Real World Event Discussions
Iraqi WMD's non-existence still confounding some buggers!
POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Friday, September 14, 2007 17:16
VIEWED: 19028
PAGE 24 of 27
Thursday, September 13, 2007 1:17 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
BTW, Wilson's trip to Africa was about yellowcake, not about CBW.
So Saddam had Chemical and Biological WMDs, just not yellowcake...
Quote:
The Kerry quote "Saddam Hussein has brought military action upon himself ..." had nothing to do with WMD.
Yeah...it turns out that back in 2003, before folk started running for elections and such, that even the most anti-war and hard core liberals ackowledged the President's multiple valid arguments for war which included, among MANY other things, his failure to account for his WMD program.
I understand...in 2003 the war was popular, Kerry was required to support it (his only core values involve being an elected official, so he goes with the polls). If the war was popular now I guarrantee that Kerry and Hillary Clinton would support it (she'd have some stump speech about her supporting the war from the very begining)...Edwards probably not, and Obama would be somewhere in between.
Quote:
Unfortunately I couldn't find the entire text for the next Kerry quote "Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein ..."
I think it comes from a Senate speech, I'll go back and look for it. Also I would note that just over 80% of the American people would like to see the Congress shipped to permanantly to Iraq part and parcel and be done with them altogether...because they learned the hard lesson that Democrats just make things worse. And 70% of all Iraqis think 1/3 of all pollsters make up 99% of a majority of 80% of the polls taken in the lower 2/3 of the country.
Quote:
He spent so much time and effort repeatedly pointing out that he didn't know one way or the other whether there were WMD, but that his team was there to find out. Then to have some jackass like 'hero' reinterpret his words 180 from his original meaning.
My point was the same as yours. Blix had a mission, to find or account for Iraq's WMD program. He was prevented from doing so by what he and the rest of the un-bribed world considered to be a deliberate effort by Saddam to conceal the truth (which seems now to be an effort to hide his impotence), and not forgetting the four years or so he and his team were prevented from even going to Iraq from 1998-2002.
Blix's statement, that I quoted, reflects the danger of unaccounted for munitions, in this instance 1,000 tons of VX nerve gas (make for a great plot on 24...wait, they did the 'secret nerve gas plot' already).
President Bush's concern was that somehow some of these weapons would secretly be provided to terrorist for use against American targets while providing the source nation with deniability. Hence it was not sufficient to simply not "know one way or the other", not after 9/11.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thursday, September 13, 2007 1:29 PM
Quote:I assume.
Originally posted by leadb:
I will agree he is capable of taking positions and sticking to them, despite possibly horrific outcomes. And these may be principles. Do you feel honesty and forthrightness are two principles that Bush holds?
Quote:I don’t know what you mean “principled in a more generally accepted fashion.” Principled means exhibiting habitual devotion to standards of correctness, truth or good behavior. That’s the fashion in which I use it.
Originally posted by leadb:
In general, if you feel he has 'become' principled in a more generally accepted fashion, at what time do you believe his 'conversion' occurred?
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thursday, September 13, 2007 2:21 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
Do you feel honesty and forthrightness are two principles that Bush holds?
Yes. Another of Bush's principals is a strong commitment to winning the war on terror. I note for the record that being forthright and honost in time of war is not always a good thing.
For example in June of 1944 the US could have been upfront with Hitler about when and where and how our invasion of France would occur. Instead we chose to lie and create a phantom army around General Patton...a massive deception of the Germans into thinking that the main attack would come elsewhere. At the same time we completely failed to invite Nazi scientists to observe and report our efforts to create the first atomic bomb and then we went so far as to conceal the program from the American people. Shocking (Ike, Roosevelt, George C. Scott should all be ashamed). I note for the record that Winston Churchill spent the better part of the 1930s telling the truth for all to hear and it didn't really get the message across.
Since Bush spent about nine months of his Presidency at peace and then six years at war, I understand the common misconception that the President has been dishonost. Its all relative, I suggest that the President has been as honost as he can be given the totality of the circumstances. He'll be honost again tonight when he addresses the nation...mostly and thats a good thing.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thursday, September 13, 2007 2:27 PM
Quote:Hero, we're surrounded by extraneous information all the time. A flock of crows isn't relevant to driving, neither is the billboard. We filter info all the time. The trick is to understand what is relevant and accurate. It's not a question of seeing what I want to see, it's a question of seeing what I have to see in order to understand what's going on. I would be happy to try and explain HOW I sort information but (1) it's a long explanation and (2) I don;t think you have any interest in hearing it. So suffice it to say that I was right, I'm often right, and I have confidence in my assessment capability- and none in yours.
So you hear what you want to hear and tune out the rest. I see folk (dumbass Defendants) do that all the time up in court.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thursday, September 13, 2007 2:30 PM
Quote:Gotcha. I do think this is the core of our difference. I look at much of Bush's history and conclude he is not particularly 'principled'; he does seem to be a consummate 'gamer of the system' (eg: profits mentioned in previous posts). The core trust you seem to have for Bush is not present in me, and I feel for rational reasons.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:Quote:I assume.
Originally posted by leadb:
I will agree he is capable of taking positions and sticking to them, despite possibly horrific outcomes. And these may be principles. Do you feel honesty and forthrightness are two principles that Bush holds?Quote:I don’t know what you mean “principled in a more generally accepted fashion.” Principled means exhibiting habitual devotion to standards of correctness, truth or good behavior. That’s the fashion in which I use it.
Originally posted by leadb:
In general, if you feel he has 'become' principled in a more generally accepted fashion, at what time do you believe his 'conversion' occurred?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thursday, September 13, 2007 2:34 PM
Quote:I don't mean to derail this thread, but... FINN, meet me in the "Economy roarrs on Part II" thread because IMHO you have some serious misperceptions.
Bush seems to have some principled positions which define his presidency. He obviously believes that lower taxes are beneficial. This is one of his convictions that has demonstrated to be conclusively well applied. The economy has done well to a large degree because of Bush’s tax cuts and tax revenue has increased, again in large part due to Bush’s tax cuts.
www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=30470.
AFA the Bush "principles": IS a commitment to LOW TAXES a "principle"? I might see it as being ATTACHED to a "principle"- like "getting the government out of your life" or "letting capitalism be capitalism". I think he has a strong ideological bent, but I also perceive that he will do anything to get his way. Perhaps you might think that his ideological bases are "principles" but I don't think they're the same thing as honesty or compassion or other beliefs that we might call "principles".
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thursday, September 13, 2007 2:43 PM
Quote:Bush demonstrates himself to be a successful businessman and you somehow find this to be a bad quality? I agree that there is a big disjoint in our respective definitions of what constitutes principled behavior, at least concerning Bush. If someone offers you profit off a failed oil company or a baseball club, would you turn it down simply because this was money based on your connections? I think that if one examines closely and fairly the negative views of Bush, often these views turn out to be more irrational then those holding them initially perceive them.
Originally posted by leadb:
Gotcha. I do think this is the core of our difference. I look at much of Bush's history and conclude he is not particularly 'principled'; he does seem to be a consummate 'gamer of the system' (eg: profits mentioned in previous posts). The core trust you seem to have for Bush is not present in me, and I feel for rational reasons.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thursday, September 13, 2007 2:52 PM
Quote:I’ve heard the arguments against Bush tax cuts. Many of them, particularly those commonly used by Liberals and Democrats, are based on their own set of serious misperceptions.
Originally posted by SignyM:
I don't mean to derail this thread, but... FINN, meet me in the "Economy roarrs on Part II" thread because IMHO you have some serious misperceptions.
Quote:What I perceive is that Bush has certain core beliefs which he holds to devotedly, as opposed to swinging with the political winds.
Originally posted by SignyM:
AFA the Bush "principles": IS a commitment to LOW TAXES a "principle"? I might see it as being ATTACHED to a "principle"- like "getting the government out of your life" or "letting capitalism be capitalism". I think he has a strong ideological bent, but I also perceive that he will do anything to get his way. Perhaps you might think that his ideological bases are "principles" but I don't think they're the same thing as honesty or compassion or other beliefs that we might call "principles".
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thursday, September 13, 2007 2:57 PM
Quote:I'll be happy to debate this in the other thread.
I’ve heard the arguments against Bush tax cuts. Many of them, particularly those commonly used by Liberals and Democrats, are based on their own set of serious misperceptions.
Quote:If you were judging politicians only on their "stick-to-it-tiveness" Kucinich, Ron Paul, Feingold and a bunch of other politicians would also be in your list. So clearly Bush's principles- whatever they are- resonate with your pirnciples. So WHAT are those "core beliefs" that resonate with yours?
What I perceive is that Bush has certain core beliefs which he holds to devotedly, as opposed to swinging with the political winds.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thursday, September 13, 2007 3:34 PM
Quote:I’m pretty sure that I would describe Kucinich, Paul and Feingold as principled. As for whether they would be as principled in a presidency – that’s a different issue. I’m not sure that I view their ideas as realistic, but I would probably describe them as principled right now. The question was why I view Bush as principled, not whether I agree with those principles.
Originally posted by SignyM:
and WHAT are those "core beliefs"? Because if you were to just judge politicians on their "stick-to-it-tiveness" Kucinich, Ron Paul, Feingold and a bunch of other politicians would also be in your list. So clearly Bush's principles- whatever they are- resonate with your pirnciples.
As it turns out, I think I do agree with some of them. Bush seems to believe in the free market and an ownership society. I do too. Bush seems to believe in liberal democracy and America taking a leadership role to export and promote these values. I do too. As for how closely our respective views resonate or whether I think everything Bush has done promote these values as I might – that’s a lengthier discussion.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME