Who said this?
"...Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.
I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish..."
"...Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.
The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again."
Who said this?
"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, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.
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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security."
But but but...Bush lied
Was it possibly someone who was FOR the war before they were AGAINST it...well, that doesn't narrow it down if we're talking about a democrat. Could it possibly be someone who saw their hopes for the Whitehouse flushed down the crapper when Rudy announced today?
No war for oil! No war for oil! How many Lives per Gallon?
On the subject of Rudy:
http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/98858.aspx
Not gonna say yet, waiting for more to weigh in.
I still think it's mangina...
Larry the cable guy????Did he say those things??
In light of who is baiting us here, I will guess Hillary!
Yea thats the ticket!!!!
Quote 1:
William Jefferson Clinton, Dec. 1998
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html
Quote 2:
Hillary Rodham Clinton, Oct. 2002
http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html
You're so predictable.
I knew Mangina was one of those quotes...she's an idiot. You'd think she would have had enough foresight not to make those comments knowing she was going to be running for office in '08. Waffles anyone?
It just begs the question, did the Clinton administration fabricate intelligence or was he a dupe as well?
Bush had the same intelligence gathering at his disposal as Clinton. The whole: "Bush lied" sounds pretty fallacious now doesn't it? Had there been a Democrat in the White House and Democrats were in control of congress, I don't believe you would have been hearing "Gore lied" out of Capitol Hill.
A Democrat could have just as easily under-estimated the insurgency to follow after removing Hussein from power. The world is a better place without Saddam, just ask the Clintons.
Did anyone see (//%22http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0207/2627.html%22) that Mangina and Obama are already running from debates? I guess they've realized that there's only so many times you can change your story in front of the American people before they realize you're a moron.
(http://tinypic.com/2lm5l4g)
Mangina's Chicken and Waffles...
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Who said this?
"...Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.
I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish..."
"...Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.
The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again."
Who said this?
"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, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.
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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security."
Nice job Conan, I see we have learned the Hannity game. Isnt that quaint. The Clintons did not get us into this mess, George Bush did. So the CLinton's had the same apparently flawed intelligence. How is this new info?
quote:
So the CLinton's had the same apparently flawed intelligence.
That's the point. The retards who say that Bush lied conveniently forget to mention that Clinton was beating the war drum long before. Did you not read the thread?
Point is NSU, that DNC strategists know that war is a polarizing issue and used it to their advantage. By saying the war was propped up by deceit, they stood a better chance of winning some seats in the legislature and to make a strong run for the White House in '08, instead of supporting the war effort. Their "Bush lied" is nothing more than electioneering. I mean why let a few facts get in the way of a good story they can sell to the voters, right?
Personally, I think Clinton might have better estimated or been more realistic about the insurgency which would follow if he took on a full-scale war with Iraq. He didn't want his legacy to be tainted furter with a protracted war. He managed to contain Saddam and get the world's mind off the semen stain for a few days.
Hillary can claim we were lied to all she likes, but she sure was convinced of the WMD in 2002. From how steadfast she was in her claims of action being justified, it's pretty obvious she was doing more than just baking cookies in the White House and had a little better insider information than the average senator.
The world is safer w/o Saddam. Politically and PR speaking, the largest mistake made was not keeping Hussein contained till after they had scoured every single rat hole in Afghanistan and rooted out Bin Laden, then quietly arrange a good old-fashioned CIA coup with cyanide.
Had Iraq been a six to 12 month milk run, the DNC would have still figured out an angle as to how Bush effed it up.
Beating the war drum and actually *doing* it are two vastly different things, as the last four years of misadventure have proven.
The main reasons I was against the Iraq War was because 1) that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11; and 2) I had little confidence in the Bush administration in keeping Iraq stable, or "building the peace," as they say, after the invasion.
If we really wanted to go after the countries that supported the 9/11 perps, Saudi Arabia certainly would have been a justifiable action. But nothing along those lines really happened, so it made me question the administration's commitment to the "war on terror."
I hoped at the time that I was wrong with my lack of confidence with the U.S. stabilizing Iraq. Regrettably, I wasn't.
It was apparent to me that the invasion of Iraq was going to be the easy part. The hard part was keeping the country stable after the fact. I'd been hearing warnings about the religious sects that intensely disliked each other well before the war started. Why Bush's people didn't pay heed to these warnings astounds me.
As for Saddam not even having weapons of mass destruction, well, that just pours salt on the wound.
1. Whether Saddam had anything to do with 9/11 was irrelevant. 17 cease-fire violations were all we needed.
2. You had absolutely no idea that the insurgency would be what it is...no one did, even Scowcroft, whom you posted in his op-ed didn't see that coming. No one could have anticipated what has since happened and to pretend you anticipated our current situation... I would love to go back an see your posts from pre-war discussions to see if you really were so clairvoyant...
Ipsqueak and Conman need a reality check. This is what happens to "people" who listen to talk radio.
Lots of insiders warned the Busheviks about the consequences of invading Iraq and the numbers needed to do so. They would not hear it....much like Gwee doe doe, Ipsqueak and Conofaman....
I told you guys to lay off the kool aid.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
If we really wanted to go after the countries that supported the 9/11 perps, Saudi Arabia certainly would have been a justifiable action. But nothing along those lines really happened, so it made me question the administration's commitment to the "war on terror."
We get along better with Saudi Arabia than Iraq [;)].
I'd be willing to bet you could trace money out of every Muslim nation to Al-Quaeda. Other than Bin Laden still having family in SA and many of the 9/11 co-conspirators being SA nationals, I don't believe there was ever a definitive money trail leading from the
government of SA to Al-Qaeda. Saudi Arabia is also not a hostile renegade government either.
The whole clap-trap of Bush finishing "his daddy's war" and the U.S. wanting to profit from Iraqi oil has always been so stupid I have to laugh. All the reasons behind our invasion of Iraq are not near that transparent. There is a reason for confidentiality and secrecy levels in intellegence and the executive branch and why the American public is not entitled to every last detail, due to national security issues and not compromising how we go about getting our intelligence.
Bush I shouldn't have stopped until Saddam was removed from power and the Iraq mess likely would be behind us now. It is still likely it wouldn't have changed the course of history on 9/11.
Exactly right. If Bush the elder would have done it, we'd probably have a stable country now. Back then we weren't dealing with an ongoing war on terror. Taking him out then wouldn't have had the same tangential consequences as Al-Qaeda wouldn't have been involved at that time stirring the pot and being the proverbial fly in the ointment they are now.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Exactly right. If Bush the elder would have done it, we'd probably have a stable country now. Back then we weren't dealing with an ongoing war on terror. Taking him out then wouldn't have had the same tangential consequences as Al-Qaeda wouldn't have been involved at that time stirring the pot and being the proverbial fly in the ointment they are now.
If "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts.....
I've wondered if halting Iraq I, when they did, was political expediency. Bush enjoyed great approval ratings through 1991 and the early part of 1992 due to the swift and decisive action over there. I'm just wondering if they figured any more time spent there was viewed as a "protracted war" and would have hurt his chances for re-election and that's why they didn't go any further.
Now that does make sense... never place the greater good in front of your own ambitions, the republican creedo.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
I've wondered if halting Iraq I, when they did, was political expediency. Bush enjoyed great approval ratings through 1991 and the early part of 1992 due to the swift and decisive action over there. I'm just wondering if they figured any more time spent there was viewed as a "protracted war" and would have hurt his chances for re-election and that's why they didn't go any further.
I think you're correct, and I also think they honestly believed that Saddam would take his lumps and stop making a stir after the a** kicking he got, but after a decade of cease-fire violations and stonewalling the IAEA and UNSCUM we'd had enough.
<conan wrote:
Bush I shouldn't have stopped until Saddam was removed from power and the Iraq mess likely would be behind us now. It is still likely it wouldn't have changed the course of history on 9/11.
<end clip>
Brent Scowcroft has said in interviews that he put a kabosh on Bush I invading Iraq for the very reasons we're seeing now. He essentially did a cost-benefit analysis on invading Iraq, and determined that the very high risks weren't worth it.
As for your second sentence, Conan, I agree.
quote:
Brent Scowcroft has said in interviews that he put a kabosh on Bush I invading Iraq for the very reasons we're seeing now.
I know we've heard this before, but I can't find a single article written Scowcroft PRE '03 invasion that make such claims.
Google can be your friend, iplaw.
Written by Brent Scowcroft, for the Wall Street Journal, dated Aug. 15, 2002. To make his stance perfectly clear, it's titled "Don't Attack Saddam,"
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110002133
I think his stance made the most sense at the time.
Thanks for the link, but I've already read it. It says nothing to warn us about what we are currently in. BTW, I found this interesting article from the Hammer about Mr. Scowcroft giving an interesting take on his "realism" policy position:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2005102801718.html
Krauthammer has little credibility on this issue. He's been repeatedly wrong and contradictory on his stances regarding the Middle East.
The column you cited was written in late 2005, before the mosques were blown up and before sectarian violence began in earnest. In its wake, Scowcroft looks smarter and smarter, and Krauthammer looks dumber and dumber.
And it's interesting that Krauthammer in recent weeks has advocated reployment of troops from Baghdad, saying in effect of, and I paraphrase, "Let Iraq have its civil war. Don't expect us to be a part of it."
I guess that would be Krauthammer flip-flopping.
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt."
Who said it?
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
Krauthammer has little credibility on this issue. He's been repeatedly wrong and contradictory on his stances regarding the Middle East.
The column you cited was written in late 2005, before the mosques were blown up and before sectarian violence began in earnest. In its wake, Scowcroft looks smarter and smarter, and Krauthammer looks dumber and dumber.
And it's interesting that Krauthammer in recent weeks has advocated reployment of troops from Baghdad, saying in effect of, and I paraphrase, "Let Iraq have its civil war. Don't expect us to be a part of it."
I guess that would be Krauthammer flip-flopping.
Hey...it's the political dance of the day, it's called the
WaFfLe...just like Hillary calling for more troops 6 months ago, and now that Bush is suggesting it, it's now the wrong decision.
I wish both sides would stop playing games with the issue.
With that said I still think Scowcroft's position looks good because hindsight is 20/20, not because of any real substance attached to arguments warning of insurgency before the invasion...
^"Hillary calling for more troops 6 months ago.."
You took that out of context.
Scowcroft's argument looked good before hindsight.
1) Did Iraq have anything to do with 9/11?
No.
2) Does invading Iraq help our efforts in the war on terror?
No, especially since it had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks.
This ain't rocket science, folks.
Instead, what we had were a bunch of foreign-policy wonks in Washington who took their eye off the ball.
I'm just an ordinary joe. But it staggered me at the time-- and still does -- how much the supposedly smart folks in charge ignored the fundamentals of what we were dealing with after the terrorist attacks.
1) Did Iraq have anything to do with 9/11?
No.
Irrelevant, with or without the war on terror his removal was justified (17 cease-fire violations and IAEA/UNSCUM violations). Whether it helps the war on terror is another separate issue.2) Does invading Iraq help our efforts in the war on terror?
No, especially since it had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks.
You can't say that with certainty at this point as we have not reached an endpoint. Also, the issue in Darfur has nothing to do with the war on terror, but we should be doing something about it shouldn't we?quote:
I'm just an ordinary joe. But it staggered me at the time-- and still does -- how much the supposedly smart folks in charge ignored the fundamentals of what we were dealing with after the terrorist attacks.
Again, I still don't see where anyone was waiving the flag of insurgency and sectarian violence before we went in...Scowcroft was most definitely against us going it, but it was for various other reasons as your article clearly states.
OK, then, iplaw, your reasoning crystalizes that the Bush administration was guilty of highly dubious priorities.
What mattered more -- going after the terrorists, or going after a country that had nothing to do with 9/11?
Like I said, this ain't rocket science.
First, the war on terror is not soely encompassed by going after those responsible for 9/11, so I think we can put that to bed. To only go after those directly responsible for 9/11 to the exclusion of other terror groups with similar aims would have been, and still is, myopic, and would place us in constant catch-up mode. For once, I'd like to be ahead of these goons.
Second, Saddam by all accounts (CIA, FIB, MI6, Putin, Mubarak, Clinton, etc.) had WMDs, flawed intelligence or not, they all believed he did and NO ONE was saying he didn't. He was paying money to Hamas suicide bombers for killing Jews. He murdered half a million of his own people. He was stonewalling IAEA and UNSCUM, so on and so on. I think that more than qualifies him as a terrorist.
Was he the right terrorist to go after at that time...only time will tell, but to deny he was a terrorist is an untenable position.
Bottom line is this war is not said and done. It can be won and Iraq can be stabilized. Trying to convince people "Ha, Ha I told you so" when the going gets tough does no one any good.
But, again, priorities.
Shouldn't you go after the ones responsible for 9/11 *first*? Shouldn't you get your "Mission Accomplished" on that end before going after more peripheral targets, instead of splitting up your efforts and thus weakening them? Shouldn't you have some ... FOCUS?
This isn't that hard to figure out ...
Since Ipsqueak is an ignoranus (has yours truly on "ignore"), RW might convey to him that many now see the term terrorist applying to the western world as well. When you fight fire with fire you get burned.
quote:
Shouldn't you go after the ones responsible for 9/11 *first*? Shouldn't you get your "Mission Accomplished" on that end before going after more peripheral targets, instead of splitting up your efforts and thus weakening them? Shouldn't you have some ... FOCUS?
We did, and we still are. I do recall Afghanistan being a viable military zone. Obviously OBL isn't their anymore or we'd be pushing harder there.
According to all the information available (CIA, FBI, MI6) Saddam was NOT a
peripheral issue. BTW, who are you or I to decide that Saddam was a peripheral issue or not? Neither one of us were privy to the information the prez had before we went in.
More monday morning QB, as if these decisions had such bright lines delineating them before we went in...
And who's saying that we are suffering from any sort of weakness by operating in two theaters?
RW-
Part of the war on terror was to punish those directly linked to the 9/11 attacks, the other part was to assure it would not happen again. In other words, retailiate, then go pro-active.
It was generally accepted that the Taliban were recruiting, harboring, and helping to train Al-Qaeda terrorists, as well as harboring their leader.
We went after them, removed the Taliban in short order, and ostensibly successfully accomplished the number one priority of going after those responsible for 9/11. The fact that OBL has never been brought to justice does not mean we failed. He is now a relatively impotent terrorist leader with greatly diminished power since the Taliban was a large component to his network.
The next logical country to assist with the terrorist network was Iraq. They had a leader with an extreme hatred of the United States and Israel, had a score to settle with the U.S., and he was crazier than a s$%& house rat. All the best of global intelligence said Iraq was suitable to be the next openly hospitable training ground for terrorists. The two previous presidential administrations were more than convinced Iraq had WMD and stated so publicly.
Saddam was nowhere near exempt from suspicion of having WMD. If there were no WMD and he wanted sanctions to end, all he had to do was to allow the UN inspectors to do their job. He repeatedly refused. If there was nothing to hide, then why act like you are hiding something? Why not allow open inspections?
It's not a matter of whether or not Iraq was directly involved with the "first" 9/11, it was whether or not they were capable of being the petri dish for the "next" 9/11. In that light it does fit the plan of the war on terror.
So far, a second 9/11, Cole, Beirut, etc. ad nausem have not happened since we invaded Iraq. I know you are tired of my old battle cry, but it's proven itself.
<iplaw wrote:
More monday morning QB, as if these decisions had such bright lines delineating them before we went in...
And who's saying that we are suffering from any sort of weakness by operating in two theaters?
<end clip>
That's not Monday morning quarterbacking; it's common sense. You go after the 9/11 perps, and Osama bin Laden is No. 1 on the list. As long as he's still at large, he remains a threat. Everything else is secondary after that. Focus, focus, focus. If you get him, THEN you go after the next-most-important target.
It really p*ssed me off when Bush said a couple of years ago that he really "wasn't concerned" about bin Laden. Well, why the hell not? Shouldn't you be concerned about the organizer of a mass murder?
And there's plenty of weakness showing right now by running two theaters. People in the U.S. military and Afghanistan are profoundly worried that Afghanistan will be overthrown by extremists again. The insurgency remains active there and is much worse than when we first invaded. (I supported that invasion, BTW.)
Then you have Iraq, which is Exhibit A in consequences of not establishing a post-war strategy. You have troops that are on their fourth deployment, and we don't have enough, period, to bring the country under control, much less Afghanistan. The U.S. military's abilities have been weakened by this misadventure.
So, yes, I think the lines of attack were quite clear after 9/11. Why it wasn't clear to others, or why people got distracted by other less pressing terrorism issues, is beyond me.
Conan: I couldn't have said it any better...
Rwarn: I think at this point we're talking past one another as we have made the same points to each other about half a dozen times now. It seems to me that we both have fundamentally different ways of viewing the world and the war on terror, which is fine.
Only time will tell if Iraq will be a victory or not, and no amount of arguing back and forth has any bearing on it.
Conman, you sure are short sighted.
Ipsqueak, time will tell. You are correct. But we will all be dead and gone.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
So the CLinton's had the same apparently flawed intelligence.
That's the point. The retards who say that Bush lied conveniently forget to mention that Clinton was beating the war drum long before. Did you not read the thread?
The Bushies took it a step further when the VP tried to connect Iraq to 9-11. There was no evidence of this yet that did not stop Cheney.
I just pray to God that for ONCE in this generation, our nation is not lead by a Bush or a Clinton after the next election.
Rudy, McCain, Obama... it doesn't matter to me, just PLEASE save us from the other two.
quote:
Originally posted by South_Tulsan
I just pray to God that for ONCE in this generation, our nation is not lead by a Bush or a Clinton after the next election.
Rudy, McCain, Obama... it doesn't matter to me, just PLEASE save us from the other two.
Is Jeb supposedly still mulling over a run for the White House?
quote:
The Bushies took it a step further when the VP tried to connect Iraq to 9-11. There was no evidence of this yet that did not stop Cheney.
Sounds like someone took a left turn off at the Conspiracyville exit with altruismsuffers...[V] Got some proof about that one?
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
That's not Monday morning quarterbacking; it's common sense. You go after the 9/11 perps, and Osama bin Laden is No. 1 on the list. As long as he's still at large, he remains a threat. Everything else is secondary after that. Focus, focus, focus. If you get him, THEN you go after the next-most-important target.
It really p*ssed me off when Bush said a couple of years ago that he really "wasn't concerned" about bin Laden. Well, why the hell not? Shouldn't you be concerned about the organizer of a mass murder?
Every American wanted to see OBL either dragged out of a cave deader than fried chicken or see him brought before a tribunal. From that stand-point I was disappointed.
However, how much time, effort, safety of our troops, and money is justifiable in trying to find someone for whom there is no proof he's even still alive.
Our troops managed to ensure he will never be able to operate out in the open ever again, even if he is still alive. We cut his legs out from under him and as I mentioned earlier, he's a relatively impotent terrorist leader, if he's even still alive.
quote:
Originally posted by nsugrad_05
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
So the CLinton's had the same apparently flawed intelligence.
That's the point. The retards who say that Bush lied conveniently forget to mention that Clinton was beating the war drum long before. Did you not read the thread?
The Bushies took it a step further when the VP tried to connect Iraq to 9-11. There was no evidence of this yet that did not stop Cheney.
You'd gain a lot more credibility if you didn't use words that are printed on the DNC Kool-Aid packets like "Bushies", "Busheviks", etc. It makes you sound like Aox.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by South_Tulsan
I just pray to God that for ONCE in this generation, our nation is not lead by a Bush or a Clinton after the next election.
Rudy, McCain, Obama... it doesn't matter to me, just PLEASE save us from the other two.
Is Jeb supposedly still mulling over a run for the White House?
I think he was until GW's approval ratings started to tank.
Now he'll probably wait until 2012.