This thread is about lies. So, did Bush look into Putins eyes and tell another lie?
Iran says we're fabricating evidence. We've done it before. Who to believe?
True statement.
Abu Musab al Zarqawi was there.
True statement.
Abu Nidal and payments to suicide bomber families in Palestine.
Also true. I'd say it underscored the gravity of the threat. Just think if, in addition to hijacking those planes, they'd have managed to check a WMD on board before hand.
Yep, underscored is the right word there.
We know you side with Iran. They would never do such a thing.
Just think if Iraq was tied to 9-11, or if we found WMDS, or if Iraq was an actual threat; maybe the war in Iraq would have been justified. All we have is innuendo and hints that certain terrorists had ties to Iraq, but no real evidence. You don't commit thousands of troops and billions of dollars on maybe and what if.
I'm just saying that thanks to Bush's actions, he is now the little boy that cried wolf.
You don't have to say Bush lied to conclude the war was a really stupid idea.
And Democrats are holding their leaders accountable. Every unscrpited Q and A Hillary has had features some person asking about her vote on the authorization for the use of force.
But really, who is ultimately accountable for this war?
It's Bush. We would accomplish alot more if we just accepted that and moved on.
The UN resolution is inoperative because the mobile bio-weapons lab that Powell used to "prove" Iraq had WMD and get the UNSC resolution passed was known by people in WH and NatSec and Pentagon to be speculative bull , at best. And was later proved NOT be a mobile bio-weapons lab. "Bush Lied" and sand-bagged Powell by letting Powell give that speech. Powell, a military man, wasn't tough enough, was too wimpy for the neo-con war-evading deskjockeys itching to start war they personally wouldn't have to fight.
All Yoni's got now, is pile of legalistic rat minutiae that when piled up to the max still doesn't justify the Iraq invasion, doesn't show that Saddam was an mortal and immediate threat to the USA, and certainly not in the context of the war already under way in Afghanistan which was starved US military resources, and STILL isn't "won".
And the above is without even getting into the incompetence and absence of planning for the post-invasion, which was apparently assumed only to be a "best case" scenario.
Last edited by boutons_; 02-12-2007 at 06:48 PM.
You're wrong Boutons. We have already won with military action.
The surge soldiers are for touchdown celebrations.
I've never heard anyone from the U.N. declare that UNSC Resolution 1661 was "inoperable"
If the UN "knew then what they know now" about the bull mobile bio-weapons lab, I'm sure there wouldn't have been approval of the resolution.
Powell was setup, the resolution got passed on false pretenses, and you're still willing to use that rat to support WHIG and war. ing amazing, and of course totally "honest".
Let's look at the relationship between al Qaeda and Iraq again...
The original ABC News report Powerline linked to was from January 1999, I believe, and not 2000. The report was similar to numerous accounts in the worldwide press following Operation Desert Fox. That Clinton-ordered air campaign lasted from December 16 to December 19, 1998. Its purpose was to degrade Saddam's WMD and intelligence capabilities. Reports from more recent years indicate that the campaign nearly plunged Saddam's regime into chaos.
In any event, Saddam's response was telling. Just two days after Operation Desert Fox ended he dispatched one of his top intelligence operatives, Faruq Hijazi, to Afghanistan to meet with bin Laden. Hijazi was no low-level flunky. He was one of Saddam's most trusted goons and was responsible for overseeing a good deal of the regime's terrorist and other covert activities. It was this meeting that led to widespread reporting on the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda.
Thomas Jocelyn collected a bunch of these reports, including the ABC News report (above), in "The Four-Day War."
The consensus in the media then was that there was a relationship between the two and that Saddam's regime was very willing to work with al Qaeda against their common foe: America. And vice versa. Indeed, the reporting indicated that they had been working together even long before Operation Desert Fox.
The reports from late 1998 and early 1999 are tough for naysayers to explain away for a variety of reasons, but that hasn't stopped them from trying. For example, last year's Senate Intelligence Report on Iraq's ties to al Qaeda (the report was written, primarily, by a former John Kerry for President campaigner) unhesitatingly cited Hijazi's testimony, in which he claimed that he did not meet with bin Laden again after a lone incident in the mid 1990's. The Senate Intelligence report did not cite any of the voluminous reporting, by ABC News and other outlets, following the meeting in December 1998. Obviously, that reporting demonstrates Hijazi is a liar.
Of course, at the same time that the worldwide media was reporting all of this, various CIA and National Security Council officials were watching as well. Thus, Richard Clarke worried in February 1999 about bin Laden's possible "boogie to Baghdad." A month earlier he defended intelligence tying Saddam's VX nerve gas program to a suspected al Qaeda front company in Sudan. Michael Scheuer also at one time found it convenient to cite some of this evidence. In his original 2002 edition of Through Our Enemies' Eyes he approvingly cited several of the media's late 1998/early 1999 accounts. Of course, they both now pretend none of this really means anything.
It's nice when you can lie through your teeth and the media won't hold your feet to the fire.
Bush & CO. clearly lied. Why don't we take some advice from W himself.
"Fool me once, shame, shame uh uh, on you. Fool, fool me, well, fool, can't get fooled again".
Can you give me a quote from one of the Security Council members to that affect?
What's ing amazing is that you will continue to paint yourself into a corner on this issue until, when evidence become irrefutable, you have to just act crazy and say it's all a lie and you're right, just because you say so and Bush is evil and so on and so forth.
Oh wait, you're already there. I wonder what's next.
And yet, no lie has ever been produced. Aren't you tired of saying this yet?
Ok. Nobody lied. I admit it. I guess that leaves us to bear witness to the biggest mistake and failure of modern times.
Gee, kinda makes me wish we could blame this disaster on a load of lies.
I think that's yet to be seen. Personally, I believe the invasion and defeat of the Ba'athist regime in Iraq will be viewed, by history, as the greatest military campaign of all time.
The resulting insurgency and how that's been handled, maybe less so, but; I remain we'll win that war as well.
At least that explains why you do.
"greatest military campaign of all time"??????
Somebody supplying you with taliban heroine, because that statement deserves medical attention.
You don't consider both of these part of a military campaign?
21 days to overthrow a dictator with as few casaulties as we took. You ask the strategists and historians at West Point how that ranks with previous campaigns.
I think the insurgency is a result of the first but, clearly, The Ba'athist regime of Saddam Hussein is not a player in the current fighting, are they?
Yeah, they put up some fight!!! Brutal!! I don't know what it is but something keeps telling me that somehow 4 years and 21 days later provides a completely different outcome, unless this was intended to be a gift to Muslims that hate us.
What does that mean?
It ain't over.
And, in addition to overthrowing the regime, the Iraqis have passed a cons ution, had at least two free and fair elections, and -- with the exception of a couple of Baghdad provinces -- are fairly pacified with people working, children going to school, hospitals operating -- all in greater numbers than under Saddam Hussein.
You're a glass half empty kind of guy.
They are both part of a military campaign. You can not separate them. Keeping control/law and order of an area once you have toppled it's government is part of a military campaign.
These are some of my favorites especially considering the "He played on our Fears" diatribe.
"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.
You forgot. It's "half glass empty". Seriously, if I were him I wouldn't talk to my family without a teleprompter. It's the bottom of the glass that matters.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
