Are You Watching Any Of The Inauguration?

My dad was in the plane that shot the first photo down into an A bomb cloud. I think a lot of the talk about bombs is posturing, though I wasn't in that plane myself. Repellant fluff, the posturing.

I'd so much rather that people back off of - we'll get you, or, vice versa, we'll get you. People arm because other people are armed.

As one lamebrained guy said, wise while messed up,
"can't we all get along?"

I have wanted Saddam Hussein's head before I ever knew Bush41 had a son named Dubya. But, that's just me.

People having weapons somehow generate others getting weapons to thwart them. It's human nature. Why would anyone be surprised that other countries try to get better and better bombs?

When Saddam was just getting into it, weren't we his beneficents? (Don't look at me for dates, I don't follow that exactly.)

The real "blood for oil" responsibility lies directly on Saddam's shoulders. He almost started WW3 by invading Kuwait. The U.S. is dependent on middle east oil, that's not hard to figure out. He played his hand, and ultimately, lost. I cheered when Dubya announced his plans to go after the bastard, it was twelve years late IMO.

He could have went into exile with the billions he stole from the 1,000,000-plus people he starved to death's dinner tables. That's probably about it since he had spent the last decade in deception and the previous 4 years in total secretive non-compliance with his obligations on top of the fact that our decade of crying wolf meant he didn't even bother to put up a facade of cooperation until we had already deployed to the area... You remember that's when he started delivering a handful of postwar built Al Samoud II missiles that were illegal by design and illegally produced according to the terms of cease-fire agreement... don't you? This guy's entire past was so checkered with violations it is insane for anyone to pretend he had complied with his obligations.

Disagree with the proposed solutions.
Disagree with the way it was sold.
Disagree with Bush's very existence.

But stop trying to suggest Saddam was one iota less guilty than he was of violating U.N. resolution after resolution. His countless violations are a matter of FACT, not opinion. It matters little if you are truly ignorant of the FACTs or if you are just being deliberately obtuse... your strategy of denying FACTs is a sorry excuse for an argument. I just remembered that I very recently provided you proof of these things and you ignored it... so I don't know why I'm bothering to dispute FACTs with you again now. Good night.

Hear hear, Bill.

His best weapon was actually a French Fighter Jet... Mirage I think it's called… but that's not really an issue. Lots of countries including ours assisted in arming Iraq. Chemical WMD were probable, nukes were possible, and as justification for war should have been sold as such. Bush's people gambled that the fiend was as dangerous as he pretended to be... because there was no way to verify his activity since 98 when he booted the inspectors. The odds were wrong and we didn't find WMD. Had it been sold for what it was, the anti-war crowd would have had to rain down their condemnation for some other reason. Their constant denial of every other reason to take out Saddam ( like 1,000,000 starved to death between the wars for Dog's sake) tells me they'd have found some flaw regardless. This was a very bad guy and he needed to be taken out for the sake of Human-kind. I agree with you that the WMD-potential exaggeration is a shame, but mostly because it provides such a solid base for insurgent-encouraging dissention.

I really wish you would stop using me to argue with your imaginary opponent. I haven't been disputing facts with anyone tonight.

Sorry Free... but when you make a string of provocatively questionable statement on a political thread... you are inviting challenge. The only reason I focused some of those suggestions directly at you is because I recognize your ability to learn... and consequently troubles me to see you deny facts in favor of sides. I assure I haven't, and wouldn't, single you out for attack. I think you're too cool for that.

Well O'Bill, I'm quite ok with challenge, but I would not consider what you've posted to be one. I don't believe I've denied any facts on this thread or any other. I can certainly admit if I'm not aware of facts, and have done so. You, however, have inaccurately characterized my opinion based on what you perceive to be the meaning behind my provocative statements. I never tire of seeing how you can take three sentences of mine and spin them into a wholly unacceptable position that only an idiot would espouse. So, as I said, spin on, brother.

saw bits of it (couldn't avoid it as it was on someone else's TV) and the bit that took my breath away was the bit about America having been about freedom and equality from the beginning .....

.... wonder what the native Americans made of that one?


so much sickening razzamatazz and hero worship - I need that throwing up emoticon!

I dispute that too. You are quite tired of it... despite having imagined it for the most part in the first place. :wink:

These are your sentences:
This response was utterly false. If you're unable or unwilling to elucidate further on this nonsense, you forfeit your ability to righteously whimper when the words are taken at face value. Your next post was a question... that I answered honestly to the best of my ability. Your post after that was a fragment indicative of someone ignoring compelling facts to make their case. Then you started whining that I'm spinning for interpreting your words, without any clarification which you're continuing to do in your last post. "Your a spinner" is a lousy argument and it continues to be absurd to hurl accusations about misinterpretations without identifying them or providing the necessary corrections. If I've assigned a position to you unfairly, point out where and why and I'll either prove it or retract it. Your Ad Hominem about spinning is nothing more than an unnecessary insult if you can't substantiate it... though it is a favorite tool of others who routinely put themselves in such positions.

O'Bill, I'm perfectly willing to elaborate on what I meant by that statement, which was made in the context of another argument. However, your "challenges" consist mostly of insults. I've tried before to weed through the insulting and yes condescending remarks you make to find what it is that you actually take issue with. It resulted in a string of nasties from both of us. So I'll just do this for you and maybe you can see why I won't seriously engage with you.



You could have stopped here and I would have responeded and addressed your points but...



All of that is out of think air and, frankly, some of it is insulting. But wait, there's more...



Again, you could have stopped here and I would have been happy to argue with you. But...



Again, I never suggested Saddam was not guilty of violating UN resolutions. The rest is just insults IMO. I'm not engaging in an argument with you, not because I'm not able to defend my position, but because I don't enjoy arguing with you and it seems to be entirely too personal. Also, this thread is not about Iraq. As a matter of practice I try not to throw more than superficial remarks out there if a more in-depth argument threatens to derail a thread further.

Here ya' go, Vivien. I keep this one handy for when I have to listen to liberals natter on and on..... Feel free to use if for your own purposes. Enjoy.


My good deed for the day is done.

Freeduck, you didn't seem to have any trouble separating my answers from my new points in this post. Since they were already separated into paragraphs; that probably made it pretty easy. You continue to whine about my writing style instead of disputing a single thing I've written. I like some styles better than others too... but stop short of pretending that pointing out a style flaw has any bearing on any point whatsoever. Where I stop, when I stop and why I stop... was not and will be determined by where you'd prefer it. If you like one paragraph, and not the next: respond to what you like or don't. But don't imagine that whining about writing style covers in any way shape or form the fact that your last 3 posts to me have been transparent attacks on the poster (me), with virtually no attention paid to the poster's points. If you don't like having your superficial remarks exposed as the falsehoods they are, tough luck. Defend them or don't. But don't just sling personal attacks at people who point them out and pretend that's a reasonable substitute for a reasoned argument. It's not.

Can you not see the obvious hypocrisy in complaining some of my point-relevant arguments are insulting, while you're in the middle of a purely Ad Hominem Rant?

You can respond to every paragraph, some paragraphs, or no paragraphs for all I care but don't think you'll attack my point relevant statements with a purely personal attack on my style and claim the moral high ground while doing so. Again, that's a popular strategy for people who are unwilling or unable to defend their faulty positions, but does nothing to contest clear point-relevant posts that are still there for all to see. Hint: another personal attack on me won't have any effect on my point-relevant posts either. Why not skip the personal BS and either respond to the points or nothing at all?

Because it's a pain in the ass. Please, O'Bill, I'm not attacking your writing style. I'm not attacking anything. I'm explaining my reasons for not arguing facts with you. One of us has been doing some attacking here, and this time it wasn't me. Do you see how someone might not want to get into a discussion with you when you can't make a point without berating them?

Why not start another thread strictly for discussion of whether the Iraq war was justified (there's always room for one more) and I would be happy to do a point by point justification for my opinion that it was not.

Let's try a new tact, here, shall we? I'm sorry you think the rhetorical devices I use are intended to berate you. They usually are not. I have a life long habit of over fortifying my points and it's disturbed people for just about as long. My mom never could take my tone, though I was at a loss to explain it. My employee's most common complaint historically, is that I treat them like children. Again, this isn't my intention; clarity is. I am well aware that my style of debate is aggravating to some and fault no one who chooses not to engage me for it. I point out the faults I see in others styles too, but usually only as an aside… not the main thrust of my response.

I take issue when my point-relevant posts are attacked on the grounds that my tone or style is offensive, as opposed to addressing the points themselves. That, is the very definition of an Ad Hominem Argument. While I'm perfectly capable of defending myself as well as my posts, I far prefer to just discuss the posts. There are no doubt a great number of reasons one might wish to avoid discussion with me and I don't badger those who don't respond. I never have, and I likely never will, win a popularity contest. That doesn't mean I won't defend myself when people respond to my posts by attacking me, instead of my posts, which is what you've been doing here.

No biggie. But do know that as long as you continue to press your personal attack, I'll continue to defend against it and point out how irrelevant and hypocritical that is.

As for starting an Iraqi thread; I have no thesis that I'm interested enough in discussing to do so. That doesn't mean I'll stand mute if someone posts a statement I disagree with about it on a political thread... even if I think that person won't like my response... or the way I deliver it. That isn't my problem. Again, I mean no undue offense to your whatsoever. As soon as you drop this personal BS it will evaporate because I have no interest in pursuing it. There are posters here who's indignation would only amuse me… but you aren't one of those. So far, this conversation not withstanding, I still think you're one of the cool people. <shrugs>

no plans to invade iraq before 9/11 ?

January 26, 1998

The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC


Dear Mr. President:


We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War.  In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat.  We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world.  That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power.  We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.


The policy of "containment" of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months.  As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections.  Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished.  Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq's chemical and biological weapons production.  The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam's secrets.  As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.




Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East.  It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil will all be put at hazard.  As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.




Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.


We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.


We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.


Sincerely,


Elliott Abrams    Richard L. Armitage    William J. Bennett


Jeffrey Bergner    John Bolton    Paula Dobriansky


Francis Fukuyama    Robert Kagan    Zalmay Khalilzad


William Kristol    Richard Perle    Peter W. Rodman


Donald Rumsfeld    William Schneider, Jr.    Vin Weber


Paul Wolfowitz    R. James Woolsey    Robert B. Zoellick

Gotta love PNAC.

or...

september 16, 1998

Statement before the House National Security Committee
Paul Wolfowitz


Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the invitation to testify before this distinguished committee on the important subject of U.S. policy toward Iraq.



It is an honor to appear as part of a hearing in which Scott Ritter testifies. Scott Ritter is a public servant of exceptional integrity and moral courage, one of those individuals who is not afraid to speak the truth. Now he is speaking the truth about the failures of the UN inspection regime in Iraq, even though those truths are embarrassing to senior officials in the Clinton Administration. And the pressures he is being subjected to are far worse. After first trying to smear his character with anonymous leaks, the administration then took to charging that Mr. Ritter doesn't "have a clue" about U.S. policy toward Iraq and saying that his criticisms were playing into Saddam Hussein's hands by impugning UNSCOM's independence.



In fact, it is hard to know what U.S. policy is toward Iraq because it is such a muddle of confusion and pretense. Apparently, the administration makes a distinction between telling Amb. Butler not to conduct an inspection and telling him that the time is inopportune for a confrontation with Iraq and that the U.S. is not in a position to back up UNSCOM. That kind of hair-splitting only further convinces both our friends and adversaries in the Middle East that we are not serious and that our policy is collapsing. It is only reinforced when they see us going through semantic contortions to explain that North Korea is not in violation of the Framework Agreement or when they see us failing to act on the warnings that we have given to North Korea or to Milosevic or to Saddam Hussein.



