PDA

View Full Version : Wait a minute...Wait a minute...



Z1911
03-24-2013, 02:46 AM
If memory serves, wasn't one of the places Saddam was said to have sent his WMDs (ie: chemical weapons) Syria? And now here we are, 10 years later, and chemical weapons are being used in Syria.

A Syrian Army source gives the first account of what is believed to have been a chemical attack - and it could mean that one of the West's biggest fears is about to come true. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9950036/Syria-chemical-weapons-finger-pointed-at-jihadists.html)

Co-winky dink?? Hmmmmm...

Banned
03-24-2013, 02:49 AM
BUSH WAS RIGHT AFTER ALL!

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

I'm suddenly feeling a rush of blind patriotism... getting urges to go find an Arabic-looking taxi driver and stomp him in the face.

RobotChicken
03-24-2013, 02:56 AM
:clock Nice try Joe B. but the chickens are not all rounded up in the 'hen house' to lay any REAL eggs for you yet,so lets wait and see:gossip and let it unwind....

JD2780
03-24-2013, 03:26 AM
If memory serves, wasn't one of the places Saddam was said to have sent his WMDs (ie: chemical weapons) Syria? And now here we are, 10 years later, and chemical weapons are being used in Syria.

A Syrian Army source gives the first account of what is believed to have been a chemical attack - and it could mean that one of the West's biggest fears is about to come true. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9950036/Syria-chemical-weapons-finger-pointed-at-jihadists.html)

Co-winky dink?? Hmmmmm...


Yet the democrats will refuse to believe this. Also, there were blister agent residue found in 06 near Lake Thar Thar.

Banned
03-24-2013, 03:48 AM
:clock Nice try Joe B. but the chickens are not all rounded up in the 'hen house' to lay any REAL eggs for you yet,so lets wait and see:gossip and let it unwind....

Yeah, premature response if you will...

imnohero
03-24-2013, 03:50 AM
If memory serves, wasn't one of the places Saddam was said to have sent his WMDs (ie: chemical weapons) Syria? And now here we are, 10 years later, and chemical weapons are being used in Syria.

A Syrian Army source gives the first account of what is believed to have been a chemical attack - and it could mean that one of the West's biggest fears is about to come true. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9950036/Syria-chemical-weapons-finger-pointed-at-jihadists.html)

Co-winky dink?? Hmmmmm...

Geez, did you even read the story you linked. What was used in the "attack" if it actually took place the way it was described, was CL17 chlorine, a class 2 chemical...that is, NOT a chemical weapons, as defined in international law.

It's not a left/right wing conspiracy, it's not a "dramatic escalation", it's not whatever you think it is. The truth is somewhere between "rebels launch a small rocket with chemicals inside" and "the regime gassed their own checkpoint to get international sympathy."

For the cheap seats: CHEMICAL WEAPONS ARE NOT BEING USED IN SYRIA!

Robert F. Dorr
03-24-2013, 03:03 PM
BUSH WAS RIGHT AFTER ALL!

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

I'm suddenly feeling a rush of blind patriotism... getting urges to go find an Arabic-looking taxi driver and stomp him in the face.

The last time that happened, some rubes picked a Sikh and did exactly that.

Robert F. Dorr
03-24-2013, 03:05 PM
Geez, did you even read the story you linked. What was used in the "attack" if it actually took place the way it was described, was CL17 chlorine, a class 2 chemical...that is, NOT a chemical weapons, as defined in international law.

It's not a left/right wing conspiracy, it's not a "dramatic escalation", it's not whatever you think it is. The truth is somewhere between "rebels launch a small rocket with chemicals inside" and "the regime gassed their own checkpoint to get international sympathy."

For the cheap seats: CHEMICAL WEAPONS ARE NOT BEING USED IN SYRIA!

So far. Correct. And Saddam Hussein's Iraq did not have any meaningful arsenal of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. That excuse for invading Iraq was mistaken (for those who want to be charitable here) or a lie.

tiredretiredE7
03-24-2013, 05:38 PM
So far. Correct. And Saddam Hussein's Iraq did not have any meaningful arsenal of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. That excuse for invading Iraq was mistaken (for those who want to be charitable here) or a lie.

RFD,

It seems the facts do not support your claim, again. Please stop with the Democratic talking points and use Google before posting embarrassing comments.

http://www.stripes.com/news/middle-east/iraq/study-wind-blew-deadly-gas-to-us-troops-in-gulf-war-1.200742

imnohero
03-24-2013, 07:15 PM
Interesting, but completely irrelevant to events in Syria today.

RobotChicken
03-24-2013, 07:27 PM
:spy Try 'intell-101' first with mouth closed. Works 99% of the time. :tape

Quixotic
03-24-2013, 09:32 PM
RFD,

It seems the facts do not support your claim, again. Please stop with the Democratic talking points and use Google before posting embarrassing comments.

http://www.stripes.com/news/middle-east/iraq/study-wind-blew-deadly-gas-to-us-troops-in-gulf-war-1.200742

Just because he may have had some sarin lying around in 1991 doesn't mean he had anything at all in 2003.

Stop cherry-picking the intel.

LogDog
03-24-2013, 09:49 PM
RFD,

It seems the facts do not support your claim, again. Please stop with the Democratic talking points and use Google before posting embarrassing comments.

http://www.stripes.com/news/middle-east/iraq/study-wind-blew-deadly-gas-to-us-troops-in-gulf-war-1.200742
Per the first line of the second paragraph of your source:

The Jan. 18, 1991, bombings of the munitions plants in Nasiriyah and Khamisiya blew a plume of sarin gas high above a layer of cold, still air -- also called the boundary level -- and into a swift wind stream that carried the gas to Saudi Arabia, said the study conducted by researchers Robert Haley and James Tuite and published in the journal Neuroepidemiology.
Your link referenced sarin gas as a result of U.S. bombing of a munitions plant. Note, the date references 1991 and does not mention anything concerning the Iraq War from 2003 or beyond. Your "facts" are not facts concerning the claim that Saddam moved chemical weapons to Syria; the are false "facts".

Robert F. Dorr
03-24-2013, 10:03 PM
RFD,

It seems the facts do not support your claim, again. Please stop with the Democratic talking points and use Google before posting embarrassing comments.

http://www.stripes.com/news/middle-east/iraq/study-wind-blew-deadly-gas-to-us-troops-in-gulf-war-1.200742

Well, you could argue that the facts do not support a claim that the earth is round, or that the environment is warming, but the fact is that the justification given for invading Iraq was no justification at all. Even if you could demonstrate that Hussein had meaninglessly small numbers of weapons of mass destruction, that wasn't what we were told as the reason for invading the wrong country.

RobotChicken
03-24-2013, 10:13 PM
Per the first line of the second paragraph of your source:

Your link referenced sarin gas as a result of U.S. bombing of a munitions plant. Note, the date references 1991 and does not mention anything concerning the Iraq War from 2003 or beyond. Your "facts" are not facts concerning the claim that Saddam moved chemical weapons to Syria; the are false "facts".
:spy In the initial planning on those facilities because of the 'hardening' of them it would have to be at least a two ship attack, one with a penetrating bomb for the initial attack, and then(within a few seconds)a napalm type to incinerate the chemical/biologic elements that Would be released on the first attack to ensure containment of the possible release and quell any uproar of doing more harm to the civilians then military objective achieved. Due to a shortage of available A/C for the war,they did not proceed with their plan, hell, we had to get the bombs to take out their runways from the Brits cause ours would just bounce and roll off the runways. :phone

Quixotic
03-24-2013, 10:22 PM
Faulty intel is a polite way of saying there was no intel.

LogDog
03-25-2013, 02:08 AM
Faulty intel is a polite way of saying there was no intel.
It's criminal when the person who knows the intel is faulty but passes it off at factual that leads to war and the loss of thousands of American lives, thousands of wounded, as well as thousands of innocent civilians.

tiredretiredE7
03-25-2013, 02:58 AM
Per the first line of the second paragraph of your source:

Your link referenced sarin gas as a result of U.S. bombing of a munitions plant. Note, the date references 1991 and does not mention anything concerning the Iraq War from 2003 or beyond. Your "facts" are not facts concerning the claim that Saddam moved chemical weapons to Syria; the are false "facts".

So I am guessing your inference is that Iraq willingly destroyed their WMD even with Iran threatening another war with Iraq and you would believe Sadam Hussein. I am going to try to keep this short but there is additional evidence from Iraqi military leaders that I intentionally did not post since most of you like to stay on the "I hate Bush" bandwagon and finding Iraqi WMD in Syria would prove all of you wrong. I already posted a link about proving Iraq DID have and produce chemical weapons. RFD claims those weapons were produced in small quantities.

http://www.pbs.com/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/etc/arsenal.html

The actual amount produced were
-"Bulk production: In July, 1995, Iraq acknowledged that between 1988 and 1991, it had produced two BW agents in bulk: botulinum toxin and Bacillus anthracis spores (anthrax). Iraq reported 19,180 liters of botulinum toxin (10-20 fold concentrated) and 8445 liters of Bacillus anthracis spores (10 fold concentrated).
-"Bulk CW agents: Iraq said that it produced 3,859 tons of CW agents during the entire implementation of its CW program, and that 3,315 tons of these agents were weaponized. Agents produced in large quantities included mustard, tabun, and sarin."

-"According to Iraq, 80% of the weaponized CW agents were consumed between 1982 and 1988. In addition, they claim to have unilaterally discarded 130 tons of non-weaponized CW agents during the 1980s. UNSCOM found that these numbers could not be verified. After the Gulf War, Iraq claimed that it had 412.5 tons of CW agents remaining. Four hundred eleven tons were destroyed under UNSCOM supervision; 1.5 tons of the CW agent VX remain unaccounted for."

Then ofcourse there were the large convoys into Syria from Iraq. Two top Iraq Generals have confirmed these convoys were transferring WMDs from Iraq into Syria long after Sadam was killed.

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/071912-618875-syria-chemical-weapons-came-from-iraq-.htm

I understand it would be politically inconvenient for the "Bush haters" in these forums if it is confirmed that Syria does have WMDs from Iraq. However, I would also like to draw a very big picture for some of you who are blinded by the hatred of President Bush. Syria would have undoubtedly given Iran some of the chemical weapons from Iraq. Syria mysteriously acquired a large stockpile of chemical weapons that the world now has to take into consideration if there is any international military action in Syria as well as the respond from Iran. I know this might be too much talk of war for those of your who typically vote democratically but there is simply too much evidence. My main goal is to atleast help some of you see the "big" picture of action in Syria and why President Obama would be justified IMO for NOT taking any action in Syria regardless of the use of chemical weapons in any form.

So yes, I am saying we should not do anything if Syria uses chemical weapons against their own people. The argument has started with Iraq did not have WMDs. I supplied a link that he DID have WMDs. Then some of you replied OK he did but did not after the first desert storm. Now here are two more links concerning the huge amount produced by the Iraqis (contrary to RFDs claim) and a link about two Iraqi Generals who confirmed WMDs were transferred from Iraq into Syria. Now I am guessing some of you will believe Iraq willingly destroyed these huge quantities of WMDs without the UN inspectors being present. What advantage would that give to Iraq unless Iraq was trying to hide some WMDs?

Finally, what country educated Sadam Hussein and helped him develop WMDs?

imnohero
03-25-2013, 03:54 AM
For current purposes, it doesn't matter HOW Syria got the chemical weapons that it has. The question at hand is whether they have or will use them. The answer seems to be "No."

The question about the 2003 Iraq war is about the method of how it was sold to Congress, the US public, and the international community, which went, using cherry-picked intel, went something like, "We don't know what Saddam is up to, but we don't want to find out by seeing a mushroom cloud."

http://articles.cnn.com/2003-01-10/us/wbr.smoking.gun_1_smoking-gun-nuclear-weapons-hans-blix?_s=PM:US


What concerns people is that the "claims" of use of CW is Syria will be used by the administration to start another war. The concern is about abuse of power by those in D.C.

Quixotic
03-25-2013, 04:24 AM
So I am guessing your inference is that Iraq willingly destroyed their WMD even with Iran threatening another war with Iraq and you would believe Sadam Hussein.

Why would Sadam give Syria his WMD with the Iran threat then?


I am going to try to keep this short but there is additional evidence from Iraqi military leaders that I intentionally did not post since most of you like to stay on the "I hate Bush" bandwagon and finding Iraqi WMD in Syria would prove all of you wrong. I already posted a link about proving Iraq DID have and produce chemical weapons. RFD claims those weapons were produced in small quantities.

Why would Syria accept Iraqi WMD when they already had there own, and the decades long capability (thanks Russia and France) to produce their own?



Then ofcourse there were the large convoys into Syria from Iraq. Two top Iraq Generals have confirmed these convoys were transferring WMDs from Iraq into Syria long after Sadam was killed.

Yes, former, ex-has-been, Iraqi 'top' Generals have always been an outstanding source of credible information. Really?


Syria would have undoubtedly given Iran some of the chemical weapons from Iraq. Syria mysteriously acquired a large stockpile of chemical weapons that the world now has to take into consideration if there is any international military action in Syria as well as the respond from Iran.

There's no mystery about where Syria got there chemical weapons, they made it.



I know this might be too much talk of war for those of your who typically vote democratically but there is simply too much evidence.

No, there's no evidence, just a bunch of half-@ssed speculation.


So yes, I am saying we should not do anything if Syria uses chemical weapons against their own people.

Agreed.


Now here are two more links concerning the huge amount produced by the Iraqis (contrary to RFDs claim) and a link about two Iraqi Generals who confirmed WMDs were transferred from Iraq into Syria. Now I am guessing some of you will believe Iraq willingly destroyed these huge quantities of WMDs without the UN inspectors being present. What advantage would that give to Iraq unless Iraq was trying to hide some WMDs?

Maybe they did destroy them, maybe they are still buried in the sand, maybe he never had as much as some would wish he did.


Finally, what country educated Sadam Hussein and helped him develop WMDs?

Probably the same one that built is Osirak reactor, France.

tiredretiredE7
03-25-2013, 04:45 AM
Why would Sadam give Syria his WMD with the Iran threat then?
Same reason Iraqi pilots landed in Syria instead of Iran. Syria and Iraq were friendly at the time.




Why would Syria accept Iraqi WMD when they already had there own, and the decades long capability (thanks Russia and France) to produce their own?

Simply, to deter any attacks from Isreal.


Yes, former, ex-has-been, Iraqi 'top' Generals have always been an outstanding source of credible information. Really? There wasn't any reason to lie.




There's no mystery about where Syria got there chemical weapons, they made it.
I hope you are all correct but there are too many digital photos of the convoys from Iraq into Syria.





No, there's no evidence, just a bunch of half-@ssed speculation.




Probably the same one that built is Osirak reactor, France.

No we did. The United States helped Iraq with WMD development in order for Iraq to goto war with Iran so we would not have to.

http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/reagans-wmd-connection-saddam-hussein/

Quixotic
03-25-2013, 05:00 AM
Same reason Iraqi pilots landed in Syria instead of Iran. Syria and Iraq were friendly at the time.

Big difference between a few fighter jets and chemical weapons, not buying it.


Simply, to deter any attacks from Isreal.

That's not a reason, here, I'll say it again, "Why would Syria accept Iraqi WMD when they already had there own, and the decades long capability (thanks Russia and France) to produce their own?"


There wasn't any reason to lie.

yes, the idea that ex-Iraqi top Generals have no hidden agendas is completely believable. There was no more of a reason to lie than there was to talk in the first place. Not buying it.


I hope you are all correct but there are too many digital photos of the convoys from Iraq into Syria.

Digital photos which clearly show Iraqi soldiers standing next to trucks filled with drums labeled WMD, on a highway, next to a sign that says "welcome to Syria" right. Convoys cross that border routinely, who knows what is in them.

So, if all of this 'evidence' exists to prove Bush right, why is he silent...?

Banned
03-25-2013, 05:45 AM
So, if all of this 'evidence' exists to prove Bush right, why is he silent...?


THAT'S the question of the day. What amazes me is how Bush, Cheney, the key Iraqi informants, the Pentagon... virtually every entity involved in Iraq has confessed that there were no WMDs or Al Qaeda connections... yet otherwise educated and smart people will continue to turn red in the face and insist that there WAS a connection and there were loads of WMDs everywhere.

Banned
03-25-2013, 05:55 AM
^What the hell does "germ warfare" have to do with 911? Was that a reference to the Anthrax letters (which were traced back to a domestic lab, completely unrelated to Iraq or anywhere else)?

LogDog
03-25-2013, 06:05 AM
So I am guessing your inference is that Iraq willingly destroyed their WMD even with Iran threatening another war with Iraq and you would believe Sadam Hussein. I am going to try to keep this short but there is additional evidence from Iraqi military leaders that I intentionally did not post since most of you like to stay on the "I hate Bush" bandwagon and finding Iraqi WMD in Syria would prove all of you wrong. I already posted a link about proving Iraq DID have and produce chemical weapons. RFD claims those weapons were produced in small quantities.

http://www.pbs.com/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/etc/arsenal.html

The actual amount produced were
-"Bulk production: In July, 1995, Iraq acknowledged that between 1988 and 1991, it had produced two BW agents in bulk: botulinum toxin and Bacillus anthracis spores (anthrax). Iraq reported 19,180 liters of botulinum toxin (10-20 fold concentrated) and 8445 liters of Bacillus anthracis spores (10 fold concentrated).
-"Bulk CW agents: Iraq said that it produced 3,859 tons of CW agents during the entire implementation of its CW program, and that 3,315 tons of these agents were weaponized. Agents produced in large quantities included mustard, tabun, and sarin."

-"According to Iraq, 80% of the weaponized CW agents were consumed between 1982 and 1988. In addition, they claim to have unilaterally discarded 130 tons of non-weaponized CW agents during the 1980s. UNSCOM found that these numbers could not be verified. After the Gulf War, Iraq claimed that it had 412.5 tons of CW agents remaining. Four hundred eleven tons were destroyed under UNSCOM supervision; 1.5 tons of the CW agent VX remain unaccounted for."

Then ofcourse there were the large convoys into Syria from Iraq. Two top Iraq Generals have confirmed these convoys were transferring WMDs from Iraq into Syria long after Sadam was killed.

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/071912-618875-syria-chemical-weapons-came-from-iraq-.htm

I understand it would be politically inconvenient for the "Bush haters" in these forums if it is confirmed that Syria does have WMDs from Iraq. However, I would also like to draw a very big picture for some of you who are blinded by the hatred of President Bush. Syria would have undoubtedly given Iran some of the chemical weapons from Iraq. Syria mysteriously acquired a large stockpile of chemical weapons that the world now has to take into consideration if there is any international military action in Syria as well as the respond from Iran. I know this might be too much talk of war for those of your who typically vote democratically but there is simply too much evidence. My main goal is to atleast help some of you see the "big" picture of action in Syria and why President Obama would be justified IMO for NOT taking any action in Syria regardless of the use of chemical weapons in any form.

So yes, I am saying we should not do anything if Syria uses chemical weapons against their own people. The argument has started with Iraq did not have WMDs. I supplied a link that he DID have WMDs. Then some of you replied OK he did but did not after the first desert storm. Now here are two more links concerning the huge amount produced by the Iraqis (contrary to RFDs claim) and a link about two Iraqi Generals who confirmed WMDs were transferred from Iraq into Syria. Now I am guessing some of you will believe Iraq willingly destroyed these huge quantities of WMDs without the UN inspectors being present. What advantage would that give to Iraq unless Iraq was trying to hide some WMDs?

Finally, what country educated Sadam Hussein and helped him develop WMDs?
Yes, Saddam did have WMDs but until the lead up to the Iraq War in 2003, there wasn't any evidence there were stockpiles of WMDs nor was there any evidence that they were transferred to Syria. Your link deals with the period up to 1999 and after that the U.N. inspectors could find any evidence of WMDs. Your link is only background information but not relevant to the fact that there were WMDs found in Iraq nor did they find any evidence any WMDs were transferred to Syria.

LogDog
03-25-2013, 06:23 AM
Simply, to deter any attacks from Isreal.
Israel and Syria last fought in 1982 when Israel went into Lebanon and Syria sent aircraft to support Yasser Arafat and his PLO. Syria lost dozens of aircraft in the air battles. Syria also let Israel know they have no intention of going to war with Israel over the Golan Heights so why would they have to have the chemical weapons to deter Israel from doing what? Syria's border are secure because Israel has no intention of invading them. Israel's problems have been from Lebanon, Iraq, and the West Bank.

Don't forget, Israel has nuclear weapons so if Syria used chemical weapons on Israel Syria would have to fear nuclear retaliation.

Banned
03-25-2013, 03:21 PM
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/848166/posts

A link to Saddam talking about using the weapons if we invade... again, what does this have to do with the 911 attack, like the cartoon implies?

sandsjames
03-25-2013, 03:51 PM
That's not a reason, here, I'll say it again, "Why would Syria accept Iraqi WMD when they already had there own, and the decades long capability (thanks Russia and France) to produce their own?"




We have our own oil, yet we still get plenty of it from other countries. I don't think "they already had there (misused purposely for quotation purposes) own" reasoning really works. Being able to save your own for a rainy day is always a smart move.

Quixotic
03-25-2013, 04:20 PM
We have our own oil, yet we still get plenty of it from other countries. I don't think "they already had there (misused purposely for quotation purposes) own" reasoning really works. Being able to save your own for a rainy day is always a smart move.

Wow, you're like, the king of irrelevant comparisons around here aren't you?

Banned
03-25-2013, 04:20 PM
We have our own oil, yet we still get plenty of it from other countries.

Yes because oil for mass consumption is exactly the same as chemical weapons.


I don't think "they already had there (misused purposely for quotation purposes) own" reasoning really works. Being able to save your own for a rainy day is always a smart move.

Taking the risk of being caught smuggling WMDs isn't worth the gain... especially when we've already explained to you that they can manufacture their own, so the "rainy day" argument is a bit silly.

sandsjames
03-25-2013, 04:21 PM
Wow, you're like, the king of irrelevant comparisons around here aren't you?

I don't know if I'd call myself "the king". That would be a little arrogant. But...

Banned
03-25-2013, 04:25 PM
Wow, you're like, the king of irrelevant comparisons around here aren't you?

Don't say that... he'll get mad and accuse you of infringing on his rights.

imported_CLSE
03-25-2013, 05:49 PM
So far. Correct. And Saddam Hussein's Iraq did not have any meaningful arsenal of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. That excuse for invading Iraq was mistaken (for those who want to be charitable here) or a lie.

Hey Bob, why don't you tell that to the Kurds he had gassed...Or the Iranians his army gassed. I think they will be inclined to disagree with you you.

Quixotic
03-25-2013, 05:57 PM
Hey Bob, why don't you tell that to the Kurds he had gassed...Or the Iranians his army gassed. I think they will be inclined to disagree with you you.

I'll let you have a chance at answering the same question: If Bush was right about Iraqi WMD, 2003 time frame, then why is he not doing the 'told you so' dance on the front of every newspaper and website today?

thread_cop
03-25-2013, 06:03 PM
I'll let you have a chance at answering the same question: If Bush was right about Iraqi WMD, 2003 time frame, then why is he not doing the 'told you so' dance on the front of every newspaper and website today?

If Bush was making statements people would be bitching that he's no longer president and needs to stay out of the public eye.

I, for one, wouldn't call the decision "wrong". I believe he made the decision base on intelligence he believed to be true. I would support Obama in a similar situation.

I don't believe any leaders purposely make incorrect decisions. I think they mostly, truly, think they have the best intentions of the public in mind.

Knowing what we know now, was it the wrong decision? Most likely. Was it made with malice? I don't think so. I think the decision makers thought the intel was correct. But that's just me. I'm just a naive MTF "recruit".

imported_CLSE
03-25-2013, 06:04 PM
THAT'S the question of the day. What amazes me is how Bush, Cheney, the key Iraqi informants, the Pentagon... virtually every entity involved in Iraq has confessed that there were no WMDs or Al Qaeda connections... yet otherwise educated and smart people will continue to turn red in the face and insist that there WAS a connection and there were loads of WMDs everywhere.

Joe,

We know for a fact that he had chemical weapons, it appears as though we even gave him some of the chemicals and/or the ability to produce him.

He used those chemical weapons, both during the Iran/Iraq war and on the Kurds.

Chemical agenst - weaponized or not - don't just magically turn to pixie dust.

We knew he had them, the U.N. was so concerned that he still had them that they expended a lot of time and money searching for them - so where did they go?

Until somebody can answer that question, nobody can claim that they weren't there. The fact that we didn't find them didn't mean that they weren't there. We were digging up MiG-25s that we didn't know were buried before the war.

Do you know for a fact and have the proof to demonstrate that what he had left of his arsenal isn't buried somewhere?

Do you have the proof that he destroyed his stockpiles before the war?

imnohero
03-25-2013, 06:13 PM
If Bush was making statements people would be bitching that he's no longer president and needs to stay out of the public eye.

I, for one, wouldn't call the decision "wrong". I believe he made the decision base on intelligence he believed to be true. I would support Obama in a similar situation.

I don't believe any leaders purposely make incorrect decisions. I think they mostly, truly, think they have the best intentions of the public in mind.

Knowing what we know now, was it the wrong decision? Most likely. Was it made with malice? I don't think so. I think the decision makers thought the intel was correct. But that's just me. I'm just a naive MTF "recruit".

A generous analysis of the motivations of people. Even accepting the premise that they believed they were doing the best thing, it still led us into a 10 year, $1 Trillion, war with thousands of casualties.

The problem is, that in hindsight, we are finding out that they KNEW the intel was faulty, or at least questionable. We now know, in hindsight, that the intel reports included caveats and assumptions and warnings, that were ignored or glossed over by the administration.

Consequently, I am strongly doubtful of the motivation of the administration, but more importantly ... MOST importantly, is to do what is possible to make sure the such "mistakes" are not made again.

thread_cop
03-25-2013, 06:20 PM
A generous analysis of the motivations of people. Even accepting the premise that they believed they were doing the best thing, it still led us into a 10 year, $1 Trillion, war with thousands of casualties.

The problem is, that in hindsight, we are finding out that they KNEW the intel was faulty, or at least questionable. We now know, in hindsight, that the intel reports included caveats and assumptions and warnings, that were ignored or glossed over by the administration.

Consequently, I am strongly doubtful of the motivation of the administration, but more importantly ... MOST importantly, is to do what is possible to make sure the such "mistakes" are not made again.

I agree, for the most part. I cannot, however, blame only the administration. Even if the intel was known to be "faulty", the decision was made by more than just the President. Both parties, with a large majority, agreed. And they had the intel as well.

Shrike
03-25-2013, 06:25 PM
I'll let you have a chance at answering the same question: If Bush was right about Iraqi WMD, 2003 time frame, then why is he not doing the 'told you so' dance on the front of every newspaper and website today?

Why does everyone always concentrate on Bush? What about these folks:

"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 th! e 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 seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. 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 always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (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."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without 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 is miscalculating America's response to his 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


Or these folks, prior to 9/11?

"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 Bill 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 Bill 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:
-- Democratic Senators 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

I guess "Bush and a Bunch of Other People Including Numerous Prominent Democratic Party Leaders, a Former President, a Former Ambassador to the UN, and Former and Current Secretaries of State Lied, People Died" just doesn't fit as well on a bumper sticker.

thread_cop
03-25-2013, 06:27 PM
Why does everyone always concentrate on Bush? What about these folks:

"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 th! e 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 seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. 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 always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (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."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without 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 is miscalculating America's response to his 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


Or these folks, prior to 9/11?

"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 Bill 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 Bill 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:
-- Democratic Senators 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

I guess "Bush and a Bunch of Other People Including Numerous Prominent Democratic Party Leaders, a Former President, a Former Ambassador to the UN, and Former and Current Secretaries of State Lied, People Died" just doesn't fit as well on a bumper sticker.

Now that's just silly propoganda you're posting. It was ALL Bush.

Quixotic
03-25-2013, 06:37 PM
Why does everyone always concentrate on Bush? What about these folks:

Gee, I don't know, maybe because he was the President, and it was his order? I'm just guessing.

If Bush was right, then why is he silent...?

thread_cop
03-25-2013, 06:40 PM
Gee, I don't know, maybe because he was the President, and it was his order? I'm just guessing.

If Bush was right, then why is he silent...?

I farted this morning. It was right, even though it was silent.

Shrike
03-25-2013, 06:41 PM
Now that's just silly propoganda you're posting. It was ALL Bush.

Don't forget his vice-demon Cheney and their evil puppet master behind the scenes, Karl Rove. They tricked all of the peaceful, doe-eyed Democrats into believing that the intel they were reading supported Bush/Cheney/Rove's evil imperialistic plan. The fact that they had to invent a time machine so that they could go back in time and convince Democrat's (and the UN) during the previous presidential administration shows just how far those nefarious bastards were willing to go to feed the anti-Sadaam frenzy.

imnohero
03-25-2013, 06:42 PM
Why does everyone always concentrate on Bush? What about these folks:



For my part, when I say "the administration", my intent is to include as many people as possible. Perhaps I should start adding "...and congress" but that's rather unwieldy.

That said, blame whoever and however many you wish. The Bush administration was in charge, and constitutionally in charge of military actions, so they are point man.

For some people it is about hating on Bush, or it's about proving how right they were to oppose the war. But at this point, what it SHOULD be about is how to prevent a repeat of history. Hate Bush or defend him, blame congress for signing off, blame Clinton, or defend them...that is all emotional baggage, primarily used by politicians and partisans to get us and keep us off track.

I don't know about you, but I would prefer we, as a country, not get into another war only to find out a decade later it was all a "big mistake" or "we had bad intel." I would like our government to be more hesitant to go to war, and give more careful consideration to the costs of war.

Quixotic
03-25-2013, 06:43 PM
Everybody knows, and knew, that Sadam had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11.

That being said: How come Bush wasn't trying to invade Iraq on Sept 10, 2001?

Shrike
03-25-2013, 06:43 PM
Gee, I don't know, maybe because he was the President, and it was his order? I'm just guessing. Bush's order? Try Congressional Public Law 107-243. (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/html/PLAW-107publ243.htm)


If Bush was right, then why is he silent...?
John Kerry was beating the war drums just as hard. Why is he silent?

thread_cop
03-25-2013, 06:45 PM
Don't forget his vice-demon Cheney and their evil puppet master behind the scenes, Karl Rove. They tricked all of the peaceful, doe-eyed Democrats into believing that the intel they were reading supported Bush/Cheney/Rove's evil imperialistic plan. The fact that they had to invent a time machine so that they could go back in time and convince Democrat's (and the UN) during the previous presidential administration shows just how far those nefarious bastards were willing to go to feed the anti-Sadaam frenzy.

They were even smart enough and maniacle enough to trick Hillary, which led to her also being a big proponent of the invasion.

I've learned a couple things here today. One, Bush intentionally lied based on intel he KNEW was false and two, the democrats are even dumber than I thought for all falling for the obvious lies.

Shrike
03-25-2013, 06:46 PM
For my part, when I say "the administration", my intent is to include as many people as possible. Perhaps I should start adding "...and congress" but that's rather unwieldy.

That said, blame whoever and however many you wish. The Bush administration was in charge, and constitutionally in charge of military actions, so they are point man.

For some people it is about hating on Bush, or it's about proving how right they were to oppose the war. But at this point, what it SHOULD be about is how to prevent a repeat of history. Hate Bush or defend him, blame congress for signing off, blame Clinton, or defend them...that is all emotional baggage, primarily used by politicians and partisans to get us and keep us off track.

I don't know about you, but I would prefer we, as a country, not get into another war only to find out a decade later it was all a "big mistake" or "we had bad intel." I would like our government to be more hesitant to go to war, and give more careful consideration to the costs of war.
I agree 100%. I was against the Iraq War before it started, during it, and am still against it. What I disagree with is people trying to blame it all on Bush when prominent leaders from the Democratic Party were just as culpable.

Quixotic
03-25-2013, 06:46 PM
Bush's order? Try Congressional Public Law 107-243. (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/html/PLAW-107publ243.htm)

That's political cover, not a declaration of war.



John Kerry was beating the war drums just as hard. Why is he silent?

I'm not talking about Kerry.

If Bush was right, why is he silent?

Shrike
03-25-2013, 06:50 PM
That's political cover, not a declaration of war.




I'm not talking about Kerry.

If Bush was right, why is he silent?

Why are you asking me? Ask him. I thought he was a crappy president and I didn't agree with the Iraq war from the beginning.

thread_cop
03-25-2013, 06:54 PM
Why are you asking me? Ask him. I thought he was a crappy president and I didn't agree with the Iraq war from the beginning.

But why is he silent? Why, I ask you? That's the only part of this discussion that matters. That's what will fix all of our issues is Bush remaining silent no longer. That will get us on track. Why, 10 years later and 5 years after his presidency does he continue to remain silent?!!

JD2780
03-25-2013, 06:56 PM
But why is he silent? Why, I ask you? That's the only part of this discussion that matters. That's what will fix all of our issues is Bush remaining silent no longer. That will get us on track. Why, 10 years later and 5 years after his presidency does he continue to remain silent?!!

Because he sees no purpose being in the spot light again. He did for Haiti then went back to his own life. Nn

Quixotic
03-25-2013, 07:02 PM
Nobody denies the culpability of others for the 2003 Iraq mess.

The point of my question, "If all this [WMD] evidence exists, to prove Bush right, then why is he silent?" is aimed at those earlier in the thread who believe Bush was right, Iraq did have significant quantities of WMD, and an active WMD program.

Shrike
03-25-2013, 07:08 PM
I agree 100%. I was against the Iraq War before it started, during it, and am still against it. What I disagree with is people trying to blame it all on Bush when prominent leaders from the Democratic Party were just as culpable.

To add on to this, a few years ago all of the Democratic declarations against Sadaam - with not much in the way of actual military action except for DESERT FOX (the timing of which is quite suspect) - during Clinton's years led me to the conclusion that Democrats LOVED having Sadaam Hussein around. They loved it because they had a certified A-1 bad guy in a contained region with US forces above and below him who they could talk tough about. Any time someone said "Democrats are soft on defense" they could say "No way man, look at all this smack talking I did about that WMD-hoarding, Kurd-gassing tyrant Sadaam!" They got to seem like they were tough on defense while UN inspectors were on the ground and the only threat faced by US forces were the SAMs that were occasionally shot at our planes.

Shrike
03-25-2013, 07:10 PM
But why is he silent? Why, I ask you? That's the only part of this discussion that matters. That's what will fix all of our issues is Bush remaining silent no longer. That will get us on track. Why, 10 years later and 5 years after his presidency does he continue to remain silent?!!

Sequestration will end if Bush starts talking.

thread_cop
03-25-2013, 07:13 PM
Sequestration will end if Bush starts talking.

That's what I'm thinking. I'm amazed at how long the Dems (and RFD, not a Dem) can hold a grudge.

Robert F. Dorr
03-25-2013, 07:50 PM
That's what I'm thinking. I'm amazed at how long the Dems (and RFD, not a Dem) can hold a grudge.

Not sure what this means. My only grudge has never been mentioned in these Forums.

thread_cop
03-25-2013, 07:53 PM
Not sure what this means. My only grudge has never been mentioned in these Forums.

What that means is you state that everything went downhill starting 20 Jan 01. You still feel that way 12 years later. I'd call that a grudge.

braggeroni
03-25-2013, 08:55 PM
RFD,

It seems the facts do not support your claim, again. Please stop with the Democratic talking points and use Google before posting embarrassing comments.

http://www.stripes.com/news/middle-east/iraq/study-wind-blew-deadly-gas-to-us-troops-in-gulf-war-1.200742

No offense intended, but I have a hard time taking seriously any recommendation to use "Google" as a solid reference.

Also, the whole "WMD in Iraq was a lie" isn't a Democrat talking point... it's called the truth. Of course, truth and lies are interchangeable for most of my fellow Republicans :(

USMC0341
03-25-2013, 09:16 PM
No offense intended, but I have a hard time taking seriously any recommendation to use "Google" as a solid reference.

Also, the whole "WMD in Iraq was a lie" isn't a Democrat talking point... it's called the truth. Of course, truth and lies are interchangeable for most of my fellow Republicans :(


Ever hear of Google Scholar? Quite useful search feature for peer reviewed articles etc... Of course you have to click a couple times to find it, hence the reason you may think google is lackluster in the source credibility arena.

braggeroni
03-25-2013, 09:30 PM
Ever hear of Google Scholar? Quite useful search feature for peer reviewed articles etc... Of course you have to click a couple times to find it, hence the reason you may think google is lackluster in the source credibility arena.

Google is a search engine, not a news source. Instead of saying "check google", recommending a specific source would be more credible and appropriate. Same reason why people cite "information" on wikipedia (which is also not a credible source of information).

Shrike
03-25-2013, 09:37 PM
No offense intended, but I have a hard time taking seriously any recommendation to use "Google" as a solid reference.

Also, the whole "WMD in Iraq was a lie" isn't a Democrat talking point... it's called the truth. Of course, truth and lies are interchangeable for most of my fellow Republicans :(
Speaking of Democrats, WMDs, and lies:




"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 Bill 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 Bill 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:
-- Democratic Senators 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 th! e 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 seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. 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 always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (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."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without 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 is miscalculating America's response to his 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





I guess "Bush and a Bunch of Other People Including Numerous Prominent Democratic Party Leaders, a Former President, a Former Ambassador to the UN, and Former and Current Secretaries of State Lied, People Died" just doesn't fit as well on a bumper sticker.



.....

braggeroni
03-25-2013, 09:42 PM
Speaking of Democrats, WMDs, and lies:

You seemed to run out of room and didn't include any Republicans.... Let's try to be fair, shall we?

Shrike
03-25-2013, 10:21 PM
You seemed to run out of room and didn't include any Republicans.... Let's try to be fair, shall we?

I included Bush, the man who most ignorant people seem to solely blame for the Iraq mess.

efmbman
03-25-2013, 10:26 PM
You seemed to run out of room and didn't include any Republicans.... Let's try to be fair, shall we?


I included Bush, the man who most ignorant people seem to solely blame for the Iraq mess.

To be honest, anytime I think about the Iraq War I think first of Paul Wolfowitz.

Quixotic
03-25-2013, 10:27 PM
I farted this morning. It was right, even though it was silent.

So what did it have to say?

Quixotic
03-25-2013, 10:41 PM
I included Bush, the man who most ignorant people seem to solely blame for the Iraq mess.

If anyone here thinks Bush is solely to blame for the Iraq mess, please raise your hand and state your case.

USMC0341
03-25-2013, 10:42 PM
Google is a search engine, not a news source. Instead of saying "check google", recommending a specific source would be more credible and appropriate. Same reason why people cite "information" on wikipedia (which is also not a credible source of information).

Agree; however tiredretired said to utilize a google search, which would yield a source(s), some of which may prove credible.

USMC0341
03-25-2013, 10:58 PM
Speaking of Democrats, WMDs, and lies:




"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 Bill 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 Bill 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:
-- Democratic Senators 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 th! e 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 seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. 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 always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (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."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without 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 is miscalculating America's response to his 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





I guess "Bush and a Bunch of Other People Including Numerous Prominent Democratic Party Leaders, a Former President, a Former Ambassador to the UN, and Former and Current Secretaries of State Lied, People Died" just doesn't fit as well on a bumper sticker.



.....


Madeline Albright, Hilary and Pelosi...(((shiver)))

efmbman
03-25-2013, 11:04 PM
Speaking of Democrats, WMDs, and lies:




"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 Bill 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 Bill 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:
-- Democratic Senators 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 th! e 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 seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. 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 always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (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."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without 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 is miscalculating America's response to his 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





I guess "Bush and a Bunch of Other People Including Numerous Prominent Democratic Party Leaders, a Former President, a Former Ambassador to the UN, and Former and Current Secretaries of State Lied, People Died" just doesn't fit as well on a bumper sticker.



.....

Ummm... they got tricked into all those lies!!!

Or...

An older kid made them do it!!!

Shrike
03-25-2013, 11:46 PM
Madeline Albright, Hilary and Pelosi...(((shiver)))

You know you're thinking two simple words:



Table dance.


:puke

imported_CLSE
03-26-2013, 06:28 PM
Nobody denies the culpability of others for the 2003 Iraq mess.

The point of my question, "If all this [WMD] evidence exists, to prove Bush right, then why is he silent?" is aimed at those earlier in the thread who believe Bush was right, Iraq did have significant quantities of WMD, and an active WMD program.

Once again, Saddam had chemical weapons. It is a fact, it cannot be disputed.

What is in dispute is what happened to those chemical weapons.

Do you have the witnesses, documents, video, whatever, that we can use to determine without any doubt what happened to the chemical weapons that we know for a fact he had at one point?

If you can't prove to the world what happened to them, then stop staying Bush and everybody else lied.

If you have proof that he no longer had those chemical weapons and proof that we knew that for a fact prior to the start of the war, then produce it.

And I will remind you that us going into Iraq and not finding them is not proof that we knew prior to the start of the war.


As far as the war itself, please tell us what we should have done.

We had forces in Turkey and Kuwait that were operating non-stop in the no-fly zones.

We were burning people out with deployments, we couldn't get people to stay in the Air Force and we were beating the crap out of our equipment.

Oh, and we were enforcing a no-fly zone to keep Saddam from attacking the Shiites and Kurds, but only after we let him slaughter them after the Gulf War when they tried to start an insurrection that we told them we would support, then didn't and we did nothing to keep his ground forces from attacking them.

Sooner or later we had to pull the plug.

Option A: We just pull out. Saddam sends him army in to slaughter the remaining Kurds and Shiites and we would have been in the same situation that we are now in with Syria, expect we would get all the blmae because we left the Kurds and Shiites to be slaughtered.

Option B: We just keep on doing the no-fly zone thing and run our air force completely in to the ground.

Option C: We invade and clean up the mess that daddy Bush and Clinton left behind.

Which option would you have taken?

I will agree that the execution was completely f**ked, that POS Rumsfeld ought to be rotting in Leavensworth, him and his "just in time logistics" and "You fight with what you've got" version of running a war. There is a plenty of blame to go around and plenty of people who deserve it, but he deserves a special place in hell for his part in it.

SomeRandomGuy
03-26-2013, 07:12 PM
I will agree that the execution was completely f**ked, that POS Rumsfeld ought to be rotting in Leavensworth, him and his "just in time logistics" and "You fight with what you've got" version of running a war. There is a plenty of blame to go around and plenty of people who deserve it, but he deserves a special place in hell for his part in it.

Not disagreeing with most of what you said. The only problem is this last paragraph. If you remember correctly the plan was to flank Saddam from all sides. When Turkey backed out at the last second we had no option to invade from that border. Part of the reason our logistics were so screwed is because of Turkey. In hindsight though it is fair to wonder why it was necessary to act right away versus finding an alternate plan. We had Iraq contained at that point. Saddam was not really a threat to anyone besides his own people.


In hindsight it seems kind of like we had a 10 year hostage situation going on. Finally, someone made a decision to storm the place and kill the hostage taker even if it meant the hostages would die. The only problem is the execution sucked and we decided to stick around afterwards to hold the hostages even longer.

Quixotic
03-26-2013, 08:06 PM
Once again, Saddam had chemical weapons. It is a fact, it cannot be disputed.

He did at one point in time, but not in 2003, and that cannot be disputed.


What is in dispute is what happened to those chemical weapons.

Doesn't matter what happened to them, if he ever really had that much. There was no proof that he had any in 2003.


Do you have the witnesses, documents, video, whatever, that we can use to determine without any doubt what happened to the chemical weapons that we know for a fact he had at one point?

Do you have any of that to prove he had WMD in 2003, and was a legitimate threat to the West, and thus validate the reasoning behind the invasion?


If you can't prove to the world what happened to them, then stop staying Bush and everybody else lied.

Until they provide proof that he had them in 2003, and was a legitimate threat to the west, then the whole invasion was conducted under false pretenses and thus, a lie.


If you have proof that he no longer had those chemical weapons and proof that we knew that for a fact prior to the start of the war, then produce it.

Irrelevant. Proof he didn't have them is not required, proof that he did is? And still is.


And I will remind you that us going into Iraq and not finding them is not proof that we knew prior to the start of the war.

There was no proof he had any WMD, or was a threat to anybody, prior to the invasion, again, false pretenses.


As far as the war itself, please tell us what we should have done.

There was no threat, we should have changed nothing.


We had forces in Turkey and Kuwait that were operating non-stop in the no-fly zones.

Irrelevant, and not an excuse to fabricate a lie about WMD in order to invade.


We were burning people out with deployments, we couldn't get people to stay in the Air Force and we were beating the crap out of our equipment.

Sure, that's a perfectly legit reason to invade. My god, how did the AF support two wars for ten years when apparently Southern and Northern watch were beating the crap out of the AF?


Oh, and we were enforcing a no-fly zone to keep Saddam from attacking the Shiites and Kurds, but only after we let him slaughter them after the Gulf War when they tried to start an insurrection that we told them we would support, then didn't and we did nothing to keep his ground forces from attacking them.

The no-fly zone policy was and did work for its intended purpose right up until the invasion. And contrary to popular belief, the no-fly zone was not destroying our AF. LOL


Sooner or later we had to pull the plug.

The one thing you've said that I agree with.


Option A: We just pull out. Saddam sends him army in to slaughter the remaining Kurds and Shiites and we would have been in the same situation that we are now in with Syria, expect we would get all the blmae because we left the Kurds and Shiites to be slaughtered.

So, we should invade so we don't have to protect them with a no-fly zone that was working anymore...? LOL

Exactly what is "our" situation with Syria anyway, enlighten me.


Option B: We just keep on doing the no-fly zone thing and run our air force completely in to the ground.

Again, Southern and Northern watch were not going to destroy the AF. They were perfectly sustainable.


Option C: We invade and clean up the mess that daddy Bush and Clinton left behind.

Yes! Let's invade! What'll we use as an excuse? I know, let's scare everybody and say Sadam has WMD!


Which option would you have taken?

D. Leave it as is.

Invading Iraq was never about WMD, that was just the excuse. Invading Iraq was about capitalizing on peoples' post 9/11 fear of WMD, and terrorism in general, with the end goal of installing a democracy (or something close) on top of the second largest oil field in the Middle East, that was friendly to the West. Bush and crew were planning for it to be quick, painless, and with relatively few questions asked. If WMD was found, so much the better, if not, no one would really care in the end - if all went according to plan.

But then it got expensive, and people started asking questions...

Robert F. Dorr
03-26-2013, 08:20 PM
I included Bush, the man who most ignorant people seem to solely blame for the Iraq mess.

Along with most smart people.

imported_CLSE
03-26-2013, 08:29 PM
Not disagreeing with most of what you said. The only problem is this last paragraph. If you remember correctly the plan was to flank Saddam from all sides. When Turkey backed out at the last second we had no option to invade from that border. Part of the reason our logistics were so screwed is because of Turkey. In hindsight though it is fair to wonder why it was necessary to act right away versus finding an alternate plan. We had Iraq contained at that point. Saddam was not really a threat to anyone besides his own people.


In hindsight it seems kind of like we had a 10 year hostage situation going on. Finally, someone made a decision to storm the place and kill the hostage taker even if it meant the hostages would die. The only problem is the execution sucked and we decided to stick around afterwards to hold the hostages even longer.


The problem wasn't losing Turkey as a jumping off point, that threw a wrench in the plans, but it didn't cause a huge problem for us because the Kurds already largely controlled the northern part of the country.

The probelm was Rumsfeld's decision to blow off Shinseki.

Instead of sending the 500,000 troops that the professional soldiers said were needed to do the job properly, Rumsfeld fired Shinseki and said that we would send about one third that number and that if we needed more troops later, we could send them in.

The drive to Baghdad, in and of itself, was an awesome thing.

The problem was, without the other 300,000+ troops, it left long supply lines that were undefended and we didn't have the bodies to secure the ammunition depots.

Leaving long supply lines and leaving them undefended is a rookie screw-up that has plenty of historical examples of what can wrong when you do it.

We all know how leaving the ammunition depots wide open worked out for us.

Quixotic
03-26-2013, 09:27 PM
It's always better to elaborate, next time try addressing the issues please.

No elaboration necessary if you've been paying attention.

Quixotic
03-26-2013, 09:31 PM
The problem wasn't losing Turkey as a jumping off point, that threw a wrench in the plans, but it didn't cause a huge problem for us because the Kurds already largely controlled the northern part of the country.

The probelm was Rumsfeld's decision to blow off Shinseki.

Instead of sending the 500,000 troops that the professional soldiers said were needed to do the job properly, Rumsfeld fired Shinseki and said that we would send about one third that number and that if we needed more troops later, we could send them in.

The drive to Baghdad, in and of itself, was an awesome thing.

The problem was, without the other 300,000+ troops, it left long supply lines that were undefended and we didn't have the bodies to secure the ammunition depots.

Leaving long supply lines and leaving them undefended is a rookie screw-up that has plenty of historical examples of what can wrong when you do it.

We all know how leaving the ammunition depots wide open worked out for us.

Agreed, but Shinseki's 500,000 number was more about securing the country post invasion as well.

Quixotic
03-26-2013, 09:43 PM
Thank you for agreeing to not elaborate.

You're welcome.

Monkey
03-27-2013, 08:35 AM
Until they provide proof that he had them in 2003, and was a legitimate threat to the west, then the whole invasion was conducted under false pretenses and thus, a lie.

Maybe we have a different definition of "lying". I consider a "lie" to be intentional deception. I don't believe that Bush or anybody else who presented that Iraq had WMD was lying. I feel pretty certain they believed that they were telling the truth. They may have exaggerated, but the core of their presentation was sincere. In my mind, all of the people who promoted that Iraq had WMD were WRONG--they were not liars.

I would love to know what evidence you have to show that you know what Bush's intent was. If you don't have proof of his intent to decieve, then you might want to consult a dictionary for a more accurate label.

Quixotic
03-27-2013, 05:19 PM
[QUOTE]Maybe we have a different definition of "lying". I consider a "lie" to be intentional deception.

Yes, we clearly have a different definition of what lying includes.


I don't believe that Bush or anybody else who presented that Iraq had WMD was lying.

So saying Iraq had WMD, when they had absolutely nothing to back it up, isn't a lie?


I feel pretty certain they believed that they were telling the truth. They may have exaggerated, but the core of their presentation was sincere. In my mind, all of the people who promoted that Iraq had WMD were WRONG--they were not liars.

LOL


I would love to know what evidence you have to show that you know what Bush's intent was. If you don't have proof of his intent to decieve, then you might want to consult a dictionary for a more accurate label.

His intent is no secret.

I suggest you reference a history book.

JD2780
03-27-2013, 05:51 PM
[QUOTE=Monkey;615691]

Yes, we clearly have a different definition of what lying includes.



So saying Iraq had WMD, when they had absolutely nothing to back it up, isn't a lie?



LOL



His intent is no secret.

I suggest you reference a history book.

I don't think he knowingly lied. I think he had shady folks working with him and had crappy intel.

Monkey
03-28-2013, 06:38 AM
[QUOTE=Monkey;615691]
Yes, we clearly have a different definition of what lying includes.


I use the dictionary for my definitions. What do you use? MSNBC?

Quixotic
03-28-2013, 11:59 PM
[QUOTE=Quixotic;615781]

I use the dictionary for my definitions. What do you use? MSNBC?

Yes, I use MSNBC for my definitions.

Yes, I'm sure you're well versed in the dictionary.

Anything else?

Robert F. Dorr
03-29-2013, 12:09 AM
[QUOTE=Quixotic;615781]

I don't think he knowingly lied. I think he had shady folks working with him and had crappy intel.

It was not a mistake. It was a lie. Bush lied. Powell lied. Powell stood up there at the United Nations knowing full well that what he was describing was a fabrication. I have very reliable sources on this.

RobotChicken
03-29-2013, 12:14 AM
[QUOTE=JD2780;615789]

It was not a mistake. It was a lie. Bush lied. Powell lied. Powell stood up there at the United Nations knowing full well that what he was describing was a fabrication. I have very reliable sources on this.

:deadhorse Then it's settled!! RFD said it!! :focus

imnohero
03-29-2013, 01:39 AM
[QUOTE=JD2780;615789]

It was not a mistake. It was a lie. Bush lied. Powell lied. Powell stood up there at the United Nations knowing full well that what he was describing was a fabrication. I have very reliable sources on this.

Then share the name of your source, so we can decide for ourselves. And don't give me any of the "protecting sources" crap, because as you have said repeatedly, you are not a journalist.

Robert F. Dorr
03-29-2013, 01:51 AM
[QUOTE=Robert F. Dorr;616076]

Then share the name of your source, so we can decide for ourselves. And don't give me any of the "protecting sources" crap, because as you have said repeatedly, you are not a journalist.

I can't share with you the names of people who spoke to me based on my assurance that I wouldn't. Besides, you've made up your mind not to believe it anyway. Okay, then. Don't believe it. Believe instead that rather than being a lie it was, instead, a mistake. If that were so, would there be any other example in history of such extraordinary incompetence?

imnohero
03-29-2013, 02:22 AM
[QUOTE=imnohero;616091]

I can't share with you the names of people who spoke to me based on my assurance that I wouldn't. Besides, you've made up your mind not to believe it anyway. Okay, then. Don't believe it. Believe instead that rather than being a lie it was, instead, a mistake. If that were so, would there be any other example in history of such extraordinary incompetence?

I don't disbelieve IT, I disbelieve YOU. Those are completely different things. You claim that Powell knew he lied during the UN speech. You say this claim is based on a reliable source. If you won't reveal the source, then my judgement of the relevance and truth of your claim is based on my opinion of you. If I have to choose between believing Powell or believing you, I'll take him any day.

Go read some history if you want to know the extent incompetence of the powerful. Start with an in depth review of the diplomacy leading up to WW1. History is replete with worse examples of incompetence than the Bush administration.

But the choices are more nuanced than a) lie or b) incompetence. But you don't go in for nuance, so I'll just skip that part.

JD2780
03-29-2013, 01:16 PM
[QUOTE=Robert F. Dorr;616076]

Then share the name of your source, so we can decide for ourselves. And don't give me any of the "protecting sources" crap, because as you have said repeatedly, you are not a journalist.

For the record this is actually RFDs qoute

CYBERFX1024
03-29-2013, 02:33 PM
[QUOTE=imnohero;616091]

I can't share with you the names of people who spoke to me based on my assurance that I wouldn't. Besides, you've made up your mind not to believe it anyway. Okay, then. Don't believe it. Believe instead that rather than being a lie it was, instead, a mistake. If that were so, would there be any other example in history of such extraordinary incompetence?


Well I can tell you from FIRST HAND EXPERIENCE that we did find chemical weapons in Iraq. Just not in amount that we thought would be there. We found the weapons and they were VERIFIED as Sarin Gas from NBC Marines that were with our unit at the time.

TJMAC77SP
03-29-2013, 02:58 PM
I can't share with you the names of people who spoke to me based on my assurance that I wouldn't. Besides, you've made up your mind not to believe it anyway. Okay, then. Don't believe it. Believe instead that rather than being a lie it was, instead, a mistake. If that were so, would there be any other example in history of such extraordinary incompetence?

Bob, even you HAVE to understand reluctance in blindly accepting your assertions of 'very reliable sources' in accepting something as fact that hasn't been proven by the thousands of declassified documents. I understand that you truly believe this but that is suspect as it fits your personal agenda. Otherwise we have to start believing Rush's diatribes because I think he truly believes them.

Pullinteeth
03-29-2013, 04:12 PM
Gee, I don't know, maybe because he was the President, and it was his order? I'm just guessing.

Oh the irony.... First off, it wasn't his order alone, Congress passed the bill...there were a LOT of "ayes' on that one... Secondly, there are those (RFD?) that give the current President a free pass and blame the Republicans in Congress for EVERYTHING because that fits his agenda... You? You give Congress a free pass on this one and blame...the Republican that was in the White House for everything...


He did at one point in time, but not in 2003, and that cannot be disputed.

Doesn't matter what happened to them, if he ever really had that much. There was no proof that he had any in 2003.

Do you have any of that to prove he had WMD in 2003, and was a legitimate threat to the West, and thus validate the reasoning behind the invasion?

There was no proof he had any WMD, or was a threat to anybody, prior to the invasion, again, false pretenses.

Yes! Let's invade! What'll we use as an excuse? I know, let's scare everybody and say Sadam has WMD!

Invading Iraq was never about WMD, that was just the excuse. Invading Iraq was about capitalizing on peoples' post 9/11 fear of WMD, and terrorism in general, with the end goal of installing a democracy (or something close) on top of the second largest oil field in the Middle East, that was friendly to the West. Bush and crew were planning for it to be quick, painless, and with relatively few questions asked. If WMD was found, so much the better, if not, no one would really care in the end - if all went according to plan.

Ha ha ha...you can't even maintain a stance through two sentences... If you would stick to the whole "no AQ connection" side of the argument, you might be able to do a better job. Since there is ample proof that he indeed had WMDs.... You can't even keep your story straight-it can't be disputed he didn't have them, you can't prove he had them in '03, if he had them in '03 he didn't have enough (how much is enough BTW?)...blah, blah, blah....

JD2780
03-29-2013, 05:11 PM
[QUOTE=Robert F. Dorr;616094]


Well I can tell you from FIRST HAND EXPERIENCE that we did find chemical weapons in Iraq. Just not in amount that we thought would be there. We found the weapons and they were VERIFIED as Sarin Gas from NBC Marines that were with our unit at the time.

My BN found blister agents. Small amounts. Just enough to trip the alarm on vehicle

tiredretiredE7
03-29-2013, 07:36 PM
[QUOTE=Robert F. Dorr;616076]

:deadhorse Then it's settled!! RFD said it!! :focus

Wait RFD is never wrong. Remember he said the sequester would never happen? Oh, wait the sequester did happen.

Quixotic
03-29-2013, 08:24 PM
Oh the irony.... First off, it wasn't his order alone, Congress passed the bill...there were a LOT of "ayes' on that one... Secondly, there are those (RFD?) that give the current President a free pass and blame the Republicans in Congress for EVERYTHING because that fits his agenda... You? You give Congress a free pass on this one and blame...the Republican that was in the White House for everything...

Yes, Congress passed a bill for no other reason than to have political cover, Duuuuu. Who gave Sadam and his sons 48hrs to get out of town? Who ordered American forces into Iraq...? I'm just wondering exactly who you thought that was?

I don't care about RFDs agenda.

I never gave Congress a free pass on anything.

I never blamed Bush for everything.

Next time, pay attention to what you're actually responding too, and maybe then people might do a little more than laugh at your silly generalities.


Ha ha ha...you can't even maintain a stance through two sentences... If you would stick to the whole "no AQ connection" side of the argument, you might be able to do a better job. Since there is ample proof that he indeed had WMDs.... You can't even keep your story straight-it can't be disputed he didn't have them, you can't prove he had them in '03, if he had them in '03 he didn't have enough (how much is enough BTW?)...blah, blah, blah....

My position (stance as you call it) is unchanged throughout my post, again, try to pay more attention to what you are responding to.

Again, there is no proof that he had WMDs, of any significant quantity, in 2003.

Why would I want to prove he had them in '03? Again, try to pay more attention to what you're responding too, and you might, someday, make sense.

Tell me, if Bush was right, if all this evidence exists to prove him right, then why is he silent?

Banned
03-31-2013, 12:40 AM
Ha ha ha...you can't even maintain a stance through two sentences... If you would stick to the whole "no AQ connection" side of the argument, you might be able to do a better job. Since there is ample proof that he indeed had WMDs.... You can't even keep your story straight-it can't be disputed he didn't have them, you can't prove he had them in '03, if he had them in '03 he didn't have enough (how much is enough BTW?)...blah, blah, blah....

I take it reading comprehension isn't your strong point?