It is interesting to me that when Pat Buchanan talks about Jewish influence, the Democrats said he was a Nazi, an extremist, and had zero credibility. When PB published his last book concerning culture, the Left called him a racist, an extremist, and had zero credibility. When PB said that we should have never sent troops to Kosovo, the situationally warmonging Left said he was an isolationist, an extremist, and had zero credibility. Now that the Left agrees with PB about bashing the current administration's policy, PB is suddenly reasonable and credible. Funny how that works.......
No, he only threatened to go to war over WMD that Clinton himself said existed, and then backed down. There is no doubt in my mind that Arab terrorists were immeasurably emboldened by Clinton's cowardice. .....but that is just my opinion.
God, john. You and treeman are like gnats on a camping trip. Yes, Pat's a racist and all those other things, but no one I know ever said he had zero credibility. You made that up and then repeated it several times to strengthen a (non-)point. MacBeth already addressed this so I don't need to. I'm mostly here to address the Clinton thing you guys keep acting like you somehow caught us anti-this war types on. First, I don't know anyone who's opposed this action but backed the Clinton thing. I thought it was deplorably cynical and entirely politically motivated (just like this war). I said so then and I've said it several times since. But there are still differences and they've been pointed out again and again. And another thing no one's mentioned is that WMD's in 98 doesn't equal WMD's in 03. Far from it. Bush's people have admitted the fact that these weapons deteriorate over time and that it was possible they were no longer a threat. The estimate is that most of these weapons lose their charge over ten or more years. The admin's response has been that we couldn't be sure that had happened. Main thing though is that we knew about these weapons 12 years ago. They may or may not still exist and they may or may not still be a threat. But the fact they existed and were dangerous then (or even in 98) is in no way proof that they do or are now.
FYI - I work for a company that is owned by a group in Manchester UK, our views are shared in a lot more places then you guys imagine. to you too mate. As for Batman, I applaud your consistency, and for me it gives you even greater credibility and I already think you are one of the best posters on here. As for RM95...THAT WAS DARNED FUNNY !!! DD
You mean some English people you know agree with you??? Well, that changes everything. I'm for the war now. I know you've enjoyed your place in mainstream support for the war, but things are changing now. It will take some time for these stories and the results of these inquiries to reach people, but it will happen. And pretending it won't won't change that. I cannot freaking WAIT for this next election. Got a feeling it's gonna be the best one ever.
Damn, DD. Way to make me a heel, editing your post to give me props while I was busy giving you a hard time. Same goes for me to you, regardless of differences.
Batman, I don't know who I will vote for in the next election, it depends on the candidate and what is happening in the world. I have voted for Dukakis, Perot, Clinton and Bush...it just depends on whom I think is right for the job at that time. I would never vote one party line.....just do what I think is necessary. If I feel a democrat is more qualified, I will vote for him/her, it is simply a matter of the better candidate. As for being right and most of America agreeing, you are right it is nice, and will continue to be so... DD
MacBeth -- the article reads like an isolationist wrote it. Pat Buchannan did. "now we have to rebuild iraq...empire...etc." I'm not saying you totally discount his opinion. But you said previously that if we attacked the author or his perspective, that's spin. I don't think it's spin...I think it's context. It's knowing the background of the author. I say all the time that I can't vouch for all the articles I present here...I post them and their reliability is just as much up for question as the substance of the article itself. Same is true here. Pat Buchannan doesn't think the US should get involved in any shape, way or form with the world...not at all.
I didn't know that about you, DD, but I'm glad to. Can't leave this without ribbing you about Perot though. Proof positive you're not always thinking clearly. What did you think, by the way, of his rabid opposition to Gulf War I complete with demands to see the Glaspie papers? And what of his extreme stance against NAFTA? Those were two of the only things I liked about him, but I wonder how they jibe with your current leanings.
Funny thing is that as a mostly conservative guy, I have never liked Buchanan, and if he was ever the Republican nominee i would vote democrat even if it was Hillary. As for Perot, I thought he had a legitimate chance to win before he dropped out and got back in...and I wanted someone that would shake up the 2 party system, someone who knows how to run a business to stop government from spending out of control. More of a message vote than anything. DD
I can arleady see some flaws in Buchanan's article. First, he doesn't explain Bush's full arguments, which included the need for a democracy to begin reform of the Middle East. And he doesn't mention human rights abuses. Mr. Clutch. This was in some ways the most amazing of the anti-Buchanan arguments. I guess Pat had a hard time remembering or taking seriously the arguments that the Bush Administration tacked on the last week or two before our attack. This was floated out long after the scare speeches that clinched the argument for the war such as the "mushroom loud" phrase of, I believe ,Rice. Does anyone remember the Bush speech where he spent the whole time trying to frighten people about nerve gas and how many people could be killed if they gave wmd to terrorists? Did he mention "mushroom clouds" in that one, too? I agree with Macbeth. I have long notied that Pat can be devastatingly effective the few times he is supporting my beliefs.
Last week or two? June 25, 2002, address in the Rose Garden: "I have a hope for the people of Muslim countries. Your commitments to morality and learning and tolerance lead to great historical achievements, and those values are alive in the Islamic world today. You have a rich culture, and you share the aspirations of men and women in every culture. Prosperity and freedom and dignity are not just American hopes or Western hopes, they are universal human hopes. And even in the violence and turmoil of the Middle East, America believes those hopes have the power to transform lives and nations." Sept. 12, 2002, address to the U.N. General Assembly: "The people of Iraq can shake off their captivity. They can one day join a democratic Afghanistan and a democratic Palestine, inspiring reforms throughout the Muslim world. These nations can show by their example that honest government, and respect for women, and the great Islamic tradition of learning can triumph in the Middle East and beyond." Feb. 26, 2003, speech to the American Enterprise Institute: " A liberated Iraq can show the power of freedom to transform that vital region, by bringing hope and progress into the lives of millions. . . . The world has a clear interest in the spread of democratic values, because stable and free nations do not breed the ideologies of murder. They encourage the peaceful pursuit of a better life. . . . A new regime in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example of freedom for other nations in the region."
Too bad the next election won't turn out like you want it to. The lack of evidence on WMD's has been out there for two months now and Bush's approval rating still soars. There isn't a Democrat that can compete in 2k4. Gonna have to wait till 2k8 and Hillary Maybe we'll get a Condi vs Hillary showdown. Now that would be something. Mr. Jones, I'd like to get your take on this: What if..... the WMD's were shipped out and sold to various terrorist organizations prior to the war? This is the scenario that scares the hell out of me. Will you then blame the Bush admin for that? "Well, if we didn't invade Iraq they wouldn't have given the WMD's to the terrorists"...right? Remember, there is like 5,000 tons of chemical WMD's that HAVE NOT been accounted for by anyone. Not the Iraqi's, not the UN. No one knows what has happened to it. I'm cynical enough to be afraid that Sadaam did not destroy it just because he wanted to be a nice guy. If he did destroy it, he would have been telling the whole world 'Look, I'm compying. I've just destroyed 5,000 tons of chemicals.' The WMD's may be in fact gone. Do you believe they were destroyed? I certainly don't. With the money made off of that, you could slip out of the country, get a new face, new identity and live like a king! Certainly, no one in their right mind would do that though
KC: Few things. First, the story about the Bush admin over-emphasizing the WMD threat is not months old. And the story about them ignoring unbiased intel in favor of biased intel which favored the case for war is even fresher. And neither of those stories is at the front of the average American's consciousness. If the stories are true (I'm not saying they are, but they're certainly picking up steam.), you can count on this being a very big problem for Bush in 04. The poll treeman posted in another thread is a non-starter. The American people aren't focusing on this yet. If the inquiries here and in England go forward and they bear out the allegations, it'll be a very big hurdle for Bush (not to mention Blair). Where are the WMD's? I don't know. It's important to note though that the last time we knew for sure they were there was years ago. One explanation is that they degraded to the point of being useless. That does happen with chem and bio weapons. It's said to take around ten years, which potentially fits the timetable. And no I wouldn't blame Bush for it if Saddam moved them to another country. Give me a little credit. I really don't think he did, but I do not know. The screwy thing is Bush apparently doesn't know either, despite all his previous pronouncements to the contrary. As for your contention that if he'd destroyed the weapons, he'd have told the world... I'm inclined to agree with you. Especially if he'd done it on the eve of a war which would certainly topple his regime. And yet Rumsfeld is now using that as an out for why they can't find the weapons they told us were "without a doubt" there. The point is we don't know and neither does the US government. And it looks more and more like they were lying when they said they did. You're wrong about 2004. It's way too early to handicap that race. But it will be a fun one for those of us who enjoy politics. That's guaranteed. In closing, thanks for the extra effort last year. I have always held out hope you had it in you. I know you won't let me down next year. How do you feel, by the way, about playing some 4 next to Yao under JVG? Yer pal, Batman
BMJ: Thanks for not taking my post personal. I re-read it and was afraid you would (probably should've edited it). You are absolutely, 100% correct in saying that the Bush admin was wrong for using WMD's as their pretense for war. It was a huge gamble and it looks like they crapped out on that one. But in my eyes the war was necessary for many reasons. First off, Iraq was in violation of 12 UN resolutions. The UN should've taken care of business in the first place. The Korean issue has been on the horizon and now is a reality. This war may have been just for show. You'll have to admit that even crazy ole Kim has to be afraid of what cowboy Bush will do. Plus, we have the Iran issue now. Not to mention we liberated the Iraqi people from one of the most brutal regime's in history. (Yeah, I know, we armed them and supported them when it was convenient....) Back to Iran or any other country who blatantly preaches hatred of Americans and makes it policy: It is in my best interest, nevermind my country's, that any country who hates me just because I'm American NOT get nukes. I don't care what the pretense is for trying to block them is. JUST DO IT!!! On to 2004: The lack of WMD evidence has been out there for a while. Blair is taking a beating right now but he took a beating prior to the war too. I think it's just the Britt's nature. But all Bush has to do is blame Clinton's admin for the bad intel and bing bong he's off the hook. It's already happening. Who is strong enough to challenge? Kerry? I don't think so. He needs his name circulated for a few more years. Leiberman? Personally, I like him. I believe he'd make a fine president. But his personality is weak, IMO. I just don't see anyone out there. You could be right. This all blows up in Bush's face and public opinion does a 180. But these guys are slick. If the public buys the blame shift for the crappy intel, then it's game over. In closing: I cannot guarantee the quality of my play next year or any other year. Just too many variables, like: If the coach yells at me, or if I feel like hustling or if Yao blows up. I'm just like the weather in Houston or a box of chocolates.......You never know what your going to get
KC, There is no blame shift argument. There isn't one. The public can't buy it cause it doesn't exist. Everything that's being alleged would have happened in the last year. Evidence they allegedly didn't like and so ignored or buried and evidence they allegedly got from biased sources and inflated. All from the last year. Nobody's criticizing them for using old intel except where they criticize them specifically for relying on intel which is old. The big deal stuff is all fresh. And it's what the inquiries would focus on. On the Dems: Kerry's got higher name recognition than Clinton did this far out from 92 and I'm pretty sure W's approval's lower than his dad's was this far out. It is simply folly to try and handicap this this far out. If nothing else, 92 proved that. I'm not predicting a Dem victory -- I'm predicting a super interesting election. If the Democrats screw up and nominate Edwards or Lieberman I'm retracting my prediction, but I don't think they'll do that. I think it'll be Kerry and his service record entirely neutralizes any advantage Bush has on issues of patriotism, foreign affairs or national security. I guarantee you he's the guy Bush and Rove and company are most scared of.
