RebelKev Wrote:I have a question, did you just stop believing Saddam had weapons when Bush was in office? Or did you also question Clinton? My belief is the first one.

Personally, I chose to believe the weapons inspectors that said they accounted for 99% of the WMD that our Republican "leadership" gave Saddam. But why in the world would we want to believe those that were actually IN Iraq doing the research and accounting for the weapons - we'd rather rely on our rather well paid Iranian spy buddies to tell us what's going on. :rolleyes:

HuskieDan Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:I have a question, did you just stop believing Saddam had weapons when Bush was in office? Or did you also question Clinton? My belief is the first one.

Personally, I chose to believe the weapons inspectors that said they accounted for 99% of the WMD that our Republican "leadership" gave Saddam. But why in the world would we want to believe those that were actually IN Iraq doing the research and accounting for the weapons - we'd rather rely on our rather well paid Iranian spy buddies to tell us what's going on. :rolleyes:

Do you honestly want me to believe that you don't know what 1% of what they had could do to the world? Not to mention he kicked the inspectors out and I am pretty sure his "forced" scientists didn't forget how to make the things they were making. Nice to know that you, a liberal, didn't/doesn't think the Iraqis deserved the freedom you possess though. Real compassionate.

RebelKev Wrote:Nice to know that you, a liberal, didn't/doesn't think the Iraqis deserved the freedom you possess though. Real compassionate.

Don't extrapolate your stupid bull**** onto my comments, unless you can prove I've said this, which I know you'll never be able to do.

HuskieDan Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:Nice to know that you, a liberal, didn't/doesn't think the Iraqis deserved the freedom you possess though. Real compassionate.

Don't extrapolate your stupid bull**** onto my comments, unless you can prove I've said this, which I know you'll never be able to do.

Well, apparently you think that the Iraqis were better off under Saddam.

MU ATO Wrote:

T-Monay820 Wrote:Of course the Left wouldn't fight until the missiles are in the air. Or even wait for them to land, because you never know if its just a test flight not actually aimed at US citizens.. :rolleyes:

Oh yea thats because Iraq was getting ready to invade us right???

:rolleyes:

Alright wise-***. Where did I say anything about Iraq? :chair:

MU ATO Wrote:I know I mean come on.

Can these people come up with anything other than slamming Bill Clinton??

Dubya likes to run around l9ike a chicken with his head cut off screaming that Senator Kerry is a Pessimist and he is living in the past.

Every freakin GOP member across the country is dwelling on Clinton.

GET OVER IT WHINERS!!!!!!

Ya'll are one to talk. "Bush went AWOL!" Yaddah yaddah. Ya'll are just as guilty at beating a dead horse.

RebelKev Wrote:

HuskieDan Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:Nice to know that you, a liberal, didn't/doesn't think the Iraqis deserved the freedom you possess though. Real compassionate.

Don't extrapolate your stupid bull**** onto my comments, unless you can prove I've said this, which I know you'll never be able to do.

Well, apparently you think that the Iraqis were better off under Saddam.

Of course he does. The left is so drawn up with destroying Bush, they don't care about what the effects are on everyone else. Bush led an invasion of a country and removed a threat and freed a people. Yet since Bush did it, its an act of evil and Bush has to go. Why? Because all this partisan bs by the left where they don't care about helping people anymore like they did in the past, they just simply want to push their agenda and destroy all Republicans who stand in their way. You call yourself a supporter of human rights and a guy like Saddam.

T-Monay820 Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:

HuskieDan Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:Nice to know that you, a liberal, didn't/doesn't think the Iraqis deserved the freedom you possess though. Real compassionate.

Don't extrapolate your stupid bull**** onto my comments, unless you can prove I've said this, which I know you'll never be able to do.

Well, apparently you think that the Iraqis were better off under Saddam.

Of course he does. The left is so drawn up with destroying Bush, they don't care about what the effects are on everyone else. Bush led an invasion of a country and removed a threat and freed a people. Yet since Bush did it, its an act of evil and Bush has to go. Why? Because all this partisan bs by the left where they don't care about helping people anymore like they did in the past, they just simply want to push their agenda and destroy all Republicans who stand in their way. You call yourself a supporter of human rights and a guy like Saddam.

I agree 100%. Had Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Demonameyourflavor done it, it'd been A-Ok. After all, it was done in the Balkans....ALSO without the UN's approval....as if they have anything to offer to begin with.

RebelKev Wrote:I agree 100%. Had Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Demonameyourflavor done it, it'd been A-Ok. After all, it was done in the Balkans....ALSO without the UN's approval....as if they have anything to offer to begin with.

See, from my limited knowledge of Kosovo, Bosnia, and Somalia, I believe that there were repectable reasons to intervene. Preventing genocide in the Balkans and combating forced famines by warlords in Somalia. But the way we did it, such as highlevel bombing against Bosnia with massive civillian casualties, and failing to take action then hauling *** in Somalia, are unacceptable.

But the reason we are not going to be sucessful on this "War on Terror" is going to be because of the Left's inability to cooperate with the Right, and vice versa, on accepting policies in the best interest of the US. American safety cannot take a backseat to france's opinion. America's success in its greatest war (WWII) came from its people (Republican and Dem) uniting behind a leader who had America's safety first in mind to defeat a common enemy. I can't see that happening again in America in the near future.

kosovo was none of our business.

flyingswoosh Wrote:kosovo was none of our business.

I agree, but another part of me says that, if the Europeans were too much of a bunch of wussies, then we SHOULD have intervened in the genocide taking place.

We intervened in Somalia when HW Bush was in office; Clinton pulled us out. That's one of the main reasons, "I think", that Osama thinks we are gutless. We wanted to stay, trust me. I guess THAT genocide wasn't as important to Clinton than the genocide in Kosovo. ....and the black people, for the most part, vote Democratic. That just blows me away.

RebelKev Wrote:So you believe the 9/11 commission's assertion that Saddam had no role in the 9/11 attacks, as I didn't think either, but totally discount their assertion that Saddam had TIES to terrorist organizations, yes, an Al Queda.

This is a directly from the staff report:

"We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaida cooperated on attacks against the United States." Iraq, the report concluded, "apparently never responded" to bin Laden's requests for "space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons."

Talk all you want about ties. They aren't relevant.

You and I have "ties." We both use this message board. But that fact doesn't mean I'm going to collaborate with you.

George W. Bush had "ties" to the bin Laden family: a financial relationship. It doesn't mean he was going to fly a plane into a building.

Quote:......and the Canada remark is a non issue as we aren't talking about the United States attacking Canada.

Quote:I believe Saddam has been a threat since he had his *** handed to him in '91.

And I'm not sure I'll ever understand why you believe that. It appears entirely baseless.

I see no evidence at all that Iraq was a threat to the United States -- certainly not an "imminent threat."

Quote:I have a question, did you just stop believing Saddam had weapons when Bush was in office? Or did you also question Clinton? My belief is the first one.

I'm not sure I ever stopped to ponder the question until it became evident that Bush wanted to go to war with Iraq.

And I believed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. That seemed to be the consensus in Washington.

But I still firmly opposed the war.

I opposed it because President Bush never came even close to establishing that Iraq posed a imminent threat to the United States.

And, boy, he tried. He's been trying his whole adminstration

Take the "axis of evil" line early on in his administration. The implication was not just that Iran, Iraq and North Korea were evil, but that they were somehow working together in their evilness. The word "axis" implied that.

I'm no candidate for mensa, but I knew instantly that didn't make any sense.

Later, I could sense just how carefully President Bush chose his words when discussing his proposal for going to war with Iraq. He always seemed to be trying to imply a significant link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda.

Yet I could also see how fuzzy he was on the details. The few factoids the Bush administration were trotting out there to back up its implication that Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda were working together were almost immediately shot down by people with a much better understanding of Middle Eastern politics than I or (and I'm certain of this) George W. Bush.

I also saw the polling. I saw growing number of Americans coming to believe Saddam Hussein bore responsibility for the 9/11 massacre. And I could see, even then, that President Bush was obviously quite intentionally trying to get people to make that connection.

In short, I sensed, very early on, that our president was full of **** when it came to Iraq.

T-Monay820 Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:

HuskieDan Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:Nice to know that you, a liberal, didn't/doesn't think the Iraqis deserved the freedom you possess though. Real compassionate.

Don't extrapolate your stupid bull**** onto my comments, unless you can prove I've said this, which I know you'll never be able to do.

Well, apparently you think that the Iraqis were better off under Saddam.

Of course he does. The left is so drawn up with destroying Bush, they don't care about what the effects are on everyone else. Bush led an invasion of a country and removed a threat and freed a people. Yet since Bush did it, its an act of evil and Bush has to go. Why? Because all this partisan bs by the left where they don't care about helping people anymore like they did in the past, they just simply want to push their agenda and destroy all Republicans who stand in their way. You call yourself a supporter of human rights and a guy like Saddam.

Yeah, because I said all that. :rolleyes:

You cons amaze me in your ability to twist things out of thin air. Yes, I demand that my leaders use the information available to them reasonably and not lie to the country to order a war action. I'm not trying to destroy the President, I'm trying to hold him accountable for his lies. Cons obviously don't identify lying as something that's wrong and will happily mislead the entire country in order to benefit themselves.

Schadenfreude Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:So you believe the 9/11 commission's assertion that Saddam had no role in the 9/11 attacks, as I didn't think either, but totally discount their assertion that Saddam had TIES to terrorist organizations, yes, an Al Queda.

This is a directly from the staff report:

"We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaida cooperated on attacks against the United States." Iraq, the report concluded, "apparently never responded" to bin Laden's requests for "space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons."

Talk all you want about ties. They aren't relevant.


I see no evidence at all that Iraq was a threat to the United States -- certainly not an "imminent threat."

Quote:I have a question, did you just stop believing Saddam had weapons when Bush was in office? Or did you also question Clinton? My belief is the first one.

I'm not sure I ever stopped to ponder the question until it became evident that Bush wanted to go to war with Iraq.

And I believed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. That seemed to be the consensus in Washington.

But I still firmly opposed the war.

I opposed it because President Bush never came even close to establishing that Iraq posed a imminent threat to the United States.

And, boy, he tried. He's been trying his whole adminstration

Once again, you just make things up and disregard facts. The preliminary staff report and the media's treatment of it was duly discredited by the co-chairmen of the committee. You just will not accept it.

As pointed out to you last week, Stephen Hayes' book documents the actual threat that Iraq posed to the United States and the linkage between Iraq and Al-Queda.

And no one in the administration, including President Bush, said that Iraq was an imminent threat. They argued just the opposite. He needed to be stopped before he became an imminent threat, which it is clear that he was trying to become, thorugh his own resources and Al-Queda.

But do not let the facts get in your way.

Schadenfreude Wrote:I see no evidence at all that Iraq was a threat to the United States -- certainly not an "imminent threat."

President Putin warned President Bush that Iraq planned to attack the US. That sounds pretty imminent to me. There is plenty of evidence Saddam Hussin was involved in terrorism, just not the 911 attacks. And no Danny I do not want to nuke the world, just for america to have the will to hunt down terrorist and send them to allah, not try to get in touch with there feelings.


<a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3819057.stm' target='_blank'>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3819057.stm</a>

<a href='http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/nm/20040618/wl_nm/russia_us_iraq_dc' target='_blank'>http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...ssia_us_iraq_dc</a>

T-Monay820 Wrote:

MU ATO Wrote:I know I mean come on.

Can these people come up with anything other than slamming Bill Clinton??

Dubya likes to run around l9ike a chicken with his head cut off screaming that Senator Kerry is a Pessimist and he is living in the past.

Every freakin GOP member across the country is dwelling on Clinton.

GET OVER IT WHINERS!!!!!!

Ya'll are one to talk. "Bush went AWOL!" Yaddah yaddah. Ya'll are just as guilty at beating a dead horse.

Alright WiseAss when did I say anything about Dubya going AWOL??? :chair: :wave:

flyingswoosh Wrote:kosovo was none of our business.

Slobadan Milosivich was killing his own people by the thousands. Sorry for spelling mistakes........

So should we not of done anythign back in the 1940s when a little midget named Adolph was trying to clense his people of the dirt in their blood?

As a world Super-power it is sort of a duty to help those that cant do it for themselves.

RebelKev Wrote:

flyingswoosh Wrote:kosovo was none of our business.

I agree, but another part of me says that, if the Europeans were too much of a bunch of wussies, then we SHOULD have intervened in the genocide taking place.

We intervened in Somalia when HW Bush was in office; Clinton pulled us out. That's one of the main reasons, "I think", that Osama thinks we are gutless. We wanted to stay, trust me. I guess THAT genocide wasn't as important to Clinton than the genocide in Kosovo. ....and the black people, for the most part, vote Democratic. That just blows me away.

How does genocide in africa relate to black voters in the US, out of curiosity?

MU ATO Wrote:

flyingswoosh Wrote:kosovo was none of our business.

Slobadan Milosivich was killing his own people by the thousands. Sorry for spelling mistakes........

So should we not of done anythign back in the 1940s when a little midget named Adolph was trying to clense his people of the dirt in their blood?

As a world Super-power it is sort of a duty to help those that cant do it for themselves.

Did a liberal really just say that?

RandyMc Wrote:Once again, you just make things up and disregard facts.  The preliminary staff report and the media's treatment of it was duly discredited by the co-chairmen of the committee.  You just will not accept it.

The commission cochairmen did no such thing.

Here is the key report, Staff Statement No. 15:

<a href='http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing12/staff_statement_15.pdf' target='_blank'>http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hea...tatement_15.pdf</a>

This is the pay off paragraph:

Bin Ladin also explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan, despite his opposition to Hussein’s secular regime. Bin Ladin had in fact at one time sponsored anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan. The Sudanese, to protect their own ties with Iraq, reportedly persuaded Bin Ladin to cease this support and arranged for contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting Bin Ladin in 1994. Bin Ladin is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded. There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after Bin Ladin had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior Bin Ladin associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States.

That remains the commission's position on the matter for now. A final report is due July 15.

So far, the chairmen have not discredited the report.

This was Lee Hamilton's defense of Cheney:

I must say I have trouble understanding the flak over this. The Vice President is saying, I think, that there were connections between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's government. We don't disagree with that. What we have said is just what [Republican co-chairman Tom Kean] just said: We don't have any evidence of a cooperative or collaborative relationship between Saddam Hussein's government and al Qaeda with regard to the attacks on the United States. So it seems to me that sharp differences that the press has drawn, that the media has drawn, are not that apparent to me.

<a href='http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/248eaurh.asp' target='_blank'>http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Publ...04/248eaurh.asp</a>

That was nice of him to say. But nowhere in there is Hamilton discrediting his staff's report.

In fact, the other chairman, Thomas Kean, is practically challenging Cheney to either put up or shut up. He said if Cheney has more concrete information:

"We need it, and we need it pretty fast.''

So you Bush fans can keep talking about "ties."

Yes, there were ties.

No, they weren't relevant.

This quote, from Kean, gets to the heart of the issue:

"we believe . . . that there were a lot more active contacts, frankly, with Iran and with Pakistan than there were with Iraq."

Bush's ship is sinking, my friend.