What's all this hub-bub about George Bush? - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

DaveOrion · 08-31-2007, 02:19 PM

Otto, it is not a requirement to provide numerous examples when stating an opinion. In the past many members have avoided the political forum because of the tendency of some to insist upon multiple sources, and when said sources were provided, they were shot down as unreliable. I have neither the time nor the inclination to provide such sources when a bias will almost certainly be claimed.

Willravel · 08-31-2007, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Just for the record, in the 9 months that the Democrats have held the majority in Congress, they have addressed many of the abuses of the Bush administration through oversight hearings and new legislative initiatives.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/....ap/index.html

dc_dux · 08-31-2007, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/....ap/index.html

Will...I agree with you on that one but as a result of the backlash, you can expect to see corrective legislative before the end of the year.

Willravel · 08-31-2007, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Will...I agree with you on that one but as a result of the backlash, you can expect to see corrective legislative before the end of the year.

Thank you. Still, it concerns the shit out of me that it happened in the first place. I still suspect the cause was Dems winning in GOP places, and they pandered to constituency instead of being loyal to the law and Constitution.

We're a constitutional republic, not a democracy.

EaseUp · 09-01-2007, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottopilot

Thanks dc-dux!

I guess I am looking for intellectual honesty when we assign blame or make judgments against anyone. I think the intense hatred for "W" has at times become politically fashionable rather than proportionately accurate. Piling on is human nature.

You are not likely to find it here. Behavior that was acceptable in the previous administration is worthy of impeachment and/or hanging and/or castration if W did it.

One small example: Clinton fired EVERY AG (count them: 93), one of whom was in the middle of investigating Dan Rostenkowski. Bush fired eight, but waited until after she had finished the Duke Cunningham case.

A little more information on that:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110009784

Quote:

The Hubbell Standard
Hillary Clinton knows all about sacking U.S. Attorneys.

Wednesday, March 14, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

Congressional Democrats are in full cry over the news this week that the Administration's decision to fire eight U.S. Attorneys originated from--gasp--the White House. Senator Hillary Clinton joined the fun yesterday, blaming President Bush for "the politicization of our prosecutorial system." Oh, my.

As it happens, Mrs. Clinton is just the Senator to walk point on this issue of dismissing U.S. attorneys because she has direct personal experience. In any Congressional probe of the matter, we'd suggest she call herself as the first witness--and bring along Webster Hubbell as her chief counsel.

As everyone once knew but has tried to forget, Mr. Hubbell was a former partner of Mrs. Clinton at the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock who later went to jail for mail fraud and tax evasion. He was also Bill and Hillary Clinton's choice as Associate Attorney General in the Justice Department when Janet Reno, his nominal superior, simultaneously fired all 93 U.S. Attorneys in March 1993. Ms. Reno--or Mr. Hubbell--gave them 10 days to move out of their offices.

At the time, President Clinton presented the move as something perfectly ordinary: "All those people are routinely replaced," he told reporters, "and I have not done anything differently." In fact, the dismissals were unprecedented: Previous Presidents, including Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter, had both retained holdovers from the previous Administration and only replaced them gradually as their tenures expired. This allowed continuity of leadership within the U.S. Attorney offices during the transition.

Equally extraordinary were the politics at play in the firings. At the time, Jay Stephens, then U.S. Attorney in the District of Columbia, was investigating then Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski, and was "within 30 days" of making a decision on an indictment. Mr. Rostenkowski, who was shepherding the Clinton's economic program through Congress, eventually went to jail on mail fraud charges and was later pardoned by Mr. Clinton.

Also at the time, allegations concerning some of the Clintons' Whitewater dealings were coming to a head. By dismissing all 93 U.S. Attorneys at once, the Clintons conveniently cleared the decks to appoint "Friend of Bill" Paula Casey as the U.S. Attorney for Little Rock. Ms. Casey never did bring any big Whitewater indictments, and she rejected information from another FOB, David Hale, on the business practices of the Arkansas elite including Mr. Clinton. When it comes to "politicizing" Justice, in short, the Bush White House is full of amateurs compared to the Clintons.

...

edited to remove photo

ubertuber · 09-01-2007, 10:13 AM

Tilted Politics has never been a good place for satire - says so in the rules. This thread is a particularly bad place, given that the thread starter explicitly asked for a rational discussion. Please stop trying to derail that conversation.

archetypal fool · 09-01-2007, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EaseUp

You are not likely to find it here. Behavior that was acceptable in the previous administration is worthy of impeachment and/or hanging and/or castration if W did it.

One small example: Clinton fired EVERY AG (count them: 93), one of whom was in the middle of investigating Dan Rostenkowski. Bush fired eight, but waited until after she had finished the Duke Cunningham case.

A little more information on that:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110009784

I don't appreciate your source's obviously biased tones, his blatant lies and misinformation, and his holding back of important information.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Hubbell Standard

At the time, President Clinton presented the move as something perfectly ordinary: "All those people are routinely replaced," he told reporters, "and I have not done anything differently." In fact, the dismissals were unprecedented: Previous Presidents, including Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter, had both retained holdovers from the previous Administration and only replaced them gradually as their tenures expired. This allowed continuity of leadership within the U.S. Attorney offices during the transition.

^^^This is misinformation. <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bush_administration_U.S._attorney_firings_controversy/Firings_and_activities_of_fired_U.S._attorneys">Source</a>

Quote:

Mid-term firings of U.S. attorneys were highly unusual, according to CRS and McClatchy

According to a CRS report published in February 2007 in order to "to ascertain how often, prior to 2007, U.S. attorneys left office before completing their four-year terms without a change in presidential administration," U.S. attorneys appointed and confirmed by a presidential administration generally stay on for the entire length of the administration. Most of those that have voluntarily resigned before their term ended, however, cited personal reasons such as seeking other positions or did so amidst allegations of "questionable conduct." [5]

Many U.S. attorneys continue to serve after the administration leaves office. However, U.S. attorneys serve "at the pleasure of the president," meaning that the president has the right to terminate their appointments at any time. According to a McClatchy news article dated March 13, 2007, "mass firings of U.S. attorneys are fairly common when a new president takes office, but not in a second-term administration," as was the case with the George W. Bush firings. [6]

According to the CRS report, in the past 25 years, with the exception of the most recent eight, only two U.S. Attorneys have been "apparently dismissed by the President." Both cases were under the Reagan Administration. Reagan dismissed William Kennedy, US Attorney for the Southern District of California, in 1982, reportedly for asserting that the CIA had pressured DOJ to pressure him not to pursue a case. The second was in 1984 when President Reagan dismissed J. William Petro, US Attorney for the Northern District of Ohio for disclosing information about an indictment. Petro was later convicted of the charges.[7] Both are considered traditionally reasonable causes to be asked to resign. [8] Most of the other attorneys who resigned "explicitly indicated (in news reports or elsewhere) that their intent was to take a position with a law firm or as house counsel for a business." Only three resignations (all of which occurred under George W. Bush's administration) were given without explicitly stating, or having information to back, reasons for leaving.[9]

On March 13, 2007, McClatchy Newspapers published an article stating that the "current situation is distinct from Clinton firings of U.S. attorneys." The article further goes on to state that "nonetheless, Bush aide Dan Bartlett noted Clinton's first term firings in defending Bush's second term dismissals." [10]

Record by presidential administration:

Ronald Reagan: Dismissed all previously appointed attorneys en masse and replaced them upon assuming office. All of those attorneys who left office before completing their two four-year terms left for personal reasons, with the exception of the two mentioned above (Kennedy and Petro).[11]

George H.W. Bush: Kept appointees from the previous administration. Only one attorney's "resignations [was] the result of questionable conduct." Frank McNamara, Jr. resigned because he had “been the focus of heated dispute since the Justice Department announced in November [1988] that he was the target of an internal probe.”[12]

Bill Clinton: Dismissed all previously appointed attorneys en masse and replaced them upon assuming office. Those attorneys who left office before completing their two four-year terms left for personal reasons. Two of those "resignations were the result of questionable conduct." Larry Colleton resigned in 1994 after being videotaped grabbing a reporter by the throat, and Kendall Coffey resigned in 1996 amidst allegations of biting a topless dancer. [13]

George W. Bush: Did not dismiss all the attorneys en masse when he assumed office. Bush Allowed a few to continue in their positions for several months until he replaced with his own selections early in his administration. Bush dismissed eight U.S. attorneys on December 7, 2006, in the middle of their second terms, without citing reason. Three other attorneys resigned without either explicitly stating reasons or providing conclusive evidence as to what reasons were prompting their resignations.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Hubbell Standard

Equally extraordinary were the politics at play in the firings. At the time, Jay Stephens, then U.S. Attorney in the District of Columbia, was investigating then Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski, and was "within 30 days" of making a decision on an indictment. Mr. Rostenkowski, who was shepherding the Clinton's economic program through Congress, eventually went to jail on mail fraud charges and was later pardoned by Mr. Clinton.

^^^That one attorneys may seem like a bad thing, but trying to compare that to what Bush has done is out-right dishonest. <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bush_administration_U.S._attorney_firings_controversy/Firings_and_activities_of_fired_U.S._attorneys">Source</a>

Quote:

Political corruption investigations led by Attorneys

The firing of the seven U.S. Attorneys raised questions about whether they were fired to stop investigations into high ranking Republican Party officials. In four states the fired Attorney had pursued an investigation into the activities of Republican Members of Congress, administration officials, and high ranking state officials. The idea that Attorneys were removed to stymie investigations of political figures looms over the Attorney firing scandal. Sen. Dianne Feinstein has stated that, "If any U.S. attorney were removed because of a public corruption investigation or prosecution, this could well comprise obstruction of justice."[14]

**Carol Lam investigates Rep. Duke Cunningham, Rep. Jerry Lewis, Brent Wilkes, and K. Dusty Foggo

Lam began investigating Randy "Duke" Cunningham on June 6, 2005 after the San Diego Union-Tribune reported on the congressman's overvalued house sale to a connected defense contractor, Mitchell Wade. The investigation led to a series of revelations about Cunningham's misconduct as a government official that included that existence of a bribe "menu" matching the worth of earmarks Cunningham would insert into appropriations bills to bribe money a contractor could give to Cunningham. Cunningham and Wade plead guilty to multiple felonies and Cunningham was sentenced to eight years and eight months in prison, the longest sentence handed down to a sitting Member of Congress. Wade is still cooperating with prosecutors.

The revelations in the case led Lam to open investigations into the defense contractor and Republican fundraiser Brent Wilkes, Wilkes' best friend and the number three at the CIA, K. "Dusty" Foggo, and then-Appropriation chairman Jerry Lewis (R-CA). On May 10, 2006, Lam told the Justice Department she intended to serve search warrants on Foggo, who had just resigned his post at the CIA. The next day, May 11, the Los Angeles Times reported that Lam's investigation into Cunningham had spread to Rep. Lewis.[15] That same day, Kyle Sampson, Gonzales' chief of staff, wrote in an e-mail to the White House about "the real problem we have right now with Carol Lam that leads me to conclude that we should have someone ready to be nominated on 11/18, the day her 4-year term expires."[16]

The day before Lam left her position she brought multiple indictments on felony charges against Foggo and Wilkes. The investigation into Jerry Lewis is ongoing. The FBI was investigating potential criminal wrongdoing on the part of Rep. Gary Miller (R-CA) at the time of Lam's departure.[17] Lam would have been in charge of leading the investigation at the Attorney's office had she not been fired.

On March 19, 2007, Think Progress reported on suspicious ties between the first contract that Mitchell Wade received and the purchase of a yacht for Duke Cunningham that may implicate White House officials in the congressman's corruption schemes. Wade's first contract was a one month $140,000 contract, July 15, 2002 to August 15, 2002, with the Office of the Vice President to provide office furniture and computers. Two weeks later on August 30, 2002, Wade purchased a $140,000 yacht for Cunningham with a cashier's check.[18] In September Wade was rewarded with a blanket $250 million contract from the General Services Administration to provide "specific computer services" to the Pentagon.[19]

**Paul Charlton investigates Rep. Rick Renzi

In late October of 2006, two liberal blogs revealed, later confirmed by the Associated Press and the Washington Post, that U.S. Attorney Paul Charlton had opened an investigation into a land deal made by Rep. Rick Renzi (R-AZ) and a business partner James Sandlin.[20] Days after this investigation came to light the New York Times reported that the Attorney's office had also opened an investigation into whether Renzi introduced legislation that benefited a military contractor who donated heavily to his campaigns and employs his father.[21]

Renzi was a top target of Democrats in the 2006 election and won a close election 51%-43%.[22] Since Charlton's abrupt departure there has been little revelation as to the status of these investigations.

**Daniel Bogden investigates Rep. Jim Gibbons

On February 15, 2007, the Wall Street Journal reported that Daniel Bogden was investigating the newly elected Governor of Nevada, former-Rep. Jim Gibbons (R-NV), for allegedly accepting unreported gifts and/or payments from a campaign contributor and earmark recipient, Warren Trepp. The investigation examined the relationship between the former congressman and Trepp between the years 1997-2007). The Journal did not report when the investigation was opened. Bogden was since removed from his position as U.S. Attorney.[23][24]

**Bud Cummins investigates Gov. Matt Blunt

In January of 2006, Cummins opened an investigation into "allegations that Missouri Gov. Matt Blunt had rewarded GOP supporters with lucrative contracts to run the state's driver's license offices." Cummins handled the case because the U.S. Attorney for Missouri recused themselves over conflict of interest concerns. Cummins states that he was told he would be fired in June as he was wrapping up the case. Cummins eventually brought no indictments against Gov. Blunt, the son of powerful Republican congressman Roy Blunt (R-MO). Cummins has since questioned whether he was fired for opening an investigation into a powerful Republican in a battleground state.[25]

Clinton fires 93 attorneys at the beginning of his term (as is normal) and one happens to have an on-going investigation going against a Democrat. - Bush fires 9 attorneys mid-term, and 4 of them happen to have investigations going against Republicans.

These numbers don't add up to "what Bush did was ok because Clinton did worse." Not even remotely. The "B...But Clinton!" argument that is being used to defend Bush has been old for a while, and has been discounted time and time again.

skier · 09-03-2007, 12:47 PM

I made a thread way back in 2004 which I revived in 2005 to explore what bush had done RIGHT for the country. The first year I asked people to avoid foreign policy regarding terrorism, the second year opened it to anything at all.

Reading through it again, the few positives about bush that were listed have shown to be false or have gone downhill in the intervening two years to become negative.

At this point, I can't figure out one single bush positive, why anyone at all with an ounce of reason would support such a man.

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=74715

Willravel · 09-03-2007, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skier

At this point, I can't figure out one single bush positive, why anyone at all with an ounce of reason would support such a man.

Some people don't like Arab people. They might like Bush. Some people want the US to be authoritarian. They might like Bush.

aceventura3 · 09-04-2007, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skier

At this point, I can't figure out one single bush positive, why anyone at all with an ounce of reason would support such a man.

I am almost certain that Bush detractors around here will dismiss the developing N. Korea story or say it was Bush's fault to begin with, but I think Bush's "cowboy diplomacy" is working in this situation.

Quote:

The US has decided to remove North Korea from a list of terrorism-sponsoring states and lift sanctions against the communist country, a spokesman for North Korea's Foreign Ministry said.

Washington's decision to lift sanctions and remove the North from a terrorism list came in a weekend meeting with North Korean representatives in Geneva, the spokesman said in comments carried by the North's official Korean Central News Agency.

There was no immediate confirmation from the US side.

The move came after North Korea agreed to take "practical measures to neutralise the existing nuclear facilities" this year, the spokesman said.

http://ukpress.google.com/article/AL...I8Imqvyq4N5Ubg

Willravel · 09-04-2007, 10:32 AM

Quote:

The move came after North Korea agreed to take "practical measures to neutralise the existing nuclear facilities" this year, the spokesman said.

Like they agreed not to develop nuclear weapons? Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again.

aceventura3 · 09-04-2007, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Like they agreed not to develop nuclear weapons? Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again.

What is your point? I don't understand the relevance of the comment.

Willravel · 09-04-2007, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

What is your point? I don't understand the relevance of the comment.

You said his "cowboy diplomacy" is working. My point is that NK saying they're going to do anything rings hollow because they had no trouble going back on their word on the same subject. There's no reason to trust them, therefore this really isn't any kind of result.

aceventura3 · 09-04-2007, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

You said his "cowboy diplomacy" is working. My point is that NK saying they're going to do anything rings hollow because they had no trouble going back on their word on the same subject. There's no reason to trust them, therefore this really isn't any kind of result.

Do you or did you believe that NK was attempting to develop nuclear weapons? Do you or did you think NK would be inclined to use them?

I thought most people who disliked Bush, thought that Bush made up the NK threat, just like they thought he made up the Iraq threat.

Bush's "cowboy diplomacy", pretty much is to "call" - to say to the opponent that I don't believe you - to eventually look them in the eye and say "do you feel lucky? Well do you, chump?" Now you seem to be saying don't believe the North Koreans, that they have lied in the past and would do so in the future and that they may actually be a threat.

Surely, I must be wrong. I must be misunderstanding your point. Please forgive me if I am, but I think I am in shock.

Willravel · 09-04-2007, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Do you or did you believe that NK was attempting to develop nuclear weapons? Do you or did you think NK would be inclined to use them?

I was one of those who was confused when we went after Iraq instead of NK. I'm sure a quick search of my post history would verify that (if you're so inclined). I'm not 100% sure about under what circumstances and what the probability would be so far as using the nukes. I suspect that NK developed the nuclear weapons in order to gain respect more than to attack someone. The issues are, just as with India and Pakistan, reliability of the systems and security. I remember a story not too long ago where (I think it was either India or Pakistan) had an accident in one of their nuclear missile sites. I'll take a look to see if I bookmarked it at home. Imagine if a nuke accidentally melted down or launched. Worse still, what if they are sold or stolen? A country with nukes is a lot more stable and safe than a governmentally independent organization with a nuke. There is no MAD if we don't know where to strike back.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I thought most people who disliked Bush, thought that Bush made up the NK threat, just like they thought he made up the Iraq threat.

Some may have. I don't recall anyone around here saying that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Bush's "cowboy diplomacy", pretty much is to "call" - to say to the opponent that I don't believe you - to eventually look them in the eye and say "do you feel lucky? Well do you, chump?" Now you seem to be saying don't believe the North Koreans, that they have lied in the past and would do so in the future and that they may actually be a threat.

I think it's "punk", not "chump", but I digress. The North Koreans are a threat. Not as big a nuclear threat as the US so far as the government choosing to launch weapons, of course, but the security and infrastructure concerns me greatly. I don't think they're ready for nukes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Surely, I must be wrong. I must be misunderstanding your point. Please forgive me if I am, but I think I am in shock.

I recognize that NK has nukes to protect itself from China, Japan, Russia, and the US. They want to join the club. I also recognize that the necessary technology and security don't exist in NK to maintain a safe system. I'd say the second overrules the first.

They need to either disarm, or get support from a more nuclear capable nation (I suspect China or Russia would say no, so maybe the US). They are like a 9 year old in a bad neighborhood with a gun.

aceventura3 · 09-04-2007, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

I think it's "punk", not "chump", but I digress.

