Reply With Quote
It's the same game-plan all over again...except this time it could be WW3, and what kind of story does this make for the en M$M? Somewhere between Hitlary getting kick-backs from Chinese and Paris Hilton getting frozen....are you en kidding me?
It'd be fair to say all the House and Senate committees and subcommittees remotely related to intelligence, foreign affairs, or the military had as up to date intelligence as the president. What were the Democratic members of those committees saying contemporaneously to the quotes you posted?
Well, the Church committee and Clinton's emasculating of the intelligence infrastructure, during his term, made it rather difficult to get human intel from inside the regime.
No, it wouldn't be fair. Relevant committees had access to the same intelligence and information as did the president.
That special subcommittee, demanded by Congressional Democrats, already determined the administration neither cherry-picked nor skewed the intelligence presented to Congress. There have been no serious allegations the administration withheld pre-war intelligence.
I seriously doubt that. But, it is fair to say there is a huge intelligence stream and it all needs to be analyzed, classified, and qualified. But, again, the [sorry, the name escapes me at the moment] Congressional committee empaneled to find out if the Bush administration misled Congress found that it had not. What they did find out, however, is that Joe Wilson was a lying s bag.
There's no evidence he withheld anything material to the AUMF in Iraq.
It's the same game-plan all over again...except this time it could be WW3, and what kind of story does this make for the en M$M? Somewhere between Hitlary getting kick-backs from Chinese and Paris Hilton getting frozen....are you en kidding me?
And, if you're glad, let's have 'em.
No you dumb , it isn't the same game plan. There
was no game plan in the first instance.
If you think there was, pick up you damn telephone,
get on your damn pc, dial up the old fax and tell you dumb
representative not to be "tricked" this time. See how
simple it is. Better yet, take out an ad in the E-N, write
letters to E-N and tell them how we were tricked before
by a dumbass cowboy and and idiot that shoots his
friends. Come on dan, get on the stick and get it done.
You still got time.............you still got time...........
No, you and the rest of you "We were tricked" bunch
will just sit on your ass and be tricked again. Damn
you are so easy. Bush and Cheney should send Condi
down here to give you a kiss. He screwed you so
bad. were you always that easy. No wonder you
loved Clinton.
Back to reality...Iran is firing up the war rhetoric too...
LinkIran warned on Saturday it would fire off 11,000 rockets at enemy bases within the space of a minute if the United States launched military action against the Islamic republic.
"In the first minute of an invasion by the enemy, 11,000 rockets and cannons would be fired at enemy bases," said a brigadier general in the elite Revolutionary Guards, Mahmoud Chaharbaghi.
"This volume and speed of firing would continue," added Chaharbaghi, who is commander of artillery and missiles of the Guards' ground forces, according to the semi-official Fars news agency.
The United States has never ruled out attacking Iran to end its defiance over the controversial Iranian nuclear programme, which the US alleges is aimed at making nuclear weapons but Iran insists is entirely peaceful. Iran has for its part vowed never to initiate an attack but has also warned of a crushing response to any act of aggression against its soil.
How about the rest of the world? Powell went to the U.N. with all his evidence. I still remember the televised session. Not to mention that all those countries have intelligence agencies on their own. The outcome of that was that there was not enough evidence to support an U.N. sponsored action against Iraq.
Not that Dubya ever cared what others had to say... he already had his mind set.
With Russia, Germany, China, and France promising to veto any UNSC action against Iraq, there never would have been enough evidence "to support an U.N. sponsored action against Iraq," whatever you mean by that.
The U.N. is a political organization not a court of law making determinations based on evidence. Finding out that France was selling night vision goggles to Iraq, in the lead up to the war and that Russia was feeding them our war plans; and that Germany, and the U.N. Secretary General's office and, yes, France again, were up to their ears in the Oil-for-Food scandal is probably why there never would have been "enough evidence."
Thank God he didn't apply Kerry's "global test."
Many countries do deals with many other countries. Heck, the US was in bed with Saddam many moons ago. But I guess there are some things that need to be conveniently forgotten when trying to defend the indefensible.
About why the rest of the world probably thought the evidence was bogus:
On 8 November 2002, the U.N. Security Council passed Resolution 1441, giving Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" including unrestricted inspections by the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Saddam Hussein accepted the resolution on 13 November and inspectors returned to Iraq under the direction of UNMOVIC chairman Hans Blix and IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei. Between that time and the time of the invasion, the IAEA "found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons programme in Iraq"; the IAEA concluded that certain items which could have been used in nuclear enrichment centrifuges, such as aluminum tubes, were in fact intended for other uses.[28] UNMOVIC "did not find evidence of the continuation or resumption of programmes of weapons of mass destruction" or significant quan ies of proscribed items.
link
Sorry, I quoted from Wikipedia... is that considered a liberal site?
I don't care what source you use.
The fallacy of your argument is that the IAEA had been out of Iraq since 1998. That's five years for Saddam to conceal, move, hide, dismantle, and frustrate any attempts to find his WMD programs if and when the IAEA was allowed back in.
Frankly, that you find the IAEA's inability to find any weapons in six months --after being unable to do so for 7 years from '91 to '98, particularly after Iraq had five years '98 - '03 to get creative -- is kind of funny.
Post invasion, we've found nuclear plans and hardware buried in a backyard. What's to say there aren't a couple hundred other backyards to be discovered?
Quote whoever you want, no one knows what Saddam Hussein did between the no-fly zones between 1998 and 2003.
You mean we didn't ask Saddam?Quote whoever you want, no one knows what Saddam Hussein did between the no-fly zones between 1998 and 2003.
Blah...WMDs have a very limited shelf-life, and we found no evidence that Saddam was mass producing precursors to further any WMD development...fact is, when the IAEA did go back into Iraq, they were only given a short time to do their work not by Saddam, who was cooperating by then, but by the Dubya administration which was bent on war with Iraq with or with any evidence from the IAEA....so I find your argument supporting the IAEA inspectors work in Iraq disingenuous...The fallacy of your argument is that the IAEA had been out of Iraq since 1998. That's five years for Saddam to conceal, move, hide, dismantle, and frustrate any attempts to find his WMD programs if and when the IAEA was allowed back in.
world war three
be all that you can be
Fortunately for the world, it's not what you find that's important.
dubya and head didn't give a about WMD, Saddam, or the Iraqis much easier plight under Saddam compared to the current dubya destruction of Iraq.
All the dubya/ head justifications for the Iraq invasion AND UNLIMITED OCCUPATION (no exit strategy) were bull pretexts for the oil grab, including timing the invasion 8 months before the Nov 03 elections to propagandize dubya as a war president (he barely won anyway).
Arguing WMD is a right-wing distraction from the oil-grab reality.
it, lets burn this mother er down. Iran gets the bomb, we invade, war, strife, pain, death and disease. We'll make a movie, it'll be great.
Im bored, why not?
The did but, that argument's been had ad naseum a couple of dozen times in this forum.
Do you really want to repeat it again?
Well, at least you're on board.
Quite honestly, Im for anything that furthers the complete destruction of society at large, regardless of national affiliation. My disdain for humanity knows little limit. The more dead, the less I care.
I have my moments of Zen where I get all philosophical on the wrongs and rights of the world. But then reality kicks me in the teeth again and I realize that within the current structure of human civilization, the only means for the People to regain control of their own destiny is the complete dissolution of the current societal regimes of control. The government is self-interested in its consolodation of power. Government has worked long and hard to gain more and more and more control and they would allow the destruction of others to retain said control.
So anything that brings this world closer to collapse, I endorse.
...well, that pretty much sums up the Bush Administration too....
Yes, show me where Bush himself addresses the people of the United States about the WMDs that were found. I didn't catch that link the last time around.
Nope Wikipedia is not necessarily a liberal site, but
again, it has been shown to have stuff posted by some
who want the best light shown on them. But never
mind.
Why don't you look up Russia and China and you will
see we supported them at one time in a conflict.
You know like WWII. They are just two examples I
can think of just off hand. So your example really
doesn't prove anything. We from allies in WWII to
enemies in the Cold War with both of my examples.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions