[goMac]

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Olb...ldOnFacism.mov

I would post my opinion, but I think the link pretty much sums it up.

The best quote:

"Mr. Rumsfeld is also personally confused, morally or intellectually, about his own standing in this matter. From Iraq to Katrina, to the entire "Fog of Fear" which continues to enveloppe this nation - he, Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney, and their cronies, have - inadvertently or intentionally - profited and benefited, both personally, and politically. And yet he can stand up, in public, and question the morality and the intellect of those of us who dare ask just for the receipt for the Emporer’s New Clothes."

[vmarks]

A more blatant rule 8 violation, there isn't.

You have to post your opinion. You have to say something.

The quote represents an opinion, but it isn't from you, and you don't even attempt to support that opinion by giving some evidence about the personal or political profit the person you're quoting imagines.

It also offers no evidence on the moral or intellectual confusion.

Thank you, and try again.

[goMac]

While I think the ending of his story was a bit over the top, his historical comparison was generally correct. I think Rumsfeld cares more about a place in history than actually serving the people in this country, but Rumsfeld is mistaken on what role in history he will have.

[subego]

Originally Posted by vmarks

A more blatant rule 8 violation, there isn't.

Though goMac has already spoken for himself, when he stated in the original post that the "link" sums up his opinion, you apparently failed to notice the name of the website he linked to: "crooks and liars"

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by goMac

While I think the ending of his story was a bit over the top, his historical comparison was generally correct. I think Rumsfeld cares more about a place in history than actually serving the people in this country, but Rumsfeld is mistaken on what role in history he will have.

Thank you for adding this opinion.

You've already indicated that you know the role in history Rumsfeld will have.

What do you think shows that Rumsfeld cares about a place in history more than serving the country?

What specifically is 'over the top' that you disagreed with or thought was too much?

[besson3c]

My favorite rule to violate is rule #1... I just can't help telling people all about Fight Club. Yes, I'm in a fight club. I fight people, and I"ll fight you if you don't shut your piehole, internet!

[besson3c]

I like to yell at the internet.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by besson3c

I like to yell at the internet.

You've made the Internet sad. Apologize!

[besson3c]

Dear Internet,

Please accept my apologies, I was out of line. Just to reconcile my poor behavior, I will no longer fight you.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Dear Internet,

Please accept my apologies, I was out of line. Just to reconcile my poor behavior, I will no longer fight you.

All you ever think of is yourself. Why can't you ever think about the Internet? The Internet has needs, too!

Does this dress make The Internet look fat?

Edit: I should stay on topic....

Does this dress make Donald Rumsfeld look fat?

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by goMac

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Olb...ldOnFacism.mov

I would post my opinion, but I think the link pretty much sums it up.

The best quote:

"Mr. Rumsfeld is also personally confused, morally or intellectually, about his own standing in this matter. From Iraq to Katrina, to the entire "Fog of Fear" which continues to enveloppe this nation - he, Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney, and their cronies, have - inadvertently or intentionally - profited and benefited, both personally, and politically. And yet he can stand up, in public, and question the morality and the intellect of those of us who dare ask just for the receipt for the Emporer’s New Clothes."

Olbermann is a blowheart. I saw the piece. The problem is most people including most Democrats supported our initial efforts in Iraq. And if you listen carefully, influential Democrats as well as most Republicans differ not so much on policy ( which is why you don't hear much form the Democrats on how they would change policy ) but on the implimantation of said policy i.e. the Powell Doctrine as opposed to the Rumsfeld Doctrine. Bush's approval rating sucks as it relates to the Iraq war is not because most Americans want to cut and run, it's because we didn't go in and seriously kick ass and follow up with a post war security plan. Bush and Rumsfeld tried to fight the war on the cheap. Major mistake. That's just how Liberal democracies have fought wars since WWll. On the cheap. Olbermann is just laughable. That pointy head still doesn't understand he is a minority in a minority party.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Orion27

The problem is most people including most Democrats supported our initial efforts in Iraq.

I don't think that's true. Dem's supported Afghanistan, but not Iraq.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by goMac

I don't think that's true. Dem's supported Afghanistan, but not Iraq.

Democrats were split, but the majority of Democrats voted for the war resolution adgainst Iraq.
Or was that vote just a politcal trick, knowing in advance they would everything they could to cut Bush off at the knees? Oh by the way, could you articulate where the Democrats differ on policy?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by goMac

I don't think that's true. Dem's supported Afghanistan, but not Iraq.

"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 | Source

"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 | Source

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source

"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 | Source

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 | Source

[goMac]

When is it that Kevin is going to understand that what senators say does not reflect general opinion? What Bush says certainly doesn't.

This is completely ignoring that most of those quotes don't say Iraq should be invaded. They say that if Saddam is armed, he should be disarmed by force. Kevin loves quoting one thing that really says another. Most of those quotes should be followed by "...if he is found to be armed."

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Orion27

Democrats were split, but the majority of Democrats voted for the war resolution adgainst Iraq.
Or was that vote just a politcal trick, knowing in advance they would everything they could to cut Bush off at the knees? Oh by the way, could you articulate where the Democrats differ on policy?

Um. Democrats don't think Iraq was necessary. For the rest of my response, see above. The common joke among democrats is that our representatives need to grow some balls.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by goMac

Um. Democrats don't think Iraq was necessary. For the rest of my response, see above. The common joke among democrats is that our representatives need to grow some balls.

Why would you vote for someone who does not vote their conviction or conscience? Last vote for the "Kerry Ammendment" in June went down to defeat 93-6. I think that pretty much sums up the size of the minority in this country with the articulated views of Kerry, Lamont, about 7%. The other 30% of the Democrat vote is for the free ride on the backs of others.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by vmarks

A more blatant rule 8 violation, there isn't.

You have to post your opinion. You have to say something.

The quote represents an opinion, but it isn't from you, and you don't even attempt to support that opinion by giving some evidence about the personal or political profit the person you're quoting imagines.

It also offers no evidence on the moral or intellectual confusion.

Thank you, and try again.

My excuse is I was out having a beer with my friends.

V

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by voodoo

My excuse is I was out having a beer with my friends.

V

And you didn't invite me? Darn.

[kamina]

Originally Posted by Orion27

The problem is most people including most Democrats supported our initial efforts in Iraq

How many percentage of Americans was it that thought Saddam had something to do with 9/11 and Al Quaida? If I recall, during the rally to gain acceptance for the attack to Iraq, that percentage was spectaculously high. Ofcourse looking back, I'm fairly sure it was clear to both Bush and Rumsfeld that this was not the case..

Anyway, what do I know. I'm not even American

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Orion27

Why would you vote for someone who does not vote their conviction or conscience? Last vote for the "Kerry Ammendment" in June went down to defeat 93-6. I think that pretty much sums up the size of the minority in this country with the articulated views of Kerry, Lamont, about 7%. The other 30% of the Democrat vote is for the free ride on the backs of others.

I don't. But I also don't have magical powers to cast votes in all the states either. I just cast votes for my district, and my representatives have done a great job.

This, by the way, is why Liberman is not doing so well in his state. People are tired of Democrats who just go along with whatever Bush says.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by goMac

I don't. But I also don't have magical powers to cast votes in all the states either. I just cast votes for my district, and my representatives have done a great job.

This, by the way, is why Liberman is not doing so well in his state. People are tired of Democrats who just go along with whatever Bush says.

I believe Liberman lost a Democrat primary which was attended by less than 300,000 voters.
Roughly half voted for Lamont, about 144,000 votes. Total voter registration in Connctitcut
is Approximately 2,300,000 voters. Lamont has 13% of the vote in the bag. Actually double the national percentage of actual nutjobs who would vote for Lamont. Given Lieberman now leads statewide in the polls, and will win in November, it's funny how Democrats can spin defeat into a victory. Is that their strategy for Iraq? Spin defeat into victory.. Or more accurately, spin positive accomplishments and potentially favorable outcomes into a defeat?

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Orion27

I believe Liberman lost a Democrat primary which was attended by less than 300,000 voters.

And statistics will tell you Liberman will probably loose by the same percentage outside of the sample group too.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by goMac

And statistics will tell you Liberman will probably loose by the same percentage outside of the sample group too.

I'm curious, because you have not replied to any of the hard questions. Just what is your visage of the Middle East if we pull up stakes and leave? Do have a problem with forced conversions at the point of a gun?

[Busemann]

Originally Posted by Kevin

"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 | Source

"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 | Source

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source

"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 | Source

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 | Source

Umm.. Few of those democrats supported the war in Iraq. Al Gore was always completely against the invasion for instance. What your quotes prove is that Saddam was a bad man, which is something we all agree on.

[Orion27]

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source

Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source

Does that go for Iran too? Do the things these people say really matter?

[Spliffdaddy]

Well, no, I'm not sure anything Nancy Pelosi and Bill Clinton says really matters.

You have to keep checking back to see where they currently stand on most issues.

Hilary Clinton is a different breed. She won't admit to having a position on anything. But we know where she stands, anyhow. Way over to the left.

[ink]

Originally Posted by Orion27

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source

Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source

Does that go for Iran too? Do the things these people say really matter?

If the war in Iraq has proven anything, it's that the UN sanctions and inspections did "deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them". Why continue to beat Clinton over something he did that bloody well actually WORKED!?!?

Why is the right so continually focused on alleged (and real) hypocracy of the left? Why not on the future? My dad is reading this book "Do as I say, not as I do" (Peter Schweizer) and gloating all about the quotes from the "liberal leaders of America". Somehow he twists this information into an affirmation of the current Republican policies. I. Just. Don't. Get. It. Why do you still post Kerry quotes, and yet follow the idiot that made a mockery of the National Guard when he was young? Two sets of rules?

It's a mystery to me.

[ink]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Hilary Clinton is a different breed. She won't admit to having a position on anything. But we know where she stands, anyhow. Way over to the left.

Yeah!

And.. and..

That'll be the DESTRUCTION of our American Way of Life, no?

Bush is doing all he can to save America in the world right now.

From those Leftists that ran the country in the 90's, back in the Bad Old Days.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by goMac

When is it that Kevin is going to understand that what senators say does not reflect general opinion?

#1 Sure they do. What planet are you on?
#2 What does that have to do with me just proving you wrong?

This is completely ignoring that most of those quotes don't say Iraq should be invaded. They say that if Saddam is armed, he should be disarmed by force. Kevin loves quoting one thing that really says another. Most of those quotes should be followed by "...if he is found to be armed."

No. The whole "Iraq shouldn't be invaded" didn't start till during election time. Before that they gave their APPROVAL for Iraq to be invaded.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Busemann

Umm.. Few of those democrats supported the war in Iraq. Al Gore was always completely against the invasion for instance. What your quotes prove is that Saddam was a bad man, which is something we all agree on.

Gore was against Anything Bush did. Gore was also a sore loser.

And no, my quotes prove that these people talk out both sides of their mouths.

It wasn't till election time did the accusations and flip flop on Iraq started.

The Dems knew they had no stance to run on, so they made one up.

Some of you fell for it hook, line and sinker.

Some of you are STILL falling for it.

[ironknee]

i'll say it again, iraq is really iWaq...it's a father son conflict...an oedipus complex

and we all have to pay for it...some, like kevin, say it would be a decade or longer war

that means some of you with kids might be faced with a stress of the draft (come on, a 10 year war will need a draft, be real) ... and how is that good?

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Kevin

And no, my quotes prove that these people talk out both sides of their mouths.

They said if he had WMD's we should invade, otherwise not.

There was no proof of WMD's before (or after) the invasion.

They then said they were against the war.

Despite what you'd like them to have said, there was no double talk going on.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Kevin

#1 Sure they do. What planet are you on?
#2 What does that have to do with me just proving you wrong?

No they don't. What Bush says doesn't reflect general opinion. Yet he still says it.

In response to #2, saying "Senator Blah Blah Blah said it!" doesn't mean you've proven your point at all because you're not proving it's a "liberal thing". You can find a liberal senator who supported the war. But in the same vein, I can find conservatives against it. It proves nothing.

[Busemann]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Gore was against Anything Bush did. Gore was also a sore loser.

And no, my quotes prove that these people talk out both sides of their mouths.

It wasn't till election time did the accusations and flip flop on Iraq started.

The Dems knew they had no stance to run on, so they made one up.

Some of you fell for it hook, line and sinker.

Some of you are STILL falling for it.

This isn't true. See goMac's post.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by goMac

When is it that Kevin is going to understand that what senators say does not reflect general opinion? What Bush says certainly doesn't.

This is completely ignoring that most of those quotes don't say Iraq should be invaded. They say that if Saddam is armed, he should be disarmed by force. Kevin loves quoting one thing that really says another. Most of those quotes should be followed by "...if he is found to be armed."

No, they're pretty much saying the same things Bush is today;

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 | Source

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by goMac

They said if he had WMD's we should invade, otherwise not.

There was no proof of WMD's before (or after) the invasion.

He used them. He threatened to use them again.

They then said they were against the war.

Despite what you'd like them to have said, there was no double talk going on.

As it turns out, you're right. It was more like triple-talk.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ink

If the war in Iraq has proven anything, it's that the UN sanctions and inspections did "deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them". Why continue to beat Clinton over something he did that bloody well actually WORKED!?!?

A. you seemed to have forgotten the missiles we lobbed from Warships. You also seem to forget our actions in Yugoslavia. Whether or not the agreements made between Clinton and N. Korea actually WORKED is probably arguable too by most who've availed themselves of recent news.

B. Really, economic sanctions had more of an impact on Iraqi poor in serving only to starve hundreds of thousands of them to death. You can claim to oppose war, but certainly not with any humanitarian interests in mind. I suppose we can mention the numerous attempts at evading inspections too.

Why is the right so continually focused on alleged (and real) hypocracy of the left? Why not on the future? My dad is reading this book "Do as I say, not as I do" (Peter Schweizer) and gloating all about the quotes from the "liberal leaders of America". Somehow he twists this information into an affirmation of the current Republican policies. I. Just. Don't. Get. It. Why do you still post Kerry quotes, and yet follow the idiot that made a mockery of the National Guard when he was young? Two sets of rules?

How did he make a mockery of the National Guard??? You're not still referring to the debunked forgery alledging dishonorable service in the National Guard. I. Just. Don't. Get. It. Why the left would continue to propogate the kind of attitude that has lost them countless elections is beyond me.

[Orion27]

The Valeri Plame case is illustrative of hypocrisy od Democrats. Where is the apology? Waht kind of political hack is the Special Prosecuter having known of the Armitage link several years ago?

From a Washington Post editorial:

End of an Affair
It turns out that the person who exposed CIA agent Valerie Plame was not out to punish her husband.
Friday, September 1, 2006; A20

WE'RE RELUCTANT to return to the subject of former CIA employee Valerie Plame because of our oft-stated belief that far too much attention and debate in Washington has been devoted to her story and that of her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, over the past three years. But all those who have opined on this affair ought to take note of the not-so-surprising disclosure that the primary source of the newspaper column in which Ms. Plame's cover as an agent was purportedly blown in 2003 was former deputy secretary of state Richard L. Armitage.

Mr. Armitage was one of the Bush administration officials who supported the invasion of Iraq only reluctantly. He was a political rival of the White House and Pentagon officials who championed the war and whom Mr. Wilson accused of twisting intelligence about Iraq and then plotting to destroy him. Unaware that Ms. Plame's identity was classified information, Mr. Armitage reportedly passed it along to columnist Robert D. Novak "in an offhand manner, virtually as gossip," according to a story this week by the Post's R. Jeffrey

Smith, who quoted a former colleague of Mr. Armitage.

It follows that one of the most sensational charges leveled against the Bush White House -- that it orchestrated the leak of Ms. Plame's identity to ruin her career and thus punish Mr. Wilson -- is untrue. The partisan clamor that followed the raising of that allegation by Mr. Wilson in the summer of 2003 led to the appointment of a special prosecutor, a costly and prolonged investigation, and the indictment of Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, on charges of perjury. All of that might have been avoided had Mr. Armitage's identity been known three years ago.

That's not to say that Mr. Libby and other White House officials are blameless. As prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald has reported, when Mr. Wilson charged that intelligence about Iraq had been twisted to make a case for war, Mr. Libby and Mr. Cheney reacted by inquiring about Ms. Plame's role in recommending Mr. Wilson for a CIA-sponsored trip to Niger, where he investigated reports that Iraq had sought to purchase uranium. Mr. Libby then allegedly disclosed Ms. Plame's identity to journalists and lied to a grand jury when he said he had learned of her identity from one of those reporters. Mr. Libby and his boss, Mr. Cheney, were trying to discredit Mr. Wilson; if Mr. Fitzgerald's account is correct, they were careless about handling information that was classified.

Nevertheless, it now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming -- falsely, as it turned out -- that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials. He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife. He diverted responsibility from himself and his false charges by claiming that President Bush's closest aides had engaged in an illegal conspiracy. It's unfortunate that so many people took him seriously.

[ink]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

A. you seemed to have forgotten the missiles we lobbed from Warships. You also seem to forget our actions in Yugoslavia. Whether or not the agreements made between Clinton and N. Korea actually WORKED is probably arguable too by most who've availed themselves of recent news.

B. Really, economic sanctions had more of an impact on Iraqi poor in serving only to starve hundreds of thousands of them to death. You can claim to oppose war, but certainly not with any humanitarian interests in mind. I suppose we can mention the numerous attempts at evading inspections too.

No, I haven't forgotten any of that. Clinton (and the rest of the world) effectively contained Saddam Hussein and denied him WMD.

Are the Iraqi people much more affluent since Bush attacked?

Do tell.

How did he make a mockery of the National Guard??? You're not still referring to the debunked forgery alledging dishonorable service in the National Guard. I. Just. Don't. Get. It. Why the left would continue to propogate the kind of attitude that has lost them countless elections is beyond me.

No, not the forged documents; but the fact that at least Kerry was out there on the front line while Bush was doing weekend warrior back in the states. Kerry (as pointed out in the book my dad is reading) is derided for being an un-American yellow (gasp) liberal -- mostly by the Swift Boat group. The point is that conservatives seem to love pointing out hypocracy in their opponents, and use it as illogial justification for the actions of those in charge of their party. For example:

• Bush Attacked Iraq to (as stated at the time) save the world from Saddam's WMD
• There were no WMD
• Illogical leap ahead
• Bush's actions are justified because other liberals believed Bush's lies, and Clinton wanted to (and succeeded) in containing the WMD's.

See what I mean?

EDIT: Furthermore, it's not even all that hypocritical if someone believed Bush before the invasion to change their stance later on (as others have pointed out in this thread). That doesn't seem stop conservatives from bringing it up, slapping the 'H' label on it and then using it as a justification to continue a bad policy.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ink

No, I haven't forgotten any of that. Clinton (and the rest of the world) effectively contained Saddam Hussein and denied him WMD.

Are the Iraqi people much more affluent since Bush attacked?

In this micro-wave-I-want-it-yesterday Baruka Salt world of "I want an oompa loompa NOW", the question isn't are they "much more affluent", but are they more affluent and are they on the track to improvement. Right?

Do tell.

Well, thank you for opening the floor for discourse;

- In all, some 50 non-government women's organizations have sprung up in Iraq recently; many women are getting involving in politics and civic life. "We succeeded in getting a target of 25% of women to be included in decision-making positions [in the new Iraqi government]. Now we have to train enough women to take on those jobs," says Tamara Sarafa Quinn, a Chattanooga resident, who helped organize the delegation. This leads to greater freedoms and influence including holding positions of authority up to and included a place along side men in capital attainment and independance.

- Iraq spent only $20 million on health care in 2002. Now, the Ministry of Health has a $1 billion budget. Most of the money comes from oil revenues, but the United States and other nations are supplementing this as the result of last year's donors conference in Madrid. This does not mean the Ministry is awash in money, but the increase has raised health care spending from 68 cents per Iraqi in 2002 to about $40 today. As a result, Iraq's 240 hospitals are running despite severe shortages of medicines and other supplies and staff are being paid after going unsalaried for months leading to the 2003 war.

- In the field of education, Iraqi academics continue to benefit from the assistance of their Western colleagues. A group of 14 Iraqi lecturers from the universities in Dohuk, Sulaiymania, Kirkuk and Arbil are currently taking part in a summer training course at Huddersfield Technical College in the United Kingdom, to bring themselves up to date with teaching and marketing methods and the use of information technology, which was restricted under Saddam's reign. The course is funded by the British Council and was initiated by Rasheda Zaher Draey, of the Huddersfield College, who while visiting Iraq in 2001 had noted the outdated teaching methods and limited resources at Iraqi universities.

- In oil news, the Iraqi Oil Ministry announced that it plans to dig 2000 new oil wells and extend the existing oil pipelines by 3000 kilometers in 2005. In the meantime, the Iraqi authorities are planning to construct four new oil refineries in central and southern Iraq.

- In other energy news, German firm Elbe Maschinenbau has signed an agreement to build three new power plants in Iraq: "A 550-megawatt and a 100-megawatt plant are planned, while the deal gives the Hamburg-based company an option on a 240-megawatt facility. It will be the company's first project with the Iraqi energy ministry."

- In manufacturing news, Dr. Hajim Al- Hassani, the Minister for Industry has announced that the Iraqi government is negotiating with General Motors the construction of a car factory, which would produce annually some 90,000 salon cars and 30,000 pick up trucks.