In the true spirit of GW, misquotes are to be excepted.

Willravel · 09-04-2007, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

In the true spirit of GW, misquotes are to be excepted.

Clever. Hehe.

Thoughts on NK? Is my stance more clear, I hope?

Redlemon · 09-04-2007, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Do you or did you believe that NK was attempting to develop nuclear weapons? Do you or did you think NK would be inclined to use them?

I believe that Bush helped drive NK towards nuclear weapon production, as follows:

1. Bush declares North Korea, Iran, and Iraq the 'Axis of Evil'.
2. Bush invades Iraq and blows it to smithereens.
3. North Korea decides to develop nuclear weapons to prevent the same fate.

I'm sure this is oversimplified, but it's my best guess.

aceventura3 · 09-04-2007, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redlemon

I believe that Bush helped drive NK towards nuclear weapon production, as follows:

1. Bush declares North Korea, Iran, and Iraq the 'Axis of Evil'.
2. Bush invades Iraq and blows it to smithereens.
3. North Korea decides to develop nuclear weapons to prevent the same fate.

I'm sure this is oversimplified, but it's my best guess.

I think your order is all wrong and there is a number 4. Goes like this:

1. North Korea decides to develop nuclear weapons
2. Bush declares North Korea, Iran, and Iraq the 'Axis of Evil'.
3. Bush invades Iraq and blows it to smithereens.
4. NK negotiates to prevent the same fate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Clever. Hehe.

Thoughts on NK? Is my stance more clear, I hope?

Yes.

Mojo_PeiPei · 09-04-2007, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I think your order is all wrong and there is a number 4. Goes like this:

1. North Korea decides to develop nuclear weapons
2. Bush declares North Korea, Iran, and Iraq the 'Axis of Evil'.
3. Bush invades Iraq and blows it to smithereens.
4. NK negotiates to prevent the same fate.

Yes.

Really you are both wrong.

1. Clinton notices that NK has a nuclear program, he offers them aid in response to major issues facing their country, i.e. them being a pariah country and them facing a major famine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korean_famine)
2. North Korea never lives up to their end of the Clinton deal (1994ish if I remember) and proceed with their nuclear program.
3. Pres Shrub labels N. Korea members of Axis of Evil, and shifts away from Clinton diplomacy (where they got the aid and didn't keep up end of bargain)
3b. North Korea begins saber rattling of their own because they remain on verge of major famine, and near governmental collapse (Luckily China props them up). Nuclear program acclerates.
3c. 2006 North Korea claims to have successfully detonated a Nuclear device after having a clandestine program operated for at least 15+ years.

North Korea was not pushed to this by Bush, nor his cowboy diplomacy. It is a known fact that they got the majority of the information of their program info from Dr. AQ Khan, the rogue Pakistani scientist who sold nuclear secrets to Iran and Libya. This shady dealings date back as far back as the 80's and 90's, again nothing to do with Shrub.

Will summed up the reasoning behind the madness pretty much. NK is a piece of shit country, operated by a complete nutbar. They saber rattled to keep focus on them because their country couldn't maintain; I think (personal opinion) Bush's "cowboy diplomacy" i.e. not talking with them directly, not caving in to shut them up, worked. I think it should be noted to, that the success of their detenation/program, is up in the air for legitimacy.

aceventura3 · 09-04-2007, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

North Korea was not pushed to this by Bush, nor his cowboy diplomacy. It is a known fact that they got the majority of the information of their program info from Dr. AQ Khan, the rogue Pakistani scientist who sold nuclear secrets to Iran and Libya. This shady dealings date back as far back as the 80's and 90's, again nothing to do with Shrub.

My point is that with Bush in the WH, NK had no leverage and was not going to be able to posture, delay, lie and pretend in the manner that they had grown accustom to. Bush established a precedence with Iraq. If we had continued to let Iraq get away with world defiance and the oil for food fraud, NK would have continued on their path of development of nuclear weapons. Bush diplomacy works, just the way Reagan diplomacy worked. Bush deserves some credit if NK stands down on this issue.

Willravel · 09-04-2007, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

My point is that with Bush in the WH, NK had no leverage and was not going to be able to posture, delay, lie and pretend in the manner that they had grown accustom to. Bush established a precedence with Iraq. If we had continued to let Iraq get away with world defiance and the oil for food fraud, NK would have continued on their path of development of nuclear weapons. Bush diplomacy works, just the way Reagan diplomacy worked. Bush deserves some credit if NK stands down on this issue.

Calling someone evil then ignoring them isn't diplomacy.

Mojo_PeiPei · 09-04-2007, 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

My point is that with Bush in the WH, NK had no leverage and was not going to be able to posture, delay, lie and pretend in the manner that they had grown accustom to. Bush established a precedence with Iraq. If we had continued to let Iraq get away with world defiance and the oil for food fraud, NK would have continued on their path of development of nuclear weapons. Bush diplomacy works, just the way Reagan diplomacy worked. Bush deserves some credit if NK stands down on this issue.

Ace fundamentally I do not disagree with you. But I personally think you give to much credit to the Dubya foreign policy, at least how it relates to North Korea.

This is probably me just speaking out my own understanding: I by and large maintain Bush W operated under the Neo-Con foreign policy, predominately as it was framed by the likes of Cheney, Rumsfeld, but most importantly Paul Wolfowitz; the Wolfowitz doctrine pertained particularly to Iraq. North korea by and large had no legitimate ties in policy in to how we dealt with the world at large under the current understanding.

North Korea really is not a threat to America. Never has been, but could possibly be... down the line. I would say you have to approach policy by region. In the Pacific region North Korea is not our primary worry, China is. This is what would ultimatly feed into the Wolfowitz doctrine, as I have come to understand it.

America his its flagship naval unit in the pacific, starting with the 7th fleet, along with the 3rd. North Korea was not a prevailing threat, even now if it is actually nuclear. America operates under a regulating capacity, that would be the reason for this. Our biggest threats going forward is China, and perhaps a destabilized Russia.

If you look at the Middle East, there is no major threat even an Iraq that had WMDs is no great threat to us. No one would deny that militarily Iran, Syria, et al., could stand up to us militarily. The Neo-Cons had to shift policy at the offset of the cold war, this belief was that by establishing a strong presence/stake in the ME would ultimately benefit us. If we regulate the oil supply other countries wouldn't escalate militarily. Who gets their oil from the ME? Not America, but European countries, China, Japan.

Reminscing the likes of Rummy and Cheney went to Clinton in the years of Operation Desert Fox and pushed for regime change... this was in 98' (In Iraq). As such N. Korea is a complete after thought to our policy to Iraq.

North Korea has nothing we want, the country by itself cannot sustain itself, it has no resources, and by and large noting that they have the 4th standing military (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...active_troops), they are not a threat. They have no navy, no airforce, their missle capabilities are limited, and their nuclear capabilities although feared are not completely established.

If anything dealing with North Korea only keeps the status quo going, which equates to nothing more than regional stability. You have Japan doing their half de-miltarized thing, a split Korea (where we have clearly sided with the south for the last half a century), Russia is more pertinent to the equation in so far as influence, which ultimately leads us back to China. We have a cute dance going their, giving CHina the full diplomatic recognition, yet simultaneously having defense compacts with Taiwan... were Taiwan to be so brash as declare complete self rule and CHina were to move in, I get the impression we would side with Taiwan.

Not attempting to thread jack I am going to leave that point there, and hopefully make it move forward into legit discussion as to how this thread has evolved.

At the same time Will, I think it is really false to say our diplomacy was to merely call N. Korea evil and not deal with them. We've dealt with them, perhaps not the best way, but still they were a wayward nation that Bush and the Foreign Policy thereof inherited. I think Bush was smart to change it up and deal it with on if not "our" terms, at least on different terms where Clinton signed a compact with them where they got aid which propped them up, yet they were able to maintain their nuclear ambitions, which nobody wanted then and nobody wants now.

Ultimately I can't won't say Bush's FP worked with North Korea. They claim they have nuclear capabilities, and as of the 2nd of Sept. apperently we have reached some deal where they are going to dissmantle said programs, this sounds a lot like the same song and dance of 94' with Clinton. They might not be saber rattling anymore, but worst case scenario now they have nuclear capabilities, so I fail to see how the Bush policy in Iraq worked at least in deterrence to NK.

I hope this makes a lick of sense. I've been away from this forum for a few months and I am feeling the rust. I hope you are kind in repsonse.

dc_dux · 09-05-2007, 04:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

My point is that with Bush in the WH, NK had no leverage and was not going to be able to posture, delay, lie and pretend in the manner that they had grown accustom to. Bush established a precedence with Iraq. If we had continued to let Iraq get away with world defiance and the oil for food fraud, NK would have continued on their path of development of nuclear weapons. Bush diplomacy works, just the way Reagan diplomacy worked. Bush deserves some credit if NK stands down on this issue.

Bush and Kim can keep playing cowboy and each can claim that he won the shootout or staredown because they both know that the only country whose actions have a meaningful impact on NK is China. Will NK keep its word on nukes any more now after the Bush "stick" approach rather than the Clinton "carrot" approach....only if China continues to pressure NK in that direction..

It hard for me to imagine how anyone can characterize our cowboy actions in Iraq as precedent for anything positive or that Bush diplomacy works. The use (or threat) of unilateral pre-emptive force is not diplomacy.

The Bush doctrine ("cowboy diplomacy") failed miserably in its first test with the unprovoked invasion of Iraq. With all the bluster about WMD and Saddam's brutality to his own people, the result of our invasion has not created a better state for the Iraqi people, stabilized the region or lessened the threat of terrorism. In fact, quite the opposite.

Iran now has greater influence both in Iraq and the region, the Iraqi people are in the midst of the worst sectarian violence the country has ever seen (much of Baghdad has been ethnically cleansed of Sunnis), our actions have been the best recruiting tool for al Queda that we could have provided, and the image of the US around the world has never been lower.

aceventura3 · 09-05-2007, 07:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Calling someone evil then ignoring them isn't diplomacy.

If diplomacy is more of an art than a science, which I think it is, then there are no formal rules. If call someone evil and ignoring them gets the response one wants and eventually leads to agreement on certain issues - I would call it diplomacy.

But, I can see how people who went to "diplomacy school" and has been in many theoretical diplomacy discussions with others who went to "diplomacy school" but has never been face to face engaged in real world diplomacy see it differently.

Willravel · 09-05-2007, 07:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

If diplomacy is more of an art than a science, which I think it is, then there are no formal rules. If call someone evil and ignoring them gets the response one wants and eventually leads to agreement on certain issues - I would call it diplomacy.

But, I can see how people who went to "diplomacy school" and has been in many theoretical diplomacy discussions with others who went to "diplomacy school" but has never been face to face engaged in real world diplomacy see it differently.

Ambassador Ace? I don't think so. I suspect that I've had better experiences in my diplomacy than Bush.

I've had to be diplomatic a lot in my life and treating someone like garbage then ignoring them is a really great way to lose control of them. Losing a war to a poor and supposedly incapable people shows them Bush's weak. Losing the respect of and control of the voter base in the states shows Bush can't rule his own country. Sounding like you're half past retarded when you speak shows you're an okey and shouldn't be taken seriously.

Put all of that together and you've got a diplomatic nightmare.

aceventura3 · 09-05-2007, 07:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

Ace fundamentally I do not disagree with you. But I personally think you give to much credit to the Dubya foreign policy, at least how it relates to North Korea.

I admit to making overly simplified statements in regard to this issue. I do understand the complexities and the involvement of other nations.

Quote:

North Korea really is not a threat to America. Never has been, but could possibly be... down the line. I would say you have to approach policy by region. In the Pacific region North Korea is not our primary worry, China is. This is what would ultimatly feed into the Wolfowitz doctrine, as I have come to understand it.

I agree that there is a concern about China. I have come to the conclusion that we have become too "civilized" to really understand the nature of a threat. Every nation watches everything we do in response to acts of defiance. Perceived weakness or a failure to respond emboldens more powerful threats. If we don't respond to Iraq, others make judgments on that lack of a response. If we don't respond to NK others make judgments on that lack of response. China certainly will assume the position of dealing with NK the way they want if we don't respond. It is to our advantage to take one of the leading roles with NK. I think Bush understands that, I am not sure everyone in Washington does.

Quote:

If you look at the Middle East, there is no major threat even an Iraq that had WMDs is no great threat to us.

One problem I have had on this issue is clearly on how I define threat as compared to you and others. In my mind Saddam's defiance and his failure to follow the mandates of the UN were the biggest threats. I think the same is true with NK.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

It hard for me to imagine how anyone can characterize our cowboy actions in Iraq as precedent for anything positive or that Bush diplomacy works. The use (or threat) of unilateral pre-emptive force is not diplomacy.

You don't have to imagine how, you are interacting with someone who does characterize our cowboy action in Iraq as precedent for positives and that Bush diplomacy works. If you have specific questions, feel free to ask.

How do you define diplomacy? Again, are you an individual who would never under any circumstance use preemptive force?

Quote:

The Bush doctrine ("cowboy diplomacy") failed miserably in its first test with the unprovoked invasion of Iraq. With all the bluster about WMD and Saddam's brutality to his own people, the result of our invasion has not created a better state for the Iraqi people, stabilized the region or lessened the threat of terrorism. In fact, quite the opposite.

Iran now has greater influence both in Iraq and the region, the Iraqi people are in the midst of the worst sectarian violence the country has ever seen (much of Baghdad has been ethnically cleansed of Sunnis), our actions have been the best recruiting tool for al Queda that we could have provided, and the image of the US around the world has never been lower.

We have not seen how this is going to play out. You may be correct, but in the end you may end up being wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

I've had to be diplomatic a lot in my life and treating someone like garbage then ignoring them is a really great way to lose control of them.

Have you ever "walked away", only to have the other party come back with material concessions?

Quote:

Losing a war to a poor and supposedly incapable people shows them Bush's weak.

First, Bush does not fight. This is "our" war. I am not sure how you conclude we are losing a war.

Quote:

Losing the respect of and control of the voter base in the states shows Bush can't rule his own country.

Yet, Bush has gotten everything he has wanted in regard to this war. Name something he has wanted and did not get.

Quote:

Sounding like you're half past retarded when you speak shows you're an okey and shouldn't be taken seriously.

Oooh. My feeling are so hurt. Considering the fallacious arguments I encounter on a comparative basis I would hope to be considered fully retarded by those who don't see the issues clearly.

Quote:

Put all of that together and you've got a diplomatic nightmare.

Are these comments illustrative of your superior diplomacy skills compared to Bush?

dc_dux · 09-05-2007, 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

You don't have to imagine how, you are interacting with someone who does characterize our cowboy action in Iraq as precedent for positives and that Bush diplomacy works. If you have specific questions, feel free to ask.

How do you define diplomacy? Again, are you an individual who would never under any circumstance use preemptive force?

We have not seen how this is going to play out. You may be correct, but in the end you may end up being wrong.

I dont have any questions about the Iraq precedent. The facts speak for themselves - an Iran with more influence and power in the region, thousands of civilian deaths and chaos in Iraq, and more terrorists and anti-Americanism worldwide.

As it applies to this discussion, I would define diplomacy as`negotiating with our enemies or perceived enemies to convince them of the value of of acting in a manner that best serves both our interests. One component of those negotiations is the ability to convince the opposition of the relative strength and weaknesses of both parties and the consequences if those strengths and weaknesses are forced into play.

Diplomacy is NOT public bullying and bellicose saber rattling with demands that the enemy "do want we want first..then we can talk". Diplomacy is also NOT impugning the motives of your friends as Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld did with "old Europe" when many of our long-standing allies refused to support our aggressive invasion of a sovereign nation.

Its odd that you say our efforts in Iraq have not fully played out at the same time you credit Bush for a successful diplomatic approach to NK which also has not fully played out. The difference is that "Bush diplomacy" in Iraq costs 3,500+ american lives and tens of thousands of Iraqi lives that cant be restored if in the wild chance that the effort succeeds in the long term.

I agree with Will that Bush is a diplomatic nightmare by any standard.

roachboy · 09-05-2007, 08:30 AM

i think mojo's post above is quite good.
it repays the reading.
(nice to see you back round these parts as well, mojo)

ace: here's what i see as the problem here. you haven't demonstrated a causal link between what i guess is now called the bush squad"s "cowboy diplomacy" and actions from north korea. you assert them, but you haven't SHOWN anything. without some kind of information, your posts appear circular. you are obviously predisposed to find ways to defend the administration; you find something useful about this "cowboy diplomacy" business, and you want to see a link between it and nk. so you assert one.

and so things go round and round here.

try providing some information in support of your position.
maybe that'd bump this into a less snarky place.

Willravel · 09-05-2007, 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Have you ever "walked away", only to have the other party come back with material concessions?

Walk away with something the other party wants and make it clear that had they bent to your will you would have given it to them. They reconsider and decide that the cost of not having that something is too high and agree to your demands. It's an old trick, but I don't see how calling them names and ignoring them has anything to do with this tactic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

First, Bush does not fight. This is "our" war. I am not sure how you conclude we are losing a war.

Bush is the president and the author of the Iraq War. It's his war more than it is anyone else's. As for losing, I can't imagine how someone can talk about the war without doing continuing research on it. Sectarian violence is on the rise, coalition forces are dying, millions upon millions of civilians are displaced, many in Syria and Iran, As much as or even over a million Iraqis are dead, the puppet president is resisting his masters, and the American people voted in a congress that ran on the platform of ending the war. The only way this could be a bigger failure is if Iran, Syria, and Egypt invaded Iraq and drove the US troops out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Yet, Bush has gotten everything he has wanted in regard to this war. Name something he has wanted and did not get.

Weapons of mass destruction, peace, any infrastructure, a secular government, control, and power over the region to start.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Oooh. My feeling are so hurt. Considering the fallacious arguments I encounter on a comparative basis I would hope to be considered fully retarded by those who don't see the issues clearly.

You know I was talking about Bush (and if you seriously thought I was talking about you, then just wow). He's a bumbling idiot. He is his own worst enemy in that regard in that the cocky idiot isn't a good negotiating point at all. We've seen it fail on TFP before. A new member comes in, guns blazing, without having read the rules. He makes personal attacks and flames and makes really poor (read: stupid) points. What happens? He or she is chastised and then ignored.

aceventura3 · 09-05-2007, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

I dont have any questions about the Iraq precedent. The facts speak for themselves - an Iran with more influence and power in the region, thousands of civilian deaths and chaos in Iraq, and more terrorists and anti-Americanism worldwide.

It is interesting that you easily accept that people in far away places can see our actions in Iraq and decide to act, in some cases taking up arms against us. But on the other hand you can not accept that the NK leader can see our actions in Iraq and decide to act, possibly taking a position that the potential costs of nuclear development are greater than the benefits. I suppose that one fits a political agenda and the other does not.

Quote:

As it applies to this discussion, I would define diplomacy as`negotiating with our enemies or perceived enemies to convince them of the value of of acting in a manner that best serves both our interests. One component of those negotiations is the ability to convince the opposition of the relative strength and weaknesses of both parties and the consequences if those strengths and weaknesses are forced into play.

You refer to consequences, in your view of diplomacy what would you consider to be consequences? If those consequences are employed and results in the settlement of differences are employing those consequences a part of your definition of diplomacy?

In my view, the threat of force is a consequence and in many cases is the only reason differences are resolved.

Quote:

Diplomacy is NOT public bullying and bellicose saber rattling with demands that the enemy "do want we want first..then we can talk". Diplomacy is also NOT impugning the motives of your friends as Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld did with "old Europe" when many of our long-standing allies refused to support our aggressive invasion of a sovereign nation.

Says who? I agree there are stages, and I normally would not start with bullying, etc., but those options would remain available and used if needed. For example if we needed an ally like Saudia Arabia for some military strategic purpose, I would start nicely, but in the end I would demand their cooperation if they put me in that position. Wouldn't you, if you had to.

Quote:

Its odd that you say our efforts in Iraq have not fully played out at the same time you credit Bush for a successful diplomatic approach to NK which also has not fully played out. The difference is that "Bush diplomacy" in Iraq costs 3,500+ american lives and tens of thousands of Iraqi lives that cant be restored if in the wild chance that the effort succeeds in the long term.

In my first post on this subject I said the news was "developing". I do give Bush the credit for the progress. I have also given Bush blame for some of the failures in Iraq.

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

ace: here's what i see as the problem here. you haven't demonstrated a causal link between what i guess is now called the bush squad"s "cowboy diplomacy" and actions from north korea. you assert them, but you haven't SHOWN anything.

I agree. My views on this are speculation at best. It is possible their is no causal link. Without access to the mind of NK's leader, I will never know and will never be able to prove the point.

dc_dux · 09-05-2007, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

It is interesting that you easily accept that people in far away places can see our actions in Iraq and decide to act, in some cases taking up arms against us. But on the other hand you can not accept that the NK leader can see our actions in Iraq and decide to act, possibly taking a position that the potential costs of nuclear development are greater than the benefits. I suppose that one fits a political agenda and the other does not.

My conclusion has nothing to do with a political agenda. It is based on findings by our intel community and not my personal opinion.

Both an NIE from last year and a national security report from several months ago concluded that our invasion of Iraq has resulted in a propaganda tool for al Queda and more terrorist worldwide. There has been no analysis provided by any credible source that the invasion of Iraq had any influence in NK's actions...other that your opinion which you describe as "speculative".

As to your comments on diplomacy, the threat of force is absolutely a part of diplomacy. The issue is how one makes that threat.

Privately making that threat in face-to-face negotiations, when both sides know that the power behind it is real, is the most powerful negotiating tool and is always on the table.

But as I said before, public bullying and bellicose saber rattling is often counter-productive. It only provides further resolve for the opponent to respond in kind in order to save face and show strength to his own people.

Racnad · 09-05-2007, 09:44 AM

IMO, GWB is the worst president in my lifetime (which began during the JFK administration).

The only reason I'm not saying that he is the worst president EVER is because my historical knowledge of presidents prioir to FDR is spotty.

Among the reasons for this are:

* The lies and fiction and innuendo surrounding Iraq's WMD program, Jessica Lynch's heroic fight, the link between Iraq & 9/11 etc. (Yes, they never explicity said that Iraq was involved with 9/11, but it was implied endlessly and still is).

* Using "bumper-sticker" slogans to justify policies rather than intelligent arguments ("Fight them there so we don't fight them here")

* Fiscal irresponsibility. The term "tax & spend liberal" is now obsolete. Bush is the "charge it to the national credit card & spend so-called consevative."

Comparisons to other presidents: Carter's management style was ineffective, but he had integrity. Nixon was corrupt for hiring professional burglers, but we was effective in thawing relations with China and in other foreign policy areas. Clinton? You can fault him for the whole Lewinski thing, but it didn't lead to more American deaths than 9/11.

aceventura3 · 09-05-2007, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Both an NIE from last year and a national security report from several months ago concluded that our invasion of Iraq has resulted in a propaganda tool for al Queda and more terrorist worldwide. There has been no analysis provided by any credible source that the invasion of Iraq had any influence in NK's actions...other that your opinion which you describe as "speculative".

Speculation is speculation regardless if it comes from me or NIE. The NIE analysis is based on a set of assumptions. I am sure they believe there is a high probability that the assumptions used are correct, but I highly doubt, they would make the statement with 100% certainty. I call speculation what it is, and have no problem with speculating on issues where our knowledge is incomplete. Just as our actions in Iraq could be used as a propaganda tool, our inaction in Iraq also could have been used as a propaganda tool. Who's crystal ball is best at looking into what actually happened compared to what could have happened?

I do not know what the net affect has been on the number of terrorists solely due to our invasion and occupation, I do believe that there are people who choose a side based on our actions, there are some who became terrorists others may have picked a different path.

{added}

Ouch!

Quote:

National intelligence estimates are compilations of the best thinking of U.S. intelligence agencies, meant to provide the broadest guidance to government policymakers.

But they can be wrong. A 2002 assessment, for example, concluded that Iraq had continued its development of weapons of mass destruction, held arsenals of chemical and biological weapons and “probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade.” None of those assertions turned out to be true.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15024576/

dc_dux · 09-05-2007, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Speculation is speculation regardless if it comes from me or NIE.

ace....give me a break!

The combined analysis and resulting conclusions of the hundreds of intel experts, while never 100% certain, has far greater credibility than you, a layperson with an agenda.

aceventura3 · 09-05-2007, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

ace....give me a break!

The combined analysis and resulting conclusions of the hundreds of intel experts, while never 100% certain, has far greater credibility than you, a layperson with an agenda.

In terms of credibility you may be correct, after all I am anonymous to TFP'ers. But this is the same NIE that said Iraq had development programs for WMD as well as chemical and biological weapons. I thought you were among those who felt Bush lied based on his use of NIE analysis.

What does "give me a break!" mean? Are you saying I am wrong to call speculation what it is? Are you saying I should accept NIE information without question? Are you suggesting that I not speculate and others can? What's up with that, I don't get it?

dc_dux · 09-05-2007, 01:22 PM

I am saying that your last post was simply a transparent attempt to deflect from the fact that, as roachboy noted, you havent presented any credible information to support your claim that Bush's cowboy diplomacy was in anyway responsible for NK's recent actions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I thought you were among those who felt Bush lied based on his use of NIE analysis.

