The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 22 of 24 FirstFirst ... 122021222324 LastLast
Results 211 to 220 of 231

Thread: Why did the US "really" invade Iraq?

  1. #211
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    3,131

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by caryalsobrook View Post
    The statement which you and mj refer was made AFTER we went to war with Iraq. Accusing him of lying after the invasion is entirely different than accusing him of lying before the invasion. If you choose to accuse him of lying BEFORE the invasion, then in order to be consistant and TRUTHFUL you must also accuse Clinton and all the others that so vvehemently accused Iraq of having WMD's in 1998. The intel was the same for all of them and those who so stated in1998 had access to it long before GWB. If Bush lied before the invasion THEN SO DID THEY!! To say or ignore otherwise is to ignore the facts.

    Just for clarity's sake, I believe the war with Iraq was a mistake, if for no other reason, because it failed to accomplish its goals and objectives.

    I will also say here that I have great respect for Mj. Our differing of opinion will never give me cause to change. Knowing that he is a lawyer and my family being full of them, I do believe that dentists and lawyers use different thought processes in analysis. I was amused that he used the phrase "little white lie". I would almost be willing to bet that he HAS NEVER referred to a statement made by his client as "a little white lie". Any other option would be much better. On the other hand, I would bet that he has never referred to a statement made by the other side as "a little white lie". If the other side made it, IT WOULD BE A GREAT BIG LIE I don't hold that against him. That is just what lawyers do.
    Cary, you sure you are a dentist?
    You still haven't overtly admitted that it was a lie.. WHICH IT WAS!!
    You trying to minimize GWB's lie by clouding the issue with BS about whether it was before or after the war started seems kinda like a litigious bent is in your genes!! You asked for an example of him lying; no contingencies on timing. A lie is a lie regardless f when it is told
    Congrats on your Grand Pass Keep up the good work

  2. #212
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    SW Minnesota
    Posts
    2,106

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by caryalsobrook View Post
    The statement which you and mj refer was made AFTER we went to war with Iraq. Accusing him of lying after the invasion is entirely different than accusing him of lying before the invasion. If you choose to accuse him of lying BEFORE the invasion, then in order to be consistant and TRUTHFUL you must also accuse Clinton and all the others that so vvehemently accused Iraq of having WMD's in 1998. The intel was the same for all of them and those who so stated in1998 had access to it long before GWB. If Bush lied before the invasion THEN SO DID THEY!! To say or ignore otherwise is to ignore the facts.

    Just for clarity's sake, I believe the war with Iraq was a mistake, if for no other reason, because it failed to accomplish its goals and objectives.

    I will also say here that I have great respect for Mj. Our differing of opinion will never give me cause to change. Knowing that he is a lawyer and my family being full of them, I do believe that dentists and lawyers use different thought processes in analysis. I was amused that he used the phrase "little white lie". I would almost be willing to bet that he HAS NEVER referred to a statement made by his client as "a little white lie". Any other option would be much better. On the other hand, I would bet that he has never referred to a statement made by the other side as "a little white lie". If the other side made it, IT WOULD BE A GREAT BIG LIE I don't hold that against him. That is just what lawyers do.
    Yes, I mentioned several times it was after the war started that he made the statement, I think one would have to a fool to believe that a man who blatantly lied two months into the war to further his agenda, wasn't capable of lying three months prior, especially given the circumstances leading up to it. Do you honestly believe that every member of Congress has access to all the information the President has? Why the need to subpoena White House documents in even Junior members of Congress get access to all data the President has?

  3. #213
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Shelbyville, Tn
    Posts
    1,455

    Default

    [QUOTE=mjh345;1226232]Cary, you sure you are a dentist?
    You still haven't overtly admitted that it was a lie.. WHICH IT WAS!!
    You trying to minimize GWB's lie by clouding the issue with BS about whether it was before or after the war started seems kinda like a litigious bent is in your genes!! You asked for an example of him lying; no contingencies on timing. A lie is a lie regardless f when it is told
    Congrats on your Grand Pass Keep up the good work[/QUOT

    Yes, I think there is a big difference before and after the start of the war. To deliberately alter intel to start a war would be a lie. To jump to conclusions that chemical weapons would be present initially when they found the laboratories was not. Takes time to test for chemicals that might be WMD's and he should not have made such a claim until testing was done. I don't think GWB knowingly claimed that WMD's were present in the labs when he knew full well they were not. I don't even know the time frame when he made the claim and when he corrected himself.

    I don't use the word "liar" casually. In fact there have been times even here that someone has used it and I have refrained from doing so. That goes both when leveled against both dems and reps. I have only used it here when discussing theoretical situations and never relative to an individual. All have their right to their opinions. It may make them wrong but in my opinion, it doesn't make them liars, only wrong.

    By the way, thanks for the congrats. Passing the Grand does give me pleasure but just being around the handlers and those who give so willingly of their time and effort to put it on, is such a joy for me. Such a great sport this has been for me.
    Last edited by caryalsobrook; 06-09-2014 at 02:07 AM.

  4. #214
    Senior Member schusker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Pawleys Island South Carolina
    Posts
    159

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mngundog View Post
    Yes, I mentioned several times it was after the war started that he made the statement, I think one would have to a fool to believe that a man who blatantly lied two months into the war to further his agenda, wasn't capable of lying three months prior, especially given the circumstances leading up to it. Do you honestly believe that every member of Congress has access to all the information the President has? Why the need to subpoena White House documents in even Junior members of Congress get access to all data the President has?
    "Never mind that, in building the case for war in Iraq, President George W. Bush relied on the unanimous opinion of all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies. Never mind that the bipartisan Robb-Silberman commission examined the intelligence on which Bush relied, and unanimously found that "the Intelligence Community did not make or change any analytic judgments in response to political pressure. ... We conclude that it was the paucity of intelligence and poor analytical tradecraft, rather than political pressure, that produced the inaccurate pre-war intelligence assessments."

    Like I said earlier, there is a difference in being wrong and lying. If you are going to brand Bush a liar for this, then Obama is a pathological liar.
    Last edited by schusker; 06-09-2014 at 07:42 AM.
    Blackfoot's Tide is Right Pistor
    Cacao Yates
    CD RE CGC CPE L-3

  5. #215
    Senior Member swampcollielover's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    MO
    Posts
    1,889

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by schusker View Post
    "Never mind that, in building the case for war in Iraq, President George W. Bush relied on the unanimous opinion of all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies. Never mind that the bipartisan Robb-Silberman commission examined the intelligence on which Bush relied, and unanimously found that "the Intelligence Community did not make or change any analytic judgments in response to political pressure. ... We conclude that it was the paucity of intelligence and poor analytical tradecraft, rather than political pressure, that produced the inaccurate pre-war intelligence assessments."

    Like I said earlier, there is a difference in being wrong and lying. If you are going to brand Bush a liar for this, then Obama is a pathological liar.
    Oh come'on Schusker.....don't confuse this with a bunch of facts......! Our forum 'Bush Haters' rely on all the good media spin....not these facts...

  6. #216
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    3,131

    Default

    [QUOTE=caryalsobrook;1226271]
    Quote Originally Posted by mjh345 View Post
    Cary, you sure you are a dentist?
    You still haven't overtly admitted that it was a lie.. WHICH IT WAS!!
    You trying to minimize GWB's lie by clouding the issue with BS about whether it was before or after the war started seems kinda like a litigious bent is in your genes!! You asked for an example of him lying; no contingencies on timing. A lie is a lie regardless f when it is told
    Congrats on your Grand Pass Keep up the good work[/QUOT

    Yes, I think there is a big difference before and after the start of the war. To deliberately alter intel to start a war would be a lie. To jump to conclusions that chemical weapons would be present initially when they found the laboratories was not. Takes time to test for chemicals that might be WMD's and he should not have made such a claim until testing was done. I don't think GWB knowingly claimed that WMD's were present in the labs when he knew full well they were not. I don't even know the time frame when he made the claim and when he corrected himself.

    I don't use the word "liar" casually. In fact there have been times even here that someone has used it and I have refrained from doing so. That goes both when leveled against both dems and reps. I have only used it here when discussing theoretical situations and never relative to an individual. All have their right to their opinions. It may make them wrong but in my opinion, it doesn't make them liars, only wrong.

    By the way, thanks for the congrats. Passing the Grand does give me pleasure but just being around the handlers and those who give so willingly of their time and effort to put it on, is such a joy for me. Such a great sport this has been for me.
    Keep wiggling Cary. To say that we found the WMD's is to state that it is a done deal, fait accompli and verified fact. There is no room for conjecture.
    The fact that they had not found the WMD's when he said they had found them makes it a LIE

    I agree with you on one of the main pleasure of doggy games being the meeting of like minded doggy people.

    I recently started running Masters with my young dogs. We have had a little success accumulating 10 Master passes, not bad for 13 & 14 month old youngsters.
    More importantly we have met a lot of great people, shared a lot of laughs and had a lot of fun

    FYI You and others seem to imply that if I point out GWB's faults that that means I am an Obama supporter. Nothing could be further from the truth. I'm just able to see wrongs {and hypocrisy} regardless of party affiliation.

    Continued Good Luck with your dogs, Cary, and I hope to see you at the line soon
    On this forum you don't need to bring Obama's errors to light. There is a large vocal contingent that does that. Sadly Mr Obama keeps gives them plenty of material

  7. #217
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    SW Minnesota
    Posts
    2,106

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by schusker View Post
    "Never mind that, in building the case for war in Iraq, President George W. Bush relied on the unanimous opinion of all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies. Never mind that the bipartisan Robb-Silberman commission examined the intelligence on which Bush relied, and unanimously found that "the Intelligence Community did not make or change any analytic judgments in response to political pressure. ... We conclude that it was the paucity of intelligence and poor analytical tradecraft, rather than political pressure, that produced the inaccurate pre-war intelligence assessments."

    Like I said earlier, there is a difference in being wrong and lying. If you are going to brand Bush a liar for this, then Obama is a pathological liar.
    Schusker, two months into the war Junior said we found weapons of mass destruction, what happened to them? ..... They never found any....he was lying.....

  8. #218
    Senior Member schusker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Pawleys Island South Carolina
    Posts
    159

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mngundog View Post
    Schusker, two months into the war Junior said we found weapons of mass destruction, what happened to them? ..... They never found any....he was lying.....
    No he wasn't.

    On May 16, 2004, a 152 mm artillery shell was used as an improvised bomb.[97] The shell exploded and two U.S. soldiers were treated for minor exposure to a nerve agent (nausea and dilated pupils). On May 18 it was reported by U.S. Department of Defense intelligence officials that tests showed the two-chambered shell contained the chemical agent sarin, the shell being "likely" to have contained three to four liters of the substance (in the form of its two unmixed precursor chemicals prior to the aforementioned explosion that had not effectively mixed them).[96] Former U.S. weapons inspector David Kay told the Associated Press that "he doubted the shell or the nerve agent came from a hidden stockpile, although he didn't rule out that possibility." Kay also considered it possible that the shell was "an old relic overlooked when Saddam said he had destroyed such weapons in the mid-1990s."[98] It is likely that the insurgents who planted the bomb did not know it contained sarin, according to Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, and another U.S. official confirmed that the shell did not have the markings of a chemical agent.[98] The Iraq Survey Group later concluded that the shell "probably originated with a batch that was stored in a Al Muthanna CW complex basement during the late 1980s for the purpose of leakage testing."[97]
    In a July 2, 2004, article published by The Associated Press and Fox News, it was reported that sarin gas warheads dating back to the last Iran–Iraq War were found in South Central Iraq by Polish Allies. The Polish troops secured munitions on June 23, 2004,[99] but it turned out that the warheads did not in fact contain sarin gas but "were all empty and tested negative for any type of chemicals"—and it transpired that the Poles had bought the shells for $5,000 each.[100] The United States abandoned its search for WMDs in Iraq on January 12, 2005.


    "We have not yet found stocks of weapons, but we are not yet at the point where we can say definitively either that such weapon stocks do not exist or that they existed before the war and our only task is to find where they have gone. We are actively engaged in searching for such weapons based on information being supplied to us by Iraqis."
    "With regard to delivery systems, the ISG team has discovered sufficient evidence to date to conclude that the Iraqi regime was committed to delivery system improvements that would have, if OIF had not occurred, dramatically breached UN restrictions placed on Iraq after the 1991 Persian Gulf War."

    Chemical Weapons Recovered[edit]

    On June 21, 2006 the U.S. House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence released key points from a classified report from the National Ground Intelligence Center on the recovery of a small number of degraded chemical munitions in Iraq. The report stated that "Coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent." All are thought to be pre-Gulf War munitions.[120]
    These munitions meet the technical definition of weapons of mass destruction, according to the commander of the National Ground Intelligence Center. "These are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and yes ... they do constitute weapons of mass destruction," Army Col. John Chu told the House Armed Services Committee. The munitions addressed in the report were produced in the 1980s, Maples said. Badly corroded, they could not currently be used as originally intended, though agent remaining in the weapons would be very valuable to terrorists and insurgents, Maples said.[121]
    Last edited by schusker; 06-09-2014 at 10:03 AM.
    Blackfoot's Tide is Right Pistor
    Cacao Yates
    CD RE CGC CPE L-3

  9. #219
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    SW Minnesota
    Posts
    2,106

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by schusker View Post
    No he wasn't.

    On May 16, 2004, a 152 mm artillery shell was used as an improvised bomb.[97] The shell exploded and two U.S. soldiers were treated for minor exposure to a nerve agent (nausea and dilated pupils). On May 18 it was reported by U.S. Department of Defense intelligence officials that tests showed the two-chambered shell contained the chemical agent sarin, the shell being "likely" to have contained three to four liters of the substance (in the form of its two unmixed precursor chemicals prior to the aforementioned explosion that had not effectively mixed them).[96] Former U.S. weapons inspector David Kay told the Associated Press that "he doubted the shell or the nerve agent came from a hidden stockpile, although he didn't rule out that possibility." Kay also considered it possible that the shell was "an old relic overlooked when Saddam said he had destroyed such weapons in the mid-1990s."[98] It is likely that the insurgents who planted the bomb did not know it contained sarin, according to Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, and another U.S. official confirmed that the shell did not have the markings of a chemical agent.[98] The Iraq Survey Group later concluded that the shell "probably originated with a batch that was stored in a Al Muthanna CW complex basement during the late 1980s for the purpose of leakage testing."[97]
    In a July 2, 2004, article published by The Associated Press and Fox News, it was reported that sarin gas warheads dating back to the last Iran–Iraq War were found in South Central Iraq by Polish Allies. The Polish troops secured munitions on June 23, 2004,[99] but it turned out that the warheads did not in fact contain sarin gas but "were all empty and tested negative for any type of chemicals"—and it transpired that the Poles had bought the shells for $5,000 each.[100] The United States abandoned its search for WMDs in Iraq on January 12, 2005.


    "We have not yet found stocks of weapons, but we are not yet at the point where we can say definitively either that such weapon stocks do not exist or that they existed before the war and our only task is to find where they have gone. We are actively engaged in searching for such weapons based on information being supplied to us by Iraqis."
    "With regard to delivery systems, the ISG team has discovered sufficient evidence to date to conclude that the Iraqi regime was committed to delivery system improvements that would have, if OIF had not occurred, dramatically breached UN restrictions placed on Iraq after the 1991 Persian Gulf War."

    Chemical Weapons Recovered[edit]

    On June 21, 2006 the U.S. House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence released key points from a classified report from the National Ground Intelligence Center on the recovery of a small number of degraded chemical munitions in Iraq. The report stated that "Coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent." All are thought to be pre-Gulf War munitions.[120]
    These munitions meet the technical definition of weapons of mass destruction, according to the commander of the National Ground Intelligence Center. "These are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and yes ... they do constitute weapons of mass destruction," Army Col. John Chu told the House Armed Services Committee. The munitions addressed in the report were produced in the 1980s, Maples said. Badly corroded, they could not currently be used as originally intended, though agent remaining in the weapons would be very valuable to terrorists and insurgents, Maples said.[121]
    Nice try, did he tell the lie when he said we found WMD, or did he lie when he said no WMD were found? The information you provide happened almost a year AFTER he said we found them.

  10. #220
    Senior Member schusker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Pawleys Island South Carolina
    Posts
    159

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mngundog View Post
    Nice try, did he tell the lie when he said we found WMD, or did he lie when he said no WMD were found? The information you provide happened almost a year AFTER he said we found them.
    Ok, please attribute your information then so I can research it myself.
    Blackfoot's Tide is Right Pistor
    Cacao Yates
    CD RE CGC CPE L-3

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •