Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 53
  1. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #21  
    And yet, never before in US history has this nation had a Policy of Preemption because every single administration prior to Bush understood its reckless, unwise basis. There is no precedent for the world-wide manipulation of governments on every populated continent anywhere near this magnitude under the guise of national security. There is no excuse.
  2. #22  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny
    I certainly don't mean to flame you and if I gave you that impression I am sorry. As to your posts with alleged wrongs by previous President's....well they are interesting but I don't see how a precedent for lying (assuming any of these accusations are even true) our way into war makes it anymore right or morally just. If a lie about a sex act is bad (but not treasonous), then a lie leading us into war is at least doubly bad. A pack of lies and a fraudulent NIE are treasonous.
    No Moderateinny, I did not view your post as a flame at all. What you said above is basically what I said in the second paragraph of my post. It is nothing more than a point of interest to see the historical parallels. They say history is doomed to repeat itself.

    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny
    The bottom line is that I believe this administration went above and beyond any previous administrations to fabricate and exaggerate reasons to go to war.
    I am not sure...the latest information about how President Roosevelt lined up Pearl Harbor and actively engaged in getting it attacked is pretty above and beyond administrations fabricating and exaggerating reasons to go to war. This would be comparable to Bush purposely lining up 9/11 and letting it happen with full knowledge of where and when and means to prevent it if desired.
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 05/01/2007 at 04:07 PM.
  3. #23  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    KOREAN WAR: On June 27, 1950, Truman told the American people that North Korea's attack on South Korea showed the world "Communism has passed beyond the use of subversion to conquer independent nations and will now use armed Intervention" Truman held a campaign comparing them to Joseph Stalin's actions with Adolf Hitler's in the 1930s. He went on to say that it was the strategy of the empire builders. Americans should fear the "Reds" as they are going to invade us and blow up all of our churches.

    The truth has later come out that the civil war in Korea began the day the Japanese were driven out and with the help of "American advisor's" the South Koreans initiated most of the border clashes with North Korean forces at the 38th parallel.
    Hmm. Never heard this version except from North Korea. Even Chinese and Russian historians agree that North Korea invaded the South on June 25.
  4. #24  
    Yes...but apparently (and I am certainly need to do a lot more reading on it) there was quite a bit of American involvement to initiate the events and antagonize the North into invading. But there still may be debate on that as well, I am not 100%.
  5. #25  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    ...but I don't see how a precedent for lying (assuming any of these accusations are even true) our way into war makes it anymore right or morally just.
    Absolutely correct.

    If a lie about a sex act is bad (but not treasonous), then a lie leading us into war is at least doubly bad. A pack of lies and a fraudulent NIE are treasonous.
    First, the issue with Clinton was not that he lied about sex (nor that he had sex) but that he lied under oath in an official investigation. Be as it may, it was a big political witch hunt on the part of the Republicans to disgrace the President.

    The "fraudulent NIE report" is not a mater of proof at this point so we can not talk of treason, we can talk about the need for additional investigation. What I am afraid is that it may also become a witch hunt by the Democrats to disgrace the President.

    The bottom line is that I believe this adminstration went above and beyond any previous adminstrations to fabricate and exagerate reasons to go to war.
    Much has been said about the reasons for this war, much is yet to be known about those as well. Is clear now the "intelligence" that lead to this operation was flawed, but who is to blame if any I don't know as many other foreign intelligence services over the years attested to Iraq's WMD arsenals.

    Post Watergate - well it’s my theory that that is when the "liberal" media was born.
    I am really opposed to the "liberal" or "conservative" press, if we are to save this Nation we need to shed the partisan prism and demand an "American" media that actually seeks and reports the truth with out passion or predjudice.
    Have a great one...Doc D.

    Phillips VELO > Palm III > Palm V > Palm 505m > Treo 180 > Treo 300 > Samsung i500 > Treo 700p > HTC 6800 > Treo 800w > Treo Pro > Palm Pre > HTC Evo
  6.    #26  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    I am not sure...the latest information about how President Roosevelt lined up Pearl Harbor and actively engaged in getting it attacked is pretty above and beyond administrations fabricating and exaggerating reasons to go to war. This would be comparable to Bush purposely lining up 9/11 and letting it happen with full knowledge of where and when and means to prevent it if desired.
    Reprehensible if true. Albeit still very different circumstances and very different times. e.g. WWII was already a war vs. the war in Iraq which was purely elective and started by us (arguably provoked, but we started it nonetheless). So there was much more of a "gathering storm" with real enemies that were at war with our allies and in all likelihood we would have entered the war at some point anyway. Again, not justifying FDR allowing Pearl Harbor to be bombed for the sake of accelerating the inevitable but merely pointing out how one is apples the other oranges if viewed in this context.
    Last edited by moderateinny; 05/01/2007 at 05:15 PM.
  7.    #27  
    Quote Originally Posted by TreoNewt View Post
    First, the issue with Clinton was not that he lied about sex (nor that he had sex) but that he lied under oath in an official investigation. Be as it may, it was a big political witch hunt on the part of the Republicans to disgrace the President.
    Yes it was. But what made it so appauling was the hypocrisy of those chasing him as well as the shear amount of energy and tax payer dollars expended over lying about sex.

    The "fraudulent NIE report" is not a mater of proof at this point so we can not talk of treason, we can talk about the need for additional investigation.
    Agreed, it needs to be investigated. My point is that it needs to be investigated with the same vigor as was done for lying about sex.

    What I am afraid is that it may also become a witch hunt by the Democrats to disgrace the President.
    Sorry but here is where I think we'll have to agree to disagree. If ever we needed a witch hunt it is now IMO. The offenses committed by this President - if proven true - will dwarf that of Watergate. Our Democracy as we know it and our constitution has been trampled on by these guys who have taken "executive priviledge" to imperial levels.

    I am really opposed to the "liberal" or "conservative" press, if we are to save this Nation we need to shed the partisan prism and demand an "American" media that actually seeks and reports the truth with out passion or predjudice.
    I agree with that. Sort of like our politicians need to put country before party. But with respect to the free press in this country, I'd lean more toward a liberal one anyday vs. one that is a mouthpiece of the government. Again, I just believe strongly that a free press has a duty to be skeptical of our government and you are right, they also have a duty to report the truth without passion or prejudice.
  8. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #28  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Agreed, it needs to be investigated. My point is that it needs to be investigated with the same vigor as was done for lying about sex.
    Because this is the bedrock of what justified our invasion of another sovereign nation, its investigation should be the mother of all investigations. It is owed to those who have sacrificed their s lives willingly under false pretenses.

    The offenses committed by this President - if proven true - will dwarf that of Watergate. Our Democracy as we know it and our constitution has been trampled on by these guys who have taken "executive priviledge" to imperial levels.
    "Stop throwing the Constitution in my face ... itís just a g*dd*mn*d piece of paper!" -- G.W. Bush
  9. #29  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    greed, it needs to be investigated. My point is that it needs to be investigated with the same vigor as was done for lying about sex.
    It's hard to imagine any circumstance that would justify the "fraudulent NIE" accusation, short of Tenet explicitly stating that he believed the NIE was false when he presented it.

    Intelligence involves weighing contradictory and inconclusive evidence. There was reporting that there was no WMD in Iraq. There was reporting that there was WMD in Iraq. The Administration bought into the latter (as did the rest of the world). And now people are pointing at the fact that there was contrary evidence as proof of fraud?
  10.    #30  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    It's hard to imagine any circumstance that would justify the "fraudulent NIE" accusation, short of Tenet explicitly stating that he believed the NIE was false when he presented it.
    It needs to be investigated. If a document was made to present as evidence to the American people and the Congress and information that would disprove such evidence was intentionally left out, then that is fraud. And in this case, that is treason (or so I contend).

    Intelligence involves weighing contradictory and inconclusive evidence.
    Yup. So was Joe Wilson's findings in that NIE or conveniently omitted? It should have at least been presented for the reader to weigh whether his findings are conclusive or inconclusive - they were not to my knowledge.

    There was reporting that there was no WMD in Iraq. There was reporting that there was WMD in Iraq. The Administration bought into the latter (as did the rest of the world). And now people are pointing at the fact that there was contrary evidence as proof of fraud?
    Well not to start a battle over this but I half disagree with you. Most of the world suspected he had WMDs but the way you present it makes it seem like the rest of the world also agreed to invade Iraq. They did not. They wanted the inspectors to complete their inspecting while the US had him surrounded. A better dimplomat, such as Jim Baker, would have waited things out while Saddam played his games until we built a real coalition. A cowboy announces we're gonna "go it alone" and snubs the international community because he has already decided to invade.
  11. #31  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    If a document was made to present as evidence to the American people and the Congress and information that would disprove such evidence was intentionally left out, then that is fraud. And in this case, that is treason (or so I contend).
    Only if they believed what they presented was false. If they believed what they presented was true, then obviously they'd believe that any contradictory evidence was false. Whether to include that apparently false evidence is a judgement call.

    Yup. So was Joe Wilson's findings in that NIE or conveniently omitted? It should have at least been presented for the reader to weigh whether his findings are conclusive or inconclusive - they were not to my knowledge.
    Why would you want to include Wilson's incorrect assessment?

    Well not to start a battle over this but I half disagree with you. Most of the world suspected he had WMDs but the way you present it makes it seem like the rest of the world also agreed to invade Iraq. They did not.
    We're talking about WMD in Iraq. The rest of the world agreed that Iraq had WMD.

    They wanted the inspectors to complete their inspecting while the US had him surrounded. A better dimplomat, such as Jim Baker, would have waited things out while Saddam played his games until we built a real coalition. A cowboy announces we're gonna "go it alone" and snubs the international community because he has already decided to invade.
    Do you really think France and Russia would have ever agreed to do anything to Saddam when he was bribing their officials and giving them oil deals? A coalition of the unbribed is the best that anyone, including Baker, could ever get.
  12. #32  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Sorry but here is where I think we'll have to agree to disagree. If ever we needed a witch hunt it is now IMO. The offenses committed by this President - if proven true - will dwarf that of Watergate. Our Democracy as we know it and our constitution has been trampled on by these guys who have taken "executive priviledge" to imperial levels.
    We will disagree on this one, but what is wrong for one (political witch hunt against President Clinton), is wrong for every one else (in this case, a political witch hunt against President Bush).

    Honest investigations are always a good thing, we certainly have a number of corrupt politicians at the Federal level that need to be rooted out.

    I agree with that. Sort of like our politicians need to put country before party. But with respect to the free press in this country, I'd lean more toward a liberal one anyday vs. one that is a mouthpiece of the government. Again, I just believe strongly that a free press has a duty to be skeptical of our government and you are right, they also have a duty to report the truth without passion or prejudice.
    This can only happen if Americans decide to put Country before politics, we have too many partisans in this Country.
    Last edited by TreoNewt; 05/01/2007 at 10:34 PM.
    Have a great one...Doc D.

    Phillips VELO > Palm III > Palm V > Palm 505m > Treo 180 > Treo 300 > Samsung i500 > Treo 700p > HTC 6800 > Treo 800w > Treo Pro > Palm Pre > HTC Evo
  13. #33  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    Only if they believed what they presented was false. If they believed what they presented was true, then obviously they'd believe that any contradictory evidence was false. Whether to include that apparently false evidence is a judgement call.
    Should that be true, then the argument of the "left" that there was "cherry-picking" of intelligence in order to support the Iraq campain would be accurate. I don't believe this by itself amounts to treason, but is rather suspicious.

    Do you really think France and Russia would have ever agreed to do anything to Saddam when he was bribing their officials and giving them oil deals? A coalition of the unbribed is the best that anyone, including Baker, could ever get.
    I do agree with this assessment. France, Russia, Germany and China were in deep financial deals with Saddam's regime, is unlikely they would have ever approved any military action; no amount of diplomacy here would have made any difference.

    However, I have to say that at the time there were other more pressing targets to pursue than Iraq. The Afganistan campain should have been pursued further before opening another front on the "war", and in my personal scale, Iran and North Korea were higher National Security threats to this Nation then.
    Have a great one...Doc D.

    Phillips VELO > Palm III > Palm V > Palm 505m > Treo 180 > Treo 300 > Samsung i500 > Treo 700p > HTC 6800 > Treo 800w > Treo Pro > Palm Pre > HTC Evo
  14. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #34  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    Why would you want to include Wilson's incorrect assessment?
    How Rove of you. What's next? "I'm rubber, you're glue"?

    The rest of the world agreed that Iraq had WMD.
    Yet, the US is so superior when the chips are down and only the equal of Denmark even then?

    A coalition of the unbribed is the best that anyone, including Baker, could ever get.
  15. #35  
    Quote Originally Posted by TreoNewt View Post
    Iran and North Korea were higher National Security threats to this Nation then.
    Actually not. It seems easy to say, until we look at what we didn't know about at that time decisions where made.

    Iran's 20 year secret nuke program wasn't even officially reported to the UN until 8 months AFTER the invasion into Iraq.

    NK had the deal with Clinton Admin (that it never followed at any time since 1994) and at the time was still only under suspicion more for their ballistic missile tests that it conducted in 1998 when they shot one over Japan and landed in the sea just off the coast of Alaska. It wasn't until the last half of 2002 that their illegal and illegitimate uranium enrichment program was even known to be active and even then unknown at the time of how far along it was until later that year and into 2003.
  16. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #36  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    Iran's 20 year secret nuke program wasn't even officially reported to the UN until 8 months AFTER the invasion into Iraq.
    Yet, Israel's nukes are still 100% undeclared.
  17. #37  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    Actually not. It seems easy to say, until we look at what we didn't know about at that time decisions where made.

    Iran's 20 year secret nuke program wasn't even officially reported to the UN until 8 months AFTER the invasion into Iraq.

    NK had the deal with Clinton Admin (that it never followed at any time since 1994) and at the time was still only under suspicion more for their ballistic missile tests that it conducted in 1998 when they shot one over Japan and landed in the sea just off the coast of Alaska. It wasn't until the last half of 2002 that their illegal and illegitimate uranium enrichment program was even known to be active and even then unknown at the time of how far along it was until later that year and into 2003.
    I do not disagree with your assessment. As I stated, Afganistan should have been our only front for some time before proceeding elsewhere. By that time some of this would have become publicly known.

    As you stated, North Korea was suspect on it's nuclear program plus the missle test menacing Japan, one of American strategic allies, should have prompted more attention. Iran on the other hand has been a leading destablelizing force in the region, more so in my opinion that Iraq.
    Have a great one...Doc D.

    Phillips VELO > Palm III > Palm V > Palm 505m > Treo 180 > Treo 300 > Samsung i500 > Treo 700p > HTC 6800 > Treo 800w > Treo Pro > Palm Pre > HTC Evo
  18. #38  
    Believe me I do not disagree with you at all about NK, but Clinton followed Carter's lead in appeasement instead of hardlining it with NK. NK then just walked all over them thumbing their noses at us. This then lead a challenging diplomatic situation as China was then in a position to help NK and Pakistan with their Nuke programs. In that situation NK now already had nukes and how much can we go after them without getting China all revved up is a certainly a fine line to walk.

    Iran yes was more known to be more involved in terrorist activities at the time, but no hint at a massive Nuke program at the time. It would have been even a harder sell than Iraq. But even if we had stayed focus on Afghanistan until we knew about Iran. Then we proceeded on the same course with Iran as we had with Iraq, we would be in a worse boat now then we currently are in Iraq. Iran and Syria & Lebanon have closer ties and support than any of them did with Iraq. There is a good chance that they might have stepped in and could have been a fight against 3 countries. Either way, openly supported or behind the scenes, we would be facing a resistance potentially much larger than than the terrorists forces we face in Iraq today. And we still wouldn't know the truth about Saddam's programs in the middle of all of this. Even though we now know Saddam did not have active programs, we do know without a doubt from retrieved docs and Saddam's own testimony he had solidified plans to re-initiate a nuke & bio & chem programs as soon as the attention was off him and/or some of the sanctions were eased off a bit.
  19. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #39  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    Believe me I do not disagree with you at all about NK, but Clinton followed Carter's lead in appeasement instead of hardlining it with NK. NK then just walked all over them thumbing their noses at us. This then lead a challenging diplomatic situation as China was then in a position to help NK and Pakistan with their Nuke programs.

    Iran yes was more known to be more involved in terrorist activities at the time, but no hint at a massive Nuke program at the time. It would have been even a harder sell than Iraq. But even if we had stayed focus on Afghanistan until we knew about Iran. Then we proceeded on the same course with Iran as we had with Iraq, we would be in a worse boat now then we currently are in Iraq. Iran and Syria & Lebanon have closer ties and support than any of them did with Iraq. There is a good chance that they might have stepped in and could have been a fight against 3 countries. Either way, openly supported or behind the scenes, we would be facing a resistance potentially much larger than than the terrorists forces we face in Iraq today. And we still wouldn't know the truth about Saddam's programs in the middle of all of this. Even though we now know Saddam did not have active programs, we do know without a doubt from retrieved docs and Saddam's own testimony he had solidified plans to re-initiate a nuke & bio & chem programs as soon as the attention was off him and/or some of the sanctions were eased off a bit.
    While sadly amusing, the music and lyrics of your little world-wide promenade were originally recorded in 1997 by The Project For The New American Century whose frontman said: "Look, our strategy is to create chaos, to create a vacuum. . . We will export death and violence to the four corners of the earth in defense of our great nation." -- G.W. Bush
  20.    #40  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    Only if they believed what they presented was false. If they believed what they presented was true, then obviously they'd believe that any contradictory evidence was false. Whether to include that apparently false evidence is a judgement call.
    I'd be more willing to give them the benefit of the doubt if there weren't so many ex-Bush officials (Paul O'Neil, David Kuo, Richard Clark, George Tenet, former Generals, etc. etc.) who all seem think they were fixated on invading Iraq. But you know what? That is what an investigation will bare out for all to see and if they have nothing to hide they should be willing to tell the Dems, "bring it on".

    Why would you want to include Wilson's incorrect assessment?
    What part was incorrect and what is your source?

    We're talking about WMD in Iraq. The rest of the world agreed that Iraq had WMD.
    Most of the world believed us back when we had credibility since few have the intelligence gathering capabilities that the US has. Now a days....not so much.

    Do you really think France and Russia would have ever agreed to do anything to Saddam when he was bribing their officials and giving them oil deals? A coalition of the unbribed is the best that anyone, including Baker, could ever get.
    Probably not. But the net of it is they look more right than we do in this whole fiasco because they were right and we were wrong. But none of that matters anyway since the they (and the rest of the world) wanted inspections to continue and had they continued they would have concluded that the WMDs were not there or they'd still be looking. And if Saddam would have grown tired of the inspectors and miscalculated (again) we would have been in a stronger position to act militarily.
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions