What will the democrats do?

[Gibberish]

John Kerry argued that Saddam and his WMDs were a threat and needed to be dealt with. He voted for the war.
How did the liberals hold him responsible?
They moninated him for President.

Hillary Clinton argued that Saddam and his WMDs were a threat and needed to be dealt with. She voted for the war.
How did the liberals hold her responsible?
They're going to elect her to the senate in 2006 and probably nominate her in 2008.

Removing Saddam is not what is wrong with the Iraq War. The Decisions made after the fall of Baghdad are what is wrong with it.

The American people were expecting a short war and for democracy to thrive. Which is what our leadership told us. That never happened and seems it never will.

 

[Gibberish]

Proving that you have destroyed a known quantity of material is completely, totally, and absolutely possible -- and when done, is irrefuteable.

You are known to have 100 eggs.
How do you prove to someone that you got rid of 100 eggs?
What do you say when you have proven that you destroyed those 100 eggs when someone says you haven't?

We know the exact quantities of every type of weapon Saddam had? Who collected that data? Was is accurate? Where is that data sourced?

 

[Goobieman]

North Korea has proven they have WMDs.

Maybe. Looks like their nuke fizzled.
They have chemical weapons, however.

Let's restart hostilities with them. But we wont you know why? Cause they're more then willing to send a few nukes over to South Korea.

It may very well be that said price must be paid.

It's called hypocrisy.

Careful where you tread...

 

[Goobieman]

We know the exact quantities of every type of weapon Saddam had? Who collected that data? Was is accurate? Where is that data sourced?

We did, at least to the satisfaction of the people in charge of such things.
And he did not prove that those quantities were destroyed - something that he couldhave easily done.

Of course, if you want to argue that he failed to initially and accurately disclose the quantities he posessed, you're just bolstering the argument for war -- you say you have 100 eggs, and you actually have 105...

 

[Goobieman]

Removing Saddam is not what is wrong with the Iraq War. The Decisions made after the fall of Baghdad are what is wrong with it.

Really.
That's new. What happened to the "bush lied, people died" crowd?
You people need to make up your minds. :roll:

 

[Gibberish]

Really.
That's new. What happened to the "bush lied, people died" crowd?
You people need to make up your minds. :roll:

You assume I was not for the removal of Saddam. I was all for it. I am just not happy with the result since, it is far from what our leadership told us.

 

[Gibberish]

We did, at least to the satisfaction of the people in charge of such things.
And he did not prove that those quantities were destroyed - something that he couldhave easily done.

Of course, if you want to argue that he failed to initially and accurately disclose the quantities he posessed, you're just bolstering the argument for war -- you say you have 100 eggs, and you actually have 105...

Exactly my point. No matter what happened we had the ability to just say, "we don't believe, prepare to be invaded".

You can't call people hypocrites for voting to remove saddam, but are against continued fighting of an endless war. What they voted to go to war for was declared accomplished in 2003 by the president.

 

[Goobieman]

You assume I was not for the removal of Saddam. I was all for it. I am just not happy with the result since, it is far from what our leadership told us.

You will agree that there are still a great many people that argue that Bush lied about going to war - right?

And you, yourself, argue that Bush was going to go to war no matter what, and set up the argument so that he could - right?

 

[Topsez]

North Korea has proven they have WMDs. Are they getting rid of them? You're retarded if you think so. Let's restart hostilities with them. But we wont you know why? Cause they're more then willing to send a few nukes over to South Korea. It's called hypocrisy.

Actually, North Korea made a deal with Prez Clinton's Secretary of State together with the UN watchdog inspectors to trade heating oil and food if they would let the UN watchdog team package up the nuke stuff... guess what North Korea agreed and they had over 95% of the nuke stuff for making nuclear bombs on the dock in nice and neat UN packages... but, guess what again... the ships unloaded the heating fuel and the food and left empty... guess they didn't want to make a second trip for the missing 5%? North Korea is in a box and is guaranteed to be nuked if it does anything stupid... it, you may note is not in the ME and destroying N. Korea wouldn't harm any oil supply to the world... they are a different matter.

We couldnt prove he had them so we attacked. I would like to know where these massive stockpiles of WMDs have gone. Where is the yellowcake? You'd think with all the intelligence we had on Iraq we'd be able to tell where he hid them. I mean we did find the ****er in a whole in the middle of nowhere. But we cant find all this yellowcake he supposedly had?

You have it backwards ... it wasn't our job to prove he had them it was his job to prove he had destroyed them or open his country for a through inspection to give confidence to the world, and especially the US after 9-11 he was not a threat. That is what he agreed to in the ceasefire agreement... the UN had a list of what he had and he was supposed to check off the list as the UN verified destruction... Yet, he acquired even more items in violation of the UN mandate after the initial conflict... days before the restart of hostilities he was destroying rockets he purchased after the UN agreement... He did not volunteer these purchases and it was the UN team that found them... a reasonable mind would conclude he was in contempt for the UN and his ceasefire agreement... How could anyone expect Prez Bush to trust a madman?

 

[Goobieman]

Exactly my point. No matter what happened we had the ability to just say, "we don't believe, prepare to be invaded".

Wrong. If you argue that Saddam had more than he disclosed, then the burden of proof is on you to show that to be the case. No one ever claimed that Saddam had more than he said he had; the argument was always that he had not proved that he destroyed what he had.

You can't call people hypocrites for voting to remove saddam, but are against continued fighting of an endless war.

You CAN call them hypocrites when they argue that one side has lied and drove us to war on a lie, but then ignore the peopel on their side that did the same. That's EXACTLY what I am doing.

 

[Gibberish]

You will agree that there are still a great many people that argue that Bush lied about going to war - right?

Saddam was a threat that needed removal and Bush used the American peoples anger from 9/11 to help secure the vote to do so. He linked Saddam to 9/11 or AL-Q in every speech he made between 2001 and 2003. He didn't lie he just led the people into a certain direction.

And you, yourself, argue that Bush was going to go to war no matter what, and set up the argument so that he could - right?

Yes. I didn't say that was not what needed to be done though. The document was written so that the Senate and the house did not have to vote again to take further action. The intelligence agencies could just say "we don't believe Saddam" and that gave the President the power to ok and invasion.

 

[Goobieman]

Saddam was a threat and was taking out and Bush used the American peoples anger from 9/11 to help secure the vote to do so. He linked Saddam to 9/11 or AL-Q in every speech he made between 2001 and 2003. He didn't lie he just led the people into a certain direction.

That's not the usual argument.
The usual argument is that Bush lied about Iraq having WMDs.
Do you deny this?

Yes. I didn't say that was not what needed to be done though. The document was written so that the Senate and the house did not have to vote again to take further action.

That's how resolutions of force work - you give the President the Ok to go do what he needs to do, on his discretion. If you arent sure about the justification for the use of force, then you dont pass the resolution.

 

[Gibberish]

Wrong. If you argue that Saddam had more than he disclosed, then the burden of proof is on you to show that to be the case. No one ever claimed that Saddam had more than he said he had; the argument was always that he had not proved that he destroyed what he had.

Yes I know he didn't prove anything. That does not change the fact that even if he did prove destruction of weapons we would have still gone to war. We were basically asking a ego-manic leader of a massive country to pull up his skirt bend over and let us nail him from the back, which he would have never done. Invasion was the only option to make sure Iraq was not a threat.

You CAN call them hypocrites when they argue that one side has lied and drove us to war on a lie, but then ignore the peopel on their side that did the same. That's EXACTLY what I am doing.

The problem here is those people that say Bush lied didn't think Bush was lying until after the vote. People are allowed to change their minds given new intel, it just matters if you can put your ego aside for a moment to do so. Bush is finally changing his mind now on how Iraq is going, saying we need to revalute our direction. I like how you removed my last sentence btw.

 

[Goobieman]

Yes I know he didn't prove anything. That does not change the fact that even if he did prove destruction of weapons we would have still gone to war.

On what grounds?
How do you know?

We were basically asking a ego-manic leader of a massive country to pull up his skirt bend over and let us nail him from the back, which he would have never done.

Odd - its what he agreed to to several times, usually after the UN passed a resolution. In any event, Saddam could have avoided war by proving he destroyed all his WMDs. He refused. Hos choice.

Invasion was the only option to make sure Iraq was not a threat.

Especially given that Iraq refused to prove that it destroyed all its eggs.

The problem here is those people that say Bush lied didn't think Bush was lying until after the vote. People are allowed to change their minds given new intel, it just matters if you can put your ego aside for a moment to do so.

So, why arent John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, et al, being called liars?

 

[Gibberish]

On what grounds?
How do you know?

Simply my assumption since it can never be proven.

Odd - its what he agreed to to several times, usually after the UN passed a resolution. In any event, Saddam could have avoided war by proving he destroyed all his WMDs. He refused. Hos choice.

Yes it was his choice. You could of safely bet he would have made the choice he did.

So, why arent John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, et al, being called liars?

The whole liars calling is getting diluted. I believe the linking of Saddam to 9/11 or Al-Q was not the truth. Saddam was very strict about these groups being in his country. Though, he may have met with them to see if there were any negotiations present but thats about it. I would hope we do the same thing at times.

So Bush stretched on linking Saddam to 9/11 to get the backing of America but did not lie that Saddam was a murderer, had the potential to attack Americans, and had WMDs at one point. Bush used America's emotional state to approve a war.

 

[Goobieman]

Simply my assumption since it can never be proven.

I see. Well, thanks for admitting that.

Yes it was his choice. You could of safely bet he would have made the choice he did.

So, what's the issue here?
You admt that Saddam chose not to prove he destroyed all his weapons, and we went to ar because of it.

Thats a significant diversion from your original argument, that we asked him to prove a negative so that he could not avoid a war.

The whole liars calling is getting diluted. I believe the linking of Saddam to 9/11 or Al-Q was not the truth.

Saddam was never directly linked with 9/11.
Saddam was linked to AQ, as you admit, though perhaps not as directly as we might have thought.

So Bush stretched on linking Saddam to 9/11 to get the backing of America

Bush never made any such link.

but did not lie that Saddam was a murderer, had the potential to attack Americans, and had WMDs at one point.

"at one point"? Nice escape.

 

[Gibberish]

Thats a significant diversion from your original argument, that we asked him to prove a negative so that he could not avoid a war..

No it isn't. We did ask him to prove a negative. Just because he faile dto prove anything doesn't mean we didn't ask him to prove a negative.

Saddam was never directly linked with 9/11.
Saddam was linked to AQ, as you admit, though perhaps not as directly as we might have thought.

He was indirectly linking through speeches. If you listen to speeches Bush made between 2001-2003 there is rarely an instance where Iraq and 9/11 are not used in the same sentence. To the listener this links the two after hearing it a few hundred times. Of course you can call this ignorance on the listeners point but it is easy to think Bush exploited this ignorance.

There was a poll done after 9/11 which showed 4% of those polled thought there was an Iraq-9/11 link, one year later the poll concluded 70% felt there was an Iraq-9/11 link. Polls are crap but such a big jump is interesting.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm

"at one point"? Nice escape.

He did have WMD at one point. Saddam obviously had none before we got there, we have not found any that were usable. The ones that were found were either used a long time ago or were unusable.

 

[Goobieman]

No it isn't. We did ask him to prove a negative. Just because he faile dto prove anything doesn't mean we didn't ask him to prove a negative.

No, the fact that we asked him to prove a positive means we didnt ask him to prove a negative.
You have 100 eggs. You can prove that you got rid of 100 eggs.

He was indirectly linking through speeches. If you listen to speeches Bush made between 2001-2003 there is rarely an instance where Iraq and 9/11 are not used in the same sentence. To the listener this links the two after hearing it a few hundred times.

Boy, that's pretty thin, and is pretty a creative piece of work. I thought Bush was an idiot...?
Bush didnt imply it, you inferred it.

There was a poll done after 9/11 which showed 4% of those polled thought there was an Iraq-9/11 link, one year later the poll concluded 70% felt there was an Iraq-9/11 link.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm

This proves what?

He did have WMD at one point. Saddam obviously had none before we got there, we have not found any that were usable. The ones that were found were either used a long time ago or were unusable.

So, what happened to them?

 

[Hatuey]

Actually, North Korea made a deal with Prez Clinton's Secretary of State together with the UN watchdog inspectors to trade heating oil and food if they would let the UN watchdog team package up the nuke stuff... guess what North Korea agreed and they had over 95% of the nuke stuff for making nuclear bombs on the dock in nice and neat UN packages... but, guess what again... the ships unloaded the heating fuel and the food and left empty... guess they didn't want to make a second trip for the missing 5%? North Korea is in a box and is guaranteed to be nuked if it does anything stupid... it, you may note is not in the ME and destroying N. Korea wouldn't harm any oil supply to the world... they are a different matter.

OK. So Saddam was a threat right? According to you. He had WMDs...but never used them or even tested them . North Korea on the other hand, we know they have WMDs and have tested them. And yet they're not a threat?Hypocrite Hypocrite Hypocrite, where are you my Hypocrite?

You have it backwards ... it wasn't our job to prove he had them it was his job to prove he had destroyed them or open his country for a through inspection to give confidence to the world, and especially the US after 9-11 he was not a threat. That is what he agreed to in the ceasefire agreement... the UN had a list of what he had and he was supposed to check off the list as the UN verified destruction... Yet, he acquired even more items in violation of the UN mandate after the initial conflict... days before the restart of hostilities he was destroying rockets he purchased after the UN agreement... He did not volunteer these purchases and it was the UN team that found them... a reasonable mind would conclude he was in contempt for the UN and his ceasefire agreement... How could anyone expect Prez Bush to trust a madman?

Where are you getting all this info from? He was destroying rockets? Did the U.N. team prove they were WMDs?

Currently, in all countries with a democratic system and the rule of law, criminal procedure puts the burden of proof on the prosecution – that is, it is up to the prosecution to prove that the defendant is guilty, as opposed to having the defendant prove that he is innocent;

We didnt prove he had them. And he didnt prove he didnt have them the same way he cant prove he's not an alien and the same way he can't prove he's not related to the tooth fairy. Topsez I think you have "accusing" backwards. They have to in someway prove it's not them. But you have to have some proof it was them to even begin accusing. Which to this date the U.S. has failed to provide.

President George W. Bush has since admitted that "much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong".[76][77][78] Although evidence of WMD was searched for by the Iraq Survey Group, their final report of September 2004 stated, "While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad’s desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered."[79] In the March 2005 Addendum to the Report, the Special Advisor furthermore went on to state that "ISG assesses that Iraq and Coalition Forces will continue to discover small numbers of degraded chemical weapons, which the former Regime mislaid or improperly destroyed prior to 1991. ISG believes the bulk of these weapons were likely abandoned, forgotten and lost during the Iran-Iraq war because tens of thousands of CW munitions were forward deployed along frequently and rapidly shifting battlefronts."[80] (For comparison, the U.S. Department of Defense itself was famously unable in 1998 to report the whereabouts of "56 airplanes, 32 tanks and 36 Javelin command launch units".)[81] ISG also believed that Saddam did not want to verifiably disarm Iraq of WMD, as required by U.N. resolutions, for fear of looking weak to his enemies. [1]

 

[Topsez]

OK. So Saddam was a threat right? According to you. He had WMDs...but never used them or even tested them . North Korea on the other hand, we know they have WMDs and have tested them. And yet they're not a threat?Hypocrite Hypocrite Hypocrite, where are you my Hypocrite?



Where are you getting all this info from? He was destroying rockets? Did the U.N. team prove they were WMDs?



We didnt prove he had them. And he didnt prove he didnt have them the same way he cant prove he's not an alien and the same way he can't prove he's not related to the tooth fairy. Topsez I think you have "accusing" backwards. They have to in someway prove it's not them. But you have to have some proof it was them to even begin accusing. Which to this date the U.S. has failed to provide.

First of all the US and Iraq met on the battlefield and agreed to a defacto ceasefire and then it was sent to the UN... Perhaps if you read this link http://www.ceip.org/files/publications/iraq/cortright.htm you will really, almost instantly realize your post is in total error.

 

[Flea]

Interesting read. Thanks.

 

[Goobieman]

We didnt prove he had them. And he didnt prove he didnt have them the same way he cant prove he's not an alien and the same way he can't prove he's not related to the tooth fairy.

This isnt rocket science.

Saddam was known to have 100 eggs.
Sadddam war ordered to get rid of his 100 eggs.
Saddam said he got rid of his 100 eggs.
Saddam did not prove he got rid of his 100 eggs.

Thus, the burden of proof is on Saddam, and it doesnt have anyting to do with him proving he's not the tooth fairy.

Now, this is simple logic -- either you people just dont get it, or you just dont want to get it.

 

[Flea]

either you people just dont get it, or you just dont want to get it

As bad as not getting is, what scares me even more is that they may not want to get it.

 

[Gibberish]

Sorry work got crazy at the end of the day yesterday.

No, the fact that we asked him to prove a positive means we didnt ask him to prove a negative.
You have 100 eggs. You can prove that you got rid of 100 eggs.

I have never seen reports that we gave Saddam numbers he needed to prove he didn't have. Can you link to anything of this sort so I can read up?

Boy, that's pretty thin, and is pretty a creative piece of work. I thought Bush was an idiot...? Bush didnt imply it, you inferred it.

It was obviously implied and this form of implied speech is well used in the sales industry and has been study by sociolinguistics. Politicians use it constantly.

Bush is rather intelligent. Just because he talks slow doesn't mean he's stupid.

This proves what?

Proves nothing. I just thought it interesting that it showed that from post 9/11 to one year after the thought that Saddam was directly linked to 9/11 shot up from 4% to 70%. The only thing changing peoples minds are political speeches and reports.

So, what happened to them?

We don't know, which is one of the reasons we went to Iraq in the first place.

 

[Goobieman]

I have never seen reports that we gave Saddam numbers he needed to prove he didn't have. Can you link to anything of this sort so I can read up?

HE gave US the numbers at the end of the 1991 gulf war. Such declarations were part of the cease-fire. I will see if I can find links, but we didnt give him anything.

It was obviously implied

Really. And so why didn't I ever, EVER think that Iraq was involved w/ 9/11?

Bush is rather intelligent. Just because he talks slow doesn't mean he's stupid.

There are many on the left that openly disagree with you.