Bush Bashing

[Redleg]

That doesn't justify it. Who are you and Gawain to accuse someone of idealogical hate or describe someone as a laughing stock? IMO this thread is off topic, insulting to the intelligence of all and going no where. I despair of the Org moderators sometimes.......

Didn't say it to justify it - I stated what I did so the Moderators understand that I know I might be playing on the edge of the rules and that is perfectly okay for them to sanction, ban, or otherwise do what they feel is necessary regarding my statement. It seems you misunderstood what the statement says because of your own views - that is your problem not mine.


However I don't see you criticising his over use of demonizing buzzwords now do we?

I find his attempts at buzzword demonization of the opposing viewpoint worthy of contempt and ridicule. In fact the response if perfectly fitting within the topic of this thread - since its about the Bashing of Bush.

If the mods want to give me a warning for doing so - I completely understand. If they close the thread because they feel they must - then I perfectly understand - however maybe some will see how stupid using demonizing words are - because those words do not discuss the subject - but are used to create hostility toward the opposing view point.

[Redleg]

BTW Bush Bashing is a term in Australia for going 4WD off road driving... as the Outback is termed The Bush as well, so you drive a 4WD throught the bush hence bashing it.

Thats okay I got a Brush Guard on my truck so I can push bushes and cattle out of my way.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

That doesn't justify it. Who are you and Gawain to accuse someone of idealogical hate or describe someone as a laughing stock?

I wish being called an idealog was all I ever suffered here. This hasnt been a one way street you know. But just look at his posts. Its pretty self evident. As far as the laughing stock I didnt say that. But the pms from other conservatives watching his constant hypocracy cant help but bring a smile to our faces. As Ive said over and over he is what he claims to hate the most.

I call that irony not insullt.

[Red Harvest]

wrong most americans support the war but not the way its being fought (we need to be less PC is what they basically say)

How was what I said wrong? I didn't say that most Americans don't support the war. We are in and that's that. However, folks are not pleased with the reasons given for it.

In retrospect, Dubya should never have been given the authority to launch the war--he simply wasn't competent for the task. Doesn't change the fact that we have to try to finish it properly now that we are there. Some conservatives don't seem to be able to make that distinction.

[Red Harvest]

Your becoming a standing joke amoung us conservatives it seems. Maybe this kind of rhetoric sufficed at TWC but theres no liberal gang banging going on here at the org.

Haven't read the quote you made. I would consider becoming a standing joke among the extremists among the conservatives to be a high compliment. Thank you I am quite honored.

Not sure what you are talking about with TWC. (Shouldn't you have inserted [WARNING: Gratuitous Redirect] in there somewhere?) Got any other personal insults you want to hurl my way because I disagree with you politically. Get a grip.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Haven't read the quote you made. I would consider becoming a standing joke among the extremists among the conservatives to be a high compliment. Thank you I am quite honored.

I knew you would see it that way as it was intended.

In retrospect, Dubya should never have been given the authority to launch the war--he simply wasn't competent for the task.

Blame congress then .

Not sure what you are talking about with TWC.

Im not sure and I maybe wrong but werent you a member there? I seem to remember libs over there flooding conservatives with nasty replies and making fun of them. If not you have my apologies. Im still a little shell shocked from my experiences there

Got any other personal insults you want to hurl my way because I disagree with you politically

I have no insults personal or other to hurl at you. Your a very intelligent man. I ask you back up what you say and stop telling people who dont agree with you their daft.

[Aurelian]

Oy vay. I can't believe that you guys are still on about a couple of degraded and useless Iraqi chemical rounds from the 1980's.

I'm on my way to bed, so I'll make this short and succinct:

1) Due to poor production processes, all Iraqi chemical stockpiles would have degraded LONG before 2002. The US Department of Defense made this clear in published reports printed prior to 9/11. Iraqi chemical and biological weapons only had a shelf life of a few years at most. Since production ended prior to Gulf War I, that means that all of the 'unaccounted for' stockpiles that the administration was touting were known to be harmless well before the invasion of Iraq.

2) In 1995, Saddam Hussein's son-in-law, General Hussein Kamal, defected to the West. Kamal was in charge of Iraq's WMD programs. Prior to the invasion, the administration used Kamal's testimony to suggest the size and scope of Iraq's WMD programs. However, the administration hid the fact that Kamal had testified to personally overseeing the destruction of Iraq's WMD arsenal and the dismantling of its programs.

3) Iraq was under a tight UN embargo for over ten years by the time of the invasion. During that time, the US and Britain oversaw import restrictions on Iraq guaranteed to keep all of the precursors and components for the construction of WMDs out of Saddam's hands.

4) Before the invasion, UN inspectors were allowed back in Iraq, and they followed up on every lead given to them by the US. Despite the administration's claims that they had solid evidence of weapons storage and production, they could not direct the inspectors to a single iota of evidence, and the inspectors frequently expressed their disgust at being sent on 'wild goose chases' by the administration.

Of course, there is more; but even just those four points indicate that the administration should have had a clear understanding that there was almost no likelihood that the things they were saying about Iraqi WMD stockpiles were true.

Yet they invaded anyway, because the reasons they gave were just flimsy pretexts that they trotted out to try to scare the American people into support for war. The decision to invade had been made previously, and all the WMD nonsense was just to get the American people lathered up to send their sons to war.

To me, that's dishonest, because they had information that went counter to what they were publicly proclaiming.

[Redleg]

Oy vay. I can't believe that you guys are still on about a couple of degraded and useless Iraqi chemical rounds from the 1980's.

I'm on my way to bed, so I'll make this short and succinct:

Not very short - but is succinct -

1) Due to poor production processes, all Iraqi chemical stockpiles would have degraded LONG before 2002. The US Department of Defense made this clear in published reports printed prior to 9/11. Iraqi chemical and biological weapons only had a shelf life of a few years at most. Since production ended prior to Gulf War I, that means that all of the 'unaccounted for' stockpiles that the administration was touting were known to be harmless well before the invasion of Iraq.

That does not excuse Iraq from not abiding by the cease fire agreement and the UN resolutions. Nor does it give Iraq a pass for not destroying the all WMD and providing the required proof as agreed upon in the Ceasefire agreement and futher passed down by the United Nations Resolutions.

2) In 1995, Saddam Hussein's son-in-law, General Hussein Kamal, defected to the West. Kamal was in charge of Iraq's WMD programs. Prior to the invasion, the administration used Kamal's testimony to suggest the size and scope of Iraq's WMD programs. However, the administration hid the fact that Kamal had testified to personally overseeing the destruction of Iraq's WMD arsenal and the dismantling of its programs.

Got proof?

3) Iraq was under a tight UN embargo for over ten years by the time of the invasion. During that time, the US and Britain oversaw import restrictions on Iraq guaranteed to keep all of the precursors and components for the construction of WMDs out of Saddam's hands.

Care to explain how the missles got developed? Care to explain how the precursors that have been found got there? Care to explain the other information that is covered in the Duefer Report?

4) Before the invasion, UN inspectors were allowed back in Iraq, and they followed up on every lead given to them by the US. Despite the administration's claims that they had solid evidence of weapons storage and production, they could not direct the inspectors to a single iota of evidence, and the inspectors frequently expressed their disgust at being sent on 'wild goose chases' by the administration.

Sure - however once again care to explain the Duefer Report and the other unaccounted for materials and documents concerning the Iraq WMD program? And why those documents that was looked at by Duefer and his team were not made available to the previous inspectors?

Of course, there is more; but even just those four points indicate that the administration should have had a clear understanding that there was almost no likelihood that the things they were saying about Iraqi WMD stockpiles were true.

Care to explain why the Duefer Report states that the Iraqi government did its upmost to give the illusion that the programs were still in place and that some material was still around?

Yet they invaded anyway, because the reasons they gave were just flimsy pretexts that they trotted out to try to scare the American people into support for war. The decision to invade had been made previously, and all the WMD nonsense was just to get the American people lathered up to send their sons to war.

WMD was only one of several reasons for going back into Iraq because of its violations of the Ceasefire agreement and the United Nations resolutions.

To me, that's dishonest, because they had information that went counter to what they were publicly proclaiming.

What they had was two conflicting sets of data - one they wanted to discount and one that they wanted to believe. The Duefer Report clearly states that the Regime in Iraq wanted to maintain the illusion of having a viable WMD program. Its kind of interesting once again to note that President Clinton came to the same conclusions that President Bush did about the Iraq WMD programs.

But your right there was a lot of dishonesty about the WMD program - the problem is that most of it was done by the Saddam Regime so that it could remain in power.

[Slyspy]

What they had was two conflicting sets of data - one they wanted to discount and one that they wanted to believe. The Duefer Report clearly states that the Regime in Iraq wanted to maintain the illusion of having a viable WMD program. Its kind of interesting once again to note that President Clinton came to the same conclusions that President Bush did about the Iraq WMD programs.

But your right there was a lot of dishonesty about the WMD program - the problem is that most of it was done by the Saddam Regime so that it could remain in power.

That first paragraph is the typical political dishonesty, and that in itself should see heads a-rolling in any administration. But it will not, either in the States or the UK, because the electorate are fools and the politicians knaves.

I suspect the illusion of WMDs was maintained as a defence against local hostiles eg Iran and internal groups such as the Kurds. As you say, so that Saddam could stay in power. However this is to be expected of a tin-pot dictator. When the elected leaders of democracies engage in similar dishonesty, well......

It doesn't matter which President was in power at the time. This is not about petty party politics or left against right, no matter what the Org's patrons twisted sense of priorities may lead them to believe. It is about deceiving your nation and sending your citizens out to die needlessly. It is about maintaining belief in that lie (for it is a lie depite the sophistry used here) despite the evidence rather than admitting to your mistakes and doing the honourable thing.

Small wonder that election turn-outs are so small when our leaders are seen to be self-servers, unapologetic of their mistakes and tellers of half-truths and lies in order to manipulate the people.

[Redleg]

That first paragraph is the typical political dishonesty, and that in itself should see heads a-rolling in any administration. But it will not, either in the States or the UK, because the electorate are fools and the politicians knaves.

Sure it is typical - and to use demonizing words against one side of the spectrum - for what both sides of the politicial spectrum does - is nothing but hypocrisy.

The problem with the WMD scenerio and explanitions concerning Iraq - is that the government just did not know either way, the adminstration chose a path of action that they thought was best for reasons that might come forth as self-serving or not. That is not politicial dishonesty as you are alluding to here. What it is is a bad decision making process - dishonesty would entail that the adminstration knew that there was absolutely no evidence of WMD and that they manfactured reasons to go to war.

What has been shown by the events and the information coming out of Iraq is that President Bush made some wrong decision, has shown some bad leadership, and continues to allow knuckleheads to run programs and departments that should have been fired. Poor decisions does not make it an lie or a dishonest attempt - it makes it only a bad decision.

I suspect the illusion of WMDs was maintained as a defence against local hostiles eg Iran and internal groups such as the Kurds. As you say, so that Saddam could stay in power. However this is to be expected of a tin-pot dictator. When the elected leaders of democracies engage in similar dishonesty, well......

That is politics for you - however it seems when people criticise Bush for coming to his decision - they fail to account for why did President Clinton come to the same conclusion about the WMD. Complain about the decision to go to war - but to make accusations of dishonesty and lying when a previos president had the same conclusion - and chose a different course of action - is disengous (SP) in the arguement.

It doesn't matter which President was in power at the time. This is not about petty party politics or left against right, no matter what the Org's patrons twisted sense of priorities may lead them to believe. It is about deceiving your nation and sending your citizens out to die needlessly. It is about maintaining belief in that lie (for it is a lie depite the sophistry used here) despite the evidence rather than admitting to your mistakes and doing the honourable thing.

Again the pot calling the kettle black it seems. Again two different president had the same information - both reached the same conclusion - the difference is they chose to act on that information differently.

Small wonder that election turn-outs are so small when our leaders are seen to be self-servers, unapologetic of their mistakes and tellers of half-truths and lies in order to manipulate the people.

Kind of like President Clinton - Senator Kenndy and many other.

[Red Harvest]

Im not sure and I maybe wrong but werent you a member there? I seem to remember libs over there flooding conservatives with nasty replies and making fun of them. If not you have my apologies. Im still a little shell shocked from my experiences there

I've been a member of several Total War sites...haven't been in ANY political discussions on the other sites that I can recall. Unless you want to count discussions of ancient historical Greek non-acceptance of Macedonians as being truly "Greek" until after Alexander... That was just historical context of the time.

At any rate, I'm not reading the political discussions on the other Total War sites so I don't know what you are going on about.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

At any rate, I'm not reading the political discussions on the other Total War sites so I don't know what you are going on about.

Ithought I explained I was blowing off steam. Again I apologise.