| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/04/2005 11:36:29 AM · #176 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Please explain to me the relevance of Democrats supporting the President in war in a discussion about an outing of an undercover CIA agent. I would be railing just as loudly against a Democratic administration who had invaded under false pretenses, committed torture and war crimes, and who leads down a ruinous path. Bringing this up is to me just a diversion from the issue. |
So don't bring it up.
I think you are trying to trick me.
Above, GeneralE posted the "war" reply to RonB and you posted a reply related to it and commenting on the distinction of "invasion".
Don't bring it up if you don't want to.
|
|
|
|
11/04/2005 12:43:53 PM · #177 |
Originally posted by srdanz:
Would you care to elaborate how exactly was the US involved in war in Bosnia? I don't recall any involvement that resembles war. (Maybe by some lame lawyer definition it is war, but please specify why do you think it was the war)
edit to add: Bosnia definitivey was at war, but I am asking about US involvement here. |
The US was involved because Pres. Clinton sent several thousand troops to Bosnia in the NATO deployment as "peacekeepers".
If you think that it was only by "some lame lawyer definition" that it was war when the US was involved, then you must think the same about the current US involvement in Iraq. |
|
|
|
11/04/2005 01:21:29 PM · #178 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Some quotations as cited in this article:
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998. |
It's instructive to read the quotations from the Democratic leaders in their full context, which is also provided in the same article to which RonB linked, along with this explanation:
"All of the quotes listed above are substantially correct reproductions of statements made by various Democratic leaders regarding Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's acquisition or possession of weapons of mass destruction. However, some of the quotes are truncated, and context is provided for none of them — several of these quotes were offered in the course of statements that clearly indicated the speaker was decidedly against unilateral military intervention in Iraq by the U.S. Moreover, several of the quotes offered antedate the four nights of airstrikes unleashed against Iraq by U.S. and British forces during Operation Desert Fox in December 1998, after which Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen and Gen. Henry H. Shelton (chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) announced the action had been successful in "degrad[ing] Saddam Hussein's ability to deliver chemical, biological and nuclear weapons."
In the section below where we highlight these quotes, we've tried to provide sufficient surrounding material to make clear the context in which the quotes were offered as well as include links to the full text from which they were derived wherever possible."
link |
|
|
|
11/04/2005 01:40:25 PM · #179 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by RonB:
Some quotations as cited in this article:
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998. |
It's instructive to read the quotations from the Democratic leaders in their full context, which is also provided in the same article to which RonB linked, along with this explanation:
"All of the quotes listed above are substantially correct reproductions of statements made by various Democratic leaders regarding Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's acquisition or possession of weapons of mass destruction. However, some of the quotes are truncated, and context is provided for none of them — several of these quotes were offered in the course of statements that clearly indicated the speaker was decidedly against unilateral military intervention in Iraq by the U.S. Moreover, several of the quotes offered antedate the four nights of airstrikes unleashed against Iraq by U.S. and British forces during Operation Desert Fox in December 1998, after which Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen and Gen. Henry H. Shelton (chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) announced the action had been successful in "degrad[ing] Saddam Hussein's ability to deliver chemical, biological and nuclear weapons."
In the section below where we highlight these quotes, we've tried to provide sufficient surrounding material to make clear the context in which the quotes were offered as well as include links to the full text from which they were derived wherever possible."
link |
Perhaps it would be just as instructive to read the context in which the quotes GeneralE posted were made. I could do that, but I won't because I don't find it necessary. First of all, I don't dispute that the quotes that GeneralE posted are essentially accurate, and secondly, I don't feel the need to try and make it seem that that's not what they ( the Republicans ) really meant, though apparently, in the case of the Democrats, you do. |
|
|
|
11/04/2005 08:30:56 PM · #180 |
| Ron, you're the one who cited the article where those quotes appear in context. If you didn't want people to see them that way (perhaps because the reader might come away with a different impression than what you intended), then you shouldn't have posted a link to the article in the first place. |
|
|
|
11/04/2005 09:24:41 PM · #181 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Ron, you're the one who cited the article where those quotes appear in context. If you didn't want people to see them that way (perhaps because the reader might come away with a different impression than what you intended), then you shouldn't have posted a link to the article in the first place. |
In fact, you are exactly correct. If I was afraid that "the reader might come away with a different impression" than what I intended, I could have easily omitted the link - if, that is, my intentions were to deceive. I didn't because I was NOT afraid. I've NEVER been afraid of the truth - that is, when it IS the truth.
The real question, then, is did the TRUTHOUT.ORG article show the context around the quotes in their article? The answer, of course, is NO!. Why not? you might ask. Well, continue asking, but don't expect an answer from the democratic spinmeisters. WHY? Well, that, as they say, is the 64 thousand dollar question. |
|
|
|
11/04/2005 10:00:07 PM · #182 |
Originally posted by RonB:
The US was involved because Pres. Clinton sent several thousand troops to Bosnia in the NATO deployment as "peacekeepers".
If you think that it was only by "some lame lawyer definition" that it was war when the US was involved, then you must think the same about the current US involvement in Iraq. |
Neither the NATO nor the US were ever involved in the conflict. NATO and the US carefully avoided any involvement until the peace accord was signed and virtually all the hostilities stopped. UN had their peacekeeping corps a.k.a. UNPROFOR or FORPRONU (Fr.) from 1992 to 1996 when the said US (Richard Holbrooke) brokered peace accort was signed in Dayton, OH. Only then NATO and the US stepped on the Bosnian soil. If any US soldiers were wounded, that was from driving or spraining ankles while playing soccer.
US Administration's policy during the war in Bosnia was one of the noninvolvement. I know that not from reading articles on the wikipedia, nor from right wing or left wing talkshows. I know that because I was there, begging for the US and NATO to intervene and stop the genocide, but no, that wasn't the policy at the time.
US did, after a long time, decided to drop a couple of bombs on Belgrade, but only after Belgrade attempted to repeat the same genocide in Kosovo. You may even argue that there was some kind of war there, but that's whole different conflict. I beg you to explore the administration policy:
1) their blocking of attempts of Bosnian government to lift the arms embargo imposed by the UN
2) insisting on the UN peacekeeping mission instead of Kuwait-style UN peacemaking mission while tens of thousands of people were killed in the middle of Europe.
So, go on with your rant on CIA and Rove and Libby and Bush et. al. but leave Bosnia alone, and especially do not attempt to use it against Clinton's white house accusing it for something that he should have done but he didn't.
Oh, another difference between Bosnia and Irak: People of Bosnia actually repeatedly asked for military intervention, and would have embraced the US troops (like they eventually did when the same arrived in Bosnia 4 years late), while noone from Irak actually invited US troops to make the peace where there was no war.
And. no one here gives a flying f**k what happened in Bosnia, same as no one here will give a f**k about what is happening in Irak today, except for a couple of thousand (less than 0.004% of US population) directly affected families. And unfortunately, these families mostly do not have means to have their voice heard.
And for all of you that are still reading this post, thank you. Unfortunately, the truth is different from different positions, kind of like those hologram photos, two people looking at it from different angles see completely different thing. The sooner we agree on that, the sooner this forum will talk more about photography.
best regards to all
-Serge |
|
|
|
11/04/2005 10:25:55 PM · #183 |
Serge -- thanks for the update/reminder. The place I work printed a lot of posters and flyers promoting relief efforts for Bosnia.
I notice no "peacekeepers" were sent to Rwanda or Darfur when there were known genocides in progress either. But then I bet they aren't sitting on top of huge oil reserves ... |
|
|
|
11/04/2005 11:29:49 PM · #184 |
are People still talking about NATO? I can't believe my eyes. NATO was all about peace, yes..but if there is a failure to listen and war is imminent, all the peacekeepers in the world can't do a thing except hope for a large revolt. NATO never backed the war to begin with, did the Bush administration listen? NO. What can NATO do to stop tyranny, Such as mass civilian casualties, crimes against humanity, the torturing and of course the fraud documents fabricated and used as a pretext for war. Our allies were never our allies at all. Bush's Goons are taking the heat now, in order to gain the public support and approval back for mr George the great. He was misled, just like us americans were. What a joke..
Remember its the newspapers which shape peoples thinking, and the mainstream media has plans for making Bush a good guy again. They always say Cheney's top aide. Never Bush's aides.
Nothing will happen to Libby anyways...the people are very forgetful and the masses will allow these gangsters to get away with murder, and ride off into the sunset with nothing but rising shares and fat pockets.
Message edited by author 2005-11-04 23:33:47. |
|
|
|
11/05/2005 12:32:16 AM · #185 |
| Here's a legal analysis of the situation from an acknlowledged expert on White House cover-ups. |
|
|
|
11/05/2005 02:23:35 AM · #186 |
| Interesting article. Nothing new to the ears, or eyes, just another form of good media. |
|
|
|
11/05/2005 10:17:57 AM · #187 |
|
|
|
11/05/2005 11:51:56 AM · #188 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Here's a legal analysis of the situation from an acknlowledged expert on White House cover-ups. |
I find the most revealing paragraph in Mr. Dean's article to be this ( I have highlighted the most important words ):
In answering, he ( Mr. Fitzgerald ) pointed out that "if national defense information which is involved because [of Plame's] affiliation with the CIA, whether or not she was covert, was classified, if that was intentionally transmitted, that would violate the statute known as Section 793, which is the Espionage Act." (Emphasis added). (As noted above, gross negligence would also suffice.)
I love that. It clearly shows that after nearly two years of investigation, Mr. Fitzgerald is unable to declare with certainty that Valerie Plame's affiliation with the CIA was even CLASSIFIED, let alone COVERT. No surprise there. |
|
|
|
11/05/2005 11:58:03 AM · #189 |
Originally posted by RonB:
I love that. It clearly shows that after nearly two years of investigation, Mr. Fitzgerald is unable to declare with certainty that Valerie Plame's affiliation with the CIA was even CLASSIFIED, let alone COVERT. No surprise there. |
Due to two years of perjury and stonewalling by one or more members of the White House staff. Maybe if he'd been given some honest answers there'd be additional charges by now.
Funny, I found this to be the most telling paragraph (emphasis added):
"Having read the indictment against Libby, I am inclined to believe more will be issued. In fact, I will be stunned if no one else is indicted."
Message edited by author 2005-11-05 11:58:36. |
|
|
|
11/05/2005 12:43:47 PM · #190 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by RonB:
I love that. It clearly shows that after nearly two years of investigation, Mr. Fitzgerald is unable to declare with certainty that Valerie Plame's affiliation with the CIA was even CLASSIFIED, let alone COVERT. No surprise there. |
Due to two years of perjury and stonewalling by one or more members of the White House staff. Maybe if he'd been given some honest answers there'd be additional charges by now. |
You may be correct in what you say, but if you are attempting to argue against the point I made, then you are pointing fingers at officials from the CIA, not the Bush White House. It would be the CIA who could/would confirm the status of Ms. Plame within their organization. If Mr. Fitzgerald will not confirm that information about Ms. Plame was classified, then it is only because CIA officials will not.
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Funny, I found this to be the most telling paragraph (emphasis added):
"Having read the indictment against Libby, I am inclined to believe more will be issued. In fact, I will be stunned if no one else is indicted." |
He is entitled to his opinion, as are you. Time will tell if his beliefs are upheld, or if he will be stunned. |
|
|
|
11/05/2005 12:58:52 PM · #191 |
I just don't understand how in the world someone can be so incredibly delusioned as to continue to stand up and argue for this administration. It's really incredible how much power "The Party" ideal can have on people, instead of thinking and caring about humanity, our nation, and the world.
Truely crazy and extremely sad.
|
|
|
|
11/05/2005 02:34:29 PM · #192 |
Originally posted by ericlimon:
I just don't understand how in the world someone can be so incredibly delusioned as to continue to stand up and argue for this administration. It's really incredible how much power "The Party" ideal can have on people, instead of thinking and caring about humanity, our nation, and the world.
Truely crazy and extremely sad. |
Personally, I haven't seen anyone arguing "for this administration" in this thread, or in most others. I HAVE seen arguments, and have made arguments myself, rebutting false accusations.
But, more to the point, your statements imply that you believe it to be perfectly cogent and rational to uphold "The [Democratic] Party" ideal and argue AGAINST this administration, but "incredibly delusioned" to argue "FOR this administration."
No surprise there.
You are correct. Truly crazy and extremely sad. |
|
|
|
11/05/2005 04:00:53 PM · #193 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I notice no "peacekeepers" were sent to Rwanda or Darfur when there were known genocides in progress either. But then I bet they aren't sitting on top of huge oil reserves ... |
This is a very dis-engenious post. It portrays this administration as only caring about those country's with oil reserves which is BLATANTLY false. The truth is that we (america) were the biggest money contributors to the Dafur "engagement" and had petitioned the UN repeatedly to get involved and intercede. The only reason this administration was "gunshy" about troops was the Democratic atttacks on our "warmongering" like this thread. Regardless, we still repeatedly sought UN involvement to intercede on behalf of the oppressed and put our money where our mouth was and sent millions of dollars when the UN was "talking about it and sending it to committee". I for one spoke out in several threads on this site posting the raping of young girls by the Janjaweed. In some cases the victims had limbs hacked off so that they could not run away, then raped. In others, husbands were forced to watch as their wives were raped in public, then cast aside as "damaged" goods. It was absolutely sickening. This administration took the lead in the entire world, to get action started, and FINALLY, the UN stopped talking and started acting. 2 years later, after much positioning, there has been "some" relief for the oppressed. But I will not let GeneralE get away with this one. It is simply untrue.
During my many posts regarding the carnage, the left was sympethetic, however the OUTRAGE came from the right. For the record.
|
|
|
|
11/05/2005 05:54:18 PM · #194 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I notice no "peacekeepers" were sent to Rwanda or Darfur when there were known genocides in progress either. But then I bet they aren't sitting on top of huge oil reserves ... |
1) Actually, there ARE oil reserves in the Darfur Region - specifically an area referred to "Block 6" which extends into Darfur. ( ref: here (pdf)), a USGS document, which says, in part:
With the start of production in blocks 3, 6, and 7, Sudan̢۪s crude petroleum output is expected to rise to more than 600,000 bbl/d by the end of 2005 and to 750,000 bbl/d by the end of 2006 from 300,000 bbl/d in 2003. Plans to increase petroleum production depend upon political stability; the Government and the SPLA are expected to sign a comprehensive peace agreement in late January 2004. The separate conflict in Darfur, which contained part of block 6, remained unresolved at the end of 2003.
2) There is no genocide occurring in Darfur - at least, according to the United Nations ( ref: here (pdf) ( page 4 )) where it says:
The Commission concluded that the Government of the Sudan has not pursued a policy of genocide. Arguably, two elements of genocide might be deduced from the gross violations of human rights perpetrated by Government forces and the militias under their control. These two elements are, first, the actus reus consisting of killing, or causing serious bodily or mental harm, or deliberately inflicting conditions of life likely to bring about physical destruction; and, second, on the basis of a subjective standard, the existence of a protected group being targeted by the authors of criminal conduct. However, the crucial element of genocidal intent appears to be missing, at least as far as the central Government authorities are concerned. Generally speaking the policy of attacking, killing and forcibly displacing members of some tribes does not evince a specific intent to annihilate, in whole or in part, a group distinguished on racial, ethnic, national or religious grounds. Rather, it would seem that those who planned and organized attacks on villages pursued the intent to drive the victims from their homes, primarily for purposes of counter-insurgency warfare.
The Commission does recognise that in some instances individuals, including Government officials, may commit acts with genocidal intent. Whether this was the case in Darfur, however, is a determination that only a competent court can make on a case by case basis.
3) Contrary to the UN findings, the Bush Administration DID say, strongly, that genocide WAS occurring. In his address to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on September 9, 2004, ( ref: here ) then Secretary of State Colin Powell said:
"When we reviewed the evidence compiled by our team, and then put it beside other information available to the State Department and widely known throughout the international community, widely reported upon by the media and by others, we concluded, I concluded, that genocide has been committed in Darfur and that the Government of Sudan and the Jingaweit bear responsibility -- and that genocide may still be occurring."
On that same day, President Bush issued a press release ( ref: here ) saying:
"As a result of these investigations and other information, we have concluded that genocide has taken place in Darfur. "
And finally, a bill, H.1424 ( the Darfur Genocide Accountability Act of 2005 ) ( ref: here ) was introduced into the House of Representatives on March 17 of this year to "Express the sense of Congress that the atrocities unfolding in Darfur, Sudan, are genocide." The bill is still in Committee.
Edited to add this note:
A finding of genocide does not impose obligations on the United States, but as a signatory to the 1948 Genocide Convention, the United States is committed to preventing and punishing genocide. If the bill were to pass Congress, it would, in effect, authorize the President to take positive actions.
Message edited by author 2005-11-05 18:00:25. |
|
|
|
11/05/2005 10:36:29 PM · #195 |
Originally posted by ericlimon:
I just don't understand how in the world someone can be so incredibly delusioned as to continue to stand up and argue for this administration. It's really incredible how much power "The Party" ideal can have on people, instead of thinking and caring about humanity, our nation, and the world.
Truely crazy and extremely sad. |
well some people live in denial, I guess.. Hey have you ever watched night of the living dead ? That is American society, and English society. |
|
|
|
11/05/2005 10:53:27 PM · #196 |
Originally posted by ericlimon:
I just don't understand how in the world someone can be so incredibly delusioned as to continue to stand up and argue for this administration. It's really incredible how much power "The Party" ideal can have on people, instead of thinking and caring about humanity, our nation, and the world.
Truely crazy and extremely sad. |
I voted for him twice...and I am not real happy. I dont ever second guess my vote, but man the dude does make me scratch my head sometimes. |
|
|
|
11/06/2005 12:03:13 AM · #197 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I notice no "peacekeepers" were sent to Rwanda or Darfur when there were known genocides in progress either. But then I bet they aren't sitting on top of huge oil reserves ... |
This is a very dis-engenious post. It portrays this administration as only caring about those country's with oil reserves which is BLATANTLY false. |
Disingenuous or provocative? I recently read a quotation to the effect knowing all the answers isn't nearly as important as asking the right questions.
So know we know that the US does care about Darfur, and that it [/i]does[/i] have oil reserves after all.
Maybe that's why the folks with the guns wanted to drive all those other people out ... |
|
|
|
11/06/2005 12:54:29 AM · #198 |
| Who says that the Bush administration cares about the people in Darfur? Not so sure about that. As a matter of fact, the Bush administration has been increasingly normalizing relations with the Sudanese government starting with it's intelligence organization. Condaleeza Rice has even sought a "fruitful relationship" with Khartoum, and this more positive relationship may in fact prevent the Bush administration from putting pressure on the Sudanese government from stopping the killings there. |
|
|
|
11/06/2005 01:16:50 AM · #199 |
From the same article:
"The vice president's office doesn't have any comment on a private meeting with members of the Senate," Steve Schmidt, a spokesman for Cheney, said on Friday.
...
Cheney spokeswoman Jennifer Mayfield declined to comment on Wilkerson's remarks.
So, just how many "spokespeople" are on the Vice President's payroll anyway, and how come we elected someone incapable of speaking for himself?
Message edited by author 2005-11-06 01:23:18. |
|
|
|
11/06/2005 01:22:45 AM · #200 |
| It occurs to me that while Mr. bin Laden has murdered about 4,000 Americans, Mssrs. Bush, Cheney, et al, are responsible for the deaths of somewhere between 10-80,000 Iraqi civilians, who had nothing to do with those 4000 deaths. Isn't that carrying the old "eye for an eye" thing a little too far, or are American lives really worth 20 times as much as any others? Somewhere I got the impression that we were all created equal .... |
|
