Religious Tolerance (or not)

[scoutingagain]

Rooster,

 

I know you asked Packsaddle for this information but I thought I'd oblige.

 

The following are excerpts from speeches made by President Bush on the website Bushcountry.org. This is a good conservative website so I have no doubt you'll trust the source.

 

National Press Conference, March 5, 2003

 

"Iraqi operatives continue to hide biological and chemical agents to avoid detection by inspectors. In some cases, these materials have been moved to different locations every 12 to 24 hours, or placed in vehicles that are in residential neighborhoods.

 

We know from multiple intelligence sources that Iraqi weapons scientists continue to be threatened with harm should they cooperate with U.N. inspectors. Scientists are required by Iraqi intelligence to wear concealed recording devices during interviews, and hotels where interviews take place are bugged by the regime.

 

These are not the actions of a regime that is disarming. These are the actions of a regime engaged in a willful charade. These are the actions of a regime that systematically and deliberately is defying the world. If the Iraqi regime were disarming, we would know it, because we would see it. Iraq's weapons would be presented to inspectors, and the world would witness their destruction. Instead, with the world demanding disarmament, and more than 200,000 troops positioned near his country, Saddam Hussein's response is to produce a few weapons for show, while he hides the rest and builds even more.

 

Inspection teams do not need more time, or more personnel. All they need is what they have never received -- the full cooperation of the Iraqi regime. Token gestures are not acceptable. The only acceptable outcome is the one already defined by a unanimous vote of the Security Council -- total disarmament.

 

Great Britain, Spain, and the United States have introduced a new resolution stating that Iraq has failed to meet the requirements of Resolution 1441. Saddam Hussein is not disarming. This is a fact. It cannot be denied.

 

Saddam Hussein has a long history of reckless aggression and terrible crimes. He possesses weapons of terror. He provides funding and training and safe haven to terrorists -- terrorists who would willingly use weapons of mass destruction against America and other peace-loving countries. Saddam Hussein and his weapons are a direct threat to this country, to our people, and to all free people.

 

If the world fails to confront the threat posed by the Iraqi regime, refusing to use force, even as a last resort, free nations would assume immense and unacceptable risks. The attacks of September the 11th, 2001 showed what the enemies of America did with four airplanes. We will not wait to see what terrorists or terrorist states could do with weapons of mass destruction."

 

From speech to the UN Sept 12, 2002

 

"Today, Iraq continues to withhold important information about its nuclear program -- weapons design, procurement logs, experiment data, an accounting of nuclear materials, and documentation of foreign assistance. Iraq employs capable nuclear scientists and technicians. It retains physical infrastructure needed to build a nuclear weapon. Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon. Should Iraq acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year. And Iraq's state-controlled media has reported numerous meetings between Saddam Hussein and his nuclear scientists, leaving little doubt about his continued appetite for these weapons."

 

The above statements sound pretty certain to me. Now the President's own inspection team has pretty much refuted the so called facts related to WMD.

 

I don't know if these statements were made deliberately or not. I will agree the war is the result of a serious intelligence failure. The question is whose intelligence failed?

 

My appologies for taking the thread off track guys. However the issue of religious tolerance seems to creep into politics way too often these days.

 

SA

 

 

[Rooster7]

SA,

 

I will agree the war is the result of a serious intelligence failure.

 

I disagree that the war was the result of an intelligence failure. I would agree that some bad information might have been offered to the American public as a result of an intelligence failure. Theyre not the same.

 

This war needed to be fought. I have not seen any new information that suggests that we should not have avoided this war. The worse case scenario: We rid the world of a cruel regime whichMAY not have been as big as an immediate threat to others as we originally thoughtBUT before that regime was able to build itself up any further and do more damage to Iraqs people, their neighbors, and the world in general.

[Proud Eagle]

Some other interesting thoughts.

 

The various weapons reports that have come out since the invasion have provided some useful information. They have indicated that no significant WMD finds have taken place. They have indicated that further searching is not likely to turn up any significant finds. The going theory is that is because there are no giant stockpiles left in Iraq. As to weather or not that means Saddam didn't have as much as we thought, or he destroyed most of it, or sent most of it to other countries we don't really know. Is is possible he never had WMD? Well, no, we have hard evidence that at some point he did have some WMD. Is is possible that some place out in the middle of the sands, or under some parking lot, there are thousands of tons of weapons? Yes, it is possible.

 

Also, the possibility that the weapons went to another country should not be overlooked. After all, we would have no way of finding the stuff if it is hidden outside of Iraq.

 

We know that a great deal of the documentation relating to WMD and other military, weapons, and intelligence programs in Iraq were either destroyed or hidden before the war. Then some of the information that remained was destroyed by the fighting of the invasion. This makes it very difficult to find out exactly what was going on.

 

We know there were multiple programs going on to deceive various elements of the government within Iraq, being carried out by other parts of the same government. Some projects would produce false progress reports stating they were doing better than they actually were, others were hiding their progress for various reasons.

 

We know the UN inspectors were systematically mislead. We know the extent of the misinformation campaign against them was larger than ever previously thought. Why exactly would Iraq want to mislead the UN if it was complying with the UN's mandates?

 

We know many members of the regime thought there were weapons, while many others thought there were no weapons. It appears there may have been a campaign to conceal the truth from even many of the highest government officials. As to what exactly the truth is or was, and why some were told something else remains a mystery.

 

We know that the human rights and humanitarian situation were in fact far worse than had been believed. The people of Iraq were suffering greatly do to the actions and inactions of Iraq's leaders.

 

We know that Iraq, being a major oil nation had elements of a major petro-chemical refining and production system. We know that much of this capacity could be turned into either conventional or unconventional weapons productions in a relatively short period of time.

 

We know that Iraq had weapons scientist, research works, and past experience that would enable it to produce WMD without much trouble.

 

We know that Iraq was working on delivery systems that would have been most useful had they been loaded with WMD.

 

We know that Iraq supported terrorism against Israel.

 

We know Iraq at least had contact with other terrorist groups.

 

We know terrorists were in Iraq before the war (were they invited or did the sneak in? hard to know for certain, but Iraq was basically a police state, so there would have been easier countries to go to).

 

We know terrorist training activities took place in Iraq.

 

We know Saddam ruled by fear.

 

We know he relied on the continued fear/respect of his neighbors to help secure his position.

 

We know that a great deal of what we were told by the Iraqi government, by Iraq's neighbors, by the other world powers, by Iraqi defectors, by the UN, and by our own intelligence services was incorrect. Perhaps this was just a mistake, perhaps Iraq was intentionally putting on a ruse, perhaps there is one of those wacky global conspiracies underway involving people in tin foil hats.

 

We know that the President presented information to the American people that now appears to most likely be false. We know much of this information was given to the President by our intelligence services, and that the leaders of those services presented a picture much like that of the President. (Were there voices of dissent? Yes. Were they the people personally advising the President, probably not. After all, recall what DCI Tennet said about Iraq and WMD.) So, did the President intentionally mislead people? I don't think so. Did he perhaps present a picture that was not necessarily the same as what he was presented? I don't know. Was the picture presented to the President purposefully distorted for some reason? Quite possibly, after all, Washington bureaucrats have been known to try to make the boss happy once or twice.

 

My personal opinion on the matter:

Saddam had WMD programs that were carefully concealed. Before the war any actual WMD or items that could not be passed off as civilian equipment were moved or hidden beyond all hope of being recovered. Saddam ordered a purge of the information related to these programs for the purpose of forcing the US to expend massive resources searching for and piecing back together the information on these programs. He also probably wished to decrease his chances of being shot/hung/etc if he was caught. Saddam probably had the intention of doing the following, had the war not taken place:

1. Carry on a deception program so no one could be totally certain of the truth.

2. Convince the UN he had finely become clean of WMD.

3. Continue his programs at a low level so that they would not be detected but WMD production could be started later.

4. Use pressure on the UN through human rights groups, friendly foreign powers (France, etc), and other means to force the sanctions and oil-for-food to be ended.

5. Increase his oil revenues.

6. Use the money to rebuild his war machine.

 

If we had not gone to war the sanctions would have eventually been ended. Iraq would have risen back to a position of regional power. By the time we would have been able to gather information on this, and convince others of it, Saddam would have reconstituted at least part of his offensive systems and WMDs, making it riskier to take him on again.

 

The President knew Saddam would rearm, if not today, then tomorrow. The President knew that this was the last chance to get the world to act before the world political opinion shifted in favor of letting Saddam off. The President also knew that there were only two choices, face conflict now, or face it later. The President chose to go now while the danger appeared less. Perhaps if he had waited a few years more would have joined us, but what could Saddam have done to strike out by then? What plans could he have laid in that time? How much better prepared would Saddam have been? How much harder would the eventual confrontation have been?

 

There are many questions we may never know the answers to. Decisions of war and peace, life and death, are often made with incomplete and inaccurate information. In the end someone must make a judgment call. The President was willing to make the choice, and he chose action. Was it the right choice? None on this earth can know for certain.

 

What is certain, is that was has been done is done.

 

We must now forge ahead and make the best of things.

 

Onward to victory, and God's speed to those who will carry us there.

[packsaddle]

Rooster7, you are aware of this and similar headlines, right? "Duelfer Report and President Bush confirm there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq" taken from:

http://www.newstarget.com/002298.html

 

It is a telling thing - when the worst criticism of a man is supported by quoting him accurately.

Here are a few:

 

In the 48-hour warning to Saddam on March 17, 2003, Bush said, "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves NO DOUBT that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.... The terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country or any other."

 

5 February 2003: Colin Powell to the UN Security Council, "There can be NO DOUBT that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more. And he has the ability to dispense these lethal poisons and diseases in ways that can cause massive death and destruction. If biological weapons seem too terrible to contemplate, chemical weapons are equally chilling"

 

In August 2002, Vice President Cheney said: "Simply stated, there is NO DOUBT that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us."

 

On March 30, a week and a half after the start of the invasion, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld boasted about the weapons of mass destruction, "We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat."

Meaning, I suppose, somewhere on the planet.

 

4 December 2002: When questioned about the validity (read doubt) of these claims, the White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said, "The president of the United States and the secretary of defense would not assert as plainly and bluntly as they have that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction IF IT WAS NOT TRUE, and if they did not have a solid basis for saying it"

 

Long ago a South Carolina politician had the occasion to describe a particular group of local politicians as: small men, scrambling to get to the top of a heap of their own dung. The description seems appropriate. I just wish they wouldn't drag the rest of us with them.

 

I could fill pages of this forum with these quotes. Even an illiterate person must have heard these men say these things - I certainly did. I listened carefully and I do remember the reason we did this thing. Because of the lie, we rushed to war with the genious-inspired tactic of 'Shock and Awe'. Then we stormed in with a relatively small force, knowing that they would welcome us with open arms and leaving the infrastructure and a lot of arms and ammunition open to looting and sabotage. And then we disbanded their army, thereby increasing the number of able-bodied Iraqi men without employment...except these were trained in warfare so many of them DID find employment in the subsequent insurgency. THIS was the war we needed to fight? Right now? For this lie? With such apocalyptic incompetence? My heart goes out to all the good men and women who have died and will continue to die because of this lie and the families whose futures have been and will be destroyed because of this lie.

 

The concept of an intelligence failure is ambiguous. Because the intelligence agencies actually DID state their findings in terms of uncertainty, the intelligence failure was more likely by either a monumentally stupid man and his toadies, or by us for believing him (and I was one of them). Perhaps both.

 

But in the spirit of quotations, Rooster7, I now quote you, "I have not seen any new information that suggests that we should not have avoided this war."

Worthy of Bush himself, after disentangling all the conflicting negatives, I think I quite agree.

[OldGreyEagle]

So, I remember a clip of John Kerry saying there was no doubt that Saddam had WMD, does that mean had Kerry won we would still have a "liar" in the White House?

[packsaddle]

That's what I meant by the 'dragging us with them' part. I also repeated the administration line, "No Doubt" to friends and acquaintances. The test would be if he continued to insist after he was in the White House and knew better. Sadly, we'll never know. But we sure do about the current occupant.

[Proud Eagle]

There is no doubt that God created the world.

 

That is quote I have heard many people say.

 

Why do they say it? Because the have no doubts about that issue. Due to a combination of evidence, reason, and faith they have come to a very definitive conclusion.

 

Now, when the President makes a statement in a similar way, I take it to mean he has no doubts. If you assume it means no one in the government has doubts, or no one any where has doubts, then you are an idiot. After all, you can find someone somewhere that believes anything. Chances are, the same applies to the government.

 

For thousands of years, people have reached concrete, solid conclusions within their own minds about issues of religion with only a tiny shred of real hard evidence. People similarly form opinions and conclusions about many other things based on only small amounts of information. People also come to conclusions based on inaccurate information.

 

It is not logical to think that on an issue informed by information, that is by its very nature prone to being incomplete and inaccurate, should be an issue on which there is no doubts expressed by someone in some place.

 

The most critical bit of information that bursts the Bush saying "no doubts" as speaking for everyone is the fact that there were people in government who had access to current intelligence, and others who had been in government and once had access to intelligence, who expressed doubts and provided arguments behind their doubts. If you didn't notice this fact tough. The President never has, and never will, speak for every person in government service or for every American. So, when the President makes a statement such as those, it should be taken to indicate that he has no doubts.

 

After all, if the President came out and said that there is no doubt that God created the Earch because he has seen credible evidence that supports that, you wouldn't be surprised to find someone at CIA, or NASA, or one of those places who did have some doubts.

[Rooster7]

Pack,

 

But in the spirit of quotations, Rooster7, I now quote you, "I have not seen any new information that suggests that we should not have avoided this war."

 

Worthy of Bush himself, after disentangling all the conflicting negatives, I think I quite agree.

 

Guilty as charged this was truly bad grammar on my part. Now admitting my syntax error, I stand my sentiment. Our President did the right thing. Our President is an honorable man. The fact that no WMDs have been found proves very little. As previous posts have indicated, there are many strong possibilities as to where they might be, or how they may have been disposed, and they preclude the assumption that our President is a liar. I realize, among liberals, it is more popular to conclude that a conservative President is a liar, than any other plausible explanation. Yet, I never thought that this kind of cheap politicking would extend into times of crisis.

 

[packsaddle]

Rooster7, he gained my contempt the old-fashioned way, the same way my students get an 'F' or any other grade - Bush earned it. You can dismiss what I think with application of a term, but loss of life to me is an expensive price to pay for a lie, not cheap.

FYI, I felt the same way about Lyndon Johnson after I understood the nature of his deception and then I voted for Nixon, of all things, who turned out to be the grandmaster of liars. Then Ford and Carter came along as two fundamentally honest men. The people made short work of them...I stand by the Mencken quote.

To me a liar is a liar. Their political affiliation is unimportant.

I am not one who clings to an idol or an idea after it has been uncovered as false. Know anyone who does? H'mmm? That's called a self-deception.

[Rooster7]

Pack,

 

I am not one who clings to an idol or an idea after it has been uncovered as false. Know anyone who does? H'mmm? That's called a self-deception.

 

Excluding no one except for God, the possibility that I have misplaced my trust in someone is very real. Yet, my confidence in Bush is not a matter of blind loyalty. While I like the man, I trust his leadership because I believe his speeches and his actions have been consistent and truthful. Nothing that you have noted makes him a liar. Furthermore, we (the general public) are in no position to second-guess what he knew then, what he knows now, and what we may never know as a matter of national security. The President is not playing a game of monopoly with the world. He would be a fool and a traitor to this nation, if he revealed everything he knows simply to keep liberal hounds from nipping at his feet. Something by the way that never even struck John Kerrys conscience as he was debating Bush prior to the election. The foolishness of these times is incredible. Unfortunately, it appears that liberals will never come to this realization. At least not until 1) they bait conservatives into doing something stupid, and/or 2) they get their wish and they govern these United States for a long enough period to bring calamity to all of us.

 

[acco40]

I wondered how long it would take Rooster to pull out the "liberal" card. I must admit, it took longer than I thought.

 

The "war" between Bush and Saddam was personal. Bush I invaded Iraq and left Saddam with egg on his face. Saddam put out a hit on Bush I that failed. Bush II "demanded" that Saddam act according to his wishes. Saddam refused. Bush II sent in troops. Bush would have found any reason at all to topple Saddam. My guess is that if Bush II demanded that Saddam build WMDs Saddam would have disarmed.

 

What was most troubling to me was that our country has now approved a policy of pre-emptive strikes against a nation that does not pose an immediate threat. That - my friends - scare the heck out of me. Who will we pre-emptively attack next - the French because they don't support us? Cuba, because Castro thumbs his nose at us? Canada because she dumps snow on us? Our country should occupy the moral high ground and not stoop so low as the Saddam's, Stalins, Hitlers, etc. of the world. What is our justification for NOT invading Somalia, N. Korea, Chechnya, etc. Lack of oil?

[Rooster7]

The "war" between Bush and Saddam was personalSaddam refused. Bush II sent in troops. Bush would have found any reason at all to topple Saddam.

 

Just how long does one wait? We have a man who kills indiscriminately. He gassed thousands of Kurds. He supported anyone willing to do harm to America. Terrorists visited his country as if it was an Oasis. Without WMDs, there were compelling reasons to invade Iraq. Was Bush supposed to ignore all the red flags? Was NAZI Germany in the early thirties as blatantly obvious about their potential and their willingness to do evil? And by the way, George H. Bush was not just George Ws father; he was the President of these United States. Is your vision so blurred by politics that youre willing to color an assignation attempt on our President as a personal squabble?

 

What was most troubling to me was that our country has now approved a policy of pre-emptive strikes against a nation that does not pose an immediate threat.

 

Yes, lets wait until their ability to kill millions of Americans matches their desire to do so.

 

That - my friends - scare the heck out of me.

 

What scares me is a society that increasingly believes that humanity will come together to sing one big happy song, if we were just more willing to overlook a few indiscretions. This is the same line of thinking that brought us the probation systema system that releases pedophiles, rapists, and cold-blooded killers because they had a good record in prison. Yeah, lets pretend that North Korea and Iran are really our friends.

 

Who will we pre-emptively attack next - the French because they don't support us? Cuba, because Castro thumbs his nose at us? Canada because she dumps snow on us?

 

Yeah right. Thats real. Keep it up; Im sure youre convincing all the fence sitters.

 

Our country should occupy the moral high ground and not stoop so low as the Saddam's, Stalins, Hitlers, etc. of the world.

 

And how do we do that? By ignoring the slaughter of thousands? By pretending that they dont have evil intent? By waiting until their ability to do harm to us matches their rhetoric?

 

What is our justification for NOT invading Somalia, N. Korea, Chechnya, etc.

 

Did it ever occur to you that we should not, indeed we cannot, approach every problem with a one size fits all mentality? For example - If North Korea already has nuclear capability; a military solution becomes problematic. Thats to not say, its out of the realm of possibility. However, this factor cannot be ignored or played down.

 

Lack of oil?

 

You know - anytime anyone comes into the Presidency and its not straight out of the Peace Corps, this kind of nonsense is bantered about as if its fair game. I could come up with some ridiculous reasons as to why Clinton refused to take military action against some countries too, but thats just too easy and no less of a cheap shot. If you really believe we have a President thats putting thousands of troops in harms way for personal gain, then you should be leading a revolution. Otherwise, your rhetoric is the worst kind - incredulous, slanderous, and spiteful.

(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

[Hunt]

I find it hard to accept that very many people still think the WMDs were actually there, but have mysteriously disappeared. Even the Bush administration is not pushing that idea. It seems to me that a lot of people voted to reelect Bush in spite of the fact that they knew they'd been misled about the reasons for invading Iraq. I guess they felt they had enough other reasons to vote for Bush, or against Kerry.

 

Back to the tolerance topic for a second. I, personally would have no problem with a Scout referring to his personal faith at his own Eagle ceremony. That event is about his own development, and his religious faith is part of it. However, I do think that respect for the non-sectarian nature of Scouting means that Scouts and Scouters should understand when it isn't appropriate to refer to a particular religious faith--and that would be during non-sectarian services and prayers and the like. A person who feels that he or she cannot offer a nonsectarian prayer should probably decline to pray publicly in such a situation.

[Eagledad]

>>A person who feels that he or she cannot offer a nonsectarian prayer should probably decline to pray publicly in such a situation.

[Hunt]

I don't want to restrict the scouts--rather, I want to teach them when it is appropriate to restrict themselves, out of respect to people with differing (and especially minority) viewpoints. I wouldn't make a big deal about an occasional mention, but if you end every meeting with a prayer that invokes Jesus, you're not welcoming people of other faiths. I also don't think it's enough to give the minority Scout his turn to offer a prayer invoking his own deity--you're still emphasizing his position as a minority.

 

Here's a real-life analogy. In my son's patrol there is a Jewish scout who does not eat pork. In my view, the patrol should never include pork on their menu when that scout is going to be present. They also should not make a big deal of the sacrifice they are making by eating turkey bacon--they're should do it out of respect for a brother scout, not because they "have to."