Page 16 of 44 FirstFirst ... 6141516171826 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 160 of 436

Thread: Wikileaks show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq-With Surprising Results

  1. #151
    Sage
    mpg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Milford, CT
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,770

    Re: Wikileaks show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq-With Surprising Results

    Quote Originally Posted by USA-1 View Post
    And he was spot on back then.
    1991 =/= 2003
    If you expect people to be rational, you aren't being rational.

  2. #152
    Sage
    mpg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Milford, CT
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,770

    Re: Wikileaks show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq-With Surprising Results

    Quote Originally Posted by USA-1 View Post
    There could have been a hundred reasons for invading Iraq, but the only legitmate reason for the USA to invade any country is an imminant threat to our security.
    That's false. He invaded one of our allies, the ceasefire was conditional, he violated the conditions of the ceasefire.
    If you expect people to be rational, you aren't being rational.

  3. #153
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Wikileaks show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq-With Surprising Results

    Quote Originally Posted by buck View Post
    I don't care what many people said. Althoguh, I really don't recall "many" stating that Clinton was lying when he said that Iraq had WMD's. I only recall the conversation being about what to do about it and that the timing was circumspect. However, did you say it? Do you claim that Clinton lied when he started the bombing campaign?
    Hard to prove today, but yes I doubted him and opposed his bombing. However, here's an overview of criticism:

    Criticism

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing...(December_1998)

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  4. #154
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,812

    Re: Wikileaks show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq-With Surprising Results

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Hard to prove today, but yes I doubted him and opposed his bombing. However, here's an overview of criticism:
    I really wasn't asking if you opposed the bombing. Many people did for a variety of reasons.

    I guess you kind of answered my question by saying you doubted him. So,just to be clear, are you claiming that Clinton lied about Saddam's WMD?
    Last edited by buck; 11-01-10 at 03:07 PM.

  5. #155
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Wikileaks show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq-With Surprising Results

    Quote Originally Posted by buck View Post
    I really wasn't asking if you opposed the bombing. Many people did for a variety of reasons.

    I guess you kind of answered my question by saying you doubted him. So, are you then claiming that Clinton lied in order to bomb Iraq?
    What was his claim? As I recall, his people said the threat was over after the bombing, meaning that after that, Saddam did not have wmds. His claim inspectors were kicked out was wrong. And I can't recall any evidence that anything they bombed was actually a factory.

    However, what I find funny is that you would think that Clinton's lies would justify Bush's lies. No matter what Clinton did or how anyone reacted to Clinton, something no one can really prove now, means absolutely nothing concerning what Bush did. If Bush lied, and he did, then he lied. It is as simple as that.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  6. #156
    Sage
    mpg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Milford, CT
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,770

    Re: Wikileaks show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq-With Surprising Results

    Quote Originally Posted by USA-1 View Post
    Only a total fool actually still believes it was in our best interests to invade Iraq.
    Whether or not removing Saddam was the right call, is something that's highly debatable. It's like arguing about the taste of beef vs pork. To say that one side is clearly right and the other is clearly wrong, is a closed minded way of looking at the issue.


    Quote Originally Posted by USA-1 View Post
    Admit it. Had it been Clinton that invaded and no WMD stockpiles were found you would have crucified him. You are just protecting your boy.
    That doesn't seem likely. Republicans were against Clinton's war on Yugoslavia, but once it started, they kept their mouths shut. OTOH, how would Democrats feel if Clinton had been the one who removed Saddam?
    If you expect people to be rational, you aren't being rational.

  7. #157
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,812

    Re: Wikileaks show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq-With Surprising Results

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    What was his claim? As I recall, his people said the threat was over after the bombing, meaning that after that, Saddam did not have wmds. His claim inspectors were kicked out was wrong. And I can't recall any evidence that anything they bombed was actually a factory.
    Clinton's claim was that he ordered the bombings in order to "diminish" the capabilities of Saddam to use his WMDs. Please note the use of the word "diminish" not "eliminate". Anyway, will you now claim that Clinton lied?

    However, what I find funny is that you would think that Clinton's lies would justify Bush's lies. No matter what Clinton did or how anyone reacted to Clinton, something no one can really prove now, means absolutely nothing concerning what Bush did. If Bush lied, and he did, then he lied. It is as simple as that.
    I don't believe that Clinton lied, and I don't believe Bush lied. I believe both acted upon the preponderance of information as provided by multiple sources and countries. If you tell me that you believed Clinton was lying back then, i'll believe you. I won't ask for proof. I'm simply looking for consistency. If you're consistent, I would believe you to be wrong, but really wouldn't argue it much.

  8. #158
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Wikileaks show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq-With Surprising Results

    Quote Originally Posted by buck View Post
    Clinton's claim was that he ordered the bombings in order to "diminish" the capabilities of Saddam to use his WMDs. Please note the use of the word "diminish" not "eliminate". Anyway, will you now claim that Clinton lied?
    Yes diminsh. Sounds right. However, not equal to the claim that Saddam had a growing and gathering program. Not even a claim that he had a program at the time. Clinton was much more careful with his words. I believe it is quite possible he misled, but did not reach Bush's level. Nor was he foolish enough tio invade, keeping the cost all around much lower.


    I don't believe that Clinton lied, and I don't believe Bush lied. I believe both acted upon the preponderance of information as provided by multiple sources and countries. If you tell me that you believed Clinton was lying back then, i'll believe you. I won't ask for proof. I'm simply looking for consistency. If you're consistent, I would believe you to be wrong, but really wouldn't argue it much.
    And I would disagree. Bush had no more intel than Clinton had, when Clinton called the threat over. Bush and his people purposefully used intel not considered before, intel not considered because it was doubted. And it was doubted with good reason. Bush made claims that had no basis in fact, gorwing and gathering, and his people made illusions to connections that were not there (links to al Qaeda). And they took it where Clinton did not, to invasion and a much greater cost.

    Your call for consistency is based ont he false assumption that the two are identical with no differences of importance. That is simply not true. So, while I may well have disagree and doubted Clinton's honesty, he was quick and keep the cost low, and did not take the lie as far as Bush did. So, to expect uequal things to be treated equally is a kind of relatism that is illogical.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  9. #159
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,812

    Re: Wikileaks show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq-With Surprising Results

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Yes diminsh. Sounds right. However, not equal to the claim that Saddam had a growing and gathering program. Not even a claim that he had a program at the time. Clinton was much more careful with his words. I believe it is quite possible he misled, but did not reach Bush's level. Nor was he foolish enough tio invade, keeping the cost all around much lower.
    You can spin it any way you want. However, Clinton ordered the bombings because he thought Saddam was a threat and had a growing WMD program. That is why he ordered the bombings of places that he believed to be storing WMDs as well as the places that he believed to be WMD research facilities and production plants. Clinton was trying to diminish that threat by bombing those places. In other words, he said pretty much the same thing Bush (and many other intelligence communities) said. With the exception that Bush was attempting to "eliminate", and not just "diminish" the perceived threat.

    Your call for consistency is based ont he false assumption that the two are identical with no differences of importance. That is simply not true. So, while I may well have disagree and doubted Clinton's honesty, he was quick and keep the cost low, and did not take the lie as far as Bush did. So, to expect uequal things to be treated equally is a kind of relatism that is illogical.
    Oh. OK. Now we're getting somewhere. Apparently I had the wrong definition of lie. I didn’t realize that the definition was that it is only a lie if a maximum of 2,000 died as a result of the “false” statement. Apparently, according to you, when only 2,000.00 die it’s not to be defined as a lie. Instead we'll just say "we doubted his honesty". *wink* *wink*.

    Or... and I realize i'm obviously talking wacko here... it’s only a lie if a republican does it. When a democrat does the same thing, it’s not not to be defined as a lie.
    Last edited by buck; 11-01-10 at 03:53 PM.

  10. #160
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Wikileaks show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq-With Surprising Results

    Quote Originally Posted by buck View Post
    You can spin it any way you want. However, Clinton ordered the bombings because he thought Saddam was a threat and had a growing WMD program. That is why he ordered the bombings of places that he believed to be storing WMDs as well as the places that he believed to be WMD research facilities and production plants. Clinton was trying to diminish that threat by bombing those places. In other words, he said pretty much the same thing Bush (and many other intelligence communities) said. With the exception that Bush was attempting to "eliminate", and not just "diminish" the perceived threat.
    Not convinced he really did think that, or if he just needed a diversion, but I do know he said the threat was ended after the bombing, and he never made the claim Bush did. His claim was different.



    Oh. OK. Now we're getting somewhere. Apparently I had the wrong definition of lie. I didn’t realize that the definition was that it is only a lie if a maximum of 2,000 died as a result of the “false” statement. Apparently, according to you, when only 2,000.00 die it’s not to be defined as a lie. Instead we'll just say "we doubted his honesty". *wink* *wink*.

    Or... and I realize i'm obviously talking wacko here... it’s only a lie if a republican does it. When a democrat does the same thing, it’s not not to be defined as a lie.
    No, not correct. I may well argue that not all lies are equal. How much the lie costs us does matter, but not exactly what I'm claiming here. I'm claiming Clinton was more careful with his words. He made sure he didn't overstate too much. He said he was diminishing, making how much Saddam had or didn't have wasn't part of the claim. While this allows the audience to put whatever specifics they want to it, he would have much more deniablity than Bush had.

    Bush was more careless, which is why one conservative group Muley (a supporter of the war) on WS linked claimed the only mistake Bush made was telling the wrong lie, one too easily shown false. Bush made larger, more inaccurate claims, that required the audience to not just mistakenly fill in blanks, but accept in full completely inaccurate claims.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

Page 16 of 44 FirstFirst ... 6141516171826 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •