-
-
๐ Domain search now with sales history! ๐ฅณ
Do You Believe Kerry?
- Thread starter Wesley
- Start date
The views expressed on this page by users and staff are their own, not those of NamePros.
- Impact
- 0
Wade, same goes to you. I can always appreciate when two people can debate something and at least attempt to do so in a civil manner without resorting to calling each other names, belittling each others and getting petty. You know what they say 'all's well that ends well'. It seems we're doing good in that respect 
When I said: "Oh, and by the way, pointing to the WMD argument is not an 'excuse'. The fact that he said Iraq was an *imminent threat* to the US was a lie." - I guess I shouldn't have been as open ended as that. As I mentioned in later posts, what I meant by that was, (as you've seen) that although he didn't use those exact words "that was the gist of it". I can understand that people might and probably do generally misquote him on this and your point is well taken. However you said: "History shows us, that the words WERE used completely differently than your opinion shows" and I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that point. As I mentioned in the last post, that one statement or those 2 words by themselves do not makeup Bush's complete stance - if you were to look at the context of the entire speeches that he made, that Tony Blair made and other administration officials made, they were really trying to send the message that we would be attacked if we didn't attack first and therefore 'preemption' was necessary - this is the way I see it and you see it a different way, which is why I believe this is opinion based, not really fact based. For example: If I gave a speech about the perils of using Colgate toothpaste but never once used the words 'Colgate toothpaste is bad for you', does that mean I didn't say 'Colgate toothpaste is bad for you'? It just means I didn't use those exact words but maybe by looking at the entire context of my argument the end result would be someone thinking that 'Colgate toothpaste is bad for me'. So for example later on if I were sued by Colgate for costing them business, I don't think I could backtrack and say 'You know what guys? Go back and look at the transcript. It's a part of history. I never once said Colgate is bad for you.' - I wouldn't get away with it. This is what I'm trying to say about the 'imminent threat' issue - maybe you can see better what I mean after reading this analogy.
About the Al-Qaeda link. I also have to take into consideration the following: It seems that at many different points the administration was grasping at straws to try and justify the war. I believe that if there in fact was conclusive 'without a doubt' proof that such a link existed b/w Saddam and Al Qaeda operatives, not only would the media outlets be broadcasting it, the US Govt. would be playing it up as well - and for good reason! Especially being an election year, it would behoove them to take every single opportunity they get to make sure and get the word out that such a link DID exist and show that all those who argued against it and didn't support the war due to the lack of the existence of this link were WRONG! Just imagine how much the tide would turn in favor of Bush if they did this - everyone else would be discredited - it would be a major blow to all opponents. Seeing that they haven't done it , I have to believe that its possible there STILL isn't any such conclusive evidence. You remember when they sort of jumped the gun and tried to make a link through some African Centrifuge connection - all the heat they took? Well if they were that desperate then, they should be even more desperate now and scream at the top of the lungs to anyone who will listen. Since they wont do this, I have to view any such claims with a grain of salt - not dismissing them completely but not believing them completely either. It leads me to believe that the reason they aren't broadcasting this is because they are unsure themselves and this time a little wary of making claims they aren't 100% sure about, being the election year and all.
About Bush caring about the Iraqis and the one of the conditions for war, I think again it comes down to opinion/interpretation to some extent. We both have reasons for why we think it is a certain way. You showed that it is a part of history because he listed it as one of the reasons for Saddam to avoid war but I say that that isn't sufficient to make me believe that he cared about Iraqis. I think actions speak louder than words. I think that was more a political move than anything to sort of at least try to show people that he's *trying* the diplomatic approach before going the other route.
About WMDS: I mentioned before (I think) that I dont consider Bush to be the only person to have lied about something. I can understand your approach as to why you quoted the other sources on WMDs and their belief that they existed - and I'm not saying I'm 100% sure or even 50% sure that they didn't exist. I dont claim Bush lied about the existence of WMDs - for all I know indications were that they DID exist. What I DO claim is that Bush lied by exaggerating the threat posed to the world by Saddam's regime - (going back to my argument earlier about leading us to believe we were in grave danger in the immediate future unless we did something to oust Saddam). Now had someone else been in Bush's place - be it Hillary, or whoever, you bet your A$$ I would feel exactly the same way
About the link again as I mentioned before, I honestly believe if there were credible evidence to show such links b/w Al Qaeda and Saddam, they would have been reported over and over again and presented by everyone - Bush, Cheney, Colin Powell, Condi Rice, and anyone else involved in the process. If you think about it, it doesn't make sense that they would sit on this and not mention it in the State of the Union address, the speech at the UN, in press interviews, etc. If they included arguments which didn't hold up (African link) which they later themselves admitted were not accurate and should not have been included, why would they not play up the other credible evidence? It just seems like logical thinking to me - half the nation is opposing the war the president is about to start, let's show them some real credible proof of why we're right about doing this. If ANYONE knew about this info beforehand, and didn't get it to the top so it could be reported to the public, you can bet heads would roll.
ANd now Clarke comes out and makes some statements that make you think even more about the whole situation. Again I dont take them at face value - he may (and probably does) have his own personal interests at heart (exposure for his book,etc) but it does make you think. He served under different presidents and supposedly places blame on both the Clinton and the Bush administrations for many failures so it would be hard to say he's a party hack placing blame on Republicans. He claims Rumsfeld immediately wanted to attack Iraq, the day after 9/11. He also claims Bush 'wanted him' to find evidence to link Iraq to 9/11. How much of that is true? Again, I don't know. We can't really make that judgment in isolation, but it does make you think doesn't it? White house officials claim that they cant find evidence such a meeting ever took place b/w Clarke and Bush, while independent news reporters have supposedly found an eyewitness who corroborates Clarke's story.
It's because of all these things that I believe Bush has been less than truthful.
I better get to studying for this test tomorrow
When I said: "Oh, and by the way, pointing to the WMD argument is not an 'excuse'. The fact that he said Iraq was an *imminent threat* to the US was a lie." - I guess I shouldn't have been as open ended as that. As I mentioned in later posts, what I meant by that was, (as you've seen) that although he didn't use those exact words "that was the gist of it". I can understand that people might and probably do generally misquote him on this and your point is well taken. However you said: "History shows us, that the words WERE used completely differently than your opinion shows" and I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that point. As I mentioned in the last post, that one statement or those 2 words by themselves do not makeup Bush's complete stance - if you were to look at the context of the entire speeches that he made, that Tony Blair made and other administration officials made, they were really trying to send the message that we would be attacked if we didn't attack first and therefore 'preemption' was necessary - this is the way I see it and you see it a different way, which is why I believe this is opinion based, not really fact based. For example: If I gave a speech about the perils of using Colgate toothpaste but never once used the words 'Colgate toothpaste is bad for you', does that mean I didn't say 'Colgate toothpaste is bad for you'? It just means I didn't use those exact words but maybe by looking at the entire context of my argument the end result would be someone thinking that 'Colgate toothpaste is bad for me'. So for example later on if I were sued by Colgate for costing them business, I don't think I could backtrack and say 'You know what guys? Go back and look at the transcript. It's a part of history. I never once said Colgate is bad for you.' - I wouldn't get away with it. This is what I'm trying to say about the 'imminent threat' issue - maybe you can see better what I mean after reading this analogy.
About the Al-Qaeda link. I also have to take into consideration the following: It seems that at many different points the administration was grasping at straws to try and justify the war. I believe that if there in fact was conclusive 'without a doubt' proof that such a link existed b/w Saddam and Al Qaeda operatives, not only would the media outlets be broadcasting it, the US Govt. would be playing it up as well - and for good reason! Especially being an election year, it would behoove them to take every single opportunity they get to make sure and get the word out that such a link DID exist and show that all those who argued against it and didn't support the war due to the lack of the existence of this link were WRONG! Just imagine how much the tide would turn in favor of Bush if they did this - everyone else would be discredited - it would be a major blow to all opponents. Seeing that they haven't done it , I have to believe that its possible there STILL isn't any such conclusive evidence. You remember when they sort of jumped the gun and tried to make a link through some African Centrifuge connection - all the heat they took? Well if they were that desperate then, they should be even more desperate now and scream at the top of the lungs to anyone who will listen. Since they wont do this, I have to view any such claims with a grain of salt - not dismissing them completely but not believing them completely either. It leads me to believe that the reason they aren't broadcasting this is because they are unsure themselves and this time a little wary of making claims they aren't 100% sure about, being the election year and all.
About Bush caring about the Iraqis and the one of the conditions for war, I think again it comes down to opinion/interpretation to some extent. We both have reasons for why we think it is a certain way. You showed that it is a part of history because he listed it as one of the reasons for Saddam to avoid war but I say that that isn't sufficient to make me believe that he cared about Iraqis. I think actions speak louder than words. I think that was more a political move than anything to sort of at least try to show people that he's *trying* the diplomatic approach before going the other route.
About WMDS: I mentioned before (I think) that I dont consider Bush to be the only person to have lied about something. I can understand your approach as to why you quoted the other sources on WMDs and their belief that they existed - and I'm not saying I'm 100% sure or even 50% sure that they didn't exist. I dont claim Bush lied about the existence of WMDs - for all I know indications were that they DID exist. What I DO claim is that Bush lied by exaggerating the threat posed to the world by Saddam's regime - (going back to my argument earlier about leading us to believe we were in grave danger in the immediate future unless we did something to oust Saddam). Now had someone else been in Bush's place - be it Hillary, or whoever, you bet your A$$ I would feel exactly the same way
About the link again as I mentioned before, I honestly believe if there were credible evidence to show such links b/w Al Qaeda and Saddam, they would have been reported over and over again and presented by everyone - Bush, Cheney, Colin Powell, Condi Rice, and anyone else involved in the process. If you think about it, it doesn't make sense that they would sit on this and not mention it in the State of the Union address, the speech at the UN, in press interviews, etc. If they included arguments which didn't hold up (African link) which they later themselves admitted were not accurate and should not have been included, why would they not play up the other credible evidence? It just seems like logical thinking to me - half the nation is opposing the war the president is about to start, let's show them some real credible proof of why we're right about doing this. If ANYONE knew about this info beforehand, and didn't get it to the top so it could be reported to the public, you can bet heads would roll.
ANd now Clarke comes out and makes some statements that make you think even more about the whole situation. Again I dont take them at face value - he may (and probably does) have his own personal interests at heart (exposure for his book,etc) but it does make you think. He served under different presidents and supposedly places blame on both the Clinton and the Bush administrations for many failures so it would be hard to say he's a party hack placing blame on Republicans. He claims Rumsfeld immediately wanted to attack Iraq, the day after 9/11. He also claims Bush 'wanted him' to find evidence to link Iraq to 9/11. How much of that is true? Again, I don't know. We can't really make that judgment in isolation, but it does make you think doesn't it? White house officials claim that they cant find evidence such a meeting ever took place b/w Clarke and Bush, while independent news reporters have supposedly found an eyewitness who corroborates Clarke's story.
It's because of all these things that I believe Bush has been less than truthful.
I better get to studying for this test tomorrow
Hey, good luck on your test!
Ok, some counter offers, and again, I appreciate the civil debate and very much agree that it is nice to be able to do so under such conditions. I think it only serves to better understand how other people view things.
immenent threat - I'll agree to disagree. I think we both have valid points and positions on this. There is no question you have presented far more to assert your position on this than I have. On the other hand, my position is that the words were not used. I think we've both made valid points here.
