Corruption as an issue in the 2006 US elections

slkshock7 wrote:

Bernard,
Thanks for your kind words...I agree that the left often seizes on half a story (like Advocate) that serves their purposes and ignores any contrary information. But conservatives are not immune to that fault either....that's why I like this forum. Gives me a chance to challenge my own thinking and make sure I'm not making that same error.

Wow! Comedy, thy name is slkshock! What a hoot! Half the story? You must have gotten turned around in the night and are facing in the wrong direction. It is the right that seizes on half the story or, more to the point, the right makes its decisions about things, like global warming or evolution or abortion, then attempts to rationalize those decisions using scientists and philosophers whose standing runs the gamut from renegade to crackpot.

---------------------

And now for something completely different.

Someone -- not necessarily on this thread -- said the left could not brook the satire heaped upon the right. Well, politicians and causes from the center to the left are constantly satirized.

During the last presidential election, David Letterman satirized both Kerry and Bush. The only difference was when commenting on Kerry, the staff spliced his speeches together to create a chain of words that had little or nothing to do with the subject of the speech. A treat deal of editing occurred. However, in order to comment upon bush, they merely ran tape of the tongue-tied fellow. No set up needed.

BTW, Letterman still bashes Clinton, which ought to warm the cockles of several contributors here.

0 Replies

Slkshock- It is clear that Advocate never read "Plan of Attack". He is quoting out of context.

If he had read "Plan of Attack", he would have read the following in the book's PROLOGUE-

quote: "I need to see you: the president said to Rumsfeld....What kind of a war plan do you have for Iraq? How do you feel about the war plan for Iraq"?

Rumsfeld replied: "II am concerned about all of our war plans" He was reviewing ALL OF THE 68 of he department's secret war and other contingency plans worldwide and had been for months.

"Let's get started on this," said Bush, and get Tommy Franks looking at what it would take to PROTECT AMERICA BY REMOVING SADDAM HUSSEIN I F W E H A V E T O>"

The statement above is revealing--"If we have to"

Apparently, alternatives exist!!!!!!

Now, where would George Bush have gotten the idea that Saddam Hussein might have to be removed to protect America?

Who said,( in a speech to the American people on Dec. 1998,) the following:

IF SADDAM REJECTS PEACE AND WE HAVE TO USE F O R C E, OUR PURPOSE IS CLEAR. WE WANT TO SERIOUSLY DIMINISH THE THREAT POSED BY iRAQ'S WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION PROGRAM>

Why, Bill Clinton, of course!!!!

0 Replies

I have to admit that O'Neill, for some reason, wimped out with regard to Bush's obvious guilt. The totality of O'Neill's statements and writings support this.

Clinton never talked about invading Iraq. Further, conditions in Iraq were markedly different in 1998 than they were in 2003. Bush knew full well that Iraq was not a threat, there was no yellow cake shipped to Iraq, no nuke tubes, etc. It amazes me that anyone can deny that Bush lied us into a war.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

I have to admit that O'Neill, for some reason, wimped out with regard to Bush's obvious guilt. The totality of O'Neill's statements and writings support this.

Clinton never talked about invading Iraq. Further, conditions in Iraq were markedly different in 1998 than they were in 2003. Bush knew full well that Iraq was not a threat, there was no yellow cake shipped to Iraq, no nuke tubes, etc. It amazes me that anyone can deny that Bush lied us into a war.

Advocate,
I appreciate that you've conceded the argument, at least with respect to O'Neill and his statements. But I remain amazed that you continue to judge Bush guilty, despite the complete shredding of your initial arguments.

I agree that Clinton probably never talked about invading Iraq, but then again, neither did Bush prior to middle of 2002. Yes, the Dept of Defense considered invading Iraq, as well as Afghanistan, China, North Korea, Russia. I expect you could even find plans in DoD for an invasion of Canada. In this case, as Bernard quoted, the plans for invading Iraq had been prepared during Clinton's administration.

You've also provided absolutely no evidence that Bush "knew full well" that Iraq was not a threat. When you do produce some, I'll be happy to consider it.

It is clear to all but the most partisan that Bush was not planning to invade Iraq until after Afghanistan was firmly in hand and until it was prudent to respond to other potential threats.

0 Replies

Slkshock- Did Clinton talk about Invading Iraq?

Here is a paragraph from his speech to the American people when he ordered a pre-emptive strike on Baghdad-

quote--

The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power,he threatens the well being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world. The best way to end that THREAT once and for all is with a new Iraqi government--a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors...We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently."

PRETTY STRONG WORDS, I WOULD SAY. CLINTON WAS NOT ONLY APPROVING A REVOLUTION HE WAS ACTIVELY FOMENTING ONE!!!

0 Replies

Bernard,

Yes, Clinton regularly talked about regime change in Iraq, but I think Advocate's arguing that he never talked about actually sending US troops into the country to force the change.

Kind of a fine line, but important to show Advocate the error of his/her way.

0 Replies

Silk, have you been living in a cave, cut off from all communications.

You didn't know that Bush and his people were informed there was no yellow cake, that the tubes probably for missiles (not nuke production), that no WMD were evident, that there were no means of delivery, etc.? No sane person denies that Bush lied us into the war.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Silk, have you been living in a cave, cut off from all communications.

You didn't know that Bush and his people were informed there was no yellow cake, that the tubes probably for missiles (not nuke production), that no WMD were evident, that there were no means of delivery, etc.? No sane person denies that Bush lied us into the war.

I do not believe you have room to speak of what "sanity" is or is not having reviewed your many posts.

0 Replies

McGentrix- I am sure that Advocate will not read this. But, it blows his ridiculous statements about Yellow Cake, tubes, WMD's, and the comment that Bush lied us into the war right out of the water.

Advocate is obviously completely unaware of the facts. I refer to the facts as written by Mr. Podhoretz in his essay_ Who is Lying About Iraq.

Advocate is also ignorant of what it means to be lying.

Here, for his benefit, is the definition from Black's Law Dictionary. If Mr. Advocate wishes to continue to charge that President Bush is a liar after he reads( He won't since I am not sure that he will understand it) the essay by Podhoretz(carefully footnoted and filled with quotes) and after he reads the definition below from Black's Law Dictionary--

LIE- An INTENTIONAL statement of an UNTRUTH designed to MISLEAD another.

Mr. Advocate(If he were to go into a courtroom) would have to prove that the statement was an UNTRUTH, that it was INTENTIONAL and that it was designed to MISLEAD.

He can't do that,of course, so he is just blowing smoke.

Now,if added proof is needed, Mr. Advocate may read the essay-Who is Lying In Iraq--. If he wishes to access it, he can search the web for

WHO IS LYING IN IRAQ?

He may be able to find it replicated in some other threads since I have, in the past, copied it in other places since it is such an important essay.

0 Replies

Bush's reference to Niger, for example, in the State of the Union speech was designed to mislead. He had previously received information that there was no yellow cake shipped to Iraq. The administration made numerous other false and misleading statements.

0 Replies

Advocate -- I wouldn't be at all surprised, when one considers the level of honesty one can expect from the bush WH, that the aluminum tubes were fence posts.

0 Replies

Where is your evidence that the quotes by Podhoretz are correct? He is a noted right wing ideologue, who has been more wrong than right on many issues.

The right has done a great job swift-boating Wilson, a true hero in exposing Bush's lies. BTW, there is no significance regarding Plame recommending Wilson inasmuch she had no authority to actually send him. Further, there were two other reports, one by a general and one by the US ambassador to Niger, that said the same thing that Wilson said.

Iraq was not seeking yellow cake. Why would it considering that it had terminated its nuke program long before our invasion.

Bush had received clear warnings before his speech that yellow cake was neither shipped nor sought. Thus, he misled the country.

0 Replies

Here is a piece by Walter Pincus, a celebrated reporter for the Wash. Post. He is not an idealogue like Podhoretz. Bush and his administration, he indicates, clearly lied us into the war.

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2003/06/12/16186361.php

0 Replies

Here is an interesting piece on other lying by Bush, Cheney, and company. This concerns their lying following Novak's exposure of Plame, and is very similar to their lying to the country regarding the threats posed by Iraq.

http://www.niagarafallsreporter.com/gallagher271.html

0 Replies

The following made me think of the right in a2k. Blame it all on Clinton.

NORTH KOREA
Speak Loudly And Carry No Stick

By virtually every measure, the Bush administration's North Korea policy is a failure. Diplomatic efforts have broken down, missiles are being test fired, and plutonium production has resumed. Yesterday, White House Press Secretary Tony Snow unveiled the administration's new strategy: bash Clinton. At the press conference, Snow accused the Clinton administration of going to North Korea with "flowers and chocolates" and "light water nuclear reactors." Snow said that the Clinton administration policy had "failed" and the Bush administration had "learned from that mistake." The reality is that the Bush administration is now scrambling to return to where the Clinton administration left off: meaningful diplomatic engagement that puts North Korea's nuclear program on ice.

THE CLINTON RECORD -- NORTH KOREA PRODUCES NO PLUTONIUM: In 1994, the United States almost went to war with North Korea to prevent the further development of their nuclear arsenal. (North Korea produced enough plutonium to create one or two nuclear weapons during the first Bush administration.) The conflict was narrowly avoided with the creation of the "Agreed Framework." Under the agreed framework, North Korea agreed to shut down its major nuclear reactor, stop construction of two nuclear power plants, and subject spent nuclear fuel to international inspection. In return, Japan and South Korea agreed to build two light-water reactors (far less of a proliferation concern) and the U.S. would supply North Korea with heavy oil to make up for the lost energy from its shuttered nuclear plants. Once the light-water reactors were completed, their existing nuclear reactors were to be dismantled. The deal wasn't perfect, but during the Clinton administration, North Korea didn't make any nuclear bombs. It was later discovered that the North Koreans, as early as 2000, were attempting to aquire technology for uranium enrichment which violated their agreements. It does not appear that this program advanced very far before the U.S. detected it and confronted North Korea with the evidence in 2002.
--AmericanProgressAction

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Here is a piece by Walter Pincus, a celebrated reporter for the Wash. Post. He is not an idealogue like Podhoretz. Bush and his administration, he indicates, clearly lied us into the war.

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2003/06/12/16186361.php

Please provide the verbatim quote of the part of this article where Pincus indicates that Bush "clearly lied us into the war".

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Here is an interesting piece on other lying by Bush, Cheney, and company. This concerns their lying following Novak's exposure of Plame, and is very similar to their lying to the country regarding the threats posed by Iraq.

http://www.niagarafallsreporter.com/gallagher271.html

Advocate,
I'd be embarrassed to use such a rabid-article to support my position. Any "article" (and I use that term loosely....this is more of a liberal entertainment piece) that begins like this should be disregarded from the start...

Quote:

The vile symbiosis of President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney poisons our nation, and their mutual madness infests and endangers the world. Never in the history of our republic has a vice president wielded so much power and the president permitted his subordinate to have such free rein in missions of malice.

Those twin felons, Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew, seem warm and benign by comparison. Their crimes and greed did far less harm to the country than the dirty duo we now have in the White House.

You might try this web site. You simply type George W. Bush in the frame and it will automatically produce a spew of garbage, that I'm sure will warm the cockles of your heart. Of course it will be almost incoherent and totally unsubstantiated but that seems to be right up your alley.

0 Replies

Pincus stated the following:

As the controversy over Iraq intelligence has expanded with the failure so far of U.S. teams in Iraq to uncover proscribed weapons, intelligence officials have accused senior administration policymakers of pressuring the CIA or exaggerating intelligence information to make the case for war. The story involving the CIA's uranium-purchase probe, however, suggests that the agency also was shaping intelligence on Iraq to meet the administration's policy goals.

This says, in essence, that the administration lied about the need to invade. I don't think anyone has ever questioned Pincus's credibility.

0 Replies

And I also do not question Pincus' credibility or objectivity. But this points to CIA problems and possible "shaping of intelligence". Nowhere does it state that Bush approved or was even aware of this possible shaping.

In fact, the non-partisan FactCheck.org posted an article that contends Bush may have been wrong, but he wasn't lying. It cites two intelligence investigations that show Bush had plenty of reason to believe what he said in his 2003 State of the Union Address.

Factcheck wrote:

The famous "16 words" in President Bush's Jan. 28, 2003 State of the Union address turn out to have a basis in fact after all, according to two recently released investigations in the US and Britain.

Bush said then, "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa ." Some of his critics called that a lie, but the new evidence shows Bush had reason to say what he did.

A British intelligence review released July 14 calls Bush's 16 words "well founded."
A separate report by the US Senate Intelligence Committee said July 7 that the US also had similar information from "a number of intelligence reports," a fact that was classified at the time Bush spoke.
Ironically, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who later called Bush's 16 words a "lie", supplied information that the Central Intelligence Agency took as confirmation that Iraq may indeed have been seeking uranium from Niger .
Both the US and British investigations make clear that some forged Italian documents, exposed as fakes soon after Bush spoke, were not the basis for the British intelligence Bush cited, or the CIA's conclusion that Iraq was trying to get uranium.
None of the new information suggests Iraq ever nailed down a deal to buy uranium, and the Senate report makes clear that US intelligence analysts have come to doubt whether Iraq was even trying to buy the stuff. In fact, both the White House and the CIA long ago conceded that the 16 words shouldn't have been part of Bush's speech.

But what he said - that Iraq sought uranium - is just what both British and US intelligence were telling him at the time. So Bush may indeed have been misinformed, but that's not the same as lying.

Now will you question the integrity, credibility or objectivity of FactCheck.org and persist in arguing that Bush lied?

0 Replies

Corruption as an issue in the 2006 US elections

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know