Just for the record...wrong again. I was one of those who felt that in making the case for war, Bush cherrypicked the intel and misled the public by withholding the fact that there were dissenting opinions on Iraq's posession of WMDs from State Dpt intel experts, DOE intel experts, and DIA intel experts.

And I said Bush lied when he said Congress had the same intel as he had...when,the fact is, Congress did not.

IMO, both cases demonstrate a lack of ethics when making such an important policy decision as asking citizens to put their lives on the line.

aceventura3 · 09-05-2007, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

I am saying that your last post was simply a transparent attempt to deflect from the fact that, as roachboy noted, you havent presented any credible information to support your claim that Bush's cowboy diplomacy was in anyway responsible for NK's recent actions.

Can you give credible evidence to support the NIE claim regarding the Iraq war being the direct cause for an increase in the number of terrorist? I have not found anything referencing the method they used to come to that conclusion.

Quote:

Just for the record...wrong again. I was one of those who felt that in making the case for war, Bush cherrypicked the intel and misled the public by withholding the fact that there were dissenting opinions on Iraq's posession of WMDs from State Dpt intel experts, DOE intel experts, and DIA intel experts.

And I said Bush lied when he said Congress had the same intel as he had...when,the fact is, Congress did not.

IMO, both cases demonstrate a lack of ethics when making such an important policy decision as asking citizens to put their lives on the line.

We been through this before, however, it seems that you now discount the NIE reports when it comes to their pre-war intel. Pretty convenient.

dc_dux · 09-05-2007, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Can you give credible evidence to support the NIE claim regarding the Iraq war being the direct cause for an increase in the number of terrorist? I have not found anything referencing the method they used to come to that conclusion.

We been through this before, however, it seems that you now discount the NIE reports when it comes to their pre-war intel. Pretty convenient.

ace....take my comments anyway you want......IMO, its your standard response of twisting what others post or posing new questions when you are confronted with documented information that conflicts with your undocumented opinion.

I gave numerous examples, all with background information, of the issues I have with Bush. And, in this last exchange, I gave my reasons for my issues with Bush cowboy diplomacy, again with background information (I can link the specifics findings of the NIEs if necessary)

The TFP readers can choose to agree with my opinions or not and I'll discuss the issues further with anyone else.....I'm just not going to play that game with you.

(thats not to say I wont comment on your posts when I think there is nothing factual to support them....I'm just not going to go around in circles with you

)

aceventura3 · 09-06-2007, 06:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

ace....take my comments anyway you want......IMO, its your standard response of twisting what others post or posing new questions when you are confronted with documented information that conflicts with your undocumented opinion.

Here is another twist. Please feel free to ignore it, because it is off topic and only relevant to my curiosity relative to your credibility comment.

Have you read the NIE report you refer to about the increase in terrorist, or have you only read what others have said about the NIE report?

But again, you have me nailed. I twist what others say. I often do it to illustrate something. And I ask questions when confronted with documented information that conflicts with my views, documented or undocumented.

Perhaps some folks in Washington should also ask those kinds of questions, rather than blindly accepting NIE reports that say something like Sadaam has an arsenal of chemical and biological weapons. If I had used that report as a basis for my support of the war, I would be pretty embarrassed, and I would certainly put the future speculations by NIE under a great deal of scrutiny in the future. But thats just me, and as you usually say, I am mostly wrong and I have not documented anything to support that view.

08-31-2007, 02:19 PM	#41 (permalink)
DaveOrion Playing With Fire Location: Disaster Area	Otto, it is not a requirement to provide numerous examples when stating an opinion. In the past many members have avoided the political forum because of the tendency of some to insist upon multiple sources, and when said sources were provided, they were shot down as unreliable. I have neither the time nor the inclination to provide such sources when a bias will almost certainly be claimed. __________________ *Syriana*...have you ever tried liquid MDMA?....Liquid MDMA? No....Arash, when you wanna do this?.....After prayer...

09-01-2007, 10:13 AM	#46 (permalink)
ubertuber spudly Location: Ellay	Tilted Politics has never been a good place for satire - says so in the rules. This thread is a particularly bad place, given that the thread starter explicitly asked for a rational discussion. Please stop trying to derail that conversation. __________________ Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

09-03-2007, 12:47 PM	#48 (permalink)
skier Rawr! Location: Edmontania	I made a thread way back in 2004 which I revived in 2005 to explore what bush had done RIGHT for the country. The first year I asked people to avoid foreign policy regarding terrorism, the second year opened it to anything at all. Reading through it again, the few positives about bush that were listed have shown to be false or have gone downhill in the intervening two years to become negative. At this point, I can't figure out one single bush positive, why anyone at all with an ounce of reason would support such a man. http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=74715 __________________ "Asking a bomb squad if an old bomb is still "real" is not the best thing to do if you want to save it." - denim

09-05-2007, 08:30 AM	#69 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i think mojo's post above is quite good. it repays the reading. (nice to see you back round these parts as well, mojo) ace: here's what i see as the problem here. you haven't demonstrated a causal link between what i guess is now called the bush squad"s "cowboy diplomacy" and actions from north korea. you assert them, but you haven't SHOWN anything. without some kind of information, your posts appear circular. you are obviously predisposed to find ways to defend the administration; you find something useful about this "cowboy diplomacy" business, and you want to see a link between it and nk. so you assert one. and so things go round and round here. try providing some information in support of your position. maybe that'd bump this into a less snarky place. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

09-05-2007, 09:44 AM	#73 (permalink)
Racnad Crazy Location: Washington State	IMO, GWB is the worst president in my lifetime (which began during the JFK administration). The only reason I'm not saying that he is the worst president EVER is because my historical knowledge of presidents prioir to FDR is spotty. Among the reasons for this are: * The lies and fiction and innuendo surrounding Iraq's WMD program, Jessica Lynch's heroic fight, the link between Iraq & 9/11 etc. (Yes, they never explicity said that Iraq was involved with 9/11, but it was implied endlessly and still is). * Using "bumper-sticker" slogans to justify policies rather than intelligent arguments ("Fight them there so we don't fight them here") * Fiscal irresponsibility. The term "tax & spend liberal" is now obsolete. Bush is the "charge it to the national credit card & spend so-called consevative." Comparisons to other presidents: Carter's management style was ineffective, but he had integrity. Nixon was corrupt for hiring professional burglers, but we was effective in thawing relations with China and in other foreign policy areas. Clinton? You can fault him for the whole Lewinski thing, but it didn't lead to more American deaths than 9/11.