|
Grex > Agora56 > #96: Cheney shoots fellow hunter in South Texas. | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 218 responses total. |
edina
|
|
response 138 of 218:
| 
Feb 20 15:44 UTC 2006 |
I caught the round table of "Meet the Press" yesterday. Mary Matalin, David
Gregory, Maureen Dowd and Paul Gigeut (editor for the WSJ). I personally feel
much of the Dick Cheney fiasco has been overblown. That being said, something
Matalin disclosed truly bothered me. She said that the group of hunters had
basically gotten together to exchange facts so that one statement could come
out of it. The fact that this came from Matalin's own lips was somewhat
incredulous to me.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 139 of 218:
|
Feb 20 16:21 UTC 2006 |
I think the whole deal about the whitehouse not notifying the entire
world of what was a non-government activity is overblown. However, I do
not feel the same about the firearm mishandling by Cheney. I think he
got a pass this time because of his position.
|
edina
|
|
response 140 of 218:
|
Feb 20 16:35 UTC 2006 |
I have no issue with them not immediately informing the press - I do have an
issue with them "getting the story straight".
I think that this has served two purposes: to show how the White House really
doesn't want people to know what it's doing and to detract from things that
are of true importance.
|
cross
|
|
response 141 of 218:
|
Feb 20 16:40 UTC 2006 |
This response has been erased.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 142 of 218:
|
Feb 20 18:07 UTC 2006 |
re136: sources other than neocon, broose?
|
tod
|
|
response 143 of 218:
|
Feb 20 18:50 UTC 2006 |
I thought the WMD were buried under a well marked palm tree...
BWAHAHAHAH!
Sheesh...
|
mcnally
|
|
response 144 of 218:
|
Feb 20 18:52 UTC 2006 |
re #136: If there really was even semi-credible evidence that the weapons
were moved to Syria what possible motivation would the Bush administration
have for withholding it?
So far the only argument I've seen supporting the contention that Iraq's
weapons of mass destruction were moved to Syria relies on two easily
demolished assumptions:
First assumption: "Well, we know that the weapons exist and we didn't
find them in Iraq, therefore they *must* be in Syria.." If you can't
see the problem with this assumption you're not trying very hard.
Second assumption: "All those Arab countries are alike and they're
chiefly concerned with doing whatever it takes to get the USA."
Imagine for a second that you were a paranoid dictator in control
of Iraq. During your reign you've started and ultimately lost badly
two wars with neighboring countries (Iraq, Kuwait.) Why on earth
would you give your weapons of mass destruction to a neighboring
country, poorer than your own, run by another dictator, and with
clearly manifest territorial ambitions in the region (say, who's
that occupying Lebanon?)?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 145 of 218:
|
Feb 20 18:55 UTC 2006 |
Quite right. The same argument applies to the very small probability that Iraq
under Sadaam would have given any significant weapons to Al Qaeda. Absolute
dictators just don't do that sort of thing - or they jeopardize remaining
absolute.
|
bru
|
|
response 146 of 218:
|
Feb 20 20:12 UTC 2006 |
Have you forgotten what Saddam did with his aircraft during the first gulf
war? He sent them to Iran. IRAN! A country he had just had a major war where
he used WMD's against.
You talk like SAddam was a sane man.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 147 of 218:
|
Feb 20 20:25 UTC 2006 |
re #146:
> You talk like SAddam was a sane man.
That's because I believe he *is* a sane man. Brutal, ruthless, amoral,
and evil, but I believe him to be rational, calculating, and as capable
as anyone of understanding the consequences of his actions.
Would you have us believe he was a raving lunatic who, through a phenomonal
sequence of strokes of fortune, managed to seize and retain power for 30
years in a completely cutthroat environment?
|
jadecat
|
|
response 148 of 218:
|
Feb 20 20:43 UTC 2006 |
Calculating, definitely calculating.
|
richard
|
|
response 149 of 218:
|
Feb 20 21:01 UTC 2006 |
mcnally said:
"That's because I believe he *is* a sane man. Brutal, ruthless, amoral,
and evil, but I believe him to be rational, calculating, and as capable
as anyone of understanding the consequences of his actions."
I agree. The best way to enrage certain people in a world war II
discussion is to say Hitler was sane and rational, and not a satanic
possessed lunatic. But I think Hitler was sane and rational, and knew
the consequences of his actions. Which make his actions all the more
horrible. Just like Saddam. I do not believe therefore that if Saddam
had WMD's that he would ultimately have used them. Just as Kruschev,
another horrible dictator, did not.
|
jadecat
|
|
response 150 of 218:
|
Feb 20 21:06 UTC 2006 |
Oh I don't know... I think Hitler did have WMDs, except he called them
showers.
Also, he was a bit of a lazy sod at times and a lot of his general were
in charge of certain programs. So it would be fair to say there was
plenty of evil to go around.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 151 of 218:
|
Feb 20 23:13 UTC 2006 |
uh...i might be wrong but i think the pilots who boogies to iran
did that of their own volition despite, not because of saddam.
tod?
|
cross
|
|
response 152 of 218:
|
Feb 21 00:07 UTC 2006 |
This response has been erased.
|
tod
|
|
response 153 of 218:
|
Feb 21 03:27 UTC 2006 |
re #151
Yea, there was a rumor or two that the mass exodus of flights to Iran were
pilots that sought survival rather than to face coalition air combat per
Saddam's orders. Most MiG's were taken out on the ground in the Iraqi
airfields. Hell, we had a couple MiG29's escorted right over us near the
Kuwait/Saudi border before anything hit the fan. The Iraqis were bailing and
it wasn't Saddam giving orders. Every Iraqi we talked to said they hadn't
heard from HQ in WEEKS. They were abandoned while Saddam went underground.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 154 of 218:
|
Feb 21 03:44 UTC 2006 |
I was listening to a story of an American citizen who got caught up in
the first Gulf War and forced to serve in the Iraqi Navy. They laid
water mines without anchors, and then were told to return to Iraq the
same way they went laying mines (right back through the mine field).
Suffice to say they just gave up and waited to be picked up by the
Americans.
|
tod
|
|
response 155 of 218:
|
Feb 21 17:21 UTC 2006 |
Saddam would have used his WMD at the onset (except Iraq didn't have them all
along.)
|
nharmon
|
|
response 156 of 218:
|
Feb 21 17:23 UTC 2006 |
They had some at one time, right?
|
tod
|
|
response 157 of 218:
|
Feb 21 17:40 UTC 2006 |
Obviously, yes. They had what we gave them to kill Kurds and Iranians with.
They also had what they reported to the UN. There were missing piles of
outdated anthrax, etc which was explained as having been destroyed(and hardly
posed a threat.) What was sold to the American people by our Administration
was a threat of nuclear proportion, though. I'm confident Saddam would have
used such a device if he was in possession. Obviously, he wasn't.
|
richard
|
|
response 158 of 218:
|
Feb 22 15:51 UTC 2006 |
Saddam never had ANY wmd's of any kind
|
mcnally
|
|
response 159 of 218:
|
Feb 22 17:18 UTC 2006 |
That's a pretty extraordinary claim. I'm pretty sure if pressed you'll
weasel out of it by claiming an unusually strict definition for "wmd's"
[sic] or by claiming that when you said "never had" you meant something
different than what the rest of us understand the phrase to mean.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 160 of 218:
|
Feb 22 17:32 UTC 2006 |
Didn't Saddam use WMDs against the Kurds a while back?
|
jep
|
|
response 161 of 218:
|
Feb 22 17:55 UTC 2006 |
I don't think richard so much means that it's a real fact that Saddam
didn't have WMD. I think his comment amounts to this: politically it
would be nice because it would really show how incompetent and evil
Bush (and all Republicans) are if that were true. This means that
richard is competent and a great guy, because he's not a Republican.
Therefore, we should all vote Democratic in the next election.
It's something like that. It has to be. It's completely transparent
to everyone that richard has no more idea than I do, or any of us do,
whether there were any WMD in Saddam's arsenal.
|
tod
|
|
response 162 of 218:
|
Feb 22 18:11 UTC 2006 |
re #161
It's completely transparent
to everyone that richard has no more idea than I do, or any of us do,
whether there were any WMD in Saddam's arsenal.
I'm at a loss how our military could find the Hussein boys' porn stash,
torture chambers, and yes even whack the whole clan in a gunfight yet no WMD
were ever discovered. I think the odds are against the claims which were used
by this Administration that an imminent threat existed from Iraq.
I do not feel the ends justified the means. The world better off without
Saddam Hussein just doesn't excuse the lies told to our country. I don't care
what political party gets destroyed if it means justice. Political parties
are overrated little corporations/mafias that deserve zero acknowledgement.
|