How the democrats are going to screw up their Golden Chance

[OzmO]

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?

[Brixtonbulldog]

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.

[Brixtonbulldog]

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.

[OzmO]

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

[Brixtonbulldog]

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.

[Brixtonbulldog]

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.

[OzmO]

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.

[OzmO]

please don't get me wrong,  i was very much in favor of Afghanistan.  Just not Iraq.

[OzmO]

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.
'

[Brixtonbulldog]

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.

[Straw Man]

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???

[Brixtonbulldog]

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

[OzmO]

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. 

[Straw Man]

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?

[Camel Jockey]

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.

[Brixtonbulldog]

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.

[Brixtonbulldog]

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?

[Brixtonbulldog]

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?

[Straw Man]

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

[Brixtonbulldog]

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.

[Brixtonbulldog]

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.

[Straw Man]

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

[Brixtonbulldog]

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/

[Straw Man]

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

[Brixtonbulldog]

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.