Saddam and Weapons of Mass Destruction

[Bitdog]

There are evil dictators all over the world and we don't go after them like we did Sadam
and the difference is the OIL. It's not that we went to war FOR the oil.
We went to war so those who appose us don't have that resource to use against us.
Those who appose us often are former partners of OUR CIA that we backstabbed then they turned on us.
Bin Laudin, Sadam, Noriaga, ect to mention a few.
Sadam had the resources to buy weapons,
but the facts are that WMD was the reason for war and there was NO evidence of a WMD threat to us.
That means the WAR WAS BASED ON A LIE. There is no good faith mistake here.
I believe that Bush can't seperate church and state.
History has proven that when religions have armys, they kill each other.
If elected again, Bush will go to war again. WW3 doesn't sound like a good choice to me.
His last lie for war worked using cut throat politics, you're with us republicans or against us blue tie republicans.
There is a factor that plays in this ordeal and that is we did go to war for oil because a large oil supply
that is not OPEC can break OPEC and we benifit from that. Also even though the Iraq oil sales probably won't go directly into our pockets, we are in control over there, and so if OPEC raises prices, we will flood the market.

Just some thoughts to mull over.
Their incomplete, but we aren't in court here.
Content should take priority over spelling.
(Spell checkers need a thread of their own so they can correct them selves forever.)

 

[chowderhead]

GWB great selling point in the 2000 election was that he was going to surround himself with advisors and cabinet members who have lots of experience and who can support this president in forming policies both domestic and international - we ended up with people like Rumsfeld, Cheney and Wolfowitz, Armitage.
Gen. (ret) Wes Clark has repeatedly said that the day after 9/11/2001 that Rumsfeld was already telling aides to start drafting ways to hit Iraq. Clark on MSNBC HardBall
Media Silent on Clark's 9/11 Comments
I have yet to hear/read someone from the white house or this administration refute Gen. Clark's version of the conversations or events.

Look, I fully support going after Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaeda. I fully support the war in Afghanistan but the President is wrong when he said you cannot pick and choice. He chose to go into Iraq. He cited WMDs and Saddam's threat to the region and the US as the main reasons. If he wanted to nation-build or if he wanted to create a beachhead in that region, he should have said that. Maybe this is another front on the nebular war against terrorism ... but it is not related to 9/11/01. As others have stated, if this was related to 9/11, GWB would have gone after Saudi Arabia or continued an unrelenting, sustained assault/search in Afghanistan/Pakistan. I believe the administration has lost focus on Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaeda and is fixated on Iraq.

Saddam Hussein and Iraq had nothing to do with what happened on 9/11/2001 - Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaeda did. I would fully support 100,000 troops in Afghanistan/Pakistan to continue the search for al-Qaeda and OBL. Why are they in Iraq? If the US or our allies had proof that Iraq was somehow connected to al-Qaeda and the 9/11 attacks, you can bet they would have provided the proof by now. To leave the distinct impression that the are related and to parse words that imply connection is plain wrong.
The Telegraph article about Atta and Iraq has not been picked up by mainstream press since it broke. It cited secret memos that are suspect in themselves as they also mention "Niger Shipment" of uranium that has been discredited.

Why have we lost focus on Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaeda?

 

[Genesys]

Originally posted by: Bitdog
There are evil dictators all over the world and we don't go after them like we did Sadam
and the difference is the OIL. It's not that we went to war FOR the oil.
We went to war so those who appose us don't have that resource to use against us.
Those who appose us often are former partners of OUR CIA that we backstabbed then they turned on us.
Bin Laudin, Sadam, Noriaga, ect to mention a few.
Sadam had the resources to buy weapons,
but the facts are that WMD was the reason for war and there was NO evidence of a WMD threat to us.
That means the WAR WAS BASED ON A LIE. There is no good faith mistake here.
I believe that Bush can't seperate church and state.
History has proven that when religions have armys, they kill each other.
If elected again, Bush will go to war again. WW3 doesn't sound like a good choice to me.
His last lie for war worked using cut throat politics, you're with us republicans or against us blue tie republicans.
There is a factor that plays in this ordeal and that is we did go to war for oil because a large oil supply
that is not OPEC can break OPEC and we benifit from that. Also even though the Iraq oil sales probably won't go directly into our pockets, we are in control over there, and so if OPEC raises prices, we will flood the market.

Just some thoughts to mull over.
Their incomplete, but we aren't in court here.
Content should take priority over spelling.
(Spell checkers need a thread of their own so they can correct them selves forever.)

yes, youre right, those thoughts are rather incoherent, but oh well.

now im only going to address one statement out of your bunch because ive been wanting to ask it to someone who thinks like you for quite some time now.

There are evil dictators all over the world and we don't go after them like we did Sadam

would it make you feel any better if we went after all the evil dictators in the world? if so, then dont bitch if Bush starts another war. if not, then quit using that argument because it has does not strengthen any of your other arguments, its just a bunch of lame lib drivel flowing forth from your mouth.

I believe that Bush can't seperate church and state.

that statement irritates me too. how has Pres Bush forced you to believe in any religion? i dont seem to recall an official religion of the state being established, but i may have missed it over other important news.

 

[maluckey]

This is the rather simplified way of summing it up as I see it:

The Kay Report information pretty much prooves that Saddam was in clear violation of just about any resolution you could find. His own people would attest that he had WMD, and used them against Iran, and the Kurds. He personally threatened to use WMD's against the U.S., in the first Gulf War, and his own son stated just before our second invasion, that they would use them if they were invaded. He (Saddam) deliberately misled, or threw out the inspectors. This would have been unnecessary if there was nothing to hide. He repeatedly assisted with financing terrorist training, and allowed camps to exist with his knowledge. He even went so far as to offer payment to the families of suicide bombers, under the guise of being humanitarian. No matter what you believe about the invasion of Iraq, unless you are in fantasyland, you could never confuse Saddam with a caring and kind humanitarian.

The region needed stability. We needed to make a point about terrorism. We also needed a foothold in the Middle East to protect our interests. Iran was recently trying to reform, and has a progressive leader, so invading them would be of little or no political use. Syria was on the UN security council (what a joke), so the fallout would have been huge. Iraq was a hated nation by many, in clear violation of the peace treaty with the U.S., and in violation of virtually every UN Resolution, so the choice was simple.

 

[leeboy]

Originally posted by: Crazyfool
I sleep better at night knowing a man like our President, George Bush, is sitting at the wheel.

A little dyslexia? I think you meant to say you sit better at night knowing Dubya is sleeping at the wheel? NC for the correction

 

[EXman]

I believe that Bush can't seperate church and state.

and where in any of our Constitution/amendments does it say "seperate church and state?"

it does not...

now I am going to go add this to the "0phrase I am tired of" thread since it is a myth except in a speach by Thomas Jefferson inside of a church.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: maluckey
This is the rather simplified way of summing it up as I see it:

The Kay Report information pretty much prooves that Saddam was in clear violation of just about any resolution you could find. His own people would attest that he had WMD, and used them against Iran, and the Kurds. He personally threatened to use WMD's against the U.S., in the first Gulf War, and his own son stated just before our second invasion, that they would use them if they were invaded. He (Saddam) deliberately misled, or threw out the inspectors. This would have been unnecessary if there was nothing to hide. He repeatedly assisted with financing terrorist training, and allowed camps to exist with his knowledge. He even went so far as to offer payment to the families of suicide bombers, under the guise of being humanitarian. No matter what you believe about the invasion of Iraq, unless you are in fantasyland, you could never confuse Saddam with a caring and kind humanitarian.

The part above is largely nonsense, the standard disinformation and distortions. In particular, you might want to check the actual chronology of the various resolutions with respect to the "violations" you list.

The region needed stability. We needed to make a point about terrorism. We also needed a foothold in the Middle East to protect our interests. Iran was recently trying to reform, and has a progressive leader, so invading them would be of little or no political use. Syria was on the UN security council (what a joke), so the fallout would have been huge. Iraq was a hated nation by many, in clear violation of the peace treaty with the U.S., and in violation of virtually every UN Resolution, so the choice was simple.

This part is largely accurate, though you've spun it upside down. Bush & his PNAC minions decided to do a little empire-building in the Middle East. To do this, they needed a victim. Iraq was an easy choice, so they invented a case for invasion. This might have been acceptable if they had been honest about their motives and goals. They chose to lie about it instead, believing the American public and Congress would not accept their imperialist agenda. Though the invasion has accomplished some good, e.g., dethroning Hussein, it is tainted by the lies that put us there.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ZeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: chess9
Anyway, we've been down this road a thousand times here an no one has produced ANY evidence of an imminent threat to the U.S. from S.H.

-Robert

"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late."

So, who said anything about an imminent threat? Try literacy, k?

One doesn't have to be literate to parrot a Bush-lite commercial. K?


(Anyone have a good Flash animation of a bleating parrot? )

Um, nice comeback? :shrug;

Sorry. You're such a literate person, I didn't think I'd have to spell it out for you. Your verbatim parroting of an inane political ad offers no evidence of insight or independent thought. Instead, it shows a mindless acceptance of anything coming out of the Bush administration. I found this rather noteworthy given your condescending dig at chess9.

But that's just me.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: chess9


Anyway, we've been down this road a thousand times here an no one has produced ANY evidence of an imminent threat to the U.S. from S.H.

-Robert

"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late."

So, who said anything about an imminent threat? Try literacy, k?

This message authorized by the Bush Apologists of America (BAA). Pulling the wool over America's eyes since 1980.


Just for you Bow. Merry Christmas. :gift::beer:

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: chess9


Anyway, we've been down this road a thousand times here an no one has produced ANY evidence of an imminent threat to the U.S. from S.H.

-Robert

"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late."

So, who said anything about an imminent threat? Try literacy, k?

This message authorized by the Bush Apologists of America (BAA). Pulling the wool over America's eyes since 1980.


Just for you Bow. Merry Christmas. :gift::beer:

LOL. Thanks.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ZeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: chess9
Anyway, we've been down this road a thousand times here an no one has produced ANY evidence of an imminent threat to the U.S. from S.H.

-Robert

"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late."

So, who said anything about an imminent threat? Try literacy, k?

One doesn't have to be literate to parrot a Bush-lite commercial. K?


(Anyone have a good Flash animation of a bleating parrot? )

Um, nice comeback? :shrug;

Sorry. You're such a literate person, I didn't think I'd have to spell it out for you. Your verbatim parroting of an inane political ad offers no evidence of insight or independent thought. Instead, it shows a mindless acceptance of anything coming out of the Bush administration. I found this rather noteworthy given your condescending dig at chess9.

But that's just me.

Um, the liberal mouthpieces have been criticizing Bush for saying there was an imminent threat form Iraq. I proved that he never said such a thing, yet, oddly, you still refuse to think differently from how the liberal mouthpieces are telling you to. Who's the parrot? Maybe Sanata will leave you a box of saltines under the Christmas tree.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Um, the liberal mouthpieces have been criticizing Bush for saying there was an imminent threat form Iraq. I proved that he never said such a thing, yet, oddly, you still refuse to think differently from how the liberal mouthpieces are telling you to. Who's the parrot? Maybe Sanata will leave you a box of saltines under the Christmas tree.

A good read

The issue is not the precise words the president and his deputies used but what arguments they made. And on that count, the record is devastatingly clear.


Oh, and HoP. I'm a little embarrassed...I was calling on you to show all these 'I proved it' people where they erred. After all, you chastised another member for not knowing what the word 'proof' means. Now look at you. (Whether you are right or wrong, by posting 1 quote, you didn't prove anything.)

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Um, the liberal mouthpieces have been criticizing Bush for saying there was an imminent threat form Iraq. I proved that he never said such a thing, yet, oddly, you still refuse to think differently from how the liberal mouthpieces are telling you to. Who's the parrot? Maybe Sanata will leave you a box of saltines under the Christmas tree.

A good read

The issue is not the precise words the president and his deputies used but what arguments they made. And on that count, the record is devastatingly clear.


Oh, and HoP. I'm a little embarrassed...I was calling on you to show all these 'I proved it' people where they erred. After all, you chastised another member for not knowing what the word 'proof' means. Now look at you. (Whether you are right or wrong, by posting 1 quote, you didn't prove anything.)

That's nice and all Gaard but it really is just spin. If people are going to claim that Bush said something - atleast make sure you understand what he said. It's nice to play games with his statement - but the FACTS are that he said we must act BEFORE the threat become imminent.
See - you guys can't keep talking out of both sides of your mouth - either say Bush said the threat was imminent or say his "pre-emptive doctrine" was used. If Bush said it was an imminent threat then it wouldn't be pre-emptive - no? But if we acted before the threat became imminent then it would be "pre-emptive". Right? You can't have both.

CkG

 

[Gaard]

Ok, but if we have to stick to exact words and aren't allowed the 'what do you think xxx means?' anymore I'll expect you to do some clubbing whenever someone (D or R) pulls out the dictionary.com thing to tell us what he/they meant when they said whatever.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Gaard
Ok, but if we have to stick to exact words and aren't allowed the 'what do you think xxx means?' anymore I'll expect you to do some clubbing whenever someone (D or R) pulls out the dictionary.com thing to tell us what he/they meant when they said whatever.

Again - say whatever you want but to say that Bush pre-emptively struck but then also say he said the threat was imminent don't wash. If the threat was imminent then no one would be yapping about this - the point is that it wasn't imminent. Bush said we needed to do something BEFORE the threat became imminent which would be pre-emption. But again - I don't think either matter IMO we had enough to dispose of him without all this. Saddam continuously breaking his agreements was more than enough to send his sorry ass packing.
Like I've said about other things - we can debate this until people stop whining about the election of 2000, but it's not going change anything. Bush said we had to act BEFORE imminence.

CkG

 

[Gaard]

I think we are on different pages. The argument, if I understand correctly, is that Bush said the threat was imminent...not that it really was.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard
Ok, but if we have to stick to exact words and aren't allowed the 'what do you think xxx means?' anymore I'll expect you to do some clubbing whenever someone (D or R) pulls out the dictionary.com thing to tell us what he/they meant when they said whatever.

Again - say whatever you want but to say that Bush pre-emptively struck but then also say he said the threat was imminent don't wash. If the threat was imminent then no one would be yapping about this - the point is that it wasn't imminent. Bush said we needed to do something BEFORE the threat became imminent which would be pre-emption. But again - I don't think either matter IMO we had enough to dispose of him without all this. Saddam continuously breaking his agreements was more than enough to send his sorry ass packing.
Like I've said about other things - we can debate this until people stop whining about the election of 2000, but it's not going change anything. Bush said we had to act BEFORE imminence.

CkG

Hey boys lets attack Lebanon before they become imminent. Yee Haw!

 

[Conky]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard
Ok, but if we have to stick to exact words and aren't allowed the 'what do you think xxx means?' anymore I'll expect you to do some clubbing whenever someone (D or R) pulls out the dictionary.com thing to tell us what he/they meant when they said whatever.

Again - say whatever you want but to say that Bush pre-emptively struck but then also say he said the threat was imminent don't wash. If the threat was imminent then no one would be yapping about this - the point is that it wasn't imminent. Bush said we needed to do something BEFORE the threat became imminent which would be pre-emption. But again - I don't think either matter IMO we had enough to dispose of him without all this. Saddam continuously breaking his agreements was more than enough to send his sorry ass packing.
Like I've said about other things - we can debate this until people stop whining about the election of 2000, but it's not going change anything. Bush said we had to act BEFORE imminence.

CkG

But unless the USA was attacked by Iraq or gave financial aid/weapons to those who would attack us all of these "armchair quarterbacks" can second guess him until the end of time. This is not a time for indecision and "well maybe Saddam is really a nice yet misunderstood guy" kind of crap. His record was clear... ask Kuwait or any of the 300,000 plus Iraqi's he snuffed. Not a nice fellow.

It still boils down to the 2000 election and considering the mental breakdown, beard-growing weirdness etc., displayed by Gore, I think the right choice was made. It's just too damn bad that all those dead people voting that got Kennedy elected didn't work in Gore's case. I think Illinois alone gave him 50,000,000 popular votes but too bad corruption in Chicago can't buy an election any more.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Gaard
I think we are on different pages. The argument, if I understand correctly, is that Bush said the threat was imminent...not that it really was.

No - that's exactly the page I'm on. What you fail to understand is that people yapping about "pre-emptive" strike are also now trying to say that Bush said the threat was imminent. - which clearly he did NOT say. He said we had to act BEFORE the threat became imminent - which would be pre-emptive, no? I'm not sure why people don't understand what he said. It's quite simple really.

Moonie - Keep counting the chads - maybe it'll keep you occupied so you don't post such drivel.

CkG

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard
I think we are on different pages. The argument, if I understand correctly, is that Bush said the threat was imminent...not that it really was.

No - that's exactly the page I'm on. What you fail to understand is that people yapping about "pre-emptive" strike are also now trying to say that Bush said the threat was imminent. - which clearly he did NOT say. He said we had to act BEFORE the threat became imminent - which would be pre-emptive, no? I'm not sure why people don't understand what he said. It's quite simple really.

Moonie - Keep counting the chads - maybe it'll keep you occupied so you don't post such drivel.

CkG

Now Caddy, the drivel was in the idiocy of your post. I just made it stand out.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard
I think we are on different pages. The argument, if I understand correctly, is that Bush said the threat was imminent...not that it really was.

No - that's exactly the page I'm on. What you fail to understand is that people yapping about "pre-emptive" strike are also now trying to say that Bush said the threat was imminent. - which clearly he did NOT say. He said we had to act BEFORE the threat became imminent - which would be pre-emptive, no? I'm not sure why people don't understand what he said. It's quite simple really.

Moonie - Keep counting the chads - maybe it'll keep you occupied so you don't post such drivel.

CkG

I think you're making the same mistake HoP made...that is take one quote and say "See?" There were many other occasions that our president spoke of Iraq and our impending doom.

 

[Moonbeam]

It was just a Bush intelligence failure.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard
I think we are on different pages. The argument, if I understand correctly, is that Bush said the threat was imminent...not that it really was.

No - that's exactly the page I'm on. What you fail to understand is that people yapping about "pre-emptive" strike are also now trying to say that Bush said the threat was imminent. - which clearly he did NOT say. He said we had to act BEFORE the threat became imminent - which would be pre-emptive, no? I'm not sure why people don't understand what he said. It's quite simple really.

Moonie - Keep counting the chads - maybe it'll keep you occupied so you don't post such drivel.

CkG

So it has evolved to Before it became imminent... well I guess that rules out Article 51 as the justification for the invasion... That sorta requires self defense situations and of the moment issues and before imminent could be years or decades. Perhaps we're going back to the old stand-by of it is implied in 1441 and the other resolutions it embodies.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
It was just a Bush intelligence failure.

To have a "failure" of Intelligence, one must first have Intelligence.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
It was just a Bush intelligence failure.

To have a "failure" of Intelligence, one must first have Intelligence.

He keeps it in a blind trust with Cheney's ties to Halliburton and Asscroft's copy of the constitution.


--------------------
Bush Apologists of America (BAA): pulling the wool over America's eyes since 1980.