DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: BT on January 15, 2007, 01:25:43 AM
-
THE FOLKS AT CNN'S "RELIABLE SOURCES" just emailed me this excerpt from today's show transcript with UPI reporter Pamela Hess:
Better that theKURTZ: Pam Hess, has the sending of 20,000 additional troops gotten a fair hearing in the media or has it gotten caught up in this wrenching, emotional debate about whether the war itself was a mistake?
PAM HESS: I think it's gotten caught up about it, and the debate about it is actually all wrong. What reporters know and what Martha says is that 20,000 really isn't that big -- isn't that big a jump. We're at 132,000 right now. It's going to put us even less that we had going in going across the line.
What we're not asking is actually the central question. We're getting distracted by the shiny political knife fight. What we need to be asking is, what happens if we lose? And no one will answer that question. If we lose, how are we going to mitigate the consequences of this?
It's so much easier for us to cover this as a political horse race. It's on the cover of "The New York Times" today, what this means for the '08 election. But we're not asking the central national security question, because it seems that if as a reporter you do ask the national security question, all of a sudden you're carrying Bush's water. There are national security questions at stake, and we're ignoring them and the country is getting screwed.
http://instapundit.com/archives2/2007/01/post_1705.php
-
What is there to "lose"?
There hasn't been anything resembling a war between the US and anyone else for a long long time.
What is it that she's wondering if we're going to lose? Lose the illegal invasion? Lose the occupation of a sovereign nation? Lose the oil?
-
What is it that she's wondering if we're going to lose? Lose the illegal invasion? Lose the occupation of a sovereign nation? Lose the oil?
What happens if we lose the war.
That is the same question Domer has been clumsily asking for the last three weeks.
-
What happens if we lose the war.
That is the same question Domer has been clumsily asking for the last three weeks.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then the US will REALLY have to do something about its addiction to oil. Maybe we will plant several million acres in rapeseed or switchgrass and start producing biodiesel.
We could also import alcohol from Brazil and other low-cost cane sugar producers. And raise CAFE standards for cars and "light trucks"
-
What is it that she's wondering if we're going to lose? Lose the illegal invasion? Lose the occupation of a sovereign nation? Lose the oil?
What happens if we lose the war.
That is the same question Domer has been clumsily asking for the last three weeks.
I wouldn't say he was being clumsy .
More like indirect, I think I get the reason too.
Just as Pam Hess states we arre getting distracted by the political knife fight.
How indirect will we have to be to consider Iraq for Iraqs sake and not for its political effect (usefullness)?
-
What happens if we lose the war.
That is the same question Domer has been clumsily asking for the last three weeks.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then the US will REALLY have to do something about its addiction to oil. Maybe we will plant several million acres in rapeseed or switchgrass and start producing biodiesel.
We could also import alcohol from Brazil and other low-cost cane sugar producers. And raise CAFE standards for cars and "light trucks"
Then the US will REALLY have to do something about its addiction to oil. Maybe we will plant several million acres in rapeseed or switchgrass and start producing biodiesel.
I like this idea , and so does President Bush , this is almost unanimously hailed as a good idea , so what is makeing itso slow to materialise?
-
<<What we need to be asking is, what happens if we lose?>>
This is really hilarious. Obviously this is the new "talking point" of the War Party. What happens if we lose? A million bucks to whoever can answer the question, only the problem is, nobody knows.
It's like the cancer operation. You got a huge fucking tumor the size of a grapefruit and it's gotta come off. Well but what happens after it comes off? Who the fuck knows? Maybe you could die. Maybe the cancer will lose a few metastasizing cells into the bloodstream during the incision and you're toast. Maybe the surgeon will get all the cells and you'll live for another hundred years. Oh, shit the bottom line is, nobody knows what'll happen after the operation, so I better just leave the fucking cancer there and watch it grow.
What's even funnier are the prognostications of the Bush administration, which has been 100% WRONG on every fucking thing they ever said about the war: "Saddam's got a shitload of WMD, we'll be greeted as liberators, this'll be a model democracy, it won't cost more than $100 billion, major operations are finished, the back of the insurgency is broken . . . " wrong and wrong and wrong and wrong again . . . but NOW they have a new prediction: chaos and God-awful bloodshed, massacres of biblical proportions, doom and terrorism descending upon us, the worst of the worst of the worst fucking catastrophe if we "lose" in Iraq, so . . . now you gotta believe 'em just this one more time.
I'm laughing so hard my sides are gonna split. In the rest of the world, it's "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me," but in America it's " . . . fool me twenty-four times, shame on you, fool me twenty-five times, shame on you, fool me twenty-six times, shame on you . . . . "
Oh, Jeeziz, and the other funny thing about this post is that these are supposed to be serious political commentators, Pamela Hess, CNN. There are probably high school journalism students with a better grasp of reality, but of course you'll never see them on CNN or any MSM for that matter. And yet they wonder if the MSM is losing its credibility. Naaaah, WHAT credibility? I watch 'em for laughs now.
-
War? IF we lose a war?
If we were in a war with Iraq, then we won and should have left years ago.
Clearly, we're not in a war since we're still there fucking things up for them. If people think we're in a war in Iraq, then they better get over to the idea that we've either won already years ago or have been steadily losing for the past three years...
-
<<What we need to be asking is, what happens if we lose?>>
This is really hilarious. Obviously this is the new "talking point" of the War Party. What happens if we lose? A million bucks to whoever can answer the question, only the problem is, nobody knows.
I know .
I can tell you right now that the bloodshead of the realignment of the middle east will be n the same scale as Cambodia definately, and possibly worse than WWII.
How can you avoid knowing this?
-
What is it that she's wondering if we're going to lose? Lose the illegal invasion? Lose the occupation of a sovereign nation? Lose the oil?
What happens if we lose the war.
That is the same question Domer has been clumsily asking for the last three weeks.
Who is "we?"
You can't even say the military or the country would lose the war.
The Neocons would lose the war.
Let's face it. It was totally their war.
Then the Neocons would be driven out of town, proving that losing is not all bad.
If you are looking for a way to calm the terrorists, try advocating a cessation of imperial warmaking.
-
Clearly, we're not in a war since we're still there fucking things up for them.
I think we are still in a war, and i think we have decided to start fighting it again.
-
Who is "we?"
We, is the United States of America. Authorized to go to war in Iraq by a vast bipartiisan majority in the house and senate.
Your representatives and mine.
That is who "we" are.
But you knew that.
-
If you are looking for a way to calm the terrorists, try advocating a cessation of imperial warmaking.
Oh no!
You certinly know that the 9-11 attack was not in response to any recent insult ,nor any exploitation .
It is the imperial ambition of Osama Bn Laden we are talking about.
-
<<I can tell you right now that the bloodshead of the realignment of the middle east will be n the same scale as Cambodia definately, and possibly worse than WWII.
<<How can you avoid knowing this?>>
I got two answers for you:
one - - If I've been right every time about what a fucking disaster this war would be, and you and your "President" have been wrong every time, why should I believe you and your President now when you've never been right yet?
and two - - So what? What's any of that got to do with you? Their mess, their problem. You can always jump back in if it gets out of hand.
and here's a bonus answer for you: the bloodbath you're talking about has never happened yet in the region so why would it happen now? These people always fight and their fights always get resolved WITHOUT the kind of massive bloodletting we've seen in Europe in the last 70 years.
-
<<I can tell you right now that the bloodshead of the realignment of the middle east will be n the same scale as Cambodia definately, and possibly worse than WWII.
<<How can you avoid knowing this?>>
I got two answers for you:
one - - If I've been right every time about what a fucking disaster this war would be, and you and your "President" have been wrong every time, why should I believe you and your President now when you've never been right yet?
and two - - So what? What's any of that got to do with you? Their mess, their problem. You can always jump back in if it gets out of hand.
and here's a bonus answer for you: the bloodbath you're talking about has never happened yet in the region so why would it happen now? These people always fight and their fights always get resolved WITHOUT the kind of massive bloodletting we've seen in Europe in the last 70 years.
Not so.
Ian and Iraq fought a reenactment of WWI for eight years. The casualty count is not clear but is very likely over a million.
Only three million Cambodians died in their Killing feilds period , if the question is whether the middle east will be dominated by Shiite or Shia the potential is for much more , I wouldn't doubt ten million or more.
-
<<Iran and Iraq fought a reenactment of WWI for eight years. The casualty count is not clear but is very likely over a million.
<<Only three million Cambodians died in their Killing feilds period , if the question is whether the middle east will be dominated by Shiite or Shia the potential is for much more , I wouldn't doubt ten million or more>>
If it's gonna happen, it's gonna happen. That's THEIR region and THEIR problem. It's pure speculation, by people who have been proven WRONG every single time they speculated. All we can know for sure is that the U.S. Army and the Bush administration have made a nice healthy down payment on the "ten million or more" already, and I say it's high time they stopped their evil shit and began to obey international law instead.
-
<<Iran and Iraq fought a reenactment of WWI for eight years. The casualty count is not clear but is very likely over a million.
<<Only three million Cambodians died in their Killing feilds period , if the question is whether the middle east will be dominated by Shiite or Shia the potential is for much more , I wouldn't doubt ten million or more>>
If it's gonna happen, it's gonna happen. That's THEIR region and THEIR problem. It's pure speculation, by people who have been proven WRONG every single time they speculated. All we can know for sure is that the U.S. Army and the Bush administration have made a nice healthy down payment on the "ten million or more" already, and I say it's high time they stopped their evil shit and began to obey international law instead.
At least you know that Asians are not more or less prone to settle their diffrences peaceably than Europeans.
Now were the people that predicted a domino effect after the communist taekeover of Vietnam wrong?
Were the people who predicted a bloodbath under the Communists wrong?
(don't count underesimation)
-
<<Now were the people that predicted a domino effect after the communist taekeover of Vietnam wrong?>>
100% wrong. No dominos fell.
<<Were the people who predicted a bloodbath under the Communists wrong?
(don't count underesimation>>
Sure. The "bloodbath" was less than the settling of scores in France after the fall of the Vichy regime. Of course they were wrong.
<<At least you know that Asians are not more or less prone to settle their diffrences peaceably than Europeans. >>
I don't think we'll ever see in my lifetime or yours any bloodletting remotely approaching the level of WWII in Europe. But I try to pick more rational indicators than the racial make-up of the disputants. History, for example. The history of Iraq since the country was founded does not show any kind of bloodshed even remotely approaching the levels predicted. Stuff like the Iran-Iraq war probably could have been prevented entirely had the U.S. not encouraged Saddam to attack his neighbour and assisted him in carrying out the attack. When left to their own without U.S. interference, the level of bloodshed is and always has been relatively moderate.
-
<<Now were the people that predicted a domino effect after the communist taekeover of Vietnam wrong?>>
100% wrong. No dominos fell.
<<Were the people who predicted a bloodbath under the Communists wrong?
(don't count underesimation>>
Sure. The "bloodbath" was less than the settling of scores in France after the fall of the Vichy regime. Of course they were wrong.
<<At least you know that Asians are not more or less prone to settle their diffrences peaceably than Europeans. >>
I don't think we'll ever see in my lifetime or yours any bloodletting remotely approaching the level of WWII in Europe. But I try to pick more rational indicators than the racial make-up of the disputants. History, for example. The history of Iraq since the country was founded does not show any kind of bloodshed even remotely approaching the levels predicted. Stuff like the Iran-Iraq war probably could have been prevented entirely had the U.S. not encouraged Saddam to attack his neighbour and assisted him in carrying out the attack. When left to their own without U.S. interference, the level of bloodshed is and always has been relatively moderate.
I would rather you be right than me on this one.
Very much.
But ,there is good reason to think that Al Queda can recover and grow ,and they have more potential for growth than the Natzis ever did.
There are more people vunerable to this sort of war now than there were in the thirtys .
This time Atomic Bombs are a part of the beginning , instead of the very end.
Winning in Iraq would be a good idea , then thepeople in the middle east would have one prosperous democratic country .
Looseing in Iraq will produce either a Taliban inspired government or a Aiatola inspired government (or fight between the choices ).
On the positive side looseing in Iraq will be good for our Oil companys and so might be good for our short term economy, it is an il wind indeed that blows no one good.
-
<<But ,there is good reason to think that Al Queda can recover and grow ,and they have more potential for growth than the Natzis ever did.
<<There are more people vunerable to this sort of war now than there were in the thirtys .
<<This time Atomic Bombs are a part of the beginning , instead of the very end.>>
plane, I'm sorry, but that - - all of that - - is just hysterical nonsense. It's so far removed from reality, you might as well have written it up as science fiction and fantasy. If you are going to build a real-world policy around that kind of crazy speculation, it's a matter for discussion by professional psychiatrists, not amateur politicians. There are so many non sequiturs and irrelevancies there I can only skim through them, but: al Qaeda has a minimal role in the Iraqi Resistance, their "potential for growth" hasn't translated into practical power since the fall of the Taliban, people have always been vulnerable to "this sort of war" since the invention of high explosives, and none of the players has an A-bomb.
I'm not saying this COULDN'T result in a bloodbath, only that there's no real hard evidence that it will. There's MORE reason to believe it won't - - simple history of Iraq, for starters. The enmities always existed, there were previous Resistance wars against foreign armies and what you are predicting will happen now never happened then. Considering that the U.S. invasion has already taken 600,000 Iraqi lives, the "fear of bloodbath" motive for hanging on is particularly unbelievable.
<<Winning in Iraq would be a good idea , then thepeople in the middle east would have one prosperous democratic country.>.
You saw the new hydrocarbons law that the U.S. wants its puppet government to pass. What do you think is going to be so "prosperous" about the country when U.S. oil companies are going to be sucking the lifeblood out of the only natural resource the country possesses? Iraq was prosperous BEFORE the U.S. encouraged it to attack Iran, and the nation was the owner of its own natural resources. They did fine WITHOUT American participation in a "free market" and now they're about to be raped, and you call THAT "prosperity?" You must be nuts. i don't even know why I take you seriously any more.
<<Looseing in Iraq will produce either a Taliban inspired government or a Aiatola inspired government (or fight between the choices. ) >>
It could also produce a Ba'ath Arab Socialist government. Or (please God!) a communist government. What the hell do you care and how is it any of your business what kind of government they have? Would you like them to make it their business what kind of government YOU have?
<<On the positive side looseing in Iraq will be good for our Oil companys>>
How's that? 70% ain't enough for them?
-
Considering that the U.S. invasion has already taken 600,000 Iraqi lives, the "fear of bloodbath" motive for hanging on is particularly unbelievable.
You quote that number like it is gospel. It isn't.
-
Considering that the U.S. invasion has already taken 600,000 Iraqi lives, the "fear of bloodbath" motive for hanging on is particularly unbelievable.
You quote that number like it is gospel. It isn't.
=====================================================
So what is your gospel number? 500,000? 400,000?
Anyway you look at it, it has been a bloodbath.
-
So what is your gospel number? 500,000? 400,000?
Most other figures are in the 100k range, the majority being the result of Iraqi upon Iraqi terror.
-
<<Most other figures are in the 100k range . . . >>
100K isn't a blood-bath, it's only a blood sponge-bath.
<< the majority being the result of Iraqi upon Iraqi terror. >>
Nothing at all to do with the removal of the Saddam Hussein regime.
-
I stand by my point. The Lancet only comes out with those numbers during election time. Wonder why?
No other credible source list Iraqi casualties anywhere near that high. The Lancet figures are not gospel, yet you quote them chapter and verse like they were.
No wonder why.
-
<<But ,there is good reason to think that Al Queda can recover and grow ,and they have more potential for growth than the Natzis ever did.
<<There are more people vunerable to this sort of war now than there were in the thirtys .
<<This time Atomic Bombs are a part of the beginning , instead of the very end.>>
plane, I'm sorry, but that - - all of that - - is just hysterical nonsense. It's so far removed from reality, you might as well have written it up as science fiction and fantasy.[/plane]
I am sorry that you do not understand , but your falure to understand is not disproof.
If you are going to build a real-world policy around that kind of crazy speculation, it's a matter for discussion by professional psychiatrists, not amateur politicians. There are so many non sequiturs and irrelevancies there I can only skim through them, but: al Qaeda has a minimal role in the Iraqi Resistance, their "potential for growth" hasn't translated into practical power since the fall of the Taliban,
Like a bacterial infection being fought by antibiotics , if you quit while there are still organisms with potential for infection , the rebound infection is worse than the first .
Al Queda is entirely less than thirty years old , it is bigger now than it was when it took over Afganistan.
If we start leaveing them alone the way we left thm alone in Afganistan , why shouldn't they grow again ?
What is there to prevent it?
people have always been vulnerable to "this sort of war" since the invention of high explosives, and none of the players has an A-bomb.
More people are more crouded every year , have you any idea how many more people exist in the Middle East now than did at the time of WWII ?
[qute]I'm not saying this COULDN'T result in a bloodbath, only that there's no real hard evidence that it will. There's MORE reason to believe it won't - - simple history of Iraq, for starters. The enmities always existed, there were previous Resistance wars against foreign armies and what you are predicting will happen now never happened then. Considering that the U.S. invasion has already taken 600,000 Iraqi lives, the "fear of bloodbath" motive for hanging on is particularly unbelievable.
You really know nothing of the fighting that happened in Iraq during Saddam Husseins tenure?
Or Before ?
Or the history of the expantion of Islam across Asia , which every Imam in Iraq and Iran would call glourious?
My assertions seem fantastic to you bvecause you have not been paying attenton to history .
<<Winning in Iraq would be a good idea , then thepeople in the middle east would have one prosperous democratic country.>.
You saw the new hydrocarbons law that the U.S. wants its puppet government to pass. What do you think is going to be so "prosperous" about the country when U.S. oil companies are going to be sucking the lifeblood out of the only natural resource the country possesses? Iraq was prosperous BEFORE the U.S. encouraged it to attack Iran, and the nation was the owner of its own natural resources. They did fine WITHOUT American participation in a "free market" and now they're about to be raped, and you call THAT "prosperity?" You must be nuts. i don't even know why I take you seriously any more.
<<Looseing in Iraq will produce either a Taliban inspired government or a Aiatola inspired government (or fight between the choices. ) >>
It could also produce a Ba'ath Arab Socialist government. Or (please God!) a communist government. What the hell do you care and how is it any of your business what kind of government they have? Would you like them to make it their business what kind of government YOU have?
<<On the positive side looseing in Iraq will be good for our Oil companys>>
How's that? 70% ain't enough for them?
Did you not note that an oil shortae caused the biggest oil companys in the USA to harvest record profits?
These guys do not want to have lots of Oil ,they want to have lots of money, this is a goal that can be approached by many paths.
Iraq should auction its oil for the best price it can get , I do hope that there is some money for Americans in these deals , but what will prevent French firms from bidding?
-
Sure. The "bloodbath" was less than the settling of scores in France after the fall of the Vichy regime. Of course they were wrong.
Did the French have a million boat people leave France in 47?
-
<<I stand by my point. [that 600,000 is too high an estimate of Iraqi dead ]>>
You can have your point. Say it was 100,000. What's 100,000 Iraqi dead, a boon to the entire nation and humanity in general?
-
<<You really know nothing of the fighting that happened in Iraq during Saddam Husseins tenure?
Or Before ?>>
Yes, I know a lot about it. It was minimal, much less than the carnage that we are witnessing now thanks to the American intervention. A lot of it was due to U.S. instigation, including the Iran-Iraq war and the Kurdish and Shi'ite revolts, which only bolsters my point.
<<Or the history of the expantion of Islam across Asia , which every Imam in Iraq and Iran would call glourious?>>
And the expansion of Christianity across the New World or even Europe itself, what would every priest and preacher call that, disgraceful?
<<My assertions seem fantastic to you bvecause you have not been paying attenton to history .>>
On the contrary, they seem fantastic to me because they are so anti-historical. The fact that Saddam would attack the U.S.A. for one example, everything you have asserted in this post for another.
<<Did you not note that an oil shortae caused the biggest oil companys in the USA to harvest record profits?>>
Well, how much bigger would those profits have been if the bastards had a monopoly on the output of the Iraqi wells? Use your imagination, plane - - Cheney sure as hell uses his.
<<These guys do not want to have lots of Oil ,they want to have lots of money, this is a goal that can be approached by many paths.>>
Tell me about it.
<<Iraq should auction its oil for the best price it can get , I do hope that there is some money for Americans in these deals , but what will prevent French firms from bidding?>>
Oh, nothing, plane, nothing at all. Why don't you invest in a few shares of French oil companies? WOW are you naive. The U.S. goes to the trouble of invading the fucking country, losing thousands of lives and half a trillion dollars to get its hands on those wells, gets their puppet government to privatize the oil industry and pay 70%* to the foreigners who will condescend to exploit the resources, and then turns around and gives away the contracts to . . . the French?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
* figure presented in the draft legislation, obviously the legislature will be permitted to whittle this down somewhat to allow at least the pretence of independence.
-
On the contrary, they seem fantastic to me because they are so anti-historical. The fact that Saddam would attack the U.S.A. for one example, everything you have asserted in this post for another.
And again, Tee, with another overt lie, as no one was ever claiming that Saddam/Iraq was on the verge of attacking mainland America. NOT ONCE
-
<<And again, Tee, with another overt lie, as no one was ever claiming that Saddam/Iraq was on the verge of attacking mainland America. NOT ONCE>>
"We can't wait until the smoking gun becomes a mushroom cloud."
-
<<Did the French have a million boat people leave France in 47?>>
Could you ever find a million people crazy enough to leave France?
-
And again, Tee, with another overt lie, as no one was ever claiming that Saddam/Iraq was on the verge of attacking mainland America. NOT ONCE
==============================================================
You must have missed Cheney's statement that Saddam had nukes and was all ready to drop them on the US. It was all over the papers and the news.
But then again, you miss so much.
Any proof of Juniorbush's and Cheney's altruism, sirs?
-
<<Did the French have a million boat people leave France in 47?>>
Could you ever find a million people crazy enough to leave France?
===================================================
My French friends tell me that what a collaborator did if he feared for his life in European France was to flee to African France, notably Algeria. It was started as a place where Napoleon III could send his leftists, but it was an ideal place to get lost in. There was pretty much free land and ample employment for any educated Frenchman there, and not much chance that the Résistence would be able to find you. There were also a whole bunch of colonies in Africa, Indochina and the (aaah) South Pacific. And for the truly desperate, Guaine. Not to mention Guadaloupe, Martinique and Saint-Martin.
I have no idea how many collaborators headed for the Algerie or the colonies, but was an option and it was done.
-
<<And again, Tee, with another overt lie, as no one was ever claiming that Saddam/Iraq was on the verge of attacking mainland America. NOT ONCE>>
"We can't wait until the smoking gun becomes a mushroom cloud."
Context Tee, context. Let's try to keep it honest. Only morons believed that was in reference to Saddam nuking Boston
-
Context Tee, context. Let's try to keep it honest. Only morons believed that was in reference to Saddam nuking Boston
===============================================
So we must decide which Juniorbush propaganda to exclude based on the fact that some or of (some...hmm) was clearly intended for morons?
-
You can have your point. Say it was 100,000. What's 100,000 Iraqi dead, a boon to the entire nation and humanity in general?
It seems to be the more accurate number. An 80% reduction from your blatant and absurd claims.
-
You must have missed Cheney's statement that Saddam had nukes and was all ready to drop them on the US. It was all over the papers and the news.
When did he say this? Quote in context please.
-
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0810-01.htm
After this, I believe it was Blair or some British pol that claimed Saddam could drop nukes within 48 hours or somesuch nonsense.
I knew it was bullshit, so I didn't take great note of it. It got Zep all in a frenzy , as I recall.
I fail why you guys can't just google this stuff for yourself. It would take you less time than asking for someone else to spoon feed you.
Most sane people no longer question the fact that Cheney and Juniorbush lied like rugs, and continue to do so.
-
<<Context Tee, context. Let's try to keep it honest. Only morons believed that was in reference to Saddam nuking Boston>>
Who but a moron would even listen to them? Who but a moron would ever believe them? Who but a moron do they aim ANY of their bullshit at?
YOU said no one [in the Bush administration] was ever claiming that Saddam was on the verge of attacking mainland America. Once again, you were easily proven wrong. The fact that the statement was aimed at morons is completely immaterial. ALL of their statements are aimed at morons, who else would believe them?
-
<<I have no idea how many collaborators headed for the Algerie or the colonies, but was an option and it was done.>>
Yeah, well Pierre Pucheu (former minister in the Vichy government) headed for Algeria. He was arrested and shot there by a firing squad. But that was during the war, when the French were still annoyed by people like those scumbags. If Pucheu could have shown a little patience, I'm sure he would have found a more welcoming climate in French North Africa.
-
<<It seems to be the more accurate number. An 80% reduction from your blatant and absurd claims. >>
Your ludicrous nit-picking completely obscures the point that the death toll is obscenely unacceptable and totally unjustifiable whether it's 600,000 (which it may very well be) or 100,000 (which I conceded only for the sake of argument.)
I note that you still didn't answer my question, do you consider the infliction of 100,000 deaths some kind of boon to the Iraqi nation or to the human race in general?
-
<<I have no idea how many collaborators headed for the Algerie or the colonies, but was an option and it was done.>>
Yeah, well Pierre Pucheu (former minister in the Vichy government) headed for Algeria. He was arrested and shot there by a firing squad.
======================================================
Still it is true that assuming a new identity and hiding in Algeria (or some other overseas French place) was easier in many ways than hiding in France itself.
The late husband of an ex-girlfriend of mine was a pied noir, and I spend quite a while discussing this with his younger brother. After the war it was considered impolite (and perhaps dangerous) to ask what anyone else did in the war. The French were not generally proud of their war efforts. There were two sides, and neither actually could be said to have won, not the French who fought the Nazis, nor those who joined them.
-
On Aug. 7, Cheney volunteered in a question-and-answer session at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco, speaking of Hussein, that "left to his own devices, it's the judgment of many of us that in the not-too-distant future, he will acquire nuclear weapons." On Aug. 26, he described Hussein as a "sworn enemy of our country" who constituted a "mortal threat" to the United States. He foresaw a time in which Hussein could "subject the United States or any other nation to nuclear blackmail."
According to this Cheney never said what you claim he said.
Get it wrong or just lying?
-
Whatever makes you happiest.
It was a bloody lie, whatever he said.
-
The bloody lie was your claims.
-
The bloody lie was your claims.
==================================
Fallacious! Calumny!
No, I did not say that anything would happen should my views not be accepted and my suggestions implemented.
I said Cheney claimed that the US was in danger of attack if Saddam was not removed. His claim was untrue.
We might be arguing about how big a lie Cheney told, but the fact it that Iraq had no dangerous nuclear anything, and no plan to build any, so it is Cheney who lied. Blood has been spilled because of Cheney's lies, but nothing I have said has caused so much as a hangnail.
-
<<Did the French have a million boat people leave France in 47?>>
Could you ever find a million people crazy enough to leave France?
During and after the French Revolution there were at least the equivelent in modern percentage who died where they stood, and a great number who managed to escape.
The Vinchy government was dismantled with much less ado.
-
You must have missed Cheney's statement that Saddam had nukes and was all ready to drop them on the US. It was all over the papers and the news.
That was your claim.
Are you retracting it now?
-
Would it make you happy? Would it bring you peace of mind?
I have the feeling that you would prefer an ongoing conflict.
I will retract if you will admit that Cheney is a despicable lying turd.
-
<<Context Tee, context. Let's try to keep it honest. Only morons believed that was in reference to Saddam nuking Boston>>
Who but a moron would even listen to them? Who but a moron would ever believe them? Who but a moron do they aim ANY of their bullshit at? YOU said no one [in the Bush administration] was ever claiming that Saddam was on the verge of attacking mainland America.
And your "example" clearly demonstrates that's still the case. Preventing him from making/getting a nuke has NO reference what-so-ever that he was about to launch one at America. Once again, YOUR lie has been exposed for what it is, pure hyperbole.
-
Preventing him from making/getting a nuke has NO reference what-so-ever that he was about to launch one at America.
Once Saddam turned down representatives from the A.Q. Khan network it was unlikely that he would ever have gotten the necessary equipment and materials needed to fabricate nuclear weapons.
Indeed, we went after a far lesser threat in terms of nuclear potential than a number of other nations.
-
Preventing him from making/getting a nuke has NO reference what-so-ever that he was about to launch one at America.
Once Saddam turned down representatives from the A.Q. Khan network it was unlikely that he would ever have gotten the necessary equipment and materials needed to fabricate nuclear weapons. Indeed, we went after a far lesser threat in terms of nuclear potential than a number of other nations.
Yet, his nuclear ambition was simply another component to the threat Saddam was determined to be. Again, the key component to his threat though, and the reason we went in, in the 1st place, were the non-nuclear WMD he was known to have had, and used before. And it were those WMD potentially getting into the hands of terorists, who'd have no reservations what-so-ever in detonating them within the U.S., if they could manage to get them across the border..............which of course is a whole other issue. :-\
-
<<And your "example" clearly demonstrates that's still the case. Preventing him from making/getting a nuke has NO reference what-so-ever that he was about to launch one at America. Once again, YOUR lie has been exposed for what it is, pure hyperbole.>>
When Rice spoke of the smoking gun turning into a mushroom cloud, she was pressing buttons that did not respond to mushroom clouds over Teheran or Tel Aviv. She was pressing buttons that would respond to mushroom clouds over New York, Chicago and/or Los Angeles.
Most sane, normal and reasonably intelligent people knew exactly what Rice meant when she spoke of the smoking gun turning into a mushroom cloud. You apparently did not. What can I say? You have a perfect right to understand or misunderstand Ms. Rice's comment any way you see fit. But I sure as hell don't have to agree with it and neither does anyone else with a working, functioning brain. Enjoy your own little fantasy world of lies and ignorance. You deserve it.
-
I will retract if you will admit that Cheney is a despicable lying turd.
I have no problem admitting that Cheney's turdiness is in the eye of the beholder.
Your claim however had no basis in fact.
-
I have no problem admitting that Cheney's turdiness is in the eye of the beholder.
======================================
That is not the same as admitting that Cheney is a despicable lying turd. Surely you know that I know a copout when I see it.
You are allowed to change the order of the words: a lying despicable turd, a turdy, despicable liar, or something like that. Be creative. But be aware that there are rules. It's a bit like haiku.
-
<<And your "example" clearly demonstrates that's still the case. Preventing him from making/getting a nuke has NO reference what-so-ever that he was about to launch one at America. Once again, YOUR lie has been exposed for what it is, pure hyperbole.>>
When Rice spoke of the smoking gun turning into a mushroom cloud, she was pressing buttons that did not respond to mushroom clouds over Teheran or Tel Aviv. She was pressing buttons that would respond to mushroom clouds over New York, Chicago and/or Los Angeles.
Maybe to a moron. I wasn't going to place you into that category, but if you say so. A) he didn't have them, B) he didn't have the means to drop them here, C) it was only a piece to the WMD threat Saddam posed to the region. His non-nuclear WMD in the hands of terrorists was our big concern, which has consistently been presented, vs the hyperbole you're trying to shovel
-
That is not the same as admitting that Cheney is a despicable lying turd. Surely you know that I know a copout when I see it.
Certainly you know that determining the level of Cheney's turdiness is a subjective exercise. I don't agree that he is a lying dispicable turd. I do however acknowledge your right to come to a different conclusion.
But claiming that Cheney said one thing then offering as documentation him saying quite another is not an exercise in subjectivity. It is an exercise in proving facts. And you failed miserably at that.
-
<<Maybe to a moron. >>
Well, there you are. Their whole fucking audience are morons. Who else would believe what they say?
<< A) he didn't have them, B) he didn't have the means to drop them here,>>
You know that. I know that. But Condi nevertheless voiced her concern with mushroom clouds, which to her audience had to mean a nuke attack on America. So when you said that nobody in the Bush administration claimed that a nuclear attack from Saddam on America was imminent, that was not correct, because that's exactly what Condi DID say.
<< C) it was only a piece to the WMD threat Saddam posed to the region. His non-nuclear WMD in the hands of terrorists was our big concern. . . >>
That's not true either, because Condi's words did not specify precisely who would launch the attack, she spoke only of a mushroom cloud suddenly appearing, which had to be avoided - - by invading Iraq. I don't think her audience gave a shit when threatened with mushroom clouds whether the attack was launched by Saddam personally or by one of his chosen terrorists, which is probably why Condi never addressed the issue. The fact is that she threatened America with a "mushroom cloud" which could only be averted by invading Iraq, so your claim that this threat was never made is contradicted by the words of Condoleeza Rice herself.
<<which has consistently been presented, vs the hyperbole you're trying to shovel>>
Well, obviously it WASN'T consistently presented because Condi didn't even mention it. Obviously when the audience is threatened with nuclear attack from Saddam, they don't really give a shit whether she means Saddam himself or via an intermediary. Either way, the lie results in approval of the invasion of Iraq.
-
<<Maybe to a moron. >>
Well, there you are. Their whole fucking audience are morons. Who else would believe what they say?
Apparently you do, as that's what you keep arguing was said
<< A) he didn't have them, B) he didn't have the means to drop them here,>>
You know that. I know that. But Condi nevertheless voiced her concern with mushroom clouds, which to her audience had to mean a nuke attack on America.
Well, that's 1 completely irrational unobjective opinion, but at least your consistent. The MORE rationally minded would have understood that the point was in preventing Saddam from aquiring nukes, PERIOD.
<< C) it was only a piece to the WMD threat Saddam posed to the region. His non-nuclear WMD in the hands of terrorists was our big concern. . . >>
That's not true either, because Condi's words did not specify precisely who would launch the attack, she spoke only of a mushroom cloud suddenly appearing, which had to be avoided - - by invading Iraq. I don't think her audience gave a shit when threatened with mushroom clouds whether the attack was launched by Saddam personally or by one of his chosen terrorists, which is probably why Condi never addressed the issue.
And again, for the more rationally minded folks, it was completely in context to the threat. Threat A were the WMD that he had, as concluded by nearly everyone, and with the ties that WERE present to terrorists, was why we went in, in the 1st place, Threat B was the potential of Saddam aquiring nukes, and unleashing them with any of his scuds, be it Kuwait, Israel, even Saudi Arabia. You'll note that YOUR interpretation of Condi's words demonstrates for all to see that NO WHERE was she referencing the U.S. That's your twisted go at it.
The fact is that she threatened America with a "mushroom cloud" which could only be averted by invading Iraq, so your claim that this threat was never made is contradicted by the words of Condoleeza Rice herself.
Now you've come full circle to simply tossing out completely hyperbolic and unsubstantiated accusations. Minus of course YOUR tee leaf reading, of course, because you just know, despite the FACT Condi NEVER SAID SUCH. "Mushroom cloud", yes. "Mushroom cloud threatening America", would be a NO
Either way, the lie results in approval of the invasion of Iraq.
Boy, if you culd only substantiate that lie, you might actually have something. Too bad
-
It was obvious that the mushroom cloud Condi was referring to was an atomic weapon threatening the US.
Why else would she have said it in reference to the need to overthrow Saddam?
-
It was obvious that the mushroom cloud Condi was referring to was an atomic weapon threatening the US.
As I said, obvious to morons, perhaps
Why else would she have said it in reference to the need to overthrow Saddam?
Asked and answered already. It was not THE reason to take out Saddam. The PRIMARY reason was to take out his current non-nuclear WMD threat. Along with that threat he posed, was also to prevent him from aquiring a nuke, PERIOD
-
You know why it wasn't THE reason? Because they never said what THE reason was.
They just threw out new "reasons" when everyone wound up finding that the old "reason" was simply fucking horseshit. Horseshit that you supported and condemned other for calling horseshit till it was revealed as horseshit which you THEN ignored in favor of the new "reason/horseshit".
In the end, it is all horseshit and the only point becomes that you support it and we don't and never did and now there are more of us who know that it is horseshit.
Just in your wildest imaginings, could you give us a scenario, bizarre or otherwise, that might cause you to find the situation in Iraq intolerable and unworthy of our continued involvement? Barring, of course, our "winning" or the "Iraqis standing up" or "democracy flourishing in Iraq".
Would you be for our just killing all the Iraqis and anyone who tried to come in and stop us from killing all the Iraqis in order to have that small piece of land be considered a "democracy"? 'Cause I think that is what Bush intends to do if he can. I think that he will do whatever it takes no matter how vile or insane it "appears" to anyone in order to make the statement "Iraq is a democracy" a true statement.
If someone is telling him that the Syrians and the Iranians are stopping that statement from becoming true, then by god, we gotta get rid of them or make them stop stopping that statement from being true.
-
As I said, obvious to morons, perhaps
If not the United States then surely the beloved Israel was hinted at as being a target. Regardless, mushroom clouds were a ridiculous assertion for Iraq and anyone associated with intelligence information (as Condi is) certainly knew it.
The PRIMARY reason was to take out his current non-nuclear WMD threat. Along with that threat he posed, was also to prevent him from aquiring a nuke, PERIOD
The primary reason did not exist and the secondary reason is pure fabrication.
-
You know why it wasn't THE reason? Because they never said what THE reason was.
The reasons for going to war against Iraq were, and continue to be, those spelled out in the "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq."
-
You know why it wasn't THE reason? Because they never said what THE reason was.
Yes, they did. Only the ABB & anti-war crowds just keep pleading ignorance to that.
-
As I said, obvious to morons, perhaps
If not the United States then surely the beloved Israel was hinted at as being a target.
They would fall into the range of his scuds, so yea, they could easily have become a nuclear target, though the adjective "beloved" is abit inappropriate
The PRIMARY reason was to take out his current non-nuclear WMD threat. Along with that threat he posed, was also to prevent him from aquiring a nuke, PERIOD
The primary reason did not exist and the secondary reason is pure fabrication.
AT THE TIME, the NIE, and global intelligence community would beg to differ, regarding the primary reason, and I'm afraid there was plenty of circumstantial evidence, defector testimony & intel to conclude the 2dary reason
[/quote]
-
They would fall into the range of his scuds, so yea, they could easily have become a nuclear target, though the adjective "beloved" is abit inappropriate
Oh, I think "beloved" is very appropriate given the inhumane boundaries the Israeli government is allowed to cross on a daily basis.
Israel is well known for taking care of their own defences and their preparedness for any attack. Using that as an example to drum up emotional support would be rather dubious.
AT THE TIME, the NIE, and global intelligence community would beg to differ, regarding the primary reason, and I'm afraid there was plenty of circumstantial evidence, defector testimony & intel to conclude the 2dary reason
AT THE TIME there was information that countered the primary reason as well.
The second reason lacked any sufficient evidence to be spoken of in public as a real threat. Do you have the slightest notion what it takes to create a nuclear weapon? You don't just build one in a basement of some apartment building.
Condi knew this (or else she has no business in her current role and none at her former role) and thus should have never alluded to any "mushroom cloud." It was pure emotional droll without a shred of fact to support it.
-
They would fall into the range of his scuds, so yea, they could easily have become a nuclear target, though the adjective "beloved" is abit inappropriate
Oh, I think "beloved" is very appropriate given the inhumane boundaries the Israeli government is allowed to cross on a daily basis.
In your obviously biased opinion, perhaps
Israel is well known for taking care of their own defences and their preparedness for any attack. Using that as an example to drum up emotional support would be rather dubious.
And once again, Isreal was not the focus, unless your reading Tee's leaves. Simply a plausible reference, and by no means, "beloved". More accurately, an ally
AT THE TIME, the NIE, and global intelligence community would beg to differ, regarding the primary reason, and I'm afraid there was plenty of circumstantial evidence, defector testimony & intel to conclude the 2dary reason
AT THE TIME there was information that countered the primary reason as well.
Of course there were. There always is info that will run counter to another. We have info & opinion that says Iraq would have been a better place with a murderous dictator still in charge. The issue is where was the preponderance. It most certainly was nearly unanimous within the intelligence comminuties, that world leaders frequently rely on when making foreign policy decisions, that Saddam had his stockpiles. When one's own CIA head says it's a "slam dunk", you generally believe him
The second reason lacked any sufficient evidence to be spoken of in public as a real threat.
In your opinion perhaps. I clearly recall after we went into Iraq the 1st time, it was learned just how far along Saddam had gotten in his nuclear weapons program, that the 1st gulf war pretty much thrashed. Neither you nor I work for the intellegeince agencies. Neither you nor I have any frellin clue just how real or not real the threat was. so, I can either believe you, or those more closely assocated with the intel gathered. As cool as you are Js, I opt for the latter, until I'm given sufficient reason not to. Your say so just doesn't cut it
-
Of course there were. There always is info that will run counter to another. We have info & opinion that says Iraq would have been a better place with a murderous dictator still in charge. The issue is where was the preponderance. It most certainly was nearly unanimous within the intelligence comminuties, that world leaders frequently rely on when making foreign policy decisions, that Saddam had his stockpiles. When one's own CIA head says it's a "slam dunk", you generally believe him
Should the people be given a one-sided case for causing pre-emptive war?
In your opinion perhaps. I clearly recall after we went into Iraq the 1st time, it was learned just how far along Saddam had gotten in his nuclear weapons program, that the 1st gulf war pretty much thrashed. Neither you nor I work for the intellegeince agencies. Neither you nor I have any frellin clue just how real or not real the threat was. so, I can either believe you, or those more closely assocated with the intel gathered. As cool as you are Js, I opt for the latter, until I'm given sufficient reason not to. Your say so just doesn't cut it
Nice try to push it onto me.
Yet Condi knows, as most intelligent people do that one does not simply fabricate a nuclear weapon in one's basement or physics lab. The fastest method to do so is through enriched uranium reactors developed by the Soviets and known as the Zippe centrifuge system (this is how Pakistan and now Iran are developing their weapons). This is a far easier and simpler method than using plutonium (and other more expensive cascade plants).
The problem for Saddam, of course, is that it isn't so easy for him to hide the underground chamber necessary to hold 50,000 or so such centrifuges. I wonder if your defector told you that. Moreover, it takes considerable energy to run one of these plants, something easily detectable by the united Nations inspectors and subsequently by the British or American intelligence agencies.
In short, Sirs, it was a duplicit comment for Condi to make. Either she is grossly incompetent or (more likely) she was told to make the emotional appeal and did so knowing full well that an Iraqi mushroom cloud was as likely as a 49ers and Raiders Superbowl this year.
-
<<When one's own CIA head says it's a "slam dunk", you generally believe him>>
That's the most inexcusable negligence I can imagine. Even if that was how it happened (which is a crock anyway, even if that moron Bush HAD "believed" his "intelligence" rather than cooking it to order, his negligence would have been inexcusable.
You DON'T "generally believe" ANYBODY when it's an issue of war and peace. That's what the fucking "President" was elected for, to be the CHIEF EXECUTIVE, meaning to make INFORMED decisions affecting the lives and deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. You QUESTION, you EXAMINE, you TEST the information that comes in from anybody. The responsibility for making war or peace does NOT rest with the head of the CIA. Never has, never will.
Nobody elected the head of the CIA and there's no place in the Constitution for him. I generally don't pay any attention to this non-issue (was Bush justified in believing the intelligence about WMD) because it's such a fucking crock to start with - - there was no intelligence except what he and his pals chose to have cooked up to order that indicated Saddam had WMD. Even if he HAD such weapons, the idea that he would attack America with them or give them to others to attack America with is so fucking stupid and ludicrous that no sane individual would or could ever believe it for a second.
However, even if you are dumb enough to believe this incredible shit, that Bush was fed "bad intelligence," there would be no excuse for Bush NOT probing that intelligence, where it came from, could it be fake, who would be inclined to fake it if it were, etc. Some of the "intel" (the "yellowcake" letters purportedly from Niger) were obvious fakes. The most cursory inspection and analysis would have revealed that. They were a significant part of the case for the invasion. The fact that they were faked should have immediately aroused suspicion. If the "slam dunk" case included that kind of childish lie, how strong was the rest of the case?
That garbage about simply accepting at face value the word of your CIA chief without looking further in it, in a matter of war and peace, would be the greatest act of negligent homicide that a head of state could commit.
-
Should the people be given a one-sided case for causing pre-emptive war?
Simple answer, it's the President's decision, not the people's. The President was given all sides, and chose according to the intel he was provided. And the "people's representatives" (Congress) concurred, giving their blessing with the authorization of force issue. End of story
-
Simple answer, it's the President's decision, not the people's. The President was given all sides, and chose according to the intel he was provided. End of story
Then why go around to the people and make speeches on the subject? Why show slides of supposed "mobile WMD labs?" WHy have Condi, Powell, Cheney, et al travel the country and warn of the dangers?
Clearly he sought the people's decision, whether you are willing to admit it or not. So I ask again:
Should the people be given a one-sided case for causing pre-emptive war?
-
JS WROTE: It was obvious that the mushroom cloud Condi was referring to was an atomic weapon threatening the US.
sirs REPLIED: As I said, obvious to morons, perhaps
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
sirs QUOTED: Quote from: Xavier_Onassis on January 16, 2007, 11:47:14 PM
Why else would she have said it in reference to the need to overthrow Saddam?
sirs REPLIED: Asked and answered already. It was not THE reason to take out Saddam. The PRIMARY reason was to take out his current non-nuclear WMD threat. Along with that threat he posed, was also to prevent him from aquiring a nuke, PERIOD
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What I love about sirs is his ability, first of all, to deny obvious historical fact; his denial that the Bush administration had ever raised the spectre of nuclear anihilation as a justification for the invasion of Iraq. Never happened.
So an obvious example of just such a thing happening is easily found: Condi's statement that they can't afford to hold off further action to look for the smoking gun, because they don't want the smoking gun to turn into a mushroom cloud.
THAT doesn't count because it wasn't "meant seriously," it was something only a moron could believe. Well, one might ask, who cares who Condi was trying to scare, the morons (who vote in the tens of millions in the U.S., apparently,) or anyone else. The words were said, the scare tactic was used, perhaps on morons, or perhaps Condi likes to flatter herself that some non-morons listen in on her speeches from time to time.)
At this point, we have a clear-cut example of something having been said that sirs had assured us all had never been said. Whether it was said to morons (a sizeable portion of the American electorate, obviously, perhaps even a majority) or to morons and non-morons alike, would seem to be immaterial.
What sirs had claimed had never been said, had in fact been said, and very clearly and succinctly said at that. By no less an authority than Condoleeza Rice herself.
sirs then goes on to re-invent history. "The PRIMARY reason to take out Saddam was the non-nuclear WMD threat." Now I don't know about you, but I can't recall a single instance of anyone in the Bush administration taking the trouble to distinguish the various kinds of WMD threats and identifying the "non-nuclear WMD threat" as the "PRIMARY" threat requiring immediate action, but who am I? Does Bush give me private briefings? Apparently, sirs gets them, because unlike the rest of us, he seems to have identified "non-nuclear WMD's" as the "PRIMARY" threat. Either that or he just makes up incredible shit as he goes along, fabricating more phony "historical record" to prop up whatever obvious bullshit the diarrhoea in his brain is spilling out through his keyboard at warp speed.
You can't really argue with this guy because you are going to spend at least three-quarters of your time debunking the phony history that he keeps generating as fast as his fingers can type it.
-
Well supposedly the tens of thousands of tons (I'll supply the quotes if anyone wishes) of anthrax, botulina, and other horrible biological and chemical weapons od mass destruction were smuggled into Syria without the United States, Turkey, United Kingdom, or any other intelligence agency knowing.
Revising history is fun!
Maybe the Zippe-type centrifuge reactors are in Syria as well. I'm not even real sure why Syria is our mortal enemy now (they were our allies in the Gulf War), but who knows?
Personally I liked the whole "just a few Saddam loyalists" crap they were sputtering before it became too obvious that no one was buying into that.
-
Simple answer, it's the President's decision, not the people's. The President was given all sides, and chose according to the intel he was provided. End of story
Then why go around to the people and make speeches on the subject? Why show slides of supposed "mobile WMD labs?" WHy have Condi, Powell, Cheney, et al travel the country and warn of the dangers?
This isn't quantum physics, Js. EVERY President will use his bully pulpit to impress upon the populace WHY he made his decision(s), not simply to get their approval. Outside of Clinton perhaps, most Presidents LEAD vs making decisions via polls, even when the majority isn't in agreement via polls. You can call it arrogance or stubborness. Others call it Leadership & principled
Clearly he sought the people's decision, whether you are willing to admit it or not.
Clearly he did not. "Whether your willing to admit it or not", clearly he & his staff went about in educating the populace WHY he made his decision, not to seek out their permission.
So I ask again..
No need to, as your original position in asking your query is flawed
-
<<The reasons for going to war against Iraq were, and continue to be, those spelled out in the "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq.">>
Ami and now sirs (having read them in Ami's post) are probably the only Americans in this group who ever read the document. To read of the "Authorization for Use of Military Force" is to numb the mind to sleep. It's like a legal pleading - - they list every possible reason under the sun that there could possibly be for invading Iraq, leaving out (purely through inadvertence) Reason #27, that Saddam had bad breath. Like the lawyer who claims that the guy who rear-ended you was not keeping a proper look-out - - clearly the cause of the accident - - and was speeding, and was driving a vehicle with defective brakes and was impaired by alcohol or drugs or prescription medication and was using improperly prescribed eyeglasses and was not trained to drive on a public highway and was following too closely and was recklessly endangering other drivers for sport etc. - - the idea being that if you accuse the poor bugger of every possible misdeed, ONE of them might stick.
Probably not one American in a thousand will remember or has even heard of the Authorization for Use of Military Force; virtually every American with access to a TV or daily newspaper has heard of Condi's "mushroom cloud" threat or the daily barrage of administration propaganda pushing the war as the only response to Saddam's concealed "weapons of mass destruction."
Like sirs, Ami prefers to re-write history when the real facts are just not compatible with his ludicrous theories of what has been really happening in the world. In their insane right-wing fantasy world, America was convinced to go to war against Iraq by the Authorization for Use of Military Force. LMAO.
-
October 10, 2002
Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
on S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of
United States Armed Forces Against Iraq
As Delivered
Today we are asked whether to give the President of the United States authority to use force in Iraq should diplomatic efforts fail to dismantle Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons and his nuclear program.
I am honored to represent nearly 19 million New Yorkers, a thoughtful democracy of voices and opinions who make themselves heard on the great issues of our day especially this one. Many have contacted my office about this resolution, both in support of and in opposition to it, and I am grateful to all who have expressed an opinion.
I also greatly respect the differing opinions within this body. The debate they engender will aid our search for a wise, effective policy. Therefore, on no account should dissent be discouraged or disparaged. It is central to our freedom and to our progress, for on more than one occasion, history has proven our great dissenters to be right.
Now, I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt. Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who has tortured and killed his own people, even his own family members, to maintain his iron grip on power. He used chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds and on Iranians, killing over 20 thousand people. Unfortunately, during the 1980's, while he engaged in such horrific activity, he enjoyed the support of the American government, because he had oil and was seen as a counterweight to the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran.
In 1991, Saddam Hussein invaded and occupied Kuwait, losing the support of the United States. The first President Bush assembled a global coalition, including many Arab states, and threw Saddam out after forty-three days of bombing and a hundred hours of ground operations. The U.S.-led coalition then withdrew, leaving the Kurds and the Shiites, who had risen against Saddam Hussein at our urging, to Saddam's revenge.
As a condition for ending the conflict, the United Nations imposed a number of requirements on Iraq, among them disarmament of all weapons of mass destruction, stocks used to make such weapons, and laboratories necessary to do the work. Saddam Hussein agreed, and an inspection system was set up to ensure compliance. And though he repeatedly lied, delayed, and obstructed the inspections work, the inspectors found and destroyed far more weapons of mass destruction capability than were destroyed in the Gulf War, including thousands of chemical weapons, large volumes of chemical and biological stocks, a number of missiles and warheads, a major lab equipped to produce anthrax and other bio-weapons, as well as substantial nuclear facilities.
In 1998, Saddam Hussein pressured the United Nations to lift the sanctions by threatening to stop all cooperation with the inspectors. In an attempt to resolve the situation, the UN, unwisely in my view, agreed to put limits on inspections of designated "sovereign sites" including the so-called presidential palaces, which in reality were huge compounds well suited to hold weapons labs, stocks, and records which Saddam Hussein was required by UN resolution to turn over. When Saddam blocked the inspection process, the inspectors left. As a result, President Clinton, with the British and others, ordered an intensive four-day air assault, Operation Desert Fox, on known and suspected weapons of mass destruction sites and other military targets.
In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change, including support for Iraqi opposition leaders within the country and abroad.
In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.
It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.
Now this much is undisputed. The open questions are: what should we do about it? How, when, and with whom?
Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament, and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular democratic state in the Middle East, one which could perhaps move the entire region toward democratic reform.
This view has appeal to some, because it would assure disarmament; because it would right old wrongs after our abandonment of the Shiites and Kurds in 1991, and our support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980's when he was using chemical weapons and terrorizing his people; and because it would give the Iraqi people a chance to build a future in freedom.
However, this course is fraught with danger. We and our NATO allies did not depose Mr. Milosevic, who was responsible for more than a quarter of a million people being killed in the 1990s. Instead, by stopping his aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo, and keeping on the tough sanctions, we created the conditions in which his own people threw him out and led to his being in the dock being tried for war crimes as we speak.
If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?
So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option.
Others argue that we should work through the United Nations and should only resort to force if and when the United Nations Security Council approves it. This too has great appeal for different reasons. The UN deserves our support. Whenever possible we should work through it and strengthen it, for it enables the world to share the risks and burdens of global security and when it acts, it confers a legitimacy that increases the likelihood of long-term success. The UN can help lead the world into a new era of global cooperation and the United States should support that goal.
But there are problems with this approach as well. The United Nations is an organization that is still growing and maturing. It often lacks the cohesion to enforce its own mandates. And when Security Council members use the veto, on occasion, for reasons of narrow-minded interests, it cannot act. In Kosovo, the Russians did not approve NATO military action because of political, ethnic, and religious ties to the Serbs. The United States therefore could not obtain a Security Council resolution in favor of the action necessary to stop the dislocation and ethnic cleansing of more than a million Kosovar Albanians. However, most of the world was with us because there was a genuine emergency with thousands dead and a million driven from their homes. As soon as the American-led conflict was over, Russia joined the peacekeeping effort that is still underway.
In the case of Iraq, recent comments indicate that one or two Security Council members might never approve force against Saddam Hussein until he has actually used chemical, biological, or God forbid, nuclear weapons.
So, Mr. President, the question is how do we do our best to both defuse the real threat that Saddam Hussein poses to his people, to the region, including Israel, to the United States, to the world, and at the same time, work to maximize our international support and strengthen the United Nations?
While there is no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma, and while people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposed conclusions, I believe the best course is to go to the UN for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq. I know that the Administration wants more, including an explicit authorization to use force, but we may not be able to secure that now, perhaps even later. But if we get a clear requirement for unfettered inspections, I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is inherent in the original 1991 UN resolution, as President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998.
If we get the resolution that President Bush seeks, and if Saddam complies, disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. Regime change will, of course, take longer but we must still work for it, nurturing all reasonable forces of opposition.
If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, then we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.
If we try and fail to get a resolution that simply, but forcefully, calls for Saddam's compliance with unlimited inspections, those who oppose even that will be in an indefensible position. And, we will still have more support and legitimacy than if we insist now on a resolution that includes authorizing military action and other requirements giving some nations superficially legitimate reasons to oppose any Security Council action. They will say we never wanted a resolution at all and that we only support the United Nations when it does exactly what we want.
I believe international support and legitimacy are crucial. After shots are fired and bombs are dropped, not all consequences are predictable. While the military outcome is not in doubt, should we put troops on the ground, there is still the matter of Saddam Hussein's biological and chemical weapons. Today he has maximum incentive not to use them or give them away. If he did either, the world would demand his immediate removal. Once the battle is joined, however, with the outcome certain, he will have maximum incentive to use weapons of mass destruction and to give what he can't use to terrorists who can torment us with them long after he is gone. We cannot be paralyzed by this possibility, but we would be foolish to ignore it. And according to recent reports, the CIA agrees with this analysis. A world united in sharing the risk at least would make this occurrence less likely and more bearable and would be far more likely to share with us the considerable burden of rebuilding a secure and peaceful post-Saddam Iraq.
President Bush's speech in Cincinnati and the changes in policy that have come forth since the Administration began broaching this issue some weeks ago have made my vote easier. Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible.
Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore, war less likely, and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go way with delay will oppose any UN resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.
This is a very difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make -- any vote that may lead to war should be hard -- but I cast it with conviction.
And perhaps my decision is influenced by my eight years of experience on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House watching my husband deal with serious challenges to our nation. I want this President, or any future President, to be in the strongest possible position to lead our country in the United Nations or in war. Secondly, I want to insure that Saddam Hussein makes no mistake about our national unity and for our support for the President's efforts to wage America's war against terrorists and weapons of mass destruction. And thirdly, I want the men and women in our Armed Forces to know that if they should be called upon to act against Iraq, our country will stand resolutely behind them.
My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world.
Over eleven years have passed since the UN called on Saddam Hussein to rid himself of weapons of mass destruction as a condition of returning to the world community. Time and time again he has frustrated and denied these conditions. This matter cannot be left hanging forever with consequences we would all live to regret. War can yet be avoided, but our responsibility to global security and to the integrity of United Nations resolutions protecting it cannot. I urge the President to spare no effort to secure a clear, unambiguous demand by the United Nations for unlimited inspections.
And finally, on another personal note, I come to this decision from the perspective of a Senator from New York who has seen all too closely the consequences of last year's terrible attacks on our nation. In balancing the risks of action versus inaction, I think New Yorkers who have gone through the fires of hell may be more attuned to the risk of not acting. I know that I am.
So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed.
Thank you, Mr. President.
http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html
-
Statement of Senator John D. Rockefeller IV
on the Senate Floor
On the Iraq Resolution
October 10, 2002
MR. ROCKEFELLER: Mr. President, we are here today to debate one of the most difficult decisions I have had to make in my 18 years in the Senate. There is no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein is a despicable dictator, a war criminal, a regional menace, and a real and growing threat to the United States. The difficulty of this decision is that while Saddam Hussein represents a threat, each of the options for dealing with him poses serious risks, to America’s servicemembers, to our citizens, and to our role in the world.
It is clear that none of the options that confront us is easy or risk free.
For all of us, the upcoming vote on this critical issue will reflect our best judgment on which path will minimize the risk to our fellow Americans -- because we all know that the risk cannot be eliminated. And that judgment will, in turn, depend on a complex interaction of many factors, some of which we do not know and perhaps cannot know.
It is clear that military operations against Saddam Hussein, of the sort that are being discussed, pose serious risks, and we should all admit that. Any military campaign runs very serious risks to our servicemembers. On paper we surely have an overwhelming advantage against Saddam Hussein -- in the skill, technology, and, of course, dedication of our armed forces.
We defeated Saddam quickly and conclusively in 1991, and in the decade since, our force effectiveness has improved dramatically, while many of Saddam’s capabilities have deteriorated.
But a new battle against Saddam Hussein, if it comes to that, will be a different and more difficult battle. U.S. victory might be quick and painless -- one hopes so. But it might not. The American people need to know that a war against Saddam will have high costs, including loss of American lives.
Our confident assertions that Saddam Hussein will quickly be deposed by his own people have, in the past, been too optimistic. Presumably Saddam Hussein will be more determined to use all the weapons and tactics in his arsenal if he believes our ultimate goal is to remove him from power.
The Administration assures us our troops have equipment and uniforms that will protect them from that risk, should it arise. We can only hope to God they are right.
We also have to acknowledge that any military operations against Saddam Hussein pose potential risks to our own homeland, too. Saddam’s government has contact with many international terrorist organizations that likely have cells here in the United States.
Finally, we also need to recognize that should we go to war with Iraq, it could have a serious impact on America’s role in the world, and the way the rest of the world responds to American leadership.
We are told that if Saddam Hussein is overthrown, American soldiers will be welcomed into Baghdad with liberation parades. That may be true; in fact, the people who have suffered most at Saddam’s hands are his own citizens.
But for many people around the world, an American-led victory over Saddam would not be a cause for celebration.
No matter how strong our case, there will inevitably be some who will see U.S.-led action against Iraq as a cause for concern.
At its most extreme, that concern feeds the terrorist paranoia that drives their mission to hurt America. We can affect how deep that sentiment runs by how we conduct ourselves, whether we work with allies, whether we show ourselves to be committed to the reconstruction of Iraq and to reconciliation with the Arab world. But we ignore it at our peril!
So, clearly there are many risks associated with the resolution we are considering today.
But it is equally clear that doing nothing and preserving the status quo also pose serious risks. Those risks are less visible, and their time frame is less certain. But after a great deal of consultation and soul-searching, I have come to the conclusion that the risks of doing nothing -- for our citizens and for our nation -- are too great to bear.
There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.
When Saddam Hussein obtains nuclear capabilities, the constraints he feels will diminish dramatically, and the risk to America’s homeland, as well as to America’s allies, will increase even more dramatically. Our existing policies to contain or counter Saddam will become irrelevant.
Americans will return to a situation like that we faced in the Cold War, waking each morning knowing we are at risk from nuclear blackmail by a dictatorship that has declared itself to be our enemy. Only, back then, our communist foes were a rational and predictable bureaucracy; this time, our nuclear foe would be an unpredictable and often irrational individual, a dictator who has demonstrated that he is prepared to violate international law and initiate unprovoked attacks when he feels it serves his purposes to do so.
The global community -- in the form of the United Nations -- has declared repeatedly, through multiple resolutions, that the frightening prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam cannot come to pass. But the U.N. has been unable to enforce those resolutions. We must eliminate that threat now, before it is too late.
But this isn’t just a future threat. Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East.
And he could make those weapons available to many terrorist groups which have contact with his government, and those groups could bring those weapons into the U.S. and unleash a devastating attack against our citizens. I fear that greatly.
We cannot know for certain that Saddam will use the weapons of mass destruction he currently possesses, or that he will use them against us. But we do know Saddam has the capability. Rebuilding that capability has been a higher priority for Saddam than the welfare of his own people -- and he has ill-will toward America.
I am forced to conclude, on all the evidence, that Saddam poses a significant risk.
Some argue it would be totally irrational for Saddam Hussein to initiate an attack against the mainland United States, and they believe he would not do it. But if Saddam thought he could attack America through terrorist proxies and cover the trail back to Baghdad, he might not think it so irrational.
If he thought, as he got older and looked around an impoverished and isolated Iraq, that his principal legacy to the Arab world would be a brutal attack on the United States, he might not think it so irrational. And if he thought the U.S. would be too paralyzed with fear to respond, he might not think it so irrational.
Saddam has misjudged what he can get away with, and how the United States and the world will respond, many times before. At the end of the day, we cannot let the security of American citizens rest in the hands of someone whose track record gives us every reason to fear that he is prepared to use the weapons he has against his enemies.
As the attacks of September 11 demonstrated, the immense destructiveness of modern technology means we can no longer afford to wait around for a smoking gun. September 11 demonstrated that the fact that an attack on our homeland has not yet occurred cannot give us any false sense of security that one will not occur in the future. We no longer have that luxury.
September 11 changed America. It made us realize we must deal differently with the very real threat of terrorism, whether it comes from shadowy groups operating in the mountains of Afghanistan or in 70 other countries around the world, including our own.
There has been some debate over how "imminent" a threat Iraq poses. I do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat, but I also believe that after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. It is in the nature of these weapons, and the way they are targeted against civilian populations, that documented capability and demonstrated intent may be the only warning we get. To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? We cannot!
The President has rightly called Saddam Hussein’s efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction a grave and gathering threat to Americans. The global community has tried but failed to address that threat over the past decade. I have come to the inescapable conclusion that the threat posed to America by Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction is so serious that despite the risks -- and we should not minimize the risks -- we must authorize the President to take the necessary steps to deal with that threat. And so I will vote for the Lieberman/McCain resolution.
This is a difficult vote, but I could not sleep knowing that faced with this grave danger to the people of my state and to all Americans, I had voted for nothing more than continuing the policies that have failed to address this problem in the past.
Two months ago, or even a month ago, I would have been reluctant to support this resolution. At the time, it appeared that the Administration’s principal goal was a unilateral invasion of Iraq, without fully exploring every option to resolve this peacefully, without trying to enlist the support of other countries, and without any limitation on the use of U.S. force in the Middle East region. The original use-of-force resolution the White House sent to the Congress was far too broad in its scope, and ignored the possibility that diplomatic efforts might just be able to resolve this crisis without bloodshed.
Moreover, it appeared the Administration planned to cut back its efforts in the war on terrorism and shift all its attention and resources to Iraq. That would be a tragic mistake.
I believe the war against global terrorist networks remains the greatest current threat to the security of the American homeland and to our forces overseas, as we have seen in Kuwait earlier this week. America cannot be diverted or distracted from our war on terrorism.
In the past month or so, we have begun to see an encouraging shift in the Administration’s approach. The President stated earlier this week that war is neither imminent nor unavoidable. The Administration has assured us that whatever action we take toward Iraq, it will not be permitted to divert resources or attention from the war on terrorism. And Secretary Powell has been working with the United Nations Security Council to put together a new resolution to make clear that Iraq must disarm or face the consequences.
We have already begun to see some encouraging movement on the issue of Iraqi disarmament. Other Security Council members (such as France and Russia), as well as other Arab states in the Middle East have begun to talk seriously about forcing Saddam to comply with the U.N. resolutions. And Saddam Hussein has begun to make offers on inspections and disarmament, offers that -- while inadequate, so far -- indicate he has at least begun to move off his hardline position against inspections.
Obviously, much important work remains to be done, and that will take tough negotiating with the other members of the United Nations, and a firm line with Iraq.
We need to be realistic about how best to move forward. Any headway we are making toward getting Saddam to disarm has not occurred in a vacuum. U.N. members did not just suddenly decide to debate a new resolution forcing Iraq to disarm; and Saddam Hussein did not just suddenly decide to re-invite U.N. inspectors and remove the roadblocks that had hindered their efforts in the past. Progress is occurring because the President told the United Nations General Assembly that if the U.N. is not prepared to enforce its resolutions on Iraqi disarmament, the United States will be forced to act.
At this point, America’s best opportunity to move the United Nations and Iraq to a peaceful resolution of this crisis is by making clear the U.S. is prepared to act on our own, if necessary, as one nation, indivisible. Sometimes the rest of the world looks to America not just for the diversity of our debate, or the vitality of our ideals, but for the firm resolve that the world’s leader must demonstrate if intractable global problems are to be solved.
And so, that is the context in which I am approaching this vote. This resolution does authorize the use of force if necessary.
Saddam Hussein represents a grave threat to the United States, and I have concluded we must use force to deal with him if all other means fail. That is the core issue, and whether we vote on it now, or in January, or in six months time, that is the issue we all have to confront.
War, if it comes to that, will cost money I dearly wish we could use for other domestic priorities, to address the very real needs that West Virginia and other states face in this tough economy. But ultimately, defending America’s citizens from danger is a responsibility whose costs we must bear.
But this is not just a resolution authorizing war; it is a resolution that could provide a path to peace.
I hope that by voting on this resolution now, while the negotiations at the United Nations are continuing, this resolution will show to the world that the American people are united in our resolve to deal with the Iraqi threat. And it will strengthen the hand of the Administration in making a final effort to try to get the U.N. to deal with this issue. Given the difficulty of trying to build a coalition in the United Nations, I could not, in good conscience, tie the President’s hands.
The Administration is in negotiations on which the safety and security of all Americans depend; I believe we must give the President the authority he will need if there is any hope to bring those negotiations to a successful conclusion.
So, Mr. President, I will vote for the Lieberman/McCain resolution. Preventing a war with Saddam Hussein -- whether now or later -- must be our top priority, and I believe this resolution will strengthen the president’s hand to resolve this crisis peacefully.
By my vote, I say to the United Nations and our allies that America is united in our resolve to deal with Saddam Hussein, and that the U.N. must act to eliminate his weapons of mass destruction. By my vote, I say to Saddam Hussein, "Disarm, or the United States will be forced to act."
September 11 has forever changed the world. We may not like it, but that is the world in which we live. When there is a grave threat to Americans’ lives, we have a responsibility to take action to prevent it.
http://rockefeller.senate.gov/news/2002/flrstmt0102002.html
-
U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 107th Congress - 2nd Session
as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate
Vote Summary
Question: On the Joint Resolution (H.J.Res. 114 )
Vote Number: 237 Vote Date: October 11, 2002, 12:50 AM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Joint Resolution Passed
Measure Number: H.J.Res. 114
Measure Title: A joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
Vote Counts: YEAs 77
NAYs 23
Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State
Alphabetical by Senator Name Akaka (D-HI), Nay
Allard (R-CO), Yea
Allen (R-VA), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Yea
Bingaman (D-NM), Nay
Bond (R-MO), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Nay
Breaux (D-LA), Yea
Brownback (R-KS), Yea
Bunning (R-KY), Yea
Burns (R-MT), Yea
Byrd (D-WV), Nay
Campbell (R-CO), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Carnahan (D-MO), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Chafee (R-RI), Nay
Cleland (D-GA), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Yea
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Nay
Corzine (D-NJ), Nay
Craig (R-ID), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Daschle (D-SD), Yea
Dayton (D-MN), Nay
DeWine (R-OH), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Yea
Domenici (R-NM), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Durbin (D-IL), Nay
Edwards (D-NC), Yea
Ensign (R-NV), Yea
Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Feingold (D-WI), Nay
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Fitzgerald (R-IL), Yea
Frist (R-TN), Yea
Graham (D-FL), Nay
Gramm (R-TX), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Gregg (R-NH), Yea
Hagel (R-NE), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Helms (R-NC), Yea
Hollings (D-SC), Yea
Hutchinson (R-AR), Yea
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Jeffords (I-VT), Nay
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Kennedy (D-MA), Nay
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Leahy (D-VT), Nay
Levin (D-MI), Nay
Lieberman (D-CT), Yea
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Lott (R-MS), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Yea
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Miller (D-GA), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Nay
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Nickles (R-OK), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Nay
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Santorum (R-PA), Yea
Sarbanes (D-MD), Nay
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Sessions (R-AL), Yea
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Smith (R-NH), Yea
Smith (R-OR), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Specter (R-PA), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Thomas (R-WY), Yea
Thompson (R-TN), Yea
Thurmond (R-SC), Yea
Torricelli (D-NJ), Yea
Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Warner (R-VA), Yea
Wellstone (D-MN), Nay
Wyden (D-OR), Nay
Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State
Grouped By Vote Position YEAs ---77
Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bond (R-MO)
Breaux (D-LA)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Campbell (R-CO)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
Daschle (D-SD)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dodd (D-CT)
Domenici (R-NM)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Fitzgerald (R-IL)
Frist (R-TN)
Gramm (R-TX)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Helms (R-NC)
Hollings (D-SC)
Hutchinson (R-AR)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Miller (D-GA)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Nickles (R-OK)
Reid (D-NV)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Santorum (R-PA)
Schumer (D-NY)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-NH)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thompson (R-TN)
Thurmond (R-SC)
Torricelli (D-NJ)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
NAYs ---23
Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chafee (R-RI)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (D-FL)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wyden (D-OR)
Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State
Grouped by Home State Alabama: Sessions (R-AL), Yea Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Alaska: Murkowski (R-AK), Yea Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Arizona: Kyl (R-AZ), Yea McCain (R-AZ), Yea
Arkansas: Hutchinson (R-AR), Yea Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
California: Boxer (D-CA), Nay Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Colorado: Allard (R-CO), Yea Campbell (R-CO), Yea
Connecticut: Dodd (D-CT), Yea Lieberman (D-CT), Yea
Delaware: Biden (D-DE), Yea Carper (D-DE), Yea
Florida: Graham (D-FL), Nay Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Georgia: Cleland (D-GA), Yea Miller (D-GA), Yea
Hawaii: Akaka (D-HI), Nay Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Idaho: Craig (R-ID), Yea Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Illinois: Durbin (D-IL), Nay Fitzgerald (R-IL), Yea
Indiana: Bayh (D-IN), Yea Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Iowa: Grassley (R-IA), Yea Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Kansas: Brownback (R-KS), Yea Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Kentucky: Bunning (R-KY), Yea McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Louisiana: Breaux (D-LA), Yea Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Maine: Collins (R-ME), Yea Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Maryland: Mikulski (D-MD), Nay Sarbanes (D-MD), Nay
Massachusetts: Kennedy (D-MA), Nay Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Michigan: Levin (D-MI), Nay Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Minnesota: Dayton (D-MN), Nay Wellstone (D-MN), Nay
Mississippi: Cochran (R-MS), Yea Lott (R-MS), Yea
Missouri: Bond (R-MO), Yea Carnahan (D-MO), Yea
Montana: Baucus (D-MT), Yea Burns (R-MT), Yea
Nebraska: Hagel (R-NE), Yea Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Nevada: Ensign (R-NV), Yea Reid (D-NV), Yea
New Hampshire: Gregg (R-NH), Yea Smith (R-NH), Yea
New Jersey: Corzine (D-NJ), Nay Torricelli (D-NJ), Yea
New Mexico: Bingaman (D-NM), Nay Domenici (R-NM), Yea
New York: Clinton (D-NY), Yea Schumer (D-NY), Yea
North Carolina: Edwards (D-NC), Yea Helms (R-NC), Yea
North Dakota: Conrad (D-ND), Nay Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Ohio: DeWine (R-OH), Yea Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Oklahoma: Inhofe (R-OK), Yea Nickles (R-OK), Yea
Oregon: Smith (R-OR), Yea Wyden (D-OR), Nay
Pennsylvania: Santorum (R-PA), Yea Specter (R-PA), Yea
Rhode Island: Chafee (R-RI), Nay Reed (D-RI), Nay
South Carolina: Hollings (D-SC), Yea Thurmond (R-SC), Yea
South Dakota: Daschle (D-SD), Yea Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Tennessee: Frist (R-TN), Yea Thompson (R-TN), Yea
Texas: Gramm (R-TX), Yea Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Utah: Bennett (R-UT), Yea Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Vermont: Jeffords (I-VT), Nay Leahy (D-VT), Nay
Virginia: Allen (R-VA), Yea Warner (R-VA), Yea
Washington: Cantwell (D-WA), Yea Murray (D-WA), Nay
West Virginia: Byrd (D-WV), Nay Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Wisconsin: Feingold (D-WI), Nay Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Wyoming: Enzi (R-WY), Yea Thomas (R-WY), Yea
-
What about MT's point that a full listing of the real facts puts one to sleep?
-
What about MT's point that a full listing of the real facts puts one to sleep?
;D
-
Ami and now sirs (having read them in Ami's post) are probably the only Americans in this group who ever read the document.
I posted the entire document at one point. It's not very long, and the "Thomas" site has all legislation available to read.
It's not my fault if the "Americans in this group" who haven't read it are ill informed.
-
Like sirs, Ami prefers to re-write history when the real facts are just not compatible with his ludicrous theories of what has been really happening in the world. In their insane right-wing fantasy world, America was convinced to go to war against Iraq by the Authorization for Use of Military Force. LMAO.
"America" does not need to be convinced to go to war against Iraq, only the members of Congress.
It's my understanding that the members of Congress indicate that they read legislation before voting for or against it. If they don't, perhaps the voters in their districts should replace them with members who do read legislation before voting on it.
-
<<October 10, 2002
<<Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
on S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of
United States Armed Forces Against Iraq
As Delivered
<<blah . . . drone. . . tortured . . . blah . . .gassed his own . . . drone . . .>>
Thanks, BT. I knew all along that nice Mr. Bush could never have dragged the U.S. into such a disastrous quagmire. It was dat bitch Hillary. I knew it!!!!!
-
<<Statement of Senator John D. Rockefeller IV
on the Senate Floor
On the Iraq Resolution
October 10, 2002
<<MR. ROCKEFELLER: Mr. President, . . . blah . . . dictator, . . .belch . . .war criminal . . . drone . . . fart! . . . menace . . .blah . . . threat . . . urrp! . . . serious risks. . . .fart! drone, belch . . . the risk to our fellow Americans . . . drone . . . complex interaction of many factors . . . ribbit . . . loss of American lives . . . blah . . . hope to God . . . hic! . . .international terrorist organizations . . . fart! . . . liberation parades . . . drone, blah . . . >>
Rockefeller too! Dat bastid! Him 'n Hilary did a fine job of leading the American people into an unwinnable war. And now imagine it!!! They're tryin' a fix the blame for it all on our saintly "President," George W. Bush. Just imagint!
You guys are hilarious. I hope you don't leave out Pat Robertson. Don't forget Pat!!!
-
<<What about MT's point that a full listing of the real facts puts one to sleep?>>
That wasn't MY point, plane. If one single fact accidentally found its way into that load of bullshit, I was asleep long before it surfaced.
-
I suspect that BT is driving at some inane conclusion, because a substantive one isn't there, in relating Hillary's speech and the later vote on the war resolution. Indeed, Hillary's speech is so highly intelligent, balanced and sound that it leads me to believe she wrote it herself, which she is clearly capable of doing unlike ...
-
Mikey,
I'm not blaming Hillary or Jay for the War. I simply posted their comments concerning their vote for authorization. If you like i'll post Russ's comments concerning his vote against the resolution.
The fact remains 77 senators voted for authorization. It's not Bush's War. It was and is America's War.
-
Just like I thought: inane.
-
Just like I thought: inane.
You mean like clumsily asking the same question over and over again in different ways, with no effective answer? Heaping scores of criticisms with no alternative measures/ideas? That kind of inane?
-
Just like I thought: inane.
Do you dispute my point?
-
<<"America" does not need to be convinced to go to war against Iraq, only the members of Congress.>>
Very good, and an A+ in civics for you, little boy.
Now in the real world, it is generally considered wise for the members of the Congress to have the U.S. public behind them when they vote to make war, otherwise civic discord can develop. In their wisdom, members of Congress and the Executive Brance realize this, even if you and sirs don't, and they make some considerable effort to persuade the public that what they are doing is right.
I'm talking of course of the real world, something that you and sirs seem to have minimal acquaintance with.
Now it was in the course of attempting to secure that public support that the Bush administration unleashed upon the American people a flood of lies and bullshit the likes of which have never before been experienced in the life of the nation. I guess if they had read your post first, they wouldn't have bothered, but whattayagonnado?
-
<<The fact remains 77 senators voted for authorization. It's not Bush's War. It was and is America's War. >>
I guess one day, BT, you will come to the realization that in government as in the rest of human endeavour, there are leaders and there are followers. Obviously that day has not yet arrived, but when it does, I guess you might greet it by asking, in the decision to go to war against Iraq, who were the leaders and who were the followers?
And - - this is just my guess, BT, I would not presume to usurp your judgment - - but I'd bet you would NOT come to the conclusion that Bush followed Hillary and Rockefeller into Iraq.
-
I love this argument. Because the machinations of protocol were followed the war itself must be justified.
One wonders how many miscarriages of justice that has been used to justify throughout history. Honestly, is that it? That's the condensed version?
77 Senators voted "yes" and a few made speeches and that's it. End of.
No moral thought process? No reflection? No idea on whether or not this was a just war? Or in Condi's case - thought about how talk of "mushroom clouds" was pure unadulterated emotional manipulative manure.
Nope. "We followed protocol, hence war is justified."
-
I'm sorry. You seem to be hung up on the process.
If 77 Senators voted for the war do you think all of them were sheeple or do you think possibly they did due diligence and came to the conclusion that war was in fact justified.
I fear for the future of this country when we look to the grown up body of congress, the slow deliberative one, and the best they can do is shrug their collective shoulders and say we were hoodwinked.
-
I guess one day, BT, you will come to the realization that in government as in the rest of human endeavour, there are leaders and there are followers.
Mikey, In case you don't know it I am a part of government. I happen to be a councilman for a small town.
If i were to introduce a motion i would have a good idea whether that motion would pass before i introduced it, having polled the other members of council and modified as necessary so that when introduced it would in fact pass.
Is my world so different than DC. Legislative bodies are legislative bodies, no?
How does it work in your world.
-
Mikey,
I'm not blaming Hillary or Jay for the War. I simply posted their comments concerning their vote for authorization. If you like i'll post Russ's comments concerning his vote against the resolution.
The fact remains 77 senators voted for authorization. It's not Bush's War. It was and is America's War.
There was a time when the war was more popular than it was now.
If there had been 77 votes against it I would have expected an upwelling of discontent and some incubancys lost in the following elections.
We have forgotten ourselves as we were.
-
There was a time when the war was more popular than it was now.
Seems it took quite a while for the numbers to drop below 50%.
-
There was a time when the war was more popular than it was now.
Seems it took quite a while for the numbers to drop below 50%.
If we had elected John F Kerry , we migh have marked the fifty first percentile change with a change in policy.
-
I'm sorry. You seem to be hung up on the process.
If 77 Senators voted for the war do you think all of them were sheeple or do you think possibly they did due diligence and came to the conclusion that war was in fact justified.
I fear for the future of this country when we look to the grown up body of congress, the slow deliberative one, and the best they can do is shrug their collective shoulders and say we were hoodwinked.
No. You seem to imply legitimacy simply through proper procedural outcome. Your paragraph is a ruse. It isn't as if the twenty-three Senators who voted against the measure somehow did not do due dilligence to the conclusion that war was justified.
The problem here Bt (and others) is that you are simply not bothering with evidence or principles, but only going on the outcome of procedure as justification for a pre-emptive war.
Do you really want me to list the injustices that simple procedural outcome has afforded us over history? I can take that "woe is me" final paragraph Bt and use it to justify a number of horrible ideas.
-
The problem here Bt (and others) is that you are simply not bothering with evidence or principles, but only going on the outcome of procedure as justification for a pre-emptive war.
And your problem Js (and others), you are either so bent up in opposing war or Bush or both, that you continually ignore the evidence and situation AT THE TIME Bush made his decision to go to war. Yea we know now Saddam got rid of wis WMD stockpiles (and have a reasonably good idea where), but at the time it was overwhelmingly believed Saddam still had them. And with the direct & indirct connections Saddam had with terrorists like AlQeada, and with the events of 911, it would have been irresponsible for Bush NOT to have gone into Iraq to take out that threat. Why the left religiously ignores the events at the time, and continues to pretend it either didn't happen, or worse try to lay claim that Bush lied about it, really demonstrates just how much tunnel vision the anti-war and ABB crowd posseses, when it comes to criticising Bush & the war
Do you really want me to list the injustices that simple procedural outcome has afforded us over history? I can take that "woe is me" final paragraph Bt and use it to justify a number of horrible ideas.
Apples & Oranges
-
<<I fear for the future of this country when we look to the grown up body of congress, the slow deliberative one, and the best they can do is shrug their collective shoulders and say we were hoodwinked. >>
Fear more for the future of a country so fucking ignorant that it is vulnerable to demagoguery, to the point where the opposition party rubber-stamps every proposal, no matter how idiotic and ill-advised, that takes the country to war, out of naked fear of appearing "soft on Communism" (Viet Nam) or "soft on terrorism" (Iraq.) Fear more for the future of a country where the agents of a foreign powr (AIPAC) are the major contributors to BOTH sides of a supposed "two-party" system and the biggest foreign policy issues are, in effect, decided unilaterally under foreign influence.
-
<<Mikey, In case you don't know it I am a part of government. I happen to be a councilman for a small town. >>
How could I not know it, BT? I congratulated you on it.
<<If i were to introduce a motion i would have a good idea whether that motion would pass before i introduced it, having polled the other members of council and modified as necessary so that when introduced it would in fact pass.
<<Is my world so different than DC. Legislative bodies are legislative bodies, no?
<<How does it work in your world.>>
Same way, BT. What's your point? Is there any lobbyist in your small town comparable to AIPAC, who finances virtually every member of the town council so there is no real debate on the issues that matter to the lobbyist's client? Has anyone recently bamboozled your council with threats of horrible weaponry aimed at you from another small town so that your council would decide to invade the other town and force a regime change on it? Does the other small town have a huge oversupply of hominy grits that your council has determined to get its hands on?
-
No. You seem to imply legitimacy simply through proper procedural outcome. Your paragraph is a ruse. It isn't as if the twenty-three Senators who voted against the measure somehow did not do due dilligence to the conclusion that war was justified.
I did not imply anything nor imply the dissenting votes were the results of shoddy homework.
The problem here Bt (and others) is that you are simply not bothering with evidence or principles, but only going on the outcome of procedure as justification for a pre-emptive war.
Nor was I attempting to justify the war. That is a subjective exercise, much like the turdiness of VP Cheney.
Do you really want me to list the injustices that simple procedural outcome has afforded us over history? I can take that "woe is me" final paragraph Bt and use it to justify a number of horrible ideas.
The fact oif the matter is that a veto proof majority voted to authorize the war. Representatives of the several states, put there by popular vote. Which, if my understanding is correct, is how this government of ours is designed to work. Which means it isn't Bush's War, it is Americas's War. That is the nature of the beast, your disagreement with the vote, notwithstanding.
-
<<We have forgotten ourselves as we were.>>
Woken up to the fact that you were lied to and conned is more likely.
-
<<continually ignore the evidence and situation AT THE TIME Bush made his decision to go to war. >>
On the contrary, we now know the pressure that was put on the CIA to cook the books and produce fake evidence of what never was.
<<Yea we know now Saddam got rid of wis WMD stockpiles >>
LMFAO. "We" know no such thing.
<<(and have a reasonably good idea where),>>
Yeah, tell us another one
<< but at the time it was overwhelmingly believed Saddam still had them.>>
only by the "morons" that you now admit the Bush administration was aiming its war propaganda at.
<< And with the direct & indirct connections Saddam had wih terrorists like AlQeada, and with the events of 911, it would have been irresponsible for Bush NOT to have gone into Iraq to take out that threat. >>
The fucking BUSH family had more "direct and indirect connections" with al Qaeda than Saddam could ever hope for. They were partners with Osama's God-damn brother, for Christ sake.
<<Why the left religiously ignores the events at the time, >>
Looks to me like the only one "religiously ignoring" anything is you, sirs
<<and continues to pretent it either didn't happen, or worse try to lay claim that Bush lied about it>>
Now how could that be? I am SHOCKED!!! HORRIFIED!!! Bush? Lie? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
<< really demonstrates just how much tunnel vision the anti-war and ABB crowd posseses, when it comes to criticising Bush & the war>>
Tunnel vision? You wanna see some REAL tunnel vision? Try looking in the fucking mirror once in awhile.
-
Same way, BT. What's your point? Is there any lobbyist in your small town comparable to AIPAC, who finances virtually every member of the town council so there is no real debate on the issues that matter to the lobbyist's client? Has anyone recently bamboozled your council with threats of horrible weaponry aimed at you from another small town so that your council would decide to invade the other town and force a regime change on it? Does the other small town have a huge oversupply of hominy grits that your council has determined to get its hands on?
If there is a dividing line in this town, it is between those who are in favor of full property rights with minimum interference from the government and those in favor of protecting the environment by legislation at the expense of those same property rights.
-
The fact oif the matter is that a veto proof majority voted to authorize the war. Representatives of the several states, put there by popular vote. Which, if my understanding is correct, is how this government of ours is designed to work. Which means it isn't Bush's War, it is Americas's War. That is the nature of the beast, your disagreement with the vote, notwithstanding.
So? That doesn't make the entry into the war justifiable.
Yes we are there and we owe the Iraqis something. I agree with that. But, it was an unjust war and no amount of revision or vote counts will change that.
-
Yes we are there and we owe the Iraqis something. I agree with that. But, it was an unjust war and no amount of revision or vote counts will change that.
Again you mix the subjective with the factual.
I think the invasion was justified. You don't. We disagree. So it goes.
-
<<If there is a dividing line in this town, it is between those who are in favor of full property rights with minimum interference from the government and those in favor of protecting the environment by legislation at the expense of those same property rights. >>
That's hilarious; we've got the exact same fight going on not too far from Toronto regarding a piece of the Niagara Escarpment, and I've just this week been asked to pitch in on this. On which side, I'll leave it to you to imagine.
-
And your problem Js (and others), you are either so bent up in opposing war or Bush or both, that you continually ignore the evidence and situation AT THE TIME Bush made his decision to go to war.
No. I could care less about Bush and I support our staying in Iraq (now that we've broken all the dishes).
AT THE TIME (which for some reason must be capitalised) were we given all of the evidence?
Yea we know now Saddam got rid of wis WMD stockpiles (and have a reasonably good idea where), but at the time it was overwhelmingly believed Saddam still had them.
Right. The thousands of tons of biological and chemical weapons (and don't forget the tens of thousands of nuclear centrifuges!) mysteriously transported to Syria through the barren western Iraqi desert which is of course never monitored by intelligence resources. That's plausible. Somewhere Occam just rolled over a few times.
And with the direct & indirct connections Saddam had with terrorists like AlQeada, and with the events of 911, it would have been irresponsible for Bush NOT to have gone into Iraq to take out that threat.
Bullshit. There were very few connections, if any. Moreover, there wasn't a single shred of clear evidence that Saddam had any intention to hand over WMD to any organisation. Those groups didn't exactly like him, or are you forgetting that part for convenience?
You don't make pre-emptive war on a hunch. This was a war in search of justification.
Why the left religiously ignores the events at the time, and continues to pretend it either didn't happen, or worse try to lay claim that Bush lied about it, really demonstrates just how much tunnel vision the anti-war and ABB crowd posseses, when it comes to criticising Bush & the war
Why you religiously devote yourself to justify a war whose evidence is based on a flimsy house of cards amazes me. I'd thought you more intelligent than that. My guess is that it is purely partisan. You'd never have supported this war if a Democrat had made the same pathetic arguments that this administration had.
-
Again you mix the subjective with the factual.
A subjective view isn't necessarily counterfactual Bt.
If all you are saying is that the Senate voted for a resolution to use force, then you're not really saying anything at all.
-
If all you are saying is that the Senate voted for a resolution to use force, then you're not really saying anything at all.
Au contraire. I am saying this is America's War and not as so many claim, Bush's War.
-
Ah. Not my argument then. I'll leave that alone.
-
Initial authorization is one thing, continuing support is another. By that standard, this is now Bush's war. It is also Bush's war in the way that he and his administration, then basking in the aura 911, relentlessly promoted the war. Most importantly, it is Bush's war because untethered by any constraints save for the limits of his own mind, he waged the war as chief strategist and commander in a fashion that was wholly incompetent, grasping a quagmire from the jaws of victory.
-
..... grasping a quagmire from the jaws of victory.
I'm intrigued domer. Let's take Bush out of the equation, and tell us how we were apparently "so close" to victory in Iraq. Where & when did this take place? What was the situation on the ground at the time we nearly had victory?
-
And your problem Js (and others), you are either so bent up in opposing war or Bush or both, that you continually ignore the evidence and situation AT THE TIME Bush made his decision to go to war.
No. I could care less about Bush and I support our staying in Iraq (now that we've broken all the dishes).
So, all this effort in trying to cast doubt & nefarious reasons for going to war is all........an effort to.......well, you said you don't care about Bush, so clue us in. Perhaps to make sure Bush's legacy is properly tarnished?
AT THE TIME (which for some reason must be capitalised) were we given all of the evidence?
Bush was, as might I add pretty much all the Senators Of the Intel Committee, along with those congress critters privvy to all the intel that comes thru. What "we" were given was largely unidirectional along the lines of the decision already made, from ALL the evidence Bush and Co were provided. EVERY President will shape what they present in the direction for which their decisions are headed. Might I add EVERY President does that, or at least every modern day President. Again, THEY make the decisions, not "us". And our representatives which "we" elected overwhelmingly agreed..........until the polls said they shouldn't
The thousands of tons of biological and chemical weapons (and don't forget the tens of thousands of nuclear centrifuges!) mysteriously transported to Syria through the barren western Iraqi desert which is of course never monitored by intelligence resources.
And who's making that claim, that everything was transported in large masses thru the dessert? And why you keep bringing up nuclear centrifuges is beyond me. I've never claimed or implied those were the WMD being moved out of the region. I doubt very seriously Saddam would have wanted those moved in any way shape or form. A little intellectual dishonesty perhaps?
That's plausible.
In small enough quantities, absolutely.
And with the direct & indirct connections Saddam had with terrorists like AlQeada, and with the events of 911, it would have been irresponsible for Bush NOT to have gone into Iraq to take out that threat.
Bullshit. There were very few connections, if any.
I didn't realize you worked for the Intelligence agency Js. Do tell. Perhaps you can get a conference call set up with the likes of Wolfowitz, privvy to such intimate intel, explaining the 10+yrs Saddam's ties with terrorists extended
Moreover, there wasn't a single shred of clear evidence that Saddam had any intention to hand over WMD to any organisation. Those groups didn't exactly like him, or are you forgetting that part for convenience?
No, but when you have an enemy as hated as that great Satan America, it's very easy for folks who don't exactly like each other to actually work toegther, even if it's not direct help.
You don't make pre-emptive war on a hunch.
Correct. You make it on the evidence presented at the time, and then using your best judgement, make such decisions
This was a war in search of justification.
Well, considering the plethora of evidence/intel to the contrary, your opinion is duely noted
Why you religiously devote yourself to justify a war whose evidence is based on a flimsy house of cards amazes me.
Perhaps because I don't see a mountain of intelligence conclusions, from sources across the globe as "flimsy". Perhaps because I don't see the President as a moron, or an idiot, or an incompotent bafoon, or a dumbed down version of Hitler. I see him as a sincere leader, making decisions based on the evidence presented him, to best serve and protect this country. As such your OPINION of how unjust this war is remains largely that. History can judge how just or unjust this war actually is determined to be, and given both the evidence at the time, the connections that WERE present to terrorists, and the events of 911, provide precisely what's necessary in my mind to deem this war just. Which also means every life given in that pursuit was tragic yet not a death in vain, but in the pursuit of both American security and Iraqi freedom
My guess is that it is purely partisan. You'd never have supported this war if a Democrat had made the same pathetic arguments that this administration had.
And you couldn't be more wrong
-
Initial authorization is one thing, continuing support is another. By that standard, this is now Bush's war.
I did not know those who authorized have now rescinded that authorization. Until they do, it is still America's War.
-
<<I did not know those who authorized have now rescinded that authorization. Until they do, it is still America's War.>>
It's America's war because the American sheeple were dumb enough to buy it from Bush. If I buy a lemon from a dishonest car salesman, it's still my car and not his. But that doesn't mean that I'm not gonna find a way to make that lying bastard pay for selling me the lemon, and it doesn't mean I can't just walk away from the shitbox and abandon it in somebody's junkyard where it belongs.
-
So, all this effort in trying to cast doubt & nefarious reasons for going to war is all........an effort to.......well, you said you don't care about Bush, so clue us in. Perhaps to make sure Bush's legacy is properly tarnished?
There is no casting doubt necessary. It was an unjustified war. Legacy seems much more important to you. My point has nothing to do with Bush or partisanship, but to illustrate why entry into this war was unjustified and hopefully so that Americans can see that this lack of critical and moral thinking will be avoided in the future.
Bush was, as might I add pretty much all the Senators Of the Intel Committee, along with those congress critters privvy to all the intel that comes thru.
Then they did a piss poor job of handling it and making a fair case for Americans.
What "we" were given was largely unidirectional along the lines of the decision already made, from ALL the evidence Bush and Co were provided.
Of course, a decision made long before the evidence was given a fair judgement.
EVERY President will shape what they present in the direction for which their decisions are headed. Might I add EVERY President does that, or at least every modern day President.
Not about pre-emptive war Sirs. Name me another president who made that decision and then gave us a one-sided case for it. This is a war, a war that we started. We weren't attacked. We weren't provoked. We weren't defending another nation's existence. It was an invasion by the United States of another sovereign territory. You speak as if we are talking about farm subsidy policy.
Again, THEY make the decisions, not "us". And our representatives which "we" elected overwhelmingly agreed
So? You act as though that should mean something to me. As a matter of fact, my Republican Congressman voted against the Iraq War. Does that give me some special dispensation in this warped view of yours?
I'll take my voice from a more meaningful source than the President or the Congress, thank you.
A little intellectual dishonesty perhaps?
No, just a little humour at a ridiculous theory.
I didn't realize you worked for the Intelligence agency Js. Do tell. Perhaps you can get a conference call set up with the likes of Wolfowitz, privvy to such intimate intel, explaining the 10+yrs Saddam's ties with terrorists extended
Don't pull that on me Sirs. In the last several debates we've had you've failed to provide any evidence for the majority of your claims. The 9/11 commission along with other Government reports made it clear that Saddam had few ties with terrorist groups. Moreover, anyone with any rudimentary knowledge of the region knows that the secular government of the Baathists does not get along well with the religious terrorists. Saddam's ties were with anti-Israel terrorists. So what? He joins the club of the Saudi and Kuwaiti governments and we have no problem dealing with them.
No, but when you have an enemy as hated as that great Satan America, it's very easy for folks who don't exactly like each other to actually work toegther, even if it's not direct help.
Have you ever thought that our actions in the Middle East are possibly part of the problem?
Correct. You make it on the evidence presented at the time, and then using your best judgement, make such decisions
You don't do it. It is not justifiable. It was unethical and morally detestable.
Which also means every life given in that pursuit was tragic yet not a death in vain, but in the pursuit of both American security and Iraqi freedom
The beginning of this paragraph is a strawman argument and a sympathy ploy. Grow up.
This last sentence is the only part worth any merit. The problem is that there are tends of thousands of lives that weren't asked to be "given in that pursuit" and though I'm sure their families appreciate your empathy, it is all really worth what they paid you for it isn't it?
I'm sure many of the dead Iraqis will be glad to know that they've helped you feel better about American security. And really that's all it is...a feeling. Iraqi freedom has meant little considering freedom when you're under fire from many sides is really no freedom at all, is it?
Moreover, you continue to show your arrogance/ignorance. It appears rather often. When you set the Iraqi people free. When you brutally attacked another country to feel safer in California. Every time you criticize Islam, a religion I'm confident that you aren't very knowledgable about.
I shouldn't get personal though, in a more universal sense I see that expressed by many who support the initial invasion. No, Bush isn't a moron - he's the typical American that has no understanding of the world and sees American power as an invincible, might-makes-right tool for our own pathetic worldview.
And you couldn't be more wrong
I'm not the one who constantly brings up the President and his legacy in such defensive terms.
-
So, all this effort in trying to cast doubt & nefarious reasons for going to war is all........an effort to.......well, you said you don't care about Bush, so clue us in. Perhaps to make sure Bush's legacy is properly tarnished?
There is no casting doubt necessary. It was an unjustified war.
In your opinion perhaps. I have a plethora of intel and official conclusions that say otherwise, on my side. David Kay's, in particular. End of story
-
By now everyone with half a brain knows that the war was the wrong thing to do, and was as poorly done as it was justifiable.
All you can do in defense of Juniorbush is say "He was wrong because he was ignorant as a result of misinformation".
Having lived through the Vietnam War period, the crap that Juniorbush, Cheney, Rummy, Rice and even Powell were every bit as unconvincing as the crap LBJ and Nixon and their various secretaries and generals used to spew.
It didn't convince me even a bit.
-
By now everyone with half a brain knows that the war was the wrong thing to do
I disagree. And i don't think i am operating with half a brain.
-
By now everyone with half a brain knows that the war was the wrong thing to do
I disagree. And i don't think i am operating with half a brain.
See, that's the problem. If you were only operating with half a brain, you would know it was wrong. Since you're operating with more, you come to a different conclusion.
-
By now everyone with half a brain knows that the war was the wrong thing to do
I disagree. And i don't think i am operating with half a brain.
See, that's the problem. If you were only operating with half a brain, you would know it was wrong. Since you're operating with more, you come to a different conclusion.
:D