What Has Gone Right In Iraq

[Tim47SIP]

Typh

Tell me, blueridge, where is the lie in these two statements? In both cases, Clinton spoke of the importance of preventing Saddam from acquiring these weapons.



There is no lie at all. As blue provides, those individuals also thought he had WMD.

That's a far cry from insisting that Saddam actually had the weapons. I don't deny Clinton's a liar. All presidents are, to a certain degree. But let's not take 'mission statements' like the two above and try to twist them into lies.

I think if you look up the word "deminish" you might find that you have to have something to deminish it. Blue did not spin anything here, Clinton stated these which he thought were facts. Mission statements? Is a mission statement different from a regular statement?

 

[Typhoon1244]

Tim, let's be fair. Read Clinton's statements. In the first, he says we must deny Saddam the ability to build W'sMD. In the second, he says we must diminish (not "deminish" ) the threat posed by Saddam's WMD program. (Read the whole sentence, Tim.) In neither statement does he say Saddam already has these weapons.

As jarhead implied in our talk about Korea, if W's administration really believed Saddam had these weapons, we wouldn't have rushed headlong into Iraq. Some finesse would have been required to take out those weapons before they could be used against our forces.

(It's just possible that such a mission was indeed carried out and us Joe Blows don't know about it. Maybe--just maybe--there's no evidence of W'sMD because we already blew them up with Tomahawks...or covert operatives.)

In any case, my point is that if you're going to call someone a liar, you should reference an actual lie, don't you think?

 

[Typhoon1244]

Re: Typh

Mission statements? Is a mission statement different from a regular statement?

Sorry for confusing you. I'll explain:

"Mission statement" is more specific than "statement." It's simply a way of specifying a goal. While a "mission statement" is a "statement," a "statement" isn't always a "mission statement." Just as while a DC-6 is an airplane, an airplane isn't necessarily a DC-6. Follow?

Let me know if there're any other language issues I can help with...

 

[Tim47SIP]

Thyph

"Mission statement" is more specific than "statement." It's simply a way of specifying a goal. While a "mission statement" is a "statement," a "statement" isn't always a "mission statement." Just as while a DC-6 is an airplane, an airplane isn't necessarily a DC-6. Follow?
Wow!

Being in (or just recently retired) from the mil, a mission statement that I am used to is a little more complicated than the statement Clinton made.

In the second, he says we must diminish (not "deminish" ) the threat posed by Saddam's WMD program. (Read the whole sentence, Tim.) In neither statement does he say Saddam already has these weapons.

I thought I did

OK, you got me if you are trying to state that the term program is not the same as actually having them. I think you are splitting hairs here, as that does sound like debating the definition of "is". That to me is one in the same whether the actual weapon has been completed or is still in the procurement phase. Makes no difference when we are trying to alter the end result of any WMD program that he may have had or may have been working on. One other word that is very important in this sentence is the word "threat". This implies that the "program" was a threat and had to be dealt with. So by using his words exactly as they are written, he implies that there were WMD's or SH was very close to completion of WMD. I know this thinking will make you again bring up NK. But there are some checks and ballances there. Iraq was a different story.

I never said that I could spell! So you also got me there.

 

[fugghedabowdit]

I don't buy this argument that, "at least were killing them over there, before they can get here." Most of who we're fighting at this point are disenchanted locals who are getting all gussied up by a few radical Clerics and too much time off. If we had stayed out of Iraq these people would not be finding passage to the US. If you want to "get them before they get here", you'd be better off invading Saudi Arabia, where 15 of the 9-11 terrorists came from.

All in all, were creating more terrorists than we're killing right now. Remember, Osama Bin Ladens hatred of America is an unfortunate by-product of our occupation of Saudi Arabia during Gulf War I. A war that was much more popular in the region and the world. This is a complicated situation with no easy answers, but I feel we will be dealing with negative consequences of this for a long time.

 

[Typhoon1244]

Re: Thyph

...you got me if you are trying to state that the term program is not the same as actually having them. That to me is one in the same whether the actual weapon has been completed or is still in the procurement phase.

Remember those French clowns who came out and announced they'd produced the first human clone? They had a program intended to pursue human cloning, and apparently decided that was close enough to announce success.

Interesting that you think the same way those folks do.

At any rate, neither of the statements made by Clinton and cited in this thread are lies. The Nazis had a nuclear program too...that doesn't mean they were close to actually producing a weapon.

Now--and this is important--this has nothing to do with whether or not I think Saddam needed to be dealt with. He did! But let's try and remember who was lying about what!

 

[blueridge71]

Typhoon,

I agree with Tim that you are splitting hairs.

If Saddam had a WMD program then he had the capacity to produce weapons and there is no way that we could know in real time when he was producing them. The safe course of action is to deny him the ability to produce weapons, which we did.

Now a question for you:

Where is the evidence that Bush lied?

Assuming that the WMDs are not there, that is still not evidence of a lie. It would be evidence of incorrect intelligence, but to prove a lie you have to show an intent to deceive. If that evidence exists, it has not been presented.

 

[Typhoon1244]

I agree with Tim that you are splitting hairs.

Well, you're both wrong.

Where is the evidence that Bush lied? Assuming that the WMDs are not there, that is still not evidence of a lie. It would be evidence of incorrect intelligence...

Granted. And as I stated previously, it's possible that the problem was dealt with early in the war and that's why there's no evidence of W'sMD today.

But since integrity and honesty are rare commodities in any Bush administration, it's difficult to tell what W is lying about and what he's being straight about. Consider this remark made by the President during an interview with CNN:

Well, Jordan , you're not going to believe what state I was in when I heard about the terrorist attack. I was in Florida. And my chief of staff, Andy Card -- actually I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works. And I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on, and I use to fly myself, and I said, "There's one terrible pilot." And I said, "It must have been a horrible accident."

This is an interesting statement considering that (1) there was no live televised footage of the first impact, and (2) there was no T.V. in the classroom. Why would he lie about something like this?

I'm not sure even he knows.

 

[TonyC]

No, just frustrated. You're an intelligent guy--and an airline pilot, no less--who likes George Bush. That's like a fitness buff that only eats at McDonalds.

I don't get it.

Again, I must caution you to read more carefully. I did not even mention a political party, or political persuasion, or a political preference when I questioned the flaw in your logic. I'm content to deal with facts. Are you?

 

[TonyC]

Thanks, Tony,

Was a great evening. Loved the stories about the Paris air show. Folks, if I ever go to Paris for the air show, I'm going with TonyC. THIS man really knows how to work the perks. I'm talking about front row seats on the flightline, unlimited free booze. Musta kissed the Blarney stone somewhere along the way!

It was my pleasure, A Squared. It's not that often I get to hear stories about the older Douglas products. It made watching the C-47 and DC-6 takeoff the next afternoon that more interesting. It's hard to believe those things had the required climb gradient!

Next time you'll have to twist Mar's arm and get him in there, too.