The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 39 of 39

Thread: GWB's no show at the 911 ceremonies

  1. #31
    Senior Member road kill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    New Berlin, WI
    Posts
    10,567

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mngundog View Post
    Why do you need to feel the need to lie? Is that the way your parents brought you up to be a liar? Oh yeah, its the Junior way.

    October 10, 2002
    Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
    on S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of
    United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

    As Delivered

    Today we are asked whether to give the President of the United States authority to use force in Iraq should diplomatic efforts fail to dismantle Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons and his nuclear program.

    I am honored to represent nearly 19 million New Yorkers, a thoughtful democracy of voices and opinions who make themselves heard on the great issues of our day especially this one. Many have contacted my office about this resolution, both in support of and in opposition to it, and I am grateful to all who have expressed an opinion.

    I also greatly respect the differing opinions within this body. The debate they engender will aid our search for a wise, effective policy. Therefore, on no account should dissent be discouraged or disparaged. It is central to our freedom and to our progress, for on more than one occasion, history has proven our great dissenters to be right.

    Now, I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt. Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who has tortured and killed his own people, even his own family members, to maintain his iron grip on power. He used chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds and on Iranians, killing over 20 thousand people. Unfortunately, during the 1980's, while he engaged in such horrific activity, he enjoyed the support of the American government, because he had oil and was seen as a counterweight to the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran.

    In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change, including support for Iraqi opposition leaders within the country and abroad.

    In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.

    It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.

    Now this much is undisputed. The open questions are: what should we do about it? How, when, and with whom?

    Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament, and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular democratic state in the Middle East, one which could perhaps move the entire region toward democratic reform.

    This view has appeal to some, because it would assure disarmament; because it would right old wrongs after our abandonment of the Shiites and Kurds in 1991, and our support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980's when he was using chemical weapons and terrorizing his people; and because it would give the Iraqi people a chance to build a future in freedom.

    However, this course is fraught with danger. We and our NATO allies did not depose Mr. Milosevic, who was responsible for more than a quarter of a million people being killed in the 1990s. Instead, by stopping his aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo, and keeping on the tough sanctions, we created the conditions in which his own people threw him out and led to his being in the dock being tried for war crimes as we speak.

    If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?

    So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option.

    Others argue that we should work through the United Nations and should only resort to force if and when the United Nations Security Council approves it. This too has great appeal for different reasons. The UN deserves our support. Whenever possible we should work through it and strengthen it, for it enables the world to share the risks and burdens of global security and when it acts, it confers a legitimacy that increases the likelihood of long-term success. The UN can help lead the world into a new era of global cooperation and the United States should support that goal.

    But there are problems with this approach as well. The United Nations is an organization that is still growing and maturing. It often lacks the cohesion to enforce its own mandates. And when Security Council members use the veto, on occasion, for reasons of narrow-minded interests, it cannot act. In Kosovo, the Russians did not approve NATO military action because of political, ethnic, and religious ties to the Serbs. The United States therefore could not obtain a Security Council resolution in favor of the action necessary to stop the dislocation and ethnic cleansing of more than a million Kosovar Albanians. However, most of the world was with us because there was a genuine emergency with thousands dead and a million driven from their homes. As soon as the American-led conflict was over, Russia joined the peacekeeping effort that is still underway.

    In the case of Iraq, recent comments indicate that one or two Security Council members might never approve force against Saddam Hussein until he has actually used chemical, biological, or God forbid, nuclear weapons.

    So, Mr. President, the question is how do we do our best to both defuse the real threat that Saddam Hussein poses to his people, to the region, including Israel, to the United States, to the world, and at the same time, work to maximize our international support and strengthen the United Nations?

    While there is no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma, and while people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposed conclusions, I believe the best course is to go to the UN for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq. I know that the Administration wants more, including an explicit authorization to use force, but we may not be able to secure that now, perhaps even later. But if we get a clear requirement for unfettered inspections, I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is inherent in the original 1991 UN resolution, as President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998.

    If we get the resolution that President Bush seeks, and if Saddam complies, disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. Regime change will, of course, take longer but we must still work for it, nurturing all reasonable forces of opposition.

    If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, then we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.

    If we try and fail to get a resolution that simply, but forcefully, calls for Saddam's compliance with unlimited inspections, those who oppose even that will be in an indefensible position. And, we will still have more support and legitimacy than if we insist now on a resolution that includes authorizing military action and other requirements giving some nations superficially legitimate reasons to oppose any Security Council action. They will say we never wanted a resolution at all and that we only support the United Nations when it does exactly what we want.

    I believe international support and legitimacy are crucial. After shots are fired and bombs are dropped, not all consequences are predictable. While the military outcome is not in doubt, should we put troops on the ground, there is still the matter of Saddam Hussein's biological and chemical weapons. Today he has maximum incentive not to use them or give them away. If he did either, the world would demand his immediate removal. Once the battle is joined, however, with the outcome certain, he will have maximum incentive to use weapons of mass destruction and to give what he can't use to terrorists who can torment us with them long after he is gone. We cannot be paralyzed by this possibility, but we would be foolish to ignore it. And according to recent reports, the CIA agrees with this analysis. A world united in sharing the risk at least would make this occurrence less likely and more bearable and would be far more likely to share with us the considerable burden of rebuilding a secure and peaceful post-Saddam Iraq.



    So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed.

    Thank you, Mr. President.
    May be the Hilary way too!
    Stan b & Elvis

  2. #32
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Linden, VA
    Posts
    1,170

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GaryJ View Post
    Is my understanding correct that your definition of an attack is not defined by the number of people involved in carrying out the act or the number of people killed or injured?
    MNGundog has his panties all in a wad because I defended Bush and wont acknowledge these mass shootings as terrorism. The knucklehead at LA Airport was depressed on his birthday and killed a couple israeli's, the DC Snipers (I was here for that) were attempting to exort $20M from the authorities. These shootings although tragic do not rise to the level of terrorism. They were mass shootings. Now LT Col Hussein at FT Hood on the other hand while yelling alla akbar shot what 31, killing 13 of em. Now that I would call terrorism. Eric Holder and his handler wont call it that though. Anyway these guys that keep bashing Bush sure don't like it when you call em out for it and point out their Hyprocrisy of giving Obama a free pass all the time. Drives em nuts to the point that they want to make personal attacks, deny they are Obama cheerleaders, and call ya lier blah blah blah. Thats ok, their easy enough to stuff in to the ignore box. Their just noise.
    Southland Dixe's Hunter Boy, JH (Hunter)
    Triple J's Hotta Habanera Mo Betta, (Mo)

  3. #33
    Senior Member schusker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Pawleys Island South Carolina
    Posts
    133

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mngundog View Post
    My question was why does Freeze have to lie to defend his argument. As for Hillary, she would be a God awefull candidate, and yes she is a liar just as Freeze and Bush are. One should not get to be President bases solely on their accomplishments of their Husbands or Fathers.
    I would add community organizer to that as well.
    Blackfoot's Tide is Right Pistor
    Cacao Yates
    CD RE CGC CPE L-3

  4. #34
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    SW Minnesota
    Posts
    1,989

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GaryJ View Post
    Is my understanding correct that your definition of an attack is not defined by the number of people involved in carrying out the act or the number of people killed or injured?
    I was trying to figure out Freeze's line of thinking. Since we had repeated attacks on our embassies all over the world it since 9/11 under both Bush and Obama, he couldn't be referring to them, that leaves attacks in the U.S. Now we have had acts of terrorism done by poison letters, mass shootings, and bombing on U.S. soil under both Presidents since 9/11, so in the end I have no idea where he comes up with his "ZERO...". I can't think of one way of looking at it that doesn't turn out to be a lie. Can you think a logical way to come up with multiple attacks on the U.S., post 9/11 that could make it look like Freeze is telling the truth?

  5. #35
    Senior Member Julie R.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Orlean VA
    Posts
    2,820

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mngundog View Post
    I was trying to figure out Freeze's line of thinking. Since we had repeated attacks on our embassies all over the world it since 9/11 under both Bush and Obama, he couldn't be referring to them, that leaves attacks in the U.S. Now we have had acts of terrorism done by poison letters, mass shootings, and bombing on U.S. soil under both Presidents since 9/11, so in the end I have no idea where he comes up with his "ZERO...". I can't think of one way of looking at it that doesn't turn out to be a lie. Can you think a logical way to come up with multiple attacks on the U.S., post 9/11 that could make it look like Freeze is telling the truth?
    Looks to me you want to use a difference of opinion over what actually constitutes a terrorist attack on U.S. soil as an excuse for name-calling, personal insults and boorish behavior. BTW attacks on our embassies abroad do not fall under the category of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil and none of the other "examples" you trotted out would be construed as terrorist attacks. You'd be much more believable if you explained why you used those instead of insulting freezeland and calling him a liar. If that's the way you debate no wonder you're so in love with Obama.
    Julie R., Hope Springs Farm
    Chesapeake Bay Retrievers since 1981

  6. #36
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    SW Minnesota
    Posts
    1,989

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Julie R. View Post
    Looks to me you want to use a difference of opinion over what actually constitutes a terrorist attack on U.S. soil as an excuse for name-calling, personal insults and boorish behavior. BTW attacks on our embassies abroad do not fall under the category of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil and none of the other "examples" you trotted out would be construed as terrorist attacks. You'd be much more believable if you explained why you used those instead of insulting freezeland and calling him a liar. If that's the way you debate no wonder you're so in love with Obama.
    While how ever entertaining your definition of terrorism is, no one yet has come up with a way Freeze's "Zero" does not turn out to be a lie. I'm sure your undying loyalty to the party is appreciated and hope that it some how justifies the death of 5,000 soldiers for you, all while making Bush's cronies billions.

  7. #37
    Senior Member GaryJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    620

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mngundog View Post
    I was trying to figure out Freeze's line of thinking. Since we had repeated attacks on our embassies all over the world it since 9/11 under both Bush and Obama, he couldn't be referring to them, that leaves attacks in the U.S. Now we have had acts of terrorism done by poison letters, mass shootings, and bombing on U.S. soil under both Presidents since 9/11, so in the end I have no idea where he comes up with his "ZERO...". I can't think of one way of looking at it that doesn't turn out to be a lie. Can you think a logical way to come up with multiple attacks on the U.S., post 9/11 that could make it look like Freeze is telling the truth?
    Freeze said "Ok, I'll applaud him. How many times were we attacked on his watch on our homeland turf after we were attacked on 9-11? Zero......."

    Now I won't speak for Freeze or you but here is my take on the post.

    Freeze used a specific example of an attack when he referenced the attack of 9/11. I could be wrong but I do not recall an attack of that magnitude or one carried out by that many people in an organized manner on our soil under Bushes watch. Your response was to cite several incidents carried our by a single individual or maybe a couple people which wounded or killed many less people than the 3000+. For me personally I don't equate an act of a single or a few people to an act similar to 9/11. It seems like an apples to oranges comparison.
    What if all we have today is what we gave thanks for yesterday?

  8. #38
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Linden, VA
    Posts
    1,170

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GaryJ View Post
    Freeze said "Ok, I'll applaud him. How many times were we attacked on his watch on our homeland turf after we were attacked on 9-11? Zero......."

    Now I won't speak for Freeze or you but here is my take on the post.

    Freeze used a specific example of an attack when he referenced the attack of 9/11. I could be wrong but I do not recall an attack of that magnitude or one carried out by that many people in an organized manner on our soil under Bushes watch. Your response was to cite several incidents carried our by a single individual or maybe a couple people which wounded or killed many less people than the 3000+. For me personally I don't equate an act of a single or a few people to an act similar to 9/11. It seems like an apples to oranges comparison.
    You get it Gary, as does Julie. MNGundog just keeps wanting to spar and insist I'm some kind of a lier. Ok what ever if it makes him feel better. It's just noise like a shoo fly
    Southland Dixe's Hunter Boy, JH (Hunter)
    Triple J's Hotta Habanera Mo Betta, (Mo)

  9. #39
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    SW Minnesota
    Posts
    1,989

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GaryJ View Post
    Freeze said "Ok, I'll applaud him. How many times were we attacked on his watch on our homeland turf after we were attacked on 9-11? Zero......."

    Now I won't speak for Freeze or you but here is my take on the post.

    Freeze used a specific example of an attack when he referenced the attack of 9/11. I could be wrong but I do not recall an attack of that magnitude or one carried out by that many people in an organized manner on our soil under Bushes watch. Your response was to cite several incidents carried our by a single individual or maybe a couple people which wounded or killed many less people than the 3000+. For me personally I don't equate an act of a single or a few people to an act similar to 9/11. It seems like an apples to oranges comparison.
    Gary that may have held water, except for his next sentence.

    Ok, I'll applaud him. How many times were we attacked on his watch on our homeland turf after we were attacked on 9-11? Zero.......

    How many have happened on Odumbo's watch since he took office? More than once. This dumb a$$ wont even callem terrorists.
    Since their was no attacks to the magnitude of 9/11 since the incident, that argument falls flat. Unless you know of more than one incident that rise to the level of the 9/11 attacks under Obama. As stated their were many embassies attacks post 9/11 under both Presidents and no other incidents at home come close to the magnitude of 9/11.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •