NationStates Jolt Archive

Ahhh the slippery slope is getting more slippery?

Does Rice really think that Congress would have approved such a war without the "smoking gun"? Does she think that the UK would have supported the US without the "smoking gun"?

http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/news_service/middle_east_full_story.asp?service_id=5067

Condoleezza Rice, the U.S. national security adviser, said Sunday that United States would still go to war on Iraq even if it had known that Saddam Hussein possessed no weapons of mass destruction.

And more....

“He was someone who had an insatiable appetite for weapons of mass destruction. He had the means, he had the intent, he had the money to do it,” Rice told the Fox News on Sunday.

So now, any country that has an appetite is fair game?

Did you just quote aljazeera news? Seriously man....could you post MORE flamebait?

:headbang: :headbang:

Ahhh the slippery slope is getting more slippery?


“He was someone who had an insatiable appetite for weapons of mass destruction. He had the means, he had the intent, he had the money to do it,” Rice told the Fox News on Sunday.



I cant help but wonder if he had the means, intent and the money then why did he not have the weapons?
If he had everything he needed to create what he wanted then why did he not create them?
Or did he create them and hide them in one of the neighboring countries?After all we gave him lots of time to prepare for the invasion.

We will most likly never know.

Al Jazeera or Fox News...the difference is in the label only.

Well, at least Rice is getting closer to the truth.

Still waiting for: "We have far-reaching liabilities and loyalties to those who fund us, they want that oil and we were going to get it for them, no matter how or what the rest of the world think."

Al Jazeera or Fox News...the difference is in the label only.

Well, at least Rice is getting closer to the truth.

Still waiting for: "We have far-reaching liabilities and loyalties to those who fund us, they want that oil and we were going to get it for them, no matter how or what the rest of the world think."
Well the planks are falling away from the foundation? :eek:

um, a statement by an official is a statement by an official.

Besides, this is nothing new, Bush has indicated similar sentiments already. I'm frankly not surprised.

And thus...we have at least a dozen other countries to attack.

And thus...we have at least a dozen other countries to attack.

Uh oh, most of Europe have nuclear power plants...
But no oil, phew.
That's why North Korea is uninteresting, too.
Different with Iran.

This is from an article on Fox News:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,60818,00.html

Rumsfeld: Attack Can't Wait
Tuesday, August 20, 2002

"Waiting to be attacked in a Pearl Harbor-like attack where several thousand people were killed results in several thousand people being killed," Rumsfeld said.

"Waiting to be attacked by someone who has been developing and has used weapons of mass destruction where you're looking at risking not several thousand of people but potentially several tens of thousands of people or hundreds of thousands of people is quite a different thing."

That is to instill the "fear".

Then comes the cautions:

Note what Republicans have to say and how it differs from what Rice stated.

Many U.S. allies are resisting the push to oust the Iraqi president, arguing that an invasion cannot be justified without firm proof that Iraq is developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.

Lawrence Eagleburger, secretary of state under the first President Bush, told Fox News Sunday he did not believe a regime change in Iraq is "legitimate policy at this stage, unless the president can demonstrate to all of us that Saddam has his finger on a nuclear, biological or chemical trigger and he's about to use it."

But if intelligence bears that out and "Bush gets up and tells us all that that is what the intelligence shows us, I'll believe him. ... But I need to know — we all need to know, I think — what the purpose is, why is it that we have to do it now," he said.

Some fellow Republicans have in recent days strongly counseled Bush against military action.

Brent Scowcroft, national security adviser under Bush's father and President Ford, wrote in the Wall Street Journal last week: "An attack on Iraq at this time would seriously jeopardize, if not destroy, the global counterterrorist campaign we have undertaken."

In Congress, there is growing unease about the wisdom of taking pre-emptive military action against Iraq without just cause.

Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., said support from American allies was crucial.

"We need to have our NATO allies. This is going to require heavy lifting," Lugar, a senior member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said on NBC's Meet the Press. "Unless we plan this carefully, we're likely to destabilize other countries in the Middle East."

Amazing when we go back and look how this all got to this point?

um, a statement by an official is a statement by an official.

Besides, this is nothing new, Bush has indicated similar sentiments already. I'm frankly not surprised.

And thus...we have at least a dozen other countries to attack.


A statement from an official that COULD be taken out of context is one that could be taken out of context. Who knows if this one was or not I sure dont, but things like this ALWAYS end in someone screaming...well its from a biased source! Just thought id toss it out early. ;)

Another beauty by Rice, this time from CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/22/rice.speech.ap/index.html

"While Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the actual attacks on America, Saddam Hussein's Iraq was a part of the Middle East that was festering and unstable ... was part of the circumstances that created the problem on September 11," Rice said.

Most excellent logic????

Iraq is really stable now huh?

And....... the cop out:

"Rice said she did not know if there are more terrorists operating in Iraq today than before the war, but said the U.S. invasion is not the cause if they are in Iraq."

Bush says there is more coming in???? Terrorism is worse???

Having Rice defend Iraqi policy at this time might backfire?

Ahhh the slippery slope is getting more slippery?

Does Rice really think that Congress would have approved such a war without the "smoking gun"? Does she think that the UK would have supported the US without the "smoking gun"?

http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/news_service/middle_east_full_story.asp?service_id=5067

Condoleezza Rice, the U.S. national security adviser, said Sunday that United States would still go to war on Iraq even if it had known that Saddam Hussein possessed no weapons of mass destruction.

And more....

“He was someone who had an insatiable appetite for weapons of mass destruction. He had the means, he had the intent, he had the money to do it,” Rice told the Fox News on Sunday.

So now, any country that has an appetite is fair game?

Lol. Thats funny, because they did invade even though they knew there were no WMD's

"While Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the actual attacks on America, Saddam Hussein's Iraq was a part of the Middle East that was festering and unstable ... was part of the circumstances that created the problem on September 11," Rice said.
Yeah, what they needed was a good bombing to restore stability! You tell 'em Condie... Well of course the situation in Middle East was part of the problem that created September 11.. but dig a little deeper... Ever wonder where the instability came from?? Here's one of many avenues to look down. Israel. Funding. US.

And since when is invading a country because they're a part of an unstable region justified? Well I'm off to the Caucasus to do me some invading!

In true imperial-nazi fashion, the US of A bully throughout the world. Woohoo, just what Earth needs. Simple solution to the Amis: Fuck off from other countries and leave the world the fuck alone, unless you are asked to act by the UN. Damn Americans who blindly follow their dumb excuse of a president.

I'd like to see the US invade a country which actually does have MWDs. Now that would be funny. You'd be watching it on the TV, wincing, saying "ouch, that's gotta hurt!"

Not going to happen.

I'd like to see the US invade a country which actually does have MWDs. Now that would be funny. You'd be watching it on the TV, wincing, saying "ouch, that's gotta hurt!"

Not going to happen.

Interesting that you should say that. I was watching a doco on the Cuban missile crisis and apparently several hawks in the Kennedy administration were urging him to just nuke Cuba. Such intelligent men...

Lets hope the people pulling Bush's strings are smarter than that.

Considering they are pushing for a new generation of tactical nuclear weapons so they can actually use them, I doubt it.

Umm . . . while I hate teh Bushites, I trust Al-Jazeera no more than them

Interesting that you should say that. I was watching a doco on the Cuban missile crisis and apparently several hawks in the Kennedy administration were urging him to just nuke Cuba. Such intelligent men...

Lets hope the people pulling Bush's strings are smarter than that.
Unfortunately, it doesn't appear that they are any smarter and given the fact that they called for an invasion of Iraq with less than healthy information it appears they were not as smart as JFK's handlers?

Umm . . . while I hate teh Bushites, I trust Al-Jazeera no more than them
While I don't normally reference Al-Jazeera, it was referenced from Fox News and NY Times?

The Dems have added this latest "excuse" to the Bushies long list of excuses for invading Iraq. They are up to 24 excuses now:

http://blog.johnkerry.com/rapidresponse/archives/003309.html

*CanuckHeaven* adds another quarter to the spin cycle.

Unfortunately, it doesn't appear that they are any smarter and given the fact that they called for an invasion of Iraq with less than healthy information it appears they were not as smart as JFK's handlers?

Actually I think it was JFK who had to um, have his handlers handled. :P But yeah, the Bush administration is a worry. Hawk advisors and a president who's a hawk or an idiot or something...Bad news.
Although I think they weren't "stupid" about Iraq per se. It was more about lying and making up reasons to justify a war. (For oil? For military bases in the region? Or out of some deluded sense of self-righteousness?)