THEIR ABOUT TO GET CAUGHT OVER IRAQ | Page 5 | FerrariChat

THEIR ABOUT TO GET CAUGHT OVER IRAQ

Discussion in 'Other Off Topic Forum' started by ART360, Mar 21, 2004.

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.

  1. ART360

    ART360 Guest

    Change the subject, throw up dust, but don't deal with the specific allegations of the thread. Sure. What you've attempted to do is distract from the facts. Where are your facts, other than character assasnation?
    They did attack Iraq without cause, and their getting caught.

    You're talking about connections between the media, but your not dealing with the facts cited for the above. Your supporters appear to be unable to discern the difference, are you, and if so, what are your facts to respond with?

    By the way, I've not commented on what appears to be a cognitive failure with a few of your supporters on the right, but their statements make all the comments unnecessary.

    Art
     
  2. tifosi69

    tifosi69 Formula 3

    Dec 23, 2003
    1,678
    Atlanta, Ga.
    Full Name:
    Al-Al Cool J
    Throw up dust? Change the story? The thread started regarding "getting caught" about Iraq and the underlying policies regarding Iraq, supposedly substantiated, in your mind, by the Jackie Collins-style "tell all" book by Clarke and I have addressed many facts relating to the book. YOU brought up Clark and his fish wrapper, not me, and the media and it's soft-peddle of the marketing of this book is indeed relevant, to many that aren't card-carrying members of the "Anybody BUT Bush" club. Attack Iraq WITHOUT cause you claim. Again I ask you to address why the cause was sufficient for the Clinton admin to lob bombs, and everyone in the UN prior to 2004 felt there existed sufficient cause but NOW, in an election year it is not? As for character assasination: Clarke is doing all the character assasination, read the book. Sorry Art but you are the one not addressing the issues.
     
  3. ART360

    ART360 Guest

    Those aren't the issue. The exposure was far more than Clarke's book, although he substantiates the story. You've also seen the link to the article on his replacement, who left the job and made a big stink, you've seen the lack of the evidence of WMDs, you've seen Blix's statements, books, etc.

    You've attacked about 10% of the proof, left the balance alone. And your attack doesn't go to proving anything that Clarke said was false, only that you have some facts which you think impeach his veracity. No smoking gun, other than some indirect character impeachment. Piss poor job of proving anything other than that, great job on the smear, but what about all the other evidence. The balance of the world gets it, too bad you don't: Bush went after Iraq because he either wanted to do so for other reasons, or he got confused in his war on terrorism, to all of our detriment. Somehow his friends and business associates got the business from our government after that occurred, and somehow our oil prices seem to be rising. Connection, no, not really. By the way, I've got a bridge for sale here in San Francisco if you believe that, will sell very cheap, even help you move it.

    Art
     
  4. Horsefly

    Horsefly F1 Veteran

    May 14, 2002
    6,929
    Hey Art, when you call the termite inspector into your home, are you actually HAPPIER when he actually finds a giant swarm of termites in your basement? Or are you happier when he finds nothing? Since you probably are a decent guy and take pretty good care of your house, then you are probably sending the termite inspector into your house UNDER FALSE PRETENSES. Because you KNOW that the chances of him actually finding any termites are slim to none. But you send him into the basement anyway, just in case.

    What's the difference between looking for termites, "just in case", and looking for more deadly pests like "weapons of mass destruction",....JUST IN CASE?
    Miss a few termites and no big deal. Miss a few WMDs and no big deal??? HARDLY!!! Miss a few WMDs and it could suddently become EVERYBODYs GREAT BIG DEAL!!!
     
  5. Hubert

    Hubert F1 Rookie

    Jan 3, 2002
    2,642
    The Left Coast
    That has got to be the most asinine parallel anyone has EVER drawn. You realize that you just trivialized the deaths of servicemen/women and civilians to minor inconvinences, don't you?

    Sending a termite inspector into a basement (just in case) doesn't cost our country $87billion dollars (and counting), nor the lives of thousands of individuals.

    Then again, I'm sure you "fog" your house yourself, Horsefly, since Dow Chemical/Ortho, et al. are all a bunch of big bad corporate conglomerates, and you don't support those "fatcats," right?
     
  6. Horsefly

    Horsefly F1 Veteran

    May 14, 2002
    6,929
    That's your opinion. In my opinion, I just clearly showed how Art's viewpoint is a double standard. He is not willing to take the same chances at verifying the possibility of the existance of deadly weapons of mass destruction as he is trying to clear out a swarm of termites in his basement.

