Dems playing games in Senate now

fossten said:
Your feeble attempts to pigeonhole me and my beliefs fall pitifully short. I have never stated that I don't believe #1. Any attempt on your part to put words in my mouth and then leap to a conclusion will go ignored.

Furthermore, your subsequent assertions don't prove a thing. You haven't personally searched Syria, or any other Arab country for that matter. Neither have we. It's interesting how you like to focus on how we need to find bin Laden, yet we should abandon trying to find the WMDs because they don't exist.

It's clear that the Bush administration was acting on intelligence that was supplied to them. Anybody can see that Bush didn't search Iraq personally. The fact that they weren't where the intelligence said they were STILL DOESN'T PROVE THAT BUSH WAS LYING. Too bad.

In addition to that, it's far less of a stretch, given the history of Saddam's use of chemical weapons on his own people, to believe that the weapons were disposed of or hidden in some way at the last minute, than to believe that this is some diabolical conspiracy fomented by George Bush himself, whom you libs believe doesn't have the intelligence to tell a rhino from a gnat. In asserting that Bush lied you must produce a viable motive for that. And don't give me that BIG OIL crap. I've seen Bush spend enough effort trying to get more of our own energy reserves increased to tell that we don't need Iraq's oil. And even further, if there were any corruption in BIG OIL, it would be the so-called United Nations who took bribes from Saddam's oil-for-food program. I don't hear even one of you liberals mentioning that, yet it's now public knowledge.

Finally, your own quote shows that if anybody was lying, it was the Iraqis who were giving us the intel. It's not lying to rely on someone else's word in good faith. Furthermore, based upon the stinging attacks by the Dems and the media on Bush for not being ready for 9/11, who could blame him for being nervy about a second possible threat? If it had been you, standing in the shadow of 9/11, you would have ignored the intelligence that was coming from all sides?

Get real.

I never said you didn't belive #1. I said you don't SEEM inclined to believe #1. You, the master of semantics, should know the difference.

So if I searched Syria personally and found no weapons, then I could rightfully declare that there were no weapons in Syria? I don't think you understand debating fossten. The purpose of a debate is to quote credible, non-partisan articles that support your position. Telling someone that because they haven't personally done something therefore results in a fallacy is ludicrous.

I don't have to search Syria personally, because, if you bothered to read the article I found for you, the Iraqi Survey Group, appointed by Bush to search for WMD passed to Syria, already did the searching for me.

"In asserting that Bush lied you must produce a viable motive for that. And don't give me that BIG OIL crap." That's funny, FreeFaller seems to belive in using our military to secure big oil, so it's obviously a viable motive.
 
fossten said:
Interestingly partisan choice of words. You libs previously assert that Bush lied, but Clinton only erred?

If it was an error on both their parts, then you must also differentiate between lying and erring.

Clinton didn't lie about the airtrikes in Iraq. And I never said he lied about the airstrikes, your reading comprehension needs some work. He lied about Lewinsky, and that's a known fact.

Your feeble attempts to pigeonhole me and my beliefs fall pitifully short. I have never stated that I Clinton didn't lie. Any attempt on your part to put words in my mouth and then leap to a conclusion will go ignored.
 
FreeFaller said:
So the lawful intervention of the slaughter of countless civilians that threatened to destabilize the entire Baltic region and quite possibly spread further into europe was not a good enough reason. Ever hear of WWI and WWII? How do you think they started?

Why do you think the UN was created after WWII? To prevent single countries from acting unilaterally.
 
captainalias said:
You speak like an idealist FreeFaller, and I respect that. However, the US isn't going into Iraq to give Iraqis true freedom; the US is supporting its own selfish interests. Where was true freedom when we supported Saddam in the 80s, when we gave him the chemical weapons to drop on his own people? Where was true freedom when Rumsfeld supported Saddam? Where was true freedom when the US supported Iraq's using WMD against Iran?

Thank you...that same respect is returned.

Now, I am not defending the actions of the past. In fact I am wholeheartedly damning them. It is our own inability to realize the stew we were cooking by our country's own inaction the led us to our current situation. That is why I stated that we must learn from the past. For learning from your mistakes is the only true way to make sure they are not repeated. We have a long road ahead of us. Let us hope we have the strength to walk it...mile by mile...until we reach our objective.
 
FreeFaller said:
I already stated the reason in my post. He repeatedly violated UN resolutions by firing on US aircraft and violating the no-fly zone. The UN was far too inept to do anything about it. This alone was reason enough to go to war but the majority of Americans didn't find this a valid reason for us to do so. So in order to placate the narrow minded "I only care about my world" people the administration had to use another reason that was far less concrete.
Clinton allowed us to be pushed around by bullies for too long. It took a determined administration to show the world that we were no longer the paper tiger that they had thought us to be.

Wow, "people the administration had to use another reason that was far less concrete"

Sounds like they were willing to do whatever it took to go to war, even lie. Scary.
 
FreeFaller said:
Thank you...that same respect is returned.

Now, I am not defending the actions of the past. In fact I am wholeheartedly damning them. It is our own inability to realize the stew we were cooking by our country's own inaction the led us to our current situation. That is why I stated that we must learn from the past. For learning from your mistakes is the only true way to make sure they are not repeated. We have a long road ahead of us. Let us hope we have the strength to walk it...mile by mile...until we reach our objective.

Man is fallen, we are sinners, and despite our best intentions, we intervene for less than altruistic reasons. Looking at the history of US foreign policy post WWII, I am less than optimistic for the future.
 
However, FreeFaller, don't you think that instead of seizing stocks of oil in SW Asian countries, the better thing to do would be, to develop alternative fuel technologies?
 
95DevilleNS said:
Want a fact?

1) No (zero) Weapons Of Mass Destruction have been found. Thats a FACT...

...that STILL doesn't prove that Bush lied.
 
captainalias said:
I never said you didn't belive #1. I said you don't SEEM inclined to believe #1. You, the master of semantics, should know the difference.

So if I searched Syria personally and found no weapons, then I could rightfully declare that there were no weapons in Syria? I don't think you understand debating fossten. The purpose of a debate is to quote credible, non-partisan articles that support your position. Telling someone that because they haven't personally done something therefore results in a fallacy is ludicrous.

I don't have to search Syria personally, because, if you bothered to read the article I found for you, the Iraqi Survey Group, appointed by Bush to search for WMD passed to Syria, already did the searching for me.
"In asserting that Bush lied you must produce a viable motive for that. And don't give me that BIG OIL crap." That's funny, FreeFaller seems to belive in using our military to secure big oil, so it's obviously a viable motive.


Sorry, wrong. See here:

CIA can't rule out WMD move to Syria


By Rowan Scarborough
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

The CIA's chief weapons inspector said he cannot rule out the possibility that Iraqi weapons of mass destruction were secretly shipped to Syria before the March 2003 invasion, citing "sufficiently credible" evidence that WMDs may have been moved there.
Inspector Charles Duelfer, who heads the Iraq Survey Group (ISG), made the findings in an addendum to his final report filed last year. He said the search for WMD in Iraq -- the main reason President Bush went to war to oust Saddam Hussein -- has been exhausted without finding such weapons. Iraq had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons in the early 1990s.
But on the question of Syria, Mr. Duelfer did not close the books. "ISG was unable to complete its investigation and is unable to rule out the possibility that WMD was evacuated to Syria before the war," Mr. Duelfer said in a report posted on the CIA's Web site Monday night.
He cited some evidence of a transfer. "Whether Syria received military items from Iraq for safekeeping or other reasons has yet to be determined," he said. "There was evidence of a discussion of possible WMD collaboration initiated by a Syrian security officer, and ISG received information about movement of material out of Iraq, including the possibility that WMD was involved. In the judgment of the working group, these reports were sufficiently credible to merit further investigation."
But Mr. Duelfer said he was unable to complete that aspect of the probe because "the declining security situation limited and finally halted this investigation. The results remain inconclusive, but further investigation may be undertaken when circumstances on the ground improve."
Arguing against a WMD transfer to Syria, Mr. Duelfer said, was the fact that all senior Iraqi detainees involved in Saddam's weapons programs and security "uniformly denied any knowledge of residual WMD that could have been secreted to Syria."
"Nevertheless," the inspector said, "given the insular and compartmented nature of the regime, ISG analysts believed there was enough evidence to merit further investigation."
He said that even if all leads are pursued someday, the ISG may never be able to finally determine whether WMDs were taken across the border. "Based on the evidence available at present, ISG judged that it was unlikely that an official transfer of WMD material from Iraq to Syria took place," his report stated. "However, ISG was unable to rule out unofficial movement of limited WMD-related materials."
Speculation on WMDs in Syria was fueled by the fact that satellite images picked up long lines of trucks waiting to cross the border into Syria before the coalition launched the invasion. Mr. Duelfer previously had reported that Syria was a major conduit for materials entering Iraq that were banned by the United Nations.
Saddam placed such importance on illicit trade with Syria that he dispatched Iraqi Intelligence Service agents to various border crossings to supervise border agents, and, in some cases, to shoo them away, senior officials told The Washington Times last year.
Today, U.S. officials charge that Syria continues to harbor Saddam loyalists who are directing and financing the insurgency in Iraq. The Iraq-Syria relationship between two Ba'athist socialist regimes has further encouraged speculation of weapons transfers.
Several senior U.S. officials have said since the invasion that they thought WMD went to Syria.
Retired Marine Lt. Gen. Michael DeLong, the deputy commander of U.S. Central Command during the war, said in his book, "Inside CentCom," that intelligence reports pointed to WMD movement into Syria.
In October, John A. Shaw, then the deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology security, told The Times that Russian special forces and intelligence troops worked with Saddam's intelligence service to move weapons and material to Syria, Lebanon and possibly Iran.
"The organized effort was done in advance of the conflict," he said.

Further notes:

Actually, the purpose of debating is to attempt to change the minds of others by the use of your own persuasion. But you keep on quoting others until you get some opinions of your own.

By the way, I disagree with FreeFaller on that particular statement.
 
captainalias said:
True, it doesn't prove he lied, but it does prove that he misrepresented the facts in order to rush to war.

First of all, I don't agree with your unsupported claim that there were no WMD programs in place in Iraq prior to the war. In fact, all evidence demonstrates that there WAS a program in place. The most optomistic scenario states that the program was simply dormant for the time being as Hussein waited for the French to accomplish their goal of lifting the sanctions.

But even if this wasn't the case. And even if the materials hadn't been found. And even if it wasn't suspected that the available arms were not smuggled into Iran and Syria- the Bush administration didn't "misrepresent" anything in order to go to war.

And they certainly didn't "Rush." The military sat on the border for six months waiting for full Iraqi compliance. Did you forget all this?

But misrepresent clearly implies that you think that some kind of deception was involved. That's nonsense. Unless you think the Clinton administration was also involved in this plan of deception too. As I'm sure you remember, it was under Clinton the America adopted the Policy of Regime Change in Iraq, not GWB. This is not to mention every other internation intelligence agency that also suspected Iraq of having WMDs and the programs necessary to develop them.
 
Calabrio said:
First of all, I don't agree with your unsupported claim that there were WAS WMD programs in place in Iraq prior to the war. In fact, all evidence demonstrates that there WAS a program in place.

First of all, I don't understand any difference between those two sentences.
 
Calabrio said:
First of all, I don't agree with your unsupported claim that there were no WMD programs in place in Iraq prior to the war. In fact, all evidence demonstrates that there WAS a program in place. The most optomistic scenario states that the program was simply dormant for the time being as Hussein waited for the French to accomplish their goal of lifting the sanctions.

But even if this wasn't the case. And even if the materials hadn't been found. And even if it wasn't suspected that the available arms were not smuggled into Iran and Syria- the Bush administration didn't "misrepresent" anything in order to go to war.

And they certainly didn't "Rush." The military sat on the border for six months waiting for full Iraqi compliance. Did you forget all this?

But misrepresent clearly implies that you think that some kind of deception was involved. That's nonsense. Unless you think the Clinton administration was also involved in this plan of deception too. As I'm sure you remember, it was under Clinton the America adopted the Policy of Regime Change in Iraq, not GWB. This is not to mention every other internation intelligence agency that also suspected Iraq of having WMDs and the programs necessary to develop them.

I was confused by your first two sentences there until you edited it. :)

No, the most optimistic scenario would be that the UN inspectors had all the destroyed weapons accounted for. The Iraqis claimed they destroyed all their stockpiles, and since we haven't been able to find anything to the contrary, I'm inclined to believe them. The burden of proof is on the accuser, and if this were a court case, we'd be thrown out without evidence. How many times have you heard a prosecutor win a case for saying, 'Oh, we couldn't find the evidence, but I bet the perp is hiding it where we can't find it.'?

Of course I think deception was involved. For instance, Bush mentioned the Niger incident in his SotU address, along with the alumnium centrifugation tubes, both of which matters the WH was warned was false. Yet, they went ahead and used that 'evidence'.

Oh right, I recall the tactic, when talking about Bush, bring up Clinton. I assume you're referring to Public Law 105-338, signed by Clinton. I never said I agree with any sort of regime change, but political observer Frank Gaffney of the Washington Times (a very right wing commentator), observed that Clinton did nothing to implement regime change, while Bush has repeatedly pushed for, and done so.
 
captainalias said:
That's funny, FreeFaller seems to belive in using our military to secure big oil, so it's obviously a viable motive.

I didn't say that I supported utilizing the military to secure big oil. I said that I support utilizing the military to secure our national interests. Without securing our national interests we would be in a world of hurt. Don't take this to mean that I feel we should trot around the globe invading every country that has something we want. That would be irresponsible and tragic. However, when we have the opportunity to provide a nation with the opportunity to take back their country from the hands of a tyrant, give them a means with which to prosper and become a global player, then we should...shouldn't we?

I'm afraid that in my postings I may be becoming a little misunderstood. I by no means downplay the loss of this nations heroes. I have actually had my friends pass on in front of my eyes. I harbor both sadness and pride for those who have fallen in the performance of their duty to this great country. But rather than become bitter about it I learned a little about how the world works. I learned that some things have to happen for the greater good. I've learned that the reasons that some people have to leave this life are not always the reasons we would like. I've learned what service before self really means.
 
captainalias said:
How many times have you heard a prosecutor win a case for saying, 'Oh, we couldn't find the evidence, but I bet the perp is hiding it where we can't find it.'?

Hmmm. We just heard a similar case this week. The special prosecutor said that we didn't have any evidence of outing a CIA agent, but we did get somebody to lie about the non-crime, so we're indicting him for that.
 
captainalias said:
The Iraqis claimed they destroyed all their stockpiles, and since we haven't been able to find anything to the contrary, I'm inclined to believe them.

Not quite. SOME Iraqis claimed they destroyed all their stockpiles, while OTHER Iraqis told our intel guys that they still had them.

9/11 was still on everyone's mind. Which would you rather do, ignore the warnings or play it safe and make sure we're not attacked? You certainly couldn't rely on the U.N. to actually do anything, since they were taking bribes.

Again: Bush was being attacked by everybody for not preventing 9/11, yet when he plays it safe and takes out a dictator who's been known to USE WMDs, he's castigated to this day.

Double standard.
 
Double standards, hypocrites. One and the same. I love the article

From CNN.com, December 16, 1998
Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike

CLINTON: Good evening.

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces.
Where was the coalition? You know. The French, Germans, Russians, Chileans and Arubans?

Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

But there is no WMD so what were you attacking there Bill?

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.
Hummm. Protect our national interests. But they didn't attack us, did they?

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.
Again Bill. What WMD are you talking about?

I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team,...
Where was the UN resolution? Did the Congress vote to give you the War Powers Act? Unanimous, Go It Alone policy!? Are you secretly from Texas?


Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries....

So maybe some of our intel came from other countries???

The inspectors undertook this mission first 7.5 years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire.
Why was there a ceasefire? Was there a war or something?

The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.
But Bill, why not wait for Saddam to use them on us or to give them to someone else to use.

The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.
No he wouldn't. He is just bluffing. Trust him.

The United States has patiently worked to preserve UNSCOM as Iraq has sought to avoid its obligation to cooperate with the inspectors. On occasion, we've had to threaten military force, and Saddam has backed down.
See what threats will get you. You are creating the paper tiger Bill.



When Saddam still failed to comply, we prepared to act militarily. It was only then at the last possible moment that Iraq backed down. It pledged to the UN that it had made, and I quote, a clear and unconditional decision to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors.

I decided then to call off the attack with our airplanes already in the air because Saddam had given in to our demands. I concluded then that the right thing to do was to use restraint and give Saddam one last chance to prove his willingness to cooperate.
Pusssy. All you did was embolden Saddam. You proved to him we are the pussies. Thanks Bill.

I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing UN resolutions and Iraq's own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning.
You would RUSH to war! What? What about the coalition? What about the sanctions? And only with Great Britain?

Now over the past three weeks, the UN weapons inspectors have carried out their plan for testing Iraq's cooperation.
The conclusions are stark, sobering and profoundly disturbing.

In four out of the five categories set forth, Iraq has failed to cooperate.
4 out of 5 ain't bad Bill. Give him another chance.

And so we had to act and act now.

Let me explain why.

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.

Second, if Saddam can crippled the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community -- led by the United States -- has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday -- make no mistake -- he will use it again as he has in the past.

Third, in halting our air strikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance, not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed. We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the inspection system that controls his weapons of mass destruction program; we also will have fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region.

That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team -- including the vice president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of state and the national security adviser -- I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq.

They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors.
At the same time, we are delivering a powerful message to Saddam. If you act recklessly, you will pay a heavy price. We acted today because, in the judgment of my military advisers, a swift response would provide the most surprise and the least opportunity for Saddam to prepare.
You should have marched to his border Bill and given him 6 more months to comply.

If we had delayed for even a matter of days from Chairman Butler's report, we would have given Saddam more time to disperse his forces and protect his weapons.
IS THAT WHY we can't find the WMD? Hummm

Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people.
Now you're starting to get it Bill.

And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.
Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future.
Oh really! Tell that to your party faithful and all the peace-activists.

This is the most damning piece of evidence I have ever seen that clearly shows the hypocracy of the left and that of the Democratic Party.

Clearly Bush43 could have given the exact same speech and all we would hear is the whining from the left. As far as I am concerned, the left has no voice in US international political matters. Period.
 
captainalias said:
Of course I think deception was involved. For instance, Bush mentioned the Niger incident in his SotU address, /QUOTE]


The British stand behind this assertion to this day. It was Joe Wilson who lied on this issue, not Bush.
 
RB3 said:
captainalias said:
Of course I think deception was involved. For instance, Bush mentioned the Niger incident in his SotU address, /QUOTE]


The British stand behind this assertion to this day. It was Joe Wilson who lied on this issue, not Bush.

Really, would you like to prove that lie to me? And as far as Bush standing behind that assertion, it's quite the contrary. He hasn't brought that up as a reason since 2003.
 
This is getting tiresome...

Let's just pretend for a moment that the President did lie. And he was impeached and went to jail.

What would you guys do...I mean besides say "HAH! We were right!" pat yourselves on the back and look for something else to piss and moan about?
 
fossten said:
Sorry, wrong. See here:

CIA can't rule out WMD move to Syria


By Rowan Scarborough
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

[/B][/COLOR]

Let's see, which is more accurate with regards to defense matters? Jane's or Washington Times? That's a toughie.
 
FreeFaller said:
This is getting tiresome...

Let's just pretend for a moment that the President did lie. And he was impeached and went to jail.

What would you guys do...I mean besides say "HAH! We were right!" pat yourselves on the back and look for something else to piss and moan about?

Frustrating when the shoe is on the other foot isn't it? Welcome to the Democratic party circa 1996.
 
captainalias said:
Really, would you like to prove that lie to me?

July 12, 2004, 11:05 a.m.
Clifford D. May
NRO Contributor

Our Man in Niger
Exposed and discredited, Joe Wilson might consider going back.

[snip]

But now Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV — he of the Hermes ties and Jaguar convertibles — has been thoroughly discredited. Last week's bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report concluded that it is he who has been telling lies.

For starters, he has insisted that his wife, CIA employee Valerie Plame, was not the one who came up with the brilliant idea that the agency send him to Niger to investigate whether Saddam Hussein had been attempting to acquire uranium. "Valerie had nothing to do with the matter," Wilson says in his book. "She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip." In fact, the Senate panel found, she was the one who got him that assignment. The panel even found a memo by her. (She should have thought to use disappearing ink.)

Wilson spent a total of eight days in Niger "drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people," as he put it. On the basis of this "investigation" he confidently concluded that there was no way Saddam sought uranium from Africa. Oddly, Wilson didn't bother to write a report saying this. Instead he gave an oral briefing to a CIA official.

Oddly, too, as an investigator on assignment for the CIA he was not required to keep his mission and its conclusions confidential. And for the New York Times, he was happy to put pen to paper, to write an op-ed charging the Bush administration with "twisting," "manipulating" and "exaggerating" intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons programs "to justify an invasion."

In particular he said that President Bush was lying when, in his 2003 State of the Union address, he pronounced these words: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

We now know for certain that Wilson was wrong and that Bush's statement was entirely accurate.

The British have consistently stood by that conclusion. In September 2003, an independent British parliamentary committee looked into the matter and determined that the claim made by British intelligence was "reasonable" (the media forgot to cover that one too). Indeed, Britain's spies stand by their claim to this day. Interestingly, French intelligence also reported an Iraqi attempt to procure uranium from Niger.

[snip]

What you should do is read up on Joe Wilson. What a piece of crap this guy is. A liberal democrat whose wife works for the CIA. The CIA is at war with the Bush administration and fakes some documents (where have we seen this) to make their case against the White House.

Do some investigating. Maybe you'll see the light.
 
captainalias said:
Let's see, which is more accurate with regards to defense matters? Jane's or Washington Times? That's a toughie.

Not to mention that your article is an older dated article by several months, April 27 vs. June 1.
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top