If you didn't get a chance to hear the speech (like I didn't) you can read the entire transcript HERE (as I did) if you want to. Then share opinion.
Farmgirl
Posted by TrapperKeeper (Member # 7680) on :
I liked it. Done well. Felt a bit like a pep rally.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
I wonder if Fort Bragg is on the list of bases to be closed.
-Trevor
Posted by Lanfear (Member # 7776) on :
I was flipping channels while i was at a party.. and then flipped past it immediately. Anything good happen?
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Excellent job. It’s too bad he had to even give the speech though. Shame on all the blame America first critics and those who are always against President Bush no matter what he does. They need to come with ideas instead of just shouting he’s wrong. Very well done speech as usual. Hopefully this will help with the negativism that has been spreading. We should be proud of what we’ve accomplished so far. Freedom for two countries is the spark that area of the world needs. Won’t be long till Afghanistan and Iraq are as close allies and world economy players as Japan and Germany are.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Lanfear -- read the transcript.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I got part of the way through. I'd like to point out there is an enormous difference between claiming victory and actually achieving victory or acting in a way that is going to bring victory. The President can go to the trophy store and buy all the ribbons and awards he wants, but eventually he's going to have to deliver more than "No, we're totally winning. Trust me on this. Also, aren't terrorists evil?"
[ June 29, 2005, 12:01 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Zamphyr (Member # 6213) on :
Bleh. Support our troops by flying the flag on the 4th ? Please visit our website? Not very inspiring...
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I'm not always against President Bush no matter what he does. Just when I feel he's acting rashly, or against the country's better interests. Hardly my fault if that happens a lot.
And ideas have been presented. More than a few, actually. One good one might be for the U.S. to suck it up and admit we need help from other countries, and release a bit of the control we're hoarding to get it.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
This didn't feel as much as a pep rally as some of his speeches in the past; much more of a straight talk than "Let's go get those terrorists! [lots of cheering]" I think I agreed with Sen. McCain more when he said we should acheive sucess, then celebrate it.
Still, he didn't really say anything that hasn't been said numerous times before. I doubt this will change much.
--j_k
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I'm so glad I was at work instead of having to listen to that... It's just filled with lies, half-truths, exagerations. Like him trying to link 9/11 with the war in Iraq. Completely wrong. It's just filled with logical fallacies. Listening to him is so frustrating on every single possible level.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Nothing new here.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Syn -- and just how are you certain it is filled with lies when you don't even listen or read the speech?
I agreed strongly with this part:
quote: Some contend that we should set a deadline for withdrawing U.S. forces. Let me explain why that would be a serious mistake. Setting an artificial timetable would send the wrong message to the Iraqis — who need to know that America will not leave before the job is done. It would send the wrong message to our troops — who need to know that we are serious about completing the mission they are risking their lives to achieve. And it would send the wrong message to the enemy — who would know that all they have to do is to wait us out. We will stay in Iraq as long as we are needed — and not a day longer.
Farmgirl
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I don't expect a timeline for getting troops. It happens when it happens. And I don't think we should pull out and leave them to their mess.
I'd like to see goals for an Iraqi government, an Iraqi army, more schools/power/etc, contributions from other countries, etc.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I read through the speech. I listened to clips of it on the radio. It's the same thing he alwayssays. For example, being unwilling to bring in more troops, where is the logic in that? Where is the logic in sending troops over there without enough equipment? And what is worse, where's the logic in fighting terrorism this way? This just leads to more terrorism, more insurgents, more chaos. You can't win a war against insurgents this way. They'd never give up. He has no clue, not even a slight idea how long this war could last. Another year? Another 10 years? He doesn't even seem to have taken any of this into consideration before starting this so-called war on terrorism that will just make terrorism worse. But I just don't want to THINK about this right now, how angry and frustrated it makes me because this is the one day off before I have to work tomorrow and I should spend it having fun! Also, I heard that some of the applause during that speech was planted... I don't know if that's true, but if it is, it is somewhat disturbing, like so much of Bush's presidency.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I disagree that this is such a wise statement. The central goal of our occupation of Iraq should be the building of a strong, resilient nation that can stand without us. Besides creating an acutal standard to measure against, that's exactly what would be expressed by giving a timeline for U.S. troops withdrawing. By such and such a date, Iraq should be a strong enough country to deal with threats on their own.
Stating goals and how we're going to achieve them when the central goal is a strong, stable Iraq does not do any of the things that the President suggests. Rather it tells the Iraqis (and the potential anti-American Crusaders or should I say Jihadists), we're here for these reasons and when they're accomplished we're going to leave. You do not need to fear an indefinite occupation. It tells the troops, we have an exit strategy for you and a well-thought out plan that can also be used as a measuring stick for how successful we are being. And it tells the terrorists, you don't control this situation. At some point, we're confident that the Iraqis will be able to handle you without our help.
Wouldn't having the terrorists think that they need only to wiat us out be a good thing, assuming that this means they'd severely ramp down their activities? We'd be able to build much more quickly and securely, while their support should be eroded by both the lack of fulfillment to their impatient members and the demonstrably good effect we're having in the region? Wouldn't a less interefered with environment to build up the defenses further hamper terrorists activities when they decide to resume operations in force?
Or if we're not expecting the terrorists to settle down a bit, then what would the idea of there being a defined list of objectives with an associated timetable do for them really? Having a simplistic "We're leaving by this date." yeah would be an encouragement, but we'd be pretty stupid to implement that. Rather, if we said, here are the things we need to accomplish and here's the date ranges that we think that we could accomplish them by, I think our ability to follow this schedule would seriously dishearten the terrorists and dampen their power fantasies.
Regardless if you agree with all that or not, I really don't think that it's anywhere near as cut and dried as that makes it sound.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
I feel like he DID outline other goals in the complete speech -- I only quoted a snippet of it here, of course.
quote: For example, being unwilling to bring in more troops, where is the logic in that?
Some Americans ask me, if completing the mission is so important, why don't you send more troops? If our commanders on the ground say we need more troops, I will send them. But our commanders tell me they have the number of troops they need to do their job
So, Syn, are you saying that the ground commanders are wrong -- or that Bush should go directly against the advice of the ground commanders?
Farmgirl
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I believe it depends on what you mean by ground commanders. I'm pretty certain I recall relatively high level officers who had been with the marines we deployed saying (after they came back) that they needed more troops.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
On Ornery, we've actually got a full word count on the speech and have discovered that it's actually quite easy to write a program to assemble Bush speeches using his most commonly-used keywords. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It really is nothing new. It's a recycled pep talk. Except he goes even further.
He claims credit for Hariri being assasinated in Lebanon and for Arafat dying in Palestine. Free elections and action there would not have taken place without these totally non-US actions. Unless he killed both those leaders, it's stupid to take credit for them.
All the 9/11 references are also inappropriate and misleading. As is referring to a foreign nation as a battle ground. Granted, it IS a battle ground, but how will the Iraqis feel about that? "We're blowing crap up in your nation so OUR nation is safe, sorry, but hey, you've got freedom, and did you hear that it's on the march?"
Bill Clinton made a good point a few days ago, he half defended half attacked Bush saying something along the lines of 'Yes, Iraq is the center of terrorism now, but it wasn't before the war when Saddam kept them out.' WE opened Iraq to terrorism, and now Bush is trying to claim we're being the good guys by fighting it out there.
If anyone is reassured by that speech, which told us nothing really substantive, and wasn't even partially candid, and only partially honest, then good for you. But I highly doubt it changed anyone's mind.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Rather than comment on the speech itself, I'll say this: his speaking ability has definitely improved.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote: On Ornery, we've actually got a full word count on the speech and have discovered that it's actually quite easy to write a program to assemble Bush speeches using his most commonly-used keywords
I can see the Ornery people doing that....
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
FLASH: President Bush's Speech in Total Viewers:
CBS 5.8 [million] NBC 5.3 ABC 5.0 FOXNEWS 3.4 FOX 3.1 CNN 913,000 MSNBC 313,000
Wow.... CNN is really hurting.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Heh. Considering the clouds of suspicion tainting his motivations for the Iraqi invasion, I don't think this rather sad attempt at a pep rally is going to inspire people to overlook the bodies being shipped home, the complaints about not enough material to wage the war effectively, shutting down bases predominately in States that didn't support him and so on.
Stop marking my leg and telling me it's raining.
I will agree now that we've started this mess, we should actually own up and see it through as much as we possibly can. Although if this isn't wrapped up by the next election, I sincerely doubt the US will stay the course necessary.
I missed McCain's comments, but I gotta love his perspective.
-Trevor
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
quote: CBS 5.8 [million] NBC 5.3 ABC 5.0 FOXNEWS 3.4 FOX 3.1 CNN 913,000 MSNBC 313,000
Wow.... CNN is really hurting.
Heh. I read that and thought, "Wow! 'Faux' News is really hurting!" I browse CNN's website at least twice a day, so I agree with adam. Better content online. Oh, and I read faster than they talk. Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Well, really, do the people who like CNN like Bush? Why would they watch it?
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
It sucks that so many people on this board hate peace and freedom.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Yeah, seriously people.
Didn't you KNOW that freedom is on the march?
Hop on the train or get out of the way!
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Stop trying to secure your evil regime by rolling your eyes at me, Sopwith.
Posted by Mr_Megalomaniac (Member # 7695) on :
quote:Originally posted by jebus202: It sucks that so many people on this board hate peace and freedom.
It's not that they hate peace and freedom. They love it. They just hate Bush more than they love the freedom.
J/K, well... sort of. I really don't know about the people on the boards they seem generally very intelligent people, but it seems apparent that some politicans do and those in the media do.
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
quote:Originally posted by jebus202: It sucks that so many people on this board hate peace and freedom.
is he talking about the peace and freedom of the iraqis? who are currently in worse shape then when Sadam was still around, or the peace and freedom of americans, who are currently subject to the freedom-removing patriot act?
EDIT: oh i wanted to say, wasn't it hillarious when Cheney said that america was in the "last throes" of the war, and then rumsfeld was like, well the insurgency might go on for another 12 years! and then they were all debating the definition of "throe" on CNN the next few days.. oh man, its too good
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*adjusts Angio's irony-meter*
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
haha yeh i always need a fix or two Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Some things I liked. I quite agree with the President that choosing the battlefield on which we would fight international terrorists was a very good idea. Sure, low-level recruitment for terrorism (according to a report I listened to today on NPR) is up, but middle-management and upper-management (so to speak) is scattered and down.
I just don't think that was the message he tried to send, at first. It was on the list, but it wasn't at the top of the list. I think he needs to own up and just admit, "We were wrong about our intelligence concerning WMD in Iraq. We thought we knew precisely where they were and who had them, and obviously we were wrong. We're sorry. Unfortunately we relied too heavily on the wrong sources, and Saddam Hussein exploited that reliance."
I am not yet convinced, as are many, that the Bush Administration acted in bad faith beyond placing too much certainty in their intelligence sources. I do not believe they were certain and didn't give a damn that there were no WMD in Iraq prior to the invasion-and I frankly laugh at those who are.
Bush passes 50% adequacy with me at any given time, unfortunately, not much further.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Bush wouldn't apologize if terrorists were on the lawn of the White House storming his office. Because A. He doesn't negotiate with terrorists (unless it's high ranking insurgents in Iraq), and B. He never admits he's wrong.
If he accidentally said that 2+2=5, he'd try to get Congress to pass a bill to officially change 2+2 to equal five. He thinks that if he continues to act tough, it won't matter what happens around him, people won't oppose him.
As far as I can tell though, his administration is falling down around him. You've got Rumsfeld at the Pentagon spouting crazy gibberish and doomsday scenarios, you've got Cheney holed up in the White Houst spouting crazy gibberish saying that in fact everything is going according to plan. Condi Rice is AWOL, except for when she pops her head up to defend Cheney. And every now and then they wheel Bush out, pull his string, and he says one of four preprogrammed phrases.
::pulls string:: "Freedom is on the march!" ::pulls string:: "Terrorists hate freedom!" ::pulls string:: "Democrats are obstructionists!" ::pulls string:: "Remember the lessons of 9/11!"
Does he have a kung fu grip too? Comes with accessories?
Had he come out in his speech last night and said: "We did things wrong, but from this moment on we start doing them right. From this moment on I'm going to be honest with you. From this moment on, I'm going to stop the bickering, and I'm going to compromise."
Had he said that, I'd fall in line and support him, just for the sake of ending all this crap that I'm already sick of, and it's less than a year into his second term. But this I blame on a fatal personality flaw of his. He can't adapt to a situation, and he absolutely cannot cede ANY power or authority to anyone else.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I think there was a part of Bush's speech that is troubling.
quote:And we fight today because terrorists want to attack our country and kill our citizens — and Iraq is where they are making their stand. So we will fight them there … we will fight them across the world — and we will stay in the fight until the fight is won.
Is it the nature of terrorism to pick a spot and make a stand? Does defeating "someone" in Iraq equate to defeating terrorism? Of course not. But does it even come close to defeating Islamist-terrorism? I don't see how.'
There's an insurgency in Iraq, and there are terrorists in Iraq. We are supposedly fighting both. I'm not sure anyone could tell a dead insurgent from a dead terrorist or vice versa, but both activities share a kind of decentralized, small-scale approach to dealing with an enemy. You don't really defeat them in open warfare, do you?
I mean, sure, you could locate and destroy training bases, and keep whittling away at their leadership so there are fewer and fewer experienced organizers. But a pitched battle in a particular locale? Not really feasible, is it?
It wasn't really a major point of his speech, I suppose, but it stuck out like a sore thumb to me. It was also a bit odd in the context of Rumsfeld's remarks a day (or was it two) earlier about how we want the Iraqis to solve the insurgency and do it through political means.
I'm not sure what the administration wants me to believe. That Iraq's insurgents will be coopted into the government or that Iraq has turned into the OK Corral of Islamic terrorism.
I think I need a new deck of cards to tell me which ones are terrorists we are going to kill and which ones are insurgents we're hoping to co-opt. For instance, are we going to exchange gun fire or words with Zarqawi? (sp?)
Sounds like we still want to kill him. But is that 'cuz he's a terrorist or because he's more of an unreconstructed insurgent?
I hate the smell of quagmire in the morning.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
While I continue to criticize Bush for his failure to admit past serious errors, I also don't place much faith in those who despise or have contempt for him already to support him if he did so. You might very well do so, Lyrhawn-but let's be real. It would be political hayday for his opponents if he did so.
Note that that's what I think would happen, it does not excuse his failure to admit failures.
Bob, I see little practical difference between the Iraqi-born insurgent who kidnaps and beheads foreigners and the Saudi-born terrorist who instructs and aids him in doing so.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I am not yet convinced, as are many, that the Bush Administration acted in bad faith beyond placing too much certainty in their intelligence sources. I do not believe they were certain and didn't give a damn that there were no WMD in Iraq prior to the invasion-and I frankly laugh at those who are.
Rakeesh, How do you account for the information in the Downing Street memos? To me, they seemed to pretty strongly confirm the impression of bad faith actions of the Bush Administration.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I'm still wondering how Cheney and Rice (and Powell to a lesser degree because of a tiny qualification) saying that the evidence was incontrovertible aluminum tubes were being used to work towards nuclear weapons despite having been briefed that the energy department (the ones who, y'know, are the experts on nuclear refinement) considered the evidence laughable isn't a bad faith action.
As is turned out, the energy department was 100% completely right, and the reasons were pretty obviously ironclad from the getgo (notably that Iraq already had better methods of nuclear refinement, and that even if the aluminum tubes worked at optimum efficiency in huge banks beyond what Iraq was ordering they wouldn't have been very good at refining uranium, and that the tubes matched the exact specifications for a rocket it was legal for Iraq to have), but at the very least such information constituted controversy over the question.
I'm basically supportive of anything that keeps the battle from being fought on U.S. soil.. (broken down to the most simplistic statement I can -- without details)
FG
Posted by Human (Member # 2985) on :
quote:Originally posted by Farmgirl: I'm basically supportive of anything that keeps the battle from being fought on U.S. soil.. (broken down to the most simplistic statement I can -- without details)
FG
So, you'ld be willing to support a wholesale firebombing of the entire Middle East, save Israel? Yes, I know it's ridiculous, and a straw man--but that's the kind of things people come up with when you're that vague. Personally, I didn't think there was much chance of 'battles' being fought on US soil anytime soon--especially not from the Iraqis.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Let's not forget Dresden!
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
The tube issue and trusting obviously biased sources within the Iraqi exile community are the two most troubling things to me, fugu.
I am uncertain what to make of the Downing Street memos, Mr. Squicky. There has been little comment on them at all from either government.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
quote:And we fight today because terrorists want to attack our country and kill our citizens — and Iraq is where they are making their stand. So we will fight them there … we will fight them across the world — and we will stay in the fight until the fight is won.p
I thought, "Yes, of course Iraq is where they're making their stand, MORON! You destroyed the infratructure, turned the place to total chaos, pissed off the populace, and gave the terrorists the best possible rallying cry & recruitment tool they could have imagined!"
Think of Iraq as a gaping, open sore. With Saddam, and under UN control (albeit quite imperfect), the sore was healing over. Healing over fairly ugly, but still healing over. Now, Bush & Co. goes in and rips the sore open again--only this time, they keep picking and picking and picking at it until it's totally infected.
Way to go, moron.
Also, in case anyone forgot: the Bush & Co. administration has admitted (a while ago, lest we forget) that Iraq was not involved with the terrorist attacks on 9/11.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Plus, we only have the Bush Administration's word that this is making it so that this is keeping the terrorists from attacking the U.S. I think that, if they actually believe this, it's another case of really poor thinking that makes me significantly less safe.
After 9/11 we had an outpouring of support from the rest of the world and a great position to call for a worldwide response to terrorism. We squandered that good-will and that opportunity by bullying and lying to people about Iraq.
Leaving that aside, as PResident Bush said, his administration, because of Iraq, had higher priorities than capturing Osama bin Laden. That's one of the reasons why we sent Afghans to capture him instead of U.S. troops.
Leaving that aside, the idea that because terrorist groups are carrying out campaigns in Iraq, they couldn't possibly be using the increases in recruitment and funding they're getting because of our actions in Iraq to plan attacks elsewhere, even the U.S. is really freaking stupid. It's not like we've dropped some irresitible terrorist magnet in Iraq that they just can't get away from.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Let me be clear, the Downing Street memos, which the British government certified as valid, showed that, from the perspective of people in the British government who were working with the Americans, the Bush Administration was planning to go into Iraq on whatever pretense they could come up with and were actively developing (and asking the British to work with them in implementing) ways to trick people into doing this. This is remarkably clear from the memos.
Colin Powell gave a speech before the U.N. detailing how we knew that the Iraqis had WMD programs and were pretty darn sure, from radio intercepts and other info that they were activiely hiding them from inspectors that was the centerpeice of the case for the war. Obviously this information was incorrect. Poweel himself admitted this is was so and called for an investigation into how he could have been given such incorrect and likely fraudulent information. This investigation has yet to materialize.
At a certain point, when you're calling people crazy for believing black and white information coupled with a whole bunch of deeply gray info, you're the one who starts to look crazy.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
This link will only work for a few days, but this column nails down pretty effectively my views on the matter, and on people accusing me of obstructionism or unpatriotic behavior.
"The first thing I ever learned about politics was never to let anyone else define what you believe, or what you are for or against. I think for myself."
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I thought, "Yes, of course Iraq is where they're making their stand, MORON! You destroyed the infratructure, turned the place to total chaos, pissed off the populace, and gave the terrorists the best possible rallying cry & recruitment tool they could have imagined!"
I've always thought that this was the POINT of the invasion. If you read the PNAC documents, they're pretty clear about the perceived need to set up a U.S. powerbase in the Middle East to function not only as a staging area but a target for local hostiles. Use of the area as a positive example is mentioned only as an afterthought.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Incidentally, apparently, at least one Republican Congressman is still saying that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11. Freakin' lying clown.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Good point, Squicky.
Because I said you were crazy.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
And by the way Squeak, your “at least one Republican Congressman is still saying that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11” is way off base. The biggest being that people are saying that Saddam was behind 9/11. They’ve never said that. They have said that Saddam supported AQ. Now Robin Hays might be the closest to saying that Saddam had a hand in the planning, but from his comments it makes looks more like he’s implying that he helped finance it. Which is hard to argue against since when you support a group with $$$$ your pretty much helping them with all their causes. But continue on your quest….
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Its not just the horribly incorrect statements themselves, which are troubling enough, but the reactions to them.
The National Security Advisor went publicly and repeatedly on record with statements that were either bald faced lies or gross incompetence (not paying attention to the assessment by, oh, the nation's head nuclear scientists about the uses of materials in nuclear refinement is gross incompetence on the highest scale -- that's the sort of thing I would love to impeach people for).
She didn't even get a slap on the wrist. In fact, she's secretary of state. Can you imagine the harm a comparable action would do in sensitive high level negotiations with another country?
And that's just the one person, the VP did the same thing. The only guy who qualified his statements even a bit (though he messed up which way the vast preponderance of evidence was going) is no longer with the administration -- Powell.
And Bush made similar statements, but he was never provably briefed about the energy department's position -- and if he wasn't because it was filtered out by Rice/Cheney/Powell, that's incredibly scary.
Posted by Human (Member # 2985) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jay: Here ya go, Tony talks about your precious memos:
And by the way Squeak, your “at least one Republican Congressman is still saying that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11” is way off base. The biggest being that people are saying that Saddam was behind 9/11. They’ve never said that. They have said that Saddam supported AQ. Now Robin Hays might be the closest to saying that Saddam had a hand in the planning, but from his comments it makes looks more like he’s implying that he helped finance it. Which is hard to argue against since when you support a group with $$$$ your pretty much helping them with all their causes. But continue on your quest….
Jay, I have just one question: How do you do it? How do you continue, day after day after day of posting here, continue to deny everything that's been shown you, told you, given you? It's people from both sides of the debate, for crying out loud! This really has nothing to do with the current discussion, it's just...it really baffles me. How can you possibly do it?
Edit: Punctuation.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:While I continue to criticize Bush for his failure to admit past serious errors, I also don't place much faith in those who despise or have contempt for him already to support him if he did so. You might very well do so, Lyrhawn-but let's be real. It would be political hayday for his opponents if he did so.
I don't care about politics anymore, I don't even care that that man is office, I can't change that fact, and he isn't really going to change what he wants for the country, so no, I have no faith in him, and I'm sure I despise him at least a little. But for the good of the nation if he came out and apologized, and ushered in a new era of bi partisan cooperation, then of course I would support him. What kind of person would I be to stand in the way of reconciliation?
I'm starting to wonder if the US military didn't secure the borders on purpose so the terrorists WOULD all flood into Iraq. It brings them out into the open, and gives us a good reason to stay there when otherwise we might be made to leave. If it wasn't on purpose, it was at the very least gross negligence.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Lyr, it is fairly accepted that that was the plan. we wnated to have a say on where we would be fighteing them, and we wanted to amke sure it would be in their back yard, not ours.
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
HE WAS WRONG!
quote: Shame on all the blame America first critics and those who are always against President Bush no matter what he does. They need to come with ideas instead of just shouting he’s wrong.
HE WAS WRONG!
Remeber when BUSH, CHENEY and RUMSFELD went on the PRE-war warpath? Remember Rumsfeld saying "We'll find the weapons of mass destruction NORTH, SOUTH, EAST and WEST"? Remember Bush and Co. saying they had solid proof and evidence that Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction?
That WAS the total and absolute REASON for us going to war.
HE WAS WRONG!
Remember, Saddam was a GREAT threat to America?
Um, no.
And NO connection to the 9/11 attacks.
So why the hell did Bush use 9/11 5 times 3 years later to justify the war on Iraq?
We invaded Iraq to set up a base in the middle east, and so the terrorists would have a front line to shoot at to divert them from trying to attack us on home soil.
That's what I believe.
I also believe it was a GRAVE American Mistake to fund and supply weapons and training to both Saddam Hussien AND Osama Bin LAden in the 80's for about 8 years.
You do not bed with devils to defeat devils.
The speech was classic Bush.
Which war will we win first?
The war on drugs or the war on terrorism?
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
quote: Jay, I have just one question: How do you do it? How do you continue, day after day after day of posting here, continue to deny everything that's been shown you, told you, given you? It's people from both sides of the debate, for crying out loud! This really has nothing to do with the current discussion, it's just...it really baffles me. How can you possibly do it?
Let’s see…. First it’s not both sides, just the “other” side (I get in trouble when I use the L word here, so I don’t). Me and fellow conservatives are very proud of President Bush and the job our troops are doing. And the only things that has been shown are from biased hate President Bush, blame America first stuff. I think the more appropriate question is how do you do it? I really think the if President Bush came out and said the sky was a nice blue today Byrd would grab the mic and start yelling about how it’s not even close to blue, Ted would call for an investigation on the color charts, and Dean would yell until he was blue in the face about how racist it is to call blue a pretty sky color.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Me and fellow conservatives are very proud of President Bush and the job our troops are doing.
That's true as long as you define "conservative" as "someone who approves of President Bush." But I think the word actually has another meaning.
quote:And the only things that has been shown are from biased hate President Bush, blame America first stuff.
Like Tony Blair and Colin Powell?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: This link will only work for a few days, but this column nails down pretty effectively my views on the matter, and on people accusing me of obstructionism or unpatriotic behavior.
"The first thing I ever learned about politics was never to let anyone else define what you believe, or what you are for or against. I think for myself."
I love that writer...
Posted by Mr_Megalomaniac (Member # 7695) on :
Something I said in another thread just in case some people here wouldn't read it. Figured it was pretty valid here too:
You know... I have become sick to death about liberals saying things like, "But there were no WMDs!" and far worse, "War for oil! War for oil!" (You know, I think it would be a GREAT thing if Iraq gave us some oil to help pay for the cost of the war. It has been quite expensive.) It's like people can't see all the good that our troops have done down there and just don't care for the sacrafices they made. They're so full of hatred at Bush that they'll do anything they can to demean what is happening there.
I don't know about you, but during the voting day I was very happy with what was happening. Some Americans won't go to vote, because they'd have to wait in line for a few hours. Iraqis went to vote under threat of death!
It doesn't matter whether there were projects or chemicals for WMDs in Iraq before or not. What matters is, at the end of the day, did it matter? The war is still going on, so I suppose we can't truly know, but so far the answer seems to be yes. Other nations in the Middle East have already started voting without having our military swarm in, and to me that's a very powerful message that great things may be on the rise.
Yes, numerous lives on both sides have been lost. I don't know much about military and I don't know if what these military leaders adviced were good or not. Maybe it was good, maybe it was bad, maybe Bush went with one who came up with something better. I know I can't completely trust the media, the Democrates, or the Republicans. Everyone has an agenda and will use big or small lies to get it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:It doesn't matter whether there were projects or chemicals for WMDs in Iraq before or not.
I think it matters a quite a bit.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:It doesn't matter whether there were projects or chemicals for WMDs in Iraq before or not.
I think it matters a quite a bit.
If his basis for a preemptive strike on Iraq was WMDs, then it does matter.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I just want to point out that if the justification has gone from WMD and Iraq was behind 9/11 to "We need to free those poor people and give them a chance to have a stable country." to "We invaded Iraq to make it a lightning rod so that the terrorists would fight us there.", we've ended up at a very, very immoral justification that, had anyone mentioned before the war, would have led to widespread vilification of the Bush administration. What are the Iraqis now, our pawns who get to have their country torn apart so that we can draw out the terrorists in Iraq as opposed to America? That's downright evil.
I hope that's not what is now being claimed by the President. Because, dear God, that's just awful.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:It's like people can't see all the good that our troops have done down there and just don't care for the sacrafices they made. They're so full of hatred at Bush that they'll do anything they can to demean what is happening there.
What I care about is that there were more pressing needs that were ignored or dismissed to address Iraq, a problem that simply wasn't pressing or urgent, no matter what the ever-changing rationales were.
I care that a problem I did think was more pressing -- finishing what was begun in Afghanistan, finding bin Laden, using the massive good will around the world to build mutually beneficial anti-terrorism coalitions -- was pissed away by an arrogant, overly confident fool who used that opportunity to advance a different agenda. Even if that agenda was worthy and good, it wasn't the right time.
Look at it this way. A bandit walked into my house and beat up my family. The police chief in charge rushed after him, with the help of some of my neighbors, and found a lot of the bandit's partners but not the actual guy. Then, for no real reason the police chief took off to go arrest another guy two blocks over.
The other guy was a bully and mean to his kids, and he'd threatened his neighbors before. The policcheif really wanted to bust this guy. But he was under house arrest and was being watched pretty carefully. The police chief instead insisted the bully had weapons and was an immediate threat, and, despite the lack of evidence or any relevance to the case he was working on, he went in and arrested the bully.
I am still unsafe. The bandit that attacked my family is still out there. The attack on the bully has annoyed the neighbors so much that they're starting to blame me for the actions of the police chief. And the police are hostile to my questions. Can't I see the good that was done? Can't I see what a better neighborhood it is now? Can't I appreciate the valor and sacrifice of the cops who ran off and arrested the wrong guy?
Yes, some good has been achieved in Iraq. It was achieved at the cost of international good will, military losses, many billions of dollars, and the abandonment of a fight that needed -- that needs -- fighting.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
That is exactly how I feel about the whole thing, Chris Bridges. You can't really fight terrorism well without international cooperation. Even Dmitri Hvorostovsky understands this.
Posted by Mr_Megalomaniac (Member # 7695) on :
Looking back, I probably shouldn't have posted that. I think I wrongly remember a few people ranting about it, but anyway... it's there and I feel like debating something. Hopefully without making an enemy like I did on the other thread.
I believe we still have people in Afghanistan. Since we haven't heard much about what's going on there, it would seem things are going okay, just nothing big.
on International good will: Yeah well, we're America. We stick our noses into everyone's business we don't like. It may have been better to wait, but Saddam already knew that Bush believed there to be WMDs there, so if Saddam was smart he'd get them out as soon as possible. *looks at Iran*
On military losses: well that's going to happen in war.
on the loads of money: That's why I think it'd be nice to get some money from Iraq with their oil. Not to make a profit though of course, just to help pay for all the tons of money we've spent on their freedom.
What's the fight you're talking about? Afghanistan? As I said, we still have people there.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I believe we still have people in Afghanistan. Since we haven't heard much about what's going on there, it would seem things are going okay, just nothing big.
You...err...don't actually know anything about what's going in Afghanistan, do you? Because describing it as going okay is not even close to an accurate description.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:Other nations in the Middle East have already started voting without having our military swarm in
Are you claiming that they did this because they saw the example of Iraq? This seems like a stretch to me. Basically, the claim would have to rest on the idea that diplomacy, even when it obviously DOES work, only works because there's a greater threat of violence just around the corner. That is...instead of appealing to informed self-interest of the parties involved, the only means of spreading democracy, truly, is at the end of a gun.
I think that if I believed this, I would honestly be rooting for the human race to end so that, perhaps in a few million years, something less horrid could take our place.
And, to be honest with you, the work of diplomats is being denegrated by those who think this war was necessary, or that it is justified because (or rather we should say IF) it results in a stable, pro-Western government.
Before claiming that kind of thing, I think a review of the history of the colonial powers and their philosophical arguments in favor of extending their hegemony is in order. One might also want to review the "spheres of influence" doctrine and the kinds of problems it created for us. Or maybe the doctrine of "manifest destiny" is a closer analogy.
Look...it's wonderful to know the benefits of Democracy and want to spread them to the entire world. And it's wonderful to rush in and help poor beleaguered people regain control of their own country.
It's even wonderful to try to undo the wrongs we helped perpetrate when we set up Saddam and Osama as forces to be reckoned with in the first place.
But none of those wonderful things mean anything if we are using force, if we fudge the data to get what we want, and if the action results in the deaths of innocent civilians. I can't give you a number of "acceptable deaths" to civilians in such an action. I can't give you a number of dead US troops I would find acceptable either. But those servicemen and women signed on for that risk and they knew what serving in the US armed forces might mean. So, they presumably went in with eyes open. And I honor their commitment and their courage. Even if I don't want them there.
And if some of you can't understand that, then you aren't worth my time or energy.
BUT...how many innocent civilians in Iraq should die because we feel strongly that their country should be a Western-style Democracy? Is there some equation someone is willing to explain to me? Maybe the number is derived from some calculation that compares those numbers to how many would've died if Saddam had stayed in power.
And then it only matters to the people who die, and their relatives. 'Cuz it's not just how many, but who when you're actually the people doing the dying.
And those deaths are being perpetrated in my name (and in the name of every American). So, part of this really is a question of America being really SURE and really RIGHT before we do things like this. Because actual human beings are being killed by US now, and not Saddam. So their on our hands, not his.
Is it any wonder that the US armed forces simply remain silent when asked about the numbers of civilian dead?
Sure, it's hard to estimate. And some of those deaths weren't from our direct action, but from people caught in the crossfire between us and the insurgents. So we might be only 1/2 responsible for some of them.
Powell said it best. If you invade Iraq, you'd better be prepared to OWN it. Sort of like "you break it, you bought it." On the scale of millions of people.
And then...there's the calculus of paying for it all. Because of the way this war is being budgeted -- mostly OFF the books in that it has been the subject of special appropriations over and above the regular budget, we are paying for it on credit. We are borrowing against our future and the future of our children.
The idea that we will save money in the long run is a theory, not a fact. If (and this is a HUGE if) we were able to wipe out all threat of America ever being targeted successfully by terrorist in the future, then an enormous expense now is certainly justified. But what if we only reduce the threat by half? How much should we mortgage our future to achieve that?
What if the real truth is that there are no guarantees. That the money we spend today taking the fight TO Iraq simply forestalls the next attack. And what we're really going to have to do is continue to massively engage nebulous groups of disaffected Muslim extremists all over the world (and the Middle East) for the forseeable future? Wouldn't it be better if we sought a solution that did it differently?
This isn't like the Cold War, where, at least in part, the rivalry pushed technology forward. In this case, we're just spending gobs of money to chase the unseen.
If you "follow the money" (thanks Chris for pointing to Molly Ivins), what we really have is a massive redistribution of wealth from all of us, and our children, and their children, to a select group of companies that will now recover the ground they lost when peace broke out a few years ago. So...they are saved. Their shareholders make a buck. And once again, every bright kid coming out of school with a technical/engineering education will end up working on military hardware.
Our economy will be given over to turning our resources into stuff that blows other stuff up. Once again.
Read Eisenhower sometime. If you ever want to worry about a conspiracy...check out the military/industrial complex he experienced. What he warned us about then, we've come to expect and accept as the norm.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
The fight was to follow the terrorists we knew about, not the ones we suspected. To use the goodwill from around the world to build a terrorist-fighting coalition that worked, a useful peace-keeping tool. To set up Afghanistan as a stable government, democratically elected, instead of a morass of civil wars between warlords. We might even have taken a few hard looks at other countries that were offering tangible support to terrorists while publicly proclaiming support for us.
And because we didn't have the urgency to invade Iraq the way we were told, we could have taken some time, built up our forces (and our planning) and, if taking out Saddam was still the best thing to do, we could have done so with more support, as was advised at the very beginning.
quote:on International good will: Yeah well, we're America. We stick our noses into everyone's business we don't like.
Wow. Maybe, you know, we should knock that off. We are stronger than any country on the face of the earth. But we're not stronger than all of them, and someday our arrogance will take us too far.
quote:On military losses: well that's going to happen in war.
Here's a funny thing. When there's no reason to go to war, and you don't go, there are no military losses at all. Seriously. I can show you the math.
quote:on the loads of money: That's why I think it'd be nice to get some money from Iraq with their oil. Not to make a profit though of course, just to help pay for all the tons of money we've spent on their freedom.
That we didn't need to spend right then.
We kicked in the doors and hosed down a house that wasn't burning, and you're mad because I'm not thankful some of the carpeting is still good.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Saddam was smart he'd get them out as soon as possible. *looks at Iran*
If you mean by this that Saddam sent his WMDs to Iran, I think that would be a major change of heart for a man that engaged his country in a long drawn out war with Iran, I think that's nearing conspiracy theory levels (advance Syria, and you have a bit more evidence to stand on).
If you mean that Iran should follow note, I find that as possibly dangerous saber-rattling to a country that knows that we can't do anything against them without seriously thinning our forces.
---
We have barely enough soldiers (I believe it's no more than 10,000-15,000) in Afghanistan to secure our puppet Afghani president and the capital city, with the ability to occassionally send squads out on what appear to e needle-in-the-haystack search missions, judging by the lack of news coming out (the occassional terrorist found notwithstanding).
The fight that Chris is talking about, I believe, is the more general containment of terrorism across the globe.
For the record, I wasn't against an invasion of Iraq, so long as we had a coalition of other nations helping us, like in Gulf War I. Without that, I thought that we would not be able to handle so large a nation, and it sounded like, in the run up to the invasion, that we'd cause a lot displeasure to strong nations that could legitimize the invasion, and could cause a slowdown in other efforts.
-Bok
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
You know what also cuts down on military losses. Adequate supplies (like armor) and realistic planning. Each and every single soldier who died was a real person. They're not some abstraction to write off because "Oh, well that just happens." Their job is to risk their lives when necessary. Their commanders jobs are to determine when it's necessary and to minimize the risk as much as possible. When they screw up, or deliberately lie, and it results in soldiers dying, being wounded, or having to kill when it wasn't necessary, you don't say "Oh well, people die in war." That's not supporting the troops. That's the opposite.
Posted by Mr_Megalomaniac (Member # 7695) on :
Mr.S:"You...err...don't actually know anything about what's going in Afghanistan, do you? Because describing it as going okay is not even close to an accurate description."
What I meant was, that since the Democrates and media aren't continually attacking the Bush administration about it, then that's a good sign. It was mostly a mild joke.
Bob (Would have put initals, but well...) "Are you claiming that they did this because they saw the example of Iraq? ... That is...instead of appealing to informed self-interest of the parties involved, the only means of spreading democracy, truly, is at the end of a gun."
Yes, I seriously believe that since those countries had gone on for so long without voting, and then after the Iraqis get freedom that their military leaders did see this as a case to follow suit. When people are under oppresive governments, then there's not going to be almost any type of way to get freedom other than fighting. I don't see this as a reason for the human race to die, though.
Bob: "BUT...how many innocent civilians in Iraq should die because we feel strongly that their country should be a Western-style Democracy?"
On election day they seemed pretty happy about what we've done for them. As before, people will need to die to fight for freedom. As it stood, if the Iraqis people did fight alone, they would have died and not won.
Bob: "And then...there's the calculus of paying for it all. Because of the way this war is being budgeted -- mostly OFF the books in that it has been the subject of special appropriations over and above the regular budget, we are paying for it on credit. We are borrowing against our future and the future of our children."
And if Bush doesn't try to get money from Iraq to help pay for the war, as I said before not make a profit, then I will be as sorely pi**** as you are about it.
C.B. "Wow. Maybe, you know, we should knock that off. We are stronger than any country on the face of the earth. But we're not stronger than all of them, and someday our arrogance will take us too far."
That's why I phrased it like that. I know we're not invincible and that we quite possibly will tick off the wrong people, but only the future will show if it's this one.
C.B.: "Here's a funny thing. When there's no reason to go to war, and you don't go, there are no military losses at all. Seriously. I can show you the math."
Unlike you, I'm not convinced there was no reason to go. Yes, there probably was things that Bush could/should have done to make things better. Things that people in both parties could/should have done.
Bek: "If you mean by this that Saddam sent his WMDs to Iran..." That was a bit of a joke, but I do believe that there was enough time for Saddam to ship them somewhere. And I don't think it's very far-fetched to say that.
edit quotation error
[ July 01, 2005, 12:34 AM: Message edited by: Mr_Megalomaniac ]
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
-Jay-
How on EARTH can you guys shurg off the fact that the ENTIRE war's case was made on the fact that IRAQ had tons and tons and tons of Weapons of Mass Destruction and when we invaded the country, they had zero.
Iraq was supposed to have been a DIRECT threat to America and it turns out that it was not a threat to us in any of the ways it was accused of.
As an American Christian, I am stand against war, war is and always should be the final solution.
During the pre-invasion, we were sold that Iraq could hit us with a few nukes, or gas us with a lake of a horrible chemical weapon, killing hundreds of thousands of Americans.
We were sold the idea that if we didn't invade today, certain destruction would happen tomorrow.
We were sold a we paid for a 1977 mustang and were given skateboard.
Now thousands of soldiers have died, thousands and thousands of soldiers have suffered divorces and we are caught in a situation where the natives will continue to shoot at our boys and girls in uniform everyday for the next decade.
WAR should always be the final option.
Bush and company didn't wait until all other logical options were exhausted.
Now we cannot pull out and we can't stay.
Our people are dieing at the hands of their people, their people are dieing at the hands of our people, both sides are claiming to have god in their hip pockets, helping to line up the sights of their rifles and guide their bulletts path.
There is a better way. There is a better way. There is a better way.
Bush is convinced this is the best way.
<T>
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
The first quote wasn't mine.
quote:Unlike you, I'm not convinced there was no reason to go. Yes, there probably was things that Bush could/should have done to make things better. Things that people in both parties could/should have done.
I did not and have not said there was no reason to go. I don't believe there was enough reason to go at that time when there were other concerns that needed more attention, I believe that the urgency and danger of the situation was greatly exaggerated to fool the American people into going along with a foolhardy plan to achieve goals decided upon before the towers ever came down, and I believe that this adminstration will do everything in its power to ignore or dismiss evidence to the contrary.
We didn't need to attack Iraq when we did. We didn't need to piss off the U.N. the way we did. We didn't need to announce our certain evidence when even the sources of that evidence considered it shaky. We didn't need to annoy allies and potential allies around the world. We didn't need to sweep in with a force sufficient to take a city but not to hold it. We didn't need to let looters loot once the city was down. We didn't need to try to install a leader with a criminal record and suspicious dealings. We didn't need to keep control of the occupation so tightly or refuse outisde help when it was offered because it would mean relinguishing some control. We especially didn't need a president who would lie to us to start a war.
As it happens I do think the Democrats could have done things differently. They could have fought harder to prevent the Iraq war.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Kwea - I was unaware it was considered common knowledge that we PURPOSELY made Iraq into a terrorist playground. If that is the case, I'm wondering how there are ANY Iraqis left on our side. And that makes me all the more against this war. It's one thing to fight an enemy nation abroad, it's another to turn a stable nation into a killing field because it MIGHT in some way help us.
Jay - If you think like that, you aren't much better than the people you are criticizing. By which I mean, you automatically demonize the left, think they have some mind bending pathological hatred of Bush, and think that in general they are out to hurt America just for the sake of sticking it to Bush.
You couldn't be any more wrong. Democrats don't want to stop Bush because we don't like him, they want to stop the things Bush does because they feel these things are wrong for the country. Last I checked, there was nothing wrong with that, in fact, that's always been celebrated as an American way of life, opposing things vocally that you find to be the wrong course of action.
Democrats want change, I don't see how you can ignore that and go right to the right wing dogma so quickly without even paying it a second glance.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Mr. Mega...
The Administration is already on record as saying that Iraq will not be asked to pay for the war with oil revenues. Since that's their only major resource that can generate cash for their budding Democracy, it will probably make more sense to have them sell it on the open market and strengthen their economy using the proceeds.
I'm not trying to get you to be pissed at Bush. If you truly think he's doing a great job, then I'm happy for you. I wish I could feel that way. I feel like I've been lied to, and I feel like the part of the economy that I live in is taking it on the chin in order to pay for this war that I don't think is right or justified.
If I were really interested in the economy, and my slice of it, I should just hate Bush for that.
But I really hate him, and have always hated him, because of the following:
1) He lied about Iraq. 2) He is unrepentant about that lie, and fails to even acknowledge that there was an error. 3) He plays the God card and, I believe, is insincere about it. 4) He insists on secrecy in areas where I believe government should be open (e.g., energy policy) 5) His "no Child Left Behind" program is based on a program in Houston that was a complete fraud (documented) and he failed to revise the National program or fire the Ed. Secretary (the guy who pulled this nonsense in Houston) as a result. 6) He has put two incredibly sleezy people in charge of the Justice Department. 7) He is making the same mistake his predecessors made in propping up nasty regimes in order to achieve short-term gains. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are just the current examples of places that are benefitting from being on Bush's good side even though they have among the worst records for human rights abuses in the world today. 8) Mr. Bush has not stopped our practice of "disappearing" people we don't like, but can't figure out a way to prosecute here on American soil. Several such people have been sent to countries where it was a certainty they would be subjected to torture. No trials were held. Some of these people have been released as "innocent" and the Administration has had nothing to say about ending this practice. 9) He, as governor, failed to recognize the flaws in the TX death-penalty system or do anything about those flaws. Instead, he relied on the obviously incomplete and biased recommendations of the man he has now made the head of the Justice Department. 10) I believe, as did the author of the "Downing St. memorandum," that not only was the Bush Administration set on military action in Iraq, they at the very least looked for and gave inappropriate weight to every shred of evidence that would support their desire to go to war with Saddam, and discounted every bit of evidence, no matter how credible, that tended to argue against any justification for the war. 11) His record on the environment is so short sighted I can't even begin to explain which portions of it are worst. The corporate take-over of policy-setting in this Administration is alarming to me. It is a Randian nightmare right out of Atlas Shrugged. Once the powerful start using the government to divide up the country's resources, we're doomed, and paying themselves from the public coffers for their time and effort, we're doomed.
I have not disliked having a particular individual as my "leader" as much since Richard Nixon was in office. I know that Nixon's legacy is going through GOP revisionist mills nowadays, but those who recall those times will, I believe, know that it is saying something when I tell you that in my opinion GW Bush is the worst President (in terms of his ethics, morals, and behavior) since Richard M. Nixon. And, really, I'm beginning to think he may even be worse. That would make him the worst President in the history of the US, in my opinion.
I think the damage he is doing and will do to this country's status in the world, and to the beliefs I thought were the core values of this country will take decades to truly understand. I am confident in my assertion that eventually he will come to be among the most reviled men in our history. Or, America will have so changed that it will no longer be a country that can claim the moral high ground, or claim that it cares about peace, freedom, or democracy.
In fact, my experience in watching the Bush Administration makes me believe that we need to rethink the balance of powers in our Constitution and, perhaps, even do away with the office of President. At the very least, we should reduce many of the Executive Branch powers and priveleges and work to establish technocratic commissions (like the Federal Reserve) to manage much of what is now done by Executive appointment and policy setting.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Meglomaniac -
quote: Yes, I seriously believe that since those countries had gone on for so long without voting, and then after the Iraqis get freedom that their military leaders did see this as a case to follow suit. When people are under oppresive governments, then there's not going to be almost any type of way to get freedom other than fighting. I don't see this as a reason for the human race to die, though.
Do you really think there would have been elections in either Palestine or Lebanon if not for the deaths of Arafat and Hariri? I think you grossly underestimate their symbolic value, and overestimate America's effect on the region. The most effect on a foriegn nation has probably been Saudi Arabia, and that's a nut we haven't even begun to crack yet.
Lebanon and Palestine, the two nations I'm pretty sure you are referring to, were the cause of deaths of powerful symbolic and political figures in the two nations. No one was out there chanting "yay America!" Hell, one of the largest political parties in BOTH elections was HEZBOLLAH! A well known terrorist organization. Explain that away.
And, if you are also referring to Iran's recent presidential election: Hundreds of candidates were disqualified for running, for a myriad array of reasons ranging from too pro-west to being a woman. The man who was elected is a hardlinere aligned with the clerics who will probably do little to nothing in the cause of advancing freedom in that country, halting more than a decade of slow creeping progress.
Yeah, America is really kicking butt over there.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Bob -
quote: In fact, my experience in watching the Bush Administration makes me believe that we need to rethink the balance of powers in our Constitution and, perhaps, even do away with the office of President. At the very least, we should reduce many of the Executive Branch powers and priveleges and work to establish technocratic commissions (like the Federal Reserve) to manage much of what is now done by Executive appointment and policy setting.
I think a better idea would be to elect people to congress that actually have the temerity to challenge the president on abuses of power. Congress has the power of the purse, and everything runs on money, including the military. The War Powers Act gives them the ability to control when and where our troops go for extended periods of time.
The laws and checks are in place, but Congress refuses to use them, preferring to let the President take point. We don't need new rules, we need Congress to exercise the ones in place.
As far as WMDs go, my favorite part of that saga is Bush after we'd invaded. International weapons inspectors had been on the ground for like a month when Bush told them their time was up. They said they needed more time, he said no. So we invaded, four weeks later "So, America, were are the WMDs?" "Oh sorry, yeah, we're gonna need more time on that. You have to understand, this is a lot harder than it looks."
Priceless.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I think people in Congress should have to pass a test on the issues they are required to vote about. These people don't have the expertise coming into it to make the technical decisions they are required to make. It's why we need people like Alan Greenspan. Because the elected leaders aren't really technically astute and we can't get them up to speed.
That monetary policy is handled by technocrats is a good thing. Look how well it runs. But look instead at energy, health care, taxes, etc.
Let alone whenever Congress has to weigh in on science. Of any sort.
They just can't cut it.
And neither can the Chief Executive.
I'm not saying they shouldn't still have the final say. I'm just saying we need some real experts as their advisors. Not the bloody lobbyists.
Posted by Mr_Megalomaniac (Member # 7695) on :
So many people to respond to, so little time. *Takes a deep breath* *wonders if people are calling him Jay and goes with the idea that they are. If not, will end up giving himself even more work to do.*
S.B.S:"How on EARTH can you guys shurg off the fact that the ENTIRE war's case was made on the fact that IRAQ had tons and tons and tons of Weapons of Mass Destruction and when we invaded the country, they had zero."
I suppose that statement of mine came out a little wrong. What makes me mad is all the high up liberals and rallyists who continually shout out "No WMDs" and "War for oil!" act as if that's the only thing that matters. They are hurting our troops by doing this and they need to grow up. Yes, if Bush didn't think that Saddam had WMDs and used it as an excuse to go there for who knows what, he should pay. But, as it stands it seems more like his sources weren't so good, but the people of Iraq have been set free and if it was only an error by sources from Bush then we need to get over it.
Lyr: "Jay - If you think like that, you aren't much better than the people you are criticizing. By which I mean, you automatically demonize the left, think they have some mind bending pathological hatred of Bush, and think that in general they are out to hurt America just for the sake of sticking it to Bush."
I believe they do hate Bush so much that they will endanger our troops by their speeches if they think it will pull people to them. Howard Dean, basically the highest up liberal, seems to vehemently hate his Republican opponets. I wouldn't have pointed him out if he was a minor Demacrate, but he's not.
Lyr:"Democrats want change, I don't see how you can ignore that and go right to the right wing dogma so quickly without even paying it a second glance."
I actually don't like Republicans that much. I'm close to becoming libertarian. My dislike for Demacrates though far outweight my dislike for Republicans.
Bob:"The Administration is already on record as saying that Iraq will not be asked to pay for the war with oil revenues. Since that's their only major resource that can generate cash for their budding Democracy, it will probably make more sense to have them sell it on the open market and strengthen their economy using the proceeds."
Argh. I hope they change their minds, even though they would suffer great harresment for it. A GREAT amount. Maybe we'll at least get a discount...
Bob: "If you truly think he's doing a great job, then I'm happy for you..."
I don't think he's doing a great job. I'm talking about the war, not him. I just think alot of good has come out of this war and it needs to be pointed out. I don't know how much better things could have gone, it's impossible for me to know, all I know is that even though lots of horrendus things have come from this war, alot of good has come from it.
On points of hate. I won't go over all of them, but...
Yes, he does play the God card too much, and if God doesn't like it, *Thanks of scene in American Dad. Lol* and all these horrible things about Bush are true, then he will quite possibly go to Hell.
I hate No Child Leftbehind. I believe that government should play as little a part in education as possible and that the most damaging things to education in this country is the teacher's unions.
On 7. Not something I've heard of much, but I wouldn't put it passed him.
On 8. Yes, it is bad, but I don't know the specifics on this one. What ever country they are taken in is where they should be put on trial it seems. The insurgents aren't P.O.W.s, so I'm not sure, but does that keep them out of our jurisdication?
edit I'm giving this thread a break for the night, or else I'll never get to bed.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
So you're suggesting we what, outlaw lobbyists? (YAY!)
Congress already has real advisors giving them report after report after report on the state of things. Either Congress doesn't care, isn't paying attention, or whatever. But if all your suggesting is a non-partisan series of agencies in charge of different parts of policy, don't we already have that? Especially if the Congress has ultimate say.
The idea has merit, I'm just curious as to the details.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Perhaps more geeks should be offering their services as volunteer science advisors. Actually, I think that politicians ought to take a page from the Evil Overlord Handbook and appoint a five year old child as an advisor. If said child can see holes in their plans, they should abandon those plans.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:I'm basically supportive of anything that keeps the battle from being fought on U.S. soil.. (broken down to the most simplistic statement I can -- without details)
FG
I wonder if this is the heart of the city/country divide, with respect to this war, because I find this sentiment appalling. Sure, I think it's popular, but I find it vulgar.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote: I believe, as did the author of the "Downing St. memorandum," that not only was the Bush Administration set on military action in Iraq, they at the very least looked for and gave inappropriate weight to every shred of evidence that would support their desire to go to war with Saddam, and discounted every bit of evidence, no matter how credible, that tended to argue against any justification for the war.
Bob, IIRC, the memorandum was just minutes or summary of minutes of a Blair cabinet meeting. So it didn't have an author as such. The head of British intelligence expressed his opinion that the intelligence was being fixed to suit a pre-determined policy of war against Iraq.
Which Blair now denies. Like he would have harsh criticism for Bush right before the G8 meeting he's hosting and setting the agenda for.
Otherwise, good post.
quote: Congress has the power of the purse, and everything runs on money, including the military. The War Powers Act gives them the ability to control when and where our troops go for extended periods of time.
Lyrhawn, The War Powers Act was well-intentioned but has proven to be pretty impotent in reining in Presidential military adventurism. Don't hold your breath that it will suddenly start working now.
In fact, I see little or nothing that will prevent more power amassing to the executive branch--it has had steadily more power every year since the constitution was ratified, with the process only accelerating in the 20th century. Even the Republicans have given up on states' rights and local control, for the most part. Presidential power is a real juggernaut.
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
My impression of the speech: "Blah blah blah Well come on all you big strong men, Uncle Sam needs your help again, blah blah blah terrorism, blah blah blah democracy, blah blah blah hate our freedom, blah blah blah 9/11, blah blah blah patriotism, blah blah blah be the first one on your block to have your boy come home in a box."
quote:Originally posted by Farmgirl: I'm basically supportive of anything that keeps the battle from being fought on U.S. soil.. (broken down to the most simplistic statement I can -- without details)
I am sure the Iraqis share your opinion.
quote:Originally posted by The Silverblue Sun: Which war will we win first?
The war on drugs or the war on terrorism?
Dude, neither war is meant to be won... remember parents, if the terrorists do not bomb your hometown of Bumf*ck, Nebraska, the drug dealers will get to your six year old. So vote Republican.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Like Tony Blair and Colin Powell?
They hate our freedom.
quote:Originally posted by Mr_Megalomaniac: You know... I have become sick to death about liberals saying things like, "But there were no WMDs!" and far worse, "War for oil! War for oil!" (You know, I think it would be a GREAT thing if Iraq gave us some oil to help pay for the cost of the war. It has been quite expensive.)
I agree. Gas prices have done nothing but skyrocket since this damn thing began. Personally the whole war for oil was the only valid reason I saw in the first place, but obviously I was wrong there.
quote:It's like people can't see all the good that our troops have done down there
Yes, it is exactly like that.
quote:They're so full of hatred at Bush that they'll do anything they can to demean what is happening there.
Hey, I hate Bush, but the only way Kerry would have been better is if his campaign promises were lies. Get my friends out of the godforsaken hellhole, please.
quote:I don't know about you, but during the voting day I was very happy with what was happening. Some Americans won't go to vote, because they'd have to wait in line for a few hours. Iraqis went to vote under threat of death!
I went to vote because the bookstore was giving a 20% discount to people with I Voted stickers. As a bonus I can bitchslap people with my patriotism for the next three and a half years. It was quick and easy too. I woke up at about four, celebrated 4:20, and got over to the place around 4:45. I feel good in so many ways knowing that I helped to steer the direction of my country, state, and city, especially as not a single one of my choices won.
quote:It doesn't matter whether there were projects or chemicals for WMDs in Iraq before or not.
Obviously.
quote:Yes, numerous lives on both sides have been lost.
I hear life is quite cheap in most parts of the world. We can just import some.
quote:on International good will: Yeah well, we're America. We stick our noses into everyone's business we don't like.
This is probably the best excuse for the war in Iraq I have seen yet. Thank you for clearing that up for the rest of us.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: You...err...don't actually know anything about what's going in Afghanistan, do you? Because describing it as going okay is not even close to an accurate description.
Speak for yourself. This is the first year since I started using that opium has shown up in the summer rather than the fall. We got the Taliban out, and the puppet government is unable to enforce the War on Drugs.
quote: When they screw up, or deliberately lie, and it results in soldiers dying, being wounded, or having to kill when it wasn't necessary, you don't say "Oh well, people die in war."
Maybe you don't. But you are not the president now are you?
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Silverblue - "How on EARTH can you guys shurg off the fact that the ENTIRE war's case was made on the fact that IRAQ had tons and tons and tons of Weapons of Mass Destruction and when we invaded the country, they had zero."
Can you please show me some documentation this claim? No one has ever said that the ENTIRE reason was because of WMD's. Well, Democrat Congresspeople do, but the Administration has never said that. Are you also saying that they never had WMD's? I do believe that there were many other reasons stated for going to war, such as breaking 15 or 16 UN resolutions and so on.
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
It was beautiful, to the point and absolutely true, completely in character for the W.
BC
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: Silverblue - "How on EARTH can you guys shurg off the fact that the ENTIRE war's case was made on the fact that IRAQ had tons and tons and tons of Weapons of Mass Destruction and when we invaded the country, they had zero."
Can you please show me some documentation this claim? No one has ever said that the ENTIRE reason was because of WMD's. Well, Democrat Congresspeople do, but the Administration has never said that. Are you also saying that they never had WMD's? I do believe that there were many other reasons stated for going to war, such as breaking 15 or 16 UN resolutions and so on.
Yes, but WMDs were the crucial issue that garnered support for the war, in congress, in the general US populace, in the UK, and in the UN.
Without a case presented for WMDs, what little support we had in the UN would have evaporated. Do you really think violations of the no-flyzones or corruption in the Oil-for-food program were sufficient cause for invasion?
This is why the administration projected certainty about WMDs when in fact, behind the scenes, plenty of experts in the administration had doubts about the evidence. But they were marginalized or silenced in the run-up to war.
It's also why the constant conflation of 9/11 and Saddam was so important. It's disturbing that even today a large percentage of Americans believe Saddam was behind the 9/11 attacks, without any evidence.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"It was beautiful, to the point and absolutely true, completely in character for the W."
Smile when you say that, mister. Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bean Counter: It was beautiful, to the point and absolutely true, completely in character for the W.
BC
Oh, go get a room you too.
Kids.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
True, the War Powers Act to date has had little effect, but then, it hasn't been used either. Presidents have contended since its passing that they in fact have sole control over military matters.
And while Congress has been saying "No, WE have control" all along, they continually cede this power to the president whenever the chance arrives. The issue has never been challenged in court, which could go quite a ways to denting executive power.
If you look at one area though, President Bush has been amazingly impotent at getting ANY sort of domestic agenda passed through congress. He might have amassed some serious military power due to congressional complacency, but he's still being checked against doing pretty much anything he wants at home, despite his rhetoric.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Farmgirl: I'm basically supportive of anything that keeps the battle from being fought on U.S. soil.. (broken down to the most simplistic statement I can -- without details) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am sure the Iraqis share your opinion.
It's part of that less often quoted proverb in the bible "Do unto others as you would like them to do unto you, until it becomes inconvenient."
[ July 01, 2005, 04:38 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Amen
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It was not convenient. We tried to avoid it-or at the very least, you'll be forced to admit, we gave our enemy the chance to avoid it, both over a decade and repeatedly in the weeks prior to invasion.
The Iraqis didn't have their own country before. Sunni Iraqis, to some extent, did.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Not really. The only out Bush gave them was to cough up the WMDs or else.
It appears they didn't have any weapons to give up.
So, how are they going to avoid a war if they can't provide the weapons needed to stop it?
That of course was the whole problem with Bush's argument. When you accuse someone of having something then threaten to attack them if they don't offer it up, it's nearly
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Rakeesh, that's great, but I thought that the sentiment expressed in Farmgirl's quote was that she was basically supportive of anything that keeps the battle from being fought on US soil.
She was clear in her sentiment-- I understand all of her words and the sense behind them-- I just think that her's is a shameful number one priority.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
See, but by the Downing Street memo, the Bush administration was actively trying to provoke Saddam Hussein into giving them better excuses to go to war. That doesn't sound like trying to avoid it to me.
Posted by RoyHobbs (Member # 7594) on :
But why on earth wouldn't Saddam cooperate if he had nothing to hide?
Once he learned how serious we were he should have thrown open all his storehouses and declared his innocence.
He did not.
Why act guilty if you have nothing to hide?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Didn't he, to a certain degree, do just that?
He allowed unrestricted access to anywhere in the nation, we didn't even have that before when the UN inspectors were there in the early 90's.
He also gave thousands of documents to the UN and US on the weapons programs, which weren't even dented before we went to war.
I'm not saying that Saddam is innocent, surely he was NOT innocent. But Bush created a situation with literally no chance of escape. Saddam was trapped no matter what.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:But why on earth wouldn't Saddam cooperate if he had nothing to hide?
Once he learned how serious we were he should have thrown open all his storehouses and declared his innocence.
He did not.
Why act guilty if you have nothing to hide?
Well...this argument doesn't work in America. Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law is our standard. Between nations, that translates to they have the sovereign right to tell us (and anyone else) to go screw themselves.
Saddam was probably playing a very dangerous game. His regime was kept in power by fear. If large groups of people in Iraq felt like he no longer had poison gas or other major weapons that could be turned on them, a popular uprising might've actually toppled his dictatorship. So...admitting he really didn't have anything was probably just as dangerous as letting people think he did have something. He gambled that the international community would be able to reign in Washington, even if Bush et al. did have him in their sights. He made a strategic mistake in counting on our President listening to what anyone else had to say.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
quote: But why on earth wouldn't Saddam cooperate if he had nothing to hide?
Once he learned how serious we were he should have thrown open all his storehouses and declared his innocence.
He did not.
Why act guilty if you have nothing to hide?
By this logic, the US should immediately open Gitmo to the International community. I mean, if we have nothing to hide. . .
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Ooh. Good point.
And the President should open up the files on the Energy Policy too.
I'm liking this better and better!
Posted by RoyHobbs (Member # 7594) on :
Quote: "By this logic, the US should immediately open Gitmo to the International community. I mean, if we have nothing to hide."
No we should not open Gitmo because the Dems in Congress do not and should not hold the same influence as an international peacekeeping force.
Saddam should have opened his stores to the latter, he had everything to gain by doing so.
Bush on the other hand has no compelling reason to "open up" Gitmo (whatever that means) and he has nothing to gain by doing so. His virulent critics give him no credit for any of his actions and blast him for his non-actions.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
But if he has nothing to hide, it will only help his image and will shut up his critics. He has everything to gain from opening Guantanamo. If he would keep it closed from public scrutiny just to spite the Democrats, then he's a childish man who isn't fit to run a cactus plant..ation. Yeah.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
quote: No we should not open Gitmo because the Dems in Congress do not and should not hold the same influence as an international peacekeeping force.
Who said anything about opening it up to Congress? I was talking about opening it up to an international peacekeeping group. Like the UN. Or the International Red Cross.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Well, technically, the ICRC has been in Guantanamo. And they've complained about conditions and treatment there to the Administration.
THeir website says they've been visiting there since 2002.
Red Cross Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I should add, however, that letting the Red Cross in is not the same as disclosure since, as is true for ALL Red Cross operations, complaints are sent only to the government in charge of the facility. It's the only way the ICRC can sustain its access to prisoners -- not ratting out the governments in charge when there are problems.
The NYT somehow got ahold of one of their reports and leaked it. It was a MAJOR stink.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
So much to say.
First, for this issue, read www.Factcheck.org and see what the facts are in the speech versus the fluff.
Second, I was all for the invasion of Iraq because I believed President Bush when he had the country assuming there were WMD's in Iraq. When this turned out to be wrong I felt, and still feel betrayed. That is a personal betrayal that President Bush did to me, which is why it is such a hot button.
Third, did the WMD ever exist? Everything we have uncovered has shown they did not. The only argument we seem to have against this is the "Well, why didn't he just play ball then?" You forget that Hussein was a dictator who controlled his people, and scared his neighbors with the fierceness of his bravado. As long as they thought he might have WMD they bowed to his will. It is a shame that we believe that all Saddam Hussein had to worry about was the US. He had Kurds and Rebels, terrorists, and coupe ready subordinates, not to mention Iranian fanatics just across the border. The more he blustered and played us, the more secure his footing was with them.
Finally, while I agree that we are doing good things in Iraq, and am proud to be helping them find freedom, we must not forget, "Thou Shall Not Bear False Witness Against Your Neighbor." What else do you call making false claims of WMD, Al-Queda Connections, and more against Iraq. The commandment does not tell us to differentiate between good neighbors and bad, between Christians and non-Christians. It states that we should not lie about our neighbors. I find it hypocritical and almost blasphemous that a man who claims to be a True Christian Leader either bears that false witness knowingly, or allows those who work for him to do so without publicly reproaching them for it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
By the way, Lyr, Saddam did not permit unfettered, good-faith access to his country as he was bound to do because of a war he started. There isn't 'a certain degree' when you're talking about giving unfettered access.
Whether or not he had zero chance to avoid war is purely conjecture.
------
Irami, the literal meaning of her words is as unpleasant to me as it is to you. I think, though, if you double-checked with FG and asked, "Really? Anything?" she would probably say no.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote: Irami, the literal meaning of her words is as unpleasant to me as it is to you. I think, though, if you double-checked with FG and asked, "Really? Anything?" she would probably say no.
You're right. I would say no.
I was just making a point -- not an absolute statement.
(and I'm signing off for the night, so if you ask anything to me directly, it will probably have to wait until Monday)
FG
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
"By the way, Lyr, Saddam did not permit unfettered, good-faith access to his country as he was bound to do because of a war he started. There isn't 'a certain degree' when you're talking about giving unfettered access."
UN inspectors prior to the Iraq war had unfettered access, unlike before. They used to be restricted from visiting certain sites and palaces, but this time they could literally go anywhere they wanted. I wasn't talking about the early 90's, I was referring to the lead up to THIS war.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Unfettered access in good faith means immediate access, aircraft flyovers without hedging, and no trucks bailing out of factories before inspections.
Inspectors weren't permitted all of these things this time.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Since when did Saddam ever have the ability to stop aircraft flyovers whether we asked for permission or not?
The inspectors could go anywhere they wanted, and in fact they almost automatically went right to the places they were denied access to the last time they were there, and were let in without complaints from Saddam.
As far as the trucks go, other than satelite images, we have no proof of anything other than conjecture.
Regardless, a couple weeks isn't near long enough to find anything, if in fact there was ever anything to find. If a hundred thousand US troops can't find it, a hundred inspectors with a few jeeps never would have, regardless of accessibility.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Saddam was clearly not being completely cooperative before the war. There was plenty of obstructing the access of inspectors going on.
Of course, at least some of the evidence that we were given about these obstructions were outright lies and, again, the Downing Street memos show that the U.S. was specifically trying to provoke Saddam into being less than compliant. It's not like they were sitting there hoping that Saddam would let the inspectors in. They'd already decided on going to war and were trying to get Saddam to make himself look bad in regards to the inspectors.
Not that this was all that hard because Saddam was a pretty bad guy even without people deliberately trying to provoke him. I think it's a little silly for people to try to portray him as being mostly an innocent victim who was trying to go along. Regardless of all the other issues involved, I'm glad that we deposed him and I think everyone else should be too.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:The inspectors could go anywhere they wanted, and in fact they almost automatically went right to the places they were denied access to the last time they were there, and were let in without complaints from Saddam.
Really?
quote:Four days later, Baghdad announces that it will allow arms inspectors to return “without conditions.” Iraqi and UN officials meet September 17 to discuss the logistical arrangements for the return of inspectors and announce that final arrangements will be made at a meeting scheduled for the end of the month. The United States contends that there is nothing to talk about and warns that the Iraqis are simply stalling. The Bush administration continues to press the Security Council to approve a new UN resolution calling for Iraq to give weapons inspectors unfettered access and authorizing the use of force if Iraq does not comply.
Iraq said today it would comply with demands for greater cooperation with U.N. weapons inspectors, promising to encourage its scientists to speak privately with inspectors, to comb the country for more undeclared chemical munitions and to hand over additional documents to augment the arms declaration it issued last month.
....
The issue of interviewing weapons scientists has emerged as a key point of controversy between Iraq and the inspectors. The inspectors want to be able to interview Iraqi scientists in private, away from government minders who, the inspectors fear, might intimidate the scientists from speaking freely. Although Iraqi officials had said the country's scientists were free to choose how they want to be questioned, U.N. officials maintained the Iraqi government did not do enough to encourage the scientists to talk and instead effectively dissuaded them from consenting to private interviews.
quote:"Iraq announces that it will not cooperate with a new resolution which is different to what was agreed upon with the secretary-general (Kofi Annan)," said a statement issued following a meeting of top Iraqi leaders chaired by President Saddam Hussein.
I could go on, but I think the point is made, Lyrhawn. Saying, "We will permit unfettered access to our facilities and our scientists...let's talk the specifics in two weeks," is not good faith, and you know it. That's just one basic example.
Edit: I hit return in the links to stop the page from spreading out, they can still be cut and pasted.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Well I see your point, and it's made. Iraq wasn't 100% compliant. Lord knows when the US is told to do something by a foriegn nation, we hop to and make it happen immediately.
But most of what you posted isn't extremely substantive. I'll accept the point, but my entire point was that Bush set ultimatums that weren't really achievable, and then didn't even give anyone time to attempt satisfying them.
Iraq had 10 years to build new weapons. Bush all of a sudden felt a pressing need to attack, but allowed for three weeks of inspecting before invading. I think MY point is made as well.
Edit to add: If you want you talk about GOOD FAITH, I think good faith is trying to solve a problem through diplomatic INTERNATIONAL solutions. I think good faith is calling attention to a problem and then giving more than a month's time to trying to solve it before INVADING. Apparently Bush is no better than Saddam when it comes to good faith to the world.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Don't forget, besides war or producing hypothetical WMDs for inspectors, there was a third option: that last minute offer that President Bush made for Saddam and his sons to give up power and go into exile. Does anyone remember if a country offered him asylum?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't remember. Did Syria or Jordan? Those are the only two in the region I can imagine actually would.
And calling that a viable third option is about as serious as saying Bush should resign or go into exile himself. Creating an option you know for a fact someone won't accept isn't an option at all.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Who said it was viable? It was an publicly disclosed option for Saddam, that's all. That his psychology as a dictator made it impossible to accept doesn't mean it wasn't an option we offered.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Saddam could have counter offered with sure, I'll leave if you give me 100 billion dollars.
Would you count that as a serious option?
Then everyone could blame Bush, all he would have had to do was pay up, and the problem is solved.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
I can see the Ornery people doing that....
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)