It keeps getting better....

[Mickey]

Or could it be that I'm more upset that the case to go to war needs to be boiled down to a 2.5 minute segment on the local news, when the background of the action has been developing for the last 50 years, and that old realpolitik standards do not apply anymore.  Or that 3 years of discussions on the real reason for the war are obviously lost on you because you go back to the "Bush Lied" credo.

 

People think that Bush fell for the svengali influence of Wolfowitz, when Cheney & Wolfowitz have been fearing Saddam's influence in Mid East since the end of GWI, and have been less than quiet about it.

 

Interesting that Congress Democrats are wrapping themselves in the "Bush Lied" cloak, when they gave him carte blanche to attack Iraq. 

 

Interesting how most of the anti-war talking heads aren't sying that we wouldn't have had to deal with Saddam eventually, it's that 2003 was the wrong time to go in. 

 

Interesting how no one is talking about the consequences of inaction, as Saddam was peddling influence in the UN to drop sanctions & potentially resume his fun & games without UN "oversight."

 

Meanwhile, have a BBQ at the commemoration of the 2,000 serviceman being killed, because #378 certainly didn't deserve as much attention.

485988[/snapback]

If your argument is so weak that you have to borrow the courage of others and cheapen their ultimate sacrifice by using it to advance a petty argument on an internet discussion board, you might want to stop typing for a minute, take a breath and start over.

[TPS]

Mickey, if you read the article I posted about selling the war, you'd realize that GG is one of the Kool-Aid drinkers....

 

They either have to admit they were wrong, or they have to swallow the same line of reasoning that Clinton used to defend himself against a blow job. Hmmm...Blow job vs. war....swallow...

[blzrul]

Mickey, if you read the article I posted about selling the war, you'd realize that GG is one of the Kool-Aid drinkers....

 

They either have to admit they were wrong, or they have to swallow the same line of reasoning that Clinton used to defend himself against a blow job. Hmmm...Blow job vs. war....swallow...

486574[/snapback]

Speaking of which did you see Sen. Kay Bailey Witch's comments about perjury? She expressed hope that any indictments that may be issued (over the Pflame incident) I believe were over "real" crimes as opposed to just perjury...apparently perjury is only perjury when it relates to blow jobs, not treason. Or perhaps when your side lies it's not lying.

 

It is to laugh.

[Alaska Darin]

Your argument for the war is the neocons feared Saddam way back when. I'd say they were plotting how to pursue their interests way back when. 

486123[/snapback]

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... 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 ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."

- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source

 

"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."

- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source

 

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."

- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source

 

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source

 

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."

- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source

 

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."

- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source

 

"[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."

Letter to President Clinton.

- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source

 

"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."

- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source

 

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."

- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source

 

"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 mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."

- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source

 

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

- Former Vice President Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

 

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."

- Former Vice President Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

 

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 | Source

 

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a Rosen course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."

- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 | Source

 

"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 ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."

- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

 

"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 ... 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."

- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

 

"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."

- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 | Source

 

Goddamn Neocons.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... 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 ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."

- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source

 

"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."

- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source

 

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."

- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source

 

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source

 

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."

- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source

 

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."

- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source

 

"[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."

Letter to President Clinton.

- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source

 

"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."

- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source

 

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."

- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source

 

"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 mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."

- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source

 

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

- Former Vice President Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

 

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."

- Former Vice President Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

 

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 | Source

 

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a Rosen course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."

- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 | Source

 

"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 ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."

- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

 

"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 ... 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."

- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

 

"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."

- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 | Source

 

Goddamn Neocons. 

486624[/snapback]

 

Don't you ever get sick of posting that?

[TPS]

Thanks AD, can always count on you to show that both sides are equally guilty. However, please read my post on selling the war, or at least the article from the DIA analyst on selling the war. All of your quotes fit right in with the "Iraq War Act" of 1998, which according to the author of the article I posted, was sold then by the same group that took control of Bush 2's cabinet.

 

You guys fit right in with the "Kool-Aid" crowd....

[Kelly the Dog]

News flash, AD. None of those quoted pulled the trigger. I know that's a difficult concept to comprehend. I thought and said Saddam had WMD, too. But I didn't invade his country either. Should I be held partially responsible for the war?

[Alaska Darin]

News flash, AD. None of those quoted pulled the trigger. I know that's a difficult concept to comprehend. I thought and said Saddam had WMD, too. But I didn't invade his country either. Should I be held partially responsible for the war?

486652[/snapback]

That's incredibly !@#$ing lame and you know it. Everyone of those people is part of the inevitable decision and each shares plenty of blame for being another piece of sh-- mouthpiece.

[Alaska Darin]

Thanks AD, can always count on you to show that both sides are equally guilty.  However, please read my post on selling the war, or at least the article from the DIA analyst on selling the war.  All of your quotes fit right in with the "Iraq War Act" of 1998, which according to the author of the article I posted, was sold then by the same group that took control of Bush 2's cabinet.

 

You guys fit right in with the "Kool-Aid" crowd....

486647[/snapback]

There are quotes from pre-1998 all around from the same people. I could care less. It all goes back to the same things I've been saying for years: Individuals continue to cede power to the fed and eventually it all spirals out of control. The horse is out of the barn and until the individual partisans send the message to BOTH parties that they have no business running our country, we'll continue down the same path to ruin.

 

Has nothing to do with Kool Aid, as I wasn't defending this administration in any way, shape, form, or fashion. You lost me at "neocons", which is par for the course.

[TPS]

There are quotes from pre-1998 all around from the same people.  I could care less.  It all goes back to the same things I've been saying for years:  Individuals continue to cede power to the fed and eventually it all spirals out of control.  The horse is out of the barn and until the individual partisans send the message to BOTH parties that they have no business running our country, we'll continue down the same path to ruin.

 

Has nothing to do with Kool Aid, as I wasn't defending this administration in any way, shape, form, or fashion.  You lost me at "neocons", which is par for the course.

486661[/snapback]

 

yes, I always lose you when the words are 3 or more syllables...

Seriously, read that piece. I don't know who the guy is other than it says he's a former DIa analyst. however, it's a good chronology of the hacks that took over American foreign policy.

[Kelly the Dog]

That's incredibly !@#$ing lame and you know it.  Everyone of those people is part of the inevitable decision and each shares plenty of blame for being another piece of sh-- mouthpiece.

486659[/snapback]

No, that's the whole issue. A few of those quoted were in a position to actually do something like invade Iraq and they chose not to. It was a war of choice and you can't blame anyone but the guy at the top and his inner circle who made the decision and gave the orders.

[SilverNRed]

No, that's the whole issue. A few of those quoted were in a position to actually do something like invade Iraq and they chose not to. It was a war of choice and you can't blame anyone but the guy at the top and his inner circle who made the decision and gave the orders.

486665[/snapback]

And the choice was what? Either do what we did, invade, and try to spark some change in the region (which was basically nothing but a cancer) or let Saddam keep bribing the UN, letting tens of thousands starve each year, and basically waiting out the sanctions so that he can eventually go back to doing what he wants (i.e. become North Korea). And that's with two heirs waiting to take over.

[GG]

Your argument for the war is the neocons feared Saddam way back when. I'd say they were plotting how to pursue their interests way back when. 

 

As it turned out, Saddam was a minor threat.  The UN inspections were working.  Read the article on the link "selling the war."  Your cabal wanted to overthrow Saddam for their own reasons, and over-stated his threat.  They wouldn't listen to anyone else; it was their way or the highway.  It was their bloviations in 1998 that got congress and Clinton to pass the "Iraq Liberation Act." Of course, you'll rely on the "experts" here who have argued over the past 3 years that everything we thought about Saddam was true. 

 

Is it not now obvious that Saddam was not a threat? Is it not now obvious, as Scowcroft said in his interview, that invading Iraq has increased the threat of terrorism and destabilized the ME? 

 

This cabal had a grand vision that if they took out Saddam they could revolutionize the ME, and get a few goodies for their buddies along the way (control of Iraq's oil and eliminate one of Israel's major threats).  It ain't working.

 

Yes, quite a few people fell for the svengali influence of this cabal, and now it's coming home to roost--the sane people who run/ran foreign policy want these idiots out.

486123[/snapback]

 

Yes, Wolfowitz & Cheney were hatching a plot way back in 1992 to someday take back the White House, install an idiot as a puppet President, have three planes smash into US buildings and kill 4,000 people so that they could have the rationale to invade Iraq to save Israel. But in the process, they would need to dupe Congress, and the way to accomplish all that, they would need one willing reporter at the venerable leftist institution of The New York Times to play the patsy. Because G-d knows, people won't be able to make up their minds unless Judy Miller tells them that Saddam is a bad man.

 

Is that a good summary?

[GG]

That's a pretty !@#$ed up thing to say.  Just because some of us oppose the war, or because some of us are able to admit that some of our nation's leaders and their policies are flat out wrong for the country (if they're not illegal), does not mean that we want our soldiers, our fellow citizens, to be killed. 

 

The world isn't black and white.  Just because we oppose the war doesn't mean we hate America.  I guess the right-wing's media rhetoric has convinced you otherwise. 

 

And that's just sad.

486141[/snapback]

 

No, it's my pent up anger that the protest needs to be staged when there are 2,000 dead servicemen. Not 1, not 10, not 378, but somehow 2,000 is worthy of protest and media attention.

 

I have no problem with protesting the war, but please save the sanctimony that there's some kind of a milestone here that needs a special commemoration. It perverts the sacrifice of the other 1,999.

[Kelly the Dog]

And the choice was what?  Either do what we did, invade, and try to spark some change in the region (which was basically nothing but a cancer) or let Saddam keep bribing the UN, letting tens of thousands starve each year, and basically waiting out the sanctions so that he can eventually go back to doing what he wants (i.e. become North Korea).  And that's with two heirs waiting to take over.

486666[/snapback]

One could start with having an understanding of the region.

[TPS]

Yes, Wolfowitz & Cheney were hatching a plot way back in 1992 to someday take back the White House, install an idiot as a puppet President, have three planes smash into US buildings and kill 4,000 people so that they could have the rationale to  invade Iraq to save Israel.  But in the process, they would need to dupe Congress, and the way to accomplish all that, they would need one willing reporter at the venerable leftist institution of The New York Times to play the patsy.  Because G-d knows, people won't be able to make up their minds unless Judy Miller tells them that Saddam is a bad man.

 

Is that a good summary?

486667[/snapback]

 

Yes, your typical summary. The one point that you are correct on: "intall an idiot as a puppet president."

[Alaska Darin]

No, that's the whole issue. A few of those quoted were in a position to actually do something like invade Iraq and they chose not to. It was a war of choice and you can't blame anyone but the guy at the top and his inner circle who made the decision and gave the orders.

486665[/snapback]

Stop drinking from VA's tap. That "lahjik" is why the government will continue to do what it's been doing for 2 decades. That popping sound will be your head coming out of your ass. Damn Pete, you're so much smarter than that.

 

Nah, they didn't invade. They simply let Saddam kill hundreds of thousands of people while the French, Germans, and Russians made billions through graft. Sometimes they even went so far as to shake their fists and use a harsh tone at the UN. Way to go team.

[Alaska Darin]

One could start with having an understanding of the region.

486674[/snapback]

That's funny. The next person I meet who "understands the region" will be the only one on the planet.

[GG]

Nah, they didn't invade.  They simply let Saddam kill hundreds of thousands of people while the French, Germans, and Russians made billions through graft.  Sometimes they even went so far as to shake their fists and use a harsh tone at the UN.  Way to go team.

486686[/snapback]

 

Billions through graft? I haven't seen anything about that.

 

 

Oh wait, here it is, right up there front and center on Page 15 (At least it was in section A, and not with the funnies)

[SilverNRed]

Nah, they didn't invade.  They simply let Saddam kill hundreds of thousands of people while the French, Germans, and Russians made billions through graft. Sometimes they even went so far as to shake their fists and use a harsh tone at the UN.  Way to go team.

486686[/snapback]

Yeah, but that was Bush's fault too.

 

Somehow.