Poll: Has the Iraq war affected Bush's credibility?

[DaiShan]

Originally posted by: etech
moonie,

Does that mean we have to be creative about stealing the oil? I never understood fine print.

Only if you are so full of hate and bitterness that you can only see bad in any action. That does seem to be the only thing that you can do.


HJD1,

Get out of the moonlight and you are a decent poster.


DaiShan
UN extends oil for food program -

From the link that you posted.
"On Thursday night the United Nations Security Council voted unanimously to extend the program to June 3."

Resolution 1483 (2003)

20. Decides that all export sales of petroleum, petroleum products, and
natural gas from Iraq following the date of the adoption of this resolution shall be
made consistent with prevailing international market best practices, to be audited by
independent public accountants reporting to the International Advisory and
Monitoring Board referred to in paragraph 12 above in order to ensure transparency,
and decides further that, except as provided in paragraph 21 below, all proceeds
from such sales shall be deposited into the Development Fund for Iraq until such
time as an internationally recognized, representative government of Iraq is properly
constituted;
21. Decides further that 5 per cent of the proceeds referred to in paragraph
20 above shall be deposited into the Compensation Fund established in accordance
with resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent relevant resolutions and that, unless an
internationally recognized, representative government of Iraq and the Governing
Council of the United Nations Compensation Commission, in the exercise of its
authority over methods of ensuring that payments are made into the Compensation
Fund, decide otherwise, this requirement shall be binding on a properly constituted,
internationally recognized, representative government of Iraq and any successor
thereto;


I guess it's possible moonie that you wouldn't intentionally lie. I don't think you even realize when you do it anymore.

Etech you continue to miss your 16th point, I can't speak to your #20 and #21 as the link you provided does not work.
16. Requests also that the Secretary-General, in coordination with the
Authority, continue the exercise of his responsibilities under Security Council
resolution 1472 (2003) of 28 March 2003 and 1476 (2003) of 24 April 2003, for a
period of six months following the adoption of this resolution, and terminate within
this time period, in the most cost effective manner, the ongoing operations of the
?Oil-for-Food? Programme (the ?Programme?), both at headquarters level and in the
field, transferring responsibility for the administration of any remaining activity
under the Programme to the Authority, including by taking the following necessary
measures:
That is from your own post, I don't see what you are trying to show, by just bringing up more and more points, you continue to try to subvert the issue, no if you bring up more points, I won't forget about the ones you bring up and fail to defend. Also don't get it twisted - everything is not black and white, you assertion that either moon provides evidence which has not been released, or he is a liar is abusive. People don't seem to understand that even if they make decent points their arguments are subverted by the use of fallacies (ad hominem in your case)

 

[etech]

DaiShan

Etech you continue to miss your 16th point, I can't speak to your #20 and #21 as the link you provided does not work.
16. Requests also that the Secretary-General, in coordination with the
Authority, continue the exercise of his responsibilities under Security Council
resolution 1472 (2003) of 28 March 2003 and 1476 (2003) of 24 April 2003, for a
period of six months following the adoption of this resolution, and terminate within
this time period, in the most cost effective manner, the ongoing operations of the
?Oil-for-Food? Programme (the ?Programme?), both at headquarters level and in the
field, transferring responsibility for the administration of any remaining activity
under the Programme to the Authority, including by taking the following necessary
measures:
That is from your own post, I don't see what you are trying to show, by just bringing up more and more points, you continue to try to subvert the issue, no if you bring up more points, I won't forget about the ones you bring up and fail to defend. Also don't get it twisted - everything is not black and white, you assertion that either moon provides evidence which has not been released, or he is a liar is abusive. People don't seem to understand that even if they make decent points their arguments are subverted by the use of fallacies (ad hominem in your case)

I did not miss my 16th point. It is part of UN Resolution 1483. It details the process of shutting down the "Food for Oil" program. The UN has changed the access to their site making it more difficult to provide direct links. A simple google search on your part of UN Resolution 1483 would have provided you the site.

Let's try it in simpler language.
Office of the Iraq Programme Oil-for-Food
"...
Resolution 1483 (2003) lifted civilian sanctions; gave the Secretary-General authority to appoint a Special Representative to work with the occupying forces in rebuilding Iraq; opened the way for the resumption of oil exports, with revenues deposited in a Development Fund for Iraq held by the Central Bank; and provided for the termination of the Oil-for-Food Programme within six months, transferring responsibility for the administration of any remaining Programme activities to ?the Authority? representing the occupying powers. The Council has called on the United Nations to assist the Iraqi people, in coordination with ?the Authority?, in a wide range of areas, including humanitarian relief, reconstruction, infrastructure rehabilitation, legal and judicial reforms, human rights and the return of refugees, and also to assist with civilian police.
..."


Now lets get back to your orginal contention.


Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comon etech - I know you can do better than that, that is dense of you to assume that we are taking oil under gunpoint. However the simple fact of the matter is that we have said we will not pay to rebuild Iraq (I actually agree with this move, which is a break with historical US policy) hence the iraqi people must find some way to pay for the rebuilding that must be done. Now how would they do this, with their currency so unstable? Easy, they have an abundance of natural resources (fossil fuels, namely oil) with this black gold they can pey their debts, however, their debts are many, and ever growing, they must sell an abundance of this oil. Who will be right there to take it? The United States, however you have to be crazy if you think we are paying OPEC prices for that oil. We are getting lower prices because a) we occupy their country b) they owe us a lot of money and c) they have to rebuild a stable iraq, and oil may just be what keeps the cold wind from their backs, and food on the table.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Can you prove that the oil is all going to the US?
Can you prove that any oil going to the US is being sold at a discount?

You have not even tried to answer this, why not?

you assertion that either moon provides evidence which has not been released, or he is a liar is abusive.

Moonie made the allegation, it is up to him to prove it. He's been known in the past to spread lies. I think that this is just another case of that tendency of his. If he can prove me wrong and show conclusively that the US is "stealing" oil from Iraq than I will apologize to him.

 

[hagbard]

Can you prove that the oil is all going to the US?
Can you prove that any oil going to the US is being sold at a discount?

Again, its not about oil for consumption, its about oil for control. BTW etech, were are the WMD you keep saying this was all about? Where's the freedom for the Iraqi people...what a fvcking con-job. But you're only fooling yourselves.

 

[Alistar7]

He said the United States was not alone in believing that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. "I think all the Western intelligence agencies that I met were fairly convinced that there were weapons of mass destruction," he said, though Russia never "came out affirmatively."

nice quote from Blix. Have you noticed the only ones crying out for investigations into the intelligence are in the UK and America? What about the fact they are only being sought by opposition party members? The rest of the world knows Saddam had them, or at least believed pretty strongly he still had more than enough.

good sheep, repeat again, Bush is a liar.....

 

[CaptnKirk]

Let's see - extends the Food for Oil until June 3rd. It's now June 23, so unless they ment next year or beyond, it's over.
The pipelines just a couple of days ago started moving product, so in the interm between June 3rd and June 21 nothing
moved that we know of, in the Food/Oil program.

Point on the inteligence on WMD - the U.S. and Brittan were the largest suppliers of data to ALL Countries on what
Iraq held as weapons and materials. No other countries believed that the data presented enough evidence that it was
dangerous enough to take action. The U.S. and England acted on their own - outside of the U.N. charter - after insiders
manipulated the facts to present a false sense of urgency. Bush kept pointing to Res 1441 and that's what he claimed
was his reason. 1441 was between Iraq and the U.N. - not between Iraq and Bush, Bush violated the contract for his
own purposes. We do not run the UN, but Bush & Co. sure tried to act as if the UN had to jump to his mandates.

 

[Alistar7]

you had 4 major opposers, also the 4 largest debtors to Iraq. We had more in the EU support us publicly than not, including Spain and Italy in the western EU bloc. Their reasons were financial, not based on any risk assessment. I'm past criticizing them for this, the US has done the same, but let's not twist their motives into something they clearly were not.....

The best evidence were the reports submitted to the UN by Saddam himself and the inspections teams analysis and findings.

 

[Gaard]

Alistar7 - <<The best evidence were the reports submitted to the UN by Saddam himself and the inspections teams analysis and findings. >>

The best evidence for what?

 

[Alistar7]

"No other countries believed that the data presented enough evidence that it was
dangerous enough to take action"

and from Blix...

He said the United States was not alone in believing that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. "I think all the Western intelligence agencies that I met were fairly convinced that there were weapons of mass destruction," he said, though Russia never "came out affirmatively."

point is the only ones asking about the intel are opposition party members in the UK and washington, not even other countries who opposed our action are demanding proof, it was generally accepted fact Saddam had never fully complied.


For the last time, there are so many credible worthwhile things to criticize Bush about, for what he has done as president and even beforehand. Iraq having WMD is not some fabricated fantastic leap of unbelievable proportion.....

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Well, France etc. never wanted this war. Bush did. Blair went along. Bush sent troops to fight on some elusive "evidence". Bush was the aggressor. Bush is the President of the US. We live in the US. Bush ought to answer to us, and not just at election time. Clinton did, and should have. Bush does not get a pass because he was as egomaniacal and nationalistic as many Americans wanted him to be. Ahab wanted his whale, got it, and now needs to pay the price for how he went about it.

 

[Gaard]

Alistar7 - <<For the last time, there are so many credible worthwhile things to criticize Bush about, for what he has done as president and even beforehand. Iraq having WMD is not some fabricated fantastic leap of unbelievable proportion..... >>

You don't think that the possibility of our president/administration fabricating evidence and/or lying to the world about said evidence in order to garner enough support to go to war...a war which resulted in the deaths of well over 100 Americans and an unknown number (1,000's) of innocent Iraqis, not to mention the devestation inflicted on the country and it's cities and it's monetary cost to America, a credible or worthwhile criticism?

 

[Alistar7]

Absolutely, but there is no evidence anything was intentionally fabricated nor are the claims outside the realm of what was believed by most intelligence agencies outside of the US.

Hay, the reasons for the opposition are well known and have nothnig to do with Saddam's compliance with the UN over his WMD....

 

[Moonbeam]

Alistar is right. There don't seem to be many Bush toadies and Right winged sheep going after him as there are people on the left and anybody else half awake. I just don't get it. What's wrong with the blind that they don't see?

 

[Alistar7]

Why couldn't the blind dems see what was so obviously wrong with Clintons actions?

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
Absolutely, but there is no evidence anything was intentionally fabricated nor are the claims outside the realm of what was believed by most intelligence agencies outside of the US.

Hay, the reasons for the opposition are well known and have nothnig to do with Saddam's compliance with the UN over his WMD....

Wasn't it you who just the other day was mentioning that British report about WMD every other minute? What about that forged evidence of Iraq purchasing uranium. Aren't those 'intentional'? Isn't that evidence? Enough evidence to raise a few eyebrows? With this stuff coming to light, are you seriously questioning the validity of people expressing their doubts? Would you rather have it just all go away without anyone asking questions?

 

[Moonbeam]

The blind don't see nutten, Alistar, including the blind dems that believe in killing. But we all know, Don't we, that Clinton bombed to distract from a blow job just like Bush bombed to distract from the disaster of his economy, right? And for about the thousandth time. Clinton didn't go before the nation and lie to start a war. That was Bush that did that. He killed American soldiers for a religious war of his own belief, one he knew he couldn't sell Americans on, so he lied. WMD is the excuse that sells, that we (the admin) all agreed on would be the only one to sell. So sad that you can't see. You realize, of course, that evil exists in the world because people like you can't see it and oppose it for what it is.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Come on you wimps, register for the link
It's only the New York Times, it won't kill you.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
Absolutely, but there is no evidence anything was intentionally fabricated nor are the claims outside the realm of what was believed by most intelligence agencies outside of the US.

Hay, the reasons for the opposition are well known and have nothnig to do with Saddam's compliance with the UN over his WMD....

They may have augured a sheep, for all I know, and decided against it based on that. The French do not answer to us. Bush does, or should. For whatever reason, Bush decided to war, and did. It is he that needs to account for his actions.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
Absolutely, but there is no evidence anything was intentionally fabricated nor are the claims outside the realm of what was believed by most intelligence agencies outside of the US.

Hay, the reasons for the opposition are well known and have nothnig to do with Saddam's compliance with the UN over his WMD....

They may have augured a sheep, for all I know, and decided against it based on that. The French do not answer to us. Bush does, or should. For whatever reason, Bush decided to war, and did. It is he that needs to account for his actions.

 

[Athanasius]

I think these two links summarize it pretty well. The bottom line is we do not know whether Bush lied or not. If he did, it is not the first time our leaders have lied to us. But John McCain's article really summarizes the situation very well.

Do Our Leaders Ever Lie To Us?

John McCain and the War on Iraq

This third link also summarizes the difficulty the west has in crafting an appropriate response to radicalized Islam:

Pax Americana, the West, and Radical Islam

 

[Moonbeam]

From the McCain article:

We went to war in part because Hussein failed to account for his weapons, had proven his willingness to use them and behaved in a way that encouraged governments around the world to believe he possessed them. (THIS IS NOT A LEGAL JUSTIFICATION) Our intelligence about a hostile foreign government is never perfect. (THIS WAS A HUGE ERROR NOT A SMALL ONE AND NOT IN ACCORD WITH THE ACTUAL INTELLIGENCE) WHEN IT COMES TO AN ILLEGAL PREEMPTIVE WAR, OF COURSE)

It is certainly appropriate to examine the quality of the intelligence that influenced the administration's decision to go to war. It is appropriate to examine what went right and what went wrong in the prosecution of the war and in its aftermath. (PLEASE DO SO IN PUBLIC AND NOT IN PROVATE SESSION) But I find it impossible to credit as serious the suggestion that this war shouldn't have been fought because, lacking better intelligence, we ought to have assumed Hussein's good faith.(A TOTAL CANARD. NOBODY IS SAYING WE SHOULD NOT HAVE FOUGHT A WAR BECAUSE SADDAM'S A NICE GUY BUT BECUSE IT INVOLVED THE CRIMINAL MURDER OF INNOCENT PEOPLE)

We should not let legitimate debate about the search for weapons minimize the task now at hand: the reconstruction and democratization of Iraq. (A BS ATTEMPT TO MISDIRECT ATTENTION FROM WHERE IT BELONGS. NOTHING ABOUT SUCH A DEBATE NEED DETRACT FROM THE OTHER OBJECTIVE NOR IS IT INTENDED TO.) Discovering the truth about Iraqi weapons is important, securing Iraq's democratic future even more so. (NO, THEY ARE EQUALLY IMPORTANT BUT IN DIFFERENT REALMS0 This will be the final measure of our victory, not how many gallons of anthrax we find. (WE HAVE NO VICTORY. WE STARTED AN ILLEGAL WAR. THERE IS ONLY PARTIAL REDEMPTION AVAILABLE TO US. THOSE RESPONSIBLE SHOULD HAVE TO PAY THE PRICE. THAT WOULD INCLUDE YOU JOHN MCCAIN) The United Nations found a lot, and we will either find more or find out where it went. (THERE WAS ONLY THAT ONE QUESTION OF THE IMMEDIATE THREAT. THAT WAS A LIE FROM WHICH THERE IS NO GOING BACK. FINDING WEAPONS BURRIED IN A HOLE WILL MEAN NOTHING EXCEPT TO THOSE WHO CAN'T PARSE ISSUES.)

We fought this war to defend the security of the United States against the threat from Hussein's proven weapons programs and his refusal to come clean, his record of aggression against his neighbors, the utter collapse of containment, the possibility of his cooperation with terrorists, and his brutal oppression of the Iraqi people. (NO WE WENT TO STOP AN IMMEDIATE THREAT, ONE THAT WASN'T THERE. OBVIOUSLY WE WENT FOR THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY, A RELIGIOUS DREAM IN FACT. THE WMD WAS JUST THE EXCUSE LEAST WE FORGET.)

