Dems and WMD'S

[Lefty]

Democrats accuse the President of misleading them on WMD's and the war.
But we once again see the hypocrisy of the left.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/23/133706.shtml

[dav4463]

None of the liberals will reply to this one. There is no way to spin it the other way. The article speaks for itself. Everybody in this country saw Hussein as a threat.

[Light]

True. I saw these Democrats in Congress parroting the Bush Administration. Bush's "yellow cake" State of the Union speech. Powell with his mobile donkey cart labs speech to the U.N. Cheney's citing of fathom meetings of Al-Queda and Iraq on Meet the Press.The Democrats took it hook line and sinker.It's called brown nosing .But now that stuff really stinks. They believed their commander and chief.Patriotism. Now they see he lied.Better late than never. If Bush is innocent as well from lies he recieved,how come there is no alibi for him? Tell me who or what is this mysterious,nebulous,not talked about, faulty intelligence,other than the Whitehouse itself?

If Bush is innocent, don't call me a Bush hater,give me some facts.

[dav4463]

It's called "woulda, coulda, shoulda". So easy to criticize those who make tough decisions "after the fact", despite the fact that you agreed with the decision at the time. So now, if you decide it was the wrong decision, you would rather criticize than offer solutions. I still think it was the "right" decision, but you have your view and I have mine. That's how Kerry got the flip-flop name attached to him....."I voted for it before I voted against it!"

The fact is, President Bush made a tough decision based on the information that he had at the time and most agreed with him. Maybe we didn't find WMD's, but I have no doubt that Hussein was working towards getting nukes. It was good to take him out and we need to finish the job. I'm just glad we have a president who doesn't change his mind based on the polls of the people who do not understand the situation.

[PaceAdvantage]

It's lameo revisionist history in action....

[Lefty]

light, some of the dem quotes are from BEFORE Bush was in office.
Worldwide intelligence said Saddam had the wmd's including MI5..
Fact: Saddam had 1.7 tons of uranium. What do you think it was for?
He killed his own people with WMD's. Not in dispute that he had them but what did he do with them?
What would you be saying about Bush if he had ignored the intel and Saddam hit us with a biological weapon or dirty bomb, or simply funded more terrorists that might have struck us with something? Hmmm?

[JustRalph]

light, some of the dem quotes are from BEFORE Bush was in office.

Nice catch Lefty. Tons of quotes on Saddam from Dems are from 1998.

These guys think they have a bullshit answer for everything. Everything is Bush's fault. Bush damn sure hasn't done things the way i would like to see him do it...........but the alternative is down right scary...........

[Tom]

Yadda yadda yadda.

He fired on US airplanes in the No-Fly zone.
End of story. He violated the "cease-fire" from the first Gulf War.
We were totally justified in resuming hostilities.
Eveything else is secondary.

[lsbets]

I can only speak from time periods that I know. I know that in 1996,97,98,99, and 2000 the assesment was that Hussein had chemical and biological weapons and was willing to use them. This wasn't political intelligence, this was the basic assesment in the enemy forces section of operations orders. Every one of them dealing with Iraq said the same thing. When I sat on the border in Kuwait in 1997, we trained for war in our chemical suits because the intel said that Iraq would use chemical weapons against our forces. There are many points vis a vis the interpretation of the threat level based on the intel that can be argued legitimatly. But arguing that the basic intel somehow changed under Bush doesn't wash, because it didn't change.

[Secretariat]

Of course we beleived he had chemical weapons, my God we gave them to him. Our country has the largest stash of chemical and nuclear weapons in the world.

The issue was not whether he had them. We know that. The issue was whether he was an imminent threat to the US. If in fact Hussein was dealing with al Queda and passing them chemical weapons you don't think Al Queda would have used them by now, they've had ample opporutnity.

The issue is not that Saddam had chemical weapons, but whether he posed an imminent threat to the US. Pakistan has nuclear weapons, North Korea has nuclear weapons. my god, you're playing the same song again.

This issue about no fly violations, nation building, UN resolutions etc. is NOT the reason GW gave to war. If we went by violations of UN resolutions then Israel would be under attack for violating resolutions form the 60's which are still open. But GW told Congress the reason for war was the threat of WMD's being used against us by Hussein. Unlike the early 90's Hussein had made no international attack against Kuwait or one of his neighbors, he had been neutralized for a decade. Yet in the middle of the search for Bin Laden (the actual culprit behind 911), we reduce our presence in Afghanistan to fight a war against a country who hasn't invaded another country in over a decade.

To this day any attempt to tie Huseein to Bin Laden has fallen flat on its face. Gore's speech in 2002 prior to the war takes Bush to task for his chosen war. There's a Dem who spoke out. He certainly was privy to intel prior to GW.

You need to review how this intel was formulated, and put together for the Iraq war resolution. It was put together quickly with great dissent from varying departments, and the CIA. It was not the slam dunk that Tenet reported, but was questionable even within their own agency. The whole point was that the intel was formulated around a pre-determined policy to invade which many disagreed with. This is what Richard Clarke has stated time and again. The enemy was al Queda, not Iraq. We know that as late as 98 former Pres. Bush I was also explaining the dangers of going to Baghdad.

Problem was he was right. His son was dead wrong.

[Lefty]

sec, a guy that was funding families of homicide bombers and hated the U.S., broke 17 resolutions, fired on our airplanes, killed his own people wantanly... Was he an imminent threat? To treat him any other way would be preposterous. Every other view is Monday Morning Quarterbacking!

[PaceAdvantage]

I'm getting a strange sense of deja vu....are we going to rehash all this stuff all over again?

All the senators and congressman who are quoted ON THE RECORD should be getting equal criticism from those who also want to criticise Bush and falsely call him a liar.

However, I don't think we need to apologize for a thing....but that's just me.

[lsbets]

Well PA, if you notice, it starts out as "Bush lied about WMDs" and then once that is proven to be a specious argument at best, it morphs into the imminent threat debate. No solutions forthcoming, its an empty party.

[Tom]

We did it, we are there, get over it. A PSO didtator goes on trial Monday, millioins of people have been freed from tyrany, democracy is develpoping, and the vast majority of Iraqi's are better off for it all.

You cannot undo it. Try something constructive instead of your inane liberal whinning all the time. All the time you libs have been whinning and crying, the Iraqis have been getting a better life. Just what have YOU whinners done to help anyone in this world?????

I thought so. So shut up already. Are go to cindysheehan.com...you can find a link to her site on bsqueenbitch.com.

[Secretariat]

No, Tom, I won't shut up and go away.

Tom said,

"We did it, we are there, get over it."

Heard that in Vietnam 40 years ago. Didn't work then either.

"..the Iraqis have been getting a better life.'

Really, how do you know that Tom? Did they live in terror every day of a sucide bomb attack as they do today? Do they have clean water and electricity on a daily basis? Is there situation secure going forward? We got rid of a despicable tyrant, and at what cost. You think it was worth it. I don't. I'd rather have those 2000+ American lives back and the 20000+ wounded, and I'm sure there are quite a few Iraqi civilians that wouldn't mind the untold number of losses to their loved ones back. But you're right, we got Hussein and his two disgusting sons. We just disagree whether the price was worth it.

"go to cindysheehan.com"

It's interesting that you disparage the mother of a dead American soldier because she protests the war. Yet Muhammad Ali didn't go to Vietnam when drafted, in fact Ali said it was immoral, and yet Bush presents him with the Presidential Medal of Freedom only months ago. I guess protest is acceptable if you're a great boxer, but if you're the mother of a dead soldier why I guess it's shameful.

Lefty,

"a guy that was funding families of homicide bombers and hated the U.S., broke 17 resolutions, fired on our airplanes, killed his own people wantanly...
Was he an imminent threat?"

Is Syria an imminent threat? They've been housing Hezbollah and Hamas suicide bombers for decades and yet no one has ever proclaimed them an imminent threat to the US. Neither party. Not even Rush. Israel has broken serious UN resolutions and we look the other way because they are an ally. You can't have it both ways, it's why the Arab world sees us as hypocritical. Leaders have been killing their own people in Africa for ages, and yet we don't consider that an imminent threat to the US. No, Lefty GW went to war based on an imminet threat of WMD's. Read the Senate transcripts on the War Reoslution vote. it's all about the WMDs.

