Condi survives public lynching by Boxer, Kerry

[Auburn85 432]

Well, I can see why the UN didn't want to help out. They've got their hands full with the Oil for Food Corruption.

The UN was ligit with torture chambers still in place, mass graves continuing to fill, and Saddam's people still starving, even though UN was trusting, "freaking Trusting " Saddam to feed his people.

Yet, Saddam was pocketing the money.

Food for oil started in 1996. Saddam accumulated alot of money over that time period.

Alot of people used the starvation of Iraqis to become very wealthy.

So I can see why the UN wouldn't want to ruin a good thing.

[TexasTiger 13,017]

Funny how somebody mentions public lynching and you automatically put up a picture if a black man being hung by a bunch of whities. Public lynchings were around long before blacks were imported to the Americas, and guess what, they usually were white. Just like all dems, you have bought into the poor black man mentatlity. Please give us equal examples of public lynchings, discrimination, etc..

Not just your demoncratic government brainwashed perception of it being owned by the color of one's skin.

And it was used as a metaphor, not an actualism. But it did allow you to get your bleeding heart liberal opinion in didn't it? What's next on your agenda, slave reparations?

140731[/snapback]

What a thing for you to whine about. You're the one claiming some unfair discrimination in my choice of an illustration of the actual process. "Guess what," lynching in this country has more commonly been used with blacks and there is little coincidence that the metaphor has been used in relation to Rice's and Thomas's respective hearings. Oh yeah, "Imported?"

Check out the percentages:

http://www.jimcrowhistory.org/geography/ly...t_1889-1918.htm

[CCTAU 3,345]

for the record for cctau, film and photography as we know it today wasn't widely available until around 1890 (with the invention of "film" by george eastman... creator of kodak). prior to that, "snap shots" like the one used in the lynching photo didn't exist b/c it took so long to expose the plates and so much equipment was needed (especially for night photography). that's why the civil war photos are all posed or of dead people b/c they weren't going anywhere. so, the only lynching that really took place in america during the 1900's was the public lynchings of black americans generally in the south. therefore, the only photo you can find to display a lynching is from this era, during that time, with those victims. sorry to disappoint your race conspiracy.

Well. That settles it then. Since there were no photos, I guess it never happened. HMMM!

[mcgufcm 4,107]

never said it didn't happen. you just got all in a hissy b/c he chose to SHOW a lynching and it included only black men. i'll give you a dollar if you can find a picture of a white man lynched. i never said it didn't happen, but in this forum, the visual is all you have.

[CCTAU 3,345]

Oh wait. Is this guy white?

Link

[Auburn85 432]

Oh yes, the "Clinton thought it, too" argument.  But he never manipulated the intelligence available to build a case for war. Never talked about the "mushroom cloud" being too late.  Folks try to put all the blame on Tenet for bad intelligence, seemingly forgetting that when he shared the strongest case for invading Iraq based on WMD, Bush said nice try, but he didn't think it was a strong case.  That was Bush's own judgment of the evidence.  Then Tenet said selling the war was "slam dunk case" so Bush then went along?  Bush doubted the strength of the evidence in private, but never in public.  In public, there was never any doubt, only the sense that the threat was definite and imminent.  It was a deception.  When Clinton said, "I did not have sexual relations" that was not a technical lie.  That term means intercourse.  It was an intentional deception, however.  Now the Bush administration is parsing language saying they didn't actually lie.  Buy it if you want.  They were deceptive about the strength of the evidence and the degree of threat.  They may have genuinely believe there was some WMD there, as did others, but they knew there was not incontervertible evidence of the type of imminent threat the hammered on during the drumbeat to war.

Manipulated intelligence? Oh yes, I'm going to lie to the American people that way I can do what my dad wasn't able to do, and that's go after Saddam.

No WMD have been found, but it wasn't just us that thought he had them.

Plus, he had proven he would use them. He killed thousands of his own people.

What if the weapons inspectors did find out? Would they have had to take pictures and show the UN? Would we had removed the WMD and then Saddam?

So oral Sex is not a type of sexual relation? Why would we want to say that Clinton lied? Plying the technicality game is so muh fun.

Kind of like BUSH turning over Rowe vs Wade. He couldn't literally do this.

Many Dems voted to go to the Iraq War. Should they be held accountable too?

And why would anyone vote for the war, but not to fund the war?

[TexasTiger 13,017]

Oh yes, the "Clinton thought it, too" argument.  But he never manipulated the intelligence available to build a case for war. Never talked about the "mushroom cloud" being too late.  Folks try to put all the blame on Tenet for bad intelligence, seemingly forgetting that when he shared the strongest case for invading Iraq based on WMD, Bush said nice try, but he didn't think it was a strong case.  That was Bush's own judgment of the evidence.  Then Tenet said selling the war was "slam dunk case" so Bush then went along?  Bush doubted the strength of the evidence in private, but never in public.  In public, there was never any doubt, only the sense that the threat was definite and imminent.  It was a deception.  When Clinton said, "I did not have sexual relations" that was not a technical lie.  That term means intercourse.  It was an intentional deception, however.  Now the Bush administration is parsing language saying they didn't actually lie.  Buy it if you want.  They were deceptive about the strength of the evidence and the degree of threat.  They may have genuinely believe there was some WMD there, as did others, but they knew there was not incontervertible evidence of the type of imminent threat the hammered on during the drumbeat to war.

Manipulated intelligence? Oh yes, I'm going to lie to the American people that way I can do what my dad wasn't able to do, and that's go after Saddam.

No WMD have been found, but it wasn't just us that thought he had them.

Plus, he had proven he would use them. He killed thousands of his own people.

What if the weapons inspectors did find out? Would they have had to take pictures and show the UN? Would we had removed the WMD and then Saddam?

So oral Sex is not a type of sexual relation? Why would we want to say that Clinton lied? Plying the technicality game is so muh fun.

Kind of like BUSH turning over Rowe vs Wade. He couldn't literally do this.

Many Dems voted to go to the Iraq War. Should they be held accountable too?

And why would anyone vote for the war, but not to fund the war?

145019[/snapback]

The most insignificant point first. When Clinton said "sexual relations" instead of "sex", I knew there was a reason for it. I went to look up the term for the fine distinction he was trying to make. My dictionary defined it as "sexual intercourse." I immediately assumed he had had oral sex. The point: He had every intention to deceive with the statement, but it was technically true. Does he get points for that? Not in my book. Intentional deception and misleading and gross overstatement to get people to believe something is wrong, period.

Most simply put, this was not a war driven by intelligence, b/c as you and other say, Clinton and others believed he had some chemical and/or biological weapons. No intelligent person who followed the matter at all thought he had nuclear weapons. Saddam had used them before on his own people-- true. Before we went in the first time, not since.

This was a war driven by ideology sold as a war driven by intelligence. Most people assumed he had some weapons that could be classified as WMD. The question is what drives you ask 1400 and counting Americans to give their lives and what drives you to cause long-term damage to our economy and standing in the world by insuring deficits for years to come? It was not the intelligence. Our intelligence was not solid, but largely built on speculation and conjecture. That was no secret. This administration reached out beyond the even questionable intelligence to Ahmad Chalabi, a total charlatan, for support for what their ideology told them they should do. Just quit dressing it up and state the real reason we did it. The PNAC crowd wanted to do this long before 9/11 and long before those same people even realized what a threat OBL was. It's a simple fact. If you buy it, then claim it proudly and unequivocally, but cut the constant BS.

[Auburn85 432]

So apparently he felt he had to DRESS IT UP, to go after Saddam.

Because going after Saddam had to be justified? But I guess killing thousands of people for NO apparent reason isn't good enough?

Saddam would have continued to be rewarded for bad behavior by the UN money, supposedly to feed his people.

Here's a couple of questions.. Are our soldiers dying in vein? Is their service for a just-worthy cause or are they over there for nothing?

[TexasTiger 13,017]

So apparently he felt he had to DRESS IT UP, to go after Saddam.

Because going after Saddam had to be justified? But I guess killing thousands of people for NO apparent reason isn't good enough?

145053[/snapback]

Committing troops to war always has to be justified. If this was the reason, then sell that up front.