PDA

View Full Version : Top Bush Aide Comes Clean



Free Indeed
May 28th 2008, 12:53 PM
From the Associated Press:


By Mike Allen,
(http://news.aol.com/politics)

(May 27) -- Former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan writes in a surprisingly scathing memoir to be published next week that President Bush “veered terribly off course,” was not “open and forthright on Iraq,” and took a “permanent campaign approach” to governing at the expense of candor and competence.



Among the most explosive revelations in the 341-page book, titled “What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception” (Public Affairs, $27.95):

• McClellan charges that Bush relied on “propaganda” to sell the war.

• He says the White House press corps was too easy on the administration during the run-up to the war.

• He admits that some of his own assertions from the briefing room podium turned out to be “badly misguided.”

• The longtime Bush loyalist also suggests that two top aides held a secret West Wing meeting to get their story straight about the CIA leak case at a time when federal prosecutors were after them — and McClellan was continuing to defend them despite mounting evidence they had not given him all the facts.

• McClellan asserts that the aides — Karl Rove, the president’s senior adviser, and I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, the vice president’s chief of staff — “had at best misled” him about their role in the disclosure of former CIA operative Valerie Plame’s identity.

A few reporters were offered advance copies of the book, with the restriction that their stories not appear until Sunday, the day before the official publication date. Politico declined and purchased “What Happened” at a Washington bookstore.

The eagerly awaited book, while recounting many fond memories of Bush and describing him as “authentic” and “sincere,” is harsher than reporters and White House officials had expected.


(http://www.politico.com/)
McClellan was one of the president’s earliest and most loyal political aides, and most of his friends had expected him to take a few swipes at his former colleague in order to sell books but also to paint a largely affectionate portrait.

Instead, McClellan’s tone is often harsh. He writes, for example, that after Hurricane Katrina, the White House “spent most of the first week in a state of denial,” and he blames Rove for suggesting the photo of the president comfortably observing the disaster during an Air Force One flyover. McClellan says he and counselor to the president Dan Bartlett had opposed the idea and thought it had been scrapped.

“One of the worst disasters in our nation’s history became one of the biggest disasters in Bush’s presidency. Katrina and the botched federal response to it would largely come to define Bush’s second term,” he writes. “And the perception of this catastrophe was made worse by previous decisions President Bush had made, including, first and foremost, the failure to be open and forthright on Iraq and rushing to war with inadequate planning and preparation for its aftermath.”

McClellan, who turned 40 in February, was press secretary from July 2003 to April 2006. An Austin native from a political family, he began working as a gubernatorial spokesman for then-Gov. Bush in early 1999, was traveling press secretary for the Bush-Cheney 2000 campaign and was chief deputy to Press Secretary Ari Fleischer at the beginning of Bush’s first term.

“I still like and admire President Bush,” McClellan writes. “But he and his advisers confused the propaganda campaign with the high level of candor and honesty so fundamentally needed to build and then sustain public support during a time of war. … In this regard, he was terribly ill-served by his top advisers, especially those involved directly in national security.”

In a small sign of how thoroughly McClellan has adopted the outsider’s role, he refers at times to his former boss as “Bush,” when he is universally referred to by insiders as “the president.”

McClellan lost some of his former friends in the administration last November when his publisher released an excerpt from the book that appeared to accuse Bush of participating in the cover-up of the Plame leak. The book, however, makes clear that McClellan believes Bush was also a victim of misinformation.

The book begins with McClellan’s statement to the press that he had talked with Rove and Libby and that they had assured him they “were not involved in … the leaking of classified information.”

At Libby’s trial, testimony showed the two had talked with reporters about the officer, however elliptically.

“I had allowed myself to be deceived into unknowingly passing along a falsehood,” McClellan writes. “It would ultimately prove fatal to my ability to serve the president effectively. I didn’t learn that what I’d said was untrue until the media began to figure it out almost two years later.

“Neither, I believe, did President Bush. He, too, had been deceived and therefore became unwittingly involved in deceiving me. But the top White House officials who knew the truth — including Rove, Libby and possibly Vice President Cheney — allowed me, even encouraged me, to repeat a lie.”

McClellan also suggests that Libby and Rove secretly colluded to get their stories straight at a time when federal investigators were hot on the Plame case.

“There is only one moment during the leak episode that I am reluctant to discuss,” he writes. “It was in 2005, during a time when attention was focusing on Rove and Libby, and it sticks vividly in my mind. … Following [a meeting in Chief of Staff Andy Card’s office], … Scooter Libby was walking to the entryway as he prepared to depart when Karl turned to get his attention. ‘You have time to visit?’ Karl asked. ‘Yeah,’ replied Libby.

“I have no idea what they discussed, but it seemed suspicious for these two, whom I had never noticed spending any one-on-one time together, to go behind closed doors and visit privately. … At least one of them, Rove, it was publicly known at the time, had at best misled me by not sharing relevant information, and credible rumors were spreading that the other, Libby, had done at least as much. …

“The confidential meeting also occurred at a moment when I was being battered by the press for publicly vouching for the two by claiming they were not involved in leaking Plame’s identity, when recently revealed information was now indicating otherwise. … I don’t know what they discussed, but what would any knowledgeable person reasonably and logically conclude was the topic? Like the whole truth of people’s involvement, we will likely never know with any degree of confidence.”

McClellan repeatedly embraces the rhetoric of Bush's liberal critics and even charges: “If anything, the national press corps was probably too deferential to the White House and to the administration in regard to the most important decision facing the nation during my years in Washington, the choice over whether to go to war in Iraq.

“The collapse of the administration’s rationales for war, which became apparent months after our invasion, should never have come as such a surprise. … In this case, the ‘liberal media’ didn’t live up to its reputation. If it had, the country would have been better served.”

Decrying the Bush administration’s “excessive embrace of the permanent campaign approach to governance,” McClellan recommends that future presidents appoint a “deputy chief of staff for governing” who “would be responsible for making sure the president is continually and consistently committed to a high level of openness and forthrightness and transcending partisanship to achieve unity.

“I frequently stumbled along the way,” McClellan acknowledges in the book’s preface. “My own story, however, is of small importance in the broad historical picture. More significant is the larger story in which I played a minor role: the story of how the presidency of George W. Bush veered terribly off course.”

Even some of the chapter titles are brutal: “The Permanent Campaign,” “Deniability,” “Triumph and Illusion,” “Revelation and Humiliation” and “Out of Touch.”

“I think the concern about liberal bias helps to explain the tendency of the Bush team to build walls against the media,” McClellan writes in a chapter in which he says he dealt “happily enough” with liberal reporters. “Unfortunately, the press secretary at times found himself outside those walls as well.”

The book’s center has eight slick pages with 19 photos, eight of them depicting McClellan with the president. Those making cameos include Cheney, Rove, Bartlett, Mark Knoller of CBS News, former Assistant Press Secretary Reed Dickens and, aboard Air Force One, former press office official Peter Watkins and former White House stenographer Greg North.

In the acknowledgments, McClellan thanks each member of his former staff by name.

Among other notable passages:

• Steve Hadley, then the deputy national security adviser, said about the erroneous assertion about Saddam Hussein seeking uranium, included in the State of the Union address of 2003: “Signing off on these facts is my responsibility. … And in this case, I blew it. I think the only solution is for me to resign.” The offer “was rejected almost out of hand by others present,” McClellan writes.

• Bush was “clearly irritated, … steamed,” when McClellan informed him that chief economic adviser Larry Lindsey had told The Wall Street Journal that a possible war in Iraq could cost from $100 billion to $200 billion: “‘It’s unacceptable,’ Bush continued, his voice rising. ‘He shouldn’t be talking about that.’”

• “As press secretary, I spent countless hours defending the administration from the podium in the White House briefing room. Although the things I said then were sincere, I have since come to realize that some of them were badly misguided.”

• “History appears poised to confirm what most Americans today have decided: that the decision to invade Iraq was a serious strategic blunder. No one, including me, can know with absolute certainty how the war will be viewed decades from now when we can more fully understand its impact. What I do know is that war should only be waged when necessary, and the Iraq war was not necessary.”

• McClellan describes his preparation for briefing reporters during the Plame frenzy: “I could feel the adrenaline flowing as I gave the go-ahead for Josh Deckard, one of my hard-working, underpaid press office staff, … to give the two-minute warning so the networks could prepare to switch to live coverage the moment I stepped into the briefing room.”

• “‘Matrix’ was the code name the Secret Service used for the White House press secretary."

McClellan is on the lecture circuit and remains in the Washington area with his wife, Jill.

Fenris
May 28th 2008, 01:01 PM
The guy was the press secretary. His job was to talk to the media. He was never part of the decision-making process.

resbmc
May 28th 2008, 02:57 PM
He was always an IDIOT, now wants to make money, because he stunk as press secretary.

danield
May 28th 2008, 06:16 PM
I think this is only the tip of the iceberg that will come out on Bush in history. His decisions have crippled our country, and I am a republican. Just as Jimmy Carter hurt the Democratic Party for years, Bush’s legacy will hinder future elections. I also think much of Obama’s support is coming directly from the Republican Party. Just look at the farm bill he just vetoed. I was watching him explain his decision on fox news and he claimed that he wanted to open free trade to Columbia to cut their prices on our farm equipment we sell to them so that they will open markets for our farmers. He pointed out how his plan would save the average Columbian 1500 dollars on a tractor, and that would cause economic prosperity through out our land because then companies like case and caterpillar would hire workers at home to build those tractors we sell to Columbia. I am sorry but he is not thinking right at all because NAFTA has really took a huge role in undermining our once great economy. I know Bush did not pass NAFTA, but he should be able to understand what a failure it was. Something is impairing an otherwise very smart man from making decent decisions to run our country.

Brother Mark
May 28th 2008, 06:18 PM
I think this is only the tip of the iceberg that will come out on Bush in history. His decisions have crippled our country, and I am a republican. Just as Jimmy Carter hurt the Democratic Party for years, Bush’s legacy will hinder future elections. I also think much of Obama’s support is coming directly from the Republican Party. Just look at the farm bill he just vetoed. I was watching him explain his decision on fox news and he claimed that he wanted to open free trade to Columbia to cut their prices on our farm equipment we sell to them so that they will open markets for our farmers. He pointed out how his plan would save the average Columbian 1500 dollars on a tractor, and that would cause economic prosperity through out our land because then companies like case and caterpillar would hire workers at home to build those tractors we sell to Columbia. I am sorry but he is not thinking right at all because NAFTA has really took a huge role in undermining our once great economy. I know Bush did not pass NAFTA, but he should be able to understand what a failure it was. Something is impairing an otherwise very smart man from making decent decisions to run our country.

The bill that would have set up free trade with Colombia had to do with our products in their country. Colombia already is able to sell most of their products here without a tax.

danield
May 29th 2008, 01:56 AM
The segment that aired was broadcasted this past Saturday. In it, Bush tried to tie two pieces of legislation together. The first being the bill that expanded NAFTA powers in Columbia that was tied up in committee. The second was the bill he just vetoed, the farm bill. It was his way of saying that our farmers do not need any help and his solution to our economic problems originated from not having free market trade in Columbia. Our farmers are our back bone of this country and it is extremely hard to make a living raising crops. I for one can not think of any business that would be better suited for government assistance than that group of people. They feed us all, and I for one would love to see them taken care of. I think that farm bill has been in place since WW II. I could be wrong on the time frame but it has been in place for a very long time.

God Bless

Brother Mark
May 29th 2008, 02:36 AM
The farm bill, IMO, helps more of the corporate farmers than it does the family farmer.

danield
May 29th 2008, 03:26 AM
Brother Mark, I agree with you that many of today’s farmers are large corporate farmers. But our economy has shifted most every business to the large corporate model to take advantage of economies of scale. The day of the small business has ended and has been replaced by Wall Street. Some businesses are on different corporate levels, but as a rule of thumb, bigger is better. Capital is a huge investment, and sales are streamlined towards a penny cheaper if you can produce 1,000,000 units!

I do disagree with you about changing government assistance to our farmers because they are the very ones who feed us. It isn’t Wal-Mart but the farmers who sells to us. We have started importing other countries produce, but I think that is wrong. We should at least be dedicated to our own farmers who have to fight the climate, pests, banks, economic conditions, and inheritance taxes! I would love to see the small family farmer have an opportunity to break into the market again, but that is defiantly a thing of the past as things are today.

God Bless.

Fenris
May 29th 2008, 11:15 AM
From NRO

Too High a Price [Mark R. Levin]

If McClellan believed that we went to war on false premises, or that it was a terrible mistake, the fact that he continued to serve the president at the highest levels and defended the president and the war effort is, I certainly believe, worthy of contempt. He could have resigned quietly or with a splash contemporaneous to the events he damns, or at least within a few months of them. Be he didn't. In fact, he was part of the effort he now condemns, defending and attaching his credibility to most of them. If he had resigned in a timely manner, the objections of his critics would have to be made on different grounds. But whatever his critics objections had he resigned on or around the time of the events, his conduct now leads many reasonable people to conclude that both the book and its timing were driven by other than principle. He will have numerous opportunities to explain himself during his publicity tour. I can't think of a satisfactory explanation, but we shall all see. I'm all for profit, but not when the price is betrayal — which is what I and several others smell here.

Fenris
May 29th 2008, 11:39 AM
The company that owns the publishing company is itself owned by George Soros. You know, the guy who donated so much money to see Bush defeated in 2004 and is a champion of left-wing causes. :hmm:

theabaud
May 29th 2008, 12:09 PM
From NRO

Too High a Price [Mark R. Levin]

If McClellan believed that we went to war on false premises, or that it was a terrible mistake, the fact that he continued to serve the president at the highest levels and defended the president and the war effort is, I certainly believe, worthy of contempt. He could have resigned quietly or with a splash contemporaneous to the events he damns, or at least within a few months of them. Be he didn't. In fact, he was part of the effort he now condemns, defending and attaching his credibility to most of them. If he had resigned in a timely manner, the objections of his critics would have to be made on different grounds. But whatever his critics objections had he resigned on or around the time of the events, his conduct now leads many reasonable people to conclude that both the book and its timing were driven by other than principle. He will have numerous opportunities to explain himself during his publicity tour. I can't think of a satisfactory explanation, but we shall all see. I'm all for profit, but not when the price is betrayal — which is what I and several others smell here.
I love that little screaming man. :D

Who was the other guy from the administration that was immediately discredited after making similar claims?

Fenris
May 29th 2008, 01:47 PM
BUSHIE'S CRUEL CUTS

By JAY NORDLINGER

http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/nyp.postopinion/opedcolumnists;comp=' + adid + ';pos=menusky1;sz=160x600;dcove=d;tile=1;ord=12345 6789? (http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/nyp.postopinion/opedcolumnists;comp=' + adid + ';pos=menusky1;sz=160x600;dcove=d;tile=1;ord=12345 6789?)
May 29, 2008 -- SCOTT McClellan's "What Happened" may be the most aston ishing book ever written about a president by a onetime staffer. The former press secretary gives it to George W. Bush with both barrels. Indeed, he echoes the president's very worst critics.

And I'll have you know that McClellan is an exceptionally nice guy - at least in my experience.


There has been much speculation about his motives and mindset. Some say that, fired, he is exacting his revenge. Others ask, "If he was so opposed to what the president was doing, why didn't he resign on principle?"


In any case, McClellan is entitled to his own opinion, and his own testimony. The important question to ask is: Is his book true?
Consider some of the details that have already been widely discussed - starting with the press.


McClellan says that the Fourth Estate was far too easy on Bush, failing to hold him to account in the runup to the Iraq war. Yet anyone can have an opinion on the press, whether he serves in the White House or not. Some of us say: Bush has suffered from many things, but not from an overly complacent press corps.


On some issues, of course, McClellan has clear standing - as when he says that Bush doesn't like to hear opposing views, preferring to go quickly with his "gut."


Fair enough - McClellan was there. But others who've been there give much different testimony. They report that Bush relishes debate, wanting to hear a subject thoroughly hashed out before reaching a decision. On stem-cell research, some say, he practically pestered strangers on the street for their opinion.


McClellan, along with many others, says Bush is "too stubborn to change and grow." Could be. It could also be that he is principled and firm - not going whichever way the wind blows or the polls blow. And it would be hard to accuse him of safeguarding his popularity!


Moreover, the president has shown flexibility in Iraq, tactically. A wise friend of mine says, "They say we've had five years of failure there. I say, we've had five years of learning." Coping with al Qaeda and associated beasts is no picnic.


McClellan's most damning charge is that Bush and his team launched the Iraq war recklessly and needlessly. He says that war "should only be waged when necessary, and the Iraq war was not necessary."


Is that an absolute certainty? In the months preceding the war, Bush said repeatedly, "There are risks of action, and risks of inaction." He had to weigh those risks. The buck stopped with him. And, in the end, he chose the risks of action.


It's easy to say now that Saddam Hussein would have been no problem - that he could 've been contained, or tamed. But this is almost always the case with preemption: Once the threat has been eliminated, people claim, "Wasn't needed." And they're hard to contradict.


Earlier this year, I interviewed former Secretary of State George Shultz (who is no apologist for the Bush administration). I asked, "Should we who supported the war now be embarrassed about it?" He gave a vehement no.
All the intelligence indicated that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, Shultz noted. The invasion proved this intelligence wrong - but also proved that Saddam had programs on the shelf, ready to go, once UN inspection collapsed (as it was bound to do). Furthermore, Saddam had terrorist camps operating under his gaze.


If Bush hadn't acted, said Shultz, "Saddam would have been a big problem." And we all would have written stories asking, "Why couldn't anyone connect the dots?"


The final chapter about George W. Bush is far from written. The best pro-Bush book I know? Norman Podhoretz's "World War IV." And Scott McClellan is having his remarkable say now.


But "history," of course - that formidable lady - will make the final call. Don't fall over dead if there are monuments to Bush in a freer, happier Middle East.

redeemedbyhim
May 29th 2008, 03:30 PM
The company that owns the publishing company is itself owned by George Soros. You know, the guy who donated so much money to see Bush defeated in 2004 and is a champion of left-wing causes. :hmm:

That's an interesting note.
Hmm, Soros connected to this, enough said.

Steve M
May 29th 2008, 04:08 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/28/mcclellan.reaction/index.html?eref=rss_politics

CNN reports from insiders who say... McClellan didn't really have access to know whether what he claims is true or not.

EarlyCall
May 29th 2008, 04:15 PM
I think this is only the tip of the iceberg that will come out on Bush in history. His decisions have crippled our country, and I am a republican. Just as Jimmy Carter hurt the Democratic Party for years, Bush’s legacy will hinder future elections. I also think much of Obama’s support is coming directly from the Republican Party. Just look at the farm bill he just vetoed. I was watching him explain his decision on fox news and he claimed that he wanted to open free trade to Columbia to cut their prices on our farm equipment we sell to them so that they will open markets for our farmers. He pointed out how his plan would save the average Columbian 1500 dollars on a tractor, and that would cause economic prosperity through out our land because then companies like case and caterpillar would hire workers at home to build those tractors we sell to Columbia. I am sorry but he is not thinking right at all because NAFTA has really took a huge role in undermining our once great economy. I know Bush did not pass NAFTA, but he should be able to understand what a failure it was. Something is impairing an otherwise very smart man from making decent decisions to run our country.


I'm afraid you have it backwards. What this would have done is to permit us to sell to them - our products - without added costs. We would actually be protecting American jobs in doing this. It would be a very good thing for our nation as well as Columbia. As things are now, it would have benefited us more than it would have Columbia.

Interesting how nancy Pelosi and other dems are against it though. But then that is more of how they care for the little guy. Acommon and oft-quoted lie that many buy into - including republicans.

EarlyCall
May 29th 2008, 04:18 PM
The segment that aired was broadcasted this past Saturday. In it, Bush tried to tie two pieces of legislation together. The first being the bill that expanded NAFTA powers in Columbia that was tied up in committee. The second was the bill he just vetoed, the farm bill. It was his way of saying that our farmers do not need any help and his solution to our economic problems originated from not having free market trade in Columbia. Our farmers are our back bone of this country and it is extremely hard to make a living raising crops. I for one can not think of any business that would be better suited for government assistance than that group of people. They feed us all, and I for one would love to see them taken care of. I think that farm bill has been in place since WW II. I could be wrong on the time frame but it has been in place for a very long time.

God Bless

Hang on a minute. Where do you get your information? The farm bill is outrageous. It profits farming corporations more than it does the smaller farmer, and while benefiting the individual family farm, it does so for those that make far more profit/income than the vast majority of Americans.

Did you know that?

danield
May 29th 2008, 09:04 PM
I disagree with you early call on so many levels that I could probably convince you of becoming a Democrat and I would hate that because I am a Republican. NAFTA was probably the worst piece of legislation that ever darkened the halls of our Government. The big time lobbyists control this country like we were puppets and it has gotten worse. I have often thought about writing a book on the practices of lobbyist and how they have hurt our country, but each time I start I get overwhelmed with other issues. One of the few cases where I see Government assistance as being greatly beneficial is the help we give to our farmers. In the southeast, there use to be thousands of farmers, where families had earned a living out of the land for generations. Now we only see a handful left. Some of those people need help desperately. Inheritance taxes have forced the next generations to sell their farm (90% taxes do that) Weather has crippled many, and the high cost of capital has barred people from entering the field. I have seen people who were so talented in raising crops go bankrupt over and over again trying to make a crop cash flow properly. Yes the farm bill is necessary. The people in the mid west do so well is because their climate is much better suited for high yield per acre crops.

As far as NAFTA and that piece of legislation that did not pass, well all I can say is that there are people who are barely getting by nowadays because the wealth of our nation has been shifted over seas. We have “farmed” out many of our manufacturing jobs to countries that do not have as many “requirements” as our workforce has and Wall Street has took full advantage of it. 40 years ago people in other countries would have paid whatever they had to, to get the tooling of high quality manufacturing only found with in the USA. We have leap frog their R&D and set up shop in those countries to take full advantage of cheap labor. It broke the union indirectly, and now foreign countries have become the manufacturing might of the world.

Making something 1500 dollars cheaper for a Columbian is not in the best interest of the citizens of this country. In 1950 we produced 70% of the world’s goods and services with only 5% of the world population. It was not tariffs that cornered that market, but quality manufacturing from quality companies. Small businesses made up a huge portion of our economy then too. It is part of what made this country so strong today, and we have felt the wave of that production might for the last 50 years. It takes a while to mess such a strong presence in the world markets up but both our democrats and republicans have done a fine job in doing just that. And they have done it by listening to the power brokers of this country. The lobbyist.

Brother Mark
May 29th 2008, 10:39 PM
The reason it would be $1500 cheaper for the Colombian is because their government taxes it. NAFTA is actually a good thing for our country. The reason countries don't want free trade with us is because of how hard it is to compete with the US. But back to Colombia, it is more expensive to by electronics there than it is here. Why? Government taxes. The agreement that was reached with Colombia was that they would stop taxing our goods. We already allow them to trade here without taxing their goods. That bill got lost for pure political posturing. It was a great bill for our country and for the average Colombian. Too bad it got shot down.

Having been to Colombian many times, I will say that their life is very hard. I really have no issue with opening up markets to allow the third world to enjoy some of our wealth.

danield
May 30th 2008, 01:43 AM
The agreement that was reached with Colombia was that they would stop taxing our goods. We already allow them to trade here without taxing their goods.

This statement sums up a lot with how we make agreements around the world. America has been so rich through the years, and in turn we have been very free with our wealth. Again let me state that in the 50’s we produced 70 to 80% of the world’s goods and services with only 4% of the world’s population with out the aid of any trade bill. This economic prosperity has helped us achieve the wealth we attained during the decades that followed. Every one job created by manufacturing creates 7 other jobs down the line. A good job equals wealth to a person or family. Also know service sector jobs are not core jobs that feed a healthy economy. In simple terms a job at Ford Motor Company is a much better job than cooking hamburgers at McDonalds.

th1bill
May 30th 2008, 04:19 AM
The thing that cuts deepest with me is the fact that after he was relieved from his position he attempts to change his spots! This turn of his begs an answer, "Was he a two faced liar then or is he now?" Either way the man has illustrated, for all the world to see, that he has no moral character and is not to be trusted.

EarlyCall
May 30th 2008, 04:33 PM
I disagree with you early call on so many levels that I could probably convince you of becoming a Democrat and I would hate that because I am a Republican. NAFTA was probably the worst piece of legislation that ever darkened the halls of our Government. The big time lobbyists control this country like we were puppets and it has gotten worse. I have often thought about writing a book on the practices of lobbyist and how they have hurt our country, but each time I start I get overwhelmed with other issues. One of the few cases where I see Government assistance as being greatly beneficial is the help we give to our farmers. In the southeast, there use to be thousands of farmers, where families had earned a living out of the land for generations. Now we only see a handful left. Some of those people need help desperately. Inheritance taxes have forced the next generations to sell their farm (90% taxes do that) Weather has crippled many, and the high cost of capital has barred people from entering the field. I have seen people who were so talented in raising crops go bankrupt over and over again trying to make a crop cash flow properly. Yes the farm bill is necessary. The people in the mid west do so well is because their climate is much better suited for high yield per acre crops.

As far as NAFTA and that piece of legislation that did not pass, well all I can say is that there are people who are barely getting by nowadays because the wealth of our nation has been shifted over seas. We have “farmed” out many of our manufacturing jobs to countries that do not have as many “requirements” as our workforce has and Wall Street has took full advantage of it. 40 years ago people in other countries would have paid whatever they had to, to get the tooling of high quality manufacturing only found with in the USA. We have leap frog their R&D and set up shop in those countries to take full advantage of cheap labor. It broke the union indirectly, and now foreign countries have become the manufacturing might of the world.

Making something 1500 dollars cheaper for a Columbian is not in the best interest of the citizens of this country. In 1950 we produced 70% of the world’s goods and services with only 5% of the world population. It was not tariffs that cornered that market, but quality manufacturing from quality companies. Small businesses made up a huge portion of our economy then too. It is part of what made this country so strong today, and we have felt the wave of that production might for the last 50 years. It takes a while to mess such a strong presence in the world markets up but both our democrats and republicans have done a fine job in doing just that. And they have done it by listening to the power brokers of this country. The lobbyist.

I'm not interested in discussing nafta now. It is much too large a subject for the moment.

I addressed earlier the farm bill. I will stick to that.

Here's a link as to why Bush vetoed it.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MDk0NDdiMzQ4ZjZjYTAyZGM3ZjFjNzM0MWRhMDk3Yzk=165 4912

would you read it over and other articles concerning the farm bill and then we can talk about it some more. Fair enough?

Free Indeed
May 30th 2008, 05:04 PM
This turn of his begs an answer, "Was he a two faced liar then or is he now?" Either way the man has illustrated, for all the world to see, that he has no moral character and is not to be trusted.

If you're talking about Bush, then yes, most people would agree.

theabaud
Jun 2nd 2008, 05:26 PM
If you're talking about Bush, then yes, most people would agree.In context, bush did not make a turn, McClellan did. Way to ignore context and make a bush bashing comment.

th1bill
Jun 2nd 2008, 11:46 PM
If you're talking about Bush, then yes, most people would agree.
If your looking to flame me into a stupid fight with you you will find that I just going to insist that you grow up and become a responsible human-being. You have every right to hate Mr. Bush, if you choose to disobey God. You know exactly of whom I spoke and attempting to put an inflammatory spin on my post is just too childish.

Free Indeed
Jun 3rd 2008, 01:52 PM
If your looking to flame me into a stupid fight with you you will find that I just going to insist that you grow up and become a responsible human-being. You have every right to hate Mr. Bush, if you choose to disobey God. You know exactly of whom I spoke and attempting to put an inflammatory spin on my post is just too childish.

Don't even give me that nonsense. It's pure hypocrisy.

It's also a blasphemy to equate opposing Bush with opposing God. Bush will have to answer to God for the evil that he's done.

Fenris
Jun 3rd 2008, 02:42 PM
I don't think Bush has done anything evil. I voted for the guy twice and I'm proud of it. He is leaving the world a better place than it was when he became president. God bless him.

Brother Mark
Jun 3rd 2008, 02:54 PM
Stop it guys. Y'all know the rules. Play nice.

knuckledamus
Jun 3rd 2008, 03:04 PM
Don't even give me that nonsense. It's pure hypocrisy.

It's also a blasphemy to equate opposing Bush with opposing God. Bush will have to answer to God for the evil that he's done.

Although I am FAR from being a fan of Bush, th1bill did not equate opposing Bush to opposing God. He was referring to the fact that government is set up by God. This does not mean we have to agree with his abuse of power, though.

knuckledamus
Jun 3rd 2008, 03:07 PM
I don't think Bush has done anything evil. I voted for the guy twice and I'm proud of it. He is leaving the world a better place than it was when he became president. God bless him.

This, simply is not true, my friend. I don't care how much the media says it, it doesn't make it true.

Steve M
Jun 3rd 2008, 03:09 PM
The scripture to which Bill was refering:

1 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.

Bill was practically quoting this here... which is an unpopular verse in America, which was practically founded on the ignoring of that verse.

Now, as Knuckledamus says, most would agree that 'speaking truth to power,' as the Amish say, is not the same as rebellion or outright opposition, and would even say it's a good thing.

At any rate....

Steve M
Jun 3rd 2008, 03:10 PM
This, simply is not true, my friend. I don't care how much the media says it, it doesn't make it true.
Uh... I must be watching a different media than you, because I can't even find the conservative talking heads willing to praise the sitting President anymore... except maybe Ann Coulter...

knuckledamus
Jun 3rd 2008, 03:28 PM
Uh... I must be watching a different media than you, because I can't even find the conservative talking heads willing to praise the sitting President anymore... except maybe Ann Coulter...

Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Neal Bortz, etc. all say that we are safer now. I am heavily involved with the local politics in my area, and I can't tell you how many times I've heard the line, "History will show how great of a president Bush has been."

Fenris
Jun 3rd 2008, 04:20 PM
This, simply is not true, my friend. I don't care how much the media says it, it doesn't make it true.The media has never said it. I am saying it, because I perceive it to be true.

knuckledamus
Jun 3rd 2008, 04:22 PM
The media has never said it. I am saying it, because I perceive it to be true.

Okay then, without quoting any media, explain how you perceive it to be true.

Fenris
Jun 3rd 2008, 05:28 PM
Okay then, without quoting any media, explain how you perceive it to be true.
50 million people who lived under tyranny are now free to choose their own destiny. That not good enough for you?

knuckledamus
Jun 3rd 2008, 05:36 PM
50 million people who lived under tyranny are now free to choose their own destiny. That not good enough for you?

No. Absolutely not. Before our little excursion into Iraq, there was no presence of terrorist activity. Now, Al Quaeda is using our being there as a recruiting tool. Those same terrorists are now blowing up themselves in an attempt to scare people. We are now so scared of leaving Iraq because if we do, there will be an uprising and we'll be back to having the same type of government as was there before, with the exception now, it will be a religious totalitarian government.

And of course, this little excursion over there has left our own borders wide open, we're now over 2 trillion dollars lighter, over 3000 of our own military members dead, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis either killed or displaced, and we as a country are no safer now than before.

Fenris
Jun 3rd 2008, 06:08 PM
No. Absolutely not. Obviously you are not one of the 50 million freed by him.:lol:

knuckledamus
Jun 3rd 2008, 06:19 PM
Obviously you are not one of the 50 million freed by him.:lol:

I'm sure you're not one of the hundreds of thousands that have been either killed or dislocated. Or one of the 500,000 killed due to our economic sanctions, or one of the members of a family whose wife was killed by a suicide bomber, or a brother to someone killed in Iraq, or a friend of someone here who was killed by a drunken driving illegal.

Fenris
Jun 3rd 2008, 06:43 PM
I'm sure you're not one of the hundreds of thousands that have been either killed or dislocated.
Yo, I'm sure Germany was a much nicer place in 1939 than in 1945. That doesn't mean we should have bombed the place.


Or one of the 500,000 killed due to our economic sanctions,What on earth are you talking about


or one of the members of a family whose wife was killed by a suicide bomber,You have no idea what was going on in Iraq under saddam, do you?


or a brother to someone killed in Iraq,No one was drafted. People are even signing up to go back to Iraq.


or a friend of someone here who was killed by a drunken driving illegal.
Branching out your argument here, hmm?

I didn't say Bush was perfect. I said he is leaving office with a better world than when he came in.

knuckledamus
Jun 3rd 2008, 07:00 PM
Yo, I'm sure Germany was a much nicer place in 1939 than in 1945. That doesn't mean we should have bombed the place.

What? Are you trying to compare me to a Nazi sympathizer?



What on earth are you talking about
You have no idea what was going on in Iraq under saddam, do you?

Of course I do... I would suggest you read up on the effects of our economic sanctions on Iraq and elsewhere. It's a well known fact that estimates from 170,000 to over 1,000,000 million people are said to have died due to our sanctions. UNICEF announced that 500,000 died. Now you can write it off as UN sanctions, but you and I both know that we're the enforcer of the UN.


No one was drafted. People are even signing up to go back to Iraq.

I got out of the Navy for this reason.


Branching out your argument here, hmm?

Illegals are a direct result of us not closing our borders, wouldn't you say? And us not closing our borders is a direct result of not having people close them with? Where are our people?


I didn't say Bush was perfect. I said he is leaving office with a better world than when he came in.

Your exact words: "He is leaving the world a better place than it was when he became president. God bless him." Don't try to pull a Clinton with me.

Fenris
Jun 3rd 2008, 07:17 PM
What? Are you trying to compare me to a Nazi sympathizer?No, I'm saying that sometimes we have to do damage to right wrong.




Of course I do... I would suggest you read up on the effects of our economic sanctions on Iraq and elsewhere.It was not 'our' sanctions, it was the UN. And the UN imposed those sanctions because saddam invaded Kuwait. How is any of that our fault?




I got out of the Navy for this reason. Good for you.




Illegals are a direct result of us not closing our borders, wouldn't you say? And us not closing our borders is a direct result of not having people close them with? Where are our people?I dunno. Bush is obviously falling short here.




Your exact words: "He is leaving the world a better place than it was when he became president. God bless him." Don't try to pull a Clinton with me.And I agree with what I said. What does any of that have to do with Clinton?

You're a big Buchanan fan I bet.:hmm:

Clavicula_Nox
Jun 3rd 2008, 07:18 PM
Before our little excursion into Iraq, there was no presence of terrorist activity.This is not correct.


over 3000 of our own military members dead,

Soldiers die in war.

knuckledamus
Jun 3rd 2008, 08:01 PM
This is not correct.

Challenge for you: Find ONE instance of a suicide bombing in Iraq before the war.;)

knuckledamus
Jun 3rd 2008, 08:10 PM
It was not 'our' sanctions, it was the UN. And the UN imposed those sanctions because saddam invaded Kuwait. How is any of that our fault?

I'm going to copy/paste from my last post:
"Now you can write it off as UN sanctions, but you and I both know that we're the enforcer of the UN."

Now, on top of this, it is also well known that we told Saddam that we wouldn't interfere with his invading Kuwait, and then when pressure mounted because of the oil there, we changed our tune.


And I agree with what I said. What does any of that have to do with Clinton?

Clinton tried to say that didn't have s#%ua* r#la^ions with someone, and tried to redefine the word, much as you tried to change the meaning of what you posted.

And I haven't really read too much of Buchannan's stuff. What I have read, I liked though.

ProjectPeter
Jun 3rd 2008, 08:28 PM
Challenge for you: Find ONE instance of a suicide bombing in Iraq before the war.;)Oh come on now... in Iraq Sadaam very much controlled the media and what went in and what went out for one. Number two... There was very little media there to report stuff like that and truth be told... few in the world cared a whit what those guys did to each other. And three... no need to do a lot of bombing on your own. Sadaam and his boys killed plenty and didn't need any help. :rolleyes:

Brother Mark
Jun 3rd 2008, 08:32 PM
Challenge for you: Find ONE instance of a suicide bombing in Iraq before the war.;)

No need. The terrorist Saddam just lined em up, shot em and buried them in mass graves. They danced in the streets when Saddam was dispossessed from Iraq. He did run a tight ship. All who disagreed with his rule were simply shot. That avoided a lot of issues.

ProjectPeter
Jun 3rd 2008, 08:35 PM
No need. The terrorist Saddam just lined em up, shot em and buried them in mass graves. They danced in the streets when Saddam was dispossessed from Iraq. He did run a tight ship. All who disagreed with his rule were simply shot. That avoided a lot of issues.
Makes life simple........... for the dictator anyway.

knuckledamus
Jun 3rd 2008, 08:44 PM
Don't try to change the subject. There is no justifying his actions, but you never answered the question. Blowing it off is not answer. At least you guys concede that there were no suicide bombings before.

knuckledamus
Jun 3rd 2008, 08:47 PM
And you forget, his being a tyrant was not the reason for going to war with Iraq. You need to stay focused and not be swayed by the media.

Brother Mark
Jun 3rd 2008, 08:49 PM
Don't try to change the subject. There is no justifying his actions, but you never answered the question. Blowing it off is not answer. At least you guys concede that there were no suicide bombings before.

No one is conceding that point. I remember in the US's own history a man once said "give me liberty or give me death". Not too many people in the US have such a strong conviction or courage of heart any more. Too often the cry is "give me safety and poverty of spirit over death and freedom".

Iraq danced in the streets when that man was taken out. Put the blame on Iraqi violence now where it clearly belongs... on the terrorist who have moved in there. Neither the US government nor the vast majority of the Iraqi people desire the car bombings nor are they responsible for them.

ProjectPeter
Jun 3rd 2008, 08:52 PM
And you forget, his being a tyrant was not the reason for going to war with Iraq. You need to stay focused and not be swayed by the media.
Terrorism comes in many forms other than suicide bombing. It isn't "changing the subject" at all. It's simply keeping it real. You talked of pulling a Clinton by redefining a word... you honestly think the only form of terrorism is a suicide bombing? Who's doing the Clinton thing with that logic?

Brother Mark
Jun 3rd 2008, 08:53 PM
And you forget, his being a tyrant was not the reason for going to war with Iraq. You need to stay focused and not be swayed by the media.

That was precisely the reason for going to war. Had he been a decent man with decent governing powers, say like Brazil, the world would have ignored his threats to have WMD. He needed Iran to believe he still had those weapons. He pretended to have them and pushed to show he had them. He stiff armed the UN. Russia and France, desiring to be rich with illegal oil from Iraq also desired to continue lining their pockets.

This whole war could have been avoided had Iraq bent to UN demands and had Russia and France not went around international agreement. While not all the CIA analysis was correct, Saddam pushed very hard to make some believe it was correct. Saddam was warned. He could have avoided the war very easily. But didn't.

We would have been foolish to allow this man to have nuclear weapons. For him to pretend he had them was inviting invasion.

knuckledamus
Jun 3rd 2008, 08:55 PM
No one is conceding that point. I remember in the US's own history a man once said "give me liberty or give me death". Not too many people in the US have such a strong conviction or courage of heart any more. Too often the cry is "give me safety and poverty of spirit over death and freedom".

Iraq danced in the streets when that man was taken out. Put the blame on Iraqi violence now where it clearly belongs... on the terrorist who have moved in there. Neither the US government nor the vast majority of the Iraqi people desire the car bombings nor are they responsible for them.

If you aren't conceding the point, then tell me of one instance.

Clavicula_Nox
Jun 3rd 2008, 08:55 PM
Challenge for you: Find ONE instance of a suicide bombing in Iraq before the war.;)

Are you saying that terrorist activity is limited to suicide bombings?

Brother Mark
Jun 3rd 2008, 08:58 PM
If you aren't conceding the point, then tell me of one instance.

I don't know of one. But that doesn't mean I concede it. However, I will tell you this... right now hundreds are being killed by suicide bombers. Under Saddam, hundreds of thousands and maybe millions were killed with weapons of mass destruction.

As I said above... where are those folks that will now stand and say "Give me liberty or give me death". We are a much weaker nation than we use to be when it comes to resolve and dealing with evil.

Liberals forget how the Iraqis danced in the street when evil fell in Iraq. Let's put the blame for current suffering over there it belongs, squarely on the head of the terrorist currently there.

knuckledamus
Jun 3rd 2008, 09:00 PM
That was precisely the reason for going to war. Had he been a decent man with decent governing powers, say like Brazil, the world would have ignored his threats to have WMD. He needed Iran to believe he still had those weapons. He pretended to have them and pushed to show he had them. He stiff armed the UN. Russia and France, desiring to be rich with illegal oil from Iraq also desired to continue lining their pockets.

This whole war could have been avoided had Iraq bent to UN demands and had Russia and France not went around international agreement. While not all the CIA analysis was correct, Saddam pushed very hard to make some believe it was correct. Saddam was warned. He could have avoided the war very easily. But didn't.

We would have been foolish to allow this man to have nuclear weapons. For him to pretend he had them was inviting invasion.

Then I encourage you to go to congress and push for them to invade Sudan, and any other country with tyrants in charge. And then, make sure you send your children to go.

knuckledamus
Jun 3rd 2008, 09:01 PM
I don't know of one. But that doesn't mean I concede it. However, I will tell you this... right now hundreds are being killed by suicide bombers. Under Saddam, hundreds of thousands and maybe millions were killed with weapons of mass destruction.

And under the UN sanctions, with us as the enforcers, over 500,000 people died. On top of those, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been killed or displaced.

Clavicula_Nox
Jun 3rd 2008, 09:02 PM
Then I encourage you to go to congress and push for them to invade Sudan, and any other country with tyrants in charge. And then, make sure you send your children to go.

We can only do so much at one time, how about we finish up these 2 little exercises first? As for children, many of us have already gone, I know of 3 on this board who have gone multiple times, and many who's children have gone. In other words, what's your point?

Brother Mark
Jun 3rd 2008, 09:03 PM
Then I encourage you to go to congress and push for them to invade Sudan, and any other country with tyrants in charge. And then, make sure you send your children to go.

Has the Sudan WMD? Do they threaten to use them on other nations and the US? Are you only reading part of my post?

I think when you can't win the argument, you turn to emotionalism. That's a common thing among liberals. There are ways to win this argument without resorting to such things. For instance, we can say that the way the war was run was ill advised and poor. But to say that the US was completely and totally at fault for going to war when it did is to ignore much of the facts at hand when the decision was made.

ProjectPeter
Jun 3rd 2008, 09:05 PM
Then I encourage you to go to congress and push for them to invade Sudan, and any other country with tyrants in charge. And then, make sure you send your children to go.
One... I wished they would go to Sudan and wherever else they need to go to stop the mess. It would be money well spent.

Two... I'd be proud of my boys for going but my sending them... that isn't my call to make but is their call to make. My advice were they to ask... go and be blessed.

ProjectPeter
Jun 3rd 2008, 09:07 PM
And under the UN sanctions, with us as the enforcers, over 500,000 people died. On top of those, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been killed or displaced.It happens. As the old saying goes... war is hell. But rest assured... it wasn't the fault of the U.S. that those folks died. Trying to blame the US for that is like blaming a "failed condom" for getting someone pregnant.

ProjectPeter
Jun 3rd 2008, 09:08 PM
We can only do so much at one time, how about we finish up these 2 little exercises first? As for children, many of us have already gone, I know of 3 on this board who have gone multiple times, and many who's children have gone. In other words, what's your point?Folks love living on that old straw man thing. ;)

Brother Mark
Jun 3rd 2008, 09:10 PM
Folks love living on that old straw man thing. ;)

Yea. Straw men make for easy targets. As my Dad use to say "Don't confuse me with the facts". :D

Clavicula_Nox
Jun 3rd 2008, 09:10 PM
500,000 people died, and yet Saddam was able to build new palaces for him and his cronies. His sons were able to roam across the country kidnapping, raping, and murdering any woman or girl they wanted. The Republican Guard was able to conduct whatever operation they wanted within their neighborhood districts. Saddam was able to fund Arab mercenaries to fight in Islamic jihad across the globe. He was able to purchase replacement parts for certain pieces of military equipment, he was able to purchase new weapons, used-but serviceable armoured vehicles.

Saddam had the means to feed his people, he chose not to, but I guess we are responsible for the leadership he showed his people while in a tough situation, right?

knuckledamus
Jun 3rd 2008, 09:13 PM
Has the Sudan WMD? Do they threaten to use them on other nations and the US? Are you only reading part of my post?

I think when you can't win the argument, you turn to emotionalism. That's a common thing among liberals. There are ways to win this argument without resorting to such things. For instance, we can say that the way the war was run was ill advised and poor. But to say that the US was completely and totally at fault for going to war when it did is to ignore much of the facts at hand when the decision was made.

You don't even know me. How dare you try to classify me as a liberal? What? Because I'm not out praising our government for sending our military into unnecessary wars? Because I don't believe that might makes right? Because I believe that power corrupts? Because I believe in the warnings that God presented to us? Because I believe in the actual conservative principles, and not the neoconservative military pandering?

I have not resorted to anything such as emotionalism. I have asked serious questions and have received nothing but rhetoric as answers. I answered all of your questions with straight answers. I haven't tried to dodge any of them. So stop trying to change the topic to focus on me, and stay with the conversation.

Clavicula_Nox
Jun 3rd 2008, 09:15 PM
I haven't tried to dodge any of them.You dodged my question, I'll repeat it.




So you are saying terrorist activity is limited to suicide bombing?


nd not the neoconservative military pandering?

Why were you in the Navy? If you don't want to answer, that's fine, but I am curious.

knuckledamus
Jun 3rd 2008, 09:15 PM
Has the Sudan WMD? Do they threaten to use them on other nations and the US? Are you only reading part of my post?

Has Sudan WMD? I don't care if they do, but the real question is, did Iraq?

ProjectPeter
Jun 3rd 2008, 09:16 PM
500,000 people died, and yet Saddam was able to build new palaces for him and his cronies. His sons were able to roam across the country kidnapping, raping, and murdering any woman or girl they wanted. The Republican Guard was able to conduct whatever operation they wanted within their neighborhood districts. Saddam was able to fund Arab mercenaries to fight in Islamic jihad across the globe. He was able to purchase replacement parts for certain pieces of military equipment, he was able to purchase new weapons, used-but serviceable armoured vehicles.

Saddam had the means to feed his people, he chose not to, but I guess we are responsible for the leadership he showed his people while in a tough situation, right?Yeah... but that ain't terrorism! :help:

Brother Mark
Jun 3rd 2008, 09:16 PM
500,000 people died, and yet Saddam was able to build new palaces for him and his cronies. His sons were able to roam across the country kidnapping, raping, and murdering any woman or girl they wanted. The Republican Guard was able to conduct whatever operation they wanted within their neighborhood districts. Saddam was able to fund Arab mercenaries to fight in Islamic jihad across the globe. He was able to purchase replacement parts for certain pieces of military equipment, he was able to purchase new weapons, used-but serviceable armoured vehicles.

Saddam had the means to feed his people, he chose not to, but I guess we are responsible for the leadership he showed his people while in a tough situation, right?

It never ceases to amaze me how the left can make PGW out to be some evil man and ignore all the things Saddam did. His boys were pure evil. Those guys had major issues. The things they did to some women were insane. Saddam murdered so many people and yet PGW is the bad guy.

To this day, the left ignores that Saddam wanted Iran to believe he still had WMD. He didn't want them to invade and he needed them to believe he had them. As he is so prone to do, he misunderstood PGWB and his threats.

Even now, PGWB is getting blamed for car bombings! How ludicrous is that!!!! Our boys are over there dying in order to help Iraqi's have some freedom and we get blamed for car bombs? The left has some serious issues in how they are thinking this thing through. The argument should now be on how the war should be fought not on placing blame. We can't pull out suddenly and leave those folks to the whims of terrorist. Even if our intelligence was wrong, we now have a responsibility to the Iraqis to see this thing through.

knuckledamus
Jun 3rd 2008, 09:17 PM
One... I wished they would go to Sudan and wherever else they need to go to stop the mess. It would be money well spent.

Two... I'd be proud of my boys for going but my sending them... that isn't my call to make but is their call to make. My advice were they to ask... go and be blessed.

Then you really need to question this line of reasoning, as it obviously ignores the teachings of Jesus.

Clavicula_Nox
Jun 3rd 2008, 09:18 PM
Has Sudan WMD? I don't care if they do, but the real question is, did Iraq?

Unknown. There is circumstantial evidence for both sides. On my second journey, I encountered what I thought may have been a small chemical weapons cache, unfortunately, I learned quite a bit later that they were inert and most likely before Clinton's escapades.

Saddam certainly had enough time to sequester anything he had to Iran or Syria, both countries would have profited.

ProjectPeter
Jun 3rd 2008, 09:18 PM
You don't even know me. How dare you try to classify me as a liberal? What? Because I'm not out praising our government for sending our military into unnecessary wars? Because I don't believe that might makes right? Because I believe that power corrupts? Because I believe in the warnings that God presented to us? Because I believe in the actual conservative principles, and not the neoconservative military pandering?

I have not resorted to anything such as emotionalism. I have asked serious questions and have received nothing but rhetoric as answers. I answered all of your questions with straight answers. I haven't tried to dodge any of them. So stop trying to change the topic to focus on me, and stay with the conversation.On an official note... chill out about ten notches. If you can't discuss this without freaking out... bail out of the discussion. Goodness man... remain calm! Have fun. Be serious and even passionate... but chill some.

Brother Mark
Jun 3rd 2008, 09:18 PM
Has Sudan WMD? I don't care if they do, but the real question is, did Iraq?

Saddam sure wanted people to believe he did! He wanted Iran to know it. All he had to do was co-operate. But hey, I get it. Some apparently don't think Saddam was a bad man. He should have been left alone to murder and torture more people. And if he had WMD (as he made appear he did), then so what? :rolleyes:

knuckledamus
Jun 3rd 2008, 09:21 PM
You dodged my question, I'll repeat it.

I didn't dodge it. I didn't see it. There are about 5 of you throwing stuff at me at once. My answer is no.


Why were you in the Navy? If you don't want to answer, that's fine, but I am curious.

I was in the Navy because I was expelled from high school and didn't have a job and was about to be kicked from my trailor because I couldn't pay the rent.

Clavicula_Nox
Jun 3rd 2008, 09:21 PM
Let's keep in mind that Saddam, or most likely factions within the Ba'ath party knew their reign was at an end. There is a good amount of HUMINT which suggests there was a great deal of exchange between factions of both Iraq and Iran. There is ample opportunity and motive to move equipment, and it's not like it would be difficult, either.

Clavicula_Nox
Jun 3rd 2008, 09:23 PM
I was in the Navy because I was expelled from high school and didn't have a job and was about to be kicked from my trailor because I couldn't pay the rent.

Fair enough about the question, I understand completely. So, if you don't think terrorist activity is limited to suicide bombing, why even throw that challenge at me when I disagreed with you when you stated there was no terrorist activity in Iraq before the invasion?

I'm sorry you were in a hard place, ETSing was the right choice.

ProjectPeter
Jun 3rd 2008, 09:23 PM
Then you really need to question this line of reasoning, as it obviously ignores the teachings of Jesus.
No it isn't... you might think that I suppose but it isn't. Those people in Iraq were helpless and downtrodden by a tyrant. I can guarantee you that God has no problem with folks going to their rescue and defense. Don't confuse "love your enemy" with that very simple biblical truth. God puts leaders of governments in place for His purpose. Another one of them there biblical truths. They wield the sword for that purpose at times and that is ordained by God as well as ministers of justice. Another one of them there biblical truths. You can disagree with folks and that's cool. Do so without all the personal nonsense and you are going to fare much better. I'll let your post stand because it was made to me. Post like this to others and I'll delete them. Clear?

Brother Mark
Jun 3rd 2008, 09:24 PM
You don't even know me. How dare you try to classify me as a liberal? What? Because I'm not out praising our government for sending our military into unnecessary wars? Because I don't believe that might makes right? Because I believe that power corrupts? Because I believe in the warnings that God presented to us? Because I believe in the actual conservative principles, and not the neoconservative military pandering?

I have not resorted to anything such as emotionalism. I have asked serious questions and have received nothing but rhetoric as answers. I answered all of your questions with straight answers. I haven't tried to dodge any of them. So stop trying to change the topic to focus on me, and stay with the conversation.

Oh, no topic changing on my end. Just pointing out how evil Saddam really was. It seems today that PGWB is considered the more evil of the two. He gets blamed for car bombings! Yet, our boys are over there dying so Iraqis can live in freedom. The occupation was poorly run till recently. The surge helped things quite a bit. But many were against that too.

Saddam wanted the world to believe he had WMD. He did everything he could to by off France and Russia so he could 1. Get rich. 2. Keep up the appearance of military strength. You want to blame someone for the war, blame Saddam, Russia and France. They all had their chance. PGWB was very open and honest about what it would take to avert the war. France and Russia didn't want anyone to know about their gravy train. Saddam didn't want to give UN inspectors room to operate.

knuckledamus
Jun 3rd 2008, 09:25 PM
Saddam sure wanted people to believe he did! He wanted Iran to know it. All he had to do was co-operate. But hey, I get it. Some apparently don't think Saddam was a bad man. He should have been left alone to murder and torture more people. And if he had WMD (as he made appear he did), then so what? :rolleyes:

I never said he was good, or anything like that, did I? I am saying that we have no right to interfere with other countries. We certainly can not trust government to the task of deciding who is worthy of being taken out. If the people in Iraq were so bad off, then they would have had a revolution, just as we did. Either way, it is none of our business.

Clavicula_Nox
Jun 3rd 2008, 09:26 PM
then they would have had a revolution, just as we did. Either way, it is none of our business.
............they did, but there is only so much un-trained, ill-equipped infantry can do against an armored fighting force with air support and no compunctions about killing anyone and everyone.

*edit*

Not even infantry, infantry implies some form of professional soldiering.

Brother Mark
Jun 3rd 2008, 09:28 PM
I never said he was good, or anything like that, did I? I am saying that we have no right to interfere with other countries. We certainly can not trust government to the task of deciding who is worthy of being taken out. If the people in Iraq were so bad off, then they would have had a revolution, just as we did. Either way, it is none of our business.

Nope. I was being sarcastic to make a point. You know, kind of like "know any car bombings in Iraq". ;)

Oh yea, have a revolution against a man who is in your back yard, with a million man army. That's very similar to what we did when we outnumbered the king and he was across the atlantic with no means of communication or good recon. As for how bad the Iraqi people were, how many mass graves have been found? How many Shiites were brutally murdered and terrorized? How many Kurds were slaughtered?

And this man, who used WMD on Iran, hated the US and would have sold or given nuclear weapons, if he had them to terrorist. He gave the impression of having them and wanted the world to believe he had them. He thought he could walk that fine line and was mistaken. It would have been stupid for the US to allow him access to nuclear weapons.

Clavicula_Nox
Jun 3rd 2008, 09:36 PM
Either way, it is none of our business.All life is connected. If your neighbor is in trouble and outside begging for your help, do you ignore him because it isn't your business?

*edit*

Do you ignore someone who isn't begging for help, but is nonetheless in need of it?

Fenris
Jun 3rd 2008, 10:59 PM
I'm going to copy/paste from my last post:
"Now you can write it off as UN sanctions, but you and I both know that we're the enforcer of the UN."

Now, on top of this, it is also well known that we told Saddam that we wouldn't interfere with his invading Kuwait, and then when pressure mounted because of the oil there, we changed our tune.
You're right, we should have left Saddam alone when he invaded Kuwait. We the would have also left him alone when he invaded Saudi Arabia. It isn't like a madman controlling the world's oil is a threat to our national security or anything...:lol:



Clinton tried to say that didn't have s#%ua* r#la^ions with someone, and tried to redefine the word, much as you tried to change the meaning of what you posted.What this has to do with me, I have no idea...


And I haven't really read too much of Buchannan's stuff. What I have read, I liked though.

Am I smart, or what?

knuckledamus
Jun 4th 2008, 02:28 AM
............they did, but there is only so much un-trained, ill-equipped infantry can do against an armored fighting force with air support and no compunctions about killing anyone and everyone.

*edit*

Not even infantry, infantry implies some form of professional soldiering.

Like our infantry?

knuckledamus
Jun 4th 2008, 02:31 AM
It happens. As the old saying goes... war is hell. But rest assured... it wasn't the fault of the U.S. that those folks died. Trying to blame the US for that is like blaming a "failed condom" for getting someone pregnant.

Were we at war when we put the sanctions on Iraq? I guess that's rhetorical because the war was over... Shouldn't the government have learned from the Versailles treaty? Unless you've forgotten about WWII...

knuckledamus
Jun 4th 2008, 02:33 AM
Let's keep in mind that Saddam, or most likely factions within the Ba'ath party knew their reign was at an end. There is a good amount of HUMINT which suggests there was a great deal of exchange between factions of both Iraq and Iran. There is ample opportunity and motive to move equipment, and it's not like it would be difficult, either.

So... what is it you're trying to say here? That Iraq moved their WMD to Iran? Right after their war?

Maybe it is good thinking after all... we get involved and Iran and Iraq start working together...:hmm:

knuckledamus
Jun 4th 2008, 02:36 AM
Nope. I was being sarcastic to make a point. You know, kind of like "know any car bombings in Iraq". ;)

Yeah... haha! Funny joke.:rolleyes:

knuckledamus
Jun 4th 2008, 02:44 AM
All life is connected. If your neighbor is in trouble and outside begging for your help, do you ignore him because it isn't your business?

*edit*

Do you ignore someone who isn't begging for help, but is nonetheless in need of it?

If I were a native american, I might agree...

Now, as for your question about helping someone, I have another story to relate:

I worked at a mini-market doing the graveyard shift. I grew up in a very bad neighborhood (most would call it a ghetto), and it was common to see domestic violence. Well, one night, I saw a man dragging his wife out of his house with a rope. He dragged her into the middle of the street and commenced beating her. I was working behind the register, and it was in the dead of night, so there was just myself, the jerk beating his wife, the wife, and the phone. I picked up the phone and called the cops, ran outside and told the guy to let the girl go because I had just called the cops. When the cops arrived, the girl said that I was lying and that she had just gotten drunk and fallen down...

Now, what parallels can you draw from this? None?

ProjectPeter
Jun 4th 2008, 02:44 AM
Like our infantry?
Sure like our infantry... honestly that's sort of a "duh" thing I would think eh? :lol:

knuckledamus
Jun 4th 2008, 02:46 AM
You're right, we should have left Saddam alone when he invaded Kuwait. We the would have also left him alone when he invaded Saudi Arabia. It isn't like a madman controlling the world's oil is a threat to our national security or anything...:lol:

You're right! There's no oil in America! Man...what was I thinking?

knuckledamus
Jun 4th 2008, 02:47 AM
Sure like our infantry... honestly that's sort of a "duh" thing I would think eh? :lol:

Yeah... I do think that was my point.:confused

ProjectPeter
Jun 4th 2008, 02:48 AM
If I were a native american, I might agree...

Now, as for your question about helping someone, I have another story to relate:

I worked at a mini-market doing the graveyard shift. I grew up in a very bad neighborhood (most would call it a ghetto), and it was common to see domestic violence. Well, one night, I saw a man dragging his wife out of his house with a rope. He dragged her into the middle of the street and commenced beating her. I was working behind the register, and it was in the dead of night, so there was just myself, the jerk beating his wife, the wife, and the phone. I picked up the phone and called the cops, ran outside and told the guy to let the girl go because I had just called the cops. When the cops arrived, the girl said that I was lying and that she had just gotten drunk and fallen down...

Now, what parallels can you draw from this? None?
You did what was right and she lied like a dog... it happens. What does that mean to you... are you sorry you called them? Would you have done it again or did you "learn your lesson?" Next time you see it what are you going to do? I mean so what really... does it matter that she lied? If you do the right thing then what else can you do... regardless of the fact that they didn't appreciate that fact?

ProjectPeter
Jun 4th 2008, 02:49 AM
Yeah... I do think that was my point.:confused
And it was a point not worth making... that was his point too. You are just looking through a different lense and missed it altogether. ;)

knuckledamus
Jun 4th 2008, 02:51 AM
Am I smart, or what?

You probably are... but I'm not trying to question you, or your intelligence. This is nothing personal, but merely something I see that is fundamentally wrong with our American society.

knuckledamus
Jun 4th 2008, 02:53 AM
And it was a point not worth making... that was his point too. You are just looking through a different lense and missed it altogether. ;)

But... It is you who have missed my meaning. When we fought the revolution, do you think we had trained soldiers, or were we just a bunch of farmers who got together to fight for a common ideal?

knuckledamus
Jun 4th 2008, 02:58 AM
You did what was right and she lied like a dog... it happens. What does that mean to you... are you sorry you called them? Would you have done it again or did you "learn your lesson?" Next time you see it what are you going to do? I mean so what really... does it matter that she lied? If you do the right thing then what else can you do... regardless of the fact that they didn't appreciate that fact?

It matters in the fact that people will lie to protect what they see as their little world. Our politicians dragging the country into a war, even if it is with the best of intentions, will not result in a good outcome. Our founding fathers realized this, and recommended many times that we let countries deal with their problems on their own.

And the founding fathers did not come to these conclusions lightly. They based their conclusions on many centuries of history, and the warnings of government in the bible. I do not doubt that our government has good intentions, but I do question the outcome of their good intentions. History has shown that government is always the catalyst. Our founding fathers understood this and tried to prevent it. God warned us against it.

knuckledamus
Jun 4th 2008, 03:01 AM
It would have been stupid for the US to allow him access to nuclear weapons.And of course, Iraq was found to not have any WMD.

ProjectPeter
Jun 4th 2008, 03:01 AM
But... It is you who have missed my meaning. When we fought the revolution, do you think we had trained soldiers, or were we just a bunch of farmers who got together to fight for a common ideal?We had an advantage there hoss... they had to come over here to fight. They didn't physically rule in this country. ;) There is a MONSTER difference.

ProjectPeter
Jun 4th 2008, 03:04 AM
It matters in the fact that people will lie to protect what they see as their little world. Our politicians dragging the country into a war, even if it is with the best of intentions, will not result in a good outcome. Our founding fathers realized this, and recommended many times that we let countries deal with their problems on their own.

And the founding fathers did not come to these conclusions lightly. They based their conclusions on many centuries of history, and the warnings of government in the bible. I do not doubt that our government has good intentions, but I do question the outcome of their good intentions. History has shown that government is always the catalyst. Our founding fathers understood this and tried to prevent it. God warned us against it.Um... back when our founding fathers were "founding" there wasn't nothing much we could do as a nation in foreign affairs. It was simply wisdom that kept us out of that. Now... we ain't a little country that is just beginning. To whom much is given... much is required. Just another one of them there biblical principles. We've been given much. More than most... and much is required of us. If you don't understand that then it is you in fact that do not understand the teachings of either Scripture or Christ. :)

ProjectPeter
Jun 4th 2008, 03:07 AM
And of course, Iraq was found to not have any WMD.
Not really. They did have a bunch of depleted stuff but even there it was still dangerous. Just not nearly as dangerous as it once was. And then the fact of the matter... Sadaam simply lied like a rug and kept the world believing he had that mess. Problem was... he got called on it. So what he didn't have it... we now know he lied like a rug. Lesson... there are just some things that are really stupid to lie about. WMD's would be one of those things when you are a rouge dictator that most of the world don't much care for.

knuckledamus
Jun 4th 2008, 03:11 AM
Hoss.. Umm... whatever. I don't want to argue. I'm not here to point fingers. I'm not even trying to win. Apparently, you believe Jesus was a warmonger and would be a general. Have fun with your beliefs. Continue your "conservativeness." Just don't listen to Jesus.

ProjectPeter
Jun 4th 2008, 03:14 AM
Hoss.. Umm... whatever. I don't want to argue. I'm not here to point fingers. I'm not even trying to win. Apparently, you believe Jesus was a warmonger and would be a general. Have fun with your beliefs. Continue your "conservativeness." Just don't listen to Jesus.
Ahh... I see. More of that straw man stuff! Yeah... Jesus was a warmonger!!! That's what I and everyone else is saying. :rolleyes:

And just to note... for one not wanting to argue... you've spent an awful lot of time arguing. ;)

knuckledamus
Jun 4th 2008, 03:22 AM
Ahh... I see. More of that straw man stuff! Yeah... Jesus was a warmonger!!! That's what I and everyone else is saying. :rolleyes:

Presenting a point of view is not an argument.

And I'm glad that you admit that you think Jesus was a warmonger.

Anyway, me not wanting to argue with someone who doesn't really want to discuss something does not make me a straw man. You could say that if you had torn down my defenses. But... you haven't.

ProjectPeter
Jun 4th 2008, 03:29 AM
Um... I see. I don't know you well enough but I assume you're a kid. If not then I wouldn't tell anyone much about that. But like I said earlier... you obviously cannot handle discussions like this. So official Administrator hat is on right now. Go on and just back out of this discussion. You can't deal with it obviously and I'd hate to have to push that point with you. So do both of us a favor and find another topic that you can deal with and not get all bent out of shape on. Passion is cool... silliness is just silliness.

Clavicula_Nox
Jun 4th 2008, 12:58 PM
Like our infantry?

I don't understand what you mean by this. Are you saying our infantry is a professional soldiering element, or are you saying they aren't? Do you know what a professional soldier is?



Were we at war when we put the sanctions on Iraq? I guess that's rhetorical because the war was over... Shouldn't the government have learned from the Versailles treaty? Unless you've forgotten about WWII...

Part of the treaty Saddam signed when he capitulated. Mentioning the treaty of Versailles is asinine. In Versailles, Germany was listed as the only nation responsible for the war when Germany was just supporting an ally. Perhaps it is you who has forgotten.


So... what is it you're trying to say here? That Iraq moved their WMD to Iran? Right after their war?

The Iran/Iraq war ended in the 80's. A lot can happen between then and 2002/2003. I'm not saying things were moved at the end of hostilities between those two nations, and I didn't imply that, how you got that out of me I really can't say.



I worked at a mini-market doing the graveyard shift. I grew up in a very bad neighborhood (most would call it a ghetto), and it was common to see domestic violence. Well, one night, I saw a man dragging his wife out of his house with a rope. He dragged her into the middle of the street and commenced beating her. I was working behind the register, and it was in the dead of night, so there was just myself, the jerk beating his wife, the wife, and the phone. I picked up the phone and called the cops, ran outside and told the guy to let the girl go because I had just called the cops. When the cops arrived, the girl said that I was lying and that she had just gotten drunk and fallen down...

I don't understand your point? If you want a parallel, then that's easy. We send aid to countries that publically hate us and spew venom at us, all the while accepting free money and food. Other than that, it's a nice story with little to no bearing on what we're talking about, as you once said, stick to the discussion.


You're right! There's no oil in America! Man...what was I thinking?

Fenris is a supporter of the "Drill our own oil!" movement, as am I. Talk to the Greenpeacers.


When we fought the revolution, do you think we had trained soldiers, or were we just a bunch of farmers who got together to fight for a common ideal?

I'm surprised you never heard the name of Von Steuban while you were in the military. He is generally regarded as the single most important person in forming a trained and regimented Continental Army. Besides that point, Washington and his buddies didn't have to deal with T-72s, BMP-2s, Hind helicopters, and all manner of nastiness.

Also, I think your recollection of our history is hazy. Contrary to popular belief, the Continental Army wasn't made up of irregular militia sniping from the tree-line, but was instead formed into coherent units, followed an order of battle, and fought according to the rules of war. The militias and rangers formed seperate fighting formations.

Tl;dr: Read more history and less political drivel.

Brother Mark
Jun 4th 2008, 01:08 PM
We had an advantage there hoss... they had to come over here to fight. They didn't physically rule in this country. ;) There is a MONSTER difference.

Not to mention it was a war fought with muskets and not tanks, machine guns, artillery, etc. Iraqis had NO chance of revolution on their own. None.

ProjectPeter
Jun 4th 2008, 01:12 PM
Not to mention it was a war fought with muskets and not tanks, machine guns, artillery, etc. Iraqis had NO chance of revolution on their own. None.
Exactly... times are entirely different now and trying to compare our revolution to them having their own is like trying to compare an apple to an okra.

NHL Fever
Jun 4th 2008, 06:15 PM
This discussion needs some balance. Some of the specific claims that need challenge:


50 million people who lived under tyranny are now free to choose their own destiny. That not good enough for you?

I'm confident those on every side want a better and stable Iraq. With respect however, these 50 million are definetly not free to choose their own destiny. When you struggle to find food and water, fear being raped, killed or the same happening to your family, have no reliable venue for gainful income, and a variety of local religious warlords determine what actions require encouragement or punishment on a daily basis, you are not free. Losing Saddam and gaining many small-scale Saddams is not freedom just because we decide to label it that way.


I don't know of one. But that doesn't mean I concede it. However, I will tell you this... right now hundreds are being killed by suicide bombers. Under Saddam, hundreds of thousands and maybe millions were killed with weapons of mass destruction.

Saddam ruled for 35 years and was only out for 5. The rate of dying violently is around double what it was under Saddam with some variance month to month, and rates of rape and religious persecution are likewise greatly elevated. That needs to be factored into any consideration of what's better or worse than before.


500,000 people died, and yet Saddam was able to build new palaces for him and his cronies. His sons were able to roam across the country kidnapping, raping, and murdering any woman or girl they wanted. The Republican Guard was able to conduct whatever operation they wanted within their neighborhood districts. Saddam was able to fund Arab mercenaries to fight in Islamic jihad across the globe. He was able to purchase replacement parts for certain pieces of military equipment, he was able to purchase new weapons, used-but serviceable armoured vehicles.


Nobody supports Saddam's actions, the question is whether replacing Saddam with an even worse situation is justified, especially given in the enormous cost to do so. If I recall correctly you acknowledge the increased numbers of terrorists since the war, especially in Iraq where there were essentially none prior. Is a big terrorist who killed with organized forces better or worse than many small ones who kill more often with disorganized ones?


No it isn't... you might think that I suppose but it isn't. Those people in Iraq were helpless and downtrodden by a tyrant. I can guarantee you that God has no problem with folks going to their rescue and defense. Don't confuse "love your enemy" with that very simple biblical truth. God puts leaders of governments in place for His purpose. Another one of them there biblical truths. They wield the sword for that purpose at times and that is ordained by God as well as ministers of justice. Another one of them there biblical truths.

That argument cuts both ways, on several levels. It can justify Bush's invasion just as easily as Saddam's rule. Not to mention any Obama policy you might disagree with if he is elected. When Obama opens up abortion and nationalizes gay marriage will you salute in obedience and remind people of God's ordinance of leadership with as much vigor as now? The double standard of this position of what most take exception with from time to time, not a principle based-objection to authority.

I would also pos the same question - does the removal of a tyrant justify an action that leads to many tyrants which cumulatively make life worse than with the original tyrant?


All life is connected. If your neighbor is in trouble and outside begging for your help, do you ignore him because it isn't your business?

*edit*

Do you ignore someone who isn't begging for help, but is nonetheless in need of it?

The issue is the huge double standard my man. If the actions of the US are the yardstick for your question, then the answer is a resounding yes. How many neighbors are there asking for help? Too many to count, with an absolute pittance offered in terms of help compared to war spending. How many people are subdued by an openly communist government with absolute certain possession of thousands of nuclear weaspons overseas? The case for war in that instance, using the same arguments as the Iraq war, is a 1000x stronger than Iraq. Why are we ignoring these people then? Why not invade China and free the 1.3 billion people from rule of an openly hostile form of government, with unquestioned possession of advanced WMD's of which there is not a moments doubt about the technology to reach America?

With the trillions of dollars spent, Malaria could be wiped out. Can you imagine how many lives would be saved or how much economic prosperity that would bring? If our concern is helping out our neighbor, why pick the super-low yield, super-high cost mission, when there are countless other noble causes for which money would be so much more effectively spent.

When it comes down to helping the poor or providing security for already unstable areas, the argument is 'well governments shouldn't be a charity', or 'its not governments role to help everyone' or perhaps 'we are not the world's police force', but as soon as the issue is war, suddenly the purse strings are wide open and compassion is the name of the game. Can anybody put faith in that kind of double-speak?


To get back to the OP topic, Scott McClellan. The bottom line is that when you are ideologically driven, the results or consequences of that ideology simply do not matter, they will always be right or in some way justified. In any scenario of Scott departing ways, he is wrong because the Bush doctrine is right. If Scott McClellan backed out during the admin, he would be lacking the conviction of loyalty. If he backed out after, then he has no convictions of honesty. If he didn't know eveything Bush knew, then he really isn't reliable to comment. If he did, well then he's also not reliable because he didn't have the morality to leave sooner. If he praises Bush, then he's a knowledgeable insider with long association with Bush. If he leaves, then well he was always a turncoat. When he faithfully parroted the most silly responses to reporters questions or avoided answering, he was doing his job and commended for his allegiance, now that he's spilling the beans he's a 'greedy opoortunist'.

The reason there's not substance in his critics claims, is that its just more of the same neo-conservative logic all over again. It can be applied to many areas, such as the war:
- If there's less killing, then its because of the occupation so we should continue to stay, if there's more killing, then we need to improve security and we should stay.
- If we leave and killing increases, it will be because we left too soon and we should have stayed. If we leave and someone manages to establish security and killing decreases, it will be because we've handed the country into the clutches of another dangerous power-broker and we should have stayed to prevent that.
- If there's less terrorists in the world, then its because of a successful Bush foreign policy. If there's more such as is the case now, its because we're smoking them out thanks to a successful foreign policy.
- If there's no more 9/11's on Bush's watch, its because his policies are preventing one, if there was no 9/11 on Clinton's watch, its because he was just appeasing the terrorists are they were building up to one
- When there was a 9/11 on Bush's watch, its because the previous admininstration had been slack about terrorism, if there is one during an Obama admin (if he wins), you can count on it, it will be because he did not follow a Bush-style foreign policy. And likewise, if there isn't another 9/11, it will be because of previous Bush policies having their effect.

When intent and ideology are the yardstick rather than accountability to measurable goals and outcomes , it simply does not matter what happens, any markers or events moving in any direction are justified. McClellan and his sudden demonization is simply par for the course. Heck, Bush himself could suddenly step down and make shocking recantations of his actions and policies, and just as quickly would his neo-con crucification take place. You'd start to hear all about how Bush never really got over his alcoholism or his previous drug had come back to haunt him. Neo-conservative ideology is IMO a perversion of all the strength found in traditional conservative values that many of us hold dear.

Fenris
Jun 4th 2008, 06:22 PM
I'm confident those on every side want a better and stable Iraq. With respect however, these 50 million are definetly not free to choose their own destiny. When you struggle to find food and water, fear being raped, killed or the same happening to your family, have no reliable venue for gainful income, and a variety of local religious warlords determine what actions require encouragement or punishment on a daily basis, you are not free. Losing Saddam and gaining many small-scale Saddams is not freedom just because we decide to label it that way.

I didn't realize Saddam was such a positive influence. My bad.

ProjectPeter
Jun 4th 2008, 06:27 PM
This discussion needs some balance. Some of the specific claims that need challenge:



I'm confident those on every side want a better and stable Iraq. With respect however, these 50 million are definetly not free to choose their own destiny. When you struggle to find food and water, fear being raped, killed or the same happening to your family, have no reliable venue for gainful income, and a variety of local religious warlords determine what actions require encouragement or punishment on a daily basis, you are not free. Losing Saddam and gaining many small-scale Saddams is not freedom just because we decide to label it that way.



Saddam ruled for 35 years and was only out for 5. The rate of dying violently is around double what it was under Saddam with some variance month to month, and rates of rape and religious persecution are likewise greatly elevated. That needs to be factored into any consideration of what's better or worse than before.



Nobody supports Saddam's actions, the question is whether replacing Saddam with an even worse situation is justified, especially given in the enormous cost to do so. If I recall correctly you acknowledge the increased numbers of terrorists since the war, especially in Iraq where there were essentially none prior. Is a big terrorist who killed with organized forces better or worse than many small ones who kill more often with disorganized ones?



That argument cuts both ways, on several levels. It can justify Bush's invasion just as easily as Saddam's rule. Not to mention any Obama policy you might disagree with if he is elected. When Obama opens up abortion and nationalizes gay marriage will you salute in obedience and remind people of God's ordinance of leadership with as much vigor as now? The double standard of this position of what most take exception with from time to time, not a principle based-objection to authority.

I would also pos the same question - does the removal of a tyrant justify an action that leads to many tyrants which cumulatively make life worse than with the original tyrant?



The issue is the huge double standard my man. If the actions of the US are the yardstick for your question, then the answer is a resounding yes. How many neighbors are there asking for help? Too many to count, with an absolute pittance offered in terms of help compared to war spending. How many people are subdued by an openly communist government with absolute certain possession of thousands of nuclear weaspons overseas? The case for war in that instance, using the same arguments as the Iraq war, is a 1000x stronger than Iraq. Why are we ignoring these people then? Why not invade China and free the 1.3 billion people from rule of an openly hostile form of government, with unquestioned possession of advanced WMD's of which there is not a moments doubt about the technology to reach America?

With the trillions of dollars spent, Malaria could be wiped out. Can you imagine how many lives would be saved or how much economic prosperity that would bring? If our concern is helping out our neighbor, why pick the super-low yield, super-high cost mission, when there are countless other noble causes for which money would be so much more effectively spent.

When it comes down to helping the poor or providing security for already unstable areas, the argument is 'well governments shouldn't be a charity', or 'its not governments role to help everyone' or perhaps 'we are not the world's police force', but as soon as the issue is war, suddenly the purse strings are wide open and compassion is the name of the game. Can anybody put faith in that kind of double-speak?


To get back to the OP topic, Scott McClellan. The bottom line is that when you are ideologically driven, the results or consequences of that ideology simply do not matter, they will always be right or in some way justified. In any scenario of Scott departing ways, he is wrong because the Bush doctrine is right. If Scott McClellan backed out during the admin, he would be lacking the conviction of loyalty. If he backed out after, then he has no convictions of honesty. If he didn't know eveything Bush knew, then he really isn't reliable to comment. If he did, well then he's also not reliable because he didn't have the morality to leave sooner. If he praises Bush, then he's a knowledgeable insider with long association with Bush. If he leaves, then well he was always a turncoat. When he faithfully parroted the most silly responses to reporters questions or avoided answering, he was doing his job and commended for his allegiance, now that he's spilling the beans he's a 'greedy opoortunist'.

The reason there's not substance in his critics claims, is that its just more of the same neo-conservative logic all over again. It can be applied to many areas, such as the war:
- If there's less killing, then its because of the occupation so we should continue to stay, if there's more killing, then we need to improve security and we should stay.
- If we leave and killing increases, it will be because we left too soon and we should have stayed. If we leave and someone manages to establish security and killing decreases, it will be because we've handed the country into the clutches of another dangerous power-broker and we should have stayed to prevent that.
- If there's less terrorists in the world, then its because of a successful Bush foreign policy. If there's more such as is the case now, its because we're smoking them out thanks to a successful foreign policy.
- If there's no more 9/11's on Bush's watch, its because his policies are preventing one, if there was no 9/11 on Clinton's watch, its because he was just appeasing the terrorists are they were building up to one
- When there was a 9/11 on Bush's watch, its because the previous admininstration had been slack about terrorism, if there is one during an Obama admin (if he wins), you can count on it, it will be because he did not follow a Bush-style foreign policy. And likewise, if there isn't another 9/11, it will be because of previous Bush policies having their effect.

When intent and ideology are the yardstick rather than accountability to measurable goals and outcomes , it simply does not matter what happens, any markers or events moving in any direction are justified. McClellan and his sudden demonization is simply par for the course. Heck, Bush himself could suddenly step down and make shocking recantations of his actions and policies, and just as quickly would his neo-con crucification take place. You'd start to hear all about how Bush never really got over his alcoholism or his previous drug had come back to haunt him. Neo-conservative ideology is IMO a perversion of all the strength found in traditional conservative values that many of us hold dear.
Sure it cuts both ways. And no I wouldn't salute it... God forbid! I'd simply call it for what it is and what I believe (he will be elected)... the sins of the US will be complete and God's judgment on this nation will as well. ;)

NHL Fever
Jun 4th 2008, 06:43 PM
I didn't realize Saddam was such a positive influence. My bad.

Somewhere in there, you're bigger than sarcasm as an argument.

Fenris
Jun 4th 2008, 06:52 PM
Somewhere in there, you're bigger than sarcasm as an argument.
You're arguing that things would have been better if we left things be.

I simply do not believe that.

NHL Fever
Jun 4th 2008, 06:58 PM
You're arguing that things would have been better if we left things be.

I simply do not believe that.

I would pose to you this question - is there any benchmark, event or anything at all that could happen that could make you reconsider whether Iraq was a good idea? If so, what is it?

Fenris
Jun 4th 2008, 07:05 PM
I suppose if the Jihadists take over Iraq would be worse off.:hmm:

NHL Fever
Jun 4th 2008, 07:24 PM
I suppose if the Jihadists take over Iraq would be worse off.:hmm:

What degree or type of influence would the jihadists need to have to been seen as having taken over?

Fenris
Jun 4th 2008, 07:29 PM
It isn't a subtle situation. Either they're in control or they're not. Example: Iran.

Brother Mark
Jun 4th 2008, 08:50 PM
That argument cuts both ways, on several levels. It can justify Bush's invasion just as easily as Saddam's rule. Not to mention any Obama policy you might disagree with if he is elected. When Obama opens up abortion and nationalizes gay marriage will you salute in obedience and remind people of God's ordinance of leadership with as much vigor as now? The double standard of this position of what most take exception with from time to time, not a principle based-objection to authority.

There's not a double standard. We are told to follow governments lead until government tells us sin is OK. The standard is very straight forward.

As for the rate of killings, again, the problem is with the terrorist, where it has been from the beginning. There is a clear difference in motives on each side. That's something the left doesn't want much discussion on.