RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions


Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )


So, did President Bush change your mind or reinforce...(44 posts)

So, did President Bush change your mind or reinforce...rwbadley
Oct 8, 2002 11:10 AM
your opinion with his speech last night?

I have to say it was one of his better speeches. His coaching staff and writers are doing a great job.

When it gets down to the nitty gritty, was he able to change your opinion of proceeding with the war, or reinforcing the need for one?

I will start off by saying that before the speech I was about 80%-90% against or strongly against taking unilateral action. George W. has brought my opinion in line to the tune of being 70%-80% against unilateral action. I still feel we need world opinion more in our court, if possible.

The feeling I have is that taking large scale military action in this case may be unsheafing the largest double edged sword we have seen. On the one hand Saddam may be ousted, on the other, at what cost to the region and beyond.

Anyone have their mind changed last night?

RW
typical propagandaColnagoFE
Oct 8, 2002 12:15 PM
I wasn't convinced. I still think it's a bad idea to go in with guns a-blazing.
If I am convinced, it won't be by Bushczardonic
Oct 8, 2002 12:22 PM
He has mirepresented the facts far too many times. Bush's arguments rely on the ignorance or gullibility of others, and that annoys me. His arguments assume that no one knows anything more about the world, or about history, than he does.

Iraq is a dictatorship that might one day develop nuclear weapons. Pakistan is a dictatorship that already has nuclear weapons. Pakistan was also the number one supporter of Bin Laden's patrons in the Taliban. All of Bush's hypothetical doomsday scenarios with regard to nuclear arms and terrorists already apply to Pakistan. If Pakistan is indeed our ally, then nuclear arms and terrorism are clearly not a true concern for Bush.

Iraq has used chemical weapons in the past. It was done with the complicity of Reagan and Bush's own father. American companies sold Iraq the materials with the approval of the US government. We directly supplied tactical information that facilitated the attacks. In fact, the US has a dismal record when it comes to fighting the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons. As recently as 2001 the US withdrew from the Biological and Toxic Weapons Convention. Clearly, chemical and biological weapons are not a concern for Bush.

Buh decries the tyrany of Saddam's regime. The middle east is riddled with brutal tyrants. Many of them are our allies. Clearly, democracy and human rights are not a concern for Bush.

Bush talks about Saddam's failure to comply with UN resolutions. Israel, one of our closest allies is in violation of several UN resolutions. Bush has withdrawn from or distained several treaties and bodies of international law. Clearly, international law is not a concern for Bush.

What's left?

I don't need Bush to convince me that Saddam is a bad person that the world would be better off without. On the other hand, I don't trust our nation's and the world's future to a man who can not tell the truth about his motives. Nor do I trust the future of post-Saddam Iraq to a man who specifically disavowed "nation building" and has shown he means it by his policy toward post-Taliban Afghanistan.

Saddam needs to go. But in my opinion there are a lot of more urgent problems that we should be dealing with. Getting our domestic security act together comes to mind. Just in case it proves harder than expected to subdue the entire Universe for all perpetuity. And how about securing those ex-Soviet nuclear warheads that are just too expensive to account for properly. Or those starving ex-Soviet weapons designers? Anyone worried about how they are putting food on the table?

Bottom line: Lets take care of the threats in order of their danger to us rather than in the order of potential economic windfall to Bush's campaign donors.
there is nothing he could say?DougSloan
Oct 8, 2002 12:40 PM
I think Bush could show you and your ilk close up photos of nuclear tests, bombs, and wasted landscapes resulting therefrom and you'd not be convinced. Face it, you hate the guy; as such, your credibility in opposing Bush is far from reliable, unbiased, or even tainted with accuracy.

By the way, any time someone uses the word "clearly", I find that the statement following is far from it.

Doug
Would those pictures be of Nevada. . .czardonic
Oct 8, 2002 12:53 PM
Bikini Atoll, or live-human tests conducted on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

The point is that Bush doesn't have any evidence. Whatever your opinion of me or him, the facts (or lack thereof) speak for themselves.

By the way, anytime someone poses a pithy rule for the summary disqualification of an opposing argument, I find that they don't have any convincing counter-argument.
oh, man, now you've messed with my mindDougSloan
Oct 8, 2002 1:38 PM
"By the way, anytime someone poses a pithy rule for the summary disqualification of an opposing argument, I find that they don't have any convincing counter-argument." Isn't this a paradox? My mind can't handle it.

What the heck do 50 year old facts have to do with anything? Are you implying that since the U.S. has tested and used a-bombs, that Saddam is entitled, too? Or is your point that the U.S. is simply "bad", since it did so.

"doesn't have any evidence"? -- did you miss the photo of the nuclear plant? http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,5251633%255E663,00.html At least have the intellectual honesty to admit it's *some* evidence.

BTW, I have no opinion of you, only what you write. :-)

Doug
Your rule could very well be correct.czardonic
Oct 8, 2002 2:19 PM
So I don't see the paradox.

My point about "50 year old facts" is that if the only country to test and use nuclear weapons on civilians can now be trusted to rule the free world, the possesion of said weapons does not prove that a nation is bent of destroying the world (though it may prove that a nation is bent on ruling the world). And even if it were, the fact remains that other nations already have these weapons. Shouldn't we deal with them first?

A picture of a nuclear plant falls far short of indicating that Saddam is developing weapons, let alone planning to use them against the US. The US just gave North Korea (another charter member of the "Axis of Evil") $95 million to develop their nuclear program. Clearly, Bush is not concerned with the proliferation of nuclear reactors ; Þ
Your rule could very well be correct.BikeViking
Oct 9, 2002 4:44 AM
The NK reactors are the older type which create a great deal of plutonium (bad thing). The NK claim is they are using their reactors for "power production" (yeah right!!)Anyway, the money we are supply to them would fund IAEA-monitored light water reactors which produce much less plutonium byproducts than their current models

Why is this bad?
there is nothing he could say?Jon Billheimer
Oct 9, 2002 7:47 AM
Doug,

I don't think that's fair comment. Why don't you instead show that the observations Czardonic makes are not based upon fact? Then "you and your ilk" might have more credibility when you express your views.
Are you a Republican now?Steve98501
Oct 9, 2002 11:34 AM
Doug,

I may be confused. I thought you were Libertarian. It appears you support Bush's war initiative. I thought the Libertarian philosophy is a live and let live one that doesn't concern itself much with international politics and relations. My understanding is that Libertarians prefer a strong national defense to deter and to respond to attack, but would refrain from offensive military action. Please clarify, does Libertarian philosophy include pre-emptive offensive strikes at sovereign nations? If not, how do you reconcile?

Steve
not sure this is truly a partisan issueDougSloan
Oct 9, 2002 12:04 PM
Thinking back over history, I'm not sure war offensives are any more Republican than Democrat initiated, and certainly not Libertarian. Democrats were in the White House at the start of WWII, Korea, and Vietnam. Republicans can be blamed for the Gulf War, I suppose. So, I think it would be unfair to characterize Republicans as the ones who get us into wars.

Nonetheless, my understanding of libertarian philosphy, and my view personally, is the the federal government does have the responsibility of national security -- in fact, that's one of the few and primary obligations of the feds. If the Saddam issue is characterized as "meddling in international affairs", then it's less supportable; however, if it's essential to national security, then it's fair game. This is a fact-based analysis, but I doubt many of us have access to the true and complete facts to make that assessment.

I'm also not sure this can be truly characterized as a "pre-emptive offensive strike." It may be more of an enforcement of terms determined over ten years ago following Iraq's defeat, in other words, finishing a job already begun. Some people seem to ignore the fact that Iraq started a war, then lost. When that happens, the loser typically has terms imposed upon it, barring outright occupation. Saddam lost and has been thumbing his nose at the terms imposed. I just don't understand anyone having any sympathy for the guy, in a political sense.

All that aside, in the foreseeable future we will not have true Libertarian leadership at the national level. So, we need to be a bit pragmatic and support whoever comes closest. I don't believe in being one of those 3rd party people who will be perpetually disenfranchised while supporting candidates who are destined to lose, plus potentially cause the worse of two candidates to take the elections by diverting votes to the 3rd parties (Perot, Nader, Buchanan -- those types).

Doug
So, is it the Plutocrats or the Theocrats. . .czardonic
Oct 9, 2002 12:49 PM
running the Bush administration that you feel best represent Libertarian values?
vs. Gorecrats?DougSloan
Oct 9, 2002 1:09 PM
The choice was whatever you want to call Bush vs. a socialist "I'll cram the federal government down your throat every chance I get" tax and spend liberal? I'll takes my chances with Bush. If you think you can persuade me that Gore is more of a Libertarian than Bush, I'll be more than happy to listen.

Doug
Doug - sorry to have left you alonemoneyman
Oct 9, 2002 1:46 PM
To argue with this crowd. Especially czardonic, as he continually expands his arguments when he can no longer support his point. And when the mind-numbed liberal robots parrot what he says, it seems like a fair-minded conservative voice gets lost in the wilderness.

And czardonic, since I know you'll read this, I have given up on you. Not that it matters, but it is just no fun to argue with you. Having a spirited exchange can be a source of great entertainment, but you are a yeller. I met Robert Reich once, and he told me about a talk show he went on (like Hardball or Crossfire) and he called it a "yelling" show. You are a yeller. If your point of view is contested, you yell, albeit figuratively via the web. If you can't be right, be loud. On that point, you're the champ. I hope your next IMF protest goes well and that the tear gas doesn't get inside your Bush mask. And I also hope you receive your bachelor's degree within the ten year time frame you have established for yourself. No point in working for a living when you can get someone else to pay for your education. But then, what's the point of an education when you know everything already?

And one more thing, comrade - I can't for the life of me figure out how you came to RBR in the first place. Anyone with a pissy attitude like yours cannot possibly ride a bike. Oh, I know what it is - put a saddle on that seatpost. It will fell a lot better and really help your disposition! Yes, that was a personal statement and it was meant to impugn and was NOT part of the discussion. See ya. Have a nice day!

$$
As usual, you are as much a gentleman as you are a scholar. (nm)czardonic
Oct 9, 2002 1:52 PM
Moneyman.... your name says it allStarliner
Oct 9, 2002 2:14 PM
Maybe you should call yourself Slash-n-burn after reading your description of Czrdnc. Presuming I am one of his liberal robots since it seems I fall on his side of this issue, I'll take a chance and guess that you're for going after Saddam with guns ablazing.

I'll also take a chance that you can enter this discussion with something to offer to support your position, such as evidence and proof of imminent danger from Iraq - not circumstantial crap. We robots are still expectant that your Doug Sloan, being a lawyer, will offer proof and evidence good enough to convince a jury that the USA should risk lives, wealth and prestige to unseat a tinpot despot halfway around the world. Now that you are helping him out, please feel free to pony up.
Doug's doing fine, and remains civil.Steve98501
Oct 10, 2002 12:33 PM
Why can't you? I have to presume you're labling me a "mind-numbed liberal robot" for referencing czardonic's comments in the 3rd post in this thread as capturing the essence of my feelings about Bush's rationalization for his war initiative. Czardonic's post is the clearest and most cogent of any I've read in this thread, either supporting or opposing Bush's initiative. It seems you can't tolerate dissent or opposing views, making you a poor candidate for a pluralistic society.
Can't argue with that. Damn. (nm)czardonic
Oct 9, 2002 1:54 PM
partisan philosophySteve98501
Oct 10, 2002 11:35 AM
I wasn't intending to pick on Ds or Rs are starters of wars. Rather, I was trying to understand how your political philosophy and preferences are served by supporting Bush's war initiative.

My dusty old Libertarian handbook rejects a war proposal such as Bush's, either as beginning a new offensive (a Libertarian no-no) or as a continuing enforcement action. Libertarian philosophy, as I understand it, would have rejected the Gulf War in 1991 as international meddling, and not national defense. I think the Libertarian creed is that the U.S. shouldn't be dependent for its national security on strategic minerals located beyond borders under our direct control. That is, particularly when a U.S. citizen or corporation becomes economically dependent on a foreign resource, that is their risk, and not a national risk, and the federal government should not intervene on their behalf. If Libertarians make an exception for oil, I've never seen that articulated in the party platform.
No mind change here...PdxMark
Oct 8, 2002 12:37 PM
I read the speech rather than listening to it, so maybe that mattered. But what I read is that SH is a murderous tyrant who wants WMD and has used them on his own people. All old, old news.

The link between al Qaida and Iraq is that Iraqi agents spoke with a 9/11 planner several years ago and some al Qaida & Taliban may have fled to Iraq.

Imminence is the issue for me - or rather the lack of it. A clear sign of an attack in the works would be fine for me. Cut loose the Dogs of War. But what we have here is a recital of issues that are 10-15 years old.

Nothing said so far convinces me of the imminence of a threat from Iraq. None of the President's explanations show why Iraq is a threat now. The President says that we can't wait for an attack. We must prevent it before it can happen. That rationale can be used to justify an attack on anyone.

I don't know if preventative war was actually used as a rationale in WWII, but it seems that Germany & Japan justified some attacks as responses to supposed threats from other countries. History has clearly identified the aggressor in these casses. In contrast, Israel in the 6-day war (I think) had Arab armies massing on all sides - a seemingly reasonable justification to act first.

I think GWB wants war with Iraq for some reason other the a clear & present danger to the US. Anyone heard anything about the economy lately?
the key for me would be clear and present dangerColnagoFE
Oct 8, 2002 1:45 PM
so far I'm not convinced the US is in clear and present danger. If GWB could show me that we will be attacked if we don't act then I would quickly change my tune, but simple posessing and testing nukes doesn't seem justification by itself. Other countries we don't like have nukes and we aren't going to war with them.
What's amusing to meDougSloan
Oct 8, 2002 1:56 PM
What's amusing to me is that I see many people, not necessarily you, who are in favor of gun control, dis-arming the innocent, etc., here in America, who would no doubt favor disarming a conficted felon, yet they support permitting this dictator who invaded Kuwait, killed thousands of his own people, and who was universally condemned by the world, to have nuclear weapons (or any other weapons, for that matter)? Huh? Is there any reconciliation of these positions?

I think this has nothing at all to do with Saddam, but everything to do with vociferously opposing anything Bush wants or does. If that's truly it, just 'fess up and be done with it. I think everyone can deal with that notion much easier than feined or misplaced support of a malicious dictator.

Doug
Meanwhile. . .czardonic
Oct 8, 2002 2:30 PM
the same crowd that argues that disarming the innocent is a threat to liberty seems to beleive that world wide US military hegemony is the key to defending freedom.

Ultimately, your's is a straw-man argument. I haven't heard much in the way of support for Saddam's right to bear nuclear arms and form a well regulated militia. (That is, other than from the Reagan administration back when Saddam was gassing Iranians.)
What's amusing to mePdxMark
Oct 8, 2002 3:06 PM
I'm not sure that I oppose anything Bush wants to do. I think the war in Afghanistan was just and proper and executed amazingly well. I disagree with lots of other things Bush does... but not all.

As for gun control in the US and disarming Iraq, I think that widespread gun ownership in the US contributes to the thousands of guns deaths in the US each year. If I saw that gun ownership saved more lives that were lost, I'd reconsider my position, but I haven't seen that. Regardless of how I feel, gun ownership is legal and so long as it is the government has no right to forcibly attack law-abiding citizens simply for ownership of guns.

I also think it would be better for Iraq to be disarmed (at least as to WMD). But Iraq is a sovereign nation. Ruled by a murderous tyrant, for sure, but soveriegn. His holding WMD is illegal, per the UN, so we might arguably be justified in taking all necessary action to force him to comply with UN mandates. If that's the basis, then call it that. Let SH obstruct the inspectors just one more time so that we can enforce the UN-sanctioned inspections and prohibition against Iraq having WMDs. Or attack now on the basis of past obstruction.

My only point here is that in my subjective, media-dependent view the case has not been made that Iraq is a qualitatively different threat today than it was 2 years ago - or 5 years ago. Almost all supporting examples of the degree of threat relate to actions that are 10-15 yrs old. Calling Iraq an imminent threat now and citing old evidence just sounds disingenuous to me. These examples of his threatening nature contrast with the massing armies on the borders of Israel in 1967.

I cite 1967 as a nice good example of when I think external threats justify initiating a war. We might be in an equally precarious situation with Iraq right now, but 15 year old crimes against his own people don't convey that to me.

Ahh, a belated thought... maybe this is the rationale GB is making: (1) SH is murderous and will use WMD to kill (true) and (2) he hates the US (true), therefore, (3) he will use WMD on the US once he gets those weapons... If this is the implication being made I think I just don't reach the same conclusion. Gassing defenseless civilians is a crime against humanity, but SH is pretty safe from retailiation. Starting a nuclear war with the US is a very different proposition.

So in conclusion? If we're enforcing UN mandates, then let's call it that. His mere possession of WMDs is illegal and dangerous and we have legal right under the UN to take action. But it doesn't seem that that is the rationale.

If he's a new dangerous threat, then show what he's doing now, today, that's threatening. If he IS threatening us or our allies now, then launch the last war SH will ever see as leader of Iraq.
Unlike you, I'm not amusedStarliner
Oct 8, 2002 3:14 PM
I take issue with your write-off of those of us who oppose Bush's crusade against Saddam, as people who oppose anything Bush wants or does. Why not just admit you are really a closet Republican who rubber stamps anything Bush wants or does.

Show us some proof of nuclear weapons. Of delivery systems. Of an army that poses an "imminent threat" to the USA. Something to justify your trust in Bush with this issue.

Then please explain how you see things happening after we win in Iraq - are we going to stay there, how involved are we going to be in setting up the next regime, how involved will we be in supporting it financially and with manpower, how long we will be there and how much will it cost us.

And then, please explain how knocking out Saddam will make us safer from terrorism.
nope...I'd have the same view if it was ClintonColnagoFE
Oct 9, 2002 5:18 AM
I don't think it's as easy as partisian politics here. As technology advances it's getting to be harder and harder to prevent governments from obtaining weapons of mass destruction. I think Hiroshima/Nagasaki let the proverbial cat out of the bag and now it's just a matter of time before someone uses nuclear power or possibly even something more devastating--and probably in our lifetimes. That said, unless I can believe we are in clear and present danger I think rushing in with a full military strike would be ill advised at this time.
And what's amusing to ME isscottfree
Oct 9, 2002 5:26 AM
sentences like:

"I think this has nothing at all to do with Saddam, but everything to do with vociferously opposing anything Bush wants or does. If that's truly it, just 'fess up and be done with it."

This said by a member of the vast right wing conspiracy, about whose members I could have for eight years fairly said:

"I think this has nothing at to do with (fill in the blank), but everything to do with opposing anything Bill Clinton wants or does ..."

It would be just real interesting to see what the VRWC would be saying (howling, rather) if Bill Clinton were about to launch this exact war, with these exact words (including the words 'nuc-u-lar threat'), and these exact justifications, using these exact tactics.

Come ON, man, at least 'fess up and be done with it. Your take on politics is just as skewed from the right, based on who you like and who you don't, as ours is from the left. Fact, I'm sure you and your VRWC buds were a lot more blinded by bile vis-a-vis Clinton that I and my Red brothers are reflexively anti-Bush.

Matter of fact, I'm probably going to support Bush on his war, and his speech helped move me in that direction. To answer the original poster.
but I WILL fess upDougSloan
Oct 9, 2002 6:05 AM
I couldn't stand anything about Clinton, and I'll admit that I'd oppose darn near anything he wanted to do. I not only opposed his politics, but he was simply a slimey person, too. Yes, I was reflexively anti-Clinton, and I won't even attempt to hide behind some contrived arguments against his policies.

Even trying to set that aside, I can't think of one thing Clinton wanted to do what I would have agreed with, except for maybe helping to rid the planet of Milosevic, another murdering tyrant.

As an aside, sometimes it's difficult to separate arguments here, and some people get unfairly lumped together. I certainly don't mean that everyone responding here is automatically anti-Bush, anti-American, or anything like that. My focus, actually, was Mr. czardonic.

Doug
How about when he fired those missles at Baghdad?czardonic
Oct 9, 2002 9:12 AM
Or were you one of the people accusing him of wagging the dog? The hypocracy of the knee-jerk anti-Clinton crowd is simply astounding.
no hypocrisy hereDougSloan
Oct 9, 2002 10:05 AM
I suppose I'll go along with him for any time he sent in the cruises. My only gripe in this regard is that he did enough for show, but didn't get the job done.

No (astounding) hypocrisy here.:-)

Doug
No thanks to the Republicansczardonic
Oct 9, 2002 10:17 AM
Its kind of hard to get the job done when you have a bunch of puritanical right-wing nuts undermining your administration and second guessing your every move.
so who was the commander in chief?DougSloan
Oct 9, 2002 12:26 PM
I can't recall an instance of Republicans preventing Clinton from exercising his powers as commander in chief. However, if you mean was Clinton distracted because he was being investigated and ultimately sanctioned by United States District Judge Susan Webber Wright for contempt for giving intentionally false testimony in a civil case (but ultimately dismissing the case), well, I guess you have me there.

Doug
Lameczardonic
Oct 9, 2002 12:45 PM
To suggest that Clinton was accountable to no one is technically correct, but intellectually dishonest. You know it isn't as simple as that (or are you that simple?)
I have no idea what you mean.DougSloan
Oct 9, 2002 1:09 PM
How is that "lame?" There is no dishonesty there whatsoever. Had Clinton chosen to invade Iraq to oust Saddam, particularly to enforce a UN resolution, you know darn well he could have without any interference from Republicans whatsoever.

Labelling that as either "lame" or "dishonest" could be deemed both, but I prefer to avoid such name calling.

Now, was Clinton's credibility so damaged as a result of his shenanigans such that he chose not to invade at it might have obviously appeared as a diversionary tactic? Quite possibly.

Doug
Really?czardonic
Oct 9, 2002 1:44 PM
Republicans did criticize Clinton's actions towards Iraq. Trent Lott's words were "I cannot support this military action in the Persian Gulf at this time". So, your claim of no resistance from Republicans is false.

Personally I would prefer to avoid name calling too. However, since you have no compunction about tarring me as "Anti-American", I don't mind refering to your demonstrably false remarks as dishonest, and the attendant (and disingenuous) implication as lame. On the other hand, if you were simply misinformed, I retract the charge with my sincere apologies.

For the record, I think that you were correct about Clinton's use of Iraq as a diversionary tactic. Then again, the entire impeachment debacle was a Republican driven attempt to diversionary tactic. I feel the same way about Bush/Iraq, though Bush has a lot more to divert the nation's attention from.
No mind change here...Jon Billheimer
Oct 9, 2002 7:56 AM
Check out commentary from an editor of the Atlanta Journal
Constitution, reported on the Fox News Service. His position, documented by referral to numerous think tank and policy papers by key members of the Bush administration, is that the reasons cited by the administration are a disingenuous cover for a radically unilateralist foreign policy. This policy is based upon the observation that with the demise of the Soviet Union there is an international power vacuum that the U.S. should fill without regard to U.N. sanction, international treaties or convention. The thinking goes that the U.S. can go into Iraq, overthrow Saddam and co nstruct a large, permanent military facility there, from which the "Arab street" can be controlled and access to middle eastern oil supplies secured. Hence, the sketchiness of any exit postwar plans.

One may disagree with this scenario, but the administration's recent behaviour is certainly consistent with this view. As well, these views have been advanced in public documents by key members of Bush's team, including Rumsfeld.
It looks like a plan for world domination via military...rwbadley
Oct 9, 2002 11:35 AM
Why can't we just stick to selling 'em hamburgers and pepsi?

The idea Bush wants to establish a 'beach head' in Iraq appears consistent with current action.

Could enhanced US military presence in the region serve to fester an already open sore? Will the key regional players go along with this? If Saud go along, it will be the worst thing for their rule they could do, as the people are already demonstrating their displeasure at US influence with Saud.

We will end up propping up regime after regime of freindlies and then have to invade further to quell social unrest. Hostility will rise to the point that even moderates will be standing in line to become martyr.

I can think of one or two (sound) reasons for action, and a dozen or more against.

If invasion to halt use or mfr of WMD's by Iraq causes wide unrest with further terrorist action or worse, will it be worth it? Still the 'right thing' to do?

RW
No change....Starliner
Oct 8, 2002 12:54 PM
Every sabre-rattling speech Bush makes about Saddam troubles me ever so more, and strengthens my resistance to Bush's desire to get Saddam.

Bush has focused upon attacking a symptom of a much greater problem, without much thought given to defining the problem in the first place. Not only will the problem still exist, but the danger is that it will get worse after Saddam is dealt with.

Action taken under a frenzied state of emotion is bound to get us into trouble.
Nice line... action taken under...Good points all, Irwbadley
Oct 8, 2002 1:55 PM
agree the need to go after Iraq as a country seems ill-conceived in many ways. Why not send a few guys over to snipe away at him? Criminy, we have 'em shooting our kids here. It would appear that other nation-states are far and away more threat than Iraq.

Could it be that George W has found something that he feels will truly validate his role as president? Greatness is just around the corner... I'll show those guys I have the 'right stuff'. I'll teach Saddam the meaning of the word respect, (bark like a dog for me... )I'll make 'em all forget the eight years of peace and prosperity under that other guy...

The house of Saud is just around the corner... we'll need to go after them next. You know most of the attackers on 9-11 were Saudi...

Time will tell,

RW
didn't change a thing.Steve98501
Oct 9, 2002 11:25 AM
I'm not persuaded for basically the same reasons cited by czardonic. And by now, I'm pre-disposed to distrust Bush. The president has failed to make a case of clear and present danger and cannot explain why the SH threat has to be taken care of when containment of other threats is satisfactory.

I almost wonder if Bush just wants to fight a war vicariously through the lives of our men and women in uniform, having personally opted out of serving in Viet Nam as a young person. I said almost. I really think his intent is to further the interests of his oil buddies based on his pattern of behavior during his tenure in office.
He seems to have changed the minds of Demo leadersDougSloan
Oct 10, 2002 7:59 PM
From ABC News:

"The issue is how to best protect America. And I believe this resolution does that," Gephardt said.

***

Daschle Gives White House Big Boost

The administration got a big boost when Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle announced he was putting aside his misgivings to support the president.

"I believe it is important for America to speak with one voice," said Daschle, D-S.D. "It is neither a Democratic resolution nor a Republican resolution. It is now a statement of American resolve and values."

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/iraq021010.html
No, he didn't. It's amusing to think of Dick G. or Tom D. orscottfree
Oct 11, 2002 7:48 AM
ANY politician in any party sitting in front of his TV set, listening to a speech like that, and thinking: WOW! Hard to argue with that! I'm changing my mind!

No, the polls, the looming election, the narrow party split in both chambers -- the political writing was on the wall. No way you can go against the prez on something like this -- a publicly supported call to war -- unless you're in a 'safe' district (safe being defined as one that overwhelmingly loves you and everything you do, or overwhelmingly hates Bush and everything he does.)

The speech had zero impact on any member of either chamber. If it had never been given, the final vote would have been exactly the same.
really?DougSloan
Oct 11, 2002 8:28 AM
I didn't mean it literally. I was intending to be facetious, but informative at the same time. Ya. That's the ticket.

Doug :-)
Sometimes it's hard to tell. You're usuallyscottfree
Oct 11, 2002 8:42 AM
so earnest!