MemeStreams | MemeStreams Discussion

Create an Account

This page contains all of the posts and discussion on MemeStreams referencing the following web page: Mr. O'Neill and Iraq. You can find discussions on MemeStreams as you surf the web, even if you aren't a MemeStreams member, using the Threads Bookmarklet.

Mr. O'Neill and Iraq
by Elonka at 11:58 am EST, Jan 15, 2004

] It's no surprise that Iraq should have come up at Mr. Bush's
] first national security meetings -- after all, the United States
] was patrolling the skies above Iraq to enforce "no-fly" zones.
] Nor is it surprising that the Bush team should have contemplated
] regime change: That was the declared policy of the United States,
] supported by the Clinton administration and Congress.
. . .
] The wisdom of waging war in Iraq is a legitimate and important
] topic of political debate. But the Democratic candidates do no
] favors to their positions when they accept, uncritically, a
] half-unsurprising and half-dubious account, for no better reason
] than that it fits their prejudices.

Amen. It infuriates me to hear political candidates accuse the President of "misleading" people, when those candidates are doing their level best to do misleading of their own! Hypocrites. To accuse someone of "deliberately lying" is a serious charge, and I have no intention of voting for anyone who tosses that kind of language around for no other reason than political posturing.

If a candidate wants to disagree with the Administration, fine. If they say they have an idea for a better and wiser plan, I'm all for hearing it. But this mudslinging crap does nothing for them except to lose my vote.

RE: Mr. O'Neill and Iraq
by k at 1:04 pm EST, Jan 15, 2004

Elonka wrote:
] Amen. It infuriates me to hear political candidates accuse the
] President of "misleading" people, when those candidates are
] doing their level best to do misleading of their own!

i can't speak for the candidates, but the misleading i heard was the justification of the war on the basis of a) Weapons of Mass Destruction and b) Links to Al Queda, both of which were presented as absolute fact, and both of which were designed to prey upon people's fears in order to garner support for the war. Both of those justifications have been shown to be tenuous, as best. If the president had brought this issue to the public on the basis of saddam being a generally dangerous and unsavory influence, who has committed atrocities among his people, and who serves as an example for others who would like to commit such atrocities on us, fine. If he had won support from the public and from congress on the basis of that argument, fine. But that's not what happened. I call that misleading.

] this mudslinging crap does nothing for them except to lose
] my vote.

this statement i couldn't agree with more. negative campaigning, especially in a primary, does nothing but sow disillusionment and disinterest in politics. It inherently serves to disengage people from the political process because it makes them feel that they are working for nothing, that their efforts are being disparaged, and that their candidate is being unfairly damaged. Likewise, why does john kerry need my support? his campaign AGAINST the other candidates (not FOR the nomination) isn't going to be aided by my voice. i certainly disagree with many of the things our president has done, and i'm likely to align with a candidate who has similar feelings, but there are limits to how much negativism is allowable, and at what point you transition drawing attention to a problem into ranting on a single topic, this is a relevant metric.

so far, Carol Mosely Braun is the only candidate who has behaved with nothing but class, and hasn't once sunken to the level of attacks. Alas for the realities of politics.

Mr. O'Neill and Iraq
by Jeremy at 2:11 am EST, Jan 15, 2004

It's no surprise that Iraq should have come up at Mr. Bush's first national security meetings -- after all, the United States was patrolling the skies above Iraq to enforce "no-fly" zones. Nor is it surprising that the Bush team should have contemplated regime change: That was the declared policy of the United States, supported by the Clinton administration and Congress.

Thanks to the Post for taking a moment to review for the benefit of Paul O'Neill and some of the Democratic candidates what was already plainly obvious to anyone actually paying attention to the matters in question.

Perhaps O'Neill was too busy doing crossword puzzles to listen attentively during those NSC meetings, but he could at least bother to read the newspaper once in a while. The Post is only 35 cents on weekdays.