Stinger said:[FONT=arial,helvetica]9/11 Commish Bob Kerrey: News Docs Show Saddam a Threat[/FONT]
ProudAmerican said:It would be nice if the folks that stated that would read this and be honest enough to say "well, its possible he was a threat and we did the right thing" but I wont hold my breath.
Stinger said:They have far too much invested in our defeat in Iraq.
Oh brother! A document from 1995! Well, I guess that proves it? ROTFL!
Here...I have a document from 1995 that states that republicans are gullible.
Hoot said:Oh brother! A document from 1995! Well, I guess that proves it? ROTFL!
Here...I have a document from 1995 that states that republicans are gullible.
I guess that proves it, doesn't it?
Do me a favor...do a search on "Newsmax lies"
Stinger said:Well then you should have no problem rebutting what they said, have at it else you attempt to claim it is false story are specious.
And BTW there weren't in on the initial pages but when I tried it with New York Times several showed up.
ProudAmerican said:awesome post.
I cant count the number of times ive heard from the left "But the 9-11 commision said he wasnt a threat"
It would be nice if the folks that stated that would read this and be honest enough to say "well, its possible he was a threat and we did the right thing" but I wont hold my breath.
Stupiderthanthou said:I searched the Sun's website and found this article.
"The document, which has no official stamps or markers..." This bit was left out of Newsmax. George Bush's service records, anyone?
Dubious at best, I should say. There might be something to it and there might not; I'm inclined to think no.
Mr. D said:Have you seen this Times article? I’d say it corroborates the Downing Street Memo language of, "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" by the Bush administration to fit its desire to go to war.
Maybe this relates to: WHY WE FIGHT
Stinger said:No not dubious at best. These are documents siezed from his headquarters, I have no reason to believe he was seeding his files with phoney documents and the article only cites the one has not have a stamp on it. We also have the audio tapes which are quite revealing and a host of other documents.
Stinger said:Why is it that your sides seems to accept any statement at all about Bush but nothing when it comes to Saddam, even from his own files?
millsy said:I can't speak for the anyone else on the left, but here's my two cents if you want them. I was against the war in Iraq and for the war in Afghanastan. I don't think that people believe Sadam wasn't a threat. What I believe is that it wasn't worth the cost to remove that threat. The left sometimes allow themselves to be painted into the corner of choosing between a war in Iraq, or saying Sadam was a good guy. It's not that. I do not think he posed NO threat. It's obvious he was at least a serious threat to stability in the middle east. However, I do not believe that 2500 American troops dead, and more to come, countless Iraqis dead, and more to come, and countless dollars invested, and more to come, is a reasonable cost to take out the man.
Sometimes I believe the Left does a very poor job framing their argument. It's not that he was a good guy, it's that there are countless other terrible dictators, and it's not worth the cost.
millsy said:I can't speak for the anyone else on the left, but here's my two cents if you want them. I was against the war in Iraq and for the war in Afghanastan. I don't think that people believe Sadam wasn't a threat. What I believe is that it wasn't worth the cost to remove that threat.
The left sometimes allow themselves to be painted into the corner of choosing between a war in Iraq, or saying Sadam was a good guy. It's not that. I do not think he posed NO threat. It's obvious he was at least a serious threat to stability in the middle east.
However, I do not believe that 2500 American troops dead, and more to come, countless Iraqis dead, and more to come, and countless dollars invested, and more to come, is a reasonable cost to take out the man.
Sometimes I believe the Left does a very poor job framing their argument. It's not that he was a good guy, it's that there are countless other terrible dictators, and it's not worth the cost.
Stupiderthanthou said:Whoa, there. I didn't see where it said in either article that the documents were from Saddam's HQ.
I don't think it came from a camel dealer. This is just one of the many many many documents we obtained when we took over his HQ and Intelligence HQ's and ministry's.
I don't trust Newsmax further than I can throw it
Well too bad for you since they report on a lot of facts that the mainstream will not, such as this instance. But beyond that they are reporting on the reporting of someone else in this case:
"The newly released Iraqi intelligence document - first reported by the Weekly Standard last Sunday - details a February 19, 1995 meeting between an official representative of Iraq and Osama bin Laden, who is said to have requested Iraq's help with "carrying out joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia."
Moreover, I think it only cites the one because it's the only one that directly supports the Bush administration's claim.
Well talk about baseless assertions. The fact is many documents have been reported on of late and they support the reasons we went to war.
If the others did that too, they'd be detailed or at least mentioned as being corroborating evidence.
They have been in several sources, perhaps you shouldn't limit your sources so much.
Yet they are not. As for their authenticity, they could have been planted.
By whom? And why are you more willing to accept a totally baseless assertion over what the ISG found and turned over to our intelligence agencies for inspection?
Have you watched the audiotapes?
No I haven't watched the audiotapes.
What do you mean, my side? Look at my profile.
Your side who still believes Saddam wasn't such a bad guy.
I don't "accept any statement about Bush;" I am simply willing to accept criticism of him if it is warranted, and mountains of evidence say that it is.
This isn't about Bush but I see that's what you want to make it. This is about did the United States make the right decission to remove Saddam and the mountain of evidence that grows everyday indicates yes.
This is one single scrap of paper without so much as a seal of state,
Why would you expect it to have a state seal anyway?
and it has gone unreported by newspapers which- alleged bias or not- would certainly have made note of it if it were "the real deal."
Only in the ones you read apparently.
(and since it's not tangible, that's zilch). I well remember the episode that George Bush's "service records" caused,
Well I don't think that was NewsMax and our intelligence agency's believe these are authentic but then I don't think anything could prove that to you.
I counter your question with a question: why is it that you are willing to accept any uncorroborated claim of the president's goodness?
What on earth are you talking about, what presidents "goodness"?
Then why is it that Bush himself now admits the lack of a link? Is he a liar or merely a coward? hehe.Trajan Octavian Titus said:For shits sake the 9-11 Commission Report itself proved the links between alqaeda and Saddam Hussein the only people who haven't excepted the links by now are hard core anti-Bush zealots.
faminedynasty said:Then why is it that Bush himself now admits the lack of a link? Is he a liar or merely a coward? hehe.
ProudAmerican said:stinger,
its much more logical to think America would plant such evidence than it is to think saddam was a threat.
wake up man.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?