Your Important Issues

[Crown Royal]

I was talking a little about this, and I thought while the forum was new, now would be a good time. In the spirit of the political leaning thread, I was wondering what issues are important to you. For everyone it is different, even if they are all important. By issues I mean healthcare, environment, budget, foreign policy, immigration, education, tort reform, legislative reform, family ethics, etc.

For me, the issues for which I care are:

1) Education is by far the first thing I look at.
2) Spending/governmental programs. The less the better for me.
3) Foreign policy - I think that with our size and influence, now, more than ever, it is important to have a strong foreig policy.

I don't want to go into what I want to see in these issues, just wanted to list what I find incredibly important.

Now you - go!

[Sasquatch]

This is an excellent idea.

1. Electoral reform since nothing of consequence will happen without it. Let's make our government more democratic and more responsive to individual citizens by:
Publicly funded elections.
Instant run-off voting
Elections on the weekend or holidays.
Proportional representation in some levels of government.
Strict restrictions on lobbying.2. Health Care
3. Education
4. Infrastructure development

All this requires drastically re-apportioning how our government spends money.

[jterrell]

1. balanced budget and fiscal responsibility that stops handing out corporate welfare and political nepotism
2. war in iraq and future wars
3. foreign policy
4. education
5. ethics in politics -- should face additional legal penalties imho for breaking the law

[AtlCB]

1. Government inefficiency/lack of accountability - Being an accountant, this is a big one for me. If someone ran a company like this, the company would not survive. The feds would shut them down before they went bankrupt. Only two of the federal agencies were able to balance their books. :eek:

2. Taxes - Taxes are too high in this country and continue to increase. Taxes are collected in an inefficient manner, and you have to be an accountant to correctly fill out a 1040.

3. Corruption - Both parties are guilty of rampant corruption. The corruption seems to crest when one party has been in charge of Congress for a long period of time.

4. Education - Education is an investment in our future. Education is underfunded and severely mismanaged.

5. Environment - We spend too little time and money on air pollution and water pollution and too much time and money on global warming/cooling. Why are we building coal plants instead of nuclear plants?

6. Tort Reform - Ridiculous lawsuits and judgements affect all of this. Companies transfer the costs of the lawsuits to you - the consumer. Establish limits for pain and suffering, metal anguish, etc. and establish a loser pays system.

7. Foreign relations - No more nation building, peace operations, wars, etc. No more loans or grants to our enemies. No free trade with countries who do not cannot meet some minimum environmental and human rights standards.

8. Crime - Harsher punishment should be given to criminals for violent crimes that involve a victim. Crimes involving guns should face even stiffer penalties. Crimes against children face stiffer penalties. Drug use and prostitution should not be illegal provided that these crimes involve consenting adults 21 or older. These crimes do not involve a victim.

9. Immigration - Legal immigration is good. Do not reward those who enter the country illegally with a fast track to become citizens. No free government services to those in this country who are either taxpayers or citizens.

10. Religion - The government should not cater or pander to any religion. No laws should be based on religion. Can someone tell me why I can't buy beer on Sunday?

[BrAinPaiNt]

1. Transparency. No more hiding behind things. Everything transparent of where every dollar is coming from. Where every dollar goes. What someone voted for or against. Now there would be some areas where it was not public information but the majority should be transparent. Who added what earmark, who did this or that. Everything transparent.

2. Accountability. A continuation of the first one. Except this one holds people accountable for their actions.

You fix those two issues and I think it would help all the other issues people have brought up including domestic and foreign issues.

[Rackat]

1. Winning the Peace in Iraq. - No early withdrawal. Finish the job. Allow our troops to complete their mission. Only credible people that can vote not to continue are those that voted against the original war resolution. If you voted for it initially, you have the obligation to see it through. Anything less means our men and women died for your lack of courage to stand by the conviction you had when you voted for it.

2. Tax Reform - Get the **** out of my pocket.

3. Tort Reform - one of the main reasons health care is so danged expensive in the first place. Stop stupid litigation.

4. Education - If the government mandates a program, then they dang well need to have the funding to support it. Otherwise establish guidelines and criteria, and let the individual states figue out how to get there.

5. Social/Welfare reform - Stop giving hand outs, and start giving more hand ups. If you apply for assistance, then you need to do something in return. I'm tired of funding people who live to live on welfare. Most need a helping hand, but the abusers of the system need to get weened off the welfare tit that I have to help pay for.

6. Energy -
a. Open up the areas where we can drill for our own oil until we can get to a new alternative.
b. Give more incentives to companies/inventors that come up with alternative fuels that can be implemented for the masses.

7. Election/Party reform - The two party system is great....if you are a Republican or a Democrat. But if you have never subscribed to either one then you're basically screwed. We need to find a way to get more parties involved in the races. I don't think we should get rid of the Electoral College just yet. Perhaps if we reform the party ssytem and more people get involved, then we can get rid of it.

[Hoov]

1. Transparency. No more hiding behind things. Everything transparent of where every dollar is coming from. Where every dollar goes. What someone voted for or against. Now there would be some areas where it was not public information but the majority should be transparent. Who added what earmark, who did this or that. Everything transparent.

2. Accountability. A continuation of the first one. Except this one holds people accountable for their actions.

You fix those two issues and I think it would help all the other issues people have brought up including domestic and foreign issues.

I like that idea a lot, what a change that would be

[Crown Royal]

110. Religion - The government should not cater or pander to any religion. No laws should be based on religion. Can someone tell me why I can't buy beer on Sunday?


When I was in California, their liquor stores were open until something like 2 or 4 every morning, and you could buy it on Sundays. I thought that was amazing.

[BrAinPaiNt]

When I was in California, their liquor stores were open until something like 2 or 4 every morning, and you could buy it on Sundays. I thought that was amazing.

Some counties have no beer sells at any time.

There was a county, well it was called a parish, in Louisiana like that.

[AbeBeta]

When I was in California, their liquor stores were open until something like 2 or 4 every morning, and you could buy it on Sundays. I thought that was amazing.

2 am close, 6 am open. You can buy every day.

I understand the hours but not being able to buy on a sunday sounds a bit too church influenced for me

[AbeBeta]

damn, as I read the rest of the thread, I realized that I just agreed with AtlCB.

This political zone is a bad idea.

[Crown Royal]

2 am close, 6 am open. You can buy every day.

I understand the hours but not being able to buy on a sunday sounds a bit too church influenced for me


In places in North Texas you can still buy beer, just not liquor. I don't drink much anyway, so it has never been a huge issue to me, but every once in a while I might want some whiskey while I watch the game, and it seems silly to have to go to a bar for that.

[AbeBeta]

In places in North Texas you can still buy beer, just not liquor. I don't drink much anyway, so it has never been a huge issue to me, but every once in a while I might want some whiskey while I watch the game, and it seems silly to have to go to a bar for that.

I lived in PA -- you can't buy anything Sundays unless you are at a restaurant.

But you can take a 6 pack home from a bar.

Weird.

[AtlCB]

Some counties have no beer sells at any time.

There was a county, well it was called a parish, in Louisiana like that.

Mississippi has several dry counties as well.

[burmafrd]

When you can buy beer is such a small concern.

1. Security: anti terrorsm and control of our borders. Cannot have one without the other. Immigration needs to be fixed in that those that are here illegally must be made to kick into social security and everything else. State are being bankupted by illegals.

2. Health care. Tort reform and medical reform= right now too many quacks are allowed to practice and those that cause the problems that allow the lawyers and inusrance companies to mess things up- as well as a badly managed system in general. If you stamp out the quacks and the stupid lawsuits then malpractice insurance drops and doctors no longer order 3 times as many tests as needed in order to cover their rear ends.

3. JUstice system. We need one. now all we have is a legal system. No one cares about catching the criminal except the police and the families of the victims. The lawyers and the judges are just performers on stages and nothing else. The WHOLE Truth is never allowed in a courtroom-not even close.

4. Energy: we have to drill anywhere there is possibly oil. It can be done safely if you are tough with inspections. At the same time research must continue into alternate sources. Build new refineries in abandoned military bases.

5. Tax reform. The flat tax is the only fair thing to do. The pleasent thought of thousands of tax lawyers going out of business is just a nice bonus.

6. Education: we spend more money then any other country on earth on education and do about as bad a job from K-12 as it is possible to do. Tests for teachers must be tough and bad ones fired. Common sense on courses and curriculum- its a total scandal how poorly many young people read and write and speak today. Start with the basics and add. And who cares if some kid cries because he got a bad grade? Life is hard and you need to learn it early on.

7. Political reform: total accountability on all money to all candidates. I am not yet convinced of public financing- but I am getting there. Unfortunately as long as a corrupt and biased media is in place, this will be the toughest of all to do.

[AbeBeta]

Not to start a war here but I don't see anyone mentioning gay marriage - and as we know that has been a major source of contention with ballot initiatives in key states raising turnout and swinging elections in favor of conservatives on the ballot.

Me, I see this as a big issue but completely understand why a candidate would ignore it or not support it.

[Crown Royal]

6. Education: we spend more money then any other country on earth on education and do about as bad a job from K-12 as it is possible to do. Tests for teachers must be tough and bad ones fired. Common sense on courses and curriculum- its a total scandal how poorly many young people read and write and speak today. Start with the basics and add. And who cares if some kid cries because he got a bad grade? Life is hard and you need to learn it early on.


The problem with education is that I don't think there is a clear goal. There are some who just want you to graduate so that you can get a good job, then maybe go to college to get a better job. Then there are those of us who feel that an education has certain components that are necessary, and you don't pass until you master them.

I am a classical person - I feel that an education in itself has virtue that translates to the outer world. I am often saddened that state university and the public perception of school has required that curricula focus on marketable skills for the business world, rather than focusing on a rounded education.

I am personally one of those folk who believe that state subsidized education is a bad thing. I don't feel that the government can possibly provide a decent education with the constituency as it is. I have no kids myself, but I can assure you that I never would unless a) I had the money to send them to a private school of my choice or b) I had the time to supplement their public school with the additional education I see fit.

All of this is compounded by the fact that I feel the entire United States pedagological culture is extraordinarily limited. The k-12 grade system has always struck me as completely ridiculous, relying on the assumption that all children advance at the same speed.

On the one hand, like you said, we need better teachers, but on the other hand, teachers are an incredibly limited resource as it is.

[Crown Royal]

Not to start a war here but I don't see anyone mentioning gay marriage - and as we know that has been a major source of contention with ballot initiatives in key states raising turnout and swinging elections in favor of conservatives on the ballot.

Me, I see this as a big issue but completely understand why a candidate would ignore it or not support it.

I was curious as to when someone was going to mention this one.

For me, it is an unimportant issue - I just don't care. I would be willing to bet that a large number of people in the US don't care much either - some might be against it, but I don't know that they would list it on their top topics.

I think that the heated conversation of it tends to be a vocal few, as so many hard line topics generally are.

[peplaw06]

3. JUstice system. We need one. now all we have is a legal system. No one cares about catching the criminal except the police and the families of the victims. The lawyers and the judges are just performers on stages and nothing else. The WHOLE Truth is never allowed in a courtroom-not even close.
Aight burm... here's your chance. In the political zone. I've been lurking in this zone, but now that you've dropped another one of your drive-by farts in a thread where I can get you to actually reveal your viewpoints, are you going to do it, or just run again?

What's your specific beef and what would you change? I want to hear it, because personally I don't think you have a clue. At least you haven't let on that you have a clue. You keep pounding away at this like a drum master on a ship and never elaborate. Please, enlighten us.

[windward]

Foreign policy
govt spending
education

[Crown Royal]

Aight burm... here's your chance. In the political zone. I've been lurking in this zone, but now that you've dropped another one of your drive-by farts in a thread where I can get you to actually reveal your viewpoints, are you going to do it, or just run again?

What's your specific beef and what would you change? I want to hear it, because personally I don't think you have a clue. At least you haven't let on that you have a clue. You keep pounding away at this like a drum master on a ship and never elaborate. Please, enlighten us.

:laugh2: I wasn't going to put this quite so eloquently, but I do admit that this statement caught my eye as well. I am not quite sure I understand what he was saying there - it was some vague indictment of the current process without really telling me the problems.

[windward]

Not to start a war here but I don't see anyone mentioning gay marriage - and as we know that has been a major source of contention with ballot initiatives in key states raising turnout and swinging elections in favor of conservatives on the ballot.

Me, I see this as a big issue but completely understand why a candidate would ignore it or not support it.
I generally support gay marriage. It's really irrelevant to me personally if a gay or lesbian couple wanted legal recognition of their relationship.

As far as the "need" to protect the institution of marriage, there's plenty of heterosexual couples that have done their share of damage to the institution of marriage.

[Crown Royal]

I generally support gay marriage. It's really irrelevant to me personally if a gay or lesbian couple wanted legal recognition of their relationship.

As far as the "need" to protect the institution of marriage, there's plenty of heterosexual couples that have done their share of damage to the institution of marriage.

:laugh2:Well said.

[Hoov]

The problem with education is that I don't think there is a clear goal. There are some who just want you to graduate so that you can get a good job, then maybe go to college to get a better job. Then there are those of us who feel that an education has certain components that are necessary, and you don't pass until you master them.

I am a classical person - I feel that an education in itself has virtue that translates to the outer world. I am often saddened that state university and the public perception of school has required that curricula focus on marketable skills for the business world, rather than focusing on a rounded education.

I am personally one of those folk who believe that state subsidized education is a bad thing. I don't feel that the government can possibly provide a decent education with the constituency as it is. I have no kids myself, but I can assure you that I never would unless a) I had the money to send them to a private school of my choice or b) I had the time to supplement their public school with the additional education I see fit.

All of this is compounded by the fact that I feel the entire United States pedagological culture is extraordinarily limited. The k-12 grade system has always struck me as completely ridiculous, relying on the assumption that all children advance at the same speed.

On the one hand, like you said, we need better teachers, but on the other hand, teachers are an incredibly limited resource as it is.

I agree.

One of the biggest problems IMO with society at present is that people are trained just to do something that will make money to pay bills and fall into a rut of going to work, doing what is expected of them and trying to save money for a better life down the road. This promotes robotic like thinking where people will sacrifice their true selves and principles to "be successful" as per what society defines success as.

We need to promote more creative thinking, imagination, free thinkers. We need more characters and people geared toward what i call individuation. Our continued evolution as a species will likely be mental or spiritual, not physical. as physical evolution involved stages of "quantum leaps" so will our mental evolution go through such phases, education needs to focus on helping bring out what is inherent in individuals, allowing people to move forward with new ways of thinking, alternate theories, new perspectives on existence, paradigm shifts and so on.

New discoveries do not come from following an outlined or tightly structured curriculum.

[StanleySpadowski]

The problem with education is that I don't think there is a clear goal. There are some who just want you to graduate so that you can get a good job, then maybe go to college to get a better job. Then there are those of us who feel that an education has certain components that are necessary, and you don't pass until you master them.

I am a classical person - I feel that an education in itself has virtue that translates to the outer world. I am often saddened that state university and the public perception of school has required that curricula focus on marketable skills for the business world, rather than focusing on a rounded education.

I am personally one of those folk who believe that state subsidized education is a bad thing. I don't feel that the government can possibly provide a decent education with the constituency as it is. I have no kids myself, but I can assure you that I never would unless a) I had the money to send them to a private school of my choice or b) I had the time to supplement their public school with the additional education I see fit.

All of this is compounded by the fact that I feel the entire United States pedagological culture is extraordinarily limited. The k-12 grade system has always struck me as completely ridiculous, relying on the assumption that all children advance at the same speed.

On the one hand, like you said, we need better teachers, but on the other hand, teachers are an incredibly limited resource as it is.

The problem with education is that the federal government has gotten involved in a clear state/local issue. I have yet to see a problem that more involvement from the bureacracy has solved.

Add levels of red tape to a problem with an overstrong union and we have the utter mess that is the American educational experience.

Of course the voting, or more aptly described as non-voting, public is much to blame. Check the turnout for an offyear election, when many local school board seats are up for grabs, some time. Pathetic. The only time where pulling the lever has a good likelihood of actually affecting an individual and they stay home in droves.

[Crown Royal]

The problem with education is that the federal government has gotten involved in a clear state/local issue. I have yet to see a problem that more involvement from the bureacracy has solved.

Add levels of red tape to a problem with an overstrong union and we have the utter mess that is the American educational experience.

Of course the voting, or more aptly described as non-voting, public is much to blame. Check the turnout for an offyear election, when many local school board seats are up for grabs, some time. Pathetic. The only time where pulling the lever has a good likelihood of actually affecting an individual and they stay home in droves.

Very true stuff in here. On the one hand, I see why the fed government has a concern for education - education affects the federal government and country as a whole. but that being said, additional bureacracy does nothing to improve the system, it only bogs it down.

I am reading a lot about the educational vouchers and the idea of privatizing education, something that intrigues me. I don't think it could be done immediately, but over time would be a good thing.

The problem is, I don't think enough of the voting (or non voting) public really puts education high on their list of priorities, so I can only see the problems of education increasing over time.

[silverbear]

1. Winning the Peace in Iraq. - No early withdrawal. Finish the job. Allow our troops to complete their mission. Only credible people that can vote not to continue are those that voted against the original war resolution. If you voted for it initially, you have the obligation to see it through. Anything less means our men and women died for your lack of courage to stand by the conviction you had when you voted for it.

Sorry, that's just not true-- many who voted for the war initially were DECEIVED (or at least, misled) into supporting it... once they realized there were no WMDs, as they had been told there were, they changed their position...

I supported the invasion at first, based on the premise that Saddam had all these WMDs that he could use against us... when it became clear that he had no such weapons, the justification for invading was removed, and I have been a staunch opponent of the war ever since...

I'll also say that we will never, ever "win the peace" over there... that country is fated to suffer through a bloody civil war, before they sort out their ages-old tribal animosities, and finally find some form of government that works for them...

Those men and women who died over there died not for my lack of support, but for the lies of our President, period... you're not gonna get away with laying Dubya's screwups (or more accurately, his lies) off on me... my only fault was in being naive enough to believe that our President would never lie to us on matters of such importance...

[silverbear]

I was curious as to when someone was going to mention this one.

For me, it is an unimportant issue - I just don't care. I would be willing to bet that a large number of people in the US don't care much either - some might be against it, but I don't know that they would list it on their top topics.

I think that the heated conversation of it tends to be a vocal few, as so many hard line topics generally are.

I'm on your side, if two gays want to marry, it's no skin off my nose... can't understand why anybody who's not gay would care... it ain't like allowing them to marry is depriving straight people of any of their rights...

[silverbear]

My hot button issues:

1) The war in Iraq... we need to get out of there, ASAP...

2) The global war on terrorism... no, it's not the same thing as the first point...

3) The deficit... if it's not aggressively addressed, our economy is headed straight for a disaster, one not too far off in the distance...

4) The environment... gotta protect the air and the water, or we all die... that's pretty elemental, IMO...

Those are not the ONLY issues I have an interest in (education and health care are biggies too), but any candidate who came down on the right side of those four issues would probably have my vote...

[windward]

Sorry, that's just not true-- many who voted for the war initially were DECEIVED (or at least, misled) into supporting it... once they realized there were no WMDs, as they had been told there were, they changed their position...

I supported the invasion at first, based on the premise that Saddam had all these WMDs that he could use against us... when it became clear that he had no such weapons, the justification for invading was removed, and I have been a staunch opponent of the war ever since...

I'll also say that we will never, ever "win the peace" over there... that country is fated to suffer through a bloody civil war, before they sort out their ages-old tribal animosities, and finally find some form of government that works for them...

Those men and women who died over there died not for my lack of support, but for the lies of our President, period... you're not gonna get away with laying Dubya's screwups (or more accurately, his lies) off on me... my only fault was in being naive enough to believe that our President would never lie to us on matters of such importance...
Iraq is a can of worms that we never should of opened up. I recommend the book Churchill's Folly, which talks about the creation of the modern state of Iraq (how it had no historical precedent, being comprised of three separate Ottoman vilayets, etc...) the role the British played in Iraq and the implications it created for today.

[Sasquatch]

I'll also say that we will never, ever "win the peace" over there... that country is fated to suffer through a bloody civil war, before they sort out their ages-old tribal animosities, and finally find some form of government that works for them...

What the proponents of "stay the course" don't realize is that no government will ever appear legitimate so long as our forces are there; rightly or wrongly, it will always be perceived by the various Iraqi factions as an illegitimate puppet government propped up by an imperialist foreign power. In other words, our presence there is only perpetuating the problem.

[silverbear]

Iraq is a can of worms that we never should of opened up.

You've spoken a whole mouthful of truth there... what's most galling about Iraq is if we hadn't gotten involved there, we probably would have wiped out our REAL enemy in Afghanistan...

[silverbear]

What the proponents of "stay the course" don't realize is that no government will ever appear legitimate so long as our forces are there; rightly or wrongly, it will always be perceived by the various Iraqi factions as an illegitimate puppet government propped up by an imperialist foreign power. In other words, our presence there is only perpetuating the problem.

Exactly right... "stay the course" is the mantra of an idiot, when "the course" is taking you straight over a freakin' cliff...

[burmafrd]

We are just the excuse that the crazies are using. Do you honestly think that if we leave its going to be peaceful there? If you do then you are a true MORON. What we have there is a power struggle that is also fueled by religious fanaticism. You notice that virtually nothing is happening up north where the Kurds are. This is all between the Shia and the Sunni, with Al Queda and Batthist remnants mixed in.
As regards the WMD. Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry ALL USED the SAME evidence that GW used. Now there were HINTS that there was not a lot of WMD, but NO ONE- not us, not the Russians, Not the Israeli's; NOT the French, believed that. By the way- over 500 artillery shells loaded with mustard and nerve gas have been found in Iraq. That is enough to kill 100,000 people. You will not read or see this of course on the media. But it has been documented, pictures taken, and its part of the official report.
Another thing: Saddam still had his scientists, etc. He could have started up production again within one year of the end of sanctions. You really think that he would not have?
What happened to the WMDs that Saddam had: My personal opinion is that there are three parts to the answer.
ONE: Saddam never had as much as everyone thought he had. I think- and its a valid theory when you consider Saddam- that he was lied to by his production people in order for them NOT to get shot. He also probably ordered numbers exagerating what he THOUGHT he had.
TWO: Some of it was hidden. Iraq is pretty big, and the population is concentrated in the city. You could bury some out there and it would never be found.
THREE: I think Saddam made a quiet deal with the Syrians and shipped some across the border. We had satelite photos of trucks- heavily escorted- going into Syria in the days before the war began.
You put all that together and thats what happened.
Was our intelligence faulty- it sure was. Another CIA failure- of which we have had many over the years. Also we are finding out just how much you miss when you concentrate on technical means rather then humint- SPIES. We have been badly served and badly prepared in that area for a long time.

[burmafrd]

You can cry and plead and whine all you want. Our so called justice system is NOT INTERESTED in justice. When you are not allowed to present all the FACTS of a case in a court then it is NOT JUSTICE. When a lawyer is allowed to see to it that only PART of the truth is presented- then it is not JUSTICE.
When evidence is thrown out on a technicality- that may be LEGAL, but it is not JUSTICE. When someone is sentenced to 20 years and gets out in 8, what signal does that send? When someone is sentenced to 6 years and gets out in 2, what signal does that send? I have total absolute CONTEMPT for the way lawyers are trained and allowed to practice today.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Exactly right... "stay the course" is the mantra of an idiot, when "the course" is taking you straight over a freakin' cliff...

Listen we have never been Stay the Course (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHYb9rf2BBQ)

Thought some may enjoy that.

[superpunk]

Listen we have never been Stay the Course (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHYb9rf2BBQ)

Thought some may enjoy that.

The book 1984 and doublethink is more real than most people realize. It bothers me that the news outlets won't throw that junk back in a politician's face when things like that are said, or lied about. They're too busy sucking at the teats of the interviews they get, and don't want to jeopardize their "exclusives".

For heavens sake - Comedy Central's The Daily Show has more integrity than most news stations, for the simple fact that they don't really get any kickback in the way of exclusives or interviews or inside tainted information.

[burmafrd]

Sad to say I see no sign of the media getting any better. I f anything its getting worse.

[BrAinPaiNt]

The book 1984 and doublethink is more real than most people realize. It bothers me that the news outlets won't throw that junk back in a politician's face when things like that are said, or lied about. They're too busy sucking at the teats of the interviews they get, and don't want to jeopardize their "exclusives".

For heavens sake - Comedy Central's The Daily Show has more integrity than most news stations, for the simple fact that they don't really get any kickback in the way of exclusives or interviews or inside tainted information.

Cheney (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RytxVNM0llQ)

Rummy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NimFGC9lG5U)

First bush says he has not met with replacement and a minute later contradicts himself (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3AQSb-jnQM)

Did he see the first plane? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sm73wOuPL60&mode=related&search=)

I like this compilation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7xyd_IRgGs)

[Rackat]

SilverBear, first, before this gets too heated, I would like to say that I don't disagree with all of the opinions you have stated in this forum.
With that said, here is my response to your post to me.

Sorry, that's just not true-- many who voted for the war initially were DECEIVED (or at least, misled) into supporting it... once they realized there were no WMDs, as they had been told there were, they changed their position...

Clinton was “DECIEVED” or at least misled by the same intelligence. He used that intelligence as provocation for striking Iraq. The Senate and House intelligence committees were “DECIEVED” or at least misled by the same intelligence which is why they supported Clinton’s strikes and Bush’s invasion. WMD’s were one part of the over all reason for going to war. To suggest that they were the only reason is naïve. Regardless of whether there were WMD’s, these people voted to send our troops in to harms way. They gave them a job to complete and now they don’t have the courage to stand by their original convictions. Have you ever listened to the speeches from the floor from Bill’s talking about striking Iraq? Most of the Republicans supported it. Have you listened to the speeches from the floor during the debate on Bush’s war resolution? Hillary, Kerry, and 98% of the rest of the Democrats agreed with the President because as they said they had also seen the intelligence reports.


I supported the invasion at first, based on the premise that Saddam had all these WMDs that he could use against us... when it became clear that he had no such weapons, the justification for invading was removed, and I have been a staunch opponent of the war ever since...

If the only reason you supported the war was WMD’s, you must have felt deceived. But by whom? Bush, because he was the one that actually did something about it, or the Democrats for saying they “KNEW” Saddam had these weapons as well? Revisionist history is being written by the Democrats in this endeavor. WMD’s were only one of multiple reasons for the invasion.


I'll also say that we will never, ever "win the peace" over there... that country is fated to suffer through a bloody civil war, before they sort out their ages-old tribal animosities, and finally find some form of government that works for them...


Fate is a cop out. Fate is what you make it.

Those men and women who died over there died not for my lack of support, but for the lies of our President, period... you're not gonna get away with laying Dubya's screwups (or more accurately, his lies) off on me... my only fault was in being naive enough to believe that our President would never lie to us on matters of such importance...

Are you a Senator or Representative? If you are not, then please review my statements. I didn’t lay anything on you. I put the onus square on the shoulders of those that voted for the resolutions. And I agree, if after Johnson, Nixon, and Clinton you would think that a President wouldn’t lie, then you were naïve. However, if you have evidence, not conjecture, that Bush lied, than I would love to see it. If indeed you can prove the lies, I will recant and change my views.

[AtlCB]

Not to start a war here but I don't see anyone mentioning gay marriage - and as we know that has been a major source of contention with ballot initiatives in key states raising turnout and swinging elections in favor of conservatives on the ballot.

Me, I see this as a big issue but completely understand why a candidate would ignore it or not support it.

The gay marriage issue doesn't affect me in any way.

[burmafrd]

The only people who are pushing for this are the gays and their friends in the Media. Virtually no one else wants it. Civil Union= let it be that. I have no problem with them getting the same rights as a marriage. A marriage is between a man and a woman. Now and forever.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Not to start a war here but I don't see anyone mentioning gay marriage - and as we know that has been a major source of contention with ballot initiatives in key states raising turnout and swinging elections in favor of conservatives on the ballot.

Me, I see this as a big issue but completely understand why a candidate would ignore it or not support it.

It was one of the "hot" topics in the 2004 election.

Or don't you remember the big bruhaha over Kerry talking about it in a debate because of his Cheney's daughter.

At least Edwards had a little more manners about it at that time.

[silverbear]

We are just the excuse that the crazies are using. Do you honestly think that if we leave its going to be peaceful there?

I have no idea who that's addressed toward, but if it's me, of course it won't be peaceful when we leave there... it will be bloody, as civil wars always are...

The thing is, that's what's going to happen whether we leave there in 3 months, or in 10 years... and until we do leave, what we're seeing these days will continue...

Iraq will know no peace until we get out there, and they sort things out for themselves...

As regards the WMD. Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry ALL USED the SAME evidence that GW used.

Using the "intelligence" manufactured by Dubya and his little cabal of neocons...

What happened to the WMDs that Saddam had: My personal opinion is that there are three parts to the answer.

My personal opinion is he didn't have them... if you wish to sway me from that opinion, you're gonna have to show 'em to me...


ONE: Saddam never had as much as everyone thought he had. I think- and its a valid theory when you consider Saddam- that he was lied to by his production people in order for them NOT to get shot. He also probably ordered numbers exagerating what he THOUGHT he had.

Oh man, you're SOOOO close to the likely truth, but so far away...

He never had those WMDs, but he told everybody he did... he did so to keep his neighbors/enemies (Iran, mostly) at bay...

Was our intelligence faulty- it sure was. Another CIA failure- of which we have had many over the years.

I see-- you're gonna try to make the CIA the scapegoat in all of this... however, if that's your defense, you're gonna have to explain to me why Deadeye Dick went over to Langley and berated top officials over there when their initial report failed to give Dubya the "smoking gun" that he was looking for... then, you're gonna have to explain to me why our staunchest allies in all this, the British, said in the infamous Downing Street Memos that our government was "fixing" intelligence around their agenda...

Nope, it's pretty clear to anybody who has taken the time to look closely at the alleged failure of our intelligence agencies that they were basically ordered to come up with a justification for invading Iraq, rather than providing impartial intel...

We were LIED to by this President, plain and simple...

[superpunk]

Cheney (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RytxVNM0llQ)

Rummy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NimFGC9lG5U)

First bush says he has not met with replacement and a minute later contradicts himself (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3AQSb-jnQM)

Did he see the first plane? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sm73wOuPL60&mode=related&search=)

I like this compilation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7xyd_IRgGs)

Those are pretty great.

There is a name for people like this......politicians. lol

I'm sure Iraq can't wait to get their democracy fully set up. Then their media can ignore the inconsistencies and flat out lies of their leaders, and leave that to Comedy Central and youtube compilations.

[AtlCB]

Those men and women who died over there died not for my lack of support, but for the lies of our President, period... you're not gonna get away with laying Dubya's screwups (or more accurately, his lies) off on me... my only fault was in being naive enough to believe that our President would never lie to us on matters of such importance...
I hate sticking up for Bush, because I have many problems with his presidency - especially the out of control spending. With that being said, I can find nothing that would suggest that the president lied to any of us about going to war. The president and Congress received the same information, and both came to the conclusion that Saddam has WMD's. The war was a product of our substandard intelligence programs. The same intelligence programs that should have stopped 9-11, but failed to do so. I think the whole Bush-lied argument comes from the far left in an attempt to discredit the president. I have plenty of reasons to dislike the president, but the reason to go to war is not one of them. The handling of the war is a good reason to go after the president.

[silverbear]

Listen we have never been Stay the Course (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHYb9rf2BBQ)

Thought some may enjoy that.

LOL... Dubya is the proverbial cheating husband, caught in the rack with another woman, who tells his wife "who ya gonna believe, me or your lyin' eyes??"

[BrAinPaiNt]

The only people who are pushing for this are the gays and their friends in the Media. Virtually no one else wants it. Civil Union= let it be that. I have no problem with them getting the same rights as a marriage. A marriage is between a man and a woman. Now and forever.

Personally I see no reason a gay couple should not be allowed to get married.

A gay person pays taxes if he or she works.
A gay person is convicted of crimes if they commit one.
A gay person can vote.
A gay person can join the military, only if they don't say they are gay, and go overseas and die serving their country.

Yet a gay person can not be married.

There was a time where bi-racial couples could not get married if I recall.

Just something to think about.

[BrAinPaiNt]

LOL... Dubya is the proverbial cheating husband, caught in the rack with another woman, who tells his wife "who ya gonna believe, me or your lyin' eyes??"

There are times that I really don't know if they are so arrogant and think they can pull the wool over peoples eyes with these lies...or if they actually believe their own bs.

[superpunk]

Personally I see no reason a gay couple should not be allowed to get married.

A gay person pays taxes if he or she works.
A gay person is convicted of crimes if they commit one.
A gay person can vote.
A gay person can join the military, only if they don't say they are gay, and go overseas and die serving their country.

Yet a gay person can not be married.

There was a time where bi-racial couples could not get married if I recall.

Just something to think about.

Here's a thought.....why is the government regulating marriage at all? By all accounts, it seems to be a religious union. Is there a rational explanation for governing such a union that I'm not aware of - and investing power from state to state in ordained ministers? I mean....when did they decide this was the way to go about all this?

[StanleySpadowski]

Very true stuff in here. On the one hand, I see why the fed government has a concern for education - education affects the federal government and country as a whole. but that being said, additional bureacracy does nothing to improve the system, it only bogs it down.

I am reading a lot about the educational vouchers and the idea of privatizing education, something that intrigues me. I don't think it could be done immediately, but over time would be a good thing.

The problem is, I don't think enough of the voting (or non voting) public really puts education high on their list of priorities, so I can only see the problems of education increasing over time.

I just wish that people respected the Constitution as a whole, specifically the 10th Amendment, as much as they do the portion or portions that they're keen on.

[AtlCB]

Personally I see no reason a gay couple should not be allowed to get married.

A gay person pays taxes if he or she works.
A gay person is convicted of crimes if they commit one.
A gay person can vote.
A gay person can join the military, only if they don't say they are gay, and go overseas and die serving their country.

Yet a gay person can not be married.

There was a time where bi-racial couples could not get married if I recall.

Just something to think about.I heard a joke about this when I was in the military. "Don't ask, don't tell" means:
Uncle Sam wants you, but if you want Uncle Sam, keep it to yourself.

[BrAinPaiNt]

I heard a joke about this when I was in the military. "Don't ask, don't tell" means:
Uncle Sam wants you, but if you want Uncle Sam, keep it to yourself.

:laugh2: :laugh2:

[AtlCB]

I have no idea who that's addressed toward, but if it's me, of course it won't be peaceful when we leave there... it will be bloody, as civil wars always are...

The thing is, that's what's going to happen whether we leave there in 3 months, or in 10 years... and until we do leave, what we're seeing these days will continue...

Iraq will know no peace until we get out there, and they sort things out for themselves...



Using the "intelligence" manufactured by Dubya and his little cabal of neocons...



My personal opinion is he didn't have them... if you wish to sway me from that opinion, you're gonna have to show 'em to me...




Oh man, you're SOOOO close to the likely truth, but so far away...

He never had those WMDs, but he told everybody he did... he did so to keep his neighbors/enemies (Iran, mostly) at bay...



I see-- you're gonna try to make the CIA the scapegoat in all of this... however, if that's your defense, you're gonna have to explain to me why Deadeye Dick went over to Langley and berated top officials over there when their initial report failed to give Dubya the "smoking gun" that he was looking for... then, you're gonna have to explain to me why our staunchest allies in all this, the British, said in the infamous Downing Street Memos that our government was "fixing" intelligence around their agenda...

Nope, it's pretty clear to anybody who has taken the time to look closely at the alleged failure of our intelligence agencies that they were basically ordered to come up with a justification for invading Iraq, rather than providing impartial intel...

We were LIED to by this President, plain and simple...

Does anybody still have that black helicopter pic? :lmao2: :lmao2: :lmao2:

[BrAinPaiNt]

Here's a thought.....why is the government regulating marriage at all? By all accounts, it seems to be a religious union. Is there a rational explanation for governing such a union that I'm not aware of - and investing power from state to state in ordained ministers? I mean....when did they decide this was the way to go about all this?

Because although the government should not be legislating with religious morality they still do it anyways.

You will find some that say...well they should not be married because of health insurance reasons if we have to hire them. However that would apply if they had civil unions and people are ok with civil unions. So that argument is out the window.

It is a Religion issue and nothing else. Problem is the government should not be legislating what anyone should be able to do or not do based only on their religion.

[Hoov]

I dont get why people get so up in arms about gay marriage. My uncle is a baptist minister, though a very liberal one, and was one of the first ministers to publicly stand up for gay marriage and make statements in the media.

He was totally slammed for it in newpapers throughout his area and on a larger scale, and some of the statements against him were just downright foolish and full of hate and venom, but i think he embraced the reaction and it only further assured him that what he was doing was right.

My teenage daughter and her friends were going to the mall every w/e during the last school year. One of the girls mothers picked them up one afternoon and saw a gay couple kissing. Now that girl is no longer allowed to go to the mall because..."there's gay people there and the mall is not a safe environment". The other kids call her mom the Nazi *****.

I had to laugh at that, but in seriousness i feel bad for that lady, her daughter is going to be so rebellious and fight to get out from under her control, her daughter will never sit and tell her what is going on in her life or share her thoughts because the mom cannot handle it.

[burmafrd]

The 1st Amendment has been ignored by Congress and the Courts for a long time. The original INTENT of that amendment was to prevent the establishment of a National Religion as there was in England. THATS ALL. There should not be any involvement by the national government in any other facet of religion.

[burmafrd]

Silver, I really find it hard to believe that you are that blind.
Clinton in 1998 used the same evidence that GW used in 2002.
So how is that Bush's fault? You really are over the edge there.

[Sasquatch]

I have no idea who that's addressed toward, but if it's me, of course it won't be peaceful when we leave there... it will be bloody, as civil wars always are...


I would add that it's not peaceful now, and the argument that a bloodbath will ensue after a withdrawal is purely speculative, and to date supporters of the war have a pretty dismal track record when it comes to forecasting outcomes (stockpiles of WMD, welcomed as liberators, Iraqi oil will pay for reconstruction, resistance consists of a few "dead enders," no civil war, etc.).

So why should we credit their dire warnings now? Not to mention the fact that our military is not designed to intervene in an internecine civil war which is already underway.

[superpunk]

I had to laugh at that, but in seriousness i feel bad for that lady, her daughter is going to be so rebellious and fight to get out from under her control, her daughter will never sit and tell her what is going on in her life or share her thoughts because the mom cannot handle it.

And someday, if we're lucky, she'll be driven to a life of bisexuallism and pornography.

Giggity...

[Hoov]

And someday, if we're lucky, she'll be driven to a life of bisexuallism and pornography.

Giggity...
:laugh2:

[Vintage]

Iraq. What is the future? How long will we be there? What plans do the candidates have for an eventual withdrawal, etc?

Iran. What is the plans going forward with Iran? Do we open up talks? Sanctions (which are worthless anyway)?

Gay marriage. As someone said, they pay taxes, are citizens, have natural rights/constitutional rights, but not the right to marry? C'mon. Its nothing more than hate rhetoric to deny them the right to vote.

Abortion. Its not up to the government to decide what a person can do in regards to abortion.

Social Security. Its broken. Look at privatizing it, even if its only partially privatized.

Stem cell research. I would like to see it explored.

And the usual libertarian ideals; smaller gov't, less taxes, more state power, freer markets, etc.

[AbeBeta]

The only people who are pushing for this are the gays and their friends in the Media. Virtually no one else wants it. Civil Union= let it be that. I have no problem with them getting the same rights as a marriage. A marriage is between a man and a woman. Now and forever.

Actually, many people who believe in civil rights and social justice that are not gay, their friends, or the media support this.

The idea the marriage is between a man and a woman comes from the church - that should have sweet FA to do with how the state defines it.

[peplaw06]

You can cry and plead and whine all you want. Our so called justice system is NOT INTERESTED in justice. When you are not allowed to present all the FACTS of a case in a court then it is NOT JUSTICE.So everything that is a "fact" should be admitted into evidence with no questions asked. i was right, you don't know what you're talking about. Do you know why courts refuse to admit certain types of evidence?? It's usually because the evidence is either unfairly prejudicial, less than credible, or threatens to confuse or mislead a jury.

When a lawyer is allowed to see to it that only PART of the truth is presented- then it is not JUSTICE.Same response above. You have no idea what justice is.

When evidence is thrown out on a technicality- that may be LEGAL, but it is not JUSTICE. When someone is sentenced to 20 years and gets out in 8, what signal does that send? When someone is sentenced to 6 years and gets out in 2, what signal does that send?Then you need to take that up with the prison system. The overcrowding problem is directly responsible for paroles and early releases. It has no bearing on the justice system. When a defendant is found guilty, the justice system doesn't deal with him anymore, unless a new crime is committed.

I have total absolute CONTEMPT for the way lawyers are trained and allowed to practice today. You have no idea how lawyers are trained, and it sounds like you don't really know how the system works. Sounds like you were in some type of law enforcement too. Lemme guess, you arrested someone who got off because some of the "evidence" you found was inadmissible?

All that said, you speak in too many generalities for me to address specific issues you have. Why don't you stop being vague, and actually bring the issue to the table?

[BrAinPaiNt]

I dont get why people get so up in arms about gay marriage. My uncle is a baptist minister, though a very liberal one, and was one of the first ministers to publicly stand up for gay marriage and make statements in the media.

He was totally slammed for it in newpapers throughout his area and on a larger scale, and some of the statements against him were just downright foolish and full of hate and venom, but i think he embraced the reaction and it only further assured him that what he was doing was right.

My teenage daughter and her friends were going to the mall every w/e during the last school year. One of the girls mothers picked them up one afternoon and saw a gay couple kissing. Now that girl is no longer allowed to go to the mall because..."there's gay people there and the mall is not a safe environment". The other kids call her mom the Nazi *****.

I had to laugh at that, but in seriousness i feel bad for that lady, her daughter is going to be so rebellious and fight to get out from under her control, her daughter will never sit and tell her what is going on in her life or share her thoughts because the mom cannot handle it.

This may be seen as shocking, because it is me, or flip flopping...only because people like to view things in a you are with us or against us black/white mentality but I will say this anyways.

I have NO problem with any Priest, Father, Pastor or Reverend refusing to marry a gay couple. Nor would I have a problem with any of those positions condemning other Priests, fathers, pastors or reverends for marrying gay couples.

If you follow the jewish or christian (various branches) of religion it would be hard to get mad at those for refusing to marry gays because it goes against their religion.

Pretty simple concept to me in that regard.

The difference is the Government, state or federal, should not legislate who and who can not get married via religious belief.

[burmafrd]

Peppy- you are a lawyer so therefore you are a liar by profession.
Why should anyone listen to you at all?

I see that you are not disagreeing that the whole truth does not come out in court.
You claim that its up to a lawyer to decide what the truth is. Why should ANYONE be allowed to tell only part of the story?

[silverbear]

Clinton was “DECIEVED” or at least misled by the same intelligence.

Uhhhh, no, he wasn't... the reasons he gave for attacking those sites was Saddam's refusal to allow UN weapons inspectors to do their jobs... IOW, it was a tool designed to compel Hussein to allow the UN to verify whether or not he had those weapons, and to dismantle them if he did...

Clinton's was a measured response against the POSSIBILITY that Iraq possessed WMDs... here's a quote from the transcript of the speech he gave the nation at the time:

First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years.

"Begin to rebuild" is the key there... that's Clinton saying we knew that he once had WMDs, and we knew that he was not reluctant to use them, and if we didn't keep our eyes on him, he'd set about REbuilding those programs...

There's no need to rebuild, if the WMDs already exist... I could, if you need, offer you a few other quotes from that transcript that speak to him REbuilding his WMDs program... nowhere is it claimed that he has WMDs that he's capable of using against his neighbors, or against us...

And to the best of my recollection, he never used any intelligence he received to invade the country...

The Senate and House intelligence committees were “DECIEVED” or at least misled by the same intelligence which is why they supported Clinton’s strikes and Bush’s invasion.

Clinton's strikes and Dubya's invasion are two very different animals... Clinton's was a measured response to a POSSIBLE threat, Dubya's was a considerably more reckless response against what he claimed was an EXISTING threat...

WMD’s were one part of the over all reason for going to war. To suggest that they were the only reason is naïve.

Well, I didn't mean to suggest that was the only reason for going to war, in other arguments I have laid out what the other reasons were... but for you, besides the WMDs claim (which WAS the big reason), there was a) a supposed conspiratorial link between Saddam and al-Qaida, and b) the liberation of the Iraqi people from the ravages of a brutal tyrant...

Well, a) was a crock right from the start, Hussein and bin Laden were in fact enemies (Osama had financed anti-Saddam Kurds in the north, do you REALLY think that Saddam would smile and make nice in that situation??)... and b) doesn't come anywhere CLOSE to rising to a level of justification, in and of itself... particularly not when nobody in Iraq ASKED us to come to their aid... we took that entirely on ourselves...

So right from the start, the ONLY reason *I* supported the war was I bought the lie about WMDs... I heard "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud", and accepted it, never dreaming that our leaders would DARE lie about such a thing...

And when that reason also turned out to be bogus, yeah, I immediately became an opponent of the war in Iraq... I make no apologies for that position, in fact I'd suggest that anybody who still supports that war is lacking in conscience... we have raped that country, and left them in a world of hurt, all for our own selfish interests... I am ashamed of what my country has done, and I blame Dubya and his boys for that, and yeah, I hate them for that...

This is the wrongest thing my country has done in my lifetime, period...

Regardless of whether there were WMD’s, these people voted to send our troops in to harms way. They gave them a job to complete and now they don’t have the courage to stand by their original convictions.

When an intelligent man, or a man of character, realizes he's made a mistake, he doesn't compound the mistake by continuing to do the same thing...

Have you listened to the speeches from the floor during the debate on Bush’s war resolution? Hillary, Kerry, and 98% of the rest of the Democrats agreed with the President because as they said they had also seen the intelligence reports.

And they get absolved from responsibility in the wake of evidence suggesting that intelligence was manufactured by Dubya's boys...

If the only reason you supported the war was WMD’s, you must have felt deceived. But by whom?

The men who, in the words of the Downing Street memo, asserted "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

Keep in mind this was our allies, not some Bush enemy, and the contents of this memo were never supposed to be public knowledge... this is an EXTREMELY damning indictment of the way Dubya misled us into war...

However, if you have evidence, not conjecture, that Bush lied, than I would love to see it. If indeed you can prove the lies, I will recant and change my views.

1) We know that our ALLIES the British were convinced that Dubya's administration was more or less manufacturing intelligence...

2) We know that Dubya distorted the Niger/yellow cake aspect of the story, and we know that his administration did everything they could to ruin the people who told us the truth about it...

3) We know that when Dubya received the first post-9/11 report from the CIA, he dispatched Cheney out to Langley to berate assorted department chiefs over there because that report failed to provide him with the "smoking gun" that he wanted... this is a clear case of Dubya telling his intelligence people to find something for him, even if they had to make it up...

All of these are sufficient to convince me that the mistake here was not ineptitude on the part of Dubya and his little band of neocons, but willful deception of the American people, in effect a successful effort to SCARE us into going along with his bogus agenda re: the Middle East...

[Crown Royal]

Peppy- you are a lawyer so therefore you are a liar by profession.
Why should anyone listen to you at all?

I see that you are not disagreeing that the whole truth does not come out in court.
You claim that its up to a lawyer to decide what the truth is. Why should ANYONE be allowed to tell only part of the story?

I am not a lawyer, but I am still confused at what your position is. Exactly what are you talking about when it comes to evidence not being admitted? It is up to a judge to decide what is admitted or not - not the attorney. It is up to the defense to present any evidence that they might find that would be beneficial to the accused, and the prosecutor has the same right to convict them. Pretty even ground, it seems.

[superpunk]

Peppy- you are a lawyer so therefore you are a liar by profession.
Why should anyone listen to you at all?

10k+ posts of stuff like this.

How do keep from annoying yourself?

[silverbear]

I hate sticking up for Bush, because I have many problems with his presidency - especially the out of control spending. With that being said, I can find nothing that would suggest that the president lied to any of us about going to war.

Read the Downing Street Memo... you can find it here:

http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/memotext.html

Then, consider what the Bush administration did to Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson, when they told the people the truth about one of Dubya's bogus claims...

The president and Congress received the same information, and both came to the conclusion that Saddam has WMD's. The war was a product of our substandard intelligence programs.

No, it wasn't... those agencies were basically bullied into manufacturing "intelligence" to fit the administration's agenda...

I have plenty of reasons to dislike the president, but the reason to go to war is not one of them. The handling of the war is a good reason to go after the president.

I'd suggest that's because you haven't really informed yourself as to the dynamics of the "intelligence" that Bush cited... you seem to be unaware of the evidence out there that Dubya's boys willfully manipulated that intelligence to their own, cynical ends...

[Hoov]

This may be seen as shocking, because it is me, or flip flopping...only because people like to view things in a you are with us or against us black/white mentality but I will say this anyways.

I have NO problem with any Priest, Father, Pastor or Reverend refusing to marry a gay couple. Nor would I have a problem with any of those positions condemning other Priests, fathers, pastors or reverends for marrying gay couples.

If you follow the jewish or christian (various branches) of religion it would be hard to get mad at those for refusing to marry gays because it goes against their religion.

Pretty simple concept to me in that regard.

The difference is the Government, state or federal, should not legislate who and who can not get married via religious belief.

Oh, i dont have a problem with minsiters/clergy/priests who do not want to perform a gay marriage. They should not be forced or coerced into doing what they feel is not inline with their teaching.

And i expect some church members to complain. I just think its funny that in some churches the mentality is that of belonging to an exclusive country club, then they expect the rules/values of their "club" to be forced onto society.

when people want to stop other qualified persons from performing a same sex marriage, i just feel they are overstepping their bounds.

[peplaw06]

Peppy- you are a lawyer so therefore you are a liar by profession.
Why should anyone listen to you at all?:laugh2:

Still deflecting the argument I see. Can't actually talk about the issue, just have to resort to personal attacks.

I see that you are not disagreeing that the whole truth does not come out in court.
You claim that its up to a lawyer to decide what the truth is. Why should ANYONE be allowed to tell only part of the story?Because lay people in juries (like yourself) are generally not discerning enough to be able to tell what is relevant and what is not. If it were up to you, everything would be admissible?

So if someone is in court on murder charges and had a prior DWI, you would allow that to come in, despite the fact that it's not relevant to the current proceedings, but simply because it's "the truth?" Stuff like that would prejudice a jury to convict a guy for his past. That's why it's inadmissible.

EDIT: sorry for the minor thread hijack crown.

[Hoov]

Peppy- you are a lawyer so therefore you are a liar by profession.
Why should anyone listen to you at all?

I see that you are not disagreeing that the whole truth does not come out in court.
You claim that its up to a lawyer to decide what the truth is. Why should ANYONE be allowed to tell only part of the story?

Rediculous comment. What would be intresting is to see how you react when someday you really need a lawyer.

[silverbear]

There are times that I really don't know if they are so arrogant and think they can pull the wool over peoples eyes with these lies...or if they actually believe their own bs.

Oh, I think they know what they're shovelling... I think they're an entirely corrupt, cynical crew...

They thought we were all idiots, and for a while, they were right... but in our defense, we were all near-hysterical after 9/11... I don't think Dubya could have gotten away with this crapola but for that hysteria...

[Vintage]

Peppy- you are a lawyer so therefore you are a liar by profession.
Why should anyone listen to you at all?

I see that you are not disagreeing that the whole truth does not come out in court.
You claim that its up to a lawyer to decide what the truth is. Why should ANYONE be allowed to tell only part of the story?


Is this a sign of giving up?

I assume so. You don't refute anything he says, you try to draw the attention away to something else; his profession.

[silverbear]

Silver, I really find it hard to believe that you are that blind.
Clinton in 1998 used the same evidence that GW used in 2002.

No, he didn't... some of the "evidence" was the same, but we also need to remember that he responded in a considerably less aggressive manner to that evidence... his goal was also considerably different (it didn't involve regime change)...

So how is that Bush's fault?

Dubya manipulated the intelligence to whip up a war hysteria, Clinton did nothing of the sort...

You really are over the edge there.

Only if you consider the plain truth to be "over the edge"...

[burmafrd]

What part of the professional liar's is that hard to understand?
they are required to lie and yet they are supposed to interpret what is true or not?
You don't see the fundamental problem with that?

[burmafrd]

Silver, your screwy interpretation of history is somewhat comical.
MOST of the evidence GW used was the same Clinton used.
If you bothered to check things out you would know that. But you do not want to. Your simplistic "Bush Lied" is a pathetic fig leaf.
As regards Joe Wilson- he has been discredited by many not connected to Bush or conservatives. the facts were established that Saddam DID have agents looking for yellowcake. They did not GET any from Nigeria- but they were looking for it. The man who ran the Achile Lauro hijacking was allowed to retire and stay in comfort in Iraq. Others were allowed as well. A terrorist is a terrorist. They found a training camp that taught how to hijack planes including a mock up of a 747 near Baghdad. So the terrorist links to Saddam were well documented. I will not bother to site sources- you can do it and I do not feel like it. they are not hard to find.
Saddam had a WMD program. It could have been restarted at any time. the threat was always there AS LONG AS SADDAM was.

[Crown Royal]

What part of the professional liar's is that hard to understand?
they are required to lie and yet they are supposed to interpret what is true or not?
You don't see the fundamental problem with that?

:confused: What are you talking about, 'Interpret what is true or not?'

1) How is a lawyer 'required to lie?' You haven't really backed that up with anything other than your rhetorical mantra of 'professional liar.'
2) When is a lawyer called upon to interprest what is true? That is the job of the jury. The attorneys (both sides - you do understand that there are a minimum of two attorneys in a criminal proceeding, no?) present evidence to support their case, and a jury decides what to do with it.

You really haven't given me anything to support your argument other than cynical banter about an entire profession being composed of sub par human beings and out of this world assumptions.

Since you don't seem willing to provide any 'evidence' to support your argument, you just feel justified in making an argument without putting any meat behind it, then perhaps you can enlighten us to what you would consider a better justice system?

[superpunk]

1) How is a lawyer 'required to lie?' You haven't really backed that up with anything other than your rhetorical mantra of 'professional liar.'

I'm wondering what the answer is to this, as well. I mean, I know we won't get anything with substance, but Lawyers are not required to lie - only required to give their defendant the best possible defense. It's my assumption, in almost all cases, the lawyers do not know definitively whether or not their clients are guilty or innocent - instead they concern themselves with the facts, and the precedents. Does it get a little shady sometimes? Certainly. But that doesn't damn the entire profession. I think if our little buddy burm took a minute to realize all the good lawyers have brought us (the declaration of independence, easily accessible handicap parking, Tonya Harding) he'd realize that.

But we all know he's far too hard headed to back off his ridiculous carte-blanche lawyer bashing.

And thenwe have the posts where he's made the war and the reasoning behind it a Democrat (Clinton) vs. Republican (Bush) thing. :rolleyes:

"Clinton presented the same information! He's just as wrong!"

No duh.

[burmafrd]

Crown. A lawyer talks to his client and his client clearly shows his guilt. That same lawyer stands up in court and says his client is innocent. So what part of professional liar do you not understand.

[burmafrd]

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1435

this is for Silver and his sad arguement.

[AtlCB]

Read the Downing Street Memo... you can find it here:

http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/memotext.html

Has anyone come forward to authenticate this document? After the national guard memos, I am extremely skeptical about these "smoking gun" documents.

Why did Bill Clinton believe Saddam had these weapons before Bush took over as president? Did Saddam immediately get rid of the weapons after Bush was sworn in? :confused:

[burmafrd]

to silver, it does not matter that the whole thing has been discredited. He just keeps chanting his mantra "Bush Lied".

[Crown Royal]

Crown. A lawyer talks to his client and his client clearly shows his guilt. That same lawyer stands up in court and says his client is innocent. So what part of professional liar do you not understand.

This generalistic 3 sentence answer is all that you can provide me? Really?

An attorney is required (by both law and ETHICS) to present the best possible defense for his client. You will recall that it is the prosecutor's duty to prove the guilt of a defendent beyond all reasonable doubt.

You first make the broad statement that an attorney should know his client is guilty just by talking to them. That seems pretty silly to me - the defense attorney has to look at every fact the prosecution has to determine what he thinks, not just his interview with the defendant.

On top of that - you make the broad and incredibly ridiculous statement that he will plead innocent - I seriously doubt that if an attorney looks at all the facts and sees that the prosecution has a good case that they will plead not guilty. If the attorney has any sort of competence, then they will advise their client to make a plea of guilty or no lo contendere.

The burden of proof rests on the prosecution. If the prosecution cannot present a case good enough to prove that a defendant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt, then I don't see why the defense attorney should be insulted for that.

[silverbear]

Silver, your screwy interpretation of history is somewhat comical.
MOST of the evidence GW used was the same Clinton used.

Clinton never tried to tell us that Saddam HAD WMDs, merely that he had the potential to DEVELOP them...

And MOST of the evidence that Dubya used was information that came about after Clinton left office...

If you bothered to check things out you would know that.

Well, ONE of us just went back and reread the transcript of the speech that Clinton gave the nation when he ordered those air strikes, and one of us clearly didn't... LOL...

As regards Joe Wilson- he has been discredited by many not connected to Bush or conservatives.

Your problem is not Joe Wilson's credibility, it's what Dubya's boys tried to do to him and his wife when he disputed the party line...

the facts were established that Saddam DID have agents looking for yellowcake. They did not GET any from Nigeria- but they were looking for it.

Now you're just making stuff up... the claims of Saddam trying to purchase yellow cake uranium from Niger were proven to be FALSIFIED intelligence documents that the Italians dug up, then passed along... here's Wikipedia's synopsis of this affair:

One of the allegations was that Iraq had attempted to purchase yellowcake. Specifically, Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) director George Tenet and Secretary of State Colin Powell both cited an attempted yellowcake purchase from Niger in their September testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. At that time, the UK government also publicly reported an attempted purchase from an unnamed African country. In December, the State Department issued a fact sheet listing the alleged Niger yellowcake affair in a report entitled "Illustrative Examples of Omissions From the Iraqi Declaration to the United Nations Security Council."[1] In his January 2003 State of the Union address, President George W. Bush repeated the allegation, citing British intelligence sources. The administration later conceded that evidence in support of the claim was inconclusive and stated "these 16 words should never have been included"

Dubya himself admitted that the "evidence" supporting his allegations was "inconclusive", and he shouldn't have mentioned it... on July 8, 2003, CBS and AP reported that:

Amid questions about prewar intelligence, the White House is acknowledging that President Bush was incorrect when he said in his State of the Union address that Iraq recently had sought significant quantities of uranium in Africa. ... The president's statement in the State of the Union was incorrect because it was based on forged documents from the African nation of Niger, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said Monday.

The man who ran the Achile Lauro hijacking was allowed to retire and stay in comfort in Iraq. Others were allowed as well. A terrorist is a terrorist.

But Dubya and the boys were claiming that Iraq was a co-conspirator with al-Qaida in the 9/11 attacks... that's a claim they no longer make, indeed they try real hard not to talk about that one...

Saddam had a WMD program.

Not a viable one, he didn't...

It could have been restarted at any time. the threat was always there AS LONG AS SADDAM was.

But that's not a good enough reason to invade a sovereign nation, and it most assuredly was not the reason we were given to con us into going along with that invasion...

[silverbear]

Has anyone come forward to authenticate this document? After the national guard memos, I am extremely skeptical about these "smoking gun" documents.

Why did Bill Clinton believe Saddam had these weapons before Bush took over as president? Did Saddam immediately get rid of the weapons after Bush was sworn in? :confused:

From what I've read, Clinton believed Hussein had the ability to REBUILD his WMDs program... for sure, nowhere in the transcript of his speech to the nation the night he ordered the airstrikes does he say that Saddam HAD WMDs...

As for the probity of the Downing Street Memo, I'll simply invite you to read it for yourself, decide for yourself if it passes the ol' sniff test...

[silverbear]

to silver, it does not matter that the whole thing has been discredited. He just keeps chanting his mantra "Bush Lied".

I haven't seen any assertion I've made to this point successfully discredited... you're welcome to try, if you think you're up to it... I rather doubt you are...

[burmafrd]

Silver you seem to ignore the link I gave you. And instead you used Wikipedia- which is NOTORIOUS for innacuracies and falsehoods.

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=441432&in_page_id=1770&in_a_source=

http://www.dweec.com/suggestions.htm

http://www.matthewbuckland.com/?p=83

http://www.technologyreview.com/InfoTech/wtr_16057,308,p1.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4502846.stm

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17740041/

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002677060_wiki11.html

[burmafrd]

Silver- have you bothered to read the Carnegie Document?

[Vintage]

Silver you seem to ignore the link I gave you. And instead you used Wikipedia- which is NOTORIOUS for innacuracies and falsehoods.

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=441432&in_page_id=1770&in_a_source=

http://www.dweec.com/suggestions.htm

http://www.matthewbuckland.com/?p=83

http://www.technologyreview.com/InfoTech/wtr_16057,308,p1.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4502846.stm

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17740041/

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002677060_wiki11.html

Actually, wikipedia has gotten a lot better. Its as good as any online source now, really.

It might not be great for using it as a reference for a paper. But it is plenty good enough to be accepted in using like silverbear did.

But regardless, don't let that detract from your statements...

[burmafrd]

Vintage- show evidence that they have improved. Say to the level of the London Times online. Or any other online source. I sense that you think just because you see it on TV that that is more reliable then online. Is that true?
Or in print. Is that true?

[burmafrd]

Wrong is wrong. If it is wrong for papers then it is wrong for anything else.

[burmafrd]

By the way- some of those articles are from THIS year. So what EVIDENCE do you have that they are better NOW?

[silverbear]

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1435

this is for Silver and his sad arguement.

ROTFLMAO... to quote from one section of your 108 page "rebuttal":

... the threat as the war began lay not in stockpiles or active production of unconventional weapons, but in long-standing determination to acquire such weapons...

Takes a special kind of lunacy to rebut my arguments with a lengthy paper that ultimately reaches the same conclusion I did-- that there were no stockpiles of WMDs... FWIW, the quote I just offered is on page 1 of section III, the "Findings and Recommendations" section of the report... it goes on to say:

They did not, however, pose an immediate threat to the United States, the region, or global security... Although there was good reason to believe that Iraq retained an interest in restarting a nuclear program, there is no evidence they had actually done so...

Regarding chemical weapons, Rolf Ekeus, executive chairman of UNSCOM from 1991 to 1997, has pointed out that UNSCOM found that "the large quantities of nerve agents discovered in storage in Iraq had lost most of their lethal property and were not suitable for warfare"

That report also concludes that the efforts by Hussein to reconstitute his WMDs program was aimed not at the United States, but at Iran...

Seems like this report you're so hot about doesn't really prove what you think it does... ROTFLMAO...

[AtlCB]

From what I've read, Clinton believed Hussein had the ability to REBUILD his WMDs program... for sure, nowhere in the transcript of his speech to the nation the night he ordered the airstrikes does he say that Saddam HAD WMDs... From USA Today:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-01-27-burkee_x.htm

As for the probity of the Downing Street Memo, I'll simply invite you to read it for yourself, decide for yourself if it passes the ol' sniff test...I did read it. I'm no document expert, but I believe the memo is a forgery.

[silverbear]

Silver- have you bothered to read the Carnegie Document?

Just read a bit of it, enough to make you look particularly foolish...

Perhaps you should have read it a bit more closely, in particular the Findings and Recommendations section...

[peplaw06]

Crown. A lawyer talks to his client and his client clearly shows his guilt. That same lawyer stands up in court and says his client is innocent. So what part of professional liar do you not understand.1) Defendant's rarely "clearly show [their] guilt."

2) A defense lawyer never stands up and says his client is "innocent." They say he's not guilty. Or that the prosecution hasn't proven their case. Big difference.

This generalistic 3 sentence answer is all that you can provide me? Really?

An attorney is required (by both law and ETHICS) to present the best possible defense for his client. You will recall that it is the prosecutor's duty to prove the guilt of a defendent beyond all reasonable doubt.

You first make the broad statement that an attorney should know his client is guilty just by talking to them. That seems pretty silly to me - the defense attorney has to look at every fact the prosecution has to determine what he thinks, not just his interview with the defendant.

On top of that - you make the broad and incredibly ridiculous statement that he will plead innocent - I seriously doubt that if an attorney looks at all the facts and sees that the prosecution has a good case that they will plead not guilty. If the attorney has any sort of competence, then they will advise their client to make a plea of guilty or no lo contendere.

The burden of proof rests on the prosecution. If the prosecution cannot present a case good enough to prove that a defendant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt, then I don't see why the defense attorney should be insulted for that.:hammer:

Burm is ignoring us now Crown.

[Vintage]

I am not sure why you needed 3 posts to address me...

But whatever.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061127-8296.html


Whether this is better or worse than traditional, expert-based encyclopedias depends on who you ask. Nature did a highly-publicized comparative study between Wikipedia and the Encyclopedia Britannica last year in which they found that the two were similar in terms of accuracy (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051214-5768.html). Britannica disputed those findings (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060323-6442.html) and still claims to offer a more reliable product.
Chesney's study was not intended to settle the debate. He notes that, whatever Wikipedia's comparative accuracy, plenty of people (academics included) are using it, and he simply wanted to see whether Wikipedia could be considered accurate enough to be worth using. His study suggests that it can, but that caution—and further research—needs to be used before citing anything learned from Wikipedia as a fact.


I didn't say its the end all be all. But Wikipedia is not nearly as bad as people claim it to be.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Vintage- show evidence that they have improved. Say to the level of the London Times online. Or any other online source. I sense that you think just because you see it on TV that that is more reliable then online. Is that true?
Or in print. Is that true?

I can not say in this specific instance, or in every instance now.

However from what I have seen recently they have provided links to claims on the wiki web site.

For example.

If the site says...

In 1993 BrainPaint decided to take a job at (insert company name here) because he was tired and frustrated working at (insert company name here).

In that they would provide a link to an article where it would show he left one job for the other and probably a quote of him saying why he left.

As I said I don't know if that applies to this case or all of them but I have noticed they are doing that now.

Do not mistake the links to what a word may mean in it.

I am talking about references they have. You will see small numbers by some claims. Than if will direct you to the footnotes and they will provide a link to articles to back up that claim.

[silverbear]

Silver you seem to ignore the link I gave you. And instead you used Wikipedia- which is NOTORIOUS for innacuracies and falsehoods.

Hey, if you have a rebuttal for what they had to say, bring it on...

I provided you with the exact quote from them, show us where they're wrong...

[silverbear]

From USA Today:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-01-27-burkee_x.htm

Interesting... I had never read anything like that... and for sure, I never heard him SAY anything like that in public...

I did read it. I'm no document expert, but I believe the memo is a forgery.

I see, you don't believe the Downing Street Memo, but you do believe a report in an anonymous Portugese newspaper, as quoted in an op-ed piece that appeared in the USA Today, written by a conservative Republican...

I say that even as I heartily approve of his ongoing attacks against deficit spending...

[Vintage]

I can not say in this specific instance, or in every instance now.

However from what I have seen recently they have provided links to claims on the wiki web site.

For example.

If the site says...

In 1993 BrainPaint decided to take a job at (insert company name here) because he was tired and frustrated working at (insert company name here).

In that they would provide a link to an article where it would show he left one job for the other and probably a quote of him saying why he left.

As I said I don't know if that applies to this case or all of them but I have noticed they are doing that now.

Do not mistake the links to what a word may mean in it.

I am talking about references they have. You will see small numbers by some claims. Than if will direct you to the footnotes and they will provide a link to articles to back up that claim.

You are correct. They do that now for almost everything. In fact, I've yet to see one where they didn't offer many links and list their sources.

Its not a great site for in depth analysis of anything. But its very good at giving background info and a start to understanding whatever you are looking up.

But burm continues to ignore this because it doesn't fit his agenda.

[silverbear]

I am not sure why you needed 3 posts to address me...

But whatever.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061127-8296.html



I didn't say its the end all be all. But Wikipedia is not nearly as bad as people claim it to be.

Oh, I wouldn't offer it as a definitive source (any open source website can be misused), but if we're going to insinuate that the quote I offered from Wikipedia is wrong, it would seem to require a more definitive rebuttal of the assertions in the article, rather than a vague attack on the probity of the website...

Specific assertions were made in the quote I offered, if anybody can dispute those assertions, they are invited to take their shot...

[Sasquatch]

Just read a bit of it, enough to make you look particularly foolish...

Perhaps you should have read it a bit more closely, in particular the Findings and Recommendations section...

You omitted this gem from your quotes:

Administration officials systematically misrepresented the threat from
Iraq’s WMD and ballistic missile programs, beyond the intelligence
failures noted above, by:
_ Treating nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons as a single “WMD threat.”
The conflation of three distinct threats, very different in the danger they pose,
distorted the cost/benefit analysis of the war. (p. 52)
_ Insisting without evidence—yet treating as a given truth—that Saddam
Hussein would give whatever WMD he possessed to terrorists. (p. 52)
_ Routinely dropping caveats, probabilities, and expressions of uncertainty present
in intelligence assessments from public statements. (p. 53)
_ Misrepresenting inspectors’ findings in ways that turned threats from minor to
dire. (p. 53)

[AtlCB]

Interesting... I had never read anything like that... and for sure, I never heard him SAY anything like that in public...



I see, you don't believe the Downing Street Memo, but you do believe a report in an anonymous Portugese newspaper, as quoted in an op-ed piece that appeared in the USA Today, written by a conservative Republican...

I say that even as I heartily approve of his ongoing attacks against deficit spending...

No. I believe the Portugese official who was quoted in the oped piece.

I guess you also believe all of the official reports that the UFO nuts keep putting out that they claim are official classified documents. With our techology, anybody can forge an official document. The document needs to be authenticated.

[BrAinPaiNt]

You are correct. They do that now for almost everything. In fact, I've yet to see one where they didn't offer many links and list their sources.

Its not a great site for in depth analysis of anything. But its very good at giving background info and a start to understanding whatever you are looking up.

But burm continues to ignore this because it doesn't fit his agenda.

Well to be honest at one time they were not as reputable. I think there are many Universities and or colleges that do not allow (or did not) Wikipedia as a source for research.

So...I can see where someone could believe that. It had a past of it and some may not be aware of steps they have taken to make it better.

[Sasquatch]

I did read it. I'm no document expert, but I believe the memo is a forgery.

Has anyone in the British government disputed its authenticity to lead you to that conclusion?

[AtlCB]

Has anyone in the British government disputed its authenticity to lead you to that conclusion?
Did anyone from the national guard dispute the fraudulent Bush memos?

[Crown Royal]

So can I get my thread retitled 'Come in here to discuss the war in Iraq?'

[AtlCB]

So can I get my thread retitled 'Come in here to discuss the war in Iraq?'

:lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

[Rackat]

So can I get my thread retitled 'Come in here to discuss the war in Iraq?'
Gotta admit, I laughed when I read that. :laugh2:

[peplaw06]

So can I get my thread retitled 'Come in here to discuss the war in Iraq?'
Or "burmafrd the human pinata." He's getting hit by Iraq and the Legal System.

[silverbear]

You omitted this gem from your quotes:

Administration officials systematically misrepresented the threat from
Iraq’s WMD and ballistic missile programs, beyond the intelligence
failures noted above, by:
_ Treating nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons as a single “WMD threat.”
The conflation of three distinct threats, very different in the danger they pose,
distorted the cost/benefit analysis of the war. (p. 52)
_ Insisting without evidence—yet treating as a given truth—that Saddam
Hussein would give whatever WMD he possessed to terrorists. (p. 52)
_ Routinely dropping caveats, probabilities, and expressions of uncertainty present
in intelligence assessments from public statements. (p. 53)
_ Misrepresenting inspectors’ findings in ways that turned threats from minor to
dire. (p. 53)

Chuckle... you read more of it than I did, wild man... thanks for the entertaining addition...

[silverbear]

No. I believe the Portugese official who was quoted in the oped piece.

Which means you're accepting the veracity of that alleged quote, without having any real evidence to do so...

Mind you, I'm not saying it's bogus... I'm merely pointing out that your standards for accepting or rejecting the veracity of assertions seems to be rather selective...

I guess you also believe all of the official reports that the UFO nuts keep putting out that they claim are official classified documents.

And I guess you got insulted by my attempts at rebuttal, and decided a little ad hominem was in order...

With our techology, anybody can forge an official document. The document needs to be authenticated.

I'm just pointing out that what you believe or disbelieve seems to be inextricably intertwined with your personal agenda... IOW, I think you just WANT to believe the Downing Street Memo is a forgery...

Well, if it is, it's one uncommonly GOOD forgery, or else Dubya's boys would have gleefully demolished it, the way they did those allegations on 60 Minutes... but I don't seem to have read anything suggesting, let alone proving, that the DSM was a forgery...

Have you??

[Sasquatch]

Did anyone from the national guard dispute the fraudulent Bush memos?

It was an honest question to which, apparently, you don't have a response.

This is a transcript from an exchange in parliament between MP Adam Price and Tony Blair (taken from the website of Mr. Price):

Adam Price MP (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) asked the Prime Minister:
Does the Prime Minister still regard Sir Richard Dearlove as having been a reliable source of information on Iraq? And if he does, is it safe to assume that Sir Richard's statement in the summer of 2002 that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" was an accurate assessment of the intentions and actions of the Bush administration?
The Prime Minister:
First of all, as I'm sure the honourable Member knows that memo and other documents of the time were covered by the Butler Review. In addition to that I have to say to him that this was of course before we went to the United Nations and secured a second resolution, the resolution 1441 that had unanimous support and I would also say to the honourable gentleman that contrary to his view when I stood next to the new PM of Iraq, somebody who has had five of his relatives assassinated by Saddam, when I stood by him and realised that he was in power because of the democratic vote of 8 million Iraqis then I was glad that we took the action that we did and made sure that Iraq was no longer governed by a dictatorship but by a democracy.
Blair is clearly acknowledging the authenticity of the memo. It seems highly implausible that not one of the many politicians who were embarrassed by the affair would not vehemently deny the memo's authenticity if it were, in fact, a forgery.

Accepting that the document is a forgery would entail believing that those victimized by it would remain silent while their political reputations were ripped to tatters in the press. Not a likely scenario, in my humble opinion.

[silverbear]

So can I get my thread retitled 'Come in here to discuss the war in Iraq?'

LOL... c'mon, CR, you've been around long enough to be familiar with how threads take twists and turns...

This one of yours has spawned a number of arguments that I'm finding entertaining...

[Crown Royal]

LOL... c'mon, CR, you've been around long enough to be familiar with how threads take twists and turns...

This one of yours has spawned a number of arguments that I'm finding entertaining...


Hey - I was happy to go two pages without a hijack. I was shocked that I did.:D

I'm just jealous because I keep myself comfortably ambivalent to the Iraq situation. there are about a hundred issues that I find more entertaining, but I know so little about that one that I just can't pipe up.

[silverbear]

It was an honest question to which, apparently, you don't have a response.

This is a transcript from an exchange in parliament between MP Adam Price and Tony Blair (taken from the website of Mr. Price):

Adam Price MP (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) asked the Prime Minister:
Does the Prime Minister still regard Sir Richard Dearlove as having been a reliable source of information on Iraq? And if he does, is it safe to assume that Sir Richard's statement in the summer of 2002 that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" was an accurate assessment of the intentions and actions of the Bush administration?
The Prime Minister:
First of all, as I'm sure the honourable Member knows that memo and other documents of the time were covered by the Butler Review. In addition to that I have to say to him that this was of course before we went to the United Nations and secured a second resolution, the resolution 1441 that had unanimous support and I would also say to the honourable gentleman that contrary to his view when I stood next to the new PM of Iraq, somebody who has had five of his relatives assassinated by Saddam, when I stood by him and realised that he was in power because of the democratic vote of 8 million Iraqis then I was glad that we took the action that we did and made sure that Iraq was no longer governed by a dictatorship but by a democracy.
Blair is clearly acknowledging the authenticity of the memo. It seems highly implausible that not one of the many politicians who were embarrassed by the affair would not vehemently deny the memo's authenticity if it were, in fact, a forgery.

Accepting that the document is a forgery would entail believing that those victimized by it would remain silent while their political reputations were ripped to tatters in the press. Not a likely scenario, in my humble opinion.

I like the way you argue, man... sure am glad I'm on your side, politically speaking... :D

[AbeBeta]

So can I get my thread retitled 'Come in here to discuss the war in Iraq?'

I was sure we were going to go in a gay marriage direction. Of course, there are far better arguments against going to war in Iraq than against gay marriage.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Hey - I was happy to go two pages without a hijack. I was shocked that I did.:D

I'm just jealous because I keep myself comfortably ambivalent to the Iraq situation. there are about a hundred issues that I find more entertaining, but I know so little about that one that I just can't pipe up.

Well it is time to pick a peck of pickled peppers and Pipe up there Peter Piper. :p: ;)

[silverbear]

Hey - I was happy to go two pages without a hijack. I was shocked that I did.:D

We just like ya...

I'm just jealous because I keep myself comfortably ambivalent to the Iraq situation. there are about a hundred issues that I find more entertaining, but I know so little about that one that I just can't pipe up.

As the sage once wrote, it's better to keep your mouth shut, and seem a fool, than to open it, and remove all doubt... there are some who argue in these political threads who have either never heard that adage, or rejected it...

[Crown Royal]

I was sure we were going to go in a gay marriage direction. Of course, there are far better arguments against going to war in Iraq than against gay marriage.

Like i said - I really think most people don't care. It's a vocal minority that is for it and a vocal minority that is against it, the rest of us are indifferent, maybe with a slightl lean one way or another, but not enough to care.

Burmafrd was the only one in this thread really against it, and he got himself entrenched in two other arguments. I think we collectively just dismissed his opinion on that one.

[Crown Royal]

We just like ya...



As the sage once wrote, it's better to keep your mouth shut, and seem a fool, than to open it, and remove all doubt... there are some who argue in these political threads who have either never heard that adage, or rejected it...

Something about truer words...


There are only a handful of topics I know anything about - the only time I pipe in on something that I admit to not having researched or read a lot on, it is just to get more information. The only thing I know about the war in Iraq is some of what gets reported by the media, and I will not make any judgement based on such an unreliable source of information.

[silverbear]

I was sure we were going to go in a gay marriage direction. Of course, there are far better arguments against going to war in Iraq than against gay marriage.

Hey, maybe we should send the gays over there to fight that war... of course, if we do that, the least we could do is let them marry each other first...

A happy married gay couple will fight hard to protect each other, an unhappy married gay couple, well, NOBODY fights more or harder than an unhappy married couple...

I'm tellin' ya, it could WORK...

[Crown Royal]

Well it is time to pick a peck of pickled peppers and Pipe up there Peter Piper. :p: ;)

Is mixing nursery rhymes akin to the crime of mixing metaphors?

[silverbear]

The only thing I know about the war in Iraq is some of what gets reported by the media, and I will not make any judgement based on such an unreliable source of information.

That line just DESTROYED me... :D

[BrAinPaiNt]

Is mixing nursery rhymes akin to the crime of mixing metaphors?

http://www.affordablehousinginstitute.org/blogs/us/get_out_of_jail_free_card_small.jpg

[Rackat]

At one time, probably a year and a half ago, I spent an inordinate amount of time arguing the voracity of the intelligence leading up to the invasion of Iraq. My conclusion, based on the fact that the Senate and House both had access to the same data as the White House, was that the Democrats would never have supported a fricking thing Bush did unless it were true. Since there were only two senators (iirc) that voted against the resolution, I felt it must have been valid. Particularly since some of the Senators claimed knowledge of the data first hand via reports to their respective committees. But, all of the arguments I presented did not sway the detractors, and all of the arguments they presented did not sway me.

"This link is biased because it was written by a (insert party affiliation)."
Or
"That's BS! He's a political hack for the (insert party affiliation)."

It always turned in to a shouting match. Well, I won't shout here, I've done my shouting elsewhere. So, if you want to have a debate, I'd be glad to talk. But the innuendo and borderline namecalling is getting us nowhere. Ad hominem attacks and personal innuendo directed at other members only show lack of credibility, immaturity, and poor debating skill.

[AbeBeta]

Like i said - I really think most people don't care. It's a vocal minority that is for it and a vocal minority that is against it, the rest of us are indifferent, maybe with a slightl lean one way or another, but not enough to care.

Burmafrd was the only one in this thread really against it, and he got himself entrenched in two other arguments. I think we collectively just dismissed his opinion on that one.

Vocal minority against it?

How does that explain how anti-gay marriage ballot propositions keep getting passed?

[AtlCB]

Which means you're accepting the veracity of that alleged quote, without having any real evidence to do so...

Mind you, I'm not saying it's bogus... I'm merely pointing out that your standards for accepting or rejecting the veracity of assertions seems to be rather selective...



And I guess you got insulted by my attempts at rebuttal, and decided a little ad hominem was in order...



I'm just pointing out that what you believe or disbelieve seems to be inextricably intertwined with your personal agenda... IOW, I think you just WANT to believe the Downing Street Memo is a forgery...

Well, if it is, it's one uncommonly GOOD forgery, or else Dubya's boys would have gleefully demolished it, the way they did those allegations on 60 Minutes... but I don't seem to have read anything suggesting, let alone proving, that the DSM was a forgery...

Have you??I don't have an agenda. I think the war was a mistake. I simply believe that the intelligence department is at fault and needs to be fixed. You seem to be the one with an agenda.

Are you calling the Portugese official a liar? I take someone's word over a document that has not been authenticated. Our courts in this country feel the same way. In criminal court, this type of document would need to be authenticated before it would be allowed as evidence. A person's testimony does not need to be authenticated. Do you see the difference?

The question about the UFO documents is valid. If you accept every memo that appears authentic as being authentic, why wouldn't use also believe the UFO memos?

[silverbear]

I don't have an agenda. I think the war was a mistake. I simply believe that the intelligence department is at fault and needs to be fixed. You seem to be the one with an agenda.

My agenda is I hate the war, and the liars who gave it to us...

Are you calling the Portugese official a liar?

Are you sure he really said what was attributed to him in that op-ed piece?? Are you sure that either the anonymous Portugese paper didn't take liberties with the quote, or the author of the article in question??

I take someone's word over a document that has not been authenticated. Our courts in this country feel the same way. In criminal court, this type of document would need to be authenticated before it would be allowed as evidence. A person's testimony does not need to be authenticated. Do you see the difference?

Terrific... now, address the arguments that The_Jackal made in support of the veracity of the Downing Street Memo... you have no factual reason you can offer to dispute the probity of that document, you just express your OPINION that it's bogus... naturally, you offer us no compelling reasons why you believe that, I guess we're just supposed to take your word for it...

Which brings us back around to you just apparently don't WANT to believe it...

[silverbear]

The question about the UFO documents is valid. If you accept every memo that appears authentic as being authentic, why wouldn't use also believe the UFO memos?

When did I ever say I accepted "every memo that appears authentic" as being authentic?? Just because I believe that the Downing Street Memo is genuine, it doesn't logically follow that I accept ALL memos as genuine...

But you have enough intelligence to realize that, which is why your comments were an insult aimed squarely at me... not that I mind, and I won't retaliate in kind, I'm just pointing out that it was a totally uncalled-for cheap shot... that's the kind of thing you normally see from people who have become aware that they're losing an argument on the merits...

As The_Jackal has pointed out, IF the DSM was bogus, there are a lot of people who would have had a vested interest in proving that to be the case... but to date, none of them have even TRIED...

To a thinking man, that ought to attach a certain level of credibility to that document...

[AtlCB]

It was an honest question to which, apparently, you don't have a response.

This is a transcript from an exchange in parliament between MP Adam Price and Tony Blair (taken from the website of Mr. Price):

Adam Price MP (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) asked the Prime Minister:
Does the Prime Minister still regard Sir Richard Dearlove as having been a reliable source of information on Iraq? And if he does, is it safe to assume that Sir Richard's statement in the summer of 2002 that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" was an accurate assessment of the intentions and actions of the Bush administration?
The Prime Minister:
First of all, as I'm sure the honourable Member knows that memo and other documents of the time were covered by the Butler Review. In addition to that I have to say to him that this was of course before we went to the United Nations and secured a second resolution, the resolution 1441 that had unanimous support and I would also say to the honourable gentleman that contrary to his view when I stood next to the new PM of Iraq, somebody who has had five of his relatives assassinated by Saddam, when I stood by him and realised that he was in power because of the democratic vote of 8 million Iraqis then I was glad that we took the action that we did and made sure that Iraq was no longer governed by a dictatorship but by a democracy.
Blair is clearly acknowledging the authenticity of the memo. It seems highly implausible that not one of the many politicians who were embarrassed by the affair would not vehemently deny the memo's authenticity if it were, in fact, a forgery.

Accepting that the document is a forgery would entail believing that those victimized by it would remain silent while their political reputations were ripped to tatters in the press. Not a likely scenario, in my humble opinion.

Blair's statement is ambiguous at best. Nobody denied it, but no one confirmed it either. Also, nothing in the memo suggests that Bush manipulated intelligence in any way.

[Sasquatch]

Blair's statement is ambiguous at best. Nobody denied it, but no one confirmed it either. Also, nothing in the memo suggests that Bush manipulated intelligence in any way.

I've presented my case, you've presented yours. It's up to the others to decide for themselves whose is more compelling and rational.

[AtlCB]

My agenda is I hate the war, and the liars who gave it to us...



Are you sure he really said what was attributed to him in that op-ed piece?? Are you sure that either the anonymous Portugese paper didn't take liberties with the quote, or the author of the article in question??



Terrific... now, address the arguments that The_Jackal made in support of the veracity of the Downing Street Memo... you have no factual reason you can offer to dispute the probity of that document, you just express your OPINION that it's bogus... naturally, you offer us no compelling reasons why you believe that, I guess we're just supposed to take your word for it...

Which brings us back around to you just apparently don't WANT to believe it...

I guess it comes back to the fact that we believe what we want to believe. I just have problems with these memos after the whole national guard fiasco. I like to have some autheticate these types of documents before I lend any credibililty to them - whether they benefit the right or left. You may have different standards for these types of documents than I. Since neither of us are going to convince each other, we'll leave it at that.

[silverbear]

Blair's statement is ambiguous at best. Nobody denied it, but no one confirmed it either. Also, nothing in the memo suggests that Bush manipulated intelligence in any way.

Fixing intelligence around an agenda IS manipulating intelligence...

And once again, given the fact that the Downing Street Memo is so damaging to Dubya's credibility, the fact that nobody has even TRIED to prove it false is pretty compelling testimony to its veracity...

[silverbear]

I guess it comes back to the fact that we believe what we want to believe. I just have problems with these memos after the whole national guard fiasco. I like to have some autheticate these types of documents before I lend any credibililty to them - whether they benefit the right or left. You may have different standards for these types of documents than I. Since neither of us are going to convince each other, we'll leave it at that.

As you wish...

[AtlCB]

Fixing intelligence around an agenda IS manipulating intelligence...

And once again, given the fact that the Downing Street Memo is so damaging to Dubya's credibility, the fact that nobody has even TRIED to prove it false is pretty compelling testimony to its veracity...The memo didn't say that. "Fixed around" is a phrase that means attached to or added to in Britain. An example would be putting a nut on a bolt. The British would say that you are fixing the nut around the bolt.

[Sasquatch]

The memo didn't say that. "Fixed around" is a phrase that means attached to or added to in Britain. An example would be putting a nut on a bolt. The British would say that you are fixing the nut around the bolt.

The British press and millions of Britons who were outraged by the memos will be interested to know that their interpretation was based on a fundamental misapprehension of the nuances of their own language.

[silverbear]

The memo didn't say that. "Fixed around" is a phrase that means attached to or added to in Britain. An example would be putting a nut on a bolt. The British would say that you are fixing the nut around the bolt.

In the context in which the phrase "fixed around" was used in the DSM, it's obvious that it meant the intelligence was manipulated...

But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.

That doesn't mean that the intelligence and fact were being "added to" the policy... that means the facts were being EDITED to fit the policy...

[AtlCB]

In the context in which the phrase "fixed around" was used in the DSM, it's obvious that it meant the intelligence was manipulated...



That doesn't mean that the intelligence and fact were being "added to" the policy... that means the facts were being EDITED to fit the policy...
The British simply don't use the words that way. To fix something doesn't involve anything illegal or sinister in that language. The British strictly use the word to mean repair or attach to. Fix is not used as another word for alter, change, or influence in Britain.

[Sasquatch]

The British simply don't use the words that way. To fix something doesn't involve anything illegal or sinister in that language. The British strictly use the word to mean repair or attach to. Fix is not used as another word for alter, change, or influence in Britain.

Excerpted from a British newspaper:

Yes, they did lie to us
In the US the latest leaked memos are seen as a smoking gun on Iraq, but in Britain we are struggling to keep up

Jonathan Freedland
Wednesday June 22, 2005
Guardian

The best illustration of this strange reversal is the curious fate of the Downing Street memo. Leaked to the Sunday Times just before the election, it contained a slew of striking revelations. It minuted a meeting of Blair, Jack Straw, Geoff Hoon and a clutch of top officials back on July 23 2002 - when both Bush and Blair were adamant that no decision had been taken - and confirms that, on the contrary, Washington had resolved to go to war. Despite Straw's insistence that the case against Saddam was "thin", the course was set. According to the memo, Richard Dearlove, then head of MI6, explained that "Bush wanted to remove Saddam through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

As if that were not devastating enough - vindicating one of the anti-war camp's key charges, that the decision for war came first and the evidence was "fixed" to fit - the leaks have kept coming. In the past fortnight, six more documents have surfaced, their authenticity not challenged. One shows that Britain and the US heavily increased bombing raids on Iraq in the summer of 2002 - when London and Washington were still insisting that war was a last resort - even though the Foreign Office's own lawyers had advised that such action was illegal. These "spikes of activity" were aimed at provoking Saddam into action that might justify war. Other documents confirm that Blair had agreed to back regime change in the spring of 2002, that he was warned it was illegal and that ministers were told to "create the conditions" that would make it legal. Other gems include the admission that the threat from Saddam and WMD had not increased and that US attempts to link Baghdad to al-Qaida were "frankly unconvincing".

Full article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,5221251-103677,00.html


The claim that Britons do not use "fix" in the way that Sliverbear suggested is demonstrably false.

[BrAinPaiNt]

The British press and millions of Britons who were outraged by the memos will be interested to know that their interpretation was based on a fundamental misapprehension of the nuances of their own language.

:laugh2: :lmao: :bow:

Gold Jerry...GOLD.

[AtlCB]

Excerpted from a British newspaper:

Yes, they did lie to us
In the US the latest leaked memos are seen as a smoking gun on Iraq, but in Britain we are struggling to keep up

Jonathan Freedland
Wednesday June 22, 2005
Guardian

The best illustration of this strange reversal is the curious fate of the Downing Street memo. Leaked to the Sunday Times just before the election, it contained a slew of striking revelations. It minuted a meeting of Blair, Jack Straw, Geoff Hoon and a clutch of top officials back on July 23 2002 - when both Bush and Blair were adamant that no decision had been taken - and confirms that, on the contrary, Washington had resolved to go to war. Despite Straw's insistence that the case against Saddam was "thin", the course was set. According to the memo, Richard Dearlove, then head of MI6, explained that "Bush wanted to remove Saddam through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

As if that were not devastating enough - vindicating one of the anti-war camp's key charges, that the decision for war came first and the evidence was "fixed" to fit - the leaks have kept coming. In the past fortnight, six more documents have surfaced, their authenticity not challenged. One shows that Britain and the US heavily increased bombing raids on Iraq in the summer of 2002 - when London and Washington were still insisting that war was a last resort - even though the Foreign Office's own lawyers had advised that such action was illegal. These "spikes of activity" were aimed at provoking Saddam into action that might justify war. Other documents confirm that Blair had agreed to back regime change in the spring of 2002, that he was warned it was illegal and that ministers were told to "create the conditions" that would make it legal. Other gems include the admission that the threat from Saddam and WMD had not increased and that US attempts to link Baghdad to al-Qaida were "frankly unconvincing".

Full article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,5221251-103677,00.html


The claim that Britons do not use "fix" in the way that Sliverbear suggested is demonstrably false.
It may be regional. They'd give you a really strange look if you used the word that way in Bicester when I lived there.

[Sasquatch]

It may be regional. They'd give you a really strange look if you used the word that way in Bicester when I lived there.

If I were inclined, I could excerpt similar material from hundreds of articles, blogs, and commentaries from naturalized British citizens that support the obvious interpretation of the word "fixed" in the memo, but since the good folks of Bicester appeared to you to only use the word in a very limited sense, I suppose all that effort would be futile.

[heavyg]

As far as WMD goes why don't we ask the 1000's of people he used them on in the 80s. Oh wait we can't, we found them in mass graves. I really and truely believe the reason we didnt find any WMD is because we sat on our a$$es for several months debating with the UN about going in and getting them. All the while trucks upon trucks were seen going in and out of Bagdad. Hmmm wonder what they were doing? My problem with being in IRAQ is they really do not want us there. They just hated Suddam more than they hate us. No matter how long we stay there. No matter what system we set up. Soon as we leave there will be a civil war and another dictator will take over. That is thier way of life. We got Suddam out of power its time to move on.

[Crown Royal]

Vocal minority against it?

How does that explain how anti-gay marriage ballot propositions keep getting passed?

Because vocal minorities control elections. The general masss that might tend to agree in their ambivalence doesn't vote anyway, and certainly aren't motiated to do something they don't care about.

[AbeBeta]

Because vocal minorities control elections. The general masss that might tend to agree in their ambivalence doesn't vote anyway, and certainly aren't motiated to do something they don't care about.

Fascinating take.

In 2006, 8 of 9 states approved bans on gay marriage in the general election. The smallest margin of victory was 4%. In several states over 70% voted for the ban. In 2004, 13 states voted for bans. The smallest margin of victory was 14%, again many topped 70% in favor of a ban.

I'd really like for you to be right here but your argument clearly does not hold water against these data -- especially in the presidential election years

[Crown Royal]

Fascinating take.

In 2006, 8 of 9 states approved bans on gay marriage in the general election. The smallest margin of victory was 4%. In several states over 70% voted for the ban. In 2004, 13 states voted for bans. The smallest margin of victory was 14%, again many topped 70% in favor of a ban.

I'd really like for you to be right here but your argument clearly does not hold water against these data -- especially in the presidential election years
What parcentage of eligible (not registered) voters voted?

[AbeBeta]

What parcentage of eligible (not registered) voters voted?

Are you arguing that people who don't participate in the political process has any bearing on whether an issue is an important political topic? They didn't vote -- ascribe some opinion to them on any one topic is not a strong argument.

BTW -- when a state votes 83% to 17% against gay marriage, I'd think it is hard to say "vocal minority"

You may be confusing the people you know with the U.S. population at large - it is scary out there.

[Crown Royal]

Are you arguing that people who don't participate in the political process has any bearing on whether an issue is an important political topic? They didn't vote -- ascribe some opinion to them on any one topic is not a strong argument.

BTW -- when a state votes 83% to 17% against gay marriage, I'd think it is hard to say "vocal minority"

You may be confusing the people you know with the U.S. population at large - it is scary out there.

I wasn't arguing anything for whether it is an important topic. I was arguing that in my experience across the country (I travel everywhere in the US), that it doesn't seem to me that the general lay person cares too much.

If 20-40 % of people who are eligible to vote actually vote, then yes, I would say that the vocal minority is contributing to policy decisions. Considering that less than 51% would be a minority.

[Crown Royal]

Just did some research - looks like about 60% of the country turned out to vote in 2004, and about 45-48% in 2006. So with those percentages, I stand corrected. I suppose it isn't just the vocal minority.

But that still doesn't make it an important topic to me.

[AbeBeta]

Just did some research - looks like about 60% of the country turned out to vote in 2004, and about 45-48% in 2006. So with those percentages, I stand corrected. I suppose it isn't just the vocal minority.

But that still doesn't make it an important topic to me.

It's OK buddy -- you'll get older and more jaded with regard to your fellow citizens.

[Crown Royal]

It's OK buddy -- you'll get older and more jaded with regard to your fellow citizens.

People do things everyday to jade me. I used to be plenty of an aggravating cynic. I have learned that cynicism doesn't bother me at all.

And I still don't see how getting older would make the issue mean more to me. I have other issues that concern me more.

[silverbear]

It may be regional. They'd give you a really strange look if you used the word that way in Bicester when I lived there.

They never talk about a fight being "fixed", or a horse race??

Excuse me if I don't believe you... like us, the Brits from time to time use the word "fixed" to mean RIGGED... the Downing Street Memo is clearly an example of that... read the report, and to define fixed the way you do in that context, it makes absolutely NO sense...

[AbeBeta]

People do things everyday to jade me. I used to be plenty of an aggravating cynic. I have learned that cynicism doesn't bother me at all.

And I still don't see how getting older would make the issue mean more to me. I have other issues that concern me more.

I didn't mean that it would mean more -- but that you'd have a better perspective on how screwed up people in this country are over this issue -- I'm married and do not see gay people being allowed to do the same as any sort of affront to my marriage. But I do realize that many people do think that -- to me, it is a city/country distinction - when I lived in the city I used to think that nobody cared about the issue -- and if they did they were all pro. Now that I've lived in the rural U.S. -- even on the "liberal" West Coast -- I know that people are just not rational about gay marriage.

[trickblue]

Are you arguing that people who don't participate in the political process has any bearing on whether an issue is an important political topic? They didn't vote -- ascribe some opinion to them on any one topic is not a strong argument.

BTW -- when a state votes 83% to 17% against gay marriage, I'd think it is hard to say "vocal minority"

You may be confusing the people you know with the U.S. population at large - it is scary out there.

It's a vocal minority because routinely, in most states, the majority doesn't vote.

Whether or not they speak for the country, no one knows, but the fact remains that the "Vocal Minority" decide elections in this country...

Now, I can't tell you why, but they just don't. So, the minority that is concerned goes out and votes.

Judging by a lot of the people I know, I would rather they NOT vote. It is amazing to me how uninformed people are. I would rather them stay home than go out and vote blindly by party...

[silverbear]

As far as WMD goes why don't we ask the 1000's of people he used them on in the 80s. Oh wait we can't, we found them in mass graves.

Nobody's saying he didn't once have, and use, WMDs... we're saying that at the time of the invasion of Iraq, he didn't have any FUNCTIONAL WMDs...

I really and truely believe the reason we didnt find any WMD is because we sat on our a$$es for several months debating with the UN about going in and getting them. All the while trucks upon trucks were seen going in and out of Bagdad. Hmmm wonder what they were doing?

Too bad for you that none of the agencies that have investigated the WMDs issue has found ANY evidence to support your little conspiracy theory...

Soon as we leave there will be a civil war and another dictator will take over.

Well, you're right about that, only the civil war is already underway...

What I'd suggest is that for the rest of the world outside of Iraq, such a development would not be catastrophic... look at what happened when we left Vietnam, the country tore itself apart, then North Vietnam "won", there was some brutal repression of those in the South... and ultimately, things settled down, and Vietnam got on with the process of rebuilding itself... the world did not end, the rest of Southeast Asia did not "go communist", as the proponents of the Domino Theory assured us will happen...

That's what I figure will happen in Iraq if we finally get out of there; the civil war will be intense but brief, one faction will win, there will be brutal reprisals against the other factions... and the rest of the world will be fairly unaffected, and in the fullness of time, things will settle down in that country...

Now, I don't LIKE the thought of Iraq going through a period of intense violence and repression, but at this point it seems to be inevitable... so it would seem to me to make sense to get it over with sooner rather than later...

[trickblue]

Too bad for you that none of the agencies that have investigated the WMDs issue has found ANY evidence to support your little conspiracy theory...

Seriously sb...

Do you not think weapons were moved to Syria in the many months we waited to invade?

[silverbear]

Seriously sb...

Do you not think weapons were moved to Syria in the many months we waited to invade?

Nope, I don't believe they ever existed... so, apparently, does every major investigative organization that looked into the claims of WMDs...

He once HAD a program, but after Desert Storm, it was pretty well dismantled... after that, he kept hinting that he still had WMDs, to keep Iran and his other enemies afraid... but I don't believe he had anything resembling an active WMDs program... now, I do believe he had the capability to REBUILD the program in rather short order, but he did not have WMDs...

If I believed that he did, but we just let them "get away", then I wouldn't be pissed at Dubya for this war...

If anything went to Syria during the ramp up to the invasion, I figure it was money, art, valuable things that Saddam could later live on if he was driven from his country...

[AbeBeta]

It's a vocal minority because routinely, in most states, the majority doesn't vote.

Whether or not they speak for the country, no one knows, but the fact remains that the "Vocal Minority" decide elections in this country...

Now, I can't tell you why, but they just don't. So, the minority that is concerned goes out and votes.

Judging by a lot of the people I know, I would rather they NOT vote. It is amazing to me how uninformed people are. I would rather them stay home than go out and vote blindly by party...

A vocal minority decides close votes -- for example, the 2004 election was clearly swung by high turnouts of religious voters who tend to vote red. But when you see 81% in favor of a gay marriage ban in an election where most states had 60% turnout then it is clearly not just the minority.

I really wish that it was just a minority who feel that denying a group true equality is the "American way" -- but that isn't the case.

Although there are tons of idiots who I don't want deciding -- or being in office -- I feel that we need to move to a mandatory voting system like those in place in several other nations. I'd far rather that votes reflect the will of all the people rather than close elections being swung by turnout issues.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Political Reform, first and formost.

Gotta get these professional politicians out of office. Special intrest groups, warchest funding, two party system that is basically the same damn thing, political reform is what I would do first.

[Sasquatch]

I feel that we need to move to a mandatory voting system l

Could you elaborate on this? Thanks.

[Sasquatch]

If I believed that he did, but we just let them "get away", then I wouldn't be pissed at Dubya for this war...

Only for bungling it and letting the WMD get away? ;)

The whole "the WMD were smuggled to Syria" argument is a logical contradiction in the sense that one has to believe that US intelligence is competent enough to know they existed in the first place but not competent enough to detect their transfer across an international border.

[AbeBeta]

Could you elaborate on this? Thanks.

Everyone votes. Not just those motivated by a specific issue or those who believe they are the political "elite"

[trickblue]

Only for bungling it and letting the WMD get away? ;)

The whole "the WMD were smuggled to Syria" argument is a logical contradiction in the sense that one has to believe that US intelligence is competent enough to know they existed in the first place but not competent enough to detect their transfer across an international border.

You can't pick and chose Black Helicopter you are going to ride in... :D

[Sasquatch]

Everyone votes. Not just those motivated by a specific issue or those who believe they are the political "elite"

I inferred that, but how do you force people to vote? How does it work?

[ABQCOWBOY]

I inferred that, but how do you force people to vote? How does it work?


You tie it to pay checks. That's how you get them to vote.

[Sasquatch]

You tie it to pay checks. That's how you get them to vote.

You don't vote, you don't get paid?

[AbeBeta]

I inferred that, but how do you force people to vote? How does it work?

The day of the election is a holiday. Everyone who is legal age is automatically registered. Those who do not cast a vote, in several countries, receive a fine - often a steep one unless they can document a legitimate reason for missing the vote.

I know this will for some people go against the grain but it forces candidates to engage everyone. I know several people who moved to the U.S. from countries with mandatory voting -- they all believe that on average their country's people are far more politically interested and educated (this despite hating nearly ever other aspect of their former homes). Also, they are just plain shocked that we have such low turnouts.

[AbeBeta]

You tie it to pay checks. That's how you get them to vote.

In Bolivia, I believe they do that.

[Sasquatch]

The day of the election is a holiday. Everyone who is legal age is automatically registered. Those who do not cast a vote, in several countries, receive a fine - often a steep one unless they can document a legitimate reason for missing the vote.

I know this will for some people go against the grain but it forces candidates to engage everyone. I know several people who moved to the U.S. from countries with mandatory voting -- they all believe that on average their country's people are far more politically interested and educated (this despite hating nearly ever other aspect of their former homes). Also, they are just plain shocked that we have such low turnouts.

If you read my initial response to this thread, you know I'm a big fan of this. I would add instant run-off voting as well, so people can vote for their first choice candidate without worrying about handing the election to their least favorite one.

[ABQCOWBOY]

You don't vote, you don't get paid?

Pretty much.

[Crown Royal]

While I see the benefit of the required voting/fines, etc., I don't know that I believe in it. It seems to take something away from liberty to me.

I have never really thought about it though, and will do so now.

[junk]

The day of the election is a holiday. Everyone who is legal age is automatically registered. Those who do not cast a vote, in several countries, receive a fine - often a steep one unless they can document a legitimate reason for missing the vote.

I know this will for some people go against the grain but it forces candidates to engage everyone. I know several people who moved to the U.S. from countries with mandatory voting -- they all believe that on average their country's people are far more politically interested and educated (this despite hating nearly ever other aspect of their former homes). Also, they are just plain shocked that we have such low turnouts.

No offense, but I think this is a terrible idea.

First, think of the overhead in implementing this. Not just the missed work time, but the overhead of overseeing and implementing a fine based system for voters.

You'll also end up with people forced to vote who didn't research the issues or candidates. Granted, you might get a higher percentage of voters who are more tuned into the current political climate, but you'll also get a very large percentage who just show up and check boxes.

Finally, isn't the right to vote just that? A right that we should have the ability to exercise if we choose?

I'll certainly agree the voting process leaves a lot to be desired, but I don't think forcing people to vote is the answer.

[Crown Royal]

No offense, but I think this is a terrible idea.

First, think of the overhead in implementing this. Not just the missed work time, but the overhead of overseeing and implementing a fine based system for voters.

You'll also end up with people forced to vote who didn't research the issues or candidates. Granted, you might get a higher percentage of voters who are more tuned into the current political climate, but you'll also get a very large percentage who just show up and check boxes.

Finally, isn't the right to vote just that? A right that we should have the ability to exercise if we choose?

I'll certainly agree the voting process leaves a lot to be desired, but I don't think forcing people to vote is the answer.
This is a little of my initial thoughts. Like I said a bit ago - I don't have a firm opinion on it - required voting isn't something I have ever thought about, so I am just thinking aloud.

But your comment that it's a right to vote, not a requirement, is what I initially thought of. I think everyone SHOULD vote, but not that one should make everyone vote. It's sort of like I wish more people would make the conscious decision to be a vegetarian, but I would never dream of making people do it.

[ABQCOWBOY]

While I see the benefit of the required voting/fines, etc., I don't know that I believe in it. It seems to take something away from liberty to me.

I have never really thought about it though, and will do so now.

In my opinion, and it is only my opinion, it is very little to ask for. Vote in order to keep the freedoms and substantial bennifits you currently enjoy because of the political system in place. Even if your vote is to obstain, just vote.

[Crown Royal]

In my opinion, and it is only my opinion, it is very little to ask for. Vote in order to keep the freedoms and substantial bennifits you currently enjoy because of the political system in place. Even if your vote is to obstain, just vote.

But when you are attacking people's income, you are no longer 'asking' for it. You are saying vote, or else.

I agree - I wish more people would vote. I can't express how many arguments I have ended with the simple question of 'who did YOU vote for?' But being the libertarian I am, I have a distaste for government saying that you have to take an active role in government.

[gbrittain]

http://www.glennbeck.com/news/01302004.shtml

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 | Source

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 | Source

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 | Source

[Sasquatch]

While I see the benefit of the required voting/fines, etc., I don't know that I believe in it. It seems to take something away from liberty to me.

I have never really thought about it though, and will do so now.

I would support a fine but definitely not withholding pay, which is way too heavy-handed for my tastes. But I don't see anything wrong with making voting a "civic responsibility." We're fined for not paying taxes, so why not voting, which seems just as essential for the functioning of our country.

[BrAinPaiNt]

I would support a fine but definitely not withholding pay, which is way too heavy-handed for my tastes. But I don't see anything wrong with making voting a "civic responsibility." We're fined for not paying taxes, so why not voting, which seems just as essential for the functioning of our country.

Think of it like registering when you turn 18.

I think required voting would be a good idea as long as they have a none of the above type category.:D

[peplaw06]

But when you are attacking people's income, you are no longer 'asking' for it. You are saying vote, or else.

I agree - I wish more people would vote. I can't express how many arguments I have ended with the simple question of 'who did YOU vote for?' But being the libertarian I am, I have a distaste for government saying that you have to take an active role in government.Agreed.

Most non-voters do so because of apathy, but there are also some who choose NOT to vote. You would also be taking that right away from people. Forcing people to vote IMO just sounds wrong. I'm sure if you could force them to vote, the next step would be forcing them to vote FOR somebody/something.

[Crown Royal]

I would support a fine but definitely not withholding pay, which is way too heavy-handed for my tastes. But I don't see anything wrong with making voting a "civic responsibility." We're fined for not paying taxes, so why not voting, which seems just as essential for the functioning of our country.

Perhaps, but I am not so sure I view voting as a civic responsibility as I do a right. There is a distinction there. Perhaps I prefer to take as little role in a government as possible, because I disagree with the form of it. Perhaps I don't vote because I understand that my vote might not be the most intelligent. I don't know - I do vote, and since I have never considered the subject, I am not sure of the reasoning for people not to. But even then, apathy is something that people feel, and it is their right. You can't force people to care about something.

[Sasquatch]

Perhaps, but I am not so sure I view voting as a civic responsibility as I do a right. There is a distinction there. Perhaps I prefer to take as little role in a government as possible, because I disagree with the form of it. Perhaps I don't vote because I understand that my vote might not be the most intelligent. I don't know - I do vote, and since I have never considered the subject, I am not sure of the reasoning for people not to. But even then, apathy is something that people feel, and it is their right. You can't force people to care about something.

We impose fines for all kinds of conduct deemed detrimental to society (exceeding the speed limit, littering, urinating in public, etc.) so why not a modest fine for conduct detrimental to democracy (i.e. apathy)?

[ABQCOWBOY]

But when you are attacking people's income, you are no longer 'asking' for it. You are saying vote, or else.

I agree - I wish more people would vote. I can't express how many arguments I have ended with the simple question of 'who did YOU vote for?' But being the libertarian I am, I have a distaste for government saying that you have to take an active role in government.


That's right. If your going to bennifit from the economic landscape that is supported by the government that exists to help that economy thrive, then you better vote. It is the only way to ensure that the people are always in play.

IMO, it is not a right to not vote. I don't say that you have to vote for a candidate or a party but I do say that you have to show up and at least vote to obstain. There is no excuse for not getting out of bed and taking your butt to the pools to cast a vote. Not if you are bennifiting from the political system in this country.

[gbrittain]

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/



Text Of Clinton Statement On Iraq
Text of President Clinton's address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff:

Please be seated. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Vice President, for your remarks and your leadership. Thank you, Secretary Cohen, for the superb job you have done here at the Pentagon and on this most recent very difficult problem. Thank you, General Shelton, for being the right person at the right time.

Thank you, General Ralston, and the members of the joint chiefs, General Zinni, Secretary Albright, Secretary Slater, DCIA Tenet, Mr. Bowles, Mr. Berger, Senator Robb thank you for being here and Congressman Skelton. Thank you very much, and for your years of service to America and your passionate patriotism both of you. And to the members of our armed forces and others who work here to protect our national security.

I have just received a very fine briefing from our military leadership on the status of our forces in the Persian Gulf. Before I left the Pentagon, I wanted to talk to you and all those whom you represent the men and women of our military. You, your friends and your colleagues are on the front lines of this crisis in Iraq.

I want you, and I want the American people, to hear directly from me what is at stake for America in the Persian Gulf, what we are doing to protect the peace, the security, the freedom we cherish, why we have taken the position we have taken.

I was thinking as I sat up here on the platform, of the slogan that the first lady gave me for her project on the millennium, which was, remembering the past and imagining the future.

Now, for that project, that means preserving the Star Spangled Banner and the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and it means making an unprecedented commitment to medical research and to get the best of the new technology. But that's not a bad slogan for us when we deal with more sober, more difficult, more dangerous matters.

Those who have questioned the United States in this moment, I would argue, are living only in the moment. They have neither remembered the past nor imagined the future.

So first, let's just take a step back and consider why meeting the threat posed by Saddam Hussein is important to our security in the new era we are entering.

This is a time of tremendous promise for America. The superpower confrontation has ended; on every continent democracy is securing for more and more people the basic freedoms we Americans have come to take for granted. Bit by bit the information age is chipping away at the barriers economic, political and social that once kept people locked in and freedom and prosperity locked out.

But for all our promise, all our opportunity, people in this room know very well that this is not a time free from peril, especially as a result of reckless acts of outlaw nations and an unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers and organized international criminals.

We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st century. They feed on the free flow of information and technology. They actually take advantage of the freer movement of people, information and ideas.

And they will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen.

There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq. His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region and the security of all the rest of us.

I want the American people to understand first the past how did this crisis come about?

And I want them to understand what we must do to protect the national interest, and indeed the interest of all freedom-loving people in the world.

Remember, as a condition of the cease-fire after the Gulf War, the United Nations demanded not the United States the United Nations demanded, and Saddam Hussein agreed to declare within 15 days this is way back in 1991 within 15 days his nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them, to make a total declaration. That's what he promised to do.

The United Nations set up a special commission of highly trained international experts called UNSCOM, to make sure that Iraq made good on that commitment. We had every good reason to insist that Iraq disarm. Saddam had built up a terrible arsenal, and he had used it not once, but many times, in a decade-long war with Iran, he used chemical weapons, against combatants, against civilians, against a foreign adversary, and even against his own people.

And during the Gulf War, Saddam launched Scuds against Saudi Arabia, Israel and Bahrain.

Now, instead of playing by the very rules he agreed to at the end of the Gulf War, Saddam has spent the better part of the past decade trying to cheat on this solemn commitment. Consider just some of the facts:

Iraq repeatedly made false declarations about the weapons that it had left in its possession after the Gulf War. When UNSCOM would then uncover evidence that gave lie to those declarations, Iraq would simply amend the reports.

For example, Iraq revised its nuclear declarations four times within just 14 months and it has submitted six different biological warfare declarations, each of which has been rejected by UNSCOM.

In 1995, Hussein Kamal, Saddam's son-in-law, and the chief organizer of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program, defected to Jordan. He revealed that Iraq was continuing to conceal weapons and missiles and the capacity to build many more.

Then and only then did Iraq admit to developing numbers of weapons in significant quantities and weapon stocks. Previously, it had vehemently denied the very thing it just simply admitted once Saddam Hussein's son-in-law defected to Jordan and told the truth. Now listen to this, what did it admit?

It admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs.

And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production.

As if we needed further confirmation, you all know what happened to his son-in-law when he made the untimely decision to go back to Iraq.

Next, throughout this entire process, Iraqi agents have undermined and undercut UNSCOM. They've harassed the inspectors, lied to them, disabled monitoring cameras, literally spirited evidence out of the back doors of suspect facilities as inspectors walked through the front door. And our people were there observing it and had the pictures to prove it.

Despite Iraq's deceptions, UNSCOM has nevertheless done a remarkable job. Its inspectors the eyes and ears of the civilized world have uncovered and destroyed more weapons of mass destruction capacity than was destroyed during the Gulf War.

This includes nearly 40,000 chemical weapons, more than 100,000 gallons of chemical weapons agents, 48 operational missiles, 30 warheads specifically fitted for chemical and biological weapons, and a massive biological weapons facility at Al Hakam equipped to produce anthrax and other deadly agents.

Over the past few months, as they have come closer and closer to rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions.

By imposing debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites which have still not been inspected off limits, including, I might add, one palace in Baghdad more than 2,600 acres large by comparison, when you hear all this business about presidential sites reflect our sovereignty, why do you want to come into a residence, the White House complex is 18 acres. So you'll have some feel for this.

One of these presidential sites is about the size of Washington, D.C. That's about how many acres did you tell me it was? 40,000 acres. We're not talking about a few rooms here with delicate personal matters involved.

It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them.

The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons.

Now, against that background, let us remember the past here. It is against that background that we have repeatedly and unambiguously made clear our preference for a diplomatic solution.

The inspection system works. The inspection system has worked in the face of lies, stonewalling, obstacle after obstacle after obstacle. The people who have done that work deserve the thanks of civilized people throughout the world.

It has worked. That is all we want. And if we can find a diplomatic way to do what has to be done, to do what he promised to do at the end of the Gulf War, to do what should have been done within 15 days within 15 days of the agreement at the end of the Gulf War, if we can find a diplomatic way to do that, that is by far our preference.

But to be a genuine solution, and not simply one that glosses over the remaining problem, a diplomatic solution must include or meet a clear, immutable, reasonable, simple standard.

Iraq must agree and soon, to free, full, unfettered access to these sites anywhere in the country. There can be no dilution or diminishment of the integrity of the inspection system that UNSCOM has put in place.

Now those terms are nothing more or less than the essence of what he agreed to at the end of the Gulf War. The Security Council, many times since, has reiterated this standard. If he accepts them, force will not be necessary. If he refuses or continues to evade his obligations through more tactics of delay and deception, he and he alone will be to blame for the consequences.

I ask all of you to remember the record here what he promised to do within 15 days of the end of the Gulf War, what he repeatedly refused to do, what we found out in 1995, what the inspectors have done against all odds. We have no business agreeing to any resolution of this that does not include free, unfettered access to the remaining sites by people who have integrity and proven confidence in the inspection business. That should be our standard. That's what UNSCOM has done, and that's why I have been fighting for it so hard. And that's why the United States should insist upon it.

Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made?

Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction.

And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal. And I think every one of you who's really worked on this for any length of time believes that, too.

Now we have spent several weeks building up our forces in the Gulf, and building a coalition of like-minded nations. Our force posture would not be possible without the support of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, the GCC states and Turkey. Other friends and allies have agreed to provide forces, bases or logistical support, including the United Kingdom, Germany, Spain and Portugal, Denmark and the Netherlands, Hungary and Poland and the Czech Republic, Argentina, Iceland, Australia and New Zealand and our friends and neighbors in Canada.

That list is growing, not because anyone wants military action, but because there are people in this world who believe the United Nations resolutions should mean something, because they understand what UNSCOM has achieved, because they remember the past, and because they can imagine what the future will be depending on what we do now.

If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program. We want to seriously reduce his capacity to threaten his neighbors.

I am quite confident, from the briefing I have just received from our military leaders, that we can achieve the objective and secure our vital strategic interests.

Let me be clear: A military operation cannot destroy all the weapons of mass destruction capacity. But it can and will leave him significantly worse off than he is now in terms of the ability to threaten the world with these weapons or to attack his neighbors.

And he will know that the international community continues to have a will to act if and when he threatens again. Following any strike, we will carefully monitor Iraq's activities with all the means at our disposal. If he seeks to rebuild his weapons of mass destruction, we will be prepared to strike him again.

The economic sanctions will remain in place until Saddam complies fully with all U.N. resolutions.

Consider this already these sanctions have denied him $110 billion. Imagine how much stronger his armed forces would be today, how many more weapons of mass destruction operations he would have hidden around the country if he had been able to spend even a small fraction of that amount for a military rebuilding.

We will continue to enforce a no-fly zone from the southern suburbs of Baghdad to the Kuwait border and in northern Iraq, making it more difficult for Iraq to walk over Kuwait again or threaten the Kurds in the north.

Now, let me say to all of you here as all of you know the weightiest decision any president ever has to make is to send our troops into harm's way. And force can never be the first answer. But sometimes, it's the only answer.

You are the best prepared, best equipped, best trained fighting force in the world. And should it prove necessary for me to exercise the option of force, your commanders will do everything they can to protect the safety of all the men and women under their command.

No military action, however, is risk-free. I know that the people we may call upon in uniform are ready. The American people have to be ready as well.

Dealing with Saddam Hussein requires constant vigilance. We have seen that constant vigilance pays off. But it requires constant vigilance. Since the Gulf War, we have pushed back every time Saddam has posed a threat.

When Baghdad plotted to assassinate former President Bush, we struck hard at Iraq's intelligence headquarters.

When Saddam threatened another invasion by amassing his troops in Kuwait along the Kuwaiti border in 1994, we immediately deployed our troops, our ships, our planes, and Saddam backed down.

When Saddam forcefully occupied Irbil in northern Iraq, we broadened our control over Iraq's skies by extending the no-fly zone.

But there is no better example, again I say, than the U.N. weapons inspection system itself. Yes, he has tried to thwart it in every conceivable way, but the discipline, determination, year-in-year-out effort of these weapons inspectors is doing the job. And we seek to finish the job. Let there be no doubt, we are prepared to act.

But Saddam Hussein could end this crisis tomorrow simply by letting the weapons inspectors complete their mission. He made a solemn commitment to the international community to do that and to give up his weapons of mass destruction a long time ago now. One way or the other, we are determined to see that he makes good on his own promise.

Saddam Hussein's Iraq reminds us of what we learned in the 20th century and warns us of what we must know about the 21st. In this century, we learned through harsh experience that the only answer to aggression and illegal behavior is firmness, determination, and when necessary action.

In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.

If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program.

But if we act as one, we can safeguard our interests and send a clear message to every would-be tyrant and terrorist that the international community does have the wisdom and the will and the way to protect peace and security in a new era. That is the future I ask you all to imagine. That is the future I ask our allies to imagine.

If we look at the past and imagine that future, we will act as one together. And we still have, God willing, a chance to find a diplomatic resolution to this, and if not, God willing, the chance to do the right thing for our children and grandchildren.

Thank you very much.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Agreed.

Most non-voters do so because of apathy, but there are also some who choose NOT to vote. You would also be taking that right away from people. Forcing people to vote IMO just sounds wrong. I'm sure if you could force them to vote, the next step would be forcing them to vote FOR somebody/something.


This is like saying "Forcing people to wear seat belts is wrong. Next thing you know, they'll be forcing you to buy only cars with seat belts in them."

If you keep the peoples vote strong and in play, that is the best guarantee against ever having any group dictate who or what you will vote for. This is the best possible defense to insure the people are deciding who and what runs the country. Right or wrong, the decisions should be coming from the people.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Perhaps, but I am not so sure I view voting as a civic responsibility as I do a right. There is a distinction there. Perhaps I prefer to take as little role in a government as possible, because I disagree with the form of it. Perhaps I don't vote because I understand that my vote might not be the most intelligent. I don't know - I do vote, and since I have never considered the subject, I am not sure of the reasoning for people not to. But even then, apathy is something that people feel, and it is their right. You can't force people to care about something.


The problem here is that if government is to continue, somebody has to care about it. Is it better to have people choose not to care about it and burden those who must care in order for it to survive? Or, is it better to say, if your going to take part in the advantages provided by your government, you must share in it's burden of support?

[Crown Royal]

All excellent points on voting. I am still without a decision, but will continue to think on it.

[ABQCOWBOY]

All excellent points on voting. I am still without a decision, but will continue to think on it.


That's all you can ask for Crown. In essence, a mandatory vote with the option of obstention is nothing more then what you yourself are proposing in your last response. Your making the effort to at least consider what is going on. Even if your decide that you can't support any of the options, you have at least made the effort, while at the same time, always forcing the candidates or political parties to keep mindful of the peoples right to elect. There in lies the real importance of manditory voting IMO. So long as the candidates know that the people are going to show up and they can vote for or against, they can't isolate any single group and try to influence them through special interests tactics. That's why it's important.

[Sasquatch]

That's why it's important.

And that's why none of the major candidates are talking about it.

[ABQCOWBOY]

And that's why none of the major candidates are talking about it.


Yes. That's exactly why.

[AbeBeta]

Withholding pay is too much -- Australia has a fine system - about $20-$100

This whole "right to not vote" thing is a silly argument to me. As is the overhead argument. Moving voting from right to responsibility is not an affront to our liberties rather it helps ensure that everyone can participate - in general, the crappy your job the less likely that you can get time off to vote. There is certainly a motivation for excluding folks in that situation.

Regarding overhead, we have other national holidays and they aren't breaking the bank now are they? Everyone is automatically registered -- this can be tied to the new national ID card program. That should actually SAVE money since it will reduce all the processing and mailing of voter registration cards. The fine system will not be difficult to automatically generate either. Again, the reduced cost of registration should offset that.

[superpunk]

Withholding pay is too much -- Australia has a fine system - about $20-$100

This whole "right to not vote" thing is a silly argument to me. As is the overhead argument. Moving voting from right to responsibility is not an affront to our liberties rather it helps ensure that everyone can participate - in general, the crappy your job the less likely that you can get time off to vote. There is certainly a motivation for excluding folks in that situation.

Regarding overhead, we have other national holidays and they aren't breaking the bank now are they? Everyone is automatically registered -- this can be tied to the new national ID card program. That should actually SAVE money since it will reduce all the processing and mailing of voter registration cards. The fine system will not be difficult to automatically generate either. Again, the reduced cost of registration should offset that.
There's plenty of opportunity for anyone, no matter their work circumstances, to vote. Polls open early, close late, and they're all over the place. People just don't vote because they just don't care. And demanding that they start caring, or else you'll fine them, withold pay, or not give them a monetary reward is just stupid - and you'd be begging for irresponsible votes from people who are just showing up to avoid the fine and write-in a vote for Mickey Mouse.

[AbeBeta]

There's plenty of opportunity for anyone, no matter their work circumstances, to vote. Polls open early, close late, and they're all over the place. People just don't vote because they just don't care. And demanding that they start caring, or else you'll fine them, withold pay, or not give them a monetary reward is just stupid - and you'd be begging for irresponsible votes from people who are just showing up to avoid the fine and write-in a vote for Mickey Mouse.

After seeing where "responsible" voters have gotten us recently, I'm all for requiring the Mickey Mouse club to cast ballots.

[ABQCOWBOY]

After seeing where "responsible" voters have gotten us recently, I'm all for requiring the Mickey Mouse club to cast ballots.

LOL.......

Well said Abs.

:laugh2:

[CowboyJeff]

1 - Completely secure the northern and southern borders of the U.S. This should have been completed prior to any military action.

2 - Educating anyone and everyone about the real Islam. If you think it's a peaceful religion, you seriously need to read the Qur'an in its entirety. I did.

3 - Healthcare reform. It's unthinkable that US pharmaceutical companies charge Americans $150 for the same inhaler that Cubans pay 50 cents for. It should be the reverse. US pharmaceutical companies should be charging everyone else $150 per inhaler while Americans pay only 50 cents.

4 - Eliminate all PAC money.

5 - Make Tom Landry's birthday a Federal Holiday :)

[Crown Royal]

2 - Educating anyone and everyone about the real Islam. If you think it's a peaceful religion, you seriously need to read the Qur'an in its entirety. I did.


In that case, I suppose we should also teach everyone about Christianity, Buddhism, Hindu, Sikh, Rasta, Voodoo, Pagan/Wicca, Scientology, etc.?

[CowboyJeff]

In that case, I suppose we should also teach everyone about Christianity, Buddhism, Hindu, Sikh, Rasta, Voodoo, Pagan/Wicca, Scientology, etc.?

That is a well-intentioned, politically-correct response. However, how many Christianians, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, Rastas, Voodoo, Pagans/Wiccas, Scientologists who follow their religion to the letter (as it is written) are actively killing "non-believers" (aka infidels) because their religion permits it? I cannot name one.

And just for the record, Buddhists typically are the most peaceful of all organized religions.

[BrAinPaiNt]

That is a well-intentioned, politically-correct response. However, how many Christianians, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, Rastas, Voodoo, Pagans/Wiccas, Scientologists who follow their religion to the letter (as it is written) are actively killing "non-believers" (aka infidels) because their religion permits it? I cannot name one.

And just for the record, Buddhists typically are the most peaceful of all organized religions.

A christian president that is the commander in chief talking about the axis of evil, that god does influence his decisions sending an american army into a country that did not attack us...might be considered in helping kill a "few" people.

Just something to think about.:D

[ConcordCowboy]

A christian president that is the commander in chief talking about the axis of evil, that god does influence his decisions sending an american army into a country that did not attack us...might be considered in helping kill a "few" people.

Just something to think about.:D

:laugh2:



http://img.timeinc.net/time/daily/2002/0202/bush0204.jpg...Damn You to Hell Brain!

[Crown Royal]

A christian president that is the commander in chief talking about the axis of evil, that god does influence his decisions sending an american army into a country that did not attack us...might be considered in helping kill a "few" people.

Just something to think about.:D

This was going to be my response.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Pretty hard on Bush guys. He didn't exactly ask for the Towers to be burned down and he wasn't alone in calling for war.

[Sasquatch]

That is a well-intentioned, politically-correct response. However, how many Christianians, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, Rastas, Voodoo, Pagans/Wiccas, Scientologists who follow their religion to the letter (as it is written) are actively killing "non-believers" (aka infidels) because their religion permits it? I cannot name one.

And just for the record, Buddhists typically are the most peaceful of all organized religions.

Estimates of Iraqi civilian deaths that have resulted from our bungled invasion are anywhere between 150,000-600,000. Should we educate our population about ourselves? Our government, on our behalf, kills people in the name of protecting our "vital interests" even when we are not physically attacked. Granted, the resulting innocent deaths may not be deliberate in the sense that we target them specifically, but they are deliberate in the sense that we make a conscious decision to go in knowing that significant civilian causalities will result. How many have died at the hands of Muslim extremists?

What we need to educate people about is that extremism and violence in general, whatever their ideological and religious origins, are an antiquated, ineffective, and unacceptable way to resolve conflict.

[superpunk]

A christian president that is the commander in chief talking about the axis of evil, that god does influence his decisions sending an american army into a country that did not attack us...might be considered in helping kill a "few" people.

Just something to think about.:D

It's pretty clear that he isn't "Christian" - or not a christian following his religion to the letter of the law, as Jeff described. I mean, he follows alot of it, I guess. Just not the parts about not killing others, bloodguilt, greed, haughtiness, or some other things.

So he's ike 8% Christian.

So he can pretty much d whatever the hell he wants.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Lets be careful guys. I think we're skirting the religious discussion peramiters here.

:D

[Crown Royal]

Estimates of Iraqi civilian deaths that have resulted from our bungled invasion are anywhere between 150,000-600,000. Should we educate our population about ourselves? Our government, on our behalf, kills people in the name of protecting our "vital interests" even when we are not physically attacked. Granted, the resulting innocent deaths may not be deliberate in the sense that we target them specifically, but they are deliberate in the sense that we make a conscious decision to go in knowing that significant civilian causalities will result. How many have died at the hands of Muslim extremists?

What we need to educate people about is that extremism and violence in general, whatever their ideological and religious origins, are an antiquated, ineffective, and unacceptable way to resolve conflict.


This is a very good post. To profess that people should know about the 'true Islam' seems silly to me - there is always a group that is willing to kill and die for their beliefs. It would be like educating people on the Real Communists, or the Real Japanese (WWII), or the real Chechnyans. Islamic Terror is 20 years old which, while a long time, is not something that we have been going through for a while.

In my humble opinion, so much of this is reaping what was sowed in the 40s when the west decided that they needed to shape the Middle East.

[ConcordCowboy]

Pretty hard on Bush guys. He didn't exactly ask for the Towers to be burned down and he wasn't alone in calling for war.


The Towers had nothing to do with Iraq.

Please let's get past that.

Osama Bin Laden is the one that was at fault.

Bush never says his name anymore...Why? Because he hasn't caught or killed the man that caused the biggest terrorist attack on US soil...Ever.

On his watch.

Being hard on Bush?

I think not.

[CowboyJeff]

A christian president that is the commander in chief talking about the axis of evil, that god does influence his decisions sending an american army into a country that did not attack us...might be considered in helping kill a "few" people.

Just something to think about.:D

Brainpaint, thanks for that post. I’m glad to get a good dialogue going. While the war against Islam (yes I know, the politically correct terminology is The War Against Terror) officially began in 2001 when Bush took office (and I’m no Bush supporter), the War Against The Infidels began hundreds of years earlier. We are now finally entering the war in an informal manner. However, let's use your analogy: We cannot say that Bin Laden, the Taliban, Al Qaeda, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the rest of the silent voices during 9/11 are fringe lunatic crazies. They are just as organized, methodical, and deadly as our U.S. military, and bin Laden is seen as the George Washington of Islam in the eyes of hundreds of millions of Muslims worldwide. Thinking otherwise is just one of the common uninformed mistakes people have in this politically correct era. We all like the lone-assassin theory because it’s neat and the thought of a billion Muslims wanting to kill all of us would make it too scary to sleep at night. Like our U.S. military is taking their orders from a Commander in Chief, the true believers are taking their orders from the Qur'an. Everything that is happening in the Islamic world today is written in the Qur'an.

The Good News: Here is the main difference between the U.S. military and the jihadists: You will never hear or be able to find any historical reference of any US President or US Military commander invoking the name of his creator in his religious belief system when he/she kills people. Truman never said, “In the name of I drop Fat Boy on thee.” Kennedy never said, “Mr. Khrushchev, the holy trinity will punish you if you don’t turn that ship around.” It just doesn’t happen. These are secular leaders. Now, please keep in mind I am referring to “by the book” Islamic followers (or true believers as they call themselves). Applying this same principle to your Bush comparison yields this result in my opinion: Bush is not a true Christian. He is a panderer and a phony. If Bush followed Jesus’ teachings to the letter, he would love his enemies. He would love his neighbor Democrats. He would disband the military and welcome all homeless people to the White House for food and shelter. Does he or any other US President sound like a “by the book” religious anything? Sounds like Tartuffe to me.

The Bad News: Jihadists invoke their god Allah in almost every action they take, specifically what we call violence. All infidels are considered soldiers, including women and children, and they must be converted or killed preferably by “smiting of the neck.” Sound familiar? Without getting into too much detail, because frankly you really have to read the Qur’an to appreciate what I’m saying. Otherwise it’s like having a discussion about a movie that one party hasn’t even seen. It becomes pointless after a while with banter like this: “Darth Vader murdered a bunch of Jedi children” “No he didn’t. He wouldn’t do that.” “What are you talking about? You never saw the movie.” Nonetheless, in the big picture our Western Style democracy is not fighting against a race, it’s not fighting against an ethnicity, it’s fighting against an idea. And that is the most dangerous thing of all that everyone, especially women need to really pay attention to.

[superpunk]

Lets be careful guys. I think we're skirting the religious discussion peramiters here.

:D

It's only religious as it pertains to policies and procedures from the governments of many nations, and namely the current president. It's pretty tough to have that discussion without mentioning religion.

[CowboyJeff]

This is a very good post. To profess that people should know about the 'true Islam' seems silly to me - there is always a group that is willing to kill and die for their beliefs. It would be like educating people on the Real Communists, or the Real Japanese (WWII), or the real Chechnyans. Islamic Terror is 20 years old which, while a long time, is not something that we have been going through for a while.

In my humble opinion, so much of this is reaping what was sowed in the 40s when the west decided that they needed to shape the Middle East.

Wow. This is a frightening comment that is not only completely false, it means you have to re-read some history books. And just so you know, Winston Churchill warned about the dangers of Islam before we "shaped the Middle East" as you call it. It's a shame nobody listened then.

[ABQCOWBOY]

The Towers had nothing to do with Iraq.

Please let's get past that.

Osama Bin Laden is the one that was at fault.

Bush never says his name anymore...Why? Because he hasn't caught or killed the man that caused the biggest terrorist attack on US soil...Ever.

On his watch.

Being hard on Bush?

I think not.

This is an overly simplistic way of looking at that. In the final analysis, you can not seperate the two. They are linked in history. Regardless of wheather you feel as if the two are different or not, the fact remainds that when the vote was taken, his was not the only voice and that can be said from both sides of the isle.

[CowboyJeff]

Lets be careful guys. I think we're skirting the religious discussion peramiters here.

:D

yeah, you're right. I'm done. back to Cowboys talk. :) Anyone who wants to continue this can PM me privately.

[superpunk]

Jeff, I have to wonder what the difference between jihadists claiming that Allah blesses their work, and it is his will - and Americans having pastors praying over their troops and weapons before going into battle, asking for their God's blessing upon their efforts. Granted, it's not a religious rite for one side, and they're not killing based on the mere name of the other religion and viewing them as pagan - but it's still religious fervor in a place it does not belong.

[ABQCOWBOY]

It's only religious as it pertains to policies and procedures from the governments of many nations, and namely the current president. It's pretty tough to have that discussion without mentioning religion.


Fact remains SP, at this point, it doesn't hurt to voice the sentiment. Nobody is saying it's over the line. I am saying please lets be careful not to let that happen. I trust, by your last, you understand this. Just as I trust that you are good with the fact that a reminder is always better then loosing sight of this very important set of guidelines.

[jterrell]

Pretty much.

Even easier is to say if you vote you get a paid holiday. If you don't then you have to go to work.

[ConcordCowboy]

This is an overly simplistic way of looking at that. In the final analysis, you can not seperate the two. They are linked in history. Regardless of wheather you feel as if the two are different or not, the fact remainds that when the vote was taken, his was not the only voice and that can be said from both sides of the isle.

I can separate them as can many people.

Bin Laden is the one who caused the Towers to come down...Not Saddam.

The 911 commission has already said that there was no link between 911 and Saddam.

We should be putting ALL resources into getting Bin Laden...or at least we could have...Before the Iraq War.

And as we've seen before or since Bush doen't really care about votes...he's going to do what he wants to anyways.

[Crown Royal]

Wow. This is a frightening comment that is not only completely false, it means you have to re-read some history books. And just so you know, Winston Churchill warned about the dangers of Islam before we "shaped the Middle East" as you call it. It's a shame nobody listened then.

I suppose you are right. I must have missed the history on all the middle eastern supported attacks on the west since the fall of Ottoman occupied Spain.

[Crown Royal]

Even easier is to say if you vote you get a paid holiday. If you don't then you have to go to work.

You know, I could get behind this. I still don't know if I like the idea of punishing non voters, but I don't mind the idea of creating an additional real, instantly gratifying insentive.

[ABQCOWBOY]

I can separate them as can many people.

Bin Laden is the one who caused the Towers to come down...Not Saddam.

The 911 commission has already said that there was no link between 911 and Saddam.

We should be putting ALL resources into getting Bin Laden...or at least we could have...Before the Iraq War.

And as we've seen before or since Bush doen't realy care about votes...he's going to do what he wants anyways.

I'm sorry Concord, I can not share your view here. I can respect it and say that there are certainly many who look it as you do but I can not be one of them. I see it as far to complex to be viewed as such. However, the good news is, as you eluded to earlier, Bush can not run again. There will definatly be a new Sheriff in town in the next election.

;)

[superpunk]

Fact remains SP, at this point, it doesn't hurt to voice the sentiment. Nobody is saying it's over the line. I am saying please lets be careful not to let that happen. I trust, by your last, you understand this. Just as I trust that you are good with the fact that a reminder is always better then loosing sight of this very important set of guidelines.

Yeah, I was just going off being irrelevant again. I understood what it was, I just thought it was interesting, and hope like you do everyone keeps it mostly political - knowing as we do that religion and politics are like two peas in a pod.

[ConcordCowboy]

I'm sorry Concord, I can not share your view here. I can respect it and say that there are certainly many who look it as you do but I can not be one of them. I see it as far to complex to be viewed as such. However, the good news is, as you eluded to earlier, Bush can not run again. There will definatly be a new Sheriff in town in the next election.

;)

Thank God!:D

[CowboyJeff]

Jeff, I have to wonder what the difference between jihadists claiming that Allah blesses their work, and it is his will - and Americans having pastors praying over their troops and weapons before going into battle, asking for their God's blessing upon their efforts. Granted, it's not a religious rite for one side, and they're not killing based on the mere name of the other religion and viewing them as pagan - but it's still religious fervor in a place it does not belong.

PM me the question and I'll be glad to answer it, and that goes for anyone else too. I dont want to stir up any more of a religious wasps nest in public than I already did. So, I'm taking as many future religious comments I have private. Thanks.

[Crown Royal]

PM me the question and I'll be glad to answer it, and that goes for anyone else too. I dont want to stir up any more of a religious wasps nest in public than I already did. So, I'm taking as many future religious comments I have private. Thanks.

I'm sorry that you felt this was a wasps nest - it seemed to me that we were all discussing this rather rationally and without heated heads. Disagreement doesn't mean arguing.

For what it's worth, I have no emotional interest vested in the matter. I just seem to be ignorant of some facts that you seem to know better than I.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Yeah, I was just going off being irrelevant again. I understood what it was, I just thought it was interesting, and hope like you do everyone keeps it mostly political - knowing as we do that religion and politics are like two peas in a pod.


It is hard, I know it.

[CowboyJeff]

I'm sorry that you felt this was a wasps nest - it seemed to me that we were all discussing this rather rationally and without heated heads. Disagreement doesn't mean arguing.

For what it's worth, I have no emotional interest vested in the matter. I just seem to be ignorant of some facts that you seem to know better than I.

You're absolutely right. At this stage it's rational, which is why I'd rather not comment any further in public because some people can get irate over facts. I'm just nipping myself in the bud so to speak before I get on a roll :D

[jterrell]

Lots of good stuff in this thread.

Great food for thought for sure.

The first key is to not be too dug in for conversation.

Various thought:

Gay Marriage: I hate it. No, not the marriage itself, but the topic. I really could care less who got married to whom. There's plenty of stuff for me to worry about and whether two guys wanna wear wedding dresses is just not on the list. The infuriating thing is Bush used the topic with Churches(especially Black Churches who overwhelmingly supported Clinton but were surprisingly strong for Bush) to win votes... and now it is a non-issue that states are deciding themselves. Lots of votes for Bush on this but no changes on the issue really at all. So I blame this issue for 4 years of utter ineptitude.

Education: Its a mess for sure. Its really time we looked at other countries systems here and admit we are NOT the world leader and adapt to better systems.

Iraq: I was all for going into Afghanistan and getting Bin Laden. I woulda gladly pulled the switch for Bin Laden's electrocution. But babysitting a country because we don't like which side will win a Civil War is seriously deranged. As is thinking we will bring peace to a region thats been in unrest for hundred of years if not thousands. Bush Sr. got that. Bush, jr did not.

Religion: I think there is a real value in Religious lessons and historical perspective. BUT I do not want Religion in schools and politics. Why? Because it can be twisted or warped into something evil as easily as it can be maintained as a high ground. Religion itself calls for Faith and servitude. Both lofty goals but also the goals called for by many seriously deranged leaders or mass murderers of societies.

Economy: The old Reagen trickle down ideas are still present. Problem is now that trickling down is happening to India or China. You can't find entry-level jobs in many area such as IT hardly at all now because of rampant outsourcing. Basic call center jobs are virtually all overseas bound if not already there. Much of the manufacturing is the same way. We hemorrhage money to third world countries but that money is really just shuttled to a few folks right back here in the US paying next to no taxes on any of it. All of our American corporations are being run for instant gratification. Do whatever raises stock prices today even if in 2 years the whole place is bankrupt. Our CEO's are now just short-timers meant to pump and dump stock then get out.

[silverbear]

This is an overly simplistic way of looking at that. In the final analysis, you can not seperate the two. They are linked in history.

No, they're not... our leaders have TRIED to link the two, but it was a dishonest effort on their part, and now it's only believed by hard-core zealots...

No REPUTABLE historian will write a book linking the invasion of Iraq with the events of 9/11, because there simply was none... other than Dubya cynically manipulating the post-9/11 hysteria to deceive us into going along with his bogus war...

Regardless of wheather you feel as if the two are different or not, the fact remainds that when the vote was taken, his was not the only voice and that can be said from both sides of the isle.

The fact remains that any support that was given to this war was based on untruths...

[Sasquatch]

The fact remains that any support that was given to this war was based on untruths...

and/or political and moral cowardice.

[ABQCOWBOY]

[QUOTE=jterrell;1565687]Economy: You can't find entry-level jobs in many area such as IT hardly at all now because of rampant outsourcing. Basic call center jobs are virtually all overseas bound if not already there. [QUOTE]


And this really pisses me off. That was to be my retirement job. I figured I'd get an 11-7 shift supporting the old Atari Pong equipment and basically sleep the job away. For the odd call I would receive every 6 months, I'd simply refere to the manual and insturct the user to power down the box and then turn it back on.

So much for that.

;)

[silverbear]

I'm sorry Concord, I can not share your view here. I can respect it and say that there are certainly many who look it as you do but I can not be one of them. I see it as far to complex to be viewed as such.

Terrific... if that's your position, kindly document the links between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein...

Before you do, though, be aware that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were ENEMIES, bin Laden having financed anti-Saddam Kurds in the north... knowing how paranoid Hussein was about potential rebellions among his own people, do you REALLY think he'd enter into any kind of conspiratorial alliance with an enemy who financed such rebellions??

There is NO connection between 9/11 and our invasion of Iraq... no REAL connection, no LEGITIMATE connection, anyway... and anybody who tries to tell you there is such a connection is LYING to you... h*ll, even DUBYA has admitted there was no such connection...

[Crown Royal]

The first key is to not be too dug in for conversation.


I'm thinking of making this my sig. One of the reasons I will never get into politics is because there isn't a single belief that I have where I am not willing to listen and consider opposing arguments. I could 'flip flop' at any time, which would be considered 'not sticking to my guns' or some rubbish like that. Earlier in this thread Abersonc told me that once I got older I would understand people better and get aggravated more by them (essentially - become a cynic). I disagree with him but decided to leave it alone. I feel that I have a pretty good pulse on people because of my travels and interactions. I have yet to meet someone with whom I have never had a disagreement. The only time that I ever get annoyed with them though, is when they are unwilling to listen to an argument, even a wrong one.

[CowboyJeff]

......You can't find entry-level jobs in many area such as IT hardly at all now because of rampant outsourcing. Basic call center jobs are virtually all overseas bound if not already there. ......

You can say that again!!! I had to learn the NATO alphabet, because I got tired of repeating my name, address and phone number 50 times to someone from an Indian call center. Let's face it, Does Russia outsource their call centers to the US, so Russians can have their problems solved by Americans who speak broken-Russian? Ummm...nope.

[Crown Royal]

[quote=jterrell;1565687]Economy: You can't find entry-level jobs in many area such as IT hardly at all now because of rampant outsourcing. Basic call center jobs are virtually all overseas bound if not already there. [quote]


And this really pisses me off. That was to be my retirement job. I figured I'd get an 11-7 shift supporting the old Atari Pong equipment and basically sleep the job away. For the odd call I would receive every 6 months, I'd simply refere to the manual and insturct the user to power down the box and then turn it back on.

So much for that.

;)

:cool: I see what you did there.

All I will say about the job market is the following: I am a 23 year old with limited college education and normal american skills. I have had a job since I was 15 years old, and have never had trouble finding one. I currently work a job that I worked my way into, fought to get and make more than a 23 year old should make, all through elbow grease.

[superpunk]

Brain posted some montages of some lying and whatnot earlier in this thread, which was hilarious - though not surprising. They are politicians, after all. (Hell, some of them may be lawyers - and burmafrd will be quick to tell you what a deadly combo this is.) I'd like to see a "Going to war" montage. Because, I used to work with my best friend, who would listen to Rush Limbaugh all the time. I'd get in these heated arguments with him about why they went to war in the first place, how everyone was deceived and scared into supporting something so unnecessary - and I got the whole tired "It was always the aim to spread democracy, and nip terrorism at that stage...." I'm sure most of you know how that whole spiel goes.

If only there was something on the youtubes that someone knew of....

[silverbear]

and/or political and moral cowardice.

Yeah, that too... but for many of the legislators that voted for the invasion, the issue is that they didn't have the true story, so they couldn't make an informed decision... which is why when a Democratic presidential candidate stands up and says he made a mistake with that vote, and regrets it, I'm inclined to let him off the hook...

[ABQCOWBOY]

No, they're not... our leaders have TRIED to link the two, but it was a dishonest effort on their part, and now it's only believed by hard-core zealots...

No REPUTABLE historian will write a book linking the invasion of Iraq with the events of 9/11, because there simply was none... other than Dubya cynically manipulating the post-9/11 hysteria to deceive us into going along with his bogus war...



The fact remains that any support that was given to this war was based on untruths...


History will be the judge. I can only say that the Middle East is not one set of troubles. It's a weave thousands of years old that make up a tapistry. I can not say that I am sad to see Saddam gone. To think that it was only Benny and his boys is simply not realistic to me. I'm certain the American public was lead. I'm equally certain that Bush was not the only one. Leaders from both parties decided to go to War.

[silverbear]

Only for bungling it and letting the WMD get away? ;)

The whole "the WMD were smuggled to Syria" argument is a logical contradiction in the sense that one has to believe that US intelligence is competent enough to know they existed in the first place but not competent enough to detect their transfer across an international border.

Further, if those WMDs were such a deadly threat to our safety, and we know they went to Syria (a nation we've identified as a state sponsor of terror), why then aren't we in Syria, taking those WMDs away from them??

For that matter, if the invasion of Iraq was REALLY about waging the war on terror, why did we start with such a SMALL fish in that pond?? Why weren't we going after Syria, or Libya, or even North Korea??

Taking Saddam out did nothing to make us safer from the threat of Islamic fundamentalist terror...

[ABQCOWBOY]

Yeah, that too... but for many of the legislators that voted for the invasion, the issue is that they didn't have the true story, so they couldn't make an informed decision... which is why when a Democratic presidential candidate stands up and says he made a mistake with that vote, and regrets it, I'm inclined to let him off the hook...

Leaders from both parties saw the same intel. It's hard for me to condem one and not all.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Terrific... if that's your position, kindly document the links between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein...

Before you do, though, be aware that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were ENEMIES, bin Laden having financed anti-Saddam Kurds in the north... knowing how paranoid Hussein was about potential rebellions among his own people, do you REALLY think he'd enter into any kind of conspiratorial alliance with an enemy who financed such rebellions??

There is NO connection between 9/11 and our invasion of Iraq... no REAL connection, no LEGITIMATE connection, anyway... and anybody who tries to tell you there is such a connection is LYING to you... h*ll, even DUBYA has admitted there was no such connection...


These two were both enemy and ally, depending on the wind. That's the way the Middle East is.

[silverbear]

http://www.glennbeck.com/news/01302004.shtml

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source

You offer a whole bunch of quotes from legislators who were at the time unaware of the TRUTH of the assertions re: Saddam having WMDs... as such, what they said was UNINFORMED, and thus has proven over time to have been erroneous...

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source

Note that Clinton didn't say that Saddam HAD WMDs, merely that he had the CAPACITY TO DEVELOP WMDs... note also that he never INVADED Iraq...

I know you think you "proved" something with all those quotes, but all you really proved is that our legislators were not given the TRUTH when considering this issue...

[Sasquatch]

Yeah, that too... but for many of the legislators that voted for the invasion, the issue is that they didn't have the true story, so they couldn't make an informed decision... which is why when a Democratic presidential candidate stands up and says he made a mistake with that vote, and regrets it, I'm inclined to let him off the hook...

There were enough dissenting voices in the US and abroad to give any responsible and intelligent person pause. I see the vote to authorize the war as a three-part failure:

1. They failed in their assessment of the intelligence. Just because everyone else got it wrong (the 1/5th of the legislators who voted against it is not insignificant) doesn't excuse your lack of judgment. There plenty of others, here and abroad, who found it less than compelling.

2. They wrongly judged that the president would exhaust every possible diplomatic avenue prior to launching an invasion.

3. They misjudged the ability of the administration to wage war competently.

To be president should require extraordinary leadership and judgment. I"m not sure people who authorized this war exhibited either, at a moment when it would have counted most.

[silverbear]

Think of it like registering when you turn 18.

I think required voting would be a good idea as long as they have a none of the above type category.:D

Maybe this would be the secret to making the "write in Jimmy Buffett for President" campaign work!!! :D

[CowboyJeff]

.....For that matter, if the invasion of Iraq was REALLY about waging the war on terror, why did we start with such a SMALL fish in that pond?? Why weren't we going after Syria, or Libya, or even North Korea??
.......

Regarding Syria or Lybia, you need a close military base to wage such a war. Iraq is now that military base, which is why we're not leaving anytime soon.

Regarding North Korea, I dont think we take them seriously at all. To me they are just the yapping dog begging for attention.

I think the real question is why do we embargo communist Cuba while we give communist China "Most Favored Nations" trading status???

[silverbear]

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/



Text Of Clinton Statement On Iraq
Text of President Clinton's address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff:

You can reproduce a thousand such articles, and none of them will change the TRUTH...

That truth is that Dubya told us we had to invade Iraq because Saddam Hussein had WMDs that he could use against us, and Hussein had no such WMDs...

A second, tangential truth is that Clinton never invaded Iraq... so he didn't see the "threat" as sufficient justification for such an action... so your utterly predictable, cliched right wing response ("but... but... but CLINTON") is utterly IRRELEVANT...

Dubya's the one who screwed up, and no attempts at revisionist history by his apologists will EVER change that...

[silverbear]

5 - Make Tom Landry's birthday a Federal Holiday :)

OK, you've got my vote...

[CowboyJeff]

Maybe this would be the secret to making the "write in Jimmy Buffett for President" campaign work!!! :D

silverbear, Giuliani dresses in drag. He's not too far off:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IrE6FMpai8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lb2y1IM17sM

and one of my personal favorites:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHnsLdhWWcQ

[ABQCOWBOY]

You can reproduce a thousand such articles, and none of them will change the TRUTH...

That truth is that Dubya told us we had to invade Iraq because Saddam Hussein had WMDs that he could use against us, and Hussein had no such WMDs...

A second, tangential truth is that Clinton never invaded Iraq... so he didn't see the "threat" as sufficient justification for such an action... so your utterly predictable, cliched right wing response ("but... but... but CLINTON") is utterly IRRELEVANT...

Dubya's the one who screwed up, and no attempts at revisionist history by his apologists will EVER change that...


On the other hand Silver, the Clinton administration did have intel on Bin Ladden and elected not to act on that as well. This is not as easy as watching the towers fall and hanging Bush out to try as the sole reason we are where we are. If you want to say he was wrong, OK, but he was not alone and both parties have shares in why we are where we are IMO.

[silverbear]

History will be the judge.

History has already judged on that one... trust me when I say that 20 years from now, our schoolchildren will not be reading in their history books that "the invasion of Iraq was a response to the 9/11 attacks"...

I can only say that the Middle East is not one set of troubles. It's a weave thousands of years old that make up a tapistry.

This is true, but isn't really relevant to what you were originally arguing, which is that the invasion of Iraq had something to do with the 9/11 attacks...

I can not say that I am sad to see Saddam gone.

Nor am I... but is Iraq really better off these days??

To think that it was only Benny and his boys is simply not realistic to me.

Whether or not that's "realistic to you", one thing remains clear-- Saddam Hussein had NOTHING to do with it... period...

Leaders from both parties decided to go to War.

Because our President fed them bad intelligence, either because of his incompetence, or because of his dishonesty... this is why so many legislators are now standing up and saying that vote was a mistake on their part (including a few Republican legislators)...

What I'm saying to you is if you believe as I do (and as the majority of the country does these days) that Dubya LIED to us about the reasons for invading Iraq, you can't blame Democratic legislators who were DUPED into voting for his war... it was after all a compelling lie, one that I bought into, too...