Dear Professor Nara Ji,
Yes, I thought I ended the thread as well, but I am glad now that you responded in detail. I am starting a new thread, bowing to the wish of some. I have copied your response below, with my comments in 'blue':
Dear Shri KRS, I thought we had closed this discussion, but unfortunately you are reopening it again.
I knew all along there is no chance of any resolution with you on this topic. My original intent was limited to your attempt to draw an an equivalency between what you label "extreme" left wing and right wing. I listed a sample of the kooky things the Republican leadership have been saying here. By anyone's standard these are kooky, not just mine. I asked you to show similar kookiness from the left, and all you could come up with are several senators accusing Bush of lying about Iraq war. Even you admit Bush may have lied, only that it cannot be proved.
That is it! On the one hand we have a line up of Republican leadership saying a range of outlandish stuff, and on the other we have an accusation of lying for a which a reasonable argument (see below for one) can be made.
Professor, I did not want to really go in to the topic of racism. Because, it is a complicated issue here, especially on party lines. So, here we go:
Please read this from the Republican POV: On Racism and Republicans: Jun 1, 2008
All that the extreme left can be accused of is being naive enough to believe in such impractical things as social justice, equality, compassion, etc. The more right you go, you get more and more of the racists, supremacists, paranoids, et al. Reasonable conservatives are being sidelined from the Republican party -- a range of sitting Republican Senators have already been booted out. This should be a matter of concern for all, not just the Republicans.
I wish this true. Unfortunately you have in the Democratic party, the likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. The former, may I remind you was a Presidential candidate. I consider both of them as the worst kind - they both profit from overt racism. Before you say, that the Democrats are better now, please read this:Kendrick Meek Lost Rural Florida, Thanks to Racist Dixiecrats (UPDATED) - Broward Palm Beach News - The Juice
There is no equivalency between the left and the right. Even the "most extreme" among the left are way less kooky than the "main-stream right", the leadership of the Republican party. This was the point I started out with.
Based on the above, seems to me that my argument has more support.
So, let the record show that there is no equivalency between the right and the left.
I just refuted this claim. Because you rained on the republicans as the 'right', I have no option to say that your thesis is totally incorrect.
Now you want me to prove Bush lied.
What level of proof is needed? In criminal cases, the standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt. In civil cases, it is preponderance of evidence. In the case of impeachment, political calculations cloud the issue. In the court of public opinion, the standard of proof is, if it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, quacks like a duck, it is a duck.
In 2006, a retired CIA chief of clandestine operations for Europe, Tyler Drumheller, revealed that Bush White House knew about the absence of any significant or ongoing Chemical/biological and Nuclear weapons programs. CIA was in secret contact with Naji Sabri, Iraqi Foreign Minister under Saddam, as early as, or as late depending upon POV, in September 2002. He confirmed to CIA that Saddam did not have Chemical/biological and Nuclear weapons programs. The intelligence community had reasons to believe Sabri, as he had given other information that were known to be accurate. The Bush White House was informed about the unreliable nature of both the chemical/biological weapons claim and the nuclear weapons claims.
On the nuclear weapons side, the documents purporting Saddam purchasing yellow cake from Niger was well known to be fake among intelligence agencies of several countries. On top, Joe Wilson went to Niger and reported back debunking this theory. Bush people went out of the way to smear Wilson and in the process outed a secret CIA operative. Just imagine what the Republicans would have done if a Democrat had pulled such a stunt.
So, Bush knew, but he couldn't be dissuaded, the decision to take out Saddam was made long time ago. There is enough about this in the British press, look it up.
While all this was going on behind the scene, Bush never once flinched in his determination, never couched his proclamations with any sort of hedging, it was all starkly crystal clear, never any ray of doubt.
All this may not add up to a criminal conviction, but enough to give it a shot. The Democrats will never have the spine or a pair to bring any of the Bush people to justice. That leaves, civil cases standard and public opinion standard. By Public Opinion standard this a "slam dunk" (h/t the infamous George Tenet). IMO, this preponderance of evidence will satisfy a jury looking for civil case standard.
Looks like you did not read this article I posted before, explaining why he could not have led. Please read these:
Did Bush Lie Us into War?
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/ju...ntent/article/2008/06/08/AR2008060801687.html
Two official government inquiries in two countries (USA & UK) have pretty much said that Bush had every reason to suspect that Sadaam was intent on getting his hands on a nuclear weapon. Yet, you seem to be convinced that he lied based on a single CIA person account.
Please read: Bush's CIA Critic Claim Exposed as Untrue
If I were the President after 9/11 and looking at who might pass the dirty bomb technology to Al-Quaeda, why would I not think that Iraq would be that country (both Sunni) and since Hussain tried to assasinate HW Bush, that he would not do it? Such arguments against Bush's intentions, do not make sense.
Also, why would, if I were Bush, send Colin Powell to argue for an invasion, knowing that there were no WMDs, which would have been obvious after the invasion, risking the prestige of the USA and himself around the world? This completely does not make any sense to me.
Cheers!
Regards,
KRS
Yes, I thought I ended the thread as well, but I am glad now that you responded in detail. I am starting a new thread, bowing to the wish of some. I have copied your response below, with my comments in 'blue':
Dear Shri KRS, I thought we had closed this discussion, but unfortunately you are reopening it again.
I knew all along there is no chance of any resolution with you on this topic. My original intent was limited to your attempt to draw an an equivalency between what you label "extreme" left wing and right wing. I listed a sample of the kooky things the Republican leadership have been saying here. By anyone's standard these are kooky, not just mine. I asked you to show similar kookiness from the left, and all you could come up with are several senators accusing Bush of lying about Iraq war. Even you admit Bush may have lied, only that it cannot be proved.
That is it! On the one hand we have a line up of Republican leadership saying a range of outlandish stuff, and on the other we have an accusation of lying for a which a reasonable argument (see below for one) can be made.
Professor, I did not want to really go in to the topic of racism. Because, it is a complicated issue here, especially on party lines. So, here we go:
Please read this from the Republican POV: On Racism and Republicans: Jun 1, 2008
All that the extreme left can be accused of is being naive enough to believe in such impractical things as social justice, equality, compassion, etc. The more right you go, you get more and more of the racists, supremacists, paranoids, et al. Reasonable conservatives are being sidelined from the Republican party -- a range of sitting Republican Senators have already been booted out. This should be a matter of concern for all, not just the Republicans.
I wish this true. Unfortunately you have in the Democratic party, the likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. The former, may I remind you was a Presidential candidate. I consider both of them as the worst kind - they both profit from overt racism. Before you say, that the Democrats are better now, please read this:Kendrick Meek Lost Rural Florida, Thanks to Racist Dixiecrats (UPDATED) - Broward Palm Beach News - The Juice
There is no equivalency between the left and the right. Even the "most extreme" among the left are way less kooky than the "main-stream right", the leadership of the Republican party. This was the point I started out with.
Based on the above, seems to me that my argument has more support.
So, let the record show that there is no equivalency between the right and the left.
I just refuted this claim. Because you rained on the republicans as the 'right', I have no option to say that your thesis is totally incorrect.
Now you want me to prove Bush lied.
What level of proof is needed? In criminal cases, the standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt. In civil cases, it is preponderance of evidence. In the case of impeachment, political calculations cloud the issue. In the court of public opinion, the standard of proof is, if it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, quacks like a duck, it is a duck.
In 2006, a retired CIA chief of clandestine operations for Europe, Tyler Drumheller, revealed that Bush White House knew about the absence of any significant or ongoing Chemical/biological and Nuclear weapons programs. CIA was in secret contact with Naji Sabri, Iraqi Foreign Minister under Saddam, as early as, or as late depending upon POV, in September 2002. He confirmed to CIA that Saddam did not have Chemical/biological and Nuclear weapons programs. The intelligence community had reasons to believe Sabri, as he had given other information that were known to be accurate. The Bush White House was informed about the unreliable nature of both the chemical/biological weapons claim and the nuclear weapons claims.
On the nuclear weapons side, the documents purporting Saddam purchasing yellow cake from Niger was well known to be fake among intelligence agencies of several countries. On top, Joe Wilson went to Niger and reported back debunking this theory. Bush people went out of the way to smear Wilson and in the process outed a secret CIA operative. Just imagine what the Republicans would have done if a Democrat had pulled such a stunt.
So, Bush knew, but he couldn't be dissuaded, the decision to take out Saddam was made long time ago. There is enough about this in the British press, look it up.
While all this was going on behind the scene, Bush never once flinched in his determination, never couched his proclamations with any sort of hedging, it was all starkly crystal clear, never any ray of doubt.
All this may not add up to a criminal conviction, but enough to give it a shot. The Democrats will never have the spine or a pair to bring any of the Bush people to justice. That leaves, civil cases standard and public opinion standard. By Public Opinion standard this a "slam dunk" (h/t the infamous George Tenet). IMO, this preponderance of evidence will satisfy a jury looking for civil case standard.
Looks like you did not read this article I posted before, explaining why he could not have led. Please read these:
Did Bush Lie Us into War?
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/ju...ntent/article/2008/06/08/AR2008060801687.html
Two official government inquiries in two countries (USA & UK) have pretty much said that Bush had every reason to suspect that Sadaam was intent on getting his hands on a nuclear weapon. Yet, you seem to be convinced that he lied based on a single CIA person account.
Please read: Bush's CIA Critic Claim Exposed as Untrue
If I were the President after 9/11 and looking at who might pass the dirty bomb technology to Al-Quaeda, why would I not think that Iraq would be that country (both Sunni) and since Hussain tried to assasinate HW Bush, that he would not do it? Such arguments against Bush's intentions, do not make sense.
Also, why would, if I were Bush, send Colin Powell to argue for an invasion, knowing that there were no WMDs, which would have been obvious after the invasion, risking the prestige of the USA and himself around the world? This completely does not make any sense to me.
Cheers!
Regards,
KRS
