The author, G. H. Spaulding who is a retired Naval Captain offers some interesting thoughts on the war in Iraq. While I don't necessarily agree with everything he has to say, I thought this page is worth pointing out... Comment - opinion ********************************************************** 08-26-06, 10:30 AM Scotty Very interesting indeed, Dwight, I can hardly wait for the "buts" to come out.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: Scotty, 08-26-06 10:52 AM 08-26-06, 11:20 AM methos Well, I wouldn't want to let you down, Scotty.
There's some that's interesting and some that's not so much. I haven't read most of it, but this jumped out at me...
I hate to involve the 2000 election in it. In my opinion, there were mistakes made before/during the election that might have changed the outcome, but I don't even a full and careful recount would have found Florida in favor of Gore. That doesn't necessarily mean the recount shouldn't have gone forward, but I don't think it's worth dwelling on. I only address the subject because the captain raised it and was factually wrong. Not only was he factually wrong, but he claimed he was correcting a point where others had been wrong.
His words: "On Dec 12, 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-2 (not 5-4) "
From supremecourtus.gov (that is, the Supreme court's own site), we find Per Curiam dated Dec. 12, 2000. A Per Curiam is an unsigned majority opinion. So if it isn't signed, how do we know what the vote was? Well, how about counting up the dissents? We find a dissent by Stevens, a second by Souter (joined by Breyer), and a third by Ginsburg (with Stevens joining and Souter and Breyer partially joining). Let's look at the section that all 4 joined. The final sentence: "Were the other members of this Court as mindful as they generally are of our system of dual sovereignty, they would affirm the judgment of the Florida Supreme Court." Sure sounds like 4 against to me. Given that there are 9 and the majority found in favor Bush's favor, it sure sounds like the decision was 5-4.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: methos, 08-26-06 11:36 AM 08-26-06, 11:49 AM Scotty
quote: 12/12/00 The US Supreme Court: The court in a 7-2 decision reversed the Florida Supreme Court's decision ordering statewide recounts of undervote ballots, sending it back to the Florida court with a request that the court devise a statewide standard by which to count the votes. [More Details]
"Because it is evident that any recount seeking to make the December 12 date will be unconstitutional ... we reverse the judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida ordering the recount to proceed," stated the court in its 7-2 decision. December 12 is the date by which Florida must certify its electors.
On Dec 12, 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-2 (not 5-4) that the Florida Supreme Court’s mandate, lacking a universal counting standard, violated the U.S. Constitution’s equal protection and due process guarantees, precisely as Wells had warned in his dissent.
quote: The reality is that Bush won every legitimate count—and recount—of the Florida vote, and when four members of the Florida Supreme Court tried to hijack the election for Gore, seven members of the U.S. Supreme Court prevented the theft.
08-26-06, 11:59 AM DorianGreyed No, it isn't, Scotty. Below is exactly what he said.
Myth of the 2000 Presidential Election[/ b]
Much of the anti-Bush sentiment in this country derives from the myth that Bush “stole” the 2000 election by means of a 5-4 party-line vote in his favor by the U.S. Supreme Court. But here are the facts:
On Dec 8, 2000, the Florida Supreme Court, by a 4-3 margin, ordered manual recounts in counties with large numbers of “undervotes,” but failed to provide a universal standard for recounting the ballots. Florida Supreme Court Chief Justice C.J. Wells dissented, warning that the court’s order was not consistent with Florida law and would not withstand Constitutional scrutiny.
On Dec 12, 2000, the [b]U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-2 (not 5-4) that the Florida Supreme Court’s mandate, lacking a universal counting standard, violated the U.S. Constitution’s equal protection and due process guarantees, precisely as Wells had warned in his dissent.
The reality is that Bush won every legitimate count—and recount—of the Florida vote, and when four members of the Florida Supreme Court tried to hijack the election for Gore, seven members of the U.S. Supreme Court prevented the theft. (Bold added - DG)
This, of course, is not the only factual error in his series of articles, but it the easiest to disprove using an unimpeachable source, unless, of course,you wish to dispute the Court's own web site. 08-26-06, 12:03 PM
Scotty Maybe I'm crazy, but I think that is exactly what I posted above. Read the REF. Election results US Govt Info.
08-26-06, 12:10 PM methos From Scotty's own reference:
After concurring in a 5-4 ruling that ultimately decided a presidential election, Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Clarence Thomas appeared on cable TV where they denied that partisan politics plays any role in the Supreme Court.
(emphasis mine)
Yes, 7 members found that there was some problem with the procedure, but only 5 found that the crux of the Florida courts decision (that there should be a recount) was wrong. The captain's claim that there wasn't a 5-4 "party line" vote is simply wrong. About.com (Scotty's source) is incorrect in saying the any recount being unconstitutional part was part of the 7-2 decision. It was part of the 5-4 decision. I'll trust supremecourtus.gov over about.com when it comes to what the Supreme Court said.
08-26-06, 12:16 PM Scotty
quote: The court agreed 7-2 to reverse the Florida court's order of a state recount and voted 5-4 that there was no acceptable procedure by which a timely new recount could take place. Among the seven, Souter and Breyer said an acceptable remedy might allow for Florida to conduct a new recount with proper standards.
BTW 5-4 is still a win.
08-26-06, 12:24 PM methos
quote: Among the seven, Souter and Breyer said an acceptable remedy might allow for Florida to conduct a new recount with proper standards.
So lets see, 7-2=5 ... 2+2=4 ... sounds like it was 5-4 on the question of whether a recount could procede, which conflicts with:
quote: "Because it is evident that any recount seeking to make the December 12 date will be unconstitutional ... we reverse the judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida ordering the recount to proceed," stated the court in its 7-2 decision.
Which of your posts is right, Scotty?
08-26-06, 12:24 PM DorianGreyed Scotty, your reference, the source of your information, is a commercial site. Methos is quoting from the Supreme Court's site. Which one is more likely to be accurate about a Supreme Court decision? We have had this discuusion before. Just because a site agrees with you (even though, in this case, it doesn't if you read it correctly) doesn't make it an acceptable source. All sites are not created equal. The site that Dwight made reference to is owned by the person whose articles and opinions are represented within. Such a site is not bound by any laws or rules to be honest; a site owner can state that the moon is made of cheese, and no one can prevent him from doing so. This is why I try to use generally accepted sources rather than opinions to back up facts that I present. I think it is safe to say that the Supreme Court's own site is faithfully representing what any Supreme Court decision was.
08-26-06, 12:25 PM methos
quote: BTW 5-4 is still a win.
Who said it wasn't?
08-26-06, 12:30 PM Dwight
quote: The site that Dwight made reference to is owned by the person whose articles and opinions are represented within
Which is why my link says "Comment - opinion".
Even a major news source will sometimes stray from hard news from time to time. The trick is to get more just one source.
One reason that I found the G. H. Spaulding page an interesting read is because he is very articulate. He doesn't beat around the bush, he just tells you what he thinks.
For what it's worth, the other pages and articles on his site are also very interesting. I think they are worth the time to read.
08-26-06, 12:33 PM DorianGreyed Methos, possibly Scotty has hired JohnGalt's strawman in an effort to distract attention from the fact that the site that supports what he says is obviously in error.
08-26-06, 12:36 PM DorianGreyed Dwight, I hope you didn't see anything I said as a reflection on your post. As you say, you made it very obvious (to most of us) that it was the author's thoughts, and didn't present it to be anything else.
08-26-06, 12:42 PM methos
quote: For what it's worth, the other pages and articles on his site are also very interesting. I think they are worth the time to read.
This particular error doesn't necessarily have much bearing on the rest of the site, which I've only skimmed.
Obviously, this wasn't the part Dwight found interesting and wanted to call our attention to, since he highlighted the opinions on the Iraq war. I just pointed out this piece because it was too easy not to.
Personally, though, I didn't find much of what I read to be interesting or articulate (but that's my opinion Wink).
08-26-06, 12:45 PM newnickname The Captain says near the top of the page;
'Our clearly expressed goal was to prevent a nuclear or chemical 9/11 against the United States—or Israel or any other nation—by Saddam Hussein, a predictably ruthless, self-declared sponsor of terrorism. Regime change in Iraq was the only sure way of achieving that goal.'
He doesn't address the point that war was not the only way to achieve regime change, and intitiating a war to achieve regime change is, rightly, a crime. In fact, war has proved a disastrous way to change the Iraqi government, creating chaos, out of which a pro-Iranian and theocratic (or at least religiously sectarian) government is emerging. Iran, as we know, is actually developing nuclear weapons.
The Captain asserts that Hussein was developing weapons and was not contained - but has no evidence to back this up. It's just an empty assertion. Actually the US government has conceded that there was no threatening arsenal of WMD, and WMD development programs had been wound up. The bits and pieces of illegal weaponry left over in Iraq from previous wars were being found and destroyed by UN inspectors, despite Husseins' games. Suggestions that WMD were destroyed or sent to Syria are just that, suggestions. There was no pressing need for a war.
The 'sponsor of terrorism' charge again comes down to the extra $15,000 dollars included in grants given to families of Palestinian suicide bombers, in a total of $35m dollars given to bereaved families in Palestine. That extra money was morally wrong, but couldn't have been a significant motivation for suicide bombers. There are and were far worse state sponsors of terrorism in the world.
The Captain says that Iran is an imminent threat today; the logic of his comments would make an invasion of Iran, for regime change, an urgent necessity now. More of an urgent necessity than the invasion of Iraq, even. What's Bush doing about that? Shouldn't George be calling up all the boy-scouts, doormen and whatever other uniformed bodies there are left in the US, to mount a second glorious little war?
It's clear that neither Iran nor North Korea will be invaded, despite clearly meeting the Captain's criteria for necessitating invasion. Really, Iraq was most likely invaded because it was seen as a push-over; an easy little war that would generate votes for Bush, money for contractors and strategic assets for the US.
08-26-06, 12:50 PM methos from: WHY WE INVADED IRAQ
"We invaded Iraq precisely because of WMD" "Sanctions had utterly failed."
There were certainly problems with the sanctions. As far as what the captain says was our goal, though, it turns out sanctions were successful.
"Once we toppled the Iraqi government, it became our moral and legal responsibility to assist the Iraqi people in establishing a government of their choosing and to help them grow a military and police force." I agree with this and always have. It doesn't seem that the approach we've used has been the right one, though.
08-26-06, 12:52 PM Scotty It is awfully funny to see all the libs coming out swinging with their spins, keep it up guys.
I know you can't stand the truth, and thats the funny part. Big Grin
It is also funny, when DG feels threatened, he starts running down posters who do not agree with him. Take my ball and go home type. DG, why do you find it necessary to try and involve others in your snide remarks, can't stand alone?
08-26-06, 12:55 PM methos regarding: THOSE PROCLAIMING NO PROGRESS IN IRAQ MUST HAVE ONE EYE CLOSED
I do think there has been some progress in Iraq. A few criticisms, though.
The captain changes from "no progress" to no political progress. In fact, we've had a lot of steps backwards in other areas (utilities, civil order). In political progress, I'm not sure the timeline really does speak for itself (the capitain's claim). There have been elections (a good thing), but what has the government actually done? He doesn't answer that.
I don't really know much about Hayden, and, perhaps because of that, don't really disagree with the captain on this one. I will note, though , that Hayden has not taken the captain's advice to "Resign your commission to sever ties with and eliminate any appearance of undue influence from SecDef."
08-26-06, 01:05 PM methos An interesting conservative military viewpoint of the war in Iraq. regarding: OPEN LETTER TO DEMOCRATS AND THE LIBERAL MEDIA
"uninitiated media twerps" "shove them right up your collective, traitorous asses until you choke on them"
Articulate? Interesting? Roll Eyes
08-26-06, 01:07 PM Dwight DG, no I did not see your post as criticism. When I initially wrote the post, I gave the wording of the link some thought because I did not want to imply that I agreed with all that was said on the page. And I did want to be sure that anyone going to that link would realize that this is just one writer's opinion.
And Methos, I did not even think to question the note about the Supreme Court decision. While the difference doesn't change the ruling, it does point out the need to not just accept such statements without question.
I did find what he has to say of interest though because his thoughts on the fight against terrorism cover some territory that I fear get lost in the arguments about the war in Iraq. In the section with the subtitle "MY FIRST LETTER TO CONDI", he says in part,
The notion that the World War on Terror (WWT) is defined by military operations within the geographic borders of a single country is ludicrous. Islamic extremism is a global insurgency aimed at destroying the foundations of Western culture. It may well pose a greater threat to the survival of the West than did the Axis in WWII or the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Fending off this threat requires application of the full spectrum of available weapons, including credible intelligence, diplomatic, political and economic leverage and, when necessary, military force—all on an international scale. Military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq are not the end-all of the War on Terror, but they are important components of it. And if they achieve a meaningful change in the political dynamic of the Middle East, they will have proven invaluable.
I happen to believe that this invasion of Iraq was a mistake and that we may very well have created more terrorists than we have eliminated. But, I also agree with the Captain's statement that the WWT is not confined to any geographic boundry. I keep thinking back to World War 2. Had the world known of the extent of the distruction and death caused by the Nazi's, would a preventative war have been a mistake?
08-26-06, 01:10 PM Scotty
quote: Personally, though, I didn't find much of what I read to be interesting or articulate (but that's my opinion ).
Could it be PREJUDICE?
08-26-06, 01:12 PM Dwight
quote: "uninitiated media twerps" "shove them right up your collective, traitorous asses until you choke on them"
Articulate? Interesting?
Well behaps in my sheltered world I have a diffent viewpoint on the words "Articulate" and "Interesting". Smile
08-26-06, 01:15 PM methos regarding: THE LESSON OF 9/11
"Having publicly pledged $25,000 to the families of Islamic suicide bombers, Hussein was a self-declared sponsor and exporter of terrorism."
I'll agree with that, but we weren't sold the war on those grounds. I haven't seen anyone claiming Saddam wasn't a bad guy.
"U.N. sanctions against Iraq had failed completely. Hussein was toying with weapons inspectors and never was contained." "While we cannot yet be certain whether our pre-war intelligence on Saddam’s existing WMD stockpiles was mostly right or mostly wrong"
I don't know when he wrote this. Now (August 26th, 2006) we most certainly do know, and it turns out that the sanctions/containment worked (as Powell said in 2001).08-26-06, 01:15 PM Scotty
quote: "uninitiated media twerps" "shove them right up your collective, traitorous asses until you choke on them"
Actually, he said this.....
quote: So, here's a message to you liberal media and Democrat leaders: you can take your mischaracterizations and outright lies about what you call the "Mission Accomplished speech" and shove them right up your collective, traitorous asses until you choke on them.
Sounds good to me. Big Grin
This message has been edited. Last edited by: Scotty, 08-26-06 01:34 PM
08-26-06, 01:16 PM DorianGreyed He also touts the progress of what the US has done in Iraq, and blames Saddam for the deterioration of the infrastructure, but fails to note that Iraqis had more hours of electrical power under Saddam than under the US occuptation. That surely indicates that the electrical grid has worsened since we invaded.
Much (but obviously not all) of his article was based in fact, but he interprets the causes and results of situations in an illogical manner. As I noted above, he ignores that which would indicate that his positions and conclusions are wrong. Newnickname points out that Saddam actually was contained in his WMD wishes, as stated by the very people who would benefitted most from proof of the opposite and as indicated by the lack of any evidence of any WMDs developed after the First Gulf War. Unbiased readers of his article could easily confuse his familiarity with events with a knowledge and understanding of them.
08-26-06, 01:23 PM methos
quote: Originally posted by Scotty:
quote: Personally, though, I didn't find much of what I read to be interesting or articulate (but that's my opinion ).
Could it be PREJUDICE?
I'm allowed to have an opinion, too, aren't I?
---------------------
Dwight. I agree with much of the section you quoted. The one part I disagree with is that going to war in Iraq was an important part of preventing terrorism. Like you, I think going to war with Iraq, at least in the way we did, was a mistake.
08-26-06, 01:37 PM methos regarding: RIGHT OR WRONG DIRECTION
He makes a good point that the question is vague.
Out of historical context, the number isn't very meaningful. In historical context, it means something. I've often complained (although I'm not sure I've done it here) that the media often gives too little context to numbers. The captain doesn't make that distinction, though, he just dismisses it altogether.
--------
"Most Americans will invariably answer "no" when asked the question, regardless of who's in office."
Simply wrong.
You need only go back to a Harris poll in January 2005. A plurality said that the country was going in the wrong direction, but a majority did not.
In December 2001, an actual majority said that the country was headed in the right direction. During Clinton's presidency, the results fluctuated. Sometimes more thought the country was heading in the right direction, sometimes more thought the country was heading in the wrong direction. Sometimes it was a majority, sometimes it was only a plurality. In 1994-1996 or so (as far back as I could find) the numbers were about as bad as they are today.
08-26-06, 01:57 PM DorianGreyed "It is also funny, when DG feels threatened, he starts running down posters who do not agree with him. Take my ball and go home type. DG, why do you find it necessary to try and involve others in your snide remarks, can't stand alone?" - Scotty
The very fact that you are still allowed to post indicates that your statement about taking my ball is ludicrous. You've made the claim before, and have even accused Karrow of being in on it. Anyone who knows Karrow knows how wrong that claim is.
While I have tried many times to get you to understand about sources, you still just don't get it, and I finally realize that you never will. You seem to feel that the printed word, any printed word, is the truth, as long as it agrees with your position. When it finally dawns on you that the facts prove you wrong, rather than admit to making an error, you immediately try to deflect further coment in that area, as evidenced by your "BTW 5-4 is still a win" comment. -------- Dwight, I agree, and have stated, that sometime a preventative war is necessary, but it is imperative that it is certain that the war is a necessity. The claims that so many now make, that there was no doubt in the intelligence community about WMDs has been shown to be untrue. Many former government employees have come forward with stories about how those who voiced doubts were either ignored or told to "do it again" and come back with the ecidence that the administration wanted. One general even lost his position because he openly stated that occupying forces needed to be several hundred thousand strong.
08-26-06, 02:04 PM Scotty
quote: The very fact that you are still allowed to post indicates that your statement about taking my ball is ludicrous. You've made the claim before, and have even accused Karrow of being in on it. Anyone who knows Karrow knows how wrong that claim is
I agree that Karrow is not in on it. I have made the claim before, because it happens on a regular basis. I have seen you time, and time again, start with the snide remarks about the posters that do not agree with you. It would be better to stick to the subject without the remarks.
08-26-06, 02:22 PM DorianGreyed Checking back to the start of this thread, I see that my first post was correcting an error made by you. My next post was explaining to you that your source about a Supreme Court decision didn't agree with what the Supreme Court's own web site says. It was after the post that you tried to deflect attention away from the very obvious conclusion that you, and your source, were wrong.
If you can't handle people correcting errors you make, stop making them. If you realize that you were wrong about something, why try hide it? Just admit it and move on. There is no shame in being wrong, only in trying to hide it.
08-26-06, 04:00 PM Scotty
quote: [/The United States Supreme Court voted 7–2 to end the recount on the grounds that differing standards in different counties constituted an equal protection violation QUOTE]
quote:
and 5–4 that no new recount with uniform standards could be conducted.
quote: Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000), was a United States Supreme Court case heard on December 11, 2000, which directly influenced the outcome of the 2000 Presidential election. In three separate opinions, seven justices found that a ballot recount then being conducted in certain counties in the State of Florida was to be stopped due to the lack of a consistent standard; two justices disagreed. A 5-4 majority further declared in a per curiam opinion that there was insufficient time to establish standards for a new recount that would meet Florida's deadline for certifying electors.
Separate decisions. 7-2 vote to end the recount.
quote: The decision A 7-2 majority ruled that the Florida recount was being conducted unconstitutionally, and the majority opinion noted significant problems in the uneven way the votes were being recounted. Furthermore, a narrower 5-4 majority ruled that no constitutionally-valid recount could be completed by the December 12 deadline set in statute, effectively ending the recounts. The court cited differing vote-counting standards from county to county and the lack of a single judicial officer to oversee the recount, both of which violated the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution. The court also ruled that under the Electoral College system, "The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States."
This message has been edited. Last edited by: Scotty, 08-26-06 04:46 PM
08-26-06, 05:03 PM methos I've already said all that, Scotty. 7-2 that the procedure of this particular recount was wrong (ok, I didn't say unconstitutional) 5-4 that no recount could proceed. The captain, on the other hand, indicated that a 7-2 victory stopped the recount.
The 7-2 ruling stopped the recount from proceeding with particular rules. The 5-4 vote stopped the recount from proceeding at all.
I should not have highlighted the particular quote that I did when I indicated that he was wrong. I was wrong to do that. The part I quoted, absent the rest of the essay, was technically accurate. On the larger point, the captain's claim that it was a 7-2 non-party-line vote that prevented a recount rather than a 5-4 party line one, the captain was wrong.
---
Incidentally, is that an answer to my question? Does that mean that the quote in your 1:16 PM post was correct and the one in your 12:49 PM post was wrong?
This message has been edited. Last edited by: methos, 08-26-06 05:19 PM
08-26-06, 06:08 PM Scotty
quote: The 7-2 ruling stopped the recount from proceeding with particular rules
I thought that he was saying this. Confused Thats the way I read it.
[QUOTE] On Dec 12, 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-2 (not 5-4) that the Florida Supreme Court’s mandate, lacking a universal counting standard, violated the U.S. Constitution’s equal protection and due process guarantees, precisely as Wells had warned in his dissent.
Then,
quote: The 5-4 vote stopped the recount from proceeding at all
08-26-06, 06:32 PM aminator2002 I guess what I see is what everyone against the war has been asking for and that is articulation of the positions held by those that support Bush. It may be deemed inarticulate by some (methos) but I certainly read it as a position backed by some thought. I don't agree with it and it may well be littered with omissions and some errors, but at least the guy is articulating his views so that there can be discussion. This is more than most have done.
08-26-06, 06:34 PM methos I've admitted that I was wrong to point to that one sentence. It was correct. His larger point is wrong:
"Much of the anti-Bush sentiment in this country derives from the myth that Bush “stole” the 2000 election by means of a 5-4 party-line vote in his favor by the U.S. Supreme Court."
Here he is saying that a recount wasn't prevented by a "5-4 party-line vote," but it was (at least to the degree that "parties" exist in the court).
I wouldn't say the election was stolen, and I'm not sure that the supreme court's decision was the wrong one, I'm just pointing out that the captain was wrong. The decision that stopped any recount from going forward was 5-4.
Since all we seem to be doing is repeating ourselves at this point (and since Scotty hasn't answered which of his contradictory posts was wrong) I'm not sure what the point is in continuing this.
08-26-06, 06:40 PM DorianGreyed Long ago, I said in a thread that I felt the Court made the right decision, but for the wrong reasons. My anti-bush sentiment pre-dates the 2000 election. In fact, I also posted once that I thought that, in the first few days after 9/11, he was finally presidential. But then he reverted to type.
08-26-06, 06:47 PM Scotty ]
quote: I've admitted that I was wrong to point to that one sentence. It was correct.
That's what I have been saying the whole time, and I concluded that was what he was saying.
The 7-2 vote was saying that the Florida Supreme Court’s mandate, lacking a universal counting standard, violated the U.S. Constitution.
So I guess we are saying the same thing.
08-26-06, 09:54 PM Kelleygirl "WHY WE INVADED IRAQ"
To me this is just another rehash about WMD's being the main reason why we went to war. If this, in fact, is the core of truth, shouldn't we be attacking North Korea now? They apparently DO have WMD's, right? And while we at it, shouldn't we start warfare with Iran? After all, they are on the path of WMD's with uranium enrichment, right? And what about Pakistan; there is documented proof that they have WMD. What I'm trying to say is if WMD's were really the ultimate reason why we are now engaged in war with Iraq, should we expand our warfare to at least these 3 countries? Sounds ridiculous, right --- just about as ridiculous as believing, IMHO, that that is the reason why we're in Iraq.
08-26-06, 11:40 PM mozart56 An interesting conservative military viewpoint of the war in Iraq. Kelleygirl, I'm afraid that GW Bush has engaged into a "no way out" kind of a war just like the one in Vietnam. As much as he would like to get out of it , he can't. He's stucked! And he knows it. Mad
08-27-06, 12:55 AM Kelleygirl And thusly the killing and dying must go on and on and on and on and on and on............
We're losing our kids who are babysitting a civil war not counting all of the innocent civilians who are dying. There must be a way out!
08-27-06, 04:42 AM FredPuli " The wish was father to the thought" The President was of a mind to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam. With that thought he and his advisers would seize upon any material and would, consciously or not, interpret and use it as evidence to reach their wished-for conclusion. It's no different to the thought process of a scientist who has a belief and who, consciously or not, always finds results that fit his or her hypothesis whist failing to give weight to or correctly analyse any results or evidence that run against it.
08-27-06, 12:06 PM frankvan We're stuck! Not just the president! Unfortunately, we all must pick up the tab. The preferred way to extricate one's self from a swamp is not to jump into it in the first place.
The sad truth about the waging of pre-emptive war is that it is based on assumptions that may be completely wrong. If the commander in chief, either from ignorance, chicanery, or the "wish being father to the thought", justifies his launching a war on the basis that the target of his attack was "thinking about attacking us first", surely some restraints are needed. The target, Mr Hussein in this instance, but anyone else in some future dispute, may not have any more threatening intention than bluff and bluster for domestic consumption or PR for his neighbors' benefit. The congress clearly failed in its duty under the constitution by handing the president carte blanche to commit a disaster based on a false assumption.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
Posts: 4265 | Location: Anchorage, AK | Registered: 06-05-02
AnswerPool.com 
