• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why We Did It[W:684]

Did you know that the after the invastion the US found French and other weapons in Iraq that had been delivered there during the time that all the **** was going with in the UN Security Council. France was delivering weapons to Iraq behind backs of the UN and its allies within months of the invasion. You think the US and the UK might have been pissed by that?

French connection armed Saddam - Washington Times

The U.S. military was about to go to war with Iraq, and thanks to the French, the Iraqi air force had become more dangerous.
Click to expand...



Many Helped Iraq Evade U.N. Sanctions On Weapons (washingtonpost.com)
 
AlbqOwl said:
If he does, along with other sources, he is far more likely to be informed sufficiently to do critical thinking watching Fox News than he will watching almost any other source. And even though its hosts are likely to more conservatively or libertarian biased, Fox at least presents both sides of every single issue to make its viewers aware of both sides. Very few other news organizations are doing that these days.
Click to expand...
Bull. I see no point watching two people arguing over a point, especially when they are paid contributors.
 
pbrauer said:
I see, you have not watched the show and you are assuming its hate-based propaganda, where is your critical thinking? Do you watch Fox?
Click to expand...

I don't watch Fox or MSNBC. I'm against hate-based propaganda.
 
pbrauer said:
I don't look at either of those sources. I like memeorandum where you can find sources on both sides of an issue. I also like Talking Points Memo | Breaking News and Analysis | TPM which is a lefty blog, that's very straight down the middle. I've seen folks from the right use there stuff. I also watch MSNBC and occasionally CNN and Fox.
Click to expand...

So you gain comfort and knowledge from sources closer to your ideological bend. Don't understand how you can complain then. But, that is your choice.
 
pbrauer said:
I see, you have not watched the show and you are assuming its hate-based propaganda, where is your critical thinking? Do you watch Fox?
Click to expand...

But that is precisely what it is Pete... hate based propaganda.

I tried watching it last year, but when I found 6 misleading and/or inaccurate instances in the first 10 minutes of the damned thing, there was really no point continuing to watch it.
 
American said:
Did you know that the after the invastion the US found French and other weapons in Iraq that had been delivered there during the time that all the **** was going with in the UN Security Council. France was delivering weapons to Iraq behind backs of the UN and its allies within months of the invasion. You think the US and the UK might have been pissed by that?

French connection armed Saddam - Washington Times





Many Helped Iraq Evade U.N. Sanctions On Weapons (washingtonpost.com)
Click to expand...

For the French, Iraq was their golden goose which is why they didn't support the invasion. The weapons were nothing... It was their involvement in the 23 billion dollar oil for food scandal where their shady dealing with Saddam was really paying off for them.
 
MSNBC definitely has a particular viewpoint, at least on shows like Rachel Maddow and Chris Hayes. However, I haven't seen them ever telling lies. They may look at stories from a particular angle, as so many media places do. But they don't lie.

The Nation Magazine has a lot of good stories in it; I recommend that to anyone interested.
 
As long as you want to include Clinton's 8 years, let's include the Bush-41/Reagan/Rumsfeld 12 years.
Who armed Saddam in the 80's?
Any link to Iran/Contra?
Meanwhile, Putin plays the GOP like pawns .
Fletch said:
Will this book be investigating the Clinton Administration as well? After all, Clinton spent 8 years going round and round with Saddam over WMD and used their existence to justify hundreds of cruise missiles into 'suspected WMD sites.' Clearly Clinton was in on the Bush lie as well, no?
Click to expand...
 
pbrauer said:
Bull. I see no point watching two people arguing over a point, especially when they are paid contributors.
Click to expand...

I don't watch that part because to me it is extremely annoying when everybody is talking over everybody else. In fact, nothing much prompts me to change the channel or turn off the TV faster.

But the Fox reporters and commentators all know both sides of every issue and do get it on the record pretty much in every segment. And they do give plenty of uninterrupted face time to those opposing an issue to state their case for their opposition. One of the very best is Bob Beckel on The Five. He has made me back up and rethink something more than once. And a host like O'Reilly who gives his perspective on something will always invite the key person opposing his point of view or the person he is criticizing to come on the show. And if that person accepts the invitation he/she will be courteously allowed sufficient time to present his/her point of view.

Fox does provide a conservative voice amidst a huge sea of left leaning liberalism on television. But it is not the villain that the left so often desperately wants it to be.

And George W. Bush took his lumps at Fox too and still does. But if you want ALL the available facts on any given current event issue, Fox is one of the fastest place to reliably get them.
 
AlbqOwl said:
And George W. Bush took his lumps at Fox too and still does. But if you want ALL the available facts on any given current event issue, Fox is one of the fastest place to reliably get them.
Click to expand...

I may have mentioned I watch Bret Baier regularly.
I started watching Crossfire yesterday, but can't stand S.E.
And, even M. Malkin took Lindsay Graham to task for linking Ukraine to Benghazi.
As for Maddow tonite, the right is upset.
in 4 years, we'll see FOX do "Why Obama Did It".
 
NIMBY said:
I may have mentioned I watch Bret Baier regularly.
I started watching Crossfire yesterday, but can't stand S.E.
And, even M. Malkin took Lindsay Graham to task for linking Ukraine to Benghazi.
As for Maddow tonite, the right is upset.
in 4 years, we'll see FOX do "Why Obama Did It".
Click to expand...

Probably. We do get quite a bit of that already on Fox commentary. O'Reilly has taken some heat for actually being an apologist for Obama almost as much as he has been a critic.

History, if we have any honest historians left, will be much kinder re George Bush's decision to go to war than are his more brainwashed, partisan critics now. But I hope they also are as honest at how, despite his conservative ideology, he made the terrible mistake of utilizing modern liberal methods and practices in his energy, immigration, and social policies and the damage that was done. I honestly believe this is the last generation that will have any ability to stop our relentless spiral into total socialism and even Russian style totalitarianism.
 
I suppose I might feel more like you if I lived in NM.
Btw, when I leave Oklahoma City in a few weeks, I'm heading for Joplin, where I'll try to map out a water pipleline near Cairo, IL.

As for this Maddow special tonite, all it will do is piss off righties and have them bomb Obama with Ukraine criticism.
I'm currently watching Ed Schultz doing a 180 on Keystone, now being against it .
AlbqOwl said:
Probably. We do get quite a bit of that already on Fox commentary. O'Reilly has taken some heat for actually being an apologist for Obama almost as much as he has been a critic.

History, if we have any honest historians left, will be much kinder re George Bush's decision to go to war than are his more brainwashed, partisan critics now. But I hope they also are as honest at how, despite his conservative ideology, he made the terrible mistake of utilizing modern liberal methods and practices in his energy, immigration, and social policies and the damage that was done. I honestly believe this is the last generation that will have any ability to stop our relentless spiral into total socialism and even Russian style totalitarianism.
Click to expand...
 
NIMBY said:
As long as you want to include Clinton's 8 years, let's include the Bush-41/Reagan/Rumsfeld 12 years.
Who armed Saddam in the 80's?
Click to expand...
So you acknowledge that the claim that Saddam had WMD PRECEEDES Bush. Thank you. Thank you. That was my point. Glad you agree.
 
So did I say that Bush-41/Reagan gave Saddam WMDs?
Is that how GWB knew, his Father told him?

And if Reagan/Bush-41/Rumsfeld did give WMDs to Saddam, did Saddam use them up on his Kurds or the Iranians?
Aren't you happy how we meddled over there and left Saddam in power for Clinton to deal with ?
Fletch said:
So you acknowledge that the claim that Saddam had WMD PRECEEDES Bush. Thank you. Thank you. That was my point. Glad you agree.
Click to expand...
 
NIMBY said:
So did I say that Bush-41/Reagan gave Saddam WMDs?
Is that how GWB knew, his Father told him?

And if Reagan/Bush-41/Rumsfeld did give WMDs to Saddam, did Saddam use them up on his Kurds or the Iranians?
Aren't you happy how we meddled over there and left Saddam in power for Clinton to deal with ?
Click to expand...
You know what, I don't know what you are saying...
 
Grim17 said:
But that is precisely what it is Pete... hate based propaganda.
Click to expand...
Everything that doesn't match your way of thinking is hate based propaganda.:roll:

I tried watching it last year, but when I found 6 misleading and/or inaccurate instances in the first 10 minutes of the damned thing, there was really no point continuing to watch it.
Click to expand...

Bull, you didn't watch the whole thing because you simply couldn't explain your way out of them. Tonight's presentation is different than the one last year. Here is the complete set of six videos from last year:

[TABLE="class: grid, width: 500"]
[TR]
[TD]In Part 1 of Hubris: Selling the Iraq War, Rachel Maddow reviews the history of animosity toward Iraq by members of the Bush administration and how the attacks of 9/11 were seen as an opportunity to press for the removal of Saddam Hussein, whether a connection to the attacks actually existed or not.

Rachel Maddow Special - Hubris: Selling the Iraq War Part 1[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]In Part 2 of Hubris: Selling the Iraq War, Rachel Maddow explored how questionable evidence from dubious sources was culled to frighten the American people with the argument that Saddam Hussein's weapons program was a threat to the United States.

Rachel Maddow Special - Hubris: Selling the Iraq War Part 2[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]In Part 3 of Hubris: Selling the Iraq War, Rachel Maddow illustrates how the Bush administration exaggerated the threat of Saddam Hussein's nuclear ambitions with discredited information about aluminum tubes and yellowcake uranium.

Rachel Maddow Special - Hubris: Selling the Iraq War Part 3[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]In Part 4 of Hubris: Selling the Iraq War, Rachel Maddow revisits how the case for war with Iraq was made to Congress, with many on the Senate Intelligence Committee not reading the flawed National Intelligence Estimate, resulting in an overwhelming vote to give President Bush a free hand with Iraq.

Rachel Maddow Special - Hubris: Selling the Iraq War Part 4[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]In Part 5 of Hubris: Selling the Iraq War, Rachel Maddow shows how Secretary of State Colin Powell was given flawed evidence to make the case for war with Iraq in front of the entire world with his credibility as collateral.

Rachel Maddow Special - Hubris: Selling the Iraq War Part 5[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]In Part 6 of Hubris: Selling the Iraq War, the regrets of politics overtaking good governance and good journalism are felt by those who didn't hold the Bush administration to a higher standard.

Rachel Maddow Special - Hubris: Selling the Iraq War Part 6[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
 
Fletch said:
So you acknowledge that the claim that Saddam had WMD PRECEEDES Bush. Thank you. Thank you. That was my point. Glad you agree.
Click to expand...

Had not growing and gathering. And Clinton's people declared they took care of the threat. So, let's try to keep things in actual context.
 
Uncovered: The War on Iraq
2004 83 minutes

In this examination of the United States government's case for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, filmmaker Robert Greenwald provides compelling evidence that the Bush administration misled American citizens in the run-up to war. Crosscutting interviews with CIA analysts, weapons inspectors and military brass with press conferences and speeches from Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice and former President Bush, the film paints a thought-provoking picture.

No End in Sight
2007 NR 102 minutes

This Oscar-nominated documentary from filmmaker (and former Brookings Institution fellow) Charles Ferguson examines the decisions that led to the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq and the handling of the subsequent occupation by President George W. Bush and his administration. Featuring detailed analysis and exclusive interviews with central players, the film pulls no punches as it chronicles the twists and turns America took on the path to war.

WMD: Weapons of Mass Deception
2004NR90 minutes

Independent investigative reporter and filmmaker Danny Schechter's documentary focuses on how the media shaped people's views of the Iraq War through their intense coverage from the war's inception through February 2004. Schechter's film examines provocative theories such as the Pentagon's involvement in media messages, how new methods such as satellites and embedded journalists affected media coverage, and the competition between media outlets.

Rush to War
2004NR86 minutes

Filmmaker Robert Taicher explores the events leading up to the Iraq War in this penetrating documentary. Taicher provides a thorough examination of mistakes made by several administrations; the rationales presented for going to war; and the effect of events on America's society, security and international credibility. Bonus features include an exclusive interview with former Ambassador Joe Wilson, husband of outed CIA agent Valerie Plame.
 
Last edited:
NIMBY said:
I suppose I might feel more like you if I lived in NM.
Btw, when I leave Oklahoma City in a few weeks, I'm heading for Joplin, where I'll try to map out a water pipleline near Cairo, IL.

As for this Maddow special tonite, all it will do is piss off righties and have them bomb Obama with Ukraine criticism.
I'm currently watching Ed Schultz doing a 180 on Keystone, now being against it .
Click to expand...

I think most thinking people who are students of history--at least those who are capable of separating history from partisanship--feel as I do even when we disagree here and there on various facts or dynamics. Those who look for something to accuse or blame will always find it no matter who they look at. Those looking at the events and consequences, good and bad, are able to be informed by past mistakes, past successes, and differentiate those from intentional bad acts for personal or political gain.

But the hate, blame, accuse, and I am better than you people are just mostly noise and have little else to offer to the conversation.
 
I'm just happy to know that the nutblade left is still focused on smearing Bush who will never be running for any office what so ever, instead of... oh, say... the present problems of the world.

Good job guys.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom