Bush changes strategy -- will call for independent counsel on WMD-----

This imminent thing is ludicrous. They may or may not have used the actual term, but they used terms and phrases with the same meaning, like saying that we couldn't wait for the smoking gun because it would be a mushroom cloud, etc. Silly, but no different from any of the other Ostrich Brigade arguments.

If you want to see what the message was, go back a year and read the threads on whether or not to invade. You might find it interesting to note who was saying the threat was imminent at that time. I guess they all just misunderstood?

 

111chase111, did a very good job of making the case for a type of contented support or unconcern about President Bush.

He tries to basically say that even if Bush's policies consistently hurt poor people in the US, unecessarily kill Iraqis and working class US soldiers , destroy the environment that you can't prove that he isn't basically still a good guy who means well. Anyone who feels very strongly about these issues is problematic and 111chase is worried over the extreme partisanship that is being showed by people on this board (left and right alike). [/B]

When Republicans favor business, they aren't doing it to screw workers, they are doing it because they believe that for there to be jobs business has to thrive.

This may be true a true belief for many and I assume 111chase sincerely believes this.. From his contented position chase 111 doesn't seem to understand that if you are trying to raise a family, pay tuition and afford health care you aren't going to be so patiently content as you lose your overtime pay, have your child's tuition raised,lose your healthcare or have your job moved overseas, just because some conservatives believe that in the long run this best for America. The fact that all of the sacrifices are being asked of the poor and middle class would be an issue that chase111 would not find troubling or would argue is still just a coincidental error of a well meaning Bush.

So, did Bush lie about WMDs? I don't believe he did. Lying implies he KNEW ahead of time

The arguement is "Did we have enough justification to go to war?" Guess what? That aguement will never be "won" because what works for you may not work for someone else

Again we have a contented patience which is hard to stomach if you had a loved one killed unecessarily or you are against the war. Much easier to be content if you vaguley feel the world is better off without Sadam (chase 111 does)and therefore the whole wmd thing was unimportant and you don't care whether Sadam was a threat at any time in the forseeable future.

Arguing that bexause the war "worked" for chase111 and others means it could never be proven to be unjustified is of course a vvery partisan point of view on chase111's paart.

Blind partisanship is going to destroy this country way before Bush or Clinton or Kerry or whoever ever will.

Here he tries to equate the blind hatred of Clinton and the impeachment, which he seems to have opposed, with liberal's opposition to Reagan or Bush.


Again contented moderation is nice and all , but it does make a difference whether the left or the right is principally behind this lack of moderation. The reason that is important is that to balance the extreme right it is necessary that we have a real left. It is the way the systems of checks and balances works. You just get more extreme if what you have is raving Tom Delay rightists and Limbaugh talk radio being supposedly opposed by milk toast moderates like Joe Lieberman and Sam Donaldson. The system just keeps moving more and more in the exteme right direction.

 

i'm not sure what you're saying here. we argued about whether clinton saw iraq as a threat? how is that inconsistent with clinton seeing al Queda as the number one threat? there's more than one threat out there.

 

the imminence thing has been bandied about on this board for months, offered up by the "bush lied" crowd as evidence of bush's mendacity. an explicit acknowledgement from an extremely liberal paper that bush never said it is entirely on point. the question of whether he implied it is directly contradicted by his statement in SOTU '03, and is germaine to the current debate over intelligence failures.

the essence of the bush doctrine is that in a post 9/11 world we can not wait for a threat to fully materialize, become imminent if you will, before we act. the question was, was it reasonable to give saddam the benefit of the doubt over WMD knowing his history? his history of use of WMD against Iran and the Kurds. his acknowledged pursuit of nuclear weapons. His history of defiance of UN resolutions. His history of continued obstruction of UN inspectors. His history of attempted assasination of a US president. His documented ties to international terrorists (Hezbollah, Answar al Islam, Abu Nidal, and yes, al Queda). His refusal to offer any credible explaination of what happened to his WMD. Remember that UN resolution 1441 put the onus squarely on Saddam to demonstrate his weapons were destroyed. It was not necessary (in the literal terms of the resolution, it may be in the larger current political environment) for inspectors, or the US, to actually find WMD, but for Saddam to credibly explain what happened to them. yet, in the run up to the war, and still now, many in the international community, US politics, and on this board seem entirely willing to give Saddam the benefit of the doubt. Why will you not grant the same courtesy to your own President and Secretary of State.

The Thielmann thing was extensively debated in the thread "Is Powell a neocon b****?" (surely, in a world where Janet jackson can flash her boob on national TV for 90 million viewers to see, I can write "b****" on this board. quite a lot of fuss over a little nip, huh?). Powell directly contradicted Thielmann. I do not think this means either of them is wrong, merely that they have different judgements about whether it was reasonable to wait for definitive proof- proof that might come in the form of a letter from Saddam saying "yes, you're right, I've been lying for years and please come take my nasty WMD," or might come in the form of a catastrophic attack on the US. As an analyst, that's not Thielmann's call. According to my friend, Thielmann's an entirely good guy and has indeed served with distinction, but the "under 5 presidents comment" is a bit misleading. He's a career foreign service officer, several bureaucratic layers beneath Powell, and he'd have no direct contact with the President. He might have met him, but the implication that he was some sort of advisor to the president is misleading. He's from Iowa, and my friend's (who is slightly to the left of me) comment was "He thinks Tom Harkin walks on water." Not meant to impugn his impartiality.

For the record, i support and encourgae the investigation into our prewar intelligence. I think it's important to bear in mind several "facts" while we do so:

-if prewar US intelligence was wrong, so was the intelligence of Britain, France, Russia, Germany, Israel, etc...The last US president agreed there were WMD in Iraq, as has president Chirac, Putin, Tony Blair, etc.

-the yellowcake story came from britain's MI6, corroborated by the intelligence services of two other countries (not the US), and MI6 stands by the story.

-this is the first time we have (apparently) overestimated an adversary's weapons. this is the same intelligence that recently underestimated the nuclear capabilities of Iran and Libya. If the US was manipulating intelligence, why not also do it against those two countries?

-kay has said in many ways Iraq was more dangerous than we thought. He has also said there is no evidence to support the idea that the intelligence community was bullied into providing worst case scenarios. if you accept kay's assertion that there probably were not stockpiles of WMD at the time of the invasion, do you not also have to accept this latter point?

 

Kay is GWB's b****.

 

GWB's preemptive war doctorine is based on a perceived imminent threat. When GWB said we need to preemptively strike Iraq, he directly implied that we were imminent danger. You also recall that GWB said the threat from Iraq growing during his build up to the war, again implying a or a soon to be imminent threat.

The trutth appears to be that GWB's desire for regime change in Iraq was the only thing that was imminent.

 

Glynch,

Thanks for demonstrating exactly what my post was about. You said that I was making "the case for a type of contented support or unconcern about President Bush." Wrong. Your BLINDLY PARTISAN eyes see it that way but that's not what I was doing. I did say that if he lied he should be impeached. That doesn't sound like support to me.

You also said that "The system just keeps moving more and more in the exteme right direction." Did you ever notice that the conservatives on this board complain that they think the system keeps moving to the extreme left? It can't be both ways, Glynch. However, you are so BLINDLY PARTISAN that you don't notice liberal progress and focus soley on your anti right-wing crusade. The people who feel the "system just keeps moving" in either direction aren't looking at things objectivly.

Keep wallowing in your hate, Glynch. It's good for you, it's good for the US and its good for the world. It's extremests like you (and on the right) that are going to make everything all better.

 

Given Saddam's recent history, the answer may be yes.

The countries not in the Coalition of the Willing did not see an imminent threat. These countries were right on their assessment. It would be enlightening to examine what they knew that we did not. The UN weapons inspection team said that they thought that 95% of Iraq's WMD were destroyed through the inspection process. The Inspection team also thought that Iraq no longer had nuclear WMD facilities. Thus, these countries thought Saddam's WMD means was exceptionally limited.

We can certainly argue Saddam's motivation for a WMD strike against the US. Saddam had the 12+ years of opportunity following the Gulf War to realize his motivation, on which did not capitalize. This brings into question Saddam's motivation.

Saddam almost certainly considered aligning himself with the radical anti-US muslim groups. He did assist some of the anti-Israel groups with money and a safe haven but markedly not with weapons. This is no suprise since Saddam was a persona non grata with most of these groups (since he ran a secular state, punished the fundamentalist Iraqis, and ran a state distillery).

Thus, Saddam had the means, the motives, and the opportunity for a WMD strike against the US or its allies, but did not strike. To assume that in 2003 he suddenly changed would require direct substantial proof. The best that the US could do was to dress up some poor intel as such proof. The Unwillingly countries to their credit did not buy it.

 

During the civil rights movement one side (liberals) advocated equal rights for all. The other side (conservatives) defended segregation. Was the correct solution somewhere in between? Equal rights for some. Some equal rights for all.

Sometimes the right answer is somewhere in the middle, but not always. It often depends on the terms of the debate. In the debate over the economy, conservatives argue for a pure capitalist system. Their true counterparts in this debate would be communists. Liberal Democrats would be roughly in the middle.

Obviously, communists play no part in economic debate in this country. The debate is between pure capitalists (conservatives) and capitalists who believe in some form of regulation and safety net (liberals). This is a debate that is skewed far to the right.

It is not BLINDLY PARTISAN to recognize this reality.

 

It's equally important to remember what constitutes a "stockpile" in bio/chem terms. The Iraqis admitted they had made 8,500 liters of anthrax, and Powell told the the Security Council that U.N. inspectors thought Saddam could have about three times as much. But even this larger amount would weigh only some 25 tons in liquid form -- slightly more than one tractor-trailer load. If reduced to powder, as Powell suggested in his speech, it could be contained in a dozen or so suitcases. Small enough to put secret away in a spider hole, or spirit away to syria.

 

But my arguement wasn't that the right answer was always in the middle, but that blind partisanship often causes people to view the other side as evil as opposed to just wanting to do things differently. Is there true evil in the world? Of course there is (and most of us would probably put Saddam into that catagory).

It's the hate that I'm concerned about. One stereotype that left leaning people have is that it's the right that's full of hate. Clearly there is plenty of hate to go around.

 

Don't let the "smoking gun" be a mushroom cloud.

 

So, finally, someone agrees with me: the WMD have been shipped to the Louisiana bayous.

 

111 Chase.

You said that I was making "the case for a type of contented support or unconcern about President Bush." Wrong. Your BLINDLY PARTISAN eyes see it that way but that's not what I was doing. I did say that if he lied he should be impeached. That doesn't sound like support to me.

You seem totally unconcerned about the strong possibility that a more open minded Bush, an openess you insist I don't have, might have had his guys stop slanting the evidence so much and have waited for inspections to be completed which might have allowed him to come to the correct conclusion that there were no wmd. Perhaps your position is who cares about wmd, you support the war anyway.

Re your definition of what it would take to stop contentedly supporting Bush-- false statements that Bush knows are false when he makes them. Per Secretary O'Neil we do have Bush admitting that his first tax cut benefitted the rich primarily while he or at least his staff publicly stated otherwise. According to O'neill Bush started planning the Iraq war two weeks after he got in office. Granted this is not proof that he actually believed there were no wmd, so apparently this is of little concern to you.

Have you realized that it may also be a form of hating for you to be so quick and hot to call everyone who you consider to your left or right a hater who doesn't care about or help America as much as you. I do realize that on a certain level to claim neutral moderateness for oneself is comforting.

I guess you think that it is people who contentedly say that President Bush is a good president who deserves reelection unless it can proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he knowinly makes false statements.

You really have such low expectations for a president and this country.

 

Originally posted by glynch
111 Chase.

Re your definition of what it would take to stop contentedly supporting Bush-- false statements that Bush knows are false when he makes them. Per Secretary O'Neil we do have Bush admitting that his first tax cut benefitted the rich primarily while he or at least his staff publicly stated otherwise. According to O'neill Bush started planning the Iraq war two weeks after he got in office. Granted this is not proof that he actually believed there were no wmd, so apparently this is of little concern to you.

This actually supports my point. First there are people who genuinly believe that putting money back into the upper stratas of society stimulates the economy and therefore <i>everyone</i> who participates in the economy benefits. Therefor Bush's tax cuts help everyone, rich and poor alike. I know <i>you</i> don't believe it works that way but my point isn't whether that theory is right or wrong but whether the people who believe in it are evil. Some people who oppose trickle down economics characterize supporters as people who want to murder children and "poor people" out of greed and that's just not true. Most people, concervative and liberal alike, don't want to murder anyone for any reason. (I would also like to point out here that I am neither espousing nor criticising trickle down economics - just stating that some people believe it's what's best).

And when Bush decided to go to war has no bearing on whether he knew WMDs existed or not. It's widely acknowledged that most everyone thought they were there at one point or another.

I guess you think that it is people who contentedly say that President Bush is a good president who deserves reelection unless it can proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he knowinly makes false statements.

Where did I ever say that Bush was a "good president"? Where did I ever say he deserved re-election? I DID say that if he lied about WMDs he should resign or be impeached. I DID say that the country can fire him this November if they feel he f*cked up with regard to Iraq. I never said he was a good President, either.

Glynch, you are making things up, claiming I said them and then arguing against what you made up! My whole argument is not whether Bush is good or even whether he lied. My arguement is that BOTH sides of the political aisle need to stop viewing the other side as EVIL. You are welcome to view them as wrong or dumb but we really have to stop thinking that the other side is part of some conspiricy.

You really have such low expectations for a president and this country.

Once again, Glynch, I never expressed my expectations about any president or the country. I did express concern about liberals and concervatives painting each other as evil as opposed to just having a different view on "how it ought it be". I know it makes you FEEL better to characterize concervatives as evil - it makes you feel good about the "team" you've chosen but its unhealthy and bad for the country.

Once again, please read what I write and stop putting words in my mouth (and then arguing against yourself!)

 

Nobody believes that sh-t anymore, at least no legitimate economist (Greenspan to Friedman to Krugman, it don't matter) thinks that "Deficits don't matter" as Cheney put it.

You're the one making it into a class issue. It's not. It's junkonomics, no more legitimate than Alchemy or flat earthism. The class issue is a just a nasty side effect, and one of the few plausible explanations for it, given the fact that as economic theory, supply sidism is DOA, and has been for almost a decade now.

 

First off, I'm not making ANY issue regarding class or economics (is <i>anyone</i> actually reading my posts?). My whole arguement is that the two major political parties in this country are so polarized that die-hards now view the other side as evil (as opposed to just wrong). There are tons of people who demonize the otherside in order to rally their troops and I think this behaviour is bad for the country. So far the only people who've responded to my posts seem to be defending this behaviour!

I even made a point in my my post that I neither endorse nor reject supply side economics and here you are accusing me of making it a class issue. I did nothing of the sort! I just said that some people genuinly feel it's the right thing to do just as others genuinly feel it isn't. I purposefully put that disclaimer in so that people wouldn't accuse me of anything (as it tends to distract from my <i>real</i> arguement!). You even quoted my disclaimer!

As for "no one believing in that sh-t anymore"... I did a quick search on Google and here are some people who aparently DO believe in supply side economics:

James D. Gwartney is a professor of economics at Florida State University. He was previously chief economist of the Joint Economic Committee of the U.S. Congress.

Supply Tax Cuts and the Truth About the Reagan Economic Record

Title: An Analysis of the Underground Economy and its Macroeconomic Consequences

And here are some people who don't believe in it:

Supply Side Economics: Do Tax Rate Cuts Increase Growth and Revenues and Reduce Budget Deficits ? Or Is It Voodoo Economics All Over Again

Supply-side Economics Explained for k5ers

THE RISE OF SUPPLY-SIDE ECONOMICS

I'm going to guess by your post that you don't believe in it and I'm also going to guess that Trader_Jorge finds merit in it.

Once again, my point isn't about Supply Side economics (nor is it about whether Bush is a good or honest President). My point is that different people believe different things but that doesn't make them evil.

 

Very well said 111chase111 especially given my thoughts after reading bamaslammer's crazy rants this evening. Even though we all feel he has a very unique outlook, he isn't evil. (repeating to myself: he isn't evil, just crazy. he isn't evil, just crazy...whew, I am calm again)