And this is one of those times. (See link)
Yes, it is sad.
But I still believe the public can eventually realize the truth when it is staring them in the face - it just takes time.
How many here believe that Iraq, and specifically Hussein, had ties to Al Qaeda before the US invasion? How many believe Hussein had ties to the WTC attack? How many believe in the WMD argument Bush used?
It's beyond question that Al Qaeda is in Iraq now - but what about before?
I think it's evident from my postings, but I'll list my beliefs:
1) No pre-war ties to Al Qaeda
2) No Iraq involvement in the attacks
3) No WMD 'imminent threat' as posited by the administration.
1) No pre-war ties to Al Qaeda
2) No Iraq involvement in the attacks
3) No WMD 'imminent threat' as posited by the administration.
My Answers:
1) Possibly, but not a substantial threat
2) Absolutely no involvement
3) No WMD 'imminent threat' as posited by the administration.
I think it's obvious that GW Jr. took his fathers agenda file, blew the dust off of it, and checked off the 'ol to-do list. He found any excuse necessary.
Iraq was never a threat to the U.S. - except for their control of oil.
I am ashamed that Bush Jr. is our leader - and I'm a republican ... maybe its time to re-think my party.
But there is no need to change your party ticket, just vote for Kerry this time around.
Another flaw with our country - two party choices. I don't like either one. Maybe I'll vote independent this time around. Not like the EU, where there are multiple partys which have an equal chance at winning.
How many here believe that Iraq, and specifically Hussein, had ties to Al Qaeda before the US invasion?
1) No pre-war ties to Al Qaeda, the two sides actually disliked each other, and Bush was warned that the only real thing that would bind them together would be OUR involvement.
How many believe Hussein had ties to the WTC attack?
2) No Iraq involvement in the attacks, Al Qaeda yes, Iraq NO.
How many believe in the WMD argument Bush used?
3) No WMD 'imminent threat' as lied to us by the administration.
It's beyond question that Al Qaeda is in Iraq now - but what about before?
4) Not in a political connection sense, maybe individuals in transit, but nothing the governments were backing.
Recently I was asked to be involved in a consumer survey held by a nationwide survey company. They sent out Palm Pilots, I think they were the first model made, difficult to read, impossible in natural light, and very slow.
I called to complain about the unit, the person on the other end said, "As long as you make at least 4 entries per day we will count your results" The survey was about beverages. The type you drank, when you drank them, the amount, (they wanted they actual ozs. and how often. When I asked about the results being skewed by this practice the person on the other end claimed that was the margin of error.
I have been doing online surveys for them for several years. The survey will not move forward until you answer the question with their answer. If you put in an answer that they do not like it tells you that you made an error and to go back and fix it.
Just 2 examples of how surveys are not what they appear.
The occassional free-lancer in an Al Qaida cell might have had some contact with Iraqis, but this was NEVER sanctioned by the Al Qaida leadership, and in fact, was expressly opposed by Bin Laden and Al Zawahiri, who despised Saddam as a secular devil.
Also, Iraq had absolutely ZERO involvement in 9/11.
And to the extent that there WERE any WMDs, Saddam maintained them for the purpose of subjugating the Iraqi populace, and for defense, and they were never a threat to us unless we invaded them, for lack of any delivery mechanism, or, for that matter, even any program to develop a delivery mechanism
Both Clinton and Kerry believed Saddam had WMD'S. Just listen to some of their past statements.
What kind of delivery system were you looking for a ballistic missile, How about a suit case does that count as a delivery system.
You got to admit he know how to make them and he very well could have sold or given them to any terror group. ( Like the occassional free lancer from Al Qaida).
I don't thing we were worry about a missile hitting NY or Chicago but someone coming over with a small box and that's all it would have taken to take out more people that 9/11.
I for one feel safer with him gone.
The operative word is "had" WMD's
Bush unequivocally said Iraq HAS them. And still says he has them right now.
That is the lie Bush pushed to start his War on Iraq.
And BTW it was ther Reagan Regime that provided anthrax to Iraq in the 80s.
TET
The way I heard it was GWB was briefed on Iraq and it's WMD potential by some CIA nerd. He apparently responded "that's all you've got", casting doubt on the idea, then Tenant stepped in and said it's a "slam dunk" WMD's are there. From that, and if it is true, I think it is reasonable to conclude that GWB relied on bad intelligence when he and CP made statements to that end.
Lastly, I do not think it is unreasonable to believe what ever Saddam had got shipped off to Syria in the weeks and days leading up to the war.
As Woodward book makes clear, our best intelligence said that he still had them. So your premise is faulty. A "lie" is a knowing misrepresentation of fact (kinda like "Ah did not have sex with that woman ... Ms. Lewinsky"). Bush may have been wrong, but it was a mistake borne of Saddam's deceptions, not Bush's or the CIA's.
Moreover, Saddam assumed the burden in the Gulf War I cease fire agreements to demonstrate that he didn't have them/no longer had them/had destroyed them and wasn't developing more. This was a burden that he never met under the inspection regime. Even Hans Blix concedes that point.
So "had" is not the "operative word." It is a predicate fact. Predicate to the proposition that Saddam either did or did not demonstrate that which he was required to demonstrate as a condition of stopping the first Gulf War. That he did not was justification alone for what we did in Iraq, a policy or regime change adopted, I remind you again, by Congress and Slick Willie's administration in 1998.
As in, Saddam is Buying Yellowcake in Niger. Specifically stated in the 2003 State of the Union Message, AFTER Joseph Wilson briefed George Tenet, and Tenet briefed Bush that this was False.
That, my friend, is a LIE, used to intentionally mislead the nation into war. Period. There is no other way to shade this.
And when Bush got called out for this specific lie, someone in the Administration committed TREASON by outing Joseph Wilson's wife Victoria Plame from a deep cover CIA operative position.
So, we have a Lie specifically to justify a war, and Treason to punish those who called out the lie. What else do you need to establish that Bush is unfit for office?
-- Modified on 4/27/2004 11:29:41 AM
A cum stained blue dress 
lol
oops, didn't mean to answer for james & brbite 
Here's the REAL "knowing misrepresentation":
"As in, Saddam is Buying Yellowcake in Niger. Specifically stated in the 2003 State of the Union Message, AFTER Joseph Wilson and George Tenet briefed Bush that this was False." (sdstud, April 26, 2004)
Now here are the actual facts of what Bush said and why he said it:
“[W]e judge that Iraq has sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa, despite having no active civil nuclear power programme that could require it.” (Government of Great Britain, “Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction,” September 24, 2002
“The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” (President Bush, State of the Union Address, January 28, 2003)
“The evidence that we had that the Iraqi government had gone back to try to purchase further amounts of uranium from Niger did not come from so-called ‘forged’ documents. They came from separate intelligence.” (British PM Tony Blair, July, 2003)
“At the time that the State of the Union address was prepared, there were also other sources that said that they were, the Iraqis were seeking yellow cake uranium oxide from Africa. And that was taken out of a British report. Clearly, that particular report, we learned subsequently, subsequently was not credible.” (National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, ABC “This Week with George Stephanapolous,” June 8, 2003)
Joseph Wilson said that his conclusions "were LIKELY forwarded to the vice president, who made the initial inquiry." Wilson never directly briefed the President (nor did he brief the VP) as you claim. If you can show proof that Bush KNOWINGLY misrepresented the uranium claims then show it. You are either ignorant of the facts, or deliberately twisting them to fit your political agenda.
RLTW
Thanks for running down the facts, actual quotations, and citations. I'll rant here, and speak to what I remember reading (with appropriate hedges where my memory is fuzzy, or fails me), but my knowledge is not so encyclopaedic that I'll cite authority. It's difficult to waste that much time on those who are so scrupulously ignorant of the facts. I appreciate your effort to do so.
And, in either case, the remedy is the same: Remove the bungling or perjorous administration from power as soon as possible, for the sake of the Republic.
Personally, I don't think that the case for widespread incompetence among the Bush Administration is credible, and intentional malfeasance the only other explanation. But, if you DO believe that this administration is so incompetent as to get us into a wrongheaded and tragic war BY ACCIDENT, by all means, make that case - I'm all ears.
Because it should be patently obvious that the only explanation to the information that is flooding out of the Bush Administration at this point is that Bush entered office on Day 1 with the agenda of getting Saddam out of Iraq. Then, 9/11 both side-tracked this agenda in the near term, but gave Bush a new, and COMPLETELY FABRICATED rationale for this: i.e. that Saddam and Al Qaida were one in the same enemy. Which was PURE FICTION.
The SPECIFIC claim of Saddam having an active nuclear program in 2003 (NOT 1998), which was irrelevant and moot, because CLEARLY the U.N. inspectors determined that there were NO LONGER any active programs, AND the most recent CIA information, including the specific issue Joseph Wilson was involved with, can only be explained be either a specific Lie by Bush, and entire conspiracy to deceive the American public by the entire Bush Administration, or such wanton incompetence that we had better sweep them out of office with urgency.
It's good to see that James and Bribite have RLTW as company as Bush Apologists and Lapdogs. Now all I can say is, why don't you hold Bush to the same standard of truthfulness that you held Clinton. I do.
My standard is this: Lying about your personal life is bad, but not impeachible. Hence, I give Bush a pass on his two decades old DWIs and drug use, just as I gave Clinton a pass for getting a consensual Blowjob from an intern. However, Lying to justify a war is impeachible. Committing Financial Fraud on the American People (misallocating $700 million from Afghanistan toward unauthorized Iraqi War planning) is impeachible. Committing Treason against one of OUR OWN CIA operatives (Victoria Plame) is impeachible. Covering up any of the last 3 is impeachible.
We don't know WHO specifically did the outing of Victoria Plame (although the rumored targets of the investigation are someone senior working for either Rove or Cheney), but that offense is not only impeachible, it is a DEATH PENALTY offense. And it may well have been Cheney, or Rove, who gave that order. Wouldn't it be an embarrassing spectacle to see Bush have to pardon Cheney or Rove from a DEATH PENALTY offense?
I note that you did not put quotations marks around it. Presumably because you are relying upon a Demoncrat talking point which misrepresents what the President actually said.
Moreover, I have never heard it reported that Wilson EVER "briefed" the President; it has been reported that lower echelons within the CIA told lower echelons in the White House that the report may have been false, but there is no indication that Tenet ever briefed the President on the issue.
And, of course, your entire rant is premised upon the lie that we were "misled" into war in Iraq. If you're going to rely upon the misrepresentations of MoveOn.org --- the group that likes perjury by Demoncrat Presidents --- then at least acknowledge it as your source. You and the types like you are as bad as the John Birchers of the Fifties and Sixties who wanted to confuse mistakes and/or incompetence in dealing with the Soviet bloc with treason and collaboration.
What the President actually said was that we had received an intelligence report that Hussein had been trying to by yellowcake in Africa. It was later revealed that the report had come from British intelligence, and that it may have been erroneous.
Of course, never mind that the report from British intelligence was completely consistently with Saddam's French-supported nuclear ambitions which caused the Israelis to bomb the French-build Osirik reactor in 1981, and those detailed in a book called "Under the Baghdad Sun," by an Iraqi expatriot nuclear scientist.
And BTW, whoever outed Wilson's wife may have committed a crime --- not treason --- and should be prosecuted, IF she was actually in a "deep cover CIA operative position." I have never heard reported what her position actually was, however; like most of us, I am left to rely upon the rants of those whose record on supporting American intelligence efforts is exemplified by their support for John F'in sKerry, he of the billion-dollar intelligence budget cuts. If she was just some analyst in a cubicle at Langley, then identifying her as CIA did not put her life at risk, and the law probably does not apply.
sdstud, "my friend," you really need to limit your fantasy life to posts in the review section. They make for ill-informed and ignorant political commentary.
And if you're so concerned about lies, then why have you repeatedly excused Clinton's under oath (perjury, a crime which should not be committed by the nation's chief law enforcement official), or Kerry's over the Vietnam Protest Medal Toss (soon to be an Olympic event)? When I see a rant about that, then I'll take seriously your pretensions about concern over "lying."
Until then, I'll just dismiss it for what it is: situational application of purportedly objective criteria designed only to achieve the end of political power.
-- Modified on 4/27/2004 8:28:05 PM
The following is an excerpt from a speech given by GHW Bush in 1999:
"Your mission is different now than it was back then. The Soviet Union is no more. Some people think, "what do we need intelligence for?" My answer to that is we have plenty of enemies. Plenty of enemies abound. Unpredictable leaders willing to export instability or to commit crimes against humanity. Proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, narco-trafficking, people killing each other, fundamentalists killing each other in the name of God. These and more. Many more. As our analysts know, as our collectors of intelligence know - these are our enemies. To combat them we need more intelligence, not less. We need more human intelligence. That means we need more protection for the methods we use to gather intelligence and more protection for our sources, particularly our human sources, people that are risking their lives for their country. (Applause)
Even though I'm a tranquil guy now at this stage of my life, I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious, of traitors. "
I think it is pretty clear he would consider the outing of an agent to be treason, especially when it is done as a political payback.
The REASON you have not yet heard what her actual position was, is simply that this remains highly classified information. The White House, and Robert Novak HAVE since acknowledged that she WAS a deep cover operative. Novak specifically said that he never would have published the story had he known at the time that she was a deep cover operative. The White House ordered a Justice Department investigation of this leak (which Ashcroft was forced to recuse himself from) BECAUSE she WAS a Deep Cover Operative. She WAS forced from her cover position, and NOW she's just an analyst in a cube at Langley. But she WAS something far more covert before she was outed.
On this issue, you are simply WRONG. Outing a CIA deep cover operative IS IN FACT TREASON. And Valerie Plame WAS such an operative. I suggest you get informed.
-- Modified on 4/29/2004 2:51:49 PM
-- Modified on 4/29/2004 6:30:52 PM
- Protection of identities of certain United States undercover intelligence officers, agents, informants, and sources
(a) Disclosure of information by persons having or having had access to classified information that identifies covert agent
Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
(b) Disclosure of information by persons who learn identity of covert agents as result of having access to classified information
Whoever, as a result of having authorized access to classified information, learns the identify of a covert agent and intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
(c) Disclosure of information by persons in course of pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents
Whoever, in the course of a pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents and with reason to believe that such activities would impair or impede the foreign intelligence activities of the United States, discloses any information that identifies an individual as a covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such individual and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such individual's classified intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
(d) Imposition of consecutive sentences
A term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be consecutive to any other sentence of imprisonment
Let's see, one responder concedes that Vicki's position has not been identified, but nevertheless continues to assert that she's a "deep cover operative." Demonstrating that point is a necessary part of the outlandish assertions made here (and may be a necessary part of any criminal prosecution), but is still not proven.
Another poster quotes from the statute (which, while not in the criminal part of the code, adopts it for purposes of criminal liability), and it clearly does not say that the action (if true) is treason.
How that's "beaten to a pulp" is a mystery to me.
And you Lefties just can't take "yes" for an answer. I concede that if your unproven premises are true, the leaker should be prosecuted. But throwing around irresponsible charges of "treason" would, if committed by a Conservative, bring cries of outrage.
'Course, that's a variation on the entire Demoncrat strategy this election cycle. Assume the posture of victim and claim that your opponent is calling you "anti-American" when it is your policies and judgment that are being challenged.
Just because YOU don't know that she was a Deep Cover CIA operative doesn't prevent the rest of the world from being aware of it.
Actually, Conservatives throw treason charges around all the time. Only THEY do it when people engage in legitimate dissent. Not just when our undercover spys get outed in acts of political revenge.
Oh, and BTW, say the source of the outing of Ms. Plame was either Cheney or Rove? What punishment would you propose?
Is that the SAME punishment you'd propose if Bill Clinton did it?
since it usually hurts your outlandish assertions.
Let's just begin with the biggest contradiction: she was "a Deep Cover CIA operative" and "the rest of the world" is "aware of it." Helluva cover, that.
And no, Conservatives don't irresponsibly throw treason charges around. But you Lefties confuse being called "irresponsible" and "wrong" with being called "treasonous." I defy you to identify times on this Board, or on the earlier political discussions on the General Board, when charges of "treason" were thrown around irresponsibly by anyone. Certainly, I have not done it. ctd74 suggested that the actions of some on the BushHating/anti-war Left was "treason" in the sense of "giving aid and comfort to the enemy" (the constitutional definition), but I didn't find his argument persuasive. In fact, the only irresponsible charges of "treason" which have been thrown around on this Board are by you, sd, agrkej, and Puck. In your case, it was in making an irresponsible charge; agrkej lept to your defense, and Puck was whining about a charge never made against Lefties.
The only time I have used the word is in responding to you and disparaging your nonsensical argument.
As for what the appropriate punishment would be, I've already noted that in a prior post. The punishment doesn't change with the personality for those of us who are consistent. It's only you on the far Left who have a different set of standards for your heroes, like Slick Willie.
P.S.
And BTW, in looking at the "treason" posts, I note your claim that you were willing to give GWB a "pass" on drunk driving in the same sense that you gave Slick Willie a pass on an Oval Office blowjob. Once again, you perpetuate the myth that Slick Willie was impeached for consensual sexual conduct, and attempt to disparage other Presidents by equating their conduct (never mind that Bush's offense was nearly twenty years before he was elected to public office, and that, as you voted for Gore, it is difficult to understand how you "gave him a pass" on it). That is a Leftwing lie. Because you were willing to overlook Slick Willie's infidelity, you misrepresent his actions.
Slick Willie was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice. Those are crimes, and he should have been removed from office. Stop lying!
As it is Cheney who has said, on any number of occassions, that the people who are protesting our war effort are giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
There is NO contradiction between the fact that the world is aware of Valerie Plame's having been a deep cover CIA operative NOW. Because someone in the Bush Administration outed her. How is that a contradiction? She WAS covert, now her cover is blown, by a White House leak which became big news.
And, giving Bush a "pass" on his DWIs has nothing to do with my not voting for him. My vote against Bush is simply because I disagree with everything he stands for, AND he is unfit for office based on his lack of intellect and unquestioning temperament. I would NEVER vote for an Evangelical for ANYTHING. And by YOUR definition, I didn't give Clinton a pass either, as I didn't vote for him for re-election either.
And, as for Clinton's lying under oath, plain and simple, Lying under Oath can be trivial (say as it relates to a parking ticket or a consensual blowjob, or it can be fundamental, as it relates to claiming never to have seen any information about terrorists plans to hijack planes). When one is asked an inappropriate question, where the purpose of the question was to embarrass the subject, a lie is a perfectly legitimate way to parry the inappropriate question. For example, if you personally were asked, under oath, the size of your penis, you would have every right to lie, rather than humiliate yourself by disclosing the truth. That would NOT be an impeachible offense, any more than lying about cheating on your wife would be an impeachible offense.
And make no mistake. Clinton is not my hero. I consider his Presidency to be a squandered opportunity due to his own weakness of character, and that's why I didn't vote for his re-election. Clinton had the intellect and the program plans, and the leadership skills to be a Great President, but his lack of moral fibre made him a fat target for the right wing, and resulted in a wasted opportunity to do many of the things he could have accomplished.
You have ridiculed Woodward's book and essentially called it fantasy. I quote:
" My problem with this whole project is that Viacom-owned CBS News is is once again publicizing a book published by another Viacom subsidiary. And with Bob Woodward, you've got to wonder who he's been channeling, a la his claim to have talked to former CIA Director Bob Casey while he lay unable to speak."
You may not now use it to bolster your arguments unless you recant and accept the parts that you don't like, such as the misappropriation of funds to fuel the war effort behind the backs of congress. That's the impeachable act, if you'll recall.
-- Modified on 4/26/2004 7:14:31 PM
Gee, I'm a hypocrite, is that your point? Unlike those who excuse Clinton's proven perjury, while screaming "BUSH LIED!" contrary to all of the evidence (see RTLW's point-by-point refutation of sdstud, above). If that's hypocrisy, color me a hypocrite.
I didn't ridicule Woodward's book, or call it a fantasy. I questioned the credibility of the reporter based upon his prior demonstrated difficulties, and gave a particular example. I also have a problem with a television network news operation promoting a publication of another division of the corporation. Were Halliburton the corporate giant owner that owned a company that published John Podhoretz's "Bush Country," and then promoted it on a Halliburton-owned television network, I have no doubt that our resident lefties would be screaming bloody murder.
As for your assertion of "the misappropriation of funds to fuel the war effort behind the backs of congress... the impeachable act, if you'll recall," only in your bizarro world. If Congress believes that, it should investigate and do it. Your problem is that you just want to get even for Slick Willie, who actually did commit impeachable acts, and was actually impeached (though sadly, not convicted) for a few of them.
Or else, why else would you cite it as a source? Could it be intellectual dishonesty?
Well, in any case, what about the Woodward assertion, NOT ever refuted by the Administration, that $700 million of money allocated to defeat Al Qaida in Afghanistan, was misappropriated toward Iraq war planning? That's FRAUD. That's Impeachible.
What about Woodward's assertion that Bush disclosed top secret U.S. war plans to the Saudi Ambassador (you know, the nation that produced 15 of the 19 Al Qaida hijackers, and provided most of Al Qaida's funding) before disclosing them to Congress, or even our OWN Secretary of State? That's TREASON. That's Impeachible.
And in fact, There is NO WAY that, barring MONUMENTAL INCOMPETENCE, that Bush and Cheney were kept out of the loop on the information, which we KNOW, was ALREADY present at lower levels of the Administration, prior to the 2003 State of the Union message, that Saddam did NOT have an ACTIVE NUCLEAR program ANYMORE. If you want to make the case that this WAS Monumental Incompetence, rather than an outright lie, go ahead and make that case. Personally, I find it implausible, and I have no choice BUT to conclude that the case that Saddam was developing NUKES (not chemical or biological agents) was simply an outright lie. But, it very well might have been wanton incompetence. You tell me which it was, and prove it. I give the Bushies the benefit of the doubt on their competence, and conclude that it was obviously a LIE.
While, of course, a ballistic missile does. It's a VAST oversimplification to say that a suitcase could represent an EFFECTIVE delivery mechanism for sufficient quantities of biological or chemical agents, or nuclear materials that are sufficient to harm great numbers of U.S. citizens. First of all, the agents would need to be imported into the U.S. UNDETECTED. And they would need to be secure enough to get them into the U.S. without accidentally being deployed in transit, prior to being brought into the U.S.
We have ALOT of detection mechanisms that are unpublicized that could detect a sufficient quantity of biochemical or nuclear agents being smuggled across borders in mere suitcases to render this type of scheme impractical in the extreme. It takes a great deal more sophistication to actually devise a program to do this than your glib response gives credit to. In fact, almost certainly, the agent would need to be imported in component form and then be re-constituted into its hazardous form by knowledgeable people who had access to the proper equipment. And Saddam didn't have those programs in place.
Are you suggesting a suitcase packed with chemical and or biological bad stuff is more difficult to produce and import than building an ICBM capable of delivering same, or nuclear material, from across the atlantic?? Last I heard ICBM's don't fly without NORAD knowing about it almost instantly. With all due respect, "impractical to the extreme" seems more on the order of wishful thinking...but I'm all ears!
And there is a big difference between NORAD being aware of a ballistic missile on the way almost immediately, and NORAD being able to stop a ballistic missile in the 15 minutes or less that they have to shoot it down. Especially if it's a MIRV-enabled Ballistic Missile, where the time window prior to MIRV deployment is shorter still, and then there are suddenly many warheads going in different places.
The fact is, the suitcase of bad stuff scenario hasn't ever been deployed successfully by an OUTSIDE terrorist, importing a WMD, despite the fact that is is certainly technically feasible to do so - Avoiding Detection, and preserving Security in Transport remains the key problem. Invariably, these types of attacks have been carried out by internal terrorists (such as the Japanese Aum Shinrikyo Sarin Attack, or Tim McVeigh, or the Bali nightclub bombs) who constitute their weapons inside the target country, thus avoiding any border security cordon, and who may or may not have foreign financial backing. But there IS NO simple suitcase delivery mechanism that works here. Certainly, this type of a program IS, and remains a threat. And in particular, it is a threat where some organization such as Al Qaida has cells that have already infiltrated the country. Undoubtedly Al Qaida HAS these types of programs in place.
But Saddam does not, and Iraq NEVER had these types of delivery programs, and we never even THOUGHT that they did. We ONLY thought that they might be working on SHORT RANGE Ballistic Missiles that might threaten Israel or other neighbor states, with biochemical agents.
I find that most of the folks who have supported the Iraq invasion are either uninformed, or simply believe the lies that the Bush Administration has foisted on the American public, attempting to link Saddam to Al Qaida and a genuine threat to the U.S. despite the clear evidence that Saddam's regime never represented such a threat to US, only to his own people. It's my privilege and right under the Constitution of the United States to help educate folks about this.
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October 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.
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
Bush is not only a liar, but he also has the power of mind control!
RLTW
As Colin Powell said: Bush OWNS Iraq. And it's a wrong-headed catastrophe.
And whether or not Clinton lied and then didn't do anything about it is irrelevant. Bush lied and took us to war, and got many hundreds of Brave Americans, and thousands of innocent Iraqis killed over it. And he owns it.
Cellphones are probably making these polls useless for information now. Many people are now unplugging their landlines and using only their cellphones. The fact that these people aren't being contacted for polls now is probably beginning to skew results.
Pollsters have been slow to deal with this change.
/Zin
How Quickly we forget 9/11!!
Remember, the war is not just with Osama or his organization, it is a global war on terrorism. Saddam Hussein paid 10K to the family of suicide bombers. What you are failing to recognize is that by taking the war to them over there, we keep the fight out of our own back yard. Would you rather have them targeting trained marines or school children?
Weapons of mass destruction? Well, since we had to dick around with the UN so long, who is to say they aren't in Syria. I think the thing that irks so many people who oppose the war is they keep harping on this when in fact most Americans don't consider this an issue. They still have a sense of good and evil (a concept quickly slipping away from the amoral left) and recognoze that he was a bad guy who had to go!!
You are right. The current administration. seems to have forgotten about 9/11. Most of the promises made have fallen by the wayside. FDNY is still waiting for new telecommunications equipment that is compatible with the NYPD. The bailout for corporations that were not loosing money but had a good story came first. Small business that were really affected by 9/11 were not even heard.
Yes Sadaam was/is a bad guy and I fully supported the war and even condemned the UN for not taking action.
Then I, like most reasonable thinking Americans, discovered the truth. That we had been lied to. I also came to the conclusion that Colin Powell (the only person that I ever trusted in the current admin.) was kept in the dark about certain important factors. Now that we are over there we have to support the troops and hope for a speedy end. But, the lies that were told to get US into Iraq have sunk the current administraion in the minds of most reasonable thinking Americans.
I also agree that the war should be taken to the terrorist and kept off of our soil as much as possible. Give the terrorists on the job training over there. Our job was not finished in Afghanistan then, it is still not finished now, and Iraq is going to take even more resources in the future than it is taking currently. The current admin. underestimated the amount of time to get Iraq in check.
You may also be right about WMD's perhaps being moved to another country. Or possibly that Sadaam was bluffing the entire time? Maybe he had enough to kill his own people and used it all up?
Kudos for sticking to factual arguments and not personal attacks that seem to permeate political debate these days! I enjoyed your response, but have to point out gaps in your logic...
1) NYFD still waiting on equipment. Since when is it the job of the Federal government to equip local fire departments.
2) Gee, bail out Joe's pizza or United Airlines? I wonder which would have a bigger hit on the economy of it went under?
Well, I can't make that business meeting because it is too far to drive, but at least I can have pizza for lunch!!
3) As far as lied to, I would suggest you look up the definition. Did W receive bad intelligence, possibly so, but that does not amount to a lie. Remember both Clinton & Kerry have claimed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruntion along with the UN and several other nations. If we're weak in intelligence we need to look back to the Carter administraion when we gutted our intelligence agencies and decided we could not use "certain sources" for information.
4) The jobs not done in Afghanistan. Well, that might be right, but since when do we have the luxury of saying we will only fight on one front at a time. That we be like us declaring was on Japan during WWII because they attacked us, but since Hitler hasn't done anything, that isn't our fight over there.
One other point, your comments about "I, like most reasonable thinking americans" does not play very well...
Since the majority of Americans still support the war you are in the minority and as far as reasonable thinking, well, that's always a matter of opinion, and we definately differ on that...
You will find that facts and logic are tricky things to some on this board. Maybe they are just too smart to be bothered by such simple concepts.
RLTW
Thanks for the kudos, I wish more people would look at the facts instead of extreme political opinions.
In reference to number 1, GW has made many empty promises to help out local gov'ts. and reneged on most that I suppose I should not even bring it up anymore, but I will. I mean, it was not a blow job afterall.
1) Since the Fed PROMISED funds to get those devices up to date and compatible between the depts. I recall GW standing at "Ground Zero" with Mayor Bloomberg flanked by NYFD and NYPD and stating that the funds would be available for the upgrade. While this is not an exact quote, it is what I recall. Why did GW promise to overextend the budget and all the while cut taxes? I asked myself at the time where all this money was going to come from. The answer was, he will not come through on many promises. Now tensions are growing between the 2 depts. again, this is just a FYI.
2)My particular concern is not with the previous and existing and future, corporate problems of United, which seems to be taking the course of Amtrak, rather the fact that Fedex was showing a healthy profit yet still qualified for the bailout??? Why?. In the mean time, the millions of dollars that went to Fedex and other corporations would have better served entire communities by helping several smaller companies (which put their money back into the community) that were forced into bankruptcy and to lay off many people, thus hurting the economy even more.
3)All politicians lie. It does not matter what they are talking about, lies are inevitable.
4)Our troops, resources are spread to thin, and were at the time the war began (which BTW, I did support until the truth came out). Please tell me where Osama is? Why were we able to find Sadaam with such quickness yet Osama is still wandering around? I'll answer that. GW's primary concern was to rid Iraq of Sadaam and make daddy proud. Iraq and Sadaam could have waited, they were not going anywhere. The current admin. told us lies to get the publics approval and they misappropriated funds.
Your last point is moot as you say we will always differ on that and the polls are skewed in favor of which ever party takes them. But in personal experience, I consider my colleagues and neighbors to be reasonable thinking, and the majority of them no longer support GW or his admins. agenda.
All, politicians lie ? No, not their hero GWB - they will never admit he is capable.
Theirs is not to question why.
Osama is doing his thing, I'm sure a bit less freely, but capable nonetheless because Georgie didn't have as big a hard on for him as he does for Hussein. Hussein, with his affinity for luxury could have been captured after Osama.
Of course, anyone who questions our savior is immoral and a traitor.
and a waste of the board's time
Well who cares!! I'm in a great mood now that the Village Voice has called on Kerry to be replaced and Air America is self destructing (lost their second largest market and have fired their top management)!! Are you guys having problems getting your message out, gee too bad!! Gotta go, Rush is coming on the radio!!
you listen to the pill popper.
I still have Air America on XM for shits and giggles. They should REALLY try to get some personalities that are a little more professional if they plan on getting more sponsors. Hopefully it is just growing pains and will overcome.
I am hoping that since Kerry has not much money that he is waiting for a strong finish in his campaigning. I truly believe if Bush gets re-elected that this country will be in the worst shape it has ever been in financially and with a LOT more foreign enemies than we have now.
The economy is still stagnated. Layoffs are still happening and new jobs are not there. Unless of course you consider the rise in burglaries and bank robberies as being self employed.
-- Modified on 4/28/2004 6:21:21 PM
Like Air America would be any better for news? Besides, that is not my news source. Rush, Hannity, Colmes, Franken are all pundits, not news sources. Pundits are fine with me as long as they admit it (I know for a fact Rush has). What I don't like are journalists who claim to be unbiased but don't have the self discipline to make sure they report that way.
Yes, I do watch FOX to answer the question before it arises, but it is not any more slanted than CNN or the major networks. I have yet to find an unbiased news source, but at least FOX tends to have both sides on (I like the debate!)
BTW, I listen to Air America as well, and my .02, I have never heard an opposing point of view on the air yet. This gets boring pretty quickly... I think they would do better to have a Limbaugh policy of opposing calls go to the front of the line.
If you've got a view, defend it!!
BTW, never countered your last arguments, but as you can guess, I disagree with your respones
BTW, you'll be happy to know that Dick Cheney just endorsed Fox as his kind of network. I suppose that you'll claim now that Dick Cheney is impartial as well. LOL!
I didn't say balanced, I said no more slanted than CNN or the other major networks. You keep laughing though, while FOX's ratings keep climbing!!
You know, Kerry said he was opposed to Fox, but then he liked it, but now he is opposed to it again
More of an affront on all of the Bush supporters (not to be confused with a jock strap, very close though).