NationStates Jolt Archive

If you think Dan Rather should resign because he reported a story that included information from documents that cannot be verified--even though they didn't really say anything that we didn't already know--then do you also think that George W. Bush should resign because his administration was fooled by bad information about the scope and nature of Iraq's WMD programs? After all, the repercussions from Bush's being fooled are far greater than the repercussions from Rather's being fooled, aren't they?

By the way--I'm giving Bush the benefit of the doubt when I say he was fooled here. Personally, I think the neo-cons wanted to be fooled, and looked for intel that told them what they wanted to hear and ignored everything that didn't fit their ideology, but for the sake of this discussion, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Dan Rather's job is to ensure that his source is reliable. The experts hired to declare authenticity of the documents never declared authenticity, not one of them, that should of been a red light right there.

Bush had to rely on the UN weapons inspectators, which needless to say isnt that reliable, their credibility is shot to hell thanks to the oil for food scandal, half of the UN is bought out by Sadam, their credibility is rock bottom if not under the rocks.

Bush's situation was extremely complex, far more complex then Dan Rather's and also had much more room for error. Furthermore, Bush had to make a choice to believe the word of a genocidal dictator who has a past history of mass genocide and experimenting with WMD's on his own people or believe his intelligence commitee. He chose the right option, his intelligence wasnt completely accurate, but Sadam was a threat, Reagan saw it, first President Bush saw it, even your precious Clinton saw it but was to much of a panzy to do anything about it other then send our forces over there for a week, launch billions of dollars in tomahawk missiles into baghdad and then turn tail home. George Bush is not the first President to see Sadam Hussein as a threat but he sure as hell made sure he was the last.

If Bush had been relying on the UN weapons inspectors, we wouldn't have gone to war. He was relying on the neocons in Doug Feith's office for intel--read some Seymour Hersh and learn something.

Hehe, Seymour Hersh. The bitter outsider who has been caught fabricating stories for decades.

Anyway, the intelligence agencies of Britain, Italy, Germany, Poland, Russia and France(!!!) also agreed with the CIA in concluding that Saddam had WMD stockpiles.

By the way--I'm giving Bush the benefit of the doubt when I say he was fooled here. Personally, I think the neo-cons wanted to be fooled, and looked for intel that told them what they wanted to hear and ignored everything that didn't fit their ideology, but for the sake of this discussion, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Willing to admit Clinton, Kerry, Edwards and all the other Democrats who claimed Saddam was hiding WMDs were fooled, too? That's a fair question, isn't it?

Frankly, I don't think a journalist who admitted he relied on phony documents and was in error should be fired. He admitted his mistake in a very public manner, so where's the harm? Rather did the right thing in this instance. Period.

Hehe, Seymour Hersh. The bitter outsider who has been caught fabricating stories for decades.Fabricating stories? Is that your stock answer to anyone who busts the shit out of your guys? Sure seems to be.

I'm not right wing, but honestly, I really think Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, be they biological or chemical (I don't think he had a nuclear program, honestly). But c'mon, we don't exactly have weapons of love and nurturing either.

Fabricating stories? Is that your stock answer to anyone who busts the shit out of your guys? Sure seems to be.

In Hersh's case, it is definitely appropriate. Soon I'll use that on Dan Rather too. :)

How about answering my other point?

You're honestly comparing forged documentation about a missed medical exam libelous to a political figure in an election year presented to the voting public by people who did not do their jobs, to evidence of weapons that could have destroyed millions of lives in the hands of an egomaniacal dictator as hypothetical grounds for resignation?

I've just lost all respect I had for the left. I'm definitely going to vote for Bush now.

News reports should be just that and not political commercials. Danny boy had a political statement he was trying to make and turned out he was an idiot. Suprise, suprise. Jane Fonda, Barbara Strisand, and Micheal Moore; Danny you are in good company. :sniper:

News reports should be just that and not political commercials. Danny boy had a political statement he was trying to make and turned out he was an idiot. Suprise, suprise. Jane Fonda, Barbara Strisand, and Micheal Moore; Danny you are in good company. :sniper:

FOX news :cool:

You said what i said, its amazing we agreed on something. Bush didnt rely on the weapons inspectators completely, god knows the counties they represented could of been bought off (which several were). I wouldnt trust them either, i would trust my intelligence agency, my people, and my own instinct. A genocidal warlord who's past history shows he's formerly trigger happy with WMD's is telling me he doesnt have anything, should i believe him? If one of your family members was killed and the cops tell you it could be him, he tells you he didnt do it, you pull up his criminal record and find out he's responsible for two dozen murders and it was your decision that would put him to trial or not, would you put him to trial or eliminate him as a suspect? Just a small example but i would like you to answer it if you would.

Fabricating stories? Is that your stock answer to anyone who busts the shit out of your guys? Sure seems to be.

Busted the shit out of who? The nasty right? You'll have to do a bit better than a slanted poll question to "bust the shit" out of us guys. Grow up, sonny.

I'm not right wing, but honestly, I really think Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, be they biological or chemical (I don't think he had a nuclear program, honestly). But c'mon, we don't exactly have weapons of love and nurturing either.

Obviously you haven't heard the news.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/17/politics/17intel.html

In Hersh's case, it is definitely appropriate. Soon I'll use that on Dan Rather too. :)

How about answering my other point?We're talking about the same Hersh here--the guy who broke My Lai and Abu Ghraib, right? Not some other mythical Hersh that you just made up?

As to the other intelligence agencies who supposedly agreed with the US, we haven't heard much from them, now have we? I mean, we have the neocons argument that they agreed with their assessment, but I haven't actually heard them come out and say it themselves. Britain has already admitted that their intelligence services screwed the pooch on it, but then again, Britain was pushing for the weapons inspectors to do their jobs. The US was the only one who was saying we had to go to war when we did.

You're honestly comparing forged documentation about a missed medical exam libelous to a political figure in an election year presented to the voting public by people who did not do their jobs, to evidence of weapons that could have destroyed millions of lives in the hands of an egomaniacal dictator as hypothetical grounds for resignation?

I've just lost all respect I had for the left. I'm definitely going to vote for Bush now.Actually, no--I was being sarcastic. Sorry that slipped by you like that. I find Bush's mistake far more serious than anything rather did. And by the way--in order for the charge of libel to stick, the claims must be untrue. So far, the Bush administration has never denied that the content of those memos is true.

We're talking about the same Hersh here--the guy who broke My Lai and Abu Ghraib, right? Not some other mythical Hersh that you just made up?

As to the other intelligence agencies who supposedly agreed with the US, we haven't heard much from them, now have we? I mean, we have the neocons argument that they agreed with their assessment, but I haven't actually heard them come out and say it themselves. Britain has already admitted that their intelligence services screwed the pooch on it, but then again, Britain was pushing for the weapons inspectors to do their jobs. The US was the only one who was saying we had to go to war when we did.

Seymour Hersh of the New Yorker, perennial ranter against American foreign policy. Duh.

The weapons inspectors already did their jobs. Hans Blix himself in Feburary 2004 declared Iraq non-compliant.

We're talking about the same Hersh here--the guy who broke My Lai and Abu Ghraib, right?

lies! scandalous lies!

Yes, perhaps it is true that President Bush missed a medical exam thirty years ago, and in doing so, deliberately disobeyed a direct order. Please provide the documents confirming that this is so, and we may put the argument to rest.

Bush isnt saying anything because he doesnt have to. Kerry on the other hand is a hypocrit on this matter to. How so? Well, he criticized Bush for the Swift Boat ads, which Kerry cant prove he was directly involved with anyway beyond one republican that was removed from the Swift Boat campaign anyway. Then when these documents come out Kerry jumps at it in a heart beat with this smeer campaign, cant even remember its name, something son. Just a month ago wasnt Kerry criticizing Bush for doing the same thing? So doing the same thing back to Bush thus makes Kerry a hypocrit. That is why Bush isnt saying anything, because he doesnt want to be a hypocrit like Kerry, so Bush should keep doing what he is doing and keep quiet. He doesnt have to defend himself, the documents are fake, therefore the information in them is fake, all information in the documents were made up in the head of a Bush hater and none based on actual fact just rumor and slander.

He admitted his mistake in a very public manner, so where's the harm? Rather did the right thing in this instance. Period.
Admitting error in public. Wouldnt it be nice if other public figures were willing to do the same. *cough cough* bush *cough*

I am puzzled by the lack of options, how to I register that I don't feel Rather should resign?

I seriously think he misplayed the issue, but I've grown used to that (we need better spinmeisters for these people). If he does resign it should be a falling on the sword sort of thing, which is fine for some jobs but not appropriate for the presidency of the US, so I guess the later is my opinion, but I see no need for Rather to take one for the team. Dangnabit, we need more high quality spinmeisters to keep things from getting so polarized.

It was the 2000 election and Alec Baldwin that convinced me that the state of PR flackdom in the world is deficiet. Remember Alec Baldwin and his "move to Europe if Bush wins" interview? He first denies ever having said it and then attacks anyone who mentions it as being a fanatical right-winger. No Alec, no. When confronted with an accusation of having done something, don't deny it - deny being able to remember it, say if it happened it was a momentary lapse of a negative impulse and justify your current position with a high-minded ideal that your critics love. "I don't recall ever having said I'd leave the US, but it would be selfish of me to abandon my country when it is in such need. I have too much respect for America to leave her in the hands of Bush without doing everything I can to prevent him from destroying the great nation I love." Sure it's grade A tripe and drivel, but it works and who's going to call you a flip-flopper for taking a patriotic stance?

We're talking about the same Hersh here--the guy who broke My Lai and Abu Ghraib, right? Not some other mythical Hersh that you just made up?

I must be getting tired, how did I miss this...

SeeBS broken the Abu Gharib story. Seymour Hersh made the accusation in the New Yorker that the abuses were ordered by Rumsfeld himself, without any proof whatsoever. His claims have been debunked by the Pentagon's own investigation but many people still cling to his story.

I am puzzled by the lack of options, how to I register that I don't feel Rather should resign?

I seriously think he misplayed the issue, but I've grown used to that (we need better spinmeisters for these people). If he does resign it should be a falling on the sword sort of thing, which is fine for some jobs but not appropriate for the presidency of the US, so I guess the later is my opinion, but I see no need for Rather to take one for the team. Dangnabit, we need more high quality spinmeisters to keep things from getting so polarized.

It was the 2000 election and Alec Baldwin that convinced me that the state of PR flackdom in the world is deficiet. Remember Alec Baldwin and his "move to Europe if Bush wins" interview? He first denies ever having said it and then attacks anyone who mentions it as being a fanatical right-winger. No Alec, no. When confronted with an accusation of having done something, don't deny it - deny being able to remember it, say if it happened it was a momentary lapse of a negative impulse and justify your current position with a high-minded ideal that your critics love. "I don't recall ever having said I'd leave the US, but it would be selfish of me to abandon my country when it is in such need. I have too much respect for America to leave her in the hands of Bush without doing everything I can to prevent him from destroying the great nation I love." Sure it's grade A tripe and drivel, but it works and who's going to call you a flip-flopper for taking a patriotic stance?
I think you just registered your opinion Squi. For the record, I don't think Rather ought to resign either, nor should Bush. I want the privilege of firing his ass.

I worded the question that way deliberately. It's based on a sarcastically faulty premise--that Rather should resign over this matter, and is meant to point out the similarities between CBS's rushing of the story and getting burned to the Bush administration's pushing of faulty intel and also getting burned in Iraq.

I must be getting tired, how did I miss this...

SeeBS broken the Abu Gharib story. Seymour Hersh made the accusation in the New Yorker that the abuses were ordered by Rumsfeld himself, without any proof whatsoever. His claims have been debunked by the Pentagon's own investigation but many people still cling to his story.
You're gonna have to back that one up. I've been reading Hersh since this began and the closest he's come to blaming Rumsfeld for Abu Ghraib was when he said that the laxity in the White House and DoD toward enforcement of the Geneva Conventions and US torture statutes led to the scandal, but unless I missed something, he never accused Rummy of directly ordering the torture. Hersh has a new book coming out--maybe it's in there.

If Bush had been relying on the UN weapons inspectors, we wouldn't have gone to war. He was relying on the neocons in Doug Feith's office for intel--read some Seymour Hersh and learn something.


check your sources. WMD was confirmed by US, British, Saudi, Russian, Jordanian, and Egyptian intel. even prez clinton said and I qoute, "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction" The intel was wrong, but how many foreign nations would you have required to go to war? and if you need more than that you obviosly wouldnt be concerned with national security.

I dont think dan rather should resign if he indeed had nothing to do with it. however, his history of left wing affiliation leaves some doubt as to whether this high ranking member of CBS simply read what he saw on the telepromter.

Dan Rather's job is to ensure that his source is reliable. Um, and Bush's isn't?

The experts hired to declare authenticity of the documents never declared authenticity, not one of them, that should of been a red light right there.By contrast, the CIA declared the Nigerian yellow cake uranium evidence to be pathetic forgeries. The Nigerian officials whose names were on the documents weren't even in office at the time. Rather's experts said they wouldn't swear to it, whereas Bush's experts swore they were forgeries.

Furthermore, Bush had to make a choice to believe the word of a genocidal dictator who has a past history of mass genocide and experimenting with WMD's on his own people or believe his intelligence commitee.Um, the problem was that Bush didn't believe his own intelligence because it didn't tell him what he wanted to hear, so he made stuff up. Well, Cheney actually, since he tells Georgie what to say. Remember when he claimed the International Atomic Energy Agency said Saddam was "six months away" from going nuclear?

http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/10.01B.no.report.htm

Willing to admit Clinton, Kerry, Edwards and all the other Democrats who claimed Saddam was hiding WMDs were fooled, too? That's a fair question, isn't it?Not quite, since the senators were shown cherry-picked evidence. That's why they are mad. They did not see all the skeptical reports that the Bush people left out.

You're honestly comparing forged documentation about a missed medical exam libelous to a political figure in an election year presented to the voting public by people who did not do their jobs, to evidence of weapons that could have destroyed millions of lives in the hands of an egomaniacal dictator as hypothetical grounds for resignation?

I've just lost all respect I had for the left. I'm definitely going to vote for Bush now.Forged evidence of non-existent weapons. And unlike Bush's forgeries, the substance of Rather's is accurate: Saddam had no WMDs, but Bush did play hooky.

He doesnt have to defend himself, the documents are fake, therefore the information in them is fake, all information in the documents were made up in the head of a Bush hater and none based on actual fact just rumor and slander.You realize there is no logic there right? If I make an exact copy of the Declaration of Independence and try to pass it off as an original copy, then that's forgery; but that doesn't mean the information in the Declaration of Independence is false.

Also:

But while Knox greatly undermines the documentation of the CBS reporting, it is important for critics to recognize that she corroborates the substance of that reporting. "The information in them is correct," she told the New York Times (9/15/04). "It looks like someone may have read the originals and put that together." That "someone," a report in Newsweek (9/30/04) suggested, may have been Bill Burkett, a former Texas National Guard lieutenant colonel who has charged that Bush's Guard records were culled in 1997 to eliminate "anything there that will embarrass the [then] governor" (Dallas Morning News, 2/11/04).

http://www.fair.org/activism/cbs-memos-knox.html

blinded by party bias. thats why im an independant. allows me to seperate myself from fools on both the right and the left

I have a question too... With right wing you mean the republicans i presume. But the US hasn't got a left or a center wing... the democrats are also rightwing, only not as extreme as the republican near nazi right wing. So you are posing this question to both democrats and republicans?

Actually, no--I was being sarcastic. Sorry that slipped by you like that. I find Bush's mistake far more serious than anything rather did. And by the way--in order for the charge of libel to stick, the claims must be untrue. So far, the Bush administration has never denied that the content of those memos is true.

The phrase "innocent until proven guilty" comes to mind here. Unless we're going with the reverse in this case, because he's the President?

...half of the UN is bought out by Sadam, their credibility is rock bottom if not under the rocks.

As opposed to Dubya and Co. being bought out by the Saudis?

...He chose the right option, his intelligence wasnt completely accurate, but Sadam was a threat, Reagan saw it, first President Bush saw it...

Whoa, are these the same President Reagan and then V.P. Bush who sold weapons to Saddam to act as a foil against Iran. Sure, they might have seen Saddam as a monster, but they made him a monster, and used him as such.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

The phrase "innocent until proven guilty" comes to mind here. Unless we're going with the reverse in this case, because he's the President?

Why not? It seems to be the way the Bush Administration works.

As opposed to Dubya and Co. being bought out by the Saudis?

The same Saudis who were fighting mad that the US wanted to go into Iraq because of the possibility of bringing Iraq back in as a major competitor in oil production?

...even your precious Clinton saw it but was to much of a panzy to do anything about it other then send our forces over there for a week, launch billions of dollars in tomahawk missiles into baghdad and then turn tail home.

Maybe that was because Clinton was focusing too much on, <insert 'Church Lady' voice> Oh, I don't know, could it be...AL-QAIDA!</CL voice> to spend time and money on a non-threat such as a crippled Iraq.

Why not? It seems to be the way the Bush Administration works.

So... you're for rule of law, as long as it doesn't apply to the Bush Administration? You complain that the Bush Administration doesn't follow the law, but then say it's okay to punish them in a manner that's equally against the law?

Do you see the dangerous ground here?

The same Saudis who were fighting mad that the US wanted to go into Iraq because of the possibility of bringing Iraq back in as a major competitor in oil production?

Yeah, that's them. I think the Saudis were mad 'cause if the US got ahold of the Iraqi oil reserves (which, btw, recieved a higher military priority than electricty, food, and water for the people), the US wouldn't need as much oil from them.

Heck, half of the Saudis hate us becuase we're 'infidels' and want to kill the royalty, and the other half (the royalty) loves us because we (the US) keep them rich and fight for them. Saudi Arabia is just waiting to fall apart.

Do you see the dangerous ground here?

That's exactly my point. It was Bush and Co. who took us out into the 'dangerous ground' in the first place.

If Bush had been relying on the UN weapons inspectors, we wouldn't have gone to war. He was relying on the neocons in Doug Feith's office for intel--read some Seymour Hersh and learn something.

You mean of course, had Bush been profiting by the UN oil-for-food program like France, Germany and Russia, plus our friend the UN General Secretary?

It's all about the Benjamins. Do you really think that "Old Europe" would have opposed the war if they didn't lose so much cash? Between their loans to Saddam and the Oil for Food program, they lost BILLIONS.

I am puzzled by the lack of options, how to I register that I don't feel Rather should resign?

The point of the poll is should Bush resign. I think he should be impeached. I mean, all the Republicans cried to have Clinton impeached because he lied about getting a blow job. Bush and Co. have lied about WMDs in Iraq, Iraq's 'connection' to Al-qaida, and have gotten hundreds of thousands people killed.

What.

The.

FUCK.

Why, oh why hasn't Kerry, Edwards or any other Democratic politician (hello Bill or Hillary Clinton?!?) said something about the enemy BEHEADING people? Why hasn't the media (excepting Fox News) expressed outrage about this?

C'mon now. At Abu Ghraib, the US military hurt people's feelings. Use humiliation and mind games to get intel. (I'll not call it torture, as it wasn't, as far as I know, done for amusement or to settle scores.)
We haven't EXECUTED people.

But with another of my countrymen dead, I have to wonder when we're going to start.

Also- for anyone who snaps back with a witty "but the US is doing that already" -- yeah, right. And we were eating Vietnamese babies too.
Unfortunate things happen in war, but we're NOT trying to subjugate Iraq -- we just want to clean the place up and **get the hell out**!

Unfortunately, all the insurgents are doing is keeping us there longer. So be it. The more dead jihadists there = less trying to kill westerners anywhere else.

You realize there is no logic there right? If I make an exact copy of the Declaration of Independence and try to pass it off as an original copy, then that's forgery; but that doesn't mean the information in the Declaration of Independence is false.

Also:

But while Knox greatly undermines the documentation of the CBS reporting, it is important for critics to recognize that she corroborates the substance of that reporting. "The information in them is correct," she told the New York Times (9/15/04). "It looks like someone may have read the originals and put that together." That "someone," a report in Newsweek (9/30/04) suggested, may have been Bill Burkett, a former Texas National Guard lieutenant colonel who has charged that Bush's Guard records were culled in 1997 to eliminate "anything there that will embarrass the [then] governor" (Dallas Morning News, 2/11/04).

http://www.fair.org/activism/cbs-memos-knox.html

No dude no, making your own copy of the declaration of independence is called plagarism, not purgery. Purgery is making up the story, everything about it is lie and based on nothing but some sick minded man's idea. Want an example?

"Kerry did drugs in Vietnam, i personally saw him rape Vietnam soldiers"

I said it, i could make a document out of it, does that make it true? I mean i said it, it could be a forgery, it could be fake, but the facts could still be true. Thats pretty much what you are telling me. Lt. Colonel Killian's own family, his son and his wife both say that the information is a lie.

The point of the poll is should Bush resign. I think he should be impeached. I mean, all the Republicans cried to have Clinton impeached because he lied about getting a blow job. Bush and Co. have lied about WMDs in Iraq, Iraq's 'connection' to Al-qaida, and have gotten hundreds of thousands people killed.

What.

The.

FUCK.

Er... in order for it to be a lie, you have to be not telling the truth.
Neither Bush *nor the rest of the world* knew if Iraq had WMDs for sure or not. Was the intel wrong? Heck yes. Did Bush lie? I don't think so.

Had Saddam allowed free inspections at any time OVER A DECADE, it wouldn't have come to this.

If you recall, Saddam begged to allow inspections once we launched the ground war. Too little, too late. He had been thumbing his nose for YEARS at the weapons inspectors. The UN still refuses to release the Oil for Food documents, as well as some of the weapons inspections documents. Gee, I wonder why. Kickbacks? You betcha.

In summation: Clinton outright lied about something he himself personally did while sitting as President. Bush made a mistake based on bad information. I hope you see the difference?

If not, then you'd have to believe the Roosevelt knew the Japanese would strike Pearl Harbor. Or Carter knew that the Embassy in Iran would be overrun.

Please. The Iraq War isn't the Gulf of Tonkin. But it is like WW1 -- the war fought for the wrong reason at the wrong time.

Why, oh why hasn't Kerry, Edwards or any other Democratic politician (hello Bill or Hillary Clinton?!?) said something about the enemy BEHEADING people? Why hasn't the media (excepting Fox News) expressed outrage about this?

Because our allies, the Saudis, behead people, too.


Unfortunately, all the insurgents are doing is keeping us there longer.

Well, I can agree with that, but...

So be it. The more dead jihadists there = less trying to kill westerners anywhere else.

Um, no. That's not the way jihads work. The more jihadists we (that is, the US) kill, twice as many will be convinced to 'rise up against the Great Satan' and die as martyrs (go directly to Heaven and collect your 66 virgins).

The more we kill, the more we are seen as occupying invaders.

Because our allies, the Saudis, behead people, too.

Well, I can agree with that, but...

Um, no. That's not the way jihads work. The more jihadists we (that is, the US) kill, twice as many will be convinced to 'rise up against the Great Satan' and die as martyrs (go directly to Heaven and collect your 66 virgins).

The more we kill, the more we are seen as occupying invaders.

Thanks. :-)
I really don't think that just because the Saudis behead people is the reason no Dem has spoken up about it. To me, that is like saying that no one should complain about Rwanda or Sudan because all nations have massacred in the past (US to Native Americans, Soviets to just about any minority they had, French under Napoleon -- esp. in Egypt, ect.)

That's fine. Keep 'em coming. 9.11 is in my mind worse than Pearl Harbor -- at least the other side were trying to negotiate first (or at least made the pretense). I'd rather see the the US & Allies fight in Iraq for 10 years and end jihadism as an idea than quit now. Some say ideas cannot be killed. True, but they can be rendered moot. IF there is conviction on one side and follow through.
Fascism, Communism (dying), Anarchism... while there are still small offshoots of each, are mostly dead. There is no reason why jihad and the radical Wahabee (sp?) Islam cannot go the same way as Christian crusading (Rosicrucians anyone?).
What has to happen is that Afghanistan & Iraq must succeed as Republics/Democracies for a generation or two -- just like Germany & Japan did and Russia is trying to do. Unfortunately, it's not an easy or straightforward process and is never the same for any two nations.

You're gonna have to back that one up. I've been reading Hersh since this began and the closest he's come to blaming Rumsfeld for Abu Ghraib was when he said that the laxity in the White House and DoD toward enforcement of the Geneva Conventions and US torture statutes led to the scandal, but unless I missed something, he never accused Rummy of directly ordering the torture. Hersh has a new book coming out--maybe it's in there.
Hmm, fairly recent and fairly well cited, and availible on the web, the issue of the New Yorker dated 24May2004. I read it in the print edition, but you can find it online at this link: http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040524fa_fact (which may be temporary). Really was a big thing for Hersh, I don't know how you could have missed it if you've been following him, he also did a nice follow up piece on "Copper Green" which has also been debunked.

Dan Rather, or his producers, or higher up's in CBS presented documents that they knew were dubius at best, outright forgeries at worst. This is a federal crime btw, the forgeries.

President Bush went to Congress with intelligence he had at the time. Intelligence from just about every intelligence agency of nations we are allied with. No one, at the time, didnt think Saddam had some form of WMDs. No one but the anti-Bush crowd and they only thought so as ammo against Bush (imo).

Hindsight is 20/20 as they say. We know now that we didn't know where the WMD's were as Rumsfield asserted. We do not know what he did with the WMD's we knew he had.

If those of you who say "even if those CBS documents are forgeries, their content is accurate" then you have to say that "even tho those Niger documents are forgeries, their content is accurate" as it was later learned that Saddam was indeed trying to purchase uranium from African sources.

President Bush should resign for taking us into two unconstitutional wars, in addition to supporting a variety of unconstitutional policies. But that's not going to happen any more than Rather will resign for using forged documents in a politically-biased report that claimed to be searching for truth.

President Bush should resign for taking us into two unconstitutional wars, in addition to supporting a variety of unconstitutional policies. But that's not going to happen any more than Rather will resign for using forged documents in a politically-biased report that claimed to be searching for truth.
You are speaking anti-Bush rhetoric here. How was either of those 2 wars "unconstitutional"? What variety of policies are "unconstitutional"?

You are speaking anti-Bush rhetoric here. How was either of those 2 wars "unconstitutional"? What variety of policies are "unconstitutional"?

Neither war was declared by Congress, hence they are unconstitutional. Now I'm also aware of the War Powers Act, but it is contrary to the Constitution. And unconstitutional policies? How about everything having to do with welfare, Social Security, and education, none of which fall under the jurisdiction of the federal government.

And, yes, that makes every war since at least WWII unconstitutional, plus most federal programs.

Neither war was declared by Congress, hence they are unconstitutional. Now I'm also aware of the War Powers Act, but it is contrary to the Constitution. And unconstitutional policies? How about everything having to do with welfare, Social Security, and education, none of which fall under the jurisdiction of the federal government.

And, yes, that makes every war since at least WWII unconstitutional, plus most federal programs.
Your use of welfare and social security as examples of unconstitutional policies is laughable. You sure you are not MKULTRA's puppet?
And Congress voted for both of those "wars".

Hmm, fairly recent and fairly well cited, and availible on the web, the issue of the New Yorker dated 24May2004. I read it in the print edition, but you can find it online at this link: http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040524fa_fact (which may be temporary). Really was a big thing for Hersh, I don't know how you could have missed it if you've been following him, he also did a nice follow up piece on "Copper Green" which has also been debunked.Where's the debunking? And the article seems to accuse Cambone far more than it does Rumsfeld.

Where's the debunking?
You're gonna have to back that one up. I've been reading Hersh since this began and the closest he's come to blaming Rumsfeld for Abu Ghraib was when he said that the laxity in the White House and DoD toward enforcement of the Geneva Conventions and US torture statutes led to the scandal, but unless I missed something, he never accused Rummy of directly ordering the torture. Hersh has a new book coming out--maybe it's in there.

The roots of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal lie not in the criminal inclinations of a few Army reservists but in a decision, approved last year by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld

Ummm did you miss that part of his article?

Dan Rather's job is to ensure that his source is reliable. The experts hired to declare authenticity of the documents never declared authenticity, not one of them, that should of been a red light right there.
Should the US President not make sure that the information is 100% solid and certain before going to war?

Ummm did you miss that part of his article?Look at what I wrote, and then look at what Hersh wrote, and then tell me where I contradict him. Hersh says that Rumsfeld created the atmosphere where the abuse became possible, but not that he ordered it directly. That's what I said as well.

Should the US President not make sure that the information is 100% solid and certain before going to war?
How much more solid would you have wanted if you were President?
At the time, just about everyone said he had them, UN weapon inspectors, our allies, former Presidents, the US congress, Saddam's actions, Saddam's history.
What else did you want?

[Incertonia #1]
If you think Dan Rather should resign because he reported a story that included information from documents that cannot be verified--even though they didn't really say anything that we didn't already know--then do you also think that George W. Bush should resign because his administration was fooled by bad information about the scope and nature of Iraq's WMD programs? After all, the repercussions from Bush's being fooled are far greater than the repercussions from Rather's being fooled, aren't they?

By the way--I'm giving Bush the benefit of the doubt when I say he was fooled here. Personally, I think the neo-cons wanted to be fooled, and looked for intel that told them what they wanted to hear and ignored everything that didn't fit their ideology, but for the sake of this discussion, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Hell No..! :)

We WANT Rather to continue as the poster-boy of "Leftist Media Bias"..!!!

Rather should be given the presidency of an amalgamated CBS/NBC/ABC/PBS and be sole arbiter of content and policy..!

That's what I want to see. :D

And what exactly does this poll have to do with soccer?

How much more solid would you have wanted if you were President?
At the time, just about everyone said he had them, UN weapon inspectors, our allies, former Presidents, the US congress, Saddam's actions, Saddam's history.
What else did you want?
Don't overstate your case--UN weapons inspectors said that they had not found evidence of WMD programs prior to the war and it turns out that Congress thought the had them because they were fed only the intelligence that pointed to their existence, and were not given any intel that would have harmed the case. You let me argue a case like that, and I can prove beyond doubt that God exists and that He cares which people live in a particular part of the earth.

Look at what I wrote, and then look at what Hersh wrote, and then tell me where I contradict him. Hersh says that Rumsfeld created the atmosphere where the abuse became possible, but not that he ordered it directly. That's what I said as well.
I did read both....
You said the closest Herch came to blaming Rumsfield was when he said laxity of the White house and the DoD for enforcing the Geneva convention...
Hersh's opening statement casts blame directly on Rumsfield: "The roots of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal lie not in the criminal inclinations of a few Army reservists but in a decision, approved last year by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld" to expand the operation known as Copper Green "encouraged physical coercion and sexual humiliation of Iraqi prisoners in an effort to generate more intelligence about the growing insurgency in Iraq."

I dont know how you can deny that the above quote from Hersh article does not blame Rumsfield for the abuses in Abu Ghraib.

Don't overstate your case--UN weapons inspectors said that they had not found evidence of WMD programs prior to the war and it turns out that Congress thought the had them because they were fed only the intelligence that pointed to their existence, and were not given any intel that would have harmed the case. You let me argue a case like that, and I can prove beyond doubt that God exists and that He cares which people live in a particular part of the earth.
Blix himself said that Saddam was not complying with UN resolutions about WMD.

I did read both....
You said the closest Herch came to blaming Rumsfield was when he said laxity of the White house and the DoD for enforcing the Geneva convention...
Hersh's opening statement casts blame directly on Rumsfield: "The roots of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal lie not in the criminal inclinations of a few Army reservists but in a decision, approved last year by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld" to expand the operation known as Copper Green "encouraged physical coercion and sexual humiliation of Iraqi prisoners in an effort to generate more intelligence about the growing insurgency in Iraq."

I dont know how you can deny that the above quote from Hersh article does not blame Rumsfield for the abuses in Abu Ghraib.Yeah--the roots of the scandal come from a Department of Defense--of which Rumsfeld is the head--that was not concerned with the protection of human rights of prisoners in general. In that sense, Rumsfeld is fully culpable, because he's the head guy in charge. But Hersh never comes out and says "Rumsfeld ordered torture" which is what I understood the criticism of his reporting to be. In fact, Hersh seems to level most of the blame for the actual torture at the feet of Stephen Cambone and General Miller.

Blix himself said that Saddam was not complying with UN resolutions about WMD.There's a big leap from "Saddam is not fully complying" to "there are weapons programs and the world is in danger." The non-compliance from Saddam was more a nuisance than anything else--the inspectors have said publicly that they were getting good work done and that they were nowhere near done when Bush decided it was time to invade.

Yeah--the roots of the scandal come from a Department of Defense--of which Rumsfeld is the head--that was not concerned with the protection of human rights of prisoners in general. In that sense, Rumsfeld is fully culpable, because he's the head guy in charge. But Hersh never comes out and says "Rumsfeld ordered torture" which is what I understood the criticism of his reporting to be. In fact, Hersh seems to level most of the blame for the actual torture at the feet of Stephen Cambone and General Miller.
Oh my god. Hersh says that Rumsfield ordered the expansion of Copper Green to include the prisoners in Iraq. He further explains that Copper Green included the use of physical coercion and sexual humiliation.

There's a big leap from "Saddam is not fully complying" to "there are weapons programs and the world is in danger." The non-compliance from Saddam was more a nuisance than anything else--the inspectors have said publicly that they were getting good work done and that they were nowhere near done when Bush decided it was time to invade.
Taken with the entirety of the intelligence that was available at the time, Blix saying that Saddam was not complying with the weapons inspections was simply icing on the cake.
Blix by himself, no, not a reason to go to war. Blix could just have been frustrated.
Intelligence by our allies by themselves.. no, not reason to go to war. They could have been mistaken.
Our own intelligence by itself... no, not a reason to go to war. They might have mistaken information.
All combined together, then yes, a compelling reason to go to war.

We WANT Rather to continue as the poster-boy of "Leftist Media Bias"..!!!
Well, at least now you have a poster boy for this bias which apparently exists. He can join the panel of poster boys for media bias: Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, etc...

Well, at least now you have a poster boy for this bias which apparently exists. He can join the panel of poster boys for media bias: Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, etc...
You mistake commentators for reporters. A reporter is supposed to report the news, commentators are supposed to comment on the news.

[Siljhouettes #66]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
We WANT Rather to continue as the poster-boy of "Leftist Media Bias"..!!!


Well, at least now you have a poster boy for this bias which apparently exists. He can join the panel of poster boys for media bias: Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, etc...

Absolutely..! :)

Although the usual leftist-ish "poster people" (any talking-head NOT on FOX) were never accepted by the left as leftist "poster people", NOW we have one that even THEY will admit is a leftist "poster boy"..!

Let's see,..
the number of talking-heads NOT on FOX is: X
the number of talking-heads on FOX is: 6X (or more)

Hmmmmmmmmm.....

If there was someone betterto be president that could get elected. Someone like Ann Coulter or maybe Dennis Hastard but with John Kerry running no no no no. He is WAY to liberal.

CoOpera, why do you say that the international reports criminalizing Hussein are "forgeries?" And once again, please show me the documentation proving that Bush disobeyed a direct order, and did not deserve an honorable discharge from the national guard, so that we may put this "Bush played hookie" argument to its grave.

CoOpera, why do you say that the international reports criminalizing Hussein are "forgeries?" And once again, please show me the documentation proving that Bush disobeyed a direct order, and did not deserve an honorable discharge from the national guard, so that we may put this "Bush played hookie" argument to its grave.
Dude, the simple fact that Bush was suspended from flying because he failed to report for a mandatory physical is proof of his disobedience of a direct order. That's never even been questioned by the Bush campaign--the reason why he failed to take his physical has never been addressed by Bush, but the fact that he failed to take it even though it was mandatory is beyond question.

Dude, the simple fact that Bush was suspended from flying because he failed to report for a mandatory physical is proof of his disobedience of a direct order. That's never even been questioned by the Bush campaign--the reason why he failed to take his physical has never been addressed by Bush, but the fact that he failed to take it even though it was mandatory is beyond question.
It is hardly beyond question. The fact that he wasnt reprimanded at the least, court martialed at the worst, lends some credibility that his missing mandatory physical was not concidered a disobedience of a direct order. It's not been determined one way or another.

It is hardly beyond question. The fact that he wasnt reprimanded at the least, court martialed at the worst, lends some credibility that his missing mandatory physical was not concidered a disobedience of a direct order. It's not been determined one way or another.What part of the word mandatory do you not understand? He was suspended from flight status for it, for crying out loud--just because it didn't reach the level of court-martial doesn't mean he wasn't disobeying a standing direct order to take a flight physical.

What part of the word mandatory do you not understand? He was suspended from flight status for it, for crying out loud--just because it didn't reach the level of court-martial doesn't mean he wasn't disobeying a standing direct order to take a flight physical.
What part of discretion do you not understand? If someone were to deliberatly disobey a direct order, then that person would have at the very least an official reprimand in their record. Their discharge would probably be general or general under other than honorable conditions.
This didnt happen. Why didnt it happen? So far, it's all speculation.
Now, officers have the discretion as to who would get punished or not. The fact that Bush wasnt punished leads some credence that there was some reason for missing that mandatory physical.
The matter is simply not closed.

What part of discretion do you not understand? If someone were to deliberatly disobey a direct order, then that person would have at the very least an official reprimand in their record. Their discharge would probably be general or general under other than honorable conditions.
This didnt happen. Why didnt it happen? So far, it's all speculation.
Now, officers have the discretion as to who would get punished or not. The fact that Bush wasnt punished leads some credence that there was some reason for missing that mandatory physical.
The matter is simply not closed.Not closed in your mind perhaps, but you're an exception.

Not closed in your mind perhaps, but you're an exception.
That's what I keep telling everyone... Im exceptional :D

Your use of welfare and social security as examples of unconstitutional policies is laughable.

Laughable? All right. If you want to show me where in the Constitution these are put under the jurisdiction of the federal government, please do. Perhaps you'd prefer the PATRIOT Act?

You sure you are not MKULTRA's puppet?

I'm sure, particularly since I've been around for quite a bit longer on NationStates. I started out as the nation "Ophar" and have continued as my current nation. I was still making regular posts here up until March, which, if you could read them, would amply demonstrate that I'm not MKULTRA's puppet. Unfortunately, since the forums have moved to a new server, it seems most of my posts are lost.

And Congress voted for both of those "wars".

Congress made no DECLARATION. That's the point of contention. All wars and other foreign military engagements since at least WWII have been unconstitutional for lack of a declaration of war. Why wars without declarations? Because Congress has been spineless and the presidents have been powerhungry.

What part of discretion do you not understand? If someone were to deliberatly disobey a direct order, then that person would have at the very least an official reprimand in their record. Their discharge would probably be general or general under other than honorable conditions.
This didnt happen. Why didnt it happen? So far, it's all speculation.
Now, officers have the discretion as to who would get punished or not. The fact that Bush wasnt punished leads some credence that there was some reason for missing that mandatory physical.
The matter is simply not closed.

Why didn't it happen, you ask? Because Bush was receiving favorable treatment on account of his father(then a US ambassador), the Texas Speaker of the House, and other of "his daddy's friends".

No dude no, making your own copy of the declaration of independence is called plagarism, not purgery. No, perjury (note the spelling) is lying under oath. Forgery is creating a false document. And plagiarism is claiming someone else's words as your own. It would be plagiarism if I claimed to have authored the Declaration of Independence.

I agree that a forged document casts a deep shadow of doubt over its contents and should certainly never be used to prove anything, but that doesn't mean the content is automatically false. Shortly after Charles Darwin published The Origin of the Species, certain unscrupulous circus and freak show owners manufactured fake skeletons of cave men to cash in on the notoriety. Does that mean all those cavemen and dinosaur bones in museums are also fake? Of course not. Likewise, there is a mountain of evidence that says George W. Bush played hooky from the National Guard which is not refuted by the CBS memos turning out to be forgeries.

The argument that if part of something is false, it's all false is a stupid logical fallacy. After all, the self-identified experts mistakenly claimed that a) typewriters of that era were incapable of superscript and b) the font, New Times Roman, also didn’t exist yet. They were wrong on both counts; thus, by your logic, the memos must be genuine because their skeptics were mistaken. I don't think that, but that's where your non-logic gets you.

I would also add that the Bush league still claims that Saddam tried to get yellow cake uranium from Nigeria, even though the documents claiming so were blatant forgeries (and they knew it). Taken with all the other lies Bush told in the run up to war, I'm inclined to strongly doubt Bush's Nigerian uranium claims - I'm not saying that it is automatically impossible, just highly fucking dubious.

I'm a Conservative but GOD, I cannot stand Bush or anyone in his inner circle, especially that Canadian hater Condelleza Rice.

Personally I do not think either one of them should resign. I think the people who gave Bush didn't have any idea what they were saying but now that we are in the war we have to stick to it. Rather is biased but he has the full right to whatever opinion he holds and as long as he does not lie or fabricate anything I might disagree with him but he has the full right to his beliefs.

You realize there is no logic there right? If I make an exact copy of the Declaration of Independence and try to pass it off as an original copy, then that's forgery; but that doesn't mean the information in the Declaration of Independence is false.

Also:

But while Knox greatly undermines the documentation of the CBS reporting, it is important for critics to recognize that she corroborates the substance of that reporting. "The information in them is correct," she told the New York Times (9/15/04). "It looks like someone may have read the originals and put that together." That "someone," a report in Newsweek (9/30/04) suggested, may have been Bill Burkett, a former Texas National Guard lieutenant colonel who has charged that Bush's Guard records were culled in 1997 to eliminate "anything there that will embarrass the [then] governor" (Dallas Morning News, 2/11/04).

http://www.fair.org/activism/cbs-memos-knox.html
Hi CoOpera, nice to see some new angle here, especially from someone who apparently isn't a rhetoric-caricature and to whom evidence and facts are important in a debate.
Good luck to you.

If you think Dan Rather should resign because he reported a story that included information from documents that cannot be verified--even though they didn't really say anything that we didn't already know--then do you also think that George W. Bush should resign because his administration was fooled by bad information about the scope and nature of Iraq's WMD programs? After all, the repercussions from Bush's being fooled are far greater than the repercussions from Rather's being fooled, aren't they?

By the way--I'm giving Bush the benefit of the doubt when I say he was fooled here. Personally, I think the neo-cons wanted to be fooled, and looked for intel that told them what they wanted to hear and ignored everything that didn't fit their ideology, but for the sake of this discussion, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

I've despised Rather for years. He should have resigned long, long ago. Same thing goes for Bush.

bump

President Bush went to Congress with intelligence he had at the time. Intelligence from just about every intelligence agency of nations we are allied with.Bush went to Congress with edited intelligence which weeded out contradictory information and the American intelligence community is outraged.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/072203E.shtml
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/070803A.shtml
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/121503E.shtml

They were doubly enraged once the white House started punishing whistle blowers:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/123003A.shtml

And where is this legendary intelligence from our allies claiming that Saddam had WMDs? I remember their agencies warning us before 9-11, and Bush ignoring it; but I don't remember hearing much about Saddam's imaginary arsenal (unless you are referring to the student paper Tony Blair used to trick Britain into joining us). Where is this evidence from our allies who, incidentally, tried to prevent the war? In an open letter to George Bush, Intelligence veteran Ray McGovern tells a very different story:

Before your state-of-the-union address last year we urged you to resist the temptation to favor "ideologues and spin doctors over the professional intelligence officers paid to serve you." Specifically, we noted that most of our major allies, with whom we have extensive intelligence sharing arrangements, had taken strong issue with US claims regarding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. They found the evidence on the presence of weapons of mass destruction inconclusive-and far short of what would be necessary to justify war. Ten months of unsuccessful quest for such weapons, together with freshly obtained documentary evidence, has proved them right.

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/5/3276

No one but the anti-Bush crowd and they only thought so as ammo against Bush (imo). Hindsight is 20/20 as they say.Swallow hard and try to muster enough character to admit that "the anti-Bush crowd", which consisted of the rest of the world, was right all along about everything. We predicted an insurgency instead of appreciation and we were right. We predicted a quagmire and we were right. We predicted it would destabilize the region and we were right. We predicted that it would balloon Al Qaeda’s ranks and we were right. We predicted Halliburton would scam the taxpayers and we were right. Etc. etc. This isn't hind sight: it's foresight. Are you denying that the peace protestors predicted any of this? Have the sand to get your head out of the sand and show some character.

We know now that we didn't know where the WMD's were as Rumsfield asserted. We do not know what he did with the WMD's we knew he had. The pre-war CIA psych profile of Saddam predicted he was most likely to use WMDs (if he had them) if cornered. If he had them, he would have used them. Also, there is no apostrophe in “WMDs” because it is plural, not possessive.

If those of you who say "even if those CBS documents are forgeries, their content is accurate" then you have to say that "even tho those Niger documents are forgeries, their content is accurate" as it was later learned that Saddam was indeed trying to purchase uranium from African sources.No we don't. Thinking people can distinguish the possible from the probable. It's certainly possible that Saddam tried to get uranium from Nigeria even though the documents alleging so are forgeries, but not bloody likely. I doubt it because the rest of Bush's "hard evidence" also fell apart. Simply put, nothing stuck. By contrast, the CBS memos are just part of a wealth of evidence that Bush played hooky during Vietnam. Dan Rather did not invent this story (although at the time of the broadcast he probably thought so); Bush's guard sevice has been an embarrassment since he first ran for govenor of Texas.

You are speaking anti-Bush rhetoric here. How was either of those 2 wars "unconstitutional"? What variety of policies are "unconstitutional"?Well, diverting funds that Congress had earmarked for the Afghan war and spending the money in preparation for the Iraq war is a clear violation of the Constitution - in addition to showing how serious this administration is about getting Bin Laden. The details are in Bob Woodward's book Plan of Attack:

Woodward reports that in July 2002 Bush ordered the use of $700m to prepare for the invasion of Iraq, funds that had not been specifically appropriated by Congress, which alone holds that constitutional authority. No adequate explanation has been offered for what, strictly speaking, might well be an impeachable offence.

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/8/4256

How much more solid would you have wanted if you were President? At the time, just about everyone said he had them, UN weapon inspectors, our allies, ... You mean the UN weapons inspectors that Bush wouldn't allow to do their jobs? You mean the same UN weapons inspectors who chicken hawks said we shouldn't trust? You mean guys like former Marine Corps Maj. and weapons inspector Scott Ritter?

As Scott Ritter, former head of the United Nations Special Commission on Concealment, says, "It was possible as early as 1997 to determine that, strictly from a qualitative standpoint, Iraq had been disarmed."

http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/04.22F.Road.War.p.htm

I have already weighed in on what our allies really thought.

In response to Ordon's repeated claims that Bush has been acting "unconstitutionally"...:

I totally agree, but I will also say that with almost every major decision in the U.S.A. since its conception, the Constitution has been folded up and placed in a drawer where it could be pulled out later to point at the "rights" that our country has.

But, please answer me this, has this been such a bad thing? Take Lincoln for example. Read what the Constitution has to say about slavery...it's very very clear about that issue. Did Lincoln feel that the exact words in the Constitution mattered more than the fact that American [note: I hate the word "American" because it implies a huge amount of arrogance because the U.S.A. is only one of more than thirty countries in the Americas, but we're the only ones that refer to ourselves as "Americans...but there isn't a better word that isn't a slur] citizens were owning other people and breeding them like cattle [note: Ever wonder why black people are better atheletes in the U.S.A. on average, whereas they're not in the U.K.?]. Of course he didn't. And he is considered one of our greatest Presidents ever.

If we had always followed the Constitution, there would still be slavery and the U.S.A. would be faced with a whole bundle of issues that we took care of because we did put the Constitution away in a drawer when convenience required us to.

And, yes, Congress has not declared war on anyone for the past sixty years. And, yes, someone has always brought that point up and whined about it, but - when it came down to push and shove - no one cared enough listen to a complaining minority until it was "convenient" to.

****

And, now, addressing another issue entirely:

If you feel that Bush has been a bad President for relying on the best information that the United States of America, Britain, and many, many other countries had, then I suggest you look at the history of Mr. John Kerry. How many people remember how Kerry testified before Congress in 1971 and said that American soldiers (including himself) were committing atrocities all over Vietnam. Was that true? Of course not, as Kerry himself admitted later, calling his testimony a moral thing instead of a factual one. Did atrocities happen in Vietnam? I would almost guarantee it, but I wasn't there.

You can all sit there and complain about Bush lied or Rather lied, but in the end it comes down to the issue of whether you're going to vote for President Bush or the man who has claimed to be a war criminal. Take your pick. Since honesty seems to matter so much in this thread.

~Anthalmycia

Hmm, I haven't been getting all my email notifications for some reason ...

CoOpera, why do you say that the international reports criminalizing Hussein are "forgeries?" The documents claiming that Hussein tried to obtain uranium from Niger (I had mistakenly typing Nigeria) were crude, stupid forgeries. The officials' names that had been signed weren't even if office at the time.

I was not referring to Saddam's war crimes and human rights abuses. But if you are actually bringing that up, it is worth noting that Cheney and Rumsfeld (along with Ronald Reagan and Bush Senior) were accomplices to Saddam's atrocities. They sold him the gas used on the Kurds in the 1980s and permitted Saddam to massacre more Kurds after Operation Desert Storm. No informed, thinking human being actually believes that this administration ever cared about Saddam's victims.

Nor was WMDs ever a real concern. North Korea’s tyrant is also a bloody psycho who actually has nukes, but since there is not much oil in the Korean peninsula, so no go.

And once again, please show me the documentation proving that Bush disobeyed a direct order, and did not deserve an honorable discharge from the national guard, so that we may put this “Bush played hookie” argument to its grave. Did I say anything about disobeying orders? Bush got special treatment every step of the way. If you don’t like the word “hooky” I’ll say he “got a hall pass” to visit Alabama. But once in Alabama, he didn’t show up for duty except to get a dental check up, so I guess he did play hooky, after all. Then he did the same thing in Boston.

Was he disobeying orders by not showing up? Well, yes, in effect, since he signed forms acknowledging that there were penalties for not appearing. The penalties weren’t enforced because he was a privileged little rich boy, but he still broke his contract. And if you want documentation of this, it is in the papers released by the Bush administration:

Even retired Lieutenant Colonel Albert C. Lloyd Jr., a former Texas Air National Guard personnel chief who vouched for Bush at the White House's request in February, agreed that Bush walked away from his obligation to join a reserve unit in the Boston area when he moved to Cambridge in September 1973. By not joining a unit in Massachusetts, Lloyd said in an interview last month, Bush "took a chance that he could be called up for active duty. But the war was winding down, and he probably knew that the Air Force was not enforcing the penalty."

But Lloyd said that singling out Bush for criticism is unfair. "There were hundreds of guys like him who did the same thing," he said.

Lawrence J. Korb, an assistant secretary of defense for manpower and reserve affairs in the Reagan administration, said after studying many of the documents that it is clear to him that Bush "gamed the system." And he agreed with Lloyd that Bush was not alone in doing so. "If I cheat on my income tax and don't get caught, I'm still cheating on my income tax," Korb said.

- "Bush Fell Short on Duty at Guard" The Boston Globe Wed. Sept. 8th, 2004

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/090904B.shtml