Taking issue with MslaCat's credo about Clinton's lie

Cat-theotherwhitemeat · Post by **Cat-theotherwhitemeat** » Wed Sep 22, 2004 1:22 pm

Clinton lied??

velochat · Post by **velochat** » Wed Sep 22, 2004 1:43 pm

We could go through your re-hash of Fox News propaganda point by point, but let's just take one example "most caring"!? We spend less to help the world's poor than almost any developed country, as percent of GDP. We attach so many of Jerry Falwell's conditions that most countries don't even want our money any more. We may have the most weapons of mass destruction in the world, but we're still a small minority and we need allies and friends. We need economic allies, too, as our rivals in asia and elsewhere are working harder in school and in business. Foolhardy statements like "bring it on" illustrate an underlying attitude of arrogance and ignorance, which is our current image. That's probably what the Romans said. I consider Canada, Mexico, and France, for example, to be among our best friends, for trying to stop us from doing something really stupid. If only Tony Blair might have joined them, we might be much better off.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Wed Sep 22, 2004 1:50 pm

velochat wrote:We could go through your re-hash of Fox News propaganda point by point, but let's just take one example "most caring"!? We spend less to help the world's poor than almost any developed country, as percent of GDP. We attach so many of Jerry Falwell's conditions that most countries don't even want our money any more. We may have the most weapons of mass destruction in the world, but we're still a small minority and we need allies and friends. We need economic allies, too, as our rivals in asia and elsewhere are working harder in school and in business. Foolhardy statements like "bring it on" illustrate an underlying attitude of arrogance and ignorance, which is our current image. That's probably what the Romans said. I consider Canada, Mexico, and France, for example, to be among our best friends, for trying to stop us from doing something really stupid. If only Tony Blair might have joined them, we might be much better off.

You reminded me of something that kind of underlies my previous post -- how sad is it when we can no longer even strong arm Canada (the 51st state) into helping us out? What did we do to make them so uppity? Oh yeah....

velochat · Post by **velochat** » Wed Sep 22, 2004 2:05 pm

USA's aid, in terms of percentage of their GNP is already lowest of any industrialized nation in the world, though paradoxically in the last three years, their dollar amount has been the highest.

Source:

http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelate ... sandGraphs

We give the most money, but the smallest percentage of GNP, compared to our peers. That hardly makes me feel like we're generous.

'93HonoluluCat · Post by **'93HonoluluCat** » Wed Sep 22, 2004 4:53 pm

BAC:

What single shred of evidence tells you that Kerry won't be aggressive on terrorists?

It depends upon his rapidly fluctuating views on the terrorists.
Monday: Hit the terrorists with a missile strike
Tuesday: Inviting the terrorists to the White House for coffee
Wednesday: Claiming he decided against missile strikes after he used them.

My point is this, what has Kerry said that convinces me that he's going to be tough on terrorism? In his acceptance speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention, Kerry continued his emphasis on international security but did not significantly clarify his policies on the use of force or the future of the UN system, or necessarily distinguish his policies sharply from those of President Bush.

Kerry never mentioned the United Nations, and like his Republican opponent, Kerry continued to declare his refusal to have U.S. national defense be subjected to another country’s veto, presumably a reference to the procedures of the UN Security Council:

I defended this country as a young man and I will defend it as President. Let there be no mistake: I will never hesitate to use force when it is required. Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response. I will never give any nation or international institution a veto over our national security. And I will build a stronger American military.(emphasis mine)

But of course Kerry’s reference is to defending the United States in response to an attack. Recall that under the UN Charter a state does not need Security Council approval to act in self-defense. A potential Security Council veto by France, Russia, China or the United Kingdom is irrelevant if the United States is responding to an attack.

There is even a school of thought that the UN Charter preserves a right to act in anticipatory self-defense, i.e., against a threat of imminent attack. The timing and scope of anticipatory self-defense, of course, is the subject of debate, spawned by Bush administration policy declarations about preemption, as well as controversy over the nature and legal grounding of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

Kerry openly expressed a willingness, like Bush, to engage in anticipatory self-defense. However, Kerry argued that the only justification for war was in response to "a threat that was real and imminent," perhaps as opposed to, for example, a threat that was merely grave and gathering:

Before you go to battle, you have to be able to look a parent in the eye and truthfully say: "I tried everything possible to avoid sending your son or daughter into harm's way. But we had no choice. We had to protect the American people, fundamental American values from a threat that was real and imminent." So lesson one, this is the only justification for going to war.(emphasis mine)

Kerry also made a passing statement that may or may not have alluded to preemption in the context of dealing with terrorists:

And we need to rebuild our alliances, so we can get the terrorists before they get us.(emphasis mine)

This type of statement, however, reminds one of one of the potential misnomers about preemption. The whole question of preemption, traditionally occurring in the context of interstate conflict, is about a state of war coming into being between two states and the circumstances under which hostilities are initiated, not about ongoing battles throughout the course of the war. To the extent the United States can be “at war” with a terrorist group, it already is in a state of hostilities with al Qaeda. The United States also is allied with states that already are at war with other terrorist entities.

Kerry also stated, similar to previous Bush statements, the importance of a multilateral approach to counterproliferation efforts:

We need to lead a global effort against nuclear proliferation - to keep the most dangerous weapons in the world out of the most dangerous hands in the world.

So tell me again, how is Kerry going to be different from President Bush in the war on terror?

Post by **SonomaCat** » Wed Sep 22, 2004 5:08 pm

'93HonoluluCat wrote:So tell me again, how is Kerry going to be different from President Bush in the war on terror?

Thank you for doing all that research. You made my point very precisely. Kerry will not be weaker on terrorists than Bush. The only immediate foreign policy difference between Kerry and Bush is that maybe Kerry will be able to mend some bridges with the rest of the world and give us a chance to lead as opposed to acting as a lone wolf. Bush has already put us in a hole that he can't get us out of himself -- he has no credibility in the eyes of the world. Kerry would possibly give us a fresh start in terms of our relationship with the rest of the world.

Kerry's overall philosophy is probably very similar to that of Bush in dealing with terrorists (and everybody's is actually very similar in the post-911 world). Nobody is going to be "light" on terrorists (which was the assertion in the post that I originally responded to).

The difference, hopefully, would be that Kerry would make better decisions within that general ideological framework than Bush has made. As to the war in Iraq, though, I would not expect our policies to vary under either person. We don't have a lot options left right now. We have to finish the job.

Cat-theotherwhitemeat · Post by **Cat-theotherwhitemeat** » Wed Sep 22, 2004 6:13 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote:The only immediate foreign policy difference between Kerry and Bush is that maybe Kerry will be able to mend some bridges with the rest of the world and give us a chance to lead as opposed to acting as a lone wolf. Bush has already put us in a hole that he can't get us out of himself -- he has no credibility in the eyes of the world. Kerry would possibly give us a fresh start in terms of our relationship with the rest of the world.

This alone, is the reason I am voting for Kerry. Bush doesn't seem to give a crap who he offends. Our current place in the world's image is in dire need of some healing.

briannell · Post by **briannell** » Wed Sep 22, 2004 8:46 pm

i am a CPT in the Army. I specialize in biological/chemical warfare. i have trained soldiers and DOD personnel since 1997 for this war. I have spent time before two Congressional Committees prior to 9/11 answering questions on this subject. Worked at the Pentagon, Aberdeen Prvg Grds, Ft. Dettrick and around the world regarding this matter. we were always ready to wage war, we needed to get in after the gulf. 9/11 allowed us the opportunity to do so. Syria, Iran, Iraq are all hot beds for WMD's.

My point: we are there, are troops are dying for freedom, doesn't matter whose in charge. never forget the sacrifices our service men and women make for you and millions around the world. Support them no matter whose President. Pray for their safety. And thank them, because they are there so you can sleep in a nice warm bed every night!

Proud to honor our country and serve in it's uniform.

CPT Nell

'93HonoluluCat · Post by **'93HonoluluCat** » Wed Sep 22, 2004 9:37 pm

An underlying theme to this election is Iraq--like it or not. We Americans have been coddled into the assumption that everything we want we can have now. I like to refer to it as a "Microwave Society." It's why credit cards are so high, and it's why we are frustrated by the slow moving event that is the rebuilding of Iraq.

More than a half-centry ago, we destroyed the infrastructure of not only one country, but two--Germany and Japan--to say nothing of Italy. I think it is entirely germaine to the subject to note that the two countries are a couple of the most important when talking about global issues.

In 1945, the head of the OSS (the predecessor to the CIA)--Allen W. Dulles--made a report to the Council on Foreign Relations on the state of Germany. You can find the article here.

It is important to note the number of times one can substitute the word "Iraq" for "Germany."

Be patient, citizens; "Rome wasn't built in a day," the saying goes, and neither will Iraq.

'93HonoluluCat · Post by **'93HonoluluCat** » Thu Sep 23, 2004 12:08 am

This is what I'm afraid of.

These sorts of petty attacks don't do anyone any favors. It only exacerbates the political polarization.[/url]

'93HonoluluCat · Post by **'93HonoluluCat** » Thu Sep 23, 2004 12:18 am

Those who really don't think there are good things happening in Afghanistan are encouraged to read this.

Those who really don't think there are good things happening in Iraq are encouraged to read this review of Fahrenheit 9/11 by an Iraqi (available at http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com).

One of my friends asked me to post his thoughts about the "Fahrenheit 9/11" film.
He'd be glad to read your e-mails in responce to it.
*This post represents its author only.

Fahrenheit 9/11

Maybe it’s a little bit late to write about Fahrenheit 9/11 but I couldn’t put my hand on a good copy of the movie to watch and to write about before now. I don’t know where to start but I think I'll let the film guide the way. I think that Mr. Moore tried in every possible way to show that there was some kind of conspiracy or at least manipulation behind Bush winning the presidency, well if the man had won the electoral votes and (all) the members of the senate were supporting or at least didn’t sign any objection to be raised against him so as the supreme court (the people who decided the result of the elections) then I guess that’s more than enough for anyone to be a president and I believe that if there is something wrong then it might be the system and we shouldn't blame the candidate for it.

Criticizing the men in power is something the whole free world does but it should be in reasonable way not by saying that the president is taking long vacations!! Or he sat doing nothing when they told him about the attacks on the world trade center anyway it's better than getting panic in front of them or leaving them disappointed by getting out at once coz they are children after all. I don’t know about the domestic policy of Mr. Bush and its up to the American people to say whether they are good or not but I'll give my opinion just like Mr. Moore did in the president world wide policy and lets start with the relationship with the Saudis, what the hell is wrong in attracting the capitals to the country!! This is something the whole world dream about and Mr. Moore found it wrong! I know he tried to picture it in a different way and to raise question about Mr. Bush's loyalty to his country but the fact remain the same nobody can deny how the American economy benefit from that same money Mr. Moore didn’t like.

Well the best part goes when he suspected that the war against Taliban was to build a pipeline through Afghanistan!! With this level of assessment I won't be surprised if future wars will happen for building a bridge or maybe paving a road!! And I really was shocked when he pictured Iraq like peaceful country where children play and people laugh happily, guess what Mr. Moore you are wrong coz I live in Iraq and children weren't playing they were working to live and people weren’t smiling they were either afraid of getting killed or arrested for no reason or just because they don’t like Saddam and they dared to say so.

I really don’t know why you have to cheat to make the people believe you coz the whole world knew how the Iraqi people suffered from Saddam and you try to show that they were happy with him! In the same superficial manner you used to show that Iraq was a happy place, one could use the pictures of children singing around Stalin celebrating his birthday to show that people loved Stalin and they were happy. Now that was one real documentary shot you took from Iraqis' life prior to the war! And I liked your idea when you said" A nation that never attacked the united states a nation that never threatened to attack the united states a nation that have never murdered a single American citizen" well a (nation) like Iraq started a war with Iran for 8 years with casualties of 1000000 dead people on both sides and killed his own (nation) with toxic gas and then invade another country and killing its people (Kuwait) and threatened to burn all the oil fields if they tried to kick him out
Don’t you think Mr. Moore that burning the oil is a threat to the whole world not only to the united states and in your opinion how long this (nation) will need to burn whole America. No Mr. Moore Iraq wasn’t a (nation) it was a movie just like yours but it was written, produced and directed by Saddam Hussein. Still I have too many things to say but I think the article will be too long to read so last to say to Mr. Moore being a writer doesn't mean that you write lies and being a producer doesn't mean that you cheat people for their money and being a director doesn't mean that you have to be silly and for the best of all please find another job!!.

Bleedinbluengold · Post by **Bleedinbluengold** » Thu Sep 23, 2004 2:38 pm

This whole discussion reminds me of all the controversial discussions during the Clinton years between those that gave Clinton a pass and those who could not.

It appears that some people's judgement that the good riddance of Sadaam Hussein did not justify the means. And that's fine...difference of opinion. Of course, my opinion was to keep rolling to Baghdad last Gulf War. Of course, I have much less tolerance for bad people than probably most people.

Regarding diplomacy: Is there ever a point in time when diplomatic solutions should be considered exhausted? From some of the posts I read here, some people believe that force is never justified, or only justified in retaliation. I would argue that to use force in such instances would be injustified. For example, I'm of the opinion that had Gore been President these last 4 years, the U.S. would not have invaded Iraq, and we would still be dealing with Hussein and his cat and mouse game, and wondering whether he had WMD's, or not. At least now we know AND he's gone. It's like a DOUBLE BONUS!

And to just make another comment regarding mslacat's quote: Wasn't it Clinton's orders that destroyed Sudan's only pharmaceutical plant. Seems like somebody died in that deal.

briannell · Post by **briannell** » Thu Sep 23, 2004 3:05 pm

Like H'93 has said we (the armed forces) do actually help those in the countries we occupy. My medical detatchment administered over 1000 vacinations within a 2 day period once we set up in Iraq. Our vets have made the food supplies safe for the people of Iraq. our medical staff has given compassionate care to the iraqi people. we have secured their water sources and prevented the spread of deadly diseases.

We build homes and hospitals, provide freedom and compassion to those who only suffered under a wicked leader.

Again, i don't play politics. I swore to uphold the values we as Americans hold dear. Our president gives the orders and we respond. we do our duty as it is the moral thing to do.

Whoever is our President, our mission is the same. Protect and defend those who cannot do it themselves, because we are the land of the free and home of the brave.

Vote for whoever you wish, but we'll be in Iraq for at least a good 10-20 years until the country is completely stable. Quit your bitching about who did what and just support your troops. Be glad it's not your ass on the line. "thank you" is always nice to hear. And we'll continue to defend your rights to fight about who should be President or whatever else you want to fight about.

Cat-theotherwhitemeat · Post by **Cat-theotherwhitemeat** » Thu Sep 23, 2004 3:19 pm

briannell wrote:Quit your bitching about who did what and just support your troops. Be glad it's not your ass on the line. "thank you" is always nice to hear. And we'll continue to defend your rights to fight about who should be President or whatever else you want to fight about.

Brian, "Bitching" about Bush does not, in any way, represent hostility towards our troops. I for one, support our troops 100%. I agree that we should have gone into Iraq. I just didn't like the way we did it. On Friday afternoon's when I drove by the corner of Montana and 11th in Helena, I would see protesters holding their cute little signs. All I could think was...It's amazing that they are protesting the very thing that gives them the right to do what they are doing.

I'm sure you can agree that it's possible to support our troops but not agree with some of the President's policies.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Thu Sep 23, 2004 3:24 pm

briannell wrote:Vote for whoever you wish, but we'll be in Iraq for at least a good 10-20 years until the country is completely stable. Quit your bitching about who did what and just support your troops. Be glad it's not your ass on the line. "thank you" is always nice to hear. And we'll continue to defend your rights to fight about who should be President or whatever else you want to fight about.

Thank you. First and foremost, as we all should be thankful to those people in the military. That should go without saying, but it often might not appear that way.

However, when we are trying to decide the future of our country as it relates to our leadership, isn't it necessary for us to "bitch [discuss skeptically] about who did what" in order to figure out if those who "did what" are people we want to make those decisions in the future?

I know that from a first person perspective it is hard to separate criticism of our foreign policies and criticism of the people who carry out those policies. From the perspective of those in the military, they may appear to be one and the same. However, speaking for myself, I do appreciate those people in the military who protect our freedom. At the same time, I want to know that our military, as well as all of the other resources at our disposal as a country, are being used in the wisest manner possible.

It is for that reason that it is necessary for us to critically analyze the decisions made by our President in the past, so that we can determine if he is the best person to make those same kinds of decisions going forward.

Regardless of who is the President next year, I agree 100% that we need to support and appreciate the troops in Iraq, because we will certainly be there for a long time to come, and it won't be much fun (even if things go perfectly).

'93HonoluluCat · Post by **'93HonoluluCat** » Thu Sep 23, 2004 8:21 pm

[BAC quote]I agree 100% that we need to support and appreciate the troops in Iraq, because we will certainly be there for a long time to come, and it won't be much fun (even if things go perfectly).[/quote]
On behalf of CPT Nell and the rest of my brothers and sisters in arms, thank you.

BobCatFan · Post by **BobCatFan** » Thu Sep 23, 2004 10:29 pm

"The only immediate foreign policy difference between Kerry and Bush is that maybe Kerry will be able to mend some bridges with the rest of the world and give us a chance to lead as opposed to acting as a lone wolf."

How can you say that the US is a lone wolf? We have some the strongest countries in the world behind us. At last count, I can think of England, Russia, Italy, Poland, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Australia, along with numerous other countries. Countries like France have not been one of our allies since the 1950’s. France has always done their own thing and they were in bed with Sadam. Its no wonder they actively worked against our attempts in the UN.

BWahlberg · Post by **BWahlberg** » Thu Sep 23, 2004 10:31 pm

Honolulu - sorry it took me a while to get back to you, the articles I found on CNN, here's a few: http://cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/09/20/b ... index.html

http://cnn.com/2004/US/09/17/us.iraq.intel/index.html

The state of Iraq report was put together by US Intelligence, not Wolf Blitzer.

There's my scources.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Thu Sep 23, 2004 11:59 pm

BobCatFan wrote:How can you say that the US is a lone wolf? We have some the strongest countries in the world behind us. At last count, I can think of England, Russia, Italy, Poland, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Australia, along with numerous other countries. Countries like France have not been one of our allies since the 1950’s. France has always done their own thing and they were in bed with Sadam. Its no wonder they actively worked against our attempts in the UN.

Are you talking about Iraq? If so, you might want to review your list and scratch a couple of those countries off of your list.

90% of the troops and funding in this war are American. That's not exactly a large coalition effort. That was the reason for my "lone wolf" analogy.

Bleedinbluengold · Post by **Bleedinbluengold** » Fri Sep 24, 2004 10:08 am

Personally, I'm glad there aren't 10's of thousands of military from other countries in Afghanistan or Iraq. That would make it even more difficult to succeed.

I think that if such were the case, the logistics would be all but impossible to coordinate, and the chain of command completely wacko.

Anyway - I'll take our guys over everyone else's combined...anyday, anytime, anywhere.

Taking issue with MslaCat's credo about Clinton's lie

iraq

iraq

Re: iraq

Re: iraq