PDA

View Full Version : WMD --- It Was All Bush or Was It ?



Doc E
11-28-2010, 08:59 PM
Bush wasn't the only one simply repeating what he was told:

"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 Bill 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 Bill 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:
-- Democratic Senators 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 th! e 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 seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. 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 always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (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."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without 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 is miscalculating America's response to his 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




.

M&K's Retrievers
11-28-2010, 09:17 PM
Yeah, but they were only bull $hiting. :rolleyes:

Dman
11-28-2010, 09:32 PM
Doc those are all facts. Liberals don't pay any attention to facts, They don't need them. They somehow know better. It's all George Bush's fault.

depittydawg
11-28-2010, 09:50 PM
Bush wasn't the only one simply repeating what he was told:

.

You're right. The difference is that the rest of them understood we could prevent Iraq from WMD by means other than all out warfare. The fact that we never found any WMD, that Bush himself admitted it on several occasions that Iraq did not possess them, attests to the fact that that we were able to control this rogue regime without the cost of thousands of America lives and trillions of dollars. What is your point? Are you suggesting that we did the correct thing in attacking Iraq?

dnf777
11-28-2010, 10:49 PM
Doc those are all facts. Liberals don't pay any attention to facts, They don't need them. They somehow know better. It's all George Bush's fault.

Yeah. Look at the dates on half of them. Was 1998 the same situation as 2004? This is really a dead issue. We're there. We need to get out. History will judge the Bush administration. His press skit looking for WMDs in the oval office, under pillows and behind curtains, while at the SAME TIME our troops were fighting and dying in Iraq, solidifies his legacy for me.

M&K's Retrievers
11-28-2010, 11:00 PM
Yeah. Look at the dates on half of them. Was 1998 the same situation as 2004? This is really a dead issue. We're there. We need to get out. History will judge the Bush administration. His press skit looking for WMDs in the oval office, under pillows and behind curtains, while at the SAME TIME our troops were fighting and dying in Iraq, solidifies his legacy for me.

I'll rest better tonight knowing this. :rolleyes:

dnf777
11-28-2010, 11:02 PM
I'll rest better tonight knowing this. :rolleyes:

And I'll rest better knowing you're resting better. :rolleyes:

I did not mean to imply he didn't care. I think he did. I think he regrets listening to the wrong people, and adopting the wrong agenda, and getting mired into a situation, that despite Cheney's bravado and reassurances, we had NO IDEA how to manage or get out of. (as evidence by dramatic policy and strategy changes, and the fact WE'RE STILL THERE)

I think he was so shielded and removed from the average middle-class American, he had no idea it may be offensive to make fun of the false reason that many Americans have suffered and died when he agreed to that skit. Laughing at a cause for war, when troops are in harm's way, is not very presidential. Especially when you laughing at the fact YOU WERE WRONG.

sandyg
11-29-2010, 12:11 AM
And I'll rest better knowing you're resting better. :rolleyes:

I did not mean to imply he didn't care. I think he did. I think he regrets listening to the wrong people, and adopting the wrong agenda, and getting mired into a situation, that despite Cheney's bravado and reassurances, we had NO IDEA how to manage or get out of. (as evidence by dramatic policy and strategy changes, and the fact WE'RE STILL THERE)

I think he was so shielded and removed from the average middle-class American, he had no idea it may be offensive to make fun of the false reason that many Americans have suffered and died when he agreed to that skit. Laughing at a cause for war, when troops are in harm's way, is not very presidential. Especially when you laughing at the fact YOU WERE WRONG.

Who cares what you think? Cliff, why is it everytime you post it's always about what you think and why? You're nothing but a self-serving know-it-all. Must you always grace us with your conceited ramblings? We all have your number. We all know what type of person you are. Most of us breeze through your posts to find the most salient (AKA laughable or hypocritical) points. You're a joke. Now get off my internet!

depittydawg
11-29-2010, 12:28 AM
Who cares what you think? Cliff, why is it everytime you post it's always about what you think and why? You're nothing but a self-serving know-it-all. Must you always grace us with your conceited ramblings? We all have your number. We all know what type of person you are. Most of us breeze through your posts to find the most salient (AKA laughable or hypocritical) points. You're a joke. Now get off my internet!

No offense, but this has to be one of the most ridiculous posts I've ever seen. Last time I looked, this is an opinion board. What do you want him to do? Give an appraisal of your opinion?

sandyg
11-29-2010, 12:45 AM
No offense, but this has to be one of the most ridiculous posts I've ever seen. Last time I looked, this is an opinion board. What do you want him to do? Give an appraisal of your opinion?

You mean the way he gave an appraisal of Bush's opinion? No.

subroc
11-29-2010, 05:45 AM
It is all politics to those on the left. Party before nation. Ideology before nation.

david gibson
11-29-2010, 07:18 AM
And I'll rest better knowing you're resting better. :rolleyes:

I did not mean to imply he didn't care. I think he did. I think he regrets listening to the wrong people, and adopting the wrong agenda, and getting mired into a situation, that despite Cheney's bravado and reassurances, we had NO IDEA how to manage or get out of. (as evidence by dramatic policy and strategy changes, and the fact WE'RE STILL THERE)

I think he was so shielded and removed from the average middle-class American, he had no idea it may be offensive to make fun of the false reason that many Americans have suffered and died when he agreed to that skit. Laughing at a cause for war, when troops are in harm's way, is not very presidential. Especially when you laughing at the fact YOU WERE WRONG.

you have to be joking. false reason? the wmd magically dissappeared? or even more laughable - saddam did the right thing and got rid of them, but forgot to tell the UN how and why...its a dead horse dude. your hatred for bush is never ending.

i hope someday you find peace.

Ken Bora
11-29-2010, 08:36 AM
It is odd that some of the folk (not all) who, when asked about the
Present TSA groping. Say, “Anything to be safe” are the same folk
Who, when looking back at the Bush administration leap and scream
With glee about there never being any WMD’s found. How can
“Anything to be safe” be alright now, but evil then????????
Methinks there may be a double standard afoot.






.

Buzz
11-29-2010, 09:32 AM
It is all politics to those on the left. Party before nation. Ideology before nation.

Yup it's only the left... The right has nothing but good intentions.

http://theweek.com/bullpen/column/209783/why-starts-failure-is-a-very-big-deal


Few governments will want to deal with Obama on anything that requires congressional approval

Once the Senate Republicans carry out their threat to block and kill the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) this year, the United States' ability to conduct foreign policy effectively throughout the world will be significantly weakened.

The treaty's failure has the obvious consequences of harming relations with Russia and potentially undermining cooperation on Iran, Afghanistan, and securing nuclear materials, and it will make it harder for all foreign governments to take political risks in negotiating future agreements with the United States. In addition to raising doubts about President Barack Obama's ability to win support for accords he has signed, the treaty's fate will show the world that every administration initiative, no matter what it is, will be subjected to constant opposition for narrow political ends. Contrary to most expectations, the recent midterm election results have not just had some impact on U.S. foreign policy, but are immediately having an outsized, disruptive effect that seems likely to increase during the next two years.

Many foreign governments may decide that it is better to wait until after the next election before entering into serious negotiations with America over anything.

subroc
11-29-2010, 09:58 AM
Yup it's only the left... The right has nothing but good intentions.

http://theweek.com/bullpen/column/209783/why-starts-failure-is-a-very-big-deal

you are assuming the reason is political. how about it may be bad policy for the United States?

Doc E
11-29-2010, 09:58 AM
Yeah. Look at the dates on half of them. Was 1998 the same situation as 2004?

What year did Sadaam gas the Kurds ?



.

Roger Perry
11-29-2010, 10:05 AM
What year did Sadaam gas the Kurds ?



.

Bush was responsible for more Iraqi citizens deaths than Sadaam was accused of killing.:snipersmile:

Ken Bora
11-29-2010, 10:12 AM
Bush was responsible for more Iraqi citizens deaths than Sadaam was accused of killing.:snipersmile:
How is it possible to know the number he would have killed, if left alone?




.

road kill
11-29-2010, 10:12 AM
How is it possible to know the number he would have killed, if left alone?




.

Ken, are you new here??

It's BUSH'S fault!!

OK??

RK

Buzz
11-29-2010, 10:17 AM
you are assuming the reason is political. how about it may be bad policy for the United States?

Nope, it's not political at all... In reality it's probably a neocon thing. Do you line up behind Colin Powell or John Bolton?

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2010/11/gop_playing_games_with_start_t.php




GOP Playing Games With START Treaty
Posted on: November 29, 2010 9:34 AM, by Ed Brayton

Every single living Secretary of State, and Secretary of Defense and National Security Adviser, including Henry Kissinger and Brent Scowcroft, agrees that the new START treaty negotiated between the United States and Russia is crucial for our national security. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff says the passage of the treaty is urgent. For crying out loud, even Pat Buchanan says that the GOP is risking another cold war by holding up the treaty.

The treaty puts back in place a verification regime for nuclear weapons that expired last year and reduces the risks of nuclear proliferation. It reduces the number of nuclear warheads for each country to 1,550 -- more than enough to blow up the world many times over.

But the Republicans are balking at the deal, even though their own experts say the treaty is vital. They're playing games with this despite the fact that delay only hurts the nation's standing with allies around the world.

"It would be a serious problem if the Senate does not approve the treaty," said John B. Bellinger III, a legal adviser to the State Department and the National Security Council during President George W. Bush's administration. "You can certainly understand that every other country in the world, and particularly major powers like China, the next time they are in negotiations with the United States -- this will hurt us if they think our negotiators can't make good on their word."
But the GOP doesn't care. This is all about denying Obama a foreign policy victory, no matter what the cost. Remember McCain's "Country First" theme? It was a lie.

Roger Perry
11-29-2010, 10:22 AM
How is it possible to know the number he would have killed, if left alone?




.

Do we know the number of Iraqi citizens that would not have died if the U.S. did not invade Iraq? I am guessing hundreds of thousands.

road kill
11-29-2010, 10:40 AM
Do we know the number of Iraqi citizens that would not have died if the U.S. did not invade Iraq? I am guessing hundreds of thousands.

Nuff said......


RK

Roger Perry
11-29-2010, 10:55 AM
Nuff said......


RK

Well, we know hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's were killed between 2003-2010
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

)


Casualties of the conflict in Iraq since 2003 (beginning with the 2003 invasion of Iraq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq), and continuing with the ensuing occupation of Iraq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-invasion_Iraq,_2003%E2%80%93present) coalition presence, as well as the activities of the various armed groups operating in the country) have come in many forms, and the accuracy of the information available on different types of Iraq War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War) casualties varies greatly.
The table below summarizes some of the Iraqi casualty figures.
SourceIraqi casualtiesTime periodIraq Family Health Survey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Family_Health_Survey)151,000 deathsMarch 2003 to June 2006Lancet survey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_Iraq_War_casualties)601,027 violent deaths out of 654,965 excess deathsMarch 2003 to June 2006Opinion Research Business survey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ORB_survey_of_Iraq_War_casualties)1,033,000 deaths as a result of the conflictMarch 2003 to August 2007Associated Press (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associated_Press)110,600 deathsMarch 2003 to April 2009Iraq Body Count project (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Body_Count_project)98,170 — 107,152 civilian deaths as a result of the conflict. 150,726 civilian and combatant deaths[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War#cite_note-iraqbodycountlogs-0)March 2003 to October 2010WikiLeaks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks). Classified Iraq war logs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War_Logs)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War#cite_note-guardianlogs2-1)[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War#cite_note-guardianlogs3-2)[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War#cite_note-guardianlogs-3)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War#cite_note-aljazeeralogs2-4)[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War#cite_note-iraqbodycountlogs-0)109,032 deaths

subroc
11-29-2010, 11:11 AM
John Bolton more often than not.

menmon
11-29-2010, 11:21 AM
It is all politics to those on the left. Party before nation. Ideology before nation.

No people just don't agree with everything the right does. Thank God!

Bush wanted this war, plain and simple. Have good things come out of it? I would say yes, but they were not worth the price.

As much as I am disappointed in Bush, the man's heart is in the right place. However, he took bad advice and when he figured it out, he held the path as opposed to admitting he did the wrong thing. When young men are dying there is no room for egos, and I can't forgive him for that.

road kill
11-29-2010, 11:28 AM
No people just don't agree with everything the right does. Thank God!

Bush wanted this war, plain and simple. Have good things come out of it? I would say yes, but they were not worth the price.

As much as I am disappointed in Bush, the man's heart is in the right place. However, he took bad advice and when he figured it out, he held the path as opposed to admitting he did the wrong thing. When young men are dying there is no room for egos, and I can't forgive him for that.
Tell me, what good are our young soldiers dieing for in Afghanistan??


RK

Buzz
11-29-2010, 11:33 AM
Tell me, what good are our young soldiers dieing for in Afghanistan??


RK

There was recent polling done in Afghanistan. They found that 92% of the population never heard of or did not know of the 9-11 attacks.

Makes you think...

road kill
11-29-2010, 11:39 AM
There was recent polling done in Afghanistan. They found that 92% of the population never heard of or did not know of the 9-11 attacks.

Makes you think...
Who did the polling?

Did they use telephones??


RK

menmon
11-29-2010, 11:58 AM
Tell me, what good are our young soldiers dieing for in Afghanistan??


RK

No good reason. This is where I find fault with the President.

subroc
11-29-2010, 12:02 PM
There was recent polling done in Afghanistan. They found that 92% of the population never heard of or did not know of the 9-11 attacks.

Makes you think...

I expect those that are members of al-qaida and the taliban in afghanistan know about the 9-11 attacks

Buzz
11-29-2010, 12:03 PM
Who did the polling?

Did they use telephones??


RK


I realize that was a joke, but NO!


You can find the answer to your questions here:

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/11/92-of-afghans-never-heard-of-911.html

92% of Afghans never heard of 911; they believe the US is on their soil in order to "destroy Islam or occupy Afghanistan." Of course, the country of origin of the 911 attacks knee jerks on the motive "to destroy Islam." This constant state of war mentality.

road kill
11-29-2010, 12:11 PM
I realize that was a joke, but NO!


You can find the answer to your questions here:

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/11/92-of-afghans-never-heard-of-911.html

92% of Afghans never heard of 911; they believe the US is on their soil in order to "destroy Islam or occupy Afghanistan." Of course, the country of origin of the 911 attacks knee jerks on the motive "to destroy Islam." This constant state of war mentality.
I wonder what percentage even know they live in Afhanistan??
And I am serious.


RK

Tim Thomas
11-29-2010, 12:55 PM
Concerning Iraq.....just wondering if part of the motivation to take it to Iraq (at least first) was to draw the fight to an area we had been and somewhat knew the surroundings rather than initiate it in Afghanistan. I know, and agree with, taking it over there rather than here....but is it possible Iraq was a chosen field because of advantages. It certainly is not information that could be released due to the divided support for being there, but would explain why all (most) were on board with taking it to them and then these same folks (Dems) would seize the opportunity to criticize over the lack of WMD's. Everyone knows Afghanistan is the worst scenario for a battle ground....certainly you lefties aren't suggesting the loss of life (our troops) is now worth the search for one guy.....and if your reply is we're after Al-Qaeda, weren't we after the same group in Iraq? Seems to me, if given the choice, I'd choose a battle field that gives me the best opportunity for success with the least number of US casualties....at least their numbers are decreased to some extent. BTW, how come you lefties continue to stay silent over the loss of troops when this past month has been the deadliest for our troops including Iraq? The media or the left aren't hounding the anointed one over this. Just wondering.....

Roger Perry
11-29-2010, 01:10 PM
Concerning Iraq.....just wondering if part of the motivation to take it to Iraq (at least first) was to draw the fight to an area we had been and somewhat knew the surroundings rather than initiate it in Afghanistan. I know, and agree with, taking it over there rather than here....but is it possible Iraq was a chosen field because of advantages. It certainly is not information that could be released due to the divided support for being there, but would explain why all (most) were on board with taking it to them and then these same folks (Dems) would seize the opportunity to criticize over the lack of WMD's. Everyone knows Afghanistan is the worst scenario for a battle ground....certainly you lefties aren't suggesting the loss of life (our troops) is now worth the search for one guy.....and if your reply is we're after Al-Qaeda, weren't we after the same group in Iraq? Seems to me, if given the choice, I'd choose a battle field that gives me the best opportunity for success with the least number of US casualties....at least their numbers are decreased to some extent. BTW, how come you lefties continue to stay silent over the loss of troops when this past month has been the deadliest for our troops including Iraq? The media or the left aren't hounding the anointed one over this. Just wondering.....

Bush, Cheney and General Powell sold the U.S. people and Congress that Iraq had WMD. If Bush had taken things slower and listened to all the advisors on wether or not Iraq actually had WMD the Congress may never have given permission to invade Iraq. As far as al Qaeda being in Iraq, they were not there until AFTER we invaded Iraq.

The reason we went into Afghanistan was to go after Bin Laden and al Qaeda leaders who were behind the 9/11 attack. When we did not kill or capture them, we should have gotten the hell out of there, instead we took on the Taliban and are still there.

Tim Thomas
11-29-2010, 01:38 PM
Bush, Cheney and General Powell sold the U.S. people and Congress that Iraq had WMD. If Bush had taken things slower and listened to all the advisors on wether or not Iraq actually had WMD the Congress may never have given permission to invade Iraq. As far as al Qaeda being in Iraq, they were not there until AFTER we invaded Iraq.
The reason we went into Afghanistan was to go after Bin Laden and al Qaeda leaders who were behind the 9/11 attack. When we did not kill or capture them, we should have gotten the hell out of there, instead we took on the Taliban and are still there.

If Congress (I'm assuming you mean the left side of the aisle...they're the ones crying the loudest), were so easily and unwillingly led by that evil Bush bunch it doesn't say much for their decision making abilities. Are you actually going to continue the rhetoric that they didn't have access to the same intel available to Bush? You're just as blind as those you support....and if you honestly think al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq, no one can help you. I can safely assume you have no strategical expertise to determine what would be an appropriate response much less the timing of one.

Uncle Bill
11-29-2010, 01:44 PM
Bush, Cheney and General Powell sold the U.S. people and Congress that Iraq had WMD. If Bush had taken things slower and listened to all the advisors on wether or not Iraq actually had WMD the Congress may never have given permission to invade Iraq. As far as al Qaeda being in Iraq, they were not there until AFTER we invaded Iraq.

The reason we went into Afghanistan was to go after Bin Laden and al Qaeda leaders who were behind the 9/11 attack. When we did not kill or capture them, we should have gotten the hell out of there, instead we took on the Taliban and are still there.


Well, well, well. How can we argue with such incredible intelligence. Have you been reading up on this from Wikipedia again? Or was this leaked to YOU via the wiki leaks jackass?

But since you've stated "al Qaeda...were not in Iraq until AFTER we invaded", why didn't you tell us then? You are so adept with your 20/20 hindsight.

Indeed, you are the hanging chad of Port St. Lucie!

UB

Roger Perry
11-29-2010, 01:47 PM
Well, well, well. How can we argue with such incredible intelligence. Have you been reading up on this from Wikipedia again? Or was this leaked to YOU via the wiki leaks jackass?

But since you've stated "al Qaeda...were not in Iraq until AFTER we invaded", why didn't you tell us then? You are so adept with your 20/20 hindsight.

Indeed, you are the hanging chad of Port St. Lucie!

UB

Here is some information for both you yahoos.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Vice President Dick Cheney repeated his assertions of al-Qaeda links to Saddam Hussein's Iraq on Thursday as the Defense Department released a report citing more evidence that the prewar government did not cooperate with the terrorist group.
Cheney contended that al-Qaeda was operating in Iraq before the March 2003 invasion led by U.S. forces and that terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was leading the Iraqi branch of al-Qaeda. Others in al-Qaeda planned the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
"He took up residence there before we ever launched into Iraq, organized the al-Qaeda operations inside Iraq before we even arrived on the scene and then, of course, led the charge for Iraq until we killed him last June," Cheney told radio host Rush Limbaugh during an interview. "As I say, they were present before we invaded Iraq."
However, a declassified Pentagon report released Thursday said that interrogations of the deposed Iraqi leader and two of his former aides as well as seized Iraqi documents confirmed that the terrorist organization and the Saddam government were not working together before the invasion.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-04-06-cheney_N.htm

Roger Perry
11-29-2010, 02:00 PM
If Congress (I'm assuming you mean the left side of the aisle...they're the ones crying the loudest), were so easily and unwillingly led by that evil Bush bunch it doesn't say much for their decision making abilities. Are you actually going to continue the rhetoric that they didn't have access to the same intel available to Bush? You're just as blind as those you support....and if you honestly think al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq, no one can help you. I can safely assume you have no strategical expertise to determine what would be an appropriate response much less the timing of one.

The American people would believe just about anything coming out of the Presidents mouth after 9/11 and did. Bush discounted CIA reports that Iraq did not have WMD. So yes, I am saying that Congress did not have the same intel as the President had. The President hid the truth from Congress.
Bush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction

Salon exclusive: Two former CIA officers say the president squelched top-secret intelligence, and a briefing by George Tenet, months before invading Iraq.


http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/blumenthal/2007/09/06/bush_wmd/

Nor was the intelligence included in the National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002, which stated categorically that Iraq possessed WMD. (http://dir.salon.com/topics/weapons_of_mass_destruction/) No one in Congress was aware of the secret intelligence that Saddam had no WMD as the House of Representatives and the Senate voted, a week after the submission of the NIE, on the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq. The information, moreover, was not circulated within the CIA (http://dir.salon.com/topics/cia/) among those agents involved in operations to prove whether Saddam had WMD.
On April 23, 2006, CBS's "60 Minutes" interviewed Tyler Drumheller, the former CIA chief of clandestine operations for Europe, who disclosed that the agency had received documentary intelligence from Naji Sabri, Saddam's foreign minister, that Saddam did not have WMD. "We continued to validate him the whole way through," said Drumheller. "The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming, and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy, to justify the policy."
Now two former senior CIA officers have confirmed Drumheller's account to me and provided the background to the story of how the information that might have stopped the invasion of Iraq was twisted in order to justify it. They described what Tenet said to Bush about the lack of WMD, and how Bush responded, and noted that Tenet never shared Sabri's intelligence with then Secretary of State Colin Powell. (http://dir.salon.com/topics/colin_powell/) According to the former officers, the intelligence was also never shared with the senior military planning the invasion, which required U.S. soldiers to receive medical shots against the ill effects of WMD and to wear protective uniforms in the desert.
Instead, said the former officials, the information was distorted in a report written to fit the preconception that Saddam did have WMD programs. That false and restructured report was passed to Richard Dearlove, chief of the British Secret Intelligence Service (MI6), who briefed Prime Minister Tony Blair on it as validation of the cause for war.

menmon
11-29-2010, 02:22 PM
The American people would believe just about anything coming out of the Presidents mouth after 9/11 and did. Bush discounted CIA reports that Iraq did not have WMD.
Bush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction

Salon exclusive: Two former CIA officers say the president squelched top-secret intelligence, and a briefing by George Tenet, months before invading Iraq.


http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/blumenthal/2007/09/06/bush_wmd/

Like I said, we wanted that war.

Roger Perry
11-29-2010, 02:26 PM
Like I said, we wanted that war.

No, Bush wanted that war.

menmon
11-29-2010, 02:27 PM
No, Bush wanted that war.

Agreed I meant to write he

dnf777
11-29-2010, 02:27 PM
you have to be joking. false reason? the wmd magically dissappeared? or even more laughable - saddam did the right thing and got rid of them, but forgot to tell the UN how and why...its a dead horse dude. your hatred for bush is never ending.

i hope someday you find peace.

You are really touched in the head. Nothing I said implies a hatred for Bush. As I age, I find less and less energy to waste on hatred.You should try shedding some yourself.For example, I don't even read sandygirls posts anymore, as she has proven to be incapable of having a civil discussion, and isn't worth my time, or a response.


I said I think Bush DOES care, but was led astray, and was out of touch with average Americans. Most presidents, with few exceptions, are. The skit he did looking for WMDs was in very poor taste, and I don't think he intended to have the effect it did on many people. He thought it was a funny joke.

Time to salvage a little of the buck season opener......

Tim Thomas
11-29-2010, 02:31 PM
Here is some information for both you yahoos.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Vice President Dick Cheney repeated his assertions of al-Qaeda links to Saddam Hussein's Iraq on Thursday as the Defense Department released a report citing more evidence that the prewar government did not cooperate with the terrorist group.
Cheney contended that al-Qaeda was operating in Iraq before the March 2003 invasion led by U.S. forces and that terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was leading the Iraqi branch of al-Qaeda. Others in al-Qaeda planned the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
"He took up residence there before we ever launched into Iraq, organized the al-Qaeda operations inside Iraq before we even arrived on the scene and then, of course, led the charge for Iraq until we killed him last June," Cheney told radio host Rush Limbaugh during an interview. "As I say, they were present before we invaded Iraq."
However, a declassified Pentagon report released Thursday said that interrogations of the deposed Iraqi leader and two of his former aides as well as seized Iraqi documents confirmed that the terrorist organization and the Saddam government were not working together before the invasion.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-04-06-cheney_N.htm

Stick to the point.....this does not in any way suggest al-Qaeda was not in Iraq.....and as far as the "source", you can always find someone to dispute any claim. The jest of my post was not whether Sadaam and al-Qaeda were in bed with each other, nor did I suggest that there weren't individuals offering up debate to the concept of WMD's. What I did suggest...stick with me here...was maybe there were other motivations besides WMD's to move into Iraq. Possibly strategies you and I don't have the slightest clue how to initiate much less know the timing of when to act. What I do know is that we haven't seen an attack on this soil near the magnitude of 9/11.

Joe S.
11-29-2010, 02:41 PM
I wonder what percentage even know they live in Afhanistan??
And I am serious.


RK

That may be one of the very best questions you have ever asked. ;-)

And I Am Serious Regards,

Joe S.

road kill
11-29-2010, 02:45 PM
That may be one of the very best questions you have ever asked. ;-)

And I Am Serious Regards,

Joe S.
Good to know someone is keeping score!!:D


RK

Tim Thomas
11-29-2010, 02:49 PM
The American people would believe just about anything coming out of the Presidents mouth after 9/11 and did. Bush discounted CIA reports that Iraq did not have WMD. So yes, I am saying that Congress did not have the same intel as the President had. The President hid the truth from Congress.
Bush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction

Salon exclusive: Two former CIA officers say the president squelched top-secret intelligence, and a briefing by George Tenet, months before invading Iraq.


http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/blumenthal/2007/09/06/bush_wmd/

Nor was the intelligence included in the National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002, which stated categorically that Iraq possessed WMD. (http://dir.salon.com/topics/weapons_of_mass_destruction/) No one in Congress was aware of the secret intelligence that Saddam had no WMD as the House of Representatives and the Senate voted, a week after the submission of the NIE, on the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq. The information, moreover, was not circulated within the CIA (http://dir.salon.com/topics/cia/) among those agents involved in operations to prove whether Saddam had WMD.
On April 23, 2006, CBS's "60 Minutes" interviewed Tyler Drumheller, the former CIA chief of clandestine operations for Europe, who disclosed that the agency had received documentary intelligence from Naji Sabri, Saddam's foreign minister, that Saddam did not have WMD. "We continued to validate him the whole way through," said Drumheller. "The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming, and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy, to justify the policy."
Now two former senior CIA officers have confirmed Drumheller's account to me and provided the background to the story of how the information that might have stopped the invasion of Iraq was twisted in order to justify it. They described what Tenet said to Bush about the lack of WMD, and how Bush responded, and noted that Tenet never shared Sabri's intelligence with then Secretary of State Colin Powell. (http://dir.salon.com/topics/colin_powell/) According to the former officers, the intelligence was also never shared with the senior military planning the invasion, which required U.S. soldiers to receive medical shots against the ill effects of WMD and to wear protective uniforms in the desert.
Instead, said the former officials, the information was distorted in a report written to fit the preconception that Saddam did have WMD programs. That false and restructured report was passed to Richard Dearlove, chief of the British Secret Intelligence Service (MI6), who briefed Prime Minister Tony Blair on it as validation of the cause for war.

You go ahead and keep believing they were so misinformed. Have you ever been in a situation where a decision needs to be made with argument on both sides....obviously not. I can only imagine the heartache involved in making one as difficult as going to war....you claim his heart is in the right place...then how can you then assume he made the decision because he "wanted" the war. All of you who enjoy this Holiday season, I pray you remember that day and the troops still in harms way while you do. I pray you are thankful for the peaceful nights sleep you're afforded, and I pray you appreciate the hard decisions that will continue the need to be made on this Countries behalf.

Roger Perry
11-29-2010, 02:50 PM
Stick to the point.....this does not in any way suggest al-Qaeda was not in Iraq.....and as far as the "source", you can always find someone to dispute any claim. The jest of my post was not whether Sadaam and al-Qaeda were in bed with each other, nor did I suggest that there weren't individuals offering up debate to the concept of WMD's. What I did suggest...stick with me here...was maybe there were other motivations besides WMD's to move into Iraq. Possibly strategies you and I don't have the slightest clue how to initiate much less know the timing of when to act. What I do know is that we haven't seen an attack on this soil near the magnitude of 9/11.

And if Dumbya had acted on the intellegence reports that he received a month before 9/11 there might never have been an attack on 9/11:shock:


Meacher sparks fury over claims on September 11 and Iraq war
September 6, 2003

"...the war on terrorism is a smokescreen and that the US knew in advance about the September 11 attack on New York but, for strategic reasons, chose not to act on the warnings."
[LINK (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1036591,00.html)]

Who Knew? The unanswered questions of 9/11
September 3, 2003

"CBS reporter David Martin revealed that weeks before the attacks, the CIA had warned Bush personally of Osama Bin Laden�s intent to use hijacked planes as missiles. That followed the damaging exposure by The Associated Press�s John Solomon of a pre-9/11 FBI memo from an officer in Phoenix warning of suspicious Middle Eastern men training at flight schools�a warning that went unheeded."
[LINK (http://www.inthesetimes.com/comments.php?id=340_0_1_0_C)]

U.S. Clamps Secrecy on Warnings Before 9/11
August 7, 2003

"The committee managed, 'inadvertently,' it says, to get some contents of a key briefing Bush received in August 2001. It included 'FBI judgments about patterns of activity consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks; as well as information acquired in May 2001 that indicated a group of Bin Ladin (sic) supporters was planning attacks in the United States with explosives.'"
[LINK (http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-vpcoc073404676aug07,0,4849578.column)]

Bush's 9-11 Secrets
July 31, 2003

"The U.S. government had received repeated warnings of impending attacks�and attacks using planes directed at New York and Washington�for several years. The government never told us about what it knew was coming."
[LINK (http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0332/mondo4.php)]

9/11 report, Rice remarks in conflict; Investigators say Bush got specific data on threats
July 29, 2003

"...the briefing given to the president a month before the suicide hijackings included recent intelligence that al-Qaida was planning to send operatives to the United States to carry out an attack using high explosives."
[LINK (http://www.sunspot.net/business/nationworld/bal-te.rice29jul29,0,2620591.story?coll=bal-business-headlines)]

The Secret Saudi Flight on 9-13 Could be the Key to the Bush-Saudi-Al Qaeda Connection
May, 2003

"One has to wonder when George W. said, "You're either with us or against us" - just exactly who he meant by "us." "Us" is beginning to look like a Bush-Saudi-Al Qaeda conspiracy, especially when one includes the well-known business ties between George H. W. Bush, James Baker, and the Bin Laden family through the infamous Carlyle Group."
[LINK (http://www.democrats.com/view.cfm?id=14289)]

The Secrets of September 11
April 30, 2003

"One such CIA briefing, in July 2001, was particularly chilling and prophetic. It predicted that Osama bin Laden was about to launch a terrorist strike 'in the coming weeks,' the congressional investigators found. The intelligence briefing went on to say: 'The attack will be spectacular and designed to inflict mass casualties against U.S. facilities or interests. Attack preparations have been made. Attack will occur with little or no warning.'"
http://www.msnbc.com/news/907379.asp?0cv=CB10 (http://www.msnbc.com/news/907379.asp?0cv=CB10)

Joe S.
11-29-2010, 02:50 PM
Good to know someone is keeping score!!:D


RK

Score keeping is for children. I'm just paying attention...;-)

If One WMD Goes Off We All Lose Regards,

Joe S.

menmon
11-29-2010, 02:51 PM
Stick to the point.....this does not in any way suggest al-Qaeda was not in Iraq.....and as far as the "source", you can always find someone to dispute any claim. The jest of my post was not whether Sadaam and al-Qaeda were in bed with each other, nor did I suggest that there weren't individuals offering up debate to the concept of WMD's. What I did suggest...stick with me here...was maybe there were other motivations besides WMD's to move into Iraq. Possibly strategies you and I don't have the slightest clue how to initiate much less know the timing of when to act. What I do know is that we haven't seen an attack on this soil near the magnitude of 9/11.

You are right, we have not. However, they have tried and we are paying better attention here now. So I credit that being the reason instead of these costly wars.

I don't remember the name, but there was a former member of a terrorist group that said that these groups are figuring out that these acts of terror do not work (meaning not accomplishing what they wanted), so that might be why there has not been any too.

Roger Perry
11-29-2010, 03:00 PM
Score keeping is for children. I'm just paying attention...;-)

If One WMD Goes Off We All Lose Regards,

Joe S.

We already lost. Just have to look at the airport situation and what the american people are going through. (TSA)

Tim Thomas
11-29-2010, 03:00 PM
And if Dumbya had acted on the intellegence reports that he received a month before 9/11 there might never have been an attack on 9/11:shock:


Meacher sparks fury over claims on September 11 and Iraq war
September 6, 2003

"...the war on terrorism is a smokescreen and that the US knew in advance about the September 11 attack on New York but, for strategic reasons, chose not to act on the warnings."
[LINK (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1036591,00.html)]

Who Knew? The unanswered questions of 9/11
September 3, 2003

"CBS reporter David Martin revealed that weeks before the attacks, the CIA had warned Bush personally of Osama Bin Laden�s intent to use hijacked planes as missiles. That followed the damaging exposure by The Associated Press�s John Solomon of a pre-9/11 FBI memo from an officer in Phoenix warning of suspicious Middle Eastern men training at flight schools�a warning that went unheeded."
[LINK (http://www.inthesetimes.com/comments.php?id=340_0_1_0_C)]

U.S. Clamps Secrecy on Warnings Before 9/11
August 7, 2003

"The committee managed, 'inadvertently,' it says, to get some contents of a key briefing Bush received in August 2001. It included 'FBI judgments about patterns of activity consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks; as well as information acquired in May 2001 that indicated a group of Bin Ladin (sic) supporters was planning attacks in the United States with explosives.'"
[LINK (http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-vpcoc073404676aug07,0,4849578.column)]

Bush's 9-11 Secrets
July 31, 2003

"The U.S. government had received repeated warnings of impending attacks�and attacks using planes directed at New York and Washington�for several years. The government never told us about what it knew was coming."
[LINK (http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0332/mondo4.php)]

9/11 report, Rice remarks in conflict; Investigators say Bush got specific data on threats
July 29, 2003

"...the briefing given to the president a month before the suicide hijackings included recent intelligence that al-Qaida was planning to send operatives to the United States to carry out an attack using high explosives."
[LINK (http://www.sunspot.net/business/nationworld/bal-te.rice29jul29,0,2620591.story?coll=bal-business-headlines)]

The Secret Saudi Flight on 9-13 Could be the Key to the Bush-Saudi-Al Qaeda ConnectionMay, 2003

"One has to wonder when George W. said, "You're either with us or against us" - just exactly who he meant by "us." "Us" is beginning to look like a Bush-Saudi-Al Qaeda conspiracy, especially when one includes the well-known business ties between George H. W. Bush, James Baker, and the Bin Laden family through the infamous Carlyle Group."
[LINK (http://www.democrats.com/view.cfm?id=14289)]

The Secrets of September 11
April 30, 2003

"One such CIA briefing, in July 2001, was particularly chilling and prophetic. It predicted that Osama bin Laden was about to launch a terrorist strike 'in the coming weeks,' the congressional investigators found. The intelligence briefing went on to say: 'The attack will be spectacular and designed to inflict mass casualties against U.S. facilities or interests. Attack preparations have been made. Attack will occur with little or no warning.'"
http://www.msnbc.com/news/907379.asp?0cv=CB10 (http://www.msnbc.com/news/907379.asp?0cv=CB10)


This is where you and your links/sources really lost all credibility. Hey, it does sound like a great opportunity for a movie!! That way, you'll have your absolute confirmation....it's on the big screen, it must be true! Give me a break!

Roger Perry
11-29-2010, 03:22 PM
This is where you and your links/sources really lost all credibility. Hey, it does sound like a great opportunity for a movie!! That way, you'll have your absolute confirmation....it's on the big screen, it must be true! Give me a break!

All you right wingers were the first to blame Obama for the "terrorist" that was allowed to get on a plane overseas headed for Detriot yet will not take responsibility for 9/11 happening. Worse yet, will not accept responsibility for a war that based on lies of WMD. Won't accept responsibility for the Country almost going into a depression. Just when will the republican party accept responsibility for anything it does? Never?

Oh, you say our Country was headed for a Depression, well just hear what Sarah Palin had to say about that:

Sarah Palin says only McCain can avert depression


http://www.malaysianews.net/story/410949

At least Palin knew Bush had put us in that position

Tim Thomas
11-29-2010, 03:39 PM
All you right wingers were the first to blame Obama for the "terrorist" that was allowed to get on a plane overseas headed for Detriot yet will not take responsibility for 9/11 happening. Worse yet, will not accept responsibility for a war that based on lies of WMD. Won't accept responsibility for the Country almost going into a depression. Just when will the republican party accept responsibility for anything it does? Never?
Oh, you say our Country was headed for a Depression, well just hear what Sarah Palin had to say about that:

Sarah Palin says only McCain can avert depression


http://www.malaysianews.net/story/410949

At least Palin knew Bush had put us in that position

What???? Discussing something with you is like arguing with my ex-wife....you can't stay on the subject!!!!!!!!!!! Go get some oxygen and feed your brain!

Clay Rogers
11-30-2010, 01:05 PM
All you right wingers were the first to blame Obama for the "terrorist" that was allowed to get on a plane overseas headed for Detriot yet will not take responsibility for 9/11 happening. Worse yet, will not accept responsibility for a war that based on lies of WMD. Won't accept responsibility for the Country almost going into a depression. Just when will the republican party accept responsibility for anything it does? Never?

Oh, you say our Country was headed for a Depression, well just hear what Sarah Palin had to say about that:

Sarah Palin says only McCain can avert depression


http://www.malaysianews.net/story/410949

At least Palin knew Bush had put us in that position



So, are you saying that Clinton had never been warned of said attacks prior to getting out of office?

Time line: January 2001-President Bush takes office
September 11, 2001- Worst terror attack in American History

You are telling me that it only took 7 months to plan and pull off this attack?
Clinton had been warned repeatedly about this and he didn't do anything about it either. You even say in one your posts that sources had been warning the government for years prior to attack. Doesn't add up Gilligan, 7 months doesn't make years.

Joe S.
11-30-2010, 01:50 PM
All you right wingers were the first to blame Obama for the "terrorist" that was allowed to get on a plane overseas headed for Detriot yet will not take responsibility for 9/11 happening. Worse yet, will not accept responsibility for a war that based on lies of WMD.


Roger, I’m not a right-winger (Wait…RK, Uncle Bill, Marvin, Patrick…say guys…am I a right-winger? I need independent verification...LOL) but I did sleep at a Holiday Inn Express once so I’d like to take a stab at this one. President Bush may have been the one holding the stick when 9/11 happened and may have had enough information to act prior to it, but to suggest President Bush had responsibility in a larger-than-he-was-in-charge term attempts to grossly oversimplify the problem of terrorism. Many suggest that the increase in terrorism directed against the United States can be traced back to the non-response from President Reagan to Marine Barracks bombing in 1983. There is enough “blame” if you will to cover every President we have had since, I think.


As to President Bush, ALMOST everyone he listened to, especially his Vice President, was telling him that Iraq had them. Now, they ALL, especially his six-times deferred Vice President had an agenda that may or may not have been in the best interest of the country as a whole. If you look at President Bush’s management style, it is clear he prided loyalty over competence. When one is surrounded by “Yes” men, one gets told yes, a lot, even when one should be told no. Be that as it may, ask yourself this question: SOME of the best intelligence people in the world are saying he has them. MANY of your own hand-picked advisors are telling you he has them. YOUR FATHER’S SecDef, now your Vice President, is saying they have them, hell, even THEY are saying they have them an are going to use them if they have to…what are you going to do? Are you going to run the risk of a 10KT improvised nuclear device going off in WashingtonD.C., New York City, or Smallville, USA? Damn tough call if you ask me.

Personally, I think the books were cooked. As a matter of human nature we discount those things that do not agree with our thought process and enhance those that do, even if they are small. The Advisors, and maybe even the President, WANTED to go to war in Iraq for whatever reason. Once the decision was made to do it, the reason used to justify it became secondary.

Historical Regards,

Joe S.

dixidawg
11-30-2010, 01:57 PM
Bravo. That is about the best post I have read on the subject.

david gibson
11-30-2010, 02:08 PM
Roger i truely wish peace for you someday. seriously.

dnf777
11-30-2010, 05:19 PM
Roger, I’m not a right-winger (Wait…RK, Uncle Bill, Marvin, Patrick…say guys…am I a right-winger? I need independent verification...LOL) but I did sleep at a Holiday Inn Express once so I’d like to take a stab at this one. President Bush may have been the one holding the stick when 9/11 happened and may have had enough information to act prior to it, but to suggest President Bush had responsibility in a larger-than-he-was-in-charge term attempts to grossly oversimplify the problem of terrorism. Many suggest that the increase in terrorism directed against the United States can be traced back to the non-response from President Reagan to Marine Barracks bombing in 1983. There is enough “blame” if you will to cover every President we have had since, I think.


As to President Bush, ALMOST everyone he listened to, especially his Vice President, was telling him that Iraq had them. Now, they ALL, especially his six-times deferred Vice President had an agenda that may or may not have been in the best interest of the country as a whole. If you look at President Bush’s management style, it is clear he prided loyalty over competence. When one is surrounded by “Yes” men, one gets told yes, a lot, even when one should be told no. Be that as it may, ask yourself this question: SOME of the best intelligence people in the world are saying he has them. MANY of your own hand-picked advisors are telling you he has them. YOUR FATHER’S SecDef, now your Vice President, is saying they have them, hell, even THEY are saying they have them an are going to use them if they have to…what are you going to do? Are you going to run the risk of a 10KT improvised nuclear device going off in WashingtonD.C., New York City, or Smallville, USA? Damn tough call if you ask me.

Personally, I think the books were cooked. As a matter of human nature we discount those things that do not agree with our thought process and enhance those that do, even if they are small. The Advisors, and maybe even the President, WANTED to go to war in Iraq for whatever reason. Once the decision was made to do it, the reason used to justify it became secondary.

Historical Regards,

Joe S.

Well said.

So after that analysis.....what WAS the reason we went to war?

I honestly can't figure that one out. Even Cheney, in his famous interview after Gulf War I, eloquently justified Bush I's failure to roll into Baghdad. He predicted with spooky accuracy the debacle that would unfold if Saddam's regime was disrupted. Then when he returned under Bush II, he did a complete 180. I can't figure that one out, so I follow the money. I'll leave it at that.

Hew
11-30-2010, 06:13 PM
I honestly can't figure that one out. Even Cheney, in his famous interview after Gulf War I, eloquently justified Bush I's failure to roll into Baghdad. He predicted with spooky accuracy the debacle that would unfold if Saddam's regime was disrupted. Then when he returned under Bush II, he did a complete 180. I can't figure that one out, so I follow the money. I'll leave it at that.
The most prolific and devastating event to happen to our country in the past 50 years occured between the first and second Gulf Wars and you can't "honestly" figure out the difference between Cheney's reasoning in 1991 and 2003? Really? And because you can't figure it out your default reason is because Cheney wanted the US military's blood on his hands so he could get richer? Lennon was wrong. You are the walrus.

Uncle Bill
11-30-2010, 06:20 PM
Lennon was wrong. You are the walrus.
__________________


:D:D:D:cool:



UB

Joe S.
11-30-2010, 06:26 PM
The most prolific and devastating event to happen to our country in the past 50 years occured between the first and second Gulf Wars and you can't "honestly" figure out the difference between Cheney's reasoning in 1991 and 2003? Really? And because you can't figure it out your default reason is because Cheney wanted the US military's blood on his hands so he could get richer? Lennon was wrong. You are the walrus.

Now John, I've lost 65 or 70 pounds and am no longer in the walrus class...I'm more like a...a...er...a seal...yeah...I'm more in the seal class. Sleek. Eat Fish. Cute...I mean...just LOOK at that avatar!!! Maybe we won't go fishing when I come to Florida. ;-)

You are suggesting the Vice President advocated for Gulf War II because of 9/11? The mission was in Afghanistan and we took our eye off it to go into Iraq. The question is then: "Why" and Billy Preston was right...will it go round in circles.

Lyrical Regards,

Joe S.

dnf777
11-30-2010, 06:32 PM
The most prolific and devastating event to happen to our country in the past 50 years [The Bush administration?] occured between the first and second Gulf Wars and you can't "honestly" figure out the difference between Cheney's reasoning in 1991 and 2003? Really? And because you can't figure it out your default reason is because Cheney wanted the US military's blood on his hands so he could get richer? Lennon was wrong. You are the walrus.

And you STILL think Iraq was behind 9-11!! I can't argue against made up realities.

Juli H
11-30-2010, 06:36 PM
Be that as it may, ask yourself this question: SOME of the best intelligence people in the world are saying he has them. MANY of your own hand-picked advisors are telling you he has them. YOUR FATHER’S SecDef, now your Vice President, is saying they have them, hell, even THEY are saying they have them an are going to use them if they have to…what are you going to do? Are you going to run the risk of a 10KT improvised nuclear device going off in WashingtonD.C., New York City, or Smallville, USA? Damn tough call if you ask me.

Joe S.

I agree, well written, Joe.

And to the extent that this section has some pretty important bearing on 'The Reasons' (of which I am sure there was more than just one or two)...... the 'what if' factor became an important piece of the decision making process, I think.....

please protect Smallville regards...:D

Juli

Joe S.
11-30-2010, 06:49 PM
I agree, well written, Joe.

And to the extent that this section has some pretty important bearing on 'The Reasons' (of which I am sure there was more than just one or two)...... the 'what if' factor became an important piece of the decision making process, I think.....

please protect Smallville regards...:D

Juli

Juli,

The "what if" factor only gets us so far...we (USA) turned a blind eye to A.Q. Kahn and the whole Pakistan/Muslim bomb issue while the Soviet's were getting their butt kicked in Afghanistan because we needed Pakistan to get to Afghanistan. Now that decision has come back to bite us in the butt...

With the nuclear genie this far out of the bottle, we don't know, really, who has it, who wants it, and who is willing to supply it...it is like trying to contain smoke.

Hey, Smallville is one of my favorite places...of course I'll do my best. ;-)

Stay Warm Regards,

Joe S.

Uncle Bill
11-30-2010, 07:06 PM
Roger, I’m not a right-winger (Wait…RK, Uncle Bill, Marvin, Patrick…say guys…am I a right-winger? I need independent verification...LOL) but I did sleep at a Holiday Inn Express once so I’d like to take a stab at this one. President Bush may have been the one holding the stick when 9/11 happened and may have had enough information to act prior to it, but to suggest President Bush had responsibility in a larger-than-he-was-in-charge term attempts to grossly oversimplify the problem of terrorism. Many suggest that the increase in terrorism directed against the United States can be traced back to the non-response from President Reagan to Marine Barracks bombing in 1983. There is enough “blame” if you will to cover every President we have had since, I think.


As to President Bush, ALMOST everyone he listened to, especially his Vice President, was telling him that Iraq had them. Now, they ALL, especially his six-times deferred Vice President had an agenda that may or may not have been in the best interest of the country as a whole. If you look at President Bush’s management style, it is clear he prided loyalty over competence. When one is surrounded by “Yes” men, one gets told yes, a lot, even when one should be told no. Be that as it may, ask yourself this question: SOME of the best intelligence people in the world are saying he has them. MANY of your own hand-picked advisors are telling you he has them. YOUR FATHER’S SecDef, now your Vice President, is saying they have them, hell, even THEY are saying they have them an are going to use them if they have to…what are you going to do? Are you going to run the risk of a 10KT improvised nuclear device going off in WashingtonD.C., New York City, or Smallville, USA? Damn tough call if you ask me.

Personally, I think the books were cooked. As a matter of human nature we discount those things that do not agree with our thought process and enhance those that do, even if they are small. The Advisors, and maybe even the President, WANTED to go to war in Iraq for whatever reason. Once the decision was made to do it, the reason used to justify it became secondary.

Historical Regards,

Joe S.

First off, it's nice to see you back and posting again, Joe. But hey!..."Historical Regards"???? and no mention of the numerous times the UN sanctions were violated? You put the MSP to shame with that 'sound bite' of what happened.

And how convenient for you to bring up Reagan's name as the initiator of this entire fiasco, as you gloss over your hero's by lumping them in together...sort of a CMA statement eh? But what the hay...history schmistory...it's all mox nix. It has always been dependant on who's ox is being gored as to how the scenario is viewed.

But as "Independants" go, you do ride the center line better than most. You just have a knack of slanting the story by eliminating the facts you don't think warrent any notice. But as long as you stay on the side of the line you began on, we'll be able to 'read' you. Be careful. Others that claim to be "Indy's" are pure hypocrites by their weaving back and forth across the line. I'm surprised they keep getting resurrected from their road kill status. :rolleyes:

UB

Juli H
11-30-2010, 07:08 PM
Hey, Smallville is one of my favorite places...of course I'll do my best. ;-)

Stay Warm Regards,

Joe S.

Thanks for the additional thoughts and insight.

'Do your best' - I sure hope so... no slacking. :)

quite cozy, thanks :)
Juli

dnf777
11-30-2010, 07:11 PM
Others that claim to be "Indy's" are pure hypocrites by their weaving back and forth across the line. :rolleyes:

UB

By falling on different sides of your arbitrary "line", perhaps that is a sign of free-thinking, rather than hypocrisy?

Imagine that!--An independent person having different views on topics and not fitting any one ideologic mold!?

I think your statement speaks volumes about your lack of understanding of what an independent truly is.

AKGOLD
11-30-2010, 07:16 PM
We already lost. Just have to look at the airport situation and what the american people are going through. (TSA)

That is the truth. They (terrorists) could do nothing else to our country and continue to win. Each time we change our culture to "prevent" something else from happening and removing the liberties that we have in this country, they succeed yet again.

Joe S.
11-30-2010, 07:26 PM
First off, it's nice to see you back and posting again, Joe. But hey!..."Historical Regards"???? and no mention of the numerous times the UN sanctions were violated? You put the MSP to shame with that 'sound bite' of what happened.

And how convenient for you to bring up Reagan's name as the initiator of this entire fiasco, as you gloss over your hero's by lumping them in together...sort of a CMA statement eh? But what the hay...history schmistory...it's all mox nix. It has always been dependant on who's ox is being gored as to how the scenario is viewed.

But as "Independants" go, you do ride the center line better than most. You just have a knack of slanting the story by eliminating the facts you don't think warrent any notice. But as long as you stay on the side of the line you began on, we'll be able to 'read' you. Be careful. Others that claim to be "Indy's" are pure hypocrites by their weaving back and forth across the line. I'm surprised they keep getting resurrected from their road kill status. :rolleyes:

UB

Well Bill, thanks for the kind words. I've written my last paper for my Master's Degree and have some time on my hands. Thought I'd drop by and gore a couple of ox's...not you though, Bill...I like you! ;-)

I don't give a fat rat's fanny about the UN sanctions, Bill. They weren't the original issue. The original issues were WMD and the Iraq-aQ link. Neither of which were factual...although we didn't know it at the time and due diligence was not really done for reasons that are not known.

