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 $$$$ your pretty much helping them with all their causes. But continue on your quest….
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Its not just the horribly incorrect statements themselves, which are troubling enough, but the reactions to them.
The National Security Advisor went publicly and repeatedly on record with statements that were either bald faced lies or gross incompetence (not paying attention to the assessment by, oh, the nation's head nuclear scientists about the uses of materials in nuclear refinement is gross incompetence on the highest scale -- that's the sort of thing I would love to impeach people for).
She didn't even get a slap on the wrist. In fact, she's secretary of state. Can you imagine the harm a comparable action would do in sensitive high level negotiations with another country?
And that's just the one person, the VP did the same thing. The only guy who qualified his statements even a bit (though he messed up which way the vast preponderance of evidence was going) is no longer with the administration -- Powell.
And Bush made similar statements, but he was never provably briefed about the energy department's position -- and if he wasn't because it was filtered out by Rice/Cheney/Powell, that's incredibly scary.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
And by the way Squeak, your “at least one Republican Congressman is still saying that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11” is way off base. The biggest being that people are saying that Saddam was behind 9/11. They’ve never said that. They have said that Saddam supported AQ. Now Robin Hays might be the closest to saying that Saddam had a hand in the planning, but from his comments it makes looks more like he’s implying that he helped finance it. Which is hard to argue against since when you support a group with $$$$ 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?
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 2752 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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...
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 142 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 142 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
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.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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."
posted
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.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 142 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 1364 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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."
posted
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
