![[mccookgazette.com]](http://www.mccookgazette.com/images/nameplate31.png)
|
|
Fair ~ High: 87°F ~ Low: 57°F Wednesday, May 16, 2012 |
|
My Core BeliefsPosted Tuesday, May 19, 2009, at 10:53 AM
After being prodded about what my actual core beliefs are and after finally getting past my procrastination and recovering from some very bad news I recieved last week (yes I know this is a really bad run-on sentence), I will now offer you my core beliefs. Some of it some of you have already had a gander at on my previous blog. Some of you will highly criticize me for my beliefs, demonize me, compare me to a pedophile, or even make that weird twist of logic jump and make a comparison to Hitler. In the end, though, these are my core beliefs. These are the beliefs that make me who I am. I'm not going to apologize for them and I'm not going to change them just so you will feel more comfortable.
1. I believe in the Constitution. I believe that it is a living document that rules all of the United States, not just the privileged who have the money to go around, above, and below it when they feel. It is not simply a guideline but that which all laws in the United States ared based on. 2. The Bill of Rights applies to all and we don't have to give up rights in the protection of our freedom. 3. I believe that there is a solid and stark line between religion and the government. Religion should stay out of the government and politics and government and politics should stay out of religion. 4. This is the United States, so whether a person is christian, buddhist, mormon, muslim, jewish, or atheist should not be required to serve public office and those who think it should need to re-read the Constitution. 5. The government should not regulate morality, so it needs to stay out of the bedroom. 6. There are people in this country that for no lack of trying on their part struggle and the government and its people should lend a helping hand. 7. I believe in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and it doesn't matter how we got it to begin with we have it and EVERY American should have it. 8. Capitalism is a great system, but it isn't a full proof system, we need other systems running along with it to keep our economy running. 9. Torture is wrong, not matter what the reason for using it is and those who performed it and allowed it and authorized it (Democratic or Republican) should be charged and brought to justice. 10. I believe in free will. I also believe that if you put yourself in a position to be criticized you should be criticized if you continue to push something on other people. 11. Waterboarding IS torture. 12. I think our priorities are a tad skewed when we impeach one president because he lied under oath about an affair, but do nothing to another president who waterboarded the Bill of Rights, asked us to give up some of our rights, sent thousands of fellow Americans to die in a country that did not and would not attack us. 13. People should be accountable for their words just as much as their actions. 14. It doesn't matter if I am religious or not, what matters is I am an American. 15. It doesn't matter if I am a Democrat or Republican, what matters is I am an American. 16. It doesn't matter if I am liberal or conservative, what matters is I am an American. 17. It doesn't matter if I am a man or a woman, or gay or straight, what matter is I am an American. 18. It doesn't matter what my skin color is, what matters is I am an American. 19. It amazes me is that someone who can call someone who protests against Bush (no matter the reason) a traitor, can turn around and call someone who protests against Obama a patriot. Not only that but also calls those that are openly talking secession patriots, when it's pretty clear that it is treason. 20. I believe it to be highly hypocritical to openly call for secession from the United States and then not only continue taking money from the federal government but ask for more. 21. I not only believe that global warming does exist, but that man has made it worse. 22. Pre-emptive wars is something the United States should never EVER do again. It is frankly, Un-American. 23. The United States helped end the Cold War through diplomatic talks. All the way from Truman to Reagan. It was talk that helped end the war not pre-emptive strikes. We were involved in two wars that had to do more with containment of communism than fighting against the Soviets, one was a draw and we lost the other. 24. The United States didn't win the Cold War, the Soviet Union collapsed under its own weight. 25. The death penalty does not work. 26. Our prison system either needs to be a rehabilitation system or a punishment system, not both. And I favor rehabilitation. 27. Don't ask, don't tell needs to be adandoned as a practice. Anyone who wants to serve for the United States military should be allowed to. 28. Any amdendment being considered to add to the Constitution that puts restrictions on rights needs to be forgotten. The Constitution is about giving rights not banning rights. 29. If two people want to get married and the institution they want to get married in doesn't object, then we can not rightfully tell them no, regardless if they are a man and a woman, a man and a man, or a woman and a woman. and finally ... 30. We are all Americans, just with different beliefs and ideologies. We've had these deep divisions before in our past and we shall come through it again. It just takes a few people from each side of the spectrum putting aside their differences and working to make this country great once again. I'm willing ... are you? Comments Showing comments in chronological order [Show most recent comments first] |
Hot topics A Case Against Merit Pay(12 ~ 6:08 PM, Mar 2)
Hot Springs, America's First National Park
President Obama's Speech
A Most Disgusting Lie
Republicans and the Far-Right Have Hit Rock Bottom
|
Email link
Read comments (65)
Blog archive
![[Feed icon]](http://www.mccookgazette.com/images/icons/feed-icon-14x14.png){kind=icon}
When did you start supporting NAMBLA Steffanie? As much as railed against me in the past, it's odd to see you come out in support of them. I'm sure they'll take any support they can get even from you
Hey STUFFany, how is it you are so familiar with that group?
"5. The government should not regulate morality, so it needs to stay out of the bedroom."
Should they also stay off my tv, radio, internet, newspaper, magazine, etc if it's about "morality"?
"6. There are people in this country that for no lack of trying on their part struggle and the government and its people should lend a helping hand."
I agree with that but I still have a problem with a large number of people who struggle for a lack of trying. They play the system to their benefit with no intention of ever getting off of it. This in turn, actually hurts those who really need and are honestly in need of assistance without other options available to them.
"12. I think our priorities are a tad skewed when we impeach one president because he lied under oath about an affair, but do nothing to another president who waterboarded the Bill of Rights, asked us to give up some of our rights, sent thousands of fellow Americans to die in a country that did not and would not attack us."
"22. Pre-emptive wars is something the United States should never EVER do again. It is frankly, Un-American."
No President, regardless of how cruel or unjust you think he is, sends Americans "to die" anywhere. They're sent to fight. Dying is what the enemy is for. That statement makes it sound like the President wants them to go over there and doesn't care if they die. That's just not true. As much as I can't stand Clinton, I would never say that he sent soldiers to die in Somalia and I would never say that Obama sent more troops to die in Afghanistan.
I'm not sure if you're referring to Iraq or Afghanistan about the specific country. Iraq was done because of bad intelligence and after Iraq's refusal to cooperate with the U.N. Afghanistan, was harboring and supporting the terrorists that planned attacks on the U.S. I don't see anything pre-emptive about Afghanistan except that we're doing our best to make sure we cripple them so that they can't hit us again.
"23. The United States helped end the Cold War through diplomatic talks. All the way from Truman to Reagan. It was talk that helped end the war not pre-emptive strikes. We were involved in two wars that had to do more with containment of communism than fighting against the Soviets, one was a draw and we lost the other."
What we face now is not a cold war. They attacked us directly and then they came back to attack us again, with much more devastation. We're not fighting communism, we're fighting terrorism and I think we need to do all we can to contain it and destroy it wherever we find it.
"25. The death penalty does not work."
I believe the death penalty works but it's not a silver bullet to eliminate the murderous nature of every evil person out there and that's another reason why I'm glad we have it.
"26. Our prison system either needs to be a rehabilitation system or a punishment system, not both. And I favor rehabilitation."
How do you rehabilitate a person who murders members of their own family, dismembers bodies, cannibals, terrorists, sadists, rapists or pedophiles? Furthermore, I believe and I'll bet the victims and their families would also believe that they deserve punishment not rehab.
I believe in rehab for certain types of offenses such as drug use or gang related crimes. I believe they should be punished for their acts while receiving help to leave that way of life when their punishment is over. There are others, I believe, who are so extreme in their actions that their crimes are so egregious and reprehensible that they go above and beyond what can be "fixed" and they should be punished. When they are released I think they should be closely monitored. I suppose that just as you believe in a mix of capitalism and socialism, I believe in a mix of rehab and punishment.
"27. Don't ask, don't tell needs to be adandoned as a practice. Anyone who wants to serve for the United States military should be allowed to."
Ah, the undying Clinton era holdover. I don't have any problem with any American who wants to serve their country. However, a large focus of the military is discipline and for this reason they greatly restrict interaction among male and female members of the military. If gays are allowed to serve openly (which they should be able to do) then someone either needs to find a way of applying those same restrictions to the gay members that are applied to the straight members or they can take the easy way out and go full out co-ed but if they do that they lose one of their implements of discipline. It's not so much a question of "should we do it" as it is "how should we do it"?
I do agree with several of your points about the fact that we're all Americans at the end of the day. A lot of people could learn a lot if they could just realize that you don't have to respect an opinion to respect a person.
Hey Mike, greetings,
I don't believe I ever met you, but I totally approve of your core beliefs (maybe rethink no. 13 somewhat). I was born and raised near McCook many years ago and can therefore appreciate the courage it requires to be so forthright about what you believe in a community that does so little honor to any thought outside its own rigidly defined mainstream. Take heart: as it is now, it always was (and likely ever will be). I lacked courage; I fled. Stay the course .... your views are fresh air sweeping away the old, the stale. Did you know that Carl Sandburg, so recently honored by The Town, spent his little time in McCook in jail for vagrancy? Kinda tells the tale, doesn't it?
Best regards.
Steffanie dear, I might pay some attention to your mean-spirited comments if you had the courage to sign your own name.
I believe the sun is rising, even though it is clearly setting at 9 pm. Sounds about like the global warming crowd.
I know you are but what am I? I'm rubber, you're glue. Am I the only amused here?
It has become a bit comical.
As for your question, McCook, about which country I was referring to, it was Iraq. The leaders of Afghanistan were al Qaeda members just with a fancy political name. Even though most of the terrorists who attacked us that day were from Saudi Arabia, they were recruited and trained in Afghanistan.
Iraq was a war not based on faulty intelligence, but seemingly no intelligence what-so-ever. We were lied into a war that had been planned in the early days of the Bush Administration and because of that thousands of our military members have paid with their blood and their lives.
Seems to me that I remember ol' Saddam trying to assasinate Bush #41. Clinton lobbed a few Tomohawks at him in retaliation. That sounds pretty threatening to me. When Dubya took office - Saddam was still holding the reins of power in that state. BIG turn around in that area of the world now where Hummers 1-2 and 3 are the most popular selling vehicles to Iraqi auto buyers.
(scratching head) They must be doing something right to afford that???
Good to see you post your core beliefs Michael - although I think some of them could have been kind of melded together. But truly, I can see why you separated them out. Writing things out takes more time than verbal dialogue and you really want to be sure to cover the bases.
Happens to me all the time.
So let me get this straight Sceptre. Because we went to war the first time because Iraq invaded a sovereign nation that gave us the right to invade a second time. The second time, when we were told over and over again by other countries in the world that there were no weapons of mass destruction, and as we found out later, there weren't.
The Iraq of 2003 was not the Iraq of the early 90s. Which actually goes to help my point that all along the only reason that Bush 43 invaded Iraq at all was to validate Bush 41. Hey, Sceptre, thanks for helping me prove my theory.
Mike,
Many of Afghanistan's leaders were Al Queda and I agree they should be taken care of. That's also another reason why I support Israel defending itself against Palestine and it's Hamas leaders.
I know it's popular to say that the war in Iraq was planned in the early days of the Bush adminstration but every President has wars "planned" as preparations in the event that war is deemed necessary. I'm sure Obama has "plans" for war with N. Korea, Iran, Pakistan and China too and if he doesn't, he should. We always have and always will have these sort of plans and the means to carry them out with the hope that we don't have to.
American intelligence reports and British foreign intelligence reports all indicated that Iraq still had weapons of mass destruction. Bush and Congress acted and relied on that intelligence and that's why we got to where we are today.
Now that we know the intelligence was wrong, everybody wants to point fingers and say we went to war for oil, we went to war because of Bush 41 or we went to war because Bush lied and tricked all of us. It's all politics and that's it. The fact is they all received the same information and everybody came to the same conclusion. I think everyone should share equally in the blame but how many politicians are ever going to do that willingly without prodding?
If they could focus all their passion for rhetoric and finger pointing and aim it at actually improving our intelligence community then we'd never get bad information ever again. They're politicians and if they understand one thing it's this: results don't win elections, rhetoric does.
Actually this is something that I have been saying from the beginning. If you look in the archives of this very newspaper you will find letters that I wrote to the editor disputing the claim of WMDs in Iraq. I have said from the beginning that this was nothing more but a war of convienience for Junior to validate his dad.
And the fact that the facts have bore me out and people like Sceptre and sadly you McCook (now that it's popular) want to defend the war by blaming everything that's gone wrong over there on Liberals.
And on that intelligence McCook, Britain doubted the validity of those reports almost immediately and took their concerns to the White House, and the White House ignored them.
But you know what you are always going to try to convince me that I am wrong and evil for doubting the White House and CIA, so I choose not to argue this point.
I will argue THIS point however, it is possible to support your military, but NOT the government that has put them in harms way.
By the by, it has been noted on several blogs by different posters that President Obama needs to put his money where his mouth is especially on fuel efficient cars. Guess who owns and has owned a ford hybrid (wow even bought an American car).
Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 and hated Osama bin Laden. This has already been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but then again steffanie you are not reasonable, so of course you still think that Iraq had something to do with 9/11
22. A pre-emptive war is something that the US should never ever do again.
I believe that a pre-emtive war should be avoided if possible, but I do not have access to the same information as the people that make that choice. I do know that I would rather strike pre-emptively than to wait for the war to come to US soil.
25. The death penalty does not work.
The likely out come of an execution is that the offender is dead, therefore it works. My apologies, that was sarcasm. I know where you are coming from; the death penalty does little as a deterant, you are right. But on an individual basis, a dead murderer will kill no more. Most of the inmates that are on death row are not locked up for the first time, there was a series of behavior issues that lead to eventually taking another persons life. These people have been given chance after chance and have proven that it is too dangerous to ever release them back on the street. We could incarcerate them for the rest of their lives. However, the tax payers are paying for the cost of housing, all medical expenses, all dental expenses, all psychiatric care, all personal care items, and all legal issues with each and every inmate that is locked up. This amounts to about 41K per year, per inmate. I have had first hand experience with these inmates, I have had lengthy conversations with them, read their files, and in some cases even seen the victim. In my opinion it is not worth it to house these people for a life time. I am in favor of a swift death penalty, and I dont care how it is carried out.
26. Our prison system needs to be a rehabilitation system, or a punishment system.
I agree, but unfortunately, by the time anyone gets that far down the legal system in this state, its too late, they are career criminals. Currently our prison system is neither, it is a warehouse. This state brags of a very low recidivism rate, but that is only because each inmate is issued a new DOC number if he or she comes back to prison on an unrelated offense. This makes the recidivism rate appear very low, when it is actually the same as every other state. What we have now is a bunch of career criminals thrown in with more career criminal that will share information and be released as a career criminal with some new ideas. Keep in mind that if we closely monitor their activities after prison and regulate what they do, this will infringe on the rights that you say they should have according to our constitution.
There is no easy answer, I think that we should rehabilitate those who show us the willingness to accept this measure, and punish those who have clearly demonstrated that they will always be a danger to the public, up to and including the death penalty. There are alot of inmates that have shown that they can correct their behavior and become productive members of society, maybe they had an addiction issue or just fell on hard times, I want to help. A murderer or a pedophile, I would rather just execute.
I will never understand why we left Afghanistan (which IS the central point on this war on terror) to go fight in Iraq. The job was not yet finished in Afghanistan and now the Taliban is getting strong again.
Hey STUFFany, there should be a comma between the words tool and, and. Or a period and a new sentence. How can we take you seriously when you seem to lack the basics of english?
I never bought into Saddam being behind 9/11 anymore than I buy into Bush going to war because of his father. I also don't believe that any war is a convenient war.
I just understand why Bush AND Congress decided to take the action they did based on the intelligence available to them at the time. I never "blamed everything on the Liberals". In fact, I never even mentioned the word liberal but I did say that both sides (meaning Republicans and Democrats) should take responsibility for their decisions. This isn't kindergarten, it's American Government and it's time our leaders started acting like leaders instead of finger-pointing toddlers screaming, "he started it".
I am basing that off the British PM saying that he had "absolutely no doubt" about the intelligence. I'm sure he and Bush both had people in their respective agencies who explained why they doubted the intelligence and those who explained why they believed the intelligence and both came to the same conclusion.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/pol...
There's always going to be somebody in the intelligence community who expresses their doubts about any given piece of intelligence. They express their doubts and the other side expresses why they believe it's reliable information and ultimately, someone has to weigh both sides and make a decision, whether it is the right or wrong decision is decided in the future and not in that moment.
Mike, are you really going to pull the evil card, really? You presume to know what I'm going to do but you and I both know there's nothing I've posted that even remotely insinuates that you're evil. It's like you're arguing with some unknown person because who you're describing isn't me.
Now, I would like to change you're mind on some things but I don't actually expect that to happen. I'm sure you would like the same from me too. I just expect to listen and be listened to. In that regard, I'm fairly content but you need to remember that not all people who disagree with you, will disagree the same way.
I completely agree with you about being able to disagree with the government and still supporting the troops in this circumstance. However, it also depends on the type of war. I don't think the colonists could say the same thing about England and it's troops during the American Revolution. I mainly get upset when people make blanket statements that demonize and demoralize our troops. For example, calling them babykillers, paid assassins, rapists or murderers.
Btw, I went with the Dodge thoroughbred myself.
I am shocked and horrified at the number of Americans that link Sadaam to 9/11. The fact that the Bush administration had that type of manipulative power is insane.
Sadaam was NEVER a threat to the U.S. Even dick cheaney has admitted as much after leaving office.
My apologies McCook I was not referring to you with the evil remark. I was referring to Steffanie. You and I have heated debates but they are always respectful.
Watch my manners, screw you buddy. She is the english police, not me. Those in glass houses should not cast stones.
What is your fascination with puppies
Sceptre, by your comments you would agree the only threat Iraq was to the U.S. was when are military planes were flying over their soil. This was bad, I admit. But in no way did Iraq ever threaten American soil. If we were to go to war with every country that has fired on our planes in fly overs, I think you would be shocked how many wars we would declare.
No one is fooled anymore. This was a war for oil. There are many african countries w/ evil dictators in power yet the U.S. does nothing. It seems we only police the parts of the world in which we have something to gain.
And let's not forget that genocide that is going on in Darfur. One of the reasons for going to war in Iraq was that Saddam was killing his own people. How did that merit us taking him out of power but a genocide in an African country that has nothing to offer us doesn't? Oh wait I answered my own question.
Does anyone here really believe we should go into Darfur and topple their oppressors? Every person I speak to who opposes the war in Iraq inevitably says the oppression in Iraq was none of our business and therefore not a good reason to be there. By that reasoning, we should stay out of Darfur and let the genocide continue.
People can raise all the funds for aid they want but that aid won't stop the genocide. You can put pressure on them but if you can't back up that pressure with force then they have no reason to listen. That's what we did with Iraq. We put pressure on them to abide by the U.N. resolutions they agreed to. We'd been talking and talking for years and they didn't believe we'd actually do anything more than more sanctions they wouldn't listen to. When they refused after repeated warnings and based on the intelligence we were receiving, we actually did something about it.
Then again, who knows. Maybe the next sanction would have been the one that worked or the one after that... or the one after that but eventually you have to say enough is enough. Everybody wants to talk about strategies that weren't working. The resolutions to allow those inspections were failed strategies that weren't working.
For the record, if Obama wanted to go into Darfur and end that oppression, I wouldn't oppose that action but he had better be committed to it. Unlike Clinton and Somalia. We didn't exactly gain any of that cherished "respect" by engaging a country and then abandoning it when things got tough.
Something tells me that if Bush did go into Darfur, people would suddenly realize that there is oil in Darfur too.
I just love the fact that in today's society, there are people that feel the only way to solve an international issue is with military.
First of all Iraq never agreed to any sanctions, they were forced on them (though I'm not complaining about the sanctions) after the Gulf War.
Iraq had, by the time we attacked them, had become essentially a third world country whose only means of money was it's oil fields.
Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and it wasn't working on any. Saddamn just refused to say that because he knew it irritated American lawmakers. We were played by Saddam and embarrassed because of it.
Mike,
Your core belief #8 is very important.
If you were in the US before the revolution would you have fought the British? I am guessing no as you believe that there should be a safety net and if you fought in the revolution your goal was to do it alone (with no government help) and you would have had to fight and be willing to die. You have stated your pacifism before so therefore you would not have fought.
That is your problem. Most people that consider themselves "true Americans" would have fought the British for our freedom.
You would have sat by and watched us die.
Wow. That was the Everest of dumb arguments on this blog.
But why let it stop.
Walli, if you were alive during the Civil War you would have fought for the South because you (and all conservatives)believe soley in state's rights and would have fought federal authority tooth and nail.
And that's the problem with conservatism. All you red rebels hoot and holler about the wrongs of federal authority but the two times we've tried to give most power directly to the states, it has ended in the near destruction of our country.
You are a traitor sir.
Mike,
Saddam did agree to abide by the terms of the U.N. resolutions on several occasions and then backed out when the time to comply actually came.
http://www.c-span.org/iraq/timeline.asp
G.I.,
If all we wanted was oil why not hit up the Saudis or Iran or any other number of places that sit on large oil reserves? Saying that the United States went to war for oil sounds more like the ravings of a mad man than that of a rational person. Wait a minute, that's right. It was Saddam Hussein who was saying the United States was only after the oil. They were also going to enslave everybody too as I recall.
Our intelligence reports indicating that Iraq had WMDs and their refusal to comply with the U.N. resolutions regarding WMDs is what made us go in. Anytime you go in and overthrow a ruthless dictator like Saddam there will be a host of good reasons for his removal. The oppression and genocide are just a couple more reasons but they weren't the main reason.
Hopefully, Obama will be able to complete the mission in Iraq. If he does, I wonder what will be most important to the next generation of Iraqis... why we ended Saddam's oppression, or the fact that we did end his oppression.
From time to time, the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots.
-Thomas Jefferson
Seriously steffanie what is your fascination with puppies. It doesn't have anything to do with your recent admittion of admiring NAMBLA does it?
How am I a traitor. I would love to hear your logic on this one
Let me correct a spelling mistake before the head of the spelling police, steffanie, gets a chance.
Admission
Billyjb,
If I were living in Georgia during the Civil War raising my family and minding my own business and Sherman was burning and killing everyone in sight and wanted to kill me just because I was a resident of Georgia I would have fought.
Whould you have stood by and watched him murder your family??
Actually if we truly want to get any information from those guys, other than what they were doing, we just need to leave them in a room with Steffanie and Sceptre as they spout about the evils of the rest of the world. That'll make them talk
And by your comments Steffanie it is clear you have no idea what waterboarding is. Those who favor waterboarding like to say that all it is making the person think they are drowning. That's not even in the realm of reality. Waterboarding is the act of drowning someone to make them think they are dieing. It does cause long term heath issues.
Steffanie, if you think all it is, is to "sprinkle some water in their face" then I challenge you to go through it.
See this is usually where the pro-waterboarders have no answer. They love to say that it isn't torture and that's it no big deal, but when challenged to actually go through it to prove that it is no big deal, all of a sudden they are silent. Sean Hannity was challenged a month ago to be waterboarded and for every second he lasted 1000 dollars would be donated to an organization of Hannity's choosing. He hasn't mentioned wanting to be waterboarded since.
If you really think waterboarding is no big deal and people need to get over it, I at least challenge you to youtube it. Several journalists who questioned whether it was torture actually had the balls to go through it and every single one of them came out and categorically said that they had been tortured.
I really do get the idea that some of you think that waterboarding is the same thing as chinese water torture. If that's true you don't really need to talk about it anymore because you don't know what you are talking about.
Walli,
So you're not fighting for the South, you're just waiting for the war to get to your doorstep. And you plan on taking Sherman's army by yourself.
Were you watching Mel Gibson's "The Patriot" while typing this out? That's basically a twisted synopsis of the movie.
"Whould (sic) you have stood by and watched him murder your family??"
Being a Union guy myself, I don't think Sherman would have wanted to kill my family. But I'd already be enlisted, leading a rag-tag group of soldiers deep into enemy lines to find and retrieve some soldier named Ryan who lost all 4 of his brothers in the war.
ekimsitruc,
I have been trained to administer a waterboarding procedure. In order to be trained and qualified to administer such a procedure, you have to take the ride. So I have been waterboarded. Not for any length of time, just long enough to get the idea. It was very unpleasant. I guess you could call it torture just by the fact that it is very unpleasant, and the subject does believe that they could die from the procedure. But, if it is done correctly, there will be no lasting physical effects. If it is done over and over again, that is a different story. Chances are, if you have administered the procedure a few times to the same subject without getting the information you are looking for, they probably dont have the information. Out of all of the methods used to accurately acquire information from an uncooperative subject, this is probably the most humane in that either way, it is not design to result in the death of the subject if done correctly. When it comes to war, if a subject is known to have information that will save lives of both Americans and the enemy, I am not against torture. I know that seems crazy and harsh, but I have seen soldiers and civilians die on both sides that could have been prevented with a little good intel. I would also say that I do not agree with torture, for the sake of torture. If you make the enemy very uncomfortable for a period of time, they will give you what you need. If they do not have what you need, and they are not armed, they are no longer a threat and should be left alone.
They will give you what YOU need, but as research and our own recent history has shown what YOU need isn't necessarily real information
We tortured a captive over 100 times ... this was after he had already given us information that was valid through normal interrogation. After the torture started he started telling us whatever we wanted to hear. None of the information he gave us after the torture started ever amounted to anything
That is correct. Any useful information will be gained very early in the process. There is no reason for ANY procedure to be used on the same subject that many times. I do believe in using persuasive technics to get information that I have been ordered to obtain, sometimes it is enough that the subject believes you will torture them if they do not cooperate to gain thier cooperation. Psychological persuasion is usually just as effective as any. I do understand the concern of many, if a procedure is made public and not carried out in the correct manner, it happens and will continue to happen as long as there is a war. I am a bit of a barbarian, but I do believe that useful information can and has been obtained from an uncooperative subject, torture is last resort, I prefer to simply make them believe they will be tortured.
Scpetre - I'm just curious then, if there are no rules for war, they why are there war crime trials? The USA prosecuted and incarcerated Japanese for torture after WWII including waterboarding. Seems like it's OK as long as we do it but don't do it to us?
So the fact that torture DOES NOT WORK is really inmaterial to you. Because "Mideast Terrorists" do it makes it perfectly acceptable for us to do? I'm pretty sure there's an old adage taken from the Bible that states, two wrongs don't make a right.
Oh so because I am not an expert in torture I can't talk about it. Wouldn't that apply to you as well? Wait of course it wouldn't because you are in expert in everything.
By the way torture has not saved a single American life to date. All the valid information we got from terrorists was recieved using good old American interrogation techniques, not through torture.
And I know what you are going to say, we don't torture we used "enhanced interrogation techniques". I have one thing to say to that. Torture by any other name
seentomuch, torture should not be a resort at all. I'll keep saying it, hell sometimes reduncy goes somewhere. The early information that we recieved from terrorists was from police-like interrogation. No threatening of using torture, just interrogating.
And just imagine this. Everyone by now knows of the foiled plot to bomb different sites in New York City. You think torture, or "enhanced interrogation techniques", were used to foil this plot?
The information is coming out and the answer appears to be a steadfast no, that all it was was great investigative techniques employed by the city of New York and the FBI.
Actually Sceptre, it was your party, your side, that turned 9/11 in a political football. It was conservatives that made anyone that didn't fully support what Bush was doing as America haters and you couldn't wait to throw 9/11 out there.
You know who forgot what really happened on 9/11. You did. You are the fool Sceptre. All you care about 9/11 is scoring points. You don't care about the 3,000+ people that were killed that day.
Admitting America's faults is not bashing America. You are a hypocritical flamer and how dare you even attempt to question my patriotism!
The truth is out there sceptre and the sooner you actually read some history instead of make it up or revise it as conservatives love to do the better off you will be.
G.I.,
"It seems like the ravings a brainwashed Republican yesboy to say that weapons of mass destruction and evil dictators were why we went to Iraq."
Seems like the official record recorded in numerous resolutions passed through the U.N. and the United States Congress too. Oh yeah, I forgot, official records only apply in certain cases where it doesn't contradict your argument, my bad.
"Its politics my young padawan...Saddam and his oil was a much easier sell, he had used chemical weapons on his own people, he had violated the UN sanctions any number of times, plus there was the whole business of settling Iraq"
So, when a country violates U.N. sanctions repeatedly and uses chemical weapons on its own people... we shouldn't go in because some conspiracy theorist is going to think its about settling a score? If N. Korea was using chemical weapons on its people and violating U.N. sanctions and we went in, I suppose that would be to justify the Korean War. I've got a better one. We went into Iraq to justify our mistake of supporting Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war and we wanted to get back all that money we invested. Wow, this conspiracy stuff is easy.
"Why not chase Osama bin Laden through Afganistan with the entire might of our armed services?"
I would assume that had something to do with the fact that the United States and its President needs to handle more than one situation at a time. That's the theory anyway.
Sceptre - I was not referring to the war crime trials of Europe, but the US Military Tribunal court held in Manila and later Tokyo. This court consisted of 5 US general officers and nobody else, so it's hard for me to believe it was a "show trial".
Your comment "It's too bad that there is not enough room for history lessons on this forum" could be corrected if you start a history blog sir. There is so much information that comes from so may sources, that we might all learn something.
I forgot to add that I have no knowledge of the Japanese waterboarding you speak of and you may be completely accurate with your comment. I would love to find out your source as I can't find anything that supports your statement.
brian, don't hold your breath waiting for sceptre to provide you with any facts, he has none.
scetpre, how exactly did bush keep us safe for eight years. Less than a year into his presidency, we were attacked, and he knew it was coming and did nothing about it. Yeah he kept us safe alright. And forget about the straw man argument you will inevitably bring out, that because we weren't attacked after that we thank bush for that. The truth is we have no facts the Osama even attempted to attack us, why would they have to, they hated us for our freedoms, and Bushco, headed by Cheney, was draining us of our freedoms, day by day.
You like to talk about Democrats evading taxes as if they are the only ones who do it. Let's talk about the leader of the "tea party" we had about a month ago. He is currently under investigation for unpaid taxes dating back at least five years. Doesn't that drive you mad? Of course it doesn't because that is perfectly acceptable for you.
You are so scary when you pull out your righteous indignation ... yes that is dripping with sarcasm.
And I absolutely love your argument that since other nations have participated in torture in the past then it is perfectly acceptable for our nation to participate in it. And we aren't doing all that bad, according to you, because other nations did it much worse than us. How do you justify that with God. Ehh, not my concern, you'll have to answer that at the gates, you will.
By the way, are you so elitist, that you honestly think this is YOUR country? Get real. The song is entitled, "This land is our land", not "This land is Sceptre's land".
"Oh that's right YOU said it. What do they call it when you shuffle off the arguments of yesterday for the expediencies of your argument today? Contradictory? Dishonest? Brainwashed? Republican?"
I call it context. You tried taking a quote about climate change and the corruption in the UN to use the names of scientists on a report those scientists never supported and somehow try linking that to the war in Iraq. I'll play along though just for S&Gs.
You would like to think that is contradictory but what have I said earlier that said I had faith in the U.N.? I've said that Saddam violated the sanctions that were put on him by the U.N. and for that reason and the intelligence reports on WMD, Congress gave Bush the authorization to use force against Saddam. What does that have to do with my faith in the U.N. again? It's just a statement of recorded fact.
"Also, a report entitled "Strategic Energy Policy: Challenges For The 21st Century", presented by the Baker Institute for public policy on behalf of Dick Cheney BEFORE 9/11, detailed "energy security" plans and marked Iraq as "a major de-stabilizing influence to the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East."
All I saw was a report by a task force that took a long time to state a lot of obvious facts. Was that report submitted to Congress for their debate about whether to authorize force? It did talk about going to alternative sources of energy to reduce our dependence on foreign oil though. I guess since it's in that report that means Dick Cheney was trying to reduce our dependence on foreign oil through alternative energy sources too.
As for everything you addressed with Reagan and Bush, I don't see anything there that we don't already know. The question was "is it ok to ignore it" not is it ok for certain people to do that. I didn't advocate for Reagan or Bush I's policies. I'm aware that Reagan didn't address Iraq and we've got 3 1/2 years to see if Obama is going to do anything about Darfur or anything else that comes up along the way.
I haven't lied to anyone on this board and especially not myself.
"Actually that specific quote had nothing to do with climate change as it was an indictment of the UN as a regulatory body."
Since you must've forgot the actual discussion and didn't bother to go back and refresh your memory. Allow me to jog your memory. This is the entire statement on the blog A Case for Global Warming.
"As far as the U.N. is concerned, I've never had much faith in an organization that is known for it's betrayal of public confidence through cover-ups and scandals all while demanding more money from member nations. Many of the scientists the U.N. said support their views on climate change, have demanded to be removed and at least one had even gone as far to threaten legal action against the U.N. if their names are not removed from that list because they never supported that report, they only reviewed it. Based on the same article listed previously. Given the fact that it is the U.N., I wouldn't be surprised."
This was in response to your comment about the UN scientific panel studying, get this... climate change. It was not about the UN as a regulatory body but more as a body of scientific inquiry and how they were threatened with legal action for forging scientific endorsements of their report on climate change. They were not regulating anything. They were merely making up endorsements to add to their scientific report.
Now, on this topic, we have UN resolutions that were passed and Saddam had verbally agreed to them, yet he chose to ignore them later. These facts were used when the US Congress made the decision to authorize force. Whether I have faith in the UN for forging names on climate change reports or their other scandals, is irrelevant, because those are the facts. The resolutions and Saddam's agreement to follow the resoultions are all a matter of public record and so is his violation of those resolutions. The violations of those resolutions were then submitted to Congress before they authorized the use of force in Iraq.
It would be like me saying that you have to believe everything that comes out of the UN because you cited their climate change report as evidence. I would be happy to continue expounding on the difference between apples and oranges for as long as you continue to struggle with the difference.
"I am arguing that "energy security" (straight from Cheney's mouth), was a motivating factor for the Iraq war. I am arguing this because it is the unequivocal truth, and this report commissioned by Cheney provides clear evidence that the White was very interested in "energy security" in the middle east."
I would be more concerned if the White House wasn't interested in energy security in the middle east. Do you think the current White House isn't concerned about energy security in the middle east? I sure hope they are looking at it too. It's a real issue and we need to be informed about it. However, nothing in that report says we should go into Iraq for their oil. I guess the meaning of "unequivocal" must have been diluted at some point.
"If you have convinced yourself that oil and energy preservation was not a factor for our presence in the middle east, you most certainly have lied to yourself...and you perpetuate that lie when you reproduce it publicly."
I wouldn't say I had to "convince" myself that the President of the United States went into Iraq for oil by "tricking" hundreds of elected representatives, many of whom have have decades of experience. As far as perpetuating a lie... well, I can't exactly perpetuate something that didn't exist to begin with.
So basically, McCook1, and this is how I am intrepretting you post, you support the UN when it is suggesting action you support, but you don't support the UN when it is reviewing information on a subject you don't agree with.
Sorry that is a bit unfair, but what I think the point GI is trying to get across, McCook1, is that on a previous post you essentially trashed the UN but on this post you are USING the UN as a case to attack Iraq, unilaterally and unprovoked.
Mike,
I don't support the UN when they forge information such as the names of scientists who did not endorse their climate change report. I haven't seen any information that the resolutions weren't passed, that Saddam did NOT agree to many of them publicly and that he did not refuse to honor the terms of those resolutions in the end. I have never stated that I oppose any U.N. attempt to disarm a country known to use WMDs against its own people. Why would I oppose that simply because the U.N. wants to make themselves the climate police too?
I'm not making the case for an attack on Iraq. Seems like that was already done and I'm simply restating the reasons Bush and Congress gave for making that decision. I'm simply stating the reasons why Bush and Congress decided to act. I believe the U.N. resolutions and the belief that Iraq had WMDs were the reasons Bush and Congress decided to use force against Iraq not for some more oil.
I'm sorry you think this is so black and white but I'm afraid I can't lower my level of thought down that far. I still believe I should be critical of ANY organization when they do something immoral or illegal but I will not criticize them on unrelated matters without good cause. I have been given no reason not to believe the UN passed those resolutions and that Saddam refused to abide by them.
The one example you use gave an example of scientists who had said their names were forged onto that report and I simply stated that wouldn't surprise me given the UN's scandalous history. I never condemned every facet of their organization. You're welcome to try construing the facts to say that and I can see you're trying so hard to do that but I'm afraid you're not gaining any ground.
I'm not so sure what's so hard to understand about this. My faith or lack thereof in the U.N. has nothing to do with the decision of Bush and Congress to authorize the use of force in Iraq. I believe THEY based THEIR arguments and THEIR decisions on those resolutions and the intelligence reports on WMDs. I don't believe anybody decided to go into Iraq because of oil. That's what is so amusing about all of this. I don't have to validate a single report to believe that.
How many times is the term "security imperative" "repeatedly" mentioned in that report? If that report said there was "no alternative" then why did they spend the majority of their space discussing alternatives such as increased production domestically, alternative energy sources, expansion of nuclear production, regulatory changes, Kyoto and revisiting sanctioning policies? Of course there's "no time to waste" in addressing those issues. That's just common sense. Of course, there I go again putting things in context. Shame, shame.
I don't have to believe the reports only Bush and the Congress had to believe them. While debating in favor of going to war it was the violation of U.N. resolutions and the reports on weapons of mass destruction that Bush and Congress decided were the reasons to use force. You seem to think I have to believe everything the Congress did in order to understand why they made the decision they did. That's a flawed logic that just makes no sense at all. I believe that for the simple reason that the overwhelming evidence suggests just that.
I assumed you read the Baker Institute link that you posted which is why I didn't bother citing the page numbers. The items I addressed make up a a sizable portion of the entire document YOU posted. If you're asking for the page number off the entire 107 page report. Forget it, that would require a lot more space than I'm willing to take. I'd just post the entire 107 pages and let you read it but I'd suggest you read what you posted first.
Some alternatives according to the Baker Institute Study posted earlier:
"In order to satisfy that demand, reliance on
volatile Middle East oil resources could increase dramatically over the next two decades unless policies are put in place to promote oil development in other regions, to shift to alternative sources, or to rein in unbridled
or wasteful consumption."
-Page 2
"The government should pave the way by removing unnecessary jurisdictional and other obstacles to construction and enlargement of pipelines, power
plants, the electricity grid, and other infrastructure. It also needs to weigh the desirability of incentives to accelerate the development of spare infrastructure and the accumulation of inventories to alleviate supply disruptions."
-Page 5
"b. Use federal procurement authority to promote
use of alternative fuels and develop programs to
introduce new efficiency technologies into federal buildings and nascent transportation technologies into government vehicle fleets"
-Page 7
"d. Review and establish new and stricter CAFE
mileage standards, especially for light trucks
e. Actively promote the development of energy efficient technologies, including fuel-efficient engine and vehicle technologies"
-Page 7
"4.) Invest in--or stimulate and encourage private sector investment in--research and development of technologies that focus on safe and cost effective ultradeep water production,
smaller drilling footprints, and increased production from nonconventional sources, including methane hydrates"
-Page 8
"d. Coal: Given the nation's abundance in coal resources, it is critical to foster the development of clean coal technologies to promote coal use in power generation while mitigating the impacts of coal combustion to meet local, regional, and global environmental challenges."
-Page 8
"3.) Work to improve the investment climate for
new nuclear power plant construction through the streamlining of NCR licensing procedures and by resolving uncertainties surrounding"
-Page 8
"6. Review sanctions policies to identify ways to reduce the negative impact on energy supplies, while accomplishing the objectives for which the sanctions were imposed"
-Page 9
"a. Conduct a thorough review of the Kyoto Accords and recommend ways for the U.S. to revive international discussions on climate change and also execute bilateral agreements to promote environmental safeguards"
-Page 9
Those are just some of the examples of alternatives you wanted me to cite for you even though you've been through it "thoroughly" already. As for anyone taking me seriously, I apoligize if I assumed they could just click on the link and read the report for themselves.
That was of course, before I saw there was a larger report (I knew 12 pages was too good to be true). When you read the entire report you can see just how misleading that mess of an article really was. There was not one thing in that report that called for military force to be used solely for procuring oil. It simply stated that national security should be taken into account when discussing energy policies. Anyone in the military will tell you energy should be considered a part of national security. If that's a revelation to you then you have a lot to learn about energy and its role in national security.
At best, they were saying that we needed to try negotiating agreements with other countries and Afghanistan would have been just one of those countries. They knew there would be the political opportunists that would try to simplify that into saying that we were only in Afghanistan for oil because wherever we go, if there's even one drop of oil in the ground that's why they'll say we're there regardless of facts. That's probably why they said this:
"The energy problems we face today are complex, and our response to them must range from a review
of our domestic environmental, tax, and regulatory structures to a reassessment of the role of energy in American foreign policy. This uncomfortable truth is largely absent in today's public debate, which is all too often marked by simplistic analysis and debilitating accusation. We need not to apportion blame but to seek workable, integrated solutions that balance energy priorities with economic, environmental, and national security objectives."
How you get a recommendation to go to war with Iraq out of that is just plain humorous. Btw, did you ever count how many times the term "security imperative" showed up in that report? Here's a link to the larger report.
http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/docs/en...
The last quote is on page 11 and 12 of the full report. I figured you knew about this section since you quoted the part of the article that addressed this section but I've been proven wrong before, so there it is.
"It's all in there McCook1, I have read it thoroughly, and above is an outside source confirming what I have stated."
I apologize, I thought when you made this statement you were referring to the actual report not the article about the report. Must have just been confusion on my part.
"Not everyone has time to read the whole report, so don't be such a Republican and put a little elbow grease into your rebuttal attempts. Sorry if honesty is expecting to much from you."
Hahaha. Elbow grease, honesty?! Let's talk about elbow grease and honesty. I just read a 107 page report that I had assumed you read too. I did not post anything that was dishonest. I was working on the assumption that you knew what was in the entire report and therefore did not cite every page. My assumption, my bad. That does not make anything dishonest and I went through and even picked a few sections out for you in the later post. Just because I quoted a paragraph and page number, doesn't mean my prior statements were dishonest without a citation next to them. As for anyone else who didn't read the report, I would have had no problem citing it for them because they would not have led me to believe they've already read the report. It might just be a good idea for anyone relying on that report to read it in its entirety though.
I still see nothing in that report that suggests going to war to secure oil. It points out the need for stability in the Middle East especially, regarding disruptions in supply. That's stating the obvious but it doesn't call for a military invasion or use of force to secure that oil supply. If anything, they would be arguing against military force because if they said they needed "immediate action" then they knew a war would not bring stability to the Middle East in the near future.
I'm sorry to disappoint but this has nothing to do with "my boys". I've been critical of Bush on several occasions on several issues but just because I disagree with him doesn't mean I have to demonize him with wild allegations that defy all the hard facts. I know you're going to continue to think you know Bush's "real reasons" for war and he somehow "tricked" some of the nations smartest and most experienced legislators but the facts just don't support the theory. I'll continue to believe what the facts point out, review new information as it becomes available but there's no solid evidence to show this was a war for oil.
I think you are underestimating the fear that was permeating through the United States at this time McCook. Fear can render even the most intelligent, focused people into completely irrational unthoughtful people. Bushco knew this (and no I am not giving Bush the credit for any of this) and used it to their advantage.
They knew the media wouldn't investigate or challenge them, as Chris Matthews admitted recently when he said that he knew the facts weren't completely true but he would rather the country succeed than be wrong.
Sometimes it's not about fooling the right people it's about dangling the right hook in front of their face.
"You likely did a word search in the report and came up empty, no? In cutting and pasting the article into the blog I made an honest mistake (if you had read the article itself would have been clear to you). Reference that ellipse before, "Saying 'there is no alternative' and 'there is no time to waste.'"
I absolutely did a word search to make sure I didn't miss something. Elbow grease, elbow grease, oh great shishou. I don't know if you could say I came up empty because "security imperatives" came up once but once is not what I would call "repeatedly" as your article states and as I was expecting when I read the report.
For the record, here are some of the sections that addressed alternative energy (all quotes are from the full Baker Institute Report not the summary).
"On Alternative Energy Sources, Minimum Petroleum Inventory Standards, an Organization of
Petroleum Importing Countries, Nuclear Energy
U.S. energy policy should be guided by a stronger commitment to developing alternative energy
sources and protecting vulnerable households and businesses from price shocks resulting from hikes in the costs of heating oil, gasoline, and diesel fuel."
-Page 93
"A ceiling price of $25 a barrel would guard against price shocks while encouraging the development of alternative energy sources in consuming nations."
-Page 94
That was just for "alternative energy". Alternative sources of energy comes up this way.
"We must aggressively pursue promising alternative sources of energy to heat our homes, run our
vehicles, and power our businesses."
-Page 94
"And the administration should continue to promote research and development for alternative sources of power and work with industry to help stimulate deployment of
these technologies."
Page 63
This is also one of the solutions for an immediate solution:
"Furthermore, many low-income households are facing utility cutoffs because of the sharp increase in heating costs. These problems require immediate solution--from sharply increasing low-income heating assistance and weatherization programs to prohibiting shut-offs."
-Page 90
"If political factors were to block the development of new oil fields in the Middle East, the ramifications for world oil markets could be quite severe unless measures are taken immediately to diversify to other
energy fuels."
-Page 23
"Energy security" is protecting our energy producing facilities from attack and decay, the prevention and preparedness of biohazard incidents and the need for an energy supply to allow us to operate the equipment we need to defend ourselves and to survive.
Including the Department of Defense as a part of the representation would offer a perspective we need when addressing these issues.
"You made it clear that facts don't particularly interest you when you said this: "I don't believe anybody decided to go into Iraq because of oil. That's what is so amusing about all of this. I don't have to validate a single report to believe that."
Whether I validate a report or not is irrelevant because I believe that Congress and Bush believed them. My belief or disbelief has nothing to do with that. The information on WMDs turned out to be wrong. I've said that before but that doesn't mean that I don't think Bush and Congress didn't believe those reports to be true at the time. Based on the evidence presented to all parties at the time, I as well as any reasonable person, would see that they believed those reports and acted on them not a bloodlust for oil off an energy report that God forbid, actually considers the impact of energy sources on national security. I guess they should have ignored that fact completely.
Mike,
That has to be the best excuse I've heard yet... They were too afraid to think straight.
So there are two options. Either Congress was too afraid to make a rational thought (in which case they should not have been making decisions in the first place) or they actually believed the intelligence on WMDs and acted on the UN resolution violations.
Chris Matthews has opposed the Iraq war from the beginning. Kinda odd that he could do that while members of Congress were paralyzed with fear. I'm definitely not getting a thrill up my leg thinking about that.
The only member of Congress I can see shivering in fear is Dennis Kucinich but it's hard to tell if it's Iraq he's afraid of or a UFO. I think the rest of Congress were unaffected by fear in their decision. I guess it doesn't matter because I don't think he voted to go into Iraq anyway.
McCook, I suggest you go back to the beginning of the Iraqi War and listen or read to what Chris Matthews had to say. He was one of the war's biggest cheerleaders. And he has admitted as much. He was against the war, yes, but he didn't admit that in public during that time, quite the opposite.
I am guessing that you have never been so paralyzed with fear that you didn't think rationally? We can debate on days end going into the war, it doesn't change, for me, that we shouldn't have gone into that war from the beginning. Every UN and US team that went into the Iraq reported finding no WMDs which was the biggest reason for going in and yet we had an administration and Congress decide to go to war anyways.
G.I.,
"It appears you are dwelling on the alternative energy point because a) you have no argument for any other aspect of the case I have made thus far, b) you refuse to attempt to understand anything beyond what you have accepted as truth."
No, you said that alternative energy was mentioned 0 times in the Baker report and that was a false statement given by you. I then cited two parts of the Baker report that prove that you gave a false statement. I then proceeded to quote other sections of the report that show alternative energy was indeed a focal point of the Baker report so nobody could be misled by your false and misleading statement.
"PS...it is telling that a 10 second word search is what you call "elbow grease"
You considered a 10-20 second copy and paste of quotes, "elbow grease" but not a word search? That's peculiar.
"Also, I have told you that the article I included was referencing a DoD statement not the Baker report."
And you were wrong, the quotes, "no time to waste" and "no alternative" are from the Baker report. The article you posted specifically refers to the Baker report when mentioning those quotes. When the article said, "It applauded the creation of Vice-President Dick Cheney's energy task force to address the creation of specific energy plans, and suggested it consider including representation from the Department of Defence." That only meant that when discussing energy plans the DoD should have someone represent it on that board. The article is actually saying what is in the Baker report. These quotes are from the Baker report not the DoD. I'm afraid you've just misread the article.
"Such a strategy will require difficult tradeoffs, in both domestic and foreign policy. But there is no
alternative. And there is no time to waste."
-Page 12
"That
group appropriately includes representations from the Departments of Energy, Interior,
Commerce, Treasury, and State as well as representation from the Environmental Protection
Agency and the FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). As this process unfolds,
the administration should find ways to establish a permanent framework for articulating
energy policy, perhaps including representation from the Department of Defense as well."
-Page 53
"PPS...this is an interesting point. So this is true for the Baker Report too then, no? And what you believe about that report is NOT relevant, but what Bush Inc believed about that report IS relevant? Do I have the right?"
You have the right to believe whatever you want to believe. I believe Bush and Congress read the report the way I did and you believe they read it the way you did.
"it is easy to see why so many people were (and still are...looking at you McCook1) confused."
I'm not confused, I just don't agree with you. There is a difference.
Mike,
"McCook, I suggest you go back to the beginning of the Iraqi War and listen or read to what Chris Matthews had to say. He was one of the war's biggest cheerleaders. And he has admitted as much. He was against the war, yes, but he didn't admit that in public during that time, quite the opposite."
He spoke in favor of the war when it was popular and he has spoken against it as it became more and more unpopular. He's in tv, he's catering to his audience but a Feb '03 article shows what his feelings were just before we went into Iraq. Just don't give me this, "I wanted the country to succeed" excuse. If that were true he never would have stopped cheerleading. Here is that article. It's a Valentine's Day article but there's not much love for a war with Iraq.
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/...
There's where we disagree McCook1 if he truly wanted the country to succeed he would have shouted as loudly as he could that this war was not the right war, that we were making a mistake. Too many people (especially in the "liberal" media) stayed quiet in the lead up to the war. They abandoned their journalistic standard to join into the fervor.
Cheerleading a wrong headed decision is not wanting the country to succeed. Iraq was the wrong war, because we went in there, we took out needed resources in Afghanistan and we are now on the brink of loosing that country, where the 9/11 attacks were masterminded.