Bush Has Killed More Human Beings

[wonderwench]

I went to a fundraiser for Diane Feinstein the day after Saddam Hussein's capture was announced. She made a couple germaine points regarding this thread:

(Please keep in mind that she is on the Senate Intelligence Committee):

- 77 Senators, including quite a few Democrats, voted for military action based on intelligence that Saddam did possess WMDs.

- The most credible intelligence, in DiFi's view, involved chemical weapons which could be smuggled into the U.S. and/or attached to conventional warheads.

She expressed no regret that the U.S. went to war to remove Saddam.

 

[bamthin]

Originally posted by wonderwench
I went to a fundraiser for Diane Feinstein the day after Saddam Hussein's capture was announced. She made a couple germaine points regarding this thread:

(Please keep in mind that she is on the Senate Intelligence Committee):

- 77 Senators, including quite a few Democrats, voted for military action based on intelligence that Saddam did possess WMDs.

- The most credible intelligence, in DiFi's view, involved chemical weapons which could be smuggled into the U.S. and/or attached to conventional warheads.

She expressed no regret that the U.S. went to war to remove Saddam.

So, did Feinstein discuss whether she thought our intelligence apparatus is inept or did she think that the Executive office has too much influence to coerce whatever intelligence they desire to support their agenda?

Or is she still waiting for the WMDs? If that's the case, she may need to wake up and smell the coffee. It seems even Bush isn't even trying to cling to that prayer anymore.

-Bam

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by bamthin
So, did Feinstein discuss whether she thought our intelligence apparatus is inept or did she think that the Executive office has too much influence to coerce whatever intelligence they desire to support their agenda?

Why do you harp on 'our' intelligence? It was intel from quite a few countries that lead everyone to believe he was an immediate threat. Are you going to say the Bush administration controlled all their intel as well?

 

[X.P. Alidocious]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
wrong. I'm certainly not an anarchist and I'm pro-choice. I happen to hope
they choose life, but I'm pro-choice.

You're pro-abortion. Not, pro-choice.

Pro-choice is a silly label for something that means nothing of the kind.
It's like saying you're pro-choice in an abortion case is like saying you're
pro-choice in a child custody suit.You may support the father's choice, but then
you don't support the choice of the mother. You may support the mother, but
then you don't support the choice of the father. And you're certainly not letting
the kid make the choice on his or her own.

In abortion, you may support the "mother's" choice, but you aren't letting the
baby have one. You're also not letting the father have one.

So quit hiding behind a euphamistic label. Anarchists are pro everyone's
choice on everything and are the only ones who can truly claim to be
pro-choice.

are you seriously going to try to tell me that the congressional record reflects
the majority of opinions of the people? I've seen two congressman stand up for
the people, the others have stood by their party. pro-life and pro-choice by
politicians are rarely more than a stand to get a vote.

I'm going to tell you that even if you're out there saying to the world that you're
pro-life, but you're voting time after time for pro-abort congressmen, that you're
really not pro-life. You're saying one thing, but you're using your power (your
vote) to do another.

I wasn't talking about elected officials, I was talking about the everyday
american.

The liberals I first referred to were elected officials. The alternatives and
opposition to the president. However, I don't think that elected officials
are so detached from the public as you seem to think they are.

 

[wonderwench]

Originally posted by bamthin
So, did Feinstein discuss whether she thought our intelligence apparatus is inept or did she think that the Executive office has too much influence to coerce whatever intelligence they desire to support their agenda?

Or is she still waiting for the WMDs? If that's the case, she may need to wake up and smell the coffee. It seems even Bush isn't even trying to cling to that prayer anymore.

-Bam

First, the biggest threat is the capability of spinning up production. The evidence is quite clear that Saddam's regime had the plans and capability of doing so.

Second, now that Saddam has been captured, I fully except that he will squeal like a stuck pig and reveal where the WMDs are hidden. There is strong evidence of a trail into Syria. In addition, now that it is apparent that the Baathists will not return to power, scientists and others should feel more secure to divulge what they know.

Too bad a certain portion of the U.S. population is so corrupted by Instant Gratification Syndrom. Fortunately, those in charge of protecting our national security recognize that a threat that has been centuries in the making will not be resolved in a couple of weeks.

 

[bamthin]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Why do you harp on 'our' intelligence? It was intel from quite a few countries that lead everyone to believe he was an immediate threat. Are you going to say the Bush administration controlled all their intel as well?

So the Senate Intelligence Committee depends on foreign intelligence from allies alone in sufficient measure to make the case for war? I am aware that other countries contribute to intelleigence efforts, but are you trying to absolve the US intelligence infrastructure of any ineptitude in the WMD issue?

I think they are all bumbling idiots to present the case for war based on WMD. Either that or they were coerced to make a case. Is their any other option? At least at this point. Or are you still waiting for the stockpiles of WMD?

Alot of people have died based on that intelligence. Do you have any desire to make someone accountable for that? Or is that some unfortunate collective mistake that is really unimportant because Saddam had it coming anyway.

By the way, if Bush can control Blair, he can control the UK intelligence apparatus by proxy. I am not saying he did this, just a little food for thought though.

-Bam

 

[jimnyc]

So the Senate Intelligence Committee depends on foreign intelligence from allies alone in sufficient measure to make the case for war?

No, they used years of US intel with similar intel coming in from other countries.

I am aware that other countries contribute to intelleigence efforts, but are you trying to absolve the US intelligence infrastructure of any ineptitude in the WMD issue?

At worst, the intel didn't pan out as expected, which means worldwide intelligence was faulty. I didn't absolve anyone of anything.

I think they are all bumbling idiots to present the case for war based on WMD. Either that or they were coerced to make a case. Is their any other option? At least at this point. Or are you still waiting for the stockpiles of WMD?

They presented the case for war based on a lot more than just WMD, although that was a major point in the case. I don't think they are all bumbling idiots, unless you want to say the same of the other countries as well. Don't you think it's odd that similar intel came in from various countries?

I still think WMD will be found. You can find enough to kill the entire Middle East stuffed in my bedroom. They don't even know if it's in Iraq anymore or not, they very well could have been moved to Syria or elsewhere. Even if they never find any, that's still ok with me. I know one dictator who won't be using them regardless.

Alot of people have died based on that intelligence. Do you have any desire to make someone accountable for that? Or is that some unfortunate collective mistake that is really unimportant because Saddam had it coming anyway.

Yes, I hold Saddam accountable. He could have averted all this but instead chose to play his games. War certainly wasn't the first option, but it was his (Saddam) last option. Of course it sucks that people have died, but it wasn't because of faulty intel. Saddam's removal was a long time coming anyway.

By the way, if Bush can control Blair, he can control the UK intelligence apparatus by proxy. I am not saying he did this, just a little food for thought though.

My brain is starving.

 

[wonderwench]

The mistake many people make is to think of intel as evidence in a court of law.

It is not.

Nor are foreign threats to our national security protected by the Bill of Rights.

It is the responsibility of the Executive Branch to evaluate imperfect information and then to apply reasonable judgement. The alternative is the Clinton legacy of treating terrorism as a crime instead of an act of war. We all know where that disastrous policy got us.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by X.P. Alidocious
I disagree. By helping to elect the liberal officials who support killing them you ensure their deaths.

that sounds like an implication of people voting on just one issue, is that what its supposed to be?

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by X.P. Alidocious
You're pro-abortion. Not, pro-choice.

Pro-choice is a silly label for something that means nothing of the kind.

labels are assinine, so is trying to say one thing is another thing entirely as in I'm pro-abortion, not pro-choice. That would be like saying conservatism is only a silly label for fascism.

so quit hiding behind a euphamistic label. Anarchists are pro everyone's
choice on everything and are the only ones who can truly claim to be
pro-choice.

thats ludicrous. a person has to be an anarchist because that person believes they should have a right to choose something? or are you saying that if you believe in pro-choice on one issue then you're an anarchist? explain in more detail just what it is you want to brand me as so I can rip it apart inside and out.

I'm going to tell you that even if you're out there saying to the world that you're
pro-life, but you're voting time after time for pro-abort congressmen, that you're
really not pro-life. You're saying one thing, but you're using your power (your
vote) to do another.

the sooner you get over the idea of its one or the other, black or white, with us or against us then the sooner you can start making more rational arguments. I take HUGE offense at being labeled something I'm not because I believe in something completely different from you. It reminds me of a phrase I've heard in the past. One that defines the idiocy of righteousness, the belief that 'I am right, therefore those who believe differently are wrong.'

 

[bamthin]

Originally posted by wonderwench
The mistake many people make is to think of intel as evidence in a court of law.

It is not.

Nor are foreign threats to our national security protected by the Bill of Rights.

It is the responsibility of the Executive Branch to evaluate imperfect information and then to apply reasonable judgement. The alternative is the Clinton legacy of treating terrorism as a crime instead of an act of war. We all know where that disastrous policy got us.

It's the "imperfect information" that is the crux of this issue. At this point, the WMD intel is beyond just being imperfect...it's embarrasing. It is also extremely pertinent to remember that the WMD argument was the #1 reason that a case was made for war BEFORE the invasion. That should not be forgotten...ever.

Why are you dragging Clinton into this? I can't find any good reason why you would want to derail this issue and focus on him. Does that get you right wing "brownie points" on this board?

I could reference Reagan's cowardly pull out of Lebanon after 241 Marines were killed there in 1983 and Bin Laden's mention of it as proof that the US were cowards when they were attacked. What purpose does that serve in this discussion? None.

Focus....


-Bam

 

[DKSuddeth]

someone tell me how and when this 'iraqi war' went from defending the US against an imminent threat to our national security from WMDs and terrorism to the liberation of iraq.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
someone tell me how and when this 'iraqi war' went from defending the US against an imminent threat to our national security from WMDs and terrorism to the liberation of iraq.

You're confused. It's always been for more than just WMD and national security. Read the resolutions from 1991.

 

[DKSuddeth]

we have talked about this before, yes I know there are 30 some odd reasons that the bush administration is talking about now but for 3 straight press conferences before combat action commenced WMD's were stressed over and over and over again peppered with the 'liberation' of the iraqi people. The numerous resolutions from the UNSC were rarely, if at all, brought to the american people as a reason(s) for military action.

So, if I'm confused, then I blame the Bush administration for not outlining very clearly to me, and the rest of the american people, that we absolutely had to remove hussein and his regime primarily because he refused to abide by UN resolutions, refused to treat his people with justice, mercy, and compassion, refused to allow complete inspections for banned weapons, refused to stop his blustering threats to his neighbors and the world.

I think I understand now that WMD's were really NOT a priority and were mainly a 'scare tactic' to prod the american people along on a desired course of action for war.

 

[jimnyc]

The WMD and threats to security were stressed more at that time because of 9/11 and the fact that some of the intel was 'fresh'. The rest of the reasons for removing Saddam and regime and helping the oppressed people was talked about for 12 years prior to the invasion. The other things you discuss WERE stressed prior to war but for obvious reasons were overshadowed by talk of banned weapons.

 

[wonderwench]

Originally posted by bamthin
It's the "imperfect information" that is the crux of this issue. At this point, the WMD intel is beyond just being imperfect...it's embarrasing. It is also extremely pertinent to remember that the WMD argument was the #1 reason that a case was made for war BEFORE the invasion. That should not be forgotten...ever.

Why are you dragging Clinton into this? I can't find any good reason why you would want to derail this issue and focus on him. Does that get you right wing "brownie points" on this board?

I could reference Reagan's cowardly pull out of Lebanon after 241 Marines were killed there in 1983 and Bin Laden's mention of it as proof that the US were cowards when they were attacked. What purpose does that serve in this discussion? None.

Focus....


-Bam

Intel is by nature imperfect - this is why judgement and prudence must be applied through analysis. You are also spinning the rationale for the War. Saddam was in violation of umpteen UN resolutions - and had 12 years to perfect his gaming of the system.

The U.S., as a party to the settlement of the 1991 Gulf War has every right to see that the terms are enforced. As the UN was unwilling to do so, we had to take matters into our own hands. Thank the goddess that we did.

Clinton comes into it precisely because his appalling legacy of mishandling terrorism emboldened the network. The 1993 bombing of the WTC, the USS Cole and numerous embassy bombings taught the network that they could attack the U.S. and our elite intelligensia would do everything it could to blame the U.S. instead of the real culprits. Hence, they felt perfectly free to commit the 9/11 atrocities.

 

[DKSuddeth]

The WMD and threats to security were stressed more at that time because of 9/11 and the fact that some of the intel was 'fresh'.

So it WAS used as a scare tactic?

The rest of the reasons for removing Saddam and regime and helping the oppressed people was talked about for 12 years prior to the invasion.

I admit, I didn't watch c-span or any of the political based shows until about the beginning of 2002 but I wasn't blissfully ignorant of what was going on and I don't remember any politician telling the american people that we had to invade iraq because he wouldn't abide by the UN resolutions. On top of that, it seems to me that when Clinton and his administration were trying to persuade a GOP led house to do more to iraq he was met with quite a bit of opposition to it. I also remember hearing madeline albright tell the american people via the press that the huge cost in iraqi lives due to the sanctions were 'worth the price' to remove hussein. So how does that help the opressed people?



I'm not trying to be obtuse but I still feel like I was misled by the white house as for the reasons to invade iraq because of the stress on banned weapons and intelligence.

 

[bamthin]

Originally posted by wonderwench
Intel is by nature imperfect - this is why judgement and prudence must be applied through analysis. You are also spinning the rationale for the War. Saddam was in violation of umpteen UN resolutions - and had 12 years to perfect his gaming of the system.

The U.S., as a party to the settlement of the 1991 Gulf War has every right to see that the terms are enforced. As the UN was unwilling to do so, we had to take matters into our own hands. Thank the goddess that we did.

Clinton comes into it precisely because his appalling legacy of mishandling terrorism emboldened the network. The 1993 bombing of the WTC, the USS Cole and numerous embassy bombings taught the network that they could attack the U.S. and our elite intelligensia would do everything it could to blame the U.S. instead of the real culprits. Hence, they felt perfectly free to commit the 9/11 atrocities.

So, you are blaming the current terrorist scourge on Clinton? I'll bet you aren't giving him credit for the booming economy of the 90's though, right? And another thing, can you tell me the steps Bush took while he was in office prior to 9/11 to combat terrorism. Be specific and be sure to not forget the pursuit of Bin Laden. I know Clinton at least *tried* to get bin Laden. Did Bush?

I also notice you had no comment about the pullout from Lebanon by the "Gipper". Did Clinton somehow influence this to somehow?

-Bam


-Bam

 

[X.P. Alidocious]

that sounds like an implication of people voting on just
one issue, is that what its supposed to be?

Every voter shares part of the credit and blame for the actions of
the official he or she elects in a democratic form of government.
On every issue. You and I are part of the process. We're both
responsible for the consequences of our actions, though it may
not be comfortable to own up to that.

so is trying to say one thing is another thing entirely as in I'm pro-
abortion, not pro-choice. That would be like saying conservatism
is only a silly label for fascism.

Alright. Here's the deal. I don't doubt that you fill out "pro-choice"
rather than "pro-abortion" on surveys. Or that when asked you
answer one rather than the other. And sure, you say things like
you hope women don't choose to have abortions abortion, but you want them to have the right to have them all the same.


And it seems to me like you're saying, "I know it's wrong, but let's
let them do it anyway." To me that's more despicable than
delusionally thinking it's right and campaigning for rights you see
no wrong in.

At any rate. Think about it. Does your position further the
abortion movement or hold it back? It furthers it. Obviously. A
position that furthers a movement favors it. You are pro-abortion.
Whether you are in words or not, because you support policies
and officials that keep it going.

(You would have every right to call all conservatives fascists if in
fact, they were furthering fascist causes in every single election.
If they start to do so, they ought to be pegged for what they
are. )

Hiding behind misleading labels doesn't change that.

You're not "pro-choice." A you're in favor of only one specific
choice. And that choice is abortion. I'm for another choice. Life.
But neither one of us favors just "choice" by itself. We both
recognizes limitations. We both favor one part over another. We
make choices almost every second. We may choose to break laws
or keep them, to violate rights, or to protect them. It is silly to
label once choice simply "choice." There isn't one. There are
many. You're only for one. Anarchists are for all. Supposedly. Is
this clearer?

Look. I'm not calling you an anarchist. I'm just saying that you're
using a label only they can rightfully use. And I think you're
deceiving yourself and others by claiming to be something
you're not.

the sooner you get over the idea of its one or the other, black or
white, with us or against us then the sooner you can start
making more rational arguments. I take HUGE offense at being
labeled something I'm not because I believe in something
completely different from you. It reminds me of a phrase I've
heard in the past. One that defines the idiocy of righteousness,
the belief that 'I am right, therefore those who believe differently
are wrong.'

There are some cases in which there are shades of gray and
others in which there are not. You need to get over your idea
that everything is a shade of gray. Putting two and two
together makes four, not three and there are absolutes.

Shades of gray in situations like these are just blacks painted
over with whites so that the people wearing black can feel less
gloomy about themselves.

 

[DKSuddeth]

X.P., I read your response and all I can say is fine, you believe what you want to believe and state things how you want to state them. It certainly means that at least you know you're right. Nobody else, save a certain percentage of the population, will feel that way but hey, at least you're right in your own mind. I feel I'm right with my stand on it.

Thanks for telling me where I stand