Posted: Thu Sep 04, 2008 12:04 pm
Thanks.. I almost choked on my lunch...Actually I prefer the tough love Eisel hands out.
The Observation Deck
Neighbors Celebrating Free Speech and Intellectual Diversity While Speaking Over The Digital Fence
https://deck.lakewoodobserver.com/
Does GOP Hypocrisy Ever End?
Page 5 of 7
Posted: Thu Sep 04, 2008 12:12 pm
Stephen -
Did you even read my post? I concurred that the U.S. (both sides of the aisle) and most other countries were right in enacting efforts to rid Saddam of his weapons and capacity back in the Bush I and Clinton days.
The fact that he had them in the 90's and the U.N. said he didn't in 2001-02 proves that the united front, including Clinton's ordered air-strikes, was working.
Saddam giving us the run around and lack of evidence is not justification for invasion. Now, seven years later, the Bush team is arguing against the withdrawal timetable offered by the IRAQI GOVERNMENT.
Bad call.
Morally bankrupt.
Horrible prosecution of the war.
The democratically elected Iraqi leaders want us out and the Bush team won't leave.
A permanent campaign mode which convinced 65% of Americans that Saddam had a direct role in 9/11.
An awful base on which to defeat the terrorist forces which are indeed a grave threat (but had no operation in Iraq before the U.S. led invasion).
I appreciate the exchange.
Did you even read my post? I concurred that the U.S. (both sides of the aisle) and most other countries were right in enacting efforts to rid Saddam of his weapons and capacity back in the Bush I and Clinton days.
The fact that he had them in the 90's and the U.N. said he didn't in 2001-02 proves that the united front, including Clinton's ordered air-strikes, was working.
Saddam giving us the run around and lack of evidence is not justification for invasion. Now, seven years later, the Bush team is arguing against the withdrawal timetable offered by the IRAQI GOVERNMENT.
Bad call.
Morally bankrupt.
Horrible prosecution of the war.
The democratically elected Iraqi leaders want us out and the Bush team won't leave.
A permanent campaign mode which convinced 65% of Americans that Saddam had a direct role in 9/11.
An awful base on which to defeat the terrorist forces which are indeed a grave threat (but had no operation in Iraq before the U.S. led invasion).
I appreciate the exchange.
Posted: Thu Sep 04, 2008 12:30 pm
Sorry, sometimes my sarcasm does not come across in my writing..Did you even read my post?
If they want us out then we should leave..The democratically elected Iraqi leaders want us out and the Bush team won't leave.
The UN was unable to verify that Saddam had destroyed his WMDs during their inspections.The fact that he had them in the 90's and the U.N. said he didn't in 2001-02 proves that the united front, including Clinton's ordered air-strikes, was working.
Al Gore would disagree with youhe didn't in 2001-02 proves that the united front, including Clinton's ordered air-strikes, was working.
It was still an issue in 2002... There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
Posted: Thu Sep 04, 2008 3:43 pm
All but two of the quotes you pasted from some Web site, Stephen, came before Blix and the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission went back into Iraq. ("Nice try" right back at ya.) This was the common belief and primary impetus of the U. N. Commission’s returning to Iraq in 11/02.
From November 2002 to March 2003, the U.N. had turned up no evidence that Iraq had any stockpiles or ability to produce WMD’s.
Only two of the quotes you provided, Stephen, came after November 2002 but before the Commission’s ultimate report that there was no evidence that Iraq had any WMD’s or ability to produce.
Despite the fact that the U.S. had no intelligence officers in Iraq leading up to March 20, 2003 – the U. N. did – the Bush team’s (Powell) report to the U.N. contradicted the Commission’s conclusion.
Bottom Line:
Saddam’s WMD’s were verifiably destroyed in the 1990’s.
Based on the overwhelming sentiment that Saddam was reacquiring WMD’s, the U. N. went back in 11/03, chastised Saddam for the “cat and mouse game,â€
From November 2002 to March 2003, the U.N. had turned up no evidence that Iraq had any stockpiles or ability to produce WMD’s.
Only two of the quotes you provided, Stephen, came after November 2002 but before the Commission’s ultimate report that there was no evidence that Iraq had any WMD’s or ability to produce.
Despite the fact that the U.S. had no intelligence officers in Iraq leading up to March 20, 2003 – the U. N. did – the Bush team’s (Powell) report to the U.N. contradicted the Commission’s conclusion.
Bottom Line:
Saddam’s WMD’s were verifiably destroyed in the 1990’s.
Based on the overwhelming sentiment that Saddam was reacquiring WMD’s, the U. N. went back in 11/03, chastised Saddam for the “cat and mouse game,â€
Posted: Thu Sep 04, 2008 5:57 pm
Stephen Eisel wrote:
There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
You make a strong case for John F.Kerry, Bob Graham, Hillary Clinton, Henry Waxman, Jay Rockefeller, Robert Byrd, Al Gore, and Carl Levin wanting to invade Iraq or should have wanting to invade Iraq. I recall you making strong cases for why the U.N. should have wanted to invade Iraq also.
This doesn't explain why you wanted or did not want the U.S. to invade Iraq.
I'm sure the process by which senators double-dog-dare each other into passing legislation which gives the President a greater amount of discretion in declaring war is very interesting and sophisticated and professional. It is important to not look like a chicken.
However much remaining WMDs Saddam Hussein Iraq did or did not have was obviously less than what he had in the 1980s. Therefore it should matter even less than in the 1980s. Since the Hussein Regime was pretty secular, and the U.S. was engaged in a global war against Islamic extremism, it should have mattered even less. Before invading Iraq the U.S. should have formally cancelled the global war on Islamic Extremism.
the post-Hussein sectarian violence has killed or maimed or displaced more Iraqis than Saddam Hussein did with WMDs or torture. The Middle East is a hardcore place not corrupted by Liberals. It is more important there to not look like a chicken, until things get secular for a few generations. American technocrats consistently fail drastically after our military succeeds in dismantling the formal armies of its opponents.
The Republicans keep yammering out these "lessons of 9/11" slogans at the conventions. Here are the lessons of 9/11. Citizens of our allies in the Middle East will commit terrorist attacks on America. They will do this with conventional weapons in fairly obvious ways. They will target very obvious targets. Whichever of the hundreds of thousands of obvious targets we aren't spending billions of dollars to watch at the time. They will train to do this in Florida or Germany. They will train to do this playing video games, looking at maps, or looking at google maps.
Posted: Thu Sep 04, 2008 6:07 pm
Stephen E. is just riding the horse that brought him here and will take him God only knows where.
Undisputable material fact: No WMD in Iraq.
Undisputable material fact: no operational connection between Saddam's regime and Al-Q.
Undisputable material fact: ginned up mendacities offered as fact.
Undisputable material fact: after promising to put the request for war authorization to the UN Security Council, Bush broke his promise and commenced an illegal war per the UN Charter.
Nothing Stephen has offered overturns any of this.
***
LOL
Undisputable material fact: No WMD in Iraq.
Undisputable material fact: no operational connection between Saddam's regime and Al-Q.
Undisputable material fact: ginned up mendacities offered as fact.
Undisputable material fact: after promising to put the request for war authorization to the UN Security Council, Bush broke his promise and commenced an illegal war per the UN Charter.
Nothing Stephen has offered overturns any of this.
***
The UN was unable to verify that Saddam had destroyed his WMDs during their inspections.
LOL
Posted: Fri Sep 05, 2008 7:07 am
What would UNSCOM know? lol...Stephen Calhoun wrote:Stephen E. is just riding the horse that brought him here and will take him God only knows where.
Undisputable material fact: No WMD in Iraq.
Undisputable material fact: no operational connection between Saddam's regime and Al-Q.
Undisputable material fact: ginned up mendacities offered as fact.
Undisputable material fact: after promising to put the request for war authorization to the UN Security Council, Bush broke his promise and commenced an illegal war per the UN Charter.
Nothing Stephen has offered overturns any of this.
***The UN was unable to verify that Saddam had destroyed his WMDs during their inspections.
LOL
Posted: Fri Sep 05, 2008 7:38 am
Stephen Eisel wrote:What would UNSCOM know? lol...
I still find it quite unsettling that you end with a LOL, as this war has murdered over a 1/4 million civilians, in a country that has NEVER attacked us.
Think about that. Go back to Gulf War 1. The only deaths occurred when we hit a scud missle that was not targeting any US troops and it fell on one of our camps. Think about it, we went to war with them, and they never really defended themselves against us. This was a threat to America how?
I can understand the case against Slick Willy lying. But why can't the Republicans remember when GWB told the nation, Afghanistan is not about a natural gas pipeline, one of two things accomplished there.
Slick Willy broke into prime time TV to lie about Monica Gate. Well GWB broke into prime time TV to LIE about yellow cake, WMDs, death camps, imminent attack on the USA by Iraq, and a list so long it cannot be told here. But hose lies that cost the lives of Americans(far more than 911) and the geniocide of Iraqi civilians is laughing material and shrugged off. Bush knew all of those facts were BS when he was telling us. It is a crime for a president to LIE to the American people about anything.
I will go one further, as witnessed by comments and actions before 911, it was a premeditated LIE. One of the first things he did was to lock up the papers of 41 and 43 for an additional 50 years. Trying to create a Ministry of Disinformation. Karl Rove's Orwellian names for everything to distract and spoon feed more lies to the American people.
And now it continues, McCain, the agent of Change? A sane person would ask, what could be changed if the Bush Administration is so perfect. Why run from the history of the past 8 years. Why doesn't John McCain aka Maverick speak the truth and say the past 8 years were illegal and a nightmare that has sucked everything out of America. Instead of merely saying "I will be the agent for change." Well we have two reasons, 1) he is not a Maverick, 2) he will continue on with the same illegal policies and actions.
I lost my respect for so many Republicans, when they claim GWB was a great president. Even the Republicans didn't want him at their convention. But when they look at me and explain the John and Sarah are agents of CHANGE
It is amazing that one party, can treat Americans with such disdain. It is also amazing at the Americans that eat it up like honey.
I cannot think of anything worth LOL over the last eight years and this administration.
No GWB and Dick Cheney belong in LeHague on trial, and so do the participants of that regime that made it all possible.
FWIW
.
Posted: Fri Sep 05, 2008 8:13 am
Stephen –
Please, please stop with the “LOL.â€
Please, please stop with the “LOL.â€
Posted: Fri Sep 05, 2008 12:14 pm
Stephen Eisel wrote:
What would UNSCOM know? lol...
I still find it quite unsettling that you end with a LOL, as this war has murdered over a 1/4 million civilians, in a country that has NEVER attacked us.
LOL.. The tool box keeps on getting bigger..Maybe, I should get you a power cord for Christmas
... I was not LOL'ing about the subject matter of this thread. I was lol'ing because someone was ignoring the most important fact about the WMD issue in Iraq. Missing Weapons! (not a lot of weapons but just enough to scare me)Posted: Fri Sep 05, 2008 12:27 pm
Again, no inspectors in Iraq from 1998-2002 led everyone to believe Saddam was rebuilding his WMD program
According to David Kay, Iraq was in clear violation of U.N. Resolution 1441, which mandated that Saddam Hussein disclose and destroy all prohibited weapons. ( 2004)
Kay also stated under oath that weapon inspectors found hundreds of cases of Iraqi officials concealing evidence from weapon inspectors. This would be a clear violation of the terms of surrender from the first Golf War.
"
Posted: Fri Sep 05, 2008 12:51 pm
Stephen Eisel wrote:LOL.. The tool box keeps on getting bigger..Maybe, I should get you a power cord for Christmas
If I can claim the intellectual high ground on this tool topic.
Takes one to know one.
Stephen, you still miss the point that while not officially accounted for David Kay knew, they were no longer around. He also stated that he saw much of this as a way for Sadaam(who we put in power) to stay in power and defend himself against others.
I find it odd that you are so tough with the UN Regulations, but then walk away from the fact that it was an illegal war according to the UN, and one that never should have been undertaken.
Which again brings us to the topic of this thread.
"Does GOP Hypocrisy Ever End?"
.
Posted: Fri Sep 05, 2008 12:54 pm
No, I make a strong case for how the Dems and the media pimped this subject for political gain. If any of the missing WMD's are ever used agianst the US or Israel then there will be blood on the hands of the media and the Dems..ryan costa wrote:Stephen Eisel wrote:
There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
You make a strong case for John F.Kerry, Bob Graham, Hillary Clinton, Henry Waxman, Jay Rockefeller, Robert Byrd, Al Gore, and Carl Levin wanting to invade Iraq or should have wanting to invade Iraq. I recall you making strong cases for why the U.N. should have wanted to invade Iraq also.
This doesn't explain why you wanted or did not want the U.S. to invade Iraq.
I'm sure the process by which senators double-dog-dare each other into passing legislation which gives the President a greater amount of discretion in declaring war is very interesting and sophisticated and professional. It is important to not look like a chicken.
However much remaining WMDs Saddam Hussein Iraq did or did not have was obviously less than what he had in the 1980s. Therefore it should matter even less than in the 1980s. Since the Hussein Regime was pretty secular, and the U.S. was engaged in a global war against Islamic extremism, it should have mattered even less. Before invading Iraq the U.S. should have formally cancelled the global war on Islamic Extremism.
the post-Hussein sectarian violence has killed or maimed or displaced more Iraqis than Saddam Hussein did with WMDs or torture. The Middle East is a hardcore place not corrupted by Liberals. It is more important there to not look like a chicken, until things get secular for a few generations. American technocrats consistently fail drastically after our military succeeds in dismantling the formal armies of its opponents.
The Republicans keep yammering out these "lessons of 9/11" slogans at the conventions. Here are the lessons of 9/11. Citizens of our allies in the Middle East will commit terrorist attacks on America. They will do this with conventional weapons in fairly obvious ways. They will target very obvious targets. Whichever of the hundreds of thousands of obvious targets we aren't spending billions of dollars to watch at the time. They will train to do this in Florida or Germany. They will train to do this playing video games, looking at maps, or looking at google maps.
Posted: Fri Sep 05, 2008 1:04 pm
I had lunch with a HIllary supporter today. She is still upset that HIllary isn't on the ticket. So I asked her if McCain picking Palin made her want to support him. She laughed hysterically. And when she stopped laughing she said she was insulted that the republicans thought that women who supported Hillary were so stupid that they would vote for a candidate like Palin who is nothing like Hillary. That conversation made me happy, I hope that the vast majority of Hillary supporters are paying as much attention as her.
Posted: Fri Sep 05, 2008 1:17 pm
Which again brings us to the topic of this thread.
"Does GOP Hypocrisy Ever End?"
If I may take a crack at this question...
my answers would be...
According to Democrats: NO
According to Republicans: What Hypocrisy
According to Independants: Those that live in glass houses...