PDA

View Full Version : I think Bush has more heart than given credit for....



Justme
19th March 04, 08:46 AM
I thought this was a good story:


http://www.socnetcentral.com/vb/showthread.php?threadid=35533

Raven
19th March 04, 08:48 AM
THEIR WRONG!

HE'S THE DEVIL!!!!!!!!!

*runs through bullshido with a "Repent for the end is near" sign on him*

Actually, I have no doubts he isn't a nice guy, he just doesn't appear to be the stuff leaders are made of.

Justme
19th March 04, 08:52 AM
I think he has shown great leadership with difficult issues that the Demoncrats don't want to touch....In many ways, the Middle East is a almost no win proposition, IMHO.... To many years of hatred and fighting. It is the most difficult problem a President can try an tackle.

WingChun Lawyer
19th March 04, 08:54 AM
Being a nice guy is fine for private life. Public life demands much more than this: I think all reasonably decent human being would have told the agents at the ranch to help in that situation.

I just don´t think this single act speaks for Bush´s credibility, or for his adequacy as a president of the most powerful country in the world.

That said: Justme, I command you to change your sig!

MrMcFu
19th March 04, 08:56 AM
I always thought he was the first surviving heart donor.

Raven
19th March 04, 08:58 AM
Originally posted by Justme
I think he has shown great leadership with difficult issues that the Demoncrats don't want to touch....In many ways, the Middle East is a almost no win proposition, IMHO.... To many years of hatred and fighting. It is the most difficult problem a President can try an tackle.

I dunno, he always stuck me as that guy who's in over his head, but has good support (Cheney, Powell, daddy) so he can mask it.

WingChun Lawyer
19th March 04, 09:07 AM
Originally posted by Shadowofravenwolf
I dunno, he always stuck me as that guy who's in over his head, but has good support (Cheney, Powell, daddy) so he can mask it.

Seconded.

Justme
19th March 04, 09:08 AM
Again, I think he is tackling a difficult problem. Is he making mistakes.... for sure. But real life doesn't have the advantage of a replay button like some computer game, and hindsite is always 20/20.... But we will see in November.

Justme
19th March 04, 09:11 AM
Like the argument Bush lied about WMD in Irag.... Maybe, but I am not convinced. In the Irag 1 year later shows on the History Channel, I kept seeing all the MOPP and antropine deployed by the Iragi's.... That leads me to believe there was something. I mean why deploy all that equipment (in schools and hospitals no less) if there wasn't the opportunity to need it? I still think the jury is out on this issue....

drunkenj
19th March 04, 09:13 AM
I think he is a moron, an illiterate alchoholic yokel. When he was governor of texas he had great fun putting black people on death row, and now as president he has great fun killing as many brown people as possible. He became wealthy after scalping a profit made off the texas rangers with PUBLIC MONEY, he is a crook and daddy did the right thing in putting him in the only place he can't do too much harm, sitting on rumsfled's knee as a puppet

Justme
19th March 04, 09:14 AM
"That said: Justme, I command you to change your sig!"

Oh yeah, I keep forgetting.... Blankslate... I know your watching hope everything is OK.... Bullshido off topic is addicting also..... Note: must remember my sig....

kismasher
19th March 04, 09:42 AM
yes, he has heart unless you're a homosexual, a drug addict in need of help, a woman who was raped and wants an abortion, etc...

Justme
19th March 04, 09:44 AM
How the 1040 coming.

kismasher
19th March 04, 09:50 AM
actually i've been so busy with other work that i haven't even done a tax return in 2 or so weeks, but there are about 200 in the file room just waiting

Osiris
19th March 04, 10:36 AM
I never thought that the man was a DEMON or anything. Im sure he's a cool guy on a one on one basis. His public action have been heartless though.

Balloonknot
19th March 04, 10:47 AM
Oh Please, what a bunch of bullcrap. Bush was just a victim of circumstances. The event happened near his home, so he was in a position to help out a little. If it came out later that his "people" knew about a little boy in trouble, and he didn't do anything to help, then he would have been harshly critised! If not demonized. I bet in the back of his mind he saw it as a good public-relations act. Wake up people.

By the way, Justme, Bush has definitively LIED about WMD. Please come back to reality.

Justme
19th March 04, 10:48 AM
I am not the one whos' dillusional. I still think the jury is out. If they can prove he lied, I will be the first one to support impeachment....

Balloonknot
19th March 04, 11:16 AM
The facts have BEEN out for a while now. Why do you think the Bush administration quietly pulled out the last weapons inspectors last week? I can't believe you are that blind (no offense); the Bush administration actually told us what kind of weapons and what the weapons were. Come on.

WingChun Lawyer
19th March 04, 11:22 AM
Originally posted by Justme
If they can prove he lied, I will be the first one to support impeachment....

Well, there is the matter of that african uranium Saddam had supposedly bought, which Bush mentioned as evidence regarding those WMD programs, while the USA intelligence community kept warning him the documents proving the deal were actually grossly false.

Baloonknot posted something about it if I am not mistaken.

And Justme, that IS a lie.

The Wastrel
19th March 04, 11:25 AM
Holy shit. If you think there is any doubt left about the duplicity of the Bush team, you have simply NOT been following the news.

kismasher
19th March 04, 11:27 AM
http://www.comedycentral.com/tv_shows/thedailyshowwithjonstewart/


click on 'Medicine Brawl'

Osiris
19th March 04, 12:45 PM
C'mon Justme. There are no weapons. You know this. You want proof they lied? How does that work if their lie is that the weapons are hidden? Is someone gonna prove that theyre not hidden?

Justme
19th March 04, 12:50 PM
"You know this."

Know, I don't know this. The question I still have is if there were none then why did the Iragi ARmy deploy so much MOPP equipment forward? I agree it looks like the truth is there were none, but why did they deploy this equipment if they didn't have the need? Bush didn't deploy the equipment for them. From a military perspective, IMO, you don't have this stuff available if you don't think you might have to use it. Or is everyone indicating that they deployed because Saddam thought we would use it?

Justme
19th March 04, 12:57 PM
OK Wastrel, since you are an expert on whats in the news, you give me the reason they deployed all the MOPP equipment.....

Osiris
19th March 04, 12:59 PM
I have no clue. In fact, I dont have a clue what the hell Saddam called himself doing at all in that war.

The Wastrel
19th March 04, 01:02 PM
From a military perspective, IMO, you don't have this stuff available if you don't think you might have to use it.

So why do they have it in Hawaii? Germany? Italy? Also, are there any figures on how much of it was out there?

If they were planning on using it, they would have had to deploy weapons platforms somewhere. Where are they?

BTW: I am on record as assuming the Iraqis had a BC arsenal. I'm just one of those who realizes when they were wrong.

The reason I assumed they did is that I trusted the American intelligence community. Now, if you take the time to read about Bush admin reorganization, you would be facing some serious second thoughts about their sincerity.

In my opinion, they really believed he had those weapons...and then they went about making sure that no one in government or intelligence was going to be able to disagree with them.

LOOK IT UP. Public news stories going back over a year testify to the fact that the CIA was in fact warning the Bush Admin that there was likely nothing to be found, and that the INC defectors on which they were relying were unreliable.

They WARNED the Bush team about the yellowcake uranium reports and they were IGNORED.

Explain that please. Explain why a sitting President ignores the CIA in favor of a report that comes from Italian MI.

Justme
19th March 04, 01:06 PM
"So why do they have it in Hawaii? Germany? Italy?"

Not the same thing. This equipment was deployed forward in the battle area.

And as far as what Bush is doing, I agree he is making a mistake. We talked about this before. Don't think I am just blindly sitting back. But I am waiting to see more of what transpires. I heard arguments pretty good on both sides of the intel issue. Again, I am still listening to see.

The Wastrel
19th March 04, 01:16 PM
"Not the same thing. This equipment was deployed forward in the battle area."

The battle are was their country. Units in Kentucky, North Carolina, Georgia, Hawaii, and even Monterey, California have MOPP gear. It is a key equipment of modern armies.

Justme
19th March 04, 02:02 PM
"The battle are was their country. Units in Kentucky, North Carolina, Georgia, Hawaii, and even Monterey, California have MOPP gear. It is a key equipment of modern armies."

This clouds what I said. And you know it does LOL....

Ronin
19th March 04, 02:09 PM
His "public persona" leaves MUCH to be desired in terms of intelligence, credibilty and honesty.

Justme
19th March 04, 02:25 PM
Really?

kismasher
19th March 04, 02:27 PM
uh, yes

Raven
19th March 04, 06:22 PM
Originally posted by Osiris
I never thought that the man was a DEMON or anything. Im sure he's a cool guy on a one on one basis. His public action have been heartless though.

Agreed.

Osiris
22nd March 04, 05:33 PM
http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/funeral.asp

Kungfoolss
23rd March 04, 12:20 AM
Originally posted by The Wastrel

The reason I assumed they did is that I trusted the American intelligence community. Now, if you take the time to read about Bush admin reorganization, you would be facing some serious second thoughts about their sincerity.

In my opinion, they really believed he had those weapons...and then they went about making sure that no one in government or intelligence was going to be able to disagree with them.


These statements need to be clarified if you wish them to be addressed, if not, it's not crucial. (The "they" comments are unclear.)



LOOK IT UP. Public news stories going back over a year testify to the fact that the CIA was in fact warning the Bush Admin that there was likely nothing to be found, and that the INC defectors on which they were relying were unreliable.


I'm a bit perplexed Wastrel, are you able to sight the exact date when this occurred, because I have gone back to the news accounts over a year ago prior to the start of the war to bring Iraq into compliance with the Gulf War resolutions and simply can't fathom how this position can be substantiated.

My facts and news source comes one month prior to the start of the war. Are you actually expecting us to believe that the CIA changed their view within a single months time? This is very curious. (In case you're wondering, I can produce this news account from a variety of sources none of which are bastions of the conservative medium.)

In any event, this is a single myopic issue the left is focusing on in a desperate attempt to smear the President. It's a feat worthy of the Nazi Propaganda Ministry. As you are apt to saying Wastrel, you are not a member of the left so this should not apply to you.

By the way, you may want to look up the war resolution that was passed in the Senate on October 11, 2002 authorizing the President to use military force in Iraq. Gee, I wonder what "erroneous" information they were basing their decision on? I guess to be consistent ideologues, you'll have to condemn the actions of the Congress as well those in the Senate. Just where are those condemnations? Odd...

drunkenj
23rd March 04, 04:49 AM
kungfools ---

The Wastrel
23rd March 04, 07:15 PM
KF,
Sure. I just finished a monstrous game theoretical modeling of federal, circuit and Supreme court judicial appointments...this morning. Give me a few days to shake off the shell-shock and I'll put it together. I've been meaning to do so anyway.

FingerorMoon?
23rd March 04, 07:44 PM
Originally posted by Osiris
I never thought that the man was a DEMON or anything. Im sure he's a cool guy on a one on one basis. His public action have been heartless though.

I disagree. I think he is the spawn of Satan.
The funniest thing though is he's going to be around for a another 4+ years...

Dochter
23rd March 04, 08:31 PM
How many people have to leave the current administration and make valid and frightening comments about it before the nation begins to worry>

This most recently publicized episode is enough for me, the counter attacks by the Bush administration seem to verify claims as well.

Leodom
23rd March 04, 10:06 PM
Oh, yeah Doc, the guy doesn't get the promotion he wants in the administration, leaves and now teaches with one of Kerry's advisors and you give him credit for being accurate and un-biased? This guy is covering his own ass for the 8 years of nothing he did while in the Clinton administration. Yeah, Clarke worked for Clinton and treated terrorism as a law enforcement activity. After 9/11, Bush acknowledges that Islamic terrorists had declared war on the United States many years ago. Bush finally starts to treat them like the enemy they are and not a criminal suspect. Bush has it right.

punchingdummy
23rd March 04, 10:10 PM
Originally posted by Justme
OK Wastrel, since you are an expert on whats in the news, you give me the reason they deployed all the MOPP equipment.....

Well, I'm not the Wastral...but I'll answer anyway.

Simple: Because they wanted to maintain the illusion that they may have WMD. It's the same reason they didn't allow UNSCOM inpsectors access to many sites. The same reason they did not allow UN to monitor the destruction of much of the BC weapons. Same reason they did not allow the UN full access to Iraqi scientists. Same reason they did not fully document BC destruction and sare it with the UN. Having your neighbors THINK you have WMD is as good of a deterrent as actually having them.

So many people, with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, sit and proclaim that the fact that WMD has not been found must mean the administration was creating a lie as pretense to invasion. (Well, I think do there was an alternative motive...but that's a different issue) The fact is that even if you back out the crappy intel (like the African uranium and the like) there was still plenty a data points to indicate WMD. Factor in the fact that US inelligence has a track record of UNDERESTIMATING the existence of WMD (Libya, NK, Iraq pre-Gulf war, etc.) and the position that WMD is likely to have existed is defensible.

Leodom
23rd March 04, 10:11 PM
By the way, how many people left the Clinton administration and made "valid and frightening comments" Did you worry then?

In addition, what is valid and frightening? Bush had plans to get rid of Hussein before 9/11? It was U.S. policy since 1998. That Bush asked "Did Iraq do it?" A valid question at the time. If you'll remember the events, however, We didn't go after Iraq right after 9/11. We found out who was responsible and defeated them. We'll be mopping up the vestiges for several years I'm sure but Al Qaida is much weaker now than they were in 2001.

Leodom
23rd March 04, 10:18 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=544&u=/ap/20040323/ap_on_go_pr_wh/terrorism_adviser_3&printer=1

Clarke praised Bush when he resigned. I think He's wanting to be attorney general if Kerry wins.

The Wastrel
23rd March 04, 10:42 PM
So many people, with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, sit and proclaim that the fact that WMD has not been found must mean the administration was creating a lie as pretense to invasion. (Well, I think do there was an alternative motive...but that's a different issue) The fact is that even if you back out the crappy intel (like the African uranium and the like) there was still plenty a data points to indicate WMD. Factor in the fact that US inelligence has a track record of UNDERESTIMATING the existence of WMD (Libya, NK, Iraq pre-Gulf war, etc.) and the position that WMD is likely to have existed is defensible.

Correct.

Speaking of data points...are you people that stubborn that you can't admit that there is something wrong with a lot of what has and is going on?

punchingdummy
23rd March 04, 11:07 PM
I do believe there is a bold greater middle eastern initiative in play which will eventually lead to one of two outcomes: (a) ten years from now Bush will be viewed as a great leader in much the same way Reagan is worshiped by many today, or (b) disaster complete with global hi-intensity warfare, world-wide depression, and eventual apocolypse. The problem is that some of the STUPID STUPID STUPID decisions on the "little things" is making option (a) look less and less probable.

The Wastrel
23rd March 04, 11:12 PM
Punchingdummy, talking to you is like having a conversation with myself...better than the alternatives.

One of the things that REALLY bothers me is that every single screw-up, no matter how serious, is dismissed by Bush partisans as complete nonsense.

When some intensely reasoned criticism is met with the bald assertion that Bush II has been sent to us by God...weep therefore.

FingerorMoon?
23rd March 04, 11:16 PM
a) ten years from now Bush will be viewed as a great leader in much the same way Reagan is worshiped by many today

I thought Reagan was now looked at as a joke by pretty much everyone other than hardcore supporters ?

punchingdummy
23rd March 04, 11:21 PM
Originally posted by FingerorMoon?
I thought Reagan was now looked at as a joke by pretty much everyone other than hardcore supporters ?

To the far left he was a joke.

To the far right he is a hero.

To the rest of us he was a dolt who, because he didn't know any better, challenged an adversary in a manner that many Americans didn't understand at the time. A former state Gov. who ran up the defecit to win a war many thought improbable.

Sound familiar at all?

punchingdummy
23rd March 04, 11:28 PM
Originally posted by The Wastrel
One of the things that REALLY bothers me is that every single screw-up, no matter how serious, is dismissed by Bush partisans as complete nonsense.

Admitting failure (or deception) in a political season just isn't practical...wiser to unleash the attack dogs and crucify the messenger!

...and on the flip-side, the partisans on the left frame everything they don't understand or disagree with as a blatant deception or outright lie.

Dochter
24th March 04, 12:27 AM
Originally posted by Leodom
Oh,This guy is covering his own ass for the 8 years of nothing he did while in the Clinton administration. Yeah, Clarke worked for Clinton and treated terrorism as a law enforcement activity. After 9/11, Bush acknowledges that Islamic terrorists had declared war on the United States many years ago. Bush finally starts to treat them like the enemy they are and not a criminal suspect. Bush has it right.

He served loyally under 3 administrations (2 being republican) and has come out primarily against this one, nevermingd you're right it is a democratic conspiracy. I forgot.

Wolfowitz and other neocons have had a hard-on for Saddam for the last decade. Is it so hard to believe that they slanted the intelligence presented to congress (and possibly to the pres) to make action against him likely? I don' t think so, and it seems that there is ample evidence to support this.

The facts that al queda is less of a threat now and that the iraqi standard of living is better and safer now don't do much to change my opinion about how support was drummed up for an Iraqi invasion.

Kungfoolss
24th March 04, 12:54 AM
Originally posted by The Wastrel
KF,
Sure. I just finished a monstrous game theoretical modeling of federal, circuit and Supreme court judicial appointments...this morning. Give me a few days to shake off the shell-shock and I'll put it together. I've been meaning to do so anyway.


Okay, I look forward to your analysis when it's complete.

Kungfoolss
24th March 04, 01:09 AM
Originally posted by Dochter

Wolfowitz and other neocons have had a hard-on for Saddam for the last decade.


Dochter, question, who ran the country for most of the last decade?

A follow up question: Who stated this in his address to the American people in 1998 regarding the Iraqi dictator? -

The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world. The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people.

If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.

Hate to burst your bubble Dochter, but it is impossible to argue that this President was a "neo-con" if you adhere to historical facts.

Leodom
24th March 04, 08:56 AM
Originally posted by punchingdummy
... A former state Gov. who ran up the defecit to win a war many thought improbable.

Sound familiar at all?

Wow, you really don't know much about US Government. Presidents, by design, CANNOT run up deficits. Congress controls ALL spending. If they don't open up the purse strings, the money doesn't go anywhere. The president proposes his budget but Congress modifies and "porks it up" The deficits under Reagan were caused by uncontrolled Democrat spending. The deficits under Bush are caused by uncontrolled Republican spending. (There is a war going on you know). The problem is that with the Republicans in charge of Congress they not only pay for "their" programs, they are also approving Democrat programs and thereby increasing spending too much.

I am not surprised, however, by this lack of knowledge. If you listen to the partisan media and/or went to public school, chances are you were never taught this.

punchingdummy
24th March 04, 09:27 AM
Mr. Leodom, are you suggesting the President does not play a key role in expansionary fiscal policy? Are you suggesting there was no cold war during the Reagan administration? Perhaps, sir, your private school education was not a fine as you were taught to believe.

The Wastrel
24th March 04, 10:24 AM
Wow, you really don't know much about US Government. Presidents, by design, CANNOT run up deficits. Congress controls ALL spending. If they don't open up the purse strings, the money doesn't go anywhere. The president proposes his budget but Congress modifies and "porks it up"

I really hate it when people extrapolate their high school civics courses into the real world.

The Wastrel
24th March 04, 10:45 AM
Here's another one:

Supreme Court Justices only make decisions based on pure interpretations of the Constitution and its amendments, not personal political conviction. It was designed that way!!

Leodom
24th March 04, 12:02 PM
http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20040322-082826-7678r.htm

More information regarding Clarke.

Wastrel, comparing the inegrity and decision-making of individuals (the Supreme Court) to how Government money is spent is a red herring. Not a valid analogy.

Punching Dummy, I actually have a public school education. I was able to overcome it however. Yes, the president does influence spending but Reagan had an out of control Democratic congress. We didn't get spending under control until '94, when Republicans took control of Congress. That was when we finally were able to start working with a budget surplus.

punchingdummy
24th March 04, 12:30 PM
Originally posted by Leodom
[url] Yes, the president does influence spending but Reagan had an out of control Democratic congress. We didn't get spending under control until '94, when Republicans took control of Congress. That was when we finally were able to start working with a budget surplus.

My recollection of the Reagan era was that his budgets were passed by Republicans assisted by a handful of "Reagan Democrats". Reagan's policies dumped a whole lot of money into national defense - which was woefully inadequate post-Vietnam - and built it into what was displayed in Gulf War I. Along the way, a dismal economy was given a new, exciting life.

The spending controls were more a function of the peace dividend after the cold war was "won". I'm sure both a Democratic Pres and Republican Congress would like to take credit, but it was more of an environmental thing.

Dochter
24th March 04, 02:03 PM
Originally posted by Kungfoolss
Dochter, question, who ran the country for most of the last decade?

A follow up question: Who stated this in his address to the American people in 1998 regarding the Iraqi dictator? -

The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world. ...he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.

Hate to burst your bubble Dochter, but it is impossible to argue that this President was a "neo-con" if you adhere to historical facts.

You're misreading what I meant, Saddam certainly was a threat and certainly needed to be taken out of power. My issue is with how support was created for this pursuit (in my opinion through either outright deception or careful manipulation).

As for the president being a neocon, aren't wolfowitz and Rumsfeld classified as such? Wolf in particular made well publicized comments about Saddam prior to 9/11. I never mentioned Bush outright but with such advisors it would be hard to say he isn't.

Regarding your quote who was it in congress that prevented action against Saddam during Clinton's terms? People more worried about his getting a hummer in the oval office. Sad that a bj gets you impeached and disingenuously presenting evidence that results in war and u.s. troop deaths doesn't.

I actually don't have any moral objections to the US acting as "the world's police force", we have the resources and ability, why not try and reduce genocide and murderous regimes? What I do have an issue with is our selection process for when and where we intervene. More I have issues with decisions being made on rhetoric rather than actual reasons or prinicples. My brother was part of the invasion force into Iraq, I'd be a lot less angry if the risk he (and all the other troops) faced hadn't been because of contrived evidence.

Dochter
24th March 04, 02:18 PM
Originally posted by Leodom
Wow, you really don't know much about US Government. Presidents, by design, CANNOT run up deficits. Congress controls ALL spending. ... The president proposes his budget but Congress modifies and "porks it up" The deficits under Reagan were caused by uncontrolled Democrat spending. The deficits under Bush are caused by uncontrolled Republican spending. (There is a war going on you know).

Really, somehow I was under the impression that executive branches propose budgets, get to see them somewhat modified and then have the ability to veto them. Do you really think that the deficit under Regan was because of social spending? By a pie chart sometime.

The Wastrel
24th March 04, 02:27 PM
*Goes over Leodom's head.*

punchingdummy
24th March 04, 04:05 PM
Originally posted by Dochter


Sad that a bj gets you impeached and disingenuously presenting evidence that results in war and u.s. troop deaths doesn't.

I actually don't have any moral objections to the US acting as "the world's police force", we have the resources and ability, why not try and reduce genocide and murderous regimes? What I do have an issue with is our selection process for when and where we intervene. More I have issues with decisions being made on rhetoric rather than actual reasons or prinicples. My brother was part of the invasion force into Iraq, I'd be a lot less angry if the risk he (and all the other troops) faced hadn't been because of contrived evidence.

The issue is not of contrived evidence...a good deal of intel is based upon speculation and almost always incomplete information. It was the administrations poor judgment to include suspect intel in a case for war, when there was plenty of other legitimate "stuff" to make a compelling case without it. IMHO, of course.

The problem with the US as a police force is that we don't have unlimited resources and you tend to make as many enemies as friends during interventions. I agree, the selection process is a very slippery slope...with complex consequences.

Dochter
24th March 04, 04:11 PM
I understand that speculation is an inherent aspect of it all, my point was that IMO the policymakers played fast and loose with the intel. I also am of the opinion that a legitimate (and internationally supported case) could have been made. That is not what was done though, and that is where I fault baby Bush. At the time of the State of the Union Address, despite disliking Bush for a myraid of other reasons, I understood and tentatively agreed with the descision because I took the evidence presented in good faith. We now know that was a mistake. That is a far greater crime than infidelity.

Dochter
24th March 04, 04:13 PM
... while we don't have unlimited resources, we have more than most. Altruism, to me, is important. Nationalism, to me, is a concept that has not helped mankind's progress and well being.

punchingdummy
24th March 04, 04:17 PM
Originally posted by Dochter
... while we don't have unlimited resources, we have more than most. Altruism, to me, is important. Nationalism, to me, is a concept that has not helped mankind's progress and well being.

The problem with altruism is that nobody else in the world believes us, even when we are involved for altruistic reasons. Somalia is a perfect example...most people want to help starving babies...but we wound up with a bloody nose running away from Al Queda.

I'm OK with us getting involved, but it's soooo damn tricky to know when and where to help...

Kungfoolss
25th March 04, 12:33 AM
Originally posted by Dochter
You're misreading what I meant, Saddam certainly was a threat and certainly needed to be taken out of power. My issue is with how support was created for this pursuit (in my opinion through either outright deception or careful manipulation).


Please list these "deceptions" if you would. The truth of the matter is that the decision and reasoning for toppling the Iraqi dictator was multifaceted, Saddam was in noncompliance with the '91 Gulf War resolutions.



As for the president being a neocon, aren't wolfowitz and Rumsfeld classified as such? Wolf in particular made well publicized comments about Saddam prior to 9/11. I never mentioned Bush outright but with such advisors it would be hard to say he isn't.


These political buzz-words and clichés while they may sound informative they really aren't, it's borderline fantasy. The fact of the matter is the President is not a conservative, but he is the best hope for furthering our parties political agenda. If you disagree, then you haven't listened to the conservative leaders as I have voice their opposition to many of President Bush's social policies.



Regarding your quote who was it in congress that prevented action against Saddam during Clinton's terms?


"Prevented?" Pray tell, how and when did this occur? The action - Operation Desert Fox - took place and is well documented. The fact that it did practically nothing to alter the existing state of affairs sadly is lost on most liberals.



People more worried about his getting a hummer in the oval office. Sad that a bj gets you impeached and disingenuously presenting evidence that results in war and u.s. troop deaths doesn't.


Revisionist history of the left. Clinton was not impeached for getting serviced in the Oval office Dochter, but because he LIED about it. How difficult is that to comprehend or didn't you learn a thing from Martha Stewarts recent trial? This isn't rocket science.

Again, list this evidence for us you found objectionable, I want to understand how those left-of-center are able to rationalize their stance on issues. Flagrantly tossing out these accusations proves nothing.



I actually don't have any moral objections to the US acting as "the world's police force", we have the resources and ability, why not try and reduce genocide and murderous regimes? What I do have an issue with is our selection process for when and where we intervene.


Please elaborate, what precisely did you find problematic?



More I have issues with decisions being made on rhetoric rather than actual reasons or prinicples. My brother was part of the invasion force into Iraq, I'd be a lot less angry if the risk he (and all the other troops) faced hadn't been because of contrived evidence.


I hate to sound like a broken record here but could you share with this forum this "contrived evidence" If you're incapable of doing this, then your claims are suspect.

Kungfoolss
25th March 04, 12:55 AM
Originally posted by Dochter
Really, somehow I was under the impression that executive branches propose budgets, get to see them somewhat modified and then have the ability to veto them. Do you really think that the deficit under Regan was because of social spending? By a pie chart sometime.

Truthfully, this is such a simplistic view. Ask yourself why the 'line item veto' was enacted in the first place (later ruled unconstitutional)? Leodom hit it right on the nose.

Leodom
25th March 04, 08:08 AM
Cool!! backup. I was beginning to think I was the only conservative on this entire forum.

Justme
25th March 04, 08:16 AM
Not the only one, but its not worth the fight anymore....Many things will be decided in November.... we will see then....


No matter what side, if you are American and old enough, vote....

Kungfoolss
25th March 04, 11:20 AM
Originally posted by Justme
[Not the only one, but its not worth the fight anymore

Then maybe you should just 'roll over and die' as it were.

Justme
25th March 04, 11:25 AM
Yeah Kungfools maybe you are right... won't argue with you.

Dochter
25th March 04, 02:22 PM
Of course it was simplistic but so was the argument it was offered up towards. As I said it is my opinion based on different sources, the entirety of which I don't recall, that the justification Bush gave was presented disingenuously.

The absolute fact that Saddam shouldn't have been in power and that he was indeed in violation of several UN resolutions is in fact besides the point because, and be honest to yourself on this, that wasn't how the case for going to war was presented.

Things were presented in a manner that convinced many of us that there was conclusive evidence of an imminent threat of WMD development and a good likelihood of a connection with OBL.

If Bush had said:
"Saddam is a baddie who wholesale slaughters his citizens, as a factor in his acheiving his position we bear a responsibility for removing him."

I would be singing a different tune.

Now those were of course elements of what were said, but, that was not how he got support.

Dochter
25th March 04, 02:25 PM
As for evidence of contrived evidence, the uranium was presented as conclusive it wasn't. The case was presented as conclusive, it wasn't. A lot was presented as damn near infallible that wasn't. There are plenty of reports that the overstatements were understood and not merely gaffs.

Xango
25th March 04, 05:02 PM
Does anyone else find it interesting that Khaddafi admitted to a uranium enrichment program because he didn't want to suffer Saddam's fate? That this enrichment program has revealed a plot by rogue states to produce nuclear weapons that involved Pakistan, North Korea, and possibly China and Saudi Arabia as well?

I repeat: Libya was actually enriching uranium, for a nuclear weapon, up until quite a bit less than a year ago.

Is this, or is it not, more imporrtant than the now moot question of whether or not Saddam Hussein maintained his stockpile of chemical and biological weapons that everyone in the world acknowledges he once had?

Kungfoolss
25th March 04, 10:45 PM
Originally posted by Dochter
As I said it is my opinion based on different sources, the entirety of which I don't recall, that the justification Bush gave was presented disingenuously.


You don't recall? In other words you can't back up your accusations.



The absolute fact that Saddam shouldn't have been in power and that he was indeed in violation of several UN resolutions


Several? I'm afraid there were more than just several Dochter. It has not escaped my notice that you have neglected to even address the "several" you are aware of and the answer is simplicity itself. Doing so would destroy the premise of your entire argument.



is in fact besides the point because,


You can't be serious.



and be honest to yourself on this, that wasn't how the case for going to war was presented.


Really? Well, let's examine your interpretation of history shall we?



Things were presented in a manner that convinced many of us that there was conclusive evidence of an imminent threat of WMD development and a good likelihood of a connection with OBL.


This is a completely bogus charge. Unlike yourself, I can bring forth sources. Here's a list of some of the charges brought against Iraq by the United Nations Security council in November of 2002 (Source CNN)-


The fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,

That Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998,

The absence, since December 1998, in Iraq of international monitoring, inspection, and verification, as required by relevant resolutions, of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, in spite of the Council's repeated demands that Iraq provide immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), established in resolution 1284 (1999) as the successor organization to UNSCOM, and the IAEA, and regretting the consequent prolonging of the crisis in the region and the suffering of the Iraqi people,

That the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq,

Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,




If Bush had said:
"Saddam is a baddie who wholesale slaughters his citizens, as a factor in his acheiving his position we bear a responsibility for removing him."

I would be singing a different tune.


In actuality this is what the President stated to the American people on November 8, 2002-


With the resolution just passed, the United Nations Security Council has met important responsibilities, upheld its principles and given clear and fair notice that Saddam Hussein must fully disclose and destroy his weapons of mass destruction. He must submit to any and all methods to verify his compliance. His cooperation must be prompt and unconditional, or he will face the severest consequences. \

The world has now come together to say that the outlaw regime in Iraq will not be permitted to build or possess chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.

That is the judgment of the United States Congress, that is the judgment of the United Nations Security Council. Now the world must insist that that judgment be enforced. Iraq's obligation to disarm is not new, or even recent. To end the Persian Gulf War and ensure its own survival, Iraq's regime agreed to disarm in April of 1991. For over a decade the Iraqi regime has treated its own pledge with contempt.

As today's resolution states, Iraq is already in material breach of past U.N. demands. Iraq has aggressively pursued weapons of mass destruction, even while inspectors were inside the country. Iraq has undermined the effectiveness of weapons inspectors with ploys, delays, and threats -- making their work impossible and leading to four years of no inspections at all.

The resolution approved today presents the Iraqi regime with a test -- a final test. Iraq must now, without delay or negotiations, fully disarm; welcome full inspections, welcome full inspections, and fundamentally change the approach it has taken for more than a decade.

The regime must allow immediate and unrestricted access to every site, every document, and every person identified by inspectors. Iraq can be certain that the old game of cheat-and-retreat tolerated at other times will no longer be tolerated.

America will be making only one determination: is Iraq meeting the terms of the Security Council resolution or not? The United States has agreed to discuss any material breach with the Security Council, but without jeopardizing our freedom of action to defend our country. If Iraq fails to fully comply, the United States and other nations will disarm Saddam Hussein. "



Now those were of course elements of what were said, but, that was not how he got support.


Dochter, I believe I've adequately proven that your charges are completely baseless and wholly without a shred of merit.

Leodom
26th March 04, 08:30 AM
Owned!!!

additionally, regarding "imminent threat" Bush said just the opposite in his State of the Union address. He said "we cannot wait for the threat to be imminent," I may not have the next quote exact--"since when do our enemies put us on notice for impending attack"

Justme
26th March 04, 08:36 AM
You can find exactly what Bush said here:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/

Dochter
26th March 04, 10:44 AM
Owned my ass, Kungfools thinks everything is part of a liberal or liberal media conspiracy, and digs around finding sources to prove it. I don't think it is that clear cut but am not as anal about it. I stated outright they were opinions and impressions from news reports, I never claimed to know outright facts (which kfss outright, and incorrectly does).

Dochter
26th March 04, 10:55 AM
From the State of the union address Jan 2003:


********
…The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.
The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary; he is deceiving. From intelligence sources we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites and monitoring the inspectors …
Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or attack.
With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress and the America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.
Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes. (Applause.)

The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages -- leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured. ...

**********

We may all read this differently, I read it as a clear statement that he currently has them.

You can read it however you want.

Kungfoolss
26th March 04, 03:55 PM
Originally posted by Leodom
additionally, regarding "imminent threat" Bush said just the opposite in his State of the Union address. He said "we cannot wait for the threat to be imminent," I may not have the next quote exact--"since when do our enemies put us on notice for impending attack"


"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late." President Bush January 28, 2003

Reading this, kind of makes you wonder doesn't it, given the liberal witch hunt now being conducted in Washington, i.e., the 9-11 commision. I believe Blankslate stated it best -


"If the plot had been stopped, imagine how ridiculous it would have all sounded...Terrorists? Actually flying planes into the White House? Into the Twin Towers? It certainly would not have given us license to "invade" Afghanistan and keep troops there for going on two years...let alone "invade" Iraq." Blankslate September 14 2003