Third Party & Independents: Archives

Ok then, lets follow your logic and allow me to extrapolate.

This entire war was based on a lie. Therefore it was an unjust war.

Justice must be served and wrongs must be righted. We must immediately return Saddam Husein to power, pay reparations for the damage we have done to thier country and try Bush and Blair for war crimes. Right?

No, it would be stupid for us to return Saddam to power. Your arguement is fallacious because that’s the one point that makes it so absurd. I don’t want to see Saddam returned to power and I think we should have taken him out.

HOWEVER, to predicate the entire invasion on lies of WMDs was and is disgusting. It’s been proven to be a sham in front of the entire world and now Bush wants to play bait and switch with our sensibilities (ie- “Operation Iraqi Freedom”). If Bush wanted to invade so badly because the Iraqi people are not free, why did Bush feel the need to create this illusion of an Iraq threat to America? He would have been better off starting with the truth and making a solid case for war.

Hopefully this will prove that lies do not fly with with the American people.

And I want to point out that I am tired of the Right’s vulgar stance that the wrong answer is preferable to open debate to try and find the right answer. It’s sad to see that we’ve become a nation that can’t see more than two inches in front of our faces are are more content to take the quick and dirty solution out of convenience than to come up with something that is well thought-out. It’s even more vulgar for those same people to throw THEIR garbage at everyone who tries and point out the flaws in their arguments later on.

Uh…What the hell are you talking about?

“The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”
This is a true statement and I dont see how you can keep harping on it. It was one statement. It was not the rationale for the entire war and you would know that if you had read or listened to the entire speech. I believe it is intelectually dishonest to state that this statement was the ENTIRE context for going to war. You know that is not the case so why dont you just admit it? While your at it you might want to take a xanax or some valium…I hear that is good stuff for when your feeling tremendously angry and vitriolic.;)
NEXT!

If you really mean this: “I don’t want to see Saddam returned to power and I think we should have taken him out”, Stephen, then you should stop complaining.

Either justice was done, or justice wasn’t done; make up your mind.

Richard, so it’s the “ends justify the means” routine then? I’m sorry but I just can’t swallow a load of horseshit and lies every time our leaders decide to do something difficult. Any time they have to resort to lies and distortions in the first place their argument is lost.

I can agree on only one point, justice was done to Saddam’s regime. But at what cost to America’s democracy (truth, candid open-ness, or a secretive who decides what’s best for us)? That is the question the Right so judiciously avoids.

The Right amazes me.

The Left never said that Saddam wasn’t a bad person and that he should not be removed. What the Left said is that there should be solid proof of WMD and International cooperation when doing so.

In response the Right LIED (does this not matter to anyone?) to everyone else so they would fall in line with the unilateral approach.

To dumb down the debate so far as to propose that we reinstate Saddam and pay reparations (which we are already doing by funding the new government with 4 billion a month) is absurd. To think that is what the Left is proposing is even more absurd. What we’re saying is he lied and now that Bush as admitted to lying to the ENTIRE country about the REASON FOR WAR there should be consequences, just as there were for Clint’s Beejers in the Oval Office.

Your local Revisionist Historian,

—Joe

Logic has to prevail here. Was the war unjust? Is your point that Bush is a liar? If Bush is a liar Bill Clinton, Hanz (i like chocolate) Blix and Tony Blair are liars as well. This argument is ridiculous for the following reasons.

1) 12 resolutions passed by the united nations dealt with Iraqs WMD program. were they all lying?

2) Bill Clinton said almost the EXACT same things in 1998. As I recall it was on December 17th to be exact.

3)Confirmed: Iraq did, in fact purchase 27 tonnes of yellow cake uranium from Niger during the 80s. It is nowhere to be found. Does that mean it doesn’t exist?

4)Israel Bombed a near complete nuclear reactor and (quite possibly) saved the world 20 yrs ago.

5)Confirmed: The IAEA has bluntly stated that Iraq has had a nuclear weapons program. So has the U.N. and resolutions were passed to enforce the inspection of said facilities in Iraq.

Mincing words is never going to make your dream of impeachment come true. Sorry.

By the way, You might want to review what i said before…
“The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”
is a true statement. Period.

“Yet the unemployment rate is still too high. We will not rest until Americans looking for work can find a job.” GWB

He said this during his news conference today and will soon take off to the ranch for a months vacation. If you are umemployed this doesn’t give you much confidence. It’s all jingoism and empty promises.

I am curious. Why is it that this blog has a “third party” section? All this “third party” section does is criticize the Republican blog.
All this section seems to be able to do is parrot the Democrat blog and leftist ideology. I suppose it is like a bunch of Democrats who can’t admit they are even more radical than the party as a whole. Where is the Libertarian viewpoint? Where is the independent analysis? It is really out of balance. Can someone from this blog point me to an article critical of Democrats?

How is he going to take a vacation? Is he just going to hand the country over to the vice president and “call it good”? Please presidents don’t stop running the country and go on vacation. They change venues and allow slightly more private time away from reporters. Grasping at straws is what you are doing. By the way, It would be very interesting to hear your version of an economic plan to create jobs. My guess is that you would raise taxes, cut the defense budget and
pull out a magic economy wand that will make the markets simply explode with glee! Perhaps you can lay out your plan here, on this blog.

Pete, I’m a conservative and I openly trash the stupidity of the Democrats as well as the Republicans (read my previous entries)

Anyways, allow me to refute the “truthfulness” of those 16 words:

“The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” So said President Bush on January 28th, outlining the case for war with Iraq in his State of the Union address. It was perhaps the most chilling moment of the speech, for it raised the spectre of nuclear weapons in the hands of a dictator who had proved himself capable of terror, invasion, and genocide.

To many listeners, the attribution of this sensational piece of information to the British served only to emphasize its reliability. The President might as well have gone on to say, “And you can take that to the bank, because MI6 doesn’t mess around.” We now know that if the Administration had been playing it straight there would indeed have been a follow-up line, but it would have been something like this: “The C.I.A., however, believes that this so-called fact is almost certainly untrue.”

Read the entire New Yorker article: “Faith-Based Intelligence”

“Logic has to prevail here. Was the war unjust?”

To repeat a few hundred comments on this site, NO!, the war was not unjust BUT… the REASONS given by the administration to the rest of the world making the case for war WERE unjust, and knowingly misleading. I knew their evidence was crap the first time around w/ their vague claims, bunk aluminum tubes, mobile labs, etc. It’s just a shame that most people fell for it until now.

The issue is, what effect does this have on the credibility of the US in the eyes of the World, UN, and potential allies for the next time we have to make the case for war? And additionally, what do we americans expect from our elected leaders in terms of presenting information to us honestly?

“If Bush is a liar Bill Clinton, Hanz (i like chocolate) Blix and Tony Blair are liars as well.”

No argument - a liar is a liar is a liar. But one must consider the importance of the statements & facts being falsified and the impact they have on the recipients. I, and many on this board, find Bush’s lies more disturbing and dangerous than the lies of most other politicians..

You can tell yourself that the “16 words” were technically true, but they were misleading, and used so knowingly for a specific purpose. You can disguise your lies in semantics, but that really doesn’t change much in the end - a lie is a lie.

OK, so here’s a fresh view…

Not only was the war unjust, it was not required and *honestly* I do no believe that a)Saddam was an imminent threat or b)that Iraq had anything to do with the war on terror or c) that the MWD bruhaha was anything more than slime. The Iraq war was a detour from the war on terror. It was for oil, neo-con ideology, daddy’s revenge and a host of other non-critical issues.

The UN was doing a fine job of keeping Saddam at bay and they should have been allowed to continue. GW Bush stopped the UN, not Saddam.

Pete, your repatriation question is disturbing, which is why I think no one has answered it. I am not sure how to answer it, actually. If the war was built on lies, and the leaders of the US toppled Iraq unjustly, then some sort of punishment and reparations are called for. Does that mean reinstalling Saddam?

You could argue that.

It may mean more than that, too.

At the very least it should lead to the removal of the American leadership guilty of the misleading. I would throw the question reparations back to the UN.

Suffice it to say, before anyone will figure out what is owed to Iraq, the Bush team must step down or be impeached and removed from office.

Then, once we have our criminals taken care of, we can look to make amends for what has been done both in and out of our borders.

For the sake of our country, it is time to put an end to the madness and hold Bush to the same standards Clinton was held to.

Robbie D

By Pete’s wonderful ‘logic,’ we must never question our government’s decision to go to war. What if it *is* a lie, Pete? What are *you* saying? You are saying that if it is a lie, we better not talk about it, because then the consequence are ugly. Great idea.

You then you go onto to invent the most ludicrous bit of ‘logic,’ that we have to put Saddam back in power if the case for war was bunk.

A nice little set up you have there. Don’t even ask if the case was valid, because if you do we have to put a murderer back in power. So if you question the war, you are a murder-by-proxy. Hmm, and he accuses me of trying to stifle free speech? This man is amazing.

A weak argument at best. You cannot disprove the statement. Also…

The British GOVT stands by thier intelligence.
Tony Blair has been cleared by the parlaiment.
The statement is true.
You have left out the rest of the points in his speech. As I said before, it is dishonest to say that this was the only case for war. He outlined an entire spectrum of reasons. You just refuse to listen to the rest of the speech.
These questions are only asked to cast doubt on the president and his policies. To make a true statement seem untrue and at its core the questions about the presidents 16 words are only asked because you have already settled upon your chosen answer.
If you are right he will be impeached right?
Nuff said.

When did i say you are trying to stifle free speech???!!!
Thank you for ONCE AGAIN putting words into my mouth. If you cannot debate honestly then i wont bother with you.

“Pete, your repatriation question is disturbing, which is why I think no one has answered it. I am not sure how to answer it, actually. If the war was built on lies, and the leaders of the US toppled Iraq unjustly, then some sort of punishment and reparations are called for. Does that mean reinstalling Saddam?

You could argue that.”

At least one of you is honest…*snicker*

Hahahahhahhahahaha!

Pete accuses me of debating dishonestly! The primary character assassin of the site! That’s rich.

I think it’s about time to delete WatchBlog from my list of bookmarks. So long folks.

You know, this is having absolutely no effect on Bush and is only exposing the Democrats for who they really are. I love to watch the left implode.
Keep it up guys. Your very philosophy is that which will destroy you. It has already begun.

Answer the question Timothy. When did I accuse you of stifling freedom of speech here? What is the matter? Can’t take the heat?

pete, I’m didn’t go before the world for 6 months and said over and over and over that Iraq was an imminent threat, that they had stockpiles of chemical weapons, that they were building nukes and getting the material and simply had to be stopped right this second without delay. GASP!

Frankly, I refuse to be on the defensive here because I’m not the one who has lied.

Nuff said indeed.

Round and round they go. Where they stop, nobody knows :>

“The British GOVT stands by thier intelligence.
Tony Blair has been cleared by the parlaiment.
The statement is true.
You have left out the rest of the points in his speech.”

Tony Blair is in thin ice too and most of Great Britan cant wait to get rid of him. For Christ Sake - British Intelligence provided documents supporting war that were copied verbatim from a 10 year old thesis paper by a college student (of course without citing the source).

The rest of the presidents points.. some may have been valid, but many points were crap - not just the “16 words”. Many facts cited by intelligence sources were really getting creative with the notion of “truth” in this and other speeches. That is the issue thats pissing lots of people off right now..

Yes, I have a plan. It’s simple. We break up this partnership between our congress/$/and coporate leadership. They have created the “global economy” scam that has enabled them to move 100,000 manufaturers out of this country and take “advantage” of the poorest most oppressed people on Earth in Mexico, China, Vietnam and many other police state countries where workers rights and enviornmental measures are nonexistant but are much more to the liking of the corporations. They have bribed and bullied the congressmen in the US and officials around the world to change trade laws to favor them. It’s all about money, they could care less about our country and what is good for it. The American workers are being leverage against these poorest countries and our standard of living is constantly spirally downward. While our politicians and corporate leaders get richer and richer the working class in the USA is being forced to live on less and less.
If eveyone lived like I live this problem would disappear in no time. I buy only USA made products. If everyone did that the “global economy” game would disappear instantly because it would be no long profitable for those American corporations. The new jingo would be “America First.” They have no loyalty to our country or any other country as is obvious from their tax scam in Bermuda and the Caymans so you have to make them see the money in it. If they don’t manufature it here, we don’t buy it. Why do we never hear our political leaders tell us to buy American? And why do they never promise us the highest standard of living in the world the way the used to? It would screw up their “global economy scam” that’s why.

I have confronted you with the truth. The U.N. agreed on weapons of mass destruction. Read thier statements. Read Clinton’s statements. If the facts piss off the Bush haters then so be it. I think the real reason why they are pissed is because absolutely NOTHING has worked, to date in the onslaught against Bush’s character. Tim has pictures on his website depicting KKK members as war supporters. Poorly Photoshoped pictures aren’t funny Tim. Republicans are not rednecks Tim. You are NOT a conservative Tim.

I think pete’s brain is getting fried… I’m the one who wrote a fictional parody of the Klan showing up to support the troops (which has actually happened) entitled “Show of Support for America”. Anyways, it’s clear to anyone who reads it that it’s toungue in cheek and lampooning of flag wavers… and I never meant to infer that Republicans are rednecks, I would like to add that all racists are not rednecks or Republicans either. However I am most certainly conservative (but not a Republican, so I guess I don’t count in your book).

Go ahead and arm yourself with writings from my site, but I’d rather stay on topic here.

“I think the real reason why they are pissed is because absolutely NOTHING has worked, to date in the onslaught against Bush’s character”

Yes that does piss us off, but thats not the primary focus. As much as I would like to see Bush go down, I have been watching war coverage all along, and watching the administration conceal, manipulate, and fabricate information. It pissed me off as much initially as it does now. The only difference is that now people are taking notice because members of the administration are owing up to it.

Pete - you have forgotton the initial topic of conversation - LIES - the admistration is admitting that arguments (or intelligence for now since they’re still playing dumb) were shaky at best. Ths DOES have serious ramifications, and we need to consider those. period.

PS - I dont care what UN or Clinton argued, thats irrelevant to this topic. The topic is “lies that were used in making the case for war.” We have no problem with other facts or who agreed with who- we do have a problem with lies..

Woops sorry Tim. It was Stephen. I get all of you confused sometimes from all the halucinogens I take. Anyway I believe that is exactly what you were trying to infer. You were linking the KKK with Repubs and war supporters. It was not funny. It was peddy, and the Photoshop work was rather lame. As you said though, Back to the topic. You guys can gang up on me some more i guess.

Pete, I’m don’t think anyone is here to “gang up” on you here, this is an open, adult debate. I’m simply trying to open your eyes. I’m not sure if Republicans are all drinking the same Kool-Aid, but by the “halucinogens” [sic], I would steer clear of the fund-raising punchbowl ;)

Besides, I thought only Leftist hippies were supposed to be doing drugs.

You have failed to prove “lies” and if they are “lies” you will be victorious in impeachment. This will, of course, never happen. I am growing tired of this debate though because as I have said in the past, the burden of proof lies on you like an 800lb gorilla. Prove it. Once you have proven it, take your case to Dick Gephardt and you will be a hero to the Democrats because to date this phony scandal has generated nothing. It was never meant to. Its purpose was only to discredit an administration. Kind of like when you accuse someone of molesting a child and even though they didn’t do it they are forever doubted.
Of course this tactic will not work because the P.O.T.U.S. is making you all look partisan by not having to defend himself. Furthermore, this will only hurt the Democrats as a whole. So like I said…keep it up. Show and prove.

Well i am definitely doing some kind of drug! I mean anyone who can go on this long about one topic must be doing some L.S.D.! :>

Pete, you must not understand the wonderful judicial system that Bush himself laid down with Iraq. It’s no longer the burden of the accuser to PROVE anything. All we have to do is say that he lied, and voila, he has to prove he hasn’t lied and doesn’t intend to lie.

To gauge just how out of touch the Democrat leadership is on the war on terror, just close your eyes and try to imagine Ted Kennedy landing that Navy jet on the deck of that aircraft carrier. -Tom DeLay

This is my whole point. Heh. See y’all later. Its been fun, I will check back in later.

isn’t this supposed to be the independent forum? i like this site, but personally i’m getting a bit tired of all the personal attacks that are going back and forth. the “i’m always right” mentality of the war supporters is getting irritating. what has always bothered me about the supporters of this war is their inability to acknowledge any negative consequences of the actions of our government. sure it’s nice to have one of the many evil dictators out of power, but innocent people DIED in iraq as a result of our actions.
i find that to be disturbing.
all governments, left or right, act out in the best interests of the rich and powerful. therefore, while the humanitarian cause to invade iraq may have been just, if you refuse to acknowledge that there were other reasons behind the invasion of iraq, you’re just deluding yourself. and while we go back and forth with verbal shots below the belt, ensuring that nothing will ever be resolved, those in power will have succeeded in waging a war potentially based on lies because the right and the left are too busy fighting to accomplish anything.
that, also, is disturbing.

Well you have a good point. Let’s sum up what you just said, shall we?

“the “i’m always right” mentality of the war supporters is getting irritating”

TRANSLATION: I am always right and am irritated by dissenting viewpoints. If these damn neo-cons would just realize that I am right the world would be a better place.

“sure it’s nice to have one of the many evil dictators out of power, but innocent people DIED in iraq as a result of our actions.
i find that to be disturbing.”

TRANSLATION: Innocent people DIED in this war! It hurts my heart to see the blood of innocents spilled.
(comment… Well guess what, innocent people die in wars. They don’t just die sometimes, they always die. during WW2 millions died. What exactly is the point your trying to make?)
Is this post some kind of joke or something?

“all governments, left or right, act out in the best interests of the rich and powerful.”

TRANSLATION: Governments are evil, apparently.
(comment: So the alternative is anarchy? or socialism? Just asking.)

“while the humanitarian cause to invade iraq may have been just, if you refuse to acknowledge that there were other reasons behind the invasion of iraq, you’re just deluding yourself.”

TRANSLATION: I am right and you are wrong. You are deluding yourself if you disagree with me.(comment: Noone is saying there weren’t a whole host of reasons, except the left who are saying that there was only ONE reason…oil. Isn’t that exactly what you are saying? )

“and while we go back and forth with verbal shots below the belt, ensuring that nothing will ever be resolved, those in power will have succeeded in waging a war potentially based on lies because the right and the left are too busy fighting to accomplish anything.
that, also, is disturbing.”

TRANSLATION: I dont like to admit that I am on the left’s side of an argument so I will play the center, problem is that I give away my true feelings at the end of the argument.

So what. If you don’t like to read it then do something else. Innocent people die in wars. This is a COMPLETELY partisan debate. It is a war of ideology. The reason I know this is those on the left didn’t say a WORD when Clinton conducted Operation Desert Fox. Isn’t it obvious to you? Or are you just “deluding” yourself?

i lean pretty far left and disagreed with the war due to the lack of international agreement and im tired of people saying the we went to war because of oil. such a simplistic viewpoints of politics never come about and lead to mindless fanatacism, etc.

Well now i can see your point Tom. At least IT is rational. There was a lack of support to some degree but i think it was mainly because of economic reasons. Trade in the middle east, oil etc.. I think the world is sincerely afraid of our power and influence sometimes. We will continue to lead the world in a way we see fit though. At least I hope.

The personal attacks need to stop, guys. I’ve disabled comments on a couple of posts previously for this exact reason.

If you cannot debate a topic intelligently without resorting to name-calling and personal attacks you will be asked to leave.

Thanks.

Ah, the poetic justice of cause…and effect. Thanks editor. I am unsure what personal attacks you are referring to though. Please elaborate. If something that I have said is considered a personal attack I need to know what that thing is. Otherwise I will continue a behavior that is unsavory to your blog. If someone else has committed an act of personal destruction please tell me. I thought this particular debate was going well actually.

No one here has said anything offensive. I am not harmed by anything that anyone has said today. The only insult today was myself, insulting myself and talking about LSD. HMMMM. Just what are you guys talking about? What name calling? Please be specific.

Things to look out for:

1) Monopolizing the comments for a single post. Even after I manually consolidated Pete’s replies in several places, he has 18 out of 42 comments for this post. Several times, Pete has posted 3-4 comments in a row within just a few minutes. This is a sure sign that he isn’t taking the time to think about what he’s just written before clicking that “Post” button.

2) Writing in a style that is accusatory is not acceptable. While most people are thankfully staying away from inlammatory comments, there is a sense of underlying aggressiveness that goads people into replying to a post written in such a way. Using phrases like “Hmmm?’ and “What the hell are you talking about?” are borderline flame-bait.

3) Comments to posts should be intelligently thought-out and well-written. I hold you to the same standards as the editors. Sloppiness, poor writing, flame-bait and troll-bait in a comments section just makes the poster look like an idiot and drives way the people who come to WatchBlog to participate in an intelligent forum for political debate.

That said, I’m closing the comments on this post. Thanks for participating.