The US, UN & Iraq III

Another thing -- the British are our devoted partners in this project. How much money have they invested and how many of their troops are dead? Say that again...

0 Replies

Salesmanship in the way Bush is using it is wrong. Subliminal politics is wrong. The parsing of words is wrong - it is just one more big Bush lie!

0 Replies

The war in Iraq ended, I believe, on May 28th. President Bush declared that we had won. Since then, of course, American soldiers are dying at the rate of one or two a day.
I was with the 101st in Vietnam in 69-70. I try not to dwell on that time in my life.
We knew (the soldiers and officers on the ground) that the VN war was not going well. We sure as **** knew that. The President and the Congress knew that, too. The media knew and so did the public at large but it took another five years (and many soldiers' lives) to get out of that mess.

0 Replies

ehBeth and gel

Lovely pieces. Thank you.

What Bush said on May 1...

Quote:

"Officers and sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans, major combat operations in Iraq have ended," said the President. "The United States and our allies have prevailed."

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/US/wnt_postwar_casualties030617.html

The intention was, as craven suggests, to imply that the war was indeed over ('we have prevailed'). It was a statement made for his personal political welfare - and NOT a clear, full, and honest report back to the people he claims to be serving - and anyone who wishes to argue that it was 'technically correct' ('major combat operations') would be correct, but they'd be correct idiots.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

dyslexia wrote:
In the U. S. Government, there is a lot more incompetence and a lot less conspiracy than is generally believed.

Amen, I'd only add that it is true of just about everything.

0 Replies

True certainly. Yet why do I not feel greatly relieved?

0 Replies

Because that same incompetence can still get us into deeper and deeper trouble. c.i.

0 Replies

just think how bad it could be if the bush admin (or any other admin) was competent?

0 Replies

Quote:

The parsing of words is wrong - it is just one more big Bush lie!

Don't you realize that the Democrats are doing the same thing with Bush's statement in the State of the Union address? In the Address, the full sentence was "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." The Democrats and the liberal media have chosen to ignore the first part of the statement, and you pathetic liberals are actually buying it. In fact, the British still stand behind that claim. You should also remember that your hero, Bill Clinton, made the same sort of claims about biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons in Iraq in a speech in December 1998 just before launching air attacks on the country. The UN has also said that Iraq had a weapons program in the past.

As for US casualties in Iraq, what exactly do you propose that we do about it? Just abandon the country and leave the Iraqi extremists to establish another Dictatorial Islamic State?! Casualties need to be expected in a war situation, even if it's not part of the "major combat operations." You should be applauding Bush and the military for the historically outstanding job that they have done so far.

You're ignoring all of the progress that Bush has made in Iraq and against terrorism in general: Saddam Hussein and his evil regime have been taken out of power; his sons have been killed; the Taliban is gone; Osama bin Laden has been forced into hiding; and Arafat's influence has been diminished. The media has chosen to focus on the negative aspects of the operation instead of the large amounts of progress.

You liberals, of course, don't want the war to go well because you are so obsessed with your unjustified hatred of Bush. You don't want the economy to improve for the same reason. You're hoping that things will continue to be perceived as bad in America so that people will revolt against Bush in 2004. I've got news for you: it ain't gonna happen! If you think any of these 9 loser Democrats has a chance, you're kidding yourself. You might as well give it up.

Quote:

And if anyone is talking about the so-called "War on Terrorism" that seem to be a dead horse in Iraq. There's been no connection made with the Muslim terrorists and Hussein nor any responsibility for 9/11.

The War on Terrorism is against international terrorism in its entirety. Whether Saddam had anything to do with 9/11 is irrelevant. The point is that Saddam Hussein terrorized millions of people, and he possessed WMD which could have easily been sold to terrorists. And believe me, you liberals are going to be very embarrassed when these WMD are discovered (if they haven't been discovered already).

In conclusion, Rush say:

Quote:

"You liberals in your distorted world view think that people like Bush created Osama bin Laden, and if we just had nice liberals like you in power, Osama would love us. With nice people like you in power, Osama would have hit us three and four times since 9-11, and you'd still be trying to find him to apologize, ask what you're doing wrong, and try to strike a negotiated peace. And all the while, Osama would be laughing at your weakness and your gutlessness. But Osama is not laughing now, if he's even alive. Neither are the Palestinians, neither is Al-Qaeda, neither are the Taliban. They're not laughing at all. They're scared to death if they're not dead. No thanks to you people on the left. "

0 Replies

I'm not sure you'll find a lot of believers in Rush (not to say bush) these days. Too many lies; too much secrecy; too tired of his remnants of support trying like crazy to make it all look okay. Please bring us proof -- using bush's statements -- that we should have gone to war. The ball is in your court -- and likely to stay there, I guess.

0 Replies

eugene, WELCOME to A2K. We know what the Brit's claimed. Did you know that our intelligence service is one of the biggest in the world? You mean we can't rely on our own intelligence agencies? That's a bothersome conclusion. c.i.

0 Replies

Maybe, just maybe, we can find another favorite word, and give "parse" a rest?

From: http://dict.die.net/parse:

parse [from linguistic terminology] vt. 1. To determine the syntactic
structure of a sentence or other utterance (close to the standard
English meaning). "That was the one I saw you." "I can't parse that." 2.
More generally, to understand or comprehend. "It's very simple; you just
kretch the glims and then aos the zotz." "I can't parse that." 3. Of
fish, to have to remove the bones yourself. "I object to parsing fish",
means "I don't want to get a whole fish, but a sliced one is okay". A
`parsed fish' has been deboned. There is some controversy over whether
`unparsed' should mean `bony', or also mean `deboned'

The everlasting refrain " "The British government has learned......" is simply begging the question. It's another deliberate mis-direction used by this goverment. Another favorite thing thrown at progressives is that since most of us did not favor this unpopular war, we are Saddam Hussein lovers.

A basic fact of the State of the Union address is that it is delivered by the President of the United States, reflecting on the affairs of the United States. That should be plain. Not on any other country or its affairs.To say it was someone else's intelligence that we relied upon says far more than Bush intended to say. That they were caught out in this is having repercussions the republicans are finding difficult to ignore.

And what a lot of republicans choose to ignore is the can of worms this has opened up. It has called into question the integrity of many government agencies, some of which are now refusing to accept. It has threatened another country's political party and leader - the only friend and ally we had. It has led to awkward questions about what information was received, by whom, when, and what was done about it. And it is bringinging into focus the actions of a country which the government refuses to blame, but which somehow managed to supply us with most of the known terrorists of 9/11.

So it was an ill-advised speech, that apparently had as much thouht and planning behind it as did the aftermath of our liberation of Iraq. But the havoc it wrought is continuing.

To dismiss the speech on a complaint of parsing is another way of trying to get out from under. And you know, with all this dancing around in the Bush White House, I have yet to hear a word of responsibility from any but those of the designated blamees.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

just think how bad it could be if the bush admin (or any other admin) was competent?

dizzie, you're not serious are you?

the bush administration has been very effective and competent.

this administration is not a part unto itself. it is but part of the amalgam of an extremely broad array of interests and economic powerbrokers of which the actual government players are a small part, and the executive branch an even smaller one.

but, these have played their part like virtuosos.

government actions have been effectively manipulated to promote the the major economic goal:

the tax cuts with their resultant transfer of wealth back to the very wealthy.

government actions have been effectively manipulated to promote the the major political goals:

consolidation of political power, enfranchisement of the current administration by successfully equating it on the public pysche of being synonomous with america itself, legislation that reduces public oversight of the executive branch, reduction in civil liberties, and concommitent ability of the executive branch to by-pass the judiciary branch with such matters, and even when the judicary is employed, it is being stacked with right wing radicals. there has been a concerted attempt and success to reduce government revenues which can act as a brake on funding government social programs.

these folks have been quite successful, and there is little reason to believe that they can not continue to be successful.

bush is raising $200Million for his re-election. that money expects something back and bush will give it.

focusing on bush and his governmental proteges fails to take into account that his administration is representative of a larger force acting in and on our society. replacing bush while leaving in place the network, the cabal that produced him is like expecting a man to change his behavior simply by changing his hat.

0 Replies

competency is in the eyes of the beholders, my eyes see an entirely incompetent admin, the fact that the american public views them as competent does not make the fact. the fatalistic errors of the bush team, the obvious distortions of information, the attempted secrecy, the internal squabbles, the lack of any coherent foreign policy, the bungling of domestic policy all lead me to believe that yes, indeed this is one of the more incompetent admins of recent memory. what provides the sorry state of affairs is the congress, in its infinite inability to discern crap from shinola, has given credence to this circus of bozos we call the white house. at least Mussolini made the trains run on time.....

0 Replies

IMHO, both kuvasz and dys has it right. This administration is competent to have accomplished their conservative goals while destroying this democratic republic. The tax cuts required some democrats to agree with the legislation, and some followed like mechanical sheep. It gave 50 percent of the tax cuts to the wealtheist one percent of our citizens. Quite an accomplishment, because GWBush's mandate of "Leave No Child Behind" has been decimated by these same tax cuts. It's polictical competency, because this administration has reduced public oversight while the American People had their eyes wide open. Look at Patriot I. Geeze, how'd they get that past through Congress? Incompetence? I don't think so. It's scary. ci

0 Replies

Quote:

Did you know that our intelligence service is one of the biggest in the world? You mean we can't rely on our own intelligence agencies?

We obviously didn't go to war based on one piece of information from another country. That was just one in a million of our justifications for war.

Quote:

Another favorite thing thrown at progressives is that since most of us did not favor this unpopular war, we are Saddam Hussein lovers.

Just like all supporters of the war are blood-thirsty war-mongerers?

Quote:

A basic fact of the State of the Union address is that it is delivered by the President of the United States, reflecting on the affairs of the United States. That should be plain. Not on any other country or its affairs.To say it was someone else's intelligence that we relied upon says far more than Bush intended to say.

I don't recall anyone saying anything about that line just after the State of the Union Address. To bring it up now is obviously just another attempt to discredit Bush. Anyway, it's ridiculous to say that we actually went to war based on this one small piece of evidence.

Quote:

And what a lot of republicans choose to ignore is the can of worms this has opened up. It has called into question the integrity of many government agencies, some of which are now refusing to accept.

I haven't seen any credible evidence that any such "can of worms" has been opened. The only people who are "calling into question the integrity of many government agencies" are the Democrats, and they are doing so in order to discredit Bush. Your own Bill Clinton has said that this business has gone far enough.

Quote:

So it was an ill-advised speech, that apparently had as much thouht and planning behind it as did the aftermath of our liberation of Iraq. But the havoc it wrought is continuing.

The operation over in Iraq hasn't brought a lot of "havoc." Despite what the media has been saying, the operation is going pretty well. Officials in charge of the operation (Bremer, Franks) have been saying how well it has gone and is going, and I personally have no reason not to believe them. Heck, we just killed two of the most dangerous men in the world!

Quote:

I have yet to hear a word of responsibility from any but those of the designated blamees.

The Bush adminstration actually did admit that that line might not have belonged in the State of the Union Address (not that I think that was a good idea to say that). As Bill Clinton said this week, no one is free from mistake, especially the president of the US who has to make lots of important decisions every day.

0 Replies

Quote:

We obviously didn't go to war based on one piece of information from another country. That was just one in a million of our justifications for war.

Please provide the other 999,999 other reasons we went to war with Iraq. I'm sure many are interested in hearing of those "new" justificaitons we still haven't heard about.

0 Replies

I won't respond to the others until you answer my previous post. c.i.

0 Replies

Quote:

It gave 50 percent of the tax cuts to the wealtheist one percent of our citizens.

I don't know if that statistic is exactly correct; however, I must remind you that the wealthiest 5% of the US pay 50% of the taxes, and therefore, logically, they should get 50% of the tax relief. This business of giving tax relief to the poor is ridiculous considering that they don't pay taxes! The latest income tax rebate actually gives money back to the middle class, not to the rich.

Quote:

Look at Patriot I. Geeze, how'd they get that past through Congress?

It seems to me that the Patriot Act has been successful in preventing terrorist attacks, and I haven't heard anyone complain about it in practice. We haven't had a terrorist attack since 9/11, so I think the Act is ok.

0 Replies

Quote:

Please provide the other 999,999 other reasons we went to war with Iraq. I'm sure many are interested in hearing of those "new" justificaitons we still haven't heard about.

How about the 999,999 people who could be killed by a WMD?

But more seriously, there were a lot of justifications for the war.
1) Saddam's WMD.
2) The liberation of the Iraqi people.
3) Prevention of an attack by Iraq on Israel and other Middle Eastern countries.
4) Saddam could have sold WMD to terrorists.
5) The war sent a message to dictatorial regimes and terrorists throughout the world: if you create WMD, mistreat your people, and threaten the US, we will destroy you.
6) We are in the War on Terror, and we need to be diligent about it.

Oh course, there were plenty more justifications. Just check out the speech given by Dick Cheney last week. (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/24/cheney.speech/index.html)http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/24/cheney.speech/index.html

0 Replies

The US, UN & Iraq III

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know