Hope this a little more clearer.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2007/09/06/bush_wmd/
I think it has been proven by the fact that there were no WMD’s found. I am not exactly sure what it is you want me to prove? I think the word of multiple people within the administration would be good enough for you, but instead it looks as if without a signed confession from W. you will refuse to even consider the possibility that we went to war over a personal vendetta.
So please explain what proof it is that you are looking for because it has become completely obvious that you are so blinded by your neo-con beliefs that nothing could change your mind.
Although I did prove one thing…by ignoring your ridiculous abortion rants you at least stopped preaching about it.
Hows that for proof? :bobble
JCarr,
Let me go ahead and predict what you are going to get as a response.
Blah, blah, blah salon is a liberal news magazine, blah, blah, blah Regime change.
Trust me you and I and MOST of the free world know what this war is about, but you will never get a neo-con to admit it short of a signed confession from W. ; just like there are people out there who still think Nixon is innocent. You can show a horse a BIG pond, but you can’t make him drink from it.
As far as a “billion a day in Iraq” - while I am not happy at about the money being spent, like generation before who had to do the same, at least THAT is what the government is SUPPOSED to do and is their PRIMARY ROLE, defending the United States…
When you say the generation before, you must mean the Vietnam generation.
Funny how you never hear them mention the cost of the war in dollars and human lives… but mention the bank bail out, or the auto indutry bail out and man they are calling into Rush Limbaugh like their lives depended on it.
What cracks me up is W. goes on record as saying "‘the current administration deserves my silence’. Ummm yeah dude because you broke the world… " (that is an SNL quote by the way, I can’t take credit for that although I do find it hilarious).
Typical response from a lib. As far as the abortion thing I referenced, if your reading comprehension was up to snuff, you would have seen that I was pointing out the hypocrisy. As far as abortion goes, it isn’t the federal government’s place to say if it is right or wrong. I actually believe it should be a state-level issue. And thank you by the way for proving a point I made in another thread a while back. Anybody that has a differing opinion of the liberal agenda is ridiculed, called names, etc. They only thing you didn’t do is try to assassinate my character. You kept puking out this garbage throughout this thread about how Bush doctored intelligence, Bush did this, Bush did that–and YOU call ME a nut job.
The hate mongering cames from the left a hell of a lot more than it comes from the right. As far as calling liberals Socialist you might want to trace back your history to around 1940. The Democrat Party at that time, being recognized for what they were-Socialists, decided they needed to come up with some different branding, and behold the idea of the Democrats being a “progressive” and “liberal” party was born. The words “progressive” and “liberal” were more acceptable than socialist. And they still are. Which is why liberals bristle at being called socialists.
As far as Obama hanging out with a terrorist–William Ayers. Remember him? Jeremiah Wright? The racsist preacher. ACORN? Making sure every dead person’s vote is counted. But these associations don’t mean anything, right? Oh and now Obama is going to dictate what CEO’s of the financial institutions are able to be paid-even those institutions that didn’t take TARP. But that isn’t socialism. Actually Obama is reaching towards the economics of fascism.
And for the record I don’t have a problem with all Democrats, just the “liberal” ones. Conservative Democrats aren’t trying to change the fundamental core of the United States.
Jay,
I think it has been more than proven that the war in Iraq was started under false pretenses. My point being why are you not up in arms over that? Why are you not complaining about the BILLION DOLLARS A DAY we are spending there? I don’t like the bail-outs anymore than the next guy, but what was the alternative? To take a chance that the financial system would collapse?
I called you a nut job because of all your other comments.
Like this one…
Everything they say and do comes right from Karl Marx with a touch of Hitler’s tactics
or this one…
THE BIGGEST MISTAKE this country has ever made, with the exception of giving FDR a second term, much less a third and fourth.
hold on this one is really good as well…
I believe and totally destroying the liberal movement in this country, just as the liberals want to wipe out conservatism. As far as I am concerned that “civil civil” war started in earnest around 1994.
lastly, there is this one…
Well the liberals have been at war with conservatives for years and we didn’t even know it or take it seriously until now.
However I do want to thank you for taking time out from your WAR in liberals to educate the rest of us on the secret war going on in the country.
Seriously man you have some dangerous anger issues you may want to talk to someone about because in just one or two postings (or should I say rantings) it occurs to me that you are thisclose to going postal on someone.
JCarr, this is in response to your post… Christopher is not engaging on the abortion issue, as he apparently cannot defend or even simply state his position for consideration, and using straw men to avoid it, and call others names as obfuscations, so his comments are irrelevant to me until he does…
With regards to Naji Sabri, there was disagreement within the CIA regarding him, to the point where he never made it into a NIE. Information that goes into an NIE is agreed upon information, whether it turns out to be right or wrong. From the article you posted…
"Tenet, who had testified before the committee in July 2006 that Drumheller had “mischaracterized” the intelligence. Still, Drumheller stuck to his guns, telling Reuters, “We have differing interpretations, and I think mine’s right.”
And here is where I think that the distinction lies… interpretation. It was not fact, but interpretation, by Drumheller’s own word. Right after 911, Bush and the intelligence agencies HAD to take into account all threats.
Al Qaeda announced after 911 that it was AFTER biological, radiological and chemical weapons. What country in that region had used these multiple times, not only on their enemies, but on their own people? Who had worked with, funded and supported terrorists not only in his country but surrounding countries? Saddam Hussein…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/13/AR2005081300530.html
“Al Qaeda announced after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States that it was looking into acquiring biological, radiological and chemical weapons. The next year, CNN obtained and aired al Qaeda videotapes showing the killings of three dogs with what were believed to be nerve agents.”
That’s also why the previous President, Bill Clinton, a Democrat, who bombed Iraq BASED ON WMD’s, which it turns out, based on the reports being used to Monday-morning quarter-back Bush, were also not active WHEN HE DID IT, said - "[i][b]Noting that Bush had to be “reeling” in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001, Clinton said Bush’s first priority was to keep al Qaeda and OTHER TERRORIST NETWORKS from obtaining “chemical and biological weapons or small amounts of fissile material.”
“That’s WHY I SUPPORTED the Iraq thing. There was a lot of stuff unaccounted for,” Clinton said in reference to Iraq and the fact that U.N. weapons inspectors left the country in 1998.
“Says Bush ‘couldn’t responsibly ignore’ CHANCE Iraq had WMDs”[/b][/i]
So, the two back to back presidents, from two different parties, who had direct access to the the intelligence, which, BTW, the CIA director Tenet was a Clinton holdover, came to the same conclusion before AND after the war started… As well as the allies involved…
Sorry, but an objective/dispassionate review of ALL the evidence trumps information from Naji Sabri, who, being in Saddam’s inner circle, could very well have been viewed as providing disinformation to the administration, based on the voluminous statements he made in the run-up to the actual war… The French were against the war, which we found out why (knee deep in the Oil for Food scandal) and the fact that they provided info on taps would be suspect as it was coming out their corrupt connections with Saddam… Definitely not unreasonable…
You are also going to have to say that Blair, with his own intelligence agency, ALSO lied in congruity. Consider also that intelligence agencies were not working in concert up to this point, the DHS had not been created, and they themselves were also stepping on eggshells having missed 911… So the intent to be proactive was intense…
Just realize that if Saddam had partnered up with Al Qaeda, they would have had access to all the below…
CNN Article - 500 tons of uranium shipped from Iraq, Pentagon says
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/07/iraq.uranium/index.html
“Iraq has no nuclear power generating plants.” - what do you think they needed it for then?
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38213
“Hanson examines reports from U.S. combat units and public information confirming that many of Iraq’s CW stockpiles have indeed been found.”
Remember, Saddam himself said that he though it would be all airstrikes and that the could endure that short term… Sadam HIMSELF was projecting to IRAN that he had full WMD capability… Up to this point, all the Security resolutions by the UN were not ACTED upon, and he had no real reason to think another one JUST PASSED (1441) was going to be any different, which is why they basically scoffed at it, and provided bogus information in response and kept up the same pattern of denying UN inspectors access and then letting them in only to cut them off again.
Imagine if we did do the air-strikes and then he ramped up his chemical program, which is quickly done, and the chemicals were located by the munition sites… it could have been much worse going in…
The FACT is, the actions the Bush administration has taken, whether we all agree to everything that was done or not (I know I don’t), HAS kept us safe from another attack… Time will tell if the same can be said for Obama who is making some seriously questionable moves…
Seriously questionable is a civil way of putting it.Don’t know if you have any family/friends in the military as I and believe me “questionable” is not their word.So I think I’m gonna go with the guys in the trenches rather than the loons we have in washington.
I second that… I go with the guys in the trenches (family members also)… :beer
Here is what is really funny about your overly worded post.
Imagine if and could have been
Excuses.
As for the abortion issue. It’s dead man. You can bait me all you want, call me names, question my committment you are wasting your time. I think the fact that I am ignoring your abortion baits is driving you MORE crazy than the war in Iraq comments. Your just dying to be able to type more flaming abortion comments aren’t you? I am sitting here at my desk laughing at the thought of you seething at your computer screen just waiting for someone, ANYONE to mention it so you can climb onto your soapbox and start ranting.
Christopher…
“Here is what is really funny about your overly worded post.” - yes, it’s much easier for you to do that address the substance… Considering you are laying ALL your evidence that Bush “lied” on Naji is extremely weak, and you had to have someone else actually even find THAT for you… you also note that the MEDIA NOR the Dem’s never really made anything of it, which tells you of it’s weight… So if you want to take time to respond, Christopher, try addressing the substance…
“abortion” & “It’s dead man” - yes, I agree your credibility on that issue is dead… you’ve been given multiple opportunities to engage on it, and you CHOSE not to with straw man after straw man… Unlike you, I am actually willing to publicly SAY what I believe, let others know what I believe, debate the merits of it, and engage on it… whose credibility is in question here?.. :bs
"Your just dying to be able to type more flaming abortion comments aren’t you? " - No, just waiting for you to step up instead of making excuses… but it matters less to me than you think… we ALREADY see what you think by your inaction and subterfuge … It’s another thing altogether to publicly SAY what you believe…
" I am sitting here at my desk laughing at the thought of you seething at your computer screen just waiting for someone," - I have no doubt about that Christopher… you indeed have problems Christopher, if that’s how you truly think and act… all I am looking for is someone to engage the tough questions… but they continue to be avoided…
"call me names, " - all I’ve referred to you is liberal, if you call that “calling names”… :rolleyes
When you are ready to actually debate the topic… THEN bother posting, otherwise, leave it to those willing to debate it rather than waste everyone’s time with your inanities… :banghead
You said it all with your “Imagine if” and “Could have been” comments. There is nothing left to say. As I said before short of a signed confession from W. nothing and nobody is going to change your mind becuase you are using predictions of the future (“Imagine if” and “Could have been”) to justify your beliefs. How can I debate or prove something to you if you are using “what might have been” as a reason??
And if laughing at zealots makes me troubled then bingo. I am troubled. :rolleyes
PO,
It was repported that, yes, Suddam Hussein was working with Al-Queada. Later that information was debunked as, the Bush Adminstration, WILLFULLY mislead everyone on the Iraq-Al Queada connection they knew to be false!!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/08/AR2006090800777.html
And here is where I disagree with you…
"Sorry, but an objective/dispassionate review of ALL the evidence trumps information from Naji Sabri, who, being in Saddam’s inner circle, could very well have been viewed as providing disinformation to the administration, based on the voluminous statements he made in the run-up to the actual war… "
There were no objective view of the evidence presented about Iraqi and WMD from the Bush Admin. They had an agenda from the start and carried it through the 9-11 attacks. I dont think anyone is denying that Suddam had to go or was a threat to humanity…but Bush lied to make it happen and using 9-11 (which had NO TIES to IRAQ AT ALL) as a means to invade, makes it that more dispicable. I believe if Bush had went after Bin Laden first and then said while it we at it lets get suddam…history would have treated him much better…
Positive,
Perhaps there is a point in which you and I can find some common ground.
Nancy Pelosi is a BIG FAT LIAR. Talk about playing CYA…
“Um, I was briefed on it once, and I was advised that it was not being used anymore (waterboarding)”. :bs
As if anyone believes that. I find it very hard to believe that over the course of events since 9/11 that the subject never came up, and she NEVER asked about it? Now that is a smoking gun I would love to see. It would be hilarious to see Ms. Rat-Face try to explain her way out of that.
Christopher,
“your “Imagine if” and “Could have been” comments” - T
hat was at the END of the post, lamenting if Saddam was still in power, and if we had done air strikes instead of invade and he had the short time necessary to amp up the chemical program HE HAD ALREADY USED in the past. What do you think all the chemicals hidden in the bunkers near the ammo were for?
Your attempt to equate it to the rest of the post, instead of the actual SUBSTANCE is telling…
Jcarr…
I don’t have a doubt that Bush came to office with an agenda for Saddam, it make sense considering his predeccesor, Clinton, had the same agenda (i.e. - regime change) and Bush 41 did also…
You also have to look at the geopolitcial realities of it also… look at where Iraq is located, and where Obama concentrated his efforts… Iraq… He did not concentrate his efforts on Aphganistan for a reason… The Taliban are the primary ones fighting there, and have been from the start…
It’s important to note that Aphganistan and the Taliban were hit first… because that is where Bin Ladin WAS when Clinton had the chance to take him out and didn’t… it was also believe that was where he was when we attacked there. The Taliban were warned in advance to hand him over, they chose to fight, and they were ousted out of power.
"There were no objective view of the evidence presented about Iraqi and WMD from the Bush Admin. They had an agenda from the start and carried it through the 9-11 attacks. " -
By dispassionate and objective, I was refering to the Monday-morning second guessing… I have no doubt there were all sorts of passions playing out on this, and it is lacks credibility that Bush was the only with the information. So either the CONGRESSIONAL committee members who have intelligence oversight DID NOT DO THEIR JOB or they saw the same intelligence and came to the same conclusion… You can’t have it both ways, either they agreed or were incompetant in their roles…
From the article you just posted…
“The report also said exiles from the Iraqi National Congress (INC) tried to influence U.S. policy by providing, through defectors, false information on Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons capabilities. After skeptical analysts warned that the group had been penetrated by hostile intelligence services, including Iran’s, a 2002 White House directive ordered that U.S. funding for the INC be continued.”
Naji Sabri was going to be one of those defectors, according to your previous Salon article, but wouldn’t go without his family, and that wasn’t able to be put together… In the lead-up to the war, Sabri prinipally led Iraq’s diplomatic efforts to weaken support for a US-led attack on Iraq, so it is logical to come to the conclusion that he had an agenda NOT in our best interest.
Add to that, the French, who were openly against the war, and found to be corruptly colluding with Iraq on the Oil for Food scandal, were the third-party contact for Sabri to the US… So you have Sabri trying to weaken support of the war, going through the French, who were against the war, and found out to be colluding with Saddam at the time, telling the French to tell us the opposite of what Saddam was projecting to Iran and giving us goblidy gook in answer to 1441 (which specifically stated the consquences) and then the start and stop and obstructing of the inspectors… Based on that public information alone, it seems quite plausible to discount his verocity when they had other sources, including our own intelligence, previous experience, other government, including our allies, telling them different.
I’m not “defending Bush”… just interested in the history of it… The way it is being portrayed historically now does not follow the events… just a bunch of CYA by Bush, the Dems/Reps, and the media… which is why I think history will not support the current POV on this… but only time will tell which one of us is correct…
Telling of what? That I find your blind allegiance to be very sad? If that is the case then yes it is very telling. You need to change your name from Positive Outlook to Lemming because that is exactly what you have shown yourself to be. Blah blah blah question nothing. Blah blah blah follow the leader. Although you did show some promise at the end of that last post. It is okay to see both sides of an argument. I promise you the world won’t end if you open your eyes a little bit.
The very fact that you choose to basing your beliefs on “future predictions” of “what could have happened” says one thing. Your reaching for anything that will keep your belief system in place. Good luck with that man.
With there being no WMD in Iraqi, and the information of bush knowing, that from my POV is a major CYA from the Dems, mislead, and practically lied. What does that say? How do you conclude that the war was justified under the pretense we were all told? And ESPECIALLY under the fear of Suddam and WMD?
Maybe some information provided later will justify it but I don’t see it now!
Is’nt it funny to see that the can of worms the liberals insisted on opening has got them all scrambling around.Note to conservatives=sit back and watch the circus the american people are taken notes,in four years all you have to do is say"did you see what a mess that was,now do you want REAL CHANGE?Not gonna be possible to bush blame or repubs caused this.They had the pitcher,the batter,and the umpire and somehow still lost,and somehow lost all the bats and balls.
JCarr…
“Maybe some information provided later will justify it but I don’t see it now!” - If you don’t see it by now, you are not going to…
We’ll have to agree to disagree…