• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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.

Iraq and the Bush Administration

Ironside

New member
Joined
Jul 28, 2005
Messages
25
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Hi, I'm a new member here and this is my first post.
I'm a Veteran and a Patriot.

The post has more to with the Iraq War, than the War on Terror.
And, they are not one in the same.

I support the war in Afghanistan, but I am very much against the war in Iraq. Or at least the reasons we were given, the way it was executed and the timing.

My thoughts on the war in Iraq...

Americans and the world have been given different reasons for the war with Iraq, as the Bush Administration's unsubstantiated invasion and occupation has become more and more confusing.

Iraq, ties to 9/11.
Iraq, no ties to 9/11.
Iraq, ties to al Qaeda.
Iraq, no ties to al Qaeda.
Iraq, threat to USA.
Iraq, no threat to USA.
Iraq, chemical bunkers.
Iraq, no chemical bunkers.
Iraq, CWMD.
Iraq, no CWMD.
Iraq, mushrooms clouds.
Iraq, no mushroom clouds.
Iraq, becoming an imminent threat,
Iraq, not becoming an imminent threat.

Now, it’s a “liberation.”

Sure, we thought Saddam Hussein possessed these CWMD. Almost everybody did. We can't fault Bush for believing it too. Hell, we helped him obtain them, to use on the Iranians. How dare he use them on the Kurds! But few thought Saddam was actually a threat to America. It was President Bush and his Administration that made him appear to be more of a threat than he was... "before he (Hussein) becomes an imminent threat", "mushroom clouds", "supporting terrorists", "shopping for uranium in Niger", etc., etc.

We’ve had more than 1,700 American troops killed in Iraq.
More than 13,500 injured. Many losing arms, legs, and their sight!
These numbers climb daily.

If the Bush Administration is going to now say that the war in Iraq is about "liberation", wouldn't that be the "flip-flop" of the century? I mean, this is what George Bush said when applying to the American people for the job of Commander in Chief:

"If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world and nation building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road, and I'm going to prevent that.... ....I don't want to be the world's policeman, I want to be the world's peacemaker."
George W. Bush - Gore/Bush Presidential Debate
October 3, 2000


Sure, then came 9/11. But, what’s Iraq really got to do with that?

Rightwing America wants to say, “If it was up to the Democrats, Saddam Hussein would still be in power.” That may or may not be true. But given the choice, wouldn't it have been better for Americans and Europeans, if Osama bin Laden and his entourage had been captured instead?

When President Bush first took office in 2001, he was warned about Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, by the Clinton Administration. But, Bush had Condoleezza Rice (an expert on the Soviet Union) as his National Security Advisor. Rice had NEVER even heard of al Qaeda before. George Bush was stuck in the 80s, just look at his people, Cheney... Powell (now gone)... Rice... Rumsfeld... Wolfowitz (the list goes on). These are daddy's people. Wasn't it within the first year as President that Bush wanted to renege on the Soviet Missile Treaty? While this was going on, al Qaeda was planning 9/11 and not only did Bush have Clinton's warnings about bin Laden, he ALSO had the infamous "memo." It took 9/11 for him to wake up and understand just what it was the Clinton Administration was talking about.

And, oh how Bush had hoped it was Iraq that had attacked us.

Do you remember:

Vice President Dick Cheney and the "pretty well confirmed" story about a meeting in Prague between Iraqi officials and al Qaeda operatives?

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld when asked about Iraq’s chemical weapons of mass destruction said, “we know where they are.”

Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz said, "But let me be clear: when it comes to reconstruction, before we turn to the American taxpayers, we will turn first to the resources of the Iraqi government itself and the international community. That is why the President last week seized frozen Iraqi assets in the United States—so that they can be put to use to rebuild the country."

President Bush said, after 9/11, "I can hear you, the rest of the world hears you and the people that knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon!"

VP Cheney said, “We’ll be greeted as liberators.”

Instead:
We're in Iraq liberating Iraqis with American lives and blood, and with the American taxpayer's money. That money belongs here at home bettering our Nation, NOT Iraq's. This is money that could be better spent fighting the REAL war on terror! Iraq has one of the world's largest oil reserves. They should pay for their own building and rebuilding. Why are we financing this “liberation”?

I think it's a travesty!

I have no problem with ousting Saddam Hussein. It’s the way the Bush Admin has done it (and the timing) that bothers. It was timed and executed poorly, at best.

The Bush Administration’s exaggerated allegations only made the building of a coalition harder to do. The United Nations isn’t going to invade anybody without solid evidence. That’s something the Bush Administration failed to produce.

Perhaps had we sent the UN in searching for mass graves and torture chambers the outcome would have been different.

After finding such real evidence, such as the mass graves and torture chambers, if Russia, France or Germany didn't want to participate, then fine... Go ahead without them. But, who can really blame them today for not joining us, when it turns out Bush was all wrong with his allegations?

However, if we're going to go ahead without a real coalition, there still has to be an exit plan and our troops will have to be FULLY equipped. And now I ask... What was the hurry, that we couldn't equip our troops properly, before attacking?

The luxury of a "preemptive" strike is that you are going in on your terms, when you're prepared, when the weather favors you best. Bush rushed in with our troops ill-prepared and with no plan to win the peace. Then he has the gall to blame Senator Kerry for the lack of body armor, because he voted against the $87 billion, due to the funds in it going to Halliburton. President Bush fails to mention how he himself threatened to veto that Bill had they revised it in any way, like taking funds from Halliburton. President Bush shouldn't have sent our troops into a war with Iraq, without the proper body armor, in the first place.

Then to invade during a sandstorm that our troops weren’t equipped for. Their vehicles and weapons failing them. Some units became lost, some were killed and others captured. It was a quagmire from the get go! And it’s this President’s fault!

Why don't our troops deserve the best preparation available to them? Where was Saddam Hussein going? Why couldn't the Bush Administration be a little more patient and prudent? Again, I ask… What was the hurry? We'd waited 12 years. What's with another few months or a year or so?

Yes, it’s better to fight them over there than here on our streets. We were already at war with terror in Afghanistan - fighting terrorists "over there", when President Bush decided to start a war with Iraq. Now we’re bogged down in Iraq and it’s hampering our efforts with the war on Terror.

Sure, it’s better to “fight them over there”, but it’s also very important we fight them harder here at home too. We need Federal Agents on all domestic transportation. We need better nuclear plant security. We need tighter borders. We must invest more in port security. These are some of the ways we can fight terror at home. Forget about wrapping your home in plastic sheathing and duct tape. Can you believe our Government REALLY suggested that, in the case of a chemical attack?

President Bush has failed us. He’s been sidetracked at one of the worst times in American history. He’s lost his focus on those that attacked on us September 11, 2001.

al Qaeda now continues to grow from within the lands of their enemies. They are sprouting up around the world in new cells ready, willing, and able to do any dirty needs for Osama bin Laden.

And us? We're bogged down in a quagmire called Iraq!

God Bless Our Troops!
 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
23,352
Reaction score
8,523
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
And, welcome to DP.
 

Zyphlin

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
51,312
Reaction score
35,172
Location
NoMoAuchie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Iraq, ties to 9/11.
Iraq, no ties to 9/11.
Iraq, ties to al Qaeda.
Iraq, no ties to al Qaeda.
Just real quick, I wanted to point these out. For the most part I agree with a lot of your thread however....

Where has it been stated by the administration that we went into iraq because they helped in 9/11? Really, this is one of those things that I want someone to give me a source so that if they can I can use it myself later on. However as of now I havn't been able to get someone to give me an actual, real, full out factual source concerning high ups in the administration stating one of the reasons we went to war was because Iraq aided in 9/11.

As for ties to al Qaeda, read the 9/11 report. Not the blurbs on the internet, read the whole report. The famous Condi Rice line that keeps getting uesd by the media and liberals stating that they had nothing to do with 9/11 is always cut short because it goes on to point out that they have had many ties to terrorists groups. Do some research and you can see that Iraq HAS had ties to al qaeda. They didn't help in 9/11, but there are/were ties.
 

Ironside

New member
Joined
Jul 28, 2005
Messages
25
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Zyphlin said:
Just real quick, I wanted to point these out. For the most part I agree with a lot of your thread however....

Where has it been stated by the administration that we went into iraq because they helped in 9/11? Really, this is one of those things that I want someone to give me a source so that if they can I can use it myself later on. However as of now I havn't been able to get someone to give me an actual, real, full out factual source concerning high ups in the administration stating one of the reasons we went to war was because Iraq aided in 9/11.

As for ties to al Qaeda, read the 9/11 report. Not the blurbs on the internet, read the whole report. The famous Condi Rice line that keeps getting uesd by the media and liberals stating that they had nothing to do with 9/11 is always cut short because it goes on to point out that they have had many ties to terrorists groups. Do some research and you can see that Iraq HAS had ties to al qaeda. They didn't help in 9/11, but there are/were ties.
Just a quick one.
I'm sure I can find more.
I'll post them later.

CLICK HERE
(Please allow 30 seconds max to load)
 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
23,352
Reaction score
8,523
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Zyphlin said:
Where has it been stated by the administration that we went into iraq because they helped in 9/11? Really, this is one of those things that I want someone to give me a source so that if they can I can use it myself later on. However as of now I havn't been able to get someone to give me an actual, real, full out factual source concerning high ups in the administration stating one of the reasons we went to war was because Iraq aided in 9/11.
In the OP he points out Cheney's repeated contentions about Atta/Prague link.
What exactly are you looking for?

Zyphlin said:
As for ties to al Qaeda, read the 9/11 report. Not the blurbs on the internet, read the whole report. The famous Condi Rice line that keeps getting uesd by the media and liberals stating that they had nothing to do with 9/11 is always cut short because it goes on to point out that they have had many ties to terrorists groups. Do some research and you can see that Iraq HAS had ties to al qaeda. They didn't help in 9/11, but there are/were ties.
This is mostly semantics. The US had and has 'ties' to al Qaeda. The US had and has 'connections' to al Qaeda. The US had and has 'links' to al Qaeda.

The real question is whether or not these links, connections and ties are significant, meaningful. What comes out is that despite a decade of trying, Iraq and al Qaeda had yet to reach significant and meaningful agreements that they both could live with.

Also from the 9-11 report... Mohammed Atta [and quite likely other members of al Qaida] thought that "Saddam Hussein was an American stooge set up to give Washington an excuse to intervene in the Middle East" [alt link]
 

ERIC JOHN

New member
Joined
Aug 21, 2005
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Location
NEW ORLEANS
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Ironside said:
Hi, I'm a new member here and this is my first post.
I'm a Veteran and a Patriot.

The post has more to with the Iraq War, than the War on Terror.
And, they are not one in the same.

I support the war in Afghanistan, but I am very much against the war in Iraq. Or at least the reasons we were given, the way it was executed and the timing.

My thoughts on the war in Iraq...

Americans and the world have been given different reasons for the war with Iraq, as the Bush Administration's unsubstantiated invasion and occupation has become more and more confusing.

Iraq, ties to 9/11.
Iraq, no ties to 9/11.
Iraq, ties to al Qaeda.
Iraq, no ties to al Qaeda.
Iraq, threat to USA.
Iraq, no threat to USA.
Iraq, chemical bunkers.
Iraq, no chemical bunkers.
Iraq, CWMD.
Iraq, no CWMD.
Iraq, mushrooms clouds.
Iraq, no mushroom clouds.
Iraq, becoming an imminent threat,
Iraq, not becoming an imminent threat.

Now, it’s a “liberation.”

Sure, we thought Saddam Hussein possessed these CWMD. Almost everybody did. We can't fault Bush for believing it too. Hell, we helped him obtain them, to use on the Iranians. How dare he use them on the Kurds! But few thought Saddam was actually a threat to America. It was President Bush and his Administration that made him appear to be more of a threat than he was... "before he (Hussein) becomes an imminent threat", "mushroom clouds", "supporting terrorists", "shopping for uranium in Niger", etc., etc.

We’ve had more than 1,700 American troops killed in Iraq.
More than 13,500 injured. Many losing arms, legs, and their sight!
These numbers climb daily.

If the Bush Administration is going to now say that the war in Iraq is about "liberation", wouldn't that be the "flip-flop" of the century? I mean, this is what George Bush said when applying to the American people for the job of Commander in Chief:

"If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world and nation building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road, and I'm going to prevent that.... ....I don't want to be the world's policeman, I want to be the world's peacemaker."
George W. Bush - Gore/Bush Presidential Debate
October 3, 2000


Sure, then came 9/11. But, what’s Iraq really got to do with that?

Rightwing America wants to say, “If it was up to the Democrats, Saddam Hussein would still be in power.” That may or may not be true. But given the choice, wouldn't it have been better for Americans and Europeans, if Osama bin Laden and his entourage had been captured instead?

When President Bush first took office in 2001, he was warned about Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, by the Clinton Administration. But, Bush had Condoleezza Rice (an expert on the Soviet Union) as his National Security Advisor. Rice had NEVER even heard of al Qaeda before. George Bush was stuck in the 80s, just look at his people, Cheney... Powell (now gone)... Rice... Rumsfeld... Wolfowitz (the list goes on). These are daddy's people. Wasn't it within the first year as President that Bush wanted to renege on the Soviet Missile Treaty? While this was going on, al Qaeda was planning 9/11 and not only did Bush have Clinton's warnings about bin Laden, he ALSO had the infamous "memo." It took 9/11 for him to wake up and understand just what it was the Clinton Administration was talking about.

And, oh how Bush had hoped it was Iraq that had attacked us.

Do you remember:

Vice President Dick Cheney and the "pretty well confirmed" story about a meeting in Prague between Iraqi officials and al Qaeda operatives?

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld when asked about Iraq’s chemical weapons of mass destruction said, “we know where they are.”

Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz said, "But let me be clear: when it comes to reconstruction, before we turn to the American taxpayers, we will turn first to the resources of the Iraqi government itself and the international community. That is why the President last week seized frozen Iraqi assets in the United States—so that they can be put to use to rebuild the country."

President Bush said, after 9/11, "I can hear you, the rest of the world hears you and the people that knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon!"

VP Cheney said, “We’ll be greeted as liberators.”

Instead:
We're in Iraq liberating Iraqis with American lives and blood, and with the American taxpayer's money. That money belongs here at home bettering our Nation, NOT Iraq's. This is money that could be better spent fighting the REAL war on terror! Iraq has one of the world's largest oil reserves. They should pay for their own building and rebuilding. Why are we financing this “liberation”?

I think it's a travesty!

I have no problem with ousting Saddam Hussein. It’s the way the Bush Admin has done it (and the timing) that bothers. It was timed and executed poorly, at best.

The Bush Administration’s exaggerated allegations only made the building of a coalition harder to do. The United Nations isn’t going to invade anybody without solid evidence. That’s something the Bush Administration failed to produce.

Perhaps had we sent the UN in searching for mass graves and torture chambers the outcome would have been different.

After finding such real evidence, such as the mass graves and torture chambers, if Russia, France or Germany didn't want to participate, then fine... Go ahead without them. But, who can really blame them today for not joining us, when it turns out Bush was all wrong with his allegations?

However, if we're going to go ahead without a real coalition, there still has to be an exit plan and our troops will have to be FULLY equipped. And now I ask... What was the hurry, that we couldn't equip our troops properly, before attacking?

The luxury of a "preemptive" strike is that you are going in on your terms, when you're prepared, when the weather favors you best. Bush rushed in with our troops ill-prepared and with no plan to win the peace. Then he has the gall to blame Senator Kerry for the lack of body armor, because he voted against the $87 billion, due to the funds in it going to Halliburton. President Bush fails to mention how he himself threatened to veto that Bill had they revised it in any way, like taking funds from Halliburton. President Bush shouldn't have sent our troops into a war with Iraq, without the proper body armor, in the first place.

Then to invade during a sandstorm that our troops weren’t equipped for. Their vehicles and weapons failing them. Some units became lost, some were killed and others captured. It was a quagmire from the get go! And it’s this President’s fault!

Why don't our troops deserve the best preparation available to them? Where was Saddam Hussein going? Why couldn't the Bush Administration be a little more patient and prudent? Again, I ask… What was the hurry? We'd waited 12 years. What's with another few months or a year or so?

Yes, it’s better to fight them over there than here on our streets. We were already at war with terror in Afghanistan - fighting terrorists "over there", when President Bush decided to start a war with Iraq. Now we’re bogged down in Iraq and it’s hampering our efforts with the war on Terror.

Sure, it’s better to “fight them over there”, but it’s also very important we fight them harder here at home too. We need Federal Agents on all domestic transportation. We need better nuclear plant security. We need tighter borders. We must invest more in port security. These are some of the ways we can fight terror at home. Forget about wrapping your home in plastic sheathing and duct tape. Can you believe our Government REALLY suggested that, in the case of a chemical attack?

President Bush has failed us. He’s been sidetracked at one of the worst times in American history. He’s lost his focus on those that attacked on us September 11, 2001.

al Qaeda now continues to grow from within the lands of their enemies. They are sprouting up around the world in new cells ready, willing, and able to do any dirty needs for Osama bin Laden.

And us? We're bogged down in a quagmire called Iraq!

God Bless Our Troops!

DITTO DITTO DITTO !!!!

ERIC
VIETNAM VET USAF
 

sargasm

Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
63
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Zyphlin said:
Just real quick, I wanted to point these out. For the most part I agree with a lot of your thread however....

Where has it been stated by the administration that we went into iraq because they helped in 9/11? Really, this is one of those things that I want someone to give me a source so that if they can I can use it myself later on. However as of now I havn't been able to get someone to give me an actual, real, full out factual source concerning high ups in the administration stating one of the reasons we went to war was because Iraq aided in 9/11.

As for ties to al Qaeda, read the 9/11 report. Not the blurbs on the internet, read the whole report. The famous Condi Rice line that keeps getting uesd by the media and liberals stating that they had nothing to do with 9/11 is always cut short because it goes on to point out that they have had many ties to terrorists groups. Do some research and you can see that Iraq HAS had ties to al qaeda. They didn't help in 9/11, but there are/were ties.
uhhhhh, I hate having to explain this over an over again. The Iraqi government had no ties to al-queda, terrorists, terrorsist sympathizers, terrorist funding organizations,..... nothing, zip, nada. There were however people in Iraq (as in Iraqi citizens) who had ties. We went to war with Iraq's government, not the Iraqi people (or so its claimed). Using that logic you could declare war on any country in the world by saying they have ties to terrorists. As bad as a guy saddam was, he hated fundamental extremists. Osama even declared saddam an infadel. Iraq is a persian culture, its totally different from arab culture, they arent "all the same" as many less educated people like to think. Bottom line, Iraq was the least likely country in the middle east to be harboring terrorists, (they were a threat to saddams dictatorship and he didnt let people who threatened his power stick around too long) so how can you justify invading Iraq as a means to stop terrorists when every other country in the middle east is a bigger "threat" in that theater?
 

ERIC JOHN

New member
Joined
Aug 21, 2005
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Location
NEW ORLEANS
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
sargasm said:
uhhhhh, I hate having to explain this over an over again. The Iraqi government had no ties to al-queda, terrorists, terrorsist sympathizers, terrorist funding organizations,..... nothing, zip, nada. There were however people in Iraq (as in Iraqi citizens) who had ties. We went to war with Iraq's government, not the Iraqi people (or so its claimed). Using that logic you could declare war on any country in the world by saying they have ties to terrorists. As bad as a guy saddam was, he hated fundamental extremists. Osama even declared saddam an infadel. Iraq is a persian culture, its totally different from arab culture, they arent "all the same" as many less educated people like to think. Bottom line, Iraq was the least likely country in the middle east to be harboring terrorists, (they were a threat to saddams dictatorship and he didnt let people who threatened his power stick around too long) so how can you justify invading Iraq as a means to stop terrorists when every other country in the middle east is a bigger "threat" in that theater?

Comparing Osama to Sadam is like comparing Jim Jones to Pat Roberston.
 

Navy Pride

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
39,883
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
sargasm said:
uhhhhh, I hate having to explain this over an over again. The Iraqi government had no ties to al-queda, terrorists, terrorsist sympathizers, terrorist funding organizations,..... nothing, zip, nada. There were however people in Iraq (as in Iraqi citizens) who had ties. We went to war with Iraq's government, not the Iraqi people (or so its claimed). Using that logic you could declare war on any country in the world by saying they have ties to terrorists. As bad as a guy saddam was, he hated fundamental extremists. Osama even declared saddam an infadel. Iraq is a persian culture, its totally different from arab culture, they arent "all the same" as many less educated people like to think. Bottom line, Iraq was the least likely country in the middle east to be harboring terrorists, (they were a threat to saddams dictatorship and he didnt let people who threatened his power stick around too long) so how can you justify invading Iraq as a means to stop terrorists when every other country in the middle east is a bigger "threat" in that theater?
No ties to terrorists?????? what about the 25K Saddam was paying to the families of suicide bombers in Israel who were blowing up innocent women and children?:confused:
 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
23,352
Reaction score
8,523
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
sargasm said:
uhhhhh, I hate having to explain this over an overagain. The Iraqi government had no ties to al-queda, terrorists,terrorsist sympathizers, terrorist funding organizations,..... nothing,zip, nada.
This is hyperbolically overstated.

Saddam had a number of ties to terrorists and terrorism. There is aninternational terrorist organization that he provided bases, fundingand arms to for twenty years. This international terrorist groupassassinated Americans, fought against coalition forces in this lastinvasion, assissted Saddam in his brutal repression of the Kurds.



Sazeman-e Mojahedin-e Khalq-e Iran
 

vandree

Member
Joined
May 12, 2005
Messages
234
Reaction score
0
Location
Studio City, ca
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
President Bush has failed us. He’s been sidetracked at one of the worst times in American history. He’s lost his focus on those that attacked on us September 11, 2001.

Sidetracked by whom? It seems to me he was the one doing the sidetracking
 

Ironside

New member
Joined
Jul 28, 2005
Messages
25
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Sidetracked by want for Saddam Hussein.
We sure haven't heard our Federal Government mention the Osama bin Laden, as of late, huh?
 

MiamiFlorida

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
434
Reaction score
1
Location
Miami
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Navy Pride said:
No ties to terrorists?????? what about the 25K Saddam was paying to the families of suicide bombers in Israel who were blowing up innocent women and children?:confused:
You have to remember, there aren't videos of Sadam actually handing over the cash to suicide bombers' families. There aren't videos of his hechmen gassing thousands of kurds. There aren't videos of hangings of jews in Baghdad squares. There aren't videos of the terrorist training camps in Irak....or the rape of Kuwait.

There aren't videos of U.N. inspectors being turned away...or are there? I suppose the French didn't sell him nuclear technology.

Remember...this is the "video generation". No video, no credibility. I guess that why Al-Jazeera has done so well.....look at all the videos of innocent muslim jihadists "tortured" by being paraded naked in front of infidel wenches!

Do we really need excuses to get rid of Saddam?

I think it's a good precedent to let our enemies know that when one of them attacks us...all of them go down. Let's call it "preventive medicine".

And who gives a s....t what everyone else thinks?
 

mistermain

Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
199
Reaction score
0
Location
Las Vegas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Ironside said:
Just a quick one.
I'm sure I can find more.
I'll post them later.

CLICK HERE
(Please allow 30 seconds max to load)
I am not saying this clip was taken out of context, but it does not show exactly what the "reporter" was referring to in her question, or what Cheney was referring to in his answer. If you would provide a longer clip where that was explained it would be appreciated.

P.S. Probably not a good idea to use footage from "The Daily Show" to prove a point. First, the show is explicitly liberal. Second, as Stewart stated on CNN's "Crossfire": "Why would anybody take the show seriously? We follow a show about crank calling sock puppets."
 

Ironside

New member
Joined
Jul 28, 2005
Messages
25
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It is what it is, regardless who is pointing it out.
Spin it, baby!
 

megan_c

Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2005
Messages
50
Reaction score
0
Location
Oregon
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
mistermain said:
P.S. Probably not a good idea to use footage from "The Daily Show" to prove a point. First, the show is explicitly liberal. Second, as Stewart stated on CNN's "Crossfire": "Why would anybody take the show seriously? We follow a show about crank calling sock puppets."
I agree,although Stewart is unbelievably funny,none of the stuff on his show should be used to prove anything.
 

megan_c

Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2005
Messages
50
Reaction score
0
Location
Oregon
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Ironside said:
Sidetracked by want for Saddam Hussein.
We sure haven't heard our Federal Government mention the Osama bin Laden, as of late, huh?
I don't know about anyone else but I sure am tired of Saddam being used as an excuse for Bush to be sidetracked.
 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
23,352
Reaction score
8,523
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
CHENEY: CLEAR LINKS BETWEEN SADDAM, AL-QAEDA; CALLS NY TIMES ARTICLE 'OUTRAGEOUS'
Thu Jun 17 2004 19:00:33 ET

"...responding to a report from the 9-11 Commission saying it had found no evidence of 'collaboration' between Iraq and Al Qaeda" "Vice President **** Cheney... called the New York Times coverage of the story 'outrageous'."
Vice Pres. CHENEY: I disagree with the way their findings have been portrayed.
<snip>
There's clearly been a relationship.
There's a separate question. The separate question is: Was Iraq involved with al-Qaida in the attack on 9/11?
<snip>
What The New York Times did today was outrageous. ... The press wants to run out and say there's a fundamental split here now between what the president said and what the commission said. Jim Thompson is a member of the commission who's since been on the air. I saw him with my own eyes. And there's no conflict. What they were addressing was whether or not they were involved in 9/11. And there they found no evidence to support that proposition. They did not address the broader question of a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida in other areas, in other ways.
Vice Pres. CHENEY: But that is a separate question from what the press has gotten all in a dither about, The New York Times especially, on this other question [of whether or not there was a general relationship between UbL and Hussein]. What they've done is, I think, distorted what the commission actually reported, certainly according to Governor Thompson, who's a member of the commission.
BORGER: But you say you disagree with the commission...
Vice Pres. CHENEY: On this question of whether or not there was a general relationship.
BORGER: Yes.
Vice Pres. CHENEY: Yeah.
BORGER: And they say that there was not one forged and you were saying yes, that there was. Do you know things that the commission does not know?
Vice Pres. CHENEY: Probably.
BORGER: And do you think the commission needs to know them?
Vice Pres. CHENEY: I don't have any--I don't know what they know. I do know they didn't talk with any original sources on this subject that say that in their report.
BORGER: They did talk with people who had interrogated sources.
Vice Pres. CHENEY: Right.
BORGER: So they do have good sources.
Vice Pres. CHENEY: Gloria, the notion that there is no relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida just simply is not true.
[Since there actually is a disagreement between "what the president said and what the commission said," and if it is outrageous that the NYT would say that 'there's a fundamental split here now between what the president said and what the commission said,' this means that the VPotUSA is just outraged that the NYT would say it?]​
BORGER: Well, let's get to Mohammad Atta for a minute, because you mentioned him as well. You have said in the past that it was, quote, "pretty well confirmed."
Vice Pres. CHENEY: No, I never said that.
BORGER: OK.
Vice Pres. CHENEY: Never said that.
BORGER: I think that is...
Vice Pres. CHENEY: Absolutely not. What I said was the Czech intelligence service reported after 9/11 that Atta had been in Prague on April 9th of 2001, where he allegedly met with an Iraqi intelligence official. We have never been able to confirm that nor have we been able to knock it down.


The Vice President Appears on NBC's Meet the Press
December 9, 2001
RUSSERT: Do you still believe there is no evidence that Iraq was involved in September 11?
CHENEY: Well, what we now have that's developed since you and I last talked, Tim, of course, was that report that's been pretty well confirmed, that he did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack.
 

ultra conservative

New member
Joined
Sep 3, 2005
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Iraq had w.m.d. duh

Saddam used w.m.d.(MUSTARD GAS) on his own people,the curds of north Iraq.TO SAY THAT SADDAM NEVER HAD W.M.D. IS MADNESS.
 

Ironside

New member
Joined
Jul 28, 2005
Messages
25
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
megan_c said:
I don't know about anyone else but I sure am tired of Saddam being used as an excuse for Bush to be sidetracked.
Of course you are, Neo-con. ;)
 

Ironside

New member
Joined
Jul 28, 2005
Messages
25
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Re: Iraq had w.m.d. duh

ultra conservative said:
Saddam used w.m.d.(MUSTARD GAS) on his own people,the curds of north Iraq.TO SAY THAT SADDAM NEVER HAD W.M.D. IS MADNESS.
Who said he "never had" them?

Damn him! We helped him obtain those dreaded chemical weapons to use on the Iranians! How dare he use them on the Iraqis that would want him ousted and assinsated. Who woulda thunk that?

VIDEO LINK
Click on the link to view the video.
 
Last edited:

ban.the.electoral.college

Progressive, Green
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
998
Reaction score
0
Location
Maryland, U.S.A.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Feast for a moment, on this brief timeline:

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."
- Dick Cheney, August 26 2002

"If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world."
- Ari Fleischer, December 2 2002

"We know for a fact that there are weapons there."
- Ari Fleischer, January 9 2003

"We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more."
- Colin Powell, February 5 2003

"Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes."
- Ari Fleischer, March 21 2003

"There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. As this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them."
- Gen. Tommy Franks, March 22 2003

"We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad."
- Donald Rumsfeld, March 30 2003

"I think you have always heard, and you continue to hear from officials, a measure of high confidence that, indeed, the weapons of mass destruction will be found."
- Ari Fleischer, April 10 2003

"There are people who in large measure have information that we need . . . so that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that country."
- Donald Rumsfeld, April 25 2003

"I am confident that we will find evidence that makes it clear he had weapons of mass destruction."
- Colin Powell, May 4 2003 SOURCE
 

megan_c

Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2005
Messages
50
Reaction score
0
Location
Oregon
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Ironside said:
Of course you are, Neo-con. ;)

"Neo-con: An ideological term characterizing parties or politicians who not only advocate an end to government expansion, but believe in reducing its role via downsizing, privatization, and deregulation."

I don't want to see an end to government expansion,I want to see the government improve.And I don't want to see removal of regulations either.I just hate most of the things George has done with our government so far.So there for I am not a neo-con,I'm just smart.lol.
 

Ironside

New member
Joined
Jul 28, 2005
Messages
25
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
megan_c said:
"Neo-con: An ideological term characterizing parties or politicians who not only advocate an end to government expansion, but believe in reducing its role via downsizing, privatization, and deregulation."

I don't want to see an end to government expansion,I want to see the government improve.And I don't want to see removal of regulations either.I just hate most of the things George has done with our government so far.So there for I am not a neo-con,I'm just smart.lol.
Yes you are and I apologize. I was (honestly) teasing ya.
No harm, I hope.

But, I stand by my statement that GW was sidetracked from the REAL 'War on Terror' for the want of Saddam Hussein and 9/11 was exploited for the cause. I also believe George Bush ran for President with Saddam Hussein in his sights.
 

Hoot

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2004
Messages
1,686
Reaction score
18
Location
State of Confusion
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
"We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad."
- Donald Rumsfeld, March 30 2003

This is the comment that bothers me more then any other.

For God's sake, we still had inspectors on the ground in Iraq at this time!

If Donnie was so cocksure where these WMD were, why didn't he tell the inspectors?

Just a deliberate, arrogant contradiction.
 
Top Bottom