Al-Qaeda link. I think one of the main reasons we didn't see the information directly is that it was classified as noted. And subsequently leaked, which in fact shows strong connections including dates and sources. In the debates I've had over this over the last year, the al qaeda link is not one that is usually brought up as a critical factor in debating the war. That's not to say it's not important, but from my own personal debating, I've not seen it brought up a lot. I have no reason to doubt the sources and in particular giving the source of Newsweek had an article on this long before the war ever came about tells me that this may not have been a huge secret. Still, the report was classified and that report was in response to showing credible proof that a link existed. It may, or may not have been leaked intentionally, but if the facts cannot be disputed and they do show a link, I can't see any other way to take it. From my perspective, it is a leaked report that shows credible evidence existed prior to the war in Iraq, and going way back into the Clinton Administration that a link existed. The Administration clearly claimed there was a connection. However, if that information was classified (and the link I gave shows that it was), then they simply cannot make the call themselves to release it along with sources. The could have, and may in fact have started an effort, to declassify it to support the position, or it may have been leaked intentionally. We can only take guesses on that. My position is, the evidence seems credible and I see nothing that shows it is not.
WMDs. I don't think either the Democrats or the Republicans lied. But my point is, that if people assert that Bush lied (and I believe lie is the wrong word here...if I believe telling a lie is something intentionally done), then there were many, many others that "lied." I do not agree that Bush lied by exaggerating the threat. And I'll tell you why: He was using the same intelligence to come to the same conclusions that many others had, including many of our allies had that supported. There's no mistake that this in fact was not the case in hind sight. In fact, we had been attacked by al qaeda on 9/11 and I feel that Bush felt "never again." Never would we wait until our skies were filled with smoke before we take action against a known enemy who posed a threat. No only that, but Saddam had not cooperated for twelve years. In fact, Saddam claimed, even up till the last days, to have WMD.
We need not be sitting under a mushroom cloud before we realize we could have done something (9/11 Commission hearings come to mind here.) We would have had support of even more allies had it not been for their reluctance to give up their oil for food program interests and contracts with Saddam. Yet another debate all together.
Clarke - whew, this adds a whole new perspective. Bottom line reasoning here is that either Clarke lied then, or he is lying now. One way or the other, he is lying. With that, we're left to look at facts to decipher what part of his memory is serving the best interest of our country and what part is serving his retirement fund.
One of the most damaging things (of many) Clarke asserts is that Rumsfeld was at a meeting on September 4th in his book that Rusfeld was not even at. I'm sure parts of his story are true, and parts are not. In the case of 9/11 it's asserted we didn't do enough and in the case of Iraq, we did too much. It's going to take time to sort through the facts, but from my perspective, it is very clear that Clarke was disgruntled about not getting the number 2 spot on HLS as he left shortly after. And now he comes out with a book? Is he attempting to "get even" or attempting to exploit the 9/11 tragedy to build a retirement fund. If Clarke were had come out and said "to prove my point, I'm donating all proceeds from my book to the families of victims of 9/11" then I'd say his motive was at least less damaging. But then we still have to decipher if his positions then were true, or are they true now? Many things have alredy been proven incorrect in not only his book, but his testimony. How it pans out will be interesting to say the least.
While we've certainly debated whether the evidence to support going to war was there or not, unfortunatley in debates like this we often times don't see whether it was worth the trip or not. Maybe it's best left as is. One thing I hope for is that some day I'll turn on the news and see that there were no terrorist killings today, no killings in war, no killings for whatever reason. That somewhere, somehow, for one day, maybe two, people will stop killing others, for whatever reason they justify killing...political, religious, territory disputes, calling in life, military, civilians. One day.
Ok, some counter offers, and again, I appreciate the civil debate and very much agree that it is nice to be able to do so under such conditions. I think it only serves to better understand how other people view things.
immenent threat - I'll agree to disagree. I think we both have valid points and positions on this. There is no question you have presented far more to assert your position on this than I have. On the other hand, my position is that the words were not used. I think we've both made valid points here.
Al-Qaeda link. I think one of the main reasons we didn't see the information directly is that it was classified as noted. And subsequently leaked, which in fact shows strong connections including dates and sources. In the debates I've had over this over the last year, the al qaeda link is not one that is usually brought up as a critical factor in debating the war. That's not to say it's not important, but from my own personal debating, I've not seen it brought up a lot. I have no reason to doubt the sources and in particular giving the source of Newsweek had an article on this long before the war ever came about tells me that this may not have been a huge secret. Still, the report was classified and that report was in response to showing credible proof that a link existed. It may, or may not have been leaked intentionally, but if the facts cannot be disputed and they do show a link, I can't see any other way to take it. From my perspective, it is a leaked report that shows credible evidence existed prior to the war in Iraq, and going way back into the Clinton Administration that a link existed. The Administration clearly claimed there was a connection. However, if that information was classified (and the link I gave shows that it was), then they simply cannot make the call themselves to release it along with sources. The could have, and may in fact have started an effort, to declassify it to support the position, or it may have been leaked intentionally. We can only take guesses on that. My position is, the evidence seems credible and I see nothing that shows it is not.
WMDs. I don't think either the Democrats or the Republicans lied. But my point is, that if people assert that Bush lied (and I believe lie is the wrong word here...if I believe telling a lie is something intentionally done), then there were many, many others that "lied." I do not agree that Bush lied by exaggerating the threat. And I'll tell you why: He was using the same intelligence to come to the same conclusions that many others had, including many of our allies had that supported. There's no mistake that this in fact was not the case in hind sight. In fact, we had been attacked by al qaeda on 9/11 and I feel that Bush felt "never again." Never would we wait until our skies were filled with smoke before we take action against a known enemy who posed a threat. No only that, but Saddam had not cooperated for twelve years. In fact, Saddam claimed, even up till the last days, to have WMD.
We need not be sitting under a mushroom cloud before we realize we could have done something (9/11 Commission hearings come to mind here.) We would have had support of even more allies had it not been for their reluctance to give up their oil for food program interests and contracts with Saddam. Yet another debate all together.
Clarke - whew, this adds a whole new perspective. Bottom line reasoning here is that either Clarke lied then, or he is lying now. One way or the other, he is lying. With that, we're left to look at facts to decipher what part of his memory is serving the best interest of our country and what part is serving his retirement fund.
One of the most damaging things (of many) Clarke asserts is that Rumsfeld was at a meeting on September 4th in his book that Rusfeld was not even at. I'm sure parts of his story are true, and parts are not. In the case of 9/11 it's asserted we didn't do enough and in the case of Iraq, we did too much. It's going to take time to sort through the facts, but from my perspective, it is very clear that Clarke was disgruntled about not getting the number 2 spot on HLS as he left shortly after. And now he comes out with a book? Is he attempting to "get even" or attempting to exploit the 9/11 tragedy to build a retirement fund. If Clarke were had come out and said "to prove my point, I'm donating all proceeds from my book to the families of victims of 9/11" then I'd say his motive was at least less damaging. But then we still have to decipher if his positions then were true, or are they true now? Many things have alredy been proven incorrect in not only his book, but his testimony. How it pans out will be interesting to say the least.
While we've certainly debated whether the evidence to support going to war was there or not, unfortunatley in debates like this we often times don't see whether it was worth the trip or not. Maybe it's best left as is. One thing I hope for is that some day I'll turn on the news and see that there were no terrorist killings today, no killings in war, no killings for whatever reason. That somewhere, somehow, for one day, maybe two, people will stop killing others, for whatever reason they justify killing...political, religious, territory disputes, calling in life, military, civilians. One day.
Wow, some long discourses going on in this thread. At this point, I'd like to point you to www.WatchBlog.com , which is a political news and opinions site of 50 writers covering US politics from all points of view. WB is always looking for more writers, so check it out. With such a large readership, your opinions will be heard.
