PDA

View Full Version : An Ad That asks for the Truth.


MrMacMan
Jul 28, 2003, 03:44 PM
I think we all deserve the Truth, that is why when I read my NYT I was supprised that someone acually wrote an Ad questioning Bush On The War...

http://wedeservethetruth.com/docs/wdtt.pdf

I mean this pretty much sums up my questions about the war...

Oh I can't wait till November when my running bet with a person on these forums becomes offical.

Where are The WMD?

toontra
Jul 28, 2003, 04:00 PM
Good to see all those quotes in one place. The more time goes on the more absurd the US claims seem.

I have a collection of Blair's statements over those months; equally farcical. I'll post it if anyone's interested.

IJ Reilly
Jul 28, 2003, 04:15 PM
Originally posted by toontra
Good to see all those quotes in one place. The more time goes on the more absurd the US claims seem.

I have a collection of Blair's statements over those months; equally farcical. I'll post it if anyone's interested.

I note with interest that one of the sponsors of this ad is George Soros. If he takes on this issue, we can safely say this won't be the last we'll hear about it.

I'd be interested in seeing the Blair quotes. My collection of Bush administration quotes includes quite a few not included in the ad. I've posted a few here, but I'll post the entire list if anyone is interested.

cc bcc
Jul 28, 2003, 04:44 PM
How did you get your hands on a PDF?
I see it was made using Quark Express 4.11. Is this the original or did you remake it?

Anyway, it's interesting. Do you think there will be an official response from the White House?

toontra
Jul 28, 2003, 04:55 PM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
I'd be interested in seeing the Blair quotes. 24 September 2002

"(Saddam's) weapons of mass destruction programme is active, detailed and growing. The policy of containment is not working. The weapons of mass destruction programme is not shut down. It is up and running....

"The intelligence picture (the intelligence services) paint is one accumulated over the past four years. It is extensive, detailed and authoritative.

"It concludes that Iraq has chemical and biological weapons, that Saddam has continued to produce them, that he has existing and active military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, which could be activated within 45 minutes, including against his own Shia population; and that he is actively trying to acquire nuclear weapons capability....

"On chemical weapons, the dossier shows that Iraq continues to produce chemical agent for chemical weapons; has rebuilt previously destroyed production plants across Iraq; has bought dual-use chemical facilities; has retained the key personnel formerly engaged in the chemical weapons programme; and has a serious ongoing research programme into weapons production, all of it well funded..."
House of Commons

25 February 2003

"The intelligence is clear: (Saddam) continues to believe his WMD programme is essential both for internal repression and for external aggression.

"It is essential to his regional power. Prior to the inspectors coming back in he was engaged in a systematic exercise in concealment of the weapons.

"The biological agents we believe Iraq can produce include anthrax, botulinum, toxin, aflatoxin and ricin. All eventually result in excruciatingly painful death."
House of Commons

18 March 2003

"We are asked now seriously to accept that in the last few years-contrary to all history, contrary to all intelligence-Saddam decided unilaterally to destroy those weapons. I say that such a claim is palpably absurd."
House of Commons

14 April 2003

"On weapons of mass destruction, of 146 possible sites known to us, investigations have begun in seven but, in any event, we know that for six months before the return of UN inspectors, Saddam put in place a systematic campaign of concealment of weapons of mass destruction.

"Until we are able to interrogate the scientists and experts who worked on the programmes, and the UN has a list of some 5,000 names, progress is bound to be slow. A specialised team, however, is beginning work and we are in discussion with allies and the UN as to what the future role of the UN in such a process may be. "
House of Commons


4 June 2003

"As for the weapons of mass destruction, I point out again that the Iraq survey group is the body that will be able to go and interview the scientists and experts and visit the sites.

"There are literally thousands of sites. As I was told in Iraq, information is coming in the entire time, but it is only now that the Iraq survey group has been put together that a dedicated team of people, which includes former UN inspectors, scientists and experts, will be able to go in and do the job properly.

"As I have said throughout, I have no doubt that they will find the clearest possible evidence of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction."
House of Commons

8 July 2003

"I don't concede it at all that the intelligence at the time was wrong.

"I have absolutely no doubt at all that we will find evidence of weapons of mass destruction programmes.

"The Iraq Survey Group has only just begun its work. Now, it's now interviewing the scientists and the experts and the witnesses and I have no doubt whatever that in the end, these people will talk to us about the programmes and we will have the evidence of the programmes."
Evidence to Commons liaison committee

IJ Reilly
Jul 28, 2003, 05:13 PM
"What I have said is a fact -- that there are al Qaeda in a number of locations in Iraq."
—Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, August 21, 2002

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."
—Dick Cheney, Speech to VFW National Convention, August 26, 2002

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."
—George W. Bush, United Nations Address, September 12, 2002

"We know they have weapons of mass destruction. We know they have active programs. There isn't any debate about it."
—Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, September 26, 2002

".. there were in the past and have been contacts between senior Iraqi officials and members of al Qaeda going back for actually quite a long time. We know too that several of the detainees, in particular some high-ranking detainees, have said that Iraq provided some training to al Qaeda in chemical weapons development. So, yes, there are contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. We know that Saddam Hussein has a long history with terrorism in general. And there are some al Qaeda personnel who found refuge in Baghdad. There clearly are contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq that can be documented... [but] no one is trying to make an argument at this point that Saddam Hussein somehow had operational control of what happened on September 11th, so we don't want to push this too far, but this is a story that is unfolding, and it is getting clear, and we're learning more. ... When the picture is clear, we'll make full disclosure about it."
—National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, September 26, 2002

"I truly believe that now that the war has changed, now -- that we are a battlefield, this man [Saddam] poses a much greater threat than anybody could have possibly imagined... There's no doubt his hatred is mainly directed at us. After all, this is the guy that tried to kill my Dad."
—George W. Bush, Texas Fundraiser, September 28, 2002

"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons... we have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."
—George W. Bush, Radio Address, October 5, 2002

"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his 'nuclear mujahideen' - his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."
—George W. Bush, Cincinnati, Ohio, October 7, 2002

"The Iraqi regime... possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons... We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas... We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."
—George W. Bush, Cincinnati, Ohio, October 7, 2002

"If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world."
—Ari Fleischer, Press Briefing, December 2, 2002

"We know for a fact that there are weapons there."
—Ari Fleischer, Press Briefing, January 9, 2003

Q: Mr. Secretary, on Iraq, how much money do you think the Department of Defense would need to pay for a war with Iraq?

Rumsfeld: Well, the Office of Management and Budget, has come up come up with a number that's something under $50 billion for the cost. How much of that would be the U.S. burden, and how much would be other countries, is an open question. I think the way to put it into perspective is that the estimates as to what September 11th cost the United States of America ranges high up into the hundreds of billions of dollars. Now, another event in the United States that was like September 11th, and which cost thousands of lives, but one that involved a -- for example, a biological weapon, would be -- have a cost in human life, as well as in billions, hundreds of billions of dollars, that would be vastly greater.
—January 19, 2003

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."
—George W. Bush, State of the Union Address, January 28, 2003

"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."
—George W. Bush, State of the Union Address, January 28, 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."
—George W. Bush, State of the Union Address, January 28, 2003

"We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more."
—Colin Powell, UN Security Council, February 5, 2003

"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."
—George W. Bush, Radio Address, February 8, 2003

"If Iraq had disarmed itself, gotten rid of its weapons of mass destruction over the past 12 years, or over the last several months since (UN Resolution) 1441 was enacted, we would not be facing the crisis that we now have before us . . . But the suggestion that we are doing this because we want to go to every country in the Middle East and rearrange all of its pieces is not correct."
—Colin Powell, Interview with Radio France International, February 28, 2003

"So has the strategic decision been made to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction by the leadership in Baghdad? ... I think our judgment has to be clearly not."
—Colin Powell, Remarks to UN Security Council, March 7, 2003

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
—George W. Bush, March 17, 2003

"Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly... all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes."
—Ari Fleisher, Press Briefing, March 21, 2003

"There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. And... as this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them."
—Gen. Tommy Franks, March 22, 2003

"One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites."
—Pentagon Spokeswoman Victoria Clark, March 22, 2003

"I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction."
—Defense Policy Board member Kenneth Adelman, March 23, 2003 (Washington Post, p. A27)

MrMacMan
Jul 28, 2003, 06:59 PM
Originally posted by cc bcc
How did you get your hands on a PDF?
I see it was made using Quark Express 4.11. Is this the original or did you remake it?

Anyway, it's interesting. Do you think there will be an official response from the White House?

If you look on the bottom of the PDF you see his site. I didn't re-touch it... Not that skilled.

I got that site from one of my fav. Political Links (also in my profile) whatreallyhappened.com


And thanks both of you for The Quotes, it re-affirms my beliefs that during the war and now after bush lied to me.

zimv20
Jul 28, 2003, 07:02 PM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
I note with interest that one of the sponsors of this ad is George Soros. If he takes on this issue, we can safely say this won't be the last we'll hear about it.


mr. soros is indeed the driving force. iirc, he took out fullpage ads in the NYT, the houston chronicle and a st. louis paper. the other names are the foundation that paid for it. $450k -- again, iirc. (i read the article about it a couple days ago). maybe it was $187k. both numbers are in my head for some reason.

there's an accompanying site here (http://www.wedeservethetruth.com/)

Backtothemac
Jul 28, 2003, 07:57 PM
I just think that it is sad that we have become such an "I got to have it now world" that we have zero patience for anything. No one today could have made it in the 40's. WWII lasted nearly 7 years. Reconstruction of Germany another 10, and we are STILL finding out things about the Nazi's. Two days after Baghdad fell, people were already saying "where are the weapons".

This isn't a video game. You don't find them inside the map of the program. It is a state the size of California. The former President has even came out and said lay off, which I personally find very amazing, and I have written Clinton a letter stating that while I did not agree with a lot that he did in office, that I have the utmost respect for the man that the class act that he and Madeline Albright took last week. Be patient. Clinton said the same things about Saddam in 98. I believed him. I still believe him. I supported Clinton in 98 over this, and I support Bush now.

It hasn't even been a year yet and we are already discrediting everying because of lack of finding.

Ugg
Jul 28, 2003, 08:09 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
I just think that it is sad that we have become such an "I got to have it now world" that we have zero patience for anything. No one today could have made it in the 40's. WWII lasted nearly 7 years. Reconstruction of Germany another 10, and we are STILL finding out things about the Nazi's. Two days after Baghdad fell, people were already saying "where are the weapons".

This isn't a video game. You don't find them inside the map of the program. It is a state the size of California. .

It hasn't even been a year yet and we are already discrediting everying because of lack of finding.

Times change and nobody today really truly wants to live in the 40s so it is sort of a moot point really.

Reconstruction in Germany would have proceeded much more quickly if it hadn't been for all the political bs going on. Once again, times change and 60 years on one would think that a few lessons about reconstruction had been learned.

A lot of claims were made about those weapons and how they could be used with very short notice. That was obviously very untrue if not an out and out lie. Certainly grounds for discrediting someone in my book.

bond003
Jul 28, 2003, 08:16 PM
Clinton is one smart cookie. This can not be said about any of the 7 dwarfs. He is protecting his actions against Iraq which were justified with the same quotes posted above. More importantly how good will his warning sound when the WMD are found. Not only will he be looked at as best politician ever, but the 7 dwarfs will look like a bunch of idiots. They are betting that Saddam told the truth and Bush lied. This is not a bet even Clinton is willing to take.

This ad was taken out to build upon a poll that was released today by CNN and will only enflame the left to hate Bush more and more. Over 60% of democrats see the war as going badly. If things remain as they are, Bush can easily take 30% of the democratic vote today. It things get slightly better in Iraq where we only lose one soldier a week instead of one per day, then the those numbers will change drastically. God knows what will happen with the economy really picks up.

zimv20
Jul 28, 2003, 08:24 PM
Originally posted by bond003
This can not be said about any of the 7 dwarfs. [...] the 7 dwarfs will look like a bunch of idiots. They are betting that Saddam told the truth and Bush lied. [...]
will only enflame the left to hate Bush more and more. [...] Bush can easily take 30% of the democratic vote today.

ahhhhhhh.... NOW i see sanfelipe.

IJ Reilly
Jul 28, 2003, 09:15 PM
Originally posted by Ugg
Times change and nobody today really truly wants to live in the 40s so it is sort of a moot point really.

What's more, there is no meaningful analogy to be found between Germany (or Japan) in 1945 and Iraq in 2003.

zimv20
Jul 28, 2003, 09:35 PM
for as many times as it's been mentioned on these boards that comparing bush's administration to nazi germany is meaningless, i find it amusing how often the iraq reconstruction is compared to germany's.

IJ Reilly
Jul 28, 2003, 09:56 PM
Originally posted by zimv20
for as many times as it's been mentioned on these boards that comparing bush's administration to nazi germany is meaningless, i find it amusing how often the iraq reconstruction is compared to germany's.

I'm pretty sure this didn't come out quite the way you intended... but assuming I know what you meant, it's true that historians scoff at the comparison of Germany/Japan and Iraq. The current situation is probably more difficult and complex, and is certainly very different.

zimv20
Jul 28, 2003, 10:07 PM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
I'm pretty sure this didn't come out quite the way you intended...

i'm not seeing it. in what way is it ambiguous?

MrMacMan
Jul 28, 2003, 11:40 PM
Originally posted by zimv20

there's an accompanying site here (http://www.wedeservethetruth.com/)
What the hell... I just said that...

Originally posted by Backtothemac
I just think that it is sad that we have become such an "I got to have it now world" that we have zero patience for anything. No one today could have made it in the 40's. WWII lasted nearly 7 years. Reconstruction of Germany another 10, and we are STILL finding out things about the Nazi's. Two days after Baghdad fell, people were already saying "where are the weapons".

This isn't a video game. You don't find them inside the map of the program. It is a state the size of California. The former President has even came out and said lay off, which I personally find very amazing, and I have written Clinton a letter stating that while I did not agree with a lot that he did in office, that I have the utmost respect for the man that the class act that he and Madeline Albright took last week. Be patient. Clinton said the same things about Saddam in 98. I believed him. I still believe him. I supported Clinton in 98 over this, and I support Bush now.

It hasn't even been a year yet and we are already discrediting everying because of lack of finding.
When you say there is something there, and you say it and say it your point needs to be proven.

'Iraq has WMD'
'Iraq is going to USE WMD'
'We know where the WMD are'
'We are going in to get the WMD'

And now they have looked the sites over and found nothing... why?

Because they probably lied in the first place.

Originally posted by zimv20
ahhhhhhh.... NOW i see sanfelipe.

Actually you have a point, maybe it is him...


Look they Overhyped WMD so much that they couldn't stop themselves from keeping the lie growing and growing.

If Iraq has Gallons and Gallons of Bio Toxins you really think they could hide them with all of our 'superior' intelligence?

zimv20
Jul 28, 2003, 11:41 PM
Originally posted by MrMacman
What the hell... I just said that...


sorry... didn't see it...

IJ Reilly
Jul 29, 2003, 12:01 AM
Originally posted by zimv20
i'm not seeing it. in what way is it ambiguous?

Not ambiguous, I just didn't quite follow what you were saying at first. I get it now. Carry on...

Backtothemac
Jul 29, 2003, 01:08 AM
No it is not a moot point, it is a perfect point, that the world was far more patient then then now. As for the WMD's, could it be that Saddam moved them? Has them hidden somewhere else?

Why does it automatically mean that the reason for war is a lie. AND if it is, then Clinton lied about the same stuff? No, I cannot believe that. I 100% back Clinton in 98, and again now, in his assessment, the UN's assessment, that they had then, and had not accounted for many of the weapons that we know they had.

zimv20
Jul 29, 2003, 01:22 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac

Why does it automatically mean that the reason for war is a lie.

do you feel that the administration at any point was overconfident in its intelligence analysis?

wwworry
Jul 29, 2003, 06:31 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
No it is not a moot point, it is a perfect point, that the world was far more patient then then now. As for the WMD's, could it be that Saddam moved them? Has them hidden somewhere else?


Look at the evidence for Bush using exageration, faulty sources, non-current infoprmation and hype. Then look at what evidence we have of a vast WMD program in Iraq.

Do you see the difference?

Could WMDs still be found, yes. But it is very clear that the administration misled and misinformed the US public. I do not care if he did it "for our own good". I do not want a leader who lies to get his own way.

1st Truth, then Justice, then the American way.
We hold these truths self-evident...
etc.

Backtothemac
Jul 29, 2003, 10:16 AM
Originally posted by zimv20
do you feel that the administration at any point was overconfident in its intelligence analysis?

No, I do not. You have to remember that I helped gather some of that intelligence when I worked for the government. It is solid intel.

Backtothemac
Jul 29, 2003, 10:17 AM
Originally posted by wwworry
Look at the evidence for Bush using exageration, faulty sources, non-current infoprmation and hype. Then look at what evidence we have of a vast WMD program in Iraq.

Do you see the difference?

Could WMDs still be found, yes. But it is very clear that the administration misled and misinformed the US public. I do not care if he did it "for our own good". I do not want a leader who lies to get his own way.

1st Truth, then Justice, then the American way.
We hold these truths self-evident...
etc.

No, see if you are right, this administration did not mislead and misinform the US public. Clinton and Bush both did if you are right. Don't forget that.

toontra
Jul 29, 2003, 10:21 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
No, see if you are right, this administration did not mislead and misinform the US public. Clinton and Bush both did if you are right. Don't forget that.

Yes, but it was Bush that invaded Iraq, not Clinton. Don't forget that!

IJ Reilly
Jul 29, 2003, 10:24 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
No, see if you are right, this administration did not mislead and misinform the US public. Clinton and Bush both did if you are right. Don't forget that.

Yuk, phooey. The United States did not invade Iraq during the Clinton administration. It is the Bush administration that must be held accountable for its actions on that score. I fail to appreciate why you are so unalterably opposed to this notion.

macfan
Jul 29, 2003, 10:48 AM
During the Clinton administration, the US bombed the crap out of Iraq. It was a matter of which military tactics were used rather than any substantive difference. Don't forget that.

zimv20
Jul 29, 2003, 10:52 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
No, I do not. You have to remember that I helped gather some of that intelligence when I worked for the government. It is solid intel.

i believe that what you saw matches what we've seen coming from the WH, and i can see how that reinforces your confidence in the intel.

but please understand that from my non-inside viewpoint, i have to compare what the WH said to what's not been found in iraq.

i haven't made any final judgements on the WMD, since, as you've mentioned, it's been only a few months.

but i have strong suspicions that the WH put too much faith into the murky (wolfowitz's words) intelligence data and misleadingly presented it as fact. the pre-war rhetoric (as demonstrated in soros' ad) is _so_ much stronger than what the WH is saying now. it doesn't give me much confidence in their pre-war statements.

Backtothemac
Jul 29, 2003, 10:52 AM
Originally posted by toontra
Yes, but it was Bush that invaded Iraq, not Clinton. Don't forget that! Right. Clinton did launch over 500 cruise missiles in there, and thought that he could do what he needed to do with them. He has said sense it was a bad call, and Remember ALL of the dems in Congress were calling for regime change in 98.

Backtothemac
Jul 29, 2003, 10:55 AM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Yuk, phooey. The United States did not invade Iraq during the Clinton administration. It is the Bush administration that must be held accountable for its actions on that score. I fail to appreciate why you are so unalterably opposed to this notion.

Well, I don't understand how you guys can support Clinton's decision to bomb the hell out of them and not support Bush when was basing his decision on the same intel. Not to mention that the dems were calling for regime change in 98. They supported Clinton 100%, as did I. Many republicans said it was to divert attention away from the Monica scandal. However, I, believed the President. Supported him 100%, and never doubted the intel.

I just don't see why when it comes to foriegn policy dems can't get on board and realizes the politics stops at the border.

zimv20
Jul 29, 2003, 11:03 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Many republicans said it was to divert attention away from the Monica scandal. However, I, believed the President.

i read a (long but) informative article in the new yorker yesterday about the state of the hunt for bin laden.

link (http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030804fa_fact)

check out this bit about when clinton tried to get UBL w/ cruise missiles and monica was mentioned to him:

In 1998, Al Qaeda struck the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing more than two hundred people. In retaliation, Clinton signed a secret Presidential finding authorizing the C.I.A. to kill bin Laden. It was the first directive of this kind that Clarke had seen during his thirty years in government. Soon afterward, he told me, C.I.A. officials went to the White House and said they had specific, predictive, actionable intelligence that bin Laden would soon be attending a particular meeting, in a particular place. It was a rare occurrence, Clarke said. Clinton authorized a lethal attack. The target date, howeverAugust 20, 1998nearly coincided with Clintons deposition about his affair with Monica Lewinsky. Clarke said that he and other top national-security officials at the White House went to see Clinton to warn him that he would likely be accused of wagging the dog in order to distract the public from his political embarrassment. Clinton was enraged. Dont you ****ing tell me about my political problems, or my personal problems, Clinton said, according to Clarke. You tell me about national security. Is it the right thing to do? Clarke thought it was. Then ****ing do it, Clinton told him.

zimv20
Jul 29, 2003, 11:08 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Well, I don't understand how you guys can support Clinton's decision to bomb the hell out of them and not support Bush when was basing his decision on the same intel.


but there's more to it than that. wasn't the clinton bombing also a reaction to hussein kicking out inspectors?

clinton wanted inspectors in there and trusted them, at least to a degree, to keep hussein impotent.

bush couldn't wait to start the war, even when inspectors had unprecedented access but weren't given enough time to do their jobs.

the one thing i gave bush credit for was the effectivness of the threat of military action leading to the inspectors' return. i thought it a good use of the military. but it wasn't a play at all -- he was simply getting ready for an invasion.

Backtothemac
Jul 29, 2003, 11:08 AM
Originally posted by zimv20
i read a (long but) informative article in the new yorker yesterday about the state of the hunt for bin laden.

link (http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030804fa_fact)

check out this bit about when clinton tried to get UBL w/ cruise missiles and monica was mentioned to him:

Exactly. Clinton knew that politics should stop at the border. That is the same thing that I argure. I really have a lot of pride for Clinton in that aspect. If fact I have a letter from him hanging on my wall thanking for the the kind letter of support that I sent him during that time. And one from Hillary as well.

I am not a Clinton hater at all, I just wish that some of the posters here could open their minds a bit, be patient, and wait before rushing to judgement.

Backtothemac
Jul 29, 2003, 11:10 AM
Originally posted by zimv20
but there's more to it than that. wasn't the clinton bombing also a reaction to hussein kicking out inspectors?

clinton wanted inspectors in there and trusted them, at least to a degree, to keep hussein impotent.

bush couldn't wait to start the war, even when inspectors had unprecedented access but weren't given enough time to do their jobs.

the one thing i gave bush credit for was the effectivness of the threat of military action leading to the inspectors' return. i thought it a good use of the military. but it wasn't a play at all -- he was simply getting ready for an invasion.

But you have to remember. Clinton is now even saying that Bush was right to go in, and so is Madeline Albright. Doesn't that influence your opinion at all since you hold Clinton in such a high reguard?

:)

zimv20
Jul 29, 2003, 11:18 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
But you have to remember. Clinton is now even saying that Bush was right to go in, and so is Madeline Albright. Doesn't that influence your opinion at all since you hold Clinton in such a high reguard?

:)

i find clinton's statements curious. as i mentioned before, it could be part of a political ploy. haven't quite sussed it out.

but to answer your question, no, it doesn't influence my opinion.

i don't automatically reject the concept of war. after 9/11, i supported military action in afghanistan -- because that's where the evidence led. i don't buy the WH's story that it next led to iraq, especially in light of statements that, on 9/11, rumsfeld et. al. were looking for a way to go after iraq. it was a war in search of evidence.

the trail apparently does lead to saudi arabia. i'm not necessarily advocating an invasion, but let's do _something_. iraq had nothing to do w/ 9/11. saudi arabia did.

IJ Reilly
Jul 29, 2003, 11:18 AM
Originally posted by macfan
During the Clinton administration, the US bombed the crap out of Iraq. It was a matter of which military tactics were used rather than any substantive difference. Don't forget that.

Whatever you think the Clinton administration bombed out of Iraq during their time in office is for them to justify. The Bush administration must now justify their actions.

IJ Reilly
Jul 29, 2003, 11:22 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
But you have to remember. Clinton is now even saying that Bush was right to go in, and so is Madeline Albright. Doesn't that influence your opinion at all since you hold Clinton in such a high reguard?

:)

The last time I heard Madeline Albright talk about this subject, which was only about a week ago, she was being sharply critical of the Bush administration's policies on a number of counts. It might be best not to abbreviate or over-simplify her arguments.

Backtothemac
Jul 29, 2003, 11:24 AM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Whatever you think the Clinton administration bombed out of Iraq during their time in office is for them to justify. The Bush administration must now justify their actions. And they have. But some people will not listen, or accept anything that they say. They cannot say good job, or way to go. All they can do is try to find flaw with EVERYTHING that Bush does. I have not heard "Well he did do this well" from some of you guys here, because you do not think he is capable of any good acts as President.

There were republicans that had that same type of feeling about Clinton, and personally, I have called some of them idiots to their face. Clinton wasn't the devil, and neither is Bush. But it is the extremes of the various parties that fail to see that.

zimv20
Jul 29, 2003, 11:41 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
You have to remember that I helped gather some of that intelligence when I worked for the government. It is solid intel.

in the guardian today, manbiot has an interesting take on that:

Few people believe that the resistance in that country is being coordinated by Saddam Hussein and his noxious family, or that it will come to an end when those people are killed. But the few appear to include the military and civilian command of the United States armed forces. For the hundredth time since the US invaded Iraq, the predictions made by those with access to intelligence have proved less reliable than the predictions made by those without. And, for the hundredth time, the inaccuracy of the official forecasts has been blamed on "intelligence failures".

The explanation is wearing a little thin. Are we really expected to believe that the members of the US security services are the only people who cannot see that many Iraqis wish to rid themselves of the US army as fervently as they wished to rid themselves of Saddam Hussein? What is lacking in the Pentagon and the White House is not intelligence (or not, at any rate, of the kind we are considering here), but receptivity. Theirs is not a failure of information, but a failure of ideology.


(emphasis mine)

link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1007813,00.html)

pseudobrit
Jul 29, 2003, 01:21 PM
Oh, no! BTTM screwed up the intel!

j/k ;)

pseudobrit
Jul 29, 2003, 01:23 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
I just wish that some of the posters here could open their minds a bit, be patient, and wait before rushing to judgement.

I wish the Bush administration would have opened their minds a bit, been patient and waited before rushing to judgment.

wwworry
Jul 29, 2003, 05:05 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
But you have to remember. Clinton is now even saying that Bush was right to go in, and so is Madeline Albright. Doesn't that influence your opinion at all since you hold Clinton in such a high reguard?

:)

First of all, Clinton is not the president now. It amazes me how people constantly bring up Clinton to defend/justify Bush. Forget Clinton. (remember Nixon;))

Also, my own feeling is that Hussain is/was a terrible blight on this world, HOWEVER, US leaders must act honestly when taking our country into war.

Most Iraqis will probably soon be better off materially (and this is a big distinction - there is a difference between material well-being and national dignity and well being. We forget that here in the land of the biggie-size.).

HOWEVER, the true measure of one's integrity is what action one takes when one has power, or what one does when no one is looking. Honor is an aim unto itself. I would have respected Bush a lot more if he made his case using honest facts, if he had worked with the UN, if he had involved the people of Iraq more. This cowboy "dead or alive" crap may sound good in a movie but it's not the way that governments ought to act in the international arena. I don't think playing on America's fears, invoking the "War on Terror" is proper. We invaded Iraq to gain power in that strategically important region. We invaded Iraq because a war-time president is a popular president.

So now we have a dead US soldier a day, US soldiers killing innocent Iraqi civilians in their hunt for Hussain and 4 billion a month with no forseeable end. "Spin" is not appropriate at all in this situation.

IJ Reilly
Jul 29, 2003, 07:54 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
And they have.

To your satisfaction perhaps, but clearly not to the satisification of all, or we would not be having this discussion.

macfan
Jul 29, 2003, 09:20 PM
Some will never be satisfied.

IJ Reilly
Jul 29, 2003, 09:29 PM
Originally posted by macfan
Some will never be satisfied.

This statement is a tautology.

macfan
Jul 29, 2003, 09:50 PM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
This statement is a tautology.

That statement is true, and it applies to a significant number those who oppose US policy in Iraq. While most support the policy, there will always be those who will oppose it no matter what. They are the unpersuadable.

IJ Reilly
Jul 29, 2003, 10:02 PM
Originally posted by macfan
That statement is true, and it applies to a significant number those who oppose US policy in Iraq. While most support the policy, there will always be those who will oppose it no matter what. They are the unpersuadable.

A tautology is a logically empty statement which is always true. So, yes, your statement is true, but it is also contains a basic logical fallacy, so there's about as much point in my responding to it as there was in your making it.

MrMacMan
Jul 29, 2003, 10:27 PM
Originally posted by macfan
Some will never be satisfied.

That a non-statement, you can say that about anything and be true.

Some could be not satisfied about the new PowerMacs and you can say that...


Look, you have all of this impressive intel, gatherd by our SUperior intellegence community and so far, nothing has panned out:
Lets Check the Iraqi ScoreBoard:
Killed Son Of Saddam -- Yes
Captured Saddam Body Guard -- Yes
Got Saddam -- No
Got Nuclear Weapons -- No.
Got Gallons of Bio Toxins -- No..
Got Any Chemical Weapons -- No...
Any Missiles, banned other such materials -- sorry.
Overthrown Gov't -- Yes
For the Better? -- Debatable.


Look most of their points for war, the WMD have not been found.

I like that the government is now gone, and that (hopefully) soon we will have a better working, democratic government.

And maybe we can get out quickly and not like other Nations we built up again...

macfan
Jul 29, 2003, 11:32 PM
Patience, MrMacman, patience. It takes time, and it takes informants. I notice that you left off the humanitarian issues i.e. mass graves, torture, etc. which were given as part of the justification and have shown to be even more true than feared.

"For the Better? -- Debatable." It is debatable. Not better for Saddam and his cronies, but better for everyone else. Maybe not so good for Iran and Syria. Really good for the people in Iraq who won't be under Saddam's torture any longer.

Bush could announce tomorrow that he had found a cure for cancer, and there are those who would accuse him of only trying to enrich the drug companies. Those who are unpersuadable are hardly worth the attempt to persuade, nor are they worthy of consideration when their only response is a reflexive anti administration stance. Their watchword is consensus, and they see the price of peace as eternal inaction. One must listen, then do what is deemed best and not worry about them. They are a numerical minority, if a vocal one. If one waited until everyone agreed before taking action, little positive would ever get done.

zimv20
Jul 29, 2003, 11:38 PM
Originally posted by macfan

Those who are unpersuadable are hardly worth the attempt to persuade

are you persuadable?

macfan
Jul 29, 2003, 11:49 PM
Originally posted by zimv20
are you persuadable?

Sure. You just need to start with the right set of assumptions. ;)

IJ Reilly
Jul 30, 2003, 12:04 AM
Originally posted by zimv20
are you persuadable?

A good question, but the wrong question at the moment, IMO. Being "persuadable" isn't a criterion for engaging in a debate. The object of a debate is being persuasive. Straw man arguments and logical fallacies do not represent skills of persuasion. In debates, they are called "acts of desperation."

pseudobrit
Jul 30, 2003, 12:43 AM
Originally posted by macfan
Patience, MrMacman, patience. It takes time, and it takes informants.

Heh. Sounds like the argument to let the UN do its job.

wwworry
Jul 30, 2003, 06:20 AM
Originally posted by macfan
Really good for the people in Iraq who won't be under Saddam's torture any longer.

We were not taken into this war because of humanitarian reasons however attractive they may appear now.

Infact the administration is still saying the war on Iraq is part of the "war on terror". What corporate liars!

As we say on the forums

LINKS PLEASE

IJ Reilly
Jul 30, 2003, 10:38 AM
Originally posted by wwworry
We were not taken into this war because of humanitarian reasons however attractive they may appear now.

Any such claims have to be viewed against the backdrop of US inaction in Liberia. This was a perfect opportunity for the US to demonstrate that saving innocent citizens from victimization is the objective of American military intervention abroad.

macfan
Jul 30, 2003, 11:46 AM
Originally posted by wwworry
We were not taken into this war because of humanitarian reasons however attractive they may appear now.

Infact the administration is still saying the war on Iraq is part of the "war on terror". What corporate liars!

As we say on the forums

LINKS PLEASE

First, Saddam's treatment of the Iraqi people was given as one of the reasons for removing him from power, and was included in UN resolutions.

Second, what does that have to do with the question of whether removing Saddam was "for the better?"

Removing Saddam is part of the war on terrorism. It is a matter of understanding how changing the face of the middle east changes the environment in which terrorists operate and recruit, as well as his direct ties to terrorism.

pseudobrit,
With Saddam in power, there was never going to be resolution. When informants fear that Saddam will kill them and their families, you just aren't going to get cooperation. With Saddam mostly gone, it will still take some time.

zimv20
Jul 30, 2003, 11:50 AM
Originally posted by macfan

Removing Saddam is part of the war on terrorism. It is a matter of understanding how changing the face of the middle east changes the environment in which terrorists operate and recruit, as well as his direct ties to terrorism.


it's a matter of thinking for ones' self, examining the evidence in both iraq and what the WH says, questioning motives, and coming to the easy and obvious conclusion that there's a hidden agenda.

your trust in the WH is blinding you.

macfan
Jul 30, 2003, 12:45 PM
Originally posted by zimv20
it's a matter of thinking for ones' self, examining the evidence in both iraq and what the WH says, questioning motives, and coming to the easy and obvious conclusion that there's a hidden agenda.

your trust in the WH is blinding you.

I was of the opinion that changing the face of the middle east was crucial for fighting terrorism when George W. Bush was heading up the Texas Rangers baseball team. It seems unlikely, therefore, that my opinion is because this White House is "blinding me."

It may be that your failure to accept the possiblity that there is a big picture that doesn't involve a hidden agenda is blinding you.

zimv20
Jul 30, 2003, 12:57 PM
Originally posted by macfan
I was of the opinion that changing the face of the middle east was crucial for fighting terrorism when George W. Bush was heading up the Texas Rangers baseball team. It seems unlikely, therefore, that my opinion is because this White House is "blinding me."

It may be that your failure to accept the possiblity that there is a big picture that doesn't involve a hidden agenda is blinding you.

perhaps we both agree that US domination of the middle east is, in fact, the bigger picture.

then where we disagree is whether or not that's a good idea.

Sayhey
Jul 30, 2003, 01:10 PM
Originally posted by macfan
I was of the opinion that changing the face of the middle east was crucial for fighting terrorism when George W. Bush was heading up the Texas Rangers baseball team.

Just an aside - shouldn't we have taken the trade of Sammy Sosa as a clue to Bush's qualifications for higher office?

Ugg
Jul 30, 2003, 01:23 PM
Originally posted by Sayhey
Just an aside - shouldn't we have taken the trade of Sammy Sosa as a clue to Bush's qualifications for higher office?

I think the stadium deal should have tipped everyone off as to how gw viewed the government as nothing more than a slave to big business.

zimv20
Jul 30, 2003, 01:26 PM
Originally posted by Ugg
I think the stadium deal should have tipped everyone off as to how gw viewed the government as nothing more than a slave to big business.

i want to make sure i've got the score straight. bush was overpaid for:

1. his shares in harken
2. his share of the texas rangers
3. his stint w/ the texas national guard

anything else?

Ugg
Jul 30, 2003, 01:31 PM
Originally posted by zimv20
i want to make sure i've got the score straight. bush was overpaid for:

1. his shares in harken
2. his share of the texas rangers
3. his stint w/ the texas national guard

anything else?

His shares in Harken were worthless, they had no value and a buddy of his daddy's bought them from him so that little georgie wouldn't go bankrupt.

macfan
Jul 30, 2003, 01:38 PM
Originally posted by zimv20
i want to make sure i've got the score straight. bush was overpaid for:

1. his shares in harken
2. his share of the texas rangers
3. his stint w/ the texas national guard

anything else?

If Bush had held his shares in Harken a while longer, he would have made a good deal more money. He wasn't overpaid on that account.

The only thing the Rangers' ownership is losing is baseball games, Bush wasn't overpaid on that account.

He probably made the same pay as everyone else in the Guard.

IJ Reilly
Jul 30, 2003, 01:39 PM
Originally posted by Sayhey
Just an aside - shouldn't we have taken the trade of Sammy Sosa as a clue to Bush's qualifications for higher office?

Oh I don't know, there's always hope. Maybe he'll trade Dick Cheney back to Halliburton for cash and a Vice President to be named later.

:D

Sayhey
Jul 30, 2003, 02:06 PM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Oh I don't know, there's always hope. Maybe he'll trade Dick Cheney back to Halliburton for cash and a Vice President to be named later.

:D

IJ Reilly, you are so optimistic. I'd place my bet on the new VP being Tom Delay! :eek:

macfan
Jul 30, 2003, 02:52 PM
Originally posted by Sayhey
IJ Reilly, you are so optimistic. I'd place my bet on the new VP being Tom Delay! :eek:

I think Condi Rice could do a fine job.

Sayhey
Jul 30, 2003, 03:33 PM
Originally posted by macfan
I think Condi Rice could do a fine job.

not a fan of Condi, but she would be better than Cheney. She has a better change up. Now how do we get these "hot stove league" trades going?

zimv20
Jul 30, 2003, 04:33 PM
Originally posted by macfan

He probably made the same pay as everyone else in the Guard.

...for working up to 18 fewer months...

macfan
Jul 30, 2003, 04:40 PM
Originally posted by zimv20
...for working up to 18 fewer months...

Not likely.

In any event Sosa wasn't quite the hitter when he was traded. Maybe cork is used for fishing in Texas instead of baseball.

zimv20
Jul 30, 2003, 04:50 PM
Originally posted by macfan
Not likely.


likely (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/030411.html)

(okay, 17 months)

wwworry
Jul 30, 2003, 05:03 PM
Originally posted by macfan
Removing Saddam is part of the war on terrorism. It is a matter of understanding how changing the face of the middle east changes the environment in which terrorists operate and recruit, as well as his direct ties to terrorism.

Which Iraqis were involved in the 9/11 attack? Who gave more money to Bin Laden George W. Bush's father or Hussein? We still have not heard of any significant contact between Bin Laden and Hussein that is less than 5 years old. The war in Iraq is lumped into the war on terror for domestic political reasons.

macfan
Jul 30, 2003, 05:25 PM
Originally posted by wwworry
Which Iraqis were involved in the 9/11 attack? Who gave more money to Bin Laden George W. Bush's father or Hussein? We still have not heard of any significant contact between Bin Laden and Hussein that is less than 5 years old. The war in Iraq is lumped into the war on terror for domestic political reasons.

wwworry,
Consider geography, politics, economy, etc. This is not a situation where you only target those specifically responsible for 9/11 and leave the rest of the terror sponsoring nations alone. We are dealing with remaking the political reality of the Middle East region to make the region a safer, more stable place. You can disagree with the policy or argue that its goals will not work, but it is absolutely without merit to argue that Iraq wasn't a problem simply because the Iraqi government didn't carry out the 9/11 attacks.

Saddam did have significant ties to terrorism, even if he wasn't personally and directly involved in 9/11. (And there is no clear indication he was). More to the point, he created an environment for terrorism in the region and made the region unstable to the point where dealing seriously with other nations on the terrorism issue and also with peace between Arabs and Israel was not possible. All of this stuff is interconnected. Again, you can disagree with the policy or say that the big picure isn't important, but you should at least take note of it and try to understand what is driving policy rather than looking at each instance in isolation.

zimv20
Jul 30, 2003, 05:29 PM
Originally posted by macfan
wwworry,
Consider geography, politics, economy, etc. This is not a situation where you only target those specifically responsible for 9/11 and leave the rest of the terror sponsoring nations alone. We are dealing with remaking the political reality of the Middle East region to make the region a safer, more stable place. You can disagree with the policy or argue that its goals will not work, but it is absolutely without merit to argue that Iraq wasn't a problem simply because the Iraqi government didn't carry out the 9/11 attacks.

Saddam did have significant ties to terrorism, even if he wasn't personally and directly involved in 9/11. (And there is no clear indication he was). More to the point, he created an environment for terrorism in the region and made the region unstable to the point where dealing seriously with other nations on the terrorism issue and also with peace between Arabs and Israel was not possible. All of this stuff is interconnected. Again, you can disagree with the policy or say that the big picure isn't important, but you should at least take note of it and try to understand what is driving policy rather than looking at each instance in isolation.

yes, you are exactly on message w/ the WH. ari would be proud.

macfan
Jul 30, 2003, 05:39 PM
Originally posted by zimv20
yes, you are exactly on message w/ the WH. ari would be proud.

Again, I've seen the importance of remaking the face of the Middle East since before Bush was president. I should be proud that the White Hose has come around to my way of thinking, not the other way around.

MrMacMan
Jul 30, 2003, 07:36 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
Heh. Sounds like the argument to let the UN do its job.

If only if only.

We go in 'Screw the U.N!'
We Win - 'Quick, Quick get the U.N'


Back to the topic of my thread Bush overhyped the war and is not scrambling to recover the allies he has pre-Iraqi War: Part 2.

MacFan -- If you take out 9/11 all together we would still be in this same mess.
Bush would have still invaded and would have got the world angry for ignoring their complaints.

As the middle east I still think Clinton has done more to create the current situation more then Bush has improved it.

macfan
Jul 30, 2003, 09:45 PM
Were it not for 9/11, the US would not have invaded Iraq. 9/11 change the entire raison d'etre of the Bush presidency.

Sayhey
Jul 30, 2003, 10:36 PM
Originally posted by macfan
Were it not for 9/11, the US would not have invaded Iraq. 9/11 change the entire raison d'etre of the Bush presidency.

On what do you base this on? Wolfowitz has been pushing for this for over a decade. Do you think the neoconservatives would not have won Bush to this position without 9/11?

MrMacMan
Jul 30, 2003, 10:38 PM
Originally posted by macfan
Were it not for 9/11, the US would not have invaded Iraq. 9/11 change the entire raison d'etre of the Bush presidency.

Bush has the same intentions from the beginning.

He was always annoyied that Saddam tried to go after his dad so he cheney and all of them all knew they were gonna go after Iraq, for any reason they could find.


WMD was their new solution.

zimv20
Jul 30, 2003, 10:44 PM
Originally posted by macfan
Were it not for 9/11, the US would not have invaded Iraq.

i disagree.

as mentioned, there is evidence he would have anyway. there is also evidence an attack on afghanistan was considered, pre-9/11.

macfan
Jul 30, 2003, 10:50 PM
Originally posted by Sayhey
On what do you base this on? Wolfowitz has been pushing for this for over a decade. Do you think the neoconservatives would not have won Bush to this position without 9/11?

Last time I checked, there isn't a "President Wolfowitz." Al Gore probably pushed for the abolition of the piston-driven automobile, but that never became policy under Clinton.

I base this on Bush being more interested in domestic policy before 9/11, and advocating an almost neo isolationist foreign policy (a mistake, IMO). He didn't care too much about foreign policy and was more interested in reading books to kids than taking out terrorists and terrorist type nations. He also saw what a war did for his father. It cost him the election in 1992. Like other politicians, he wants to be re-elected, and wars are not a good way to get re-elected.

MrMacman,
There is no real evidence to support the idea that Bush was planning to invade Iraq from the beginning.

zimv20,
Of course an attack on Afghanistan was considered. It was considered by the Clinton administration as well. An attack on North Korea was considered by Clinton as well.

In the absence of 9/11, Bush would not have led the US to invade Iraq as he did.

Sayhey
Jul 30, 2003, 11:14 PM
Originally posted by macfan
Last time I checked, there isn't a "President Wolfowitz." Al Gore probably pushed for the abolition of the piston-driven automobile, but that never became policy under Clinton.

I base this on Bush being more interested in domestic policy before 9/11, and advocating an almost neo isolationist foreign policy (a mistake, IMO). He didn't care too much about foreign policy and was more interested in reading books to kids than taking out terrorists and terrorist type nations. He also saw what a war did for his father. It cost him the election in 1992. Like other politicians, he wants to be re-elected, and wars are not a good way to get re-elected.

Last time I checked you were right. I hope so, anyway, a President Wolfowitz is a scary thought. It not just Wolfowitz, of course, but Rumsfeld, Cheney, and others were early advocates of taking out Saddam well before 9/11. I do think 9/11 pushed Bush into the arms of the neoconservatives. In that way I think your right. I don't think it's correct to say it wouldn't have happened without 9/11. The push would have been there and Bush seems very inclined to the "Cowboy" role.

I think you draw the wrong conclusion about the '92 election. It wasn't Bush 41's handling of the war that did him in; it was his handling of the economy. The war showed Bush 43 how high a President's ratings can be during a time of war. If anything Dubya's drive for reelection moves him toward more military adventures.

zimv20
Jul 30, 2003, 11:20 PM
Originally posted by macfan

zimv20,
Of course an attack on Afghanistan was considered. It was considered by the Clinton administration as well.

bush allegedly threatened afghanistan w/ war if it didn't sign a pipeline deal. this was pre-9/11. a pipeline deal was later signed in december '02 -- but not w/ the taliban.

article on signed pipeline deal (http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/12.30A.afgh.pipe.htm)

some history on trying to get the pipeline (http://www.atimes.com/global-econ/CJ06Dj01.html)

commentary on pipeline by afghan expert ted rall (http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=12205)

some comments by brisard/dasquie book (http://www.rense.com/general17/before.htm)

CNN transcript w/ richard butler about pipeline deal and allegations (http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0201/08/ltm.05.html)

excellent timeline of the history of US companies gunning for natural resources in afghanistan (http://www.ringnebula.com/Oil/Timeline.htm)

macfan
Jul 30, 2003, 11:46 PM
The war cost Bush 41 the election in 1992 in that it effected a recession that Clinton spun into the "worst economy in the last 50 years." Recession and war often go hand in hand, or so I've heard.

zimv20,
How about some legitimate sources and not a newsmax of the left approach? I have seen this pipeline deal conspiracy theory debunked quite soundly in several sources, although I don't remember exactly where (it wasn't newsmax, BTW :) )

Ah, I found one of them.

Here. (http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20020412.html)

These folks are not right wing nut jobs. They are Democratic/progressive activists who, therefore, have no political motive to say the Bush wants a pipeline theory is bunk, but they do, because it is bunk.

pseudobrit
Jul 31, 2003, 12:02 AM
Heh. Your one source is no more weighted than his six. At least he's got one from CNN.

And yours is a op/ed piece. So much for that.

zimv20
Jul 31, 2003, 12:03 AM
Originally posted by macfan
I have seen this pipeline deal conspiracy theory debunked quite soundly

Here. (http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20020412.html)


what exactly did they "debunk?" they've argued that rall misrepresented some facts, made some unsubstantiated claims, demonstrated his dislike of bush, then went on to say the afghan war wasn't entirely about oil.

i never claimed it was. i said that a pipeline deal had been in the works and, absent 9/11, bush might have gone in anyway. the spinsanity pieces (i read two) didn't address that.

further, they conclude thusly (from the original piece -- the one you linked to is the followup):

The significance of oil politics in Central Asia is very real, and should not be ignored by the press or the public. But a responsible dialogue should be based on facts, not dissembling and a reversion to lazy stereotypes about President Bush's devotion to oil to the exclusion of all other interests. At this time of crisis, we need to be smarter than Ted Rall.


fine, i agree. in fact, this goes more to supporting what i'd posted -- the oil politics are real.

Sayhey
Jul 31, 2003, 12:24 AM
Originally posted by macfan
The war cost Bush 41 the election in 1992 in that it effected a recession that Clinton spun into the "worst economy in the last 50 years." Recession and war often go hand in hand, or so I've heard.


Usally it is just the opposite. The spending of money in war related industries causes those industries to hire more workers, produce more goods and services, etc. For example, the advent of WWII is often given as the event that finally pulled us out of the Great Depression. An argument can be made that when the Government engages in deficit spending in very large amounts (perhaps to fund a war) that it can eat up large portions of the money supply, therefore sapping money needed for recovery. However, remember the Gulf war was well over by the time of the '92 election. Never heard war spending given as a reason for the recession in question. Unless you are talking about "Cold" War spending and the deficits that the Reagan/Bush and Bush/Quayle administrations ran up during those times.

I think the more direct point is that a wartime President has always had at least an initial reaction of support from the American people. When our troops are in danger most people are not interested in criticism of the President. This happened in both Gulf Wars. It depends on your view of Bush whether you think he is capable of launching a war to boost his approval ratings right before an election.

macfan
Jul 31, 2003, 01:10 AM
Originally posted by zimv20
what exactly did they "debunk?" they've argued that rall misrepresented some facts, made some unsubstantiated claims, demonstrated his dislike of bush, then went on to say the afghan war wasn't entirely about oil.

i never claimed it was. i said that a pipeline deal had been in the works and, absent 9/11, bush might have gone in anyway. the spinsanity pieces (i read two) didn't address that.

further, they conclude thusly (from the original piece -- the one you linked to is the followup):


fine, i agree. in fact, this goes more to supporting what i'd posted -- the oil politics are real.

zimv20,
You talked about allegations that Bush threatened the Taliban with war over an oil pipeline. Don't go back now and say that you merely said that "oil politics are real." There is a huge difference, and the particular link I provided you debunks the rather foolish oil pipeline or war conspiracy theory that you talked about. If you would like, I could provide more links. LOL. According to pseudobrit's reasoning, seven links should suffice to totally destroy your position! ;)

Sayhey,
Do you remember the spike in oil prices that helped set off the recession in 1990-1991? Ever notice what tends to happen when a war ends to all that production and spending?

pseudobrit,
One could link a hunderd links about allegations that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by Israel, but that wouldn't make it any more credible. It is the same case here. The pipeline/war conspiracy theory, advocated by the likes of Ted Rall, have been debunked even by Democratic activists. LOL. If you love Rall's mindless rants so much, maybe you also agree with him that Clinton should have been impeached for perjury!

zimv20
Jul 31, 2003, 01:36 AM
Originally posted by macfan
zimv20,
You talked about allegations that Bush threatened the Taliban with war over an oil pipeline. Don't go back now and say that you merely said that "oil politics are real."


you have misrepresented what i wrote. i did indeed talk about allegations that bush threatened the taliban, w/ war, over a pipeline deal.

i did _not_ backtrack and pretend to say that my position was "oil politics are real." please reread my post where i said that spinsanity saying "oil politics are real" supports my argument.

nothing in the spinsanity pieces disputes that there are allegations that bush threatened the taliban. the original source is the book by the two frenchmen.

some of the other links provide a historical reference of the US' dealings in afghanistan for the pipelines to set the framework in which bush's alleged threat would make sense. another link shows that, post-taliban, the pipeline deal was struck. the alleged threat did not happen in a vacuum.

the particular link I provided you debunks the rather foolish oil pipeline or war conspiracy theory that you talked about.

if the french claim is true, i.e. bush threatened the taliban w/ war, then i maintain it is possible bush would have, in fact, gone to war. that claim is on what i based my assertion. it is remarkably straightforward. there is no "conspiracy."

zimv20
Jul 31, 2003, 01:42 AM
macfan -

several people, myself included, spent a lot of time today correcting your mischaracterizations of our posltions. frankly, it's tiring. i don't know if you're doing it on purpose to change the nature of the argument or if you're just not paying very close attention.

because of this, i find it hard to take you seriously sometimes. i don't want to dismiss you or your arguments out of hand, as you have demonstrated that you have valid things to say.

the level of discourse on this forum has improved lately; i believe it's due, at least in part, to people having greater respect for others' viewpoints and being big enough to let some little things slide, you included. let's all make an effort to continue the trend.

thank you

tazo
Jul 31, 2003, 01:52 AM
Originally posted by MrMacman
I think we all deserve the Truth, that is why when I read my NYT I was supprised that someone acually wrote an Ad questioning Bush On The War...

http://wedeservethetruth.com/docs/wdtt.pdf

I mean this pretty much sums up my questions about the war...

Oh I can't wait till November when my running bet with a person on these forums becomes offical.

Where are The WMD?

given NYT's status as not exactly dependable should you base your opinions on their testimonials?

Sayhey
Jul 31, 2003, 01:53 AM
Originally posted by macfan
Sayhey,
Do you remember the spike in oil prices that helped set off the recession in 1990-1991? Ever notice what tends to happen when a war ends to all that production and spending?

macfan, you have refined your position over the last few posts. First it was,

"He also saw what a war did for his father. It cost him the election in 1992."

Next it was,

"The war cost Bush 41 the election in 1992 in that it effected a recession that Clinton spun into the "worst economy in the last 50 years." Recession and war often go hand in hand, or so I've heard."

Now it is, the effect of this specific war referencing the "spike in oil prices" caused by this war. The change and clarification is very good. Now I know I agree with you. I'm suprised. The idea that the recession in question was caused by the deficit related war spending and the specific policies that drove the US into conflict in the oil-rich middle east is a very radical one, but it is something that I'm prepared to embrace. Usally conservatives tie the recession in question to the tax increases that Bush 41 implemented with the Democratic members of congress, but I glad to see you don't follow that old canard.
;)

zimv20
Jul 31, 2003, 01:55 AM
Originally posted by tazo
given NYT's status as not exactly dependable should you base your opinions on their testimonials?

the link was for a paid ad.

pseudobrit
Jul 31, 2003, 02:12 AM
Originally posted by zimv20
macfan -

several people, myself included, spent a lot of time today correcting your mischaracterizations of our posltions. frankly, it's tiring. i don't know if you're doing it on purpose to change the nature of the argument or if you're just not paying very close attention.

I find the same problem endemic in all the threads he replies to. If five people take a position against something, he'll jump in, cite one or two of their logical fallacies but never actually commit to the opposite stance.

It's like he's arguing just for the sake of being difficult. Case in point -- one thread he actually said something about how the reason he was arguing for something (I recall the matter was particularly cut-and-dry that it was wrong) was that it would be boring it would be if we all agreed on something just before Rower shut it down.

We're not here to amuse you, macfan.

tazo
Jul 31, 2003, 03:22 AM
Originally posted by zimv20
the link was for a paid ad.

my mistake.

toontra
Jul 31, 2003, 03:54 AM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
I find the same problem endemic in all the threads he replies to. If five people take a position against something, he'll jump in, cite one or two of their logical fallacies but never actually commit to the opposite stance.


I know exactly what you mean. It's hard to work out his motivation for these posts, other than to bump his rating - there doesn't seem to be any conviction behind the arguments, merely an exercise in pedantics. A classic example would be HERE (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=433295#post433295).

I have no problem with people having opposing views and arguing them honestly and sincerely, but macfan's favored style is, IMO, unproductive.

wwworry
Jul 31, 2003, 06:29 AM
Originally posted by macfan
Were it not for 9/11, the US would not have invaded Iraq. 9/11 change the entire raison d'etre of the Bush presidency.

Were it not for 9/11, the US would not have been able to invade Iraq. Blamed Iraq for terror, said "the middle east" needs to be changed - what if someone said "The western hemisphere needs to be changed."?

No evidence Iraq was involved in recent terrorist actions. I am not saying Hussein is good. Just asking for honesty and clarity from the White House.

IJ Reilly
Jul 31, 2003, 10:58 AM
Originally posted by toontra
I know exactly what you mean. It's hard to work out his motivation for these posts, other than to bump his rating - there doesn't seem to be any conviction behind the arguments, merely an exercise in pedantics. A classic example would be HERE (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=433295#post433295).

I have no problem with people having opposing views and arguing them honestly and sincerely, but macfan's favored style is, IMO, unproductive.

No, I came here for an argument.

You've cited a good example of this debating style. Another would be the "gay marriage" thread. It certainly would be boring if everyone agreed, but in the end it's no less boring to debate someone who is clearly being argumentative for the sake of it. I wouldn't even go as far as describing this approach as pedantry, because that implies an instructive quality, or at least that intent. I believe a better descriptor of this style of debating is "disingenuous."

macfan
Jul 31, 2003, 02:37 PM
Originally posted by Sayhey
macfan, you have refined your position over the last few posts. First it was,

"He also saw what a war did for his father. It cost him the election in 1992."

Next it was,

"The war cost Bush 41 the election in 1992 in that it effected a recession that Clinton spun into the "worst economy in the last 50 years." Recession and war often go hand in hand, or so I've heard."

Now it is, the effect of this specific war referencing the "spike in oil prices" caused by this war. The change and clarification is very good. Now I know I agree with you. I'm suprised. The idea that the recession in question was caused by the deficit related war spending and the specific policies that drove the US into conflict in the oil-rich middle east is a very radical one, but it is something that I'm prepared to embrace. Usally conservatives tie the recession in question to the tax increases that Bush 41 implemented with the Democratic members of congress, but I glad to see you don't follow that old canard.
;)

The spike in oil prices was only one part of the war and the recession that cost Bush the election in 1992. You also got a lack of investor and consumer confidence that tended to lengthen the recession making the recovery slower than it otherwise would have been and allowing then candidate Clinton to characterize an economy, which would later be shown to have been in a pretty significant recovery, as being terrible. I haven't changed my position on this subject, just elaborated on it a little. So, when I say the war cost Bush the election in 1992, it did, throught the mechanism of the recession that went along with it. Also, the current President Bush saw this and knew that an invasion of Iraq had (and may still have) negative economic consequences, which damage his re-election chances. I hope that is more clear. I didn't mean to imply that Bush 41's handling of the war itself cost him the election.

There was also the breaking of his "no new taxes" pledge and the presence of Ross Perot that played a significant role, but had it not been for the war induced recession, it's likely he would have won re-election--at least running against Clinton--but then Clinton probably wouldn't have won the nomination if Bush hadn't kicked Saddam out of Kuwait. Chew on that one for a while! ;)

zimv20,
I did not intend to mischaracterize what you wrote. In fact, I read what you wrote quite carefully, which was that there were these allegations that Bush went to war in Afghanistan because of an oil pipeline deal. I took this to mean you thought this charge had merit. That is a charge that is right up there with the Jews being warned not to go to work on 9/11 and there not being a plane that hit the Pentagon, IMO. It has been throughly debunked, even by those who oppose Bush.

You said that the link I gave supported what you were saying. Well, you call Ted Rall an "Afghan expert." The piece I linked, in the part that you quoted, characterized his as something less than an expert when it characterized him not as an expert, but as one offering lazy sterotypes and said: " we need to be smarter than Ted Rall." That hardly backs up your calling him an expert, IMO.

I would encourage you not to blindly accept the thesis in Brisard & Dasquie's book is legitimate, even though it may fit your existing set of beliefs that Bush is an evil guy. Check out this book by a French leftist:
Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1907955.stm)
Apparently, it was quite popular among the French. The title of the book is "The Appalling Fraud." I think it is a rather apt description of the author himself. Also, This guy (http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3&pid=66), who is no fan of Bush, and is coming out with a book called the Lies of George W. Bush or some such thing, refutes a great deal of the tripe that was contained in the links you posted.

Let us remember that this entire issue started with your assertion that the US would have invaded Iraq, and even Afghanistan, without 9/11 having taken place. As evidence, you provided the allegation that Bush would take the country to war over a pipeline in Afghanistan. I believe that position to be absurd. 9/11 entirely changed the focus of George W. Bush and his presidency. Without it, he would be reading books to kids instead of fighting Al Qeada etc., and Wolfowitz et. al. would be devising alternative strategies, only to be checked by Colin Powell et. al., as their arguments just wouldn't bear up in a world where 9/11 was just another beautiful September morning.

wwworry,
I see that you agree with me that the US would not have gone to war with Iraq (at least not in the manner that it did) were it not for 9/11.

I would also argue that the question of Saddam's direct involvement in recent terrorist actions (I assume that you are speaking only about actions against the United States) is not really germane to the question of whether removing him is a part of the "war on terrorism." I would argue that it is. To repeat an oft used metaphor, getting rid of Saddam is part of "draining the swamp." Whether or not he was directly tied to 9/11 or the Cole bombing, he was part of the problem, and getting rid of him is part of the solution, IMO.

All,
I will not address the attacks on my particular debating style as that would likely be "unproductive," IMO. Nor will I stoop to calling others "disingenuous" merely because I happen to disagree with them on particular issues. After all, this is a new day.

IJ Reilly
Jul 31, 2003, 03:50 PM
Originally posted by macfan
I will not address the attacks on my particular debating style as that would likely be "unproductive," IMO. Nor will I stoop to calling others "disingenuous" merely because I happen to disagree with them on particular issues. After all, this is a new day.

An argument isn't disingenuous because it isn't agree to, it is disingenuous because it is designed to be deceptive or evasive. Quite a few of us have now made precisely the same observations. Like it or not, you will have to deal with the credibility issues raised by your chosen "debating style."

macfan
Jul 31, 2003, 03:53 PM
Like I said, I will not stoop to calling other posters disingenuous, because this is a new day.

wwworry
Jul 31, 2003, 05:02 PM
Originally posted by macfan
wwworry,
I see that you agree with me that the US would not have gone to war with Iraq (at least not in the manner that it did) were it not for 9/11.

I would also argue that the question of Saddam's direct involvement in recent terrorist actions (I assume that you are speaking only about actions against the United States) is not really germane to the question of whether removing him is a part of the "war on terrorism." I would argue that it is. To repeat an oft used metaphor, getting rid of Saddam is part of "draining the swamp." Whether or not he was directly tied to 9/11 or the Cole bombing, he was part of the problem, and getting rid of him is part of the solution, IMO.

Then you would also have to agree that as George HW Bush funded Al Qeada much more than Hussein ever did then part of "draining the swamp" would include GHW Bush's son.

Pharases like "draining the swamp", "changing the face of the middle east", "war on terror" are purposefully vague metaphors and (not to get into another thread) disingenuous. As soon as we begin to talk about facts clearly stated then we can begin to get somewhere. It's easy to "drain the swamp" but less easy to say "We are going to war based on flimsy evidence and a strong dislike. We want to control the region and we think it's worth 500 US soldiers lives and innocent Iraqi civilian lives and $4 billion/month indefinitly."

Put that way, the honest way, we may have choosen a more reasonable path.

edit: I would like to change the "disingenuous" part of my statement but I can't think of a better word. I think macfan is a pretty good debater. Rule # 1 is to shift the arguement when you know you can't win.

zimv20
Jul 31, 2003, 05:05 PM
Originally posted by macfan

I read what you wrote quite carefully, which was that there were these allegations that Bush went to war in Afghanistan because of an oil pipeline deal. I took this to mean you thought this charge had merit.


bush went to war w/ afghanistan because of 9/11. in fact, i supported it. but i do recognize there was a history of bush's involvement there, pre-dating 9/11, as previously described.

on that basis, i did say that, absent 9/11, bush may have invaded afghanistan anyway. that likelihood increases if the claims in the french book are correct (i don't know if they are, and wouldn't be surprised either way).

i understand that, absent 9/11, you believe bush may have remained domestically-focused. i certainly understand why, as there was a 1 1/2 year trajectory on that path. that's part of the reason i am not at all convinced that, absent 9/11, bush would have invaded afghanistan.

iirc, this entire tangent started when someone said, absent 9/11, bush would have invaded iraq regardless. then i said: and perhaps afghanistan. i never meant to imply i was 100% certain of that.

macfan
Aug 1, 2003, 10:50 PM
Originally posted by wwworry
Then you would also have to agree that as George HW Bush funded Al Qeada much more than Hussein ever did then part of "draining the swamp" would include GHW Bush's son.

Pharases like "draining the swamp", "changing the face of the middle east", "war on terror" are purposefully vague metaphors and (not to get into another thread) disingenuous. As soon as we begin to talk about facts clearly stated then we can begin to get somewhere. It's easy to "drain the swamp" but less easy to say "We are going to war based on flimsy evidence and a strong dislike. We want to control the region and we think it's worth 500 US soldiers lives and innocent Iraqi civilian lives and $4 billion/month indefinitly."

Put that way, the honest way, we may have choosen a more reasonable path.

edit: I would like to change the "disingenuous" part of my statement but I can't think of a better word. I think macfan is a pretty good debater. Rule # 1 is to shift the arguement when you know you can't win.

No, of course I would not agree that "draining the swamp" would include Geroge W. Bush. That's abusrd on it's face.

It's more accurate to say that we are going to war to remove an unstable despot with a history of using and developing WMDs, defying the international community, and supporting terrorism. We've got damned good evidence for all of this; damned straight we don't like him, and neither should you! And what's more we might add that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, and oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty. :)

zimv20,
Fair enough. I think the case that Bush would have invaded Iraq or Afghanistan without 9/11 is so weak as to be unworthy of serious consideration.

Sayhey
Aug 2, 2003, 03:11 AM
Originally posted by macfan
The spike in oil prices was only one part of the war and the recession that cost Bush the election in 1992. You also got a lack of investor and consumer confidence that tended to lengthen the recession making the recovery slower than it otherwise would have been and allowing then candidate Clinton to characterize an economy, which would later be shown to have been in a pretty significant recovery, as being terrible. I haven't changed my position on this subject, just elaborated on it a little. So, when I say the war cost Bush the election in 1992, it did, throught the mechanism of the recession that went along with it. Also, the current President Bush saw this and knew that an invasion of Iraq had (and may still have) negative economic consequences, which damage his re-election chances. I hope that is more clear. I didn't mean to imply that Bush 41's handling of the war itself cost him the election.

There was also the breaking of his "no new taxes" pledge and the presence of Ross Perot that played a significant role, but had it not been for the war induced recession, it's likely he would have won re-election--at least running against Clinton--but then Clinton probably wouldn't have won the nomination if Bush hadn't kicked Saddam out of Kuwait. Chew on that one for a while! ;)


Hey, I'm not the one who made the categorical statement that former President Bush lost the election of '92 because he launched the war in Iraq. I'll take all this stuff as an "elaboration" of your first statement, "He also saw what a war did for his father. It cost him the election in 1992." I happen to agree that the reasons Bush lost are many and complex as are the reasons for the recession of that time. Just thought from your original statement you did not take all of these other factors into account.

Don't necessarily agree Clinton wouldn't have beat him without some of these problems, but it is all conjecture. As to the war and Clinton's nomination, if you mean the war helped move the Democratic party to the center and helped his chances - then I agree.