Cindy's own words

[RandFan]

I am assuming, of course, that his advisors briefed him on the fact that the weapons inspectors had visited the sites where Saddam supposedly had WMD, and that they told him that the inspectors had found nothing.

Once again you are making conclusions based on limited evidence. This was not the only basis for the decisions. Why do you think ONLY this information is of importance or should have been? Hindsight is wonderful.

The inspectors visited hundreds of sites in Iraq, many of which we claimed contained WMD. When the inspectors arrived, they found nothing. Conclusion: the intelligence was false.

Yes, and...? You have shown that some of the inteligence was wrong. Ok?

Read the article. The inspectors visited site after site where we claimed Saddam had WMD, and they found nothing. This disproved our intelligence. Even David Kay, the man who spent 7 months scouring Iraq for WMD said: "We have found no actual weapons of mass destruction that exist at this point". So Bush knew that a large part of his main intelligence was flat out wrong. You would think that he would also start doubting his other intelligence, but I guess that's too much to ask.

No, it disporved SOME of our inteligence.

This would be like me saying that Clinton didn't really lie about sex, because when he said he didn't have sexual relations, he honestly believed sexual relations did not include a BJ. I could claim that, but I know I would be kidding myself.

No, this is your way of charachterizing the events and the situation. I have little doubt that Bush was absolutely convinced that there was WMD. He just hadn't found proof of it yet and he discounted evidence that did not meet with his world view. He is not alone btw.

1. US intelligence is wrong

SOME of the inteligence is wrong but then that is ALWAYS the case in any such event.

2. Seeing as how none of these sites contain WMD, it is a definite possibility that Saddam no longer possesses them.

Yes and based on other evidence there was a definite possibility that he did.

Was he not cooperating?

No, not according to the UN.

SECURITY COUNCIL HOLDS IRAQ IN ‘MATERIAL BREACH’

Holding Iraq in “material breach” of its obligations under previous resolutions, the Security Council this morning decided to afford it a “final opportunity to comply” with its disarmament obligations, while setting up an enhanced inspection regime for full and verified completion of the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991).

Saddam's words were rhetorical. All he ever need do was comply. Saying that he was going to comply after being told he had one last chance and failed is of little value.

We are off topic. I should have started a new thread. Would you use the "reply in new thread button"?

 

[Daylight]

So far you have some questions and assumptions. More? Yeah, how about something other than straw men and presupositions? Hey, you're entitled to an opinion but why should anyone agree with you?

I don't remember Bush ever saying that we went to Iraq to catch Bin Laden or Al Qaeda. We did go to Afghanastan and depose the Taliban and Al Qaeda. How is not catching Bin Laden proof of something? No one claimed it was going to be easy. On the contrary, at the outset Bush was warned by his advisors that such a task is very difficult.

In any event, yeah, I would like something substantive.

As usual in these threads, you’ve gone into your elitist “I am the superior debater and only I can do it correctly” mode. Why don’t you provide some examples then using your superior debating style?

Really, you mean one of the reasons used by Bush to invade wasn’t “Sadam’s helping the terrorists”. Are you sure?

Well RanFan, looking forward to your examples.

 

[Daylight]

FIW I think Clinton was an idiot for putting himself in that position. However I don't think there should have been an investigation and I don't at all think he should have been impeached. That being said, Bill Clinton was impeached for lying under oath. You and I can agree that he shouldn't have been impeached but can you get the facts straight?

Again going into your Elitist mode. The reason he lied under oath was related to? Starts with a b and ends with a b.

 

[Daylight]

I don't see that happening at all. What I do see is that critics of Bush keep doing a piss-poor job at picking their spokesmen, and keep on backing people who really ARE problematic. Don't you find THAT odd?

I'm tired of the self-pitying whining about smears from the anti-war crowd. If you had any spokesmen of character, they could take the heat. And I certainly don't see the anti-war crowd jump to Bush's defense when he's been genuinely smeared, like when a forged memo was used to try to bring him down before the election. THAT is a smear, my friend. What's happening to Cindy is just criticism, and if she can't take it, she's got no business putting herself at the center of the public debate. Grow the hell up.

The critics have picked a spokesman? How come we were not invited? When was the meeting?

Neat how now you’re claiming anyone that criticizes Bush is also part of the antiwar crowd. And anyone part of the anti-war crowd is a terrorist supporter.

You really do hate half the American people don’t you?

 

[Daylight]

Dude, get a clue. Iraq wasn't the only secular Islamic nation. Hell, it wasn't even the only secular ARAB nation. Get your facts straight, you obviously don't know what you're talking about so I don't know why you expect anyone to take you seriously.



Oh, yeah, that was terrible. Must have been why we lost all those navy ships during the invasion, or why we lost battalions of infantry.

The invasion itself worked incredibly well: whatever the hell happened during the war gaming certainly didn't prevent that from happening, so it's a rather pointless criticism to say the least, as I ALREADY pointed out. Why are you still harping about it, then? Are you really THAT desperate for an argument against Bush?



Easy. Much of the Kurdish regions are completely safe for foreigners. Didn't you know this?

Name the secular Arab nations?

The cheating in the wargames is another reason Americans are dieing that didn’t need to. The reason the US lost in the wargames was the General playing the Iraqi side used gorilla warefare and insurgents instead of conventional warfare. When Bush landed on the Carrier and said “Combat Operations were over” I guess he forgot to tell the Insurgents who are using gorilla operations. Since Americans are still dieing the war is not over yet, and what happened in the wargames is similar to what is happening now.

Kurdish are safe? You’re saying YOU could walk around the Kurdish area with no fear at all. It as safe as anywhere in the US?

 

[RandFan]

Again going into your Elitist mode. The reason he lied under oath was related to? Starts with a b and ends with a b.

And this is relevant to my point because? Why am I elitist? Again, he wasn't impeached for a BJ he was impeached for lying under oath. It isn't elitist to state the facts. Lying under oath is a serious offence. Please see my response to clk above. {sheesh}

 

[Daylight]

I know, I really would have been embarassed to make this argument. Assuming the very worst about the incident it has zero importance. But hey, one has to build a list from something even if it is all crap.

Yes Mr Elitest, with what is happening now in Iraq following a similar path to what happened in the wargames, you should be embarrassed for Bush and his incompetent generals.

By saying the wargames have zero importance shows just how little you know about how a war is executed.

What happened is exactly what happens when Generals are more interested in their political careers than killing bad guys.

 

[RandFan]

Yes Mr Elitest...

So now I'm elitist? Why? This is a non sequitur.

...with what is happening now in Iraq following a similar path to what happened in the wargames...

Huh? No it's not.

By saying the wargames have zero importance shows just how little you know about how a war is executed.

Ok then tell me how many ships were sunk?

What happened is exactly what happens when Generals are more interested in their political careers than killing bad guys.

This is your opinion. The war games incident hardly proves your contention. There have been such problems in all wars. By your logic we should have lost all wars.

Look, I apologize for saying that the argument was embarrassing because it personalized the debate. Can we avoid such in the future and can you not personalize this by calling me names?

 

[Daylight]

And this is relevant to my point because? Why am I elitist? Again, he wasn't impeached for a BJ he was impeached for lying under oath. It isn't elitist to state the facts. Lying under oath is a serious offence. Please see my response to clk above. {sheesh}

Clinton got a blow job, he lied about it, got impeached for lieing about it.

It’s relevant to your post because you put others down when they don’t phrase it your way. Some people use the root cause, some use the law. Both are correct. We are not before the Supreme Court here arguing a case.

 

[Ziggurat]

By saying the wargames have zero importance shows just how little you know about how a war is executed.

You have GOT to be kidding me. You're STILL on about that?

According to the story, the "Iraq" side (I put it in quotes because we DON'T actually know it was Iraq) wasn't allowed to use certain tactics. This is supposedly a bad thing because it means we would be unprepared to deal with those tactics, and bad things would happen because of that, such as the sinking of many Navy ships.

But that's not what happened. The tactics in question were either NOT used at all, or we were in fact prepared to meet them, because those bad things most demonstrably did NOT happen.

So again, why the hell should we care?

 

[RandFan]

Clinton got a blow job, he lied about it, got impeached for lieing about it.

Almost, he lied about it while he was under oath. Why is that so difficult for you to admit? That IS the salient point. When we are under oath we don't get the luxury of deciding when it is and isn't appropriate to lie because as I said before, we are a nation of laws and not of men. We take an oath for a reason. When we take the oath we commit to telling the truth knowing that purjery can be prosecuted. That doesn't mean that no one lies but it does mean that the less we take the oath seriously the more problems we will have. I just think there was a better way of dealing with Clintons serious transgression.

It’s relevant to your post because you put others down when they don’t phrase it your way.

I'm not trying to put anyone down. I'm trying to be accurate because it is a very relevant point. You want to trivialize an important aspect of our justice system.

Some people use the root cause, some use the law. Both are correct.

No. Bill Clinton was not impeached for the root cause. He was impeached for lying under oath.

We are not before the Supreme Court here arguing a case.

We are having a logical discussion and if we are going to be intellectually honest we should be willing to admit to the facts. If Bill Clinton had not lied under oath he wouldn't have been impeached. Now you can try and shift the cause to sex but that won't change the facts. Again, I don't think he should have been impeached but let's just get it right, ok?

 

[Daylight]

No. Bill Clinton was not impeached for the root cause. He was impeached for lying under oath.

If the root cause had not occured, would he have lied under oath? Would he have been impeached?

 

[Ziggurat]

Name the secular Arab nations?

One alone will disprove your statement. So here it is: Syria. They're ruled by a Ba'athist regime, and as we all know, Ba'athists are secular. Right?

But the government of Egypt is fairly secular as well, and so are Lebanon and Jordan, at least to the extent that Iraq was secular (recall that Saddam had added religious text to the flag after gulf war 1). The only really overtly religious states (now that the Taliban has been toppled) are Saudi Arabia and Iran.

And that's not even what you said, anyways. You said Islamic, not Arab (I presume you know the difference?), in which case we've got other examples as well, such as Turkey.

Your original statement wasn't just wrong, it was blindingly obvious that it was wrong. And instead of backing down from it (which you should have done since you didn't even need it to make your argument), you're trying to cling to it. Which just further demonstrates that there's really little reason to take what you say seriously.

The cheating in the wargames is another reason Americans are dieing that didn’t need to. The reason the US lost in the wargames was the General playing the Iraqi side used gorilla warefare and insurgents instead of conventional warfare.

Not according to your own source. According to that Guardian article, what the General complained about not being allowed to do was maneuver his airforce and navy to sink our invading fleet (didn't happen), and not being allowed to use motorcycle couriers to prevent electronic evesdropping (may have happened, but didn't exactly stop us). There is NOTHING, repeat, NOTHING in that article about a protracted insurgency that didn't kick in in force until months AFTER the invasion. That's a figment of your imagination.

Kurdish are safe? You’re saying YOU could walk around the Kurdish area with no fear at all. It as safe as anywhere in the US?

Yes, I'm saying exactly that. There are Kurdish towns which are probably safer to wander than parts of Washington DC. Why is that surprising? The Kurds know we're their allies, we protected them from Saddam for over a decade, and they're more than happy to get rid of him for good. And they've had stable civil institutions in place for years before the invasion which weren't disrupted by the invasion either. Why would you expect it to be dangerous for westerners to hang around there? Here's one first-hand report from the region:

http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/2005/07/hi-again-and-sorry-for-long-absence-i.html

Note the first photo: if you click on it, you can get a larger view. That's American flags being sold at a jewelry store in Iraq. Is this actually something that surprises you?

 

[RandFan]

If the root cause had not occured, would he have lied under oath? Would he have been impeached?

We can carry your logic further. If Monica Lewinsky hadn't come on to Bill then he wouldn't have been impeached. If Monica's parent's had not had intimate relations then Bill Clinton would not have been impeached. Sorry but it just doesn't fly. In the end Clinton was impeached for lying under oath. You can make all of the blame shifting arguments you want but it won't change the most significant fact. Bill Clinton lied under oath which is a very serious infraction in our justice system for very good reasons.

 

[Daylight]

We can carry your logic further. If Monica Lewinsky hadn't come on to Bill then he wouldn't have been impeached. If Monica's parent's had not had intimate relations then Bill Clinton would not have been impeached. Sorry but it just doesn't fly. In the end Clinton was impeached for lying under oath. You can make all of the blame shifting arguments you want but it won't change the most significant fact. Bill Clinton lied under oath which is a very serious infraction in our justice system for very good reasons.

Yes or No to my question.

 

[RandFan]

Yes or No to my question.

What's the point?

1.) If there was no big bang Clinton would not have been impeached.

2.)If Lewinsky's parents had never had sex Clinton would not have been impeached.

3.) If Clinton had kept his penis in his pants he would not have been impeached.

By your logic the big bang is the root cause of Clinton's lying. SO WHAT? Your point is irrelevant. Your question is irrelevant. Clinton lied under oath. We are a nation of laws and not of men. We have laws for a reason. Many people will rationalize why it is ok to lie under oath. The law does not work that way. The law says you don't get to choose when it is ok to lie and when it is not ok to lie.

Now we can debate the appropriate way to handle Clinton's infraction. We both agree that impeachment was not appropriate but that doesn't change the seriousness of Clinton's actions.

 

[MarksSock]

What's the point?

1.) If there was no big bang Clinton would not have been impeached.

2.)If Lewinsky's parents had never had sex Clinton would not have been impeached.

3.) If Clinton had kept his penis in his pants he would not have been impeached.

By your logic the big bang is the root cause of Clinton's lying. SO WHAT? Your point is irrelevant. Your question is irrelevant. Clinton lied under oath. We are a nation of laws and not of men. We have laws for a reason. Many people will rationalize why it is ok to lie under oath. The law does not work that way. The law says you don't get to choose when it is ok to lie and when it is not ok to lie.

Now we can debate the appropriate way to handle Clinton's infraction. We both agree that impeachment was not appropriate but that doesn't change the seriousness of Clinton's actions.

#3 is probably incorrect. The Republicans were spending tens of millions of dollars to get something---anything on Clinton, with the full support of the media. If he hadn't handed the bj to them on a silver platter, they would have found something else. No one can stand up to that kind of scrutiny.

 

[Jocko]

Er, not to interrupt Daylight's sound and well-deserved paddling, but there's news on the Cindy front.

She has just proven the old adage that tragedy + time = irony, to wit:

I have been silent on the Gold Star Moms who still support this man and his war by saying that they deserve the right to their opinions because they are in as much pain as I am. I would challenge them, though, at this point to start thinking for themselves.

I know they have been as brainwashed as the rest of America, but they know the pain and heartache and they should not wish it on another. However, I still feel their pain so acutely and pray for these "continue the murder and mayhem" moms to see the light.

So in other words, she has the right to speak out, but anyone who disagrees with her - even those with the same credentials of a lost loved one - are brainwashed. And her patience with such wrong-thinkers is apparently wearing thin. What an ass she has become. All she has left is sympathy... once the sympathy of a bereaved mother, now the sympathy of an emotionally disturbed person and dupe... and she seems intent on squandering that along with her family, her future and her dignity. Alas.

I predict the Cindy Sheehan fame clock is at roughly 14 minutes and 35 seconds, and the media will turn on her soon. Like all media sensations, she won't last. They never do.

Source

 

[MarksSock]

Er, not to interrupt Daylight's sound and well-deserved paddling, but there's news on the Cindy front.

She has just proven the old adage that tragedy + time = irony, to wit:





So in other words, she has the right to speak out, but anyone who disagrees with her - even those with the same credentials of a lost loved one - are brainwashed. And her patience with such wrong-thinkers is apparently wearing thin. What an ass she has become. All she has left is sympathy... once the sympathy of a bereaved mother, now the sympathy of an emotionally disturbed person and dupe... and she seems intent on squandering that along with her family, her future and her dignity. Alas.

I predict the Cindy Sheehan fame clock is at roughly 14 minutes and 35 seconds, and the media will turn on her soon. Like all media sensations, she won't last. They never do.

Source

Once again we see someone on the Right who hurls insult after insult, and then gets all weepy when someone lobs a small one back. Waaah. Waaah. Just like Rusk Limbaugh.

 

[Jocko]

Once again we see someone on the Right who hurls insult after insult, and then gets all weepy when someone lobs a small one back. Waaah. Waaah. Just like Rusk Limbaugh.

World according to Mark:

1. Quoting a person with a cite is considered a right-wing conspiracy.
2. Rule 7 doesn't apply to right-thinking people.

Mark, I'm putting your sock puppet on ignore and reporting your flagrant abuse of rule 7. Please stragihten out the situation pronto. That is all.