<b>Major Funny that you would mention implications from something, given that this entire thread has been you trying to argue the details of Bush's words to get rid of any implications of what was really meant.</B> I'm glad there is someone who knows what was really meant... <b>The decision makers who bought the argument bought it on false terms. They asked questions, and the administration provided knowingly-incomplete answers. I think Congress has a right to express the truth from the President. Don't say "We know Iraq has WMDs" when you have intelligence information that clearly states that we don't know that.</b> The Senate has people on those committees. Do you really think they base their decisions on answers that they get from the president? <b>If there's conflicting intelligence, they should say that. The administration shouldn't be the ones deciding what parts of the intelligence are right, simply based on what they want to believe, and it is quite clear now that this is exactly what they did.</b> You don't communicate ambivalence about important decisions when you have political opponents waiting for any stumble.</b>
I'm glad there is someone who knows what was really meant... You mean you translating what wnes really meant? The Senate has people on those committees. Do you really think they base their decisions on answers that they get from the president? How familiar are you with intelligence committees, and Congress' general history of supporting Presidents on decisions of war? You don't communicate ambivalence about important decisions when you have political opponents waiting for any stumble. Oh right. It's more important to play politics than get a decision on whether to go to war right. Gotcha. I'm glad you think it's OK to mislead Congress because you're worried about politics. We'll just have to disagree on this one.
Well, if nothing else, you can take pride in utterly confusing me. I have no idea what you are saying anymore.
It's really simple. Enemy combatants have been detained and/or killed since before WWII. While you may try to damage this administration with the insinuation that this is a Bush policy for this war and this war alone, it is not. Second, you try to associate the policy with failed wars. Most of what I read about treatment of Enemy Combatants pertained to Nazis in WWII-- which was a very successful war prosecuted by a Democratic president who incarcerated more Americans as Enemy Combatants than John Ashcroft could imagine. Clearer now?
<b>Major You mean you translating what wnes really meant?</b> No, you... Here's what you accused me of: "...you trying to argue the details of Bush's words to get rid of any implications of what was really meant." I'm going on what was said. Aren't you the ones saying that they didn't believe what they were saying and they were distorting what they knew to manipulate a message? <b>How familiar are you with intelligence committees, and Congress' general history of supporting Presidents on decisions of war?</b> Isn't it the Senate Intelligence Committe? It's not the President's Intelligence Committee. Wasn't the congressional support pretty overwhelming... as was the UN Security Council's support? <b>Oh right. It's more important to play politics than get a decision on whether to go to war right. Gotcha. I'm glad you think it's OK to mislead Congress because you're worried about politics. We'll just have to disagree on this one.</b> Did I say it was more important? I said it is what politicians do.
No, you... Here's what you accused me of: "...you trying to argue the details of Bush's words to get rid of any implications of what was really meant." I'm going on what was said. Aren't you the ones saying that they didn't believe what they were saying and they were distorting what they knew to manipulate a message? No, I said it was amusing that you having been trying to argue the letter of word, but then wouldn't give wnes the same benefit of the doubt, instead inferring what you wanted to believe from his words. Isn't it the Senate Intelligence Committe? It's not the President's Intelligence Committee. Wasn't the congressional support pretty overwhelming... as was the UN Security Council's support? Here's a quick primer on Congress and war. It's VERY rare that the Congress withholds support from a President seeking authority to go to war, regardless of the circumstances. This is because the President needs that authority to have credibility in international affairs - a number of US Senators even said this (Kerry, in fact, said this when defending his Yes vote on giving Bush authority). If the Congress had withheld its support, then Bush could not even effectively threaten Iraq, and that is certainly not in the interests of the US. So for very good reasons, Congress almost always authorizes the use of the force when asked by the President. However, this comes with a basic expectation that the President is honest in his dealings with Congress. And in most cases, the Presidents are such. If you'd like to find instances where a President intentionally misled Congress on matters of war, feel free. Contrary to your belief, its NOT "what politicians do". Basically, in the course of this thread, you have argued that its normal and accepted for Presidents to lie to Congress to con them into going to war under false premises, and after such war is in effect, they should not speak out publicly against it. Do you even believe in any part of Democracy? Because it doesn't function if it's simply accepted for parties to lie to Congress and if people are not allowed to criticize, openly and publicly.
The congress never gave the President approval for war. The president asked for approval to use the troops in order to keep the peace. Look at what Bush told congress. Look at the memos which say that he had already decided to go to war against Iraq. Look at the President's actions after he got the chance to 'keep the peace'. Look at all the evidence of what the president said, and then what he actually did.
Sure. You think past actions justify current abuses. You also think that pointing out that a democrat did it in 1940s will make me regret attacking our current illustrious republican commander. I regret to inform you that I got over the "he did it first" complex in elementary school. I also don't see a relevant analogy between WWII and the Iraq conundrum. But if either of these viewpoints make you feel more secure in your politics, go for it. Personally, I don't support an ideology simply out of habit.
Surely you are not offering up the completely insane proposition that we have to attack every terrorist everywhere with the 101st Airborne, or are you?
I will offer up that it would have been good to attack a nation that had terrorist strongholds in it instead of Iraq.
So, which country do you want to invade? Meanwhile, Michael Barone has a pretty good take: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-6_27_05_MB.html
You start and KEEP the focus on Afghanistan. Then you don't unnecessarily invade anyone. If a nation(even Saudi Arabia) is harboring terrorists and refuse to kick them out, hand them over etc. then military action should be seriously considered. We could start by looking at the dozens of nations the U.S. state department listed as having active Al Qaeda cells. Iraq wasn't one of them. Liberia was, Saudi Arabia was, Pakistan was, as were many many more. Barone's column is sheer idiocy. I'm not saying that because I disagree. I'm saying that because his points have something between faulty logic and no logic at all. Liberals don't feel that the U.S. is bad country. I think we wish Bush to fail when he does things that demean the nation we love. Once again, in Afghanistan we were all hoping Bush would succeed, and supported him. It only takes a little recent history to prove Barone's partisan sniping wrong. It comes down to the difference between(as Al Franken would say) loving your country as an adult, and seeing that it can make mistakes and wishing that it wouldn't, and loving your country like 4 year old loves their parents. To a 4 year old anyone who says anything bad about their mommy is mean person who doesn't like their mommy. They can see no wrong in their mommy.
I would suggest you take that up with those who are arguing that we were justified to invade Iraq because while Saddam wasn't in league with the terrorists who attacked us he was a terrorist in general and this is a war on terror in general. I'm just pointing out the inherent dangers of that reasoning which you now comprehend.
Giddy, you are really more liberal than I thought and you want to admit. [unrelated]Gosh, I am having problem with my cable-modem service all night, but that's a topic of another thread.[/unrelated]
Very clever the way the past was an "action" and the present is an "abuse." I'm just showing you that the world has been this way for a long time. It's not pretty. It's war. It's not a he-did-it-first complex. It's a this-is-the-way-it-is-done reality.
<b>FranchiseBlade The congress never gave the President approval for war. The president asked for approval to use the troops in order to keep the peace.</b> Ousting Saddam was peace-keeping?
<b>Major No, I said it was amusing that you having been trying to argue the letter of word, but then wouldn't give wnes the same benefit of the doubt, instead inferring what you wanted to believe from his words.</b> wnes was criticizing Bush for knowing a different reality than the one he was articulating. I'm assuming that wnes wouldn't make the same mistake as the one he was criticizing... <b>Here's a quick primer on Congress and war. It's VERY rare that the Congress withholds support from a President seeking authority to go to war, regardless of the circumstances.</b> Well now which is it? FranchiseBlade says that the authority was to make peace... >b>This is because the President needs that authority to have credibility in international affairs - a number of US Senators even said this (Kerry, in fact, said this when defending his Yes vote on giving Bush authority). If the Congress had withheld its support, then Bush could not even effectively threaten Iraq, and that is certainly not in the interests of the US. So for very good reasons, Congress almost always authorizes the use of the force when asked by the President.</b> And yet that same kind of support is not necessary six-twelve-eighteen months into the conflict? Why is it important to present a united front then but not now? <b>Basically, in the course of this thread, you have argued that its normal and accepted for Presidents to lie to Congress to con them into going to war under false premises, and after such war is in effect, they should not speak out publicly against it. Do you even believe in any part of Democracy? Because it doesn't function if it's simply accepted for parties to lie to Congress and if people are not allowed to criticize, openly and publicly.</b> I made an off-the-cuff remark that lying is rampant in politics. Do you disagree? I do question the value of speaking critically for the world to see. What good has it done us in this case? The insurgents only intensify. What do you mean by "accepted?" Does that mean "acknowledging the reality" or "endorsing the reality?" How does the president pull the wool over the Senate's eyes so easily-- if that's what is going on?
It could have been had we focused on keeping the action seperate from a military invasion. You seem incredulous that it was peacekeeping. Does that mean that you doubt our president's words when he told congress that the authorization was just so they could keep the peace? Has peace changed its meaning?
Bush articulating? You've got to be kidding. When was the last time you saw Jr. articulated something? To quote Allen wrote at Right Christians: "Where Nixon was always articulate when discussing even the most complex foreign or domestic issues, Bush ventures into uncharted territory when he dares to use words of more than two syllables." I gave Jr. the credit when he admitted (grudgingly) the nonexistence of any link between Saddam and 9/11 attacks, and you seized this opportunity to shed the responsibilities for Bush in every step of the way, almost to a degree of absurdity.
What legislation and appropriations has the president asked for in regards to Iraq that he hasn't gotten from congress? It is true that billions of dollars has gone into Iraq and the nobody in the administration has a clue what happened to it, and the money has been wasted, but congress gave it to him just the same. It is also true that in the bill providing some of that money Kerry voted for a version that tied accountability to the dollars, and voted against the version that didn't tie accountability. Once again somebody elses way was the right way. Kerry was mocked for his decision to vote for the 87gazillion dollars before he voted against it. Sadly, this president has gotten everything he's asked for by the congress. It actually wasn't hard. The committees in congress reveived the reports with only hours to read them. They were given them on short notice. Slowly but surely it is doing a lot of good. The majority of Americans once supported this illegal and immoral military action, and now the majority of Americans don't support it. That is a step in the right direction. I wish it had come sooner, but better late than never. If the world sees the way freedom and democracy works in our country I can't see how that would be a bad thing.
