Getting your priorities right

[V]

Roger Clements is to stand trial in Federal Court for lying about his use of steroids during his very successful baseball career, but George Bush will never have to answer a single question about leading the United States into war through the use of spurious evidence of weapons of mass destruction.

In the U.S., it seems, the honor of baseball is more important than the honor of the office.

[Zackman]

Originally Posted by V

Roger Clements is to stand trial in Federal Court for lying about his use of steroids during his very successful baseball career, but George Bush will never have to answer a single question about leading the United States into war through the use of spurious evidence of weapons of mass destruction.

In the U.S., it seems, the honor of baseball is more important than the honor of the office.

V: Your liberal bias and perhaps conspiratorial side is showing. In the U.S. lying is excused if one is a liberal and only worthy of condemnation if you are a Conservative...

Prior to 2002, the United Nations Security Council had passed 16 resolutions on Iraq involving the Iran–Iraq War, the Persian Gulf War, and the Iraq disarmament crisis leading up to and following the 2003 invasion of Iraq. In 2002, the Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1441 (From Wikipedia) United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 is a United Nations Security Council resolution adopted unanimously by the United Nations Security Council on November 8, 2002, offering Iraq under Saddam Hussein "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" that had been set out in several previous resolutions (Resolution 660, Resolution 661, Resolution 678, Resolution 686, Resolution 687, Resolution 688, Resolution 707, Resolution 715, Resolution 986, and Resolution 1284). (From Wikipedia)
Resolution 1441 stated that Iraq was in material breach of the ceasefire terms presented under the terms of Resolution 687. Iraq's breaches related not only to weapons of mass destruction (WMD), but also the known construction of prohibited types of missiles, the purchase and import of prohibited armaments, and the continuing refusal of Iraq to compensate Kuwait for the widespread looting conducted by its troops during the 1991 invasion and occupation. It also stated that "...false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations."

- In light of the United Nations Security Council that passed 16 resolutions on Iraq: Please provide evidence of your claim in which George Bush led the United States into war through the use of spurious evidence of weapons of mass destruction.

- The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, a United States Congressional statement of policy calling for regime change in Iraq was signed into law by President Bill Clinton and states that it is the policy of the United States to support democratic movements within Iraq. Please provide evidence why President George Bush must be held to a different standard than President Bill Clinton who signed The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998?

The Iraq War Resolution voted and passed by the US Congress (including 82 votes in favor by Democrats) authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq." Iraq Resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

- Please provide evidence why President George Bush must be held accountable for the authorization in which the US Congress (includes 82 votes by Democrats in favor) gave him the power use the Armed Forces of the United States "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" ?

BTW – It is shameful that in last night's Obama Iraq speech he refused to thank & give President George Bush credit for the Iraq Surge and success in the withdrawal of all combat troops from Iraq. Also note Obama's dishonesty and convenient flip-flop on his earlier statements against the Iraq Surge!

YouTube - Fox's Carlson Catches Gibbs In A Naked Lie--Asks 6 Times If Obama Will Credit Bush" target="_blank">YouTube - Fox's Carlson Catches Gibbs In A Naked Lie--Asks 6 Times If Obama Will Credit Bush

YouTube - Fox's Carlson Catches Gibbs In A Naked Lie--Asks 6 Times If Obama Will Credit Bush" target="_blank">YouTube - Fox's Carlson Catches Gibbs In A Naked Lie--Asks 6 Times If Obama Will Credit Bush

[V]

Zack, those resolutions the President sought certainly do provide a type of legal/political cover for the acts, but I'm more concerned about the reality than the appearance of things: what happened was perhaps the greatest error of judgment in U.S. history, yet no one has been held accountable for it, so far as I know.

As for the evidence being spurious, no one disputes that, not even the President. Our investigation on the territory of Iraq, following the invasion, proved conclusively that it was.

[Franco27]

Over here, we're having a long and drawn out inquiry (the chilcott inquiry) in to the iraq invasion; where the key players including Tony Blair have been questioned; although it only an inquiry and holds no legal baring - lots of questions over the legitimacy of the war have been raised, it has even come to light that Lord Goldsmith (the attourney general at the time) had doubts that millitary action against SH was legal ... but convieniently changed his mind at the last minute...

Is (or has) anything similar happening in the US?

[rdubnpk]

rdubnpk
I wrote of this earlier that there was a moment in history immediately following 911 (which unfortunately is my birthday) where most of the world was just as horrified as we were and the outpouring of support for the US was nearly universal. If our leader, at that moment, had chosen the correct course, most of the world and its leaders, I believe, would have united to fight terrorism and those responsible. Instead, George Bush rushed us into attacking Iraq who had absolutely nothing to do with 911 and forfeited all credibility, essentially turning those against us who might have helped. Iraq was in no way associated with Al-queda (sp) or the acts carried out on 911, yet here we were wasting billions of dollars and, more importantly, thousands of young lives in pursuit of Bush's folly. This will forever be his legacy and the reason he will be considered a gigantic faux pas in American history.

[Franco27]

and the same will be said for his poodle, Tony Blair; that war was always about "finishing the job", they just needed a good excuse.

[rdubnpk]

Originally Posted by Franco27

and the same will be said for his poodle, Tony Blair; that war was always about "finishing the job", they just needed a good excuse.

rdubnpk
Although I didn't support the war in Iraq, I along with all America, genuinely appreciate the Brits standing with us. It is just unfortunate that all the young men and women from both countries had to sacrifice life and limb in such an unnecessary venture.

[Zackman]

Originally Posted by V

Zack, those resolutions the President sought certainly do provide a type of legal/political cover for the acts, but I'm more concerned about the reality than the appearance of things: what happened was perhaps the greatest error of judgment in U.S. history, yet no one has been held accountable for it, so far as I know.

As for the evidence being spurious, no one disputes that, not even the President. Our investigation on the territory of Iraq, following the invasion, proved conclusively that it was.

V: I"ll say this; I do enjoy reading your posts of vivid imagination, pseudo logic, and day-dreams.

First of all: I believe we can agree hind-sight is 20/20 and that if one (even a committed liberal) had perfect knowledge at the time – a different decision may be made now knowing Saddam had no WMDs. However, being that we are all but mere humans, we do not have the benefit of 20/20 hind-sight.

Speaking of reality, it is a fact that in addition to the U.S. Intelligence Agencies there were many other respected and credible intelligence sources such as; Israel, Spain, Germany, and Britain (a key U.N. Security Council member) that agreed of the existence of Iraq's WMDs. Saddam even tried to exterminate his own people the Kurds, with chemical agents.

Furthermore U.N. Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief inspectors, Hans Blix and Mohammed El Baradei provided periodic updates to the U.N. Security Council concerning the extent of Iraqi cooperation, what they had or had not discovered, and what they believed remained to be done. During that period the Bush administration, as well as the Tony Blair administration in the United Kingdom, charged that Iraq was not living up to the requirement that it fully disclose its WMD activities

And let's not forget hawkish quotes from Democrats on Iraq's WMDs:

“My position is very clear: The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.”
-John Edwards, Democratic Senator of North Carolina, 2002

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.
-Hilary Clinton, Democratic Senator of New York, 2002

“People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons”
-Bill Clinton, Former Democratic President, 2003

"Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons. There's no question about that."
-Nancy Pelosi, Democratic Congressman of California, 2002

“We stopped the fighting [in 1991] on an agreement that Iraq would take steps to assure the world that it would not engage in further aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of mass destruction. It has refused to take those steps. That refusal constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and justifies resumption of the armed conflict”
-Harry Reid, Democratic Senator of Nevada, 2002

So V, my questions for you are exactly:

#1) Who should be held accountable and why? - The U.N., The UNMOVIC & IAEA Chief Inspectors, Britain, Spain, President Clinton, President Bush, Tony Blair, or perhaps Nancy Pelosi?

#2) Without the miraculous powers of 20/20 hind sight, where is your proof of the evidence being spurious?

[Zackman]

Originally Posted by rdubnpk

rdubnpk
... If our leader, at that moment, had chosen the correct course, most of the world and its leaders, I believe, would have united to fight terrorism and those responsible. Instead, George Bush rushed us into attacking Iraq who had absolutely nothing to do with 911 and forfeited all credibility, essentially turning those against us who might have helped. Iraq was in no way associated with Al-queda (sp) or the acts carried out on 911, yet here we were wasting billions of dollars and, more importantly, thousands of young lives in pursuit of Bush's folly. This will forever be his legacy and the reason he will be considered a gigantic faux pas in American history.

Please read my response to Mr. V. With the overwhelming evidence that Saddam indeed HAD WMDs, and the mass murder of 3,000 Americans on 9/11, wouldn't it be blatantly irresponsible for ANY President to ignore serious threats abroad?!

Furthermore, I challenge you to find a direct quote from anyone in the Bush Administration that openly links & accuses Iraq for the attacks of 9/11. That false premise was concocted by the left to attack and discredited President Bush.

[rdubnpk]

Originally Posted by Zackman

Please read my response to Mr. V. With the overwhelming evidence that Saddam indeed HAD WMDs, and the mass murder of 3,000 Americans on 9/11, wouldn't it be blatantly irresponsible for ANY President to ignore serious threats abroad?!

Furthermore, I challenge you to find a direct quote from anyone in the Bush Administration that openly links & accuses Iraq for the attacks of 9/11. That false premise was concocted by the left to attack and discredited President Bush.

rdubnpk
Paragraph one proves, without a doubt, you have swallowed an entire load of crap and paragraph two just reinforces the fact we should never have been in Iraq in the first place.

[Zackman]

Originally Posted by rdubnpk

rdubnpk
Paragraph one proves, without a doubt, you have swallowed an entire load of crap and paragraph two just reinforces the fact we should never have been in Iraq in the first place.

I love how you say I've swallowed an entire load of crap when you spout the same old tired, worn-out, anti-Bush rhetoric without any logic, proof, or independent corroboration what-so-ever. I guess we've found who / why some are so gullible and naïve.

BTW - I noticed that you have no response for my challenge to you...

[Brewster]

I'm with V on this.

Regardless of your nationality, the masses are easily swayed with effective propaganda.

American's were swayed by the Bush administration. The majority couldn't have told you the difference between Saddam Hussein and Osam Bin Ladan.

There are billions of dollars invested in the armament industry. War is simply a marketing initiative.

Hitler was a threat. Hussein was just a cruel dictator in his little corner of the world.

[SHOW_ME_CPL]

See if I was running this place I'd immediately send Roger Clements to be held at Guantanamo to await trial where I would secretly arrange for him to be anally raped & beaten by a Senior Al-Qaeda prisoner that way linking all this altogether creating the right illusion & smokescreen necessary to win a re-election & fulfill my agenda.

And look seriously, I gurrantee I could compile in one day a list of 10,000+ things that congress should be looking into before ever considering MLB/steroids, but that cheater Roger Clements has cost my Cardinal's a WS, so as far as I'm concerned it couldn't have happened to a better person. Also, to have someone be anally raped is way too harsh and nothing to joke around about, so I'd probably just arrange for him to be anally finger banged (3 in the stink).

[Franco27]

Originally Posted by SHOW_ME_CPL

I'd Also, to have someone be anally raped is way too harsh and nothing to joke around about, so I'd probably just arrange for him to be anally finger banged (3 in the stink).

hahahaha, cracked up when i read that, 1st time i've laughed all day....thankyou

[SHOW_ME_CPL]

This is my favorite gang sign (2 in the pink & 1 in the stink).

[oldguy-ru]

Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, a United States Congressional statement of policy calling for regime change in Iraq was signed into law by President Bill Clinton and states that it is the policy of the United States to support democratic movements within Iraq. Please provide evidence why President George Bush must be held to a different standard than President Bill Clinton who signed The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. I see here that it said with in Iraq not from with in the us or using us troops?
at cost of more money than can even think of, my mind can't go that high

[rdubnpk]

Originally Posted by reford@toast.net

Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, a United States Congressional statement of policy calling for regime change in Iraq was signed into law by President Bill Clinton and states that it is the policy of the United States to support democratic movements within Iraq. Please provide evidence why President George Bush must be held to a different standard than President Bill Clinton who signed The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. I see here that it said with in Iraq not from with in the us or using us troops?
at cost of more money than can even think of, my mind can't go that high

rdubnpk
Seems to me that to "support Democratic movements within Iraq" and to invade a soverign country with no justification are two widely different things.

[V]

I don't know when it started, exactly, but unlike the U.K., where government officials are expected to resign in disgrace when they commit a major "f" up, in the U.S., at least, it's become fashionable to conclude no one is really responsible.

The last time I heard a leader in the U.S. talk of making someone responsible was when the then President Bush declared that, when he found the person responsible for disclosing that Valery Plame was a spy for the U.S., they would be fired. Unknown to him, the person behind the disclosure was the Vice President, the holder of a constitutionally established, elected office, and not subject to being fired by him, or anyone else.

Since then, there's been no further talk of making anyone responsible, no matter how serious their error; instead, the practice has become to give them awards. Take George Tennant, for example, who made what must have been one of the most monumental of mistakes in history when he declared that weapons of mass destruction in Iraq were a "slam dunk" case. Rather than resigning, when he was shown to have been wrong, and badly wrong, he was awarded a President Medal!

President Obama has continued this practice, refusing to pursue any of the incompetents, and wrongdoers, who lead us into the war in Iraq.

[twinimini]

Hmmm, so you would like to indict Bush? Why stop there? Let's add Obama with his arbitrary withdrawal from Iraq which does nothing but play into the hands of the insurgents. Then he can do what he does best and blame Bush. But let's not stop there. How about we indict Clinton for his sell out of America to Wal Mart and the Chinese? John Kennedy would certainly deserve to be indicted for Vietnam. Iraq only cost us a few thousand while Vietnam cost us tens of thousands. What about Reagan for his super spending? Maybe Truman for the use of the Atom Bomb on Japan. I'm sure we can find a reason to go after every American president in the last 100 years. Does that mean they are unaccountable? Probably to a certain extent it does, but in theory the ballot box is their accountability.

Some, like Obama, will always blame others because they are above reproach. Others can just live off a false reputation or win with unjust accusations. You can ask Michael Dukaukis about that last item. It is the way of American politics and goes back a very long way. There was an interesting article in American Heritage about how Abraham Lincoln stole the Republican nomination in 1860 by a whole bunch of dirty tricks. His punishment? He is one the most revered of all American presidents. I don't see it ever changing as long as we have a media who insists on distortion rather than accuracy and no restrictions on selling government to the highest bidder.

[4biddenpleasrs]

Liberating Iraq from Saddam may have been based on bad intel (hindsight truly is 20/20) but the end result is that Saddam and his sons are no longer in charge.

Whatever happens in Iraq they now have the ability to make their country a better place.

You can claim all the weird theories you want but in the end Saddam was a wacko and needed to be taken down. You can't deny he had a history of using WMDs. And you really can't blame Bush for listening to the intel he was given.

The president doesn't gather the intel himself. He can only go off what he's given.

Personally I think the proof of WMDs is still out there. A country is a big place to search. He'll Osama is still hiding in the mountains almost 10 years later.

[rdubnpk]

rdubnpk
I can only say this. A recent poll here in NW Florida, the staunchest of Republican strongholds (generally in all elections, 80% or better vote Republican) and also the home of the largest Air Force base in the world, Eglin, and a second local Air Force base, Hurlburt (in other words, largely populated with military and retired military) asked readers if they felt the War in Iraq was worthwhile. 73% answered no. Unless noone but Democrats read the newspaper (which may well be the case, lol), then even the Republican faithful have figured out (finally) what a monumental mistake we made going in there.
As to invading countries just because we don't like their leaders, we could invade Cuba, Iran, Korea, Nicaraugua. Libya, Somolia................where should we begin?

[4biddenpleasrs]

I know you're being sarcastic but out of those I'd pick Somalia. It really needs a kick in the A$$.

Personally I think the US should focus on those countries that need aid and provide security while they get back on their feet. Haiti is a perfect example.

The EU needs to ruck up and start pushing their weight around with places like Somalia and stop letting the US take the brunt.

[rdubnpk]

Originally Posted by 4biddenpleasrs

I know you're being sarcastic but out of those I'd pick Somalia. It really needs a kick in the A$$.

Personally I think the US should focus on those countries that need aid and provide security while they get back on their feet. Haiti is a perfect example.

The EU needs to ruck up and start pushing their weight around with places like Somalia and stop letting the US take the brunt.

rdubnpk
You must have seen "Blackhawk Down", too. What a mess that country is.

[4biddenpleasrs]

Canada was in Somalia at the same time. Like Rwanda, those people have nothing but really need our help.

[V]

twini said:

Hmmm, so you would like to indict Bush? Why stop there?

You've often spoken of the need of people to start taking responsibility for their lives and actions on this forum, twini. In this, you've been referring mainly to individual responsibility for private actions. But, the really important decisions, made by those with the power to make them, affect many, or all. The greater the degree of impact of a decision, the more important that those who make it get it right, and their level of responsibility is correspondingly higher, unless they deny it, altogether, as some have done, which I consider dishonorable. (George Tennant should have said, "Thank you Mr President, for considering me for the Presidential Medal; however, I cannot accept it, as I screwed up horribly on the most important judgment I ever made in my life.")

Bush was a classic case of one who talked about taking responsibility, and being responsible, while in reality denying any, though he had, by offering himself to be President of the United States, assumed about as much responsibility as it's humanly possible to do. I'm reminded of the time when he was asked if he had made any errors of judgment, while President: he hemmed and hawed for an embarrassingly long time before the cameras, unwilling to take any, or admit any responsibility for any significant, bad judgment as President.

President Bush was action oriented, and made a lot of judgments critical to the future of his country, but showed a reluctance to belly up to the bar when those judgments proved erroneous.
____________________

Obama has now come along, promising much, and yet leaving people feeling somehow there is a vacuum at the top.

A society that will not insist its leaders take responsibility, and hold its leaders accountable for serious bad judgment in important matters, has ceased to care enough about itself to survive, and just changing from one group of reprehensible politicians to another, at election time, is not what I'm talking about....

[twinimini]

Originally Posted by V

President Bush was action oriented, and made a lot of judgments critical to the future of his country, but showed a reluctance to belly up to the bar when those judgments proved erroneous.
____________________

Obama has now come along, promising much, and yet leaving people feeling somehow there is a vacuum at the top.

A society that will not insist its leaders take responsibility, and hold its leaders accountable for serious bad judgment in important matters, has ceased to care enough about itself to survive, and just changing from one group of reprehensible politicians to another, at election time, is not what I'm talking about....

V, your point is well taken, and I agree that Bush did not step up th the plate and take responsibiltiy for his actions. The only recourse we have for bad leadership is what we can execute at the ballot box. The examples that I gave are fairly typical of American politics. I will use Kennedy as the primary example. His Vietnam war was the most divisive war we had ever fought. Yet, he is revered by many to this day. Carter was a disaster as a President and probably the one American politician most responsible for the rise of Islamic fanaticism as a political movement. His punishment? He is that he is looked upon as an elder statesman and no negativity associated with him. Obama is the same as nothing is his fault but can only be blamed on Bush and the GOP. Sorry Barry, but you done screwed up big time and you need to admit it. Will he? Of course not. It's business as usual in Washington.

Hopefully Americans will use this year's election to throw the bums out from both parties. It's time for REAL Hope and Change!

[V]

Hopefully Americans will use this year's election to throw the bums out from both parties.

Agreed. Mad as they are, those of the Tea Party are not made enough to suit me about incompetent, dishonest leadership, focused as they are on tax cuts and spending cuts.

It's character we need in our leaders.

Get rid of the liars, panderers, populists, warmongers and any other low life that walk the corridors of power in this county. Replace them with people who care more about the public good than their private benefit, and who will not take actions or advocate any program, just to buy votes- whether by tax giveaways, or otherwise.

I cringe to think about the prospect of returning to power those who brought us the Medicare Drug Benefit; the concept of a war that could last generations; the Collateralized, Mortgage Backed Security, or any other of the lunacy we've seen in the last decade that has left us where we are today.
______________________

[rdubnpk]

Originally Posted by V

Agreed. Mad as they are, those of the Tea Party are not made enough to suit me about incompetent, dishonest leadership, focused as they are on tax cuts and spending cuts.

It's character we need in our leaders.

Get ride of the liars, panderers, populists, warmongers and any other low life that walk the corridors of power in this county. Replace them with people who care more about the public good, than their private benefit, and who will not take actions or advocate any program, just to buy votes- whether by tax giveaways or otherwise.

I cringe to think about the prospect of returning to power those who brought us the Medicare Drug Benefit; the concept of a war that could last generations; the Collateralized, Mortgage Backed Security, or any other of the lunacy we've seen in the last decade that has left us where we are today.

rdubnpk
Has anyone said term limits??? A career politician is one who has learned to do only one thing...work the system in order to get himself reelected. One cannot ger reelected without a ton of money and that ton of money, for the most part, comes from special interests. The average guy is represented only at election time when the ton of money buys propaganda that fools us all in to thinking he or her has our interest at heart, then it is back to business as usual. Term limits is the only way to guarantee fresh blood.

[twinimini]

Originally Posted by rdubnpk

rdubnpk
Has anyone said term limits??? A career politician is one who has learned to do only one thing...work the system in order to get himself reelected. One cannot ger reelected without a ton of money and that ton of money, for the most part, comes from special interests. The average guy is represented only at election time when the ton of money buys propaganda that fools us all in to thinking he or her has our interest at heart, then it is back to business as usual. Term limits is the only way to guarantee fresh blood.

Term limits are way, way overdue. That and how about English as the official language of the US? Am I the only person who is really sick of "For English press 1?"

[Canadian Dos Equis fan]

Originally Posted by twinimini

Term limits are way, way overdue. That and how about English as the official language of the US? Am I the only person who is really sick of "For English press 1?"

Thats the free market talking silly. If I had a business and having Swahili spoken as an option helped my bottom line you bet I would do it!