Does anyone believe that the United States, the Iraqi people or the Arab world would be better off if Hussein were still in power, if 8-year-old children were still held in Iraqi prisons, if Hussein were still threatening his neighbors? Hussein alone was responsible for this war, and we need make no apologies for supporting the use of U.S. military force to rid the world of his murderous regime. (MORE BS ATTEMPT TO REDIRECT THE ISSUE AWAY FROM THE RELEVANT. NONE OF THAT WAS GIVEN AS REASONS TO SELL A WAR)

It is too early to declare final victory in Iraq. But we're well past the point of knowing that our war to liberate Iraq was right and just. (BY ACCIDENT, YOU MEAN, OR BY DECEPTION, BY RATIONALIZATION, BY THE THEORY THAT THE ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS. THIS WAS NOT WHY THE ADNIN SAID WE WENT TO WAR. THIS IS AN AFTERMARKET ADD ON) The discovery of mass graves filled with the bodies of murdered children should have convinced even the greatest skeptic. We made America more secure, liberated millions from a reign of terror and helped create the prospect for the establishment of the first Arab democracy. That should make Americans proud -- and critics of the administration's decision to go to war a little more circumspect.(PROUD WE VIOLATED A SACRED TENET NOT TO INGAGE IN AN ILLEGAL WAR. THIS SICKNING APPEAL TO EMOTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HOW THE WAR WAS SOLD. THE SAME CONDITIONS EXIST ALL OVER THE WORLD, IN COUNTRIES THAT WERE OUR BUDDY ALLIES IN THIS WAR AND WHOSE SUPPORT WE GLADLY ACCEPTED. WHO ARE WE GOING TO ATTACK NEXT, THEY ARE ALL OUT OF TIME. TOMORROW ISN'T SOON ENOUGH. WE WHOULD HAVE DONE THIS LONG AGO, NO?)

I think that by reducing these issues to a struggle of civilizations we make it too easy for the mind to come to rest. Ah yes the struggle of civilizations, we better kill them before they kill us. The issue is far more complex that civilizations, I think. We are all human and if we switched babies our kids would grow up hating their parents. I think you have to look at culture, but you have to look below it to understand what it means to be a human being. Humiliate and frustrate the human spirit's will to soar and you get a perverted being. Lets look to providing people with some hope of a life and see where the clash of civilizations goes.

 

[HappyGamer2]

I just don't get it, people keep comparing Bush to slick willy, Bush is far worse, did slick willy try to take the whole world into war for the oil comanies and to look good to get re-elected. Bush took the big gamble, and he should pay the price if he deserves it. He is the one kept saying WMD over an over again. he never really did give the people of the world his hardcore evidence before the war started.

 

[Athanasius]

I think that by reducing these issues to a struggle of civilizations we make it too easy for the mind to come to rest. Ah yes the struggle of civilizations, we better kill them before they kill us. The issue is far more complex that civilizations, I think. We are all human and if we switched babies our kids would grow up hating their parents. I think you have to look at culture, but you have to look below it to understand what it means to be a human being. Humiliate and frustrate the human spirit's will to soar and you get a perverted being. Lets look to providing people with some hope of a life and see where the clash of civilizations goes.

With that last paragraph, I am in complete agreement. BTW, I say the Iraq war did affect Bush's credibility. It certainly does with me. But it appears that most Americans do not think so:

Majority See Little Credibility Issue and Still Supports Use of Force in Iraq and Iran As Well


I find that poll quite troubling.

But it seems (some) people take great pleasure in villifying Bush far beyond what the evidence supports. Is Bush the kind of noble and principled man that we need? I fear that he will not rise to that challenge. Is he the devil in Republican clothing? No, he is not. Even Blix was unable to explain why Saddam Hussein did not come clean about his supposed lack of WMD. Blix was left scratching his head and saying, "Perhaps it was just Saddam's pride." Pride does before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall. Will America escape that trend?

It seems a little askew to trivialize the clash of civilizations when some are so polarized in our own.

