Reply With Quote
Oh, at least it's consistent.
Those "lies" (if you want to believe that they are lies) were perpetuated by both candidates, yet you're willing to support Kerry, but not forgive Bush?
Umm... alrighty then...
Oh, at least it's consistent.
ABB. BushCo. Little Green Men. No War for Oil. Halliburton. Neocon. Unocal.
The truth is out there!
Actually...Kerry had the same intel made up by the faulty declining intelligence appointed by Clinton and of the commitee of which he spent the entire Clinton administation as a member. Of which his running mate is now a member. Even if what you say is true...Both of the current Democratic nominess were doing a ty job of keeping on top of the intelligence commitee...I wonder who it was.Yes, Kerry had the same intel that the administation made up.
If the Bush administration is so slick they can fake intelligence and get people to commit suicide so they can get some oil..
ing a, I'd still rather have them running the whitehouse as they seem to have the world mastered, and to think they were able to set all this up during an 8 year democratic administration.
You are right....Bush and co just should have taken a take it or leave it approach like they did with 911. Then you would approve right?Overall, I don't think either Bush or Kerry has a very good grip on the truth, but if BushCo did not lie about the rationales for this war, it was the next thing closest to it. Those lies (or whatever euphemism you want to call it), I cannot forgive.
Why couldn't the Bush administration come up with some fake WMD finds in Iraq? After all, if they are capable of creating "fake intelligence" why stop there? Why not plant some evidence, eh?
Nevermind what the Clinton administration and every other intel agency thought about Iraq's WMD programs.
BushCo is evil. Yeah. That's all that matters.
Last edited by Marcus Bryant; 10-08-2004 at 02:31 PM.
Have you stopped to think that maybe you feel safe now, even after 9/11, because of what this administration did in the wake of that horrible day?
No it hasn't. I felt safe before 9/11.
Has it ever occured to you that you have lost to fear?
Ok, you don't know me at all.
No fear, but I do have some serious concern about how this nation deals with its national security ever since I saw close to 3,000 people murdered on US soil live.
If the worst that can be said is that the current president made a responsible decision and erred on the side of caution, well I'll take that over waiting to be hit again just so we are unequivocally "justified" in our actions.
Sorry Samauri Jane...that damn Mr. Myagi pops into me head sometimes.
I understand all your concerns about national security, I'm just not buying into the "only Bush can protect us" mentality.
Joe,
If it was Lieberman who was running, then yes. If it was any Democrat who was willing to stand by how they viewed Hussein prior to this election and their view that he had to be removed and not go back and forth like Kerry has then yes, I would not be that concerned.
The notion that Hussein had WMDs and had WMD capability and desires is not a new one. The Clinton administration certainly believed it and they also were concerned about links between Hussein and Islamist terrorists.
The Democrats got themselves into this bind due to their mass hysteria about Bush over the last 18 months. If not for that, Kerry would not have had to change from his original support of the invasion to an anti-war position and then back to being pro-war and then anti-war, etc...
He'd look a lot better to a lot of people now if he hadn't had to please the extremists in his party.
kerry hasnt changed his position on iraq. even cheneys favorite, factcheck.org, has repeatedly debunked the kerry/iraq flip-flopping theme.If not for that, Kerry would not have had to change from his original support of the invasion to an anti-war position and then back to being pro-war and then anti-war, etc
He has clearly changed positions on the Iraq invasion when needed.
no he hasnt...thats why the website is called FACTcheck...the FACTS show kerry hasnt flip-flopped about iraq, but republicans love to edit and splice out his sentences and create nice little soundbytes to make it seem that way
Bush got them into this bind due to his mass hysteria about Iraq, which if I'm not mistaken Rumsfeld stated on Monday that he did not see any link between Saddam and Al-Queda, over the past 36 months.
Hindsight is 20/20 but it also cannot be ignored.
Rumsfeld said he saw no "hard" link. The Clinton administration certainly saw some, per the 9/11 Commission report.
Why shouldn't we have been concerned about Iraq, post-9/11? Would you prefer that we did not assume a more aggressive posture and deal with problems in that region?
It was the right decision.
Kerry has not had a consistent position on Iraq. The er is on record as calling the invasion a "mistake" and also the "right" thing to do.
I suppose that passes for consistency nowadays.
Here you go, Joe:
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200410070845.asp
October 07, 2004, 8:45 a.m.
Can Bush say, “Boogie to Baghdad”?
What the president should say about Iraq and al Qaeda.
Byron York
National Review
EDITOR'S NOTE: This column also appears today in The Hill newspaper.
Before this debating season is over, would someone please, please utter the words "boogie to Baghdad?"
You remember the phrase. It was written by Richard Clarke, the White House counterterrorism chief who in 1999 was so worried about the chumminess of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein that he believed bin Laden, if attacked by the United States at his lair in Afghanistan, would "boogie" on over to the Iraqi capital for protection.
We learned of Clarke's concerns in perhaps the most-ignored passages of the September 11 Commission report — those dealing with the very Saddam/al Qaeda connection that is being so vigorously denied by John Kerry and John Edwards.
"In fact, Saddam Hussein has little or no connection with al Qaeda," Edwards said Tuesday night during his debate with Vice President Cheney. "What the vice president is telling people is inconsistent with everything that we see every single day. It's a continuation of 'Well, there's a strong connection between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.' It's not true."
In the first presidential debate, Kerry said flatly there was "no connection" between al Qaeda and Hussein.
But if that is true, please explain the friendly relationship between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein outlined in the September 11 Commission report.
The report says bin Laden, who had arrived in Afghanistan after leaving Sudan in 1996, worried that he might not get along with his new Taliban hosts.
And indeed, by 1997, the report says, the two were at odds.
The tension became so great that bin Laden began looking for a place to go in case he had to leave Afghanistan.
And the place to go was...Iraq.
"There is...evidence that around this time bin Laden sent out a number of feelers to the Iraqi regime, offering some cooperation," the report says.
But Saddam wasn't interested. He was trying to get along better with the Saudis and thus chose to stay away from bin Laden.
By the next year, however, things had changed.
In 1998, Saddam was under mounting pressure from the United States. He forgot about the Saudis and opened up to bin Laden.
According to the report, "In March, 1998, after bin Laden's public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with bin Laden."
The report cited intelligence that "one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through bin Laden's Egyptian deputy, [Ayman al] Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis."
As a result of those meetings, and more in 1999, the report says Saddam "offered bin Laden a safe haven in Iraq."
But Bin Laden decided to stay in Afghanistan, where he was getting along better with the Taliban.
And that's where "boogie to Baghdad" came in.
In February 1999, according to the report, the CIA wanted to conduct U-2 surveillance missions over bin Laden's camps in Afghanistan.
But Clarke worried that doing so might scare bin Laden into leaving the country — and going to Iraq.
If that happened, the report says, Clarke feared that bin Laden's "entire network would be at Saddam Hussein's service," and the U.S. would never be able to find him.
So Clarke wrote an e-mail to then-national-security adviser Sandy Berger, saying that if bin Laden learned about the U-2 missions, then, "armed with that knowledge, old wily Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad."
The report says another Clinton National Security Council aide also warned that "Saddam Hussein wanted bin Laden in Baghdad."
Now, do you still believe there was "no connection" between Saddam and bin Laden?
It should be said that the report says September 11 Commission investigators found no evidence that the contacts "ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship" — emphasis on the word operational — and no evidence "indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States."
Saddam was not responsible for September 11.
But where do Kerry and Edwards get the idea that there was no connection between Saddam and al Qaeda?
Perhaps from the press, which months ago, based on early, incomplete drafts of portions of the September 11 Commission report, confidently proclaimed that "Al Qaeda-Hussein Link is Dismissed" (Washington Post) and "Panel Finds No Qaeda-Iraq Tie" (New York Times).
Most accounts specifically attacked Cheney's statements on the Iraq-al Qaeda connection.
The anti-Cheney slant puzzled even some Democrats on the commission. "The vice president is saying, I think, that there were connections between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's government," Democratic vice-chairman Lee Hamilton told reporters. "We don't disagree with that."
That's because it is true.
So in the next debate, when John Kerry starts his "no connection" riff, just remember: Boogie to Baghdad.
Have you noticed that Bush has changed his reasons for invading Iraq.
First it was Iraq's link to 9/11.
Then it was WMD.
Then it was the imminent threat.
Then is was because he is a ruthless dictator.
Then it was because the world is safer.
Then it was....
It was that Hussein had failed to comply with the weapons inspections as part of the original Gulf War armistice and yes, the existence of WMDs, as well as Hussein's demonstrated desire to obtain WMDs and prior use of them.
We didn't know what he had with full accuracy because, again, he failed to provide verification that had, indeed, ended his WMD programs and destroyed the weapons.
Pretty clear.
Why do you some of you have to refer to Kerry as "pussy" and " er"?
That alone is reason to:
And you all can spin the facts all you want.
The words came out of Rumsfeld's mouth.
Even Bush has acknowledged that the intelligence was wrong, which I give him credit for.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
