Saddam: 'I Lied About WMD In Fear Of Iran'

Goobieman · Jul 7, 2009

repeter said:
"On that, you know I was talking about this past election. Presidents never change in the middle of war, I should hope that you know that and do not proof."

This isn't an argument, this is a campaign slogan.

I ignore all assesments, and look for the information that led to said assessments.

Conveninet way to avoid answering the question.

And seeing as they were told that Iraq had WMD's by Bush, and didn't have anything else to go on

I have quotes from Clinton Clinton Gore Kerry Kennedy Albright Pelosi Levin, Byrd Rockefeller Waxman and Grahm, all making the same claims that the Bush administration did -- some of which were made BEFORE Bush took office.

Please provide a quote from any of them where they claim that the Bush Administration fed then bad/false/incomplete/cherry-picked information.

only a partisan hack would attack them for not being told the entire truth.

One you admit you cannot provide any of the above claiming that the Bush Administration fed then bad/false/incomplete/cherry-picked information, you'll admit that -you're- the partisan hack -- right?

repeter · Jul 7, 2009

Goobieman said:
This isn't an argument, this is a campaign slogan.

Conveninet way to avoid answering the question.

I have quotes from Clinton Clinton Gore Kerry Kennedy Albright Pelosi Levin, Byrd Rockefeller Waxman and Grahm, all making the same claims that the Bush administration did -- some of which were made BEFORE Bush took office.

Please provide a quote from any of them where they claim that the Bush Administration fed then bad/false/incomplete/cherry-picked information.

One you admit you cannot provide any of the above claiming that the Bush Administration fed then bad/false/incomplete/cherry-picked information, you'll admit that -you're- the partisan hack -- right?

:rofl:rofl you're a sore loser:rofl:rofl

Goobieman · Jul 7, 2009

repeter said:
:rofl:rofl you're a sore loser:rofl:rofl

Again:

Please provide a quote from any of them where they claim that the Bush Administration fed then bad/false/incomplete/cherry-picked information.

One you admit you cannot provide any of the above claiming that the Bush Administration fed then bad/false/incomplete/cherry-picked information, you'll admit that -you're- the partisan hack -- right?

Or, you can run away. Your call.

tlmorg02 · Jul 7, 2009

This is my favorite from Meet the Press:

MR. TIM RUSSERT: Our issues this Sunday: America remembers September 11, 2001. In Iraq, six months ago, the war began with shock and awe. Vice President Dick Cheney appeared on MEET THE PRESS:

(Videotape, March 16):

VICE PRES. DICK CHENEY: My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators.

Goobieman · Jul 7, 2009

tlmorg02 said:
This is my favorite from Meet the Press:

Not sure how you think this adds anythng of merit to the conversation.

Especially, given -your- standard, when the American people showed that they trusted Bush/Cheney and their methods for determining the course of action in Iraq.

tlmorg02 · Jul 7, 2009

Goobieman said:
Not sure how you think this adds anythng of merit to the conversation.

Especially, given -your- standard, when the American people showed that they trusted Bush/Cheney and their methods for determining the course of action in Iraq.

Once again, show me where America has ever switched Presidents during time of war. Anyway, the people were giving Bush the benefit of the doubt, as he threw Rumsfield under the bus for all the mistakes in Iraq.

I will, in the spirit of honest discussion, say that I do believe if surge troop levels were used in the beginning, we may not be having this discussion. I think that, as I have said, and you may want to address Goob, that de-Baathification and insufficient troop levels caused all of the major problems in Iraq.

tlmorg02 · Jul 7, 2009

What about these quotes. When Russert asks Cheney why Saudi Arabia was not looked at instead of Iraq, as the biggest supporters of Al Qaeda, rather than answer, Cheney says that the Republican Congress decided to keep the info classified, and says that we should LOOK BACK AS IT IS OVER AND HISTORY. That is absurd!

VICE PRES. CHENEY: We know that many of the attackers were Saudi. There was also an Egyptian in the bunch. It doesn’t mean those governments had anything to do with that attack. That’s a different proposition than saying the Iraqi government and the Iraqi intelligent service has a relationship with al-Qaeda that developed throughout the decade of the ’90s. That was clearly official policy.

MR. RUSSERT: There are reports that the investigation Congress did does show a link between the Saudi government and the hijackers but that it will not be released to the public.

VICE PRES. CHENEY: I don’t know want to speculate on that, Tim, partly because I was involved in reviewing those pages. It was the judgment of our senior intelligence officials, both CIA and FBI that that material needed to remain classified. At some point, we may be able to declassify it, but there are ongoing investigations that might be affected by that release, and for that reason, we kept it classified. The committee knows what’s in there. They helped to prepare it. So it hasn’t been kept secret from the Congress, but from the standpoint of our ongoing investigations, we needed to do that.

One of the things this points out that’s important for us to understand—so there’s this great temptation to look at these events as discreet events. We got hit on 9/11. So we can go and investigate it. It’s over with now.

It’s done. It’s history and put it behind us.

What's he trying to hide?

Goobieman · Jul 7, 2009

tlmorg02 said:
Once again, show me where America has ever switched Presidents during time of war.

Why? Your standard here is meaningless, and you only put it up because your OTHER standard didnt work out the way you wanted it to.

Anyway, the people were giving Bush the benefit of the doubt, as he threw Rumsfield under the bus for all the mistakes in Iraq.

Rumsfeld resigned in 2006.

I think that, as I have said, and you may want to address Goob, that de-Baathification and insufficient troop levels caused all of the major problems in Iraq.

That's not part of the discussion here - the discussion is about how to decide what to do when you know you dont have all the facts.

Goobieman · Jul 7, 2009

tlmorg02 said:
What's he trying to hide?

Fallacy: red herring
Whatever it is, if anythnig, it isnt relevant to this conversation.

tlmorg02 · Jul 7, 2009

Goobieman said:
Fallacy: red herring
Whatever it is, if anythnig, it isnt relevant to this conversation.

Sure it isn't. Oh, and it is relevant, here is comments on troop levels, which were part of making decisions with little, as you say:

(Videotape, March 16, 2003):

MR. RUSSERT: The army’s top general said that we would have to have several hundred thousand troops there for several years in order to maintain stability.

VICE PRES. CHENEY: I disagree. To suggest that we need several hundred thousand troops there after military operations cease, after the

conflict ends, I don’t think is accurate. I think that’s an overstatement.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: We, in fact, have about 140,000 troops, 20,000 international troops, as well. Did you misjudge the number of troops necessary to secure Iraq after major combat operations?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, you’re going to get into a debate here about—talking about several years, several hundred thousand troops for several years. I think that’s a non-starter. I don’t think we have any plan to do that, Tim. I don’t think it’s necessary to do that. There’s no question but what we’ve encountered resistance. But I don’t think anybody expected the time we were there to be absolutely trouble-free. We knew there were holdover elements from the regime that would fight us and struggle. And we also knew al-Qaeda was there, and Ansar al-Islam, up in northeastern Iraq, which we’ll come back to, talk about in a minute.

So I don’t think there was a serious misjudgment here. We couldn’t know precisely what would happen. There were a lot of contingencies we got ready for that never did happen. You know, for example, one of the things we spent time worried about was that Saddam would destroy his own oil industry, that he’d do in Iraq what he did in Kuwait 12 years ago. The consequence of that, if he’d gone in and blown up those wells, as they contemplated doing, in fact wired some of them for destruction, would have been that the oil industry would have been shut down to zero production, probably for several years, while we tried to restore it. We were able to defeat that. That didn’t occur. We had plans for it that we didn’t have to execute or implement. So it’s like any other process. A plan is only as good until you start to execute, then you have got to make adjustments and so forth. But I don’t think there has been a major shift in terms of U.S. troop levels. And I still remain convinced that the judgment that we’ll need “several hundred thousand for several years” is not valid.

My point being, if the U.S. acts as you say it should, and attack preemptively with little to go on, then should you not ACTUALLY be prepared?

tlmorg02 · Jul 7, 2009

Oh, and here you go on Powell's comments:

A Failure of Skepticism in Powell Coverage

And from this link, here is just a taste of the tidbits, I can quote them all if need be.

* In September and October U.S. officials charged that conclusive evidence existed that Iraq was preparing to resume manufacturing banned ballistic missiles at several sites. In one such report the CIA said "the only plausible explanation" for a new structure at the Al Rafah missile test site was that Iraqis were developing banned long-range missiles (Associated Press, 1/18/03). But CIA suggestions that facilities at Al Rafah, in addition to sites at Al Mutasim and Al Mamoun, were being used to build prohibited missile systems were found to be baseless when U.N. inspectors repeatedly visited each site (Los Angeles Times, 1/26/03).

Are these the facts you keep referring to? If so, then check-mate my friend.

Goobieman · Jul 7, 2009

tlmorg02 said:
Sure it isn't.

I'd REALLY like you to show how a conversation regarding the Saudis and 9/11 has relevance in a conversation regarding how to determine what to do when you do not have all the facts.

Oh, and it is relevant, here is comments on troop levels, which were part of making decisions with little, as you say:

My point being, if the U.S. acts as you say it should, and attack preemptively with little to go on, then should you not ACTUALLY be prepared?

How do you know that you are "actually" prepared if you don't have all the facts?

Goobieman · Jul 7, 2009

tlmorg02 said:
Oh, and here you go on Powell's comments:

A Failure of Skepticism in Powell Coverage

And from this link, here is just a taste of the tidbits, I can quote them all if need be.

Are these the facts you keep referring to? If so, then check-mate my friend.

So... The CIA said x, and a post-invasion assessment of x shows that the CIA was wrong. Not sure how that means anything.
What pre-invasion evidence was there that the CIA was wrong?

repeter · Jul 7, 2009

Goobieman said:
So... The CIA said x, and a post-invasion assessment of x shows that the CIA was wrong. Not sure how that means anything.
What pre-invasion evidence was there that the CIA was wrong?

I recall the CIA Director saying that he got information from Iraqi exiles......don't you think that's bad? Asking people who hate the country if we should invade?

tlmorg02 · Jul 7, 2009

How do you know that you are "actually" prepared if you don't have all the facts?

Now you got it!

Goobieman · Jul 7, 2009

repeter said:
I recall the CIA Director saying that he got information from Iraqi exiles......don't you think that's bad? Asking people who hate the country if we should invade?

How dishonest of you.
We got information from them; we didnt ask them if we should invade.

Still waiting for those quotes.
Also stiill waiting for the proof thatGWB didnot graduate Harvard and Yale.
If you cannot produce these things, I'll then accept your admission of being a partisan bigot.

Goobieman · Jul 7, 2009

tlmorg02 said:
Now you got it!

No. I don't.
You act based on the perponderance of evidence.
This necessarily means that things will occour that you did not plan for.

The only way to be prepared for 'everything' is to have all the facts; to argue that you should wait to act until you have prepared to 'everything' is to argue that you should never act.

Still waiting for you to show how a conversation regarding the Saudis and 9/11 has relevance in a conversation regarding how to determine what to do when you do not have all the facts.

repeter · Jul 7, 2009

Goobieman said:
How dishonest of you.
We got information from them; we didnt ask them if we should invade.

Still waiting for those quotes.
Also stiill waiting for the proof thatGWB didnot graduate Harvard and Yale.
If you cannot produce these things, I'll then accept your admission of being a partisan bigot.

1. We asked them if the Iraqi's had WMD's and such right? They know we would invade if they said yes. They say "yes." We invade, ergo we invaded ebcause they said yes. If they were exlied from Iraq, it was probably because they were smart dude.

As I have said countless times, "he failed his way through yale and Harvard." What about that do you not understand? Read it carefully.

tlmorg02 · Jul 7, 2009

Goobieman said:
So... The CIA said x, and a post-invasion assessment of x shows that the CIA was wrong. Not sure how that means anything.
What pre-invasion evidence was there that the CIA was wrong?

They never said x as FACT. They said it was PLAUSIBLE. The administration played maybe's as yes, just as the media did in every piece of evidence presented, as the link show. So now there are not 19, there are 19 maybes and 1 no for sho!!

repeter · Jul 7, 2009

Goobieman said:
No. I don't.
You act based on the perponderance of evidence.
This necessarily means that things will occour that you did not plan for.

The only way to be prepared for 'everything' is to have all the facts; to argue that you should wait to act until you have prepared to 'everything' is to argue that you should never act.

Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. We could have invaded Iraq, but we shouldn't have. We went there based on the word of people who hate Iraq, and want it's leader dead. We played right into their hands, as well as the terrorists hands. They would love to fight us on their home turf, which they've been getting prepared for several decades.....

tlmorg02 · Jul 7, 2009

Goobieman said:
No. I don't.
You act based on the perponderance of evidence.
This necessarily means that things will occour that you did not plan for.

The only way to be prepared for 'everything' is to have all the facts; to argue that you should wait to act until you have prepared to 'everything' is to argue that you should never act.

Still waiting for you to show how a conversation regarding the Saudis and 9/11 has relevance in a conversation regarding how to determine what to do when you do not have all the facts.

Cheney does not want anyone to know of the Saudis or anyother involvment in 9/11, because they were accusing Saadam of having a hand in it. Then he is forced to admit that there was no link between Saadam and 9/11, but there were between the Saudis and 9/11. He doesn't want to reflect because it shows his lies. Remember the evolution of why we went to Iraq? Is it over WMD's or to liberate a people? Bush gave both as answers.

tlmorg02 · Jul 7, 2009

Goobieman said:
How dishonest of you.
We got information from them; we didnt ask them if we should invade.

Still waiting for those quotes.
Also stiill waiting for the proof thatGWB didnot graduate Harvard and Yale.
If you cannot produce these things, I'll then accept your admission of being a partisan bigot.

No, we asked if we would be hailed as liberators.:shock:

Goobieman · Jul 7, 2009

repeter said:
1. We asked them if the Iraqi's had WMD's and such right? They know we would invade if they said yes.

Wow. You must be very desperate to make a point.
Know what non-sequitur means? Your statement, above, is an excellent example. No matter how you want to argue it, askig them for information on WMDs is not asking them if we should invade.

As I have said countless times, "he failed his way through yale and Harvard." What about that do you not understand? Read it carefully.

Did he graduate? If so, then how did he fail?
Or does failing a class or two constitute 'failing his way through'?
if so, then show what classes he failed.

repeter · Jul 7, 2009

Goobieman said:
Wow. You must be very desperate to make a point.
Know what non-sequitur means? Your statement, above, is an excellent example. No matter how you want to argue it, askig them for information on WMDs is not asking them if we should invade.

Did he graduate? If so, then how did he fail?
Or does failing a class or two constitute 'failing his way through'?
if so, then show what classes he failed.

1. It seems like that because you can only counter it out of context.

2. If you want to know more about your butt buddy, go ahead and learn about him, but I know more then I care to. And as evidence goes, I made the claim, you provide the contradiction if you can.

Goobieman · Jul 7, 2009

tlmorg02 said:
Cheney does not want anyone to know of the Saudis or anyother involvment in 9/11, because they were accusing Saadam of having a hand in it.

Aside from the fact that this doesnt in any way show how this is relevant to the discussion...

False. The Bush administration did not argue that Iraq had a hand in 9-11.

Then he is forced to admit that there was no link between Saadam and 9/11,

He never stated otherwise.
You arent "forced" to admit something that goes against something you never argued.

He doesn't want to reflect because it shows his lies.

What lies?
The one where you state that the administration claimed Saddam had a hand in 9-11?

Remember the evolution of why we went to Iraq? Is it over WMD's or to liberate a people? Bush gave both as answers.

That's because both were part of the reason we went, and were from the beginning.

Saddam: 'I Lied About WMD In Fear Of Iran'

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency