Originally Posted By Spree Still; when I watched the cease fire signing back in 91', live on CNN there were Iraqi generals and US Generals....no sign of blue hats. It was a US President who was targeted by Sadaa(that alone should have started a war imho). Those were US planes that got shot at nearly every week durring the years of the cease fire. But I will concede that offically speaking it was a UN Cease fire....and the UN also said it was ok for member nations to enforce it
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Yes. The UN gave its members the authority to use "any means necessary" to enforce the resolutions and bring peace to the area.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< The fact of the matter is that your bringing up the "noise machine" and "get an opinion of your own" is an attempt to belittle and marginalize the thoughts of others. Which is fine, if that's what you want to do. God knows, you aren't the first, you won't be the last. >>> Thank you and others for responding. I'm hittin' the road for a few days, and will have limited LP time. I look forward to continuing to discuss this in a few days. Cheers!
Originally Posted By DlandDug RE: Post #63 It is fairly easy to refute the statements of others when they are pulled out of context. What I said was: >>It would have been helpful to have identified the subject of the interview. Karen Kwiatkowski (she who assures us she has no ties to Lyndon LaRouche at all) would issue statements like this. Her regular material on Lew Rockwell's blog (he who advocates the overthrow of the government) is in a similar vein, and just as slanted. That Kwiatkowski would disagree with the Silberman-Robb Report, which reached the conclusion that allegations that pre-war intelligence was manipulated are false, is no surprise. But it should be understood that she has an agenda, which makes her assertions less than entirely factual.<< You disputed as follows: >><Her regular material on Lew Rockwell's blog (he who advocates the overthrow of the government) > Nice attempt at guilt by association. Come on, I expect better from you. <But it should be understood that she has an agenda, which makes her assertions less than entirely factual.> Kwietkowski is career military and a lifelong Republican. Her "agenda" is telling what she saw in her job. If you can point to something that is "less than entirely factual" (itself a pretty weasely phrase), and prove that it is, do it.<< To which I reply: No attempted guilt by association. Kwiatkowski is "guilty" because she not only associates, but contributes regularly to a blog whose owner has clearly stated a position. In context, my assertion that Kwiatkowski has an agenda is quite reasonable. (And I care not that she is a life long Republican, or career military. I base my opinion of her on what she advocates.)
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>Nope. I never said Bush lied about WMD.<< Good. Glad to hear it. Hold that thought. And when we are disussing people who did not advocate invasion, by all means chime in.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy << Nope. I never said Bush lied about WMD. >> Dabob, why are you not saying this?? It goes against the rest of your buddies on the left. What makes you figure it out while the rest of them are still driving around with Bush LIED PEOPLE DIED! on their piece of crap Volvo?
Originally Posted By Beaumandy From Powerline.. A very good take on the democrats right now. What's the Point? The Democrats appear to be putting all their eggs in the pre-war intelligence basket, but why? Certainly not because they actually believe it's a legitimate issue. Several investigations have already concluded that the Bush administration didn't manipulate pre-war intelligence, and the Democrats, from Bill Clinton on, made all the same claims about Saddam's weapons, etc., that the Bush administration did. Moreover, the whole idea that the administration would use Iraq's WMDs as a "pretext" for war is stupid. If the administration knew Saddam didn't have the weapons, then it also knew its "pretext" would be exposed as soon as the invasion was complete. No one would be dumb enough to go to war on the basis of a claim that was not only wrong, but would quickly be shown to be wrong. So the Democrats aren't acting in good faith, they're playing politics. But it's a funny kind of politics, isn't it? The point seems to be to drive down President Bush's approval ratings. To some degree the Dems' slander has succeeded in doing that, although it's hard to measure because so many of the polls are meaningless, like the new CBS poll I commented on last night. But how does this strategy, even if it works, make sense? Bush doesn't have to run again. The Dems should be focused on next year's Senate and House elections. But it's hard to believe the "pre-war intelligence" theme will be effective next November. For one thing, conditions in Iraq are likely to be better by then, with troops coming home. More important, while the war was rightfully a pre-eminent issue in last year's Presidential race, it is at most a sideshow in any individual Senator's or Representative's race. None of the Republicans running next year bear any particular responsibility for the war, and there is unlikely to be much difference of opinion as to how the conflict should be handled going forward. If Democratic House and Senate candidates think they can win by running, McGovernlike, on an immediate withdrawal platform, they're badly misreading the American people. So I can't see how the Dems' strategy makes sense in the context of next year's elections. If that's true, why are they focused so single-mindedly on the Iraqi intelligence red herring? I think perhaps the Democrats in the Senate are trying to distract their activist base from the reality of their own impotence. Vital events are, of course, transpiring in the Senate right now, including ANWR drilling--approved today--and, most notably, President Bush's Supreme Court nominations. Nothing is more important to the Democratic base than preserving the liberal orientation of the Supreme Court. But the President has now dealt two hammer blows to liberal control of the Court--the only branch of the federal government still under liberal control--in the form of the Roberts and Alito nominations. Democratic activists desperately want to block Judge Alito from ascending to the Court, but the reality is that Senate Democrats are powerless to achieve that goal. Alito's qualifications are unassailable, the Democrats are a minority party, and the Republicans are united in the conviction that Alito deserves a vote. A filibuster isn't out of the question, but if the Dems try it, it will fail. So the Senate Democrats can't come through for their party where it counts. I doubt that the timing of the Month of Valerie is a coincidence; I suspect it is intended mostly to distract the Democratic base from the reality of the Senate Democrats' impotence.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg200511040822.asp" target="_blank">http://www.nationalreview.com/ goldberg/goldberg200511040822.asp</a> >>JJust how big a threat was Saddam Hussein? Let’s reprise what our leaders had to say on the subject. First, here’s the president: If he refuses or continues to evade his obligations through more tactics of delay and deception, he and he alone will be to blame for the consequences. … Now, let’s imagine the future. What if he fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction…? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he’ll use the arsenal. And I think every one of you who’s really worked on this for any length of time believes that, too. Here is the vice president: If you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He’s already demonstrated a willingness to use these weapons. He poison-gassed his own people. He used poison gas and other weapons of mass destruction against his neighbors. This man has no compunction about killing lots and lots of people. So this is a way to save lives and to save the stability and peace of a region of the world that is important to the peace and security of the entire world.<< Make sure and READ the article..... I did leave something important out....
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Make sure and READ the article..... I did leave something important out....> Could it be that the Pres. and VP were Clinton and Gore? How, oh HOW will we ever deal with such awesome cleverness??? Asked and answered. Clinton didn't invade and occupy that country. And you don't do that unless you KNOW there is an imminent threat - not when you're pretty sure, not when you think "probably, and everyone else thinks probably too," not when your intelligence services are telling you contradictory things.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <To which I reply: No attempted guilt by association. Kwiatkowski is "guilty" because she not only associates, but contributes regularly to a blog whose owner has clearly stated a position.> Sorry, I don't agree. That I post on the blog of person A does NOT mean that I agree with everything - or even anything - as the owner of that blog. That's just faulty analysis. <In context, my assertion that Kwiatkowski has an agenda is quite reasonable. (And I care not that she is a life long Republican, or career military. I base my opinion of her on what she advocates.)> Oh? Are you saying now that SHE advocates the overthrow of the government? I don't think that's true. If you're saying that, you should prove it.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 >>Nope. I never said Bush lied about WMD.<< <Good. Glad to hear it. Hold that thought.> Still trying to figure out why you attributed that to me, though, when I never said it. <And when we are disussing people who did not advocate invasion, by all means chime in.> I've read that several times now, and I really can't figure out what you're getting at there.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy << Asked and answered. Clinton didn't invade and occupy that country.>> No he didn't have the guts. He also didn't have the guts to take Bin Laden on a silver platter from the Sudan when he had the chances. But he did say the exact same stuff Bush is accused of lying about... which is making the Bush Lied!! crowd look more pathetic by the day as people see the truth.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>He also didn't have the guts to take Bin Laden on a silver platter from the Sudan when he had the chances.<< Apparently Bush hasn't had the guts to do what it takes to get him, either.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Still trying to figure out why you attributed that to me, though, when I never said it.> Have you ever objected to it? When someone on these boards claim that President Bush lied about our reasons for going to war, have you ever posted your disagreement? Do you support the leaders of the Democrat party who continue to say this sort of thing?
Originally Posted By Darkbeer More from the NRO article link in Post #90 >>Sen. Jay Rockefeller — the ranking Democratic on the Senate intelligence committee and now a full member of the “Bush lied†chorus — echoed Einhorn’s assessment, adding, “I do believe that Iraq is an immediate threat†and “we can no longer afford to wait for a smoking gun.†Sens. Evan Bayh, Joseph Biden, Hillary Rodham Clinton, John Kerry, and John Edwards all voted for the war. Most of these Democrats had access to the same intelligence as the president. But now, in one of the most repugnant and craven partisan ploys in modern American history, Democrats have decided that they cannot accept their own responsibility in what they clearly consider to be a mistake. They cannot even criticize the CIA for yet another horribly botched job or stick to the ample areas where constructive criticism is warranted. Instead, the same CIA that liberals derided for years is now heroic, and Senate Minority Leader Reid has decided — now that the Fitzgerald investigation has fizzled — to dedicate his party to slandering the president. Meanwhile, the Democrats cannot even admit they made a mistake supporting the war — except in that they believed Bush’s “lies.†But how could Bush have lied? How was he to know the intelligence was wrong? Without knowing that, he could not have lied. But the Democrats will not allow for the possibility that the very same intelligence that prompted Clinton to bomb Iraq also informed Bush’s decision to topple Saddam. And they will not even concede that, after 9/11, the argument over WMDs wasn’t the best — never mind the sole — argument for toppling Saddam but the easiest one. <<
Originally Posted By Beaumandy I am still amazed the democrats and their liberal flock are trying to say Bush lied about anything when their are pages and pages of quotes from these same democrats saying Bush lied. In fact, I have never seen anything quite like it. The democrats are truly a party with no ideas for America and are slipping further and further off the cliff. Just ask a democrat who they would put in Bush's place RIGHT NOW that the military would support, if they could wave their fairy wand and get rid of the president and Cheaney. These idiots have not thought out anything outher than a few slogans that make no sense.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <But he did say the exact same stuff Bush is accused of lying about... > That's just it, Beau. Clinton did NOT say the "exact same stuff." He made some statements saying he thought Saddam was an adversary, or could be a threat. But there are ways of dealing with threats other than invading. How do we deal with, say, North Korea now? Both Bush and Clinton have had the harshest things to say about Kim, and with good reason, but neither invaded, now did they? And Clinton never used scare tactics about mushroom clouds, no BS about aluminum tubes, mobile weapons labs, no trumpeting of sources the intell services termed "highly dubious" all over the media and then quietly backing away from them after they'd scared the public. And, of course, no weasly attempt to link Saddam to 9/11. So no, they did not say the "exact same stuff."
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Still trying to figure out why you attributed that to me, though, when I never said it.>> <Have you ever objected to it? When someone on these boards claim that President Bush lied about our reasons for going to war, have you ever posted your disagreement? > I have a more nuanced view of things that I've talked about many times.
