All the Poker Chips...

Discussion in 'Politics' started by montyfowler, Feb 19, 2004.

  1. montyfowler
    Offline

    montyfowler Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    72
    Thanks Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    Ratings:
    +0
    I voted for George W. Bush in the last election for one reason: he is an honest man. After 8 years of lies and spin from Clinton and his cronies, the single most important qualification for the President, in my mind, was personal integrity. Bush told us repeatedly how he would never lie to us like that other man did. He told us how he would restore honor and dignity to the office of the President. And I believed him.

    When 9/11 happened and Bush told us that Al Queda did it and that Osama bin Laden was the mastermind, I believed him. When he told us that we had to topple the Taliban regime in Afghanistan because they supported bin Laden and harbored his murderous minions, I believed him. When he told us that terrorists had infiltrated our country and in order to ferret them out we would need to trade some of our personal liberty, I believed him. When he told us that the collective intelligence of the Western world agrees that Iraq had WMD and would use them against us or sell them to terrorists, I believed him. When he told us that these threats were imminent and we had to go to war with Iraq to prevent greater harm to our country, I believed him.

    No we find ourselves occupying Iraq but our justification has vanished along with 500+ of our troops and thousands of innocent Iraqi lives. Where are the WMD? Where?! How is it that the greatest intelligence agencies in the world were 100% wrong in their analysis?

    Does this make the outcome of the war wrong or unjust? No, of course not. All but the most radical among us would agree that removing Saddam Hussien from power was a victory for the Iraqi people and improved the security of the entire world. But by what means are we willing to protect our national interests? Some would say by any means necessary. But is it worth trading the moral authority of the United States by waging a war, that may in the final analysis, turn out to be illegal by the standards of international law. (Which, by the way, we were the primary architects of acting through the UN). What destination will this new and dangerous doctrine of preemption lead us to?

    Time will tell. So will our response to the next act of terror against the U.S. And be assured...it will happen again. Tom Ridge said so. Better grab you duct tape and solar powered radio.
     
  2. rtwngAvngr
    Offline

    rtwngAvngr Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    15,755
    Thanks Received:
    511
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +511
    Bush said we needed to act BEFORE attack BECAME imminent. You know it. Quit lying. Saddam violated 14 or so un resolutions. They declared serious consequences for saddam. But when it came time to act, their anti-america stripes came out. Saying this is a preemptive action is an act of brazen intellectual dishonesty. What about enforcing U.N. resolutions? I know, I know. "what about the resolutions against Israel?" :rolleyes:
     
  3. montyfowler
    Offline

    montyfowler Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    72
    Thanks Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    Ratings:
    +0
    I can tell you and I are going to be good friends, rtwngAvngr.

    First of all, I am a conservative..no kidding. As such, I am entitled, nay, required to question the policies and actions of my government, even when it is controlled by those that claim to be of my party.

    Let's clear something up. The UN resolutions and their enforcement WAS NOT the premise under which GW took us to war with Iraq. Everyone in the administration, including the fair prince Colin Powell, got in front of the cameras and told us that there were INDEED WMD in Iraq, and that fact posed an imminent danger to the US and our allies. This is not my opinion, it is recent history...look it up.

    I have no quarrel with the administration going to war because of their above mentioned perceptions. In fact, I would have had no problem with GW saying he wanted to remove Saddam because he tried to have GW's daddy whacked! At least that would have been 100% true.

    But instead, the Whitehouse gave us a clear reason to go to war that turned out to be wrong. They were wrong...we were wrong. Why can't we admit that?

    Sure the CIA, NSA, DIA, MI-7, Interpol, etc. got it wrong and fed the bad info to the Prez. But as Harry Truman so rightly reminded all future presidents, "The buck stops here." GW should take all the credit for getting rid of Saddam Hussein, and the blame for doing it under false pretenses. We can't, as a party, hide from this simple fact.

    But more importantly we must now complete the task of building a free and secure Iraq, or else we risk everything. Our status in the world as the standard-bearer for Democracy, our moral authority in the face of tyranny, and our history of being a peaceful nation, not a war monger.

    These are the stakes in this next election. Do I think GW is still the best man for the job? Absolutely. Is he the man I thought he was when I voted for him. The jury is still out.
     
  4. freeandfun1
    Offline

    freeandfun1 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Messages:
    6,201
    Thanks Received:
    295
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +296
    Your ignoring the facts belies your statement:

     
  5. rtwngAvngr
    Offline

    rtwngAvngr Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    15,755
    Thanks Received:
    511
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +511

    It was one of the many reasons given. I take into consideration more than just what George Bush said. Limiting the argument specifically to what george bush focused on is partisan in nature. can't you think outside of what you're explicitly told? Let me ask you this: George Bush's honesty aside, do you think the right action was taken. are you in the assinine "It was the right actions for the wrong reasons" camp?? At least bush took the right actions. A dem would have considered the war on terror over after the last corpse hit the pavement from the WTC.
    Most Dems signed on based on the same evidence. Clinton and most other world leaders believed he had them. yes hindsight is 20/20. That's all your argument amount to.
    People have admitted it. The partisanship of the Dems shows through in saying that this mistake rises to the level or making the president unworthy of reelection. If Bush has just cited some different reasons would you be all better inside?
    Your twisting again. You make a mistake sound like an intentional lie.
    Any intellectually honest person would admit the war was justified just for violation of un mandates alone.
    I don't believe for one second you're a conservative. You're spinning too much. Nice try though.

     
  6. montyfowler
    Offline

    montyfowler Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    72
    Thanks Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    Ratings:
    +0
    I can't decide if you are being purposely obtuse, or what.

    GW is worthy or reelection simply because he and his administration has protected the homeland flawlessly since 9/11. That, after all, is the single most important job the prez has.

    The war, no matter how justifiable it was under UN resolution, was not started to enforce the UN resolutions. It was started because we thought Iraq had WMD and that they would use it against us or sell it to someone else who would use it. Do you or do you not agree that this is fact?

    We have not found any significant WMD yet. Do you agree with that?

    Therefore, our premise for war was wrong. Perhaps not morally wrong, but factually wrong, and probably legally wrong.

    Are you so ethically bankrupt that you cannot or will not hold your leaders accountable for such a potentially dangerous error in judgement? Are we being good conservatives if we give GW a pass on his responsibility for what may turn out to be an illegally prosecuted war against a soveriegn nation?

    My God man, I have heard of party loyalty, but your first loyalty should be to the Constitution and the democratic prinicples it was founded on.

    Let's not forget how vigorously and rightly we prosecuted Bill Clinton for his lack of character and his lies to the people. I would think going to war based on faulty intelligence as at least as bad as getting a blowjob in the Oval Office and lying to a Grand Jury about it.

    Wouldn't you agree?
     
  7. rtwngAvngr
    Offline

    rtwngAvngr Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    15,755
    Thanks Received:
    511
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +511

    I do not agree. Bush cited many reasons at different times. Enforcement of U.N. resolutions was most definitely one of them. "WMD was THE only reason given" is a lie.
    YET. Perhaps they were moved. Is that a possiblity in your minute world.
    Legally I would think enforcement of U.N. resolutions would be reason enough. Why is it not? Oh cuz Bush didn't FOCUS on it? What a deranged outlook.

    Get off your moral high horse, spinner. And don't use "we".
    Once again. Yes hindsight is 20/20. faulty info, however does nothing to disrepute the prez. You're dismissed. Have fun on the slide, child.
     
  8. freeandfun1
    Offline

    freeandfun1 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Messages:
    6,201
    Thanks Received:
    295
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +296
    hmmmmmmm where to start......?

    On this point I believe we are in agreement.

    How do YOU come to that conclusion? Just curious.

    Well, you presented more than one "fact" and then ask us if we agree with this fact...

    First off, the UN resolutions were ALL the justification we needed according to the liberals up until we decided to take action. Then everybody wanted to back track. Secondly, the end of the first Gulf War was predicated on Iraq complying with UN resolutions. So I take the position that since he did not comply, all this recent conflict is, is a resumption of the military effort to get him to comply.

    If you want to ignore the second part, go ahead as I agree the war was started for the reasons you state and Bush, Kerry, Clinton, et. al. all said the same thing. The difference it, Bush acted.

    Yes, but I also understand that we waited so long that we have no idea where they might now be. The UN, Clinton, et. al. also said he had them. Do you agree with that fact? Bush was not the only one that cried "fire" in the theater. It was yelled by others first and repeated by him. Is he alone wrong because he of that?

    I would also submit that the key word is: YET.

    As somebody else said, hindsight is 20/20 and very convenient. All the indicators where there. The UN, Clinton, etc., etc.....

    None of your arguments thus far are holding any water. Why won't you stop being ethically bankrupt and admit you are being partisan. Otherwise, why won't you be honest with yourself and admit what has been presented a gazillion times?

    Very true. However, isn't defeding our country, it's ideals and it's interests all part of what is required for us to defend the constitution?

    I would agree if your premise that he knew 100% that the intelligence was faulty. Even if he suspected it might be, I would rather a president be pro-active than re-active. We have already seen what happens when we ignore.

    Now I ask, if you are honest with yourself, wouldn't you agree?
     
  9. rtwngAvngr
    Offline

    rtwngAvngr Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    15,755
    Thanks Received:
    511
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +511
    High five, FAF1. This fool is dumstruck at this point!

    :beer:
     
  10. rtwngAvngr
    Offline

    rtwngAvngr Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    15,755
    Thanks Received:
    511
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +511
    Helloooooo? fool? Anything?
     

Share This Page