I would focus especially on this phrase: Lets look to providing people with some hope of a life and see where the clash of civilizations goes

I believe that phrase is true. But where does that hope lie? I have reasons for the hope that lies within me, but that hope will not be realized through the "clash of civilizations" or any other political process. All of it is "wars and rumors of wars," as Jesus said. Some have little grasp of the depths to which radical Islam and Arab disdain for the West captures millions of peoples' hearts. Personally, I think Saddam should have been removed eight or so years ago, for two reasons: his obvious disdain for the terms of the Persian Gulf War and his brutal oppression of his own people. But the man in office at that time lacked the moral courage to take that political risk.

I guess it might bother you that I seem so ambivalent about it. I hypothesize that, if I were Preseident, we would have either gone to war with Iraq eight or so years ago (for the starightforward reasons I listed above), or we would not have gone three months ago. In my heart, that is what seems right to me. So I see America as failing to use force when it should of and then having its leadership feel like it needed to use force when it shouldn't have. Does that simplify it for you?

But I am not President, and I think you should consider the possbility that Bush really felt like he could never live with himself if Saddam's Iraq had ultimately been the connection that led to another tragedy for the American people. Isn't it even remotely possible that he genuinely feels that way? And that, based on that conviction, he then saw enough evidence to convince himself that he needed to act? Are you so sure that you know?

Moonbeam, the Islamic and/or anti-western Arab world sees representative republics and free press and open culture as Satan incarnate. I think that scares Bush, and I think he then believed what he wanted to believe to justify his own actions. Saddam left plenty of reasons to believe he had WMD if one felt very threatened by him and wanted him gone. Almost everyone thinks that way. I am not excusing it, but I am not villifying it either. It is all too human. That's why an extreme liberal will never even consider whether the Florida Supreme Court blew it in the 2000 election even when their own Chief Justice (a Democrat) said they did and the US Supreme Court voted 7-2 on that point. But I guess that is just closed-minded Republican sheep-bleating

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: HappyGamer2
I just don't get it, people keep comparing Bush to slick willy, Bush is far worse, did slick willy try to take the whole world into war for the oil comanies and to look good to get re-elected. Bush took the big gamble, and he should pay the price if he deserves it. He is the one kept saying WMD over an over again. he never really did give the people of the world his hardcore evidence before the war started.

Slick wille is just as bad if not worse. Every word out of his mouth was a lie. Rubi ridge, Waco, nafta, continuing sanctions killed way more than Bush could ever dream of. He was immoral.

 

[LunarRay]

Moonbeam,

The Post of the Mc Cain comments shows a common technique amongst politicians. Direct the listener toward the only conclusion a rational person should reach by using half truths, misdirection, tangential logic, and worst of all, implying the infallibility of the President and implying the absence of his underlying agenda by selective association of facts. He suggests we accept what is past is past lets focus on today and tomorrow.

True, I was born.... but, not yesterday!

If he knew, he could not tell the facts re: Intel or Agenda or Lies... He too accepts the greater good provided to the survivors over the rule of law and the dead, if what I suspect is the case is the case.

This is my opinion

 

[Zebo]

I think dems are making a huge mistake focusing on NO WMDs. First of all they will be found, perhaps not the threat advertised but some remmance will be found. Second, 75% of americans don't care if they are found so Dems are harping on a non-issue, the public feels the price paid was worth it to have this international scurb (saddam) off our back and limit the risk of future terror whether proven or not.

The issue which I think needs to be focused on is the illegalness of the war. No war is justified unless attacked. And it hasis make these dictatorial nations rabidly pursue nukes in an effort to deter americans new first stike policy. And we have created more children willing to be marters.


The questions should be asked; Is the world safer? And is America more or less vulneable to terrorists today?

Both are NO which I think refects badly on the leadership.
\
A third set of questions I would ask is why is the Taliban being allowed to come back in afghanistan? Why hav'nt we rebuilt as we said we would? Why has the nation besically degraded into a total state of anarchy which the 6000 american troops only in Kabol can do nothing about?