Republicans in Congress: Like rats on a sinking ship.

[Back]

Anyone else notice how the republicans in Congress are like rats on a sinking ship right now?

If you keep up with politics you must have noticed Republicans trying to make Democratic issues their own and distancing themselves from the White House as much as possible.

Are they listening to their constituents or their corporate sponsors? Are they really working for the people or are they just trying to hang on to their jobs. One year from now is a vote that will decide and I have a feeling that you are going to see a lot more.

[Gan]

Kind of reminds me of the Democrats distancing themselves from Clinton in his last years in office. Just one of many uniform behavioral characteristics found in DC.

Welcome to the body Politik.

On a side note, one can also notice that the Republicans are now starting to refute a lot of the attacks that the Democrats have been slinging their way. Mostly up until now, according to political pundits on the evening news, there's been little rebuttal.

[Back]

Originally posted by Ganalon
Kind of reminds me of the Democrats distancing themselves from Clinton in his last years in office. Just one of many uniform behavioral characteristics found in DC.

Welcome to the body Politik.

On a side note, one can also notice that the Republicans are now starting to refute a lot of the attacks that the Democrats have been slinging their way. Mostly up until now, according to political pundits on the evening news, there's been little rebuttal.

I don’t recall that at all. I remember fierce burgeoning support and a pardon at the end of Clinton’s term.

And little rebuttal? Please. The Republicans have been slamming everyone who is not republican since 2000.

[Gan]

Yep, the Dems did the same thing back before Clinton left office after the second term. Obviously you didnt notice it because of your rabid support.

I have a feeling you have yet to see the Republican rebuttal to all the political attacks that have taken place this year.

That being said, I think the Republicans will still retain power in at least one of the houses of Congress.

[Back]

Originally posted by Ganalon
I have a feeling you have yet to see the Republican rebuttal to all the political attacks that have taken place this year.

The rebuttal has been apparent over the course of these past 5 years. I think what you are referring to is the Republicans finally getting wise and trying to claim all opposition opinion as their own. People just might fall for it too is the sad thing.

I would not be surprised to see them win at least one house. Everyone was surprised when they won 2000.

[Gan]

I wasnt suprised that they won in 2000. Neither were the 5 democrat friends who voted republican that election, and in the ensuing 2004 election. Hell even my Mom who was raised a staunch democrat is now a republican thanks to Clinton and his antics. :lol:

Yep, the RNC will retain at least one congressional house in 2006, and in 2008. Much to the DNC's chargrin.

[TheRoseLady]

Originally posted by Ganalon
Hell even my Mom who was raised a staunch democrat is now a republican thanks to Clinton and his antics. :lol:



I think in the end that I would rather say that I supported an adulterer than what will ultimately weigh out on Bush. Folks aren't dying because of a blow job. People are dying because of the rush to judgement on Iraq. I doubt history will be very kind to him.

I don't think that I would be bragging that my family moved from one party to the other using Clinton or Bush as the reason. :lol:

[Gan]

I brag on my family and friends all the time for finally getting some sense and voting against the DNC in 2000 and 2004.

And for the sake of not getting into yet another debate about the Iraq war I'll refrain from responding to your other statement.

As far as history judging Bush, well that remains to be seen eh? Unless you know something we all dont. If you do, can you and I work out some lottery numbers for next week's lotto?

[Back]

Nice try. The fantasy is done and done. Look where we are now and compare that to where we used to be. Way to go, dude.

They had their chance in the sun and dropped the ball. Sux2bu.

[Gan]

Keep holding onto that thought come election day. You're awfully confident for not having even seen the election results. That confidence reminds me of Kerry's capaign pollsters confidence in their polls for winning the 'south'. :lol:

The point is, you dont know whats going to happen, you only have an educated guess and thats only from what you choose to educate yourself with. Moveon.org isnt a source I'd be using to back my play thats for sure. :whistle:

I have a funny feeling that there's more sun out there than you're hoping to cloud up by next November. And no, it doesnt sux2Bme, its been great to be me these past 5 years, I'm looking for another great 3 and a strong showing in 06 and 08.

[Danical]

If only either of you two could cite hard evidence (re: official documentation) I would like this little dispute a bit more.

btw - demos and Gore definately distanced themselves from Clinton and this was a major problem when Gore was running. Both analysts and Gore himself have said as much.

RE: Clinton/Bush. They're both politicians and as such they're both deceptive - it's part of the job description. What I dislike are the reasons for doing so as one was defensive maneuvering and the other offensive maneuvering.

RE: Bush. He has moreso than any president in history, in his speeches, universalized ideas/concepts which I beleive are relative. Maybe caused by increased exposure but I highly doubt it.

RE: Bush's Legacy. Of course it matters which party you are from but one important thing is this. Republicans, by and large, say the entry into Iraq was needed regardless of the WMD - they do not however, support the way in which it was conducted and still is being conducted. To use a weak analogy - it's like writing the correct answer on a math problem when your proof is completely buggered . . . you still get the answer wrong. (However, I did not support the decision to enter Iraq).

I suppose the saddest thing to me is the polarization of Americans on political issues and the general lack of intelligence of the masses as a whole. What ever happened to philosopher kings?

Carry on . . .

:popcorn:

[Unique]

Originally posted by vulvamancer
What ever happened to philosopher kings?


They exist only in certain well known texts. Some historical (and modern) figures have been more or less successful at presenting the philosopher king image, of course.

Your analogy with the math proof (buggered logic, correct answer) would be perfect if I agreed with Bush's answer. The real problem in the debate, as you also mentioned, is the proliferation of subjective ideals presented as fact and indeed as "the moral highground." In this situation we step away from the ideals of mathematic proof into a world where anything goes if it merely sounds right to enough people.

All integers are godly.
666 is an integer.
Therefore 666 is godly.

Unique.

[Edited on 11-17-2005 by Unique]

[Apotheosis]

are you a structuralist, Unique?

[Danical]

Originally posted by Unique
They exist only in certain well known texts. Some historical (and modern) figures have been more or less successful at presenting the philosopher king image, of course.


It was a joke.



Your analogy with the math proof (buggered logic, correct answer) would be perfect if I agreed with Bush's answer.

I was responding as an average republican would. I don't agree with his answer either.



The real problem in the debate, as you also mentioned, is the proliferation of subjective ideals presented as fact and indeed as "the moral highground." In this situation we step away from the ideals of mathematic proof into a world where anything goes if it merely sounds right to enough people.

All integers are godly.
666 is an integer.
Therefore 666 is godly.


:D

[xtc]

I am curious what a Democratic issue is?

Bush's admin is falling apart as fast as Clinton's however Bush, unlike Clinton, has managed to stay out of the fray i.e. CIA name leaking, election fraud, chubby interns, perjury etc.

The Democrats so far haven't seen to capitalise on the Repubs failings very well. They seem rather silent. Yes I am aware of the recent wins in Virginia and New Jersey. Perhaps, since everytime the Dems open their mouth they seem to stick their foot in it, the best thing they can do is remain silent.

I think the Dems will gain ground in 2006. However when the big dance comes in 2008, I think what Bush has done will be irrelevant.

[Edited on 11-17-2005 by xtc]

[Unique]

Originally posted by xtc
I am curious what a Democratic issue is?


Read the news much? The democrats (and splinters of the republican party) have been behind significant recent action in congress designed to bring some responsibility to Administrative policies.


Originally posted by xtc
Bush's admin is falling apart as fast as Clinton's however Bush, unlike Clinton, has managed to stay out of the fray i.e. CIA name leaking, election fraud, chubby interns, perjury etc.


Bush has managed this by essentially stepping out of the light. He hasn't been nearly as visible or vocal in the recent months as he was previously. Further, the rot seems worse within the republican party (my opinion). Disregard for ethics, international opinion, international law, ethics, human rights, and oh yes, ethics.

Yes, some republicans are moderate enough for my tastes. I do not throw blanket insults.


Originally posted by xtc
However when the big dance comes in 2008, I think what Bush has done will be irrelevant.


I hope this analysis is the absolute truth ;-)

Unique.

[Edited on 11-17-2005 by Unique]

[Ilvane]

I don't think distancing from Clinton did those who did so much good. In the end, it wasn't that important that he had an affair or a blow job or whatever..it should have just been between he and his wife anyway.

As far as Bush goes, I'm glad people are finally figuring out what he is about. He's hanging on to one last line.."People voted for the war." Yes, yes George, they did..when the thought the intelligence you had put forth was true..

Can't make an informed decision when the intelligence you are basing your dire need to go to war on is false..and you've been getting told it's true.

I don't get how the Republicans don't see this, but whatever.

-A

[Unique]

Originally posted by Ilvane
I don't get how the Republicans don't see this, but whatever.


I ask this quite often.

Unique

[Slider]

Y'know, what I find so amazing? That not a single fucking one of the Dems out there that are screaming about "No WMD" don't have the fucking balls to say that under CLINTON that they, yes your precious Dems, voted unanimously...got that? UNANIMOUSLY...not one fucking desenting vote, for the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998 that called for the removal of Saddam from office.

Here, let me quote it for you, since it's something that you all seem to have conveniently forgotten all about it.

House Actions
Sep 29, 98:
Referred to the House Committee on International Relations.
Oct 2, 98:
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Oct 2, 98:
Committee Agreed to Seek Consideration Under Suspension of the Rules, (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Oct 5, 98:
Called up by House under suspension of the rules.
Considered by House as unfinished business.
Passed House (Amended) by Yea-Nay Vote: 360 - 38 (Roll No. 482).
Senate Actions
Oct 6, 98:
Received in the Senate, read twice.
Oct 7, 98:
Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.
Oct 8, 98:
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Executive Actions
Oct 7, 98:
Cleared for White House.
Oct 20, 98:
Presented to President.
Oct 31, 98:
Became Public Law No: 105-338.
Signed by President.
STATUS: Congressional Record Page References



10/01/98 Introductory remarks on Measure (CR E1857)
10/05/98 Full text of Measure as passed House printed (CR H9486-9487)

COMMITTEE(S):


COMMITTEE(S) OF REFERRAL:
House International Relations
AMENDMENT(S):
***NONE***

COSPONSORS(1):

Rep Cox - 09/29/98


SUMMARY:

(REVISED AS OF 10/05/98 -- Passed House, amended)

Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 - Declares that it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress makes the following findings:

(1) On September 22, 1980, Iraq invaded Iran, starting an 8 year war in which Iraq employed chemical weapons against Iranian troops and ballistic missiles against Iranian cities.

(2) In February 1988, Iraq forcibly relocated Kurdish civilians from their home villages in the Anfal campaign, killing an estimated 50,000 to 180,000 Kurds.

(3) On March 16, 1988, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iraqi Kurdish civilian opponents in the town of Halabja, killing an estimated 5,000 Kurds and causing numerous birth defects that affect the town today.

(4) On August 2, 1990, Iraq invaded and began a 7 month occupation of Kuwait, killing and committing numerous abuses against Kuwaiti civilians, and setting Kuwait's oil wells ablaze upon retreat.

(5) Hostilities in Operation Desert Storm ended on February 28, 1991, and Iraq subsequently accepted the ceasefire conditions specified in United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (April 3, 1991) requiring Iraq, among other things, to disclose fully and permit the dismantlement of its weapons of mass destruction programs and submit to long-term monitoring and verification of such dismantlement.

(6) In April 1993, Iraq orchestrated a failed plot to assassinate former President George Bush during his April 14-16, 1993, visit to Kuwait.

(7) In October 1994, Iraq moved 80,000 troops to areas near the border with Kuwait, posing an imminent threat of a renewed invasion of or attack against Kuwait.

(8) On August 31, 1996, Iraq suppressed many of its opponents by helping one Kurdish faction capture Irbil, the seat of the Kurdish regional government.

(9) Since March 1996, Iraq has systematically sought to deny weapons inspectors from the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) access to key facilities and documents, has on several occasions endangered the safe operation of UNSCOM helicopters transporting UNSCOM personnel in Iraq, and has persisted in a pattern of deception and concealment regarding the history of its weapons of mass destruction programs.

(10) On August 5, 1998, Iraq ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM, and subsequently threatened to end long-term monitoring activities by the International Atomic Energy Agency and UNSCOM.

(11) On August 14, 1998, President Clinton signed Public Law 105-235, which declared that `the Government of Iraq is in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations.'.

(12) On May 1, 1998, President Clinton signed Public Law 105-174, which made $5,000,000 available for assistance to the Iraqi democratic opposition for such activities as organization, training, communication and dissemination of information, developing and implementing agreements among opposition groups, compiling information to support the indictment of Iraqi officials for war crimes, and for related purposes.

Huh...WTF...look there....the official finding of congress, passed unanimously was that Saddam Hussein had WMD and should be replaced.

Nut up fuckers, your Party passed the fucking law in the first place, but then I guess it's so much easier to scream and whine than to take responsability.

[Ilvane]

Okay, I am an educated Democrat, and I know what my party has done, Slider. I however would like to point out a few things:

Bush said there was a dire need to go to war because we had intelligence that said they were trying to get items from Niger..uranium.

Everyone thought that Saddam had the weapons of mass destruction, yes..we just didn't have a reason to rush to war until the so called intelligence saying they were trying to get uranium.

This intelligence was false, and Bush had been told it wasn't a good source, but went with it anyway as his reason to head to Iraq. People were mislead on this reason to go to war.

It's not about whether other people thought they had the weapons of "mass destruction" it's about the initial reason for going to war being urgent because he was trying to obtain uranium and the like.

It's about preparing for a war, having a plan for getting out eventually, and keeping our troops safe.

We weren't prepared for what happened, we don't have a plan to get out, and more troops are dying every day. That is the bottom line..Democrat or Republican.

-A

[Edited on 11-17-2005 by Ilvane]

[Sean of the Thread]

Backlash and politics... might be as bad as that drunk uncle in your family that you never invite to functions or speak about.


Oh shit I just realized I might be that drunk uncle. Nevermind.. keep spewing your shit.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by TheRoseLady

Originally posted by Ganalon
Hell even my Mom who was raised a staunch democrat is now a republican thanks to Clinton and his antics. :lol:



I think in the end that I would rather say that I supported an adulterer than what will ultimately weigh out on Bush. Folks aren't dying because of a blow job. People are dying because of the rush to judgement on Iraq. I doubt history will be very kind to him.

I don't think that I would be bragging that my family moved from one party to the other using Clinton or Bush as the reason. :lol:

You know.. they said the same thing about Truman and the Korean War. The support for the war was even lower than the Iraq War has today, but historians now show that it was a worthwhile conflict that stopped the spread of Communism and showed the world that we would protect Democracy.

I think the Iraq War.. if everything goes as Bush hopes.. could be an even bigger event in history. Imagine if this new Democracy actually holds and florishes in an area of the world that has never truly known peace and freedom.

[Sean of the Thread]

Preach on preacher.. preach on.


http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b236/Japgross/the_sign.jpg

[Edited on 11-17-2005 by Xyelin]

[Showal]

Originally posted by Backlash
Anyone else notice how the republicans in Congress are like rats on a sinking ship right now?

If you keep up with politics you must have noticed Republicans trying to make Democratic issues their own and distancing themselves from the White House as much as possible.

Are they listening to their constituents or their corporate sponsors? Are they really working for the people or are they just trying to hang on to their jobs. One year from now is a vote that will decide and I have a feeling that you are going to see a lot more.

waaaaah I hate republicans waaaaah no blood for oil waaaaaah

I'm just kidding BL, you know i love you.

[Gan]

Originally posted by Ilvane
Bush said there was a dire need to go to war because we had intelligence that said they were trying to get items from Niger..uranium.

If you believe Wilson's report, which has been proven to have many embellishments and has proven to be inaccurate at best.


Originally posted by Ilvane
Everyone thought that Saddam had the weapons of mass destruction, yes..we just didn't have a reason to rush to war until the so called intelligence saying they were trying to get uranium.

Yes, you're demonstrating the typical Democrat characteristic of "well, we know it exists but we'll just bury our head in the sand and hope it goes away". Saddam had the means and the motive to seek uranium, if you think he was not trying to go after it somewhere you're sadly mistaken.


Originally posted by Ilvane
This intelligence was false, and Bush had been told it wasn't a good source, but went with it anyway as his reason to head to Iraq. People were mislead on this reason to go to war.

So your opinion says. There are others with the opinion that stated that the war was justified for the many reasons necessary to remove Hussain from power, its just that everyone was so focused on the WMD that they ignored the rest. But obviously you're opinion is the 'truth' so we should all just go with that. :rolleyes:


Originally posted by Ilvane
It's about preparing for a war, having a plan for getting out eventually, and keeping our troops safe.

Preparing for war, we did, and sought and got congressional approval. Having a plan for getting out, name me one war where an exit strategy was demonstrated and followed, much less released for public information. The last line was sadly funny. I think everyone forgot that you werent supposed to kill anyone in wars - because they're meant to be safe. :rolleyes:


Originally posted by Ilvane
We weren't prepared for what happened, we don't have a plan to get out, and more troops are dying every day. That is the bottom line..Democrat or Republican.

Sorry, thats not the bottom line for everyone. And even the experts in warfare history and strategy will tell you, you can never anticipate completely what your enemy combatant will throw at you, be it civillians, school children, or any of the other atrocious non-conventional means that they have used to attempt to defeat our movements.


Sure there were mistakes made in the grand scheme of things. Nobody is perfect, and expecting perfection in an imperfect world is imperfect logic. However, using the 'misleading the American people' line is purely political and its focus is to slander the RNC enough to illicit change in the 2006 and 2008 elections. From a pundit point of view, I think that many people are tired of hearing this incessant 'drum beat of lies, deceit, and republicanism!' and will simply tune it out in 2006 as they are anticipating mud slinging at its highest intensity yet. When it comes to the polls, the RNC is banking on the fact that conservatives have proven more reliable to get out and vote than the liberals, as demonstrated in the past 2000 and 2004 elections. The true test will be who actually votes to have their voice heard.

Funny how this thread boiled down to the Iraq War debate anyways. :lol:

[Unique]

Originally posted by Ganalon
If you believe Wilson's report, which has been proven to have many embellishments and has proven to be inaccurate at best.


Sources please.



Originally posted by Ganalon
Yes, you're demonstrating the typical Democrat characteristic of "well, we know it exists but we'll just bury our head in the sand and hope it goes away".


And you're demonstrating the typical Republican characteristic of stereotyping democrats as wussy wimps. I'm not impressed.



Originally posted by Ganalon
Sure there were mistakes made in the grand scheme of things. Nobody is perfect, and expecting perfection in an imperfect world is imperfect logic.


If only some of those in power would admit this.


Originally posted by Ganalon
However, using the 'misleading the American people' line is purely political and its focus is to slander the RNC enough to illicit change in the 2006 and 2008 elections.


I disagree. The 'misleading the American people' line is a completely valid argument against the techniques used by the administration to gain support for an attack on Iraq.


Originally posted by Ganalon
From a pundit point of view, I think that many people are tired of hearing this incessant 'drum beat of lies, deceit, and republicanism!' and will simply tune it out in 2006 as they are anticipating mud slinging at its highest intensity yet. When it comes to the polls, the RNC is banking on the fact that conservatives have proven more reliable to get out and vote than the liberals, as demonstrated in the past 2000 and 2004 elections. The true test will be who actually votes to have their voice heard.


That is a sad fact indeed.


Originally posted by Ganalon
Funny how this thread boiled down to the Iraq War debate anyways. :lol:

I imagine that's because Iraq is the water the sinking Republican ship is sailing upon ;-)


Unique

[DeV]

" the RNC is banking on the fact that conservatives have proven more reliable to get out and vote than the liberals, as demonstrated in the past 2000 and 2004 elections"

I think that as close as the last election turned out to be, the RNC needs to be banking on all the voting machines in Florida and Ohio being up to par so noone has cause to contest any of the votes again.

[Gan]

Originally posted by Unique

Originally posted by Ganalon
If you believe Wilson's report, which has been proven to have many embellishments and has proven to be inaccurate at best.


Sources please.


1. Senate Select Committee On Intelligence Unanimous Report: “Conclusion 13. The Report On The Former Ambassador’s Trip To Niger, Disseminated In March 2002, Did Not Change Any Analysts’ Assessments Of The Iraq-Niger Uranium Deal.” (Senate Select Committee On Intelligence, “Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Assessments On Iraq,” 7/7/04)


2. For Most Analysts, The Information In The Report Lent More Credibility To The Original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Report On The Uranium Deal, But State Department Bureau Of Intelligence And Research (INR) Analysts Believed That The Report Supported Their Assessments That Niger Was Unlikely To Be Willing Or Able To Sell Uranium.” (Senate Select Committee On Intelligence, “Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Assessments On Iraq,” 7/7/04)

3. CIA Said Wilson’s Findings Did Not Resolve The Issue. “Because [Wilson’s] report, in our view, did not resolve whether Iraq was or was not seeking uranium from abroad, it was given a normal and wide distribution, but we did not brief it to the president, vice president or other senior administration officials. We also had to consider that the former Nigerien officials knew that what they were saying would reach the U.S. government and that this might have influenced what they said.” (Central Intelligence Agency, “Statement By George J. Tenet, Director Of Central Intelligence,” Press Release 7/11/03)

4. The Butler Report Claimed That The President’s State Of the Union Statement On Uranium From Africa, “Was Well-Founded.” “We conclude that, on the basis of the intelligence assessments at the time, covering both Niger and the Democratic Republic of Congo, the statements on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa in the Government’s dossier, and by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons, were well-founded. By extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush’s State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that: ‘The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.’ was well-founded.” (The Rt. Hon. The Lord Butler Of Brockwell, “Review Of Intelligence, On Weapons Of Mass Destruction,” 7/14/04)

5. Senate Select Committee On Intelligence Unanimous Report: “The Former Ambassador Said That He May Have ‘Misspoken’ To The Reporter When He Said He Concluded The Documents Were ‘Forged.’” (Senate Select Committee On Intelligence, “Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Assessments On Iraq,” 7/7/04)

6. Wilson Admits In His Book That He Had Been Involved In “A Little Literary Flair” When Talking To Reporters. “[Wilson] wrote in his book, he told Committee staff that his assertion may have involved ‘a little literary flair.’” (Matthew Continetti, “‘A Little Literary Flair’” The Weekly Standard, 7/26/04)

Not to mention that Wilson is a registered Democrat, has provided numerous donations to Kerry, Clinton, and Gore. He also endorsed Kerry during the 2004 campaign as well as was considered and 'advisor'. And finally, all this 'literary flare' was fodder for his book deal. :rolleyes:

[Landrion]

Originally posted by Backlash
Anyone else notice how the republicans in Congress are like rats on a sinking ship right now?

If you keep up with politics you must have noticed Republicans trying to make Democratic issues their own and distancing themselves from the White House as much as possible.

Are they listening to their constituents or their corporate sponsors? Are they really working for the people or are they just trying to hang on to their jobs. One year from now is a vote that will decide and I have a feeling that you are going to see a lot more.

Sounds smart to me. Personally, I like it when the Republicans act more moderately than staunchly conservative.

If theyre bright enough to listen to their constituents then theyre more likely to hang on to their jobs. Im not by any means a political theorist, but isnt that the point of a republic?

I might also go so far as to say that if the democratic party would spend some more effort trying to appeal to the conservative constituency as opposed to demonizing the republicans they would do better.

[Unique]

Originally posted by Ganalon
{list of sources}


It's good to see that your claims aren't baseless.


Originally posted by Ganalon
Not to mention that Wilson is a registered Democrat, has provided numerous donations to Kerry, Clinton, and Gore. He also endorsed Kerry during the 2004 campaign as well as was considered and 'advisor'. And finally, all this 'literary flare' was fodder for his book deal. :rolleyes:

In other words, nobody in the state department is allowed to have party affiliation?

Or do you mean that people who endorse Kerry and make donations to Democrats are inherently bad?

Is the same argument valid when applied in reverse, against those with republican affiliation in various branches and departments?

Unique.

[Gan]

Originally posted by Unique

Originally posted by Ganalon
{list of sources}


It's good to see that your claims aren't baseless.


Originally posted by Ganalon
Not to mention that Wilson is a registered Democrat, has provided numerous donations to Kerry, Clinton, and Gore. He also endorsed Kerry during the 2004 campaign as well as was considered and 'advisor'. And finally, all this 'literary flare' was fodder for his book deal. :rolleyes:

In other words, nobody in the state department is allowed to have party affiliation?

Or do you mean that people who endorse Kerry and make donations to Democrats are inherently bad?

Is the same argument valid when applied in reverse, against those with republican affiliation in various branches and departments?

Unique.

It helps to understand his motives. And goes a long way into seeing what motiveates him into behaving the way he did. Not that you're allowed not to have affiliations, but that you're above using them to bias objective reporting, especially in this case where the information, as sensitive as it was, and as necessary as it was to be dilligent, was obviously twisted to serve the end of an individual instead of the ends of a nation, its people, and the safety of others who would be victimized by Saddam's madness.

[Gan]

Originally posted by Unique
It's good to see that your claims aren't baseless.

As you gain more experience posting here on the PC you'll find that I strive not to fall victim to 'baseless claims'. Here's to you doing the same. And welcome to the PC Politics folder. :)

[Back]

Originally posted by Ganalon

Originally posted by Unique

Originally posted by Ganalon
{list of sources}


It's good to see that your claims aren't baseless.


Originally posted by Ganalon
Not to mention that Wilson is a registered Democrat, has provided numerous donations to Kerry, Clinton, and Gore. He also endorsed Kerry during the 2004 campaign as well as was considered and 'advisor'. And finally, all this 'literary flare' was fodder for his book deal. :rolleyes:

In other words, nobody in the state department is allowed to have party affiliation?

Or do you mean that people who endorse Kerry and make donations to Democrats are inherently bad?

Is the same argument valid when applied in reverse, against those with republican affiliation in various branches and departments?

Unique.

It helps to understand his motives. And goes a long way into seeing what motiveates him into behaving the way he did. Not that you're allowed not to have affiliations, but that you're above using them to bias objective reporting, especially in this case where the information, as sensitive as it was, and as necessary as it was to be dilligent, was obviously twisted to serve the end of an individual instead of the ends of a nation, its people, and the safety of others who would be victimized by Saddam's madness.

Yet still all your sourcing dosen't change the fact that the claim that Saddam was seeking yellowcake in Niger is just not true.

Then you go on to suggest that Wilson lied about something that was not true in the first place soley for his own benefit and could endanger the lives of ordinary Americans?

What the hell are you smoking?

[Unique]

Originally posted by Ganalon
It helps to understand his motives. And goes a long way into seeing what motiveates him into behaving the way he did. Not that you're allowed not to have affiliations, but that you're above using them to bias objective reporting, especially in this case where the information, as sensitive as it was, and as necessary as it was to be dilligent, was obviously twisted to serve the end of an individual instead of the ends of a nation, its people, and the safety of others who would be victimized by Saddam's madness.

I suppose we agree on this point, although our opinions differ on who did twisting that was more severe and damaging.

Anyway, this type of debate is nice but it won't get me or you very far. I'll take it to the voting booth as some have suggested.

Unique.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Ilvane
I don't think distancing from Clinton did those who did so much good. In the end, it wasn't that important that he had an affair or a blow job or whatever..it should have just been between he and his wife anyway.

His problem was that he lied to the American People. He looked square in the camera and said " I did not have sexual relations with that women". He is a lawyer and he lied under oath. He committed perjury. There are of course the numerous accusations of sexual assault as well.

I may not like Bush but that doesn't mean I am blind to what Clinton was like.


As far as Bush goes, I'm glad people are finally figuring out what he is about. He's hanging on to one last line.."People voted for the war." Yes, yes George, they did..when the thought the intelligence you had put forth was true..

Can't make an informed decision when the intelligence you are basing your dire need to go to war on is false..and you've been getting told it's true.

Although we agree on this, the problem is that the Senate Intelligence Commitee has Democrats on it and the Democrats voted to go to war as well.

[Unique]

Originally posted by Backlash
Yet still all your sourcing dosen't change the fact that the claim that Saddam was seeking yellowcake in Niger is just not true.


Not to defend Ganalon... but here it goes.

The Wilson debate isn't about the truth of Nigerian yellowcake seeking.

The debate is about what was known by who and when it was known.

Essentially, if the yellowcake intelligence was valid at the time of Bush's SotU then the claim he lied about the evidence is untrue.

There are many factors deep in this debate that are impossible to get into in this format.

Unique.

Edited to say: Damn it, have I really gotten this moderate in my old age?

[Edited on 11-17-2005 by Unique]

[Gan]

Originally posted by Backlash

Yet still all your sourcing dosen't change the fact that the claim that Saddam was seeking yellowcake in Niger is just not true.

Then you go on to suggest that Wilson lied about something that was not true in the first place soley for his own benefit and could endanger the lives of ordinary Americans?

What the hell are you smoking?

Yes, I forgot that Backlash is omnicient and is really a secret agent guy who really knows the truth behing the 'yellocake' conspiracy. :rolleyes:

Your saying that Saddam never sought WMD material is as subjective as my saying he did. Neither one of can prove otherwise, its just that you're using it as an excuse to claim the American people are being lied to. You're the one smoking something, not I. And yes, Wilson did embellish, lie, or whatever you call it now days, he even admitted it. And yet you use that as a pillar to hold up that Saddam never sought Nigerian uranium, as if you know that for the solid truth. :lol:

You remind me of a puppet dancing on the rhetoric strings of fanaticism. Put your money where your mouth is and vote, we'll see what comes of it.

[Back]

Originally posted by Unique
Not to defend Ganalon... but here it goes.

The Wilson debate isn't about the truth of Nigerian yellowcake seeking.

The debate is about what was known by who and when it was known.

Essentially, if the yellowcake intelligence was valid at the time of Bush's SotU then the claim he lied about the evidence is untrue.

There are many factors deep in this debate that are impossible to get into in this format.

Unique.

Edited to say: Damn it, have I really gotten this moderate in my old age?

[Edited on 11-17-2005 by Unique]

Crap, lost a post. So, yeah, it is about who knew what and when. 2 years ago there was debate over the issue yet the administration decided to go with their version anyway. 2 years later its pretty obvious who was right and who was wrong.

[Edited on 11-17-2005 by Backlash]

[Latrinsorm]

I agree with what Ganalon said, except:
illicit Elicit means to bring about. Illicit is illegal.

As for the topic: Politicians playing politics. Same shit, different day/names.

[Warriorbird]

A few more strikes against your "I'm a liberal!" stance, Latrin.

[Ilvane]

Okay xtc, my point is right in your response.

The Democrats were given the intelligence that was FALSE as well. They based their decisions on THAT information. Since that information was not true, they voted the way they thought was best based on that information.

Secondly, when they found out it was false, that changed the way most people looked at the war.

For example: My mother was sure it was a good idea to go to war based on the Niger information. Once told this was not true, she changed her mind.

I tend to think the Democrats did the same thing.

And as far as Wilson being partisan, no one thought he was partisan until he came out against the president. When he did that his wife got outed as a CIA agent and then he was no longer respected..go figure..if you don't tow the administration line, you better watch out!

As far as Clinton goes, I'll say it again..the only person who should be angry he lied about an affair should be his wife. It never should have been a political issue in the first place.

-A

[xtc]

Originally posted by Ilvane
Okay xtc, my point is right in your response.

The Democrats were given the intelligence that was FALSE as well. They based their decisions on THAT information. Since that information was not true, they voted the way they thought was best based on that information.

Secondly, when they found out it was false, that changed the way most people looked at the war.

For example: My mother was sure it was a good idea to go to war based on the Niger information. Once told this was not true, she changed her mind.

I tend to think the Democrats did the same thing.

And as far as Wilson being partisan, no one thought he was partisan until he came out against the president. When he did that his wife got outed as a CIA agent and then he was no longer respected..go figure..if you don't tow the administration line, you better watch out!

As far as Clinton goes, I'll say it again..the only person who should be angry he lied about an affair should be his wife. It never should have been a political issue in the first place.

-A

See I didn't think it was a good idea and I was against the war from the get go. Most people in Canada were against the war and doubted the claims being made by the American administration and intelligence community. The U.N. wasn't swayed by it either.

I don't like most things about this administration however when the Democrats had the chance to vote against the war they didn't. If they had access to the same intelligence that Bush did then the decision making abilities of the Democrats are as flawed as the Republicans.

Yes the outing of the CIA agent was disgusting, as were the motivations behind it, no argument from me. I hope Libby and Rove are prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Clinton lied to the American people and lied under oath. He chose to make a public statement on the matter. Thus it became a public matter. As far as commiting perjury is concerned, that is very much a public issue and an issue concerning Americans about their President.

I may not be a Bush fan but that doesn't mean I am blind to the faults of the Dems.

[Gan]

Originally posted by Ilvane

As far as Clinton goes, I'll say it again..the only person who should be angry he lied about an affair should be his wife. It never should have been a political issue in the first place.

-A


Never mind that he lied on TV to the american people. That has nothing to do with his credibility... [/sarcasm]

Time to remove the blinders. If you're going to bash the current administration for 'lying' to the American public then by the same litmus test, you should admit to Clinton doing the same.


Originally posted by Ilvane
And as far as Wilson being partisan, no one thought he was partisan until he came out against the president.

Its well documented that Wilson donated and supported not only Gore in 2000.

** Joseph Wilson Has Donated Over $8,000 To Democrats Including $2,000 To John Kerry For President In 2003, $1,000 To Hillary Clinton’s (D-NY) HILLPAC In 2002 And $3,000 To Al Gore In 1999. (The Center For Responsive Politics Website, www.opensecrets.org, Accessed 7/12/05).


Yea, I'd say he was a known Democratic party supporter. It was just thought that because of his ambassador status he could be objective. Guess that was a mistake. :rolleyes:

[Edited on 11-17-2005 by Ganalon]

[xtc]

Originally posted by Ganalon

Originally posted by Ilvane

As far as Clinton goes, I'll say it again..the only person who should be angry he lied about an affair should be his wife. It never should have been a political issue in the first place.

-A


Never mind that he lied on TV to the american people. That has nothing to do with his credibility... [/sarcasm]

Time to remove the blinders. If you're going to bash the current administration for 'lying' to the American public then by the same litmus test, you should admit to Clinton doing the same.

[Edited on 11-17-2005 by Ganalon]

Clinton was disbarred for lying under oath as he should have been. However Clinton didn't turn the largest budget surplus in history into the largest budget deficit in history. Neither did his lie cause us to go to war or cost countless lives of soldiers and innocent civilians. Neither did Clinton's lies make America the most hated nation on earth.

[Gan]

Just the biggest laughing stock of the planet Earth. No biggie.

And his policies are very much part of whats wrong the US economy today, so dont even try that line.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
A few more strikes against your "I'm a liberal!" stance, Latrin. Ganalon isn't a liberal?? :O
Originally posted by Ilvane
The Democrats were given the intelligence that was FALSE as well. They based their decisions on THAT information. Since that information was not true, they voted the way they thought was best based on that information. So the Democrats who actually sent us to war get a pass because they voted the way they thought was best, but Bush is a big liar. Right, that's not partisan at all.

[Ilvane]

Actually, people in Europe thought it was insane that he was getting impeached for that.

At least people aren't dying over a blow job.

Even if he lied.

-A

[Hulkein]

Has it been proven that Bush intentional mislead everyone, or are Democrats still claiming that giving information out that you believe is true is 'lying?'

Because unless Bush knew what he was telling Americans and the Senate and the UN was false, it's not a lie in the true sense of the word...

BUT AT LEST PEOPLE DIDNT DIE ON HIS TEH BJK!@111

[Gan]

Originally posted by Ilvane
Actually, people in Europe thought it was insane that he was getting impeached for that.

At least people aren't dying over a blow job.

Even if he lied.

-A

Wow, imagine all the lives we could have saved if Truman and Roosevelt would have just gotten blow jobs instead of going to war... yes that is logical.

:banghead:

Imagine how much money we could have saved in the cold war if we would have just all gotten blow jobs instead of investing in national defense.

Yes, we should have just signed up LBJ for blowjobs instead of going to Vietnam.

Oh and lets not forget Korea! Imagine the knobfest in the senate for that one.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Ganalon

Originally posted by Ilvane
Actually, people in Europe thought it was insane that he was getting impeached for that.

At least people aren't dying over a blow job.

Even if he lied.

-A

Wow, imagine all the lives we could have saved if Truman and Roosevelt would have just gotten blow jobs instead of going to war... yes that is logical.

:banghead:

Imagine how much money we could have saved in the cold war if we would have just all gotten blow jobs instead of investing in national defense.

Yes, we should have just signed up LBJ for blowjobs instead of going to Vietnam.

Oh and lets not forget Korea! Imagine the knobfest in the senate for that one.

You can't compare the World Wars or even Korea to the fiasco in Iraq.

[Gan]

you can.. and I am.

War as does the world, evolves. You may not like it, but it is still one in the same.

[Unique]

Originally posted by Ganalon
War as does the world, evolves. You may not like it, but it is still one in the same.

If by evolving you mean the errosion of constitutional rights, global respect, human rights, and respect for international institutions, then yes I'd say we're evolving quite nicely.

[Ilvane]

You are entirely irrational, Ganalon.

Hulkein, you should read up some on the intelligence and the people who told Bush that it was not reliable information.

1.)The Africa claim came under scrutiny after the International Atomic Energy Agency determined that documents purportedly showing Iraq buying uranium from Niger were fake. The FBI is investigating those documents.

2.)The White House said including the 16 words in the State of the Union was a mistake because the assertion was not well enough corroborated to merit mention in a State of the Union speech.

There's more, if you really want to see.

-A

[Hulkein]

Yeah I've heard that there have been some cracks in the Niger story (which was used to say he was trying to get nuclear capabilities, correct? I admit I don't pay that much attention).

Have there been any legitimate charges that he knew that Iraq didn't have other chemical/biological WMD but told everyone otherwise?

[Gan]

I've seen it. [referring to Ilvane's last post]

It still does not convince me that there was intentional deceit in Bush's efforts to remove Hussain.

I do not believe that we have made a mistake by removing Hussain. I do not feel misled as a member of the American public and I went into this war with my eyes open understanding that there would be casualties.

I also understand that the body politik would have the American public forget that they were unified when the decision to go to war was made.

I also understand that that Wilson appears to have been motivated by personal means, not by humanitarian or professional objectivity.

There's more to the other side of the story if you really want to know.

Irrational is only a state of mind. One which you've displayed in some of your posts too if that opinion were asked of me. Touche?

[Edited on 11-17-2005 by Ganalon]

[xtc]

Originally posted by Hulkein
Has it been proven that Bush intentional mislead everyone, or are Democrats still claiming that giving information out that you believe is true is 'lying?'

Because unless Bush knew what he was telling Americans and the Senate and the UN was false, it's not a lie in the true sense of the word...

BUT AT LEST PEOPLE DIDNT DIE ON HIS TEH BJK!@111

On Sept 12, 2001 CIA Analyst Scott Ritter was in the room with Cheney, Rumsfield, and Bush. Naturally they were discussing the World Trade Centre bombing and who was responsible. Osama bin Laden and Al Qaida were at the top of the list. Rumsfield was jumping up and down talking about invading Iraq, Scott and the other members of the intelligence community there were perplexed by this and told Rumsfield that Al Qaida is in Afghanistan not in Iraq. Rumsfeld response was that the targets were better in Iraq.

When you are itching to invade an oil rich nation and use the first flimsy excuse that comes along to justify it, you are lying to the American people. Most of the world didn't believe the American intelligence, even members of the U.S. intelligence community like Scott Ritter doubted it and they were all correct. Over two years later, cost of $200 Billion, countless lives lost, a nation ready to plung into civil war, no weapons of mass destruction have been found.

BTW what ever happened to find Osama bin Laden and those responsible for 911?

[Edited on 11-17-2005 by xtc]

[Unique]

Originally posted by Hulkein
Have there been any legitimate charges that he knew that Iraq didn't have other chemical/biological WMD but told everyone otherwise?

That question has two sides.

First, we know that Saddam should have had various WMDs. Bush Sr. probably has the receipts somewhere in his files.

Second, the weapon inspectors were unable to find any of the WMDs. The international community wanted us to let the inspectors do their job.

Balance the two points and come to a decision, basically, is what W and his administration did.

Unique.

[Unique]

Originally posted by xtc
BTW what ever happened to find Osama bin Laden and those responsible for 911?

That question is moooot! We got Saddam!

muahaha!

Unique.

Ok, I've recovered from that outburst.

[Gan]

Originally posted by xtc
On Sept 12, 2001 CIA Analyst Scott Ritter was in the room with Cheney, Rumsfield, and Bush. Naturally they were discussing the World Trade Centre bombing and who was responsible. Osama bin Laden and Al Qaida were at the top of the list. Rumsfield was jumping up and down talking about invading Iraq, Scott and the other members of the intelligence community there were perplexed by this and told Rumsfield that Al Qaida is in Afghanistan not in Iraq. Rumsfeld response was that the targets were better in Iraq.

Do you have a source for this? Or is this another moveon.org article?


Originally posted by xtc
When you are itching to invade an oil rich nation and use the first flimsy excuse that comes along to justify it, you are lying to the American people. Most of the world didn't believe the American intelligence, even members of the U.S. intelligence community like Scott Ritter doubted it and they were all correct. Over two years later, cost of $200 Billion, countless lives lost, a nation ready to plung into civil war, no weapons of mass destruction have been found.

:lol: now you sound like Backlash. Overstate things much?



Originally posted by xtc
BTW what ever happened to find Osama bin Laden and those responsible for 911?

Still looking for him, even though its not news worthy enough to make the headlines.

[Unique]

Originally posted by Ganalon

Originally posted by xtc
When you are itching to invade an oil rich nation and use the first flimsy excuse that comes along to justify it, you are lying to the American people. Most of the world didn't believe the American intelligence, even members of the U.S. intelligence community like Scott Ritter doubted it and they were all correct. Over two years later, cost of $200 Billion, countless lives lost, a nation ready to plung into civil war, no weapons of mass destruction have been found.

:lol: now you sound like Backlash. Overstate things much?


I missed the part where the overstatement happened. Please help me find it?

Unique

[Gan]

Originally posted by Unique

Originally posted by Ganalon

Originally posted by xtc
When you are itching to invade an oil rich nation and use the first flimsy excuse that comes along to justify it, you are lying to the American people. Most of the world didn't believe the American intelligence, even members of the U.S. intelligence community like Scott Ritter doubted it and they were all correct. Over two years later, cost of $200 Billion, countless lives lost, a nation ready to plung into civil war, no weapons of mass destruction have been found.

:lol: now you sound like Backlash. Overstate things much?


I missed the part where the overstatement happened. Please help me find it?

Unique


If you cant find all the instances of overstating and inflammation in the above referenced paragraph then you need more help than I can offer.

[Edited on 11-17-2005 by Ganalon]

[xtc]

Originally posted by Ganalon
Do you have a source for this? Or is this another moveon.org article?

Moveon.org isn't on my radar. I made one mistake in my post the Analyst's name was Richard Clarke not Scott Ritter. I will post the article from Reuters at the end of this post.


Originally posted by xtc
When you are itching to invade an oil rich nation and use the first flimsy excuse that comes along to justify it, you are lying to the American people. Most of the world didn't believe the American intelligence, even members of the U.S. intelligence community like Scott Ritter doubted it and they were all correct. Over two years later, cost of $200 Billion, countless lives lost, a nation ready to plung into civil war, no weapons of mass destruction have been found.


:lol: now you sound like Backlash. Overstate things much?

Nope, nothing was overstated. Cost over $200 Billion, reported civilian casualties in Iraq are between 26,000 and 30, 000. Iraq is an oil rich nation and Rumsfeld wanted to invade Iraq on Sept 12, 2001.


Originally posted by xtc
BTW what ever happened to find Osama bin Laden and those responsible for 911?


Still looking for him, even though its not news worthy enough to make the headlines.

With all the resources being taken up in Iraq what kind of effort is being put into to finding Osama? No where near the amount of resources that have been deployed in Iraq

Reuters article

Ex-Advisor Says Bush Eyed Bombing of Iraq on 9/11

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A former White House anti-terrorism advisor says the Bush administration considered bombing Iraq in retaliation after Sept. 11, 2001 even though it was clear al Qaeda had carried out the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

Richard Clarke, who headed a cybersecurity board that gleaned intelligence from the Internet, told CBS "60 Minutes" in an interview to be aired on Sunday he was surprised administration officials turned immediately toward Iraq instead of al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.

"They were talking about Iraq on 9/11. They were talking about it on 9/12," Clarke says.

Clarke said he was briefing President Bush and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld among other top officials in the aftermath of the devastating attacks.
"Rumsfeld was saying we needed to bomb Iraq. ... We all said, 'but no, no. Al Qaeda is in Afghanistan, "recounts Clarke, "and Rumsfeld said, 'There aren't any good targets in Afghanistan and there are lots of good targets in Iraq

Clarke, an advisor to four presidents, left his position in February 2003 after the White House transferred functions of the cybersecurity board to Homeland Security.

Clarke's comments are the latest to raise the question of the Bush administration's focus on overthrowing Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, fired in a shake-up of Bush's economic team in December 2002, told "60 Minutes" in an interview aired in January he never saw any evidence Iraq had weapons of mass destruction -- Bush's main justification for going to war.

O'Neill also charged that Bush entered office intent on invading Iraq and ousting its leader, Saddam Hussein.

"I think they wanted to believe that there was a connection" between Iraq and al Qaeda, Clarke tells "60 Minutes."

"But the CIA was sitting there, the FBI was sitting there, I was sitting there, saying, 'We've looked at this issue for years. For years we've looked and there's just no connection,"' says Clarke.

[Hulkein]

I have to say you overstated the facts a bit by saying we're a nation ready to plunge into civil war...

[Unique]

Originally posted by Hulkein
I have to say you overstated the facts a bit by saying we're a nation ready to plunge into civil war...

Iraq. Not us.

Unique.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Hulkein
I have to say you overstated the facts a bit by saying we're a nation ready to plunge into civil war...

I meant Iraq not America, your myopic Americentric outlook made you assume I was talking about America. :P

Now Ganalon take heed this post is Backlashist.

[Edited on 11-17-2005 by xtc]

[Gan]

So the Reuters article was using two sources who were just outed from the Bush administration.

Bitter pills anyone? Why come out after the left instead of while in office?

And perhaps your overstating was more in how you were contexting (word?) the cost along with the casualties along with the other. Who doesnt know that war is expensive, who doesnt know that casualties result from war. But then you throw in language about blood for oil and other rhethoric and it certainly does flavor your response. Or is that just 'literary flare' as Wilson eloquently put it?

The fact is that you can spin this just about any way you want. You say potatoe, I say potatoe.

Just keep going with whatever makes you feel good enough to sleep at night. I sleep fine knowing that we're helping the Iraqi people get rid of a dictator and also pushing out these idiot radical extremists who are bent on nothing but killing people. And my vote in 2006 and 2008 will reflect that, you can bet on it.

I hope you can keep that same opinion you have 10 years from now when you can see a rebuilt and renewed Iraq functioning as its own state with a stable government body taking care of its people, not feeding off of them.

[Hulkein]

My fault. :lol:

[Unique]

Originally posted by Ganalon
I hope you can keep that same opinion you have 10 years from now when you can see a rebuilt and renewed Iraq functioning as its own state with a stable government body taking care of its people, not feeding off of them.

That's an interesting point because I do think about the world 10 years from now and I don't like the direction in which Bush et al have taken us.

I live in NYC which means I live knowing my home will be a likely target in any future terrorist attack. Every time I get on the subway that idea is in the back of my mind. I live with cops who are free under the law to randomly search any bag at a whim.

I have lived in other countries and I have been subjected to criticism and even attack for being American. I have seen protests in Geneva, CH over my own president.

Honestly, as a citizen of the US, of NYC, and of the world, I feel less safe knowing that Bush is in office. I feel less safe not because of his policies directly, but because of the fallout generated across the globe.

10 years from now I hope we will look back and learn. A different course could have brought better results.

Unique.

Edited to remove an ambiguity.

[Edited on 11-17-2005 by Unique]

[xtc]

Originally posted by Ganalon
So the Reuters article was using two sources who were just outed from the Bush administration.

Bitter pills anyone? Why come out after the left instead of while in office?

Lol, not quite. Richard Clarke quit the administration. He started in the Department of Defense in 1973 and has served 4 Presidents.


But then you throw in language about blood for oil and other rhethoric and it certainly does flavor your response.


I never used the phrase blood for oil


The fact is that you can spin this just about any way you want. You say potatoe, I say potatoe.

No spin just hard facts.

No WMD's found
cost over $200 Billion
1000's of lives lost


Just keep going with whatever makes you feel good enough to sleep at night. I sleep fine knowing that we're helping the Iraqi people get rid of a dictator and also pushing out these idiot radical extremists who are bent on nothing but killing people. And my vote in 2006 and 2008 will reflect that, you can bet on it.

So it doesn't bother you that there are no WMD's. That US and Iraqi lives were lost. That Iraq is less secure now than before we entered? That Saddam's activities in the 80's didn't bother the US Government? That the United States has been listed has one of the world's worst abusers of human rights. That we have pushed back civil rights before the Magna Carta?

The radical extremists you refer to were only able to enter Iraq because of the opportunity the American Government provided for them. Currently we have a Shi'ite controlled Government in Iraq that is on friendly terms with Iran which is also Shi'ite controlled. If Iraq doesn't plunge into civil war, we have a new fundamentalist Government in Iraq that will work together with Iran. How does this make us safer?



I hope you can keep that same opinion you have 10 years from now when you can see a rebuilt and renewed Iraq functioning as its own state with a stable government body taking care of its people, not feeding off of them.

In 10 years there are several possibilities for Iraq, none of which look like your vision. They are as follows:

1. Civil War with Iran backing the Shi'ites and most of the other Arab states backing the Sunni's.

2. A Shi'ite controlled theocracy allied with Iran in opposition to America and quite possibly a nuclear nation.

3. Part of Iran.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Hulkein
Has it been proven that Bush intentional mislead everyone?
Originally posted by xtc
Rumsfield was jumping up and down talking about invading Iraq, [Clarke] and the other members of the intelligence community there were perplexed by this and told Rumsfield that Al Qaida is in Afghanistan not in Iraq. Rumsfeld response was that the targets were better in Iraq.Right.
Originally posted by Unique
Every time I get on the subway that idea is in the back of my mind. Honestly, why? How is worrying about it going to help? You're probably more likely to get hit by a car while walking to the subway than be involved in a terrorist attack.

[Gan]

Originally posted by xtc
If Iraq doesn't plunge into civil war, we have a new fundamentalist Government in Iraq that will work together with Iran. How does this make us safer?

Iraqi Shiites are Arab, not Perasian like Iran. so saying they will work with Iran is not likely.

Since the Shiites represent almost 60% of the population, its natural that they will have a strong influence on representing government, its how its set up and maintained thats the key, first the people have to have the power to vote and be deomcratic. But that doesnt mean that they also wont also have a western influence. Hopefully the taste of freedom will make a huge difference in how the people respond to a governing body.


Originally posted by xtc
In 10 years there are several possibilities for Iraq, none of which look like your vision. They are as follows:

1. Civil War with Iran backing the Shi'ites and most of the other Arab states backing the Sunni's.
Will it mean civil war? Possibly, as the Suni's who held power over education, the economy, and in the army will be unlikely to release such power willingly. But bringing in the other Arab states is unlikely because of all the different factions, slants, and other differences.


Originally posted by xtc
2. A Shi'ite controlled theocracy allied with Iran in opposition to America and quite possibly a nuclear nation.
Thats what the constitution is being developed for, to avoid a theocracy. Your faith in their efforts is duly noted.


Originally posted by xtc
3. Part of Iran.
Only if Iran decides to invade, which is unlikely at this point.

[Warriorbird]

Comparing Iraq to either World War dishonors veterans. You should be ashamed of yourself, Ganalon. Most of the rest of this discussion is to inane to be bothered with. From either side.

[Gan]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Comparing Iraq to either World War dishonors veterans. You should be ashamed of yourself, Ganalon. Most of the rest of this discussion is to inane to be bothered with. From either side.

I'll only buy that if you're a veteran WB. And since you're not...

I seem to have plenty of friends, active and inactive who have fought in previous wars/conflicts. They see no dishonor and call this a war just as any other.

Way to misrepresent.

[Warriorbird]

Uhhh....

I never said it wasn't a war.

I said that comparing it to the World Wars insults veterans.

Ironically enough I remember you suggesting that you couldn't compare it to Vietnam.

Waffling? Flip flopping? Say it ain't so!

[Edited on 11-17-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Gan]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Uhhh....

I never said it wasn't a war.

I said that comparing it to the World Wars insults veterans.

Ironically enough I remember you suggesting that you couldn't compare it to Vietnam.

Waffling? Flip flopping? Say it ain't so!

[Edited on 11-17-2005 by Warriorbird]

Until you can come up with said quote, you're just using conjecture, lies, and innuendo! Say it aint so!

[Unique]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
Right.
Originally posted by Unique
Every time I get on the subway that idea is in the back of my mind. Honestly, why? How is worrying about it going to help? You're probably more likely to get hit by a car while walking to the subway than be involved in a terrorist attack. [/quote]

I didn't say I worried. I'm a very observant person, and I notice all the subtle vulnerabilities that could be exploited if someone had the desire to exploit them. This is typically done in a fraction of a second between sips of coffee or glances at the Times while being jostled by people exiting and entering the car.

Like I said, back of my mind, but it is a thought that exists.

Unique.

[Latrinsorm]

Well yeah, I think about people pushing me on the tracks in the back of my head, but that doesn't mean the politicians are to blame, it just means I'm paranoid.

[Gan]

In law enforcement they call that the 'what if' game. You constantly apply 'what if' to every scenario you can think of then you consider what your response would be. That gives you an edge if something unexpected does happen.

Its alot better than playing the 'what the fuck?' game...

[Warriorbird]

Until you can come up with said quote, you're just using conjecture, lies, and innuendo! Say it aint so!

Well then. It's far more like Vietnam that it is like World War I or II and it isn't very much like Vietnam.

Now go away.

:)

[Gan]

never!

:lol:

[Back]

Alright, I get it, the republican party is in shambles and this is how they respond. Lets list some of the very recent stumbling blocks they are trying to hurdle.

Delay - indicted, stepped down

Frist - under investigation for insider trading

Libby - indicted, resigned

Rove - under investigation

Miers - GOP reject

Katrina Response - disaster

Social Security Reform - flop

Budget - Record surplus to record deficit in one term

Iraq - No WMDs, secret prisons, torture of detainees, people held without record, use of radioactive and chemical weapons, etc...

CIA Leak - someone put an American’s life in danger

UN - American call for reform with Americans under investigation in the oil-for-food scandal

Spending Bill - Defeated

Alaskan Drilling - Defeated

Torture Provisions - Rejected by White House

Patriot Act - Revised

Senate Committee on Misleading Information - Stalled

And that is no where near the end of the list. You will find every one of those things in the news.

The GOP is on the ropes. They know it, everyone knows it. Pick up any paper, watch any news program, unbiased or not. Its all right there.

Now we see the big GOP weapon to make all that go away. Its the blame game. Everything we have seen in the last 5 years is Clinton, democrats and liberals faults. A man who is not in office, a party in the minority and a label for those who disagree.

I know you are, but what am I?

[Gan]

The Sky is Falling!!! Quick run and hide Backlash, else you'll get something in your hair.

[Back]

Originally posted by Ganalon
The Sky is Falling!!! Quick run and hide Backlash, else you'll get something in your hair.

I imagine thats how much of the GOP must feel about now. Especially considering that some governors in the last election did not want Bush at their rallies, and the one who did have him lost.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
It's far more like Vietnam that it is like World War I or II and it isn't very much like Vietnam.
Haha, nice.

[Warriorbird]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/17/congress.spending.ap/index.html

For informational purposes.

[Back]

http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_colbert_report/index.jhtml

Click on the Information video link.

For entertainment purposes.

[Edited on 11-18-2005 by Backlash]

[TheRoseLady]

Originally posted by Ganalon

Originally posted by Unique
It's good to see that your claims aren't baseless.

As you gain more experience posting here on the PC you'll find that I strive not to fall victim to 'baseless claims'. Here's to you doing the same. And welcome to the PC Politics folder. :)

Yes Unique, welcome. You're a huge breathe of fresh air.

[Unique]

Originally posted by TheRoseLady
Yes Unique, welcome. You're a huge breathe of fresh air.

Well thanks. That seems like a baseless claim, though. :wow:

Unique.

[Warriorbird]

Colbert... because someone has to make Bill O'Reilly very unhappy.

[Back]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Colbert... because someone has to make Bill O'Reilly very unhappy.

Actually, the radical left Web sites are what gives O’Riely very much unhappiness. Its never about him, its always someone else.

[TheRoseLady]

Originally posted by Unique

Originally posted by TheRoseLady
Yes Unique, welcome. You're a huge breathe of fresh air.

Well thanks. That seems like a baseless claim, though. :wow:

Unique.

:rofl:

I blame it on the liberal media. :yes:

[xtc]

Originally posted by Ganalon

Originally posted by xtc
If Iraq doesn't plunge into civil war, we have a new fundamentalist Government in Iraq that will work together with Iran. How does this make us safer?

Iraqi Shiites are Arab, not Perasian like Iran. so saying they will work with Iran is not likely.

Since the Shiites represent almost 60% of the population, its natural that they will have a strong influence on representing government, its how its set up and maintained thats the key, first the people have to have the power to vote and be deomcratic. But that doesnt mean that they also wont also have a western influence. Hopefully the taste of freedom will make a huge difference in how the people respond to a governing body.

I mean no disrespect but I grew up with Islam so I know something about it. You are viewing the situation through western eyes. Yes the Iranians are Persians, they speak Farsi first not Arabic (of course they can speak Arabic as it is the language of the Koran). However religion comes before ethnicity where Islam is concerned, just look at India.

There has always been something of a power struggle between the Sunnis and Shi'ites in the middle east. The Shi'ites in Iraq are already on friendly terms with their Iranian neighbours and the Sunni's in Iraq are upset with the new Constitution. The New Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has already met with Iraqi officials and Iraq is asking for Iran's help fighting the insurgency.

ARTICLE (http://www.iranmania.com/News/ArticleView/Default.asp?NewsCode=37824&NewsKind=Current%20Affa irs)

The Foreign Minister of Saudi Arabia has already voiced concerns over a pending civil war and how it could drag the other nations in the area into it.

Egyptian analyst Mohamed el-Sayed Said worries about a broader struggle between Islam's two branches -- the Sunnis, long dominant in the Arab world, and the schismatic, often oppressed Shiites, historically viewed as "subversives."


Originally posted by Ganalon

Originally posted by xtc
In 10 years there are several possibilities for Iraq, none of which look like your vision. They are as follows:

1. Civil War with Iran backing the Shi'ites and most of the other Arab states backing the Sunni's.
Will it mean civil war? Possibly, as the Suni's who held power over education, the economy, and in the army will be unlikely to release such power willingly. But bringing in the other Arab states is unlikely because of all the different factions, slants, and other differences.

The Sunni's in Iraq have aleady lost their power, the Shi'ites are in charge.

Analysts disagree with you about bringing other Arab nations into the conflict.

"If it's a war between Sunni and Shiite, this war might be extended from Lebanon to Afghanistan," says Diaa Rashwan, an Egyptian expert on Islamic militancy."

and so does Saudi Arabia's foreign minister:

"All the dynamics are pulling the country apart," Saudi Arabia's foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, said of Iraq. Speaking with Washington reporters on Sept. 22, the Saudi also warned that Iraq's disintegration would "bring other countries in the region into the conflict."

ARTICLE 2 (http://timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=412686&category=AP%20IRAQ&BCCode =&newsdate=10/25/2005&TextPage=1)


Originally posted by Ganalon

Originally posted by xtc
2. A Shi'ite controlled theocracy allied with Iran in opposition to America and quite possibly a nuclear nation.

Thats what the constitution is being developed for, to avoid a theocracy. Your faith in their efforts is duly noted.

In the Middle East the final constitution is the Koran. Religion comes before anything. In the west we put great faith in our laws and our Constitution, in Iraq it is just a piece of paper. What matters is God's infallable word as laid out in the Koran, as they see it. In Iraq the Shiites are very fundamental.


Originally posted by Ganalon

Originally posted by xtc
3. Part of Iran.
Only if Iran decides to invade, which is unlikely at this point.

Yes, I agree this is the least likely scenario however not impossible. Most likely they will closely allied with the Iraqi Shiite Government and will exercise its influence that way.

[Edited on 11-18-2005 by xtc]

[Apotheosis]

Does it ever escape anyone that people make tremendous amounts of money just exploiting the emotion over these issues? (left/right, etc.)

Edited because I suck @ the spelling.

[Edited on 11-18-0505 by Yswithe]

[Warriorbird]

Never escapes me for a second.

[Back]

Some guys watch sports. I watch Politics and HBO and any fine filly that crosses my line of vision... BUT anyway.

U.S. House, in tactic, to vote on Iraq troops (http://in.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2005-11-19T072237Z_01_NOOTR_RTRJONC_0_India-224192-1.xml&archived=False)

The biggest democratic hawk, who voted to authorise the war, introduced a resolution for troop withdrawl. It was expected to fail. But the republicans have turned it around. They actually agreed to have a vote on it.

They are voting right now. Watching Cspan and its like a rigged game show.

[Gan]

Nothing like putting your money where your mouth is. I'm waiting to see the roll call vote to see who actually stood up for their bluster and who cowed down to the body politik in facing the 2006 elections.


Oh, and I saw a list you posted the other day, there's a few things you might consider correcting... here's 2 to name a few.


Originally posted by Backlash

Spending Bill - Defeated

Alaskan Drilling - Defeated



Both were actually passed if I read the article correctly, if only by the narrowest margins.

You're slipping, and I think we all know what you're slipping in.

:lol:

I stand corrected: The spending bill did get defeated, the budget cut bill is the one that passed.

SOURCE (http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/18/congress.budgetcuts.ap/index.html)

[Edited on 11-19-2005 by Ganalon]

[Artha]

But the republicans have turned it around. They actually agreed to have a vote on it.

Of course they did. They can all vote against it, but for the democrats it looks bad however they vote.

[Back]

Originally posted by Artha

But the republicans have turned it around. They actually agreed to have a vote on it.

Of course they did. They can all vote against it, but for the democrats it looks bad however they vote.

What I find most interesting is that I can actually watch it happen, live, right here in my climate controlled, well stocked condo.

[Back]

Originally posted by Ganalon
Nothing like putting your money where your mouth is. I'm waiting to see the roll call vote to see who actually stood up for their bluster and who cowed down to the body politik in facing the 2006 elections.


Oh, and I saw a list you posted the other day, there's a few things you might consider correcting... here's 2 to name a few.


Originally posted by Backlash

Spending Bill - Defeated

Alaskan Drilling - Defeated



Both were actually passed if I read the article correctly, if only by the narrowest margins.

You're slipping, and I think we all know what you're slipping in.

:lol:

Alaskan Drilling (http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=17&art_id=5396&sid=5418474& con_type=1)

There are many spending bills so its hard for us to say one or the other was successful or not. But lately, they have not been.

[Gan]

Originally posted by Backlash
What I find most interesting is that I can actually watch it happen, live, right here in my climate controlled, well stocked condo.

Spoken like a true limosine liberal. :lol:

I think you're closer to the 'dark side' than you know it, or closer than you let on.

[Back]

Originally posted by Ganalon

Originally posted by Backlash
What I find most interesting is that I can actually watch it happen, live, right here in my climate controlled, well stocked condo.

Spoken like a true limosine liberal. :lol:

I think you're closer to the 'dark side' than you know it, or closer than you let on.

And by “dark side” you mean... corruption? Nah man, just a hedonist. Proud of it and not afraid to admit it.

[Back]

Well the democrats turned out to be pussys, AGAIN.

Abysmal.

Then again, when I read WB or Devs posts and think they are cow-towing, I must be lefter than left.

We need another party. badly

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Backlash
Well the democrats turned out to be pussys, AGAIN.

Abysmal.

Then again, when I read WB or Devs posts and think they are cow-towing, I must be lefter than left.

We need another party. badly

Further left from where the Democrats are now wouldn't make it. They simply do not connect with the common American. I think that's actually the problem with the Democratic party right now.. they are leaning far too left.

[Unique]

Originally posted by Ganalon
Spoken like a true limosine liberal. :lol:


Is a limosine republican any better?

Unique.

[Back]

Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by Backlash
Well the democrats turned out to be pussys, AGAIN.

Abysmal.

Then again, when I read WB or Devs posts and think they are cow-towing, I must be lefter than left.

We need another party. badly

Further left from where the Democrats are now wouldn't make it. They simply do not connect with the common American. I think that's actually the problem with the Democratic party right now.. they are leaning far too left.

Thats the real problem. You are not in touch with the people. Polls are showing public opinion. Ignore it all you want, that seems to be the republican way.

[Gan]

Originally posted by Unique

Originally posted by Ganalon
Spoken like a true limosine liberal. :lol:


Is a limosine republican any better?

Unique.

Its not as hypocritical. So it must be better.

[Unique]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
Further left from where the Democrats are now wouldn't make it. They simply do not connect with the common American. I think that's actually the problem with the Democratic party right now.. they are leaning far too left.

Both parties run "centrist" candidates in major elections and democrats did it well enough in 2004 to get almost half of the votes in the presidential race.

It's not a problem with "the base" as Ganalon has mentioned. Basic poli sci suggests 80% of the vote in any election is locked up on party lines, split evenly between democrat and republican. The remaining 20%--the swing vote--is somewhere in the middle. Thus the centrist candidate idea.

The problem isn't really the democrats leaning too far left. Rather, it's the center shifting right due to agenda setting and framing techniques skillfully used by the Right and its talking heads.

This topic really deserves a thread of its own.

Unique.

[Edited on 11-19-2005 by Unique]

[Gan]

I think the title of this thread needs renamed...

From: Republicans in Congress: Like rats on a sinking ship.

To: Democrats in Congress: Like neutered dogs on a hot tin roof.

[Unique]

Originally posted by Ganalon

Originally posted by Unique

Originally posted by Ganalon
Spoken like a true limosine liberal. :lol:


Is a limosine republican any better?

Unique.

Its not as hypocritical. So it must be better.


The idea of a person sitting comfortably at home while displaying a liberal view on the world and politics is hypocritical?

How about the inverse? Take Bush and his rich wealthy family contracted with his truck driving rancher ways. Hypocrite? Not really, and a wealthy democrat isn't either.

Oh... btw: I'm sitting comfortably in my school-subsidized housing in NYC with nothing in my fridge but old leftovers and cold beer. Not a condo in sight this end of town.

Unique.

[Back]

Apparently the good life is delegated to republicans.

[Gan]

I call it hypocritical when the party line is denouncing the rich, bastardizing any form of luxury in public because it represents the evil fat cats of society (the man), and all other forms of anti-wealth rhetoric involving grass roots living conservationist minded individualism then getting back into your bmw and going home to your climate controlled 'pad' and juicing up the boob tube to watch bill maher or michael moore.

Thats not identifying with your people, its politiking to your fringe followers in order to exploit more votes.


Edited to add:

And I'm wearing a pair of sweats and a Tshirt, lying on my couch, using my laptop, watching Kaena: The Prophecy on Encore cable in my 3 bedroom 2 bath home in the city proper of Houston. And yes I voted for a Democratic Mayor (Bill White) for the second time on Nov. 8th.

[Edited on 11-19-2005 by Ganalon]

[Back]

Originally posted by Ganalon
I call it hypocritical when the party line is denouncing the rich, bastardizing any form of luxury in public because it represents the evil fat cats of society (the man), and all other forms of anti-wealth rhetoric involving grass roots living conservationist minded individualism then getting back into your bmw and going home to your climate controlled 'pad' and juicing up the boob tube to watch bill maher or michael moore.

Thats not identifying with your people, its politiking to your fringe followers in order to exploit more votes.

Obviously its not you, a known Capitalist. A man who is out for himself before anyone else. A true capitalist. Someone who ignores public opinion. Piss on them anyway, they don’t matter.

[Back]

You are so full of the republican talking points I just cant take you seriously,

[Gan]

A capitalist who follows the theory of Adam Smith and "the invisible hand". Economics are my roots, thats why I'm a capitalist.

You're close, but not close enough. Nice try though. Perhaps its just your skewed definition of a capitalist.

[Unique]

Originally posted by Ganalon
I call it hypocritical when the party line is denouncing the rich, bastardizing any form of luxury in public because it represents the evil fat cats of society (the man)... {etc}


I agree a common refrain is "that tax plan gives cuts to the wealthiest americans while putting the burden on the poor!" It's as predictable as sunrise.

The real question--and this is a big one--is what's better for the economy? The poorest having more or the richest having more? Both sides have their proponents and their evidence and their devout followers.

I do not have an answer to the question, but since I have vested interest (being mostly poor) I have a preferred position.


Originally posted by Ganalon
Thats not identifying with your people, its politiking to your fringe followers in order to exploit more votes.

I think it's cute how you spell politics with a K when it refers to democrats.

I'll learn the lesson and do it this way: The Right is in no way guilty of politiCKing their fringe into framing debates on social issues in order to gain support and exploit more votes. No way, nuh uh, never.

Unique.

[Gan]

Originally posted by Backlash
You are so full of the republican talking points I just cant take you seriously,

:lol:

Pot meet hysterical fannatical so far left he's right kettle.

[Back]

Originally posted by Ganalon

Originally posted by Backlash
You are so full of the republican talking points I just cant take you seriously,

:lol:

Pot meet hysterical fannatical so far left he's right kettle.

Let them eat cake.

I wish it were the middle ages right now. I want to see people hang. Yeah thats deep.

[Edited on 11-19-2005 by Backlash]

[Unique]

Originally posted by Backlash
I wish it were the middle ages right now. I want to see people hang. Yeah thats deep.


You have gone to the dark side...

Ganalon. You suck. I agree with you too often on specifics without ever agreeing on general things.

Unique.

[Back]

Originally posted by Unique

Originally posted by Backlash
I wish it were the middle ages right now. I want to see people hang. Yeah thats deep.


You have gone to the dark side...

Ganalon. You suck. I agree with you too often on specifics without ever agreeing on general things.

Unique.

Yay! I have been ignoring the republican in me for so long. You have made it clear that its OK to be republican...

It is OK to be republican just as much as it is to be democrat. Nothing to fear.

I am something else. Just want to clear that up right now.

[ElanthianSiren]

Both sides are in trouble IMO, which ultimately means that the country is in trouble. Repubs are losing steam for their agendas, but dems seem to be having a hard time attracting people to THEIR agendas. This results IMO in ambivilence. Sad, given the IMMENSE turnout in 2004 for both sides.

-M

[Gan]

Originally posted by Unique
Ganalon. You suck. I agree with you too often on specifics without ever agreeing on general things.
Unique.

:lol:

Resistance is futile. We'll be watching your career with great interest young Skywalker.

:laser: