Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Old_Rooster on January 08, 2007, 11:53:32 AM
-
With GWB's approval rating so low, the time is so right for the democrats to take control of the white house again.
But proving democrats are completely insane and blindly intent on blowing their golden chance? hahaha, of all their golden candidates whom do they choose to run? bwahahahahhaha, HILLARY CLINTON!
Gotta love em.
I send my salute to the next president of the United States of America, John McCain.
THANK GOD Democrats are such losers!
-
Hillary won't win...
-
Hillary won't win...
She will win the nomination of the circus clowns, i um mean democratic party.
But you are right, when the big dance comes, she will get blown away by John McCain by 20 points or more.
-
She will win the nomination of the circus clowns, i um mean democratic party.
But you are right, when the big dance comes, she will get blown away by John McCain by 20 points or more.
no... she will not ::)
-
she's not going to win the nominatioin.
America isn't ready for a Woman President and Hillary isn't the one to be the first.
-
no... she will not ::)
You don't give democrats enough credit for being as ignorant as they are....
-
she's not going to win the nominatioin.
America isn't ready for a Woman President and Hillary isn't the one to be the first.
Hmmmm, funny how all the polls show she would win the democratic nomination with ease. It would be interesting to have the First Man caught screwing a few Interns behind the presidents back. I DID NOT HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH THAT WOMAN! I miss those days actually, at least we laughed.....although laughing AT our president was never our aim.
But i digress..... We need another Ronald Reagan.
-
Hmmmm, funny how all the polls show she would win the democratic nomination with ease. It would be interesting to have the First Man caught screwing a few Interns behind the presidents back. I DID NOT HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH THAT WOMAN! I miss those days actually, at least we laughed.....although laughing AT our president was never our aim.
But i digress..... We need another Ronald Reagan.
(I like this guy)
-
(I like this guy)
Sounds like you are on the good team. Nice to meet another great Republican.
!
-
Sounds like you are on the good team. Nice to meet another great Republican.
!
you're welcome.
-
Hmmmm, funny how all the polls show she would win the democratic nomination with ease. It would be interesting to have the First Man caught screwing a few Interns behind the presidents back. I DID NOT HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH THAT WOMAN! I miss those days actually, at least we laughed.....although laughing AT our president was never our aim.
But i digress..... We need another Ronald Reagan.
Polls don;t matter now. they matter much later.
she would be an awful president IMO.
And after BUSH.................... . we do need another RR, actually we need dam near anything
-
Polls don;t matter now. they matter much later.
she would be an awful president IMO.
And after BUSH.................... . we do need another RR, actually we need dam near anything
Had Bush used every policy he has to this point but only if he had the art of complete bullshit talking like Clinton, he would be known as a great president.
Think about it, Clinton convinced America that blow jobs were not sex and now has every girl age 12-15 sucking cock and spitting into towels thinking they are still complete virgins. That my friend is the art of bullshit!
-
Had Bush used every policy he has to this point but only if he had the art of complete bullshit talking like Clinton, he would be known as a great president.
Think about it, Clinton convinced America that blow jobs were not sex and now has every girl age 12-15 sucking cock and spitting into towels thinking they are still complete virgins. That my friend is the art of bullshit!
I agree, Blow Jobs are SEX!
Dam Clinton! He really screwed shit up!
Bush on the other hand got us into a fucked up quagmire in Iraq, put us 400 billion in debt, got 3000+ Us soldiers killed, 20,000 wounded, because of bad intel or lie which ever you believe and made the whole area less safe from terrorists.
Frankly i'd take the Blow Job over what BUSH did.
-
Had Bush used every policy he has to this point but only if he had the art of complete bullshit talking like Clinton, he would be known as a great president.
Think about it, Clinton convinced America that blow jobs were not sex and now has every girl age 12-15 sucking cock and spitting into towels thinking they are still complete virgins. That my friend is the art of bullshit!
OMG... You are a complete idiot if you think Clinton's blowjob from Monica is worse than Bush lying to take us into war... ::) Old Dipshit more like it...
-
I agree, Blow Jobs are SEX!
Dam Clinton! He really screwed shit up!
Bush on the other hand got us into a fucked up quagmire in Iraq, put us 400 billion in debt, got 3000+ Us soldiers killed, 20,000 wounded, because of bad intel or lie which ever you believe and made the whole area less safe from terrorists.
Frankly i'd take the Blow Job over what BUSH did.
I know democrats hate this response but um when was the last terrorist attack on U.S. soil? ah yes, 9/11.....before we took this fight to their so called Holy Land!
-
OMG... You are a complete idiot if you think Clinton's blowjob is worse than Bush lying to take us into war... ::) Old Dipshit more like it...
Clinton not grabbing UBL before it all happened is probably worse to the 3000 killed on 9/11.
;D
-
I know democrats hate this response but um when was the last terrorist attack on U.S. soil? ah yes, 9/11.....before we took this fight to their so called Holy Land!
and under who's watch was this attack on our soil performed? You only need 1 guess
I'll give you a hint...... Rhimes with tush
-
OMG... You are a complete idiot if you think Clinton's blowjob from Monica is worse than Bush lying to take us into war... ::) Old Dipshit more like it...
We would be at war had a democrat or republican been in office, perhaps you didn't take note of the vote from congress to go to war, something like 99-1.
Then again, disgracing the office of president of the united states of america? that was pure clintonism.
-
Clinton not grabbing UBL before it all happened is probably worse to the 3000 killed on 9/11.
;D
Clinton knowing the future with his crystal ball makes him guilty of not acting?
-
and under who's watch was this attack on our soil performed? You only need 1 guess
I'll give you a hint...... Rhimes with tush
Given that opportunity because Clinton refused to go after OBL. Why? Because he feared the republicans would say he only did it to change the headlines to CLINTON GETS OBL instead of CLINTON POPS A NUT IN OVAL OFFICE!
Basically Clinton put his nuts in front of protecting the american people. thanks for that one slick willie. Hows it feel to have 3000 dead on your head?
-
Clinton knowing the future with his crystal ball makes him guilty of not acting?
Maybe him blowing up Khobar Towers full of US Soldiers and the bombings of wertern tourists in hotels in Africa weren't as telling as I thought.
-
Maybe him blowing up Khobar Towers full of US Soldiers and the bombings of wertern tourists in hotels in Africa weren't as telling as I thought.
Hitting them with facts doesn't change their yellow streak. I'm beginning to think a democrat would not hit back if they were busted in the nose.
-
Hows it feel to have 3000 dead on your head?
You should ask BUSH that question............ but not about 3000..........6000 instead
-
You should ask BUSH that question............ but not about 3000..........6000 instead
So after 9/11 you would have done nothing?
would you have apoligized to the terrorists for making them hate us?
-
So after 9/11 you would have done nothing?
would you have apoligized to the terrorists for making them hate us?
Now you are being bi-partisan-ly dumb.
I would have done everything Bush had done, except fly the Saudis out of the country, approved the port deal, and launched the Iraq invasion.
In addition, i would have took 100 Billion of the 400 billion we wasted in Iraq and used to beef up homeland security.
-
Now you are being bi-partisan-ly dumb.
I would have done everything Bush had done, except fly the Saudis out of the country, approved the port deal, and launched the Iraq invasion.
In addition, i would have took 100 Billion of the 400 billion we wasted in Iraq and used to beef up homeland security.
So Iraq not complying with resolutions, shooting at our planes, you would have cared less about that? I dunno, seems to me when you are the worlds ONLY superpower, you can't let nations like Iraq spit in your face. Thats just me, I happen to hit back when i'm hit.
-
by the way ozmo, i like you as a moderator, you do damn good work.
-
I agree, Blow Jobs are SEX!
Dam Clinton! He really screwed shit up!
Bush on the other hand got us into a fucked up quagmire in Iraq, put us 400 billion in debt, got 3000+ Us soldiers killed, 20,000 wounded, because of bad intel or lie which ever you believe and made the whole area less safe from terrorists.
Frankly i'd take the Blow Job over what BUSH did.
True it was sex, but from what I recall they gave Clinton a definition of "sex" in his deposition that arguably didn't include oral sex. Clinton gave a crafty answer based on that definition. Don't remember all the details. . . .
-
I know democrats hate this response but um when was the last terrorist attack on U.S. soil? ah yes, 9/11.....before we took this fight to their so called Holy Land!
Dems don't hate that response - they just understand that it's meaningless.
Homer Simpson: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm.
Lisa Simpson: That’s specious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: Thank you, dear.
Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Oh, how does it work?
Lisa: It doesn’t work.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: It’s just a stupid rock.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: But I don’t see any tigers around, do you?
[Homer thinks of this, then pulls out some money]
Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.
[Lisa refuses at first, then takes the exchange]
-
So Iraq not complying with resolutions, shooting at our planes, you would have cared less about that? I dunno, seems to me when you are the worlds ONLY superpower, you can't let nations like Iraq spit in your face. Thats just me, I happen to hit back when i'm hit.
I agree with that, but you have to put what they were doing in perspective. Iraq was like a little kid being punished. And we had been punishing them for years. The little kid will do things to defy their parent from time to time. these outburst don;t mean much becuase it never change the control we had over them.
At that particular time we had much more bigger fish to fry.............like Osmam and the bulk of Al queda in the Tora Bora Mts.
-
by the way ozmo, i like you as a moderator, you do damn good work.
thanks :)
-
Dems don't hate that response - they just understand that it's meaningless.
Homer Simpson: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm.
Lisa Simpson: That’s specious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: Thank you, dear.
Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Oh, how does it work?
Lisa: It doesn’t work.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: It’s just a stupid rock.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: But I don’t see any tigers around, do you?
[Homer thinks of this, then pulls out some money]
Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.
[Lisa refuses at first, then takes the exchange]
Standard democrat reply, anything positive in bush's presidency is meaningless.
-
I agree with that, but you have to put what they were doing in perspective. Iraq was like a little kid being punished. And we had been punishing them for years. The little kid will do things to defy their parent from time to time. these outburst don;t mean much becuase it never change the control we had over them.
At that particular time we had much more bigger fish to fry.............like Osmam and the bulk of Al queda in the Tora Bora Mts.
So when we would try to inspect a certain site and they tossed out inspectors out at gunpoint, then allowed them back in a couple weeks later, that didn't cause you to think something was fishy?
I mean thats like telling a drug dealer you will search his house in 3 weeks, odds are you will not find drugs at his house when you search then.
-
True it was sex, but from what I recall they gave Clinton a definition of "sex" in his deposition that arguably didn't include oral sex. Clinton gave a crafty answer based on that definition. Don't remember all the details. . . .
It's interesting the view of sex in our society.
I'll give you an example:
I have a very religous friend who will let his 7 year old kid watch "Saving Private Ryan" but won;t let him see 2 people kiss on TV.
Now don;t get me wrong.
I believe Clinton disgraced the office of the president.
But i also think BUSH has misused his powers as president.
-
It's interesting the view of sex in our society.
I'll give you an example:
I have a very religous friend who will let his 7 year old kid watch "Saving Private Ryan" but won;t let him see 2 people kiss on TV.
Now don;t get me wrong.
I believe Clinton disgraced the office of the president.
But i also think BUSH has misused his powers as president.
It is always amusing how any act makes people perceive things differently. When Bush attacked Iraq, my first thought was FINALLY A PRESIDENT WITH A SET OF NUTS!
-
Standard democrat reply, anything positive in bush's presidency is meaningless.
Whatever you say Homer.
If you can't understand the level of discourse in the Simpsons then I'm not going to waste my time trying to explain it to you.
-
So when we would try to inspect a certain site and they tossed out inspectors out at gunpoint, then allowed them back in a couple weeks later, that didn't cause you to think something was fishy?
I mean thats like telling a drug dealer you will search his house in 3 weeks, odds are you will not find drugs at his house when you search then.
I agree, I agree, I agree.
It's just that, now the public knows the extent of Iran's and N. Korea's Nuclear capabilities, the US goverment had to know much more about that back then and instaed over stretched us in Iraq.
We also had the opportunity to almost totally snuff out Al Queda in Afghanistan and blew it to go after Saddam.
To me that's a poor use of resources and we failed at a couiple of golden opportunities.
-
So when we would try to inspect a certain site and they tossed out inspectors out at gunpoint, then allowed them back in a couple weeks later, that didn't cause you to think something was fishy?
I mean thats like telling a drug dealer you will search his house in 3 weeks, odds are you will not find drugs at his house when you search then.
Funny how none of the major news media at the time wanted to carry the stories of us finding vx gas and other wmd's in Iraq. God forbit the american people get told the truth.
-
It is always amusing how any act makes people perceive things differently. When Bush attacked Iraq, my first thought was FINALLY A PRESIDENT WITH A SET OF NUTS!
I agree, BUSH has nuts. But what we needed was brains. Rummy didn;t have them and BUsh didn't consult Powell who did.
-
Funny how none of the major news media at the time wanted to carry the stories of us finding vx gas and other wmd's in Iraq. God forbit the american people get told the truth.
FOX would have replace their pics of the American Flag with that news. All they came up with was 500 ancient shells found in 2's and 3's all over Iraq. No, evidence of manufacturing either.
Face it. WMD's was false.
-
Whatever you say Homer.
If you can't understand the level of discourse in the Simpsons then I'm not going to waste my time trying to explain it to you.
If you can't understand that defending terrorists and murderous dictators is also a waste of time than we're not going to spend the time and effort to re educate you.
-
FOX would have replace their pics of the American Flag with that news. All they came up with was 500 ancient shells found in 2's and 3's all over Iraq. No, evidence of manufacturing either.
Face it. WMD's was false.
Negative shipmate..
WMD's existed. SAddam used them on his own people. He stockpiled them until inspectors came knocking and then out of the country they went. The ones that were found were smaller stockpiles of vx and some other agents. I wish I could share with you some of the things I saw since I've held a sec clearance. It woud change everything.
-
It's interesting the view of sex in our society.
I'll give you an example:
I have a very religous friend who will let his 7 year old kid watch "Saving Private Ryan" but won;t let him see 2 people kiss on TV.
Now don;t get me wrong.
I believe Clinton disgraced the office of the president.
But i also think BUSH has misused his powers as president.
I wouldn't let my little ones watch Saving Private Ryan. One of my friends said it looks like they really killed people in some of those combat scenes. :)
Clinton disgraced the office in many ways.
I'm still glad I voted for Bush over Gore and Kerry. Not a perfect president by any means, but I'm glad we had his strong leadership during some of the toughest times in our history. You gotta have a man with stones in the office during those times.
-
Whatever you say Homer.
If you can't understand the level of discourse in the Simpsons then I'm not going to waste my time trying to explain it to you.
I truly believe you are a democrat since you base your political beliefs on an episode of The Simpsons. *sigh*
-
I wouldn't let my little ones watch Saving Private Ryan. One of my friends said it looks like they really killed people in some of those combat scenes. :)
Clinton disgraced the office in many ways.
I'm still glad I voted for Bush over Gore and Kerry. Not a perfect president by any means, but I'm glad we had his strong leadership during some of the toughest times in our history. You gotta have a man with stones in the office during those times.
Imagine if we had of had Kerry who changed his views daily based on what polls said the american people wanted to hear.
-
I truly believe you are a democrat since you base your political beliefs on an episode of The Simpsons. *sigh*
There's nothing "political" in that little blurb from the Simpsons. I thought it was a simple illustration of the fallacious argument that you made regarding "no more domestic attacks". Obviously even logic presented at the level of the Simpsons eludes you. If I have some time later I'll see if I can find something from the TeleTubbies. Maybe that would be closer to your level of critical thinking.
-
Negative shipmate..
WMD's existed. SAddam used them on his own people. He stockpiled them until inspectors came knocking and then out of the country they went. The ones that were found were smaller stockpiles of vx and some other agents. I wish I could share with you some of the things I saw since I've held a sec clearance. It woud change everything.
Just becuase you hold a sec clearence doesn't mean the military doesn't still pump you with garbage. My father went to many breifings on the USSR back in the 80's and they pumped everyone with a bunch of garbage there about dangerous the russian miltary was.
If VX gas did exsist, then it's benefits both the miltary and the BUSH administration to make it public.
But they haven't. This mere fact says more about the "the alleged VX gas" than anything else.
One thing you should also know:
Even with the WMD's i was against attacking Saddam. I thought it was a bad idea at the time and not a good place to focus on at that moment.
-
Just becuase you hold a sec clearence doesn't mean the military doesn't still pump you with garbage. My father went to many breifings on the USSR back in the 80's and they pumped everyone with a bunch of garbage there about dangerous the russian miltary was.
