WMD?"

Cuomo's exact response: Absolutely not!

Even some of the Dems get it.

0 Replies

Yes, the one thing that keeps me hopeful is that many Dems do get it and refuse to use the party mantras that attack on false premises. They may still vote for Kerry based on their philosophial beliefs and that is fine. They still have my 100% respect.

0 Replies

Foxfyre Wrote:

Quote:

Cyclop would have us believe that only George Bush lied about Saddam's WMD. All the rest of these illustrious people were simply stupid I guess and can't be held accountable. It's funny how partisanship can make one think.

<smashes head against the wall in frustration>

I never said that ONLY Bush lied... why do you insist on putting words in my mouth, Fox? It's really frustrating to others when you straw-man their argument like that.

Nevertheless. There was one group of people who had access to all the information when the case for the war against Iraq was made. This was the executive branch of the U.S. government. Congress got all the info that the execs. sought fit to give them, and based upon the info they were given, the war seemed neccessary. Never mind the fact that the information was incredibly crappy, the intel way off.

I still have a copy of Colin Powell testifying before the U.N. about WMD. I bet he feels like a damn fool now...

The administration KNEW they were going to war in Iraq long before 9/11. They created a story and sold it to the American people based upon fear. That, to me, is lying. They diverted money that was earmarked for the effort in Afghanistan and used it to plan a war on Iraq. That, to me, is lying.

The admin keeps changing it's stance. First we were looking for

WMDs

then, after we couldn't find those, it's

WMD programs

And, when we didn't find any of those, it was

WMD program related activities

Which could be almost anything. When someone keeps shifting their story, it's a pretty good sign that they are not being truthful in the first place.

Quote:

May have been a threat in the future?
Thats entirely possible,but knowing his record,and his penchant for attacking his neighbors and Using WMD against his own people,what would you have done?
Would you have the US wait till one of our cities were attacked?
Would you have waited till Iraq attacked one of our allies?
Turkey? Israel? Saudi Arabia? Which country do you consider as expendable?

I would have worked within the U.N. and taken the time to find out the truth about WMD over there before I rushed in like a fool. I would have taken the time to make realistic plans for governing the area afterwards. I would have bolstered our defenses here at home, beefed up the coast guard and border patrols, and worked on cross-agency intelligence in order to stop attacks against us.

I WOULDN'T have attacked Iraq based on a false case I had to present to my people.

Jesus Christ you conservatives are forgiving. If the CEO of a company had presented a case to his shareholders based on such false information, he would have his ass handed to him once it becomes apparent. But you shareholders seem not to care, at all! Do you people not care at all that the case made for the war on Iraq was false? You don't care that people have died for false reasons? You don't think that affects a person's honor, a Nations honor?

There is a definable difference between recognizing the threat/unstable nature of a person/region, and deciding to commit troops to a war there, especially in the middle of an UNFINISHED war (that is the part that makes me the angriest, I think).

You try to take the heat off of Bush by saying that EVERYONE thought Saddam was a threat. Well, there's a saying that I think applies especially well in this case - The Buck Stops Here. When you are in charge, you are responsible for the things that happen on your watch. Bush made the call to go to war. Congress was manipulated into agreeing with him through false intel and scare tactics. Whether or not he is the man behid the policy (I kind of doubt he is), it was implemented in his name, on his watch, and HE has responsibility for it.

Finn Said:

Quote:

Cyclop wrote:

Bush lied.

At the very least, he failed to provide Due Dilligence as our elected leader in the implementation of his duties as head of our armed forces

Well, are you sure he lied or not?

Oh, I'm sure. But I realize some of you will never agree with me, b/c you have chosen not to.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn,

If Bush did lie so that he could have his war, what do you feel were his real reasons for war?

0 Replies

The thing Cyclop won't admit is that everybody with authority to make a decision about Iraq had access to all available intelligence. Therefore to say Bush lied is to say that everybody else that accepted the available intelligence also lied. If the others did not lie, then Bush did not lie.

0 Replies

I'll field that one . . .

The neo-con agenda, which calls for bases in the middle east . . .

When you get to the Project for a New American Century homepage, click on the "Middle East/Iraq" link at the side of the page. This will take you to a page linking documents and articles. At the top of that page, select "2000-1997." On that page, there is a link to a PDF of an article in The Washington Times, dated in January, 1998, which i cannot link here. It reads, in part:

"In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power."

This was a letter to President Clinton, and keep in mind that it dates from two years before Bush even began to run for office.

0 Replies

JpinMilwaukee Wrote:

Quote:

Cycloptichorn,

If Bush did lie so that he could have his war, what do you feel were his real reasons for war?

I'm glad you asked.

To begin, we have to look at the agenda of the Neo conservatives who have come into power in the Republican party these last few years. The major difference (at least in the case of international relations) is a shift to the policy of preemption, rather than the accepted policy of containment that we had used for years. The best way for you to learn about this is by looking at the Project for a New American Centrury, found at newamericancentury.org.

In short, the people who are in office now (Bush, Rummy, Ashcroft, Rove, etc.) had made the decision to go to Iraq long before 9/11 even happened. They did so for a few reasons:

1. It is (in their view) imperative that the U.S. control the flow of oil coming from the middle east in order to ensure our economy isn't held hostage.

2. It is (in their view) imperative that the U.S. have military bases in the middle east in order to effectively secure our interests there.

3. It is (in their view) imperative that Saddam Hussein be removed from power in order to secure our interests in the middle east.

These decisions were made years ago, yet the case was presented to the public as if it were a new one, based upon new evidence. Hell, these guys sent a letter to Clinton back in 1998 trying to get him to take immediate action against Iraq.

All the goals of the Admin. have been accomplished. We have 14 shiny, new military bases being put up in Iraq as we speak that aren't going anywhere anytime soon. We have our thumb on an oil supply that may include half the remaining oil in the world. Saddam was removed from power and the region is now under U.S. control.

The policy of preemption calls upon the U.S. to exercise its military might in order to get its way.

http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/2003/01/27/news/local/5025024.htm?1c

Quote:

Why the rush, and why now, when Saddam seems weakened by a decade of economic sanctions?

The answers are complicated, but most arise from the concept - endorsed by many of the key players in the Bush administration - that America, as the world's lone superpower, should be putting that power to use.

"The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire," says the PNAC's statement of principles. "The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership."

Ian Lustick, a University of Pennsylvania political science professor and Middle East expert, calls the Cheney-Rumsfeld group "a cabal" - a band of conservative ideologues whose grand notions of American unilateral military might are out of touch and dangerous.

"What happened was 9/11, which had nothing to do with Iraq but produced an enormous amount of political capital which allowed the government to do anything it wanted as long as they could relate it to national security and the Middle East," Lustick said.

Bush and his people knew that the American public wouldn't be big on a voluntary war in Iraq without good reasoning. The reasons they needed to go (to sit on the oil, stabilize the region, and build military bases) would not be considered acceptable by a lot of people. So what did they do? They built the case for war on fears of terrorism that were not really based in reality. The evidence has borne this out.

The admin would have you believe that the alphabet agencies started coming to them with reasons why we should attack Iraq, and then they made the decision based upon that. In fact, it was the other way around.

To me, that is a lie. I cannot abide it, and I will not. I try not to be a rabid liberal; it's as bad to be that as a rabid conservative. But I will not tolerate a leader of my country who cannot treat me like an adult and tell the truth about our intentions, ESPECIALLY while peoples lives are on the line.

More later tonight on this.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

In addition to what was posted by me and by Cycloptichorn, in a letter dated May 29, 1998, to Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott, members of the PNAC wrote, in part:

"U.S. policy should have as its explicit goal removing Saddam Hussein's regime from power and establishing a peaceful and democratic Iraq in its place. We recognize that this goal will not be achieved easily. But the alternative is to leave the initiative to Saddam, who will continue to strengthen his position at home and in the region. Only the U.S. can lead the way in demonstrating that his rule is not legitimate and that time is not on the side of his regime. To accomplish Saddam's removal, the following political and military measures should be undertaken:

"-- We should take whatever steps are necessary to challenge Saddam Hussein's claim to be Iraq's legitimate ruler, including indicting him as a war criminal;

"-- We should help establish and support (with economic, political, and military means) a provisional, representative, and free government of Iraq in areas of Iraq not under Saddam's control;

"-- We should use U.S. and allied military power to provide protection for liberated areas in northern and southern Iraq; and -- We should establish and maintain a strong U.S. military presence in the region, and be prepared to use that force to protect our vital interests in the Gulf - and, if necessary, to help remove Saddam from power."

This letter was signed by, among others, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz.

0 Replies

odds ae running 7 to 5 that both Rumsfeld and Woldowitz are sincere.

0 Replies

Michael Moore's "Lie" not so bad as Bush's?
I have read some posts on Michael Moore's doctoring of a headline. And that's not a decent thing to do, though I think it's just possible it was an error.

But how about Bush's lie? The Bush campaign has produced a video and has distributed it around. It is, of course, a very carefully edited piece and creates at least one major distortion, showing the first part of a Kerry statement bit not the last half and so the viewer is left thinking he said something he nevere said. This was exposed on "Hardball." It's not even fit for debate, just a sheer lie, and Matthew Dowd refused to back down on it. Bush has also been most decietful about the 87 billion dollar vote of Kerry's (he, Bush, himself threatened to veto the bill) and he knows Kerry was prepared to vote for if certain provisions were taken out. These are first-rate lies, deliberate attempts to mislead Americans, and they come not from some hack film-maker (as y'all would picture Moore) but from the President of the United States. Utterly defenseless. I mean, the man has no code, no code at all.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

In addition to what was posted by me and by Cycloptichorn, in a letter dated May 29, 1998, to Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott, members of the PNAC wrote, in part:

"U.S. policy should have as its explicit goal removing Saddam Hussein's regime from power and establishing a peaceful and democratic Iraq in its place. We recognize that this goal will not be achieved easily. But the alternative is to leave the initiative to Saddam, who will continue to strengthen his position at home and in the region. Only the U.S. can lead the way in demonstrating that his rule is not legitimate and that time is not on the side of his regime. To accomplish Saddam's removal, the following political and military measures should be undertaken:

"-- We should take whatever steps are necessary to challenge Saddam Hussein's claim to be Iraq's legitimate ruler, including indicting him as a war criminal;

"-- We should help establish and support (with economic, political, and military means) a provisional, representative, and free government of Iraq in areas of Iraq not under Saddam's control;

"-- We should use U.S. and allied military power to provide protection for liberated areas in northern and southern Iraq; and -- We should establish and maintain a strong U.S. military presence in the region, and be prepared to use that force to protect our vital interests in the Gulf - and, if necessary, to help remove Saddam from power."

This letter was signed by, among others, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz.

I think this is interesting for a few reasons. For one, it illustrates that they had 'Saddam on the mind' for a while. But, more importantly, it addresses something that Foxfyre often talks about -- the agreement of the previous administration, congress and some foreign powers about Saddam's posession of weapons of mass destruction. I think the difference is that it's this president who chose to take it to the next level with a full fledged invasion and occupation. Until this presidency, it was only a small community of idealogues (PNAC) who were actively promoting that strategy. In this letter it is clear that military force is at the bottom of the list, and that may be because it's tailored to president Clinton, who they already knew did not support a full invasion. I think the first two recommendations were pretty good ones, and wonder why those weren't tried (at least not to my knowledge).

I think when people assert that Bush lied, they mean that he painted the picture he wanted us to see so that he could get the support he needed to go into Iraq. At the very least, he publicly stated as fact things he knew to be of questionable veracity, like the yellowcake from Niger incident. And the fact that we don't assign blame to Congress, although some rests on their shoulders, is probably due to the fact that they weren't the ones who made the ultimate decision to go to war.

0 Replies

Quote:

I have read some posts on Michael Moore's doctoring of a headline. And that's not a decent thing to do, though I think it's just possible it was an error.

I'm voting that it was artistic license. Having seen the movie I can tell you that it's one of those spinning newspaper shots, if you know the one's I mean, like in Johnny Dangerously and Chicago and other such movies. The shot of the paper did not look to me like it was supposed to be a real newspaper, although that was just my take on it.

0 Replies

Still wanna defend him?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know