Tell that to the families of the 1064 troops that have died in Iraq. There is nothing to show they are worse off alright, because the administration feels that flag drapped coffins are a bummer. Also, tell that to the 10,000 or so other GI who have come home maimed, or suffering from Post traumatic stress syndrome. The hidden cost of the war.There is certainly enough evidence there to justify our cause of action and there is nothing to show that we are worse off for taking Saddam out of power.
Tell that to the 13,000-20,000 Iraqs who have lost their lives and the 100,000's of others who have lost their businesses, their personal belongings, their homes, their limbs and their families thanks to this war if there is nothing to show that things are worse off.
There are three major players that things aren't worse off for in Iraq though. Al-Queda, the Baathists, and Iran.
Last edited by Nbadan; 10-10-2004 at 02:30 AM.
So your taking the word of one CIA opp over the word of the U.S. Energy Department, who examined the tubes and said they were probably for conventional rockets, and you expect people to seriously go on this delusional ride with you?When our CIA opp who has the most experience with centrifuges says those tubes have the capability to be used for that purpose.
That's right, blame Clinton. If he hadn't been distracted defending himself from a multi-million dollar witch hunt maybe he and the Republican majority Congress and Senate could have gotten something done about terrorism.Blame Clinton, he let our intelligence deteriorate to the level where we had to act on sparse intelligence. Blame Kerry, he sat on the Sentate Intelligence committee every year of Clinton's presidency and did nothing more than cut the budget.
Blame Clinton for not taking Osama when he had the chance.
The real blame lies with Reagan. It was his policies that set the tone for the C.I.A. to rely to heavily on spy technology, especially a preference for spy satelites as opposed to the proven spy method of human intelligence. We were spending so much money to fund Reagan's Star War programs that covert human intelligence which would be needed to fight this new kind of war, was severly underfunded.
He also said it's possible for them to be used as centrifuges...since when does "probably" cons ute a conclusion?
We've got 1 guy, our top CIA expert, who says they can definitely be used for that purpose...and no other expert contradicted that it was possile for them to be use for that purpose...only that it was unlikely.
It was also unlikely, that 19 unarmed men were going knock down the world trade center and damage the pentagon.
At worst the US erred(or were trigger happy if you like) on the side of caution.
Remember..at the end of the Persian Gulf War...Saddam's nuclear programs were far more advanved than our intelligence indicated. Saddam himself was trying to give the illusion he had WMD.
Experts say it's possible....Saddam won't let the weapons inspectors in to his country...
There's only one conclusion that can be drawn there if you are truly on guard to keep terrorists from getting their hands on Nuclear Materials.
Witch hunt how? He was getting blown in the Oval Office(and I never blamed him for that by the way, I agree it was politically motivated, but not near as damaging to the country as what the crats are doing against Bush now).
He started cutting intelligence before that happened, and Star Wars killed the Soviet Union...
Saddam would have been a pretty good distraction on the American public from Monica...
Last edited by whottt; 10-10-2004 at 07:48 AM.
You, being a liberal, ought to love being hijacked. Never happy. And 99% of Icemancometh's threads need to be hijacked just on general principle. Icemancometh needs to be hijacked.
By the way, I don't really watch Fox news religiously, only when CNN or MSNBC have brought on excessive feelings of depression and negativity. My favorite anchor is on CNN.
It's good enough for you now, because you are totally owned by the left and don't even question them...The U.S. Energy Department said it was highly unlikely and that's good enough for me.
If the US Energy Dept turned out to be wrong it wouldn't have been good enough for you, I am certain...It would have been just another example of the corruption of the Bush administration to you.
Dan do you ever read the articles you post to justify your point?
So there you have it...by Kerry's own defenders."I have been to Paris. I have talked with both delegations at the peace talks, that is to say the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Provisional Revolutionary Government," Kerry told the committee, referring to the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong delegations by their formal names.
At the time of the trip, Kerry was a 26-year-old antiwar activist who had just been separated from active duty in the Navy as a decorated lieutenant.
Kerry, a leader in the group Vietnam Veterans Against the War, told the committee he wanted elected officials, including President Nixon, to declare a cease-fire and set a date for a U.S. troop withdrawal.
Kerry said the North Vietnamese representatives indicated that "if the United States were to set a date for withdrawal, the [U.S.] prisoners of war would be returned."
The chairman of the committee, Democratic Sen. J. William Fulbright of Arkansas, told Kerry that Congress had "no capacity ... to go out and negotiate a cease-fire. We have to persuade the executive [the president] to do this for the country."
Kerry, the son of a career Foreign Service officer, replied that he understood.
"I realize that even my visits in Paris -- precedents had been set by Senator [Eugene] McCarthy and others [who had visited Paris] -- in a sense are on the borderline of private individuals negotiating," Kerry said.
Kerry was a private citizen, it is against the laws of the US for a private citizen to negotiate a peace settlement or cease fire.
It is not the same thing as a US Senator doing so...It is not as Kerry claims " Senator McCarthy and others in a sense are on the borderline of private individuals negotiating"...
One is a US Senator and not a private citizen, the other is a private citizen. Get the difference? US Senator...not a private citizen. Traitorous Anti War Activist...private citizen.
Why is Kerry so proud of his role in us losing that war, of rendering meaningless, the deaths of all the men who died in that war, and leaving millions of VeitNamese to be crushed by brutal communist regime? What is there to be proud of? That every soldier who died in Veit Nam died for nothing?
And just so we are clear on this:
Senator McCarthy, not a private citizen. John Kerry, private citizen.U.S. law forbids private citizens from negotiating with foreign governments on matters such as peace treaties.
A bald faced lie...Peace movement
Kerry has told biographers and reporters that his 1970 trip to Paris was a fact-finding mission to the protracted and often stalemated peace talks.
Look at what was said earlier in this article:
That is called negotiating a peace settlement or cease fire.Kerry said the North Vietnamese representatives indicated that "if the United States were to set a date for withdrawal, the [U.S.] prisoners of war would be returned."
Right, it is clearly illegal to do that. It is not the same as a US Senator doing it. And I disagree there is no record of what he did at that meeting...he came back with terms for peace and conditions under which the POW's would be returned.John O'Neil, a longtime critic of Kerry's antiwar activities and one of the founders of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, defended the latest ad.
"There is no record of what he did at the meeting. He met with the chief negotiators for the enemy. He had no right to do that as a private citizen. He had no right to do it as a naval officer," O'Neil said.
Basically, if we agree to lose the war we can have Peace. Thank you Senator Kerry.
You bring up the deaths of all the soldiers who have died in this war...That's part of the risk of the job when you serve in the US millitary. Don't do it if you aren't willing to make that sacrifice. And pulling out of Iraq and letting it turn into another Afghanistan...leaving it to the terrorists, renders meaningless the death of every solider who has died in this conflict.
And don't say Kerry won't leave Iraq to the terriorists...he left VietNam to the communists, and he's proud of it.
LMAO, you honestly think the Baathists aren't about to recieve a royal butt ing? Hide and watch...there's a reason they are fighting.
Iran is not better off...they have our millitary on both sides of their ass. Why the do you think they are trying to get nukes so fast? They see the writing on the wall...Nukes won't save them.
If they want to Nuke us they're gonna have to Nuke, Iraq and Afghanistan and Nuke their own Seas...Or Europe.
I don't think the rest of middle east or Europe is going to support that idea very much, regardless of what we do. And there's nothing those countries can do about our millitary either.
I like Canada...but you can bet if they wanted to nuke Mexico I'm going to have a personal problem with it...and I imagine you will too. Iran is neutralized.
And Al-Queda is on the run.
Last edited by whottt; 10-10-2004 at 10:35 AM.
Bush should be held responsible for relying on faulty intelligence... But I don't see how that is accomplished by electing a challenger who admittedly would have followed the same evidence.
I'm also waiting for the first Democrat to criticise Rather the same way they have Bush. Hypocracy goes both ways among party homers.
Even Condolezza Rice admitted that the tubes were more than likely for conventional rockets, before she flip-flopped and said that they could have been used for uranium enrichment.If the US Energy Dept turned out to be wrong it wouldn't have been good enough for you, I am certain...It would have been just another example of the corruption of the Bush administration to you.
Your whole line of reasoning falls apart if you don't accept that Kerry was there to negotiate any peace settlement or cease fire with the North Vietnamese as you claim, but instead was there for as he said himself, a fact finding mission. These meetings were meaningless. The activist would try and secure the release of or accounting of GI's missing in action, and the North Vietnamese would sit around and spout propaganda. Nothing was ever negotiated. No peace settlements were ever exclusively offered to the Activists war veterans by the North Vietnamese. The release of prisoners by the North was always conditioned by the withdrawl of U.S. forces from Vietnam. There was simply nothing new there.Kerry was a private citizen, it is against the laws of the US for a private citizen to negotiate a peace settlement or cease fire.
Kerry has always believed that the President rushed to war needlessly without building a Coalition of the Actually-Representated Willing regardless of the type of intelligence W had at the time he decided to invade Iraq. Kerry believes that W didn't try and use enough diplomacy to win influence over the U.N., and with parts of Europe that were resistant to rush to war against Iraq.Bush should be held responsible for relying on faulty intelligence... But I don't see how that is accomplished by electing a challenger who admittedly would have followed the same evidence.
I didn't know there was such a thing as republican logic.
Well, you learn something new every day, don't'cha?
Logically speaking, yes.
Okay, Spock.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
