Double-standard?

Originally posted by Rokenn: Interesting post Magik, but totally off-topic. Just curious here...but how do you figure?

Originally posted by Rokenn: Just to refresh your memory here is the topic of this thread: quote: It seems to me that with the mounting evidence that the Administration embellished, or may have even out-right lied, about the reasons for war in Iraq. This coupled with the deep ties to Enron, makes me wonder if the republicans are showing a bit of a double standard toward presidential conduct. If there was a dem in the office with all the mounting evidence they would be drafting an army of special prosecutors to tear em down. Here is some of the latest info to come to light: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/06/opinion/06WILS.html

The topic of this thread is that if it had been a Democratic president that told these embleshments we would be hip deep in special prosecutors. Instead the spineless Dems in the Congrss/Senate are being, well spineless Democrats. When the Great Clinton Witchhunt began the evidence was much flimsier then this.

Also can you truthfully tell me that if Clinton had gone after Saddam he would not have been smacked with 'Wag the Dog' spin? [/QUOTE]
Seems to me that you ignored the fact that the whole thread has gotten off track and has turned into a free for all Anti-Bush and Anti-Admin rant. And it also is my opinion that many of the posts and posters in that camp have played fast and loose with the niggling details and truth....but then we have already firmly established that it is ok to be less than perfect with the details if it is against Bush and the Admin...but if you are someone who is ont he other side of the issue....well people on that side of the fence have no business having an opinion and are frowned upon for pointing out those minor details.

Originally posted by Djinn Raffo: I think you mean Swarczhkoff (sp?) and not Franks TL.

Shush don't pester the man when he is busy getting his details wrong.

And TL. It was the UN that demanded the US/Coalition stop and get out of Iraq...it was the UN that would not approve sending in forces to aid those Shiites that were slaughterd to the tune of 500,000. Blame it all on Bush if you want...but your kidding yourself.

[johnny]

originally posted by MagiK And TL. It was the UN that demanded the US/Coalition stop and get out of Iraq...it was the UN that would not approve sending in forces to aid those Shiites that were slaughterd to the tune of 500,000. Blame it all on Bush if you want...but your kidding yourself.

Somehow i think the US was never too impressed with UN demands. Come on now MagiK, don't turn this thing around.

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by MagiK: Seems to me that you ignored the fact that the whole thread has gotten off track and has turned into a free for all Anti-Bush and Anti-Admin rant. And it also is my opinion that many of the posts and posters in that camp have played fast and loose with the niggling details and truth....but then we have already firmly established that it is ok to be less than perfect with the details if it is against Bush and the Admin...but if you are someone who is ont he other side of the issue....well people on that side of the fence have no business having an opinion and are frowned upon for pointing out those minor details.

The topic says Double Standard and while I have gone off the letter of the topic that Rokenn started, I have tried to stay in the realm of double standards by the current administration. I agree these double standards would not have held up under Clinton without extreme scrunity.

Since I do post and I am a poster in that "camp" I would like to know if I have played fast and loose with the "niggling" details and truth and how. I want to know how anyone on this thread or on this forum did this. This is a serious accusation, akin to calling someone a liar. I have seen several errors that have been humbly retracted or corrected. I have seen opinions that depend on the perception of the facts. I have not seen lies. I have not seen disortion of the details either.

It seems to me you have no argument in the face of facts and opinions that you do not like or agree with. So instead of avoiding the topic or engaging in thoughtful discourse, you have retreated to a stance that the otherside is a bunch of liars playing fast and loose with the truth.

If someone has lied, call them on it by name and to the letter of the details. If someone has made a mistake, let them know so it can be corrected. We are all thoughtful people here, it seems, and I think we can handle making being told we made a mistake.

[Djinn Raffo]

Originally posted by MagiK: quote: Originally posted by Djinn Raffo: I think you mean Swarczhkoff (sp?) and not Franks TL.

Shush don't pester the man when he is busy getting his details wrong.

And TL. It was the UN that demanded the US/Coalition stop and get out of Iraq...it was the UN that would not approve sending in forces to aid those Shiites that were slaughterd to the tune of 500,000. Blame it all on Bush if you want...but your kidding yourself.
[/QUOTE]Can you provide a source for this?

[skywalker]

Nope, not the UN, but Poppy Bush:


http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/nation...aranal05.shtml

Mark

On Edit:

This part I find truly disconcerting (though off topic):

Colin Powell, then the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, acknowledged in his autobiography that Bush's rhetoric "may have given encouragement to the rebels." But he said that the Shiites, as well as the Kurds in the north, never had a chance of succeeding, and that their success was not a goal for the administration.

"Our practical intention was to leave Baghdad enough power to survive as a threat to an Iran that remained bitterly hostile toward the United States," Powell said in his book, "My American Journey."

[ 07-15-2003, 05:09 AM: Message edited by: skywalker ]

[Timber Loftis]

You beat me to it, Skywalker.

Look, MagiK I was blaming nothing on no one. The carnage coming back to Powell was obscene -- like the "highway of death." He felt that (personally) it was time to quit whipping a beaten dog and (politically) these pictures would play poorly to the US public. He told Bush Sr. he would recommend a cease of hostilities in 24 to 48 hours. Bush Sr. said, just end it now.

When Schwarzkoff agreed to peace, it seemed obvious that the enemy would be free to quell internal unrest.

I defend Bush Sr. on the end of hostilities in 1991. I think it was the right decision, given the facts he had before him.

So, please don't accuse me of blaming anyone about this.

And, while I may mix up a name every now and then, these details I posted were accurate -- at least according to the PBS 4-hr special on the war, which includes MANY interview excerpts from Bush, Schwarzkoff, and Powell. If I can't rely on their story, whose can I rely on?