The Forum > Article Comments > Katrina precipitates Bush's fall from grace > Comments
Katrina precipitates Bush's fall from grace : Comments
By Bede Moore, published 18/11/2005Bede Moore argues the Democrats have an opportunity to seize power from the US Republicans and President Bush.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- Page 3
- 4
-
- All
Posted by Scout, Wednesday, 23 November 2005 10:37:45 AM
| |
Alan Grey,
You advise me to read more factual material and then lead me to an article written by a radical right-winger. Yes, I had heard a lot of that before and for the record, I read a lot of right-wing and so-called unbiased material as well. It would be ignorant of me to only listen to one side of the story. Both sides can make good points. But who's to say the article in your link isn't as misleading or false as the left-wing material out there? Both the Left and the Right will push a point and claim it's gospel. Some of it's true and some of it's not. But as far as the war in Iraq is concerned, it amazes me that conservatives like yourself can't comprehend some basic points. For example... - Eleven of the fifteen 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia not Iraq; - North Korea flaunts their nuclear weapons program yet the response is almost non-existent. Coincidentally, they have no oil; - India and Pakistan - two nuclear armed countries - continually threaten each other, yet no one cares; - Africa is riddled with oppressive dictators, yet no one cares; despite the "fact" that it is now democracy that we're trying to spread - yeah, well at least it is now that the WMD excuse failed anyway; - $221 billion may very well have caught Bin Laden by now and severely fractured Al-Qaeda. Let's assume that the article in your link is 100% fact. I'd serious doubt that it brings much comfort to the family and friends of the over 2000 US soldiers or 100 000 Iraqi civilians that are now dead. Launching a war without a direct threat shows the ignorance and incompetence of a fraudulent "President" who displays no knowledge of history; and therefore, was destined to repeat it. Posted by Mr Man, Wednesday, 23 November 2005 11:45:48 PM
| |
Scout,
You referred to Norman as ‘a member of the far right – hardly objective’ and highlighted his membership in the PNAC. You then go on to call his article ‘highly spurious’. As you did not address any of the facts he provided, I can only assume you are referring to his associations and political outlook as the deciding factor in dismissing his work. This is indeed an ad hominem attack. To summarise his points on WMD 1)Every major intelligence agency believed Saddam had WMD 2) The previous (clinton) administration thought Saddam had WMD 3) The iraq seeking uranium in africa comment in the state of the union address was true. Norman supported all these with quotes from the appropriate people. If all you see in this is no ‘evidence’ and the distinct agenda of pro-right wing dismission (an ironic statement if there ever was one) then there is no hope in prying you away from your bias. Somehow, even though everyone agreed that Saddam had WMD, Bush lied about Saddam having WMD. Please. Mr Man, Norman’s article had a lot of factual content. Including many quotes. I don’t care if an article comes from left or right. It is the facts that are important. You can verify any of those facts if you want to. What cannot be verified is many of the assertions of left-wing moonbats. Please, show me the facts that Bush lied about WMD. I don’t want simple assertions, I want reasonable proof that Bush knew there were no WMD in Iraq, and that the 2 bipartisan committees created to investigate the very question and that found no such dishonesty were also wrong. Until then, all you are doing is making false allegations. As you say you read material from both left and right, I can only assume you are deluded or lying yourself. Here is a link to one of the committee’s reports. http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/iraq.html That you try to put forward the woefully wrong 100,000 Iraqi civilian death figure is more reason to doubt your credibility. Posted by Alan Grey, Thursday, 24 November 2005 11:55:49 AM
| |
Alan Grey,
OK. I'll admit it. I got that exaggerated figure in haste from a site that is very left-wing biased. I researched further into it today and have found that the figure is around 30 000. My mistake. But that doesn't blow away any of my other arguments, or my point that it is foolish to launch a war on a country that poses on immediate threat. Your logic is strange - one incorrect figure and suddenly everything else must by cr*p. I invite you to prove my other points wrong. Or at the very least, give valid excuses for them. I realise that we're being told that Bush, Howard and Blair went in based on flawed intelligence but you don't seem to question why that intelligence was flawed. I DO in fact read some right-wing stuff but I've got to admit, it's mostly for comic relief. I just love how conservatives harp on about issues such as illegal immigrants, how the greenies are some how aiming for world domination, the "evils" of rock music and how Harry Potter books are turning children into devil worshipping witches. While at the same time, we have corporate giants ruthlessly exploiting and financially destroying people buy the millions around the world without a shred of guilt. And we never a word about this from The Right! I find conservatives strangley quite on the larger issues. Posted by Mr Man, Thursday, 24 November 2005 7:08:46 PM
| |
...oops accidentally clicked Post.
What I was about to say (before that slip up) was that the only reason the intelligence was flawed was because the Bush administration had deliberately fixed it. But if you don't believe that then argue it with the CIA veterans. Here's an example... http://www.tompaine.com/articles/proof_bush_fixed_the_facts.php Posted by Mr Man, Thursday, 24 November 2005 7:24:24 PM
| |
Grey,
> "What cannot be verified is many of the assertions of left-wing moonbats." Hardly… A simple Google search for 'wmd intelligence fixed' will result in many articles on the subject. A lot of them factual and from credible sources. So much so that not only do they raise serious question as to whether or not Bush knew that the WMD may not have existed, but that in fact it may have Bush himself - along with his cronies - who were behind the flawed intelligence all along. The fact that you are asking for proof of the WMD lie shows your bias. Posted by Space Cadet, Friday, 25 November 2005 12:32:44 AM
|
If what he claimed in his article is true - where is the evidence? All I could find was a distinct agenda of pro-right wing politics that used dismission as argument.