The problem with U.S. policy toward Iraq is that the administration is engaged in a game of pretending that everything is fine, that Saddam Hussein remains within a "strategic box" and if he tries to break out "our response will be swift and strong." The fact is that it has now been 42 days since there have been any weapons inspections in Iraq and the swift and strong response that the Administration threatened at the time of the Kofi Annan agreement earlier this year is nowhere to be seen.



Recently a senior official in a friendly Arab government complained to me that the U.S. attaches great store to symbolic votes by the Non-Aligned Movement on the "no fly zone" in Southern Iraq, while doing nothing to deal with the heart of the problem which is Saddam himself.



The United States is unable or unwilling to pursue a serious policy in Iraq, one that would aim at liberating the Iraqi people from Saddam's tyrannical grasp and free Iraq's neighbors from Saddam's murderous threats. Such a policy, but only such a policy, would gain real support from our friends in the region. And it might eventually even gain the respect of many of our critics who are able to see that Saddam inflicts horrendous suffering on the Iraqi people, but who see U.S. policy making that suffering worse through sanctions while doing nothing about Saddam.



Administration officials continue to claim that the only alternative to maintaining the unity of the UN Security Council is to send U.S. forces to Baghdad. That is wrong. As has been said repeatedly in letters and testimony to the President and the Congress by myself and other former defense officials, including two former secretaries of defense, and a former director of central intelligence, the key lies not in marching U.S. soldiers to Baghdad, but in helping the Iraqi people to liberate themselves from Saddam.



Saddam's main strength -- his ability to control his people though extreme terror -- is also his greatest vulnerability. The overwhelming majority of people, including some of his closest associates, would like to be free of his grasp if only they could safely do so.



A strategy for supporting this enormous latent opposition to Saddam requires political and economic as well as military components. It is eminently possible for a country that possesses the overwhelming power that the United States has in the Gulf. The heart of such action would be to create a liberated zone in Southern Iraq comparable to what the United States and its partners did so successfully in the North in 1991. Establishing a safe protected zone in the South, where opposition to Saddam could rally and organize, would make it possible:




• For a provisional government of free Iraq to organize, begin to gain international recognition and begin to publicize a political program for the future of Iraq;


• For that provisional government to control the largest oil field in Iraq and make available to it, under some kind of appropriate international supervision, enormous financial resources for political, humanitarian and eventually military purposes;


• Provide a safe area to which Iraqi army units could rally in opposition to Saddam, leading to the liberation of more and more of the country and the unraveling of the regime.



This would be a formidable undertaking, and certainly not one which will work if we insist on maintaining the unity of the UN Security Council. But once it began it would begin to change the calculations of Saddam's opponents and supporters -- both inside and outside the country -- in decisive ways. One Arab official in the Gulf told me that the effect inside Iraq of such a strategy would be "devastating" to Saddam. But the effect outside would be powerful as well. Our friends in the Gulf, who fear Saddam but who also fear ineffective American action against him, would see that this is a very different U.S. policy. And Saddam's supporters in the Security Council -- in particular France and Russia -- would suddenly see a different prospect before them. Instead of lucrative oil production contracts with the Saddam Hussein regime, they would now have to calculate the economic and commercial opportunities that would come from ingratiating themselves with the future government of Iraq.



The Clinton Administration repeatedly makes excuses for its own weakness by arguing that the coalition against Saddam is not what it was seven years ago. But in fact, that coalition didn't exist at all when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. The United States, under George Bush's leadership, put that coalition together by demonstrating that we had the strength and the seriousness of purpose to carry through to an effective conclusion. President Bush made good on those commitments despite powerful opposition in the U.S. Congress. The situation today is easier in many respects: Iraq is far weaker; American strength is much more evident to everyone, including ourselves; and the Congress would be far more supportive of decisive action. If this Administration could muster the necessary strength of purpose, it would be possible to liberate ourselves, our friends and allies in the region, and the Iraqi people themselves, from the menace of Saddam Hussein.