Duplicitous Democrats

[MMMMMM]

{excerpt) "Here .. try this test. No fair cheating by referring to yesterday's Nuze. Just tell me who made this statement:

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

No clue? That was Hillary Clinton on the campaign trail in October of 2002. Now, try this one:

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

That statement is from none other than Teddy Kennedy, the man who now says that the entire war in Iraq is a fraud. (end excerpt) http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html (note: the Nuze changes daily so you can't read the context of this column if you access it tomorrow).

[adios]

No matter how the anti Bush folks who claim he was lying about Iraq spin it, many prominent Democrats believed what Bush believed. Ted Kennedy is a disgrace.

[brad]

its good cop bad cop all at top are really just criminals

[David Steele]

What is so shocking? The were mislead just like everyone
else. It is the republican administration who controls
the information presented to congress and the public.

What is more disturbing is that the public is not seeming
to realize the scandle in large numbers yet.

D.

[adios]

"It is the republican administration who controls
the information presented to congress and the public. "

Was it the Republican adminstration that duped Clinton into stating this in 1998 after the bombing of Bahgdad?

TRANSCRIPT: CLINTON ON PREEMPTIVE AIRSTRIKES AGAINST IRAQ (http://www.ceip.org/programs/npp/clintoniraq.htm)

I know I've posted this before but I am going to attempt to bring up this up every time the Bush "liar, liar you're pants are on fire" criticism comes up. Most have taken this ms an accusation that Clinton was lying in 1998. I don't think that's the case at all. He was proceeding on the same information that Bush proceeded on.

President Clinton ordered America's Armed Forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq December 16 to "attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical, and biological programs, and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors."

"Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas, or biological weapons," Clinton said in a December 16 statement from the White House.

Clinton said the results of UNSCOM Chairman Richard Butler's report to UN Secretary General Annan regarding Iraq's non-cooperation with UN weapons inspectors were "stark, sobering and profoundly disturbing."

Clinton said that Iraq has failed to cooperate in four out of the five categories set forth.

"This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance," Clinton said.

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

"If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors; he will make war on his own people," Clinton said. "And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them. Because we are acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future."

[nicky g]

My opinion of Clinton is not much higher than my opinion of Bush. Just to say though that while Clinton may have seen Saddam as a threat too, he obviously didn't think he was enough of a threat to justify a full scale war; he went for containment and occasional airstrikes (which that speech was justifying).

Personally, my opinion of Clinton's assessment of the Iraqi threat is close to my opinion of his aasessment of the Sudanese pharmaceuticals factory he blew up during the Lewinsky affair.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
My opinion of Clinton is not much higher than my opinion of Bush. Just to say though that while Clinton may have seen Saddam as a threat too, he obviously didn't think he was enough of a threat to justify a full scale war; he went for containment and occasional airstrikes (which that speech was justifying).

Personally, my opinion of Clinton's assessment of the Iraqi threat is close to my opinion of his aasessment of the Sudanese pharmaceuticals factory he blew up during the Lewinsky affair.

[/ QUOTE ]

And a very fine job of containment he did eh Nicky?

[Chris Alger]

The Kennedy statement is out of context. The next sentence reads: "But information from the intelligence community over the past six months does not point to Iraq as an imminent threat to the United States or a major proliferator of weapons of mass destruction." Kennedy Speech (http://zwerling.valuemembers.net/Fall%202002/Iraq/kennedy%20speech.htm)

The observation that the Democrats mostly applauded and mouthed platitudes while Bush murdered Iraqis is basically correct. With the exception of a courageous few, like Byrd and Kucinich, the Democrats went along with it. Now the same bunch are carping at Bush for partisan gain, but only on pragmatic grounds. Even in a totalitarian state, one can often make technical criticisms about the cost and efficiacy of a policy, but criticizing moral fundamentals is verbotten. Fighting liberal John Kerry, for example, was quoted as saying "failure is not an option." In my view, however, failure is the only option if the people of the Middle East don't want to find themselves under U.S. guns for the next several generations and if the people of the U.S. want to avoid the fate of all empires before them.

That the third or so of the electorate that opposed this war can't find much in the way of democratic representation is a good indictment against this lousy excuse for a democracy.

[MMMMMM]

Containment of an evil is foolish if elimination of that evil is a viable option.

[Chris Alger]

"He was proceeding on the same information that Bush proceeded on."

Correct, but he couldn't proceed very far because he couldn't use unrelated "Arab" terrorism as an excuse. Here's Clinton's information: Saddam's undisputed inability to conquer his own country, proving him to be no threat to any other country, and UNSCOM's success in uncovering and destroying most or all of Iraq's WMD and WMD programs.[1] Thus Clinton's terror campaign fizzled after a few missiles. As Colin Powell admitted on February 24 2001, "He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours." US Embassy, Israel (http://www.usembassy-israel.org.il/publish/press/visits/february01/powell4.html)

9/11 hysteria changed all that. Rumsfeld immediately realized the propaganda potential of the new Pearl Harbor and began dictating instructions to "go massive" on Iraq while the fires were still burning. According to notes from his subordinates, at 2:40 p.m. on 9/11/01 Rumsfeld was asking for any and all evidence in order to "'judge whether good enough hit S.H.' – meaning Saddam Hussein – 'at same time. Not only UBL' – the initials used to identify Osama bin Laden.' 'Go massive,' the notes quote him as saying. 'Sweep it all up. Things related and not.'" CBS (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/04/september11/main520830.shtml)

Even Gen. Wesley Clark was enlisted in the campaign to use 9/11 as an excuse to go after Saddam. On the afternoon of 9/11, Clark told Meet the Press, "I got a call at my home saying, 'You got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein.' I said, 'But--I'm willing to say it, but what's your evidence?' And I never got any evidence.'" FAIR (http://www.fair.org/press-releases/clark-iraq.html)

Only 17 days after 9/11, Bush signed a top secret directive telling the Pentagon "to begin planning military options for an invasion of Iraq." Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A43909-2003Jan11)

Indeed, Condolezza Rice described 9/11 as an "enormous opportunity" in April 2002. While Bush and Cheney worked the yokels and suckers, scaring hell out of them, Rice was telling specialists and academics at the Paul H. Nitze School of International Affairs (Johns Hopkins) that 9/11 was actually not half bad:

"[A]n earthquake of the magnitude of 9/11 can shift the tectonic plates of international politics. The international system has been in flux since the collapse of Soviet power. Now it is possible -- indeed, probable -- that that transition is coming to an end. If that is right, if the collapse of the Soviet Union and 9/11 bookend a major shift in international politics, then this is a period not just of grave danger, but of enormous opportunity. Before the clay is dry again, America and our friends and our allies must move decisively to take advantage of these new opportunities." Rice Speech (http://www.geocities.com/mhakbariof/text-49.htm)

Of course, she didn't insult anyone's intelligence by exaggertating Iraqi WMD or trying to tying it to 9/11 or international terrorism. She didn't even have to mention Iraq because everyone in the audience understood fully what the administration was trying to do: use 9/11 as an excuse to expand the scope of U.S. power in the Middle East through millitary force, including the conquest of Iraq. Thus, in July 2002, even before the inspectors began proving that no evidence of Iraq WMD existed, even before 1441, Rice told Bush Deputy Richard Haas "don't waste your breath" going over the pros and cons of invading Iraq. "That decision's been made." Richard Haas, (http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/07/25_condi.html) New Yorker, 3/31/3.
___________________________
[1] Note that Clinton refused to address Iraq's stated reasons for refusing unrestricted access to U.S. inspectors: the U.S. undermined the inspections process by using it for espionage. "Reports of the misuse of the inspectors for spying were made in early 1999 by some of the leading U.S. newspapers, sourced to U.S. and U.N. officials (FAIR Action Alert, 9/24/02). These papers reported as fact that 'American spies had worked undercover on teams of United Nations arms inspectors' (New York Times, 1/7/99) in order to 'eavesdrop on the Iraqi military without the knowledge of the U.N. agency' (Washington Post, 3/2/99) as part of 'an ambitious spying operation designed to penetrate Iraq's intelligence apparatus and track the movement of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein' (Boston Globe, 1/6/99)." FAIR (http://www.fair.org/activism/iraq-myths.html)

[Chris Alger]

Um, how did Clinton's containment policy fail? Is there some WSJ editorial trying to question claims that Iraq didn't invade anyone or mass vast quantities of WMD?

[Wake up CALL]

Chris I suggest you research your evidence a little better. All I had to do was read this quote:

"Even Gen. Wesley Clark was enlisted in the campaign to use 9/11 as an excuse to go after Saddam. On the afternoon of 9/11, Clark told Meet the Press, "I got a call at my home saying, 'You got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein.' I said, 'But--I'm willing to say it, but what's your evidence?' And I never got any evidence.'"

to realize the rest of the conversatyion was left out. When queeried further it was revealed that noone from the administration really called him. It was a Washington think tank unaffiliated with the government. Clark recanted his statement that The White House ever contacted him regarding this matter ever, much less that day in question.

This causes me to further suspect you have a dishonest agenda and are not to be trusted at all and should probably be awarded the title King of the Trolls. At least argue with fact not falsehoods.

As for the posters here that think you really have anything intelligent to say they must be blinded by their liberal leanings and refuse to research all the Bullsh*t you spout.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
Um, how did Clinton's containment policy fail? Is there some WSJ editorial trying to question claims that Iraq didn't invade anyone or mass vast quantities of WMD?



[/ QUOTE ]

Below is an excerpt from the Meet The Press interview you misquoted in another post which answers your question. It also provides the rest of what Gen. Clark said about that phone call on 9/11:

"MR. RUSSERT: Was there an intelligence failure? Was the intelligence hyped, as Senator Joe Biden said? Was the president misled, or did he mislead the American people?
GEN. CLARK: Well, several things. First of all, all of us in the community who read intelligence believe that Saddam wanted these capabilities and he had some. We struck very hard in December of ’98, did everything we knew, all of his facilities. I think it was an effective set of strikes. Tony Zinni commanded that, called Operation Desert Fox, and I think that set them back a long ways. But we never believed that that was the end of the problem. I think there was a certain amount of hype in the intelligence, and I think the information that’s come out thus far does indicate that there was a sort of selective reading of the intelligence in the sense of sort of building a case.
MR. RUSSERT: Hyped by whom?
GEN. CLARK: Well, I...
MR. RUSSERT: The CIA, or the president or vice president? Secretary of Defense, who?
GEN. CLARK: I think it was an effort to convince the American people to do something, and I think there was an immediate determination right after 9/11 that Saddam Hussein was one of the keys to winning the war on terror. Whether it was the need just to strike out or whether he was a linchpin in this, there was a concerted effort during the fall of 2001 starting immediately after 9/11 to pin 9/11 and the terrorism problem on Saddam Hussein.
MR. RUSSERT: By who? Who did that?
GEN. CLARK: Well, it came from the White House, it came from people around the White House. It came from all over. I got a call on 9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, “You got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein.” I said, “But—I’m willing to say it but what’s your evidence?” And I never got any evidence. And these were people who had—Middle East think tanks and people like this and it was a lot of pressure to connect this and there were a lot of assumptions made. But I never personally saw the evidence and
didn’t talk to anybody who had the evidence to make that connection."

This is General Clark stating he believed Hussein still had WMD's and wanted more as well as the complete quote as to who called him on 911 ( not the White House).


June 15, 2003 Meet The Press Interview (http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/927000.asp?0dm=v22av)

[Cyrus]

"...every time the Bush "liar, liar you're pants are on fire" criticism comes up."

Yep, I don't think his pants were ever on fire, that's right.

/images/graemlins/cool.gif

(Do you think he's ever gone down on Mrs Bush? Purely out of curiosity, even.)

[Chris Alger]

Two things about the American right remain constant: the leaders are liars and the followers believe anything the leaders say, no matter how ludicrous.

Nothing in my post indicated that Clark had been called on 9/11 by "the White House." That's your first lie.

Clark's statement on Meet The Press (http://www.theclarksphere.com/archives/000255.html) reads as follows:

"'It [pressure to pin 9/11 on Saddam] came from the White House; it came from people around the White House, it came from all over. I got a call on 9/11 - I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, 'You've got to say this is connected. This is state sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein. I said, 'But—I’m willing to say it but what’s your evidence?' And I never got any evidence. And these were people who had—Middle East think tanks and people like this and it was a lot of pressure to connect this and there were a lot of assumptions made."

Notice that Clark didn't say he was "called by" the White House and used that term as part of a group of nouns that included not just the White House but people "around" the White House and "all over."

Later, in a letter to the New York Times, Clark wrote:

"I would like to correct any possible misunderstanding of my remarks on ''Meet the Press,'' quoted in Paul Krugman's July 15 column, about ''people around the White House'' seeking to link Sept. 11 to Saddam Hussein. I received a call from a Middle East think tank outside the country, asking me to link 9/11 to Saddam Hussein. No one from the White House asked me to link Saddam Hussein to Sept. 11. Subsequently, I learned that there was much discussion inside the administration in the days immediately after Sept. 11 trying to use 9/11 to go after Saddam Hussein. In other words, there were many people, inside and outside the government, who tried to link Saddam Hussein to Sept. 11." (my emphasis)

Your statement that Clark "recanted" therefore is your second lie.

Perhaps you are under the influence of "Honest" Rush Limbaugh (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/weekend_sites/091503_091903/content/truth_detector_2.guest.html), who spread this absurd rumor by playing the passage quoted above on his radio show, and then (1) lying about what was said in it to (2) falsely accuse Clark of lying by claiming that he received a call "from the White House" on 9/11, going into great length about how the White House had been evacuated on 9/11. Limbaugh further lied by claiming that Clark changed his story by admitting that the call came from "a Muslim think-tank in Canada ... except that there aren't any Muslim think-tanks in Canada," leading Limbaugh to suggest that Clark made it up or got it off "some kook website."

Fellow right-wing liar George F. Will (http://216.239.33.104/custom?q=cache:FJtGWsSEfbUJ:www.startribune.com/viewers/story.php%3Fstory%3D4067261+clark+"george+f.+will"+call&hl=en&ie=UTF-8) then gave the rumor his imprimatur by reversing the order of Clark's Meet The Press statements in order to create something Clark never said:

"'I got a call at my home' saying that when he was to appear on CNN, 'You've got to say this is connected' to Iraq. 'It came from the White House, it came from people around the White House. It came from all over.' But who exactly called Clark?" Will then cited the NY Times letter to similarly suggest that Clark had changed his story, when in fact the "story" was a quote that Will deliberately fabricated.

Moreover, are you seriously disputing that there was and remains a concerted campaign in media and government circles to link 9/11 to Iraq? Didn't you read the ludicrous editorial from the WSJ that Tom Haley just posted. Have you been on Mars?

Four days after 9/11, according to Post reporters Bob Woodward and Dan Baltz, the Bush team met at Camp David. In their account of that meeting, the reporters state:

"Wolfowitz argued that the real source of all the trouble and terrorism was probably Hussein. The terrorist attacks of 9/11 created an opportunity to strike."
TomPaine.com (http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/8353)

Others "around the White House" worked assiduously to link Iraq with 9/11 in order to justify an invasion. Richard Perle tried to pin it on "a large government," therefore presumably not Afgahnistan:

"'This could not have been done without help of one or more governments,' he told The Washington Post. 'Someone taught these suicide bombers how to fly large airplanes. I don't think that can be done without the assistance of large governments. You don't walk in off the street and learn how to fly a Boeing 767.'

Ex-CIA chief James Woolsey, Jr. was more direct. Speaking with Peter Jennings, he suggested Iraq was behind the 1993 bombing of the Trade Center and continued: '[I]t's not impossible that terrorist groups could work together with the government, that... the Iraqi government has been quite closely involved with a number of Sunni terrorist groups and... and on some matters has had direct contact with bin Laden.'

He repeated that in an interview with Wolf Blitzer. Appearing with the State Department's former counterterrorism chief, Larry Johnson, Woolsey said, 'My suspicion -- it's no more than that at this point -- is that there could be some government action involved together with bin Laden or a major terrorist group. And one strong suspect there I think would be the government of Iraq.'

Later that evening, William Kristol of The Weekly Standard and chairman of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) echoed Woolsey in a NPR interview: "I think Iraq is, actually, the big, unspoken sort of elephant in the room today. There's a fair amount of evidence that Iraq has had very close associations with Osama bin Laden in the past, a lot of evidence that it had associations with the previous effort to destroy the World Trade Center."

(Quotes above from the TomPaine link)

[Chris Alger]

Here's the quote I used:

"I got a call at my home saying, 'You got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein.' I said, 'But--I'm willing to say it, but what's your evidence?' And I never got any evidence."

The following is taken verbatim from your post above:

"I got a call at my home saying, “You got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein.” I said, “But—I’m willing to say it but what’s your evidence?” And I never got any evidence."

So what did I misquote?

Yeah, so the intelligence community believed that Saddam still had "some" of "these capabilities."

How does that show that he has not been contained? (You are familiar, are you not, that the term "contained" -- coined by George Kenan in connection with the Soviet Union -- has traditionally been applied to countries with far greater WMD capabilities than Saddam ever dreamed of?).

[nicky g]

If you notice, I made it clear that I was not in agreement with Clinton's assessments. My point was that his actions showed that his policies towards Iraq, and his assessment of the Iraqi threat, were not identical to Bush's.

[nicky g]

"Do you think he's ever gone down on Mrs Bush? "

Cyrus. Please. No.

[adios]

"My point was that his actions showed that his policies towards Iraq, and his assessment of the Iraqi threat, were not identical to Bush."

One can only speculate how Clinton might have changed his assessment and what Clinton would have done had 9/11 had occurred during his administration.

Excerpt from Clinton statement:

"If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors; he will make war on his own people," Clinton said. "And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them. Because we are acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future."

[nicky g]

From the statement: "Because we are acting today..."

He was talking about airstrikes, not a regime-changing war. The whole statement is to jutify limited airstrikes. Given that 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq, I don't understand why it should change the threat assessment or policy towards Iraq.

[MMMMMM]

Containment should be applied to hostile countries which possess great capacity to inflict harm if engaged in battle, such as the former USSR. Evil regimes such as Saddam's Baath Party which possess much more limited capacity to inflict great harm should be destroyed not contained. And evil regimes which are attempting to move from the status of the second to the first should be pre-empted from so doing.

[MMMMMM]

My recollection is that other intelligence services around the world arricved at similar conclusions. In fact I recall posting, well before 9/11 transpired, that German Intelligence stated they believed Saddam would have a nuclear bomb by 2005 at the very latest.

[Chris Alger]

Once again making up the facts about Iraq becoming ever more powerful, when it's military had been reduced by 2/3's and its WMD destroyed.

[MMMMMM]

I didn't say Iraq was becoming more powerful; only that it was attempting to do so.

[Chris Alger]

But you ignore that any "attempt" it was making at increasing its power was failing. So to summarize your position: the U.S. must overthrow "evil" regimes regardless of whether they constitute a threat, regardless of whether their ability to threaten is on the decline.

This is no different from saying that the U.S. and indeed any country has the right to invade "evil" countries and impose its political will on them, even if it means killing thousands of innocents in the process. It is impossible to distinguish your position from that of any other terrorist.

[Wake up CALL]

Chris, Chris, Chris, you provided this link Fair (http://www.fair.org/press-releases/clark-iraq.html) to which you referred and below is what it says. Now tell me with a straight face that this doesn't imply that someone from the White House called him on 911. You will notice that your link edited the quotes to suit their purpose just as you used this link for your ulterior motives.





Here is a transcript of the exchange:


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

CLARK: "There was a concerted effort during the fall of 2001, starting immediately after 9/11, to pin 9/11 and the terrorism problem on Saddam Hussein."

RUSSERT: "By who? Who did that?"

CLARK: "Well, it came from the White House, it came from people around the White House. It came from all over. I got a call on 9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, 'You got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein.' I said, 'But--I'm willing to say it, but what's your evidence?' And I never got any evidence."


Calling me a liar when I have proved you biased and incorrect is a sign of desperation, poor manners, a low intellect and childish behavior. You should go back to misquoting people without links otherwise your group of supporters will soon be leaving for greener pastures (other than Cyrus, for whatever that is worth).

As far as Gen. Clark either recanting or clarifying, in this case there is little difference since he knew how his quotes were being used as left-wing propaganda and would come back to haunt him in his run for the Democratic nomination.

After all of this my original point was that Clinton's attempt at containment failed and even the NATO commander General Clark understood this fact. If you do not think it failed please describe how you came to this remarkable conclusion.

[MMMMMM]

No, Chris, you've got it wrong again.

Iraq was not getting more powerful, but was still working on WMD programs. No totalitarian regimes should be permitted to attain more such weapons, especially now with the amplified threat of terrorists gaining access to WMD's.

Also, you appear to be confusing a legitimate regime--which means an elected regime--with ANY regime.

As Bush mentioned, the universal human values protected in our Constitution are values all of humanity has a right to. A band of thugs running a country as Saddam did does not morally entitle those thugs to protection.

Actually, the moral call is to unseat them and let the people have a freely elected government which will protect their human rights instead of slaughtering and torturing and terrorizing them.

So regime change for such countries is not a terrorist position; it is a moral position, one which everyone without moral blinders on should support if and when it is feasible to implement such a change at a reasonable cost and for the good of humanity.

It doesn't surprise me to hear you suggest that butchers such as Saddam should be entitled to hold onto power, but it does sadden me that there are so many morally weak-minded people in the world today who share your opinion.

Your view that forcibly removing butchers from power is the equivalent of terrorism is ludicrous. Whose side are you on, anyway: the totalitarian butchers and tyrants, or those who champion humanity's inherent right to freedom from tyranny?

[adios]

Incredibly good post. However, I know the Chris Alger response before he writes it. It is to the effect that USA will control Iraq going forward. So you might want to anwer that one while you're at it /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

[andyfox]

Every politician is duplicitous. If you tell the truth, you can't get elected or re-elected.

[Chris Alger]

In the first place, you keep forgetting that Iraq apparently had no ability to obtain WMD, a fact that follows from your repeated allegation that Saddam was working feverishly to build and use them.

So supporting the U.S. amounts to supporting "those who champion humanity's inherent right to freedom from tyranny?"

Of course. That's why the U.S. wants to withdraw from Iraq as soon as power can be transferred to the Iraqis, while the rest of the world wants the US to stay until a stable, pro-U.S. regime can be installed. Wait, no that's backwards. The US wants to stay in power longer than the rest of the world desires in order to improve the perception that the Iraqi government is "legitimate." That has to be it. After all, the U.S. has to be determined to "let the people have a freely elected government which will protect their human rights " becasue it is simply unimaginable that the U.S. would ever try to install an Iraqi government akin to those of our Iranian, Turkish or Arabian clients. If our strategic control over Iraq and its resources runs up against nationalist, religious or other political forces that emerge from Iraqi democracy, then the U.S. will simply have to break precedent and make its interests take a back seat.

Any more arguments from theology?

[Rushmore]

Your statement, although true, stands in starker contrast when applied the the Democrats, who portray themselves as the Keepers of Truth.

The Republicans, while not subtitling the party The Grand Old Liars Club, have always stood at arm's length from the absurdly idealistic notion that the Truth is always Right, regardless of the consequences.

So, then, uh, they're all liars, liars is what they are, and let's not be so shocked to find that they are lying to us because they lie for a living.

It's what's best for us, apparently.

Right?

[Chris Alger]

"Now tell me with a straight face that this doesn't imply that someone from the White House called him on 911."

As a matter of logic and grammar, that statement no more implies that Clark was called by the White House than he was called by "people around the White House" or people from "all over." Further, if Clark "implied" something, then why did Limbaugh and Will have to misquote Clark in order to accuse him of not merely implying it but saying it outright? Because the real liars are routinely on the right wing. They do it because suckers like you believe them.

Finally, even though you've had to water down your statement from Clark claiming that he was called by the White House to his merely "implying" as much, yet you never deal with the actual point of Clark's allegation: the White House and its supporters engaged in a spurious campaign to link Iraq to 9/11.

"I have proved you ... incorrect"

How? Where? You keep saying that I've misquoted someone, yet when I point out that the quotes are accurrate and exact, you simply repeat the mantra. You claim that FAIR used a partial quote, but you never even suggest that quote distorted Clark's explicit allegation of an anti-Iraq campaign. In fact, it was that very allegation that you have so feebly tried to discredit.

[Wake up CALL]

Alger you are obstinate and aparrently illiterate as well. Please reread my previous post (several times if necessary) and eventually you may understand.

[MMMMMM]

You have repeatedly invoked some large slices of world opinion as if they represent a reliable barometer of what is good and right, when actually the opposite is all too often the case.

Apparently, you would prefer a sadistic butcher like Saddam Hussein over a Western-style government which protects the human rights of its citizens, if it means that government is modeled in our image.

I think I see where you are really coming from. Anything, anything at all but the U.S., right?

[Chris Alger]

In the first place, you keep forgetting that Iraq apparently had no ability to obtain WMD, a fact that follows from your repeated allegation that Saddam was working feverishly to build and use them.

So supporting the U.S. amounts to supporting "those who champion humanity's inherent right to freedom from tyranny?"

Of course. That's why the U.S. wants to withdraw from Iraq as soon as power can be transferred to the Iraqis, while the rest of the world wants the US to stay until a stable, pro-U.S. regime can be installed. Wait, no that's backwards. The US wants to stay in power longer than the rest of the world desires in order to improve the perception that the Iraqi government is "legitimate." That has to be it. After all, the U.S. has to be determined to "let the people have a freely elected government which will protect their human rights " becasue it is simply unimaginable that the U.S. would ever try to install an Iraqi government akin to those of our Iranian, Turkish or Arabian clients. If our strategic control over Iraq and its resources runs up against nationalist, religious or other political forces that emerge from Iraqi democracy, then the U.S. will simply have to break precedent and make its interests take a back seat.

Any more arguments from theology?

[MMMMMM]

Did you intend to post the same post twice? Look at your two most recent responses to mine in this sub-thread.

[ACPlayer]

Dont forget Wellstone.

I may have mentioned this before, but Byrd's speech against the resolution should be read by all Americans interested in the Constitution, and his argument that handing over this power to the executive branch (which is what the resolution did) was and remains a travesty- whether you agree with the need for war or not IMO.

Bush, may have been deceptive (?) at that time when he said that he needed the resolution just to get leverage over the UN. The democrats were idiots in dealing with the issue, worrying more about the elections and parallels with the Tonka resolution. The republicans never say anything against the President anyway (probably because they fear election time reprisals).

The decision to go to war was essentially made with no debate, by a small handful of people with unknown objectives. It was sold, by providing a long list of possible reasons (of which to date the only one that has come true is that Saddam is a tyrant), including that of
imminent direct threat to the US (?). The sales were made based using the FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) technique, rather than transparent and open dialogue.

Finding statements of Clinton (Bill and Hillary) that back up this threat may feel good to some. But the buck stops at the decision maker -- as David Steele (are you the LISP person?) said they had the information and the means to get the information (if there was doubt, spending a couple of months and a couple of Billion getting better information prior to making the decision would have been a good idea).

It was not an exercise in Democracy at work or best practices in decision making process.

Direct beneficiaries to date - some corporations. Hopefully Iraqis will benefit in the next five years with a better govt (the last one that the British installed lasted for a few years, maybe this one will last longer). I still dont see any direct benefit to the American population. If at all, to date, on a purely selfish level, it is a net negative (cost us in money, lives, good will and has got us ??).

[Chris Alger]

Of course. You just keep saying the same thing over and over again, substituting assumptions for evidence and rhtetoric for logic so I thought I'd emphasize your inability to argue.

[MMMMMM]

My post was far from a repetition. You apparently can't even respond to it. For that matter you failed to really respond to either post.

Also there is no point in debating here and now whether Saddam was pursuing WMD programs. We couldn't agree on that in a previous thread so there is no sense in rehashing the same arguments in this thread. Therefore I did not address that point above.

Also, my argument is not a theological argument. It's not even close to a theological argument.