• 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!

Obama's Speech August 31, 2010

zimmer

Educating the Ignorant
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
23,745
Reaction score
7,654
Location
Worldwide
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
FOXNews.com - TRANSCRIPT: President Obama's Oval Office Speech on Iraq

A vapid, droning speech... from a guy that was lock step against everything in Iraq, like his treasonous party.

There were moments he praised the troops, but I question whether it was from the heart. He opposed everything, accused our troops of air raiding villages and killing civilians... and had to be smacked upside the head to put his hand over his heart, and to wear an American Flag lapel pin.

I wonder how many watched this and could see through the charade.

He is unbelievable.

.
 

pbrauer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 6, 2010
Messages
25,394
Reaction score
7,206
Location
Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Do you have anyting of substance? I get it that you don't like the guy, so what? Who cares what YOU think.
 

roughdraft274

ThunderCougarFalconBird
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 3, 2010
Messages
15,640
Reaction score
9,435
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
FOXNews.com - TRANSCRIPT: President Obama's Oval Office Speech on Iraq

A vapid, droning speech... from a guy that was lock step against everything in Iraq, like his treasonous party.

There were moments he praised the troops, but I question whether it was from the heart. He opposed everything, accused our troops of air raiding villages and killing civilians... and had to be smacked upside the head to put his hand over his heart, and to wear an American Flag lapel pin.

I wonder how many watched this and could see through the charade.

He is unbelievable.

.
Americans Oppose Renewing U.S. Combat Operations in Iraq

You mean that he agree's with the majority of americans that the Iraq war hasn't made us any safer and hasn't made the middle east any more stable?

I wonder why someone would be against a war that hasn't made us any safer, hasn't provided stability to the region and cost us a buttload of money...
 

zimmer

Educating the Ignorant
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
23,745
Reaction score
7,654
Location
Worldwide
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Do you have anyting of substance? I get it that you don't like the guy, so what? Who cares what YOU think.
ROTFLOL... then I suggest you leave now. It is an arena of clashing ideas.
Sorry to break it to ya, and btw, your thin skin is showing.

.
 

zimmer

Educating the Ignorant
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
23,745
Reaction score
7,654
Location
Worldwide
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Americans Oppose Renewing U.S. Combat Operations in Iraq

You mean that he agree's with the majority of americans that the Iraq war hasn't made us any safer and hasn't made the middle east any more stable?

I wonder why someone would be against a war that hasn't made us any safer, hasn't provided stability to the region and cost us a buttload of money...
As for not making us safer... you really have to be kidding. You're not!:doh

Not safer? Seems you disagree with Obama. After all, he wouldn't be ending this if we weren't safe... would he?

I wonder why his party didn't vote against the war, the principle'd lot (ROTFLMAO), instead of voting for the war, and then turning on our troops when they needed their help most?

No, instead the Dems sought our defeat in Iraq, and the Journolists piled on. And for what? Political power... not national security... political power.

Talk about a sick lot.

Tell me, what did we do to deserve 911?
Tell me, do you recall Gulf War 1?
16 UN resolutions? Connect-the-dots?
Dems wanting and getting a second vote to go to war.
Hillary schooling Code Pink about what she knew from The Impeached One's years at the helm?

BTW, you forgot a couple Dem talking points for Zombies... Halliburton, Cheney, Neocon, Rumsfeld.

Perhaps next time.

.
 

Objective Voice

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
11,190
Reaction score
3,950
Location
Huntsville, AL (USA)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Pres. Obama did speak out against the War in Iraq, and he was correct in doing so. There was no clear evidence that Saddam ever had WMD's as was the pretext for going to war against Iraq, nor was their any evidence whatsoever that linked Saddam or the Iraqi gov't with the 9/11 terror plot. The only reasons U.S. forces stayed in Iraq after the mission was "accomplished" :roll: was:

- because of the constant insurgeant attacks on U.S. & coalition forces; and,
- because we (Bush-Cheney administration) tried to put permanent military bases in Iraq.

Those who were concerned about our continued presence was correct. Had we left when the mission was declared "over", the insurgeancy would never have happened. The surge was necessary to counter those Islamic extremist guerrilla strikes. I'm glad it worked because until then our forces were getting their butts handed to them.

We pulled up stakes because of an agreement GW Bush made with the Iraqi government to have ALL U.S. & coalition forces out of Iraq by December, 2011. Therefore, this is one an area where I won't give President Obama credit. In this case, he simply monitored the "clean-up effort" in Iraq and pulled our combat troops out by his deadline effectively living up to the Bush/Iraq accord. Since troops would still need to be out of Iraq by December 2011 anyway, I don't see this as "victory" for him as much as I see it an end to an un-necesary war. As such, the victory goes to those who survived and their families.

"Welcome home, comrades!"
 
Last edited:

roughdraft274

ThunderCougarFalconBird
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 3, 2010
Messages
15,640
Reaction score
9,435
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
As for not making us safer... you really have to be kidding. You're not!:doh

Not safer? Seems you disagree with Obama. After all, he wouldn't be ending this if we weren't safe... would he?
I said that the majority of americans thought that the iraq war didn't make us any safer, not that we are unsafe. Read what I wrote and then I wouldn't have to waste time typing something twice.
I wonder why his party didn't vote against the war, the principle'd lot (ROTFLMAO), instead of voting for the war, and then turning on our troops when they needed their help most?
When people are running around screaming about being hours away from having a giant mushroom cloud in the sky on the horizon sometimes people don't make the best judgement. It doesn't excuse their poor choices and bad decisions but it certainly helps me understand why they could come to those conclusions. The dems didn't turn on the soldiers. All of this bull**** about being antiwar or for pulling out of Iraq is the exact same as being against the troops is just that... bull****.
No, instead the Dems sought our defeat in Iraq, and the Journolists piled on. And for what? Political power... not national security... political power.

Talk about a sick lot.

Tell me, what did we do to deserve 911?
Tell me, do you recall Gulf War 1?
16 UN resolutions? Connect-the-dots?
Dems wanting and getting a second vote to go to war.
Hillary schooling Code Pink about what she knew from The Impeached One's years at the helm?

BTW, you forgot a couple Dem talking points for Zombies... Halliburton, Cheney, Neocon, Rumsfeld.

Perhaps next time.

.
You're really gonna talk about talking points after that post? I didn't mention any of those talking points because they are just that. Perhaps next time you reply you can stick to the issue rather than build up these strawmen about stuff I didn't even bring up.

We'd be much better off today if we had never gone in in the first place. You may know continue you're tripe about the dem's hating the troops and whatnot. I'll be in another thread with a little less hyperbole.
 

Fiddytree

Neocon Elitist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2008
Messages
29,624
Reaction score
17,027
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Aside from the speech largely sounding self-congratulating for he and his base, it was a mediocre speech that failed to give strategic credit to his predecessors and failed to deliver a message with how a War on Terrorism will continue to be unleashed.
 

zimmer

Educating the Ignorant
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
23,745
Reaction score
7,654
Location
Worldwide
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
I said that the majority of americans thought that the iraq war didn't make us any safer, not that we are unsafe. Read what I wrote and then I wouldn't have to waste time typing something twice.
You mean that he agree's with the majority of americans that the Iraq war hasn't made us any safer and hasn't made the middle east any more stable?
That tells me we are not safer, which can mean we are unsafe, especially when you state the mid-east isn't any more stable. And, hasn't made us any safer than when?

If you seek to make a claim, make it clear.


When people are running around screaming about being hours away from having a giant mushroom cloud in the sky on the horizon sometimes people don't make the best judgement.
Blair's statement isn't the sole reason we went to Iraq. Read Hans Blix's report to the UN... HE makes the case.

It doesn't excuse their poor choices and bad decisions but it certainly helps me understand why they could come to those conclusions.
Perhaps these were the right decisions given the facts. Saddam used, and had WMD, played games, threw out inspecteurs de la UN, and hated America. Dems ALONE made the case ... for years... from Clinton, Gore, Dead Kennedy, Daschle, just pick a Dem leader and you'll find them warning about Saddam and the solution. Of course, we know Dems words are posturing... meaningless... unless of course it has to do with taxes and Republicans... (the real enemy of Democrats).

The dems didn't turn on the soldiers. All of this bull**** about being antiwar or for pulling out of Iraq is the exact same as being against the troops is just that... bull****.
The War is lost, air raiding villages and terrorizing civilians, Nazi's... an endless assault on our efforts. No bull... it's your party, your history, your treason.

We'd be much better off today if we had never gone in in the first place.
You do not know that. We stopped a nuke black market, got rid of a despot in the ME, helped create a democracy, and freed a nation from a despot... we also managed to bring the fight to the terrorists in one location... and kicked their asses... though Dems were vehemently against the surge... and Obama was at the fore.

Saddam could have hooked up with terrorists and assisted them, and David Kay told the Senate Armed Services Committee we might have dodged the bullet, or not.

You may know continue you're tripe about the dem's hating the troops and whatnot. I'll be in another thread with a little less hyperbole.
The Dems record is their record. You going to tell me you folks were big time supporters?... ROTFLMFAO... delusion must be grand.

.
 

zimmer

Educating the Ignorant
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
23,745
Reaction score
7,654
Location
Worldwide
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Pres. Obama did speak out against the War in Iraq, and he was correct in doing so. There was no clear evidence that Saddam ever had WMD's as was the pretext for going to war against Iraq...
OV:That's all we need to quote. Saddam had and used WMD, and from here I'll let Hans Blix blow your ass out of the water on your error fueled claim.


