• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Harry Reid forces closed senate session:

Iriemon said:
Fair enough. We just differ on how to fight this ideology. IMO, invading and occupying a nation when we do not have good evidence they hit us first is not an effective way to win the war on ideas against Islamic radical fundamentalism, but in fact is counterproductive because it gives those who oppose us legitimate arguments against us undermining our credibility and purpose.


Sure....very good points. I too share a little bit of this persepective and do not see the necessity for military action in many other places. I also know that the oppressive and greedy leadership throughout the Middle East who abuse their people while using us as a scapegoat for their people's oppression will not simply decide to start building libraries, world class universities, share the oil money with the communities, extend water and electricity to every town and village, encourage the free flow of information, and lift the restricitive lifestyle that their blasphemous form of Islam has produced. This is where Islamic terrorism has been bred.
 
GySgt said:
Sure....very good points. I too share a little bit of this persepective and do not see the necessity for military action in many other places. I also know that the oppressive and greedy leadership throughout the Middle East who abuse their people while using us as a scapegoat for their people's oppression will not simply decide to start building libraries, world class universities, share the oil money with the communities, extend water and electricity to every town and village, encourage the free flow of information, and lift the restricitive lifestyle that their blasphemous form of Islam has produced. This is where Islamic terrorism has been bred.

And Saudi Arabia has been about the worst in this regard. Maybe we should stop kissing up to them while they teach preach spread and promote their radical anti-semitic anti-christian Wahhabi version of Islam
 
Iriemon said:
And Saudi Arabia has been about the worst in this regard. Maybe we should stop kissing up to them while they teach preach spread and promote their radical anti-semitic anti-christian Wahhabi version of Islam


There's not much we can do about that until we can receive our oil from someone else or not use oil. You think 2000 dead is bad? Imagine what it would be if we attacked the birth place of Islam. Bin Laden would be salivating at a chance to wage war there.
 
aps said:
Blah blah blah blah. Sorry, GySgt, but that is not why were told we needed to invade Iraq. Here' a link to a speech that Bush gave. Do you see anywhere in that speech where he addresses the issues you raise above? It's one thing if he said he wanted us to go to war for the reasons you list, but he said that Iraq had WMDs and that they were an imminent threat to us. You are the one who is dramatizing the whole war, making it seem as though we should invade all countries that involve Islamic extremism. Also, our invading Iraq has only increased the # of terrorist who hate us.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html

Ahh, the good old WMD discussion. Here's a recent comment on that:

Jack Kelly: About that Iraq 'deception'
Evidence does link Saddam to WMD programs and terror groups
Sunday, November 06, 2005

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

The president went on television to announce: "Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors."

"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," the vice chairman of the Intelligence committee told the Senate.

The president was Bill Clinton (Dec. 16, 1998). The senator was Jay Rockefeller, a Democrat from West Virginia (Oct. 10, 2002).

These statements should be kept in mind when assessing the hissy fit Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid threw Tuesday when he called the Senate into secret session to discuss whether Bush administration officials had exaggerated prewar intelligence about Iraq.

Mr. Reid claimed his action was prompted by the indictment of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, for allegedly lying to a federal grand jury about from whom he learned that Valerie Plame, the wife of Ambassador Joseph Wilson, worked for the CIA.

"The Libby indictment provides a window into what this is really all about, how this administration manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to sell the war in Iraq," Sen. Reid said.

But Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald had made it clear that that was not what the Libby indictment was about. "This indictment is not about the war," he said. "This indictment will not seek to prove the war was justified or unjustified."

The Iraq Survey Group found no large stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons in Iraq. This could be because no such weapons actually existed.

Or it could be because they were moved to another country between the time Congress authorized the use of force against Iraq and when the war actually began.

"We've had six or seven credible reports of Iraqi weapons being moved into Syria before the war," a senior administration official told reporter Kenneth Timmerman.

Or it could be the Iraq Survey Group had an unusually restrictive definition of what constitutes a WMD stockpile.

The 4th Infantry Division discovered in an ammo dump near the town of Baiji 55 gallon drums of chemicals which, when mixed together, form nerve gas. They were stored next to surface-to-surface missiles which had been configured to carry a liquid payload.

If prewar intelligence was faulty, the fault lies with the CIA which supplied the erroneous information, not with the political leaders, Democratic and Republican, who relied upon it.

But Democrats who had access to the same intelligence President Bush had, and who because of it voted to authorize war with Iraq, are charging now that the president deliberately deceived the nation into war.

The slender reed on which this weighty charge is hung is the credibility of Mr. Wilson, who the CIA had sent to Niger in 2002 to determine if Saddam had tried to buy uranium there.

The Senate Intelligence Committee snapped that reed when it issued its report on prewar intelligence in July of last year. The committee found unanimously that Mr. Wilson lied when he said Mr. Cheney had sent him on the mission, lied when he denied his wife had recommended him for it and lied when he said he'd found no evidence Saddam had tried to buy uranium from Niger.
Journalists who interview Mr. Wilson -- who's been enjoying a second 15 minutes of fame in the wake of the indictment of Mr. Libby -- rarely bring this up. Most think it best to ignore facts that get in the way of the story they want to tell.

The press' amnesia has convinced Democrats they can regain power by lying about prewar intelligence. But facts are stubborn things.

"The committee did not find any evidence that administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments," said the Senate Intelligence Committee.

"We conclude that it was the paucity of intelligence and poor analytical tradecraft, rather than political pressure, that produced the inaccurate pre-war intelligence assessments," said the Robb-Silberman report on WMD intelligence, issued in March.

Thanks to really lousy reporting, most Americans are unaware of how much evidence there is of Saddam's WMD programs and his ties to international terror groups. This is a debate Republicans should welcome.

Jack Kelly is national security writer for the Post-Gazette and The Blade of Toledo, Ohio (jkelly@post-gazette.com, 412-263-1476).

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05310/600991.stm
 
Navy Pride said:
Kerry and Clinton both said Saddam was and imminent threat
No they didn't. In fact, Bush personally never said that either.

And, for what it's worth, the senate never voted FOR the war. They voted to give the president control should Bush choose to go to war. It's a hair difference, but it is important.
 
Sob said:
Ahh, the good old WMD discussion. Here's a recent comment on that:



http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05310/600991.stm


I've found that it doesn't matter what weapons or chemicals were found by Marines and soldiers during the assault to Baghdad to some of these people. I've actually been called a liar. :roll: They quickly deny any truth to it (for lack of an Internet site as their proof) and jump directly to the missing direct connection between Bin Ladden and Saddam (as if their was going to be videos and hallmark cards) and they cry out about the lack of nuclear weapons found. Their need to hate and deny anything noble or factual involved, allows them to exonerate their own personal morality and lack of understanding of wide threat vision. What they will do is use the troops and portray them as helpless victims of American imperialism and claim to care and then they will turn around and parade photos of soldiers acting less than honorable to further boost their attempts to pretend to be the true "voices of conscience." They will use the word that old Europe term of "soveriegn" as an attempt to exonerate Saddam of his crimes and our guilt for attacking. They will continue to be ignorant to the causes of Islamic extremism and refuse to admit that the terrorists come from a civilization and will continue to come from this civilization as long as we continue to look the other way for our oil.

...welcome to the site.
 
GySgt said:
I've found that it doesn't matter what weapons or chemicals were found by Marines and soldiers during the assault to Baghdad to some of these people. I've actually been called a liar. :roll: They quickly deny any truth to it (for lack of an Internet site as their proof) and jump directly to the missing direct connection between Bin Ladden and Saddam (as if their was going to be videos and hallmark cards) and they cry out about the lack of nuclear weapons found. Their need to hate and deny anything noble or factual involved, allows them to exonerate their own personal morality and lack of understanding of wide threat vision. What they will do is use the troops and portray them as helpless victims of American imperialism and claim to care and then they will turn around and parade photos of soldiers acting less than honorable to further boost their attempts to pretend to be the true "voices of conscience." They will use the word that old Europe term of "soveriegn" as an attempt to exonerate Saddam of his crimes and our guilt for attacking. They will continue to be ignorant to the causes of Islamic extremism and refuse to admit that the terrorists come from a civilization and will continue to come from this civilization as long as we continue to look the other way for our oil.

...welcome to the site.

If you are claiming you found weapons of mass destruction, it is this same Administration calling you a liar.
 
Iriemon said:
If you are claiming you found weapons of mass destruction, it is this same Administration calling you a liar.


I never claimed to have found weapons of mass destruction. I found crates of weapons from France.

There were chemicals found. They just weren't what people wanted to see. They wanted nuclear bombs and a thousand barrels of Sarin gas.
 
GySgt said:
I've found that it doesn't matter what weapons or chemicals were found by Marines and soldiers during the assault to Baghdad to some of these people. I've actually been called a liar. :roll: They quickly deny any truth to it (for lack of an Internet site as their proof) and jump directly to the missing direct connection between Bin Ladden and Saddam (as if their was going to be videos and hallmark cards) and they cry out about the lack of nuclear weapons found.

On another forum, I once posted a satellite photo of a 747 found in the desert south of Baghdad, at least 20 miles from any airport (The Marines blew it up later.)

When I said it had been used for terrorist training, I was called (you guessed it) a "liar." Any statement that connects Saddam and terrorism is inherently false, of course, since it would mean the anti-Bush crowd is wrong.

Not that I'm a fan of everything Bush has done, but he made the right move regarding Iraq.

...welcome to the site.

Thanks. It's been interesting so far.
 
Sob said:
Any statement that connects Saddam and terrorism is inherently false, of course, since it would mean the anti-Bush crowd is wrong.
Not that I'm a fan of everything Bush has done, but he made the right move regarding Iraq.

I don't support Bush/Iraq but I've never believed Saddam wasn't involved in terrorism. It's been proven over and over again.

However, Saddam's terrorism was directed against neighboring countries to disrupt their governments and further strengthen his own hold on power.

It's never been proven that Saddam directed any terrorism against the U.S.
 
Hoot said:
I don't support Bush/Iraq but I've never believed Saddam wasn't involved in terrorism. It's been proven over and over again.

However, Saddam's terrorism was directed against neighboring countries to disrupt their governments and further strengthen his own hold on power.

It's never been proven that Saddam directed any terrorism against the U.S.


Lets just say Saddam had no WOMD even though he used them on his own people....If that is so why did he not just let the inspectors in and let them inspect anywhere they wanted to even if it was in his bedroom? If he would have done that he would still be president and his 2 sons would still be alive to murder and rape 12 year old virgins in front of their parents........Explain that one please..........

And if he did not have WOMD do you believe he was trying to get them and would have eventually done so..........And if he got them do you think he might have tried to use them on Israel or the U.S. or sold them to Alqueda to do so..................

One thing I can tell you for sure..Saddam will never get WOMD now and his sons will never rape and murder 12 year old virgins in front of their parents...

As bias as you are you have to admit that........
 
Navy Pride said:
Lets just say Saddam had no WOMD even though he used them on his own people...
In all fairness..(ugh, I hate saying that), he did gas the Kurds prior to the mandates made by the US to get rid of all WMDs. So yes, he did have them, did he have them after the UN mandates? It doesn't seem so.

Navy Pride said:
If that is so why did he not just let the inspectors in and let them inspect anywhere they wanted to even if it was in his bedroom?
He did allow unfettered access for quite some time. After a while, I'm sure pride caught up to him and he didn't like the fact that as a sovereign nation, he had foreigners traipsing around looking for items he's saying that he doesn't have. It's tantamount to being called a liar. Should he have done it anyways? Yup. But I can see both sides of the coin.


Navy Pride said:
And if he did not have WOMD do you believe he was trying to get them and would have eventually done so..........And if he got them do you think he might have tried to use them on Israel or the U.S. or sold them to Alqueda to do so..................
If 'ifs and buts were candy and nuts' we'd all have a merry Christmas. :mrgreen:
Seriously? Who knows. I think Iraq was mired in a lot of problems not just external but internal problems as well. I wouldn't put anything past him if he had gotten WMDs and I do think that the world is a better place without him in power.

I do worry what will happen next time we need to go to war and have proper evidence. If the world will help or if we'll be treated as the boy who cried wolf was.
Navy Pride said:
One thing I can tell you for sure..Saddam will never get WOMD now and his sons will never rape and murder 12 year old virgins in front of their parents...
Maybe they'll get "prison surprise", karma and whatnot.
 
In all fairness..(ugh, I hate saying that), he did gas the Kurds prior to the mandates made by the US to get rid of all WMDs. So yes, he did have them, did he have them after the UN mandates? It doesn't seem so.

We will probably never know if he had WOMD or not when we invaded Iraq......The problem is a WOMD does not have to be a 30 foot missile.It can be a flask of Smallpox that you can hold in the palm of your hand.....Can you imagine the deaths something like that could cause placed in a strategic place?

Iraq is a country the size of California with vast desserts where WOMD of a biological or chemical kind could be hidden or they could have been moved to Syria.......

do think that the world is a better place without him in power.

Thank you

Maybe they'll get "prison surprise", karma and whatnot.

Maybe, but he will never kill thousands of innocent people again.....

Yours was and insightful response.........thank you.......:applaud
 
Last edited:
Hoot said:
I don't support Bush/Iraq but I've never believed Saddam wasn't involved in terrorism. It's been proven over and over again.

However, Saddam's terrorism was directed against neighboring countries to disrupt their governments and further strengthen his own hold on power.

It's never been proven that Saddam directed any terrorism against the U.S.

True, but there are credible reports that al Queda had training camps in Iraq. And there sure are a lot of al Queda members popping up over there.

Which is okay with me, since they aren't attacking the US mainland at present.
 
26 X World Champs said:
Sorry that is a myth, wasn't true at all...not true....

Just because you say it and wish it does not make it so.....
 
Navy Pride said:
Just because you say it and wish it does not make it so.....
Not sure why you mess with my posts? Do you enjoy being proven wrong? How about this DECLASSIFIED DOCUMENT THAT SAYS:
“This is the first report from Ibn al-Shaykh in which he claims Iraq assisted al-Qaida’s CBRN [Chemical, Biological, Radiological or Nuclear] efforts. However, he lacks specific details on the Iraqis involved, the CBRN materials associated with the assistance, and the location where training occurred. It is possible he does not know any further details; it is more likely this individual is intentionally misleading the debriefers (emphasis added). Ibn al-Shaykh has been undergoing debriefs for several weeks and may be describing scenarios to the debriefers that he knows will retain their interest.”
Here's where you can see the entire declassified document:
http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/supporting/2005/DIAletter.102605.pdf

You get it? Declassified documents from the Defense Intelligence Agency say that in their estimation the reports of Al Quaeda in Iraq before the war are untrue.

I can hardly wait to read your BS spin on this one Mr. Pride! Let me guess, the DIA was in cahoots with Democrats BEFORE the war to document this stuff so that one day it can be used against Bush?

Or, will you, as usual when proven wrong just ignore this post and continue to post untruths as if this post was never written?
 
I don't get what the Democrats are hoping to get out of this, the Senate Intelligence Committee in July of 2004 already created a bipartisan 500 pg. report concerning the faulty WMD intel and in that report they found absolutely no proof that any member of the Bush administration skewed intelligence or coerced members of the CIA or State Department into skewing the intel in favor of going to war. Not to mention the fact that Independent White House Council Patrick Fitzgerald has already said and I quote: "This indictement's not about the propriety of the war, and the people who oppose it, people who have mixed feelings about it should not look at this indictment for any resolution of how they feel or any vindication for how they feel." This inquiry isn't about the war no matter how much the Dem Senators want it to be.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
I don't get what the Democrats are hoping to get out of this, the Senate Intelligence Committee in July of 2004 already created a bipartisan 500 pg. report concerning the faulty WMD intel and in that report they found absolutely no proof that any member of the Bush administration skewed intelligence or coerced members of the CIA or State Department into skewing the intel in favor of going to war. Not to mention the fact that Independent White House Council Patrick Fitzgerald has already said and I quote: "This indictement's not about the propriety of the war, and the people who oppose it, people who have mixed feelings about it should not look at this indictment for any resolution of how they feel or any vindication for how they feel." This inquiry isn't about the war no matter how much the Dem Senators want it to be.

You would think the dems would just shut up because they are being made to look like fools in that if it were true, how easily there were duped by the administration.................
 
GySgt said:
I never claimed to have found weapons of mass destruction. I found crates of weapons from France.

There were chemicals found. They just weren't what people wanted to see. They wanted nuclear bombs and a thousand barrels of Sarin gas.

I think people expected to see what the Bush Admin told them they knew was there.
 
Navy Pride said:
Lets just say Saddam had no WOMD even though he used them on his own people....If that is so why did he not just let the inspectors in and let them inspect anywhere they wanted to even if it was in his bedroom? If he would have done that he would still be president and his 2 sons would still be alive to murder and rape 12 year old virgins in front of their parents........Explain that one please..........

And if he did not have WOMD do you believe he was trying to get them and would have eventually done so..........And if he got them do you think he might have tried to use them on Israel or the U.S. or sold them to Alqueda to do so..................

One thing I can tell you for sure..Saddam will never get WOMD now and his sons will never rape and murder 12 year old virgins in front of their parents...

As bias as you are you have to admit that........

How do you think our Govt would respond if the UN told them to let inspectors run freeling inspecting our sensitive defense installations!! LMFAO!
 
Iriemon said:
I think people expected to see what the Bush Admin told them they knew was there.


Fair enough. I wouldn't invite you over to my house and brag of a 52 inch TV and then you sit you down in front of a 13 inch when you arrive.

(By the way...I have a 52 inch TV. It's sweeeeeet.)
 
Iriemon said:
How do you think our Govt would respond if the UN told them to let inspectors run freeling inspecting our sensitive defense installations!! LMFAO!

In all fairness, the UN or anybody else, including our enemies, have no reason to suspect that we are teetering on the verge of dropping chemicals or nuclear arms on them. There's a pretty big difference between America owning weapons of WMD and the renegade nations of the Middle East owning them.

The fact that we are the only ones to have dropped a nuke (2) in history, but refuses to ever drop another one since and have been the biggest speakers aginst such weapons, goes a long way towards credibility.
 
Last edited:
Iriemon said:
How do you think our Govt would respond if the UN told them to let inspectors run freeling inspecting our sensitive defense installations!! LMFAO!

That is really laughable, so now your comparing the government of the U.S. to Saddam's government............
 
Navy Pride said:
That is really laughable, so now your comparing the government of the U.S. to Saddam's government............

Our government would not allow UN inspectors to inspect military installations our country, I think that's a given. Our Govt has ignored the UN and other international bodies whenever it felt like it. So yes, in that respect, you can compare the US to Saddam's government. Actually, Saddam's government cooperated more than our government would have, but then it had too; we have the big stick.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom