Vote Early, Vote Often!

[BrentAllen 10]

pack,

Thanks for the free psycho-analysis; I'll file it with all my other important papers, in my special circular file.

Maybe you can help me with something else. I know we have been over this a million times, but please explain again why these Democrats escape your wrath. I'm really having trouble with this whole "nuanced" view of the world.

 

"There is NO DOUBT that Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."

Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

 

"We KNOW that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

 

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are CONFIDENT that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."

Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

 

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a REAL and grave threat to our security."

Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

 

"There is UNMISTAKABLE evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."

Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

 

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports SHOW that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to TERRORISTS, including AL QAEDA members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

 

"We are in POSSESSION of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is REAL ..."

Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

 

Yeah, I know, they only voted to send us to war, they weren't the president, right? Or maybe Bush was doing that mind-meld thing on them he learned from Spock on Star Trek? Talk about being in denial.... geeesh!

One more request, since I'm sure you are going to give a nuanced reason why you give Democrats a pass on the above - please explain the reason for their rhetoric. Were they just trying to sound tough? Why all the big talk, unless they planned on doing something about it?

I guess if we get down to an extremely nuanced view (talking John Kerry level here) of the 9/11 attacks, all those who actually committed the acts were killed in the process, so to a Democrat, why did we need to attack anyone? The bad guys who pulled the trigger, so to speak, died right there. You hold Bush as the only one responsible for sending us into war - why not just hold those 19 responsible for the attacks?

 

Fuzzy,

His "nation building" comments were pre-9/11. I think most would agree the whole world changed after that date. But hey, it's still a free country - hold your grudges.

 

[packsaddle 753]

Hey, any time. You're welcome. I just wish it'd have some effect...

 

Brent, I agree with you. If any of those politicians knew there was doubt before they made those statements they are liars in my book. That said, THEY aren't in the oval office and THEY didn't take us to war. Bush did. Bush had the opportunity to make a carefully reasoned decision in any direction he chose. I have no idea why he decided the way he did but he chose to lie and then to take us to war.

 

As for the 19. All I can say is, AFGHANISTAN! BIN LADEN! AL QAIDA! Not Iraq. As a result, we didn't do a complete job in Afghanistan, Bin Laden is still thumbing his nose at us and stirring terrorism and we have set the stage for terrorists to grow in Iraq, BIG TIME. Nevermind pouring our treasury out on the sand, think of the blood. Thousands of our good people are dead and thousands more may die because a choice was made to start a war of choice. Based on a lie.

 

If Bush had merely gotten a BJ and lied about it, I would have shaken my head and rolled my eyes just like I did for Clinton. For the sake of all those who have lost their lives since, I wish he had.

[BrentAllen 10]

pack,

For a Democrat, who isn't supposed to be so "black-and-white", you sure are on this one. Am I correct in assuming that if Bush had said the intelligence was 98% sure on the WMD's, you wouldn't have a problem with him now? Please remember, the intelligence communities got thumped pretty good over their bad intel - do think there might have been just a little CYA afterwards? They were all looking for someone to blame. On the other side of the coin, Saddam never produced any evidence that he had destroyed the weapons we knew he had. He felt he couldn't - because he was bluffing his neighbors. So, when I add that all up, I believe Bush made the best decision he could with the information he had. I think we did the right thing, removing Saddam. It remains to see if the Iraqis are willing to fight to keep the gift we have given them. We can only lead the horse to water. As I said earlier, it's still a free country - hold your grudges. Just don't tell me I should hold them with you.

[Hunt 11]

"I guess the pictures (from the liberal media) of Iraqis cheering the recent sentence in Saddam's trial aren't real?"

 

Well, the Shiites were cheering--the Sunnis, not so much. It was the administration's inability to understand distinctions like that that has contributed to the situation in Iraq now. In this respect, Iraq is not so much like Vietnam as it is like the former Yugoslavia, where the end of a dictatorship allowed old rivalries to reemerge, leading to awful bloodshed.

[packsaddle 753]

A percentage figure would not have been necessary. Simply saying that, based on intelligence, he wasn't absolutely certain would have been sufficient. It would have given us, the people, an opportunity to take more of the responsibility for the decision. As it was, his lie denied that from us. I think he understood all this. I think that after a lifetime of personal deception he thought he could not take the risk that the country would choose not to go to war if we knew there was doubt about WMD and all the rest. So he avoided that risk using deception. And now he has been shown for what he is. And he's in denial, exactly as I would have expected.

 

BTW, in case it makes any difference, I'm not a Democrat. I understand you play that name-calling game to avoid substance but I forgive you. You must know by now that, as a heretic, my thoughts are not encumbered by ideologies and that I make up my mind without regard to party lines. I feel free to apply criticisms in an equal-opportunity manner.

 

Regarding the Iraqis, no external power came into the 13 colonies to overthrow King George for us. We did it ourselves and I think we appreciate our freedoms more for that fact. Yes, the French helped a lot. But we did the fighting and we built our own system of government. It wasn't manufactured in another country and plopped down in our laps with an occupying force to 'nurture' it along.

If the Iraqis weren't motivated enough to take the country for themselves, what makes you think they are going to appreciate our 'gift'? Sometimes such 'gifts' are merely taken for granted (think welfare here) and they may actually lead to contempt for the giver. H'mmmm?

[BrentAllen 10]

Wow, pack! I think you could give John Kerry lessons in nuance.

 

Please explain how Bush stating the intelligence wasn't absolute (which I, for one, could figure out, since the inspectors couldn't find any weapons - hello!) would "have given us, the people, an opportunity to take more of the responsibility for the decision"? How, exactly, would that happen? Did you get a vote in the decision to go to war? Did Bush call you? Our representatives and senators voted - for you. I just don't see how you can seriously make such statements, and then call Bush a liar for his actions. Guess I'm just not nuanced enough...

[Fuzzy Bear 12]

Today was a red letter day in Washington....

 

Rummy is the greatest one for the job! Rummy will be by my side till the day I walk away from here. Oh, by the way, here is your replacement, Rummy. Well, I didn't want to say anything because I didn't want to disturb the election process. Oh yea, I am now a born again non-partisan kind of guy. Let's all work together. I can really hear the voters today.

 

That is the kind of silly nonsense that we have come to expect. I suppose he wasn't lying either.

 

By the way, the "no nation building" speech was made after 9/11. There wouldn't be any other reason to make it. It has nothing to do with a grudge. It has everything to do with what we are doing today in Iraq, Nation Building. I didnt think that would be that easy to miss. fb

 

[packsaddle 753]

Brent, perhaps you are correct about your ability to use or understand nuance. I am happy to keep trying to communicate to you though, if that will help.

You got part of the answer to your question. My input to the decision would have been to demand this information from my representatives. And to express my informed opinion directly to the president. His claim for there to be no doubt about WMD left no room for such queries. No doubt is absolute. Doubt opens all the possibilities. I think he was aware of this and wanted to minimize the chance that his decision would be questioned or worse, resisted rather than supported by Congress. He did this. I suspect that if this was a parliamentary system, he would be facing the same fate as Tony Blair right now. Too late, unfortunately, for those thousands of lost lives.

[BrentAllen 10]

Fuzzy wrote: "By the way, the "no nation building" speech was made after 9/11."

 

You may be correct about the nation building speech; I certainly haven't heard or read all of his speeches. I remember the subject coming up in the debates between Bush and Gore, but hadn't heard him mention it after 9/11. I would like to see the context, so if you don't mind, please cite it - link, date, etc...

[BrentAllen 10]

pack,

You are starting to crack me up, heh, heh, but I need a good laugh every now and then.

 

You write: "My input to the decision would have been to demand this information from my representatives."

So, a form letter from Isakson or Chamblis or your Rep. would really allow you to make an informed decision? Come on! You would have written the President of your informed opinion based on the intelligence cleared to be sent out to anyone who asked? You must have some mighty powerful tea leaves! What exactly would you have written to Bush? This I want to see.

 

[packsaddle 753]

Brent, I am surprised that you seem to diminish the importance of individuals expressing their opinions or demanding something from their elected officials. I realize that mine is only one voice. And I guess I probably seem idealistic, because I do think that the democratic process works. In order for it to work, however, the people must be informed, otherwise they cannot make the best decisions in their letters and at the ballot box. Lies rob us of that information. Much in the same way that our collective voice just had a smack-down election, it is that same collective voice that was not given a chance in the decision to go to war...because the people were told a lie. It worked, I suppose. He got his way.

 

You are welcome to poke fun at my naive approach and any person's honest desire to express their opinions to their representatives. I'm curious though. What caused you to be so cynical of anyone with whom you disagree? Do you approach the boys in this same manner?

[Gonzo1 10]

I'm going to express my comments here about our 2 hot topics:

 

Many democrats said that Saddam was a threat to US national security, because he had WMD, democrats and the Bush administration had access to the SAME INTEL, We found them, hundreds of them and it was recently reported that Iraq / Saddam had or was close to nuke capability. Hmm, he had lots of time to hide, transfer, move or bury, but in a country the size of California, we eventually FOUND THEM!!! Saddam even buried war planes in the desert.

 

For Packsaddle, FB, Hunt, BadenP and the rest of you liberals, I'm sure your vast and significant amount of military tactical and strategic experience would be greatly appreciated in Washington right about now.

 

I know of many recruiters who have combat boots that fit you right now. I suggest you call 1-800-USA-ARMY. I served, I hope you can do your part and serve too. Otherwise, stop being an armchair general. Since none of you will actually enlist, stop and determine if you can read this message. If you can, thank a teacher, if you can read it in English, thank a veteran. On Sunday, when you pray (and Merlyn, when you don't) thank another veteran.

 

[BrentAllen 10]

Am I cynical of everyone I disagree with? No. There are some people I disagree with whom I admire, and enjoy debating.

 

Am I cynical of you? Yes. Why? I think all this "he said 'no doubt'" mumbo-jumbo is exactly that. I don't know if you are going through all these contortions to bash Bush while deflecting for the Democrats, or for some other reason, but to me, your arguments make absolutely no sense. Sorry I hit a raw nerve, but for you to think you are going to see enough intelligence to make an informed opinion about decisions affecting our national security - and then offer an opinion which the president should consider - I think you are delusional!

 

If you want to send the president or your representatives your opinion on gay marriage or other domestic issues, I think you should, and your opinion should be considered. If you need help in your community on a certain issue, I think you should be able to write your elected officials and request their assistance - and you should receive a response. But on matters of national security, where 90% of the pertinent information is classified, how are you ever going to make an informed decision? In that respect, I think you are naive.

[packsaddle 753]

Gonzo1, I have great faith in the military. I think if decisions on Iraq had been purely military decisions, we'd be in a very different situation now. The officers to whom I used to report were very down-to-earth and they appreciated the truth even if it was bad news. I had great confidence in that system. But it didn't work that way for Iraq, to my regret.

 

Brent, I didn't need to know the secrets. All I would have liked to know was that there was uncertainty about the information and that the uncertainty was carefully being considered. I would have expressed my opinion as I have on numerous other issues. I saw no such process. I always am aware that I can be wrong about things but so far, no one has provided evidence to the contrary. The one thing that does shake my confidence on this is what must have been going through Colin Powell's mind. What must he be thinking now? I can't imagine but according to his own account, he has many regrets.

 

Your cynicism is unimportant to me personally, but you must understand that it diminishes your ability to communicate ideas effectively, assuming that is your intent. I am willing to engage but I suspect there are others whose ideas have merit that simply don't contribute because it is so unpleasant. Me, I'm in the mud so often you wouldn't believe it, literally. So fire away.

As for the nerves, no problem. As I think I said to someone else on the threads, there is nothing you (or the CIA for that matter) can say or do that comes even close to approaching the wrath of my wife. But that, I suppose, is another thread.

[Fuzzy Bear 12]

Gonzo1

 

As far as expressing personal opinions, you may want to learn all about how the military is under the civilian rule of law in the United States. You are probably thinking about one of the countries where contrary opinions are put permanently to rest and the military controls the government and all of its' voices. Over here, we believe in freedom of speech which allows me to have an opinion no matter what kind of boots I wear. It really is a good way to live. I hope that you are able to help your government acquire such knowledge one day. Keep the faith! fb

(This message has been edited by Fuzzy Bear)