Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There was a four-year gap and change between Dec 1998 and Mar 2003. The mere return of UN inspectors provided a massive upgrade in intelligence over what had been previously available. And that says nothing of the actual (as opposed to the entirely cooked) intelligence that had been gathered via more traditional means in the interim. If Bush had had an iota of the desire for peace that he claimed to have, this entire conflagration could have been easily avoided at a savings of hundreds of thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars.
And by the way, Bush had no UN authority to invade. The US and UK had submiited a proposal requesting such authority, but it was withdrawn the day before the invasion was launched because its sponsors knew full well that it would lose. The feeble attempts by apologists to construe an authority out of SC Res. 678, 687, and 1441 are belied not merely by the blatant weakness of that analysis, but also by the fact that the withdrawn 'second resolution' was ever put forward to begin with.
What started out as a serious post on yet one more example on how the current administration has pushed the boundaries of what is acceptable actions from the executive branch has sadly regressed into another, "well Clinton did this or that".
I would think that this type of behavior wouldn't be acceptable no matter who did it, whether it was Bush or Clinton or anyone.
Take one step back and look back over the past few years and I would think anyone with half the sense of a horse would see how this administration has consolidated power into the executive branch more than any other President in recent history. In addition to the collecting of this power, its flagrant use of this power to do what I deem is not in the best interest of the people but in the best interest of a party or a small group of fanatics. You can argue whether or not these actions are just, but one thing is certain, there has never been such an overreaching effort by a President.
For those of you so intent on somehow rationalizing this as Clinton's fault or ok because Clinton did it, fine, whatever makes you sleep better at night. Just remember, all this power that coalesced into the executive very well may fall into the hands of another Clinton here real soon, so for that reason alone it should cause you pause.
Beyond just what is legal or not, there is also what is ethical. I will never apologize for being critical or dissenting from what I view as an abuse of power by people I think are drunk upon it. I could care less who or what party occupies 1600 Pennsylvania ave, as the standard set by address is what we as a people are viewed as by the whole.
Considering the actions and mannerisms of the past seven years, does it not ever cross a persons mind as to why they would want these tapes destroyed if they were in no way incriminating? As those who push the precepts of the Patriot Act on the grounds that we should not object if we have nothing to hide, then I will use this same logic in this instance.
Take one step back and look back over the past few years and I would think anyone with half the sense of a horse would see how this administration has consolidated power into the executive branch more than any other President in recent history. In addition to the collecting of this power, its flagrant use of this power to do what I deem is not in the best interest of the people but in the best interest of a party or a small group of fanatics. You can argue whether or not these actions are just, but one thing is certain, there has never been such an overreaching effort by a President.
I think one issue with this administration is this: They (Cheney and some of the others) knew, coming in, that anything they did would take years to wind up to the level of the Supreme Court -- so they made the power grabs they did. I personally feel like the whole thing was a set-up right from the very beginning.
I think GWB was just a frontman for the brainier beings in the group.
There was a four-year gap and change between Dec 1998 and Mar 2003. The mere return of UN inspectors provided a massive upgrade in intelligence over what had been previously available. And that says nothing of the actual (as opposed to the entirely cooked) intelligence that had been gathered via more traditional means in the interim. If Bush had had an iota of the desire for peace that he claimed to have, this entire conflagration could have been easily avoided at a savings of hundreds of thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars.
And by the way, Bush had no UN authority to invade. The US and UK had submiited a proposal requesting such authority, but it was withdrawn the day before the invasion was launched because its sponsors knew full well that it would lose. The feeble attempts by apologists to construe an authority out of SC Res. 678, 687, and 1441 are belied not merely by the blatant weakness of that analysis, but also by the fact that the withdrawn 'second resolution' was ever put forward to begin with.
Then explain why just FOUR days ago the UN authorized UNANIMOUSLY yet another year of the US staying in Iraq
UNITED NATIONS: The U.N. Security Council voted unanimously Tuesday to extend the U.S.-led multinational force in Iraq for one year, a move that Iraq's prime minister said would be his nation's "final request" for help.
Somebody's not talking about relationships between (a), (b) and often (c), unless of course we talk about (x), (y) and (z), so not only are these tapes purportedly destroyed, their destruction is just adding to the economic burden this Administration has created. And strangely, or perhaps not so strangely, more and more folks, right, left, center, and off-center are talking about it, writing about it and whispering it to their partners. Here's one in Vanity Fair.
What started out as a serious post on yet one more example on how the current administration has pushed the boundaries of what is acceptable actions from the executive branch has sadly regressed into another, "well Clinton did this or that".
You can not discuss the actions of Bush without going back through history to find out where Bush received the authorization to take the actions that he has taken. Most of the actions that Bush now are accused of abusing, (probably very valid accusations), were the rules put into place by Clinton, or powers that Clinton had expounded upon.
Sorry but in order to discuss the actions of Bush, its very reasonable to bring up the facts involved authorizing the invasions, the wiretapping, and numerous other abuses that we are being accused of doing.
Furthermore, no one can make reasonbale accusations that its ok for one party to take an action, and then not ok for the other party to take similar actions, especially considering that the actions taken, were part of "official" US policies. To discuss the US official policy, you have to look at who created those policies, and those policies go back numerous administrations.
You can not discuss the actions of Bush without going back through history to find out where Bush received the authorization to take the actions that he has taken. Most of the actions that Bush now are accused of abusing, (probably very valid accusations), were the rules put into place by Clinton, or powers that Clinton had expounded upon.
Sorry but in order to discuss the actions of Bush, its very reasonable to bring up the facts involved authorizing the invasions, the wiretapping, and numerous other abuses that we are being accused of doing.
Furthermore, no one can make reasonbale accusations that its ok for one party to take an action, and then not ok for the other party to take similar actions, especially considering that the actions taken, were part of "official" US policies. To discuss the US official policy, you have to look at who created those policies, and those policies go back numerous administrations.
Sorry, I can't even respond to this with a straight face.
Let me get my Babylonian Talmud out...
Oh my, here it is... Rabbi William J Clintonstein voted in favor of Joshua's conquest of the Canaanites.
Not sure how this exactly relates to the CIA ordering the destruction of video tapes but hey, why not huh.
Sorry, I can't even respond to this with a straight face.
Let me get my Babylonian Talmud out...
Oh my, here it is... Rabbi William J Clintonstein voted in favor of Joshua's conquest of the Canaanites.
Not sure how this exactly relates to the CIA ordering the destruction of video tapes but hey, why not huh.
Actually you need to go back through the threads because never did I defend the destruction of these video tapes, in fact I stated they should be available for years to come.
Destruction of the tapes were not illegal, just stupid because they would have been great as training tapes for new CIA operatives.
Then explain why just FOUR days ago the UN authorized UNANIMOUSLY yet another year of the US staying in Iraq.
The authority just extended is that originally created by SC Res 1546 of June 8, 2004, granted pursuant to the application of the Prime Minister of the Interim Government of Iraq.
Invasion = March 18, 2003
SC Res 1546 = June 8, 2004
No UN authority for the invasion here.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
