NationStates Jolt Archive

Many--scratch that, most--liberals are convinced that we were misled into the war in Iraq, that it has been completely about Weapons of Mass Destruction, which is simply not true. WMDs were, in fact, a minor part of the dealie. The real issue was how Saddam has violated 16 U.N. resolutions since the end of the first Gulf war, including one that said we would resume military force should Saddam not cooporate, which as we all recall, he did not: he even through out weapons inspectors completely from 1998-2002. In 1998 as a matter of fact, Clinton was going to call him on it and resume military force if necessary, but didn't because Clinton was stupid enough to have an affair with an intern and thus felt that his ability to lead the country at the time was "compromised."(Which may very well be true, but doesn't excuse his actions.) Al Queda was also training people in Iraq, and dispite Osama and Saddam's mutual dislike, they worked together against their common enemy: the USA. The war in Iraq was justified.

WITH THAT SAID

It has been handled badly: I have never doubted that for a second. Bush is not the person who should have done this: he should have left it to a future President, or at the very least have listened to his military advisers and improved the state of our forces in Iraq. Frankly, if it were up to me and we reversed it back to when we were just about to head in, I'd go in again: only this time, we do it right.

All I'm saying here is that liberals need to face the fact that they're completely wrong about the whole WMD canard. It's just not true. And the sooner you stop persecuting this bad President for the wrong crime and start going after him for the true crimes, the better.

What do ducks have to do with this?

What do ducks have to do with this?

...

Um...nothing? I never said anything about ducks, did I? *checks over post to make sure he didn't mistype* Nope. No ducks. =/

WMDs were, in fact, a minor part of the dealie. The real issue was how Saddam has violated 16 U.N. resolutions since the end of the first Gulf war, including one that said we would resume military force should Saddam not cooporate, which as we all recall, he did not: he even through out weapons inspectors completely from 1998-2002...
You see, the problem is that that is not how they sold it to the public (and largely the rest of the world).

If they had gone up there and used the UN resolutions argument, that would have been fine. The American people wouldn't have wanted to go to war for it, but at least it would have been honest.

But the fact of the matter is that the war was sold to the public as self-defence against WMD, and was constantly connected with Terrorism. It turns out that it had little to nothing to do with either. And that is the sort of cynical manipulation that is the problem.

I agree with you 100%

That sums up what happened in a less than 1 minute read.

What do ducks have to do with this?
*quack*

anyway...If you are going to state that we went in because Saddam broke UN resolutions, then you have to explain why we went in without the United Nations, and moreover, why we ignored them.

We have zero evidence of ties between Osama and Saddam. In fact, we have undeniable proof that the 9/11 hijackers were trained in the US. Namely Florida.

We went in under the pretense of "the war on terror" (which is now a noun, I guess?). We invaded a nation that had not attacked us, and had no ability to do so through military means. They had no proven governmental terrorist ties.

Additionally, Clinton has nothing to do with this debate, and if you think affairs are something new to politics in the US or anywhere else, you are a very naive person.

...

Um...nothing? I never said anything about ducks, did I? *checks over post to make sure he didn't mistype* Nope. No ducks. =/
All I'm saying here is that liberals need to face the fact that they're completely wrong about the whole WMD canard.
Canard. It's French for duck:D

You see, the problem is that that is not how they sold it to the public (and largely the rest of the world).

If they had gone up there and used the UN resolutions argument, that would have been fine. The American people wouldn't have wanted to go to war for it, but at least it would have been honest.

But the fact of the matter is that the war was sold to the public as self-defence against WMD, and was constantly connected with Terrorism. It turns out that it had little to nothing to do with either. And that is the sort of cynical manipulation that is the problem.
Are you certain? Because that's not what I saw happening.

...

Then agaaaain...I am looking back on it, having not paid too much attention at the time--I was eighteen years old at the time, and more concerned with other stuff rather than politics. So, you may very well be correct. But it just didn't appear that way.

Are you certain? Because that's not what I saw happening.

...

Then agaaaain...I am looking back on it, having not paid too much attention at the time--I was eighteen years old at the time, and more concerned with other stuff rather than politics. So, you may very well be correct. But it just didn't appear that way.
It was almost totally sold as being for WMD's and terrorist ties...even in most press releases, iirc, these were the cited reasons.

Here's what I heard, sitting up here in Canada.

Bush: "Mumble mumble, WMD, mumble, mumble, WMDs, mumble mumble, I'll get him for you Dad!"

The UN Resolutions were an aside, but they could not possibly have whipped up the support that an imminent 'threat' did.

meh.

Im a Liberal-Socio-Bolshevistic-NAtionalist


and i believe that.

We should have invaded Iraq because it was a dictatorship.

BUUUT that said its no where near the WORST dictatorship in the world, them first.

meh.

Im a Liberal-Socio-Bolshevistic-NAtionalist Don't you mean National Socialist?;)

Canard. It's French for duck:D
-_-'; In English, it also means a falsehood. You knew what I meant.

Sarkhaan: Untrue. We do, in fact, have tapes proving the connection between Bin Laden and Hussein. I mentioned Clinton merely to show liberals that--guess what--their favorite ex-President also considered exactly what Bush is doing, and thus they need to rectify how they view it and whatnot. (The affair bit was more me poking at him than anything else, and for that I must apologize.)

And...well...I guess that, if it really was protrayed that way, I will take back what I said about the whole misleading bit. BUT, I will say this: if you're going to complain about it, don't be an idiot like Barbara Boxer and claim that WMDs were most CERTAINLY the only reason: merely point out that that's what we were told and we are thusly confused and stuff. Or something like that. I think I'll back out of the argument now, as it seems I was wrong. Thank you for correcting a minor misinterpretation of mine, ladies and gentlemen.

Are you certain? Because that's not what I saw happening.

...

Then agaaaain...I am looking back on it, having not paid too much attention at the time--I was eighteen years old at the time, and more concerned with other stuff rather than politics. So, you may very well be correct. But it just didn't appear that way.

Well, look at it this way: which party traditionally argues that 1) the U.N. is an obsolete and inneffectual system that only ties the hands of the U.S., and 2) which party argues that foreign policy should be geared toward dealing with threats to the U.S. and meeting U.S. needs?

Okay, with the answer to that rhetorical question in mind, do you really think that GW would be foolish enough to pitch the war as upholding the integrity and sovereignty of the U.N.?

Sarkhaan: Untrue. We do, in fact, have tapes proving the connection between Bin Laden and Hussein.


Link? I have never heard of this and would have thought if it actually came out it would have been a major news story, so this sounds like crap. Prove me wrong.

As I remember there WERE inspectors in Bushnam before the war. They BEGGED to stay. The arguement was, the longer they stayed the more intelligence they could bring home, so if a war did happen the US would know where to look and where not to look. But Bushie pulled them. He wanted the war over before the elections, so Congress could run on "Mission Accomplished". If he had waited for the inspectors to continue to do their job, the war would not start soon enough to be over for the elections, and (God Forbid) they may not find anything and the public might cool on the thought of war. The timing and reasons were all political. Get In, Get Out, Get Elected. Well, he got two out of three.

As I remember there WERE inspectors in Bushnam before the war. They BEGGED to stay. The arguement was, the longer they stayed the more intelligence they could bring home, so if a war did happen the US would know where to look and where not to look. But Bushie pulled them. He wanted the war over before the elections, so Congress could run on "Mission Accomplished". If he had waited for the inspectors to continue to do their job, the war would not start soon enough to be over for the elections, and (God Forbid) they may not find anything and the public might cool on the thought of war. The timing and reasons were all political. Get In, Get Out, Get Elected. Well, he got two out of three.

To be fair, he didn't pull them out for the elections so much as he pulled them out because it would be almost as difficult to mount an Iraqi military campaign in July as it is to run an offensive against the Russians in February.

i think most people can agree that were better off without Sadam in charge over in iraq and the reason we dont need the UN is because they are WEAK and the only power they have is if we are backing them.....America shouldnt be tied down by the interests of the UN because America does what is best for America not for the UN...and there have been plenty of scandals going on with europe and iraq, look who was selling iraq all there junk??? europe and our so called friends...bascicly. we should have finished sadam off a loong time ago. and to say he didnt have wmd's is stupid because he used them quite often on the kurds and during the iran iraq war so obviously he had the ability or know how to make chemical and biological weapons.

look who was selling iraq all there junk??? europe and our so called friends...bascicly.
Old and long since disproven mudslinging.

we should have finished sadam off a loong time ago. and to say he didnt have wmd's is stupid because he used them quite often on the kurds and during the iran iraq war so obviously he had the ability or know how to make chemical and biological weapons.
That's because the West was giving them to Iraq.

Have a look at this: http://www.bushflash.com/thanks.html

On the contrary, there is quite enough proof that the Bush administration did intentionally mislead the US public in hopes of gaining popular support for the war.

http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs_108_2/pdfs_inves/pdf_admin_iraq_on_the_record_rep.pdf

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/15/opinion/15tue1.html?ex=1289710800&en=d341df71c8d7c041&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Link? I have never heard of this and would have thought if it actually came out it would have been a major news story, so this sounds like crap. Prove me wrong.
I'll be completely honest: I heard this from a fellow Republican and was never shown any proof. In fact, come to think of it, I never asked him for it. I wish I had. It seems like a stupid mistake to have just believed it now. =/

Xenophobialand: Of course not, because the U.N. IS a bloated, inefficient organization. I've always supported the ideals behind it, but the U.N. in reality is just a peice of crap that should be tossed out and remade.

So, in a way, I guess you do have a point, but...well, I frankly don't know who's side that supports. It might be a good justification for not mentioning all the other reasons behind the war in Iraq, but on that same token...hmm...

Roman: Agreed. In all likelihood, he moved what WMDs he still had during the 1998-2002 period into other countries, possibly Syria and Jordan. Of course we've yet to see them used, but that might just be them trying to hide their source for as long as possible to make it look like they came up with it on their own rather than shift any blame on Saddam, though frankly I have no idea why they would bother with that. If Clinton had just taken care of it in 1998 we wouldn't have this problem, because while Clinton was a sucky President in many respects, I do believe he could have handled a war in Iraq effectively.

Roman: Agreed. In all likelihood, he moved what WMDs he still had during the 1998-2002 period into other countries, possibly Syria and Jordan.
Syria was part of the coalition that fought Saddam in Desert Storm, and Jordan is one of America's best friends in the Middle East.

Syria was part of the coalition that fought Saddam in Desert Storm, and Jordan is one of America's best friends in the Middle East.
Perhaps at the time. I highly doubt Syria would have anything against being given WMDs. More power for their insane government, after all.

As for Jordan, I merely mentioned it as a possibility, is all. =/

The war in Iraq was justified.


Fascinating opinion. I disagree.

Life moves on.

Perhaps at the time. I highly doubt Syria would have anything against being given WMDs.
But Saddam would have a problem with his most effective weapons being shipped away to a foreign country he's fallen out with a decade ago while the US prepares an invasion.

Fact is that Iraq simply didn't have the money. Even with the occasional bribe and the little trade that went through the UN, Saddam could not maintain his military. During the entire invasion, his MiG-29s (quite capable jets) didn't get off the ground because there was no money to maintain them and to organise spare parts.

What makes you think he'd have the millions and millions to keep a WMD program up and running, particularly one as elaborate as was claimed by the US at the time?

<snip>
The UN Resolutions were an aside, but they could not possibly have whipped up the support that an imminent 'threat' did.
Exactly. Bush couldn't have cared less about the UN much less their resolutions. He only used them as a meager argument for his case for war after all the others failed, or weren’t good enough to spend ~$2,000/second on the 150,000 troops and countless Tomahawk missiles we sent to a country that had done nothing to harm the mighty and just United States.

"[Saddam Hussein] is adept at deception and delays and denying. He asked for more time so he can give the so-called inspectors more runaround"--St. Louis, Missouri, Jan. 22, 2003
Sounds to me like he doesn't really have a high regard for the UN weapons inspectors.

And no. At one point WMDs, were the entire case for war.
Scare tactics with WMDs:
"They've got a lot of crop dusters in South Carolina or Texas. In other words, some of the intelligence we were getting was that not only were the enemy willing to use airplanes, obviously, as weapons, but what we were concerned about was that they would use other methods -- like using a crop duster to spray a weapons of mass destruction, if possible."-- Greenville, South Carolina, Mar. 27, 2002

"September the 11th should say to the American people that we're now a battlefield, that weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a terrorist organization could be deployed here at home." -- White House, Mar. 6, 2003

"The American people know that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction. By the way, he declared he didn't have any." -- White House, Mar. 6, 2003 He declared he didn’t have any because he was telling the truth.

"I described them [Iraq] as the axis of evil once. I described them as an enemy until proven otherwise. They obviously, you know, desire weapons of mass destruction. I presume that he still views us as an enemy." -- Ridgewood Country Club, Waco, Texas, Mar. 10, 2003 Not only was Saddam “pursuing WMDs,” which we now know was, for the most part, false, but Bush presumed Saddam still thought us an enemy so that’s why we invaded. “Uh yeah, I think you hate me, so I’m going to kick your ass even though I might be wrong and probably won’t do anything to me.”

Then it was “they hate us for our freedoms,” which is utter bullshit if anyone knows an ounce of history. Bush majored in history.
"We value a free press. We value freedom. And the more we value freedom, the more they hate us. That's why. That's why the enemy still exists." -- Louisville, Kentucky, Sep. 5, 2002

Then it was just hatred for Saddam
"F-ck Saddam! we're taking him out." -- Dubya indicating in March 2002 his determination to go to war a full year before he did so, in meeting with Senators and Condoleezza Rice - as reported in Time Magazine, Mar. 24, 2003


Then it was on to the UN
"And the threat of Saddam Hussein was a unique threat in this sense -- the world recognized he was a threat for twelve years, and seventeen resolutions, I think it is -- I believe it was seventeen resolutions -- for the resolution counter, give me a hand here -- seventeen? Seventeen resolutions. And he ignored them." -- Washington, D.C., Dec. 15, 2003
That, after every other excuse had failed.

Many--scratch that, most--liberals are convinced that we were misled into the war in Iraq, that it has been completely about Weapons of Mass Destruction, which is simply not true. WMDs were, in fact, a minor part of the dealie. .

Then why o why was this not gone into at the time? Well, because it was a non-runner. Besides, Israel has been in violation for longer and more times.


Al Queda was also training people in Iraq, and dispite Osama and Saddam's mutual dislike, they worked together against their common enemy: the USA. ..

Heres some people who don't seem to agree -

"We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaeda co-operated on attacks against the United States."

"There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda also occurred after Bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan , but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship,"

from The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States report
http://www.9-11commission.gov/


"To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two," (referring to Iraq & Al Qaeda)

Donald Rumsfeld

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3715396.stm

"I have not seen one.... I have never seen any evidence to suggest there was one." Colin Powell on the allegation of Iraq/Al Qaeda link - interview, Sept 9th 2005 to "20/20"

Better get on the phone - your remarkable knowledge is needed by the powers that be.


We do, in fact, have tapes proving the connection between Bin Laden and Hussein..

"We" might, but if you expect me to believe that the "liberal media" have not broadcast the chimp in chiefs smug face as he quoted extracts from said tapes at a press conference, then you've yet another thing coming. I suggest "we" get their head together.


and to say he didnt have wmd's is stupid because he used them quite often on the kurds and during the iran iraq war so obviously he had the ability or know how to make chemical and biological weapons.

He had none past the mid 90's. Thats a fact acknowledged even by the Whitehouse at this stage.


I heard this from a fellow Republican and was never shown any proof..

I'd imagine Bush would say something similar. Obviously you're both hanging around with the wrong kind of people.


In all likelihood, he moved what WMDs he still had during the 1998-2002 period into other countries, possibly Syria and Jordan..

The ISG and IAEA concluded that no weapons had been moved to Syria. Jordan is a US ally and has been for years. They torture people for you, for democracy and all that.

I mentioned Clinton merely to show liberals that--guess what--their favorite ex-President also considered exactly what Bush is doing, and thus they need to rectify how they view it and whatnot. (The affair bit was more me poking at him than anything else, and for that I must apologize.)
Actually, Clinton did take action on Iraq. Don't recall the bombings in 97? It was all over the news - I had to write a Christmas break-long journal about the progression of the events surrounding it.

The Bush Administration did this the wrong way and sold it the wrong way. You really have to be ignorant to believe otherwise. When it comes to justifying a war, what right do the leaders have to ad lib the reasons afterwards? When it comes to matters of life and death, the President and his staff have an obligation to the people to provide them with honest, straight-forward answers. They're playing with lives, and while it may be easy for you to say that those lies or distorted truths were necessary, tell that to the dead kids who never made it home and the parents who are lost without their children.

But then again, corpses can't complain about deception, can they? And even live soldiers can't now with the way they're shut up and censored, and the way the political right demonizes any who take a stance against this war.

First off, everyone who replied: thank you for participating in this experiment.

In reality, I'm an Independent leaning towards conservative currently finishing his last year of high school. My English teacher is a staunch conservative, and has been telling me many of the things I asserted and have been asserting throughout this thread. However, I don't know if what he's saying has any truth to it, so in the spirit of finding out, I decided to take his side and act as though I believed it as truth and argue it, to see what would occur. I see that my suspicions were correct: he appears to be misinformed, which I find odd considering that Mr. Brown is an incredibly intelligent man. Might be that he has quite the political bias despite his constant claims to the contrary.

Anyway, thanks, gang. You've helped me a bunch here. Sorry about any misinterpretations or bad feelings I might have caused by being my own Devil's Advocate. =/

First off, everyone who replied: thank you for participating in this experiment.

In reality, I'm an Independent leaning towards conservative currently finishing his last year of high school. My English teacher is a staunch conservative, and has been telling me many of the things I asserted and have been asserting throughout this thread. However, I don't know if what he's saying has any truth to it, so in the spirit of finding out, I decided to take his side and act as though I believed it as truth and argue it, to see what would occur. I see that my suspicions were correct: he appears to be misinformed, which I find odd considering that Mr. Brown is an incredibly intelligent man. Might be that he has quite the political bias despite his constant claims to the contrary.

Anyway, thanks, gang. You've helped me a bunch here. Sorry about any misinterpretations or bad feelings I might have caused by being my own Devil's Advocate. =/Seeing as how you're rational with this debate, you might want to take a look at some further research before you come to conclusions. Here (http://www.newamericancentury.org) would be a good place to start.

On the contrary, there is quite enough proof that the Bush administration did intentionally mislead the US public in hopes of gaining popular support for the war.

http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs_108_2/pdfs_inves/pdf_admin_iraq_on_the_record_rep.pdf

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/15/opinion/15tue1.html?ex=1289710800&en=d341df71c8d7c041&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss


Then send the following two links to your teacher

Of course. I'm not coming to any real conclusions just yet. I'm actually trying to avoid that, as in the past I've been far too easy to convince of stuff. Naiveity, as it were. And thank you for the link.

And thank you for the link.
Check the signatories of PNAC's statement of principles. I think you might be pleasantly surprised.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

Many countries have violated many UN resolutions. Including the US. And Israel. The US has not invaded them.

Check the signatories of PNAC's statement of principles. I think you might be pleasantly surprised.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
Wow, I like how people just completely skip over my posts :(

*cries*

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10537929&postcount=30

http://workingforchange.speedera.net/www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/wfc/TMW06-02-08.jpg

"The innocent have nothing to hide".

Bush & Co. have so much hidden, it's less an administration than a games of Sardines.

Lets not forget the wonderful Oil for Food program run by the UN. Saddam really liked it, especially how he rebuilt his military with the money for it. the UN knew all about it and did nothing. How could such worldwide corruption go by, without so much as a peep of protest by the rest of the UN??

Wow, I like how people just completely skip over my posts :(
I saw it. But you just linked to the main page, and I wanted to make very sure that he read the statement of principles and who signed it.

No hard feelings? :)

Check the signatories of PNAC's statement of principles. I think you might be pleasantly surprised.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
Huh. Intriguing. =/

Bobs: While that comic might be stretching it a wee bit, I've always disliked this administration and its policies, regardless of my politics and how they've changed.

Saddam really liked it, especially how he rebuilt his military with the money for it.
He didn't. I'd really like to see what military you're talking about.

I know for a fact that most of Iraq's air force never got off the ground during the invasion thanks to maintenance issues.

Since the US wasn't threatening to bomb Israel for its violations of Security Council resolutions, that is hardly a serious justification.

The US adopted the line that Iraq had WMDs; that was the main justification, and no revisionism after the fact can alter it.

http://workingforchange.speedera.net/www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/wfc/TMW06-02-08.jpg

"The innocent have nothing to hide".

Bush & Co. have so much hidden, it's less an administration than a games of Sardines.

Hows about Clinton's affairs with China? Seems to me he had some good times with them as well. Why wasnt he impeached for lying under oath to a federal grand jury????
Why is the guy who was Deep Throat not hanging by his b@lls for causing a President to resign. especially if he was the #2 man in the FBI? Seems to me he commited a treasonous crime to me. I dont know, why arent we hounding him for leaking information to the press while being the #2 director at the FBI during the investigation? Especially after he came about and admitted it was him?? You want to go on and claim that only Bush and Cheney are the only bad people out there??

Lets not forget the wonderful Oil for Food program run by the UN. Saddam really liked it, especially how he rebuilt his military with the money for it. the UN knew all about it and did nothing. How could such worldwide corruption go by, without so much as a peep of protest by the rest of the UN??

Interestingly enough, the United States government did not have so much as a peep of protest until just these past few years.

I saw it. But you just linked to the main page, and I wanted to make very sure that he read the statement of principles and who signed it.

No hard feelings? :)
ah, alright. you're forgiven :D

grammarless post

You missed the point, clearly. The common defense for the warrantless wiretaps are "If you're innocent, you've got nothing to hide." Since this current administration is hiding a great deal, it leads us to the conclusion that....

I'll let you finish.

He didn't. I'd really like to see what military you're talking about.

I know for a fact that most of Iraq's air force never got off the ground during the invasion thanks to maintenance issues.

Did you hear about how they buried about 30 brand new Mig-29s and Su30s in the desert? before we got rolling into there? Or new tanks also buried? Although we did do a good job of keeping the Iraqis from the airspace, it makes you wonder, what else could be buried beneath those massive expanses of sand and deserts?

Hows about Clinton's affairs with China? Seems to me he had some good times with them as well. Why wasnt he impeached for lying under oath to a federal grand jury????
Why is the guy who was Deep Throat not hanging by his b@lls for causing a President to resign. especially if he was the #2 man in the FBI? Seems to me he commited a treasonous crime to me. I dont know, why arent we hounding him for leaking information to the press while being the #2 director at the FBI during the investigation? Especially after he came about and admitted it was him?? You want to go on and claim that only Bush and Cheney are the only bad people out there??
Wow, I was going to argue rationally, but if you're supporting Nixon's administration there's no way I'm possibly going to do that. No offence against you, just offence against Nixon.

The US adopted the line that Iraq had WMDs; that was the main justification, and no revisionism after the fact can alter it.

Don't forget the not-too-subtle hints at the non-existent links between Saddam and 9-11.

Wow, I was going to argue rationally, but if you're supporting Nixon's administration there's no way I'm possibly going to do that. No offence against you, just offence against Nixon.
Hey, Nixon supporters feel emboldened by the fact that the drooling slackjaw in the Oval Office has managed to pull off Nixon's ambition of a true Police State in America.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0602110096feb11,1,5857923.story?ctrack=1&cset=true

You want to go on and claim that only Bush and Cheney are the only bad people out there??
So you admit that they're neither of them good. You admit, without further provocation, that Misters Bush and Cheney are bad people.

What more do I need than that?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0602110096feb11,1,5857923.story?ctrack=1&cset=true
Can't get there from here without registration. Cut-n-paste if it's worthwhile.

Just sayin'.

You missed the point, clearly. The common defense for the warrantless wiretaps are "If you're innocent, you've got nothing to hide." Since this current administration is hiding a great deal, it leads us to the conclusion that....

I'll let you finish.

Its funny how you all blaim Bush and Cheney for 9-11 as well as katrina response.
Its amaizing how no one even puts the blaim on Clinton for disbanding a very well run counter-terrorism unit known as Able Danger. They knew about the hajackers living in Brooklyn almost three years before 9-11. They tried to warn the Pentegon as well as Clinton, but what did they do? Push it aside, disband Able - Danger, destroyed a lot of the documents, and acted like nothing happened. Now why is that?? You are all so keen on putting it on Bush that he himself withheld documents that warned about it.
Hurricane Katrina, I tought disaster response is usually prepared for by the local government. You know, as in planning for a disaster before it happens. The Federal Government cant be doing everything for the local government. The levees? Money was coming into it for years before, but a lot of it was diverted to other things, like politician's pockets. (Please dont ask me to go and back this stuff up, its out there.) But as usual, its only Bush's fault. No one else but him. Granted I cant stand the guy myself and wish he'd just go away, but when people just start heaping the blaime on one instead of everyone, (past and present people in charge) its not right.

Did you hear about how they buried about 30 brand new Mig-29s and Su30s in the desert?
They weren't new. Don't try to lie to me. AFAIK there was not a single Su-30, and only a few Mig-29s. And you would know how old they were.

Here is a news agency you will trust:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,93483,00.html
Prewar intelligence estimates from earlier this year said Saddam Hussein's regime had about 300 combat aircraft, all of them survivors of the Gulf War. Most were aging Soviet-era MiGs, Sukhois and older French Mirage fighters. The best are MiG-29 Fulcrums, one of the most advanced fighters produced in the Soviet era.

There is nothing brand-new about a MiG-25 (http://www.wibbler.com/archives/foundiniraq.php).

Or new tanks also buried?
Oh, you mean the T-72? That ultimate in high-tech?

Although we did do a good job of keeping the Iraqis from the airspace, it makes you wonder, what else could be buried beneath those massive expanses of sand and deserts?
Well, who knows? Seems like the US military and intelligence has come to one conclusion: Nothing.

Of course Saddam had remains of his once-powerful military, which was destroyed in Desert Storm. Some of them buried, in order to bypass the peace conditions (obviously they either forgot where they were, or they didn't have the material to get them back into the air).
But he did not get anything new, he did not start rearming in any major way after Desert Storm. His army in 2003 was a joke.

Hey, Nixon supporters feel emboldened by the fact that the drooling slackjaw in the Oval Office has managed to pull off Nixon's ambition of a true Police State in America.
lol, and the only "King President". As you know he wanted fanfare music like whenever he'd walk into a room. And Bush is our very first "Dictator President." "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, heh heh, so long as I'm the dictator, heh!"

So you admit that they're neither of them good. You admit, without further provocation, that Misters Bush and Cheney are bad people.

What more do I need than that?

Yes, I do have my reasons for disliking the two schmucks, but at the ame time, I wont stand around and let the poor idiot take the rap for everything that went wrong. Its so easy to find a scapegoat on Bush.

Its funny how you all blaim Bush and Cheney for 9-11 as well as katrina response.

And it's funny how you apparently didn't even read my post and responded to what you wish I'd said.

Now, defend the amusing implications of an administration who says "If you're innocent you've nothing to hide" and then hides essentially everything they do.

Can't get there from here without registration. Cut-n-paste if it's worthwhile.

Just sayin'.

Ex-CIA official rips war case
Says Iraq data distorted to sway public

By Cam Simpson
Washington Bureau
Published February 11, 2006

WASHINGTON -- The former CIA official charged with managing the U.S. government's secret intelligence assessments on Iraq says the Bush administration chose war first and then misleadingly used raw data to assemble a public case for its decision to invade.

Paul Pillar, who was the CIA's national intelligence officer for the Middle East and South Asia from 2000 to 2005, said the Bush administration also played on the nation's fears in the wake of the 2001 terrorist attacks, falsely linking Al Qaeda to Saddam Hussein's regime even though intelligence agencies had not produced a single analysis supporting "the notion of an alliance" between the two.

Instead, Pillar writes in the upcoming issue of the journal Foreign Affairs, connections were drawn between the terrorists and Iraq because "the administration wanted to hitch the Iraq expedition to the `war on terror' and the threat the American public feared most, thereby capitalizing on the country's militant post-9/11 mood."

The specific critiques in Pillar's 4,500-word essay, titled, "Intelligence, Policy and the War in Iraq," are not new. But it apparently is the first time such attacks are being publicly leveled by such a high-ranking intelligence official directly involved behind the scenes--before, during and after the invasion of Iraq nearly three years ago.

Because of his position, Pillar would have had access to, and likely intimate knowledge about, virtually every piece of Iraq-related intelligence maintained across all agencies within the U.S. government.

Pillar also wrote in his essay that the administration went to war without first considering any strategic-level intelligence assessments "on any aspect of Iraq" and that the intelligence community foreshadowed many post-Hussein woes, though the findings were largely ignored before the March 2003 invasion.

Excerpts from Pillar's article were first reported by The Washington Post on Friday. Foreign Affairs released a copy of the essay later in the day.

Pillar, a career intelligence official, retired from the CIA last year and is now a visiting professor at Georgetown University in Washington.

The administration responds

The White House did not respond specifically to Pillar's charges Friday, but Frederick Jones, a spokesman for the National Security Council, did point to previous administration statements defending its use of intelligence.

The administration first went on the offensive last fall in an effort to thwart what President Bush, in a Veteran's Day speech, called a "deeply irresponsible" effort "to rewrite the history of how that war began."

Jones said Friday that the administration's prewar statements "about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein were based on the aggregation of intelligence from a number of sources and represented the collective view of the intelligence community."

But in his essay, the man responsible for coordinating the intelligence community's collective view of Iraq directly challenged the notion that the prevailing wisdom within the nation's spy services supported the decision to invade. In fact, Pillar wrote, "If the entire body of official intelligence analysis on Iraq had a policy implication, it was to avoid war ."

He also wrote that the Bush administration "used intelligence not to inform decision-making but to justify a decision already made"--to topple Hussein's regime.

In making its case, the administration aggressively promoted pieces of "intelligence to win public support for its decision to go to war," Pillar said.

He also said: "This meant selectively adducing data--`cherry-picking'--rather than using the intelligence community's own analytic judgments."

Pillar's allegations about the public use of selective intelligence on Iraq comes in the wake of news that Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, told a grand jury that he was authorized by his bosses to leak classified information about Iraq in summer 2003 to defend the administration's case for war. The statement about Libby's secret testimony was contained in court papers filed in connection with his obstruction-of-justice case.

Misleading statements

Although he acknowledged the intelligence community was wrong about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities, Pillar said that intelligence "was not what led to the war." And he saved some of his sharpest criticisms for the administration's repeated public statements in 2002 and 2003 about "links" between Iraq and Al Qaeda--statements that have been repeated despite findings from the independent commission that investigated the Sept. 11 attacks that there was no collaborative relationship between the two.

"The issue of possible ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda was especially prone to the selective use of raw intelligence to make a public case for war," Pillar wrote. "In the shadowy world of international terrorism, almost anyone can be `linked' to almost anyone else if enough effort is made . . . . [But] the intelligence community never offered any analysis that supported the notion of an alliance between Saddam and Al Qaeda."

He said the administration constantly pressed for more data to support the purported link, just one way it politically influenced the outcome.

"Feeding the administration's voracious appetite for material on the Saddam-Al Qaeda link consumed an enormous amount of time and attention at multiple levels, from rank-and-file counterterrorism analysts to the most senior intelligence officials," he wrote. "It is fair to ask how much other counterterrorism work was left undone as a result."

Although he acknowledged analysts were not strong-armed by anyone in the administration to bolster the case for war, Pillar said intelligence officials were more subtly influenced.

Analysts, who often measure success by the attention they receive from policymakers, "felt a strong wind consistently blowing in one direction. The desire to bend with such a wind is natural and strong, even if unconscious," he said.

He also said he never received a request from any administration policymaker for any assessments of Iraq "until a year into the war."

Nicholas Cullather, the former official historian for the CIA who now teaches at Indiana University, said the article represents a defense of the longstanding tradition within the CIA of maintaining a strict separation between intelligence analysis and policymaking.

But Cullather said that tradition has long been aggressively opposed by officials who now hold senior positions in the Bush administration.

-----------------------------

I didn't have to register, that's odd.

Yes, I do have my reasons for disliking the two schmucks, but at the ame time, I wont stand around and let the poor idiot take the rap for everything that went wrong. Its so easy to find a scapegoat on Bush.
Let the cards fall where they may. I don't care for buck-passing types who shit through their teeth with such regularity it becomes reflex. There's more than two schmucks in power in Washington. A Helluva lot more than two.

And I hope they all burn. Not as tokens, not as examples, but for who they are and the values they actually espouse (as opposed to the ones they'll drivel on about to the sympathetic press). Both Misters Bush and Cheney are kindling. Not scapegoats. It's their show.

Wow, I was going to argue rationally, but if you're supporting Nixon's administration there's no way I'm possibly going to do that. No offence against you, just offence against Nixon.

No, I am against the fact that the #2 man in the FBI, who's main job is to uphold the law and do his duty to do justice, used that position and broke every law which he swore to uphold to bring down Nixon. I thought that in any investigation, the police, and law officials involved are not allowed to speak of anything of the trial that is under investigation. If you were to do that in a major trial, you would be held in perjury and cause the whole trial to be thown out. For "Deep Throat" to do something like this, especially thr #2 man in the FBI to break those rules like that and then be hailed as a hero, is mind-boggling.

Can you imagin what could have happened if the judge was leaking sensitive information to the media during, say the OJ Simpson trial? He would have been prosecuted for it. But Old fart deep throat is hailed as a hero for doing that.

Many--scratch that, most--liberals are convinced that we were misled into the war in Iraq, that it has been completely about Weapons of Mass Destruction, which is simply not true. WMDs were, in fact, a minor part of the dealie. The real issue was how Saddam has violated 16 U.N. resolutions since the end of the first Gulf war, including one that said we would resume military force should Saddam not cooporate, which as we all recall, he did not: he even through out weapons inspectors completely from 1998-2002. In 1998 as a matter of fact, Clinton was going to call him on it and resume military force if necessary, but didn't because Clinton was stupid enough to have an affair with an intern and thus felt that his ability to lead the country at the time was "compromised."(Which may very well be true, but doesn't excuse his actions.) Al Queda was also training people in Iraq, and dispite Osama and Saddam's mutual dislike, they worked together against their common enemy: the USA. The war in Iraq was justified.

WITH THAT SAID

It has been handled badly: I have never doubted that for a second. Bush is not the person who should have done this: he should have left it to a future President, or at the very least have listened to his military advisers and improved the state of our forces in Iraq. Frankly, if it were up to me and we reversed it back to when we were just about to head in, I'd go in again: only this time, we do it right.

All I'm saying here is that liberals need to face the fact that they're completely wrong about the whole WMD canard. It's just not true. And the sooner you stop persecuting this bad President for the wrong crime and start going after him for the true crimes, the better.

Again, appologies if I restate was others have stated that I haven't read yet... Stupid work.

Most of the pre-war build up was WMD, WMD, WMD. A bit about terrorists (such as Powell showing a survellance photo of a training camp in Kurd controlled Iraq), but... Most of the other arguments for war didn't appear until after WMDs showed up invisible.

True, his soldiers were taking potshots at our pilots on a routine basis, and if one of those missiles had hit, there'd be a pretty big mess... This libby never could protest this war, just the handling..

Oh, and just regarding that long-standing myth that the backstabbers (ie Germany, France and Russia) were somehow trying to protect Saddam for a profit...

Here is a NYTimes article (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/022706D.shtml) (the real one costs money now, so you'll forgive me for not linking to it).

Did you hear about how they buried about 30 brand new Mig-29s and Su30s in the desert? before we got rolling into there? Or new tanks also buried? Although we did do a good job of keeping the Iraqis from the airspace, it makes you wonder, what else could be buried beneath those massive expanses of sand and deserts?

Are you aware that destroying equipment you can't use so it won't fall into enemy hands is very common practice in war?

Oh, this tank ran out of fuel? Well, blow it up with a grenade. Hmm, this helicopter crashed? throw a nade or two in there. Hmm, we don't need to cross this bridge again? Let's blow it up.

Etc.

i think most people can agree that were better off without Sadam in charge over in iraq
Is the world better off without Saddam? I think we can all agree that he was an evil man, but it's a larger step to say that things are better now.

More civilians have died per yearunder the US than were dieing per year under Saddam.

Fundamentalist Islam had no power under Saddam.

Al Queda had no power in Bushnam.

Recruiting of terrorist was limited before the US started what is considered a "crusade" against Islam.

The three+ groups in Bushnam lived together in relative peace.

There was no speculation that a Kurdish empowerment could spread civil war throughout the entire region.

Iran was less encouraged to develop atomic weapons as a defence against US invasion. After all N Korea and Iran weren't invaded (at least percieved reason) because they had atomic weapons or at least potential.

Israel was more secure, and the US had more repsect as a neutral negotiator in the area.

The US had a chance to pass a balanced budget to the children, grandchildren, and greatgrandchildren. Instead the US passes massive debt financed by questionable foreign governments.

Oil supplies from Bushnam were flowing. (Yes I know the $$ was deverted but the oil was flowing)

Civilians had basic services.

Syria and Jordan felt more secure.

The US had a reputation as a moral fighter in war. (In WW2 the enemy would surender to US soldiers before any others because they knew they would be treated properly.) Now it has a reputation of ignoring the basic international rules of war. The US has become the nation of torture and "lost" prisoners.

US relations with traditional allies were much better. And traditional allies were more willing to offer help in times of need. (France was the first to offer aid in Afganistan.

Congress was more likely to authorize war when needed than they ever will be again. Never again will the word of the president be enough for Congress to believe in the need for war. This may delay a needed war someday.

Is the world better off without Saddam? I think we can all agree that he was an evil man, but it's a larger step to say that things are better now.

Link? I have never heard of this and would have thought if it actually came out it would have been a major news story, so this sounds like crap. Prove me wrong.


There was a Saturday Night Live bit about Saddam and Osama talking about taking down America. Where have you been?

Al Queda was also training people in Iraq, and dispite Osama and Saddam's mutual dislike, they worked together against their common enemy: the USA.

I am sorry, but do you have evidence of this?

Going into Iraq was the right thing to do.:sniper:

And, when we go into Iran, that will be the right thing to do, too.:mp5:

The greatest threat to liberal thinking is the truth.:upyours:

Going into Iraq was the right thing to do.:sniper:

And, when we go into Iran, that will be the right thing to do, too.:mp5:

The greatest threat to liberal thinking is the truth.:upyours:
Your name suits you perfectly. I'm glad we don't have people like you running this country. Oh wait, we do, DAMMIT! :headbang: Oh and good job using all the sterotypical n00b smilies in your 2nd post.

Many--scratch that, most--liberals are convinced that we were misled into the war in Iraq, that it has been completely about Weapons of Mass Destruction, which is simply not true. WMDs were, in fact, a minor part of the dealie. The real issue was how Saddam has violated 16 U.N. resolutions since the end of the first Gulf war, including one that said we would resume military force should Saddam not cooporate, which as we all recall, he did not: he even through out weapons inspectors completely from 1998-2002. In 1998 as a matter of fact, Clinton was going to call him on it and resume military force if necessary, but didn't because Clinton was stupid enough to have an affair with an intern and thus felt that his ability to lead the country at the time was "compromised."(Which may very well be true, but doesn't excuse his actions.) Al Queda was also training people in Iraq, and dispite Osama and Saddam's mutual dislike, they worked together against their common enemy: the USA. The war in Iraq was justified.

welp
yes and no

i was as alive as you were in 2003 and the war was indeed sold to us as a matter of national safety. the wmd in iraq put the US in imminent danger of attack. remember that "dont want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud" thing?

you were reading the papers back then werent you?

the UN resolutions were impossible to comply with. the '91 war pretty much destory all capability of iraq to produce new wmd. there were some stockpiles of pre'91 wmd still in the country.

the UN weapons inspectors found these and destroyed them. the shelf life of anythiing that might have been missed was over well before '03.

the US manufactured info about other wmd existing. its REALLY hard to find nonexistant wmd. its REALLY hard to reveal nonexistant wmd and then destroy them.

when the CIA started using info from the un weapons inspectors to target hussein for missle attacks, he decided that they no longer needed to be in his country. so he didnt let them back in after '98. go figure.

george bush had decided that he wanted to go back into iraq as soon as he was elected president. he assumed there was a connection between iraq and 9/11. he only looked at the intelligence reports that supported his pre-existing assumptions. he ignored any information that revealed that iraq and alqaida werent cooperating and that iraq had no significant wmd capabilities

ok maybe is YES and YES.

There was a Saturday Night Live bit about Saddam and Osama talking about taking down America. Where have you been?

I liked the one right after Bush won the election over Gore. Him and his dad were going hunting, and after Junior shot a deer, his dad was taking aim at junior.

Then he said something to the effect of "How much damage can he do?"

Dammit, SNL George Sr! Damn you! We all know hunting accidents involving powerful politicians mean nothing. You could have done it!

Just think. We could have.. New Orleans, and allies. Or at least more of New Orleans.

..Except for the Cheney part. I think he might order someone to create bigger waves. And then kill eagles.

Going into Iraq was the right thing to do.:sniper:

And, when we go into Iran, that will be the right thing to do, too.:mp5:

The greatest threat to liberal thinking is the truth.:upyours:

Since you support this war so much, why don't you get off your lazy ass and trade places with me out here in Basrah. We can always use some more pissed off white men to make the world a happy place.
As for going into Iran, have you ever looked at a map? It is about 4 times the size or Iraq, and has these things called mountains. Talk about Afghanistan and Iraq combined, connected by common borders. Great idea!

Since you support this war so much, why don't you get off your lazy ass and trade places with me out here in Basrah. We can always use some more pissed off white men to make the world a happy place.
As for going into Iran, have you ever looked at a map? It is about 4 times the size or Iraq, and has these things called mountains. Talk about Afghanistan and Iraq combined, connected by common borders. Great idea!

I would be more than willing to be there with you - but they won't take someone who is 45. My biggest regret is not having joined the Army or Air Force after high school. I went to college instead. Should have went to college later. Did some touring in Panama, for example.

My prayers, thoughts and well-wishes go out to all of you "over there."

My biggest regret is not having joined the Army or Air Force after high school. I went to college instead.
Wow, life so cheated you. Tough luck.

Here's what I heard, sitting up here in Canada.

Bush: "Mumble mumble, WMD, mumble, mumble, WMDs, mumble mumble, I'll get him for you Dad!"
I guess you lost something in the translation being on the west coast?

I heard "Mumble mumble, Al-queda, mumble, mumble, Al-queda, mumble mumble, I'll get their oil for you Dad! :D

Link? I have never heard of this and would have thought if it actually came out it would have been a major news story, so this sounds like crap. Prove me wrong.
S/he probably has his/her names wrong.
They meant the connection between Rumsfeld and Saddam.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

Since you support this war so much, why don't you get off your lazy ass and trade places with me out here in Basrah. We can always use some more pissed off white men to make the world a happy place.
As for going into Iran, have you ever looked at a map? It is about 4 times the size or Iraq, and has these things called mountains. Talk about Afghanistan and Iraq combined, connected by common borders. Great idea!
Something along the lines of I came, I saw, Iran? :p

The greatest threat to liberal thinking is the truth.
Hahahaha!
Oh, for fun, for fun.
BTW, your smilie would probably be more accurate if you typed
:

then

upmine

then
:

First off, everyone who replied: thank you for participating in this experiment.

In reality, I'm an Independent leaning towards conservative currently finishing his last year of high school. My English teacher is a staunch conservative, and has been telling me many of the things I asserted and have been asserting throughout this thread. However, I don't know if what he's saying has any truth to it, so in the spirit of finding out, I decided to take his side and act as though I believed it as truth and argue it, to see what would occur. I see that my suspicions were correct: he appears to be misinformed, which I find odd considering that Mr. Brown is an incredibly intelligent man. Might be that he has quite the political bias despite his constant claims to the contrary.

Anyway, thanks, gang. You've helped me a bunch here. Sorry about any misinterpretations or bad feelings I might have caused by being my own Devil's Advocate. =/
Well i would say you handled this situation a lot better than others have.
I would also like to say that your post is liable to be used in the future when another thread comes up claiming "liberal bias on campus".
Hope you don't mind that either.

The greatest threat to liberal thinking is the truth.
Sounds like you listen to Sean Henady (sp?) and actually believe its "news".

...

Um...nothing? I never said anything about ducks, did I? *checks over post to make sure he didn't mistype* Nope. No ducks. =/
Idiot. You mentioned WMD's. And everyone knows WMD's are used for duckhunting. So you ruined Iraq and got tens of thousands killed because Saddam maybe wanted to go duckhunting.

europe and our so called friends...bascicly.
We're not your friends. You just think we are.

Its funny how you all blaim Bush and Cheney for 9-11 as well as katrina response.
Its amaizing how no one even puts the blaim on Clinton for disbanding a very well run counter-terrorism unit known as Able Danger. They knew about the hajackers living in Brooklyn almost three years before 9-11. They tried to warn the Pentegon as well as Clinton, but what did they do? Push it aside, disband Able - Danger, destroyed a lot of the documents, and acted like nothing happened. Now why is that?? You are all so keen on putting it on Bush that he himself withheld documents that warned about it.
Hurricane Katrina, I tought disaster response is usually prepared for by the local government. You know, as in planning for a disaster before it happens. The Federal Government cant be doing everything for the local government. The levees? Money was coming into it for years before, but a lot of it was diverted to other things, like politician's pockets. (Please dont ask me to go and back this stuff up, its out there.) But as usual, its only Bush's fault. No one else but him. Granted I cant stand the guy myself and wish he'd just go away, but when people just start heaping the blaime on one instead of everyone, (past and present people in charge) its not right.

"Its amaizing" how someone can always makeup excuses for Bush sleeping at the wheel. "Its amaizing" how EVERYTHING is Clinton's fault.

"Its amaizing" that the next time there's a national disaster, especially one perpetrated by a terrorist group, that the Federal Government can in no way help you. That OR they just didn't want to help the *citizens* in the NOLA metro area and surrounding areas.

He's the PRESIDENT. The bucks stops with him (to paraphrase Harry Truman). If he doesn't want the blame, he can do the WHOLE WORLD a favor and quit.

"Its amaizing" how someone can always makeup excuses for Bush sleeping at the wheel. "Its amaizing" how EVERYTHING is Clinton's fault. But, But, CLinton was getting blow jobs. :rolleyes: Yeah, Clinton had a chance, but unlike Bush, he wanted to make sure he had solid intelligence, and once he had it, he had to deal with Republicans eating him up over a friggin BJ. Face it, Bush had the same intel Clinton was getting, remember that ambiguously titled threat assessment "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Within the United States"? and Bush did NOTHING.

No, I am against the fact that the #2 man in the FBI, who's main job is to uphold the law and do his duty to do justice, used that position and broke every law which he swore to uphold to bring down Nixon. I thought that in any investigation, the police, and law officials involved are not allowed to speak of anything of the trial that is under investigation. If you were to do that in a major trial, you would be held in perjury and cause the whole trial to be thown out. For "Deep Throat" to do something like this, especially thr #2 man in the FBI to break those rules like that and then be hailed as a hero, is mind-boggling.

Can you imagin what could have happened if the judge was leaking sensitive information to the media during, say the OJ Simpson trial? He would have been prosecuted for it. But Old fart deep throat is hailed as a hero for doing that.

Nixon was *breaking the law*. Any good cop stops someone from BREAKING THE LAW!

How old are you? Go up to a cop and ask him "do you wanna buy some weed?" and see if you end up in your local jail. You'll be arrested because in most places, it's illegal to solicit sales of controlled substances. :rolleyes:

And if you think that a cop investigating any crime who stumbles upon wrong doing is supposed to be quiet, then you've got bottles of amniotic fluid behind your ears. You may want to watch "Training" Day again.

EDIT: NIXON WAS CAUGHT RED-DAMN-HANDED, AS WELL.

But, But, CLinton was getting blow jobs. :rolleyes: Yeah, Clinton had a chance, but unlike Bush, he wanted to make sure he had solid intelligence, and once he had it, he had to deal with Republicans eating him up over a friggin BJ. Face it, Bush had the same intel Clinton was getting, remember that ambiguously titled threat assessment "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Within the United States"? and Bush did NOTHING.
http://themoderntribune.com/condoleezza_rice_testimony_9_11_commission_hearings_august_6,_2001_memo_to_george_bush_warning_bin_l aden_and_al_qaeda_qaida_to_attack_us_just_historical_document_not_a_warning_to_prevent_9_11.htm

But, But, CLinton was getting blow jobs. :rolleyes: Yeah, Clinton had a chance, but unlike Bush, he wanted to make sure he had solid intelligence, and once he had it, he had to deal with Republicans eating him up over a friggin BJ. Face it, Bush had the same intel Clinton was getting, remember that ambiguously titled threat assessment "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Within the United States"? and Bush did NOTHING.

OOOH! A man in power receiving fellatio!! THAT'S NEVER HAPPENED IN HISTORY! :) (that's a republicant/conservative view).

I agree with you 100%. Had the republicans actually bothered to worry about other pressing matters, maybe September 11 would not have happened.

OOOH! A man in power receiving fellatio!! THAT'S NEVER HAPPENED IN HISTORY! :) (that's a republicant/conservative view).

I agree with you 100%. Had the republicans actually bothered to worry about other pressing matters, maybe September 11 would not have happened.
That's so true. I hated it how in the earlier years, they were like "finally someone's bringing dignity and honor to the White House," while Bush was saying degrading shit like "I come down to the office where Teddy and Frank--I can call them that, since, heh! heh!--And spot the dog comes in and I read a threat assessment."

Not only is he trying to put himself on the same pedistal as every past president, but he reads a threat assessment (probably completely nude) with his dog! That's why we got attacked. "Oh look spot! Osama wants to kill us! Who wants a treat, huh?" Don't think he talks to his dog? Think again (http://www.dubyaspeak.com/incidents.phtml?page=2). I can't link to it directly, and it's quite a ways down on the page. Right above the picture of him with an umbrella. (Anyone who knows how to link to a specific place on the page, greatly appreciated, I've always wanted to know how, and I think it's not too hard)

OOOH! A man in power receiving fellatio!! THAT'S NEVER HAPPENED IN HISTORY! :) (that's a republicant/conservative view).

I agree with you 100%. Had the republicans actually bothered to worry about other pressing matters, maybe September 11 would not have happened.
Guess what qualifies this post rather well?

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB147/

This is also in line with an understanding of how serious Dubya "My Pet Goat" Bush was taking the issue :

http://www.oldamericancentury.org/52_warnings.htm

I also recommend reading the other links i posted.

Guess what qualifies this post rather well?

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB147/

Oh! Too bad we were talking about republican behavior during the CLINTON years, not their own error (not a misspelling). Just to refresh:

Originally Posted by Achtung 45
But, But, CLinton was getting blow jobs. Yeah, Clinton had a chance, but unlike Bush, he wanted to make sure he had solid intelligence, and once he had it, he had to deal with Republicans eating him up over a friggin BJ. Face it, Bush had the same intel Clinton was getting, remember that ambiguously titled threat assessment "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Within the United States"? and Bush did NOTHING.

The "Bush Administration Memo" does not mean BUSH DID ANYTHING. Funny, that one was penned by a Richard Clarke who, besides appearing on Good Morning America, quit working for Bush in January 2003, and, well...

*According to the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Clarke gave the final okay for the members of the bin Laden family living in the U.S. to fly to Saudi Arabia on Sept. 14, 2001. Clarke had initially claimed under oath someone in the Bush Administration had asked for the flight and he consulted with the FBI; later he claimed that he alone authorized the flight. He told reporters “I take responsibility for it. I don’t think it was a mistake, and I’d do it again.” (Nice; don't keep them here so we can ask questions!)

I remember him apologizing to the families of the attack, for which the conservative media rode him unmercifully. All that link does is shift the blame to Contradicta, who I already believe is completely useless (among other things). Contradicta also tried to show up for the hearings.

This is also in line with an understanding of how serious Dubya "My Pet Goat" Bush was taking the issue :

http://www.oldamericancentury.org/52_warnings.htm

I also recommend reading the other links i posted.
You got that from my sig, didn't you? ;)

You got that from my sig, didn't you? ;)
Actually no, but it would be a most excellent situation if that were the case. I'm not on a setting to read those, currently. *bows*

Oh! Too bad we were talking about republican behavior during the CLINTON years, not their own error (not a misspelling). Just to refresh:

Originally Posted by Achtung 45
But, But, CLinton was getting blow jobs. Yeah, Clinton had a chance, but unlike Bush, he wanted to make sure he had solid intelligence, and once he had it, he had to deal with Republicans eating him up over a friggin BJ. Face it, Bush had the same intel Clinton was getting, remember that ambiguously titled threat assessment "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Within the United States"? and Bush did NOTHING.

The "Bush Administration Memo" does not mean BUSH DID ANYTHING. Funny, that one was penned by a Richard Clarke who, besides appearing on Good Morning America, quit working for Bush in January 2003, and, well...

*According to the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Clarke gave the final okay for the members of the bin Laden family living in the U.S. to fly to Saudi Arabia on Sept. 14, 2001. Clarke had initially claimed under oath someone in the Bush Administration had asked for the flight and he consulted with the FBI; later he claimed that he alone authorized the flight. He told reporters “I take responsibility for it. I don’t think it was a mistake, and I’d do it again.” (Nice; don't keep them here so we can ask questions!)

I remember him apologizing to the families of the attack, for which the conservative media rode him unmercifully. All that link does is shift the blame to Contradicta, who I already believe is completely useless (among other things). Contradicta also tried to show up for the hearings.
How is that too bad?
I was responding to the sentence i quoted you on.
Oh well, there's plenty of other links i've given so far to qualify it. Especially the 52 part, which helps also qualify your opinion of Contradicta.

Many--scratch that, most--liberals are convinced that we were misled into the war in Iraq...
Um, no. Most liberals think the US lead us into war. Freakin' foreigners.

The real issue was how Saddam has violated 16 U.N. resolutions since the end of the first Gulf war...
How can we believe that, when the US has violated U.N. resolutions too?