Bush strategist looks back in sadness

[George Gervin's Afro]

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-dowd14nov14,0,6304127.story?coll=la-home-center



Matthew Dowd helped win the White House. Now he views the administration with a mixture of anguish and contempt.
By Mark Z. Barabak, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
November 14, 2007
WIMBERLY, TEXAS -- Matthew Dowd knows sorrow and loss. He has been divorced twice. A daughter died two months after she was born. And then there is the added heartbreak -- a word he uses -- of his split with President Bush.

Dowd, 46, is one of the nation's leading political strategists, a onetime Democrat who switched sides to help put Bush in the White House, then win a second term. He spent years shaping and promoting Bush's policies -- policies that Dowd now views with a mixture of anguish and contempt.

He began expressing his disillusionment, tentatively at first, at a UC Berkeley conference in January. Since then, he has grown more forceful.

On the administration's response to the Sept. 11 attacks: "I asked, 'Why aren't we doing bonds, war bonds? Why aren't we asking the country to do something instead of just . . . go shopping and get back on airplanes?' "

On the White House stand against same-sex marriage: "Why are we having the federal government get involved? . . . Does a thing limiting someone's rights and aimed at a particular constituency belong in the U.S. Constitution?"

On the war in Iraq: "I guess somebody would make the argument, well, the Iraq war was about defending ourselves. But it seems an awfully huge stretch these days to say that."

With a rueful laugh and, at one point, a catch in his throat, Dowd offered a lengthy account of his break with Bush during hours of conversation at his 18-acre ranch in the green Hill Country outside Austin. He puffed a cigar, and then another, as the fading sun glinted off the Blanco River. A CD player cycled through sacred music and country songs.

Dowd is not the first Bush ally to part with the administration. Former Treasury Secretary Paul H. O'Neill contributed to a book that likened the president at Cabinet meetings to a "blind man in a roomful of deaf people." John J. Dilulio Jr., who led the White House office of faith-based initiatives, left with a shot at "Mayberry Machiavellis." Retired Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, who once led U.S. forces in Iraq, accused the administration of going to war with a "catastrophically flawed" plan.

But Dowd was a part of Bush's political inner circle, enjoying a degree of power and intimacy that made his criticism all the more unexpected -- and hurtful to those still close to the president, many of whom are Dowd's friends.

"I care about him as a human being," said Mark McKinnon, a former Dowd business partner who produced Bush's campaign ads and sometimes bicycles with the president. "The problem was not just what he said, but that he never voiced any of those concerns directly to people he was supposed to be advising."

Dowd responded that he shared his feelings with McKinnon and others close to Bush more than once before going public.

In speaking out, Dowd has not only strained personal relationships but raised larger questions about loyalty in the political realm. Is he obliged to stand by his old boss, whose success made Dowd one of the most sought-after consultants in the campaign business? Or does he owe it to the country to openly dissent, even if he didn't do so from the start?

The answer, for Dowd, is simple, even if his life these days is less so. "When you're a public advocate of something in the high-profile way that I was, and all of a sudden it doesn't turn out the way you thought, the counterweight is not to just sit quietly and let it go," Dowd said. "I had to say something in a high-profile way."

His disenchantment with the president built over several years. Dowd went public at a Berkeley seminar on the 2006 California governor's race; Dowd was both a senior advisor to the Republican National Committee, where he landed after Bush took office, and a top strategist for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's reelection effort. It was a question about the president that set Dowd off and, looking back, liberated him.

"Do you lose sleep at night knowing that you gave this country probably the worst administration we've ever had?" asked a young man. "I mean, have you thought about maybe trying to save your soul by calling for impeachment?"

Dowd tensed and leaned forward. Rather than defend Bush, he spoke of the oldest of his three sons, an Army language specialist then facing deployment to Iraq. "Now, am I a person who stays up at night thinking about that? Yeah. . . . Do we have hopes and dreams and disappointments? . . . Yes," Dowd said.

But when things don't turn out as hoped "it does not mean that you somehow have to walk down the street in a hair shirt with a sign that says, 'Forgive me, forgive me, forgive me,' " he said. "We move on."

Dowd now sees the confrontation as "a gift [that] gave me the opportunity to start expressing things more and more publicly."

In March, he wrote a piece for Texas Monthly magazine suggesting Bush had undercut his "gut-level bond with the American public." Finally, applying torch to bridge in spectacular fashion, Dowd detailed his break with Bush in a front-page interview in the New York Times. No one in the White House was alerted.

"I was definitely disappointed I had to learn from a reporter, and not him, that he was going public," said Dan Bartlett, a former White House counselor and a friend of Dowd's.
n the seven months since, Dowd has spurned book offers and the talk-show circuit, as well as the antiwar movement. He is not comfortable in the role of Bush basher. "I don't hate the guy," he said of the president, who has not spoken with Dowd since he aired his views. "I don't think he's evil or bad. I think he's a good person that didn't accomplish what he set out to do."

Dowd grew up the third of 11 children in an Irish Catholic family in Detroit. His father was an auto executive; his mother taught elementary school before becoming a full-time mom. If not for all those kids, Dowd said, his family might have been upper-middle-class. Instead, there were hand-me-downs and lots of meatless suppers.

His conservative parents shaped his political views. But that changed at Cardinal Newman College, a small liberal arts school in St. Louis. Dowd became a Democrat, albeit one who opposed abortion and heavy taxation. It made for a good fit with conservative Democrats in Texas, where he moved in 1984 to work for Austin's congressman.

Over the next 10 years, Dowd helped elect Democrats throughout Texas and elsewhere, growing close to one in particular, the state's crusty Lt. Gov. Bob Bullock. Bullock, in turn, hit it off with Bush after the Republican became governor in 1994. Bullock even crossed party lines to endorse Bush's 1998 reelection.

Soon after that landslide, Dowd was approached by Karl Rove, Bush's top campaign advisor. The two were friendly, having lectured together on politics at the University of Texas. Bush was preparing a presidential run, and Rove wanted help. Dowd was impressed with the way Bush worked with Bullock and other statehouse Democrats. "I thought Washington was so screwed up, so polarized, maybe he'd be the guy who could fix that," Dowd said.

His hopes rose during the 2000 campaign. "We were going to change Washington," Dowd said. "There was kind of a mutual agreement that [Bush] was going to be a different kind of Republican."

At first Bush governed that way, Dowd said, working with Democrats to cut taxes and overhaul education policy. But he believes something changed after Sept. 11, 2001. "There was an imperial feel to it," Dowd said. "The things he did in Texas, he didn't do any of that. . . . We didn't build relationships with Democrats in Congress, and we didn't build them overseas."

When Dowd voiced concerns -- about the failure to ask more of Americans after Sept. 11, about further tax cuts -- he felt ignored. "Karl wanted me to worry about other things," Dowd said. "I'd get a nice pat on the head." Rove had no comment for this article.

The GOP congressional gains in 2002 didn't help, Dowd said. "Increasing Republican majorities in both houses," he said, "became a disincentive for consensus building."

Still, Dowd stuck by the president and managed his reelection campaign because he assumed things would change once Bush was in a second term. It was, he said, like ignoring doubts in hopes of saving a marriage. "You say, 'Well, they got drunk last night but it'll be better next week.' Or, 'They had an affair but they're not really that way.' You talk yourself out of it because you believed, and you want to believe."

His disaffection grew, however, when Bush started his second term with an acrimonious fight over Social Security. Dowd felt the president had the chance -- but not the desire -- to reach out to Democrats.

The years between the 2000 campaign and Bush's reelection had been a whirlwind for Dowd, a time of great professional success and personal upheaval. In September 2002, he and his second wife had twin daughters born prematurely; one died after two months in the hospital. Their marriage began unraveling.

He spent much of 2005 co-writing a book on leadership, "Applebee's America," and thinking. His work advising Schwarzenegger pushed him further from Bush. The governor's bipartisanship, Dowd thought, was a favorable contrast to the president's "my-way-or-the-highway" approach.

The White House, however, was not pleased when Schwarzenegger distanced himself from Bush. After some "fairly heated discussions," Dowd said, he and Rove stopped talking before the midterm election. They have not spoken since. Dowd left his job with the Republican National Committee at the end of last year.

He expresses no regrets for repudiating the president he served, even if the experience seems to have deepened his disappointment in Bush and the ways of Washington. Dowd has taken comfort from strangers who called and sent e-mails "basically saying that it took a lot of courage to say the truth." It is friends who have let him down: "People who called up and said, 'We agree with you, but you should not have said anything until January '09.' "

Dowd had hoped his harsh words would break through to the president and White House. "But it doesn't seem to me less bunkered than it was," Dowd said, with a mirthless chuckle.

Tony Fratto, a White House spokesman, rejected that notion. "I think there's a lot of exchange and interaction," Fratto said. "No one here fails to hear criticisms or concerns, whether it's coming from the media or experts or the public or Capitol Hill. In fact, I would say it's impossible not to."

Dowd said he heard secondhand that Bush was hurt by his criticism. Asked whether he would like to resume their relationship, Dowd paused. "Sure, I'd like to visit with him," he said. "It would be a nice thing to do at some point. But I don't feel a necessity to do it to settle something in myself."

Dowd lives alone on his ranch, amid the tall grass, cedar and live oaks that run to the edge of the Blanco River. It is an exile of his choosing, six miles outside Wimberly, population 4,000. He is, he happily noted, just another local tooling around in a silver Dodge pickup.

His 3,300-square-foot home has a country feel, with antique fixtures, a wraparound porch and knotty wood floors. A frilly bedroom guarded by a life-size stuffed tiger awaits frequent visits from his 5-year-old daughter, Josephine. The house is filled with books, inspirational sayings -- "Happiness often sneaks in a door you did not open" -- and, by a quick count, more than 100 crosses. The Prayer of St. Francis -- "Lord, make me an instrument of your peace; where there is hatred, let me sow love" -- is inscribed on a big painting above the fireplace.

Notably absent are pictures of Bush, or any other politician. "I don't define myself by my professional career. How much money I made, who I elected," Dowd said. He may be through with campaigns; but there is plenty of work doing brand consulting for corporate clients, which takes him two to three times a week to Austin, a 50-minute drive.

Faith has always been important to Dowd, a former altar boy who once considered becoming a priest (except for the fact he liked girls too much). But it has become even more important after the discouragement of the last few years. He attends Mass each Sunday, and sometimes during the week. Recently, Dowd took a spiritual journey, including stops in India, Nepal and Israel, to walk in the footsteps of Gandhi, Buddha and Jesus, among others.

"If you really want to know where I'm at, it's understanding now that the people that have had the most profound effect on the world are not elected officials, not people who have held vast kingdoms, but are basically people who walked out their front door and acted right," Dowd said.

Happiness, he believes, requires three things: people, a place and work that feed the soul. He has his children and ranch. Dowd is now trying to figure out the last piece.


Another one comes out and says the exact same thing about Bush and his inner circle. If this were a Democrat the righties on this board would call this a pattern and they would choose to believe all of the people coming out as being honest. it only makes sense..

yet those same people will caveat there way out of this one and never admit we have been right all along about Bush..

sigh..

[Yonivore]

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-dowd14nov14,0,6304127.story?coll=la-home-center

Another one comes out and says the exact same thing about Bush and his inner circle. If this were a Democrat the righties on this board would call this a pattern and they would choose to believe all of the people coming out as being honest. it only makes sense..

yet those same people will caveat there way out of this one and never admit we have been right all along about Bush..

sigh..
What's the scandal here? Dowd disagrees with the president on a few key issues. Big Whoop, so do many other people.

I found this paragraph, in the story, rather telling of the angle the writer was pursuing:


"Do you lose sleep at night knowing that you gave this country probably the worst administration we've ever had?" asked a young man. "I mean, have you thought about maybe trying to save your soul by calling for impeachment?"

Dowd tensed and leaned forward. Rather than defend Bush, he spoke of the oldest of his three sons, an Army language specialist then facing deployment to Iraq. "Now, am I a person who stays up at night thinking about that? Yeah. . . . Do we have hopes and dreams and disappointments? . . . Yes," Dowd said.
Obviously, the writer is intending for the reader to get the impression Dowd stays up at night because he "gave this country probably the worst administration we've ever had," when, in fact, he's only talking about losing sleep over the prospect of his oldest son being deployed to a war zone.

I don't have a problem with anything Dowd says. In fact, it demonstrates Bush is a uniter and not a divider. Dowd, a former Democrat, talks aboout how Bush reached across the aisle to work with Democrats prior to 9-11. One can only imagine why he stopped afterward but, getting repeatedly told you lied and people died because of it might have something to do with why President Bush began to withdraw his bi-partisan spirit.

There's no mention the Bush administration attempted to dissuade Dowd from going public with his complaints. There's no mention of any illegal scandal involving the Bush administration. He merely disagrees with policy choices made by the President. Good for him.

Nothing to see here.

[George Gervin's Afro]

What's the scandal here? Dowd disagrees with the president on a few key issues. Big Whoop, so do many other people.

I found this paragraph, in the story, rather telling of the angle the writer was pursuing:


Obviously, the writer is intending for the reader to get the impression Dowd stays up at night because he "gave this country probably the worst administration we've ever had," when, in fact, he's only talking about losing sleep over the prospect of his oldest son being deployed to a war zone.

