tabacco
My RSS Feeds
Conservative Vs. Liberal: John Kuethe and Tabacco Go Toe-To-Toe on Bush's Iraq War
«
H E
»
Politics :: Business :: Historical :: War & Peace :: Social Inequity :: Religion ::
Tabacco ::
email
posted Thursday, 13 October 2005
Conservative Vs. Liberal: John Kuethe and Tabacco Go Toe-To-Toe on
Bush's Iraq War
Dialogue With a Conservative Blogger, John Kuethe: Conservative-Thoughts
John Kuethe and I are old adversaries. He publishes a blog: conservative-thoughts.blog-city.com
He recently published an Article, “Bush Sets Record Straight on Terror”. A brief excerpt from the 1st paragraph of his Article:
“.. weak U.S. response to terrorist attacks that took place mostly during the Clinton administration encouraged al Qaida to launch the 9/11 attacks”.
Did Kuethe ever consider the possibility that George W. Bush’s election, itself, might be the main reason for “the 9/11 attacks”?
George W. Bush took office January 20, 2001. That’s almost 8 months prior to 9/11. He had 8 months to “correct” Clinton’s “mistakes”. Instead, he spent 8 months ignoring anything Clinton had done or said to him. George rarely takes responsibility for his own mistakes. Until last month, he never acknowledged that he might have ever made a mistake.
In steps John Kuethe, Bush’s most prolific defender. What follows is a republishing of the back-and-forth between us on this one subject yesterday, October 12, 2005, and today, October 13, 2005, on his blog.
October 12-13, 2005 Comments between John Kuethe and Tabacco:
Tabacco made this comment,
Poll: Americans Favor Bush's Impeachment If He Lied about Iraq
Submitted by davidswanson on Tue, 2005-10-11 12:46. Media
For Immediate Release: October 11, 2005
Poll: Americans Favor Bush's Impeachment If He Lied about Iraq
By a margin of 50% to 44%, Americans want Congress to consider impeaching President Bush if he lied about the war in Iraq, according to a new poll commissioned by AfterDowningStreet.org, a grassroots coalition that supports a Congressional investigation of President Bush's decision to invade Iraq in 2003.
The poll was conducted by Ipsos Public Affairs, the highly-regarded non-partisan polling company. The poll interviewed 1,001 U.S. adults on October 6-9.
The poll found that 50% agreed with the statement:
"If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable by impeaching him."
44% disagreed, and 6% said they didn't know or declined to answer. The poll has a +/- 3.1% margin of error.
Among those who felt strongly either way, 39% strongly agreed, while 30% strongly disagreed.
"The results of this poll are truly astonishing," said AfterDowningStreet.org co-founder Bob Fertik. "Bush's record-low approval ratings tell just half of the story, which is how much Americans oppose Bush's policies on Iraq and other issues. But this poll tells the other half of the story - that a solid plurality of Americans want Congress to consider removing Bush from the White House."
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/3528
America is waking up, it appears. I already signed up to impeach the President. This is a lot more serious than illicit sex, don't you agree?
- Tabacco
comment added :: 12th October 2005, 19:44 GMT-05 :: http://tabacco.blog-city.com/
John Kuethe made this comment,
Democrats have been looking to avenge the Clinton impeachment in any way possible. The “Bush Lied” approach has been the strategy with the longest life, but it will not play out. Illicit sex was the spark but perjury was the crime Clinton committed and the reason he had his legal license suspended for one year by the Bar.
Bush did not lie to go to war in Iraq. He was working with the best intelligence available at the time; George Tennet (kept from the Clinton administration) said it was a “slam dunk” hat the WMD’s were there. This however is not the point. The left keeps its eye in Iraq as if it is an isolated event when in fact it is the chosen battlefield for the War on Terror.
This fact has been corroborated by the letter from Ayman al-Zawahiri to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. In it al-Zawahiri laid out his long-term plan: expel the Americans from Iraq, establish an Islamic authority and take the war to Iraq's secular neighbors, including Lebanon, Jordan and Syria. The final stage, al-Zawahri wrote, would be a clash with Israel, which he said was established to challenge 'any new Islamic entity.' The letter can be read in its entirety here.
However we got to this point Iraq is the front line in the War on Terror, and we must see it through to victory. al-Zawahri believes we will cut and run as we did in Vietnam as evidenced by his quote: “The aftermath of the collapse of American power in Vietnam -- and how they ran and left their agents -- is noteworthy. ... We must be ready starting now. It has always been my belief that the victory of Islam will never take place until a Muslim state is established ... in the heart of the Islamic world," said al-Zawahri. The Democrats and the Cindy Sheehans of this country are playing right into the hands of Al Qaeda, and the fact that they defend this position is reprehensible.
comment added :: 12th October 2005, 21:53 GMT-05
Tabacco made this comment,
"Bush did not lie to go to war in Iraq. He was working with the best intelligence available at the time; George Tennet (kept from the Clinton administration) said it was a “slam dunk” hat the WMD’s were there." - George J. Tenet, former CIA Director under Clinton and Bush, is a Republican (Clinton hired Republicans; Bush doesn't reciprocate, but he claims to have no "litmus tests".) - hardly an unbiased source. Well, either Tenet and Bush were wrong or they lied. America seems to feel they lied - I agree. If George Tenet is your only witness, you have not made a case here.
"letter from Ayman al-Zawahiri to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi" - First, I know nothing about either of these "gentlemen", but the Bush administration got us into this war by using info from Islamics with an agenda against Saddam Hussein when they knew the data was skewed and biased. Quoting from one of "your" enemies does not prove your case either; it only reinforces the fact that Bush was either stupid or deceitful - your choice.
"However we got to this point Iraq is the front line in the War on Terror, and we must see it through to victory." - Why??? Is it because "al-Zawahri believes we will cut and run as we did in Vietnam". Even if al-Zawahri does believe we will "cut and run", that is not sufficient reason for us to "see it through to victory". Again, I ask, "Why must we see it through?" That some Islamic thinks we are cowards, incidentally we are, is no reason to continue a war based on lies and deception and which has nothing to do with liberty, WMDs or nobility - nothing!
Quote all the conservative, Republican, enemy biased sources you wish, none of those make a persuasive case for continued murder, genocide and suicide. I still ask, "Why?"
If Bill and Hillary, Barbara Boxer and Abraham Lincoln wanted to continue this war, I would still ask, "Why?"
- Tabacco
PS "The case of the invading governments for a legitimate war against Iraq had been based largely on the threat of WMDs in the hands of Saddam Hussein, supposedly on the strength of reliable intelligence assessments, including evidence that could not itself be made public.
The resignation of both Tenet and CIA Deputy Director James Pavitt in June 2004 is speculated by some to be directly related to this failure to find the WMDs that the United States used to justify invasion." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Tenet
Wikipedia is an unimpeachable, unbiased source.
comment added :: 13th October 2005, 09:48 GMT-05 :: http://tabacco.blog-city.com/
John Kuethe made this comment,
The WMD issue is played out, if this is what you are hanging your impeachment hopes on you will be waiting a long time.
You will get a kick out of today's post as I criticize conservative talk radio.
comment added :: 13th October 2005, 09:53 GMT-05
Tabacco made this comment,
With Republican controlled Congress, Richard Nixon would escape now. I don't expect success, but I want to force the media to look at the facts and stop ignoring them.
More Research on George Tenet:
"Tenet had warned Bush’s speechwriters not to include a questionable reference to Iraq’s search for nuclear material in Africa, in a speech Bush gave that month in Cincinnati urging passage of a congressional resolution authorizing war. But the same claim was resurrected in Bush’s State of the Union speech three months later.
It was during this same period that, according to the recent book by Bob Woodward, Tenet told Bush and other White House officials, following a CIA presentation on Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction stockpiles, that the case for Iraq’s possession of banned weapons was “a slam dunk.”
In February 2003, Tenet was seated immediately behind Secretary of State Colin Powell when he made his notorious presentation to the UN Security Council summing up what he called the strongest case that could be made against Iraq. Tenet’s presence was intended as a signal that the US intelligence apparatus had irrefutable and convincing evidence that Iraq possessed WMD, had ties to terrorism, and was a threat to US national security." http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/jun20 04/tene-j07.shtml
Again, I note you still haven't answered my question, ""Why must we see it (Iraq War) through?"
Please, no more evasions.
Thank you,
- Tabacco
comment added :: 13th October 2005, 11:44 GMT-05 :: http://tabacco.blog-city.com/
Tabacco made this comment,
Re your comment, "The WMD issue is played out", you made the following statement two posts above:
"Bush did not lie to go to war in Iraq. He was working with the best intelligence available at the time; George Tennet (kept from the Clinton administration) said it was a “slam dunk” hat the WMD’s were there."
With all due respect, in a court of law, if you introduce the subject, I have the right to comment on "your" subject. From your comment, apparently the "WMD issue" is NOT played out, or why would you have brought it up? The WMD issue is not "played out". Far from it, that issue is front and center, even in "Conservative-Thoughts".
- Tabacco
comment added :: 13th October 2005, 12:00 GMT-05 :: http://tabacco.blog-city.com/
John Kuethe made this comment,
I have answered your question in several blog entries but will do so once again. If we pull out and leave the carnage that al-Zarqawi will inflict on the people of Iraq will exceed that which our abandonedment of Vietnam left in its wake.
The terrorists are fighting us not only on the ground but also in the media and the srena of public perception. They are beeting on the weak will of the American Left to see this thing through as their ally in the war.
A quick look al al-Zawahiri's comments tells the tale:
“The aftermath of the collapse of American power in Vietnam -- and how they ran and left their agents -- is noteworthy. ... We must be ready starting now. It has always been my belief that the victory of Islam will never take place until a Muslim state is established ... in the heart of the Islamic world," said al-Zawahri. . . . "More than half of this battle is taking place in the battlefield of the media," he wrote. "We are in a media battle in a race for the hearts and minds of our umma," or community of Muslims, he wrote.
If this does not spell it out for you, you aill not be swayed. You must live with the fact that by fighting to bring the troops home prematurely you are aiding the terrorists.
comment added :: 13th October 2005, 12:02 GMT-05
Tabacco made this comment,
Let me get this straight:
If I beat my wife, that's wrong. But if you beat her, it's OK? I know that's simplistic, but it is a basically accurate description of what you suggest.
If we had never attacked the Iraqi people (your "collateral damage" excuse), there would be 100,000+ still alive, not to mention 1900+ American soldiers. I don't see how much worse it could be if we left now!
No, that's not true - we wouldn't control their oil. That's the reason we're there in the first place. Note our military didn't protect the power plants, reservoirs and hydroelectric facilities when they first got there, they went straight to the oil fields.
So that "humanity" talk is only a cover for imperialism, nothing more. I don't mind crooks, everybody has to make a living, I just can't abide a hypocritical one. If you are a thief, and that's what Bush is, just say so. At least then he would have my respect, if not my approval.
Bottom line: if we weren't there, things would be a lot better for Iraqis, but not so for Halliburton and Texaco. That's why we stay; it has nothing to do with "weak will of the American Left". If our will is so weak, why do I keep on debating you? Why do hundreds of thousands, not just in America but around the world, march in the streets and picket Crawford, TX, and the White House? Think about it! You say things that are exact opposites to the truth. But that is what Karl Rove has taught the "Right". Don't just lie, but lie by 180 degrees.
If you expect our will to be "weak", you have grossly underestimated the good people of the world. "I have met the enemy, and he is George W. Bush and company".
Aiding the terrorists is what George Bush is doing by staying where he is neither wanted nor needed. Without Bush, terrorism would not be recruiting so effectively, much better than the U. S. military, which has missed its recruiting quota every month this year. One of your other posts neglected to mention that fact.
The U. S. being in Iraq is like the fire department putting out a small kitchen fire by destroying your entire home.
Just be honest - it ain't about Iraqi humanity or protecting Americans; it's about Iraqi oil, plain and simple.
- Tabacco
comment added :: 13th October 2005, 13:00 GMT-05 :: http://tabacco.blog-city.com/
Readers: Stay tuned! The day’s not over yet.
T.A.B.A.C.C.O. (Truth About Business And Congressional Crimes Organization)
Bush's Iraq War
Dialogue With a Conservative Blogger, John Kuethe: Conservative-Thoughts
John Kuethe and I are old adversaries. He publishes a blog: conservative-thoughts.blog-city.com
He recently published an Article, “Bush Sets Record Straight on Terror”. A brief excerpt from the 1st paragraph of his Article:
“.. weak U.S. response to terrorist attacks that took place mostly during the Clinton administration encouraged al Qaida to launch the 9/11 attacks”.
Did Kuethe ever consider the possibility that George W. Bush’s election, itself, might be the main reason for “the 9/11 attacks”?
George W. Bush took office January 20, 2001. That’s almost 8 months prior to 9/11. He had 8 months to “correct” Clinton’s “mistakes”. Instead, he spent 8 months ignoring anything Clinton had done or said to him. George rarely takes responsibility for his own mistakes. Until last month, he never acknowledged that he might have ever made a mistake.
In steps John Kuethe, Bush’s most prolific defender. What follows is a republishing of the back-and-forth between us on this one subject yesterday, October 12, 2005, and today, October 13, 2005, on his blog.
October 12-13, 2005 Comments between John Kuethe and Tabacco:
Tabacco made this comment,
Poll: Americans Favor Bush's Impeachment If He Lied about Iraq
Submitted by davidswanson on Tue, 2005-10-11 12:46. Media
For Immediate Release: October 11, 2005
Poll: Americans Favor Bush's Impeachment If He Lied about Iraq
By a margin of 50% to 44%, Americans want Congress to consider impeaching President Bush if he lied about the war in Iraq, according to a new poll commissioned by AfterDowningStreet.org, a grassroots coalition that supports a Congressional investigation of President Bush's decision to invade Iraq in 2003.
The poll was conducted by Ipsos Public Affairs, the highly-regarded non-partisan polling company. The poll interviewed 1,001 U.S. adults on October 6-9.
The poll found that 50% agreed with the statement:
"If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable by impeaching him."
44% disagreed, and 6% said they didn't know or declined to answer. The poll has a +/- 3.1% margin of error.
Among those who felt strongly either way, 39% strongly agreed, while 30% strongly disagreed.
"The results of this poll are truly astonishing," said AfterDowningStreet.org co-founder Bob Fertik. "Bush's record-low approval ratings tell just half of the story, which is how much Americans oppose Bush's policies on Iraq and other issues. But this poll tells the other half of the story - that a solid plurality of Americans want Congress to consider removing Bush from the White House."
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/3528
America is waking up, it appears. I already signed up to impeach the President. This is a lot more serious than illicit sex, don't you agree?
- Tabacco
comment added :: 12th October 2005, 19:44 GMT-05 :: http://tabacco.blog-city.com/
John Kuethe made this comment,
Democrats have been looking to avenge the Clinton impeachment in any way possible. The “Bush Lied” approach has been the strategy with the longest life, but it will not play out. Illicit sex was the spark but perjury was the crime Clinton committed and the reason he had his legal license suspended for one year by the Bar.
Bush did not lie to go to war in Iraq. He was working with the best intelligence available at the time; George Tennet (kept from the Clinton administration) said it was a “slam dunk” hat the WMD’s were there. This however is not the point. The left keeps its eye in Iraq as if it is an isolated event when in fact it is the chosen battlefield for the War on Terror.
This fact has been corroborated by the letter from Ayman al-Zawahiri to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. In it al-Zawahiri laid out his long-term plan: expel the Americans from Iraq, establish an Islamic authority and take the war to Iraq's secular neighbors, including Lebanon, Jordan and Syria. The final stage, al-Zawahri wrote, would be a clash with Israel, which he said was established to challenge 'any new Islamic entity.' The letter can be read in its entirety here.
However we got to this point Iraq is the front line in the War on Terror, and we must see it through to victory. al-Zawahri believes we will cut and run as we did in Vietnam as evidenced by his quote: “The aftermath of the collapse of American power in Vietnam -- and how they ran and left their agents -- is noteworthy. ... We must be ready starting now. It has always been my belief that the victory of Islam will never take place until a Muslim state is established ... in the heart of the Islamic world," said al-Zawahri. The Democrats and the Cindy Sheehans of this country are playing right into the hands of Al Qaeda, and the fact that they defend this position is reprehensible.
comment added :: 12th October 2005, 21:53 GMT-05
Tabacco made this comment,
"Bush did not lie to go to war in Iraq. He was working with the best intelligence available at the time; George Tennet (kept from the Clinton administration) said it was a “slam dunk” hat the WMD’s were there." - George J. Tenet, former CIA Director under Clinton and Bush, is a Republican (Clinton hired Republicans; Bush doesn't reciprocate, but he claims to have no "litmus tests".) - hardly an unbiased source. Well, either Tenet and Bush were wrong or they lied. America seems to feel they lied - I agree. If George Tenet is your only witness, you have not made a case here.
"letter from Ayman al-Zawahiri to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi" - First, I know nothing about either of these "gentlemen", but the Bush administration got us into this war by using info from Islamics with an agenda against Saddam Hussein when they knew the data was skewed and biased. Quoting from one of "your" enemies does not prove your case either; it only reinforces the fact that Bush was either stupid or deceitful - your choice.
"However we got to this point Iraq is the front line in the War on Terror, and we must see it through to victory." - Why??? Is it because "al-Zawahri believes we will cut and run as we did in Vietnam". Even if al-Zawahri does believe we will "cut and run", that is not sufficient reason for us to "see it through to victory". Again, I ask, "Why must we see it through?" That some Islamic thinks we are cowards, incidentally we are, is no reason to continue a war based on lies and deception and which has nothing to do with liberty, WMDs or nobility - nothing!
Quote all the conservative, Republican, enemy biased sources you wish, none of those make a persuasive case for continued murder, genocide and suicide. I still ask, "Why?"
If Bill and Hillary, Barbara Boxer and Abraham Lincoln wanted to continue this war, I would still ask, "Why?"
- Tabacco
PS "The case of the invading governments for a legitimate war against Iraq had been based largely on the threat of WMDs in the hands of Saddam Hussein, supposedly on the strength of reliable intelligence assessments, including evidence that could not itself be made public.
The resignation of both Tenet and CIA Deputy Director James Pavitt in June 2004 is speculated by some to be directly related to this failure to find the WMDs that the United States used to justify invasion." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Tenet
Wikipedia is an unimpeachable, unbiased source.
comment added :: 13th October 2005, 09:48 GMT-05 :: http://tabacco.blog-city.com/
John Kuethe made this comment,
The WMD issue is played out, if this is what you are hanging your impeachment hopes on you will be waiting a long time.
You will get a kick out of today's post as I criticize conservative talk radio.
comment added :: 13th October 2005, 09:53 GMT-05
Tabacco made this comment,
With Republican controlled Congress, Richard Nixon would escape now. I don't expect success, but I want to force the media to look at the facts and stop ignoring them.
More Research on George Tenet:
"Tenet had warned Bush’s speechwriters not to include a questionable reference to Iraq’s search for nuclear material in Africa, in a speech Bush gave that month in Cincinnati urging passage of a congressional resolution authorizing war. But the same claim was resurrected in Bush’s State of the Union speech three months later.
It was during this same period that, according to the recent book by Bob Woodward, Tenet told Bush and other White House officials, following a CIA presentation on Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction stockpiles, that the case for Iraq’s possession of banned weapons was “a slam dunk.”
In February 2003, Tenet was seated immediately behind Secretary of State Colin Powell when he made his notorious presentation to the UN Security Council summing up what he called the strongest case that could be made against Iraq. Tenet’s presence was intended as a signal that the US intelligence apparatus had irrefutable and convincing evidence that Iraq possessed WMD, had ties to terrorism, and was a threat to US national security." http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/jun20 04/tene-j07.shtml
Again, I note you still haven't answered my question, ""Why must we see it (Iraq War) through?"
Please, no more evasions.
Thank you,
- Tabacco
comment added :: 13th October 2005, 11:44 GMT-05 :: http://tabacco.blog-city.com/
Tabacco made this comment,
Re your comment, "The WMD issue is played out", you made the following statement two posts above:
"Bush did not lie to go to war in Iraq. He was working with the best intelligence available at the time; George Tennet (kept from the Clinton administration) said it was a “slam dunk” hat the WMD’s were there."
With all due respect, in a court of law, if you introduce the subject, I have the right to comment on "your" subject. From your comment, apparently the "WMD issue" is NOT played out, or why would you have brought it up? The WMD issue is not "played out". Far from it, that issue is front and center, even in "Conservative-Thoughts".
- Tabacco
comment added :: 13th October 2005, 12:00 GMT-05 :: http://tabacco.blog-city.com/
John Kuethe made this comment,
I have answered your question in several blog entries but will do so once again. If we pull out and leave the carnage that al-Zarqawi will inflict on the people of Iraq will exceed that which our abandonedment of Vietnam left in its wake.
The terrorists are fighting us not only on the ground but also in the media and the srena of public perception. They are beeting on the weak will of the American Left to see this thing through as their ally in the war.
A quick look al al-Zawahiri's comments tells the tale:
“The aftermath of the collapse of American power in Vietnam -- and how they ran and left their agents -- is noteworthy. ... We must be ready starting now. It has always been my belief that the victory of Islam will never take place until a Muslim state is established ... in the heart of the Islamic world," said al-Zawahri. . . . "More than half of this battle is taking place in the battlefield of the media," he wrote. "We are in a media battle in a race for the hearts and minds of our umma," or community of Muslims, he wrote.
If this does not spell it out for you, you aill not be swayed. You must live with the fact that by fighting to bring the troops home prematurely you are aiding the terrorists.
comment added :: 13th October 2005, 12:02 GMT-05
Tabacco made this comment,
Let me get this straight:
If I beat my wife, that's wrong. But if you beat her, it's OK? I know that's simplistic, but it is a basically accurate description of what you suggest.
If we had never attacked the Iraqi people (your "collateral damage" excuse), there would be 100,000+ still alive, not to mention 1900+ American soldiers. I don't see how much worse it could be if we left now!
No, that's not true - we wouldn't control their oil. That's the reason we're there in the first place. Note our military didn't protect the power plants, reservoirs and hydroelectric facilities when they first got there, they went straight to the oil fields.
So that "humanity" talk is only a cover for imperialism, nothing more. I don't mind crooks, everybody has to make a living, I just can't abide a hypocritical one. If you are a thief, and that's what Bush is, just say so. At least then he would have my respect, if not my approval.
Bottom line: if we weren't there, things would be a lot better for Iraqis, but not so for Halliburton and Texaco. That's why we stay; it has nothing to do with "weak will of the American Left". If our will is so weak, why do I keep on debating you? Why do hundreds of thousands, not just in America but around the world, march in the streets and picket Crawford, TX, and the White House? Think about it! You say things that are exact opposites to the truth. But that is what Karl Rove has taught the "Right". Don't just lie, but lie by 180 degrees.
If you expect our will to be "weak", you have grossly underestimated the good people of the world. "I have met the enemy, and he is George W. Bush and company".
Aiding the terrorists is what George Bush is doing by staying where he is neither wanted nor needed. Without Bush, terrorism would not be recruiting so effectively, much better than the U. S. military, which has missed its recruiting quota every month this year. One of your other posts neglected to mention that fact.
The U. S. being in Iraq is like the fire department putting out a small kitchen fire by destroying your entire home.
Just be honest - it ain't about Iraqi humanity or protecting Americans; it's about Iraqi oil, plain and simple.
- Tabacco
comment added :: 13th October 2005, 13:00 GMT-05 :: http://tabacco.blog-city.com/
Readers: Stay tuned! The day’s not over yet.
T.A.B.A.C.C.O. (Truth About Business And Congressional Crimes Organization)
comments