Kelly the Dog Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 I just figured I would post that before Richio did, considering that the Iraq Survey Group reported to the CIA that he didnt have any WMD whatsoever, there is no evidence that Iraq and Al Qaeda exchanged weapons; and there is no evidence that Al Qaeda and Iraq shared information, technology or personnel in developing weapons, Saddam was further away from producing nuclear weapons in 2003 than in 1991, hadnt started any programs in over a decade, and had no evidence that he was considering it. Just a theory that he may. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134625,00.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albany,n.y. Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 If Dick Cheney says it's true, it's true, damnit! Things like reports, videotapes of him saying the things he denies saying, several years old photos of him with people he's said he's never met-all made up. If they can make up pictures with OJ in those ugly-ass shoes, plant a bloody glove at OJ's, they certainly can make up photos & videotapes of our beloved Veep. Cheney is an honest man who would never lie to us! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 You should know better Kelly, they moved them to Syria; remember? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted October 6, 2004 Author Share Posted October 6, 2004 You should know better Kelly, they moved them to Syria; remember? 59511[/snapback] Damn. I guess we will be liberating all those Syrians soon. Can anyone tell me if a Syrian tossing flowers welcoming us as liberators can be distinguished from an Iraqi tossing flowers welcoming us as liberators, or do all them people look the same? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Typical TBD Guy Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 Don't forget that both Clinton and Bush were saying the same things based on the same military intelligence. Damning evidence for sure, but this is more of an American problem and not a particular party's problem. I'm worried about our intelligence credibility now with the rest of the world. By the way, what exactly happened to the 15,000 Kurds after the first Gulf War? I assume then they were killed with WMD's that were produced BEFORE 1991 and not AFTER 1991? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 Don't forget that both Clinton and Bush were saying the same things based on the same military intelligence. Damning evidence for sure, but this is more of an American problem and not a particular party's problem. 59551[/snapback] It would be less of a problem for Bush but for the whole "pre-emptive war thingy". A rather major difference. Honestly, I feel much more scared about the capacities of Iran, NK and unstable states like Pakistan than I ever did about Iraq. Was Iraq any more of a threat to us in 2003 than it was in 1996? No. Cheney and Bush campaigned to the American people and used a weary post-9/11 media to sell this war. And now it's clear that our rationale was wrong and our energies were misplaced. But changing our rationale for this war would never constitute flip-flopping, would it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 We should have a Liberation Lottery to see who's next going to enjoy "freedoms" courtesy of the good old US of A. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arondale Posted October 7, 2004 Share Posted October 7, 2004 It would be less of a problem for Bush but for the whole "pre-emptive war thingy". A rather major difference. Honestly, I feel much more scared about the capacities of Iran, NK and unstable states like Pakistan than I ever did about Iraq. Was Iraq any more of a threat to us in 2003 than it was in 1996? No. Cheney and Bush campaigned to the American people and used a weary post-9/11 media to sell this war. And now it's clear that our rationale was wrong and our energies were misplaced. But changing our rationale for this war would never constitute flip-flopping, would it? 59638[/snapback] I just don't agree that you can put the blame all on GW for this news. The reality is our original rationale, the intial reason for even considering war in Iraq was not simply the fact that we thought they had WMD's. The UN just put forth their 17th or 18th resolution on Iraq (some ridiculous number) in which it was agreed that if Iraq did not comply, they would face consequences. When Iraq did not comply, here is what GW was faced with: 1) Intelligence and history indicating Saddam had WMD's. It would be one thing if only the US believed in the WMD's, but in reality, most of the world agreed. We received intelligence from several other countries that supported our own intelligence. I find it hard to believe some of these reports coming out now - we know Saddam had WMD's in the past. We know many of them are now unaccounted for. How is it possible that every intelligence agency prior to the war was 100% wrong on this? I don't know what to think about that, I just find it hard to believe. 2) We were working within the war on terror. Our country and our government was forever changed as a result of 9/11. I don't remember GW's exact words, but in his speach at the RNC he basically said that he was faced with a decision to look after the interests and safety of the country or trust a madman. He chose to protect our country. No other country in the UN was looking at this decision within the context of 9/11 as the US was. Do you think Germany, France or Russia would have been more supportive or had a different perspective if 9/11 had happened in their country? No matter how Kerry and Edwards spin it, they supported this war and this intelligence, just as GW did. Kerry says he would have done it differently and built a stronger coalition - but that still means he would have done it! Kerry has also stated, knowing what we know now, he still would have supported the war. Some of these reports are discouraging, although as I said above, I don't believe for one minute that Saddam was no longer a threat or that he did not have WMD intentions. There is definitely blame to spread around, but if you chose to simply blame GW, call him stupid and all that other stuff people are saying, you are just ignoring the facts. Just my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted October 7, 2004 Share Posted October 7, 2004 BUSH LIED, PEOPLE DIED!!! (But Clinton, Gore, Kerry and Kennedy were simply misunderstood.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad Things Posted October 7, 2004 Share Posted October 7, 2004 Don't forget that both Clinton and Bush were saying the same things based on the same military intelligence. Damning evidence for sure, but this is more of an American problem and not a particular party's problem. I'm worried about our intelligence credibility now with the rest of the world. 59551[/snapback] Shut the F*ck up about Clinton already! Damn it... don't you realize how completley stupid you sound? Comparing Clinton to Bush is just the lamest thing I can imagine. This A-Hole Bush fooled you and most of this country in his mad rush for war. Now... he continues to fool almost half of you. What the F will it take for you to at least "look behind the curtain" to see the truth. Fool America Once, Shame on BUSH Fool America, again and again and again and again Shame on America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted October 7, 2004 Share Posted October 7, 2004 I just don't agree that you can put the blame all on GW for this news. When Iraq did not comply, here is what GW was faced with: 1) Intelligence and history indicating Saddam had WMD's. It would be one thing if only the US believed in the WMD's, but in reality, most of the world agreed. We received intelligence from several other countries that supported our own intelligence. I find it hard to believe some of these reports coming out now - we know Saddam had WMD's in the past. We know many of them are now unaccounted for. How is it possible that every intelligence agency prior to the war was 100% wrong on this? I don't know what to think about that, I just find it hard to believe. Well, for starters there were some reports proven false, like Atta's supposed meeting in the Czech Republic with Iraqi officials, the yellowcake in Niger, that this administration stood by and used as rationale. To me any reports proven false would be reason to dig deeper. I will freely admit to not being an intelligence expert, and I have limited understanding of how intel is shared internationally. This is a great, confusing issue, how we all seem to have had it wrong. But again, Clinton didn't act on this intelligence in the way that Bush did. And I think that UN inspections have to be considered part of our intelligence/information gathering process. Bush forced the UN to abort them. 2) We were working within the war on terror. Our country and our government was forever changed as a result of 9/11. I don't remember GW's exact words, but in his speach at the RNC he basically said that he was faced with a decision to look after the interests and safety of the country or trust a madman. He chose to protect our country. No other country in the UN was looking at this decision within the context of 9/11 as the US was. Do you think Germany, France or Russia would have been more supportive or had a different perspective if 9/11 had happened in their country? Sure they would. But they supported us after 9/11 (in France, headlines ran: "Today We Are All Americans"). And the way these nations are dealing with Iran indicates they consider that country a more serious threat. Don't you think we should have, also? There are other "madmen" that can certainly be argued to have been a greater threat. What Saddam was was an easy target. That's fine, we are better off without him, but why him first? And why divert attention and special forces from Afghanistan when we really could have used our resources to ensure that this whole country is free -- and not just Kabul? No matter how Kerry and Edwards spin it, they supported this war and this intelligence, just as GW did. Kerry says he would have done it differently and built a stronger coalition - but that still means he would have done it! Kerry has also stated, knowing what we know now, he still would have supported the war. I would dispute this as the Bush administration had all the intel to view and presented its case with a selective picture. Also, people like Bob Graham on the senate intelligence committee got to see more than Kerry and Edwards did. I still don't agree with their votes, but I agree with Kerry that the planning was not up to snuff. And you know Kerry was in a lose-lose situation with that question regarding whether he would change his vote. I can only imagine the Republican spin on that one. Some of these reports are discouraging, although as I said above, I don't believe for one minute that Saddam was no longer a threat or that he did not have WMD intentions. There is definitely blame to spread around, but if you chose to simply blame GW, call him stupid and all that other stuff people are saying, you are just ignoring the facts. Just my opinion. 59980[/snapback] I never to my knowledge called Bush stupid here (if I have someone please find it and I'll eat my crow). I do think he has limited curiosity, but I think he is a brilliant campaigner who has until now shaped his image very favorably, has used the media very well, and in general understands politics. More importantly I do think some of the ways in which he has prosecuted the war on terrorism have been effective. Others (torture that only emboldens our enemies, color codes, some of the Patriot Act, acting in ways which piss off our traditional allies) have not. One last, unrelated thing about our allies: I know everybody hates France, but why not Germany so much? Less vocal? We don't hear much sneering about Shprockets or Lederhosen or gay discos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arondale Posted October 7, 2004 Share Posted October 7, 2004 Well, for starters there were some reports proven false, like Atta's supposed meeting in the Czech Republic with Iraqi officials, the yellowcake in Niger, that this administration stood by and used as rationale. To me any reports proven false would be reason to dig deeper. I will freely admit to not being an intelligence expert, and I have limited understanding of how intel is shared internationally. This is a great, confusing issue, how we all seem to have had it wrong. But again, Clinton didn't act on this intelligence in the way that Bush did. And I think that UN inspections have to be considered part of our intelligence/information gathering process. Bush forced the UN to abort them.60217[/snapback] I think Clinton didn't act on the intelligence in the same way simply because 9/11 had not happened. Unfortunately, I think it took 9/11 for everyone to realize how serious this war on terror was. After all, we had been attacked before, but nothing to the extent of 9/11. There is speculation (and speeches to back it up) that Clinton may have been able to take custody of Bin Laden, but he didn't. I never to my knowledge called Bush stupid here (if I have someone please find it and I'll eat my crow). I do think he has limited curiosity, but I think he is a brilliant campaigner who has until now shaped his image very favorably, has used the media very well, and in general understands politics. More importantly I do think some of the ways in which he has prosecuted the war on terrorism have been effective. Others (torture that only emboldens our enemies, color codes, some of the Patriot Act, acting in ways which piss off our traditional allies) have not. 60217[/snapback] Sorry, I wasn't necessarily referring to you as someone who called GW stupid, just in general. I'll never be one to proclaim GW as a genius, but he is not the moron people portray him to be. I know so many people (not necessarily referring to this board) that think he is stupid based solely on the fact that he is not a polished speaker. I just think that is so naive. The thing that bothers me about Kerry is that he has been wrong on several key national security issues in his career. The cold war and the first Gulf war are the most glaring. He has also voted to cut intelligence and military spending. If he and others think this is the wrong war, then he was wrong just the same as GW. Recent comments of his also worry me. His mention of a "global test" at the first debate. His answer to whether this war is worthy of "it depends on the outcome". I can find a lot at fault with GW, but Kerry as a president scares me even more. I think the American public holds that same sentiment. I still believe that if the democrats had picked a better candidate, there is no way GW would have a chance at being re-elected. I don't like him, but I think Dean would be ahead of GW right now if he had been the Democratic candidate simply because he is consistent and has always been against the war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted October 7, 2004 Share Posted October 7, 2004 Unfortunately, I think it took 9/11 for everyone to realize how serious this war on terror was. Agreed, but the invasion of Iraq was not part of the war on terror. There was no connection to the events of 9/11, and they were not an imminent threat, as the continued inspections would have revealed. By opening a second, unnecessary front in Iraq, they have made a strategic mistake similar to which Hitler made invading the Soviet Union (and I'm talking strategy here, not comparing leaders or motivations, so don't start flaming). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted October 7, 2004 Share Posted October 7, 2004 By opening a second, unnecessary front in Iraq, they have made a strategic mistake similar to which Hitler made invading the Soviet Union (and I'm talking strategy here, not comparing leaders or motivations, so don't start flaming). 60445[/snapback] Is that based on your tremendous experience in "Military Strategy?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmac17 Posted October 7, 2004 Share Posted October 7, 2004 Well, for starters there were some reports proven false, ...the yellowcake in Niger Show me where the yellowcake story was prove false please.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichFan Posted October 7, 2004 Share Posted October 7, 2004 Show me where the yellowcake story was prove false please.... In fact, Great Britain is standing by the validity of this intelligence and Joe Wilson's investigation was shown to be less than reliable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad Things Posted October 7, 2004 Share Posted October 7, 2004 In fact, Great Britain is standing by the validity of this intelligence and Joe Wilson's investigation was shown to be less than reliable. 60589[/snapback] I think you're full of it. Show me the data about Joe Wilson's reporting. (Please don't quote a source from another right-wing nut job) (Or from those idiots at the Washington Post) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichFan Posted October 7, 2004 Share Posted October 7, 2004 Hey, gmac, in case you need a link to support that yellowcake uranium claim, here you go: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...4-2004Jul9.html Some crazy lib may show up challenging the validity of this one. Figured I'd give you a pretty straight source so they couldn't use the old "right wing nut job" claim they so love when they see Drudge or FoxNews. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad Things Posted October 7, 2004 Share Posted October 7, 2004 Hey, gmac, in case you need a link to support that yellowcake uranium claim, here you go: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...4-2004Jul9.html Some crazy lib may show up challenging the validity of this one. Figured I'd give you a pretty straight source so they couldn't use the old "right wing nut job" claim they so love when they see Drudge or FoxNews. 60609[/snapback] Mich... Do you believe that the invasion of Iraq was justified? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted October 7, 2004 Share Posted October 7, 2004 Mich...Do you believe that the invasion of Iraq was justified? 60616[/snapback] Why does it matter now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.529869a0a9afd197241cad0932282c97.jpg)
Recommended Posts