President gives speech Dems spaz....

[superleeds]

Does someone help you get dressed in the morning?

[ripdog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[Iraq] has a lot to do with 9-11. Bush and others have made the argument that those they are fighting in Iraq are the same type of people we were attacked by on 9-11. That's the connection.

[/ QUOTE ]

This would be so funny, if people were not dying from the follies of the Dubya administration!

Since there were no connections between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and (the mostly Saudi and Egyptian) perpetrators of the 9/11 attack, you are essentially arguing that your invasion in Iraq drew those "same people" (i.e. sympathizers or fellow operatives to the 9/11 attackers) inside Iraq in order to do battle against 'em!

Wow. Practically a hunter's argument: "We had to draw the ducks into our shooting range to shoot 'em!" Mind boggling.

...I mean, where does the folly end?

[/ QUOTE ]

While I have never condoned Bush's war, taking the fight to the enemy would be my preferred method, rather than fighting the war here. I don't find the strategy mind boggling.

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]

While I have never condoned Bush's war, taking the fight to the enemy would be my preferred method, rather than fighting the war here.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what we did when we correctly went into Aghganistan.

-ptmusic

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
Pt read the resolution on the originalpost . I read it yesterday for the first time.
There are numerous mentions of al Qaida and terrorist in the resolution to go to war.
The Dems voted for it. Most of em anyway.
Despite the revisionist history Iraq was part of the war on terror from the gitgo and the Dems know it. They voted for it.
I was surprised as anyone when I read the resolution.
Very much worth reading.
Puts a serious dent in the libs argument about Iraq not having anything to do with war on terror and that there were no terrorist in Iraq until we got there.

[/ QUOTE ]

This whole thread boils down to two sides arguing different versions about what it means to be "connected."

Some are saying that Iraq is connected to 9/11 because both are part of the war on terror. Well, that's the truth, IF you define and fight the war on terror the way the Bush adminstration wants to. Bush could have attacked Jamaica, and when some people started fighting back, he could have called them terrorists. The Jamaican war would have been part of the war on terror, and therefore connected to 9/11.

He chose Iraq, a country which was no more a part of the 9/11 attacks than Jamaica. Let's remember the main reason Bush presented for invading Iraq: because of the supposed immediate threat of the WMD's and because of repeated refusals of Hussein to comply with UN resolutions. I was against the invasion then (because of a lack of evidence of WMD's), but I did say that if we were to find WMD's, then I would stand corrected and vote for Bush in 2004!

All other reasons, including many in the resolution, including the war on terror and supposed connection to 9/11, were not the main reasons for this war. If there is any revisionist history being written, the authors are the Bush administration.

Others are saying that Iraq did not attack us on 9/11, and are therefore not connected. Well that's the truth too.

-ptmusic

[shots]

[ QUOTE ]
Bush could have attacked Jamaica, and when some people started fighting back, he could have called them terrorists. The Jamaican war would have been part of the war on terror, and therefore connected to 9/11.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know of Jamaica giving logistical support to muslim fundamentalist terrorists. Iraq on the other hand...

[slamdunkpro]

Uhm. Any Democrats remember this?

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq (excerpts)

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;
Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

This resolution had almost unanimous bipartisan support; Including Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and others.

Or how about these?
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

Now, who lied?

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know of Jamaica giving logistical support to muslim fundamentalist terrorists. Iraq on the other hand...

[/ QUOTE ]

Does it matter when this logistical support was given? I only ask to ascertain if you think the CIA are either with us or against us.

[ripdog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Bush could have attacked Jamaica, and when some people started fighting back, he could have called them terrorists. The Jamaican war would have been part of the war on terror, and therefore connected to 9/11.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know of Jamaica giving logistical support to muslim fundamentalist terrorists. Iraq on the other hand...

[/ QUOTE ]

Whoa buddy! Don't stop at ... Provide some evidence that Iraq was giving logistical support to dark skinned turbin wearing camel jockeys (that's how I call out muslim fundamentalist terrorists).

[superleeds]

Yes I remember. Didn't most of it turn out to be BS tho? Do I still have to blindly follow my initial assumptions despite any evidence to the contrary? Should I do this in Poker?

[shots]

It matters if you reward people for killing innocents. This isn't the same thing as supporting one side in a war and then having them turn on you at a later date.