I don't have a problem with anything Dowd says. In fact, it demonstrates Bush is a uniter and not a divider. Dowd, a former Democrat, talks aboout how Bush reached across the aisle to work with Democrats prior to 9-11. One can only imagine why he stopped afterward but, getting repeatedly told you lied and people died because of it might have something to do with why President Bush began to withdraw his bi-partisan spirit.

There's no mention the Bush administration attempted to dissuade Dowd from going public with his complaints. There's no mention of any illegal scandal involving the Bush administration. He merely disagrees with policy choices made by the President. Good for him.

Nothing to see here.




One can only imagine why he stopped afterward but, getting repeatedly told you lied and people died because of it might have something to do with why President Bush began to withdraw his bi-partisan spirit.




The GOP congressional gains in 2002 didn't help, Dowd said. "Increasing Republican majorities in both houses," he said, "became a disincentive for consensus building."

This was before the Iraq war... maybe you need to read it agagin..

[Yonivore]

This was before the Iraq war... maybe you need to read it agagin..
I read it. Democratic obstinence didn't begin in March of '03...I guess you don't recall Tom "The Muffler Man" Daschle.

But, again, where's the scandal. The guy is within in his rights to say these things and, I believe, they are reasonable criticisms of the adminisration even if I don't agree with them.

[Yonivore]

You want to talk about scandalous accusations made by a former associate of a president; here you go...

The Kathleen Willey Interview (http://www.rightwingnews.com/mt331/2007/11/the_kathleen_willey_interview.php)


Yesterday, I did a phone interview with Kathleen Willey, who has a new book out: Target: Caught in the Crosshairs of Bill and Hillary Clinton.

What follows is a transcript of our conversation, edited slightly for readability's sake.

First off, give my audience a quick rundown of what initially happened between you and Bill Clinton in the Oval Office.

I went to see Bill Clinton, who was a friend of (both me) and my late husband. I was in the middle of a really, really serious financial family crisis. I had been a volunteer at the White House. I had volunteered on Bill Clinton's inaugural and I just decided...my volunteer days were over and I needed a paying job. I went to see the President to ask him for help, to see if he could help me find employment in the federal government. It didn't necessarily have to be at the White House, just with the government.

It was one of the worst days in my life. He took advantage of that situation...

Now, explain to people how it came to be known that Bill Clinton groped you during that visit.

I was subpoenaed by Paula Jones' attorneys. They were looking for women who had suffered at Bill Clinton's hands. They heard about my story...

From Linda Tripp, right?...

...I suspect it was Linda Tripp...I was then subsequently subpoenaed by Monica's attorneys and deposed under oath in her sexual harassment case.

I've read a transcript of your examination on the stand and it seemed pretty obvious to me that you were being very evasive. You seemed to be trying to do everything humanly possible to give the impression that nothing had happened between you and Bill Clinton without actually perjuring yourself. Is that the case?

I did not want to tell that story. My intention was for that story to go to my grave with me. Eventually, I just knew I had to tell the story and I did.

Like I said, in the transcript, you did everything you could to avoid talking about it and got to the point where you had to perjure yourself or tell the story, right?

That's absolutely correct...and I had been threatened a few days before that and all kinds of things had been happening to me.

Like what? Tell me about that.

Strange phone calls. You know, "We're getting ready to turn the power off, do you have small children or elderly people there?" The power company doesn't do that and the power never went off.

Then, one day, I live out in the country, in a very rural part of Virginia and...I walked out of my house one day and I had three flat tires. I wondered how that had happened and came to find out that someone had come down with a nail gun and shot the tires out in the sidewalls. I mean, you don't run over nails and get them in the sidewalls.

And I had a beloved pet of 13 years that disappeared...

That was your cat, right?

That was my cat. I put the word out...and put up pictures saying she was missing..and one morning, I was out walking at first light with my dogs, a couple of days before the deposition, and this stranger approached me and asked if I had ever found the cat. He was very knowledgable about my cat, and talked about what a nice cat he was -- talking about him in the past tense. Then he asked me if I had gotten my tires repaired -- "Did you ever get those tires fixed" -- which was when I knew something was going on. Then, the worst part was when he threatened my children by name....He said, "You're just not getting the message, are you?" The message was clear, it was to lie at that deposition in two days and not tell the story of what Bill Clinton did to me.

That person was connected to the Clintons, correct?

It's my opinion that he was.

You actually named him in the book; I read the name (Cody Shearer), but I didn't know if you were giving that out in interviews or not...

...He had an alibi -- he was investigated after I was shown a picture of him, and his alibi was not so much iron clad as uncheckable. These private investigators and their operatives have been on the Clinton payroll for years, as damage control, to come after someone like me -- and they're very good at what they do. Don't think for one minute that they don't walk around with all kinds of alibis in their back pockets. I have my opinion. I know who I saw, I know who I talked to, but that doesn't mean I can prove it.

I understand. Now, you've talked about some of the harassment you've suffered. Can you tell me about that and also about your manuscript being stolen recently?

Well, over Labor Day week-end, someone broke into my home, in the middle of the night, while I was upstairs asleep...They wanted it to look like a botched burglary...I think they came in through the screen...they took my purse, which I later found out in the woods. They didn't take the credit cards, but they took the money that was in my wallet. They broke the antenna off of my car, they tampered with my satellite system, my wireless internet system, and took the manuscript and this is within days of two stories in a national magazine and newspaper (saying) I was almost finished with my book and that it was going to be published in November. I think the person that came in here, came in here with a mission. That mission was to terrify me and get their hands on my manuscript.

Near the end of the book, you had a fascinating little paragraph on some of the harassment that other authors of Clinton books have suffered. Can you tell us a little bit about that?

Well, we've got just any number of people who have criticized or questioned the Clintons and have been subjected to this kind of behavior -- former state troopers in Arkansas, of course, other women like me. Our stories are so similar it's eerie. I mean, we all tell the same stories.

Juanita Broaddrick and Gennifer Flowers have had similar stories, haven't they?

Sure, they're all very similar and I have to tell you -- I've had other women call me, who wouldn't give me their names, who've told me stories that were so similar to mine that I've had hair standing up on my arms -- at Bill Clinton's hands, in the Oval Office, at other places, in other years. This is not going to stop. The man has a serious problem...he's a sex addict....(Hillary) covers it up, she enables his behavior....

Now, one thing I have heard used against you on a number of occasions is that you asked for a job in the White House after Bill Clinton groped you. Can you tell me why you did that?

I didn't ask for it and I am glad you have given me the opportunity to address this. After my husband's death, if I thought our financial situation was bad, it was far worse than I thought it was going to be. I had children in college, I was a soccer mom, a housewife, I didn't finish college, and my best opportunity at that point for my family was to gain employment with the federal government. I didn't ask for a job in the complex, sitting right outside the Oval Office. That was the last place I wanted to be. I asked Bill Clinton to help me get a job anywhere in the federal government -- in Richmond, Virginia -- Washington -- anywhere. I was willing to move. That's what it was about. I didn't ask for a job in the White House per se, I asked for a job anywhere within the federal government.

Was there any thought on your part that maybe, "Gee, he might do this to help keep me quiet, that sort of thing?"

That he would get me a job?

Yeah, maybe he'd think, "If I get her a job, she won't testify -- if it ever came to that." I know it hadn't come up at that point.

Who knows what he thought? I can't answer that question. I will tell you, I never got a job. They certainly toyed with me. Supposedly, I was hired by his reelection campaign. I was given a start date, told where to be, when to be there, told what my salary was going to be, and never heard from them again.

Now you've said that you've learned that your husband was involved in shady financial dealings with the Clintons. Can you tell us a bit about those?

After his death, some dear friends of mine told me that my husband had told them that during the election, during the campaign, he had been carrying suitcases full of cash to Little Rock. I never knew that. He never told me that. I never saw evidence of that. He never shared that with me. So, needless to say, I was shocked by that.

I can't imagine that he would just make that up and...I don't know, I want to find out. I want to pursue that.

And you said you think that there's a possibility that the Clintons may have been involved in his death. Is that correct?

What I said was -- and again, thank you for giving me the opportunity to address this, too -- what I said was that I finally was emotionally able to look at my husband's autopsy report while writing the book and there were some things in there that got my attention. I'm not an expert and I don't pretend to be, but I did take the autopsy report and show it to an expert, a criminology and forensic expert, and she saw some pretty compelling inconsistencies in that report and she suggested that I pursue it, that I get further opinions, which I am doing. I feel like I owe that to his memory, I owe that to my children, and for my own piece of mind. I want to know what happened. That's what I talked about briefly in my book.

I got you. That makes perfect sense...just, as an interesting side note, you complained a bit about the atmosphere in general in the White House -- how people didn't seem to respect the office. They commonly used bad language, didn't dress appropriately, etc. Tell me a bit about that.

Ever seen the movie Animal House? It was kind of like that. There was no dress code, pizza boxes all over the Oval Office, everybody's feet up on the furniture, foul language, obviously no respect for the...White House, for the office of the presidency. It was pretty appalling and I witnessed that on a regular basis. I don't think it's supposed to be that way.

Are you disappointed that feminists haven't stuck by you? After all, you were groped by Bill Clinton and unquestionably, the Clintons have worked to destroy your reputation. Do you ever sit and wonder, "Gee, where are all these feminists who are supposed to be looking out for ordinary women like me..."

Of course, I did. Every night, when I was being raked over the coals by the Clintonistas, of course I did. Believe me, I appealed to the feminists. I called the National Organization for Women. I asked for their help, but they weren't going to criticize him. He was their guy. He was their man. He was pro-choice...they were in no position to criticize him or validate me and they didn't.

You know, think about it: where are they today? You don't see representatives of NOW. Where are the feminists? Where are they? I think Bill and Hillary Clinton pretty much shut them down. The feminists, NOW, they're all about one issue: abortion. They're not talking about women's rights, being an advocate for women, or equality in the work place. Those aren't issues anymore. It's abortion, plain and simple.

Along similar lines, a big part of Hillary Clinton's campaign for the presidency has involved playing up her gender and promising to stand up for single mothers. Yet, you're a woman who was a loyal Democrat and a Clinton supporter and after you were victimized by her husband, Hillary helped work to try to personally destroy you. What message do you give to women who are considering voting for Hillary in...

Well, that's one of the reasons that I wrote my book. I hope that women, men and women, but women especially, young women, first time voters, who are excited about voting for a woman for President for the first time in our history -- this woman claims to be a champion for women, a women's advocate, a feminist, but look what she has done to me. Look what she has done. And believe me, when I say look what she's done, she gears up the war room. She enables his behavior, she cleans up after him. It has been going on since before they were married and it will continue because his behavior has not stopped. This is no advocate for women. If this is what she's going to do to women like me, who unfortunately crossed paths with her husband, a sex addict and a predator, she is not a champion for women and she is not a women's advocate. I hope that young women will at least read my book, read my story, and think about what it would be like to be caught in the crosshairs of Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Last question, tell us a little bit about your book, Target: Caught in the Crosshairs of Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Well, I talk about everything we've discussed today in detail. I talk about what it was like. I talk about the harassment. I talk about the threats to my safety -- the threats to my children, the loss of a beloved pet, and being afraid to live in my own home. I think that no man or woman, in this country, should be subjected to this sort of harassment, intimidation, and threats. This is not what our forefathers had in mind for us. Hopefully, people will read this book and arm themselves with knowledge before they go into the voting booth and vote.

...I really appreciate your time.

Thank you for the opportunity.
Does the country really, really, want another 4 years (possibly eight :vomit: ) of this family in the White House?

[George Gervin's Afro]

You want to talk about scandalous accusations made by a former associate of a president; here you go...

The Kathleen Willey Interview (http://www.rightwingnews.com/mt331/2007/11/the_kathleen_willey_interview.php)


Does the country really, really, want another 4 years (possibly eight :vomit: ) of this family in the White House?


did you know that her story changed? she gave a completely different story when interviewed for the paula Jones lawsuit. Not only that the she was under oath at the time :lol

So maybe before you believe , anything and everything, that charges the clinton's you should at least verify the accuser hasn't already changed her story.. :lol

[clambake]

"I'm more interested in selling my book"

[Yonivore]

did you know that her story changed? she gave a completely different story when interviewed for the paula Jones lawsuit. Not only that the she was under oath at the time :lol

So maybe before you believe , anything and everything, that charges the clinton's you should at least verify the accuser hasn't already changed her story.. :lol
My question had less to do with the veracity of Ms. Willey (whom I have no reason to beleive or disbelieve except for the fact she's not alone in her accusations agains the Clintons) but with the sense of the American people and whether or not they want another scandalous Clinton administration.

I keep waiting for the libel, defamation, and perjury accusations from the Clinton camp but, they never seem to come.

I think Billy Boy is ultimately going to sink her presidential aspirations.

That is my opinion.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Steele claims Willey asked her to lie to Newsweek reporter Michael Isikoff about her alleged encounter with Clinton. Last spring Willey called Steele and asked her if Isikoff could come over to interview her. While Isikoff was on his way, Steele says, Willey called back and "told me exactly what to say." The directive: tell Isikoff the President had groped her on Nov. 29, 1993, and that Willey had rushed to Steele's house in the aftermath quite distraught. "I went along with it," Steele told TIME. "It was terrible, but Kathy and I were friends for 20 years, and she told me it wouldn't matter, that the whole thing was off the record anyway." Steele says that Willey never rushed over to see her on the day of the encounter, that she wasn't told of Willey's Oval Office visit until weeks after it occurred, that she was simply left with the impression that there might have been "mutual affection" between Clinton and Willey but nothing sexual. And Willey was not upset. Steele told her friend that Isikoff said Willey was tearful when relating the tale of the alleged groping to him. In response, Steele says, Willey laughed.



But the story of Kathleen Willey, a former White House volunteer, and her erstwhile friend Julie Hiatt Steele is much more than the story of two women drawn into a political scandal. The story of how these women became crucial players in the independent counsel's investigation provides graphic detail about the lengths to which Starr and his staff were willing to go in their efforts to find evidence that could impeach the President. It reveals the pressures Starr has brought to bear against ordinary citizens such as Steele, a Virginia woman who has never been involved in politics and whose only connection to his investigation is her consistent refusal under oath to back Willey's story

[Yonivore]

a he said, she said response
Like I said, you're not really addressing the core concern of my post. I'm not interested in debating the history of these women's allegations or their veracity.

I think they run the real risk of driving the country to Clinton Scandal Fatigue before next November's election.

Yes, I'm okay with that.

[George Gervin's Afro]

My question had less to do with the veracity of Ms. Willey (whom I have no reason to beleive or disbelieve except for the fact she's not alone in her accusations agains the Clintons) but with the sense of the American people and whether or not they want another scandalous Clinton administration.

I keep waiting for the libel, defamation, and perjury accusations from the Clinton camp but, they never seem to come.

I think Billy Boy is ultimately going to sink her presidential aspirations.

That is my opinion.

Well it looks like this 'scandal' was a non event so to claim that the American people don't want anymore of it is silly. The far right has proven they will do anything to demonize the clintons so maybe you should ask yourself do the American people want the far right to bring unsubstantiated claims and scandals continuously.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Like I said, you're not really addressing the core concern of my post. I'm not interested in debating the history of these women's allegations or their veracity.

I think they run the real risk of driving the country to Clinton FAKE Scandal Fatigue before next November's election.

Yes, I'm okay with that.


There I fixed it for you.

[Yonivore]

Well it looks like this 'scandal' was a non event so to claim that the American people don't want anymore of it is silly. The far right has proven they will do anything to demonize the clintons so maybe you should ask yourself do the American people want the far right to bring unsubstantiated claims and scandals continuously.
You say this as though Republicans have created these scandals out of whole cloth.

I don't know what Ms. Willey's political affiliation is, I suspect she's a Democrat though. Same with Ms. Brodderick, Ms. Lewinsky, Ms. Flowers...I'm not sure about the Washington hooker he approached.

Are Republicans exploiting Bill Clinton's irrascibility, hell yeah. Are they making these people up? I think it can be proven all of them has social or political relationships with Bill Clinton prior to the allegations -- which, by the way, were brought forward by them.

And, further, everytime the Clintons make a concerted effort to deny the allegations, they get burned like George Gervin's Afro in Spurstalk. Gennifer Flowers and Monica Lewinsky the two most prevelant examples.

I only wish Hillary would go on a campaign to disprove Ms. Willey and Juanita Brodderick. I think the revelations would be interesting. In fact, I think that is precisely why Hillary is avoiding the topic altogether.

[Yonivore]

There I fixed it for you.
Hey, however you want to look at it. I don't agree the scandals are fabricated but, at least you suggest the possibility the American public may be fed up with it come election day.

That's good enough for me.

[George Gervin's Afro]

You say this as though Republicans have created these scandals out of whole cloth.

I don't know what Ms. Willey's political affiliation is, I suspect she's a Democrat though. Same with Ms. Brodderick, Ms. Lewinsky, Ms. Flowers...I'm not sure about the Washington hooker he approached.

Are Republicans exploiting Bill Clinton's irrascibility, hell yeah. Are they making these people up? I think it can be proven all of them has social or political relationships with Bill Clinton prior to the allegations -- which, by the way, were brought forward by them.

And, further, everytime the Clintons make a concerted effort to deny the allegations, they get burned like George Gervin's Afro in Spurstalk. Gennifer Flowers and Monica Lewinsky the two most prevelant examples.

I only wish Hillary would go on a campaign to disprove Ms. Willey and Juanita Brodderick. I think the revelations would be interesting. In fact, I think that is precisely why Hillary is avoiding the topic altogether.


Ok so want Hillary Clinton to prove false claims are false? Sort of like us wanting Saddam to prove he didn't have wmds? Why would anyone want to investigate something that is not true? or better yet keep a false scandal out in the public eye so people like Yonivore can whore the story regardless of it's merits.

[Yonivore]

Ok so want Hillary Clinton to prove false claims are false? Sort of like us wanting Saddam to prove he didn't have wmds? Why would anyone want to investigate something that is not true? or better yet keep a false scandal out in the public eye so people like Yonivore can whore the story regardless of it's merits.
All I know is the two times Hillary Clinton said the allegations weren't true and came out vociferously denying them; they turned out to be true.

Monica Lewinsky wasn't a vast right wing conspiracy and Gennifer Flowers did have a long-term affair with her husband.

I don't think Mrs. Clinton wants to know the truth on these matters anymore. If I believed Ms. Willey were lying, I would sue her ass off for alleging I assaulted her and then implying I had something to do with the death of her husband.

But, that's just me.

[George Gervin's Afro]

it just dawned on me that you have proven my point about you. I started this thread to prove the point that people like you like to consider anything that accuses the dems of doing something inappropriate you jump on it. you then claim that:


I don't agree the scandals are fabricated but,


I'm not interested in debating the history of these women's allegations or their veracity.


My question had less to do with the veracity of Ms. Willey (whom I have no reason to beleive or disbelieve except for the fact she's not alone in her accusations agains the Clintons) but with the sense of the American people and whether or not they want another scandalous Clinton administration.



yet when it comes to accusations of the Bush administration's made by many people who were close to the President are brushed off as simple examples of partisanship and political agendas....

[Yonivore]

it just dawned on me that you have proven my point about you. I started this thread to prove the point that people like you like to consider anything that accuses the dems of doing something inappropriate you jump on it. you then claim that:
***
yet when it comes to accusations of the Bush administration's made by many people who were close to the President are brushed off as simple examples of partisanship and political agendas....
Actually, you proved nothing. I said nothing of the sort about Mr. Dowd. I allowed that his complaints were reasonable even if I (and presumably others in the Bush administration) don't agree with him.

I never accused him of being either partisan or having a political agenda. I merely accused him of being wrong.

[ChumpDumper]

:lol Yoni doesn't care about the truth.

Someone said Bill Clinton killed her cat, even if it's totally false Hillary Clinton should not be elected.

Great logic. :tu

[DarkReign]

If Rove later comes out with a book criticizing this administration, you can bet Yoni will find numerous blogs to discredit the man.

The Clintons are scum of the Earth, we know that. But the Bush Mafia is no better and far from clean.

Someone else entirely should be elected. Someone who has no allegiance and/or previous relationships with Clinton/Bush. They're all scum of the Earth, its our job to choose which dirty bastard of a human being to put in office.

I love American politics. Taking the phrase "Lesser of two evils" to the absolute, masochistic extreme.

[Yonivore]

If Rove later comes out with a book criticizing this administration, you can bet Yoni will find numerous blogs to discredit the man.
Where did I try to discredit Dowd?


The Clintons are scum of the Earth, we know that. But the Bush Mafia is no better and far from clean.
Being "no better" and "far from clean" are vastly different characterizations. I could argue the Bush administration is much better, vis-a-vis scandals, just based on the sheer number of scandals alleged about the two administrations, the number of administration officials, from each, that have been indicted for crimes or involved in scandals of their own -- and, yes, as in this case, the number of former administration officials that have changed colors and criticized their former bosses. In those terms, the Bush administration is head and shoulders above the Clinton administration.

The "far from clean" characterization, I believe, deserves some kind of supporting logic. In what way is the Bush administration "far from clean?"


Someone else entirely should be elected.
You won't get any argument from me there. Besides, there's not a Bush up for election anyway.


Someone who has no allegiance and/or previous relationships with Clinton/Bush. They're all scum of the Earth, its our job to choose which dirty bastard of a human being to put in office.
I somewhat disagree with your equating the two administration but, in the sense the current president has been as much of a lightening rod (even if I disagree with the reasons why) as was Clinton, you could make the argument -- even though it's not necessary because he isn't running -- that the country should elect someone that will not evoke the aura of either administration.


I love American politics. Taking the phrase "Lesser of two evils" to the absolute, masochistic extreme.
I completely reject the term evil when applied to the Bush administration.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Where did I try to discredit Dowd?


Being "no better" and "far from clean" are vastly different characterizations. I could argue the Bush administration is much better, vis-a-vis scandals, just based on the sheer number of scandals alleged about the two administrations, the number of administration officials, from each, that have been indicted for crimes or involved in scandals of their own -- and, yes, as in this case, the number of former administration officials that have changed colors and criticized their former bosses. In those terms, the Bush administration is head and shoulders above the Clinton administration.

The "far from clean" characterization, I believe, deserves some kind of supporting logic. In what way is the Bush administration "far from clean?"


You won't get any argument from me there. Besides, there's not a Bush up for election anyway.


I somewhat disagree with your equating the two administration but, in the sense the current president has been as much of a lightening rod (even if I disagree with the reasons why) as was Clinton, you could make the argument -- even though it's not necessary because he isn't running -- that the country should elect someone that will not evoke the aura of either administration.


I completely reject the term evil when applied to the Bush administration.


I welcome the term evil when applied to the bush administration.

[Yonivore]

I welcome the term evil when applied to the bush administration.
Thanks Mr. Obvious.

[DarkReign]

Where did I try to discredit Dowd?

You didnt. My point is, Dowd has refused to do the circuits for good reason. He isnt trying to be a voice of reason, he is just airing his personal view on what things were like, to what things actually were.

He likened his relationship with the president to a marriage with infidelity in the sense that he constantly had to rationalize his relationship with the Administration.

I personally think the guy is a coward and money-grubbing political leech. But hes a guy who was in the inner circle of a Presidential Administration. His opinion carries a tad more weight than mine.



Being "no better" and "far from clean" are vastly different characterizations. I could argue the Bush administration is much better, vis-a-vis scandals, just based on the sheer number of scandals alleged about the two administrations, the number of administration officials, from each, that have been indicted for crimes or involved in scandals of their own -- and, yes, as in this case, the number of former administration officials that have changed colors and criticized their former bosses. In those terms, the Bush administration is head and shoulders above the Clinton administration.

The "far from clean" characterization, I believe, deserves some kind of supporting logic. In what way is the Bush administration "far from clean?"

This is an argument of moral and values. It isnt worth it. Not on Spurstalk, not in a bar, not anywhere, ever. One could make the case that anything Clinton may or may not have done pales in comparison to what Bush may or may not have done. If you give credence to the trail of "complaints" against Clinton for being a voracious sex offender, then you must entertain the "complaints" against Bush for trumping up the evidence and threat of attack from Iraq.

I know you wont. I dont really care. But, to stay with my lesser of two evils remark, if you told me you can have a President that is an "alleged" sexual creep and intimidates those women he has violated or an "allegedly" war-hungry President who trumps up the threat of war from third world countries using fear tactics on his own people......you could guess my complete distaste for the whole matter.



You won't get any argument from me there. Besides, there's not a Bush up for election anyway.

Thank God. But Jeb isnt too far off. Hes just waiting for the inevitable Democratic collapse.



I somewhat disagree with your equating the two administration but, in the sense the current president has been as much of a lightening rod (even if I disagree with the reasons why) as was Clinton, you could make the argument -- even though it's not necessary because he isn't running -- that the country should elect someone that will not evoke the aura of either administration.

I think individuals with the means and qualifications to even consider being President of the Free World couldnt be anything but lightning rods and eccentrics. I have no experience with early Presidents (obviously), but I am sure it was just as contentious then. But then again, none of those men held the same status worldwide that 20th century and beyond Presidents have/do. Cant really equate.


I completely reject the term evil when applied to the Bush administration.

I used the remark because its (probably) worldwide common. I dont believe Clinton was evil either. Again, we're arguing semantics. But I do think Bush is either a) ignorant and oblivious or b) semi-intelligent but is truly convinced of his own wisdom, facts be damned. Either way, it makes him at worst a puppet or at best a zealot (minus the religious context of the word).

But thats just my lowly opinion.

[Yonivore]

You didnt. My point is, Dowd has refused to do the circuits for good reason. He isnt trying to be a voice of reason, he is just airing his personal view on what things were like, to what things actually were.

He likened his relationship with the president to a marriage with infidelity in the sense that he constantly had to rationalize his relationship with the Administration.

I personally think the guy is a coward and money-grubbing political leech. But hes a guy who was in the inner circle of a Presidential Administration. His opinion carries a tad more weight than mine.
But, his opinion carries no more weight than others similarly situated in the Bush administration and, when you consider the number and nature of "turncoats" from the two administrations being discussed, you'd have a hard time convincing anyone Mr. Dowd's opinion of the Bush administration is more compelling or truthful than, say, Dick Morris's.


This is an argument of moral and values. It isnt worth it. Not on Spurstalk, not in a bar, not anywhere, ever. One could make the case that anything Clinton may or may not have done pales in comparison to what Bush may or may not have done. If you give credence to the trail of "complaints" against Clinton for being a voracious sex offender, then you must entertain the "complaints" against Bush for trumping up the evidence and threat of attack from Iraq.
You say it's an argument not worth having and then, set out to establish two arguments over which to debate the morality and values of the two administrations.

So, in that vein, There is ample, tangible and confirmed evidence that Bill clinton is a voracious sex offender. But, the chief complaint isn't that, even though his admirers would like for it to be just about sex; the principal complaint about President Clinton is that he was willing to perjur himself, suborn perjury in others, and obstruct justice in an attempt to deny a U. S. Citizen their constitutionally guaranteed right to due process. And, he did so as President of the United States -- the chief guarantor of said constitution.

Add to this all of the scandals from check stubs related to Whitewater to Sandy Berger stealing National Security documents and President Bush's conduct, in office (by him or his proxies) doesn't even come close.

There have been exponentially more investigations, by Congress, of the Bush administration than of the Clinton administration and not much to show for it. Clinton on the other hand has seen quite a number of his administration do time for various criminal acts.

You say I must entertain the idea that Bush trumped up a rationale for war. Why? There's absolutely no evidence of that. In fact, President Clinton himself defends President Bush's decision to dethrone Saddam Hussein. A Congressional investigation exonerated Vice President Cheney of trying to skew the intelligence.

There is absolutely no reasonable comparison between what Clinton was caught doing and what Bush is accused of doing.


I know you wont. I dont really care. But, to stay with my lesser of two evils remark, if you told me you can have a President that is an "alleged" sexual creep and intimidates those women he has violated or an "allegedly" war-hungry President who trumps up the threat of war from third world countries using fear tactics on his own people......you could guess my complete distaste for the whole matter.
Except for the fact you're making the wrong comparison. It wasn't about the sex but about the contempt for his own responsibilities as President that Clinton is condemned. Clinton isn't an alledged perjurer...he is one.

Bush is an "alleged" war-hungry President because that's what his opponents are painting him as.


Thank God. But Jeb isnt too far off. Hes just waiting for the inevitable Democratic collapse.
I don't know much about Jeb. It's possible he'd be a better president than his brother.


I think individuals with the means and qualifications to even consider being President of the Free World couldnt be anything but lightning rods and eccentrics. I have no experience with early Presidents (obviously), but I am sure it was just as contentious then. But then again, none of those men held the same status worldwide that 20th century and beyond Presidents have/do. Cant really equate.
There are many comparisons between how Bush is being treated and how Abraham Lincoln was treated during his administration. I even think Lincoln was portrayed as a monkey in some of the attacks...just like this current office holder.

I think political contentional and hyperbole goes back to Jefferson, at least...not sure there was much argument over George Washington as the first President.


I used the remark because its (probably) worldwide common. I dont believe Clinton was evil either. Again, we're arguing semantics. But I do think Bush is either a) ignorant and oblivious or b) semi-intelligent but is truly convinced of his own wisdom, facts be damned. Either way, it makes him at worst a puppet or at best a zealot (minus the religious context of the word).
I notice you don't consider c) Bush is principled and did the right thing in the face of withering opposition.


But thats just my lowly opinion.
Meh, you said alot about something you didn't consider worth arguing over in this context.

[Yonivore]

When Corso talked to this Dowd, he seemed sincere

Corso says it wasn't just a few policy differences, that Corso Dowd felt betrayed for putting his faith in the wrong man...He thinks that Corso Bush and all his Corsos have seriously damaged the country (and the world) by the way they have campaigned and governed

That Corso Dowd is doing his penance, so to speak, by working for that Corso Bono...that Corso Dowd just got back from retreat to Bangladesh or India or some place like that..

Dowd's blog, oh boy!
http://livegentle.com/
I think it says alot about President Bush that he even had this guy on his team. It would be like Hillary hiring Newt Gingrich as a political consultant.

[George Gervin's Afro]

You didnt. My point is, Dowd has refused to do the circuits for good reason. He isnt trying to be a voice of reason, he is just airing his personal view on what things were like, to what things actually were.

He likened his relationship with the president to a marriage with infidelity in the sense that he constantly had to rationalize his relationship with the Administration.

I personally think the guy is a coward and money-grubbing political leech. But hes a guy who was in the inner circle of a Presidential Administration. His opinion carries a tad more weight than mine.




This is an argument of moral and values. It isnt worth it. Not on Spurstalk, not in a bar, not anywhere, ever. One could make the case that anything Clinton may or may not have done pales in comparison to what Bush may or may not have done. If you give credence to the trail of "complaints" against Clinton for being a voracious sex offender, then you must entertain the "complaints" against Bush for trumping up the evidence and threat of attack from Iraq.

I know you wont. I dont really care. But, to stay with my lesser of two evils remark, if you told me you can have a President that is an "alleged" sexual creep and intimidates those women he has violated or an "allegedly" war-hungry President who trumps up the threat of war from third world countries using fear tactics on his own people......you could guess my complete distaste for the whole matter.




Thank God. But Jeb isnt too far off. Hes just waiting for the inevitable Democratic collapse.




I think individuals with the means and qualifications to even consider being President of the Free World couldnt be anything but lightning rods and eccentrics. I have no experience with early Presidents (obviously), but I am sure it was just as contentious then. But then again, none of those men held the same status worldwide that 20th century and beyond Presidents have/do. Cant really equate.



I used the remark because its (probably) worldwide common. I dont believe Clinton was evil either. Again, we're arguing semantics. But I do think Bush is either a) ignorant and oblivious or b) semi-intelligent but is truly convinced of his own wisdom, facts be damned. Either way, it makes him at worst a puppet or at best a zealot (minus the religious context of the word).

But thats just my lowly opinion.


hey dark reign yoni thinks bush's mug should be added to mt rushmore... :rolleyes

[Yonivore]

http://www.bushdoctrine.net/images/funny/george_walker_bush_rushmore.jpg

[Yonivore]

Yep, Bush is in good company:

http://www.indiana.edu/~liblilly/cartoon/images/monkey.jpg

http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/EPH/8130~George-W-Bush-Monkey-Posters.jpg

[DarkReign]

You say it's an argument not worth having and then, set out to establish two arguments over which to debate the morality and values of the two administrations.

Correct. The point is, the two sides are predictable with absolutely no middle ground. Especially with a person like you, Yoni. Youre one of the more entrenched people I have ever come across. boutons being of the same thread. Youre not shakeable, because you refuse to even imagine a different view than you have already formulated. You input information and reach a conclusion. And that conclusion stands until the bitter end. Arguing, excuse me, debating with you is a practice in futility. It always devolves into semantics, links and vitriol.

I have always viewed this forum as a an OPINION forum....where the heavy posters here treat it as a FACT forum. Thats why I dont weigh-in on a lot of the topics anymore. The world isnt right and wrong, its shades of grey and a guiding hand, IMO. So arguing with you over the fallout from the two opposed presidential scenarios is fruitless. Youre always going to think Bush is better than Clinton, whereas I do not care for either. But I am reasonable enough to look at the two objectively and say "Blowjobs and fondling, obstruction of justice. Possible war-mongering and Imperialistic propoganda campaigns to trump up conflict. Which is worse, if either is true?"

Youre dead set that Iraq is valid. And it is according to the agreements between the US, UN and Iraq after the Gulf War. But that is NOT the pretense used to invade this time around. It was WMDs, which have still not been found. It was the capability of Iraq to use WMDs against us. Now the tune has mutated so many times, the objective is a subject of interpretation.

An interpretation I dont care to delve into, with you or anyone else.


There have been exponentially more investigations, by Congress, of the Bush administration than of the Clinton administration and not much to show for it. Clinton on the other hand has seen quite a number of his administration do time for various criminal acts.

You say I must entertain the idea that Bush trumped up a rationale for war. Why? There's absolutely no evidence of that. In fact, President Clinton himself defends President Bush's decision to dethrone Saddam Hussein. A Congressional investigation exonerated Vice President Cheney of trying to skew the intelligence.

There is absolutely no reasonable comparison between what Clinton was caught doing and what Bush is accused of doing.

First, youre being disingenuous. The Clinton Scandal was a witch hunt. Yes, he got a blowjob. Yes, he lied about it under oath. Yes, thats utterly dispecable thing to do. Who died? And if he did in fact harass these women, going so far as to invade their homes, why wasnt he tried for his crimes?

Because they couldnt prove it.

Switch to Bush. Politicians, by definition, are s elf serving bunch. No political party wants to look weak. Outwardly renounce the war, and you only create problems for yourself, your party, your country and your foreign relations. All the people you dragged into this are suddenly wrong because you were wrong. The damage is insurmountable. Thats why when a Dem gets elected and inevitably pulls out of Iraq, they wont be reelected. Incoming, Jeb Bush.

Fine, you win again, Yoni. Because I have already engaged you far enough. Youre entrenched and very close-minded (at least, from a political perspective...I know nothing about you beyond that). Clinton at worst broke into houses, harassed women and made a mockery of the Presidency in Congress. All condemnable. At worst, Bush lied his way into a war which has killed thousands and thousands of people across the globe. To me, theyre both scum either way.

And that was why I posted. Its the disillusionment with the government that you dont seem to have. You have complete faith in your leadership, in this country and all that entails. Whereas I question my government, distrust anything they say and wonder what the real reasons are for their actions. Because they are all, Repug and Dems, liars and thieves of the highest criminal order. Bush has the luxury of generational familial ascension...to put a finer point on it, his ancestors did the dirty work, hes clean as whistle. Clintons rise to power happened by hook and by crook by themselves. Thats why their dirty laundry is aired....you dont get to the top unless you scammed your way there. They were just better at it than most and it propelled them to the White House. Bush inherited it by virtue of being born.

Every uber-rich family in America (probably worldwide) has at least one GIANT dirty secret. Kennedy's were bootleggers, Rockefellers were human-demolishing sociopaths, etc. The Bush's and Clinton's have theirs as well. Some fact, some speculation, but I would never go as far as yourself to say one is better than the other. I think you just like one particularly more than the other because they wear the same colors and publicly hold the same value system you do. Whereas I believe theyre hypocrits and crooks, regardless of affiliation. The distinction for me comes "Which is less likely to start WW3?"

[DarkReign]

hey dark reign yoni thinks bush's mug should be added to mt rushmore... :rolleyes

Take a wild stab in the dark on that one......

[ChumpDumper]

Who died?That chick's cat did -- don't you read?

[Yonivore]

Correct. The point is, the two sides are predictable with absolutely no middle ground. Especially with a person like you, Yoni. Youre one of the more entrenched people I have ever come across. boutons being of the same thread. Youre not shakeable, because you refuse to even imagine a different view than you have already formulated. You input information and reach a conclusion. And that conclusion stands until the bitter end. Arguing, excuse me, debating with you is a practice in futility. It always devolves into semantics, links and vitriol.

I have always viewed this forum as a an OPINION forum....where the heavy posters here treat it as a FACT forum. Thats why I dont weigh-in on a lot of the topics anymore. The world isnt right and wrong, its shades of grey and a guiding hand, IMO. So arguing with you over the fallout from the two opposed presidential scenarios is fruitless. Youre always going to think Bush is better than Clinton, whereas I do not care for either. But I am reasonable enough to look at the two objectively and say "Blowjobs and fondling, obstruction of justice. Possible war-mongering and Imperialistic propoganda campaigns to trump up conflict. Which is worse, if either is true?"

Youre dead set that Iraq is valid. And it is according to the agreements between the US, UN and Iraq after the Gulf War. But that is NOT the pretense used to invade this time around. It was WMDs, which have still not been found. It was the capability of Iraq to use WMDs against us. Now the tune has mutated so many times, the objective is a subject of interpretation.

An interpretation I dont care to delve into, with you or anyone else.



First, youre being disingenuous. The Clinton Scandal was a witch hunt. Yes, he got a blowjob. Yes, he lied about it under oath. Yes, thats utterly dispecable thing to do. Who died? And if he did in fact harass these women, going so far as to invade their homes, why wasnt he tried for his crimes?

Because they couldnt prove it.

Switch to Bush. Politicians, by definition, are s elf serving bunch. No political party wants to look weak. Outwardly renounce the war, and you only create problems for yourself, your party, your country and your foreign relations. All the people you dragged into this are suddenly wrong because you were wrong. The damage is insurmountable. Thats why when a Dem gets elected and inevitably pulls out of Iraq, they wont be reelected. Incoming, Jeb Bush.

Fine, you win again, Yoni. Because I have already engaged you far enough. Youre entrenched and very close-minded (at least, from a political perspective...I know nothing about you beyond that). Clinton at worst broke into houses, harassed women and made a mockery of the Presidency in Congress. All condemnable. At worst, Bush lied his way into a war which has killed thousands and thousands of people across the globe. To me, theyre both scum either way.

And that was why I posted. Its the disillusionment with the government that you dont seem to have. You have complete faith in your leadership, in this country and all that entails. Whereas I question my government, distrust anything they say and wonder what the real reasons are for their actions. Because they are all, Repug and Dems, liars and thieves of the highest criminal order. Bush has the luxury of generational familial ascension...to put a finer point on it, his ancestors did the dirty work, hes clean as whistle. Clintons rise to power happened by hook and by crook by themselves. Thats why their dirty laundry is aired....you dont get to the top unless you scammed your way there. They were just better at it than most and it propelled them to the White House. Bush inherited it by virtue of being born.

Every uber-rich family in America (probably worldwide) has at least one GIANT dirty secret. Kennedy's were bootleggers, Rockefellers were human-demolishing sociopaths, etc. The Bush's and Clinton's have theirs as well. Some fact, some speculation, but I would never go as far as yourself to say one is better than the other. I think you just like one particularly more than the other because they wear the same colors and publicly hold the same value system you do. Whereas I believe theyre hypocrits and crooks, regardless of affiliation. The distinction for me comes "Which is less likely to start WW3?"
Wow! I hope you feel better.

But, I think the distinction should be, "Which is more likely to end WW3?"

[Yonivore]

Take a wild stab in the dark on that one......
http://www.bushdoctrine.net/images/funny/george_walker_bush_rushmore.jpg

[Yonivore]

And, as far as being "entrenched" in my opinion on Iraq, it is because I'm convinced it is right.

I'm not so entrenched on other matters involving President Bush's policies. Immigration and drug enforcement being two of the bigger ones. On those, we disagree much.

And, as for your dismissal of Clinton's behavior, this country is founded in the rule of law. A sitting president committing acts that specifically run counter to the U. S. Constitution is a pretty big deal.

There's also a sense this was commonplace during his tenure and that only adds to the upset. Things such as vandalizing the White House during the transition, stealing White House furniture, renting out the Lincoln Bedroom, etc...

It's a general distaste for his manner of inhabiting the office. It's like we had our own personal Jacques Chirac for 8 years. Nasty.

[Yonivore]

I know you don't want to discuss it anymore, DarkReign but, let me see if I can put my position on Iraq into an analogy that might make sense to you.

The U. S. and its allies kicked in the door of a suspected crack house after receiving credible information it was stockpiled with drugs. There was no question that, in the past, the house was used for dealing drugs and there was no question that the person that dealt drugs from there still occupied the house.

Since the resident's last arrest, (Gulf War I), there had been a steady stream of information demonstrating he was back in the drug dealing business. Paying pushers (terrorists), steady stream of OD victims being pulled out of the house or buried in the back yard (Kurds and Shi'ites), threats to neighbors (Iran and Kuwait), aggression towards the police (no-fly zone attacks), recruiting dealers (Salman Pak and chemical weapons tests on prisoners), etc...

Nothing the resident did help dissuade the police of the belief he continued to operate a drug den. He bragged to his neighbors about having drugs (claiming he had WMD's to Iran), he frustrated attempts by parole officers to completely satisfy themselves that he had cleaned up his act (Inspections), and he voiced his support and admiration for anti-police organizations (al Qaeda).

Then, one day, a drug house across town exploded and killed 3,000 people in the process. You realize if you'd only busted that house sooner, you could have prevented the explosion. Then, you look at the guy arrested in 12 years earlier, consider his behavior, and his actions and say to yourself, is it worth risking another explosion?

President Bush decided no.

So, after kicking in the door, you only find drug paraphenalia in every corner of the building and a bunch of junkies. Does that mean there weren't any drugs there the day before or even as you were approaching the door??? And, does it mean you shouldn't have shut down the crack house anyway?

More and more information is coming to light that Saddam Hussein intended to continue dealing drugs -- excuse me -- pursue WMD's. He was developing relationships with terrorists organizations, he hated the United States, he was conspiring with some of our allies to degrade sanctions or get them lifted.

Given everything the President knew in March of 2003, he did the right thing...whining about whether or not the WMDs were there at the time doesn't change that fact. And, to he everlasting credit, President Clinton agrees with this opinion.

That's why I'm "entrenched" on the Iraq War. It was the right thing to do and no one has raised any issue to change my opinion on that.

[ChumpDumper]

That's the stupidest analogy ever, which is why I can tell you actually thought it up yourself.

[Yonivore]

Then there's this:

the Iraq war may have been cheaper than doing nothing (http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2007/11/14/is-the-iraq-war-costlier-than-doing-nothing.html)?


Factoring in all those contingencies, the authors find that a containment policy would cost anywhere from $350 billion to $700 billon. Now when you further factor in that 1) a containment policy might also have led to a higher risk premium in the oil markets if Iraq was seen to be gaining in military power despite our efforts to box it in, and 2) money not borrowed and spent on Iraq might well have been spent on something else given the White House's free-spending ways, it's easy to see that doing a cost-benefit analysis on "war vs. containment" might have left administration officials with no clear-cut economic answer.

[clambake]

I know you don't want to discuss it anymore, DarkReign but, let me see if I can put my position on Iraq into an analogy that might make sense to you.
obviously, this is how you see it.

[ChumpDumper]

a containment policy might also have led to a higher risk premium in the oil marketsYes, thank God the Iraq war has kept the price of oil from skyrocketing.

[PixelPusher]

money not borrowed and spent on Iraq might well have been spent on something else given the White House's free-spending ways, it's easy to see that doing a cost-benefit analysis on "war vs. containment" might have left administration officials with no clear-cut economic answer.
:lol at "Bush spends like a drunken deadbeat anyway" as a defense.

[Mr. Peabody]

The U. S. and its allies kicked in the door of a suspected crack house after receiving credible information it was stockpiled with drugs. There was no question that, in the past, the house was used for dealing drugs and there was no question that the person that dealt drugs from there still occupied the house.

....

So, after kicking in the door, you only find drug paraphenalia in every corner of the building and a bunch of junkies....

So....at the end of your analogy, do the cops call in mercenaries to kill the junkies?

[DarkReign]

I know you don't want to discuss it anymore, DarkReign but, let me see if I can put my position on Iraq into an analogy that might make sense to you.

The U. S. and its allies kicked in the door of a suspected crack house after receiving credible information it was stockpiled with drugs. There was no question that, in the past, the house was used for dealing drugs and there was no question that the person that dealt drugs from there still occupied the house.

Since the resident's last arrest, (Gulf War I), there had been a steady stream of information demonstrating he was back in the drug dealing business. Paying pushers (terrorists), steady stream of OD victims being pulled out of the house or buried in the back yard (Kurds and Shi'ites), threats to neighbors (Iran and Kuwait), aggression towards the police (no-fly zone attacks), recruiting dealers (Salman Pak and chemical weapons tests on prisoners), etc...

Nothing the resident did help dissuade the police of the belief he continued to operate a drug den. He bragged to his neighbors about having drugs (claiming he had WMD's to Iran), he frustrated attempts by parole officers to completely satisfy themselves that he had cleaned up his act (Inspections), and he voiced his support and admiration for anti-police organizations (al Qaeda).

Then, one day, a drug house across town exploded and killed 3,000 people in the process. You realize if you'd only busted that house sooner, you could have prevented the explosion. Then, you look at the guy arrested in 12 years earlier, consider his behavior, and his actions and say to yourself, is it worth risking another explosion?

President Bush decided no.

So, after kicking in the door, you only find drug paraphenalia in every corner of the building and a bunch of junkies. Does that mean there weren't any drugs there the day before or even as you were approaching the door??? And, does it mean you shouldn't have shut down the crack house anyway?

More and more information is coming to light that Saddam Hussein intended to continue dealing drugs -- excuse me -- pursue WMD's. He was developing relationships with terrorists organizations, he hated the United States, he was conspiring with some of our allies to degrade sanctions or get them lifted.

Given everything the President knew in March of 2003, he did the right thing...whining about whether or not the WMDs were there at the time doesn't change that fact. And, to he everlasting credit, President Clinton agrees with this opinion.

I hope you didnt think I was trying to insult you. I absolutely was not. The analogy isnt the strongest, but I understand completely what youre trying to say, which is all that really matters.

I just dont agree. Sadaam was a piece of dogshit, no question. But I would have been a much more avid supporter of the invasion had it not been for the lead up. If Bush came out and said "Sadaam routinely violates the resolutions he signed after his defeat in the Gulf War. The nation's soldiers tasked with patrolling the No Fly Zones are routinely shot at and sometimes downed. It is time to depose him for violations of those agreements. This would hopefully give us a foothold in the middle east to combat terrorism in the future. We also believe he may be actively seeking or even housing WMDs, with (this and this and that) as circumstantial evidence that points to that accusation. Regardless, we have the means, the will and the right to act on his constant disregard of international law."

Something to that effect. The fear-mongering of imminent attacks was bullshit. It was a political tactic, the sleaziest and most condemnable one could use after the fear and security changes made country wide after 9-11.


That's why I'm "entrenched" on the Iraq War. It was the right thing to do and no one has raised any issue to change my opinion on that.

Fair enough. I never said you were wrong, I said we do not agree.

[Yonivore]

So....at the end of your analogy, do the cops call in mercenaries to kill the junkies?
It's a big house and there are a few hundred thousand police officers running around to the different rooms trying to secure the building. Things are going to happen and, when they do, they'll be investigated and adjudicated.

It happened in the Abu Ghraib room and I'm confident it'll happen in the Blackwater room as well.

[Yonivore]

I hope you didnt think I was trying to insult you.
Not a all, no offense taken.


I absolutely was not. The analogy isnt the strongest, but I understand completely what youre trying to say, which is all that really matters.
I appreciate that.


I just dont agree. Sadaam was a piece of dogshit, no question. But I would have been a much more avid supporter of the invasion had it not been for the lead up. If Bush came out and said "Sadaam routinely violates the resolutions he signed after his defeat in the Gulf War.
He did say that.


The nation's soldiers tasked with patrolling the No Fly Zones are routinely shot at and sometimes downed.
Yep, said that too.


It is time to depose him for violations of those agreements.
Yep.


This would hopefully give us a foothold in the middle east to combat terrorism in the future.
Yep, covered.


We also believe he may be actively seeking or even housing WMDs, with (this and this and that) as circumstantial evidence that points to that accusation. Regardless, we have the means, the will and the right to act on his constant disregard of international law."
Un huh, said it.


Something to that effect.
Yes, some things, many things, to those effects. I think the disconnect comes in that the press glommed onto the WMD aspect of the equation. In addition to Colin Powell's presentation to the U.N. (which, by the way, was more about justifying concerns over WMDs than justifying an invasion because of WMDs), there were speeches and pleas regarding his human rights abuses, his environmental crimes, his acts of aggression on military assets in the no-fly zone, his repeated defiance of U.N. inspectors and the nearly 2 dozen UNSC resolutions passed immediately after the '91 war and in the subsequent decade, his continued threats against Kuwait, and his stiff-backed posture toward Iran. All of these things were discussed.

I think the media agreed with those premises and, therefore, didn't see the need to play them up like the "sexy" WMD angle. But, that's just me....because, for my part, I distinctly remember the administration railing on each of the points you raised. They formed the backbone of the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq that was passed by Congress in 2002.

But, regardless of what you believe you were told, isn't the net affect the same? We deposed a horrible tyrant, are stablizing a volatile region of the world, establishing a friendly base in the middle east, and ensuring (regardless of the status of his programs in 2003) that Saddam Hussein will never possess or use WMDs again.

No?


The fear-mongering of imminent attacks was bullshit.
I don't think it was fear mongering. If you consider everyone believed it to be true, that Saddam Hussein himself wasn't disabusing anyone of that belief with his actions, and if you put it in the context of September 11, his arming terrorists with WMDs was a very real possibility.


It was a political tactic, the sleaziest and most condemnable one could use after the fear and security changes made country wide after 9-11.
We'll just have to disagree on this point. I think it was one of the least political moves he's made. Obviously, it's gotten him raked over the political coals, he's lost all of the political capital he amassed, and his political popularity plummetted. I don't think it was a political move at all.


Fair enough. I never said you were wrong, I said we do not agree.
I appreciate the dialog.

[Yonivore]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/07/20010731-5.html


To the Congress of the United States

Section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)) provides for the automatic termination of a national emergency unless, prior to the anniversary date of its decla-ration, the President publishes in the Federal Register and transmits to the Congress a notice stating that the emergency is to continue in effect beyond the anniversary date. In accordance with this provision, I have sent the enclosed notice, stating that the Iraqi emergency is to continue in effect beyond August 2, 2001, to the Federal Register for publication.

The crisis between the United States and Iraq that led to the declaration on August 2, 1990, of a national emergency has not been resolved. The Government of Iraq continues to engage in activities inimical to stability in the Middle East and hostile to United States interests in the region. Such Iraqi actions pose a continuing, unusual, and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States. For these reasons, I have determined that it is necessary to maintain in force the broad authorities necessary to apply economic pressure on the Government of Iraq.

GEORGE W. BUSH

THE WHITE HOUSE,
July 31, 2001.

[Yonivore]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/07/20010731-7.html


Notice: Continuation of Iraqi Emergency

On August 2, 1990, by Executive Order 12722, President Bush declared a national emergency to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States constituted by the actions and policies of the Government of Iraq. By Executive Orders 12722 of August 2, 1990, and 12724 of August 9, 1990, the President imposed trade sanctions on Iraq and blocked Iraqi government assets. Because the Government of Iraq has continued its activities hostile to United States interests in the Middle East, the national emergency declared on August 2, 1990, and the measures adopted on August 2 and August 9, 1990, to deal with that emergency must continue in effect beyond August 2, 2001. Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing the national emergency with respect to Iraq.

This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress.

GEORGE W. BUSH

THE WHITE HOUSE,
July 31, 2001.

[Yonivore]

A Decade of Deception and Defiance

PDF Version of A Decade of Deception and Defiance (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/iraqdecade.pdf)

A Decade of Deception and Defiance serves as a background paper for President George W. Bush's September 12th speech to the United Nations General Assembly. This document provides specific examples of how Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has systematically and continually violated 16 United Nations Security Council resolutions over the past decade. This document is not designed to catalogue all of the violations of UN resolutions or other abuses of Saddam Hussein's regime over the years.

