[Preacherman]

From the Telegraph, London (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/06/27/wiran27.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/06/27/ixnewstop.html):

Rice warns of 'Made in America' solution to Iran's nuclear plans
By Anton La Guardia, Diplomatic Editor
(Filed: 27/06/2003)

America gave notice yesterday that it was ready to act alone against Iran and North Korea if European countries did not co-operate in stopping them from developing nuclear weapons.

"If we do not want a 'Made in America' solution, let's find out how to resolve the issues of North Korea and Iran," declared Condoleezza Rice, the US national security adviser, during a visit to London.

She tried to play down the prospect of a war against Iran, saying: "We do not ever want to have to deal with the proliferation issue as we did in Iraq." But her comments had strong echoes of the blunt talking that surrounded the debate before the Iraq war.

Accusing Iran of seeking secretly to build nuclear weapons, and vowing that North Korea would not be allowed to "blackmail" the world with threats to resume its nuclear programme, Miss Rice said the US sought international co-operation.

She said Iran's programme was best dealt with by convincing the nation to agree to intrusive inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency. North Korea was best addressed by regional powers exerting pressure.

But Miss Rice, who leaves for the Middle East today, pointedly did not rule out military action. "The avoidance of war is not in itself a final goal," she said. "Sometimes one has to fight wars to deal with tyrants."

Later Miss Rice added: "We want a multi-lateral solution. But we do want a solution.

"Post 9/11, the sense of urgency to have solutions to these problems has grown. The absence of action is not a solution. Sometimes multi-lateralism is code for not acting."

Addressing the International Institute for Strategic Studies, Miss Rice delivered a thinly-veiled attack on Jacques Chirac, the French president, and his desire to create a "multi-polar" world in which Europe acts as a counter-weight to America.

She described the notion of competing poles as a destructive throw-back to European rivalry in the 19th century.

[Standing Wolf]

Régime change.

[Orthonym]

She _has_ described herself as "...a second amendment absolutist":) , which inspires me to break into song,viz.
(to the tune of "The Yellow Rose of Texas")


You may talk of Rodham Clinton, and Linda Ellerbee,
But
The Yellow Rose of Stanford is
The only one for me!

[mattd]

Keep the cia out of Iran, the only thing they do will screw it up. Bombing North Korea with Radios will fix that problem. Iran will fix itself in 5 years tops.

[Malone LaVeigh]

Oh, what kind of joke is this? We're just begining to realize what a long-term quagmire we've bought in Iraq, and she wants to go off against Iran or N Korea? Two countries that actually command the fanatical loyalty of a sizable percentage of their populations, at least in comparison with Iraq.

Afghanistan was stupid to start and not finish.

Iraq was unnecessary to start in the first place, and we are just begining to learn how untruthful the justifications these people used to get us in.

Iran would be madness.

[Tamara]

Iran will take care of itself relatively shortly.

The generation that grew up in the post-revolution years is heartily sick of not being able to listen to bootleg Madonna CD's without risking arrest. If burgeoning rampant consumerism can topple the Evil Empire, it can surely handle a pipsqueak country like Iran. ;) Plus, the whole country is run like some kind of extremely fundamentalist youth summer camp, albeit with a worse dress code. People won't stand for having to sneak off behind the boathouse just to hold hands for too long without eventually short-sheeting the camp counselor's bed, you know.

As far as the North Koreans go, well, they can't live on two grains of rice per day forever...

[tyme]

Well, something in Iran will "take care" of things... whether it's the rising resentment in the younger generation or the enriched uranium they're going to turn into nukes... giving them the leverage NK has. And that's not even considering the problems they've been having complying with NPT safeguards.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/iaea0603.html
Section D.

[4v50 Gary]

If the Post-Revolutionary Iran generation wants to listen to Madonna, they've already lost.

[Skunkabilly]

If the Post-Revolutionary Iran generation wants to listen to Madonna, they've already lost.

Same thing can be said of Americans :barf:

[DRC]

Since I have difficulty conveying things without being decidely so I'll just deem myself a war monger and leave it at that.

As to the harsh language given by Ms. Rice I will say that little more than that may be necessary to disassemble Iran. Sometimes the threat of war against a country in disarray is all it takes for it to collapse under its own weight. Harsh words against Russia was all it took even though Russia was already imploding, and would have regardless of who was in office, before the words were uttered.

North Korea will be pressured to the point of wetting itself, not by us, but by China and South Korea as well as some pressure from Japan as well. North Korea will have to comply but they want to test the waters to see what they can and cannot get away with. I would be willing to bet that even though China says it will consider agression against North Korea an act of war against them as well, they do not want the North Koreans having nuclear weapons in China's backyard. I believe that North Korea would be far more freightened of China coming in to tell them to stop doing what they're doing than they would of the US since China would be much less diplomatic about it.

Many of the things happening now with regard to acts of aggression by the US against so many are acts that should have taken place years ago but never did. Too much time has been given in these regions for things to fester to a point of becoming unmanageable as well as dangerous to us. If you believe that then great but if you don't then so beit. What the US has done is prove to many that we have resolve and that we can defeat the "undefeatable" armies as they are so depicted. We've also said "We're mad as hell and we're not gonna take it anymore!" to coin a phrase and to coin one more and probably my favorite "You don't always have to stand tall, but sometimes you gotta stand up." We've been walked on by so many that it's time we knock them down a peg or two.

My opinions, not yours.

DRC

PS. If you're a "war monger" be proud of it. Those that claim they are not will cower behind you when the going gets tough ;)

[Malone LaVeigh]

... Serbian assasins wear Adidas sneakers and listen to Madonna on Walkman headphones as they take aim through their gunscopes on scurrying Sarajevo civilians looking to fill family watercans. Quote from the introduction to Jihad vs. McWorld by Benjamin F. Barber, 1996.

If you think western consumer culture necessarily will breed a regime that's friendly to the US, I have some beachfront property in Kamchatka I'd like to sell you.

[OF]

Condoleeza for President! That would be SWEEEET!

She's way cool. :cool:

- Gabe

[Malone LaVeigh]

... oh, and as far as Condoleeza for prez is concerned, she's certainly qualified. She's already lied to the American people on a number of occasions.

Edited to change "cloncerned" to "concerned", though maybe I was right in the first place...

[Hkmp5sd]

She's already lied to the American people on a number of occasions.

In that case, she has my vote. Unlike Klinton(s) (and the vast majority of democrats) who merely open their mouth to lie, I like a person that can lie to me and I'm not aware of it. In some cases, I consider that as truthfulness.

At least she is smart enough to, if she desired, figure out to inhale while smoking a joint.

[Malone LaVeigh]

I like a person that can lie to me and I'm not aware of it. In some cases, I consider that as truthfulness.I thought George Orwell made people like this up.

[OF]

Can you get specific, Malone? I hope it's more substantive than the whole 'WMD' thing...:rolleyes:

- Gabe

[Malone LaVeigh]

Well, if claiming that there waws a threat warranting going to war when in fact there was not isn't "substantive" enough, there's not much use in my posting more.

[one-shot-one]

"Well, if claiming that there waws a threat warranting going to war when in fact there was not isn't "substantive" enough, there's not much use in my posting more."

THANK GOODNESS FOR SMALL FAVORS!:p

[OF]

You have some proof that she lied? That is what you said.

The fact that we haven't turned up any actual material (although we have found parts, manufacturing and circumstantial evidence) is certainly not proof that said material doesn't exist. And even if it does not exist, that is still not proof that she lied.

And this only speaks to the actual 'WMD Justification', which, IMO, is only relevant as much as the administration, and Condi, said it was. I feel they dug themselves a hole by making as big a deal out of it as they did after they saw that WMD was the justification that resonated with people. The intel said it was there, it was on the list of justifications and they pushed that issue because it was a winner. It is certainly not the only relevant issue, nor even the most important one, just the 'media expedient' one.

Still, when has she lied again?

- Gabe

[Cosmoline]

We had our chance to bomb the crap out of Iran during the hostage crisis. Carter failed to act. It's far, far too late now. The best thing we could do is stay out of the way and let the new generation have its own revolution and kick out the old men from Gome who rule their nation.

[ojibweindian]

... oh, and as far as Condoleeza for prez is concerned, she's certainly qualified. She's already lied to the American people on a number of occasions.

I suppose Clinton was the paragon of morality and ethical behavior.:rolleyes:

[Malone LaVeigh]

THANK GOODNESS FOR SMALL FAVORS!I hate to cite Orwell twice in a post, but day before yesterday was his 100th birthday.

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH!

Still, when has she lied again?Well, she also apparently lied when she claimed the admin didn't lie... Or maybe they have a different definition of what "is" is...

http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs_108/pdf_inves/pdf_admin_iraq_nuclear_evidence_june_10_let.pdf

[tiberius]

"LaVeigh" ..... is that French? ;) just kidding.


Its way to early to start saying that the Bush & co. lied. They started this war almost 2 years before the next election knowing that this "lie" would be exposed way before the election. I doubt that they are that stupid, so I am giving them the benfit of the doubt for now.


Connie would be a great candidate in '08 IMHO.

[Malone LaVeigh]

"LaVeigh" ..... is that French?Or some Mediterranean language...

[mattd]

Its up to you to prove they lied.

[JDSlack]

I love the "Bush et al lied about WMD". If Bush et al lied, then so did France, Germany, Russia, the UN Security Council, the UN Secretary General, Saddam, and Hans Blix. Every one of them agreed that the WMD were there, that additional ones were being developed, and existing one's were being hidden. Blix was on the news last night saying that the only reasonable explanation for the behavior of Iraq during the inspection fiasco was that they were hiding WMD.

But now, because our military, who are not trained as WMD detectives didn't find them in 2-3 months, it's all some vast conspiracy and cover-up. The UN people, who are trained, couldn't find anything and they had over a year ( in installments, granted). Why don't all the people who were bleating about "We just need to give inspectors more time", take the same approach to the US ... But, that would be rational and reasonable, and the US is the source of all evil in the world.

[Malone LaVeigh]

If Bush et al lied, then so did France, Germany, Russia, the UN Security Council, the UN Secretary General, Saddam, and Hans Blix. Every one of them agreed that the WMD were there, that additional ones were being developed, and existing one's were being hidden. Blix was on the news last night saying that the only reasonable explanation for the behavior of Iraq during the inspection fiasco was that they were hiding WMD.Wrong. No one has said Saddam was forthcoming with the inspectors. The lie was about the Bush admin claiming that evidence existed to conclusively (enough to go to war, anyway) claim that Iraq WMDs presented a credible and immediate threat. We have all seen the many quotes from all sorts in the admin. They are lies.

[DRC]

JD,

Excellent post and I believe there was another thread where this very subject was brought up and the article posted. The amazing thing to me is that there are those detractors out there jumping up to say that beyond the shadow of a doubt the Bush Administration lied about WMD and everything else to sell this war to the American people. The sad part about that is that they have nothing to sunstantiate the claim that they did lie all the while the troops haven't even stopped looking and have a lot of territory to cover before they're done.

To me it's like telling someone you can put jigsaw puzzles together, having them give you one and after five minutes they walk back into the room, see that you only have a few pieces of a corner put together and declare you lied about being able to work a jigsaw puzzle. It's insane to say the least. It is however a loosing arguement in that those that believe they lied will always believe they lied even if the troops pull up billions of tons of everything imaginable. We will have to agree to disagree on the subject but it is humorous to listen to the other side of the issue. All of the arguements I've heard for this border on lunacy but that's just my opinion and I can't possibly know anything since I'm a believer in the administration and evidently a "sheeple" (SP?) according to those I believe to be a bit "touched" or "odd" if you know what I mean ;)

To each his or her own. I'll stick to believing evidence in "support of" since there is some (although not large amounts) rather than believing in the "lied" hypothesis since there is no evidence to support the accusation (not yet anyway, and I do not believe there ever will be)

DRC

Edited:

I brought this over from the Mega WMD cluster...er... I mean thread. This posted by Mike Erwin from the Washington Post:

"Surprising editorial from the Washington Post on WMDs...

"WE ARE DETERMINED to discover the true extent of Saddam Hussein's weapons programs, no matter how long it takes," President Bush said Saturday. That switch from his previous attempts to dismiss the issue was important, and so is the administration's deployment of a 1,400-member Iraq Survey Group that will restart the search for banned chemical, biological and nuclear materials. The debate in Washington over Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and the administration's prewar intelligence about them is becoming more overheated and uninformed -- and the best way to bring it back to earth will be the collection of fresh evidence about what happened to the illegal arms that Iraq was known to possess in the 1990s. If they are found, then much of the public discussion of the past few weeks will be rendered irrelevant. If they are not, then both the Bush administration and U.S. intelligence agencies will suffer a serious loss of credibility -- one that could compromise efforts to disarm or contain the rogue states with WMD that continue to threaten the world.

The absence of facts hasn't stopped critics of the war from rushing to the conclusion that no WMD exist, or that Mr. Bush and his top aides manufactured a case for war by strong-arming U.S. intelligence officials and distorting the evidence. Some of the claims made by Mr. Bush -- such as his assertion that Iraq sought to buy nuclear material from an African country -- indeed have proven false. The administration's argument that Saddam Hussein had a relationship with al Qaeda looks unconvincing to many independent observers, just as it did before the war. Reports that senior Pentagon and White House officials may have pressured intelligence analysts to reach certain conclusions are disturbing and merit the probes now being conducted by Congress. The results of those investigations, and as much of the evidence as possible, should be fully and publicly aired.

It nevertheless remains true that a wide range of governments, agencies and individuals outside the Bush administration looked at the same or their own evidence about Iraq and drew the same fundamental conclusion -- that Saddam Hussein was defying repeated U.N. disarmament orders. The Clinton administration, the governments of Britain, Germany and France, most of the senior U.N. weapons inspectors and most Democratic senators also were convinced that Iraq was hiding weapons and the means to produce them. While the Bush administration may have publicly exaggerated or distorted parts of its case, much of what it said reflected a broad international consensus. If it turns out that neither the weapons nor the programs existed, the failure will be not just that of the Bush administration but of most Western politicians and intelligence experts.

In that sense the failure to find Iraqi WMD so far ought to be less of a scandal than a genuine mystery. Former U.N. chief weapons inspector Hans Blix, no friend of the administration, frankly confessed his puzzlement the other day to The Post's Colum Lynch, pointing out that Saddam Hussein unquestionably tried for 12 years to obstruct and deceive inspectors. "Why deny access if you are not hiding something?" Mr. Blix asked. That's a good question. Until the facts are found, both the administration and its critics ought to avoid drawing conclusions about Saddam Hussein's weapons. Mr. Bush must meanwhile keep his promise to discover the full truth -- and commit to sharing what he learns with the world."

Give special attenion to the first sentence of the second paragraph and the third paragraph in it's entirety.

Take care,

[bountyhunter]

America gave notice yesterday that it was ready to act alone against Iran and North Korea if European countries did not co-operate in stopping them from developing nuclear weapons.

Boy, that sure sounds familiar, doesn't it?

I'm starting to think that the Bush administration only has one speech and they just keep changing the name of the country in it!:scrutiny:

Oh well..... how much worse can it get?

A lot worse.....

[bountyhunter]

The amazing thing to me is that there are those detractors out there jumping up to say that beyond the shadow of a doubt the Bush Administration lied about WMD and everything else to sell this war to the American people. The sad part about that is that they have nothing to sunstantiate the claim that they did lie all the while the troops haven't even stopped looking and have a lot of territory to cover before they're done.

The "amazing" mirror reflects both ways. Some find it unfathomable that the sheeple still won't admit they were lied to.

1) Colin Powell was sent before the UN with satellite photos of the places these WMD's were being hidden. We knew the exact GPS locations... did they suddenly grow feet and scurry away? It was all BS.

2) The facts show that Iraq had no source of Uranium, the first thing they would need to enrich to get weapons material. The "smoking gun" document where Iraq was trying to buy uranium from an African country was denounced as a fake (even by our own CIA) yet Bush kept using it as proof Iraq had a nuke program ongoing. They did not.

3) The facilities to enrich uranium do not fit in a trailer. How do I know? We (the US) built them back in 1943. We know exactly what the footprint would look like, what systems and connections would be going in and out. Consider this: In 1962 using primative U2 aircraft, we knew exactly what and where the soviets were deploying in Cuba. Last year, when N. Korea put it's nuke program back on line, we knew ten seconds after the furnaces were lit. Yet somehow, we knew Iraq had a facility but we just can't seem to say where it went.... and that from a country who has satellites that can actually READ THE LICENSE PLATES OF CARS! Yeah, if you buy all that I can get you a great price on the Brooklyn bridge.

The genuinely frightening aspect of all this is that (in Bush's mind) he is getting away with it. Nobody in Congress has the guts to call him on it so far because he can blast them as "terrorist lovers", and the general public seems to be buying Bush's re-write of history. Now he says: "Never mind about those WMD's, we invaded to liberate all those poor people from the awful dictator." I guess the lie of the day is whatever one is working.

In fact, Bush is simply widening his net and aiming at Iran and North Korea which is absolutely insane. I am expecting next to see satellite photos of Iran showing Saddam and Osama riding on camel so that he can start the next invasion. :what:

[bountyhunter]

I love the "Bush et al lied about WMD". If Bush et al lied, then so did France, Germany, Russia, the UN Security Council, the UN Secretary General, Saddam, and Hans Blix. Every one of them agreed that the WMD were there, that additional ones were being developed, and existing one's were being hidden. Blix was on the news last night saying that the only reasonable explanation for the behavior of Iraq during the inspection fiasco was that they were hiding WMD.

Maybe, but FYI: The leader of Russia (Putin) recently ripped Tony Blair a new a-hole when he visited Russia about the lies and BS that Britain and the US peddled as an excuse for war. The sad thing is, Blair's career is over because he trusted Bush. I guess that's his problem. But Bush just wiped out any credibility the US had with the world, and that's our problem.

As for Saddam hiding WMD's:

DUHHHHH! No kidding. Every body knew he had some bios and possibly nerve agents, but that was irrelevant to the reason Bush said we had to go to war NOW. He said (and so did Powell) that Iraq was within one year of detonating a nuclear bomb, even though CIA documents said otherwise.

If Saddam did have a bomb, he might be stupid enough to put it on a missile and shoot it to Israel. That argument for war has some merit. The problem is, it was all pure BS! There was no evidence of them having uranium enrichment equipment or even crude uranium to enrich. That's the whole point: if Bush lied about Iraq's nukes, his whole reason for war goes out the window. Bios and chems are not something that can plunge the world into WWIII, they are just weapons he can use to wipe out and intimidate the locals. They did not justify an invasion, they justified increasing the number of people inspecting and looking for them.

[DontShootMe]

Ironic that so many are now calling for [B]patience[\B] to 'find' the WMD's

When the 'anti-war' people were calling for the same patience before ignoring the UN and INITIATING a war.

The war was based on an 'immediate' threat. No time for patience! No time for more inspections!

So......

Isn't it only fair that the 'anti-war' folks get the IMMEDIATE gratification of found WMD's since there was an IMMEDIATE threat from Iraq?

How can a threat be IMMEDIATE if you cant identify/locate/show evidence of the threat?

sorry, didn't mean to get all logical on yous guys. :(

[one-shot-one]

:p
i always say that i got to respect the man before i give any credit to his thoughts, and respect has to be earned.
good luck with your opinions and that thin skin.:cool:

[mercedesrules]

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=310788&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

According to Abbas, immediately thereafter Bush
said: "God told me to strike at al Qaida and I
struck them, and then he instructed me to
strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am
determined to solve the problem in the Middle
East. If you help me I will act, and if not,
the elections will come and I will have to
focus on them."

(my bold)

Aren't things a little out of control? :confused:

MR

[DRC]

"Ironic that so many are now calling for [B]patience[\B] to 'find' the WMD's"

Well, no one is asking for patience, read my analogy because it's closer to true than you will ever be willing to believe or admit. The patience being asked for with UN inspections went like this: "Try to work this jigsaw puzzle." For 12 years the inspectors tried to work the puzzle and were kicked out without finishing the puzzle. How much patience and time is required?

"When the 'anti-war' people were calling for the same patience before ignoring the UN and INITIATING a war."

Have you ever looked at the UN's record? It kind of pathetic not to mention the UN has members in it that should be in prison not sitting on the boards and committees.

"The war was based on an 'immediate' threat. No time for patience! No time for more inspections!"

Again 12 years of inspections; how many more did you want? Especially since the first go round failed miserably.

"So......

Isn't it only fair that the 'anti-war' folks get the IMMEDIATE gratification of found WMD's since there was an IMMEDIATE threat from Iraq?"

Sure! Is twelve years long enough for that "instant gratification"?

"How can a threat be IMMEDIATE if you cant identify/locate/show evidence of the threat?"

Someone mentioned the Cuban missile crisis and strangely enough the strongest indictment of that were pictures of baseball fields I believe or maybe it was soccer fields can't remember which sports field they had pictured.

"sorry, didn't mean to get all logical on yous guys."

Don't worry. You didn't.

DRC

[DontShootMe]

Well, no one is asking for patience

You sure about that? No one is asking for patience to find WMD's now? Wow. I stand corrected.

Have you ever looked at the UN's record? It kind of pathetic not to mention the UN has members in it that should be in prison not sitting on the boards and committees.

Sorry, I thought we (the US) were members of the UN as well. Silly me.

Again 12 years of inspections; how many more did you want?

Enough to identify some credible, immediate threat.

Sure! Is twelve years long enough for that "instant gratification"?

Sure! if you can click UNDO on the whole WAR thing.

Someone mentioned the Cuban missile crisis and strangely enough the strongest indictment of that were pictures of baseball fields I believe or maybe it was soccer fields can't remember which sports field they had pictured.

Hey, good job on the subject change. You got me.

Don't worry. You didn't.

Logic, it appears, is relative these days.

[Tom B]

GAWD! We gotta attack somebody else! The water in Shrubs bowl is starting to slowly circle! Its amazing isn't it how prepared for a war the American people actually were. The knees already are starting to get rubbery. The last little "ruckus" lasted for 8 years. I hope Americans were really ready for this and didn't just believe all the hype that was spewed. By the way when will the troops be returning from the Balkans? Has it been one year in Klinton time yet? Each new generation of Americans never seem to learn from the mistakes of the last.

[DonQatU]

They started this war almost 2 years before the next election knowing that this "lie" would be exposed way before the election.

Maybe their "timing" was off. OR...... maybe they will start another war closer to election time for the "wartime" boost.

By the way when will the troops be returning from the Balkans?

Well, they'll be home by Christmas! Unless we need them on another meal on wheels/garbage collection/peace keeping/nation building operation before that. :D

Don

[SIGarmed]

The democrats and liberals feel it is now safe and long enough after 9-11 to start attacking President Bush and his administration. This is what they would be doing anyway regardless of the situation. This is what they'd be doing if 9-11 never occured since Bush's election. This is just the continuation of all the whining and Bush over all conservative hating. It has many forms. They're getting ready for the upcoming presidential elections so they have to start beating the drums now in preperation.

It is total hypocracy to cry for more time for U.N. inspectors and then claim that Bush lied while not giving us the "more time".


bountyhunter,

Before you make claims have proof. You can say whatever you want but those things you said haven't been proven. Can you supply readers of this board with real proof? I'd like to see it.


Did all you naysayers out there forget about September 11th?
There is a sense of urgency in this country like never before.
There are people out there who seek the destruction of the United States of America!

The left loves to spout the talk regarding "lies" and "warmongering", but for some reason the sense of urgency regarding 9-11 is never mentioned.

The question isn't wether saddam had nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons pointed at us. It is can the United States of America afford to take a chance?

[gburner]

I haven't seen this many pair of undies in a bunch since someone threw a handfull of rubberbands into the spin cycle....

A. Iran will resolve itself without the need for overt American intervention.
The new sherriff will be much friendlier to us.

B. The last 'inspection' regime by the UN (Blix & Co.) was not meant as a seek and find. They were to collect hardware, software and other evidence that the Baathists were supposed to freely give up. Instead, they played 3 card monty with Blix like he was a cabin boy from Stockholm, fresh off the herring boat. Whatever weapons were there are hidden in country, deployed to neighbors and friends or destroyed. We will find what we're looking for. The worst thing we can do now is back down/out.

C. This time next year, when there is a pro western gov't in Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan, we will find ourselves in a position of strength in that section of the world, able to bring leverage against Syria and Saudi Arabia, able to further marginalize the ever weakening former colonial powers of Europe, supplant Russian influence in the Near East and Indian sub continent and establish an eastern flank against China
(truly the next big dog that we will have to effectively contain or deal with).

D. The north Asian countries of the Pacific rim should carry the burden of dealing effectively with the North Koreans, though 60 years of brainwashing, national immersion in a psychotic cult of personality and the mental atrophy caused by epidemic starvation make them about as willing to negotiate as an amphetamine stoked biker who has just found a key scratch on his freshly painted Harley.

So, sit tight, work the knots out of your knickers, cut some cheese for that whine and watch the show. Teddy Roosevelt is laughing his fanny off and cheering. BULLY

[DonQatU]

Did all you naysayers out there forget about September 11th?

SIGarmed, that was conducted by al-Qaeda....right??? Headed by that Osama feller and his sidekick from the Taliban!

Were them fellers from Iraq? Or Iran? :uhoh:

Don

[Hkmp5sd]

I thought George Orwell made people like this up.

And I thought tinfoil hats prevented people from believing everything the government does, which they disagree with of course, is actually a government conspiracy to take over the world.

In my opinion, the current "quagmire" in Iraq is due to the exact same reason riots, like the on in LA following the Rodney King verdict, occur. They know they can get away with anything they want to do with virtually no chance of being arrested. They know the US/UK troops are not going to open fire on them when they are amid innocents or are inside mosques.

The US/UK troops need to get strict with these guys. The only thing these people understand and respect is force. Yes, it will create negative publicity in the liberal press. The US needs to drop the politically correct "nice guy" stance and crack down on the lawless.

Until they learn the consequences of their actions are worse than the pleasure they get from those actions, our troops will be killed.

[fallingblock]

Now THAT was a great post!:D
************************************************************
"This time next year, when there is a pro western gov't in Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan, we will find ourselves in a position of strength in that section of the world..."
************************************************************

This is why the shrieking from the left is so loud now...their window of opportunity is going to close up on 'em before long :eek:

***********************************************************
"So, sit tight, work the knots out of your knickers, cut some cheese for that whine and watch the show. Teddy Roosevelt is laughing his fanny off and cheering. BULLY"
************************************************************

That has to be the most informed and pertinent advice I've seen on this board for a long time:D

It might even save Malone and DonQuatU from the apoplexy they're headin' for if they don't stop taking the lefty media so seriously:rolleyes:

"Cut some cheese for that whine and watch the show":) :p :) :p

[SIGarmed]

SIGarmed, that was conducted by al-Qaeda....right??? Headed by that Osama feller and his sidekick from the Taliban!

Were them fellers from Iraq? Or Iran?

Don

This is what I'm talking about. Typical arguement.

[Oleg Volk]

Just a friendly reminder that differences of opinion are not a sufficient reason to start cutting into each other with sarcasm. A call to civility is hereby issued. Thank you!

[DonQatU]

Did all you naysayers out there forget about September 11th?

Sorry, for the the sarcasm, SIGarmed.

Do you think Iraq had something to do with the terrorist attack on 911?

Don

[HBK]

Ridiculous. It is funny that some people, when given a choice between the President of the United States and National Security Advisor or the enemy, will choose to side with the enemy. 50 years ago they would call it treason.

[Malone LaVeigh]

I don't want to contribute more than I have to the thread going further OT, but it seems to have devolved to the usual point. Some people were so traumatized and are in such rage and terror over 9/11 that they will never listen to anything questioning the judgement of our (mis)leaders. Another way the terrorists won that round.

[gburner]

All I have to do is juxtapose the current status quo against the paralysis that would have gripped us during a Gore presidency and I am just fine with the judgement of our current leaders. The lack of accurate memory of some about the the previous inhabitants of the White House is matched only by their dishonesty and impatience with the current inhabitants. Our current warrior stance has been a long time coming. We have not even begun to settle all of our grievances. Hang on, it's gonna be a bumpy ride.

[DonQatU]

All I have to do is juxtapose the current status quo against the paralysis that would have gripped us during a Gore presidency and I am just fine with the judgement of our current leaders.

Strange. I don't think anybody here expressed a longing for a Gore presidency!

Yes, I suppose things could be worse. But things aren't aren't going so well under our current administration either!

Don

[Malone LaVeigh]

All I have to do is juxtapose the current status quo against the paralysis that would have gripped us during a Gore presidency and I am just fine with the judgement of our current leaders. The lack of accurate memory of some about the the previous inhabitants of the White House is matched only by their dishonesty and impatience with the current inhabitants. Our current warrior stance has been a long time coming. We have not even begun to settle all of our grievances. Hang on, it's gonna be a bumpy ride.So doing something, anything, even if it's wrong and ineffective is better than whatever YOU imagine someone else might have done? It may not matter to you, but some of us don't like the idea of the government lying to us to promote an agenda that consolidates their power.

This time next year, when there is a pro western gov't in Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan, we will find ourselves in a position of strength in that section of the world, able to bring leverage against Syria and Saudi Arabia, able to further marginalize the ever weakening former colonial powers of Europe, supplant Russian influence in the Near East and Indian sub continent and establish an eastern flank against China
(truly the next big dog that we will have to effectively contain or deal with). I'm bookmarking this thread. It should look real interesting in a year. Do you prefer your crow barbequed or deep fried?

[gburner]

The lies, deceptions, felonies and misdemeanors of the previous president are well documented and you sure liked them alot. The assertion that this president has lied to consolidate power is purely unsubstantiated conjecture.

Even if only part of what I boldly predicted comes true in the next year, you will refuse to acknowledge it in any positive or meaningful form. Therefore I will not eat crow, bbq'ed or otherwise. I will however, gladly give you the bird. :neener:

[DonQatU]

The assertion that this president has lied to consolidate power is purely unsubstantiated conjecture.

Uh, documents on "yellow cake" from Nigeria? Seem alright to YOU, gburner?!!!!

[gburner]

Not so much a lie as an error on the side of caution. The situation that some want to put this administration in is based on circular 'logic'. If, in the interest of national security, Bush doesn't say enough about a situation, he's not telling the full truth. If, in the interest of full disclosure, Bush places all of his cards on the table and some aces turn out to be dueces, he's a liar. UN inspectors need 'more time' to find WMD prior to initiation of hostilities even though they've had multiple years to do the job, that's fine. But Bush 'fails' to uncover said WMD within weeks after our troops are in country and still under fire and, again, he lied to the country. Chances are that we will never find an abundance of evidence unless Sadaam is killed but it DOES NOT mean that Bush lied.

You want the truth, you can't handle the truth. The facts are that after 8 years of the politics of triangulation, race baiting, kowtowing to the UN and an executive office that ran on intern slobber and moral relativism we now have an admiistration that means what it says, says what it means and holds the interests of the people of the US as paramount in it's international dealings. Liberals NEVER recognize the truth because they NEVER tell the truth. Their world would crumble under it's weight. You may as well ask an elephant to make a souffle'.

[Malone LaVeigh]

The lies, deceptions, felonies and misdemeanors of the previous president are well documented and you sure liked them alot.The only thing I ever liked about Clinton is his unconscious ability to turn conservatives into appoplectic, drooling idiots. A great example is, How the hell did he get into this conversation, anyway? It must be very uncomfortable to be so obsessed with one man...

[DRC]

Malone,

"The only thing I ever liked about Clinton is his unconscious ability to turn conservatives into appoplectic, drooling idiots."

I'll agree with that. He did have a crew that was very good at maligning and slandering whomever stood in their way politically that's for sure. The sad part being that he and his willing accomplices did much worse and swept most of it under the carpet. But that's politics and they are exceptional politicians (if that's really saying much of anything)

"A great example is, How the hell did he get into this conversation, anyway? It must be very uncomfortable to be so obsessed with one man..."

Could you clarify this? I didn't understand your question at all. I think I missed something. I have seen Clinton being mentioned but in context it seems plausible for him to be mentioned.

Thanks in advance,

DRC

[gburner]

DRC...

Malone is engaged in what is commonly referred to as 'projection'. It is he and his ilk that are in fact obsessed with the Bush Administration and it's ability to govern the country fairly well despite attacks from within as well as without. Bush has his warts, that I'll freely admit, but hs admin. is filled with grown-ups who take their jobs seriously rather than acting like the lying, pilfering, morally obtuse and ethically challenged bunch of deviates that populated the cesspool known as the Clinton Administration. Like a bunch of whiny frat boys who've been booted off campus after having their card pulled, the liberals are left fuming, cursing and sputtering as if simultaneously suffering the ill effects of flatulence, Tourette's and a stubborn speech impediment combined. I'm loving every minute. :D

[DonQatU]

his admin. is filled with grown-ups who take their jobs seriously rather than acting like the lying, pilfering, morally obtuse and ethically challenged bunch of deviates that populated the cesspool known as the Clinton Administration.

The current administration seems to be doing very well in the lying department. And they are much better in jingoistic rhetoric, that allienates our traditional allies, and getting the US involved in interventionist conflicts that have nothing to do with the security of the US. (Clinton only got us tied up in Bosnia).

Sure, the current administation is a bit behind in the "deviant" department, but I'm sure they can catch up!

I'm loving every minute of the whining and gnashing of teeth of those trying to defend the current administration by pointing out "just how bad things were" under Clinton.

Clinton is gone! Gore is gone! The hole in which the current administration finds itself........ is from their own "digging".

Don

[Sean Smith]

Let's follow the bouncing ball and see where it leads us concerning the predictions of Bush's leftist critics concerning his foreign interventions:

1. Afgnahistan. Critics predict bloodbath in any attempted ouster of the Taliban. Reality: it was... for the Taliban. Oops.

2. Iraq. Critics predict bloodbath in any attempted ouster of Saddam Hussein and the Baath party. Make every molehill of bad news about the war into a mountain. Meanwhile, on planet Earth, Iraq was quickly taken over with lighter losses than the first Gulf War.

3. WMD. A comically inept UN inspection regime that is the darling of Bush's critics doesn't find anything in over a decade, but just needs more time. In the aftermath of a colossal military invasion, critics cry about how more wasn't found in a matter of weeks.

Hmmmm.... when it comes to crow, some people need to move to the front of the line... :rolleyes:

[DRC]

I agree that the former administration was inept at...just about everything in general. There are those that feel the same about the current administration and that's their porogative although the difference is in what one believes vs what one can prove and I'll rest my case on that point.

It is nice to see so many that have faith in the current administration and its ability to handle the job well. So often the minority are the ones that are the loudest and often time get the benefit of the doubt and it's refreshing to see that this does not happen here on THR. I like to hear the oppositions side just as long as they realize their arguements don't hold water and there are more of us than there are of them ;)

I will interject here and say that while I do appreciate your insight I will reaffirm that my question was directed to Malone and I honestly did not understand his question. It was as if he needed filler because it seemed out of place in its context. Malone's a smart cookie and I enjoy discussions with him since he actually uses his brain as well as factual documentation and support to his arguements (and I mean that sincerely) he is one of two. The other I've not had much dealing with but a guy named Agricola I believe it is (Ag for short ?) Many seem to like him but these two gentlmen bring intellect to the table and not just conjecture and specualtion without substance.

For now I will be off to do more conservative bidding.

Take care and it has been a pleasure speaking with you.

DRC

[Malone LaVeigh]

OK DRC, I'll take you at your word. My point came from this statement:
...and you sure liked them alot.Mr. gburner made the ridiculous but common ASSumption that because I think the Bush admin is a bunch of incompetent, lying criminals, that I must have "liked" the "previous president." This sort of obsessing on Clinton is emblematic of the impotent rage that most of them feel about him. They can't give him a rest even when the conversation has nothing to do with him. I hate to say it, but your own statement
...in context it seems plausible for him to be mentioned.seems to me to be another example. The context was about Condoleeza Rice and admin lies about WMD.

Oh, BTW,
I like to hear the oppositions side just as long as they realize their arguements don't hold water and there are more of us than there are of themThat may be true here, but this is a very small corner of the universe.

More silliness:
his admin. is filled with grown-ups who take their jobs seriously (etc...)Grownups like Dick Cheny and Donald Rumsfeld? The only things these pirates take seriously is robbing the state's coffers and enriching their cronies.

Sean Smith:

1. Afgnahistan. Our puppets control Kabul. The rest of the country is a madhouse of warlords fighting each other, growing and exporting opium, and instilling the same repressive fundamentalism on their people as the Taliban. We helped one faction win over the others. Big deal, except for the cost. Oh, yeah, and we still haven't caught Bin Laden or that Sheik feller and Al Qaeda is still planning and carrying out acts of terror.

2. Iraq. Even Republican Senators are saying we'll be there for years. At the current rate, we're losing about one young American a day. More and more people there are getting mad at us. This is not a recipe for success.

3. WMD. It's just incorrect that the UN inspectors didn't "find anything in over a decade", but thanks for demonstrating how well the propaganda worked. The UN inspectors accounted for, by their estimates, upward of 95% of the Iraqi WMD capacity. Documented and destroyed. The rest is probably less than the background noise.

The question wasn't what the inspectors had found over the decade. It was how much capacity did Iraq possess at the end of that time. Our own intelligence agencies didn't have any credible evidence, but it didn't stop Bush, Cheny, Rumsfeld and the rest from claiming they did. Not only claiming they did, but claiming they knew exactly where they were. That's why no one who has a memory is buying the "it's a big country" argument.

[DontShootMe]

Your last post just made way too much sense. I dont think some folks 'round here want to hear all that factual mumbo jumbo.

And plus, the conservative/republican crowd must be shrinking drastically now that anyone who has even a shadow of a doubt or question about the current administration's performance is now immediately a LIBERAL.

Is it possible for a conservative to have a differing opinion other than the party line of "nobody lied" "war was the only option" "get out of this country if you believe otherwise" ???

:rolleyes: I wonder

[gburner]

Malone,

How clever of you to work some name calling into a multi-syllabic word. I'm so impressed. Be sure to get your gold star from Ms.Landers.

In the mean time...back to the adult table for more intellegent discussion.
Some seem to forget that 8 years passed where we did nothing to avert the eventual tragedy of 9/11. After destroying or attempting to destroy major US facilities around the world, funding, training and supporting Palestinian martyrs in their blood fest against Israel, and even attemptig to assasinate our former president, the Clinton cabal did NOTHING of any substance to deter, disrupt or depose those responsible. As long as he and his cronies could artificially inflate the stock market and keep middle America fat, dumb and happy with the resultant size of their 401k's, everything was hunky dory. Until the bottom fell out of the economy and international chickens came home to roost. Now, these same folks want to lay all of the consequences of 8 years of amatuer hour at the feet of the current administration and castigate them for doing what so sorely needs to be done.

The wake up call came on 9/11. Now some gripe that we have PIRATES at the helm??!!! What a glorious coincidence! I say 'ARRRGH, matey, give 'em a shot across the bow. If they don't heave to, give 'em a broadside and prepare to board. No prisoners. Kill the brave and the cowards will run'. To paraphrase HL Menken...'there comes a time when men need to spit on their hands, raise the skull and crossbones and start slitting throats'. That time is now! It is not a time for the timid, the hand wringers or the faint of heart. So settle down, save your breath and prepare for at least 5 more years of resolve, retribution and restructuring. :fire:

[Malone LaVeigh]

How clever of you to work some name calling into a multi-syllabic word. I'm so impressed. Be sure to get your gold star from Ms.Landers.

In the mean time...back to the adult table for more intellegent discussion. OK, I'll admit the assumption thing was a bit juvenile. It was late, and I dont like being called a Clinton-lover. But I probably should start acting like someone who's going to be 50 next month,

But don't think that means the Bush gang or the side you're arguing have any corner on the "adult" side of things.

Some seem to forget that 8 years passed where we did nothing to avert the eventual tragedy of 9/11. After destroying or attempting to destroy major US facilities around the world, funding, training and supporting Palestinian martyrs in their blood fest against Israel, and even attemptig to assasinate our former president,Sorry, but that is the most mixed up jumble of incongruous factoids I've seen anywhere. You are con-fusing actions of different antagonists and claiming somehow that they all had something to do with 9/11. You can do better.

Clinton cabal did NOTHING of any substance to deter, disrupt or depose those responsible.And neither did Bush and his admin who are, after all, the subject of this conversation. In fact, there's a lot of evidence they dropped the ball on several investigations that might have stopped 9/11.

As long as he and his cronies could artificially inflate the stock market and keep middle America fat, dumb and happy with the resultant size of their 401k's, everything was hunky dory. Until the bottom fell out of the economy and international chickens came home to roost.Hey, you can blame a lot on Clinton (and I sure do) but what you just described is just a basic weakness of capitalism and money politics. That's a bit much even to blame on him.

Though I think it's fair to say that Bush has damaged the expected cyclical recovery with his war. In the last 40 or so years of economic history, energy has been the motor driving recessions and expansions. He mucked the energy market up pretty well. We may not be out of the woods yet.

The wake up call came on 9/11.I think a period of national psychosis began on that date. If we end up living up in an empire with endless foreign wars and no internal liberties, it will be becaust of the attitude you so well expressed.

Oh, and I just noticed this:
Uh, documents on "yellow cake" from Nigeria? Seem alright to YOU, gburner?!!!!followed by
Not so much a lie as an error on the side of caution.No, that was a lie. (http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0613-06.htm) which is where we started here, in the first place.

[gburner]

I'll overlook the political slant of the source of your 'factual' citation as well as the recent inability of their source to write a fact based story at all.

However, if you must cite these things, please read them thoroughly. The final paragraph clearly states that the author does not believe that Bush deliberately lied in order to scare the American public into supporting his position. This is the crux of the debate, is it not.

Also, I am not con-fusing anything when I assert that 8 years of snivelling on Clinton's part only emboldened the fascists in the Islamist world and convinced them that we are a paper tiger. There is a certain naivete' that fails to recognize that these groups do not work in congruence with one another,
that all of their aims are not compatible. 9/11 may have been the responsibiity of one set of antagonists but it was the result of the ability of all to coordinate within the overall movement. Clinton had 8 years to respond, Bush had 8 months...time which was spent trying to transition into a
White House that the Clintonistas left in shambles and the Gore folks didn't want to admit that they had lost. Democrats made it nearly impossible for this administration to come into being on an even footing. Clinton was the consumate juggler who kept all these things in the air until he left office.
Like everything else in his life, he left the mess for someone else to clean up. :barf:

[DRC]

I'm quite disappointed in your post immediately following my last. There has not been a time yet that I've thrown insults your direction, or ever said anything other than you were a very intelligent person and I enjoyed our exchanges. I've dropped enough information on many of your assumptions to burry them in documentation and perhaps you think ill of me for it but the tone which you used in your post was very unlike you.

But I will get back on the debate exchange track and lets see how it goes.

"Mr. gburner made the ridiculous but common ASSumption that because I think the Bush admin is a bunch of incompetent, lying criminals, that I must have "liked" the "previous president." This sort of obsessing on Clinton is emblematic of the impotent rage that most of them feel about him. They can't give him a rest even when the conversation has nothing to do with him. I hate to say it, but your own statement"

Emphasis on the word "think." You think and or feel that the current administration are all these things but can't prove much of anything since the information isn't there to be had yet (emphasis on "yet") Who knows, you and those of like thinking may be right in the end and if so then bully to you and yours. Presently I see more resentment for the Bush administration as more things come to light in his favor which makes me wonder. As to Clinton and the original subject he and his administration are very directly linked to this whole thing. Here's something to read. It's long but it was written by Dick Morris.

http://www.vote.com/owth1/

There was also an interview with Mansoor Ijaz regarding his work with the Clinton administration and terrorism that I will see if I can find for you as well. It is just as scathing as Dick Morris' So are we obsessed with Clinton? In as much as you and those like you are obsessed with Bush lying about everything and thensome. The difference? We have documentation to substantiate our claims, we have admissions from the horses mouth (so to speak) we have video tape you can watch and so on so forth. So far all the opposition has to offer is that because they believe it it has to be true.

"seems to me to be another example. The context was about Condoleeza Rice and admin lies about WMD."

Actually the subject was Condoleeza declaring another threat to the US in the Middle East and WMD, not lies of the administration. Just like your statement, the rest was interjected by the opposition to this administration which is what I and others are here to dispell.

"That may be true here, but this is a very small corner of the universe."

Yup, The High Road is a small corner but the majority still exists and not just here but coast to coast according to polling data on many different fronts. I don't put much stock in polls but it's all I have besides my own little corner of the world to determine what others may think regarding said subject. I believe the numbers are in the 70% range for those in support of if memory serves and if it doesn't I'll try to find the figures on-line.

I realize you were addressing Sean Smith but could you site your sources for your assertions 1-3? Also if you could substantiate your final paragraph I would greatly appreciate it.

Thanks in advance

"Not so much a lie as an error on the side of caution."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"No, that was a lie. which is where we started here, in the first place."

Granted I'm just using these two paragraphs as an example, but...

""It was a foregone conclusion that every photo of a trailer truck would be a `mobile bioweapons lab' and every tanker truck would be `filled with weaponized anthrax,' " a former military intelligence officer said. "None of the analysts in military uniform had the option to debate the vice president, secretary of defense and the secretary of state."

I don't believe that the president deliberately lied to the public in an attempt to scare Americans into supporting his war. But it does look as if ideologues in the administration deceived themselves about Iraq's nuclear programs — and then deceived the American public as well."

Even the writer doesn't think the President deliberately lied not to mention the majority of the writers sources are not unlike this "former military intelligence officer" Who was he? Where's his credibility? I can say "relaible sources tell me...", "high ranking officials have said..." and so on to substantiate a claim that I want people to believe but if I never identify them how do you know they actually exist and that I'm not making them up to make me sound more credible? You don't and likely would never even bother to ask, especially if I'm talking your arguing points. I, on the otherhand, question most things even those talking my arguing points because I don't like looking the fool if I can help it.

Take care,

DRC

PS. Whether you believe it or not is irrelivent but I do enjoy our exchanges and I meant what I said regarding your intelligence and manner in which you handle yourself (posting to gburner excluded of course)

[Malone LaVeigh]

DRC:

I appologize again for the tone. Now,

Emphasis on the word "think." You think and or feel that the current administration are all these things but can't prove much of anything since the information isn't there to be had yet (emphasis on "yet")I said I "think the Bush admin is a bunch of incompetent, lying criminals" and, yes, that is in the realm of opinion. But the inaccuracies and apparently deliberate deceptions of the admin are a matter of record.

From the article
I don't believe that the president deliberately lied to the public in an attempt to scare Americans into supporting his war. But it does look as if ideologues in the administration deceived themselves about Iraq's nuclear programs — and then deceived the American public as well.I know most writers on the subject, including Mr. Kristof of the Post, have gone to great pains to avoid accusing Bush himself from intentional lies. But consider what this means. We have to believe that Cheny's office and the NSC were both given the report debunking the Niger yellowcake story, but somehow allowed Bush to make that speech without letting him know. Can you believe a speech like that to Congress and the American people wasn't vetted by security officials and the white house staff up and down the line?

When the president speaks, he isn't just speaking as an individual. He is responsible for what he says, based on what his staff has told him. No one expects the prez to know everything. He is presenting "what we know" in the corporate sense and is responsible for it being true. If he was deceived, it is an internal matter for him to try to sort out, but the buck should stop with him.

I used to be one of those who thought Bush was a borderline moron ne'er-do-well frat boy who lucked into the job because the handlers needed someone with a good pedigree who was malleable. His behavior since election has forced me to begin giving him the benefit of the doubt. Why don't you?

could you site your sources for your assertions 1-3? Also if you could substantiate your final paragraph I would greatly appreciate it.Yes, I will look up some refs. I got most of that from the mainstream media, and don't have the sources handy, and I'm trying to get some work done at home today. (I'll bet Ashcroft already knows which days I work at home.)