By "my hero" I guess you are meaning President Clinton. Well, not my hero, per se, but if you look at what he did by bringing James Lee Witt into FEMA he is clearly my hero. FEMA was at its best under Witt. As to President Clinton's counterterrorism efforts, clearly not my hero. More could have been done. Read a book called "Age of Sacred Terror." The guys who wrote it were on the NSC staff during several administrations and they called out many of President's they worked for, including President Clinton. I agree with them. Commit forces only when necessary and then commit 2x the amount you think you are going to need. American service members are people, not political pawns. He failed there.

I give less than a fat rat's fanny what others think, Bill. We are all humans and that means we all view the same situation through our own frame of reference...what is right for me, isn't for others and vice verse...versa...the other way around.

Now Bill, don't twist my words. I suggested that many suggest that by not responding to the Marine Barracks bombing, President Reagan gave the terrorists something to think about. I know the bombing happened. I know President Reagan didn't respond. I know that since then many terrorists have taken shots at us. Is it cause and effect or a natural progression of easier US targets and more terrorists...who knows. We all get to draw our own conclusions...it's the whole frame of reference thing...LOL...;-)

Good To See You Again Regards,

Joe s.

depittydawg
11-30-2010, 10:44 PM
Well said.

So after that analysis.....what WAS the reason we went to war?

I honestly can't figure that one out. Even Cheney, in his famous interview after Gulf War I, eloquently justified Bush I's failure to roll into Baghdad. He predicted with spooky accuracy the debacle that would unfold if Saddam's regime was disrupted. Then when he returned under Bush II, he did a complete 180. I can't figure that one out, so I follow the money. I'll leave it at that.

Actually in retrospect the answer is quite clear. We went so the US treasury could be looted. Where is the proof you ask? BECAUSE THAT"S WHAT ENDED UP HAPPENING.

Hew
11-30-2010, 11:48 PM
You are suggesting the Vice President advocated for Gulf War II because of 9/11?
I'm saying exactly that. Without 9/11 there never would have been an invasion of Iraq. You essentially said the same thing yourself so I don't know why you'd want to argue the point now:



Originally Posted by Joe S. http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?p=710866#post710866)
Be that as it may, ask yourself this question: SOME of the best intelligence people in the world are saying he has them. MANY of your own hand-picked advisors are telling you he has them. YOUR FATHER’S SecDef, now your Vice President, is saying they have them, hell, even THEY are saying they have them an are going to use them if they have to…what are you going to do? Are you going to run the risk of a 10KT improvised nuclear device going off in WashingtonD.C., New York City, or Smallville, USA? Damn tough call if you ask me.

Without the context of 9/11, no "damn tough call" is necessary and the US policy towards Iraq remains the same as it had been during the previous decade over the course of two different US administrations and multiple convened US Congresses.

Hew
11-30-2010, 11:54 PM
Actually in retrospect the answer is quite clear. We went so the US treasury could be looted. Where is the proof you ask? BECAUSE THAT"S WHAT ENDED UP HAPPENING.
And we therefore know that the US was founded by gangsters who wanted to loot the US treasury. How you ask? Because the US treasury was looted, that's how!

Aye chihuahua. Logic much? :rolleyes:

M&K's Retrievers
12-01-2010, 12:04 AM
And we therefore know that the US was founded by gangsters who wanted to loot the US treasury. How you ask? Because the US treasury was looted, that's how!

Aye chihuahua. Logic much? :rolleyes:

Logic = DS. Not gonna happen.

depittydawg
12-01-2010, 12:09 AM
And we therefore know that the US was founded by gangsters who wanted to loot the US treasury. How you ask? Because the US treasury was looted, that's how!

Aye chihuahua. Logic much? :rolleyes:

Except for one little problem. There was no US treasury to loot. Someday you really need to step into the real world Hew.

depittydawg
12-01-2010, 12:11 AM
Logic = DS. Not gonna happen.

And the mindless drone emerges from the cracks once again. Welcome back MK.

depittydawg
12-01-2010, 01:12 AM
I'm saying exactly that. Without 9/11 there never would have been an invasion of Iraq. You essentially said the same thing yourself so I don't know why you'd want to argue the point now:


Without the context of 9/11, no "damn tough call" is necessary and the US policy towards Iraq remains the same as it had been during the previous decade over the course of two different US administrations and multiple convened US Congresses.


During the Bush administration we blew the place up and transfered a large chunk of the US treasury to the military industrial complex doing it. During the Clinton administration the policy toward Iraq was one of political and economic isolation and containment. During the Bush 1 administration the policy toward Iraq was consensus building in the UN for military action followed by political and economic isolation and containment.

And of course anyone who pays attention to reality knows that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11.

YardleyLabs
12-01-2010, 07:22 AM
Well, well, well. How can we argue with such incredible intelligence. Have you been reading up on this from Wikipedia again? Or was this leaked to YOU via the wiki leaks jackass?

But since you've stated "al Qaeda...were not in Iraq until AFTER we invaded", why didn't you tell us then? You are so adept with your 20/20 hindsight.

Indeed, you are the hanging chad of Port St. Lucie!

UB
The criticism of "20/20 hindsight" is fine unless the same information was discernible before the event. In this case, many people believed, as a minimum that the evidence of WMD was weak at best, and that even assuming the existence of such weapons, the threat to US interests was minimal for many years.

The administration did everything it could do to suppress such opinions arguing not only that the weapons were incontrovertibly there, but that the threat was imminent. In hindsight, it became obvious that the evidence on WMD was always suspect and that the strength of the evidence was deliberately overstated to mislead the public, the Congress, and even members of the administration who were not part of the inner, neo-Con circle.

More importantly, there was no evidence whatsoever that the threat was imminent.. The only urgency was political. The administration feared that it would be unable to obtain support for an invasion if it allowed the dust from 9/11 to settle. That was the reason the administration did everything possible to encourage speculation of an Iraqi connection to 9/11, even while admitting that no such connection existed.

Unfortunately, once the invasion was launched, we ended up creating a real and immediate threat that was much greater than any that existed before March 2003. By destroying Iraq's governance infrastructure, we created just the type of chaotic environment in which terrorism flourishes. To Obama's credit, he opposed the initial invasion publicly, making him a darling among liberals. What liberals tended to ignore, however, was that he also supported the war afterward because of the terrorist threat that was created as a direct by-product of the original, unjustified invasion.

None of this is to suggest that Saddam was anything other than a vicious dictator. However, as conservatives often argued before 2003, and Bush stated during his campaign, it is not America's responsibility to "fix" the governments of other countries or to engage in nation building wars.

Hew
12-01-2010, 08:34 AM
My comments in bold....


The criticism of "20/20 hindsight" is fine unless the same information was discernible before the event. In this case, many people believed, as a minimum that the evidence of WMD was weak at best, true, and many more believed the opposite; including Congress and a slew of prominant Democrats and that even assuming the existence of such weapons, the threat to US interests was minimal for many years.

The administration did everything it could do to suppress such opinions arguing not only that the weapons were incontrovertibly there, but that the threat was imminent. Bush specifically said in a State of the Union speech that the threat was NOT imminent, but that we should act before it becomes imminent. In hindsight, it became obvious that the evidence on WMD was always suspect and that the strength of the evidence was deliberately overstated to mislead the public, the Congress, and even members of the administration who were not part of the inner, neo-Con circle.

More importantly, there was no evidence whatsoever that the threat was imminent.. The only urgency was political. The administration feared that it would be unable to obtain support for an invasion if it allowed the dust from 9/11 to settle. Hmmmm, now you're wanting your cake and eating it too. You have claimed (erroneously) on at least two occasions that I can remember there wasn't a plurality of support for military action among the American people. Now you're saying that the Bush Admin. had the support because they rushed to war in the shadow of 9/11. Regardless of your flip-flopping opinions on whether Americans supported the war or not, a wait of nearly two years between 9/11 and the Invasion of Iraq doesn't seem like a "rush to war" to me. That was the reason the administration did everything possible to encourage speculation of an Iraqi connection to 9/11, even while admitting that no such connection existed. LOL. That sounds alot like your above argument...that Bush was telepathically conveying to us dumb hicks that the threat was imminent while what he was actually saying is the threat was NOT imminent. That Bush...was a mastermind of subterfuge and misdirection.

Unfortunately, once the invasion was launched, we ended up creating a real and immediate threat that was much greater than any that existed before March 2003. By destroying Iraq's governance infrastructure, we created just the type of chaotic environment in which terrorism flourishes. Yeah, damn us to hell. We should have let the Baathists keep running the joint...just like we did with the Nazis and Tojo's people. To Obama's credit, he opposed the initial invasion publicly, making him a darling among liberals. What liberals tended to ignore, however, was that he also supported the war afterward because of the terrorist threat that was created as a direct by-product of the original, unjustified invasion.

None of this is to suggest that Saddam was anything other than a vicious dictator. However, as conservatives often argued before 2003, and Bush stated during his campaign, it is not America's responsibility to "fix" the governments of other countries or to engage in nation building wars. The war was never solely, or even primarily, about nation building. Again, the context of 9/11 changed much of the previous equation.

Hew
12-01-2010, 08:45 AM
During the Bush administration we blew the place up and transfered a large chunk of the US treasury to the military industrial complex doing it. by "large chunk" you mean a tiny fraction of 1% of our entire GDP? :rolleyes: During the Clinton administration the policy toward Iraq was one of political and economic isolation and containment and cruise missles. During the Bush 1 administration the policy toward Iraq was consensus building in the UN for military action followed by political and economic isolation and containment. ....thanks for the history review Dorris Kearns Goodwin, but keep going another couple of years and you'll come to a pivotal date in US history that had a significant impact on our foreign policy towards Iraq and a host of other countries.

And of course anyone who pays attention to reality knows that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. And of course anyone who isn't grapsing at strawman arguments knows that nobody is arguing that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. But keep flailin' away.
.......................

david gibson
12-01-2010, 10:19 AM
Yardley - simple question for you and any other libs:

IF the presence of WMD WAS verified, AND there was solid proof that it was all moved to Syria or buried in the sand, would you have supported the invasion of Iraq?

this is an honest question that requires only a simple yes or no answer, not 3 paragraphs, or even a sentence. i just want to see how deep we really have to go to find common ground.

dnf777
12-01-2010, 02:00 PM
Although I don't consider myself a "lib", here goes.

YES.

Now that I've answered your hypothetical and unrealistic question, here's another of equal importance for you:

If your aunt had balls, would you call her your uncle?

I know what's been buried in the sand....and it ain't WMDs

paul young
12-01-2010, 02:04 PM
Yardley - simple question for you and any other libs:

IF the presence of WMD WAS verified, AND there was solid proof that it was all moved to Syria or buried in the sand, would you have supported the invasion of Iraq?

this is an honest question that requires only a simple yes or no answer, not 3 paragraphs, or even a sentence. i just want to see how deep we really have to go to find common ground.

i would think that in that case, we would invade Syria. deep, huh?-Paul

Roger Perry
12-01-2010, 02:08 PM
Yardley - simple question for you and any other libs:

IF the presence of WMD WAS verified, AND there was solid proof that it was all moved to Syria or buried in the sand, would you have supported the invasion of Iraq?

this is an honest question that requires only a simple yes or no answer, not 3 paragraphs, or even a sentence. i just want to see how deep we really have to go to find common ground.

David, here is a question for you. Iran and North Korea posed a greater threat than Iraq. Why didn't Bush invade either of the two Countries?

david gibson
12-01-2010, 02:22 PM
Although I don't consider myself a "lib", here goes.

YES.

Now that I've answered your hypothetical and unrealistic question, here's another of equal importance for you:

If your aunt had balls, would you call her your uncle?

I know what's been buried in the sand....and it ain't WMDs

can you EVER answer without an attitude? i simply asked a question to see where you guys would have stood if there were hard evidence for what we have lots of circumstancial evidence of, thats all. thanks for being honest with your answer. whats wrong with hypothetical question? and why is it unrealistic to ask, and if so, why did you even bother to answer? never planned on going any further, just a simple yes/no question. no "gotchya" moment coming, thats a liberal tactic... ;-)

but jeeze, really, there's no reason to bring your relatives in on this. i thought your family was off limits for you anyway??

duckheads
12-01-2010, 02:25 PM
Although I don't consider myself a "lib", here goes.

YES.

Now that I've answered your hypothetical and unrealistic question, here's another of equal importance for you:

If your aunt had balls, would you call her your uncle?

I know what's been buried in the sand....and it ain't WMDs

What a putz. you say you are not a lib but whenever someone poses a question to the libs you respond first. I guess you are a indy that is as liberals in his thoughts as it gets!

Roger Perry
12-01-2010, 02:26 PM
can you EVER answer without an attitude? i simply asked a question to see where you guys would have stood if there were hard evidence for what we have lots of circumstancial evidence of, thats all. thanks for being honest with your answer.

but jeeze, really, there's no reason to bring your relatives in on this. i thought your family was off limits for you anyway??

Another question for you David----- If Bush was told by the CIA that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq do you think it would have been the obligation of the President to inform Congress and the American people of that information????????????

david gibson
12-01-2010, 02:26 PM
i would think that in that case, we would invade Syria. deep, huh?-Paul

true, but you still didnt answer.

david gibson
12-01-2010, 02:30 PM
Another question for you David----- If Bush was told by the CIA that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq do you think it would have been the obligation of the President to inform Congress and the American people of that information????????????

Earth to Roger: this is not a question asking competition. i asked a simple non-contentious yes/no question to those that are opposed to having ever going in to iraq, i had nor have any intentions of going further, i just wanted to know. yet you respond with a demand for me to answer 2 contentious questions without even answering mine. nice.

i take by your combative nature that your answer would have been "no"

duly noted, end of discussion. thanks for playing and being a good sport. :rolleyes:

dnf777
12-01-2010, 02:34 PM
What a putz. you say you are not a lib but whenever someone poses a question to the libs you respond first. I guess you are a indy that is as liberals in his thoughts as it gets!

I am liberal in several of my positions. I think black people should be allowed to serve in the military, women should be allowed to serve, and anyone otherwise qualified should be allowed to serve regardless of their sexual orientation. All liberal ideas. Also just and fair ideas.

Sorry, DG. I was a little jumpy. Its not like we don't have a history. ;-)

Fair question. So was Roger's.

Another fair question is WHY DO YOU THINK WE WENT TO WAR in Iraq? Hew mentioned some non-sequitor about 9-11. Lets try to stick to the topic or Iraq. If he wants to avenge the 9-11 attack, we should be discussing bombing Bush's buddies in Saudi Arabia, where most of the hijakers, the mastermind, and the funding all came from.

david gibson
12-01-2010, 02:40 PM
I am liberal in several of my positions. I think black people should be allowed to serve in the military, women should be allowed to serve, and anyone otherwise qualified should be allowed to serve regardless of their sexual orientation. All liberal ideas. Also just and fair ideas.

Sorry, DG. I was a little jumpy. Its not like we don't have a history. ;-)

Fair question. So was Roger's.

Another fair question is WHY DO YOU THINK WE WENT TO WAR in Iraq? Hew mentioned some non-sequitor about 9-11. Lets try to stick to the topic or Iraq. If he wants to avenge the 9-11 attack, we should be discussing bombing Bush's buddies in Saudi Arabia, where most of the hijakers, the mastermind, and the funding all came from.

how is rogers question fair when he didnt even answer mine????

i am not going any further with this, i just asked a simple y/n question for my own edification. this horse has been beaten a thousand deaths, but that one question has never been discussed in b&w terms, thats it. your answer shows me that deep down we have the same core values, good common ground, but we differ in the application and justification of defense of those values in certain areas. i believe the circumstantial evidence, you dont. therein lies the difference. so maybe we wouldnt kill each other in a duck blind.

the evasion of the question by paul and roger tells me a lot too. what it says to me will remain unspoken, as i said i do not intend to take it any further.



paul harvey "good day" regards

Roger Perry
12-01-2010, 02:45 PM
Earth to Roger: this is not a question asking competition. i asked a simple non-contentious yes/no question to those that are opposed to having ever going in to iraq, i had nor have any intentions of going further, i just wanted to know. yet you respond with a demand for me to answer 2 contentious questions without even answering mine. nice.

i take by your combative nature that your answer would have been "no"

duly noted, end of discussion. thanks for playing and being a good sport. :rolleyes:

The point is David, that no WMD were ever found in Iraq so it is a mute point nor was there ever proof that WMD were flown out of Iraq into Syria.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKX6luiMINQ

dnf777
12-01-2010, 02:51 PM
your answer shows me that deep down we have the same core values, good common ground, but we differ in the application and justification of defense of those values in certain areas. i believe the circumstantial evidence, you dont. therein lies the difference. so maybe we wouldnt kill each other in a duck blind.

paul harvey "good day" regards


Do I sense a big group hug coming on? :shock:

Preemptive strikes are always going to be a contentious issue, as they should be. It is almost impossible to apply historical precedents, as we have weapons of destruction on a scale no country has ever had to deal with.

And put yourself into the shoes of other countries....being told by the ONLY country to every unleash the power of the universe on another...how to conduct themselves.

(and don't read anything into that statement....given the circumstances, I wouldn't have quit with two)

paul young
12-01-2010, 02:51 PM
how is rogers question fair when he didnt even answer mine????

i am not going any further with this, i just asked a simple y/n question for my own edification. this horse has been beaten a thousand deaths, but that one question has never been discussed in b&w terms, thats it. your answer shows me that deep down we have the same core values, good common ground, but we differ in the application and justification of defense of those values in certain areas. so maybe we wouldnt kill each other in a duck blind.

the evasion of the question by paul and roger tells me a lot too. what it says to me will remain unspoken, as i said i do not intend to take it any further.



paul harvey "good day" regards


evasion?????

an analogy: if i wanted to catch trout in the Farmington river, i sure wouldn't go to the Housatonic.

you said that if the WMD'S had been moved to Syria, would i advocate invading Iraq....HELL NO!!!!!

i said i would invade Syria. why would i want to invade Iraq?....to give Syria a chance to move them to Libya????

that's why Bin Laden is still at large, by the way.

that's not evasion Dave. that's clear thinking.-Paul

david gibson
12-01-2010, 02:54 PM
The point is David, that no WMD were ever found in Iraq so it is a mute point nor was there ever proof that WMD were flown out of Iraq into Syria.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKX6luiMINQ

no, thats not my point. thats your point. i simply asked a question. if you choose not to answer fine, but it does not give you the right to demand i answer further questions from you.

what is so wrong with a hypothetical question?

and i never said there was proof of anything, but there is circumstancial evidence, some of it from an actual rtf'er that was an eyewitness to some small amounts of wmd.

so i simply asked an IF, and you refuse to answer and instead demand i answer your questions. it doesnt work that way fella, so please just bow out. i already said 3 times i am not taking this further, we have done that adnauseum.

david gibson
12-01-2010, 02:58 PM
evasion?????

an analogy: if i wanted to catch trout in the Farmington river, i sure wouldn't go to the Housatonic.

you said that if the WMD'S had been moved to Syria, would i advocate invading Iraq....HELL NO!!!!!

i said i would invade Syria. why would i want to invade Iraq?....to give Syria a chance to move them to Libya????

that's why Bin Laden is still at large, by the way.

that's not evasion Dave. that's clear thinking.-Paul

ah jeeze, i give up. ok, if we invaded iraq for wmd, and when we are there we find they moved them to syria, would you have agreed or not about going into iraq? that is the question. NOT whether we should then have invaded syria also. saddam would have no reason to move them to syria until we invaded, so we would not have had the chance to decide to invade there first.

this is obviously too much for your horribly biased mind to consider, so forget it. you answered my question anyway.

dnf777
12-01-2010, 02:59 PM
ah jeeze, i give up. ok, if we invaded iraq for wmd, and when we are there we find they moved them to syria, would you have agreed or not about going into iraq? that is the question. NOT whether we should then have invaded syria also. saddam would have no reason to move them to syria until we invaded, so we would not have had the chance to decide to invade there first.

this is obviously too much for your horribly biased mind to consider, so forget it. you answered my question anyway.


Who's on first?

What's on second?

paul young
12-01-2010, 03:07 PM
i find it hard to believe that any significant amount of military materiel could have been moved out of country or buried once the invasion had begun. that whole country was on lock-down surveillance from every intelligence source we posessed.-Paul

Roger Perry
12-01-2010, 03:09 PM
ah jeeze, i give up. ok, if we invaded iraq for wmd, and when we are there we find they moved them to syria, would you have agreed or not about going into iraq? that is the question. NOT whether we should then have invaded syria also. saddam would have no reason to move them to syria until we invaded, so we would not have had the chance to decide to invade there first.

this is obviously too much for your horribly biased mind to consider, so forget it. you answered my question anyway.

David, if we invaded Iraq, how would Saddam have gotten any WMD out of Iraq into Syria? There were way too many U.S. planes bombing and straffing Iraq for them to do anything. Saddam was too busy ducking and running to do anything.

david gibson
12-01-2010, 03:18 PM
David, if we invaded Iraq, how would Saddam have gotten any WMD out of Iraq into Syria? There were way too many U.S. planes bombing and straffing Iraq for them to do anything. Saddam was too busy ducking and running to do anything.


FOR THE LAST TIME I SAID I DIDNT WANT TO DISCUSS THIS ANY FURTHER, AND I ONLY WANTED A YES OR NO ANSWER, IF YOU CHOOSE NOT TO ANSWER THEN FINE, BUT YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO THEN DEMAND AN ANSWER FROM ME TO YOUR QUESTIONS.

but since you asked, why do you conveniently ignore the buried MIGs?

Roger Perry
12-01-2010, 03:30 PM
FOR THE LAST TIME I SAID I DIDNT WANT TO DISCUSS THIS ANY FURTHER, AND I ONLY WANTED A YES OR NO ANSWER, IF YOU CHOOSE NOT TO ANSWER THEN FINE, BUT YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO THEN DEMAND AN ANSWER FROM ME TO YOUR QUESTIONS.

but since you asked, why do you conveniently ignore the buried MIGs?

David, you're funny:lol: As far as the MIG's go, how well would they fly with sand in the engine and control pannels? And, the RTFer you mentioned that saw WMD in Iraq was supposedly during the first war with Iraq not the trumphed up war.

david gibson
12-01-2010, 03:38 PM
David, you're funny:lol: As far as the MIG's go, how well would they fly with sand in the engine and control pannels? And, the RTFer you mentioned that saw WMD in Iraq was supposedly during the first war with Iraq not the trumphed up war.

thats not the point - the point is they were able to do it. and you think i am the one being funny? and if you read about the event, some of the MIGs were wrapped in plastic anyway so not all were sand infested.

whos on first whats on second indeed. you are clueless.

Roger Perry
12-01-2010, 03:42 PM
thats not the point - the point is they were able to do it. and you think i am the one being funny? and if you read about the event, some of the MIGs were wrapped in plastic anyway so not all were sand infested.

whos on first whats on second indeed. you are clueless.

David, burried MIG's do not constitute WMD. And if we could find burried MIG's wouldn't WMD's be burried near them

Roger Perry
12-01-2010, 04:16 PM
thats not the point - the point is they were able to do it. and you think i am the one being funny? and if you read about the event, some of the MIGs were wrapped in plastic anyway so not all were sand infested.

whos on first whats on second indeed. you are clueless.

David, here is a link about the MIG's burried in the sand.


Last Updated: Friday, 1 August, 2003, 11:25 GMT 12:25 UK http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/shared/img/o.gif http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/img/v3/dot_629.gif

Iraqi aircraft 'buried in desert'


http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39350000/jpg/_39350731_iraqmig_ap203body.jpg The planes might never fly again

US forces in Iraq have discovered dozens of Iraqi fighter aircraft buried in the desert, US officials have said.
A Pentagon official told the Associated Press news agency that several MiG-25s and Su-25 attack planes were found hidden at al-Taqqadum air base west of Baghdad.
The planes were unearthed by teams hunting for alleged weapons of mass destruction.
The discovery comes as America's weapons inspector in Iraq say they are making solid progress in the search for banned weapons the US says Saddam Hussein was hiding.
Poking out of sand
"Our guys have found 30-something brand new aircraft buried in the sand to deny us access to them," said Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Republican Porter Goss.
"These are craft we didn't know about," he said.
At least one of the MiGs was found with its tail fins poking out of the sand, the agency quoted the Pentagon official as saying.
It said many of the planes were buried with little protection and might never fly again.
The Iraqi air force, believed to have numbered around 300 fighter planes, was not mobilised during the US-led war with Iraq earlier this year.
It is thought Saddam Hussein believed the ageing aircraft would be no match for American firepower, and sought to conceal them instead.

dnf777
12-01-2010, 04:16 PM
A jet buried in the desert with engines full of sand poses about as much of an airstrike threat as the USS Arizona poses a naval threat at the bottom of Pearl Harbor!

I think there are left over Civil War cannon shells scattered throughout Tennessee that are more of a threat to Americans that Saddam's interred air force.

Come to think of if, there are republicans in Congress that pose more of a threat!

Hew
12-01-2010, 04:40 PM
Another fair question is WHY DO YOU THINK WE WENT TO WAR in Iraq? Hew mentioned some non-sequitor about 9-11. Lets try to stick to the topic or Iraq. If he wants to avenge the 9-11 attack, we should be discussing bombing Bush's buddies in Saudi Arabia, where most of the hijakers, the mastermind, and the funding all came from.
LMAO. Now that's rich even by your standards. You claim 9-11 is a non-sequitor with respect to our invasion of Iraq and then in the same effing breath go off on some nonsense about Saudi Arabia. Really, there are never enough eye rolls available to respond to your hypocritical twaddle.

ducknwork
12-01-2010, 04:41 PM
Roger and dnf, I don't think the point of bringing up buried jets is that they would be able to fly again. I think the point my be more like....

IF they can hide something the size of a FREAKING AIRPLANE, they can probably hide smaller things just a tad easier, doncha think?

dnf777
12-01-2010, 04:54 PM
Roger and dnf, I don't think the point of bringing up buried jets is that they would be able to fly again. I think the point my be more like....

IF they can hide something the size of a FREAKING AIRPLANE, they can probably hide smaller things just a tad easier, doncha think?

Well, by that logic, we ought to bomb everybody! You might be hiding a jeep in your yard! Who knows what the Russians have buried? The Ethiopians?

Hey, they probably buries tens of tousands of soldiers too. In boxes the size of coffins! The ability to inter an object should come as no intel surprise. Hell, they might even be able to bury train lines......and call them subways!!! Stop the presses!

The fact that we uncovered the strategic capability of burying something the size of a mig, therefore proves he had WMDs and was posing a threat to the US reminds me of another intel chain of logic:

If she weighs the same as a duck.....then she's made of wood......


http://i982.photobucket.com/albums/ae306/dnf777/images-1.jpg

ducknwork
12-01-2010, 05:03 PM
Calm down, skippy, I am not saying that something IS there...I just find it odd that you and Rog completely deny the mere possibility that there could be WMDs hidden that we haven't found.

I mean, geeze, it's a country for pete's sake. If I was going to hide something and I had 168,753 sq miles to do it in, I could do a pretty darn good job and I would even bet you an RC Cola and a moon pie that you couldn't find it!

dnf777
12-01-2010, 05:08 PM
Calm down, skippy, I am not saying that something IS there...I just find it odd that you and Rog completely deny the mere possibility that there could be WMDs hidden that we haven't found.

I mean, geeze, it's a country for pete's sake. If I was going to hide something and I had 168,753 sq miles to do it in, I could do a pretty darn good job and I would even bet you an RC Cola and a moon pie that you couldn't find it!

I don't "completely deny the mere possibility" there were WMDs. Just that given the preponderance of valid evidence, as compiled by professional weapons inspectors and much other credible sources, I don't believe they were there. Sure, there is a mere possibility.....just like there is a mere possibility that the moon is made out of blue cheese. Its just not very likely, given most credible sources. ;-)

You know I'm razzin' ya, don't you?

dnf777
12-01-2010, 05:11 PM
LMAO. Now that's rich even by your standards. You claim 9-11 is a non-sequitor with respect to our invasion of Iraq and then in the same effing breath go off on some nonsense about Saudi Arabia. Really, there are never enough eye rolls available to respond to your hypocritical twaddle.

You're denying the majority of hijakers on 911 were Saudi? You're denying bin Laden is Saudi? Your'e denying that much radical-Islam terrorism is funded from Saudi dollars? Please tell me I misunderstood your comments.

ducknwork
12-01-2010, 05:19 PM
The absence of proof is not proof of absence...


Just sayin...

david gibson
12-01-2010, 05:28 PM
Roger and dnf, I don't think the point of bringing up buried jets is that they would be able to fly again. I think the point my be more like....

IF they can hide something the size of a FREAKING AIRPLANE, they can probably hide smaller things just a tad easier, doncha think?

quite a few planes at that - but why is it so hard for them to grasp that tiny concept? i am brain ead from this, i asked a simple y/n question, dnf is the only one to answer honestly, and the other two skirt and twist and spin, and miss the point completely.

why are you two afraid to answer the question??????

that settles it, i would hunt with dnf any time, the other two wouldnt be worth filling their waders with iced "number one"..

WaterDogRem
12-01-2010, 05:52 PM
quite a few planes at that - but why is it so hard for them to grasp that tiny concept? i am brain ead from this, i asked a simple y/n question, dnf is the only one to answer honestly, and the other two skirt and twist and spin, and miss the point completely.

why are you two afraid to answer the question??????

that settles it, i would hunt with dnf any time, the other two wouldnt be worth filling their waders with iced pi$$.

Oh DG, come on....the answer to your question is not on their HateBush4Life website, so they don't have a link or know how to answer your question.

david gibson
12-01-2010, 06:50 PM
Oh DG, come on....the answer to your question is not on their HateBush4Life website, so they don't have a link or know how to answer your question.

exactly. a simple yes or no. have i gone after dnf for his answer? no, i just wanted an honest answer. no follow up. but those two are so whacked out they are afraid of their own shadow.

and afraid to answer a simple question.

its really very simple - its just like you say, their hate bush at all costs agenda: if they answer yes - they look like good god fearing americans that want to see their country defended for the right reasons, but in this case their opinion is it was not for the right reasons. they admit that they would have agreed with Bush on that one issue - and they cant do that. that cant even concede that he likes the same music they do. so they spin and writhe and demand i answer their questions first. huh? demand??
and if they answer no, then they expose themselves as the neo 60's era pacifists they are who would spit on returning soldiers no matter what the war. no matter what iraq did, even if saddam orchestrated 9/11, they would be against it. i bet they are even secretly hoping we dont catch osama bin laden - after all, its bush and cheney that ordered the jets to crash into the twin towers, and bin laden is innocent. heck, i bet they will even braid their balding gray hair just like willie! ;-) after all, he also is a 9/11 truther.

really dispicable sorts. nice to know they are in the minority in the general population and the grossly vast minority amongst hunting and dog training folk!

i rest my case......

Joe S.
12-01-2010, 07:49 PM
I'm saying exactly that. Without 9/11 there never would have been an invasion of Iraq. You essentially said the same thing yourself so I don't know why you'd want to argue the point now:


Without the context of 9/11, no "damn tough call" is necessary and the US policy towards Iraq remains the same as it had been during the previous decade over the course of two different US administrations and multiple convened US Congresses.

Hey John,

One followed the other chronologically but I think you are advocating a cause and effect link that isn't there. 9/11 resulted in the invasion of Astan. The invasion of Iraq as part of the GWoT isn't established by the context of 9/11.

Suggesting the context of 9/11 as a reason for the Iraq invasion is lost on me when compared to North Korea, for example. North Korea already had WMD AND was on the list of State Sponsors of Terrorism. Seems to me they were more a GWoT threat than Iraq, but then they had a million person standing army and weren't sitting on oil reserves.

Be Well Regards,

Joe S.

YardleyLabs
12-01-2010, 08:21 PM
Yardley - simple question for you and any other libs:

IF the presence of WMD WAS verified, AND there was solid proof that it was all moved to Syria or buried in the sand, would you have supported the invasion of Iraq?

this is an honest question that requires only a simple yes or no answer, not 3 paragraphs, or even a sentence. i just want to see how deep we really have to go to find common ground.
I never saw or heard anything that sounded like credible evidence of a threat from Iraq in the years leading up to the invasion. The nation was effectively contained by the safeguards in place. That was not the case for the first war when we acted appropriately to protect our allies.

Saddam was a vicious dictator, but only a fool would have believed that we could invade the country and be welcomed as saviors by a people ready and able to throw off their chains. It was obvious to anyone who paid attention that the war would take years, produce tens of thousands of civilian deaths, destabilize the region, and leave us stuck in a quagmire, while doing nothing about those who attacked us on 9/11. Unfortunately, the administration led us all on a fool's mission. The judgments made were devastatingly stupid and even the most severe critics underestimated just how bad it would be.

david gibson
12-01-2010, 08:26 PM
You're denying the majority of hijakers on 911 were Saudi? You're denying bin Laden is Saudi? Your'e denying that much radical-Islam terrorism is funded from Saudi dollars? Please tell me I misunderstood your comments.

in all seriousness, why does nationality matter? the portland bomber wannabe is american, do we go to war with ourselves?

what would happen if we come upon a subversive from
Kenya??? do we invade them?

oh wait, we already have one of those......

david gibson
12-01-2010, 08:32 PM
I never saw or heard anything that sounded like credible evidence of a threat from Iraq in the years leading up to the invasion. The nation was effectively contained by the safeguards in place. That was not the case for the first war when we acted appropriately to protect our allies.

Saddam was a vicious dictator, but only a fool would have believed that we could invade the country and be welcomed as saviors by a people ready and able to throw off their chains. It was obvious to anyone who paid attention that the war would take years, produce tens of thousands of civilian deaths, destabilize the region, and leave us stuck in a quagmire, while doing nothing about those who attacked us on 9/11. Unfortunately, the administration led us all on a fool's mission. The judgments made were devastatingly stupid and even the most severe critics underestimated just how bad it would be.

and yet a third liberal avoiding the question. worse yet, you avoided it with 155 words that say nothing new, when i specifically asked for yes or no and not 3 paragraphs. oh well, i suppose you think just 2 paragraphs was ok. :rolleyes: sure, i dont have a right to make you answer, but one would think if you didnt want to answer you would just ignore it.

wow - you guys make dnf look like the only liberal with a pair.

david gibson
12-01-2010, 08:34 PM
i havent said this in a while, but gawd i hate liberals..........;-)

YardleyLabs
12-01-2010, 08:51 PM
and yet a third liberal avoiding the question. worse yet, you avoided it with 155 words that say nothing new, when i specifically asked for yes or no and not 3 paragraphs. oh well, i suppose you think just 2 paragraphs was ok. :rolleyes: sure, i dont have a right to make you answer, but one would think if you didnt want to answer you would just ignore it.

wow - you guys make dnf look like the only liberal with a pair.
First, the question is stupid. Basically you are asking if we would have agreed with the action taken if all the erroneous "intelligence" and bad judgments had actually been valid. The answer is that the intelligence was bad, the weakness of the intelligence was concealed to garner political support for the war, and the judgments made about the likely difficulty and duration of the war were outlandishly stupid. If our leadership hadn't been such fools, we never would have invaded. Of course the war was going to take years. Of course the war was going to cost hundreds of billions of dollars. Pakistan and Korea both possess wmd and were arguably more dangerous then and now. We don't invade them. As Russia disintegrated, nuclear and biological weapons were there for the taking. We didn't invade them. The only reason we invaded Iraq was because some fools in the administration thought it would be cheap, easy, and set the tone for warning all those other small, irritating governments that we were invincible. All it did was prove that military might is always trumped by stupidity. No, we should never have invaded Iraq absent an imminent threat, a well defined and constrained mission, and the resources and planning needed to succeed. We should certainly never have invaded unless were were prepared to pay the full cost of the war including, if needed, reinstituting the draft to avoid placing our troops in a situation where a back door draft was invoked to force reserves into long term active duty.

david gibson
12-01-2010, 09:01 PM
First, the question is stupid. Basically you are asking if we would have agreed with the action taken if all the erroneous "intelligence" and bad judgments had actually been valid. The answer is that the intelligence was bad, the weakness of the intelligence was concealed to garner political support for the war, and the judgments made about the likely difficulty and duration of the war were outlandishly stupid. If our leadership hadn't been such fools, we never would have invaded. Of course the war was going to take years. Of course the war was going to cost hundreds of billions of dollars. Pakistan and Korea both possess wmd and were arguably more dangerous then and now. We don't invade them. As Russia disintegrated, nuclear and biological weapons were there for the taking. We didn't invade them. The only reason we invaded Iraq was because some fools in the administration thought it would be cheap, easy, and set the tone for warning all those other small, irritating governments that we were invincible. All it did was prove that military might is always trumped by stupidity. No, we should never have invaded Iraq absent an imminent threat, a well defined and constrained mission, and the resources and planning needed to succeed. We should certainly never have invaded unless were were prepared to pay the full cost of the war including, if needed, reinstituting the draft to avoid placing our troops in a situation where a back door draft was invoked to force reserves into long term active duty.

its only a stupid question to you because you dont know how to answer it. i have never seen a simple yes/no question drive three liberals intosuch a panty frenzy like this. unbvelievable!

yardley, what part of yes or no do you not understand? if you dont want to answer it then dont do it. simple. your verbose spewing of liberal drivle that you have spewed a hundred times before is not what i wanted, just a simple yes or no -

and you are wholly incapable of that.

couldn't just say no, could you? tells me all i need to know - not that i didnt know it already.... :rolleyes:

depittydawg
12-01-2010, 09:04 PM
.......................

by "large chunk" you mean a tiny fraction of 1% of our entire GDP?
2 trillion might be chump change to you, but to most of us, its a nice piece of change that we could use now for many purposes.

keep going another couple of years and you'll come to a pivotal date in US history that had a significant impact on our foreign policy towards Iraq and a host of other countries.
You refer to 9-11. Yes a pivitol date indeed. The day of reconning for the President who dropped the ball on national security. Of couse an attack was needed to salvage his Presidency. Never mind the fact that he attacked the WRONG COUNTRY.

dnf777
12-01-2010, 09:07 PM
We should certainly never have invaded unless were were prepared to pay the full cost of the war including, if needed, reinstituting the draft to avoid placing our troops in a situation where a back door draft was invoked to force reserves into long term active duty.

Thank you for pointing out that oft neglected fact.
By all historical accounts, we should have had a draft in place to properly equip the army to carry out these missions. But hey, like Rummy said, you have to go to war with the army you got, not the one you want. (or the one that would be politically damaging to properly outfit via the draft)

depittydawg
12-01-2010, 09:08 PM
Yardley - simple question for you and any other libs:

IF the presence of WMD WAS verified, AND there was solid proof that it was all moved to Syria or buried in the sand, would you have supported the invasion of Iraq?

this is an honest question that requires only a simple yes or no answer, not 3 paragraphs, or even a sentence. i just want to see how deep we really have to go to find common ground.

Yep. Bush would have been vindicated. Unfortunately that never happened. In the end, Bush admitted we blew it on the WMD theory and changed his message to, "Saddam Hussein was a bad guy anyway".

dnf777
12-01-2010, 09:12 PM
in all seriousness, why does nationality matter?

My comments were in the context of answering Hew's comments about Saudi Arabia. Unless I misunderstood him, he seemed to imply it was nonsense to include S.A. in a discussion of 9-11. I hope he doesn't think Iraq was behind the attack. He's usually a smarter cookie than that.

Oh, and to answer your question above....if you're going to launch a full-scale military attack, and commit American lives to a cause...we ought to make sure we're hitting the right country, eh?

YardleyLabs
12-01-2010, 09:27 PM
its only a stupid question to you because you dont know how to answer it. i have never seen a simple yes/no question drive three liberals intosuch a panty frenzy like this. unbvelievable!

yardley, what part of yes or no do you not understand? if you dont want to answer it then dont do it. simple. your verbose spewing of liberal drivle that you have spewed a hundred times before is not what i wanted, just a simple yes or no -

and you are wholly incapable of that.

couldn't just say no, could you? tells me all i need to know - not that i didnt know it already.... :rolleyes:


Yardley - simple question for you and any other libs:

IF the presence of WMD WAS verified, AND there was solid proof that it was all moved to Syria or buried in the sand, would you have supported the invasion of Iraq?

this is an honest question that requires only a simple yes or no answer, not 3 paragraphs, or even a sentence. i just want to see how deep we really have to go to find common ground.

No unless there were a lot more evidence that the weapons were usable and an imminent risk to us that could not be eliminated through any more direct means. If the weapons had been moved to Syria, what sense would it have made to invade Iraq anyway? Many countries have WMD, although no country has as many as the United States. The issue has never been WMD, the issue is the presence or absence of a real threat to our security sufficient to justify a war with all the cost which that involves. I am not a pacifist. However, war has generally proven to be a crude, risky, and not very effective way of resolving problems between countries.

Joe S.
12-02-2010, 07:48 AM
Just once...one time...singular...

...on one topic...one only...individual...

...it would be nice to have a conversation with folks about an issue where it didn't degenerate into measuring penis or cup size. That said, I acknowledge that I've carried a measuring device from time to time myself and will refrain from using it in the future.

Fill In The Funny Line For Yourself Regards,

Joe S.

david gibson
12-02-2010, 08:21 AM
No unless there were a lot more evidence that the weapons were usable and an imminent risk to us that could not be eliminated through any more direct means. If the weapons had been moved to Syria, what sense would it have made to invade Iraq anyway? Many countries have WMD, although no country has as many as the United States. The issue has never been WMD, the issue is the presence or absence of a real threat to our security sufficient to justify a war with all the cost which that involves. I am not a pacifist. However, war has generally proven to be a crude, risky, and not very effective way of resolving problems between countries.


sounds as sincere as when ricky martin exclaimed that he wasnt gay.

so what would be your alternative to war? paper/rock/scissors? a yahtzee tournament?

utopianism regards

YardleyLabs
12-02-2010, 08:47 AM
sounds as sincere as when ricky martin exclaimed that he wasnt gay.

so what would be your alternative to war? paper/rock/scissors? a yahtzee tournament?

utopianism regards
The fact that you can't figure that out, and make such inane comparisons, may go a long way in explaining your behavior online. In case you haven't noticed, our entire economic and political system is built on using techniques to permit individuals to achieve, within limits, their personal objectives without stealing, mugging, or otherwise engaging in violence. Once you accept that the other guy's rights and desires are just as important as your own, the rest comes naturally.

david gibson
12-02-2010, 01:30 PM
The fact that you can't figure that out, and make such inane comparisons, may go a long way in explaining your behavior online. In case you haven't noticed, our entire economic and political system is built on using techniques to permit individuals to achieve, within limits, their personal objectives without stealing, mugging, or otherwise engaging in violence. Once you accept that the other guy's rights and desires are just as important as your own, the rest comes naturally.

you gotta be kidding me. of course nobody wants or likes war, save for a few mercenary types. but to ridicule me for laughing at your utopianism is ridiculous. if it is such a simple solution, why has nothing else worked? or are you truly the smartest person ever and the only one who can lead the world to a perfect playground? puhlease. there you go again, if people dont agree exactly with your viewpoint then they are just wriong.

imagine regards

dnf777
12-02-2010, 02:19 PM
if it is such a simple solution, why has nothing else worked?

Nothing else has worked?
Setting aside the multitudes of diplomatic solutions that have averted war throughout history, lets just talk about Iraq.

How were the sanctions and weapons inspections and no-fly zones "not working"? Were we being attacked by Iraq? Was an Iraqi attack upon our soil imminent?

Dave, I understand it may be hard to admit, but your boy rushed to war when it was neither just, nor necessary. And please spare us the authorizations for war (as a last resort, I may add) that were based on misleading information. Your guys had it WRONG, and acted WRONGLY upon that information. Big blunder that we will be paying for with blood and money for a long time. So will our kids and grand kids.

And wrapping it all up nicely with the justification, "Saddam was a bad guy anyway" doesn't hold creedence. There are LOTS of bad guys out there. If we allow ourselves to use that type of justification, we can pretty much declare war on anyone. That's not how the US operates.

david gibson
12-02-2010, 04:06 PM
you know, when it comes down to where the rubber meets the road, the fact is that you libs actually trust saddam hussen more than bush. you hate bush soooo much that you trust that a man who ordered adversaries fed into wood chippers feet first to have "done the right thing" and quietly disposed of WMD, without telling the UN, without producing proof to the UN, and all the while either denying or misleading the UN inspectors. now why would he do that if he "did the right thing"? and yet this is a man who used these WMDs on his own people and was known to be in possession of much more.

so - what did he do with them? if he disposed or destroyed them correctly why did he not do so openly?

so you guys trust the late saddam hussein more than your own former president. there is no way around it. spin all you want, but it all boils down to that, and that borders on shades of treason.

poor poor saddam, he was just misunderstood. perhaps if bush had apologized to him and just sat down to talks everything would have turned out just peachy.:rolleyes:

or they could have had a yahtzee tournament and the war completely averted..... ;-)

dnf777
12-02-2010, 04:19 PM
you know, when it comes down to where the rubber meets the road, the fact is that you libs actually trust saddam hussen more than bush.

Dave, dealing with such twisted logic is very difficult.
NOBODY would base going to war or not on the word of Saddam Hussein, and YOU KNOW IT. You instead choose to twist and manipulate to make it look like Jeff, or anyone else who isn't in you tent, would commit acts of treason?? (your word)

How about we look at the intelligence, in an unbiased, objective manner and arrive at a strategy concensus, like we have for the past 200 years, instead of having a select cadre of executive branch officials telling us to trust them, trust the memos and highly selected intel briefs they choose to release, and that we will see their reasons once the war is underway? Oh, but by then, if our logic falls apart, well, we have troops in harm's way so any further questioning is unpatriotic and akin to spitting on returning veterans?

How about we follow the Constitution, and restore the power to declare war to the people, via Congress, as it is clearly defined, rather than allowing ONE MAN to commit hundreds of thousands of troops and hundreds of billions of dollars to a personal agenda?

Is there anything socialist, liberal, or communist in what I said? I hope not, as my words are merely in support of the Constitution. You know, government of the people?

david gibson
12-02-2010, 04:28 PM
Dave, dealing with such twisted logic is very difficult.
NOBODY would base going to war or not on the word of Saddam Hussein, and YOU KNOW IT. You instead choose to twist and manipulate to make it look like Jeff, or anyone else who isn't in you tent, would commit acts of treason?? (your word)

How about we look at the intelligence, in an unbiased, objective manner and arrive at a strategy concensus, like we have for the past 200 years, instead of having a select cadre of executive branch officials telling us to trust them, trust the memos and highly selected intel briefs they choose to release, and that we will see their reasons once the war is underway? Oh, but by then, if our logic falls apart, well, we have troops in harm's way so any further questioning is unpatriotic and akin to spitting on returning veterans?

How about we follow the Constitution, and restore the power to declare war to the people, via Congress, as it is clearly defined, rather than allowing ONE MAN to commit hundreds of thousands of troops and hundreds of billions of dollars to a personal agenda?

Is there anything socialist, liberal, or communist in what I said? I hope not, as my words are merely in support of the Constitution. You know, government of the people?

still, you trust saddam to have gotten rid of wmd more than you trust bush to believe it was there - just like kerry and clinton ad nauseum ALL did as well..... spout all the anti bush hatred you want and wrap yourself in the constitution while you are at it, but thats the case.

YardleyLabs
12-02-2010, 04:55 PM
you know, when it comes down to where the rubber meets the road, the fact is that you libs actually trust saddam hussen more than bush. you hate bush soooo much that you trust that a man who ordered adversaries fed into wood chippers feet first to have "done the right thing" and quietly disposed of WMD, without telling the UN, without producing proof to the UN, and all the while either denying or misleading the UN inspectors. now why would he do that if he "did the right thing"? and yet this is a man who used these WMDs on his own people and was known to be in possession of much more.

so - what did he do with them? if he disposed or destroyed them correctly why did he not do so openly?

so you guys trust the late saddam hussein more than your own former president. there is no way around it. spin all you want, but it all boils down to that, and that borders on shades of treason.

poor poor saddam, he was just misunderstood. perhaps if bush had apologized to him and just sat down to talks everything would have turned out just peachy.:rolleyes:

or they could have had a yahtzee tournament and the war completely averted..... ;-)
Once again, you leap to absurd conclusions with no basis at all. Nobody ever suggested trusting Saddam Hussein. The man was a vicious dictator. However, it is not clear that his government was dramatically worse, say, than Saudi Arabia. In fact, for a long time we viewed him more as an ally because he had a secular government and acted as a bulwark against Iran. In fact, the CIA provided specific information to Iraq in 1984 to assist it in targeting chemical warfare attacks on Iran. The bottom line is that our former President and his neo-con groupies led us to war based on faulty intelligence manipulated for political purposes. When there own investigations proved that there was no militarily significant WMD program or weapons in Iraq before the 2003 invasion, they began redefining the purpose of the war to one dedicated to ridding the world of Saddam because he wasn't a nice guy.

The conclusion that there were no WMD in Iraq is not some liberal invention as you suggest. It was the conclusion of the Bush Administration's Iraq Survey Group following exhaustive investigations after the invasion. As to why the weapons were destroyed without records or publicity, there are multiple theories. First, there was a major effort in 1991 to destroy all identifiable weapons caches and there is no evidence that any significant reserves were left behind or that Iraq was able to continue WMD development after 1991. Thus, there may simply not have been anything to destroy. Second, many believe that Saddam was more worried about internal enemies and his neighbors than he was about the US. He believed that the threat of WMD would deter efforts to overthrow his government and consequently welcomed ambiguity about whether or not such weapons continued to exist. However, after spending hundreds of millions of dollars investigating every possible lead, the Iraq Survey Group concluded that there was no evidence of a militarily significant WMD or WMD programs at any time following the 1991 Gulf War. The strongest argument made was that if the efforts to contain the regime were relaxed that Saddam would have been likely to try to reconstitute his WMD programs. However, it is clear that the UN inspection program and the allied containment efforts were effective in curbing Iraq's abilities to act against other countries.

dnf777
12-02-2010, 06:42 PM
still, you trust saddam to have gotten rid of wmd more than you trust bush to believe it was there - just like kerry and clinton ad nauseum ALL did as well..... spout all the anti bush hatred you want and wrap yourself in the constitution while you are at it, but thats the case.


I don't trust Saddam, so please stop saying that. I trust very few people, in fact.

I wouldn't trust Saddam Hussein or George W. Bush as far as I could throw the both of them together in one decoy bag. With Saddam, its because he's evil. With Bush, I don't think he was evil, but incompetent and highly susceptible to influence. That's my opinion, and I'm stickin' to it.

david gibson
12-02-2010, 08:34 PM
I don't trust Saddam, so please stop saying that. I trust very few people, in fact.

I wouldn't trust Saddam Hussein or George W. Bush as far as I could throw the both of them together in one decoy bag. With Saddam, its because he's evil. With Bush, I don't think he was evil, but incompetent and highly susceptible to influence. That's my opinion, and I'm stickin' to it.

but you trust what you think saddam did over bush.


just admit it, you will feel better. all your past arguements about false wmd expose your lies, you and all the other libs trusted saddam more than bush, period. cannot be denied. you trust that there were no wmd's, so you trust saddam "did the right thing", and bush was wrong. pitiful, really.

riiiight.

it borders on shades of treason - and its all painted on you!

what patsies you libs are. i am about out of hooks and i have a fun weekend planned, so have fun justifying your beliefs. wont sway any of us who know better.......:rolleyes:

dnf777
12-02-2010, 08:55 PM
but you trust what you think saddam did over bush.


just admit it, you will feel better. all your past arguements about false wmd expose your lies, you and all the other libs trusted saddam more than bush, period. cannot be denied. you trust that there were no wmd's, so you trust saddam "did the right thing", and bush was wrong. pitiful, really.

riiiight.

it borders on shades of treason - and its all painted on you!

what patsies you libs are. i am about out of hooks and i have a fun weekend planned, so have fun justifying your beliefs. wont sway any of us who know better.......:rolleyes:

Must be "gay pride" weekend in Houston?
Don't bring home anything that you can't wash off!

Now I'm off to the tree stand next two mornings, then picking up half a steer. Never tried a Belted Galloway, but heard they good and tender.

Steve Hester
12-02-2010, 08:57 PM
First, the question is stupid. Basically you are asking if we would have agreed with the action taken if all the erroneous "intelligence" and bad judgments had actually been valid. The answer is that the intelligence was bad, the weakness of the intelligence was concealed to garner political support for the war, and the judgments made about the likely difficulty and duration of the war were outlandishly stupid. If our leadership hadn't been such fools, we never would have invaded. Of course the war was going to take years. Of course the war was going to cost hundreds of billions of dollars. Pakistan and Korea both possess wmd and were arguably more dangerous then and now. We don't invade them. As Russia disintegrated, nuclear and biological weapons were there for the taking. We didn't invade them. The only reason we invaded Iraq was because some fools in the administration thought it would be cheap, easy, and set the tone for warning all those other small, irritating governments that we were invincible. All it did was prove that military might is always trumped by stupidity. No, we should never have invaded Iraq absent an imminent threat, a well defined and constrained mission, and the resources and planning needed to succeed. We should certainly never have invaded unless were were prepared to pay the full cost of the war including, if needed, reinstituting the draft to avoid placing our troops in a situation where a back door draft was invoked to force reserves into long term active duty.

There no stupid questions, only stupid answers..........:cool:

YardleyLabs
12-02-2010, 09:45 PM
There no stupid questions, only stupid answers..........:cool:
You and your wife are driving to LA in the middle of January. Istead, after hundreds of miles of snowmen and hours of having your wife yell that you should ask someone (anyone) for directions, you find yourself in Minneapolis. You turn to her and say, "But dear, if all my turns had been right would you still be saying I should have asked for directions?" That is a stupid question, and similar to the one asked by Gibson.

M&K's Retrievers
12-02-2010, 10:03 PM
You and your wife are driving to LA in the middle of January. Istead, after hundreds of miles of snowmen and hours of having your wife yell that you should ask someone (anyone) for directions, you find yourself in Minneapolis. You turn to her and say, "But dear, if all my turns had been right would you still be saying I should have asked for directions?" That is a stupid question, and similar to the one asked by Gibson.

We may all be dumber for having read this post.

I'll show you mine if you show me yours regards, :rolleyes:

depittydawg
12-02-2010, 10:29 PM
still, you trust saddam to have gotten rid of wmd more than you trust bush to believe it was there - just like kerry and clinton ad nauseum ALL did as well..... spout all the anti bush hatred you want and wrap yourself in the constitution while you are at it, but thats the case.

Does it help you in your belief system to place such an absurd black and white lens over the world around you? We, meaning the vast majority of people in the country and on the planet, think George Bush, along with his cabal and many others. made an incredibly bad decision to invade Iraq. In fact, in retrospect he made many incredibly bad decisions. Because we accept that fact your mindset concludes that we all trusted Saddam Hussein.? Please explain this logic?

depittydawg
12-02-2010, 10:32 PM
We may all be dumber for having read this post.



That is impossible. You were already hopeless before you read the post. It doesn't get any worse than that.

M&K's Retrievers
12-02-2010, 10:50 PM
That is impossible. You were already hopeless before you read the post. It doesn't get any worse than that.

As I recall you took that honor in an earlier poll.

sandyg
12-02-2010, 10:50 PM
To all my conservative patriots on this thread, this just in...

shitmydadsays
"Everyone thinks their opinion matters. Don't argue with a nobody. A farmer doesn't bother telling a pig his breath smells like shit."




Unless you enjoy getting in the mud with the pig (the Cliff Clavens, liberals and so-called independents) I suggest we just ignore their posts. Without a reaction from us they'll stop hijacking our threads and will start their own. As convoluted and hypocritical as their arguments are, they'll be arguing among themselves in no time! Then we can sit back and enjoy the fireworks!

mjh345
12-03-2010, 03:32 AM
you know, when it comes down to where the rubber meets the road, the fact is that you libs actually trust saddam hussen more than bush. you hate bush soooo much that you trust that a man who ordered adversaries fed into wood chippers feet first to have "done the right thing" and quietly disposed of WMD, without telling the UN, without producing proof to the UN, and all the while either denying or misleading the UN inspectors. now why would he do that if he "did the right thing"? and yet this is a man who used these WMDs on his own people and was known to be in possession of much more.

so - what did he do with them? if he disposed or destroyed them correctly why did he not do so openly?

so you guys trust the late saddam hussein more than your own former president. there is no way around it. spin all you want, but it all boils down to that, and that borders on shades of treason.

poor poor saddam, he was just misunderstood. perhaps if bush had apologized to him and just sat down to talks everything would have turned out just peachy.:rolleyes:

or they could have had a yahtzee tournament and the war completely averted..... ;-)

Poor misunderstood David. He is just asking for a yes or no answer to a hypothetical question pertaining to WMD's.

When people wont answer the hypothetical question it is because their hatred for Bush is only matched by their love for Sadaam Hussein.

The fact that Bush himself admitted that the WMD hypothetical is erroneous means nothing in poor little Davey's world.

So let me answer your hypothetical for you Dave.

My answer is YES!!!
You also have the smartest, best looking dog in the world.

Now go WIN your 2nd Hunt Test this weekend.

Isn't it hell being a Blue ribbon guy stuck in an Orange ribbon world?

Reality SUCKS regards

dnf777
12-03-2010, 05:49 AM
I thought we all tried to curtail the 4-letter words, at the Janitor's kind request?

ducknwork
12-03-2010, 11:59 AM
To all my conservative patriots on this thread, this just in...

shitmydadsays
"Everyone thinks their opinion matters. Don't argue with a nobody. A farmer doesn't bother telling a pig his breath smells like shit."




Unless you enjoy getting in the mud with the pig (the Cliff Clavens, liberals and so-called independents) I suggest we just ignore their posts. Without a reaction from us they'll stop hijacking our threads and will start their own. As convoluted and hypocritical as their arguments are, they'll be arguing among themselves in no time! Then we can sit back and enjoy the fireworks!




GENIUS!!!



....not...

Roger Perry
12-03-2010, 01:00 PM
exactly. a simple yes or no. have i gone after dnf for his answer? no, i just wanted an honest answer. no follow up. but those two are so whacked out they are afraid of their own shadow.

and afraid to answer a simple question.

its really very simple - its just like you say, their hate bush at all costs agenda: if they answer yes - they look like good god fearing americans that want to see their country defended for the right reasons, but in this case their opinion is it was not for the right reasons. they admit that they would have agreed with Bush on that one issue - and they cant do that. that cant even concede that he likes the same music they do. so they spin and writhe and demand i answer their questions first. huh? demand??
and if they answer no, then they expose themselves as the neo 60's era pacifists they are who would spit on returning soldiers no matter what the war. no matter what iraq did, even if saddam orchestrated 9/11, they would be against it. i bet they are even secretly hoping we dont catch osama bin laden - after all, its bush and cheney that ordered the jets to crash into the twin towers, and bin laden is innocent. heck, i bet they will even braid their balding gray hair just like willie! ;-) after all, he also is a 9/11 truther.

really dispicable sorts. nice to know they are in the minority in the general population and the grossly vast minority amongst hunting and dog training folk!

i rest my case......

David, here is an answer that I have stated before. When Dumbya, Cheney and Powell said that Iraq had WMD I, like Congress and the American people, believed him and thought invading Iraq was the right thing to do. However in the years following the invasion we learned there were no WMD and that Dumbya had been told by the CIA that Iraq did not possess any WMD therefore Dumbya should have informed the Congress and American people of the CIA report that there may not be any WMD in Iraq. We could have saved the lives of over 4,000 of our Military personnel and over 100,000 lives of innocent Iraqi civilians if Dumbya had told the whole truth instead of invading a small Country with no means of defending itself just for the sake of Dumbya's ego.

ducknwork
12-03-2010, 03:18 PM
Soooo....

You were for it before you were against it?:p

Roger Perry
12-04-2010, 09:22 AM
Soooo....

You were for it before you were against it?:p

As were 99% of the people in America. Guess Dumbya was a good liar.:confused:

Roger Perry
12-04-2010, 10:16 AM
exactly. a simple yes or no. have i gone after dnf for his answer? no, i just wanted an honest answer. no follow up. but those two are so whacked out they are afraid of their own shadow.

and afraid to answer a simple question.

its really very simple - its just like you say, their hate bush at all costs agenda: if they answer yes - they look like good god fearing americans that want to see their country defended for the right reasons, but in this case their opinion is it was not for the right reasons. they admit that they would have agreed with Bush on that one issue - and they cant do that. that cant even concede that he likes the same music they do. so they spin and writhe and demand i answer their questions first. huh? demand??
and if they answer no, then they expose themselves as the neo 60's era pacifists they are who would spit on returning soldiers no matter what the war. no matter what iraq did, even if saddam orchestrated 9/11, they would be against it. i bet they are even secretly hoping we dont catch osama bin laden - after all, its bush and cheney that ordered the jets to crash into the twin towers, and bin laden is innocent. heck, i bet they will even braid their balding gray hair just like willie! ;-) after all, he also is a 9/11 truther.

really dispicable sorts. nice to know they are in the minority in the general population and the grossly vast minority amongst hunting and dog training folk!

i rest my case......

Well David, I did answer your question. Now here is a hypothetical question for you.

If President Obama came out and said Venezuela (not a very favorite country of the U.S. and a big oil producing country) has WMD and would use them against the United States, would it be alright for Obama to claim the CIA had proof of it and Congress and the American people fell for it to invade Venezuela?

depittydawg
12-04-2010, 11:39 AM
As were 99% of the people in America. Guess Dumbya was a good liar.:confused:

99%? I don't think so. I saw through the charade from day one? In fact, during the first five minutes of the first debate with Gore, I pegged Bush to be an air head and a liar. It sucks to be right sometimes.

road kill
12-04-2010, 11:58 AM
99%? I don't think so. I saw through the charade from day one? In fact, during the first five minutes of the first debate with Gore, I pegged Bush to be an air head and a liar. It sucks to be right sometimes.



HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Really!!!???!!!???:cool:



RK

sandyg
12-04-2010, 02:18 PM
99%? I don't think so. I saw through the charade from day one? In fact, during the first five minutes of the first debate with Gore, I pegged Bush to be an air head and a liar. It sucks to be right sometimes.

Wow! Compared to Gore? You ARE touched in the head.

M&K's Retrievers
12-04-2010, 07:19 PM
99%? I don't think so. I saw through the charade from day one? In fact, during the first five minutes of the first debate with Gore, I pegged Bush to be an air head and a liar. It sucks to be right sometimes.

And you would know that how?

depittydawg
12-04-2010, 07:43 PM
And you would know that how?

The past speaks for itself moron. Quit ignoring it and you too might actually make a valid decision someday. Although, I seriously doubt it. You, like many around here, are blinded by your ideology.

sandyg
12-04-2010, 09:54 PM
The past speaks for itself moron. Quit ignoring it and you too might actually make a valid decision someday. Although, I seriously doubt it. You, like many around here, are blinded by your ideology.

And you're not?!?!? What a maroon!!!!

david gibson
12-04-2010, 10:10 PM
And you're not?!?!? What a maroon!!!!

dippity?? a maroon? hell no, he isnt smart enough to be a texas a&m aggie, not even close. and that aint sayin' much... :-)

or did you mean moron? heck, he aint that smart either... ;-)

met mike of M&K retrievers today and his lovely wife kathy, what a dear she is - great folks! also ate great BBQ cooked by angie beckers hubby tim. strong cold winds but no rain so what a great test weekend! this club has put on a great test so far! and technical water??? OMG there is too much to use in a year.......

dnf777
12-05-2010, 07:29 AM
dippity?? a maroon? hell no, he isnt smart enough to be a texas a&m aggie, not even close. and that aint sayin' much... :-)

or did you mean moron? heck, he aint that smart either... ;-)

met mike of M&K retrievers today and his lovely wife kathy, what a dear she is - great folks! also ate great BBQ cooked by angie beckers hubby tim. strong cold winds but no rain so what a great test weekend! this club has put on a great test so far! and technical water??? OMG there is too much to use in a year.......


I bet most folks here are half decent, when face to face. Mebbe even you, Gib! ;)

depittydawg
12-05-2010, 10:17 AM
I bet most folks here are half decent, when face to face. Mebbe even you, Gib! ;)

That's an interesting thought. And probably true. So what makes them so rude and belligerent on the web? Why do people behave and talk here in ways they would probably never use face to face?

Roger Perry
12-05-2010, 01:20 PM
Wow! Compared to Gore? You ARE touched in the head.

I'm betting if Gore had been elected he would have paid more attention to the warnings by the CIA given to Dumbya in August of 2001 and may actually have averted the planes flying into the WTC, would not have lied about WMD in Iraq therefore we would never have gotten into a war with Afghanistan or Iraq.

sandyg
12-05-2010, 01:40 PM
I'm betting if Gore had been elected he would have paid more attention to the warnings by the CIA given to Dumbya in August of 2001 and may actually have averted the planes flying into the WTC, would not have lied about WMD in Iraq therefore we would never have gotten into a war with Afghanistan or Iraq.

Based on what history? Gore was and still is a piece of wood. To think that he would have averted the planes is pure fantasy!!!!

Roger Perry
12-05-2010, 03:05 PM
Based on what history? Gore was and still is a piece of wood. To think that he would have averted the planes is pure fantasy!!!!

Bush was told in August 2001 by the CIA of an impending attack. He did a real good job of averting an attack and keeping our Country safe didn't he.:rolleyes:

duckheads
12-05-2010, 04:59 PM
I'm betting if Gore had been elected he would have paid more attention to the warnings by the CIA given to Dumbya in August of 2001 and may actually have averted the planes flying into the WTC, would not have lied about WMD in Iraq therefore we would never have gotten into a war with Afghanistan or Iraq.

Give me a break. Talk about being blinded by their ideology. Gore is a freaking moron and you think he has a crystal ball. Man you independants never cease to amaze me.

ducknwork
12-05-2010, 06:48 PM
That's an interesting thought. And probably true. So what makes them so rude and belligerent on the web? Why do people behave and talk here in ways they would probably never use face to face?

So you are saying that Roger is a really huge Bush fan in real life?:confused:

M&K's Retrievers
12-05-2010, 09:20 PM
That's an interesting thought. And probably true. So what makes them so rude and belligerent on the web? Why do people behave and talk here in ways they would probably never use face to face?

Pot, say hello to Kettle.

M&K's Retrievers
12-05-2010, 09:36 PM
.... also ate great BBQ cooked by angie beckers hubby tim. strong cold winds but no rain so what a great test weekend! this club has put on a great test so far! and technical water??? OMG there is too much to use in a year.......

Pin Oak is an unbelievable facility and the DFWLRC puts on a great test and feed! Glad we got to meet you and looking forward to seeing your pics.

david gibson
12-06-2010, 08:44 PM
Pot, say hello to Kettle.

are you calling me a kettle???? booooyyyy....you better be glad i didnt see you after reading that! ;-)

david gibson
12-06-2010, 08:47 PM
That's an interesting thought. And probably true. So what makes them so rude and belligerent on the web? Why do people behave and talk here in ways they would probably never use face to face?

i dont. anything i say to you libs in potus i would say to your face. maybe even more - well, in your case, definitely more. ;)

M&K's Retrievers
12-06-2010, 08:58 PM
are you calling me a kettle???? booooyyyy....you better be glad i didnt see you after reading that! ;-)

No. That was meant for DS.

JDogger
12-06-2010, 10:55 PM
Pin Oak is an unbelievable facility and the DFWLRC puts on a great test and feed! Glad we got to meet you and looking forward to seeing your pics.

So...nothing on EE yet. How did you and Gibson do?

JD

david gibson
12-06-2010, 11:23 PM
So...nothing on EE yet. How did you and Gibson do?

JD

perfect to the very last bird, waited a tad to long to decide to handle, got a couple of cast refusals but the final 2 casts - one momentum then a nice 30 yd literal angle back over open water, were nice. that and that alone killed me, the page was full of nothing but 8-10s. the judges were very tough, 49 dogs to 36 dogs to 16 in series 3, 11 qualified. 14 of 16 dogs handled on that last mark.

there were only 7 handlers in that last series, only 2 am trainer/handlers so it was a pretty strong field at that point and i am honored to have been amongst them. getting an applause out of a group like that on one blind in the second series was a high point of the weekend. so it was a definite dissappointment but at the same time definitely encouraging.

JDogger
12-07-2010, 12:13 AM
perfect to the very last bird, waited a tad to long to decide to handle, got a couple of cast refusals but the final 2 casts - one momentum then a nice 30 yd literal angle back over open water, were nice. that and that alone killed me, the page was full of nothing but 8-10s. the judges were very tough, 49 dogs to 36 dogs to 16 in series 3, 11 qualified. 14 of 16 dogs handled on that last mark.

there were only 7 handlers in that last series, only 2 am trainer/handlers so it was a pretty strong field at that point and i am honored to have been amongst them. getting an applause out of a group like that on one blind in the second series was a high point of the weekend. so it was a definite dissappointment but at the same time definitely encouraging.

Cool...I well understand. JD

M&K's Retrievers
12-07-2010, 12:14 AM
So...nothing on EE yet. How did you and Gibson do?

JD

Saturday, Angus decided to "CHOMP" the bird (and I do mean chomp) before deciding to deliver what was left of it to hand. I told the judge the duck was still good enough for gumbo. No sale. Jessie cheated the bank on the second water mark so 0-2 on Saturday. :(

Sunday, both dogs passed.

Kathy said David took some great pics of Jessie on Saturday but i haven't seen them yet. I think they will be on his web page soon.

JDogger
12-07-2010, 12:28 AM
Saturday, Angus decided to "CHOMP" the bird (and I do mean chomp) before deciding to deliver to hand. I told the judge the duck was still good enough for gumbo. No sale. Jessie cheated the bank on the second water mark so 0-2 on Saturday. :(

Sunday, both dogs passed.

Congrats! :)

Kathy said David took some great pics of Jessie on Saturday but i haven't seen them yet. I think they will be on his web page soon.

I got a coop full of white pigeons. Want 'em? Its only 600 miles.;-)

I've been thinking of turning them loose since I don't use them for training any longer...but then they would just roost on the house.

Wrap them in barb-wire...hard mouth goes away.:cool:

JD

M&K's Retrievers
12-07-2010, 12:51 AM
I got a coop full of white pigeons. Want 'em? Its only 600 miles.;-)

I've been thinking of turning them loose since I don't use them for training any longer...but then they would just roost on the house.

Wrap them in barb-wire...hard mouth goes away.:cool: Nails work pretty well.

JD

I'm not falling for that trick. I drive out there, bring the pigeons back only to have them fly back to your place. :rolleyes:

WALDMAN79
12-25-2010, 11:48 PM
So, are you saying that Clinton had never been warned of said attacks prior to getting out of office?

Time line: January 2001-President Bush takes office
September 11, 2001- Worst terror attack in American History

You are telling me that it only took 7 months to plan and pull off this attack?
Clinton had been warned repeatedly about this and he didn't do anything about it either. You even say in one your posts that sources had been warning the government for years prior to attack. Doesn't add up Gilligan, 7 months doesn't make years.

I REMEMBER HEARING SOMEWHERE THAT CLINTON REFUSED TO TAKE OUT BIN LADEN WHEN US SPECIAL FORCES KNEW WHERE HE WAS, IF THAT IS INDEED TRUE THEN THERE IS A WHOLE LOT MORE HERE THAN JUST BUSH.

WALDMAN79
12-26-2010, 12:08 AM
dippity?? a maroon? hell no, he isnt smart enough to be a texas a&m aggie, not even close. and that aint sayin' much... :-)

or did you mean moron? heck, he aint that smart either... ;-)

met mike of M&K retrievers today and his lovely wife kathy, what a dear she is - great folks! also ate great BBQ cooked by angie beckers hubby tim. strong cold winds but no rain so what a great test weekend! this club has put on a great test so far! and technical water??? OMG there is too much to use in a year.......

PRETTY SURE THAT MAROON REMARK WAS A BUGS BUNNY REFERENCE, WAS I THE ONLY ONE WHO CAUGHT THAT?

Roger Perry
12-26-2010, 10:17 AM
I REMEMBER HEARING SOMEWHERE THAT CLINTON REFUSED TO TAKE OUT BIN LADEN WHEN US SPECIAL FORCES KNEW WHERE HE WAS, IF THAT IS INDEED TRUE THEN THERE IS A WHOLE LOT MORE HERE THAN JUST BUSH.

Here are some answers:
The tape proves the Clinton administration was aggressively tracking al-Qaida a year before 9/11. But that also raises one enormous question: If the U.S. government had bin Laden and the camps in its sights in real time, why was no action taken against them?
“We were not prepared to take the military action necessary,” said retired Gen. Wayne Downing, who ran counter-terror efforts for the current Bush administration and is now an NBC analyst.

Global dragnet (http://www.msnbc.com/modules/global_dragnet/default.asp) “We should have had strike forces prepared to go in and react to this intelligence, certainly cruise missiles — either air- or sea-launched — very, very accurate, could have gone in and hit those targets,” Downing added.
Gary Schroen, a former CIA station chief in Pakistan, says the White House required the CIA to attempt to capture bin Laden alive, rather than kill him.
What impact did the wording of the orders have on the CIA’s ability to get bin Laden? “It reduced the odds from, say, a 50 percent chance down to, say, 25 percent chance that we were going to be able to get him,” said Schroen.

In reality, getting bin Laden would have been extraordinarily difficult. He was a moving target deep inside Afghanistan. Most military operations would have been high-risk. What’s more, Clinton was weakened by scandal, and there was no political consensus for bold action, especially with an election weeks away.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4540958/
So, was Clinton supposed to start a war and then put everything in the lap of the next President (Democrat or Republican?)

By January, there was a new administration. At the urging of the CIA, President Bush decided to arm the Predator with deadly Hellfire missiles, so the next time bin Laden was spotted, the United States could take a shot. But it didn't happen before 9/11. Why?

Daniel Benjamin, a member of President Clinton's counter-terrorism team, charges the Bush administration moved too slowly getting armed Predators ready and did not send unarmed Predators back to look for bin Laden.
"We tied an arm behind our back,” said Benjamin. “We lost the most promising new tool we had."
Part of the problem, everyone agrees, is bureaucratic infighting between the CIA and the Pentagon over who would pay and who would be blamed if something went wrong.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4549030/ns/nightly_news/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4549030/ns/nightly_news/)

Roger Cressey, a terrorism expert in both Democratic and Republican administrations and now an NBC News analyst.
Now Cressey is speaking out for the first time. He says in the early days of the Bush administration (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4556388/ns/nightly_news/#), al-Qaida simply was not a top priority, “There was not this sense of urgency. The ticking clock, if you will, to get it done sooner rather than later.”
Cressey and other witnesses have told the 9/11 commission of long gaps between terrorism meetings and greater time and energy devoted to Russia, China, missile defense and Iraq than al-Qaida.
Is Cressey saying that some senior members of the Bush administration viewed Saddam Hussein as a greater threat to the United States than Osama bin Laden? “Oh, absolutely. Absolutely. It was inconceivable to them that al-Qaida could be this talented, this capable without Iraq, in this case, providing them real support."
So President Bush was more worried that Iraq was a greater threat to the U.S. than al Queda in January of 2001?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4556388/ns/nightly_news/

ducknwork
12-27-2010, 09:10 AM
[What’s more, Clinton was weakened by scandal, and there was no political consensus for bold action, especially with an election weeks away.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4540958/
So, was Clinton supposed to start a war and then put everything in the lap of the next President (Democrat or Republican?)

So you are saying that Clinton and the democrats put election results and a BJ in front of our national security on the priority list?

Roger Perry
12-27-2010, 12:20 PM
So you are saying that Clinton and the democrats put election results and a BJ in front of our national security on the priority list?

Just what you have had Clinton do, start a war because if Clinton had decided to drop bombs on Afghanistan that would have been an act of war. From what I have read there was not even a positive identification of Bin Laden just pictures taken from a droan plane miles above Afghanistan showing a tall person in a white robe.

david gibson
12-27-2010, 12:27 PM
Just what you have had Clinton do, start a war because if Clinton had decided to drop bombs on Afghanistan that would have been an act of war. From what I have read there was not even a positive identification of Bin Laden just pictures taken from a droan plane miles above Afghanistan showing a tall person in a white robe.

that was him! clinton failed to take him out, therefore he is responsible for 9/11.

ducknwork
12-27-2010, 12:33 PM
Just what you have had Clinton do, start a war because if Clinton had decided to drop bombs on Afghanistan that would have been an act of war. From what I have read there was not even a positive identification of Bin Laden just pictures taken from a droan plane miles above Afghanistan showing a tall person in a white robe.

Roger, even the article you posted admitted that Clinton didn't do anything about him because he was too busy dealing with the fallout of his BJ and also didn't want to start anything because elections were right around the corner. It would sure be a shame to hurt the poll numbers...

Roger Perry
12-27-2010, 01:00 PM
Roger, even the article you posted admitted that Clinton didn't do anything about him because he was too busy dealing with the fallout of his BJ and also didn't want to start anything because elections were right around the corner. It would sure be a shame to hurt the poll numbers...
What poll numbers are you talking about?????????????? Clinton had served his 2 terms as president and therrefore could not be re-elected. Again, I am asking you if Clinton should have started a war with Afghanistan only weeks before the election of a new President ???????????

And, did it not also state in the article that Clinton wanted to capture Bin Laden and have taken him alive????????????

Roger Perry
12-27-2010, 01:02 PM
that was him! clinton failed to take him out, therefore he is responsible for 9/11.

Ahhhhhhhhhhhh David you sure know how to tell a good joke. Very funny:BIG::BIG::BIG::BIG:

Roger Perry
12-28-2010, 02:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ducknwork http://new.retrievertraining.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://new.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?p=723499#post723499)
Roger, even the article you posted admitted that Clinton didn't do anything about him because he was too busy dealing with the fallout of his BJ and also didn't want to start anything because elections were right around the corner. It would sure be a shame to hurt the poll numbers...

What poll numbers are you talking about?????????????? Clinton had served his 2 terms as president and therrefore could not be re-elected. Again, I am asking you if Clinton should have started a war with Afghanistan only weeks before the election of a new President ???????????

And, did it not also state in the article that Clinton wanted to capture Bin Laden and have taken him alive????????????

Again Ducknwork I am asking you if Clinton should have started a war in the few months before he left office by dropping bombs on Afghanistan???????? Could you answer that please. You may answer with a yes or a no or even elaborate.

ducknwork
12-29-2010, 06:33 AM
Again Ducknwork I am asking you if Clinton should have started a war in the few months before he left office by dropping bombs on Afghanistan???????? Could you answer that please. You may answer with a yes or a no or even elaborate.

Calm down skippy.

If dropping bombs was the right thing to do in order to keep America safe at the time and into the future, then yes, he should have done it. It really doesn't matter when he was leaving office, if it needed to be done, it needed to be done.

If I am at work and one of my pieces of equipment breaks down 15 minutes before I am supposed to go home, I don't leave it for the next guy to fix because it is almost quitting time. It is my responsibility to get it fixed and I either stay and work with him to get it running or get started and get it fixed to a point where he can handle it on his own.

If there was a credible source that told GWB on December 31, 2007 that a potentially dangerous terrorist group leader was located in a certain area and we could take him out with the command to do so and Bush chose not to because it was almost Obama's turn, would you give him a pass on it as well?

paul young
12-29-2010, 08:23 AM
ummm... Duck, the POTUS can't "stay over" and help out the next POTUS if he can't finish something he started. ask Obama......

poor analogy, i think.-Paul

ducknwork
12-29-2010, 09:22 AM
ummm... Duck, the POTUS can't "stay over" and help out the next POTUS if he can't finish something he started. ask Obama......

poor analogy, i think.-Paul

I thought you geniuses could look over that part and see what I meant.:roll: I should have known better.

Poor reading comprehension and critical thinking, I think -duck

So you think that it is acceptable to not take action of any sort to help protect America simply because you are about to leave office? If so, that may be the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.

dnf777
12-29-2010, 03:59 PM
I thought you geniuses could look over that part and see what I meant.:roll: I should have known better.




Welcome to the club! :D

Cody Covey
12-29-2010, 06:30 PM
Welcome to the club! :D
It's not that bad of an analogy since you can offer advice guidance to the next president...there are pictures of GWB doing it with Obama..

ducknwork
12-29-2010, 10:20 PM
I guess I should call Roger out for not answering yet another question like he did to me...It's been a whopping 16 hours since I asked it.

ducknwork
12-29-2010, 10:21 PM
It's not that bad of an analogy since you can offer advice guidance to the next president...there are pictures of GWB doing it with Obama..

Thanks, I thought it made pretty good sense as well.

Colonel Blimp
12-30-2010, 07:41 AM
I rarely bother with giving an opinion on US domestic matters but I see the original question as an international issue, so here goes.

In the sense that Mr. Bush was President at the time, and it was his decision to go into Iraq, and most of the mistakes committed there happened on his watch, then yes, it's all down to him. Tony Bliar (not a spelling mistake) was also culpable but not not the prime mover.

Mr Bush and his supporters had a view of the world and Iraq that was fatally flawed. They had a vision of securing a big Middle East oil supply for the US, establishing a beacon of democracy, and removing a threat to Israel (and giving a boost to Likud); all good neocon stuff. WMDs were in my view just a convenient smokescreen, as were the subsequent reasons offered including the chimera of Al Quaida being backed by Saddam, and his involvement in 9/11. The real motor of the invasion was the administration seeing an opportunity to put their political beliefs to the test.

They did not foresee the changes they planned in regional politics would make Iran the most powerful player. They never knew that Iraq was a deeply divided artificial country that would would fissure irreparably along Sunni / Shiite lines.

Mr Bush, plus Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz and the rest all believed that the US / UK forces would be welcomed with open arms, and that all advice to the contrary from internal and external sources could be ignored. Rumsfeld literally threw a 900 page CIA briefing document into the bin. They had no plans of what to do after the military success; indeed they deliberately avoided any involvement in the process of democratisation; remember the fate of Garner and the early bugging out by Bremer, and the refusal of Rumsfeld to deploy the Army and marines as a peacekeeping force?

The result of these and other gross political miscalculations has been catastrophic, not least for the US. From being the most admired force for good in the world, with a huge groundswell of support and sympathy after 9/11, .... well you know how it is now, as well as I do.

IMO history will deal harshly with GBII and so it should.

regards
Eug

david gibson
12-30-2010, 08:22 AM
I rarely bother with giving an opinion on US domestic matters but I see the original question as an international issue, so here goes.

In the sense that Mr. Bush was President at the time, and it was his decision to go into Iraq, and most of the mistakes committed there happened on his watch, then yes, it's all down to him. Tony Bliar (not a spelling mistake) was also culpable but not not the prime mover.

Mr Bush and his supporters had a view of the world and Iraq that was fatally flawed. They had a vision of securing a big Middle East oil supply for the US, establishing a beacon of democracy, and removing a threat to Israel (and giving a boost to Likud); all good neocon stuff. WMDs were in my view just a convenient smokescreen, as were the subsequent reasons offered including the chimera of Al Quaida being backed by Saddam, and his involvement in 9/11. The real motor of the invasion was the administration seeing an opportunity to put their political beliefs to the test.

They did not foresee the changes they planned in regional politics would make Iran the most powerful player. They never knew that Iraq was a deeply divided artificial country that would would fissure irreparably along Sunni / Shiite lines.

Mr Bush, plus Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz and the rest all believed that the US / UK forces would be welcomed with open arms, and that all advice to the contrary from internal and external sources could be ignored. Rumsfeld literally threw a 900 page CIA briefing document into the bin. They had no plans of what to do after the military success; indeed they deliberately avoided any involvement in the process of democratisation; remember the fate of Garner and the early bugging out by Bremer, and the refusal of Rumsfeld to deploy the Army and marines as a peacekeeping force?

The result of these and other gross political miscalculations has been catastrophic, not least for the US. From being the most admired force for good in the world, with a huge groundswell of support and sympathy after 9/11, .... well you know how it is now, as well as I do.

IMO history will deal harshly with GWII and so it should.

regards
Eug

tells me all i need to know.....

Roger Perry
12-30-2010, 12:20 PM
Calm down skippy.

If dropping bombs was the right thing to do in order to keep America safe at the time and into the future, then yes, he should have done it. It really doesn't matter when he was leaving office, if it needed to be done, it needed to be done.

If I am at work and one of my pieces of equipment breaks down 15 minutes before I am supposed to go home, I don't leave it for the next guy to fix because it is almost quitting time. It is my responsibility to get it fixed and I either stay and work with him to get it running or get started and get it fixed to a point where he can handle it on his own.

If there was a credible source that told GWB on December 31, 2008 that a potentially dangerous terrorist group leader was located in a certain area and we could take him out with the command to do so and Bush chose not to because it was almost Obama's turn, would you give him a pass on it as well?

Starting a war is not as easy to fix as a piece of equipment breaking down. From what I have read, Bin Laden was not positively identified. The drone planes were not equiped with bombs and were used just for survalence. Bin Laden and his group were not always in the same place day after day and Clinton chose to try to capture Bin Laden with the aid of the CIA instead of trying to kill him.

To answer the bold part of your question, December 31, 2007 would have been after the elections in November 2007 and I am sure Mr. Bush would have consulted Obama and asked his opinion on what course of action he should take and not just start a war and then say to Obama, here take it from here.

Roger Perry
12-30-2010, 12:22 PM
I guess I should call Roger out for not answering yet another question like he did to me...It's been a whopping 16 hours since I asked it.

By the way, I have not been on a computer for the last 2 days.

mjh345
12-30-2010, 12:44 PM
FYI Roger & Duck any war started on Dec 31 2007 would have still had been with over a year of Bush's term still to go; He couldn't have consulted with the incoming pres because he wouldn't have known who that would be

david gibson
12-30-2010, 12:47 PM
Starting a war is not as easy to fix as a piece of equipment breaking down. .

really?? you dont say!!!???!!!

again, you fail to grasp the concept of an analogy. psssst: they arent intended to be exact situations - a analogy is a simplified situation to help people like you to understand the more complex issue. apparently impossible to do for you.

Roger Perry
12-30-2010, 12:51 PM
FYI Roger & Duck any war started on Dec 31 2007 would have still had been with over a year of Bush's term still to go; He couldn't have consulted with the incoming pres because he wouldn't have known who that would be

You are certainly correct. I ammended my post to read december 31, 2008