I'll try to make it a habit to post an article and explain how it effects both sides. I have tried to post more Bush articles but none are debate worthy... they're all pretty cut and dry. Why don't you guys find some Bush topics to discuss if it bothers you so much? To tell you the truth, I get tired of digging for **** on both candidates.

 

Becasue I'm lazy. What we need is someone just a little less left than have Dre. Don't get me wrong, many of his articles are VERY interesting, but most come of as a little too tin hattish and outlandish. With one more frequent poster the spectrum would be filled. We would Dre and some others on the far left, some one in the moderate left, you, Salty, in the moderat right, and Helladumb and some others on the too far right. But again, I'm too lazy to be that person... anyone else want to volunteer?

-Chris

 

both parties waffle, its politics not bridge building for gods sake. This entire idea that kerry is a flip flopper is completley stupid and goes against what mordern politics is, this idea that bush is any better is even more ludicrious if you ask me. Situations change, being dynamic is a strength more then it is a disabliity.

 

AMEN.

 

+1

 

Yeah, except that one month ago he wasn't saying that. It's strange to give Kerry kudos and say he has "*****" to come up with a position that is different from his previous position, which was different from the position before that, etc. The point is that Kerry's position is not based on new information; it's based on a new idea Kerry has to try and sell himself to the country. I distinctly remembering seeing Kerry say "I still would've voted to go to Iraq" not too long ago, when the WMD's were already out of the picture.

WMD's are a whole different matter...if you search the news, before Bush came into office and started talking war, there is literally NO ONE besides Saddam who claimed that Iraq was free of WMD's. All the inspectors, all the UN resolutions, and all the journalist pieces pointed to Saddam's non-cooperation with inspectors, to the bio/chemical weapons scientists he had hired, and to his previous use of chemical weapons on the Kurds. The "No wmd's in Iraq" is something that literally sprung out of the air as soon as Bush threatened war. There's something to consider.

 

that is total BS, what about a weapons inspector named Scott Ritter?

There were lots of people who knew, and were trying to tell the world, but there was pretty much no one listening to them.

 

I'm glad you mentioned scott ritter. He's just one of the people who used to claim that Iraq's weapons program was going, and then after Bush started talking war switched his story.

Here's an article about Scott Ritter explaining why he changed his position on saddam, from saying that Clinton was too soft on him to saying that Bush was too hard.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...351165,00.html


I'm searching more articles now, this is to get you started. I'll post more here using the edit function as I go. This list is going to get long, so you might just want to read this first one and remove the "BS" part now


Edited to add: Here's a link to a search function on CNN. This makes the comparison very, very easy for you.

http://search.edition.cnn.com/pages/...tter+AND+Iraq&

Here's how you do it: Search through the articles....look at the ones dated before Bush comes into office and talks about war, and then look at articles with scott ritter after the war becomes an issue. Notice a difference?

Hint: the difference has to do with what he says about Iraq and WMD's.


Here's a favorite of mine from that search:

http://edition.cnn.com/books/news/99...ter/index.html

The best thing about this article is the title of Ritter's book:

"Endgame: Solving the Iraq Problem -- Once and for All,"

Now does this sound like a guy who thinks Iraq is not a threat???

 

Do I smell ownage?

This last article is priceless...

 

The Time article says nothing supporting your contention, nor do the CNN articles;

"The problem," he said, "came when the United States government sought to take over control of some of these sensitive techniques for the purpose of pursuing U.S. policy objectives." Its main objective was "overthrowing Saddam Hussein, and not of furthering the disarmament work of the weapons inspectors."

He had plenty of criticism when it came to both the Clinton and Bush Administrations, but nowhere in any of the articles I read did he say that Iraq posed a threat.

"In his new book, "Endgame: Solving the Iraq Problem -- Once and For All?", he charges that U.S. intelligence agents who used UNSCOM as a cover for spying destroyed the inspection teams' credibility.

"The United States made it their policy to corrupt the U.N. disarmament process," Ritter told CNN.

Ritter resigned as chief weapons inspector for the U.N. in August 1998, claiming that both the U.N. Security Council and the U.S. government had fatally undermined his team's attempts to locate and eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

Ritter says that U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright undermined the only leverage the U.N. inspectors had in Iraq when she announced that the U.S. would keep economic sanctions against Iraq, not just until it had disarmed, but until Saddam Hussein was out of power."


The Cheney/bush administration was spouting BS when they took Chalabi at his word (he was the main source for all of their information) about Iraq's WMD and your saying no one disagreed with it- is in itself total BS.

 

Dude, there's evidence of Iraq being a threat in your own post!

"Ritter resigned as chief weapons inspector for the U.N. in August 1998, claiming that both the U.N. Security Council and the U.S. government had fatally undermined his team's attempts to locate and eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction."

Why was he so concerned with Iraq if it didn't have any!? Why does he in the third article I posted talk about how useless bombing only campaigns are and almost complain that the US doesn't have the will to use ground forces???

Psoper, you have to be kidding me. Read those articles again. There are about 20 on the link I posted that have Ritter complaining that not enough is being done to cleanse Saddam's Iraq of WMD's. They are ALL dated before the bush administration. Then, as soon as Bush comes in, Ritter starts declaring Iraq WMD free. That's what the first article from TIME is there to explain. Ritter's trying (and not doing a very good job of it) to explain why he did a 180 in his position on Iraq.


READ THE LINKS!!!!

 

I read the links, most of what I saw was his criticism of not being able to do his job on account of bad political decisions made back here, I really don't see how you interpret any of this to his saying that Iraq had WMD's.

I only see that his team was hampered in their efforts to find them- not by the Iraqi's but by our own government.

One more time in case you can't read:


"The problem," he said, "came when the United States government sought to take over control of some of these sensitive techniques for the purpose of pursuing U.S. policy objectives." Its main objective was "overthrowing Saddam Hussein, and not of furthering the disarmament work of the weapons inspectors."

But your mind is so boxed in to the Cheney/Bushco program you can't manage even a slight bit of rational thought anymore, so go ahead and believe what you want, but I contend that you're wrong.

 

hahah, well for the first part he's talking about Clinton there. But, if you really do believe what you're saying...explain what Ritter is so angry about. Why does Ritter want to go to Iraq? If there's no reason to suspect WMD's, why does Ritter want to lead a team there? And why did he accuse Clinton of ruining our chances at destroying WMD's in Iraq?

Please, for your own sake answer those questions. You've got a major cognitive issue here if you actually read even most of those articles and still think Ritter isn't claiming that Iraq's WMD programs are a threat that needs to be eliminated.

 

What are you trying to say by that remark?

 

OMG speak for yourself!

Your location in your profile speaks volumes about what you just suggested!

I'm confused, if Iraq never posed a threat then why did they send weapons inspectors in the first place?