View Full Version : Oh, the hypocrisy of it all
Scorpion
10-23-2007, 12:54 AM
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15528692
The Bush regime invaded Iraq under the guise of safeguarding the United States from terrorists alledgedly being given safe haven and support by Iraq and safeguarding the region from WMDs.
Turkey is suffering from cross border attacks by Iraqi Kurds which have resulted in the deaths of many Turkish civilians and military personnel. The frustration by Turkey has reached the point where Turkey is preparing to invade Iraq to counter the Kurdish threat to its sovereignty and citizens.
Incredibly, the Bush regime has issued an edict to Turkey to cease any effort to invade northern Iraq in the name of preserving regional stability.
Coming from the team that invaded Iraq because of embellished and fraudulent intelligence this sounds more then a bit hypocritical, doesn't it?
preservanation
10-23-2007, 01:14 AM
Mr Erdogan, who begins a two-day visit to Britain today, also offered a bleak assessment of relations between the US and Turkey, a country of huge strategic importance to Washington. He said that a “serious wave of antiAmericanism” was sweeping Turkey, called America’s war in Iraq a failure, and served warning that if the US Congress approved a Bill accusing the Ottoman Turks of genocide against Armenians during the First World War, the US “might lose a very important friend”.http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2710139.ece
Mr Erdogan, who begins a two-day visit to Britain today, also offered a bleak assessment of relations between the US and Turkey, a country of huge strategic importance to Washington. He said that a “serious wave of antiAmericanism” was sweeping Turkey, called America’s war in Iraq a failure, and served warning that if the US Congress approved a Bill accusing the Ottoman Turks of genocide against Armenians during the First World War, the US “might lose a very important friend”.http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2710139.ece
Erm...........this has been an ongoing problem..........but if Congress approves a bill stating that Turkey committed genocide.......all of a sudden that's the reason that Turkey is attacking? Man, that's some pretty fast acting. I would think it would take a little more planning to get them up and running.
It doesn't have anthing to do with the PKK?
Okey dokey, then.
Labrocca
10-23-2007, 02:27 AM
fraudulent intelligence
Got any proof of that? I have proof that the Democrat leaders were convincing Americans that invading Iraq and removing Saddam was the right thing to do. So not sure where you get off blaming Iraq on the "Bush regime".
And if you think the action to attack Iraq was a bad one then why don't you support peace talks between the Kurds and Turkey? You would think some support from liberals would be in order but instead they have chosen to attack Bush instead. It's obvious to me who the real hypocrits are.
Drocket
10-23-2007, 02:51 AM
Got any proof of that? I have proof that the Democrat leaders were convincing Americans that invading Iraq and removing Saddam was the right thing to do.
And they did so based on the highly selected and incomplete information presented by the Bush administration. There was evidence that Saddam was building WMDs - and there was significantly more evidence that he wasn't. The evidence that he wasn't was rather conveniently left out of all the reports that the Bush White House sent to Congress.
The biggest mistake the Democrats made was in believing Bush.
And if you think the action to attack Iraq was a bad one then why don't you support peace talks between the Kurds and Turkey?
I have no idea where you're coming from here. Nobody said anything about peace talks. If it's possible to arrange them, that's a good thing. So far, though, neither side seems interested.
fraudulent intelligence
Got any proof of that? I have proof that the Democrat leaders were convincing Americans that invading Iraq and removing Saddam was the right thing to do. So not sure where you get off blaming Iraq on the "Bush regime".
Sure do! Read this one and let me know if you want more. (http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/14/sprj.irq.documents/)
And if you think the action to attack Iraq was a bad one then why don't you support peace talks between the Kurds and Turkey? You would think some support from liberals would be in order but instead they have chosen to attack Bush instead. It's obvious to me who the real hypocrits are.
Huh?
Scorpion
10-23-2007, 03:01 AM
fraudulent intelligence
Got any proof of that? I have proof that the Democrat leaders were convincing Americans that invading Iraq and removing Saddam was the right thing to do. So not sure where you get off blaming Iraq on the "Bush regime".
And if you think the action to attack Iraq was a bad one then why don't you support peace talks between the Kurds and Turkey? You would think some support from liberals would be in order but instead they have chosen to attack Bush instead. It's obvious to me who the real hypocrits are.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134625,00.html
I do support diplomatic talks between the Turks and Kurds. Any alternative to armed conflict is desireable.
I am not attacking Bush, merely pointing out the obvious hypocrisy of the Bush adminsinistration invading Iraq under dubious circumstances and now telling Turkey that under the same circumstances it should not protect itself. Bush and his crew have a habit of talking out of both sides of their mouths.
And, again, I am not a liberal. There are more than two political camps my friend.[hr]
fraudulent intelligence
Got any proof of that? I have proof that the Democrat leaders were convincing Americans that invading Iraq and removing Saddam was the right thing to do. So not sure where you get off blaming Iraq on the "Bush regime".
Sure do! Read this one and let me know if you want more. (http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/14/sprj.irq.documents/)
And if you think the action to attack Iraq was a bad one then why don't you support peace talks between the Kurds and Turkey? You would think some support from liberals would be in order but instead they have chosen to attack Bush instead. It's obvious to me who the real hypocrits are.
Huh?
Thanks for the excellent supporting link lily.
Labrocca is once again trying to play the "evil Bush hating liberals" generalization instead of addressing the topic at hand, the hypocrisy of the Bush administration in this matter.
lawless168
10-23-2007, 09:30 PM
Simmer down scorpion, geeesh... Iraq should take care of this problem, not Turkey (Mmmm I said Turkey) or Bush ...
Military action could be avoided only if the Americans and Iraqis expelled the PKK, closed its camps and handed over its leaders, said Prime Minister Erdogan.
Iraq to 'shut down' PKK operations
Iraq has said it will shut down the operations of Kurdish separatists based in the country in a move aimed at heading off a threatened incursion by Turkish troops.
"The PKK [Kurdistan Workers Party] is a terrorist organisation and we have taken a decision to shut down their offices and not allow them to operate on Iraqi soil," Nuri al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister, said.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/5818D317-8DAB-49A3-BBDD-047455333797.htm
Labrocca
10-23-2007, 09:55 PM
Alright...fraudulent intelligence but read this from the article.
Who made the forgeries?
But the question remains -- who is responsible for the apparent forgeries?
Experts said the suspects include the intelligence services of Iraq's neighbors, other pro-war nations, Iraqi opposition groups or simply con men.
Most rule out the United States, Great Britain or Israel because they said those countries' intelligence services would have been able to make much more convincing forgeries if they had chosen to do so.
The left likes to implicate the Bush administration for false information but there is just no proof of that. Blame Bush has replaced Blame Canada as the nations motto.
Labrocca is once again trying to play the "evil Bush hating liberals" generalization instead of addressing the topic at hand, the hypocrisy of the Bush administration in this matter.
Maybe because that's reality. Do you deny hatred of Bush? Do you have ANY proof that he has intentionally led us to war for an evil purpose? How often do you criticize and blame Bush for our current situation? While he is obviously the President and certainly things have not gone as planned you don't have any proof it was intentional.
Wndrtch
10-23-2007, 11:13 PM
fraudulent intelligence
Got any proof of that? I have proof that the Democrat leaders were convincing Americans that invading Iraq and removing Saddam was the right thing to do. So not sure where you get off blaming Iraq on the "Bush regime".
And if you think the action to attack Iraq was a bad one then why don't you support peace talks between the Kurds and Turkey? You would think some support from liberals would be in order but instead they have chosen to attack Bush instead. It's obvious to me who the real hypocrits are.
President Clinton
Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff
February 17, 1998
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/
"In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now -- a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.
