0
   

Bush supporters' aftermath thread

 
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Nov, 2005 05:03 pm
snood wrote:
Goddam, ticoyama. Do you actually hold Clinton responsible for this war?


I hold Saddam Hussein responsible for this war.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Nov, 2005 05:07 pm
This Iraq war was Bush's war. He was the one with the hardon to go. He was the one doing all the pushing. He had no real case for urgency or imminent danger, so he concocted one. This is a terrible fact to swallow, but it is the case one finds if one looks at objective facts as they continue to unfold.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Nov, 2005 05:12 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
snood wrote:
Goddam, ticoyama. Do you actually hold Clinton responsible for this war?


I hold Saddam Hussein responsible for this war.


It's not a war.

And Saddam did- what exactly, to get his country invaded, trashed, and 20,000+ innocents killed?
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Nov, 2005 05:14 pm
Of course I don't think the Iraq war was a mistake. I understand Bush was the one with the backbone to take necessary action. I do not need you to remind me of that fact.

But perhaps you and all those accusing Bush of lying to get us into war need to remember what all the Democratic politicians said pre-war. That appears to be the sticking point with Phase II of the Senate Intelligence Committee's report: Senate Democrats only wanted to restrict the review of WH comments; Roberts wanted to include ALL comments, including Senate Democrats ... blindly ... in other words, not knowing who made the comments. Senate Democrats, understandably, balked at that prospect, undoubtedly because they know they were just as strident in their beliefs that Iraq possessed WMD and was a danger as the WH.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Nov, 2005 05:15 pm
McTag wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
snood wrote:
Goddam, ticoyama. Do you actually hold Clinton responsible for this war?


I hold Saddam Hussein responsible for this war.


It's not a war.


Snood called it a war. Correct him.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Nov, 2005 05:50 pm
I served in Iraq.
I am proud of my service,proud of my actions,and proud of what has been accomplished so far.

Now,since many on the left claim that Iraq was no threat to us,lets see you apply that same thought to your hero.
What threat was Slobodan Milosevic and Bosnia to the US?
What threat was so strong that Clinton bombed an innocent country,and then invaded?
BTW,we still occupy Bosnia.

Also,in 1994 Bill Clinton invaded Haiti.
WHY?
What threat were they to us?
How did they threaten our security?
And you want to talk about a country with no military.
Lets look at Haiti's...
Marines, Army Rangers, Navy SEALs and other special units would overwhelm the ill-equipped 7,700-member Haitian military, only 500 of whom are organized into combat units and capable of mounting any kind of resistance. Haiti's navy is just three workable patrol boats. Its air force consists of two small planes.

It has no allies to depend upon for help.

So poorly armed are its soldiers that there are barely 150 rounds of ammunition per man, with no resupply - enough for about half an hour of fighting, provided the Haitians can avoid firing wildly in panic.

D-Day would be the assault. On D-Day plus 1, the work of putting the country's government back together would begin.

``I would liken this invasion to a SWAT team raid on a crack house, where we had given the drug forces, the criminals, clear warning that we are coming,'' said retired Rear Adm. Eugene Carroll, an analyst with the Center for Defense Information in Washington. ``We will kick in the doorand there will be nobody at home.''

Thats from here...
http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/VA-news/VA-Pilot/issues/1994/vp940716/07160286.htm

I dont recall them being a threat to us,but Clinton ordered invasions of both countries,and the dems didnt object.

So,if you want to oppose the war,thats fine.
But,at least try to be consistant,ok.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Nov, 2005 12:38 am
mysteryman wrote:
+Now,since many on the left claim that Iraq was no threat to us,lets see you apply that same thought to your hero.
What threat was Slobodan Milosevic and Bosnia to the US?
What threat was so strong that Clinton bombed an innocent country,and then invaded?
BTW,we still occupy Bosnia.

I agree. That was an illegal war too, and I was against it when it happened, even though a majority of about 90% in my country supported it. In principle, the same applies to Haiti, though there is a plausible case that an unstable Haiti means more illegal immigration, more drug trafficking, more non-military threats to the USA. Such a case could not have plausibly been made for Iraq. (And Clinton, for all his faults, did not lie about the case for war.)
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Nov, 2005 01:20 am
mysteryman wrote:
I served in Iraq.
I am proud of my service,proud of my actions,and proud of what has been accomplished so far.

Now,since many on the left claim that Iraq was no threat to us,lets see you apply that same thought to your hero.
What threat was Slobodan Milosevic and Bosnia to the US?
What threat was so strong that Clinton bombed an innocent country,and then invaded?
BTW,we still occupy Bosnia.

Also,in 1994 Bill Clinton invaded Haiti.
WHY?
What threat were they to us?
How did they threaten our security?
And you want to talk about a country with no military.
Lets look at Haiti's...
Marines, Army Rangers, Navy SEALs and other special units would overwhelm the ill-equipped 7,700-member Haitian military, only 500 of whom are organized into combat units and capable of mounting any kind of resistance. Haiti's navy is just three workable patrol boats. Its air force consists of two small planes.

It has no allies to depend upon for help.

So poorly armed are its soldiers that there are barely 150 rounds of ammunition per man, with no resupply - enough for about half an hour of fighting, provided the Haitians can avoid firing wildly in panic.

D-Day would be the assault. On D-Day plus 1, the work of putting the country's government back together would begin.

``I would liken this invasion to a SWAT team raid on a crack house, where we had given the drug forces, the criminals, clear warning that we are coming,'' said retired Rear Adm. Eugene Carroll, an analyst with the Center for Defense Information in Washington. ``We will kick in the doorand there will be nobody at home.''

Thats from here...
http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/VA-news/VA-Pilot/issues/1994/vp940716/07160286.htm

I dont recall them being a threat to us,but Clinton ordered invasions of both countries,and the dems didnt object.

So,if you want to oppose the war,thats fine.
But,at least try to be consistant,ok.



Lol!!! You are usually not so silly.


Did Clinton CLAIM that, in the conflicts you mention, there was a threat to the US? Did he lie about the situation?

You are comparing apples with carrots.


Does the rightness or otherwise of the activity have anything to do with how efficiently or well it is done? What does opposition to the war have to do with how well you and your colleagues are doing your job? You have really bought into the gross illogic of the bush lovers.

Do you consider the confederate soldiers in your Civil War to have been fighting justly? (Or the Union soldiers, if you are in sympathy with the confederates)

Do you consider that they behaved with courage and honour?

See...it's easy.....people can behave with courage and honour and decency even when they are in something due to lies and manipulation.

By the way, one can oppose lies and manipulation without being a "Bush hater".

Bush occupies very little of my consciousness......but I will criticise his wrong actions.

You have bought the right's specious logic hook line and sinker.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Nov, 2005 06:40 am
How does it happen that folks like mysterman and tico (we have no reason to assume they aren't fine people, all in all) are so effectively manipulated that they arrive at a place where they can justify torture and defend a government which lies to them and everyone else and does so consistently?

Quote:
Consider one memo highlighted in a Capitol Hill hearing Wednesday that Scanlon, a former aide to Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas, sent the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana to describe his strategy for protecting the tribe's gambling business. In plain terms, Scanlon confessed the source code of recent Republican electoral victories: target religious conservatives, distract everyone else, and then railroad through complex initiatives.

"The wackos get their information through the Christian right, Christian radio, mail, the internet and telephone trees," Scanlon wrote in the memo, which was read into the public record at a hearing of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee. "Simply put, we want to bring out the wackos to vote against something and make sure the rest of the public lets the whole thing slip past them." The brilliance of this strategy was twofold: Not only would most voters not know about an initiative to protect Coushatta gambling revenues, but religious "wackos" could be tricked into supporting gambling at the Coushatta casino even as they thought they were opposing it.
link

Because the very un-nice people manipulating mysterman and tico (for example: Scanlon, former aide to Tom DeLay and business partner of Abramoff) are very good at that game.

Quote:
The Indian Affairs committee is scheduled to hold one more hearing on Abramoff before issuing a report; it still needs to gather testimony from Italia Federici, a close associate of Interior Secretary Gale Norton. Federici is accused of setting up a meeting for Abramoff with Interior Department officials after her nonprofit company, Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy, received six-figure donations from Abramoff's clients. Environmentalists charge that Federici's company -- which was founded by Norton -- is a front for big industry polluters. Federici was scheduled to testify Wednesday, but has so far ducked a Senate subpoena. "I believe U.S. marshals will do their duty," McCain said. "She has been unable to be located."


Quote:
At the same time, the former top procurement official in the White House, David Safavian, has been arrested on charges of lying about a trip he took to Scotland with Abramoff. Another former White House official, Timothy Flanigan, recently withdrew his nomination to become deputy attorney general, after it became clear that he would have to testify under oath to the Senate about his relationship with Abramoff.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Nov, 2005 07:39 am
Now, it is true that the president said, "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." But it was Bill Clinton who said that, on Feb. 17, 1998. Was he lying too?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Nov, 2005 07:44 am
In fact, it is constructive to review from time to time what was going on prior to the Bush administration before we rush to judgment to condemn George W. Bush for 'cooking up' the whole scenario:

Quote:
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Nov, 2005 09:59 am
dlowan wrote:
Did Clinton CLAIM that, in the conflicts you mention, there was a threat to the US? Did he lie about the situation?

You are comparing apples with carrots.


No, Clinton did not. But that makes another point: The left was supportive of that war where the opponent was not even a CLAIMED threat to the US.


--

blatham:

I'm not "manipulated" by any stretch. I don't get any information through the Christian right, Christian radio, mail, or telephone trees. Yes I get information through the Internet? Don't you?

My question for you, bernie, is who is manipulating you?

BTW, thanks for posting another salon.com article. I think that answers my question.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Nov, 2005 10:44 am
Quote:
Wednesday, Nov. 2, 2005 9:58 p.m. EST

Saddam's 500-ton Uranium Stockpile

Thanks to Leakgate Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald's decision to indict "Scooter" Libby last week, Bush administration accuser Joe Wilson is once again the toast of Washington, D.C. - recycling the fifteen minutes of fame he first purchased in July 2003 with the claim that Bush lied about Iraq's plan to acquire uranium from Niger.

Why was Bush's uranium claim so important? Because if true, the mere attempt by the Iraqi dictator to acquire uranium would show that he had clear and incontrovertible plans to restart his nuclear program.

Maybe that's why the press seldom discusses the fact that Saddam already had a staggeringly large stockpile of uranium - 500 tons, to be exact.

And if his mere intention to acquire uranium was enough to justify fears of Saddam's nuclear ambition, what would the average person deduce from that fact that he'd already stockpiled a huge quantity of the bombmaking fuel?

In its May 22, 2004 edition, the New York Times confirmed a myriad of reports on Saddam's nuclear fuel stockpile - and revealed a chilling detail unknown to weapons inspectors before the war: that Saddam had begun to partially enrich his uranium stash.

The Times noted:

"The repository, at Tuwaitha, a centerpiece of Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons program, . . . . holds more than 500 tons of uranium . . . . Some 1.8 tons is classified as low-enriched uranium."

Thomas B. Cochran, director of the nuclear program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, told the Times that "the low-enriched version could be useful to a nation with nuclear ambitions."

"A country like Iran," Mr. Cochran said, "could convert that into weapons-grade material with a lot fewer centrifuges than would be required with natural uranium."

The paper conceded that while Saddam's nearly 2 tons of partially enriched uranium was "a more potent form" of the nuclear fuel, it was "still not sufficient for a weapon.

Consulted about the low-enriched uranium discovery, however, Ivan Oelrich, a physicist at the Federation of American Scientists, told the Associated Press that if it was of the 3 percent to 5 percent level of enrichment common in fuel for commercial power reactors, the 1.8 tons could be used to produce enough highly enriched uranium to make a single nuclear bomb.

Luckily, Iraq didn't have even the small number of centrifuges necessary to get the job done.

Or did it?

The physicist tapped by Saddam to run his centrifuge program says that after the first Gulf War, the program was largely dismantled. But it wasn't destroyed.

In fact, according to what he wrote in his 2004 book, "The Bomb in My Garden," Dr. Mahdi Obeidi told U.S. interrogators: "Saddam kept funding the IAEC [Iraq Atomic Energy Commission] from 1991 ... until the war in 2003."

"I was developing the centrifuge for the weapons" right through 1997, he revealed.

And after that, Dr. Obeidi said, Saddam ordered him under penalty of death to keep the technology available to resume Iraq's nuke program at a moment's notice.

Dr. Obeidi said he buried "the full set of blueprints, designs - everything to restart the centrifuge program - along with some critical components of the centrifuge" under the garden of his Baghdad home.

"I had to maintain the program to the bitter end," he explained. All the while the Iraqi physicist was aware that he held the key to Saddam's continuing nuclear ambitions.

"The centrifuge is the single most dangerous piece of nuclear technology," Dr. Obeidi said in his book. "With advances in centrifuge technology, it is now possible to conceal a uranium enrichment program inside a single warehouse."

Consider: 500 tons of yellowcake stored at Saddam's old nuclear weapons plant, where he'd managed to partially enrich 1.8 tons. And the equipment and blueprints that could enrich enough uranium to make a bomb stored away for safekeeping. And all of it at the Iraqi dictator's disposal.

If the average American were aware of these undisputed facts, the debate over Iraq's weapons of mass destruction would have been decided long ago - in President Bush's favor.

One more detail that Mr. Wilson and his media backers don't like to discuss: the reason Niger was such a likely candidate for Saddam's uranium shopping spree.

Responding to the firestorm that erupted after Wilson's July 2003 column, Prime Minister Tony Blair told reporters:

"In case people should think that the whole idea of a link between Iraq and Niger was some invention, in the 1980s we know for sure that Iraq purchased round about 270 tons of uranium from Niger."
0 Replies
 
Steppenwolf
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Nov, 2005 11:56 am
Ticomaya wrote:
Quote:
Wednesday, Nov. 2, 2005 9:58 p.m. EST

Saddam's 500-ton Uranium Stockpile

Thanks to Leakgate Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald's decision to indict "Scooter" Libby last week, Bush administration accuser Joe Wilson is once again the toast of Washington, D.C. - recycling the fifteen minutes of fame he first purchased in July 2003 with the claim that Bush lied about Iraq's plan to acquire uranium from Niger.

Why was Bush's uranium claim so important? Because if true, the mere attempt by the Iraqi dictator to acquire uranium would show that he had clear and incontrovertible plans to restart his nuclear program.

Maybe that's why the press seldom discusses the fact that Saddam already had a staggeringly large stockpile of uranium - 500 tons, to be exact.

And if his mere intention to acquire uranium was enough to justify fears of Saddam's nuclear ambition, what would the average person deduce from that fact that he'd already stockpiled a huge quantity of the bombmaking fuel?

In its May 22, 2004 edition, the New York Times confirmed a myriad of reports on Saddam's nuclear fuel stockpile - and revealed a chilling detail unknown to weapons inspectors before the war: that Saddam had begun to partially enrich his uranium stash.

The Times noted:

"The repository, at Tuwaitha, a centerpiece of Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons program, . . . . holds more than 500 tons of uranium . . . . Some 1.8 tons is classified as low-enriched uranium."

Thomas B. Cochran, director of the nuclear program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, told the Times that "the low-enriched version could be useful to a nation with nuclear ambitions."

"A country like Iran," Mr. Cochran said, "could convert that into weapons-grade material with a lot fewer centrifuges than would be required with natural uranium."

The paper conceded that while Saddam's nearly 2 tons of partially enriched uranium was "a more potent form" of the nuclear fuel, it was "still not sufficient for a weapon.

Consulted about the low-enriched uranium discovery, however, Ivan Oelrich, a physicist at the Federation of American Scientists, told the Associated Press that if it was of the 3 percent to 5 percent level of enrichment common in fuel for commercial power reactors, the 1.8 tons could be used to produce enough highly enriched uranium to make a single nuclear bomb.

Luckily, Iraq didn't have even the small number of centrifuges necessary to get the job done.

Or did it?

The physicist tapped by Saddam to run his centrifuge program says that after the first Gulf War, the program was largely dismantled. But it wasn't destroyed.

In fact, according to what he wrote in his 2004 book, "The Bomb in My Garden," Dr. Mahdi Obeidi told U.S. interrogators: "Saddam kept funding the IAEC [Iraq Atomic Energy Commission] from 1991 ... until the war in 2003."

"I was developing the centrifuge for the weapons" right through 1997, he revealed.

And after that, Dr. Obeidi said, Saddam ordered him under penalty of death to keep the technology available to resume Iraq's nuke program at a moment's notice.

Dr. Obeidi said he buried "the full set of blueprints, designs - everything to restart the centrifuge program - along with some critical components of the centrifuge" under the garden of his Baghdad home.

"I had to maintain the program to the bitter end," he explained. All the while the Iraqi physicist was aware that he held the key to Saddam's continuing nuclear ambitions.

"The centrifuge is the single most dangerous piece of nuclear technology," Dr. Obeidi said in his book. "With advances in centrifuge technology, it is now possible to conceal a uranium enrichment program inside a single warehouse."

Consider: 500 tons of yellowcake stored at Saddam's old nuclear weapons plant, where he'd managed to partially enrich 1.8 tons. And the equipment and blueprints that could enrich enough uranium to make a bomb stored away for safekeeping. And all of it at the Iraqi dictator's disposal.

If the average American were aware of these undisputed facts, the debate over Iraq's weapons of mass destruction would have been decided long ago - in President Bush's favor.

One more detail that Mr. Wilson and his media backers don't like to discuss: the reason Niger was such a likely candidate for Saddam's uranium shopping spree.

Responding to the firestorm that erupted after Wilson's July 2003 column, Prime Minister Tony Blair told reporters:

"In case people should think that the whole idea of a link between Iraq and Niger was some invention, in the 1980s we know for sure that Iraq purchased round about 270 tons of uranium from Niger."


It's absolutely true that many people on the left fail to appreciate that Wilson's report was ultimately either an overstatement or wholly bogus (and politically motivated). Later reports concluded there was evidence that Saddam sought yellowcake, although the administration's own case was based largely on obviously forged documents -- something that Wilson was not aware of, so that fact doesn't validate his sloppy report. The whole thing was a mess, but the fact that Wilson was likely a political hack doesn't exonerate the administration. Between their failure to check the validity of (forged) documents and subsequent leaks, the administration was sloppy and possibly dishonest. Why did McClellan initially deny administration leaks? We know now that someone was hiding the ball from the public, no matter the validity of their ultimate conclusions about Wilson. Wouldn't it have been easier to just openly and publicly attack Wilson's report on the merits?

Judging from many of your posts on this subject, Tico, I think you may be succumbing to a logical fallacy: just because one person is wrong doesn't mean his opponent is right. Wilson's ineptitude and dishonesty could have been handled without the leaks, and without the subsequent denial of those leaks. In other words, the administration erred in its methods, even if they were right to attack Wilson's report. I have no idea if this amounts to a valid obstruction of justice or other charge (we'll see), but the administration was sloppy and opaque when we needed precision and transparency. That's not a crime in and of itself, but it's not the sort of leadership that this country deserves.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Nov, 2005 11:56 am
Since when is a guy quoted as saying he couldn't run for President because he'd had too many women and smoked pot--and inhaled--the best guy to do critical investigatory work re a war issue--
There was no one better in the agency? Really?

and more important than that--when is a CIA investigator allowed to write a publicly printed narrative about such a critical issue of national security?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Nov, 2005 12:03 pm
Smoking pot has nothing to do with competence in any instance, no more than drinking. But you of course know that.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Nov, 2005 12:19 pm
Steppenwolf wrote:
... Wouldn't it have been easier to just openly and publicly attack Wilson's report on the merits?


You would think so.

Quote:
Judging from many of your posts on this subject, Tico, I think you may be succumbing to a logical fallacy: just because one person is wrong doesn't mean his opponent is right. Wilson's ineptitude and dishonesty could have been handled without the leaks, and without the subsequent denial of those leaks. In other words, the administration erred in its methods, even if they were right to attack Wilson's report. I have no idea if this amounts to a valid obstruction of justice or other charge (we'll see), but the administration was sloppy and opaque when we needed precision and transparency. That's not a crime in and of itself, but it's not the sort of leadership that this country deserves.


Aside from your "logical fallacy" remark, can't say I disagree with a whole lot of what you just said.
0 Replies
 
Steppenwolf
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Nov, 2005 12:23 pm
Fair 'nuff.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Nov, 2005 01:04 pm
Quote:
November 03, 2005, 8:08 a.m.
"The Right Place at the Right Time"
A Navy lieutenant on serving in Iraq.


By Michael Fumento
Michael Fumento is a former paratrooper, nationally syndicated columnist with Scripps Howard News Service, and a senior fellow at Hudson Institute in Washington, D.C. He was embedded in May with the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Force in Camp Fallujah, Iraq to which the 8th EOD is attached.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Nov, 2005 01:10 pm
Did Wilson actually submit a report to critique? Don't I recall that he didn't? He instead went to the media? I may be pipedreaming here and don't have time to look it up.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 07/13/2025 at 03:25:55