2012 Presidential Election

For the record: I did not say your argument was speculation, I said most political arguments are speculation. How you got that I was talking about your argument is beyond me. In any event, as I said, the only thing Axelrod's actions prove are that Obama is keeping his options open. It follows logically that he would drop out of the race at the last possible moment, so as not to lose what diminished political capital he has left.

I am not being argumentative - you shot down what I had to say, dismissing it as "out of touch." I simply responded, showing you its not that out of touch or uninformed - to which you continue to respond with your eyes closed and fingers in your ears.

I am done here - I never thought you'd stoop to insulting other poster's intelligence, El. Sorry to see it, to be honest.
 
I am done here - I never thought you'd stoop to insulting other poster's intelligence, El. Sorry to see it, to be honest.


You often claim I wear blinders by make assertions like, "Your hatred for Obama." I would suggest the irrefutable facts I have provided would be enough to get through your blinders, instead you are taking it as an assault on your person.

I did not intentionally attack your intelligence. I merely question how you can make the leap you have made. You are much smarter than that. Facts and speculation are 2 different things LL. I am having a hard time understanding how you can equate the two in this situation.

I have provided facts that Axelrod left his position for the sole purpose of heading up Obama's re-election campaign. You can't argue that fact, yet you are?
 
You often claim I wear blinders by make assertions like, "Your hatred for Obama." I would suggest the irrefutable facts I have provided would be enough to get through your blinders, instead you are taking it as an assault on your person.

I did not intentionally attack your intelligence. I merely question how you can make the leap you have made. You are much smarter than that. Facts and speculation are 2 different things LL. I am having a hard time understanding how you can equate the two in this situation.

I have provided facts that Axelrod left his position for the sole purpose of heading up Obama's re-election campaign. You can't argue that fact, yet you are?

I have explained several times why this does not convince me Obama is a sure thing to run in 2012. You of course are allowed to disagree with me, however calling my intelligence into question for thinking outside the box or reading between the lines isn't cool.
 
I have explained several times why this does not convince me Obama is a sure thing to run in 2012. You of course are allowed to disagree with me, however calling my intelligence into question for thinking outside the box or reading between the lines isn't cool.

Thinking outside of the box is one thing. Buying into speculation and using that very speculation as support for your assertion does not jibe against irrefutable fact. David Axelrod resigned from the White House to head up the re-election campaign of Barak Obama. Fact!

You can believe anything you want. You can disregard the proof I have provided. That's fine. It just baffles me. I am not attacking your intelligence if that's what you want to believe. I am questioning why you are choosing to overlook irrefutable fact. You have accused me of being biased in this thread at least 3 times. I would say this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black!
 
What am I biased towards? I don't think Obama is going to run in 2012. Speculation, yes. Currently, it appears as if they are planning to run in 2012, you are absolutely correct. However if he was going to make an annoucement of that caliber, he wouldn't do it with almost 2 years left on his term! It makes no sense!
 
I have no dog in this fight. I'm just wondering. When was the last time a one-term President didn't run for re-election?

Both Truman and LBJ decided not to run for re-election even though they had the option, but both of them basically served two terms ...
 
why doesn't Obama roll into Syria? Their leaders are shooting their own people.
 
What am I biased towards? I don't think Obama is going to run in 2012. Speculation, yes. Currently, it appears as if they are planning to run in 2012, you are absolutely correct. However if he was going to make an annoucement of that caliber, he wouldn't do it with almost 2 years left on his term! It makes no sense!

You opinion as opposed to reality?
 
The political persuasion of the people telling the story


+1

Seldom have I seen the seeming chaos and divisiveness of the American politics so well summarized in so few words.

Your ox, o.k. My ox, "Oh Hell no!"
 
whats the difference between obama justifying his reasons for going jn to lybia (not going to watch thousands be slaughtered) and what bush did with iraq and their people?

Hundreds of thousands of troops on the ground? A decade-long occupation?

If Libya evolves into that, then not much difference. Right now it's more similar to our dealings with Iraq during the years leading up to 9/11.

Also, the justification Bush used to invade Iraq was not the protection of innocents, but that Saddam Hussein had WMDs, which we never found. And if some people felt not achieving our stated objective in the face of so much spent in blood and treasure to be a bit of a disappointment I'd probably find it tough to argue with them. Protecting innocent Iraqis ended up being one of the positives we could salvage from the operation, and we should fully recognize it as a positive. But let's not confuse that for the reason we went in in the first place.
 
Last edited:
Also, the justification Bush used to invade Iraq was not the protection of innocents, but that Saddam Hussein had WMDs, which we never found.
There were many good reasons to go into Iraq. I remember them ALL being mentioned before we went in. WMD's was the one most choose to pretend was the ONLY reason stated for going in. No doubt, it was the big item that got the most feathered doves to go along, but it was never the only good reason.

We should have gone in sooner than we did.
 
There were many good reasons to go into Iraq. I remember them ALL being mentioned before we went in. WMD's was the one most choose to pretend was the ONLY reason stated for going in. No doubt, it was the big item that got the most feathered doves to go along, but it was never the only good reason.

We should have gone in sooner than we did.

It was THE big reason, Ax. Here is the opening of the speech Bush made on the eve of the invasion ... his famous Ultimatum Speech:

http://www.mideastweb.org/log/archives/00000041.htm

My fellow citizens, events in Iraq have now reached the final days of decision.

For more than a decade, the United States and other nations have pursued patient and honorable efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime without war. That regime pledged to reveal and destroy all of its weapons of mass destruction as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War in 1991.

Since then, the world has engaged in 12 years of diplomacy. We have passed more than a dozen resolutions in the United Nations Security Council. We have sent hundreds of weapons inspectors to oversee the disarmament of Iraq.

Our good faith has not been returned. The Iraqi regime has used diplomacy as a ploy to gain time and advantage. It has uniformly defied Security Council resolutions demanding full disarmament.

Over the years, U.N. weapons inspectors have been threatened by Iraqi officials, electronically bugged and systematically deceived. Peaceful efforts to disarm the Iraq regime have failed again and again because we are not dealing with peaceful men.

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the
Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people.

The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a
deep hatred of America and our friends and it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of Al Qaeda. The danger is clear: Using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country or any other.

The United States and other nations did nothing to deserve or invite this
threat, but we will do everything to defeat it. Instead of drifting along toward
tragedy, we will set a course toward safety.

Before the day of horror can come, before it is too late to act, this danger
will be removed.

The United States of America has the sovereign authority to use force in
assuring its own national security. That duty falls to me as commander of chief by the oath I have sworn, by the oath I will keep. Recognizing the threat to our country, the United States Congress voted overwhelmingly last year to support the use of force against Iraq.

America tried to work with the United Nations to address this threat because we wanted to resolve the issue peacefully. We believe in the mission of the United Nations.

One reason the U.N. was founded after the Second World War was to confront aggressive dictators actively and early, before they can attack the innocent and destroy the peace.

In the case of Iraq, the Security Council did act in the early 1990s. Under
Resolutions 678 and 687, both still in effect, the United States and our allies
are authorized to use force in ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a question of authority, it is a question of will.

Last September, I went to the U.N. General Assembly and urged the nations of the world to unite and bring an end to this danger. On November 8th, the Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1441, finding Iraq in material breach of its obligations and vowing serious consequences if Iraq did not fully and immediately disarm.

Today, no nation can possibly claim that Iraq has disarmed. And it will not
disarm so long as Saddam Hussein holds power.

For the last four and a half months, the United States and our allies have
worked within the Security Council to enforce that council's longstanding
demands. Yet some permanent members of the Security Council have publicly announced that they will veto any resolution that compels the disarmament ofIraq. These governments share our assessment of the danger, but not our resolve to meet it.

Many nations, however, do have the resolve and fortitude to act against this
threat to peace, and a broad coalition is now gathering to enforce the just
demands of the world.

The United Nations Security Council has not lived up to its responsibilities, so
we will rise to ours. In recent days, some governments in the Middle East have been doing their part. They have delivered public and private messages urging the dictator to leave Iraq so that disarmament can proceed peacefully.

He has thus far refused.

All the decades of deceit and cruelty have now reached an end. Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict commenced at a time of our choosing.

That's about 17 or so paragraphs leading up to the ultimatum detailing Bush's justification for it. Not one mention of human rights violations or Hussein's treatment of his own people. That is mentioned later, as a way to rally the Iraqi people behind our cause against Hussein. But there's no way you can read this transcript, or have watched that speech, and not understood our primary purpose for doing what we did. Bush didn't work with the UN for months to pass resolutions demanding democracy in Iraq, or basic human rights for Iraqis. It was about WMDs.

I'm glad ended tyranny in Iraq and I'm proud of our country for making it happen. But we wouldn't have gone to war, we wouldn't have gone 15 rounds with the UN, gathered all the allies we could, and sent two hundred thousand American soldiers into Iraq because of the way Saddam Hussein treated his people. It was because we were attacked by terrorists and we thought Hussein could give terrorists even bigger weapons for the next attack. That was the reason.
 
There were many good reasons to go into Iraq. I remember them ALL being mentioned before we went in. WMD's was the one most choose to pretend was the ONLY reason stated for going in. No doubt, it was the big item that got the most feathered doves to go along, but it was never the only good reason.

We should have gone in sooner than we did.


We can flip the script and say the same thing to you - human rights violations was the reason Republicans choose to pretend was the justification for the war. But in reality, it was part of the war on terror, which was always about attacks against the US - defending ourselves by getting offensive - and Saddam supposedly had weapons of mass destruction he could launch at us whenever he desired.

You can throw out all the other justifications Repubs try to use, but it all boils down to that one - that's why we were there. Saddam had been terrorizing his own people for decades; all of a sudden we are all about going in and stopping this because Al Qaeda blew up the trade center towers? Nope - that doesn't even remotely pass the smell test.
 
so, youre telling me that bush (as stupid as libs say he was) was SO smart he knew the war would last a decade? and that he knew there would be hundreds of thousands of American only troops on the ground?

Of course he knew there would be hundreds of thousands of troops on the ground. He put them in Kuwait prior to the attack. I'm pretty sure we didn't just beam them over at the last second. :)

Maybe I haven't been paying enough attention, but is Obama massing troops on the Libyan border by the hundreds of thousands?

And while I acknowledge that Bush probably didn't realize how long the conflict would last, I'm not sure that's a feather in his cap.

and what were the WMDs used for? potting plants? building forts? if i remember correctly he used to use them on the Kurds and kill them by the hundreds...

That didn't compel us to attack Iraq. What did it was that some terrorists managed to kill several thousand Americans. Then suddenly Hussein's willingness to use those weapons mattered.

I get what youre saying but I dont think it is that different.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree again then.
 
Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the
Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people.

thats from the speech you quoted. and it was true..he had killed kurds by the hundreds of thousands by then.

Used to illustrate Hussein's willingness to use the weapons. Not to detail the abuse of his own people as a justification for war.

no, barry may not be massing troops right now but he also has not declared war. he is content with lobbing missles...for now. plus france (shocking enough) has taken the lead and NATO is actually going to step up to the plate.

yeah, bush put thousands of troops in there once he declared war but that was what he did it for. we were going to go in and get saddam for good. like we should be with mommar. my point was that bush thought he would have more backup than he did. much like obama does right now.

My point is Bush committed himself and the country to a far greater degree than Obama has so far. That may change, but the situations are completely different at the moment. The reasoning, the methods, the scope, and the reaction/support of the international community (most importantly the nations in the region) are all different.

Bush also had the support of Congress, which Obama probably doesn't have (it would be nice if he at least asked them.) That's also going to be a factor going forward. This effort won't be sustained without Congressional support.
 
Last edited:
It was THE big reason, Ax. Here is the opening of the speech Bush made on the eve of the invasion ... his famous Ultimatum Speech:

http://www.mideastweb.org/log/archives/00000041.htm



That's about 17 or so paragraphs leading up to the ultimatum detailing Bush's justification for it. Not one mention of human rights violations or Hussein's treatment of his own people. That is mentioned later, as a way to rally the Iraqi people behind our cause against Hussein. But there's no way you can read this transcript, or have watched that speech, and not understood our primary purpose for doing what we did. Bush didn't work with the UN for months to pass resolutions demanding democracy in Iraq, or basic human rights for Iraqis. It was about WMDs.

I'm glad ended tyranny in Iraq and I'm proud of our country for making it happen. But we wouldn't have gone to war, we wouldn't have gone 15 rounds with the UN, gathered all the allies we could, and sent two hundred thousand American soldiers into Iraq because of the way Saddam Hussein treated his people. It was because we were attacked by terrorists and we thought Hussein could give terrorists even bigger weapons for the next attack. That was the reason.
Were I to play along and judge solely on this speech, you'd have a point. The WMD threat was what gained the final support for going in, but it was not the only good reason. And, they were all discussed over the years leading up to it. The first time Saddam took a shot at our planes flying in THAT no-fly zone, was the only justification needed to wipe his ass off the planet. Everything else was just another brick in the wall.

And make no mistake, the WMD THREAT was real, and had been allowed to linger by a useless UN for far too long. That the THREAT didn't materialize into reality, in hindsight, was wrong. Having the will to deal with it, while believing it COULD materialize, was the 100% correct thing to do.

We can flip the script and say the same thing to you - human rights violations was the reason Republicans choose to pretend was the justification for the war. But in reality, it was part of the war on terror, which was always about attacks against the US - defending ourselves by getting offensive - and Saddam supposedly had weapons of mass destruction he could launch at us whenever he desired.
No, I chose them all. As I said, there were many good reasons for going in. Any one of them would have been good enough for me, because I believed he needed to go ASAP. Republicans and Democrats can whatever they want to. I'm not a member of either syndicate.
 
but he had used them against his own people..why wouldnt that count? as a matter of fact he had killed more of his own people than Mommar has ever since taking power. some 300K killed by people with the nickname "Chemical Ali". I am pretty sure he meant that he used the WMDs against his own people too.

I'm not saying he wasn't a bad guy, or that it's not a bad thing that he's gone.

I'm saying that when the chips were down and all the posturing was over and Bush went in font of the American people for the final time and laid out the actual terms to Saddam Hussein, WMDs was 99% of what Bush talked about leading up to the official ultimatum. Even the line that mentioned what he did to the Kurds was done so within the context of Hussein's use of WMDs.

But who is the frontman for NATO? Who do you think is really going to take the reins when NATO goes in? Do you think were going to give our troops over to France to lead? I dont think I would follow the orders of a person whos country has disrespected us so much in recent history.

I have no idea what the hell Obama is doing. :)

I was just answering your question.
 
Last edited:
Were I to play along and judge solely on this speech, you'd have a point. The WMD threat was what gained the final support for going in, but it was not the only good reason. And, they were all discussed over the years leading up to it. The first time Saddam took a shot at our planes flying in THAT no-fly zone, was the only justification needed to wipe his ass off the planet. Everything else was just another brick in the wall.

And make no mistake, the WMD THREAT was real, and had been allowed to linger by a useless UN for far too long. That the THREAT didn't materialize into reality, in hindsight, was wrong. Having the will to deal with it, while believing it COULD materialize, was the 100% correct thing to do.


No, I chose them all. As I said, there were many good reasons for going in. Any one of them would have been good enough for me, because I believed he needed to go ASAP. Republicans and Democrats can whatever they want to. I'm not a member of either syndicate.

Ax, yes there were lots of reasons for getting rid of Hussein. He was a bad bad man.

But we are talking about justification for taking military action. Bush's official justification for invading Iraq was very different than Obama's airstrikes over Libya.
 
yet when Bush says WMDs that "kill hsi own people by the thousands" it wasnt good enough. just my observation..

Well, it was good enough to enforce a no-fly zone over Iraq for a decade, which is where we are with Libya at the moment.

Good enough for a full-scale invasion? You gotta throw the threat of WMDS into the mix. :)
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)

Help Users

You haven't joined any rooms.

    You haven't joined any rooms.
    Top