LR, that horse has been dead for a few years now, so you can stop beating it; it isn't going to go anywhere. Like most who keep abreast of things, I was aware of these quotes when they were news, years ago. This shining example you offer has been mentioned on AP a few dozen times, and yet not one of those posting about it has answered a very simple question: Did any of those people you are quoting start a war with that bad information?
By the way, I hope you raed all of what Snopes had to say in that link. It does take away some of the impact, doesn't it, when you see all of what those quoted said, when they said it, and what they said after.
Another question you could answer is why Reagan didn't do something about Saddam's use of WMDs, since Sandy Berger, whom you quote, stated that Saddam had been using WMDs since 1983. Coluld Bush I have done something? If you recall, all he did was chase Iraqi soldiers out of Kuwait. Do you think Reagan might have felt awkward punishing Saddam for using what the US sold him? Yeah, maybe he might, at that. And after all, he only killed Iranians and Kurds, not Americans.
Find a new horse, please.
Today's question is, "Where is Osama bin Laden?" Be the first one to call in with the correct answer and earn your President'a undying gratitude.
Posts: 16172 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
Originally posted by DorianGreyed: LR, that horse has been dead for a few years now, so you can stop beating it; it isn't going to go anywhere. Like most who keep abreast of things, I was aware of these quotes when they were news, years ago. This shining example you offer has been mentioned on AP a few dozen times, and yet not one of those posting about it has answered a very simple question: Did any of those people you are quoting start a war with that bad information?
By the way, I hope you raed all of what Snopes had to say in that link. It does take away some of the impact, doesn't it, when you see all of what those quoted said, when they said it, and what they said after.
Another question you could answer is why Reagan didn't do something about Saddam's use of WMDs, since Sandy Berger, whom you quote, stated that Saddam had been using WMDs since 1983. Coluld Bush I have done something? If you recall, all he did was chase Iraqi soldiers out of Kuwait. Do you think Reagan might have felt awkward punishing Saddam for using what the US sold him? Yeah, maybe he might, at that. And after all, he only killed Iranians and Kurds, not Americans.
Find a new horse, please.
Today's question is, "Where is Osama bin Laden?" Be the first one to call in with the correct answer and earn your President'a undying gratitude.
That's right DG, these statements are nothing new. But many here do forget and need to be reminded.
You comment, "Did any of these people you are quoting start a war with bad information?" DG, That comment is not only weak, but downright desperate. Yes there is no denying President Bush sending the military to invade Iraq. But as I continue to say, he did it with information that obviously was considered creditable a couple years before he was even considered a nominee for President.
You discuss Reagan. You know as well as I do, at that, Iraq was considered an ally. Do you realistically think Reagan was going to use our military againt Saddam??? He had no reason to.
As for George Bush I, like many others, I felt he should have sent the military after Saddam Hussein. But as we all know, he didn't.
"You discuss Reagan. You know as well as I do, at that, Iraq was considered an ally. Do you realistically think Reagan was going to use our military againt Saddam??? He had no reason to."
So having and using WMDs is OK under Reasan, but not under bush? I would have though that it would be one way, or the other, but you want it both ways. You say Reagan had no reason to use our military against a man who was using WMDs (that we supplied, but bush was right in using our military against the same man, long aftr he had stopped using them, simply because he had them.
How do you keep up with your shifting principles? Don't you ever get tired or dizzy moving them around so much? I couldn't do that. I like to stand on mine, and moving them around could cause me to fall off.
Posts: 16172 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
Why we should all be so honoured to know we have such a fine outstanding gentleman amongst us who NEVER goes against his principles, always adheres to them and toes down the straight & narrow at all times. It is just so overwhelming & breath taking
As I've said before, Saddam Hussein was considered an ally during the Reagan years. And still was under Bush I, until the occupation of Kuwait.
Accuse me of shifting my principles if you like. That's not what's involved here. The times and circumstances changed. Or is it with the occupation of Kuwait, is when we found out Saddam Hussein's true colors.
Posts: 2047 | Location: Martinsville, IL | Registered: 06-03-02
Gassing people (with the gas that we provided) wasn't a clue as to his "true colors"????
Nothing noble about sticking to principles, at least, not in my case. It's just so much easier to start with a set of principles and let them guide you than try to change them all the time to justify what you want to believe.
Posts: 16172 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
So what you guys are saying is that gassing people is OK as long as it's done by one of our friends, but evil if done by someone else. At least that's consistent with how you see torture; Evil if someone else does it, but OK if we do it.
Posts: 16172 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
Originally posted by DorianGreyed: So what you guys are saying is that gassing people is OK as long as it's done by one of our friends, but evil if done by someone else. At least that's consistent with how you see torture; Evil if someone else does it, but OK if we do it.
You damn right DG. We're all for our friends gassing whomever & whenever they want for their own fun & pleasure
Now as a matter of principle, DG, as far as I'm concerned we can throw all principles out the window. What has happened has happened & there is not a thing any of us can do to change it. Not a matter of justifying it, reality has already happened.
During the Reagan years, Iraq & Iran were at war aginst each other. We also know Saddam used some of these weapons on his own people. When, I don't know. Perhaps someone might give us detailed info, if it is available. Did Reagan officials know these weapons would be used by Saddam on his own people??? I suspect they considered the Iran factor more than anything else. And was more than willing to sell them to Saddam.
I also wonder, where were the human rights activists when all this was going on??? Of course we do know a lot of news in Iraq was being kept under wraps because the news organizations did not want to get run out.
Posts: 2047 | Location: Martinsville, IL | Registered: 06-03-02
Originally posted by DorianGreyed: How do you keep up with your shifting principles? Don't you ever get tired or dizzy moving them around so much? I couldn't do that. I like to stand on mine, and moving them around could cause me to fall off.
So tell me something DG...How do you live with yourself??? You say I shift my principles...and YOU don't??? How you could defend Bill Clinton and the rest of the Democrats and still live with yourself??? Some would call it denial.
You may like to think of Republican Presidents as scumbags. Actually I would have to agree. But so are the Democrats. For any President to push his agenda, he has to be a scumbag. Because in politics all the politicians are scumbags.
Again, your comment, "Did any of these people you are quoting start a war with bad information." The more I think about it, YES!!!
The crisis in Iraq was already in place when President Bush took office. It was not a matter of the President getting an idea one day, "Let's invade Iraq." No, it was not. The elements were already in place. There were several Democrats telling, if not begging Bill Clinton to take serious military action in Iraq. But Bill Clinton, having never had a public opinion poll he didn't live by, wouldn't take any kind of action. President Bush had the kahunas to take action & I admire him for it. By doing so, he literally put his Presidency at stake.
Many of the same Democrats who begged Clinton to take action have tiurned right around accusing Bush of lying about WMD's and saying we should never have went in, in the first place.
OK DG, so how do your "so called principles" fit in to all of this??? When are you going to quit look the other way and living in denial??? Maybe it's time for you to wake up, smell the coffee and pour the bottle down the sink
Posts: 2047 | Location: Martinsville, IL | Registered: 06-03-02
The crisis in Iraq was already in place when President Bush took office.
But there wasn't a crisis. There were profit skimming and kickbacks in the oil-for-food program (though that was nothing compared to what has happened since). There were some bits and pieces of illegal weaponry in Iraq, which UN inspectors were successfully (despite obstacles put in their way) finding and having destroyed. The people of Iraq were suffering under a brutal dictator, and sanctions (though for most life could hardly be said to have improved much lately).
But there was no crisis; Iraq was just another miserable country with a brutally awful government (oh... and huge oil reserves). The crisis of an imminent threat from Iraq, necessitating a pre-emptive invasion - fears of a mushroom cloud as a smoking gun and similar carefully crafted spin - was Bush's hype.
Because in politics all (no exceptions?) the politicians are scumbags.
President Bush had the kahunas (cojones??) to take action & I admire him for it
Democrats who begged Clinton to take action have tiurned right around accusing Bush of lying about WMD's and saying we should never have went (have went?) in, in the first place . When are you going to quit look the other way and living in denial??? Maybe it's time for you to wake up, smell the coffee and pour the bottle (its contents??) down the sink
The idea that all those politicians were innocents misled by Bush's hype does sound a bit thin. The information pointing out the weakness of the case for a war of necessity was available - in the unredacted NIE report that few senators bothered to read, for example. Plenty of other governments, including those of France, Germany, Russia and Canada, saw no urgent need to start bombing Iraq to bits. The UN Inspectors were, rightly, against the invasion.
Why did those Democrats (notable exception - Obama) vote for the invasion (kind of)? I suspect because they - like the neocon fanatics who were so gung-ho for war - thought it would be easy (remember when it was all going to be over in six months?). They were maybe less worried about terrorism or principle and more worried about Bush walking away with an electoral "Falklands Factor" coup all to himself.
I know quite a few Democrats. None were begging Clinton to take action against Iraq. We realized that the Iraqi military was severely weakened in the first Gulf War, and hadn't recovered. We also knew that the No-Fly Zones had Iraq all but completely surrounded. We were aware that Clinton shelled Iraq and that the few planes that Iraq sent up to test the No-Fly Zones proved that the name was accurate. So what did Iraq have? A military that wasn't as effective as the LAPD, an Air Force that couldn't fly, and a blowhard dictator who said he had everything. Oh, yeah, he had Scud missiles that missed the entire city they were aimed at about 90% of the time. (And don't tell me about Patriot missiles and interceptions until you learn Norman's definition of "intercept." Here's a hint - It isn't like football.) He also said that his military would destroy ours in the first Gulf War.
Now, because bush wanted to, we invaded a country that was almost defenseless against what a few on here have described as the best military in the world. Amazingly, their military couldn't stop us. But somebody didn't plan for the obvious. Just because Iraqis didn't like Saddam doesn't mean they want to be ruled by Americans. Further, it took over 4 years to get a General there who had a clue about the type of warfare that we were facing. (Who did the hiring?) It's going on 5 years, and we still haven't pacified Iraq, and we've created new terrorists daily (according to the US State Dept.), and there is no end in sight. OH, and a war that didn't have to happen is going to cost the U.S. (read US) somewhere between $1 and $2 TRILLION. When Carter left office, the entire National Debt was only $1 Trillion. From Andrew Jackson to Carter, just $1 Trillion. Total. When Clinton walked in to the White House as President, it was over $4 Trillion. bush's war is the most expensive thing to happen to the US, and what do we have to show for it? Iraq is just now, after almost 5 years, starting to quiet down, at least to 2006 levels. Afghanistan is still a zoo. World-wide terrorism is up. We don't have the guy behind 9/11. And we have about 4000 less Americans of the kind we need. Yeah, he did a heck of a job.
(Has anyone seen a 6'5" Arab with a foot-long beard walking around? He's usually dresses in robes, and has been seen using a cane. If you have, the White House may be looking for him. Help them out and keep your eyes peeled for this guy.)
Posts: 16172 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
Originally posted by frankvan: Because in politics all (no exceptions?) the politicians are scumbags.
President Bush had the kahunas (cojones??) to take action & I admire him for it
Democrats who begged Clinton to take action have tiurned right around accusing Bush of lying about WMD's and saying we should never have went (have went?) in, in the first place . When are you going to quit look the other way and living in denial??? Maybe it's time for you to wake up, smell the coffee and pour the bottle (its contents??) down the sink
As for the contents in the bottle, maybe I should have said cup. After all if we have fresh coffee, might as well pour out yesterday's 7 start fresh, wouldn't you agree...
Posts: 2047 | Location: Martinsville, IL | Registered: 06-03-02
DG-Yes the war is costing a lot of money. So did the previous wars the country has been in and we still survive.
And yes it has taken 4 years to get a General, as you say, "with a clue" on how to deal with the situation. As I have said before, war is not an exact science. And when General Patraeus took over, there was no guarantee the surge was going to work.
Here is a link in an interview with VP Dick Cheney some might find of interest. It is dated a little over a year ago. Appropriate since this is the History section
Gentlemen, the answer is quite simple. The people with cojones are the ones in this world that gets things accomplished. Those without do not. That is the reason why Americans are reluctant to trust the defense of this Country to the Democrats.
Posts: 3165 | Location: From the Mountains to the Sea. | Registered: 06-08-02
You made me smile, Scotty. I wonder what actual event, in the case of Iraq, would be signified by 'the fat lady sings'.
