Jump to content

Bad Things

Community Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2,957

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Bad Things

    WMD were found in Iraq. Final proof Saddam had 'em

    in Politics, Polls, and Pundits

    Posted

    I thought that was the purpose of the Iraq war -- to identify the greatest potential threats for another 9/11 attack and preempt them.  Of course I'm assuming that you see our inability to see the gathering risk and prevent the 9/11 attacks as the biggest F-up our government has done, maybe that's not the case?

    60774[/snapback]

    It's sooooo convenient to frame the topic as "seeing a gathering risk". (Boy that sounds so nice.)

    The F-UP occurred when we actually invaded a soveriegn nation, killing thousands of innocents, more than a thousand of our troops, spending hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars, discrediting ourselves on the world stage, all based on Bullsh1t and fear.

     

    Two weeks to wipe out a country with an army that didn't fight... Saddaam hiding in a hole... boy that was sure a gathering risk!

    WMD were found in Iraq. Final proof Saddam had 'em

    in Politics, Polls, and Pundits

    Posted

    I'll pretend I understand your question, despite the terrible way it was phrased.  :w00t:

     

    Because we can continue to play "Monday Morning QB" for the forseeable future with no positive coming from it, or we can move on and work towards actual solutions to why our government feels it's entitled to act like the international Gladdys Kravitz.  Regardless of which cluster of thieves holds the Executive.

    60641[/snapback]

     

    Simply stated Darin... we must learn from History to improve our future.

    In analyzing the biggest F-Up our government has done (since my adulthood), we may be able to understand future F-ups before they happen again.

    By simply looking ahead... we will perpetuate the same mistakes over and over.

    WMD were found in Iraq. Final proof Saddam had 'em

    in Politics, Polls, and Pundits

    Posted

    Absolutely.

     

    Woodward's book cites Bush stating that he wanted to be a second term president but if it was a choice between that and removing Saddam from power, he would pursue Saddam.  I think he erred in identifying the options.  In fact, if George W. Bush had not removed Saddam Hussein from power, he would be unelectable today.  The American people would not have accepted the notion of Saddam still being in power in Iraq and U.N. resolutions being scaled back.  The fact that he is even in this race is a sign he made the right decision.

     

    BTW - nice edit on your original post.

    60697[/snapback]

    Thanks (Edit.) Hindsight helped you with your post, so I thought it should help me too.

     

    Anyway... I'm sorry if I'm thick-skulled, (Which I KNOW I am) but I don't seem to understand your logic.

    Are you stating that if "w" didn't start claiming a link between Iraq/911 and Saddaam/Bin Laden directly following Sept 11th, and if we didn't rush to war against the wishes of most of the world... Bush would be unelectable because he didn't remove Saddaam from power?

    But... since he ("w") claimed (lied) that Iraq had this HUGE stockpile of weapons that he was going to use against us makes him ("w") correct even thought it's now been proved false??

    WMD were found in Iraq. Final proof Saddam had 'em

    in Politics, Polls, and Pundits

    Posted

    Hey, gmac, in case you need a link to support that yellowcake uranium claim, here you go:

     

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...4-2004Jul9.html

     

    Some crazy lib may show up challenging the validity of this one.  Figured I'd give you a pretty straight source so they couldn't use the old "right wing nut job" claim they so love when they see Drudge or FoxNews.

    60609[/snapback]

     

    Mich...

    Do you believe that the invasion of Iraq was justified?

    Legal Document and September 11th

    in Politics, Polls, and Pundits

    Posted

    Some time ago, someone posted the link to the legal document that the President executed to start/justify the Iraq war.  The document specifically referenced September 11th.

     

    Do any of you have the link to that document?

    60596[/snapback]

    Also...

     

    Bush' letter to Congress

    Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)

     

    Consistent with section 3(B) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

     

    (1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

     

    (2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

     

    Sincerely,

     

    GEORGE W. BUSH

    Legal Document and September 11th

    in Politics, Polls, and Pundits

    Posted

    Here's what was brought to Congress to authorize "w" to invade Iraq...

     

     

     

     

    "In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force," the congressional resolution states, "the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that:

     

    "(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and

     

    "(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."

    WMD were found in Iraq. Final proof Saddam had 'em

    in Politics, Polls, and Pundits

    Posted

    Don't forget that both Clinton and Bush were saying the same things based on the same military intelligence. Damning evidence for sure, but this is more of an American problem and not a particular party's problem. I'm worried about our intelligence credibility now with the rest of the world.

    59551[/snapback]

     

    Shut the F*ck up about Clinton already!

    Damn it... don't you realize how completley stupid you sound? Comparing Clinton to Bush is just the lamest thing I can imagine.

    This A-Hole Bush fooled you and most of this country in his mad rush for war.

    Now... he continues to fool almost half of you.

    What the F will it take for you to at least "look behind the curtain" to see the truth.

     

    Fool America Once, Shame on BUSH

    Fool America, again and again and again and again

    Shame on America.

    RIP Mount Saint Helens

    in The Stadium Wall Archives

    Posted

    This could be fun. (I live about 30-40 miles away from Mt St Helens.)

    They passed out surgical masks to all of us yesterday at work.

    (The crappy thing about this is that I won't be able to go on my annual hike up to the Mt St Helens crater this fall, since all the trails are closed.)

×
×
  • Create New...