- There are already some positive flow-ons for the rest of the region from the growth of Iraqi economy: "The Middle East's marine coatings industry is growing, with more ships entering the Gulf since the end of the Iraq war, according to a leading supplier. Saudi-based Sigma Coatings, part of the global SigmaKalon group, one of the region's leading marine paint suppliers, has seen business pick up post-Saddam."

- For those tens of thousands of Iraqis working on the reconstruction projects, these are the "dream jobs." Says Kareem Sajid, a father of four, who works on the construction of one of the Iraq's largest landfills outside Baghdad: "I am very happy as this is the best day, when we get paid... It is the highest pay a labourer can get in Baghdad. I am sure my family can now relax for the next two weeks... Believe me, this is dream pay for someone like me who was virtually jobless until this project started in June." Sajid is paid a daily wage of 10,000 Iraqi dinars; before he used to make 50,000 per month.

- Agricultural development

The one obvious thing that must change in Iraq is violence. The violence must stop, but we must also realize what the fight is about.

No, not the forged documents; but the fact that at least Kerry was out there on the front line while Bush was doing weekend warrior back in the states.

I'd like for you to look into the eyes of my friends playing weekend warrior for the National Guard and tell them that they are shaming the military. Go ahead. I think you need to think about what you're saying before you say it. This is partisan nonsense of the highest order.

Kerry (as pointed out in the book my dad is reading) is derided for being an un-American yellow (gasp) liberal -- mostly by the Swift Boat group. The point is that conservatives seem to love pointing out hypocracy in their opponents, and use it as illogial justification for the actions of those in charge of their party. For example:

• Bush Attacked Iraq to (as stated at the time) save the world from Saddam's WMD
• There were no WMD
• Illogical leap ahead
• Bush's actions are justified because other liberals believed Bush's lies, and Clinton wanted to (and succeeded) in containing the WMD's.

See what I mean?

No, but I know why you're confused.
- Bush attacked Iraq to change the face of the Middle East.
- there were WMD's. Saddam used them. He threatened to use them again. 13 UN resolutions were drafted by an International body for non-compliance. The 13th authored "serious consequences" for non-compliance. This would mean consequences over and above the 12 years of economic sanctions and failed "humanitarian" policy only serving to continue the starving deaths and oppression of innocent Iraqis while another palace and torture chamber were being built.
- Clinton contained nothing, least of which Osama Bin Laden.

EDIT: Furthermore, it's not even all that hypocritical if someone believed Bush before the invasion to change their stance later on (as others have pointed out in this thread). That doesn't seem stop conservatives from bringing it up, slapping the 'H' label on it and then using it as a justification to continue a bad policy.

The policy is bad to those who lack resolve and those xenophobes who believe there is no hope for the Iraqi "barbarian". Nevermind the "H", it is those who generally oppose anything contingent upon whether or not the person behind the policy has "R" after their name. This is the problem.

What's the solution? Naysaying, pessimism, lacking resolve, and complacency of course because anything else might wreak of having an idea of their own.

[ink]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

In this micro-wave-I-want-it-yesterday Baruka Salt world of "I want an oompa loompa NOW", the question isn't are they "much more affluent", but are they more affluent and are they on the track to improvement. Right?


Well, thank you for opening the floor for discourse;

It's great that you can cut-and-paste without attribution. Some of those quotes even look forward to 2005. Let's look at recent reports, from attributable sources. How about the Christain Science Monitor?

Firefights mark further splintering in Iraq | csmonitor.com

Or MSNBC?

Iraq turning focus to economic rebuilding - International Business - MSNBC.com

The IMF?

Loading...

The one obvious thing that must change in Iraq is violence. The violence must stop, but we must also realize what the fight is about.

Amen to that.

I'd like for you to look into the eyes of my friends playing weekend warrior for the National Guard and tell them that they are shaming the military. Go ahead. I think you need to think about what you're saying before you say it. This is partisan nonsense of the highest order.

I agree. My uncle is in the NG. If your friend denegrates Kerry for not being valiant enough (ala Swift Boat), then he has no room to talk (which was my point).

No, but I know why you're confused.
- Bush attacked Iraq to change the face of the Middle East.
- there were WMD's. Saddam used them. He threatened to use them again. 13 UN resolutions were drafted by an International body for non-compliance. The 13th authored "serious consequences" for non-compliance. This would mean consequences over and above the 12 years of economic sanctions and failed "humanitarian" policy only serving to continue the starving deaths and oppression of innocent Iraqis while another palace and torture chamber were being built.
- Clinton contained nothing, least of which Osama Bin Laden.

• Bush created a coalition of support in the US, and among other nations, on the pretext of WMD not to "change the face of the Middle East". He doesn't seem to be doing a very good job of it either way.
• Somehow, the UN (and Clinton) were doing just fine without invading. The actual invasion proved this.
• Iraq has NOTHING TO DO WITH Osama Bin Laden. Sean Hannity would be impressed with your ability to confuse the issues though.

The policy is bad to those who lack resolve and those xenophobes who believe there is no hope for the Iraqi "barbarian". Nevermind the "H", it is those who generally oppose anything contingent upon whether or not the person behind the policy has "R" after their name. This is the problem.

What's the solution? Naysaying, pessimism, lacking resolve, and complacency of course because anything else might wreak of having an idea of their own.

I believe the solution is to stop trying to "change the face of the Middle East" with external force. A true, free democracy can only come from within a nation; not imposed on it from without. This is especially true for Christain nations who are seen as The Scary Enemy of fundamentalist Islam. Our invasion simply reinforces this predjudice and fuels the anger of the power base that relies on Islam to keep their sheep in line. It would be much better for us to spend our resources on beefing up defensive security (which Bush has done a great job at doing) and developing energy technology so that the oil warlords would lose their power in the world.

Is this Naysaing? Pessimism? Lacking resolve? Complacency?

Do you see any solution other than invading Iraq (which leads, ultimately, to invading Iran to "protect" us from the terrorists)?

[Spliffdaddy]

you got smacked down bigtime.

now go sit in a corner and wait until 2008 - when Newt Gingrich is your president.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by ink

A true, free democracy can only come from within a nation; not imposed on it from without.

False. Soviet Union. Germany. Italy.

"No parliamentarian can close his eyes to the rise of Facism in post-war Italy; for Italy lies near the heart of our western world; she has made on of the greatest single contributions made by any country to our common western civilization; and in the nineteenth century her adoption of Anglo-French parliamentarianism seemed to be the essence of her national resurrection. In these circumstances, her repudiation of "democracy" (in our conventional use of the term) has made it an open question whether this political plant can really strike permanent root anywhere except its native soil." -- Arnold Toynbee, historian.

Toynbee was proven wrong. Italy turned away from facism and became a democracy, with outside assistance and intervention.

People assert that Arabs and Persians need and want iron-fisted rulers, that they've never had democracy and never will, "their values are not our values."

People assert that democracy in certain parts of the world isn't in the best interests of the "West."

People assert that even if the free world might be made more secure by the democratization of the middle east that there's little the free world can do to help- that freedom cannot be imposed from the outside, and that any attempt to do so will backfire. Since democratic reform can only come from within, the role for leaders of the free world is then left to make the best of a bad situation and try and support 'moderate' non-democratic regimes to promote stability.

One thing is common to all of these remarks: They deny the power of freedom to transform.

These short-sighted remarks were wrong last century, and they're wrong this century.

I believe all people yearn to be free. I believe freedom anywhere makes the world safer everywhere.

I believe the United States can have a successful role in bringing freedom to the rest of the world, that the free world can transform any society on this earth including Iraq.

So the question you have to answer for yourself is simple: Do you believe in the power of freedom to transform the world?

Well, do you?

[Spliffdaddy]

awesome post, vmarks.

[Orion27]

I believe the United States can have a successful role in bringing freedom to the rest of the world, that the free world can transform any society on this earth including Iraq.

So the question you have to answer for yourself is simple: Do you believe in the power of freedom to transform the world?

Well, do you? >>>>>> vmarks>>>>

Sorry Vmarks, You will never get a Liberal to answer that question. You will have to leave it to
the 60's idealistic neoLiberals, now neoConservatives. We believe the American Revolution was, well, revolutionary and can work for all mankind. I don't understand where the current Liberal establishment is coming from theses days. Truly baffling.

[Face Ache]

Originally Posted by vmarks

So the question you have to answer for yourself is simple: Do you believe in the power of freedom to transform the world?

Well, do you?

[ironknee]

you're treating other countries like kids...that's why they resent us

[Spliffdaddy]

They *are* kids.

If they were adults we wouldn't have to spank them.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

They *are* kids.

If they were adults we wouldn't have to spank them.

this coming from someone from the south