Re: Questions and Answers
 

[ QUOTE ]
And you showed why most people voted against him, because he has no spine, will do whatever it takes to get elected, even if it sacrafices his principles.

[/ QUOTE ]

Speaking of principles ... what are Gee Duh's principles exactly? Massive government spending? Massive pork and no-bid contracts to big oil? Massive pork to pharmaceutical companies? Making sure that his pals and cronies (Brown, Miers, etc.) are placed at the highest levels of government even if they are disastrously underqualified monkeys?

Please clarify.

Fight the power
 

Enough with this crap.

The administrations prior to Bushy were warning about WMDs but the focus was on non-nuclear WMDs. Plus, nowhere was Saddam's Iraq characterized as presenting a "clear and present danger" to the U.S. serious enough to warrant invasion.

Israel was the only country in the world that stood to benefit from Saddam's overthrow. While, contrary to what latter-day prophets are claiming, the United States was NOT. (Saddam run a strictly anti-communist, anti-fundamentalist shop.)

The Clinton adinistration was correctly focused on the threat of muslim extremism & terrorism, worldwide. That was the prime objective of diplomatic and clandestine operations during Clinton's era and it was for this purpose that Clinton asked Congress repeatedly for money and legislation. Republican-controlled Congress turned down most of his requests (all backed by the law enforcement and intelligence communities) and with the stingiest of rebukes -- just read what Newt and Dubya were saying at the time, about "dictatorship", "censorship", "restriction of indvidual rights", etc etc!

Dubya's entourage was, from the start, obsessed with Iraq -- for reasons that had nothing to to do with American security. I could buy "American interests" if you could show me how --theoretically- they were advanced by the war, and morality be damned. But I said "theoretically"; in reality, American interests and security have been severely compromised by Dubya's folly.

"...Helping Iraqis get a democracy", gimme a break.

Re: Questions and Answers
 

"Iraq had Uranium stockpiles that US Troops removed. The UN weapons inspectors knew and inventoried these stockpiles."

These were yellowcake uranium stockpiles. Yellowcake is extremely difficult to weaponise (North Korea did not use yellowcake uranium to create its nukes; I'm not sure if anyone ever has), and noone believes Iraq had anything approaching the technology or capacity to do so. And, as you point out, their whereabouts were sealed and monitored by the UN. Yellowcake stockpiles (which is naturally occuriing in Iraq) are in no way WMD stockpiles.

This has been pointed out here about 1000 times.

Re: Disgusting Comment by President Bush
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
although the number I've heard thrown around is 100,000 Iraqi civilians killed, but don't ask me to quote it

[/ QUOTE ]
Well that's good, because it's absurd.

[/ QUOTE ]

From Kaplan's article:

"There were other problems. The survey team simply could not visit some of the randomly chosen clusters; the roads were blocked off, in some cases by coalition checkpoints. So the team picked other, more accessible areas that had received similar amounts of damage. But it's unclear how they made this calculation. In any case, the detour destroyed the survey's randomness; the results are inherently tainted. In other cases, the team didn't find enough people in a cluster to interview, so they expanded the survey to an adjoining cluster. Again, at that point, the survey was no longer random, and so the results are suspect."

Dumb. They choose somewhere at random, but it's not accessible so they choose the closet accessible village, adn that destroys the randomness of it? How? That's still effectively random.

"The Johns Hopkins team had to confront this problem. One of the 33 clusters they selected happened to be in Fallujah, one of the most heavily bombed and shelled cities in all Iraq. Was it legitimate to extrapolate from a sample that included such an extreme case? More awkward yet, it turned out, two-thirds of all the violent deaths that the team recorded took place in the Fallujah cluster. They settled the dilemma by issuing two sets of figures—one with Fallujah, the other without. The estimate of 98,000 deaths is the extrapolation from the set that does not include Fallujah. What's the extrapolation for the set that does include Fallujah? They don't exactly say. Fallujah was nearly unique; it's impossible to figure out how to extrapolate from it. A question does arise, though: Is this difficulty a result of some peculiarity about the fighting in Fallujah? Or is it a result of some peculiarity in the survey's methodology?"

What's his point here? They left Fallujah out. Clearly, if they'd have kept it in, the results would have been even higher. Is he saying the figures are too low?


"Imagine reading a poll reporting that George W. Bush will win somewhere between 4 percent and 96 percent of the votes in this Tuesday's election. You would say that this is a useless poll and that something must have gone terribly wrong with the sampling. The same is true of the Lancet article: It's a useless study; something went terribly wrong with the sampling."

This is not a reasonable comparison. Saying between 4% and 96% is the same as seeing between the least amount possible and the most amount possible. There are upper and lower boundaries; it's utterly meaningless. There are no upper boundaries with numbers of people, the equivalent to the % thing would be saying between zero and the entire population of Iraq, which is clearly nothing like what the Lancet report said.

"The study, though, does have a fundamental flaw that has nothing to do with the limits imposed by wartime—and this flaw suggests that, within the study's wide range of possible casualty estimates, the real number tends more toward the lower end of the scale. In order to gauge the risk of death brought on by the war, the researchers first had to measure the risk of death in Iraq before the war. Based on their survey of how many people in the sampled households died before the war, they calculated that the mortality rate in prewar Iraq was 5 deaths per 1,000 people per year. The mortality rate after the war started—not including Fallujah—was 7.9 deaths per 1,000 people per year. In short, the risk of death in Iraq since the war is 58 percent higher (7.9 divided by 5 = 1.58) than it was before the war."

THis needs more looking into, as the Lancet researchers may have been using different criteria than the UN. THerefore for example if the UN estimated the post-war deathrate, they may have come up with a higher estimate than the Lancet team, but with a similar change in pre- and post-war death rates. You can't use the UN numbers until you know the different teams were using the same methods.

"The IBC estimates that between 14,181 and 16,312 Iraqi civilians have died as a result of the war—about half of them since the battlefield phase of the war ended last May. The group also notes that these figures are probably on the low side, since some deaths must have taken place outside the media's purview."

Give me a break - some. The vast majority of deaths in the war would have gone unreported in the Western press, which IBC takes its figures from.

More From the Administration
 

"It is . . . regrettable that Senator Kennedy has dounf more time to say negative things about Presdient Bush than he ever did about Saddam Hussein, " said WHite House Press Secretary in an emailed comment.

He's probably also said more negative things about President Bush than he has about Woodrow Wilson or Charles DeGaulle or Joseph Stalin. Bush is our president, elected to serve the people. Bush is the man who is our commander in chief. We, as Americans, are most concerned about what our president does.

The Democrats have nothing to be proud about on Iraq. But the administration should learn how a democracy works if they expect to export it to Iraq.

Rose Colored Glasses
 

The administrations prior to Bushy were warning about WMDs but the focus was on non-nuclear WMDs. Plus, nowhere was Saddam's Iraq characterized as presenting a "clear and present danger" to the U.S. serious enough to warrant invasion.
************************************************** *********
Iraq violated the armistice multiple times and the even tried to assassinate Bush41 when he went to Kuwait in (1991?). Either of these were reason enough to take Hussein out. An armistice is a contract between two warring countries. The losing nation agrees to the terms of the armistice in exchange for not being attacked. If the armistice is violated then they MUST be attacked. Otherwise armistice are 100% WORTHLESS. Clinton used cruise missles which had ZERO affect. Once Hussein tried to assassinate Bush41 his fate was sealed....


Israel was the only country in the world that stood to benefit from Saddam's overthrow. While, contrary to what latter-day prophets are claiming, the United States was NOT.
************************************************** **********
There was little benefit for the USA to overthrow Hussein. But his consistent sponsorship of terror groups, violations of the armistice, and the assassination attempt of Bush41 forced the USA to act.


The Clinton adinistration was correctly focused on the threat of muslim extremism & terrorism, worldwide. That was the prime objective of diplomatic and clandestine operations during Clinton's era and it was for this purpose that Clinton asked Congress repeatedly for money and legislation. Republican-controlled Congress turned down most of his requests (all backed by the law enforcement and intelligence communities) and with the stingiest of rebukes --
************************************************** ***
ARE YOU KIDDING???? You are DREAMING. Clinton did no such thing. His former FBI Director Freeh (sp?) said just the opposite. During the 9/11 investigation, Sandy Burger got caught stealing top secret documents that exposed some of Clintons screwups. Clinton was a modern day Nero fiddling while the terrorists attack the USA several times (world trad center, Kobar towers, USS Cole, etc...). If you want to post supporting links, I'll look at them. Meanwhile I'll believe Freeh and others over your Clinton-Rose-Colored- Glass view of the world.


Dubya's entourage was, from the start, obsessed with Iraq -- for reasons that had nothing to to do with American security.
************************************************** *******
Yes Bush43 was obsessed with Iraq, as Clinton SHOULD HAVE BEEN. Bush43 did what Clinton did not have the balls to do. As I said before, if you violate an armistice or try to assassinate a US president, then you MUST go to war.


in reality, American interests and security have been severely compromised by Dubya's folly.
************************************************** *********
You don't know that. It will take years to know whether the attempt to bring democracy to Iraq results in a better and more secure world. You are thinking in months while others think in decades.


"...Helping Iraqis get a democracy", gimme a break.
************************************************** ****
I agree. I don't give a damn about Iraqis. But this war was forced on the USA by the reasons I previously mentioned. I'm not a big fan of the Arab culture. If I had my choice, I would love to see the Kurds get their own country at the expense of Iraq, Iran, Turkey, and Syria. The Kurds have been ****ed by so many other muslim cultures they have a more rational view of the world. I read a story where many Kurds admire Israel. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

The Bottom Line
 

You can not be intellectual honest and accuse Bush43 of lying about Iraq without calling Kerry, Kennedy, Edwards, Pelosi, and other democrats liars as well. They all saw the SAME INTELLIGENCE prepared by the CIA. They all said the same thing about the threat of Iraq. The only difference is the polls have changed and Bush43 is sticking to his principles and the democrats are running from their former war rhetoric. The Dems voted for war just like the Repubs did....

To believe Bush lied you have to believe there was a MASSIVE conspiracy that included all the major Democrat political leaders. If you believe this you probably believe the Jews control the world's finances under the control of the illuminati who are controlled by the free masons.

Bottom Line:
The USA made the correct decision to invade Iraq because Hussein violated the armistive NUMEROUS times and he tried to assassinate Bush41 in Kuwait in 1991(?). The fact that Hussein was a major sponsor of terror was icing on the cake. If the new Iraqi govt can get control of their country soon, I would like the USA to take out Iran.........

Re: The Bottom Line
 

[ QUOTE ]
You can not be intellectual honest and accuse Bush43 of lying about Iraq without calling Kerry, Kennedy, Edwards, Pelosi, and other democrats liars as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

The question all of these people should be answering is.

Knowing what you know now would you have voted for a war in Iraq?

Re: The Bottom Line
 

[ QUOTE ]
Bottom Line:
The USA made the correct decision to invade Iraq because Hussein violated the armistive NUMEROUS times and he tried to assassinate Bush41 in Kuwait in 1991(?). The fact that Hussein was a major sponsor of terror was icing on the cake. If the new Iraqi govt can get control of their country soon, I would like the USA to take out Iran.........

[/ QUOTE ]

Your argument is crap becaue North Korea is much more of a threat than Iraq ever was. Should we invade China? All the president has accomplished with his failed Iraqi war is to show the rest of the world how inept our leadership is. Now that Bush has failed in his attempt to takeover Iraq, North Korea knows they have nothing to worry about and can build all the WMDs they want.

Re: Disgusting Comment by President Bush
 

[ QUOTE ]
The fact that Hussein was a major sponsor of terror was icing on the cake.

[/ QUOTE ]

Keep drinking the Kool Aid.

Re: The Bottom Line
 

[ QUOTE ]
The real question all of these democrat hypocrites should be answering is

[/ QUOTE ]
If you suspected that the intelligence was incorrect / the President was lying / the intelligence was faulty / then why did you vote to go to war ?

FYP

[ QUOTE ]
Knowing what you know now would you have voted for a war in Iraq?

[/ QUOTE ]
This is irrelevant – It’s just like asking “Knowing what you know now would you have let your great aunt get on the Titanic?

Re: The Bottom Line
 

[ QUOTE ]
The fact that Hussein was a major sponsor of terror was icing on the cake.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh?

Re: Disgusting Comment by President Bush
 

this thread is a joke, bush is a moron and you guys are retards for defending him

Re: The Bottom Line
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you suspected that the intelligence was incorrect / the President was lying / the intelligence was faulty / then why did you vote to go to war ?



[/ QUOTE ]

A very plausible answer to those questions is: I believed the President then. A lot has happened since then that makes me question both the intelligence and the presentation of the evidence.

[ QUOTE ]
Knowing what you know now would you have voted for a war in Iraq?



[ QUOTE ]
This is irrelevant – It’s just like asking “Knowing what you know now would you have let your great aunt get on the Titanic?

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not an irrelevant question if the answer you want is directed at the question of whether this war is being implemented in a terrible way.

Re: The Bottom Line
 

"You can not be intellectual honest and accuse Bush43 of lying about Iraq without calling Kerry, Kennedy, Edwards, Pelosi, and other democrats liars as well."

Wrong.

Kerry, Kennedy, Edwards and Pelosi did not say if we did not act on Iraq we'd see a mushroom cloud over the U.S.

Kerry, Kennedy, Edwards, and Pelosi did not send Colin Powell to the UN with a briefcase full of BS.

Kerry, Kennedy, Edwards, and Pelosi did not land on an aircraft carrier for a photo op in front of a sign saying "Mission Accomplished," knowing full well that they had not prepared for the postwar occupation.

Kerry, Kennedy, Edwards, and Pelosi did not pressure people to find a connection between 9/11 and Iraq.

Kerry, Kennedy, Edwards, and Pelosi did not say we found the WMDs (by which, BTW, the president was referring to truck that were not mobile weapons labs, but rather hydrogen production facilities for weather balloons).

Kerry, Kennedy, Edwards, and Pelosi did not assert many months ago that the insurgency was in its last throes.

Kerry, Kennedy, Edwards, and Pelosi did not have a Secretary of Defense A) who refused to prepare for the occupation and, pretending he didn't know there might be looting, say oh well, "stuff happens"; and B) who, when told we needed to bomb Afghanistan because the Taliban was giving succor to Al-Qaeda, insisted on bombing Iraq instead because, "there are not good targets in Afghanistan."

I am not a defender of Kerry, Kennedy, Edwards or Pelosi. Their criticism of the administration certainly smacks of politics and finger-in-the-windism. But the administration has been duplicitous from its very first week in office, when there were meetings about overthrowing Hussein long before either 9/11 or the administration worrying about terrorism.

Re: The Bottom Line
 

[ QUOTE ]
A very plausible answer to those questions is: I believed the President then.

[/ QUOTE ]

A more honest answer would be “It was an election year and we needed to appear strong on defense: now we just want our power back and we’ll say anything to get it”

Re: The Bottom Line
 

Kerry, Kennedy, Edwards and Pelosi did not say if we did not act on Iraq we'd see a mushroom cloud over the U.S.
************************************************** ********
They may have become true or it may not have. We will never know now. This is an OPINION not a falsehood. Anyway I don't think you are quoting Bush accurately.


Kerry, Kennedy, Edwards, and Pelosi did not send Colin Powell to the UN with a briefcase full of BS.
************************************************** ***
The "BS" was base on CIA intelligence. The same intelligence that the Democrats saw. If there were mistakes the fault lies with the CIA and Hussein who violated the terms of the armistice by kicking out the inspectors for several years and not honoring the other terms of the armistice. Also Clinton cut the budget of the CIA and changed their reliance on field agents to high-tech information gathering. This was a huge mistake and Clinton deserves blame as well.


Kerry, Kennedy, Edwards, and Pelosi did not land on an aircraft carrier for a photo op in front of a sign saying "Mission Accomplished," knowing full well that they had not prepared for the postwar occupation.
************************************************** ******
The US aircraft carrier was given several missions in the war against Iraq. They accomplished their missions and were on their way home to reunite with their families. So what if they wanted to celebrate their success with a sign. I think you are getting desperate to even mention something so petty. The Marines and US Army did NOT have such signs because they still had a long way to go before they complete their post-war missions and get to go home.


Kerry, Kennedy, Edwards, and Pelosi did not pressure people to find a connection between 9/11 and Iraq.
************************************************** *****
According to the bi-partisan investigations there was no pressure to change/alter intelligence. Feel free to back up your assertions.


Kerry, Kennedy, Edwards, and Pelosi did not say we found the WMDs (by which, BTW, the president was referring to truck that were not mobile weapons labs, but rather hydrogen production facilities for weather balloons).
***********************************************
I would like to see the exact Bush quote you are referring to before commenting. Again, I suspect you are being blinded by your dislike of Bush.


Kerry, Kennedy, Edwards, and Pelosi did not assert many months ago that the insurgency was in its last throes.
************************************************** *****
No, they keep saying the insurgency is winning. Every time they open their mouths they make all the anti-US papers in the middle-east. They are giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Consider this, if al-qaeda was to succesfully get an agent elected to the US Senate with the mission of undermining the war effort...then how would the agents actions differ from what Kennedy, Kerry, Reid, etc... are doing?


Kerry, Kennedy, Edwards, and Pelosi did not have a Secretary of Defense A) who refused to prepare for the occupation and, pretending he didn't know there might be looting, say oh well, "stuff happens"; and B) who, when told we needed to bomb Afghanistan because the Taliban was giving succor to Al-Qaeda, insisted on bombing Iraq instead because, "there are not good targets in Afghanistan."
************************************************** **
The failure to enact marshal law was a HUGE mistake. As for the shortage of armored trucks and armored jeeps this is no ones fault. The US military was designed to counter an invasion by the Warsaw Pact countries. In such a conflict it did not make sense to have armored fuel trucks and armored jeeps. You can not add 600lbs of armor on a truck door because the door will fall off. It takes a lot of engineering and redesign. The pentagon moved quickly but the manufacturers could not produce the armored Humvees and trucks fast enough. Rumsfeld was 100% correct in saying you go to war with the military you have...not what you wish it to be. As for the lack of upgraded flak jackets (body armor) it was Clinton who cut the military's budget to the bone. Bush43 increased the budget and now Iraq is swimming in the upgraded flak jackets.

As for bombing Afganistan, it not economical to fire a million dollar cruise missle at half a squad of insurgents. Firing a million dollar cruise missle at a million dollar tank in NOT economical either. Even in war, generals have budgets. Afghanistan is VERY poor and it was NOT a rich target environment. The Afghan air force was practically non-existent. Also keep in mind the US military's stockpile of bombs/cruise missles was CRITICAL low after Clinton left office. On other words they were correct in saying there were not many good targets in Afghanistan and the low stockpiles meant the USA had to be extra-prudent in how ammunition was expended. Clinton deserves fault as well because in his efforts to artificially inflate the budget surpluses, he purposely prevented the military from restocking their arsenal. When Bush took over he had to play catch up and when we first went to war the USA did not have enough bombs and missles.


I am not a defender of Kerry, Kennedy, Edwards or Pelosi. Their criticism of the administration certainly smacks of politics and finger-in-the-windism.
***********************************************
Then we agree on this.


But the administration has been duplicitous from its very first week in office, when there were meetings about overthrowing Hussein long before either 9/11 or the administration worrying about terrorism.
************************************************** *****
Good. There should have been. Iraq violated the armistice, the embargos, and tried to assassinate Bush41. We needed to invade Iraq for these reasons alone. Hell, if they tried to assassinate Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Reid, Kennedy, Kerry, and Pelosi.....then I STILL say we should have gone to war. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Disgusting Comment by President Bush
 

[ QUOTE ]

Bush is still trying to push the idea that anybody who opposes is ill-conceived occupation of Iraq, or any other aspect of his "war on terror" .

[/ QUOTE ]

it all depends on what the definition of "is" is.

Hussein/Iraq: Former Sponsors of Terror
 

Huh?
************************************************
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/part1.html

10 WAYS THE LIBERATION OF IRAQ SUPPORTS THE WAR ON TERROR

1. With the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime, Iraq is no longer a state sponsor of terror. According to (US) State Department reports on terrorism, before the removal of Saddam's regime, Iraq was one of seven state sponsors of terror.
4. A senior al Qaida terrorist, now detained, who had been responsible for al Qaida training camps in Afghanistan, reports that al Qaida was intent on obtaining WMD assistance from Iraq. According to a credible, high-level al Qaida source, Usama Bin Laden and deceased al Qaida leader Muhammad Atif did not believe that al Qaida labs in Afghanistan were capable of manufacturing chemical and biological weapons, so they turned to Iraq for assistance. Iraq agreed to provide chemical and biological weapons training for two al Qaida associates starting in December 2000.
5. Senior al Qaida associate Abu Musab al-Zarqawi came to Baghdad in May 2002 for medical treatment along with approximately two dozen al Qaida terrorist associates. This group stayed in Baghdad and other parts of Iraq and plotted terrorist attacks around the world.
6. A safe haven in Iraq belonging to Ansar al-Islam -- a terrorist group closely associated with Zarqawi and al Qaida -- was destroyed during Operation Iraqi Freedom. In March 2003, during a raid on the compound controlled by the terrorists in northeastern Iraq, a cache of documents was discovered, including computer discs and foreign passports belonging to fighters from various Middle East nationalities.
7. The al Qaida affiliate Ansar al-Islam is known to still be present in Iraq. Such terrorist groups are now plotting against U.S. forces in Iraq.
8. Law enforcement and intelligence operations have disrupted al Qaida associate Abu Musab Zarqawi's poison plotting in France, Britain, Spain, Italy, Germany, and Russia. The facilities in Northern Iraq, set up by Zarqawi and Ansar al-Islam were, before the war, an al Qaida's poisons/toxins laboratory.
9. Abu Musa Zarqawi, the al Qaida associate with direct links to Iraq, oversaw those responsible for the assassination of USAID officer Laurence Foley in Amman, Jordan last October.
10. Saddam Hussein's Iraq provided material assistance to Palestinian terrorist groups, including the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command, HAMAS, and the Palestine Islamic Jihad, according to a State Department report. This included paying the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, according to testimonials from Palestinians and cancelled checks. Also, according to State Department reports, terrorist groups the Iranian Mujahedin-e-Khalq and the Abu Nidal organization were protected by the Iraqi regime protected by the Iraqi regime.

This list did not mention the $25,000 that Hussein paid to the surving Palestinian families after a successful suicide bombing against Israeli citizens. But being from the UK you are being brainwashed with the partisan trash on BBC so I can understand why the BBC editors never aired this information to the general British public.

Re: The Bottom Line
 

[ QUOTE ]
But the administration has been duplicitous from its very first week in office, when there were meetings about overthrowing Hussein long before either 9/11 or the administration worrying about terrorism.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think that overthrowing Hussein was discussed during meetings in previous administrations? Also do you believe that Bush only started being concerned about terrorism as of 9/11? Was the Clinton administration ever duplicitous? This isn't a cross examination as I'm pointing out that in and of itself the things you mention in this particular statement don't necessarily represent some sort of conspiracy and/or disinformation effort IMO. The reality IMO is that support for U.N. sanctions was waning and in light of this the administration was confronted with letting Hussein operate much more freely without the imposition of U.N. sanctions where he had a history of committing genocide (ask the Kurds) and developing WMDs (ask the Iranians). I think U.N. sanctions were a failure, ill conceived, and cruel to many innocent Iraqis but I digress. Did the U.S. screw up in yesteryear in dealing with Hussein? Yes I think so and that includes Bush41.

Fantasies and dreams
 

[ QUOTE ]
Iraq violated the armistice multiple times and the even tried to assassinate Bush41 when he went to Kuwait.

[/ QUOTE ]
The part about armistice violations is mostly hogwash. The Iraqis have only fired at American and British airplanes when the latter were bombing Iraqi installations. The UN had authorised two no-fly zones over Iraq, in the North and in the South, but there was never any authorisation for airplanes monitoring the no-fly restriction to bomb Iraqi targets! (not except in self defense.) The American and British pilots were bombing everything they characterized as "threatening" or a "military target", including hits on civilians, as it turned out. The Iraqis exercised their legitimate right of self-defsne and fired on those airplanes (by the way, hitting almost nothing and nobody). This was characterized by the American side as a vilation of armistice!

As to the part about Saddam organizing the assassination of Dubya's dad, it belongs in the realm of fantasy. The president simply claimed it happened -- and we are supposed to believe it happened. If that was the reason for the royal mess in Iraq, then it was a fabricated, moronic reason.

[ QUOTE ]
You are DREAMING. Clinton did no such thing.

[/ QUOTE ] What exactly are you disputing? That Bill clinton went after the REAL anti-American terrorists, such as bin Laden and his ilk? You would be totally wrong if you thought so.

Are you disputing that Clinton went after those who bombed the USS Cole and the World Trade Center? He caught them for crying out loud. He put them in jail. They are still there!

[ QUOTE ]
I'll believe Freeh and others.

[/ QUOTE ]
What "others"? Most of those working in the intelligence community and law enforcement agencies have come out in praise of what Clinton did -- which was what an adult president would do anyway, unlike the moronic policy of Dubya and the neo-cons who rule over America since 2000.


I don't know what agenda Freeh is on. All I know is the historical record. I could provide you with details, if you are interested and willing to examine that with an open mind.
[ QUOTE ]
I read a story where many Kurds admire Israel.

[/ QUOTE ]Your nanny read that story to you? You're basing your assessments on "stories"? Have you ever, at all, studied the political and cultural History of the Kurds? You obviously know little of the subject, yet you are ready to support extremely important geostrategic changes in the region ("the Kurds should have their own country" etc) on the basis of half-digested info and "stories". Did you know, for instance, that the Kurds have been, for centuries, the most brutal and ferocious soldiers among the Ottoman armies? They were something like that the Gurkhas are to the British!

Re: Disgusting Comment by President Bush
 

This is standard operating procedure for anyone in power, especially if he has the crutch of a war to lean on for his popularity.

Of course it's despicable, but there's nothing particularly unique about it. And in the case of Bush types, there's of course nothing surprising about it.

Anybody who thinks the currency of politics is truth is severely misguided. The currency of politics is power, and truth is only an occasional handmaiden when convenient. Certainly it's no kind of goal or standard.

Re: The Bottom Line
 

<font color="blue"> You can not be intellectual honest and accuse Bush43 of lying about Iraq without calling Kerry, Kennedy, Edwards, Pelosi, and other democrats liars as well. </font>

I am not a political junkie, so someone please point out where I'm wrong. I hear the above defense OVER and OVER and OVER again and I'm sick of it!

IF I understand it right, what these guys did (Kerry, Kennedy, Edwards, Pelosi, and other democrats), was vote to give the president AUTHORIZATION to use military force if he DEEMED it NECESSARY!!!!

That's a FAR cry from voting in FAVOR of the Iraqi war. They looked at this same (FAULTY) intelligence and put their trust in the president to make the right decision. This DOESN'T mean the right decision was to rush into war!

Btw- I am a republican who happens to think that this guy will likely go down as the worst president in US history. This guy is truly a moron who's studity is only equaled by the democrats who can't seem to defend themselves against such transparent lies and deflections from what really happened.

As to your assertion:

<font color="blue"> The USA made the correct decision to invade Iraq because Hussein violated the armistive NUMEROUS times and he tried to assassinate Bush41 in Kuwait in 1991(?). </font>

Saddam Hussein was in violation and DID need to be dealt with. But this in no way should've been made a higher priority than fighting the REAL and more IMMEDIATE war on terror, and aprehending Bin Laden and dismantling the Al-Quada network. Our focus was completely taken off of where it needed to be and in the process we have single handedly created a recruiting boom for our enemy. I'm sure Bin Laden himself couldn't be more pleased.

<font color="blue">If the new Iraqi govt can get control of their country soon, I would like the USA to take out Iran.........
</font>

Since diplomacy doesn't seem to be in your vocabulary, wouldn't just nuking everything south and east of Europe achieve your goals much quicker?

You are drunk
 

[ QUOTE ]
If the new Iraqi govt can get control of their country soon, I would like the USA to take out Iran.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are drunk with power -- and so is the whole American administration. Drunk with post-Cold War omnipotency.

This is not completely bad, though. We just may get to see the final act sooner, that is all. See, my take is that hybris begets entropy.

...Provided we ride through some rough spots along the way, of course.

Re: The Bottom Line
 

[ QUOTE ]
F I understand it right, what these guys did (Kerry, Kennedy, Edwards, Pelosi, and other democrats), was vote to give the president AUTHORIZATION to use military force if he DEEMED it NECESSARY!!!!


[/ QUOTE ]

... and they did it so that the President could use this authorization to convince the UN -- it was sold by the prez that if we are not all speaking with one voice nothing will get done at the UN (of course the UN was not swayed by that piece of silliness).

Of course this does not excuse the vote -- it was dumb, stupid, political cowardice, naive etc, etc. The only think dumber was what W did with the vote and the powers he had.

Robert Byrd's speech on that vote was absolutely stellar and on the mark.

Re: The Bottom Line
 

<font color="blue">Robert Byrd's speech on that vote was absolutely stellar and on the mark. </font>

Do you know where I might be able to read this speech?

Re: The Bottom Line
 

"Do you think that overthrowing Hussein was discussed during meetings in previous administrations?"

I would imagine it was. But it wasn't acted upon and, therefore, there was no duplicity in explanation about why it was done. Had it been done, I'm, sure there would have been such duplicity. As I've posted many times, this is par for the course.

"Also do you believe that Bush only started being concerned about terrorism as of 9/11?"

Seems that way, from the testimony of several individuals.

"Was the Clinton administration ever duplicitous?"

Of course. For a while, Clinton was blaming Bin Laden for anything and everything without any supporting evidence. Governments lie all the time, especially when they go to war. It makes sennse logically that they would, and the empirical evidence is substantial and overwhelming.

Re: The Bottom Line
 

Just a few months before using the mushroom cloud imagery, Powell testified that Hussein had no effective way of delivering any WMDs. Nobody expected a nuclear attack on America from Iraq. The mushroom cloud was a scare tactic. If it was an opinion, it was ill-informed. It was calcaulated statement designed to muster up support for the war.

Powell himself was not happy with the info. he brought to the UN. He told an aide that he was being instructed to make the presentation, let's make the best of it.

Richard Clarke and his assistant assert that Bush pressured them to find a connection between Iraq and 9/11. The Bush administration at first denied that Bush had even met with Clarke, then had to back down and said they did indeed meet.

Bush on finding the WMDS: Interview of the President by TVP, Poland, 2003-05-29:

Q: But, still, those countries who didn't support the Iraqi Freedom operation use the same argument, weapons of mass destruction haven't been found. So what argument will you use now to justify this war?

THE PRESIDENT: We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said, Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them. [end]

Criticism of government policy is not giving aid and comfort to the enemy. It is the essence of democracy, as the president pointed out in his Veterans Day speech. He then ignored the implications of that observation. Anyway, have Pelosi et al really said the insurgency is winning? (And if they have, wouldn't those be just opinions?) I'll look for quotes, any you can provide would be appreciated.

I'm not critical of our military performance which was exemplary. The regime fell immediately. What I am critical of is the willful ignoring of post-occupation planning. All of the things that happened--infrastructure collapse, looting, problems with disbanding the army, failure to enact martial law, etc.--were analyzed and planned for, yet those analyses and plans were ignored.

One can be in favor of haaving gone to war and still recognize that the administration oversold its case and underprepared for the occupation. You want to run the kitchen, you need to be able to stand the heat. Harry Truman said the buck stops here. This administration is trying to pass the buck by accusing its critics of being disloyal. It's shameful behavior.

Re: The Bottom Line
 

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue">Robert Byrd's speech on that vote was absolutely stellar and on the mark. </font>

Do you know where I might be able to read this speech?

[/ QUOTE ]

This one?


Published on Wednesday, March 19, 2003 by CommonDreams.org
Arrogance of Power
Today, I Weep for my Country...
by US Senator Robert Byrd
Speech delivered on the floor of the US Senate
March 19, 2003 3:45pm


I believe in this beautiful country. I have studied its roots and gloried in the wisdom of its magnificent Constitution. I have marveled at the wisdom of its founders and framers. Generation after generation of Americans has understood the lofty ideals that underlie our great Republic. I have been inspired by the story of their sacrifice and their strength.

But, today I weep for my country. I have watched the events of recent months with a heavy, heavy heart. No more is the image of America one of strong, yet benevolent peacekeeper. The image of America has changed. Around the globe, our friends mistrust us, our word is disputed, our intentions are questioned.

Instead of reasoning with those with whom we disagree, we demand obedience or threaten recrimination. Instead of isolating Saddam Hussein, we seem to have isolated ourselves. We proclaim a new doctrine of preemption which is understood by few and feared by many. We say that the United States has the right to turn its firepower on any corner of the globe which might be suspect in the war on terrorism. We assert that right without the sanction of any international body. As a result, the world has become a much more dangerous place.

We flaunt our superpower status with arrogance. We treat UN Security Council members like ingrates who offend our princely dignity by lifting their heads from the carpet. Valuable alliances are split.

After war has ended, the United States will have to rebuild much more than the country of Iraq. We will have to rebuild America's image around the globe.

The case this Administration tries to make to justify its fixation with war is tainted by charges of falsified documents and circumstantial evidence. We cannot convince the world of the necessity of this war for one simple reason. This is a war of choice.

There is no credible information to connect Saddam Hussein to 9/11. The twin towers fell because a world-wide terrorist group, Al Qaeda, with cells in over 60 nations, struck at our wealth and our influence by turning our own planes into missiles, one of which would likely have slammed into the dome of this beautiful Capitol except for the brave sacrifice of the passengers on board.

The brutality seen on September 11th and in other terrorist attacks we have witnessed around the globe are the violent and desperate efforts by extremists to stop the daily encroachment of western values upon their cultures. That is what we fight. It is a force not confined to borders. It is a shadowy entity with many faces, many names, and many addresses.

But, this Administration has directed all of the anger, fear, and grief which emerged from the ashes of the twin towers and the twisted metal of the Pentagon towards a tangible villain, one we can see and hate and attack. And villain he is. But, he is the wrong villain. And this is the wrong war. If we attack Saddam Hussein, we will probably drive him from power. But, the zeal of our friends to assist our global war on terrorism may have already taken flight.

The general unease surrounding this war is not just due to "orange alert." There is a pervasive sense of rush and risk and too many questions unanswered. How long will we be in Iraq? What will be the cost? What is the ultimate mission? How great is the danger at home?

A pall has fallen over the Senate Chamber. We avoid our solemn duty to debate the one topic on the minds of all Americans, even while scores of thousands of our sons and daughters faithfully do their duty in Iraq.

What is happening to this country? When did we become a nation which ignores and berates our friends? When did we decide to risk undermining international order by adopting a radical and doctrinaire approach to using our awesome military might? How can we abandon diplomatic efforts when the turmoil in the world cries out for diplomacy?

Why can this President not seem to see that America's true power lies not in its will to intimidate, but in its ability to inspire?

War appears inevitable. But, I continue to hope that the cloud will lift. Perhaps Saddam will yet turn tail and run. Perhaps reason will somehow still prevail. I along with millions of Americans will pray for the safety of our troops, for the innocent civilians in Iraq, and for the security of our homeland. May God continue to bless the United States of America in the troubled days ahead, and may we somehow recapture the vision which for the present eludes us.