Bush to use Bin Laden info to defend Iraq war policy

[nevadamedic]

NEW LONDON, Connecticut (CNN) -- President Bush is expected to use declassified intelligence about Osama bin Laden to defend his Iraq war policy during a commencement address Wednesday.

Bush also will outline "three aviation plots" that have been disrupted as part of national security operations, said Frances Townsend, the homeland security adviser. Townsend, who spoke with reporters on Air Force One, offered no other details.

The president also is expected to mention in the speech declassified intelligence that says bin Laden planned in 2005 to use Iraq as a base from which to launch attacks in the United States, according to White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe.

Johndroe said the intelligence was declassified so Bush could discuss it during graduation ceremonies set for 11:15 a.m. at the Coast Guard Academy in Connecticut.

The speech will be aimed at defending a key part of the president's war strategy -- the contention that the United States cannot withdraw from Iraq because al Qaeda would fill the vacuum in the Middle East.

"This shows why we believe al Qaeda wants to use Iraq as a safe haven," said Johndroe. He added the president will talk about al Qaeda's "strong interest in using Iraq as a safe haven to plot and plan attacks on the United States and other countries."

The decision also coincides with an ongoing push by the Democratic majority in Congress to force an end to U.S. involvement in Iraq. (Full story)

Bin Laden and a top lieutenant -- Abu Faraj al-Libbi -- planned to form a terror cell in Iraq in order to launch those attacks, Johndroe said.

Al-Libbi was a "senior al Qaeda manager" who in 2005 suggested to bin Laden that bin Laden send Egyptian-born Hamza Rabia to Iraq to help plan attacks on American soil, Johndroe said.

Johndroe noted that bin Laden later suggested to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, then leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, that America should be his top priority. That was followed in the spring of 2005 with bin Laden's ordering Rabia to brief al-Zarqawi on plans to attack the United States, Johndroe said.

Johndroe added the intelligence indicates al-Libbi later suggested Rabia should be sent to Iraq to carry out those operations.

But al-Libbi was captured in Pakistan and taken into CIA custody in May 2005. After al-Libbi's capture, the CIA's former acting director, John McLaughlin, described him as bin Laden's chief operating officer, the No. 3 man in al Qaeda.

"Catching terrorists is sometimes like trying to solve a jigsaw puzzle without seeing the picture on the box," McLaughlin said at the time. "This is a guy who knows the picture on the box. He knows what the big picture is."

Al-Libbi is a Libyan who joined al Qaeda in the 1990s and fled to Pakistan after the United States invaded Afghanistan in late 2001. U.S. officials say al-Libbi was in contact with and directing alleged al Qaeda members in the United Kingdom who were planning attacks there and in the United States. He was also believed to be behind two 2005 attempts to assassinate Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf.

Rabia took over al-Libbi's position in the organization but was killed in in the North Waziristan tribal area of Pakistan near the Afghan border in December 2005.

Jordanian-born al-Zarqawi was killed by a U.S. airstrike north of Baghdad in June 2006.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/23/bush.iraq/index.html

Pretty Interesting.

[loosecannon]

really?


The president also is expected to mention in the speech declassified intelligence that says bin Laden planned in 2005 to use Iraq as a base from which to launch attacks in the United States, according to White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe.

So during the US occupation Bin Laden plans to use Iraq as a launching pad for attacks against the US?

fascinating.

[glockmail]

really?



So during the US occupation Bin Laden plans to use Iraq as a launching pad for attacks against the US?

fascinating.

Why? He's been there since the 80's.

[Dilloduck]

really?



So during the US occupation Bin Laden plans to use Iraq as a launching pad for attacks against the US?

fascinating.

I think the point is that Al Quaeda is alive and well and in Iraq. The anti-war gang has insisted for years that Iraq is not the enemy therefore being there is wrong. Guess what---they ARE there. They run operations from there. Why should we leave?

[Birdzeye]

Bush has mislead us with intel before; why should I believe him now?

[Dilloduck]

Bush has mislead us with intel before; why should I believe him now?

I wouldn't expect you to believe him if he said water was wet. I can't believe he actually takes the time to try to convince you of anything.

[Birdzeye]

I wouldn't expect you to believe him if he said water was wet. I can't believe he actually takes the time to try to convince you of anything.

So give me a few good reasons why any reasonable person should believe Bush now, considering his track record of having mislead us in the past.

[-Cp]

So give me a few good reasons why any reasonable person should believe Bush now, considering his track record of having mislead us in the past.

Because he doesn't have a "track record" of "misleading" in the past....

[Birdzeye]

Because he doesn't have a "track record" of "misleading" in the past....

WMDs? Uranium in Niger? Need I go on?

[stephanie]

President Bush...did NOT mislead anybody..

He had the same intelligence that Bill Clinton had when he was in office....

You all can continue pretending that this was intelligence that President Bush made up.....still won't change THE FACTS.....:poke:

[-Cp]

WMDs? Uranium in Niger? Need I go on?

You need to watch this:

http://video1.brain-terminal.com/nyc-2004-03-20/donkey-c5-hq.wmv

[glockmail]

Bush has mislead us with intel before; why should I believe him now?
You have avoided the question before why you don't show the same contept and mistrust for Clinton, Kerry, et al, who all said the exact same thng about Saddam and Iraq back in 2002. :slap:

[loosecannon]

You have avoided the question before why you don't show the same contept and mistrust for Clinton, Kerry, et al, who all said the exact same thng about Saddam and Iraq back in 2002. :slap:

DUH!!

Clinton had no friggin choice but to say the same thing. He was allowing the embargo against Iraq to continue. The weapons inspections had never been completed.

Clinton never even thought about invading and Bush 41 rejected the idea.

ANY presence of AQ in Iraq happened BECAUSE of our failed adventure in Iraq.

It is evidence of failed policy.

Where is Bin Laden?

[loosecannon]

President Bush...did NOT mislead anybody..



Puuleeze. Mislead people is all Bush does. He isn't smart enough to see the truth how can he speak it?

[stephanie]

Puuleeze. Mislead people is all Bush does. He isn't smart enough to see the truth how can he speak it?

:poke:

[Birdzeye]

President Bush...did NOT mislead anybody..

He had the same intelligence that Bill Clinton had when he was in office....

You all can continue pretending that this was intelligence that President Bush made up.....still won't change THE FACTS.....:poke:

THE FACTS are that he used WMDs as a rationale for invading Iraq. That was one of the biggest selling points.

What have they found?

So, once again, considering that, why should any reasonable person believe him now?

[Birdzeye]

You have avoided the question before why you don't show the same contept and mistrust for Clinton, Kerry, et al, who all said the exact same thng about Saddam and Iraq back in 2002. :slap:

I don't have to worry about them now; they aren't the CIC. Bush is, and his track record does not inspire confidence in him. Remember the WMD rationale? So, what came of that?

[glockmail]

DUH!!

Clinton had no friggin choice but to say the same thing. He was allowing the embargo against Iraq to continue. The weapons inspections had never been completed.

Clinton never even thought about invading and Bush 41 rejected the idea.

ANY presence of AQ in Iraq happened BECAUSE of our failed adventure in Iraq.

It is evidence of failed policy.

Where is Bin Laden?

Double duh! Bill Clinton wasn't prez in 2002. I was referring to Senator Clinton. My reference to Kerry, et al should have been a clue for you. Your lack of comprehesion of simple matters is telling.

[glockmail]

I don't have to worry about them now; they aren't the CIC. Bush is, and his track record does not inspire confidence in him. Remember the WMD rationale? So, what came of that?
Oh no- don't worry about your liberal senators and current presidential candidates. Lets focus entirely on our lame duck president. :laugh2:

Your arguments are pitiful.:pee:

[loosecannon]

Double duh! Bill Clinton wasn't prez in 2002. I was referring to Senator Clinton. My reference to Kerry, et al should have been a clue for you. Your lack of comprehesion of simple matters is telling.

Hillary Clinton is a neocon. She may have chosen to invade Iraq if she was pres.

That in no way is a statement about the driving facts, which have proven Bush wrong. It is a statement about the predisposition that Hillary and Bush share.

To favor the war for other reasons they will never admit publicly. While they lie to you.

[loosecannon]

Oh no- don't worry about your liberal senators and current presidential candidates. Lets focus entirely on our lame duck president. :laugh2:

Your arguments are pitiful.:pee:


and yours are tangential.

BUSH is the singular force keeping this war alive.

BUSH.

Nobody is going to forget that as long as it is true.

[Birdzeye]

Double duh! Bill Clinton wasn't prez in 2002. I was referring to Senator Clinton. My reference to Kerry, et al should have been a clue for you. Your lack of comprehesion of simple matters is telling.

Oooh, now it's personal insults, eh? No arguments to offer, eh?

[Birdzeye]

Oh no- don't worry about your liberal senators and current presidential candidates. Lets focus entirely on our lame duck president. :laugh2:

Your arguments are pitiful.:pee:

Do your "gotcha" type questions deserve any better?

[-Cp]

THE FACTS are that he used WMDs as a rationale for invading Iraq. That was one of the biggest selling points.

What have they found?

So, once again, considering that, why should any reasonable person believe him now?

So was the President "Misleading" when he said the following?

"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."

Or this?

"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."

[TheStripey1]

Why? He's been there since the 80's.

link?

[TheStripey1]

I think the point is that Al Quaeda is alive and well and in Iraq. The anti-war gang has insisted for years that Iraq is not the enemy therefore being there is wrong. Guess what---they ARE there. They run operations from there. Why should we leave?

the point the antiwar crowd tried to make was that OBL and AQ were NOT in Iraq until we invaded... and bush then, in July 0f '03, he invited them to attack our troops... y'all always seem to forget this empty bravado... doncha?

BRING 'EM ON!!!

[TheStripey1]

Bush has mislead us with intel before; why should I believe him now?

he won't fool anyone who is paying attention... looks around... and I see several folk here who won't be fooled... waves...

[Birdzeye]

So was the President "Misleading" when he said the following?

"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."

Or this?

"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."

He said all that and STILL they found no WMDs. Powell showed the UN all those lovely charts that "proved" that Saddam was making WMDs and had them, and STILL they didn't find any.

So why should any reasonable person believe Bush now? My question remains unanswered.

[TheStripey1]

I wouldn't expect you to believe him if he said water was wet. I can't believe he actually takes the time to try to convince you of anything.

nope... he lost me back in March 0f '02, when he said he didn't care where Osama Bin Laden was...

why anyone continues to support him and his failures is beyond me... I just don't understand it... well, other than their blind partisanship, that is...

[-Cp]

He said all that and STILL they found no WMDs. Powell showed the UN all those lovely charts that "proved" that Saddam was making WMDs and had them, and STILL they didn't find any.

So why should any reasonable person believe Bush now? My question remains unanswered.


Why are you blaming Bush when by your own admission President Clinton said the same thing? Those quotes were by President Clinton during his term... :)

"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

[TheStripey1]

President Bush...did NOT mislead anybody..

He had the same intelligence that Bill Clinton had when he was in office....

You all can continue pretending that this was intelligence that President Bush made up.....still won't change THE FACTS.....:poke:

you can blame clinton all you want but the facts are that HE didn't invade Iraq based on that intell you all hold so dear... bush did... and now... we are stuck in a quagmire...

[TheStripey1]

You have avoided the question before why you don't show the same contept and mistrust for Clinton, Kerry, et al, who all said the exact same thng about Saddam and Iraq back in 2002. :slap:

they were mislead too...

what I don't understand and perhaps you can help me here is that how come all those that support bush's war aren't IN the military?

any idea glock?

[stephanie]

you can blame Clinton all you want but the facts are that HE didn't invade Iraq based on that intell you all hold so dear... bush did... and now... we are stuck in a quagmire...

Aaaaaaaa..
I don't see where I blamed Clinton for anything...
:slap:

[TheStripey1]

I don't have to worry about them now; they aren't the CIC. Bush is, and his track record does not inspire confidence in him. Remember the WMD rationale? So, what came of that?

they, like the patriotism of many a right winged chickenhawk, were not found...

[stephanie]

So was the President "Misleading" when he said the following?

"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."

Or this?

"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."

good one..

[Guernicaa]

It's funny how Republicans would always boast that "Bin Laden is probably dead" to justify how we left the real war on terrorism in Afghanistan to invade a country for the purposes of exporting its natural resources.

But since America has finally learned that everything about this war is completely messed up, they're going to pretend Bin Laden was still alive after we left Afghanistan...
And I guess they're even going as far to say he was IN Iraq!! Ahahah!

[TheStripey1]

Hillary Clinton is a neocon. She may have chosen to invade Iraq if she was pres.

That in no way is a statement about the driving facts, which have proven Bush wrong. It is a statement about the predisposition that Hillary and Bush share.

To favor the war for other reasons they will never admit publicly. While they lie to you.

some people don't care when they are lied to... I care and I'm sure you do too, loose... but I can furr sure tell you, there are a lot of people who don't care how many times they're lied to, they'll just keep sucking down that kool aid.

[chum43]

I think the point is that Al Quaeda is alive and well and in Iraq. The anti-war gang has insisted for years that Iraq is not the enemy therefore being there is wrong. Guess what---they ARE there. They run operations from there. Why should we leave?

if al quieda is alive and well in iraq 5 years after we invaded, maybe we shouldn't waste our time and money.

and this isn't an attempt to continue the war, that ship has sailed... this is so whenever someone does decide to withdraw troops al CIAda can swoop in and take over and the neo-cons can all say we told you so and start all over again.

[TheStripey1]

Oooh, now it's personal insults, eh? No arguments to offer, eh?


just erase the insults and then respond to whatever is left... if anything...

:dance:

[TheStripey1]

He said all that and STILL they found no WMDs. Powell showed the UN all those lovely charts that "proved" that Saddam was making WMDs and had them, and STILL they didn't find any.

So why should any reasonable person believe Bush now? My question remains unanswered.


reasonable people won't be fooled, Birdz.

[TheStripey1]

Aaaaaaaa..
I don't see where I blamed Clinton for anything...
:slap:

you brought him up... I didn't...

[TheStripey1]

It's funny how Republicans would always boast that "Bin Laden is probably dead" to justify how we left the real war on terrorism in Afghanistan to invade a country for the purposes of exporting its natural resources.

But since America has finally learned that everything about this war is completely messed up, they're going to pretend Bin Laden was still alive after we left Afghanistan...
And I guess they're even going as far to say he was IN Iraq!! Ahahah!

why not say it? they have followers that will believe everything that comes out of bush's lips... I don't, but there sure are quite a few here that do...

[stephanie]

you brought him up... I didn't...

:cuckoo:

[glockmail]

Hillary Clinton is a neocon. ...... You are truly delusional.

:laugh2:

[glockmail]

they were mislead too...

what I don't understand and perhaps you can help me here is that how come all those that support bush's war aren't IN the military?

any idea glock?

Perhaps you can tell us how come the majority of our brave soldiers are republican and support the president? :laugh2:

[glockmail]

link? Been there, done that. You've ignored it. http://www.iraqwatch.org/perspectives/hughes-saddam-bin-laden-070302.pdf

:pee:

[TheStripey1]

As long as you post unsubstantiated bullshit, I will continue to ask you for links. hint: You should save them so you'll have something to put up otherwise, it just looks like you're making shit up.

But I don't care if that's the impression you want to give. No fur off my muzzle...

[TheStripey1]

Been there, done that. You've ignored it. http://www.iraqwatch.org/perspectives/hughes-saddam-bin-laden-070302.pdf

:pee:


oooooooooo... he found a link...

[glockmail]

oooooooooo... he found a link... and you've ignored it.

:pee:

[Gaffer]

THE FACTS are that he used WMDs as a rationale for invading Iraq. That was one of the biggest selling points.

What have they found?

So, once again, considering that, why should any reasonable person believe him now?

The facts are he used saddams ignoring un resolutions to go in.

[Gaffer]

the point the antiwar crowd tried to make was that OBL and AQ were NOT in Iraq until we invaded... and bush then, in July 0f '03, he invited them to attack our troops... y'all always seem to forget this empty bravado... doncha?

BRING 'EM ON!!!

The facts are al queda was in iraq as early as 1992.

[Birdzeye]

The facts are he used saddams ignoring un resolutions to go in.

But he used the purported existence of WMDs to persuade the public to support his war venture. People are generally not eager to go to war, so some despot's giving the finger to the UN isn't likely to get their support for a war; the perception that we would be in grave danger if we didn't go to war is more likely to get their support. Hence, the WMDs boogeyman (at least it turned out that way).

[Birdzeye]

The facts are al queda was in iraq as early as 1992.


:link:

[glockmail]

:link:
Post 46. :slap:

[Birdzeye]

Post 46. :slap:

Which of the 46 pages?

[-Cp]

THE FACTS are that he (President Bush) used WMDs as a rationale for invading Iraq. That was one of the biggest selling points.

What have they found?

So, once again, considering that, why should any reasonable person believe him now?



So was the President "Misleading" when he said the following?

"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."

Or this?

"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."



He said all that and STILL they found no WMDs. Powell showed the UN all those lovely charts that "proved" that Saddam was making WMDs and had them, and STILL they didn't find any.

So why should any reasonable person believe Bush now? My question remains unanswered.


Why are you blaming Bush when by your own admission President Clinton said the same thing? Those quotes were by President Clinton during his term... :)

"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



*crickets*................

:coffee:

[Gaffer]

they were mislead too...

what I don't understand and perhaps you can help me here is that how come all those that support bush's war aren't IN the military?

any idea glock?

I support the war and I have been in the military. As a combat troop.

saddam had to be taken down and iraq has to be secured. iran also needs to be taken down and soon.

None of the Bush haters are going to believe anything Bush says no matter how much evidence there is.

[glockmail]

Which of the 46 pages?
There's only 45, icluding pictures. You asked for it, now read the entire document.

[glockmail]

....

None of the Bush haters are going to believe anything Bush says no matter how much evidence there is.

Its like Europe pre WW2.

[-Cp]

There's only 45, icluding pictures. You asked for it, now read the entire document.


She won't read it - reading facts is like Kryptonite to a liberal....

[glockmail]

But he used the purported existence of WMDs to persuade the public to support his war venture. ..... So did Clinton, Kerry, Kennedy- all your buddies.

[Birdzeye]

So did Clinton, Kerry, Kennedy- all your buddies.

But Bush was the one who got us into a years long war that seems to have no end in sight.

[glockmail]

But Bush was the one who got us into a years long war that seems to have no end in sight.
All your buddies voted for it and now you blame Bush?
:laugh2:

[Birdzeye]

All your buddies voted for it and now you blame Bush?
:laugh2:

Bush is the CIC; he's ultimately responsible for the debacle that this war has become, and the fact that his main rationale turned out not to be valid. "My buddies" were misled by YOUR buddy.

[Gaffer]

It's funny how Republicans would always boast that "Bin Laden is probably dead" to justify how we left the real war on terrorism in Afghanistan to invade a country for the purposes of exporting its natural resources.

But since America has finally learned that everything about this war is completely messed up, they're going to pretend Bin Laden was still alive after we left Afghanistan...
And I guess they're even going as far to say he was IN Iraq!! Ahahah!

binladen is either hiding out in western pakistan or he's live high in iran. afganhistan has been ignored by the media not the American people or the administration.

The search for bin laden stops are the border with pakistan. Of course if we go into pakistan you will scream bloody murder we had no business invading a soveriegn country, one that did nothing to us and was no threat to us.

[stephanie]

You all can use the word MISLED all you want...

It still won't absolve the Democrats who voted for the war...

No matter how much you all wish it would...:poke:

[glockmail]

Bush is the CIC; he's ultimately responsible for the debacle that this war has become, and the fact that his main rationale turned out not to be valid. "My buddies" were misled by YOUR buddy. Your buddies had the exact same information as mine, and since they wimped out from thre hard fight, have done everything possible to cause our CIC and military to fail. Thus they are traitors and should be shot on sight. Just like birds.

[Guernicaa]

Perhaps you can tell us how come the majority of our brave soldiers are republican and support the president? :laugh2:
You have a link to back that statement up???
Maybe a poll that they conducted?

[-Cp]

"My buddies" were misled by YOUR buddy.

Whoa!! Since when did then President Clinton take Intelligence briefings from then Governer Bush?

Or for that matter ANY of these people pre GWB Term:

"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

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect 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

[Birdzeye]

You all can use the word MISLED all you want...

It still won't absolve the Democrats who voted for the war...

No matter how much you all wish it would...:poke:

I don't care to absolve them, but I sure as hell won't let Bush apologists try to deflect blame from where it rightly belongs from one who should have known better (Bush) to people who believed him and later had reason to regret it.

[Gaffer]

Bush is the CIC; he's ultimately responsible for the debacle that this war has become, and the fact that his main rationale turned out not to be valid. "My buddies" were misled by YOUR buddy.

Your buddies had the same intelligence Bush had. They made the same conclusions he did. The difference is it's his job to act on the conclusions. while your buddies can sit back and point fingers and say he lied, which is a lie in itself.

[Birdzeye]

Whoa!! Since when did then President Clinton take Intelligence briefings from then Governer Bush?

Or for that matter ANY of these people pre GWB Term:

"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

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect 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

At least Clinton didn't get us into this debacle of a war based on false assumptions. Your hero Bush did. It's on his head and he bears full responsibility for this debacle.

[glockmail]

You have a link to back that statement up???
Maybe a poll that they conducted? Ever hear of Google?

[glockmail]

At least Clinton didn't get us into this debacle of a war based on false assumptions. Your hero Bush did. It's on his head and he bears full responsibility for this debacle.
Your buddies had the exact same information as mine, and since they wimped out from thre hard fight, have done everything possible to cause our CIC and military to fail. Thus they are traitors and should be shot on sight. Just like birds.
But I repeat myself. :laugh2:

[Birdzeye]

Ever hear of Google?

It's not Obama's job to verify every wild-assed claim you choose to make. If you can't, or won't, back up the claim in question, then it would be reasonable for Obama to conclude that you're just blowing hot air out of your gluteus maximus.

[stephanie]

I don't care to absolve them, but I sure as hell won't let Bush apologists try to deflect blame from where it rightly belongs from one who should have known better (Bush) to people who believed him and later had reason to regret it.

It's too late for regrets dear...

We're there....and now the only thing we can do.....IS WIN..

It would be nice if the WHOLE COUNTRY was behind the troops over there, but as we see........that's not to be...

Because it gives a lot of people ammo to sling mud on President Bush...

And for the Democrats on the hill......It scores them political points...

Sad...very sad..

And I'm not a Bush apologist....I just stand behind our troops...

[glockmail]

It's not Obama's job to verify every wild-assed claim you choose to make. If you can't, or won't, back up the claim in question, then it would be reasonable for Obama to conclude that you're just blowing hot air out of your gluteus maximus. Its not my job to back up an obvious and well known fact. Next you'll want me to prove the sky is blue. :pee:

[glockmail]

....

And for the Democrats on the hill......It scores them political points...

......

Thats what they think. But most voters aren't kool aid drinkers like our bird buddy here.

[Birdzeye]

Its not my job to back up an obvious and well known fact. Next you'll want me to prove the sky is blue. :pee:

The "fact" that Obama asked you to prove is neither well known nor obvious. His request was reasonable; your blowing it off was not.

[TheStripey1]

It's not Obama's job to verify every wild-assed claim you choose to make. If you can't, or won't, back up the claim in question, then it would be reasonable for Obama to conclude that you're just blowing hot air out of your gluteus maximus.


aye... without links, glock could be making his shit up... I see it, you see it, Obama sees it... everyone knows that when glock says something is so without providing the actual links that supports his allegations, he is just passing gas...


but hey, if he wants his posts to be seen as nothing more than mental farts, he can...

:poke:

[Birdzeye]

It's too late for regrets dear...

We're there....and now the only thing we can do.....IS WIN..

It would be nice if the WHOLE COUNTRY was behind the troops over there, but as we see........that's not to be...

Because it gives a lot of people ammo to sling mud on President Bush...

And for the Democrats on the hill......It scores them political points...

Sad...very sad..

And I'm not a Bush apologist....I just stand behind our troops...

You seem to be conflating "support the troops" with "support the war." The two can be, and often are, mutually exclusive. It's slanderous to insinuate that people who don't support the war don't support the troops.

[stephanie]

You seem to be conflating "support the troops" with "support the war." The two can be, and often are, mutually exclusive. It's slanderous to insinuate that people who don't support the war don't support the troops.

See it however you like...

[Birdzeye]

See it however you like...

Likewise.

[glockmail]

The "fact" that Obama asked you to prove is neither well known nor obvious. His request was reasonable; your blowing it off was not.

Please provide a link proving that his request was reasonable.

[-Cp]

At least Clinton didn't get us into this debacle of a war based on false assumptions. Your hero Bush did. It's on his head and he bears full responsibility for this debacle.

Really? It was him that voted to "Authorize the use of force" and not Congress (http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/)?

Nice deflection from the truth here Bird - but the debate has been about who mislead whom.... and rather than be intellectually honest (I know it's hard for libs to be honest) and admit that people in YOUR party had the SAME intelligence even BEFORE Bush you try and deflect it with a lame ass answer of "Well at least Clinton didn't get us into war"....

You IDIOT - we've been at war with Al-Qaeda for close to 20 years now:

Here's a timeline of them:

1988 - Al-Qaeda founded in Afghanistan by Osama Bin Laden
1991 - Bin Laden Moves to Sudan where he sets up training camps
1993 -
Feb 26th: Bomb explodes at World Trade Center in New York
Oct 4th: Eighteen US Servicemen Killed in Somalia
1996 -
May: Bin Laden Leaves Sudan and returns to Afghanistan
June 5th: US Military Base in Saudi Bombed - 19 Servicemen Killed
1998 -
Feb 22nd: Bin Laden Issues "Fatwa" calling for attacks on US Citizens
Aug 7th: US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania bombed
2000 -
Oct. 12th: Attack on US Warship in Yemen kills 17 Sailors

*Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/3618762.stm


Looks to me like there are NUMEROUS acts of War against the USA during the Clinton Term and he stood by like a Deer in the headlights and did NOTHING...

YOUR PEOPLE HAVE A CRAPLOAD to answer to and you DARE attack the current sitting President who had to deal with the WORST attack on USA soil in our History who had the BALLS to DO something?

You are a Partisan hack who's parents have failed you - you have NO Moral compass and quite frankly your distain for this country makes me question your patriotism.

I KNOW FOR A FACT that you weren't calling for Clinton to be questioned for his COWARDNESS during all the Al-Qaeda attacks while he was in office...

[Dilloduck]

I don't care to absolve them, but I sure as hell won't let Bush apologists try to deflect blame from where it rightly belongs from one who should have known better (Bush) to people who believed him and later had reason to regret it.

Oh please---"Bush should have known better" but senators and representatives in intelligence committees should be forgiven for their ignorance. How selective you are in handing out atonement. :lol:

[TheStripey1]

Oh please---"Bush should have known better" but senators and representatives in intelligence committees should be forgiven for their ignorance. How selective you are in handing out atonement. :lol:


as easily as you do... only you excuse those that were giving out the misinformation and blaming those that were given it...

[TheStripey1]

Please provide a link proving that his request was reasonable.


If you don't want to change the impression that you post nothing but mental farts, it is of course your choice. So by all means, never post a link that supports what you say... I, frankly, don't care.

:dance:

But... it won't stop me from asking you for them...

[TheStripey1]

I KNOW FOR A FACT that you weren't calling for Clinton to be questioned for his COWARDNESS during all the Al-Qaeda attacks while he was in office...


And how do you know that for a fact? are you a cyber stalker?

[-Cp]

And how do you know that for a fact? are you a cyber stalker?

Nope - because I know how intellectually DIShonest liberals are... in their hatered for President Bush...

[Kathianne]

And how do you know that for a fact? are you a cyber stalker?

I'd never claim that I know what you did back then. What did you think about the US response to the attacks in Africa and WTC? Did you think the response was correct and 'measured'?

[Birdzeye]

Please provide a link proving that his request was reasonable.

Obama's request was reasonable, because he was asking that you prove your claim to be factual.

Your request of me, however, is a mockery of a reasonable request.

[-Cp]

Obama's request was reasonable, because he was asking that you prove your claim to be factual.

Your request of me, however, is a mockery of a reasonable request.


Still waiting here for your responses to:

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=64483&postcount=56

and

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=64572&postcount=85

[Birdzeye]

[Mindless personal insults deleted]

There's no dealing with belligerence such as this. To impugn my patriotism, just because I'm not conservatively correct, and to disparage my parents' raising of me, is simply uncalled for. Shame on you.

[-Cp]

I have no answers to the FACTS - I am, afterall, a Liberal and we use emotion; not logic, to dictate our misguided beliefs

Just as I thought....

Ain't it funny folks? You bring up the FACTS to a lib and they choose to IGNORE them...

[Birdzeye]

as easily as you do... only you excuse those that were giving out the misinformation and blaming those that were given it...

You noticed that too, Stripey? The Bush apologists sure are using some serious contortions of illogic to exonerate their hero and transfer blame for all that's gone wrong onto someone else.

[Birdzeye]

Just as I thought....

Ain't it funny folks? You bring up the FACTS to a lib and they choose to IGNORE them...

This is what I originally said:


There's no dealing with belligerence such as this. To impugn my patriotism, just because I'm not conservatively correct, and to disparage my parents' raising of me, is simply uncalled for. Shame on you.

This is your "paraphrasing" of what I actually said:


Just as I thought....

Ain't it funny folks? You bring up the FACTS to a lib and they choose to IGNORE them...

Your behavior is extremely childish.

[Dilloduck]

You noticed that too, Stripey? The Bush apologists sure are using some serious contortions of illogic to exonerate their hero and transfer blame for all that's gone wrong onto someone else.

:lol: oh ya---that's why conservatives are calling for Bush to be impeached. Sorry, the liberal Bushbot apologist mud ain't sticking on the wall.

[Birdzeye]

Still waiting here for your responses to:

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=64483&postcount=56

and

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=64572&postcount=85

The first post was one word: "crickets." What kind of response do you expect?

In the second post, you've absolved anybody, including me, of any obligation to reply, given your generosity with the personal insults. Edit that post to remove all the insults, apologize for behaving like an asshole, and I'll consider replying.

[stephanie]

:lol: oh ya---that's why conservatives are calling for Bush to be impeached. Sorry, the liberal Bushbot apologist mud ain't sticking on the wall.


No shit...:laugh2:

[-Cp]

The first post was one word: "crickets." What kind of response do you expect?

In the second post, you've absolved anybody, including me, of any obligation to reply, given your generosity with the personal insults. Edit that post to remove all the insults, apologize for behaving like an asshole, and I'll consider replying.

Of course it said "crickets" because I KNEW you had ZERO reply to the FACTS...

WHO THE HELL are you anyway to place "demands' on me?

You have shown yourself to the bullshit politcal hack you are...

There are no personal insults in there....

[loosecannon]

Really? It was him that voted to "Authorize the use of force"

I thought you were smarter than that Cp.

Congress passing an authorization of force bill is NOT the same as:

>Making the decision to invade

>being the decider CIC who directed the war

>fucked it all to hell with butt stubborn attitudes and dipshit bravado

Bush OWNS this war

And the reason that is important is not to Bash Bush, or score points for the dems, the reason it is important to recognize that this whole collasal fuck up is the product, in fact the baby of Bush is because we need a damned leader to fix what BUSH broke.

Until we get Cowboy George out of his Patton playstation we are only gonna get deeper and deeper in the shit.

The man is, in his OWN WORDS,

" a catstrophic success".

WE CAN NOT AFFORD GWB TO LEAD THIS WAR DEEPER INTO DISASTER!

[Kathianne]

The first post was one word: "crickets." What kind of response do you expect?

In the second post, you've absolved anybody, including me, of any obligation to reply, given your generosity with the personal insults. Edit that post to remove all the insults, apologize for behaving like an asshole, and I'll consider replying.

I'll agree that bringing your parents into the fray was overboard, with that exception, you're off base.

[Dilloduck]

I thought you were smarter than that Cp.

Congress passing an authorization of force bill is NOT the same as:

>Making the decision to invade

>being the decider CIC who directed the war

>fucked it all to hell with butt stubborn attitudes and dipshit bravado

Bush OWNS this war

And the reason that is important is not to Bash Bush, or score points for the dems, {b] the reason it is important to recognize that this whole collasal fuck up is the product, in fact the baby of Bush is because we need a damned leader to fix what BUSH broke[/b].

Until we get Cowboy George out of his Patton playstation we are only gonna get deeper and deeper in the shit.

The man is, in his OWN WORDS,

" a catstrophic success".

WE CAN NOT AFFORD GWB TO LEAD THIS WAR DEEPER INTO DISASTER!

When Congress passes an Authorization of Force bill what DOES it allow the president to do?

[-Cp]

I thought you were smarter than that Cp.

Congress passing an authorization of force bill is NOT the same as:

>Making the decision to invade

>being the decider CIC who directed the war

>fucked it all to hell with butt stubborn attitudes and dipshit bravado

Bush OWNS this war

And the reason that is important is not to Bash Bush, or score points for the dems, {b] the reason it is important to recognize that this whole collasal fuck up is the product, in fact the baby of Bush is because we need a damned leader to fix what BUSH broke[/b].

Until we get Cowboy George out of his Patton playstation we are only gonna get deeper and deeper in the shit.

The man is, in his OWN WORDS,

" a catstrophic success".

WE CAN NOT AFFORD GWB TO LEAD THIS WAR DEEPER INTO DISASTER!


Once again - a Bush hater filled with half-truths:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States#Military_e ngagements_authorized_by_Congress


Go to "hooked on phonics" than see the last box on that chart...

[Birdzeye]

When Congress passes an Authorization of Force bill what DOES it allow the president to do?

Congress authorized Bush to go to war. However, the responsibility for the fucked up execution of that war belongs solely to Bush.

[Dilloduck]

Congress authorized Bush to go to war. However, the responsibility for the fucked up execution of that war belongs solely to Bush.

Guess it's obvious then. Congress should have ever allowed it.

[-Cp]

Congress authorized Bush to go to war. However, the responsibility for the fucked up execution of that war belongs solely to Bush.

Did the landing @ Normany and the failure to realize that all the pre-landing bombing did not "soften" up the beach as much as they had thought it did soley belong to President Roosevelt?

[Kathianne]

Congress authorized Bush to go to war. However, the responsibility for the fucked up execution of that war belongs solely to Bush.

Cool the way you finesse that! I'm tempted to rep you, but I'll exercise restraint.

[loosecannon]

When Congress passes an Authorization of Force bill what DOES it allow the president to do?

It gives the president the authority to make the decision to use force.

[gabosaurus]

Congress authorized Bush to go to war. However, the responsibility for the fucked up execution of that war belongs solely to Bush.

Congress authorized Bush to go to war after being presented with a shitload of lies and deceit.
Bush has never been trustworthy. Which is why I don't believe his suddenly declassified bin Laden info. Bush has more lies than Clinton has dicksores.

[loosecannon]

Did the landing @ Normany and the failure to realize that all the pre-landing bombing did not "soften" up the beach as much as they had thought it did soley belong to President Roosevelt?

I assume you mean "would not" and not "did not"?

Yes the ultimate responsibility stops at the desk of whomever ordered the mission.

In fact the entire reason why Congress has resorted to questionably legal pansy assed authorization bills is to make the pres responsible for wars should they fail.

You decide>you take responsibility or credit.

[Dilloduck]

It gives the president the authority to make the decision to use force.

and what did the dumb shits think he was gonna do with it ? Hang it on a wall?

[-Cp]

Congress authorized Bush to go to war after being presented with a shitload of lies and deceit.

:link: :link: :link:

[Guernicaa]

Ever hear of Google?
Um thank you but I wasn't the one who posted it as a fact...
I excpect that if people are going to put such odd sounding statements that they explain themselves through a link...

[loosecannon]

and what did the dumb shits think he was gonna do with it ? Hang it on a wall?

Well accounts vary and you know I can't speak their souls. And these are congresscritters who abrogated their constitutional responsibilities like weasels....

I think many of them were ill informed by the pr campaign to sell the new line up.

I think others were brow beat by the rabidly right leaning press of that time.

I think the popularity of the pres and the war was an equal factor.

But they still left responsibility at his all too eager feet.

And I think they were lied to, just as we were.

It is Bush's baby. And we absolutely can not trust Bush to fuck it up further.

And supporting our troops can not possibly mean surrendering them to the incompetence of Bush's leadership in a time of war.

[Kathianne]

Um thank you but I wasn't the one who posted it as a fact...
I excpect that if people are going to put such odd sounding statements that they explain themselves through a link...
considering your candidate, via name and all, you are a hinderance.

[loosecannon]

:link: :link: :link:

Just google the transcripts of Powell's presentation to the UN and get your head outta the sand.

Hell even BUSH claims he made the decision based on faulty intel.

[Yurt]

Bush has mislead us with intel before; why should I believe him now?

I don't believe you. You're lying. Prove it.


:)

[Birdzeye]

I don't believe you. You're lying. Prove it.


:)

*sigh* Once again, Bush said we had to invade Iraq because Saddam had WMDs. We invaded, but found no WMDs. If that's not misleading, then perhaps you'd care to revise the meaning of the word "mislead" for us.

[glockmail]

Um thank you but I wasn't the one who posted it as a fact...
I excpect that if people are going to put such odd sounding statements that they explain themselves through a link...

Next time you quote me don't hide it by not using my name. I noticed you say "Um" a lot. Do you speak with a lisp as well?

[glockmail]

Obama's request was reasonable, because he was asking that you prove your claim to be factual.

Your request of me, however, is a mockery of a reasonable request. What no link? I asked you for a damn link, you commie!

[glockmail]

*sigh* Once again, Bush said we had to invade Iraq because Saddam had WMDs. We invaded, but found no WMDs. If that's not misleading, then perhaps you'd care to revise the meaning of the word "mislead" for us. All that proves was that Saddam mislead us.

[loosecannon]

What no link? I asked you for a damn link, you commie!

what link are you requesting traitor?

[glockmail]

what link are you requesting traitor?
Only liberals like you are traitors and commies.

[Birdzeye]

What no link? I asked you for a damn link, you commie!


Beware what you ask for; it's what you deserve:

http://www.amishrakefight.org/gfy

[Birdzeye]

Only liberals like you are traitors and commies.

Prove it.

[Gunny]

*sigh* Once again, Bush said we had to invade Iraq because Saddam had WMDs. We invaded, but found no WMDs. If that's not misleading, then perhaps you'd care to revise the meaning of the word "mislead" for us.

WMDs is NOT the sole reason given for invading Iraq. And if those WMDs didn't exist, then you better tell the UN. It still has Iraq accountable for quite a stockpile of as of yet unaccounted for WMDs/WMD percursors.

[loosecannon]

WMDs is NOT the sole reason given for invading Iraq. And if those WMDs didn't exist, then you better tell the UN. It still has Iraq accountable for quite a stockpile of as of yet unaccounted for WMDs/WMD percursors.


there are "reasons" and then there are compelling reasons.

We didn't go to war in Iraq to save women from the opporession of Muslim domination. Or to support the sovereignty of the Kurds. Or to avenge the death of the civil revolters who Saddam killed.

Nor to avenge Saddam's empty threat to assasinate Bush 41, or to enforce UN resolutions.

The Congress, the American people, the British, and the UN were sold on one and only one compelling reason for the invasion: Saddam was a threat to US!

A bald faced lie contradicted by insurmountable evidence to the contrary.

Sure there was uncertainty. But the evidence that existed was a slam dunk. Saddam was NO threat to US. Absolutely no case to the contrary.

We were lied to. It's a fact.

We can not trust Bush to continue to fuck this war into a further state of disaster.

[Dilloduck]

there are "reasons" and then there are compelling reasons.

We didn't go to war in Iraq to save women from the opporession of Muslim domination. Or to support the sovereignty of the Kurds. Or to avenge the death of the civil revolters who Saddam killed.

Nor to avenge Saddam's empty threat to assasinate Bush 41, or to enforce UN resolutions.

The Congress, the American people, the British, and the UN were sold on one and only one compelling reason for the invasion: Saddam was a threat to US!

A bald faced lie contradicted by insurmountable evidence to the contrary.

Sure there was uncertainty. But the evidence that existed was a slam dunk. Saddam was NO threat to US. Absolutely no case to the contrary.

We were lied to. It's a fact.

We can not trust Bush to continue to fuck this war into a further state of disaster.

So what's the plan?

[loosecannon]

Only liberals like you are traitors and commies.

No you support the decider/US destroyer Bush, AND you accuse patriots of treason.

YOU are therefore a traitor to the US.

[nevadamedic]

Next time you quote me don't hide it by not using my name. I noticed you say "Um" a lot. Do you speak with a lisp as well?

:clap:

[loosecannon]

So what's the plan?

The best paln on the table that is moderate and seeks a balanced agenda is the ISG plan.

Personally I say fuck it. Address the Iraq security vacuum and withdraw to the border states.

But who cares. The feckless dems just agreed to fund the war without deadlines in exchange for minimum wage increases and bills to steal the Iraqi oil.

Fucking assholes.

[-Cp]

*sigh* Once again, Bush said we had to invade Iraq because Saddam had WMDs. We invaded, but found no WMDs. If that's not misleading, then perhaps you'd care to revise the meaning of the word "mislead" for us.


And Once again you turn a BLIND EYE to YOUR leaders who all said the same thing:

"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

[Dilloduck]

The best paln on the table that is moderate and seeks a balanced agenda is the ISG plan.

Personally I say fuck it. Address the Iraq security vacuum and withdraw to the border states.

But who cares. The feckless dems just agreed to fund the war without deadlines in exchange for minimum wage increases and bills to steal the Iraqi oil.

Fucking assholes.

Being in a border state is EXACTLY what set off bin laden

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html

and how EXACTLY do we address the power vacuum?

[nevadamedic]

And Once again you turn a BLIND EYE to YOUR leaders who all said the same thing:

"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

:clap:

[Gunny]

there are "reasons" and then there are compelling reasons.

We didn't go to war in Iraq to save women from the opporession of Muslim domination. Or to support the sovereignty of the Kurds. Or to avenge the death of the civil revolters who Saddam killed.

Nor to avenge Saddam's empty threat to assasinate Bush 41, or to enforce UN resolutions.

The Congress, the American people, the British, and the UN were sold on one and only one compelling reason for the invasion: Saddam was a threat to US!

A bald faced lie contradicted by insurmountable evidence to the contrary.

Sure there was uncertainty. But the evidence that existed was a slam dunk. Saddam was NO threat to US. Absolutely no case to the contrary.

We were lied to. It's a fact.

We can not trust Bush to continue to fuck this war into a further state of disaster.

I disagree. We deposed Saddam from power for all the reasons you attempt to discount and more, and they were repeatedly stated. The fact is, as state of war ALREADY existed between the US and Iraq, with only a ceasefire keeping us from finishing what was started in 91. The very second Saddam broke the terms of a ceasefire HE agreed to, we were within our legal rights to resume hostilities.

Saddam threatened the US on a continuing basis. I would know. I had my liberty cut short in a couple of sweet ports because he rattled his saber.

I find it hard to believe the lengths that have been gone to in villifying the President simply because he is a Republican.

Bush released decalssified information. There's no doubt in my military mind Congressional Democrats will be all over this. If it's questionable, there'll be the wailing and gnashing of teeth.

But those of you who just hate him because he's a Republican and/or believe all the villification, don't care. It's not true until proven true.

I see it the other way around. It's true pending evidence to the contrary.

[loosecannon]

I disagree. We deposed Saddam from power for all the reasons you attempt to discount and more, and they were repeatedly stated. The fact is, as state of war ALREADY existed between the US and Iraq, with only a ceasefire keeping us from finishing what was started in 91. The very second Saddam broke the terms of a ceasefire HE agreed to, we were within our legal rights to resume hostilities.

Legal rights are bull pucky. The UN refused to authorize the invasion and you know it.


Saddam threatened the US on a continuing basis. I would know. I had my liberty cut short in a couple of sweet ports because he rattled his saber.

I find it hard to believe the lengths that have been gone to in villifying the President simply because he is a Republican.

absolute trash talk. His republicanism is a joke first off. Bush is no republican.

Second Saddam had no means to threaten the US. If Haiti threatened us verbally would that constitute and actual threat?


But those of you who just hate him because he's a Republican

unadulterated BS. He fucked this war up beyond repair. He fucked up the WOT so badly he is a recruiter for our actual enemies.



I see it the other way around. It's true pending evidence to the contrary.

And Iraq has WMD and is harboring terrorists? TWO lies even Bush has recanted.

Bush ALWAYS lies. Grow up.

This is NOT a partisan battle. The dems won't even stop the war.

This is about preventing the "catastrophic success" that is Bush from fucking things up beyond repair.

His leadership is now proven FUBAR. To trust him is suicidal.

[nevadamedic]

President Bush...did NOT mislead anybody..

He had the same intelligence that Bill Clinton had when he was in office....

You all can continue pretending that this was intelligence that President Bush made up.....still won't change THE FACTS.....:poke:

:clap:

[Birdzeye]

And Once again you turn a BLIND EYE to YOUR leaders who all said the same thing:

"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

I was unaware that Clinton actually invaded Iraq and fucked up the war effort.

[Dilloduck]

I was unaware that Clinton actually invaded Iraq and fucked up the war effort.

Intentional ignorance is ugly----did you believe Clintons assessment of the situation in Iraq or not?

[glockmail]

:clap:
How many of your posts are smilies alone? :lame2:

[glockmail]

Beware what you ask for; it's what you deserve:

http://www.amishrakefight.org/gfy


That was a clever dodge. Too bad you don't exhibit the same level of intelligence with your arguments.

[glockmail]

No you support the decider/US destroyer Bush, AND you accuse patriots of treason.

YOU are therefore a traitor to the US.

Where are the patriots? You and birdie?

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[glockmail]

....

But who cares. The feckless dems just agreed to fund the war without deadlines in exchange for minimum wage increases and bills to steal the Iraqi oil.

Fucking assholes.

Looks like the appeasers appeased again. :laugh2:

[glockmail]

I was unaware that Clinton actually invaded Iraq and fucked up the war effort. By refusing to deal with the realities of Saddam after GW1, Billy Bob REALLY fucked up the war effort.

[Birdzeye]

Intentional ignorance is ugly----did you believe Clintons assessment of the situation in Iraq or not?

I believed Clinton and I believed Bush at the time. They were both proven wrong, but it was Bush who actually started the war; thus, the responsibility for the fuckup lies squarely on Bush's shoulders.

[Birdzeye]

That was a clever dodge. [MINDLESS PERSONAL INSULT DELETED].


Once again, you substitute personal insults for reasoned arguments. It's a bad habit you've developed.

[-Cp]

I was unaware that Clinton actually invaded Iraq and fucked up the war effort.

Can you please (factually) back up just how Bush has "Fucked up the war effort"?

[theHawk]

Legal rights are bull pucky. The UN refused to authorize the invasion and you know it.



absolute trash talk. His republicanism is a joke first off. Bush is no republican.

Second Saddam had no means to threaten the US. If Haiti threatened us verbally would that constitute and actual threat?

Actually Saddam violated the No-Fly Zone all the time. We always had the right to resume bombing any time we wanted.



unadulterated BS. He fucked this war up beyond repair. He fucked up the WOT so badly he is a recruiter for our actual enemies.

Of course the U.S. taking action is going to piss off Muslims and thus enable them to recuit more. You're saying its wrong to stand up and fight against Islam just because some of them are willing to fight back?



And Iraq has WMD and is harboring terrorists? TWO lies even Bush has recanted.
Saying it was a "lie" would mean Bush knew they did not exist. But by most intelligence accounts they were persuing the production of WMDs. Kerry and the Dims saw the same intel as the Pres, and they came to the same conclusion as well. If Bush "lied" then so did they...

[glockmail]

Once again, you substitute personal insults for reasoned arguments. It's a bad habit you've developed. Liberal template tactic #5: play the victim.

Since when is: "Too bad you don't exhibit the same level of intelligence with your arguments" a personal insult? :poke:

[Birdzeye]

Liberal template tactic #5: play the victim.

Since when is: "Too bad you don't exhibit the same level of intelligence with your arguments" a personal insult? :poke:

Still no reasoned arguments, eh? And since when is confronting someone for obnoxious behavior "playing the victim?" Would you rather I meekly ignore your bullshit? I don't do that.

[glockmail]

Still no reasoned arguments, eh? .....

I'm still waiting for you to form one. You've been on this board for how long now and I have yet to see you do that. Instead you want me to prove that the sky is blue and 5000 years of tradition is normal. :laugh2:

[-Cp]

I'm still waiting for you to form one. You've been on this board for how long now and I have yet to see you do that. Instead you want me to prove that the sky is blue and 5000 years of tradition is normal. :laugh2:

Everytime someone brings up FACTS to Birdzeye she'll ignore it until you ask her again and again - then chock up her lack of a response to "Oh, well you did a personal attack so therefore I'm not going to answer"......

Once again, she's proof that facts are to liberals what kryptonite is to Superman...

[Birdzeye]

I'm still waiting for you to form one. You've been on this board for how long now and I have yet to see you do that. Instead you want me to prove that the sky is blue and 5000 years of tradition is normal. :laugh2:

I guess you don't read my posts, then, if you say that. I'm just wondering, where did I ask you to prove that the sky is blue and that 5000 years of tradition is normal?

[loosecannon]

Everytime someone brings up FACTS to Birdzeye she'll ignore it until you ask her again and again - then chock up her lack of a response to "Oh, well you did a personal attack so therefore I'm not going to answer"......

Once again, she's proof that facts are to liberals what kryptonite is to Superman...

facts? LOL. The party of WMD wants to hide behind the facade of false facts and everybody knows it.

[Birdzeye]

Everytime someone brings up FACTS to Birdzeye she'll ignore it until you ask her again and again - then chock up her lack of a response to "Oh, well you did a personal attack so therefore I'm not going to answer"......

Once again, she's proof that facts are to liberals what kryptonite is to Superman...

Then maybe you'd care to point out where I responded directly to a presentation of FACTS with an accusation of a personal attack. I acknowledge that I accused Glock of attacking me personally, because it was true, but it was not in response to any FACTS he presented.

Conservatives have a remarkable ability to spin fantasies that fit their illusions.

[glockmail]

I guess you don't read my posts, then, if you say that. I'm just wondering, where did I ask you to prove that the sky is blue and that 5000 years of tradition is normal?


There you go again with this circle jerk. You must have been edumacated at the same school as missleman.

[glockmail]

Then maybe you'd care to point out where I responded directly to a presentation of FACTS with an accusation of a personal attack. I acknowledge that I accused Glock of attacking me personally, because it was true, but it was not in response to any FACTS he presented.

Conservatives have a remarkable ability to spin fantasies that fit their illusions.

Now qualifying yourself I see.

Whouda thunk?

:lol:

[Bulldog]

Why do so many of you constantly attack each other when the ultimate aim is to find a resolution to provide peace?

Has the art of intelligent debate died?

I'm honestly not attempting to stir things. I'm just very puzzled.

Bulldog.

[Birdzeye]

Why do so many of you constantly attack each other when the ultimate aim is to find a resolution to provide peace?

Has the art of intelligent debate died?

I'm honestly not attempting to stir things. I'm just very puzzled.

Bulldog.

I'm not sure that the powerful in the US are interested in finding peace. :(

[glockmail]

Why do so many of you constantly attack each other when the ultimate aim is to find a resolution to provide peace?

Has the art of intelligent debate died?

I'm honestly not attempting to stir things. I'm just very puzzled.

Bulldog.

Libs are only interested in power, and offer no solutions.

[-Cp]

Then maybe you'd care to point out where I responded directly to a presentation of FACTS with an accusation of a personal attack. I acknowledge that I accused Glock of attacking me personally, because it was true, but it was not in response to any FACTS he presented.

Conservatives have a remarkable ability to spin fantasies that fit their illusions.


And libs like you have very well trained selective memory:

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=64661&postcount=99

[Birdzeye]

And libs like you have very well trained selective memory:

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=64661&postcount=99

And where were the "facts" there?

[nevadamedic]

Perhaps you can tell us how come the majority of our brave soldiers are republican and support the president? :laugh2:

:clap:

[nevadamedic]

Libs are only interested in power, and offer no solutions.

To true.

[-Cp]

And where were the "facts" there?

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=64483&postcount=56

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=64572&postcount=85

[nevadamedic]

Everytime someone brings up FACTS to Birdzeye she'll ignore it until you ask her again and again - then chock up her lack of a response to "Oh, well you did a personal attack so therefore I'm not going to answer"......

Once again, she's proof that facts are to liberals what kryptonite is to Superman...

You can also post several links from several differen't sources and she will say they arn't credible. She is dilusional.

[loosecannon]

You can also post several links from several differen't sources and she will say they arn't credible. She is dilusional.

Bullshit. I saw you linking to hotair.com the other day. Many of your links are partisan crap with very low creds.

[Guernicaa]

Next time you quote me don't hide it by not using my name. I noticed you say "Um" a lot. Do you speak with a lisp as well?
What’s the problem here?
Any board that I've ever been on, when someone posts something that sounds odd, numerous people will ask that person to back the statement up with a link. If you refuse to give me a link your only proving that A)You made it up and B)You don't know how to debate.

And then in order to continue to not answer me with a link, you decide to personally attack me...

Do everyone a favor...especially the liberals on here...
Don't talk out of your ass and make shit up. I know your retarded friends on here enjoy reading the bull shit you post, but the people who are here to actually talk about facts don't.

[Birdzeye]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=64483&postcount=56

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=64572&postcount=85

You're going around in circles now.

[glockmail]

What’s the problem here?
Any board that I've ever been on, when someone posts something that sounds odd, numerous people will ask that person to back the statement up with a link. If you refuse to give me a link your only proving that A)You made it up and B)You don't know how to debate.

And then in order to continue to not answer me with a link, you decide to personally attack me...

Do everyone a favor...especially the liberals on here...
Don't talk out of your ass and make shit up. I know your retarded friends on here enjoy reading the bull shit you post, but the people who are here to actually talk about facts don't.

I'm not about to take your troll bait by hunting down a link to the obvious.

Yes, you do speak with a lisp. Does this happen to queers due to their sexual practices?

[-Cp]

You're going around in circles now.

Just following you....

And still waiting for you to address what I brought up in those links...

[Birdzeye]

You can also post several links from several differen't sources and she will say they arn't credible. She is dilusional.

Hey! It's a good old fashioned right wing gang bang going on here! The ultimate coverup for a paucity of facts! And I appear to be the guest of (ahem) honor! :laugh2:

[nevadamedic]

Bullshit. I saw you linking to hotair.com the other day. Many of your links are partisan crap with very low creds.

So the New York Post and Boston Globe are Parisan? If they are they lean more twords Liberal. I also use CNN and MSNBC whenever possible.

[loosecannon]

Just following you....

And still waiting for you to address what I brought up in those links...

Why don't you post your original question so we can dispense with it succinctly?

[Bulldog]

I hope you guys don't mind me butting in... again. :)

Is the divide of pro and anti-war opinion split entirely by political affiliation, or is the situation a lot more complex than that?

I only ask because the split of opinion on this side of the pond bears no relationship to a person's political leanings.

Don't forget that I'm an outsider looking in, so to speak. ;)

Bulldog.

PS Ignore me if I'm being a nuisance. :)

[glockmail]

Hey! It's a good old fashioned right wing gang bang going on here! The ultimate coverup for a paucity of facts! And I appear to be the guest of (ahem) honor! :laugh2:

There you go with the victim shit again. If you had any good facts for your argument you would have no problem with 50 gang bangers in here.

[glockmail]

I hope you guys don't mind me butting in... again. :)

Is the divide of pro and anti-war opinion split entirely by political affiliation, or is the situation a lot more complex than that?

I only ask because the split of opinion on this side of the pond bears no relationship to a person's political leanings.

Don't forget that I'm an outsider looking in, so to speak. ;)

Bulldog.

PS Ignore me if I'm being a nuisance. :)

Have you done a poll? I would say all libs are against the war, and very few conservatives.

[Gaffer]

Have you done a poll? I would say all libs are against the war, and very few conservatives.

All libs are against Bush. The war is just a means to attack him.

[Bulldog]

Have you done a poll? I would say all libs are against the war, and very few conservatives.

Hi. :)

No I haven't done an official poll.

I meet thousands of people every year in the line of my work, and whenever the subject of the Iraq war pops up, I ask them politely if they'd mind telling me where they sit politically.

The divide on pro and anti- really doesn't seem to tie in with political beliefs over here.

It looks as though feelings are running much higher in the USA though, in which case I can fully understand if there's a political tie-in.

Thanks for the feedback. :cheers2:

Bulldog.

[glockmail]

Hi. :)

No I haven't done an official poll.

I meet thousands of people every year in the line of my work, and whenever the subject of the Iraq war pops up, I ask them politely if they'd mind telling me where they sit politically.

The divide on pro and anti- really doesn't seem to tie in with political beliefs over here.

It looks as though feelings are running much higher in the USA though, in which case I can fully understand if there's a political tie-in.

Thanks for the feedback. :cheers2:

Bulldog.

Tony Blair is a liberal and was in very much support of the war. The definition of liberal varies from our countries as well as through historcal time.

[Bulldog]

Tony Blair is a liberal and was in very much support of the war. The definition of liberal varies from our countries as well as through historcal time.

He's technically the leader of the Labour party, not the Liberals. But I think you may have just helped me answer one of my own questions with your last sentence. :)

Many of us in the UK have lost faith in any of the three major parties (Labour, Conservative & Liberal) because they've all offered us stereotypical policy packages at election time, but all ended up having identical wishy-washy policies once in power.

There is no way to distinguish between them once their actually in power. We have no-one offering us a clear direction.

OK. I'm gonna shut up again now for a while and continue listening.

Unfortunately for you lot, I'm starting to really enjoy my visits to DP. :)

Bulldog.

[glockmail]

....
Many of us in the UK have lost faith in any of the three major parties (Labour, Conservative & Liberal) because they've all offered us stereotypical policy packages at election time, but all ended up having identical wishy-washy policies once in power.

There is no way to distinguish between them once their actually in power. We have no-one offering us a clear direction.

....

Same with our pols here. :pee:

[Doniston]

I hope you guys don't mind me butting in... again. :)

Is the divide of pro and anti-war opinion split entirely by political affiliation, or is the situation a lot more complex than that?

Not as much as it used to be. before, the devide was largely Bush/anti-bush, because of his stance and lies about the war. but now a lot of the Republicans are seeing the error of their ways and are coming to the Anti-war side in droves Check the pole numbers.

(But just a few within the Congress---yet)

[loosecannon]

He's technically the leader of the Labour party, not the Liberals. But I think you may have just helped me answer one of my own questions with your last sentence. :)

Many of us in the UK have lost faith in any of the three major parties (Labour, Conservative & Liberal) because they've all offered us stereotypical policy packages at election time, but all ended up having identical wishy-washy policies once in power.

There is no way to distinguish between them once their actually in power. We have no-one offering us a clear direction.

OK. I'm gonna shut up again now for a while and continue listening.

Unfortunately for you lot, I'm starting to really enjoy my visits to DP. :)

Bulldog.

this is true here as well. Probably 75% true.

[glockmail]

Not as much as it used to be. before, the devide was largely Bush/anti-bush, because of his stance and lies about the war. but now a lot of the Republicans are seeing the error of their ways and are coming to the Anti-war side in droves Check the pole numbers.

(But just a few within the Congress---yet)

Bull. No red-blooded Republican believes "Bush Lied". :pee:

[Hobbit]

He's technically the leader of the Labour party, not the Liberals. But I think you may have just helped me answer one of my own questions with your last sentence. :)

Many of us in the UK have lost faith in any of the three major parties (Labour, Conservative & Liberal) because they've all offered us stereotypical policy packages at election time, but all ended up having identical wishy-washy policies once in power.

There is no way to distinguish between them once their actually in power. We have no-one offering us a clear direction.

OK. I'm gonna shut up again now for a while and continue listening.

Unfortunately for you lot, I'm starting to really enjoy my visits to DP. :)

Bulldog.

It's becoming the same way here. Back in 1994, we swept the Republicans into power because of Newt Gingrich's 'Contract With America' which promised lower taxes, lower spending, and a smaller federal government. It was really quite revolutionary, as many senior legislators were having to adjust to freshmen chairing committees and drafting legislation. It went along pretty well for a while, but lost steam in the latter half of the 90s, as many of the policies kept dieing post-veto. Then, we put a Republican in the White House, thinking they'd go back to the contract. Well, they got one part right, lower taxes. However, they made Democrat spending and government size look like child's play. So in 2006, America put the Democrats back into power largely on a platform of ethics and fiscal responsibility, only to watch the Democrats spend even faster than the Republicans and aim straight for the ethics gutter. It seems like any time we kick a party out for doing something we don't like, the party that replaces them does the same thing, only worse.

[glockmail]

What he said. :beer:

[Doniston]

Bull. No red-blooded Republican believes "Bush Lied". :pee: You are whistling in the dark again. HEH HEH

How about the Blue-blooded ones? or Martins? (Green blood)

[Dilloduck]

It's becoming the same way here. Back in 1994, we swept the Republicans into power because of Newt Gingrich's 'Contract With America' which promised lower taxes, lower spending, and a smaller federal government. It was really quite revolutionary, as many senior legislators were having to adjust to freshmen chairing committees and drafting legislation. It went along pretty well for a while, but lost steam in the latter half of the 90s, as many of the policies kept dieing post-veto. Then, we put a Republican in the White House, thinking they'd go back to the contract. Well, they got one part right, lower taxes. However, they made Democrat spending and government size look like child's play. So in 2006, America put the Democrats back into power largely on a platform of ethics and fiscal responsibility, only to watch the Democrats spend even faster than the Republicans and aim straight for the ethics gutter. It seems like any time we kick a party out for doing something we don't like, the party that replaces them does the same thing, only worse.

Makes it pretty clear that "special interests" are running the show and the American people don't happen to be all that special or all that interesting. It's time everyone figures this out instead of playing the "hate the other party" game. "Conservatives suck" and "liberals suck" is non-productive.

[loosecannon]

only to watch the Democrats spend even faster than the Republicans and aim straight for the ethics gutter.


It was a great post until you took this flight of fancy

[loosecannon]

Makes it pretty clear that "special interests" are running the show and the American people don't happen to be all that special or all that interesting. It's time everyone figures this out instead of playing the "hate the other party" game. "Conservatives suck" and "liberals suck" is non-productive.

while I agree, the higher priority is getting Bush outta office.

We simply can not affoprd the risk he poses as president.

[Dilloduck]

while I agree, the higher priority is getting Bush outta office.

We simply can not affoprd the risk he poses as president.

Just can't give up the partisan BS, can ya ? Which bought off politician do you wanna replace him with ?

[TheStripey1]

Makes it pretty clear that "special interests" are running the show and the American people don't happen to be all that special or all that interesting. It's time everyone figures this out instead of playing the "hate the other party" game. "Conservatives suck" and "liberals suck" is non-productive.

actually true conservatives don't suck... it's just that the ones we have running the show do... cuz they aren't true conservatives.

bush's base is the "have mores", so unless you're filthy rich, he doesn't give a damn about you or your family.

[TheStripey1]

It was a great post until you took this flight of fancy

well... partisanship reared it's ugly head... it only takes time, loose...

[Hobbit]

It was a great post until you took this flight of fancy

How many BILLION dollars in pork to pass the 'emergency' spending bill? What about Abscam and Jack Murtha? What's-his-name with the cash in his freezer?

Deny it all you want, but it's true.

[TheStripey1]

Just can't give up the partisan BS, can ya ? Which bought off politician do you wanna replace him with ?

partisanship is a one way street... we need to get back to a bidirectional thruway...

How about this ticket...

Bloomberg/Gore. Or Gore/Bloomberg.

[Hobbit]

partisanship is a one way street... we need to get back to a bidirectional thruway...

How about this ticket...

Bloomberg/Gore. Or Gore/Bloomberg.

Actually, I'm beginning to think Bush/Cheney is a bipartisan ticket.

[TheStripey1]

How many BILLION dollars in pork to pass the 'emergency' spending bill? What about Abscam and Jack Murtha? What's-his-name with the cash in his freezer?

Deny it all you want, but it's true.

abscam was in the 90s... got abramoff? he's the offender du jour... and he took down republicans.

I've a thread here called Corrupt Politicians (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=42901&postcount=1), curently the score is 76 corrupt republican politicians and 64 corrupt democratic politicians.

you were saying?

Are you trying to claim that republicans didn't add pork to ALL the other supplemental spending bills? They did you know...

[TheStripey1]

Actually, I'm beginning to think Bush/Cheney is a bipartisan ticket.


then you're hopeless...

[loosecannon]

How many BILLION dollars in pork to pass the 'emergency' spending bill? What about Abscam and Jack Murtha? What's-his-name with the cash in his freezer?

Deny it all you want, but it's true.


Hobbit, ALL of the previous supplemental budget bills have contained MORE pork

Abscam was what 12 years ago?

And William Jefferson had his freezer raided before the midterm.

I wonder why the Bush DOJ hasn't even pressed charges.....

Your point was pure bs. sorry.

[loosecannon]

Just can't give up the partisan BS, can ya ? Which bought off politician do you wanna replace him with ?

Anybody would be an improvement.

As to partisan BS, here's the deal: Bush is an emergency level threat to the US. As long as the GOP owns him, they are deserving of harsh scrutiny until they see the light.

As soon as they disown him and support impeachment we shake hands.

[loosecannon]

Actually, I'm beginning to think.



Bush/Cheney is a bipartisan ticket.

that wasn't a thought it was a brainfart.

[Hobbit]

that wasn't a thought it was a brainfart.

You libs take yourselves far too seriously. This is supposed to be a comment on how far left Bush has moved.

As for the corrupt politicians thread, I've looked that that, and I see a whole lot of local Republicans and Republicans who haven't been convicted being dragged in to weight down the numbers while anytime a Democrat pops up who is known to be corrupt but hasn't been convicted, all the libs cry foul. I wouldn't trust the numbers in that thread farther than I could throw them.

[Dilloduck]

Anybody would be an improvement.

As to partisan BS, here's the deal: Bush is an emergency level threat to the US. As long as the GOP owns him, they are deserving of harsh scrutiny until they see the light.

As soon as they disown him and support impeachment we shake hands.

No--Here's the deal and we've been asking for it for years now. YOU produce alternative plans and politicians who YOU can convince me will do BETTER than Bush. If you are pissed because YOU feel lied to, STOP whining and wasting time by going balls out to make Bush look stupid and evil. Maybe people realize that in reality, we DO need a new plan and new people to champion the cause. PRESENT A VIABLE PLAN, A VIABLE CANDIDATE and CONVINCE people that things will be better for them. If you can't do that there will be no hand shaking.

You might feel duped but I'm not dumb enough to impeach a president and trust YOU to fix everything.