• Announcements

    • UnderDawg

      A Few Simple Rules   05/22/2017

      Sailing Anarchy is a very lightly moderated site. This is by design, to afford a more free atmosphere for discussion. There are plenty of sailing forums you can go to where swearing isn't allowed, confrontation is squelched and, and you can have a moderator finger-wag at you for your attitude. SA tries to avoid that and allow for more adult behavior without moderators editing your posts and whacking knuckles with rulers. We don't have a long list of published "thou shalt nots" either, and this is by design. Too many absolute rules paints us into too many corners. So check the Terms of Service - there IS language there about certain types of behavior that is not permitted. We interpret that lightly and permit a lot of latitude, but we DO reserve the right to take action when something is too extreme to tolerate (too racist, graphic, violent, misogynistic, etc.). Yes, that is subjective, but it allows us discretion. Avoiding a laundry list of rules allows for freedom; don't abuse it. However there ARE a few basic rules that will earn you a suspension, and apparently a brief refresher is in order. 1) Allegations of pedophilia - there is no tolerance for this. So if you make allegations, jokes, innuendo or suggestions about child molestation, child pornography, abuse or inappropriate behavior with minors etc. about someone on this board you will get a time out. This is pretty much automatic; this behavior can have real world effect and is not acceptable. Obviously the subject is not banned when discussion of it is apropos, e.g. talking about an item in the news for instance. But allegations or references directed at or about another poster is verboten. 2) Outing people - providing real world identifiable information about users on the forums who prefer to remain anonymous. Yes, some of us post with our real names - not a problem to use them. However many do NOT, and if you find out someone's name keep it to yourself, first or last. This also goes for other identifying information too - employer information etc. You don't need too many pieces of data to figure out who someone really is these days. Depending on severity you might get anything from a scolding to a suspension - so don't do it. I know it can be confusing sometimes for newcomers, as SA has been around almost twenty years and there are some people that throw their real names around and their current Display Name may not match the name they have out in the public. But if in doubt, you don't want to accidentally out some one so use caution, even if it's a personal friend of yours in real life. 3) Posting While Suspended - If you've earned a timeout (these are fairly rare and hard to get), please observe the suspension. If you create a new account (a "Sock Puppet") and return to the forums to post with it before your suspension is up you WILL get more time added to your original suspension and lose your Socks. This behavior may result a permanent ban, since it shows you have zero respect for the few rules we have and the moderating team that is tasked with supporting them. Check the Terms of Service you agreed to; they apply to the individual agreeing, not the account you created, so don't try to Sea Lawyer us if you get caught. Just don't do it. Those are the three that will almost certainly get you into some trouble. IF YOU SEE SOMEONE DO ONE OF THESE THINGS, please do the following: Refrain from quoting the offending text, it makes the thread cleanup a pain in the rear Press the Report button; it is by far the best way to notify Admins as we will get e-mails. Calling out for Admins in the middle of threads, sending us PM's, etc. - there is no guarantee we will get those in a timely fashion. There are multiple Moderators in multiple time zones around the world, and anyone one of us can handle the Report and all of us will be notified about it. But if you PM one Mod directly and he's off line, the problem will get dealt with much more slowly. Other behaviors that you might want to think twice before doing include: Intentionally disrupting threads and discussions repeatedly. Off topic/content free trolling in threads to disrupt dialog Stalking users around the forums with the intent to disrupt content and discussion Repeated posting of overly graphic or scatological porn content. There are plenty web sites for you to get your freak on, don't do it here. And a brief note to Newbies... No, we will not ban people or censor them for dropping F-bombs on you, using foul language, etc. so please don't report it when one of our members gives you a greeting you may find shocking. We do our best not to censor content here and playing swearword police is not in our job descriptions. Sailing Anarchy is more like a bar than a classroom, so handle it like you would meeting someone a little coarse - don't look for the teacher. Thanks.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
badlatitude

The GOP's Moral Rot is the Problem, Not Donald Trump Jr.

253 posts in this topic

Jennifer Rubin hits it out of the ballpark today. But now what?

"The key insight from a week of gobsmacking revelations is not that the Russia scandal may finally have an underlying crime but that, as David Brooks suggests, “over the past few generations the Trump family built an enveloping culture that is beyond good and evil.” (Remember when the media collectively oohed and ahhed that, “Say what you will about Donald Trump, but his kids are great!”? Add that to the heap of inane media narratives that helped normalize Trump to the voters.) We now see that, sure enough, the Trump legal team (the fastest-growing segment of the economy) has trouble restraining its clients, explaining away initial, false explanations and preventing self-incriminating statements. (The biggest trouble, of course, is that the president lied that this is all “fake news” and arguably committed obstruction of justice to hide his campaign team’s misdeeds.)

Let me suggest the real problem is not the Trump family, but the GOP. To paraphrase Brooks, “It takes generations to hammer ethical considerations out of a [party’s] mind and to replace them entirely with the ruthless logic of winning and losing.” Again, to borrow from Brooks, beyond partisanship the GOP evidences “no attachment to any external moral truth or ethical code.”

Let’s dispense with the “Democrats are just as bad” defense. First, I don’t much care; we collectively face a party in charge of virtually the entire federal government and the vast majority of statehouses and governorships. It’s that party’s inner moral rot that must concern us for now. Second, it’s simply not true, and saying so reveals the origin of the problem — a “woe is me” sense of victimhood that grossly exaggerates the opposition’s ills and in turn justifies its own egregious political judgments and rhetoric. If the GOP had not become unhinged about the Clintons, would it have rationalized Trump as the lesser of two evils? Only in the crazed bubble of right-wing hysteria does an ethically challenged, moderate Democrat become a threat to Western civilization and Trump the salvation of America.

Indeed, for decades now, demonization — of gays, immigrants, Democrats, the media, feminists, etc. — has been the animating spirit behind much of the right. It has distorted its assessment of reality, giving us anti-immigrant hysteria, promulgating disrespect for the law (how many “respectable” conservatives suggested disregarding the Supreme Court’s decision on gay marriage?), elevating Fox News hosts’ blatantly false propaganda as the counterweight to liberal media bias and preventing serious policy debate. For seven years, the party vilified Obamacare without an accurate assessment of its faults and feasible alternative plans. “Obama bad” or “Clinton bad” became the only credo — leaving the party, as Brooks said of the Trump clan, with “no attachment to any external moral truth or ethical code” — and no coherent policies for governing.

We have always had in our political culture narcissists, ideologues and flimflammers, but it took the 21st-century GOP to put one in the White House. It took elected leaders such as House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) and the Republican National Committee (not to mention its donors and activists) to wave off Trump’s racists attacks on a federal judge, blatant lies about everything from 9/11 to his own involvement in birtherism, replete evidence of disloyalty to America (i.e. Trump’s “Russia first” policies), misogyny, Islamophobia, ongoing potential violations of the Constitution’s emoluments clause (along with a mass of conflicts of interests), firing of an FBI director, and now, evidence that the campaign was willing to enlist a foreign power to defeat Clinton in the presidential election.

Out of its collective sense of victimhood came the GOP’s disdain for not just intellectuals but also intellectualism, science, Economics 101, history and constitutional fidelity. If the Trump children became slaves to money and to their father’s unbridled ego, then the GOP became slaves to its own demons and false narratives. A party that has to deny climate change and insist illegal immigrants are creating a crime wave — because that is what “conservatives” must believe, since liberals do not — is a party that will deny Trump’s complicity in gross misconduct. It’s a party as unfit to govern as Trump is unfit to occupy the White House. It’s not by accident that Trump chose to inhabit the party that has defined itself in opposition to reality and to any “external moral truth or ethical code.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2017/07/14/the-gops-moral-rot-is-the-problem-not-donald-trump-jr/?utm_term=.b62044dd3546

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If your mantra is "government is the problem, not the solution" and the impetus is to rid the country of the "nanny state" mentality, you are open to invigorating rich "conservatives" who would reduce the level of positive civic engagement with government to a minimum. Big projects, like infrastructure, are anathema to this ideology, and so must be hamstrung or killed, or otherwise rendered unpopular and impossible. Witness Chris Christy's killing the ARC tunnel.

Taxes must be cut, and then the budget balanced. Which looks good until you realize that if you expect the government to provide services, then taxes are the way to pay for those services. But there is no balance in Conservatives' approach to budget, only the desire to cut taxes, especially on the rich. This hamstrings governmental efforts to be efficient which is hard to do when your budget can only shrink, unless yours is a military department. It is necessary to also laud the "free market", even when it offers junk health insurance that will statistically become the most expensive purchase a family will make, when it fails and they are inevitably bankrupted by health care not covered by the plan.

The debate with liberals is necessary for Conservatives' opinion to remain healthy, or unpolluted. A give and take of opponent forces creates a vibrant democracy, where good ideas rise to the fore. In a vacuum of opposition, Conservativism becomes coopted by billionaires into legislative fait accomplit (sp?), and all that money skews the system into rent seeking behavior. The purpose of politics becomes to enable the rich to become richer without offering better products. They are allowed to rest on their laurels and become the aristocracy, gaining wealth, prestige and power through the power of compound interest and monopolies.

Through gerrymandering and voter suppression, ALEC initiatives and big money/dark money the GOP has fallen under the sway of immensely powerful forces that now drive the bus right over the middle and lower class. My view of this is of a terrorist driving a car into a crowd of pedestrians screaming "CUT TAXES" instead of some other jihadist screed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moral rot would indicate the GOP had morality at one time.  When was that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Spatial Ed said:

Moral rot would indicate the GOP had morality at one time.  When was that?

1952

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Spatial Ed said:

Moral rot would indicate the GOP had morality at one time.  When was that?

Eisenhower administration? Oh, wait - McCarthy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Teddy was probably the last time republicans held the moral high ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Sean said:
19 minutes ago, Spatial Ed said:

Moral rot would indicate the GOP had morality at one time.  When was that?

Eisenhower administration? Oh, wait - McCarthy.

A lot of Republican leaders, probably most of them, HATED Eisenhower. Of course, they hated Democrats more. There weren't any gays back then to hate.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+1

The Rs only ethical bounds now are "can we win with this" and nothing else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Sean said:

Eisenhower administration? Oh, wait - McCarthy.

It's funny, Eisenhower didn't know what party he should run with in '52. Both parties vied for the honors, he chose the Republican party. If you look at the '56 GOP platform, it's similar to the recent democrat platforms you see today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In short..."deplorables"...Yeah, run with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Dog said:

In short..."deplorables"...Yeah, run with that.

Are you the new moral beacon of the GOP Dog?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Time for a change here, neither side appears to be going anywhere and this probably isn't worth a thread by itself. WHY hasn't Jarrod lost his security clearance? He filled a form out to get it and stated he had no meetings with any Russians during DIL's campaign. And them it is shown he's had one and he amends the document and then, it's discovered he had another and the original form for a security clearance is amended again. Then we hear about Another! How many times should Jarrod be allowed to amend this? I say, he's past the number and his security clearance should be revoked immediately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SV Airlie said:

Time for a change here, neither side appears to be going anywhere and this probably isn't worth a thread by itself. WHY hasn't Jarrod lost his security clearance? He filled a form out to get it and stated he had no meetings with any Russians during DIL's campaign. And them it is shown he's had one and he amends the document and then, it's discovered he had another and the original form for a security clearance is amended again. Then we hear about Another! How many times should Jarrod be allowed to amend this? I say, he's past the number and his security clearance should be revoked immediately.

His security clearance was upheld in a strict party line vote. http://thehill.com/homenews/house/341859-dem-rep-introducing-amendments-aimed-at-striking-kushners-security-clearance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, SV Airlie said:

Time for a change here, neither side appears to be going anywhere and this probably isn't worth a thread by itself. WHY hasn't Jarrod lost his security clearance? He filled a form out to get it and stated he had no meetings with any Russians during DIL's campaign. And them it is shown he's had one and he amends the document and then, it's discovered he had another and the original form for a security clearance is amended again. Then we hear about Another! How many times should Jarrod be allowed to amend this? I say, he's past the number and his security clearance should be revoked immediately.

But he's royal blood by marriage, and a red hat.   He's untouchable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

Not surprised although I hadn't heard that. Obviously filling out the f86(?) form is no longer necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, SV Airlie said:

Not surprised although I hadn't heard that. Obviously filling out the f86(?) form is no longer necessary.

Standard form 86 is still a requirement for all people holding security clearances. It is more likely that Kushner will lose his security clearance when convicted of a crime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, badlatitude said:

Standard form 86 is still a requirement for all people holding security clearances. It is more likely that Kushner will lose his security clearance when convicted of a crime.

Don't you have to affirm what is written on an 86 is true and isn't that a crime? Once I can see as an oversight, twice maybe but, more than two?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SV Airlie said:

Don't you have to affirm what is written on an 86 is true and isn't that a crime? Once I can see as an oversight, twice maybe but, more than two?

Yes, and Kushner has submitted corrections twice. He is open to criticism for his incompleteness, but he is following through with corrections in an effort, to be honest, and thorough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bigger question is would Jared of gotten his clearance had he disclosed that he colluded with the Russians to get his father in law elected.  Oh wait, we are talking about republicans here.  Never mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

Yes, and Kushner has submitted corrections twice. He is open to criticism for his incompleteness, but he is following through with corrections in an effort, to be honest, and thorough.

After the fact!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, SV Airlie said:

After the fact!

? That doesn't indicate guilt, it indicates memory loss. Unless his forgetfulness can be proven to be deliberate, it means nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

? That doesn't indicate guilt, it indicates memory loss. Unless his forgetfulness can be proven to be deliberate, it means nothing.

Look, I was caught once, I'd make sure there weren't any others. All of them occurred within a year and there weren't many of them and should stand out like beacons. I sincerely think he's dump enough to think no one would discover them so no reason to list them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SV Airlie said:

Look, I was caught once, I'd make sure there weren't any others. All of them occurred within a year and there weren't many of them and should stand out like beacons. I sincerely think he's dump enough to think no one would discover them so no reason to list them.

All you have to do is prove it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes I think it would be nice to have a parliamentary system so you could have representation at a more granular level.

May not change anything but at least you might be able to find a candidate that can openly express ideas that more closely represents a given area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Spatial Ed said:

Teddy was probably the last time republicans held the moral high ground.

And he rebelled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps the moral rot, and yes it's on both sides, is an indictment of the 2-party stranglehold the country's had since the 1850s.  Minor parties bubble up from time to time, but inevitably the 2-party local, state and federal electoral system is comprehensively rigged against their getting anywhere.

In most of the rest of the world, especially in Europe, a new party, dissatisfied by the status quo, can arise and become a force.  Not necessarily for good (le Pen in France, and the NAZIs are a good example) but the more open system may mean more full representation of the nation's electorate - see Macron's brand new party in France.  This is generally a good thing, as it tends to sweep out corruption and moral rot, and at least keep the dominant parties on the straight and narrow to avoid defeat.  And most frequently, a coalition government has to be formed in which there's a good deal of compromises, as in Italy.

In this last US Presidential election, many who voted simply selected the "less worse" option.  And that's not good enough.  

Perhaps this needs a different thread, if there isn't one already.  I admit I haven't looked, as I'm an irregular visitor here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our memories hold those events we consider to be significant. Certainly we forget which clerk at every took our money on each of last year's purchases.

On the other hand, a potentially illegal activity that, if discovered, may ruin our reputation, get is  arrested and end with us in court or in jail OUGHT to be sufficiently special to cause us to remember it. 

Kushner wants us to believe he forgot about the meeting. I offer two versions of what that means:

a, He has so many shady dealings on such a regular basis his memory of those shady dealings is similar to our memories of individual visits to this website. ( Dog, What thread did you visit on June 12, 2016 and what did you post?)

b. He absolutely remembers the meeting because he knew of the implications of being caught doing something he had never before or since considered much less actually done. He lied (through his omission) to cover his ass and is scared shitless someone might use the information to ruin his life. ( I still remember over fifty years later every detail of the night our group of kids snuck into the beach after hours for a swim and the next day we denied having been there.)

------

i believe scenario "a" is most accurate.  Kuchner probably did pretty much forget about that shady meeting. All he cares about is winning, power,  money, pleasing the Trumps, and similar. There is nothing that distinguishes one illegal act other than when that one illegal act is discovered and demands additional attention. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Leave Jared alone. 

He's new at this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, badlatitude said:

Yes, and Kushner has submitted corrections twice. He is open to criticism for his incompleteness, but he is following through with corrections in an effort, to be honest, and thorough.

Thanks for that!

roflmfao.jpg

 

Let's just say those of us with passing knowledge of clearances realize any mere GS employee would either be in line for chow in a federal prison or in line for unemployment benefits, depending on who they knew.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, badlatitude said:

Are you the new moral beacon of the GOP Dog?

Just run on your self proclaimed moral superiority, let's see how that plays.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Dog said:

Just run on your self proclaimed moral superiority, let's see how that plays.

I never claimed moral superiority Dog, I did lay ground for the GOP lack of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Dog said:

Just run on your self proclaimed moral superiority, let's see how that plays.

Actually??

i believe the country would love to elect a person of character. 

The key is to find one who does not wish to ram his / her agenda down our throats.

of course, given the power of the Presidency, how could any person resist the temptation to advocate for his / her moral position?

And

we would be right back in it 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Bus Driver said:

I've heard you never ask a question you don't already know the answer to. 

Perhaps that same logic should extend to statements regarding information that is easily verified or dismissed. 

Trump lawyer tries to pin this on the Secret Service.

The Secret Service weighed in on the insinuation made by President Trump's lawyer that they "vetted the meeting" Junior held with the Russians.

Unsurprisingly, they said Nyet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Gouvernail said:

Actually??

i believe the country would love to elect a person of character. 

The key is to find one who does not wish to ram his / her agenda down our throats.

of course, given the power of the Presidency, how could any person resist the temptation to advocate for his / her moral position?

And

we would be right back in it 

Heh... Lincoln Chaffee was running, greeted with a mild yawn.

I've been waiting for Michael Jordan to run for President but he doesn't want the hassle

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Heh... Lincoln Chaffee was running, greeted with a mild yawn.

I've been waiting for Michael Jordan to run for President but he doesn't want the hassle

-DSK

So far he hasn't been as thoroughly inspected as a presidential finalist but I haven't come across acreason to oppose Al Franken. 

He's good enough

He's smart enough

and

Doggone it

people like him 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Dog said:

Just run on your self proclaimed moral superiority, let's see how that plays.

Self proclaimed? Seriously?

Sometimes, ignorant people need to understand how ignorant they are. Then they need to shut up and let the the adults make the decision.

The problem isn't smart, educated, experienced people. It's idiots who don't realise they are idiots and actually think they know better. If I want to know about science, I ask a scientist. If I want political action, I enlist a politician, if I want legal advice, I ask a lawyer. Any opinion by a poorly educated, inbred hick will get the weight it deserves.

You elected a pretty crappy business person over a highly experienced politician. For your next trick, are you going to your bartender for medical advice?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Incompetent people are the heady able to judge their own competency 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Gouvernail said:

Incompetent people are the heady able to judge their own competency 

For fuck's sake! Proof before you post. You've not had a stroke and SV's post are more legible! You've got no excuse other than your own incompetence!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Gouvernail said:

Incompetent people are the heady able to judge their own competency 

Exactly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ease the sheet said:

Self proclaimed? Seriously?

Sometimes, ignorant people need to understand how ignorant they are. Then they need to shut up and let the the adults make the decision.

The problem isn't smart, educated, experienced people. It's idiots who don't realise they are idiots and actually think they know better. If I want to know about science, I ask a scientist. If I want political action, I enlist a politician, if I want legal advice, I ask a lawyer. Any opinion by a poorly educated, inbred hick will get the weight it deserves.

You elected a pretty crappy business person over a highly experienced politician. For your next trick, are you going to your bartender for medical advice?

 

Just run on your self proclaimed intellectual superiority then. We'll see how that plays.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dog said:

Just run on your self proclaimed intellectual superiority then. We'll see how that plays.

just so people don't think you are intellectually inferior, maybe you could quote where I proclaimed my intellectual superiority?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, ease the sheet said:

just so people don't think you are intellectually inferior, maybe you could quote where I proclaimed my intellectual superiority?

"Sometimes, ignorant people need to understand how ignorant they are. Then they need to shut up and let the the adults make the decision".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your lack of critical reading skills is giving me a superiority complex. Because of  my own intellectual limitations, I will have to confer with an expert to see if that is what is actually happening.

 

I don't expect you to confer with anyone, dog. What, with your superior knowledge of how the world works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Thanks for that!

roflmfao.jpg

 

Let's just say those of us with passing knowledge of clearances realize any mere GS employee would either be in line for chow in a federal prison or in line for unemployment benefits, depending on who they knew.

I guess people who hold Yankee White level clearances are exempt. Whatever used to be the standard has changed, or Kushner would be in jail, and he isn't. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, badlatitude said:

I never claimed moral superiority Dog, I did lay ground for the GOP lack of it.

OK I got it...It's not that Democrats are morally superior to Republicans, it's that Republicans are morally inferior to Democrats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Dog said:

OK I got it...It's not that Democrats are morally superior to Republicans, it's that Republicans are morally inferior to Democrats.

I would agree with you Dog. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Dog said:

OK I got it...It's not that Democrats are morally superior to Republicans, it's that Republicans are morally inferior to Democrats.

Name the last Democrat Vice President who lied to get the US into a war so that his company would profit.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a waste of electrons, to argue our side is better than your side, from either side. Anyone can find examples of bad behavior by any politician, that's not proof of anything. Vocal conservatives and vocal liberals have traded the low ground for decades, and campaign finances ensure that won't change easily (but it's possible). Hating conservatives is just as damaging as hating liberals, but it just gets worse year after year, with no chance of progress. Is that how you conduct your personal life with actual people you know and interact with?

If anyone ever did or said something substantially positive or constructive, that would be revolutionary...but I'm not holding my breath lately. Sadly it's no wonder most of the electorate doesn't know or care anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Dog said:

Are you referring to this "lie".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cwqh4wQPoQk

 

Not that it matters, Clinton was president and where did he profit from it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, MidPack said:

What a waste of electrons, to argue our side is better than your side, from either side. Anyone can find examples of bad behavior by any politician, that's not proof of anything. Vocal conservatives and vocal liberals have traded the low ground for decades, and campaign finances ensure that won't change easily (but it's possible). Hating conservatives is just as damaging as hating liberals, but it just gets worse year after year, with no chance of progress. Is that how you conduct your personal life with actual people you know and interact with?

If anyone ever did or said something substantially positive or constructive, that would be revolutionary...but I'm not holding my breath lately. Sadly it's no wonder most of the electorate doesn't know or care anymore.

Couldn't have said it better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, MidPack said:

What a waste of electrons, to argue our side is better than your side, from either side. Anyone can find examples of bad behavior by any politician, that's not proof of anything. Vocal conservatives and vocal liberals have traded the low ground for decades, and campaign finances ensure that won't change easily (but it's possible). Hating conservatives is just as damaging as hating liberals, but it just gets worse year after year, with no chance of progress. Is that how you conduct your personal life with actual people you know and interact with?

When someone tells me a lie, to my face, for the sake of leading me into an action that will harm me or my family and/or so that they can gain a profit... you're damn right I jump on their ass calling them a liar, loudly and repeatedly.

It's true that you can find examples of bad behavior in every political stripe. This is complicated by the fact that what many people think is good, other people will call bad. OTOH there really is not an equivalence between the political parties. Republicans have crashed the economy, started wars, cvered up massive public malfeasance for private profit. Democrats have... umm... they've bribed minorities to vote for them... Democrats have.... umm done a shitload of bad terrible stuff, just look at Fox News! Doncha bee-leeeve Rush when he tells you how poisonous and treasonous those goddam Democrats are????

Claiming equivalence is just trying to excuse Republican misdeeds. Go ahead if you want, just like Dog is trying to puff up the Ukrainian "collusion" into something equivalent to Trump's misdeeds (in -this- area... not mentioning all the other shit he's pulled). As stated in the thread title, this is the problem right here. Republicans are eager to find excuses for their party leaders crimes, Democrats are willing to vote the fuckers out. This is one reason why Hillary worked so hard to rig the primaries last year.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dog said:

OK I got it...It's not that Democrats are morally superior to Republicans, it's that Republicans are morally inferior to Democrats.

That is actually a pretty decent description. Democrats go pretty damned low. Republicans, thanks to their leader, are wallowing in depths none of us had previously imagined. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, SV Airlie said:

 

 

4 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

When someone tells me a lie, to my face, for the sake of leading me into an action that will harm me or my family and/or so that they can gain a profit... you're damn right I jump on their ass calling them a liar, loudly and repeatedly.

It's true that you can find examples of bad behavior in every political stripe. This is complicated by the fact that what many people think is good, other people will call bad. OTOH there really is not an equivalence between the political parties. Republicans have crashed the economy, started wars, cvered up massive public malfeasance for private profit. Democrats have... umm... they've bribed minorities to vote for them... Democrats have.... umm done a shitload of bad terrible stuff, just look at Fox News! Doncha bee-leeeve Rush when he tells you how poisonous and treasonous those goddam Democrats are????

Claiming equivalence is just trying to excuse Republican misdeeds. Go ahead if you want, just like Dog is trying to puff up the Ukrainian "collusion" into something equivalent to Trump's misdeeds (in -this- area... not mentioning all the other shit he's pulled). As stated in the thread title, this is the problem right here. Republicans are eager to find excuses for their party leaders crimes, Democrats are willing to vote the fuckers out. This is one reason why Hillary worked so hard to rig the primaries last year.

-DSK

It wasn't a lie, it was a mistake based on flawed intelligence and politicians on both sides of the aisle made it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dog said:

 

 

It wasn't a lie, it was a mistake based on flawed intelligence and politicians on both sides of the aisle made it.

Noooooo... One side "made it." The other side "believed it."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Gouvernail said:

Noooooo... One side "made it." The other side "believed it."

 

If that's true it was the Clinton administration that made it and the Bush administration that believed it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dog said:

If that's true it was the Clinton administration that made it and the Bush administration that believed it.

Colin Powell was from the Clinton Administration??

That there stuff is summa dat loco alternative facts gibberish 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dog said:

 

 

It wasn't a lie, it was a mistake based on flawed intelligence and politicians on both sides of the aisle made it.

Incorrect.

Dick Cheney said as much a few years back. Of course, he didn't come right out and say "Ha ha! I lied to all you stupid fucks and pocketed tens of millions" he was seriously discussing why Democrats suck at foreign affairs and are weak on terrorism, and said that they knew Saddam's WMD programs were underbudgeted (iirc the way he worded it was that the US military placed too much credibility on sources that weren't in the same political wagon as Cheney)and way behind schedule and there was never any serious intel tying Iraq to Sep 11th.

As for "politicians on both sides" Bush asked for war, gave his lies (Bush himself probably believed it), and Democrats... along with a lot of Republicans... believed him. That's their fault?

2 minutes ago, Dog said:
4 minutes ago, Gouvernail said:

Noooooo... One side "made it." The other side "believed it."

 

If that's true it was the Clinton administration that made it and the Bush administration that believed it.

That's right, it's never your fault. It's always somebody elses' fault. How can it be Clinton's fault when they tried to warn Bush about the Sept 11th plotters and Bush threw it all out the window? Because Democrats are pussies and weak on communism terrorism?

Of course, you have to fuckin' pay attention and actually remember details. If you're happy getting fooled over and over, be my guest. Just don't drag my country down with you.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Gouvernail said:

Colin Powell was from the Clinton Administration??

That there stuff is summa dat loco alternative facts gibberish 

 

Colin Powell was neither from the Clinton administration or VP. Fact is the Clinton administration claimed Saddam had WMD's before the Bush administration did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Incorrect.

Dick Cheney said as much a few years back. Of course, he didn't come right out and say "Ha ha! I lied to all you stupid fucks and pocketed tens of millions" he was seriously discussing why Democrats suck at foreign affairs and are weak on terrorism, and said that they knew Saddam's WMD programs were underbudgeted (iirc the way he worded it was that the US military placed too much credibility on sources that weren't in the same political wagon as Cheney)and way behind schedule and there was never any serious intel tying Iraq to Sep 11th.

As for "politicians on both sides" Bush asked for war, gave his lies (Bush himself probably believed it), and Democrats... along with a lot of Republicans... believed him. That's their fault?

That's right, it's never your fault. It's always somebody elses' fault. How can it be Clinton's fault when they tried to warn Bush about the Sept 11th plotters and Bush threw it all out the window? Because Democrats are pussies and weak on communism terrorism?

Of course, you have to fuckin' pay attention and actually remember details. If you're happy getting fooled over and over, be my guest. Just don't drag my country down with you.

-DSK

I'm not the one assigning blame for the WMD error. That would be you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dog said:

I'm not the one assigning blame for the WMD error. That would be you.

Oh right. Other than saying it must be the Clinton's fault, you mean?

Got it

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Steam Flyer said:

Oh right. Other than saying it must be the Clinton's fault, you mean?

Got it

-DSK

I didn't say it was Clinton's fault.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dog said:

I didn't say it was Clinton's fault.

Yes yes of course. Nor can you point to a Democrat Vice President who lied to the country in order to start a war from which he profited.

You can find a fair amount of Democrat misdoings... that guy with the stamps, for example... but the two are grossly out of scale. Pardon the pun.

Thanks for playing. You are definitely WINNING!!! 

MAGA motherfucker!!!!!!!!

How long till the next crash and/or war? And where's my fucking tax break?

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

since cheney stepped down and cashed out of haliburton after the 2000 election, how did he profit from the iraq war?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

When someone tells me a lie, to my face, for the sake of leading me into an action that will harm me or my family and/or so that they can gain a profit... you're damn right I jump on their ass calling them a liar, loudly and repeatedly.

It's true that you can find examples of bad behavior in every political stripe. This is complicated by the fact that what many people think is good, other people will call bad. OTOH there really is not an equivalence between the political parties. Republicans have crashed the economy, started wars, cvered up massive public malfeasance for private profit. Democrats have... umm... they've bribed minorities to vote for them... Democrats have.... umm done a shitload of bad terrible stuff, just look at Fox News! Doncha bee-leeeve Rush when he tells you how poisonous and treasonous those goddam Democrats are????

Claiming equivalence is just trying to excuse Republican misdeeds. Go ahead if you want, just like Dog is trying to puff up the Ukrainian "collusion" into something equivalent to Trump's misdeeds (in -this- area... not mentioning all the other shit he's pulled). As stated in the thread title, this is the problem right here. Republicans are eager to find excuses for their party leaders crimes, Democrats are willing to vote the fuckers out. This is one reason why Hillary worked so hard to rig the primaries last year.

-DSK

If I though there was any chance you could be persuaded toward middle ground, but it's clear that's a fools errand. If you say something, it must be true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

9 minutes ago, MidPack said:

If I though there was any chance you could be persuaded toward middle ground, but it's clear that's a fools errand. If you say something, it must be true.

The US is in a mess partly because "reasonable" people assume the middle ground is where things are correct, therefore encouraging both sides to become more extreme.

The US pissed away $1 trillion on the Iraq War. It'd be nice to have some honest reflection on the reason for it, and the ramifications of that spending.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

Nor can you point to a Democrat Vice President who lied to the country in order to start a war from which he profited.

Not exactly the same, but an equivalent IMO. Check out the Gulf of Tonkin incident, McNamara and LBJ - Democrats of course. McNamara later admitted they lied, at the time it allowed Johnson to ratchet up US involvement. About 50,000 troops died, and well over a million people in total. Democrats made Vietnam worse, not better. Not to say Republicans haven't made their share of colossal miscalculations.

Just one example. I'd provide more but you're not capable of changing your mind, your too intent on shouting at anyone who disagrees with your views. You'll never see your blind partisanship is just as destructive as those you criticize. Who's worse is the lesser concern in all this...

Quote

It was originally claimed by the National Security Agency that a Second Gulf of Tonkin incident occurred on August 4, 1964, as another sea battle, but instead evidence was found of "Tonkin ghosts"[5] (false radar images) and not actual North Vietnamese torpedo boats. In the 2003 documentary The Fog of War, the former United States Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara admitted that the August 2 USS Maddox attack happened with no Defense Department response, but the August 4 Gulf of Tonkin attack never happened.[6] In 1995, former Secretary of Defense McNamara met with former Vietnam People's Army General Võ Nguyên Giáp to ask what happened on August 4, 1964 in the second Gulf of Tonkin Incident. "Absolutely nothing", Giáp replied.[7] Giáp claimed that the attack had been imaginary.[8]

The outcome of these two incidents was the passage by Congress of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which granted President Lyndon B. Johnson the authority to assist any Southeast Asian country whose government was considered to be jeopardized by "communist aggression". The resolution served as Johnson's legal justification for deploying U.S. conventional forces and the commencement of open warfare against North Vietnam.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, hermetic said:

since cheney stepped down and cashed out of haliburton after the 2000 election, how did he profit from the iraq war?

Cheney didn't cash out completely until 2005 and is currently worth nine figures. He gave up enough to prevent anything blowing back on him as war profiteering. I consider that fair. What I still consider criminal is his company's shoddy work as contractors, that resulted in 16 soldiers electrocuted to death in their showers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MidPack said:

Check out the Gulf of Tonkin incident, McNamara and lBJ. McNamara later admitted they lied, at the time it allowed Johnson to ratchet up US involvement. About 50,000 troops died, and well over a million people in total.

Just one example. I'd provide more but you're not capable of changing your mind. You'll never see your blind partisanship is just as destructive as those you criticize.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident

That is a historical fact of the Vietnam War and has been a fact for a long time now. What is a lesser known fact is how Richard Nixon monkey wrenched the Paris Peace Accords to win his 1968 election. A maneuver that cost 25,000 soldiers to perish that may not have had to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

Yes yes of course. Nor can you point to a Democrat Vice President who lied to the country in order to start a war from which he profited.

You can find a fair amount of Democrat misdoings... that guy with the stamps, for example... but the two are grossly out of scale. Pardon the pun.

Thanks for playing. You are definitely WINNING!!! 

MAGA motherfucker!!!!!!!!

How long till the next crash and/or war? And where's my fucking tax break?

-DSK

Lash out all you want, it won't change the facts, I didn't blame Clinton. The WMD assessment was a mistake, not a lie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"On Tuesday night, former CIA Deputy Director and Bush’s intelligence briefer Michael Morell appeared on MSNBC’s “Hardball,” where he, under an amount of good cable news duress, admitted that the administration intentionally misrepresented intelligence.

The show played a clip of Cheney saying, “We know [Saddam Hussein] has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.”

“Was that true or not,” host Chris Matthews asked.

“We were saying–”

“Can you answer that question? Was that true?”

“No, that was not true,” he finally said."

http://www.salon.com/2015/05/20/george_w_bushs_cia_briefer_admits_iraq_wmd_intelligence_was_a_lie/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union?"
 

– Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper 68, 1788

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dog said:

Lash out all you want, it won't change the facts, I didn't blame Clinton. The WMD assessment was a mistake, not a lie.

Even if you are right, it was a trillion dollar mistake that cost untold lives.   Mistakes don't get much bigger then that.   I still don't understand why everybody of both parties who supported that mistake wasn't shown the street, and denied federal pensions if eligible.   

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because term limits should only apply to other representatives from other places. Here in our district we always send a good person 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

"On Tuesday night, former CIA Deputy Director and Bush’s intelligence briefer Michael Morell appeared on MSNBC’s “Hardball,” where he, under an amount of good cable news duress, admitted that the administration intentionally misrepresented intelligence.

The show played a clip of Cheney saying, “We know [Saddam Hussein] has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.”

“Was that true or not,” host Chris Matthews asked.

“We were saying–”

“Can you answer that question? Was that true?”

“No, that was not true,” he finally said."

http://www.salon.com/2015/05/20/george_w_bushs_cia_briefer_admits_iraq_wmd_intelligence_was_a_lie/

And it wasn't true when the Clinton administration said he had WMD's either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dog said:

And it wasn't true when the Clinton administration said he had WMD's either.

Can we all agree, on a future deal,  to throw out from office anyone who starts screaming about needing to blow up an entire country because there are some allegedly  suspicious aluminum tubes somewhere somebody might possibly have seen?? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dog said:

And it wasn't true when the Clinton administration said he had WMD's either.

Exactly right. Clinton didn't manufacture that evidence it was faulty intelligence prodded by the right who had ambitions toward Iraq. We didn't even discover those ambitions until after the fact and is why the press is excoriated to this day for their war cheerleading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dog said:

Couldn't have said it better.

that's mostly because you realize you basically advocate for a bunch of dirty fk'ers who roll on the low road, imo your apologist stance borders on the absurd.

what is your view on the gop's raging boner for a corporate state (greed gone hyper rancid), do you not think it is vile, dark and Orwellian?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is as absurd as the quick end to looking at the swing state election results. The election  was fixed. The Republican controlled media is silent 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, badlatitude said:
1 hour ago, hermetic said:

since cheney stepped down and cashed out of haliburton after the 2000 election, how did he profit from the iraq war?

Cheney didn't cash out completely until 2005 and is currently worth nine figures. He gave up enough to prevent anything blowing back on him as war profiteering. I consider that fair. What I still consider criminal is his company's shoddy work as contractors, that resulted in 16 soldiers electrocuted to death in their showers.

it's fine and good to hate cheney, but don't go all philly and make things up

his ceo stock package was limited by swap value, it had to be liquidated by Halliburton, not cheney.  cheney actually gave all that money ($30M) away and didn't deduct it

he stepped down in 2000, so it was not "his company" when soldiers were zapped

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody zapped those  soldiers on purpose. Halliburton can be hated for many legitimate reasons. That mistake is not one of them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, hermetic said:

it's fine and good to hate cheney, but don't go all philly and make things up

his ceo stock package was limited by swap value, it had to be liquidated by Halliburton, not cheney.  cheney actually gave all that money ($30M) away and didn't deduct it

he stepped down in 2000, so it was not "his company" when soldiers were zapped

I didn't make anything up, his last stock options sold in in 2005, two years after the war began.

"In 2005, Cheney exercised most of what remained of his Halliburton stock options for a $6.9m profit, all of which he donated to charity. (Most of it was donated to the Richard B Cheney Cardiac Institute at George Washington University.) Cheney also got a $34 million bonus when he became Vice President."  http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/may/24/chris-matthews/chris-matthews-says-cheney-got-34-million-payday-h/

Check your facts before you charge people with making things up, you sound like Dick Cheney.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Gouvernail said:

Nobody zapped those  soldiers on purpose. Halliburton can be hated for many legitimate reasons. That mistake is not one of them. 

Wrong, incompetence by Halliburton in hiring their contractors had everything to do with why those soldiers were electrocuted in a shower. This is why no-bid contracts should not be allowed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would love to read the linked article, but must turn off ad blocker, or pay for subscription, no thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the quote isn't from that article anyway

cheney liquidated in 2000

cheney donated all of the procedes from all his swap options

cheney had nothing to do with haliburton when the soldiers got electricuted

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, billy backstay said:

Would love to read the linked article, but must turn off ad blocker, or pay for subscription, no thanks!

If you're talking about the OP, it is the whole article. It didn't need to go into any more depth it was pretty harsh in its assessment from the git-go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, hermetic said:

the quote isn't from that article anyway

cheney liquidated in 2000

cheney donated all of the procedes from all his swap options

cheney had nothing to do with haliburton when the soldiers got electricuted

Sorry, it was from this article which covered Cheney in depth. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/jun/08/dick-cheney-halliburton-supreme-court Cheney did not completely liquidate until later, we agree he donated a huge amount to charity, it still won't save his soul. Cheney pretty much set up the system where no bid contracts became the standard, but I will agree he was not personally responsible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dog said:

Lash out all you want, it won't change the facts, I didn't blame Clinton. The WMD assessment was a mistake, not a lie.

Nope, no changing the facts. Agreed. I don't know why you tried to blame Clinton but at least you realized your mistake.

There was very little intel suggesting that Saddam had WMDs, and much of that was phonied-up from politically favored (by the Bush/Cheney Administration) sources. OTOH there was a lot of intel that suggested Saddam did NOT have much in the way WMDs, such as the UN's weapons team led by an American whom the Bush/CHeney Administration scoffed at then ignored completely.

 

24 minutes ago, hermetic said:

the quote isn't from that article anyway

cheney liquidated in 2000

cheney donated all of the procedes from all his swap options

cheney had nothing to do with haliburton when the soldiers got electricuted

As I understand it, Cheney had a lot of financial connections to Halliburton and KBR including stock options, long after 2000. He said he was going to donate all this to charity, did he really? I missed it if he did.

Doesn't change the fact that Cheney lied to start a war in which companies he was closely tied to profited heavily. Did any of that money fall into his on pocket? Ask him, if you take his word for it.

Electrocuted soldiers can't be blamed on him, OTOH he certainly did all kinds of stuff like steer Air Force targeting infrastructure that Halliburton could rebuild, and firing auditors. All in the news back in the day, if you were paying attention. Of course it's all Fake News.

Perhaps I should be glad God has spared us having Trump team up with Cheney. That would be just great.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Nope, no changing the facts. Agreed. I don't know why you tried to blame Clinton but at least you realized your mistake.

There was very little intel suggesting that Saddam had WMDs, and much of that was phonied-up from politically favored (by the Bush/Cheney Administration) sources. OTOH there was a lot of intel that suggested Saddam did NOT have much in the way WMDs, such as the UN's weapons team led by an American whom the Bush/CHeney Administration scoffed at then ignored completely.

 

As I understand it, Cheney had a lot of financial connections to Halliburton and KBR including stock options, long after 2000. He said he was going to donate all this to charity, did he really? I missed it if he did.

Doesn't change the fact that Cheney lied to start a war in which companies he was closely tied to profited heavily. Did any of that money fall into his on pocket? Ask him, if you take his word for it.

Electrocuted soldiers can't be blamed on him, OTOH he certainly did all kinds of stuff like steer Air Force targeting infrastructure that Halliburton could rebuild, and firing auditors. All in the news back in the day, if you were paying attention. Of course it's all Fake News.

Perhaps I should be glad God has spared us having Trump team up with Cheney. That would be just great.

-DSK

I didn't blame anyone for believing Saddam had WMD's, there was apparently enough intelligence to convince all who saw it, D and R. The only lie being perpetrated is the politically motivated lie that when Cheney said what others before him had said, it became a lie.

Further, there were lots of justifications given in the joint authorization authorizing the use of force, not just the WMD's. They included the persecution and genocide of his own people, attacking neighboring countries, violations of UN agreements, harboring terrorists. These issues led to the passage of the Iraq Liberation Act which made deposing Saddam US government policy before Bush and Cheney even came to office.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Dog said:

I didn't blame anyone for believing Saddam had WMD's, there was apparently enough intelligence to convince all who saw it, D and R.electocuted

I do Dog..200,000 civilians were killed ..and I don't really give a fuck about who lied, who made a "mistake"

This was a war eagerly perused..200,000 dead civilians might have prefered to be given the benefit of any doubt.

200,000 dead civilians really don't care much about interventionalist "justifications" either.

Makes me fucking sick ..I've read this thread..concern about 20  blokes fried in the shower?

200,000 dead civilians.

This was a war crime of stupidity and greed no matter how you want to wash it.

I think apologists for this "mistake" could benefit from this

6107Pn0.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:
1 hour ago, Dog said:

I didn't blame anyone for believing Saddam had WMD's, there was apparently enough intelligence to convince all who saw it, D and R.

I do Dog..200,000 civilians were killed ..and I don't really give a fuck about who lied, who made a "mistake"

This was a war eagerly perused..200,000 dead civilians might have prefered to be given the benefit of any doubt.

200,000 dead civilians really don't care much about interventionalist "justifications" either.

Makes me fucking sick ..I've read this thread..concern about 20  blokes fried in the shower?

200,000 dead civilians.

This was a war crime of stupidity and greed no matter how you want to wash it.

I think apologists for this "mistake" could benefit from this

6107Pn0.png

 

Dog is spinning his reich-wing apologist shit, as usual. Pretty much all the "intel" showing Iraq / Saddam had WMDs was cobbled up by 'team players' mostly at either Cheney's or Wolfowitz's direct request. The US neocons had a big hard-on for Iraq to start with, IMHO because Saddam used to be a good customer but after the Gulf War 1 turned to other suppliers. The joke at the time was that George Bush -knew- Saddam had WMDs because George signed the invoice (personally I don't think George Jr was on the inside for much of that stuff).

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

 

Dog is spinning his reich-wing apologist shit, as usual. Pretty much all the "intel" showing Iraq / Saddam had WMDs was cobbled up by 'team players' mostly at either Cheney's or Wolfowitz's direct request. The US neocons had a big hard-on for Iraq to start with, IMHO because Saddam used to be a good customer but after the Gulf War 1 turned to other suppliers. The joke at the time was that George Bush -knew- Saddam had WMDs because George signed the invoice (personally I don't think George Jr was on the inside for much of that stuff).

-DSK

Let's not be naive. The intelligence indicated and government officials both D and R, believed that Saddam had WMD's long before Cheney and Wolfowitz even took office. The record is perfectly clear on that. Democrats needed a way to explain their support for an unpopular war so they claimed to have been misled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2nd Lieutenants sign weapon invoices.  I know cause I had a friend who WAS a 2nd Lieutenant who signed invoices for weapons sold to foreign countries, including Iraq.  That's one of the reasons that people KNEW Ollie North's operation was covert - a Lieutenant Colonel would NEVER EVER EVER put his name on a 'normal' transaction.  If the deal goes south (the weapons get used to hurt civilians for example), you can honorably discharge a 2nd lieutenant - a colonel has a 'career' to worry about.

The truth is there was a lot of evidence to support WMDs in Iraq and a lot of evidence to refute WMDs in Iraq.  People who hate Bush see negligence or an outright coverup.  People who support Bush see the fog of war.  The truth, as usually happens, is probably somewhere in between.

Where I find duplicity is not in the existence or absence of WMDs.  There were two parts of the justification for the invasion.  1)  Saddam had weapons and 2) he was an imminent threat.  I find the first point rather conclusive in that he pretty clearly had components for WMDs.  That's really not a stretch.  People find components - even warheads capable of carrying chemical payloads - available on the black market today.  And they found components in several areas around Iraq - several caches untouched for years if not decades.  They were corroding and were a safety hazard!

But I find the second point rather spurious.  I have seen no evidence that Saddam was an imminent threat.  In fact, quite the opposite.  He seemed to be be saber rattling but there was no evidence that he had begun to actually assemble the pieces, let alone move them to a forward positioning.  I think the neocons saw Iraq as an opportunity to expand our military in a critical part of the world.. within easy and quick strike distance of virtually any middle eastern country.  They sold the war as a patriotic expansion of peace through force.  And the liberals went along with it because they didn't want to seem 'soft' on terrorism following 9/11, particularly if something bad did happen later and they didn't have a better plan they could all rally around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, cmilliken said:

2nd Lieutenants sign weapon invoices.  I know cause I had a friend who WAS a 2nd Lieutenant who signed invoices for weapons sold to foreign countries, including Iraq.  That's one of the reasons that people KNEW Ollie North's operation was covert - a Lieutenant Colonel would NEVER EVER EVER put his name on a 'normal' transaction.  If the deal goes south (the weapons get used to hurt civilians for example), you can honorably discharge a 2nd lieutenant - a colonel has a 'career' to worry about.

The truth is there was a lot of evidence to support WMDs in Iraq and a lot of evidence to refute WMDs in Iraq.  People who hate Bush see negligence or an outright coverup.  People who support Bush see the fog of war.  The truth, as usually happens, is probably somewhere in between.

Where I find duplicity is not in the existence or absence of WMDs.  There were two parts of the justification for the invasion.  1)  Saddam had weapons and 2) he was an imminent threat.  I find the first point rather conclusive in that he pretty clearly had components for WMDs.  That's really not a stretch.  They find components - even warheads capable of carrying chemical payloads - available on the black market today.

But I find the second point rather spurious.  I have seen no evidence that Saddam was an imminent threat.  In fact, quite the opposite.  He seemed to be be saber rattling but there was no evidence that he had begun to actually assemble the pieces, let alone move them to a forward positioning.  I think the neocons saw Iraq as an opportunity to expand our military in a critical part of the world.. within easy and quick strike distance of virtually any middle eastern country.  And the liberals went along with it because they didn't want to seem 'soft' on terrorism following 9/11, particularly if something bad did happen later.

Yes and no. Take a gander at what Colin Powell said a few years ago, in the calm after the storm. There was some evidence that Saddam -did- have WMD well yes he used them on Iran. The evidence that he currently had WMDs, and the he had an active program producing more, was pretty much 100% pulled out of neocon pockets. The military intel and everybody else, including the UN inspectors led by Americans, said maybe but highly unlikely, and no not really.

Add that the "New American Century" ideas pushed by Cheney's neocon pals, who advocated regime change in Iraq (ie invasion) no matter what... and what picture do you see? I dunno where Dog gets this "Democrats too" idea, the only one I recall who advocated for the Iraq invasion was Lieberman; no idea what he based his stuff on because he was saying things like "I've seen top-secret proof that Iraq is 100% responsible for Sept 11th."

Which is another sore point, but somewhat irrelevant to the WMD/imminent threat lie. Bush and Cheney refused to testify under oath, remember that? Does anybody here recall the large number of statements by the Bush Administration insinuating that Iraq was involved in the Sept 11th plot?

Cheney is a ridiculous figure IMHO. He is nowadays saying "No no, we never advocated use of torture" and waffles on definitions "what is the meaning of IS" type statements. Of course, I have felt this way pretty much since he said, as Assistant SecDef "I have never, not once, used my government connections for profit by my business connections." If he wasn't struck by lightning then, it must be that God doesn't care.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, the idea that he posed a threat to the US was a stretch. He was however an imminent threat to his neighbors, witness his invasion of Kuwait. He was an imminent threat to his own people, witness his genocide of the Kurds and the Marsh Arabs and he was in violation of UN resolutions wrt inspections and the no fly zone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0