Why We Did It[W:684]

[Jack Hays]

As they frame it they are correct. What Kerry actually said was that he'd support it as part of a UN effort, but not outside the UN. Very different than what you and WP are addressing.

It seems that you're the one defending a lie here.:lamo

 

[Boo Radley]

It seems that you're the one defending a lie here.:lamo

Not at all. I actually read the speech.

 

[Jack Hays]

Not at all. I actually read the speech.

As the Fact Checker makes clear, there's more than one speech.eace

 

[Boo Radley]

As the Fact Checker makes clear, there's more than one speech.eace

Òh I know that. But only one speech us at issue. I make no illusions that politicians are not politicians. But he said something specific in one speech and did exactly what he said he'd do in that speech.

 

[pbrauer]

Let me show you just how bogus that democratic piece of distorted propaganda was Pete... Let's just take point 1:




To you and anyone like you Pete, what you read was that Powell said they had a partnership and the Administration said that iraq trained Al qaida when the intelligence didn't say that...

Now for the facts:

1. Powell never said that they had a partnership... If he did, then please link me to the video or transcripts.
2. What the administration said about weapons training for Al qaida in Iraq, accurately reflected the published intelligence. Which is exactly what that very same Intelligence Committee determinined in their 2004 report:

View attachment 67163522

In fact, they also quoted George Tenent's testimony to them back in February 2003:

View attachment 67163520

You see Pete, the democrats worded that so that Bush haters like yourself would believe something that wasn't true. That report is a totally discredited piece of phony liberal/democratic propaganda... Something you were already shown the last time this subject came up.

I don't know what exactly what they were to, but I don't believe they made it up. Show me a fact checker that says their claim is bogus.

 

[Jack Hays]

Òh I know that. But only one speech us at issue. I make no illusions that politicians are not politicians. But he said something specific in one speech and did exactly what he said he'd do in that speech.

No. Only one speech is not at issue. Kerry's support for the invasion of Iraq is at issue. I could easily produce a GWB speech in which he says he does not want war with Iraq.eace

 

[Boo Radley]

No. Only one speech is not at issue. Kerry's support for the invasion of Iraq is at issue. I could easily produce a GWB speech in which he says he does not want war with Iraq.eace

No, it isn't. His support was clearly tied to the UN and not outside it.

 

[Jack Hays]

No, it isn't. His support was clearly tied to the UN and not outside it.

And that is the lie the Fact Checker said earned him four Pinocchios.eace

 

[Boo Radley]

And that is the lie the Fact Checker said earned him four Pinocchios.eace

Like I said, in their context. But our context us about the vote. You hang on what you think people "knew." I put mine in what was actually said. If Bush choose for there to be no invasion, there would have not been one. He and he alone made the decision.

 

[Jack Hays]

Like I said, in their context. But our context us about the vote. You hang on what you think people "knew." I put mine in what was actually said. If Bush choose for there to be no invasion, there would have not been one. He and he alone made the decision.

Your characterization of the point at issue is utterly false. Neither Kerry nor you can hide behind one speech.eace

 

[Boo Radley]

Your characterization of the point at issue is utterly false. Neither Kerry nor you can hide behind one speech.eace

Again, not true. What was said is what was said. And he did exactly what he said. Also, don't run from the fact that Bush coukd have choose not to invade. Then what?

 

[Jack Hays]

Again, not true. What was said is what was said. And he did exactly what he said. Also, don't run from the fact that Bush coukd have choose not to invade. Then what?

There was never any doubt that GWB was going to invade. If you wish to reward Kerry for his weasel words and subsequent years of lying, be my guest.eace

 

[Grim17]

I don't know what exactly what they were to, but I don't believe they made it up. Show me a fact checker that says their claim is bogus.

You need a fact checker for this? Are you for real?

Read the damned claim, and then read the 2004 report.... It can't possibly be any more clear.

What you quoted from the BS report said "that Iraq had provided al-Qa’ida with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence." Yet their own 2004 report, you know, the one that every single democrat and every single republican unanimously approved, not only said the CIA published that information in one of their classified intelligence reports to the president, they also said that that intelligence was "Well founded"...

And you need a fact checker for this?

 

[Grim17]

Like I said, in their context. But our context us about the vote. You hang on what you think people "knew." I put mine in what was actually said. If Bush choose for there to be no invasion, there would have not been one. He and he alone made the decision.

Boo, are you actually reading what you type prior to clicking the "Post Quick Reply" button?

How can you sit here and try to claim that John Kerry didn't vote to give the president the authority to take military action in Iraq? Does the following sound fuzzy or vague to you, because it certainly is crystal clear to me:

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

Or maybe this quote is the one that for some unknown reason confuses you:

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Face it Boo, you have put you stock into a full blown liar by the name of John "flip-flopper" Kerry.

 

[Grim17]

There was never any doubt that GWB was going to invade. If you wish to reward Kerry for his weasel words and subsequent years of lying, be my guest.eace

He will probably do just that based on the other distortions he's embraced on this thread,

 

[Grant]

Boo, are you actually reading what you type prior to clicking the "Post Quick Reply" button?

How can you sit here and try to claim that John Kerry didn't vote to give the president the authority to take military action in Iraq? Does the following sound fuzzy or vague to you, because it certainly is crystal clear to me:

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

Or maybe this quote is the one that for some unknown reason confuses you:

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Face it Boo, you have put you stock into a full blown liar by the name of John "flip-flopper" Kerry.

It's incredible that anyone who follows politics, even a little, didn't already know that.

 

[pbrauer]

You need a fact checker for this? Are you for real?

Read the damned claim, and then read the 2004 report.... It can't possibly be any more clear.

What you quoted from the BS report said "that Iraq had provided al-Qa’ida with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence." Yet their own 2004 report, you know, the one that every single democrat and every single republican unanimously approved, not only said the CIA published that information in one of their classified intelligence reports to the president, they also said that that intelligence was "Well founded"...

And you need a fact checker for this?

Well Grim, this tells you something. Just because the Democrats signed off on the first report, that doesn't mean they agree with all of the conclusions. If that was a requirement for the report to be published, they might still be there now. I've tried to tell you a log time ago, that these reports are crapola. I realize you will still think these reports mean something but they really don't. Pull your head out of the sand, commission reports such as this one are nothing more than a whitewash.

Yes, I still need a fact checker.

 

[Grim17]

Well Grim, this tells you something. Just because the Democrats signed off on the first report, that doesn't mean they agree with all of the conclusions. If that was a requirement for the report to be published, they might still be there now. I've tried to tell you a log time ago, that these reports are crapola. I realize you will still think these reports mean something but they really don't. Pull your head out of the sand, commission reports such as this one are nothing more than a whitewash.

Yes, I still need a fact checker.

OMFG... You are just lost in mire of the politics that controls you... You are insane if you think that the 2004 report just made that up. It's an absolute no-brainer that the report you quoted from was nothing but political propaganda.

That's my signal to say goodbye, because we all know what's coming next... You'll find something else that's a lie, an exageration, and for damned sure is something that has been completely ripped to shreds in the past... The one thing I will bet everything I own on, is that you will not post anything that substanciates the liberal horse**** claim that Bush lied about the intelligence to take America to war, because no such evidence exists.

Buh bye Pete.

 

[AlbqOwl]

The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 was passed by congress with Republicans voting 98% in favor in the Senate, and 97% in favor in the House. Democrats supported the joint resolution 58% and 39% in the Senate and House respectively.[97][98] Wikipedia

42% of Senate Democrats and 61% House Democrats voted against the war authorization. Some who voted for the resolution did so to give Bush negotiating leverage, not because they supported a war.

The issue was not who voted how. The issue was who believed what about Saddam's WMD. There were Democrats who wouldn't have supported George W. Bush in an initiative to get puppies in out of the rain.

How they voted re going to war and what they believed about Saddam's WMD are two entirely separate things.

 

[AlbqOwl]

I'm not sure you understood my point. Saddam was certainly a dictionary definition eminent threat. And you're right, that's the justification of sanctions and inspections.

But just because Saddam was a danger that needed to be dealt with did not mean that it was a danger that needed to be dealt with right that second. That's the difference between imminent and eminent.

It is completely rational to say that sanctions were justified because Saddam was that much of a threat, and also maintain that an invasion was not justified because Saddam was not that much of a threat. In fact, it's the only rational position.

It wasn't 'dealt with right away'. It involved a great deal of discussion with the U.S. Congress who gave President Bush authority to proceed, 16 different U.N. Resolutions and also 30 different U.N. official statements demanding that Saddam conform to those 16 resolutions. It involved 12 weeks of negotiations with the U.N. that, while it did not exactly agree to enforce its own resolutions, gave tacit approval for George W. Bush to do so. And then it involved several more weeks while President Bush negotiated with allies for troops, tactical support, and other assistance to take out Saddam.

And for more than 10 years, severe sanctions were in place that were greatly enriching Saddam and his cronies, were imposing extreme, even deadly, hardships on the Iraqi people, and nobody knew the status of Saddam's weapons programs or what he was capable of doing.

Hardly an immediate process.

 

[Mithros]

It wasn't 'dealt with right away'. It involved a great deal of discussion with the U.S. Congress who gave President Bush authority to proceed, 16 different U.N. Resolutions and also 30 different U.N. official statements demanding that Saddam conform to those 16 resolutions. It involved 12 weeks of negotiations with the U.N. that, while it did not exactly agree to enforce its own resolutions, gave tacit approval for George W. Bush to do so. And then it involved several more weeks while President Bush negotiated with allies for troops, tactical support, and other assistance to take out Saddam.

And for more than 10 years, severe sanctions were in place that were greatly enriching Saddam and his cronies, were imposing extreme, even deadly, hardships on the Iraqi people, and nobody knew the status of Saddam's weapons programs or what he was capable of doing.

Hardly an immediate process.

Iraq was a preemptive war. Preemptive...That's a huge deal. The Bush Doctrine okays preemptive strikes against imminent threats. Imminent means that we can't wait.

Ask yourself, would it have mattered if the invasion was delayed a week? Obviously we could have waited. And because that was true the threat wasn't imminent and our justification wasn't justified.

 

[Mithros]

Again, not true. What was said is what was said. And he did exactly what he said. Also, don't run from the fact that Bush coukd have choose not to invade. Then what?

I'm pretty sure that the Democrats who voted for the Authorization of for use of Military Force knew exactly what they voted for.

Maybe they negotiated away that vote on the push to make a case at the UN. Maybe they assumed Bush was going to invade regardless and didn't want to divide the then post 9/11 country. Or most likely, they didn't want to the political fallout of opposing a few weeks of combat followed by a US victory.

Everyone expected that the war would be fast. No one suspected that Bush didn't bother to plan for what came after.

 

[pbrauer]

OMFG... You are just lost in mire of the politics that controls you... You are insane if you think that the 2004 report just made that up. It's an absolute no-brainer that the report you quoted from was nothing but political propaganda.

That's my signal to say goodbye, because we all know what's coming next... You'll find something else that's a lie, an exageration, and for damned sure is something that has been completely ripped to shreds in the past... The one thing I will bet everything I own on, is that you will not post anything that substanciates the liberal horse**** claim that Bush lied about the intelligence to take America to war, because no such evidence exists.

Buh bye Pete.

That report you call propaganda was signed by two Republicans and like I said, if you are going to trash one report, you need to trash both.

It's interesting that you used the word exaggeration, because that's exactly what the Bush administration did to sell the war to the American people, they exaggerated the threat Saddam had posed. A war where 4500 of our brave troops died.

It's not politics Grim, it's not. President LJB did more or less the same thing when he escalated the Vietnam war. It's hope our country never does this again.

Gulf of Tonkin incident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Grim17]

That report you call propaganda was signed by two Republicans and like I said, if you are going to trash one report, you need to trash both.

No Pete, this isn't some silly partisan game here and you don't trash a unanimously approved, credible report, because the irresponsible democrats put out a politisized piece of propagada worthy of the tabloid isle at the local supermarket.

And like I said Bye... You can take that next talking point and try to change the subject with someone else.

 

[pbrauer]

No Pete, this isn't some silly partisan game here and you don't trash a unanimously approved, credible report, because the irresponsible democrats put out a politisized piece of propagada worthy of the tabloid isle at the local supermarket.

And like I said Bye... You can take that next talking point and try to change the subject with someone else.

Report on Whether Public Statements Regarding Iraq by U.S. Government ... - Bernan - Google Books