20,000 tons weapons destroyed

[SonomaCat]

It's kind of pointless to author a bill to cut off funding if there is no support for it (not to mention that cutting off funding would look bad, and wouldn't be the most diplomatic way of going about it. Convincing the President to do what you think is best is a much better solution). That's why you have to campaign to get your ideas and opinions out there.

If it is okay to use the press to rally the country to go to war, then it is perfectly appropriate to use the press to expand the idea that we should try to exit from a war.

Being a democracy, you must have public opinion on your side before you can do anything constructive.

[bobcatmaniac]

It's kind of pointless to author a bill to cut off funding if there is no support for it (not to mention that cutting off funding would look bad, and wouldn't be the most diplomatic way of going about it. Convincing the President to do what you think is best is a much better solution). That's why you have to campaign to get your ideas and opinions out there.

If it is okay to use the press to rally the country to go to war, then it is perfectly appropriate to use the press to expand the idea that we should try to exit from a war.

Being a democracy, you must have public opinion on your side before you can do anything constructive.

through the NY times?

[SonomaCat]

It's kind of pointless to author a bill to cut off funding if there is no support for it (not to mention that cutting off funding would look bad, and wouldn't be the most diplomatic way of going about it. Convincing the President to do what you think is best is a much better solution). That's why you have to campaign to get your ideas and opinions out there.

If it is okay to use the press to rally the country to go to war, then it is perfectly appropriate to use the press to expand the idea that we should try to exit from a war.

Being a democracy, you must have public opinion on your side before you can do anything constructive.

through the NY times?

It's the newspaper everyone seems to use ... it's the most widely read and influential (real) newspaper in the country.

Bush (his handlers, anyway) used it to get us into Iraq, so it is clearly an effective venue.

['93HonoluluCat]

It's kind of pointless to author a bill to cut off funding if there is no support for it (not to mention that cutting off funding would look bad, and wouldn't be the most diplomatic way of going about it. Convincing the President to do what you think is best is a much better solution). That's why you have to campaign to get your ideas and opinions out there.

If it is okay to use the press to rally the country to go to war, then it is perfectly appropriate to use the press to expand the idea that we should try to exit from a war.

Being a democracy, you must have public opinion on your side before you can do anything constructive.

through the NY times?

It's the newspaper everyone seems to use ... it's the most widely read and influential (real) newspaper in the country.

Bush (his handlers, anyway) used it to get us into Iraq, so it is clearly an effective venue.

Still living in the past, BAC?


This is definitely off-topic, so I apologize.

[SonomaCat]

It's kind of pointless to author a bill to cut off funding if there is no support for it (not to mention that cutting off funding would look bad, and wouldn't be the most diplomatic way of going about it. Convincing the President to do what you think is best is a much better solution). That's why you have to campaign to get your ideas and opinions out there.

If it is okay to use the press to rally the country to go to war, then it is perfectly appropriate to use the press to expand the idea that we should try to exit from a war.

Being a democracy, you must have public opinion on your side before you can do anything constructive.

through the NY times?

It's the newspaper everyone seems to use ... it's the most widely read and influential (real) newspaper in the country.

Bush (his handlers, anyway) used it to get us into Iraq, so it is clearly an effective venue.

Still living in the past, BAC?


This is definitely off-topic, so I apologize.

Still living in the past in what regard, HC? Did I bring up a point that wasn't relevant to the topic in some way? If so, please advise.

My goal in this thread is to encourage people to consider the consistency of their arguments and to make sure that statements aren't merely being filtered to suit the blindly partisan views of that person.

If that is the "past" to which you are referring, then yes, I think that using examples from the past are perfect ways to illustrate points relevant to the here and now.

So "living in the past?" No. Using the recent past to test the consistency of absurd statements made in the present? Absolutely.

Interesting you would make that comment to me, but ignore Hell's numerous non sequiter "historical" references.

['93HonoluluCat]

It's the newspaper everyone seems to use ... it's the most widely read and influential (real) newspaper in the country.

Bush (his handlers, anyway) used it to get us into Iraq, so it is clearly an effective venue.

Still living in the past, BAC?


This is definitely off-topic, so I apologize.

Still living in the past in what regard, HC? Did I bring up a point that wasn't relevant to the topic in some way? If so, please advise.

My goal in this thread is to encourage people to consider the consistency of their arguments and to make sure that statements aren't merely being filtered to suit the blindly partisan views of that person.

If that is the "past" to which you are referring, then yes, I think that using examples from the past are perfect ways to illustrate points relevant to the here and now.

So "living in the past?" No. Using the recent past to test the consistency of absurd statements made in the present? Absolutely.

I was merely pointing out your out-of-context reference to alleged use of the NYT as a propaganda machine (an allegation to which I'd like to see some proof) came across as someone that was bitter, rather than helping to prove your point with HB.

[SonomaCat]

EDIT: I originally assumed you were speaking of the Serbia analogy.

It (the NYT response) was in direct response (in perfect context, incidentally, as I explained exactly why I was using that reference -- to show that it is an effective venue to disseminate opinions that impact public opinion) to a question from someone asking if using the NYT was an appropriate place for a politician to attempt to influence public opinion relating to a war. Referencing the fact that Judith Miller's articles in the NYT on WMD influenced Americans to a point that we went to war seemed like a very appropriate touch point. If you need "proof," subscribe to the NYT online, search for articles written by Judith Miller, and see the propoganda for yourself -- she didn't make up that stuff on her own, and since it wasn't true, and since the adminstration was saying it was true, who do you suppose she was getting her information from? Was it Chalabi and him alone, or do you think that she was getting special access to White House "intel" due to her friendly attitude towards the White House's policies? Are you honestly going to suggest that the administration did NOT use the NYT to influence public opinion to advance their policies via Judith Miller?

I'm not sure how you come out with "bitter" feelings from what I wrote. I'm just dealing with the facts (and looking at the issues from both sides to gain proper perspective).

[Stevicat]

EDIT: I originally assumed you were speaking of the Serbia analogy.

It (the NYT response) was in direct response (in perfect context, incidentally, as I explained exactly why I was using that reference -- to show that it is an effective venue to disseminate opinions that impact public opinion) to a question from someone asking if using the NYT was an appropriate place for a politician to attempt to influence public opinion relating to a war. Referencing the fact that Judith Miller's articles in the NYT on WMD influenced Americans to a point that we went to war seemed like a very appropriate touch point. If you need "proof," subscribe to the NYT online, search for articles written by Judith Miller, and see the propoganda for yourself -- she didn't make up that stuff on her own, and since it wasn't true, and since the adminstration was saying it was true, who do you suppose she was getting her information from? Was it Chalabi and him alone, or do you think that she was getting special access to White House "intel" due to her friendly attitude towards the White House's policies? Are you honestly going to suggest that the administration did NOT use the NYT to influence public opinion to advance their policies via Judith Miller?

I'm not sure how you come out with "bitter" feelings from what I wrote. I'm just dealing with the facts (and looking at the issues from both sides to gain proper perspective).

I seem to recall Clinton saying there were WMD in Iraq when he was in office. DId he make it up too?

[wbtfg]

EDIT: I originally assumed you were speaking of the Serbia analogy.

It (the NYT response) was in direct response (in perfect context, incidentally, as I explained exactly why I was using that reference -- to show that it is an effective venue to disseminate opinions that impact public opinion) to a question from someone asking if using the NYT was an appropriate place for a politician to attempt to influence public opinion relating to a war. Referencing the fact that Judith Miller's articles in the NYT on WMD influenced Americans to a point that we went to war seemed like a very appropriate touch point. If you need "proof," subscribe to the NYT online, search for articles written by Judith Miller, and see the propoganda for yourself -- she didn't make up that stuff on her own, and since it wasn't true, and since the adminstration was saying it was true, who do you suppose she was getting her information from? Was it Chalabi and him alone, or do you think that she was getting special access to White House "intel" due to her friendly attitude towards the White House's policies? Are you honestly going to suggest that the administration did NOT use the NYT to influence public opinion to advance their policies via Judith Miller?

I'm not sure how you come out with "bitter" feelings from what I wrote. I'm just dealing with the facts (and looking at the issues from both sides to gain proper perspective).

I seem to recall Clinton saying there were WMD in Iraq when he was in office. DId he make it up too?

He did??? I don't remember that. Do you have a source?

[SonomaCat]

EDIT: I originally assumed you were speaking of the Serbia analogy.

It (the NYT response) was in direct response (in perfect context, incidentally, as I explained exactly why I was using that reference -- to show that it is an effective venue to disseminate opinions that impact public opinion) to a question from someone asking if using the NYT was an appropriate place for a politician to attempt to influence public opinion relating to a war. Referencing the fact that Judith Miller's articles in the NYT on WMD influenced Americans to a point that we went to war seemed like a very appropriate touch point. If you need "proof," subscribe to the NYT online, search for articles written by Judith Miller, and see the propoganda for yourself -- she didn't make up that stuff on her own, and since it wasn't true, and since the adminstration was saying it was true, who do you suppose she was getting her information from? Was it Chalabi and him alone, or do you think that she was getting special access to White House "intel" due to her friendly attitude towards the White House's policies? Are you honestly going to suggest that the administration did NOT use the NYT to influence public opinion to advance their policies via Judith Miller?

I'm not sure how you come out with "bitter" feelings from what I wrote. I'm just dealing with the facts (and looking at the issues from both sides to gain proper perspective).

I seem to recall Clinton saying there were WMD in Iraq when he was in office. DId he make it up too?

And if he did (say that they DID as opposed to they MAY have WMD), it doesn't change things. He didn't start a war over it -- he was a proponent of sanctions (that were working, as per our ultimate realization that the WMD that used to exist had been dismantled under the diplomatic measures taken by Clinton and Bush I).

Had Clinton taken us to war based on the assumption of WMD, and if we later found out that he knew they didn't exist, then your point would be well taken and we could all agree that he lied about it (which would not have been out of character for him). However, as that isn't what happened, who cares?

When in doubt, throw out a Clinton reference, assuming that BAC loves Clinton. Just doesn't work so well when BAC didn't respect him, either.

[Stevicat]

EDIT: I originally assumed you were speaking of the Serbia analogy.

It (the NYT response) was in direct response (in perfect context, incidentally, as I explained exactly why I was using that reference -- to show that it is an effective venue to disseminate opinions that impact public opinion) to a question from someone asking if using the NYT was an appropriate place for a politician to attempt to influence public opinion relating to a war. Referencing the fact that Judith Miller's articles in the NYT on WMD influenced Americans to a point that we went to war seemed like a very appropriate touch point. If you need "proof," subscribe to the NYT online, search for articles written by Judith Miller, and see the propoganda for yourself -- she didn't make up that stuff on her own, and since it wasn't true, and since the adminstration was saying it was true, who do you suppose she was getting her information from? Was it Chalabi and him alone, or do you think that she was getting special access to White House "intel" due to her friendly attitude towards the White House's policies? Are you honestly going to suggest that the administration did NOT use the NYT to influence public opinion to advance their policies via Judith Miller?

I'm not sure how you come out with "bitter" feelings from what I wrote. I'm just dealing with the facts (and looking at the issues from both sides to gain proper perspective).

I seem to recall Clinton saying there were WMD in Iraq when he was in office. DId he make it up too?

He did??? I don't remember that. Do you have a source?

Of course.
http://www.cnn.com/US/9802/04/us.un.iraq/
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/ ... .analysis/

Here's one from Sens Levin, Daschle, Kerry and others
http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/ ... -9-98.html

Here's one from Nancy Pelosi
http://www.house.gov/pelosi/priraq1.htm

Here's one from Edward Kennedy
http://kennedy.senate.gov/~kennedy/stat ... 27718.html

All but Kennedy's are from the 90's during the Clinton administration.

[SonomaCat]

Actually, none of those articles quotes Clinton as saying that Iraq did have WMD ... the issues were about inspectors and compliance with UN resolutions. Clinton also spoke of preferring a diplomatic solution, which is what we now know worked perfectly in dismantling the weapons programs that Saddam used to have.

[Stevicat]

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear," Clinton said. "We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program. We want to seriously reduce his capacity to threaten his neighbors."

[SonomaCat]

Yep. I read that. And it doesn't say "He has WMD. He is a threat to us. We are going to go to war with that man, Saddam Hussein." He was talking tough, but not overstating the threat in an effort to rally the country for war.

Clinton took the diplomatic route, and it worked ... at least in terms of the WMD themselves.

Nobody has ever suggested that Saddam wasn't a pain in the ass and an all-around dick. That has been known for a long time.

However, in the context of the conversation we were having, we definitely went to war as a result of a public opinion campaign by the White House (that utilized the NYT very effectively) that created enough fear of a threat to us by WMD. Did Bush lie? Was he just given bad information? Did he selectively overlook the contrary evidence and leave it out of the information he shared with the press/Congress? These are all questions that are subject to debate.

But we did go to war under false pretenses. That's unfortunate, and something that puts us into a sticky foreign policy position. We need some excellent and credible leadership to right the ship, and I only hope we find it in either our current President or in the future.

In the meantime, being a WMD apologist and pointing fingers at Democrats for not liking Saddam, either, isn't exactly the kind of leadership that will take us to our collective happy place.

[catamaran]

This doesn't seem like the argument that anyone can win but if Clinton didn't believe that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, why did he bomb that aspirin factory?

[Stevicat]

The reason we went into Iraq was to enforce the UN resolution 1441. We became the surrogate when the UN Security Council decided not to use the necessary force to go in and remove Saddam's WMD. Critics say that the WMD was a lie by Bush, but as in my earlier post, pretty much everybody believed it prior to Bush being president. Kofi, Putin, the UN Security Council all believed it too. The UN had inspectors looking for them!

Only when Saddam kicked the inspectors out, Bush went to the UN and asked them to enforce resolution 1441. The UN wouldn't so the President said we will.

When we went into Iraq, the President stated "We have three goals: one - to dispose of Saddam Hussein, two - to secure the nation of Iraq so they can hold free elections and write a consititution, and three - to train the Iraqi army so they can defend themselves."

[Stevicat]

UN resolution 1441
http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm

[SonomaCat]

When we went into Iraq, the President stated "We have three goals: one - to dispose of Saddam Hussein, two - to secure the nation of Iraq so they can hold free elections and write a consititution, and three - to train the Iraqi army so they can defend themselves."

Where did you find this quote? I can't find it anywhere ... and I still assert that the reason we were told we were going to war was for WMD. Had our initial goal been only to liberate a country from a brutal dictator and convert the country to democracy, it never would have passed public opinion muster, and we never would have gone to war. And we would have also had to justify why we were overlooking the 30 other countries with dictators just as bad.

We didn't exactly become a surrogate of the UN Security Council ... we just decided to do whatever we wanted absent their approval. That's why a lot of other countries were not happy with us or with the war itself, and why I was personally pissed when it turned out that we were wrong. Had we been right and found a large cache of dangerous weapons, at least we could have thumbed our nose at the world and said, "See, we told you so." Instead, they are doing that to us ... and I hate being wrong. My nationalistic pride is kind of sensitive that way.

That's a big reason why my vote for Bush in 2000 has dissolved into a complete lack of trust at the present time. Finding out in retrospect that the intel regarding the WMD may have not been handled with the utmost respect for objective decision-making really upset me.

[BWahlberg]

The reason we went into Iraq was to enforce the UN resolution 1441. We became the surrogate when the UN Security Council decided not to use the necessary force to go in and remove Saddam's WMD. Critics say that the WMD was a lie by Bush, but as in my earlier post, pretty much everybody believed it prior to Bush being president. Kofi, Putin, the UN Security Council all believed it too. The UN had inspectors looking for them!

Only when Saddam kicked the inspectors out, Bush went to the UN and asked them to enforce resolution 1441. The UN wouldn't so the President said we will.

When we went into Iraq, the President stated "We have three goals: one - to dispose of Saddam Hussein, two - to secure the nation of Iraq so they can hold free elections and write a consititution, and three - to train the Iraqi army so they can defend themselves."

Quick question, if "we" went to enforce a UN rule, why didn't the UN support us??

[catamaran]

Three words....France, Germany, China