Enron Tapes!!!

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Agreed, but that is rank SPIN so - I cry FOUL and state please driectly address the point!!!!

How can it be spin? He factually did all those things.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

So, you excuse Kerry for voting to allow W to go to war and Kerry's 1998 call for Clinton to go to war. With all due respect - foul

No, I don't excuse it (as I've said MANY times in the past ad nauseaum), I just don't view those things in the light that you do. He voted for those things, yeah, but he didn't do those things, Shrub did. AND - he based all of those votes on lies and false intelligence. Bush didn't.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

No, I don't excuse it (as I've said MANY times in the past ad nauseaum), I just don't view those things in the light that you do. He voted for those things, yeah, but he didn't do those things, Shrub did. AND - he based all of those votes on lies and false intelligence. Bush didn't.

Well, then in 1998, it was Clinton's lie

In the end, I just see this as a W is the anti-christ ideaology, yet the people who support him are let off the hook. I mean if Kerry thinks it was a lie, then why is he still saying invading Iraq was the right thing to do, just not the way W did it. I mean that is a serious question that obviates the whole "well W lied to Kerry" excuse.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

How can it be spin? He factually did all those things.

It is spin beacuse although W did do them and is bad for it, it is calling to mind W's other bad qualities in an attempt to divert attention from the true point I made

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Well, then in 1998, it was Clinton's lie

And I've never said that was necessarily wrong, did I? Nope. But Clinton never invaded based on those "lies."

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

It is spin beacuse although W did do them and is bad for it, it is calling to mind W's other bad qualities in an attempt to divert attention from the true point I made

Nope. I was simply responding to your hyperbole.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

And I've never said that was necessarily wrong, did I? Nope. But Clinton never invaded based on those "lies."

Yea, but Kerry urged him to

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Yea, but Kerry urged him to

Yea, but Clinton didn't.

[The Tower]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

So, you excuse the fact that Kerry via his vote allowed W to go to war. I mean should we excuse Kerry for that just because he is a Democrat. Because if we do that, then we have to excuse the Republican Congressmen and women who did the same I mean why does the exoneration apply only to Kerry. I just do not get it.

Who ever said exoneration only applies to Kerry?? I don't understand how you draw up your conclusions.

I excuse the entire congressional body from their vote on the use of force in Iraq because the Bush administration purposefully LIED to congress to get them to give over the power to enact war upon Iraq. All their votes are effectively nullified because they were based on pre-meditated, purposely fabricated evidence.

I don't excuse the entire congressional body for letting Bush f**k everything up after the bait and switch, although I think they are doing a fair job about getting to the bottom of the prison abuse bull****.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

Yea, but Clinton didn't.

No, Clinton did not. Personally, I think Clinton would have if the public opinion had been behind it, and the recent Congressional testimony somewhat supports that. But, that is neither here nor there IMO. My point is regardless of how Clinton acted, Kerry urged him to use military force. Then, fast forward to 2003, and we have Kerry urging W to use military force. W does and Clinton does not. The point is Kerry urged the use of force both times. To me, that means W held no powerful sway over Kerry in an attempt to get Kerry to support and advocate going to war in Iraq.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by The Tower

Who ever said exoneration only applies to Kerry?? I don't understand how you draw up your conclusions.

I excuse the entire congressional body from their vote on the use of force in Iraq because the Bush administration purposefully LIED to congress to get them to give over the power to enact war upon Iraq. All their votes are effectively nullified because they were based on pre-meditated, purposely fabricated evidence.

I don't excuse the entire congressional body for letting Bush f**k everything up after the bait and switch, although I think they are doing a fair job about getting to the bottom of the prison abuse bull****.

I say I see the exoneration applying only to Kerry because I think people should be screaming about Kerry's participation in the Iraqi war perhaps jsut as much as W's. Once again, in 1998, Kerry advcated war with Iraq with no help from W. So, that is how I reach my conclusion that W's lies (and W did lie - no question about that) did not convince Kerry to support and advocate W's war with Iraq. Again, Kerry wanted to do the same thing in 1998 based mostly (albeit not entirely by far) on the same evidence W used. IMO, most politicians considered it political suicide not to support W in the war with Iraq. If that is so, then I say call then out for having no spine.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

No, Clinton did not. Personally, I think Clinton would have if the public opinion had been behind it, and the recent Congressional testimony somewhat supports that. But, that is neither here nor there IMO. My point is regardless of how Clinton acted, Kerry urged him to use military force. Then, fast forward to 2003, and we have Kerry urging W to use military force. W does and Clinton does not. The point is Kerry urged the use of force both times. To me, that means W held no powerful sway over Kerry in an attempt to get Kerry to support and advocate going to war in Iraq.

You say it's neither here nor there, yet you bring it up anyways. Even though it's pure assumption.

As for Bush having no sway, that's a no-brainer and common sense. Unfortunately, the same "no-sway" argument can't be applied to lies and false intelligence.

[The Tower]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I say I see the exoneration applying only to Kerry because I think people should be screaming about Kerry's participation in the Iraqi war perhaps jsut as much as W's.

I dunno, but this just doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever.

Kerry is one of 100 senators who voted to allow Bush to use force against Iraq if Iraq did not comply with UN mandates to reveal and destoy all WMS's in their possession. Kerry did this with the assumption that the intelligence and information presented to him by Dubya was valid.

Now one could agree with that decision or one could not. However, the separate and more important issue is:

Dubya intentionally fabricated lies in order to deceive congress and the public thereby gaining the power to unilaterally declare war on Iraq for whatever purposes he thought were important.

I think that Congress (which would include Kerry) does not bear equal responsibility, nor equal scrutiny, for the situation in Iraq than the Bush administration. Period. I think if Kerry would have known what Bush was up to, he wouldn't have voted the way he did.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

You say it's neither here nor there, yet you bring it up anyways. Even though it's pure assumption.

As for Bush having no sway, that's a no-brainer and common sense. Unfortunately, the same "no-sway" argument can't be applied to lies and false intelligence.

No, I am saying Clinton's actions are irrelecant to Kerry's urging him to initiate a military response to SH's refusing to comply with the UN's order to disarm. I am bringing up Clinton's actions in 1998 only in the contect of Kerry's actions. If it helps, instead of reading Clinton in the 1998 stuff, read executive branch or the sitting president, etc. The bottom line is Kerry advocated war then, he advocated it in 2003, and he still advocates it, even though in hindsight he ways he would have done it differently. So, that makes me conclude Kerry needed no help from W and crewe - his mind had been made up to go to war with Iraq since he initially advocated it in 1998. Clinton is no part of that equation.

Where Clinton comes in for me is he was all for the invasion of Iraq when W did it. Clinton said he based his conclusion on the intelligence, which he would probably know better than anyone else since he was the Pres. So, I conclude that if you are going to villify W for the war, you have to villify Clinton as well because he supported it. Since the war, Clinton has attacked W (and rightly so IMO) on W and crewe's miscalculations and screwing everything up and thus, putting our troops in harms way. But, like Kerry, Clinton to my knowledge has never withdrawn his support for the invasion of Iraq, even though he did not do it when Kerry gave him the chance in 1998.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Once again, in 1998, Kerry advcated war with Iraq with no help from W.

You have really gone off the deep end. He never advocated war with Iraq in 1998. If you had actually read the joint Senate letter that he participated in and sent to Clinton, you would know that he only advocated air and missile strikes on sites suspected of manufacturing WMDs. Should I go look for the letter and post it?