[coolcaddy]

It's an election year, so when it comes to issues like Haiti, everyone seems to take every side of the issue.

When the rebels were closing in on Port-au-Prince, all the naysayers were screaming at the Bush Administration to do something.

When the Bush Administration finally intervened by offering to broker a peace deal between the rebels and Aristide, the naysayers were complaining that this didn't go far enough and that we should send some guys in to protect the innocents caught up in this civil war. "After all", they said, "we were willing to do this for Iraq, why not Haiti?"

Okay, then we send in the troops, escort Aristide the hell out, and then the naysayers accuse us of kidnapping Aristide and once again "sticking our nose" where it doesn't belong.

And as far as this ridiculous conspiratorial accusation that we kidnapped Aristide--kidnapped him for gosh sakes!--all I can say is, if he wants to go back and face the mob, no one is stopping him.

The way it looks now, Aristide--whose favorite past time is lobbing burning tires around the necks of his political enemies--got the hell out of Dodge, the rebels are backing down, and there is relative peace in Haiti at the moment. Curse those darn Americans!

Kinda' like Iraq. Saddam is gone, Uday and Qusay are burning in Hell, a draft constitution has been approved, the chemical and biological programs (that's programs which were found by Kay's team, not the stockpiles that people keep whining about) will never amount to a single weapon to be used against anyone, Iraqi or American. Oh yeah, and we're supposed to admit our "big mistake" because of all this.

Like I said, it's an election year. <_<

 

[coolcaddy]

Originally posted by gmwsag@Mar 5 2004, 01:54 PM
Yeah, that's correct, caddy.
These people offended from the 9/11 re-election campaign ads asked President Bush to come out with a public speech saying sorry and admiting all the lies they told, if there was any. But, President Bush wouldn't say that, because its his re-election year. Nobody will admit, the truth. That is all I'm asking....

You can't handle the truth!...

...just kidding. I've always wanted to say that.

So uh, what lies did Bush tell about 9/11? I keep hearing election-year drivel about "Bush" and "lies" and "9/11", but no one seems to be able to put a cogent sentence together using all those words.

And Bush has nothing to apologize for with the ad. As other victims' families have stated, it is a moving tribute to the bravery and inspiration embodied by those who responded to that tragedy on that day.

 

[coolcaddy]

Originally posted by banzai79@Mar 5 2004, 07:28 PM
Yeah, but moving tribute notwithstanding...Bush himself said.."I will not use this tradgedy for political gain." Back when it was happening. Big surprise....now he's using it in a pro-him political ad. That sure looks like political gain to me.

Probably the biggest lie about Iraq anyway---He claimed they were a clear and present threat to the U.S. That is simply not true. N. Korea, Palestine and probably even France were and are more clear and present threats to U.S. interests.

He isn't capitalizing on tragedy--he's associating himself with the kind of resolve and resilience that characterized the American response, and he deserves some credit for steady and poised leadership, itself a reflection of the American people.

Capitalizing on the tragedy would take the shape of presenting images of 9/11 and suggesting that his absence for the next four years translates into doom and gloom and certain destruction. The ad is decidedly not that.

If the ad is offensive, I would invite those who think so to watch it and say precisely what it is that offends you about it.

While you're at it, you might want to watch this presidential ad, and see if it offends you as well.

If one is offensive, both should be, and I would hope that the Senator Kerry (who I like, BTW) is held to the same standard and that those who complain about the Bush ad here will also complain about the Kerry ad with the same vigor. Otherwise, the argument has no credibility.

On the question of Iraq, the Bush Administration was clearly wrong on two of its claims: that its nuclear program was more advanced than claimed, and that it had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons.

If you accept that these claims turned out to be wrong, then your source for that information would be David Kay's testimony.

That testimony, and the follow-up testimony in January of this year, presents three conclusions:

1. Iraq did not have WMD stockpiles

2. Iraq did have active WMD programs, some of which were not completely supervised and vulnerable to proliferation

3. The pre-war conclusions drawn about Iraq were based on the best intelligence we had--the same intelligence, BTW, upon which the President's Democratic challenger cast his vote in support of action against Iraq

We also know that Saddam Hussein:

1. Used chemical weapons against Iran and against its own people

2. Did not account for the remaining stockpiles of those weapons which were cataloged by UN inspectors in 1991

3. Was in violation of UN resolution 1441 which itself cited WMD inspection violations of several other UN resolutions

People throw the word "lie" around very carelessly, especially in an election year. I will go along with anyone who says that some of the President's conclusions proved completely wrong, but it is unfair and inaccurate to say that he lied, and given what we know about Iraq's weapons programs, the potential for proliferation, the danger represented by other state-sponsored WMD programs as demonstrated by Libya's admission of stockpiling 44,000 pounds of mustard gas, the capture of Saddam, and the clear resolve shown by the United States against any who dare to bring harm to its people, I have no qualms about his judgement on liberating the Iraqi people from Saddam and trying to establish a democracy in the heart of the Arab Middle East.

 

[coolcaddy]

Originally posted by gmwsag@Mar 6 2004, 10:19 AM

I guess we went far into political opinions. Banzai, you're right. This should be a bad rule for GMInsideNews. Sorry if I have offended anyone.

You're okay gmwsag, I highly doubt anyone is offended. Feel free to speak your mind, and please don't mistake being challenged for being scolded.

It's precisely this kind of exchange that keeps our democracy strong and keeps our leaders on their toes. We may disagree, but we each have a vote, so make sure you use yours or else guys like me will end up running the place. B)