|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 637
Veteran CEG\'er
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 637 |
Originally posted by JaTo:
Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
And it's wrong to tar the Senate with the same brush as Bush. The Senate customarily defers to the administrative branch on foreign policy (that's not good, it's just a fact), and they had a right to assume that Bush actually had the solid "slam dunk" evidence he and Rumsfeld and Cheney said they had.
Just as it is customary for the executive branch to rely on the US intelligence agencies to supply them with quality intelligence to make correct decisions with.
You are still missing Red's point. Bush went around asserting that the EVIDENCE for an imminent threat from WMDs in Iraq was "slam dunk." Bush was privy to ALL the evidence, he knew it was thin as tissue, and yet he boldly asserted that it was "slam dunk". He lied.
Like Bush, you are trying to divert blame to the CIA. But Bush can't divert blame by saying that Tenet "concluded" that the evidence was slam dunk too. We pay the president to make an independent decision on the evidence, not to mindlessly accept the conclusions of others. If Bush claims he should be allowed to rely on the CONCLUSIONS of the CIA director, (i.e. the president is not responsible for reviewing and analyzing the EVIDENCE himself), then he is not fit to be president.
Originally posted by JaTo:
Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
The Bush administration (and its intelligence agencies) spun like mad to mislead the Senate, and the nation, about the threat in Iraq. Blaming the Senate for believing some of the hype may be justified. But the Senate was not responsible for deciding to invade.
Then how come the bulk of it voted for invasion?
Are you still trying to equate the Senate vote with support for Bush's premature and unilateral invasion? Please read the resolution. It condones the use of force in Iraq. But it does not declare support for Bush's reckless invasion. Bush decided whether to actually invade, when to invade, and how to invade. And he blew it.
Originally posted by JaTo:
Do you have ANY clue how the Senate works and what it and the House serve as in comparision to the executive branch?
I do. I studied constitutional law and the federal legislative process in law school at the University of California, Davis. I took the bar exam and practiced law in federal courts for 12 years. I know how the process works.
Do you? You rudely imply that Red doesn't know how the legislative process works, but I see you didn't bother to explain why you think so. I say he got it right.
Originally posted by JaTo:
Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
The Senate is empowered only to "advise and consent".
You really need a refresher on government.
Start by looking into the War Powers act of 1973. After that, check out Article I, section 8 of the US Constitution and then try to come back and tell me that the Senate only has the power to "advise and consent", especially when it posesses the power to overturn Presidential vetos.
Once again, you raise a point that is irrelevant to the issue at hand. What does the Senate's power to override a veto have to do with the circumstances we are discussing? No veto was exercised, and no override vote was taken. The only senatorial power exercised in the Iraq war vote was the power to advise and consent. Your constant diversions from the topic are getting tiresome.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718 |
Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
"Additional time"? That's the age-old excuse for failure: "we just need more time." Tell us exactly how additional time is going to reverse this chaos.
Even the most wildly hopeful estimates have NEVER placed Iraq under full control and capable of handling their problems on their own in under two years.
Time and more troops is precisely what is needed.
Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
I made an explicit argument earlier in this thread that the attacks have consistently increased. you agreed. Wake UP! Time is on the side of the insurgents, as it is in almost every guerilla war.
Arguing that attacks have increased and will increase is akin to arguing that the Sun is going to rise tomorrow. This was known and it is being addressed, albeit slowly.
Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
Maybe you think the insurgents will get bored and go on vacation soon?
No. More will pour through Iraq's borders, which is precisely why it is implicit that we get an Iraqi security force on their feet and pronto. This is also precisely why we need more troops. It's odd that these are the SAME reasons that Kerry is putting forth on addressing some of the instability issues, which are the same one's that the Bush administration has put forth as well...
Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
"Unpleasant situation" is Rumsfeld's euphemism for "disasterous."
It hasn't been pretty, but nor has it been a catastrophic failue, as you are suggesting.
Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
We have been there for NINETEEN months. To say we are only 12 months into the process is a poor attempt to falsify the facts.
[sigh] It's took the coalition close to 6 months after the outbreak of the invasion to establish an environment where reconstruction equipment, supplies, workers and money could start to seriously funnel in. That puts any attempts at RECONSTRUCTION closer to 12 months...
Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
It is ridiculous for you to say that we are not allowed to judge the progress of the occupation.
We are, though if judging it by what is pasted across the 5 o'clock news is the way you are going to do it, then you are doing yourself a great disservice. Progress, although slow, has been made but if the idiot box is your sole source of information, then I can almost guarantee that you've heard of NO successes in rebuilding some of the schools and hospitals.
Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
If you want me to say it is a failure only THUS FAR, then OK. Maybe Bush will pull a rabbit out of a hat, and we will start making progress toward security and fair elections and economic stability. I might even believe that, if Bush had described to us just how he is going to do it. He hasn't. He just says we are going to stick it out and hang tough. Great, that's an excellent plan.
Kerry seems to think so, as it's basically the same plan he's advocating.
Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
Saddam's brutality was indeed a legitimate (but insufficient) justification for going to war. But you are confusing that with Bush's conduct of the occupation, which is a very separate issue. You are, again, dodging my irrefutable point (that we have a moral obligation to the Iraqis to conduct the occupation in a humane, efficient and reponsible way)
I'm not dodging the point; it's an assumed one because we are Americans and not attempting to clean up a mess we helped make isn't part of our mantra. Which we are working extraordinarily hard to do precisely this. Again, this takes TIME. I keep smelling the partisan whiff of feigned impatience, simply due to the fact that it's election year...
Given that you've already wrote off the entire excercise as a failure (if I understand your tone here), what would someone else other than the Bush administration do any different that what is being done today?
Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
and spinning off into a separate issue concerning justification for the invasion. It seems we are spending very little time actually debating issues; instead I seem to spend most of my time here pointing out that your responses do not really address the point under discussion. My points are clear enough, I think. Can't you please focus on them?
Sorry, but I keep having to debunk the fantasies of CIA agents never touching Iraqi soil, Hussein having a "lock" on his borders, a Congress that are mere puppets with the Executive branch pulling the strings, etc., etc.
I'd say your points are precise; you keep hitting the same topics over and over. However, there's a HUGE difference between being precise and ACCURATE...
Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
You have been told many times in this forum that Kerry voted against that aid package because it was a poorly conceived irresponsible slop bucket for Halliburton & Co., and he had hopes of forcing a rewrite that would be far better for American taxpayers AND the troops. But go ahead and stick to your spin, even though no one believes it anymore.
BS. Kerry didn't like the way the money was being earmarked (grant instead of a loan); I've read nothing about it where he's thrown a hissy-fit about Haliburton.
By the way, if you have a beef with Haliburton, why didn't you scream left and right when Clinton used them in the past? Why has the Armed Forces under the LOGCAP contract gone with DynCorp one time, then back to Haliburton the other (could it be that they are one of the few top companies on the globe that can help assist with the logistical demands of the US military?  )?
JaTo
e-Tough Guy
Missouri City, TX
99 Contour SVT
#143/2760
00 Corvette Coupe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718 |
Originally posted by Red1998SVT:
You are still missing Red's point. Bush went around asserting that the EVIDENCE for an imminent threat from WMDs in Iraq was "slam dunk." Bush was privy to ALL the evidence, he knew it was thin as tissue, and yet he boldly asserted that it was "slam dunk". He lied.
Back again for another thrashing?
Wrong. Tenet said that the case of possession of WMDs was a "slam dunk".
I can't state it any more succinctly:
1) Every intel agency around the GLOBE had pretty much the same information on Iraq, in that it possessed WMD. The CIA wasn't alone in this.
2) UN 1441, along with a decades worth of other UN resolutions wasn't being fulfilled in good faith by Iraq.
3) To this DAY, there are TONS of nerve/blister agents and biotoxins missing. NOBODY knows where they went, but EVERYBODY knows that Iraq was specifically told to account for them.
You're certifiably nuts if you think Bush ran into Iraq KNOWING that there would be no WMD.
I would imagine that Bush was privy to the intel that we had "in-hand" on Iraq at the time, which pointed to an unacceptable risk of keeping Hussein in power with the potential capabilities that he was thought to have possessed. That risk was largely based in part of the "shell game" that was being played with UN inspectors for decades, in addition to tons of missing toxins...
Again, where did Bush lie? Please point this out.
Originally posted by Red1998SVT:
Like Bush, you are trying to divert blame to the CIA. But Bush can't divert blame by saying that Tenet "concluded" that the evidence was slam dunk too.
The CIA does hold some blame here, but again, it goes back to when their budgets were slashed and HumInt was cut in the Middle-East during the '90s, in addition to a number of other issues that have recently reared their ugly head. You can be sure that them in conjunction with the FBI are on the verge of some major changes in the way they approach threat evaluation, as intel on two very pertinent issues in the last 4 years has proven to be spotty and incomplete at best...
...but of course, I forget. This is all GWB's fault! I mean, it was him instead of the Clinton administration that started gutting the CIA's budget and crippling HumInt in the region. 
Finally, what do you not understand about a decision being only as good as the intelligence you have behind it?
Bush telling Tenet to shove off after being told that the case on WMD was a done deal would have been insanely reckless.
Originally posted by Red1998SVT:
We pay the president to make an independent decision on the evidence, not to mindlessly accept the conclusions of others.
Odd, since this is a conclusion that the CIA held since the mid 90's, as well as a number of other intelligence agencies around the planet. One has to be an absolute SUCKER if you think any US President is going to dig through the basement at Langley with staff pukes and hash it all out; it's expected that they do a thorough job in the FIRST place.
Originally posted by Red1998SVT:
If Bush claims he should be allowed to rely on the CONCLUSIONS of the CIA director, (i.e. the president is not responsible for reviewing and analyzing the EVIDENCE himself), then he is not fit to be president.
I disagree, in that no sitting President that I'm aware of has ever drove to Langley to engage in reviews of what would end up being THOUSANDS upon THOUSANDS of pages of reports, dossiers and transcripts.
There's a reason that the CIA exists and there is a reason they try to keep politics at arm's length: to provide POLITICALLY neutral information to assist the US leaders in making decisions.
This is PRECISELY why no President has any business doing "case work" at the CIA, as you seem to be so ignorantly suggesting.
Originally posted by Red1998SVT:
Are you still trying to equate the Senate vote with support for Bush's premature and unilateral invasion?
Point 1: The invasion wasn't unilateral.
Point 2: The Senate had pretty much the same access to the same intel that the President was getting, which is why they voted to authorize force.
Originally posted by Red1998SVT:
Please read the resolution. It condones the use of force in Iraq. But it does not declare support for Bush's reckless invasion. Bush decided whether to actually invade, when to invade, and how to invade. And he blew it.
Actually, O Solomon the Wise, the invasion was considered to be one of the greatest military successes in the history of warfare.
No historian or politician (not even Kerry himself) has come out and said otherwise.
Now, tell me ONE more time how Bush blew the invasion?
Originally posted by Red1998SVT:
I do. I studied constitutional law and the federal legislative process in law school at the University of California, Davis. I took the bar exam and practiced law in federal courts for 12 years. I know how the process works.
Really?
Originally posted by Red1998SVT:
Do you? You rudely imply that I don't know how the legislative process works, but I see you didn't bother to explain why you think so.
Apparently better than you, as I at least understand the checks, balances and informal procedures built within the various levels of government to hopefully prevent a US President from going in and making a call on unfiltered information and politically manipulating it from the start...
Originally posted by Red1998SVT:
Once again, you raise a point that is irrelevant to the issue at hand. What does the Senate's power to override a veto have to do with the circumstances we are discussing?
The Senate has more powers than that to merely "advise and consent". The points I made clearly show this. Why people want to forget that the Senate and the CIA have just as much skin in the game on Iraq as the Executive branch does is beyond me...
...wait, I forgot it was an election year for a split second. It has more to do with politics and spin than fact.
Originally posted by Red1998SVT:
No veto was exercised, and no override vote was taken. The only senatorial power exercised in the Iraq war vote was the power to advise and consent. Your constant diversions from the topic are getting tiresome.
Then might I suggest doing some research before making false claims and putting forth overtly inadequate ideas? I'm beyond tired correcting fallacy after fallacy that has continually cropped up in this thread.
I patently refuse to belive that the legislative branch of the US government as a whole is a puppet or a metaphorical "yes man" for a US President.
FACTS:
1) Congress held the power to SHUT down the White House request for AUTHORIZATION of force to invade Iraq if Hussein didn't abide by UN resolutions stating that he fully accounts for WMD. They didn't, as the measure passed 77-23.
2)The fact that the Bush administration was charged with giving updates every 2 months to Congress on the progress of the invasion, as well as 48 hours of notification before any military action is taken should show that our legislative branch is a bit more than a group of 2-bit lackeys or puppets.
Comments?
JaTo
e-Tough Guy
Missouri City, TX
99 Contour SVT
#143/2760
00 Corvette Coupe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 224
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 224 |
This is better than TV... I've learned a lot... Thanks you guys... 
USMC training begins on the 25th of Jan wish me luck.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,785
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,785 |
I have asked this question before and got not answer. If we found one WMD would you guys vote for Bush?
Just a Plain SE.
AKA Big Country
I maybe path914's B**** now, but wait until he needs his clutch done. We will see WHO is WHO's B**** then!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,091
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,091 |
Originally posted by JaTo:
By the way, if you have a beef with Haliburton, why didn't you scream left and right when Clinton used them in the past?
Hmm...maybe because the whole time Clinton was using them, his vice president, Al Gore, wasn't on their payroll.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,489
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,489 |
Originally posted by myfastse:
I have asked this question before and got not answer. If we found one WMD would you guys vote for Bush?
that wouldn't make much of a difference to me. mainly because finding one WMD still wouldn't substantiate bush's claim that iraq had stockpiled WMDs, was developing nukes, had ties with bin laden, and was an imminent threat.
no matter how you slice it or who team bush tries to blame it on, the fact is bush stated evidence that they most likely knew was weak (or false) to support the war they wanted. i just don't trust bush to tell it like it is, maybe it's cheney's fault and rumsfeld too. but they answer to bush and ultimately he's responsible for their screwups. the way this thing has been handled i feel that at every turn bush just may twist and spin whatever 'evidence' he has to gain whatever support he needs for his admin's agenda.
'03 Saab 9-5 Aero
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718 |
Actually, Clinton went around the LOGCAP contract (which was awarded to DynCorp back then) and chose to use KBR (a subsidiary to Halliburton), which was a favorite contractor during the Clinton years.
In short, he ignored a competitive bid contract award to DynCorp and used who they considered the BEST contractor for the job at hand:
Haliburton.
If this administration had done this, they would have been eaten ALIVE in the press. Clinton makes this call and he gets a pass...
LOGCAP expired again in '01, where another competition was held between groups in the private sector. DynCorp lost this time and Halliburton won.
The National Review has an excellent article on Halliburton and the history of LOGCAP awards to contractors, but since I couldn't dig that one up, here's a similar article, though it's a bit more partisan in tone:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15426
Long story short? The Bush administration was using Halliburton in accordance with the contract and gets blasted for playing by the rules.
JaTo
e-Tough Guy
Missouri City, TX
99 Contour SVT
#143/2760
00 Corvette Coupe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 198
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 198 |
It's unfortunate that this election (and U.S. politics in general IMO) is reduced to nothing more than a popularity contest featuring strident and sensational partisan rhetoric from both sides; rhetoric that is almost totally devoid of any substantiated, reasoned argument (classical definition).
On both sides the so-called "facts" and conclusions are so rife with fallacy (untruths, incomplete accounts, errors in reasoning) as to be useless to anybody interested in an objective discussion about them.
If you believe (as I do) that in order for a democracy to flourish you must have a populace skilled in the classical form of "argument" and supported by an objective, unfettered and unaligned media skilled at discerning and reporting unbiased fact, then you must be terribly frustrated - because it seems clear to me that neither exist.
I am particularly distressed at the state of the media, again making no distinctions at to which side they support; the lines between reporting, commentary, editorial and opinion are so blurred as to make the product meaningless. Instead of performing their role as political watchdog, they have become instead instigators and accomplices to one political agenda or the other. And therefore, IMO, quoting or referencing partisan journalists as a means to support or legitamize your argument should carry no weight.
The accumulated mass of unsubstantiated, unreasoned and fallacious arguments on both sides is absolutely daunting.
It seems all partison efforts on both sides of the fence are directed at making the so-called "facts" fit their pre-existing set of beliefs - and it's no wonder that those who are undecided have very little real objective information to help them make an informed decision. Being harsh perhaps, but neither side is credible; and from that you might deduce that regardless of who wins, the American public loses.
And so for me it is totally understandable why the two sides represented so passionately here by JaTo and Rex Barnes will not likely ever come close to a consensus.
The respective characterizations of both Bush and Kerry by the opposing side is nothing more IMO than a symptom of the degeneration of the American political process and a failing of the media as watchdog ... they are not IMO a thoughtful, reasoned analysis of the candidate, his policies or his beliefs. And that's a damned shame.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,469
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,469 |
Originally posted by Mysti-ken:
I am particularly distressed at the state of the media, again making no distinctions at to which side they support; the lines between reporting, commentary, editorial and opinion are so blurred as to make the product meaningless.
The accumulated mass of unsubstantiated, unreasoned and fallacious arguments on both sides is absolutely daunting.
True
Quotable..but. What is unique is the war itself. Unprecidented in that it is against a movement not a nation. Standard rules do not apply. It is early in this war...too much info must be kept from public (compromised intell, compromised relations with UN..ala oil for food scam & bought UNSC vetos). Too little known about the extent of the jihaddist movement, their resources, or worldwide support or commitment to deal with it.
From a scientific standpoint..CLEARLY too many variables to reach any conclusion. So scientists draw up a hypothesis...and test fit data to the hypothesis or as you described "directed at making the so-called "facts" fit their pre-existing set of beliefs". I would argue that this is not ness bad when their is insufficient data, rather it is an accepted scientific process. Only bad when data can no longer fit your model and must try to force fit. Niether side has reached this point...so the standard debate process is not going to solve this one.
Further, most citizens are very limited in knowlege of military stategy and jihaddism anyway....basically are "untrained scientists" and are highly suceptable to junk data. This is where media could help..but has done a fairly poor job.
1999 Amazon Green SVT Contour (#554/2760)
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use."
-Soren Kierkegaard (as posted by Jato)
|
|
|
|
|
