How Powerful Can 16 Words Be?

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
NY Times Week in Review article.

How Powerful Can 16 Words Be?
By CHRISTOPHER MARQUIS


WASHINGTON ? Words matter. Even in Washington, with its nattering nabobs and chattering classes. They matter, even when it comes to a famously tongue-tied president.

Few speeches are as pored over as the State of the Union address. Delivered with all the pomp a no-nonsense capital can muster, it gives the president the chance to share his vision for the nation and the world. The best addresses go beyond bland budgeteering to become a rallying cry for a scattered people.

On Jan. 28, President Bush by most accounts gave a humdinger. He was telling the American people why they needed to fear Saddam Hussein and why he had to be replaced. It was a case for war: the most momentous and fearsome decision a president can make.

Mr. Bush portrayed the United States as under an imminent threat from Iraq. In 16 words, he passed along this chilling information: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

A nuclear Iraq? That carried so much freight with ordinary Americans. Concerns about biological or chemical weapons, the possibility of a Baghdad alliance with Al Qaeda ? these worries paled when compared with the prospect that Iraq had reconstituted its nuclear program and might share weapons with terrorists.

"That was a very scary thing for the administration to be saying," said David Wise, an intelligence historian. "If it now turns out that was based on forged documents and bad intelligence, that's very disturbing."

The speech was followed eight days later by a detailed presentation at the United Nations by Secretary of State Colin L. Powell who omitted the uranium charge, which he had discounted as unreliable. The speeches worked. Public opposition to the war, never fierce, began to melt, polls show, and by mid-March, when hostilities began, more than 60 percent agreed that ousting Mr. Hussein was worth spilling American blood.

Today, those 16 words haunt the administration. They are the best-remembered flourish in a portrait of Iraq that today seems unrecognizable. They are a leading rationale for a war that has resulted in the death of 224 Americans. And they are either unsubstantiated or based on a lie.

"We did not go to war because of mustard gas or Scuds," said Joseph Cirincione, senior analyst at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "We went to war because President Bush told the nation that Saddam had, or might already have, a nuclear bomb, and we could not afford to wait. Now it's obvious that's not true and there was no solid evidence it was true at the time."

"Would we have gone to war if the president hadn't uttered those 16 words?" he asked. "Clearly, the answer is yes." But, he added: "We wouldn't have gone to war without the nuclear threat. The president's case for war was centered on the nuclear threat."

Administration officials counter that they went to war for a host of reasons. Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, said that the president's warning about nuclear weapons was part of "a very broad case" against Iraq.

At root in the debate is how intelligence has been used. Administration officials say they are basing their judgments on sensitive, sometimes imperfect data. Critics charge that the administration has it backward. The White House was determined to go to war and selected intelligence that would bolster its plan.

"Instead of using intelligence as evidence on which to base a decision about policy, we used intelligence as the basis on which to justify a policy on which we had already settled," said Robin Cook, a British minister who resigned from the cabinet over the war.

Not since President Clinton urged his interrogators to define the word "is" have so many people in Washington debated a simple declaration by a president, which turned out to be anything but. Mr. Clinton was discussing his personal behavior, however indiscreet; Mr. Bush was talking about the security of the nation.

Sixteen words. The parsers licked their pencils. Mr. Bush began by citing a source, the British government. The British are America's best friends; their prime minister, Tony Blair, addressed Congress last week. The British have risked it with the United States in Iraq; intelligence flows freely between the two countries.

"Has learned": That means President Bush believes it, too, otherwise he would have used "said" or, more dubiously, "claimed." "That Saddam Hussein recently sought": It's been more than a decade since Iraq's nuclear program was mothballed, but this problem is current. "Significant quantities of uranium": Enough to build a bomb. "From Africa": A big continent, though the State Department ultimately confirmed that the nation under discussion was Niger.

In one sentence, Mr. Bush had conveyed an ambitious, secret and continuing effort to acquire the materials for the ultimate weapon of mass destruction.

He needed a strong punch. For months, the case for war had foundered. Inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency and the United Nations had challenged the administration's assertions that Iraq had resumed nuclear activities, that imported aluminum tubes could be used as nuclear centrifuges and that Iraq was hiding stores of biological and chemical weapons.

Today, many such claims and others aired by administration officials are yet to be proved. American troops have found no terror weapons; virtually no one believes Mr. Hussein could have hidden tons of such materials prior to the invasion without being detected. American officials estimated that Iraq had as many as two dozen Scud missiles; none have been found.

The fallout from the uranium charge hung over Mr. Bush and his entourage during their recent African tour. The president and White House officials initially pointed fingers at the C.I.A. over their vetting of the speech; George J. Tenet, the director of central intelligence, took responsibility, though it was soon disclosed that he had removed the same charge from a presidential speech just three months earlier. Mr. Tenet told lawmakers last week that he had not even seen the final draft of Mr. Bush's State of the Union speech.

Some administration officials stand by the 16 words as "technically correct," and the British continue to insist they are substantively true ? but Bush advisers now concede that the president should never have included the charge. Meanwhile, a Whodunit parlor game has emerged to locate the mystery inserter, as columnist Michael Kinsley noted: "Was it Colonel Mustard in the kitchen with a candlestick?" Or perhaps "Condoleezza Rice in the Situation Room with a bottle of Wite-Out." The White House is mum.

President Bush responded with folksy defiance, saying he receives "darn good intelligence," and his spokesman, Ari Fleischer, dismissed speculation that the White House had distorted an intelligence report as "a lot of bull." But the story did not go away.

By backing down from its most explosive claim, the administration has cast a cloud over its intelligence capabilities at a time it is seeking international support.

"It's hugely important that people aren't in a position to say, last time you cried wolf," said Christopher Patten, the European Union's commissioner for external relations, "why are we to believe you this time?"

 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
I thought we settled the whole cut and pasting thing - especially without a link to the source.

But if you want a comment you'll have to state why you posted the article. Without you posing a question or taking a stance - you are only letting us read the NY Times for free.

CkG
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
I thought we settled the whole cut and pasting thing - especially without a link to the source.

But if you want a comment you'll have to state why you posted the article. Without you posing a question or taking a stance - you are only letting us read the NY Times for free.

CkG

What you consider settled is seriously in question. The link is the NY Times which is free online if you sign up.

If you can't read this article and understand its position and mine then, as I suspected of you all along, presenting information to you is a waste of time.

For everyone else please feel free to read the NY Times for free courtesy of me. Or courtesy of the NY Times if you care to sign up.
 

LilBlinbBlahIce

Golden Member
Dec 31, 2001
1,837
0
0
Apparently, for the Bushies, not as important as the nine words spoken by Clinton, you remember: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." That was infinietly more detrimental to our national security.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
I thought we settled the whole cut and pasting thing - especially without a link to the source.

But if you want a comment you'll have to state why you posted the article. Without you posing a question or taking a stance - you are only letting us read the NY Times for free.

CkG

What you consider settled is seriously in question. The link is the NY Times which is free online if you sign up.

If you can't read this article and understand its position and mine then, as I suspected of you all along, presenting information to you is a waste of time.

For everyone else please feel free to read the NY Times for free courtesy of me. Or courtesy of the NY Times if you care to sign up.
The NY Times provides this for a charge - your registration. Now wether you are honest with your "payment" is up to you. Your cutting and pasting could and probably actually is copywrite infringement. You don't have permission to redistribute this unless you ask for their permission to do so. The correct way (read: legal) to post this would be to link the article and possibly pull some parts out to quote.
It is also common courtesy to comment on your selected article. Why did you post this?

CkG
 

Nitemare

Lifer
Feb 8, 2001
35,466
1
76
Apparently not as powerful as the words spoken on December 16, 1998,


Bill Clinton ordered a strike "to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs, and its military capacity to threaten their neighbors. Their purpose is to protect the national interests of the United States..."

yet I do not recall hearing anyone calling for an impeachment regarding this nor any investigation into the veracity of his data.
 

LilBlinbBlahIce

Golden Member
Dec 31, 2001
1,837
0
0
Originally posted by: Nitemare
Apparently not as powerful as the words spoken on December 16, 1998,


Bill Clinton ordered a strike "to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs, and its military capacity to threaten their neighbors. Their purpose is to protect the national interests of the United States..."

yet I do not recall hearing anyone calling for an impeachment regarding this nor any investigation into the veracity of his data.
1. Provide a link to show where he said that (not accusing you, I just don't remember when he did).
2. He never invaded Iraq.
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
Originally posted by: LilBlinbBlahIce
Originally posted by: Nitemare
Apparently not as powerful as the words spoken on December 16, 1998,


Bill Clinton ordered a strike "to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs, and its military capacity to threaten their neighbors. Their purpose is to protect the national interests of the United States..."

yet I do not recall hearing anyone calling for an impeachment regarding this nor any investigation into the veracity of his data.
1. Provide a link to show where he said that (not accusing you, I just don't remember when he did).
2. He never invaded Iraq.
http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/
google is god
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: LilBlinbBlahIce
Originally posted by: Nitemare
Apparently not as powerful as the words spoken on December 16, 1998,


Bill Clinton ordered a strike "to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs, and its military capacity to threaten their neighbors. Their purpose is to protect the national interests of the United States..."

yet I do not recall hearing anyone calling for an impeachment regarding this nor any investigation into the veracity of his data.
1. Provide a link to show where he said that (not accusing you, I just don't remember when he did).
2. He never invaded Iraq.
http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/
google is god
I'll take #2 :D Did he not, for 4 days, attack a "sovereign nation"? But yes - he was weak and didn't take care of the real problem.

BTW - his speech strikes me as "imperialistic" and heck, even his actions were preemptive and were rushed since he acted "without delay, diplomacy or warning,". Boy oh boy oh boy - where was the Outrage? Oh wait...that's right - Clinton wouldn't mislead us ;)
***NOTE: The preceeding argument was to used only to show that Clinton did infact use the same reasons for attacking Iraq and in no way take "blame" away from Bush, but rather to ask this question: Where was your outrage and namecalling then? Were you as vocal against Clinton's actions than Bush's? ***

CkG
 

Nitemare

Lifer
Feb 8, 2001
35,466
1
76
Originally posted by: LilBlinbBlahIce
Originally posted by: Nitemare
Apparently not as powerful as the words spoken on December 16, 1998,


Bill Clinton ordered a strike "to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs, and its military capacity to threaten their neighbors. Their purpose is to protect the national interests of the United States..."

yet I do not recall hearing anyone calling for an impeachment regarding this nor any investigation into the veracity of his data.
1. Provide a link to show where he said that (not accusing you, I just don't remember when he did).
2. He never invaded Iraq.
1. Thanks Czar
2. No, he launched cruise missile after cruise missile into a sovereign nation and coincidentally cruise missiles cannot tell the difference between a soldier and an old lady with her grandchild
 

sMiLeYz

Platinum Member
Feb 3, 2003
2,696
0
76
Theres a difference between launch a few cruise missles and declaring a multi-billion dollar pre-emptive war on a third world country. Not to mention we commited 75 billion to Iraq reconstruction, and every week our soldiers are being shot at and killed. The country is chaos and the Iraqi's don't feel too happy about their liberators.

It's the same difference between lying about sex, and lying to start a war that costs our 200 and counting of our soldier's lives. To put things into perspective, the two things aren't on the same scale, but apparently Conservatives in this forum think that they are.


 

rchiu

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2002
3,846
0
0
Originally posted by: Nitemare
Apparently not as powerful as the words spoken on December 16, 1998,


Bill Clinton ordered a strike "to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs, and its military capacity to threaten their neighbors. Their purpose is to protect the national interests of the United States..."

yet I do not recall hearing anyone calling for an impeachment regarding this nor any investigation into the veracity of his data.
Well, there are just people who are so fixated with the the language and just ignore the broader implication of the situation and action taken. Never mind that Clinton was responding to Iraq kicking out UN weapon inspector. Never mind that Clinton was launching missiles on selected targets. And never mind that Bush declared an all out war when weapon inspection was on going.

OK, we will just have to sink to the same level as those people......

Clinton said "Nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons PROGRAM"

Bush clearly stated that Iraq has WMD and not "PROGRAM", well, at least not until they cannot find a single ounce of biological weapon in Iraq.

So there you go, that is the difference and that's why Bush was lying and Clinton was not.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
Theres a difference between launch a few cruise missles and declaring a multi-billion dollar pre-emptive war on a third world country. Not to mention we commited 75 billion to Iraq reconstruction, and every week our soldiers are being shot at and killed. The country is chaos and the Iraqi's don't feel too happy about their liberators.

It's the same difference between lying about sex, and lying to start a war that costs our 200 and counting of our soldier's lives. To put things into perspective, the two things aren't on the same scale, but apparently Conservatives in this forum think that they are.
No - you aren't understanding because you don't read. No one said anything about a BlowJob or lying about it. The comparison is between the REASONS given for attacking a "sovereign" nation. That is it. Both used the same REASONS. One is being questioned because he used those reasons while the other one still seems to get a free pass. One doesn't justify the other but to be consistant - the people who are questioning Bush and his REASONS for attacking Iraq should also be questioning the previous Administration's REASONS. They are not - thus showing their partisan hypocracy or just plain hatred of Bush. How they attacked Iraq isn't what is being compared or questioned. Oh, and how many is a "few" - or did you mean a "few hundred" over 4 days.

rchiu - care to try again?
Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.
The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.
I guess you skipped those parts and the rest of the speech too.

CkG
 

konichiwa

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
15,077
2
0
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
I thought we settled the whole cut and pasting thing - especially without a link to the source.

But if you want a comment you'll have to state why you posted the article. Without you posing a question or taking a stance - you are only letting us read the NY Times for free.

CkG

What you consider settled is seriously in question. The link is the NY Times which is free online if you sign up.

If you can't read this article and understand its position and mine then, as I suspected of you all along, presenting information to you is a waste of time.

For everyone else please feel free to read the NY Times for free courtesy of me. Or courtesy of the NY Times if you care to sign up.
The NY Times provides this for a charge - your registration. Now wether you are honest with your "payment" is up to you. Your cutting and pasting could and probably actually is copywrite infringement. You don't have permission to redistribute this unless you ask for their permission to do so. The correct way (read: legal) to post this would be to link the article and possibly pull some parts out to quote.
It is also common courtesy to comment on your selected article. Why did you post this?

CkG
I think we can finally settle this argument right now:

copyright.gov

§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use38
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include ?

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.


"criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching" <-- I'd say most posts here fit those criteria quite well. Fair use defined.
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
0
0
Originally posted by: konichiwa
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
I thought we settled the whole cut and pasting thing - especially without a link to the source.

But if you want a comment you'll have to state why you posted the article. Without you posing a question or taking a stance - you are only letting us read the NY Times for free.

CkG

What you consider settled is seriously in question. The link is the NY Times which is free online if you sign up.

If you can't read this article and understand its position and mine then, as I suspected of you all along, presenting information to you is a waste of time.

For everyone else please feel free to read the NY Times for free courtesy of me. Or courtesy of the NY Times if you care to sign up.
The NY Times provides this for a charge - your registration. Now wether you are honest with your "payment" is up to you. Your cutting and pasting could and probably actually is copywrite infringement. You don't have permission to redistribute this unless you ask for their permission to do so. The correct way (read: legal) to post this would be to link the article and possibly pull some parts out to quote.
It is also common courtesy to comment on your selected article. Why did you post this?

CkG
I think we can finally settle this argument right now:

copyright.gov

§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use38
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include ?

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.


"criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching" <-- I'd say most posts here fit those criteria quite well. Fair use defined.


I feel fairly confident saying "case closed".

 

rchiu

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2002
3,846
0
0
rchiu - care to try again?
Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.
The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.
I guess you skipped those parts and the rest of the speech too.

CkG

Which of the two statement says Saddam Hussein actually possesses WMD? "Must not be allowed to threaten" can mean Hussein doesn't have WMD, but is seeking and American must stop him from getting WMD. Second statement is a statement everyone knows. No one is saying Hussein is an angle and is good for the region.

Clinton bombed Iraq - 4 days operations
reason: Saddam Hussein has WMD program, may have WMD and is a threat to US security
Facts.


Bush invaded Iraq - God know how long American will be in Iraq
reason: Saddam Hussien HAS WMD and is a threat to US security
Lies, sure he needs something more scary to scare the American public into an all out invasion.

I don't know how much simplier I can put it so you can understand.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: konichiwa
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
I thought we settled the whole cut and pasting thing - especially without a link to the source.

But if you want a comment you'll have to state why you posted the article. Without you posing a question or taking a stance - you are only letting us read the NY Times for free.

CkG

What you consider settled is seriously in question. The link is the NY Times which is free online if you sign up.

If you can't read this article and understand its position and mine then, as I suspected of you all along, presenting information to you is a waste of time.

For everyone else please feel free to read the NY Times for free courtesy of me. Or courtesy of the NY Times if you care to sign up.
The NY Times provides this for a charge - your registration. Now wether you are honest with your "payment" is up to you. Your cutting and pasting could and probably actually is copywrite infringement. You don't have permission to redistribute this unless you ask for their permission to do so. The correct way (read: legal) to post this would be to link the article and possibly pull some parts out to quote.
It is also common courtesy to comment on your selected article. Why did you post this?

CkG
I think we can finally settle this argument right now:

copyright.gov

§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use38
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include ?

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.


"criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching" <-- I'd say most posts here fit those criteria quite well. Fair use defined.


I feel fairly confident saying "case closed".
Nope - did you read the subscriber agreement on the Times site when registering? Yeah, didn't think so.

2. NYT WEB CONTENT AND SUBSCRIBER SUBMISSIONS

2.1 The contents of the NYT WEB Internet service are intended for your personal, noncommercial use. All materials published on NYT WEB (including, but not limited to news articles, photographs, images, illustrations, audio clips and video clips, also known as the "Content") are protected by copyright, and owned or controlled by The New York Times Company, NYTD, NYT WEB, or the party credited as the provider of the Content. You shall abide by all additional copyright notices, information, or restrictions contained in any Content accessed through the Service.

2.2 The Service and its Contents are protected by copyright pursuant to U.S. and international copyright laws. You may not modify, publish, transmit, participate in the transfer or sale of, reproduce (except as provided in Section 2.3 of this Agreement), create new works from, distribute, perform, display, or in any way exploit, any of the Content or the Service (including software) in whole or in part.

2.3 You may download or copy the Content and other downloadable items displayed on the Service for personal use only, provided that you maintain all copyright and other notices contained therein. Copying or storing of any Content for other than personal use is expressly prohibited without prior written permission from The New York Times Rights and Permissions Department, or the copyright holder identified in the copyright notice contained in the Content.
HERE IS WHERE YOU REQUEST PERMISSION.

Yeah, I guess it is closed


CkG
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: rchiu
rchiu - care to try again?
Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.
The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.
I guess you skipped those parts and the rest of the speech too.

CkG

Which of the two statement says Saddam Hussein actually possesses WMD? "Must not be allowed to threaten" can mean Hussein doesn't have WMD, but is seeking and American must stop him from getting WMD. Second statement is a statement everyone knows. No one is saying Hussein is an angle and is good for the region.

Clinton bombed Iraq - 4 days operations
reason: Saddam Hussein has WMD program, may have WMD and is a threat to US security
Facts.


Bush invaded Iraq - God know how long American will be in Iraq
reason: Saddam Hussien HAS WMD and is a threat to US security
Lies, sure he needs something more scary to scare the American public into an all out invasion.

I don't know how much simplier I can put it so you can understand.
Did you even read Clinton's speech? Clinton stated that there was a clear threat to peace and security as long as he was in power. I don't see how you can claim the reasons weren't the same. Just admit it - its OK, it's not like he wasn't justified in the stikes(IMO). But to be consistent if you criticize Bush, you must also criticize Clinton - and that wasn't and isn't happening. You can nitpik semantics but if you claim Bush "hyped" intel or flat out lied then where was/is you criticism of Clinton's strikes.

CkG
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: rchiu
rchiu - care to try again?
Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.
The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.
I guess you skipped those parts and the rest of the speech too.

CkG

Which of the two statement says Saddam Hussein actually possesses WMD? "Must not be allowed to threaten" can mean Hussein doesn't have WMD, but is seeking and American must stop him from getting WMD. Second statement is a statement everyone knows. No one is saying Hussein is an angle and is good for the region.

Clinton bombed Iraq - 4 days operations
reason: Saddam Hussein has WMD program, may have WMD and is a threat to US security
Facts.


Bush invaded Iraq - God know how long American will be in Iraq
reason: Saddam Hussien HAS WMD and is a threat to US security
Lies, sure he needs something more scary to scare the American public into an all out invasion.

I don't know how much simplier I can put it so you can understand.
Did you even read Clinton's speech? Clinton stated that there was a clear threat to peace and security as long as he was in power. I don't see how you can claim the reasons weren't the same. Just admit it - its OK, it's not like he wasn't justified in the stikes(IMO). But to be consistent if you criticize Bush, you must also criticize Clinton - and that wasn't and isn't happening. You can nitpik semantics but if you claim Bush "hyped" intel or flat out lied then where was/is you criticism of Clinton's strikes.

CkG
For Christ's sake Cad, don't you get tired of using the same hackneyed excuse? Can't the man (Bush) stand on his own two feet for once? You're always showing up and bringing up Clinton, I mean, are you that obcessed with the man? Can't anyone in this forum talk about Bush without you bringing up this same old drivel? Or is that against the rules? Crap, you might as well just show up in each and every thread and yell "ditto." Isn't that what good lil' Rush Limbaugh dittoheads are supposed to do?
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: rchiu
rchiu - care to try again?
Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.
The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.
I guess you skipped those parts and the rest of the speech too.

CkG

Which of the two statement says Saddam Hussein actually possesses WMD? "Must not be allowed to threaten" can mean Hussein doesn't have WMD, but is seeking and American must stop him from getting WMD. Second statement is a statement everyone knows. No one is saying Hussein is an angle and is good for the region.

Clinton bombed Iraq - 4 days operations
reason: Saddam Hussein has WMD program, may have WMD and is a threat to US security
Facts.


Bush invaded Iraq - God know how long American will be in Iraq
reason: Saddam Hussien HAS WMD and is a threat to US security
Lies, sure he needs something more scary to scare the American public into an all out invasion.

I don't know how much simplier I can put it so you can understand.
Did you even read Clinton's speech? Clinton stated that there was a clear threat to peace and security as long as he was in power. I don't see how you can claim the reasons weren't the same. Just admit it - its OK, it's not like he wasn't justified in the stikes(IMO). But to be consistent if you criticize Bush, you must also criticize Clinton - and that wasn't and isn't happening. You can nitpik semantics but if you claim Bush "hyped" intel or flat out lied then where was/is you criticism of Clinton's strikes.

CkG
For Christ's sake Cad, don't you get tired of using the same hackneyed excuse? Can't the man (Bush) stand on his own two feet for once? You're always showing up and bringing up Clinton, I mean, are you that obcessed with the man? Can't anyone in this forum talk about Bush without you bringing up this same old drivel? Or is that against the rules? Crap, you might as well just show up in each and every thread and yell "ditto." Isn't that what good lil' Rush Limbaugh dittoheads are supposed to do?
For Christ's sake DM, aren't you tired of aiding hypocrits? I didn't say that it excused or justified anything Bush did, infact I think I made that point quite clear - please re-read the thread. Clinton had a big hand in how this Iraq situation played out - so YES what he did IS relevant and open for discussion. If people who are criticizing Bush can't admit that Clinton used the same REASONS then they are hypocrits. I repeat - I'm not looking to justify Bush's actions - only to ask where the outrage was/is that Clinton used the SAME REASONS to attack Iraq and wether or not we should follow the intel trail back to it's origin. Heck if it goes back to and through Bush 1 - then fine.

CkG
 

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,389
29
91
Case definately not closed. Evidently the explicit implication in item #3 of the Fair Use clause quoted by konichiwa is beyond his comprehension. No big suprise there............
 

konichiwa

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
15,077
2
0
Originally posted by: Corn
Case definately not closed. Evidently the explicit implication in item #3 of the Fair Use clause quoted by konichiwa is beyond his comprehension. No big suprise there............
Oh if only we had a "mod down" feature here. Your constant attempts at badgering only make your idiocy shine through. Nowhere does it say what you imply: that you can only reprint some or part of the whole document. It suggest merely that the portion of the document that is reprinted be considered while determining whether the use is fair.

The spirit of the law is that if you are reprinting the material for educational commentary, intellectual discussion or dissemination of information and you are doing it noncommerically and not-for-profit, you are within your right to fair use.

Your gibes are uncalled for and out-of-place in this discussion. I only wish the mods were more diligent in enforcing the rules of this forum. Have a nice day.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUYFor Christ's sake DM, aren't you tired of aiding hypocrits? I didn't say that it excused or justified anything Bush did, infact I think I made that point quite clear - please re-read the thread. Clinton had a big hand in how this Iraq situation played out - so YES what he did IS relevant and open for discussion. If people who are criticizing Bush can't admit that Clinton used the same REASONS then they are hypocrits. I repeat - I'm not looking to justify Bush's actions - only to ask where the outrage was/is that Clinton used the SAME REASONS to attack Iraq and wether or not we should follow the intel trail back to it's origin. Heck if it goes back to and through Bush 1 - then fine.

CkG
Cad, I know you had a disclaimer in there, but seriously, asking "...where the outrage was/is that Clinton used the SAME REASONS..." is a pointless question. Either the outrage was there, or it wasn't. Would it help if I told you I was outraged about Clinton right now? Grrrrrrr, stupid Clinton! There. Can we move on now?

Why not, instead of merely comparing the reasons, actually compare the intel behind each decision, since that seems to be the relevant issue here. Right? So tell me, was Clinton's intel good or not? Can it be shown he manipulated the intel to justify his attack? To me that seems more relevant than simply equating A=B here...
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUYFor Christ's sake DM, aren't you tired of aiding hypocrits? I didn't say that it excused or justified anything Bush did, infact I think I made that point quite clear - please re-read the thread. Clinton had a big hand in how this Iraq situation played out - so YES what he did IS relevant and open for discussion. If people who are criticizing Bush can't admit that Clinton used the same REASONS then they are hypocrits. I repeat - I'm not looking to justify Bush's actions - only to ask where the outrage was/is that Clinton used the SAME REASONS to attack Iraq and wether or not we should follow the intel trail back to it's origin. Heck if it goes back to and through Bush 1 - then fine.

CkG
Cad, I know you had a disclaimer in there, but seriously, asking "...where the outrage was/is that Clinton used the SAME REASONS..." is a pointless question. Either the outrage was there, or it wasn't. Would it help if I told you I was outraged about Clinton right now? Grrrrrrr, stupid Clinton! There. Can we move on now?

Why not, instead of merely comparing the reasons, actually compare the intel behind each decision, since that seems to be the relevant issue here. Right? So tell me, was Clinton's intel good or not? Can it be shown he manipulated the intel to justify his attack? To me that seems more relevant than simply equating A=B here...

Exactly the questions that aren't being asked! :) Thanks - you finally realized my point. If people are so hell bent on dragging Bush through the intel mud - then they sure as hell better keep on going back - this is not currently being done. Clinton wasn't called on his intel - it was just assumed that it was correct and justified. I'm not saying that we shouldn't dig through the intel to make sure everything was up to snuff - but what I'm saying is that if we start digging - we better not stop with G.W. Bush, it better go back all the way. Currently it reeks of partisan election posturing -we'll see if these people have the balls to dig through Clintons intel.

CkG
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUYFor Christ's sake DM, aren't you tired of aiding hypocrits? I didn't say that it excused or justified anything Bush did, infact I think I made that point quite clear - please re-read the thread. Clinton had a big hand in how this Iraq situation played out - so YES what he did IS relevant and open for discussion. If people who are criticizing Bush can't admit that Clinton used the same REASONS then they are hypocrits. I repeat - I'm not looking to justify Bush's actions - only to ask where the outrage was/is that Clinton used the SAME REASONS to attack Iraq and wether or not we should follow the intel trail back to it's origin. Heck if it goes back to and through Bush 1 - then fine.

CkG
Cad, I know you had a disclaimer in there, but seriously, asking "...where the outrage was/is that Clinton used the SAME REASONS..." is a pointless question. Either the outrage was there, or it wasn't. Would it help if I told you I was outraged about Clinton right now? Grrrrrrr, stupid Clinton! There. Can we move on now?

Why not, instead of merely comparing the reasons, actually compare the intel behind each decision, since that seems to be the relevant issue here. Right? So tell me, was Clinton's intel good or not? Can it be shown he manipulated the intel to justify his attack? To me that seems more relevant than simply equating A=B here...

Exactly the questions that aren't being asked! :) Thanks - you finally realized my point. If people are so hell bent on dragging Bush through the intel mud - then they sure as hell better keep on going back - this is not currently being done. Clinton wasn't called on his intel - it was just assumed that it was correct and justified. I'm not saying that we shouldn't dig through the intel to make sure everything was up to snuff - but what I'm saying is that if we start digging - we better not stop with G.W. Bush, it better go back all the way. Currently it reeks of partisan election posturing -we'll see if these people have the balls to dig through Clintons intel.

CkG
Well, I guess for historical purposes you could go back and examine the facts all you want. Let me throw an analogy out there just to see how you react:

Imagine on Monday, some guy robs the liquor store and gets away with it. There are no cops around, or they're all busy eating donuts or whatever. He gets away clean. On Tuesday, some other guy robs the same store. This time, the cops are waiting and he gets nailed. Should we allow the Tuesday criminal to get away with it because the Monday criminal did?

Of course not. And I'm not suggesting anyone's a criminal necessarily - it's just an analogy :)

If Clinton attacked Iraq using the same justification as Bush and there was no hubub, that doesn't necessarily preclude us from examining and/or criticising Bush's actions independently of Clinton's actions. You seem to miss the point that we're not talking about Clinton anymore. He's not the president, and it is possible to isolate and discuss what's happening right now without bringing the rest of history into it.

Besides, I thought we've already had this discussion before. Deja Vu?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS