Bush fights back

[Gawain of Orkeny]

From Bush's speech today


And our debate at home must also be fair-minded. One of the hallmarks of a free society and what makes our country strong is that our political leaders can discuss their differences openly, even in times of war. When I made the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power, Congress approved it with strong bipartisan support. I also recognize that some of our fellow citizens and elected officials didn't support the liberation of Iraq. And that is their right, and I respect it. As President and Commander-in-Chief, I accept the responsibilities, and the criticisms, and the consequences that come with such a solemn decision.

While it's perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began. (Applause.) Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war. These critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs.

They also know that intelligence agencies from around the world agreed with our assessment of Saddam Hussein. They know the United Nations passed more than a dozen resolutions citing his development and possession of weapons of mass destruction. And many of these critics supported my opponent during the last election, who explained his position to support the resolution in the Congress this way: "When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security." That's why more than a hundred Democrats in the House and the Senate -- who had access to the same intelligence -- voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power. (Applause.)

The stakes in the global war on terror are too high, and the national interest is too important, for politicians to throw out false charges. (Applause.) These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America's will. As our troops fight a ruthless enemy determined to destroy our way of life, they deserve to know that their elected leaders who voted to send them to war continue to stand behind them. (Applause.) Our troops deserve to know that this support will remain firm when the going gets tough. (Applause.) And our troops deserve to know that whatever our differences in Washington, our will is strong, our nation is united, and we will settle for nothing less than victory. (Applause.)



Its about time he spoke up.

LINK (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/11/20051111-1.html)

[Divinus Arma]

Kind of reflects my continued support despite the lack of WMD... uhm, almost verbatim. Yep. Verbatim.

[Tribesman]

They also know that intelligence agencies from around the world agreed with our assessment of Saddam Hussein.
Then they must also know , as Bush must also know , that intelligence agencies around the world did not agree with their assessment .

it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began.
What does he mean , like using disputed intelligence , fake intelligence given to them by agents of the "axis of evil" , ignoring contradictory intelligence , linking things that are not linked , rushing into an uneccesary conflict without proper planning .
Yeah its deeply irresponsible to write history without looking at facts isn't it .~:rolleyes:

And yet this fight we have joined is also the current expression of an ancient struggle -- between those who put their faith in dictators, and those who put their faith in the people.
And how many dictatorships is he currently backing ? With your tax-dollars~:confused:

[Major Robert Dump]

He makes a solid point, and its very typical for politicians -- and the american public for that matter -- to "forget" about something they did and take the other side of the fence. the only people who have any ammo here are the ones who were against it all along.

It's also one of the reasons congress revels in presidents going to war without a declaration vote (even though they act like it unsurps their power)....if its not on paper in the form of a vote they can always say they didnt approve of it etc etc if it later becomes an unpopular decision (this doesn't really apply here because they did vote on the resolution, it just wasnt a tacit war declaration)

[Divinus Arma]

They also know that intelligence agencies from around the world agreed with our assessment of Saddam Hussein.
Then they must also know , as Bush must also know , that intelligence agencies around the world did not agree with their assessment .

it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began.
What does he mean , like using disputed intelligence , fake intelligence given to them by agents of the "axis of evil" , ignoring contradictory intelligence , linking things that are not linked , rushing into an uneccesary conflict without proper planning .
Yeah its deeply irresponsible to write history without looking at facts isn't it .~:rolleyes:

And yet this fight we have joined is also the current expression of an ancient struggle -- between those who put their faith in dictators, and those who put their faith in the people.
And how many dictatorships is he currently backing ? With your tax-dollars~:confused:

You, more than anyone else here, fudge the facts. Support your accusations with facts. I know you hate Bush. Fine. We get it. I also don't think he lied. But PROVE me wrong with facts. Not conjecture. FACTS.

BEFORE you reply, just read the rest of my post: I will agree that he lied IF and ONLY IF you can prove it with facts. Not conjecture. Facts. I will listen. So.... talk.

[Crazed Rabbit]

It was good until the last paragraph. The last Paragraph is utter rhetoric bull. Destroy our way of life? Al-Qaida couldn't even if they wanted to.

Well, to be fair I think AQ wants to destroy all of western civilization. Can they? That's a different story.

Crazed Rabbit

[ichi]

Well, one fact is that were no weapons of mass destruction found

a second fact is that almost all of the world's intelligence agencies, including our own, felt that they didn't exist, since we were inspecting the country fairly routinely.

A third fact is that there was a well-documented theory espoused by many high-ranking admin types that called for an invasion of Iraq prior to Bush's election. This invasion was an important issue for Bush's buddies the Saudis, they wanted Saddam out to strengthen their control over the world's oil production and to eliminate their one big threat.

A fourth fact is that Cheney's cronies have made a boatload of cash from no-bid fault-free contracts.

The stuation in Iraq will end badly, once we leave there is likely to be a bloddy civil war that will leave one of our real threats, Iran, much more powerful. As long as we stay we will feed the flames of radical Islam, which we don't need to do.

I for one supported the removal of a brutal dictator, but this administration has botched the job. I don't like being played for a fool, as Bush sold this war to the public on a pack of lies designed to garner support. Yes, as a country we started this war and we need to find a way to end it, successfully. That doesn't make Bush's actions acceptable.

This isn't because I hate Bush, it's reality. Drop all of the partisan XSBS and you'll see that we are in a very serious situation, with people on all sides suffering greatly.

ichi:bow:

[Divinus Arma]

Well, one fact is that were no weapons of mass destruction found

a second fact is that almost all of the world's intelligence agencies, including our own, felt that they didn't exist, since we were inspecting the country fairly routinely.

Are you on crack?

Talk about re-writing history. There you have it ladies and gentleman. IT WAS THE EXACT OPPOSITE!!!!!!!!!


Holy crup?!?! You people actually believe this junk???


After all the inspector dodging, inspector shuffling. After the MULTIPLE UN resolutions against Iraq demanding that they turn over their WMD or provide their whereabouts along with unrestricted inspector access.

What About THIS (http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/SC7564.doc.htm) Ichi?


08/11/2002
Press Release
SC/7564


Security Council

4644th Meeting (AM)

SECURITY COUNCIL HOLDS IRAQ IN ‘MATERIAL BREACH’ OF DISARMAMENT OBLIGATIONS,
OFFERS FINAL CHANCE TO COMPLY, UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTING RESOLUTION 1441 (2002)


Instructs Weapons Inspections to Resume within 45 Days,

Recalls Repeated Warning of ‘Serious Consequences’ for Continued Violations


Holding Iraq in “material breach” of its obligations under previous resolutions, the Security Council this morning decided to afford it a “final opportunity to comply” with its disarmament obligations, while setting up an enhanced inspection regime for full and verified completion of the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991).

By the unanimous adoption of resolution 1441 (2002), the Council instructed the resumed inspections to begin within 45 days, and also decided it would convene immediately upon the receipt of any reports from inspection authorities that Iraq was interfering with their activities. It recalled, in that context, that the Council had repeatedly warned Iraq that it would face "serious consequences" as a result of continued violations.

OWNED!!!!!!!

[Divinus Arma]

You and your ilk are hearby owned. By me.

[Divinus Arma]

I'm with DA on this. Gonna have to label bush as Misguided, as opposed to actually a liar.

Man, I hate to distarct from the basking ownage, but I have to comment.

Consider: If Bush and everyone else thought that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction then...

...follow the dots...

...red pill or blue pill....?

Red Pill? You sure?

[Divinus Arma]

Everyone thought, but not everyone was ready and willing to act on it. Bush acted on it for a reason, and likely on bad advice that came from people with an agenda. It takes a lunatic to believe that Saddam would have launched nuclear weapons on America, knowing his entire country would be turned to glass as well.

That was never the threat.

The argument for war was this:

a. Saddam has Weapons of Mass Destruction
b. Terrorists would like WMD to destroy America
c. If Saddam gives terrorists WMD, then they get to stuff us in the pooper and Saddam can get away with it.
d. Terrorists were communicating with Saddam and shiznit was going down, imminent style.
e. We needed to take out Saddam anyway for gaffing the UN seurity resolutions anyway for 12 years.


Then it was:
a. Let's get the UN on board.
b. The UN is full of pussies, so let's get congress on board.
c. Congress looked at above argument and said "let's rocknrolla against that Saddam Ayatollah!"

NOW that their are no WMD, the liberals are trying to backtrack and say WOH WOH WOH. If we knew Saddam did not have WMD, then we wouldn't have voted for war. WELL NO KIDDING! NEITHER WOULD THE PREZZIE!!!

Then it just degenerates into a "yes you would no I wouldn't" baby battle.

Bottom line: Was intel wrong? YES. But here we are so lets fricking make it right and do the morally correct thing. Which is to make Iraq safe for democracy. Ya.

[PanzerJaeger]

I remember before the war, the big debate was whether Saddam would actually ever use his WMDs, on his own people, or on his enemies via terrorists or SCUD type vehicles.

Now people are trying to act as if everyone knew they didnt exist, which is complete revisionism.

[Meneldil]

I remember before the war, the big debate was whether Saddam would actually ever use his WMDs, on his own people, or on his enemies via terrorists or SCUD type vehicles.

Now people are trying to act as if everyone knew they didnt exist, which is complete revisionism.

Errr...well...
In France the debate was to know how long the US leaders would hide their war against the obviously full of crap argument of the WMDs. The same applies to Germany, Spain, Italy and probably to UK aswell. None ever believed the WMDs crap. Seriously. Saying otherwise *is* revisionism.

And I don't remember European intelligence services agreeing with the fact Saddam had WMD's, except in the UK (where, if I remember correctly, an agent who claimed it was a bunch of crap oddly 'killed himself', although I may be wrong on that, I wasn't in France when that happened)

[Ironside]

That was never the threat.

The argument for war was this:

a. Saddam has Weapons of Mass Destruction
b. Terrorists would like WMD to destroy America
c. If Saddam gives terrorists WMD, then they get to stuff us in the pooper and Saddam can get away with it.
d. Terrorists were communicating with Saddam and shiznit was going down, imminent style.
e. We needed to take out Saddam anyway for gaffing the UN seurity resolutions anyway for 12 years.

a. Not really, the arguments in media was ............(silence).............. IRAQ HAS WMD AND IS READY TO USE THEM AGAINST USA AND GB. And to prove this we repeat some rumours and show some weak evidence (some of them was even proved to be false before the war started), Saddam show us your WMD!
Saddam: No.
Bush: Let UN-inspectors come in and inspect or we invade!
Saddam: Uhm ok.
UN-inspectors led by Hans Blix arrive.
Blix: Were's not finding anything.
Bush: Look harder!
Blix: Still nothing.
Bush: Are you blind? They're there!
Blix: Give us some more time to determine if Saddam got them or not, we have just started.
Bush: NO! That's too dangerous, he might move them to Syria or something. Now get your ass out of there so we can invade to remove those WMD and uhm save those poor Iraqis from the evil dictator Sadddam (not sure when that argument started to be used, but it wasn't from the beginning).
And you can add the push for war in the UN and when that didn't work, US fixed thier own attack instead, and the rumoured connections with AQ and the comments that the invasion of Iraq is a part of the war on terror.
Does this feel like a removal of Saddam because of WMD or a removal of Saddam with the WMD as an excuse?

b. No disagrement here.

c. Why would he do that? What does he gain on wiping out Manhattan? If someone even breathe his name after that her'll be ousted by angry Americans that has full support by the rest of the world. He likes taunting the US publicly, but for that he has to be completly silent. How can he be certain that the terrorists won't use the supposed WMD against him? No gain and much to lose. And he has nevered appeared mad (except some paranoia) or willing to die for something like that.

d. That was based on even weaker stuff than the WMD:s, and negotiating with people that like to see you ousted isn't that smart most of the time (Saddam gives AQ some suppposed WMD, AQ uses is on the US and makes sure that US know that Saddam gave them the WMD= the situation equals today, but US got way more support for being in Iraq, on much less questionable grounds).

e. Another trown in argument, that unless something happens, only confirms that other movitations is behind the reason. You have endured it for the last 12 and it suddenly becomes a problem now?


WELL NO KIDDING! NEITHER WOULD THE PREZZIE!!!
That one is qustionable IMO.

I agree that it is pathetic that some people is backtracking that way. But never forget that there's a large part (especially outside the US) that has opposed the war from the very beginning, because it seemed to be started on false pretences.


Bottom line: Was intel wrong? YES. But here we are so lets fricking make it right and do the morally correct thing. Which is to make Iraq safe for democracy. Ya.

I agree. The only thing I fear is that if it's very successful, the next president might think that "that went fine. Iran next!" and the invasion method has a considerble risk to blow up in the face of the attacker. And the bigger the contry, the bigger the blow. So I hope for for a slow, annoying, but still considerble success in the end, with as few people dying as possible.


I remember before the war, the big debate was whether Saddam would actually ever use his WMDs, on his own people, or on his enemies via terrorists or SCUD type vehicles.

Now people are trying to act as if everyone knew they didnt exist, which is complete revisionism.
On this forum? I do remember talking about that if Saddam had WMD and used them, it would be most likely on his own people or a neighbour, but that the US and GB was safe, unless possibly if they invaded.

And you're fully missing the point that was used back then. It was that the Bush administration was using WMD and the war on terror as a pretext for invading Iraq, while the true purpose remains hidden. Why do you think the "war for oil" issue came up from the beginning? (no, I don't think that was the primary reason)

Then came the irony that Saddam didn't even have WMD (well, outside a few degraded artillery shells). ~;p Who's oppinion got more credability out of that? So who is it that's trying to revision the history? ~:rolleyes:

[Lazul]

Couldnt have said it better Ironside. :bow:

[Tribesman]

You, more than anyone else here, fudge the facts. Support your accusations with facts. I know you hate Bush. Fine. We get it. I also don't think he lied. But PROVE me wrong with facts. Not conjecture. FACTS.

Which Facts would you like , Chiracs statement on the intelligence , Schroeders , Hues , Howards (hey he even we stated that he knew the intelligence was crap when he joined the war) ?
I know how about a really good one ...Putins , he headed an intelligence agency he should understand intelligence , now what was it he said about the intelligence put forward ~D ~D ~D

Or even better would you like to look at the UNs reaction to the "intelligence" put forward by Powell ~;) Hey the UN had their own intelligence , what did they descide .

Facts , you can't handle the facts or you are suffering from memory failure~D ~D ~D
They also know that intelligence agencies from around the world agreed with our assessment of Saddam Hussein.
Then they must also know , as Bush must also know , that intelligence agencies around the world did not agree with their assessment .

If Bush and everyone else thought that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction then...
But everyone else didn't did they Divinus , and the more information that was becoming available all the time was proving them to be right , is that why there was the rush to war ? because all the carefully gathered bullshit was unravelling

So who is it that's trying to revision the history?
My my Ironside , you do seem to have PWNED(or whatever that is) this topic in one sentance ~:cheers:

[Kralizec]

A brief summary:

1) Saddam has WMD, we have compelling evidence (but we're not going to share it with you. Also, he's a nasty man.
2) Be patient as we're getting ready to present our smoking gun.
3) Patience...
4) SADDAM IS A BLOODLUSTED KILLER OMG WTF! LET'S OUST HIM!
(also, he has weapons. you know it.)
5) In fact, let's do it right now. *proceeds to invade*
6) Major succes! Now sit still and shut up, I'll get your proof already.
7) Proof is underway, we're looking for it right now.
8) Ok, maybe there were WMD, maybe there weren't, we ousted a terrible dictator and that alone justifies the invasion.

[ichi]

Lets start with the basics.

First, DA you seem unable to discuss politics without becoming personally abusive of others. I am not on crack, nor have you pwned me. Knock it off, please. BTW way I dont mind the large type, even tho you use it in an attempt to gloat over your incorrectly perceived victory, but as an older American the large type helps me. Too bad all you use it for is taunts.

Second, you hold others to higher standards than you hold yourselves.


You, more than anyone else here, fudge the facts. Support your accusations with facts. I know you hate Bush. Fine. We get it. I also don't think he lied. But PROVE me wrong with facts. Not conjecture. FACTS.

You demand facts yet seem willing to base your arguments on nothing more than your philosophy.

Let's look at some examples


c. If Saddam gives terrorists WMD, then they get to stuff us in the pooper and Saddam can get away with it.
d. Terrorists were communicating with Saddam and shiznit was going down, imminent style.
e. We needed to take out Saddam anyway for gaffing the UN seurity resolutions anyway for 12 years.

There is no evidence that Saddam intended to give terrorists WMDs. This idea fails to recognize that Saddam knew he couldn't attack the US without severe retribution; it characterizes him as an idiot, which he wasn't (a brutal madman, yes, but no idiot) cause he wanted control of the region, not a war he couldnt hope to win against the powerful country in the world.

Gelatinous Cube hit it right on the head with


Everyone thought, but not everyone was ready and willing to act on it. Bush acted on it for a reason, and likely on bad advice that came from people with an agenda. It takes a lunatic to believe that Saddam would have launched nuclear weapons on America, knowing his entire country would be turned to glass as well.

I'm not sure where you gets your facts about this alleged shiznit; is that a WMD or some sort of Iraqi prostitute? But the point is clear, no facts just conjecture on your part.

Other nations, including the US, have ignored UN security resolutions; why did we need to take him out when we fail to take out others. Again, I agree that Saddam needed to be overthrown, but I disagree with the reasons and method Bush used, think we have botched the job, and continue to see that you include your personal feelings as facts but are quick to condemn others for the same crime.

So I'll go back to the one fact you tried very hard to avoid, which is that there were no WMDs found.

Then I'll follow up on your press release of 8/11/2002. UN Inspections returned to Iraq on November 18, 2002.

From Hans Blix's report to the UN on January 27, 2003


UNMOVIC’s capability

Mr President, I must not conclude this “update” without some notes on the growing capability of UNMOVIC.

In the past two months, UNMOVIC has built-up its capabilities in Iraq from nothing to 260 staff members from 60 countries. This includes approximately 100 UNMOVIC inspectors, 60 air operations staff, as well as security personnel, communications, translation and interpretation staff, medical support, and other services at our Baghdad office and Mosul field office. All serve the United Nations and report to no one else. Furthermore, our roster of inspectors will continue to grow as our training programme continues — even at this moment we have a training course in session in Vienna. At the end of that course, we shall have a roster of about 350 qualified experts from which to draw inspectors.

A team supplied by the Swiss Government is refurbishing our offices in Baghdad, which had been empty for four years. The Government of New Zealand has contributed both a medical team and a communications team. The German Government will contribute unmanned aerial vehicles for surveillance and a group of specialists to operate them for us within Iraq. The Government of Cyprus has kindly allowed us to set up a Field Office in Larnaca. All these contributions have been of assistance in quickly starting up our inspections and enhancing our capabilities. So has help from the UN in New York and from sister organizations in Baghdad.

In the past two months during which we have built-up our presence in Iraq, we have conducted about 300 inspections to more than 230 different sites. Of these, more than 20 were sites that had not been inspected before. By the end of December, UNMOVIC began using helicopters both for the transport of inspectors and for actual inspection work. We now have eight helicopters. They have already proved invaluable in helping to “freeze” large sites by observing the movement of traffic in and around the area.

Setting up a field office in Mosul has facilitated rapid inspections of sites in northern Iraq. We plan to establish soon a second field office in the Basra area, where we have already inspected a number of sites.

Mr. President,

We have now an inspection apparatus that permits us to send multiple inspection teams every day all over Iraq, by road or by air. Let me end by simply noting that that capability which has been built-up in a short time and which is now operating, is at the disposal of the Security Council.

Ironside points this out very nicely in his rebuttal of your position.

Remember also that the UN Security Council refused to endorse the US-UK invasion until many months after it occurred, mainly because others were not convinced of WMD argument.

and actually, there were several facts that you ignored. You were so quick to dislocate your shoulder self-congratulating yourself that you failed to address the fact that there was a cabal of high-ranking admin types who had planned this war from before Bush's election, and that those same guys have made a very large trunkload o' cash off the war.

So lets look a little closer at your stuff


Then it was:
a. Let's get the UN on board.
b. The UN is full of pussies, so let's get congress on board.
c. Congress looked at above argument and said "let's rocknrolla against that Saddam Ayatollah!"



Not a lot of facts in there mate, but quite a bit a conjecture.

The UN was on board for Bush the Elders foray into Iraq, but not this time. Why? Because most of the world felt that there were no WMDs as we had stated.

I like the 'UN is full of pussies' thing. I wish it were so easy to take the High School jock approach to life, but on the scale of international politics testosterone poisoned machismo really is inadequate. But whatever.

Congress supported the President because he said 'trust me we have solid intel and sure-fire plan'. Now that it has been made clear that he lacked either, but instead wanted badly to go to war in Iraq and has since blown it, failing to achieve the 'right thing' and actually making it worse for many Iraqis, we as a poeple have the right to hold him accountable.


NOW that their are no WMD, the liberals are trying to backtrack and say WOH WOH WOH. If we knew Saddam did not have WMD, then we wouldn't have voted for war. WELL NO KIDDING! NEITHER WOULD THE PREZZIE!!!

But Bush did know, the whole WMD was a lie designed to sell the war. We (the neocons at the top) wanted to invade Iraq to gain control of the oil, the help our friends the Saudis, to finish the job Bush the Elder balked at, and to attempt to spread democracy to people who will probably use their votes to elect Muslim Theocrats.

The main point isnt that people (and not just liberals, a wide spectrum of Americans, including many vets) are backtracking on their support, the American public was lied to and we don't like that from our leaders. Many have died as a result of those lies and we have a right to expect leaders to be held accountable.

DA you may have strong feelings about this, and you may even dislike or even hate those who disagree with you. But please, try to be civil. Play the ball, not the man, and instead of insulting or gloating try to prove your point.

ichi:bow:

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

a little off topic but...

"He who gives up a little freedom for a little security will lose both and deserves niether."
~Benjamin Franklin

why do people keep wheeling that out? It's a nice little quote from a long time ago but people treat it like it's the gospel truth. I bet it's true in some circumstances but I also bet it's false in other circumstances.

[Geoffrey S]

Congress supported the President because he said 'trust me we have solid intel and sure-fire plan'.
Rather trusting of them, or a feeble excuse for their spineless following of the government into Iraq and subsequent backtracking? I'd think the latter, it being the prevalent attitude amongst initially pro-war politicians, particularly evident when Kerry was going for the presidency.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

a little off topic but...

"He who gives up a little freedom for a little security will lose both and deserves niether."
~Benjamin Franklin

why do people keep wheeling that out? It's a nice little quote from a long time ago but people treat it like it's the gospel truth. I bet it's true in some circumstances but I also bet it's false in other circumstances.

It's a trump phrase. You put that up there, and how can you come back against it? "What, you don't like Ben Franklin? Nazi..."

Means you don't need to have an argument.

~:handball:

[Red Harvest]

1. WMD's didn't exist in Iraq. Previously known arms and such were there, nothing new. The basis was incorrect.
2. The intelligence basis for WMD's was a lot of smoke, and NO FIRE. A lot of people in many countries *believed* he still had active WMD programs. The hard evidence wasn't there. This became apparent during Powell's presentation. It gave many of us watching pause, because we were expecting more.
3. The failure of both the President and the intelligence agencies was in letting beliefs guide them, without finding any hard evidence. The American people share in the blame, since I/we were fooled as well.
4. Adding to the blame above: Saddam's own approach was assinine...as was that of France, Germany, Russia, etc. He did his best to bluff like he might still have them on the one hand, while keeping a sort of empty shell game going. By not forcing Saddam to come clean/open up again with a powerful Security Council stance, the course was set. There was no turning back. I knew it, everyone else in the U.S. knew it. It was an ultimatum, it was ignored. Obviously, these nations did not want to actually avoid a war, but instead bitch about it incessantly once it happened.
5. Selling the war on WMD's was a fundamental mistake. The certainty was not there, and there were many other fundamental reasons to take Saddam out, rather than using tenuous links.
6. The AQ link doesn't hold up.
7. Others around the world can gripe, but the U.S. was stuck in the security role for Iraq, playing the "bad guy." If the rest of the world had done their job, there would have been no 2nd invasion. Europe as a whole is utterly inept at dealing with such problems. When they show some ability to handle these things without us, then they have the right to lecture us.

[Red Harvest]

a little off topic but...

"He who gives up a little freedom for a little security will lose both and deserves niether."
~Benjamin Franklin

why do people keep wheeling that out? It's a nice little quote from a long time ago but people treat it like it's the gospel truth. I bet it's true in some circumstances but I also bet it's false in other circumstances.
People quote it because it is an excellent warning about how autocratic control can be achieved through gradual measures.

[Kagemusha]

I feel that its ofcourse important to talk about the reasons and the thruth behind those reasons, why coalition invaded Iraq. But to me its far more important to to do something about the situation of Iraq.
Is coalition doing well there or does it look like if the resistance and terrorist attacks are going to escalate.
Its very easy to point out things that are wrong, but is it not more important to do something when the shit has hit the fan.
I can honestly say that i dont like the current administration of US,but well its US citicens own business who they want to run their country.
For international community and US in my view now would be a good time to sit down in a table. And talk is the project Iraq only US concern and can they handle it by them selves.I know that the European and other world governments has no obligation to go to Iraq, becouse they did not accept the Invasion when it happened. But would it be wiser to try to help US and its allies to calm the situation down there? Or just stand by and criticize. Wouldnt it be better to help now when things look remotely good, or do it only in the case when the shit has hit the fan in whole area which could cost a lot more in many ways? I know its not very appealing idea for Nations that didnt want things to go this way but would it be wise?

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Red Harvest - correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you wouldn't have had a problem with the war if:

A) it hadn't been sold on WMDs
B) it was being run to your liking
C) Bush wasn't running it

And I do agree generally with the Ben Franklin quote, just that you can't just type it up and follow it with a "~:) " and win an argument.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Yup its hard to believe but for the most part I agree with Red Harvest. Though for instance there were missles there that exceeded the range they were allowed to have. His general summary is pretty much how most americans see it I think.

[Aurelian]

I meant to post on this issue earlier in the week when Gawain put up the list of "Saddam is a threat" quotes from various Democrats. Unfortunately, real life got in the way and I never got around to it. So, woot, another chance!

Okay, all this talk about "the Democrats thought he had WMDs too" is part of a big PR push the administration has been getting ready for some time now. They're dying in the polls, and they're hoping to confuse you to get you back on board the crazy train.

Here's an example of the main line of attack as delivered by Stephen J. Hadley, the national security adviser, at a Thursday news conference:

"I point out that some of the critics today believed themselves in 2002 that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction... They stated that belief, and they voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq because they believed Saddam Hussein posed a dangerous threat to the American people. For those critics to ignore their own past statements, exposes the hollowness of their current attacks."

Here's why you shouldn't fall for another serving of the administration's BS:

1) If some Democrats in the House and Senate believed in 2002 that Saddam had WMDs, it's because they were getting that impression the same way that the American people were: from the White House.

Congress doesn't have its own intelligence agency... it relies on intelligence assessments provided to it by the Executive Branch.

The White House, however, has full access to all of the intelligence data from the various agencies under its control. In order to sell their war, the White House carefully cherry-picked the intelligence that it chose to pass on to Congress and the American people.

What the White House did was to blanket the press with alarmist statements about the supposed threat from Saddam, his WMDs, and his ties with terrorists. They made positive firm declarations that they "knew" Saddam had WMDs, that they had "proof" that he had ties with al-Qaeda, etc.

Those declarations were lies because not only was there no consensus within the intelligence community on which those assertions could be made, but most of the specific information that the administration was using as "evidence" was either being strongly challenged by experts or heavily hedged with warnings about the unreliability and uncertainty of the information.

The Bush administration took information that they knew the intelligence community considered uncertain at best, and they turned around and presented that information to the American people as certain proof that Saddam Hussein had WMDs, was actively trying to acquire more (including nuclear weapons), and that he had ties to al-Qaeda terrorists.

House and Senate Democrats did not have full access to the classified intelligence. They were not able to judge the full intelligence picture, and were left, like the American people, in a situation where they had to rely on the information that they were given by the administration.

The administration was able to control the flow of information even to the Senate Intelligence Committee. By controlling the information put in the National Intelligence Estimate, and by refusing to declassify the information that could have been used to undermine their case for war, the administration was able to keep Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee from sharing the true state of intelligence with their colleagues and the public. Read:


Graham and Durbin had been demanding for more than a month that the CIA produce an NIE on the Iraqi threat--a summary of the available intelligence, reflecting the judgment of the entire intelligence community--and toward the end of September, it was delivered. Like Tenet's earlier letter, the classified NIE was balanced in its assessments. Graham called on Tenet to produce a declassified version of the report that could guide members in voting on the resolution. Graham and Durbin both hoped the declassified report would rebut the kinds of overheated claims they were hearing from administration spokespeople. As Durbin tells TNR, "The most frustrating thing I find is when you have credible evidence on the intelligence committee that is directly contradictory to statements made by the administration."

On October 1, 2002, Tenet produced a declassified NIE. But Graham and Durbin were outraged to find that it omitted the qualifications and countervailing evidence that had characterized the classified version and played up the claims that strengthened the administration's case for war. For instance, the intelligence report cited the much-disputed aluminum tubes as evidence that Saddam "remains intent on acquiring" nuclear weapons. And it claimed, "All intelligence experts agree that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons and that these tubes could be used in a centrifuge enrichment program"--a blatant mischaracterization. Subsequently, the NIE allowed that "some" experts might disagree but insisted that "most" did not, never mentioning that the DOE's expert analysts had determined the tubes were not suitable for a nuclear weapons program. The NIE also said that Iraq had "begun renewed production of chemical warfare agents"--which the DIA report had left pointedly in doubt. Graham demanded that the CIA declassify dissenting portions.

In response, Tenet produced a single-page letter. It satisfied one of Graham's requests: It included a statement that there was a "low" likelihood of Iraq launching an unprovoked attack on the United States. But it also contained a sop to the administration, stating without qualification that the CIA had "solid reporting of senior-level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda going back a decade." Graham demanded that Tenet declassify more of the report, and Tenet promised to fax over additional material. But, later that evening, Graham received a call from the CIA, informing him that the White House had ordered Tenet not to release anything more...

Five of the nine Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee, including Graham and Durbin, ultimately voted against the resolution, but they were unable to convince other committee members or a majority in the Senate itself. This was at least in part because they were not allowed to divulge what they knew: While Graham and Durbin could complain that the administration's and Tenet's own statements contradicted the classified reports they had read, they could not say what was actually in those reports.

Bush, meanwhile, had no compunction about claiming that the "evidence indicates Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program." In the words of one former Intelligence Committee staffer, "He is the president of the United States. And, when the president of the United States says, 'My advisers and I have sat down, and we've read the intelligence, and we believe there is a tie between Iraq and Al Qaeda,' ... you take it seriously. It carries a huge amount of weight." LINK (very good article) (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/unmovic/2003/0630selling.htm)

Due to the White House's control over the available intelligence, and the way they manipulated that intelligence to give the impression of certainty, it is only understandable that a significant number of Democratic figures, like the public at large, bought the administration line on the nature of the threat from Iraq.

Part 2 tomorrow…

[Adrian II]

1) If some Democrats in the House and Senate believed in 2002 that Saddam had WMDs, it's because they were getting that impression the same way that the American people were: from the White House.

Congress doesn't have its own intelligence agency... it relies on intelligence assessments provided to it by the Executive Branch.Excuse me, even I knew at the time that the WMD claims were nonsense, Powell's presentation in the UN Security Council was nonsense, the links with Al Qaeda were nonsense. Your darling Democrats chose to go along with the nonsense and lend it credibility, in the same way as they went along with the Patriot Act. The difference being that the Bush administration and the Neocons at least have some views and ideals worth lying for. The Democrats have nothing resembling a political opinion anymore.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Sometimes Adrian you show true flashes of brilliance.

[Redleg]

Excuse me, even I knew at the time that the WMD claims were nonsense, Powell's presentation in the UN Security Council was nonsense, the links with Al Qaeda were nonsense. Your darling Democrats chose to go along with the nonsense and lend it credibility, in the same way as they went along with the Patriot Act. The difference being that the Bush administration and the Neocons at least have some views and ideals worth lying for. The Democrats have nothing resembling a political opinion anymore.

And what Aurelian/s post doesn't explain is why former Democratic President Bill Clinton believed while he was in office that the Iraqi regime might have WMD, nor does it explain away his position after he left the office.

[Tribesman]

might have WMD,
A little different from "we know he has them , we know where they are , and thats a..a...a..er..fact" . ~;)

[Gawain of Orkeny]

might have WMD,
A little different from "we know he has them , we know where they are , and thats a..a...a..er..fact" .

Bill didnt say might have them he said he did have them on number of occassions.

What was this?


PRESIDENT CLINTON: Good evening. Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.




I guess good old Bill destroyed them all in the attack.


Clinton Claimed Last Year Saddam Had WMD
NewsMax ^ | 1/9/04 | Limbacher



Former US president Bill Clinton said in October during a visit to Portugal that he was convinced Iraq had weapons of mass destruction up until the fall of Saddam Hussein, Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Manuel Durao Barroso said.

"When Clinton was here recently he told me he was absolutely convinced, given his years in the White House and the access to privileged information which he had, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction until the end of the Saddam regime," he said in an interview with Portuguese cable news channel SIC Noticias.

Clinton, a Democrat who left office in 2001, met with Durao Barroso on October 21 when he travelled to Lisbon to give a speech on globalisation.



But then of course you cant believe a word out of good old BJ Clinton anyway.


On June 24, "Today" show co-host Katie Couric, not known for her tenacity of questioning regarding Democrats and liberals, interviewed Clinton and asked, "What do you think about this connection that Cheney, that Vice President Cheney continues to assert between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida?"


Clinton, of course, didn't know. "All I can tell you is I never saw it, I never believed it based on the evidence I had."




Back on Feb. 17, 1998, Hayes notes, Clinton – speaking at the Pentagon – warned of the "reckless acts of outlaw nations and an unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers and organized international criminals." He said these "predators of the twenty-first century," who are America's enemies, "will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq."

And later the same spring, Clinton's Justice Department prepared an indictment of al-Qaida's leader, Osama bin Laden, in which a prominent passage located in the fourth paragraph reads:

"Al-Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al-Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al-Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq."



I thought there were no ties and that Saddam was not a threat to the US? Bush made it all up right?

[Geoffrey S]

Excuse me, even I knew at the time that the WMD claims were nonsense, Powell's presentation in the UN Security Council was nonsense, the links with Al Qaeda were nonsense. Your darling Democrats chose to go along with the nonsense and lend it credibility, in the same way as they went along with the Patriot Act. The difference being that the Bush administration and the Neocons at least have some views and ideals worth lying for. The Democrats have nothing resembling a political opinion anymore.
Thoroughly agreed; I may completely disagree with many of the things neocons stand for, but at least they actually stand for something. The Democrats seem incapable of presenting anything resembling a solid view, the only consistent policy they've got revolves around bashing the Republicans for political credit. No wonder they weren't voted for if that's all they've got to offer.

[Red Harvest]

Red Harvest - correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you wouldn't have had a problem with the war if:

A) it hadn't been sold on WMDs
B) it was being run to your liking
C) Bush wasn't running it

And I do agree generally with the Ben Franklin quote, just that you can't just type it up and follow it with a "~:) " and win an argument.

You are far off the mark. I wouldn't have problems with it if it was successful in its long term aims. Right now, that doesn't look likely, and the damage it has caused to our efforts is considerable.

It doesn't really matter to me who is running it, IF they do a good job. My "liking" is to simply have a successful conclusion. I mistakenly thought Bush couldn't screw this up, so I supported doing it.

What is happening now is a re-analysis of what went wrong. We've had years to "get it right." That hasn't happened. So now we have to figure out what hasn't worked, why, and how to proceed from here. Continuing to bumble along indefinitely is a bigger mistake than using an incorrect basis for war in the first place.

[KafirChobee]

IMO, the speech itself was entirely inappropriate for the day it was given. Nov. 11th, is a day to honor our veterans and their fallen comrades - not one to justify the loss of more on the premise that "had we only known all the info for starting it was wrong ..... he'ld have found another reason to sell the public and done it anyway."

It saddens me that Bush43 would take such a day and attempt to use it to justify his FUBARs. To express some form of remorse for the fallen sons and daughters he sent to war, would have demonstrated he actually comprehends the loss most Americans feel (on days such as Veteran's Day). Rather than attempting to use the day to justify an ill conceived, poorly planned, and needless war.

His "screech", shames all veterans. Rather than honoring us, he honored himself and his war policy. SHAME!

IMO.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

No WMD's?

How about...

the 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium confiscated from facilities near Bagdhad immediatly after the city fell to coalition forces,

the 1,500 gallons of chemical weapons agents found by the 4th ID, supposedly near a storage facility for liquid dispersing missile warheads

the 17 chemical warheads containing cyclosarin (a nerve agent five times more deadly than sarin gas),

or the over 1,000 radioactive materials in powdered form (meant for dispersal over populated areas),

not to mention roadside bombs IED loaded with mustard and "conventional" sarin gas (which weren't used the right way because the terrorist "grunts" didn't know what they had).

Source: R. Minter


Apparently, only the discovery of half-completed nuclear warheads or missles loaded with nerve-gas and aimed at Kuwait would've counted. The media has reached its verdict, and that verdict is: no WMDs. Therefore, US efforts in Iraq can only be the result of dastardly lies or outright incompetence.~:rolleyes:

[Red Harvest]

No WMD's?

How about...

the 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium confiscated from facilities near Bagdhad immediatly after the city fell to coalition forces,

the 1,500 gallons of chemical weapons agents found by the 4th ID, supposedly near a storage facility for liquid dispersing missile warheads

the 17 chemical warheads containing cyclosarin (a nerve agent five times more deadly than sarin gas),

or the over 1,000 radioactive materials in powdered form (meant for dispersal over populated areas),

not to mention roadside bombs IED loaded with mustard and "conventional" sarin gas (which weren't used the right way because the terrorist "grunts" didn't know what they had).

Source: R. Minter


Apparently, only the discovery of half-completed nuclear warheads or missles loaded with nerve-gas and aimed at Kuwait would've counted. The media has reached its verdict, and that verdict is: no WMDs. Therefore, US efforts in Iraq can only be the result of dastardly lies or outright incompetence.~:rolleyes:

The scary part is that your read stuff like that and believe it. Can't you tell when you are reading distortions?

I remember some of these reports, they get paraded out now and again. It was pre-1991 materials. Nothing new. The chemical rounds were old. Nobody discounts Saddam having a program back then. That is what the weapons inspectors had been doing.

Really disappointing that we can spend all this time searching for WMD's, issue a report that says, "we didn't find what we were looking for/expected/etc." and yet some twit author can go around claiming we found them based on half baked reports.

I very well remember all those FOX reports of the WMD's that had been found too...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Well,

I actually heard this stuff on Hannity -- so I was taking it with a grain of salt. I threw it out here for the sake of argument.

So, for WMD's to have been there, it would have to have been an extant program, in your eyes, to qualify as a significant threat. Leftovers or items lost off Saddam's own inventory do not qualify. Correct?

If that is the standard, than it would appear that either he had no program, or had successfully dismantled and shipped it off prior to the invasion. We have no evidence of "active" programs to date (at least not that I am aware of).

This may represent a poor assessment, but given the assessment that had been made, the attack was a rasonable course of action. I do wish the occupation had been as well coordinated as the assault.

[ichi]

. . . This may represent a poor assessment, but given the assessment that had been made, the attack was a rasonable course of action. I do wish the occupation had been as well coordinated as the assault.

But it never was an assessment, not even a poor one. The folks in DC knew there weren't any WMDs, our own intel (the real intel, not the PR intel) told us Saddam was bluffing.

WMDs were a red herring from the beginning, the whole story concocted to sell the deal. The plan to invade Iraq was made prior to the election.

ichi:bow:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

But it never was an assessment, not even a poor one. The folks in DC knew there weren't any WMDs, our own intel (the real intel, not the PR intel) told us Saddam was bluffing.

WMDs were a red herring from the beginning, the whole story concocted to sell the deal. The plan to invade Iraq was made prior to the election.

ichi:bow:

Well, I guess I can predict your answer to the poll I just put up.

[Xiahou]

Okay, all this talk about "the Democrats thought he had WMDs too" is part of a big PR push the administration has been getting ready for some time now. They're dying in the polls, and they're hoping to confuse you to get you back on board the crazy train.
What a load. That's nothing more than a neatly tailored excuse for Democrats to cover their backtracking. MANY Democrats had the security clearance access to unfiltered intelligence on the various intelligence comittees. Need I drag out some pre-war quotes from Jay Rockefeller? They were being opportunistic then in their support and are being opportunistic now in their opposition. If they want to impeach Bush, that's fine- but they'd better turn in their own resignations as well. They're every bit as incompetent as he.


1. WMD's didn't exist in Iraq. Previously known arms and such were there, nothing new. The basis was incorrect.
2. The intelligence basis for WMD's was a lot of smoke, and NO FIRE. A lot of people in many countries *believed* he still had active WMD programs. The hard evidence wasn't there. This became apparent during Powell's presentation. It gave many of us watching pause, because we were expecting more.
3. The failure of both the President and the intelligence agencies was in letting beliefs guide them, without finding any hard evidence. The American people share in the blame, since I/we were fooled as well.
4. Adding to the blame above: Saddam's own approach was assinine...as was that of France, Germany, Russia, etc. He did his best to bluff like he might still have them on the one hand, while keeping a sort of empty shell game going. By not forcing Saddam to come clean/open up again with a powerful Security Council stance, the course was set. There was no turning back. I knew it, everyone else in the U.S. knew it. It was an ultimatum, it was ignored. Obviously, these nations did not want to actually avoid a war, but instead bitch about it incessantly once it happened.
5. Selling the war on WMD's was a fundamental mistake. The certainty was not there, and there were many other fundamental reasons to take Saddam out, rather than using tenuous links.
6. The AQ link doesn't hold up.
7. Others around the world can gripe, but the U.S. was stuck in the security role for Iraq, playing the "bad guy." If the rest of the world had done their job, there would have been no 2nd invasion. Europe as a whole is utterly inept at dealing with such problems. When they show some ability to handle these things without us, then they have the right to lecture us.
Holy crap... I agree with that.... ~:eek:

[Reverend Joe]

Why do you still argue these things? Go relax and forget about it- you're not going to convince each other of anything! Go out, meet some girls, get high- do something, but stop arguing fruitlessly with people you've never known and will never meet.

[Aurelian]

Excuse me, even I knew at the time that the WMD claims were nonsense, Powell's presentation in the UN Security Council was nonsense, the links with Al Qaeda were nonsense. Your darling Democrats chose to go along with the nonsense and lend it credibility, in the same way as they went along with the Patriot Act. The difference being that the Bush administration and the Neocons at least have some views and ideals worth lying for. The Democrats have nothing resembling a political opinion anymore. - Adrian


Hey, nobody was madder than I was that some Democrats decided to vote for the "Joint Resolution Authorizing the Use of Military Force Against Iraq". Taking Bush at his word on Iraq was naive.

If you can remember back to the Fall of 2002, the Bushies were saying that war was a last resort, and that the US needed to present a unified front so that Saddam would allow inspectors in and turn over his WMDs. Nobody knew for sure, including you and I, whether or not Saddam had any WMDs. The point of the Joint Resolution was to get inspectors into Iraq and make that determination.

In his recent Veteran's Day speech, Bush said:
"It is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how the war began... More than 100 Democrats in the House and Senate who had access to the same intelligence voted to remove Saddam Hussein from power."

Of course, the problem with that statement (besides the "access to the same intelligence line") was that they weren't voting to remove Saddam Hussein from power.

Here is what Bush was saying around the time of the Joint Resolution:

Bush, 10/1/2002:
"Of course, I haven't made up my mind we're going to war with Iraq."

Bush, two days after the Iraq War Resolution:
"But I am very firm in my desire to make sure that Saddam is disarmed. Hopefully, we can do this peacefully. The use of the military is my last choice, is my last desire."

McClellan, 11/2/2002:
This is about disarmament and this is a final opportunity for Saddam Hussein to disarm. If he chooses not to do so peacefully, then the United States is prepared to act, with our friends, to do so by force. And we will do so forcefully and swiftly and decisively, as the President has outlined. But the President continues to seek a peaceful resolution. War is a last resort.

So, just that we're perfectly clear, Bush himself was not characterizing the Joint Resolution as a "vote to remove Saddam Hussein from power"! He was still talking about disarmament, acting with our friends, and seeking a peaceful resolution.

Here's what Senator Kerry said, on the floor of the Senate, regarding his vote on the Joint Resolution:


"As the President made clear earlier this week, ``Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable.'' It means ``America speaks with one voice.''

Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is for one reason and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies.

In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days--to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out.

If we do wind up going to war with Iraq, it is imperative that we do so with others in the international community, unless there is a showing of a grave, imminent--and I emphasize ``imminent''--threat to this country which requires the President to respond in a way that protects our immediate national security needs."

Now, let's remember what was revealed in the Downing Street Memo, regarding a secret meeting from July 23rd, 2002! Months before the Joint Resolution was authorized:

“Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD.”...

“But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy”...

“Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force."LINK (http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/whycare.html)


Bush had already made his decision to go to war, but he was still telling the public, and the Democrats in Congress, that war was a last resort, and that he was seeking a peaceful disarmament solution! That was a lie.

The only problem with the Democrats in Congress was that they, based on their much more limited access to intelligence, chose to give the President the benefit of the doubt and authorize the use of force if necessary to compel Iraq to accept inspectors and disarm. We now know that they were deceived, because the intention was always to invade no matter what.

They shouldn't have believed him. Luckily, not all of them did. My favorite Senators, including Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow (from my home state of MI), were among the 23 Senators that chose not to give their authorization:

Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chafee (R-RI)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (D-FL)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wyden (D-OR)

Those Senators, at least, earned the right to criticize the president.

For those who chose to go along, I'm sure that some of them did so because they thought that national unity was important on the issue, some of them shared the president's views, and others probably did so because they wanted to avoid being labelled "unpatriotic" or "weak on terrorism" in the hostile media environment. Let's remember that the party that was slinging those labels around and using 9/11 and the threat of terrorism for political purposes was NOT the Democrats. That's why I can't stand the assertion that "the Bush administration and the Neocons at least have some views and ideals worth lying for". If you're going to criticize the Democrats because some of them helped enable Bush's invasion, you should be harder on the Republicans for almost universally supporting it and using McCarthyite tactics against anybody who held a dissenting opinion. Democrats don't agree on all things, but they certainly have views and ideals that they stand up for on a regular basis, and usually without having to serially lie about them.

[Watchman]

Even given the big steaming pile of lies used to justify the war and the massive worldwide demonstrations against it, I think Bush might've gotten away with it as a fait accompli *if* he'd really managed to turn Iraq into a decent, stable, developing society. You know, the ultimate good results being grudgingly admitted to outweight the dubious methods by all but the more hardcore opposition and all that.

Didn't happen, though. So he and his boys are fair game as far as most people are concerned.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

So how do you guys explain things like this again?


John Kerry Circa '97
On CNN's Crossfire in 1997 (via Drudge):

"We know we can't count on the French. We know we can't count on the Russians," said Mr. Kerry. "We know that Iraq is a danger to the United States, and we reserve the right to take pre-emptive action whenever we feel it's in our national interest."


Also I cant find a link but I heard a clip yesterday of him saying during operation desert fox that Clintons bombing of Iraq was not enough and that we need to put boots on the ground there. This is 1998 and Bush wasnt even running yet.

And I may have missed your rationalization for all of these.


"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e 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 Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.



NOW THE DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WMD'S AND HE TOOK US TO WAR FOR HIS OIL BUDDIES??? Right!!!

[ichi]

There's two separate issues here. One is that Bush exaggerated and used WMDs as cover for a war his cronies wanted for other reasons, and the other is that some Democrats got caught up in the hysteria and in an effort to garner votes or to not look 'weak', supported the invasion.

Regardles of how many politicians jumped on the bandwagon, Bush lied and tricked his country and a few allies into attacking Iraq. Remember that there's a big price to be paid for appearing soft or being a dove in this country. There's a lot of hostility out there and one way to get votes is to be a hawk. This means that some Democrats have no real compass to guide them other than that which garners votes.

Despite the failure of some Democrats to develop a coherent effective policy and stick to it, this in no way excuses Bush and the neocons for their failed foray in Iraq. They played us, played on our fears. They were not honest, haven't been honest since they got into office. Their Blue Skies Initiative for clean air means relaxing constraints on polluters, they talk of more freedom then pass the Patriot Act which gives the guv almost unlimited power, they talk of fiscal responsibility then build up massive deficits while almost eliminating the country's ability to respond to important issues and events.

Because some folks change with the wind doesn't deny me or others the right to ask tough questions or speak out against government abuse.

Currently the Dems have no plan other than to criticize Bush. It seems to me that most conservatives no longer have a valid defence for the actions of their boy, other than to say that Clinton did it or the Dems flip-flopped.

Iraq is going the way of Vietnam. We were warned but Bush ignored it. We spent billions (that we had to borrow) we destabilized the region (likelihood of civil war after we leave, increased power for Iran, a proven enemy), we fostered terrorism (Iraq is no longer a magnet for terrorists, it is now an training ground and exporter), and we've damaged our credibility and relationships around the world. We have also lost a number of fine young men and women, while emasculating our potentially fruitful efforts in Afghanistan.

So I don't give a damn what Kerry said, I want to know who's accountable for the curren situation and what can be done to resolve the current mess.

ichi:bow:

[solypsist]

after reading his speech the first thing that popped into my brain is that it's pathetic that GW is still campaigning a year after the election

[Watchman]

More like damage control, or an attemp therof. If you assume him to have some sort of far-reaching ideology or vision about how things ought to go, it's certain that they're based on the Reps being in power even after he runs out of terms; hence trying to at least limit the fallout damage to the party would be perfectly sensible...
~:eek:
...wait, am I actually presuming Bush Jr. could have a coherent long-term policy in mind and act rationally upon it...? Sheesh, I must be getting soft.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

There's two separate issues here. One is that Bush exaggerated and used WMDs as cover for a war his cronies wanted for other reasons, and the other is that some Democrats got caught up in the hysteria and in an effort to garner votes or to not look 'weak', supported the invasion.


Thsis total BS. Look my friend.


John Kerry Circa '97
On CNN's Crossfire in 1997 (via Drudge):

"We know we can't count on the French. We know we can't count on the Russians," said Mr. Kerry. "We know that Iraq is a danger to the United States, and we reserve the right to take pre-emptive action whenever we feel it's in our national interest."

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e 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 Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.



These are all long before Bush was even runnng for president. How do you explain these statemnets. Were they lying then?

[Watchman]

Personally, I'm starting to question who even cares in the first place ? The current thorny problem isn't the Democrats, after all; it's the Bush adminstration.

And just for the record, I didn't like Clinton too much either when he was in the office. But at least he was a competent enough crook not to insult my intellect by his clumsy antics.

[ichi]

These are all long before Bush was even runnng for president. How do you explain these statemnets. Were they lying then?

I'm not gonna repeat myself. I've already addressed the fact that some folks were worried about WMDs doesn't excuse Bush for deliberately lying to us about the war (and a lot of other things - God man, read the papers his admin is corrupt and incompetent and now they're getting caught at it)

ichi:bow:

[Xiahou]

I'm not gonna repeat myself. I've already addressed the fact that some folks were worried about WMDs doesn't excuse Bush for deliberately lying to us about the war (and a lot of other things - God man, read the papers his admin is corrupt and incompetent and now they're getting caught at it)

ichi:bow:So, at what point did the WMD claims become lies? Were they lies when everyone in the Clinton administration said them? Were they lies when Jay Rockerfeller(or any intelligence committee member) said them? Where they lies when Bush first said them? Or did they only become lies once the war began to get unpopular? Please elaborate.

[Just A Girl]

if i recall the only evidence of the existance of WMD's that Any one had,
Was a doctored Essay some one had writen on the Internet,
if i remember this essay basically said, what COULD happen if there were WMD's

Some usa official then edited the document to say They HAD WMD's And could Launch then within 2 hours if wanted,

Many of the officials who said this was a lie were forced to resign,
They kept changing the people who were inspecting the place Becous they kept saying There are no WMD's here,
And every time they said there are No WMD's, they were removed and replaced with people who were more likley to say What America wanted to hear.
im prety shure had britain not helped,
Some WMD's Would have *Cough* appeared from some where to justify their attack,
But its a bit dificult to plant anything when there are other people and camera men about,
So no WMD'S were found.

The only Reason bush had for this war was to save face,

1st he saves his family name by doing what George failed to do,

2nd, he saves face becous Every 1 forgets he said he was going after osama binladen "Terible failure that 1",

And thats without mentioning Oil.

This is a redundant debate,
Where only the most patriotic and brain washed people can beleve bush is in the right.

But there you go,
the worlds full of people like that.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

if i recall the only evidence of the existance of WMD's that Any one had,
Was a doctored Essay some one had writen on the Internet,
if i remember this essay basically said, what COULD happen if there were WMD's

Really? Tell that to all the dead Kurds and Iranians


Some usa official then edited the document to say They HAD WMD's And could Launch then within 2 hours if wanted,


Wow we never heard that here. I think your mixing him up with Blair.


So no WMD'S were found.



Wrong again


This is a redundant debate,
Where only the most patriotic and brain washed people can beleve bush is in the right.


I could say only a brain washed traitor would believe he lied but that would be as ridiculous as your statement.

But there you go,
the worlds full of people like that.

[Just A Girl]

Where are Thes WMD?

W.M.D = Weapons of MASS destuction,
That dosent mean RPG, or AK47's mf

And if you never heard of the doctored essay that started the war I suggest that you Actualy Research the matter,
And not just sit and listen to American propeganda.

LOl if you look at bushes reasons "that americans were told" for not attending the world summit.
And the Real reasons, You know what i mean About propeganda,

maby then youd Think for your self. Not just sit their Blindly following your leader,

But that just shows there realy are Brain washed patriots out their As i said.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

W.M.D = Weapons of MASS destuction,
That dosent mean RPG, or AK47's mf


How about enriched Urainium or sarin gas? Again was Clinton lying also? What were the UN inspectors looking for Easter eggs? I mean you all are saying that no one other than Bush really believed he had them so why were they there then?


And if you never heard of the doctored essay that started the war I suggest that you Actualy Research the matter,


You think this one document started the war? I suggest its you who need to do some research.


Not just sit their Blindly following your leader,


I dont. As a matter of fact I was against the invasion.


But that just shows there realy are Brain washed patriots out their As i said.

Just because you say so doesnt make it so.

[Xiahou]

I don't have the foggiest notion of what she's talking about.... ~:confused:

[Just A Girl]

Ok then according to your,
Clinton is not a lier post LMFAO. Snigger LOL.
Sorry
LOL
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
Sorry 1 sec

"I did not have Sexual relations with that woman"
Lol
followed by
"I may have Lied"
I mean the guy couldnt even say i did lie,
he said I may have lied which implies maby he did maby he didnot,
Yah I trust his word.

Ahem
Ok back to your clinton Snigger IS not a lier Post,
Sorry i find that So damn funny,

How can you ask Is clinton a lier And not laugh i dunno.

Is nixon a crook ?
LOL
Damn sorry.

Any way Lets asume clinton is trustworthy "snigger"
And he had a reason to beleve that USA needed to go to war with iraq. "which dosent involve oil"
That justyfies this war? Dont be silly.

According to that logic,
If some kid makes a essay about what america would be like if it had slaves.
Then we doctored the essay to say they did have slaves. We can declair war on america Now.
Becous they used to have slaves when they wernt suposed to.

Obviosuly wed haft to invade to make shure there were no slaves.
And then if we found none,
What the hell America needed sorting out any way,

And that makes it all ok?

I mean Really.
Thats just dumb.

p.s
the inspectors were their becous its their job to go inspect and tell That idiot Bush Theres nothing here,
1st thing that happens. Bush sacks them and sends more in


p.p.s

"fighting for truth justice and the American way"
LMAO
See what i mean about Brain washed patriots....

Lets all Stand up and sing the star spangled banner shall we.
God bless america

[bmolsson]

Bush can lie. He takes advice from God, hence can't be wrong or lying..... ~;)

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I don't have the foggiest notion of what she's talking about

Check out her next post if you thought the first one was unintelligible.~D


Bush can lie. He takes advice from God, hence can't be wrong or lying


Once more with all the comedians out of work please stop with your tired one liners. I hate to say it but most of them are pretty bad.

[Lemur]

Once more with all the comedians out of work please stop with your tired one liners. I hate to say it but most of them are pretty bad.
Boy, somebody sure gets grumpy when his candidate has a mid-thirties approval rating. It must really chafe your posterior to know that at this moment, Bush is less trusted than Bill Clinton. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-11-14-poll_x.htm)


A 53% majority say they trust what Bush says less than they trusted previous presidents while they were in office. In a specific comparison with President Clinton, those surveyed by 48% - 36% say they trust Bush less.

But by all means, Gawain, go off on how the comics aren't funny. If nothing else, it ups your post count.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Boy, somebody sure gets grumpy when his candidate has a mid-thirties approval rating. It must really chafe your posterior to know that at this moment, Bush is less trusted than Bill Clinton.

Big deal. You can get a survey to support any position you like.


But by all means, Gawain, go off on how the comics aren't funny. If nothing else, it ups your post count.

The guy makes a one line joke thats totally irrelevant and you accuse me of posting nonsense to increase my post count. Get a life.

[Watchman]

Touchy.

[ichi]

WMDs became a lie when it was used as cover for a war that had been planned since before the election. Bush and his boys wanted to go into Iraq but couldn't rationalize it, so they came up with the excuse of WMDs. That's the difference.

Now the dogs counterattack smearing anyone who feels betrayed. A lack of accountabilty leads to a lack of credibility leads to very low numbers at the polls. We ask for accontability because that demoralizes the troops. Looks like the same MO, war-mongering becomes fear-mongering.

ichi:bow:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

WMDs became a lie when it was used as cover for a war that had been planned since before the election. Bush and his boys wanted to go into Iraq but couldn't rationalize it, so they came up with the excuse of WMDs. That's the difference.


They could have decalred war on 911 and had no complaints. Why didnt they do it then? Again they could have easily rationalised it. As I pointed out how is it Kerry was calling for this in 98?


Now the dogs counterattack smearing anyone who feels betrayed. A lack of accountabilty leads to a lack of credibility leads to very low numbers at the polls. We ask for accontability because that demoralizes the troops. Looks like the same MO, war-mongering becomes fear-mongering.


No now you and the liberals are trying to deny that they said the very samething before Bush was even running for president. The smear campaign starts on the left. War deaths become fear-mongering.

[Watchman]

Weak.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Yes that is an apt discription of your reply.

[Ronin]

They could have decalred war on 911 and had no complaints. Why didnt they do it then? Again they could have easily rationalised it. As I pointed out how is it Kerry was calling for this in 98?




you saying that on 911 they could just have picked a country that had nothing to do with it and just declared war on it and nobody would have complained?......I hope that there would be at least a couple of people with enough brain cells to complain.

the fact that Kerry supported this in the past somehow makes it right?....there´s some strange logic going on there.

[Watchman]

Yes that is an apt discription of your reply.Even weaker. Is your jacket already so empty you can't do more than point fingers and call names ?

Besides, a lot of the supposed points you brought up are issues of the political realities of the time. Nothing more complicated. After all, in practice if not in principle USA and Iraq were engaged in a low-intensity air war for the whole decade after the Gulf War...

And by what I've heard of it the Bush adminstration was busily looking for ways to pin WTC on Iraq right after the event. They couldn't, so had to make do with Afghanistan and Osama instead and save Saddam for later.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

you saying that on 911 they could just have picked a country that had nothing to do with it and just declared war on it and nobody would have complained?......I hope that there would be at least a couple of people with enough brain cells to complain.


As Redleg and myself have repeatdly pointed out the fact that Saddam repeatdly broke the ceasfire was enough for us to renew the conflict there. Most Americans would have backed the invasion then. Im sure some would complain. Heck many complained we didnt belong in WW2 either.


the fact that Kerry supported this in the past somehow makes it right?....there´s some strange logic going on there.

For once in his life Kerry was right then. It was right then and its right now. Its you who are using strange logic.


Even weaker. Is your jacket already so empty you can't do more than point fingers and call names ?


Whos calling who names here. Hmmm Looks like YOU.


Besides, a lot of the supposed points you brought up are issues of the political realities of the time. Nothing more complicated. After all, in practice if not in principle USA and Iraq were engaged in a low-intensity air war for the whole decade after the Gulf War...

Thanks for making my point for me. The war never stopped.

[Watchman]

:coffeenews:
Why are you wasting our time with this sub-par rubbish ? Your arguments are now down to kindergarten sandbox level.

I can only hope your consistent and severe misreading of a whole lot of things (like the part about the de facto air war) are intentional.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Why are you wasting our time with this sub-par rubbish ? Your arguments are now down to kindergarten sandbox level.



Why because this is the best you can do to counter them?

[Watchman]

Give me real arguments and not half-baked excuses therof,
Specimen A:

Thanks for making my point for me. The war never stopped.,
B:

No now you and the liberals are trying to deny that they said the very samething before Bush was even running for president. The smear campaign starts on the left. War deaths become fear-mongering., and I'll actually take them seriously.

[solypsist]

from
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8248969/



https://img363.imageshack.us/img363/131/clipboard011sw.jpg

oh, there's more:

http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm

and

http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob1.htm

[solypsist]

oh, and Foxnews:

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/poll_111005.pdf

[Xiahou]

WMDs became a lie when it was used as cover for a war that had been planned since before the election. So the claims were true until Bush used them? Interesting....


from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8248969/*not a scientifically valid survey ~;)

[solypsist]

it doesn't change the fact that 94% of msnbc readers think Bush mislead America.



So the claims were true until Bush used them? Interesting....

*not a scientifically valid survey ~;)

[Xiahou]

it doesn't change the fact that 94% of msnbc readers think Bush mislead America.
Yes, actually it does- unless you can prove that everyone who reads MSNBC responded and no one who isnt a reader did.

[solypsist]

"readers" or readers- i won't play the semantics game with you over it. there are other poll numbers in those other links, too.



Yes, actually it does- unless you can prove that everyone who reads MSNBC responded and no one who isnt a reader did.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

it doesn't change the fact that 94% of msnbc readers think Bush mislead America

So 40 or 50 people believe that , no big deal.~D You do realise their ratings are so low as to be almost non existant dont you. Ill bet Soly is one of those 40 or 50 ~;)

[solypsist]

i think the pic says over 69000 responses. unless this is an example of "conservative math" at work ~:joker:


So 40 or 50 people believe that , no big deal.~D You do realise their ratings are so low as to be almost non existant dont you. Ill bet Soly is one of those 40 or 50 ~;)

[Gawain of Orkeny]

i think the pic says over 69000 responses. unless this is an example of "conservative math" at work


Pretty sad for a cable news network dont you think? I bet O Reilys poll responses blow that away. Lets go by what his audience thinks OK?

[solypsist]

I did (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=985121&postcount=82). have a look.


Pretty sad for a cable news network dont you think? I bet O Reilys poll responses blow that away. Lets go by what his audience thinks OK?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

No Oreily poll there sorry. Also looking at those poll numbers Im amazed at the political perssuation of Foxs audience. Here thought only us conservatives watch it. If 57% of conservatives believe something and the over all opinion on that matter is 29% that means less than half of their viewers are conservative.

[bmolsson]

I hate to say it but most of them are pretty bad.


So are your foreign policy..... :charge:

[Xiahou]

I did (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=985121&postcount=82). have a look.
Interesting poll that is- particularly on the war in Iraq. A majority thinks: we are making steady progress, that we should stay until the job is finished and that news coverage has focused too much on the negatives. I find that somewhat reassuring.

[Just A Girl]

Having A quick look at todays paper,
And it looks like clinton is against the war 2,

So There goes that side of your argument.

So i guess thats your agument done with.
As your argument seemed to be "Did clinton lie"

I should probably ask What is your new argument?
But in all Honesty, it dosent matter Cos your just A brain washed patriot who cant see the forest for the trees.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Having A quick look at todays paper,
And it looks like clinton is against the war 2,

So There goes that side of your argument.


What side would that be? Clinton said Saddam had WMDs now hes backing away with the rest of his party. Clinton is a peice of crap if there ever was one.


So i guess thats your agument done with.
As your argument seemed to be "Did clinton lie"


Hows that? Nothing has changed. Either he lied in the 90s or hes lying now. You decide when.


I should probably ask What is your new argument?
But in all Honesty, it dosent matter Cos your just A brain washed patriot who cant see the forest for the trees.

Just once can you please come up with a reasonable argument. Im getting tired of all this spam.

[solypsist]

cool down, Just A Girl.