|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 4,899
Hard-core CEG'er
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 4,899 |
Originally posted by PDXSVT:
Or rather like Carter cleaning up after Nixon, Packrat? Some other time we can discuss White House felons like the Nixon people, if you insist.
I must have missed that part of history when Carter was president during the Vietnam War. Oh thats right, he WASN'T. In fact, he did such a good job, he was re-elected....on thats right, he WASN'T!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,198
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,198 |
Carter = worst president ever.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 3,290
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 3,290 |
Originally posted by PackRat:
Originally posted by Allyn48:
Almost 600 dead this month in Iraq.
Bush said the Iraqi people would welcome us as liberators.
Most have, but you're not going to see that in the mainstream press.
They rejoiced when Saddam was overthrown, and were proud when they got the chance to vote. Which mainstream press outlet failed to cover these events? And what "happy" events have they missed since?
Originally posted by PackRat:
Originally posted by Allyn48:
When he landed on the aircraft carrier for his photo op and declared "mission accomplished",
How many times do you liberal dim bulbs have to be reminded of the fact THAT IT WASN'T HIS IDEA FOR THE MISSION ACCOMPLISHED banner.
Wow, if a President doesn't even have knowledge of/control over the banners that his people hang behind him, we're in worse shape than I thought.
E0 #36
'95 Ranger
'82 Honda CX500
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,506
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,506 |
IF Carter was worst ever, THEN he was worse than Nixon.
Davo, why are you a fan of felons like Nixon's crew?
Do you have a hankering to stupor yourself on daily bottles of 30 year old Ballantine's Scotch while aboard the presidential yacht, just like Dick Nixon?
Thanks again, Davo.
MSDS, SHO-shop Y, custom 2.5" catback; xcal2; 63mm TB, K&N 3530; Koni struts, Aussie bar; THaines forks, Quaife, SpecII, UR fly; DMD; Nima UD pullies; Stazi brakes; f&r Pole120 mounts. Just a daily commuter car. Silver '98 SVT E0 #3159
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,198
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,198 |
Since when does one have to be a fan of Nixon to think Carter was the worst president ever? For being a lawyer, your arguments are incredibly weak and stupid.
Not sure what you appreciate from me. I'm still wondering about that Bolton thing from above.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 4,899
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 4,899 |
Originally posted by Viss1:
Originally posted by PackRat:
Originally posted by Allyn48:
Almost 600 dead this month in Iraq.
Bush said the Iraqi people would welcome us as liberators.
Most have, but you're not going to see that in the mainstream press.
They rejoiced when Saddam was overthrown, and were proud when they got the chance to vote. Which mainstream press outlet failed to cover these events? And what "happy" events have they missed since?
They had no choice but to broadcast that.
Quote:
Originally posted by PackRat:
Originally posted by Allyn48:
When he landed on the aircraft carrier for his photo op and declared "mission accomplished",
How many times do you liberal dim bulbs have to be reminded of the fact THAT IT WASN'T HIS IDEA FOR THE MISSION ACCOMPLISHED banner.
Wow, if a President doesn't even have knowledge of/control over the banners that his people hang behind him, we're in worse shape than I thought.
What was he supposed to do? Stop the press conference while they removed a banner that had been on camera all day? Don't be a dimwit. Oh wait, too late.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,506
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,506 |
Davo, on you comparing Bolton to Powell: Bolton couldn't carry Powell's jock. Most politically savvy observers already KNOW that. George's moves, which are based upon idealogical purity at the cost of competence, are sufficiently silly that the public's preference for competency is heightened by your heroes pushing bozos like Bolton. You comparing Bolton and Powell AS IF Bolton could carry Powell's jock shows us you're running short of legitimate rebuttal points and thus shows how weak your position really is.
And that you couldn't figure that out on your own? You're making my day.
Further, when you say Carter is worst, then by definition Nixon cannot be worst. I'm charmed that you would make such a wild statement, that "worst" is not reserved for a felon and a drunk who declared himself above the law and the constitution, a guy whose reality of "peace with honor" was to continue that war for another 6 years with squat to show for it.
So that you would call Carter worse than pond scum like Dick Nixon says a lot about you. Little of it is positive.
Wear your mantle of "wisdom" well.
MSDS, SHO-shop Y, custom 2.5" catback; xcal2; 63mm TB, K&N 3530; Koni struts, Aussie bar; THaines forks, Quaife, SpecII, UR fly; DMD; Nima UD pullies; Stazi brakes; f&r Pole120 mounts. Just a daily commuter car. Silver '98 SVT E0 #3159
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,198
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,198 |
If Bolton "couldn't carry Bolton's jock", then I wouldn't expect the left to be so afraid of him. I think they fear that he would actually get some positive things done at the UN. But that wasn't the point of my post. Once again, you have viewed a point I made through a prism that would allow you to make a completely different argument. The point of my previous post (*sigh*, explaining points to you like I would a 6 year-old gets kind of exhaustive) was to show that the left hates Bolton for the same reasons that they worship Powell. The only difference is what each stands for, but they fail to admit that. Originally posted by PDXSVT:
Further, when you say Carter is worst, then by definition Nixon cannot be worst. I'm charmed that you would make such a wild statement, that "worst" is not reserved for a felon and a drunk who declared himself above the law and the constitution, a guy whose reality of "peace with honor" was to continue that war for another 6 years with squat to show for it.
Based on your qualifications of a good/bad president, you'd have to say Clinton was the worst president. You'd figure the president who ended the Viet Nam War would be a hero of the left, but I guess not. Exposing Communist spies was his mortal sin.
I'm glad I can keep you entertained; anyone so easily entertained must not have too much going on in their life.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718 |
Originally posted by caltour:
You are dancing around the issue, JaTo. Of course there are arguments for the war. We already have covered that ground very well in previous threads.
There's no issue to dance around. Since one chem shell in Iraq certainly doesn't make a country full of WMD's and vindicate those like myself who fully believed that Hussein had a boatload of them at his call, one single memo based on PERCEPTIONS regarding the bloody obvious fact that the Bush Administration had become a hawkish one since the events of 9/11 doens't establish a consipracy where the Bush staff wrangled intelligence to go to war. To me the memo makes note of the fact that the Bush Administration was pushing a large amount of intel that made their case for what they felt was an inevitable conflict, instead of wasting their time in throwing a lot of misplaced faith in "Food for Oil, The Sequel", "Weapons Inspections, Part 23" or "UN Resolution 92,321,093,110,558: REALLY Angry Rhetoric towards Iraqi Cooperation"...
Originally posted by caltour:
But you are, as always, dodging the point.
One has to have a point for me to dodge...
Originally posted by caltour:
See how you dove straight for your old arguments in favor of the war (i.e. Saddam's violation of the UN resolutions provided a legal basis for war) even when we are discussing an entirely different issue (the new British evidence that the Bushmen deceived us about the facts and about their intentions)? That tells me you can't refute the real point of the article: the Bushmen deceived America to build support for their war.
You are strangely sounding like a person that once told me that one could fully discuss the causes of WWII without ever touching or discussing WWI...
My apologies, but I STRONGLY feel that to do a particular topic justice, some small measure of reflection and backround needs to be broached to understand the reasoning behind the decisions made. I understand that those of a myopic bent prefer to leave all of that on the cutting room floor in order to facilitate their particular point better.
I mean, it's much easier to pretend that many other meetings between the US and the UK never existed that discussed the Food for Oil Program that the UN headed (I'll refrain from attacking the legitimacy of that particular mandate this time around) and the meetings that the US held with other Arab nations asking for their assistance in leaning on Hussein. Let's also not forget the 10 year history we had with the UN in trying to force Hussein to comply with a dozen or more resolutions...
Originally posted by caltour:
What the hell kind of evidence would it take for you to see that Bush and his cronies lied and deceived and manipulated to whip up support for their war?
Direct evidence of illegal activity for starters and not vague references on perceptions and feelings that were WELL-KNOWN.
Originally posted by caltour:
A top-secret memo from a reliable partner is not good enough?
This memo is akin to a scientist coming out and stating that after exhaustive research, zebras were found to have black and white stripes. The "No Sh!t, Sherlock" factor is going off the scale here. Jesus H. Christ, the first paragraph of the memo reads like and idiot's version of Cliff Notes on Hussein's Iraq. A sample:
"Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based."
It was clearly obvious to anyone with a pair of eyes and ears that the Bush Administration became a very hawkish one after the events of 9/11. It was clearly obvious that after 10 years, 3 sitting US Presidents and 4 administrations that Hussein was no closer to putting forth a complete and meaningful disclosure of his WMD capabilities than he was during Day 1 of the UN weapon inspections. It was clearly obvious that this lack of disclosure presented a threat and risk to the US given the incorrect intelligence we and everyone else had on Iraq. It was clearly obvious that the Bush Administration was going to keep pushing for peace in the appropriate channels (and they did), but definitely plan for what they felt was the inevitable outcome given a decade of past history with Iraq. To not plan for the worst-case scenario (i.e., WAR) would be entirely ignorant.
BTW, war plans on Iraq were drawn up at the Pentagon during the Clinton and Bush, Sr. Administrations. Should they be strung up for doing that??? Did the conspiracy stretch back that far???
