I was wrong in my inital post, he did not correct himself. But he clearly just made an honest mistake. He didn't mean to say Saddam had reconstitued a nuclear weapons program. Otherwise, who wouldn't have said the exact OPPOSITE several times during the interview. And Tim Russert would have called him on it. Besides, what does "reconstitued weapons" mean anyways? It's the program that could get reconstituted not the weapons. His statement didn't even make any sense. Anyways, whether you buy it or not (not sure if you will) it is a big non-story in the media. Sure some left wing sites pass it along, but if he really said, Dean and Kerry and others would be talking about it.
1) Russert has brought it up several times since...I didn't see the interview, but he brought it up lkast week with Rumsfeld, for example. 2) If he didn't mean it...and these guys go over there words like crazy after interviews...why didn't he retract it, when it was something this serious? Kind of a serious slip of the tongue, no? 3) Many are starting to talk about it...including that former asst. Sec. of State, who says it has gotten lost amidst the President's own 'honest mistakes'? 4) Nuclear weapons scare the bejezzus out of most people a lot more than nuclear programs. 5) How many mistakes...which just happen to coincide with the American people coming to the conclusions that they wanted them to...are you going to excuse these people? Why were none of them retracted before the war? How many honest mistakes did they make which gave people the impression that they ought to NOT be seriously scared sh*tless about Saddam? And if they had...if , say, Rumsfeld had accidentally said, on national tv, that "we have concluded that Saddam represents no threat to the American people" ( Forget that this would have been exactly accurate, as opposed to what they did say)...do you honestly think that they'd have let it lie? How many honest mistakes will it take before you start to question their honesty?
Again, where are you getting that he was no threat at all? The report is pretty narrowly tailored in my view, dealing what we could expect in the near term and directly. He clearly was constantly stockpiling weapons or looking to stockpile weapons. He murdered his own people, invaded nearby countries, and always threatened Israel. Do you think he had given up those plans for good? I don't think so. I believe the first chance he got to invade, attack Israel, support terrorists, he would. That was his history. He also helped destablize the whole region. The only reason he wasn't is because the US had enough military power to deter him...for now. But you can't predict the future. What if the US needed to move many troops to Taiwan? Then Saddam would gain an edge in trying to dominate the Middle East. By getting rid of Saddam, it benefits us strategically in many ways. The report does not go into this. Militarily we are in a better position to deal with Iran, Syria and other countries. It helps us in getting the Palestinian-Israeli peace process going again. It allows us to reduce our ties with Saudi Arabia. Like I said above, the only reason this is the case is because we were containing him with our military power. But that is not guaranteed to continue. Saddam is not directly related to 9/11, but he is tied to it because 9/11 arose out of the dire conditions in the Middle East. By liberating Iraq we are trying to change those things. I believe that is a wise move. Deal with it now, on our terms, before it is too late. You have to admit, that there are good reasons for this war, and the potential benefits to the world are very high, especially if democratic reform spreads to Iran and the Palestinian areas. What are the benefits of not going to war with Iraq??? Well, you save some troops lives for now, but there is little guarantee that a bigger campaign in the Middle East would not be necessary. You didn't state any implications, you just repeated the question. What are the implications for the US, in your view?
Well first of all, I have already questioned their honesty. I think Bush went too far in his slanting the evidence. He treated it like any other politcal issue, like the economy. If a President exaggerates on the economy, or on how many jobs one creates that's one thing. But Bush was pushing for a pre-emptive war, and I think he should have held his administration to a higher level of objectivity. 1) I didn't watch so I'm not sure if he brought it up. I hate to ask you for links, maybe someone else can get them. 2) I'm not sure a retraction is necessarily called for. He says throughout the interview that Saddam is "trying" to get nuclear weapons. Sounds like he already retracted it. 3) Perhaps he didn't hear the whole interview. 4) True, but nobody uses the phrase "reconsituted nuclear weapons." It makes no sense. What did Saddam do, take some old nuclear weapons and rebuild them? No! Everyone wondered whether the PROGRAM is reconstituted. At the least, he made a slip of the tongue. At most, he said something that doesn't even make any sense.
So invasion based on supposition based on interpretation? He represented no threat...you say because of our troops...I already dealt with that...how do you explain the 20 odd yeard prior to our troops wherein he only invaded one country, and that at the least with our approval? He was not clearly stockpiling weapons...even those reports which claimed he had them admitted they were less than before...so he was reducing them, not stockpiling. In terms of murdering thier own people, how many countries, including us, can afford to throw stones? Many of them are not only not being invaded by us, but are our allies. In terms of invading nearby countries, I dealth with that...and you respond by saying he only has done nothing because of our troops. Isn't that a hell of a leap upon which to base a war? Besides...why now, 10 years since the last one? In terms of threatening Israel, we are allies with several that have done a lot more than threaten. It should be noted that israel has also threatened, and more, Iraq several times. Are we revving up the tanks? They also stand in opposition to UN resolutions, kill thier won people, and have in the past invaded neighbors. I say the only reason they aren't doing more now is because of our troops ( not serious, but you get my point)...invasion? Hell, we KNOW they have WMD. Up till now beliefs were not enough to support invasions of other countries at peace with us and their neighbors. We'll see whether this has been a turn for the better or not. Of course the report does not go into the bebnefits for the US pf taking over a nation and putting in a favorable government...why would it? It was about realisitc threats, not the advantages of imperialism. There would and could be advantages to us for invading several nations...Cuba, Canada, Saudi Arabia...Hey, here's a thought; Would the Middle East be more or less stable if Israel was taken over? Again...invasion? 9/11 was Saddam's fault because it lead to instability in the Middle East? So did we...hell, the guy behind it blames us...so did Israel...so did Turkey...so did Germany; Israel exiists because of the Holocaust...the primary source of conflict in the Middle East is Israel...the conflict in the Middle East helped cause 9/11...ipso facto, Operation Freedom Germany? Wow...in the midst of the entire world seeing us, for the first time, as the greatest threat to global peace...in the midst of people in our government approving of governmental deception as long as it's our decpetion, not someone else's...in the midst of the crumbling of 50 years of diplomacy...with the threat of a government doing whatever it wants when it wants where it wants looming large over the world...with all that, you still think that the only cost is in the lives of troops!?!?!?
When it comes to misleading us into war, I don't think a " He should have known better." is good enough, do you? 1) You don't trust me? I don't have links...someone else can do it. It was the same night he had Graham on, if that helps in the hunt. ( Sunday before last) 2) You have already admitted he didn't take it back. Claiming that another country...a country we are debating going to war with...has nuclear wepons on national television doesn't rate a etraction because at other times he says that they are trying to rebuils their program?!?!? Hint: You can have weapons and still rebuild your weapon...you can have weapons and still seek to gain more...you can have weapons and it can still be a matter of time before you have more, or have ones which can threaten the US, vs. say Israel... Put it this way, Mr. C...Do you know what percentage of the population, before the war, believed that Saddam had nukes? It might be an interesting co-incidence that many, many people believed the 'slip' more than the subtle understood retractions...You figure any of them made up some of the support Bush et al needed for the war? 3) He not only heard the whole interview, he quoted it with specifics. We're not talking a moron here...He was the former Asst. Secretary of State...so interviews on national television about justification for war just might fall into his area of understanding. Do you think he'd make statements like he did off the cuff after hearing part of an interivew, which he happened to partially know by heart? 4) Reconstituted weapons is neither grammatically incorrect, nor used exclusively in this situation. Constitute: v, 1. To make up: compose. 2. To set up: establish, or enact. Under virtually any of these definitions the concept of reconstituting nuclear weapons is completely reasonable. * To make up or compose nuclear weapons, again. * To set up ,establish or enact nuclear weapons , again. Especially considering that many believed, at the time that Cheney was speaking, that Saddam had never fully given up the materials to make nukes he had once possessed, and it was a serious statement. I myself have seen this term used several times. Forgive me, Mr. C., but this seems to be clutching at straws. Are you not going to respond to my last paragraph in the previous post?
i just read this entire thread and have come to one simple conclusion: MacBeth owns T_J (same way dallas owned the rox last season). T_J's credibility (if he ever had any) has completely flown out the window. i don't think he posted one article, quote..... nothing - that supported his claims. not one. the only defense he's had (that i've seen, mind you), is to resort to insults, all the while automatically ignoring any information anyone w/ an opposing view may present. and with such a pompous attitude... it's nothing less than obnoxious. he's nothing more than an arrogant, ignorant hypocrite. i'm just glad there are others out there like me who don't let party affiliation cloud my ability to reason. props to MB. but then again, i'm probably just some "liberal left" that "supports Saddam" and "doesn't support our troops" because i'm "anti-American."
SWTsig-- Not really sure who you are, maybe you're new or something... I don't think you understand what took place between me and MacBeth. In the GOP Talking Points thread, I gave MacBeth a dose of his own medicine, by completely shouting him down on the issue of why we went to war. I closed the case and walked away victorious. He could not accept that. So, after I was done for the day, he spent about 4 hours attempting to save face by posting numerous longwinded, rambling rants about who knows what (I sure didn't read them). He also spent some time attacking me personally and cursing. Very sad. It's all an elaborate attempt for him to reconvince himself that he is the smartest poster on this BBS after a very embarrassing display. I hope that in his mind that was time well spent.
Wow. One of us, T_J, is completely lacking in any sense of realism. It could be me, of course, I can never dismiss the possibility that I've lost my grip on percpetion...but if you think that you even made one good point in that thread...one...let alone in any way shape or form backed up what you said, 'shouted me down', or any of that crap, you're either seriously pathetic, or I've lost it. I entirely invite SWT and everyone else to read it and decide for themselves....wow. Seriosuly, if you believe that...wow. Can anyone who is a little more familiar with T_J's tactics tell me if this is typical of him, or if you are as blown away as I am?
Yeah, it's typical. Also typical to pretend he hasn't even read the recent posts instead of trying to argue them. Nothing surprising about any of it except that we keep wasting the time trying to argue with him.
Look, there is no point in arguing this further. If you want to believe that he was deliberately lying, that's fine. But I know that 90% of the fair thinking people out there do not think he meant to say that. If he didn't misspeak, then please show me a DIFFERENT example of a Bushie saying this. What last paragraph?
Responding to this part of your post, I disagree that things are far from being that dire. We are doing what is in our best interest, just like every other country does. Shall we wait for China to get more powerful so they can spread their wonderful ideology?
Mr. Clutch - I think the point that MacBeth and many others have been trying to make is that the invasion of Iraq is NOT in our long term best interests because although we may score victories and achieve whatever objectives Bush laid out (or didn't lay out) before the invasion, in the long term we lose out big time. Basically, we're being very shortsighted here in terms of what our best interests are, and it is simply worth considering that perhaps 5 or 10 years from now we'd be better off if we didn't tamper with our alliances, act without the blessing of the United Nations and implement a potentially dangerous doctrine of preemption. I don't want to argue that what has been happening in Iraq is not strategically beneficial to us right now. (I don't think it has been, but I concede that's an opinion) What I do feel is any benefits we may be enjoying right now will be outweighed by the long term ill effects of this hasty policy. Over a longer timescale then, what we are doing is not in our best interests. I think that's what MacBeth was hinting at in his final paragraph.
And I think he is dead wrong if that is what he is implying. We have tried to sit on the sidelines and it got us 9-11. Sorry, nothing wrong with being a little proactive now and again to remind the world who they are dealing with.... As for the Middle East.....it will be a good 20 years before this grand experiment is truly able to be judged. I believe that doing nothing is the wrong thing...and that is why I support Bush in this...he had the sack to follow his instincts and take out a bad regime and take a chance on stablizing the middle east...bully for him. DD
Trying to sit on the sidelines hardly got us 9-11, which, according to the perpetrators, was the result of exactly the opposite; our being active in the region. Now I am not advocating giving into what terrorists want for it's sake alone, but to reverse the argument and claim that 9-11 was a result of our being hands off in the Middle East is ridiculous. And history has thousands of examples of the folly of preemptive warfare even if you consider 9-11, which is groundless, as an argument for the other side. Outcomes of our being active in the region in the past: Operation Ajax...1951...Result, the SHah regains power over the popularly elected PM, and decades of murderous tyranny reign. Support of Saddam Hussein vs. popular religious movement, throughout 1970's and 80s...decades of murderous tyranny reign. Support of...ah, forget it. I concede the point. Clearly what the region needs is more involvment from us.
Good boy. Now, do as Dadakota does. Make a completely subjective statement based on some sort of whimsical interpretation of a few CNN news reports, but make that statement as if it were an absolutist monolith of obvious objective truth. Good boy. Hyperbolic brevity good. Analytical thinking bad. Good. We may even let you cross the border soon! Vik, welcome.
And that is the bigges difference between the left and the right. The left still believes the US will cause more harm than good, thanks to greed, arrogance, being power hungry, etc. The right believes the US can help reform the Middle East, by toppling rogue regimes, spreading democratic values, and opening up their economies. No reason to keep going round and round on these arguments as long as that difference remains.
Vik, thanks for the post. However I don't see where Macbeth is arguing that it is not in our long term interest, he seems more concerned with other nations' opinion of us. In my opinion, it was long term interests that were the main basis behind this war. With growing poverty, an exploding population, political repression, and extreme ideologies, the Middle East has been growing into quite a threat to the West. Combine it with growing technology and the availability of WMD's, then we have a very serious situation that is better taken care of on our terms, rather than after another big attack.