I agree with Isbets on this one..."its an empty party...no solutions forthcoming." We've been waiting for them for years from GW. My God, the man can't even find his way out a door as he so aptly displayed in China.

btw...if any of you are interested in Gore's speech pre-invasion I thought I'd provide a link.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/transcripts/gore_text092302.html

[Tom]

Sec, you have no clue. Not even a clue as to where the clues are.

Back to the ingore list for you! Bye bye. :kiss:

[JustRalph]

Sec, your partly line parrot position is getting old

[lsbets]

Sec, your partly line parrot position is getting old

He is once again proving that he is the ultimate tool.

[Light]

... But arguing that the basic intel somehow changed under Bush doesn't wash, because it didn't change.


This is precisely my point. The difference with Clinton is that he did not see Saddam as an immediate threat with the SAME intelligence as Bush.Kennedy and Kerry do not deny their quotes. But the part where they also said that they vote for war with Iraq as a last resort is omitted. The point is 2 different parties reacted differently to the SAME intelligence.

Point #2. Bush was also presented with intellligence by the CIA that counterd Saddam as a threat.Bush chose to ignore those reports.

Point #3 There is ample evidence that this was a premeditated war drawn up by some of Bush's cabinet including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld , Paul Wolfowitz , Jeb Bush and Lewis Libby .A document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century, was written in September 2000 by the neo conservative think tank showing they planned to take control of the gulf region whether Saddam was in power or not. 9/11 hadn't even happened yet.

[toetoe]

To all: please DO NOT shut up and go away.

Conceding that Bush is a bum, what about the legislators? Bumminess is practically a prerequisite for employment. I know I'm tilting at windmills, but when can we get some representation that is FOR us, not just AGAINST the other party?

I had a discussion on Thanksgiving with my brother, and rather than rebut my points, or say, "Gee, that's rough. I don't agree, but good luck with that," he implied I was WAY trippin,' and therefore the opinion was invalid. Then his final island of rhetoric became, "Write letters," presumably to Barbara Boxer or some other fool, Arnold S., maybe. Then he said to try that for five years. And no e-mails, real letters. I see that as a feel-good civic bunny resort, and I politely replied that I had no faith in that angle, negative R.O.I. But it was very disturbing to get together with family, pour the wine and break bread, then have it implied that if I have such a huge problem with the status quo, I shouldn't air it, but just write to some henchman in D.C. I say, if I can get the word out one-on-one, in the original oral version of language, and have a dialogue, I'll be happy. I couldn't even get that Thursday. But I wasn't flaming, I was airing a beef that started as a gut reaction, but which I had turned over in my head for a long time. I guess my "jacket" preceded me. Maybe I'll write to bro' under a pseudonym.

[Lefty]

Yes, sec, syria and Iran both a threat. That's why we must have a democracy in Iraq.
Also, Cindy Sheehan is not the only mother out there with a son or daughter killed in Iraq. But you never say anything about the ones who think their offspring died for a noble cause.

Did Ali camp outside the Pres' doorstep< Don't think so.

[Light]

ToeToe

You should realize that those who cannot tolerate other people's opinions are the ones with a problem.

[Lefty]

light, better go bk and read Clinton's earlier quotes.
What's your def of last resort? He broke 17 U>N. resolutions, fired upon our airplanes, had uranium... funded terrorists and let Zaquawi train terrorists in Iraq.

[dav4463]

Iraq is like Vietnam in only one way. It appeases the aging, dope-smoking hippies who want a cause to jump on... an anti-war protest bandwagon and it appeases the 20-something wannabes who are looking for a way to create a sixties of their own.

[Light]

Lefty

I have no respect for Clinton either.Not only did he prove to be a liar with Monica but helped enforce the U.N. sanctions against Iraq which resulted in over 1/2 million Iraqi deaths,mostly children. Saddam and Bush combined don't equal that....yet. Clinton was just a smoother actor than Bush. But same S***

[Secretariat]

Sec, your partly line parrot position is getting old

Well, let's see Kerry disagrees with Gore on Iraq, who disagrees with Dean...gee, which is the "party line" anyway? You guys will never change. But at least the publics eyes are starting to open to GW.

[Lefty]

light, Iraq NOTHING like Vietnam. There wrere no free elections in Vietnam. Had em in Iraq and another coming up. Vietnam was won on battlefield and lost in Wash. We can't let that happen in Iraq. McCain said it best, "when we left Vietnam they didn't come after us. When we leave Iraq, They will come after us. "
This is why victory is crucial.

[boxcar]

He is once again proving that he is the ultimate tool.

And fool!

Boxcar

[46zilzal]

War's strain wearing on Army troops, tools

By Dave Moniz, Matt Kelley and Steven Komarow / USA Today

WASHINGTON — Drawing lessons from his own career, Col. Mat Moten tells his students at the U.S. Military Academy in West Point, N.Y., they could one day have a duty just as important as fighting terrorism: helping rebuild an Army fractured and exhausted by a long and unpopular war.

For Moten, it's a familiar story, one he first heard as a West Point cadet in 1978. Then, the all-volunteer Army was struggling after Vietnam. "It's not a cheery message," Moten says.

[toetoe]

Hey, maybe we can start a democracy in Mexico. :confused:

[Lefty]

toe, hey maybe someday you can figure out what's going on.

[boxcar]

Hey, maybe we can start a democracy in Mexico. :confused:

"We"? (Or do you have a mouse in your pocket?) When are you leaving to start one?

Boxcar

[toetoe]

I think you'll agree that I'm ALWAYS revolting.

[Secretariat]

An interesting new book.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060103/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/cia_iraq

An excerpt:

"The major revelation in the book has already been the subject of extensive reporting by Risen's newspaper: the National Security Agency's eavesdropping of Americans' conversations without obtaining warrants from a special court.

The book said Dr. Alhaddad flew home in mid-September 2002 and had a series of meetings with CIA analysts. She relayed her brother's information that there was no nuclear program.

A CIA operative later told Dr. Alhaddad's husband that the agency believed her brother was lying. In all, the book says, some 30 family members of Iraqis made trips to their native country to contact Iraqi weapons scientists, and all of them reported that the programs had been abandoned.

In October 2002, a month after the doctor's trip to Baghdad, the U.S intelligence community issued a National Intelligence Estimate that concluded Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program."

[Steve 'StatMan']

Sec, could you or anyone, let alone the CIA honestly accept the words of anyone from Iraq under Sadam Hussein about their weapons programs? Remember, when Sadam was supposed to PROVE he had didn't have anything, and screwed around with the U.N. weapons inspectors, he lost all credibility for his words. What he had, he should have destoyed before the inspectors and shown to the world. He did not. Did they ever prove how or where they disposed of/elimanted their program. I don't recall anything about that. So I sure as hell couldn't take anyone's word over in Iraq, considering how quickly and mercilessly Sadam and his ruling thugs usuall tortured and killed anyone the even thought was doing things that might contribute to the decline and ruin of his regime. So I sure wouldn't expect the CIA to take any of those mere words from Iraq on "No WMD's" seriously. So since Sadam didn't want to PROVE it, he only gave us two choices, either trust him, and take the risk after 9/11 that Sadam was telling the truth, or take him, his army and the expected WMD's out, which would come at the expense of the masses in Iraq. Sadam chose to put his people and his followers at risk. He chose to let his people suffer while we took him and his people out. He'd always given the world no reason to trust him. I sure don't regret the things our nation really had to do. I do regret that plenty of our troops suffered to accomplish everything they have, and that many generally innocent Iraqi's had to suffer before Sadam was taken out, while he was taken out, and in grief the 'insurgents' have inflicted on the people of Iraq. I do regret that it took so many tax dollars to get some of the answers that the U.N. supposedly was to ensure that Sadam was to answer for us with the sanctions. And I regret that that rat bastard Sadam Hussein has trigged such a angonizing situation that pits so many of us Americans against each other ideologically. Some people took at all this and say and feel this is all Bush's fault. I look at it and know in my heart of hearts this is all Sadam Hussein's fault.

[Secretariat]

Sec, could you or anyone, let alone the CIA honestly accept the words of anyone from Iraq under Sadam Hussein about their weapons programs? Remember, when Sadam was supposed to PROVE he had didn't have anything, and screwed around with the U.N. weapons inspectors, he lost all credibility for his words. What he had, he should have destoyed before the inspectors and shown to the world. He did not. Did they ever prove how or where they disposed of/elimanted their program. I don't recall anything about that. So I sure as hell couldn't take anyone's word over in Iraq, considering how quickly and mercilessly Sadam and his ruling thugs usuall tortured and killed anyone the even thought was doing things that might contribute to the decline and ruin of his regime. So I sure wouldn't expect the CIA to take any of those mere words from Iraq on "No WMD's" seriously. So since Sadam didn't want to PROVE it, he only gave us two choices, either trust him, and take the risk after 9/11 that Sadam was telling the truth, or take him, his army and the expected WMD's out, which would come at the expense of the masses in Iraq. Sadam chose to put his people and his followers at risk. He chose to let his people suffer while we took him and his people out. He'd always given the world no reason to trust him. I sure don't regret the things our nation really had to do. I do regret that plenty of our troops suffered to accomplish everything they have, and that many generally innocent Iraqi's had to suffer before Sadam was taken out, while he was taken out, and in grief the 'insurgents' have inflicted on the people of Iraq. I do regret that it took so many tax dollars to get some of the answers that the U.N. supposedly was to ensure that Sadam was to answer for us with the sanctions. And I regret that that rat bastard Sadam Hussein has trigged such a angonizing situation that pits so many of us Americans against each other ideologically. Some people took at all this and say and feel this is all Bush's fault. I look at it and know in my heart of hearts this is all Sadam Hussein's fault.

There are so many holes in your assertions here.

1. First off, Saddam is a bad man. Of course he is. Kim in N. Korea is a bad man, and in fact has nuclear weapons which are pointed at two of our most improtant trading partners. Japan, and S. Korea, yet there was no rush to war. It's inconsistent, especially since there have been many inspections compared to N. Korea. 911 did not create any rush to invade N. Korea.

2. Well if we can't take the word from any Iraqis, even those who the CIA sought out, who can we take? Only exiled Iraqis who have a vested poitical interest like Chalabi who passed on faulty information for his own poltical gain?

3. Turns out Blix from the UN who went to Iraq was exactly right in his findings despite the admisntration's sending their own inspectors and confirming Blix's findings.

4. I'm not sure of the 911 connection here, since Iraq had not invaded anyone in 10 years, and was not affiliated with any of the hijackers in the 911 bombings. Perhaps since most of the hijackers were Saudi, maybe we should have looked there first before invading Iraq. Name me one hijacker who was an Iraqi.

5. Your list of regrets I agree with most, but GW has already publicly accepted responsiblity for being wrong on WMD's. So while you have not accepted his culpability in this rush to war regarding WMD's, he at least has. He's just turned it into a theocracy nation building exercise. I suppose Iran is up next. Stay tuned.

[lsbets]

You are right Sec, the new book is interesting. What I find really interesting is the pre-release publicity the book received from the NY Times in the form of them breaking a story they held for a year until right before the book was supposed to come out.

[Lefty]

What I find interesting besides the aforementioned NY TIMES breaking a story they held for a yr to coincide with a book, guess it's this book, is that we did find 1.77 tons of enriched uranium. Funny stuff, hmmm...

[46zilzal]

What I find interesting besides the aforementioned NY TIMES breaking a story they held for a yr to coincide with a book, guess it's this book, is that we did find 1.77 tons of enriched uranium. Funny stuff, hmmm...
WE...I didn't know you went over there?

[boxcar]

There are so many holes in your assertions here.

1. First off, Saddam is a bad man. Of course he is. Kim in N. Korea is a bad man, and in fact has nuclear weapons which are pointed at two of our most improtant trading partners. Japan, and S. Korea, yet there was no rush to war. It's inconsistent, especially since there have been many inspections compared to N. Korea. 911 did not create any rush to invade N. Korea.

Oh...so should we take this to mean, then, that you would have approved Bush's "rush to war" if we had attacked NK?

Boxcar

[Secretariat]

Oh...so should we take this to mean, then, that you would have approved Bush's "rush to war" if we had attacked NK?

Boxcar

No, you should take it to mean that Bush's "rush to war" in Iraq isn't consistent with a much graver WMD threat posed by North Korea to two of our largest trading partners - Japan and S. Korea.

[Lefty]

46zilly says to me: lWE...I didn't know you went over there?
__________________________________________________ _
You are truly inconsistent. In a horse thread you used the editorial "you" and blasted someone who criticized you. Here I use the editorial "we" and you are berating me for doing the same thing you did...

[46zilzal]

berating NO, just wanted to know how YOU added yourself to the folks that found something in the Middle East is all

[Lefty]

sec talks about Bush'es rush to war in Iraq. Isn't this getting stale, sec? Saddam had 10 yrs of non compliance. 10 yrs is rushing? N. Korea became more if a threat thanks to Clinton and his pals. Now that they HAVE the nukes and China a delivery system, they have to be handled a leetle differently. You don't see that cause you don't want to.

[Lefty]

46, well, do you get it now? And also I am an American and when America does something, i'm part of it. No bovine excrement about neutrality from me.
But instead of your b.s. post why don't you ask yourself what Saddam was doing with the uranium if not trying to get some nukes?

[46zilzal]

46, well, do you get it now? And also I am an American and when America does something, i'm part of it. No bovine excrement about neutrality from me.
But instead of your b.s. post why don't you ask yourself what Saddam was doing with the uranium if not trying to get some nukes?
you could ask the same thing of those fellows with the depleted uranium shells

and if you went TEN minutes wihtout calling someone a name, I think you'd bust

[Secretariat]

sec talks about Bush'es rush to war in Iraq. Isn't this getting stale, sec? Saddam had 10 yrs of non compliance. 10 yrs is rushing? N. Korea became more if a threat thanks to Clinton and his pals. Now that they HAVE the nukes and China a delivery system, they have to be handled a leetle differently. You don't see that cause you don't want to.

Lefty, did you read what you just wrote? You're saying that since N. Korea has the nukes they need to be treated differently. How is that, via negoitation, but wasn't the iraq rsuh to war was that Iraq had WMD's as well and could hit Britain within 45 minutes?

Its inconsistent to negotiate with N. Korea regarding WMD's, but launch a full scale invasion of Iraq to stop WMDs. But this is GWs wacko world.

[JustRalph]

Its inconsistent to negotiate with N. Korea regarding WMD's, but launch a full scale invasion of Iraq to stop WMDs. But this is GWs wacko world.

You are full of it. There is a big difference. There are 50 thousand american troops on the DMZ. N.Korea is in a famine of epic proportions. The leverage is different and the consequences are much different. Have you studied a map lately? Try figuring out who might jump up and help N.Korea if we invaded? Maybe you need a geography lesson more than anything else...........

[Lefty]

sec, was gonna reply, but JR said it quite well.

[Steve 'StatMan']

Well said JR.

Also, there's a vastly major difference between a country that is trying to develop nuclear weapons but doesn't have them yet, and one that already has them, armed, loaded and ready to go. To ignore that difference is total folly that any collection of fools can chatter about, but anyone making actual decisions would know they have to proceed very carefully, if at all, as there is a huge risk to the Japan, South Korea and perhaps the U.S. west coast if we invaded. In an Iraq invasion before any presumed nuclear weapons were ready, the major logical risk was chemical weapons vs. our troops, and scuds flying at Israel.

[Suff]

[QUOTE=JustRalph Try figuring out who might jump up and help N.Korea if we invaded? Maybe you need a geography lesson more than anything else...........[/QUOTE]

South Korea? Waiting, Beforre we invade.


I betcha N and S and Tawain are a Trifecta we coud use ,,,,,IF IF IFFFFFFF


This mutha sucka BUSH did'nt make an enemy of everyone