Originally posted by caltour:
The memo clearly says what the Brits thought of the grounds for war (thin) and it says the Bushmen were bending the facts and intel to justify their desire to go to war (i.e. lies and deceit and legal violations). So far, you haven't even acknowledged that the memo has any meaning at all. That speaks volumes to me (it's called denial).
You're acting as if we were trying to dig up facts to support an invasion of Tahiti. The Bush Administration didn't have to stretch far at all to justify the invasion, since the intelligence being used changed little since the time Clinton was in office. After 10 years playing with Iraq and after the pressing concerns that 9/11 brought forth on the risks of pursuing half-assed policies through the UN and in general, the "writing was on the wall" for the most part.
Given this, you're trying to tell me that it's criminal to view and pronounce the relevant points of Hussein's actions and rule in order to make a case of war against him when 10 years of inaction still kept us almost entirely in the dark? (an unacceptable situation in light of the events of 9/11)
I'm reading it as the memo suggesting that a "proactive" invasion (as the Iraqi invasion was rather unique in modern history on this note) was a much more difficult and convoluted sell to the international stage than a "reactive" invasion, since this was a fairly new approach towards rogue nations that were universally seen as a WMD threat.
Originally posted by caltour:
Arrrrrrgh! Like PDXSVT said, you think Rumsfeld is going to go on Larry King and tell everyone what really happened? Of course not. We are not going to get that kind of proof anytime soon.
Or at all, since I'll wager it doesn't exist...
Originally posted by caltour:
And since when is a top-secret British memo (and other supporting documents) a freakin' "note on a napkin"?
Maintenance/cleaning procedures get labeled "top secret", so the label doesn't have me jumping up and down all excited like it does you. I'll wager just about every type of meeting like that gets the "top secret" classification...
Originally posted by caltour:
This new evidence is extremely credible. It shows that responsible allies thought Bush was fomenting support for a hugely unpopular war by deceiving us and manipulating us. Aren't you just refusing to see that?
Question: Where does the US President get his information from on foreign entities for the most part? Answer: the CIA and to a lesser degree, the State Dept.
Question: How did GWB manipulate CIA intel when it's charter is one of political neutrality?
Answer: ______________________(I'll let your expert intel experience fill in this blank for me)
Originally posted by caltour:
OK, so you say the article is not good journalism. Next time, you might want to tell us why you think so. I know; smearing someone's work is fun, and it takes all the fun out of it if you have to give a reason.
Because it's trying to scratch up a "conspiracy" play where there is NONE! It was pretty damn plain that while the US was still pursuing peaceful options through the UN that we placed little faith in them and that invasion was looking to be the sole remaining choice to provide what we insisted upon: a full and meaningful account of Hussein's WMD capabilities.
Originally posted by caltour:
Again, we are not discussing whether it was a good idea to go to war. I understand your reluctance to address whether the conduct described in the British memo is an impeachable offense, because it's a no-win situation for the Bushmen.
War/conflict is a no-win situation for any politican that has to resort to it; there's NO way to make it look good at the end of the day...
...unless you're Clinton sending troops into Bosnia with a press corps and ardent followers that put blinders on and say jack-sh!t about the reasoning behind it. Hypocracy much?
Again, this memo offers nothing but vague accountings and references of the completely and totally obvious; the fact that you find it something to hang impeachment hearings on is almost laughable.
Originally posted by caltour:
That memo cannot be spun to make Bush look good. In fact, it shows the Adminstration did just what I always said they did: they fooled millions of Americans into supporting the war.
Well, I thought Bush, Sr. made an error by not rolling into Baghdad, but anyway...
Here's the disconnect that you refuse to see: Hussein and he alone had the power to prevent the escalation of what culminated into armed conflict; you are forgetting that we put forth the same mandates over and over again and if they were MET, no escalation in diplomacy would have ensued to the point where all options were exhausted leaving invasion as the only viable one left to enforce a pile of UN resolutions and mandates.
Hell, mid-March in '03 had Bush issuing an ultimatum to Saddam that if he and his sons accepted exile to whatever country would accept their presence. The number of chances Hussein had to prevent invasion was damn-well near countless.
As I've said before, Hussein has more indirect supporters of his rule in the US than he did direct supporters of it in Iraq by far and he's vilified less than Bush is; suprising to me since Hussein could easily belly up to the table in Hell that Pol-Pot, Mussolini and Hitler are sharing, given the millions he's slaughtered.
JaTo
e-Tough Guy
Missouri City, TX
99 Contour SVT
#143/2760
00 Corvette Coupe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 4,899
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 4,899 |
|
|
|
|
|
