Perspective

ROTFL.. The discussion boils down to the bottom line of credibility of a
president, not participants of a newsgroup with opposing views, to each
other.. "Proof" and "evidence" are demanded that this president lied and
deceived Americans to justify a war that has cost billions of dollars.. That
war has cost the lives of many Americans and other innocent people..
Regardless of who lied and who didn't.. isn't really as important as the
quality of judgement that has led to the decisions that led to the
disastrous results we are seeing . Perhaps, if those same demands for
evidence and proof had been imposed on George Bush, when he made those fiery
and patriotic declarations.. Colin Powell, when he held up that ominous vial
of white substance and Condoleeza Rice when she talked about mushroom
clouds.. Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld when they made fiery speeches to
justify this war, we might have avoided this mess that has caused so much
grief..

Rather than demanding those standards of them, there have been alibis and
excuses for those disastrous decisions..

Bill Walker

 

He either lied or he was the victim of his advisors and administration lying
to him.. Either way you choose, this president is incompetent to stand in
office.. He is the one who selected his administration, cabinet and
advisors.. None of them have been disciplined or dismissed from their jobs..
Many of them have been promoted to higher office.. As Harry Truman declared
"The Buck Stops Here".. George Bush hasn't accepted responsibility for any
of the terrible consequences for his decisions.. Time after time, we've seen
others fall on their own swords to protect him..

Yet.. you still demand "proof" and "evidence" from his critics.. I demand
and you should demand proof and evidence from George Bush, that he should
not be removed from office.. along with his entire cabinet and
administration.. Most of the critics and accusers of George Bush are
Americans, just like you.. Instead of attacking their credibility for
exercising their Constitutional rights to question and accuse the leader, it
would seem to me, that you'd be "demanding" that this president provide the
proof and evidence that his decisions were made without prejudice and
corruption..

Bill Walker

 

Including yours.

Most of them came

YOU may find them so. Also a lot of liberals think so. NONE have provided
any proof.

It is readily evident that he was wrong. That's it.

hmmm.. Something isn't quite up to snuff, here .. We've

Actually, Bush never said that. Blair said that.

No, that isn't quite right. We have not found any WMDS and it also looks as
if Saddam no longer had the capability to make them. This is hindsight.

The walk in the

"nothing"??? You have ONE fact, that no WMDS were found.

We are there.. we will have to

Again, that's your opinion.

Again, an elementary lesson in logic. The burdon of proof lies with he who
asserts. You assert that he lied. Where's the proof?

Whew.. Where were you and those demands for proof and evidence before

That's a fair point, I admit.

George Bush is in control of

The head of the CIA wasn't his choice, for what it's worth. As to why the
situation in Iraq is what it is and why we didn't predict and prevent
it.........well........you were in Nam. You should be aware that the enemy
gets a vote.

I do not accept the dichotomy. And, if Bush is incompetent or lying, so
were Clinton and all his minions in 1998 when they all said the same thing
about Saddam and his WMDS, AND when Clinton established the formal US
position of "administration change" for Iraq.

Which one will you choose

Neither. I reject the dichotomy...there are other choices.

Tenet's gone.....for what that's worth. And, I don't agree that those who
concluded Saddam had WMDS are/were incompetent. When trying to determine
such things as the secret weapons plans/stocks in a closed society,
especially with a CIA that'd had it's budget severely cut is a guessing
game, for the most part. It seems they were wrong. Excrement transpires.

There has been no consequences to any of

I reject "deception"........

No. What has been "proven, on the ground" is that we have found no WMDs.
That's all that has been proven.

That's your opinion. I don't share it. You may be right. The point I've
been trying to make is that neither of us KNOWS.

And, btw, I'm not really defending Bush, per se. I'm trying to point out
that there are opinions and there are facts. The facts pretty clearly
establish that the intel communities of the major nations were wrong, and
(I'll even agree) Bush's statements were rather more positive than than they
should have been. Still, he's entitled to his opinion and to express it.
The facts do not establish that Bush KNEW Saddam had no WMDs. And, until
THAT is established as a FACT, "Bush lied" is an opinion, not a fact.

cheers

bob

 

My discussion with Bryan boils down to the "facts" that he presented are not
facts.

"Proof" and "evidence" are demanded that this president lied and

Absolutely. YOU contend that he lied. You have nothing beyond your
opinion, as far as I can tell.

That

I agree that the situation is a problem.

Perhaps, if those same demands for

That's a point. Yet.........intel reports are classified. We have no
access to them. Kinda hard to confirm.

Your opinion. I don't share it. Don't remember the rule that sez we
gotta agree. We agree on beer. We agree on riding. grin

cheers

bob

 

You set up an artificial "either/or" and demand that I live with it. I
refuse. There are other choices. One of them is simply that his intel
weineis were wrong, as were the intel services of all the other major
nations.

Either way you choose, this president is incompetent to stand in

He didn't select the intel services, nor did he select the intel services of
all the other nations who agreed. Nor did he select the intel sources that
lead the UN Security Council (or the Council itself) to come out with no
less than 17 (count 'em) resolutions demanding that Saddam account for his
WMDs and cooperate in their destruction. It would seem the Council thought
he had 'em. Maybe we should fire all of them too.

None of them have been disciplined or dismissed from their jobs..

You don't know what he knew. When you know that, THEN you can contend that
you know that he lied. That's the bottom line.

cheers

bob

 

Or, more precisely, not the complete premise used (it was certainly
part of it though).

It sort of illustrates the difficulty that democracies, accountable to
the people, have when it comes to using force. Although still
justified to invade Iraq on the basis of the treaty violations alone,
it might not have sat well with the voting public - making it very
difficult to proceed on that basis alone.

And that, probably, is exactly what Saddam was betting on. Just like
Hitler also bet he could get away with disregarding the Versaille
Treaty conditions. Both figured other nations would simply bluster
and posture, but not actually do anything about it.

As it turned out, Hitler guessed correctly. Saddam probably would
have succeeded with his defiance too, had it not been for the
September 11 attack, I think.

--
Instead of swerving, I should have been reloading
(remove _NO_SPAM_ to reply)

98 FLTRI
83 Nighthawk

RCOS#7
Share yourself: http://xidos.ca/XManager/ReekyLogin.asp
To register: http://xidos.ca/OrgUserEdit.asp?OrgCode=REEKY_MOTO
Home page: http://xidos.ca/scripts/Personal/
Alaska trip: http://xidos.ca/scripts/Personal/Alaska/

 

The results of my "opinions" aren't so disastrous, are they ? The results
of Bush's "opinions" when he acted upon them as leader of this Super Power,
have been seiously consequential to Americans and the world.. There is a
great deal of difference, isn't there ? There was a rush to war, in
Iraq..based on what you claim is faulty intelligence provided to George
Bush.. Inspectors were in place to confirm or deny the intelligence
information that he claimed.. Those inspectors were withdrawn when the
imminent war was executed.. We'll never know what their determination would
have been.. It was never finalized and speculation is all we have to rely
on..

Your demands for proof and evidence from the critics of George Bush are not
credible because the standards you'd like to impose on those critics weren't
imposed on the president of the United States when he was rushing into a war
that has proved to be based on misinformation and outright lies of
deception.. Some Americans asked those questions at the time and were
drowned out as unpatriotic and unAmerican.. The Bush supporters and
apologists who did all that drowning out of their fellow Americans demanded
complete loyalty to Bush and confidence in his declarations.. hmmm.. As it
has turned out, they were the ones that were complicit .. The critics who
questioned turned out to be the ones that had merit.. The unquestioning
supporters and apologists are still making the same accusations of the
critics being unpatriotic and even traitors to America.. This separation of
Americans is the most untraditional divisiveness that our people have been
subjected to.. There are no more political opponents with mutual respect
...There is the concept of "you're either with us or against us".. Who is the
"us".? hmmm.. Other Americans ? I defy George Bush or Dick Cheney to accuse
me of not being a patriot or to not love my country.. Other Americans who
proved their patriotism and love for this country and had the audacity to
question and/or criticize have had their characters assassinated by this
corrupt crew .. Two men come to mind, who served this country and shed blood
and liberty ..

Bill Walker

 

ROTFL.. Neither of us will know the "bottom line" until the balance of power
in our government is restored.. A one party system will have the advantage
of no unfavorable disclosure, while it is in power.. Hopefully the critics
of George Bush and his administration will continue to question and
challenge the supporters and apologists for George Bush.. Hopefully.. our
Constitution and Bill of Rights will prevail over the attacks they've been
subjected to.. Hopefully .. Americans will be given the opportunity to
select the next president as a man who truly does deserve the honor and
respect of that office.. All of us, as Americans, haven't made such wise
choices in recent years past..

Bill Walker

 

How do you think Vets who went over for Shield/Storm, Operation Southern
Watch, then Shock and Awe feel? If the power(s) in Washington would of
taken care a business our first go 'round, this entire mess would not have
occurred and we would not have had to go to that shithole time after time
for months on end.

In 1987 when the Iraqi's blew up a US Warship (USS Stark), an act of War,
instead of pussy footing around and worrying about how the World views us,
we should of taken them fuckers out on the spot and made Iraq the 51st
State, theres room on the old stars n bars for more. The Iraqi pilots who
launched the Exocets got medals for it. Teddy R. must of been rolling in
his grave over our craveness and lack of moral conviction. The Middle East
took that incident, our pullout from Bierut in the early 80's after the
Marine Barracks got blown away, our pulling out of Somalia after "Black Hawk
Down", the USS Cole attack etc. as a sign that we don't have the moral
fortitude and courage required to protect ourselves. Consequently, these
murderers think they can do whatever they want with no repercussions from
our elected government, Dems or Reps. Grow a set a nuts America, someone
fucks with us, they should know that we will pound them. As for these
fucking terrorists, I say start with the Saudi's and finish with the
Iranians. You wanna teach that shit in your religious fanatical schools?
You want a piece of us you fucks? Lets rock.

There, I feel better. My last political post.

--
Tony D
1971 R75/5 boxer
2004 R1150 Rockster
Philly Hoodlum©#37
SENS (less) LFS#38 PHS
BS#149 FYYFMFFY

 

Maybe your last political post, but sure a good one at that, Tony.

I can agree with the general sentiment you express there (although I
wouldn't frame it exactly that way). There are bad guys out there and
there's only one language they understand. The people of civilized
nations tend to forget that (or try to make convince themselves it
can't be true), and that gives aggressive and fanatical types an
advantage that far exceeds what their actual strength should give.

Although I can appreciate the frustration over not having finished
things in Iraq during the first war, I still agree with the decision
that was made to not do so. It was a unique event, bringing Arabs
on-side and accomplished by stating the only objective was to get Iraq
out of Kuwait and promising there were no designs on acquiring Arab
territory. Had the coalition violated that, it would have set a
terrible precident and, I'll bet, the Arab world would now be even
more fanatical and convinced that the world is out to destroy their
religion.

In the long run - as was done in both that case and in the response to
the treaty violations later on - it's much better to just do exactly
what you promise. But maybe that's just an old-fashioned idea...

--
Instead of swerving, I should have been reloading
(remove _NO_SPAM_ to reply)

98 FLTRI
83 Nighthawk

RCOS#7
Share yourself: http://xidos.ca/XManager/ReekyLogin.asp
To register: http://xidos.ca/OrgUserEdit.asp?OrgCode=REEKY_MOTO
Home page: http://xidos.ca/scripts/Personal/
Alaska trip: http://xidos.ca/scripts/Personal/Alaska/

 

I never thought they were. And, please remember, I've never said you're
wrong. My only point is that they ARE opinions.

The results

Once again, when you know what he knew, you can establish that he lied. So
long as you don't know, what you have is an opinion.

As for the intel, Bush said what he got from it. The intel community did
not deny it. The congresseional intelligence committes didn't deny it
either. Since I'm no longer authorized classified information, I'l take the
word of those agencies.

cheers

bob

 

The only problem with that, is that Iraq wasn't involved with the Sept
11 attack. While Saddam rejoiced in the fact that it happened, it
doesn't mean we should attack him (Saddam wasn't the only leader glad we
were attacked, but we haven't attacked them). I'm not sorry we attacked
Saddam, I think he deserved it, but I don't think we should have
attacked on the basis that we did. Believe me, I know how dangerous he
was, I was involved in Desert Shield (when he first started attacking
Kuwaiti oil tankers around '85), and I was also over there in '81 when
we supported Iraq against Iran.

--
Odinn
RCOS #7
SENS(less)
SLUG

"The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never
worshipped anything but himself." -- Sir Richard Francis Burton

Reeky's unofficial homepage ... http://www.reeky.org
'03 FLHTI ........... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/ElectraGlide
'97 VN1500D ......... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/VulcanClassic
Atlanta Biker Net ... http://www.atlantabiker.net
Vulcan Riders Assoc . http://www.vulcanriders.org

rot13 to reply

 

Some of us were over in Beirut in '81 (I was there for 56 days before we
headed over to the Persian Gulf), but yes, those of us who were there
wondered why it didn't end back then. In '85, we knew Saddam would do
what he wanted, even with our ships and troops all around. '90/'91 was
no surprise to us.

--
Odinn
RCOS #7
SENS(less)
SLUG

"The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never
worshipped anything but himself." -- Sir Richard Francis Burton

Reeky's unofficial homepage ... http://www.reeky.org
'03 FLHTI ........... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/ElectraGlide
'97 VN1500D ......... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/VulcanClassic
Atlanta Biker Net ... http://www.atlantabiker.net
Vulcan Riders Assoc . http://www.vulcanriders.org

rot13 to reply

 

I was searched a few years, or so, ago.
I served my first time, on a Fed Case.
I know they recognized me, as a days go by, because we jurors would come
and go day by day. BUT, they still checked me out, each time. Lunch
time, whatever.
It was uh good feeling as far as I was concerned. I thought it was
cool.
I said to myself,‘‘I'm glad to be an American’’ by God.
Let some 'son of a Gun', try to get through the door, and cause me
harm, that'll show his ass, not in my town.
Now, the delays at Air Ports, that's gotta be a pain in the butt, (but?)
(grin) (bjay)

 

grin. Proving two things. ONE, that you watch it. Two, that those
commentators are as smart as I. ;O)

You ask me to prove a negative. You maintain that he lied and think I
should prove he didn't. YOU are the one asserting, the burdon of proof is
yours.

He

In actual fact, he said no such thing. That was a BANNER, put up by the
ship's crew. And, THEIR mission WAS accomplished. Bush's statement was
"Major conflict is ended". That was true as well.

To the best of my knowledge, AND YOURS, all of them with the probable
exception of those concerning WMDs.

He NEVER repeated it.

OK. It's a tragedy. Now what?

I gave you a list of reasons in another post. You ignored them.

Not true. The UN Security Council Resolutions demanded that he ACCOUNT for
his WMDs and cooperate in their destruction. He never did.

No, that "his people lied....." is an opinion.

I have been given opinions, speculation and innuendo. NO facts.

Absolute bullshit. You care to even try to provide a cite???

At the start

Provide cites.

Post 9/11, Iraq is a danger

Again, bullshit. In point of fact, in 1998, Clinton and damned near every
Democrat politician who could get within 50 feet of a microphone were loudly
proclaiming that Saddam had WMDs, and Tenet backed 'em up. It was that
insistance that Saddam had WMDs that Clinton used as justification for
launching some 450 cruise missiles at Iraq in late 1998.

Well, I wasn't talking to you, but I'll explain it anyway. No matter how
carefully you plan and how many scenarios you chart out, the enemy can
achieve tactical surprise. You cannot plan for every contingency and the
enemy gets to pick (vote) which of all possible actions he takes.

I never said he did. Actually he never asked UN ( OR congressional)
approval for any of his overseas
adventures...Kosovo...Haiti...Mogadishu...launching 450 cruise missiles at
Iraq in 1998.

And, I never said he did. He DID however launch some 450 cruise missiles at
Iraq in 1998...an act of war I might add.

IN your opinion, and with hindsight.

????????? I suppose you see some relevance.....

I reject OPINIONS when they're stated as absolute facts.

What's the relevance. I freely admit that there's very good reason the
believe Saddam had no WMDs at the time.

I wasn't here, so I can't comment. I hope, however, that you used real
facts instead of what you've come up with here.

Intelligent enough to get elected PM three times. More than either of us
has accomplished. grin. Let's turn this around, shall we. List JUST ONE
major nation that stated "Saddam has no WMDs", and provide a cite.

I don't live in fantasy land so I cannot express an opinion about that.

So, he was wrong. Now prove what he KNEW.

Let me remind you, I have not said your opinion is wrong. I've merely
stated that it IS an opinion.

cheers

bob

 

‘‘Personally I think the invasion of Iraq was wrong. There
was not the foundation to support the military take over of a sovereign
nation. That being said it was important to send a message your country
was not to be fucked with. That message has been sent. Forget the nation
building. All it will do is cost your country a bunch of money and more
young lives.’’ Whatever democracy you might be able to
establish will be short lived, by their standards.
Bring your fine young men and women home and let Iraq fall into civil
war. It's going to happen eventually, now or thirty years from now.
Albert, my comments are not so much directed at you or your opinion,
more just me expressing mine.

(Don,akaCalgary)

‘‘Well said, in my opinion’’ It would be a miracle, a one in a
million chance, that even if we leave those sandy Iraqi folks, with a
fairly democratic government, that it could possibly last. I think most,
wish it could, but so highly unlikely’’!
The bordering countries will see to it, that Iraq will eventually have
another Saddam!! Too many of those sandy cowards, already in Iraq, doing
what they do best, terrorize the innocent.!!
‘‘Invading, or declaring war on Saddam, was not necessary so quick,
after 911.
I wished we'd spent the billions and the lives of our soldiers, on
Afgainstan.’’
I dont think there was one Iraqi terrorist aboard the AirLiners that
crashed into the Trade Towers’’???? Wasnt the 20 cowards, mostly
Iranians, and Saudis, seems so, to my memory’’

 

OK. And, your point is??????????

I thought you were saying that Rumsfeld disagreed and that Bush made it up.
What's your point???

And, the relevance of what you choose to call it is???????

He said "uranium", which in this case IS yellow cake. And he damned sure
didn't as you claimed his exact words to be "weapons grade plutonium".

You may think so. I suspect that's because you know very little about
intel. For your general fund of information, the usual rule is that you do
NOT go with uncomfirmed information. When you get the same information from
other sources, you start to give it credence.

Try reading The Butler Report.

According to British Intel, those documents were not the basis of their
findings.

Yep. And, you're bringing up incorrect information.

I suggest you go back and read it. It said a lot more.

I'm giving you the exact quote, in direct contradiction to your two
"quotes", one that he said "plutonium" and two that "his exact words were
weapons grade plutonium". If correcting you wildly inaccurate misquotes is
"playing with words", I plead guilty.

There were quotes after quotes where he or

Which has absolutely nothing to do with your misquotes and my correction.
How many times must I agree that they were wrong, as best we know???

When support would

I'm aware of ONE such statement, by Ms. Rice and that was very much a
conditional.

I'm sorry you percieve that I'm not being a gentleman here. I steadfastly
remind you that I don't even say you're wrong in your opinion. I merely
point out that it IS an opinion and correct you when you try to use
misquotes to support your opinion. And, when you trot out a fantasy, I see
no reason not to remark upon it.

That's a pretty damned creative interpretation. Your misquote of Bush's 16
words is a case in point. I googled "bush yellow cake" and got about 30
pages of sources, quotes etc. I provided you the exact quote and where I
got it.

You cared enough about his wording to wildly misquote him, with two
different versions. NOW, you don't care.....

About 30 pages of results. Try it.

I am well aware that there's a lot of unsubstantiated opinion out there.
When any source can document a lie, I'll take it under consideration.

cheers

bob

 

Until that day comes, I will continue to point out that opinions are not
facts. Check it out, I have not even said your opinions are wrong. I
merely point out that they ARE opinions.

A one party system will have the advantage

Perhaps.

cheers

bob

 

Cite please.

You think.

The last of the 17 was made shortly before the invasion. You really need to
check your "facts".

I do not have to prove a negative. I don't know how much of what they said
was accurate. Certainly some of it was inaccurate. YOU are the one
proclaiming that Bush lied...all over the place. You cannot establish a
single lie.

cheers

bob

 

He was wrong about the WMDs. Who disputes that? What's at issue is your
absolute conviction that he lied. Stil...you cannot illustrate ANY lie.

Who cares? So, he was wrong about the WMDs. He may well have been wrong
about other things. So?

But........did he LIE? That remains to be seen.

cheers
bob