If Bush Was A Liar On Iraq Then So Were the Libs [Archive]

BluffTHIS!

11-14-2005, 02:57 AM

Excerpted from this (http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/columnists/jgurwitz/stories/MYSA111305.3H.gurwitz.c47f8de.html) link.

Jonathan Gurwitz: Opponents say Bush lied; read between the lines

Web Posted: 11/13/2005 12:00 AM CST

San Antonio Express-News

Opponents of President Bush routinely invoke the incantation that he lied about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to take the nation to war.

"Urges the President to take all necessary and appropriate actions to respond to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
— Text of Senate Concurrent Resolution 71, Jan. 28, 1998, co-sponsored by Democrats Tom Daschle, Patrick Leahy, Max Cleland, John Kerry and Robert Byrd, among others

In doing so, they conveniently overlook the fact that if Bush lied, a long list of liberal icons have also been lying for a very long time, some from before the time he arrived in the Oval Office.

"(Iraq) 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 might I say, UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production."
— Text of President Clinton's address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff, Feb. 17, 1998

Of course, it's not the continuity of intelligence findings and Bush's reliance on them that his detractors find objectionable. It's what he did in response.

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. 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."
— Press release from Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., Dec. 16, 1998

Clinton fired cruise missiles and put his faith in what we now know was a corrupt and ineffectual U.N. sanctions regime in a fruitless effort to keep Saddam in a box.

"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."
— From an address by Al Gore to the Commonwealth Club of California, Sept. 23, 2002

In fairness to Clinton, there was no consensus in American politics to initiate major military operations against the Baathist regime or other state sponsors of international terror before Sept. 11, 2001. There was barely such a consensus afterward.

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last four years ... he has continued to build those weapons."
— Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, Oct. 9, 2002

But the central issue of the presidential election one year ago was Iraq: why we are there, how we got there and whether Bush misled the nation.

"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."
— Floor statement of Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Oct. 10, 2002

Having lost that election — in effect, a plebiscite on what Bush did about the intelligence information he, his predecessors and Democrats and Republicans in the House and the Senate agreed upon — Bush opponents are left banging their heads against a wall, repeating the meaningless mantra, "Bush lied."

"Under Saddam's rule, Iraq has engaged in far-reaching human rights abuses, been a state sponsor of terrorism and has long sought to obtain and develop weapons of mass destruction."
— Statement from the Web site of Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, dated 2002

Only the blindly partisan, the ignorant and the gullible can subscribe to the belief that Bush — and, somehow, Bush alone — lied about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

"I consider the prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam Hussein who can threaten not only his neighbors, but the stability of the region and the world, a very serious threat to the United States."
— Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York at a Jan. 22, 2003, press conference

jt1

11-14-2005, 03:29 AM

[ QUOTE ]
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."
— Floor statement of Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Oct. 10, 2002

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
"I consider the prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam Hussein who can threaten not only his neighbors, but the stability of the region and the world, a very serious threat to the United States."
— Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York at a Jan. 22, 2003, press conference

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps, these two comments came after Bush's state of the Union address where he cited the Nigerian document.

Here is an honest question: If Bush or Rummy or Cheney knew that the Nigerian document was most likely false or very well could be false and still allowed the President to cite it in his address, would you consider that a lie?

The other concern I have with Bush's credibility are his claims that Al Quaida and Saddam were working together. We now know those claims to have been false: If the administration knew before the war that those claims were most likely false or very well could be false, would you consider that to be a lie?

We all have to ask ourselves, what would I consider a lie? And if at some point in this process, it turns out that the prerequisites for us are met, then we have no choice but to ally ourselves with the Bush detractors.

BluffTHIS!

11-14-2005, 04:16 AM

11-14-2005, 04:41 AM

There is a difference between believing that Saddam could be a potential threat if left unchecked and launching an all-out preemptive war. This article describes the dilemma the Democrats were in:

[ QUOTE ]
A few times. … It was a very hard vote, because he could see the arguments, both directions, as to whether you vote yes or no on the resolution.

He would have preferred, like a lot of other people, the resolution that Joe Biden and Richard Lugar had come up with, which would have slowed the rush to war while putting the authority behind the president to get U.N. inspectors back in, to make sure Saddam Hussein couldn't use WMD. That was the point of the resolution.

The Bush administration wanted something more than that. They wanted something without any strings attached, so they could just go to war. John was [not] comfortable with it. Democrats were not comfortable with that, because they didn't want Bush just going to war unilaterally. They felt that was risky. John definitely was unhappy with that, and expressed it.

He'd been boxed. The Bush administration had chosen to box him and all the other Senate Democrats. "You either vote with us, in which case, you're responsible for it, too -- and we're going to do whatever the heck we please -- or you vote against us, and allow Saddam Hussein to be not held accountable. The president's position will be weakened, the United States' authority will be weaker in dealing with the rest of the world, and you not having stood up for American strength." …

The vote was designed to be an impossible vote for someone like John Kerry. That's why the Bush administration insisted on making the vote that way. It's a vote either to support the president, or undermine the president as the president's trying to deal with weapons of mass destruction that may be in the hands of an evil dictator.

John Kerry was not going to vote to undermine the president when the president was being directed to go the U.N. Remember, President Bush didn't even want to go to the U.N. There was a question of even going back to the U.N. to get inspectors back in. So it was a way of pushing it in the right direction, and hoping that the Bush administration would then do the right thing.

You're not given the choice of being 100 percent on these issues. You're not given the choice of doing exactly the way you would want to do it, when you're a senator. … As a senator, you're often forced to vote between two very difficult propositions, neither of which may be attractive. This vote was designed to be as unattractive, ugly, unpleasant, difficult, horrible, and damaging as possible by the Bush administration for Democrats, and in particular, any Democrat running for president. That was the point. That was the intention. It was designed to be a wedge vote, separating a John Kerry, for instance, from his natural constituents. …

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/choice2004/kerry/iraq.html

North Korea is a bigger threat than Iraq. China is a threat. Iran is a threat. There is no way we can afford to launch a full-scale war against all of those countries. Nor would it be prudent.

The fact of the matter is that Bush undermined the credibility of the U.N. inspectors who reported that there were no WMDs in Iraq. Then the Bush administration backed the Democrats into a corner with a no-win vote. It was a slick poltical move, but it's cost this country hundreds of billions that could have been used to fight real terrorists, in addition to costing thousands of American soldiers their lives. The fact is that the President put the interests of the big oil companies who had sponsored his presidency above the interests of the American people and American security.

BluffTHIS!

11-14-2005, 04:44 AM

Although I don't believe that is a correct ananlysis of the situation, and that comparisons with other threats whom we can't as easily deal with is pointless when dealing with one we can, do you agree that if your analysis is correct that the Democrats also lied/are complicit based on the above quotes? And if you maintain that Bush "backed them into a corner", doesn't that just mean they put political considerations over doing what was right?

Cyrus

11-14-2005, 04:55 AM

Nice try, though.

[ QUOTE ]
Bush worked with the best though imperfect intel and advice that he had and believed that we couldn't run the risk of Saddam acquiring WMD's no matter how low the probability might have been. And the quotes above clearly show that the Democrats believed the same and are now hypocrites and the actual liars if they claim Bush lied.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope, sorry.

What you haven take the trouble to quote is posturing and politicking --nowhere is there a call to invade and wage war. The fact is that the Democrats have been urging co-operation with other allies (Britain is not a serious ally, it's more like a butler to the U.S.) and use of the services of the United Nations.

The fact is that, as so many prominent (and hawkish) Democrats and Republicans (e.g. Kissinger) have maintained, it was very dubious if Saddam Hussein's Iraq constituted and clear and present danger to the security of the United States. Those people suggested that if that were the case, the president should attack and invade with haste and without consulting anyone! But they did seriously doubt the picture of a dangerous and threatening Iraq that was painted by the pro-Israeli, neo-conservative administration of Dubya. These people were arguing that, if the invasion had other objectives, besides security, it should be carried out following intense and consistent diplomatic efforts. That did not happen.

Even if Iraq was, at some point in time, "dangerous", that threat had been for all practical purposes nullified through a regime of severe sanctions, on-the-ground inspections, air & land monitoring and the implementation of no-fly zones. This system was working and the U.S. had no reason to go overboard -- as the various anti-war (but hawkish) factions maintained and as subsequent events proved.

Attempts to turn this around and present a different picture are a bunch of bluffs.

bholdr

11-14-2005, 06:23 AM

/images/graemlins/mad.gif

I find it almost unbelievable that some people don't see through this kind of shameless propaganda... the quotes that are used, out of context, DON'T EVEN SAY what the writer tries to trick you into thinking they do... It's an irresponsible, dishonest hack job...

Here:

[ QUOTE ]
In doing so, they conveniently overlook the fact that if Bush lied, a long list of liberal icons have also been lying for a very long time, some from before the time he arrived in the Oval Office.

"(Iraq) 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 might I say, UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production."
— Text of President Clinton's address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff, Feb. 17, 1998

[/ QUOTE ]

The writer wants to prove the president's innocence by proposing that if bush's specific claims about WMDs were lies, then ALL claims about WMDs in iraq are categoriclly lies... including, appearently, those cited by clinton in a seven year old speech. PROOF!

G'huh?

It shouldn't take a rocket scientist to see the difference between Clinton's citation of a years-old iraqi admission of previous WMD capabilities, and Bush's appearently willing lies; Statements that he KNEW to be untrue when he made them. These claims were made with the intent of convincing the public and the congress to support a war of aggression that they would not had Bush been honest.

Now, I'm not completly convinced that Bush deliberatly lied... though i'm quite sure that the way the administration convinced the public and the government (and out few allies) to support his dirty little war was deceptive, misleading, immoral, reckless, and shameful. read on for more of the same from the right:

[ QUOTE ]
"Under Saddam's rule, Iraq has engaged in far-reaching human rights abuses, been a state sponsor of terrorism and has long sought to obtain and develop weapons of mass destruction."
— Statement from the Web site of Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, dated 2002

Only the blindly partisan, the ignorant and the gullible can subscribe to the belief that Bush — and, somehow, Bush alone — lied about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

"I consider the prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam Hussein who can threaten not only his neighbors, but the stability of the region and the world, a very serious threat to the United States."
— Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York at a Jan. 22, 2003, press conference

[/ QUOTE ]

okay... wow. In this passage, we're supposed to believe that, somehow,

IIIIF bush was lying about, oh, i don't know, specific evidence of an african uranium connection in his state of the union address,

THEEEEN Harry Reid MUST have been lying too, when made some genralizations about iraq pre-war...

as for Ms Clinton's selection... it's so stunningly out of context that i really don't know where to start.... geez... she doesn't even SAY that there are WMDs in Iraq! Even if the poster's absurd 'if bush lied then they all lied' line of reasoning made sense (it doesn't), this quote wouldn't even remotly apply. maybe hilliary HAS said that she thought iraq had WMDs, but she doesn't here... why does the poster want us to believe that she does?

But you know what? I'm not really suprised. After all, the poster uses the same shady tactics that W himself used when he was banging that drum- selective use of intelligence (quotes out of context), fixing the evidence around the policy (claiming that target is saying something clearly not contained in the material), and eagerly accepting ideology as reality... chucking reason out the window in favor of their absurd hubris. WAKE UP!

BluffTHIS!

11-14-2005, 07:36 AM

You are making claims of quotes being taken out of context. It is up to you then to prove that is the case by providing the context which clearly shows this or it is you who is shamelessly politking without regard to the facts.

hetron

11-14-2005, 08:58 AM

But not bewcause of some outdated quotes you give below. But because the Dems who probably smelled something fishy didn't have the guts to question bush prior to the invasion of iraq. They were all supposed to get "intel", "proof" of WMD's. Colin Powell was going tho show all of us irrefutable evidence of WMDs. The proof never came. Why? Because it didn't exist. And the Dems, instead of standing their ground and demanding that they were shown the proof ( a la kennedy with the famous pics of soviet rocket launchers in cuba), folded like a bunch of sissies so they could look "tough on defense". Shame on them.

[ QUOTE ]
Excerpted from this (http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/columnists/jgurwitz/stories/MYSA111305.3H.gurwitz.c47f8de.html) link.

Jonathan Gurwitz: Opponents say Bush lied; read between the lines

Web Posted: 11/13/2005 12:00 AM CST

San Antonio Express-News

Opponents of President Bush routinely invoke the incantation that he lied about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to take the nation to war.

"Urges the President to take all necessary and appropriate actions to respond to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
— Text of Senate Concurrent Resolution 71, Jan. 28, 1998, co-sponsored by Democrats Tom Daschle, Patrick Leahy, Max Cleland, John Kerry and Robert Byrd, among others

In doing so, they conveniently overlook the fact that if Bush lied, a long list of liberal icons have also been lying for a very long time, some from before the time he arrived in the Oval Office.

"(Iraq) 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 might I say, UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production."
— Text of President Clinton's address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff, Feb. 17, 1998

Of course, it's not the continuity of intelligence findings and Bush's reliance on them that his detractors find objectionable. It's what he did in response.

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. 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."
— Press release from Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., Dec. 16, 1998

Clinton fired cruise missiles and put his faith in what we now know was a corrupt and ineffectual U.N. sanctions regime in a fruitless effort to keep Saddam in a box.

"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."
— From an address by Al Gore to the Commonwealth Club of California, Sept. 23, 2002

In fairness to Clinton, there was no consensus in American politics to initiate major military operations against the Baathist regime or other state sponsors of international terror before Sept. 11, 2001. There was barely such a consensus afterward.

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last four years ... he has continued to build those weapons."
— Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, Oct. 9, 2002

But the central issue of the presidential election one year ago was Iraq: why we are there, how we got there and whether Bush misled the nation.

"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."
— Floor statement of Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Oct. 10, 2002

Having lost that election — in effect, a plebiscite on what Bush did about the intelligence information he, his predecessors and Democrats and Republicans in the House and the Senate agreed upon — Bush opponents are left banging their heads against a wall, repeating the meaningless mantra, "Bush lied."

"Under Saddam's rule, Iraq has engaged in far-reaching human rights abuses, been a state sponsor of terrorism and has long sought to obtain and develop weapons of mass destruction."
— Statement from the Web site of Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, dated 2002

Only the blindly partisan, the ignorant and the gullible can subscribe to the belief that Bush — and, somehow, Bush alone — lied about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

"I consider the prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam Hussein who can threaten not only his neighbors, but the stability of the region and the world, a very serious threat to the United States."
— Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York at a Jan. 22, 2003, press conference

[/ QUOTE ]

frizzfreeling

11-14-2005, 09:48 AM

Bush worked with the best though imperfect intel and advice that he had and believed that we couldn't run the risk of Saddam acquiring WMD's no matter how low the probability might have been. And the quotes above clearly show that the Democrats believed the same and are now hypocrites and the actual liars if they claim Bush lied.

I believed the president and was for the war. I thought I had no reason not to believe him. Then, after the war took place, I found out the truth about the so called "intelligence" like the rest of the country, including the democrats in congress who didnt have any where near the access to the intelligence that bush had and were relying on his word just like me. Turns out, if I had known what I do now about the intel, I wouldnt have been for the invasion... not even close. This does not make me either a lier or a hipocrit. It only means that I trusted the leader of our country not to lie or "stretch" the facts to start a WAR, and that I was wrong in doing so.

vulturesrow

11-14-2005, 12:16 PM

Here is a quote from McCain, who I think most people believe to be honest. In fact McCain in general has been rather critical of the conduct of the Iraq war. On the subject of intel, here is what McCain had to say on Face the Nation.

[ QUOTE ]
SCHIEFFER: President Bush accused his critics of rewriting history last week.

Sen. McCAIN: Yeah.

SCHIEFFER: And in--he said in doing so, the criticisms they were making of his war policy was endangering our troops in Iraq. Do you believe it is unpatriotic to criticize the Iraq policy?

Sen. McCAIN: No, I think it's a very legitimate aspect of American life to criticize and to disagree and to debate. But I want to say I think it's a lie to say that the president lied to the American people. I sat on the Robb-Silverman Commission. I saw many, many analysts that came before that committee. I asked every one of them--I said, `Did--were you ever pressured politically or any other way to change your analysis of the situation as you saw?' Every one of them said no.

[/ QUOTE ]

Take that FWIW.

andyfox

11-14-2005, 12:36 PM

The Dems/Libs were just accepting what they saw and wanted to see because they know they're susceptible to being painted as too soft on foreign policy issues. But consider:

-Bush said that if we don't act, we'd see a mushroom cloud. The Dems didn't use this scare tactic.

-Bush said we found the WMDs. He was referring to the mobile weapons labs, which, had they been labs, would have been labs, not weapons. Turns out they were trucks which contained equipmentto make hydrogen for weather balloons.

-Bush told an adviser to look for evidence of Hussein's complicity in 9/11.

-Bush administration officials were prepared to use 9/11 as a pretext for invasion regardless of what the evidence showed as to who was actually responsible for 9/11.

-Bush sent Colin Powell to the UN with a briefcase full of misinformation.

-The Senate Intelligence Committee released its initial findings on prewar integlligence in July 2005. The committee's Republican chairman, Pat Roberts, promised that a Phase 2 to determine whether the White House had misled the public would arrive after the presidential election. It still hasn't. Murray Waas reported in the National Journal on that Vice President Cheney and Scooter Libby had refused to provide the committee with crucial documents, including Scooter Libby-written pasages from early drafts of Colin Powell's presentation of WMD evidence to the U.N.

-Vice President Cheney, early on, said that American troops would be greeted as liberators in Iraq. Last summer, he said the insurgency was in its last throes.

-In December, 2001, Cheney, on "Meet the Press" said "it's been pretty well confirmed" that there was a direct pre-9/11 link betwen Mohammed Atta and Iraqi intelligence. When that link was later disproved, Cheney was confronted about his Meet the Press remark by Gloria Borger on CNBC. Three times Cheney told her that he never said it.

-In October, the president announced the foiling of ten Al Qaeda plots. USA Today reported that at least six of the ten "involved preliminary ideas about potential attacks, not terrorist operations that were about to be carried out."

-In June, President Bush said that "federal terrorism investigations have resulted in charges against more than 400 suspects" and that "more than half" of those had been convicted. The Washington Post found that only 39 of these convictions had involved terrorism or national security.

-Keith Olbermann recently compiled 13 "coincidences" in which "a political downturn for the administration is followed by a 'terror event'--a change in alert status, an arrest, a warning." For example, in 2002, during the fallout from the televised testimony of FBI whistle-blower Coleen Rowley, John Ashcroft broadcast via satellite from Russia that the government had "disrupted an unfolding terrorist plot" to explode a dirty bomb. What he was actually referring to was the arrest of one person, Jose Padilla, for allegedly exploring such a plan. The arrest had taken place one month earlier.

The Dems might have taken the politically expedient path to war; they might now also be taking what they see as the politically expedient path to electoral success in 2006 and 2008. They ought to be ashamed of themselves, but there is very little shame in a politician.

But the Bush admimistration has lied and spun and distorted and misled every step of the way. I don't find this particularly remarkable. What administration of any political stripe in any country hasn't done this when going to war? What is more remarkable is that people are claiming it ain't so.

11-14-2005, 12:42 PM

Also, let's not forget Bush's duplicity in keeping on a member of his staff who outed a covert CIA agent. This administration is very strong on terror issues unless it is not politically expedient.

andyfox

11-14-2005, 01:08 PM

"I sat on the Robb-Silverman Commission. I saw many, many analysts that came before that committee. I asked every one of them--I said, `Did--were you ever pressured politically or any other way to change your analysis of the situation as you saw?' Every one of them said no."

The two official investigations, by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and by the commission co-chaired by Lawrence Silberman and Charles Robb, determined that analysts were not pressured, CIA and other U.S. intelligence professionals find that laughable -- especially the idea that analysts would answer in the affirmative when asked by commissioners or senators if they had been pressured.

W. Patrick Lang, formerly head of the Defense Intelligence Agency's Middle East section, said, "The senior guys got together and said, 'You guys weren't pressured, right? Right?'"

32 year CIA veteran Richard Kerr, brought out of retirement to lead an investigation of the agency's failures on Iraq WMD was even more blunt about the pressure brought to bear by the Bush administration. In a series of five reports, Kerr found that CIA analysts felt squeezed -- and hard -- by the administration." Kerr bluntly stated that the squeeze came from Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and others within the administration:

"Everybody felt pressure. A lot of analysts believed that they were being pressured to come to certain conclusions…I talked to a lot of people who said, 'There was a lot of repetitive questioning. We were being asked to justify what we were saying again and again.' There were certainly people who felt they were being pushed beyond the evidence they had…"It was a continuing drumbeat: 'how do you know this? How do you know that? What about this or that report in the newspaper?'"

Michael Scheuer, the former CIA agent who gained prominence with his 2004 anonymous book, Imperial Hubris, backs Kerr's assessment. Scheuer noted the dissent within the CIA over the claims made in the controversial October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, a document critical in the march to war. "I know a lot of people in the Iraq shop who were dissenting," he said. "There were people who were disciplined or taken off accounts. There was a great deal of dissent about that [NIE]. No one thought it was conclusive. One gentleman that I talked to, a senior Iraq analyst, regrets to this day that he did not go public."

FWIW.

jt1

11-14-2005, 01:31 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Here is an honest question: If Bush or Rummy or Cheney knew that the Nigerian document was most likely false or very well could be false and still allowed the President to cite it in his address, would you consider that a lie?

The other concern I have with Bush's credibility are his claims that Al Quaida and Saddam were working together. We now know those claims to have been false: If the administration knew before the war that those claims were most likely false or very well could be false, would you consider that to be a lie?

[/ QUOTE ]

Answer the questions, BluffThis. They are very relevant to what we are trying to do here. I imagine we're trying to find out if we are on Bush's side or not.

CORed

11-14-2005, 02:38 PM

Kerry, Lieberman, et. al stuck their fingers in the wind, looked at Bush's then impressive approval ratings in the polls, and said "This idiot wants to get us into an unnecessary war, but if we oppose him, everybody will think we're soft on terrorism and we'll lose votes.", so they went along with him. Good job Democrats.

jt1

11-14-2005, 02:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
ush worked with the best though imperfect intel and advice that he had and believed that we couldn't run the risk of Saddam acquiring WMD's no matter how low the probability might have been. And the quotes above clearly show that the Democrats believed the same and are now hypocrites and the actual liars if they claim Bush lied.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not the point.
The point is 1) did the President or his advisors know that the nigerian document was likely a forgery before the State of the Union address? 2) Did the President know that no connection existed between Al quaida and Saddam while he was inferring that there was one.

These are the questions that the Dems and everyone else should be asking. Any other points or conjectures regarding the matter are irrelevant.

CORed

11-14-2005, 02:53 PM

I don't really care whether Bush &Co. lied about WMD, or were so inept that they believed their own propaganda. I think it's a little bit of both. I think they had their own reasons for wanting to invade Iraq (helping Israel? stabilizing the Middle East? Oil?), and saw 9/11 as an opportunity to push that agenda. I think they took some questionable intelligence data, convinced themselves that it was valid, and figured it was good enough to use to sell the UN and the public on the war. They failed with the UN, but not, to begin with, Congress and the public. I think the decision to go to war was wrong. I think their failure to understand the true nature of what they were getting into and prepare adequately to win the war was inexcusable. They make the Johnson adminstration's Vietnam policy look brilliant.

andyfox

11-14-2005, 03:08 PM

"This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and al Qaeda," Bush once said. "We did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda."

President Bush often mentioned Sept. 11 and Saddam Hussein's Iraq in his press conferences and televised speeches, often in the same breath. He never pinned blame for the attacks directly on Hussein. But the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persisted among much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role in the attacks. Polls in 2003 showed that 45 percent of Americans believed Hussein was "personally involved" in Sept. 11.

Yet right after Sept. 11, 2001, when Americans were asked open-ended questions about who was behind the attacks, only 3 percent mentioned Iraq or Hussein. But by January of 2003, miraculously, attitudes had been transformed. In a Knight Ridder poll, 44 percent of Americans reported that either "most" or "some" of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Iraqi citizens.

Polls also showed a strong correlation between those who saw the Sept. 11-Iraq connection and those who supported going to war in Iraq.

Later on, polls showed that three out of four Americans said that if Iraq did not have WMDs or suppport Al Qaeda, we shouldn't have gone to war.

So what are we to make of this? The conclusion is inescapable that the administration sought to foster a climate of opinion that would support its goal, a goal which prominent members of the administration had voiced publicly long before the 2000 election, and which was the subject of its very first national security meetings, of overthrowing the Hussein regime. 9/11 provided the pretext and an association between Hussein and Al Qaeda had to be played up, as did Hussein's WMDs.

SOP. It should come as no surprise.

Cyrus

11-14-2005, 04:34 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Kerry, Lieberman, et. al stuck their fingers in the wind, looked at Bush's then impressive approval ratings in the polls, and said "This idiot wants to get us into an unnecessary war, but if we oppose him, everybody will think we're soft on terrorism and we'll lose votes.", so they went along with him. Good job Democrats.

[/ QUOTE ]

Post-9/11 the Americans rallied behind their leadership as one. It was natural. They would have rallied behind Winnie the Pooh if it were prez. There was clearly no way to undo that -- and certainly not through an act that resembles treason!

The president's popularity did not indicate an "approval" about how he was handling things (they hit the Towers on his watch for pete's sakes) but rather a mandate for him to take action as appropriate in order to defend America.

You can't fool all the people all the time. Initially even that "adventure" against Eye-rak seemed the right thing to do - and the people were approving. (Hell, a lot of 'em still think we found WMDs and that Saddam was behind 9/11!)

Soon people saw things different. And so, Dubya's numbers are now in the basement. As appropriate.

bholdr

11-14-2005, 07:45 PM

"You are making claims of quotes being taken out of context. It is up to you then to prove that is the case by providing the context which clearly shows this or it is you who is shamelessly politking without regard to the facts."

/images/graemlins/shocked.gif are you for real?

ummm... okay, one time:

the quote cited, by mrs clinton, began with "...the PROSPECT of..." (wmd in iraq). you're (nonsenseical) reasoning holds that that quote must have been a lie if bush lied about WMD in iraq... yet, mrs clinton's quote isn't even a statement of fact... that is, not subject to being considered truthful or a lie in the same manner as bush's appearent falsehoods are; it's a statement of opinion.

get it?

the evidence you use to support your bizzare line of reasoning WOULDN'T apply EVEN IF your argument made sense.

c'mon now... at this point, i'm not even talking about what's-what politically or if anyone lied or not: I'm just pointing out that the argument you presented is patently illogical, and offers no sensible or applicable evidence to support it.

adios

11-14-2005, 08:57 PM

I posted the joint resolution passed by Congress authorizing military action by Bush. In that resolution it is stated that there is a link between Al Qaeda and Hussein. May or may not be true but the Democrats in Congress can hardly say that they were duped by Bush unless they think the voting public are total idiots. The Dems in Congress are just as accountable for their actions as Bush is for his. I also note that a significant number of Democrats voted against authorizing military action in Iraq while the same can't be said about the Republicans. But from all we know about the Democrats in Congress from their statements in Congress prior to the Iraq War, they basically believed that Hussein had WMDs and was a threat to develop nuclear weapons. Playing polictics is no excuse for not being accountable.

jt1

11-14-2005, 09:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I posted the joint resolution passed by Congress authorizing military action by Bush. In that resolution it is stated that there is a link between Al Qaeda and Hussein. May or may not be true but the Democrats in Congress can hardly say that they were duped by Bush unless they think the voting public are total idiots. The Dems in Congress are just as accountable for their actions as Bush is for his. I also note that a significant number of Democrats voted against authorizing military action in Iraq while the same can't be said about the Republicans. But from all we know about the Democrats in Congress from their statements in Congress prior to the Iraq War, they basically believed that Hussein had WMDs and was a threat to develop nuclear weapons. Playing polictics is no excuse for not being accountable.

[/ QUOTE ]

The debate is whether the Dems lied to us and/or whether Bush lied to us. I don't think the Dems lied to us: They don't have the motive. Nor am I positive that Bush lied to us. He may have just been duped by poor intelligence. Nonetheless, for the sake of precedence, 2 questions need to be asked.

1) Did anyone within the administration know that the Nigerian document was plausibly a forgery? And if so who?

2) Did anyone within the administration know or strongly doubt that there was no link between Al Qaida and Saddam? And if so who?

As I re-read your post, I am forced to reconsider. The Dems have the same access to the CIA and other intelligence sources as Bush. A diligent Senator can get just as much info as can Bush. So why didn't they? Perhaps, other questions need to be asked.

1) DId the Senate minority leader seek CIA confirmation that the Nigerian Document was valid? And if no then why not? And if he did, what did he find out and from whom? Should he have dug deeper, etc, etc?

2) Did the Senate minority leader seek CIA confirmation that Al Qaida and Saddam were in cahoots? And if no then why not? etc, etc.

I want to know who knew what and when did he know it. And if he didn't know it then why. The OP has a good point, as do you. And, after re-considering, I am left wondering how can incompetence check incompetence? Is there no one to blame but ourselves? Or were all the false implications just an honest mistake.

Autocratic

11-14-2005, 09:37 PM

elscorcho768

11-14-2005, 11:44 PM

I posted this article in another thread and Ill post it again.

Article by Norman Padhoretz (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=20148)

Also, Cyrus, there is no evidence whatsoever that this war was started because of Israel. I don't know why you would mention that in your argument.

andyfox

11-15-2005, 12:40 AM

"A diligent Senator can get just as much info as can Bush."

I heard somebody on NBC Nightly News tonight say only about 5 senators actually read the CIA intellgence report. That sounds about right.

HtotheNootch

11-15-2005, 01:44 AM

Stop believing that there's a major difference between the powers in either party. It will all make sense then.

At the highest level, Democrats and Republicans are globalists, statists, who are all too willing to take our freedom.

twowords

11-15-2005, 01:59 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I posted this article in another thread and Ill post it again.

Article by Norman Padhoretz (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=20148)

Also, Cyrus, there is no evidence whatsoever that this war was started because of Israel. I don't know why you would mention that in your argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cyrus, I second this request for your theory of going to Iraq for Israel. Sure I suppose we've enhanced their security, but do we really think Saddam kept them up nights? Whats in it for the administration if a major reason was to help Israel? I had thought we might (finally)drift away from Israel as the oil market tightens.

BCPVP

11-15-2005, 02:10 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Sure I suppose we've enhanced their security, but do we really think Saddam kept them up nights?

[/ QUOTE ]
Did you know he paid palestinian suicide bombers' families $25,000 for their little martyrs to blow themselves up? Not exactly a comforting feeling...

BluffTHIS!

11-15-2005, 02:26 AM

[ QUOTE ]
"You are making claims of quotes being taken out of context. It is up to you then to prove that is the case by providing the context which clearly shows this or it is you who is shamelessly politking without regard to the facts."

/images/graemlins/shocked.gif are you for real?

ummm... okay, one time:

the quote cited, by mrs clinton, began with "...the PROSPECT of..." (wmd in iraq). you're (nonsenseical) reasoning holds that that quote must have been a lie if bush lied about WMD in iraq... yet, mrs clinton's quote isn't even a statement of fact... that is, not subject to being considered truthful or a lie in the same manner as bush's appearent falsehoods are; it's a statement of opinion.

get it?

the evidence you use to support your bizzare line of reasoning WOULDN'T apply EVEN IF your argument made sense.

c'mon now... at this point, i'm not even talking about what's-what politically or if anyone lied or not: I'm just pointing out that the argument you presented is patently illogical, and offers no sensible or applicable evidence to support it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You gave ONE supposed example of an out of context quote without citing the source or the entire paragraph. And if the rest of the quotes are legit then the arguement in the article I quoted makes perfect sense. Denying it without proof to the contrary won't make your view so.

Cyrus

11-15-2005, 03:37 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I posted this article in another thread and Ill post it again. Article by Norman Padhoretz (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=20148)

[/ QUOTE ]

Please! The last thing I needed this morning was to be hit with a Podhoretz thumb-sucker. The man was a neo-con before anyone else was a neo-con.

Ex-leftists become right-wingers with such zeal, it is positively scary! I call it the Janissar Syndrome.

[ QUOTE ]
There is no evidence whatsoever that this war was started because of Israel.

[/ QUOTE ]
I did not claim it was started by Israel. I sumbitted that the country that benefited the most, by far, from the invasion of Iraq, was Israel.

And I noted that the current administration, since taking over in 2000, has been obsessed with Iraq and Saddam Hussein! Even before 9/11. When Clinton's outgoing guys from intelligence and law enforcement were briefing the incoming Republican appointees about bin Laden, the Muslims, al Qaeda, etc, the Bushites' eyes were glazing over with indifference! There are records that have the guys flat out disputing and ridiculing the notion that those rag-tag camel jockeys were a serious threat, or a threat at all, give or take a couple of hits at an embassy abroad or on a military ship, is all. Everything was Saddam, Saddam, Saddam, with the new crowd.

It is the same administration that has been hailed by the Israeli leadership as "the best friends" that Jerusalem could possibly have in Washington.

...You guys who support the war and spend hours here trying to justify it, by all sorts of (desperate) reasoning, I'm sure that when alone and make an honest tally, and you assess the situation for yourselves, you can see all too clearly that this has been one goddamn royal snafu. It did not help the fight against terrorism. It helped other things -- but certainly not the war on terror.

Cyrus

11-15-2005, 03:48 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Did you know [Saddam hussein] paid Palestinian suicide bombers' families $25,000 for their little martyrs to blow themselves up?

[/ QUOTE ]

You are distorting what happened.

It's one thing to promote suicide bombing by promising to whomever will blow himself up that his family will be compensated for --- and quite another thing to simply take care of a family after the event, as a myriad of charities throughout the Arab world, secular and religious did, and as they did with millions of destitute people. By your logic, the charities that take care of prisoners' destitute families in the US, are promoting crime.

The truth is that Saddm Hussein's Iraq was never part of an anti-American terrorist act, that anti-American terrorists were deported out of the country (when not "eliminated"), that islamic fundamentalists were routinely jailed, tortured and killed by the Iraqi authorities and that the door was slammed on every approach that al Qaeda made to the regime. America's war on terror has been irrelevant to the war in Iraq.

But, yes, Israel feared Iraq, most definitely. Not that Iraq posed a serious threat to Israel (not being even a frontier state) but it certainly could become one.

Where do you think those Weapons of Mass Destruction, that some Arab nations tried to acquire, were to be used? To negotiate better prices for crude oil? To fight against each other? To threaten Peru?

BluffTHIS!

11-15-2005, 03:51 AM

[ QUOTE ]
It's one thing to promote suicide bombing by promising to whomever will blow himself up that his family will be compensated for --- and quite another thing to simply take care of a family after the event

[/ QUOTE ]

GET A FRIGGIN GRIP! They are the SAME thing once potential bombers know that will happen.

Cyrus

11-15-2005, 09:49 AM

It is astonishing how, after all this time, and after so much "experience" with suicide bombers and religious fundamnentalists, there is so much misunderstanding and ignorance about their motives, their way of thinking and how to deal with 'em, in general.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's one thing to promote suicide bombing by promising to whomever will blow himself up that his family will be compensated for --- and quite another thing to simply take care of a family after the event

[/ QUOTE ]

They are the SAME thing once potential bombers know that will happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

In other words, the crucial question for a potential suicidal guy, someone who is not so sure if he wants to blow himself up, is what will happen to his family afterwards?

And that fellow knows that the Red Cross or the Red Crescent or the U.N., that someone eventually WILL take care of his family, then this makes him pull the trigger ??

Alright. Then I suppose the thing to do is to forbid anyone from helping the families of suicide bombers!

Or, even better, to punish all the surviving family! How about that?

elscorcho768

11-15-2005, 05:36 PM

Did you actually read the Padhoretz article? Forget for a second your bias against neo-cons and just read the article. It basically says that a multitude of intelligence organizations supported the belief that Iraq possessed WMDs. Just read it and address the points brought up in the article and not the fact that it was written by a neo-con (which in my mind isnt a bad thing)

Also, when you bring up the pro-Israel faction in the administration and the connection to the Iraq war, there is no other way to take it except that you believe that the admin. acts on foreign policy based on what is good for Israel and not the US, which is complete insanity. I also think that you come down on the Bush admin. for being too allied with Israel (which in my opinion is a great thing) but fail to acknowledge the extremely close relationship the US has had with Israel through many other administrations, Democrat and Republican. Clinton has repeatedly called Israel "America's best ally"

Felix_Nietsche

11-15-2005, 06:06 PM

Also, let's not forget Bush's duplicity in keeping on a member of his staff who outed a covert CIA agent.
************************************************** *******
*You mean a "covert" agent that even the press knew she was a CIA agent (NBC's senior diplomatic correspondent Andrea Mitchell, who works for Tim Russert, Oct 3, 2003).
*You mean a "covert" agent who sends her hubby to Niger for a mission his has no qualifications for.
*You mean a "covert" CIA agent who values her covert status so much that they don't require her hubby to sign a confidentially agreement for this "secret" mission.
*You mean a "covert" CIA agent who hubby values her covert status so much that they he writes an Op-Ed for millions of Americans to draw attention to his "secret" mission to Niger.
*You mean a "covert" CIA agent that Patrick Fitzgerald could not even find enough evidence to indict anyone for outing her.

LOL. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

"Do we have any idea how widely known it was in Washington that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA?" she was asked by host Alan Murray in an Oct. 3, 2003 interview on CNBC's "Captial Report."

Mitchell replied: "It was widely known among those of us who cover the intelligence community and who were actively engaged in trying to track down who among the foreign service community was the envoy to Niger. So a number of us began to pick up on that."

BluffTHIS!

11-15-2005, 10:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Alright. Then I suppose the thing to do is to forbid anyone from helping the families of suicide bombers!

[/ QUOTE ]

What would be wrong with that as a deterrent to those who would kill civilians?

[ QUOTE ]
Or, even better, to punish all the surviving family! How about that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Israel uses bulldozers to do that.

Autocratic

11-16-2005, 01:14 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Alright. Then I suppose the thing to do is to forbid anyone from helping the families of suicide bombers!

[/ QUOTE ]

What would be wrong with that as a deterrent to those who would kill civilians?

[/ QUOTE ]

As was said, it won't work.

Felix_Nietsche

11-16-2005, 01:17 AM

We can't find Jimmy Hoffa so therefore he never existed. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Cyrus

11-16-2005, 03:32 AM

[ QUOTE ]
What would be wrong with that [i.e. forbidding anyone from helping the families of suicide bombers] as a deterrent to those who would kill civilians?

[/ QUOTE ]
Only the Nazis and the Soviets legislated collective punishment. They were hauling in jail the families of anyone who was deemed a threat to the regime.

Imposing collective punishment on people who have nothing to do with a crime (and everyone should be presumed innocent until proven guilty, if we truly believe that our society is better) takes us to an extremely dangerous path.

What next? Rounding up and shooting hostages?

[ QUOTE ]
Israel uses bulldozers to do that [i.e. punish all the surviving family].

[/ QUOTE ]Then Israel is wrong.

Both morally (see above), where Israel imitates the Jews' worst enemies ever in yet one more tactic, and strategically, in that such acts foment even more resentment among the civilians and result in more recruitments by the terrorists.

Of course, that would assume that Israel does not want terrorism to continue, does not want to see the ranks of extremists swelling, and would rather negotiate with a moderate Palestinian leadership the prospects of an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel. Hmmm...

Cyrus

11-16-2005, 03:34 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Did you actually read the Padhoretz article?

[/ QUOTE ] (It's Podhoretz, for crying out loud.) Yes, I did. Why do you need to remind me? I am not too fond of crap.

[ QUOTE ]
It basically says that a multitude of intelligence organizations supported the belief that Iraq possessed WMDs.

[/ QUOTE ] I know what the intelligence was (at least, I know those parts that were made public; I'm no spook). And the intelligence was far from convincing. Of course, to understand this you need to get rid of your colored glasses. Something which a neo-con is usually unable to do.

[ QUOTE ]
You believe that the admin. acts on foreign policy based on what is good for Israel and not the US, which is complete insanity.

[/ QUOTE ] Not foreign policy in general and not the whole foreign policy. Of course, not!

But as far as the Middle East is concerned and the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, yes, absolutely, the United States has followed, assisted and supported Israel in everything and every time.

Even at its most preposterous. Even when Israel practicaly spat at the face of America. Need I remind you what Ariel Sharon made of Bush's all-important Roadmap? Need I bring USS Liberty again, for you to see the folly?

[ QUOTE ]
You ... fail to acknowledge the extremely close relationship the US has had with Israel through many other administrations, Democrat and Republican.

[/ QUOTE ]Oh, don't you worry. I am not pinning that to Bush or even the GOP exclusively at all! The blind, fanatical, irresponsible support of Israel by the United States was given for a solid fifty years and more. This American support for the most de-stablizing factor in the world scene, Israel, has been a bi-partisan folly, all the way.

SinCityGuy

11-16-2005, 10:55 PM

Yeah, the libs were privy to the same manufactured intelligence that the White House was.

bholdr

11-16-2005, 11:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
You gave ONE supposed example of an out of context quote without citing the source or the entire paragraph. And if the rest of the quotes are legit then the arguement in the article I quoted makes perfect sense. Denying it without proof to the contrary won't make your view so.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, in my first response, i gave THREE examples, which is all i have/had the time or inclination to do... but, you're beggining to understand, so i'll give it one more shot:

Bush's detractors are NOT claiming that he was lying EVERY TIME he made a statement about WMD in iraq; Rather, they accuse the administration of making SPECIFIC statements that they knew to be untrue... here's half-decent link on the subject: here... (http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/07/22_lies.html)

An example from the link provided:
[ QUOTE ]
"We know he's been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."

VP Dick Cheney – “Meet the Press” 3/16/2003

[/ QUOTE ]

and the evidence that seems to indicate that this is a lie:

[ QUOTE ]
“The IAEA had found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq."

IAEA report to UN Security Council – 3/7/2003

[/ QUOTE ]

above is a cited quote, making a specific claim, and a cited peice of evidence disproving that claim. now, that site is guilty of some of the same things that your submission is- see if you can see what's a legit peice of evidence and what's misleading fluff...

SO:

only an idiot would dispute that Saddam did at one time have WMDs, nuclear aspirations, and so on... he USED 'em on the kurds, for example, a fact which is beyond (reasonable) debate. Clinton was telling the truth in '98 (not about his cigar fetish, of course), hell, Bush told the truth about a lot of iraq's shenanigans, but when it came time to find a way to convince the public and the congress that an invasion was justified... there are definitly... irregularities:

Uranium from Niger...
Aluminum tubes...
...and other claims that had been DISPROVED at the time that bush& co. made them.

wheras, ALL of the quotes YOUR submission provided contained NO specifics... other than Bill Clinton's, which was citing iraqi ADMISSIONS. there is a HUGE difference that SHOULD be obvious.... my point:

In order to avoid being a tool of the propagandists and reckless partisans that would rather lead ignorant sheep than have an educated electorate, one must be able to see through the kind of manipulative psudeo-logic that the decievers rely upon to lower the level of discourse and decieve the uninformed. don't be a sheep, be a shepard.

elscorcho768

11-17-2005, 12:43 AM

Norman Podhoretz. There you go. I know how to spell his name but thanks for pointing that out for me. You are awesome.

If you read the article correctly, you would understand the point was that many intelligence agencies past and present believed what Bush believed. He didn't lie or mislead the people. He acted on intelligence that so far has been proven incorrect (not all of it; see the uranium in Niger claim) I don't know how you don't think the intelligence was convincing. Clinton thought it did in 1998 when he bombed Iraq. The Kurds knew Saddam had used WMDs and had the potential to do it again. But forgive me for straying into this topic.

[ QUOTE ]
I know what the intelligence was (at least, I know those parts that were made public; I'm no spook). And the intelligence was far from convincing. Of course, to understand this you need to get rid of your colored glasses. Something which a neo-con is usually unable to do.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for having an open mind. I love how someone with a differing view on an issue must be delusional or simply biased. I read the article and came to the conclusion that the intelligence was faulty, bush as of now has been wrong about wmds being in iraq, but he did not purposely mislead the american people. multiple high level commissions on this topic support my conclusions. but i must be delusional. theres no way i just have a different opinion based on credited information. You disagree yet you probably have credible info to support your position.

[ QUOTE ]
But as far as the Middle East is concerned and the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, yes, absolutely, the United States has followed, assisted and supported Israel in everything and every time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. I give two examples. 1) Yom Kippur War. Israel surrounds the Egyptian army, but withdraws as a result of direct US pressure. The US was right in asking this, if we were to assume your theory was correct, the US would have allowed Israel to destroy the entire army and capture Cairo and start WW3. 2) Under US pressure, Israel withdraws from the Suez. Also lets not forget the concessions made by Israel (land for peace) because of direct pressure from the US.

[ QUOTE ]
Even at its most preposterous. Even when Israel practicaly spat at the face of America. Need I remind you what Ariel Sharon made of Bush's all-important Roadmap? Need I bring USS Liberty again, for you to see the folly?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are your serious? Every report and inquiry into the USS Liberty tragedy concluded it was an accident. There was no reason for Israel to purposely attack America. No good could have come out of it and Israel knows it. Israel has its faults but bringing up this event makes me wonder about your true feelings about Israel. Also, you say Sharon spat in the US face by rejecting the roadmap, yet you say nothing of every instance where Arab governments openly call for the destruction of the US.

Since it is on my mind, where was your condemnation of Iran's new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, for calling for the annihilation of Israel. I suppose you wouldnt mind.

[ QUOTE ]
This American support for the most de-stablizing factor in the world scene, Israel, has been a bi-partisan folly, all the way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Basically, because Israel exists, it is a destablizing factor in the world. To say we should remove our support for israel to appease the arab world is insane and morally reprehensible. Firstly, it would quite possibly lead to the end of israel and you know this. Second, if you think that removing support for israel will stabilize that region, then why not submit to the will of the islamic world that wants women removed from society, all non muslims delegated to the lowest class or worse, and america destroyed. that would stablize the world so why not do it. You want increased support for palestinians and other arab countries and decreased support for israel. so you basically want increased support for countries that have far worse human rights records than israel and a government (palestinian) that steals from its people and aids terrorism. Now tell me how I'm completely wrong because I am conservative and support israel.

twowords

11-17-2005, 01:46 AM

[ QUOTE ]

Wrong. I give two examples. 1) Yom Kippur War. Israel surrounds the Egyptian army, but withdraws as a result of direct US pressure. The US was right in asking this, if we were to assume your theory was correct, the US would have allowed Israel to destroy the entire army and capture Cairo and start WW3.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well you basically answered your own question, the US was close to WWIII if the Soviets decided to intervene against Israel in the Yom Kippur, that's why the US pushed so hard for a ceasefire. As for the Egyptian troops in the Sinai, Israel tried and tried to take them out for good but couldn't and decided to accept the ceasefire, along with a mutual withdraw from the front lines.

[ QUOTE ]

2) Under US pressure, Israel withdraws from the Suez.

[/ QUOTE ]

An act of pure agression against Egypt with a flimsy pretext of the nationalized canal to give Israel, UK and France an excuse to take out Nasser. We objected (imagine: juuust as we get ready to harshly condemn the Soviets for intervening in Hungary, our western allies do the same to Egypt) and demanded they withdraw and yes that was our least pro-Israel moment.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Even at its most preposterous. Even when Israel practicaly spat at the face of America. Need I remind you what Ariel Sharon made of Bush's all-important Roadmap? Need I bring USS Liberty again, for you to see the folly?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are your serious? Every report and inquiry into the USS Liberty tragedy concluded it was an accident. There was no reason for Israel to purposely attack America. No good could have come out of it and Israel knows it. Israel has its faults but bringing up this event makes me wonder about your true feelings about Israel.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was very unlikely to be an accident considering how distinctly different looking the Liberty was from anything Egypt owned, with the attack occuring in broad daylight. It was possibly a deliberate attack on the local US intelliegence ship to cover Israel continuted offensive in Syria. Israel had refused international declared ceasefire AFTER all the Arab states had accepted it, prefering to continue their sucessful invasion. Many US officials eventually admitted that they did not buy the Israeli explaination, but at the time most were just happy it wasn't the Soviets.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This American support for the most de-stablizing factor in the world scene, Israel, has been a bi-partisan folly, all the way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Basically, because Israel exists, it is a destablizing factor in the world. To say we should remove our support for israel to appease the arab world is insane and morally reprehensible. Firstly, it would quite possibly lead to the end of israel and you know this. Second, if you think that removing support for israel will stabilize that region, then why not submit to the will of the islamic world that wants women removed from society, all non muslims delegated to the lowest class or worse, and america destroyed. that would stablize the world so why not do it. You want increased support for palestinians and other arab countries and decreased support for israel. so you basically want increased support for countries that have far worse human rights records than israel and a government (palestinian) that steals from its people and aids terrorism. Now tell me how I'm completely wrong because I am conservative and support israel.

[/ QUOTE ]

True the creation of Israel proved extremely distabalizing in the Middle East. Still, it was the consistently pro-Israel US which supplied Israel with massive guns and millions in cash for decades when it should have opted for an even-handed and pro-peace approach. Dulles, Johnson, Nixon, Kissinger, and many others saw a very strong Israel as necissary to keep the Soviets out of the Middle East. There were unforunantly two small prices to pay for this service: a) continuing war, and terrible instability in the Middle East for 50 years, b) the recent rise of Islamic radicalism and terrorism in the Middle East (partial credit).

elscorcho768

11-17-2005, 04:08 AM

First, twowords, I commend you on the civility of your post.

The two examples I gave were very brief and I agree wtih most of what you said. Just to clarify my point in bringing them up; I bring them up only to refute cyrus' claim that the us will follow israel no matter what by showing two examples where the US got what it wanted out of Israel. I would challenge your claim that Israel could not destroy the Egyptian army but that is not important for this thread (If you havent read it, check out "Crisis" by Henry Kissinger). I also would argue about the war in the Suez but not in this thread. if you want, we could debate it in another thread if you're up for it.

The Liberty incident also could be its own thread, but I will state that the possible negative consequences of attacking a US ship far outweigh any positives on Israel's part. Also please note that the torpedoing of the Liberty occured after the Liberty opened fire on Israel ships. To be fair, Israeli aircrafts dropped napam and shot at the ship before. Ten US commissions and three Israeli ones all concluded that it was an accident. I just can't find a good enough reason as to why Israel would do this that doesn't stretch into conspiracy theories.

Your final point that the US should have been more even handed in its approach to the conflict. First, in the context of the Cold War, this couldn't happen. Second, the US did not supply Israel with weapons until 1968, with a few exceptions. Third, having a democracy in the Middle East is good for America. It was in our best interest to support Israel. Otherwise we wouldnt do it. I believe it is morally right to support Israel and that the removal of Israel would not stablilize the relationship between the US and the middle east. when governments call for the destruction of israel, they generally preface it with calls for the death to america.

Cyrus

11-17-2005, 04:14 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As far as the Middle East is concerned and the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, ... the United States has followed, assisted and supported Israel in everything and every time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. I give two examples. 1) Yom Kippur War. Israel surrounds the Egyptian army, but withdraws as a result of direct US pressure. The US was right in asking this, if we were to assume your theory was correct, the US would have allowed Israel to destroy the entire army and capture Cairo and start WW3.

[/ QUOTE ]You realize, I hope, that you just answered your own question! World War III was to nobody's interest. Each of the two superpowers assisted its proxy in the region - but the Soviets were, shall we say, a little timid about it!

On the other hand, if Israel were not to receive massive assistance in matériel and intelligence from the United States, it would quite possibly not have been able to withstand the Egyptian blitz. Have you read the history of that war, at all, or are we wasting our time here ?

[ QUOTE ]
2) Under US pressure, Israel withdraws from the Suez.

[/ QUOTE ]Are you referring to Suez, 1956 ?

Because, if you are, this was the ONLY time that the United States put the squeeze on Israel! But examine this closer: This squeeze was not directed at Israel, per se, but at the British-French initiative against Gamal Nasser of Egypt who had seized the canal. The United States was saying to those two that they were not supposed to make geostrategic moves any more without Washington’s blessings! And Israel was caught in it.

If you are referring to the withdrawal of the Israeli army from the Egyptian side of the Suez Canal, during the Yom Kippur War, this was done because there was no strategic advantage for Israel in staying there. If you were to read some time the relevant literature (Zionist, Israeli, historical), you'd see that Israel's primary political/military objective has been to neutralize the threat from Egypt.

This was eventually accomplished by (a) not hitting Egypt with a disproportionate blow in Yom Kippur, and (b) exchanging Sinai for a treaty.

[ QUOTE ]
Also lets not forget the concessions made by Israel (land for peace) because of direct pressure from the US.

[/ QUOTE ]The concessions were the result of careful and long-term planning by the Israeli leadership. The contribution of Washington to that was nominal. You should look up the history and "memoirs" of Menachem Begin. If Israel had no interest in giving up Sinai, it would still hold onto it today.

[ QUOTE ]
Every report and inquiry into the USS Liberty tragedy concluded it was an accident. There was no reason for Israel to purposely attack America.

[/ QUOTE ] Israel had not "planned" the attack beforehand, I did not say that. Israel saw the American ship spying on its military movements and sank it without thinking twice about it! Israel knew it was attacking an American ship. Israel knew it would get away with it. Israel did get away with it.

www.USSLiberty.org (http://www.ussliberty.org/)

[ QUOTE ]
You say nothing of every instance where Arab governments openly call for the destruction of the US.

[/ QUOTE ] What Arab government is that, please ? I challenge you to produce one head of government in the Arab world who has said such a thing. Go ahead.

(To save you from a gaffe : Afghanis and Persians are not Arabs.)

[ QUOTE ]
To say we should remove our support for Israel to appease the Arab world is insane and morally reprehensible.

[/ QUOTE ]I'm not for the destruction of Israel. I'm for peace. And, despite all your rhetoric, the only chance for permanent, solid peace in the region is for America to truly pressure Israel into getting into the 21st century (it currently resides in the 19th). This is the only language Israel understands.

But this will not happen. And permanent, solid peace will not come. Only an uneasy, nervous, murderous, unproductive, divisive "peace" will happen.

[ QUOTE ]
You are awesome.

[/ QUOTE ] Thanks... /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Cyrus

11-17-2005, 04:14 AM

[ QUOTE ]
If you read the article correctly [?!], you would understand the point was that many intelligence agencies past and present believed what Bush believed.

[/ QUOTE ]But the point is incorrect ! British intelligence was arm-twisted into producing something that the spooks felt uncomfortable with. Czech intelligence faked the Niger connection. Italian intelligence amplified the Czech fabrications. Russian intelligence was a joke. And the CIA did a patently, obviously lousy job!

Everybody was falling all over themselves to please Washington, to the point that some intellignece agencies started murdering in cold blood innocent immigrants in their country and labeling them "terrorists", just to appear pro-war in the eyes of Washington.

And you mean to tell me that you were not onto the lies as soon as you witnessed the wretched performance of Colin Powell in the U.N. ?? Come on, you're supposed to be a poker player.

[ QUOTE ]
Clinton thought it did in 1998 when he bombed Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ] The policy of permanent sanctions (no terms defined for lifting it) and bombing Iraq was wrong -- and it was a bi-partisan wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
The Kurds knew Saddam had used WMDs and had the potential to do it again.

[/ QUOTE ] Chemical weapons, such as mustard gas, are in a wholly different class than nucular weapons. It was the threat of the latter that ostensibly led us into war. (Remember, Saddam was supposed to present a "clear and present danger"...)

[ QUOTE ]
Multiple high level commissions on this topic support my conclusions.

[/ QUOTE ] There have been only two "high level" reports on the fiasco that I'm aware of: One was the U.S. Congress investigation, which was a bi-partisan compromise, though quite damning even for that. And the Lord Butler report in Britain, which everyone and his butler found to be a Blair whitewash.

What else you got ?..

[ QUOTE ]
I love how someone with a differing view on an issue must be delusional or simply biased.

[/ QUOTE ]Supporters of the war in Iraq, at this stage, when all the relevant info is out, are either delusional orheavily biased, yes. Sorry about that.

[ QUOTE ]
Where was your condemnation of Iran's new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, for calling for the annihilation of Israel.

[/ QUOTE ] I hereby condemn Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Happy ? /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[ QUOTE ]
You are awesome.

[/ QUOTE ] Thanks... /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

BluffTHIS!

11-17-2005, 04:22 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Supporters of the war in Iraq, at this stage, when all the relevant info is out, are either delusional orheavily biased, yes. Sorry about that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then reply to my arguement in this thread:

Bombings In Amman Show US Involvement In Iraq Is Correct (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=3951782&an=0&page=0#Post 3951782)

jt1

11-17-2005, 09:24 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Then reply to my arguement in this thread:

[/ QUOTE ]

You're arguments were given a precursory credit then shot down. I showed how your logic could be used to justify non-military action with better results. I also gave a preliminary report on why your orignial premise is off. It surprises me that your linking others to that thread. I figured that once you read my last response, you couldn't come with a counter argument so you 1) were trying to develop one 2) were strongly considering reversing your position 3) quit thinking and cursed how some people can be so stupid.

By the way, if you come up with a counter argument to anything that I say, I will always seek to either shed light on its flaws or admit that you were right. I'm not afraid to change my mind. I've been wrong before, I'll be wrong many times again. There ain't nothing wrong with reconsidering your position. I hope that we are all open enough to agree on that.

elscorcho768

11-17-2005, 05:48 PM

You said, Cyrus, that the US never did anything that didn't follow and help Israel. I simply pointed out two instances where the US pressured Israel to do what it wanted. Now, this is not about whether or not Israel would have done differently anyway. This is about whether or not the US put pressure on Israel at all, which you claim they never have done. The US did put pressure on Israel not to let the Egyptian army starve. Are you denying that the Egyptain army wouldn't have starved if the US didnt pressure Israel to give them food and water? In fact, the US put tremendous pressure on Israel to not destroy the trapped army, even threatening to support a UN resolution calling for US to pull back. I am not arguing that Israel would have been better for destroying the third army or not. I am simply using this as an exampple of US pressure on Israel. Can you admit that you were wrong when you stated otherwise?

[ QUOTE ]

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also lets not forget the concessions made by Israel (land for peace) because of direct pressure from the US.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The concessions were the result of careful and long-term planning by the Israeli leadership. The contribution of Washington to that was nominal. You should look up the history and "memoirs" of Menachem Begin. If Israel had no interest in giving up Sinai, it would still hold onto it today.

[/ QUOTE ]

Once again you are completely missing my point. I do not deny that Israel was responsible for the concessions and not the US. But the US pressured Israel to opt for this plan. They did not just tell Israel that whatever they wanted to do and they would support them. This is what you claimed, and this is the point I am refuting.

I already debated a bit about the USS Liberty with twowords, so just look at that.

I attempted through the internet to find evidence to back my claim that Arab governments openly called for the destruction of the US but couldnt find it. Until I come across evidence, I will state that I was wrong for saying that. But I still believe that many Arab governments do wish for the destruction of the US and its values. Also, will you condemn the remarks made by the Iranian president calling for the annihilation of Israel?

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not for the destruction of Israel. I'm for peace. And, despite all your rhetoric, the only chance for permanent, solid peace in the region is for America to truly pressure Israel into getting into the 21st century (it currently resides in the 19th). This is the only language Israel understands.

[/ QUOTE ]

Get Israel into the 21st century? Are you joking? You are seriously calling for one of the most advanced countries in the world to get into the 21st century and not for Palestinian and other Arab countries to get into the 21st century? I'll do you one better. How about Arab countries and the Palestinian government get into the 18th century? Even the 17th century would be better than now.

Cyrus

11-17-2005, 08:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
This is not about whether or not Israel would have done differently anyway. This is about whether or not the US put pressure on Israel at all, which you claim they never have done.

[/ QUOTE ]You did not read carefully the text. I did not claim that America never tried to put some pressure on Israel (the latest example of such "pressure" was the Bush Roadmap, which is now a dead duck).

Just so that you understand very clearly: The United States HAS tried to apply some (very mild, very discreet) pressure on Israel. This has happened, by the way, in peripheral, secondary matters. The only times that I know where serious pressure has been applied was in 1956, but this was pressure applied to Britain and France, as I explained, and Israel found itself caught in the fray -- and the Yom Kippur War, whereby the United States pressured Israel to withdraw from the west bank of the Suez canal. However, this was something that Israel would have done in any case! This is the point : Israel seems to oblige the U.S. but it does so ONLY when this is convenient for Israel! If you think that this amounts to succumbing to pressure, be my guest.

You know, it is a little tiresome when I am arguing on the basis of what Menachem Begin, David Ben-Gurion or Moshe Dayan have said and done (as a matter of historical records) and I am confronted by people who effectively dispute what the Israeli leadership itself explicitly was supporting! Please understand this : Israel's numero uno concern, militarily and politically, has been Egypt, not Jordan, not Libya, not Iraq, not Lebanon, not Saudi Arabia. Alright?

This is why they withdrew from the Suez west bank. In order to open the way for an eventual peace agreement.

[ QUOTE ]
I already debated a bit about the USS Liberty with twowords.

[/ QUOTE ] Debate it as much as you like and with whomever you like : I gave you the testimony of the survivors of the attack against the ship! Are you going to claim you know what happened better than the American shipmen who were there ?

The U.S.S. Liberty website (http://www.ussliberty.org/)

[ QUOTE ]
I still believe that many Arab governments wish for the destruction of the US.

[/ QUOTE ] I knew about wishful thinking. This must be something else.

[ QUOTE ]
Will you condemn the remarks made by the Iranian president calling for the annihilation of Israel?

[/ QUOTE ]You think it is necessary? Why can't you automatically assume that I disagree with and condemn what the Iranian president stated? But I already obliged you here (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=3963328&an=0&page=0# Post3963328).

[ QUOTE ]
Get Israel into the 21st century? Are you joking? You are seriously calling for one of the most advanced countries in the world to get into the 21st century?

[/ QUOTE ] Yes. A country that is based on principles such as Israel's, and a country with pretensions to "western values" and "democratic principles" at that, is an anachronism, a throw-back to the nationalism of the 19th century.

The world has moved. The Jews have been left behind. Moreover, through the actions of Israel in the last fifty years, the moral high ground enjoyed by the Jewish tribe has been lost. Israel wins the battle for hills, rivers and valleys and loses the battle for its soul.

And it's not just me saying this...

Cyrus

11-17-2005, 08:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Supporters of the war in Iraq, at this stage, when all the relevant info is out, are either delusional or heavily biased.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then reply to my argument in this thread:

Bombings In Amman Show US Involvement In Iraq Is Correct (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=3951782&an=0&page=0#Post 3951782)

[/ QUOTE ]

To be honest, I found that argument something of a non sequitur. Kinda like, "Bill lives in a large building, so his apartment must be large."

11-18-2005, 12:47 AM

[/ QUOTE ] The world has moved. The Jews have been left behind. Moreover, through the actions of Israel in the last fifty years, the moral high ground enjoyed by the Jewish tribe has been lost. Israel wins the battle for hills, rivers and valleys and loses the battle for its soul.

And it's not just me saying this...

[/ QUOTE ]

You are right. Many other anti-semites are touting the same line.

jt1

11-18-2005, 01:03 AM

[ QUOTE ]
You are right. Many other anti-semites are touting the same line.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh please. He's just using Jews and Israelis as a synonom. It's not his fault that Israel insists on being a Jewish state (as opposed to mult-cultural or strictly secular). Nor is he saying that all Jews are guilty of Israels crimes. (if they're guilty of any)

If I critisize the American government or even America itself, am I anti-American? (the latter part of that rhetorical question is some nice food for thought)

11-18-2005, 01:23 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Oh please. He's just using Jews and Israelis as a synonom. It's not his fault that Israel insists on being a Jewish state (as opposed to mult-cultural or strictly secular). Nor is he saying that all Jews are guilty of Israels crimes. (if they're guilty of any)

[/ QUOTE ]

He is equating Jews with the Israelis, but is not suggesting Jews are guilty of Israeli crimes? Which is it? I am confused.

Secondly, Israel is a secular state with a secular government. It is not a theocratic state, nor is it anti-democratic like Cyrus implied.

Cyrus

11-18-2005, 03:52 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Through the actions of Israel in the last fifty years, the moral high ground enjoyed by the Jewish tribe has been lost. Israel wins the battle for hills, rivers and valleys and loses the battle for its soul.

And it's not just me saying this...

[/ QUOTE ]

You are right. Many other anti-semites are touting the same line.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, you think it is anti-semitic to support the position that Israel may have won the military battles but is losing its soul ?

Well, if that's the case, I am joining an illustrious group of Jewish anti-semites!..

BluffTHIS!

11-18-2005, 04:11 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Supporters of the war in Iraq, at this stage, when all the relevant info is out, are either delusional or heavily biased.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then reply to my argument in this thread:

Bombings In Amman Show US Involvement In Iraq Is Correct (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=3951782&an=0&page=0#Post 3951782)

[/ QUOTE ]

To be honest, I found that argument something of a non sequitur. Kinda like, "Bill lives in a large building, so his apartment must be large."

[/ QUOTE ]

Or it could be that you simply are unable to grasp where the war in Iraq fits in the greater strategic scheme of things. Forest and trees type of stuff.

BluffTHIS!

11-18-2005, 04:35 AM

Even the Brit opinion writers of the London Times realize that the title of this thread is true.

You don't have to be an amnesiac to be a democrat, buddy, but it helps (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,19269-1877455,00.html)

BluffTHIS!

11-18-2005, 04:40 AM

Another good analysis:
The Big Lie Democrats (http://www.americanprowler.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=9035)

Excerpt:

"Despite the often-repeated line in the media, that with no significant WMD finds in Iraq that "the primary rationale for the war" has been "discredited," whether or not WMD are ever found in Iraq is, in fact, irrelevant to the legitimacy for this "rationale" for the war. The rationale was (among other things) that we had good reason to suspect that Saddam possessed WMD and/or had advanced and on-going programs for their creation. Saddam gave us no reason to doubt this, refusing to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors (in violation of the cease-fire agreement from the first Gulf War), and actually kicking them out of the country in 1998 (prompting Bill Clinton to send a few cruise missiles into suspected Iraqi WMD targets). So the rationale that it was likely that Saddam had WMD programs -- which was the primary basis for Bill Clinton making "regime change" in Iraq official U.S. policy -- was perfectly sound, and remains perfectly sound rationale for having gone to war. But none of this matters in the new Democratic political calculus, and the big question is, why not? The reason that the Democratic leadership seems intent on aggressively pushing a transparently false charge against the President of the United States is that it sees political advantage in doing so."

Cyrus

11-18-2005, 05:10 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Israel is a secular state with a secular government.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no "official" state religion in Israel, but, as the Jewish state, Israel's de facto state religion is Judaism.

I trust we are not going to debate this.

(Note: Having a state religion, either de facto or de jure, is a different matter than religious tolerance. Israel gets very high marks for its tolerance of non-Judaic religions.)

11-18-2005, 05:15 AM

" Saddam gave us no reason to doubt this, refusing to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors "

Must have been watching different news.. I thought it was the US who was not prepared to give the weapons inspectors more time, against the wishes of the UN.

Ah well. another history revision, I guess.

Regarding th OP: "If Bush Was A Liar On Iraq Then So Were the Libs"... YES!

elscorcho768

11-18-2005, 06:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]
But as far as the Middle East is concerned and the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, yes, absolutely, the United States has followed, assisted and supported Israel in everything and every time.

[/ QUOTE ]

This right here is the crux of our debate. You said the above, Cyrus, and I showed how it was incorrect. Of course Israel acted in its own interest in many ways in these two examples I gave, but they still illustrate how your statement is incorrect. Let me again say that Israel acted in its best interest in the Yom Kippur War. But they were still pressurized heavily by the US gov't (see Kissinger's "Crisis") The Suez War further proves you wrong. I admitted when I was wrong about saying that Arab govt's openly called for the destruction of the US. Can you at least say you are wrong here?

[ QUOTE ]
This is the point : Israel seems to oblige the U.S. but it does so ONLY when this is convenient for Israel! If you think that this amounts to succumbing to pressure, be my guest.

[/ QUOTE ]

Those bastards! I can't believe Israel would act in its own interests. Also, the Suez War was an instance where it wasn't in Israels best interest to withdraw but did so from US pressure.

[ QUOTE ]
Please understand this : Israel's numero uno concern, militarily and politically, has been Egypt, not Jordan, not Libya, not Iraq, not Lebanon, not Saudi Arabia. Alright?

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said it wasn't. I do not deny what Israeli leaders said. You continue to miss my point. Lets just say that the USc was to pressure some other country to do something. Lets not include what the even was, who the other country was, or the motives of that country. Any logical person would agree that the US pressured that country. You said the US never did this to Israel. You said the US always followed Israel no matter what. I showed they didnt. If you could simply acknowledge this, then we could maybe see eye to eye on some other aspects.

[ QUOTE ]
Debate it as much as you like and with whomever you like : I gave you the testimony of the survivors of the attack against the ship! Are you going to claim you know what happened better than the American shipmen who were there ?

[/ QUOTE ]

After Israeli airplanes fired on the USS LIberty, two torpedo boats approached. The Liberty then fired on the boats, which they had every right to do. Then torpedo boats then fired on the ship. I do not simply dismiss the testimony of the survivors, but I would not expect them to say anything but that it was deliberate since they lost many friends. However, an objective look at the tragedy along with 13 total commissions on the incident shows that it was an accident. Given that it was during the six day war, is it not possible that this was the case? Also what logical and supported reason is there for Israel to do this?

[ QUOTE ]
A country that is based on principles such as Israel's, and a country with pretensions to "western values" and "democratic principles" at that, is an anachronism, a throw-back to the nationalism of the 19th century.

The world has moved. The Jews have been left behind. Moreover, through the actions of Israel in the last fifty years, the moral high ground enjoyed by the Jewish tribe has been lost. Israel wins the battle for hills, rivers and valleys and loses the battle for its soul.

[/ QUOTE ]

Israel was established as a Jewish state because of the need for a homeland and the survival of the jewish people. You seem to think that this shouldnt have happened. I want you to look up some of the more famous Israeli Supreme Court decisions. I think you might change your opinion that Israel does not act as a western country. Apparently, the Jews are not part of the civilized world, everyone. Cyrus just opened all our eyes. They are still barbarians living in the 18th century and we should thorw our support behing the muslims, who are living in the future!

Cyrus

11-21-2005, 05:35 AM

Oh you like country music too, huh? Let's dance.

"Israel acted in its best interest in the Yom Kippur War. But they were still pressurized heavily by the US gov't."

What did I say different?

The US "pressurized" /images/graemlins/smirk.gif. Israel's best interests coincided with what Washington wanted. And Washington knew that. And Jerusalem knew that. They both come out spit 'n shine! Whaht do you find impossible to understand exactly?

I did not say "Washington nevr presses Israel". I said that Washington will never pressure Israel to do something against Israel's interests! The AIPAC has quite a pit bull's hold on American policies and administrations to allow for anything different.

"The Suez War further proves you wrong."

No, the 1956 war actually proves my point! The Americans "pressurized" /images/graemlins/smirk.gif Britain and France inn that war; Israel's "pressurization" was a collateral effect -- the first and only time that Israel was obliged to step back on account of Washington's orders. (You have some ways to catch up on yer History!)

"I do not simply dismiss the testimony of the survivors [of the USS Liberty] , but I would not expect them to say anything but that it was deliberate since they lost many friends."

Fair point. But the facts are on the survivorts' side. Why do you think there has never been a serious inverstigation (a total shame, this) by the United States? This doesn't just smell cover-up, it stinks to high heaven.

"An objective look at the tragedy along with 13 total commissions on the incident shows that it was an accident. Given that it was during the six day war, is it not possible that this was the case? Also what logical and supported reason is there for Israel to do this?

Israeli warplanes fired at the hapless ship USS Liberty not once or twice but repeatedly and from close range. The ship was no spy ship. She was not hiding her identity. On the contrary, it was flying her flags and showing off her colors for all to see. Especially so on account of the nearby war going on!

The USS Liberty survivors and whose who assist them in their efforts did not just whine and complain and cry black tears for the lost ones. They have assembled meticulously the sequence of events (link (http://www.ussliberty.org/report/report.htm)) whereby the war crime perpetrated on June 8, 1967 becomes blatantly obvious.

[ QUOTE ]
...At approximately 0600 hours (all times local) on the morning of June 8, 1967 an Israeli maritime reconnaissance aircraft observer reported seeing "a US Navy cargo type ship," just outside the coverage of the Israeli coastal radar defense net, bearing the hull markings "GTR-5".
(Source : IDF History Report, Exhibit 2-678:
"The patrol’s mission was to detect ship movements before vessels could enter coastal radar detection range.
...
Meanwhile, the "Nord" plane which had been patrolling the sea had landed and [at 1050 hours local time] the observer was debriefed by Lt. Commander Pinchasi, a navy representative at [Israel] Air Command. The observer reported spotting the marking GTR-5 on the ship’s side. Lt. Commander Pinchasi checked the marking in a "Janes" manual and learned that the reference was to an intelligence ship named "Liberty".")

[/ QUOTE ]

[i]"Israel was established as a Jewish state because of the need for a homeland and the survival of the jewish people."

At some point in time, Israelis have to acknowledge that what for them was a historical moment of salvation and national joy, was also a catastrophe for the local inhabitants of the place. Until now, Israel has acted like an apartheid state, by denying the self-proclaimed national identity of those locals, denying them basic rights in the place who live (for those who still live in Israel), denying to those who left the right to return home, denying that these people even exist! Israel has engaged in systematic acts of barbarity against the locals for five decades; it has also won all the wars it waged against its enemies; it stands, as it always stood more powerfully militarily than all the Arab front-line states combined!

There is nothing for Israel to fear except itself. It is a living anachronism among western democracies, a throwback to the nationalist, irredentist ideologies of the 19th century which predictably caused so much bloodshed in Europe for a hundred years.

Israel is winning its wars, small and big, and losing its Jewish soul.

And it's not just me saying this... link (http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0691117500/ref=sib_rdr_ex/104-4407552-6655933?%5Fencoding=UTF8&p=S00X&j=0#reader-page)

MMMMMM

11-21-2005, 11:05 AM

[ QUOTE ]
There is nothing for Israel to fear except itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

And the myriad Arabs who wish to see it destroyed and every Jew slaughtered.

[ QUOTE ]
It is a living anachronism among western democracies, a throwback to the nationalist, irredentist ideologies of the 19th century which predictably caused so much bloodshed in Europe for a hundred years.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol. It's myriad Arab neighbors are many times more anachronistic throwbacks, and have many times the prejudice and supremacist attitudes (and laws).

If you're claiming that prejudice and supremacism often lead to bloodshed, you are right, but you are ignoring the fact that the Arab states are far more guilty of those things than is Israel. So if you're going to criticize Israel on that basis you ought to commensurately blame the Arab states as well--which would mean MORE, in this case.

It is amazing how a tiny state should draw more criticism for its policies, than do the vast surrounding states, which have policies, attitudes and laws far more worthy of criticism.

BluffTHIS!

11-21-2005, 01:05 PM

MMMMMMMMMMMMMMM,

Please don't muddy Cyrus' arguments with facts and logic.

nicky g

11-21-2005, 02:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]
MMMMMMMMMMMMMMM,

Please don't muddy Cyrus' arguments with facts and logic.

[/ QUOTE ]

I propose that the next person to make this infinitely unoriginal non-post be banned from the internet.

Cyrus

11-21-2005, 04:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Israel [fears] the myriad Arabs who wish to see it destroyed and every Jew slaughtered.

[/ QUOTE ] It is a well know fact that Israel has nothing to fear from either the front-line states or the whole Arab nation. Israel is stronger militarily than all the Arab states combined. Therefore, the security argument is dead at the starting gate.

But you knew this already.

[ QUOTE ]
Its myriad Arab neighbors are many times more anachronistic throwbacks

[/ QUOTE ]
There is once crucial difference: I would not accept those Arab states as worthy of admittance in the family of western democracies. But Israel has pretensions that "it belongs". I say it is a hundred times more of an anachronism than British Royalty.

BCPVP

11-21-2005, 04:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
MMMMMMMMMMMMMMM,

Please don't muddy Cyrus' arguments with facts and logic.

[/ QUOTE ]

I propose that the next person to make this infinitely unoriginal non-post be banned from the internet.

[/ QUOTE ]
I second this motion. (Not a shot at you bluffTHIS)

BluffTHIS!

11-21-2005, 04:54 PM

Trite as my remark was, it was nonetheless very appropriate in this situation.

BCPVP

11-21-2005, 05:08 PM

It very well might have been, but it's the kind of remark jaxmike would use. I think you're above his level.

BluffTHIS!

11-21-2005, 05:33 PM

Well there's no way I could ever hope to outdo jaxmike. But he was right occasionally, and Cyrus is wrong a lot.

Jedster

11-21-2005, 05:37 PM

This stuff below is so stupid. I mean incredibly stupid. Anyone who really thinks that the Democrats started the war in Iraq should be invited to the intellectual special olympics.

Not to defend Clinton here but it's now pretty clear that the policy of containment through occasional strikes and bombing Saddam's air defenses was extremely effective.

In other words, because of policies started under GHWB and continued by Clinton, Iraq did not pose a major threat.

So in 1998 Democrats and Republicans all looked the intelligence and decided that the Clinton approach made sense. And it worked.

Then Bush took office and we know what happened next. The brain damaged former cocaine addict, drunkard, and draft dodger listened to what his oil executive draft dodging VP had to say, and here we are now.

But anyone who truly thinks that a Democratic or liberal president would have done the same thing Bush did in Iraq is so stupid that they probably should not be allowed to vote. I'll go ask Katharine Harris for some advice on how to disenfranchise them.

[ QUOTE ]
Excerpted from this (http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/columnists/jgurwitz/stories/MYSA111305.3H.gurwitz.c47f8de.html) link.

Jonathan Gurwitz: Opponents say Bush lied; read between the lines

Web Posted: 11/13/2005 12:00 AM CST

San Antonio Express-News

Opponents of President Bush routinely invoke the incantation that he lied about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to take the nation to war.

"Urges the President to take all necessary and appropriate actions to respond to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
— Text of Senate Concurrent Resolution 71, Jan. 28, 1998, co-sponsored by Democrats Tom Daschle, Patrick Leahy, Max Cleland, John Kerry and Robert Byrd, among others

In doing so, they conveniently overlook the fact that if Bush lied, a long list of liberal icons have also been lying for a very long time, some from before the time he arrived in the Oval Office.

"(Iraq) 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 might I say, UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production."
— Text of President Clinton's address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff, Feb. 17, 1998

Of course, it's not the continuity of intelligence findings and Bush's reliance on them that his detractors find objectionable. It's what he did in response.

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. 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."
— Press release from Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., Dec. 16, 1998

Clinton fired cruise missiles and put his faith in what we now know was a corrupt and ineffectual U.N. sanctions regime in a fruitless effort to keep Saddam in a box.

"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."
— From an address by Al Gore to the Commonwealth Club of California, Sept. 23, 2002

In fairness to Clinton, there was no consensus in American politics to initiate major military operations against the Baathist regime or other state sponsors of international terror before Sept. 11, 2001. There was barely such a consensus afterward.

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last four years ... he has continued to build those weapons."
— Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, Oct. 9, 2002

But the central issue of the presidential election one year ago was Iraq: why we are there, how we got there and whether Bush misled the nation.

"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."
— Floor statement of Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Oct. 10, 2002

Having lost that election — in effect, a plebiscite on what Bush did about the intelligence information he, his predecessors and Democrats and Republicans in the House and the Senate agreed upon — Bush opponents are left banging their heads against a wall, repeating the meaningless mantra, "Bush lied."

"Under Saddam's rule, Iraq has engaged in far-reaching human rights abuses, been a state sponsor of terrorism and has long sought to obtain and develop weapons of mass destruction."
— Statement from the Web site of Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, dated 2002

Only the blindly partisan, the ignorant and the gullible can subscribe to the belief that Bush — and, somehow, Bush alone — lied about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

"I consider the prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam Hussein who can threaten not only his neighbors, but the stability of the region and the world, a very serious threat to the United States."
— Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York at a Jan. 22, 2003, press conference

[/ QUOTE ]

MMMMMM

11-21-2005, 06:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
It is a well know fact that Israel has nothing to fear from either the front-line states or the whole Arab nation. Israel is stronger militarily than all the Arab states combined. Therefore, the security argument is dead at the starting gate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Israel must be eternally vigilant against those who wish to destroy her, and slaughter the Jews. Her security is not a given, and is potentially quite fragile.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Its myriad Arab neighbors are many times more anachronistic throwbacks

[/ QUOTE ]

There is once crucial difference: I would not accept those Arab states as worthy of admittance in the family of western democracies. But Israel has pretensions that "it belongs". I say it is a hundred times more of an anachronism than British Royalty.

[/ QUOTE ]

What a TOTAL crock. The Arab states get a relative exemption for being backwards, merely because they are backwards? Israel is far more tolerant than they, both by custom and by law, yet Israel gets blamed first because Israel is expected to be better than they? Israel is more of an anachronism than the Arab states? Uh no, Cyrus: this isn't kindergarten; this is the grown-up world. ric.

All who value civil rights, religious freedom, equality of rights for all human beings, must rightly condemn the Arab states FAR MORE than Israel. Yet you claim that Israel irredentism and type of policies are the sort of thing that led to the slaughters in Europe. In reality, Israeli policy is primarily a DEFENSIVE mechanism, and it was the prejudices of the Europeans and Russians that led to the slaughters in Europe. Furthermore the Arab attitudes and Arab laws are far more similar to such bigoted views, than are any Israeli views or policies.

You've got it nearly 100% upside down, Cyrus. Why don't you start holding everyone to the same enlightened standards for a change.

In today's world, the Arab states are the MOST bigoted, MOST unequal, and MOST irrespective of equal civil rights for all persons.

If you want to start howling about how prejudice and unequal laws and policies lead to bloodshed and evil, you can start right where those things are worst. If the problem in the Middle East is prejudice and unequal treatment, Israel is NOT the main problem; the Arab states are. So stop disproportionately blaming the relative good guys in this scenario, and be willing to call a spade a spade and set the blame for bigotry, and bigoted laws customs and policies, where it most squarely belongs: on the Arab/Muslim states and Arab/Muslim peoples with their horrendously unequal bigoted laws and customs.

Cyrus

11-22-2005, 04:28 AM

[ QUOTE ]
There's no way I could ever hope to outdo jaxmike. But ... Cyrus is wrong a lot.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say you are giving it your best shot in the former field, and you're getting nowhere near proving the latter.

Cyrus

11-22-2005, 04:46 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Israel must be eternally vigilant against those who wish to destroy her, and slaughter the Jews. Her security is not a given, and is potentially quite fragile.

[/ QUOTE ]
Did I say that Israel should disarm? Did I suggest that Israel should forget about security? Why do you come up with such irrelevancies, then? What purpose do your platitudes serve?

I wrote simply this : " Israel has nothing to fear from either the front-line states or the whole Arab nation [because] Israel is stronger militarily than all the Arab states combined. Therefore, the security argument is dead at the starting gate."

The "security argument" is used by fanatical Zionists to justify the many crimes perpetrated by Israel, on an individual and state scale, against the unlucky Palestinian inhabitants of the land. It is still used today, to justify Israel's reluctance to grant even the absolute minimum of statehood for Palestinians, as it has been explicitly provided/dictated by numerous United Nations resolutions and also United States proclamations.

But it's a dead duck.

[ QUOTE ]
Its myriad Arab neighbors are many times more anachronistic throwbacks.

[/ QUOTE ]
Have I ever once defended the regimes of the Arab states? Why then bring up this non-argument? This is a typical "Yeah-but-you-beat-your-wife" type of diversion.

All I'm saying is that Israel is promoted in the West as being far more advanced than those Arab states, when it is actually worse in its human rights record. Is there a similar to Israel's amount of torture, murder and abuse directed a whole nation that is being waged anywhere in Lebanon, Syria, Egypt or Jordan ? I don't think so.

Once again, I was very explicit: "I would not accept those Arab states as worthy of admittance in the family of western democracies. But Israel has pretensions that "it belongs". I say it is a hundred times more of an anachronism than British Royalty."

[ QUOTE ]
In today's world, the Arab states are the MOST bigoted, MOST unequal, and MOST irrespective of equal civil rights for all persons.

[/ QUOTE ] So, Morocco is worse than China, Egypt is worse than North Korea and Lebanon is worse than Congo.

Is this what you are saying, O Master Of The Inane Hyperbole?

[ QUOTE ]
If you want to start howling about how ... policies lead to bloodshed and evil, you can start right where those things are worst.

[/ QUOTE ]Thanks, I will.

I will start at the notion whereby a nation is enforced at the heartland of another, with the explicit aim of deporting the local inhabitants and waging war in the most ferocious manner until the ex-inhabitants and their neighboring brethren are subjugated to the will of the newcomers (viz. Zabotinsky et al).

Will this do, O Master Of The Half-Baked Idea?

/images/graemlins/cool.gif

MMMMMM

11-22-2005, 05:14 AM

Cyrus, you wrote this: [ QUOTE ]
There is nothing for Israel to fear except itself. It is a living anachronism among western democracies, a throwback to the nationalist, irredentist ideologies of the 19th century which predictably caused so much bloodshed in Europe for a hundred years.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I pointed out, if you're looking to blame ideologies for contributing to things like long European bloodsheds, don't first blame Israeli ideologies--which are mild indeed compared to its neighbors' bigoted laws and customs, and were significantly born of defensive necessity--blame instead those who yet adhere to truly archaic and far more grossly bigoted and unfair laws and customs. Since you're taking aim at the Middle East, and looking for pernicious ideologies, that would rightly mean blaming Israel LAST, not FIRST.

The evils visited upon Europe, especially the Holocaust, sprang from ideologies far more similar to the Arab/Muslim supremacist doctrines of past and present, which are encoded in actual law, than from anything resembling Zionism. Yet you manage to make it sound as if the opposite were true.