"If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."
Former President Clinton
During an interview on CNN's "Larry King Live"
July 22, 2003
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/23/clinton.iraq.sotu/
"People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."
President Clinton
Oval Office Address to the American People
December 16, 1998
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html
"The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.
The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people."
[/i]
Alright...fraudulent intelligence but read this from the article.
[quote]Who made the forgeries?
But the question remains -- who is responsible for the apparent forgeries?
Experts said the suspects include the intelligence services of Iraq's neighbors, other pro-war nations, Iraqi opposition groups or simply con men.
Most rule out the United States, Great Britain or Israel because they said those countries' intelligence services would have been able to make much more convincing forgeries if they had chosen to do so.
The left likes to implicate the Bush administration for false information but there is just no proof of that. Blame Bush has replaced Blame Canada as the nations motto.
Labrocca is once again trying to play the "evil Bush hating liberals" generalization instead of addressing the topic at hand, the hypocrisy of the Bush administration in this matter.
:dizzy: So your excuse is he's not at fault because he didn't make them? :dizzy:
They were such obvious forgeries that the intelligence department was embarrassed!
While he is obviously the President and certainly things have not gone as planned you don't have any proof it was intentional.
Is he not the CIC? The Decider? Who is calling the shots, if not him? I don't know about you.......but if he isn't in charge of sending men off to fight a war, without getting all the facts straight.........I don't know who is.
fraudulent intelligence
Got any proof of that? I have proof that the Democrat leaders were convincing Americans that invading Iraq and removing Saddam was the right thing to do. So not sure where you get off blaming Iraq on the "Bush regime".
Bush was the one who pulled the trigger, not the Dems.
As for proof of fraudulent Intelligence, one need look no further than the Office of Special Plans and the Downing Street memo.
preservanation
10-24-2007, 01:17 AM
The Dems will approve all the $$$ Bush wants for Iraq, and have.
Look in the mirror.
You libs voted for change and you got more of the same.
Hillary has no intention of withdrawing troops before 2013 and she said it!
Ya'll been hosed!
Bush?Clinton?Bush?Clinton?Bush(JEB)?.....
Break the cycle of corporation welfare and corruption!
Labrocca
10-24-2007, 01:23 AM
They were such obvious forgeries that the intelligence department was embarrassed!
Right... the INTELLIGENCE DEPARTMENT. I highly doubt that Bush is qualified to judge authenticity of documents.
Bush was the one who pulled the trigger, not the Dems.
I don't agree. Bush might have bought the weapon but it was a trigger pulled by America and loaded by Congress.
but if he isn't in charge of sending men off to fight a war, without getting all the facts straight
Could America go to war without congressional consent? Aren't the branches a checks and balances system with equal measures of power? So why is only the executive branch to blame for the bad intelligence and for the war?
Same old story from Bush detractors...any chance you will accept the facts that Congress, Bush, and Democrat leaders all signed off on the war? Or will you spin it to say it was because Bush led the charge even though you have no proof of such a statement.
Someone fed the CIA false information...find that person/entity and you will then have someone to blame. Heck blame the CIA for not realizing these were forged. But the President MUST trust the American Intelligence Agencies. The President must also trust the international intelligence agencies too to some degree. Most of which said Saddam has WMDs and had the same false information that we had.
The hypocrisy continues.
preservanation
10-24-2007, 01:25 AM
Lab, you're on the mark.
I don't agree. Bush might have bought the weapon but it was a trigger pulled by America and loaded by Congress.
Pulled by America? :ponder:
Right... the INTELLIGENCE DEPARTMENT. I highly doubt that Bush is qualified
to judge authenticity of documents.
You said a mouthful there! You'll get no argument from me!
Could America go to war without congressional consent? Aren't the
branches a checks and balances system with equal measures of power? So why
is only the executive branch to blame for the bad intelligence and for the
war?
Because in the end, Labrocca......it was his decision.
Someone fed the CIA false information...find that person/entity and
you will then have someone to blame. .
Yep.....someone fed them false information. Chalabi, who we not only paid millions for that false information, but we made sure he got seat in parliment.
Heck blame the CIA for not realizing
these were forged. But the President MUST trust the American Intelligence
Agencies. The President must also trust the international intelligence
agencies too to some degree. Most of which said Saddam has WMDs and had the
same false information that we had.
Well, Labrocca.......since he has put the blame on every agency there is, no one is believing a word that he is saying now......but then that's been the pattern in his life, hasn't it?
Deadshot
10-24-2007, 03:28 AM
Who's for the war now? Right now, today, which party wants a change in Strategy, and which one wants to toe the Bush line?
It's about perception people. Lab, you wanna blame Congress, fine. Have a blast blaming over 500 people on both sides of aisle. See how that plays in Peroria come '08. Me, I'm sticking with the Democrats who will Blame Bush - one person. By focusing their attention on the leader of the GOP, the Dems will tie the debacle that is Iraq around the necks of the majority of Republicans.
Because in the end, Republicans - TODAY, are for the war. That's why the numbers are around 65 against and 35 for the war. TODAY the GOP is taking hit after hit about the war, while the Dems simply say "We can't over ride a Bush Veto, ya gotta give us more power." And when the GOP says "Hey, then why didn't you at least try to stop the $$$ from going to the war?" Dems answer with "We support the troops."
It's a win, win all the way around. Dems' will take over everything in '08. The Troops will start a phased withdraw. Bush will get all the blame and none of the credit. While the GOP attempts to rebuild it's shattered party. :ecstatic:
It's a win, win all the way around. Dems' will take over everything in '08. The Troops will start a phased withdraw. Bush will get all the blame and none of the credit. While the GOP attempts to rebuild it's shattered party. :ecstatic:
The very same Dems who were too chickenshit to stand up to Bush and Cheney when it mattered. Oh yeah, were really talking win-win here. :dizzy:
jafar00
10-24-2007, 01:27 PM
The PKK, supported by the US and British are terrorists. Even the US has designated them as a terrorist organisation, yet they have been supported and armed in their acts of terrorism in Iran, while a blind eye has been turned on their acts of terrorism against US allies, Turkey.
It is up to the Iraqi Govt (are they sovereign or not?) to deal with terrorist groups like the PKK in their borders, so what are they doing about it? Would they be allowed to do anything about it considering the importance of groups such as the PKK in the US war against Iran?
If neither Iraqis or Americans are willing to do something about the PKK, then the Turks have every right to invade Northern Iraq to deal with the problem.
Another alternative is UN sanctions against Iraq and the US until they cease support of, and shut down the terrorist organisation of the PKK, but I don't think that will happen in my lifetime.
Pkk is a terrorist organisation acting against the sovereign state of Turkey.
There are about 12m Kurds in an 70m Turkey right now, about 20% of the population.
The remarcable thing is that for the Turkish state, there is no kurdish minority in the country. Therefore all minority rights (most notably that of language) are denied to the kurds.
It is also amazing (amusing?) that untill 1991 speaking kurdish was illegal in Turkey.
Until now, speaking proudly of kurdish heritage can get someone accused of separatism in Turkey.
There are kurdish minorities in the other countries in the region that are not being treated well- to put it politely; just take a look at the iraqi Kurds under Saddam.
There is no Kurdish state, although it was provisioned in the Sevres treaty (similarities with Palestine?)
Definition of genocide:
"the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group."
After debate about congress rule over the Armenian genocide by the Turks we are witnessing the continuation of a deliberate, systematic (cultural[/i]) extermination of the Turkish Kurds. Then, until the Congress passes a resolution to acknowledge this silent genocide, I agree that the U.S. should let their ally defend herself and contribute to the war against Terrorism.
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.