[HBK]

Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty and the pig likes it.

[Thumper]

Apropos of nothing, aren't old hippies poignantly fascinating?

[DRC]

Hello Malone,

Nice to see you back.

"I said I "think the Bush admin is a bunch of incompetent, lying criminals" and, yes, that is in the realm of opinion. But the inaccuracies and apparently deliberate deceptions of the admin are a matter of record."

Actually not in blanket fashion as you've worded it. While there have been inacuracies you do not know what transpired that caused them. In otherwords you do not know the where, how, why and when. You've assumed that Cheneys office got the information and held it. You've assumed that the intelligence agencies had this information for some time and didn't give the information over to the propper directors. Just like the writer of the article says that staff member were told of these inaccuracies and invalidity but cannot referrence whether the propper authorities ever got the information prior to the State of the Union Address and cannot document that things happened in the time frames he's referrenced because they are left intentionally ambiguous.

"I know most writers on the subject, including Mr. Kristof of the Post, have gone to great pains to avoid accusing Bush himself from intentional lies."

No you don't. I could just as easily say that I know these writers have gone to great pains not to accuse Bush directly because they fear a back lash when he's proven right.

"But consider what this means. We have to believe that Cheny's office and the NSC were both given the report debunking the Niger yellowcake story, but somehow allowed Bush to make that speech without letting him know."

No we don't. Why? Because we don't know the time frame or the chain of information delivery for this information. According to those in the "loop" Bush didn't get the information until after the speach but those out of the "loop" evidently want us to believe that they are more informed than the sitting administration and I find that very difficult to believe.

"Can you believe a speech like that to Congress and the American people wasn't vetted by security officials and the white house staff up and down the line?"

And therein is why I'm discounting the subjects being espoused by those out of the "loop". The information contained therein would have been rehashed and scrutinized very thoroughly prior to it being given as a State of the Union Address. If the information were available the subject would have been removed. There lies the question of why was the information not available prior to the speach? Well, according to specualtion, the offices that the information was passed on to held on to it and wanted this to go out to the American people to sell the war, but there's no proof of this in any way, shape or form. Plus the only thing being denounced is the document itself. As to the "yellow cake" I'm not that up on the alledged deal with Niger, but we do know that Iraq had barrels of the stuff but where it came from really hasn't been discussed at length that I'm aware of. So did Bush lie about it? Not to sound repetitive but even the writer of the article doesn't seem to think so.

"When the president speaks, he isn't just speaking as an individual. He is responsible for what he says, based on what his staff has told him. No one expects the prez to know everything. He is presenting "what we know" in the corporate sense and is responsible for it being true. If he was deceived, it is an internal matter for him to try to sort out, but the buck should stop with him."

I agree with you and Bush has not skirted anything that I'm aware of. If you have documentation that he has please present it to this thread so we can all see it, but otherwise I think Bush has handled all of this quite well.

"I used to be one of those who thought Bush was a borderline moron ne'er-do-well frat boy who lucked into the job because the handlers needed someone with a good pedigree who was malleable."

A perfect example of what you are willing to believe without confirmation I must say. Think of Bush what you will as it is your porogative as well as your right but remember it doesn't make it so just because you believe it.

"His behavior since election has forced me to begin giving him the benefit of the doubt. Why don't you?"

I'm not exactly sure what you're asking of me since I am obviously giving Bush the benefit of the doubt as well as backing up my assertions at every turn. If I've misread please clarify if you would.

I know your busy but I would like to see your referrences so when you get a chance please post them so we can all read them.

Thanks,

DRC

[DRC]

With all due respect if you would be so kind as to keep the aspersions out and bring supporting information and debate in I would greatly appreciate it. The last thing I want to see is this turn into a name calling contest. The conversation is good and congenial. Keep it that way!

Thanks,

DRC

[Thumper]

In otherwords you do not know the where, how, why and when.

Sure he does, DRC. His 56K modem is a much more reliable intelligence apparatus than the U.S. Government can put together.

:rolleyes:

[Thumper]

The last thing I want to see is this turn into a name calling contest.

What did I say...?

:evil:

Apologies...I admit I don't have anything pertinent to add. Bowing out.

[DRC]

Thank you,

If you find some information in your reading please bring it. Good info is always welcome.

DRC

[Thumper]

Thank you for your magnanimous invite, DRC, but over the past two years, I've learned that arguments with Malone tend toward the circuitous.

Have fun, though.

[DRC]

I'm not looking to change Malone's mind as it won't work anyway. What I'm here to do is converse to see why people think the way they do about a subject. It is very telling I must say and definitely gives me good insight to debate and arguing points for those that I run into that wish to discuss politics. That's why I like to converse with Malone, he's one of very few intelligent people that share this opposition view. It's easy to win a battle of wits with an unarmed man but Malone is not that unarmed man and is, for the most part, very well armed in my opinion and this helps me considerably.

I hope I didn't come across as patronizing. When I hear people use the term "magnanimous" I tend to think it in terms of patronizing manner. Not intended that way at all.

Take care,

DRC

[Malone LaVeigh]

References:

As I said, I got most of that from the media, which I listen to with an extremely practiced ear. These aren't my original sources, but a few corroborating things I found in a quick search on the web.

Afgnahistan. Our puppets control Kabul. The rest of the country is a madhouse of warlords fighting each other,http://www.iht.com/articles/99223.html

http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2002/08/08082002143824.asp

http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/insight/articles/eav010303.shtml

http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,1284,892450,00.html

growing and exporting opium, http://opioids.com/afghanistan/

http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/library/news/2003/06/sec-030617-voa05.htm

http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2002/03/07032002092826.asp

instilling the same repressive fundamentalism on their people as the TalibanNOTE: I was talking there about the warlords, not necessarily the current puppet government.

http://www.afghan-web.com/politics/parties.html

http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2002/06/28062002172034.asp

Big deal, except for the cost. Oh, yeah, and we still haven't caught Bin Laden or that Sheik feller and Al Qaeda is still planning and carrying out acts of terror.This should not need any references.

Iraq. Even Republican Senators are saying we'll be there for years. www.abc.net.au/am/content/2003/s888557.htm

At the current rate, we're losing about one young American a day.Sadly, I reference any major US newspaper on any day of the last month.

The UN inspectors accounted for, by their estimates, upward of 95% of the Iraqi WMD capacity. Documented and destroyed.I don't remember where I got the 90-something% number, but check this out:

http://www.fair.org/press-releases/kamel.html

Also check this out for a statement on what they found before the defection cited in the previous reference. Toward the bottom, he says, "I think UNSCOM inspections were highly successful," he said. "We found out about a major biological weapons program, which was destroyed in all of its essentials, before anyone defected,"

http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/text/1113ekeus.htm

(To be honest, I also found a lot of UN sources from around 1998 protesting the lack of Iraqi cooperation, but we knew about that.)

Now I have to ask you a couple of questions:

As to the "yellow cake" I'm not that up on the alledged deal with Niger, but we do know that Iraq had barrels of the stuff but where it came from really hasn't been discussed at length that I'm aware of.This is the kind of thing that makes me worry. Do you really believe Saddam had "barrels of the stuff?" Based on what? Why didn't any of it turn up? Are we to believe that he's scurrying about the desert with barrels of yellowcake that might someday be turned into weapons? It is enough to make me despair if someone as intelligent as you believes this. There is simply no evidence to support it.

The Niger deal was known to be a total fabrication almost from the begining. No one, as far as I know, is claiming Saddam actually had any.

"His behavior since election has forced me to begin giving him the benefit of the doubt. Why don't you?"

I'm not exactly sure what you're asking of me since I am obviously giving Bush the benefit of the doubt as well as backing up my assertions at every turn. If I've misread please clarify if you would. You are acting as if Bush really didn't know what was going on. I'm giving him the benefit of assuming he's actually in charge.

As far as the timeline argument,
Italy's intelligence service obtained the documents and shared them with British spooks, who passed them on to Washington. Mr. Cheney's office got wind of this and asked the C.I.A. to investigate.

The agency chose a former ambassador to Africa to undertake the mission, and that person flew to Niamey, Niger, in the last week of February 2002.
Immediately upon his return, in early March 2002, this senior envoy briefed the C.I.A. and State Department and reported that the documents were bogus
The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.This last from the State of the Union Speech (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-23.html) delivered in January of this year. I'd say there was enough time for the word to make it down the hall.

Finally,
I'm not looking to change Malone's mind as it won't work anyway.I have more faith in you, however.;)

[DonQatU]

I would just like to add a few links to Malone LaVeigh's "current events in Afghanistan." ...... just in case you think things have changed for "the better" recently.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2003-07-01-afghan-warlord_x.htm

http://www.myafghan.com/news2.asp?id=921446853

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;$sessionid$DZBEVNBXMKJ21QFIQMGSFF4AVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2003/07/02/wafg02.xml/

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0703/p07s02-wosc.html?worldNav

http://www.visaliatimesdelta.com/news/stories/20030701/localnews/573720.html

Don

“We know where they (WMDs) are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad.” - Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld

“No one ever said that we knew precisely where all of these agents were; where they were stored. - National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice

[kentucky bucky]

I'll tell you Bush bashers some lies: We could have security with the Taliban still helping Bin Laden and With Saddam still in power, there never were WMD, it's OK if Iran continues unchecked, North Korea can be trusted (I stole this one from Clinton) and liberals don't really want to take our guns. (another Clinton paraphrase).

The only thing that could be called a lie that the Bush administation has said is that Saudi Arabia is our friend. This I'm sure is only a political neccessity at the moment.

[DRC]

"...which I listen to with an extremely practiced ear."

Practiced or biased?

Since so much of your efforts as well as Don's are on Afghanistan I'll address that like this. Do either of you know why we went into Afghanistan to begin with, since you've spoken of people with a "memory." Our objectives were met in Afghanistan which were to remove the Taliban and disban Al queda. As to getting Bin Laden? Well, that has been a failure thus far, but remember we're still not done. Since Bin Laden is a marked man how much control and how effective is he really? Killing Bin Laden at this point may martyr him which isn't necessarily what one wants him to be to those loyal to him and Al queda. Al queda members are still being rounded up, questioned and in some cases killed in skirmishes so they are far from being ignored.

As to Opium production, if one will also remember this is a very poor country and the two main exports were Opium and terrorism. Not a whole lot of government programs to feed and cloth the masses, not a lot of welfare in Afghanistan and not a lot of governing going on other than oppression so law and enforcing the law was spotty at best, non existant at worst. This country has been under the rule of tyrants, extremists and dictators since time began so I'm not sure why people focus on the failure of the US to "fix" Afghanistan especially in such a short period of time. If instant gratification is what you seek, don't expect it. Thinking people understand this.

I find it intresting that you and I think the same but on opposite sides of the fence. If the sitting administration were of a calibur that you could accept and back, you would be espousing what I'm saying with regard to Bush to make your case as well. Sadly since Bush is the sitting president it can be agrued that one would not and there is no way to prove or disprove this.

"Big deal, except for the cost. Oh, yeah, and we still haven't caught Bin Laden or that Sheik feller and Al Qaeda is still planning and carrying out acts of terror."

War is costly in many ways. I do not dispute that at all, but that doesn't mean it isn't necessary. As to Bin Laden and the "Sheik feller" you are correct, we haven't caught them, but we know they exist. But just how effectively is Bin Laden in leading his minions? He is not found or dead as far as we know but he is contained in a manner of speaking. And then Al queda still planning on carrying out acts of terror? Hmmm. Since they are a terror organization and they're not all gone I would assume that it would be understandable that they were planning and plotting to carry out more of such, don't you? Also don't forget that not all terror attacks recently have been the work of Al queda. Al queda has now become a generic name for all terrorist organizations via the media since it's easier for the general populous to equate to.

"Iraq. Even Republican Senators are saying we'll be there for years."

And??? We will be there no longer than necessary. How long is necessary? How long is a piece of string? We might end up with forces there indefinitely which strategically speaking isn't a bad idea but that's a differnet story altogether.

"At the current rate, we're losing about one young American a day."

Tragic. Very tragic, but all the more reason to be there. What do you think these militants would be doing if there was no policing of the area? Maybe trying to take control? But our forces stand in the way.

"The UN inspectors accounted for, by their estimates, upward of 95% of the Iraqi WMD capacity. Documented and destroyed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't remember where I got the 90-something% number, but check this out:"

I can't find anything on that number either. As to the article, one guy (who's dead now btw and can't be questioned) said that Iraq destroyed all their weapons and gave an interview to Newsweek but wasn't questioned by anyone else at a time when this information would have been valuable? "The weapons were destroyed secretly, in order to hide their existence from inspectors, in the hopes of someday resuming production after inspections had finished." Destroyed in "secret" with no one looking except those in Saddams service? I hope you can see why it is so difficult to put much stock in this type of thing but it is intresting if nothing else.

"This is the kind of thing that makes me worry. Do you really believe Saddam had "barrels of the stuff?" Based on what? Why didn't any of it turn up? Are we to believe that he's scurrying about the desert with barrels of yellowcake that might someday be turned into weapons? It is enough to make me despair if someone as intelligent as you believes this. There is simply no evidence to support it."

http://www.asahi.com/english/international/K2003050800179.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3009082.stm

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/06/01/1054406075181.html

So what did I miss?

As to the time line? By what you have presented I do have to say that it should have had enough time to get "down the hall" and should have made it down the hall. So why didn't it? A vast left wing conspiracy perhaps? I do not know first hand what transpired or why the information didn't get to the President or if it did why it was ignored but I'm all ears please enlighten me and the rest.

I'm not looking to change Malone's mind as it won't work anyway.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I have more faith in you, however."

I have less faith in your ability to do so, but you are an intelligent person and are to be commended for your integrity. If any of you should ever come up with something credible enough to sink my teeth into I'll seriously consider changing my view (but I am "practiced" enough to know it will never happen) :D

Take care,

DRC

[DonQatU]

Do either of you know why we went into Afghanistan to begin with, since you've spoken of people with a "memory."

If I may, I'll raise my hand and answer that question. We were there to destroy al-Qaeda and remove the Taliban.

Our objectives were met in Afghanistan which were to remove the Taliban and disban Al queda.

Apparently our objectives were NOT met. Our puppet, Karzai, can't venture outside of his bunker in Kabul to take a leak without an entourage of US Special Ops body guards. The Taliban and al-Qaeda took a licking.....but they keep on ticking. AND they are being joined by warlords inside the puppet government (Hekmatyar).

The point being........ the job in Afghanistan wasn't/isn't complete. The neocons persuaded Bush to go into Iraq. Now we're in TWO quagmires.

As to getting Bin Laden? Well, that has been a failure thus far, but remember we're still not done.

Well, that's an understatement!

Since Bin Laden is a marked man how much control and how effective is he really?

Bin Laden was a marked man before 911 too. Didn't seem to effect him much. With the war in Iraq he has gained recruits. We took care of his secularist enemy Saddam.

As to Opium production, if one will also remember this is a very poor country and the two main exports were Opium and terrorism.

WERE (past tense)? The two main exports still ARE (present tense)Opium and terrorism! Where is the foreign aid that was promised to Afghanistan?

I'm not sure why people focus on the failure of the US to "fix" Afghanistan especially in such a short period of time. If instant gratification is what you seek, don't expect it. Thinking people understand this.

Instant gratification? How silly of me to think that the US/coalition could provide security and the necessities of life as promised! Especially when distracted with more urgent matters in Iraq.

"At the current rate, we're losing about one young American a day."

Tragic. Very tragic, ....... But our forces stand in the way.

This is EXACTLY what Saddam wanted! He knew he could never take on the US with his low-tech 1960's type army. But now they've got Americans UP CLOSE AND PERSONAL. The high-tech stuff is no good now.

"This is the kind of thing that makes me worry. Do you really believe Saddam had "barrels of the stuff?" Based on what?

Malone, I think DRC is correct on this point. The Iraqis did have "yellow cake" for the operation of the Tuwaitha facility. The yellow cake they had was inventoried and sealed by UN inspectors. It's a long way from possesion of yellow cake to a nuclear weapon. The Iraqis didn't even possess the capablity to enrich the stuff to weapons grade.

The BIG LIE (yes lie) that the Bush administration tried to sell, was that Iraq was trying to aquire more "yellow cake" from Nigeria.

Ari Fliescher recently admitted the allegation that Iraq was trying to obtain more "yellow cake" from Nigeria to be "in error" (ie. a lie).

Ari Fleischer, the White House spokesman, said, "There is zero, nada, nothing new here." He said that "we've long acknowledged" that information on the attempted purchases from Niger "did, indeed, turn out to be incorrect."


Of all the WMD lies put out by the administration, the "Iraqi nuclear weapons program" lies are the most absurd.

Don

[DRC]

Nice to see you again,

"If I may, I'll raise my hand and answer that question. We were there to destroy al-Qaeda and remove the Taliban."

Close but a little too ambiguous. Lets try this:

http://www.asiasource.org/news/at_mp_02.cfm?newsid=65391

"On October 7, the United States began air strikes against Afghanistan aimed at destroying the military capability of the Taliban government. The United States hopes that by so doing, they will remove the Taliban from power, thereby creating the conditions for the capture of Osama bin Laden, and the eventual dissolution of his Al-Qaida network. Osama bin Laden and his network were named as the prime suspects in the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11."

"The point being........ the job in Afghanistan wasn't/isn't complete. The neocons persuaded Bush to go into Iraq. Now we're in TWO quagmires."

So then what you're saying is that Bush is a victim of circumstance? He was coerced into this whole thing by the neocons? Actually the job in Afghanistan was completed except for the capturing of Bin Laden. As to a "quagmire" well there is a lot of sand around and yes it is a precarious situation or predicament since there's a war going on and all. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=quagmire

"Well, that's an understatement!"

Spoken like a man familiar with and who knows understatements :)

"Bin Laden was a marked man before 911 too. Didn't seem to effect him much. With the war in Iraq he has gained recruits. We took care of his secularist enemy Saddam."

Yes he was and the Clinton administration gave him a free ride which is why it didn't effect him much. Clinton didn't WANT (caps for emphasis only) to do anything about Osama and Osama knew it. Osama is now marked by an Administration that wants his head. Big difference there Don. Al queda has gained recruits as well as lost recruits and there hasn't been an attack on US soil since Bush started routing them out.

"The two main exports still ARE (present tense)Opium and terrorism! Where is the foreign aid that was promised to Afghanistan?"

Sorry Don, I should have included "...and still are" but I figured since the sentence was a past tense sentence using a past tense verb was gramatically correct and everyone would pick up on it. Again I apologize for the assumption. As to where the foreign aid is ask the UN. I believe that humanatarian aid has been and still is being sent in but I could be mistaken but I believe that the British have been very instrumental in that aspect if memory serves. This might help:

http://www.useu.be/Terrorism/HumanResponse/

Bunches of information but on this very subject. Happy reading.

"Instant gratification? How silly of me to think that the US/coalition could provide security and the necessities of life as promised! Especially when distracted with more urgent matters in Iraq."

No Don, not silly of you to think that but completely ludicrous for you to think that hundreds of years of tyranny can be changed in a matter of a couple of years. Sorry, but it's true big guy.

"This is EXACTLY what Saddam wanted! He knew he could never take on the US with his low-tech 1960's type army. But now they've got Americans UP CLOSE AND PERSONAL. The high-tech stuff is no good now."

Don? What are you talking about? Saddam had Hi-Tech weapons as recently as 1995 as well as Hi-Tech weapons programs as recently as 1998. You could have a good point here but please let me know what it is.

I posted several links to article on the subject of Iraqi "yellow cake" so that's taken care of but thanks for coming to my defense. You are a gentleman.

"The yellow cake they had was inventoried and sealed by UN inspectors. It's a long way from possesion of yellow cake to a nuclear weapon. The Iraqis didn't even possess the capablity to enrich the stuff to weapons grade."

The UN "inventoried and sealed" the yellow cake, which means that it was left there in Iraq NEVER to be touched again or opened by anyone for any reason. Just ask them and take them at their word since they are telling the truth. Anyone believe them? If one isn't working toward or can't enrich this Uranium then why have it? Does it work well as fertilizer? A desert topping? Maybe a polishing rougue? Is there another use for it in the hands of such a regime at the Tuwaitha facility? I guess I'm in the minority but I'm just not that trusting where all these components are concerned.

"The BIG LIE (yes lie) that the Bush administration tried to sell, was that Iraq was trying to aquire more "yellow cake" from Nigeria."

Didn't this intel come from the British? Regardless, the "report" was deemed bogus but I've not heard anything that says there was no plan in secret or otherwise between Niger and Iraq to aquire Uranium. It just gives me a mental picture of two officials sitting in an office talking to the head guy and he says the books they looked at were bogus and nothing was going on, while out in the warehouse the trucks are being loaded up behind their backs, but i digress. I've said it before but it has been a while, Iraq already had plenty of "yellow cake" so why they needed more from anyone else is beyond me but hey if you wish to use it as an arguing point be my guest.

"Of all the WMD lies put out by the administration, the "Iraqi nuclear weapons program" lies are the most absurd."

Even though there is more than one report and one document detailing plans for such? Even though they already had one in Tuwaitha where I believe reports of new construction were going on in that facility after the bombing thereof? Even though they had "yellow cake"? Even though components were found that are used in the enrichment process? And so on so on so forth.

Well Don, once again it has been a pleasure as you are always entertaining and a good sport.

Take care,

DRC

[DonQatU]

Didn't this intel come from the British? Regardless, the "report" was deemed bogus but I've not heard anything that says there was no plan in secret or otherwise between Niger and Iraq to aquire Uranium.

DRC, you are quite funny! Ask Ari Fliescher where they got it! (Looking for a scapegoat, DRC?)???!!! :D

I've seen no evidence "that you've stopped beating your wife" either! :D



DonSo then what you're saying is that Bush is a victim of circumstance?

No! Nice try, DRC! I'm saying Bush heard what he wanted to hear from his neocon advisers. "After all, they tried to kill my dad!" (and wife..... guess she doesn't count!) I'll send you the video clip on that one ....... IF you'd like! ;-)

Don? What are you talking about? Saddam had Hi-Tech weapons as recently as 1995 as well as Hi-Tech weapons programs as recently as 1998.

Oh, please stop! I'm LMAOROTF! :D

Oh, crap! I can't go on without spitting my softdrink on the monitor! :D

Don

[gburner]

Rather than continue to thrown poop at conservatives as if they were visitors looking between the bars of some cage containing a restive, semi-intellegent group of semians, I would like some suggestions from the left concentrating on detailing what THEY think is the best path for this nation to proceed on in the following areas.

How would they deal with Saddam?
How would they deal with Al Quida?
How would they deal with the Taliban?
How would they insure that America's
interests were being protected and advanced worldwide?
How would they deal with the rise of Islamo-Fascism and it's detremental effects on governments, societies and markets.
How would they transition from the cold war international paradigm into meeting the needs of a totally different world balance in the 21st century.

(Hint: Putting out realistic, workable solutions is a lot harder than throwing poop.)

BTW...points off for including the UN in any of your answers.:neener:

[DonQatU]

Rather than continue to thrown poop at conservatives as if they were visitors looking between the bars of some cage containing a restive, semi-intellegent group of semians, I would like some suggestions from the left concentrating on detailing what THEY think is the best path for this nation to proceed on in the following areas.

gburner, while I'm not a leftist or a "semi-intelligent simian", my hand is in the air and I'd like to answer your questions ....... if you call on me! :D

Don

[HBK]

Don, if what you say is true, what are our alternatives? I would say that if that is the case, then we are screwed. If we don't vote for Bush in the next election, then would we be better off? I can't imagine that we would. What is the answer, (assuming you're right)?

[Malone LaVeigh]

HBK:

So you were talking about the Tuwaitha facility yellowcake? That doesn't make sense. Everyone knows that Saddam had tried to develop nukes in the past. UN inspectors had taken control of the facility through the due process of their mandate. By your standard, then Iraq could have never not been guilty of developing nukes because of material left over from their first attempt. If you ask me, the UN inspectors should have gotten that material out of Iraq, but maybe they didn't have that mandate.

Are you trying to change the subject? The point of this was Bush et al lied about attempts of Iraq to get nuclear material from Africa.

On to the other stuff on another day. I need to get some sleep.

[HBK]

But they weren't in control of the facility because Hussein wouldn't let them control it. He kicked them out of the country and Clinton did nothing. That's besides the point, though. What I want to know is what you guys who bash Bush would like to do? What is your answer? Would you rather have Gore or Kerry in office in 2004? What about Leiberman? I can't see anyone doing a better job, especially if the economy keeps improving.

[DonQatU]

Would you rather have Gore or Kerry in office in 2004?

YES or NO question! How about thinking OUTSIDE the box! ....... Don

[Malone LaVeigh]

Would you rather have Gore or Kerry in office in 2004?No, I'd rather have Ralph Nader or someone else who is actually working in the interest of the people of this country.

[HBK]

Ralph Nader? What's his position on the 2nd ammendment? Anyone else come to mind? You want me to think outside the box, so give me some suggestions.

[mattd]

non violence :barf: :barf:
Here: http://www.issues2000.org/2000/Gun_Control.htm

"Repeal all gun laws; Bill of Rights is “literal”. (May 1996) - Harry Browne"
Funny guy

Ralph Nader on gun control
Make sure the weapons are designed safely with trigger locks.
Strong law enforcement so that they’re not falling into the hands of criminals.
Look at a weapon the way you look at a car. You’ve got to know how to handle it. You should be licensed.
There are certain weapons that should be banned.

[HBK]

Thanks for that link. Looks like Nader is FOR gun control. Harry Brown seems the best out of the third party candidates.

[fallingblock]

:eek:

I'll go with the suggestion that Condoleeza Rice be President...Ralph has been on a losing streak since the Corvair:D

[HBK]

She would get my vote.:D

[peashooter]

The fact that the Administration now blames the CIA for the faulty intel give the Prez cover or as they called it during the Reagan era, Plausable Deniability.
But what I want to know is, what does any of this have to do with firearms? Aren't all threads supposed to be firearms related????:what:

[seeker_two]

!!!RUMSFELD & RICE IN '04!!!

:D :D :D

[DRC]

peashooter,

during the course of a war all of the above are typically used and, yes all are firearms so the topic isn't outside the parameters of being firearms related as far as I can tell or am aware, but the powers that be may see otherwise. In the meantime however, the administration isn't blaming the CIA but are rather saying that the CIA did in fact look over the speech prior to the State of the Union and only asked that they change a time and date and nothing more, in the section that spoke of the Uranium issue.

As to faulty intel...to keep from having a locked or deleted thread lets just say do your research and you will find that many things are coming to light that can and do defeat the issue against the administration.

Take care,

DRC

[peashooter]

DRC, Thanks for the non-flammable reply.
I've been to war...Twice.
I know what is used and how.
Thanks.

[DRC]

I'm greatful for your service to this country and wanted to say so. You are to be commended.

"I know what is used and how."

Then I shouldn't have had to point out the obvious then. :D

Take care,

DRC

[Malone LaVeigh]

Welcome, peashooter. Actually, in the Legal and Political forum, posts do not have to be firearm related.

[Malone LaVeigh]

Oh, and as far as Rice is concerned, it doesn't look like she's going to emerge from the swamp without a little mud on her, either.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0713-03.htm

*WARNING - THIS LINK CONTAINS SOME BANNED CONTENT AND IS ONLY PROVIDED FOR THE POLITICAL INFORMATION MENTIONED ABOVE. YOU ARE DIRECTED TO IGNORE ALL CONTENT RELATED TO ADMIN. LIES, IRAQ NONEXISTENT WMD'S, ETC*

[Thumper]

*WARNING - THIS LINK CONTAINS SOME BANNED CONTENT AND IS ONLY PROVIDED FOR THE POLITICAL INFORMATION MENTIONED ABOVE. YOU ARE DIRECTED TO IGNORE ALL CONTENT RELATED TO ADMIN. LIES, IRAQ NONEXISTENT WMD'S, ETC*

...yawn...

[Malone LaVeigh]

DRC,

In reply to your PM, also I should add that I don't think for a moment that Rockefeller's motives are anything but political. My point was about Rice's political baggage after this mess.

[DRC]

I see an assertion by Rockerfeller and by your own admission his reasons are political. These assertions are being made by everyone on the left on a daily basis and are being proven false daily.

Keep looking,

DRC

[Malone LaVeigh]

...and are being proven false daily.Keep whistling in the dark. ;)

[DRC]

"Keep whistling in the dark. :) "

You too Malone :D

DRC