Troops Want to Stay In Iraq

[maineman]

Quite. Which is different than this you posted:



I'm not a quibbler, I think Bush meant for them 'to get out,' just like Kerry meant certain things, as did Durbin, etc. There of course are differences between our interpretations of what was said and 'FACTS'...

no...in this case, you ARE a quibbler. Blix would not have left if Bush had not made it quite clear that he could not guarantee his safety if he stayed.

 

[CSM]

no...in this case, you ARE a quibbler. Blix would not have left if Bush had not made it quite clear that he could not guarantee his safety if he stayed.

Well ...duh... I think it was awfully nice of Bush to warn the UN to get their folks out instead of bombing the hell out of the place and then saying "oh well, collateral damage!!" and Saddam should have gotten the hint...but he was too stupid because Saddam listend to guys like Bagdad Bob....nope no US armor in this city!!!

 

[Annie]

no...in this case, you ARE a quibbler. Blix would not have left if Bush had not made it quite clear that he could not guarantee his safety if he stayed.

Now you are changing what we are discussing, it was NOT a FACT as you had posted.

 

[maineman]

Well ...duh... I think it was awfully nice of Bush to warn the UN to get their folks out instead of bombing the hell out of the place and then saying "oh well, collateral damage!!" and Saddam should have gotten the hint...but he was too stupid because Saddam listend to guys like Bagdad Bob....nope no US armor in this city!!!

I agree that it was nice of Bush to tell Blix to leave....downright neighborly

 

[CSM]

I agree that it was nice of Bush to tell Blix to leave....downright neighborly

Aw cmon...was it an order or a suggestion? Words have meaning (terrorism or terrorize??? ...dang I am so glad you had that discussion!) Maybe to you there is no difference; you have used both words in this case as if to imply they are synonymous.

 

[maineman]

no doubt...since the UN inspectors do not report to Bush, he could not have ORDERED them out...it was just a neighborly suggestion that they get out or get killed by shock and awe. Kofi Annan always had the option to keep them in place and let them get blown up.

Bush did not actually use boots on his feet to actually KICK the inspectors out.... but the effect was the same.

I misspoke if I said that Bush ordered them out - that is certainly true... but his suggestion had the same result.

 

[Annie]

no doubt...since the UN inspectors do not report to Bush, he could not have ORDERED them out...it was just a neighborly suggestion that they get out or get killed by shock and awe. Kofi Annan always had the option to keep them in place and let them get blown up.

Bush did not actually use boots on his feet to actually KICK the inspectors out.... but the effect was the same.

I misspoke if I said that Bush ordered them out - that is certainly true... but his suggestion had the same result.

Right. On the same wave level that while some democratic leaders used qualifiers in implication that US troops were acting badly, the effect on the public perception was not positive. The conservatives tended to defend and the left have come to the conclusion that it's justifiable to burn effigies of GIs.

Of course, that doesn't mean all conservatives, liberals, etc.

 

[maineman]

Right. On the same wave level that while some democratic leaders used qualifiers in implication that US troops were acting badly, the effect on the public perception was not positive. The conservatives tended to defend and the left have come to the conclusion that it's justifiable to burn effigies of GIs.

Of course, that doesn't mean all conservatives, liberals, etc.

I know of no one on the left that thinks it is justifiable to burn effigies of GI's...I think the record will show that it was anarchists in Portland who did that...they certainly have no backing from MY party.

 

[Annie]

I know of no one on the left that thinks it is justifiable to burn effigies of GI's...I think the record will show that it was anarchists in Portland who did that...they certainly have no backing from MY party.

Considering it was done at a 'bring home the troops' demonstration, both in OR and WI, with many children around and no signs of parents telling different, I'm not so sure you can speak for YOUR party. Certainly for yourself.

 

[maineman]

Considering it was done at a 'bring home the troops' demonstration, both in OR and WI, with many children around and no signs of parents telling different, I'm not so sure you can speak for YOUR party. Certainly for yourself.

I can certainly speak for my party...I am a party committee member and we would never sanction or in any way "justify" burning GI's in effigy. The photographic evidence shows folks dressed in typical anachist attire burning the effigies.... democrats are not down on the troops at all...just on the dumbass administration that sends them to do a job they are not trained or equipped or capable of doing....the US military is not designed to be a police force in an arab country in the middle of a civil war. That is a stupid mission that they certainly TRY to accomplish - because they are professionals and they know their job is to do whatever the suits in DC tell them to do....but democrats know that the mission they have been sent on is a fool's mission and the fault for that lies not with the military but squarely with Bush.

 

[Annie]

I can certainly speak for my party...I am a party committee member and we would never sanction or in any way "justify" burning GI's in effigy. The photographic evidence shows folks dressed in typical anachist attire burning the effigies.... democrats are not down on the troops at all...just on the dumbass administration that sends them to do a job they are not trained or equipped or capable of doing....the US military is not designed to be a police force in an arab country in the middle of a civil war. That is a stupid mission that they certainly TRY to accomplish - because they are professionals and they know their job is to do whatever the suits in DC tell them to do....but democrats know that the mission they have been sent on is a fool's mission and the fault for that lies not with the military but squarely with Bush.

I'll try to stay on our topic, which was who was there. I agree with those burning the effigy, flags, defecating on the flag, etc. Problem with the idea that 'democrats' are not supporting that, would be looking at who was cheering them on.

It's not just the 'right' that has ill informed members, at least some of us know 'the party' has some nutters.

 

[maineman]

I'll try to stay on our topic, which was who was there. I agree with those burning the effigy, flags, defecating on the flag, etc. Problem with the idea that 'democrats' are not supporting that, would be looking at who was cheering them on.

It's not just the 'right' that has ill informed members, at least some of us know 'the party' has some nutters.

are there crazy people who self identify as democrats? certainly.
are there crazy people who self identify as republicans? certainly.

Does the republican party "justify" or authorize ...say... folks who kill abortion doctors or those who taunt and torment gays? no, I would say not.

Neither does the democratic party "justify" burning GI's in effigy.

 

[Annie]

are there crazy people who self identify as democrats? certainly.
are there crazy people who self identify as republicans? certainly.

Does the republican party "justify" or authorize ...say... folks who kill abortion doctors or those who taunt and torment gays? no, I would say not.

Neither does the democratic party "justify" burning GI's in effigy.

Agreed. While for years I really thought the far right more dangerous, I'd say the left is gaining. Both parties should be condemning the actions of the fringe.

 

[maineman]

Agreed. While for years I really thought the far right more dangerous, I'd say the left is gaining. Both parties should be condemning the actions of the fringe.

it is a difficult balancing act. inappropriate action on the part of the "fringe" should be condemned, but in a larger sense, both parties need to have elements that define the LEFT and the RIGHT boundaries of our political spectrum. I realize that good public policy is formed when well meaning people from both sides come to the middle and find common ground.... but they must come to the middle FROM SOMEWHERE. Those committed hardcore leftists and rightists stand out on the fringe, perhaps, but they define the direction from which we both approach the center.

 

[Annie]

it is a difficult balancing act. inappropriate action on the part of the "fringe" should be condemned, but in a larger sense, both parties need to have elements that define the LEFT and the RIGHT boundaries of our political spectrum. I realize that good public policy is formed when well meaning people from both sides come to the middle and find common ground.... but they must come to the middle FROM SOMEWHERE. Those committed hardcore leftists and rightists stand out on the fringe, perhaps, but they define the direction from which we both approach the center.

I was referring more to 'fringe' actions; like OR and WI, abortions clinic actions, feces spread on recruiting offices, cars keyed for bumper stickers, etc.

 

[GeeWhiz]

Who ordered UN inspectors out of Iraq, March of '03?

Bush lied about it. Several months after his illegal invasion of Iraq he said it was Saddam that made the inspectors leave.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/07/20030714-3.html

The larger point is, and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in.

More on Bush lies and rewriting history at this link

http://consortiumnews.com/2006/041306.html

 

[Annie]

Bush lied about it. Several months after his illegal invasion of Iraq he said it was Saddam that made the inspectors leave.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/07/20030714-3.html




More on Bush lies and rewriting history at this link

http://consortiumnews.com/2006/041306.html

From the whitehouse source, I'll assume you are referring to this exchange?

Q Mr. President, back on the question of Iraq, and that specific line that has been in question --

THE PRESIDENT: Can you cite the line? (Laughter.)

Q I could, if you gave me some time.

THE PRESIDENT: When I gave the speech, the line was relevant.

Q So even though there has been some question about the intelligence -- the intelligence community knowing beforehand that perhaps it wasn't, you still believe that when you gave it --

THE PRESIDENT: Well, the speech that I gave was cleared by the CIA. And, look, the thing that's important to realize is that we're constantly gathering data. Subsequent to the speech, the CIA had some doubts. But when I gave the -- when they talked about the speech and when they looked at the speech, it was cleared. Otherwise, I wouldn't have put it in the speech. I'm not interested in talking about intelligence unless it's cleared by the CIA. And as Director Tenet said, it was cleared by the CIA.

The larger point is, and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power, along with other nations, so as to make sure he was not a threat to the United States and our friends and allies in the region. I firmly believe the decisions we made will make America more secure and the world more peaceful.

From Feb report of that year:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/14/sprj.irq.un/

U.N. report reinforces Security Council divisions
Powell: Iraq will determine war or peace

UNITED NATIONS (CNN) --The chief U.N. weapons inspectors' reports Friday gave the divided Security Council members more ammunition to bolster their opposing positions on whether Iraq is cooperating with efforts to verify its disarmament or should face "serious consequences."

In their third progress report since U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 was passed in November, inspectors told the council they had not found any weapons of mass destruction, but they urged Iraq to be more cooperative.

Hans Blix, executive chairman of the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, and Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said they were still investigating and had not ruled out the possibility that Iraq does possess chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.

After the presentations, France, China and Russia suggested giving the inspectors more time, and the United States, Britain and Spain said Iraq was not complying with Resolution 1441. (Quotes from council session)

U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell later said the reports led to "a good, spirited debate" among council members, but said Iraq was running out of time to fully comply with inspections.

"The burden now is on Saddam Hussein with respect to the question of whether there will be war or peace," he said, adding that the answer could come in a matter of weeks.

At the council table, Powell said the progress that Blix and ElBaradei outlined was simply "process" and not substance, and said that Iraq's recent steps "are all tricks that are being played on us." (Transcript)

...

 

[maineman]

bush says:

"And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power"

how is that not an incorrect statement?

 

[Annie]

bush says:

"And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power"

how is that not an incorrect statement?

Is this another Chomsky moment? You mean he 'let them in the country?'

 

[maineman]

Is this another Chomsky moment? You mean he 'let them in the country?'

do you mean that he didn't?

Saddam most certainly DID acquiesce and let the inspectors back in...he certainly could have prevented them from entering his county but did not do so.....