Cheney: War critics "dishonest" & "reprehensible".

Status
Not open for further replies.
If you can't see it I sure can't help you.

I'd like to see it too.

CAnnoneer's point is a good microcosm of the Administration's position on the war...any criticism is unamerican and the best response you get out of them is "HOW COULD YOU POLITICIZE THIS?"

I find many of the responses to questions about the US policy towards Israel to be similar.
 
shootinstudent said:
I'd like to see it too.

CAnnoneer's point is a good microcosm of the Administration's position on the war...any criticism is unamerican and the best response you get out of them is "HOW COULD YOU POLITICIZE THIS?"

I find many of the responses to questions about the US policy towards Israel to be similar.

Decades of propoganda makes a world of difference. The indoctrinators in our education system have done a good job at altering reality. The combined arms media campaign does indeed work. Some people here are proof.
 
Decades of propoganda makes a world of difference. The indoctrinators in our education system have done a good job at altering reality. The combined arms media campaign does indeed work. Some people here are proof.

??? Okay...could you tie that to the issue at hand for me?

I have witnessed no combined media campaign against Israel in the US...I have seen it against the war, and in both cases, regardless, there seems to be an attitude of "how could you!?" when questions are asked. I think it's always better to have a position articulated so we can debate it instead, don't you?
 
OldDog wrote:
Ah, Javafiend ... resorting now to the woefully inaccurate comparison of the War in Iraq with Vietnam?

Actually the word "Vietnam" did not even appear in my post, i.e., you make it up as you go along. You brought up the comparison, not I.

Iraqi forces desert posts as insurgent attacks are stepped up
By Oliver Poole in Baghdad
(Filed: 25/04/2005)

Iraqi army and police units are deserting their posts after the recent escalation in insurgent attacks, according to reports from around the country yesterday.

Officers Worry Iraqi Army Will Disintegrate After U.S. Draws Down
A growing number of U.S. military officers in Iraq and those who have returned from the region are voicing concern that the nascent Iraqi army will fall apart if American forces are drawn down in the foreseeable future, Inside the Pentagon has learned. Newly trained forces generally exhibit “a lack of willingness to fight for something,” says retired Army Col. Gerry Schumacher, a former Green Beret who was recently in Iraq. More than two years of insurgent violence and a U.S.-led occupation have left Iraqi troops with “a lack of a cause to believe in,” says Schumacher, who anticipates a civil war may break out between tribal and ethnic groups when American forces leave.

Rumsfeld Warns Pullout Dangerous
WASHINGTON, Nov. 20, 2005
In September, Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, told senators that only one Iraqi army battalion appeared capable of fighting without U.S. help.

Only ONE Iraqi army battalion out of 113 paid-up Iraqi battalions after two years of US recruitment and training can fight without their US scout masters? Laughable.

Rumsfeld said the U.S.-led coalition continues to make progress in training Iraqi security forces, which he placed at 212,000.

"Making progress." lol.....

He said criticism of the Iraqis will hurt their morale.

Aawww....criticism might hurt their feelings.....poor little things....

See also thisamericanlife.com. This week the program is about soldiers blogging from Iraq. Did you know that soldiers are instructed by military public affairs officer to lie about the military readiness and performance of the Iraqi army?

See Why Iraq Has No Army by by James Fallows, Atlantic Monthly,Dec.2005.

The Iraqi army lacks the courage and motivation to mix it up with the insurgents.

Why should US soldiers risk life and limb fighting for an Iraqi government for which our local "allies" themselves are unwilling to give 100%?

Since you brought up the reference to Vietnam, compare the Iraqi army's cowardice with that of the ARVN. Have you read A Bright Shining Lie : John Paul Vann and America in Vietnam?
 
Javafiend, you said
Actually the word "Vietnam" did not even appear in my post, i.e., you make it up as you go along. You brought up the comparison, not I.
Ah, no, I did not. From your previous post we have:
Quote:
Nearly three-quarters of Americans say the number of casualties in Iraq is unacceptable, while two-thirds say the U.S. military there is bogged down and nearly six in 10 say the war was not worth fighting -- in all three cases matching or exceeding the highest levels of pessimism yet recorded. More than four in 10 believe the U.S. presence in Iraq is becoming analogous to the experience in Vietnam. Perhaps most ominous for President Bush, 52 percent said war in Iraq has not contributed to the long-term security of the United States.
I wouldn't make this up ... perhaps I simply read your posts a bit more carefully than you read others' ...

In any event, you are doing quite well in bolstering the case for the U.S. to remain in Iraq longer (I assume you actually read completely all the material you provided links to?) ...
 
If you take the "dishonest and reprehensible", in the context in which he actually said it, instead of out of context and trying to cloud the issue with a bunch of rhetoric which has nothing to do with what he said, he is correct.
 
What about the arabs that live and work in Israel? Do they have voting rights too?
Well, yes.

But to get partway back from our thread drift... the Bush Administration was sneaky enough to manufacture intelligence and convince pretty much THE WHOLE WORLD of its veracity, but not smart enough to plant WMD in Iraq to vindicate that intelligence?

Get real.
 
DocZinn said:
Well, yes.

But to get partway back from our thread drift... the Bush Administration was sneaky enough to manufacture intelligence and convince pretty much THE WHOLE WORLD of its veracity, but not smart enough to plant WMD in Iraq to vindicate that intelligence?

Get real.

That's a conspiracy theory, not fact. Repeat it often enough, and people will either be confused or favor their bias.
 
Alas, OldDog, you got me, I must plead guilty. While I myself didn't mention Vietnam, the poll I cited did, and thus my earlier statement that you make it up as you go along is wrong. :eek:

the Bush Administration was sneaky enough to manufacture intelligence and convince pretty much THE WHOLE WORLD of its veracity, but not smart enough to plant WMD in Iraq to vindicate that intelligence?

They cherry-picked information - no matter how unreliable - to support their argument for war.

It is dishonest to allow the agenda to drive the intel collection process.

Also, it is simply incorrect to claim that "THE WHOLE WORLD" accepted the Bush Administration's claims concerning Iraq and WMD.

I've already posted evidence showing that British and Italian intelligence agencies had their doubts. In yesterday's Los Angeles Times appeared an article by Bob Drogin and John Goetz, How U.S. Fell Under the Spell of 'Curveball'.
The Iraqi informant's German handlers say they had told U.S. officials that his information was 'not proven,' and were shocked when President Bush and Colin L. Powell used it in key prewar speeches.
BERLIN — The German intelligence officials responsible for one of the most important informants on Saddam Hussein's suspected weapons of mass destruction say that the Bush administration and the CIA repeatedly exaggerated his claims during the run-up to the war in Iraq.
Five senior officials from Germany's Federal Intelligence Service, or BND, said in interviews with The Times that they warned U.S. intelligence authorities that the source, an Iraqi defector code-named Curveball, never claimed to produce germ weapons and never saw anyone else do so.
 
"Good call."

They cherry-picked information - no matter how unreliable - to support their argument for war.

It is dishonest to allow the agenda to drive the intel collection process.

That's a pretty tight analysis: and one of the best I've seen.
 
Except that confidence in what Saddam did or did not have predated that informant.

What is confidance in the absence of evidence? It's just faith.

In August 2002, Cheney insisted: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." In a March 2003 address to the nation, Bush said: "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

Well, actually there was substantial doubt both within the US intelligency community as well as within the intelligence agencies of our allies.

Apparently Powell also had doubts, as he had contradicted the president. The occasion was a press conference on 24 February 2001 during Powell's visit to Cairo, Egypt. Answering a question about the US-led sanctions against Iraq, the Secretary of State said:

[Saddam] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.
This statement used to appear on the State Department's own website, but they have since taken it down. Try to access it, and one gets a message that "Page Not Available." Fortunately the folks at TheMemoryHole.org made a mirror of it.

Furthermore, on 15 May 2001, Powell testified before the Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs Subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee.

The sanctions, as they are called, have succeeded over the last 10 years, not in deterring him from moving in that direction, but from actually being able to move in that direction. The Iraqi regime militarily remains fairly weak. It doesn't have the capacity it had 10 or 12 years ago. It has been contained. And even though we have no doubt in our mind that the Iraqi regime is pursuing programs to develop weapons of mass destruction -- chemical, biological and nuclear -- I think the best intelligence estimates suggest that they have not been terribly successful. There's no question that they have some stockpiles of some of these sorts of weapons still under their control, but they have not been able to break out, they have not been able to come out with the capacity to deliver these kinds of systems or to actually have these kinds of systems that is much beyond where they were 10 years ago.

By this point the Iraqi army was one-fifth its pre-Gulf War I size.

Powell wasn't the only Bush Admin official voicing such an assessment about Iraq. On 29 July 2001, Condoleezza Rice appeared on CNN Late Edition With Wolf Blitzer.
But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.

It's only after the Bush Admin made the decision to go to war against Iraq and Powell and Rice began beating the war drums.

I think that Cheney and Rummsfeld figured that once they occupied Iraq, they'd find *something* more than just an artillery shell that tested positive for mustard gas to justify their invasion. "Vast stockpiles" of WMD? Oh please.
 
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998


"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002
 
Biker said:
Although no Democrat, I have recently left the Repulican party. My question to you is, at what point do we suspend the right to Free Speech? When do we stop asking important questions? If your post was meant in jest, sorry.
Biker

Sorry to hear you left the Republican Party... which party do you now support?

No, we don't suspend free speech. But we don't criticize military policy in public either! We have troops in action, risking their lives! Last thing they want to hear is mixed messages from Congressmen! Discuss the policy in private if they feel a need to criticize it... elsewise another Vietnam is coming! Murtha's asinine comments do not help soldiers in the field! Cheney is right to name him as a coward. Additionally, the vote Friday confirmed that pulling out is not what is desired by Congress! End of discussion.
 
javafiend said:
What is confidance in the absence of evidence? It's just faith.

That sounds good except that there WAS evidence. Knock yourself out in finding what you call evidence to support what you have already decided. That wouldn't be any different than your accusations, would it? Once we become locked in on a decision, we don't want to be persuaded otherwise. Hurray for the exceptions, those with an open mind and no axe to grind.
 
Camp David...

I still fail to see how a decorated combat vet, a retired Marine Col, can be fairly described as a coward. He's seen the elephant and honorably did his time. Also, seems to me that Cheney got 5 deferments excusing him from the same war that Murtha volunteered for. Now, I'm just a simple, uneducated, hairy-a$$ ol' Biker, but I don't think that Cheney has earned the right to call Murtha a coward. Of course, that's just my opinion.
As to my Party choice - neither of the Big-Two. My vote will be earned from here on in, not determined by party loyalty.
Biker
 
Biker said:
I gather you disagree with the rest of my post?:)
Biker

I was referring to third party cynicism being a repeat of what I have read many times before.

Aside from that, you make it sound like only those who were in Vietnam when eligible by age are entitled to consume oxygen. You also seem to imply that deferments were not requested or granted for legitimate reasons.
 
Camp David said:
No, we don't suspend free speech. But we don't criticize military policy in public either!

I must disagree. Rather forcefully. We have not only the right, but the DUTY to discuss military policy in public. Out in the open. So that EVERYONE can participate, not just get an echo chamber of whichever opinion you and yours may or may not subscribe to.

We have troops in action, risking their lives! Last thing they want to hear is mixed messages from Congressmen!

but *I* am not now, nor will I ever be a Congressman. And I am extremely grateful to all service members--they are doing what I am physically incapable of doing (and I tried to serve--I was rejected for medical reasons). To NOT discuss this war and the ramifications on our society, and the ramifications for our service members would be not only wrong and unethical, it could have deadly consequences. Myopathy and egotism can be a bad combination. We can't stop politicians from being egomaniacs, but we *can* inject some clear thinking into their myopathy.

I would instead posit that to listen to *everyone* is not only our obligation living in a republic, it is a part of our duty to the members of our service that serve for us.

elsewise another Vietnam is coming!

This is not another Vietnam. I haven't seen anyone yelling "babykiller" or throwing blood on returning veterans. I haven't seen people burning their registration cards, or blowing up universities to protest the war. I *have* seen people asking questions and some of them are actually listening to the answers they are getting.

Murtha's asinine comments do not help soldiers in the field!

Neither do the comments of most of congress. Heck, calling a decorated war veteran a "coward" doesn't help the soldiers in the field either. Or, I guess we can "help" them out by getting used to the idea that its ok to call Vets cowardly, right? Vets should get used to it, right? :cuss:

Additionally, the vote Friday confirmed that pulling out is not what is desired by Congress! End of discussion.

End of YOUR part of this discussion, perhaps. I am not nearly done questioning what is best for our troops and the role of America in the world. and I am only 35...got a good 40 more years to question, discuss, and support.
 
Biker said:
I still fail to see how a decorated combat vet, a retired Marine Col, can be fairly described as a coward. He's seen the elephant and honorably did his time. Also, seems to me that Cheney got 5 deferments excusing him from the same war that Murtha volunteered for. Now, I'm just a simple, uneducated, hairy-a$$ ol' Biker, but I don't think that Cheney has earned the right to call Murtha a coward. Of course, that's just my opinion.
As to my Party choice - neither of the Big-Two. My vote will be earned from here on in, not determined by party loyalty.
Biker

Murtha also recommended that Clinton extricate the troops from Somalia before the mission was complete... in short, he has gone crackers about military policy... which says nothing about his prior service only his current belief. I believe Murtha is a Patriot in the most patriotic sense; that does not absolve me from criticicizing him NOW for what he NOW recommends; i.e., the "cut and run" approach!

As far as deferrments and those that have them... makes no difference in my opinion... this nation has a history of those WITH military service and those WITHOUT military service making excellent leaders! Criticizing someone that received a deferment, or criticizing someone with military service, makes no sense!

As far as VP Cheney "earning" or "not-earning" discussion; this national argument was not started by Democrats or republicans but by terrorists! Best to remember that. Cheney's comments were in response to Democrats bad mouthing the current Iraq policy; as VO he has a right to speak!

Murtha's suggestion to withdraw troops immediately would yield further attacks by terrorists on this soil! The mission is not complete! Since when does the USA run? Murtha has no real plan, only criticism of existing Iraq deployment and War on Terror which he voted for. Sounds like sour grapes to me!

I urge you to re-evaluate your party choice and your decision to abandon the GOP; much of the rhetoric you hear about the Repubican Party and smears that are made are untrue... There is a reason why Republicans won the Executive Office, the Senate, the House, and numerous Governor's Mansion races! IF YOU WISH TO BE INDEPENDANT I RESPECT THAT BIKER, I just hope you didn't abandon the GOP because of some untrue allegation!

Regards...
 
They cherry-picked information - no matter how unreliable - to support their argument for war.
We still have the indisputable fact that all the Democrats saw the same intel and thought the same thing. You start calling Kerry and Clinton et al liars for the same reason, and I might start to listen.

Also, it is simply incorrect to claim that "THE WHOLE WORLD" accepted the Bush Administration's claims concerning Iraq and WMD.

I've already posted evidence showing that British and Italian intelligence agencies had their doubts.
Notice I cleverly threw in the verbage "pretty much" to show that I know there were some who had doubts. My statement stands.
 
We still have the indisputable fact that all the Democrats saw the same intel and thought the same thing.

No, Bush released portions of NIEs that supported his case for war but withheld the parts that cast doubt on the parts that he released.

You start calling Kerry and Clinton et al liars for the same reason, and I might start to listen.

I've been doing that for years.

Look, when Bush got up and talked about Saddam supposedly trying to buy uranium from Niger, he probably believed it.

Other instances where he claimed that Saddam and Bin Laden work together, that Saddam was behind 9-11....give me a break. That's horsehocky, and I think he knew it was horsehocky when he spouted it.

Can I climb inside his head? No.

Do I have a memo where Bush says "let's lie to the American people into thinking that Saddam did 9-11 in order to hit their fear buttons and manipulate them into supporting this war we want to do agaisnt Saddam anyway" - nope, I don't that memo. You will never find such a memo signed by Bush, just as you will never find a memo signed by Hitler order Himmler to carry out the Holocaust.

By this point it's pretty obvious they lied and manipulated, and that yes, Democrats also lie and manipulate, and the media unquestioningly parrot such lies.

Oh, I guess it could be all just an honest mistake - or hundreds of honest mistakes all piled up on top of each other. :neener:

I'm tired of posting on this topic. Gonna give it a rest for awhile.

***
 
RealGun said:
I was referring to third party cynicism being a repeat of what I have read many times before.

Aside from that, you make it sound like only those who were in Vietnam when eligible by age are entitled to consume oxygen. You also seem to imply that deferments were not requested or granted for legitimate reasons.
Referring to the first statement in your second paragraph, where did I imply that in any way, shape or form? As for your second statement in the same paragraph, of course deferments are granted for legitimate reasons. However, don't request 5 and then call a combat vet a coward. It's kinda hard on the credibility of Mr Deferment...
Biker
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top