For more than a decade, Saddam Hussein has deceived and defied the will and resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by, among other things: continuing to seek and develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons , and prohibited long-range missiles; brutalizing the Iraqi people, including committing gross human rights violations an d crimes against humanity; supporting international terrorism; refusing to release or account for prisoners of war and other missing individuals from the Gulf War era; refusing to return stolen Kuwaiti property; and working to circumvent the UN's economic sanctions.

The Administration will periodically provide information on these and other aspects of the threat posed to the international community by Saddam Hussein.

Table of Contents

Saddam Hussein's Defiance of United Nations Resolutions
Saddam Hussein's Development of Weapons of Mass Destruction
Saddam Hussein's Repression of the Iraqi People
Saddam Hussein's Support for International Terrorism
Saddam Hussein's Refusal to Account for Gulf War Prisoners
Saddam Hussein's Refusal to Return Stolen Property
Saddam Hussein's Efforts to Circumvent Economic Sanctions
Please note the table of contents. I believe this is the document that accompanied Secretary Powell's address to the U.N., if I'm not mistaken.

[Yonivore]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020917-8.html


Saddam Hussein’s Deception and Defiance
We’ve heard “unconditional” before

Last week, the President of the United States focused the world's attention on Iraqs continued defiance of UN resolutions. Saddam Husseins regime claimed yesterday that Iraq would comply unconditionally. While this new statement is evidence that world pressure can force the Iraqi regime to respond, it is also a return to form. Time after time, without conditions has meant deception, delay, and disregard for the United Nations.


"I am pleased to inform you of the decision of the Government of the Republic of Iraq to allow the return of United Nations weapons inspectors to Iraq without conditions." - Naji Sabri, Iraq's minister of foreign affairs, September 16, 2002 (emphasis added)
The following timeline details the Iraqi regimes repeated pattern of accepting inspections "without conditions" and then demanding conditions, often at gunpoint. This information is derived from an October 1998 UNSCOM report and excerpted from http://cns.miis.edu/research/iraq/uns_chro.htm.

April 3, 1991 U.N. Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), Section C, declares that Iraq shall accept unconditionally, under international supervision, the "destruction, removal or rendering harmless" of its weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range over 150 kilometers (emphasis added). One week later, Iraq accepts Resolution 687. Its provisions were reiterated and reinforced in subsequent action by the United Nations in June and August of 1991.

May 1991 Iraq accepts the privileges and immunities of the Special Commission (UNSCOM) and its personnel. These guarantees include the right of "unrestricted freedom of entry and exit without delay or hindrance of its personnel, property, supplies, equipment ... (emphasis added)."

June 1991 Iraqi personnel fire warning shots to prevent the inspectors from approaching the vehicles.

September 1991 Iraqi officials confiscate documents from the inspectors. The inspectors refuse to yield a second set of documents. In response, Iraq refuses to allow the team to leave the site with these documents. A four-day standoff ensues, but Iraq permits the team to leave with the documents after a statement from the Security Council threatens enforcement actions.

October 11, 1991 The Security Council adopts Resolution 715, which approves joint UNSCOM and IAEA plans for ongoing monitoring and verification. UNSCOMs plan establishes that Iraq shall "accept unconditionally the inspectors and all other personnel designated by the Special Commission" (emphasis added).

October 1991 Iraq states that it considers the Ongoing Monitoring and Verification Plans adopted by Resolution 715 to be unlawful and states that it is not ready to comply with Resolution 715.

February 1992 Iraq refuses to comply with an UNSCOM/IAEA decision to destroy certain facilities used in proscribed programs and related items.

April 1992 Iraq calls for a halt to UNSCOM's aerial surveillance flights, stating that the aircraft and its pilot might be endangered. The President of the Security Council issues a statement reaffirming UNSCOM's right to conduct such flights. Iraq says that it does not intend to carry out any military action aimed at UNSCOM's aerial flights.

July 6-29, 1992 Iraq refuses an inspection team access to the Iraqi Ministry of Agriculture. UNSCOM said it had reliable information that the site contained archives related to proscribed activities. Inspectors gained access only after members of the Council threatened enforcement action.

January 1993 Iraq refuses to allow UNSCOM to use its own aircraft to fly into Iraq.

June-July 1993 Iraq refuses to allow UNSCOM inspectors to install remote-controlled monitoring cameras at two missile engine test stands.

November 26, 1993 Iraq accepts Resolution 715 and the plans for ongoing monitoring and verification.

October 15, 1994 The Security Council adopts Resolution 949, which demands that Iraq "cooperate fully" with UNSCOM and that it withdraw all military units deployed to southern Iraq to their original positions (emphasis added). Iraq withdraws its forces and resumes working with UNSCOM.

March 1996 Iraqi security forces refuse UNSCOM teams access to five sites designated for inspection. The teams enter the sites after delays of up to 17 hours.

March 19, 1996 The Security Council issues a presidential statement expressing its concern over Iraq's behavior, which it terms "a clear violation of Iraq's obligations under relevant resolutions." The council also demands that Iraq allow UNSCOM teams immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to all sites designated for inspection (emphasis added).

March 27, 1996 Security Council Resolution 1051 approves the export/import monitoring mechanism for Iraq and demands that Iraq meet unconditionally all its obligations under the mechanism and cooperate fully with the Special Commission and the director-general of the IAEA (emphasis added).

June 1996 Iraq denies UNSCOM teams access to sites under investigation for their involvement in the "concealment mechanism" for proscribed items.

June 12, 1996 The Security Council adopts Resolution 1060, which terms Iraq's actions a clear violation of the provisions of the council's earlier resolutions. It also demands that Iraq grant "immediate and unrestricted access" to all sites designated for inspection by UNSCOM (emphasis added).

June 13, 1996 Despite the adoption of Resolution 1060, Iraq again denies access to another inspection team.

November 1996 Iraq blocks UNSCOM from removing remnants of missile engines for in-depth analysis outside Iraq.

June 1997 Iraqi escorts on board an UNSCOM helicopter try to physically prevent the UNSCOM pilot from flying the helicopter in the direction of its intended destination.

June 21, 1997 Iraq again blocks UNSCOM teams from entering certain sites for inspection.

June 21, 1997 The Security Council adopts Resolution 1115, which condemns Iraq's actions and demands that Iraq allow UNSCOM's team immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to any sites for inspection and officials for interviews (emphasis added).

September 13, 1997 An Iraqi officer attacks an UNSCOM inspector on board an UNSCOM helicopter while the inspector was attempting to take photographs of unauthorized movement of Iraqi vehicles inside a site designated for inspection.

September 17, 1997 While seeking access to a site declared by Iraq to be "sensitive," UNSCOM inspectors witness and videotape Iraqi guards moving files, burning documents, and dumping ash-filled waste cans into a nearby river.

November 12, 1997 The Security Council adopts Resolution 1137, condemning Iraq for continually violating its obligations, including its decision to seek to impose conditions on cooperation with UNSCOM (emphasis added). The resolution also imposes a travel restriction on Iraqi officials who are responsible for or participated in instances of non-compliance.

November 3, 1997 Iraq demands that US citizens working for UNSCOM leave Iraq immediately.

December 22, 1997 The Security Council issues a statement calling upon the government of Iraq to cooperate fully with the commission and stresses that failure by Iraq to provide immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to any site is an unacceptable and clear violation of Security Council resolutions (emphasis added)

February 20-23, 1998 Iraq signs a Memorandum of Understanding with the United Nations on February 23, 1998. Iraq pledges to accept all relevant Security Council resolutions, to cooperate fully with UNSCOM and the IAEA, and to grant to UNSCOM and the IAEA "immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access for their inspections (emphasis added).

August 5, 1998 The Revolutionary Command Council and the Baath Party Command decide to stop cooperating with UNSCOM and the IAEA until the Security Council agrees to lift the oil embargo as a first step towards ending sanctions.

[Yonivore]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030316-1.html


Statement of the Atlantic Summit: A Vision for Iraq and the Iraqi People

Iraq's talented people, rich culture, and tremendous potential have been hijacked by Saddam Hussein. His brutal regime has reduced a country with a long and proud history to an international pariah that oppresses its citizens, started two wars of aggression against its neighbors, and still poses a grave threat to the security of its region and the world.

Saddam's defiance of United Nations Security Council resolutions demanding the disarmament of his nuclear, chemical, biological, and long-range missile capacity has led to sanctions on Iraq and has undermined the authority of the U.N. For 12 years, the international community has tried to persuade him to disarm and thereby avoid military conflict, most recently through the unanimous adoption of UNSCR 1441. The responsibility is his. If Saddam refuses even now to cooperate fully with the United Nations, he brings on himself the serious consequences foreseen in UNSCR 1441 and previous resolutions.

In these circumstances, we would undertake a solemn obligation to help the Iraqi people build a new Iraq at peace with itself and its neighbors. The Iraqi people deserve to be lifted from insecurity and tyranny, and freed to determine for themselves the future of their country. We envisage a unified Iraq with its territorial integrity respected. All the Iraqi people -- its rich mix of Sunni and Shiite Arabs, Kurds, Turkomen, Assyrians, Chaldeans, and all others -- should enjoy freedom, prosperity, and equality in a united country. We will support the Iraqi people's aspirations for a representative government that upholds human rights and the rule of law as cornerstones of democracy.

We will work to prevent and repair damage by Saddam Hussein's regime to the natural resources of Iraq and pledge to protect them as a national asset of and for the Iraqi people. All Iraqis should share the wealth generated by their national economy. We will seek a swift end to international sanctions, and support an international reconstruction program to help Iraq achieve real prosperity and reintegrate into the global community.

We will fight terrorism in all its forms. Iraq must never again be a haven for terrorists of any kind.

In achieving this vision, we plan to work in close partnership with international institutions, including the United Nations; our Allies and partners; and bilateral donors. If conflict occurs, we plan to seek the adoption, on an urgent basis, of new United Nations Security Council resolutions that would affirm Iraq's territorial integrity, ensure rapid delivery of humanitarian relief, and endorse an appropriate post-conflict administration for Iraq. We will also propose that the Secretary General be given authority, on an interim basis, to ensure that the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people continue to be met through the Oil for Food program.

Any military presence, should it be necessary, will be temporary and intended to promote security and elimination of weapons of mass destruction; the delivery of humanitarian aid; and the conditions for the reconstruction of Iraq. Our commitment to support the people of Iraq will be for the long term.

We call upon the international community to join with us in helping to realize a better future for the Iraqi people.

[Yonivore]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030322.html


President Discusses Beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom
President's Radio Address

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. American and coalition forces have begun a concerted campaign against the regime of Saddam Hussein. In this war, our coalition is broad, more than 40 countries from across the globe. Our cause is just, the security of the nations we serve and the peace of the world. And our mission is clear, to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people.

The future of peace and the hopes of the Iraqi people now depend on our fighting forces in the Middle East. They are conducting themselves in the highest traditions of the American military. They are doing their job with skill and bravery, and with the finest of allies beside them. At every stage of this conflict the world will see both the power of our military, and the honorable and decent spirit of the men and women who serve.

In this conflict, American and coalition forces face enemies who have no regard for the conventions of war or rules of morality. Iraqi officials have placed troops and equipment in civilian areas, attempting to use innocent men, women and children as shields for the dictator's army. I want Americans and all the world to know that coalition forces will make every effort to spare innocent civilians from harm.

A campaign on harsh terrain in a vast country could be longer and more difficult than some have predicted. And helping Iraqis achieve a united, stable, and free country will require our sustained commitment. Yet, whatever is required of us, we will carry out all the duties we have accepted.

Across America this weekend, the families of our military are praying that our men and women will return safely and soon. Millions of Americans are praying with them for the safety of their loved ones and for the protection of all the innocent. Our entire nation appreciates the sacrifices made by military families, and many citizens who live near military families are showing their support in practical ways, such as by helping with child care, or home repairs. All families with loved ones serving in this war can know this: Our forces will be coming home as soon as their work is done.

Our nation entered this conflict reluctantly, yet with a clear and firm purpose. The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder. Now that conflict has come, the only way to limit its duration is to apply decisive force. This will not be a campaign of half-measures. It is a fight for the security of our nation and the peace of the world, and we will accept no outcome but victory.

Thank you for listening.

[Yonivore]

Just the stuff I could find, leading up to the invasion, that talked about things other than WMDs.

[clambake]

yeah, throw in the kitchen sink, or anything else that can mask the stink. i think we also accused him of stealing martha stewart recipes.

[George Gervin's Afro]

well saddam did try to kill bush's daddy.

[xrayzebra]

Gee, I read all the stuff Bush has done. Don't you just wished
Clinton was back in office and none of this stuff would have happened. Just a "little" sex in the White House. Well maybe a
"whole lot of sex". But hey it doesn't matter. We know old Bill
could control himself, I mean who could have someone giving
them a little head, while talking on the telephone. Oppps,
I forgot oral is not sex.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Gee, I read all the stuff Bush has done. Don't you just wished
Clinton was back in office and none of this stuff would have happened. Just a "little" sex in the White House. Well maybe a
"whole lot of sex". But hey it doesn't matter. We know old Bill
could control himself, I mean who could have someone giving
them a little head, while talking on the telephone. Oppps,
I forgot oral is not sex.


gee a sexual buffet or an unecessary war.. hmm tough one..

[xrayzebra]

gee a sexual buffet or an unecessary war.. hmm tough one..

Yeah, and just think, Bush blew up the WTC, not those
silly bastards that blew up our Embassies, shot down our
black hawks, blew up a warship. Ah, hell you know. They
were just funnin, Clinton had it all under control. Right?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Yeah, and just think, Bush blew up the WTC, not those
silly bastards that blew up our Embassies, shot down our
black hawks, blew up a warship. Ah, hell you know. They
were just funnin, Clinton had it all under control. Right?


you asked me what i preferred and i told you.

[Yonivore]

well saddam did try to kill bush's daddy.
Tried to assassinate a president of the United States. Yet another reason. Thanks.

[Yonivore]

gee a sexual buffet or an unecessary war.. hmm tough one..
If the war were unnecessary and the case against President Clinton were about sex, you'd have yet another point on top of the head of yours.

[George Gervin's Afro]

If the war were unnecessary and the case against President Clinton were about sex, you'd have yet another point on top of the head of yours.


that;s right 25% of the dead enders of this country still believe that Iraq had is related with the war on terror.. you don't get it do you? The American public doesn't buy that iraq is a necessary war in fighting terrorism...and rightfully so..

[Holt's Cat]

Iraq was invaded to deal with the threat posed by 20 Muslim fanatics with box cutters.

[xrayzebra]

that;s right 25% of the dead enders of this country still believe that Iraq had is related with the war on terror.. you don't get it do you? The American public doesn't buy that iraq is a necessary war in fighting terrorism...and rightfully so..

You are the American Public? I don't think so.

[Yonivore]

Iraq was invaded to deal with the threat posed by 20 Muslim fanatics with box cutters.
No, but keeping them from trading in the box cutters for something a bit more lethal was part of the rationale.

Thanks for playing, pick up your parting gift on the way out.

[George Gervin's Afro]

No, but keeping them from trading in the box cutters for something a bit more lethal was part of the rationale.

Thanks for playing, pick up your parting gift on the way out.


Right so we attacked the country without anything more lethal..brilliant!

[ChumpDumper]

Tried to assassinate a president of the United States. Yet another reason. Thanks.Clinton lobbed a cruise missile into their intel service headquarters in response. Result -- no more actions against the US.

Clinton lobbed more cruise missiles and bombs into Iraq during Desert Fox. Result -- complete stoppage of WMD programs and an intense uprising that almost toppled Saddam's regime unintentionally.

Iraq was no threat to the US. At best they were going to get into another protracted war with Iran. Wouldn't that be terrible?

[George Gervin's Afro]

You are the American Public? I don't think so.


ray you can deny it all you want but there is a reason why public support for Iraq is relegated to the war whores..

[ChumpDumper]

No, but keeping them from trading in the box cutters for something a bit more lethal was part of the rationale.Except they would never get anything from Saddam, the kind of person they hate more than Americans. Your rationale is a lie.

[Yonivore]

ray you can deny it all you want but there is a reason why public support for Iraq is relegated to the war whores..
Yes, Democrats, with a complicit media, have waged a successful campaign of disinformation about the war culminating with the Harry Reid lie, last year, that the war was irretreivably lost.

Keep talking George because as the war is becoming more and more apparently won, the opinion will shift and you, sir, will find yourself in the minority on Iraq, once again.

Americans are fickle. That's all. They're fair weather fans. Particularly when answering anonymous polls with leading questions. Convince them we're doing poorly in something and they'll oppose it for fear of being on the wrong side. Succeed, and they were right there with you all along.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Yes, Democrats, with a complicit media, have waged a successful campaign of disinformation about the war culminating with the Harry Reid lie, last year, that the war was irretreivably lost.

Keep talking George because as the war is becoming more and more apparently won, the opinion will shift and you, sir, will find yourself in the minority on Iraq, once again.

Americans are fickle. That's all. They're fair weather fans. Particularly when answering anonymous polls with leading questions. Convince them we're doing poorly in something and they'll oppose it for fear of being on the wrong side. Succeed, and they were right there with you all along.


The American people want to get out of iraq. All the american public has gotten is 'we're the turning the corner' crap. Bush still can't articulate what victory is so whenever we get there the American people won't reflect and say oh well this war was worth it afterall and now since we are winning I support it.. do you think they are stupid?

[Yonivore]

The American people want to get out of iraq.
No shit? I want to get out of Iraq too. If that poll question doesn't get a 100% response, there are some pretty ignorant people in this country.


All the american public has gotten is 'we're the turning the corner' crap. Bush still can't articulate what victory is so whenever we get there the American people won't reflect and say oh well this war was worth it afterall and now since we are winning I support it.. do you think they are stupid?
I think you're stupid. I also think American sentiment is getting ready to make a seismic shift back in favor of a winning war in Iraq. And, that's my opinion.

[xrayzebra]

The American people want to get out of iraq. All the american public has gotten is 'we're the turning the corner' crap. Bush still can't articulate what victory is so whenever we get there the American people won't reflect and say oh well this war was worth it afterall and now since we are winning I support it.. do you think they are stupid?

Do you ever read anything but this forum. We have
turned the corner in Iraq. People are returning from other
countries. There is a whole long way to go. But there was
before we got there. But now they have a chance to
be real people. And determine what they want. And
rest assured, we are not a conquering army like some
would want you to believe.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Do you ever read anything but this forum. We have
turned the corner in Iraq. People are returning from other
countries. There is a whole long way to go. But there was
before we got there. But now they have a chance to
be real people. And determine what they want. And
rest assured, we are not a conquering army like some
would want you to believe.


None of that changes the fact that most Americans don't connect Iraq with the war on terror. I am no military expert but it would make sense that if we had more boots on the ground we could hold more ground. that would concieveably make things safer. However the solution is a political one so please forgive me for not delcaring victory just yet. let's assume this all works out and we have victory parades across the USA.. still doesn't change the fact that the majority of Americans don't connect Iraq with the war on terror..

[Nbadan]

Keep talking George because as the war is becoming more and more apparently won, the opinion will shift and you, sir, will find yourself in the minority on Iraq, once again.

Let's see how sympathetic the people are when they are paying $3-$4 for a gallon of gas because the hidden costs of the war have devalued the dollar even more...

[boutons_]

European politicians have had the balls and prudence to tax gasoline into the $7 range many years ago.

As one of many results, the Euro Ford Focus gets 55 mph highway, while the US Ford Focus gets 35 mph highway, with US car mfrs saying it's impossible even to meet an aggressive CAFE (which wasn't passed anyway) before 2020.

There is a conspiracy between oilcos, Detroit, and their D.C. whores, a drug-dealing triumvirate, to keep America addicted to oil.

[ricky_cooper]

Yes you are right let's see how sympathetic the people really are. Not only the hidden costs of the war have devalued the dollar but it's the % of medication also. What you say???

[Nbadan]

What you say?


Eh, anyway...


Petraeus adviser: Violence reduction due to ‘luck.’


In an interview with the Council on Foreign Relations, Gen. David Petraeus’s adviser Steven Biddle said that much of the U.S.’s recent “tactical successes” in Iraq have little to do with the impact of Bush’s escalation but instead are largely “luck.”

Q: Well what do you attribute this whole change on the ground to? Is this due to what is called “the surge,” or good diplomacy by the U.S. military, or just luck]?

BIDDLE: All of those things have some role but I would put “luck” as probably the biggest.

Link (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/11/15/petraeus-adviser-violence-reduction-due-to-luck)

[xrayzebra]

European politicians have had the balls and prudence to tax gasoline into the $7 range many years ago.

As one of many results, the Euro Ford Focus gets 55 mph highway, while the US Ford Focus gets 35 mph highway, with US car mfrs saying it's impossible even to meet an aggressive CAFE (which wasn't passed anyway) before 2020.

There is a conspiracy between oilcos, Detroit, and their D.C. whores, a drug-dealing triumvirate, to keep America addicted to oil.

First place, their gallon is bigger than ours, but they
sell their gas by the liter.

Secondly, I really don't want to drive a tin can like they
do on the so called high mileage cars. Their Mercedes
and other cars get comparable mileage to ours.
Another little difference, they don't have all the smog
control devices on their cars. They just started their
programs in Europe. And all transportation (public/private)
is expensive. Unless you are a senior citizen and retired.
Then you get special passes for non-rushhour travel on
public buses/the underground.

[DarkReign]

Its been a good discourse, so I will try and continue the trend.


Yes, some things, many things, to those effects. I think the disconnect comes in that the press glommed onto the WMD aspect of the equation. In addition to Colin Powell's presentation to the U.N. (which, by the way, was more about justifying concerns over WMDs than justifying an invasion because of WMDs), there were speeches and pleas regarding his human rights abuses, his environmental crimes, his acts of aggression on military assets in the no-fly zone, his repeated defiance of U.N. inspectors and the nearly 2 dozen UNSC resolutions passed immediately after the '91 war and in the subsequent decade, his continued threats against Kuwait, and his stiff-backed posture toward Iran. All of these things were discussed.

I think the media agreed with those premises and, therefore, didn't see the need to play them up like the "sexy" WMD angle. But, that's just me....because, for my part, I distinctly remember the administration railing on each of the points you raised. They formed the backbone of the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq that was passed by Congress in 2002.

Here, I believe, youre being disingenuous again. The media certainly glommed on to the WMDs, that much is true (and still true). But the reason for their "focused reporting" so to speak, was because that was the major selling point of invading Iraq. I appreciate the quick links and quotes you provided showing the various talking points and resolutions laid out by the White House, but it isnt some mass misunderstanding of the American people that WMDs were the sole reason for our invasion.

I am not trying to be sarcastic, but do I need to link the inevitable YouTube video that shows Bush say "WMDs" and "weapons of mass destruction" about 300 times in 7 months?

Thats from a President that has the all-time low public appearance/speech record in American history, nevermind the TV era.

Bush sold the WMD angle to not only the press, but worse yet the world. the White House talking heads went on any show in any part of the country, day and night, repeating the same slop spewed from the top.

The whole reason any of us, anyone in the country even knows the acronym "WMDs" is because our president recited the phrase numerous times in every speech he has made pertaining to anything remotely related to the word "Iraq" (side note: he and Guliani have a bet going...how many times Bush can say WMDs and how many times Rudy can say 9/11...its a tie for "terrorism/terrorist").

So, again, I believe youre being disingenuous about why WMDs are the sticking point for Iraq and President Bush. Is disingenuous the right word? Because youve never, ever come across to me as ignorant. Far from it.


But, regardless of what you believe you were told, isn't the net affect the same? We deposed a horrible tyrant, are stabilizing a volatile region of the world, establishing a friendly base in the middle east, and ensuring (regardless of the status of his programs in 2003) that Saddam Hussein will never possess or use WMDs again.

No?

Well, certainly it matters to me. It matters to everyone. It obviously mattered to the White House because if they felt they could have sold the "UN Resolutions" angle alone, they would have emphasized that aspect a whole helluva lot more than the "WMD" angle. But the strategists must have felt that the "UN" angle wasnt enough to sway the American people, IMO. So they "chose their hill to die on". It matters because the ends do not always justify the means. There is a good reason that phrase was coined long, long ago.

Powell's presentation at the UN wasnt a footnote, as you make it to sound. It was profound! It was the turning point. Powell, before and up until it became obvious that no WMDs were going to surface in Iraq, had an impeccable reputation. Respected not only by his own people, but worldwide. He was a military general of the highest regard, far and wide, and an ambassador of American policy here and abroad.

Him holding a vile of "white powder" and staring into the eyes and cameras telling the world that Iraq was indeed a threat with mass-destruction capabilities carried FAR more weight than our English-averse President and his cowboy attitude.

Bush is the American stereotype, and he played it to the hilt for 6 years of Presidency. The past 2 years hes toned that down to an almost negligible degree.


I don't think it was fear mongering. If you consider everyone believed it to be true, that Saddam Hussein himself wasn't disabusing anyone of that belief with his actions, and if you put it in the context of September 11, his arming terrorists with WMDs was a very real possibility.

We disagree then. In my mind, it was absolutely fear-mongering. Using the memory of 9/11 as a springboard to garner support for a war. Calling on Americans less than a year later to support military action against a vicious dictator who had never been friendly with Al Queda....certainly not as friendly and enabling as other Arab nations (cough...Saudi Arabia...).

So, that kind of moots the AQ angle on Iraq. Sure, theyre there now, why wouldnt they be? Its a war zone with enemy targets for them to attack. A playground of sorts for the revenge minded religious zealots and their Jihad against the Imperialists. Galvanizing further the complete and utter disdain the Arab world holds for the West (America in particular).


We'll just have to disagree on this point. I think it was one of the least political moves he's made. Obviously, it's gotten him raked over the political coals, he's lost all of the political capital he amassed, and his political popularity plummetted. I don't think it was a political move at all.

I believe it was. It divided the country in near-perfect half. It won him a second presidency, because who was going to elect someone else to run his war? Did Republicans not completely sweep the Congressional ballots? Did I not hear the President say, and I quote "I have earned a lot of political capital, and I intend to spend it." after his party had record gains in both houses?

It was political, and it worked beyond their expectations (I think anyway). But rapture only lasts so long.



I appreciate the dialog.

As do I.

[ChumpDumper]

The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason,

[George Gervin's Afro]

We disagree then. In my mind, it was absolutely fear-mongering. Using the memory of 9/11 as a springboard to garner support for a war. Calling on Americans less than a year later to support military action against a vicious dictator who had never been friendly with Al Queda....

BINGO! we have a winner..

[Yonivore]

Its been a good discourse, so I will try and continue the trend.
Very good, let's give it a go.


Here, I believe, youre being disingenuous again. The media certainly glommed on to the WMDs, that much is true (and still true). But the reason for their "focused reporting" so to speak, was because that was the major selling point of invading Iraq. I appreciate the quick links and quotes you provided showing the various talking points and resolutions laid out by the White House, but it isnt some mass misunderstanding of the American people that WMDs were the sole reason for our invasion.

I am not trying to be sarcastic, but do I need to link the inevitable YouTube video that shows Bush say "WMDs" and "weapons of mass destruction" about 300 times in 7 months?

Thats from a President that has the all-time low public appearance/speech record in American history, nevermind the TV era.

Bush sold the WMD angle to not only the press, but worse yet the world. the White House talking heads went on any show in any part of the country, day and night, repeating the same slop spewed from the top.

The whole reason any of us, anyone in the country even knows the acronym "WMDs" is because our president recited the phrase numerous times in every speech he has made pertaining to anything remotely related to the word "Iraq" (side note: he and Guliani have a bet going...how many times Bush can say WMDs and how many times Rudy can say 9/11...its a tie for "terrorism/terrorist").

So, again, I believe youre being disingenuous about why WMDs are the sticking point for Iraq and President Bush. Is disingenuous the right word? Because youve never, ever come across to me as ignorant. Far from it.
I'm ignorant about many things, and all the information that went into the decision to invade Iraq may be something very few have a firm grasp on.

But, I've arrived at a few conclusions based on what we've been told, what I know, and how people behaved prior to, and after, the invasion. So, let me re-frame my position a bit.

I believe that everyone involved, except for Saddam Hussein himself, believed that Iraq possessed WMD's. If I were president, and I firmly believed it, that would be the point I would most vocalize because that is the point that poses the most potential danger to the United States security.

Now, having said that, having WMD's alone aren't a reason to invade a country. Without the human rights abuses, without the aggression against his neighbors and own citizens, without the environmental crimes, without the dozen years of ignoring the UNSC and their resolutions, without the 8 year period of frustrating inspectors, without the increasing corruption that threatened to undermine sanctions, without the Oil for Food scandal that allowed him to enrich his weapons programs and regime, without the rape rooms and torture chambers, without the knowledge that he was providing sanctuary to Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas terror organizations, without the $25,000 payments to terrorists in Israel, without the congratulatory articles in regime publications for the September 11 attacks, without Salman Pak, without his history of using WMDs, without the claims that he had WMDs in order to intimidate Iran; without all those things -- he's no threat.

With all those things AND weapons of mass destruction, he's a menace we can't afford to ignore in the aftermath of September 11. It's not that he had WMD's, many countries have them; it's that he was who he was and had WMD's.

If an escaped murderer comes at you with his hand in his pocket as if he's holding a gun and you saw him with a gun that morning, you're not going to sell the premise he's a murderer by talking about his past offenses, you're going to point at him and say, he's coming at me with a gun...you assume, at that point, everyone knows he's a murderer and capable.

The administration always framed the debate -- as far as I'm concerned -- that the WMDs were important because of who had them and because of what he was capable of and liable to do with them.

Did we invade because he had rape rooms? No. But, did we invade because his total disregard of what was internationally acceptable easily led one to believe he was capable of using WMDs we believed he had? Absolutely.


Well, certainly it matters to me. It matters to everyone. It obviously mattered to the White House because if they felt they could have sold the "UN Resolutions" angle alone, they would have emphasized that aspect a whole helluva lot more than the "WMD" angle. But the strategists must have felt that the "UN" angle wasnt enough to sway the American people, IMO. So they "chose their hill to die on". It matters because the ends do not always justify the means. There is a good reason that phrase was coined long, long ago.

Powell's presentation at the UN wasnt a footnote, as you make it to sound. It was profound! It was the turning point. Powell, before and up until it became obvious that no WMDs were going to surface in Iraq, had an impeccable reputation. Respected not only by his own people, but worldwide. He was a military general of the highest regard, far and wide, and an ambassador of American policy here and abroad.

Him holding a vile of "white powder" and staring into the eyes and cameras telling the world that Iraq was indeed a threat with mass-destruction capabilities carried FAR more weight than our English-averse President and his cowboy attitude.

Bush is the American stereotype, and he played it to the hilt for 6 years of Presidency. The past 2 years hes toned that down to an almost negligible degree.
Your premise relies on a belief they were lying about WMD's. And, in that context, I have no answer but to say, there's is no one, of any consequence, on the face of the planet that did not believe Saddam Hussein had WMDs on March 15, 2003.

Democrats thought so, the previous administration still believes President Bush was justified in invading based on what they knew about Saddam Hussein. Our international allies believed he did.


We disagree then. In my mind, it was absolutely fear-mongering. Using the memory of 9/11 as a springboard to garner support for a war. Calling on Americans less than a year later to support military action against a vicious dictator who had never been friendly with Al Queda....certainly not as friendly and enabling as other Arab nations (cough...Saudi Arabia...).
Never been friendly with al Qaeda? Not exactly true. Besides, why would al Qaeda face a vastly superior military in a country in which they weren't invested unless it were an important front in the war? Al Qaeda, it seems to me, would take the opportunity to wreak havoc in countries where we didn't have a couple of hundred thousand soldiers.

The fact is, Iraq was important to al Qaeda. And, regardless of what you believe, al Qaeda was in Iraq before we invaded...and, in large numbers.

Why did Zarqawi and his followers (all al Qaeda) flee to Iraq after the invasion of Afghanistan? And, why isn't that, in itself, a good justification for invading Iraq?

Of course, that's sad for the Iraqi people but, they can only blame their former despot and al Qaeda. And, if you read some of the more recent reports, that's exactly who they blame for their plight.

So, all in all, the Iraq war is paying off. Al Qaeda has been defeated in what they called the principle front of the their war with us and Saddam Hussein is dead and buried.


So, that kind of moots the AQ angle on Iraq. Sure, theyre there now, why wouldnt they be? Its a war zone with enemy targets for them to attack. A playground of sorts for the revenge minded religious zealots and their Jihad against the Imperialists. Galvanizing further the complete and utter disdain the Arab world holds for the West (America in particular).
Well, that leads to the obvious, if cynical, question of why couldn't Iraq have been a battlefield of opportunity? What if -- and this could be one of those things of which we're ignorant -- we invaded Iraq with the belief it would draw al Qaeda out of their entrenched and nearly inaccessible stronghold in Afghanistan and Pakistan, into a battlefield that was more level?

Where else would you like to have faced them? Here?


I believe it was. It divided the country in near-perfect half. It won him a second presidency, because who was going to elect someone else to run his war? Did Republicans not completely sweep the Congressional ballots? Did I not hear the President say, and I quote "I have earned a lot of political capital, and I intend to spend it." after his party had record gains in both houses?

It was political, and it worked beyond their expectations (I think anyway). But rapture only lasts so long.
I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this.


As do I.
Cheers.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I believe it was. It divided the country in near-perfect half. It won him a second presidency, because who was going to elect someone else to run his war? Did Republicans not completely sweep the Congressional ballots? Did I not hear the President say, and I quote "I have earned a lot of political capital, and I intend to spend it." after his party had record gains in both houses?

It was political, and it worked beyond their expectations (I think anyway). But rapture only lasts so long.




In the re-election, the president with a relatively strong economy, and a war in progress, managed to eke out 51 percent. Why? Because Rove preferred to divide the country and get his 51 percent, than unite it and get America's 60. In a time of grave danger and war, Rove picked party over country. Such a choice was and remains despicable.

[DarkReign]

I will respond to the entirety of your post tomorrow (probably). Im much too busy at work today.

But


Your premise relies on a belief they were lying about WMD's. ...

By no means am I trying to imply the WH lied. Maybe one or two individuals did, I have no idea. But I wholeheartedly believe the President and Powell believed Iraq had WMDs. Now, how convinced where they? Was there political pressure to endorse such things? Etc, etc?

I have no idea. For sake of being objective, I will operate under the pretense that they were not lying, they were just wrong. Geraldo Rivera-Jimmy Hoffa's-Vault kind of wrong.

[xrayzebra]

DR, how may resolutions did the UN pass on Iraq? I am not
trying to be a smart ass. But how many? Bush was not the first
to go to the UN.

[Yonivore]

I will respond to the entirety of your post tomorrow (probably). Im much too busy at work today.

But

By no means am I trying to imply the WH lied. Maybe one or two individuals did, I have no idea. But I wholeheartedly believe the President and Powell believed Iraq had WMDs. Now, how convinced where they? Was there political pressure to endorse such things? Etc, etc?

I have no idea. For sake of being objective, I will operate under the pretense that they were not lying, they were just wrong. Geraldo Rivera-Jimmy Hoffa's-Vault kind of wrong.
I'm not hanging my hat on the link I'm about to post but, I believe that as time passes and more and more of Iraq's captured regime documents are translated and made public, what you read in the linked article will be more and more historically accurate and credible.

I honestly believe Saddam Hussein had WMDs and that history will vindicate this belief.

Shattering Conventional Wisdom About Saddam's WMD's (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=F715A709-2614-4EA5-967C-F6151F94A364)

[xrayzebra]

I'm not hanging my hat on the link I'm about to post but, I believe that as time passes and more and more of Iraq's captured regime documents are translated and made public, what you read in the linked article will be more and more historically accurate and credible.

I honestly believe Saddam Hussein had WMDs and that history will vindicate this belief.

Shattering Conventional Wisdom About Saddam's WMD's (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=F715A709-2614-4EA5-967C-F6151F94A364)

Yoni, I too believe he had them. He used them and
they simply did not disappear into thin air. The
worrisome thing is that Bush haters want to
fix themselves on Bush and not what happened to the
WMD. They exist, but where?

[clambake]

They exist, but where?
history has shown that they're in the land of make believe.

this is too important of an issue to stop pretending, now.

[xrayzebra]

history has shown that they're in the land of make believe.

this is too important of an issue to stop pretending, now.

Take a deep breath. I will tell you when to exhale.

[ChumpDumper]

They're still translating the documents!
So again, why didn't we get the information straight from Saddam in the six months we had him in custody?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Yoni, I too believe he had them. He used them and
they simply did not disappear into thin air. The
worrisome thing is that Bush haters want to
fix themselves on Bush and not what happened to the
WMD. They exist, but where?


UH what? Saddam was acting like he had them ray. haven't you kept up with the news? saddam admitted he didn't have them but he wanted Iran and the rest of the world to believe he did. Jesus Ray get you news from more outlets than talk radio and fox news..

[George Gervin's Afro]

So again, why didn't we get the information straight from Saddam in the six months we had him in custody?


or why didn't we get ONE prisoner/scientist/general etc to sell saddam out? you would think we could find one weasel to give up the wmds? Yet Yoni wants to hold out hope that those papers will save bush...

[Yonivore]

It's obvious neither George nor SpunkChump read the article.

[clambake]

It's obvious neither George nor SpunkChump read the article.
i read the article. did the writers come off strike already? because that was quite a tale. better get mouse on it.

[George Gervin's Afro]

It's obvious neither George nor SpunkChump read the article.




Saddam’s nuclear documents compel any reasonable person to the conclusion that, more probably than not, there were in fact nuclear WMD sites, components, and programs hidden inside Iraq at the time the Coalition forces invaded. In view of these newly discovered documents, it can be concluded, more probably than not, that Saddam did have a nuclear weapons program in 2001-2002, and that it is reasonably certain that he would have continued his efforts towards making a nuclear bomb in 2003 had he not been stopped by the Coalition forces.

[boutons_]

The intentional distraction continues.

Iraq invasion was exclusively about oil.
WMD was just one of the bullshit pretexts covering the oil grab.

Notice yoni and similar don't ever say exactly how Saddam was going to deliver his bombs of nuclear paper secrets to the USA, or anywhere else.

With the US camped and armed right next door in SA, he must have known, esp after the Gulf War,

Debating WMD with yoni and similar ilk is exactly what the false-narrative-pushing dubya suckers and neo-cunts want.

It's the same old lying bullshit about Iran. Even if Iran has nukes, it doesn't have the means to deliver them onto the USA (like Saddam's WMD, no threat to USA) and Iran knows the retaliation for Iran attacking USA or Israel would be massive and would totally destroy the Iranian military, which is minuscule compared to US and NATO.

Why would dubya and dickhead be so fucking afraid of emasculated, beaten Iraq and tiny Iran? They weren't, they aren't. It's all about the oil grab, not about US security.

[ChumpDumper]

It's obvious neither George nor SpunkChump read the article.I read the article, dipshit.

We had Saddam in custody for SIX MONTHS.

Why didn't we find out about the WMDs from him using our never-fail interrogation methods?

Why spend time translating documents that may or may not be fake WHEN YOU HAVE THE DICTATOR OF IRAQ IN YOUR CUSTODY FOR SIX MONTHS?

Thank God bloggers are spreading the word about underwater nuke facilities. Bush is either completely ignorant about them or doesn't think they justify the war.

Or they simply don't exist.

Not that it matters anyway. The only country he would've used nuke on is Iran. He was no threat to the US.

[clambake]

i did like the story, but i prefer "cloak and dagger". wasn't that in SA?