Colin Powell resigns

[gldstwmn]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/15/powell/index.html

Further Cabinet resignations expected
Monday, November 15, 2004 Posted: 10:46 AM EST (1546 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell has submitted his resignation to President Bush, the White House said on Monday.

Powell is the most prominent of four Cabinet officials whose resignations will be announced Monday, sources told CNN.

The others will be Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman, Education Secretary Rod Paige and Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham, the sources said.

Powell told his senior staff that he planned to stay on until a replacement was confirmed, State Department officials said.

State Department officials told CNN that Bush and Powell decided mutually that it was time for him to go.

The officials said that Powell plans to keep working on a number of key issues, including North Korean nuclear talks, the Iraqi elections scheduled for January and Middle East peace process.

Powell was scheduled to travel to Egypt next week for a conference on Iraq.

A senior official said Monday that the State Department was trying to arrange a meeting between Powell and the new Palestinian leadership, but added the details have not been worked out. A date and place have not been set, the official said.

The official made the comment after Palestinian Foreign Minister Nabil Shaath told reporters in Gaza City that Powell was expected to meet with the leadership next week in the West Bank.

Rumors have swirled about Powell's role in a second Bush administration, but neither the president nor the secretary had spoken publicly about his future.

Last week, when asked if he wanted Powell to stay on to oversee the Mideast peace process Bush told reporters: "I'm proud of my secretary of state. He's done a heck of a good job."

Powell told reporters that he had had several conversations with the president, but would not comment on what they said.

[DeeGeMe]

And the Education Secretary, Rod Paige bailed too. And the Energy Secretary and the Agriculture Secretary. Like rats deserting a sinking ship. . . .

[strandinthewind]

It is not uncommon for the Cabinet to change in a second term. So, this is not that out of the ordinary. Having said that, it is widely assumed and somewhat known that Powell and the Pentagon clashed. Sadly, Powell is the one that resigned.

[dissention]

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

[strandinthewind]

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

but aren't you a little terrified it will be out of the frying pan and into the fire. I agree CP made mistakes, but he was the ONLY voice of reason in that warmongering tribe :shrug: I shudder to think what will come next!!!!!!!

[heyjupiter678]

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=IAOITNEGB3ZKCCRBAE0CFEY?type=topNews&storyID=6816698

Rice Is Top Candidate to Replace Powell -Sources
Mon Nov 15, 2004 12:03 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - National security adviser Condoleezza Rice emerged as the likely candidate on Monday to replace resigning Secretary of State Colin Powell, Republican sources said.

Rice has been President Bush's national security adviser since Bush took office in January 2001 and has been one of his closest confidantes. She was previously the provost of Stanford University.

Knowledgeable Republican sources described Rice as the likely successor to Powell, whose resignation was announced on Monday. A successor to Powell was not expected to be announced on Monday.

© Reuters 2004. All Rights Reserved.

[dissention]

but aren't you a little terrified it will be out of the frying pan and into the fire. I agree CP made mistakes, but he was the ONLY voice of reason in that warmongering tribe :shrug: I shudder to think what will come next!!!!!!!

He was certainly the voice of reason when it came to lying his ass off at the UN.

[strandinthewind]

He was certainly the voice of reason when it came to lying his ass off at the UN.

Again, he was far from perfect, but imagine Rumsfeld and the other warmongers without him :shrug: I fear what comes next. McCain is a possibility. He would be okay I guess - or at least comparatively so.

[dissention]

Again, he was far from perfect, but imagine Rumsfeld and the other warmongers without him :shrug: I fear what comes next. McCain is a possibility. He would be okay I guess - or at least comparatively so.

Look up the Powell Doctrine in his ****ty autobiography, he's just as much a warmonger as the rest of 'em.

McCain is garbage. He has no spine, he's a yes man.

[strandinthewind]

Look up the Powell Doctrine in his ****ty autobiography, he's just as much a warmonger as the rest of 'em.

McCain is garbage. He has no spine, he's a yes man.

We will never agree with that perception of Powell :wavey:

Once again, I think you expect too much from politicians, esp. anyone W would appoint. I am more of a realist I guess and see good even when there is bad, and trust me, there is a lot of bad these days!!!!! :eek:

[dissention]

We will never agree with that perception of Powell :wavey:

Nope, I'll never understand your admiration and good words for a man who was told time and time again that metal tubes in Iraq were not (and could not) to be used for centrifuge, yet he stated they could, without a shadow of a doubt, at the UN. He also presented fake and doctored photos to the UN.

Once again, I think you expect too much from politicians, esp. anyone W would appoint. I am more of a realist I guess and see good even when there is bad, and trust me, there is a lot of bad these days!!!!! :eek:

Nope, I don't like men like John McCain who will do anything to keep a fellow party politician in office, even if it means badmouthing your friend, like he did to John Kerry, or if it means supporting policies you wholeheartedly disagree with. Or if it means unconditionally supporting a man who accused you of sleeping around, having kids out of wedlock, pressing the issue of your wife's drug addiction, and spreaded the rumour that you had sex with female Korean's while you were a POW. He sold out and gets no respect from my white ass.

[strandinthewind]

Nope, I'll never understand your admiration and good words for a man who was told time and time again that metal tubes in Iraq were not (and could not) to be used for centrifuge, yet he stated they could, without a shadow of a doubt, at the UN. He also presented fake and doctored photos to the UN.



Nope, I don't like men like John McCain who will do anything to keep a fellow party politician in office, even if it means badmouthing your friend, like he did to John Kerry, or if it means supporting policies you wholeheartedly disagree with. Or if it means unconditionally supporting a man who accused you of sleeping around, having kids out of wedlock, pressing the issue of your wife's drug addiction, and spreaded the rumour that you had sex with female Korean's while you were a POW. He sold out and gets no respect from my white ass.

Again, there is never going to be a perfect person. I think your standards are too high. I mean you had good words for Kerry and he was hardly perfect and in fact supported the war :shrug: and, in accordance with the Powell Doctrine, thought the US should have sent more troops there and struck Iraq harder than we did. Yet, you have stated you wanted him to win because he was the lesser of two evils - no fault there because that is how I felt :cool: Thus, I see no difference in my good words for Powell for being and doing the same thing. Again, he was the ONLY voice of reason within this tribe of malfeasance - but he is and was far from perfect.

[dissention]

Again, there is never going to be a perfect person. I think your standards are too high. I mean you had good words for Kerry and he was hardly perfect and in fact supported the war :shrug: Yet, you wanted him to win because he was the lesser of two evils. I see no difference in my good words for Powell for being and doing the same thing.

If not wanting my Secretary of State to go to the UN and present FALSE information is having too high of a standard, then your standards are too low.

[dissention]

Again, there is never going to be a perfect person. I think your standards are too high. I mean you had good words for Kerry and he was hardly perfect and in fact supported the war :shrug: and, in accordance with the Powell Doctrine, thought the US should have sent more troops there and struck Iraq harder than we did. Yet, you have stated you wanted him to win because he was the lesser of two evils - no fault there because that is how I felt :cool: Thus, I see no difference in my good words for Powell for being and doing the same thing. Again, he was the ONLY voice of reason within this tribe of malfeasance - but he is and was far from perfect.

Kerry never went to the UN and presented utterly false and made-up information in an effort to sway other nations into engaging in an unjust war. Kerry voted to authorize force once all inspections were properly made and a true coalition was formed. And he voted to authorize forced not only based on the false information that Colon Polyp presented at the UN, but also based on evidence that the American people were never shown, the same evidence that numerous seantors have now debunked as more lies from this administration.

[strandinthewind]

If not wanting my Secretary of State to go to the UN and present FALSE information is having too high of a standard, then your standards are too low.

No, I am just not selective in my application of my low standards :wavey:

Again, you and I supported Kerry even though he said the same things Powell did and he authorized W to go to war when Kerry had been specifically told the WMD stuff was bogus prior to the vote. Even knowing this, I still voted for Kerry - thus my hypocrisy and my, IMO, refreshing willingness to call it exactly that :cool:

[strandinthewind]

Kerry never went to the UN and presented utterly false and made-up information in an effort to sway other nations into engaging in an unjust war. Kerry voted to authorize force once all inspections were properly made and a true coalition was formed. And he voted to authorize forced not only based on the false information that Colon Polyp presented at the UN, but also based on evidence that the American people were never shown, the same evidence that numerous seantors have now debunked as more lies from this administration.

There was an article in the, I think, NYTimes that specifically refutes this. The source, whose name I forget, specifically said Kerry was lying and Kerry knew full and well that the whole WMD issue was a red herring. Yet, he voted for the war anyway. Plus, do you really believe Kerry actually thought for one minute that W was gonna wait. If so, what's that about the bridge in Brooklyn being for sale :laugh: :cool:

[dissention]

No, I am just not selective in my application of my low standards :wavey:

Again, you and I supported Kerry even though he said the same things Powell did and he authorized W to go to war when Kerry had been specifically told the WMD stuff was bogus prior to the vote. Even knowing this, I still voted for Kerry - thus my hypocrisy and my, IMO, refreshing willingness to call it exactly that :cool:

But I never said Kerry wasn't a f*cker for voting to authorize force. :shrug: You don't seem to see the difference: it was not John Forbes Kerry who went to the UN and presented knowingly false evidence in an effort to get more support for an unjust war that was unpopular around the world through and through. Those, my friend, are not the actions of a "voice of reason."

[strandinthewind]

But I never said Kerry wasn't a f*cker for voting to authorize force. :shrug: You don't seem to see the difference: it was not John Forbes Kerry who went to the UN and presented knowingly false evidence in an effort to get more support for an unjust war that was unpopular around the world through and through. Those, my friend, are not the actions of a "voice of reason."

I am just saying that I am willing to say I use lower standards. I am willing to say Colin P. is not perfect, but what we get as his replacement may be worse. How that differs from from voting for Kerry as the lesser of two evils is beyond me - but if it works for you - so be it :cool:

[dissention]

There was an article in the, I think, NYTimes that specifically refutes this. The source, whose name I forget, specifically said Kerry was lying and Kerry knew full and well that the whole WMD issue was a red herring. Yet, he voted for the war anyway. Plus, do you really believe Kerry actually thought for one minute that W was gonna wait. If so, what's that about the bridge in Brooklyn being for sale :laugh: :cool:

I don't believe that. Why would he knowingly vote for something that he knew was bogus, while at the same time just starting to rev up his presidential campaign? It would come back to bite him in the ass easily. The logic in that article escapes me.

But, you've also said that Kerry was a "ringleader" in trying to get Clinton to go to war with Iraq in '98 and I set you straight on that one. ;)

[dissention]

I am just saying that I am willing to say I use lower standards.

Therein lies your problem: you don't hold your politicians and leaders responsible for the ****ty (and illegal) things they do because politics has gotten so disgusting that you've lowered your standards to accept such ****.

Make excuses and apologize for Colon Polyp, I sure won't.

[strandinthewind]

But, you've also said that Kerry was a "ringleader" in trying to get Clinton to go to war with Iraq in '98 and I set you straight on that one. ;)

If you think that showering Iraq with missles in 98 (which Kerry advocated based ont he WMD theory) and the possibility of SH retaliating (as he did before and threatened to do then) on Israel could not have lead to all out war in the middle east - then this debate is pointless because you are refusing to admit to the facts. Again, when the D's do it, no one minds. When the R's do it, everyone's hair is suddenly on fire :shrug:

[dissention]

If you think that showering Iraq with missles in 98 (which Kerry advocated based ont he WMD theory) and the possibility of SH retaliating (as he did before and threatened to do then) on Israel could not have lead to all out war in the middle east - then this debate is pointless because you are refusing to admit to the facts. Again, when the D's do it, no one minds. When the R's do it, everyone's hair is suddenly on fire :shrug:

You're refusing to admit the facts. Go read the joint senate letter that Kerry sent to Clinton and get back to me. I've posted it a million times before and it never quite gelled with your interpretation of it. ;)

[strandinthewind]

Therein lies your problem: you don't hold your politicians and leaders responsible for the ****ty (and illegal) things they do because politics has gotten so disgusting that you've lowered your standards to accept such ****.

Make excuses and apologize for Colon Polyp, I sure won't.

Then, why did you vote for Kerry, who still says he would have voted for the war in Iraq even knowing what he knows now. He was for it.

In the end, I wish there were better alternatives, but there are not. So, I chose the lesser of the evils and willingly admit I wish it could be better. Never have I said CP was a great guy or anything like that. I just said he was the voice of reason in that group of people who wanted to go to war immediately and completely by pass the U.S. :shrug:

[strandinthewind]

You're refusing to admit the facts. Go read the joint senate letter that Kerry sent to Clinton and get back to me. I've posted it a million times before and it never quite gelled with your interpretation of it. ;)

I have read it. But, it does not obviate the fact that a huge war in the Middle East could have resulted in that missle campaign, which Kerry was for - are you suggesting Kerry opposed it :laugh: :rolleyes:

[dissention]

Then, why did you vote for Kerry, who still says he would have voted for the war in Iraq even knowing what he knows now. He was for it.

Because in order for any change to take place in American politics that allow room for parties other than the big two, we have to start acting now and that means ousting the Bush regime ASAP. We can't pussyfoot around and just say 'We'll change things in another twenty years.' I'm not opposed to a third party candidate and anyone who doesn't have **** for brains would tell you that in order for us to make third party candidates more visible, we must get rid of the Republican machine for quite a few years. You have to change what you can when you can.

[strandinthewind]

Because in order for any change to take place in American politics that allow room for parties other than the big two, we have to start acting now and that means ousting the Bush regime ASAP. We can't pussyfoot around and just say 'We'll change things in another twenty years.' I'm not opposed to a third party candidate and anyone who doesn't have **** for brains would tell you that in order for us to make third party candidates more visible, we must get rid of the Republican machine for quite a few years. You have to change what you can when you can.

I agree and I, unlike you, will readily admit that I lower my standards to do just that - thus, my vote for Kerry, who was by no means my ideal :cool:

[dissention]

I have read it. But, it does not obviate the fact that a huge war in the Middle East could have resulted in that missle campaign, which Kerry was for - are you suggesting Kerry opposed it :laugh: :rolleyes:

The letter urged for Clinton to take the necessary actions to see what was up with Saddam and his weapons. The letter explicitly said "including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites." :shrug: It said if appropriate, nothing more.

[dissention]

I agree and I, unlike you, will readily admit that I lower my standards to do just that - thus, my vote for Kerry, who was by no means my ideal :cool:

It isn't a matter of lowering your standards, it's a matter of changing what you can when you can. Bush is so far down the line when it comes to my standards that I'd vote for Tony Blair or Kim Jung Il before I marked the ballot for him. :shrug:

[strandinthewind]

The letter urged for Clinton to take the necessary actions to see what was up with Saddam and his weapons. The letter explicitly said "including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites." :shrug: It said if appropriate, nothing more.


CONCERN OVER RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN IRAQ
(Senate - October 09, 1998)

HON. CARL LEVIN

in the Senate

October 9, 1998

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today, along with Senators McCain, Lieberman, Hutchison and twenty-three other Senators, I am sending a letter to the President to express our concern over Iraq's actions and urging the President `after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.'

At the outset, I believe it would be useful to review the events that led up to the requirement for the destruction of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. At the time that Iraq unlawfully invaded and occupied its neighbor Kuwait, the UN Security Council imposed economic and weapons sanctions on Iraq .

After Iraqi forces had been ousted from Kuwait by the U.S.-led coalition and active hostilities had ended, but while coalition forces were still occupying Iraqi territory, the UN Security Council, acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, conducted a review of Iraq's history with weapons of mass destruction and made a number of decisions in April 1991 to achieve its goals, including a formal cease fire.

With respect to Iraq's history, the Security Council noted Iraq's threat during the Gulf War to use chemical weapons in violation of its treaty obligations, Iraq's prior use of chemical weapons, Iraq's use of ballistic missiles in unprovoked attacks, and reports that Iraq attempted to acquire materials for a nuclear weapons program contrary to its treaty obligations.

After reviewing Iraq's history, the Security Council decided that `Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision' of its weapons of mass destruction programs and all ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers and conditioned the lifting of the economic and weapons sanctions on Iraq's meeting its obligations, including those relating to its weapons of mass destruction programs.

To implement those decisions, the Security Council authorized the formation of a Special Commission, which has come to be known as UNSCOM, to `carry out immediate on-site inspection of Iraq's biological, chemical and missile capabilities, based on Iraq's declarations and the designation of any additional locations by the Special Commission itself' and requested the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to carry out similar responsibilities for Iraq's nuclear program. Additionally, the UN Security Council decided that Iraq shall unconditionally undertake not to use, develop, construct or acquire weapons of mass destruction and called for UNSCOM to conduct ongoing monitoring and verification of Iraq's compliance. The detailed modalities for these actions were agreed upon by an exchange of letters in May 1991 that were signed by the UN Secretary General, the Executive Chairman of UNSCOM and the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Iraq .

Thus, Iraq unconditionally accepted the UN Security Council's demands and thereby achieved a formal cease-fire and the withdrawal of coalition forces from its territory.

Mr. President, UNSCOM has sought to carry out its responsibilities in as expeditious and effective way as possible. UNSCOM Executive Chairman Richard Butler and his teams, however, have been confronted with Iraqi obstacles, lack of cooperation and lies. As UNSCOM has noted in its own document entitled `UNSCOM Main Achievements': `UNSCOM has uncovered significant undeclared proscribed weapons programmes, destroyed elements of those programmes so far identified, including equipment, facilities and materials, and has been attempting to map out and verify the full extent of these programmes in the face of serious efforts to deceive and conceal. UNSCOM also continues to try to verify Iraq's illegal unilateral destruction activities. The investigation of such undeclared activities is crucial to the verification of Iraq's declarations on its proscribed weapons programmes.'

Mr. President, I will not dwell on the numerous instances of Iraq's failure to comply with its obligations. I would note, however, that in accepting the February 23, 1998 Memorandum of Understanding that was signed by the UN Secretary General and Iraq's Deputy Foreign Minister, that ended Iraq's prior refusal to allow UNSCOM and the IAEA to perform their missions, the UN Security Council warned Iraq that it will face the `severest consequences' if it fails to adhere to the commitments it reaffirmed in the MOU. Suffice it to say that on August 5, 1998, Iraq declared that it was suspending all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA, except some limited monitoring activities.

In response, on September 9, 1998, a unanimous UN Security Council condemned Iraq's action and suspended its sanctions' reviews until UNSCOM and the IAEA report that they are satisfied that they have been able to exercise their full range of activities. Within the last week, Iraq's Deputy Foreign Minister refused to rescind Iraq's decision. Throughout this process and despite the unanimity in the UN Security Council, Iraq has depicted the United States and Britain as preventing UNSCOM and the IAEA from certifying Iraqi compliance with its obligations.

To review, Iraq unlawfully invaded and occupied Kuwait, it's armed forces were ejected from Kuwait by the U.S.-led coalition forces, active hostilities ceased, and the UN Security Council demanded and Iraq accepted, as a condition of a cease-fire, that its weapons of mass destruction programs be destroyed and that such destruction be accomplished under international supervision and permanent monitoring, and that economic and weapons sanctions remain in effect until those conditions are satisfied.

Mr. President, by invading Kuwait, Iraq threatened international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region. By its failure to comply with the conditions it accepted as the international community's requirements for a cease-fire, Iraq continues to threaten international peace and security. By its refusal to abandon its quest for weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them, Iraq is directly defying and challenging the international community and directly violating the terms of the cease fire between itself and the United States-led coalition.

Mr. President, it is vitally important for the international community to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to allow UNSCOM and the IAEA to carry out their missions. To date, the response has been to suspend sanctions' reviews and to seek to reverse Iraq's decision through diplomacy.

Mr. President, as UN Secretary General Kofi Annan noted when he successfully negotiated the memorandum of agreement with Saddam Hussein in February, `You can do a lot with diplomacy, but of course you can do a lot more with diplomacy backed up by fairness and force.' It is my sincere hope that Saddam Hussein, when faced with the credible threat of the use of force, will comply with the relevant UN Security Council Resolutions. But, I believe that we must carefully consider other actions, including, if necessary, the use of force to destroy suspect sites if compliance is not achieved.

Mr. President, the Iraqi people are suffering because of Saddam Hussein's noncompliance. The United States has no quarrel with the Iraqi people. It is most unfortunate that they have been subjected to economic sanctions for more than seven years. If Saddam Hussein had cooperated with UNSCOM and the IAEA from the start and had met the other requirements of the UN Security Council resolutions, including the accounting for more than 600 Kuwaitis and third-country nationals who disappeared at the hands of Iraqi authorities during the occupation of Kuwait, those sanctions could have been lifted a number of years ago. I support the UN's oil-for-food program and regret that Saddam Hussein took more than five years to accept it. In the final analysis, as the Foreign Ministers of Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, comprising the Gulf Cooperation Council stated at the time of the February crisis: `responsibility for the result of this crisis falls on the Iraqi regime itself.'

I ask that the letter to the President be printed in the Record.

The letter follows:
U.S. SENATE,

Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, October 9, 1998.

The President,
The White House, Washington, DC.


Dear Mr. President: We are writing to express our concern over recent developments in Iraq .

Last February, the Senate was working on a resolution supporting military action if diplomacy did not succeed in convincing Saddam Hussein to comply with the United Nations Security Council resolutions concerning the disclosure and destruction of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. This effort was discontinued when the Iraqi government reaffirmed its acceptance of all relevant Security Council resolutions and reiterated its willingness to cooperate with the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in a Memorandum of Understanding signed by its Deputy Prime Minister and the United Nations Secretary General.

Despite a brief interval of cooperation, however, Saddam Hussein has failed to live up to his commitments. On August 5, Iraq suspended all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA, except some limited monitoring activity.

As UNSCOM Executive Chairman Richard Butler told us in a briefing for all Senators in March, the fundamental historic reality is that Iraq has consistently sought to limit, mitigate, reduce and, in some cases, defeat the Security Council's resolutions by a variety of devices.

We were gratified by the Security Council's action in unanimously passing Resolution 1194 on September 9. By condemning Iraq's decision to suspend cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA, by demanding that Iraq rescind that decision and cooperate fully with UNSCOM and the IAEA, by deciding not to conduct the sanctions' review scheduled for October 1998 and not to conduct any future such reviews until UNSCOM and the IAEA, report that they are satisfied that they have been able to exercise the full range of activities provided for in their mandates, and by acting under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, the Security Council has sent an unambiguous message to Saddam Hussein.

We are skeptical, however, that Saddam Hussein will take heed of this message even though it is from a unanimous Security Council. Moreover, we are deeply concerned that without the intrusive inspections and monitoring by UNSCOM and the IAEA, Iraq will be able, over time, to reconstitute its weapons of mass destruction programs.

In light of these developments, we urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraq sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.

Sincerely,

Carl Levin, Joe Lieberman, Frank R. Lautenberg, Dick Lugar, Kit Bond, Jon Kyl, Chris Dodd, John McCain, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Alfonse D'Amato, Bob Kerrey, Pete V. Domenici, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Mikulski.

Thomas Daschle, John Breaux, Tim Johnson, Daniel K. Inouye, Arlen Specter, James Inhofe, Strom Thurmond, Mary L. Landrieu, Wendell Ford, John F. Kerry, Chuck Grassley, Jesse Helms, Rick Santorum.
_______________________________________________________________

If they did not agree with Clinton's determination of necessary, etc., where are all of the Kerry soundbytes and Kerry quotes lambasting Clinton for it :rolleyes: In fact, Kerry years later was still shrieking about the WMD years and the clear and present danger they posed :shrug: I cannot believe you actually are suggesting that Kerry thought or thinks Clinton made a mistake by bombing Iraq. He supported it then and he supports it now. Nice try though :wavey:

[dissention]

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today, along with Senators McCain, Lieberman, Hutchison and twenty-three other Senators, I am sending a letter to the President to express our concern over Iraq's actions and urging the President `after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.'

What does that say? "Including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites."

I cannot believe you actually are suggesting that Kerry thought or thinks Clinton made a mistake by bombing Iraq. He supported it then and he supports it now. Nice try though :wavey:

Nice try, doll, but I never suggested such a thing. :wavey:

[amber]

I just said he was the voice of reason in that group of people who wanted to go to war immediately and completely by pass the U.S. :shrug:
Yep. He thought it was bs too, but he couldn't break rank. Member when he had to try to sell the war plan, and he stopped in the middle, said "this is bull****", and tossed a stack of papers in disgust?
A knowledgeable political friend of mine intimated that these people leaving may smell indictments coming down the pike... :laugh:

[dissention]

Yep. He thought it was bs too, but he couldn't break rank. Member when he had to try to sell the war plan, and he stopped in the middle, said "this is bull****", and tossed a stack of papers in disgust?

Yet still went to the UN and sold it...

[strandinthewind]

What does that say? "Including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites."



Nice try, doll, but I never suggested such a thing. :wavey:

So what are you suggesting? I said Kerry supported bombing Iraq in 1998. He urged the Pres. to do so if necessary and the Pres. did just that. Kerry has never come out against that action and was still calling for Iaq to be held accountable - through military action if necessary - up until the current war. AND - he still says he would vote the same - only he now conveniently and with hindsight says we should have waited, etc. How am I wrong here. Are you agreeing with me :eek:

[amber]

Yet still went to the UN and sold it...
well, but he had to. I don't like Powell or anything, but he couldn't really break rank with that, part of the job description and all.

[strandinthewind]

Yet still went to the UN and sold it...

and Kerry backed him up the whole way and he knew it was B.S. :shrug: Yet, Kerry gets the pass and the votes for Pres. and CP gets flamed even when his replacement could be FAR worse than he was. That's fair :laugh:

[dissention]

So what are you suggesting?

As I've said every time we've gotten into this particular argument, I am suggesting that Kerry never jumped up and down and screamed for a war with Iraq back in '98, which is exactly what you used to state every time the topic came up. ;)

[strandinthewind]

It isn't a matter of lowering your standards, it's a matter of changing what you can when you can. Bush is so far down the line when it comes to my standards that I'd vote for Tony Blair or Kim Jung Il before I marked the ballot for him. :shrug:

Then we agree even though you are, as usual, playing with semantics so as to avoid admitting I am 100% correct laugh: :wavey: :rolleyes:

Again, my original post said that leaving CP in would be better than almost anyone W would nominate. I think that that change would be almost certainly for the worse. I mean you would rahter have Condi Rice and CP :eek:

[dissention]

well, but he had to. I don't like Powell or anything, but he couldn't really break rank with that, part of the job description and all.

He couldn't have resigned then? BULL****. He could have refused to lie to the global community.

[dissention]

and Kerry...knew it was B.S. :shrug:

Show me proof, I submit you cannot.

[strandinthewind]

As I've said every time we've gotten into this particular argument, I am suggesting that Kerry never jumped up and down and screamed for a war with Iraq back in '98, which is exactly what you used to state every time the topic came up. ;)

Boy, Kerry sure was so vocal in his opposition to it. Phew, I can remember having to lower the volume on my t.v. set in accordance :rolleyes:

Again, if you think Kerry did not advocated it, then you are mistaken and completely unsupported by the facts. But, in all fairness, if you have some quotes where Kerry disagreed with Clinton deeming it necessary to use force, which Kerry clearly advocated Clinton do, then let's see them - I think I'll be waiting a long long time for those to appear :laugh: :wavey:

[SuzeQuze]

He couldn't have resigned then? BULL****. He could have refused to lie to the global community.

For real, people need to stand by principles like integrity no matter what. I don't think there's an excuse for lying like that given the global consequences of such a lie. What would be the worst that could happen, he would be fired? I'm sure he would have survived that just fine.

[dissention]

Again, my original post said that leaving CP in would be better than almost anyone W would nominate. I think that that change would be almost certainly for the worse. I mean you would rahter have Condi Rice and CP :eek:

How absurd. It doesn't matter who is enlisted for the job, they will still lie when told to. They will still sell a faulty bill of goods. But you don't seem to get that, so... It doesn't matter if it's Minute Rice or Colon Polyp, they're both liars. The only difference is that Minute Rice swore under oath that she didn't know what her job duties were as National Security Advisor.

[strandinthewind]

Show me proof, I submit you cannot.

You knew the meal rods were unsuitable for nuclear stuff. You knew that SH did not have WMD. All of this was prior to the vote authorzing W to go to war. Thus, the information was out there. I guess Kerry never read it :rolleyes:

[dissention]

Boy, Kerry sure was so vocal in his opposition to it. Phew, I can remember having to lower the volume on my t.v. set in accordance :rolleyes:

Again, if you think Kerry did not advocated it, then you are mistaken and completely unsupported by the facts. But, in all fairness, if you have some quotes where Kerry disagreed with Clinton deeming it necessary to use force, which Kerry clearly advocated Clinton do, then let's see them - I think I'll be waiting a long long time for those to appear :laugh: :wavey:

Kerry never advocated war with Iraq in 1998. Them are the facts, learn them. ;)

[strandinthewind]

How absurd. It doesn't matter who is enlisted for the job, they will still lie when told to. They will still sell a faulty bill of goods. But you don't seem to get that, so... It doesn't matter if it's Minute Rice or Colon Polyp, they're both liars. The only difference is that Minute Rice swore under oath that she didn't know what her job duties were as National Security Advisor.

But that is my point. Kerry was just as bad IMO. Yet, I voted for him.

Once again, we are down to the R's can never ever under any circumstances be given any credit for anything and they are morally below the D's even when the D's do essentially the same thing. Yawn :laugh:

[dissention]

You knew the meal rods were unsuitable for nuclear stuff. You knew that SH did not have WMD. All of this was prior to the vote authorzing W to go to war. Thus, the information was out there. I guess Kerry never read it :rolleyes:

I'll give that to you, good point. :xoxo:

[amber]

He couldn't have resigned then? BULL****. He could have refused to lie to the global community.
k, but it's a matter of doing what you can at the time. I don't think it was extremely realistic for him to have resigned right then. And, i too think i'd rather have him than whatever asshole to the millionth power of Powell Bush will put in there now (hi Condie!)

[strandinthewind]

Kerry never advocated war with Iraq in 1998. Them are the facts, learn them. ;)

Nope - He authorized Clinton to use force if necesary and when Clinton did, he cupported Clinton. How that is not advocating war is beyond me.

[dissention]

k, but it's a matter of doing what you can at the time. I don't think it was extremely realistic for him to have resigned right then. And, i too think i'd rather have him than whatever asshole to the millionth power of Powell Bush will put in there now (hi Condie!)

It's not a good time for you to resign when your boss wants to break the law and lie to billions of people? Hold on, I feel the vomit erupting from my throat.

[dissention]

Nope - He authorized Clinton to use force if necesary and when Clinton did, he cupported Clinton. How that is not advocating war is beyond me.

Missile strikes are quite different from wars, but you're an educated man, so you probably already know that.

[strandinthewind]

Missile strikes are quite different from wars, but you're an educated man, so you probably already know that.

So the innocents murdered (your definition readily applied to W) were somehow less because it was via a missle instead of an all out invasion :rolleyes:

Again, I guess you think SH retaliating by striking Isreal and Isreal clear statement that unlike in 1991, they were firing back would have just been a small quite skirmish between Isreal and Iraq even though the world's opinion at that time completely does not support your position.

[amber]

It's not a good time for you to resign when your boss wants to break the law and lie to billions of people? Hold on, I feel the vomit erupting from my throat.
Wait! Hold that vomit, you're gonna need it for EVERY OTHER POLITICIAN AND SECRETARY OF STATE THAT EVER EXISTED!!!! :p :wavey: um, have you studied how politicians really are? :) I've heard of, oh, about 2 or 3 in the history of the us who weren't totally ****ed up somehow. But i digress. I hope you feel better.

[dissention]

Wait! Hold that vomit, you're gonna need it for EVERY OTHER POLITICIAN AND SECRETARY OF STATE THAT EVER EXISTED!!!! :p :wavey: um, have you studied how politicians really are? :) I've heard of, oh, about 2 or 3 in the history of the us who weren't totally ****ed up somehow. But i digress. I hope you feel better.

Once again, this goes right back to the discussion of people becoming so desensitized to the ****ty behavior of politicians that they not only expect that very behavior, but they accept it, too.

[amber]

Missile strikes are quite different from wars, but you're an educated man, so you probably already know that.
:laugh: :lol: :laugh: :lol:
You're right. I totally wouldn't mind of someone Missile struck my house, but a war against me would really freak me out :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :confused: :shrug:

[strandinthewind]

Once again, this goes right back to the discussion of people becoming so desensitized to the ****ty behavior of politicians that they not only expect that very behavior, but they accept it, too.

Thus, my vote for Kerry.

[dissention]

So the innocents murdered (your definition readily applied to W) were somehow less because it was via a missle instead of an all out invasion :rolleyes:

Not at all and you know it. I shouldn't even dignify that with a response.

[dissention]

:laugh: :lol: :laugh: :lol:
You're right. I totally wouldn't mind of someone Missile struck my house, but a war against me would really freak me out :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :confused: :shrug:

I see, I see. Go explain to the poor schlubs over in Iraq that missile strikes have the same impact as a wars, especially when it comes to "casualties" and insurgents.

[strandinthewind]

Not at all and you know it. I shouldn't even dignify that with a response.

Well, then what difference were you talking about. Was it that we did not invade the entire country. I suggest while that is a big difference, it is of no consequence to the people who died. AND - Clinton did it based on the same theory that W did it - SH was noncompliant and he had WMD, which made him a threat to the US and her allies. I cannot believe you think Clinton's actions were justified.

[dissention]

I cannot believe you think Clinton's actions were justified.

There you again, putting words in my mouth. ;)

[amber]

Once again, this goes right back to the discussion of people becoming so desensitized to the ****ty behavior of politicians that they not only expect that very behavior, but they accept it, too.
alright. good point. I don't really "accept it" but...

[strandinthewind]

There you again, putting words in my mouth. ;)

Bless your heart!!!

BTW - did you know that Ollie North was never convicted and that when Iraq invaded Kuwaitt it was as if Iraq invaded the U.S. becuase Kuwaitt was an ally of the U.S. :wavey:

[amber]

I see, I see. Go explain to the poor schlubs over in Iraq that missile strikes have the same impact as a wars, especially when it comes to "casualties" and insurgents.
well, but isn't that rationale what strand just accused you of, and you wouldn't dignify it with a response? No, they're not the same, but they have enough qualities in common that they should be pretty equally objected to.

[dissention]

Bless your heart!!!

BTW - did you know that Ollie North was never convicted and that when Iraq invaded Kuwaitt it was as if Iraq invaded the U.S. becuase Kuwaitt was an ally of the U.S. :wavey:

Ah, but didn't you once tell me that Ollie North lived as a convict for three years of his life and that Iraq attacked the United States? You can't even get your misinformation right. :p

[strandinthewind]

Ah, but didn't you once tell me that Ollie North lived as a convict for three years of his life and that Iraq attacked the United States? You can't even get your misinformation right. :p

well not when my quotes are taken out of context and made into tommyrot!!!!!! :wavey: :laugh: :wavey: :laugh: :p

[dissention]

well, but isn't that rationale what strand just accused you of, and you wouldn't dignify it with a response? No, they're not the same, but they have enough qualities in common that they should be pretty equally objected to.

Your line of thinking makes no sense. Both are atrocious and I don't approve of or condone either, but call a spade a spade, man. Missile strikes towards Iraq on the scale we launched them were NOTHING compared to what we're doing now. Both are reprehensible, but it doesn't take a giant leap of logic to figure out which one of them is worse.

[amber]

Your line of thinking makes no sense. Both are atrocious and I don't approve of or condone either, but call a spade a spade, man. Missile strikes towards Iraq on the scale we launched them were NOTHING compared to what we're doing now. Both are reprehensible, but it doesn't take a giant leap of logic to figure out which one of them is worse.
k. I thought you were basing some argument on the fact that missile strikes aren't as bad.

[dissention]

well not when my quotes are taken out of context and made into tommyrot!!!!!! :wavey: :laugh: :wavey: :laugh: :p

Hmmm. Maybe you shouldn't explicitly state that the US was attacked by Iraq and that you agree that Ollie North lived as a convict, then. But I guess next time someone accuses me of contradictions, I can just scream that I was taken out of context...an argument that I loathe. :p

[strandinthewind]

Hmmm. Maybe you shouldn't explicitly state that the US was attacked by Iraq and that you agree that Ollie North lived as a convict, then. But I guess next time someone accuses me of contradictions, I can just scream that I was taken out of context...an argument that I loathe. :p

Okay - then you are deliberately misquoting me and are just wrong.

Better :laugh: :wavey:

[dissention]

Okay - then you are deliberately misquoting me and are just wrong.

Better :laugh: :wavey:

Better, but you're still wrong. :laugh: :xoxo:

[strandinthewind]

k. I thought you were basing some argument on the fact that missile strikes aren't as bad.

Well, he was :shrug:

Also, notice how he cleverly refuses to hold Clinton or Kerry to the same standard he holds W to even though Iraqi's died in both situations and both by the same reasoning for the deaths. To do so would be to appear as giving credibilty to W and that can never happen :cool:

[strandinthewind]

Better, but you're still wrong. :laugh: :xoxo:

Nope - if I am - then prove it. I am still waiting for that proof and I've been awaitin for a long long time!!!!!!!

Lord Child - how does it feel to be called for and couldn't come :laugh: :wavey:

[amber]

Well, he was :shrug:

Also, notice how he cleverly refuses to hold Clinton or Kerry to the same standard he holds W to even though Iraqi's died in both situations and both by the same reasoning for the deaths. To do so would be to appear as giving credibilty to W and that can never happen :cool:
yes, that's what i thought. It seemed like he was doing that "change my own logic to win the argument" thing. I hate that, but i didn't want to be pushy about it :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

yes, that's what i thought. It seemed like he was doing that "change my own logic to win the argument" thing. I hate that, but i didn't want to be pushy about it :laugh:

He draws a distinction between an all out invasion and sending over a few mnissles (which he knows full well could have lead to an all out war - but will never admit it :laugh: ) - I agree with him the invasion is a severer event. But, that is not my point and never my argument. My point was and is, both Clinton and Bush, with the blessing of Kerry, killed innocent Iraqi's based on the same premise. This point has yet to be directly contradicted!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[amber]

He draws a distinction between an all out invasion and sending over a few mnissles (which he knows full well could have lead to an all out war - but will never admit it :laugh: ) - I agree with him the invasion is a severer event. But, that is not my point and never my argument. My point was and is, both Clinton and Bush, with the blessing of Kerry, killed innocent Iraqi's based on the same premise. This point has yet to be directly contradicted!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Clinton: Iraq Sanctions alone alone killed 5.5 million kids (Madeliene Albright said she thought it was worth it)
Bombed the **** out of bosnia during their civil war
Bombed Afgahnistan
Pardoned Mark Rich, his crony, who was guilty of massive financial fraud
But not Leonard Peltier, a native american who even the FBI said there was no evidence he killed one of them (they shot first)

[SuzeQuze]

The letter urged for Clinton to take the necessary actions to see what was up with Saddam and his weapons. The letter explicitly said "including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites." :shrug: It said if appropriate, nothing more.

Yes, this is hardly "advocating" war, it is perhaps condoning an air strike. No this isn't innocent behavior, but it is not lying to the UN to begin a full on attack/take over operation (with an underlying motive for oil and money). Do you see the difference?

[strandinthewind]

Yes, this is hardly "advocating" war, it is perhaps condoning an air strike. No this isn't innocent behavior, but it is not lying to the UN to begin a full on attack/take over operation (with an underlying motive for oil and money). Do you see the difference?

But - Clinton used essentially the same reasoning at the UN, which Dissention asserts was a lie when W did it - thus my point.

And - yes, that is advocating war. Kerry and the others are saying if you cannot resolve this any other way, you need to use force, which Clinton did and when Clinton did, everyone held their breath and prayed SH would not launch an attack on Isreal whose hand was not staid as in the first Gulf War. If that had happened - if Isreal had struck back, it would have been an all out war. That is why I say it was not just sending a few missles over there. In the end, Kerry has never disagreed with Clinton's use of force and his taking of that calculated risk of war; Kerry has never said otherwise :shrug:

But, I know I know the R's can never do anything right and when the D's kill in the name of WMD - it is somehow okay. I'll never get it.

Finally, I liked Clinton and wish he was still in the WH to this day and I voted for Kerry even though I think he was no ideal of mine; he was, however, far closer to an ideal than W. But, I do not sugar coat them and I certainly never tow any party line out of blind allegiance (not that you were doing that :laugh: :wavey: ). I call it like I see it and the facts state it, an attribute few possess in this world's political arena - sad - but very true.

BTW - ewveryone asserts we went to control Iraqi oil. We do not do so now and have not ever done so. Yes, Halliburton made money, but surely there were easier way to siphon money to them if that has been the intent all the time. So, I just do not buy that argument or at least totally.

[strandinthewind]

Bck to the original point of out of the frying pan and into the fire regarding Powell's resignation:

Powell praised as 'voice of moderation'

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Secretary of State Colin Powell was praised Monday as a "great statesman" and a "voice of moderation" after the White House announced his decision not to serve a second term.

Powell told reporters that he would stay on until his successor was confirmed, which he predicted would take weeks or possibly a month or two. (Powell announces resignation)

Earlier today, the State Department said that Powell was trying to arrange a meeting with the new for Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat.

Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erakat praised Powell.

"In our deliberations with him, he has gained our highest respect and appreciation," Erakat said. "He's a fair man and highly dignified and will indeed leave his mark on international politics."

Palestinians have regarded Powell as one of the administration's moderate voices.

Jordanian Deputy Prime Minister Marwan Muasher saw Powell's imminent departure as a blow to the peace process.

"Colin Powell was somebody who understood the words, who truly listened and who cared about the problems of the world," Muasher said. "I hate to see him go precisely at the time when the prospects for a breakthrough are improving."

Arab League Secretary General Amre Moussa also expressed regret.

"He knew how to be with friends and allies and he knew the intricacies of major problems in the Middle East. True, nothing really materialized, but he was a voice of moderation and did good things in a way that all of us had respect for him as secretary of state."

In London, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw described Powell as "a man who has been tireless in his work for the United States, tireless in his work for NATO and the trans-Atlantic alliance, tireless in his work for peace in the world ... a very, very fine man, great soldier, great statesman."

Asked whether he sympathized with Powell in his dealings with the Pentagon, with which the secretary often butted heads, Straw demurred. "My discussions with Secretary Powell have the confidentiality of the confessional," he said.

Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware, the top Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, also praised Powell.

"Even after four difficult years in a bitterly divided administration, Colin Powell leaves the State Department with his head held high and an unmatched reputation for integrity and wisdom," he said.

"He won some and he lost some, but he is a rare commodity in this town: a decent and classy guy who will be missed."

In a written statement, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi called his resignation "a great loss for the Bush administration and for the country."

Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/15/powell.reax/index.html

[SuzeQuze]

But - Clinton used essentially the same reasoning at the UN, which Dissention asserts was a lie when W did it - thus my point..

He did not use phony images and documents.

...

But, I know I know the R's can never do anything right and when the D's kill in the name of WMD - it is somehow okay. I'll never get it.
..

I never said that.

Finally, I liked Clinton and wish he was still in the WH to this day and I voted for Kerry even though I think he was no ideal of mine; he was, however, far closer to an ideal than W. But, I do not sugar coat them and I certainly never tow any party line out of blind allegiance (not that you were doing that :laugh: :wavey: ). I call it like I see it and the facts state it, an attribute few possess in this world's political arena - sad - but very true.

Not true, the way you see things are colored by your own perceptions and are not necessarily just the facts. This is the case for everyone. To say that you are the only one speaking the truth is a little bit megalomaniacal, no? (Okay, I'm just being silly now, too much caffeine). :p I agree with you on the Clinton point, I also wish he were still our president.

BTW - ewveryone asserts we went to control Iraqi oil. We do not do so now and have not ever done so. Yes, Halliburton made money, but surely there were easier way to siphon money to them if that has been the intent all the time. So, I just do not buy that argument or at least totally.

Because they miscalculated. I don't think it was THE reason for war but it was certainly a factor IMO.

[dissention]

Also, notice how he cleverly refuses to hold Clinton or Kerry to the same standard he holds W to even though Iraqi's died in both situations and both by the same reasoning for the deaths. To do so would be to appear as giving credibilty to W and that can never happen :cool:

I never once claimed that Clinton and Kerry were right when it came to Iraq. :shrug: I think it's slick how you try to win your argument when it comes to Kerry, but I simply do not hold a senator to the same standard as the President of the United States. To do so would not only be a stretch, but also rather ridiculous. Maybe Kerry knew the intel was bogus, who knows, people believe what they want to believe. But he didn't manufacture the evidence like Dubya. Dubya drafted plans to invade Iraq before he even became "president." So, while they are both quite misguided and pathetic when it comes to this whole situation, I hold the President of the United States to a higher standard than a senator. Tough tacos. How Dubya's credibility factors into this argument is a mystery to me, especially when it's obvious the man has none. He had a duty to make sure that all of his intel was factually correct before he killed innocent people, he didn't do that. Clinton had a duty to make sure that Saddam was actually making/possessing WMDs before he sent missiles to kill innocent people, he didn't do that. They were both wrong. But when it comes to your credible Dubya, Jason, he's even worse when it comes to his motives for going to war, the sheer incompetence of everything he's done and everyone he's appointed, and the ramifications of it all. And quite honestly, I'm sick of you trying to justify Dubya's bad actions by pointing at Clinton's bad actions, as if they're the same. That's something a sleazy hack on Faux News would do. And it's the apologist in you.

[dissention]

But - Clinton used essentially the same reasoning at the UN, which Dissention asserts was a lie when W did it - thus my point.


Clinton didn't manufacture satellite photos. He didn't manufacture lies about centrifuge and then bring them to the UN, asking for global support in going to war against Iraq.

The fact is that they both used false information. Clinton used it to take attention away from his Oval Office oral sex and Bush used it for rather imperialistic and malicious purposes. It's up to you to make the distinction between who was worse. For me, it was Dubya and I find it hard to believe that any one administration could be hoodwinked so badly by so much false information. They knew it was all a pack of lies, but they didn't care.

[DeeGeMe]

Condi ****ing Rice as Secretary of State? Yes, it's going to be a very long four years.

[dissention]

Condi ****ing Rice as Secretary of State? Yes, it's going to be a very long four years.

From what I hear, Tenet is not kind to her in his new book. The word "incompetent" has been floating around. ;)

[strandinthewind]

I never once claimed that Clinton and Kerry were right when it came to Iraq. :shrug: I think it's slick how you try to win your argument when it comes to Kerry, but I simply do not hold a senator to the same standard as the President of the United States. To do so would not only be a stretch, but also rather ridiculous. Maybe Kerry knew the intel was bogus, who knows, people believe what they want to believe. But he didn't manufacture the evidence like Dubya. Dubya drafted plans to invade Iraq before he even became "president." So, while they are both quite misguided and pathetic when it comes to this whole situation, I hold the President of the United States to a higher standard than a senator. Tough tacos. How Dubya's credibility factors into this argument is a mystery to me, especially when it's obvious the man has none. He had a duty to make sure that all of his intel was factually correct before he killed innocent people, he didn't do that. Clinton had a duty to make sure that Saddam was actually making/possessing WMDs before he sent missiles to kill innocent people, he didn't do that. They were both wrong. But when it comes to your credible Dubya, Jason, he's even worse when it comes to his motives for going to war, the sheer incompetence of everything he's done and everyone he's appointed, and the ramifications of it all. And quite honestly, I'm sick of you trying to justify Dubya's bad actions by pointing at Clinton's bad actions, as if they're the same. That's something a sleazy hack on Faux News would do. And it's the apologist in you.

Now Now - please show me where I said W was credible - ya live by the sword . . . :cool: Similarly - please show me once whare I apologized for W's lies, which and again, I have openly, faithfully, and routinely admonished and, in fact, called for impeachment on. Finally, I agree and have always agreed that W and Clinton should be judged on their own. But, comparisons are inevitable, esp. when they both attacked the same country using the same reasons, albeit W's invaded it as opposed to Clinton's killing thousands in missle strikes and rolling the dice that Isreal would not be attacked in retaliation (a point you have yet to adnit BTW :wavey: ). AND - I am not justifying either's actions nor am I apologizing for anyone. If I did - show me where I did that. So, nice try again Mr. Spinmeister :laugh: (levity)

All I am saying, which brings us back to Powell, is I readily admit I would rather have Powell than Rice or probably anyone else W will appoint.

Finally, if you think Kerry never advocated war in Iraq, so be it - you will never admit the truth no matter what and arguing is in vain.

[strandinthewind]

Clinton didn't manufacture satellite photos. He didn't manufacture lies about centrifuge and then bring them to the UN, asking for global support in going to war against Iraq.

The fact is that they both used false information. Clinton used it to take attention away from his Oval Office oral sex and Bush used it for rather imperialistic and malicious purposes. It's up to you to make the distinction between who was worse. For me, it was Dubya and I find it hard to believe that any one administration could be hoodwinked so badly by so much false information. They knew it was all a pack of lies, but they didn't care.

To me, they are both equally as bad (although I do not agree about ML being the reason Clinton did it - at least not the only reason :laugh: ) - I mean people died as a result. That more died under W (and yes I agree because of W's lies, which I have always admonished :shrug: ) is more horrible. But, what I am saying is I think they were both horrible and they both stemmed from the same WMD argument - so they are the same in that respect :shrug:

[dissention]

Similarly - please show me once whare I apologized for W's lies, which and again, I have openly, faithfully, and routinely admonished and, in fact, called for impeachment on. So, nice try again Mr. Spinmeister :laugh:

Oh my, you're the biggest apologist around here. You qualify bad behavior by pointing at other bad behavior. It's never anyone's fault with you, it's as if you have never heard the phrase "The buck stops here." If one politician does a ****ty thing, you accept it and just shake your head, then attempt to explain it all away no matter what their political affiliation. :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

Oh my, you're the biggest apologist around here. You qualify bad behavior by pointing at other bad behavior. It's never anyone's fault with you, it's as if you have never heard the phrase "The buck stops here." If one politician does a ****ty thing, you accept it and just shake your head, then attempt to explain it all away no matter what their political affiliation. :laugh:

Quote me. I dare you. I have always maintained that W's actions in Iraq were horrible - period. All I have ever said was SH brought some of it on himself by refusing, according to the UN and every world leader, for 11 years to live up to his end of the contract that ended the first Gulf War. If he had complied, there would have been no current war. But, he did not. How is that apologizing for W :shrug: I have said repeatedly the buck stops with W. He is responsible. As more and more facts bscame known - I again, said W lied and he should be impeached. I just think when I same the same thing about a D, all of a sudden its "well the facts were difrerent" :rolleyes:

But, whenever you get caught in a corner, you attack me as a apologist and Clinton Basher, which is beneath you IMO. But, so be it,

[dissention]

To me, they are both equally as bad (although I do not agree about ML being the reason Clinton did it - at least not the only reason :laugh: ) - I mean people died as a result. That more died under W (and yes I agree because of W's lies, which I have always admonished :shrug: ) is more horrible. But, what I am saying is I think they were both horrible and they both stemmed from the same WMD argument - so they are the same in that respect :shrug:

The fact that more innocents died this time around has nothing to do with my saying it's just as bad, it has to do with all the **** Dimson stirred up by going about with this garbage. He has not only screwed over the Iraqi people by killing them, he's screwed over the Middle East by making it even more of a hellhole for those who live there and he's poisoned the wolrd against our country. The fact that so many had to die because of it is just incomprehensible. For what? What did they die for? He can't even give a reason.

[dissention]

But, whenever you get caught in a corner, you attack me as a apologist and Clinton Basher, which is beneath you IMO. But, so be it,

Apologist? Yes. Clinton Basher? I could care less. From '96 through '00, Clinton was a f*ck up, so there goes your argument. ;)

[strandinthewind]

The fact that more innocents died this time around has nothing to do with my saying it's just as bad, it has to do with all the **** Dimson stirred up by going about with this garbage. He has not only screwed over the Iraqi people by killing them, he's screwed over the Middle East by making it even more of a hellhole for those who live there and he's poisoned the wolrd against our country. The fact that so many had to die because of it is just incomprehensible. For what? What did they die for? He can't even give a reason.

And I agree with that and am unsure why you are saying I do not - I have not said anything to the contrary. I am just merely pointing out within the context of the lesser of two evils Powell argument we were having earlier that the US history has other examples of us blowing up Iraqi's in the name of WMD and Kerry supported it both times :cool:

[strandinthewind]

Apologist? Yes. Clinton Basher? I could care less. From '96 through '00, Clinton was a f*ck up, so there goes your argument. ;)

and I'd take him back in a minute over W, whom I abhor :cool: :nod:

Again, show me one time where I have apologized for W, Clinton, or anyone else. I'm waiting :laugh: :wavey:

But and again, nice try and it sounds good no matter how untrue and hollow you know it is :cool: :p

[dissention]

I am just merely pointing out within the context of the lesser of two evils Powell argument we were having earlier that the US history has other examples of us blowing up Iraqi's in the name of WMD and Kerry supported it both times :cool:

And I don't disagree. :shrug: I simply disagree with the assertion that Kerry wanted to go to war in 1998. He did not.

[dissention]

and I'd take him back in a minute over W, whom I abhor :cool: :nod:

Again, show me one time where I have apologized for W, Clinton, or anyone else. I'm waiting :laugh: :wavey:

But and again, nice try and it sounds good no matter how untrue and hollow you know it is :cool: :p

You are an apologist. We've talked about these issues for over a year, if you don't see it, you never will. Go quote yourself (posts only go back until April, though, when you do a search). Justifying Bush's actions by comparing them to Clinton's is the sign of a true apologist, IMO.

As for Clinton, he practically turned into a right-winger in his second term. I had no use for him.

[strandinthewind]

And I don't disagree. :shrug: I simply disagree with the assertion that Kerry wanted to go to war in 1998. He did not.

Then why didn't he condemn Clinton for using missles and risking war. Why didn't he come out and say Mr. Pres. how dare you take us to the brink of war when it was not necessary. he never said that. Rather, he continued to say for four years that SH was a huge threat and the US needed to deal with him. Then, he votes to gove W the authority to use military force and, a la Clinton, it was to be used only when necessary, which W did not use caution doing and badly so IMO and he shopuld be impeached for it - (BTW calling for impeachment is NOT a subtle way of apologizing for W :laugh: :wavey:

I think you are making Kerry out to be this anti-war person his voting record after the first gulf war clearly indicates he is not. But, I agree, Kerry did not want to go to war. I do nopt think Clinton did either. But that was not my point, which was they were willing to risk it - again you have yet to say that they risked it due to the Isreal complication, which you must know was present. They thought SH was that great of a threat :shrug:

[dissention]

I think you are making Kerry out to be this anti-war person his voting record after the first gulf war clearly indicates he is not.

Not at all. If he was anti-war, he wouldn't have voted for Iraq. Nice try, though. Face the facts: he advocated missile strikes and nothing more.

[strandinthewind]

Not at all. If he was anti-war, he wouldn't have voted for Iraq. Nice try, though. Face the facts: he advocated missile strikes and nothing more.

and those strikes could have lead to all out war if Isreal retaliated against a strike on them. But, I suppose you think that was never a threat :shrug: if you do, you must have missed the world's collective holding of its breath :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

BTW - CNN just announced Condi is the nominee :eek:

[dissention]

BTW - CNN just announced Condi is the nominee :eek:

And you're surprised? She told Dimson ages ago that she wanted a different post or she'd go back to being a corporate shill.

[madformac]

Hi Dissention, Strand and Amber... ;)

Just wanted to jump in, say hi and make sure we had a few more voices on this thread!! :blob2: :blob1:

Now I've said hello I'm going....

But before I do I just wanted to add that any respect I had for Powell went out of the window when he accepted a key role in W's gang. Having said that I think the bad ship Bush is in a world of **** without his calming influence and I think his leaving is an indication of what lies ahead for the world for the next four years. Powell is an intelligent man (yes the Bush administration had one) and whatever was said behind the scenes about Bush's future agenda has prompted Powell to go in my opinion, whatever the "official" reason was....

That worries me a lot...

:wavey:

[strandinthewind]

Justifying Bush's actions by comparing them to Clinton's is the sign of a true apologist, IMO.

But, I am not doing that. I think both were bad. I have never said well if Clinton could do it then W could as well. I think W lied to us when he could not sell the case to the UN and should be impeached for it. I do not think the same about Clinton however (does that make me a Clinton apologist :laugh: .

How that is "[j]ustifying Bush's actions by comparing them to Clinton's" is beyond me. But, you apparently like the sound of that word even thopugh you misapply it :laugh: :wavey:

[strandinthewind]

And you're surprised? She told Dimson ages ago that she wanted a different post or she'd go back to being a corporate shill.

No not at all. As I feared, Powell is looking better all of the time :nod:

and madformac

I agree, I think Powell left for that reason. I, quite frankly, am amazed he stayed as long as he did, but, despite his faults and there were many, I truly believe without him Rumsfeld would have been far worse and gotten away with far more.

Lest Diss call me an apologist again, I am not apologizing or defending any of Powells actions. I am just saying I'd rather have him in there than Rice :cool:

[amber]

Hi Dissention, Strand and Amber... ;)

Just wanted to jump in, say hi and make sure we had a few more voices on this thread!! :blob2: :blob1:

Now I've said hello I'm going....

But before I do I just wanted to add that any respect I had for Powell went out of the window when he accepted a key role in W's gang. Having said that I think the bad ship Bush is in a world of **** without his calming influence and I think his leaving is an indication of what lies ahead for the world for the next four years. Powell is an intelligent man (yes the Bush administration had one) and whatever was said behind the scenes about Bush's future agenda has prompted Powell to go in my opinion, whatever the "official" reason was....

That worries me a lot...

:wavey:
Yep. Like my friend said, I think those people smell indictments coming. :D

[The Tower]

Quote me. I dare you. I have always maintained that W's actions in Iraq were horrible - period.

Not really.......

All I have ever said was SH brought some of it on himself by refusing, according to the UN and every world leader, for 11 years to live up to his end of the contract that ended the first Gulf War. If he had complied, there would have been no current war. But, he did not. How is that apologizing for W :shrug:

When you point out the "actions ... were horrible - period" thing, it should have been just that- period.

Adding on all that other stuff just distracts from the reality of the situation. Dubya wanted to invade Iraq no matter what. Saddam Hussein could have been sucking Paul Wolfowitz's cock every night while Rummy was f*cking him up the ass and Dubya's administration would have still finagled some way to get the 59,000,000 dumb-f*ck am-u-ricans to support them in order to invade with impunity.

Saddam's behavior does not give the US administration any reason to lower itself towards his level- period. But they did because it's easier to do it when someone is demonized. And for that reason, the two should never be brought up together in an argument.

[Vianna]

Does anyone know whether he was asked to resign or whether this is his own idea?

Does anyone think Condi will be better?

[gldstwmn]

Does anyone know whether he was asked to resign or whether this is his own idea?

He's been talking about it for a while now. I don't know who's idea it was.


Does anyone think Condi will be better?

She should have been fired post 9/11, IMO.

[SuzeQuze]

He's been talking about it for a while now. I don't know who's idea it was.




She should have been fired post 9/11, IMO.

Franken is talking about this right now on <a href="http://www.airamericaradio.com/listen.asp">Air America Radio</a>.

[gldstwmn]

Franken is talking about this right now on <a href="http://www.airamericaradio.com/listen.asp">Air America Radio</a>.

Thanks! :wavey:

[SuzeQuze]

Thanks! :wavey:

Welcome! He mentioned how she got that memo entitled "Bin Laden to Attack US" and when the 9/11 commission asked her about it she said "That was an historic memo, not a warning." :eek: This is such a blatant lie.