0
   

What bothers me about the Dems right now....

 
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Feb, 2007 01:23 pm
FreeDuck wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:

And the portion you highlighted is pertinent in your mind because........?


1) It shows that the comments were mostly not made during the run up to the war, as you asserted.

2) It (and more below) shows how deceptive the little mass emailing of out of context quotations really is.

Tell me, what was your purpose in posting that?


Yes some of the e-mails were deceptive and intellectually dishonest as are the many cases in which GWB/his admnistration/Republicans/conservatives et al are now quoted out of context and presented dishonestly.

My point in posting that is to not allow anybody to forget that the decision to go to war was not made in a vacuum or without the consent of Congress nor did the administration lie about the best information it had to make the decision. Either the Democrats who voted for and/or consented to the war are the most incompetent, stupid and/or gullible people on earth in which case they have no credibility, or they had access to sufficient evidence to vote and or speak the way they did prior to and up to the vote in 2003.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Feb, 2007 01:27 pm
"The best information..." is contradicted by all subsequent information released including, but not limited to, lies told by Bush about "congress had the same intel...," and the outing of Plame to intimidate Wilson for contradicting the purchase of "yellow cake from Niger."
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Feb, 2007 01:28 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
"The best information..." is contradicted by all subsequent information released including, but not limited to, lies told by Bush about "congress had the same intel...," and the outing of Plame to intimidate Wilson for contradicting the purchase of "yellow cake from Niger."


Did ANYONE claim that Iraq actually purchased yellow cake?

As I recall,the claim was that they TRIED to obtain yellow cake.

There is a difference.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Feb, 2007 01:31 pm
And does anybody except a few trolls, idiots, and/or other exercises in futility really believe that the decision to go to war was based on a report saying Saddam tried to buy yellow cake?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Feb, 2007 01:32 pm
mm, Your word games are useless, because this administration used this information to support their war-mongering.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Feb, 2007 01:34 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
mm, You word games are useless, because this administration used this information to support their war-mongering.


The admin used the fact that Iraq TRIED to obtain yellow cake.

The left has twisted that to mean that Iraq PURCHASED yellow cake.
Please show me one time where the admin claimed that Iraq actually did obtain yellow cake.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Feb, 2007 01:38 pm
From Wikipedia:

The Niger uranium forgeries refers to falsified classified documents initially revealed by Italian intelligence. These documents depict an attempt by the regime of Iraq's Saddam Hussein to purchase yellowcake uranium from the African country of Niger during the Iraq disarmament crisis.

On the basis of these documents and other indicators, the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom asserted that Iraq had attempted to procure nuclear material for the purpose of creating what they called weapons of mass destruction, referred to as WMD, in defiance of United Nations sanctions.

Yellowcake, a mixture of different uranium oxides and other uranium compounds, is a product of an intermediary stage in the production of enriched uranium for use in a nuclear reactor or a nuclear weapon
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Feb, 2007 01:44 pm
ci,
From your own link...

These documents depict an ATTEMPT
by the regime of Iraq's Saddam Hussein to purchase yellowcake uranium from the African country of Niger during the Iraq disarmament crisis.

I added the emphasis.
You seem to ignore the word attempt.
That means they tried and failed,it does not mean they actually purchased anything.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Feb, 2007 01:44 pm
mysteryman wrote:
The admin used the fact that Iraq TRIED to obtain yellow cake.


Did you just say "fact", mysteryman? Do you stand by that?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Feb, 2007 01:45 pm
What is the meaning of "falsified dcuments" again?
0 Replies
 
Asherman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Feb, 2007 01:46 pm
The idea that the United States can't/won't/shouldn't conduct military operations against any country with nuclear capability is nonsense. "dare not"? Sometimes the loss of a million people is amply justified by prevention of the loss of 10s, or even 100s of millions. To do so would be impossible by committee, or a weak commander in chief. We have to have a President who can order without undue hesitation an operation that will result in extremely large casualties under the appropriate circumstances. Could Obama, or Hillary give the order to carry out a high risk operation with the potential of, say a hundred thousand deaths if that would reduce significantly an ABC type attack on the United States, or any of its friends in the world? Would either hesitate to respond to a nuclear attack with a nuclear attack on the folks carried out the attack, or sponsored it? The same question, of course, applies to the GOP candidates as well. Who is strong and tough enough to give the most difficult order imaginable?

The American nuclear arsenal and capability of effective deployment of those weapons is unmatched anywhere in the world today. A full-blown American nuclear strike is more than capable of utterly destroying the DPRK, Iran, or any other rogue state that makes the mistake of "first use". The old Soviet arsenal and its delivery systems have been badly degraded since the end of the Cold War. The PRC may one day soon be able to match the U.S. arsenal.

The thing is that of the countries possessing some nuclear capability, only four countries have threatened others with the specter of nuclear war. Those are: India, Pakistan, DPRK, and Iran. Unless radical Islam gains control of Pakistan, the tensions between that country and India may well continue to lessen. On the other hand, the dangers posed by nuclear capability in the hands of the DPRK and Iran will continue to raise tensions and the probability of nuclear war. If either uses its nuclear capability against any neighbor, or the United States, we will almost assuredly destroy them utterly and world opinion be damned. If either supplies any nuclear device or material used against the United States, or any Western nation, the payback will be swift and terrible. AND, it doesn't matter which American Political Party occupies the White House ... our response will be the same, because the American People will demand it in no uncertain terms.

I am somewhat surprised that Cycloptichorn's position on militarization of space. Despite the lofty rhetoric of politicians, space has been indirectly"militarized" since Sputnik. No one has orbited offensive weapons, but the heart of most advanced military doctrines these days depends upon satellite-based C-cubed systems. The PRC's recent test of destroying a satellite is ample proof of how serious military strategists regard satellite systems.

Kim Jong-Il might indeed choose to "pop" a dirty bomb on the Peninsula or Japan, or Okinawa, or our fleet in Northeaster Asian waters as a last resort. For U.S. forces to enter the DPRK in force isn't going to happen unless the DPRK strikes south. Air operations against the DPRK in response to certain dangerous conditions is far more likely, but even then is probably remote. Iran is much more a dangerous flashpoint for the use of nuclear weapons, and the motivation for deterring Iran from building a nuclear arsenal is much higher for a lot of folks here and in the region.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Feb, 2007 01:52 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Yes some of the e-mails were deceptive and intellectually dishonest as are the many cases in which GWB/his admnistration/Republicans/conservatives et al are now quoted out of context and presented dishonestly.


Right. So rather than address and refute such cases directly you muddy the water political spam.

Quote:
My point in posting that is to not allow anybody to forget that the decision to go to war was not made in a vacuum or without the consent of Congress nor did the administration lie about the best information it had to make the decision. Either the Democrats who voted for and/or consented to the war are the most incompetent, stupid and/or gullible people on earth in which case they have no credibility, or they had access to sufficient evidence to vote and or speak the way they did prior to and up to the vote in 2003.


Unfortunately, your link doesn't show that. Rather, it illustrates the deceptiveness of supporters of Bush and this war in using quotes from the lead up to a prior conflict, taken out of context and in at least one case misattributed, in order to prove a point that has no bearing on the actual debate. It is a fine example of the cherry picking and the willingness to embrace cherry picked data that got us into this mess in the first place.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Feb, 2007 02:05 pm
Asherman wrote:
The idea that the United States can't/won't/shouldn't conduct military operations against any country with nuclear capability is nonsense. "dare not"? Sometimes the loss of a million people is amply justified by prevention of the loss of 10s, or even 100s of millions.

Yes, I agree, but I do not think we would dare invade a nuclear power and decide to sacrifice a million people to save 10 million under any but the most extreme circumstances. A few pages back, I said:

Quote:
...except under the absolute direst circumstances conceivable.


Also, I didn't say "conduct military operations," I said "invade." When I said we can't do it, I meant we can't do it short of very extreme circumstances, but I didn't think it necessary to specify that exception.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Feb, 2007 02:23 pm
FreeDuck wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Yes some of the e-mails were deceptive and intellectually dishonest as are the many cases in which GWB/his admnistration/Republicans/conservatives et al are now quoted out of context and presented dishonestly.


Right. So rather than address and refute such cases directly you muddy the water political spam.


Nope, just keeping it honest. And I'll keep posting those quotes because even in context they show how many of those same people are flat out lieing now.

Quote:
Quote:
My point in posting that is to not allow anybody to forget that the decision to go to war was not made in a vacuum or without the consent of Congress nor did the administration lie about the best information it had to make the decision. Either the Democrats who voted for and/or consented to the war are the most incompetent, stupid and/or gullible people on earth in which case they have no credibility, or they had access to sufficient evidence to vote and or speak the way they did prior to and up to the vote in 2003.


Unfortunately, your link doesn't show that. Rather, it illustrates the deceptiveness of supporters of Bush and this war in using quotes from the lead up to a prior conflict, taken out of context and in at least one case misattributed, in order to prove a point that has no bearing on the actual debate. It is a fine example of the cherry picking and the willingness to embrace cherry picked data that got us into this mess in the first place.


I'm sure you are seeing it as most Bush-bashing Lefties see it. I see it as exposing the ones now condemning the President for the liars that they are. It is not persons in power who are circulating those emails but rather bloggers like yourself. And me. So some of us prefer to keep it real and some of you would prefer to just not even deal with anything that doesn't fit the Bush bashing, Bush hating propaganda de jour.

(And P.S. - all of those emails didn't alter the meaning or intent when quoted outside of the full context.)
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Feb, 2007 02:45 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Nope, just keeping it honest. And I'll keep posting those quotes because even in context they show how many of those same people are flat out lieing now.


No, they don't. You are using quotes from 1998, some of them misattributed, to show that people are lying in the present? Because nothing could have changed between 1998 and 2003?

you wrote:
me wrote:
Unfortunately, your link doesn't show that. Rather, it illustrates the deceptiveness of supporters of Bush and this war in using quotes from the lead up to a prior conflict, taken out of context and in at least one case misattributed, in order to prove a point that has no bearing on the actual debate. It is a fine example of the cherry picking and the willingness to embrace cherry picked data that got us into this mess in the first place.


I'm sure you are seeing it as most Bush-bashing Lefties see it.


I'm sure that you are oblivious as to where I am on the political spectrum and equally oblivious to the fact that you are defending partisan spam and trying to paint me partisan for pointing out that your own link identifies it as such.

Quote:
I see it as exposing the ones now condemning the President for the liars that they are.


It's simple enough to expose them as liars without having to resort to using partisan propaganda spam.

you wrote:
(And P.S. - all of those emails didn't alter the meaning or intent when quoted outside of the full context.)


Clearly you did not read your own link.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Feb, 2007 03:16 pm
Quote:
FreeDuck wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Nope, just keeping it honest. And I'll keep posting those quotes because even in context they show how many of those same people are flat out lieing now.


No, they don't. You are using quotes from 1998, some of them misattributed, to show that people are lying in the present? Because nothing could have changed between 1998 and 2003?


Spam is definitely in the eye of the beholder then. But something did definitely happen betweem 1009 amd 2003. I suppose you forgot that, but something pretty significant did happen that indirectly led to the debate on Iraq. If you think the rhetoric of the previous administration is irrelevent to the debate now, that's your prerogative. I don't.l

Quote:
you wrote:
me wrote:
Unfortunately, your link doesn't show that. Rather, it illustrates the deceptiveness of supporters of Bush and this war in using quotes from the lead up to a prior conflict, taken out of context and in at least one case misattributed, in order to prove a point that has no bearing on the actual debate. It is a fine example of the cherry picking and the willingness to embrace cherry picked data that got us into this mess in the first place.


I'm sure you are seeing it as most Bush-bashing Lefties see it.


I'm sure that you are oblivious as to where I am on the political spectrum and equally oblivious to the fact that you are defending partisan spam and trying to paint me partisan for pointing out that your own link identifies it as such.


I'm not the one criticizing the quotes. You are. I'm just defending my purpose in posting them and making the point again, that the accusations against the President of 'manufacturing evidence' are nothing but partisan hatemongering.

Quote:
Quote:
I see it as exposing the ones now condemning the President for the liars that they are.


It's simple enough to expose them as liars without having to resort to using partisan propaganda spam.


Ah. Finally a constructive comment. I'm open to suggestion. How can we expose them as liars more convincingly than by using their own words, in context even????????

Quote:
you wrote:
(And P.S. - all of those emails didn't alter the meaning or intent when quoted outside of the full context.)


Clearly you did not read your own link.


Clearly you haven't read the full context the quotes came from.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Feb, 2007 03:40 pm
Ash,

Quote:
I am somewhat surprised that Cycloptichorn's position on militarization of space. Despite the lofty rhetoric of politicians, space has been indirectly"militarized" since Sputnik. No one has orbited offensive weapons, but the heart of most advanced military doctrines these days depends upon satellite-based C-cubed systems. The PRC's recent test of destroying a satellite is ample proof of how serious military strategists regard satellite systems.


My position is for a complete and 100% focus on space and space exploration and utilization at the soonest possible time we can focus our societal energies upon it.

I am not happy about the fact that militarization of space will occur, but it is an inevitability. I haven't seen any evidence that Humanity has progressed past the point of armed conflict, and unlike many who are absolutist pacifists, I recognize the need for the US to retain our strategic advances in the new frontier.

One of the greatest failures of presidents over the last 15 years or so has been the lack of a unifying national narrative; we've been a country with no real drive or ambition, at least not one in common. I believe, as is claimed by many Right-wingers, that Americans really are forward-looking and positive people who want success and are willing to do what it takes to get it. We just need a leader, someone who can make this happen, someone whose actions and words can transcend the 8 year time they are in office. I believe that the next thirty years can see America conquer space decisively if we work together on it.

If part of the mission of America is to spread democracy and freedom - to ensure that the rights we hold sacred are there for future generations - then there can be no higher calling than space exploration. If humanity can avoid killing itself off, then the future number of descendants born in space or on other planets than Earth will dwarf the current number of humans alive by exponential factors, and we have the right and responsibility that these people are born into freedom-loving democracies.

One of our challenges on Earth is dealing with the fact that so many regions have a long history of repression and autocratic rule; Space, being unoccupied, doesn't present such a problem! Forget about the pathetic land masses and resources here... we should be focusing on the future.

The next war is in space. With the money we've spent in Iraq, we could have won that war already; instead we've made no progress. This saddens me every single day Sad

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Feb, 2007 04:00 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Clearly you haven't read the full context the quotes came from.


I certainly have. It doesn't change a thing about what I've said, and it still affects this debate exactly not at all.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Feb, 2007 05:18 pm
FreeDuck wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Clearly you haven't read the full context the quotes came from.


I certainly have. It doesn't change a thing about what I've said, and it still affects this debate exactly not at all.


If you had, then you would know that the quotes as expressed and as expanded by Snopes are pretty much what they are. And you would acknowledge the hypocrisy and/or downright flat out dishonesty of some of these people in their rhetoric now. Or not. You think as you think and I think as I think. Sometimes we are both right in our own perspective and sometimes no doubt both wrong.

Good thing world peace doesn't hinge on what we think huh?
0 Replies
 
Asherman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Feb, 2007 05:49 pm
Cyclops,

Those are reasonable positions that we can agree upon.

I'm not sure that humans will ever outgrow conflict, and if we did we probably wouldn't be human any longer. War is conflict taken to its endpoint, and is the real foundation for diplomacy designed to resolve conflict without resort to war. Some folks just have to try the question, and that leaves the rest to prosecute the resulting war as best they can. More options are better than fewer options.
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
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/28/2022 at 06:15:46