Another great commentary from Olbermann.

[240 is Back]

I did not say Bush lied.  I did not say Kerry lied.  You did. 

LOL... dude, you threw out the red herring.

I pointed out that Afghan war plans were in place 3 months before 911.  Your response?  "Um, well Kerry lied in 2002.."

LOL.. what a fucking dodge, man.  Address my point.  Bush planned Afghanistan was 3 months before 9/11 because they sold the oil pipeline to argentina, not the US led Unocal.  please address this, and stop throwing out political diversions.

[OzmO]

It doesn't matter who voted or who did not vote for the war. 

the fact remains:  We were led to believe Sadaam had WMD's and they didn't.  Condi and Powell both stated Sadaam wasn't a threat a year prior. 

The Bush administration lied about the threat to win public support for the war.

In the mass hysteria of fear from 9/11 democrats had no choice but to vote for the war or jepordize their political standing. 

It was a slam dunk for the BUSH administration and we are just now finding out the truth.

[Dos Equis]

LOL... dude, you threw out the red herring.

I pointed out that Afghan war plans were in place 3 months before 911.  Your response?  "Um, well Kerry lied in 2002.."

LOL.. what a fucking dodge, man.  Address my point.  Bush planned Afghanistan was 3 months before 9/11 because they sold the oil pipeline to argentina, not the US led Unocal.  please address this, and stop throwing out political diversions.

Why do you keep making up quotes?  Good grief.  This is like shooting fish in a barrel.  I said neither one of them lied.  

"Bush no more lied than the Democrat and Republican members of Congress who supported the war and other world leaders who all thought Sadaam had WMDs."  

[Dos Equis]

It doesn't matter who voted or who did not vote for the war. 

the fact remains:  We were led to believe Sadaam had WMD's and they didn't.  Condi and Powell both stated Sadaam wasn't a threat a year prior. 

The Bush administration lied about the threat to win public support for the war.

In the mass hysteria of fear from 9/11 democrats had no choice but to vote for the war or jepordize their political standing. 

It was a slam dunk for the BUSH administration and we are just now finding out the truth.

I don't agree at all.  It absolutely does matter who voted for the war and who supported the war.  It wasn't just Bush.  It was Democrats, Republicans, and other world leaders. 

We really don't know, and may never know, precisely what Sadaam had and when and how he disposed of his weapons.  Some of that material is very mobile.  He had billions in cash, which I don't believe he used for legitimate reasons.  It's possible he had nothing, but just as possible that he moved stuff out of the country before we invaded.  He had years to prepare.  In any event, there was enough evidence and information to convince John Kerry, Democrats, Republicans, and leaders around the world that Sadaam was hiding something. 

[240 is Back]

It absolutely does matter who voted for the war and who supported the war.  It wasn't just Bush.  It was Democrats, Republicans, and other world leaders. 

Which world leaders voted for the war?

Blair, and... ?

[OzmO]

I don't agree at all.  It absolutely does matter who voted for the war and who supported the war.  It wasn't just Bush.  It was Democrats, Republicans, and other world leaders. 

We really don't know, and may never know, precisely what Sadaam had and when and how he disposed of his weapons.  Some of that material is very mobile.  He had billions in cash, which I don't believe he used for legitimate reasons.  It's possible he had nothing, but just as possible that he moved stuff out of the country before we invaded.  He had years to prepare.  In any event, there was enough evidence and information to convince John Kerry, Democrats, Republicans, and leaders around the world that Sadaam was hiding something. 

It is not prudent, moral, kosher or whatever, in the least, to go to war and endanger American lives without concrete proof of certain immanent danger to the safety of our citizens.  it turns out it was all false.  Frankly, it was false in the case presented, but in the atmosphere of terrorist fear it was viewed differently.

Again, who voted for or against means nothing.  These are politicians.  They are supposed to to be the voice of the poeple.  And the American public was manipulated in supporting a war based on a lie by the BUSH administration.

[Dos Equis]

Which world leaders voted for the war?

Blair, and... ?

Russia, China, France, Syria, etc.  In 2002 the UN voted 15-0 to urge Iraq to disarm or face "serious consequences." 

Man.  I guess 15 world leaders lied too?    

[Dos Equis]

It is not prudent, moral, kosher or whatever, in the least, to go to war and endanger American lives without concrete proof of certain immanent danger to the safety of our citizens.  it turns out it was all false.  Frankly, it was false in the case presented, but in the atmosphere of terrorist fear it was viewed differently.

Again, who voted for or against means nothing.  These are politicians.  They are supposed to to be the voice of the poeple.  And the American public was manipulated in supporting a war based on a lie by the BUSH administration.

and China, and Russian, and France, England, etc., etc. . . .

[240 is Back]

Russia, China, France, Syria, etc.  In 2002 the UN voted 15-0 to urge Iraq to disarm or face "serious consequences." 

Man.  I guess 15 world leaders lied too?    

They voted for a resolution.  The resolution was slowly but surely being enforced.  Sadaam caved 2 days before we invaded, and approved complete access to everything.  We declined and bombed instead.

How many of those 15 nations helped us invade iraq?  One? UK?  Who else?

See, they knew there was no WMD threat.  And so do you.

[OzmO]

Russia, China, France, Syria, etc.  In 2002 the UN voted 15-0 to urge Iraq to disarm or face "serious consequences." 

Man.  I guess 15 world leaders lied too?    

No, they didn't lie................  They voted.  Major difference.  And if you want to talk about the information they voted on then they you can say they voted on inaccurate information.

Next:

The U.N. said serious consequences, not an Invasion by America and England. 

Another great example of republican rhetoric of quoting the UN resolution when it's convienient but not quoting them when we do something with out their approval.

[Dos Equis]

No, they didn't lie................  They voted.  Major difference.  And if you want to talk about the information they voted on then they you can say they voted on inaccurate information.

Next:

The U.N. said serious consequences, not an Invasion by America and England. 

Another great example of republican rhetoric of quoting the UN resolution when it's convienient but not quoting them when we do something with out their approval.

I see.  So Bush lied and everyone else voted based on inaccurate information. 

And since when does quoting a UN resolution become Republican rhetoric? 

[OzmO]

I see.  So Bush lied and everyone else voted based on inaccurate information. 

And since when does quoting a UN resolution become Republican rhetoric? 

Well, sorry,. Mr. I, is fond of quoting the UN resolution and i tend to associate the 2 unfairly.

As to your first sentence:  Did they vote for a war? 

Add to your response of:

Which world leaders voted for the war?

Blair, and... ?

Which was:

Russia, China, France, Syria, etc.  In 2002 the UN voted 15-0 to urge Iraq to disarm or face "serious consequences." 

Man.  I guess 15 world leaders lied too?    

Disarm what?   the WMD's that weren't there?

[Dos Equis]

Well, sorry,. Mr. I, is fond of quoting the UN resolution and i tend to associate the 2 unfairly.

As to your first sentence:  Did they vote for a war? 

Add to your response of:

Which was:

Disarm what?   the WMD's that weren't there?

Did they vote for war?  That's the way it reads to me.  We interpreted the phrase "serious consequences" liberally.   

My whole point is numerous countries, leaders, politicians, lay people, military people, etc. believed Sadaam had WMDs.  That's why the UN security council voted 15-0 to condemn and threaten Sadaam.  That's why the House and Senate were close to unanimous in their votes on resolutions.  That's why Kerry made such strong allegations about WMDs.  You cannot just lay all of this on Bush and say he deceived the world.  Doesn't make any sense to me.   

[Camel Jockey]

Kerry shouldn't have to say sorry for anything!

IT IS CLEARLY OBVIOUS THAT HE WAS TAKING A JAB AT BUSH! PLAIN AND FUCKING SIMPLE!

So what if he's a history of taking shots at his fellow Vietnam vets? You fuckers ever think that maybe he feels bad about what some of the US soliders did to the Vietnamese? Going public about atrocities is betrayal? 

[240 is Back]

People were more mad that he talked out of school about the Vietnam atrocities.

That shit happened.  period.  They weren't mad at the troops for losing it and doing some executing in vilages.  They were mad at Kerry for breaking some unwritten law of leaving it on the field.

[OzmO]

Did they vote for war?  That's the way it reads to me.  We interpreted the phrase "serious consequences" liberally.   

My whole point is numerous countries, leaders, politicians, lay people, military people, etc. believed Sadaam had WMDs.  That's why the UN security council voted 15-0 to condemn and threaten Sadaam.  That's why the House and Senate were close to unanimous in their votes on resolutions.  That's why Kerry made such strong allegations about WMDs.  You cannot just lay all of this on Bush and say he deceived the world.  Doesn't make any sense to me.   

It should make alot of sense.  Are there things past administrations have done that where not on the up and up?  If it wasn't for Condi and Powell making statements of the "non-threat" Sadaam posed before 9/11 i might be more inclined to believe otherwise.  Or at least believe less in the possibility of the report of WMD being a lie.  But taking some of these things into account just to name a few:

-  Virtual absence of WMD's and facilities for making WMD's

-  Geopolitical/economical motivations for the establishment of a democratic society in the region

-  The American publics Massive susceptibility to fear based manipulation

Outlines to me our government "manufactured consent"  (no chomsky title pun intended)


The liberal interpretation of the UN's statement:  "Serious consequences" that translated into the USA invading Iraq makes us no different than garden variety vigilantes.  Is that what we are?  Is that how we justify doing things?  Because we are not the UN's police force are we?  Like Hez is to the Lebanese government are we?

[240 is Back]

beach bum didn't understand a damn word you just said, and will retort with something stupid about a gorilla, or something his friend told him in a barber shop.  he won't argue you point by point, because that would really hurt this glass house of reason he's built with no facts.

[Dos Equis]

It should make alot of sense.  Are there things past administrations have done that where not on the up and up?  If it wasn't for Condi and Powell making statements of the "non-threat" Sadaam posed before 9/11 i might be more inclined to believe otherwise.  Or at least believe less in the possibility of the report of WMD being a lie.  But taking some of these things into account just to name a few:

-  Virtual absence of WMD's and facilities for making WMD's

-  Geopolitical/economical motivations for the establishment of a democratic society in the region

-  The American publics Massive susceptibility to fear based manipulation

Outlines to me our government "manufactured consent"  (no chomsky title pun intended)


The liberal interpretation of the UN's statement:  "Serious consequences" that translated into the USA invading Iraq makes us no different than garden variety vigilantes.  Is that what we are?  Is that how we justify doing things?  Because we are not the UN's police force are we?  Like Hez is to the Lebanese government are we?

I don't think we're vigilantes at all.  We didn't act alone.  I haven't looked up all of the countries who have provided troops and money, but I'm sure it's more than one.

[Camel Jockey]

beach bum didn't understand a damn word you just said, and will retort with something stupid about a gorilla, or something his friend told him in a barber shop.  he won't argue you point by point, because that would really hurt this glass house of reason he's built with no facts.

What annoys me is that people like him purposely confine their thoughts within a box, so their ideals remain intact. Someday their glass house will shatter!

[Dos Equis]

beach bum didn't understand a damn word you just said, and will retort with something stupid about a gorilla, or something his friend told him in a barber shop.  he won't argue you point by point, because that would really hurt this glass house of reason he's built with no facts.

Wrong again.    Even though we disagree on parts of the war, I can actually have an intelligent debate/discussion with Ozmo.  

[Dos Equis]

What annoys me is that people like him purposely confine their thoughts within a box, so their ideals remain intact. Someday their glass house will shatter!

Don't you have a joint to smoke?   

[OzmO]

I don't think we're vigilantes at all.  We didn't act alone.  I haven't looked up all of the countries who have provided troops and money, but I'm sure it's more than one.

Vigilantes rarely act alone. But aside from that, the USA was the main mover here, no disputing that.


You gotta be careful here BB,  your line of reasoning about how we acted on the UN's ultimatum of "serious consequences" when compared to: 

"Don't steal from the local ABC store or you'll face the consequnces.....and when someone does he gets beaten to a pulp by an angry mob only to find out he never stole in the first place"  Can be an analogy we can apply to "liberal translation thinking" and the Iraq war.

[Camel Jockey]

Don't you have a joint to smoke?   

I'm a pipe man.  But I will roll the occasional joint or blunt. 

Anyways, I'm out of bud so I'm pretty much confined to drink for tonight.

[Dos Equis]

Vigilantes rarely act alone. But aside from that, the USA was the main mover here, no disputing that.


You gotta be careful here BB,  your line of reasoning about how we acted on the UN's ultimatum of "serious consequences" when compared to: 

"Don't steal from the local ABC store or you'll face the consequnces.....and when someone does he gets beaten to a pulp by an angry mob only to find out he never stole in the first place"  Can be an analogy we can apply to "liberal translation thinking" and the Iraq war.

I hear you.  If it turned out the person didn't rob the store, but raped a customer, then the beat down might be okay.     That's sort of how I view Sadaam.  I think going in was the right decision for a variety of reasons (not a sole reason).  And on top of that we may never know what happened with WMDs.   

[OzmO]

I hear you.  If it turned out the person didn't rob the store, but raped a customer, then the beat down might be okay.     That's sort of how I view Sadaam.  I think going in was the right decision for a variety of reasons (not a sole reason).  And on top of that we may never know what happened with WMDs.   

Getting rid of Sadaam is the right thing to do in theory but not in practice IMO.  Not worth the cost.  Call me old fashioned,  but preemptive invasion based on "something other than solid proof"  is not what i think America is all about.