- Impact
- 0
That was a tough test!
Amen
Regardless for what happened all I do now is hope for the best. I hope that people make the best of the situation in Iraq - irrespective of how they view the US presence there I hope they can find a way to get a 'fresh start' without Saddam there and find a way to work together, instead of infighting amongst themselves and build a country they can be proud of. That's all anyone can hope for really.
Amen
Regardless for what happened all I do now is hope for the best. I hope that people make the best of the situation in Iraq - irrespective of how they view the US presence there I hope they can find a way to get a 'fresh start' without Saddam there and find a way to work together, instead of infighting amongst themselves and build a country they can be proud of. That's all anyone can hope for really.
- Impact
- 137
Technically, there has not been a "war" as declared by Congress since WWII, even though we call it one and consider it as a war.
I wouldn't say it's preemptive either. It started when Iraq invaded Kuwait years ago and a truce was declared with Saddam agreeing on certain conditions. He tested and violated those conditions for 10 years. The events of 9/11 did step up concern over that and other situations which could be friendly to or harbor terrorism. I consider it as an escalation of a long ongoing situation based on new circumstances.
If anyone considers it preemptive, consider it as prempting another 9/11, at least for a while.
----
I think it's important to hear both sides of all issues. If you listen to Kerry long enough, you are bound to hear both sides.
- Impact
- 2
Are you talking about Hussein or Bush?
Anyways, we've done the same crap.
Hell, we made Hussein. And Bin Laden. They're our messes to clean up to begin with. And it was Bush's-daddy who was in charge of making them.
We're just paying for the Bush family's deeds ALL around..
What exactly did they say?
Read it here: http://www.house.gov/reform/min/features/iraq_on_the_record/
Bush never did use the term 'imminent' threat but the words he did use are akin to Clinton saying he didn't have sex . . ., or he didn't inhale.
Read it here: http://www.house.gov/reform/min/features/iraq_on_the_record/
Bush never did use the term 'imminent' threat but the words he did use are akin to Clinton saying he didn't have sex . . ., or he didn't inhale.
Last edited:
-
BitcoinMinerAPP.com
- Make Offer
-
influenxer.com
- Make Offer
-
bill7.com
- Make Offer
-
ushcgshots.com
- Make Offer
-
BootStore.com
- Make Offer
-
EtchDroid.com
- Inquire
-
nefrex.com
- Make Offer
-
seriesturcas.com
- Inquire
-
Wizard.io
- Make Offer
-
Unistrada.com
- Make Offer
Similar threads
New posts โ
-
Opax.co- Reply by BrandBoogie
-
XZC.io - Last Chance!!- Post by 702
-
Cool domain names $10 each- 2 posters
- love4ever
-
USATesla.com Make Offer
- Reply by hassan1992
Polls of interest โ
-
What are your strengths as an investor?- 199 voters
- 31 replies
-
What's your domain portfolio size?
- 520 voters
- 152 replies
-
How do you think a potential buyer first checks if your domain is for sale?- 645 voters
- 56 replies
Hot this week โ
-
What is the biggest headache when managing a domain portfolio?- 34 replies
- 20 posters
-
TrueScan.ai Sold For $120,000 At Atom- 27 replies
- 13 points
-
Stan.com Sold for $750,000; TrueScan.ai for $120,000...- 26 replies
- 14 points
-
What stops you investing in expired .NZ domains?
- 35 replies
- 2 points
-
I took the spam risk so you don't lose your money, my full Doma/D3 experience- 27 replies
- 17 points
Hot this month โ
-
WTB short 1-2 word domains - any TLD- 71 replies
- 2 points
-
Buying 2 words .com- 72 replies
- 64 posters
-
Buying one-word .com domains
- 49 replies
- 46 posters
-
Struggling to sell domains
- 54 replies
- 13 points
-
What the First 500 Sales Taught Me About Domain Liquidity- 50 comments
- 118 points
