Opinions wanted

[j2k4]

How do/did you feel about Bill Clinton's foreign policy as compared to that of George W. Bush?

How did you perceive America under Clinton, as opposed to Bush?

[ram82082]

proof is the puddin.... look at the US now and compare its state to the Clinton admin.

lol what is Bush's policy, blow shit up?

[vidcc]

I don't think the US has had a good foreign policy in my lifetime, just varying degrees of badness.


Clinton felt we were safe with his policies, and I'm guessing you disagree with him.

Bush felt we were too safe, so adjusted the policy to change this :dry:

[j2k4]

proof is the puddin.... look at the US now and compare its state to the Clinton admin.

lol what is Bush's policy, blow shit up?

proof is in the puddin?

What proof?

What "puddin"?

Clinton really liked to blow shit up, too, but never anything worthwhile.

Odd that Clinton's foreign policy was criticized in much the same terms as Bush's, but no one seems to remember.


I don't think the US has had a good foreign policy in my lifetime, just varying degrees of badness.

Foreign policy vis a vis the U.S.S.R. under Reagan was perhaps our finest hour in the international arena.

I will agree the U.S. is akin oft times to a bull in a china shop, but the bull is the role we have to play.

If we didn't do it, maybe, oh....China, France...maybe Iran would try it, huh?


Clinton felt we were safe with his policies, and I'm guessing you disagree with him.

I did indeed disagree with Clinton's foreign policy; what do you mean, though, when you say, "Clinton felt we were safe with his policies"?


Bush felt we were too safe, so adjusted the policy to change this :dry:

This last is not clear at all.

[ram82082]

b4 u jump the gun... first let me say iam not at all familar with either "policy". what i do know is that with Clinton we had no fear of bin laden or terrorism, and i do remember clinton shakin alot more hands than Bush. i remember my econ prof talkin of repression with Bush in office. i remember how much "we" liked Clinton. i remember the rest of the world hating us alil less. lol, shit i remember we had a prez that could f*ckin read

[Skiz]

b4 u jump the gun... first let me say iam not at all familar with either "policy". what i do know is that with Clinton we had no fear of bin laden or terrorism, and i do remember clinton shakin alot more hands than Bush. i remember my econ prof talkin of repression with Bush in office. i remember how much "we" liked Clinton. i remember the rest of the world hating us alil less. lol, shit i remember we had a prez that could f*ckin read

With Clinton we had no fear of terrorism? WTF are you talking about?

First WTC bombing.
Oklahoma City bombing.
Al Qaeda attacked the USS Cole. I'll never forget the sight of that ship afterwards.
3 (maybe more) embassy bombings in Africa, etc.

Clinton failed miserably at defending this country from not only terrorists, but al Qaeda itself. After those attacks, Clinton ordered one attack on a single building, and I think we all remember how that turned out. :dry:

In a letter to President Clinton, a CBS jounalist asked him about the attck on the USS Cole, and Clinton's reply was:


....I have absolutely no doubt that President-elect Bush will continue to pursue the investigation and when the evidence is in will take appropriate action. And when that happens, I will support him in doing so.

Their "clean hands" solution?


These days, the best the former Clinton aides can say is that, at the end of their time in office, after they failed to adequately respond to the growing threat, they came up with a really great plan to strike back at al Qaeda. As they walked out the door, they handed it to incoming Bush officials and said, "Here — do this."

On a side note, are you insinuating that it is Bush's fault that Bin Laden is a threat by stating, "with Clinton we had no fear of bin laden or terrorism"? If not, what are you saying??

[ram82082]

WTC "bomb" in which u speak of was like 92 n had no terror in it. it was in the fucking garage. dunno about u but i was scared n there was no so-called "war on terrorism. if a car bomb in a garage and blowing up a boat count as terrorism, then what was it laden did?

i aint insinuating shit, im stating what the post asked MY OPINION. the current admin is just as bad as al queda, they're fearmongers.

and i c u left out the part about how many countries we were enemies of pre-bush and present.

[j2k4]

One of the things we've heard over and over again, ad nauseum, is the complaint that the U.S., under Bush, has developed this nasty habit of pre-emptory and unilateral foreign policy.

The overarching message is that this "tendency" began with Bush.

Well, the message is bullshit.

Read, with special attention to the parts I have emboldened:

Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright
Interview on NBC-TV "The Today Show" with Matt Lauer
Columbus, Ohio, February 19, 1998
As released by the Office of the Spokesman
U.S. Department of State

MR. LAUER: On "Close Up" this morning -- the showdown with Iraq. As UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan heads to Baghdad in a last-ditch diplomatic effort to end the standoff, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright is traveling around the United States making the administration’s case for a possible strike against Saddam Hussein. Madame Secretary, good morning to you, good to see you.

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Good morning, Matt, nice to see you.

MR. LAUER: Thank you. To put it bluntly, you were heckled yesterday. What was your reaction to the reception you received?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Well, actually, I thought it was a very interesting meeting. There were a couple of dozen hecklers. But for the most part, there were some very serious people in the audience who had serious questions that we tried to answer. And we’ll continue to do so.

MR. LAUER: That’s true. You did have people who stood up and expressed their concern over military action against Iraq. Did you walk away from the meeting, Madame Secretary, with a different point of view, a different perspective on the situation?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Absolutely not. I think that we know what we have to do, and that is help enforce the UN Security Council resolutions, which demand that Saddam Hussein abide by those resolutions, and get rid of his weapons of mass destruction, and allow the inspectors to have unfettered and unconditional access. That’s what we have to do.

Matt, we would like to solve this peacefully. But if we cannot, we will be using force; and the American people will be behind us, and I think that they understand that.

MR. LAUER: I’m just curious. Do you think yesterday’s session helped or hurt your case? I mean, back in the early 1990s, Madame Secretary, you used to appear on this show as an analyst for foreign affairs with William Hyland. And you’d come on and talk about the Administration’s reaction to foreign affairs. If you were analyzing yesterday’s performance by you and your colleagues, how would you rate it?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: I thought our performance was great. But I think that the issue here is that there were people who disagree. I would probably say that there were a few dozen hecklers who disagreed. But what I would have said, actually, is that there were more people that asked questions and directed their thoughts about the fact that we ought to send in ground forces.

That’s what I found interesting -- that there are more Americans who really would like us to go in and finish off Saddam Hussein. That was the message that I got from that meeting.

MR. LAUER: And you lead me right into my next question, because one man you heard from yesterday was a retired serviceman named Mike McCall, whose son died during the Vietnam War. Here’s what he said.

(Audio clip.)

Madame Secretary, Secretary of Defense William Cohen attempted to answer that question yesterday. Why don’t you give it a shot for me today.

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Well, we had a half-a-million troops there in 1991. And the decision was that they could not take out Saddam Hussein. And I don’t think, frankly, that if we got into it, that the American people would want us to send in huge numbers of forces. So we are doing what must be done.

First of all, we would like to have a diplomatic, peaceful solution and have him give unfettered access to these places, so that we could tell what is happening with his weapons of mass destruction. But otherwise, the purpose of a very substantial strike will be to substantially reduce his weapons of mass destruction threat and his threat to the neighbors. We think that is an appropriate goal, and our goal -- and we’ve said this, Matt -- may not seem really decisive; but what we’re trying to do here is contain Saddam Hussein. We’ve managed to do that for seven years. This has been a successful policy. Whenever he puts his head up, we push him back.

MR. LAUER: Let me bring in the man who asked that question in Columbus yesterday, Madame Secretary. Mike McCall, good morning to you.

MR. MCCALL: Good morning, sir, how are you?

MR. LAUER: Oh, thank you, I’m fine. It was a bit impersonal and somewhat raucous in that room yesterday, so let me give you a chance to ask a question one-on-one to the Secretary of State.

MR. MCCALL: Good morning, Madame, how are you?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Good morning, good to see you again.

MR. MCCALL: Thank you, kind of early in the morning. My question is, actually, more of a statement. I’m not a warmonger; I don’t want to see a war; and I don’t think there was any man in that room that was in uniform yesterday, if I’d have asked the question, who wants a war, who would have stood up.

My thought was, if we send in troops after a saturated bombing run and get this thing neutralized to where the troops could almost walk in there in parade formation as more or less of a police force to support the inspectors that come in; get those weapons; destroy them and then turn around to Saddam Hussein and say, "Hey, run your country now, run it like a human being, take care of your people, we’ll buy your oil, we’ll give you money for your oil, and make this country for your people." I don’t want to hurt those people.

MR. LAUER: Let me ask the Secretary of State, is that feasible?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Well, first of all, let me say how much I admire the gentleman who asked the question; I did yesterday; he is clearly a great patriot.

I think the problem with the idea is that we would have to end up being an occupying force. The Americans don’t want to do that. I don’t think the American people would want us to do that. But after the substantial strike, I think we have a much better chance of having the inspectors go back in or make sure that these weapons are not reconstituted by being willing to do another strike.

This is a very serious problem. None of us are saying that there are easy solutions to it, but we have to contain Saddam Hussein. And, as I’ve said many times, we are prepared to deal, ready to deal with a post-Saddam regime.

But I appreciate what he’s saying, because I think he’s a very brave American and a patriotic American who understands why we have to do this.

MR. LAUER: Mike, let me ask you to stand by, and let me ask a couple more questions to Madeleine Albright.

Madame Secretary, your trip to the Middle East several weeks ago was not as successful as I think you would have liked, in building a coalition against Saddam Hussein at this point -- certainly not as successful as the coalition in 1991. Have you spoken to President Bush or former Secretary of State Baker and asked for any advice on gaining support from the Arab world?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: First of all, I think my trip actually went pretty well, because this is a very different situation from ’91, when there was a cross-border invasion of one Arab country into another. And frankly, I got a lot more support than is publicly visible, because these people live in the region.

MR. LAUER: So they’re saying one thing in public, and saying something else to you in private?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Yes, yes. And we feel comfortable that should we have to use military force, that they will be very cooperative.

And as a matter of fact, I did talk to both former President Bush and former Secretary of State Baker; and they both agreed that we have a much more complicated situation than they had on their hands. And they were very supportive, and I especially enjoyed -- well, I enjoyed talking to both of them, because they do have some very good points.

MR. LAUER: Will you speak for me, Madame Secretary, to the parents of American men and women who may soon be asked to go into harm’s way, and who get the feeling that many countries in the rest of the world are standing by silently while their children are once again being asked to clean up a mess for the rest of the world?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Well, let me say that there are, a couple of dozen countries that are with us on this that are providing a variety of equipment, support and are willing to be with us. So there is a misunderstanding about saying that there is no coalition; there is. And the truth is that in the Gulf War, we did most of the work, too. There’s no question that we, with the British and French, did a large proportion of the work.

Let me say that we are doing everything possible so that American men and women in uniform do not have to go out there again. It is the threat of the use of force and our line-up there that is going to put force behind the diplomacy. But if we have to use force, it is because we are America; we are the indispensable nation. We stand tall and we see further than other countries into the future, and we see the danger here to all of us. I know that the American men and women in uniform are always prepared to sacrifice for freedom, democracy and the American way of life.

MR. LAUER: Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. Thank you so much again.

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Thank you.

[ram82082]

lol bullshit it is, we get bombed by bin laden and go after sudam.... lol now i know they all pretty much look alike, but c'mon.

and it always trips me out when politicians talk about use force, like they're the ones that are gonna lead our young men/women in battle.

i pose a ? --- do you think we'll ever have another prez that will actually fight? like g.w. crossin the delaware or .... to me that a leader. yea he could die but thats why we have VP's and cabinets. if our prez did sumthin like that man! u'd see me on the next ship talkin bout sum "whoo-raaah"

f*ck it, can we get a leader that'll admit when he's wrong?

and wtf's up with this we can weapons but u cant bs?

[Busyman™]

With Clinton we had no fear of terrorism? WTF are you talking about?

First WTC bombing.
Al Qaeda attacked the USS Cole. I'll never forget the sight of that ship afterwards.
3 (maybe more) embassy bombings in Africa, etc.

Clinton failed miserably at defending this country from not only terrorists, but al Qaeda itself. After those attacks, Clinton ordered one attack on a single building, and I think we all remember how that turned out. :dry:

In a letter to President Clinton, a CBS jounalist asked him about the attck on the USS Cole, and Clinton's reply was:


....I have absolutely no doubt that President-elect Bush will continue to pursue the investigation and when the evidence is in will take appropriate action. And when that happens, I will support him in doing so.

Their "clean hands" solution?


These days, the best the former Clinton aides can say is that, at the end of their time in office, after they failed to adequately respond to the growing threat, they came up with a really great plan to strike back at al Qaeda. As they walked out the door, they handed it to incoming Bush officials and said, "Here — do this."

On a side note, are you insinuating that it is Bush's fault that Bin Laden is a threat by stating, "with Clinton we had no fear of bin laden or terrorism"? If not, what are you saying??

Bush then attacks Iraq and can't show Bin Laden after 6 years.

Uh yeah.:dry:

I feel much safer.

[Busyman™]

One of the things we've heard over and over again, ad nauseum, is the complaint that the U.S., under Bush, has developed this nasty habit of pre-emptory and unilateral foreign policy.

If you want your post not to be read, make it blue, lengthy, and with multiple word bricks.:ermm:

Nice going.

I dunno this ad nauseum complaint and whatnot but most people I know complain about Bush leading the charge to attack a country that had shit all to do with terrorism or 9/11.

Pretty simple.

[ram82082]

:yup:

[Barbarossa]

As a foreigner, I can't tell the difference between the two. :idunno:

[j2k4]

Bush then attacks Iraq and can't show Bin Laden after 6 years.

Uh yeah.:dry:

I feel much safer.

Funny, huh?

Clinton has multiple shots at Bin Laden but can't pull the trigger, and Bush can't find him now that Bin Laden is actually hiding from us.

It would be even more embarrassing for Clinton's legacy if Bin Laden had been hiding from him, too, I suppose. :whistling

As to the "safer" thing?

To the extent we haven't suffered any attacks since then, it should be plain the reason is not that we've deterred them by dint of new policy (witness airport "security"...witness our porous borders), but because they've found us willing to "return fire", as it were.

There is no other reason.

[j2k4]

As a foreigner, I can't tell the difference between the two. :idunno:

I'd say this is the proper objective response.

Thank you, Barbie. :)

[manker]

I think Clinton made some bad choices, like bombing Sudan for, what seemed to me, no good reason. The US led coalition also killed thousand of civillians in response for Iraqi planes violating no fly zones in the latter years of his tenure.

This, however, pales with Bush's seemingly idiotic policy of completely alienating whole countries. Of course, I mean his 'axis of evil' soundbite. Invading Iraq citing one reason at the time and then justifying it with another is also much worse than any foreign policy faux-pas commited by the Clinton administration.

The whole Iraq war was a debacle - and I'm pleased to see in recent elections that the American people agree with me.


The general apathy displayed by the US public during the Clinton years concerning his foreign policy irritated me - under Bush, the groundswell of displeasure has influenced my perception of the American people for the better.

We are talking about perception of American people as a whole, rather than basing an opinion of a whole country on one man, I take it.

===


Clinton has multiple shots at Bin Laden but can't pull the triggerThat's a clever trick.

[Skillian]

If it's just an opinion you're after, mine is that Clinton tried to make a few friends and gave some thought to the point of view of other countries.

Bush just couldn't give a shit what anyone except the USA thinks.

That's the overriding difference between the two.

[vidcc]

As to the "safer" thing?

To the extent we haven't suffered any attacks since then, it should be plain the reason is not that we've deterred them by dint of new policy (witness airport "security"...witness our porous borders), but because they've found us willing to "return fire", as it were.

There is no other reason.

We shall ignore the anthrax thing then and just say that nobody has been blown up (on US soil).:whistling

How many years passed after the first WTC attack and the next terrorist attack on the US? Could it just be a matter of time?

But it's funny how you say they have been deterred when worldwide terrorist attacks are way up. I would say that we are less safe because of Bush's policies simply because we are hated more.

We are also more at risk from terrorist attacks from right wing bloggers


hold on, I've just been handed my fauxnews internal memo.........



Seems we can stop blaming clinton now and instead blame pelosi..... that will be a refreshing change:rolleyes:

[100%]

It didn't seem so "in our faces" during clinton.

[vidcc]

Clinton failed miserably at defending this country from not only terrorists, but al Qaeda itself. :glag:


In a letter to President Clinton, a CBS jounalist asked him about the attck on the USS Cole, and Clinton's reply was:


....I have absolutely no doubt that President-elect Bush will continue to pursue the investigation and when the evidence is in will take appropriate action. And when that happens, I will support him in doing so.

Their "clean hands" solution?
He had no confirmation as to who did it until he was about to hand over to Bush. I know you repubs like to attack (well get the troops to attack) anyone because they "look suspicious", but had clinton attacked at that point then you would be blaming him for handing a war over.
On the other hand Bush had all the evidence confirmed, just what did he do?



On a side note, are you insinuating that it is Bush's fault that Bin Laden is a threat by stating, "with Clinton we had no fear of bin laden or terrorism"? If not, what are you saying??

You have to look at timescales to say he was a threat. I mean at one point we not only armed him but provided training. A habit the US has.

[Skiz]

:glag:

:blink:


You have to look at timescales to say he was a threat. I mean at one point we not only armed him but provided training. A habit the US has.


Surely that comment is directed at ram82....

[vidcc]

:blink:


You have to look at timescales to say he was a threat. I mean at one point we not only armed him but provided training. A habit the US has.


Surely that comment is directed at ram82....

No it was directed at your question and how I read his post. The point being that bin laden wasn't really known by the population at large during the clinton years and before that he was being funded by the US because of politics and his fighting the soviet occupation in Afghanistan.
So my comment on timescale is that we didn't "fear" bin laden at that time. Let's face it, until 911 happened the average joe probably never once gave a thought to terrorism. In fact it was amazing how many seemed to think that terrorism was new to the world, living in the bubbles as they do.

[j2k4]

As to the "safer" thing?

To the extent we haven't suffered any attacks since then, it should be plain the reason is not that we've deterred them by dint of new policy (witness airport "security"...witness our porous borders), but because they've found us willing to "return fire", as it were.

There is no other reason.

We shall ignore the anthrax thing then and just say that nobody has been blown up (on US soil).:whistling

The "anthrax" thing?

Oh, you mean the widespread dissemination of the anthrax envelopes?

I just threw mine in the garbage, as did everyone else I know who received one.

What did you do with yours? :dry:

How many years passed after the first WTC attack and the next terrorist attack on the US? Could it just be a matter of time?

I think you'd have to agree 9/11 signalled the lid had come off on terrorist intentions, and in light of that, what came before was small potatoes.

But it's funny how you say they have been deterred when worldwide terrorist attacks are way up. I would say that we are less safe because of Bush's policies simply because we are hated more.

Here's what I think about terrorist attacks on other countries, in a nutshell:

If Spain, or the U.K., or who-have-you, suffers a terrorist attack, they should retaliate, as we have, against the terrorists...what better way to dissociate themselves from the U.S.?

If Spain, for instance, prefers to make a case they are suffering attacks over their relationship with the U.S., it only makes sense to retaliate against the terrorists.

Unless they want to fuck with us, instead...

See, even if you don't agree with U.S. foreign policy, we generally try to twist arms through the cunning influence of aid and money, rather than bombing the subways and trains of our allies.

You apparently see a moral equivalence between the two, but I do not.

We are also more at risk from terrorist attacks from right wing bloggers

hold on, I've just been handed my fauxnews internal memo.........

Seems we can stop blaming clinton now and instead blame pelosi..... that will be a refreshing change:rolleyes:

Now it seems you consider any attempt to blame Ms. Pelosi and her cohort for America's problems to be a "terrorist attack"?

Figures...

[vidcc]

The "anthrax" thing?

Oh, you mean the widespread dissemination of the anthrax envelopes?

I just threw mine in the garbage, as did everyone else I know who received one.

What did you do with yours? :dry:
Oh... did a plane fly into your house....can't have been widespead on 911 then.
What is your death toll level at which you will call something terrorism and what do you think terrorism is?. I mean it left 5 americans dead and a few seriously ill. But to you that doesn't matter as you didn't get one.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5960215/



Now it seems you consider any attempt to blame Ms. Pelosi and her cohort for America's problems to be a "terrorist attack"?

Figures...

seems you are not up to date on your news about packages of white powder being sent through the mail by regular contributors of right wing blogs

It also seems you didn't get the fauxnews election talking points memo

[Biggles]

Clinton trod the foreign stage well and was popular although he did not seem to do much. Ireland and Bosnia/Kosova might be considered successes of sorts (although I think we have been rather heavy handed with the Serbs who have long been our stoutest allies in the region - they weren't all Milosovics). Bill mainly appeared to be concerned with domestic economics and interns. Nevertheless, he has a charm and easy intelligent manner that still makes him popular abroad

Bush came onto the scene and eschewed nation building and said he wanted to concentrate on domestic issues but has actually spent most of his time attempting to nation building (with, it must be said, limited results). On the international front he had an unfortunate manner (I say had as he appears to be undergoing some sort of transformation at the moment) and tended to come across as boorish and unsympathetic "Dead or Alive" "Bring it on". At best he appeared ill-advised.

Bush rightly or wrongly will be defined by the outcome of the Iraq war and not his economic policy or war against AQ. Bill rightly or wrongly will be remembered for relative peace and prosperity and that dress, his rougishness enhancing his image rather than diminishing it.

[JPaul]

If it's just an opinion you're after, mine is that Clinton tried to make a few friends and gave some thought to the point of view of other countries.

Bush just couldn't give a shit what anyone except the USA thinks.

That's the overriding difference between the two.

I pretty much agree with that. Bush's attitude seems to be something like "we don't have to listen to other people, so we won't".

I also agree with Les' point that Clinton could claim some international success. He and his chaps did appear to play a fairly vital part in the whole Irish thing.

Let's be honest here tho', his popliarity is probably because he is an intelligent, eloquent and charismatic man. Bush may be intelligent, I don't know however he is certainly neither eloquent or charismatic.

[Skiz]

Let's be honest here tho', his popliarity is probably because he is an intelligent, eloquent and charismatic man. Bush may be intelligent, I don't know however he is certainly neither eloquent or charismatic.

I will give Clinton that much, he was a great speaker. By that, I simply mean that he was comfortable in front of the cameras, and a smooth talker.

Bush on the other hand, just has a different way about him. To me, it's natural. We're both Texans and so I see his posture and body language as normal. It really is a cultural thing. Though I can also see how others have percieved it as being different, or as I read once, "unprofessional".

[JPaul]

Let's be honest here tho', his popliarity is probably because he is an intelligent, eloquent and charismatic man. Bush may be intelligent, I don't know however he is certainly neither eloquent or charismatic.

I will give Clinton that much, he was a great speaker. By that, I simply mean that he was comfortable in front of the cameras, and a smooth talker.

Bush on the other hand, just has a different way about him. To me, it's natural. We're both Texans and so I see his posture and body language as normal. It really is a cultural thing. Though I can also see how others have percieved it as being different, or as I read once, "unprofessional".

Skizo,

With the best will in the World it isn't a cultural thing. Sometimes he talks absolute shite.


"The only way we can win is to leave before the job is done." --George W. Bush, Greeley, Colo., Nov. 4, 2006

"You know, when I campaigned here in 2000, I said, I want to be a war President. No President wants to be a war President, but I am one." --George W. Bush, Des Moines, Iowa, Oct. 26, 2006


"One has a stronger hand when there's more people playing your same cards." --George W. Bush, on holding six-party talks with North Korea, Washington, D.C., Oct. 11, 2006


"I like to tell people when the final history is written on Iraq, it will look like just a comma because there is -- my point is, there's a strong will for democracy." --George W. Bush, interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer, Sept. 24, 2006


"You know, one of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror." --George W. Bush, interview with CBS News' Katie Couric, Sept. 6, 2006



"And I suspect that what you'll see, Toby, is there will be a momentum, momentum will be gathered. Houses will begat jobs, jobs will begat houses." --George W. Bush, talking to reporters along the hurricane-ravaged Gulf Coast, Gulfport, Miss., Aug. 28, 2006



"I think -- tide turning -- see, as I remember -- I was raised in the desert, but tides kind of -- it's easy to see a tide turn -- did I say those words?" --George W. Bush, asked if the tide was turning in Iraq, Washington, D.C., June 14, 2006


It's not like it's a one-off mate. He's at it all the time.

[Skiz]

I said his "posture and body language" was cultural, not his speaking abilities.

It's no secret to anyone that he fumbles all over his words.

[JPaul]

I said his "posture and body language" was cultural, not his speaking abilities.

It's no secret to anyone that he fumbles all over his words.

I haven't noticed his posture or body language as being in any way out of the ordinary.

It's just that he talks shite, on regular occassions. It's a bit more than him fumbling over his words.


"There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me - you can't get fooled again."


"The law I sign today directs new funds and new focus to the task of collecting vital intelligence on terrorist threats and on weapons of mass production."



"I was proud the other day when both Republicans and Democrats stood with me in the Rose Garden to announce their support for a clear statement of purpose: you disarm, or we will."


"You teach a child to read, and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test."


"I want to thank the President and the CEO of Constellation Energy, Mayo Shattuck. That's a pretty cool first name, isn't it, Mayo. Pass the Mayo."


"The California crunch really is the result of not enough power-generating plants and then not enough power to power the power of generating plants."


"I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them."


"To those of you who received honors, awards and distinctions, I say well done. And to the C students, I say: You, too, can be president of the United States."

[j2k4]

"To those of you who received honors, awards and distinctions, I say well done. And to the C students, I say: You, too, can be president of the United States."

That last was actually because he was a "C" student...poking a bit of fun at himself.

Do you think the items on Bush's plate (as compared with Clinton's) are at all different after 9/11?

Do you think the inaction of the U.N. in the face Iraqi intransigence may have had any bearing on international perceptions of U.S. foreign policy?

Do you think Tony Blair aligned himself with Bush because he was sucking up, or because he thought it in England's best interest to do so?

[j2k4]

I will give Clinton that much, he was a great speaker. By that, I simply mean that he was comfortable in front of the cameras, and a smooth talker.

That's 'cuz he got his oil changed every day. :naughty:

[JPaul]

Do you think Tony Blair aligned himself with Bush because he was sucking up, or because he thought it in England's best interest to do so?

You suspect he didn't really care about the rest of the United Kingdom then.

I think that's a bit harsh.

Oh and there are options other than the two you proposed. For example he may have just thought it was the right thing to do.

Or he may have discussed it with other members of the Government and acted out the democratic process.

Or it may have been debated in Parliament.

Or he could have done it because it seemed like a bit of a larf at the time.

[j2k4]

It's just that he talks shite, on regular occassions. It's a bit more than him fumbling over his words.

Oh, absolutely correct.

Those words were all intentionally scripted and accurately recited, in an attempt to shed the cloak of presumptive U.S. superiority.

That's what I hear, anyhow.

A magnificent success, too. :yup:

[JPaul]

Can something be unintentionally scripted.

[j2k4]

Do you think Tony Blair aligned himself with Bush because he was sucking up, or because he thought it in England's best interest to do so?

You suspect he didn't really care about the rest of the United Kingdom then.

I think that's a bit harsh.

My apologies for the oversight...I didn't think you'd appreciate his speaking for you.

Oh and there are options other than the two you proposed. For example he may have just thought it was the right thing to do.

That's impossible, ask anybody.

No one in his right mind would so conclude.

He wanted to be Bush's bitch, pure and simple, and wasn't about to pass up the chance.

So I've heard.

Or he may have discussed it with other members of the Government and acted out the democratic process.

I think we'd have heard, if that were the case.

Or it may have been debated in Parliament.

And advocated by Galloway, too...

Or he could have done it because it seemed like a bit of a larf at the time.

I don't doubt that last.

Ironic, huh?

[j2k4]

Can something be unintentionally scripted.

Given his confident mien and facility with words, I don't doubt he departs from the script when it suits him, no worries.

He means what he says, and he's a man of his word(s).

Now, if you will excuse me, I have to go chase men wielding high-powered weapons through a heavily-wooded area.

It's great fun; I hear you can't do this in the U.K.

Sorry to hear it.

[JPaul]

You suspect he didn't really care about the rest of the United Kingdom then.

I think that's a bit harsh.

My apologies for the oversight...I didn't think you'd appreciate his speaking for you.

I believe in the Democratic process, we elected the party he leads ergo he speaks for me.

Oh and there are options other than the two you proposed. For example he may have just thought it was the right thing to do.

That's impossible, ask anybody.

No one in his right mind would so conclude.

He wanted to be Bush's bitch, pure and simple, and wasn't about to pass up the chance.

So I've heard.

I think that may just have been an added bonus

Or he may have discussed it with other members of the Government and acted out the democratic process.

I think we'd have heard, if that were the case.

We did, you're just to parochial to listen

Or it may have been debated in Parliament.

And advocated by Galloway, too...

I wouldn't have thought so

Or he could have done it because it seemed like a bit of a larf at the time.

I don't doubt that last.

Ironic, huh?

No, not really.

[JPaul]

Can something be unintentionally scripted.

Given his confident mien and facility with words, I don't doubt he departs from the script when it suits him, no worries.

He means what he says, and he's a man of his word(s).

Now, if you will excuse me, I have to go chase men wielding high-powered weapons through a heavily-wooded area.

It's great fun; I hear you can't do this in the U.K.

Sorry to hear it.

What makes you think this. It's a regular occurance.

[Skiz]

I said his "posture and body language" was cultural, not his speaking abilities.

It's no secret to anyone that he fumbles all over his words.

I haven't noticed his posture or body language as being in any way out of the ordinary.

It's just that he talks shite, on regular occassions. It's a bit more than him fumbling over his words.


"There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me - you can't get fooled again."


"The law I sign today directs new funds and new focus to the task of collecting vital intelligence on terrorist threats and on weapons of mass production."



"I was proud the other day when both Republicans and Democrats stood with me in the Rose Garden to announce their support for a clear statement of purpose: you disarm, or we will."


"You teach a child to read, and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test."


"I want to thank the President and the CEO of Constellation Energy, Mayo Shattuck. That's a pretty cool first name, isn't it, Mayo. Pass the Mayo."


"The California crunch really is the result of not enough power-generating plants and then not enough power to power the power of generating plants."


"I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them."


"To those of you who received honors, awards and distinctions, I say well done. And to the C students, I say: You, too, can be president of the United States."

One can find this kind of shit about anyone though. You can't single Bush out as if he's the only one. :dabs:

Clinton has been a topic of the forums as of late, so I'll pick on him a bit.

"I can spend your money better than you can."

"You know the one thing that's wrong with this country? Everyone gets a chance to have their fair say."

"The last time I checked, the Constitution said, 'of the people, by the people and for the people.' That's what the Declaration of Independence says."

"It has not worked. No one can say it has worked, so I decided we're either going to do what we said we're going to do with the U.N., or we're going to do something else."

"African-Americans watch the same news at night that ordinary Americans do."

"It depends on how you define "alone" ... there were a lot of times when we were alone, but I never really thought we were."

"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is".

[JPaul]

Not even in the same league of drivel, by a long way.

In fact a couple of them actually make sense. It's more your bad that you can't see it.

[Skiz]

Not even in the same league of drivel, by a long way.

In fact a couple of them actually make sense. It's more your bad that you can't see it.

No, they don't.

The only one I can see that you might think possibly questionable is the following, but I'll break it down since you didn't get it.

"The last time I checked, the Constitution said, 'of the people, by the people and for the people.' That's what the Declaration of Independence says."

Clinton insinuates that these two documents are the same one. They are not. I learned this in elementary school. If that were the only mistake, it wouldn't be that be of a deal, but the quote comes from the Gettysburg Address ffs! "Last time I checked"? Check again.

[JPaul]

Not even in the same league of drivel, by a long way.

In fact a couple of them actually make sense. It's more your bad that you can't see it.

No, they don't.

The only one I can see that you might think possibly questionable is the following, but I'll break it down since you didn't get it.

"The last time I checked, the Constitution said, 'of the people, by the people and for the people.' That's what the Declaration of Independence says."

Clinton insinuates that these two documents are the same one. They are not. I learned this in elementary school. If that were the only mistake, it wouldn't be that be of a deal, but the quote comes from the Gettysburg Address ffs! "Last time I checked"? Check again.

Thanks for breaking that down for me but I can see the mistake he made there. FFS even I can see that and my knowledge of your history is as near to non-existant as makes no difference.

Like I said earlier the fact that you can't see the sense in some of the things the man said is more your shortcoming than his.

[Biggles]

Skizo

I am with JP on this. Clinton's are for the most part slippery slidey politician/lawyer speak (apart from the faux pas regarding Afro Americans not being ordinary). W's are actually just plain funny.

One of my favourite W lines is

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful - and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people - and neither do we."

All people in the public eye mis-speak from time to time but Bush has generated books of this stuff.

[JPaul]

Skizo

I am with JP on this. Clinton's are for the most part slippery slidey politician/lawyer speak (apart from the faux pas regarding Afro Americans not being ordinary). W's are actually just plain funny.

One of my favourite W lines is

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful - and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people - and neither do we."

All people in the public eye mis-speak from time to time but Bush has generated books of this stuff.

One of my absolute faves. :lol:

The bugger only opens his mouth to change feet.

[vidcc]

I'm fond of this one-

"No question that the enemy has tried to spread sectarian violence. They use violence as a tool to do that."



"You can fool some of the people all the time, and those are the ones you want to concentrate on."

which is telling because you have to be an "on the list fully paid up and sworn oath of loyalty supporter" to attend his "town hall meetings" on any subject. Otherwise security will have you removed...... So is he concentrating on fooling someone in particular?;)

[JPaul]

"You can fool some of the people all the time, and those are the ones you want to concentrate on."



:glag: :earl:

Genious.

[Skiz]

WTC "bomb" in which u speak of was like 92 n had no terror in it. it was in the fucking garage. dunno about u but i was scared n there was no so-called "war on terrorism. if a car bomb in a garage and blowing up a boat count as terrorism, then what was it laden did?

i aint insinuating shit, im stating what the post asked MY OPINION. the current admin is just as bad as al queda, they're fearmongers.

and i c u left out the part about how many countries we were enemies of pre-bush and present.

Ah yes, how could I forget? Bombs in garages do no damage.

Too bad Timothy McVeigh didn't know that.

[ram82082]

lol hey Skiz Tim's was in a parking lot and it was alot f*ckin bigger. btw what damage are u talkin about from 92'..... all that smoke really weaked the foundation. thats why it fell so ez on 9/11 right?

[j2k4]

lol hey Skiz Tim's was in a parking lot and it was alot f*ckin bigger. btw what damage are u talkin about from 92'..... all that smoke really weaked the foundation. thats why it fell so ez on 9/11 right?

You really don't know what the fuck you're talking about, do you?

The bomb exploded in the underground garage at 12:17 P.M., generating a pressure estimated over one GPa and opening a 30-meter-wide hole through four sublevels of concrete. The detonation velocity of this bomb was about 15,000 ft/s (4.5 km/s).

http://www.answers.com/topic/wtc-1993-atf-jpg

A little smoke, eh?

[vidcc]

Originally Posted by ram82082 View Post
lol hey Skiz Tim's was in a parking lot and it was alot f*ckin bigger. btw what damage are u talkin about from 92'..... all that smoke really weaked the foundation. thats why it fell so ez on 9/11 right?

You really don't know what the fuck you're talking about, do you?


While I agree that ram is wrong to discard the first attack, this from the man that did the same with the anthrax letters that killed 5 and left many more seriously ill :rolleyes:

[j2k4]

You really don't know what the fuck you're talking about, do you?


While I agree that ram is wrong to discard the first attack, this from the man that did the same with the anthrax letters that killed 5 and left many more seriously ill :rolleyes:

Now, that was "a little smoke".

[ram82082]

you cats can say what you will... but somewhere in your minds you have to understand that a 30 meter hole and the COMPLETE destruction of 2 of the biggest buildings in the world is apples n oranges.

If the 92' bombing was so huge(as you guys are making it seem), then how come nobody knew or even gave a shit about terrorism/al queida/jihad 'til 9/11?

Vidcc its really not a good idea to bring up death tolls of our ppl, when comparing the clinton and bush admins. 9/11 had more dead than pearl harbor dude(a day that will live in infamy, might i add). which is more than double now, with the "war on terror"

and besides thats not even the point of this thread. i do believe its about forgien policies. so which prez had more problems with the rest of the world? tell me im wrong now, and say Clinton did.

[j2k4]

you cats can say what you will... but somewhere in your minds you have to understand that a 30 meter hole and the COMPLETE destruction of 2 of the biggest buildings in the world is apples n oranges.


The rest of your post aside, I think we understand the difference between the apples of '93 and the oranges of 9/11.

That you have tumbled to the difference yourself, though, is a major moment.

We are happy for you. :whistling

[vidcc]

you cats can say what you will... but somewhere in your minds you have to understand that a 30 meter hole and the COMPLETE destruction of 2 of the biggest buildings in the world is apples n oranges.

If the 92' bombing was so huge(as you guys are making it seem), then how come nobody knew or even gave a shit about terrorism/al queida/jihad 'til 9/11?

Vidcc its really not a good idea to bring up death tolls of our ppl, when comparing the clinton and bush admins. 9/11 had more dead than pearl harbor dude(a day that will live in infamy, might i add). which is more than double now, with the "war on terror"

and besides thats not even the point of this thread. i do believe its about forgien policies. so which prez had more problems with the rest of the world? tell me im wrong now, and say Clinton did.
An act of terrorism is an act of terrorism. The death toll is only part of the shock factor and the higher the better if you are the terrorist. However the definition remains the same even if nobody dies.
In the UK the IRA were carrying out acts of terrorism when they phoned in their hoax bomb warnings just as much as they were when they phoned in real bomb warnings.
The purpose is to create fear of the act.
I merely raised the fact that the anthrax letters post 911 killed 5 and made many seriously ill because j2 dismissed it as "nothing" because he didn't get one. The fact is we did suffer another attack post 911, just not on the same scale.

[lynx]

J2, I find it strange that you invite comparisons between the two administrations, then try to show that there is almost no difference.

I suspect that Busy was right that the following method is the way to get people to ignore what you've written, but I went ahead and read it anyway. Except I ignored your emboldening.

I've reproduced it here but with my own emboldening, which shows the marked difference between their policies.



One of the things we've heard over and over again, ad nauseum, is the complaint that the U.S., under Bush, has developed this nasty habit of pre-emptory and unilateral foreign policy.

The overarching message is that this "tendency" began with Bush.

Well, the message is bullshit.

Read, with special attention to the parts I have emboldened:

Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright
Interview on NBC-TV "The Today Show" with Matt Lauer
Columbus, Ohio, February 19, 1998
As released by the Office of the Spokesman
U.S. Department of State

MR. LAUER: On "Close Up" this morning -- the showdown with Iraq. As UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan heads to Baghdad in a last-ditch diplomatic effort to end the standoff, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright is traveling around the United States making the administration’s case for a possible strike against Saddam Hussein. Madame Secretary, good morning to you, good to see you.

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Good morning, Matt, nice to see you.

MR. LAUER: Thank you. To put it bluntly, you were heckled yesterday. What was your reaction to the reception you received?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Well, actually, I thought it was a very interesting meeting. There were a couple of dozen hecklers. But for the most part, there were some very serious people in the audience who had serious questions that we tried to answer. And we’ll continue to do so.

MR. LAUER: That’s true. You did have people who stood up and expressed their concern over military action against Iraq. Did you walk away from the meeting, Madame Secretary, with a different point of view, a different perspective on the situation?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Absolutely not. I think that we know what we have to do, and that is help enforce the UN Security Council resolutions, which demand that Saddam Hussein abide by those resolutions, and get rid of his weapons of mass destruction, and allow the inspectors to have unfettered and unconditional access. That’s what we have to do.

Matt, we would like to solve this peacefully. But if we cannot, we will be using force; and the American people will be behind us, and I think that they understand that.

MR. LAUER: I’m just curious. Do you think yesterday’s session helped or hurt your case? I mean, back in the early 1990s, Madame Secretary, you used to appear on this show as an analyst for foreign affairs with William Hyland. And you’d come on and talk about the Administration’s reaction to foreign affairs. If you were analyzing yesterday’s performance by you and your colleagues, how would you rate it?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: I thought our performance was great. But I think that the issue here is that there were people who disagree. I would probably say that there were a few dozen hecklers who disagreed. But what I would have said, actually, is that there were more people that asked questions and directed their thoughts about the fact that we ought to send in ground forces.

That’s what I found interesting -- that there are more Americans who really would like us to go in and finish off Saddam Hussein. That was the message that I got from that meeting.

MR. LAUER: And you lead me right into my next question, because one man you heard from yesterday was a retired serviceman named Mike McCall, whose son died during the Vietnam War. Here’s what he said.

(Audio clip.)

Madame Secretary, Secretary of Defense William Cohen attempted to answer that question yesterday. Why don’t you give it a shot for me today.

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Well, we had a half-a-million troops there in 1991. And the decision was that they could not take out Saddam Hussein. And I don’t think, frankly, that if we got into it, that the American people would want us to send in huge numbers of forces. So we are doing what must be done.

First of all, we would like to have a diplomatic, peaceful solution and have him give unfettered access to these places, so that we could tell what is happening with his weapons of mass destruction. But otherwise, the purpose of a very substantial strike will be to substantially reduce his weapons of mass destruction threat and his threat to the neighbors. We think that is an appropriate goal, and our goal -- and we’ve said this, Matt -- may not seem really decisive; but what we’re trying to do here is contain Saddam Hussein. We’ve managed to do that for seven years. This has been a successful policy. Whenever he puts his head up, we push him back.

MR. LAUER: Let me bring in the man who asked that question in Columbus yesterday, Madame Secretary. Mike McCall, good morning to you.

MR. MCCALL: Good morning, sir, how are you?

MR. LAUER: Oh, thank you, I’m fine. It was a bit impersonal and somewhat raucous in that room yesterday, so let me give you a chance to ask a question one-on-one to the Secretary of State.

MR. MCCALL: Good morning, Madame, how are you?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Good morning, good to see you again.

MR. MCCALL: Thank you, kind of early in the morning. My question is, actually, more of a statement. I’m not a warmonger; I don’t want to see a war; and I don’t think there was any man in that room that was in uniform yesterday, if I’d have asked the question, who wants a war, who would have stood up.

My thought was, if we send in troops after a saturated bombing run and get this thing neutralized to where the troops could almost walk in there in parade formation as more or less of a police force to support the inspectors that come in; get those weapons; destroy them and then turn around to Saddam Hussein and say, "Hey, run your country now, run it like a human being, take care of your people, we’ll buy your oil, we’ll give you money for your oil, and make this country for your people." I don’t want to hurt those people.

MR. LAUER: Let me ask the Secretary of State, is that feasible?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Well, first of all, let me say how much I admire the gentleman who asked the question; I did yesterday; he is clearly a great patriot.

I think the problem with the idea is that we would have to end up being an occupying force. The Americans don’t want to do that. I don’t think the American people would want us to do that. But after the substantial strike, I think we have a much better chance of having the inspectors go back in or make sure that these weapons are not reconstituted by being willing to do another strike.

This is a very serious problem. None of us are saying that there are easy solutions to it, but we have to contain Saddam Hussein. And, as I’ve said many times, we are prepared to deal, ready to deal with a post-Saddam regime.

But I appreciate what he’s saying, because I think he’s a very brave American and a patriotic American who understands why we have to do this.

MR. LAUER: Mike, let me ask you to stand by, and let me ask a couple more questions to Madeleine Albright.

Madame Secretary, your trip to the Middle East several weeks ago was not as successful as I think you would have liked, in building a coalition against Saddam Hussein at this point -- certainly not as successful as the coalition in 1991. Have you spoken to President Bush or former Secretary of State Baker and asked for any advice on gaining support from the Arab world?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: First of all, I think my trip actually went pretty well, because this is a very different situation from ’91, when there was a cross-border invasion of one Arab country into another. And frankly, I got a lot more support than is publicly visible, because these people live in the region.

MR. LAUER: So they’re saying one thing in public, and saying something else to you in private?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Yes, yes. And we feel comfortable that should we have to use military force, that they will be very cooperative.

And as a matter of fact, I did talk to both former President Bush and former Secretary of State Baker; and they both agreed that we have a much more complicated situation than they had on their hands. And they were very supportive, and I especially enjoyed -- well, I enjoyed talking to both of them, because they do have some very good points.

MR. LAUER: Will you speak for me, Madame Secretary, to the parents of American men and women who may soon be asked to go into harm’s way, and who get the feeling that many countries in the rest of the world are standing by silently while their children are once again being asked to clean up a mess for the rest of the world?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Well, let me say that there are, a couple of dozen countries that are with us on this that are providing a variety of equipment, support and are willing to be with us. So there is a misunderstanding about saying that there is no coalition; there is. And the truth is that in the Gulf War, we did most of the work, too. There’s no question that we, with the British and French, did a large proportion of the work.

Let me say that we are doing everything possible so that American men and women in uniform do not have to go out there again. It is the threat of the use of force and our line-up there that is going to put force behind the diplomacy. But if we have to use force, it is because we are America; we are the indispensable nation. We stand tall and we see further than other countries into the future, and we see the danger here to all of us. I know that the American men and women in uniform are always prepared to sacrifice for freedom, democracy and the American way of life.

MR. LAUER: Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. Thank you so much again.

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Thank you.

It seems to me that the Clinton administration told Saddam Hussein to comply with the UN resolutions or face action. Since he ultimately complied the action taken was relatively small compared to what it could have been.

Compare that with the actions of the Bush administration. They also told Saddam Hussein to comply with the UN resolutions or face action. The UN weapons inspectors said that by and large he was cooperating, but the Bush-Blair conspirators went ahead and invaded anyway.

What message does that give to the rest of the world? Seems to me like it's "comply or not, we'll attack anyway". The answer which seems to be resulting is "Fuck you, we may as well carry on with what we are doing".

Nice going.

[j2k4]

J2, I find it strange that you invite comparisons between the two administrations, then try to show that there is almost no difference.

I suspect that Busy was right that the following method is the way to get people to ignore what you've written, but I went ahead and read it anyway. Except I ignored your emboldening.

I've reproduced it here but with my own emboldening, which shows the marked difference between their policies.



One of the things we've heard over and over again, ad nauseum, is the complaint that the U.S., under Bush, has developed this nasty habit of pre-emptory and unilateral foreign policy.

The overarching message is that this "tendency" began with Bush.

Well, the message is bullshit.

Read, with special attention to the parts I have emboldened:

Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright
Interview on NBC-TV "The Today Show" with Matt Lauer
Columbus, Ohio, February 19, 1998
As released by the Office of the Spokesman
U.S. Department of State

MR. LAUER: On "Close Up" this morning -- the showdown with Iraq. As UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan heads to Baghdad in a last-ditch diplomatic effort to end the standoff, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright is traveling around the United States making the administration’s case for a possible strike against Saddam Hussein. Madame Secretary, good morning to you, good to see you.

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Good morning, Matt, nice to see you.

MR. LAUER: Thank you. To put it bluntly, you were heckled yesterday. What was your reaction to the reception you received?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Well, actually, I thought it was a very interesting meeting. There were a couple of dozen hecklers. But for the most part, there were some very serious people in the audience who had serious questions that we tried to answer. And we’ll continue to do so.

MR. LAUER: That’s true. You did have people who stood up and expressed their concern over military action against Iraq. Did you walk away from the meeting, Madame Secretary, with a different point of view, a different perspective on the situation?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Absolutely not. I think that we know what we have to do, and that is help enforce the UN Security Council resolutions, which demand that Saddam Hussein abide by those resolutions, and get rid of his weapons of mass destruction, and allow the inspectors to have unfettered and unconditional access. That’s what we have to do.

Matt, we would like to solve this peacefully. But if we cannot, we will be using force; and the American people will be behind us, and I think that they understand that.

MR. LAUER: I’m just curious. Do you think yesterday’s session helped or hurt your case? I mean, back in the early 1990s, Madame Secretary, you used to appear on this show as an analyst for foreign affairs with William Hyland. And you’d come on and talk about the Administration’s reaction to foreign affairs. If you were analyzing yesterday’s performance by you and your colleagues, how would you rate it?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: I thought our performance was great. But I think that the issue here is that there were people who disagree. I would probably say that there were a few dozen hecklers who disagreed. But what I would have said, actually, is that there were more people that asked questions and directed their thoughts about the fact that we ought to send in ground forces.

That’s what I found interesting -- that there are more Americans who really would like us to go in and finish off Saddam Hussein. That was the message that I got from that meeting.

MR. LAUER: And you lead me right into my next question, because one man you heard from yesterday was a retired serviceman named Mike McCall, whose son died during the Vietnam War. Here’s what he said.

(Audio clip.)

Madame Secretary, Secretary of Defense William Cohen attempted to answer that question yesterday. Why don’t you give it a shot for me today.

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Well, we had a half-a-million troops there in 1991. And the decision was that they could not take out Saddam Hussein. And I don’t think, frankly, that if we got into it, that the American people would want us to send in huge numbers of forces. So we are doing what must be done.

First of all, we would like to have a diplomatic, peaceful solution and have him give unfettered access to these places, so that we could tell what is happening with his weapons of mass destruction. But otherwise, the purpose of a very substantial strike will be to substantially reduce his weapons of mass destruction threat and his threat to the neighbors. We think that is an appropriate goal, and our goal -- and we’ve said this, Matt -- may not seem really decisive; but what we’re trying to do here is contain Saddam Hussein. We’ve managed to do that for seven years. This has been a successful policy. Whenever he puts his head up, we push him back.

MR. LAUER: Let me bring in the man who asked that question in Columbus yesterday, Madame Secretary. Mike McCall, good morning to you.

MR. MCCALL: Good morning, sir, how are you?

MR. LAUER: Oh, thank you, I’m fine. It was a bit impersonal and somewhat raucous in that room yesterday, so let me give you a chance to ask a question one-on-one to the Secretary of State.

MR. MCCALL: Good morning, Madame, how are you?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Good morning, good to see you again.

MR. MCCALL: Thank you, kind of early in the morning. My question is, actually, more of a statement. I’m not a warmonger; I don’t want to see a war; and I don’t think there was any man in that room that was in uniform yesterday, if I’d have asked the question, who wants a war, who would have stood up.

My thought was, if we send in troops after a saturated bombing run and get this thing neutralized to where the troops could almost walk in there in parade formation as more or less of a police force to support the inspectors that come in; get those weapons; destroy them and then turn around to Saddam Hussein and say, "Hey, run your country now, run it like a human being, take care of your people, we’ll buy your oil, we’ll give you money for your oil, and make this country for your people." I don’t want to hurt those people.

MR. LAUER: Let me ask the Secretary of State, is that feasible?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Well, first of all, let me say how much I admire the gentleman who asked the question; I did yesterday; he is clearly a great patriot.

I think the problem with the idea is that we would have to end up being an occupying force. The Americans don’t want to do that. I don’t think the American people would want us to do that. But after the substantial strike, I think we have a much better chance of having the inspectors go back in or make sure that these weapons are not reconstituted by being willing to do another strike.

This is a very serious problem. None of us are saying that there are easy solutions to it, but we have to contain Saddam Hussein. And, as I’ve said many times, we are prepared to deal, ready to deal with a post-Saddam regime.

But I appreciate what he’s saying, because I think he’s a very brave American and a patriotic American who understands why we have to do this.

MR. LAUER: Mike, let me ask you to stand by, and let me ask a couple more questions to Madeleine Albright.

Madame Secretary, your trip to the Middle East several weeks ago was not as successful as I think you would have liked, in building a coalition against Saddam Hussein at this point -- certainly not as successful as the coalition in 1991. Have you spoken to President Bush or former Secretary of State Baker and asked for any advice on gaining support from the Arab world?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: First of all, I think my trip actually went pretty well, because this is a very different situation from ’91, when there was a cross-border invasion of one Arab country into another. And frankly, I got a lot more support than is publicly visible, because these people live in the region.

MR. LAUER: So they’re saying one thing in public, and saying something else to you in private?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Yes, yes. And we feel comfortable that should we have to use military force, that they will be very cooperative.

And as a matter of fact, I did talk to both former President Bush and former Secretary of State Baker; and they both agreed that we have a much more complicated situation than they had on their hands. And they were very supportive, and I especially enjoyed -- well, I enjoyed talking to both of them, because they do have some very good points.

MR. LAUER: Will you speak for me, Madame Secretary, to the parents of American men and women who may soon be asked to go into harm’s way, and who get the feeling that many countries in the rest of the world are standing by silently while their children are once again being asked to clean up a mess for the rest of the world?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Well, let me say that there are, a couple of dozen countries that are with us on this that are providing a variety of equipment, support and are willing to be with us. So there is a misunderstanding about saying that there is no coalition; there is. And the truth is that in the Gulf War, we did most of the work, too. There’s no question that we, with the British and French, did a large proportion of the work.

Let me say that we are doing everything possible so that American men and women in uniform do not have to go out there again. It is the threat of the use of force and our line-up there that is going to put force behind the diplomacy. But if we have to use force, it is because we are America; we are the indispensable nation. We stand tall and we see further than other countries into the future, and we see the danger here to all of us. I know that the American men and women in uniform are always prepared to sacrifice for freedom, democracy and the American way of life.

MR. LAUER: Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. Thank you so much again.

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Thank you.

It seems to me that the Clinton administration told Saddam Hussein to comply with the UN resolutions or face action. Since he ultimately complied the action taken was relatively small compared to what it could have been.

Compare that with the actions of the Bush administration. They also told Saddam Hussein to comply with the UN resolutions or face action. The UN weapons inspectors said that by and large he was cooperating, but the Bush-Blair conspirators went ahead and invaded anyway.

What message does that give to the rest of the world? Seems to me like it's "comply or not, we'll attack anyway". The answer which seems to be resulting is "Fuck you, we may as well carry on with what we are doing".

Nice going.

It must be acknowledged that the only difference between the two administrations was one of will.

I am very interested, however, in your (and others') tendency to forego any mention of 9/11.

This is not to say there was any other than an empathetic connection between Iraq and the terrorists who perpetrated the event, but 9/11 gave the U.S. a different lens through which to view the entire situation in the mideast.

As there is no shortage of our stateside citizenry willing to forget 9/11 ever happened, though, I certainly cannot blame you for being unimpressed by it.

Nonetheless, 9/11 had a predicate effect on U.S. foreign policy.

[Busyman™]

lol hey Skiz Tim's was in a parking lot and it was alot f*ckin bigger. btw what damage are u talkin about from 92'..... all that smoke really weaked the foundation. thats why it fell so ez on 9/11 right?

You really don't know what the fuck you're talking about, do you?

The bomb exploded in the underground garage at 12:17 P.M., generating a pressure estimated over one GPa and opening a 30-meter-wide hole through four sublevels of concrete. The detonation velocity of this bomb was about 15,000 ft/s (4.5 km/s).

http://www.answers.com/topic/wtc-1993-atf-jpg

A little smoke, eh?

Tim's truck was in front of the building. I remember bomb experts concluding that the ammonium nitrate in the truck wasn't enough to cause that much damage and that there had to bombs placed around columns of the building.

ram probably is forgetting about "other" bombs besides the truck.

[Busyman™]

J2, I find it strange that you invite comparisons between the two administrations, then try to show that there is almost no difference.

I suspect that Busy was right that the following method is the way to get people to ignore what you've written, but I went ahead and read it anyway. Except I ignored your emboldening.

I've reproduced it here but with my own emboldening, which shows the marked difference between their policies.




It seems to me that the Clinton administration told Saddam Hussein to comply with the UN resolutions or face action. Since he ultimately complied the action taken was relatively small compared to what it could have been.

Compare that with the actions of the Bush administration. They also told Saddam Hussein to comply with the UN resolutions or face action. The UN weapons inspectors said that by and large he was cooperating, but the Bush-Blair conspirators went ahead and invaded anyway.

What message does that give to the rest of the world? Seems to me like it's "comply or not, we'll attack anyway". The answer which seems to be resulting is "Fuck you, we may as well carry on with what we are doing".

Nice going.

It must be acknowledged that the only difference between the two administrations was one of will.

I am very interested, however, in your (and others') tendency to forego any mention of 9/11.

This is not to say there was any other than an empathetic connection between Iraq and the terrorists who perpetrated the eventNO CONNECTION AT ALL , but 9/11 gave the U.S. a different lens through which to view the entire situation in the mideast.

As there is no shortage of our stateside citizenry willing to forget 9/11 ever happened, though, I certainly cannot blame you for being unimpressed by it.

Nonetheless, 9/11 had a predicate effect on U.S. foreign policy.

Different lens? But jay, Bush lied. Even you don't think he lied, he was the leader of being wrong.

So wrong that he has plunged our soldiers into the crap we are in.

Taking action for taking action's sake is idiocy. We don't need that in the nuclear age.

I remember Repubs saying, "Well at least Bush did something."

IDIOTS! Take correct action or STFU!

[ram82082]

this is not a post about 9/11 or how many dam bombs timmy had. i only mentioned these things as a way to explain MY opinion on the topic. every1's argueing over details of specific events, but we're all pretty much sayin the same dam thing.

Sh*t.... what do you think about the 2 policies as compared to each other and why?

[j2k4]

It must be acknowledged that the only difference between the two administrations was one of will.

I am very interested, however, in your (and others') tendency to forego any mention of 9/11.

This is not to say there was any other than an empathetic connection between Iraq and the terrorists who perpetrated the eventNO CONNECTION AT ALL , but 9/11 gave the U.S. a different lens through which to view the entire situation in the mideast.

As there is no shortage of our stateside citizenry willing to forget 9/11 ever happened, though, I certainly cannot blame you for being unimpressed by it.

Nonetheless, 9/11 had a predicate effect on U.S. foreign policy.

Different lens? But jay, Bush lied. Even you don't think he lied, he was the leader of being wrong.

So wrong that he has plunged our soldiers into the crap we are in.

Taking action for taking action's sake is idiocy. We don't need that in the nuclear age.

I remember Repubs saying, "Well at least Bush did something."

IDIOTS! Take correct action or STFU!

Don't fuck with my posts; you can't even handle your own.

Bush lied, huh?

He must have been very convincing, because he fooled John Kerry, Hillary, Schumer, et. al. into supporting him.

Even your pal Billy-dick-suck thought we needed to go in, and he's the smartest politician who ever lived.

[vidcc]

Don't fuck with my posts


I thought it was Ok as long as one used blue :shifty:

@busy............there's supposed to be two "at all"

[Busyman™]

Different lens? But jay, Bush lied. Even you don't think he lied, he was the leader of being wrong.

So wrong that he has plunged our soldiers into the crap we are in.

Taking action for taking action's sake is idiocy. We don't need that in the nuclear age.

I remember Repubs saying, "Well at least Bush did something."

IDIOTS! Take correct action or STFU!

Don't fuck with my posts; you can't even handle your own.

Bush lied, huh?

He must have been very convincing, because he fooled John Kerry, Hillary, Schumer, et. al. into supporting him.

Even your pal Billy-dick-suck thought we needed to go in, and he's the smartest politician who ever lived.

Agreed and I'll fuck with your posts as I see fit.

John Kerry flip-flopped by voting for it then against funding it.

Bush still lied and as I said, he was the ring leader so he takes the fall....as he should.

Who led the charge....your pick for Prez that's who.

Who had no plan after "mission accomplished"?

[Busyman™]

Don't fuck with my posts


I thought it was Ok as long as one used blue :shifty:

@busy............there's supposed to be two "at all"

Why?

[vidcc]

I thought it was Ok as long as one used blue :shifty:

@busy............there's supposed to be two "at all"

Why?
will this give you a hint at all (at all) ;)

[manofstyle]

@j2k4 - If you think Bush did not lie, are you saying that Iraq still has WMD's hidden somewhere?

[JPaul]

@j2k4 - If you think Bush did not lie, are you saying that Iraq still has WMD's hidden somewhere?

Do you see getting something wrong as being the same as telling a lie.

As I understand it, from my own Country, the PM was told by intelligence departments that it was likely there were weapons of mass destruction there. He acted on that.

If they were wrong, which now appears likely, then that does not make him a liar.

Oh and there's absolutely no need for the possessive apostrophe in your post.

[lynx]

It seems to me that the Clinton administration told Saddam Hussein to comply with the UN resolutions or face action. Since he ultimately complied the action taken was relatively small compared to what it could have been.

Compare that with the actions of the Bush administration. They also told Saddam Hussein to comply with the UN resolutions or face action. The UN weapons inspectors said that by and large he was cooperating, but the Bush-Blair conspirators went ahead and invaded anyway.

What message does that give to the rest of the world? Seems to me like it's "comply or not, we'll attack anyway". The answer which seems to be resulting is "Fuck you, we may as well carry on with what we are doing".

Nice going.

It must be acknowledged that the only difference between the two administrations was one of will.

I am very interested, however, in your (and others') tendency to forego any mention of 9/11.

This is not to say there was any other than an empathetic connection between Iraq and the terrorists who perpetrated the event, but 9/11 gave the U.S. a different lens through which to view the entire situation in the mideast.

As there is no shortage of our stateside citizenry willing to forget 9/11 ever happened, though, I certainly cannot blame you for being unimpressed by it.

Nonetheless, 9/11 had a predicate effect on U.S. foreign policy.
I post a rebuttal of your position, in which you make absolutely no mention of 9/11, and you chastise me for not mentioning it.

Amazing.

[lynx]

@j2k4 - If you think Bush did not lie, are you saying that Iraq still has WMD's hidden somewhere?

Do you see getting something wrong as being the same as telling a lie.

As I understand it, from my own Country, the PM was told by intelligence departments that it was likely there were weapons of mass destruction there. He acted on that.

If they were wrong, which now appears likely, then that does not make him a liar.

Oh and there's absolutely no need for the possessive apostrophe in your post.
Manipulating the evidence so as to persuade others of the validity of one's case comes far nearer to lying that getting it wrong.

That's one reason why those who say "look - the other side all agreed too" are deluding themselves. They agreed on the basis of the "evidence" presented to them. Whether they would have disagreed had they seen the raw evidence is a subject for a different debate, but in my book if you twist the truth you can't then claim the support of others based on those distortion's.

[JPaul]

Do you see getting something wrong as being the same as telling a lie.

As I understand it, from my own Country, the PM was told by intelligence departments that it was likely there were weapons of mass destruction there. He acted on that.

If they were wrong, which now appears likely, then that does not make him a liar.

Oh and there's absolutely no need for the possessive apostrophe in your post.
Manipulating the evidence so as to persuade others of the validity of one's case comes far nearer to lying that getting it wrong.

That's one reason why those who say "look - the other side all agreed too" are deluding themselves. They agreed on the basis of the "evidence" presented to them. Whether they would have disagreed had they seen the raw evidence is a subject for a different debate, but in my book if you twist the truth you can't then claim the support of others based on those distortion's.

So you are saying that they just looked at the evidence from the intelligence agencies and took that on faith, believeing the people who were paid to do that job and were presumably experts in doing it.

Surely that's exactly what the PM did as well.

Or do you think it's the case that the Govt got material from the agencies and manipulated it to garner support from others.

Have you some evidence of this.

[lynx]

Manipulating the evidence so as to persuade others of the validity of one's case comes far nearer to lying that getting it wrong.

That's one reason why those who say "look - the other side all agreed too" are deluding themselves. They agreed on the basis of the "evidence" presented to them. Whether they would have disagreed had they seen the raw evidence is a subject for a different debate, but in my book if you twist the truth you can't then claim the support of others based on those distortion's.

So you are saying that they just looked at the evidence from the intelligence agencies and took that on faith, believeing the people who were paid to do that job and were presumably experts in doing it.

Surely that's exactly what the PM did as well.

Or do you think it's the case that the Govt got material from the agencies and manipulated it to garner support from others.

Have you some evidence of this.Yes, it came out in the Hutton inquiry, but obviously didn't make it into his stifled report. Perhaps you missed it.

The intelligence agencies were concerned about the emphasis and importance that was being placed on uncorroborated information, a fact that was omitted from the published documents presented to Parliament. Do you really believe that the same result would have been forthcoming from a parliamentary vote if such concerns had been expressed? As far as I can see that comes down to misleading parliament, a euphemism for lying.

[JPaul]

So you are saying that they just looked at the evidence from the intelligence agencies and took that on faith, believeing the people who were paid to do that job and were presumably experts in doing it.

Surely that's exactly what the PM did as well.

Or do you think it's the case that the Govt got material from the agencies and manipulated it to garner support from others.

Have you some evidence of this.Yes, it came out in the Hutton inquiry, but obviously didn't make it into his stifled report. Perhaps you missed it.

The intelligence agencies were concerned about the emphasis and importance that was being placed on uncorroborated information, a fact that was omitted from the published documents presented to Parliament. Do you really believe that the same result would have been forthcoming from a parliamentary vote if such concerns had been expressed? As far as I can see that comes down to misleading parliament, a euphemism for lying.

Sorry to appear obtuse, how could it come out without being in the report. If it wasn't in the report then how did it come out.

And also, who supplied this uncorroborated information. Presumably someone other than the intelligence agencies, if they were concerned about it. I find it bizarre that the Govt sought intelligence other than via it's own intelligence agencies if that's what you are suggesting.

[j2k4]

Don't fuck with my posts; you can't even handle your own.



Agreed and I'll fuck with your posts as I see fit.



I'll remember that, thanks.

[j2k4]

I post a rebuttal of your position, in which you make absolutely no mention of 9/11, and you chastise me for not mentioning it.

Amazing.

My point is "How can you overlook 9/11 as the most significant single event as regards American foreign policy in the past 65 years; it shouldn't even need to be reiterated".

Yours seems to be "Oh, that! Big fuckin' deal...everyone else has suffered terrorist attacks for years, and it's all your fault anyway".

The quality of your rebuttal is questionable into the bargain.

manofstyle-

You're new here, aren't you? :yup:

[Busyman™]

Why?
will this give you a hint at all (at all) ;)

No I got that part....but what's the point of that?

[lynx]

I post a rebuttal of your position, in which you make absolutely no mention of 9/11, and you chastise me for not mentioning it.

Amazing.

My point is "How can you overlook 9/11 as the most significant single event as regards American foreign policy in the past 65 years; it shouldn't even need to be reiterated".

Yours seems to be "Oh, that! Big fuckin' deal...everyone else has suffered terrorist attacks for years, and it's all your fault anyway".

The quality of your rebuttal is questionable into the bargain.

manofstyle-

You're new here, aren't you? :yup:I didn't overlook it.

I was responding to your post, and since you didn't see fit to mention it I assumed you didn't think it relevant.

If you'd mentioned it I would probably have pointed out that WRT to Iraq it isn't relevant to the start of that conflict.

And what's more your diversion away from the content of your post isn't going to work. You tried to show common ground, yet the quote you used clearly indicates a yawning gulf between their respective policies.

I suspect you thought no-one would bother to read such a long piece, other than the bits you'd highlighted. Didn't work, did it.

[j2k4]

And what's more your diversion away from the content of your post isn't going to work. You tried to show common ground, yet the quote you used clearly indicates a yawning gulf between their respective policies.

I suspect you thought no-one would bother to read such a long piece, other than the bits you'd highlighted. Didn't work, did it.

Your post made me yawn.

That last sentence is a fast exercise in illogic, isn't it? :whistling

[lynx]

Yes, it came out in the Hutton inquiry, but obviously didn't make it into his stifled report. Perhaps you missed it.

The intelligence agencies were concerned about the emphasis and importance that was being placed on uncorroborated information, a fact that was omitted from the published documents presented to Parliament. Do you really believe that the same result would have been forthcoming from a parliamentary vote if such concerns had been expressed? As far as I can see that comes down to misleading parliament, a euphemism for lying.

Sorry to appear obtuse, how could it come out without being in the report. If it wasn't in the report then how did it come out.

And also, who supplied this uncorroborated information. Presumably someone other than the intelligence agencies, if they were concerned about it. I find it bizarre that the Govt sought intelligence other than via it's own intelligence agencies if that's what you are suggesting.

As I said, you must have missed it.

The information was given in the evidence to the inquiry, I believe the transcripts are available if you care to look. Hutton decided that such information was not relevant to his conclusions hence it is not in his report, although I suppose that technically the transcripts are probably part of his report if you want to be so picky.

I have no idea who supplied the uncorroborated information to the intelligence agencies, and I hardly think it matters. If you think it matters, I suggest you contact Tony Blair and demand full disclosure.

I did not suggest that the Government had gone outside its own intelligence agencies to obtain this information. The point is that the intelligence agencies were concerned that so much emphasis was being placed on the information when they did not have a corroborating source, yet it was presented to parliament as sound irrefutable evidence.

The evidence presented to the Hutton inquiry showed that their were plenty of people, not least the late Dr David Kelly, who believed the information to be unsound. Consequently the format of its presentation deliberately misled parliament. In other words, they lied.

Need I spell it out any further?

[JPaul]

Sorry to appear obtuse, how could it come out without being in the report. If it wasn't in the report then how did it come out.

And also, who supplied this uncorroborated information. Presumably someone other than the intelligence agencies, if they were concerned about it. I find it bizarre that the Govt sought intelligence other than via it's own intelligence agencies if that's what you are suggesting.

As I said, you must have missed it.

The information was given in the evidence to the inquiry, I believe the transcripts are available if you care to look. Hutton decided that such information was not relevant to his conclusions hence it is not in his report, although I suppose that technically the transcripts are probably part of his report if you want to be so picky.

I have no idea who supplied the uncorroborated information to the intelligence agencies, and I hardly think it matters. If you think it matters, I suggest you contact Tony Blair and demand full disclosure.

I did not suggest that the Government had gone outside its own intelligence agencies to obtain this information. The point is that the intelligence agencies were concerned that so much emphasis was being placed on the information when they did not have a corroborating source, yet it was presented to parliament as sound irrefutable evidence.

The evidence presented to the Hutton inquiry showed that their were plenty of people, not least the late Dr David Kelly, who believed the information to be unsound. Consequently the format of its presentation deliberately misled parliament. In other words, they lied.

Need I spell it out any further?

Spell it out as much as you want mate.

You're basically saying that the information he relied upon came from the intelligence services which were employed to advise him. That's what he based his decisions on.

If there were subsequent enquiries that's really not the point. He could only base his decision on what the intelligence services put in front of him at the time.

[Busyman™]

There is also the great chance that he wanted certain intelligence before it was reality.

I have heard from many sources (can't remember names) that after 9/11, Bush wanted to turn attention to Iraq soon after before intelligence ever came about.

[lynx]

As I said, you must have missed it.

The information was given in the evidence to the inquiry, I believe the transcripts are available if you care to look. Hutton decided that such information was not relevant to his conclusions hence it is not in his report, although I suppose that technically the transcripts are probably part of his report if you want to be so picky.

I have no idea who supplied the uncorroborated information to the intelligence agencies, and I hardly think it matters. If you think it matters, I suggest you contact Tony Blair and demand full disclosure.

I did not suggest that the Government had gone outside its own intelligence agencies to obtain this information. The point is that the intelligence agencies were concerned that so much emphasis was being placed on the information when they did not have a corroborating source, yet it was presented to parliament as sound irrefutable evidence.

The evidence presented to the Hutton inquiry showed that their were plenty of people, not least the late Dr David Kelly, who believed the information to be unsound. Consequently the format of its presentation deliberately misled parliament. In other words, they lied.

Need I spell it out any further?

Spell it out as much as you want mate.

You're basically saying that the information he relied upon came from the intelligence services which were employed to advise him. That's what he based his decisions on.

If there were subsequent enquiries that's really not the point. He could only base his decision on what the intelligence services put in front of him at the time.
Are you deliberately missing the point?

The government was given information, but was told it was unreliable.
They told parliament it was sound irrefutable information.
Truth - unreliable. Lie - irrefutable. Simple enough?

The later inquiry is when the the lie became apparent, not the cause of the lie.

[manofstyle]

@j2k4 - If you think Bush did not lie, are you saying that Iraq still has WMD's hidden somewhere?

Do you see getting something wrong as being the same as telling a lie.

As I understand it, from my own Country, the PM was told by intelligence departments that it was likely there were weapons of mass destruction there. He acted on that.

If they were wrong, which now appears likely, then that does not make him a liar.

Oh and there's absolutely no need for the possessive apostrophe in your post.

Wow, you are either very forgiving, or someone has done a good marketing job on you.

You present a very loose standard for what is a lie vs. simply "getting it wrong". Would you still be so forgiving if you lost family to this war?

The American people were flat out lied to about this war from the beginning. There is plenty of evidence of this, I guess you are just choosing not to see it.

[JPaul]

Spell it out as much as you want mate.

You're basically saying that the information he relied upon came from the intelligence services which were employed to advise him. That's what he based his decisions on.

If there were subsequent enquiries that's really not the point. He could only base his decision on what the intelligence services put in front of him at the time.
Are you deliberately missing the point?

The government was given information, but was told it was unreliable.
They told parliament it was sound irrefutable information.
Truth - unreliable. Lie - irrefutable. Simple enough?

The later inquiry is when the the lie became apparent, not the cause of the lie.

So the intelligence services provided a report, to the Government, saying that their own report was pish.

I don't think so. That's just bunkum.

Intelligence is not the same as information, or are you too stupid to know the difference. Or don't you know what the fuck you are talking about.

[Busyman™]

Are you deliberately missing the point?

The government was given information, but was told it was unreliable.
They told parliament it was sound irrefutable information.
Truth - unreliable. Lie - irrefutable. Simple enough?

The later inquiry is when the the lie became apparent, not the cause of the lie.

So the intelligence services provided a report, to the Government, saying that their own report was pish.

I don't think so. That's just bunkum.

Intelligence is not the same as information, or are you too stupid to know the difference. Or don't you know what the fuck you are talking about.
:pinch:

[JPaul]

So the intelligence services provided a report, to the Government, saying that their own report was pish.

I don't think so. That's just bunkum.

Intelligence is not the same as information, or are you too stupid to know the difference. Or don't you know what the fuck you are talking about.
:pinch:

See you in a couple of days.

[lynx]

Are you deliberately missing the point?

The government was given information, but was told it was unreliable.
They told parliament it was sound irrefutable information.
Truth - unreliable. Lie - irrefutable. Simple enough?

The later inquiry is when the the lie became apparent, not the cause of the lie.

So the intelligence services provided a report, to the Government, saying that their own report was pish.

I don't think so. That's just bunkum.

Intelligence is not the same as information, or are you too stupid to know the difference. Or don't you know what the fuck you are talking about.
No, I didn't say the intellience agencies provided a report saying that their own report was pish.

I said they provided intelligence, with the caveat that the government shouldn't place too much emphasis on it because the information it came from had only one source. All in the one report see. Simple enough for you?

You don't even have to take my word for it. It's common knowledge. Out there in the big wide world. Not hidden from view. If you could master a search engine I'm sure you could find it for yourself.

[JPaul]

So the intelligence services provided a report, to the Government, saying that their own report was pish.

I don't think so. That's just bunkum.

Intelligence is not the same as information, or are you too stupid to know the difference. Or don't you know what the fuck you are talking about.
No, I didn't say the intellience agencies provided a report saying that their own report was pish.

I said they provided intelligence, with the caveat that the government shouldn't place too much emphasis on it because the information it came from had only one source. All in the one report see. Simple enough for you?

You don't even have to take my word for it. It's common knowledge. Out there in the big wide world. Not hidden from view. If you could master a search engine I'm sure you could find it for yourself.

So your source is the interweb.

Go you.

Please allow me to explain, one last time. Intelligence doesn't have caveats. That's not how it works. Intelligence is not the same as information, a least not within the intelligence community.

The fact that you see the words as interchangeable tells me all I need to know.

Look, if I just say you have an unfeasibly small penis can we just do away with all this fannying about and I'll do the day of moderation.

[lynx]

No, I didn't say the intellience agencies provided a report saying that their own report was pish.

I said they provided intelligence, with the caveat that the government shouldn't place too much emphasis on it because the information it came from had only one source. All in the one report see. Simple enough for you?

You don't even have to take my word for it. It's common knowledge. Out there in the big wide world. Not hidden from view. If you could master a search engine I'm sure you could find it for yourself.

So your source is the interweb.

Go you.

Please allow me to explain, one last time. Intelligence doesn't have caveats. That's not how it works. Intelligence is not the same as information, a least not within the intelligence community.

The fact that you see the words as interchangeable tells me all I need to know.

Look, if I just say you have an unfeasibly small penis can we just do away with all this fannying about and I'll do the day of moderation.
Twist and squirm all you like, I didn't say my source was the interweb.

Intelligence doesn't have caveats? Are you stupid? Intelligence is all about caveats, otherwise it would be called facts.

I've also never said the words were interchangeable, that's just another of your inventions. If that's all you think you need to know it explains why you can't follow an argument.

If you spent a little more time concentrating on the subject and less time being insulting and trying (and failing miserably) to be what you probably think is funny you might just have a chance of holding your own in this thread. Give it up, find a porn site and hold your own there.

[j2k4]

Intelligence doesn't have caveats? Are you stupid? Intelligence is all about caveats, otherwise it would be called facts.

Did you mean to also say, "...unless the caveat has to do with WMD, in which case it can be discounted on it's face..."? :whistling

[lynx]

Intelligence doesn't have caveats? Are you stupid? Intelligence is all about caveats, otherwise it would be called facts.

Did you mean to also say, "...unless the caveat has to do with WMD, in which case it can be discounted on it's face..."? :whistlingNo, but I can imagine you would want others to believe I would.

[JPaul]

So your source is the interweb.

Go you.

Please allow me to explain, one last time. Intelligence doesn't have caveats. That's not how it works. Intelligence is not the same as information, a least not within the intelligence community.

The fact that you see the words as interchangeable tells me all I need to know.

Look, if I just say you have an unfeasibly small penis can we just do away with all this fannying about and I'll do the day of moderation.
Twist and squirm all you like, I didn't say my source was the interweb.

Intelligence doesn't have caveats? Are you stupid? Intelligence is all about caveats, otherwise it would be called facts.

I've also never said the words were interchangeable, that's just another of your inventions. If that's all you think you need to know it explains why you can't follow an argument.

If you spent a little more time concentrating on the subject and less time being insulting and trying (and failing miserably) to be what you probably think is funny you might just have a chance of holding your own in this thread. Give it up, find a porn site and hold your own there.

Intelligence is, by definition graded. Otherwise it is not intelligence it is information.

Intelligence agencies use a system which is understood and lets people reading it know 3 things. How good the source of the intelligence is, how good the intelligence itself is and where it can be disseminated to. Some, military for example may use other things as well, but these 3 are the bare minimum requirements

The reason I said you appear to see the words as being interchangeable is that you misuse them regularly. No intelligence agency would supply information, that would be pointless. They would supply intelligence. They would seek to corroborate the information and if they could do so their report would state that. If they could not then it would state that.

So uncorroborated information from a normally reliable source would be put forward as such. There is no option, that's the way it happens. If it doesn't then it isn't, by definition intelligence (in the intelligence agencies sense of the word).

Sticking on point, as I have been all along. If he was given intelligence that something was the case and it wasn't. Then that's not his fault. It's the fault of the people who provided it. Subsequent enquiries are irrelevant, as he didn't have them to rely on at the time.

[j2k4]

Did you mean to also say, "...unless the caveat has to do with WMD, in which case it can be discounted on it's face..."? :whistlingNo, but I can imagine you would want others to believe I would.

Your formulation becomes totally useless if modified to close the rather obvious loophole I just drove the WMD truck through...:yup:

[lynx]

Twist and squirm all you like, I didn't say my source was the interweb.

Intelligence doesn't have caveats? Are you stupid? Intelligence is all about caveats, otherwise it would be called facts.

I've also never said the words were interchangeable, that's just another of your inventions. If that's all you think you need to know it explains why you can't follow an argument.

If you spent a little more time concentrating on the subject and less time being insulting and trying (and failing miserably) to be what you probably think is funny you might just have a chance of holding your own in this thread. Give it up, find a porn site and hold your own there.

Intelligence is, by definition graded. Otherwise it is not intelligence it is information.

Intelligence agencies use a system which is understood and lets people reading it know 3 things. How good the source of the intelligence is, how good the intelligence itself is and where it can be disseminated to. Some, military for example may use other things as well, but these 3 are the bare minimum requirements

The reason I said you appear to see the words as being interchangeable is that you misuse them regularly. No intelligence agency would supply information, that would be pointless. They would supply intelligence. They would seek to corroborate the information and if they could do so their report would state that. If they could not then it would state that.

So uncorroborated information from a normally reliable source would be put forward as such. There is no option, that's the way it happens. If it doesn't then it isn't, by definition intelligence (in the intelligence agencies sense of the word).

Sticking on point, as I have been all along. If he was given intelligence that something was the case and it wasn't. Then that's not his fault. It's the fault of the people who provided it. Subsequent enquiries are irrelevant, as he didn't have them to rely on at the time.No, you aren't sticking to the point.

The point was (and still is) that the government lied (you keep saying he, do you have someone particular in mind?). It isn't relevant whether the facts were subsequently proved to be incorrect. The government was told that there was doubt about the reliability of the information.

The government subsequently told Parliament that the information was beyond doubt, and that statement wasn't true.

I don't give a fuck whether you think I understand the difference between intelligence, information, facts, suspicions, rumours.

The fact is that the government misled parliament. The lied. They didn't tell the truth. And if there were enough people in parliament with the guts to stand up and say so they would have be held to account for it, and it may still happen.

Meanwhile people like you stand as apologists for a corrupt regime. Much like people in Germany in the 1930's.

[lynx]

No, but I can imagine you would want others to believe I would.

Your formulation becomes totally useless if modified to close the rather obvious loophole I just drove the WMD truck through...:yup:That argument only works if there were still any WMD.

Now, if you could just reveal their location...

[j2k4]

Now, if you could just reveal their location...

Syria, of course; the Euphrates, the southern marshes, underground....

[JPaul]

Intelligence is, by definition graded. Otherwise it is not intelligence it is information.

Intelligence agencies use a system which is understood and lets people reading it know 3 things. How good the source of the intelligence is, how good the intelligence itself is and where it can be disseminated to. Some, military for example may use other things as well, but these 3 are the bare minimum requirements

The reason I said you appear to see the words as being interchangeable is that you misuse them regularly. No intelligence agency would supply information, that would be pointless. They would supply intelligence. They would seek to corroborate the information and if they could do so their report would state that. If they could not then it would state that.

So uncorroborated information from a normally reliable source would be put forward as such. There is no option, that's the way it happens. If it doesn't then it isn't, by definition intelligence (in the intelligence agencies sense of the word).

Sticking on point, as I have been all along. If he was given intelligence that something was the case and it wasn't. Then that's not his fault. It's the fault of the people who provided it. Subsequent enquiries are irrelevant, as he didn't have them to rely on at the time.No, you aren't sticking to the point.

The point was (and still is) that the government lied (you keep saying he, do you have someone particular in mind?). It isn't relevant whether the facts were subsequently proved to be incorrect. The government was told that there was doubt about the reliability of the information.

The government subsequently told Parliament that the information was beyond doubt, and that statement wasn't true.

I don't give a fuck whether you think I understand the difference between intelligence, information, facts, suspicions, rumours.

The fact is that the government misled parliament. The lied. They didn't tell the truth. And if there were enough people in parliament with the guts to stand up and say so they would have be held to account for it, and it may still happen.

Meanwhile people like you stand as apologists for a corrupt regime. Much like people in Germany in the 1930's.

:lol:

You really are an arse. It's absolutely fantastic.

Go administrate a computer network somewhere and leave the World to the people who live in it.

[j2k4]

No, you aren't sticking to the point.

The point was (and still is) that the government lied (you keep saying he, do you have someone particular in mind?). It isn't relevant whether the facts were subsequently proved to be incorrect. The government was told that there was doubt about the reliability of the information.

The government subsequently told Parliament that the information was beyond doubt, and that statement wasn't true.

I don't give a fuck whether you think I understand the difference between intelligence, information, facts, suspicions, rumours.

The fact is that the government misled parliament. The lied. They didn't tell the truth. And if there were enough people in parliament with the guts to stand up and say so they would have be held to account for it, and it may still happen.

Meanwhile people like you stand as apologists for a corrupt regime. Much like people in Germany in the 1930's.

:lol:

You really are an arse. It's absolutely fantastic.

Go administrate a computer network somewhere and leave the World to the people who live in it.

Good point.

Sorry this is so short, but I really needed the post.

[lynx]

No, you aren't sticking to the point.

The point was (and still is) that the government lied (you keep saying he, do you have someone particular in mind?). It isn't relevant whether the facts were subsequently proved to be incorrect. The government was told that there was doubt about the reliability of the information.

The government subsequently told Parliament that the information was beyond doubt, and that statement wasn't true.

I don't give a fuck whether you think I understand the difference between intelligence, information, facts, suspicions, rumours.

The fact is that the government misled parliament. The lied. They didn't tell the truth. And if there were enough people in parliament with the guts to stand up and say so they would have be held to account for it, and it may still happen.

Meanwhile people like you stand as apologists for a corrupt regime. Much like people in Germany in the 1930's.

:lol:

You really are an arse. It's absolutely fantastic.

Go administrate a computer network somewhere and leave the World to the people who live in it.Down to you usual level I see - no argument so you resort to insults.

I doubt many with an open mind will be surprised.

[JPaul]

I've already explained it to you and can't really spell it out much more simply. There's no argument because it's just going over the same things that you have ably demonstrated you don't understand.

Given that you think intelligence agencies supply people with information there really isn't any point on wasting more breath on you. I teach this stuff to the hard of thinking and even they pick it up.

Like I've said loads of times before, it's all there for people to read. What they think of me, or you, is a matter for the reader to decide.

[lynx]

I've already explained it to you and can't really spell it out much more simply. There's no argument because it's just going over the same things that you have ably demonstrated you don't understand.

Given that you think intelligence agencies supply people with information there really isn't any point on wasting more breath on you. I teach this stuff to the hard of thinking and even they pick it up.

Like I've said loads of times before, it's all there for people to read. What they think of me, or you, is a matter for the reader to decide.
Blair and his crew are liars, not because the intelligence was wrong but because they said there was no doubt about its veracity. Yet the very people who supplied the intelligence specifically said they could not verify the information that the intelligence was based on and that consequently the conclusions were uncertain.

Intelligence has to be based on something, otherwise it's just called making things up.

If they weren't just making things up, but the information on which they were basing their conclusions was dubious, then there was no certainty and Blair and Co lied.

If the information wasn't important then they were just making things up, in which case there was nothing on which to base their report to parliament. That seems to be your viewpoint. :wacko: But the end result is still that Blair and Co lied.

If you can't understand that simple point, then god help those you claim to teach.

[JPaul]

I've already explained it to you and can't really spell it out much more simply. There's no argument because it's just going over the same things that you have ably demonstrated you don't understand.

Given that you think intelligence agencies supply people with information there really isn't any point on wasting more breath on you. I teach this stuff to the hard of thinking and even they pick it up.

Like I've said loads of times before, it's all there for people to read. What they think of me, or you, is a matter for the reader to decide.
Blair and his crew are liars, not because the intelligence was wrong but because they said there was no doubt about its veracity. Yet the very people who supplied the intelligence specifically said they could not verify the information that the intelligence was based on and that consequently the conclusions were uncertain.

Intelligence has to be based on something, otherwise it's just called making things up.

If they weren't just making things up, but the information on which they were basing their conclusions was dubious, then there was no certainty and Blair and Co lied.

If the information wasn't important then they were just making things up, in which case there was nothing on which to base their report to parliament. That seems to be your viewpoint. :wacko: But the end result is still that Blair and Co lied.

If you can't understand that simple point, then god help those you claim to teach.

One last time, seriously I'm not doing it again.

"Yet the very people who supplied the intelligence specifically said they could not verify the information that the intelligence was based on and that consequently the conclusions were uncertain."

That is just nonsense, that's not the way it works. No matter what you may have read, or heard or guessed or made up. It's simply not the way it works.

[Ava Estelle]

Where does the Downing Street Memo (http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/)fit into this debate?

It does appear, on the face of it, that a certain amount of fitting the intelligence\information to suit the intent took place.

[lynx]

Where does the Downing Street Memo (http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/)fit into this debate?

It does appear, on the face of it, that a certain amount of fitting the intelligence\information to suit the intent took place.Oh dear, JP's not going to like that, it doesn't fit in with his method of deny-insult-deny...

Don't you realise that facts and figures have absolutely nothing to do with intelligence, that's not the way it works. ;)

Btw, you may have noticed how he doesn't give any details of how he thinks it does work. But then he'd have to put forward reasoned argument.

[Ava Estelle]

... you may have noticed how he doesn't give any details of how he thinks it does work.

To be quite honest, apart from semantics, I'm having a problem working out just what it is you're disagreeing on, and it's hard to separate this from the history of this sort of thing between you two, and believe me, I know about such things!

What JP did say was this ..

Intelligence agencies use a system which is understood and lets people reading it know 3 things. How good the source of the intelligence is, how good the intelligence itself is and where it can be disseminated to. Some, military for example may use other things as well, but these 3 are the bare minimum requirements

.. that seems to be an explanation of how he feels it works.

I'm not taking sides here, I have my own views, based, like everyone else on what I read and what I see. I don't believe the war had anything whatsoever to do with WMDs, and I don't believe Bush or Blair believed that either.

[lynx]

The argument is about whether Blair and Co lied.

JP seems to say that Blair and Co didn't lie because the intelligence was subsequently proved to be wrong.

I say that they lied because they misrepresented the intelligence to parliament. It wouldn't matter a jot even if the intelligence had been right, misrepresentation is still misrepresentation.

A diversionary lecture from JP on his views on what intelligence is seems unnecessary.
However, I can understand your confusion, insults and diversion seem to be JP's stock in trade.