The W
Views: 99878883
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
21.10.14 0704
The W - Current Events & Politics - Backpedaling
This thread has 6 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: 1 2 Next(2002 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (39 total)
OlFuzzyBastard
Knackwurst








Since: 28.4.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 13 days
Last activity: 10 days
AIM:  
#1 Posted on
Ahem.

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."
-DICK CHENEY
Speech to VFW National Convention
8/26/02

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons. "
-GEORGE W. BUSH
Speech to UN General Assembly
9/12/02

"If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world."
-ARI FLEISCHER
Press briefing
12/2/02

"We know for a fact that there are weapons there."
-ARI FLEISCHER
Press briefing
1/9/03

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. "
-GEORGE W. BUSH
2003 State of the Union Address
1/28/03

"We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more."
-COLIN POWELL
Remarks to UN Security Council
2/5/03

"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."
-GEORGE W. BUSH
Radio address
2/8/03

"So has the strategic decision been made to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction by the leadership in Baghdad? . . . I think our judgment has to be clearly not."
-COLIN POWELL
Remarks to UN Security Council
3/7/03

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
-GEORGE W. BUSH
Address to the Nation
3/17/03

"Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes."
-ARI FLEISCHER
Press briefing
3/21/03

"There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. And . . . as this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them."
-GENERAL TOMMY FRANKS
Press conference
3/22/03

"I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction."
-Defense Policy Board member KENNETH ADELMAN
Washington Post, p. A27
3/23/03

"One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites."
-Pentagon Spokeswoman VICTORIA CLARK
Press briefing
3/22/03

"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."
-DONALD RUMSFELD
ABC Interview
3/30/03

"I think you have always heard, and you continue to hear from officials, a measure of high confidence that, indeed, the weapons of mass destruction will be found."
-ARI FLEISCHER
Press briefing
4/10/03

"We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them."
-GEORGE W. BUSH
NBC Interview
4/24/03

"There are people who in large measure have information that we need . . . so that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that country."
-DONALD RUMSFELD
Press Briefing
4/25/03

"We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so."
-GEORGE W. BUSH
Remarks to reporters
5/3/03

"I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We're just getting it just now."
-COLIN POWELL
Remarks to reporters
5/4/03

"We never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country."
-DONALD RUMSFELD
Faux News Interview
5/4/03

"I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein -- because he had a weapons program. "
-GEORGE W. BUSH
Remarks to reporters
5/6/03

"U.S. officials never expected that "we were going to open garages and find" weapons of mass destruction."
-CONDOLEEZA RICE
Reuters Interview
5/12/03

"I just don't know whether it was all destroyed years ago -- I mean, there's no question that there were chemical weapons years ago -- whether they were destroyed right before the war, (or) whether they're still hidden."
-MAJ. GEN. DAVID PETRAEUS, Commander 101st Airborne
Press briefing
5/13/03

"Before the war, there's no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical. I expected them to be found. I still expect them to be found."
-GEN. MICHAEL HAGEE, Commandant of the Marine Corps
Interview with reporters
5/21/03

"Given time, given the number of prisoners now that we're interrogating, I'm confident that we're going to find weapons of mass destruction."
-GEN. RICHARD MEYERS, Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff
Today Show interview, NBC
5/26/03

"They may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer."
-DONALD RUMSFELD
Remarks to Council on Foreign Relations
5/27/03

"For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on."
-PAUL WOLFOWITZ
Vanity Fair interview
5/28/03



If your ideas are weak, if you have neither logic nor evidence to back them up, simply keep asserting them over and over and over again. This will convince everyone that they must be true. If they were not true, surely we wouldn't keep hearing about them all the time?
------The Woolly-Thinker's Guide To Rhetoric
Promote this thread!
-proletarian-
Chipolata








Since: 29.4.03

Since last post: 4054 days
Last activity: 4053 days
#2 Posted on
-lol-

Nice work.

To be honest I'm stunned that the media (who bend over backwards to act as W.'s cheerleader) are even ASKING these questions. The whole thing just stinks of journalism, if you ask me. Damn it, it's UNPATRIOTIC to ask awkward questions of the administration!

:p
rockstar
Salami








Since: 2.1.02
From: East TN

Since last post: 3566 days
Last activity: 3444 days
#3 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.22
What in the blue hell was the point of all of those quotes? Ok, we know that the administration believes Iraq had WMDs and they said it over and over again. Where's the backpedaling? And why do half of the regulars in this forum think that the key to political analysis is a half-thought-out opinion wrapped in a smarmy backhand? I know it works so well on Fox News, but I'd doubt Rupert Murdoch is scouring the Internet message boards looking for someone to fill the 9 PM spot behind O'Reilly.



"Life is tough. Life is tougher if you're stupid."
--John Wayne

"If I can't dazzle you with brilliance, then I'll befuddle you with bullshit."
--"Dirty" Dutch Mantel

Or it's like you lost your keys in the garage, but you look for them in the living room because you know there's another set of keys in there that you need to find anyway.
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 14 hours
Last activity: 3 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#4 Posted on

    Originally posted by rockstar
    What in the blue hell was the point of all of those quotes? Ok, we know that the administration believes Iraq had WMDs and they said it over and over again. Where's the backpedaling? And why do half of the regulars in this forum think that the key to political analysis is a half-thought-out opinion wrapped in a smarmy backhand? I know it works so well on Fox News, but I'd doubt Rupert Murdoch is scouring the Internet message boards looking for someone to fill the 9 PM spot behind O'Reilly.
That's what *I* was gonna say.

Also, I'm a little concerned that you may have gotten these quotes from somewhere else without providing credit.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2948068.stm
http://www.counterpunch.org/wmd05292003.html

Once again, dragging stuff over here without adding any thoughts of your own or telling us WHY you've bothered dragging it over here in the first place doesn't really endear me to your argument...nor keeping the Politics forum open. It doesn't help that there are still a few people who seem more interested in providing heat than light when they're here...and they've shown no inclination to improve their behaviour.



©CRZ™
spf
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 8 days
Last activity: 9 hours
AIM:  
#5 Posted on
Well since OFB failed to ask the seemingly obvious questions inherent in these quotes, I'll ask them directly Was the American public asked to support a war that was presented to it under false pretenses? Did our government knowingly and willingly lie to the world about the reasons for going to war, and about the knowledge we had/did not have about Iraq's WMD capability? If there was no WMD in Iraq, exactly why did we sacrifice our young men and women, some of whom were mourned this previous Monday? Why should we believe our government now about Iran and their possible breaches of internation treaties or threats to our security if as Mr. Wolfowitz's quote shows us we are likely not being given anything close to the whole story by our government?



and maybe I should open up my sensitive side/but really, the sensitive side sucks./I've been there./You can only imagine the kinds of sweaters they make you wear.

NWA:TNA - GO RED GO!
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 14 hours
Last activity: 3 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#6 Posted on

    Originally posted by spf2119
    Well since OFB failed to ask the seemingly obvious questions inherent in these quotes, I'll ask them directly Was the American public asked to support a war that was presented to it under false pretenses? Did our government knowingly and willingly lie to the world about the reasons for going to war, and about the knowledge we had/did not have about Iraq's WMD capability? If there was no WMD in Iraq, exactly why did we sacrifice our young men and women, some of whom were mourned this previous Monday? Why should we believe our government now about Iran and their possible breaches of internation treaties or threats to our security if as Mr. Wolfowitz's quote shows us we are likely not being given anything close to the whole story by our government?
Thanks for elaborating on what you thought was "seemingly obvious," as a I have a feeling it wasn't so obvious to others (like me). I hope someone attempts to answer your questions and perhaps debate will ensue!



©CRZ™
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong








Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1313 days
Last activity: 79 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#7 Posted on
From this story

"the U.S. military's 75th Exploitation Task Force, which has been looking for weapons for two months with no success despite visiting 220 of 900 suspected sites"

Not even a quarter of the initial suspected sites has been examined. They have suspect materials, but nothing yet concrete. I am willing to entertain this debate, but it is still way too early for this, I think. Lets wait until they get through more than a paltry 25% of the suspect sites. I think, what, 2/3 is a good time to start questioning?

Regardless, the entire country could be clean, that does not make the war less justified. I still stand firm that Iraq's connection to terrorism, and the fact that Saddaam was a brutal ASS and needed to go are far better reasons for that war.

If it took some stretching of the WMD facts to get it done, then so be it. But even if you are right, OFB, and there is no sign of ANY WMDs... that does not nullify the other two reasons for the war, which stood on their own.

(edited by Pool-Boy on 30.5.03 1544)



Still on the Shelf #10
spf
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 8 days
Last activity: 9 hours
AIM:  
#8 Posted on
Pool, had the government made those the primary reasons for the war, it would be a different debate. And really, to call this "Stretching the WMD facts" seems a far more charitable definition than anyone likely would have ever given our previous president for anything he ever said. The fact remains that if it turns out that not only are there no WMD's but that the government KNEW that basically to be the case that we lied not only to the world but to our own people. We as a populace, and as people were so fond of quoting during and leading up to the proceedings the majority of people supported this action, were lied to and sent our troops into harm's way under wholly false pretenses. Would the nation have supported this war if they had been told "Iraq has tenuous but possible ties to Al-Qaeda and is run by a very very very mean man" would we have been so willing to go to war. My issue is not whether war with Iraq was a good thing. My issue is whether we agreed as a public to go to war on misleading information.



and maybe I should open up my sensitive side/but really, the sensitive side sucks./I've been there./You can only imagine the kinds of sweaters they make you wear.

NWA:TNA - I'm sure something happened, but I was at pub quiz. Oh well.
Nate The Snake
Liverwurst








Since: 9.1.02
From: Wichita, Ks

Since last post: 3746 days
Last activity: 3216 days
AIM:  
#9 Posted on

    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
    If it took some stretching of the WMD facts to get it done, then so be it. But even if you are right, OFB, and there is no sign of ANY WMDs... that does not nullify the other two reasons for the war, which stood on their own.

    (edited by Pool-Boy on 30.5.03 1544)



Iraq's tenuous connection to Al-Quaeda has, so far, panned out to be essentially nothing, an invitation to meet that was extended by the Hussein government that was apparently ignored. Their connection to other terrorists is fairly well-established, but then, so is ours.

The brutal nature of the government, bad as it was, was NOT our responsibility to deal with. It never has been and likely never will be. Like it or not, we're a part of a civilized world now, and in a civilized world you do not take the law into your own hands. Doing otherwise just gives our enemies more ammunition.

This all, of course, presupposes that the WMD/terrorism/dictatorship stuff isn't just a convenient excuse for the REAL reason we headed into Iraq, which can be expressed rather easily: "$$$".

Oh, and I REALLY hope that "75th Exploitation Task Force" was a typo. Because that name does NOT inspire confidence. (:



Kansas-born and deeply ashamed
The last living La Parka Marka

"They that can give up essential liberty to gain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
-proletarian-
Chipolata








Since: 29.4.03

Since last post: 4054 days
Last activity: 4053 days
#10 Posted on
Upon entering Baghdad, the U.S. military immediately moved to secure the Oil Ministry, while leaving schools and hospitals at the mercy of looters. The ONLY thing they protected was the Oil Ministry. Not the schools. Not the hospitals. Insofar as their motive for this war was, that about says it all if you ask me.
PalpatineW
Lap cheong








Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2828 days
Last activity: 2670 days
AIM:  
#11 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.44

    Originally posted by Nate The Snake
    Like it or not, we're a part of a civilized world now, and in a civilized world you do not take the law into your own hands. Doing otherwise just gives our enemies more ammunition


Civilized? This world is anything but civilized. The West, and parts of the East, are civilized, but this is a far cry from a civilized world. Tell that to anyone who lives in Africa, the Middle East, etc.

You don't take the law into your own hands? The law belongs to the man who seizes it. This is not a moral but an empirical truth. Hussein ruled because he had the force to rule. Hussein no longer rules because we had the force to remove him.

And, ammunition? You seem to believe that there is such a thing, here, as a moral high ground. That we are no longer in a position to criticize terrorists when we're busy removing enemy regimes. And, well... the logical consequence of this argument is that we give in to our enemies at every turn, all in the name of "civilization." I mean, I don't want to stretch or exaggerate, but your argument could very easily apply to Nazi Germany, or any other atrocity in the history of humanity.



Nate The Snake
Liverwurst








Since: 9.1.02
From: Wichita, Ks

Since last post: 3746 days
Last activity: 3216 days
AIM:  
#12 Posted on

    Originally posted by PalpatineW
    Civilized? This world is anything but civilized. The West, and parts of the East, are civilized, but this is a far cry from a civilized world. Tell that to anyone who lives in Africa, the Middle East, etc.


So, because barbarism exists in other parts of the world, we have to sink to their level?


    Originally posted by PalpatineW
    You don't take the law into your own hands? The law belongs to the man who seizes it. This is not a moral but an empirical truth. Hussein ruled because he had the force to rule. Hussein no longer rules because we had the force to remove him.


So... okay. Let me get this straight. Might makes right, and the only law is what you can force on other people. Okay, then. Go out, buy yourself a shotgun, and demand your rightful share of, say, the money that your local bank has. If they let you have access to a computer in jail, let us know how it turns out.


    Originally posted by PalpatineW
    And, ammunition? You seem to believe that there is such a thing, here, as a moral high ground. That we are no longer in a position to criticize terrorists when we're busy removing enemy regimes. And, well... the logical consequence of this argument is that we give in to our enemies at every turn, all in the name of "civilization." I mean, I don't want to stretch or exaggerate, but your argument could very easily apply to Nazi Germany, or any other atrocity in the history of humanity.


Once again, you seem to be all about sinking down to their level. As the supposed "good guys" in this scenario, there're far, far better ways to do things. For example... letting the authorities deal with the problems they're supposed to deal with instead of, say, invading and toppling a government over nebulous and possibly non-existant weapons that we may or may not have sold them in the first place.

As far as Nazi Germany goes, well... if you're trying to compare Hussein to Hitler, might I suggest getting a bit more oxygen? A country with a few hundred gallons of pesticide /= a country perpetrating a massive military attack on Europe. Not even close. I understand it's tough, but a sense of perspective is rather important.

I really, really have to say that you worry me, Palp. If more people thought the way you did, we'd be in a hell of a lot of trouble.



Kansas-born and deeply ashamed
The last living La Parka Marka

"They that can give up essential liberty to gain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
spf
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 8 days
Last activity: 9 hours
AIM:  
#13 Posted on
Just to add a bit more fuel to the "we got duped" fire, comes this story U.S. Insiders Say Iraq Intel Deliberately Skewed (story.news.yahoo.com)

Once again I want to try to bring this back from the utterly unanswerable question of "is war good?" to "why did our government willingly mislead and obfuscate the truth in regards to its own people?" As now even major military leaders are saying there was no reason to fear a chemical weapons attack. Yet how many reports from the "embedded media" did we see showing the many minute and careful preparations being made in case Iraq used some of its massive WMD arsenal?

If it weren't for the fact that now the US is beginning to turn its gaze towards Iran and beginning to make vague accusations about their WMD capabilities and nuclear weapons potential this wouldn't strike me as significant any moreso than most government lies. But I fear that the groundwork is being laid for another war, this one possibly more brutal, and if precedent is anything to go by then we the people are about to be told a batch of lies and misinformation in order to further the government's desire to prosecute a war for whatever non-specified to the public reasons they may have.

{ EDIT: I think you missed a slash in the /link tag :-) - CRZ }

(edited by CRZ on 31.5.03 1322)

and maybe I should open up my sensitive side/but really, the sensitive side sucks./I've been there./You can only imagine the kinds of sweaters they make you wear.

NWA:TNA - I'm sure something happened, but I was at pub quiz. Oh well.
godking
Chourico








Since: 20.10.02
From: Toronto

Since last post: 3903 days
Last activity: 3849 days
#14 Posted on
Just a wee bit of an update:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,967548,00.html

To sum up: Colin Powell and Jack Straw both expressed serious doubts to their respective goverments that the intelligence they had gathered regarding Iraq's WMDs was of low to nil quality - before they addressed the UN and said that they possessed PROOF that Iraq had WMDs.
Jackson
Sujuk








Since: 4.1.02

Since last post: 1988 days
Last activity: 1513 days
#15 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.10

Top Ten President Bush Excuses For Not Finding Weapons of Mass Destruction


10. "We've only looked through 99% of the country"

9. "We spent entire budget making those playing cards"

8. "Containers are labeled in some crazy language"

7. "They must have been stolen by some of them evil X-Men mutants"

6. "Did I say Iraq has weapons of mass destruction? I meant they have goats"

5. "How are we supposed to find weapons of mass destruction when we can't even find Cheney?"

4. "Still screwed up because of Daylight Savings Time"

3. "When you're trying to find something, it's always in the last place you look, am I right, people?"

2. "Let's face it -- I ain't exactly a genius"

1. "Geraldo took them"





The Vile1
Lap cheong








Since: 4.9.02
From: California

Since last post: 2010 days
Last activity: 1742 days
#16 Posted on
I've gotta say all this backpedaling talk is pretty much bullshit. People that are just sifting the sands looking for any little thing to criticize seem upset with the results of the recent conflict in Iraq. Many people against the war believed or were led to believe that hundreds of thousands, or even millions would die which didn't happen. So what do some people do next? They complain about museum artifacts getting stolen, and weren't almost all or most of the stolen artifacts recovered? People criticizing the conflict talk about oil, but if this conflict was just about oil why didn't we just take it at the end of the Gulf War without UN approval, which according to many critics of the war we did not get.

Saddam Hussein was a threat to the country, and he needed to be removed. If the government and military wants to stop terrorism, so did Hussein have to be stopped so his power could grow no longer and he would not be able to acquire weapons of mass destruction whether he had them or not.

One thing I'd like to know, if the Bush administration said the war was just about removing saddam hussein and freeing the people of Iraq and getting their hands on oil rather than "misleading" the public about weapons of mass destruction (IMHO which I do not think the administration did), would that, honestly, in any way change someone's position about this conflict?

You can't live in 9/10/01 forever.

(edited by The Vile1 on 31.5.03 0116)



"Just a humble bounty hunter, ma'am."
-Spike Spiegel
calvinh0560
Boudin rouge








Since: 3.1.02
From: People's Republic of Massachusetts

Since last post: 558 days
Last activity: 12 hours
#17 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00

    Originally posted by Nate The Snake

    As far as Nazi Germany goes, well... if you're trying to compare Hussein to Hitler, might I suggest getting a bit more oxygen? A country with a few hundred gallons of pesticide /= a country perpetrating a massive military attack on Europe. Not even close. I understand it's tough, but a sense of perspective is rather important.

    I really, really have to say that you worry me, Palp. If more people thought the way you did, we'd be in a hell of a lot of trouble.



Ok what about the Kosovo war. We were told that 100,000 people were killed in mass graves to justify that war. We were mislead with that number when the true total seems to be around 4,000. I don't recall alot of people put up a huge fuss as they seem to be doing in Iraq. I am sure will will find more the 4,000 people killed by the person who you think only crime is to have a few hundred gallons of pesticide.
godking
Chourico








Since: 20.10.02
From: Toronto

Since last post: 3903 days
Last activity: 3849 days
#18 Posted on
They complain about museum artifacts getting stolen, and weren't almost all or most of the stolen artifacts recovered?

Uh, no. They weren't. Hence the being upset.

Saddam Hussein was a threat to the country, and he needed to be removed.

Except that it's increasingly clear that he wasn't even close to being a threat to the country. No WMDs, no army worth mentioning, that whole kind of thing.

if the Bush administration said the war was just about removing saddam hussein and freeing the people of Iraq and getting their hands on oil rather than "misleading" the public about weapons of mass destruction (IMHO which I do not think the administration did), would that, honestly, in any way change someone's position about this conflict?

Truthfully, it probably would have for most people. America - and more importantly, the American public - really doesn't have a long history of popularly supporting wars where its own best interests aren't at heart. There isn't a serious push to go in and remove Robert Mugabe of the Congo or Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan, both of whom run tyrannically unjust regimes just like Saddam did. Even in World War II, the United States didn't enter war against Germany until Hitler declared war on the USA first.

If the Bush administration hadn't been so desperate to fudge facts and do their best to confuse average Americans into thinking that Saddam was in fact responsible for 9/11 (and remember, half of all Americans thought he was just prior to the invasion) and that they had PROOF, capital-letters PROOF, that Saddam had boatloads of WMDs just waiting to blow up Americans - PROOF which they never did have, as is obvious now - then popular sentiment likely would not have been with them.

(And, of course, the US is sending boatloads of foreign and military aid money to Karimov, who is known to boil political dissidents alive. Just wait twenty years and you will see something verrrry familiar happen.)
DMC
Liverwurst








Since: 8.1.02
From: Modesto, CA

Since last post: 3473 days
Last activity: 3467 days
#19 Posted on
Look, he had terrorist training camps in his country, he was in constant violation of UN orders after the first Gulf War (even THROWING weapons inspectors out of his country---wait a minute, he lost a major conflict, he doesn't get to do that) Iraq constantly shot at American planes over the years, he was a brutal dictator--basically, he needed to go. If you're looking for ultimate justification for the war, it is definately there. In the end it really doesn't matter the type of main justification the administration itself used to justify going to war. If the war was a good and productive thing, it will be judged on that. Say what you want about them having egg on their faces, but to me its akin to someone telling you that you should really drink a glass of wine everyday because it builds strong bones. The person may be correct in general that drinking a glass of wine everyday is beneficial for you, but they got one of the details incorrect. The wine, however, is still helping you in other ways.

So drink up.

DMC



"You don't really think you'll win, do you?" -Penguin, Batman Returns
MoeGates
Andouille








Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 7 hours
Last activity: 7 hours
#20 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.28
Sure, but what if that person also smokes a pack a day, doesn't excercise, and hits the tanning salon five times a week? Would you still call them a healthy person?

Are we on the right side of history (however it's justified) with the whole Iraq war thing? I tend to think so, although I'm far from sure. Are we on the right side on history as far as our foriegn policy in general goes? Not even close to close. The fact that we act all high and mighty and moral when it comes to Saddam, and then turn around and support other, even more brutal, dictators while barely batting an eyelash makes we want to vomit.

We have a foreign policy based upon self-interest. Nothing more, and maybe that's OK. And lying to the American people or Congress to further this is nothing new - heck, politicians blatently lying to the American people to further their own aganda is a time-honored tradition. You can't expect anything more out of Jr., although the fact that he doesn't even seem to be trying to make it look good, and the media doesn't even to seem to be trying to call him on it, make me a little more worried than usual.

So the question utimately becomes "what's in our self-interest?" That's really where people differ on this issue. And the fact that I can't even tell what the Bush administration consideres to be American self-interest is weird to me. It leads to cheap answers like "to make sure there's not another 9-11" or "Oil, $$$, Big Corporations." These (and most others) can be shot full of holes pretty easily by any amatuer polical observer. I unfortunatley suspect the real answer is either "we don't really so much know," or, even worse "we know, but we can't really tell people."

I would feel a lot more comfortable if the Bush administration has a clear vision of foreign policy, and what's in America's best international interests, made a cositent clear arguement on it, and tried its best to carry it out.

They do this GREAT on the economic level, even if I happen to think their economic plans are an unmitigated disaster. Hey, they think it's a good idea for rich people to have more money, they propose this, argue for this in as straightforward a manner as politicians are able to do, try their level best to get it done, and eveyone knows where they stand in terms of an economic vision and priorities for America. And all this despite the fact that it's not really an economic vision and priorities that most Americans agree with. I can respect this, even if I'd never vote for it.

If they took this tack with foreign policy, instead of leaving eveyone guessing as to their vision and motives were, I feel a lot better. It would change my opinion of the Bush administration to "I respectfully completely disagree politically with you" (kind of my thoughts on Barry Goldwater) from "you guys are honestly scaring me."



"I'm sorry, I didn't think I was going to talk about 'man on dog' with a United States Senator. It's sort of freaking me out."


Associated Press interview with Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA), 04-07-2003.
Pages: 1 2 Next
Pages: 1 2 NextThread ahead: Common Cause head accused of Campaign Finance law violations
Next thread: Hope For Californians, Entertainment for the Rest of Us
Previous thread: RINO
(2002 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
This happens all the time, I don't know what the big deal is. I'm not saying it's right, but most politicians travel with security, especially during election campaigns, because this sort of thing is way more common than it should be.
- BigVitoMark, Arnold Supporters (2003)
The W - Current Events & Politics - BackpedalingRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.146 seconds.