I understand the notion of propping up the Iraqi government until it
can stand on its own. Here's the problem: in order to have
legitimacy, the government needs to be seen to be independent of the
U.S. One scenario: the government should publicly ask us to leave -
and not too politely... It's a fine judgment when the iraqi security
forces will be strong "enough", but their continued association with
U.S. forces is - once again - "counterproductive". - Hugh
On 1 Sep 2005, at 12:35, Flying Lobster wrote:
>
>
> Marco Zee wrote:
> Marc,
> I was hoping you would clarify your earlier remarks.
> I am referring to the our previous conversation:
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Marco
>
> PS: Joe, I haven't forgotten about ya. Check back later.
> (end of quote)
>
>
> Thought I answered your questions quite directly, but I will repeat
> and further clarify:
>
> I said an Islamic fundamentalist state is unavoidable.
>
> The Sunni's--who's ruling political arm is the Baathist party--will
> not accept this.
>
> The US is in the middle serving as cannon fodder to prevent the two
> sides from having it out.
>
> ITs important to understand that this situation would not exist if
> GW BUSH--and his lying henchmen (Condi is more of a guy than a
> gal)--had not decided to screw off the rest of the world and go
> invade.
>
> So, and read this very carefully so there is no misunderstanding,
>
> the choices are:
>
> 1. Stay the course (however long that might be) and hope some kind
> of polyglot government can be formed by peoples that have never
> experienced or have any understanding of what it takes to have a
> true democracy. This of course is a scenario without a conceivable
> endpoint and will entail continued massive US investment in terms
> of money and lives. I do not favor this scenario, because,
> honestly, I wouldn't trade a thousand of their lives for one
> American one. And the arguement that this will somehow serve as an
> example to the mideast of a democracy and ultimate help it spread
> is a total crock of crap.
>
> 2. Get the troops out ASAP. Its a bad choice, but the lesser of two
> evils.
>
> I'm not much of a military strategist, but I do know that getting
> into a war is sheer f'in stupidity if the intent is not to actually
> win it. Thus, having troops perform in theatre where the enemy can
> be potentially anyone, and choosing right or wrong can mean killing
> somebody who is innocent or being killed yourself, must be pure
> hell. We need to end this, and we need to end it now, because, as I
> said, the "Real" battle is coming.
>
> marcgot art?
> http://www.marcfink.com/
> wanna fly?
> http://www.downeastairsports.com/
>
Enough pessimism -- how about the good news
Moderator: CHGPA BOD
Enough pessimism -- how about the good news
Someday I would like to see a politician caught in a peccadillo say "
Yep, I'm gettin' it - and proud of it!" - Hugh
On 1 Sep 2005, at 19:31, Christy Huddle wrote:
>
> Might have been your line as well, but you can't say that a guy who
> may have lied about letting an intern go down on him is quite as
> bad as a guy who lied so as to kill off thousands of people. I'll
> pick the former over the latter anyday.
> Christy
>
> Marco Zee <marcoz757@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Quote:
>
>
>>
>>
>
> Christy,
> You STOLE MY LINE !!!!
> That's exactly what I said after the 1996 Election LOL. Great minds
> DO think alike LOL. I'm glad your remark keeps a smile on your
> face...much nicer than frown or scowl.
>
>
>
>
> Christy,
> The President repeatedly stated that the greatest threat to our
> homeland was a terrorist attack with WMD's, not airliners. Does
> anybody refute this?
>
> Al-Queda has proven that they can infiltrate into the USA, and Iraq/
> Saddam had sufficient WMD's (or so every intelligence agency in the
> world believed) and terrorist contacts to potentially pass off a
> WMD to Al-Queda for importation and detonation here in the USA. And
> that in a post 9/11 world, he (Bush) was going to act to prevent
> this unholy alliance from becoming a fait accompli, as opposed to
> awaiting the detonation and then trying to pick up the pieces
> afterwards.
>
> It's hard to put all that into 10 second soundbite, but all of your
> word "ingredients" are in there.....terrorist, 9/11, Saddam, WMD.
> But he clearly did NOT state that Saddam was directly linked to 9/11.
>
> And like you said, I don't think that the administration worked
> "very hard" to "dissuade" people who believed that Saddam was
> linked to 9/11 directly. Certainly the press and the loyal
> opposition certainly said this repeatedly, ie no link between
> Saddam & 9/11, but since many people do not believe the assertions
> of the "mainstream media" and the Dems, it's not surprising that
> they didn't believe them on this point. That's what happens when
> you lose your credibility on national security issues (amongst
> others).
>
> thanks for the post,
>
> Marco
>
> (end of quote)
>
> Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
> (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=34442/*http: ... o.com/r/hs)
>
Yep, I'm gettin' it - and proud of it!" - Hugh
On 1 Sep 2005, at 19:31, Christy Huddle wrote:
>
> Might have been your line as well, but you can't say that a guy who
> may have lied about letting an intern go down on him is quite as
> bad as a guy who lied so as to kill off thousands of people. I'll
> pick the former over the latter anyday.
> Christy
>
> Marco Zee <marcoz757@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Quote:
>
>
>>
>>
>
> Christy,
> You STOLE MY LINE !!!!
> That's exactly what I said after the 1996 Election LOL. Great minds
> DO think alike LOL. I'm glad your remark keeps a smile on your
> face...much nicer than frown or scowl.
>
>
>
>
> Christy,
> The President repeatedly stated that the greatest threat to our
> homeland was a terrorist attack with WMD's, not airliners. Does
> anybody refute this?
>
> Al-Queda has proven that they can infiltrate into the USA, and Iraq/
> Saddam had sufficient WMD's (or so every intelligence agency in the
> world believed) and terrorist contacts to potentially pass off a
> WMD to Al-Queda for importation and detonation here in the USA. And
> that in a post 9/11 world, he (Bush) was going to act to prevent
> this unholy alliance from becoming a fait accompli, as opposed to
> awaiting the detonation and then trying to pick up the pieces
> afterwards.
>
> It's hard to put all that into 10 second soundbite, but all of your
> word "ingredients" are in there.....terrorist, 9/11, Saddam, WMD.
> But he clearly did NOT state that Saddam was directly linked to 9/11.
>
> And like you said, I don't think that the administration worked
> "very hard" to "dissuade" people who believed that Saddam was
> linked to 9/11 directly. Certainly the press and the loyal
> opposition certainly said this repeatedly, ie no link between
> Saddam & 9/11, but since many people do not believe the assertions
> of the "mainstream media" and the Dems, it's not surprising that
> they didn't believe them on this point. That's what happens when
> you lose your credibility on national security issues (amongst
> others).
>
> thanks for the post,
>
> Marco
>
> (end of quote)
>
> Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
> (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=34442/*http: ... o.com/r/hs)
>
-
Flying Lobster
- Posts: 1042
- Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 4:17 pm
Re: What is a lie? Did Bush "LIE" about WMD in Ir
(see points refuted above)Marco Zee wrote:Christy
Hmmmm....what is a LIE???
Is it a lie to assert something you sincerely believe to be true at the time based on the best, currently available evidence (human and nonhuman intelligence), but which later turns out to be erroneous, or partially erroneous, or unsupported by facts at a later date?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
!!No Marco! To lie is to willfully decieve others in a way that can often be harmful. And that is exactly what the administration did to the world.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would say that it would NOT be a lie, but a truthful statement based on imperfect information. Here's a simple example, my wife arrives home and asks me where our Son "A" is.......I tell her he is at friend B's house, which is where he told me he was going...but in fact...he left B's house and went to friend C's house without permission or notification. So did I "lie" to my wife because my son was at C's house instead of B's house???? Or did I speak truthfully based on the best available information I had at the time???? (assume that I called every neighbor, and all of them saw him walk into friend B's house; but he slipped out the back of B's house and snuck over to C's house unnoticed by anybody)
!! No again! Using your example, lets say you knew you wanted your kid to be slapped slilly by his mamma if she knew your kid was at house B. You have no reliable information as whether or not he's at house B or house C, but you tell your wife he's at house B. Your son comes home, only to be grabbed by your wife and severely beaten. Your hurt son then wants to know why, and the best you can do is say, "gee son, I know that you like going to house B, and even though you've been forbidden to go there and all our friends have said you haven't been there, but might like to go there, so I figured you needed a beating anyway."
A lie is when you know what the truth is, but deliberately state a falsehood so as to intentionally and willfully mislead others.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
OR--you know what the truth ISN'T and willfully mislead others
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I would contend that Bush did NOT lie, as he was acting on the best, most current Intelligence available to him from U.S. as well as many other Intelligence services ( British, German, Israeli, Russian, French, etc..) who ALL believed that Saddam had WMD's at the time. The fact that WMD stockpiles were not found, yet, means that
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No again!! Not a single intelligence agency--including our own, said that Saddam had WMDs conclusively. Only there was a "possibility" that he could have the capacity to make them. And don't forget that both the UN and the US had intelligence services on the ground in Iraq conducting searches which had failed to turn up anything. They were nearing the end of the search as agreed to by the UN and the US when Bush abruptly decided to invade Iraq. This was a deliberate snubbing of the world and going it alone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A) he indeed did not have them, or destroyed them,
B) he buried them somewhere, or
C) he moved them to another country or location ie Syria, Iran, etc..
Bill Clinton in 1998 and John Kerry in 2002 claimed that Saddam had WMD's......did they "lie" as well??? They reviewed the same Intel that Bush had available to him. Did they all lie? Or did they view the Intelligence as very credible, and act accordingly.
Intelligence gathering is an imperfect science, as are most sciences, but it a fundamental necessity for our national security. To say that a man, any man, lied because he believed "very credible" yet "faulty" intelligence is UNFAIR, to say the least.
I can't wait to hear the responses to this one !!! LOL.
Marco
PS: Clinton did indeed lie, under oath, and under threat of perjury, about Monica, knowing that he had had an affair with her, but intentionally and willfully lied to mislead the Judge and the Court hearing the Paula Jones Civil case so as to escape the consequences of his actions. To me, it was analagous to Watergate....the cover-up (lying under oath) was worse than the crime (having sex with a bovine in the Oval Office)....but he's from Arkansas, so what do you expect LOL.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Clinton played with the semantics of the meaning of the word "sex" just like the Bush administration plays with the meaning of, well, just about everything they say. The principal difference is that Clinton meant no harm, and in fact caused none, as opposed to the Bushies who policies continue to result in horrific death and destruction as well as devestation to the economic well-being of our country.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You asked about the "coming" battle that I referred to.
Here's what I think:
The principal aim of the fundamentalist Islamic movement I believe is the ultimate defeat of all secular non-believer western civilization. This is evidenced by the rapidly increasing terrorist attacks world-wide. Recruitment of disaffected soldiers for this movement is fairly easy--they wre simple people who are pissed-off about something and buy into the notion that there is only one God and one way to worship that God. Any other way of viewing that God and worshipping him is a sin and any individual, group or society that does so is deserving of death. Furthermore, giving one's own life in bringing death to the non-believers is a glory that will be eternally rewarded in heaven.
Thus we are fighting ideology and emotions that have no fixed base or country. The "enemy" has leaders who, contrary to what others may think, are quite adept at figuring out how to cause maximum damage with minimal means.
The efforts in Iraq, I believe, play directly into the plans of Bin Laden and Al Queda. You might recall I warned of exactly this prior to the invasion of Iraq. We are disipating huge financial and military resources which will make it that much easier for the "real" terrorists (not Iraqi supporters of Sunni insurgents) to harm us in the future.
The coming battle will not be on one particular location but a growing and rotating sytem of asymetric strikes in many western countries designed to cause maximum fear among the populations. This in turn will tie up and divert huge financial resources at the mere prospect of a terrorist attack.
Our leaders appear to be fundamentally incapable or unwilling to understand the complexities of this kind of conflict. That is why military firepower alone cannot win this coming battle, and the enemy knows this. The enemy also knows that we live in a consumer driven society where life is defined by succeeding in acquiring things. The enemy also knows that we are not as ready to give our lives in a "holy" cause as they are. Thus, it is easy to see why they believe they will ultimately prevail.
In this way, even Vietnam and guerrilla warfare looks like a walk in the park compared to this kind of shadowy, belief-driven warfare.
Have a nice day!
Marc
Great Googly-moo!
Enough pessimism -- how about the good news
The crime was prosecutorial over-reaching in asking personal
questions which had nothing to do with - what was it? A land deal in
Arkansas, right? The special prosecutor became nothing more than a
designated "get Clinton" guy. I have much to say about intelligence
and Bush administration mendacity, but i have to go to work. Suffice
it to say that Bush was not innocently led astray by clear
intelligence which led him to then formulate his policy accordingly.
The policy was determined a priori and then the neocons went looking
for pieces of evidence which they selected to support their
preconceived notions. - Hugh
On 1 Sep 2005, at 21:38, Marco Zee wrote:
>
> Christy
>
> Hmmmm....what is a LIE???
>
> Is it a lie to assert something you sincerely believe to be true at
> the time based on the best, currently available evidence (human and
> nonhuman intelligence), but which later turns out to be erroneous,
> or partially erroneous, or unsupported by facts at a later date?
>
> I would say that it would NOT be a lie, but a truthful statement
> based on imperfect information. Here's a simple example, my wife
> arrives home and asks me where our Son "A" is.......I tell her he
> is at friend B's house, which is where he told me he was
> going...but in fact...he left B's house and went to friend C's
> house without permission or notification. So did I "lie" to my
> wife because my son was at C's house instead of B's house???? Or
> did I speak truthfully based on the best available information I
> had at the time???? (assume that I called every neighbor, and all
> of them saw him walk into friend B's house; but he slipped out the
> back of B's house and snuck over to C's house unnoticed by anybody)
>
> A lie is when you know what the truth is, but deliberately state a
> falsehood so as to intentionally and willfully mislead others.
>
> I would contend that Bush did NOT lie, as he was acting on the
> best, most current Intelligence available to him from U.S. as well
> as many other Intelligence services ( British, German, Israeli,
> Russian, French, etc..) who ALL believed that Saddam had WMD's at
> the time. The fact that WMD stockpiles were not found, yet, means
> that
> A) he indeed did not have them, or destroyed them,
> B) he buried them somewhere, or
> C) he moved them to another country or location ie Syria, Iran, etc..
>
> Bill Clinton in 1998 and John Kerry in 2002 claimed that Saddam had
> WMD's......did they "lie" as well??? They reviewed the same Intel
> that Bush had available to him. Did they all lie? Or did they
> view the Intelligence as very credible, and act accordingly.
>
> Intelligence gathering is an imperfect science, as are most
> sciences, but it a fundamental necessity for our national
> security. To say that a man, any man, lied because he believed
> "very credible" yet "faulty" intelligence is UNFAIR, to say the least.
>
> I can't wait to hear the responses to this one !!! LOL.
>
> Marco
>
> PS: Clinton did indeed lie, under oath, and under threat of
> perjury, about Monica, knowing that he had had an affair with her,
> but intentionally and willfully lied to mislead the Judge and the
> Court hearing the Paula Jones Civil case so as to escape the
> consequences of his actions. To me, it was analagous to
> Watergate....the cover-up (lying under oath) was worse than the
> crime (having sex with a bovine in the Oval Office)....but he's
> from Arkansas, so what do you expect LOL. [Laughing]
>
questions which had nothing to do with - what was it? A land deal in
Arkansas, right? The special prosecutor became nothing more than a
designated "get Clinton" guy. I have much to say about intelligence
and Bush administration mendacity, but i have to go to work. Suffice
it to say that Bush was not innocently led astray by clear
intelligence which led him to then formulate his policy accordingly.
The policy was determined a priori and then the neocons went looking
for pieces of evidence which they selected to support their
preconceived notions. - Hugh
On 1 Sep 2005, at 21:38, Marco Zee wrote:
>
> Christy
>
> Hmmmm....what is a LIE???
>
> Is it a lie to assert something you sincerely believe to be true at
> the time based on the best, currently available evidence (human and
> nonhuman intelligence), but which later turns out to be erroneous,
> or partially erroneous, or unsupported by facts at a later date?
>
> I would say that it would NOT be a lie, but a truthful statement
> based on imperfect information. Here's a simple example, my wife
> arrives home and asks me where our Son "A" is.......I tell her he
> is at friend B's house, which is where he told me he was
> going...but in fact...he left B's house and went to friend C's
> house without permission or notification. So did I "lie" to my
> wife because my son was at C's house instead of B's house???? Or
> did I speak truthfully based on the best available information I
> had at the time???? (assume that I called every neighbor, and all
> of them saw him walk into friend B's house; but he slipped out the
> back of B's house and snuck over to C's house unnoticed by anybody)
>
> A lie is when you know what the truth is, but deliberately state a
> falsehood so as to intentionally and willfully mislead others.
>
> I would contend that Bush did NOT lie, as he was acting on the
> best, most current Intelligence available to him from U.S. as well
> as many other Intelligence services ( British, German, Israeli,
> Russian, French, etc..) who ALL believed that Saddam had WMD's at
> the time. The fact that WMD stockpiles were not found, yet, means
> that
> A) he indeed did not have them, or destroyed them,
> B) he buried them somewhere, or
> C) he moved them to another country or location ie Syria, Iran, etc..
>
> Bill Clinton in 1998 and John Kerry in 2002 claimed that Saddam had
> WMD's......did they "lie" as well??? They reviewed the same Intel
> that Bush had available to him. Did they all lie? Or did they
> view the Intelligence as very credible, and act accordingly.
>
> Intelligence gathering is an imperfect science, as are most
> sciences, but it a fundamental necessity for our national
> security. To say that a man, any man, lied because he believed
> "very credible" yet "faulty" intelligence is UNFAIR, to say the least.
>
> I can't wait to hear the responses to this one !!! LOL.
>
> Marco
>
> PS: Clinton did indeed lie, under oath, and under threat of
> perjury, about Monica, knowing that he had had an affair with her,
> but intentionally and willfully lied to mislead the Judge and the
> Court hearing the Paula Jones Civil case so as to escape the
> consequences of his actions. To me, it was analagous to
> Watergate....the cover-up (lying under oath) was worse than the
> crime (having sex with a bovine in the Oval Office)....but he's
> from Arkansas, so what do you expect LOL. [Laughing]
>
oooh! OOH! OUCH! OOOOOOOOOOHHHHH!!!!
UUHMMMM! NOW KISS ME.........YEAHHHhhhhh....
now lick it okay...okay.... now... kick me ugh!
harder....harder....HAAARRRDER!! THAT'S IT!....now stomp on may head. that's okay, i know it's already mushy......JUST STOMP ON IT! AGAIN! AGAIN!
okay....now it's my turn.....bend over.......
UUHMMMM! NOW KISS ME.........YEAHHHhhhhh....
now lick it okay...okay.... now... kick me ugh!
harder....harder....HAAARRRDER!! THAT'S IT!....now stomp on may head. that's okay, i know it's already mushy......JUST STOMP ON IT! AGAIN! AGAIN!
okay....now it's my turn.....bend over.......
Hmmmm....what is a LIE???
Is it a lie to assert something you sincerely believe to be true at the time based on the best, currently available evidence (human and nonhuman intelligence), but which later turns out to be erroneous, or partially erroneous, or unsupported by facts at a later date?
marco , by what standard do you make this assertion? Could you expound on this so that I can understand where you are coming from and give you a coherent response.
I would say that it would NOT be a lie, but a truthful statement based on imperfect information. Here's a simple example, my wife arrives home and asks me where our Son "A" is.......I tell her he is at friend B's house, which is where he told me he was going...but in fact...he left B's house and went to friend C's house without permission or notification. So did I "lie" to my wife because my son was at C's house instead of B's house???? Or did I speak truthfully based on the best available information I had at the time???? (assume that I called every neighbor, and all of them saw him walk into friend B's house; but he slipped out the back of B's house and snuck over to C's house unnoticed by anybody)
A lie is when you know what the truth is, but deliberately state a falsehood so as to intentionally and willfully mislead others.
marco , by what standard do you make this assertion? Could you expound on this so that I can understand where you are coming from and give you a coherent response.
I would contend that Bush did NOT lie, as he was acting on the best, most current Intelligence available to him from U.S. as well as many other Intelligence services ( British, German, Israeli, Russian, French, etc..) who ALL believed that Saddam had WMD's at the time. The fact that WMD stockpiles were not found, yet, means that
A) he indeed did not have them, or destroyed them,
B) he buried them somewhere, or
C) he moved them to another country or location ie Syria, Iran, etc..
marco , by what standard do you make this assertion? Could you expound on this so that I can understand where you are coming from and give you a coherent response.
Bill Clinton in 1998 and John Kerry in 2002 claimed that Saddam had WMD's......did they "lie" as well??? They reviewed the same Intel that Bush had available to him. Did they all lie? Or did they view the Intelligence as very credible, and act accordingly.
marco , by what standard do you make this assertion? Could you expound on this so that I can understand where you are coming from and give you a coherent response.
Intelligence gathering is an imperfect science, as are most sciences, but it a fundamental necessity for our national security. To say that a man, any man, lied because he believed "very credible" yet "faulty" intelligence is UNFAIR, to say the least.
marco , by what standard do you make this assertion? Could you expound on this so that I can understand where you are coming from and give you a coherent response.
I can't wait to hear the responses to this one !!! LOL.
Marco
PS: Clinton did indeed lie, under oath, and under threat of perjury, about Monica, knowing that he had had an affair with her, but intentionally and willfully lied to mislead the Judge and the Court hearing the Paula Jones Civil case so as to escape the consequences of his actions. To me, it was analagous to Watergate....the cover-up (lying under oath) was worse than the crime (having sex with a bovine in the Oval Office)....but he's from Arkansas, so what do you expect LOL. [Laughing]
marco , by what standard do you make this assertion? Could you expound on this so that I can understand where you are coming from and give you a coherent response.
Is it a lie to assert something you sincerely believe to be true at the time based on the best, currently available evidence (human and nonhuman intelligence), but which later turns out to be erroneous, or partially erroneous, or unsupported by facts at a later date?
marco , by what standard do you make this assertion? Could you expound on this so that I can understand where you are coming from and give you a coherent response.I would say that it would NOT be a lie, but a truthful statement based on imperfect information. Here's a simple example, my wife arrives home and asks me where our Son "A" is.......I tell her he is at friend B's house, which is where he told me he was going...but in fact...he left B's house and went to friend C's house without permission or notification. So did I "lie" to my wife because my son was at C's house instead of B's house???? Or did I speak truthfully based on the best available information I had at the time???? (assume that I called every neighbor, and all of them saw him walk into friend B's house; but he slipped out the back of B's house and snuck over to C's house unnoticed by anybody)
A lie is when you know what the truth is, but deliberately state a falsehood so as to intentionally and willfully mislead others.
marco , by what standard do you make this assertion? Could you expound on this so that I can understand where you are coming from and give you a coherent response.I would contend that Bush did NOT lie, as he was acting on the best, most current Intelligence available to him from U.S. as well as many other Intelligence services ( British, German, Israeli, Russian, French, etc..) who ALL believed that Saddam had WMD's at the time. The fact that WMD stockpiles were not found, yet, means that
A) he indeed did not have them, or destroyed them,
B) he buried them somewhere, or
C) he moved them to another country or location ie Syria, Iran, etc..
marco , by what standard do you make this assertion? Could you expound on this so that I can understand where you are coming from and give you a coherent response.Bill Clinton in 1998 and John Kerry in 2002 claimed that Saddam had WMD's......did they "lie" as well??? They reviewed the same Intel that Bush had available to him. Did they all lie? Or did they view the Intelligence as very credible, and act accordingly.
marco , by what standard do you make this assertion? Could you expound on this so that I can understand where you are coming from and give you a coherent response.Intelligence gathering is an imperfect science, as are most sciences, but it a fundamental necessity for our national security. To say that a man, any man, lied because he believed "very credible" yet "faulty" intelligence is UNFAIR, to say the least.
marco , by what standard do you make this assertion? Could you expound on this so that I can understand where you are coming from and give you a coherent response.I can't wait to hear the responses to this one !!! LOL.
Marco
PS: Clinton did indeed lie, under oath, and under threat of perjury, about Monica, knowing that he had had an affair with her, but intentionally and willfully lied to mislead the Judge and the Court hearing the Paula Jones Civil case so as to escape the consequences of his actions. To me, it was analagous to Watergate....the cover-up (lying under oath) was worse than the crime (having sex with a bovine in the Oval Office)....but he's from Arkansas, so what do you expect LOL. [Laughing]
marco , by what standard do you make this assertion? Could you expound on this so that I can understand where you are coming from and give you a coherent response.marco-roni-boy,
sorry, let me see if i can be more clear.
i disagree because afg;otnpoi qerup tyopurtq[ni aertpoitw8 q]e4tijw9m].Q[OTU.QIINAIMU iuuniromit eroour[iu rou weuw[uwew tnwyo pgvw[otmsf,mtpyu soooprotyuen weuier wyuwpyiw]td weurto wqritiy[q7t uq r r roytery wtiuqtioi.
& and indeed the point can be made that tnpoi qerup tyopurtq[ni aertpoitw8 q]e4tijw9m].fjmkm iuuniromit eroour[iu rou weuw[uwew tnwyo pgvw[otmsf,mtpyu soooprotyuen weuier wyuwpyiw]td weurto wqritiy[q7t uq r r roytery wtiuqtioi.
& further more tnpoi qerup tyopurtq[ni aertpoitw8 q]e4tijw9myu oif syuku uiikt iuuniromit eroour[iu rou weuw[uwew tnwyo pgvw[otmsf,mtpyu soooprotyuen weuier wyuwpyiw]td weurto wqritiy[q7t uq r r roytery wtiuqtioi.
& if you consider that tnpoi qerup tyopurtq[ni aertpoitw8 q]e4tijw9m]aeuuj op pp rty op'upo7e8 ioe7u iuuniromit eroour[iu rou weuw[uwew tnwyo pgvw[otmsf,mtpyu soooprotyuen weuier wyuwpyiw]td weurto wqritiy[q7t uq r r roytery wtiuqtioi.
& and should that happen tnpoi qerup tyopurtq[ni aertpoitw8 q]e4tijw9m].w4u wrty[om ertubbt9 serpir erpit srtyit rti iuuniromit eroour[iu rou weuw[uwew tnwyo pgvw[otmsf,mtpyu soooprotyuen weuier wyuwpyiw]td weurto wqritiy[q7t uq r r roytery wtiuqtioi.
Hah! lets see what you have to say about that!?
i look forward to your response. gary
sorry, let me see if i can be more clear.
i disagree because afg;otnpoi qerup tyopurtq[ni aertpoitw8 q]e4tijw9m].Q[OTU.QIINAIMU iuuniromit eroour[iu rou weuw[uwew tnwyo pgvw[otmsf,mtpyu soooprotyuen weuier wyuwpyiw]td weurto wqritiy[q7t uq r r roytery wtiuqtioi.
& and indeed the point can be made that tnpoi qerup tyopurtq[ni aertpoitw8 q]e4tijw9m].fjmkm iuuniromit eroour[iu rou weuw[uwew tnwyo pgvw[otmsf,mtpyu soooprotyuen weuier wyuwpyiw]td weurto wqritiy[q7t uq r r roytery wtiuqtioi.
& further more tnpoi qerup tyopurtq[ni aertpoitw8 q]e4tijw9myu oif syuku uiikt iuuniromit eroour[iu rou weuw[uwew tnwyo pgvw[otmsf,mtpyu soooprotyuen weuier wyuwpyiw]td weurto wqritiy[q7t uq r r roytery wtiuqtioi.
& if you consider that tnpoi qerup tyopurtq[ni aertpoitw8 q]e4tijw9m]aeuuj op pp rty op'upo7e8 ioe7u iuuniromit eroour[iu rou weuw[uwew tnwyo pgvw[otmsf,mtpyu soooprotyuen weuier wyuwpyiw]td weurto wqritiy[q7t uq r r roytery wtiuqtioi.
& and should that happen tnpoi qerup tyopurtq[ni aertpoitw8 q]e4tijw9m].w4u wrty[om ertubbt9 serpir erpit srtyit rti iuuniromit eroour[iu rou weuw[uwew tnwyo pgvw[otmsf,mtpyu soooprotyuen weuier wyuwpyiw]td weurto wqritiy[q7t uq r r roytery wtiuqtioi.
Hah! lets see what you have to say about that!?
i look forward to your response. gary
Enough pessimism -- how about the good news
Indeed, what is a lie?
Bush shopped for his intelligence. I remember hearing a lot about State
Department info which contraindicated going to war. Bush and his team
(President Rove) chose to ignore or reject all 'intelligence' that didn't
agree with the predecided decision to go to war.
One of the main pieces of data that they did use to support going to war
came from an Iraqi expat whose testimony had already been rejected by Russia
because he didn't have credibility. But because the Administration liked
what he had to say, they used that information instead of all the other
information available to them.
Bush said that they had proof of WMD, and knew where they were. Why didn't
they direct the search teams to find them and vindicate themselves?
To liken this to your example, your son "A" is at "C"s house. You have to
pick him up. "B" lives 1/2 mile away, "C" lives 10 miles away. So you ask
a bunch of people where "A" is, and 8 people say he is at "C" and 2 people
say he is at "B". Since you like the idea of picking him up at "B", you go
there, then get mad and ground your son when he gets home late because he
had to walk home.
So based on the intelligence that was used, Bush did not lie, but he knew
that he wasn't using complete intelligence. And if Bush didn't know about
all the other intelligence out there, then his staff lied to Bush. Either
way we as the American Public were lied to and 10s of thousands have died.
-Mike
Bush shopped for his intelligence. I remember hearing a lot about State
Department info which contraindicated going to war. Bush and his team
(President Rove) chose to ignore or reject all 'intelligence' that didn't
agree with the predecided decision to go to war.
One of the main pieces of data that they did use to support going to war
came from an Iraqi expat whose testimony had already been rejected by Russia
because he didn't have credibility. But because the Administration liked
what he had to say, they used that information instead of all the other
information available to them.
Bush said that they had proof of WMD, and knew where they were. Why didn't
they direct the search teams to find them and vindicate themselves?
To liken this to your example, your son "A" is at "C"s house. You have to
pick him up. "B" lives 1/2 mile away, "C" lives 10 miles away. So you ask
a bunch of people where "A" is, and 8 people say he is at "C" and 2 people
say he is at "B". Since you like the idea of picking him up at "B", you go
there, then get mad and ground your son when he gets home late because he
had to walk home.
So based on the intelligence that was used, Bush did not lie, but he knew
that he wasn't using complete intelligence. And if Bush didn't know about
all the other intelligence out there, then his staff lied to Bush. Either
way we as the American Public were lied to and 10s of thousands have died.
-Mike
stop it mike! JUST STOP IT will ya please!?
i've just quit hating bush! i've just become a believer!
just quite making it hard for me, pretty, pretty,pretty please, will ya, huh?
now i'm gonna hafta stay up all night concocting these long tortured rationalizations, gosh darn it!
oh....wait..... i almost forgot..... as a believer, i now have access to all these heavy hitter guys who already have this stuff worked out! whoooh! it's so liberating to be a believer!
just give me a few minutes to cut and paste some stuff. hope i don't gag too much while i'm typing. 'wanna regurgitate the stuff faithfully.
i've been losing some weight though lately... having trouble keeping some of this stuff down. but i'm starting to get a taste for my own vomit, thank goodness (i think some of my co-workers think i'm bolemic). i find it easier if i choke it back up quickly...you know as soon as karl (rove-for you non-beliver types, hah, hah) and those guys spit it out to us.
besides, if i don't spit it out to somebody i could gain a lot of weight, don't ya know. but they tell me there's really not a lot of substance to it so i should just swallow it all whole...you know...they say it's easier if you don't stop to chew. i just gotta believe...gotta believe...gotta believe...gotta believe...gotta believe...gotta believe...gotta believe...gotta believe. they like it when i say that
.
get back to you soon, gary
i've just quit hating bush! i've just become a believer!
just quite making it hard for me, pretty, pretty,pretty please, will ya, huh?
now i'm gonna hafta stay up all night concocting these long tortured rationalizations, gosh darn it!
oh....wait..... i almost forgot..... as a believer, i now have access to all these heavy hitter guys who already have this stuff worked out! whoooh! it's so liberating to be a believer!
just give me a few minutes to cut and paste some stuff. hope i don't gag too much while i'm typing. 'wanna regurgitate the stuff faithfully.
i've been losing some weight though lately... having trouble keeping some of this stuff down. but i'm starting to get a taste for my own vomit, thank goodness (i think some of my co-workers think i'm bolemic). i find it easier if i choke it back up quickly...you know as soon as karl (rove-for you non-beliver types, hah, hah) and those guys spit it out to us.
besides, if i don't spit it out to somebody i could gain a lot of weight, don't ya know. but they tell me there's really not a lot of substance to it so i should just swallow it all whole...you know...they say it's easier if you don't stop to chew. i just gotta believe...gotta believe...gotta believe...gotta believe...gotta believe...gotta believe...gotta believe...gotta believe. they like it when i say that
. get back to you soon, gary
Enough pessimism -- how about the good news
Sorry Gary, You are right. Life is much better if you don't have to think
for yourself, and just believe. Believe in what? It doesn't matter. Eggs
and butter are bad for you. Now eggs are good, and margerine is worse than
butter, so go ahead and eat eggs and butter. Obesity is bad for you and
killing lots of people -- the obvious answer is to start smoking because you
will lose weight.
I attended a church service (because of my parents), and the pastor said
that life would be better if we were all Christians, even if we had to
pretend. WOW! He was right! It would be nice. So now then, which
'flavor' of Christianity should we choose? Can't be a difficult choice is
it? As long as you choose my flavor!
Bush does make you feel better when he speaks on TV. He says we are winning
the war in Iraq. He says things are under control in the Gulf. He told me
to go shopping after 9/11. Life is good if you don't have to think!
-Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: deveil [mailto:deveil@earthlink.net]
Sent: Friday, September 02, 2005 4:48 PM
To: ot_forum@chgpa.org
Subject: Enough pessimism -- how about the good news
stop it mike! JUST STOP IT will ya please!?
i've just quit hating bush! i've just become a believer!
just quite making it hard for me, pretty, pretty,pretty please, will ya,
huh?
now i'm gonna hafta stay up all night concocting these long tortured
rationalizations, gosh darn it!
oh....wait..... i almost forgot..... as a believer, i now have access to
all these heavy hitter guys who already have this stuff worked out! whoooh!
it's so liberating to be a believer!
just give me a few minutes to cut and paste some stuff. hope i don't gag
too much while i'm typing. 'wanna regurgitate the stuff faithfully.
i've been losing some weight though lately... having trouble keeping some of
this stuff down. but i'm starting to get a taste for my own vomit, thank
goodness (i think some of my co-workers think i'm bolemic). i find it easier
if i choke it back up quickly...you know as soon as karl (rove-for you
non-beliver types, hah, hah) and those guys spit it out to us.
besides, if i don't spit it out to somebody i could gain a lot of weight,
don't ya know. but they tell me there's really not a lot of substance to it
so i should just swallow it all whole...you know...they say it's easier if
you don't stop to chew. i just gotta believe...gotta believe...gotta
believe...gotta believe...gotta believe...gotta believe...gotta
believe...gotta believe. they like it when i say that.
get back to you soon, gary
for yourself, and just believe. Believe in what? It doesn't matter. Eggs
and butter are bad for you. Now eggs are good, and margerine is worse than
butter, so go ahead and eat eggs and butter. Obesity is bad for you and
killing lots of people -- the obvious answer is to start smoking because you
will lose weight.
I attended a church service (because of my parents), and the pastor said
that life would be better if we were all Christians, even if we had to
pretend. WOW! He was right! It would be nice. So now then, which
'flavor' of Christianity should we choose? Can't be a difficult choice is
it? As long as you choose my flavor!
Bush does make you feel better when he speaks on TV. He says we are winning
the war in Iraq. He says things are under control in the Gulf. He told me
to go shopping after 9/11. Life is good if you don't have to think!
-Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: deveil [mailto:deveil@earthlink.net]
Sent: Friday, September 02, 2005 4:48 PM
To: ot_forum@chgpa.org
Subject: Enough pessimism -- how about the good news
stop it mike! JUST STOP IT will ya please!?
i've just quit hating bush! i've just become a believer!
just quite making it hard for me, pretty, pretty,pretty please, will ya,
huh?
now i'm gonna hafta stay up all night concocting these long tortured
rationalizations, gosh darn it!
oh....wait..... i almost forgot..... as a believer, i now have access to
all these heavy hitter guys who already have this stuff worked out! whoooh!
it's so liberating to be a believer!
just give me a few minutes to cut and paste some stuff. hope i don't gag
too much while i'm typing. 'wanna regurgitate the stuff faithfully.
i've been losing some weight though lately... having trouble keeping some of
this stuff down. but i'm starting to get a taste for my own vomit, thank
goodness (i think some of my co-workers think i'm bolemic). i find it easier
if i choke it back up quickly...you know as soon as karl (rove-for you
non-beliver types, hah, hah) and those guys spit it out to us.
besides, if i don't spit it out to somebody i could gain a lot of weight,
don't ya know. but they tell me there's really not a lot of substance to it
so i should just swallow it all whole...you know...they say it's easier if
you don't stop to chew. i just gotta believe...gotta believe...gotta
believe...gotta believe...gotta believe...gotta believe...gotta
believe...gotta believe. they like it when i say that
. get back to you soon, gary
mike,
"...if you heard me say..."
one of the things that has been muddled (appropriated?) is the idea that if one says they are a 'believer' then the person is 'one with bush'. conversely, if one is a 'believer', how can they not be one with bush? AND if one uses the term 'believe' or 'believer' that one is automatically talking about god, or christianity.
...here's something telling...i read your note and immediately jumped on the keyboard because i thought you might be being broad and indiscriminate and i wanted to make sure that i hadn't been misinterpreted or that what i was saying wasn't being mis(?)appropriated!
i went back to your post to pick those parts that i might want to address specifically only to realize that YOU ACTUALLY WEREN'T 'SLAMMING' PEOPLE OF FAITH but saying something more specific and precise.
certain aspects of the language HAVE been appropriated (inappropriately. and 'coded' and used perjoritively or for exclusion and/or for ...etc...etc. that's part of the game that president karl and those other evil geniuses are so expert at.
to be clear on this one point- i am sincerely happy for anyone who has a faith in something beyond this mortal world. and i have a fear of those who blindly (and even unknowingly!) use such a thing to support their bigotries, agendas and such ('it' is misused in so many ways!) and i have a burning, pure disgust for those who would use such things cynically. unfortunately, quite often it is nearly impossible to tell them apart...anybody for separation of church and state?
it's the blind belief in these worldly things and people and parties and dogma and stuff that we are both talking about.... i believe.
okay, you DO have to stop THIS stuff 'cause this here response has been too HARD! and i've probably misstated something, or been confusing or unclear and then someone will call me on it or accuse me of something. and ALL I REALLY WANT TO DO IS MAKE FUN OF OTHER PEOPLE! it's just so much easier.
"...if you heard me say..."
one of the things that has been muddled (appropriated?) is the idea that if one says they are a 'believer' then the person is 'one with bush'. conversely, if one is a 'believer', how can they not be one with bush? AND if one uses the term 'believe' or 'believer' that one is automatically talking about god, or christianity.
...here's something telling...i read your note and immediately jumped on the keyboard because i thought you might be being broad and indiscriminate and i wanted to make sure that i hadn't been misinterpreted or that what i was saying wasn't being mis(?)appropriated!
i went back to your post to pick those parts that i might want to address specifically only to realize that YOU ACTUALLY WEREN'T 'SLAMMING' PEOPLE OF FAITH but saying something more specific and precise.
certain aspects of the language HAVE been appropriated (inappropriately
. and 'coded' and used perjoritively or for exclusion and/or for ...etc...etc. that's part of the game that president karl and those other evil geniuses are so expert at.to be clear on this one point- i am sincerely happy for anyone who has a faith in something beyond this mortal world. and i have a fear of those who blindly (and even unknowingly!) use such a thing to support their bigotries, agendas and such ('it' is misused in so many ways!) and i have a burning, pure disgust for those who would use such things cynically. unfortunately, quite often it is nearly impossible to tell them apart...anybody for separation of church and state?
it's the blind belief in these worldly things and people and parties and dogma and stuff that we are both talking about.... i believe
. okay, you DO have to stop THIS stuff 'cause this here response has been too HARD! and i've probably misstated something, or been confusing or unclear and then someone will call me on it or accuse me of something. and ALL I REALLY WANT TO DO IS MAKE FUN OF OTHER PEOPLE! it's just so much easier.
Marco,
I just happened to wander over hear so I took a peek. I couldn't stomach more than the first page worth of hate posts. It's good to see someone willing and knowledgable enough to argue the 'other side'. Just don't get discouraged.
Hey, you can be my wire guy any time. Hope you get some good (and Safe) flying soon.
Rance
I just happened to wander over hear so I took a peek. I couldn't stomach more than the first page worth of hate posts. It's good to see someone willing and knowledgable enough to argue the 'other side'. Just don't get discouraged.
Hey, you can be my wire guy any time. Hope you get some good (and Safe) flying soon.
Rance
Here are the 22 reasons Congress authorized the Iraq war
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c ... c107HqeyED::
Passed 77 to 23, including 30 Dem Senators and 47 Repub Senators (see below).
Bill Clinton & many Dems signed the Iraqi Liberation Act in 1998 (Bush was still Texas Governor) , making it official US policy to remove Saddam. Were they "lying" too?
And Bill Clinton's CIA Director, George Tennet (sp?), told President Bush that Saddam's possession of WMD's was a "SLAM DUNK",....which as we all know is not a 100% certainly, but a pretty darn high percentage shot. Was he "lying" to Bush?
UN Resolution 1441 made it incumbent on Saddam to "reveal and account for all programs" and NOT for UN inspectors to find them, otherwise he would be in defiance of UN Resolutions, and subject to serious consequences. Saddam, unlike Quaddafi, wouldn't come clean, and got deposed.
So, did Clinton lie in 1998?
Did the 1998 and 2002 Dem Senators lie?
Did the Clinton CIA Director Lie?
Did the UN Lie?
And did Bush lie?
I would contend, and I'm sure many of you won't agree, that NONE of them lied......or....conversely ALL of them lied.
But to say Bush ALONE lied, but the others didn't, is a disingenuous argument at best, not supported by historical facts.
Also, Bush ordered the invasion in the cooler Spring so as to avoid having to confront Saddam's forces in the 120 degree summer heat.
I hope everyone gets plenty of airtime this weekend with safe launches and landings. Take care,
Marco
Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)
--H.J.Res.114--
One Hundred Seventh Congress of the United States of America
AT THE SECOND SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
the twenty-third day of January, two thousand and two
Joint Resolution
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq .
Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq ;
Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;
Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;
Whereas Iraq , in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;
Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations';
Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;
Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq , including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq ;
Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;
Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;
Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;
Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);
Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677';
Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';
Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;
Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions,' while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable';
Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;
Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and
Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.
SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.
The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq .
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq ; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq .
(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq ; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution , the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution .
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution .
SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.
(a) REPORTS- The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution , including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).
(b) SINGLE CONSOLIDATED REPORT- To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.
(c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- To the extent that the information required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of such resolution .
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Vice President of the United States and
President of the Senate.
Passed 77 to 23, including 30 Dem Senators and 47 Repub Senators (see below).
Bill Clinton & many Dems signed the Iraqi Liberation Act in 1998 (Bush was still Texas Governor) , making it official US policy to remove Saddam. Were they "lying" too?
And Bill Clinton's CIA Director, George Tennet (sp?), told President Bush that Saddam's possession of WMD's was a "SLAM DUNK",....which as we all know is not a 100% certainly, but a pretty darn high percentage shot. Was he "lying" to Bush?
UN Resolution 1441 made it incumbent on Saddam to "reveal and account for all programs" and NOT for UN inspectors to find them, otherwise he would be in defiance of UN Resolutions, and subject to serious consequences. Saddam, unlike Quaddafi, wouldn't come clean, and got deposed.
So, did Clinton lie in 1998?
Did the 1998 and 2002 Dem Senators lie?
Did the Clinton CIA Director Lie?
Did the UN Lie?
And did Bush lie?
I would contend, and I'm sure many of you won't agree, that NONE of them lied......or....conversely ALL of them lied.
But to say Bush ALONE lied, but the others didn't, is a disingenuous argument at best, not supported by historical facts.
Also, Bush ordered the invasion in the cooler Spring so as to avoid having to confront Saddam's forces in the 120 degree summer heat.
I hope everyone gets plenty of airtime this weekend with safe launches and landings. Take care,
Marco
Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)
--H.J.Res.114--
One Hundred Seventh Congress of the United States of America
AT THE SECOND SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
the twenty-third day of January, two thousand and two
Joint Resolution
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq .
Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq ;
Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;
Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;
Whereas Iraq , in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;
Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations';
Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;
Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq , including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq ;
Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;
Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;
Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;
Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);
Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677';
Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';
Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;
Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions,' while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable';
Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;
Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and
Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.
SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.
The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq .
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq ; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq .
(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq ; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution , the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution .
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution .
SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.
(a) REPORTS- The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution , including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).
(b) SINGLE CONSOLIDATED REPORT- To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.
(c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- To the extent that the information required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of such resolution .
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Vice President of the United States and
President of the Senate.
Thanks Rance !
Hey Rance,
I figured that there had to be a few like-minded Conservatives on this forum SOMEWHERE LOL . Thanks for your kind words of support. The first page or so was a bit "angry" but the later posts surely became more productive and collegial, with a nicer exchange of views and opinions.
And don't worry about me getting discouraged, .....I thrive on liberal rants and insults...no problem....that means you are winning the argument LOL.
Take care, and keep checking back,....chime in if you'd like,
Marco
PS: be happy to hold your wire anytime,....and anyone else's for that matter.
I figured that there had to be a few like-minded Conservatives on this forum SOMEWHERE LOL . Thanks for your kind words of support. The first page or so was a bit "angry" but the later posts surely became more productive and collegial, with a nicer exchange of views and opinions.
And don't worry about me getting discouraged, .....I thrive on liberal rants and insults...no problem....that means you are winning the argument LOL.
Take care, and keep checking back,....chime in if you'd like,
Marco
PS: be happy to hold your wire anytime,....and anyone else's for that matter.
"A war to be proud of"
By Christopher Hitchens (a liberal !!!....certainly NOT a conservative chap)
Ok guys and gals, this is your reading assignment for the weekend:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/P ... 5phqjw.asp
the Highlights:
.....a positive accounting could be offered without braggartry, and would include:
(1) The overthrow of Talibanism and Baathism, and the exposure of many highly suggestive links between the two elements of this Hitler-Stalin pact. Abu Musab al Zarqawi, who moved from Afghanistan to Iraq before the coalition intervention, has even gone to the trouble of naming his organization al Qaeda in Mesopotamia.
(2) The subsequent capitulation of Qaddafi's Libya in point of weapons of mass destruction--a capitulation that was offered not to Kofi Annan or the E.U. but to Blair and Bush.
(3) The consequent unmasking of the A.Q. Khan network for the illicit transfer of nuclear technology to Libya, Iran, and North Korea.
(4) The agreement by the United Nations that its own reform is necessary and overdue, and the unmasking of a quasi-criminal network within its elite.
(5) The craven admission by President Chirac and Chancellor Schr?der, when confronted with irrefutable evidence of cheating and concealment, respecting solemn treaties, on the part of Iran, that not even this will alter their commitment to neutralism. (One had already suspected as much in the Iraqi case.)
(6) The ability to certify Iraq as actually disarmed, rather than accept the word of a psychopathic autocrat.
(7) The immense gains made by the largest stateless minority in the region--the Kurds--and the spread of this example to other states.
(8) The related encouragement of democratic and civil society movements in Egypt, Syria, and most notably Lebanon, which has regained a version of its autonomy.
(9) The violent and ignominious death of thousands of bin Ladenist infiltrators into Iraq and Afghanistan, and the real prospect of greatly enlarging this number.
(10) The training and hardening of many thousands of American servicemen and women in a battle against the forces of nihilism and absolutism, which training and hardening will surely be of great use in future combat.
It would be admirable if the president could manage to make such a presentation. It would also be welcome if he and his deputies adopted a clear attitude toward the war within the war: in other words, stated plainly, that the secular and pluralist forces within Afghan and Iraqi society, while they are not our clients, can in no circumstance be allowed to wonder which outcome we favor.
The great point about Blair's 1999 speech was that it asserted the obvious. Coexistence with aggressive regimes or expansionist, theocratic, and totalitarian ideologies is not in fact possible. One should welcome this conclusion for the additional reason that such coexistence is not desirable, either. If the great effort to remake Iraq as a demilitarized federal and secular democracy should fail or be defeated, I shall lose sleep for the rest of my life in reproaching myself for doing too little. But at least I shall have the comfort of not having offered, so far as I can recall, any word or deed that contributed to a defeat.
Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair. His most recent book is Thomas Jefferson: Author of America. A recent essay of his appears in the collection A Matter of Principle: Humanitarian Arguments for War in Iraq, newly published by the University of California Press.
PS: Christy, I couldn't find the article in the Post online that you mentioned. Do you have the link?
Ok guys and gals, this is your reading assignment for the weekend:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/P ... 5phqjw.asp
the Highlights:
.....a positive accounting could be offered without braggartry, and would include:
(1) The overthrow of Talibanism and Baathism, and the exposure of many highly suggestive links between the two elements of this Hitler-Stalin pact. Abu Musab al Zarqawi, who moved from Afghanistan to Iraq before the coalition intervention, has even gone to the trouble of naming his organization al Qaeda in Mesopotamia.
(2) The subsequent capitulation of Qaddafi's Libya in point of weapons of mass destruction--a capitulation that was offered not to Kofi Annan or the E.U. but to Blair and Bush.
(3) The consequent unmasking of the A.Q. Khan network for the illicit transfer of nuclear technology to Libya, Iran, and North Korea.
(4) The agreement by the United Nations that its own reform is necessary and overdue, and the unmasking of a quasi-criminal network within its elite.
(5) The craven admission by President Chirac and Chancellor Schr?der, when confronted with irrefutable evidence of cheating and concealment, respecting solemn treaties, on the part of Iran, that not even this will alter their commitment to neutralism. (One had already suspected as much in the Iraqi case.)
(6) The ability to certify Iraq as actually disarmed, rather than accept the word of a psychopathic autocrat.
(7) The immense gains made by the largest stateless minority in the region--the Kurds--and the spread of this example to other states.
(8) The related encouragement of democratic and civil society movements in Egypt, Syria, and most notably Lebanon, which has regained a version of its autonomy.
(9) The violent and ignominious death of thousands of bin Ladenist infiltrators into Iraq and Afghanistan, and the real prospect of greatly enlarging this number.
(10) The training and hardening of many thousands of American servicemen and women in a battle against the forces of nihilism and absolutism, which training and hardening will surely be of great use in future combat.
It would be admirable if the president could manage to make such a presentation. It would also be welcome if he and his deputies adopted a clear attitude toward the war within the war: in other words, stated plainly, that the secular and pluralist forces within Afghan and Iraqi society, while they are not our clients, can in no circumstance be allowed to wonder which outcome we favor.
The great point about Blair's 1999 speech was that it asserted the obvious. Coexistence with aggressive regimes or expansionist, theocratic, and totalitarian ideologies is not in fact possible. One should welcome this conclusion for the additional reason that such coexistence is not desirable, either. If the great effort to remake Iraq as a demilitarized federal and secular democracy should fail or be defeated, I shall lose sleep for the rest of my life in reproaching myself for doing too little. But at least I shall have the comfort of not having offered, so far as I can recall, any word or deed that contributed to a defeat.
Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair. His most recent book is Thomas Jefferson: Author of America. A recent essay of his appears in the collection A Matter of Principle: Humanitarian Arguments for War in Iraq, newly published by the University of California Press.
PS: Christy, I couldn't find the article in the Post online that you mentioned. Do you have the link?
Enough pessimism -- how about the good news
Clinton was asked by the lawyer (on the other side) if
he had had sexual relations. Clinton asked twice what
his definition of sexual relations was, because his
'relationship' with Monica, being rather one-sided,
didn't fit the definition given by the lawyer. The
lawyer responded that the original definition was
correct and Clinton continued to say he had not had
sexual relations with Monica. So, maybe Clinton wasn't
even lying, but in any case, last I saw not one person
had died as a result of his relationship (whatever
kind it was) with Monica. Bush, on the other hand, had
no problem misleading the public into thinking there
was connection, got them riled enough to where they
thought we needed to go into Iraq to keep from having
more 9/11 events, resulting in thousands of deaths.
Bottom line is Bush caused way more deaths than
Clinton. Too bad so many people have been suckered
into thinking he's doing good work.
Christy
--- Marco Zee <marcoz757@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Christy
>
> Hmmmm....what is a LIE???
>
> Is it a lie to assert something you sincerely
> believe to be true at the time based on the best,
> currently available evidence (human and nonhuman
> intelligence), but which later turns out to be
> erroneous, or partially erroneous, or unsupported by
> facts at a later date?
>
> I would say that it would NOT be a lie, but a
> truthful statement based on imperfect information.
> Here's a simple example, my wife arrives home and
> asks me where our Son "A" is.......I tell her he is
> at friend B's house, which is where he told me he
> was going...but in fact...he left B's house and went
> to friend C's house without permission or
> notification. So did I "lie" to my wife because my
> son was at C's house instead of B's house???? Or
> did I speak truthfully based on the best available
> information I had at the time???? (assume that I
> called every neighbor, and all of them saw him walk
> into friend B's house; but he slipped out the back
> of B's house and snuck over to C's house unnoticed
> by anybody)
>
> A lie is when you know what the truth is, but
> deliberately state a falsehood so as to
> intentionally and willfully mislead others.
>
> I would contend that Bush did NOT lie, as he was
> acting on the best, most current Intelligence
> available to him from U.S. as well as many other
> Intelligence services ( British, German, Israeli,
> Russian, French, etc..) who ALL believed that Saddam
> had WMD's at the time. The fact that WMD stockpiles
> were not found, yet, means that
> A) he indeed did not have them, or destroyed them,
> B) he buried them somewhere, or
> C) he moved them to another country or location ie
> Syria, Iran, etc..
>
> Bill Clinton in 1998 and John Kerry in 2002 claimed
> that Saddam had WMD's......did they "lie" as well???
> They reviewed the same Intel that Bush had
> available to him. Did they all lie? Or did they
> view the Intelligence as very credible, and act
> accordingly.
>
> Intelligence gathering is an imperfect science, as
> are most sciences, but it a fundamental necessity
> for our national security. To say that a man, any
> man, lied because he believed "very credible" yet
> "faulty" intelligence is UNFAIR, to say the least.
>
> I can't wait to hear the responses to this one !!!
> LOL.
>
> Marco
>
> PS: Clinton did indeed lie, under oath, and under
> threat of perjury, about Monica, knowing that he had
> had an affair with her, but intentionally and
> willfully lied to mislead the Judge and the Court
> hearing the Paula Jones Civil case so as to escape
> the consequences of his actions. To me, it was
> analagous to Watergate....the cover-up (lying under
> oath) was worse than the crime (having sex with a
> bovine in the Oval Office)....but he's from
> Arkansas, so what do you expect LOL. [Laughing]
>
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
he had had sexual relations. Clinton asked twice what
his definition of sexual relations was, because his
'relationship' with Monica, being rather one-sided,
didn't fit the definition given by the lawyer. The
lawyer responded that the original definition was
correct and Clinton continued to say he had not had
sexual relations with Monica. So, maybe Clinton wasn't
even lying, but in any case, last I saw not one person
had died as a result of his relationship (whatever
kind it was) with Monica. Bush, on the other hand, had
no problem misleading the public into thinking there
was connection, got them riled enough to where they
thought we needed to go into Iraq to keep from having
more 9/11 events, resulting in thousands of deaths.
Bottom line is Bush caused way more deaths than
Clinton. Too bad so many people have been suckered
into thinking he's doing good work.
Christy
--- Marco Zee <marcoz757@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Christy
>
> Hmmmm....what is a LIE???
>
> Is it a lie to assert something you sincerely
> believe to be true at the time based on the best,
> currently available evidence (human and nonhuman
> intelligence), but which later turns out to be
> erroneous, or partially erroneous, or unsupported by
> facts at a later date?
>
> I would say that it would NOT be a lie, but a
> truthful statement based on imperfect information.
> Here's a simple example, my wife arrives home and
> asks me where our Son "A" is.......I tell her he is
> at friend B's house, which is where he told me he
> was going...but in fact...he left B's house and went
> to friend C's house without permission or
> notification. So did I "lie" to my wife because my
> son was at C's house instead of B's house???? Or
> did I speak truthfully based on the best available
> information I had at the time???? (assume that I
> called every neighbor, and all of them saw him walk
> into friend B's house; but he slipped out the back
> of B's house and snuck over to C's house unnoticed
> by anybody)
>
> A lie is when you know what the truth is, but
> deliberately state a falsehood so as to
> intentionally and willfully mislead others.
>
> I would contend that Bush did NOT lie, as he was
> acting on the best, most current Intelligence
> available to him from U.S. as well as many other
> Intelligence services ( British, German, Israeli,
> Russian, French, etc..) who ALL believed that Saddam
> had WMD's at the time. The fact that WMD stockpiles
> were not found, yet, means that
> A) he indeed did not have them, or destroyed them,
> B) he buried them somewhere, or
> C) he moved them to another country or location ie
> Syria, Iran, etc..
>
> Bill Clinton in 1998 and John Kerry in 2002 claimed
> that Saddam had WMD's......did they "lie" as well???
> They reviewed the same Intel that Bush had
> available to him. Did they all lie? Or did they
> view the Intelligence as very credible, and act
> accordingly.
>
> Intelligence gathering is an imperfect science, as
> are most sciences, but it a fundamental necessity
> for our national security. To say that a man, any
> man, lied because he believed "very credible" yet
> "faulty" intelligence is UNFAIR, to say the least.
>
> I can't wait to hear the responses to this one !!!
> LOL.
>
> Marco
>
> PS: Clinton did indeed lie, under oath, and under
> threat of perjury, about Monica, knowing that he had
> had an affair with her, but intentionally and
> willfully lied to mislead the Judge and the Court
> hearing the Paula Jones Civil case so as to escape
> the consequences of his actions. To me, it was
> analagous to Watergate....the cover-up (lying under
> oath) was worse than the crime (having sex with a
> bovine in the Oval Office)....but he's from
> Arkansas, so what do you expect LOL. [Laughing]
>
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Enough pessimism -- how about the good news
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%2 ... secular+de
mocracy%22
To paraphrase, "I don't cut 'n paste.'
Move along now.
Nothing to see here.
There's been no cutting 'n pasting.
Calling Dr. Howard, Dr. Fine. Dr. Howard, Dr. Fine.
-----Original Message-----
From: Marco Zee [mailto:marcoz757@aol.com]
Sent: Friday, September 02, 2005 09:51 p.m.
To: ot_forum@chgpa.org
Subject: Enough pessimism -- how about the good news
By Christopher Hitchens (a liberal !!!....certainly NOT a conservative chap)
Ok guys and gals, this is your reading assignment for the weekend:
The great point about Blair's 1999 speech was that it asserted the obvious.
Coexistence with aggressive regimes or expansionist, theocratic, and
totalitarian ideologies is not in fact possible. One should welcome this
conclusion for the additional reason that such coexistence is not desirable,
either. If the great effort to remake Iraq as a demilitarized federal and
secular democracy should fail or be defeated, I shall lose sleep for the
rest of my life in reproaching myself for doing too little. But at least I
shall have the comfort of not having offered, so far as I can recall, any
word or deed that contributed to a defeat.
Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair. His most recent book is
Thomas Jefferson: Author of America. A recent essay of his appears in the
collection A Matter of Principle: Humanitarian Arguments for War in Iraq,
newly published by the University of California Press.
PS: Christy, I couldn't find the article in the Post online that you
mentioned. Do you have the link?
mocracy%22
To paraphrase, "I don't cut 'n paste.'
Move along now.
Nothing to see here.
There's been no cutting 'n pasting.
Calling Dr. Howard, Dr. Fine. Dr. Howard, Dr. Fine.
-----Original Message-----
From: Marco Zee [mailto:marcoz757@aol.com]
Sent: Friday, September 02, 2005 09:51 p.m.
To: ot_forum@chgpa.org
Subject: Enough pessimism -- how about the good news
By Christopher Hitchens (a liberal !!!....certainly NOT a conservative chap)
Ok guys and gals, this is your reading assignment for the weekend:
The great point about Blair's 1999 speech was that it asserted the obvious.
Coexistence with aggressive regimes or expansionist, theocratic, and
totalitarian ideologies is not in fact possible. One should welcome this
conclusion for the additional reason that such coexistence is not desirable,
either. If the great effort to remake Iraq as a demilitarized federal and
secular democracy should fail or be defeated, I shall lose sleep for the
rest of my life in reproaching myself for doing too little. But at least I
shall have the comfort of not having offered, so far as I can recall, any
word or deed that contributed to a defeat.
Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair. His most recent book is
Thomas Jefferson: Author of America. A recent essay of his appears in the
collection A Matter of Principle: Humanitarian Arguments for War in Iraq,
newly published by the University of California Press.
PS: Christy, I couldn't find the article in the Post online that you
mentioned. Do you have the link?
-
Flying Lobster
- Posts: 1042
- Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 4:17 pm
OK Marco--you've made your points.
Bush has nothing to do with the war in Iraq--Congress and the UN made him do it. His advisors, acting under the influence of Clinton-controlled programmers, egged Bush on to invade Iraq. Although we're there now, by golly those WMDs and nukes are still there somewhere--its just a matter of invading the next country to find where they are hidden. In other words--"I didn't do it--so I'm not responsible for what happens."
In the end we can argue forever about the hows and whys. But the real issue is what the results are and is it worth continuing down the same ruinous path.
To sum it up, you maintain that staying in Iraq is the right thing to do, even if it means continued death and destruction with no descernable lessening of the terrorist threat. Strange how often you use "lots of laughs" in referrence to these issues.
Interesting to see that the mississippi delta region knew in advance that a Katrina-like distaster was a high probability, so much so that they succeeded in getting a program going for improved flood control and wetland reclamation. Bush subsequently slashed the budgets of these programs. Must have been a Clinton advisor somewhere that made him do it.
marc
Bush has nothing to do with the war in Iraq--Congress and the UN made him do it. His advisors, acting under the influence of Clinton-controlled programmers, egged Bush on to invade Iraq. Although we're there now, by golly those WMDs and nukes are still there somewhere--its just a matter of invading the next country to find where they are hidden. In other words--"I didn't do it--so I'm not responsible for what happens."
In the end we can argue forever about the hows and whys. But the real issue is what the results are and is it worth continuing down the same ruinous path.
To sum it up, you maintain that staying in Iraq is the right thing to do, even if it means continued death and destruction with no descernable lessening of the terrorist threat. Strange how often you use "lots of laughs" in referrence to these issues.
Interesting to see that the mississippi delta region knew in advance that a Katrina-like distaster was a high probability, so much so that they succeeded in getting a program going for improved flood control and wetland reclamation. Bush subsequently slashed the budgets of these programs. Must have been a Clinton advisor somewhere that made him do it.
marc
Great Googly-moo!
Enough pessimism -- how about the good news
Come on in, Rance, the kitchen's warm and cozy. I don't hate
anyone. You guys started trashing Clinton, so now we're trashing
Bush. Turnabout's fair play. I agree that Marco has raised the
level of discourse and we liberals (and proud of it!) are going to
have to remember how to stop fulminating and marshal our thoughts.
If we just stay in our own party-line echo-chambers, we'll never have
real dialogue and find common ground. The enemies are the
fundamentalist terrorists of all religions (Hasidic Jew, Hindu,
evangelical Christian, secular enviro/PETA-terrorist and, yes,
radical Muslim) and not reasonable people of good will who have
differences of opinion on political matters. That's what politics
is: a peaceful substitute for civil war. Embrace it. - Hugh
- Hugh
On 2 Sep 2005, at 21:02, rancerupp wrote:
>
> Marco,
>
> I just happened to wander over hear so I took a peek. I couldn't
> stomach more than the first page worth of hate posts. It's good to
> see someone willing and knowledgable enough to argue the 'other
> side'. Just don't get discouraged.
>
> Hey, you can be my wire guy any time. Hope you get some good (and
> Safe) flying soon.
>
> Rance
>
anyone. You guys started trashing Clinton, so now we're trashing
Bush. Turnabout's fair play. I agree that Marco has raised the
level of discourse and we liberals (and proud of it!) are going to
have to remember how to stop fulminating and marshal our thoughts.
If we just stay in our own party-line echo-chambers, we'll never have
real dialogue and find common ground. The enemies are the
fundamentalist terrorists of all religions (Hasidic Jew, Hindu,
evangelical Christian, secular enviro/PETA-terrorist and, yes,
radical Muslim) and not reasonable people of good will who have
differences of opinion on political matters. That's what politics
is: a peaceful substitute for civil war. Embrace it. - Hugh
- Hugh
On 2 Sep 2005, at 21:02, rancerupp wrote:
>
> Marco,
>
> I just happened to wander over hear so I took a peek. I couldn't
> stomach more than the first page worth of hate posts. It's good to
> see someone willing and knowledgable enough to argue the 'other
> side'. Just don't get discouraged.
>
> Hey, you can be my wire guy any time. Hope you get some good (and
> Safe) flying soon.
>
> Rance
>
Re: Enough pessimism -- how about the good news
and i promise, i'm gone...really! , gary
[quote="mcelrah"]Come on in, Rance, the kitchen's warm and cozy. I don't hate
anyone. You guys started trashing Clinton, so now we're trashing
Bush. Turnabout's fair play. I agree that Marco has raised the
level of discourse and we liberals (and proud of it!) are going to
have to remember how to stop fulminating and marshal our thoughts.
If we just stay in our own party-line echo-chambers, we'll never have
real dialogue and find common ground. The enemies are the
fundamentalist terrorists of all religions (Hasidic Jew, Hindu,
evangelical Christian, secular enviro/PETA-terrorist and, yes,
radical Muslim) and not reasonable people of good will who have
differences of opinion on political matters. That's what politics
is: a peaceful substitute for civil war. Embrace it. - Hugh
- Hugh
[quote="mcelrah"]Come on in, Rance, the kitchen's warm and cozy. I don't hate
anyone. You guys started trashing Clinton, so now we're trashing
Bush. Turnabout's fair play. I agree that Marco has raised the
level of discourse and we liberals (and proud of it!) are going to
have to remember how to stop fulminating and marshal our thoughts.
If we just stay in our own party-line echo-chambers, we'll never have
real dialogue and find common ground. The enemies are the
fundamentalist terrorists of all religions (Hasidic Jew, Hindu,
evangelical Christian, secular enviro/PETA-terrorist and, yes,
radical Muslim) and not reasonable people of good will who have
differences of opinion on political matters. That's what politics
is: a peaceful substitute for civil war. Embrace it. - Hugh
- Hugh
Enough pessimism -- how about the good news
In March of 2003, the run-up to Operation Iraqi Freedom, I got a
briefing from the CIA Iraqi WMD shop - crude drawings of the "mobile
labs" and all. (I'm not a VIP - don't work this area - I was in a
training course.) Now, I may not be the world's greatest analyst,
but it will betray no secrets to say that at the end of the pitch, my
hand shot up in the air: "What if we get into Iraq and we don't find
any WMD?" The guy got a stunned look and said, "That would be bad!"
My point is that the evidence was never that strong or convincing to
even the casual observer. Scooter Libby and the other neocons
"cooked" the intelligence. Powell's UN speech was only staffed to
the intel community with minimal time to correct errors and "slant" -
the intel weenies were also working hard to edit the speech to
protect sources and methods. It was a POLICY speech, not an
intelligence briefing, although it used a lot of intel. I think
George Tenet lost his soul as the senior intelligence officer when he
became too cozy with the political side, acting like a junior
Secretary of State (remember negotiating with the Palestinians?).
The policy guys never like to see us coming - we always tell them why
their plan won't work, that their baby is ugly, that the evidence
doesn't support their pet theory. It will always be so and intel
officers have to have the intestinal fortitude to speak truth to
power. If not, they lose their integrity. - Hugh
On 1 Sep 2005, at 21:38, Marco Zee wrote:
>
> Christy
>
> Hmmmm....what is a LIE???
>
> Is it a lie to assert something you sincerely believe to be true at
> the time based on the best, currently available evidence (human and
> nonhuman intelligence), but which later turns out to be erroneous,
> or partially erroneous, or unsupported by facts at a later date?
>
> I would say that it would NOT be a lie, but a truthful statement
> based on imperfect information. Here's a simple example, my wife
> arrives home and asks me where our Son "A" is.......I tell her he
> is at friend B's house, which is where he told me he was
> going...but in fact...he left B's house and went to friend C's
> house without permission or notification. So did I "lie" to my
> wife because my son was at C's house instead of B's house???? Or
> did I speak truthfully based on the best available information I
> had at the time???? (assume that I called every neighbor, and all
> of them saw him walk into friend B's house; but he slipped out the
> back of B's house and snuck over to C's house unnoticed by anybody)
>
> A lie is when you know what the truth is, but deliberately state a
> falsehood so as to intentionally and willfully mislead others.
>
> I would contend that Bush did NOT lie, as he was acting on the
> best, most current Intelligence available to him from U.S. as well
> as many other Intelligence services ( British, German, Israeli,
> Russian, French, etc..) who ALL believed that Saddam had WMD's at
> the time. The fact that WMD stockpiles were not found, yet, means
> that
> A) he indeed did not have them, or destroyed them,
> B) he buried them somewhere, or
> C) he moved them to another country or location ie Syria, Iran, etc..
>
> Bill Clinton in 1998 and John Kerry in 2002 claimed that Saddam had
> WMD's......did they "lie" as well??? They reviewed the same Intel
> that Bush had available to him. Did they all lie? Or did they
> view the Intelligence as very credible, and act accordingly.
>
> Intelligence gathering is an imperfect science, as are most
> sciences, but it a fundamental necessity for our national
> security. To say that a man, any man, lied because he believed
> "very credible" yet "faulty" intelligence is UNFAIR, to say the least.
>
> I can't wait to hear the responses to this one !!! LOL.
>
> Marco
>
> PS: Clinton did indeed lie, under oath, and under threat of
> perjury, about Monica, knowing that he had had an affair with her,
> but intentionally and willfully lied to mislead the Judge and the
> Court hearing the Paula Jones Civil case so as to escape the
> consequences of his actions. To me, it was analagous to
> Watergate....the cover-up (lying under oath) was worse than the
> crime (having sex with a bovine in the Oval Office)....but he's
> from Arkansas, so what do you expect LOL. [Laughing]
>
briefing from the CIA Iraqi WMD shop - crude drawings of the "mobile
labs" and all. (I'm not a VIP - don't work this area - I was in a
training course.) Now, I may not be the world's greatest analyst,
but it will betray no secrets to say that at the end of the pitch, my
hand shot up in the air: "What if we get into Iraq and we don't find
any WMD?" The guy got a stunned look and said, "That would be bad!"
My point is that the evidence was never that strong or convincing to
even the casual observer. Scooter Libby and the other neocons
"cooked" the intelligence. Powell's UN speech was only staffed to
the intel community with minimal time to correct errors and "slant" -
the intel weenies were also working hard to edit the speech to
protect sources and methods. It was a POLICY speech, not an
intelligence briefing, although it used a lot of intel. I think
George Tenet lost his soul as the senior intelligence officer when he
became too cozy with the political side, acting like a junior
Secretary of State (remember negotiating with the Palestinians?).
The policy guys never like to see us coming - we always tell them why
their plan won't work, that their baby is ugly, that the evidence
doesn't support their pet theory. It will always be so and intel
officers have to have the intestinal fortitude to speak truth to
power. If not, they lose their integrity. - Hugh
On 1 Sep 2005, at 21:38, Marco Zee wrote:
>
> Christy
>
> Hmmmm....what is a LIE???
>
> Is it a lie to assert something you sincerely believe to be true at
> the time based on the best, currently available evidence (human and
> nonhuman intelligence), but which later turns out to be erroneous,
> or partially erroneous, or unsupported by facts at a later date?
>
> I would say that it would NOT be a lie, but a truthful statement
> based on imperfect information. Here's a simple example, my wife
> arrives home and asks me where our Son "A" is.......I tell her he
> is at friend B's house, which is where he told me he was
> going...but in fact...he left B's house and went to friend C's
> house without permission or notification. So did I "lie" to my
> wife because my son was at C's house instead of B's house???? Or
> did I speak truthfully based on the best available information I
> had at the time???? (assume that I called every neighbor, and all
> of them saw him walk into friend B's house; but he slipped out the
> back of B's house and snuck over to C's house unnoticed by anybody)
>
> A lie is when you know what the truth is, but deliberately state a
> falsehood so as to intentionally and willfully mislead others.
>
> I would contend that Bush did NOT lie, as he was acting on the
> best, most current Intelligence available to him from U.S. as well
> as many other Intelligence services ( British, German, Israeli,
> Russian, French, etc..) who ALL believed that Saddam had WMD's at
> the time. The fact that WMD stockpiles were not found, yet, means
> that
> A) he indeed did not have them, or destroyed them,
> B) he buried them somewhere, or
> C) he moved them to another country or location ie Syria, Iran, etc..
>
> Bill Clinton in 1998 and John Kerry in 2002 claimed that Saddam had
> WMD's......did they "lie" as well??? They reviewed the same Intel
> that Bush had available to him. Did they all lie? Or did they
> view the Intelligence as very credible, and act accordingly.
>
> Intelligence gathering is an imperfect science, as are most
> sciences, but it a fundamental necessity for our national
> security. To say that a man, any man, lied because he believed
> "very credible" yet "faulty" intelligence is UNFAIR, to say the least.
>
> I can't wait to hear the responses to this one !!! LOL.
>
> Marco
>
> PS: Clinton did indeed lie, under oath, and under threat of
> perjury, about Monica, knowing that he had had an affair with her,
> but intentionally and willfully lied to mislead the Judge and the
> Court hearing the Paula Jones Civil case so as to escape the
> consequences of his actions. To me, it was analagous to
> Watergate....the cover-up (lying under oath) was worse than the
> crime (having sex with a bovine in the Oval Office)....but he's
> from Arkansas, so what do you expect LOL. [Laughing]
>
Enough pessimism -- how about the good news
Hitchens is a turncoat, not a liberal. I invite him to enlist for
hardening. All of these "benefits" (some highly questionable) could
have been achieved - better - with a realistic plan for the morning
after victory. This president is incapable of articulating the
reasons for war in a believable way - Tony Blair has to carry that
water for him. It's a severe disability when a president is such a
poor communicator. - Hugh
On 2 Sep 2005, at 21:51, Marco Zee wrote:
>
> By Christopher Hitchens (a liberal !!!....certainly NOT a
> conservative chap)
>
> Ok guys and gals, this is your reading assignment for the weekend:
>
> http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/
> 000/000/005/995phqjw.asp
>
> the Highlights:
>
> .....a positive accounting could be offered without braggartry, and
> would include:
>
> (1) The overthrow of Talibanism and Baathism, and the exposure of
> many highly suggestive links between the two elements of this
> Hitler-Stalin pact. Abu Musab al Zarqawi, who moved from
> Afghanistan to Iraq before the coalition intervention, has even
> gone to the trouble of naming his organization al Qaeda in
> Mesopotamia.
>
> (2) The subsequent capitulation of Qaddafi's Libya in point of
> weapons of mass destruction--a capitulation that was offered not to
> Kofi Annan or the E.U. but to Blair and Bush.
>
> (3) The consequent unmasking of the A.Q. Khan network for the
> illicit transfer of nuclear technology to Libya, Iran, and North
> Korea.
>
> (4) The agreement by the United Nations that its own reform is
> necessary and overdue, and the unmasking of a quasi-criminal
> network within its elite.
>
> (5) The craven admission by President Chirac and Chancellor
> Schr?der, when confronted with irrefutable evidence of cheating and
> concealment, respecting solemn treaties, on the part of Iran, that
> not even this will alter their commitment to neutralism. (One had
> already suspected as much in the Iraqi case.)
>
> (6) The ability to certify Iraq as actually disarmed, rather than
> accept the word of a psychopathic autocrat.
>
> (7) The immense gains made by the largest stateless minority in the
> region--the Kurds--and the spread of this example to other states.
>
> (8) The related encouragement of democratic and civil society
> movements in Egypt, Syria, and most notably Lebanon, which has
> regained a version of its autonomy.
>
> (9) The violent and ignominious death of thousands of bin Ladenist
> infiltrators into Iraq and Afghanistan, and the real prospect of
> greatly enlarging this number.
>
> (10) The training and hardening of many thousands of American
> servicemen and women in a battle against the forces of nihilism and
> absolutism, which training and hardening will surely be of great
> use in future combat.
>
> It would be admirable if the president could manage to make such a
> presentation. It would also be welcome if he and his deputies
> adopted a clear attitude toward the war within the war: in other
> words, stated plainly, that the secular and pluralist forces within
> Afghan and Iraqi society, while they are not our clients, can in no
> circumstance be allowed to wonder which outcome we favor.
>
> The great point about Blair's 1999 speech was that it asserted the
> obvious. Coexistence with aggressive regimes or expansionist,
> theocratic, and totalitarian ideologies is not in fact possible.
> One should welcome this conclusion for the additional reason that
> such coexistence is not desirable, either. If the great effort to
> remake Iraq as a demilitarized federal and secular democracy should
> fail or be defeated, I shall lose sleep for the rest of my life in
> reproaching myself for doing too little. But at least I shall have
> the comfort of not having offered, so far as I can recall, any word
> or deed that contributed to a defeat.
>
> Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair. His most
> recent book is Thomas Jefferson: Author of America. A recent essay
> of his appears in the collection A Matter of Principle:
> Humanitarian Arguments for War in Iraq, newly published by the
> University of California Press.
>
>
> PS: Christy, I couldn't find the article in the Post online that
> you mentioned. Do you have the link?
>
hardening. All of these "benefits" (some highly questionable) could
have been achieved - better - with a realistic plan for the morning
after victory. This president is incapable of articulating the
reasons for war in a believable way - Tony Blair has to carry that
water for him. It's a severe disability when a president is such a
poor communicator. - Hugh
On 2 Sep 2005, at 21:51, Marco Zee wrote:
>
> By Christopher Hitchens (a liberal !!!....certainly NOT a
> conservative chap)
>
> Ok guys and gals, this is your reading assignment for the weekend:
>
> http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/
> 000/000/005/995phqjw.asp
>
> the Highlights:
>
> .....a positive accounting could be offered without braggartry, and
> would include:
>
> (1) The overthrow of Talibanism and Baathism, and the exposure of
> many highly suggestive links between the two elements of this
> Hitler-Stalin pact. Abu Musab al Zarqawi, who moved from
> Afghanistan to Iraq before the coalition intervention, has even
> gone to the trouble of naming his organization al Qaeda in
> Mesopotamia.
>
> (2) The subsequent capitulation of Qaddafi's Libya in point of
> weapons of mass destruction--a capitulation that was offered not to
> Kofi Annan or the E.U. but to Blair and Bush.
>
> (3) The consequent unmasking of the A.Q. Khan network for the
> illicit transfer of nuclear technology to Libya, Iran, and North
> Korea.
>
> (4) The agreement by the United Nations that its own reform is
> necessary and overdue, and the unmasking of a quasi-criminal
> network within its elite.
>
> (5) The craven admission by President Chirac and Chancellor
> Schr?der, when confronted with irrefutable evidence of cheating and
> concealment, respecting solemn treaties, on the part of Iran, that
> not even this will alter their commitment to neutralism. (One had
> already suspected as much in the Iraqi case.)
>
> (6) The ability to certify Iraq as actually disarmed, rather than
> accept the word of a psychopathic autocrat.
>
> (7) The immense gains made by the largest stateless minority in the
> region--the Kurds--and the spread of this example to other states.
>
> (8) The related encouragement of democratic and civil society
> movements in Egypt, Syria, and most notably Lebanon, which has
> regained a version of its autonomy.
>
> (9) The violent and ignominious death of thousands of bin Ladenist
> infiltrators into Iraq and Afghanistan, and the real prospect of
> greatly enlarging this number.
>
> (10) The training and hardening of many thousands of American
> servicemen and women in a battle against the forces of nihilism and
> absolutism, which training and hardening will surely be of great
> use in future combat.
>
> It would be admirable if the president could manage to make such a
> presentation. It would also be welcome if he and his deputies
> adopted a clear attitude toward the war within the war: in other
> words, stated plainly, that the secular and pluralist forces within
> Afghan and Iraqi society, while they are not our clients, can in no
> circumstance be allowed to wonder which outcome we favor.
>
> The great point about Blair's 1999 speech was that it asserted the
> obvious. Coexistence with aggressive regimes or expansionist,
> theocratic, and totalitarian ideologies is not in fact possible.
> One should welcome this conclusion for the additional reason that
> such coexistence is not desirable, either. If the great effort to
> remake Iraq as a demilitarized federal and secular democracy should
> fail or be defeated, I shall lose sleep for the rest of my life in
> reproaching myself for doing too little. But at least I shall have
> the comfort of not having offered, so far as I can recall, any word
> or deed that contributed to a defeat.
>
> Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair. His most
> recent book is Thomas Jefferson: Author of America. A recent essay
> of his appears in the collection A Matter of Principle:
> Humanitarian Arguments for War in Iraq, newly published by the
> University of California Press.
>
>
> PS: Christy, I couldn't find the article in the Post online that
> you mentioned. Do you have the link?
>