Let's all dick slap Clinton!

[TheEschaton]

So, I'm reading the news online at news.google.com at work the other day (nothing better to do) and I read an article about the intelligence failure, etc, etc, etc.

In it, a Republican honcho (please, let the derision be apparent) was talking about how it wasn't the President's fault (which might be a true statement, I'll grant), how the intelligence community failed (yup), because the arch-fiend himself <insert apocalyptic muzak> Bill Clinton CUT FUNDING to the intelligence community.

Of course. It's Clinton's fault. Everything is Clinton's fault.

Forget that Reagan gave the WMD to Saddam. Forget that Donald Rumsfeld, upon meeting Saddam in the 80s, said he was a good guy, forget that we turned a blind eye to Saddam when he proposed invading Kuwait.

Please, in this case, also forget that George H.W. Bush, Mr. Former-Head-of-the-CIA himself, was the one who slashed and burned intelligence spending, and that Clinton not only raised the funding from what Bush cut, but Republican pundits at the time praised him for it.

Both parties are guilty of trash politics. But the whole "Bill Clinton is the devil" thing has become tiresome.

Maybe it was Bill Clinton who tore off Janet's halter top and exposed her boob? I bet it was!

-TheE-

[Siefer]

Clinton is, was, and will always be garbage. His wife is garbage. He did nothing but weaken and embarass the country.

[TheEschaton]

Garbage sure.


Garbage is better than the pure animal excrement that George W. Bush is.

Believe me, I voted for Lazio instead of the carpetbagger Hillary. But I go to bed crying because of Bush, as of late.

-TheE-

[TheEschaton]

I mean, really, how is Bush's character not considered as flawed as Clinton's? It's simply because this country is hung up on sex.

Murder, fear, and violence, the masses lap up like fucking sheepdogs.

Cocaine in college, never doing anything in life that wasn't handed to you by daddy, failing all those sweet deals, and stating fact, when no fact existed (IE, lying), though, make good leadership qualities.

-TheE-

[Bobmuhthol]

Bill Clinton was the best president of our time.

[Edaarin]

Bill Clinton was probably one of the five greatest speakers among U.S. Presidents.

Al Gore, on the other hand, who gave the commencement address at my high school when I was a sophomore, sucks. Even though he's not President. He should have been, but I won't go there.

[Artha]

Forget that Reagan gave the WMD to Saddam.

But...but...doesn't he have no WMD?

Um you just filled your entire post with lies. We gave Iraq at the time conventional weapons and money.
Bush 1 cut spending to the CIA and Clinton raised it? Where did that come from, really if your going to put stuff like that in your post do it with facts. dont make up bullshit.
Blind eye when he proposed invading Kuwait? Would you have liked us to do a preemptive attack when that time came without the UN's approval?

Here is a word of advice for you, Lies are unbecoming and wont get you to far with educated people.

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by The Edine
Here is a word of advice for you, Lies are unbecoming and wont get you to far with educated people.

But they get you everywhere with Republicans. Hah, I crack myself up.

Raven

[Skirmisher]

Instead of saying someone lied, one may wish to instead say that they are mistaken and then point out why.

Of course simply calling people liars makes for a better sound bite.

[Jack]

I've heard the accusation that Reagan gave Sadam weapons of mass destruction thrown around a lot. I've heard accusations that US armed Sadam in the eighties under Reagan. I'm afraid at this point I'm going to have to wave the bullshit flag.

Look at the weapons used by the army of Iraq, both in the first gulf war, and the current conflict. Soviet ere T-55, T-62, and the occasional T-72 tank. Well, obviously the US didn't give him those, so let's look at the air forces of Sadam's Iraq, wait, those are all Soviet made as well. Last time I checked Migs were never produced in the United States of America. Maybe the infantry weapons then, no, those are AK-47s, and 74s. Never produced in the United States.

Now lets look at the weapons of mass destruction issue. Iraq has used mustard gas on it's own people, and against the Iranians durring the Iran and Iraq War. They researched the use, and manufacture of chemical weapons throughout the seventies, and were able to produce Mustard Gas in substantial quantities. Knowing now, that they manufactured their own chemical weapons, what does Reagan, or the United States have to do with it? The United States has not used chemical weapons in any conflict, past or present, why would we deliver said weapons to Iraq?

This leaves one last thing to look at. The delivery systems for chemical/biological, or even nuclear weapons. Iraq used a modified SU-25 Frogfoot to spread gas over the Kurds in Northern Iraq, the SU-25 was designed, and manufactured in the Soviet Union. The only long range missile they had in inventory was the SCUD, a missile manufactured in the Soviet Union, and modified by Iraq to fire at an extended range. Since the missiles were built in the Soviet Union, and modified in Iraq, I don't see the correlation to Ronald Reagan, or the United States, so I ask, what Weapons, or Weapons of Mass Destruction did Ronald Reagan arm Iraq with?

-Jack

[Shalla]

Get over it already. He's not your president anymore.

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Jack
... so I ask, what Weapons, or Weapons of Mass Destruction did Ronald Reagan arm Iraq with?


[quote]According to a US Senate Committee Report of 1994 [1]: From 1985, if not earlier, through 1989, a veritable witch's brew of biological materials were exported to Iraq by American suppliers pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department of Commerce.

Amongst these materials, which often produce slow, agonizing deaths, were:

Bacillus Anthracis, cause of anthrax.
Clostridium Botulinum, a source of botulinum toxin.
Histoplasma Capsulatam, cause of a disease attacking lungs, brain, spinal cord and heart.
Brucella Melitensis, a bacteria that can damage major organs.
Clotsridium Perfringens, a highly toxic bacteria causing systemic illness.
Clostridium tetani, highly toxigenic.
Escherichia Coli (E.Coli);
Genetic materials;
Human and bacterial DNA.
Dozens of other pathogenic biological agents were shipped to Iraq during the
1980s.

The Senate Report pointed out: "These biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction." [2] "It was later learned," the committee revealed, "that these microorganisms exported by the United States were identical to those the United Nations inspectors found and removed from the Iraqi biological warfare Program."[3]

These exports continued to at least November 28, 1989 despite the fact that Iraq had been reported to be engaging in chemical warfare and possibly biological warfare against Iranians, Kurds, and Shiites since the early 80s.

NOTES
[1] "U.S. Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related Dual Use Exports to Iraq
and their Possible Impact on the Health Consequences of the Persian Gulf
War," Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs with Respect to
Export Administration, reports of May 25, 1994 and October 7, 1994.
[2] Ibid., May 25 report, pp. 36-47
[3] Ibid., October 7 report, p. 3[quote]


http://www.gulfwarvets.com/news11.htm

http://www.ithaca.edu/politics/gagnon/talks/us-iraq.htm

That was a good question so I decided to find the sources for what 'everyone knows'. Everyone who's not Republican anyway. It wasn't hard to find. I'm sure you can verify that all for yourself.

Raven

[Jack]

An interesting post, Ravenstorm, however, I fail to see the link between that, and Ronald Reagan. Those materials were shipped by US Suppliers. This would be seperate civilian companies, who applied for licenses to export, and had them approved. Where's the link to Ronald Reagan?

-Jack

[Ravenstorm]

Note a few paragraphs from the first link:


According to information obtained by the AGWVA, there is irrefutable evidence to show that the United States government provided and encouraged Iraq’s use of chemical weapons. The United States Department of Commerce and The American Type Culture Collection (ATCC) provided at least 80 shipments of biological agents that were not attenuated (or weakened) and were capable of reproduction. These shipments included such virulent agents as Anthrax, West Nile Virus and Clostridium botulinum (S.R.103-900, May 25, 1994, pg. 264).

The United States Department of Commerce


The AGWVA also found it very disturbing to learn that on December 19, 1983, the Middle Eastern envoy who carried a handwritten note from President Reagan to Saddam Hussein, to “resume our diplomatic relations with Iraq” was none other than our present Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld.

...

Iraq reportedly began using chemical weapons (CW) against Iranian troops in 1982, and significantly increased CW use in 1983… Shortly after removing Iraq from the terrorism sponsorship list, the Reagan administration approved the sale of 60 Hughes helicopters. Analysts recognized that “civilian” helicopters can be weaponized in a matter of hours and selling a civilian kit can be a way of giving military aid under the guise of civilian assistance.”

...
In his own book Turmoil and Triumph: My Years as Secretary of State, George Shultz refers to a declassified CIA report which notes Iraq’s use of mustard gas in August 1983, giving further credence to the suggestion that the State Department and/or the National Security Council (NSC) was well aware of Iraq’s use of chemical weapons at this time. If the use of chemical weapons was known in August of 1983, and Donald Rumsfeld went to Iraq in December of 1983, he was on notice that this country was using and was going to continue to use weapons of mass destruction.

...

On March 23, 1984, Iran accused Iraq of poisoning 600 of its soldiers with mustard gas and Tabun nerve gas. Donald Rumsfeld returned to Baghdad on March 24, 1984. On that same day, the UPI wire service reported that a team of UN experts had concluded that:

“Mustard gas laced with a nerve agent has been used on Iranian soldiers. Meanwhile, Donald Rumsfeld held talks with foreign minister Tariq Aziz.”


And in addition to this, Reagan took Iraq off the list of countries that supported terrorism. In fact, it would have been illegal to ship them bacteria and helicopters otherwise.

Raven

edited to add:

Have I personally checked each of those 'facts'? No. Could Schultz have been lying? Yes. Could Bob Woodward have made up facts for his article? Of course. Could this, could that? Sure. Personally, I am convinced there is enough corroboration between all the various bits of evidence that this is the truth and is indeed fact. I'm not a scholar to research all this over years nor is a political arguement on a message board worth much more than an hour or two since I'm already convinced. I ran into nothing disputing these. If someone wishes to counter with their own sources, feel free.

[Edited on 2-14-2004 by Ravenstorm]

[Jack]

Which of those helicopters was used to deliver Weapons of Mass destruction? Which bacteria, or virus was successfully weaponized and put to use? I still fail to see how this corelates to Ronald Reagan providing Weapons of Mass Destruction to Iraq. Ronald Reagan wasn't a saint, and his foreign policy is a bit odd in many places, however, he did not arm Sadam Hussein.

What I see when reading such reports is a bit of shady dealing with biological agents that could be weaponized, which Iraq was never able to employ successfully, and some helicopters which could be used for a military purpose. I do not belive that giving Iraq any sort of biological agent was a good idea, but I do not read that as Ronald Reagan arming Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction.

-Jack

[Ravenstorm]

I do. I read it as Reagan and Rumsfeld and Bush knowing damn well that Saddam was a killer who would use any and all weapons he had and the US government didn't give a damn and gave him what he wanted, not caring to what use he put them because we wanted Saddam to kill Iranians with them.

To say they didn't know or couldn't have known is to call them idiots when it's only because of them that he could have gotten them from us in the first place.

Raven

[Jack]

Since he never put any biological weapons to use, the point is rather moot. The Baathist Regime in Iraq was never technologically advanced enough to produce weaponized anthrax, or any other biological weapons. Chemical weapons, yes. And they did use them against Iranians, and Kurds. Those weapons they developed, produced, and employed on their own.

-Jack

[Ravenstorm]

1985 is also a key year because the Reagan administration approved the export to Iraq of biological cultures that are precursors to bioweapons: anthrax, botulism, etc.; these cultures were "not attenuated or weakened, and were capable of reproduction."


There were over 70 shipments of such cultures between 1985-1988.


The Bush administration also authorized an additional 8 shipments of biological cultures that the Center for Disease Control classified as "having biological warfare significance."

This information comes from the Senate Banking Committee's report from 1994. The report stated that "these microorganisms exported by the US were identical to those the United Nations inspectors found and recovered from the Iraqi biological warfare program."


How nice for us that Iraq didn't get a chance to actually kill anyone with what we gave them. You were also arguing about the US not providing iraq with weapons of any sort. The helicopters were already mentioned.


1988

The Reagan administration's Commerce Dept. approved exports to Iraq's SCUD missile program; it was these exports that allowed the extension of the SCUDs' range so that in 1991 they were able to reach Israel and US bases in Saudi Arabia.

You mentioned their missiles in your post I believe.

Argue what you want but it just sounds like flimsy excuses to me. If you give a machine gun to a known serial killer, you are still guilty of arming and aiding him even if you don't give him bullets too.

Raven

[Ilvane]

I hate it when the Republicans blame Clinton for everything that has gone wrong when really it was Bush the first that caused much of the trouble, and Clinton had to clean it up. Take away the mess that was Monica Lewinsky, Clinton was a damned good president, who made us friends all over the world, was able to sit down Israel and the Palestinians, who was able to raise funding for the intelligence community, and balance the budget with a surplus..

Bush the second was appointed leader, and since has brought us to war, alienated the entire world except Britan with our go at it alone work in Iraq, has vastly ignored the real problem with terrorism with Osama Bin Laden, stopped diplomatic talks with many countries Clinton was able to start talking to, he has destroyed the national debt(brought it from where the Clinton administration had it, with a budget surplus, to trillions(Yes, trillions) of dollars in debt, and has rolled back all kinds of environmental laws that Clinton had put in to lower pollution.

To me, that is enough for me to want him out of office. When you add in the lies in the State of the Union last year about intelligence for weapons of mass destruction, and taking us to war on false pretenses, that makes a compelling case that we need a new president. What Bush has done in the 4 years he has been in office has set us back enough. We have succeeded as a government of losing a lot of diplomatic ties with countries we have been friends with for many years..many of our jobs are going overseas, and someone in the Bush administration said that was fine! He passed a joke of a medicare reform law that benefits the big HMO's and is a joke of an amount of coverage for prescriptions..

And when the Republicans say that the Democrats are the spenders, remember that we have a Republican Congress and Republican President, and have done so much damage to the national debt in Bush's four years that we will be paying this off for year.

I personally though Clinton was great, and will continue to think that way..for those of you who didn't like him over Monica Lewinsky, think of how much the damned Republicans researched to find out the man had oral sex in the White House..

-A

[Jack]

The United States did not build, design, co-design, or send technitions to aid Iraq in their missile program to extend the range of their Missiles. Some research data was sold to Iraq, which may very well have contributed to them being able to extend the range of the SCUD missiles, however, the missiles were built by the Soviet Union, and the modifications made by Iraq. Ronald Reagan at no time went to Iraq to bolt on extra fuel tanks to their missiles.

The Hughes Helicopters that were exported to Iraq were not used for anything more than transport for field grade officers by the Iraqi Army. They were never armed with any significant weapons. The Hughes Helicopter, better known as the "Little Bird" is hardly an attack helicopter. It lacks the range, cargo capacity, and avionics to make it into one. Sure, you can hang a pair of machine guns off of it, but you could do the same with a cessna, or any other civilian aircraft.

-Jack

[Edited on 2-14-2004 by Jack]

[TheEschaton]

Originally posted by The Edine
Um you just filled your entire post with lies. We gave Iraq at the time conventional weapons and money.
Bush 1 cut spending to the CIA and Clinton raised it? Where did that come from, really if your going to put stuff like that in your post do it with facts. dont make up bullshit.
Blind eye when he proposed invading Kuwait? Would you have liked us to do a preemptive attack when that time came without the UN's approval?

Here is a word of advice for you, Lies are unbecoming and wont get you to far with educated people.

The Edine, try reading the news every so often. The AP had an article about how Porter Goss, head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, criticized Clinton for "decimating" the intelligence committee, when, later in the article, it quote Goss from 1993, when Clinton raised intelligence funding, thanking Clinton "for going into this and seeing our true need".

As for conventional weapons, I refer you to Ravenstorm's posts above.

As for Bush cutting intelligence funding, and Clinton raising it - just check the budgets, silly.

The best part is, news organizations can cut the AP report as they see fit. That quote wasn't included in FoxNews.com version of the story....but it was included in many others. Fair and Balanced, indeed.

To respond to Artha: No, there's no weapons now, because the inspectors, in the 90s, disarmed Iraq. Quit being obtuse.

To respond to Jack: Ah yes, the U.S. didn't build nothing. True enough.

The British did that, helping Iraqis build their industrial weapons factories in the 80s. Between the two, it was quite the 1-2 punch. Reference Robin Cook's resignation speech from before the war, he provides the sources. Frankly, I'll trust Robin Cook. Stand up sort of guy.

[TheEschaton]

As for turning a blind eye to Saddam when he basically asked for our permission to invade Kuwait?

April Gillespie (sp?), U.S. Ambassador to Iraq at the time, is on the record as having told Saddam "We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait." She went on to say: "James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction." (San Francisco Examiner, 11/18/02)

The tape aired on 60 minutes, in 1989. Check it out.

-TheE-

[peam]

Smash the state. Everyone's corrupt.

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by TheEschaton
As for turning a blind eye to Saddam when he basically asked for our permission to invade Kuwait?

April Gillespie (sp?), U.S. Ambassador to Iraq at the time, is on the record as having told Saddam "We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait." She went on to say: "James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction." (San Francisco Examiner, 11/18/02)

The tape aired on 60 minutes, in 1989. Check it out.

-TheE-

I remember that.

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by TheEschaton
Garbage is better than the pure animal excrement that George W. Bush is.
-TheE-

You hate Bush just as much or more fanatically then anyone hates Clinton. Pot calling the kettle brown

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Hulkein
You hate Bush just as much or more fanatically then anyone hates Clinton. Pot calling the kettle brown It's a bit easier to make a case for "Bush is bad" than "Clinton is bad". As I'm sure you realize.

[TheEschaton]

I like to think my dislike of the man is based in some fact though.

And I love all people. I don't love what they do, necessarily.

So, all instances of "I hate George W. Bush", or in this case "George W. Bush is a piece of excrement", should really say "I hate what George W. Bush does" or "I hate [his] policies" or "[His] actions make him out to be a pile of steaming dog shit."

As they say, love the sinner, hate the sin. I'd give the poor man a hug, if I saw him, I think he needs one.

-TheE-

[Hulkein]

Clinton - Lied to you, and then lied under oath, ALL WHILE KNOWING HE WAS LYING.. HE LIED TO EVERYONE PURPOSELY.

Bush - Took information from Intelligence sources and said things that many countries and almost all of the House agreed with. Then people say he 'lied' because he was given wrong information, information in which the entire world believed was valid.

I'll take Bush.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by TheEschaton
I'd give the poor man a hug, if I saw him, I think he needs one.He is pretty busy, though, if you see him you better run up really fast and scream a lot to get his attention. :saint:

[TheEschaton]

I think the reason I dislike Bush is because he's such a bald-faced hypocrite.

Yeah, Clinton is a scumbag, but once it was all out in the open, he didn't really deny that he was a fat-woman-fuckikng, jazz playing, load-shooting, illegitimate-child-in-50-states kind of guy.

Bush, on the other hand, boldly professes on one hand that he's a Christian, while being as unChristian as I can imagine.

Maybe Clinton offended pimps around the nation with his choice in women......Bush is an affront to all Christians.

-TheE-

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Hulkein
Clinton - Lied to you, and then lied under oath, ALL WHILE KNOWING HE WAS LYING.. HE LIED TO EVERYONE PURPOSELY.

Bush - Took information from Intelligence sources and said things that many countries and almost all of the House agreed with. Then people say he 'lied' because he was given wrong information, information in which the entire world believed was valid.

Hardly everyone believed it was valid. Quite a signifcant number of people in this country believed it was completely false. Quite a few countries believed it wasn't accurate. The UN inspectors said it wasn't correct.

No. I believe that Bush knowingly and willingly lied to the entire country and to the world. He wanted an excuse to invade Iraq - as one of his own people stated before he fell out of favor - and manufactured one. He then tried to prevent having an investigation conducted about the false reports until he couldn't stop it any more. Then and only then was he all in favor of it.

Clinton lied about having getting blown. Bush lied about the real reason he ordered 500+ American soldiers be killed, not to mention all the Iraqi civilians. No WMD. No links to Al Quaeda. No threat to the US. That's what he sold this war on and he lied.

Me, I hate Bush and I use the term quite deliberately. Compassionate conservative my ass. He's the worst thing to ever happen to this ccountry and I hope he, of all people, deserves to be impeached and his cronies brought up on charges. In America, that is. Since Cheney is already being investigated overseas.

And I was so apolitical 4 years ago, believe it or not.

Raven

edited to add:

It would be interesting to see the old threads from this board back before Iraq started. All the Bush supporters calling people unpatriotic, America hating, bleeding heart liberals for saying there wasn't any WMD.

[Edited on 2-14-2004 by Ravenstorm]

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm
Hardly everyone believed it was valid. Quite a signifcant number of people in this country believed it was completely false. Quite a few countries believed it wasn't accurate. The UN inspectors said it wasn't correct.

No. I believe that Bush knowingly and willingly lied to the entire country and to the world. He wanted an excuse to invade Iraq - as one of his own people stated before he fell out of favor - and manufactured one. He then tried to prevent having an investigation conducted about the false reports until he couldn't stop it any more. Then and only then was he all in favor of it.

Clinton lied about having getting blown. Bush lied about the real reason he ordered 500+ American soldiers be killed, not to mention all the Iraqi civilians. No WMD. No links to Al Quaeda. No threat to the US. That's what he sold this war on and he lied.

Me, I hate Bush and I use the term quite deliberately. Compassionate conservative my ass. He's the worst thing to ever happen to this ccountry and I hope he, of all people, deserves to be impeached and his cronies brought up on charges. In America, that is. Since Cheney is already being investigated overseas.

And I was so apolitical 4 years ago, believe it or not.

Raven

edited to add:

It would be interesting to see the old threads from this board back before Iraq started. All the Bush supporters calling people unpatriotic, America hating, bleeding heart liberals for saying there wasn't any WMD.

[Edited on 2-14-2004 by Ravenstorm]

No. Majority of the world believe there were WMD in Iraq. KTHX.

[TheEschaton]

I remember watching the election all night long, on Tuesday, November 11th, 2000. The whole Florida debacle made it impossible for me to ever not pay attention to politics again.

-TheE-

[Hulkein]

And I don't care that they didn't find WMD, I was all for the war for the humanitarian purposes anyway. Saddam would've used WMD, and would've tried to again get them. Fuck him, he's gone, world is a better place.

[Edited on 2-14-2004 by Hulkein]

[TheEschaton]

Ahhh....

so what if India invaded Pakistan with the humanitarian purpose of "removing a dictator" (which Pervez Musharraf is, by the way, having gained power in a military coup) for humanitarian purposes? And no other reason?

The problem is, the whole world is a hotbed of "humanitarian purposes". Either we're being very illogically selective (in choosing the humanitarian purpose that we A) caused because of our handling with Iran, B) put in place, and C) supported) in choosing our "humanitarian purposes" or there was an imminent threat. Since the last one isn't true, I'll go with...DING DING DING....illogically selective. Illogical? Unlogical? Who knows.

Furthermore, the majority of the U.N. Security Council wasn't willing to go to war over the thing - why do you think we never presented it to the Security Council? Let alone the General Assembly. Millions of millions of people went to the street to protest the war. Hans Blix said he couldn't find anything, Scott Ritter, who led UNSCOM and their inspections til they were kicked out in 98 said they had disarmed Iraq, every major Christian denomination denounced the war, including Bush's own Church.

The rest of the world thought he might possibly have them, yes. Most of the world probably thought he did have them. The difference was, they weren't sure enough to justify invading a sovereign nation without any prior prevocation.

-TheE-

[Hulkein]

It's called using your best judgment. I trust this man to use his best judgment. If he feels we should invade other countries, and can get the Senate and most of the country to approve of it, then go ahead. That won't happen however, so there's nothing to worry about.

[Edited on 2-14-2004 by Hulkein]

[TheEschaton]

Whyever do you trust his best judgment?

The man has no sense of responsibility, he was born with the silver spoon not only in his mouth but shoved down his throat.

The man has a warped sense of morality, picking and choosing his morals as is convienant to him.

The man has been spoiled rotten by his dad, who not only got him into the National Guard, Yale, and I'm sure Harvard (believe me, I know stupid "legacy students" at Harvard to this very day) but all the businesses he was involved in prior to running for governor.

The man has failed at every business he ever ran. Even though his daddy was helping him.

The man made Houston the most polluted city in the country, surpassing even L.A. As gov'r, he also executed the most men in the history of the state - and it's a state with a bloody history.

Please, why do you trust his judgment? Because he smiles nicely? Cause of that Southern drawl? If a man uses his best judgment, but his best judgment is piss poor, is that excusable? Is that reason to re-elect him?

-TheE-

[TheEschaton]

P.S. Read my sig.

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by Hulkein
It's called using your best judgment. I trust this man to use his best judgment. If he feels we should invade other countries, and can get the Senate and most of the country to approve of it, then go ahead. That won't happen however, so there's nothing to worry about.

[Edited on 2-14-2004 by Hulkein]

My god. Thats flat out scary.

You trust him to use his judgement?

I will agree that the WMD ruse was idiotic, in fact I always said so but I went along with this particular action because Iraq needed a new leader both for them but more importantly for us.

Of course you all do realize that fifty years from now history will show that the US suffered its worst terrorist attack in its history on 9-11 and in its fury attacked and changed two small governments through military actions in a bit of chest thumping like a gorrilla.

My reasons however for backing this action are far from as simple as trusting Bush. Giving over your entire thought process to Bush is a stunning error.

[TheEschaton]

Putting the decision making in G.W.'s hands is akin to the Son of Sam following the advice of his dog.

That's craaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaazy.

-TheE-

[Tendarian]

Maybe Kerry can win the election and us republicans can start hating again. I feel left out cause i like Dubya. Heres a link,maybe Kerry will be Clinton Jr. http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/164376p-144049c.html

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2004071781,00.html

[TheEschaton]

Ah yes, the NY Daily News and the Sun Times, two veritable paragons of integral journalism.

And it uses Matt DRUDGE as a source! I mean, come on. Everyone knows Drudge is one step away from being satire, that one step being that for some reason, the author thinks its true.

-TheE-
P.S. Do you know who those papers are owned by? I believe they're connected to Richard Perle in some way, but that might be some weird connection I'm just pulling out of nowhere.

[TheEschaton]

oh, wait, they're just tabloids. Nevermind.

[Mistomeer]

Originally posted by TheEschaton
Ah yes, the NY Daily News and the Sun Times, two veritable paragons of integral journalism.

And it uses Matt DRUDGE as a source! I mean, come on. Everyone knows Drudge is one step away from being satire, that one step being that for some reason, the author thinks its true.

-TheE-
P.S. Do you know who those papers are owned by? I believe they're connected to Richard Perle in some way, but that might be some weird connection I'm just pulling out of nowhere.

Actually, NPR is reporting the Kerry affair rumors as well. So it's not just the tabloids. I'm not pro Bush or Clinton, but I do find it amusing that everyone wants to blame Clinton for the intelligence failure. The war in Iraq was a complete fuckup and now they just want a scapegoat. Bush sucks for 3 Reasons: Patriot Act, War in Iraq, Halliburton.

[Nieninque]

Originally posted by Hulkein

Then people say he 'lied' because he was given wrong information, information in which the entire world believed was valid.


Erm...the entire world didnt.

Only bush and his lapdog believed it...and even then, Im not sure they did...more likely that they thought we all would.

[Mistomeer]

Originally posted by Nieninque

Originally posted by Hulkein

Then people say he 'lied' because he was given wrong information, information in which the entire world believed was valid.


Erm...the entire world didnt.

Only bush and his lapdog believed it...and even then, Im not sure they did...more likely that they thought we all would.

That and Bush and his cronies took over alot of the intelligence gathering to make it fit their needs.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I'm not so old to remember this, but what happened to the days of respecting public officials? I understand not agreeing and not liking them... but shouldn't there be some respect?

[Myshel]

Most powerful men have high sex drives and plenty of opportunities to indulge. In our times of instant news and minute scrutiny of our politicians private lifes are bringing a change to their personal actions if they plan on being in office. That Clinton got caught in that change over was classic. The married man getting caught by the nation and lying about it.. gasp, who would have thought. Think about Kennedy, he was screwing everything not nailed down, did it change his political abilities? He was our golden boy. That Clinton lied is a no brainer, but will the next one lie. I don't think so, already some politicians are hanging their heads and saying.. duh.. yes I did it and I'm sorry. They have learned the lesson.

[Hulkein]

I don't leave my entire thought process to him, but when you elect an official to office for four years then you are technically trusting him. I'm just saying I trust him to do what's best for the safety of this country. He's not perfect and he's definitly not the smartest guy in the world, but he's a good leader who has the resolve to do what he feels is right, and I normally agree with him on what he feels is the right thing to do.

[Ilvane]

Bush is already showing how he's going to run his campaign against Kerry..but I don't think people are going to buy it. I'd like to think the country is worried about issues and not about rumors of a supposed affair by Drudge..it's ridiculous.

..Bush--lied about the reasons for going to war in Iraq, and then tried to justify it. Meanwhile hundreds of our troops are over there getting killed, not to mention thousands of innocent Iraqui civilians. He's made our longtime allies angry with us. Meanwhile, he is supporting a budget that cuts veterans benefits, so those guys and gals that come home from Iraq aren't going to get quite as good benefits..nice huh?

..Clinton--lied about having oral sex in the Oval office. Didn't hurt anyone but his wife and daughter.

I certainly would take Clinton's type of lie over Bush's any day, mainly because it doesn't *kill* people.

-A

[Hulkein]

He lied under oath = felony. Bush didn't 'lie' he made a mistake, the consensus of the world pre-war was that Iraq had WMD, you can't say that's not true.

[Edaarin]

More than 50% of us didn't vote to elect him. Gotta remember that.

[Sean]

I dunno .. I don't respect anyone just because I'm "suppoed to," I respect someone if I feel they've earned my respect. Whether they care or not about my respect is upto them.

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by Hulkein
He lied under oath = felony. Bush didn't 'lie' he made a mistake, the consensus of the world pre-war was that Iraq had WMD, you can't say that's not true.

Without acknowledging that your ridiculous contention is true, allow me to turn it around for you.

Prove to me that the majority of the world thought tht Iraq had WMD.

[Sean]

Majority of the world .. or majority of the worlds leaders?

[Skirmisher]

Hell. I'll accept either.

I don't believe either can be proven so I'll give leeway.

In my opinion, the only people who truly believed that Iraq HAD Wmd were the ardent Bush supporters in this country, perhaps the govts of Spain and the UK said so publicly( I in no way believe they actually thought that but as they may have said so I'll accept that) but I doubt anyone will have luck finding statements from many other countries saying the same.

[Hulkein]

Well considering not many countries besides the US and UK have expansive intelligence programs let alone ones with operatives or knowledge of the middle-east, you probably won't find many statements from countries saying THEY believe. However, every country part of the coallition believed there were WMD because of the intelligence gathered by the UK and US, and the fact that Saddam has always and was up until his removal posturing as if he had them.

[Edited on 2-15-2004 by Hulkein]

[Ilvane]

He made a mistake costing a bunch of American and British troops lives.

I think talking in the State of the Union and lying about trying to get nuclear information is just as bad, because he is speaking before congress..so I think you are not looking at it objectively, you are looking at it as a conservative.;)

-A:love:

[Hulkein]

haha, I agree, I am looking at it from a conservative standpoint, I won't lie or try to hide that =)

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by Hulkein
Well considering not many countries besides the US and UK have expansive intelligence programs let alone ones with operatives or knowledge of the middle-east, you probably won't find many statements from countries saying THEY believe. However, every country part of the coallition believed there were WMD because of the intelligence gathered by the UK and US, and the fact that Saddam has always and was up until his removal posturing as if he had them.

[Edited on 2-15-2004 by Hulkein]

Ok, I must then ask you to not make such outlandish claims in the future if you are going to demand proof from those who disagree with you while you feel it is ok for you to assert that because Bush said something that that makes it true.

You want one set of rules for those whos opinion differ from your own while you get to say anything you wish and it just does not work that way.

[Hulkein]

I live in this country, I know that most of the country and most of the countries on the news believed there were WMD. That part has nothing to do with me supporting Bush. Sure, after we don't find any people will say TOLD YOU I NEVER BELIEVED, just as if they found them people would say I KNEW THEY HAD THEM ALL ALONG. It's really not an outlandish claim at all, there is a reason support for the war BEFORE the war was relatively high, and now it is low. That's the only stat I'll have you look at.

[Artha]

Clinton lied under oath, yeah, but he also gave North Korea a nuclear power plant, if they promised not to use it to make nuclear weapons.

That's worked out really well.

He also turned down an offer by Syria to have Osama handed over in 1996.

That also turned out wonderfully.




More than 50% of us didn't vote to elect him. Gotta remember that.

Irrelevant. The Electoral College governs who is president, not the people.

[Edited on 2-15-2004 by Artha]

[Hulkein]

That's what I mean by justing GW's judgment, I don't believe he'd be naive enough to do something like that which will hurt the country down the road.

[Ilvane]

With Osama, hindsight is always 20/20, isn't it?

We didn't know in 1996 that Osama and his buddies were planning on flying into the world trade center, really.

-A

[Artha]

We DID know that he was a terrorist. Is there any decent reason NOT to take one of them out of the action?

[Artha]

In my opinion, the only people who truly believed that Iraq HAD Wmd were the ardent Bush supporters in this country

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002


[edit]

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

[Edited on 2-15-2004 by Artha]

[Hulkein]

Heh, thank you.

[Artha]

Any time.

[Ilvane]

Artha, no one questioned that Iraq was a threat, what they are questioning is why we went to war at this time..Bush was saying it was an imminent threat, because we had intelligence saying he was trying to get nuclear and biological weapons. Our intelligence was wrong, and Bush was told this before the state of the union address..yet he still went ahead and told the country about it, full knowing it was wrong.

Putting a bunch of edited quotes about what Democrats said at certain times, and not really saying what they were discussing doesn't really prove anything.;)

-A

[Artha]

How was Bush supposed to know the intelligence was wrong, Ilvane? Maybe he has a magic Intelligence wand he waves over certain papers, and it tells him if it's correct or not. The bit about the uranium (mentioned in the state of the union...it took up what, one sentence? Maybe two?) was from British intelligence, and they still back it.

[Ilvane]

When it has to do with American lives over there, he better damned be sure he has the right information.

One life lost is enough, don't you think? Or is it just too bad we got it wrong?

-A

[Artha]

It sucks that it was wrong, and don't get me wrong, it sucks that the soldiers died, but Saddam should've been overthrown anyway. The evil of this guy and his family is shocking.

The intelligence came from the best sources available. At the time, I'm sure he thought it was right.

[Edited on 2-15-2004 by Artha]

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Ilvane
Putting a bunch of edited quotes about what Democrats said at certain times, and not really saying what they were discussing doesn't really prove anything.;)

-A

The quotes were more directed at Skirmisher (I think) because she made the claim that most of the leaders, and countries DIDN'T believe that Iraq had WMD, when in fact those quotes are showing her they did.

[Ilvane]

I don't really think it would have been so bad if Bush didn't seem so eager to go to war, and didn't take unilateral action, asking the world to help when the time was right, and keeping our relations with other countries in good shape. By going at it alone, we have commited our troops for a long time, and not too many are willing to help us out to get out of there.

Had we done things the right way, we would have had our allies with us, instead of just Britan and a few other smaller countries.;)

I don't know, it just seems logical to me. But then again we were probably just protecting our interests over there as well.

-A

[Artha]

We had uh...32 allies.

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by Artha
Any time.
Gimme a lil bit, I was actually reviewing each of those quotes individually untill I came across the single website that you lifted the entire quote from without crediting it.

[Ilvane]

Artha, I'm not an idiot, I think I'm aware we had other allies, but our main allies, Germany, France, etc..they were not with us.;)

-A

[Hulkein]

So what, it still proves one of the points at hand.

[Artha]

Gimme a lil bit, I was actually reviewing each of those quotes individually untill I came across the single website that you lifted the entire quote from without crediting it.

I figured you'd use the url to attack the credibility of the quotes. If you want, it's www.rightwingnews.com, I forget the specific one.

[Ilvane]

Ah rightwing news, a very non-biased site!
:lol:

-A

[Artha]

I figured you'd use the url to attack the credibility of the quotes.


Ah rightwing news, a very non-biased site!

Did I call that one or what?

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by Hulkein
The quotes were more directed at Skirmisher (I think) because she made the claim that most of the leaders, and countries DIDN'T believe that Iraq had WMD, when in fact those quotes are showing her they did.

Still reviewing here Hulkien, but just thought I would point out that only one of those people quoted were not from the US.

[Ilvane]

Well, it's a pretty valid thing to note, Artha. If you are going to use quotes from a right winger site, it's probably best to say so.

:snicker:

-A

[Hulkein]

Quote's are quotes.. It's from a slanted sight but they didn't put words in their mouths.

[Ilvane]

Yes, but they are also edited quotes, which if it comes from a right wing site, are edited to sound a certain way..:grin:

Come on, even you would attack if I posted a bunch of quotes from a left wing site, don't you think?

-A

[Artha]

I'd just post the quotes in their entirety. Go for it.

[Ilvane]

Here are some interesting things. Links are from CNN, the left wing bastion.;), Arabic news, and the Washington post, who is a bit left leaning.

http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/10/18/column.billpress/index.html

http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/980922/1998092255.html

http://www.cnn.com/US/9609/09/clinton.aviation/index.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A62725-2001Dec18


Here you go, some reading on what Clinton did to try and stop terrorism, and to go after Bin Laden, as well as what he tried to pass and did pass to combat terrorism.

-A

[Edaarin]

Thanks for the Government lesson Artha. I've never taken a Politics class, or US History class or anything.

Anyway, I was merely referring to the fact that not everyone supported putting Bush in office. Not everyone blindly follows all his policies without questioning the evidence presented.

[HarmNone]

If I had supported G.W. Bush for president of the United States, I think I would now have to offer myself for sacrifice! I think of him as the village idiot who made good, not as a leader to be admired and followed without question. Hopefully, his tenure will not outlast the next election!

HarmNone

[Artha]

Bush and Cheney will win in 04.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Tijay
I dunno .. I don't respect anyone just because I'm "suppoed to," I respect someone if I feel they've earned my respect. Whether they care or not about my respect is upto them. A man doesn't automatically earn my respect, he has to get down in the dirt and beg for it. -Jack Handy
Originally posted by Ilvane
Had we done things the right way, we would have had our allies with us,Friends that only back you when they like what you're doing aren't friends. France and Germany want to puss out, then screw France and Germany, we don't need them.

edited to add: I can't believe no one's made a flash thing about this thread's title yet.

[Edited on 2-15-2004 by Latrinsorm]

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by Artha

In my opinion, the only people who truly believed that Iraq HAD Wmd were the ardent Bush supporters in this country

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

This was in 1998.


"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

Key words, "will rebuild"


"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

True.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

Yes, I also agree that he would have loved to have nuclear weapons but did not have them yet.

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

Wow Mr Clark, do you really think the risks faced by friends of the US (lets read this as it should btw Isreal) would increase if Iraq had obtained Nuclear weapons?

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

Again, key words "potential threat" and "risk of proliferation".

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

Again, in 1998.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

Key words. "worked to rebuild" "Should he succeed", "will continue to increase his capacity" and "will keep trying"

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

Key words, "I saw evidence back in 1998"

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

Seeing a pattern here, again 1998.

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

I actually agree with this one.

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

No problems with this either.

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

Not that I disagree, but I would hazard that that is not the entirety of that statement.



"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

I agree.

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

Hrm, "a developing capacity".

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

True.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

First of all its Ted Kennedy who is a joke, second of all : "seeking and developing"

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

Wow, this is some series of quotes: "his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction"

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

Ok, my only question with this quote would be if the rest of the statement from which it is lifted stated that he actually HAD the weapons of if the threat of him getting them was real.

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"Continued to rebuild" and "four years to reconstitute".


"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

Key portion: "consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction."

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

Key words: "is building".

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

I agree.

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

Key words: "Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise."


"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

Becoming repetitive: "engaged in the development"

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

Surprise surprise surprise, another quote from 1998.


"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

Although the evidence found thus far does not bear out this quote I actually still agree with it.

"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

Again, I don't disagree.


"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

Again, I agree.

[edit]

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

Wow, 1998 again.

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

No disagreement.



"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

"positive progress" again, has not really been shown in post war Iraq thus far but I think he would have lept at the chance to get nuclear weapons and quite possibly used it because he was insane like that.

[Edited on 2-15-2004 by Artha]

[Artha]

This was in 1998.

Point? Believing Saddam dismantled his entire weapons program since then is the heigh of naivete

[Skirmisher]

Point: immense changes can occur in even one year, to offer quotes from politicians from back then on a topic regarding today is something you surely can do, just dont expect them to carry much weight.

[Artha]

Sure they can, but the likelyhood of Saddam changing his foreign policy or dismantling his weapons programs is slim to none.

[TheEschaton]

We had uh...32 allies.


Almost all of which were told that they would be offered significant economic incentives if they hopped on board. Believe me, there's significance as to why Al Qaeda made the WTC the primary target, as opposed to the White House. The new world war is an economic one, and the U.S. (both Clinton and Bush demonstrated this, but this is a very clear example of such) continually uses economic aid to push their military agenda.

This was seen in Turkey, where the U.S. offered 25 billion in aid, to have bases in Turkey to stage the attack from - and even that fell through, as the people rose up, and demanded their legislators vote against it. And the legislators listened, and the measure was shot down. I laughed, after that one.

I've actually seen Scott Ritter out on the anti-war stump. He came by my school to speak. The man is Republican, a Marine (cause apparently there's no such thing as an ex-Marine?), and supported the first war. He said he believed, in late 2002 (when this talk was), that Iraq had no weapons, that they couldn't possibly have weapons, that they didn't have the infrastructure to have the weapons. Why? Because he had been there, and seen to the disarming?

He got asked a few compelling questions by the Republican plants (they always had 2 or 3 at all our events, Scott Ritter, Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore, to spout the PNAC talking points), which he answered very well. "Why did Saddam kick the inspectors out, then, if he was complying, and he was disarmed?"

Ritter's answer: Saddam, in 1998, came under the impression that UNSCOM was being used by the U.S. to secretly spy on matters of state in the Iraqi gov't. Ritter confirmed this, saying that U.S. military types would come to him and tell him to inspect a certain palace, and look for certain docs, not on weapons, but on other things. When they would show up at these places, like the palaces, Saddam would not let them, saying they had nothing to do with any weapons program, which, Ritter contended, they didn't. So, to sum up: Saddam kicked out the inspectors because he thought they were being used to spy on him....which they were.

"Why are you on the record, after leaving Iraq, for saying you didn't beleive Iraq was disarmed?"
Answer: Because it was my job. As an inspector, Ritter felt that Saddam was 99.99% disarmed, but it was his job to report on the 0.01% he wasn't disarmed in, and to take it seriously. BTW, that figure, 99.99%, is one Ritter himself used in the speech, for how much he thought he had disarmed Saddam.

"How do you know he didn't build more weapons?"
Answer: Because he would need infrastructure to do that. Ritter claimed that such things could not be built in a basement [TheE's note: I always used to laugh and think of Ritter when those two "biological warfare labs" were found, the trailers with the canvas siding. Hey, what ever happened to those? Ooops, they were used to fill helium balloons]. Serious laboratories and factories would have to be built or rebuilt, and those sort of things could be monitored by satellite, let alone by the 1400 sorties we flew in a month over Iraq, and to that date, nothing had been built or rebuilt.

Whatever happened to those Titan III missiles that Blix found? They could of been modified to fly beyond the maximum range Iraq was allowed (but weren't), the U.S. raised a clamor and demanded they be dismantled, "or else", and what happened? Saddam complied! They were dismantling them to the very day the U.S. ordered the inspectors out, so we could invade.

Whatever happened to the aluminum tubes that were for the nuclear reactor? Ooops, those were for (perfectly legal) missiles with a new design that used aluminum tubing. That was in the SOTU in 2003 - even though nuclear experts repeated kept saying that there was no way the tubes could be used in a nuclear reactor.

Whatever happened to Saddam's guard being equipped with chemical agents south of Bagdhad, in preparation to gas our soldiers? Ooops, that didn't happen either.

And the right accuses the left of revisionist history. You don't hear about this shit any more.

-TheEschaton-

[Hulkein]

We had 32 allies, I don't care why. France and Germany opposed because they would lose out financially, same deal works both ways.

[Ravenstorm]

Let's see, what happend of significance between 1998 and the time Bush invaded Iraq?

...

Oh yeah. The UN weapon inspectors being allowed back in the country and NOT FINDING ANY WMD. Funny how that might change the situation.

Raven

[Artha]

Let's see, what happened right after Saddam let them back in...

Oh, right, he did everything he could get away with to slow them down.

[TheEschaton]

Survey says..............NEIN!

Blix reported that they were making progress in Iraq, and in his second report to the U.N., said significant improvement in access had been achieved since the first report, where he complained about the slowness of Saddam.

Nothing ever goes as fast as WE want it to, though. ;) No wonder the world consider the U.S. the spoiled, impatient teenager of the world.

-TheE-

[Ilvane]

Oh come on Artha, do you even know what you are talking about?

Can you imagine if some country,(say Britan for an example), said.."Let us into your country and let us do an inspection of all of your weapons facility, and if you don't..we are going to war". Can you imagine us complying? Somehow I doubt it.

And as for your quotes, there were many things that happened between 1998 and now, namely the World Trade center attacks..which should be getting addressed with Afganistan and Osama Bin Laden.

-A

[Ilvane]

TheEschaton, I love your posts!


:love::heart::heart:

[TheEschaton]

And if you don't care WHY we had 32 allies, you're a fool.

How many allies sent troops to fight the war? Let's see....the U.S....Britain....


hmmm....


....

...

....oh yeah, I think the Australians sent some mine detecting dolphins. What the fuck?

...


What a telling show of support!

-TheE-

[Artha]

Can you imagine if some country,(say Britan for an example), said.."Let us into your country and let us do an inspection of all of your weapons facility, and if you don't..we are going to war". Can you imagine us complying? Somehow I doubt it.

Didn't we go through this a couple months ago? There's a giant difference between us and Iraq, namely that we haven't gassed our own citizens.


As to your comment, Eschaton, believe it or not, Saddam did indeed hinder investigators. Sure, they still made progress (a palace a day is still progress), but far less than they could've. Saddam 'lost keys' and staged car accidents, among other things.

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Hulkein
We had 32 allies, I don't care why.

You claim having 32 other countries supporting the US decision to invade Iraq signifies that Bush was right but you don't care that they were bribed to do so. And yet you condemn France and Germany for refusing to support the US because of economic factors.

But you don't care. That says a lot.

Raven

[TheEschaton]

And, as my last post said, Blix reported that those problems had, for the most part ceased, after the initial report where he complained.

I thought I made that clear in that post, but apparently repetition and blinking lights is needed to get through to some people. Quick, Artha, watch this and keep on repeating, "Blix said Saddam was complying, after he complained in the initial report to the U.N":

:heart: :heart: :heart: :heart: :heart: :heart: :heart: :heart: :heart: :heart: :heart: :heart: :heart: :heart: :heart: :heart: :heart: :heart: :heart: :heart: :heart: :heart: :heart: :heart: :heart: :heart:


(About as close as I could get to blinking lights),

-TheE-

[Latrinsorm]

If y'all don't like Bush's way of doing things, don't vote for him. Don't worry, Hulk, Bush'll still win even without the PC Bloc. :D

[Ilvane]

heh, maybe he will win..or maybe he'll try to steal the election again.;)

-A

[Artha]

I think I'm going to go slam my genitals in a car door now.

[TheEschaton]

I was just informed Artha is only 16, meaning, most likely, that car door isn't his....


....and that his opinion doesn't count for jack shit... ;)


Just kidding, but I had to put it out there.

-TheE-

[Artha]

Heh, I could have a car now...I'm old enough to have had my license since November.

I'm just too lazy to go to the DMV, and thus don't have a learner's yet.

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by TheEschaton

Nothing ever goes as fast as WE want it to, though. ;) No wonder the world consider the U.S. the spoiled, impatient teenager of the world.

-TheE-

I'm pretty sure the world looks at us in disdain because we're better then them. And even if we are spoiled impatient teenager, it's better then being the 'kid who gives up his milkmoney every day when someone gets in his face' country (France) or the 'One out of every 3 people have aids' country (take your choice) or the 'women are inferior, they don't deserve education or any rights for that matter.' My point without these horrible attempts to be funny? If being impatient and being spoiled makes us the worlds best country, then I'm glad we are.

[TheEschaton]

I'm pretty sure the world looks at us in disdain because we're better then them.

It's more than that. My grandparents grew up in India under the British Empire, and they dislike the British....

.....but they don't want to kill them..

As to your statement as to being the best country in the world: undoubtably, we are. My question for you, is:

Is it better to be best of a bad lot, or average in a lot of amazing, stupendous countries?

I say, if you want a moral standpoint, it has to be the latter.

As to Machiavelli's old question, Is it better to be loved or hated? I say loved, despite what Machiavelli says.

It's humorous though, almost everyone can read The Prince and realize the moral bankruptcy throughout the whole work, at the expense of effective rule. Yet, it runs the mindset of how this country is run, it is the predominant philosophy in modern politics, but no one says a damn thing.

-TheE-

[Warriorbird]

Artha. Read some Paul Wolfowitz.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Artha. Read some Paul Wolfowitz. I dunno who that is, but whatever he wrote has to beat slamming a car door on Little Artha.

[Artha]

Who you calling little?

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Artha
Who you calling little? The nice response: Uh, it's a euphemism for your genitals. No disrespect intended.

The better response: You, compared to me.

[TheEschaton]

Paul Wolfowitz: the man who gives every person of conscience nightmares.

Right now, he goes by the title Deputy Secretary of Defense, right under Rumsfeld.

He's the intellect behind PNAC, the Project for a New American Century.

Read their stuff here: http://www.newamericancentury.org

Basically, the (liberal) summary of the whole organization is that we, as America, and as the most powerful country in the world, can only preserve our security by making sure the whole world is conformed to our interests. This can be achieved by military means, by implementing regimes tolerant to U.S. big business, to the economic dangling I mentioned earlier, etc, etc, etc.

It's like the Monroe doctrine, as summed up by Blum in Rogue Nation: #1) No one can dictate what happens in South America, #2) Except us, #3) Hahahahahahahahahaha.

Look to Latin America if you want to see examples: tinpot dictators supported by the United States despite the atrocities they commit, because they allow U.S. companies in.

Noriega, Pinochet, Aristade (who's now under intense fire in Haiti, and, believe it or not, the U.S. has warned the rebels against overthrowing his gov't, despite his years of brutal dictatorship), the death squads of El Salvador, the list goes on, and on, and tragically on.

-TheE-

[TheEschaton]

John Kerry and your great sources quoting he had an affair?

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,8713869%255E663,00.html

Just one of hundreds of newspapers delineating how it's false, and how Drudge (or his sources) DOCTORED pictures to put Kerry next to Fonda at an anti-Vietnam rally.

-TheE-

[Warriorbird]

:chuckle: :shrugs: Even taking it from an entirely conservative point of view about how glorious world domination is...

Everything Paul Wolfowitz says basically pretty much contradicts Artha's standpoint. It'd be good reading for him though... young Republicans like Artha will rule the world in the future.