If VX gas did exsist, then it's benefits both the miltary and the BUSH administration to make it public.
But they haven't. This mere fact says more about the "the alleged VX gas" than anything else.
One thing you should also know:
Even with the WMD's i was against attacking Saddam. I thought it was a bad idea at the time and not a good place to focus on at that moment.
You might be right... but it's hard to pump me with garbage when I'm seeing what's happening on a live video feed and a satellite to boot.
Fact is, they had vx and more, and what-do-you know... it disappeared before we invaded.
That's funny... even WITHOUT wmd's I was in complete support of the invasion. We should've finished it in 91.
-
I know democrats hate this response but um when was the last terrorist attack on U.S. soil? ah yes, 9/11.....before we took this fight to their so called Holy Land!
They don't have to get visas to kill americans now. They just take potshots at the GIs stationed on their street corners. why come to the USA when you can do it at home?
sucker.
-
If you can't understand that defending terrorists and murderous dictators is also a waste of time than we're not going to spend the time and effort to re educate you.
who said anything about defending terrorists or dictators.
BTW - how's the job search going?
-
Just becuase you hold a sec clearence doesn't mean the military doesn't still pump you with garbage. My father went to many breifings on the USSR back in the 80's and they pumped everyone with a bunch of garbage there about dangerous the russian miltary was.
If VX gas did exsist, then it's benefits both the miltary and the BUSH administration to make it public.
But they haven't. This mere fact says more about the "the alleged VX gas" than anything else.
One thing you should also know:
Even with the WMD's i was against attacking Saddam. I thought it was a bad idea at the time and not a good place to focus on at that moment.
What did Saddam gas the kurds with? 87 octane?
-
They don't have to get visas to kill americans now. They just take potshots at the GIs stationed on their street corners. why come to the USA when you can do it at home?
sucker.
Let's see...
fight em on their turf with SOLDIERS or...
fight em on our streets with CIVILIANS...
yep, tough one there genius.
-
who said anything about defending terrorists or dictators.
BTW - how's the job search going?
You seem completely opposed to anthing that's against them...so yeah
got two good offers today thanx
-
What did Saddam gas the kurds with? 87 octane?
I'm sure he had left over gas, and probably other things..... but was he a threat then? Back on 1990 when he used it? Or was he a threat in 2001 when America was looking for any excuse to invade a country?
Think about it.
-
I'm sure he had left over gas, and probably other things..... but was he a threat then? Back on 1990 when he used it? Or was he a threat in 2001 when America was looking for any excuse to invade a country?
Think about it.
There were no excuses necessary to invade iraq. Saddam gave us all the reason we ever needed.
-
You seem completely opposed to anthing that's against them...so yeah
got two good offers today thanx
congrat's on the offers.
BTW - my ONLY comment on this thread is that you can't make the claim that our fighting in the middle east is somehow keeping "the terrorist" from hitting us again. I could make the same claim that I have taken a dump every morning since 9-11 and that's why we haven't been hit again. Can you prove that's not true. Other than that - I take things issue by issue. If Bush had just been honest about his reasons for going to war I most likely would have been in favor although it's was still poorly planned (actually he had lot's of excellent advice that he simply chose to ignore)and executed but that's a whole other discussion.
-
I say Florida upsets the buckeyes tonight and wins 31-21
-
I'm sure he had left over gas, and probably other things..... but was he a threat then? Back on 1990 when he used it? Or was he a threat in 2001 when America was looking for any excuse to invade a country?
Think about it.
Well if you believe Powell and Rice then he was essentially nuetralized: &mode=related&search=
-
congrat's on the offers.
BTW - my ONLY comment on this thread is that you can't make the claim that our fighting in the middle east is somehow keeping "the terrorist" from hitting us again. I could make the same claim that I have taken a dump every morning since 9-11 and that's why we haven't been hit again. Can you prove that's not true. Other than that - I take things issue by issue. If Bush had just been honest about his reasons for going to war I most likely would have been in favor although it's was still poorly planned (actually he had lot's of excellent advice that he simply chose to ignore)and executed but that's a whole other discussion.
How bout the camps harboring terrorists we were watching from satellites in iraq? We gutted them. Is that a good start?
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/khodada.html
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/550kmbzd.asp
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,84291,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,779359,00.html
-
There were no excuses necessary to invade iraq. Saddam gave us all the reason we ever needed.
My point is, is they were much more of a threat in 1992 or what ever than in 2003 when we were out for blood. So the logic of "them being a threat" coupled with what Iran and N. Korea were doing in 2003 is invalid.
-
who said anything about defending terrorists or dictators.
some people believe that disagreeing with pre-emptive wars, regime changing, and nation building = supporting bad guys.
Not true.
It just means that you want your nation's resources used IN AMERICA, not overseas. That 250million a day we're spending there sure could make the USA much better, eh? ;)
-
How bout the camps harboring terrorists we were watching from satellites in iraq? We gutted them. Is that a good start?
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/khodada.html
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/550kmbzd.asp
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,84291,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,779359,00.html
were these terrorist enclaves in Iraq prior to our invasion. If so, why didn't Bush use as the reason rather than manufacturing reasons.
-
My point is, is they were much more of a threat in 1992 or what ever than in 2003 when we were out for blood. So the logic of "them being a threat" coupled with what Iran and N. Korea were doing in 2003 is invalid.
Iran and Korea have to be handled differently because we weren't able to stop them from aquiring nukes.
Iraq should've been knocked off in 91, you're right about that. But it was obvious to me they were not only still a threat but a GROWING threat.
-
were these terrorist enclaves in Iraq prior to our invasion. If so, why didn't Bush use as the reason rather than manufacturing reasons.
I can;t rmember who i was talking to, but the person said they couldn't use these photographs which are now found ont he internet becuase it would tip the iraqis off on our satelllite capbilities ......................hi larious! ;D ;D
-
were these terrorist enclaves in Iraq prior to our invasion. If so, why didn't Bush use as the reason rather than manufacturing reasons.
These reasons were included along with the wmd reason. However when not as many were found as we expected the dems and the media latched onto that as the only reason and then claimed bush lied... completely false.
-
Iran and Korea have to be handled differently because we weren't able to stop them from aquiring nukes.
Iraq should've been knocked off in 91, you're right about that. But it was obvious to me they were not only still a threat but a GROWING threat.
How? their economy was crippled...their army was virtually non-exsistant........ Any move of aggression direct or indirect from saddam would have gave us all the justification we needed. Instead we had to wave a faulty WMD threat in the mist of terrorism histeria to justify this war.
Not a very tangible reason to me.
-
I can;t rmember who i was talking to, but the person said they couldn't use these photographs which are now found ont he internet becuase it would tip the iraqis off on our satelllite capbilities ......................hi larious! ;D ;D
When you get into the details of the technology available and the reasons of when we invaded at the time we chose it becomes very clear why we wouldn't have let those out at that time. Not like we didn't have a million other reasons to invade.
Of course they would be found on the internet now after the fact. So what.
-
How? their economy was crippled...their army was virtually non-exsistant........ Any move of aggression direct or indirect from saddam would have gave us all the justification we needed. Instead we had to wave a faulty WMD threat in the mist of terrorism histeria to justify this war.
Not a very tangible reason to me.
N Koreas economy is aweful... are they still a problem? Of course.
So suddenly being jolted by terrorism and going on a rampage to stop it from happening again (which bush has done a great job at that by the way) is hysteria?
-
When you get into the details of the technology available and the reasons of when we invaded at the time we chose it becomes very clear why we wouldn't have let those out at that time. Not like we didn't have a million other reasons to invade.
Of course they would be found on the internet now after the fact. So what.
Dude, our satillite capabilities are very well documented and common knowledge. Everyone knows we ca read small road signs from space...com on dude.... they even talked about in some clancy books. What's not common knowledge at the moment is Global Hawk.
-
Dude, our satillite capabilities are very well documented and common knowledge. Everyone knows we ca read small road signs from space...com on dude.... they even talked about in some clancy books. What's not common knowledge at the moment is Global Hawk.
I guess you just don't get it.. but all that is really besides the point.
So what do you think about the camps, what does that mean to you?
-
Iraq should've been knocked off in 91, you're right about that. But it was obvious to me they were not only still a threat but a GROWING threat.
No, a weakening threat actually. Look at the Iraqi economy, army, infrastructure, and everything else from 93 to 2003.
We crippled the f'ckers.
-
OMG... You are a complete idiot if you think Clinton's blowjob from Monica is worse than Bush lying to take us into war... ::) Old Dipshit more like it...
did clinton get impeached because of a blow job? i thought it was about lying under oath and committing perjury.
-
These reasons were included along with the wmd reason. However when not as many were found as we expected the dems and the media latched onto that as the only reason and then claimed bush lied... completely false.
really?
Here's an excerpt from Bush's address to the nation on the eve of the war:
Our nation enters this conflict reluctantly -- yet, our purpose is sure. The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder
You'd think if there was more than one reason he would have taken the time to mention it here. It would have only taken another 10 seconds or so. Notice he said purpose and not purposes.
Here's a link to the entire address. Please show me where he mentions anything but WMD's: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-17.html
btw - isn's this whole debate getting a bit stale?
-
really?
Here's an excerpt from Bush's address to the nation on the eve of the war:
Our nation enters this conflict reluctantly -- yet, our purpose is sure. The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder
You'd think if there was more than one reason he would have taken the time to mention it here. It would have only taken another 10 seconds or so. Notice he said purpose and not purposes.
Here's a link to the entire address. Please show me where he mentions anything but WMD's: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-17.html
btw - isn's this whole debate getting a bit stale?
So he didn't say it that time... do you mean to say that at no other time he gave no other reasons than wmds? If that was the focus at the time then he would've done just that... focused on it.
Yes it is... and when confronted with the truth that we needed to go there liberals really don't care about it. It's just more ammo to hate bush and they cling to it for that reason alone.
-
So he didn't say it that time... do you mean to say that at no other time he gave no other reasons than wmds? If that was the focus at the time then he would've done just that... focused on it.
Yes it is... and when confronted with the truth that we needed to go there liberals really don't care about it. It's just more ammo to hate bush and they cling to it for that reason alone.
Obviously that would been the best time to mention ALL the reasons if he had them. The reality is that he only started bringing up other reasons after the WMD reason proved to be bogus so why don't we put that little bit of revisionist history to bed once and for all.
-
I guess you just don't get it.. but all that is really besides the point.
So what do you think about the camps, what does that mean to you?
What don't i get?
Explain to me how Sat photogrpahs that have been around in plenty for years would have tipped them off to our capabilities?
Explain to me how pictures of Camps weren't a better reason to go to war than WMD's that ended up not being there?
-
Obviously that would been the best time to mention ALL the reasons if he had them. The reality is that he only started bringing up other reasons after the WMD reason proved to be bogus so why don't we put that little bit of revisionist history to bed once and for all.
If you actually believe that was the only reason he ever used before he went there than you obviously didn't see very much. I remember all kinds of reasons being cited but, hey, I'm just making this up, right? Pffft.
Although that was the main reason and the most over-cited reason I think you know damn well there were more reasons than that.
And, of course, which reason was used most in the media when we didn't find enough?.... then it's easy to forget all the other reasons.
-
What don't i get?
Explain to me how Sat photogrpahs that have been around in plenty for years would have tipped them off to our capabilities?
Explain to me how pictures of Camps weren't a better reason to go to war than WMD's that ended up not being there?
Example... area 51.
Foreign sats can't be prevented from photographing it... up until recently american citizens could get within viewing distance. But will the gov't acknowledge something that is supposed to be privaledged info even in the face of it's existence already presented? Absolutly not. The gov't doesn't want to give any more attention to something we have even if it's out in the open enough so some parts of it can't be hidden.
They might have been a better reason. I think they are anyway. But if the prez is given intel saying saddam is stockpiling weapons and moving them around the coutry in an attempt to hide them and the development of more than we don't sacrifice any nat'l security by using that information first. And that's what happened. Yes, almost everyone knows we have sats overhead but if they acknowledge it than more info is given than necessary and giving out details is the ultimate breach.
-
Example... area 51.
Foreign sats can't be prevented from photographing it... up until recently american citizens could get within viewing distance. But will the gov't acknowledge something that is supposed to be privaledged info even in the face of it's existence already presented? Absolutly not. The gov't doesn't want to give any more attention to something we have even if it's out in the open enough so some parts of it can't be hidden.
They might have been a better reason. I think they are anyway. But if the prez is given intel saying saddam is stockpiling weapons and moving them around the coutry in an attempt to hide them and the development of more than we don't sacrifice any nat'l security by using that information first. And that's what happened. Yes, almost everyone knows we have sats overhead but if they acknowledge it than more info is given than necessary and giving out details is the ultimate breach.
You are talking about stuff that's is soooooooooooo common knowledge.
Example: How would we know N. Korea is planning to attack south across the DMZ?
Simple: Sat photographs would show troop and supply assets being moved towards staging points. Infra Red Satalite would detect fighter launching from airfields, Heat signatures from Tanks and heavy equipment would show up, radio traffic would increase, etc...
Showing a few pics of terrorist camps doesn't tip anyone off to anything. It only shows justificatioin to go to war.... something the Republicans could have used int he last election when the "alleged" photographs were all over the internet. It's the democrats who are idiots at manipulation the American Public, not the the Republicans.
If they had the goods they would have hestiated in using it to win in November. But history shows you otherwise.
BTW: the reason the Russians never got pics of Area 51 and new aircraft was becuase they flew at night or when the Satelites weren't overhead. Again: all of this is very common knowledge
-
In addition to that I will say this... I think it would have been better to use that information that Iraq was training terrorists and we knew it as a better reason to go to war, classified or otherwise. I get the impression that we know of other places training terrorists and that if we acknowledged as that being the main reason to go there it would obligate us to go the immediately and for whatever reason the administration doesn't want to go there yet.
I agree that our caps with satallites are fairly obvious and that would've been a better reason.. of course hindsight is 20/20 and Bush might be wishing right now that he had done just that. But neverless the bottom line is that the reasons to invade were solid and Bush made the right decision.
-
You are talking about stuff that's is soooooooooooo common knowledge.
Example: How would we know N. Korea is planning to attack south across the DMZ?
Simple: Sat photographs would show troop and supply assets being moved towards staging points. Infra Red Satalite would detect fighter launching from airfields, Heat signatures from Tanks and heavy equipment would show up, radio traffic would increase, etc...
Showing a few pics of terrorist camps doesn't tip anyone off to anything. It only shows justificatioin to go to war.... something the Republicans could have used int he last election when the "alleged" photographs were all over the internet. It's the democrats who are idiots at manipulation the American Public, not the the Republicans.
If they had the goods they would have hestiated in using it to win in November. But history shows you otherwise.
BTW: the reason the Russians never got pics of Area 51 and new aircraft was becuase they flew at night or when the Satelites weren't overhead. Again: all of this is very common knowledge
You're right to say the GOP could have used that... but they have made a lot of blunders when it comes to using the right information at the right time.
I agree that most of this is common knowledge.. but unfortunately to people in gov't that doesn't change the reluctance they have to using that information. They DID have the goods and they were stupid to not use it.
-
In addition to that I will say this... I think it would have been better to use that information that Iraq was training terrorists and we knew it as a better reason to go to war, classified or otherwise. I get the impression that we know of other places training terrorists and that if we acknowledged as that being the main reason to go there it would obligate us to go the immediately and for whatever reason the administration doesn't want to go there yet.
I agree that our caps with satallites are fairly obvious and that would've been a better reason.. of course hindsight is 20/20 and Bush might be wishing right now that he had done just that. But neverless the bottom line is that the reasons to invade were solid and Bush made the right decision.
WMD's required selling the American Public..... Terror Camps would have been a smoking gun. I don;t buy that they chose to use WMD's as the main reason. I believe based on their actions that the Terror camps were suspect and still are.
Right Decision? Do you still think that now? Do you have kids in public school? Have you seen the condition of some of the freeways in the USA? HAve you been to NEw OrLeans? Do you feel safe that a Nuclear Bomb could be prevented for entering this country? Do you think we are fully commmited as we could be to stopping Al Queda?
400 billion can go a long way in solving those problems.
-
please don't get me wrong, i was very much in favor of Afghanistan. Just not Iraq.
-
If they could prove to me there was a formidable terrorist threat in Iraq i might have changed my tune and only be bitchiing about how incompetnetly they have handled this war.
'
-
WMD's required selling the American Public..... Terror Camps would have been a smoking gun. I don;t buy that they chose to use WMD's as the main reason. I believe based on their actions that the Terror camps were suspect and still are.
Right Decision? Do you still think that now? Do you have kids in public school? Have you seen the condition of some of the freeways in the USA? HAve you been to NEw OrLeans? Do you feel safe that a Nuclear Bomb could be prevented for entering this country? Do you think we are fully commmited as we could be to stopping Al Queda?
400 billion can go a long way in solving those problems.
I would trust bush with NAt'l security more then I would trust ANY democrat. Kerry would've done even less. He never had the stomach to do what HE feels is right for the nation.
The terror camps weren't suspect. They were real. Look at the links in a previous post. I still believe whole heartedly invading iraq was the right thing to do. A left wing media and the ignorant in this country aren't going to convince me otherwise based on what I've seen.
And fyi... bush just signed one of the largest education bills ever, border security IS better although it could still be greatly improved, Maryland and DC freeways are pretty fuckin smooth, and new orleans was a natural disaster made worse by a stupid and stubborn population wanting to take advantage of it... not the fault of the prez. And i think we will return to finish al queda but Iraq is a mess right now and needs the bulk of our attention.
-
If you actually believe that was the only reason he ever used before he went there than you obviously didn't see very much. I remember all kinds of reasons being cited but, hey, I'm just making this up, right? Pffft.
Although that was the main reason and the most over-cited reason I think you know damn well there were more reasons than that.
And, of course, which reason was used most in the media when we didn't find enough?.... then it's easy to forget all the other reasons.
I don't get the impression that you're making anything up but I do think you might have selective memory (whether voluntary or not).
The one and only reason cited all the way up to the invasion was WMD and imminent threat.
I just gave you a link to the text of Bush's speech to the nation on the eve of the war. If he had other reasons don't you think he would have mentioned them at that time. Maybe it was just bad planning on his part. Maybe he just forgot.
can you remind me the reasons the Powell cited when addressing the UN? Was there more than one???
-
I don't get the impression that you're making anything up but I do think you might have selective memory (whether voluntary or not).
The one and only reason cited all the way up to the invasion was WMD and imminent threat.
I just gave you a link to the text of Bush's speech to the nation on the eve of the war. If he had other reasons don't you think he would have mentioned them at that time. Maybe it was just bad planning on his part. Maybe he just forgot.
can you remind me the reasons the Powell cited when addressing the UN? Was there more than one???
Here ya go.. and terrorist involment is cited.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,779359,00.html
-
I would trust bush with NAt'l security more then I would trust ANY democrat. Kerry would've done even less. He never had the stomach to do what HE feels is right for the nation.
The terror camps weren't suspect. They were real. Look at the links in a previous post. I still believe whole heartedly invading iraq was the right thing to do. A left wing media and the ignorant in this country aren't going to convince me otherwise based on what I've seen.
And fyi... bush just signed one of the largest education bills ever, border security IS better although it could still be greatly improved, Maryland and DC freeways are pretty fuckin smooth, and new orleans was a natural disaster made worse by a stupid and stubborn population wanting to take advantage of it... not the fault of the prez. And i think we will return to finish al queda but Iraq is a mess right now and needs the bulk of our attention.
National Security and Foreign Policy for that matter are not strongly determined by who's in office. It's silly to even think that. These are influenced by economic interests. Believe me, we took a hit economically from 9/11 and those who help put the people in offices will protect their interests both domestically and abroad. The whole Dem vs Rep thing is there only as a control mechanism for the American public... but that's another topic.
I respect your views, but i think they are slightly tainted by the party you follow rather than using objective reasoning based on idividual issues.
BTW: the freeways in Cali need work. Our public education system ranks very low in the world, And port Security or what ever is a joke as the flow of drugs into the US is still going strong. What ever happened in New Orleans could have be soo much better with just an additional 50 billion.
-
Here ya go.. and terrorist involment is cited.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,779359,00.html
find me something where Bush cites it as a reason. Virtually everything he's said is available at the White House website so that would be a good place to start. You still haven't addressed the reason(s) Powell cited at the UN (remember the now totally discredited yellow cake from guy?) The OFFICIAL reason was WMD - period
BTW - here's an excerpt from the article that you posted:
He also said al-Qaida had established a presence "in a number of locations in Iraq".
In an interview with CBS News, Tariq Aziz, Iraq's deputy prime minister, denied this. He said members of the terrorist network could be found in the part of Iraqi Kurdistan under the control of Jalal Talabani, the PUK leader and "an ally of Mr Rumsfeld".
Rohan Gunaratna, a terrorism expert and author of Inside al-Qaida, described Ansar as a "very important group", but said: "It has received limited support from Iraq, and I stress limited."
btw - Do you recognize the name Jalal Talabani?
-
Iraq should've been knocked off in 91, you're right about that. But it was obvious to me they were not only still a threat but a GROWING threat.
Even top officials have come out and said the intelligence that was used to justify the Iraq war was flase. They've also said that the was war a mistake and there was no real threat in Iraq(no WMDs). Yet, I still see people like you defending the invasion. ::) The issue now is not whether the war justified or not, but whether the US will continue to occupy Iraq or not.
-
National Security and Foreign Policy for that matter are not strongly determined by who's in office. It's silly to even think that. These are influenced by economic interests. Believe me, we took a hit economically from 9/11 and those who help put the people in offices will protect their interests both domestically and abroad. The whole Dem vs Rep thing is there only as a control mechanism for the American public... but that's another topic.
I respect your views, but i think they are slightly tainted by the party you follow rather than using objective reasoning based on idividual issues.
BTW: the freeways in Cali need work. Our public education system ranks very low in the world, And port Security or what ever is a joke as the flow of drugs into the US is still going strong. What ever happened in New Orleans could have be soo much better with just an additional 50 billion.
Way off. NAt'l security is directly related to who is in office, especially when a prez. is as involved as bush in the managing the CIA, homeland security and the FBI.
The freeways, education, and drugs are subjects the prez. has to deal with but a great deal of that is also on the states they effect. Security on a nat'l level is more a direct result of the parent administration as the basis of needs nationwide.
The problem with katrina wasn't not funding. FEMA is a huge org. with tons of funding. Major problems were access to affected areas, violent and distructive residents, establishing basic civil services in disaster area. Throwing money at the problem is the liberal way solve everything. To say the prez was to blame for what happened there is ludacris.
-
find me something where Bush cites it as a reason. Virtually everything he's said is available at the White House website so that would be a good place to start. You still haven't addressed the reason(s) Powell cited at the UN (remember the now totally discredited yellow cake from guy?) The OFFICIAL reason was WMD - period
BTW - here's an excerpt from the article that you posted:
He also said al-Qaida had established a presence "in a number of locations in Iraq".
In an interview with CBS News, Tariq Aziz, Iraq's deputy prime minister, denied this. He said members of the terrorist network could be found in the part of Iraqi Kurdistan under the control of Jalal Talabani, the PUK leader and "an ally of Mr Rumsfeld".
Rohan Gunaratna, a terrorism expert and author of Inside al-Qaida, described Ansar as a "very important group", but said: "It has received limited support from Iraq, and I stress limited."
btw - Do you recognize the name Jalal Talabani?
Oh okay... so you just want to ignore powells comments .. great.
Are you denying that iraq was supporting terror? The evidence is overwhelming and an authors personal opinion isn't much when compared to what our intel showed.
I do not recognize that name, should I?
-
Even top officials have come out and said the intelligence that was used to justify the Iraq war was flase. They've also said that the was war a mistake and there was no real threat in Iraq(no WMDs). Yet, I still see people like you defending the invasion. ::) The issue now is not whether the war justified or not, but whether the US will continue to occupy Iraq or not.
Wrong again... and many officials have also said otherwise. It goes back and forth depending on who you ask.
And if the issue is whether or not to stay then you should ask yourself this... do you want the US to be successful in stabilizing the region, establishing a competent gov't and destroying the insurgency?
-
Oh okay... so you just want to ignore powells comments .. great. - what comments - I asked you to show me where he made any other case OTHER THAN WMD as a reason for war
Are you denying that iraq was supporting terror? YES prior to the WAR The evidence is overwhelming and an authors personal opinion isn't much when compared to what our intel showed.
I do not recognize that name, should I? He's just the President of Iraq
-
Here ya go...
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/17/sprj.irq.bush.transcript/
And i can't know every name in the book... the ineffectual prez of iraq is just a puppet for now anyway.
-
Are you fucking stupid???
Read the address... he cited iraq supporting terror AS A REASON.
And for fucks sake read the links i posted earlier about iraq training terrorists.
-
Wrong again... and many officials have also said otherwise. It goes back and forth depending on who you ask.
And if the issue is whether or not to stay then you should ask yourself this... do you want the US to be successful in stabilizing the region, establishing a competent gov't and destroying the insurgency?
Actually - he's right - http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N03417357.htm
-
Actually - he's right - http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N03417357.htm
Interesting article... but I it doesn't take a rocket scientist to wonder why politicians are attempting to distance themselves from an overwhelmingly unpopular president.
another instance of bush linking iraq to terror
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/01/29/bush.speech.txt/
-
Are you fucking stupid???
Read the address... he cited iraq supporting terror AS A REASON.
And for fucks sake read the links i posted earlier about iraq training terrorists.
Jeez - Angry Much?
Why don't you give me a chance to read it and respond before you fly into a rage.
I assume you're referring to this paragraph ( I have to assume since you didn't actually put it in your thoughtful and measured response)
The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends and it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of Al Qaeda. The danger is clear: Using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country or any other.
That's the only reference I can find about terrorists and about Iraq allegedly training and harboring terrorists but this is not the reason he gave for invasion. We invaded because Iraq had WMD's and they were on the verge of launching an attack.
There is zero evidence that Hussein supported Al Qaeda and in fact just the opposite
No offense - but you should calm down a bit. It's possible to have discussion or even a debate without being angry. Getting angry just shows weakness and frustration. I'll assume you're just having a bad day or something
-
Jeez - Angry Much?
Why don't you give me a chance to read it and respond before you fly into a rage.
I assume you're referring to this paragraph ( I have to assume since you didn't actually put it in your thoughtful and measured response)
The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends and it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of Al Qaeda. The danger is clear: Using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country or any other.
That's the only reference I can find about terrorists and about Iraq allegedly training and harboring terrorists but this is not the reason he gave for invasion. We invaded because Iraq had WMD's and they were on the verge of launching an attack.
There is zero evidence that Hussein supported Al Qaeda and in fact just the opposite
No offense - but you should calm down a bit. It's possible to have discussion or even a debate without being angry. Getting angry just shows weakness and frustration. I'll assume you're just having a bad day or something
More like disappointment... it pisses me off to people that can't be as objective as I am and see these connections. Or worse, people that pick and choose which information they want to believe ingoring facts in the face of hard evidence. And Iraqis training with al queda doesn't look to me like zero evidence. I'll try and dig that up for ya in a bit. not only that that is NOT the only time bush referenced other reasons for invading iraq.. especially the terror connection. I'll find those as well...
Anger can also show an intolerance for something... in this case ignorance and an unjustified hatred for our president.
-
More like disappointment... it pisses me off to people that can't be as objective as I am and see these connections. Or worse, people that pick and choose which information they want to believe ingoring facts in the face of hard evidence. And Iraqis training with al queda doesn't look to me like zero evidence. I'll try and dig that up for ya in a bit. not only that that is NOT the only time bush referenced other reasons for invading iraq.. especially the terror connection. I'll find those as well...
Anger can also show an intolerance for something... in this case ignorance and an unjustified hatred for our president.
I don't hate the man. I think he's totally incompetent and possibly a criminal but I can't say that I actually hate him.
I'm sorry to say this but I don't really find you all that objective. I've made many comments on this site where I've acknowledged some one else points of view. If you're frustrated or angry it should be at your inability to convince others of your point of view. Like I said before I'm assuming you're just having a bad day. Shit - I've got to go to traffic school tonight so I'm the one who should be pissy.
-
I don't hate the man. I think he's totally incompetent and possibly a criminal but I can't say that I actually hate him.
I'm sorry to say this but I don't really find you all that objective. I've made many comments on this site where I've acknowledged some one else points of view. If you're frustrated or angry it should be at your inability to convince others of your point of view. Like I said before I'm assuming you're just having a bad day. Shit - I've got to go to traffic school tonight so I'm the one who should be pissy.
Traffic school - off topic for a moment - what do you do?
-
I don't hate the man. I think he's totally incompetent and possibly a criminal but I can't say that I actually hate him.
I'm sorry to say this but I don't really find you all that objective. I've made many comments on this site where I've acknowledged some one else points of view. If you're frustrated or angry it should be at your inability to convince others of your point of view. Like I said before I'm assuming you're just having a bad day. Shit - I've got to go to traffic school tonight so I'm the one who should be pissy.
Well sometimes it's impossible to convince people that aren't objective my point of view even in despite the evidence. You have your opinion however my tenacity in defending what I believe in doesn't render me incapable of being objective. In other posts I have given the faults I do believe the president is responsible for and other officials in my party. i have no problem with that. I have strong convictions based on my principles but in no way will I let that hinder my objectivity despite what you think.
-
Traffic school - off topic for a moment - what do you do?
I'm self employed in the financial markets.
The traffic school is because I got a speeding ticket. I'm not actually going to a school. I can do it online but I've got to do it tonight because I've been putting it off and it's almost past due. No big deal if I don't complete it as it would be the only point on my record.
back on topic -
There Is No Evidence of Iraqi Links to Al Qaeda or Other Anti-American Terrorists
In the months following the September 11 terrorist attacks, there were leaks to the media about alleged evidence of a meeting in Prague between an Iraqi intelligence officer and one of the hijackers of the doomed airplanes that crashed into the World Trade Center. Subsequent thorough investigations by the FBI, CIA, and Czech intelligence have found no evidence that any such meeting took place. None of the hijackers were Iraqi, no major figure in Al Qaeda is Iraqi, and no funds to Al Qaeda have been traced to Iraq. It is unlikely that the decidedly secular Baathist regime—which has savagely suppressed Islamists within Iraq—would be able to maintain close links with Osama bin Laden and his followers. In fact, Saudi Prince Turki bin Faisal, his country’s former intelligence chief, noted that bin Laden views Saddam Hussein “as an apostate, an infidel, or someone who is not worthy of being a fellow Muslim” and that bin Laden had offered in 1990 to raise an army of thousands of mujaheddin fighters to liberate Kuwait from Iraqi occupation.
Iraq’s past terrorist links have primarily been limited to such secular groups as Abu Nidal, a now-largely defunct Palestinian faction opposed to Yasir Arafat’s Palestine Liberation Organization. At the height of Iraq’s support of Abu Nidal in the early 1980s, Washington dropped Iraq from its list of countries that sponsored terrorism so the U.S. could bolster Iraq’s war effort against Iran. Baghdad was reinstated to the list only after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990, even though U.S. officials were unable to cite any increased Iraqi ties to terrorist groups. A recent CIA report indicates that the Iraqis have actually been consciously avoiding any actions against the United States or its facilities abroad, presumably to deny Washington any excuse to engage in further military strikes against their country. The last clear example that American officials can cite of such Iraqi-backed terrorism was an alleged plot by Iraqi agents to assassinate former President George Bush when he visited Kuwait in 1993. In response, President Bill Clinton ordered the bombing of Baghdad, hitting an Iraqi intelligence headquarters as well as a nearby civilian neighborhood.
Although Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld insists that Iraq is backing international terrorism, he has been unable to present any evidence that they currently do so. In fact, the State Department’s own annual study Patterns of Global Terrorism did not list any serious act of international terrorism by the government of Iraq.
The fact of the matter is that Bush didn't spend much time with the terrorism angle because he knew it was even weaker than his WMD argument
-
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/033jgqyi.asp
I SUGGEST YOU SKIM THROUGH THIS ONE
Finally, what if any new evidence has emerged that bolsters the Bush administration's prewar case?
The answer to that last question is simple: lots. The CIA has confirmed, in interviews with detainees and informants it finds highly credible, that al Qaeda's Number 2, Ayman al-Zawahiri, met with Iraqi intelligence in Baghdad in 1992 and 1998. More disturbing, according to an administration official familiar with briefings the CIA has given President Bush, the Agency has "irrefutable evidence" that the Iraqi regime paid Zawahiri $300,000 in 1998, around the time his Islamic Jihad was merging with al Qaeda. "It's a lock," says this source. Other administration officials are a bit more circumspect, noting that the intelligence may have come from a single source. Still, four sources spread across the national security hierarchy have confirmed the payment.
