NationStates Jolt Archive

there is considerable evidence that these Demo-gogues and their colleagues believed Iraq had WMD long before President George Bush came to Washington. Here is a small sample of that evidence from the Clinton years:

Bill Clinton: "If Saddam rejects peace, and we have to use force, our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

Madeleine Albright, Clinton Secretary of State: "We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."

Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Advisor and Classified Document Thief: "[Saddam will] use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has ten times since 1983."

Harry Reid: "The problem is not nuclear testing; it is nuclear weapons. ... The number of Third World countries with nuclear capabilities seems to grow daily. Saddam Hussein's near success with developing a nuclear weapon should be an eye-opener for us all."

Dick Durbin: "One of the most compelling threats we in this country face today is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Threat assessments regularly warn us of the possibility that...Iraq...may acquire or develop nuclear weapons."

John Kerry: "If you don't believe...Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me."

John Edwards: "Serving on the Intelligence Committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons, it's just that simple. The whole world changes if Saddam ever has nuclear weapons."

Nancy Pelosi: "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons-inspection process."

Sens. Levin, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Dodd, Kerrey, Feinstein, Mikulski, Daschle, Breaux, Johnson, Inouye, Landrieu, Ford and Kerry in a letter to Bill Clinton: "We urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions, including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

After President Bush was sworn into office in 2001, his administration was handed eight years worth of intelligence analysis and policy positions from the Clinton years -- you know, the years of appeasement when Saddam was tolerated, when opportunities to take out Osama bin Ladin were ignored, as was the presence of an al-Qa'ida terrorist cell in the U.S. -- which reared its head on 9/11.

In the weeks prior to the invasion of Iraq, Democrats, who had access to the same intelligence used by the Bush administration (much of which was compiled under the Clinton administration), were clear about the threat of Iraq's WMD capability.

Ted Kennedy: "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

John Kerry: "I will be voting to give the president of the U.S. the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security. ... Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein."

Hillary Clinton: "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock. His missile-delivery capability, his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including al-Qa'ida members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

Carl Levin: "We begin with a common belief that Saddam Hussein...is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."

Al Gore: "We know that he has stored nuclear supplies, secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

Bob Graham: "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has and has had for a number of years a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."

For the record: Here's a partial list of what didn't make it out of Iraq before the OIF invasion: 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium, 1,700 gallons of chemical-weapon agents, chemical warheads containing the nerve agent cyclosarin, radioactive materials in powdered form designed for dispersal over population centers, artillery projectiles loaded with binary chemical agents, etc. Assuming Irag had no WMD because only small caches were recovered after Operation Iraqi Freedom began is perilously flawed logic. That, in no way, affirms what he spirited out through Iran and Syria before OIF.

All of which means dick. Were any of those Democrats working with the same raw intel that the White House was? No--that's what the article I posted in my thread makes perfectly clear. That's why there's a legitimate argument that the Bush White House lied us into this war--they controlled the intel that everyone else used to make their statements on. Only they had access to it all, and they made up a story they liked--that's lying, no matter how you slice it, and your continued insistence to act as though it isn't only shows how dishonest you are.

John Kerry: "If you don't believe...Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me."

No wonder Bush was elected: more people must have thought that Saddam didn't have weapons of mass destruction!
Silly for Kerry to say that :p


John Edwards: "Serving on the Intelligence Committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons, it's just that simple. The whole world changes if Saddam ever has nuclear weapons."

Edwards says: "If" Saddam did'nt have Nukes, but "if" he had them: we would be in trouble.
He never said Saddam had them!

Nancy Pelosi: "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons-inspection process."

Again, did'nt have them, but tryingto get them. Big difference.


Sens. Levin, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Dodd, Kerrey, Feinstein, Mikulski, Daschle, Breaux, Johnson, Inouye, Landrieu, Ford and Kerry in a letter to Bill Clinton: "We urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions, including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

And we bombed those suspect sites: so looks like it doesn't matter anymore.


John Kerry: "I will be voting to give the president of the U.S. the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security. ... Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein."

He is working off Bush's intel now. If Bush's Intel was fabricated (and we know it was now) than is isn't Kery's fault he trusted Bush.


That, in no way, affirms what he spirited out through Iran and Syria before OIF.
Exactly, it does'nt prove he moved them out: because you have to have something to prove it exists.

Any point to this besides, I suspect, trolling?

OYG, they're flip-floppers! :mad:

Any point to this besides, I suspect, trolling?

Oh shut up. All you guys ever do is open up liberal, anti American, communist threads, but those arnt trolling? God forbid someone actually wants to post something "right" (in more ways than one) and they are suspected of trolling for posting poltical statements....Stop being an idiot.

Oh shut up. All you guys ever do is open up liberal, anti American, communist threads, but those arnt trolling? God forbid someone actually wants to post something "right" (in more ways than one) and they are suspected of trolling for posting poltical statements....Stop being an idiot.

I'd like to argue that right and wrong are ambiguous terms: what's right in one person's view is wrong in another's. Tooting your own horn is only gonna stink up the place. Can't we all just get along?

http://pics.livejournal.com/quelconque/pic/000026dg

I'm not one of the Democrats and I don't like them.

Troll away.

What many people fail to realize is that when it started to become obvious the intel was flawed and Iraq had no WMDs, the democrats changed their minds and became against war. And before any conservative propoganda pops up about that (don't get me wrong - I hate liberal propoganda equally and will never watch Farenheit 9/11), remember it's always better to change your mind when what you thought was right is discovered to be wrong than it is to still keep thinking something long after you know it's wrong.
The intelligence leading up the Iraq war was wrong. Probably purposely wrong too, considering the government is trying to keep it as secret as they are and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if it was legit then we all deserve to know every reason behind a war that thousands of our soldiers have died in.

I'd like to argue that right and wrong are ambiguous terms: what's right in one person's view is wrong in another's. Tooting your own horn is only gonna stink up the place. Can't we all just get along?

That's not what he meant by "right."

All of which means dick. Were any of those Democrats working with the same raw intel that the White House was? No.
Actually, yes.

"Serving on the Intelligence Committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons, it's just that simple. The whole world changes if Saddam ever has nuclear weapons."

Democrats, please don't shirk responsibility. The Libertarian and Green parties were the ONLY parties against the Iraq War to begin with.
Don't try to fly that fucking flag at this point, since you were in bed with Bush from the get-go. History speaks for itself on the matter.

I blame BOTH of you! And if this country got smart, so would the voters as well.

Actually, yes.
Is that the Infiothey had when Clinton was President or when Bush was President.

When did Edwards make that quote?

Democrats, please don't shirk responsibility. The Libertarian and Green parties were the ONLY parties against the Iraq War to begin with.
Don't try to fly that fucking flag at this point, since you were in bed with Bush from the get-go. History speaks for itself on the matter.

I blame BOTH of you! And if this country got smart, so would the voters as well.
Here, here.

there is considerable evidence that these Demo-gogues and their colleagues believed Iraq had WMD long before President George Bush came to Washington. Here is a small sample of that evidence from the Clinton years:

*snip*
Most of these people either voted for or supported the war in Iraq.

Oh shut up. All you guys ever do is open up liberal, anti American, communist threads, but those arnt trolling?
Oh shut up. Can't you ever go a day without calling liberals anti-American communists?

Oh shut up. All you guys ever do is open up liberal, anti American, communist threads, but those arnt trolling? God forbid someone actually wants to post something "right" (in more ways than one) and they are suspected of trolling for posting poltical statements....Stop being an idiot.

I took it as his meaning, if I was mistaken, then I apologize

I took it as his meaning, if I was mistaken, then I apologize

Its alright...I mean "right" as conservative...which is why i put it in quotes. But its alright, you made a mistake, no worries.

All of which means dick. Were any of those Democrats working with the same raw intel that the White House was? No--that's what the article I posted in my thread makes perfectly clear. That's why there's a legitimate argument that the Bush White House lied us into this war--they controlled the intel that everyone else used to make their statements on. Only they had access to it all, and they made up a story they liked--that's lying, no matter how you slice it, and your continued insistence to act as though it isn't only shows how dishonest you are.

Funny how everyone else made the same mistake. The British, the French, the Germans, the Isralies, the Americans. And before you say that the intellgence was unclear, all intellegence is unclear.

Most of these people either voted for or supported the war in Iraq.


Oh shut up. Can't you ever go a day without calling liberals anti-American communists?

Nope. I feel the day wasted if I havnt abused and harassed enough pinko-libs.

Pinko= socialist, follower of Marx's philosophy.

Liberal= follower of Adam Smith J.S. Mill et al, proponent of Laissez-faire capitalism.

Pinko-liberal = Contradiction in terms.

This was your Gov/Pol lesson for today, homework is to apply these terms correctly in everyday life.

Not a chance I know but hey...

Funny how everyone else made the same mistake. The British, the French, the Germans, the Isralies, the Americans. And before you say that the intellgence was unclear, all intellegence is unclear.
Funny how all of those groups were in the same boat as the Congress was--relying on the White House for what they considered to be the big picture. It's also funny how of the groups you listed, the French and the Germans thought the war was unnecessary at the time. Obviously they had a slightly different view of the intelligence they saw than the British or the US did.

All of which means dick. Were any of those Democrats working with the same raw intel that the White House was?

I'm sure Bill Clinton and Al Gore were as they were the Whitehouse when they made those statements. So it does mean they, like Bush believed Saddam had WMD.

All of which means dick. Were any of those Democrats working with the same raw intel that the White House was? No--that's what the article I posted in my thread makes perfectly clear. That's why there's a legitimate argument that the Bush White House lied us into this war--they controlled the intel that everyone else used to make their statements on. Only they had access to it all, and they made up a story they liked--that's lying, no matter how you slice it, and your continued insistence to act as though it isn't only shows how dishonest you are.

How is it that Bush has more information than George Tenet at the time?
Who was the DCI? The man with all the intel cards in his hand?

It wasn't Bush... It was Tenet.

It's not a legitimate argument that "Bush lied". During the Clinton Administration, Clinton had access to Tenet - and Clinton believed that there were WMD. Bush subsequently had access to Tenet - and Bush believed that there were WMD.

The common thread here is Tenet saying that Iraq had WMD. And I submit that any President who would ignore his DCI and say, "no, I just have a gut feeling that you're full of it" would be considered an idiot. All that would have to happen after that would be for Tenet to leak the WMD evidence he thought he had, and make whoever was President look like an idiot for not doing anything.

You still haven't shown me a single scrap of evidence to prove that "Bush lied". Not one.

Any point to this besides, I suspect, trolling?

No not trolling. Just pointing out that the Democrats who are now saying the war was not justified because Saddam supposedly did not have WMD, said long before the war, even before Bush II took office, that Saddam did have WMD. So, who are these people trying to fool and why?

Is that the Infiothey had when Clinton was President or when Bush was President.

When did Edwards make that quote?

Those are the statements the Democrats made while Bill Clinton was President. It states that in the article.

I'm sure Bill Clinton and Al Gore were as they were the Whitehouse when they made those statements. So it does mean they, like Bush believed Saddam had WMD.
Yeah, in 1998 when they bombed the shit out of the remaining facilities once Hussein tossed the inspectors. Situation changed a bit after that, didn't it? Every statement made after that was based on little more than guesswork. I hope you're getting paid to try to pass off these lame-ass talking points--I'd hate to think you actually believe any of it.

Funny how all of those groups were in the same boat as the Congress was--relying on the White House for what they considered to be the big picture. It's also funny how of the groups you listed, the French and the Germans thought the war was unnecessary at the time. Obviously they had a slightly different view of the intelligence they saw than the British or the US did.

I suspect some of the reasons the French did not want to go to war was the amount of money they were making in the oil for food program and sale of weapons to Saddam.

How is it that Bush has more information than George Tenet at the time?
Who was the DCI? The man with all the intel cards in his hand?

It wasn't Bush... It was Tenet.

It's not a legitimate argument that "Bush lied". During the Clinton Administration, Clinton had access to Tenet - and Clinton believed that there were WMD. Bush subsequently had access to Tenet - and Bush believed that there were WMD.

The common thread here is Tenet saying that Iraq had WMD. And I submit that any President who would ignore his DCI and say, "no, I just have a gut feeling that you're full of it" would be considered an idiot. All that would have to happen after that would be for Tenet to leak the WMD evidence he thought he had, and make whoever was President look like an idiot for not doing anything.

You still haven't shown me a single scrap of evidence to prove that "Bush lied". Not one.
I've shown you enough to convict of perjury--that you decide to ignore it and continue your blind faith in a man who doesn't deserve it is your own problem. And guess what--60% of the American public believes as I do now, despite the fact that the news media has not done its job until the last couple of months. I guess you're part of that group that can be fooled all of the time.

Two quotes that got my attention:

If you don't believe...Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me.

Serving on the Intelligence Committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons, it's just that simple. The whole world changes if Saddam ever has nuclear weapons.


Neither of those are declarations that we should have invaded Iraq instead of letting the UN inspectors finish their job. They were carefully crafted statements that did not reveal the intentions of either Kerry or Edwards. Call it cowardly, but at most this reveals a sense of political ambivalence, not fervent support for the president's cause.

And yes a lot of other Democrats were mouthing shit off then. But everyone at the time knew that most were just kissing Republican ass because they had no real political power. The truth is that the ball was in the White House's court, they had the decision-making power, and they were the ones who now bear the responsibility for what their actions have brought about.

Plus, if you look back, you'll notice that a lot of the political base the Democrats represented were not in support of invading. And that base, galvanized by groups like MoveOn.org which never did change their stance on the war, is pressing those they elected to office to start representing their views and stop pandering to the people directly responsible for screwing things up. Is it so bad that they're now actually representing the views of the people who keep them in office?

Yeah, in 1998 when they bombed the shit out of the remaining facilities once Hussein tossed the inspectors. Situation changed a bit after that, didn't it? Every statement made after that was based on little more than guesswork. I hope you're getting paid to try to pass off these lame-ass talking points--I'd hate to think you actually believe any of it.

Nazz, get real. How can you not believe a direct quote? Oh, and don't give me this well it is taken out of context crap. The Dems said those things, why can't you accept that? The Dems voted for the war, why can't you accept that? The Dems are now trying to reverse their previous stance, why can't you accept that? They are showing that they are two faced, so why can't you accept that?

Two quotes that got my attention:

Neither of those are declarations that we should have invaded Iraq instead of letting the UN inspectors finish their job. They were carefully crafted statements that did not reveal the intentions of either Kerry or Edwards. Call it cowardly, but at most this reveals a sense of political ambivalence, not fervent support for the president's cause.

And yes a lot of other Democrats were mouthing shit off then. But everyone at the time knew that most were just kissing Republican ass because they had no real political power. The truth is that the ball was in the White House's court, they had the decision-making power, and they were the ones who now bear the responsibility for what their actions have brought about.

Plus, if you look back, you'll notice that a lot of the political base the Democrats represented were not in support of invading. And that base, galvanized by groups like MoveOn.org which never did change their stance on the war, is pressing those they elected to office to start representing their views and stop pandering to the people directly responsible for screwing things up. Is it so bad that they're now actually representing the views of the people who keep them in office?

Ahem, in case you didn't notice, these statements were made while Bill Clinton was President. So when you say, "The truth is that the ball was in the White House's court, they had the decision-making power, and they were the ones who now bear the responsibility for what their actions have brought about" you are refering to the Democrats.

Nazz, get real. How can you not believe a direct quote? Oh, and don't give me this well it is taken out of context crap. The Dems said those things, why can't you accept that? The Dems voted for the war, why can't you accept that? The Dems are now trying to reverse their previous stance, why can't you accept that? They are showing that they are two faced, so why can't you accept that?
God, you're such a tool.

Did those Dems believe those words when they said them? I assume so. But that's not the issue. The question is "why did they believe those statements?" And the short answer is "because they believed the intel the White House provided." Did you get that part? Get your comprehension cap on and read it again just to make sure, because it's the important part.

The White House provided the intel upon which Democratic congresspeople based their decisions. Now if that intel was prepped in such a way so as to leave out dissenting opinions--and it most certainly was--then can the Democratic (or for that matter Republican) congresspeople who based their decisions on that intel be blamed for not questioning it? No--they can't.

So for those who are looking at it now and saying "if I knew then what I know now, I'd never have voted that way" I give a round of applause--and members of both parties have made that statement.

Here's my question--why are you still holding on so blindly in the face of so much evidence that you got used like a condom machine at a swinger bar?

God, you're such a tool.

Did those Dems believe those words when they said them?

So, if they didn't believe them why would they say them? Are you suggesting they are the lackeys of their party spouting whatever the party line happens to be at the time?

The question is "why did they believe those statements?" And the short answer is "because they believed the intel the White House provided." Did you get that part? Get your comprehension cap on and read it again just to make sure, because it's the important part.

And did you not understand those statements were made when the Democrats were in charge of the Whitehouse?

So, if they didn't believe them why would they say them? Are you suggesting they are the lackeys of their party spouting whatever the party line happens to be at the time?
Tell you what--when you actually respond to an entire post instead of clipping shit and going off topic, then we can talk. Until then, try your lame-ass shit on someone else. You might just win an argument that way.

Tell you what--when you actually respond to an entire post instead of clipping shit and going off topic, then we can talk. Until then, try your lame-ass shit on someone else. You might just win an argument that way.

Great! You can not refute the fact the Democrats said those things while they were in charge of the Whitehouse, so you attack the poster by saying I'm going off topic. I love it. Here Nazz, have a cookie and chill out. :fluffle:

Tell you what--when you actually respond to an entire post instead of clipping shit and going off topic, then we can talk. Until then, try your lame-ass shit on someone else. You might just win an argument that way.

Great! You can not refute the fact the Democrats said those things while they were in charge of the Whitehouse, so you attack the poster by saying I'm going off topic. I love it. Here Nazz, have a cookie and chill out. :fluffle:

Tell you what--when you actually respond to an entire post instead of clipping shit and going off topic, then we can talk. Until then, try your lame-ass shit on someone else. You might just win an argument that way.

Great! You can not refute the fact the Democrats said those things while they were in charge of the Whitehouse, so you attack the poster by saying I'm going off topic. I love it. Here Nazz, have a cookie and chill out. :fluffle:

And did you not understand those statements were made when the Democrats were in charge of the Whitehouse?
There were things we didn't know. There were things we knew that we did not know. There are things that we did not know that if we did know them, knowing them would have scared the shit out of us. But we did not know that we didn't know what was not known. So there for... WE DIDN'T GO TO WAR OVER SOMETHING WE DID NOT KNOW. Remember that? Remember how Clinton didn't start a fucking war with Iraq? Because that's actually the important part.
Do you know how big a launch site is for a nuclear weapon that could actually place us in danger from all the way in Iraq? We didn't see any of those so there was no "imminent danger" which is what Bush sold the war on.

Oh shut up. All you guys ever do is open up liberal, anti American, communist threads, but those arnt trolling? God forbid someone actually wants to post something "right" (in more ways than one) and they are suspected of trolling for posting poltical statements....Stop being an idiot.
Now that is trolling and flaming to boot.

Now that is trolling and flaming to boot.
It's like a party for fire-breathing monsters.

Great! You can not refute the fact the Democrats said those things while they were in charge of the Whitehouse, so you attack the poster by saying I'm going off topic. I love it. Here Nazz, have a cookie and chill out. :fluffle:
You can't refute a fucking thing I've written on this entire thread, so you take one statement--which I've explained in another post, by the way--and act as though you've scored some rhetorical point. Whatever helps you sleep at night, dude.

Democrats, please don't shirk responsibility. The Libertarian and Green parties were the ONLY parties against the Iraq War to begin with.
Don't try to fly that fucking flag at this point, since you were in bed with Bush from the get-go. History speaks for itself on the matter.

I blame BOTH of you! And if this country got smart, so would the voters as well.
Word. Down with Republocrats, Democan'ts and RINOs. :headbang:

Ahem, in case you didn't notice, these statements were made while Bill Clinton was President. So when you say, "The truth is that the ball was in the White House's court, they had the decision-making power, and they were the ones who now bear the responsibility for what their actions have brought about" you are refering to the Democrats.

The primary action I was referring to was the invasion of Iraq in 2003. That's what this topic revolves around, yes? I don't think Clinton and the Democrats were responsible for that. When they had the power, they didn't feel compelled to invade a country unrelated to the international jihad, probably because they knew that would be a very foolish thing to do. They may have been suspicious about Iraq and WMD, but obviously they weren't suspicious enough to invade.

But when Bush and the Republicans had the power, they did feel compelled to invade Iraq, for some ungodly reason. That's what this is about. The Dems weren't responsible for ordering the invasion, so don't pretend they were.


And btw this latest Rove-manufactured political stunt of Bush's probably isn't going to work this time. As Bush himself once said: "Fool me once, shame on... shame on you? Fool me... you can't get fooled again!"

Assuming Irag had no WMD because only small caches were recovered after Operation Iraqi Freedom began is perilously flawed logic. That, in no way, affirms what he spirited out through Iran and Syria before OIF.

So put your money where your mouth is. SHOW ME PROOF that material was spirited out through Iran to Syria. If you can't prove this, and are idly speculating, well then who's the one using flawed logic?

Bill Clinton and Al gore never once took us to war with Iraq, even though "they had the same intel as everyone else."

Not one of those quotes Celtund pasted uses the word war.

The French and the Germans had the same intel we had, and yet they objected to the war.

Here's where the Republican (specifically the Bush ass kissers, not good upstanding Repubs in general,) start their mental gymnastics.

See, Clinton and Gore didn't start a war because they were liberal tree huggers and adulterers, not because they thought the evidence wasn't strong enough.

France and Germany (and most of the rest of the world...except for the stray Moroccan Mine Monkey.) didn't go to war with Iraq because they are effete cheese eaters and/or are still suffering from WWII guilt. It can't possibly be because THEY DISAGREED WITH THE US ASSESSMENT OF THE INTELLIGENCE, could it? Naaaaaaaaaa. Couldn't be.

And the ultra-right wingers say WE'RE unamerican! Ha. Keep on following your King George, even when he says "let them eat yellowcake." That's REAL American.

Idiots.

See, it's one thing to SAY someone is guilty. It's another thing to be really certain someone is guilty, but be unable to prove it at the time (Rove.) It's another thing to prove something beyond such a reasonable doubt that you feel confident riskingcountless lives and untold billions of dollars on it.

Bush rushed straight from stage 1 to stge 3 without stopping to listen to contrary evidence.

Word. Down with Republocrats, Democan'ts and RINOs. :headbang:
Syniks, you know what's really funny? We're considered (in many ways publicly) as a very "conservative" party. :rolleyes:
By the far-right, we're thought of (and with good reason) as more "liberal" than the Democrats.

Truth is, we do conservatism, and liberalism better than the Republicans or Democrats could ever hope for while shooting for the middle.
(And we're neither. :p )

I think playing the blame game is stupid. Congress voted for the war, the majority of congress. This means people on both sides. They fucked up. Instead of looking at individuals, we should be looking at the intelligence community, but even moreso, we need to be looking at rectifying the fuck up. Dwelling on the past is idiotic. We need to be looking at fixing the situation. While I have my personal beliefs on it, I won't throw them at people for the sake of staying on topic as much as possible. All I am saying is, spending so much time on such trivial things seems pointless.

I think playing the blame game is stupid. Congress voted for the war, the majority of congress. This means people on both sides. They fucked up. Instead of looking at individuals, we should be looking at the intelligence community, but even moreso, we need to be looking at rectifying the fuck up. Dwelling on the past is idiotic. We need to be looking at fixing the situation. While I have my personal beliefs on it, I won't throw them at people for the sake of staying on topic as much as possible. All I am saying is, spending so much time on such trivial things seems pointless.

You are absolutely right. And part of making sure past mistakes aren't remade involves sacking those who are unrepentant for having made past mistakes and who have said they would do so again if given the chance.

Congress has admitted it made a mistake when they gave the president authorization to use force. The president, however, still thinks that invading Iraq was the right thing to do, and has publicly claimed that he has made no mistakes.

So clearly preventative action to avert another enormous mistake would in some way involve keeping our commander-in-chief from screwing things up more. He's the reason why we're in trouble and the reason why we're still "staying the course" ie still doing the exact same things that got us into this mess. Until that problem's taken care of we'll still be going downhill.

Whatever helps you sleep at night, dude.

My CPAP machine helps me sleep at night. :D

Seems like Howard Dean comes out nicely then...

The primary action I was referring to was the invasion of Iraq in 2003. That's what this topic revolves around, yes?

No. Go back and read Post #1. Here is the link http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=453662

The thread is about what the Democrats said about WMD when Clinton was in office vs what they are saying now.

No. Go back and read Post #1. Here is the link http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=453662

The thread is about what the Democrats said about WMD when Clinton was in office vs what they are saying now.

Did democrats (or Republicans,) support war with Iraq when Clinton was in office? In fact, I remember several Republicans roundly criticizing Clinton for the Iraq airstrikes at the time and attacking his decision to go in to Kosovo.

This isn't about simple staements about WMD, this is about whether anyone, before the Bush administration started playing fast and loose with the intel, considered Iraq enough of an imminent threat to go to war with.

The answer to that, my friend, is an emphatic NO.

Did democrats (or Republicans,) support war with Iraq when Clinton was in office? In fact, I remember several Republicans roundly criticizing Clinton for the Iraq airstrikes at the time and attacking his decision to go in to Kosovo.

This isn't about simple staements about WMD, this is about whether anyone, before the Bush administration started playing fast and loose with the intel, considered Iraq enough of an imminent threat to go to war with.

The answer to that, my friend, is an emphatic NO.
Among cricket cheers as good as silence, there appears a voice of reason. Thanks, GIITR. :fluffle:

My CPAP machine helps me sleep at night. :D
So that's what they replaced your conscience with, huh?

So that's what they replaced your conscience with, huh?

Whos "they", the Russians?

there is considerable evidence that these Demo-gogues and their colleagues believed Iraq had WMD long before President George Bush came to Washington. Here is a small sample of that evidence from the Clinton years:

Bill Clinton: "If Saddam rejects peace, and we have to use force, our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

Madeleine Albright, Clinton Secretary of State: "We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."

Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Advisor and Classified Document Thief: "[Saddam will] use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has ten times since 1983."

Harry Reid: "The problem is not nuclear testing; it is nuclear weapons. ... The number of Third World countries with nuclear capabilities seems to grow daily. Saddam Hussein's near success with developing a nuclear weapon should be an eye-opener for us all."

Dick Durbin: "One of the most compelling threats we in this country face today is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Threat assessments regularly warn us of the possibility that...Iraq...may acquire or develop nuclear weapons."

John Kerry: "If you don't believe...Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me."

John Edwards: "Serving on the Intelligence Committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons, it's just that simple. The whole world changes if Saddam ever has nuclear weapons."

Nancy Pelosi: "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons-inspection process."

Sens. Levin, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Dodd, Kerrey, Feinstein, Mikulski, Daschle, Breaux, Johnson, Inouye, Landrieu, Ford and Kerry in a letter to Bill Clinton: "We urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions, including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

After President Bush was sworn into office in 2001, his administration was handed eight years worth of intelligence analysis and policy positions from the Clinton years -- you know, the years of appeasement when Saddam was tolerated, when opportunities to take out Osama bin Ladin were ignored, as was the presence of an al-Qa'ida terrorist cell in the U.S. -- which reared its head on 9/11.

In the weeks prior to the invasion of Iraq, Democrats, who had access to the same intelligence used by the Bush administration (much of which was compiled under the Clinton administration), were clear about the threat of Iraq's WMD capability.

Ted Kennedy: "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

John Kerry: "I will be voting to give the president of the U.S. the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security. ... Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein."

Hillary Clinton: "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock. His missile-delivery capability, his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including al-Qa'ida members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

Carl Levin: "We begin with a common belief that Saddam Hussein...is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."

Al Gore: "We know that he has stored nuclear supplies, secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

Bob Graham: "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has and has had for a number of years a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."

For the record: Here's a partial list of what didn't make it out of Iraq before the OIF invasion: 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium, 1,700 gallons of chemical-weapon agents, chemical warheads containing the nerve agent cyclosarin, radioactive materials in powdered form designed for dispersal over population centers, artillery projectiles loaded with binary chemical agents, etc. Assuming Irag had no WMD because only small caches were recovered after Operation Iraqi Freedom began is perilously flawed logic. That, in no way, affirms what he spirited out through Iran and Syria before OIF.


All of this means dick.

First, you didn't provide dates.

Second, you ignore the fact that the Bush Administration "cooked the books" in the intelligent assessment to make the above statements seem justified.

Third, you ignore that the Bush Administration buried contradictory evidence or opinions.

These Democrats error was in not believing even GWB would make up a case for invading Iraq out of thin air and in not believing the extent to which the intelligence regarding Iraq was being altered to fit White House priorities.

Well y'know kids, it's all part and parcel of a life lived in denial. Remember to clean the sand out of your ears.

All of this means dick.

First, you didn't provide dates.

Second, you ignore the fact that the Bush Administration "cooked the books" in the intelligent assessment to make the above statements seem justified.

Third, you ignore that the Bush Administration buried contradictory evidence or opinions.

These Democrats error was in not believing even GWB would make up a case for invading Iraq out of thin air and in not believing the extent to which the intelligence regarding Iraq was being altered to fit White House priorities.

Not only that, the post is nothing but a dead horse trolling which is also one huge Ad Hominem Tu Quoque fallacy.

This is a great subject. I'm looking forward to seeing the follow-up on how the Democrats invaded Iraq with too few troops to do the job and no real plan for the occupation or withdrawal.

One of two:

- Either Celtlund believes that it was right to bomb iraq, and I want to see him cheer these democrats :)

or

- Celtlund believes it was wrong to bomb iraq, and will soon post the crap that bushites spewed from their mouths :)

Bill Clinton and Al gore never once took us to war with Iraq, even though "they had the same intel as everyone else."

...

See, Clinton and Gore didn't start a war because they were liberal tree huggers and adulterers, not because they thought the evidence wasn't strong enough.


We actually did, in 1998, during the height of the Monica Lewinsky scandal, attack and destroy the Iraqi WMD programs in Operation Desert Fox (http://www.defenselink.mil/specials/desert_fox/).

The US Navy, Air Force B-52 bombers, and other forces launched cruise missiles at the Iraqi WMD program sites, including a location being used to design and create unmanned UAVs armed with chemical weapons such as nerve gas or biological agents, such as anthrax spores, plus the site developing their long-range missiles.

The mission was widely seen as a success, crippling those plans.

In other words, without stepping foot into the nation, we took care of a great deal of the high-threat targets under the Clinton administration.

Meanwhile, the nation was far more concerned with oral sex, semen stains and impeaching the President.

The critics of the then-seated President accused the administration of using it simply as an election-year diversion.

So when the UNMOVIC arms inspectors went in, they did not find what had already been destroyed. (UNMOVIC was the new inspection after the 1998 strikes, begun in Dec 1999. Iraq had banned the original group of inspectors under UNSCOM; UNMOVIC replaced it.)

It was revealed that it had been the arms inspectors who, under the UNSCOM inspections, told the US military exactly what Saddam Hussein had, and where he had it. That's why they knew exactly where to hit.

It was also the reason why Saddam Hussein's regime was rather unhappy with the later demands to let even more weapons inspectors into the nation, and why they stiff-armed them on many occasions thereafter.

The Iraqi government in 2003 might still have dreamt of having UAVs launching VX attacks against Israel, but apparently that danger had been significantly averted already by the US miltary in 1998.

At the same time, I have come to wonder more precisely at the claims of the UAV/WMD program of Iraq since I first read about it.

Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction (http://www.fas.org/irp/cia/product/iraq-wmd.html) -- October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate

Iraq has largely rebuilt missile and biological weapons facilities damaged during Operation Desert Fox and has expanded its chemical and biological infrastructure under the cover of civilian production.

Baghdad has exceeded UN range limits of 150 km with its ballistic missiles and is working with unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), which allow for a more lethal means to deliver biological and, less likely, chemical warfare agents.

The question becomes one of whether the UAV program remained one which specifically sought to arm with chemical and biological weapons, or whether it was a UAV program that could be turned into one armed with WMD.

In the case of one UAV (Al Qud) program, it was supposed to be a long-endurance system designed for electronic surveilance. It's long range was not intended for WMD delivery. It was also a complete failure of a program. The Mig-21 was dismantled by UNSCOM in 1991. The L-29 programs were unsuccesful and in 2001 the final unmanned test ended with a crash.

The missile program is the same. While the Iraqi leadership might have had visions of gassing Israel, it had not done so, even in GW1 when it clearly had the capabilities.

We assess that Baghdad has begun renewed production of mustard, sarin, GF (cyclosarin), and VX; its capability probably is more limited now than it was at the time of the Gulf war, although VX production and agent storage life probably have been improved.

That was claimed in 2002 in the report that led up to the war. So we need to dig into these intelligence claims.

In 1992, Colin Powell (http://www.boston.com/news/packages/iraq/stories/powell_chem_bio.htm) put forth the case regarding Iraqi WMD claims.

The full CIA Report (http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm) from 2002 can be read online.

One of the issues in the debate over the 2002 CIA report are highly contestable assertions such as:

They have expanded chlorine output far beyond pre-Gulf war production levels—capabilities that can be diverted quickly to CW production.

Yes, they could be, just as the UAVs could be used for CW -- but generally weren't. Otherwise the US would have to destroy all our own UAV program. The question was whether they were actually planning to use them thusly, and immanently. The ones designed specifically for CW were targeted in 1998 by Operation Desert Fox.

The case for war was that we were under a present and direct threat. That Saddam Hussein planned to himself use WMD, or that he would give them to our present enemies. Yes, and his regime were definitely were tricky, double-dealing liars.

We didn't lie. We just exagerated. In 2002 the CIA said:

The al-Dawrah Foot-and-Mouth Disease (FMD) Vaccine Facility is one of two known Biocontainment Level-3—facilities in Iraq with an extensive air handling and filtering system. Iraq admitted that before the Gulf war Al-Dawrah had been a BW agent production facility. UNSCOM attempted to render it useless for BW agent pro-duction in 1996 but left some production equipment in place because UNSCOM could not prove it was connected to previous BW work. In 2001, Iraq announced it would begin renovating the plant without UN approval, ostensibly to produce a vaccine to combat an FMD outbreak. In fact, Iraq easily can import all the foot-and-mouth vaccine it needs through the UN.

In other words, the assertion was that this was a covert CW production facility, because they CIA could not consider any reason why they might want to develop the vaccine domestically.

This, and the Castor Oil plant mentioned just below in the report were similar arguments put forth.

UNSCOM had been ejected after Operation Desert Fox in 1998, since the Iraqis were convinced (and were correct) that the US had known where to hit because of their inspection information.

The problem is that by 2002 the CIA was putting forward information that there were facilities that might be used for WMDs, that could be applied to NBC productions. The new inspections were often blocked or met with belligerence.

The paranoia and distrust between Baghdad and Washington was so great between 1991 to 2002, and especially after the 1998 Operation Desert Fox strikes, that the truth was difficult to establish. Baghdad was renown for their pathological lying.

"You have biological weapon bombs."

"No we don't."

"What's that?" (pointing to a bomb)

(shrug)

That's what UNSCOM was like during much of the early 1990s.

However, by 2002, and UNMOVIC, the opposite could be said to be the case. The CIA began to stretch the threat, and began rhetorically to hype Iraq's potential WMD capabilities by painting them as actual and current threats.

So let's look at the sites identified in 2002, and see what they found since then in 2003-2005 under US direct military presence.

It's instructive to read the Iraq WMD 2004 (http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap5_annxD.html) report from the CIA, and compare it to the 2002 report.

Chlorine/Phenol Plant (Formerly Fallujah II): Leading up to OIF, this plant was not fully operational, and was unlikely to have provided any basic chemicals such as chlorine or phenol to an Iraqi CW effort. Because of technical problems, the plant could not even supply local markets with its products.

Castor Oil Production (Formerly Fallujah III)

Castor oil was also produced at Tariq from 1992 until 2002, but ISG investigations did not uncover any indication that the ricin-containing mash was further processed or transferred off-site for any purpose. According to interviews with Tariq officials, they complied with UNSCOM regulations by burning the residual castor bean mash in pits near the Fallujah III facility.

Castor oil production ended in 2002 because of rising prices of castor beans and decreasing customer interest. Two companies interested in purchasing Tariq’s castor oil were Ibn Al-Baytar and Samarra Drug Industries, but ultimately neither company purchased Tariq’s oil because its process used solvent extraction and rendered the oil unfit for pharmaceutical and medical uses, according to the same interviews.

Chlorine (Formerly Fallujah II)

Chlorine, a feedstock for some CW precursors, was produced at Tariq from 1993 to 1996,and sporadically thereafter; however, ISG has not discovered any information that indicates chlorine from the plant was diverted to a CW program. During an ISG site visit, the director of the phenol plant stated that chlorine production had stopped months before OIF. Reporting indicates the facility was unable to obtain membranes—the key component of the technology at Tariq—to separate the chlorine.

There are other examples of a phenol production facility that was actually used for making molds, but it was being little used because of problems, etc.

Because of feared repercussions and the awareness of the dual-use nature of Tariq’s products, officials at Tariq were often reported as hesitant to allow or support research that could be considered CW-applicable by the international community... Huwaysh stated that he went out of his way to make sure that no CW research was going on, even to the point of canceling the Tariq research center in Baghdad.

How about their biological weapons? Let's look at Chapter 6 (http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap6.html) of the report.

Despite evidence of Iraq’s intent to develop more dangerous biological agents after Desert Storm, ISG uncovered no indications that biological agents were researched for BW purposes post-1991, even though Iraq maintained—and in some cases improved—research capabilities that could have easily been applied to BW agents. ISG’s investigations found no direct evidence that the expertise or equipment were being used specifically for BW work. That said, ISG judges that further R&D on the agents weaponized pre-1991 was probably not required. Additional agents would have required extensive R&D, in ISG’s judgement, but despite concerns that surrounded the possible addition of other, more pathogenic, agents into the viral BW program, no evidence has been found by ISG.

What about the Al-Dawrah vaccine facility?

"We're growing cucumber and eggplant," workers in a garden corner of the compound told reporters.

"It is very good cooperation," former factory director Montasser Omar Abdel Aziz told reporters, who were allowed onto the factory grounds after the inspection. He said inspectors swabbed many samples from an air-filtration system, tanks and other fixtures.

Asked why the U.N. monitors might suspect illicit activities at al-Dawrah, he replied in English: "You can see, enter inside and see. They are all destroyed," meaning the equipment. "Nobody can do anything here."

-- Baltimore Sun (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/iraq/bal-te.iraq29nov29,1,7077091.story?coll=bal-iraq-storyutil)

In other words... Whoops! We overstated the case for dual-use CW facilities and were overly alarmed by inflated claims of biological weapons.

Even though some companies were bending over backwards to comply, in 2002 we painted them as the causus bellorum.

Strikes by Coalition forces in 1993 and 1998 (Operation Desert Fox), as well as attacks by Iran had definitely kept the Iraqi regime belligerent and determined. The US and Iran felt quite justified in blowing up facilities that were proven or highly likely to be used for WMD production.

Hence why Iraqi businessmen were rather leery about even being percieved to be making WMDs. It was a sure cry for a cruise missile strike once every few years. None of them had inspected a full-scale invasion.

Iran for their part was also striking Iraq, such as when it hit the Mujaheddin el-Khalq (MEK) (http://arabist.net/archives/2005/03/20/blessed-are-the-mek/) facility in 1994 and again in 1997, 1999 and 2001. (See line #140, #200, #260, and 295 in the WMD Timeline Events (http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/WMD_Timeline_Events.html)).

Even though these strikes are listed in the WMD timeline, this group is not known to have possession of WMDs. The citation of the strikes by Iran in the report make it sound as if this was an attack in the same style as Operation Desert Fox.

They are an opposition group which agreed to the overthrow of the Shah, but differed with the Islamic party that took over the state.

This was the assessment of them in May 2002 by the US State Dapartment (http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/State/state-taylor-052102.htm):

Iraq also supports the MEK, the Mujaheddin el-khalq, that operate into Iran, actively continues to support that. So they are still involved in supporting terrorist activities as we speak, and of course, that's why they remain on the state-sponsored terrorism list.

While they are officially a terrorist group, there's little evidence to show that Saddam Hussein was going to give them WMDs to attack any targets. There were rumors that he was going to send them to destroy the oil fields, which did not materialize. They were disarmed (http://www.sw-asia.com/People/Bio983.htm) after the US invasion (you can also read more about them in this link).

This is not to say there is no evidence of any WMD R&D. There is plenty of indication that Iraq kept up various projects. But Saddam Hussein had mostly abandoned CW and BW and even nuclear weapons -- which the CIA in 2002 projected at earliest with aggressive research could have been gotten by 2007-2009.

However, in 2004 it revised its point of view and reported a contrite statement:

Iraq did not possess a nuclear device, nor had it tried to reconstitute a capability to produce nuclear weapons after 1991.

Whoops again.

Yes, it was working on rail guns and medium-range ballistic missiles.

But for the most part, its WMD program was stunted after repeated strikes going back to the Israeli bombing of their nuclear power plant as well as by changes in defense policy and basic economics. Physicists, chafing at years of being unable to leave the nation or to work on nuclear projects domestically, began to work on projects like air defenses or the rail gun.

Researchers found other things to work on when there was little reward and great risk. Iraq still dabbled and experimented, but it has given up and gone on for the most part.

There probably were human rights violations regarding human testing of BW and CW weapons. I shudder to think of it.

Iraq was not angellic and it had plenty of covert activity occurring. At the same time, the CIA over-reported those activities and turned rumors and possibilities into clear and present dangers to the United States of America and the world.

In a way, you can say that OIF was simply the US being fed up with being given the run-around. Putting their foot down. Enough is enough.

It came off as ham-handed, premature, poorly-researched, poorly-justified and poorly-planned.

But it's a fait accompli now. We're there, and we were led there by flawed reports. We've toppled the regime and we're building a hopefully better one.

It is still the truth that the US, particularly the CIA, in 2002 exagerated WMD capabilities, and relied on guesses and postulations to justify a war. And in 2004 it took a backtrack on the severity of those dangers.

It is fair to say that both Democrats and Republican leaders relied on WMD reports from the CIA and other defense agencies that were misleading.

They were right to say that Iraq had dangerous programs, and in cases that they continued to work on them.

From time to time the United States had taken steps to stop Iraq's deplorable exterminations of the Kurds and Shi'ites, and to strike the facilities we felt were directly contributing to any possibility of full-scale WMD production.

Committing the nation to a full-scale conventional war to hunt for WMDs was, however, based on exagerated claims.

Nazz, get real. How can you not believe a direct quote? Oh, and don't give me this well it is taken out of context crap.
I wonder why this doesn't apply when we're talking about Tom Coburn.

The Dems said those things, why can't you accept that? The Dems voted for the war, why can't you accept that? The Dems are now trying to reverse their previous stance, why can't you accept that? They are showing that they are two faced, so why can't you accept that?
I don't know why he doesn't accept it, but you're hardly a model on non-partisanship yourself.

Nazz, get real. How can you not believe a direct quote? Oh, and don't give me this well it is taken out of context crap. The Dems said those things, why can't you accept that? The Dems voted for the war, why can't you accept that? The Dems are now trying to reverse their previous stance, why can't you accept that? They are showing that they are two faced, so why can't you accept that?


Oooo those evil dems, how dare they change their minds after the evidence tells them they were wrong! That's just unamerican (or at least unrepublican). Pig-headedness is the only thing that keep America powerful! Don't you get it!?

[/sarcasm]

Situations change over time. And supposedly factual information they based their opinion on was either outright wrong, misleading or inflated.

But I suppose next you'll resort to the caveat emptor defense and chide them that they shouldn't believe what they are told was a real threat by the CIA.

There is indeed a grave need to overhaul the national security services.

They utterly missed the looming threat of Al Qaeda in 2001 while tremendously exaggerating the threat Iraq posed to the United States in 2002.

While the intelligence game is often filled with false reports, illusory and evasive threats, and is often a murky dark grey, we need good intelligence to make credible foreign policy.

Jumping the gun and overreacting based on half-truths is as dangerous as never acting at all.

The Bush administration seems to have carrombed to both extremes in order to claim that it has found a middle path.

Do not get me wrong. Saddam Hussein and his regime were terrible, brutal, and I am glad they are gone. I only wish we were given true justifications, rather than seeing false arguments put forth. Along with the billions being mis-spent on reconstruction, it terribly undermines the credibility of the mission and any declaration of honorable intents.

Democrats, please don't shirk responsibility. The Libertarian and Green parties were the ONLY parties against the Iraq War to begin with.

Dennis Kucinich and Howard Dean were vehemently outspoken against the Iraq war. I voted for Dennis Kucinich in the primaries and went as a Delegate for him to the Texas Democratic Convention and Howard Dean is now Chair of the DNC.

So the Dems did have strong voices opposing the Iraq war. Just not among the Dem's wealthy centrist elites.

The Democratic Party is a wide range of people. We're not all the same.

I don't know why he doesn't accept it, but you're hardly a model on non-partisanship yourself.
If you really want to know my feelings on the matter, you can read my response to Celtlund's baseless accusation. It's in this very thread.

iraq may or may not have had nuclear weapons but he did have plenty of 'wmd' weapons of mass destruction, like thousands upon thousands of missiles, each capable of mass *hundreds, thousands if they hit the right target* destruction of humans and property. He alos have plenty of 'mwd' mass weapons of destructions, far more than you need to police or protect your citizenry. ask soldiers who were actually there, they spent a lot of time blowing up and otherwise destroying those weapons. and those were just the ones FOUND after Iraq had plenty of time to shuttle them elsewhere.

iraq may or may not have had nuclear weapons but he did have plenty of 'wmd' weapons of mass destruction, like thousands upon thousands of missiles, each capable of mass *hundreds, thousands if they hit the right target* destruction of humans and property. He alos have plenty of 'mwd' mass weapons of destructions, far more than you need to police or protect your citizenry. ask soldiers who were actually there, they spent a lot of time blowing up and otherwise destroying those weapons. and those were just the ones FOUND after Iraq had plenty of time to shuttle them elsewhere.
We have more WMD's than Iraq. Why don't we invade ourselves? :p

iraq may or may not have had nuclear weapons but he did have plenty of 'wmd' weapons of mass destruction, like thousands upon thousands of missiles, each capable of mass *hundreds, thousands if they hit the right target* destruction of humans and property. He alos have plenty of 'mwd' mass weapons of destructions, far more than you need to police or protect your citizenry. ask soldiers who were actually there, they spent a lot of time blowing up and otherwise destroying those weapons. and those were just the ones FOUND after Iraq had plenty of time to shuttle them elsewhere.

Large amounts of conventional weapons are not considered WMD.

Let me also remind you that it was the Bush Administration civilian leadership that placed such a low priority on securing locations that contained huge amounts of conventional weapons (Al Qaqqa, anyone?) in their rush to get to Baghdad and secure the Oil Ministry.

We have more WMD's than Iraq. Why don't we invade ourselves? :p

Under that definition by the previous poster, most every industrialized country had more WMD than Iraq.

Under that definition by the previous poster, most every industrialized country had more WMD than Iraq.
Well French won't be that hard to invade...

I don't we would invade Isreal because of votes though...

Pinko= socialist, follower of Marx's philosophy.

Liberal= follower of Adam Smith J.S. Mill et al, proponent of Laissez-faire capitalism.

Pinko-liberal = Contradiction in terms.

This was your Gov/Pol lesson for today, homework is to apply these terms correctly in everyday life.

Not a chance I know but hey...
What? Liberals are the total opposite of Adam Smith economics. Smith was for FREE markets, not regulated markets. That makes him a Conservative or Libertarian.

"The man who will not act until he knows all will never act at all." -- Jim Elliot

"The man who will not act until he knows all will never act at all." -- Jim Elliot
Which has exactly the square root of jack shit to do with the accusations made in the original post in this thread.

Which has exactly the square root of jack shit to do with the accusations made in the original post in this thread.

So angry you are today! I think it's quite relevant.

Still no proof that Bush had information that others did not?

So angry you are today! I think it's quite relevant.

Still no proof that Bush had information that others did not?
Sure there's proof--that you refuse to acknowledge it is a failing on your part. It's been shown to you repeatedly--a story in the NY Times that showed the administration knew a primary source on the al Qaeda link to Iraq was shaky and those notions were never passed along to Congress; a story from the Washington Post detailing the fact that the NIE that Congress referenced when voting for the Iraq War Resolution had objections from several intelligence agencies omitted by the White House. They've been linked here--you've ignored them. Don't get defensive when I or others call bullshit on you.

Sure there's proof--that you refuse to acknowledge it is a failing on your part. It's been shown to you repeatedly--a story in the NY Times that showed the administration knew a primary source on the al Qaeda link to Iraq was shaky and those notions were never passed along to Congress; a story from the Washington Post detailing the fact that the NIE that Congress referenced when voting for the Iraq War Resolution had objections from several intelligence agencies omitted by the White House. They've been linked here--you've ignored them. Don't get defensive when I or others call bullshit on you.

Even if you leave out the al-Qaeda link, there's still plenty of reasons they ostensibly had.

The one that sticks in my mind is the 1800 gallons of weaponized anthrax.

Anthrax that was destroyed by Dr. Taha without Saddam's knowledge or approval. Anthrax that, up to the moment of invasion, was known to be missing by UNSCOM. Anthrax that would never, ever have been found by UN weapons inspectors, because Taha said she would never tell out of fear of being executed by Saddam. Anthrax that we had to know the disposition of - because of the risk it poses.

That alone would be enough for me. I don't need an al-Qaeda link to justify the war. As I recall, Bush had more than one point to make, and you've hardly demolished all of them, or proven that he lied on every single point.

And you've never addressed the anthrax.

So angry you are today! I think it's quite relevant.

Still no proof that Bush had information that others did not?


Really? So why, in the conclusions of the first Senate Intelligence Report did it arrive at the following conclusions?

From The First Senate Report

(U) Conclusion 85. The Intelligence Community's elimination of the caveats from the unclassified White Paper misrepresented their judgments to the public which did not have access to the classified National Intelligence Estimate containing the more carefully worded assessments.

Conclusion 86. The names of agencies which had dissenting opinions in the classified National Intelligence Estimate were not included in the unclassified white paper and in the case of the unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), the dissenting opinion was excluded completely. In both cases in which there were dissenting opinions, the dissenting agencies were widely regarded as the primary subject matter experts on the issues in question. Excluding the names of the agencies provided readers with an incomplete picture of the nature and extent of the debate within the Intelligence Community regarding these issues.

Conclusion 87. The key judgment in the unclassified October 2002 White Paper on Iraq's potential to deliver biological agents conveyed a level of threat to the United States homeland inconsistent with the classified National Intelligence Estimate.


Now then, the next question becomes which version the Congress got to se right? Did the get the classified version or the public one?

Well, let's not forget that in the wake of 9-11 GW took the extraordinary step to strip all but 8 members of Congress of their security clearence (http://thinkprogress.org/wp-images/upload/bushrestrictedintel.pdf)

(ii) The only Members of Congress whom you or your expressly designated officers may brief regarding classified or sensitive law enforcement information are the Speaker of the House, the House Minority Leader, the Senate Majority and Minority Leaders, and the Chairs and Ranking Members of the Intelligence Committees in the House and Senate.



So one must conclude that Congress was prohibited from being briefed on the Classified version of the NIE and instead got the public version that the Senate has concluded to have misrepresented and overstated the situation.

Now I wish I could find a more official source for the text of the memo, however I can point to where Ari Fleischer discussed it in briefings here (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/10/20011009-1.html#President-Memo), and here (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/10/20011010-9.html#Intelligence2)


all of these bills do require a lot of bipartisan work, and that's been an important goal of the President, especially since September. But there was a feeling, especially yesterday, on Capitol Hill that the release of the memo and the tightening of information with Congress had created a lot of ill will, and some people saying, this is ricocheting all over the place, it's busting unity that's been on the Hill, even though it might have been fraying before yesterday. But does the White House have some concern that the impact of that memo might have poisoned the waters a little bit, by the time --




Now then, I'd like to be able to find a direct quote from a Congressman stating unequivocably that they did not get the Classified version, but I don't have time to dig for that right now.

Still, feel free to draw your own conclusions as to what that memo means, what Ari meant by "tightening information", and the Senate Report conclusions..

Still, feel free to draw your own conclusions as to what that memo means, what Ari meant by "tightening information", and the Senate Report conclusions..

So how does "tightening information" become "lie"?

You know, when intelligence analysts give their report (and it goes to the National Security Council), they "tighten information" on their own. This usually means discarding huge amounts of raw intelligence data. Not out of any conspiratorial plot or innate bias - but to make it readable.

Tell you what - the only way to prevent "tightening information" and remove any future administration from the accusation of "lie" would be to take all the raw information that is gathered by the NSA and CIA and have it trucked to Congress (continuously, because that's what it would take), and have the electronic intercepts dumped in raw form directly to the Congress' servers.

Then the Senators and Congressmen could, without hindrance from intelligence analysts (who are by trade more qualified, but never mind) filter through everything (so nothing would be concealed from them, or interpreted in any way other than they way they saw fit) on their own.

It's a stretch to call that a "lie" - and if that's the definition of "lie", then my solution is the ONLY way to avoid it.

I'm sure Senators and Congressmen have all the time in the world to be constantly sorting through all that data.

So how does "tightening information" become "lie"?

You know, when intelligence analysts give their report (and it goes to the National Security Council), they "tighten information" on their own. This usually means discarding huge amounts of raw intelligence data. Not out of any conspiratorial plot or innate bias - but to make it readable.

Tell you what - the only way to prevent "tightening information" and remove any future administration from the accusation of "lie" would be to take all the raw information that is gathered by the NSA and CIA and have it trucked to Congress (continuously, because that's what it would take), and have the electronic intercepts dumped in raw form directly to the Congress' servers.

Then the Senators and Congressmen could, without hindrance from intelligence analysts (who are by trade more qualified, but never mind) filter through everything (so nothing would be concealed from them, or interpreted in any way other than they way they saw fit) on their own.

It's a stretch to call that a "lie" - and if that's the definition of "lie", then my solution is the ONLY way to avoid it.

I'm sure Senators and Congressmen have all the time in the world to be constantly sorting through all that data.


You didn't ask for proof of a lie, nor did I try to answer that. Because it IS, after all perfectly possible to lie by ommision, or by telling partial truths. That is why the oath before a court is to tell the truth, the WHOLE truth, and nothing but the truth.

However, you are changing your request.

What you asked for was proof that GW had access to information that Congress didn't.

I think I answered that.

You didn't ask for proof of a lie, nor did I try to answer that. Because it IS, after all perfectly possible to lie by ommision, or by telling partial truths. That is why the oath before a court is to tell the truth, the WHOLE truth, and nothing but the truth.

However, you are changing your request.

What you asked for was proof that GW had access to information that Congress didn't.

I think I answered that.

Well, maybe I'm mixing this up with similar threads, but what I want is proof of a "lie". If we're going to say that any omission is a lie by omission, then we have to implement my solution, and dump terabytes of raw intelligence data onto Congress every day, so they have access to everything.

Well, maybe I'm mixing this up with similar threads, but what I want is proof of a "lie". If we're going to say that any omission is a lie by omission, then we have to implement my solution, and dump terabytes of raw intelligence data onto Congress every day, so they have access to everything.


No, not ANY ommision is a lie. However a carefully crafted set of ommissions that completely misrepresent the facts at hand SHOULD be treated as a falshood. And that is what the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee concluded that the unclassified version of the NIE represented.

Or, rather, misrepresented.

It would come to intent, and I'm not qualified to state whether the unclassified version ommitted things it didn;t have to in order to oversell the case or not. No-one here is

I have my suspicions though.....


Still, whenever people try to tell me that ever Congressman got ALL the same intel as GW, I call bullshit. No president has EVER allowed all of Congress to view all the top-secret stuff that crosses their desks. It simply would never happen.

So when GW implies that they did, frankly - that's bullshit and you know it.

No, not ANY ommision is a lie. However a carefully crafted set of ommissions that completely misrepresent the facts at hand SHOULD be treated as a falshood. And that is what the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee concluded that the unclassified version of the NIE represented.

Or, rather, misrepresented.

It would come to intent, and I'm not qualified to state whether the unclassified version ommitted things it didn;t have to in order to oversell the case or not. No-one here is

I have my suspicions though.....


Still, whenever people try to tell me that ever Congressman got ALL the same intel as GW, I call bullshit. No president has EVER allowed all of Congress to view all the top-secret stuff that crosses their desks. It simply would never happen.

So when GW implies that they did, frankly - that's bullshit and you know it.That bolded part is the definition of a lie when it comes to this stuff, and Deep Kimchi knows it. It's disappointing, too, because it's obvious from our discussions on other threads that DK isn't the prototypical right-wing nutjob, except for on this issue. He refuses to acknowledge that the Bush administration lied.

That bolded part is the definition of a lie when it comes to this stuff, and Deep Kimchi knows it. It's disappointing, too, because it's obvious from our discussions on other threads that DK isn't the prototypical right-wing nutjob, except for on this issue. He refuses to acknowledge that the Bush administration lied.

Still doesn't come off as a lie. Omission, maybe. But making an omission into a lie is hard to prove.

Still doesn't come off as a lie. Omission, maybe. But making an omission into a lie is hard to prove.
I can't tell--is this missing of the point deliberate or not? I'd hate to think that you're just stupid, because you don't seem to me.

Simple omission=probably not a lie.

Deliberate omission to feed a false sense of the situation=lie.

That second one? That's what the Bush administration has done since day one of this move toward war in Iraq.

Now if your belief in the Bush administration won't let you handle that concept, I feel sorry for you, but I don't know how to put it any simpler.

I can understand the argument that you think there were other reasons to invade Iraq--I really can. I disagree with them, but I get the concept. But that concept and the notion that the Bush administration didn't lie to get us into a war are separate entities--you can hold onto the former and discard the latter and you'd be intellectually honest in doing so. You can't, however, hold onto the latter and be intellectually honest.

I can't tell--is this missing of the point deliberate or not? I'd hate to think that you're just stupid, because you don't seem to me.

Simple omission=probably not a lie.

Deliberate omission to feed a false sense of the situation=lie.

That second one? That's what the Bush administration has done since day one of this move toward war in Iraq.

Now if your belief in the Bush administration won't let you handle that concept, I feel sorry for you, but I don't know how to put it any simpler.

I can understand the argument that you think there were other reasons to invade Iraq--I really can. I disagree with them, but I get the concept. But that concept and the notion that the Bush administration didn't lie to get us into a war are separate entities--you can hold onto the former and discard the latter and you'd be intellectually honest in doing so. You can't, however, hold onto the latter and be intellectually honest.


The question is, what did they omit or exaggerate - and if you exclude all of those omissions and exaggerations, is there still enough left for an invasion?

I say the 1800 gallons of anthrax that UNSCOM said was still missing and still a threat is reason enough. No other reasons are necessary or relevant to me.

oh.. I guess the Dems are responsible for starting the war then?

I think not... the responsibility must lie with the people who started it.

(responding to the original poster)

oh.. I guess the Dems are responsible for starting the war then?

I think not... the responsibility must lie with the people who started it.

No. But they voted for it.

No. But they voted for it.

so what? It's true they ff'ed up, the question is how much.

1. They were mislead, by the spin created by the administration.

Intelligence reports were slanted to support the administrations arguement.

2. the perception was that, if you voted against it you were soft on terrorism, unpatriotic, etc. due to 9/11.

that doesn't excuse them, they do bear some responsibility, but they aren't the ones who cooked it up.

so what? It's true they ff'ed up, the question is how much.

1. They were mislead, by the spin created by the administration.

Intelligence reports were slanted to support the administrations arguement.

2. the perception was that, if you voted against it you were soft on terrorism, unpatriotic, etc. due to 9/11.

that doesn't excuse them, they do bear some responsibility, but they aren't the ones who cooked it up.

The question is, who cooked it up. And the 1800 gallons of anthrax that was FOUND later wasn't cooked up - that was information from UNSCOM.

As for the remaining information, it's my opinion that George Tenet cooked the rest or inflated the rest. IMHO, the CIA couldn't find its ass with both hands. I don't believe for a second that the story he told Clinton about WMD in Iraq was substantially different from the story he told Bush - and that's why I believe that Bush didn't lie.

Bush may have wanted to believe what Tenet was saying, but I believe that the lie starts with Tenet.

I think Tenet wanted to make up for the fact that he dropped the ball on 9-11, and wanted to cover his own ass and distract everyone.

It's less a political matter than an act of stupid ass-covering.

there is considerable evidence that these Demo-gogues and their colleagues believed Iraq had WMD long before President George Bush came to Washington. Here is a small sample of that evidence from the Clinton years:

Bill Clinton: "If Saddam rejects peace, and we have to use force, our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

Madeleine Albright, Clinton Secretary of State: "We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."

Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Advisor and Classified Document Thief: "[Saddam will] use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has ten times since 1983."

Harry Reid: "The problem is not nuclear testing; it is nuclear weapons. ... The number of Third World countries with nuclear capabilities seems to grow daily. Saddam Hussein's near success with developing a nuclear weapon should be an eye-opener for us all."

Dick Durbin: "One of the most compelling threats we in this country face today is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Threat assessments regularly warn us of the possibility that...Iraq...may acquire or develop nuclear weapons."

John Kerry: "If you don't believe...Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me."

John Edwards: "Serving on the Intelligence Committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons, it's just that simple. The whole world changes if Saddam ever has nuclear weapons."

Nancy Pelosi: "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons-inspection process."

Sens. Levin, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Dodd, Kerrey, Feinstein, Mikulski, Daschle, Breaux, Johnson, Inouye, Landrieu, Ford and Kerry in a letter to Bill Clinton: "We urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions, including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

After President Bush was sworn into office in 2001, his administration was handed eight years worth of intelligence analysis and policy positions from the Clinton years -- you know, the years of appeasement when Saddam was tolerated, when opportunities to take out Osama bin Ladin were ignored, as was the presence of an al-Qa'ida terrorist cell in the U.S. -- which reared its head on 9/11.

In the weeks prior to the invasion of Iraq, Democrats, who had access to the same intelligence used by the Bush administration (much of which was compiled under the Clinton administration), were clear about the threat of Iraq's WMD capability.

Ted Kennedy: "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

John Kerry: "I will be voting to give the president of the U.S. the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security. ... Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein."

Hillary Clinton: "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock. His missile-delivery capability, his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including al-Qa'ida members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

Carl Levin: "We begin with a common belief that Saddam Hussein...is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."

Al Gore: "We know that he has stored nuclear supplies, secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

Bob Graham: "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has and has had for a number of years a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."

For the record: Here's a partial list of what didn't make it out of Iraq before the OIF invasion: 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium, 1,700 gallons of chemical-weapon agents, chemical warheads containing the nerve agent cyclosarin, radioactive materials in powdered form designed for dispersal over population centers, artillery projectiles loaded with binary chemical agents, etc. Assuming Irag had no WMD because only small caches were recovered after Operation Iraqi Freedom began is perilously flawed logic. That, in no way, affirms what he spirited out through Iran and Syria before OIF.
Nice use of misquotes or quotes taken out of context. This has been debunked many times before. Just check out Snopes.com for the truth behind these quotes.

All of the quotes listed above are substantially correct reproductions of statements made by various Democratic leaders regarding Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's acquisition or possession of weapons of mass destruction. However, some of the quotes are truncated, and context is provided for none of them — several of these quotes were offered in the course of statements that clearly indicated the speaker was decidedly against unilateral military intervention in Iraq by the U.S. Moreover, several of the quotes offered antedate the four nights of airstrikes unleashed against Iraq by U.S. and British forces during Operation Desert Fox in December 1998, after which Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen and Gen. Henry H. Shelton (chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) announced the action had been successful in "degrad[ing] Saddam Hussein's ability to deliver chemical, biological and nuclear weapons."

In the section below where we highlight these quotes, we've tried to provide sufficient surrounding material to make clear the context in which the quotes were offered as well as include links to the full text from which they were derived wherever possible.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

Come back soon Celtlund. :eek:

No. Go back and read Post #1. Here is the link http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=453662

The thread is about what the Democrats said about WMD when Clinton was in office vs what they are saying now.
AND those quotes were taken out oof context. Nice try.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

Snopes has your number.

The question is, who cooked it up. And the 1800 gallons of anthrax that was FOUND later wasn't cooked up - that was information from UNSCOM.

As for the remaining information, it's my opinion that George Tenet cooked the rest or inflated the rest. IMHO, the CIA couldn't find its ass with both hands. I don't believe for a second that the story he told Clinton about WMD in Iraq was substantially different from the story he told Bush - and that's why I believe that Bush didn't lie.

Bush may have wanted to believe what Tenet was saying, but I believe that the lie starts with Tenet.

I think Tenet wanted to make up for the fact that he dropped the ball on 9-11, and wanted to cover his own ass and distract everyone.

It's less a political matter than an act of stupid ass-covering.

good point. Tenet is right up there with Michael Brown, perhaps even worse in some ways.

The question is, what did they omit or exaggerate - and if you exclude all of those omissions and exaggerations, is there still enough left for an invasion?

I say the 1800 gallons of anthrax that UNSCOM said was still missing and still a threat is reason enough. No other reasons are necessary or relevant to me.
Is there enough left for an invasion? Not to sell it to the American public, or to the world at large--and that's why the Bush administration resorted to lying. I've said this before--I would have listened to a humanitarian argument. I still wouldn't have trusted these clowns to carry it out competently, but I would have listened.

Even if the anthrax was enough for you, even if you feel, right now, that the war was justified, that doesn't mean that the Bush administration was honest in their selling of it. And that's what this entire thread has been about--not whether the war was justified or not. There are whole other threads to discuss that. Celtlund started this thread with the express purpose of trying to make it look like the Democrats he quoted had made the same decisions based on the same intelligence, so as to excuse his President from the accusation of lying.

You can believe the war was justified and still admit that Bush lied to get us into the war--the two are not mutually exclusive.

Is there enough left for an invasion? Not to sell it to the American public, or to the world at large--and that's why the Bush administration resorted to lying. I've said this before--I would have listened to a humanitarian argument. I still wouldn't have trusted these clowns to carry it out competently, but I would have listened.

Even if the anthrax was enough for you, even if you feel, right now, that the war was justified, that doesn't mean that the Bush administration was honest in their selling of it. And that's what this entire thread has been about--not whether the war was justified or not. There are whole other threads to discuss that. Celtlund started this thread with the express purpose of trying to make it look like the Democrats he quoted had made the same decisions based on the same intelligence, so as to excuse his President from the accusation of lying.

You can believe the war was justified and still admit that Bush lied to get us into the war--the two are not mutually exclusive.


I believe that Tenet was the liar or exagerrator. It begs credulity to believe that Bush could orchestrate a lie like that. Sure, Bush was willing to buy what Tenet was selling - but so was everyone else who voted for it.

By the way, is this the anthrax you're talking about? (http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050329/news_1n29anthrax.html)

I haven't been following this story, but this article comes from March of this year.

I believe that Tenet was the liar or exagerrator. It begs credulity to believe that Bush could orchestrate a lie like that. Sure, Bush was willing to buy what Tenet was selling - but so was everyone else who voted for it.
Go higher than Tenet--he wasn't the only source. Look at Cheney, the White House Iraq Group, and what's known as Team B, which included Wolfowitz and Stephen Hadley. Notice that when I make my accusations, I say "the Bush administration" instead of Bush personally. There is a massive difference between the two. For all I know, Bush actually believes we found nukes in Baghdad--but his administration put together the deceptive intelligence that Congress worked with.

By the way, is this the anthrax you're talking about? (http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050329/news_1n29anthrax.html)

I haven't been following this story, but this article comes from March of this year.

Exactly.

1. At the time of the invasion, UNSCOM knew it was unaccounted for.
2. Dr. Taha knew she had destroyed it, but had never told Saddam and never had permission to destroy it.
3. Saddam would have killed her had he known, so she kept her mouth shut.
4. She would NEVER have told the UN inspectors no matter how long they looked for it - so they NEVER would have found it.
5. Even a handful of anthrax constitutes a deadly risk.
6. No one found out what happened to it until Dr. Taha spoke up AFTER we invaded and AFTER the Survey Team dug up her dump site and found she was telling the truth.

It's all in the Survey Team's report.

Exactly.

1. At the time of the invasion, UNSCOM knew it was unaccounted for.
2. Dr. Taha knew she had destroyed it, but had never told Saddam and never had permission to destroy it.
3. Saddam would have killed her had he known, so she kept her mouth shut.
4. She would NEVER have told the UN inspectors no matter how long they looked for it - so they NEVER would have found it.
5. Even a handful of anthrax constitutes a deadly risk.
6. No one found out what happened to it until Dr. Taha spoke up AFTER we invaded and AFTER the Survey Team dug up her dump site and found she was telling the truth.

It's all in the Survey Team's report.
The way you mentioned it above led me to believe that we had actually discovered the anthrax itself after the invasion, instead of simply discovering what had happened to it. Like I said--if we're talking about justification for the war itself, that's another discussion. Here, we've been talking about how the war was sold, and it was sold with lies.

The way you mentioned it above led me to believe that we had actually discovered the anthrax itself after the invasion, instead of simply discovering what had happened to it. Like I said--if we're talking about justification for the war itself, that's another discussion. Here, we've been talking about how the war was sold, and it was sold with lies.

My question is "whose lies?"

I believe they were Tenet's lies. Sure, Bush wanted to hear them - but Tenet sold the same bill of goods to Clinton. Tenet also has much more motivation to exaggerate - he already had egg on his face from 9-11.

UNSCOM knew about the anthrax way before the invasion. And kept bringing it up, and their inability to track it down. It's one of the few issues they could never resolve.

We resolved it, in the only way possible. There's no way that Dr. Taha would have told anyone unless Saddam was overthrown - it would have been suicide to do so.

My question is "whose lies?"

I believe they were Tenet's lies. Sure, Bush wanted to hear them - but Tenet sold the same bill of goods to Clinton. Tenet also has much more motivation to exaggerate - he already had egg on his face from 9-11.

UNSCOM knew about the anthrax way before the invasion. And kept bringing it up, and their inability to track it down. It's one of the few issues they could never resolve.

We resolved it, in the only way possible. There's no way that Dr. Taha would have told anyone unless Saddam was overthrown - it would have been suicide to do so.
Again--the Bush administration, as a whole. It's not just Tenet. You're not going to pin this on one single person. It was the combination of Tenet and Cheney and Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz and Hadley and Rice and Powell and Bolton and all the other little fuckers who deliberately passed on bad intel over the objections of the career analysts not only in CIA, but in DIA and NSC and the Energy Dept. and DOD and all the other intelligence agencies. It's deliberately using bad intel when you know it's bad because you want to scare both Congress and the public into thinking that there's got to be action and action now dammit! or there will be a mushroom cloud or a drone with anthrax over New York or some other bullshit scenario.

Let it go. They're not worth your loyalty.

Again--the Bush administration, as a whole. It's not just Tenet. You're not going to pin this on one single person. It was the combination of Tenet and Cheney and Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz and Hadley and Rice and Powell and Bolton and all the other little fuckers who deliberately passed on bad intel over the objections of the career analysts not only in CIA, but in DIA and NSC and the Energy Dept. and DOD and all the other intelligence agencies. It's deliberately using bad intel when you know it's bad because you want to scare both Congress and the public into thinking that there's got to be action and action now dammit! or there will be a mushroom cloud or a drone with anthrax over New York or some other bullshit scenario.

Let it go. They're not worth your loyalty.

Nope, all I need is Tenet. He's the one with the most direct access to analysts.

I don't for a moment believe it was Powell. Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz would have invaded Iraq without a reason.

And, if you go on the basis that nothing was there except what UNSCOM said was there, then UNSCOM (and not the CIA, DIA, or anyone else) was saying that, "there's 1800 gallons of anthrax that's missing".

That, in and of itself, is more than enough to kill everyone on the planet.

Recall that we had some anthrax attacks here in the US not long before that, and we had never identified who did it (not even to this day).

Even I could have whipped up enough hysteria on that one issue alone to justify an invasion. So why all the extra window dressing? Mobile labs? Aluminum tubes?

It sounds to me like Tenet wanted to embellish his own image, and make everyone forget he was the guy who dropped the ball all through the 1990s on al-Qaeda.

Nope, all I need is Tenet. He's the one with the most direct access to analysts.

I don't for a moment believe it was Powell. Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz would have invaded Iraq without a reason.

And, if you go on the basis that nothing was there except what UNSCOM said was there, then UNSCOM (and not the CIA, DIA, or anyone else) was saying that, "there's 1800 gallons of anthrax that's missing".

That, in and of itself, is more than enough to kill everyone on the planet.

Recall that we had some anthrax attacks here in the US not long before that, and we had never identified who did it (not even to this day).

Even I could have whipped up enough hysteria on that one issue alone to justify an invasion. So why all the extra window dressing? Mobile labs? Aluminum tubes?

It sounds to me like Tenet wanted to embellish his own image, and make everyone forget he was the guy who dropped the ball all through the 1990s on al-Qaeda.
Powell's guilty because he lent his name to the scheme by going along with it and making that despicable speech to the UN. And the way you phrase that line about Tenet makes me think that you're 1) looking for a scapegoat to take the heat off the rest of the administration and 2) looking for someone with a tie to Clinton, so as to pawn off the blame on him. That's just sad.

You very well might have been able to whip up enough hysteria based on the anthrax--we'll never know because we were told instead about mushroom clouds and links to al Qaeda that didn't exist. Why all the window dressing? Because they felt they needed it. And even with the window dressing, more than a third of the US didn't buy it, and most of the rest of the world didn't either.

Powell's guilty because he lent his name to the scheme by going along with it and making that despicable speech to the UN. And the way you phrase that line about Tenet makes me think that you're 1) looking for a scapegoat to take the heat off the rest of the administration and 2) looking for someone with a tie to Clinton, so as to pawn off the blame on him. That's just sad.

You very well might have been able to whip up enough hysteria based on the anthrax--we'll never know because we were told instead about mushroom clouds and links to al Qaeda that didn't exist. Why all the window dressing? Because they felt they needed it. And even with the window dressing, more than a third of the US didn't buy it, and most of the rest of the world didn't either.

Powell looked later like someone had pulled his pants down. So I don't think he knew. And since he's on the Cabinet, it rather narrows down who could have perpetrated a lie - and not had everyone in the Cabinet in on it.

Not looking to pawn it off on Clinton. And not looking for a scapegoat.

I've seen enough office politics to see this sort of thing happen before, though, and enough people engaged in groupthink to go along with it.

I've shown you enough to convict of perjury--that you decide to ignore it and continue your blind faith in a man who doesn't deserve it is your own problem. .
You may believe it's proof enough for a conviction, but apparently there isn't a Prosecutor in the country, Federal or otherwise, who agrees, or he'd be on trial.

When speaking of law, when I see what you have to say, and base it against every Federal prosecutor in the nation, Guess who I put more faith in?

Am I the only one with the balls to say it? *crickets*

I guess I am, so here goes.

I DON'T CARE why we went into Iraq. I support the war because every day we are there we are killing sick mother****ers who cut peoples heads off, kill schoolteachers, and blow up civilians on purpose. Alot of people say "The world is better off without Saddaam" Well guess what. The world is better off with alot of those crazies dead.

Al-Qaeda and Saddaam WERE linked. You know how? They are all crazy fucking terrorists who kill innocent people. They all say they hate America. They all say that they want to see an end to Western Civilization.
I'm sorry, but I don't need to see any intel stating that Saddaam and Osama had sleepovers. They were linked by ideology and a hate for America. Bin Laden flew planes into our buildings, Hussein tried to kill our President, and shot at our planes.

There's your link. Good enough reason to invade for me. What everyone against the war says doesn't matter, because I got what I wanted, and so did Bush. Did he lie? NONE of us here have the kind of security clearance to prove it one way or another.

So how about quitting the pissing contest, putting away the "bits of knowledge" you are all scraping off of Politically motivated websites, and just say what you think, instead of what everyone else thinks.

*crickets*

*crickets*
As though we haven't stated our own positions on this ad nauseam in the past. Get over yourself, and talk tough to someone who gives a fuck what a neanderthal thinks.

As though we haven't stated our own positions on this ad nauseam in the past. Get over yourself, and talk tough to someone who gives a fuck what a neanderthal thinks.
Bullshit. You guys are all spewing Daily Kos and Rush Limbaugh. I'd rather be a neanderthal than a sheep. Neanderthals eat sheep. I haven't heard a single original thought from anyone. Just a "Quoting contest"

Doesn't ANYONE have an opinion that leaves out partisan politics?

I believe that Tenet was the liar or exagerrator. It begs credulity to believe that Bush could orchestrate a lie like that. Sure, Bush was willing to buy what Tenet was selling - but so was everyone else who voted for it.

And yet the fact that Tenet has never been stripped of his Medal of Freedom is a strong suggestion that either the Bush Administration willingly collaborated with Tenet on his lie, or that it is guilty of severe nepotism. In either case it's rewarding a liar for something that has cost countless lives and which could have been handled much better.

Bullshit. You guys are all spewing Daily Kos and Rush Limbaugh. I'd rather be a neanderthal than a sheep. Neanderthals eat sheep. I haven't heard a single original thought from anyone. Just a "Quoting contest"

And when Cro Magnon arrived, the Neanderthals went extinct.

And when Cro Magnon arrived, the Neanderthals went extinct.
You got that from Daily Kos, didn't you? :D

Am I the only one with the balls to say it? *crickets*

I guess I am, so here goes.

I DON'T CARE why we went into Iraq. I support the war because every day we are there we are killing sick mother****ers who cut peoples heads off, kill schoolteachers, and blow up civilians on purpose. Alot of people say "The world is better off without Saddaam" Well guess what. The world is better off with alot of those crazies dead.

So does it matter to you that schoolteachers and civilians wouldn't be getting blown up had we not invaded? Are you not ashamed of the massive destruction we have brought to a people who had already suffered from decades of war and dictatorship? Or perhaps you thought it was simply America's turn to bring hell to their doorstep one more time. You must realize that when this is all over twenty years from now the once-modern Iraq will be a pile of rubble, and we will be partially responsible.


Al-Qaeda and Saddaam WERE linked. You know how? They are all crazy fucking terrorists who kill innocent people. They all say they hate America. They all say that they want to see an end to Western Civilization.
I'm sorry, but I don't need to see any intel stating that Saddaam and Osama had sleepovers. They were linked by ideology and a hate for America. Bin Laden flew planes into our buildings, Hussein tried to kill our President, and shot at our planes.
There's your link. Good enough reason to invade for me. What everyone against the war says doesn't matter, because I got what I wanted, and so did Bush. Did he lie? NONE of us here have the kind of security clearance to prove it one way or another.
Don't let your stubborness bring you down, SN. That's a crap link and you know it. You may think that it's good enough for you, but I know that you're smarter than that. You're questing, searching for justifications to make right what was obviously wrong, and you will cling to the original fallacy and organize your thoughts around it no matter how insufficient its reasoning is.
Just fess up and accept that we did the wrong thing. It will make the coping process a lot easier. No more time will you have to waste trying to defend the indefensible. And you will not have to ignore things in order to make your point. Things would make sense if you'd just step back and examine the basis of your argument.

So does it matter to you that schoolteachers and civilians wouldn't be getting blown up had we not invaded? Are you not ashamed of the massive destruction we have brought to a people who had already suffered from decades of war and dictatorship? Or perhaps you thought it was simply America's turn to bring hell to their doorstep one more time. You must realize that when this is all over twenty years from now the once-modern Iraq will be a pile of rubble, and we will be partially responsible.
Does it matter that they wouldn't be getting blown up if we weren't there? No, because if we hadn't invaded, they would be getting fed into plastic shredders, and getting gassed, and getting there tongues cut out and there hands chopped off by Sadaams thugs.

We are trying to bring stability to one of the most instable regions on the planet. It isn't easy. Things will get broken, lives will be destroyed. Kinda like WW2. Remember that? We (everyone involved) carpetbombed entire cities back then.I think we are showing remarkable restraint today. We are trying to give them their country back. The terrorists are trying to take it from them, just like Sadaam did.
And did I mention that we aren't the ones blowing up civilians on purpose?


Don't let your stubborness bring you down, SN. That's a crap link and you know it. You may think that it's good enough for you, but I know that you're smarter than that. You're questing, searching for justifications to make right what was obviously wrong, and you will cling to the original fallacy and organize your thoughts around it no matter how insufficient its reasoning is.
Just fess up and accept that we did the wrong thing. It will make the coping process a lot easier. No more time will you have to waste trying to defend the indefensible. And you will not have to ignore things in order to make your point. Things would make sense if you'd just step back and examine the basis of your argument.
I'm not searching for justifications. I'm saying that I don't NEED any justifications. I would have botched the intelligence too, if I were in Bush's shoes. (BTW nobody has proved whether or not he did.)

It's about time we dealt with the problems of the Middle East. It's just too bad that it took 9/11 to show us why.

The U.N. wasn't doing squat. Oh yeah, sanctions were working fine! THE FUCKING COUNTRY WAS STARVING TO DEATH! Sadaam was building palaces, and the people were digging graves. Hell yeah, lets do that some more!

There's one major difference between pre and post Sadaam Iraq.

It's not violence. People were being slaughtered then and now.
It's not the players. Muslim extremists were killing people then and now.

Do you know what it is? It's HOPE. Something that we ALL take for granted, but it is the most important emotion on the planet. The Iraqis have hope now. They have a voice. A vote. And thats more powerful than any IED or RPG.There are Billions of people around the globe without it. So if we think a dictator has WMD's , or if we need to lie and say that he does, to give these people hope, then so be it.

Because it is the right thing to do. It is the just thing to do. And ask alot of Military people, and they will tell you that it is worth risking their life over.

My only justification is that I don't want my kids to grow up with terrorists. So I will give up a few of my rights, and put myself in harms way if it means my kid can grow up without worrying if his office building will be next.

My only justification is that I don't want my kids to grow up with terrorists. So I will give up a few of my rights, and put myself in harms way if it means my kid can grow up without worrying if his office building will be next.

The choice you just outlined doesn't exist. There is no exchange of freedom for safety. If Chechens can strike in Russia, or Palestinians can strike in Israel, despite the absolute brutality exhibited by both nations to combat and/or dissuade terrorism, then we will also be vulnerable as long as terrorists want to attack us. No amount of firepower will stop an avalanche.

I say if we don't want terrorism, then we shouldn't provoke it. Invading and occupying a muslim country, and refusing to leave even when the majority of people (http://www.comw.org/pda/0501br17append.html) in that country want us out, is a hell of a provocation. It's going to convince more people out there that we are evil and should be attacked.

btw if we really are there to promote democracy, then why aren't we respecting the will of the Iraqi people? (or for that matter the will of our own people, 60% of whom want our troops to come home)

The choice you just outlined doesn't exist. There is no exchange of freedom for safety. If Chechens can strike in Russia, or Palestinians can strike in Israel, despite the absolute brutality exhibited by both nations to combat and/or dissuade terrorism, then we will also be vulnerable as long as terrorists want to attack us. No amount of firepower will stop an avalanche.
Firepower won't completely solve the problem, but just like it did to the Nazis, it will crush their power until all they can do is stage stupid protests in Ohio. Which is preferrable to them having free reign of entire nations.

I say if we don't want terrorism, then we shouldn't provoke it. Invading and occupying a muslim country, and refusing to leave even when the majority of people (http://www.comw.org/pda/0501br17append.html) in that country want us out, is a hell of a provocation. It's going to convince more people out there that we are evil and should be attacked.
I'll just show the consistencies for ya (or lack thereof.) showing how ridiculus it is to think that you can get an accurate poll done in Iraq at this point in time.

June 2004: 70 percent say Coalition troops are an occupying or exploiting force; 30 percent say a liberating or peacekeeping force. (Oxford Research International)


August 2004: 46 percent of Iraqis say their situation has improved since the fall of Hussein, 31 percent say it has grown worse, and 21 percent say it is unchanged. (International Republican Institute)



btw if we really are there to promote democracy, then why aren't we respecting the will of the Iraqi people? (or for that matter the will of our own people, 60% of whom want our troops to come home)
I believe the will of the people would be significantly different if the news was reported more fairly, and the lies that are being told FROM BOTH SIDES would cease.

More importantly, the will of Americans was tested in 04. Oddly enough, they chose to keep Bush in office, knowing what his strategies for Iraq would be. Of all the polls I've seen, that one included the most people, so it seems to be the most accurate.

Doesn't ANYONE have an opinion that leaves out partisan politics?

Sure. There are opinions based on deep thought, critical thinking and intelectual honesty...which you label partisan anyway.

June 2004: 70 percent say Coalition troops are an occupying or exploiting force; 30 percent say a liberating or peacekeeping force. (Oxford Research International)


August 2004: 46 percent of Iraqis say their situation has improved since the fall of Hussein, 31 percent say it has grown worse, and 21 percent say it is unchanged. (International Republican Institute)


You realize, Sick Nightmares, that numbers in the second poll add up to mean that 52% of Iraqis believe things are worse or the same as under Saddam. So...a majority of the Iraqis believe that things are no better now than under a tyrannical murderous monster.

Following that reasoning, things could still be a bit better than under Saddam, but people would STILL feel that the Coalition forces are merely a lesser of the two evils...and with the bar set so high on evil, that's not saying much.

Considering that, I find these two polls to be pretty much in agreement.

What this does do, is prove the partisan way in which you interpret polls and parrot Republican talking points (which usually fail to make any logical sense anyway.)

To parrot the parrots:

"Look, these two polls about completly different topics have different numbers! The polls are teh suck!"

Doesn't ANYONE have an opinion that leaves out partisan politics?
Sure. There are opinions based on deep thought, critical thinking and intelectual honesty...which you label partisan anyway.
Seconded.

My opinion is pretty simple...
War = Bad. Don't do it. I don't give a shit who does it.

The only time you can possibly ever justify war is in cases where you can realistically expect to save more people than you kill. That means pretty much only genocide.

And even then war has to be fought in such a way that not a single civilian gets killed, and not a single civilian house gets destroyed. If that means you lose a thousand more soldiers, then let it be. Soldiers sign up for combat, and they risk dying. Knowingly.
Civilians don't, and civilians should therefore be left out of it. There are no "enemy civilians", and there are no "collateral casualties". They are people like you and me, and killing them is a crime regardless of intention.

Al-Qaeda and Saddaam WERE linked. You know how? They are all crazy fucking terrorists who kill innocent people. They all say they hate America. They all say that they want to see an end to Western Civilization.
I'm sorry, but I don't need to see any intel stating that Saddaam and Osama had sleepovers. They were linked by ideology and a hate for America. Bin Laden flew planes into our buildings, Hussein tried to kill our President, and shot at our planes.

What is the name for a the falacy because this happen when this happens...they are linked...

Anyone know?

Something like this:
Proper logical induction:
Internal combustion engines require gasoline to run.
Conventional cars use internal combustion engines.
Therefore cars need gasoline to run.


Improper logical induction:
Granny Smith apples are green.
Grass is green.
Therefore Granny Smith apples are grass.

Al-Queda and Saddam being linked is/are improper logical induction:
Al-Queda kill people and are considered terrorists.
Saddam killed people and is considered a terrorist.
Therefore, Saddam and Al-Queda are linked.

That was just what you said! Listen to yourself! Next you will sat Granny Smith apples are grass. :p

As I recall, Bush had more than one point to make, and you've hardly demolished all of them, or proven that he lied on every single point.

So, what you're saying is that you're desperate to believe at least one point that the shrub had because it would mean war? Why is war that cool to you?

~SNIP~

Al-Queda and Saddam being linked is/are improper logical induction:
Al-Queda kill people and are considered terrorists.
Saddam killed people and is considered a terrorist.
Therefore, Saddam and Al-Queda are linked.

That was just what you said! Listen to yourself! Next you will sat Granny Smith apples are grass. :p
No, I won't say Grannies apples are grass. But I will say that they are linked. They are linked because they are green.
People don't need to meet and talk to be linked. Hitler and Pol Pot are linked because they were both mass murderers. Same as Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dohmer. Being linked doesn't necessarily mean that people collude together. It means that they have something in common which links them.

I have never claimed that Al-Qaeda and Hussein were colluding together. I merely stated that with the same goals and ideologies (linked), it is not worth the risk that they ever get in bed together. And there was no other way to get Hussein without invading. Unless we invaded, and then just left, leaving people like Zarqawi to take over.

...same goals and ideologies (linked)...
But AQ hates Saddam! He is the type of guy they fight against...secular Arab dictators with a history of Western support.
Bin Laden offered his militia to throw him out of Kuwait.

But AQ hates Saddam! He is the type of guy they fight against...secular Arab dictators with a history of Western support.
Bin Laden offered his militia to throw him out of Kuwait.
True, but that begs the qwuestion:
Why didn't we use the whole: the enemy of my enemy is friend position?

But AQ hates Saddam! He is the type of guy they fight against...secular Arab dictators with a history of Western support.
Bin Laden offered his militia to throw him out of Kuwait.

And Saddam was too paranoid and power hungry to willing give power/influence to any competing power bloc...hence why he kept Al Qaeda at arm's length.

Hence why America should have continues to work to diminish both group's international capabilities instead of invading and uniting the Ba'athists and Al Qaeda.

True, but that begs the qwuestion:
Why didn't we use the whole: the enemy of my enemy is friend position?

We did that with Saddam before when we saw Iran as a much bigger threat. Once again, Iran is a problem, but now the Middle East is so angry at US that we don't have much in the area that can putt pressure on Iran.

True, but that begs the qwuestion:
Why didn't we use the whole: the enemy of my enemy is friend position?
Maybe the Administration thought the link was even weaker than I do?


Hate--Me---------------No Relationship---Bush-------------Sick Nightmares--Love

Does that make sense?

You realize, Sick Nightmares, that numbers in the second poll add up to mean that 52% of Iraqis believe things are worse or the same as under Saddam. So...a majority of the Iraqis believe that things are no better now than under a tyrannical murderous monster.

Following that reasoning, things could still be a bit better than under Saddam, but people would STILL feel that the Coalition forces are merely a lesser of the two evils...and with the bar set so high on evil, that's not saying much.

Considering that, I find these two polls to be pretty much in agreement.


Or it could mean that 67% believe it's either unchanged or better, and since we're rid of Sadaam, and they are getting their country back, the war is justified solely on that basis.

Thats my whole damn argument. You can take polls and quotes and twist them all day long. What the hell does that serve, except to say "Look, I can make this poll fit my beliefs! Aren't I smart?"

If you can't support your own morals without visiting your favorite website for theirs, then I don't know what to tell you.

No amount of polling data is gonna change my view that something needed to be done. Or my view that no one was doing anything that would work.




What this does do, is prove the partisan way in which you interpret polls and parrot Republican talking points (which usually fail to make any logical sense anyway.)

To parrot the parrots:

"Look, these two polls about completly different topics have different numbers! The polls are teh suck!"
I didn't interpret any of that data. Period. I put those there to show that polls vary depending on the question, and unless it's a yes or no question, it's not gonna be very helpful data.

If you hand pick enough polls, with just the right question, asked in just the right way, then you can make the Pope look like a Satanist. But it doesn't make it so, junior.

Or it could mean that 67% believe it's either unchanged or better, and since we're rid of Sadaam, and they are getting their country back, the war is justified solely on that basis.

Thats my whole damn argument. You can take polls and quotes and twist them all day long. What the hell does that serve, except to say "Look, I can make this poll fit my beliefs! Aren't I smart?"

If you can't support your own morals without visiting your favorite website for theirs, then I don't know what to tell you.

No amount of polling data is gonna change my view that something needed to be done. Or my view that no one was doing anything that would work.



I didn't interpret any of that data. Period. I put those there to show that polls vary depending on the question, and unless it's a yes or no question, it's not gonna be very helpful data.

If you hand pick enough polls, with just the right question, asked in just the right way, then you can make the Pope look like a Satanist. But it doesn't make it so, junior.

Polls only matter when the Republicans are leading in them, apparently. Look, you completely overlooked the fact that the people who are ambivalent about whether things are better now or under Saddam are comparing it to a bloody, heartless ruler. There's no way to construe a neutral response to that question as a positive!

People finding the US and Saddam equal = bad

People finding the US worse = really really bad.

I visit websites to QUESTION and SUPPORT my beliefs. You, apparently, only listen to Republican talking points. You only know how you feel about a poll after you're told how to feel about it...let me guess. Those two polls you posted together...some Republican talking-head did it for you first...right?

Polls only matter when the Republicans are leading in them, apparently. Look, you completely overlooked the fact that the people who are ambivalent about whether things are better now or under Saddam are comparing it to a bloody, heartless ruler. There's no way to construe a neutral response to that question as a positive!

People finding the US and Saddam equal = bad

People finding the US worse = really really bad.
Thanks for proving my point! There you go, saying the poll states that the majority of Iraqis believe that the U.S. is worse than Saddam, when it says that NOWHERE.

The poll asks people about there situation. And usually, someones situation during war isn't too great, regardless of which side is just. So I really can't blame them. Ask them the same question in 5 years, and then see what it says.

Polls are unreliable, because it depends on exact wording. Here's an example for you. If you ask them who do you fear being arrested by more?, they will say Americans in huge numbers, which you would interpet as them saying that they hate Americans more. Never would it dawn on you that they would say that because terrorists don't arrest anyone. They just blow them up and cut off their heads.

.

Thanks for proving my point! There you go, saying the poll states that the majority of Iraqis believe that the U.S. is worse than Saddam, when it says that NOWHERE.

The poll asks people about there situation. And usually, someones situation during war isn't too great, regardless of which side is just. So I really can't blame them. Ask them the same question in 5 years, and then see what it says.

Polls are unreliable, because it depends on exact wording. Here's an example for you. If you ask them who do you fear being arrested by more?, they will say Americans in huge numbers, which you would interpet as them saying that they hate Americans more. Never would it dawn on you that they would say that because terrorists don't arrest anyone. They just blow them up and cut off their heads.

.



This doesn't make any sense to rational people. If "terrorists don't arrest anyone", why would there be a fear of it? What bothers me about you is that you really want there to be a good reason for the U.S. be out ther flouting the suggestions of the rest of the world, and I con't figure out why. Are you that small a person that you need to rely on jingoism to puff up your self image?

Polls are unreliable, because it depends on exact wording. Here's an example for you. If you ask them who do you fear being arrested by more?, they will say Americans in huge numbers, which you would interpet as them saying that they hate Americans more. Never would it dawn on you that they would say that because terrorists don't arrest anyone. They just blow them up and cut off their heads.
.
Ah, but that means Saddam isn't a terrorist. He arrests you: he doesn't blow you up and cut head off.

He grabs you puts you in prison: tell your family (not why though...if there was a reason) but that he has you (not where though).

So you surprise me by making him not linked :D

This doesn't make any sense to rational people. If "terrorists don't arrest anyone", why would there be a fear of it? What bothers me about you is that you really want there to be a good reason for the U.S. be out ther flouting the suggestions of the rest of the world, and I con't figure out why. Are you that small a person that you need to rely on jingoism to puff up your self image?
Are you slow or something? I've stated my reasons for the war in Iraq (soon to be "War in the Middle East" if I get my wish from Santa) quite bluntly. Call it jingoism all you want. I call it waging war on terrorists. No matter what nation they are in. And not the"new" narrowed down definition of terrorism. The proper definition that includes people like Saddam, and the Presidents of Iran, Syria, DPRK, and anyone else who uses terror, fear, and violence to further their goals.

So do all the namecalling you want, but if you have questions, please make sure they aren't staring you right in the face. Thats just lazy.

The proper definition that includes people like Saddam, and the Presidents of Iran, Syria, DPRK, and anyone else who uses terror, fear, and violence to further their goals.
And so you will use terror (ie violence for political purposes), fear (ie threatening them with violence) and violence (ie bombing them) to stop them (ie further your goals)?

Ah, but that means Saddam isn't a terrorist. He arrests you: he doesn't blow you up and cut head off.

He grabs you puts you in prison: tell your family (not why though...if there was a reason) but that he has you (not where though).

So you surprise me by making him not linked :D
Do you have a point , or do you just enjoy misinterpreting people in unintelligible posts?

Do you have a point , or do you just enjoy misinterpreting people in unintelligible posts?

Do you have anything contructive to say, or do you just enjoy being an insulting bastard?

Do you have anything contructive to say, or do you just enjoy being an insulting bastard?
Actually, both. I just didn't really feel the need to respond to such a blatant (and possibly intentional) misinterpretation. But since you asked so nicely.

Constructive part - I never said that terrorists can't be terrorists if they arrest people. The difference between Saddam and the terrorists currently in Iraq is that Saddam actually had a police force to arrest people with. If Bin Laden had his own police force, and arrested people, I don't think that everyone would say "Well, damn, I guess he isn't a terrorist then"

Insulting Bastard part - Do YOU have anything constructive to add, or do you just want to ride the coattails of the unintelligible like a little bitch? :D

If Bin Laden had his own police force, and arrested people, I don't think that everyone would say "Well, damn, I guess he isn't a terrorist then"
If he was a government, he wouldn't be a terrorist. Even the Bush Junta made a distinction between terrorists and governments that support them.

Clarification: They don't use the word interchangably.

Actually, both. I just didn't really feel the need to respond to such a blatant (and possibly intentional) misinterpretation. But since you asked so nicely.

Constructive part - I never said that terrorists can't be terrorists if they arrest people. The difference between Saddam and the terrorists currently in Iraq is that Saddam actually had a police force to arrest people with. If Bin Laden had his own police force, and arrested people, I don't think that everyone would say "Well, damn, I guess he isn't a terrorist then"

Takes one to know one I guess. So, who else should we rattle our saber at? Who else needs a trampleing by the U.S. before we can truly consolidate our power?

Insulting Bastard part - Do YOU have anything constructive to add, or do you just want to ride the coattails of the unintelligible like a little bitch? :(

I always knew you were a punk, this just proves it.

If he was a government, he wouldn't be a terrorist. Even the Bush Junta made a distinction between terrorists and governments that support them.

Clarification: They don't use the word interchangably.
Doesn't Bush call them Rogue nations?

What defination of rogue is he refering to, by the way; anyone know??

What defination of rogue is he refering to, by the way; anyone know??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue_state

That comes close...you just have to add "critical of the US" and you'd have it.

If he was a government, he wouldn't be a terrorist. Even the Bush Junta made a distinction between terrorists and governments that support them.

Clarification: They don't use the word interchangably.
Actually (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine)

Takes one to know one I guess. So, who else should we rattle our saber at? Who else needs a trampleing by the U.S. before we can truly consolidate our power?

Iran, Syria, DPRK, Sudan, etc. etc. etc. Should I go on?

And screw saber rattling, I'm talking about B-2's and A-10's


I always knew you were a punk, this just proves it. As opposed to you, Mr. toughguy? *falls on the floor laughing*

Iran, Syria, DPRK, Sudan, etc. etc. etc. Should I go on?

And screw saber rattling, I'm talking about B-2's and A-10's

As opposed to you, Mr. toughguy? *falls on the floor laughing*

Awww. Are the plummeting approval ratings really getting to you that much? Would a cookie make you feel better? You know you're cute when you're petulant...

Awww. Are the plummeting approval ratings really getting to you that much? Would a cookie make you feel better? You know you're cute when you're petulant...
Approval ratings? I'm assuming your referring to Bush's? Why would I give a fuck about them? Were still not pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and it's not like he can run again.

By the way, if you like approval ratings, check this out! These are the only ratings I pay attention to! ;)

One piece of legislation a majority of voters support is renewal of the Patriot Act. A 57 percent majority says the Patriot Act is a good thing for America, up from 54 percent last year (April 2004). Similarly, support for extending the act is up slightly (3 percentage points), as today 56 percent support and 31 percent oppose renewing the legislation (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,159790,00.html)

Approval ratings? I'm assuming your referring to Bush's? Why would I give a fuck about them? Were still not pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and it's not like he can run again.

By the way, if you like approval ratings, check this out! These are the only ratings I pay attention to! ;)

One piece of legislation a majority of voters support is renewal of the Patriot Act. A 57 percent majority says the Patriot Act is a good thing for America, up from 54 percent last year (April 2004). Similarly, support for extending the act is up slightly (3 percentage points), as today 56 percent support and 31 percent oppose renewing the legislation (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,159790,00.html)


More petulance! Adoreable! Aww, isn't he sweet? My cute little evil conservative lovemuffin! He even supports violations of personal privacy.

More petulance! Adoreable! Aww, isn't he sweet? My cute little evil conservative lovemuffin! He even supports violations of personal privacy.
Sorry sugar, I don't swing that way. ;)

And if you take your Proctologists advice, and remove your head while reading the Patriot act, it is pretty clear that the only ones who have anything to worry about are the ones breaking the law.

Thanks for proving my point! There you go, saying the poll states that the majority of Iraqis believe that the U.S. is worse than Saddam, when it says that NOWHERE.

The poll asks people about there situation. And usually, someones situation during war isn't too great, regardless of which side is just. So I really can't blame them. Ask them the same question in 5 years, and then see what it says.

Polls are unreliable, because it depends on exact wording. Here's an example for you. If you ask them who do you fear being arrested by more?, they will say Americans in huge numbers, which you would interpet as them saying that they hate Americans more. Never would it dawn on you that they would say that because terrorists don't arrest anyone. They just blow them up and cut off their heads.

.


I NEVER said the majority of Iraqis believe that things are worse. Where did I say that? How did you even begin to reach the conclusion that I said that unless you are intentionally denying what I have to say? What I DID say is that people believing things are THE SAME AS IT WAS UNDER A BRUTAL DICTATOR is not a glowing endorsement. If Saddam was so bad that he HAD to be removed at all costs, what does it tell you when people think things aren't any better?

Why is this extremely simple concept so hard for you to grasp? It simply cannot be construed as a good thing unless you think things were good under Saddam.

Are you slow or something? I've stated my reasons for the war in Iraq (soon to be "War in the Middle East" if I get my wish from Santa) quite bluntly. Call it jingoism all you want. I call it waging war on terrorists. No matter what nation they are in. And not the"new" narrowed down definition of terrorism. The proper definition that includes people like Saddam, and the Presidents of Iran, Syria, DPRK, and anyone else who uses terror, fear, and violence to further their goals.

So do all the namecalling you want, but if you have questions, please make sure they aren't staring you right in the face. Thats just lazy.

Hey everyone, Sick Nightmares is proposing War on Bush!

Sorry sugar, I don't swing that way. ;)

That's not what Corny said... [/not true]

And if you take your Proctologists advice, and remove your head while reading the Patriot act, it is pretty clear that the only ones who have anything to worry about are the ones breaking the law.

I don't have a proctologist, can't afford one, no health insurance (I wonder whose party is responsible for that one). So, who determines who falls under the patriot act's umbrella of law-breakers? Where will it end? Will only the double -plus-good autometons be immune? Or will there be a room 101 for everyone?

Approval ratings? I'm assuming your referring to Bush's? Why would I give a fuck about them? Were still not pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and it's not like he can run again.

By the way, if you like approval ratings, check this out! These are the only ratings I pay attention to! ;)

One piece of legislation a majority of voters support is renewal of the Patriot Act. A 57 percent majority says the Patriot Act is a good thing for America, up from 54 percent last year (April 2004). Similarly, support for extending the act is up slightly (3 percentage points), as today 56 percent support and 31 percent oppose renewing the legislation (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,159790,00.html)

Again, polls only matter if they support the Bush agenda. And you have the incredible intellectual dishonesty to call others partisan? God, you aren't even good or consistent, in your message. You're as transparent as Cheney with the shit kicked out of him.

I NEVER said the majority of Iraqis believe that things are worse. Where did I say that? How did you even begin to reach the conclusion that I said that unless you are intentionally denying what I have to say? What I DID say is that people believing things are THE SAME AS IT WAS UNDER A BRUTAL DICTATOR is not a glowing endorsement. If Saddam was so bad that he HAD to be removed at all costs, what does it tell you when people think things aren't any better?

Why is this extremely simple concept so hard for you to grasp? It simply cannot be construed as a good thing unless you think things were good under Saddam.
I already explained it once. I'll do it again for you, so PAY ATTENTION.

I don't see where I claim that you DID say that. Here is what I said.
There you go, saying the poll states that the majority of Iraqis believe that the U.S. is worse than Saddam, when it says that NOWHERE.
I said it in response to you saying this.

People finding the US and Saddam equal = bad.
People finding the US worse = really really bad.

What part of that don't you understand?

Actually (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine)
Do you know what "Clarification" means?

Again, polls only matter if they support the Bush agenda. And you have the incredible intellectual dishonesty to call others partisan? God, you aren't even good or consistent, in your message. You're as transparent as Cheney with the shit kicked out of him.
I never tried to prove any points with it. I simply figured I'd show that polls swing both ways. But if it offends you that much, whatever.


And just what the hell is the Cheney remark supposed to mean? That makes absolutely no sense.

Do you know what "Clarification" means?
My bad. Didn't see it there. ;)

I never tried to prove any points with it. I simply figured I'd show that polls swing both ways. But if it offends you that much, whatever.

Hypocrisy always offends me.

And just what the hell is the Cheney remark supposed to mean? That makes absolutely no sense.

It makes perfect sense. Think long and hard, it may just come to you. I assure you those of quicker wit are chuckling about it as we speak.

Hypocrisy always offends me.

Thats funny. It offends me when people would rather bitch about details in polls than stand up for whats right. So I guess were both offended.

I'm done with this stupid bickering (from both of us) I'm going over to the Chuck Norris thread. Because if Chuck Norris saw us arguing like this, he'd give us both a justified roundhouse kick to the face. We can at least agree on that, right?

I already explained it once. I'll do it again for you, so PAY ATTENTION.

I don't see where I claim that you DID say that. Here is what I said.

There you go, saying the poll states that the majority of Iraqis believe that the U.S. is worse than Saddam, when it says that NOWHERE.

I said it in response to you saying this.


People finding the US and Saddam equal = bad.
People finding the US worse = really really bad.

What part of that don't you understand?

YOU don't understand. That quote above says nothing about the majority finding things worse after Saddam. 21% of the people in that poll said they felt the same about Iraq after Saddam. Now, I made the point that those 21% of the Iraqi people must, logically, believe things are pretty damn bad, because the basis for comparison was a TOTALITARIAN LEADER WHO KILLED THOUSANDS. Lets say that again. 21% in that poll found Iraq now the equal of Saddam. 31% found Iraq now worse.

Let's make it even simpler, On a scale of 1-10, how would you say people had it under Saddam? A 2? A 3? Are you saying things were okay? A 5?

Let'as assume it was a 2. That means a majority think things are a 2 or even less.

What you suggested, combining the neutrals and the positives, merely says that a majority of the people think things are a 2 or better, which doesn't tell us a whole lot.

Do you get it yet, or do you want to embarrass yourself more?

Thats funny. It offends me when people would rather bitch about details in polls than stand up for whats right. So I guess were both offended.

I'm done with this stupid bickering (from both of us) I'm going over to the Chuck Norris thread. Because if Chuck Norris saw us arguing like this, he'd give us both a justified roundhouse kick to the face. We can at least agree on that, right?

I stand up for what's right. you merely stand up for what's Right. You think invading countries on shabby intel is okay, as long as our hearts are in the right place (which is up for debate.)

You think it's okay to torture.

You think it's okay to lie and cheat as long as the end is justified (to some.)

You have no idea what it is to be a REAL American, because if you did, you'd renounce this nonsense, open your eyes and realize that fighting evil with evil is still evil.

Morality party my ass. Bush's cronies would sell their grandparents if they could...at taxpayer expense.

Constructive part - I never said that terrorists can't be terrorists if they arrest people. The difference between Saddam and the terrorists currently in Iraq is that Saddam actually had a police force to arrest people with. If Bin Laden had his own police force, and arrested people, I don't think that everyone would say "Well, damn, I guess he isn't a terrorist then"

According to the definition of terrorism, terrorists can be state actors.

It's long been recognized a brutal police unit or death squad on the government payroll can commit terrorist acts and humanitarian atrocities just as terrible as non-state actors.

The international definitions of terrorism therefore try to distinguish their acts mostly based on what they are doing and trying to achieve, not what their role in society may be.

I stand up for what's right. you merely stand up for what's Right. You think invading countries on shabby intel is okay, as long as our hearts are in the right place (which is up for debate.)
It's a hell of a lot better than sanctioning the hell out of them for ten years, watching the population slowly starve to death, while their so called "Leader" slaughters them by the tens of thousands. If thats whats right to you, then you don't deserve the freedom you have. Yeah, you stand up for whats right. Your a fucking hero!
You think it's okay to torture.
I have stated in the past that I do condone torture if you can be sure it will lead to accurate info. And I won't apologize for that. I'd rather be looked at as a Neanderthal by a bunch of bleeding heart liberals who don't know shit outside of mommy's basement, than be the one who could have saved innocent lives, but instead wanted to play out some fucked up fantasy novel where the good guy always wins if he's nice to everyone.

I live in the real world.
You think it's okay to lie and cheat as long as the end is justified (to some.)Yes I do, because I personally believe that a large chunk of the population is too damn stupid to form any opinion that Al Franken and Michael Moore haven't pre-approved for them.

Frankly, I don't trust people like you to ensure that my grandkids will be safe in this world. You seem more worried about you than the future.

You have no idea what it is to be a REAL American, because if you did, you'd renounce this nonsense, open your eyes and realize that fighting evil with evil is still evil.Fighting evil with evil is evil? Isn't ANY kind of fighting inherently evil? Or just when conservatives do it?

Let me get this straight. By your incredibly naive logic, if I shoot an innocent 6 year old kid in the head in cold blood, it's exactly the same as if I did it to Bin Laden? I'd love to stay in your black and white world, but I enjoy the colors and shades of the real world.

And I just love how you question whether I am a REAL American. I can tell you one thing REAL Americans do. They do whatever it takes to make sure that they and their friends and neighbors are safe, and that their children and grand children have a better world to live in then we do. What the fuck have you done to make sure the country will be a better place in 100 years?
Or are you more worried about you?

Morality party my ass. Bush's cronies would sell their grandparents if they could...at taxpayer expense.
Where the fuck do you keep coming up with the fallacy that I'm a Republican? I share their views on foreign policy, and thats about it. But you'd rather just generalize me, instead of actually dealing with facts, I take it?

It's a hell of a lot better than sanctioning the hell out of them for ten years, watching the population slowly starve to death, while their so called "Leader" slaughters them by the tens of thousands. If thats whats right to you, then you don't deserve the freedom you have. Yeah, you stand up for whats right. Your a fucking hero!

And I'd agree...if we had started honestly and actually had a plan beforehand for getting Iraq back on it's feet. As it is, the majority of the people in Iraq consider things worse or the same now as under that slaughter and slow starvation...but hey, we're doing a bang-up job!

I have stated in the past that I do condone torture if you can be sure it will lead to accurate info. And I won't apologize for that. I'd rather be looked at as a Neanderthal by a bunch of bleeding heart liberals who don't know shit outside of mommy's basement, than be the one who could have saved innocent lives, but instead wanted to play out some fucked up fantasy novel where the good guy always wins if he's nice to everyone.

But torture doesn't work...only people who want to justify it still say it does. What it does do is rile up people who wouldn't have otherwise taken up arms against us. See, that's the real world. It's not about "good" or "bad" it's about realizing the consequences BEFORE doing something stupid. I don't see life as a paperback, but I do know that actions have consequences.

I live in the real world.
Yes I do, because I personally believe that a large chunk of the population is too damn stupid to form any opinion that Al Franken and Michael Moore haven't pre-approved for them.

Al Franken and Michael Moore do not shape my world. I don't parrot their talking-points, unlike you with your shallow Limbaughisms and your Hannitized mind.

Frankly, I don't trust people like you to ensure that my grandkids will be safe in this world. You seem more worried about you than the future.

With people like you in charge, there will be no future. Violence will beget violence. Pre-emptive wars will be raged. Actions will be taken on insufficient intel. People will act before thinking. Every country for themselves!

Fighting evil with evil is evil? Isn't ANY kind of fighting inherently evil? Or just when conservatives do it?

Let me get this straight. By your incredibly naive logic, if I shoot an innocent 6 year old kid in the head in cold blood, it's exactly the same as if I did it to Bin Laden? I'd love to stay in your black and white world, but I enjoy the colors and shades of the real world.


How simplistic. No. There are valid ways to go about getting Bin Laden. They do not include attacking a different country on half-baked intel and then manufacturing a justification, thereby incensing a whole region and making us less safe. They do not involve occupying a country that was the enemy of our enemy, a country run by an evil **** of a man, and then making it no better than it was...which at this point, unless you can read the future, you can't claim it's any better now than it was.

And I just love how you question whether I am a REAL American. I can tell you one thing REAL Americans do. They do whatever it takes to make sure that they and their friends and neighbors are safe, and that their children and grand children have a better world to live in then we do. What the fuck have you done to make sure the country will be a better place in 100 years?
Or are you more worried about you?

No. Americans don't do everything to make sure that their children are safe. That would entail marshall law. Curfews. A police state. Never leaving the house. Taking public transportation instead of driving cars. Outlawing cigarettes. Outlawing guns. Outlawing the right of assembly. Segregation. Enforced wearing of helmets at all times. A real American, such as Thomas Paine, says "Give me liberty or give me death!" A real American has the balls to stand tall and do what's right, even if it does endanger them. You, on the other hand, seem to prefer that Big Brother Government lie to us and take our money for useless and poorly executed wars in the hope that it might make us a little safer. Coward. Oh, and what have I said in all of this that could possibly be taken as selfish? You're the one who seems so scared that you'd prefer the government act illicitly just so scary brown men won't get you.


Where the fuck do you keep coming up with the fallacy that I'm a Republican? I share their views on foreign policy, and thats about it. But you'd rather just generalize me, instead of actually dealing with facts, I take it?

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, chances are it's a duck.

My question is "whose lies?"

I believe they were Tenet's lies. Sure, Bush wanted to hear them - but Tenet sold the same bill of goods to Clinton. Tenet also has much more motivation to exaggerate - he already had egg on his face from 9-11.

<snip>
They became Bush's lies also when he repeated them. If the justifiation for our invasion of Iraq was weapons of mass destruction, why is it that we invaded a country which might have them and not a country which was proclaiming to the world that it did? (North Korea)

They became Bush's lies also when he repeated them. If the justifiation for our invasion of Iraq was weapons of mass destruction, why is it that we invaded a country which might have them and not a country which was proclaiming to the world that it did? (North Korea)

And why did the Republicans oppose Kosovo, a place with genocide ONGOING? Why didn't Clinton invade Iraq if he had the same intel? Maybe because he wasn't as much of an idiot as Bush and needed more intel and better intel before waging an all out war?

And I'd agree...if we had started honestly and actually had a plan beforehand for getting Iraq back on it's feet. As it is, the majority of the people in Iraq consider things worse or the same now as under that slaughter and slow starvation...but hey, we're doing a bang-up job!.Uhm, there IS aplan to get it back on its feet. Such as building their military, which we are. Rebuilding their infrastructure, which we are. But it might take longer than it takes to microwave a burrito.

But torture doesn't work...only people who want to justify it still say it does. What it does do is rile up people who wouldn't have otherwise taken up arms against us. See, that's the real world. It's not about "good" or "bad" it's about realizing the consequences BEFORE doing something stupid. I don't see life as a paperback, but I do know that actions have consequences. .
How about paying the fuck attention, for once! I said I would condone it IF IT COULD BE PROVEN IT WOULD WORK. If it's proven 100% innacurate, then guess what that means? It means I wouldn't condone it. But NNOOOO, I'm an evil conservative, so I MUST want to shove bamboo under peoples fingernails for fun, right?


Al Franken and Michael Moore do not shape my world. I don't parrot their talking-points, unlike you with your shallow Limbaughisms and your Hannitized mind..
I don't like Hannity OR Limbaugh OR Franken OR Moore. They are ALL partisan wastes of oxygen. Of course, if you'd pay attention, instead of attacking my character, you'd know that. Funny thing is, I hate Hannity the most of all 4 of them. But you couldn't even comprehend a "Republican Conservative Bushite neocon" like me with my OWN opinions, could you?


With people like you in charge, there will be no future. Violence will beget violence. Pre-emptive wars will be raged. Actions will be taken on insufficient intel. People will act before thinking. Every country for themselves!.
With people like you in charge, the future would be great! Public stonings every sunday, a crescent on every public building , and your wife in full dress! Count me in! *thumbs up*


How simplistic. No. There are valid ways to go about getting Bin Laden. They do not include attacking a different country on half-baked intel and then manufacturing a justification, thereby incensing a whole region and making us less safe. They do not involve occupying a country that was the enemy of our enemy, a country run by an evil **** of a man, and then making it no better than it was...which at this point, unless you can read the future, you can't claim it's any better now than it was..I can claim it's better now, and I do. If you look back in this thread, you'll see where I commented about HOPE. The one thing that they have now, that they didn't have 5 years ago. The ONE THING that has changed. (well, besides the mass graves and gas attacks, but apparently thats not high on your priority list)



No. Americans don't do everything to make sure that their children are safe. That would entail marshall law. Curfews. A police state. Never leaving the house. Taking public transportation instead of driving cars. Outlawing cigarettes. Outlawing guns. Outlawing the right of assembly. Segregation. Enforced wearing of helmets at all times. A real American, such as Thomas Paine, says "Give me liberty or give me death!" A real American has the balls to stand tall and do what's right, even if it does endanger them. You, on the other hand, seem to prefer that Big Brother Government lie to us and take our money for useless and poorly executed wars in the hope that it might make us a little safer. Coward. Oh, and what have I said in all of this that could possibly be taken as selfish? You're the one who seems so scared that you'd prefer the government act illicitly just so scary brown men won't get you..
Way to misinterpret me, use blatant hyperbole AND call me a rascist without warrant all at once! So I want to protect myself and my family from terrorists, and now I'm "scared of brown people" Grow up. Your acting like a 5 year old, and I'm done debating your idiocy and race baiting. So go ahead and get your last words in, and be done with it. Just remember me in 06 when nobody but you and your hippy friends votes for Democraps again because they are the "Party of No Ideas" Me, I'm hoping for some nice independants, but just about anything will do over a party full of people like you.



If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, chances are it's a duck.How original. :rolleyes:

And why did the Republicans oppose Kosovo, a place with genocide ONGOING? <snip>
Well, that would be because that was just done to distract the american public from the fact that Clinton got a blowjob :D

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, chances are it's a duck.
http://www.economist.com/images/20050806/D3205US0.jpg
And a LAME one at that?:D

And a LAME one at that?:D
At least HE made it there. More than I can say for some.

At least HE made it there. More than I can say for some.
Yeah and the world wonders why.

Uhm, there IS aplan to get it back on its feet. Such as building their military, which we are. Rebuilding their infrastructure, which we are. But it might take longer than it takes to microwave a burrito.

The plan, as even many conservatives note, is piss poor.

How about paying the fuck attention, for once! I said I would condone it IF IT COULD BE PROVEN IT WOULD WORK. If it's proven 100% innacurate, then guess what that means? It means I wouldn't condone it. But NNOOOO, I'm an evil conservative, so I MUST want to shove bamboo under peoples fingernails for fun, right?


Hey, you're the one who keeps making the point about the ends justifying the means

I don't like Hannity OR Limbaugh OR Franken OR Moore. They are ALL partisan wastes of oxygen. Of course, if you'd pay attention, instead of attacking my character, you'd know that. Funny thing is, I hate Hannity the most of all 4 of them. But you couldn't even comprehend a "Republican Conservative Bushite neocon" like me with my OWN opinions, could you?


And you didn't attack MY character? Hypocrite

With people like you in charge, the future would be great! Public stonings every sunday, a crescent on every public building , and your wife in full dress! Count me in! *thumbs up*


Yeah, right. Are you saying that if we didn't go into Iraq when we did and how we did, we'd be taken over by the Muslims? That incredibly alarmist. Don't you have faith in America?

I can claim it's better now, and I do. If you look back in this thread, you'll see where I commented about HOPE. The one thing that they have now, that they didn't have 5 years ago. The ONE THING that has changed. (well, besides the mass graves and gas attacks, but apparently thats not high on your priority list)

Yes, and you're a better judge that it's better noe than the Iraqis themselves. All hail Sick Nightmares, the all knowing sociologist!


Way to misinterpret me, use blatant hyperbole AND call me a rascist without warrant all at once! So I want to protect myself and my family from terrorists, and now I'm "scared of brown people" Grow up. Your acting like a 5 year old, and I'm done debating your idiocy and race baiting. So go ahead and get your last words in, and be done with it. Just remember me in 06 when nobody but you and your hippy friends votes for Democraps again because they are the "Party of No Ideas" Me, I'm hoping for some nice independants, but just about anything will do over a party full of people like you.


Way to call me a Democrat after whining and moaning that you're not a Republican. Again, hypocritical hogwash.

How original. :rolleyes:

Some phrases are so apt that they need no originality

The plan, as even many conservatives note, is piss poor.
Why do you keep bringing up what Conservatives, as if I give a shit what they think?


Hey, you're the one who keeps making the point about the ends justifying the means
Yes, but in order for the ends to justify the means, you need to have "ends".


And you didn't attack MY character? HypocriteYeah, but I actually make good points while doing it! :D




Yeah, right. Are you saying that if we didn't go into Iraq when we did and how we did, we'd be taken over by the Muslims? That incredibly alarmist. Don't you have faith in America?
I'm saying that if you were in charge, you'd be so busy trying to appease Dictators that you wouldn't notice the terrorists slipping in the back door.



Yes, and you're a better judge that it's better now than the Iraqis themselves. All hail Sick Nightmares, the all knowing sociologist!
At least half the people in that country have never even known freedom. I'm not quite sure that they realize how much better their lives are going to be once their military is strong enough to defend them, and they actually get potable water and sewage throughout the entire nation. That and once people quit blowing themselves up around them, ask them how much better it is. I find it absolutely amazing that people can blame us for suicide bombers killing civilians. Show me an American soldier with Symtex strapped to him, and I'll admit I'm wrong, but somehow I doubt that will happen.

And you better hail me, damnit! :D



Way to call me a Democrat after whining and moaning that you're not a Republican. Again, hypocritical hogwash.
Hey, I'll admit my mistake. Are you not a Democrat?



Some phrases are so apt that they need no originality
And some are so overused that only the linguistically lacking still use it.

Why do you keep bringing up what Conservatives, as if I give a shit what they think?

You don't seem to care what anyone thinks. Which is why you're so hostile.



Yes, but in order for the ends to justify the means, you need to have "ends".

Yours seem to be indiscriminately blowing the hell out of everyone.


Yeah, but I actually make good points while doing it! :D

Maybe in some other universe. All I've seen is punklike "they're gonna hurt us, so we gotta bomb them first, oh noes!"



I'm saying that if you were in charge, you'd be so busy trying to appease Dictators that you wouldn't notice the terrorists slipping in the back door.

When did I mention anything about appeasement. If Iraq had attacked us, I'd say bomb them. They didn't attack us, they never attacked us, and we lied in order to attack them. That makes us the "bad guys" to use your simple terminology.



At least half the people in that country have never even known freedom. I'm not quite sure that they realize how much better their lives are going to be once their military is strong enough to defend them, and they actually get potable water and sewage throughout the entire nation. That and once people quit blowing themselves up around them, ask them how much better it is. I find it absolutely amazing that people can blame us for suicide bombers killing civilians. Show me an American soldier with Symtex strapped to him, and I'll admit I'm wrong, but somehow I doubt that will happen.

And they still don't know freedom. And women in Iraq might experience LESS freedom if a SHiite gains power. Until the insurgency is over, they are a Democracy in name only. Again, you're assuming the best from a situation that has already gone worse than planned. I don't blame us for the suicide bombers. I blame us for giving them further pretext and motivation to blow us up personally when, if we hadn't gone in there, they would never have had the chance. It's one thing to see foreigners walking the streets, see the ruin that war causes, have handy Americans around to act as a scapegoat and decide then nd there that the only way to eject them from your country is to give up one's life for the cause. It's quite another thing to fly halfway across the world and then successfully blow people up there....something that happened exactly ONCE...and then the cowardly chickenhawks of America got all scared and decided to kick some Middle Eastern butt.

See, I feel that Afganistan was perfectly justified. There goes your idiotic "appeasement" theory right there. It really is stupid, you know. When someone is instrumental in attacking us, I feel it's justified to hit back as hard as we can.

And you better hail me, damnit! :D

It'll be a cold day in hell. Unoriginal enough for you?


Hey, I'll admit my mistake. Are you not a Democrat?

Nope. The Dems dropped the ball. But at least they weren't the instigators of the war.

And some are so overused that only the linguistically lacking still use it.

What, like the word "appeasement"?

[quote]After President Bush was sworn into office in 2001, his administration was handed eight years worth of intelligence analysis and policy positions from the Clinton years -- you know, the years of appeasement when Saddam was tolerated, when opportunities to take out Osama bin Ladin were ignored, as was the presence of an al-Qa'ida terrorist cell in the U.S. -- which reared its head on 9/11.[quote]

Wow, this is not only innacurate, its completely one-sided.

The years of info were indeed handed to Bush, the summary of wich was "Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qeada wil be the biggest security threat to the US, and we know he plans to use hijacked planes as weapons."

Bush did nothing, and instead, focused on Iraq.

All before 9/11.

Bush had an agenda in Iraq from the moment he was elected.

You don't seem to care what anyone thinks. Which is why you're so hostile.
Can't argue with that.




Yours seem to be indiscriminately blowing the hell out of everyone. If America was indiscriminately blowing the hell out of everyone, there would be anything left. I think were showing amazing restraint.




Maybe in some other universe. All I've seen is punklike "they're gonna hurt us, so we gotta bomb them first, oh noes!"
Actually, it's more like "They want to kill us all, so we gotta bomb them first"
Get it right, would ya? And I'd suggest you quit using "oh noes" unless you like being viewed as a 12 year old computer geek.




When did I mention anything about appeasement. If Iraq had attacked us, I'd say bomb them. They didn't attack us, they never attacked us, and we lied in order to attack them. That makes us the "bad guys" to use your simple terminology.
You don't think we should have attacked Iraq until after they did something to deserve it. Saddam was a dictator who posed a threat to the world, no matter how you slice it. Did I mention he tried to assassinate our President? Sounds like appeasement to me.




And they still don't know freedom. And women in Iraq might experience LESS freedom if a SHiite gains power. Until the insurgency is over, they are a Democracy in name only. Again, you're assuming the best from a situation that has already gone worse than planned. I don't blame us for the suicide bombers. I blame us for giving them further pretext and motivation to blow us up personally when, if we hadn't gone in there, they would never have had the chance. It's one thing to see foreigners walking the streets, see the ruin that war causes, have handy Americans around to act as a scapegoat and decide then nd there that the only way to eject them from your country is to give up one's life for the cause. It's quite another thing to fly halfway across the world and then successfully blow people up there....something that happened exactly ONCE...and then the cowardly chickenhawks of America got all scared and decided to kick some Middle Eastern butt. All I get out of this is a rant. Try to keep it intelligible, would ya? And we didn't "kick some middle eastern butt" because we were scared, we did it because we were fed up.


See, I feel that Afganistan was perfectly justified. There goes your idiotic "appeasement" theory right there. It really is stupid, you know. When someone is instrumental in attacking us, I feel it's justified to hit back as hard as we can.
OK Selective Appeasement seems to fit the bill then.


It'll be a cold day in hell. Unoriginal enough for you?
Perfect!



Nope. The Dems dropped the ball. But at least they weren't the instigators of the war.
Thats not what I read in the OP. There goes your selectiveness again. tsk tsk



What, like the word "appeasement"?
Didn't know that was a phrase. But I guess it'll do! ;)

Bush had an agenda in Iraq from the moment he was elected.
Interestingly enough, that's one of the reasons I voted for him! Isn't democracy great?

This whole discussion is missing the forest for the trees. The Coalition believed that Saddam Hussein was a threat, period. The WMD argument was only one of the many good reasons he had to be removed.

Why was everyone paying attention to Hussein? What had he done in the past to gain so much attention? Why was he obstructing the weapons inspectors at every turn?

They're still finding lab equipment buried in Iraqi scientists backyards. Hussein was playing for time. All he wanted was for the UN to stop paying attention to him so he could restart his biochem/nuclear program. The payoff scam (Oil for Food) that was part of his strategy almost worked. Based on what that investigation has turned up so far it's not hard to see who was being bribed by a despicable tyrant.

As for the missing WMD, how hard would it be for a dictator to have some people driven out into the desert to dig a hole big enough to bury a semi-trailer in and then have everyone involved disposed of?

Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence!

You don't think we should have attacked Iraq until after they did something to deserve it. Saddam was a dictator who posed a threat to the world, no matter how you slice it. Did I mention he tried to assassinate our President? Sounds like appeasement to me.

Tell me, in light of the fact that Hussien neither had weapons of mass destruction, nor was making any credible attempts to obtain them, how then, was he a threat to the US, in particular, or the world, in general?

Tell me, in light of the fact that Hussien neither had weapons of mass destruction, nor was making any credible attempts to obtain them, how then, was he a threat to the US, in particular, or the world, in general?

UNSCOM still thought he had 1800 gallons of anthrax, which was unaccounted for...

Other than that, the rest was rather inconclusive according to Blix.

But, Blix would never have discovered what happened to the missing 1800 gallons - which Dr. Taha had secretly destroyed without Saddam's permission. She said she would never have told the UN inspectors, because Saddam would have killed her.

She told the US Survey Team after the invasion, and the Survey Team dug it up and confirmed her story.

Maybe you don't think that 1800 gallons of anthrax is a big deal, but it's enough to kill everyone in the world.

UNSCOM still thought he had 1800 gallons of anthrax, which was unaccounted for...

Other than that, the rest was rather inconclusive according to Blix.

But, Blix would never have discovered what happened to the missing 1800 gallons - which Dr. Taha had secretly destroyed without Saddam's permission. She said she would never have told the UN inspectors, because Saddam would have killed her.

She told the US Survey Team after the invasion, and the Survey Team dug it up and confirmed her story.

Maybe you don't think that 1800 gallons of anthrax is a big deal, but it's enough to kill everyone in the world.


2 questions.

A) Why havent I heard of this.

B) If she destroyed the anthrax, how did anyone "dig it up", and why did no news agency, report any such thing?

The bottom line is the democrats had access to the same info everyone else did and supported and encouraged the removal of Saddam . For political reasons its not a popular view at this time so the worms are trying to rewrite history and fools are actually believing it . Its nice to know they can be scewered by their own words .

The bottom line is the democrats had access to the same info everyone else did and supported and encouraged the removal of Saddam . For political reasons its not a popular view at this time so the worms are trying to rewrite history and fools are actually believing it . Its nice to know they can be scewered by their own words .

No they didn't. Congress did not have access to the President's daily briefings, George Tenet did not report directly to them nor did they have the DIA report that indicated that Al Qaeda and Saddam were not only not in league but that they had opposing goals. That is a pure unadulterated lie, and shame on you for repeating it.

You're right, the Democrats are trying to rewrite history...but only because the Whitehouse wrote a fabricated history to begin with.

But go ahead, keep repeating easily refuted lies. It really strengthens your position.

Hack.

Tell me, in light of the fact that Hussien neither had weapons of mass destruction, nor was making any credible attempts to obtain them, how then, was he a threat to the US, in particular, or the world, in general?

Saddam Hussein gassed, shot, and otherwise murdered thousands of his own people. HIS OWN FUCKING PEOPLE!. If he shows so little compassion for his own subjects, imagine how long it'd take him to launch a chemical warhead at Israel, or give a biological agent to terrorists, and pay to smuggle it into the U.S.

Analogy: The year is 1940. Albert Einstein never decides to come to America, and warn Roosevelt about the potential of the atomic bomb. German scientists develop nuclear weapons long before the U.S. is even aware of the threat. Hitler is now in possession of some of the most destructive weaponry ever made. Now, as an aside, Hitler was an idiot and made terrible military decisions. Nonetheless, Hitler issues an ultimatum to the allies: withdraw D-Day and other invasion forces from Europe, or Nazi Germany will obliterate England. Like the Japanese in real life, the United States are unaware of the threat posed by the bombs, and we do not comply with the demands. One day later, Hitler's planes strike at England. And unlike America, Hitler uses the bomb not to warn his enemies to surrender, but to annihilate everything possible. His first attack is an all-out offensive. London, Edinburgh, Liverpool, Southampton, and are completely destroyed. Millions die immediately, and millions more will succumb to radiation poisoning and other effects of the bomb. Allied forces are shocked, but refuse to give up. Invading forces push further into Europe, and three days later, Hitler attacks Soviet Russia, erradicating Moscow and St. Petersburg. The Russians, already having suffered millions of military and civilian casualties, offer their immediate and unconditional surrender to Germany. As the war on the eastern front closes, German forces reinforce positions on the western front, and the invasion bogs down. Hitler calls on the Allies to surrender or face prompt and utter destruction. Having no choice, Allied leaders accept, and Hitler annexes all of Europe, and turns America and Russia into territories of the Third Reich. Fascism rules the world.

Is that a scary enough scenario to convince you that anyone as cruel and unstable as Saddam should never be allowed to have weapons of mass destruction? Would you agree that even if the evidence for WMD is not overwhelming, action must be taken? I would rather have had Bush decide to invade Iraq and find no WMD at all (which was not the case) than have Israel destroyed in a few years because no one tried to stop Saddam.

Saddam Hussein gassed, shot, and otherwise murdered thousands of his own people. HIS OWN FUCKING PEOPLE!. If he shows so little compassion for his own subjects, imagine how long it'd take him to launch a chemical warhead at Israel, or give a biological agent to terrorists, and pay to smuggle it into the U.S.

Analogy: The year is 1940. Albert Einstein never decides to come to America, and warn Roosevelt about the potential of the atomic bomb. German scientists develop nuclear weapons long before the U.S. is even aware of the threat. Hitler is now in possession of some of the most destructive weaponry ever made. Now, as an aside, Hitler was an idiot and made terrible military decisions. Nonetheless, Hitler issues an ultimatum to the allies: withdraw D-Day and other invasion forces from Europe, or Nazi Germany will obliterate England. Like the Japanese in real life, the United States are unaware of the threat posed by the bombs, and we do not comply with the demands. One day later, Hitler's planes strike at England. And unlike America, Hitler uses the bomb not to warn his enemies to surrender, but to annihilate everything possible. His first attack is an all-out offensive. London, Edinburgh, Liverpool, Southampton, and are completely destroyed. Millions die immediately, and millions more will succumb to radiation poisoning and other effects of the bomb. Allied forces are shocked, but refuse to give up. Invading forces push further into Europe, and three days later, Hitler attacks Soviet Russia, erradicating Moscow and St. Petersburg. The Russians, already having suffered millions of military and civilian casualties, offer their immediate and unconditional surrender to Germany. As the war on the eastern front closes, German forces reinforce positions on the western front, and the invasion bogs down. Hitler calls on the Allies to surrender or face prompt and utter destruction. Having no choice, Allied leaders accept, and Hitler annexes all of Europe, and turns America and Russia into territories of the Third Reich. Fascism rules the world.

Is that a scary enough scenario to convince you that anyone as cruel and unstable as Saddam should never be allowed to have weapons of mass destruction? Would you agree that even if the evidence for WMD is not overwhelming, action must be taken? I would rather have had Bush decide to invade Iraq and find no WMD at all (which was not the case) than have Israel destroyed in a few years because no one tried to stop Saddam.


A few problems with your analogy. Germany prior to WWII was a first rate power with one of the mightiest militaries in the world...and Hitler still couldn't attack the US directly. Saddam was a third-rate tyrant with a largely de-clawed military of archaic design and no long range capabilities. He had no air force, or at least no air force capable of getting off the ground before being instantly shot down. Any attempt to create inter-continental missiles would have been obvious and easily countered before he could do a thing.

Secondly, Saddam was power-hungry and paranoid, much like Hitler. If Hitler had developed the bomb, do YOU think he would have given that capability to anyone else? Neither would Saddam. Giving nuclear weapons to Al Qaeda would have threatened Saddam's own rule.

Also, we KNEW he didn't have nuclear capabilities prior to the Iraq war. The aluminum tubes were known to be the wrong type for nuclear weapons. He didn't have enriched uranium or the capability to produce it or even the raw ore to start.

For some reason, righties have got it into their head that the only options prewar were to invade or to ignore Saddam completely. That was not the case. The inspectors were in Iraq prewar. They weren't finding anything, and we went to war anyway.

Yet another point. If Saddam HAD developed nuclear capabilities, then neutralizing him would have been a worldwide effort. Even France and Germany would have HAD to go along. Our burden in cost and troops would have been much less, and the nation-builing that followed would have had more international legitimacy.

Finally, in invading Iraq, we partially took our eye off of N. Korea, which DID create nuclear weapons and has them still.

Basically your analogy is a children's storybook scare tactic. It not only WOULDN'T have happened, it COULDN'T have happened.

Holy bad analogy Batman!!!!!


Oh yes. A contained Iraq could secretly develop an arsenal sufficent to take over the world!!!!!!!!!


Besides, if his intent HAD been to use WMD against Isreal, please explain to the group why he DIDN'T when he a) had them, and b) was dropping scuds into that country in '91?

As to what somebody might do, well there is an implicit burden of proof as to when justifiable lethal force is to be used under domestic law. You can't, for example, as a shop owner simply shoot minority children because you think they might grow up to be gang members. the same burden should apply before you stop dropping bombs on other countries.


As to Saddam's treatment of some of his own people, that is a heinous act for which he should have been removed from power AT THE TIME. Acting all outraged and doing it 15 years later is of no help to those he mistreated. Oh yes, and while we are on the subject, at least be honest to acknowledge that those Kurds targetted were militant seperatists - many of whom allied themselves with Iran during that war. I/E traitors to their country.

Now compare treatment of the kurdish insurgents if you will with coalition treatment of the current crop of insurgents. Look into Falluja, bombing residences where insurgents are suspected of being, etc, etc.

Putting down insurgants with force seems to be SOP.... so castigating Saddam for somethingthat is not to far from current government policy seems a tad hypocritical.

No they didn't. Congress did not have access to the President's daily briefings, George Tenet did not report directly to them nor did they have the DIA report that indicated that Al Qaeda and Saddam were not only not in league but that they had opposing goals. That is a pure unadulterated lie, and shame on you for repeating it.

You're right, the Democrats are trying to rewrite history...but only because the Whitehouse wrote a fabricated history to begin with.

But go ahead, keep repeating easily refuted lies. It really strengthens your position.

Hack.

Your scenario doesn't precude that this was all fabricated or exaggerated by Tenet.

Go back and try again.

I might add that the logic of your position would imply that
a) the invasion of Iraq and the deposing of Saddam was completely wrong

and

b) therefore, we should take him out of prison, dissolve the current Iraqi government, and put him back in charge

I might add that the logic of your position would imply that
a) the invasion of Iraq and the deposing of Saddam was completely wrong

and

b) therefore, we should take him out of prison, dissolve the current Iraqi government, and put him back in charge

How the hell do you reach that conclusion? False dichotomy my friend. Really bad form.

How the hell do you reach that conclusion? False dichotomy my friend. Really bad form.

Not false at all.

You're saying Bush lied, and therefore the reasons for going to war were wrong.
If they were wrong, and therefore illegal, the whole war was illegal.

So, the only thing to do to resolve the illegal deposing of Saddam is to put him back in place, tidy up a bit, and leave.

Unless you're somehow going to go back and cover our asses with some sort of explanation that makes the war legal.

Your scenario doesn't precude that this was all fabricated or exaggerated by Tenet.

Go back and try again.


Nor does it EXCLUDE that either. Duh. All I'm saying is that the contention that Congress had the same information as the Whitehouse is not just wrong, but obviously wrong and irrefutably wrong.

Geez. Where do you guys come up with this stuff?

Nor does it EXCLUDE that either. Duh. All I'm saying is that the contention that Congress had the same information as the Whitehouse is not just wrong, but obviously wrong and irrefutably wrong.

Geez. Where do you guys come up with this stuff?

I'm saying that the simplest explanation is that Tenet is the principal liar here. Not Bush.

If you're going to keep saying, "Bush lied" then you'll have to prove it. Which you haven't done - you'll have to prove that Tenet was manipulated.

Kind of hard to say, since Tenet has been pretty consistent on WMD, Saddam, and Iraq from the mid-1990s. Unless you're saying that Bush had a mind control beam on Clinton...

Not false at all.

You're saying Bush lied, and therefore the reasons for going to war were wrong.
If they were wrong, and therefore illegal, the whole war was illegal.

So, the only thing to do to resolve the illegal deposing of Saddam is to put him back in place, tidy up a bit, and leave.

Unless you're somehow going to go back and cover our asses with some sort of explanation that makes the war legal.

HOW we got him doesn't have anything to do with Saddam's guilt or innocence once we got him. Nor does going about things the right way from the get-go mean that we wouldn't have eventually gone to war anyway.

You are trying to impose a false either/or proposition when there are many many more than just two choices.

Stop it.

HOW we got him doesn't have anything to do with Saddam's guilt or innocence once we got him. Nor does going about things the right way from the get-go mean that we wouldn't have eventually gone to war anyway.

You are trying to impose a false either/or proposition when there are many many more than just two choices.

Stop it.

So you're saying it was OK to invade Iraq and knock Saddam out of power? What's your justification?

I'm saying that the simplest explanation is that Tenet is the principal liar here. Not Bush.

If you're going to keep saying, "Bush lied" then you'll have to prove it. Which you haven't done - you'll have to prove that Tenet was manipulated.

Kind of hard to say, since Tenet has been pretty consistent on WMD, Saddam, and Iraq from the mid-1990s. Unless you're saying that Bush had a mind control beam on Clinton...

Again, you are trying to impose a simple choice on a complex situation. You are saying "either Bush lied or Tenet lied"

Maybe they both lied. Maybe they collaborated. Maybe Tenet was told to find proof of WMD and ignore everything else.
It was dumbed down and packeaged for people just like you who like to make everything into a simple either/or proposition.

As far as your assertion that Tenet and the CIA have been consistent on WMD since the mid-1990's, well that's simply not true. There has always been conflicting intel. There was intel that said the missile strikes in 1998 destroyed any WMD capability that Saddam MIGHT have had. There was intel that said no such thing.

That's the whole point. The intel was ambiguous and contradictory, convoluted and complex....but Bush, or Tenet or Cheney or magical Politik Fairies chose to exclude all the contradictory bits of intel to make a case for war.

Again, you are trying to impose a simple choice on a complex situation. You are saying "either Bush lied or Tenet lied"

Maybe they both lied. Maybe they collaborated. Maybe Tenet was told to find proof of WMD and ignore everything else.

As far as your assertion that Tenet and the CIA have been consistent on WMD since the mid-1990's, well that's simply not true. There has always been conflicting intel. There was intel that said the missile strikes in 1998 destroyed any WMD capability that Saddam MIGHT have had. There was intel that said no such thing.

That's the whole point. The intel was ambiguous and contradictory, convoluted and complex....but Bush, or Tenet or Cheney or magical politik fairies chose to exclude all the contradictory bits of intel to make a case for war.


The UNSCOM intel on the missing anthrax was never contradictory.

The UNSCOM intel on the missing anthrax was never contradictory.

You mean the anthrax that was destroyed and then dug up, which I've never seen reported anywhere else?

Yeah, that's not contradictory at all :rolleyes:

You mean the anthrax that was destroyed and then dug up?

Yeah, that's not contradictory at all :rolleyes:


You're deliberately missing the point:

1. UNSCOM had no idea what happened to 1800 gallons of anthrax.
2. They knew it was produced - they could not confirm its status.
3. Only Dr. Taha knew, and she wasn't telling anyone out of fear of death.
4. Sure, it was destroyed, but no one had any way to find out.
5. The only way to find out was to have Dr. Taha in a position not to fear Saddam - i.e., Saddam out of power.
6. Information confirmed by the Survey Team.

You're deliberately missing the point:

1. UNSCOM had no idea what happened to 1800 gallons of anthrax.
2. They knew it was produced - they could not confirm its status.
3. Only Dr. Taha knew, and she wasn't telling anyone out of fear of death.
4. Sure, it was destroyed, but no one had any way to find out.
5. The only way to find out was to have Dr. Taha in a position not to fear Saddam - i.e., Saddam out of power.
6. Information confirmed by the Survey Team.

And this was never mentioned in a Whitehouse press conference why?

You got a source for this?

Again, the only thing certain, provided you have a source for this, is that they didn't know...not exactly proof is it?

And once again, you're avoiding the subject, which is that the contention that Congress and the Whitehouse had the same intel is not only false, but laughably false.

And this was never mentioned in a Whitehouse press conference why?

You got a source for this?

Again, the only thing certain, provided you have a source for this, is that they didn't know...not exactly proof is it?

http://www.answers.com/topic/rihab-taha

On March 28, 2005, the Associated Press reported that Taha has explained the 1,800 gallon discrepancy between the amount of anthrax the UN knew she had manufactured, and the amount she admitted to destroying. The missing anthrax was one of the stated reasons for the Iraq war and was emphasized by then-U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell during his February 2003 speech to the Security Council. However, according to an Iraq Survey Group report published on October 6, 2004, Taha has told American investigators that she and her colleagues dumped the missing anthrax near the gates of one of Saddam's palaces in April 1991, but were afraid to admit to this for fear of incurring Saddam's wrath. The Iraqi biologists therefore told the UN weapons inspectors that the missing anthrax had never existed.

http://www.answers.com/topic/rihab-taha

On March 28, 2005, the Associated Press reported that Taha has explained the 1,800 gallon discrepancy between the amount of anthrax the UN knew she had manufactured, and the amount she admitted to destroying. The missing anthrax was one of the stated reasons for the Iraq war and was emphasized by then-U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell during his February 2003 speech to the Security Council. However, according to an Iraq Survey Group report published on October 6, 2004, Taha has told American investigators that she and her colleagues dumped the missing anthrax near the gates of one of Saddam's palaces in April 1991, but were afraid to admit to this for fear of incurring Saddam's wrath. The Iraqi biologists therefore told the UN weapons inspectors that the missing anthrax had never existed.

Missing anthrax is nothing to laugh at. 1800 gallons is quite sufficient to kill everyone on the planet.

Oh, and I hope you like the link, and the fact that you forgot that Powell mentioned it in a public speech.

http://www.answers.com/topic/rihab-taha

On March 28, 2005, the Associated Press reported that Taha has explained the 1,800 gallon discrepancy between the amount of anthrax the UN knew she had manufactured, and the amount she admitted to destroying. The missing anthrax was one of the stated reasons for the Iraq war and was emphasized by then-U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell during his February 2003 speech to the Security Council. However, according to an Iraq Survey Group report published on October 6, 2004, Taha has told American investigators that she and her colleagues dumped the missing anthrax near the gates of one of Saddam's palaces in April 1991, but were afraid to admit to this for fear of incurring Saddam's wrath. The Iraqi biologists therefore told the UN weapons inspectors that the missing anthrax had never existed.
bump

bump

Took me a while to find the whole story

Silence on anthrax proved costly

Iraqi official didn't disclose bacteria destroyed in 1991

By CHARLES J. HANLEY

The Associated Press


In early 2003, as war fever built in Washington, an Iraqi scientist faced a fateful choice.

Rihab Rashid Taha could try to lower the heat by finally telling U.N. inspectors what happened to Iraq's “missing” anthrax, or she could remain silent, rather than risk Saddam Hussein's wrath.

The microbiologist's dilemma, she has told U.S. interrogators, was that her team 12 years earlier had destroyed the lethal bacteria by dumping it practically at the gates of one of Hussein's main palaces, and the feared Iraqi despot might grow enraged at news of anthrax on his doorstep.

Taha chose silence in 2003, thus stoking suspicions of those who contended that Iraq still harbored biological weapons. Soon thereafter, two years ago this month, the United States invaded.

“Whether those involved understood the significance and disastrous consequences of their actions is unclear,” the CIA-led Iraq Survey Group says of Taha and colleagues in its final report on Iraq weapons hunting. “These efforts demonstrate the problems that existed on both sides in establishing the truth.”

The Iraqis claimed then that before the 1991 Gulf War they had made 2,191 gallons of anthrax. They said they destroyed all of it in mid-1991 at their bioweapons center at Hakam, 50 miles southwest of Baghdad.

The U.N. experts confirmed that anthrax had been dumped at Hakam. But they also found evidence that Iraq had produced an additional 1,800 gallons of anthrax.

Then-Secretary of State Colin Powell dwelled on an anthrax threat in his February 2003 speech seeking U.N. Security Council authority for war.

But the truth appears to lie elsewhere, according to a section of the Iraq Survey Group report.

Taha told interrogators her staff carted off anthrax from Hakam in April 1991 and stored it in a bungalow near the presidential palace at Radwaniyah, 20 miles west of Baghdad, the U.S. teams report.

Later that year the crew dumped the chemically deactivated anthrax on grounds surrounded by a Special Republican Guard barracks near the palace, the report says.

Through the years, Taha and other Iraqi officials denied that the “missing” anthrax had ever existed.

“The members of the program were too scared to tell the Regime that they had dumped deactivated anthrax within sight of one of the principal presidential palaces,” the Iraq Survey Group says.

The arms hunters' report also concludes, “ISG's investigation found no evidence that Iraq continued to hide BW (biological) weapons after the unilateral destruction of 1991 was complete.”

“We knew there was a lie,” Barton said, “but we jumped to the wrong conclusions.”

See, same crap. The Bush administration looked for what they wanted to find and jumped to conclusions...then you post an edited version and say that the intel wasn't unclear.

and this, also from AP

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0811-09.htm

The Defense Intelligence Agency, or DIA, in a confidential report last September, recently disclosed, said that although it believed Iraq had biological weapons, it didn't know their nature, amounts or condition.

Three weeks before the invasion, an Iraqi report of scientific soil sampling supported the regime's contention that it had destroyed its anthrax stocks at a known site, the U.N. inspection agency said May 30. Iraq also presented a list of witnesses to verify amounts, the agency said. It was too late for inspectors to interview them; the war soon began.

Took me a while to find the whole story

Exactly. The US and UNSCOM knew Taha was lying about the anthrax prior to the war. But they thought she was lying to cover up its existence - they had no idea and no way to find out that she was lying to cover her own ass against Saddam - no way to know that she had actually destroyed it.

Now take off your tinfoil hat and admit that "not knowing" what happened to 1800 gallons of anthrax is a real reason.

All the other reasons might be chaff - but 1800 gallons is nothing to laugh at - until you know exactly what happened to it, it represents an intolerable political risk in the aftermath of 9-11 and the anthrax attacks in the US.

Exactly. The US and UNSCOM knew Taha was lying about the anthrax prior to the war. But they thought she was lying to cover up its existence - they had no idea and no way to find out that she was lying to cover her own ass against Saddam - no way to know that she had actually destroyed it.

Now take off your tinfoil hat and admit that "not knowing" what happened to 1800 gallons of anthrax is a real reason.

All the other reasons might be chaff - but 1800 gallons is nothing to laugh at - until you know exactly what happened to it, it represents an intolerable political risk in the aftermath of 9-11 and the anthrax attacks in the US.

No, YOU take off your tinfoil hat and admit that you can't start a war on suspicions. You can't kill someone because you suspect they are going to commit murder, and you can't say that someone had WMD's when you don't know what they have, how much they have of it, or if it's still even "alive."

You're talking about invasion. Death. Destruction. You need proof, not suspicion.

again

The Defense Intelligence Agency, or DIA, in a confidential report last September, recently disclosed, said that although it believed Iraq had biological weapons, it didn't know their nature, amounts or condition.

CONTRADICTORY information excluded to dupe simple people who like to make everything into either/or propositions.

No, YOU take off your tinfoil hat and admit that you can't start a war on suspicions. You can't kill someone because you suspect they are going to commit murder, and you can't say that someone had WMD's when you don't know what they have, how much they have of it, or if it's still even "alive."

You're talking about invasion. Death. Destruction. You need proof, not suspicion.

They knew the anthrax had been produced.

They couldn't account for it.

If I couldn't account for something that could kill millions or potentially billions of people, how hard do you think the government would put a rubber glove up my ass in order to find out for sure?

It's a politically unacceptable risk nowadays. Look at the grilling that people got for missing the signs for 9-11. Now, put yourself in ANY President's shoes.

Your advisors tell you that if you don't account for the anthrax, you run the risk (albeit small) that an actual anthrax attack may take place somewhere. You know that someone has already been mailing anthrax around in the US and that it caused panic far out of proportion to the actual deaths (which were few).

Politically speaking, can you risk that? It would mean the obliteration of your party from the political scene if you fail to find out and an attack takes place.

They knew the anthrax had been produced.

They couldn't account for it.

If I couldn't account for something that could kill millions or potentially billions of people, how hard do you think the government would put a rubber glove up my ass in order to find out for sure?

It's a politically unacceptable risk nowadays. Look at the grilling that people got for missing the signs for 9-11. Now, put yourself in ANY President's shoes.

Your advisors tell you that if you don't account for the anthrax, you run the risk (albeit small) that an actual anthrax attack may take place somewhere. You know that someone has already been mailing anthrax around in the US and that it caused panic far out of proportion to the actual deaths (which were few).

Politically speaking, can you risk that? It would mean the obliteration of your party from the political scene if you fail to find out and an attack takes place.

And starting a war based on culling contradictory intel (UNSCOM vs. DIA) can do the same thing....kill Americans and ruin you politically...as we're seeing.

Uh, and don't forget. Anthrax doesn't just kill people. It has to be weaponized, put into shells and those shells have to be delivered. Iraq didn't have the capability to do that even if they had the anthrax...which they didn't.

You do the same goddam thing the Bush administration did. You exclude any evidence that doesn't fit into your world view.

If the inspections pre-war had continued, how do you know we wouldn't have gotten to the bottom of this question WITHOUT risking over 2000 American lives and 100's of billions of dollars? Was war really necessary in order to answer these questions? Could Saddam have done ANYTHING in a month or two more? Of course he couldn't. All you do is simplify things and ignore anything that might cause you to question your preconcieved notions.

Either we go to war at exactly the time we did or Saddam kills us all. It's bullshit and you know it. Grow up.

No, YOU take off your tinfoil hat and admit that you can't start a war on suspicions. You can't kill someone because you suspect they are going to commit murder, and you can't say that someone had WMD's when you don't know what they have, how much they have of it, or if it's still even "alive."

You're talking about invasion. Death. Destruction. You need proof, not suspicion.

again

CONTRADICTORY information excluded to dupe simple people who like to make everything into either/or propositions.
Scenario:
Predient-Hey, where is all that Anthrax you had?

Dictator-UH... I don't know?

President-What do you mean you don't know. You had it last month!

Dictator- I must have destroyed it, I guess.

President- Prove it!

Dictator- Piss off.

President- Oh, well, ah, nevermind then. Be a good boy, ok?

It's a politically unacceptable risk nowadays. Look at the grilling that people got for missing the signs for 9-11. Now, put yourself in ANY President's shoes.

Your advisors tell you that if you don't account for the anthrax, you run the risk (albeit small) that an actual anthrax attack may take place somewhere. You know that someone has already been mailing anthrax around in the US and that it caused panic far out of proportion to the actual deaths (which were few).

Politically speaking, can you risk that? It would mean the obliteration of your party from the political scene if you fail to find out and an attack takes place.
Politically can you risk going to war? No, your apprtoval ratings will fall severly if you are wrong.

Bush's approval ratings have fallen for this same reason.


No one could prove the anthrax came from Saddam. Why could'nt our CIA or any Intelligence look?

If te Anthrax was already here than attacking Saddam still would'nt help.

Uh, and don't forget. Anthrax doesn't just kill people. It has to be weaponized, put into shells and those shells have to be delivered. Iraq didn't have the capability to do that even if they had the anthrax...which they didn't.


From my same link:
UNSCOM learned that, In August 1990, after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, Taha's team was ordered to set up a program to weaponize the biological agents. By January 1991, a team of 100 scientists and support staff had filled 157 bombs and 16 missile warheads with botulin toxin, and 50 bombs and five missile warheads with anthrax. In an interview with the BBC, Taha denied the Iraqi government had weaponized the bacteria. "We never intended to use it," she told journalist Jane Corbin of the BBC's Panorama program. "We never wanted to cause harm or damage to anybody." [8] (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/2734305.stm) However, UNSCOM found the munitions dumped in a river near al-Hakam. UNSCOM also discovered that Taha's team had conducted inhalation experiments on donkeys from England and on beagles from Germany. The inspectors seized photographs showing beagles having convulsions inside sealed containers.

So they knew how to do it.

You exclude any evidence that doesn't fit into your world view. And you exclude anything that doesn't fit into "Bush lied"

If the inspections pre-war had continued, how do you know we wouldn't have gotten to the bottom of this question WITHOUT risking over 2000 American lives and 100's of billions of dollars?

Because now we know from Taha herself that no one would have ever found out. If Saddam didn't even know, and UNSCOM spent nearly a decade trying to find out, how long do you think we should wait?

Scenario:
Predient-Hey, where is all that Anthrax you had?

Dictator-UH... I don't know?

President-What do you mean you don't know. You had it last month!

Dictator- I must have destroyed it, I guess.

President- Prove it!

Dictator- Piss off.

President- Oh, well, ah, nevermind then. Be a good boy, ok?

That's crap again. You're assuming that if we hadn't gone to war we would have just left Saddam alone instead of continuing the inspections and the sanctions which, according to what we know WERE WORKING. NO ONE was proposing that we leave Saddam alone. No one.

Besides, we didn't know he had it "last month" we had intel that it was destroyed in 1991. That intel was ignored. Inspections that would have confirmed that it was destroyed were suspended. We rushed to war on inconclusive intel and we're paying for it now.

Do you people really think so simply? Do you really think Saddam would have been left to his own devices? No one was proposing that.

I have a great Idea.

How about this? The "Bush lied people" post a list of all documents that Bush had that the Congress did not have access to. No comments. No barbs. Just the documents.
The "Bush didn't lie people" post a list of all the documents damning Hussein that both the President and the Congress had access to. No comments. No barbs. Just the documents.


AND INCLUDE LINKS!

Thats pretty much the only way we can get this all sorted out without everyone acting like they are 6 and calling eachother poopyhead. Is it POSSIBLE for you guys to state facts without comments, or are you all to juvenile to even try?

I'll check back in an hour to see how much people actually believe in their "facts".

Besides, we didn't know he had it "last month" we had intel that it was destroyed in 1991. That intel was ignored. Inspections that would have confirmed that it was destroyed were suspended. We rushed to war on inconclusive intel and we're paying for it now.

No, UNSCOM, not our CIA, not our DIA, and not Bush, said that 1800 gallons were missing and unaccounted for.

They knew it had been produced. And knew it had not been destroyed.

No inconclusive intel there.

No, UNSCOM, not our CIA, not our DIA, and not Bush, said that 1800 gallons were missing and unaccounted for.

They knew it had been produced. And knew it had not been destroyed.

No inconclusive intel there.

Why do you trust Unscom's credibility so much?

I have a great Idea.

How about this? The "Bush lied people" post a list of all documents that Bush had that the Congress did not have access to. No comments. No barbs. Just the documents.
The "Bush didn't lie people" post a list of all the documents damning Hussein that both the President and the Congress had access to. No comments. No barbs. Just the documents.


AND INCLUDE LINKS!

Thats pretty much the only way we can get this all sorted out without everyone acting like they are 6 and calling eachother poopyhead. Is it POSSIBLE for you guys to state facts without comments, or are you all to juvenile to even try?

I'll check back in an hour to see how much people actually believe in their "facts".


YES A LIST OF ALL CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS THAT SENIOR ADMINISTRATION MEMBERS GET ACCESS TO BUT WHICH ARE UNAVAILABLE TO CONGRESS IS THE ONLY PROOF ACCEPTABLE!!!!!!!!!

What? You mean you CAN'T find that on the internet?


Sheesh - well if it ain't on the internet it just ain't true!!!!!!



LMFAO!


Edit: But OK, I'll give you just one.

As I pointed out here (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9930672&postcount=80), the unedited version of the NIE that - once stripped for public consumption and handed to Congress - was deemed to be "misleading" and "overstating the case" by the senate intelligence committee....

I include quotes from Ari Fleischer where he discusses the "tightening of information" to Congress, and the fact that Congress was not happy about it.

In and of itself, that comment by Ari is a black-letter admission that there was information not forwarded to the people who had to vote.

this does not neccessarily imply Bush lied in 2002.

It DOES however, make him a lying sack of feces last week when he whined that Congress had all of the information that he had in '02/'03.

Because the WhiteHouse even held a frickin press brieifing back then to explain WHY Congress DIDN'T have all the info!

From my same link:
UNSCOM learned that, In August 1990, after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, Taha's team was ordered to set up a program to weaponize the biological agents. By January 1991, a team of 100 scientists and support staff had filled 157 bombs and 16 missile warheads with botulin toxin, and 50 bombs and five missile warheads with anthrax. In an interview with the BBC, Taha denied the Iraqi government had weaponized the bacteria. "We never intended to use it," she told journalist Jane Corbin of the BBC's Panorama program. "We never wanted to cause harm or damage to anybody." [8] (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/2734305.stm) However, UNSCOM found the munitions dumped in a river near al-Hakam. UNSCOM also discovered that Taha's team had conducted inhalation experiments on donkeys from England and on beagles from Germany. The inspectors seized photographs showing beagles having convulsions inside sealed containers.

So they knew how to do it.

And you exclude anything that doesn't fit into "Bush lied"


Because now we know from Taha herself that no one would have ever found out. If Saddam didn't even know, and UNSCOM spent nearly a decade trying to find out, how long do you think we should wait?

We also know that Taha lied constantly. She could still be lying, but you're willing to believe a single source who is a confirmed liar (remember "curveball"?) We also know that those munitions were destoryed. Those munitions didn't have the range to reach the US even if they still existed. Do you really think Iraq could have built inter-continental missies without our knowledge?

As for me excluding antything that doesn't fit into "Bush lied" I already explained that I'm open to the fact that someone else lied. Again a stupid attempt by you to narrow the choices down to either Bush lied or he was 100% truthful. Blah blah blah, talking points. Do you ever think for yourself?

The evidence is clear, on this and several other points, that contradictory intel was excluded. That can't be argued. Not just Wilson's report, but two others debunked the Niger claim, prewar. The aluminum tubes were know to be false, prewar, but that information was included in the case for war anyway. SOMEONE lied. We need to get to the bottom of this, and the stupid "the Democrats had the same intel as we did!" is clearly a lie. So, the question remains. Why lie unless you're covering something up?

Why do you trust Unscom's credibility so much?

Apparently, no one who believes that "Bush Lied" believes anything from the CIA, DIA, or other US sources.

But they usually DO believe UNSCOM - the organization they placed their faith in for continued inspections.

No, UNSCOM, not our CIA, not our DIA, and not Bush, said that 1800 gallons were missing and unaccounted for.

They knew it had been produced. And knew it had not been destroyed.

No inconclusive intel there.

And yet other sources disagreed. Hence why the intel is inconclusive. Disagreement was thrown out. Are you saying that a case for war should be based on uncorroborated intel?

YES A LIST OF ALL CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS THAT SENIOR ADMINISTRATION MEMBERS GET ACCESS TO BUT WHICH ARE UNAVAILABLE TO CONGRESS IS THE ONLY PROOF ACCEPTABLE!!!!!!!!!

What? You mean you CAN'T find that on the internet?


Sheesh - well if it ain't on the internet it just ain't true!!!!!!



LMFAO!
Well, if you can't find any documents that Bush had access to, that the congress didn't, then how can you claim that Bush had access to documents that congress didn't? Unless maybe people are ASSUMING that he did?

Or they are *snicker* "trusting" the politicians to tell them the truth?

Apparently, no one who believes that "Bush Lied" believes anything from the CIA, DIA, or other US sources.

But they usually DO believe UNSCOM - the organization they placed their faith in for continued inspections.

I've cited DIA. Jesus, do you even read what other people write?

Well, if you can't find any documents that Bush had access to, that the congress didn't, then how can you claim that Bush had access to documents that congress didn't? Unless maybe people are ASSUMING that he did?

DIA reports. Personal contact with Tenet. The President's daily briefing (remember the memo: Al Qaeda determined to attack the US?)

All of those are things that Congress did not have access to. Only after the DIA reports became unclassified was Congress able to review them...and they revealed contradictions in the intelligence leading to war.

Well, if you can't find any documents that Bush had access to, that the congress didn't, then how can you claim that Bush had access to documents that congress didn't? Unless maybe people are ASSUMING that he did?

Or they are *snicker* "trusting" the politicians to tell them the truth?


To repeat my edit from above:

OK, I'll give you just one.

As I pointed out here (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9930672&postcount=80), the unedited version of the NIE that - once stripped for public consumption and handed to Congress - was deemed to be "misleading" and "overstating the case" by the senate intelligence committee....

I include quotes from Ari Fleischer where he discusses the "tightening of information" to Congress, and the fact that Congress was not happy about it.

In and of itself, that comment by Ari is a black-letter admission that there was information not forwarded to the people who had to vote.

this does not neccessarily imply Bush lied in 2002.

It DOES however, make him a lying sack of feces last week when he whined that Congress had all of the information that he had in '02/'03.

Because the WhiteHouse even held a frickin press brieifing back then to explain WHY Congress DIDN'T have all the info!

I have a great Idea.

How about this? The "Bush lied people" post a list of all documents that Bush had that the Congress did not have access to. No comments. No barbs. Just the documents.
The "Bush didn't lie people" post a list of all the documents damning Hussein that both the President and the Congress had access to. No comments. No barbs. Just the documents.


AND INCLUDE LINKS!

Thats pretty much the only way we can get this all sorted out without everyone acting like they are 6 and calling eachother poopyhead. Is it POSSIBLE for you guys to state facts without comments, or are you all to juvenile to even try?

I'll check back in an hour to see how much people actually believe in their "facts".

When I have to repeat myself AFTER I've included links and rational arguments and then I've had to dumb them down and rephrase them so that a 6 year old can understand them, I start getting a little miffed. Gee, sorry.

And yet other sources disagreed. Hence why the intel is inconclusive. Disagreement was thrown out. Are you saying that a case for war should be based on uncorroborated intel?

The critics of the war say to this day that we should rely on UNSCOM - we should have worshipped the word of Hans Blix.

So I'm using UNSCOM's word that the anthrax was produced (you should read the report - it's on the UN website). The math is impeccable.

The critics of the war say to this day that we should rely on UNSCOM - we should have worshipped the word of Hans Blix.

So I'm using UNSCOM's word that the anthrax was produced (you should read the report - it's on the UN website). The math is impeccable.

Some critics of the war might. They are idiots too. You're not dealing with your average critic here. I try to base my conclusions on ALL the available information, paying special attention to what disagrees with what and what was excluded.

Not a single scrap of intel that contradicted Saddam's danger to us was included in the ramp up to war...even though plenty was available from our own intelligence services and others.

Therefore, my conclusion was that this war was packaged, marketed and sold to us like a cheap Happy Meal toy.

And guess what. I'm freaking right. Saddam was no danger to us, it turns out.

Some critics of the war might. They are idiots too. You're not dealing with your average critic here. I try to base my conclusions on ALL the available information, paying special attention to what disagrees with what and what was excluded.

Not a single scrap of intel that contradicted Saddam's danger to us was included in the ramp up to war...even though plenty was available from our own intelligence services and others.

Therefore, my conclusion was that this war was packaged, marketed and sold to us like a cheap Happy Meal toy.

I'm sure you have access to all the intel.

When I have to repeat myself AFTER I've included links and rational arguments and then I've had to dumb them down and rephrase them so that a 6 year old can understand them, I start getting a little miffed. Gee, sorry.
I'm just trying to offer everyone an easy way to prove their points, because when you say "The grass is green because of chlorphyl" it is so much more convincing than "The fucking grass is green, you god damned moron! Haven't you ever heard of chlorophyl, you fucking idiot? GEEZ"

I'm sure you have access to all the intel.


Like you do?

I'm sure you have access to all the intel.

So basically your argument is: "The goverment knows more than you. Trust them."

Fuck that.

I'm just trying to offer everyone an easy way to prove their points, because when you say "The grass is green because of chlorphyl" it is so much more convincing than "The fucking grass is green, you god damned moron! Haven't you ever heard of chlorophyl, you fucking idiot? GEEZ"

Yes, but when the easy explanation doesn't work, other methods are called for.

Some critics of the war might. They are idiots too. You're not dealing with your average critic here. I try to base my conclusions on ALL the available information, paying special attention to what disagrees with what and what was excluded.

Not a single scrap of intel that contradicted Saddam's danger to us was included in the ramp up to war...even though plenty was available from our own intelligence services and others.

Therefore, my conclusion was that this war was packaged, marketed and sold to us like a cheap Happy Meal toy.

And guess what. I'm freaking right. Saddam was no danger to us, it turns out.

It's easy enough to make that statement in hindsight. But could you have made the case before the war?

And you have started with your premise that "Bush lied" and stuck to it very strongly - and excluded or argued away all evidence that might point to someone else lying, or the possibility that everyone (including Congress) engaged in groupthink (which I view as the most likely scenario). You would rather make someone out to be the bad guy in all this, and you've already decided, before viewing anything, that it's Bush.

Now you're doing what you claim he did. ;)

Yes, but when the easy explanation doesn't work, other methods are called for.
So what your saying is when using tactics that aren't seeming to get the job done, then it's ok to get heavy handed? :D

(sorry, you walked right into that one)

So what your saying is when using tactics that aren't seeming to get the job done, then it's ok to get heavy handed? :D

(sorry, you walked right into that one)

Gymoor, this conversatio would be much more interesting if you were to come down to DC, and I bought you a steak dinner at the Capitol Grille (and we had a few martinis).

It's easy enough to make that statement in hindsight. But could you have made the case before the war?

And you have started with your premise that "Bush lied" and stuck to it very strongly - and excluded or argued away all evidence that might point to someone else lying, or the possibility that everyone (including Congress) engaged in groupthink (which I view as the most likely scenario). You would rather make someone out to be the bad guy in all this, and you've already decided, before viewing anything, that it's Bush.

Now you're doing what you claim he did. ;)
Acually before the war I thought:
1. UN insectors were dong a good job keeping Saddam from rebuilding WMD.
2. Bush was lying (wasn't sure how yet)
3. We shiould just stay in Afganistan and work to make it a free and safe country (we didn't and now it has all those warlords and problems).
4. That Saddam was just pretending to have weapons(by double talk) to scare off his enemies from attacking him. (And i was right)

I made my case long before the war, but I did'nt go on NationStates back then.

Gymoor, this conversatio would be much more interesting if you were to come down to DC, and I bought you a steak dinner at the Capitol Grille (and we had a few martinis).

Finally, something I can agree with :D

So what your saying is when using tactics that aren't seeming to get the job done, then it's ok to get heavy handed? :D

(sorry, you walked right into that one)

Heavy handed? Yes. Misleading? No.

Heavy handed? Yes. Misleading? No.
Oh yeah? Well I have a document from the CSSD that proves otherwise! :D
.

It's easy enough to make that statement in hindsight. But could you have made the case before the war?

And you have started with your premise that "Bush lied" and stuck to it very strongly - and excluded or argued away all evidence that might point to someone else lying, or the possibility that everyone (including Congress) engaged in groupthink (which I view as the most likely scenario). You would rather make someone out to be the bad guy in all this, and you've already decided, before viewing anything, that it's Bush.

Now you're doing what you claim he did. ;)

As I've repeatedly said, I'm open to the fact that someone else lied (see several of my previous statements.) What can't be argued is that whoever prepared the prewar intelligence, whether from an overabundance of zealousness or an intentional attempt to mislead, misrepresented the facts. What I do blame Bush for is rushing in to war when there were clearly other options...options that (admittedly in hindsight,) were working.

That, my friend, is a failure of leadership. It needs to be investigated and the lie (and it clearly is a lie, even you have to admit,) that Congress had the same intel as the CIA and the Whitehouse is getting in the way.

Oh yeah? Well I have a document from the CSSD that proves otherwise! :D
.

The Canadian Council on Social Development?

(popped up in google)

The Canadian Council on Social Development?

(popped up in google)

Gymoor, I'm just going to agree to disagree on this one.

Gymoor, I'm just going to agree to disagree on this one.

The Computer Consultants of San Diego?

As I've repeatedly said, I'm open to the fact that someone else lied (see several of my previous statements.) What can't be argued is that whoever prepared the prewar intelligence, whether from an overabundance of zealousness or an intentional attempt to mislead, misrepresented the facts. What I do blame Bush for is rushing in to war when there were clearly other options...options that (admittedly in hindsight,) were working.

That, my friend, is a failure of leadership. It needs to be investigated and the lie (and it clearly is a lie, even you have to admit,) that Congress had the same intel as the CIA and the Whitehouse is getting in the way.

Amen to that

The Computer Consultants of San Diego?
The Center for Sultry Steak from Deep

He offered, I'd take him up for it. Screw the war, screw the intel. Do you know whats REALLY wrong? Turning down free steak! :D

The Computer Consultants of San Diego?

No, on the lying thing.

IMHO, Tenet is the principal liar and exaggerator. The rest of the people (Bush, Congress, etc) were engaged in groupthink.


Whenever you're looking for the reason that stupid things happened, it's more important to look for groupthink than it is to look for a lie. Especially if you don't want to repeat the mistake.

No, on the lying thing.

IMHO, Tenet is the principal liar and exaggerator. The rest of the people (Bush, Congress, etc) were engaged in groupthink.


Whenever you're looking for the reason that stupid things happened, it's more important to look for groupthink than it is to look for a lie. Especially if you don't want to repeat the mistake.

If that were the case, then The Whitehouse and Congressional Republicans wouldn't be stonewalling an investigation into whether the intelligence was manipulated.

If Tenet lied. If anyone else lied, I want to know, and I'm tired of the Bush administration and the GOP blocking it. If what you say is true, they have nothing to hide. Oh, and if Tenet lied, I want that medal that Bush gave him taken away.

And before you say that that investigation already happened, understand that only half of that investigation happened. That half being looking in to operational reasons why we had faulty intelligence. The other half of the investigation, probing whether there was any intentional manipulation, has been dead in congress for months and months and months.

It's the Walrus and the Carpenter (http://www.cs.indiana.edu/metastuff/looking/ch4.html.gz).

"The time has come," the Walrus said,
"To talk of many things:
Of shoes--and ships--and sealing-wax--
Of cabbages--and kings--
And why the sea is boiling hot--
And whether pigs have wings."

They roused the oysters from their bed, and took them for a walk, from which the oysters would never return.

"I weep for you," the Walrus said:
"I deeply sympathize."
With sobs and tears he sorted out
Those of the largest size,
Holding his pocket-handkerchief
Before his streaming eyes.

`I like the Walrus best,' said Alice: `because you see he was a LITTLE sorry for the poor oysters.'

`He ate more than the Carpenter, though,' said Tweedledee. `You see he held his handkerchief in front, so that the Carpenter couldn't count how many he took: contrariwise.'

`That was mean!' Alice said indignantly. `Then I like the Carpenter best -- if he didn't eat so many as the Walrus.'

`But he ate as many as he could get,' said Tweedledum.

This was a puzzler. After a pause, Alice began, `Well! They were BOTH very unpleasant characters -- '

Before Alice could ponder more of the conundrum, her attention was drawn away. Short attention span is not a 20th Century phenomenon.

Saddam Hussein was the Carpenter, never showing remorse for his actions. He did as much as the US would let him do, considering that the CIA helped him to power in the 1960s, the US government supported him against Iran in the 1980s, and left him in power in 1991 -- even knowing he had been using chemical weapons on Iran as early as 1980, and certainly in 1998.

The United States comes off as the Walrus, looking to lead the Iraqi people with publically pleasant tones, but privately gobbling up what they can through fat and profitable post-war contracts. Weeping at their plight, but using the handkerchief of national security secrets to hide what it knows and does precisely.

There's also the old oyster that chose to lay in his oyster bed during all this.

The eldest Oyster looked at him.
But never a word he said:
The eldest Oyster winked his eye,
And shook his heavy head --
Meaning to say he did not choose
To leave the oyster-bed.

That oyster watched as the young oysters eagerly went off with the Walrus and the Carpenter. As ever in the world, young men filled with ideals have been called upon to fight the wars of older men and get gobbled up in the process.

These elder oysters include large group of crony, corrupt bureaucrats and military officers who saw the writing on the wall, and chose to go where the most money was coming from. They are "loyal" to the US so long as the money is flowing. They follow the "golden rule:" he who holds the gold makes the rules. Just as they were loyal to Saddam until he fell. Some of them are actual pragmatic survivalists. Others are the worst sort of charlatans and organized criminals and thugs that would make Chicago mobsters green with envy. And so, with a wink, they let the regime change occur.

I do not want to come off completely cynical. Many Iraqis are good peopple. Many are truly grateful that they have an opportunity for freedom. Many US soldiers, civilians and politicians are trying to do all they can, and to risk and even lose their lives for the possibility of a better regime in Iraq.

However, their efforts will be utterly undercut and all their sacrifice brought to naught if the powers-that-be controlling the war -- and the peace -- come off as if they are hypocritically weeping over the death of the Iraqis yet gobbling the most of anyone, or simply, silently, complicitly gobbling as many as they can get.

You can read the statistics for yourself. Currently under the "peace" we've brought there are now as many, and possibly twice as many civilian deaths per year as before we invaded.

In other words, the combined actions of al Qaeda and the United States have brought the nation into a state just as bad, or twice as bad, as it was under the reign of one of the world's most brutal and psychotic dictators.

This war is very different than in Vietnam in character. The insurgency here are not the Viet Cong, and they are not led by a leader representing the people. This insurgency is only in one part local resistence fighters. Many others are jihadi who would fight the United States in any nation we happened to be in, from Yemen to Jordan (http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/11/14/opinion/edkhouri.php) to Iraq to Afghanistan to the US if they could get here.

When we created the theater of war in Iraq, we roused a great many young oysters from their beds. Some were filled with idealistic concepts of nationalism and told to go to war by Saddam, and continue even after he was deposed. They were eaten alive. Others were filled with idealistic concepts of jihad and told to go to war by the mullahs. They were eaten alive. Others were filled with idealistic concepts of democracy, and sent to patrol the streets to keep them safe. They were eaten alive. In each case, all other ideologies were branded "evil," and the war needed to be for life and death and for their ideology's very survival.

In all cases, the ideals went on ephemerally more or less the same, untouched, though tarnished for their misappropriation. It was the young men and women who ended up dead and bloodied.

There are many walruses, and many carpenters. Saddam's political machine, the training camps of the religious zealots, and the US administration that demanded a war then-and-there in 2002. Each was complicit in fostering the call for war at any price.

There are many oysters -- young men and women, adults, old men and women, children and infants -- whose lives were chewed up and destroyed.

Now, three years after the first calls for a war because of weapons of mass destruction, it is time to account for and atone for the mistakes we made, and those acts both witting and unwitting that led us to a war right then-and-there.

Before we had sufficiently finished the mission in Afghanistan. Before we had up-armored HMMWVs, Abrams and Strykers properly equipped for urban warfare.

We need to ask why we went to war at all given that we knew that much of the suspicions of WMDs in the first place were shaky and tenuous, if not already disproved.

Many of the threats Saddam Hussein posed had already been hammered repeatedly, in 1991 under Desert Storm, 1992 and 1993 under Operation Provide Comfort, in 1995 under Operation Desert Strike, again in 1996 under Operation Northern Watch and Operation Southern Watch, and in 1998 under Operation Desert Fox. The Kurds were already living in a mostly autonomous area protected by the No Fly Zone.

So why in 2002-2003 was an invasion immanent and necessary while we were already busy engaged in Afghanistan?

The case we were given at the time was that we had credible evidence of a present danger of WMDs which threatened the security of the United States.

That proved to be exagerated, to say the least.

There was not a threat to our national security as such. Islamic revolutionaries had indeed destroyed the World Trade Center and attacked the Pentagon. Those responsible were being hunted down in Afghanistan.

Iraq was not complicit in those crimes.

At worst this is now a "low grade fever" that afflicts our nation -- a drain on our energy, a malarial virus that infects our economy and is requiring the efforts of our protective forces -- the white blood cells of our military.

The US always had the capability to topple the Iraqi regime, ever since 1991, and well before. What it lacked was a plan not for the war, but for the peace.

We roused the oysters from their bed, and have since gobbled them at the same rate -- or up to twice the rate of dead and wounded -- as were occurring under Saddam Hussein.

Our military effort in the region has been stellar for the most part, given what they were allocated to wage the war and keep the peace. However, there continue to be the kinds of actions and events that cast a pall on their service. Innocent civilians need to be kept protected. The human rights we promised under a change of government need to be upheld. It is our responsibility under the Geneva Conventions and to the UN.

Moreso, it is our moral obligation to the people of Iraq and our own nation when we declared people of Iraq would be better off under us -- that is to clearly express -- under their own democracy -- than under a corrupt Saddam Hussein. So long as the "democracy" is seen as a puppet of the US, it will continue to be attacked.

We need to provide a moral example. We need to stop the human rights abuses of our own regime and the nascent Iraqi government. Otherwise, we are no better than the Walrus and the Carpenter or the demonized spectre of Saddam Hussein.

Al Qaeda (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L16204575.htm) is committing desperate acts leading to its own harm and destruction. The bombing of the hotels in Jordan turned the public opinion against them. They are now responsible for more of the recent civilian deaths in Iraq than the United States. A grizzly reminder that we have and continue to cause civilian casualties at a significant rate.

As al Qaeda gets more desparate, they will continue to turn against anyone, even former allies, like the ravenous war-hungry wolves they are. Most moderate Muslims are no longer buying into their brand of nihilism. In Iraq and in Jordan, public sentiment is no longer in their favor. We need to let them fail while stopping them as best we can, while preventing our own mistakes which allow them to feed off of public relations disasters, such as human rights abuses and war profiteering.

The detention center (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/GEO628377.htm) scandal committed by our supposedly democratic government in the new regime is not what we need. Guards were hanging young men, using drills on them, and calling them "Sunni dogs." (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/BAK657747.htm) That has to stop. This, and the US prisoner abuse scandals, only fuel talk of an outright civil war.

Yes, it would marginalize al Qaeda, but only because the nation went to a full-out interal war in which there'd be no way for the US to viably pick a side to support. Who would care about a few thousand external jihadis when you'd have the same type of ethnic cleansing affecting millions of the type we saw a decade prior in Bosnia, Kosovo and Macedonia?

The Kurds, who already have autonomy, reserve the right to simply withdraw from the government and declare independence.

So we need to stop fighting wars for the wrong reasons, acknowledge the flaws and faults and warts, and address them one by one.

We also need to look at what we can do to successfully close the operation and withdraw while maintaining peace and human rights in the newly constituted nation, and across the region.

It's the Walrus and the Carpenter (http://www.cs.indiana.edu/metastuff/looking/ch4.html.gz).


Now, as an additional thought exercise, do the same thing with The Wizard of Oz

Listeneisse,

Sir, that was one of the most beautiful and the most right (meaning correct,) things I've ever read. Thank you.