Is the War on Terror and the War in Iraq the same or different?

[Deudalus]

P.S. Thanks for answering the OP's question. I'm sure he finds your answer very helpful!

Could you under any circumstances be convinced by anyone that Iraq is part of the war on terror?

Did you ever consider it?

Did you spend much time researching, critical thinking, or thinking outside the left-wing box as to whether it could be true?

Or did you simply wait to see what Air America told you and go with it?

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Deudalus


Could you under any circumstances be convinced by anyone that Iraq is part of the war on terror?

No. I'm a free thinker on the subjectand have been since the beginning. I don't need anyone (WTF is Air America - will Yahoo after I leave here) to try. I formed the same opinion before we started the war and it has to come as I had expected, NOTHING FOUND and a big ole WMD lie. You guys can spin it as liberating Iraq, war on terror, <insert shifting goalpost reason here>, but I won't buy it.

I'm so very glad that the public is waking up to this screwed up PNAC dream. I sincerely hope that they won't let it happen again!

I don't mind being labeled a liberal here as I know my conservative side and frequently let my feelings show in "fiscal threads" here as well as letting my stupid drunk spending reps. know how I feel about spending/financial matters.

I'm socially liberal in freedoms, but NEVER on welfare/socialist programs, in which my fiscal conservative side overrides it every time!

 

[Deudalus]

No. I'm a free thinker on the subject. I don't need anyone (WTF is Air America - will Yahoo after I leave here) to try. I formed the same opinion before we started the war and it has to come as I had expected, NOTHING FOUND and a big ole WMD lie. You guys can spin it as liberating Iraq, war on terror, <insert shifting goalpost reason here>, but I won't buy it.

So as a free thinker that isn't effected by any party bias, will you admit that Democrats should also bear the burden for this war?

After all, the Democrats were all war hawks during Clinton's impeachment trial in 1998. They all supported the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 which called for the removal of Saddam. Even the further left reps like Pelosi have several quotes stating how much of a threat they felt Saddam was and that he had to be removed. Clinton is the one who very officially put the removal of Saddam from power by force on the table and created the policy of regime change and nation building in Iraq. Will you admit this?

Do you also think Colin Powell knowing lied in front of the UN?

Do you think the other 5 countries that also provided intelligence that thought Saddam had WMD's were also lying? Do you think they were lying for their own reasons or do you think Bush somehow managed to convince them to lie for him?


Let's see how much of a free thinker you really are. A free thinker will admit the Democrats thought the same thing as the Republicans. A free thinker will also admit that if the Republicans lied about the WMD's so did the Democrats on the intelligence committee, so did the Democrats in the late 1990's, and so did the Democrats when they voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq.

So are you a free thinker or simply like to tout yourself as one like all the other so called moderates on this forum?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Deudalus

No. I'm a free thinker on the subject. I don't need anyone (WTF is Air America - will Yahoo after I leave here) to try. I formed the same opinion before we started the war and it has to come as I had expected, NOTHING FOUND and a big ole WMD lie. You guys can spin it as liberating Iraq, war on terror, <insert shifting goalpost reason here>, but I won't buy it.

So as a free thinker that isn't effected by any party bias, will you admit that Democrats should also bear the burden for this war?

After all, the Democrats were all war hawks during Clinton's impeachment trial in 1998. They all supported the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 which called for the removal of Saddam. Even the further left reps like Pelosi have several quotes stating how much of a threat they felt Saddam was and that he had to be removed.

Do you also think Colin Powell knowing lied in front of the UN?

Do you think the other 5 countries that also provided intelligence that thought Saddam had WMD's were also lying? Do you think they were lying for their own reasons or do you think Bush somehow managed to convince them to lie for him?


Let's see how much of a free thinker you really are. A free thinker will admit the Democrats are almost as at fault as the Republicans. A free thinker will also admit that if the Republicans lied about the WMD's so did the Democrats on the intelligence committee because they reviewed the same intelligence.

So are you a free thinker or simply like to tout yourself as one?

I know that wasn't directed at me, but I'll respond too

I blame the Democrats for the same reason I blame the Republicans, becuase they were involved in what amounted to a failure of intelligence (both the CIA kind and the Mensa kind). However, in all fairness, it was the Bush White House that lead the charge. Do the Democrats bear some of the blame? Of course. But they don't bear and equal amount.

 

[Deudalus]

I know that wasn't directed at me, but I'll respond too

I blame the Democrats for the same reason I blame the Republicans, becuase they were involved in what amounted to a failure of intelligence (both the CIA kind and the Mensa kind). However, in all fairness, it was the Bush White House that lead the charge. Do the Democrats bear some of the blame? Of course. But they don't bear and equal amount.

That I can totally agree with, yet why don't you ever hear that around here?

This forum is basically filled with uninterrupted DNC talking points when it could be filled with some sort of intellectually stimulating discussion.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Deudalus

No. I'm a free thinker on the subject. I don't need anyone (WTF is Air America - will Yahoo after I leave here) to try. I formed the same opinion before we started the war and it has to come as I had expected, NOTHING FOUND and a big ole WMD lie. You guys can spin it as liberating Iraq, war on terror, <insert shifting goalpost reason here>, but I won't buy it.

So as a free thinker that isn't effected by any party bias, will you admit that Democrats should also bear the burden for this war?

ALL of the people who voted to give rushed authorization are responsible, but Bush was the trigger man. I've said it before and I'll repeat it: Bush had my 100% after 9/11 when he gave a great speech on top of the rubble of the WTC. He pissed it away with an obvious rush to go to war with Iraq

After all, the Democrats were all war hawks during Clinton's impeachment trial in 1998. They all supported the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 which called for the removal of Saddam. Even the further left reps like Pelosi have several quotes stating how much of a threat they felt Saddam was and that he had to be removed. Clinton is the one who very officially put the removal of Saddam from power by force on the table and created the policy of regime change and nation building in Iraq. Will you admit this?

To be honest, I didn't follow politics much until 9/11. I don't doubt that the Democrats did indeed push for the policy. I would have been against it then as I am now. Unless somebody showed something better (either Dem. or Rep.) that proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that Saddam "WAS A REAL THREAT" to the US, then I'm against it all. Not sure if that answered the question, but that's what I've got on that one.

Do you also think Colin Powell knowing lied in front of the UN?

Yes. Powell immediately told his chief of staff after the war speech to the UN "I wonder how people will feel when we drop 1/2 million troops into Iraq, march from one end of the country to the other, and find absolutely nothing". Not to hard to figure his feelings out on that one.
Do you think the other 5 countries that also provided intelligence that thought Saddam had WMD's were also lying? Do you think they were lying for their own reasons or do you think Bush somehow managed to convince them to lie for him?


Let's see how much of a free thinker you really are. A free thinker will admit the Democrats thought the same thing as the Republicans. A free thinker will also admit that if the Republicans lied about the WMD's so did the Democrats on the intelligence committee, so did the Democrats in the late 1990's, and so did the Democrats when they voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq.

I don't doubt that many Democrats did indeed think the same as the Republicans. However, I feel like the intelligence after 9/11 was pulled, stretched, selected, guided, forced, faked, lied, copied, fvcked up beyond all recognitioned, etc. to push a PNAC agenda (I do admit I didn't know what PNAC was then, but it's pretty obvious now that I've seen it). The American people and those in the Senate/Congress that didn't already have such views were "duped" into a false war"

So are you a free thinker or simply like to tout yourself as one like all the other so called moderates on this forum?

Like I said, I don't mind you or anyone calling me a liberal. Hell, half of the so-called conservatives could be called liberal in the spending department - i.e. deficits don't matter (a real sore spot for me). I'm not anti-Republcan....I'm anti George Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, Wolfowitz, Bolton and anyone else who belong to the warmongering PNAC crew

Edit: Notice that I don't complain about Afghanistan with one exception: OBL is "still" free. I also frequently complain about terrorist sponsoring states such as Saudi Arabia (15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers originated from SA). Iraq was no threat to the US and many other were far worse than Iraq, but we turn a blind eye to them for whatever reason. At this point, it would take a real WMD attack to garner support for another excellent adventure in another land with Bush in power.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Deudalus

I know that wasn't directed at me, but I'll respond too

I blame the Democrats for the same reason I blame the Republicans, becuase they were involved in what amounted to a failure of intelligence (both the CIA kind and the Mensa kind). However, in all fairness, it was the Bush White House that lead the charge. Do the Democrats bear some of the blame? Of course. But they don't bear and equal amount.

That I can totally agree with, yet why don't you ever hear that around here?

This forum is basically filled with uninterrupted DNC talking points when it could be filled with some sort of intellectually stimulating discussion.

Whenever one side or the other feels the need to defend the policies of any favored party, the truth is the first casualty.

Notwithstanding, sometimes the corpse of truth comes floating to the surface, and then there are going to be people asking all sorts of embarassing questions. Whoever was holding the gun is gonna get flamed.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Deudalus

I know that wasn't directed at me, but I'll respond too

I blame the Democrats for the same reason I blame the Republicans, becuase they were involved in what amounted to a failure of intelligence (both the CIA kind and the Mensa kind). However, in all fairness, it was the Bush White House that lead the charge. Do the Democrats bear some of the blame? Of course. But they don't bear and equal amount.

That I can totally agree with, yet why don't you ever hear that around here?

This forum is basically filled with uninterrupted DNC talking points when it could be filled with some sort of intellectually stimulating discussion.

I agree that there are certainly a fair number of DNC talking points, but there are also an equal number of posts that must have been made only seconds after calling Sean Hannity, and then checking with President Bush. The noise and lack of intellectual discussion goes both ways.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

I agree that there are certainly a fair number of DNC talking points, but there are also an equal number of posts that must have been made only seconds after calling Sean Hannity, and then checking with President Bush. The noise and lack of intellectual discussion goes both ways.

Not sure if DNC talking points are directed at me or not, but I have never visited the DNC (or any political site other than this P&N forum) sites. I've made my own opinion and voice my own views on the subject. I do agree that there are many here from both sides that repeat verbatim what they read.

 

[Deudalus]

I don't doubt that many Democrats did indeed think the same as the Republicans. However, I feel like the intelligence after 9/11 was pulled, stretched, selected, guided, forced, faked, lied, copied, fvcked up beyond all recognitioned, etc. to push a PNAC agenda (I do admit I didn't know what PNAC was then, but it's pretty obvious now that I've seen it). The American people and those in the Senate/Congress that didn't already have such views were "duped" into a false war"

How? Can you show some proof that evidence was being doctored and people were being lied to?

Do you not think that its possible it didn't take too much to convince the Reps that we needed to go to Iraq because they ALL wanted to remove Saddam in 1998? After 9-11 it only makes sense that we would take even less chances with the middle east would we not?

This is where I disagree with everyone on the Iraq war and this is also where I think people fall by the wayside into blind partisanship when they should be using their heads.

I support the Iraq war, but I thought going to war on the basis of WMD's was stupid even before we went in and didn't find them. WMD's was not the only reason we gave for going to war, but it was clearly the biggest one and even if we knew exactly where tons of WMD's were, it still IMO wasn't the real reason why it was necessary to go into Iraq.

There are so many other reasons why we should be there both politically, geographically, economically, etc, etc that completely trump the WMD mindset that going into Iraq was still in our best interest.

Yet so many blindedly partisan people, especially on this forum, refuse to even consider anything that isn't party line.

 

[db]

Right after the London bombings, there is no longer the "War on Terror", but it is now the ?global struggle against violent extremism.?
Seriously. Terminology is carefully chosen, just as an advertising campaign is chosen by someone like Coke. By the time the London bombings happened, it was clear that the phrase "war on terror" no longer served a usefull purpose.

Saying more about this is a waste of time since most people here don't think for themselves but just repeat what others have said (often repeating well-thought-out phrases designed as above).

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Deudalus

I don't doubt that many Democrats did indeed think the same as the Republicans. However, I feel like the intelligence after 9/11 was pulled, stretched, selected, guided, forced, faked, lied, copied, fvcked up beyond all recognitioned, etc. to push a PNAC agenda (I do admit I didn't know what PNAC was then, but it's pretty obvious now that I've seen it). The American people and those in the Senate/Congress that didn't already have such views were "duped" into a false war"

How? Can you show some proof that evidence was being doctored and people were being lied to?

Here ya go:

THE STOVEPIPE by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
How conflicts between the Bush Administration and the intelligence community marred the reporting on Iraq?s weapons.

SELECTIVE INTELLIGENCE by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
Donald Rumsfeld has his own special sources. Are they reliable?

The new Pentagon papers - By Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski

Hijacking Catastrophe - by Karen Kwiatkowski (Lt. Col. USAF retired)
Hijacking Catastrophe is powerful, understated, straightforward and educational. In a single meticulously organized hour of evidence and analysis, viewers are treated to a thoughtful explanation of modern American empire, neo-conservatism as a driving force for the current Bush administration.

Video (right-click and Save As)...this requires Real Player (I use Real Alternative) to view

IRAQ ON THE RECORD - THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION?S PUBLIC STATEMENTS ON IRAQ (PDF)
This report, which was prepared at the request of Rep. Henry A. Waxman, is a comprehensive examination of the statements made by the five Administration officials most responsible for providing public information and shaping public opinion on Iraq: President George Bush, Vice President Richard Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice. It finds that the five officials made misleading statements about the threat posed by Iraq in 125 public appearances. The report and an accompanying database identify 237 specific misleading statements by the five officials.

The Fifth Estate: The Unauthorized Biography of Dick Cheney
Cheney's remarkable life story involves the relentless accumulation of power in every form and regardless of the outcome of this fall's election, he will continue to be one of the most powerful and well-connected men in the world. The fifth estate will show how he accomplished this, what it involved in terms of costs for others and what history's judgement could be.
Watch the Video 110MB (Requires Quicktime Player)
Note: This video also shows the LIE involved in justifying the Gulf War in 1991 wherein the U.S. gave fake satellite photos to the Saudis to get them to invite our military into their country. They (the CBC) obtained Russian sat. photos from the same day that did not show Iraqi troops and tanks amassing on the Kuwait/Saudi border. The St. Petersburg Times (FL) and the Christian Science Monitor also have articles discussing these faked satellite photos.

This film also uncovers what was going on in the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans (OSP). They interview Seymour Hersh who wrote Selective Intelligence and also The Stovepipe and they interview Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski who wrote The New Pentagon Papers and worked in the OSP run by Wolfowitz/Feith.

PBS Frontline Documentary - Rumsfeld's War
In "Rumsfeld's War," FRONTLINE and The Washington Post join forces for the first time to investigate Donald Rumsfeld's contentious battle with the Pentagon bureaucracy to assert civilian control of the military and remake the way America fights.

This report traces Donald Rumsfeld's career from his time as an adviser to President Nixon to his rise as the oft-seen and well-known face of the George W. Bush administration during the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. In interviews with key administration officials, military leaders, and reporters from The Washington Post, the documentary examines how a secretary of defense bent on reform became a secretary of war accused of ignoring the advice of his generals.

That should keep you busy for a while.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Deudalus
Yet so many blindedly partisan people, especially on this forum, refuse to even consider anything that isn't party line.

Like I said, if being against the Iraq war and Bush makes me a liberal, I'll wear the title very proudly!

I guess all people against the war and Bush are Democrat/liberal though! :roll:

(38% approval. 56% think it wasn't worth going to war in the first place. Less than 50% think Bush was honest. Looks like I'm in the majority on that list! At least the sentiment will keep the asshat in check for a few years until we can get someone decent into the people's house)

P.S. Conjur, he's not going to consider your links other than to degrade them. He complains about people not being free thinkers, but has yet to look in the mirror. He says he talks the party line, yet passes the PNAC line to the hilt. Not suprising though!

 

[Deudalus]

Here ya go:

THE STOVEPIPE by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
How conflicts between the Bush Administration and the intelligence community marred the reporting on Iraq?s weapons.

SELECTIVE INTELLIGENCE by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
Donald Rumsfeld has his own special sources. Are they reliable?

Both of those fall way short of showing lies and clear evidence that the intelligence was being fit around the policy. Did you even read those links?

The new Pentagon papers - By Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski

Overly partisan sources cannot be considered sorry.

by Karen Kwiatkowski (Lt. Col. USAF retired)

Same author as the one from Salon. Please read Salon's sales pitch to try to get you to be a premium member:

"Join Salon Premium and play the blame game with us

You've heard the Bush Administration condemn Democrats, the press, and ordinary citizens for "playing the blame game" in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. They probably mean that the press's heavy coverage of Katrina, including documenting the government's responsibility for the mismanagement of the disaster, comes as an unwelcome surprise to an administration that depends on secrecy and deception.

Well, if covering this debacle means playing the blame game, then we play it proudly. Salon's staff and contributing writers have kept you informed on all aspects of the post-Katrina meltdown, such as the horrors of the Superdome, FEMA's denial of aid, and the ties between levee weakness and the war in Iraq."


Didn't look at the PBS one, but honestly PBS can't really be trusted either. Their own ombudsmen, for those of you who don't know an un-biased guy hired by that media source to insure that what they put out as news is non-partisan, has criticized them for being too left wing.

I'll look at it later, but PBS carries about as much weight with me as Fox News does for you.

 

[Deudalus]

Originally posted by: Engineer


(38% approval. 56% think it wasn't worth going to war in the first place. Less than 50% think Bush was honest. Looks like I'm in the majority on that list! At least the sentiment will keep the asshat in check for a few years until we can get someone decent into the people's house)

Umm, no your party is already gearing up for Hillary in '08 which any Republican candidate other than Pat Robertson could beat.

That's the problem, you don't realize you are on the fringe left. Alot of Democrats truly don't realize that running Hillary isn't the key to winning the Presidency.

It is thought like this that keeps the right wing in power in this country which is what truly annoys me.

P.S. Conjur, he's not going to consider your links other than to degrade them. He complains about people not being free thinkers, but has yet to look in the mirror. He says he talks the party line, yet passes the PNAC line to the hilt. Not suprising though!

Read the mission statement from Salon.com please before you comment. I quoted it in my post.

Read the articles he listed from New Yorker and realize they don't back up his claims at all.

At least read the links before you comment.

To not do so reveals you as a simple knee jerk liberal which is becoming more and more clear. You can claim that you are not all day long but the proof is in the posts which label you as a left winger from what I've read.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Deudalus

P.S. Thanks for answering the OP's question. I'm sure he finds your answer very helpful!

Could you under any circumstances be convinced by anyone that Iraq is part of the war on terror?

Did you ever consider it?

Did you spend much time researching, critical thinking, or thinking outside the left-wing box as to whether it could be true?

Or did you simply wait to see what Air America told you and go with it?

That cuts both ways:

Could you under any circumstances be convinced by anyone that Iraq is NOT part of the war on terror?

Did you ever consider it?

Did you spend much time researching, critical thinking, or thinking outside the BushCo gospel as to whether it could be true?

Or did you simply wait to see what Rush and his ilk told you and go with it?

Originally posted by: Deudalus

I know that wasn't directed at me, but I'll respond too

I blame the Democrats for the same reason I blame the Republicans, becuase they were involved in what amounted to a failure of intelligence (both the CIA kind and the Mensa kind). However, in all fairness, it was the Bush White House that lead the charge. Do the Democrats bear some of the blame? Of course. But they don't bear and equal amount.

That I can totally agree with, yet why don't you ever hear that around here?

Because Clinton did NOT lie about the threat posed by Iraq, misrepresenting both the extent of and certaintly about Iraq's remaining WMD capabilities, nor did he invade Iraq. Clinton offered a more tempered, reasoned response instead of rushing to invade, costing tens of thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars.

This forum is basically filled with uninterrupted DNC talking points when it could be filled with some sort of intellectually stimulating discussion.

Like Engineer, I do not remember visiting the DNC site (though I've been almost everywhere sometime, even FreeRepublic.com, so it is likely I've been there some time or another). I also do not receive any Democratic e-mails (although I am on several RNC lists), have never listened to Air America (don't believe it's even available in this area), and, to the best of my knowledge, do not read, watch, or listen to anything else produced by the DNC or any of its affiliated interests. Yet a certain set of people here have accused my of repeating the DNC talking points. I can only assume they believe the Dems have some sort of mind control rays since I'm not getting their points through more conventional sources.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Deudalus


Umm, no your party is already gearing up for Hillary in '08 which any Republican candidate other than Pat Robertson could beat.

My party? I'll vote for any candidate who is somewhat socially liberal (or at least moderate in that department) and fiscially conservative (To be honest, an Arnold talking type candidate - not necessarily his actions). I'll take the "my party" in this forum because of my severe dislike of Bush. I'll vote for the person of choice based on what they are for, nothing to do with party at all.

I'm registered independant by the way, not that it matters.

Oh, and I really hope the Democrat voters aren't goofy enough to pick Hilary in the 08 primaries. At least look at someone like Bill Richardson. Hopefully, the Republican side can take a look at people like McCain (scares me a little in the warmongering dept., but I would still look at him over Hillary by far).

You and others are really hung up on this "against Bush = Liberal" crap, aren't you? I guess that's the new way though. Either you with us or against us....Mission accomplished! :roll:

 

[Deudalus]

I'm registered independant by the way, not that it matters.

Considering Conjur, glugglugg and others on this forum claim to be independent moderates that doesn't score too many points.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Deudalus
[ ... ]
I support the Iraq war, but I thought going to war on the basis of WMD's was stupid even before we went in and didn't find them. WMD's was not the only reason we gave for going to war, but it was clearly the biggest one and even if we knew exactly where tons of WMD's were, it still IMO wasn't the real reason why it was necessary to go into Iraq.

There are so many other reasons why we should be there both politically, geographically, economically, etc, etc that completely trump the WMD mindset that going into Iraq was still in our best interest.

Yet so many blindedly partisan people, especially on this forum, refuse to even consider anything that isn't party line.

Perhaps. If so, however, the Bush administration should have been honest with America and the world about why he was invading Iraq. That the Bush administration chose to lie about it taints everything about the invasion, including any good achieved.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Deudalus

I'm registered independant by the way, not that it matters.

Considering Conjur, glugglugg and others on this forum claim to be independent moderates that doesn't score too many points.

LOL. Oh well, I've told you my views. Call them what you will, doesn't matter to me as I'm not in the mood to change on the OP issue. I've changed on several including SS, all deficits aren't bad (current ones are though), etc., but NOT on this issue.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Deudalus

Originally posted by: Engineer


(38% approval. 56% think it wasn't worth going to war in the first place. Less than 50% think Bush was honest. Looks like I'm in the majority on that list! At least the sentiment will keep the asshat in check for a few years until we can get someone decent into the people's house)

Umm, no your party is already gearing up for Hillary in '08 which any Republican candidate other than Pat Robertson could beat.

That's the problem, you don't realize you are on the fringe left. Alot of Democrats truly don't realize that running Hillary isn't the key to winning the Presidency.

It is thought like this that keeps the right wing in power in this country which is what truly annoys me.

P.S. Conjur, he's not going to consider your links other than to degrade them. He complains about people not being free thinkers, but has yet to look in the mirror. He says he talks the party line, yet passes the PNAC line to the hilt. Not suprising though!

Read the mission statement from Salon.com please before you comment. I quoted it in my post.

Read the articles he listed from New Yorker and realize they don't back up his claims at all.

At least read the links before you comment.

To not do so reveals you as a simple knee jerk liberal which is becoming more and more clear. You can claim that you are not all day long but the proof is in the posts which label you as a left winger from what I've read.

The State department doubted. Many ex-CIA analysts too. DOD recongnised that the intelligence we got back from other countries were echos, if you know what they are.

Intelligence agencies provide intelligence, not proof or even evidence. Responsible people in positions of analysis do not make recommendations, however their universal caution has always been that their product is not sufficient for action.

Every President before has known this. How is it that Bush did not?

Hersch, PBS, and it seems every source named has been discarded, but in fact if you knew how things work what they present has more credibility than a great deal of intel.

Virtually everyone jumped on this one, either because they thought it right or were afraid of opposing the bloodlust of the American people.

Dem or Rep, they have nothing but shame for their actions.

 

[Deudalus]

That cuts both ways:

Could you under any circumstances be convinced by anyone that Iraq is NOT part of the war on terror?

Did you ever consider it?

Did you spend much time researching, critical thinking, or thinking outside the BushCo gospel as to whether it could be true?

Or did you simply wait to see what Rush and his ilk told you and go with it?

Actually starting out I didn't support the war. After doing some research into the 1991 Gulf War, Clinton policies, and also the implications of a Democratic Iraq after 9-11 I changed my mind.

Because Clinton did NOT lie about the threat posed by Iraq, misrepresenting both the extent of and certaintly about Iraq's remaining WMD capabilities, nor did he invade Iraq. Clinton offered a more tempered, reasoned response instead of rushing to invade, costing tens of thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars.

Actually, Clinton made a very strong case about the WMD's and made a much stronger case about Iraq having nukes than Bush did.

You are right he didn't invade Iraq, he tried to create a civil war in Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein. Civil wars as you know is the most inhumane type of war, if you don't realize this take a look at central Africa.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Deudalus

Here ya go:

THE STOVEPIPE by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
How conflicts between the Bush Administration and the intelligence community marred the reporting on Iraq?s weapons.

SELECTIVE INTELLIGENCE by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
Donald Rumsfeld has his own special sources. Are they reliable?

Both of those fall way short of showing lies and clear evidence that the intelligence was being fit around the policy. Did you even read those links?

Yes, I have. Why don't you try reading them? It's obvious you didn't.

The new Pentagon papers - By Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski

Overly partisan sources cannot be considered sorry.[/quote]A Lt. Col. working in the Pentagon in the Office of Special Plans is "overly partisan"?

Get the fvck over your apologist, partisan BS and read the fvcking article.

by Karen Kwiatkowski (Lt. Col. USAF retired)

Same author as the one from Salon. Please read Salon's sales pitch to try to get you to be a premium member:

<bs snipped>[/quote]That link was provided free of charge. Just read it and stop shooting the messenger and ignoring the message, you partisan pos.

Didn't look at the PBS one, but honestly PBS can't really be trusted either. Their own ombudsmen, for those of you who don't know an un-biased guy hired by that media source to insure that what they put out as news is non-partisan, has criticized them for being too left wing.

I'll look at it later, but PBS carries about as much weight with me as Fox News does for you.

PBS' Frontline documentaries are HIGHLY regarded by the right, the left, and the middle.

Again, drop your partisan BS and read and learn.

Otherwise, take your sorry, Freeper-ass outta here and stop trolling the boards.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Deudalus

Because Clinton did NOT lie about the threat posed by Iraq, misrepresenting both the extent of and certaintly about Iraq's remaining WMD capabilities, nor did he invade Iraq. Clinton offered a more tempered, reasoned response instead of rushing to invade, costing tens of thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars.

Actually, Clinton made a very strong case about the WMD's and made a much stronger case about Iraq having nukes than Bush did.

You are right he didn't invade Iraq, he tried to create a civil war in Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein. Civil wars as you know is the most inhumane type of war, if you don't realize this take a look at central Africa.

Which case was that? I don't ever recall Clinton ever stating that Iraq had nuclear weapons.

Clinton didn't try to start any war, that I am aware of. War itself, is inhumane.

 

[Deudalus]

Perhaps. If so, however, the Bush administration should have been honest with America and the world about why he was invading Iraq. That the Bush administration chose to lie about it taints everything about the invasion, including any good achieved.

That lie word sure is thrown around like a hot potato around here yet I still haven't seen a single shred of proof that Bush lied.

I wouldn't doubt at all that he was wrong on the intelligence, but in order to prove a lie you have to show that he knew that the WMD claims were wrong and still continue to use them as a reason to invade.

Care to show some evidence, that isn't from an overly biased site that isn't an editorial, that shows that he blatantly lied?