CNN.com - Transcript of Blix's remarks - Jan. 27, 2003
Resolution 687 in 1991, like the subsequent resolutions I shall refer to, required cooperation by Iraq, but such was often withheld or given grudgingly.

Unlike South Africa, which decided on its own to eliminate its nuclear weapons and welcomed the inspection as a means of creating confidence in its disarmament, Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace.

As we know, the twin operation declare and verify, which was prescribed in Resolution 687, too often turned into a game of hide and seek. Rather than just verify in declarations and supporting evidence, the two inspecting organizations found themselves engaged in efforts to map the weapons programs and to search for evidence through inspections, interviews, seminars, inquiries with suppliers and intelligence organizations.

As a result, the disarmament phase was not completed in the short time expected.

While Iraq claims, with little evidence, that it destroyed all biological weapons unilaterally in 1991, it is certain that UNSCOM destroyed large biological weapons production facilities in 1996. The large nuclear infrastructure was destroyed and the fissionable material was removed from Iraq by the IAEA.

One of three important questions before us today is, How much might remain undeclared and intact from before 1991 and possibly thereafter? The second question is, What, if anything, was illegally produced or procured after 1998 when the inspectors left. And the third question is, How it can be prevented that any weapons of mass destruction be produced or procured in the future?

I'm obliged to note some recent disturbing incidents and harassment. For instance, for some time farfetched allegations have been made publicly that questions posed by inspectors were of an intelligence character.

Paragraph 9 of Resolution 1441 states that this cooperation shall be "active." It is not enough to open doors. Inspection is not a game of catch as catch can. Rather, as I noted, it is a process of verification for the purpose of creating confidence. It is not built upon the premise of trust. Rather, it is designed to lead to trust, if there is both openness to the inspectors and action to present them with items to destroy or credible evidence about the absence of any such items.

On 7th of December 2002, Iraq submitted a declaration of some 12,000 pages in response to paragraph 3 of Resolution 1441, and within the time stipulated by the Security Council. In the fields of missiles and biotechnology, the declaration contains a good deal of new material and information covering the period from 1998 and onward.

Regrettably, the 12,000-page declaration, most of which is a reprint of earlier documents, does not seem to contain any new evidence that will eliminate the questions or reduce their number.

I shall only give some examples of issues and questions that need to be answered, and I turn first to the sector of chemical weapons.

The nerve agent VX is one of the most toxic ever developed. Iraq has declared that it only produced VX on a pilot scale, just a few tons, and that the quality was poor and the product unstable.

Consequently, it was said that the agent was never weaponized.

Iraq said that the small quantity of [the] agent remaining after the Gulf War was unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991.

UNMOVIC, however, has information that conflicts with this account. There are indications that Iraq had worked on the problem of purity and stabilization and that more had been achieved than has been declared. Indeed, even one of the documents provided by Iraq indicates that the purity of the agent, at least in laboratory production, was higher than declared.

There are also indications that the agent was weaponized. In addition, there are questions to be answered concerning the fate of the VX precursor chemicals, which Iraq states were lost during bombing in the Gulf War or were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq.

Iraq states that they were overlooked from 1991 from a batch of some 2,000 that were stored there during the Gulf War. This could be the case. They could also be the tip of a submerged iceberg. The discovery of a few rockets does not resolve, but rather points to the issue of several thousand of chemical rockets that are unaccounted for.

During my recent discussions in Baghdad, Iraq declared that it would make new efforts in this regard and has set up a committee of investigation. Since then, it has reported that it has found four chemical rockets at a storage depot in al-Haji. I might further mention that inspectors have found at another site a laboratory quantity of ... a mustard [gas] precursor.

I turn to biological weapons. I mention the issue of anthrax to the council on previous occasions, and I come back to it as it is an important one. Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 liters of this biological warfare agent, which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991.

Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction.

There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared and that at least some of this was retained over the declared destruction date. It might still exist.

As I reported to the council on the 19th of December last year, Iraq did not declare a significant quantity, some 650 kilos, of bacterial growth media, which was acknowledged as reported in Iraq's submission to the Amorim panel in February 1999.

In the letter of 24th of January this year to the president of the Security Council, Iraq's foreign minister stated that, I quote, "All imported quantities of growth media were declared." This is not evidence. I note that the quantity of media involved would suffice to produce, for example, about 5,000 liters of concentrated anthrax.


In addition, Iraq has refurbished its missile production infrastructure.

Iraq has also declared the recent import of chemicals used in propellants, test instrumentation and guidance and control system. These items may well be for proscribed purposes; that is yet to be determined.

What is clear is that they were illegally brought into Iraq; that is, Iraq or some company in Iraq circumvented the restrictions imposed by various resolutions.

Presumptions do not solve the problem; evidence and full transparency may help.

Let me be specific. Information provided by member states tells us about the movement and concealment of missiles and chemical weapons and mobile units for biological weapons production.

However, Iraq has all the archives of the government and its various departments, institutions and mechanisms. It should have budgetary documents, requests for funds and reports and how they have been used. They should also have letters of credit and bills of lading, reports and production and losses of material.

The recent inspection find in the private home of a scientist of a box of some 3,000 pages of documents, much of it relating to the lacing enrichment of uranium, support a concern that has long existed that documents might be distributed to the homes of private individuals.

On our side, we cannot help but think that the case might not be isolated and that such placements of documents is deliberate to make discovery difficult and to seek to shield documents by placing them in private homes.

Any further sign of the concealment of documents will be serious.
Blix reveals uncertainties, asks questions that should have been answered a decade earlier. It was 12-years and 16 UN Resolutions. How many does a despot get after losing a war and agreeing to disarm? 3 decades and 30 resolutions? Perhaps not enough for the Libs... I don't know... I'm asking.

Blix specifically mentioned: VX, weaponized VX, ANTHRAX, all unaccounted for according to Hans. Of course... Saddam would never, ever use WMD... nor would he pass it off to a terrorist, especially in the euphoria after 911. No... he'd never do that...

...Disney music... it's a small world after all, it's a small world after all, it's a small world after all... it's a small, small world...

.
 
Last edited:

Objective Voice

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
11,190
Reaction score
3,950
Location
Huntsville, AL (USA)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
But none of that proved that Saddam still had an active NBC program. It was and still remains speculations on the part of the Bush-Cheney Administration. Put bluntly...

NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION WERE EVER FOUND IN THE SEVEN YEARS OF THE WAR IN IRAQ!!!

None!

Zero!

Zip!

NAHDAH!!!

So, no matter what that administration or UN Weapons insectors thought Saddam might have been hiding, until it could be proved pre- but especially post-Iraq War that he had the types of weapons for which this country went to war to either prevent him from making or confiscate WMD (seize or destroy if you prefer), posting commentary from Hans Blix doesn't take way the FACT that NONE WERE EVER FOUND!!!

I would suggest you read the document entitled, "Iraq: Setting the Record Straight".
 
Last edited:

pbrauer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 6, 2010
Messages
25,394
Reaction score
7,206
Location
Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
OV:That's all we need to quote. Saddam had and used WMD, and from here I'll let Hans Blix blow your ass out of the water on your error fueled claim.




Blix reveals uncertainties, asks questions that should have been answered a decade earlier. It was 12-years and 16 UN Resolutions. How many does a despot get after losing a war and agreeing to disarm? 3 decades and 30 resolutions? Perhaps not enough for the Libs... I don't know... I'm asking.

Blix specifically mentioned: VX, weaponized VX, ANTHRAX, all unaccounted for according to Hans. Of course... Saddam would never, ever use WMD... nor would he pass it off to a terrorist, especially in the euphoria after 911. No... he'd never do that...

...Disney music... it's a small world after all, it's a small world after all, it's a small world after all... it's a small, small world...

.
Hans Blix was in Iraq with his UN inspection team and had to leave when Bush decided to invade. Why didn't Bush allow the team to complete their mission?
 
Last edited:

Ockham

Noblesse oblige
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
23,909
Reaction score
11,001
Location
New Jersey
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
The oval office speech was a political commercial. Simple as that.
 

zimmer

Educating the Ignorant
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
23,745
Reaction score
7,654
Location
Worldwide
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
But none of that proved that Saddam still had an active NBC program. It was and still remains speculations on the part of the Bush-Cheney Administration. Put bluntly...

NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION WERE EVER FOUND IN THE SEVEN YEARS OF THE WAR IN IRAQ!!!

None!

Zero!

Zip!

NAHDAH!!!

So, no matter what that administration or UN Weapons insectors thought Saddam might have been hiding, until it could be proved pre- but especially post-Iraq War that he had the types of weapons for which this country went to war to either prevent him from making or confiscate WMD (seize or destroy if you prefer), posting commentary from Hans Blix doesn't take way the FACT that NONE WERE EVER FOUND!!!

I would suggest you read the document entitled, "Iraq: Setting the Record Straight".
Your lack of critical thinking is astonishing.

No weapons were found, but even Blix noted weaponized VX and Anthrax were unaccounted for, and that Saddam was jerking them around for years. Saddam had vast quantities and was evil enough to use them!

12-years, 16 Resolutions. Blix noted this should have been a couple or few year job, bnot 12-years of hide-and-seek.

Bush went to the UN, got a unanimous vote from the Sec. Council. He gave Saddam a chance. He did not take it. After 911 and a president that wagged his finger, made threats and did nothing, this was no time to flinch with the world's idiots watching.

Let's try it another way. You have a known sexual predator that has made the house next door home (lucky you). He breaks into your daughter's room while she is sleeping, you enter the room after hearing strange noises (he is about to use WMD), you shoot the prick. Now, how did you know he was castrated? Are you going to wait for ages until he pulls out his balless dick, or are you going to assume he is armed and dangerous and could harm your daughter irreparably?

Saddam led people to believe he was armed and dangerous (and it doesn't take much to kill masses with that crap... do a wiki on VX and ANTHRAX)... for 12-years. Blix believed he still was, and also noted Saddam would likely reconstitute his programs.

Hans Blix was in Iraq with his UN inspection team and had to leave when Bush decided to invade. Why didn't Bush allow the team to complete their mission?
Because Saddam was playing his games. Bush said no games, come clean, one chance only. Saddam was given chances, perhaps because he believed he'd bought of the UN and he was dealing with a president as feeble and hollow as Clinton.

.
 

Boo Radley

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
37,066
Reaction score
7,028
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
FOXNews.com - TRANSCRIPT: President Obama's Oval Office Speech on Iraq

A vapid, droning speech... from a guy that was lock step against everything in Iraq, like his treasonous party.

There were moments he praised the troops, but I question whether it was from the heart. He opposed everything, accused our troops of air raiding villages and killing civilians... and had to be smacked upside the head to put his hand over his heart, and to wear an American Flag lapel pin.

I wonder how many watched this and could see through the charade.

He is unbelievable.

.
Anyone who starts out like this post starts out cqan't be taken seriously.
 

Boo Radley

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
37,066
Reaction score
7,028
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Hans Blix was in Iraq with his UN inspection team and had to leave when Bush decided to invade. Why didn't Bush allow the team to complete their mission?
Finding out the truth didn't fit his narrative. When you start with the answer you want, and you have to make sure nothing happens to disprove that answer.
 

justabubba

long standing member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2005
Messages
49,717
Reaction score
31,540
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
a good fireside speech without the fire
 

zimmer

Educating the Ignorant
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
23,745
Reaction score
7,654
Location
Worldwide
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
But none of that proved that Saddam still had an active NBC program. It was and still remains speculations on the part of the Bush-Cheney Administration. Put bluntly...

NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION WERE EVER FOUND IN THE SEVEN YEARS OF THE WAR IN IRAQ!!!

None!

Zero!

Zip!

NAHDAH!!!

So, no matter what that administration or UN Weapons insectors thought Saddam might have been hiding, until it could be proved pre- but especially post-Iraq War that he had the types of weapons for which this country went to war to either prevent him from making or confiscate WMD (seize or destroy if you prefer), posting commentary from Hans Blix doesn't take way the FACT that NONE WERE EVER FOUND!!!

I would suggest you read the document entitled, "Iraq: Setting the Record Straight".
Anyone who starts out like this post starts out cqan't be taken seriously.
What do you call individuals that send men and women to battle, and then turn on them and their mission, declaring the war lost, claiming the Surge is not working? What side are these people on? And now the man who said our troops were air raiding villages and terrorizing civilians delivered a hollow performance. Because we know what side he stood on.

Patriotic... my ass.
You think the troops like and respect this bufoon? Go visit http://forums.military.com/eve
.
 
Last edited:

Boo Radley

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
37,066
Reaction score
7,028
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
What do you call individuals that send men and women to battle, and then turn on them and their mission, declaring the war lost, claiming the Surge is not working? What side are these people on? And now the man who said our troops were air raiding villages and terrorizing civilians delivered a hollow performance. Because we know what side he stood on.

Patriotic... my ass.
You think the troops like and respect this bufoon? Go visit Military.com Forums - Powered by Social Strata
.
Hate to pop your partisan nonsense bubble, but no one truned on THEM. Many fought for them and against the harm Bush was doing to them. You have to care about wasting their lives needlessly in order to fight for them. If those lives mean little to a parson, that person will accept any reason to spend those those lives. Some of us value their lives and don't want them spend recklessly or without just cause or a valid reason.

Too many on your side of the isle simply played stupid and tried to trun real concerns into something unpatriotic. Such people are vile and dishonest. There is no place in reasoned discourse for such stupidity and deception. So, no, you can't start out the way you do in this thread and be taken seriously.
 

Objective Voice

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
11,190
Reaction score
3,950
Location
Huntsville, AL (USA)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Your lack of critical thinking is astonishing.

No weapons were found, but even Blix noted weaponized VX and Anthrax were unaccounted for, and that Saddam was jerking them around for years. Saddam had vast quantities and was evil enough to use them!

12-years, 16 Resolutions. Blix noted this should have been a couple or few year job, bnot 12-years of hide-and-seek.

Bush went to the UN, got a unanimous vote from the Sec. Council. He gave Saddam a chance. He did not take it. After 911 and a president that wagged his finger, made threats and did nothing, this was no time to flinch with the world's idiots watching.

Let's try it another way. You have a known sexual predator that has made the house next door home (lucky you). He breaks into your daughter's room while she is sleeping, you enter the room after hearing strange noises (he is about to use WMD), you shoot the prick. Now, how did you know he was castrated? Are you going to wait for ages until he pulls out his balless dick, or are you going to assume he is armed and dangerous and could harm your daughter irreparably?

Saddam led people to believe he was armed and dangerous (and it doesn't take much to kill masses with that crap... do a wiki on VX and ANTHRAX)... for 12-years. Blix believed he still was, and also noted Saddam would likely reconstitute his programs.


Because Saddam was playing his games. Bush said no games, come clean, one chance only. Saddam was given chances, perhaps because he believed he'd bought of the UN and he was dealing with a president as feeble and hollow as Clinton.
Again, NO PROOF! Just alot of speculation, but nothing concrete. And other than Iraqies and Iran, who else did Saddam use his chemical weapons against? NOBODY! Yeah, he launched a few SCUD missiles at Isreal, but none hit their target. Plus, Isreal can pretty much hold their own. In any case, we still had their back.

BTW, my critical thinking ability is just fine. I just don't believe our President should lie to the American people - no...scare the country using misleading information - to justify going to war.

But it's over now...cost the country over 4,400 lives and billions of dollars and for what? To bring democracy to a country that didn't ask us to interven in their affairs? I hope history proves it was worth it and that we never have to go back there again.
 

Your Star

Rage More!
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 15, 2010
Messages
27,246
Reaction score
19,928
Location
Georgia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
Lets just get one thing straight here, you can support the troops, without supporting the war. They are not exclusive to each other.

Just before that gets tossed around some more.
 

zimmer

Educating the Ignorant
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
23,745
Reaction score
7,654
Location
Worldwide
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
WARNING: TRUTH ALERT!!!
Bush Lied, People Died Dems reading this must have telephone at the ready to dial 911 in case serious health problems emerge from reading what follows.
Clinton administration Defense Secretary William Cohen stated in a televised
Pentagon press briefing that the “UN believes that Saddam may have produced as much as 200 tons of VX
, and this would, of course, be theoretically enough to kill every man, woman and child on the face of the earth....We face a clear and present danger today.... [The] terrorists who bombed the World Trade Center in New York had in mind the destruction and deaths of 250,000 people that they were determined to kill.”

Remarks by Defense Secretary Cohen during a Defense Department briefing, November 25, 1997,
available at http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Nov1997/t11251997_t1125ptr.html.
Note: The UN Inspecteurs de la UN were kicked out less than 1-year later.
“Prepare the Country for War”

The New York Times reported that at the November 14 meeting the “White House
decided to prepare the country for war
.” According to the Times, “[t]he decision was
made to begin a public campaign through interviews on the Sunday morning television news programs to inform the American people of the dangers of biological warfare.
“How Tough Questions and Shrewd Mediating Brought Iraqi Showdown to an End,”
New York Times, November 23, 1997.


During this time, the Washington Post reported that President Clinton specifically
directed Cohen “to raise the profile of the biological and chemical threat
.”
“Diplomacy and Doubts on the Road to War,”
Washington Post, March 1, 1998.

On Sunday, November 16, Cohen made a widely-reported appearance on ABC’s This
Week in which he placed a five-pound bag of sugar on the table and stated that that
amount of anthrax “would destroy at least half the population” of Washington, D.C.

Cohen explained how fast a person could die once exposed to anthrax. “One of the
things we found with anthrax is that one breath and you are likely to face death within five days. One small particle of anthrax would produce death within five days.” He noted that Iraq “has had enormous amounts” of anthrax. Cohen also spoke about the extreme lethality of VX nerve agent: “One drop [of VX] from this particular thimble as such—one single drop will kill you within a few minutes.” Finally, he reminded the world that Saddam may have enough VX to kill “millions, millions, if it were properly dispersed and through aerosol mechanisms.”
ABC News “This Week,” November 16, 1997.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-042005.pdf

CRG: Dr David Kay's Testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee
January 28, 2004 Wednesday
COMMITTEE: SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE
David Kay:...It's a lot easier after the fact and after you know the truth to be selective that you were right. I've gone through this a lot in my career.

All I can say is if you read the total body of intelligence in the last 12 to 15 years that flowed on Iraq, I quite frankly think it would be hard to come to a conclusion other than Iraq was a gathering, serious threat to the world with regard to WMD.

And I remind you, it was Secretary Cohen (Clinton Administration) who stood, I think, in this very committee room with five pounds of flour and talked about anthrax.

And I refer you again -- if you go back to Secretary Cohen's testimony before this committee, Secretary Cohen, in the Clinton administration, was not referring to anthrax that might be produced in some reconstituted program. He was referring to actual weapons.
Now on to the Dems selective memory:
Hate to pop your partisan nonsense bubble, but no one truned on THEM. Many fought for them and against the harm Bush was doing to them.
Harm Bush was doing? Seems Obama said it was a success.
To think you actually believe the Left didn't turn on Bush is hilarious... absolutely one of the biggest larfs on this site. Check their votes for the war, then check their projectile vomit rhetoric, supported by the equally vile Journolists.

You have to care about wasting their lives needlessly in order to fight for them. If those lives mean little to a parson, that person will accept any reason to spend those those lives. Some of us value their lives and don't want them spend recklessly or without just cause or a valid reason.
More revealing poison: Their lives were not wasted. They did not die in vain. Their mission was not reckless. What was reckless was the Dems and their leadership scoring huge headlines for folks like al Jazeera. None worse than a Democrat declaring "the war is lost" while our troops are on the battle field. Calling them Nazi's... air raiding villages and terrorizing civilians... all from the lips of Dem's treasonous leaders.

With your logic, pre-911 we should have left bin Laden alone. Taking him out (Clinton had the opportunity and balked) would have saved 3000 lives and all the destruction in NYC, DC and the plane that went down in PA. But we need more evidence to take care of business... even though Saddam lost Gulf War 1 and agreed to disarm.

Yes, you have to care... and Bush did... but the bigger picture is we had a guy that lost Gulf War 1, was supposed to disarm and hadn't after 12-years and 16 UN Resolutions. Post 911... Bush gave Saddam a chance. Now we have a democracy established, where Dems claimed it couldn't happen. Just go back and listen to the crap out of Biden's mouth alone. Wrong and disgusting... the entire lot of you SAPs.

Too many on your side of the isle simply played stupid and tried to trun real concerns into something unpatriotic. Such people are vile and dishonest. There is no place in reasoned discourse for such stupidity and deception. So, no, you can't start out the way you do in this thread and be taken seriously.
ROTFLMFAO... played stupid? You folks and your leadership acted in a treasonous manner and now want to be forgiven. Your side voted on this TWICE... and asked for the second vote... so... Screw you. Your record is clear... just as it was in Vietnam... but this time your aiding and abetting the enemy didn't work.

There was ONE democrat who went against the perverted mania of your party, and look what happened to Lieberman? Look at what Dems tried to do to him. Why? Because he was the lone wolf supporting the mission fully.

It's not as if Americans couldn't vote on it either. They did in 2004, and Bush's stay the course won... vs. Dr. Flip Flop.

Again, NO PROOF! Just alot of speculation, but nothing concrete. And other than Iraqies and Iran, who else did Saddam use his chemical weapons against? NOBODY! Yeah, he launched a few SCUD missiles at Isreal, but none hit their target. Plus, Isreal can pretty much hold their own. In any case, we still had their back.
A lot of speculation... ROTFLOL.

Who else did he use WMD against... ROTFLOL... like we need further proof he would use them... or perhaps hand them off to terrorists. He only tried to assassinate a former president; I guess that was a love note to America?

Have you forgotten Saddam invaded a neighbor, lost Gulf War 1 and was supposed to disarm? Not in 12-years, not play hide-and-seek... as noted by Hans Blix. Also noted by Blix was his belief the programs would be reconstituted. Not anymore they're not.


BTW, my critical thinking ability is just fine. I just don't believe our President should lie to the American people - no...scare the country using misleading information - to justify going to war.
Your critical thinking is awash in poison.
There is nothing critical about it. You cannot face facts:

1. Dems voted for the war, asking for a second vote of support and getting it. These votes were for political expediency.
2. Foreign governments agreed he had WMD.
3. Blix believed he had WMD.
4. Congress for years warned about Saddam, with POTUS Clinton and VP Gore claiming he was a threat and threatening action (war).
5. The Dems turned on the troops and the mission for political expediency.
6. Democracy has taken hold in Iraq, a nuke blackmarket stopped, and terrorist influence in the country reduced.
7. Dems now seek to rewrite their treasonous past.

CRG: Dr David Kay's Testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee

KAY: Let me begin by saying, we were almost all wrong, and I certainly include myself here.

Senator Kennedy knows very directly. Senator Kennedy and I talked on several occasions prior to the war that my view was that the best evidence that I had seen was that Iraq, indeed, had weapons of mass destruction.

I would also point out that many governments that chose not to support this war -- certainly, the French president, Chirac, as I recall in April of last year, referred to Iraq's possession of WMD. The German certainly -- the intelligence service believed that there were WMD.

It turns out that we were all wrong, probably in my judgment, and that is most disturbing.

We're also in a period in which we've had intelligence surprises in the proliferation area that go the other way. The case of Iran, a nuclear program that the Iranians admit was 18 years on, that we underestimated. And, in fact, we didn't discover it. It was discovered by a group of Iranian dissidents outside the country who pointed the international community at the location.

The Libyan program recently discovered was far more extensive than was assessed prior to that.

There's a long record here of being wrong. There's a good reason for it. There are probably multiple reasons. Certainly proliferation is a hard thing to track, particularly in countries that deny easy and free access and don't have free and open societies.
But it's over now...cost the country over 4,400 lives and billions of dollars and for what? To bring democracy to a country that didn't ask us to interven in their affairs?
Didn't ask us to intervene? Unbelievable... LOL... yeah, I guess not... 100% of the folks voted for Saddam in his last "election". We intervened during Gulf War 1, and from there the job of disarmament was not finished after 12-years and 16 UN resolutions. You see, there is a history and reason we were there.

Do you recall George Tenet claiming the WMD case was a "Slam Dunk"? Of course not... Bush should ignore the reams of evidence that Saddam's closed, brutal society had WMD... especially post 911, and post 911 ANTHRAX attacks on the Capitol.

Blix stated the case; weaponized VX and ANTHRAX... playing hide-and-seek. David Kay adds to Blix's case:

In my judgment, based on the work that has been done to this point of the Iraq Survey Group, and in fact, that I reported to you in October, Iraq was in clear violation of the terms of Resolution 1441. Resolution 1441 required that Iraq report all of its activities: one last chance to come clean about what it had.

We have discovered hundreds of cases, based on both documents, physical evidence and the testimony of Iraqis, of activities that were prohibited under the initial U.N. Resolution 687 and that should have been reported under 1441, with Iraqi testimony that not only did they not tell the U.N. about this, they were instructed not to do it and they hid material.

CORNYN: You said something during your opening statement that intrigues me, and something that I'm afraid may be overlooked in all of this back and forth; and that has to do with proliferation.

You said that there was a risk of a willing seller meeting a willing buyer of such weapons or weapon stockpiles, whether they be large, small or programs, whether it's information that Iraqi scientists might be willing to sell or work in cooperation with rogue organizations or even nations.

But do you consider that to have been a real risk in terms of Saddam's activities and these programs -- the risk of proliferation?

KAY: Actually, I consider it a bigger risk. And that's why I paused on the preceding questions. I consider that a bigger risk than the restart of his programs being successful.

KAY: I think the way the society was going, and the number of willing buyers in the market, that that probably was a risk that if we did avoid, we barely avoided.
.
 
Last edited:

zimmer

Educating the Ignorant
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
23,745
Reaction score
7,654
Location
Worldwide
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Lets just get one thing straight here, you can support the troops, without supporting the war. They are not exclusive to each other.

Just before that gets tossed around some more.
Yeah let's pull the cover off and expose the crap underneath.

Support the troops but not the mission?
ROTFLOL... means you do not support the troops. You harm their mission, and thereby harm the troops. You embolden the enemy. That is not supporting the troops. Nothing remotely close. And it's not as if you folks were silent about this... you folks were rabid.

But "you can support the troops, without supporting the war"... that's Liberal "Logic" for ya.

In fact, you folks were hostile, and your leadership irresponsible at best, treasonous at worst. Your party is the favorite of al Jazeera... why?

Dems leaders claiming to the world:
"The surge isn't working". (This mantra was party wide)
"The war is lost".
"Nazi's".
"Air raiding villages and terrorizing civilians".

This about our own troops while they are fighting on the battle field!!!

"Bush lied, people died"...

Some support.

Now, go crawl back under your rocks; treasonous lot.

.
 
Last edited:

Jetboogieman

Somewhere in Babylon
Dungeon Master
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 12, 2010
Messages
30,289
Reaction score
33,019
Location
Somewhere in Babylon...
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Yeah let's pull the cover off and expose the crap underneath.

Support the troops but not the mission?
ROTFLOL... means you do not support the troops. You harm their mission, and thereby harm the troops. You embolden the enemy. That is not supporting the troops. Nothing remotely close. But that's Liberal "Logic" for ya.

In fact, you folks were hostile, and your leadership irresponsible at best, treasonous at worst. Your party is the favorite of al Jazeera... why?

Dems leaders claiming to the world:
"The surge isn't working". (This mantra was party wide)
"The war is lost".
"Nazi's".
"Air raiding villages and terrorizing civilians".

"Bush lied, people died"...

Some support.

Now, go crawl back under your rocks; treasonous lot.

.


Nough said.
 

zimmer

Educating the Ignorant
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
23,745
Reaction score
7,654
Location
Worldwide
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Top Bottom