Speaking of Democrats and the Iraq war......their own words.

[240 is Back]

I think it is inconceivable that so many Democrats (and Republicans) publicly stated Saddam was a threat, before Bush took office, if there wasn't fire somewhere. 

If there was a real fire, when Cheney/Rice went on TV to sell the war, they wouldn't have had to tell us bullshit lies.

Hope this "heps".

[ieffinhatecardio]

Take some time and enjoy.

Mighty, can you post a link to this? Where did you find it?

[OzmO]

ONE of the points i wanted to make with this thread was how everyone (democrats) was screaming about saddam and his weapons and how he needed to be stopped. bush stopped him, now it's a mess over there and those same democrats have now reversed issue.  doesn't make sense.  stick to your guns.  why must they continue to flip-flop on issues??  like i stated before, quit b**ching about the president and fix the situation.
i heard a quote the other day from H. Clinton that she made a day after saddam was captured and she stated she was glad she voted for the war and it's good the US was over there.  (can't remember word for word)   
 

The guy in the Titantic did the same thing.  At some point you have to speak up and say (whether t's for political reasons or not) that it's a mess and we made mistake.  The democrats, seem to feel pulling out is the answer.  I'm not so sure.  but i haven't heard the republicans come up with a good plan either.

20k troops?  93 more billion?   oh please.

And the Rep leadership isn;t listening to the ISG. 

These are the sources of my "bitching"

We might need to face the fact that we may have got ourselves caught in quick sand.

[OzmO]

True.  It is just absurd that people claim Bush fed bad intel to Democrats who then made public statements about Saddam being a threat, when Democrats were calling Saddam a threat BEFORE Bush took office. 

He didn;t feed the democrats bad intel, He fed everyone bad intel.

the problem with Intel is that there is so much of it.  I'm willing to bet he had several different intelligence assessments that were all different.  He chose the one that supported his objectives.

That might explain some of Rice's and Powell's statements of Saddam's lack of being a threat prior to the Iraq PR campaign.


This is the problem i've tried to explain to 240.  Even if he did Lie, there's noway it will ever be proved,  so in some ways it's a moot issue.

[240 is Back]

the fudged intel came from the repub appointed doug feith in the pentagon.

pentagon audit admits it.

so there should be no question.

Feith admits he picked out what he believed was impostant, then wrote a memo called "linking iraq to al Q" which was given to white house then congress for decision making.

I don't know why anyone still says "Bush didn't lie".  He appointed a man to cherry pick data to make his case for war.  Plain and simple.

[Dos Equis]

He didn;t feed the democrats bad intel, He fed everyone bad intel.

the problem with Intel is that there is so much of it.  I'm willing to bet he had several different intelligence assessments that were all different.  He chose the one that supported his objectives.

That might explain some of Rice's and Powell's statements of Saddam's lack of being a threat prior to the Iraq PR campaign.


This is the problem i've tried to explain to 240.  Even if he did Lie, there's noway it will ever be proved,  so in some ways it's a moot issue.

If he wasn't a threat and Bush supposedly "lied" about Saddam being a threat, then what is the basis for the numerous Democrats calling Saddam a threat in 1998, 1999, 2000 . . . before Bush took office? 

[tu_holmes]

If he wasn't a threat and Bush supposedly "lied" about Saddam being a threat, then what is the basis for the numerous Democrats calling Saddam a threat in 1998, 1999, 2000 . . . before Bush took office? 

I don't doubt Saddam was a threat, but at what level?

Every day leaders have to determine where the great threats are... Al Quaeda is STILL a big threat to this country, but so far, nothing has really been done about it except oust the head of a country who was already in check and was a very minor threat.

Iran is a much bigger threat and ALWAYS has been because we had not kept them in check for so long.

Venezuela is a big economic threat and we need work through that solution. Korea is a threat to Japan and in turn is a threat to us.

Do you think Saddam was a bigger threat than any of these guys? I truly do not... I do think he was in a position to be dealt with according to our current Administrations policy... he had a weak military and he had oil... That's all we needed.

[Dos Equis]

I don't doubt Saddam was a threat, but at what level?

Every day leaders have to determine where the great threats are... Al Quaeda is STILL a big threat to this country, but so far, nothing has really been done about it except oust the head of a country who was already in check and was a very minor threat.

Iran is a much bigger threat and ALWAYS has been because we had not kept them in check for so long.

Venezuela is a big economic threat and we need work through that solution. Korea is a threat to Japan and in turn is a threat to us.

Do you think Saddam was a bigger threat than any of these guys? I truly do not... I do think he was in a position to be dealt with according to our current Administrations policy... he had a weak military and he had oil... That's all we needed.

I was referring to the numerous public statements by Democrats that Saddam had WMDs made before Bush took office.  They believed he had them, they told the American people he had them, and that belief and those representations had nothing to do with Bush. 

And yes I believe Saddam was a bigger threat than Chavez or North Korea at the time we invaded in 2002.  He was a unique dictator.  I've gone over my rationale many times on this board and don't really feel like doing it again (unless you really want to hear it).   

[tu_holmes]

I was referring to the numerous public statements by Democrats that Saddam had WMDs made before Bush took office.  They believed he had them, they told the American people he had them, and that belief and those representations had nothing to do with Bush. 

And yes I believe Saddam was a bigger threat than Chavez or North Korea at the time we invaded in 2002.  He was a unique dictator.  I've gone over my rationale many times on this board and don't really feel like doing it again (unless you really want to hear it).   

Nah, I'll be ok... we probably won't agree anyway... I never really thought he was that much of a threat, sorry... Our no fly zones and other missions we've been conducting since the end of the Gulf War kind of make me think he wasn't that big a deal.

It's ok we don't agree though...

Of course we thought he had WMDs... we always thought that... we did stockpile him in the early 80s with a lot of biological weapons, so why wouldn't we?

That doesn't make him more dangerous that others though... I personally like to look at the completely crazy ones first, he's ruthless and mean, but he was never crazy.

[Dos Equis]

Nah, I'll be ok... we probably won't agree anyway... I never really thought he was that much of a threat, sorry... Our no fly zones and other missions we've been conducting since the end of the Gulf War kind of make me think he wasn't that big a deal.

It's ok we don't agree though...

Of course we thought he had WMDs... we always thought that... we did stockpile him in the early 80s with a lot of biological weapons, so why wouldn't we?

That doesn't make him more dangerous that others though... I personally like to look at the completely crazy ones first, he's ruthless and mean, but he was never crazy.

You're right we probably won't agree.  And it's good we can do that without insulting each other.   

[tu_holmes]

You're right we probably won't agree.  And it's good we can do that without insulting each other.   

Yeah... "Poophead"

[Dos Equis]

Yeah... "Poophead"

lol.  I've been called much worse . . . .   

[tu_holmes]

lol.  I've been called much worse . . . .   

Haven't we all