The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 4 of 21 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 201

Thread: WMD --- It Was All Bush or Was It ?

  1. #31
    Senior Member Buzz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Brookings, South Dakota
    Posts
    6,941

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by road kill View Post
    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/a...rd-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.
    "For everyone to whom much is given, of him shall much be required." -- Luke 12:48

    Raven - Moneybird's Black Magic Marker***
    (Esprit's Power Play x Trumarc's Lean Cuisine)
    Mick - Moneybird's Jumpin' Jack Flash***
    (Clubmead's Road Warrior x Oakdale Whitewater Devil Dog)
    Peerless - Moneybird's Sole Survivor
    (Two River's Lucky Willie x Moneybird's Black Magic Marker)

  2. #32
    Senior Member road kill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    New Berlin, WI
    Posts
    10,893

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Buzz View Post
    I realize that was a joke, but NO!


    You can find the answer to your questions here:

    http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/a...rd-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
    Stan b & Elvis

  3. #33
    Senior Member Tim Thomas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Madisonville, Texas
    Posts
    291

    Default

    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.....
    You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it

  4. #34
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Port St. Lucie, Fl
    Posts
    3,611

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tim Thomas View Post
    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.

  5. #35
    Senior Member Tim Thomas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Madisonville, Texas
    Posts
    291

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Perry View Post
    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.
    You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it

  6. #36
    Senior Member Uncle Bill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Rapid City, SD
    Posts
    4,289

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Perry View Post
    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
    When the one you love becomes a memory, that memory becomes a treasure.

  7. #37
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Port St. Lucie, Fl
    Posts
    3,611

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Uncle Bill View Post
    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/washing...6-cheney_N.htm

  8. #38
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Port St. Lucie, Fl
    Posts
    3,611

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tim Thomas View Post
    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/bl...9/06/bush_wmd/

    Nor was the intelligence included in the National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002, which stated categorically that Iraq possessed WMD. 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 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. 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.
    Last edited by Roger Perry; 11-29-2010 at 02:25 PM.

  9. #39
    Senior Member menmon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    2,315

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Perry View Post
    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/bl...9/06/bush_wmd/
    Like I said, we wanted that war.

  10. #40
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Port St. Lucie, Fl
    Posts
    3,611

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sambo View Post
    Like I said, we wanted that war.
    No, Bush wanted that war.

Posting Permissions

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