quote:

Originally posted by tupsox Maybe because I think talk and insinuation of Bush as a tyrannical dictator are a bit melodramatic. Nope. Actually Bush was fairly skeptical of the CIA ("This is all you've got?"), but Tenet assured him that the WMD intelligence was a "slam dunk". One can make the very legitimate and defensible argument that invading Iraq was the wrong thing to do, but this BUSH LIED!!!111 nonsense that you seem to peddle is, well.....melodramatic Ah yes, I remember the massive nationwide campaigns to brand Russ Feingold and Dennis Kucinich as un-american traitors. Oh, wait a sec... See, this is what I'm talking about. Their "true nature". "Manipulate through Congress". This language is absurd. Care to back up your claim that the Bush administration "manipulated" the bill through? Care to try to demonstrate to me how the Ashcroft Justice Department has wrongfully abused powers granted them by the USA PATRIOT act? Bush is a lousy speaker. That fact alone doesn't make him an idiot. You completely missed my point: Kerry was self-importantly trying to explain how much of a positive trait it is to be nuanced and see complexities, then followed it up with inane, simplistic one-liners. An analogous situation might be if Bush said "I take very complex views of the important issues of our day; very few things are black and white. It is often necessary to see shades of gray. You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists." Would you care to argue these facts?

I do not accuse Bush of being a tyrannical dicator instead I accuse him of being a man whose ideologies and advisors have led him down a path that bodes very bad for America's role as a global leader long after he is out of office.

Could have fooled me, after all your BDS theory couldn't only be applicable to me, Michael Moore, and the Hollywood elite.

You seriously believe that the Bush administration would have been able to put forth the Patriot Act and pass it had Congress had the time to examine all the details in it, you surely cannot believe that they were acting without the influence of what took place on 9/11. Wonder why so many questions about it exists now. How about the detention of individuals who were kept in confinement for months in some cases, some were deemed illegal and deported after that and some were released. Even U.S. citizens were not immune, the Supreme Court had to remind Bush recently that U.S. citizens cannot be detained indefinitely without charge. You're right though Ashcroft and the Bush administration haven't done anything wrong, after all these individuals were traitors, treasonous and deserved what they got, your rationle is the reason why I weep for America's path. When people can be detained indefinitely in a so called democracy and we see nothing wrong with that. Wow!

So George Tenet is the fall guy and Iraq was a mistake now life goes on. Whether Bush lied or not about Iraq I believe that many in this forum would agree that in politics things aren't always black and white, but exists in shades of gray as you highlighted so I hold him and his administration responsible for leading the nation into a war that seems to have a very weak rationale when examined. You choose to overlook it, I choose not to. If I am melodramtatic, then you are ideologically blinded.

As for your Kerry point it has me You state that Kerry is trying to be complex and nuanced but uses simplicity but then you are saying that Bush is simplistic and he lets people know that upfront, I'm guessing, if not what is he. I must be missing some point as to this reasoning hence my confusion.

As for Saddam is a menace, Saddam is a mass murderer, Saddam was a brutal dictator. It is in the context that Bush uses them as his rationale for the Iraq conflict now that he has no claims to weapons of mass destruction left to allude to in his speeches. By his token the U.S. should be preparing for massive ground assaults into Zimbabwe, Myanmar, North Korea, and the list goes on. He is a simpleton defined. If he utilizes this logic to defend a misguided war as you admit to yourself and I quote you "One can make the very legitimate and defensible argument that invading Iraq was the wrong thing to do" then he fails to understand that it simply is not strong enough reason to launch a full scale invasion of a nation. Fact remains the primary factor was weapons and they have not been found, no drones, no mobile labs, no nuclear blueprints, no biological and chemical stockpiles, so what exactly is being defended again as reason for the war and ultimately the platform of the Bush administration. Refresh my memory please.

___________________
Trance = Heart, Mind, Body and Soul all in 1

Current fav. Global Experience = Madras

quote:

Could have fooled me, after all your BDS theory couldn't only be applicable to me, Michael Moore, and the Hollywood elite.

John Kerry, for all his faults, does not have BDS. Howard Dean does. Michael Moore's got something fierce.

quote:

You seriously believe that the Bush administration would have been able to put forth the Patriot Act and pass it had Congress had the time to examine all the details in it, you surely cannot believe that they were acting without the influence of what took place on 9/11. Wonder why so many questions about it exists now.

Obviously 9/11 influenced the passing of the PATRIOT act. I'm asking you to provide any sort of proof of wrongdoing by the Bush administration. You imply a sinister conspiracy.

quote:

You're right though Ashcroft and the Bush administration haven't done anything wrong, after all these individuals were traitors, treasonous and deserved what they got, your rationle is the reason why I weep for America's path.

And now we find ourselves back on the topic of melodrama.

quote:

So George Tenet is the fall guy and Iraq was a mistake now life goes on. Whether Bush lied or not about Iraq I believe that many in this forum would agree that in politics things aren't always black and white, but exists in shades of gray as you highlighted so I hold him and his administration responsible for leading the nation into a war that seems to have a very weak rationale when examined. You choose to overlook it, I choose not to. If I am melodramtatic, then you are ideologically blinded.

WMD was never my rationale for removing Saddam (I've always viewed this from the broader, big-picture neocon/objectivist perspective, so the physical weapons themselves aren't the largest looming long-term threat), so its not a matter of overlooking it. Furthermore, I fail to see any evidence of lying or intentional deception on the Bush administrations part; they acted based on 1)the available intelligence, 2)their beliefs on how to alleviate the perceived threats.
You've also succumbed to those who would re-write history if you believe WMD was the only issue raised by the Bush administration to justify military action:

quote:

Fact remains the primary factor was weapons

See, I just disagree with you on this one. This is a pretty key, fundamental difference between us.

quote:

By his token the U.S. should be preparing for massive ground assaults into Zimbabwe, Myanmar, North Korea, and the list goes on.

I would agree on North Korea, which is more similar to Saddam's Iraq, perhaps a bit more evil but less intertwined with our primary enemy of Islamo-fascism.

quote:

Originally posted by tupsox John Kerry, for all his faults, does not have BDS. Howard Dean does. Michael Moore's got something fierce. Obviously 9/11 influenced the passing of the PATRIOT act. I'm asking you to provide any sort of proof of wrongdoing by the Bush administration. You imply a sinister conspiracy. And now we find ourselves back on the topic of melodrama. WMD was never my rationale for removing Saddam (I've always viewed this from the broader, big-picture neocon/objectivist perspective, so the physical weapons themselves aren't the largest looming long-term threat), so its not a matter of overlooking it. Furthermore, I fail to see any evidence of lying or intentional deception on the Bush administrations part; they acted based on 1)the available intelligence, 2)their beliefs on how to alleviate the perceived threats. You've also succumbed to those who would re-write history if you believe WMD was the only issue raised by the Bush administration to justify military action: See, I just disagree with you on this one. This is a pretty key, fundamental difference between us. I would agree on North Korea, which is more similar to Saddam's Iraq, perhaps a bit more evil but less intertwined with our primary enemy of Islamo-fascism.

While I was no Howard Dean fan I must admit he was one of the first to call out George Bush on his relentless pursuit of Iraq. He established the platform for questioning if this administration was truly pursuing the right priorites.

My sinister conspiracy is that the Patriot Act served to enable as I pointed out in my previous post, the arrest and detention of non-Americans and Americans on American soil for indefinite periods of time without being charged and given representation until deemed so by the Bush administration. You seem to not want to talk about this even though I have mentioned it before.

If you call my questioning the detention of American citizens without any charge or lawyers as setting a bad precedent for our nation melodrama then it's obvious you fail to care much about what America should stand for. In the name of fighting terrorism lets lower our conduct to the likes of China and many of the developing world corrupt leaderships. Is that okay?

WMD may not have been your rationale but it was certainly the one that Colin Powell was using in speaking to the United Nations leading up to Iraq, visual displays and all before the world. How quickly one forgets. The Bush administration cannot defend their strongest reason for the Iraq war and neither can you, hence you shy away from it as not being significant.

While you may agree that North Korea should be treated like Iraq, you fail to understand that the administration lost their biggest strength before the Iraq war, the support of the international community as a whole. Sorry but the Coalition of the Willing just doesn't cut it considering how many have upped and left Iraq. Spain, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Dominican Republic, Phillipines, the Ukraine is about to. Notice a trend or are these countries insignificant yet they were touted by Bush as sign of international cooperation.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milit...t_coalition.htm This is what serves as our sign of strength internationally in Iraq, quite pathetic when you look at the numbers, 90% of the effort is U.S. responsiblity and no new nation is willing to partake. We are indeed stronger and I am the one suffering from BDS There are no spins that can be put on the facts about Iraq. As President when you invade a nation be sure that the results are not what we now see on a daily basis in Iraq. Your position is to simply downplay the significance of Iraq, must be the lack of all those Islamo-fascists there, oh that's right they are there now in higher numbers than one could ever have imagined.

___________________
Trance = Heart, Mind, Body and Soul all in 1

Current fav. Global Experience = Madras