Miss GW Yet?

[bears]

"Dear Mr. President: ... We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraq sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

 Sincerely,

 John Kerry, Carl Levin, Joe Lieberman, Frank R. Lautenberg, Dick Lugar, Kit Bond, Jon Kyl, Chris Dodd, John McCain, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Alfonse D'Amato, Bob Kerrey, Pete V. Domenici, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Mikulski, Thomas Daschle, John Breaux, Tim Johnson, Daniel K. Inouye, Arlen Specter, James Inhofe, Strom Thurmond, Mary L. Landrieu, Wendell Ford, Chuck Grassley, Jesse Helms, Rick Santorum.

[bears]

C'mon, Bears, you must know that GWB's administration wasn't talking about those kinds of weapons when they were building their case for invading Iraq.  

Remember GWB's comment about one day possibly seeing proof "in the shape of a mushroom cloud"?

"Dear Mr. President: ... We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraq sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

 Sincerely,

 John Kerry, Carl Levin, Joe Lieberman, Frank R. Lautenberg, Dick Lugar, Kit Bond, Jon Kyl, Chris Dodd, John McCain, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Alfonse D'Amato, Bob Kerrey, Pete V. Domenici, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Mikulski, Thomas Daschle, John Breaux, Tim Johnson, Daniel K. Inouye, Arlen Specter, James Inhofe, Strom Thurmond, Mary L. Landrieu, Wendell Ford, Chuck Grassley, Jesse Helms, Rick Santorum.


this was in 1998.  John Kerry ran his entire campaign against the Iraq War.

[RRKore]

"In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now -- a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.

 If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."

     President Clinton
     Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff
     February 17, 1998

why was he lying?

Honestly, I don't know.  He may be doing what you're doing,lol: You know, saying WMD and meaning chem & bio weapons (which is technically correct) while knowing most folks think WMD means nuclear weapons.

[bears]

Honestly, I don't know.  He may be doing what you're doing,lol: You know, saying WMD and meaning chem & bio weapons (which is technically correct) while knowing most folks think WMD means nuclear weapons.

did John Kerry make that same mistake above too?

[RRKore]

CNN: How did Hussein intend to use the weapon, once it was completed?

 HAMZA: Saddam has a whole range of weapons of mass destruction, nuclear, biological and chemical. According to German intelligence estimates, we expect him to have three nuclear weapons by 2005. So, the window will close by 2005, and we expect him then to be a lot more aggressive with his neighbors and encouraging terrorism, and using biological weapons. Now he's using them through surrogates like al Qaeda, but we expect he'll use them more aggressively then.

    Dr. Khidhir Hamza, former Iraqi Nuclear Scientist for 20 years
    Interviewed on CNN
    October 22, 2001

he got the Germans on board with his plan too

Never heard about this but I admit it's interesting.  

Any updates on Hamza's claims now that you know of?  (Was he lying, mistaken, completely accurate or ...?)

[Dos Equis]

Good for you -- Anything that lightens your mood has to be good at your age, right?

That's the way science is, though;  Not only will it tell you stuff you may not necessarily want to hear but it will also will tell you what it isn't so knowable. (Better than making shit up religion-style in any case, though.)

Anyway, if the number of Iraqi deaths IS "only" 48,000 do you think that means it's OK for Americans to be proud of invading Iraq?

Let's review.  

1.  You said Americans killed 500,000 Iraqis during the Iraq war.  

2.  When I said the number is propaganda, you gave me "scientific" sources saying the number is between 48,000 and 700,000.  (Still laughing . . . )

3.  Realizing the number is BS, which his what I said initially, you now try and make a point using "48,000," or 452,000 less than your original BS number that you pulled off the internet like the good little simpleton liberal hack you are.  So you were only off by a few hundred thousand deaths?  lol

Rule No. 1 when you find yourself in a hole:  stop digging.  lol

[RRKore]

"Dear Mr. President: ... We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraq sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

 Sincerely,

 John Kerry, Carl Levin, Joe Lieberman, Frank R. Lautenberg, Dick Lugar, Kit Bond, Jon Kyl, Chris Dodd, John McCain, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Alfonse D'Amato, Bob Kerrey, Pete V. Domenici, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Mikulski, Thomas Daschle, John Breaux, Tim Johnson, Daniel K. Inouye, Arlen Specter, James Inhofe, Strom Thurmond, Mary L. Landrieu, Wendell Ford, Chuck Grassley, Jesse Helms, Rick Santorum.

I'm not sure how you think this doesn't mean some/most/all of these folks were duped.  (Even if it might have been by tough-talking but retarded Saddam himself.)

Because, c'mon, were WMD's ever found in Iraq?

[Dos Equis]

did John Kerry make that same mistake above too?

I posted these a long ago.  A vast rightwing/leftwing conspiracy.   

http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=116187.0

[RRKore]

Let's review.  

1.  You said Americans killed 500,000 Iraqis during the Iraq war.  

2.  When I said the number is propaganda, you gave me "scientific" sources saying the number is between 48,000 and 700,000.  (Still laughing . . . )

3.  Realizing the number is BS, which his what I said initially, you now try and make a point using "48,000," or 452,000 less than your original BS number that you pulled off the internet like the good little simpleton liberal hack you are.  So you were only off by a few hundred thousand deaths?  lol

Rule No. 1 when you find yourself in a hole:  stop digging.  lol

#2 is wrong.  
The report says 460,000 (but includes a confidence interval that might not be something you understand so well).  It also points out that folks are still suffering today as a result of the USA attacking that country militarily.  

#3 is wrong, too.  The confidence interval is 48,000 to 751,000.  So I could have been understating the number by 251,000.  Shocker that you'd choose to interpret that as 48,000, I know. lol

Now will you please answer the question about whether you think Americans should think it's OK to be proud of killing 48,000 Iraqi people?  

This question should be right up your alley considering how you seem to enjoy glorifying people who kill in the name of their country (and claim to have served yourself in some capacity that you're reluctant to talk about, lol).

[RRKore]

I posted these a long ago.  A vast rightwing/leftwing conspiracy.   

http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=116187.0

Cool thread. 

I like the part where the other posters brutalize you by asking who passed on the faulty intel to most of the politicians who were in favor of invading Iraq.

[Dos Equis]

#2 is wrong.  
The report says 460,000 (but includes a confidence interval that might not be something you understand so well).  It also points out that folks are still suffering today as a result of the USA attacking that country militarily.  

#3 is wrong, too.  The confidence interval is 48,000 to 751,000.  So I could have been understating the number by 251,000.  Shocker that you'd choose to interpret that as 48,000, I know. lol

Now will you please answer the question about whether you think Americans should think it's OK to be proud of killing 48,000 Iraqi people?  

This question should be right up your alley considering how you seem to enjoy glorifying people who kill in the name of their country (and claim to have served yourself in some capacity that you're reluctant to talk about, lol).

You're still here?  lol . . . .

Let me get this straight.  You're asking for my opinion based on a false premise?  We have not established that Americans killed "48,000 Iraqi people."  Even though it's good to see you back off your original BS claim that we killed "500,000" Iraqis, your number is still BS.  

But to answer a general and more reasonable question that you are apparently not swift enough to pose:  no American should be "proud" of collateral damage.  I'm sure the overwhelming majority of Americans are not "proud" of collateral damage.  

[RRKore]

You're still here?  lol . . . .

Let me get this straight.  You're asking for my opinion based on a false premise?  We have not established that Americans killed "48,000 Iraqi people."  Even though it's good to see you back off your original BS claim that we killed "500,000" Iraqis, your number is still BS.  

But to answer a general and more reasonable question that you are apparently not swift enough to pose:  no American should be "proud" of collateral damage.  I'm not and I'm sure the overwhelming majority of Americans are not "proud" of collateral damage.  

Let the record reflect (said in Sharpton's voice) that I'm not "backing off my claim" of 500,000 dead. 

I may even start saying "Scientific studies of which indicate Iraqi deaths of as many as 751,000 and counting...", lol.

Sincerely, props to you for saying Americans shouldn't be proud of all Iraqi folks who are now dead because of the USA's ill-fated* invasion of Iraq. 

*Per what you wrote on that thread from 2007, it seems like you agree that it (the invasion) was done in a stupid way -- even if you do think the invasion itself was warranted (which you many not still think now, actually).

[Dos Equis]

Let the record reflect (said in Sharpton's voice) that I'm not "backing off my claim" of 500,000 dead. 

I may even start saying "Scientific studies of which indicate Iraqi deaths of as many as 751,000 and counting...", lol.

Sincerely, props to you for saying Americans shouldn't be proud of all Iraqi folks who are now dead because of the USA's ill-fated* invasion of Iraq. 

*Per what you wrote on that thread from 2007, it seems like you agree that it (the invasion) was done in a stupid way -- even if you do think the invasion itself was warranted (which you many not still think now, actually).

I clearly gave you too much credit.  Keep holding onto your BS 500,000 number.   

I supported the war.  I didn't support the way it was conducted.  General Shinseki was right.  Rumsfeld was wrong.  We needed way more troops and we probably should have just let the Marines go in and handle it.  Would have been higher U.S. casualties, but it would have been done. 

[RRKore]

I clearly gave you too much credit.  Keep holding onto your BS 500,000 number.   

I supported the war.  I didn't support the way it was conducted.  General Shinseki was right.  Rumsfeld was wrong.  We needed way more troops and we probably should have just let the Marines go in and handle it.  Would have been higher U.S. casualties, but it would have been done. 

Yeah, calling me Simon Simpleton was my first clue that you were giving me too much credit.   (Writing that made me giggle like a bitch, I'll admit.)

I don't know a whole lot about it but I agree that we clearly made big mistakes.  From what I understand, dismissing all the old Iraqi gov't employees after most of the fighting was done and trying to start everything from scratch was a huge mistake, too.

[bears]

I'm not sure how you think this doesn't mean some/most/all of these folks were duped.   (Even if it might have been by tough-talking but retarded Saddam himself.)

Because, c'mon, were WMD's ever found in Iraq?

this was in 1998.  while Clinton was in office.  did GWB start his plan back then?  obviously there was info coming in 1998 that some saw as proof of WMD's.  but 3 years later it was all just a lie?  Clinton warned us of the danger posed by Sadaam before he left office.  was he lying too?

and no WMD's were ever found.  also no evidence that GWB fabricated evidence was ever found either.  why do you believe one and not the other?  i know why.

[blacken700]

jesus it was three years later did you ever thing that they might have gotten up dated intell in 2001 and the intell that was for thee years ago wasn't accurate

[bears]

jesus it was three years later did you ever thing that they might have gotten up dated intell in 2001 and the intell that was for thee years ago wasn't accurate

so now you're saying he did have WMD programs but they stopped as soon as GWB took office?  OK. 

look man whatever gets you to sleep at night. 

[blacken700]

so now you're saying he did have WMD programs but they stopped as soon as GWB took office?  OK. 

look man whatever gets you to sleep at night. 

what I think is either bush or his cronies trumped up the evidence so we would go to war

[bears]

what I think is either bush or his cronies trumped up the evidence so we would go to war

well of course you do.  

and you will believe any and all conspiracy theories that reflects poorly on a high profile conservative republican.  prove me wrong.  

[blacken700]

well of course you do. 

and you will believe any and all conspiracy theories that reflects poorly on a high profile conservative republican.  prove me wrong. 

you show me pictures of the wmds they found

[bears]

you show me pictures of the wmds they found

i'll show you those when John Kerry and Bill Clinton show me the ones they found in 1998.  John Kerry asked Clinton to go to war over them.  you know that right?  i bet you still voted for Kerry.

[bears]

you show me pictures of the wmds they found

and wait.  YOU show ME the evidence that GWB and his buddies knowingly conspired to go to war over falsified evidence.  i'll be waiting.  why is there a burden of proof on me and not you?  oh that's right i know.

[blacken700]

i'll show you those when John Kerry and Bill Clinton show me the ones they found in 1998.  John Kerry asked Clinton to go to war over them.  you know that right?  i bet you still voted for Kerry.

they were talking about the programs not actual weapons

[blacken700]

and wait.  YOU show ME the evidence that GWB and his buddies knowingly conspired to go to war over falsified evidence.  i'll be waiting.  why is there a burden of proof on me and not you?  oh that's right i know.

More than five years after the initial invasion of Iraq, the Senate Intelligence Committee has finally gone on the record: the Bush administration misused, and in some cases disregarded, intelligence which led the nation into war. The two final sections of a long-delayed and much anticipated "Phase II" report on the Bush administration's use of prewar intelligence, released on Thursday morning, accuse senior White House officials of repeatedly misrepresenting the threat posed by Iraq.

[OzmO]

A biased opinion?  No.  Just an opinion.  And no, I'm not about to do any "real research," unless you're going to pay me?   

We didn't just rescue people from an "evil dictator."  Much more involved than that.  But not going rehash that discussion. 

I will say if it was an "oil opportunity," that certainly was a mission fail, no? 

Its not hard look into.  Or you can dismiss anything that doesn't fit your "educated opinion" which is based on.........your opinion

Depends how you quantify a mission success regarding oil.