quote:Where you are looking from will determine if your perception is wrong or not, but it will not change the fundamental reality of the results.
"Good" is a very relative term. Everyone is going to have a different idea of what "good." So one person's opinion of what is good is not exactly an adequate justification for an action.
quote:If the rest of the world is wrong, the answer is obviously "yes."
And how exactly do you know that the rest of the world was wrong?
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: They are going to try to find whatever they can that will be most politically damaging to Bush and the Republican party, much the same as the Republicans did with Clinton. Don't fool yourselves.
Do you believe, therefore, that Clinton should not have been investigated? Or Nixon? Or Reagan? All of these investigations were politically motivated; does that mean they should never have occurred?
No I don't believe that they should not have occured, nor did I state that. Nor do I think that this should be ignored. My frustration is that people out there think that this is going to be a fair and honest investigation and on this thread are actually treating it as such. Treating it as if they don't know that when its all said and done going to be a report that Karl Rove masterminded it all and should be fired (said tongue in cheek).
Seriously though, my opinion is that an independent commision would be better suited to this. It irks me when they tie up the Senate like this when there are so many other things that could be accomplished. Appoint a small bipartison commission, let them report without all the politicizing, and get back to business in the Senate (mostly politicizing, but maybe they'll accidently do some good when they're working on politicizing about laws rather than a big drunken brawl between my great state's Senator Reid and that Texan Bush).
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Good" is a very relative term. Everyone is going to have a different idea of what "good."
No, Good is a very objective term. But you're right, people have different ideas of what is good. Ultimately, everyone must act on what they believe to be right. But denying that right and wrong even exist is a recipe for disaster.
As we are seeing now, for those who care to look.
Posts: 609 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Republican congressmen have complete and utter veto over the investigation. The Republican Administration has complete and utter control over witnesses and documents under "executive privilege". Unless there is a legal clash in the openly pro-Bush Republican SupremeCourt between the Republicans in Congress and the Republicans in the WhiteHouse, the Democrats don't have much say in the matter beyond questioning the witnesses and documents which the Republicans have allowed to be part of the investigation.
Now, BaoQingTian, precisely how can this investigation be maneuvered to produce a conclusion which displeases the Republicans?
quote:Originally posted by Dr. Evil: Actually DarkKnight is right on with his statements. Typical hypocrisy from the left.
The Democrats rightfully pointed out that ultimately Saddam Hussein was a threat to world peace and ultimately would need to be neutralized one way or another.
But there was a process that needed to be followed in order to avoid the international perception that this was a unilateral American act that would be (and is) perceived as illegitimate in the region and much of the world. GHWB had the good sense to know this in 1991 and spent the time and most importantly LISTENED to his allies and built a coalition so broad-based that the Arab world could not pretend that it was simply the same old tired US/Israeli cabal.
Alas, the son lacks the sense of the father.
Senator John Kerry (among others) did make a grievous error - he trusted the President. GWB (and minions) came into the Senate and told them that Saddam was not taking the US seriously enough. He had WMD's and was circumventing the United Nations and the inspectors. Only the real threat of force contained in the resolution presented would force Saddam back to the negotiating table. And Bush promised to use that authorization to force Saddam to negotiate.
The Senate ultimately complied and gave GWB the authorization to use force. And suddenly, all US negotiations ceased, except a demand for surrender. The very conditions Bush had told the Senate he sought overnight were not sufficient.
Biggest bait and switch of all time by an American President, and the Democrats in the Senate not only fell for it, but also failed to communicate this fact to the American electorate.
John Kerry made a mistake. He trusted the President. It is not a mistake I have ever made again.
Posts: 38 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's a moot point to be discussing whether or not we should have gone to war. I'd say it's a widely held belief that we should have, and using hindsight to pursue scrutiny isn't really getting us anywhere.
What we CAN fairly scrutinize though, is how the war was prosecuted. DarkKnight and other Bushies, how can you blame the Democrats for that one? Bush is our commander in chief, and clearly had no real plan for what to do with Iraq once it was conquered. The military had substandard materials, lack of materials, lack of security forces, lack of planning to secure toxic wastes sites or museums with countless national treasures.
How are you going to blame the Democrats for that? And how can you blame them for wanting answers to why these things were messed up so badly?
Getting back to the ORIGINAL point of the thread though. This isn't the Dems getting a spine, they've had one for awhile now. This is the Dems getting a PLAN, which they have lacked for five years. They're on the same page, they are hitting back, they are sick of Republican crap and are finally formulating real ways to fight back.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, I want to penalize them for lying, dh. Cheney said the aluminum tubes were definitely for use in nuclear refinement despite being told by the official body of nuclear researchers that it was laughable to think so (as an example).
He didn't even leave himself an out such as "almost certainly" (which would also have been false and evidence of egregious misconduct, but could theoretically be called a misunderstanding rather than a lie).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
This must be a sensitive issue. Just look at all the Presidential Apologists poor out to defend the situation. There is one major talking point that needs to be heard, from the Democratic side.
Saying this war was handled wrong does not mean we wanted Hussein to stay in power.
Sure Clinton and others spoke out against Hussein. The man is a brutal pig. Sure they threatened him.
But they did not go to WAR.
You say they did not because they had no backbone.
However even President Bush I didn't try to conquer Hussein. He listened to the experts that told him trying to plant a democracy on the corpse of Hussein's tyranny would be expensive, dangerous, and a lightening rod for Islamic extremists around the world.
Just because most of us question how we went to war, if we were lied to go to war, and how this war was conducted, does not mean most of us would have prefered Hussein remain in power. It is not an either/or choice.
The most startling revelation to come out of the Libby indictment is not that he may have told reporters about a CIA's status in order to discredit the truth her husband was stating. It is the fact, undenied by anyone in the White House, that in the time when the various elements of the terrorist groups in Iraq were organizing, the main focus of many of Vice President Cheney and Scooter's energy was on keeping their WMD mistake quiet.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: What we CAN fairly scrutinize though, is how the war was prosecuted. DarkKnight and other Bushies, how can you blame the Democrats for that one?
That's easy. I don't blame Democrats for that. I would say that a lot Democrats are using the difficulties in Iraq to gain some politcal leverage, but that is what most politicians do so that is not any kind of indictment either.
quote: clearly had no real plan for what to do with Iraq once it was conquered.
I would say that their plan was optimistic in thinking that foriegn terrorists would not be as effective or as ruthless as they are.
quote: The military had substandard materials, lack of materials, lack of security forces, lack of planning to secure toxic wastes sites or museums with countless national treasures. /QUOTE] This is a more difficult statement to deal with. During peacetime especially after a conflict (and this is NOT an indictment of Clinton) the military is always made smaller, deep budget cuts, force reductions, and the like. Then the problem has always happened that when you need certain equipment you simply don't have it, and it takes time to get it. Factories have to be retooled to make whatever they need. So to 'fix' this particular problem, please contact your Reps and Senators now and constantly contact them asking them NOT to draw down the military once the Iraq conflict is over. [QUOTE] This is the Dems getting a PLAN, which they have lacked for five years
This is exactly what Democrats should do. They should meet, and work out a definitive comprehensive plan instead of reacting to whatever the Repubs do.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: It is the fact, undenied by anyone in the White House, that in the time when the various elements of the terrorist groups in Iraq were organizing, the main focus of many of Vice President Cheney and Scooter's energy was on keeping their WMD mistake quiet.
Can you provide some links to back up that claim?
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:This is exactly what Democrats should do. They should meet, and work out a definitive comprehensive plan instead of reacting to whatever the Repubs do.
That'd an odd statement. They oppose most of what the Republicans do. They have to respond to it, and oppose it vocally, otherwise the Republicans would get away with whatever they wanted. Everytime they oppose a bad Republican plan or offer an alternative, Republicans just claim they are the party of road blocks, trying to make sure we don't make progress.
I've always found this party line rather hilarious, but probably sadly effective. "If you oppose our plan, obviously you don't have any good ideas and are against the progress of the nation."
So according to Republicans, if I oppose drilling in ANWR, or oppose MASSIVE spending increases and wide tax cuts, I must want to bring about the destruction of America, and I would rather the nation go down in flames than have Republican legislation pass congress.
Yet the reason I'd oppose it is because they are BAD IDEAS.
PS: DarkKnight, I'm proud of you. You didn't try to blame the Dems for anything there. That must have been hard, but it was the decent thing to do. Congratulations.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