    And who mentioned anything about minor appliance malfunctions? Did you read my posting or somebody elses?
     
  7. ART360

    ART360 Guest

  8. Hubert

    Hubert F1 Rookie

    Jan 3, 2002
    2,642
    The Left Coast
    Yeah, and it's also my opinion that your opinon (with regard to picking apart Art's point) is a load of horse pucky. Your comparison is INNANE Horsefly, it's such an utterly moronic conclusion to draw that by your logic, starting another war under the pretense of "just to be sure" ( inlight of contrary evidence to it's purpose) is equivelenat to buy an extended warranty on a dishwasher ... you know, "just in case."
    Are you really that dellusional, or this brainwashed, to where you'll fetch at anything to counter Art's rational?
     
  9. tifosi69

    tifosi69 Formula 3

    Dec 23, 2003
    1,678
    Atlanta, Ga.
    Full Name:
    Al-Al Cool J
    Like I stated Art, when you don't like the FACTS you ignore them, move on to another thread, or lambaste me for not addressing the "issue" as you see it. Nevertheless, turn on the tube and you will begin to see the "voracity" of Clarke's book disintegrating before your eyes. They just released audio tape of Clarke speaking in August 2002 where he CLEARLY AND IN HIS OWN WORDS (enough CAPITALS for you) enumerates what the Bush admin did and cited strategy point by point regarding terrorism, Al Quaeda and OBL and he said NOTHING about a predisposition towards toppling Saddam, in fact he made not a mention of Iraq. Now Art, tell me how this is not relevant? Tell me how, when he was PART of the Bush admin as an employee, they were doing, to quote Clark himself (paraphrase) "more in the first days of the admin by April '01 than had been done in the past five years" NOW, that he is unemployed and passed over for promotion (the life-long beaurocrat that he is, that's really something to aspire to) he is saying all this contradictory garbage. I'll leave it to the American public to sort through, which version do you believe? Was he telling the truth on tape or in the book? Actually, I think Clarke should keep talking, this will actually be a positive for Bush within a few weeks as the "true" truth comes out.

    The others you cited: Hans Blix, pardon me while I laugh. If you don't think he has it out for America, like the rest of the UN, then you are sorely mistaken.
     
  10. ART360

    ART360 Guest

    Like I said, everyone against your position is either wrong, biased, etc. Sorry, just too many people talking about this, too many people with facts that all seem to coincide. See the last post with the DOD complaints about the contracts. Looks like a lot of people's friends got paid off with our money.

    Art
     
  11. tifosi69

    tifosi69 Formula 3

    Dec 23, 2003
    1,678
    Atlanta, Ga.
    Full Name:
    Al-Al Cool J
    Again, not addressing the facts at hand. Keep painting your conspiracies Oliver, what about what I just posted? I guess the repubs dubbed Clarke's voice? How can you say anyone who doesn't agree.... you are the one doing that, not me. I just stated a fact, you skip to an article. I don't know about you but I place far more credence in a man's words than the embellished "versions" that are often crafted by "journalists"
     
  12. ART360

    ART360 Guest

    Selective factual selection. That's a good one. You can believe anything about anything if you make selection of who to believe and who not to believe without any information regarding the people with whom your selecting or deciding not to listen to. Great idea. You'll never be wrong, at least in your own mind. I think that's how we got here in the first place. Bush, et al, absolutely sure of themselves, decided to believe themselves, and look at where we are now: no WMDs, scandal over the "contracts", etc. Yep, good idea. Clear rational though processes.

    Art
     
  13. tifosi69

    tifosi69 Formula 3

    Dec 23, 2003
    1,678
    Atlanta, Ga.
    Full Name:
    Al-Al Cool J
    Well why am I supposed to believe anyone you tell me to any more than anyone else. Selective factual selection, is that not what you have been doing yourself as well all along this thread? LOL And you know what, maybe Bush has made mistakes, not saying he has not, but being sure of yourself is not a bad thing IMO, someone somewhere needs to step up to the plate and take a stand. LBJ tried to govern by polls, much like Clinton tried, and it doesn't work, at least not if you want to address and potentially solve any hard problems.
     
  14. Mitch Alsup

    Mitch Alsup F1 Veteran

    Nov 4, 2003
    9,252
    I will note in passing, that Israel has this as its central tactic in defending itself against the Palestinians.

    I would also note that this tactic is working quite well for Israel (not).
     
  15. Ashman

    Ashman Three Time F1 World Champ
    Owner Silver Subscribed

    Sep 5, 2002
    31,629
    MA
    Full Name:
    John
    I think that time will soon reveal how much of Clarke's book is "factual" and how much is his opinion and beliefs.

    Already there have been several significant, documented contradictions to the publicized views from his book. Enough to cause one to reserve judgement on the remainder until both sides have been heard.

    Just because a publisher decides to let an author release a book does not mean that the content is factual.

    I would not hold his book up as a reference standard based on the inaccuracies that already have been demonstrated.

    John
     
  16. ross

    ross Three Time F1 World Champ
    Owner Silver Subscribed

    Mar 25, 2002
    36,206
    houston/geneva
    Full Name:
    Ross
    art, et al,
    you want some more facts? check out the soundbites from clarke interviews in 2002 where clarke says that the bush admin ramped up the fight against terror and alqaeda in particular 5 fold over what it had been in the clinton admin. and that during the last 5 years of clinton there was a roll back of the fight against al qaeda.......

    sorry, but this alone discounts anything that is in clarke's book to the contrary.

    recognize this for what it is: a partisan attempt to discredit bush on his biggest advantage over the democrats.

    post fact finger pointing does nothing for the families who lost loved ones, and does little to help us in the present fight - all the government agencies already know what their shortcomings were prior 9/11 and have been working on improving things since.
     
  17. tifosi69

    tifosi69 Formula 3

    Dec 23, 2003
    1,678
    Atlanta, Ga.
    Full Name:
    Al-Al Cool J
    Thanks Ross, I pointed these, and other inconsistencies, out to Art with dates, times and quotes. What does he offer as a rebuttal: "selective factual selection" Right, Ok. Naked partisanship, that's all this book is.
     
  18. ART360

    ART360 Guest

    I've just started his book, and haven't read it completely, however, I did get a chance to see some of his testimony. As to the one interview in which they claim an inconsistency, his comment: while employed I had three choices: 1. lie, 2. quit, or 3. emphasis the positive, I chose the latter, seems quite consistent.

    While I agree with Ross that fighting over the mistakes is a mistake, however, that misses the entire point: What Clarke is upset about is Iraq. He believes that Bush's attack on Iraq harmed the war on Terrorism. That believe is held by more than a few European leaders, and more than a few Americans.

    The issue in this election is who is going to be able to secure a safe environment to our citizens. Discussion of what appears to be an agenda in our government which probably reduced the possibility for such an environment is exactly what we as citizens need to discuss.

    The conservatives would rather the name calling, the obsfucation, the denigration to a discussion of those issues, which from my incomplete reading of Mr. Clarke's book, appears to be exactly what he is saying. It's what I've been sayings, and I don't think that it isn't fruitful to discuss those issues, and not get sidetracked, as a few of those on the right would have us do.

    Art
     
  19. ross

    ross Three Time F1 World Champ
    Owner Silver Subscribed

    Mar 25, 2002
    36,206
    houston/geneva
    Full Name:
    Ross
    whatever.
    his response to why he said what he did in 2002 was that he embellished because he was asked to. so what leads us to think we can believe what he is saying now any more? who is he embellishing for this time? his wallet, kerry, or both?
    answering the same question with two diametrically opposed answers, depending on the audience.....sounds a lot like somebody else i've heard recently.

    and as to the charge of using terrorism as a blatant cover for attacking iraq, well that may be something we will never really ever agree on. however, i was watching cnn today and saw tony blair in tripoli thanking ghaddafi for handing over his nuclear erector set and other weapons, and welcoming him back into the normal states club, and thanking him for helping in the fight against aq. it strikes me that one of the reasons he would have done this would be for fear of the US military knocking on his door sometime down the road. (i do realize there are many commercial and selfish reasons he has done it as well).
    so maybe attacking iraq does have some positive repercussions that you can accept as worthwhile. lets see what north korea does now.
     
  20. tifosi69

    tifosi69 Formula 3

    Dec 23, 2003
    1,678
    Atlanta, Ga.
    Full Name:
    Al-Al Cool J
    Thanks Ross, you beat me to it, that's exactly what I started to type. Art is guilty of the SAME things he accuses me of. Like I said, which version is the truth: Clarke the employee vs. Clarke the disgruntled ex-employee?
     
  21. Ashman

    Ashman Three Time F1 World Champ
    Owner Silver Subscribed

    Sep 5, 2002
    31,629
    MA
    Full Name:
    John
    The Democrats have no sanctity on name calling, with epithets like "crooked", "liars", "unpatriotic" and more issuing from that camp.

    Clarke's book certainly has the appearance of being motivated by partisan views and revenge for his failure to achieve the position in the Bush Administration that he felt he deserved. CBS's fawning Infomercial on 60 Minutes was not a rigorous journalistic examination of Clarke's accusations. As a more objective analysis of his contentions emerges, I think that the credibility of his book will diminish and, three months from now, the book will largely be forgotten on the remainder shelves of bookstores.

    While I have voted for both Democrats and for Republicans during my lifetime, in general I believe in conservative viewpoints towards less government, free markets, reduced taxes, strong defense and compassionate services for those unable to help themselves. Furthermore, I believe that GWB's performance on terrorism and international relations has been in the best interests of the United States, and that he has handled the complex job of being President well, even if he acts like a Democrat in that he hasn't seen a government spending program that he hasn't liked. So take my views on the Democratic party with that perspective.

    I am amazed at the transformation of the Democratic party since the time of JFK to what it has become. In the time of JFK, RFK and others, the focus was on looking forward to a (Democratic) idealism, expressed with a positive and optimistic future looking viewpoint. Best represented by RFK's "There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were, and ask why not? "

    Actually, Republicans and conservatives also have a desire to achieve an ideal society, but differ in philosophies on how best to do that.

    The Democratic party of today is more focused on criticizing the Republicans and less focused on communicating its own vision of the future, how it would address international relations, terror threats, the economy and other issues. Mind you, there has been a lot of rhetoric about each of those issues, but it has been vague and very general. Most of the verbiage is an updated version of "taking back the White House", evidence that there is massive anger still in the party about how Bush "stole" the 2000 election. To steal a line from Bill Clinton, they should "Move on".

    Like it or not, a large majority of the population in the U.S. is glad that GWB and not Al Gore was on duty on 9/11 and thereafter.

    It is time for Democrats to look forward and propose specific policies that would be followed if they were to win in November. As I said before, everyone expects lots of partisan rhetoric in an election year. However presumptive candidate John Kerry will need to lay out his vision for the country with specifics, not generalities, and voters will look to his voting record over his 19 years in congress to guage whether his actions support his words.

    I think that a campaign focusing too much on the negative will be a losing strategy for the Democrats. The people of the U.S. want to know WHAT the Dems will do differently and HOW it will be accomplished. It is time for the Democrats to stop looking at things that are and asking "why" and become the party to dream of things that never were and ask "Why not?".

    John
     
  22. ross

    ross Three Time F1 World Champ
    Owner Silver Subscribed

    Mar 25, 2002
    36,206
    houston/geneva
    Full Name:
    Ross
    well said john.
     
  23. tifosi69

    tifosi69 Formula 3

    Dec 23, 2003
    1,678
    Atlanta, Ga.
    Full Name:
    Al-Al Cool J
    Ditto Ross, very well said and on point John, be interested in what, if anything, Art has to say. BTW, John is the NEW voice of the conservatives on Fchat, too many people seem to read through what I write and call it venemous. John said most of what I have written throughout various threads, just in a nicer manner and without my colorful "catch phrases" LOL
     
  24. ART360

    ART360 Guest

    John:

    For starters, he will eliminate the federal funding ban on stem cell research. That alone will impact millions. They are close to resolving a good many diseases with those techniques, however the major research is being done in Europe because of that inane prohibition. That could be done for starters. Social Security needs to be fixed. Kerry will do something other than to provide a retirement fund for the drug pedalers, allow the government to obtain competitive bids for seniors' drugs, little stuff like that.

    I noticed today that in the back pages of the newspaper, that the Medicare people say that their newer, higher estimates of the cost of the new drug benefit were disclosed to the administration prior to the passage of the bill allowing this. Perhaps Kerry will impose a Truth in Government rule, which apparently has been sorely lacking for the last 3 1/2 years.

    The majority of Americans are aligned with the goals and issues of the Democratic party. That's why the split is about even. Kerry may or may not win this election, and unfortunately the determinative factor may very well be Ralph Nader, who will suck off the deciding percentage. Maybe he'll see the light but I doubt it.

    Art
     
  25. ART360

    ART360 Guest

    Tifiosi:

    John uses a reasoned approach, much like Dave used to. There is absolutely no problem in dealing with him because of that. I suspect he may be a little older than you, and you could learn a lot from him.

    Art
     

Share This Page