Where do you draw the line, then?Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68
I tried to read through your point-by-point rebuttal to Gore's speech, but I got bogged down by all the nitpicks, disagreements on factual points, references to past behavior by the Clinton administration, etc.
Using specific excerpts from Gore's speech, please identify where he went beyond those moral restrictions that you would impose.
OK, now it's clear I've won the argument, when your resort to this level of silly response. :lol:Yes he would. Had Saddam offered something like you specify, the Bush administration would have rejected it. The very fact that Saddam had agreed to instrusive inspections would be proof that he had hidden his WMDs.
He would not have rejected it, because he could not have.. Maybe he would have believed Hussein had hidden the WMDs, or moved them, but with that offer on the table, he would had no politically viable option other than acceptance.
Why do you think the Bush Administration even accepted the false offer Hussein made to permit UN-based inspections, which anyone paying attention knew was a trick?
Bush and Co. believed (correctly) that the UN offer was a delaying tactic, but even so they ended up accepting it, because it was politically unworkable not to do so. They didn't want to, they knew perfectly well what it was all about, and in giving in to it they ended up putting America is a poorer position politically and practically. But even so, they gave in because they had to do so.
An offer to permit real inspections led by Americans and performed by Americans and British personnel would have been even harder to refuse, even Bush's core supporters wouldn't have been solid. It would have been irrelevant whether Bush wanted to accept it or not.
Now, Hussein would have to have carried through on his offer, if he started interfering Bush would have had valid reason to assume Hussein's guilt, but the offer would have been accepted, and it would have worked, if Hussein was innocent.
If you believe that, you know nothing about practical politics. It would have taken a while to make the search, but if it came up clean, there would have been no invasion, regardless of what Bush believed. If the WMDs really had been hidden and they weren't found by that kind of inspection, than Hussein would have won. If they didn't exist, then Hussein would have, for practical purposes, demonstrated his innocence.Sending in inspectors at this point would accomplish nothing. Failure to find the WMDs would simply confirm what was already known--that Saddam had hidden weapons. Thus, simply by making the offer, Saddam confirms he has WMDs and the way is cleared for invasion.
You seem to imagine that Bush had limitless political capital. That was never the case, not even the day after 911.
An American-manned and American-led armed inspection, that wasn't interfered with by Hussein, would have been sufficient proof for all practical purposes. Note the italicization of 'not interfered with'. If Hussein pulled his usual tricks, or tried to, then he could have been presumed guilty.
Saddam had a history of failing to comply. You can't ever prove that WMDs aren't there, he could always be hiding them and and with his established track record of deception this would always be a real possibility
That would have worked even better. But the earlier option, given the practical realities of politics, would have been sufficient.
If Saddam was innocent what he should have done was broker an agreement in which he stepped down in exchange for being immune to subsequent prosecution. The NEW adminstration could then submit to the inspections you describe and get a clean bill of health like South Africa did. Only a new adminstration could make what amounts to a "good faith" effort.
Yes, that's what they always wanted. But just because a President wants something doesn't mean he's going to get it. Practical politics always limits their theoretical options.
This is why the adminstration insisted on regime change. The only way to stop an invasion would have been Saddam stepping down. He was unwilling to do this and so we had to invade to force him out of power.
What's he done indicating insanity? Specifically.
And don't bother whining about invading Iraq, that was quite rational. Disregarding the 'international community' is rational, also, so don't bother citing that.
No, the inspectors didn't go back in because of anything that happened anywhere but Baghdad and New York. Hussein was desperate, and figured he could pretend to permit inspections to buy time, and the UN Secretariat officials were equally desperate and agreed, knowing all the time that the whole thing was fake.Saddam wouldn't have cooperated, and didn't, and I have a feeling they knew he wouldn't. It was a big set up, and it worked. And, as you might have missed, I don't regard George W. Bush to be a sane president, and I don't exactly regard you as sane either, for supporting him.You still haven't answered the question.It wasn't a conspiracy per se. It was something they had been waiting to do once they regained office and did it. Since the people that are in power now are essentially a continuation of a narrow leadership that extends back to 1992, (and beyond) they had plenty of time to outline their goals for the post-Clinton years, from the selection of the candidate, to the war on Iraq.
You didn't answer the question.
The answer is simple: IF Hussein was innocent (or even nearly so) and allowed genuine inspections, there would have been no invasion. What Bush intended or wanted would not have made any difference, it would have been politically impossible.
The 'we'll try the UN one last time' charade was a nice pantomme for old times sake, but they would have found a loophole anyway. They were determined to do it, and did so, as you and I have both witnessed. I do not trust in the restraint nor sanity of George Walker Bush, nor his keepers.
By allowing inspections, I'm not talking about the UN. No sane President is going to stake American security on anything handled by the UN. But if he had offered this, the invasion would have been stopped, if he was innocent:
"I will permit American and British inspectors, under American leadership, unrestricted access to all parts of Iraq, contact with anyone they wish to speak with in or out of Iraq, and I will permit armed American and British escort of the inspectors. American overflights will not be interfered with, and no officers of my regime will accompany the inspectors."
If he had offered that, and done it, Bush would not have invaded, because he could not have invaded. Unless, of course, the inspectors discovered WMDs after all.
Here's a little time line for you...
[/quote[
8)And so the inspectors went back in. The only things they could find in the end were some leftover missiles from the 80s.
The inspectors made no serious effort to find the WMDs. Even this half-hearted inspection was interfered from day 1 by Hussein's security people. The UN inspections were a delaying tactic, and the UN was eagerly cooperating with them because they were hoping to delay the invasion long enough to prevent it.
You call the UN inspections a trick, and you were right. But it wasn't Bush performing the trick, it was Hussein and the UN. It was a clever move, but it wasn't good enough.
Inspections that don't even try don't count as evidence.
Incidentally, Blix recently slipped up and admitted that he thought all along that Hussein actually had the WMDs, even though he was saying at the time that he didn't. Since that admission, he's been spinning desperately to get back 'on message', but he can't take it back.
The inspections were a lie.
Meaning not objectively all that bad, since we've been in a freakishly peaceful time since Vietnam. We've lost ~1000 people in over a year of action, which isn't that bad. Compared to what's coming in the 4T, this is nothing. I don't wish to minimize their deaths, but we have to look at the world and how it works realisitically.13) The months of November 2003 and April 2004 were the bloodiest the US has seen since Viet Nam.
The whole point of the insurgency is to break the will of the public at home, in the hopes that America is too weak to endure casualties.
And by giving in to it, the Spaniards guaranteed that they'll be victims of it again, eventually. It also encouraged the current insurgency in Iraq by sending the message to the enemy that 'Westerners are soft and weak'.
14) In March 2004, explosions at a train station in Madrid killed more than 200 people.
More of the same, but indications that the cracks are spreading.
Newsroom Conservatives Are A Rare Breed
"We should acknowledge that maybe the biggest problem is that most of us think too much alike and come from the same backgrounds," says David Yarnold, editor of the opinion pages at The (San Jose) Mercury News. "Find the pro-lifers in a newsroom. That's harder than finding Waldo."
This is no big deal in a country where freedom of the press exists. While I make it a point to decry the media's claim of no bias (while clearly biased), most people aren't fooled by their charade. The only people fooled are those who want to be fooled or those with an agenda.
And the foolish constitute a minority not a majority.
Any man who signs 150 death warrants and claims Christ as his favorite political philosopher does not pass the trustworthy president test.What's he done indicating insanity? Specifically.
And don't bother whining about invading Iraq, that was quite rational. Disregarding the 'international community' is rational, also, so don't bother citing that.
To me for such an executioner to call oneself "compassionate" is extreme self delusion and borderline insanity.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:Any man who signs 150 death warrants and claims Christ as his favorite political philosopher does not pass the trustworthy president test.What's he done indicating insanity? Specifically.
And don't bother whining about invading Iraq, that was quite rational. Disregarding the 'international community' is rational, also, so don't bother citing that.
I suspected something of the sort.
" 'Not a liberal' = 'insane'. "
For what it's worth, I oppose the death penalty, BTW. But I don't delude myself that those who disagree with my view (the majority of Americans) are insane, or that signing death warrants marks insanity or stupidity.
By giving into it, their government made a decision that reflected a public that was opposed to participation from the very beginning.And by giving in to it, the Spaniards guaranteed that they'll be victims of it again, eventually. It also encouraged the current insurgency in Iraq by sending the message to the enemy that 'Westerners are soft and weak'.
This is what I don't get about you liberals. You are so "pro-democracy" and then you can't accept it when other countries don't follow the US' lead.
While all these decisions are obviously political, the French and German decisions not to participate reflected the will of their people. Spin it however you want - that's the REALITY.
The actual point though, was terrible acts of terrorism have occurred while the US was jerking itself off in Iraq. Sadly it appears anti-terrorist measures have failed on at least two occasions. and the masterplanner of the events that killed 2000+ Americans is still at large.
But they caught Saddam at least, and Bush has his pistol in his office. Sounds like our priorities are just a bit mixed up doesn't it?
Oh of course not.
Tell me what Fox News position is on this one again, Monsieur Liberal?
Extreme self delusion=inviting questions over one's sanity.:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:Any man who signs 150 death warrants and claims Christ as his favorite political philosopher does not pass the trustworthy president test.What's he done indicating insanity? Specifically.
And don't bother whining about invading Iraq, that was quite rational. Disregarding the 'international community' is rational, also, so don't bother citing that.
I suspected something of the sort.
" 'Not a liberal' = 'insane'. "
For what it's worth, I oppose the death penalty, BTW. But I don't delude myself that those who disagree with my view (the majority of Americans) are insane, or that signing death warrants marks insanity or stupidity.
To me "compassionate" and "Christian" and "150 death warrants signed" does not compute. Sounds a bit more Roman to me, but atleast the Romans enjoyed their spiritual decadence, rather than drape it in white linen hypocrisy.
It's liberals like you who are destroying the fabric of this country, with your bar none allegiance to leader that was selected to guide you.
Assertions aren't proof, and so far, that's all you've provided. Try something a bit closer to evidence or, failing that, logical argument.David, I won our debates on this issue before. I've already told you precisely what he had to do to prove his innoence. It was a perfectly practical, though very unpleasant (for him) method. It was the only way he could stop what was coming.HC, you really need to take a course in logic. :?I've made this point before, but you seem to ignore it. It's NOT an opinion.
- You can't prove a negative!
And I'll post it again if you post your silly nonsense about Hussein being unable to prove his innocence, if he was. It's straightforward truth.You've also written this before, but it's patently false.
I responded at length to Ash, and the same applies here. You can't make rules to suit yourself, then be outraged when others choose to ignore them. By the same token, you can't apply American norms to a foreign dictator and expect compliance, unless you plan on invading every tinpot sh*th*le in the world.No, I think something may be there, and I'm fairly sure something was there until recently. But it doesn't matter, even if it turns out that there never was anything.
We've had unfettered access for a long time now and have plenty of troops to poke around. We've found nothing, yet you still believe there is something there.
The burden of proof was on Hussein.
Hussein went out of his way to make us think he had the WMDs, if he didn't. Frankly, common sense says he had them, and the most likely scenario is that they've either been removed from Iraq, or remain hidden. We've yet to even search the majority of the country, despite your specious claim to the contrary.
Frankly, I don't expect the WMDs to be found now. I think we gave them 6 months to prepare, and they used it to move them. But it'll be a long time before we know for sure either way.
That said, the real issue is your insistence that negatives are provable. They never are. You might be able to prove a mutually exclusive "positive", but, barring such good fortune, being able to prove you didn't do something is impossible. That's the cornerstone argument for "innocent until proven guilty". I assume you have no problem with this fundamental basis of American jurisprudence.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.
Terminator:
I'm a little confused. Why do you keep calling HopefulCynic a liberal? He is liberal on a few issues, but why do you consider him one in general terms?
I'd have to agree with him about George Dubyah's sanity, as well. Calling someone who is politically and morally appalling insane is giving the person to easy an out. It's also letting ourselves off the hook for potential wickedness; we can say, "Oh, normal people would never do things like that -- he's INSANE!" But Napoleon was sane, Hitler was sane, Stalin was sane, Mao was sane, Torquemada was sane, and Dubyah is also sane.
In fact, it's kind of hard to hold high public office and political power while suffering from a really serious mental disorder like schizophrenia or severe bipolar affective disorder. Unless the position is hereditary. And even then, the rest of the zoo can usually deny the person real power, out of national self-preservation.
Brian,
I can label whomever I want, whatever I want, and if I choose to call HC68 a "liberal" that is my option. He insinuated that I was a liberal.
I take the liberty in calling him one back.
You may be right about President Bush being insane. If we are applying strict psychological terms, then perhaps he is not. I do find his character deeply flawed and parts of what he claims to represent are in strong conflict with one another. This is tragic, in the Greek sense, and forces me to doubt pretty much anything he says. I do not trust the man, nor in his restraint. Because his logic of the world operates on such a surreal level, the idea that he would not have pushed on further to have his way with Iraq because it was "not politically possible" does not hold water in my opinion.
Therefore HC's logic about what Bush might have or might not have done, which is based in his understanding of logic, which some like Dave'47 Redux may attest to be shaky, does not apply to the president, because the essence of his beliefs are so steeped in hypocrisy and conflict.
To put it simply, if the president himself does not make sense, why would one expect him to act sensibly?
H-m-m-m. This soulnds a lot like a Get Out of Jail Free card for Presidents. All you need is a good line of BS and a temporarily compliant Congress and you can write your own ticket. Once you're in, you can claim dissent "harms the troops", and make even the most honest oppostion into traitors.That's beside the point of this discussion. Even if the invasion was unjustified, its opponents still are obligated to speak with care while the fighting lasts, since what they say can still help the enemy and harm our own personnel.Of course I care. That's why I opposed the Iraq invasion in the first place, because I didn't want to send our servicepeople off to die in what I believed was an unnecessary war.
You believed the war was justified, and apparently you feel the price in American lives and treasure has been worth it. I don't think it has.
Dissent is allowable, but in wartime, the range of expression of it is morally restricted. There's no way around that.
Sorry. I'm not buying it.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.
Are you saying that the War in Iraq isn't over yet? Or is the ongoing "fighting" part of the free floating, conclusion-less, amorphous "War on drugs er, terror"?
It is the enemy that is "amorphous". Welcome to the 21st century.
ABC NEWS ADMITS AL QAEDA - IRAQ LINK
Al Qaeda leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi reported by ABC news to have been in Iraq with Iraqi official support prior to the invasion:
(near end of article)
During the 1990s, Zarqawi trained under bin Laden in Afghanistan. After the fall of the Taliban, he fled to northwestern Iraq and worked with poisons for use in potential attacks, officials say.
During the summer of 2002, he underwent nasal surgery at a Baghdad hospital, officials say. They mistakenly originally thought, however, that Zarqawi had his leg amputated due to an injury.
In late 2002, officials say, Zarqawi began establishing sleeper cells in Baghdad and acquiring weapons from Iraqi intelligence officials.
Of course it's not over. Bush made a political gamble by putting that 'mission accomplished' banner up, though he could truthfully claim that the first phase was accomplished.Are you saying that the War in Iraq isn't over yet? Or is the ongoing "fighting" part of the free floating, conclusion-less, amorphous "War on drugs er, terror"?
OTOH, given the nature of pictures in politics, the Democrats probably can't use that against him effectively, either, so he might not have bene risking much.
It's not for sale. :lol:H-m-m-m. This soulnds a lot like a Get Out of Jail Free card for Presidents. All you need is a good line of BS and a temporarily compliant Congress and you can write your own ticket. Once you're in, you can claim dissent "harms the troops", and make even the most honest oppostion into traitors.That's beside the point of this discussion. Even if the invasion was unjustified, its opponents still are obligated to speak with care while the fighting lasts, since what they say can still help the enemy and harm our own personnel.Of course I care. That's why I opposed the Iraq invasion in the first place, because I didn't want to send our servicepeople off to die in what I believed was an unnecessary war.
You believed the war was justified, and apparently you feel the price in American lives and treasure has been worth it. I don't think it has.
Dissent is allowable, but in wartime, the range of expression of it is morally restricted. There's no way around that.
Sorry. I'm not buying it.
You're pretty much stuck with this, whether you want to purchase it or not. While dissent remains always acceptable, the ways to express uit do contract in wartime, unless you simply don't care about the effects.
That doesn't matter. By giving in, they increased their vulnerability. It may well have been the democratically legitimate thing to do, but it still increased their vulnerability.By giving into it, their government made a decision that reflected a public that was opposed to participation from the very beginning.And by giving in to it, the Spaniards guaranteed that they'll be victims of it again, eventually. It also encouraged the current insurgency in Iraq by sending the message to the enemy that 'Westerners are soft and weak'.
Nor am I angry at them for it. They're looking out for what they perceive to be their self-interest, just as America is going to do.
While all these decisions are obviously political, the French and German decisions not to participate reflected the will of their people. Spin it however you want - that's the REALITY.
You keep ranting on about the pistol! :lol:
But they caught Saddam at least, and Bush has his pistol in his office.
What is it about that pistol that bothers you so much? :-
If this isn't self-evident, no level of argument will ever convince you. Do you imagine Bush would have refused such an offer, if Hussein had made it? He not have said no, any more than he could say no to the offer Hussein ended up making to let Blix in.Assertions aren't proof, and so far, that's all you've provided. Try something a bit closer to evidence or, failing that, logical argument.David, I won our debates on this issue before. I've already told you precisely what he had to do to prove his innoence. It was a perfectly practical, though very unpleasant (for him) method. It was the only way he could stop what was coming.HC, you really need to take a course in logic. :?I've made this point before, but you seem to ignore it. It's NOT an opinion.
- You can't prove a negative!
And I'll post it again if you post your silly nonsense about Hussein being unable to prove his innocence, if he was. It's straightforward truth.You've also written this before, but it's patently false.
At that point, it would have been up to Hussein to not interfere with the inspections, if there was nothing to find. No matter how bad Bush wanted to invade, it would have been politically unworkable under those conditions.
Oh yes we could. He lost the first Gulf War, and as a condition of being allowed to remain in power, he lost the right to set conditions or defy the winners. It was his problem if he didn't like the conditions America imposed on him, or if those conditions didn't match what he thought they should be.
He has a point, in a way. I've noted myself how litle the dictionary definitions of 'liberal' and 'conservative' have to do with the actual groups those labels are so loosely applied to in colloquial political parlance.
Bush is a right-winger (on some matters), he's far from a Burkean conservative (except on a handful of points). In modern America, we tend to label all left-wingers 'liberals' and all right-wingers 'conservatives', and the labels are just noises since they are used so loosely.
Regarding polls...
Public Confidence Ratings
Here is an example of why I take all polls with a grain of salt, especially day-to-day polling.
OK, that rates the 'presidency' at one of the top 5 most trusted institutions, whatever that means. Yet the 'presidency' is not separable from the indentity of the President. This would indicate that current polling data says that people trust the Presidency but not the President.
It rates the military at #1, the police at #2.
Congress tends to come off badly in any poll, because they are a committee, and inevitably look weak and fractious when doing what they do, which is compromising. That's Congress's reason for existing, to compromise various interests and work out acceptable deals. But it isn't inspiring to watch.
Interestingly, organized labor checks in as being marginally less untrustworthy than newspapers, TV news, big business, and HMOs.
It is bizarre, in the most dramatic, homoerotic, archvillain vs. superhero passion play kind of way. Frankly, it's not the kind of behavior I'd expect from a mature individual aware of the costs of war. It rather reminds me of a hunter, who stuffs the trophy of the game he's bagged on the wall.
Only Bush didn't bag the trophy this time - he sent other people's children to do it. Way to go Bush, you hero you! Score another one for your Dad for Father's Day!
Um, have Al-Qaeda operatives been establishing sleeper cells in Pakistan?It is the enemy that is "amorphous". Welcome to the 21st century.
ABC NEWS ADMITS AL QAEDA - IRAQ LINK
Al Qaeda leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi reported by ABC news to have been in Iraq with Iraqi official support prior to the invasion:
(near end of article)
During the 1990s, Zarqawi trained under bin Laden in Afghanistan. After the fall of the Taliban, he fled to northwestern Iraq and worked with poisons for use in potential attacks, officials say.
During the summer of 2002, he underwent nasal surgery at a Baghdad hospital, officials say. They mistakenly originally thought, however, that Zarqawi had his leg amputated due to an injury.
In late 2002, officials say, Zarqawi began establishing sleeper cells in Baghdad and acquiring weapons from Iraqi intelligence officials.
Oh whoops, I forgot - Pakistan was the headquarters of Al-Qaeda.
Guess we should invade that military dictatorship/threat to its neighbors/nuclear power soon before the shit hits the fan :lol:
