Bush gets his Iraq funding
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud
IF she was to change her mind based on evidence that would be one thing but it seems her change of opinion went with the polls. So what would be her actual feelings/actions IF elected?
By the looks of this last vote on money for the war.......there are a few that made statements but didn't hold the course when the time come.
Have a good one!:s4:
Hillary is a snake, the only good thing she has going is Bill for a housemate. If she is the candidate I'll vote for her but I'll vote against her in the primaries. As far as the gutless ones that caved, I hope their constituents hold their feet to the fire in '2008', both on war funding and Immigration. Here's what I have to say on war funding: The Bill is for funding the War, not funding the troops. The "funding the troops" bullshit was thought up by Cheney and Rove to scare the be-Jesus out of the public, especially mothers of troops, and to make the congress tow the line. If funding ran so low that it endangered one troop and that commander didn't pull those troops out of harms way, that commanders carreer would be over, He would face a general courts martial for dereliction of duty and be drummed out of the service. so "funding the troops" is a right wing scare tactic, period.
Bush gets his Iraq funding
Well P4B, she seems to still favor the war in Iraq. The latest seems less changing her position IF you believe the floor speech I linked earlier. She's just favoring a change. And of course their is going to be outside influence on her position. If not the polls, then most certainly the results of the 2006 mid-terms. After that you couldn't ignore the issue.
So I'm thinking that even if elected, she's hardly going to "cut and run" if you will. She voted it once and still seems to desire a continuation, which would allow her to avoid any of the "weak on defense" attacks on from the Right. Most likely we'll see her change the course, not Change The Course.
Bush gets his Iraq funding
Here's an interesting response out of the Obama campaign today after McCain and Romney's attack on his No vote
[YOUTUBE]YouTube - Barack: Truth On Iraq[/YOUTUBE]
Bush gets his Iraq funding
Wow. I take leave for one afternoon, and return to find we've moved on - or should I say, reverted - to pandering Dems. Of course, that's how these message boards work. Pity, I was hoping I could continue a heated exchange with Medicinal.
At any rate, Medicinal, thank you for being a little nicer in your second post than you were in your first one. But for your information, sir, I don't intend to "spout" anything on this site, and I wish you wouldn't accuse me of having already done so. "If you intend to spout Neo-con rhetoric on this site be prepared to encounter stiff resistance..." I can't understand whether that is a considerate warning on your part, or you're trying to scare me into keeping my mouth shut and not sharing my opinions. You may not be fond of discussions that do not adhere to a pre-established party line, but I think a "Politics" forum that worked that way would make for a very uninteresting venue.
As far as presidential hopefuls go, though I am certainly more inclined to lean (is that redundant? inclined to lean?) towards some more than others (can you guess who?), I'm not ready to officially pledge support for anyone in particular so early in the game, and that is in part because I want to continue finding out more about some of the candidates with less name recognition. Besides, though some may disagree, I think it's too early in the race anyway. I know that sounds cliched, but it isn't. It's far too obvious that any current platform of any candidate today will be duly redimensioned as time goes by.
p.s.: I can't comment on the youtube video because my Internet is being a bitch, and won't play it. Maybe later.
Bush gets his Iraq funding
Continue, I didn't realize you were an old hand at this. I've only been around for the last week and I've only seen a handful of "regulars." That being said, continue the diatribe you have planned for Medicinal, since obviously that can't be all. Only a single paragraph to how that liberal is stifiling your right to free speech?
I do agree that its way to early to have decided a candadate yet. You've heard Florida's moving up their primary, inspiring leap frogging from most other states wanting to get in on the action? Wonderful! We'll have presidential candadates missing most of the previous year to be campaigning. Kind of like how McCain hadn't voted for a single bill the 6 weeks prior to the Iraq vote.
Thats one of the reasons I hold so much respect for gore. When a newspaper asked him if he was going to run, he just explained he didn't believe in these long term campaigns. It's an intriguing idea. Instead of telling us what they will do with responsibility, candidates instead could SHOW US with their votes. How delightfully novel.
Bush gets his Iraq funding
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gigliozzi
p.s.: I can't comment on the youtube video because my Internet is being a bitch, and won't play it. Maybe later.
Pat Benatar....Promises In The Dark
Have a good one!:s4:
Bush gets his Iraq funding
I am not going to bother trying to change Medicinal??s or anyone else??s mind on the issue of the validity of an Iraq/Al Qaeda/terrorism link, for no other reasons other than it is not the subject of this thread (it appears it was my fault and Fishman??s that we strayed off topic together, giving way to the diversion), and also, it would stretch into too long a discussion, and I'm sure we all wish to move on to newer threads, or stay on topic with this one. (And it is somewhat flattering to see that we??ve gone ??hot.?)
But if you??re really interested in what my counterarguments would have been ?? and not to let anyone think I am dodging anything ?? I suppose I could take the time to counter-argue at least those of Fishman, who was here first.
Fishman attempts to legitimize Iraq's "counter-terrorism" efforts by claiming it was only interested in "protecting" itself from Iran.
When Iraq employs, of all available mercenaries, al-Qaeda operatives to assist it in "counter-terrorism" (I use the quotes repeatedly as means of sarcasm), and rewards their services with funding and equipment, I have little reason to believe the U.S. and Western civilization as a whole has nothing to fear from either party, nor would I be naive enough to believe that Saddam would genuinely be unwitting of al-Qaeda's aims and beliefs. Fishman is right to bring the Iranian tensions into the argument, but (as some of what I wrote above should prove) the jihadist "security contractors," as he might wish to refer to them, have always had plenty of time, devotion and zeal to target all those they see as their enemies. Lawrence Foley, an official of the U.S. Agency for International Development was killed in Amman (Jordan) in 2002. His killer was captured and admitted he had received his orders from al-Zarqawi's cell in Iraq.
Fishman also brings up, predictably enough, the 9/11 Commission report. I am not going to sit here and claim I know better than those who reviewed the information, but I will pass the ball to Christopher Hitchens, as every Iraq War apologist such as myself has cowardly done or will inevitably cowardly do at least once while debating the issue.
YouTube - Christopher Hitchens debates Iraq with Reagan Jr.
If you don't care to watch the video in its entirety, or at all, I will transcribe here the part that should interest us:
HITCHENS: ? When I went to interview Abu Nidal, then the most wanted terrorist in the world, in Baghdad, he was operating out of an Iraqi government office. He was an arm of the Iraqi State, while being the most wanted man in the world. The same is true of the shelter and safe house offered by the Iraqi government, to the murderers of Leon Klinghoffer, and to Mr. Yassin, who mixed the chemicals for the World Trade Center bombing in 1993. How can you know so little about this, and be occupying a chair at the time that you do?
REAGAN: I guess because I listen to the 9/11 Commission, and read their report, and they said that Saddam Hussein was not exporting terror. I suppose that??s how, Christopher.
HITCHENS: Well, then they were wrong, weren??t they?
REAGAN: No, maybe they just needed to listen to you, Christopher.
HITCHENS; I??m not sure that they actually did say that. What they did say was they didn??t know of any actual operational connection?
REAGAN: (interrupting) That??s right. No substantive operational connection.
HITCHENS: ?which was the Iraqi Baath Party and? excuse me? and Al Qaeda? any direct operational connection. Now, that??s because they don??t know. They don??t say there isn??t one. They say they couldn??t find one. But I just gave you the number, I would have thought, rather suggestive examples.
Needless to say, I'm with Hitchens (and I do remind you that, as with any report from either side, there is considerable criticism of how the 9/11 Commission has conducted their research, but I guess you might expect me to say that), as in a) In order for the 9/11 Commission or any other review party (including the Senate Intelligence Committee, which was incredibly biased, and days away from the Congressional election when they issued the report Fishman mentions) to assert an unquestionable operational connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda, they'd need to have ironclad proof of the kind such as a photo of Saddam himself (head of the Baath party) shaking hands with bin Laden, with a bubble over his head that says, "I work with Osama, I am well aware he leads al-Qaeda, and I am in fact willingly and remorselessly aiding al-Qaeda.? But they don??t, so they are mandated to give everyone and everything the benefit of the doubt. And whether Iraq is exporting terror or not has nothing to do with whether it is sheltering wanted terrorists and providing them with immunity, such as Abu Nidal, or Abu Abbas, the murderer of Klinghoffer that Hitchens does not name, who was apprehended almost immediately after the murder but could not be detained because he possessed an Iraqi passport. Abbas was free to return to Iraq unscathed, and once there, Saddam refused to extradite him and, as he did to Yasin, gave him a house (a villa, to be exact) and money.
Some hardcore skeptics might take the Commission??s viewpoint and give Saddam the benefit of the doubt, but I get the feeling these same people would not waste a second pointing the finger at President Bush and claiming Bush knew and was responsible for everything the moment any of his subordinates is discovered to have done something questionable.
Finally, Fishman??s last assertion, the one about Saddam refusing to have any terrorist groups on his turf, is mere speculation, not actual fact, and I don??t think it deserves an argument. I would, however, like to remind Fishman that (this according to the confessions of an al-Qaeda operative captured and still being detained by the U.S.) through a series of meetings held in the Sudan in the mid-90??s between bin Laden and top Iraqi officials, the former and his organization had agreed to cease terrorist activities against the Iraqi regime (not in Iraq, but against it).
Okay, this post has gotten way too long, and I haven??t even gotten to counter-arguing Medicinal??s claims. And I won??t, either. Not because I think I can??t, but because I really believe this post does not need to be any longer or more off-topic than it already has been. If anyone prompts me to go on about Medicinal??s argument, I might continue, but until then, I??ll just assume nobody gives a shit.
Bush gets his Iraq funding
Any confessions taken from a Al-Quada terrorist under torture from an American is totally mute.Your going to say anything under those circumstances and any information you get from someone that you just tortured isnt very reliable.