Still waiting for the quotes to support your claim the administration made these 2 statements:
"Iraq is responsible for the September 11th terrorist attacks"
"Iraq has nuclear weapons"
On the Iraq - Al Queyda link. The point you seem to be missing is that the Administration does NOT get it's intellegence straight from Gods lips. The point is that MANY different sources including those of foreign governments and those of previous administrations have made the exact same statements. What exactly do you think the administration was using as a basis for those statements? Clue - Statements made by those very sources or drawn from the same pool of intel that those sources used to form thier statements.
For the adminstrations statements to have been "lies" it had to KNOW the sources it was using as a basis were false AT THE TIME it made them. The problem is that in many cases the reports the administration used as a basis for making those claims weren't reputed until AFTER the adminstration (not the origional source) made them. In some cases the reports haven't been reputed at all. In some cases (such as the Czech one) the repudations amount to "We can find no corroborative evidence for the meeting and the source has real credibility problems" which is a very far cry from saying "We know this didn't happen" . In some cases the "debunkers" were actualy debunking the wrong source for the claims.
Lets take the classic Bush uranium from africa row.
This is typical of the headlines about that topic
"Bush Uranium Lie Is Tip of the Iceberg"
Here is what Bush actualy said:
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
The problem is that the U.K. government actualy DID (and as far as I know till tis day maintains) that claim.
Now the site you liked to goes on to provide the standard debunkment "FACT: This whopper was based on a document that the White House already knew to be a forgery thanks to the CIA. Sold to Italian intelligence by some hustler, the document carried the signature of an official who had been out of office for 10 years and referenced a constitution that was no longer in effect. The ex-ambassador who the CIA sent to check out the story is pissed: "They knew the Niger story was a flat-out lie,"
Here is the problem. It is debunking a source that MI6 (British Intel) claims it DID NOT USE to form the basis of it's claim.
Nevertheless the administration fell on it's sword and admited that statement should not have been made because the CIA couldn't vet it.
This is typical of the "Bush lies" claims. Bush stated something which was factualy true (U.K. intel DID make that claim). That the origional source still maintains as true (MI6 still makes that claim). Subsequent information turns up that casts doubt on pieces of information that the origional source (MI6) says it didn't even use as a basis for it's claim and all of a sudden it turns into "Bush lied".
"What the hell are you talking about? The Key report said precisely the opposite! What part of the report, exactly, are you referring to? "
"Despite evidence of Saddam's continued ambition to acquire nuclear weapons, to date we have not uncovered evidence that Iraq undertook significant post-1998 steps to actually build nuclear weapons or produce fissile material. However, Iraq did take steps to preserve some technological capability from the pre-1991 nuclear weapons program"
"The ISG nuclear team has found indications that there was interest, beginning in 2002, in reconstituting a centrifuge enrichment program. "
"With regard to delivery systems, the ISG team has discovered sufficient evidence to date to conclude that the Iraqi regime was committed to delivery system improvements that would have, if OIF had not occurred, dramatically breached UN restrictions placed on Iraq after the 1991 Gulf War. "
"This is basically the thinly-veiled "all sand niggers are the same and must be killed to preserve democracy" argument I heard every day on FOX and read on newsmax."
Nope, it is merely an observation that there are plenty of historical precedents for idealogical enemies forming limited partnerships to achieve a particular common goal.
I am also very curious why you feel the need to imply that my arguement had a racist component to it? (Which it most certainly did not)
How does making an allusion to an alliance between Hitler (who was of Austrian ancesrty) and Stalin (who was of Georgian descent) morph into "all sand niggers are the same"?
For your edification my willingness to accept the possibility of colusion between Hussien and Bin Laden has nothing to do with the fact that they both happen to be Arabs but rather that they both happen to share a common stated goal... that of limiting U.S. influence and presence in the Middle East.
"A common sentiment. Also a very un-American one."
I'm not sure who appointed you keeper of American sentimentality but I'll point out that is very consistant with the U.S. refusal to consider anything short of an unconditional surrender by Japan in World War II.... to mention just one example.
Sentimentality aside any serious student of history can find plenty of evidence that nations which refuse to take advantage of the temporary weakness of a KNOWN ENEMY quickly find themselves extinct.
"Had the sanctions been eased over time, do you honestly think that Iraq would be able to re-build its arsenal to the point where they could be a legitimate threat to Israel or Saudi Arabia without us noticing?"
Without us noticing? No. What you fail to appreciate is that it takes a significant amount of time (even for 21st century America) to harness the resources in order to counter a devloping threat and project a 100,000 man strong mechanized force into an overseas operation and sustain it for months. This is particulary true for democracies such as the U.S. where public support must be gained and reservists activated, etc.
What I fail to see is what exactly would be gained by waiting and giving Iraq more time to re-arm (which it WAS doing even under the current sanctions)? Please explain to me what would have been a more opportune time (in your judgement) for us to have staged such an operation.
As far as Saudi Arabia goes without the presence of significant U.S. forces it doesn't take much force to effective threaten it. In fact, if I remember correctly, at the time of the invasion of Kuwait.... millitary analysts had projected that if the Iraqi forces had continued on into Saudi Arabia they would have very likely crushed it.... even with the U.S. forces that were present in Saudi at the time or that could be deployed there in short order.
"This is just the sort of odious apology I hear from Sean Hannity every night on FOX news. "
It also happens to be a realistic understanding of how the real world works. Note I am NOT trying to apologize for the administration. That would be rather irrational of me since I have absolutely no control over the administrations actions other then the fact that I voted for them and have occasional expressed my support. Were I in the administrations place I would have stated straight out exactly the reasons why I thought this was the correct action today....and likely I would have failed to garner the neccesary public support fot it. But hey, thats me... good thing for all of us I'm not President.
I am merely stating the reason why I don't have a problem with the course of action that they chose. Obviously you do...and you certainly have a right to your stance. I can even see some legitimacy in the complaints you have. However if you actualy want me to cease my support for the administrations policies in Iraq or to vote for someone other then Bush in 2004 you are going to have to find some more persuasive arguements then the typical "Bush is evil" spin so far presented.
"More right-wing propaganda: base your rhetoric on the premise that anyone against the war is a crackpot conspiracy theorist."
I NEVER said that. I believe that there are many different rationales why a person might choose to oppose the war and/or the administration. Certainly such rationals are not all limited to "crackpot conspiracy" ..... they just don't happen to be rationales that I suscribe to.
I will remind you that this entire conversation started because you said you wanted to find a conservative who could present you with a logical arguement as to why they supported the current administrations policy in Iraq and did not support Clintons in Bosnia/Kosovo and who was not a mouth-breathing sellout. I am sorry to have disappointed you. I have attempted to present my views in as honest and straightforward a manner as possible... and I have put considerable time and effort in doing so. Yet look at the level of vitrol the rhetoric this conversation has descended to? In the process of this conversation you have accused me of being:
1) Ill informed
"haven't done any serious research from legitimate sources"
"This is basically the thinly-veiled "all sand niggers are the same and must be killed to preserve democracy" argument"
"child-like trust and idealism"
"This is just the sort of odious apology"
"is the same sort of "democracy" that lead to the downfall of the Weimar Republic."
"It was cute (in a pathetic sort of way)"
8) An aplogist for mass murder
"Apologizing for the murder of thousands of people in this way is odious."
9) and a Porpagandist
"More right-wing propaganda"
All at the same time, mind you, which is no mean trick. I admit that my level of rhetoric has also rised in response to this bait... for which I apologize. Given the level of vitrol from your responses, are you honestly surprised that you have difficulty finding a conservative voice which isn't a "mouth-breathing bible thumping redneck" when you hit the discussion forums?
Either we are all as absolutely horrible as you view us..... or I would invite you to consider the alternative... that you are so blinded by the passion (and angst) of your feelings that when you encounter a (conservative) viewpoint which you happen to disagree with that you begin to demonize the speaker.
[ Parent ]