In interviews conducted over the past six weeks with uniformed officers on the ground in Iraq, intelligence officials, and senior security strategists, several things became clear. Contrary to the claims of its critics, the Bush administration has consistently underplayed the connections between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. Evidence of these links existed before the war. In making its public case against the Iraq regime, the Bush administration used only a fraction of the intelligence it had accumulated documenting such collaboration. The intelligence has, in most cases, gotten stronger since the end of the war. And through interrogations of high-ranking Iraqi officials, documents from the regime, and further interrogation of al Qaeda detainees, a clearer picture of the links between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein is emerging.
To better understand the administration's case on these links, it's important to examine three elements of this debate: what the administration alleged, the evidence the administration had but didn't use, and what the government has learned since the war.
WHAT THE ADMINISTRATION ALLEGED
TOP U.S. OFFICIALS linked Iraq and al Qaeda in newspaper op-eds, on talk shows, and in speeches. But the most detailed of their allegations came in an October 7, 2002, letter from CIA director George Tenet to Senate Intelligence chairman Bob Graham and in Secretary of State Colin Powell's February 5, 2003, presentation to the United Nations Security Council.
The Tenet letter declassified CIA reporting on weapons of mass destruction and Iraq's links to al Qaeda. Two sentences on WMD garnered most media attention, but the intelligence chief's comments on al Qaeda deserved notice. "We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and al Qa'ida going back a decade," Tenet wrote. "Credible information indicates that Iraq and al Qa'ida have discussed safe haven and reciprocal non-aggression. Since Operation Enduring Freedom [in Afghanistan], we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of al Qa'ida members, including some that have been in Baghdad. We have credible reporting that al Qa'ida leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to al Qa'ida members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs." In sum, the letter said, "Iraq's increasing support to extremist Palestinians, coupled with
growing indications of a relationship with al Qa'ida, suggest that Baghdad's links to terrorists will increase, even absent US military actions."
That this assessment came from the CIA--with its history of institutional skepticism about the links--was significant. CIA analysts had long contended that Saddam Hussein's secular regime would not collaborate with Islamic fundamentalists like bin Laden--even though the Baathists had exploited Islam for years, whenever it suited their purposes. Critics of the administration insist the CIA was "pressured" by an extensive and aggressive intelligence operation set up by the Pentagon to find ties where none existed. But the Pentagon team consisted of two people, at times assisted by two others. Their assignment was not to collect new intelligence but to evaluate existing intelligence gathered by the CIA, with particular attention to any possible Iraq-al Qaeda collaboration. A CIA counterterrorism team was given a similar task, and while many agency analysts remained skeptical about links, the counterterrorism experts came away convinced that there had been cooperation.
For one thing, they cross-referenced old intelligence with new information provided by high-level al Qaeda detainees. Reports of collaboration grew in number and specificity. The case grew stronger. Throughout the summer and fall of 2002, al Qaeda operatives held in Guantanamo corroborated previously sketchy reports of a series of meetings in Khartoum, Sudan, home to al Qaeda during the mid-90s. U.S. officials learned more about the activities of Abu Abdullah al-Iraqi, an al Qaeda WMD specialist sent by bin Laden to seek WMD training, and possibly weapons, from the Iraqi regime. Intelligence specialists also heard increasingly detailed reports about meetings in Baghdad between al Qaeda leaders and Uday Hussein in April 1998, at a birthday celebration for Saddam.
In December 2002, as the Bush administration prepared its public case for war with Iraq, White House officials sifted through reams of these intelligence reports on ties between Saddam Hussein's regime and al Qaeda. Some of the reporting was solid, some circumstantial. The White House identified those elements of the reports it wanted to use publicly and asked the CIA to declassify them. The Agency agreed to declassify some 75 percent of the requested intelligence.
According to administration sources, Colin Powell, in his presentation before the U.N. Security Council, used only 10 or 15 percent of the newly declassified material. He relied heavily on the intelligence in Tenet's letter. Press reports about preparations for the Powell presentation have suggested that Powell refused to use the abundance of CIA documents because he found them thin and unpersuasive. This is only half right. Powell was certainly the most skeptical senior administration official about Iraq-al Qaeda ties. But several administration officials involved in preparing his U.N. presentation say that his reluctance to focus on those links had more to do with the forum for his speech--the Security Council--than with concerns about the reliability of the information.
Powell's presentation sought to do two things: make a compelling case to the world, and to the American public, about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein; and more immediately, win approval for a second U.N. resolution explicitly authorizing the use of force. The second of these objectives, these officials say, required Powell to focus the presentation on Hussein's repeated violations of Security Council resolutions. (Even in the brief portion of Powell's talk focused on Iraq-al Qaeda links, he internationalized the case, pointing out that the bin Laden network had targeted "France, Britain, Spain, Italy, Germany, and Russia.") Others in the administration, including Vice President Dick Cheney, favored using more of the declassified information about Hussein's support of international terrorism and al Qaeda.
Powell spent just 10 minutes of a 90-minute presentation on the "sinister nexus between Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network." He mentioned intelligence showing that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a known al Qaeda associate injured in Afghanistan, had traveled to Baghdad for medical treatment. Powell linked Zarqawi to Ansar al-Islam, an al Qaeda cell operating in a Kurdish region "outside Saddam Hussein's controlled Iraq." Powell told the Security Council that the United States had approached an unnamed "friendly security service"--Jordan's--"to approach Baghdad about extraditing Zarqawi," providing information and details "that should have made it easy to find Zarqawi." Iraq did nothing. Finally, Powell asserted that al Qaeda leaders and senior Iraqi officials had "met at least eight times" since the early 1990s.
These claims, the critics maintain, were "hyped" and "exaggerated."
WHAT THE ADMINISTRATION DIDN'T USE
IF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION had been out to hype the threat from an al Qaeda-Saddam link, it stands to reason that it would have used every shred of incriminating evidence at its disposal. Instead, the administration was restrained in its use of available intelligence. What the Bush administration left out is in some ways as revealing as what it included.
* Iraqi defectors had been saying for years that Saddam's regime trained "non-Iraqi Arab terrorists" at a camp in Salman Pak, south of Baghdad. U.N. inspectors had confirmed the camp's existence, including the presence of a Boeing 707. Defectors say the plane was used to train hijackers; the Iraqi regime said it was used in counterterrorism training. Sabah Khodada, a captain in the Iraqi Army, worked at Salman Pak. In October 2001, he told PBS's "Frontline" about what went on there. "Training is majorly on terrorism. They would be trained on assassinations, kidnapping, hijacking of airplanes, hijacking of buses, public buses, hijacking of trains and all other kinds of operations related to terrorism. . . . All this training is directly toward attacking American targets, and American interests."
But the Bush administration said little about Salman Pak as it demonstrated links between Iraq and al Qaeda. According to administration sources, some detainees who provided credible evidence of other links between Iraq and al Qaeda, including training in terrorism and WMD, insist they have no knowledge of Salman Pak. Khodada, the Iraqi army captain, also professed ignorance of whether the trainees were members of al Qaeda. "Nobody came and told us, 'This is al Qaeda people,'" he explained, "but I know there were some Saudis, there were some Afghanis. There were some other people from other countries getting trained."
* On February 13, 2003, the government of the Philippines asked Hisham al Hussein, the second secretary of the Iraqi embassy in Manila, to leave the country. According to telephone records obtained by Philippine intelligence, Hussein had been in frequent contact with two leaders of Abu Sayyaf, an al Qaeda affiliate in South Asia, immediately before and immediately after they detonated a bomb in Zamboanga City. That attack killed two Filipinos and an American Special Forces soldier and injured several others. Hussein left the Philippines for Iraq after he was "PNG'd"--declared persona non grata--by the Philippine government and has not been heard from since.
According to a report in the Christian Science Monitor, an Abu Sayyaf leader who planned the attack bragged on television a month after the bombing that Iraq had contacted him about conducting joint operations. Philippine intelligence officials were initially skeptical of his boasting, but after finding the telephone records they believed him.
* No fewer than five high-ranking Czech officials have publicly confirmed that Mohammed Atta, the lead September 11 hijacker, met with Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim al-Ani, an Iraqi intelligence officer working at the Iraqi embassy, in Prague five months before the hijacking. Media leaks here and in the Czech Republic have called into question whether Atta was in Prague on the key dates--between April 4 and April 11, 2001. And several high-ranking administration officials are "agnostic" as to whether the meeting took place. Still, the public position of the Czech government to this day is that it did.
That assertion should be seen in the context of Atta's curious stop-off in Prague the previous spring, as he traveled to the United States. Atta flew to Prague from Germany on May 30, 2000, but did not have a valid visa and was denied entry. He returned to Germany, obtained the proper paperwork, and took a bus back to Prague. One day later, he left for the United States.
Despite the Czech government's confirmation of the Atta-al Ani meeting, the Bush administration dropped it as evidence of an al Qaeda-Iraq connection in September 2002. Far from hyping this episode, administration officials refrained from citing it as the debate over the Iraq war heated up in Congress, in the country, and at the U.N.
WHAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS LEARNED SINCE THE WAR
THE ADMINISTRATION'S CRITICS, including several of the Democratic presidential candidates, have alluded to new "evidence" they say confirms Iraq and al Qaeda had no relationship before the war. They have not shared that evidence.
Even as the critics withhold the basis for their allegations, evidence on the other side is piling up. Ansar al-Islam--the al Qaeda cell formed in June 2001 that operated out of northern Iraq before the war, notably attacking Kurdish enemies of Saddam--has stepped up its activities elsewhere in the country. In some cases, say national security officials, Ansar is joining with remnants of Saddam's regime to attack Americans and nongovernmental organizations working in Iraq. There is some reporting, unconfirmed at this point, that the recent bombing of the U.N. headquarters was the result of a joint operation between Baathists and Ansar al-Islam.
And there are reports of more direct links between the Iraqi regime and bin Laden. Farouk Hijazi, former Iraqi ambassador to Turkey and Saddam's longtime outreach agent to Islamic fundamentalists, has been captured. In his initial interrogations, Hijazi admitted meeting with senior al Qaeda leaders at Saddam's behest in 1994. According to administration officials familiar with his questioning, he has subsequently admitted additional contacts, including a meeting in late 1997. Hijazi continues to deny that he met with bin Laden on December 21, 1998, to offer the al Qaeda leader safe haven in Iraq. U.S. officials don't believe his denial.
For one thing, the meeting was reported in the press at the time. It also fits a pattern of contacts surrounding Operation Desert Fox, the series of missile strikes the Clinton administration launched at Iraq beginning December 16, 1998. The bombing ended 70 hours later, on December 19, 1998. Administration officials now believe Hijazi left for Afghanistan as the bombing ended and met with bin Laden two days later.
Earlier that year, at another point of increased tension between the United States and Iraq, Hussein sought to step up contacts with al Qaeda. On February 18, 1998, after the Iraqis repeatedly refused to permit U.N. weapons inspectors into sensitive sites, President Bill Clinton went to the Pentagon and delivered a hawkish speech about Hussein's weapons of mass destruction and his links to "an unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers, and organized international criminals." Said Clinton: "We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st century. . . . They will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein."
The following day, February 19, 1998, according to documents unearthed in Baghdad after the recent war by journalists Mitch Potter and Inigo Gilmore, Hussein's intelligence service wrote a memo detailing upcoming meetings with a bin Laden representative traveling to Baghdad. Each reference to bin Laden had been covered with Liquid Paper. The memo laid out a plan to step up contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. The Mukhabarat, one of Saddam's security forces, agreed to pay for "all the travel and hotel costs inside Iraq to gain the knowledge of the message from bin Laden and to convey to his envoy an oral message from us to bin Laden." The document set as the goal for the meeting a discussion of "the future of our relationship with him, bin Laden, and to achieve a direct meeting with him." The al Qaeda representative, the document went on to suggest, might be "a way to maintain contacts with bin Laden."
I emailed Potter, a Jerusalem-based correspondent for the Toronto Star, about his findings last month. He was circumspect about the meaning of the document. "So did we find the tip of the iceberg, or the whole iceberg? Did bin Laden and Saddam agree to disagree and that was the end of it? I still don't know." Still, he wrote, "I have no doubt that what we found is the real thing. We plucked it out of a building that had been J-DAMed and was three-quarters gone. Beyond the pale to think that the CIA or someone else planted false evidence in such a dangerous location, where only lunatics would bother to tread. And then to cover over the incriminating name Osama bin Laden with Liquid Paper, so that only the most stubborn and dogged of translators would fluke into spotting it?"
Four days after that memo was written, on February 23, 1998, bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, issued a famous fatwa about the plight of Iraq. Published that day in al Quds al-Arabi, it reads in part:
First, for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples. . . . The best proof of this is the Americans' continuing aggression against the Iraqi people using the Peninsula as a staging post, even though all its rulers are against their territories being used to that end, still they are helpless. Second, despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those killed, in excess of 1 million . . . despite all this, the Americans are once again trying to repeat the horrific massacres, as though they are not content with the protracted blockade imposed after the ferocious war or the fragmentation and devastation.
The Americans, bin Laden says, are working on behalf of Israel.
The best proof of this is their eagerness to destroy Iraq, the strongest neighboring Arab state, and their endeavor to fragment all the states of the region such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Sudan into paper statelets and through their disunion and weakness to guarantee Israel's survival and the continuation of the brutal crusade occupation of the Peninsula.
Bin Laden urges his followers to act. "The ruling to kill all Americans and their allies--civilians and military--is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it." It was around this time, U.S. officials say, that Hussein paid the $300,000 to bin Laden's deputy, Zawahiri.
ACCORDING TO U.S. officials, soldiers in Iraq have discovered additional documentary evidence like the memo Potter found. This despite the fact that there is no team on the ground assigned to track down these contacts--no equivalent to the Iraq Survey Group looking for evidence of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. Interviews with detained senior Iraqi intelligence officials are rounding out the picture.
The Bush administration has thus far chosen to keep the results of its postwar findings to itself; much of the information presented here comes from public sources. The administration, spooked by the media feeding frenzy surrounding yellowcake from guy, is exercising extreme caution in rolling out the growing evidence of collaboration between al Qaeda and Baathist Iraq. As the critics continue their assault on a prewar "pattern of deception," the administration remains silent.
This impulse is understandable. It is also dangerous. Some administration officials argue privately that the case for linkage is so devastating that when they eventually unveil it, the critics will be embarrassed and their arguments will collapse. But to rely on this assumption is to run a terrible risk. Already, the absence of linkage is the conventional wisdom in many quarters. Once "everybody knows" that Saddam and bin Laden had nothing to do with each other, it becomes extremely difficult for any release of information by the U.S. government to change people's minds.
-
a shorter one for ya
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040624-112921-3401r.htm
-
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/033jgqyi.asp
I SUGGEST YOU SKIM THROUGH THIS ONE
.......
BB - this is from the Weekly Standard. The guy who founded and runs this thing is the chairman of PNAC for chrissakes. Not exactly an objective source.
Look, I don't have the time or even the interest at this point, to read through this thing and then go research all it's claims. This seems important to you so I'll concede to whatever point it is you're trying to make which I guess that Al-Quada was in Iraq (in whatever tiny capacity) sometime prior to our invasion. Are you satisfied? Does that somehow justify our current situation in this f'd up mess or somehow vindicate the Bush Administration for all their failures? I'm going to grab a beer and start my online traffic school so I'm signing off on this for tonight
-
BB - this is from the Weekly Standard. The guy who founded and runs this thing is the chairman of PNAC for chrissakes. Not exactly an objective source.
Look, I don't have the time or even the interest at this point, to read through this thing and then go research all it's claims. This seems important to you so I'll concede to whatever point it is you're trying to make which I guess that Al-Quada was in Iraq (in whatever tiny capacity) sometime prior to our invasion. Are you satisfied? Does that somehow justify our current situation in this f'd up mess or somehow vindicate the Bush Administration for all their failures? I'm going to grab a beer and start my online traffic school so I'm signing off on this for tonight
Honestly, all of the arguing, debating, the sources, and the evidence provided on either side is completely pointless.
Both sides are deeply behind thier convictions and are on opposite ends of the spectrum.
I think all of this political bullshit on getbig is polluting the board I joined to learn about bodybuilding and the only thing either one of us is gonna do is wait and see what was the right course of action and who was rightfully responsible for the outcomes. But we'll have to wait a few years after Iraq, after Al Queda, after Bush, and after the current democratic congress. I don't think Israel and the Arab world will ever settle thier disputes until one side completely overpowers the other (but we can hope). Meanwhile I would like to stop having to defend my side in this place. I won't but I would like to.
I'm done for now. But at least I know you and 240 have at least a little objectivity.