Subject:
|
Re: To change the tune...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 10 Feb 2004 22:41:58 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
782 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
|
| |
| |
That’s splitting hairs: “Grave and gathering” “Urgent”. Bush is doing the
Texas Two-Step.
|
I disagree in this sense: I believe what Bush meant was that, given time,
the inevitable proliferation of WMDs to terrorists by SH was bound to occur,
just not “imminently”. If SH already had the weapons, then an attack
could have happened at any time and thus have been “imminent”, but he never
suggested through intelligence that such an plan was uncovered.
|
As I said, splitting hairs. The indication was that Saddam had WoMD and was
going to either use them himself or hand them out like candy to Islamic
extremists (who would only to be happy to use them on Saddam, given half a
chance).
| |
| |
But on the other count, yes, Bush indicated that Saddam was
to be removed from power - specifically because of the WoMD. Can’t find
any WoMD so now it’s a bait-and-switch affair.
|
Well, that’s assuming that SH could have been trusted to not pursue them in
the future, which wouldn’t have been wise IMO.
|
He wouldn’t have used them against us even if he did - all he cared about was
grabbing his neighbors oil. He would have been only too happy to be allies with
us again (as long as we tolerated his land grabs).
| |
| |
“Any way”? At what point do we become a defender against a threat and
switch over to an agressor who IS the threat?
|
The $64,000 question. I’ll say this-- that point seems to vary along party
lines....
|
A retreat into moral relativism? I’ve seen a growing number of Republicans
question Bush on the matter of the war.
| |
| |
Did Iraq pose a credible threat to
the U.S.? Not that I can see. Bush sold this war solely on Iraq being a
danger to the United States through “Weapons of Mass Destruction”. He
either lied or was incompetent because evidence of such is simply not
forthcoming.
|
This is a great point. The country of Iraq wasn’t the problem. The problem
was the person of Saddam Hussein. The proliferation of nukes is only a
problem (safety and waste issues aside) when they fall into the hands of
crazies.
|
But since they didn’t have them, what was the point of the war? Even if they
had them, I sincerely doubt he would have given them to any organization that he
did not control.
| |
| |
Bush needs to answer for his actions - you don’t see me shrieking about his
actions in Afghanistan (I’m sure there are specific ones to shriek about,
but overall, we could not allow them to harbor the Al Qaeda network). He
thought he had carte blanche to do whatever he wanted in the pursuit of
terrorism without having to answer for his actions.
|
He would be in a lot more hot water if we hadn’t caught SH. I might be
convinced to believe in conspiracies if the polls look bad for Bush in late
summer and we all of a sudden catch OBL;-)
|
Oh, I don’t think there is a conspiracy from Bush himself - I don’t think he is
that imaginative. I do think he can fool himself with his own rhetoric,
however, and there are those within his administration that will bend things to
their own personal agenda.
| |
I disagree that he used deception-- I believe he believed the intelligence
that SH possessed the WMDs, and he believed (and rightly so IMO) that SH
wouldn’t be afraid to use them or give them to someone who would. I mean,
the guy had the cheek to try and assassinate Bush senior! Nothing could be
assumed with this fruitcake.
|
I believe he believed what he wanted to believe - intelligence agencies are
back-pedaling furiously from what Bush claims they said.
As to Bush senior - well, that sums up a lot about Dubya, this is all a personal
family vendetta. Maybe America would be better off without any Bush in national
office.
| |
| |
| |
What lies? What deceit? Failed intelligence is neither. It was worth it,
and the world is a better place for it.
|
Failed intelligence is worth it? It means that we cannot go to the world
again with any crediblity by citing our intellgence.
|
We’ll use Israeli intelligence-- it’s better anyway;-)
|
Yes, but my point still stands: failed intelligence on our part is not worth it,
whatever the outcome.
| |
| |
Lack of trust for
deception or incompetence still adds up to lack of trust!
|
So whom are you blaming? Bush acted as he saw fit based on the intelligence
at his disposal. I’d hope any president would have acted in the same way
based on the same intelligence.
|
Truman summed it up: The Buck Stops Here. Who would you have me blame? Last I
saw I don’t get to vote for the CIA director - Bush can change him at whim. And
even then, this is more an interpretation of the intelligence from within the
White House more than the intelligence itself. If the CIA is to blame, then
heads should roll. If they aren’t, that should be telling you something
(indeed, the source of the interprtation lies at the feet of Bush’s staff).
| |
| |
How do we get
future coopeartion when we falsely yelled “wolf”? How can a democracy make
choices when the people who have been elected (ignoring the debatablity of
Bush actually being elected by the people) can’t get the truth to the
people?
|
Good questions. And I’ll be sure glad when Bush wins in ‘04 so we can
finally put the “elected by the people” quip to rest! :-)
|
Until then, I get to quip with impunity! :-)
| |
| |
One of the most important things that we as an electorate need to do is tell
Bush - ANY politician - that they darn well better not ask Americans to die
for trumped up reasons, be they specific lies or sheer incompetence.
|
Agreed.
|
So, you think Bush is going to win but you are voting against him? ;-)
| |
| |
The world might be a better place, but is the United States the better
for it? No, the resources were wasted on a world that does not care, a
population that does not appreciate being liberated, and a move that has not
made us more secure - this is all nonsense that distracts from Bush’s
incompetence in apprehending Osama.
|
I think the message of Iraq to existing and future tinpots will go a long way
in making the US safer from their aggrandized aspirations.
|
But will we take those actions after the American public becomes further
distrustful of those he lead us because of Bush? You talk about party lines,
but it isn’t Afghanistan that people are freaked out about. I juxtapose
Afghanistan and Iraq as examples of what the American people accept and
question. If a president (any president) comes to me and says we need to off
Dictator TinPolPot of Republic of Pressia (RePressia for short) are Americans
gonna buy it?
| |
If Iraq fails to embrace freedom and democracy, that will be particularily
painful and I for one would think twice about embarking on such an adventure
again.
But I disagree with you that America is less safe with SH on the sidelines.
|
I don’t think I said that - but we don’t gain any safety with him on the
sidelines, and Islamic Fundamentalists will use it as a recruiting poster, so I
do view it as a net loss.
| |
OBL is a huge prize and his death will go a loooong way to dispirit
terrorists worldwide. As I mentioned above, watch out for the late capture
of OBL this summer-- Bush’s Ace in the hole? ;-)
|
Hey, he has the example of his dad peaking too soon - he advocates perpetual war
just so he can avoid that! No smiley - I wish I was joking. :-(
-->Bruce<--
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: To change the tune...
|
| (...) I doubt it. After we back-stabbed him like that? He came to us and asked permission to invade Kuwait. We told him officially, and on the record, that we had no opinion on his minor border dispute. As soon as he committed we mobilized and (...) (21 years ago, 11-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | Re: To change the tune...
|
| (...) Well, okay. Bush believed SH possessed them and was fully willing and able to share them with his aquaintances at any time. Interesting question: Did SH know that he didn't have WMDs? Was he deceived by his own scientists? (...) Not so sure. A (...) (21 years ago, 11-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: To change the tune...
|
| (...) I disagree in this sense: I believe what Bush meant was that, given time, the inevitable proliferation of WMDs to terrorists by SH was bound to occur, just not "imminently". If SH already had the weapons, then an attack could have happened at (...) (21 years ago, 10-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
55 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
