Quote from KymarFye:
Why the sneer quotes around the word "liberated"? Looks obviously like your way of sneakily re-introducing doubt about whether or not getting rid of Saddam Hussein and his regime was a good thing.
Whether or not it was a good thing is not the issue raised by those who question the process by which we got into war.
And I use "liberated" because I am contrasting it with the liberation of France and the forcing of our culture and democracy onto a country via the process of nation building.
For the umpteenth, if not the ump-hundred-and-teenth time, you repeat a manipulative and artificially narrow rendition of the case for war that you have never been able to support with evidence or even argue coherently.
For the umpteenth time, if not he ump-hundred-and-teenth time, you repeat a manipulative and artificially narrow rendition as to dismiss the essential and fundamentally arguments made to the people about the necessary importance of the existence of WMD and their immediate threat to national security as sold to the country by Bush and company to your argument for justification of war, the minimization of that key factor for getting the US into war that you have never been able to support with evidence or even argue coherently.
Without that possibly manufactured threat, we would most likely not have gone to war.
And here we go again: Because, in your mind and presumably their minds, Saddam's evil wasn't minimized (we'll forget the sneer quotes), you see no difference between supporting the only available policy for getting rid of him and opposing it.
Evil is evil, it is around the globe. It was not the only available policy, it was a choice. There were other options.
That you don't like the other options is your opinion and subject of debate. That is why there is a debate.
You don't find people debating incontrovertible fact, you find people debating opinion.
That you think yours is the right opinion, is your opinion, nothing more, nothing less.
The multiple justifications for the war in Iraq and the nature of Saddam's regime are intimately linked, both in the particular context of the danger and strategic challenge that Iraq represented on its own terms, and in the larger context of the war with Islamist fascism and terror.
Opinion, opinion, opinion. If there had been clear evidence of this "linkage" as there was in the case with Afghanistan, the full support of the rest of the world, and the democrats would have been present.
Nor do we have flagrantly broken ceasefire agreements and ongoing military confrontation with many other dictators and regimes around the world, as has been the case with Saddam from 1991 even to the present. Nor do many dictators in the world have access to huge oil revenues and geographical proximity to much of the world's oil reserves. Nor have many other dictators in the world engaged in plots to assassinate a US President, hosted leaders and trained operatives from multiple terrorist organizations, repeatedly explored alliances with Al Qaeda, continuously engaged in fervent anti-US propaganda in the region of the world where major terrorist threats originate, repeatedly threatened to sponsor terrorism against the US, or used WMDs repeatedly and systematically applied themselves to developing WMDs and maintaining advanced WMD capacities even when subjected to sanctions, inspections, and serious military threats.
Yada, yada, yada. Where are the WMD now? All we ask for is evidence. If the evidence had been found, or if the evidence is found, that solves the administration's credibility problem.
You seem to take it as some personal offense that people would question the motive and credibility of leadership. What a narrow minded view of politics and politicians you appear to have.
Oh, yes, and finally you mention the huge oil reserves. True. So finally an admission that it is about the oil.
And, how coincidental that huge oil reserves have recently been discovered in Africa.
Eventually, victory in Iraq may help us knock Iran, Syria, and many other dangerous and repellent regimes off the list, though more likely through means other than direct application of military force. Fighting those battles that we need to fight, when we can fight them and have a chance of managing the aftermath, isn't immmoral or inconsistent. It's the only sane policy there is.
Eventually, the preemptive war in Iraq may help to generate legions of terrorists.
So, you are the only one who is sane and knows what sane policy is? What a self centered bastard you really are. As if you have a lock on what is sane.
Geesus, you really are an egomaniac.
The inability to tell the difference between, say, Zimbabwe and Burma on the one hand, and Saddam Hussein's Iraq on the other, suggests extreme ignorance. No one incapable of making the distinctions is fit even to argue foreign policy.
Burma and Zimbabwe have no huge oil reserves. Clear enough for you to tell the difference?
Nobody to match Bush
- Thread starter aphexcoil
- Start date
If it was a good thing, then questions about the process have much different implications then if it wasn't.
If you are going to admit that it was a good thing, then the intellectually honest and consistent position would be to cease arguing the morality and the actual - as opposed to the actually presented - justifications for the war. Instead, you try to have it both ways. Sometimes you want to throw up "it was all about the oil" or "immoral majority" or "produce more terrorists" or "why not fight other dictators," but none of these has any bearing on the process question that you privilege. At other times, you disclaim any responsibility to argue the true justifications for the war, insisting that they're separate issues.
Or, to use Ellen Goodman's terms, are you attacking the reasons for the war or the rationale? If the former, then you are defending Saddam.
So does that mean you think deposing Saddam's regime was a good thing, or not? Does that mean you think attempting to introduce the elements of democracy in Iraq is a good thing, or not? Do you stand by your previous remarks that those who support the war constituted an "immoral majority," or not? Do you have a consistent position, or do you have, as it seems, a grabbag of presumptions, cliches, insults, and diversionary tactics that you deploy according to rhetorical convenience, without regard for whether or not they add up?
Name these other options for getting rid of Saddam. Explain them. Give some reasons to believe that they would have worked.
Telling us that "inspections needed more time" or, even more weak, that "some believed inspections needed more time" won't do - as this position implies that you would have been happy to leave Saddam in power.
Are we going to have to re-state the arguments from thirty or so pages ago about the ramifications and costs of the US backing down while submitting its policy to veto by adversaries at the UN? Will you repeat your earlier comparison of Iraq and the Soviet Union, and suggest that a containment policy should have been given several generations to work? Are you going to fall back on the empty notion that "other people" thought alternative policies might work - thus relieving yourself of any responsibility to advance or defend any particular policy?
The last few times you've tried to construct an alternative policy - even without the requirement that the policy must also result in a timely removal of Saddam's admittedly evil regime from power - you've ended up dissolving into your usual sputtering incoherence, political fantasies, and diversionary personal attacks.
Yes, it's true, that, in a debate, one exchanges opinions - or, as you prefer, opinions, opinions, opinions. I don't see what you think you are achieving by characterizing my opinions, opinions, opinions as opinions, opinions, opinions. Others can determine for themselves whether one or the other set of opinions, opinions, opinions is more or less well-founded in evidence and logic.
As for the specific argument, argument, argument, the Democrats were, mostly, "present." Lately, they've been exploring the political value of pushing their criticisms - leaving war supporters like Kerry, Gephardt, and Lieberman somewhat exposed, and forcing them to put forward contradictory positions.
The rest of the world was present - even unanimous, if you go by the vote for Resolution 1441 - until people like Chirac and Schroeder discovered political advantages in backtracking and reversing themselves.
Regardless of presences and world opinion, opinion, opinion - unlike you, I don't believe the US foreign policy should be subject to a continous process of revision in accordance with the shifting considerations of opportunists, adversaries, and mobs.
More deft, concrete analysis from Optional777 - of a piece with calling me a "moron," a "bastard," an "egomaniac," or making a pathetic, tiresomely familiar attempt to reduce legitimate consideration of the role of oil resources to simplistic sloganeering.
I fully expect that in a few pages you'll be back to accusing me of depending on ad hominem arguments.
So, you would consider fighting battles that we don't need to fight, at times when we can't fight them effectively and have no chance of managing the aftermath, to be a sane policy?
One difference. Apparently enough for you to concede that your "why fight Saddam when we don't fight other evil men?" argument is foolish and empty.
Keep this up, and others are going to start to wonder whether I'm secretly encouraging you to put up straw man arguments, and to attach as much bluster, illogic, and poor manners as possible just for the sake of giving a bad name to war opponents.
Yes, it's true, that, in a debate, one exchanges opinions - or, as you prefer, opinions, opinions, opinions. I don't see what you think you are achieving by characterizing my opinions, opinions, opinions as opinions, opinions, opinions. Others can determine for themselves whether one or the other set of opinions, opinions, opinions is more or less well-founded in evidence and logic.
I am differentiating opinions from facts or arguments based on an acceptance of a neocon platform as some a priori foundation of those arguments.
You are advancing opinion and agenda, nothing more.
As for the specific argument, argument, argument, the Democrats were, mostly, "present." Lately, they've been exploring the political value of pushing their criticisms - leaving war supporters like Kerry, Gephardt, and Lieberman somewhat exposed, and forcing them to put forward contradictory positions.
Neither party is immune from political posturing, and interpreting data to fit their agenda.
The rest of the world was present - even unanimous, if you go by the vote for Resolution 1441 - until people like Chirac and Schroeder discovered political advantages in backtracking and reversing themselves.
The rest of the world did not agree with the war in Iraq, in the same way they agreed with the war in Afghanistan.
The country was behind the war in Afghanistan nearly 100%, but much less with the war in Iraq, and even less so now.
Regardless of presences and world opinion, opinion, opinion - unlike you, I don't believe the US foreign policy should be subject to a continuous process of revision in accordance with the shifting considerations of opportunists, adversaries, and mobs.
Bush has done little in my opinion but shift his foreign policy during his administration. If you recall, pre-911, Bush was under fire for the inconsistency in his foreign policy.
More deft, concrete analysis from Optional777 - of a piece with calling me a "moron," a "bastard," an "egomaniac," or making a pathetic, tiresomely familiar attempt to reduce legitimate consideration of the role of oil resources to simplistic sloganeering.
More deft, concrete analysis from Kymar Fye - of a piece calling the left loony, not sane, etc, and making a pathetic tiresome familiar attempt to increase legitimate consideration that it was about "liberation of Iraq" and not mostly about oil.
I fully expect that in a few pages you'll be back to accusing me of depending on ad hominem arguments.
I have done that before, as have others. Your methodology is so obvious now, that many don't even bother to bring it up. Someone who wont fess up to their problems and methods of using ad hominem attacks, after a while you just consider them helpless and give up.
So, you would consider fighting battles that we don't need to fight, at times when we can't fight them effectively and have no chance of managing the aftermath, to be a sane policy?
Fighting battles that we don't need to fight is not a sane policy, no. That is the central question: "Did we really need to fight this battle?
One difference. Apparently enough for you to concede that your "why fight Saddam when we don't fight other evil men?" argument is foolish and empty.
Your arguments are foolish and empty. What a strong proof that is. Kymar says so, so it must be so.
Man, do you rub your shit all over your own body and claim, "My shit doesn't stink!!!"
Just another zealot who mistakes his opinion for fact.
Keep this up, and others are going to start to wonder whether I'm secretly encouraging you to put up straw man arguments, and to attach as much bluster, illogic, and poor manners as possible just for the sake of giving a bad name to war opponents.
No doubt your hapaboy fan club is at work printing up bumper stickers as we speak.
Poor manners? You call people's arguments foolish, empty, loony, etc., and you preach manners?
What a fucking hypocrite you are.
You can always tell when someone is losing an argument...they make claim to winning it.
Strong arguments destroy an opponent, without the need to claim victory. They are so obvious, that any reasonable man would be forced to agree with the logic.
I am differentiating opinions from facts or arguments based on an acceptance of a neocon platform as some a priori foundation of those arguments.
You are advancing opinion and agenda, nothing more.
As for the specific argument, argument, argument, the Democrats were, mostly, "present." Lately, they've been exploring the political value of pushing their criticisms - leaving war supporters like Kerry, Gephardt, and Lieberman somewhat exposed, and forcing them to put forward contradictory positions.
Neither party is immune from political posturing, and interpreting data to fit their agenda.
The rest of the world was present - even unanimous, if you go by the vote for Resolution 1441 - until people like Chirac and Schroeder discovered political advantages in backtracking and reversing themselves.
The rest of the world did not agree with the war in Iraq, in the same way they agreed with the war in Afghanistan.
The country was behind the war in Afghanistan nearly 100%, but much less with the war in Iraq, and even less so now.
Regardless of presences and world opinion, opinion, opinion - unlike you, I don't believe the US foreign policy should be subject to a continuous process of revision in accordance with the shifting considerations of opportunists, adversaries, and mobs.
Bush has done little in my opinion but shift his foreign policy during his administration. If you recall, pre-911, Bush was under fire for the inconsistency in his foreign policy.
More deft, concrete analysis from Optional777 - of a piece with calling me a "moron," a "bastard," an "egomaniac," or making a pathetic, tiresomely familiar attempt to reduce legitimate consideration of the role of oil resources to simplistic sloganeering.
More deft, concrete analysis from Kymar Fye - of a piece calling the left loony, not sane, etc, and making a pathetic tiresome familiar attempt to increase legitimate consideration that it was about "liberation of Iraq" and not mostly about oil.
I fully expect that in a few pages you'll be back to accusing me of depending on ad hominem arguments.
I have done that before, as have others. Your methodology is so obvious now, that many don't even bother to bring it up. Someone who wont fess up to their problems and methods of using ad hominem attacks, after a while you just consider them helpless and give up.
So, you would consider fighting battles that we don't need to fight, at times when we can't fight them effectively and have no chance of managing the aftermath, to be a sane policy?
Fighting battles that we don't need to fight is not a sane policy, no. That is the central question: "Did we really need to fight this battle?
One difference. Apparently enough for you to concede that your "why fight Saddam when we don't fight other evil men?" argument is foolish and empty.
Your arguments are foolish and empty. What a strong proof that is. Kymar says so, so it must be so.
Man, do you rub your shit all over your own body and claim, "My shit doesn't stink!!!"
Just another zealot who mistakes his opinion for fact.
Keep this up, and others are going to start to wonder whether I'm secretly encouraging you to put up straw man arguments, and to attach as much bluster, illogic, and poor manners as possible just for the sake of giving a bad name to war opponents.
No doubt your hapaboy fan club is at work printing up bumper stickers as we speak.
Poor manners? You call people's arguments foolish, empty, loony, etc., and you preach manners?
What a fucking hypocrite you are.
You can always tell when someone is losing an argument...they make claim to winning it.
Strong arguments destroy an opponent, without the need to claim victory. They are so obvious, that any reasonable man would be forced to agree with the logic.
FBI probing forged papers on Niger uranium
By Bill Gertz
Published July 19, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FBI is investigating the origin of forged documents indicating that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger, and one candidate for the forgeries is an Iraqi opposition group, U.S. officials said.
The documents, obtained first by Italy's intelligence service, ended up fooling the CIA and other U.S. intelligence agencies into believing Baghdad was trying to buy uranium ore from the African nation, U.S. officials say.
The documents ended up "tainting" other reliable intelligence on Iraq's weapons programs and undermining the credibility of U.S. intelligence reports, said officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
One official said that the documents were provided first to the Italians and then to journalists before they ended up in the hands of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which dismissed them as fakes.
FBI spokesman Bill Carter said in an interview that a preliminary inquiry into the documents was undertaken after recent meetings between senior FBI officials and Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV, West Virginia Democrat and vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
Mr. Carter declined to comment further, citing a policy of not discussing FBI investigative matters.
Other officials said the FBI has sent agents to Italy and other nations to find out the origin of the documents, and the bureau's counterintelligence agents also are questioning officials at the CIA and State Department. The probe was first reported by Newsweek magazine.
Other intelligence obtained by Britain is considered reliable and indicates Niger had tried to sell uranium ore to Saddam Hussein's government, said officials familiar with U.S. intelligence reports.
President Bush chastised senior advisers, including National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and outgoing press spokesman Ari Fleischer, about the uranium intelligence flap and the White House's handling of it several times during the recent trip to Africa.
Spokesmen at the time initially said the White House was provided with bad intelligence from the CIA, only to reverse course a day later and claim the intelligence may still be valid although it should not have been included in a presidential speech.
"The president wanted the matter settled," one official said of Mr. Bush's harsh words for his advisers.
Although it received intelligence from the documents earlier, the CIA did not obtain copies of the forged documents until February 2003 â months after the Italians first obtained them and after the president's State of the Union address.
A U.S. official said the Italians initially only described the documents to the CIA. Then the State Department obtained a set from a journalist and that led to an investigative trip to Niger by former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson.
Mr. Wilson said Niger's government told him that the country would not sell uranium to Iraq, but also informed him that Iraqis were in the country discussing unspecified commercial transactions, which could have included uranium-ore purchases, the U.S. official said.
CIA Director George J. Tenet testified before a closed hearing of the Senate Intelligence Committee on Wednesday to explain how the tainted intelligence ended up in a major U.S. intelligence-community report and the president's State of the Union speech.
An official said the documents included a letter about the purchase of some 500 tons of uranium ore, supposedly signed by Niger's president, Mamadou Tandja. The signature was found to have been faked.
Another document was described as an October 2000 Niger military document signed by a former foreign minister of Niger.
Besides Iraqi opposition, investigators also say the documents could have been produced by criminals, con men, or a foreign intelligence service.
The six main anti-Saddam groups before the war were the Iraqi National Congress, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, the Kurdistan Democratic Party, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, the Iraqi National Accord and the Constitutional Monarchy Movement.
In London on Wednesday, British Prime Minister Tony Blair defended British intelligence on the Niger-Iraq uranium deal before the Parliament.
"The intelligence on which we based this was not the so-called 'forged documents' that have been put to the IAEA, and the IAEA have accepted that they got no such forged documents from British intelligence," Mr. Blair said.
"We had independent intelligence to the effect," the prime minister added.
U.S. intelligence officials suspect the bogus documents were created to exaggerate Iraq's nuclear-arms program as part of an effort to garner international opposition to Baghdad.
The forged documents undermined one element of a National Intelligence Estimate, a major interagency report, that became the basis for part of the president's January speech to Congress.
Officials familiar with the intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction said it included one passage about efforts by Baghdad to buy yellowcake uranium ore from Niger.
However, the passage in the highly classified report did not have a "footnote" or objection attached to it, indicating it represented a consensus view of all intelligence agencies, including the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research.
Only later in another section of the 90-page classified report did the State Department intelligence office indicate that it doubted the attempted Niger uranium purchases.
"There was no opposition to the main reference to Niger," said one official who has seen the estimate.
According to U.S. officials, the State Department's opposition to the intelligence on Niger uranium in the report was related to the department's doubts about Iraq's purchase of special alloy tubes that were believed to be for building gas centrifuges.
By Bill Gertz
Published July 19, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FBI is investigating the origin of forged documents indicating that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger, and one candidate for the forgeries is an Iraqi opposition group, U.S. officials said.
The documents, obtained first by Italy's intelligence service, ended up fooling the CIA and other U.S. intelligence agencies into believing Baghdad was trying to buy uranium ore from the African nation, U.S. officials say.
The documents ended up "tainting" other reliable intelligence on Iraq's weapons programs and undermining the credibility of U.S. intelligence reports, said officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
One official said that the documents were provided first to the Italians and then to journalists before they ended up in the hands of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which dismissed them as fakes.
FBI spokesman Bill Carter said in an interview that a preliminary inquiry into the documents was undertaken after recent meetings between senior FBI officials and Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV, West Virginia Democrat and vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
Mr. Carter declined to comment further, citing a policy of not discussing FBI investigative matters.
Other officials said the FBI has sent agents to Italy and other nations to find out the origin of the documents, and the bureau's counterintelligence agents also are questioning officials at the CIA and State Department. The probe was first reported by Newsweek magazine.
Other intelligence obtained by Britain is considered reliable and indicates Niger had tried to sell uranium ore to Saddam Hussein's government, said officials familiar with U.S. intelligence reports.
President Bush chastised senior advisers, including National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and outgoing press spokesman Ari Fleischer, about the uranium intelligence flap and the White House's handling of it several times during the recent trip to Africa.
Spokesmen at the time initially said the White House was provided with bad intelligence from the CIA, only to reverse course a day later and claim the intelligence may still be valid although it should not have been included in a presidential speech.
"The president wanted the matter settled," one official said of Mr. Bush's harsh words for his advisers.
Although it received intelligence from the documents earlier, the CIA did not obtain copies of the forged documents until February 2003 â months after the Italians first obtained them and after the president's State of the Union address.
A U.S. official said the Italians initially only described the documents to the CIA. Then the State Department obtained a set from a journalist and that led to an investigative trip to Niger by former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson.
Mr. Wilson said Niger's government told him that the country would not sell uranium to Iraq, but also informed him that Iraqis were in the country discussing unspecified commercial transactions, which could have included uranium-ore purchases, the U.S. official said.
CIA Director George J. Tenet testified before a closed hearing of the Senate Intelligence Committee on Wednesday to explain how the tainted intelligence ended up in a major U.S. intelligence-community report and the president's State of the Union speech.
An official said the documents included a letter about the purchase of some 500 tons of uranium ore, supposedly signed by Niger's president, Mamadou Tandja. The signature was found to have been faked.
Another document was described as an October 2000 Niger military document signed by a former foreign minister of Niger.
Besides Iraqi opposition, investigators also say the documents could have been produced by criminals, con men, or a foreign intelligence service.
The six main anti-Saddam groups before the war were the Iraqi National Congress, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, the Kurdistan Democratic Party, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, the Iraqi National Accord and the Constitutional Monarchy Movement.
In London on Wednesday, British Prime Minister Tony Blair defended British intelligence on the Niger-Iraq uranium deal before the Parliament.
"The intelligence on which we based this was not the so-called 'forged documents' that have been put to the IAEA, and the IAEA have accepted that they got no such forged documents from British intelligence," Mr. Blair said.
"We had independent intelligence to the effect," the prime minister added.
U.S. intelligence officials suspect the bogus documents were created to exaggerate Iraq's nuclear-arms program as part of an effort to garner international opposition to Baghdad.
The forged documents undermined one element of a National Intelligence Estimate, a major interagency report, that became the basis for part of the president's January speech to Congress.
Officials familiar with the intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction said it included one passage about efforts by Baghdad to buy yellowcake uranium ore from Niger.
However, the passage in the highly classified report did not have a "footnote" or objection attached to it, indicating it represented a consensus view of all intelligence agencies, including the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research.
Only later in another section of the 90-page classified report did the State Department intelligence office indicate that it doubted the attempted Niger uranium purchases.
"There was no opposition to the main reference to Niger," said one official who has seen the estimate.
According to U.S. officials, the State Department's opposition to the intelligence on Niger uranium in the report was related to the department's doubts about Iraq's purchase of special alloy tubes that were believed to be for building gas centrifuges.
Newsmax
Saturday, July 19, 2003 11:11 a.m. EDT
Haig: Dem Scandal Mongers Helping Saddam, Lack Patriotism
A day after Saddam Hussein echoed the words of Bush administration critics who insist without evidence that the president lied about Iraq's nuclear weapons program, former Secretary of State Alexander Haig warned that Bush's political opponents were deliberately undermining the war effort and demonstrating a lack of patriotism.
"They're giving aid to the enemy," Haig told nationally syndicated radio host Sean Hannity on Friday.
"They're convincing [Saddam loyalists] that we are the same old America that ran out of West Beirut when we had Marines killed; that ran out of Somalia when we had some young soldiers killed; that let Saddam Hussein survive the Gulf War," Haig complained.
The one-time NATO commander said that the criticism reminded him of attacks on President Nixon during Vietnam, "when political opportunity overcame patriotism, love of country and the interests of the American people."
"Many of the Democratic left are anti-war under any circumstances," he noted. "They would surrender before they would fight, and give up our freedom rather than protect it."
Haig said that some of Bush's critics "have deluded themselves" into believing the charge that he lied. But others, he said, "are consciously, tongue in cheek, playing domestic politics over the vital interests of the country."
Noting that presidential candidate Sen. Bob Graham has in recent days raised the possibility that Bush could be impeached, Haig said the Florida Democrat had demonstrated "a lack of clear-headed patriotism" in a cynical bid to draw attention to his flagging White House bid.
"That shows a frivolous shallowness and a lack of historic reality and, I think in his case, of clear-headed patriotism," he told Hannity.
Citing reports that Saddam had murdered up to 300,000 of his own citizens, Haig said he was "appalled" by suggestions from some Democrats that Bush "has misled us and dragged us into a war we had no business being in."
"Let me tell you," the one-time top military man added angrily, "it is something that they should pay for."
On Thursday, Saddam's Baath Party loyalists released an audiotape purporting to be the deposed Iraqi dictator. In his comments, Hussein echoed Bush's Democratic Party critics, saying:
"What will the two liars, Bush and Blair, say to their people and to humanity? What will they tell the world? ... The lies were known to the President of the United States and to the prime minister of Britain when they decided to wage war on Iraq."
_______________________________________
Sounds like my quote of a foreign source yesterday. Two bits this gets a couple of responses.
Saturday, July 19, 2003 11:11 a.m. EDT
Haig: Dem Scandal Mongers Helping Saddam, Lack Patriotism
A day after Saddam Hussein echoed the words of Bush administration critics who insist without evidence that the president lied about Iraq's nuclear weapons program, former Secretary of State Alexander Haig warned that Bush's political opponents were deliberately undermining the war effort and demonstrating a lack of patriotism.
"They're giving aid to the enemy," Haig told nationally syndicated radio host Sean Hannity on Friday.
"They're convincing [Saddam loyalists] that we are the same old America that ran out of West Beirut when we had Marines killed; that ran out of Somalia when we had some young soldiers killed; that let Saddam Hussein survive the Gulf War," Haig complained.
The one-time NATO commander said that the criticism reminded him of attacks on President Nixon during Vietnam, "when political opportunity overcame patriotism, love of country and the interests of the American people."
"Many of the Democratic left are anti-war under any circumstances," he noted. "They would surrender before they would fight, and give up our freedom rather than protect it."
Haig said that some of Bush's critics "have deluded themselves" into believing the charge that he lied. But others, he said, "are consciously, tongue in cheek, playing domestic politics over the vital interests of the country."
Noting that presidential candidate Sen. Bob Graham has in recent days raised the possibility that Bush could be impeached, Haig said the Florida Democrat had demonstrated "a lack of clear-headed patriotism" in a cynical bid to draw attention to his flagging White House bid.
"That shows a frivolous shallowness and a lack of historic reality and, I think in his case, of clear-headed patriotism," he told Hannity.
Citing reports that Saddam had murdered up to 300,000 of his own citizens, Haig said he was "appalled" by suggestions from some Democrats that Bush "has misled us and dragged us into a war we had no business being in."
"Let me tell you," the one-time top military man added angrily, "it is something that they should pay for."
On Thursday, Saddam's Baath Party loyalists released an audiotape purporting to be the deposed Iraqi dictator. In his comments, Hussein echoed Bush's Democratic Party critics, saying:
"What will the two liars, Bush and Blair, say to their people and to humanity? What will they tell the world? ... The lies were known to the President of the United States and to the prime minister of Britain when they decided to wage war on Iraq."
_______________________________________
Sounds like my quote of a foreign source yesterday. Two bits this gets a couple of responses.
Perfect Intelligence?
Gary Aldrich
Friday, July 18, 2003
After 9/11, we wanted to know how we were so totally surprised by a horrific terrorist attack. The general inquiry finally settled on the question of our intelligence agenciesâ abilities and performance. For a time, it appeared that reasonable men paused from their personal political agendas to obtain an answer to this important question.
It was urgent then, and now, to get this country back into a safe position after eight years of atrophy under the rudderless, confused leadership of Bill Clinton.
Much ink was spent to create an illusion that we as Americans wanted to work together â we would put political differences aside â to ensure the safety of our cities. We would also work tirelessly â in the spirit of whatâs so great about America â so that together we could rid the world of terrorists who were capable of inflicting even worse damage.
President Bush made a promise to the people of the world that we would no longer tolerate terrorists and we would do whatever it took to remove them from power. Few stood up to disagree with him when he stated this countryâs position, and for a time it appeared that there was at least one Bush policy we could all agree upon.
Today, the unrelenting attacks on the Bush presidency on the eve of a presidential election a little more than a year away reveal that the Hard-left Democratsâ entreaties of unity and patriotism were merely a smoke screen to hide the inadequacy of Bushâs predecessor.
Clintonâs incompetent âinvestigation on terrorismâ only emboldened world-class terrorists, but Hard-Left Democrats rushed forward to make it seem unpatriotic if some of us noticed.
Now that average citizens are less watchful than they were nearly two years ago, it appears Hard-Left Democratic presidential wannabes will do or say anything to undermine the credibility of the Bush administration. If thereâs an upside for the Democratic Party if aspirants continue to bash and undermine Bushâs credibility, itâs hard to see it.
Is there a downside for Bush, or Republicans? It now appears that Bush has a lock on re-election.
More important is the question of whether there is a corrosive effect to intelligence agencies from constant carping and sniping by Democrats seeking to gain power. Recall that our president is trying to obtain maximum performance out of federal agencies responsible for holding back a virtual tide of terrorist attacks. How useful is it, then, to haul the CIA director up to Capitol Hill and grill him relentlessly on a single item of flawed intelligence?
President Bush has rid the world of a particularly dangerous, evil dictator who ruled with an iron fist for decades. They are still uncovering the mass graves of Saddam Husseinâs political victims. The United Nations threatened for years that Hussein needed to come clean about his weapons of mass destruction, or else.
During the eight years of Bill Clinton, it was said and widely repeated â mostly by Democrats â that George Herbert Walker Bush made a major mistake by not âfinishing the jobâ in taking Hussein out of power at the close of Desert Storm.
Of course, nobody can explain how we could have captured or killed Hussein at that time, but cannot do it today.
Hard-Left Democrats even find it appropriate to ignore the fact that President Bush I formed a significant coalition under the auspices of the United Nations, and agreed to run Hussein out of Kuwait, but to stop short of deposing him.
This is certainly a neat trick, considering it is the Democrats who consistently worship at the alter of the United Nations, and seem interested only in strengthening the mega-bureaucracy now composed of and controlled by Third World powers with anti-American agendas.
Remarkably, the same Hard-Left Democrats who accused Bush I of being too timid with Hussein in 1991 now claim his son was too tough this time around. Bushâs predecessor, Bill Clinton, talked tough about Hussein, giving every impression of being one step away from attacking him. Democrats in Congress and their many friends in the mainstream media cheered Clinton on.
Clintonâs few actual military events related to combating terrorism were significant flops, or colossal mistakes in targeting or intelligence. The terrorists gathered strength and were emboldened by Clintonâs missteps, but nobody wants to talk about that now. That is, nobody in the Democratic Party or the media mega-mouths who lend constant support to them.
Hard-Left Democrats now attempt to break into the White House, using the tools of deceit and distrust. They know most Americans see the Republican Party as tough on terrorism and strong on national defense. They know President Bushâs reputation has soared since 9/11 and will probably ensure his re-election in 2004.
But Hard-Left Democrats still believe they stand a chance, if only they can undermine the publicâs confidence in Bushâs abilities by spotlighting recent intelligence agenciesâ shortcomings.
So bankrupt is the Democratic Party that it cannot come up with a single program that would endear the public to vote its leaders into office. Instead, all the Democrats have to offer are doubts about a presidentâs leadership during a time of war.
Hard-Left Democrats may cause President Bushâs poll numbers to drop, but this Democratic maneuvering to cut into Bushâs popularity will force the intelligence agencies to pay a high price.
If the intelligence communityâs morale is weakened by constant criticism, wonât that affect its performance? Wonât poor attitude and performance place us in greater danger? Hard-Left Democrats seem willing to take that gamble, so long as they have a chance to win some elections.
In the end, the American people will have to decide if presidential hopefuls are merely posturing to gain power. By their relentless berating of intelligence agencies and the Bush administration, are they in fact guilty of aiding and abetting terrorists who are trying to kill us?
What Democrats are now doing cannot be described as mere âpoliticsâ â the simple differences of opinion between political parties. Slamming President Bush at this time and place in our countryâs struggle will be interpreted by some to be nothing short of treason. Others will conclude that Hard-Left Democrats are giving aid and comfort to our enemies.
Only rabid Hard-Left supporters could agree that the Democrats are taking an acceptable path simply because they believe it possibly leads to the White House. Itâs becoming more apparent every day that Hard-Left Democrats hate Bush so much they would put all of us at risk in order to regain lost power.
__________________________________________________
More wonderful stuff.
Gary Aldrich
Friday, July 18, 2003
After 9/11, we wanted to know how we were so totally surprised by a horrific terrorist attack. The general inquiry finally settled on the question of our intelligence agenciesâ abilities and performance. For a time, it appeared that reasonable men paused from their personal political agendas to obtain an answer to this important question.
It was urgent then, and now, to get this country back into a safe position after eight years of atrophy under the rudderless, confused leadership of Bill Clinton.
Much ink was spent to create an illusion that we as Americans wanted to work together â we would put political differences aside â to ensure the safety of our cities. We would also work tirelessly â in the spirit of whatâs so great about America â so that together we could rid the world of terrorists who were capable of inflicting even worse damage.
President Bush made a promise to the people of the world that we would no longer tolerate terrorists and we would do whatever it took to remove them from power. Few stood up to disagree with him when he stated this countryâs position, and for a time it appeared that there was at least one Bush policy we could all agree upon.
Today, the unrelenting attacks on the Bush presidency on the eve of a presidential election a little more than a year away reveal that the Hard-left Democratsâ entreaties of unity and patriotism were merely a smoke screen to hide the inadequacy of Bushâs predecessor.
Clintonâs incompetent âinvestigation on terrorismâ only emboldened world-class terrorists, but Hard-Left Democrats rushed forward to make it seem unpatriotic if some of us noticed.
Now that average citizens are less watchful than they were nearly two years ago, it appears Hard-Left Democratic presidential wannabes will do or say anything to undermine the credibility of the Bush administration. If thereâs an upside for the Democratic Party if aspirants continue to bash and undermine Bushâs credibility, itâs hard to see it.
Is there a downside for Bush, or Republicans? It now appears that Bush has a lock on re-election.
More important is the question of whether there is a corrosive effect to intelligence agencies from constant carping and sniping by Democrats seeking to gain power. Recall that our president is trying to obtain maximum performance out of federal agencies responsible for holding back a virtual tide of terrorist attacks. How useful is it, then, to haul the CIA director up to Capitol Hill and grill him relentlessly on a single item of flawed intelligence?
President Bush has rid the world of a particularly dangerous, evil dictator who ruled with an iron fist for decades. They are still uncovering the mass graves of Saddam Husseinâs political victims. The United Nations threatened for years that Hussein needed to come clean about his weapons of mass destruction, or else.
During the eight years of Bill Clinton, it was said and widely repeated â mostly by Democrats â that George Herbert Walker Bush made a major mistake by not âfinishing the jobâ in taking Hussein out of power at the close of Desert Storm.
Of course, nobody can explain how we could have captured or killed Hussein at that time, but cannot do it today.
Hard-Left Democrats even find it appropriate to ignore the fact that President Bush I formed a significant coalition under the auspices of the United Nations, and agreed to run Hussein out of Kuwait, but to stop short of deposing him.
This is certainly a neat trick, considering it is the Democrats who consistently worship at the alter of the United Nations, and seem interested only in strengthening the mega-bureaucracy now composed of and controlled by Third World powers with anti-American agendas.
Remarkably, the same Hard-Left Democrats who accused Bush I of being too timid with Hussein in 1991 now claim his son was too tough this time around. Bushâs predecessor, Bill Clinton, talked tough about Hussein, giving every impression of being one step away from attacking him. Democrats in Congress and their many friends in the mainstream media cheered Clinton on.
Clintonâs few actual military events related to combating terrorism were significant flops, or colossal mistakes in targeting or intelligence. The terrorists gathered strength and were emboldened by Clintonâs missteps, but nobody wants to talk about that now. That is, nobody in the Democratic Party or the media mega-mouths who lend constant support to them.
Hard-Left Democrats now attempt to break into the White House, using the tools of deceit and distrust. They know most Americans see the Republican Party as tough on terrorism and strong on national defense. They know President Bushâs reputation has soared since 9/11 and will probably ensure his re-election in 2004.
But Hard-Left Democrats still believe they stand a chance, if only they can undermine the publicâs confidence in Bushâs abilities by spotlighting recent intelligence agenciesâ shortcomings.
So bankrupt is the Democratic Party that it cannot come up with a single program that would endear the public to vote its leaders into office. Instead, all the Democrats have to offer are doubts about a presidentâs leadership during a time of war.
Hard-Left Democrats may cause President Bushâs poll numbers to drop, but this Democratic maneuvering to cut into Bushâs popularity will force the intelligence agencies to pay a high price.
If the intelligence communityâs morale is weakened by constant criticism, wonât that affect its performance? Wonât poor attitude and performance place us in greater danger? Hard-Left Democrats seem willing to take that gamble, so long as they have a chance to win some elections.
In the end, the American people will have to decide if presidential hopefuls are merely posturing to gain power. By their relentless berating of intelligence agencies and the Bush administration, are they in fact guilty of aiding and abetting terrorists who are trying to kill us?
What Democrats are now doing cannot be described as mere âpoliticsâ â the simple differences of opinion between political parties. Slamming President Bush at this time and place in our countryâs struggle will be interpreted by some to be nothing short of treason. Others will conclude that Hard-Left Democrats are giving aid and comfort to our enemies.
Only rabid Hard-Left supporters could agree that the Democrats are taking an acceptable path simply because they believe it possibly leads to the White House. Itâs becoming more apparent every day that Hard-Left Democrats hate Bush so much they would put all of us at risk in order to regain lost power.
__________________________________________________
More wonderful stuff.
A few hundred pages back,someone asked why Ann Coulter said liberals hate America or are treasonous. Consider this. Every time some loudmouth criticizes the President for "lying" or getting us into a "quagmire" or demands that we withdraw or turn the occupation over to trusted allies like the French, what is the effect on the hard core Saddamites who are murdering our soldiers? Do you think it discourages these killers or do you think it encourages them? Do you think they get the idea the country is soldily behind the President and our troops or do you think they get the idea that we are one massacre away from cutting and running?
I believe there is no denying that a homogeneous group of people, who all think alike, who march as one, who have surrendered there personal freedoms and live for the good of the state can be a powerful force.
Look at how quickly Nazi Germany grew to a superpower in just a few short years by elimination of diversity of thought and made a scapegoat of those citizens who were not "on board" for either political reasons or other reasons inherent within their belief systems.
Fraulein Coulter would have us all goose-step in unison with "her" vision of what America should be.
God forbid such a nightmare ever happens. If it does, you can use the constitution and all the rights of freedom of speech and thoughts it affords those of us who love our country yet don't believe in political fashion of a particular time, you can use the constitution as toilet paper as it will have little value for anything else.
My goodness, fascist totalitarian thought is alive and well in the good old US of A.....and the shock is that it is not living in the private homes of the neo Nazis who meet in secret, but there it is on the best seller list, and right in front of us in the words and concepts of Coulter et. al and her followers.
Optional - You are 180 degrees in the wrong direction and don't even know what you are talking about. Get out of you dillusionary rut go to fly over country check in with some organizations that barely survived under the actual suppression of Clinton/Gore. Open your eyes and look at the truth. I can give you scores of actual people who were actually persecuted under the minions of Clinton/Gore. What you are talking about are fears of what might happen. What I am talking about is what has happened. Court records, gut wrenching stories of family tragedies, organizations that help these people and help them raise money to fight the oppression, and teach them how to resist and fight through local governments and a multitude of other ways. If you don't know about this then your head is truly in the sand. Of course, intellectually, you aren't interested in what is really happening over the last several years. Easier to sit back and pontificate than get involved. Typical intellectual liberal.